« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary's Historical Referrence to RFK
To all of you in the press who have nothing to do but beat up on a former first lady's comments who herself has had secret service protecting her for doing good works for our country, you need to get a real story. Stop making mountains out of molehills. People are truly sick of CNNand msnbC AND THERE BIASED REPORTING. Get over being in the tank for Obama. If he wins he will not be a good president,so save your breath. He's not worth it. The RN'S Iam in contact with feel you are not concerned enough about an important constituency in this race WOMAN. sOME DAY YOU WILL ALL NEED ONE WHETHER IT'S IN THE HOME, HOSPITAL, WHITE HOUSE,ETC. So our advice to you all who keep picking on the woman candidate is to knock it off. There was no malice in her comment and you all know it too. Read this one on your blog Mr. Cafferty, not the ones that are biased against HRC.
Comments (6)
Well I don't know about malice. That doesn't seem to be the point at issue. What IS at issue is how revealing it was: ie freudian slip. It brings to the forefront the very real probability that the Clintons have in the forefront of *their* political calculus the possibility of Obama suddenly no longer being around and of their instant `into the breach` resuscitation.
Rock Hackshaw (Room 8):
"..last month I had a long conversation with a journalist who has flown on the Clinton campaign plane on many occasions. That person has been covering this campaign for over a year now. I was arguing my persistent point, that this race was a wrap. The person agreed; that person even said that she had about a one per cent chance of being the nominee of the Dems. Then I was told something that sent chills up my spine. I was told that amongst the press corps covering this campaign, many individuals believed that the only reason the Clintons were staying in this race, was because deep down, they must feel that someone is going to take a shot (whack/bullet) at Barack Obama.
After quickly regaining my composure, I asked why no one has written this. The answer was put to me this way: “who is brave enough to do that”? This was when I decided to do it. I decided right there that I would do that column, even if I was going to -somewhat reluctantly- put this journalist in a spot. I felt it had to come out. I felt it was my responsibility."
"Hillary, Bill and Barack: The column I refused to write last month."
May 24, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a Freudian slip alright, on the part of the press who would so gruesomely and sickeningly project their own twisted thinking on the Clintons.
And you don't question the press coverage the Clintons have received? They press are not brave enough to publish it because the press knows it is their own sick and twisted desire. This kind of admission from the press in this country should send shivers down the spine of any reasonable, rational human being who can see this press corp for the sick twists they are.
May 25, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
There a many women that support Obama. Now I need you to tell me if ever in an election in the United States has any candidate stated they are staying in the race because the opponent may be assassinated? What Sentor Clinton said was STUPID and F**KED UP. Sentor Clinton has 35 years of political experience but hasn't she learned anything. What would you think if I said I hope Sentor Clinton gets shot at so she get out of the race? You dogs that support Sentor Clinton and what she said yesterday must think that killing your enemy is a much better method of dealing with them than negotiation. Next year everyone gets a semi-automatic with thier tax refund huh?
Get over it, Sentor Clinton will not be President this year or ever.
May 24, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hum.
No History, No facts, Appeal to authority, vague threat, doom and gloom, preaching division.
Yep. It's a McTroll.
Stick a fork in it, it's done.
May 24, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Debbie -
Something everyone needs to remember. Speech is two way, one person speak and another person hears. Now we know, because it's happened to us all, that many thing happen to words from speaker to listener.
I may say something which to me seems harmless while to the person hearing it comes off as anything, but harmless. And in truth two people can hear the exact same word and come away understanding them completely differently. The issue is perception.
We all know how your words are perceived is more important than what you might have meant.
May 24, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do realize that this site isn't Cafferty's site, right?
May 24, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment