Fri, 05/23/2008 - 7:18pm — FrenchDoc
It is clear that Senator Clinton did not imply an assassination attempt against Senator Obama. Listen to the clip.
There is nothing reprehensible here, but she's attacking the media, so, like rabid dogs that they are, they fight back in the only they have done sofar: distort, lie, then, yell WWTSBQ
.
I would like to open the floor for ideas as to how we can the most effectively push back against all this.
If you have a blog, please embed the YT video.
Suggestions, guys? If we start a boycott, how do we let it known that we are actually boycotting.
How could we have a massive online announcement about this?
I think today, with this, a line has been crossed. We need to do something and something BIG.
»
- FrenchDoc's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
A line has definitely been crossed
And we are officially in the twilight zone.
But what should we DO?
Katiebird, VastLeft, FrenchDoc asks a good question.
What should we do? How to get at them? Day of Shame? What?
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Lambert
Create a post and let's brainstorm on this.
Done
See Here.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
If it weren't in poor taste
I'd say the media have decided to take her out.
Only a monster would say what they say she meant
Since Obama has already had to fire someone for saying she's a monster -- I'd say it starts in the heart of his campaign.
ALSO (believe it or not I'm taking a computer break) the NY Times article says that Obama was FURIOUS at her for her statement.
So it started directly with him. Why would he think she said that if she didn't think she was a Horrible Monster?
The fish rots from the head
Always has.
And Obama's fury is -- let me pause here a moment to register my deep, deep sensation of sincere surprise -- completely bogus, since, as BTD helpfully points out, she made the same point in Time long ago, and nobody said Boo.
Now, if I were really paranoid -- this is revising and extending my remarks about Obama's oppo -- I would believe that Obama knows that politicians tend to repeat, as Hillary did here, and they squirreled away a contingency plan, which they activated when they heard the news.
Bogus, like I said. But clever. Also completely destructive. Please, can we go back to the days of Uncle Karl? At least he was on the other side...
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
The whole Obama campaign
qualifies as monstrous. And this latest one is by far the worst.
When you think it can't go any lower...
NY Times: Obama Furious
My question? What was he told? Why did he think it had anything to do with him?
From the NY Times:
Lambert, not to worry
Once the news cycle has its fill, Obama will make a muted comment indicating that he's sure that Hillary didn't mean any harm. The damage won't be undone, and his halo will grow a little larger.
Holy s***
I'm so glad I ont watch TV or read the news anymore.
But seriously. This shit has definitely crossed the line. And no one is coming to her defense. I'll say it again: the silence is kicking me out of the Democratic Party.
GQ, help us get something done
to fight this... we're thinking a Media Hall of Shame across the blogs, or something like that.
First we should send love letters to Hillary
I think the faux outrage is based in the fact that they believe she's a monster.
That she has to watch every word lest she betray herself. Reading the regrets for hysteria at TalkLeft is interesting....
Yes, I'm very interested in brainstorming. But, I've got to rest. I was supposed to stop this hours ago. ....
I'm afraid you're too late.
AmericaBlog and Democratic Underground already has organized readers to call the super delegates, demanding they endorse Obama after her remarks.
The inmates are running the asylum.
I'm sure the ranting of a bunch of hate-filled loons from DU...
... is exactly what will convince the SDs.
And if it does, farewell the legitimacy of this election in my eyes.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Hasn't it already?
Considering how many superdelegates have come out for the unelectable candidate, the one who's so pathetically weak it's staggering, what makes anyone think the SDs will go against the alternate reality narrative and pick her now? Just read the statements from various superdelegates and you won't see one concrete or valid argument as to why Obama would be better than Clinton either in terms of electability or governing.
I guess the only "chance" we have now is for reality to set in at the convention, but that seems fixed as well (see: the conspiracy of silence on CDS, misogyny, disenfranchisement, race-boating, etc., and the recent movement of many SDs to Obama on a daily basis in spite of huge losses in PA, WV, KY and dropping poll numbers).