This is the greatest smash I've seen in a long time. I wish Bill had shut up.

You never see them talking about Cindy McCain, but that's because Cindy McCain isn't controversial. She's also not very smart, while Michelle Obama is very, very smart.

Michelle Obama is what she is, she's a smart, opinionated woman, and I have a huge amount of respect for Michelle Obama.

Obviously Bill O'Reilly is a racist and a sexist (we knew this already), but I think that Michelle will come off looking smart and blunt, which is what I, personally, like about her.

She's not fake, she's not trying to be something she's not, and if that pisses off Bill O'Reilly, that's just a bonus for me.

O'Reilly went to someone from humanevents.com to get an assessment of Michelle Obama? Criticism from humanevents.com is a positive endorsement for anyone outside the far right. I'd only worry if their reporter had endorsed her.

I don't watch bill O'Reilly and was surprised to see him bringing that website into the light of day. Is that one of is regular sources?

JOHNSON: Don't they say that about you, too?

L-tothefucking-MAO

If you're not angry with the state of our country, you're not paying attention!

O'Reilly: Warm and fuzzy?

Michelle: ...a stealth Hillary Clinton...

*headdesk*

When people make a big deal out of nothing, you can always tell the bias and hatred that they have.

Please..., as much as some liberals would love it, there is nothing racist or sexist about Bill saying that, in his opinion, Michelle Obama seems to come off as angry a lot of the time. Maybe, some of you need to stop trying to make something out of nothing and grow up.

Maybe the real issue here, and the reason a lot of you don't like Bill, is that he has the courage to question far-left ideologues and liberal elitism, and unfortunately for some of you guys, there just so happens to be one news network left that hasn't sold out yet to a culture of liberalism, that airs his show. Oh, and also that little part about how Bill's show regularly beats every other cable news show in ratings by TRIPLE. Guess that's a tough one to accept, isn't it.

I love how they *invoked* the name of Hillary Clinton-- he clearly knows his audience, and knows that it's scared shitless of a woman who won't be pushed around.

I think it's great that the woman from Vogue stressed that Obama wasn't trying to be "warm and fuzzy," she wanted to be authentic, and that we're constantly inundated with images of vapid, smiling women who say nothing. It's interesting that she pointed out that smothered image is a BAD thing, while you could tell that O'Reilly recognized it as a GOOD thing. Different perspectives, I guess.

So when Bill O’Reilly questions the far-left idealism, liberal elitism, he is therefore defending the far-right elitism, correct? You say that the “real issue” people have here on this web site with Mr. O’Reilly is that he “has the courage to question far-left ideologues.” Do we not deserve the same courage to question him? You also bring up the point that “Bill’s show” gets “TRIPLE” the ratings of all the liberal news shows (since you state that his show is aired on the “one news network left that hasn’t sold out yet to a culture of liberalism”). You are perhaps right, I don’t feel like checking the statistics- but to be honest I bet you he does beat every other show in ratings. He is a very charismatic talker, who appeals to the right-wing listeners that enjoy being bombarded by his daily “truths.” I’m sorry if that last part is sarcastic, after having listened to a couple of his shows my blood runs hot. But my question is this: how would a nation of right-wingers allow the media to become saturated with liberal news channels without putting up a fight? Perhaps Bill’s show beats all others by TRIPLE the numbers because he is the only show where people who have similar ideals as him can turn to in order to have their own ideals re-affirmed. He might beat all the other liberal shows because the listeners who disagree with Mr. O’Reilly thankfully have a wider range of channels to choose from in this liberal media.

@tonisjadine

I am sorry to have to disagree with you. When you look at the historical reason behind why black women are called angry you can hardly call what Bill said as affirming black womanhood. It is a racist statement meant to uphold the white male patriarchy. His choice of words were purposeful in that it was meant to remind black women to stay in their place.

emily1bob, "So when Bill O’Reilly questions the far-left idealism, liberal elitism, he is therefore defending the far-right elitism, correct?" Not necessarily. In fact Bill calls out far right organizations and websites all the time, he just focuses more time on the far left because he feels that they gits a bigger play and more attention from the media.

"nation of right-wingers", Actually, statistically, the nation at this point seems to be divided pretty evenly between right and left leaning political beliefs. Its the fact that the media doesn't seem to accurately represent that evenness, that Bill criticizes so much, and his listeners so often identify with.

"He might beat all the other liberal shows because the listeners who disagree with Mr. O’Reilly thankfully have a wider range of channels to choose from in this liberal media." Actually, I might agree with you on that one. Bill's voice runs a stark contrast between what is herd on most of the other stations. It is the reason he gets so many devoted watchers, and at the same time, draws so much hatred from the far left.

“When people make a big deal out of nothing, you can always tell the bias and hatred that they have.”

And O’Reilly’s labeling of Michelle as an “angry woman” is a prefect example of that.

“Maybe the real issue here, and the reason a lot of you don't like Bill Maybe the real issue here, and the reason a lot of you don't like Bill, is that he has the courage to question far-left ideologues and liberal elitism, and unfortunately for some of you guys, there just so happens to be one news network left that hasn't sold out yet to a culture of liberalism, that airs his show.”

Oh yes that Liberal media myth that Republicans use as not to accept personal responsibility for their failures. Our hatred for O’Reilly is a little simpler than that. O’Reilly is a self-righteous asshole. Asking an anti-war protestor why she hates the troops is not questioning “far-left ideologies and liberal elitism”; it is spreading lies and inciting hatred and division.

“Oh, and also that little part about how Bill's show regularly beats every other cable news show in ratings by TRIPLE. Guess that's a tough one to accept, isn't it.”

Hate to disappoint you but we could give two shits about O’Reilly’s ratings. We have already accepted the fact that Republicans tune in so they know where to direct their mock outrage and be spoon-fed their opinions. It is pathetic but certainly not the end of the world.

Jolynn, "And O’Reilly’s labeling of Michelle as an “angry woman” is a prefect example of that."I'm sorry Jolynn, But Bill expressing his opinion that he feels Mechelle often comes across as being angry or upset is not hateful, racist or sexist.

Perhaps it is offensive to you, but taking something that makes you angry and differs from your opinion and ideals, and attempting to turn it around and label it as sexist or racist is exactly why the the far left is loosing so much credibility with the nation and the mainstream public.

And I'm sorry but the "Liberal media myth". That's laughable.

Please..., as much as some liberals would love it, there is nothing racist or sexist about Bill saying that, in his opinion, Michelle Obama seems to come off as angry a lot of the time. Maybe, some of you need to stop trying to make something out of nothing and grow up.

If it's "nothing", why does he spend so much time talking about it? The women he's interviewing about Michelle are describing her personality traits, her demeanor, and are saying that she is a lovely person. He chooses to focus on how she looks over anything else, which, yes, is sexist. He seems to ignore the information he's being given by the people he's interviewing in favor of his agenda, which in this clip is to reiterate that he finds her angry-looking. No one says "Yeah, you know Bill, she looks angry and dammit, she really IS angry." He can't get past that. Saying someone looks angry, and then dwelling on this non issue, is hardly questioning far-left ideologues and liberal elitism. Perhaps O'Reilly should grow up?

Are we supposed to be afraid of those big ratings? I'm sure there are people who don't like his show or don't agree with him that tune in, just to hear what crazy thing he says next, because people like to get fired up (I remember hearing that about the Howard Stern show, too). High ratings doesn't mean he's well-loved by all.

Waterpixi360, "He chooses to focus on how she looks over anything else, which, yes, is sexist"

Oh, Waterpixi360, another nice try, but sorry to break it to you but Bill was referring to her demeanor, and even if Bill did ask questions referring to how she looked, there is nothing sexist about that. If Bill wants to comment on how he thinks she looks, he is well within his rights.

Once again, like what I said to Joylnn, everytime, people nit-pick over semantics and try to micro-dissect people's every little words trying to make something out of nothing, you loose credibility for your feminist cause.

Hi indyKat, thanks for responding to my questions without yelling- it is always nice to talk.
Okay, first question is this (and excuse my rushing- I have to get back to my homework): I do not understand why you might not state that Bill O’Reilly isn’t completely defending far-right elitism? Yes, he might not believe in all the ideas that every person who says that they are a right-winger may believe in, but does he not question the liberal group as a whole? When you question someone whose ideas you vehemently disagree with, is it not easier to question the whole group rather than the individual? That way you do not have to admit that yes, there are some that are good with the bad. Better yet, the question that you answer was more of a warm-up to the next question I asked, which is whether the people that question Bill O’Reilly deserve to be thought of as courageous? Anyone who brings questions to the table should be thought of courageous because they are questioning. In a family, and a community where many listen to Bill O’Reilly, I think of myself as a warrior against his ideas- and attempt to give opinions that Bill O’Reilly might not state on his show : ) I think I deserve to be called courageous too.
I believe that there needs to be people like Bill O’Reilly out there. There has to be an opposing view that you can argue against. If there isn’t opposing views then that means that everyone is monotonous in ideas, which can be bad. Because what if that one thought isn’t a good thought? Thanks for your thoughts.

I love how apparently, the opposite of "warm and fuzzy" is "angry." She isn't the one, so she must be the other. If you aren't cute and bubbly, you must be angry. Why is this not held up to men? Rarely (ever?) are male politicians referred to as "warm and fuzzy," but they aren't then called "angry" because of it. The fact that these women kept using other, gender-nonspecific, positive terms to describe Michelle Obama ("intelligent," for one) and that Bill seemed intent only on discerning whether she was "warm and fuzzy" or "angry" is undeniably telling.

Emily1bob, "I do not understand why you might not state that Bill O’Reilly isn’t completely defending far-right elitism, Yes, he might not believe in all the ideas that every person who says that they are a right-winger may believe in, but does he not question the liberal group as a whole?" I might respectfully disagree with the notion of Bill questioning the liberal group as a whole. In fact, the other night bill was arguing with some right wingers that the government needed to intervene and be involved in the free enterprise economy more when people are suffering like they are now. He took a lot of heat for that. I think that Bill thinks of him self as more middle of the road in his beliefs. Whether he is or not is up to his viewers I guess.

"next question I asked, which is whether the people that question Bill O’Reilly deserve to be thought of as courageous?" The reason I think of Bill as courageous at times is because I believe that his voice is outnumbered in the media by opposing voices. If you feel that when you question Bill, you are surrounded by people who disagree with you and believe differently than you, then I think you are courageous as well and for the same reason I think Bill is.

"If there isn’t opposing views then that means that everyone is monotonous in ideas, which can be bad." I could not agree more. If I had it my way, I wish that all forms of media (print, tv etc.) would accurately represent the nations beliefs (most polls show that the nation is divided evenly in terms of right vs. left political beliefs), but in my opinion, I think that the media favors the left a little more.

Sorry this response took so long.

"Oh, and also that little part about how Bill's show regularly beats every other cable news show in ratings by TRIPLE. Guess that's a tough one to accept, isn't it."

Ah, the old popularity=quality argument. Lots of people have bought Girls Gone Wild DVDs too - does that automatically make them worthwhile intellectually stimulating entertainment?

When someone says "Angry Young Man", it's usually meant as a term of respect -- someone who, despite the callowness of youth, is fired up about righting wrongs.

On the other hand, when someone says "Angry Woman", it's always meant as a negative -- the implication is that she doesn't have rational reasons for being angry, and is just being shrewish.

I just thought of another example: the title of the film Twelve Angry Men. What would the tone and content of a film titled Twelve Angry Women be, I wonder?

As to O'Reilly's fairness and accuracy, look no further than this.

She looks happy to me. I don't see how she looks angry.

I agree with ShifterCat and Judith Jewcakes. Also, there is a difference between labeling someone an "angry woman" and a "woman who is angry". "Angry woman" refers to a perpetual, irrational state, that is not based in reason but in just the emotionality of women. It is a way of easily dismissing Michelle Obama, and her concerns. However, if we allow that at times, Michelle Obama is angry, that she is passionate and learned enough and awake enough to truly experience highs of victories and lows of seeing the injustices in the world and reacting to them, then she is a woman (or person) who experiences reasoned anger.

What I like about Judith Jewcakes' post is the assertion that we do not expect our male politicians to be warm and fuzzy. If they are not warm and fuzzy, our immediate reaction isn't that they are "angry", and angry without reason. But we do expect women to always be pleasant. One of the things that came through while reading Courtney's "Ten Things I Could Do Without" is exactly how often women are commanded, by people (mostly men) they do not know, to smile. This is just yet another example of that phenomenon. Michelle Obama decided to actually be human, and display more emotion in public than a Barbie doll. Of course she would be labelled "angry", because she defies the norm. It is sick and it is sad, but that is the way it is. And it sucks that no one, not even the woman who came in to defend Michelle Obama as poised and authentic, thought to challenge O'Reilly's own biases about what women have to be in a public forum.

"I could not agree more. If I had it my way, I wish that all forms of media (print, tv etc.) would accurately represent the nations beliefs (most polls show that the nation is divided evenly in terms of right vs. left political beliefs), but in my opinion, I think that the media favors the left a little more."

I don't know why anybody hasn't brought up Rupert Murdoch, in response to this. Rupert Murdoch, who is a known conservative, owner of News Corp, owner of Fox News, is one of the biggest media moguls in United States history. He was one of the founding fathers of media consolidation in the United States, so you might want to look there first, before you start placing unfair blame on the "liberal media".

"I could not agree more. If I had it my way, I wish that all forms of media (print, tv etc.) would accurately represent the nations beliefs (most polls show that the nation is divided evenly in terms of right vs. left political beliefs), but in my opinion, I think that the media favors the left a little more."

I don't know why anybody hasn't brought up Rupert Murdoch, in response to this. Rupert Murdoch, who is a known conservative, owner of News Corp, owner of Fox News, is one of the biggest media moguls in United States history. He was one of the founding fathers of media consolidation in the United States, so you might want to look there first, before you start placing unfair blame on the "liberal media".

OMG. insanity.

what a witch hunt.

Has anyone ever heard someone follow this line of questioning (leading) in sniffing out an "angry man"? Give me a break.

And if I have to hear "warm and fuzzy" again I think I will barf. Is that a quality they look for in their male politicians? ;-)

I definitely feel there is an aura of sexism in painting a passionate woman as angry. Although, these news type outlets also used the term angry to describe Hilary Clinton and Howard Dean as well. It’s just something I guess they call you when you are passionate.

As far as this being something these news outlets use exclusively on women or democrats or ethnic people, well they had a hard time with Nancy Reagan as well. So it may be that they are resentful of people who assert themselves.

Whatever it is O'Reilly sucks so bad that I am glad for anytime he is called out on his suckage.

You know, I'm a little disappointed- I was expecting someone to break out the white screen-write pen and outline the parts of her face that give off her "angry appearance".

IndyKat34- I think the main point is that no one gets on a male politician/figure for being or seeming "angry". So one expects male politicians/figures to be warm, fuzzy & non confrontational all the time. In fact, if we were to find a guy in the public eye who was like that, he would be assumed to be stupid. But O'Reilly would rather she be a stupid than act like...a political figure? How could you possibly have such strong ideals and not be angry sometimes when they are no fulfilled? In fact, O'Reilly himself shrugs off that it doesn't matter if he is angry, since he won't be the First Lady. Is he saying that only non-political figures get to be angry? Or only White dudes with their own TV opinion shows & nothing to lose or gain get to be angry? He's speaking from a pretty cozy position of privilege, judging an intelligent, passionate Black woman, for being "angry" and not kissing the asses of White people who interview her. Hmm...prejudice. No, maybe you're right...