Did Obama Accuse Clinton Of Plotting His Assasination?

Hey, folks.  

Remember when Hillary basically called Obama a muslim scumbag, by taking him at his word?

No?  Well then, its a good thing stuff floats around the internets for a while.  This is just a random sampling from Daily Kos:

Hillary: "I take him at his word," Obama Not a Muslim [video]
by turneresq
Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:32:08 PM PDT
This is probably gonna get some blowback. The issues of Obama being a Muslim (not that there is anything wrong with that) has repeatedly been roundly debunked. But it is something that is still circulating and is a source of frustration for the Obama Campaign.

There are still whisper campaigns out there (some from the Clinton Campaign.) To be fair, those staffers were let go. But tonight's 60 Minutes will probably generate some chatter.

Tonight on 60 minutes Steve Kroft talks to Hillary and Obama as well as voters. This quote from Clinton is frankly bizarre, and will probably generate negative news for her. Thanks to Hope08 for the link to the transcript.

It happened again last week, when a photo of Obama in ceremonial African tribal dress during a visit to Kenya was featured prominently on the Internet and attributed to people in the Clinton campaign.

Senator Clinton disavowed any knowledge of it.

"You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?" Kroft asked Sen. Clinton.

"Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that," she replied.

"You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not...a Muslim. You don't believe that he's...," Kroft said.

"No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know," she said.

Absolutely bizarre to me. This sounds like she has some lingering doubts, but will give Obama the benefit of the doubt as far as these claims. I'm sure we'll have video later, but I think she has some 'splaning to do, especially on the heels of the criticism she took for the campaign's (non?) role in the "Obama in Somail Garb" flap which generated this tacky defense from Stephanie Tubbs Jones:

Check out 60 Minutes tonight.

Update: Video is here.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 Election, Muslim Smear, Recommended (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 1210 comments

Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always)  | Indented Flat (Always)

Daily Kos Help

Tips (329+ / 0-)

I don't know what she was thinking.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/2/1 9235/02786/275/467539

You will note that there are 329 recommends on this particular diary.  There were also hundreds of comments, most of which claimed that Hillary is an ambitious bitch who is destroying the party because she took Obama at his word.

So, what did Barack Obama have to say about Hillary Clinton's statement regarding the fact that when RFK ran for President, the nomination was not decided before June?

"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," he said in an interview with Radio ISLA. "Senator Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it, and I will take her at her word on that."

OK, so there you have it, folks.  Just like Senator Clinton allegedly pushed the Obama muslim smears by taking him on his word, Obama has pushed the Clinton assasination smears by taking her on her word.  

Right, Obama supporters?

We're not using double standards here, are we?

This diary is going to be filled to the brim with Obama supporters saying they will NEVER vote for Obama, because he is an ambitious asshole who is ruining the party in his bloodthirsty quest for power, by stating that he took her at her word, instead of outright debunking the smear, right?

I'll hang up and listen.  

I'm sure you won't disappoint me with double standards aimed at making all things Obama good and all things Clinton racist pond scum shit.

UPDATE: People should keep in mind that it wasn't just Obama supporters on the internet pushing the meme that Hillary taking Obama at his word was a "gaffe" or a "dog whistle". The media was eager to use Hillary taking Barack at his word as proof positive as to why we should vote Obama over Hillary. You can click all the links to see all the national pundits who saw Clinton taking Obama at his word as Clinton calling Obama a muslim terrorist, but your best bet is to click the MediaMatters link below, for a summary. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Taking_Obama_at_his_word.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/02/clinton-as-far-as-i-kno_n_89488.html http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200803/CUL20080303a.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHFREDHB-nQ http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/clinton-says-ob.html http://mediamatters.org/columns/200803110002 Something tells me we won't see ABC News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico or HuffingtonPost publishing article/diary after article/diary, day after day, claiming that we should vote for Hillary, because Obama took her at her word. I certainly won't hold my breath.

Tags: assasination, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, RFK, Robert F. Kennedy (all tags)



Re: Did Obama Accuse

Why all the hate?  Step away from the computer.  It's a beautiful day.  Go enjoy it.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-26 08:48AM | 0 recs
No hate. Just discussions of double standards.

Care to weigh in, or are you content hijacking the thread?

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-26 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: No hate. Just discussions of double standards.

Yes.  I find your analysis specious, based on anger and an irrational desire to freak out.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-26 08:52AM | 0 recs
Then you misunderstand my tone.

I'm not claiming outrage at Obama for taking her at her word.  

I'm pointing out the massive double standard by Obama supporters, who claim that he took the high road by taking her at her word, while also claiming that when Hillary took Obama at his word, she was being a calculating bitch.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-26 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Then you misunderstand my tone.

I won't characterize her in the language you have used, as it does not reflect my views.

I will simply say that, as far as I know, you're not a furry.  As far as I know.

I've heard all the stories that you're a furry.  That you have sex dressed up as cartoon characters and cute, cuddly animals, but that, as far as I know, you're not one.  Yes, I've heard that that's your thing, but, as far as I know, that's not your bag.

In the context that she used it, that phrase was faint praise indeed.

For the record, I am not actually suggesting that you are a furry.  I don't think you are one.  I just wanted to make the point that the way she constructed that sentence was either idiotic or calculated.  Opportunistic, maybe.

Also, I don't blame Senator Clinton, necessarily, for everything her staffers or supporters do.  In this instance I'm taking issue with her words.  You appear to think that we are being hypocritical for condemning Clinton's words, but not those of an Obama staffer.  You may not agree that the distinction matters, but the fact that we might certainly undercuts your thesis.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-26 09:00AM | 0 recs
I WILL take you on the basis of what you say, but

I will NOT take you at your word.

Can you figure out if what I just typed is consistent, or contradictory?

I'll hang up and listen (as far as I know).

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-26 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: I WILL take you on the basis of

Whatever dichotomy exists is minor as compared with the passive-aggressive to outright aggressive nature of this diary.

You seem to actually want a fight.  I'm not going to give you one.  I've addressed your point inasmuch as I'm willing.  And yes, I did address it.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-26 09:20AM | 0 recs
Stop changing the subject. I don't want a fight. I

want a discussion on double standards.

BTW:  Have you read my update?  

Care to comment on the media's role in Hillary taking Barack at his word vs. Barack taking Hillary at hers?

Sooner or later, you Obama supporters might want to start worrying about why General Electric (NBC/MSNBC) and so many other mega-corporation owned news outlets are in the bag for Obama.  

You think the executives at General Electric are tree hugging hippy liberals who are backing Obama to further a pro-citizen/anti-corporate agenda?  

Why do you think they are pushing so hard to get every American upset with Hillary for taking Barack at his word, while not even letting Joe Lunchpack know that Barack just took Hillary at hers?

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-26 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop changing the subject. I

It's entirely possible that people like Olbermann, Matthews, and even Russert are sick of a candidate who will attempt to redefine mathematics and reality in order to convince people that a spade is, in fact, a pickup truck.

But please, by all means, appeal to my corporate fears!  Yes, that's the trick.

Is it possible that we overreacted to Hillary's "as far as I know" meme?  Maybe so.  Is it possible that Obama is being passive aggressive in regards to the specter of his own assassination?  Sure, it's possible.

But I really don't think so.  I imagine the Obama family spazzed slightly at the remark, and calmed down after a few hours.  That's an entirely human reaction, and one that is consistent with the facts as we know them.

Any chance you might imagine that the Obama family really, really did not like the remark itself?  But that, upon some reflection, dialed it back a notch?

Any chance you might concede that Obama supporters who thought that the assassination remark was ill-advised aren't out of their minds?  I never thought she was advocating for his death, or even hoping for it.

That doesn't mean she shouldn't apologize to the Obamas if they were hurt or offended by the remarks.  That's what civility is all about.  If you hurt another human being, even inadvertently, you should try to make amends.

Humility isn't Hillary's thing.  That's fine.  But don't expect it to always help her.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-26 09:34AM | 0 recs
I'm not playing that GAME. Stop mischaracterizing

the remark before setting the rules for the debate.

No, I don't think the Obama family was freaked out about Hillary pointing out the fact that when Bill Clinton and RFK were running for POTUS, they did not have their respective nominations locked up before June.

If you want to discuss what she said, as opposed to the pro-Obama corporate media spin of what she said into something she most certainly did not say, I'm game.  

If you want to pretend she was discussing the possibility of assasination because it is politically expedient for you to do so, instead of the fact that sometimes the Dems don't have a candidate until June, then just... well... how do I say this... suck it!

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-26 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not playing that GAME.

Well, since we're going off into such brave new territory, let me remind you that in 1968 they had only completed 13 primaries prior to the assassination of Senator Kennedy.  While it is factually true that the contest lasted until June, it is a misleading statement, as the primary calendar had started months later than they do now.

As to 1992, Tim Russert referred to Bill Clinton as the presumptive nominee in early April.  While he did not have the necessary delegates to eliminate the possibility of his loss, the math was glaringly obvious that he would win, and Russert said as much.

All analogies are suspect, but some just outright fail.  Comparing this election cycle with those two is intellectually bankrupt, as the differences are so significant as to make whatever point Senator Clinton had in mind frankly illogically related to them.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-26 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: I WILL take you on the basis of what you say,

This diary is pretty desperate. Even by the Wreck List standards.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-26 10:17AM | 0 recs
This diary is more detritus

the likes of which will be flushed away June 5th at the latest.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-05-26 11:13AM | 0 recs
Media Matters on As Far as I Know

Less than one second:

Less than one second. That's how long it took Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to answer, "Of course not," to Steve Kroft's question on 60 Minutes about whether she thought Sen. Barack Obama was a Muslim. You can time it yourself by watching the clip at YouTube.

Still, that didn't stop MSNBC's Chris Matthews from complaining on-air last week that it took Clinton "the longest time" to answer Kroft's question.

The fact is, if you look at Clinton's exchange with Kroft in its entirety, which lasted less than one minute, I count eight separate times in which she either plainly denied the false claim that Obama was Muslim, labeled that suggestion to be a smear, or expressed sympathy for Obama having to deal with the Muslim innuendo. Eight times:

    CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's--you know, there is not basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

   KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.

   CLINTON: Right. Right.

   KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying? Right.

   CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

   KROFT: It's just scurrilous --

   CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.

by catfish2 2008-05-26 09:53AM | 0 recs
yeah, well um

what if there's nothing wrong with being a furry?  What if we live in a country where being a furry is a constitutionally guaranteed right?
What if the country has a recent history of ugly furry hating that you stand strongly against, but yet there are folks out there (the majority) who consider furries the enemy?

You're talk get's a little more measured and careful then, doesn't it?

Better example would be gay.  Imagine a widely held belief out there that Obama was gay.  How would it read for Clinton to have answered "Absolutely not!  I am completely certain Obama is not gay!"  Offensive, no?

You can't play both sides of the net and then try to shoot the person trying to cross the court without interrupting your game.  If she came out too strongly it would sound as if being Muslim was a bad thing.  If she came off too soft she would be "spreading the rumor" he's Muslim.  So which is it?  Is it a bad thing..or not?

She gave the most diplomatic answer possible without going on too long about it (and being accused of "pushing the story").  Her answer made perfect sense -- I trust the man that he is what he says he is.  No one can climb inside another person's mind and heart to PROVE their religious beliefs.  I suppose she could have made some huge pro-Obama statement of how she KNOWS Obama to be a good Christian, but I've got ten ways she would have been hung on a fence for that.

If Obama needs to prove his Christianity or finds the need to disavow any hint of Muslim in him that's HIS job, not hers.  

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-26 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: yeah, well um

"If Obama needs to prove his Christianity or finds the need to disavow any hint of Muslim in him that's HIS job, not hers."

Correct, and he has been doing that.  However, if someone asked you if a friend of yours, or a coworker even, was a Muslim and you factually knew that she wasn't, would you use the phrase "as far as I know" or would you just say "no"?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-26 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Then you misunderstand my tone.

There is a huge difference.

What was she 'taking him at his word' on?  His freaking faith!  His very identity.  There is nothing ambiguous about that.  

There is a real effort by the darkest neocons to paint Obama as a threat to the nation because he's a 'Black Muslim.'  That's what we're dealing with in this still racist country.  He's been forced to defend his patriotism and his religion because he's a black man with a Muslim name.  When you say, "I take him at his word" that he's not a secret terrorist or whatever, that's messed up.  We're not just relying on his word for that and implying that absolutely plays into the racist bastards spreading the smear.  She left doubt on purpose.  

I honestly can't understand how any Democrat could still be defending her other than some sad Stockholm Syndrome effect or something.

The outrage about Hillary is not manufactured.  She has behaved reprehensibly.  

by Sun Dog 2008-05-26 10:25AM | 0 recs
So you feel the same about barack taking

Hillary at word regarding the rfk assasinarion, right?

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-27 04:07AM | 0 recs
answer the question...

"anger" = red herring. You really ought to answer the question rather than trying to avoid it with a red herring.

by soyousay 2008-05-26 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: No hate. Just discussions of double standards.

hi-jacking is one of the primary ploys of the BHO cabal here

by zerosumgame 2008-05-26 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: No hate. Just discussions of double standards.

that and hiding instead of debating :)

by zerosumgame 2008-05-26 01:02PM | 0 recs
Move along folks! Nothing to see here.

Just another troll diary.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-26 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: No hate. Just discussions of double standards.

You TR'd me for absolutely no reason whatsoever:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/25/2 24241/074/240#240

So I TR everything you post from now on. You can remove that unwarranted TR or keep it there. Your choice.

by Deano963 2008-05-26 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: No hate. Just discussions of double standards.

You actually went on a TR abuse rampage I see from looking at the comments you have TR'd. I'm calling oyyo out - explain yourself.

by Deano963 2008-05-26 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: No hate. Just discussions of double standards.

Like I said above, BHOers are all about hi-jacking.

by zerosumgame 2008-05-26 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: No hate. Just discussions of double standards.

that makes 2 offenses you committed in 2 comments :)

by zerosumgame 2008-05-26 01:05PM | 0 recs
Can't stand it when someone calls you

on your double-standard, can you?

We have long memories.  Afterall, we take you at your (prior) words!!

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 09:11AM | 0 recs
I'd better get this tip jar up quick, before the

Obama supporters rush in to hijack the thread!

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-26 08:48AM | 0 recs
LMFAO, not fast enough, I guess. Sigh.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-26 08:49AM | 0 recs
yes he did.

Obama is trying to have it both ways here.

by 4justice 2008-05-26 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: yes he did.

Please don't conflate Obama with his supporters. I don't think Hillary is a racist moron, but I certainly can't say the same of those over at Hillis44.

by grass 2008-05-26 09:12AM | 0 recs
Hey, looks like one of the morons

from Hillis44 troll rated me.

Look, I've been over there, occasionally on an election night, and that place sickens me.

No one should make excuses for those idiots.

by grass 2008-05-26 09:27AM | 0 recs
Hijacking this diary...

Obama supporters rush in to hijack the thread!

...would be like trying to hijack a tricycle.

by juliewolf 2008-05-26 08:56AM | 0 recs
This coming from someone who is LITERALLY a

troll at MyDD.

Whatever you are at Daily Kos, you are a troll here.   But of course you must know that, because that's why you come here - to troll.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-26 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: This coming from someone who is LITERALLY a


That would be a neat trick :)

by juliewolf 2008-05-26 09:08AM | 0 recs
That was actually funny (shakes it off and gets

indignant again).

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-26 09:11AM | 0 recs
Didn't you just post a Kumbaya diary?

Nice that you follow your own advice!

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Didn't you just post a Kumbaya diary?

She explicitly excluded deadenders, such as yourself, from the new protocol.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-26 09:25AM | 0 recs
Oh, I just realized...she said

she'd commit to be nice on June 4th - so we still have to wait to see the transformation.

My bad.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Accuse Clinton Of Plotting His Assas

Nothing to hijack.

by niksder 2008-05-26 08:50AM | 0 recs
Thanks for the keen insight into the issue of

double standards.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-26 08:52AM | 0 recs
So what you're saying is,

Hillary didn't engage in assassination instigation, as far as you know?

Look, I understand your frustration with the silly "as far as I know" scandal, but two wrongs don't make a right. This diary is unnecessarily harsh, and I don't think it will accomplish much (except perhaps inciting anger from half the people on this blog). Besides, I don't think most Obama supporters honestly think she was calling for his assassination. Let's all try to cut each other a little slack, eh?

by sricki 2008-05-26 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: So what you're saying is,

try a mirror someday

by zerosumgame 2008-05-26 09:01AM | 0 recs
What is that supposed to mean? n/t

by sricki 2008-05-26 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: So what you're saying is,

Thank you.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-26 09:01AM | 0 recs
Most Obama supporters claim that he took the high

road, simply by taking her at her word.

These are mostly the same Obama supporters that, when she took him at his word, claimed that by taking him at his word, she was really "pushing the smear".  You remember?  "She's a career politician.  She's so calculating.  Everything she says is focus group tested.  That was a dog whistle."  You don't remember that stuff?

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-26 09:04AM | 0 recs
Of course I remember, and that's

part of my point. Let's try to be bigger than the people who were pushing that garbage. There's no need to throw it back in their faces. We should strive to be better than that.

by sricki 2008-05-26 09:08AM | 0 recs
I'm not throwing it in their faces to start a

fight.  I'm attempting to show them how silly they are being, so they voluntarily stop being so silly.  I know its close to a lost cause, but I figured I'd try.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-26 09:12AM | 0 recs
Yes... I think it's evident from some of the

comments on this thread that it's a lost cause. Sad, really.

by sricki 2008-05-26 09:15AM | 0 recs
point of order

being a Muslim is not comparable to promoting assassins. Except to George Bush and Friends.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-26 10:04AM | 0 recs
i agree with most of what you are saying...

the diary is harsh in tone and probably doesnt accomplish much, but many BO supporters do think this and therefore i would support the diarist in pointing out a double standard albeit in a more respectable tenor.  non?

by canadian gal 2008-05-26 11:47AM | 0 recs
Heh, I think we both know the answer to that.

Once a double standard, always a double standard. I don't expect it will be corrected quickly by those who have applied it.

by sricki 2008-05-26 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Accuse Clinton Of Plotting His Assas

"As far as I know" and "I'll take her at her word on that" are totally different statements.  "As far as I know" implies that you don't know and "I'll take her at her word" implies that you believe what she says.  How are you equating the two?

by catalysis 2008-05-26 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Accuse Clinton Of Plotting His Assas

I dont think this is right.  She is not saying "as far as i know" about his being a muslin but to BO comment.  Those are different things.  And while i am on it.  I dont think the qoute is right.  She initially say No, no, of course not.

And while i am really on it.  HRC and BO are both lawyers and "i take them at their word" means no inho in lawyer speak.


by giusd 2008-05-26 09:06AM | 0 recs
Agreed, she denied the smear several

times before she said, "As far as I know." Obama supporters tried to pretend that was all she said.

by sricki 2008-05-26 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Agreed, she denied the smear several

And i agree with you it is time to move on and stop debating these issues.


by giusd 2008-05-26 09:20AM | 0 recs
Nice selective reading. But try this:

I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

If that isn't "I'll take him at his word", WTF is?  Are there not multiple ways of saying the same exact thing?  Can you not string different words together to convey the exact same message?  Did she have to say "I take him at his word" in order to convey the fact that she was taking him "on the basis of what he says"?  WTF?!?!?

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-26 09:07AM | 0 recs
Yup. Also, she went on to say that she

knew how it felt to be the target of all those smears. So she was acknowledging that it was a smear. I can't believe some of the Obama supporters around here are still pushing this issue...

But again, I think perhaps we should just let them wallow in their ignorance.

by sricki 2008-05-26 09:13AM | 0 recs
A distinction without a difference

I hear a number of people claim that a certain person is Jewish.  Someone else tells me he thinks the person is Catholic.  I respond "As far as I know, he's Jewish."  

My response under the circumstances would be completely appropriate, because I wasn't actually present as his bar mitzvah but believe based on evidence that he is Jewish, not Catholic.

by lombard 2008-05-26 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Accuse Clinton Of Plotting His Assas

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-26 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Accuse Clinton Of Plotting His Assas

"...as far as I know." - leaves the door open for speculation.

"...I will take her at her word on that." - case closed, end of discussion.

One answer is firm, the other is weak.

by neonplaque 2008-05-26 09:04AM | 0 recs
Dead wrong. See my response to catalysis above.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-26 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Dead wrong. See my response

Please, stop acting like your opinion is objective.  There were no facts in your analysis so there is nothing for him to be "dead wrong" about.  It is a difference of opinion and obviously one that you failed to convince many people about.  

by matchles 2008-05-26 09:18AM | 0 recs
Your mistake is in mixing up facts with opinions.

It is a fact that "I take him at his word" is the exact same thing as "I take him on the basis of what he says."

I'd hate to say "nuff said", but I can't think of anything else more appropriate at this moment.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-26 09:33AM | 0 recs
No, it's not.

But, whatever. Being outraged apparently is what sustains you, so have at it.

by Massadonious 2008-05-26 09:44AM | 0 recs
Please read my update and comment with

your perspective.

I'm not angry.  I'm interested in your opinion.  I don't think you'll give it to me. I think you'll keep calling me angry and ignoring the substance, but I'm still interested.

What is your opinion on the manner in which the media handled Hillary taking Barack at his word, vs. vice versa?

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-26 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Please read my update and comment with

Right, Obama supporters?

We're not using double standards here, are we?

This diary is going to be filled to the brim with Obama supporters saying they will NEVER vote for Obama, because he is an ambitious asshole who is ruining the party in his bloodthirsty quest for power, by stating that he took her at her word, instead of outright debunking the smear, right?

I'll hang up and listen.  

I'm sure you won't disappoint me with double standards aimed at making all things Obama good and all things Clinton racist pond scum shit.

I'm sorry, but going by this, you're not looking for discussion at all. You're looking to pick a fight, so you can assert your point and slam the "double standard" meme down our throat.

And, I refuse to stoke your fire.

So, have at it.

by Massadonious 2008-05-26 10:36AM | 0 recs
Thanks for proving me right! i said you'd

Continue calling me angry and ignoring the substance (b/c you CAN'T argue the substance), and you certainly didn't disappoint,  You can always pick out the Obama zombies from the Obama supporters.  The zombies ignore all fact and reasoning and settle for personal insults and attempts to kill the messenger, whenever the message is unimpeachable.  You have not only proven yourself one of the zombiesn but by implication, you've conceded that I'm right about the double standard.  Thanks!

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-27 03:43AM | 0 recs
This is a crap diary?

Take it down, please delete

by telfishbackagain 2008-05-26 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: This is a crap diary?

There is no need to hide rate this.

Get a grip.

by Massadonious 2008-05-26 09:09AM | 0 recs
Can someone please...

direct me to MyDD?

Because apparently, it looks like I got lost at Hillaryis44.

by Massadonious 2008-05-26 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Can someone please...

Yes, that's it. Troll rate me if it makes you feel better.

I feed off your sour grapes.

by Massadonious 2008-05-26 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Can someone please...

I up-rated your first comment, but down-rated this one.

We've got a lot of work to do, but first and foremost is not antagonizing fellow Democrats.  Some posters here are trolls, but this diarist I do not believe is.

by neonplaque 2008-05-26 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Can someone please...

Yeah, I know. My emotions got the better of me.

Just seemed like an unnecessary TR to me.

by Massadonious 2008-05-26 10:46AM | 0 recs

Obama is very good at playing Clinton's victim. He's much better at it than Clinton is at playing Obama's victim. Plus, the media helps feed into it with it's "poor Obama" pundit opinions. Keitho actually does "poor Obama" special segments although he doesn't actually call it that. This behavior will do him in during the GE though. IMO, it makes Obama look weak and for the most part, Americans don't want a weak president.

by soyousay 2008-05-26 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: weak

TR for TR abuse... please remove your unwarranted TR and I'll do the same

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-26 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: weak

You troll rate my posts all the time because you have an "anger management problem," in my opinion. My post doesn't merit a TR. You're just angry because my post wasn't positive when it comes to Obama.

by soyousay 2008-05-26 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: weak

HAHAHA.. dude grow up.

I've actually been mojoing posts that received unwarranted TRs from both sides all morning.

Please, act like an adult.... I have NEVER once gotten angry because of some dumb blog post... seriously dude.. step back from the keyboard

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-26 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: weak

Grow up? You're the one that TR all the time...Whatever makes you feel better.

by soyousay 2008-05-26 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Accuse Clinton Of Plotting His Assas

The difference is between knowing something to be a fact and someone's explanation for something.  If the point Clinton was making was as she says it is there was no reason to bring up the assassination.  That she meant no harm when raising the subject is something we can take at her word.  

Obama as a Muslim however is something she knows for a fact to be not true.  She has been at Christian prayer breakfasts with him, she has appeared at a debate on Faith sponsored by a Christian organization where they talked about religion at depth.  She knows for a fact he is not a Muslim.  That is the difference.

No reasonable person can assume Obama is a hidden Muslim; however, a reasonable person can assume Clinton intentionally raised the issue of assassination, not because she wishes for it to happen, but because she wishes to play on the fear, expressed by many, that it could.  It is a reason for SDs to support her, that the country is not ready for a black President and the country is not ready to take the gamble to go through another tragic event.  The fact she has never directly addressed this in her statements afterwards, and the fact that she has resorted to playing on people's fears in her statements and ads already, can lead reasonable people to assume this wasn't a case of carelessness but was one of desperate calculation.

by Piuma 2008-05-26 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Accuse Clinton Of Plotting His Assas

Right.  The difference is between a statement of fact and a statement that involves interpretation.  

Obama has stated he is Christian.  There is conclusive proof of this.  For HRC to say she believes Obama, "as far as she knows," is deliberately raising doubts about a statement of fact.  

It would be the same if Obama had said, "I believe Hillary Clinton is a heterosexual, as far as I know."  

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-26 09:36AM | 0 recs
Don't misread this, but saying you are christian

does not make it a "fact" or "prove" it.  It is your word, not a fact.  That is why Hillary "took him on his word".

Again, don't misread this.  I am in NO WAY suggesting that he is NOT christian.  I'm just saying that it doesn't become a fact because he says so, especially given that the whole point of the smear is that he's a "secret" muslim.  In other words, the entire smear is based on him LYING and SAYING he's christian when he's SECRETLY really a muslim.  In other words, how can he debunk claims that he's lying about his faith, by pointing to what he says about his faith?  Or to go back to my main point - the premise of your comment is incorrect.  Just because he said he's not a secret muslim does not prove that he's not a secret muslim.  I know he's not a secret muslim, but it doesn't change the fact that your logic was flawed in that last comment.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-26 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Accuse Clinton Of Plotting His Assas

Ya know PJ..if you thought that posting here at MyDD(which has gained a rep as a pro-Clinton site)
that your "insight" would be more welcome then when you posted gems like these at kos


You may be wrong...

by nogo postal 2008-05-26 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Accuse Clinton Of Plotting His Assas

DDo Obama supporters accuse Clinton of supporting our invasion of Iraq?

You bet...

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro ll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?con gress=107&vote=00237&session=2

by nogo postal 2008-05-26 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Accuse Clinton Of Plotting His Assas

You're not comparing the words of Obama and Clinton, but the words of Obama and someone's interpretation of his words.  Not the same thing.  

by freedom78 2008-05-26 10:45AM | 0 recs
Oh please

The trigger words which made Clinton's statement so objectionable were "so far as I know".    

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-05-26 10:50AM | 0 recs
no big deal?

Hillary Clinton is a woman, so far as I know.
Hillary Clinton is a patriot, so far as I know.
Hillary Clinton is Chelsea's mother, so fas as I know.
Hillary Clinton is not a lesbian, so far as I know.
Hillary Clinton is not an appeaser, so far as I know.
Hillary Clinton is not a man-hater, so far as I know.
Hillary Clinton is not a communist, so far as I know.

You still think her "so far as I know" remark was totally inconsequential?

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-26 10:55AM | 0 recs
She didn't call for his assasination...

"as far as I know".  

Know what I mean?

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-27 05:25AM | 0 recs
Yeah! What he said! How OFFENSIVE!!!!!!!!!!!! nt

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-27 05:26AM | 0 recs
Oh, please right back at ya.

As far as I know, you blindly support Obama, so you took comments from Hillary that were entirely innocent, and continuously insist, against all logic and reasoning, on painting them as offensive.  

As far as I know, you continue to do so, no matter how silly it makes you look, and no matter how much it ruins your credibility going forward.

Remember, I'm not claiming to know that you are looking really silly here, or that by claiming the use of the words "as far as I know" was a bad thing will cause you to lose credibility going forward on MyDD.  I'm just saying you're looking really silly and ruining your credibility "as far as I (PJ Jefferson) know".

Know what I mean?

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-27 05:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Accuse Clinton Of Plotting His Assas

as far as I know...

by nogo postal 2008-05-26 10:58AM | 0 recs

Sigh... another MyDD piefight...You guys think anybody is swayed by any of this childish back and forth?

by MediaFreeze 2008-05-26 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Piefight....

I think the diarist has a point, especially as regards the media double standard in the primary. The as-far-as-i-know-gate media swarm is an excellent example of how the media has taken everything that comes out of Clinton's mouth as proof of her vile evil intent.

However, aiming the main thrust of the diary at Obama supporters was injudicious. If you start a conversation with a punch in the face, you are asking for a fight, not a discussion.

It is a fact of human nature that bias is very hard to see when it benefits one's own agenda. Obama supporters should be guided to see how the media has manipulated the discourse. That is not a knock on Obama himself, but a warning that each time we allow them to manipulate us, the media gets bolder in their manipulation the next time around. And next time, Obama may be the recipient of the media smears.

by itsthemedia 2008-05-26 12:08PM | 0 recs
Exactly. Perhaps I should have been more

tactful towards Obama supporters, but you have to look at it from my perspective.  

Every television station I watched over Memorial Weekend was full of this Obama propaganda aimed at harming the credibility of a solid Democrat.  

They attacked Hillary relentlessly for saying something she did not even say, and then gave Obama a free pass for doing what they absolutely lambasted her for a few months earlier, i.e. taking her at her word regarding her comments.  

I then checked out Daily Kos, and the entire website was full of its typical faux, mock outrage, with each member trying to outdo the other in their efforts to pretend to be offended by something that she didn't even fucking say.  That was fine, because I knew what to expect from that place.  Then I checked out the Huffington Post, fully expecting the entire front page to be dedicated to slandering Hillary with lies.  I was not disappointed in the least.

But then I came here, in the hopes of seeing a little sanity, of seeing even just a tiny bit of truth.

Instead, when I came here, I thought I was still at Daily Kos.  Diary after diary, many recommended, in which the diarist flat out lied to MyDD members about what was said, the context, the meaning, etc.

Then, there were several diaries by Obama supporters talking about how he had taken the high road, by taking her at her word.  In fact, some even went as far as to blame Hillary supporters for blaming Obama for what Hillary did not even say.

Then, my brain exploded from all this mind-numbing nonsense that many Obama supporters (and you can and should go through this diary and take note of the names for future reference when determining credibility) are still fraudulently pushing, and out came this diary.  

So, to any Obama supporter who has not been intentionally pushing this lie to slander and harm the repuation of a solid Democrat, who may have been offended, I apologize. Obviously, that does not include most of the Obama supporters who commented in this diary, but perhaps there are some who have been intellectually honest, and simply did not feel it would be appropriate to come here and call out their fellow Obama supporters for their nonsense.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-05-27 05:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly. Perhaps I should have been more

To be honest, I felt more resignation and sadness than anger. After all that has gone before, I no longer expect even a pretense of fairness from the media. They no longer even try to hide it. Check out this TNR piece by John Judis:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?i d=f1281d27-d950-4dfd-a59b-66e905918d20

Clinton's second great political mistake lay in how she dealt with Obama's challenge. Sometime in December, having realized that Obama was going to be a genuine rival for the nomination, she and her campaign decided to go negative on him. They did the usual thing politicians do to each other: They ran attack ads taking his words somewhat out of context (Obama calling Reagan a "transformative politician"); they somewhat distorted old votes (voting "present" in Illinois on abortion bills); and they questioned old associations (Obama's connection with real estate developer Tony Rezko).

John McCain and Mitt Romney were doing similar things to each other--and Obama did some of it to Clinton, too. But there a was difference between her doing this to Obama and McCain's doing it to Romney--a difference that eluded Clinton, her husband, and her campaign staff. My friend David Kusnet, Bill Clinton's former speechwriter, explained the difference to me by citing what ex-heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson had once said about Muhammad Ali. "I was just a fighter," Patterson had said, "but he was history." Obama, too, was, and is, history--the first viable African-American presidential candidate. Yes, Hillary Clinton was the first viable female candidate, but it is still different. Race is the deepest and oldest and most bitter conflict in American history--the cause of our great Civil War and of the upheavals of the 1950s and '60s. And if some voters didn't appreciate the potential breakthrough that Obama's candidacy represented, many in the Democratic primaries and caucuses did--and so did the members of the media and Obama's fellow politicians. And as Clinton began treating Obama as just another politician, they recoiled and threw their support to him.

He just comes right out and says it. She treated Obama in the normal way politicians treat rivals, but the media knew he was something special, so they threw their support to him. The arrogance is breathtaking - the media simply made a group decision to support Obama, rather than do their job and report the news.

Look at the bright side PJ. If the past is any indication, in seven years time, Hillary will win an Academy Award and the Nobel Peace Prize. ;-)

by itsthemedia 2008-05-27 10:48PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads