Some words of wisdom from 6.00 on...

When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love has always won.  There have been times when murderers and scoundrels have won.  And for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall.

Think of it.

Always !!

Tags: assassination, Gandhi (all tags)




please, she never said she wanted him dead or anything of the sort. you need to get over this flap. most of the others on this site have already.

by DiamondJay 2008-05-24 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Troll

Please read my diary on the topic that bothers you so much!!

by SevenStrings 2008-05-24 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Assassination

So many in the media as well as both BO and HRC camps have  mentioned the assassinations -- from Lincoln to RFK-- throughout the prmary season that the indignation of her recent comments about RFK are overblown.  This said, such comments don't do anyone any good--least of all HRC.

But how can Obama supporters be outraged at these  comments when some of the crazies in his camp have sent death threats to Tavis Smiley (and his family) and other African Americans who support HRC?  In any case, did Tavis Smiley even say he was a supporter of HRC--no, he simply criticized Obama for not showing up at an event that dealt with the state of the African American community.  

The truth of the matter is, that she as an historical candidate herself is as much a target as Obama.  Thank goodness we now provide Secret Service protection for presidential candidates.

by trixta 2008-05-24 01:09PM | 0 recs
CNN suggested SHE's assassinate him. Twice.

CNN suggested she'd assassinate him. Twice.  I just sent them and msnbc and fox complaint like this

On two recent primary nights a pundit on CNN in covering the primary answered the question of whether Obama should pick Clinton as Vice President.  In the first instance David Gergen said ,"Not if he wants to survive his first term".

Even though there were emails of outrage to CNN at the suggestion that Clinton would assassinate Obama to get his job, the very next primary night another pundit, Alex Castellanos (at 3:50 pm PDT May 13, for those who need a citation), in answer to the same question said,  "He'd have to hire a food taster".

Each night there were other pundits supporting Obama on the set and they and the anchors gave not one whit of disapproval.  The only reaction was general laughter!  Now those comments were undisputedly meant for the viewer to think of Hillary Clinton as a murderer.  And they were said and repeated and laughed at because they felt comfortable that there would be no reproach, no punishment, no outrage, no negative consequences to the pundits, the program , the others on the stage or CNN.  Why is that?  How were they so sure, so comfortable with those accusations?

Ask yourself why would a line whose meaning had to be painfully twisted to get a negative meaning cause such an uproar when it was clearly not being interpreted as intended.  And two very public comments by professional commentators be interpreted as they were clearly intended and to no response but laughter?

What ism is that?

Would you please remind people who are outraged by the RFK reference that RFK, Jr is not.  And that the question Hillary was dealing with was "Why do they want to push you out before the primary is over?  Why do they want you to end your campaign so early?"   She answered that others had lasted till June.   Yet how many informed talking heads have we heard, even some Hillary supporters, who think that the question was "Why are you still in the race?"  Ask the two different questions and you can see that what Hillary answered was about lasting till June.  The way the Obama supporters (and practically every media outlet went along,) reinterpreted the comment was to have it answer" Why are you still. here?  Answer: "He might get assassinated!"

Hillary could have mentioned that Ted Kennedy kept the race going till the convention when he was 976  assumed delegates behind Carter.  He fought to change a thousand delegates on the convention floor.  He received a lot of criticism for making such a challenge to a sitting President of his own party.  Hillary could make a very good case of running through August on his example, but she probably was too sensitive to his current condition to raise it.

To everybody old enough to care in 1968, we remember the California primary night was in June, BECAUSE Robert Kennedy was assassinated that night.  A lot of primaries have extended that far in recent history, but what happened to Kennedy is WHY we remember the primary was still running in June.  When Time Magazine quoted this statement from Clinton in March, where was the outrage the same magazine pretends to have today?  How about the several other times she has mentioned it?  The difference is that this time the Obama camp told you to be outraged and showed you a different interpretation than we all had before this time.  The people on the editorial board in the room in the discussion this time did not get the Obama interpretation.  Why is that?

The same twisting interpretations have been applied by the Obama campaign and trumpeted by almost every media outlet when Hillary tried to speak about the difference s between having a President who hopes to get something done and a President with the experience to work to get it done.  To illustrate she used JFK's speech about his hope to pass a civil rights bill and LBJ's work and experience with legislation got it passed and signed into law.  Civil rights makes a good example of something very meaningful to lots of people and to Hillary.  As a teenager she saw Dr. King speak and was inspired to public service and  civil rights by his leadership.

No mention of civil rights could not begin without deference to Dr. King, so she put him in her example.  But after the Obama campaign gave its reactionary racist interpretation on her statement it became to the media and Black voters a horrendous dismissal of Dr. King and an attempt to elevate Johnson in a racially inspired call out to white people to vote against a black man. Within a week Hillary lost half of the Black vote.  It and other applications of the same ploy did irreparable damage to two people who had dedicated their lives to the service of helping others.

There is no defense against this tactic if the press decides to engage in it rather than expose it and call it out as the divisive, unethical and dishonest grab for political gain that it is.  So far you folks have helped Obama do this to Hillary, Bill, Ferraro, Johnson, Shaheen, and several others.

How often did you help your viewers see the other, more innocent and more likely to be true, interpretations of the comments by these people and how often did you decide to help Obama demonize these people by taking the most unlikely (given their histories of behavior on the subjects) interpretation that caused the most damage to Clinton's campaign and personally to her and her supporters?  

We can see that Obama is taking this approach repeatedly because of the political advantage it gives him.  It may be the thing most responsible if he becomes the nominee and the President.  You will have given him that.  You should have been giving your viewers a sound perspective on what was a much more likely interpretation of the comments and some context of other times it was said and the history of the person in context with the issues. Hillary and Bill had no context of racism or racist acts and statements, for instance, until Obama said they did.

 Did you give your viewers enough context to have them understand that Obama was doing something divisive and opportunistic that was not supportable with what we know of the Clintons?  Or did you let yourselves be manipulated into helping him try to destroy them and Hillary's candidacy.  How is it that he is continually being advantaged by disadvantaging others?  What happened to achieving on merit?

His political fortunes are boosted primarily by these media storms around his claims of lack of character in others.  Do you know how many of us out here think that shows a lack of character in Obama?  And in those who help him get away with it?

This man, in four months, has reopened painful wounds from racism and sexism that this country has spent the last fifty years trying to learn how to heal.  All of the evolving we had done, all of the work to come together as different races and genders and fight for equality of respect, opportunity and justice has been beaten and threatened by the ambitious campaign  strategy of a man who would be President on a promise of unity and hope.  And you helped.
What are you going to do to fix it?

by itsadryheat 2008-05-24 03:10PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads