she said it, and nothing until someone not in his campaign caught it and the radio station suspended her. She's defending herself, and Obama, who apparently likes her, hasn't distanced himself from her remarks. It's the no standard for him and even bogus standards for her, which is the way it's been going in this nutty race.  It's funny, here is a real chance for Obama to inspire his supporters to repudiate hate speech and he won't.  Why not? Why protect hate speech even if you do like the hate speaker?  And how can  you like someone that divisive and unpleasant. You'd think he hadn't had a mother, didn't have a wife, didn't have daughters, to think there is no consequences to even tacitly endorsing hate speech.  

Errr, dude... one was on the rec list, just the other day. I know the author was speaking somewhat metaphorically, but it was there. Perhaps you didn't rec it personally?

atdleft, first you say you don't go to Hillaryis44 and then you say it's to weird for you? How can it be to weird for you if you've never been there? You just outed yourself.

That boat has likely sailed. Obama should have done away with this already before it was news, but he does not have a record of repudiating the repulsive behavior of his associates on his own.

He'll just leave out any reference to Randi Rhodes ;)

The SNL routine writes itself.

Standing next to someone at a rally for you = having nothing whatsoever to do with a statement?

What Mostly said. I'm just trying to understand a set way to judge these things, y'know, for both sides. So, you tell me what the standard is, and we'll apply it.

Oh, so it's okay with you if we call Michelle a big, fucking whore? And you think that's no more offensive than saying someone has a trust fund?

As for James Carville, he went to bat for Samantha Powers and said that she didn't say anything wrong. He's got latitude.

And now I'm getting troll-rated for making absolutely try and unoffensive statements?  What is going on here?

"Comments made by Randi Rhodes were made during a Green 960 Event on March 22nd.  Those in attendance were required to sign up through Green960.com and paid $5 to attend.  Money raised went to Green960."

http://www.green960.com/cc-common/mainhe adlines2.html?feed=213008&article=34 93425

Even better:

There's a lot of talk in the diaries about whether the San Francisco event at which Randi Rhodes, doing her best to unite and uplift the nation, called Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro "whores" was an Obama fundraiser, i.e. a sanctioned Obama campaign event. Those who insist that it was, point to a page on barackobama.com promoting the event as proof; the problem with this argument though is that if you look at the url it's technically on my.barackobama.com. Why is this important? Because the point of my.barackobama.com is to allow supporters to organize and create a community on their own. It's no accident that the Obama campaign uses the same online tools as the Democratic Party website does; this is part of the legacy of the Dean campaign.

This event was created by and for Obama supporters using these tools. That's called user-generated, bottom-up people powered organizing. Saying that Obama should be held responsible for what happens at any event organized and promoted through these online tools is akin to holding me, Jerome or Jonathan accountable for every crazy word written in the diaries, which fundamentally misunderstands the point of a community blog -- that it's a community where people are empowered to create content and a community. Barack Obama likes to say that "change happens from the bottom up" and that "this campaign is not about me, it's about you" and quite frankly, his web tools reflect this philosophy.

Now, I will say the fact that Randi Rhodes said what she said at an event that was organized to raise money for Barack is further evidence of Rhodes's stunningly poor judgment -- as a public figure who has endorsed Barack Obama -- but it has nothing to do with Barack's judgment. To claim otherwise, quite frankly, is disingenuous.

Emphasis mine.

here.

No kidding, huh? You ignored my other "lame" comparisons. Now, WHO is the lame one?

Rhodes was not speaking at an Obama fundraiser and no money was raised for Obama.  The money raised went to a local San Francisco radio station.

"Comments made by Randi Rhodes were made during a Green 960 Event on March 22nd.  Those in attendance were required to sign up through Green960.com and paid $5 to attend.  Money raised went to Green960."

http://www.green960.com/cc-common/mainhe adlines2.html?feed=213008&article=34 93425

or anyone in a position of authority with or connected to the campaign post it on his web site?

No.

Hillaryis44.org raises money for Hillary, even going so far to ask all donors to give an additional 44 cents to identify the source. Given the site's un-American rhetoric, Hillary should return that money and apologize for the sentiments of her supporters.

Right?