 sj |
||
|
||
Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment
|
|
|
Subject: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Azizi Date: 24 May 08 - 09:53 AM "Responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race, she said: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it," she said, dismissing the idea of abandoning the race. Clinton said she didn't understand why, given this history, some Democrats were calling for her to quit. Her remark about an assassination during a primary campaign drew a quick response from aides to Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama. "Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said the senator was only referring to her husband and Kennedy "as historical examples of the nominating process going well into the summer and any reading into it beyond that would be inaccurate and outrageous." She has said much the same thing before In a March interview with Time magazine, she said: "Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June, also in California. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080524/ap_on_el_pr/clinton [my italics for emphasis] ** I'm aware that this Mudcat thread "Voting For Hillary?" contains some comments about Senator Clinton's latest statement about Bobbie Kennedy's assassination in June 1968 as somehow being a reason for her remaining in the race for Democratic nomination for USA president. However, I believe that a separate Mudcat thread is needed for a discussion about those comments, since that discussion need not be in the context of whether a person would vote or not for Hillary Clinton. Even before her latest offensive, and dangerous comment, as a result of how she has run her primary campaign, I would not have even thought of about voting for Hillary Clinton as dog catcher of the smallest USA town. I'll be posting exerpts of comments on this topic that were made by other people, since sometimes people express what I want to say much better than I could. Of course, you may post to this thread-or that other Mudcat thread whose link I provided or any other Mudcat political thread -if you feel the need to express yourself on this topic. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Azizi Date: 24 May 08 - 09:56 AM Mudcat moderators: I meant for this thread to be placed in the BS section. My apologies for failing to put a "BS" prefix before this thread's title. I would appreciate it if you would move this thread to its appropriate section. Thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: bobad Date: 24 May 08 - 09:56 AM I don't believe she meant that she was waiting to see if Obama was to be assasinated, I mean she can't be that insensitive or stupid, can she? |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Deckman Date: 24 May 08 - 09:59 AM I know longer feel that "Bill" runs her "mean, bad ass comment" dept. She does a very good job of it all by herself. Bob(deckman)Nelson |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Azizi Date: 24 May 08 - 10:07 AM Excerpts from Keith Olbermann's Special Comment-May 23, 2008: "Clinton, you invoked a nightmare May 23 [2008]: In a Countdown Special Comment, Keith Olbermann reviews how many times Hillary Clinton has referenced Robert F. Kennedy in her campaign – and how the most recent mention of him and his assassination was inexcusable. Countdown SPECIAL COMMENT By Keith Olbermann Anchor, 'Countdown' MSNBC updated 9:29 p.m. ET, Fri., May. 23, 2008 Asked if her continuing fight for the nomination against Senator Obama hurts the Democratic party, Sen. Hillary Clinton replied, "I don't. Because again, I've been around long enough. You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just don't understand it. You know, there's lots of speculation about why it is. " The comments were recorded and we showed them to you earlier and they are online as we speak. She actually said those words. Those words, Senator? You actually invoked the nightmare of political assassination. You actually invoked the specter of an inspirational leader, at the seeming moment of triumph, for himself and a battered nation yearning to breathe free, silenced forever. You actually used the word "assassination" in the middle of a campaign with a loud undertone of racial hatred - and gender hatred - and political hatred. You actually used the word "assassination" in a time when there is a fear, unspoken but vivid and terrible, that our again-troubled land and fractured political landscape might target a black man running for president. Or a white man. Or a white woman! You actually used those words, in this America, Senator, while running against an African-American against whom the death threats started the moment he declared his campaign? You actually used those words, in this America, Senator, while running to break your "greatest glass ceiling" and claiming there are people who would do anything to stop you? You! Senator - never mind the implications of using the word "assassination" in any connection to Senator Obama... What about you? You cannot say this!... Not for a moment does any rational person believe Senator Clinton is actually hoping for the worst of all political calamities. Yet the outrage belongs, not to Senator Clinton or her supporters, but to every other American... There is no good time to recall the awful events of June 5th, 1968, of Senator Bobby Kennedy, happy and alive - perhaps, for the first time since his own brother's death in Dallas in 1963... Galvanized to try to lead this nation back from one of its darkest eras... Only to fall victim to the same surge that took that brother, and Martin Luther King... There is no good time to recall this. But certainly to invoke it, two weeks before the exact 40th anniversary of the assassination, is an insensitive and heartless thing. And certainly to invoke it, three days after the awful diagnosis, and heart-breaking prognosis, for Senator Ted Kennedy, is just as insensitive, and just as heartless. And both actions, open a door wide into the soul of somebody who seeks the highest office in this country, and through that door shows something not merely troubling, but frightening. And politically inexplicable"... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24797758/ |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Riginslinger Date: 24 May 08 - 10:09 AM She was only making the comment that the primary in which Robert F. Kennedy was participating in ran into June. If you read her comment, it's very obvious that's what she meant. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Azizi Date: 24 May 08 - 10:12 AM Here are more excerpts from Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on this topic, May 23, 2008: "Since those awful words in Sioux Falls, and after the condescending, buck-passing statement from her spokesperson, Senator Clinton has made something akin to an apology, without any evident recognition of the true trauma she has inflicted. "I was discussing the Democratic primary history, and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged California in June in 1992 and 1968," she said in Brandon, South Dakota. "I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That's a historic fact. "The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy. I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive, I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever."
members have been asked to not post more than one screen of copy & paste. Please post the LINK that will give those results, not the full list.] |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Azizi Date: 24 May 08 - 10:17 AM Here's the link to a video clip of Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Senator Clinton's comment: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24797758/page/2/ |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Azizi Date: 24 May 08 - 10:22 AM Here's a link to the video clip of Hillary Clinton saying her remarks about Bobby Kennedy's assassination to the South Dakota editorial board, May 23, 2008: http://youtube.com/watch?v=YR4vPuuaAS8 excerpt from Wolf Blitzer CNN television program |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: katlaughing Date: 24 May 08 - 10:23 AM Thanks for posting Keith's comments. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Ron Davies Date: 24 May 08 - 10:40 AM "only making the comment that the primary..." Not only drivel but obviously disingenuous drivel. She went far beyond just talking about the primary. If it were just the primaries, she could have said something along the lines of "The primary season often goes into June, as it did in 1992, 1968 and some other years." It's painfully obvious she has no control over her own mouth. This one, added to the "...hardworking Americans, white Americans" should be enough to prove to anyone that she has no business in the White House. As women I have read on MSNBC have pointed out, she is the worst possible role model for girls. And that's before this latest remark. Now is the time for the superdelegates to step in and end this thing--before the convention. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Azizi Date: 24 May 08 - 10:42 AM Also, here's a link to and an except from a dailykos diary about this topic: Hillary's RFK remarks spark widespread rebuke: a sampling (Updated x2) by davidkc Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:16:40 AM PDT http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/24/65451/0542/860/521896 "Hillary Clinton's RFK assassination remark has sparked a swift and widespread condemnation across the country, not just in the blogosphere but in the mainstream media as well. Since we can sometimes get insulated in our corner of the Net, I thought it might be helpful to compile some of the reactions from prominent bloggers, commentators and editorial pages. We're not alone in being shocked and outraged. "Reckless," "Tasteless," "Awful," "Offensive," "Faulty," "Strange" are just some of the reactions. First, some reaction from the mainstream press. One of my hometown papers, The St. Petersburg Times, gave perhaps one of the most charitable assessments: "Her remarks stunned the political world, including many of her own supporters, and by the end of the day she expressed her regrets. But the damage has been done, and it could be the gaffe that moves the remaining unpledged superdelegates to throw their support to Obama to bring this campaign to an end. The kindest view of Clinton's comments was that she is suffering from campaign fatigue. She clearly needs some rest." ... The New York Times (from the editorial board blog) focused its criticism on Hillary's non-apology apology: ...she issued one of those tedious non-apology apologies in which it sounds like the person who is being offended is somehow at fault: "I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive." If? Is it even possible that Mrs. Clinton thinks someone out there was not offended by her remark, Kennedy relative, Obama relative, or just plain folks? ... What's next? "Mistakes were made"? "... Libby Copeland, in an essay for The Washington Post, pulls no punches: "There are taboos in presidential politics, and this is one of the biggest. To raise the specter of a rival's assassination, even unintentionally, is to make a truly terrible thing real. It sounds like one might be waiting for a terrible thing to happen, even if one isn't. It sounds almost like wishful thinking.... The fear of a president or a presidential candidate being shot or assassinated is horrifying precisely because recent history teaches us that it can happen. We don't need anybody to remind us, and we certainly don't need anybody to remind whatever suggestible wackos might be lurking in the shadows. In the context of Obama, Clinton's words broke a double taboo, because since the beginning of his candidacy, some of Obama's supporters have feared that his race made him more of a target than other presidential hopefuls. Obama was placed under Secret Service protection early, a full year ago. To be unaware that one's words tap into a monumental fear that exists in a portion of the electorate -- a fear that Obama's race could get him killed -- is an unusual mistake for a serious and highly disciplined presidential candidate"." -snip- That diary and the posts connected to it include more reactions from the "mainstream media" and the blogosphere about Hillary's latest Bobby Kennedy assassination comment and her so-called apology. These excerpts that I quoted say what I want to say better than I could. I am truly outraged. Imo, as a result of this repeated statement and as a result of other statements and actions she has made and that she has condoned in her campaign, Hillary Clinton has destroyed any positive legacy that she had for all times. Bill Clinton also. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Jeri Date: 24 May 08 - 10:43 AM I'd like to think she didn't have any clue how this would be taken. I don't think she's that stupid and I don't think there are a whole lot of accidents. "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it" could have been better put "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was still running when he was assassinated in June." Her actual message puts the focus on assassination, not on the fact he was still running. If it wasn't a goof (that would be in the other universe), it was unworthy of a presidential hopeful. If (in that other universe) it was just a ham-handed attempt to provide a justification for staying in the race, it was unworthy of a presidential hopeful. Choose between insensitive or clueless. Either way, she screwed up. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: pdq Date: 24 May 08 - 10:51 AM Keith Olbermann is a professional baseball card collector with a degree in "communications arts". In 1992, he joined ESPN's SportsCenter, a position he held until 1997. He often co-hosted SportsCenter with Dan Patrick, the two becoming a popular anchor team. He was painful to watch even then, launching into rants and engaging in gratuitous insults aimed at professionl athletes. Now he does the same to politicians. ...drawn out feud between Olbermann and ESPN. Between 1997 and 2007 incidents between the two sides included Olbermann publishing an essay on Salon.com in November of 2002 entitled "Mea Culpa" in which he conceded that his own insecurities and neurotic behavior had led to many of his problems at work. However, he is essentially correct in "calling" Hillary on this gaffe, but so is everybody else, and doing it in a more reasonable manor than Keith "Nut Case" Olbermann. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Riginslinger Date: 24 May 08 - 11:11 AM Yeah, I certainly agree with you on Olbermann! |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Stilly River Sage Date: 24 May 08 - 11:18 AM Don't you just love it when people keep asking important questions about the ISSUES and future PLANS and leave the faux pas and the faux pastors behind? All of them. Kennedy, Hagee, and Wright. I do. Just a thought. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 24 May 08 - 11:29 AM It appears that all of the Hillary-haters, as part of their pathological desire to insult and besmirch her, are willfully (as usual) misinterpreting what she plainly was saying. Her comments were clearly directed to the thought that the primary campaign isn't done, and many significant things may, as they have in the past, come along to influence the nature of things. She never, that I've read, at least, mentioned Obama in the context of this comment. For shame! Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 24 May 08 - 11:31 AM I third the vote on Olbermann. This remark, if you trace the history of it, was put out in the ethers by none other than the Drudge Report & the New York Post, on a very slow news weekend for horse race. RFK JR, Bobby's son, spoke to the NYT & defended Clinton & her remarks. So, what it boils down to is the drama queen game here. The Obama camp is very quick to whine about how McCain and Clinton don't play fair, to keep their candidate in the news cycle. This story is nothing more, nothing less. And finally, I find it extremely offensive to suggest that only Obama is at risk from assassination attempts. So this constant victim card playing by Obama camp is looking a whole lot like Peter crying wolf. Sure, the remarks make Clinton look bad. But to me, the over the top reaction makes Obama look worse by comparison. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Ron Davies Date: 24 May 08 - 12:32 PM It's interesting that some people are still trying to defend the indefensible. How about some justification for using the word "assassinated"? Just why was that word necessary? Why not just talk about 1992, mentioning Bill, and 1968 with no more detail than that? You don't have to be a "Hillary hater"--just someone aware of the power of words--which Hillary certainly is--as any lawyer is--to see her comment was way beyond the pale. Just like "hard-working Americans, white Americans". She's aware of the power of words-yet can't control her own mouth. We don't need somebody like that in the White House. Exactly why are these comments by her just fine? |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Bobert Date: 24 May 08 - 12:44 PM Ya know, folks, I support Obama and have made no bones about my dislike of the Clintons but I think there is more than just a little ah-ha-gotcha goin' on here... Yes, she misspoke and as Jeri pointed out above the wording could have been a little clearer as the point she was trying to make... I really don't think that Hillary gave a 2nd thought to her remarks meaning anything but that some nominations aren't wrapped up until June... I disagree with her assessment, however, that this nomination falls in that category... I think she and Bill are toast... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Riginslinger Date: 24 May 08 - 12:58 PM On the plus side, though, she is getting a lot of noteriaty from her comments. She was in a position where she was just being ignored and she's out of money so she couldn't afford to buy television spots. And show business people have been saying for years that bad publicity is better than no publicity at all. At least she's back in front of the cameras, and as long as she can use those opportunities to drive home the point that it was a harmless comment, and then go on to talk about other issues relative to her campaign, it could end up being a good thing in the end. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: jacqui.c Date: 24 May 08 - 12:58 PM I would be a little concerned, if she got into the White House, that these 'mispeakings' could cause problems when dealing with matters that affect the country. If she can't think out her remarks now what hope is there of her doing any better as president? |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Amos Date: 24 May 08 - 01:12 PM It wasn't that much of a mis-speak. She just left out the phrase "while campaigning in a primary as late as June". Without that little piece added in, the whole ting seemed to b focusing on the assasination rather than on the late run of the Dem primaries. But by dropping it out, it sounded really loony--much loonier than she actually is. A |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Bill D Date: 24 May 08 - 01:13 PM Her choice of words was careless, given the 'tenderness' of the American psyche on the subject of assassination, but reading carefully and listening over & over, as the networks have forced us to do, I simply don't see how the comment rises to this level of opprobrium. I suspect those who were waiting to pounce 'decided' that this was their big chance...and they easily spun it into a 8.0 magnitude disaster. I am not a supporter of Hillary, and I have come to feel that Obama is the better choice, but among her various gaffes (like Bosnia) this slip in phrasing is pretty minor *to me*. I do NOT believe she meant it as an intentional raising of the assassination spectre. Yes, I see why ANY use of that word is dangerous, but she has made the point about "June primaries" six or seven times, and has usually not said it that way. Remember, she did not included it in a scripted speech, but was responding to a question, and digging into a tired memory for an answer...and just got the words arranged poorly. However....since it HAS been made such an issue, and since after a certain point the words take on a life of their own, I'd suggest that she use this as an easy way to suspend her campaign and 'heal the party'...or whatever words she'd like to use to just avoid more incidents. It is truly sad when the political process is so 'sensitive' that someone is hanging on every word, trying to twist ANY remark into a damning condemnation. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 24 May 08 - 01:41 PM And perhaps people could become as morally outraged and righteously indignant about Olbermann playing the same game as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al? Cuts both ways. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Stilly River Sage Date: 24 May 08 - 02:02 PM Disembodied sound bytes will kill you every time if they're repeated often enough. And none of the current candidates can hold a candle to the idiocy that has steadily poured out of the mouth of the current office holder. To use any of the examples of Wright, Hagee, and now this Kennedy flap, of misstatements or not-so-helpful supporters as a reason someone shouldn't be in the White House is ludicrous. Do you really think that voters should make their decision about who to vote for based upon this minutia that is being hammered away at? Turn off CNN, turn off Fox, turn off talk radio. Read a long detailed newspaper article that goes into the full context and provides balance and background. People have always stumbled in their public speaking, it is nothing new. It's just under the "all media all the time" mode now that makes a big deal of it. Instead of talking heads this is disembodied mouths. No one who is running for office deserves this kind of mindless yammering, and it is this steady flow from "news," blogs, and chatty threads that probably force a lot of people away from trying to discover the actual issues at hand. Starting yet another political thread on a single sentence in an entire campaign amounts to another poorly-conceived political thread here at Mudcat. This is nothing personal against the original poster here, there are quite a few Mudcatters who fly to their keyboards every time some statement that ruffles their feathers. Put on your critical thinking hats, people, tune out the noise. Go outside. It's nice out. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: CarolC Date: 24 May 08 - 02:15 PM Hillary invoked Bobby Kennedy's death on several occasions. The only difference was that this time was the first in which she actually used the word "assassinated". She seems to be quite confident that Obama's going to be taken out. Makes me wonder what she knows that we do not. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Riginslinger Date: 24 May 08 - 02:24 PM If she knew anything about that, would she talk about it in front of the cameras? |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 24 May 08 - 02:35 PM |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: CarolC Date: 24 May 08 - 02:38 PM If she knew anything about that, would she talk about it in front of the cameras? Sure, why not? |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Bat Goddess Date: 24 May 08 - 02:42 PM A little historical note here -- Bobby Kennedy didn't declare and START his run for the nomination until March of that year -- AFTER the New Hampshire primary. Back in those days, the campaign didn't start over a year before the first primary. He was assassinated eighty some odd days after he began his run. Elections, campaigns and party politics were very different 40 years ago. Linn |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: maire-aine Date: 24 May 08 - 02:45 PM Consider the source. Hillary Clinton will do anything and say anything to get elected. She feels she's entitled to it. Henry Clay said that he'd rather be right than be President. She'd rather be President than be right. M |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Bill D Date: 24 May 08 - 02:47 PM "She seems to be quite confident that Obama's going to be taken out. " That was a grotesque speculation, Carol! It should be beneath you to even consider such a thing. We have our disagreements, but I usually understand why you argue as you do.....this one leaves me speechless. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Bill D Date: 24 May 08 - 02:50 PM ...and on the other thread even worse! You practically accuse her of plotting! ....I can't even comment beyond a gasp... |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 24 May 08 - 02:51 PM I am clearly posting impaired today. In answer to you Rig, of course she wouldn't. She & her family are just as at risk as Obama & his family. She has never shown--and I mean NEVER--any proclivity towards making reckless and dangerous statements that would threaten anyone's personal security. So this accusation by the propaganda punditry and internet bottom feeders, that she would intentionally say something that put the security of Obama & his family at risk, is just plain vile. It is far too easy right now to ratchet up the drama and spin meister for your fave candidate on the internet, and get way too carried away with it all. You see it constantly on the most partisan blogs and websites, from Huffington Post on the supposed left, to Real Clear Politics on the right, are all doing it. As far as I am concerned, it is just plain out of control this election cycle. I have permanently turned away from all those sites, including some long standing icons of the alternative press, like The Nation. I stopped reading them in the run up to the 2004 election, because their editorial board was absolutely poisoned by presidential election partisan wars with the right. When the media is so poisoned, nothing makes sense any more. One read through of the political threads in this forum, like so many other forums that have become depressingly obsessed with horse race politics at the expense of all else, demonstrates the depth of the problem. I consider it a side effect of addiction to MSM, myself. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Bobert Date: 24 May 08 - 02:51 PM I saw some of this on Keith Olberman's show last night and a point I meant to make in my 1st post is that, if I have it correct, the Obama folks weren't behind pushing this and may not have given any thought to it themselves... Me thinks McMedia is up to its tricks again... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 24 May 08 - 03:00 PM You and I are in complete agreement there, BillD. But I have to say, I don't feel like the current thread originator did a much better job in presenting the topic either. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: CarolC Date: 24 May 08 - 03:02 PM That was a grotesque speculation, Carol! It should be beneath you to even consider such a thing. We have our disagreements, but I usually understand why you argue as you do.....this one leaves me speechless. Why? |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 24 May 08 - 03:03 PM Oh come on, CarolC. You are accusing Hillary Clinton of conspiracy to assassinate Obama? |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: CarolC Date: 24 May 08 - 03:08 PM I don't consider it to be outside the realm of possibility. She's been acting like she expects it for a long time. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 24 May 08 - 03:16 PM That's it. I'm outta here. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: CarolC Date: 24 May 08 - 03:21 PM Fantasma, if I remember correctly, you are one of the people who believes that Wellstone didn't die accidentally. Am I right about that? |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 24 May 08 - 03:26 PM No, you are wrong about that. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: CarolC Date: 24 May 08 - 03:29 PM Ok. Noted. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 24 May 08 - 03:35 PM As is your outrageous and offensive claim of the Clintons being involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Obama. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: CarolC Date: 24 May 08 - 03:39 PM It's only outrageous and offensive if it isn't true. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 24 May 08 - 03:48 PM Outta here for good. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Amos Date: 24 May 08 - 03:58 PM Well done, Carol. A |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Amos Date: 24 May 08 - 04:14 PM Damn. A |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: CarolC Date: 24 May 08 - 04:15 PM Also, I should point out that I have not accused anyone of anything. I have only said that her behavior makes me wonder about it as a possibility. And it does. I'm not going to pretend otherwise just to make some people in the Mudcat happy. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Stilly River Sage Date: 24 May 08 - 04:18 PM Whoa. Forget about cooling off in front of the computer for a few minutes--this thread is giving off the smell of singed skin and hair. I'm headed back out to chop some more poison ivy. |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Peace Date: 24 May 08 - 04:22 PM Artist: The Coasters (peak Billboard position # 7 in 1959) Words and Music by Jerry Lieber and Mike Stoller She comes on like a rose but everybody knows She'll get you in Dutch You can look but you better not touch Poison iv-y-y-y-y, poison iv-y-y-y-y Late at night while you're sleepin' poison ivy comes a'creepin' Arou-ou-ou-ou-ou-ound She's pretty as a daisy but look out man she's crazy She'll really do you in If you let her under your skin Poison iv-y-y-y-y, poison iv-y-y-y-y Late at night while you're sleepin' poison ivy comes a'creepin' Arou-ou-ou-ou-ou-ound Measles make you bumpy And mumps'll make you lumpy And chicken pox'll make you jump and twitch A common cold'll fool ya And whooping cough can cool ya But poison ivy, Lord'll make you itch!! You're gonna need an ocean of calamine lotion You'll be scratchin' like a hound The minute you start to mess around Poison iv-y-y-y-y, poison iv-y-y-y-y Late at night while you're sleepin' poison ivy comes a'creepin' Arou-ou-ou-ou-ou-ound Measles make you bumpy And mumps'll make you lumpy And chicken pox'll make you jump and twitch A common cold'll fool ya And whooping cough can cool ya But poison ivy, Lord'll make you itch!! You're gonna need an ocean of calamine lotion You'll be scratchin' like a hound The minute you start to mess around Poison iv-y-y-y-y, poison iv-y-y-y-y Late at night while you're sleepin' poison ivy comes a'creepin' Arou-ou-ou-ou-ou-ound la da la da la da la da la da la da la da la da la da la da la da la da |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: GUEST,Stringsinger Date: 24 May 08 - 05:26 PM Your criticisms of Olbermann deny the fact that he is probably the only newscaster on national media who is telling the truth. In fact, his wit is a saving grace. I remember the McCarthy era when Edward R. Murrow was given short-shrift in the same way for truth-telling. Keith's rant about Hillary was absolutely appropriate and I for one don't want her in the White House. Where's her ability for diplomacy in a world that needs this of our president more than all the military posturing and macho-breast-beating about attacking instead of the cowardice of avoiding negotiations with those leaders who we don't like? This latest faux-pas goes along with her "obliteration" remarks regarding Iran. In her autobiography, she talks about deliberately avoiding Castro by running off from him rather than having a substantive talk. I think she may be McCain in a pantsuit. Olbermann is not a coward nor an equivocator such as the other bobble-headed so-called pundits on national media. He tells it like he sees it. He is honest. This specious dismissal of his talents indicate that there are those who don't get it when it comes to truthful revelations. They prefer to denigrate the messenger out of some kind of snob appeal. No one has successfully brought the hypocrisy to the attention of the American public on national media until Donahue and Olbermann. Bill Moyers is at the mercy of PBS and doesn't get the exposure that he deserves. Olbermann has the good sense to call upon Rachel Madow and Eugene Robinson for an analytic political viewpoint without the reactionary knee-jerk that reflects the voting public today who are in thrall to the infotainment newscasters. You better be thankful for our democracy that we have someone like Keith Olbermann around. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Amos Date: 24 May 08 - 05:42 PM SAN JUAN, P.R. -- This afternoon, Barack Obama responded to Hillary Clinton's comments yesterday when she referenced th assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as a reason she's staying in the race this year. Obama said he believes that Clinton was not trying to be offensive. "I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Senator Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make and I think that is what happened here," Obama said in a radio interview today. "Senator Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it and I will take her at her word on that."
|
|
Subject: RE: Hillary's Offensive, Dangerous Comment From: Joe Offer Date: 24 May 08 - 05:58 PM Some people go through life, looking for things to take offense at. I think it's clear that Mrs. Clinton didn't mean to imply anything about an assassination in this campaign. Her point was simply that she's not ready to give up. I'm glad Barack Obama was more sensible and gracious about it than the pundits were. Makes me think he might make a good president. Maybe we'd all be better off if we were less easily offended. Maybe this election would mean something if people actually cared about the issues and not all the minor mistakes that human people make naturally. I'm still convinced that we have THREE very good candidates for president this year. I don't know that I agree with the closure of this thread, but I guess I'll leave it closed. -Joe Offer- |
| Share Thread: |