Little-known story about Andrea Mitchell:

[PCIntern]

since she's apparently decided to be an asshole, then it's our turn:

Many years ago when she first graduated from college (Penn) she was married to an African-American gentleman named Gil Jackson. Mr. Jackson, who later died from MS, was the PR guy for Smith, Kline, and French, and had two children (IIRC) from 'before'. When she was covering City Hall, Mayor Frank Rizzo, a very 'special kind of guy', used to call on her by saying, "Mrs. Jackson..." rather than "Miss Mitchell..."

Andrea has never discussed, to my knowledge, her prior life. I despise sanctimony coupled with hypocrisy.

[GreenTea]

1. She's one bitter old lady...just watch the jealously when she reports for NBC on Rachel Maddow 'show

[Sanity Claws]

2. Maybe it's painful

for her to talk about her former marriage.
Was she still married to Mr. Jackson when he died? The children are grown. Are they in communication with her?

[NYC_SKP]

3. Sorry Miss Jackson...

...I am for reeeeal!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0Vy8PywZTM

(Outkast)

[Iris]

8. you stole my line!

[Tangerine LaBamba]

4. What's the problem?

She was married before. Her husband died.

What's the big deal?

What am I missing?

What's her personal life to anyone (beyond her current marriage, of course, given Mr. Greenspan's old job)?

I don't get this. Sounds mean, though.

(For the record, Frank Rizzo was my father's cousin. No one in the family had anything to do with him. He was a pig.)

[monmouth]

5. Ooooh, I know, I know.....She was married to a man of color...Is that it????...n/t

[Tangerine LaBamba]

6. Oh,man, please tell me that's not it ..........

PLEASE tell me that was not the reason behind that post.

PLEASE.

This is DU. I don't want to believe what I'm thinking.

PLEASE..............

[LaPera]

10. Get fucking real, always someone thinking racism route & missing the point about corporate stooge

Mitchell - and of course it is you....pay attention! Duh, I don't get it...

[Tangerine LaBamba]

11. Huh?

"Get fucking real"?

I said I didn't understand the point of the OP.

Perhaps, when you get your vulgar head out of wherever it's currently jammed, you can compose a civil and intelligible sentence and explain the purpose of the OP to me.

If you can't, go fuck yourself.

[LaPera]

12. Duh...Gee I don't get it...

[Tangerine LaBamba]

18. No, you clearly don't

But that's all right. The concept at hand here is obviously far too complicated for you to understand.

Go back to your drooling. No one will notice.

[PCIntern]

21. I'm sorry:

I was not aware that we have on hand, right here on DU, the President of the Andrea Mitchell Fanclub. I would have edited my post to report only upon her glowing attributes.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

26. Oh, bite me ....

I could not possibly care less about Andrea Mitchell.

I do care about people posting racist posts that are deliberately designed to enflame.

[PCIntern]

29. "Racist"? How dare you....

that is the most ridiculous thing you've said except for everything else you have ever said.

"Bite me". Terrific...inviting violence so you may claim to be the victim? Very nice. Ooops, I see the Junior High Bell rang...Calss Dismissed.

Welcome to "Ignore"...

[PCIntern]

14. WTF?

I've made How many thousand posts here and THAT'S your assumption?

Get real...the POINT, Sherlock, is that she is an utter phony through and through and we remarked upon this during the G.E. (funny coincidence) campaign and that she rarely if ever harkens back to her roots, although if you pay attention, you will hear Sen. Specter poke her a little bit from the old days here in Philly.

She is married to the man who GAVE us all this economic rot and now she's reporting on it as though she has no inside info and not a conflict in the world. Those of us who KNOW BETTER are trying to point this out here on our beloved DU.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

19. Get real yourself -

What, and I ask you again, only very slowly, does her marriage to anyone besides Greenspan have to do with anything?

Why was it important for you to point out that her first husband was African-American? What does that have to do with anything?

What conflict does her first marriage present?

You're trying to make connections where none exist, and her first husband's race was relevant how?

[PCIntern]

7. the problem(s) is/are that

she's a corporate stooge whose new mission appears to be the support of incendiary stories about Obama's 'potential' 'mishandling' of the Presidency.

all negative all the time...watch her tonight...you'll see. It's like watching Mitt Romney with worse hair.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

9. I've been watching Andrea Mitchell

for more than thirty years. I'm quite familiar with her.

But, what was the point of that post about her first marriage? I still don't understand why you posted it.

[PCIntern]

15. Because

her lack of self-disclosure when she is in such professional and personal conflict with everything that's gone on for the last number of years is extraordinary. I recall her asking all kinds of simpering rhetorical questions about the possibilities of an African-American ascending to the Presidency. Both my wife and I noticed this during the long campaign and she was quite conflicted with respect to Candidate Obama.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

17. I never noticed that only Mitchell questioned the possibility ...

Everyone questioned that from the beginning of Obama's candidacy. Hell, they raised those questions when Jesse Jackson declared his candidacy, and if Shirley Chisholm's quest had been taken seriously, I daresay that matter would have been significant, as well.

Andrea Mitchell didn't cover the matter any different than any other "journalist". I find it hard to understand why her personal life is at all relevant in any way.

Dressing it up in "corporate shill" language is laughable. It was, and I tried to see it from other angles, an ugly little racist rant that is simply sickening.

Proud of yourself for posting that, are you?

[PCIntern]

20. Yes she did and yes iIam...

and since you THINK you understand the subtext, I'll leave you to your personal and private thoughts.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

24. I can only work with what you posted,

and if you can show me how her first husband's race and previous marriage and death have anything to do with your perception of Andrea Mitchell as the only person to bring up the race issue in this race - what a laughable notion! - then I'll certainly change my opinion of you.

But, right now, I think you stepped in it, and racism being the insidious thing that it is, I suspect your inability to explain in any credible manner what your OP was about, I'm not surprised.

[kimmerspixelated]

13. I don't know or care anything about that, but

it was always hard for me to believe she was in any way an unbiased newslady when she and hubby Greenspan were supposedly friends with Cheney. It's hypocrisy alright.

[PCIntern]

16. Ed Zachary. n/t

[kimmerspixelated]

23. Who's that?

Call me ignorant. Or you can call me Kimmer, just don't call me...Zelda Zonk!

[pacalo]

47. Yes, & the point of the discussion here on DU is that she's known here for carrying water

for the Repukes, a party made up of vile racists. Very little wonder that her first marriage was kept secret.

[TahitiNut]

22. Repost

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7517527

[PCIntern]

25. good detective work...

and I stand by the story....

[Tangerine LaBamba]

32. Now it's just bizarre -

Why repost it (and how did you dig that up, TN?)?

There's a dirty little agenda at work here, and calling the OP on it caused him/her to go somewhat ballistic without ever explaining why the first husband's race was so significant.

I call racism.

[TahitiNut]

46. No 'agenda' on my part.

I read the thread and became curious about the background and puzzled at the relevance of this to anything I'd think merited attention ... so I Googled the two names and up popped DU (among other sites, including FreeRepublic). So, I looked and found the earlier DU reference was back during primary season ... with the same OP.

So, I merely posted that fact ... without judgment or agenda of any kind.

I remain puzzled regarding relevance. :shrug:


It wouldn't be the first time I'm puzzled regarding the relevance of something discussed on DU. Quite often this place gets like a pack of dogs chewing on nylon bones that have no nutritional value of any kind.

[pacalo]

49. See #47 just above.

That's how I see it.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

58. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no!!!!!

Please don't think I was referring to you! Oh, man, no. Not at all. I never meant to imply that at all. In fact, I was intrigued that you found the initial post. And I thank you for it. It helped confirm what I saw.

I share your puzzlement, but your exceptional (to me) detective work makes my confusion even stronger. Why post the same thing twice?

You're right about that pack of dogs................

[TahitiNut]

61. I know. Didn't mean to suggest you did.

I regularly Google stuff I read on DU. (I read a LOT more than I post, no matter how many posts I have. A lot more.) It takes me a lot longer than the average DU to get my aged, feeble brain around something enough to post cogently and with some (hopeful) value added.

I just thought it was interesting and (literally) remarkable that the post was an encore ... so I remarked. :silly:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

62. Whew. I'm glad you did .......

look it up, I mean.

You simply affirmed what I saw.

DU never fails to be interesting, even if it's not something I especially endorse. Never a dull moment.

And that "aged, feeble brain" of yours seems to be operating at about ten thousand times the speed of mine, so I salute you -

:toast:

[PCIntern]

65. Why post the same thing twice?

Did you see the first post the first time around? No?

Why don't you read my reply 37 and just stop. Stop and think for one minute and don't you frigging dare call me a racist or I will go off on you. You, in your flat ignorance, missed the point entirely, and you decided to disrupt the thread with your name-calling.

So just STOP...read #37 and think to yourself...I know it's not easy...don't you think for one minute that this lady (no not you, don't be narcissistic) is so duplicitous, so eager to HIDE everything about herself, that her moniker of 'reporter' is utterly and totally fallacious.

And you 'call racism'? I call 'bullshit disruptor'. I'll be observing...

[Tangerine LaBamba]

69. I didn't read your post here,

but how's that "Ignore" thing working out for you?

Thank you, though, for the laugh..................

[ogneopasno]

27. What is it you want her to do? Ask questions in this fashion:

"Mr. Obama, as a white woman who was once married to a black man, I know that black men sometimes screw up the presidency. Could you comment on that?"

[PCIntern]

31. No. I want her to

disclose the fact that she has a history of being married to Alan Greenspan, the architect of this disaster. She is adept at pretending that she's oblivious to all that goes on around her, and has never owned up to any of her personal relationships, no matter how legitimate. She is a stooge and a pretender...

[ogneopasno]

34. Then...why bring up her first marriage?

It's not a secret she's married to Greenspan. A decent news organization would find a way so she would never have to utter a word about it in the course of her job, of course. But I don't really see what this has to do with your OP.

[elizfeelinggreat]

28. I despise that she doesn't admit her husband is Alan Greenspan

I don't really understand your OP, it's the first post I've read this afternoon and am not aware what she's done recently to bring that on but I don't like much about Andrea Mitchell.

Most of all I don't like the fact that she's married to Alan Greenspan and doesn't regularly remind us of that. Every news station that has her own should be ashamed of not disclosing that.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

35. She shouldn't be covering anything

having to do with the banking/economic crisis, that's for sure. I've always been against that.

[AlCzervik]

30. So you think she should be Mrs. Greenspan so viewers are clear about who her husband is?

is that it?

[PCIntern]

37. No,

Everyone 'knows' she's Mrs. Greenspan.

Can you imagine WHAT ELSE SHE KNOWS ABOUT EVERYTHING?????

she's at the center of the most elite power structure in the entire world and periodically, she gets a 'clue' as to what's going on?? Doesn't that somehow bother you?

It's just ridiculous...she could go on the air and do non-stop reporting of major issues involving the last two decades of American History which would blow the lid off everything including but not limited to assassinations, Bush's ascension to the Presidency, the lies surrounding Iran-contra, etc.

Sheesh...

[CoffeeCat]

33. Andrea Mitchell

is so awful, it's shameful.

She can't finish a sentence without stumbling. She pauses all of the time,
as if she's having brain farts.

She is so bad!!

And MSNBC spends an inordinate amount of time talking about how wonnnnnderful and
ammmmmazing she is. They always refer to her as "the best in the business" and
load their shows with all sorts of exaggerated praise about her.

No one does that to professional journalists who know what they're doing. It's as if
they constantly have to define her as GREAT so we won't notice how bad she is.

She's just awful. She has no talent and she seems to be below-average in intelligence.

It's very embarrassing.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

36. Yeah, but did you know

that her first husband was an African-American man with kids, and that he had MS, and that he died?

Bet you didn't know that.

Now, how that relates to her inadequacy in her current job, I have no idea, but the OP sure had to get that off its chest. As TahitiNut pointed out above, this is the second time - first was last October - that the poster put this out there.

Very strange thing to do. Someone's got a "thing" going on with Andrea Mitchell, and it ain't pretty.............

[PCIntern]

41. to quote you:

"Bite me"

"...it ain't pretty"

Master of the cliche I see...defender of the MSM, huh?

These people, you see O benighted one, were attempting to paint Senator and Candidate Obama into a variety of corners from which he managed to escape with his and thus OUR success. Andrea was one who was hard at work mis-reporting as much as she could.

Why don't you drop the phony PC crap for a minute and just listen to yourself speak. It's embarrassing...

[pmorlan1]

50. You Nailed It

Very curious thread indeed and no, it ain't pretty.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

59. As someone else pointed out,

sometimes people here get things going that have very little or no relation to reality.

But, in any event, welcome to DU. It's really of a lot higher quality than this particular misadventure.

:hi:

[shimmergal]

44. What I'd really like to know is,

does the fact that she's married to Greenspan have anything to do with how she got and is keeping her job?

'Cause along with you, I don't think she's very good at it.

Of course, this is a question that'll never get addressed.

[MrMickeysMom]

73. Yeah, but you have to admit, she selected a good plastic surgeon

I think I'd rather laugh over pop-corn after viewing AM "through the years, and years and years...."

:popcorn:

[AndyA]

38. What bugs me most about Mitchell is that she doesn't disclose that she's

married to Greenspan. She will stand there and report on things that he was obviously a part of in the past, and act like she doesn't even know the guy. At the very least, MSNBC/NBC should have the anchor person state a disclaimer after Mitchell's "report."

I guess a lot of people would like to forget their first marriages, but the memory of her husband's death might be painful for her, especially if he had a rough go of it during his last days.

[leftstreet]

39. So you think her first marriage is influencing her reporting on Obama?

:popcorn:

[aikoaiko]

40. I don't get it your point.

What about this is "our turn" "since she's apparently decided to be an asshole"?

[PCIntern]

42. Tune in to MSNBC today....

you'll get an earful from her. I'm sure she's on tonight before and after the Press Cinference...I don't think I'll be 'disappointed'. It'll be business as usual...

[aikoaiko]

43. I still don't understand why you posted what you did.

I get it that you are unhappy that she doesn't disclose her conflict of interest and is not reporting critically, but why post what you did?

[WilliamPitt]

45. Nobody dies from MS

[robinlynne]

48. There is nothing in this post. no sanctimony, no hypocrisy. What is the point?

she was married. and?
most of us were once married, once you get to a certain age.
and?

[PCIntern]

52. OK OK OK...I give up....

I apologize: Andrea Mitchell is one of the most forthright, able, truth-telling, righteous-thinking reporters in the MSM. Her relationship with her husband, all of his friends, businessmen, confidantes, and power-brokers have been reported in full at all times by this lovely lady, whose professional demeanor is above reproach. She consistently informs all viewers and listeners that she has been in contact both professionally and socially with the highest-ranking individuals in the US, and would never ever withhold information from us as to the true nature of the backstory of everything which has occurred in DC and NY in all of these years. As a reporter it is clear that she has upheld the highest ethical standards of her craft.

Feel better now?

:sarcasm:

[NYCGirl]

57. Maybe she thinks her past marriage is none of anyone's business.

Maybe it's something that's difficult for her to deal with. Past relationships are sometimes like that.

Do we know about all of Olbermann's past relations or Rachel Maddow's?

[PCIntern]

63. Maybe she thinks her PRESENT marriage

is nobody's business either...

[NYCGirl]

72. Actually, it isn't. So you think career women should be judged by who

they're married to?

[robinlynne]

64. what is your post about? andrea mitchell was married. so what?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

71. Uh-oh ...........

That's been my query right through this thread. Others have asked the same question.

Read through, and maybe you'll see a reasonable and intelligent answer that I didn't see. If you find something, please let me know, OK?

Thanks ........................

[NYCGirl]

51. And? What's your point?

:shrugs:

[PCIntern]

53. the point.....

is lost...

As I said above,,,,I give up.

[K8-EEE]

LOL, how did this thread get in the Greatest?

i also don't see any problem with her being married before or how she chooses to address or not address her private life and history!

[K8-EEE]

54. LOL, how did this thread get in the Greatest?

i also don't see any problem with her being married before or how she chooses to address or not address her private life and history!

[ddeclue]

55. Don't understand...

what she now and why are we going back into the dark ages to go after her?

:shrug:

[PCIntern]

56. One last time:

She is FAMOUS in Philly for abandoning her past, she is presently abandoning her PRESENT. She has a life which is not that of a typical 'reporter' but she ACTS as though she has no contact with the mega-powers that be.

She's supposed to be a reporter....she's not reporting what she knows, it's SELECTIVE. See?

[ddeclue]

60. You'll have to forgive me... I've never even been to Phillie and don't know much about her

I was just trying to understand if she did something in particular today to tick you off.

:)

[KoKo]

66. I think the OP was trying to say...we should know the background of those who report our news

because they are so important in selecting the news we get and influencing our opinion. That we know so little about these people and what they do and their past and who they hang out with leaves a big hole in what we might need to know about why they report the way they do.

The MSM...cables are not hesitant to exploit all of us in our lives and by creating shows like "Reality this and That" often exploit us and who we are. We are subjected on Cable to endless parades of "lifestyles" that are tracked down for shows like MSNBC's "Dock Block" (or whatever that prison show and others they have on continuously over weekend) plus all the other crime shows that exploit people and their past lives and psychological makeup where endless "psycho pundits" go into every detail of their past and present lives.

I think it's good we know more about those who report our news...especially when they've fucked up their jobs and NOT done a job of REPORTING REAL NEWS that has just about ruined our country from the "Iraq Invasion" back to "Vietnam" and now the huge "Financial Implosion." And not to forget "Stolen Elections" and "Torture" plus all the other stuff we've lived through that's led to our current demise.

Actually Andrea's first marriage and experience makes her seem "more human." Most of us see her as an appendage of Greenspin...who looks like "the Joker" in Batman because she seems to have had a lot of plastic surgery to keep up her looks to compete.

So...she deserves as much scrutiny IMHO as the "OctoMom" and others who are exploited by the Media. Let the People exploit the Media for a change. It might help to try to keep them somewhat honest in bringing them back to how the rest of us live.

[ddeclue]

70. Except that it seemed that the OP had a serious ax to grind - it wasn't merely exposition. nt

[Skittles]

67. ? why is she obligated to speak of her personal life?

[DemoTex]

68. Ha! I know flight attandants whose stories could ruin her ..

One great F/A friend, who is Jewish, used to keep me in stiches with her "Mrs. Alan Greenspan demands first class" story .. complete with the Yiddish expletives. Outside of her own mind, and perhaps her husband's no-longer-responsive-to-viagra penissimus, she is attractive to a very few.