Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Unfounded Allegations

gqmartinez's picture

Since Sarah brought up fears of an Obama assassination, I felt obligated to post from this article entitled "Secret Service says "Kill him" allegation unfounded":

By Andrew M. Seder aseder@timesleader.com
Staff Writer

SCRANTON – The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.

The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Obama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him."

News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story.

Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.

“I was baffled,” he said after reading the report in Wednesday’s Times-Tribune.

I don't mean to downplay real threats to the lives of the Obamas. There are undoubtedly real threats that should be taken seriously. But a pattern I am noticing more and more is the liberal charge that crazy, "erratic" McCain supporters (or Republicans) are plotting something heinous. Further, there is a quick slight of hand to implicate any and all McCain supporters/GOPers (see Sarah's comment above) with threats that could be made from genuinely unstable McCain supporters/GOPers that pose the real threats.

Are we going to trivialize death threats the same way we trivialized racism? If Obama does win and we disagree with his policies, are we going to be called racists or, worse, be implicated in plots against him? Death threats are real and, in my view, very serious. Throwing out unfounded allegations to tarnish the opposition is not only a disgusting tactics, but it takes away focus from the real threats that may be out there.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by jawbone on

in interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, but many are coming around to vote for Obama.

Mr. Murtha, a 17-term Democrat from Johnstown, told the Post-Gazette's editorial writers he sees momentum building in Mr. Obama's campaign across the state for the general election after he lost his party's April primary to Hillary Clinton. He thinks Republican John McCain's efforts have been stymied by the country's economic crisis.

"I think Obama is going to win, but I don't think it's going to be a runaway," he said. "I think he wins Pennsylvania."

Mr. Murtha said it has taken time for the state's voters embrace a black presidential candidate.

"There's no question Western Pennsylvania is a racist area," said Mr. Murtha, whose district stretches from Johnstown to Washington County. "The older population is more hesitant."

Mr. Murtha said groups he deals with regularly, such as military veterans and senior citizens, have come around to supporting Mr. Obama in the past three months. He credited Mr. Obama with being the most organized candidate he has ever seen.

Wonder how that's going to go over with his voters.

Thanx for the post about no one shouting "kill him," at least that was audible to the Secret Service.

Wow.

Obama and his surrogates really do throw the accusations of racism and assassination around quite freely. Since it worked so well against Hillary (when she mentioned RFK had been assassinated and was accused of indicating something about Obama with that comment), I'm not surprised to see it brought out against McCain and Palin.

Ought to be an interesting 4 years.... I see our language being self-censored rather rigorously.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

It is among if not the worst hotbed of bigotry in the whole country, and I've spent time in all 50 states.

IMNSHO past time it gets called out, along with every form of bigotry everywhere; the willingness to openly confront racism and sexism and every other form of hate will be the most important advancement to come out of this horribly painful election process.

ElizabethF's picture
Submitted by ElizabethF on

I am from South western Pa...you know Appalachia, the hills.....the God and gun clinging segment of society.

To add to the disgust I have with Obama, word is that there are a majority who state they are voting for Obama. Not because they like him or even believe him but because Hillary says he is the only one who can save them from another Bush administration. Good thing no one took Ohbermann or the blogs Kill the Bitch seriously since she will be the one saving his ass if he wins there.

I guess bigotry fades to second or third if you are fearful of losing your money.

illusionofjoy's picture
Submitted by illusionofjoy on

And in my five years here, I have never experienced this alleged "hotbed of bigotry" that you claim exists in the area. However, in visits to Texas and Tennessee lasting less than a week, I've slammed face-first into horrible prejudice and bigotry. I don't know which part of Western Pennsylvania you were visiting, but it is obviously a part I am unfamiliar with.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

and on up to Erie. Everything from the ubiquitous anti-black and anti-gay idiocies on through to Serbs and Croats still fighting the Battle of Kosovo through the lobbing of slurs. From the many months I've spent there over the years, I would put the incidence of frank bigotry against at least one stereotyped other at well past 90% of the population.

Perhaps they're all being polite in front of a newcomer such as yourself.

lillianjane's picture
Submitted by lillianjane on

They heard Hillary Clinton saying she was hoping for a June assassination a la RFK, so it is perfectly reasonable that they hear threats in crowds of McCain supporters.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Younger people, such as you, know of the JFK and MLK and RFK assassinations in the abstract, as things out of history, events that happened in another time and place of which you have only anecdotal knowledge and no visceral sense of context. Some of us writing here, including Sarah and myself, are old enough to have actually lived through them. We know, not just have heard about it but actually know, what those time sounded like and how it felt, the hatred and the fear and the violence and the sorrow.

The last time I shook Bobby Kennedy's hand was at a rally five days before he was killed. I went to bed exhausted the night of the primary content and satisfied and excited that we had won California, a very difficult task that required subverting and defying both the state and the national Democratic political machines, and confident that this was the last major hurdle that needed overcoming, that we were on our way to the White House and a better world.

I woke to the sound of a friend pounding on my door - I had unplugged the phone - and the news that Bobby had been shot and was expected to die. It was a surreal experience then and 40 years on it is surreal still. It is one thing to read about a death, quite another to have known the man and touched him and looked directly in his eyes and invested your own time and effort and hopes and dreams in his success only to have to look at images of him lying on the floor while his blood and brains spread across the concrete.

That those of us who actually experienced those times now hear echoes should not be surprising to anyone of any maturity. Like Sarah and a great many others now speaking out in condemnation, I am deeply apprehensive over the tone of both the people attending Republican rallies and the words of McCain and Palin. What they are doing is very dangerous, which is why it has been called out and denounced by many voices on the Right as well as on the Left. Anyone decent would add their voice to condemn these practices as well, rather than trivializing them as you have done here.

Perhaps as you mature you will have encounters that imprint as deeply on your consciousness, that attune you to the sounds and images of actual experience that can't be learned from a textbook, as these assassinations have on the minds of your elders. Until then, you would be wise to take your considerably outsized and naive ego and stuff it somewhere while you pay attention to those who know things you do not.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

As usual, they are noted with great interest. I look forward to the days when I can mature enough to argue thusly: I know what's true and you don't, now run along.

Only tyrants rig elections.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Didn't say anything about "run along" but misrepresentation in lieu of meaningful rejoinder is your stock in trade.

What I recommend is that you listen and ask questions of those who know more than you, rather than speaking out from ignorance as you so often do. But suit yourself; we are laying down a permanent record here for all to read.

And to keep that record straight, what I expressed in commentary on your post was not condescension; it is contempt.

Submitted by lambert on

Somehow, a post that started out being about a simple question of fact turned into a thread about feelings and memory and respect for our elders.

It's interesting to watch the tactics used, as long as you don't get sucked into investing time in the misdirection.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

you are not the only one familiar with the tactics of argumentation.

I recognize a malicious character assassination when I see one, and am not inclined here to let it go unchallenged. YOMV, of course.

Submitted by lambert on

... you're familiar with another kind of character assassination?

Hey, you can perform a public service and bring the thread back to the question of fact that gq raises, instead of sharing your feelings and thoughts and views on the respect due to you. Or not. Over to you.

NOTE And yes, I thought that assassinating gq's character based on his youth was rather tacky, now that you mention it. But I imagine that was part of "step 1" in electing Obama?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

What I wrote was coldly calculated and explicitly directed right where I intended it to go. Nothing to do with Obama at all, the need to drag his name into every conversation is your idée fixe not mine - speaking of transparent diversionary tactics.

Everyone has a right to their own interpretation of public service. A sharp rebuke to a stripling sassing a grown lady is in my mind exactly that. Again, YOMV.

If he'd only been interested in a corrective on the specific he could have done it easily and directly in the original thread; putting it up here the way he did, calling into question the wisdom of someone's perceptions, someone who has far more experience, is in my view grandstanding at another's expense, derogatory in the extreme and spoiling for a fight; so he got one. I was careful to pull my punches; surely he'll survive.

L: you’re familiar with another kind of character assassination?
Of course. It could be inadvertent, or collateral; those I would condemn less harshly. In this case I judged it to be deliberate, specific and premeditated, with malice aforethought.

Submitted by jawbone on

his death truly changed the direction of our nation, the nature of our politics. All for the worse. I was only a regular supporter/voter and saw his candidacy as a real avenue of change for the better. I was thrilled he had won CA--"On to Convention" for the floor fight was our cry.

But, I don't recall hearing that crowds were shouting for his death or things like that. I know Jackie Kennedy was terrified he would be assassinated as her husband was (and, so sadly, she was right). But, Sirhan Sirhan was not a Nixon fanatic (that we know of) and has never really talked about his act or why he did it. It did not seem to be a domestic political issue.

But, that year, death was in the air.

It still seems to me to have been such a terrible, terrible waste of a great human's life and is so painful I still cry about it.

The echoes I hear are more of the rabid antipathy toward Bill Clinton. As a friend said many times, if they had not assassinated his character, they might well have taken him out some other way. And that character assassination was domestic politics at work, complete with high level Repubs working against him in so many ways.

Bob Somerset supported Obama early on bcz he felt the Repubs and MCM would have a harder time trying to pull the usual character assassination on him, the ugly games the Repubs and MCM played against Big Dems. I think he got it right. He just didn't realize the MCMers would flip so easily.

Might there be some wackos who want him offed? Perhaps. The regular Repubs will be happy to have him stuck with super glue to the Big Me$$ and horrible economic conditions to come. They're looking at 2010 and 2012 already.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

and I continue to believe a great loss. RFK was a complex man, but the changes I saw in him over the space of a few years were dramatic and I believe genuine. As he gained compassion, true compassion, his intellectual concern for the downtrodden was replaced by a somber and serious empathy that lacked artifice. He was transformed by the harsh reality those he met, and that ability to grow is an admirable quality in anyone.

I remember those times vividly, and yes there was much talk about killing "niggers" and "nigger-lovers" and I know that for a fact because it was directed at me. Canvassing brings you in contact with a cross-section of people you would otherwise simply avoid.

I am pleased to hear from another supporter of Bobby's. He was a good man.

elixir's picture
Submitted by elixir on

immature? I see it as realistic and keeping things in check. We certainly don't need to go there if it doesn't exist.

And I remember much of the time during the assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK. As Jawbone aptly phrased it, death was in the air. Greater things were stiffled for an unknown reason.

This is not the same. Not the same at all.

I love this job!

I love this job!

Submitted by jawbone on

check out this find at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette about Dewey-The Small Town Libary Cat.

Every rally should have a cat petting station (carefully monitored against weirdos, of course). The Congress should have resident cats--might make for a better atmosphere.

Now, I'm going to go pet my cats....

This has been a disturbing topic--both the readiness to believe that McCain supporters shout "kill him," and Obama's discussing it at the debate last night, along with the anger and misogyny shown to various female pols this campaign.

scoutt's picture
Submitted by scoutt on

You would rather believe the "140 stories" that are based on the account of a single person at event which not a single person can corroborate. That tells me you WANT TO BELIEVE IT.
The person in the audience of the McCain rally said that Obama scares them and they thought he was muslim. Again, how does that translate to a death threat?
But there were images all over the internet of Sarah Palin at gunpoint and wishes that she be gang raped but you don't see the imbalance of your point of view?

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

snoozed beside my keyboard is another.

Animal-assisted therapy works.

And Bringiton's much more polite than me.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

elixir's picture
Submitted by elixir on

I love this job!

I love this job!

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

do you mean by this?

the multiple repetitions of the account of the Secret Service investigation of ONE incident at which the SS claims they didn't hear or find credible evidence can be found by a google search.

Results 1 - 10 of about 51,300 English is one such search, but all the stories date to one incident and all were released on 10/15/08 or thereafter.

but there are multiple videos available of crowds chanting, and there is video available of the crowd booing McCain when he asked them to respect Obama. McCain's attempt to return the level of discourse to something resembling collegiality actually angered his followers.

I discounted the first few such reports I saw and heard, myself; but it's not 'dying down.' I used to think it was just the dittoheads who said things like this, but it's not, anymore. Since the "campaign suspension" stunt, and his subsequent drop in the polls despite adding "that wonderful woman from Alaska!" to the ticket, there's less ... reticence ... about these abhorrent comments and sentiments. I find it discommoding.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

admin's picture
Submitted by admin on

... "crowds boo-ing Obama" to "Republicans want to kill Obama" if you like; heck, it seems plausible enough to me -- even if the Obama campaign thought "Hillary wants to kill Obama" is plausible, the two are independent propositions.

However, on the actual question of fact with which the post began, there's no evidence that anybody actually did call for Obama to be killed. Yes? And when the Secret Service looked into that question of fact, that story was debunked. Yes?

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Twenty seconds on The Google finds this article with quotes from audience members.

Here's one quote from the article:

“She was just great,” said Everett Holmes, a Vietnam veteran and McCain supporter since 2000. “But I expected more red meat . . . more excitement.”

And here is another:

Elaine Shuler, a 30-year-Navy veteran, wore a bright red jacket, red, white and blue scarf and spoke of the McCain/Palin “strong patriotic vision . . We’re not looking for the country to turn into something else.”

So either the Boston Herald is making up quotes or Dana Milbank is lying or something.

Only tyrants rig elections.

scoutt's picture
Submitted by scoutt on

that someone yelled "kill him" when the secret service investigation said it is unfounded. But you say that 140 stories saying that it did happen counter that investigation. But the 140 stories come from a single source. So you'd rather believe the single source than the secret service investigation.
as for the rest of your post, gibberish to me. but i don't have the first class intellect or temperament to understand nuance.
admin_lambert said it better.

ElizabethF's picture
Submitted by ElizabethF on

or support. But...so what? Obermann (sic) wanted Hillary murdered and I don't remember anyone getting in a tizzy, Many of the progressive bloggers and Obama prostrates said Kill the bitch. Few, if any, of the immatures batted an eye.

Let me be clear.....I loathe the man. I happen to think he is damaged and wounded psychologically. However, I would not want anything to happen to him. I want to see the country after his first term....Heh

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Not picking on you but hey, you brought it up; KO did nothing of the sort.

The phrase "taken into a room and only one of them comes out" is coarse and crude indeed but it is used all the time in regard to men and no one bats an eye. It certainly doesn't mean "kill" in any way. In the macho mind the use with Hillary was an expression of equality - I know, but they're weird in many ways - and could be seen as a sign of progress.

In that world, physical confrontation or the posturing around it is how you define yourself in the heirarchy; even if you lose, you've established a level of credibility as someone to be reckoned with. For KO to put Hillary in that context is to accept her power and stature as a competitor; very odd to those uninitiated, to be sure, but in their world it was a compliment.

KO is what happens when sportscasters are turned into general news commentators. All outrage and us/them constructs and simplification and slang. The really sad part is that he is better than most of what we get on the tube these days, and that is not a compliment.

Submitted by lambert on

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

when you have the time.

Lots of interesting fodder for perceptual interpretation discussions from this election, richer in that than anything since maybe Johnson-Goldwater.

I know exactly what KO was trying to say, and when I heard him I thought it was crass but certainly not an actual expression of violence and certainly not misogyny. There are a lot of these misunderstandings, on both sides of Obama v. Hillary and Obama v. McCain; a book on perception and cultural disconnect, waiting to be written.

Submitted by hipparchia on

[fasten your seatbelts, i'm about to agree with bio on something...]

i've spent waaaaay too much of my working life in the company of overly macho dudes, but i took it much the same way bio did -- by using that particular metaphor, olbermann [and by extension, his audience] tacitly acknowledged that hillary is one of the guys [unfortunate and stoopid, but true: guys are much-higher-status beings in testosteroneworld than are mere grrrls].

Dykester's picture
Submitted by Dykester on

happens to be the world of patriarchy, in which violence against women (and anyone else if possible) is accepted as okay. You may not think the comment indicated violence, but it does to most women.* The fact that you understood it as crass and yet STILL think it was complimentary simply indicates how ingrained your misogyny is.

Feminism (from the 60s and 70s, not this inverted philosophical misogyny being spouted by "neo-feminists") includes breaking the culture of violence against all creatures. It is not a compliment to offer to whup someone's butt. If, in fact, that was the only threat that was meant in the "take her into another room" comment, then it's violent and offensive. But as so often happens when you "good ole boys" get your testosterone going, the whupping almost always brings with it some form of sexual humiliation and degradation, most often, but not always, rape. And that was what made almost all of the women I know (except the most fervant koolaid drinkers) cringe with horror and disbelief. Using your same logic, the GOP could offer to put Obama, a tree, and a rope together and claim they never meant a lynching party. Still offensive to many of us, but apparently not to you based on the logic you offer here.

The fact that men like you are so willing to accept someone's offer of physical violence as acceptable discourse doesn't make it any less violent to women. And it doesn't make it right.

You really don't get this issue.

I wish I could stay and debate this, but I'm off for a long weekend after working 6-7 days/week since April. I leave it to these many other capable women to respond further to your misogyny.

*Let me footnote here that you will likely find women who don't think it violent. That doesn't bolster your argument. History is replete with people who belong to a minority group who work against their own interests. See, e.g., Clarence Thomas, Wade Connerly.

Like matter and anti-matter, Republicans and the truth are unable to occupy the same space.

Like matter and anti-matter, Republicans and the truth are unable to occupy the same space.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

and we'll chew on it.

So far, we have agreement that each of us thinks the other doesn't get it. There are worse places to start. Happy to chat with you whenever you please.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

when Olbermann called for Hillary's murder.
I did the best I could which was post here and comment elsewhere.

Lambert: I'm not assassinating character based on youth.
I'm responding in kind to disrespect, trying to tailor my response to my audience.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

Submitted by lambert on

The comment is not directly to you (turn threading on, you'll see.)

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by lambert on

Here.

Now, I realize that repeating and amplifying false charges worked very well for Obama in the primaries, so from a purely instrumental perspective it might make sense to, er, shoot the messenger on this one in the general. All of which is one reason I'm looking forward to an Obama administration -- and I fully expect Obama to win -- so very, very much. Not.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Who said reporters couldn't interview rally audience members despite http://www.correntewire.com/unfounded_allegations#comment-120301easy repudiation?

So, Mr. Milbank makes a pretty bold comment about someone shouting "kill him" which turns out false. He then writes about reporters not being able to interview rally audiences which the very quickest of Google searches shows is false. Did Dana Milbank try this sort of stuff during the primary? Worth checking into.

Only tyrants rig elections.

TreeHugger's picture
Submitted by TreeHugger on

full fledged food fight breaks out just when I've gone off to work in the yard for a couple of hours and then go run (er, make that walk) a few errands. Basta! I just don't want to play....I've got my hands full carrying on civil email correspondence with long time friends who for the past six months have filled my inbox with their Obamania.

BTW, one of my errands (vide infra) was to pick up a book from the library that I had placed a "hold" on approximately 3 months ago. The book? Mohamed El-Erian's "When Markets Collide". HEH. Great timing.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

I guess I have to learn to do that; I have 'em set up "flat".

(oh, and "search" still tells me "you are not authorized to access this page).


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

on longer threads, posts at the bottom seem to come out of nowhere and can be confusing when not in the proper context. And folks who use threading often forget to mention who they are replying too.

Only tyrants rig elections.

Submitted by lambert on

Comment viewing options, change to threaded from flat.

Useful for detecting pie trajectories...

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

back to the comment I'm responding to, right?

Let's see if that helps me be more coherent.

Now, if I could just figure out why video doesn't work today (it worked yesterday, dammit).


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

admin's picture
Submitted by admin on

The key point of the post was the simple question of fact: Did somebody call out "Kill him," referring to Obama, at a Palin rally?

My answer is No, based on the evidence presented. I'm glad gq took the trouble to set this one straight.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

whipped cream in a Wagner Power Painter (tm).

No. I didn't think of this all by myself.
My dearly beloved did, though, apropos of a discussion of appropriate pranks at work.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

Submitted by lambert on

This from BTD is interesting.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

ElizabethF's picture
Submitted by ElizabethF on

Hillary, who I supported, received a gift during the campaign....Obama and the RBC. Were it not for them and the brush off the shoulder of the misogyny in addition to their pathological need for power and control, Hillary would not have had millions of women covering her back. My guess is that she said a Thank you j prayer because we kept her in.

Do I believe she is the most qualified - Yes. Do I think she would have honored her rhetoric in re the middle class - Yes. Be the best of anyone offered as President - Yes.

However, Hillary Clinton is a pol. Speaking for me only, I see her as a woman who has has finally learned to play by the rules....let us abuse you and then we'll use you. What that tells me is there are no politicians who value the country above themselves and their pocketbooks. That includes Hillary Clinton.

Clinton wants to stay in the Senate and she damn well better play the closed society of the Senate game. Shut your mouth and get to work wench.

Nuff said. She's looking out for Hillary Clinton. She is a politician.

C

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

Arlington, Va.: The Secret Service has now labeled the "kill him" report as unfounded. Why isn't The Post giving this report as much coverage as the original false report received?

Dana Milbank:

Glad you asked, because I saw this earlier. This is actually about the incident in Scranton, not the one in Clearwater, Fla, that I wrote about here.

I wasn't at the Scranton event, but I have to say the Secret Service is in dangerous territory here. In cooperation with the Palin campaign, they've started preventing reporters from leaving the press section to interview people in the crowd. This is a serious violation of their duty -- protecting the protectee -- and gets into assisting with the political aspirations of the candidate. It also often makes it impossible for reporters to get into the crowd to question the people who say vulgar things. So they prevent reporters from getting near the people doing the shouting, then claim it's unfounded because the reporters can't get close enough to identify the person.
Noam Sane | 10.17.08 - 11:52 am | #

Sorry, can't patch the permalink in.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

What's wrong with this picture?

1. Milbank completely ducked the question about the responsibility of being an echo chamber for a single-sourced story.

2. Milbank threw up several strawmen.

3. The press has continued to get quotes from the knuckle-dragging mouthbreathers who go to GOP rallies, so maybe the Secret Service just doesn't like _him_.

4. They'd have a reason. Milbank's cutesy video of himself standing outside a GOP rally looking for a "hug" shows the kind of trouble which can ensue when you mix "the mainstream media" with K-DMBs. There was one guy who threatened to hit Milbank. You really want that nonsense going on inside a closed space? Hasn't one (black) camera operator been attacked already?

5. Eschaton. [Sigh] You know what "Noam Sane" is, right?? But he's voting for Barack, so we cool.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

during these rallies, i've heard--and i can't imagine any of the traveling press corps even giving a shit about people in the crowd--they prefer to imagine what regular people are like as opposed to actually finding out.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

who can so easily be refuted?

I know I'm young and probably not worthy of your time, but I posted on that Milbank quote on this thread after the charge was first brought up. The very minimum of work led to me to find evidence that what Milbank said was not true. People are being interviewed.

Only tyrants rig elections.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

Of course the source on the Clearwater incident is Dana Millbank, who is no better but IMHO no worse than most Washington-based political-beat reporters.

The Scranton reporter is a local guy to that paper, who's been doing a reporter's job for 30 years. You're tarring him with the in-the-tank-for-Obama brush too, but should you be?

Then there are the videos. Here's a roundup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw3o3y77MaA

Here's MSNBC trying to do fair and balanced coverage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgHqUp6V1Eo

Here's McCain, on MSNBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhJa8xgLE40

There are other observers taking this seriously who aren't part of the Obama-527 roundup. Dan Kennedy is one. The video excerpts do in fact record chants of "Kill him" at both a McCain event and a Palin event. McCain noticed, and made an effort to say Obama is a Senator and a colleague, a respectable man with whom he merely disagrees on policy and principle. For his pains he was booed by his own supporters.

The point I'm trying to make is the SS found "no evidence" regarding the Scranton incident, only. That single data point got strewn all over the media echo chamber as refutation for ALL the incidents, and I find that suspect.

What your problem is with Eschaton/Atrios, I prefer not to speculate. I never would have found First Draft or Corrente without Eschaton. That's where I first read Lambert and Hekebolos, Riggsveda and Shystee.

We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Two are pretty much the same clip. On the first, I did hear "treason". But you know what, that's a pretty standard charge at Democratic Rallies as well, along with boos and hisses at the mention of Bush or Cheney.

Several people told me they heard that Barack Obama said McCain is really a woman in drag. Prove me wrong. You're making the charge so it is up to you to prove or provide reasonable evidence for your claim, not just say there are places where it "could have" happened.

This is the same strategy that the media used to push the Iraq war on us: "Someone told us there were WMD in Iraq and you need to prove we are wrong but nothing you say will actually "prove" we are wrong, because you can't "know" what happened at every single event." I can understand your sensitivity, but by engaging in the same tactics the media used to push the Iraq war on us you are validating them and giving them reason to push the next war or bailout bill on us.

Only tyrants rig elections.

Edgeoforever's picture
Submitted by Edgeoforever on

Thanks for this.
I thought it was ironic that it was the Secret service disproving those.
because Obama's first "they want to kill me" salvo was shot by Michelle and amplified by the media early in the campaign, getting him an early Secret Service protection.
The second was famously, sending to all media the K0 rant about Hillary mentioning RFK...
And now this.
A lot of preemption here.
http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2008/1...

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

Because you perceive that those 140-plus stories, all about a single event, outweigh a pattern of behavior, of course I must be in the wrong completely.

Thank you for the lesson in logic.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

Submitted by lambert on

... is false accusations from the Obama campaign. What pattern are you seeing?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

Throw together 10,000 GOP-lovin' wingnuts in the heart of Pennsylvania or Florida, and a few of them are going to be unhinged and possibly violent and racist to boot. In other news, water is wet.

The only pattern I see is an endless cry of "Wolf!" from Team Obama which they use to insulate him from even the slightest criticism.

At McCain's Town Hall, he chastised nutjobs in the face of boos from his base, and didn't lose his famed temper.

And at this week's debate, Obama claimed Palin heard "Kill Him!" and did nothing.

Which is worse?

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

they even used it against McCain, who's the whitest guy around.

and Obama and his supporters are the ones with the pattern--of crying wolf way way way too much.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

an upward ratcheting of hate.

a pandering to ignorance.

a delight in uglification.

and it goes right back to the rhetoric and the speeches coming out of the McPalin campaign, the Rove playbook, the Southern Strategy, the whole ball of hypocritical wax that is the modern GOP.

But it's just my twisted perception, because, after all, it's Millbank writing about it, DKos carrying the coverage of it, Atrios reporting on it, and everybody knows nothing trustworthy arises from PB1.0 or the MSM.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

Submitted by lambert on

Just very little, and all of it needs to be assessed -- ever since most of the A list turned into Tier Two of the Obama campaign, bless their hearts.

These two propositions are separate and distinct:

1. Somebody yelled "Kill Him", of Obama, at a Palin rally (and Palin heard it, and did nothing).

2. Republicans are assholes who promote hate.

#1 could be true, and #2 not; #2 could be true, and #1 not; both could be true; and both could be false.

So far as I can tell (it's been a long thread) #1 is not true.

I already know that #2 is true, and though I suppose I should be pleased that generic Republican assholery has broken through into the narrative, I don't see it as being any different from what they've always done. Nor do I see what they are doing now as any different from what was done, by Democrats, to Hillary during the primaries. So, do I hope the SS is doing a good job protecting Obama? Of course. But is there anything new here? No.* I also know that the Obama campaign has a history of false charges, and that Obama supporters in the blogosphere have a history of fake evidence. So, in general, color me skeptical. Then again, what would I know? I'm a racist.

NOTE * The white powder. Sure, and Hillary's office in NH was taken over by a gunman, IIRC.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

white powder letter sent to an Obama office. The campaign didn't, though, and is looking for better security from now until election day.

Whatever did come of that anthrax investigation, other than the alleged suicide of one suspect?


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

i heard--a type only found in govt. stockpiles or labs or something.

white powder is not anthrax btw--there have been tons and tons of copycat things since the real anthrax stuff--which actually killed people.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

and yes, I know all white powder isn't anthrax.
Not all anthrax is a white powder, either.
Also, the "white powder letter" becoming a threat -- so much so it's been used as a plot device on TV -- is appalling.

I remember hearing it had been sourced to a USAMRIID lab. How did it get to the Senators' offices, the anchors' mail bins, the Florida newspaper? Was any train of evidence ever revealed for that?

By the way, in Texas, emergency responders have picked up "white powder letter" and "white powder packages" ever since November 2001 as a matter of haz-mat response, and there are seven test labs in the state.

Prisoners in TDCJ mail white powder to the governor, so the threat has officially jumped the shark.

We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

i don't think they even tried to seriously investigate--it only went to Democrats in office and to the media--not to Republicans.

it was meant to scare, and it was terrorism--and since regular people can't get access to anthrax, i'd say it was Republican dirty tricks--to ensure that Democrats voted for Bush's power grabs like the Patriot Act, etc, and that the media was scared enough into simply repeating their lies about everything.

The recent thing from the Congressperson who said they were threatened with martial law by the administration if they didn't vote the right way tells you how they operate even now. They are openly criminal, and thugs and terrorists---and that's no surprise to anyone who's been paying attention these past 40 years.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washing...

http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=...

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/...

The last widely-reported human case in the US was a man who made drums using animal skins imported from Africa.
He recovered, IIRC.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

--and they never did really investigate, it seems from the thing about the FBI--that's what i always thought, and what makes me think it was contracted out by the administration, like Nixon and his "plumbers" and the "Brooks Brothers riot" in FL in 2000 that stopped the vote counting, etc.

(maybe they didn't think post office people would get hurt?)

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Top Florida GOP operative circulates Obama assassination no loss and no accident email. An old one but a goody, at least in some circles; from the comments thread:

Posted by Andrew Nappi, Hudson Florida on 10/15 at 05:58 PM
So what? This guy, B. Hussein Obama is walking to victory with the help of your industry and every criticism of hims being racist.
I have never heard of such a load of crapola in my life in this country until now. I have seen this in communist takeovers though.
Shame on all of you in the fawning Obama press and free commercial industry.
Ask yourself, if he ends MY Bill of Rights, what makes you think he wont end yours?

Posted by Allice Rankin, Miami, FL on 10/16 at 09:39 AM
The Democrats are whining and crying about this why?? Get over it - Freedom of Speech and a right to our own opinions—When was that against the law? This is politics - and the Obombanation can’t take the heat or answer the questions - but they sure dish it out - Well, score one for the Repubs - Let’s discuss economics and Joe the Plumber instead!
The joke is funny!!! No great loss!!

Posted by Liz Panno, Miami, FL on 10/16 at 02:05 PM
Freedom of Speech
How many of you out there have forgotten??
The last time I looked that is one of the things our soliders are dying for - American’s Freedom of Speech!!
The joke WAS funny!! Really, it would be no great loss!

Posted by Tina Scali, Frostproof on 10/16 at 02:42 PM
I don’t understand why some of you are turning this into a racist comment. It mentioned Barrack Hussien Obama and his wife. It did not mention their race. If anything it’s against Democrates. So, please grow up people and quit adding gas to the fire.
Please pray for guidance in this election year and vote for the person with the strongest Christian ethics.
God Bless.

Here’s more joking around [Warning: NSFW - KKK, NAZI and Republican headquarters excepted] from the ever-comedic Ted Nugent:

Here’s a transcript in case you couldn’t hear clearly, Nugent’s words are a little difficult to understand what with all the screams and roars of approval from the thousands of people in the audience:

Hey Arnold, suck on this one time you putz!

I was in Chicago last week, I said, "Hey Obama, you might want to suck on one of these, you punk!"

Obama, he’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun! Let’s hear it for them!

I was in New York and I said, "Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch!"

And since I'm in California, how about Barbara Boxer? She might want to suck on my machine gun!

Hey, Dianne Feinstein, ride one of these, you worthless whore!

Any questions?

But hey, it is just Nugent, and everybody knows he’s nuts, and that audience of thousands cheering for the deaths of a governor and four sitting US Senators including two presidential candidates, well, they were probably drunk and shouldn’t be held responsible.

No atmosphere of threat and harm here, no encouragement of violence, no rejoicing in the death of elected officials, no making light of assassination, none of that. Now put a sock in it and stop spreading those vile rumors that there is widespread approval of or accepted thinking that it’s funny and applause-worthy to call for killing Senators and Governors and presidential candidates, because it just isn’t true at all and so unfair to suggest it. Nothing to see here, people, move along.

Any questions?

Submitted by lambert on

Is Ted Nugent an asshole? And I have a follow-up!

Yes, Ted Nugent is an has been, for many years, an asshole.

And your followup?

Has the nature of Ted Nugent's assholery changed in the recent past?

Unfortunately, the dimensions of Ted Nugent's asshole render the issue of "change" almost irrelevant. Ted Nugent's asshole is so large, so mammoth, as to be incomparable to anything, even itself, by any metric known to our technicians.

As far as the GOP operative, I'm glad the story ran and I hope he pays for it -- as any Democrat who did the same should pay as well. Oh, wait...

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

The topic I raise, again, is the false claim made repeatedly in this post and related threads that there is no general atmosphere of threat and violence within the Right directed at Obama.

Neither Ted Nugent or the Florida GOP operative, as individuals, are my point; it is the evident thousands who agree with them and aren't in the least afraid to say so in public that are the real problem, the problem denied in this post and the issue you don't deem worthy of discussion.

No surprise you'd like to change the subject to Democrats or Hillary or how tacky I am or just about anything else rather than deal directly with the merits of my argument.

ElizabethF's picture
Submitted by ElizabethF on

you wanting to keep addressing this behavior about racisim and Obama. What I make out of this is that you are obsessed with this candidate.

Where have you been for the last two years? Did you not read and hear the vile remarks about Hillary Clinton? Murder, kill, annihilate, rape. MSM and blogger boyz "saying they could "understand" the position of those who wished violent harm to befall her, her husband and her daughter. " Anglachel's Journal

The laughs, giggle, and ya hoos with the cartoon of Sarah Palin being fisted in the mouth and her teeth knocked out and epithets for both women such as whore, bitch, cunt and both their daughters being called and laughed about as sluts, pimped out and f++k the mother.

I'm beyond empathy for Obama or Obama supporters for hurt feelings about perceived racism or for that matter, names or cartoons or some asshole like Ted Nugent.

You have no argument.

Submitted by jawbone on

loss and capitulation. Anecdote: Commenter at, iirc, Confluence, went to local county Dem/Obama office--saw Hillary nutcracker--in the window! In October! Good grief!

And the repeated questions of when she's going to do enough for Obama, plus harping that she wants donations to make up some of her debt, as if no other pol has ever done such a thing. Oh, my.

Now, I realize Obama has given himself a boost by eschewing public financing for the general election--which, as someone who lived through Watergate and the impeachment hearings, having a Democrat do so disappoints me greatly. And also angers me. No Repub is going to give the Dem that edge ever again, so, essentially, Barack Obama broke and destroyed public financing. Who'da thunk it. (To be read more in sorrow than in anger, with head slightly lowered to one side and shaken gently from side to side.)

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

I am truly sorry to hear that.

It is convenient to try and shift the discussion to "What about Hillary?" as a dodge every time there is no rebuttal available for the charge at hand, but I'm not interested here. We've been discussing the repulsiveness of many things said about Hillary right here at Corrente for quite a while; can't imagine how you missed that.

Further, my concerns raised here are not about racism per se; they are about the culture of violence and advocacy of assassination widespread and gleefully embraced on the Right. As to being obsessed, this post was about death threats directed towards Obama; if staying on topic is an obsession, so be it.

admin's picture
Submitted by admin on

Bringiton:

This thread (see the title and the original post) is about "unfounded allegations" of violence against Obama -- though some (no, Sarah, not you) indeed, seem "obsessed" with hijacking it, with YouTubes of Ted Nugent, and the like. I can't imagine why. Can you?

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Your POV is your right, of course. But why take my word for it about how I read the post? You should check with the object of the denigration, get that POV directly from the center of the crosshairs.

gq: Since Sarah brought up fears of an Obama assassination, I felt obligated to post...a pattern I am noticing more and more is the liberal charge that crazy, “erratic” McCain supporters (or Republicans) are plotting something heinous...there is a quick slight of hand to implicate any and all McCain supporters/GOPers (see Sarah’s comment above)....
Sarah's fears are, IMNSHO, well founded. I share them as do many other dastardly liberals. Having lived through those earlier dark times when hatred was so clearly in the air I feel fully qualified to say that I sense the same tensions now, and I'm not at all interested in standing by while Sarah or anyone else with the experience to speak to the issue is called out as a fearful hysterical foolish rabblerouser who needs to be talked down by somebody who has no applicable real world experience.

Oh wait; on re-reading, are you saying that this thread is for discussion of "unfounded" death threats only and "founded" death threats and a general tenor of violence and assassination on the Right like the thousands of people at the Nugent concert cheering death to Obama and others is OT? Well, then, that'll explain why you pulled in Hillary. (shakes head) You've been chasing your tail in this thread for a long time now, and you aren't getting any closer to catching it.

I’m more than content with what I’ve written here; your discontent is, well, yours. We can keep on with “You’re wrong” “No I’m not” ad infinitum, or just walk away and move on to other battles; your call.

Submitted by lambert on

"Dastardly liberals" -- Oh, what a blow was there given!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

One-word insults in the Subject line, what fun! And so productive, too.

Submitted by lambert on

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

.

Submitted by lambert on

I find the tactic of actually introducing your argument while claiming non-responsiveness especially savory -- especially in a post headed "Any questions"! Thanks.

Here's what I understand your argument to be: There is something uniquely new and different about the examples you give. (And if that's not so, why bring them up?*)

From the evidence on offer, I don't think that's so, and for two reasons: (1) Republicans, due to assholery, have been circulating jokes like that since the beginning of time; and (2) Democrats, due to assholery, did exactly to Hillary what Republicans have been doing to them. So, I say it's background noise, you say it's spiking. You're perfectly free to make your case, but anecdotes won't do that.

NOTE * Except, of course, as a refinement or perfection of the tactics used by the Obama campaign in the primary; then, if you didn't vote for Obama, you were a racist. Now, if you don't vote for Obama, you're on the same side as people who want him assassinated. The new tactic is as vile and reprehensible as the old -- "step 1" of getting Obama elected or not.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

If it is tactics now you'd like to focus on, maybe starting another post on that would be worthwhile. Here, just another diversion.

Perhaps you missed it...no, you commented on it...but way up top I wrote that the claim of no advocacy of violence towards Obama was false. Repeating it again this far downthread is not introducing; more like reminding.

So far as I know, there were no calls for killing Obama prior to his beginning a run for the presidency. All such calls for violence and assassination of Obama are new, new since around June of '07. That they spew from the same mouths does not erase the newness, nor does the insertion of Obama's name into already tired tropes and asshattery make the focus less new. You of course may interpret them as you wish; I hold the same right for myself. That you cannot see what is so obvious and self-evident to me and to many others is unfortunate, but hardly my responsibility.

Again, as you know and for the record here, I didn't support or vote for Obama during the primary and paid no mind to any accusations of my being a racist because of that; I am quite confident that isn't the case for either of us. Your interest in nurturing those wounds is not one I share.

If I have made claims about your being in league with assassins, please point out where. If that isn't true, then you have made yet another false accusation. That's what happens in defense of falseness; one falsehood begets another.

Submitted by lambert on

Here is your central thesis:

There is something uniquely new and different about the examples you give. (And if that’s not so, why bring them up?*)

From the evidence on offer, I don’t think that’s so

Your response to that point:

So far as I know, there were no calls for killing Obama prior to his beginning a run for the presidency. All such calls for violence and assassination of Obama are new, new since around June of ’07.

Oh-k-a-a-a-y. I argue that shit like this is a constant and adduce examples. Of course, I also give Hillary as an example of somebody who's constantly been threatened with violence -- in the last primary, from Democrats, but as part of CDS, for a decade example. You respond by saying that nobody threatened Obama until he ran for President -- which proves my point, right? That it's a constant? Since Hillary suffered it for years, and Obama only when he became prominent? I mean, if I ran for President, I'd expect the same thing to happen to me! There is nothing uniquely new and different here, and you yourself show why. Your question has been answered.

Have fun with the the ancillary stuff all you want -- heck, it was fun to write. But you still can't prove your central thesis.

UPDATE Thank God you dropped Ted Nugent. God, playing whack-a-mole is hard.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

if anything in my original assertion or the false claims I rebutt had anything whatsoever to do with Hillary - but they don't.

The common theme here, among some, is to throw up Hillary - sorry, that was an unfortunate construct - trot out Hillary - oh dear, I've done it again - use Hillary to deflect any and all assertions in defense of Obama or the Democratic Party. Doesn't matter how spurious the initial claim, any debunking is immediately countered with "But what about Hillary?"

"It's raining."
"No, it's sunny out."
"Well it rained on Hillary, what about that?"

I do look forward to your recovery from this mania, so we can once again take up our disagreements in a linear fashion.

UPDATE THIS: I didn't do anything about Nugent; his disgusting behavior and the thousands of maniacs in the audience who agree with him are still here, doing what they do. You can't just wish them away.

PS, and totally OT, Lambert - Thanks for taking away the [Post comment] button on a first draft; forcing [Preview] is a very good idea.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

if you make comparisons as if they are relevant, so can others.

ALL candidates get this treatment from Republicans. They're ALL called traitors and unamerican and elite and ...

All candidates also know that--what would be remarkable would be no threats from Republicans. Threats and shouts of "kill him" and "treason" and whatever are not new or news--and they'd happen no matter who the candidate was.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

What makes my head hurt is how nearly correntewire has become a parody-mirror of DKoS, which apparently the correntewire community (at least since Hillary suspended her campaign) considers the most loathesome of websites.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

Submitted by lambert on

... if you state a thesis and can't back it up. Then it's hopeless, as it should be.

UPDATE Violence and threats of violence is a constant in American politics. That's bad, obviously; Hillary Clinton is an example of that, and it's typical of what Republicans do. In the primaries, Democrats used those Republican-style weapons against Democrats. That was new and different. I don't see anything new and different in the anecdotes (one disproved already) about threats against Obama on this thread. I see the same old shit, which is indeed shit. So, maybe I'm wrong in asking the question, why push this story now? And maybe I'm foily in connecting it to electionering -- past performance is no guarantee of future results. So be it.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

But giving up just makes it so.

A continuing presence of pushback is good for all of us. It is, for me, all about the dialectic.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

called ironic, couldn't they?

I mean, seriously.And you get tarred with the same brush I did. And yeah, the pushback is a good thing, we all need the exercise.

But damn, sometimes I think I'd make more headway arguing with fence posts.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

but this is a family blog.

Ever head-butt a fence post? Compared to a scalp full of cedar splinters, this experience is a walk in the park.

[Oh, OK; how in the hell did I head-butt a fence post? This is what happens when you go cow-tipping on a moonless night and after knocking down Bossie and scooting under the bottom strand of the barbed wire fence you jump up and start running like hell before the farmer wakes up and sics the dogs on you and then you stumble and fall and smack head-first into an old split-rail fencepost. Lesson learned, always scope out your escape route in advance.]

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and see dead people is not about any of us--it's about you-- and your fears and obsessions and even your expectations.

Obama is a grown-up. And he has Secret Service. He knows what can happen.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Well that clears it all up. I'll just close my eyes and put fingers in my ears and sing LA-LA-LA-LA-LA and everything will be fine. No need to analyze anything for myself, I'll just read what the Obamaphobes write and that will be that. What could go wrong?

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

why are threats against him different from the threats against others?

why is assassination of Obama such a big deal with you? Kennedy was killed, Ford was almost killed, Reagan was shot--and all the rest had constant numerous threats.

It's expected that there are threats--and even attempts.

Submitted by lambert on

You cornered Amberglow, and proved you're a good person and she's a bad one! (That being irony.)

I don't think, however, that the claim of moral superiority so typical of so many Obama supporters -- once founded on a claim of not being racist, unlike his opponents, and now (I venture to predict) coming to be founded on the claim that his hateful opponents, all of them, wish him to be assassinated (as we already saw when Obama smeared Hillary with that very charge) -- is valid in this case.

I think that Amberglow's comment was meta. She meant, I'm guessing, "Why is the subject of Obama's assassination such a big deal with you."

Why this and why now? I mean, I already know that Republicans suck, so what's new here?

My answer is that it's a haka -- and a particularly vile one, since it plays on justified fears of terrible events; exactly, again, as when Obama smeared Hillary with the same charge.

The "kill him" , as the Howler points out, a classic case of the power of pluralization; one guy inflated into a multitude -- and an unfounded accusation at that. And today, we've got Obama-supporting pundits pundits inflating their own importance with the same inflated multitude.

Iraq's forgotten; universal health care is off the table; the big banks have a trillion with no accountability; homeowners aren't being helped; and the Constitution and the rule of law have been gutted with FISA reform. Too bad that nothing remains for the Democrats but the haka.

Still, electing Obama is "step one," so I imagine the blogorrhea will go on and on and on and on. And after the election, it will go on and on and on, because, ya know, the midterms. And then 2012.

NOTE If I were following the horse race all that closely, I'd have posted that the press called it for Obama about two weeks ago. That's when the stories about McCain's anger began to appear ("anger," as in the "angry left," being an unforgivable sin in the Beltway), and that's when this story began to appear as well. I expect this narrative to continue for the entire Obama administration, and all opponents to be silenced and smeared with it, since false charges of racism were not, apparently, enough -- although, as I said, past performance is no guarantee of future results. Perhaps I'll be wrong!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

What Amberglow Really Meant, another new game for you to play but one which does not interest me in the least. No maneuvering on my part, amberglow routinely wanders into corners without assistance; if you choose to stand there too as a perverted sort of Solidarity! so be it, but I have no desire to go along. As you have so often recommended, I simply chose to end the interaction as unsustainable; any other interpretation, a game of What Bringiton Really Meant, is yet another instance where you will have to play with yourself.

In spite of the attempts at diversion and misrepresentation made by you and others, my message remains what it was with my first comment. Along with many others including John Conyers who lived through those hate-filled times, we see a resurgence of that hate and a rising danger of violence; that you and others are unable to share that perception has not given rise to the base charges you claim, in spite of your desire for martyrdom; insensitivity is not a sin.

The concern on our part has arisen now because, in our estimation, the level of hatred and sense of violence has sharply increased to a magnitude we consider dangerous. The McCain/Palin campaign is being condemned because in our view they are the prime instigators. That the condemnation of their hateful messaging has now become nearly universal, from both Progressive and normally Republican-supporting Conservative voices, should be a clue for you that there might be something substantive to the view.

Your insistence in characterizing the raising of this alarm as purely a political ploy comes, one hopes, simply from your own inability to perceive the truth and not from a desire to disparage the intentions of people like John Conyers and Jesse Jackson and Corrente’s own Sarah who have served the best interests of their country and Progressive causes for their entire lives; that would be shameful indeed.

When good and decent people* raising concerns founded on their own real world experience are dismissed and denigrated by others speaking out of naiveté and ignorance and foolish pride, I will speak up and have no need of your moral approval or anyone else’s to do so. I am, as I have now repeatedly stated, completely content with what I have written here; that you or anyone else is discomfited will have to be your problem – it will not be mine.

[* Not referring here to myself. I am well aware that my Corrente-sanctioned status is as a piece of shit. Tell me, Lambert; how does calling someone a shit rank relative to calling someone a racist? Is one worse, in your hierarchy, for some substantive reason or is it that you view the acceptability of that sort of vilification as situational?]

[Further note: Your continued use of haka as a denigration has in the past been considered by me to be matter of ignorance. Having pointed out now multiple times that your usage is both an error of interpretation and a base mockery of a long and noble tradition from a distinguished and honorable culture, that kindly reproof of your behavior in this particular can no longer be sustained. Whatever ignorance drove it in the beginning, your now-knowing persistence in misuse and corruption cannot be tolerated by decent and civil society. Please stop, forthwith.]

Submitted by lambert on

Thank you for commenting. Your comment is important to me. Please do not hesitate to comment again.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekl... --

"... Okay, maybe the Secret Service does stretch semantics in the two cases above, but can they afford not to? Consider this: While the murder rate among private Americans is 1 out of 13,530 people, 1 out of 10 US Presidents has been assassinated (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy) and a fifth (Reagan) was shot. Eleven others were uninjured in failed assassination attempts.

...

Every year, the Secret Service investigates over 1,500 reported or discovered threats against the President. ..."

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

MLK, Jr. are relevant.It just dawned on me exactly what the "mystique" of Obama is all about. Barack Obama means white people have to take a black man seriously.

Not as an athlete; not as an actor; not as a threat (think Beltway Sniper John Muhammad); not as a preacher (think Jesse Jackson) or a rabble-rouser (think Al Sharpton).

As a United States Senator. One wife, two kids, regular communicant at his church. U.S. Citizen. Running for President -- and as I write this, with a really good chance of winning the race.

Instead of ... John Edwards; instead of Dennis Kucinich; instead of Chris Dodd; instead of Al Gore; instead of John Kerry; instead of, yes, Hillary Clinton.

I have to admit that I'm thankful it's instead of John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, or Jeb Bush, too. I really am.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

taking Obama seriously would mean you didn't freak out about every violent Republican threat and intimidation--both because they're par for the course and because those are evidence that Republicans do take him seriously.

taking Obama seriously would mean that immediate comparisons to MLK and other tragic dead mythic figures--who accomplished great things before they were killed--would not be what comes to mind.

taking Obama seriously would mean that you would see him without the fear of assassination popping into your head, no matter what stupid things Republicans said.

taking Obama seriously would mean you seeing him as a real individual--flaws and all--and not as "a black man" that has to be "taken seriously" --as if that doesn't happen everyday everywhere or is somehow odd and worthy of comment.

(and you insult millions of us Democrats who voted for Jackson--and who took him very seriously.)

Submitted by lambert on

That's why his legislative record, now that we finally have one, is of such concern to me. As it should be, I would argue, for any liberal or progressive.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

Hillary fell for the crap and let Bush go to war.
Edwards fell for the crap and let Bush go to war.

(42%) of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution:
Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA),
Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR).
# 1 of 49 Republican Senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
# The only Independent Senator voted against the resoution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT

Legislative records can cut both ways. Obama's sucks.
McCain's sucks worse.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

Submitted by lambert on

In the best case scenario, Afghanistan is the right war, according to Obama.

And Obama, when he actually had any power, did as much as the rest of the Senate, including Hillary and McCain, to bring the war to a halt: I.e., zero.

And we're still stuck with FISA and the bailout, regardless, both of which are Obama's, one for the vote, the other for working the phones, and both as party leader.

Yes, for the record, I do take Obama seriously.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

will make you see bells and hear stars, though.

No, I wasn't cow-tipping. I was trying to help load a bull into a trailer to go to the sale barn, because he'd gotten big enough and irascible enough to be a danger.

He went Sarah-tipping, and I didn't get out of the way fast enough.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

Comment field is required.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

Submitted by lambert on

They're so proud of their new discoveries!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

On this thread I've discovered that misogyny can be directed at any woman, any time, but that if the woman is over 40 she's much more likely to automatically earn dismissal as a paranoid and an "Obama operative".

Even here at Correntwire, where supposedly misogyny is the ultimate sin, it's very very bad behavior when a woman doesn't follow the lead of the herd.

The discovery disappoints me, to say the least.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

Submitted by lambert on

Because if this is true, I need to apologize.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

Why such eagerness to accept the SS's findings at face value, when none of the stories I've read have indicated what tapes they viewed, who made those tapes, and where the microphones were?

It's entirely possible that the print reporter at the Scranton rally, or Dana Milbank in Clearwater, could have been standing in a place where they heard "Kill him," but that that was not picked up on the tape(s) viewed by the Secret Service. I mean, was the whole rally miked, or just the podium? Was the audio a direct feed from the podium mike designed to screen out crowd sounds so that the speakers would be heard clearly above the din? Where was the press area?

It's also possible that they want to downplay such threats in order to keep a lid on things, particularly if they don't have clear information.