KSFO guest Mulhern on Clinton fan base: "[H]ow many Yale-educated lesbians are there?"
On the June 12 broadcast of San Francisco radio station KSFO's The Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan Program, regular guest commentator and American Thinker contributor Peter Mulhern claimed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) has "never been all that welcome in Democratic Party ranks" and, responding to a comment by Rodgers that "Hillary's starting to wear a little bit thin," said, "Well, maybe not for her fans but, you know, how many Yale-educated lesbians are there?"
Additionally, while speaking about Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) presidential campaign, Mulhern emphasized Obama's middle name, referring to "the Zelig candidacy of Barack Obama. Barack Hussein Obama." Mulhern also described former Sen. John Edwards' (D-NC) presidential bid as a "vanity exercise" and called it "the 'I feel pretty' presidential campaign." Media Matters for America has documented numerous other examples of media figures portraying Edwards as feminine and overly concerned with his appearance.
From the June 12 edition of KSFO's The Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan Program:
RODGERS: Of course, as always, the Republican chances may come down largely to what -- which target they have on the Democrat side. Even with her facelift or Botox or whatever she had done, do you think maybe Hillary's starting to wear a little bit thin, even for some of her Democrat fan club?
MULHERN: Yeah. Well, maybe not for her fans but, you know, how many Yale-educated lesbians are there?
MORGAN: Ooohhh!
MULHERN: Certainly not enough to win a national election.
OFFICER VIC: Check, please.
MORGAN: Well, there you go. Over and out, Rodger.
MULHERN: She's never been all that welcome in --
RODGERS: Shoot out the lights and call the law.
MULHERN: She's never been all that welcome in Democratic Party ranks, and she's getting less so. You know, you can see it in the, the Zelig candidacy of Barack Obama. Barack Hussein Obama.
MORGAN: That's right.
MULHERN: And -- and he has clearly gained a lot of ground on her and it -- national polls it now looks about even, which is pretty much -- pretty much the death knell for the -- for the inevitable candidate. Once you've --
RODGERS: Of all of the -- of all of the weird stuff that's happened in this campaign, and there's always something in every presidential campaign, but can you believe John Edwards campaigning in South Carolina with the ultra-left-wing actor from San Francisco --
MORGAN: Oh.
RODGERS: -- good friend of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, Danny Glover? How is that going to work in one of the most militaristic states in the country?
MULHERN: Well, the answer is the Democratic Party in South Carolina is mostly African-American, or at least about half. So it's pretty close to an even divide, I guess. I'll have to check the figures, but there is, there's a very strong, in the Democratic primaries, a very strong --
RODGERS: Yeah?
MULHERN: African-American component, and Danny Glover, Edwards figures, is going to help him with that component.
MORGAN: You know --
MULHERN: And he may be right. But you know, you didn't really have to finish your sentence. You could have stopped -- "Can you imagine anything stranger than John Edwards campaigning?" You know, that's --
RODGERS: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
MULHERN: -- right there. That's the end of it.
RODGERS: Uh-huh.
MULHERN: I can't. He' s --
MORGAN: Is that campaign over?
MULHERN: No, but it's over except as a vanity exercise. This is kind of like vanity publishing. This is vanity presidential campaign. This is the "I feel pretty" presidential campaign.
MORGAN: And you look so pretty, too!
As muchas they harp about the Dem candidtes and how horrible they are, it must me incredibly frustating to know that there isn't one Republican "Front Runner" that stands a chance.
Perhaps, but it's still plain to see what the rightwing radio morons have had to reduce themselves to in order to divert attention from where the Republican agenda has brought us and a field of Republican hopefuls that's even more abysmal than that of the Dems.
Don't understand the lesbian comment; Sen. Clinton's fan base is obviously much larger though largely driven by current name recognition. These guys look like fools even if they were bombastic.Don't see why people are getting all bent out of shape over Barack Hussein Obama's middle name. Nobody is making this up and it is only fair that people know about his Muslim heritage and religion.
Yes, it's only fair that people know he has no mulsim heritage or has never been a mulsim.
And it irks them. Their candidates haven't really taken off. And many of the top tier don't support "conservative" values as these wonks see them.
Fred Thompson seems to be gaining popularity. I don't believe he's an actual declared candidate yet. He may be their boy, or played one on TV.
Mel Morgan and the KSFO crew
Have a job of great import to do
But their juvenile insults
Rend unintended results
That day in '08 they will rue
"How many Yale-educated lesbians are there?"
I dunno. How many uneducated bigots are there?
Guessing more of the latter than the former
Certainly enough to sway the 2000 and 2004 elections.
Hmmm, Rodgers, Mulhern, Orificer Vic and Morgan. I count 4 at KSFO.
Every week another one gets the microphone !
Using the Gerth method of fact finding and the O'Reilly crack staff, I believe the number of Yale-educated Lesbians to be 120,000,000. Give or take a few.
"How many Yale-educated lesbians are there?"
According to the latest issue of Playboy's Co-Eds issue, it looks like two. Could be three, but it's difficult to tell from the picture.
Two books and every right wing pundit talking about her. The only conclusion is they are afraid of her.
This must be a right wing double today. They get to trash Hillary and lesbians in the same sentance!
LOL. It's new state of euphoria they experience called a "Hillargasm".
Caused by a complex of chemicals called Hilliaredorfins. Horribly adictive
Wow...that's a lot of animosity for someone who can't spell "facist". First of all please elaborate on your "treason" charge. While this can be deemed as offensive I fail to see the treason connection. Secondly, we don't "torture" anyone. While there are those who think we should simply "make nice" with those who would gladly kill our children and they would voluntarily give us info, there are those of us "realists" who realize that waterboarding and sleep deprivation is harsh but an effective way (at least more effective than asking politely) to extract information. While I'm not a fan of the Iraqi war you cannot argue one fact, we have not been hit by a large scale attack since 9/11 even though there are still people who would gladly hit us again. Perhaps what you call "torture" has something to do with this but I can assure you that waiting for enemy combatants to "cave" because we were so darn nice to them would have made absolutely no progress.
Wow, that's a lot of logical fallacies fo one post. I'm certainly not going to defend Hotnuke's torture/execution fantasies, but the last half of your reply just sets up straw men and repeats the same old causal fallacies about the lack of another 9/11 proves that our methods are working.
I didn't say it did, I said perhaps it did. There's been no evidence either way, my only comments presented the fact that we haven't been hit again (please refute if possible) on a large scale, and that it is more likely for us to gather information through our current techniques than if we had none. I've asked this question many times on this site and absolutely none of those on the left have given a workable solution - How should we gather information more humanely?
You mean like when Clinton was in office? The majot hit required an idiot in office, willing to ignore the good, legal practices already in place. If we are going to argue what we know vs what we do not know, then BushCo gets a failing grade for allowing it to happen, and another failing grade for attacking a nation without real cause. Clinton gets much better grades.
We were hit with Clinton in office and in the same place. Our embassies were bombed in other parts of the world and yet Clinton didn't take Bin Laden's desire to destroy America seriously and didn't stop him when he could. Thanks for pointing out Bush's mistake of going into Iraq, I love how everyone assumes I was for that war since I'm a con (re: not republican) I just think it's funny. No Clinton gets a failing grade for not stopping the threat before it happened. For example, the confederacy was already formed when Lincoln was inagurated but the war had not started so was it Lincoln who allowed the war to happen or Buchanon, who was president while the south seceded? A half a pound of cure is surely worth a half an ounce of prevention
And again, and I can't stress this enough, if you are judged ultimately by results you cannot argue that after the unprecedented attack of 9/11 which is a unique moment in American History, we have not been hit a second time. This is one, if one of Bush's only victories in what has been one of the more difficult presidencies. I ask you, how would Gore have faired? Would he have gone the Chamberlain route? I don't know but he could only wish to acheive the same result - a grand total of zero additional attacks on the US citizens on the continental US.
What makes you think Clinton didn't take Bin Laden seriously? Should he have gone the preemptive invasion route and spent untold billions on an endless war on terror before 9/11? I'm sure everybody would have loved him for that.
Keep in mind that Bush's 2nd term isn't through yet. Don't count your chicks before they've hatched.
Who's to say what Gore would or would not have done post-9/11? Chamberlain? I don't think a person stupid enough to go down that road would be able to earn election to such a high post. And for all you know, 9/11 might not have happened if Gore were in office. I'm not making any assertions one way or another, but, since it's an unknown, you can't deny that it's a possibility.
No, we haven't been attacked yet, but Bush has certainly given extremists more reasons than they had before to be angry at the US. And he's squandered invaluable good will from all parts of the world.
The Civil War thing? Apples to oranges.
What a wonderful consolation that must be to the thousands of children, spouses and parents who watch their loved ones come home in flag-draped coffins.
Ahhhhh....can you hear the spin.
Actually Al-Qaeda was actually started before Clinton, in our zeal to have Reagan beat those Ruskies -- about the same time we started backing this crazy guy in Iraq. I forget his name but I don't feel bad about that I sure that our president probably had to be briefed on it and by his own confession he is already ready to call it a day on Osama.
That being said, Clinton had orders in to strike at Osama but never got actionable information on his whereabouts. Also, I believe it was a bunch of conservative law-makers screamed "wag the dog.
I believe I mentioned sensory deprivation at one time.The C.I.A. has used it. A more comon term with a differant setting, would be being sent to solitary confinment.
No queried interigation expert has had anything positive to say about the use of torture.
Evidence aquired though torture is giving our legal system indigestion.
Answer enough?
Actually the CIA just said it saved more US lives than any other techniques ("torture" that is). And you honestly think that sensory dep wouldn't be considered torture by many on the left? Sleep dep has been called torure. Panties on head has been called torture. Maybe it's not torture to you, but to a huge number your sensory dep would be considered torture. I can't believe you're so ruthless
SEBASTION,
Here's a hint about torture. People will tell you anything, that means lies, rumors, the truth, or anything else to stop being tortured. You are using "tortured" logic. Yikes!
Mr. Shaw, I must ask you a question? What type of information can be gathered from these prisoners or whatever they be called after having been in detainment for 5 years? Even those captured recently are just foot soldiers. Should our troops be tortured to get info about the 7th Fleet...GRUNTS NO NOTHING. Do you think that the leadership of AlQueda hasn't changed their plans? For example, they did not need to "hit" us, Americans, over here, since we went over there. This nonsense of being hit here is just ridiculous. Everyone must agree that whenever the bad guys wish to blow-up an airport and a bus, it would be a simple matter.
And for those that think that what we do is not torture , they are in a dreamworld.
[link to www.m-w.com]
"Every single one of these TREASONOUS scumbag mouthpieces for the FASCIST Repuglikkkunt Party like Melanie Morgan and her ilk..." - hotnuke / Tuesday June 12, 2007 08:10:37 PM EST
"Wow...that's a lot of animosity for someone who can't spell "facist". - Sebastion Shaw /
Sebastian: I'm not going to defend hotnuke's diatribe, but he spelled "fascist" correctly and your correction "facist" is wrong. Not to be a spelling-Nazi or anything...
While I'm not a fan of the Iraqi war you cannot argue one fact, we have not been hit by a large scale attack since 9/11 even though there are still people who would gladly hit us again.
A few nears ago my house was robbed. Someone took my computer, cable modem, etc. So I immediately performed an exorcism. It must have worked, because I have never experienced another burglary, even though there are still plenty of people who would want to steal my stuff.
Lap,
Funny! But it looks to me like the thieves already did the exorcism when they helped rid your house of your evil computer.
However I see it must not have worked. Obviously you are now 'possessed' by another one.
ps. I'd be wary if your monitor does a 360!
We've been all through this and you were taken apart on this issue. We HAVE tortured people saying we havent is an out and out LIE. As I posted before REPUBLICAN Senator Lindsey Graham described the pictures we never saw from Abu Ghraib as depicting rape and murder, if it were YOUR son sodomized by chemical lights I am betting you would call THAT torture. An FBI agent called what he personally saw at Gitmo torture techniques. YOU are a liar.
Hahaha... A day wouldn't be complete without the rquisite "liar" post from my friend solon.
I have a suggestion if you dont like me calling you rightwingnuts liars. STOP LYING.
You can keep on doing it till the sun comes up as far as I'm concerned. As you can see it has no effect on anybody with whom you disagree.
I just like pointing out how silly it looks when every other post you write seems to include that as your sign off. I find it hard to take anything you write seriously if insist on always resorting to this particular juvenile name calling rant.
But don't let me stop you. It makes me giggle every time I see it.
Well, gotta go kiddies, play nice
S.shaw
Thank Alla!
I don't listen to these radio show wantabe comedians. However, I have noted in the past that many people who publicly make remarks about the evils of homosexuality, are in the closet. Regarding their remarks about the democratic hopefuls for the white house in 08, the republicans will be looking for kleenex in Nov 08. As far as any American who supports tourture as a means to an end; aren't we suppsoe to be the good guys? If we sink to their level, then what are we? I guess we are no better than them and deserve what ever fate we receive. Also, if you are a christian, does your god condone such behavior? I knew Jesus, Jesus was a good friend of mine, and I can tell you he would say that "that the path to the house of my father is through obeying his laws; thou shalt not kill is one of them; he also told me and others that if a man strikes you on the right side of your face, offer him the left. Does your god allow ammedments to his word?
So if people make remarks about murderers being evil I guess they are closet murderers?
Convicted murderers are guilty of a crime. They are evil.
Homosexuals are not guilty of anything. They are not evil for being homosexual.
Apples and oranges.
You have no clue. Re-read the posting and hopefully you will see my point. What, do you just troll around looking for an argument?
So Jesus is no longer your friend?
AA, what are you talking about?
Thomas Melvin posted:
"I knew Jesus, Jesus was a good friend of mine, and I can tell you he would say that "that the path to the house of my father is through obeying his laws; thou shalt not kill is one of them; he also told me and others that if a man strikes you on the right side of your face, offer him the left. Does your god allow ammedments to his word? "
_______________________________________
I think God does allow amendments. You decide:
Joshua 6:3-21;
"And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city...
...and they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword."
I have more where that came from! :)
Looks like "thinking" women of any persuasion are supporting Obama not Hills:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061102216_pf.html
Less time baking cookies and more time sorting those billing records me thinks!