Kondracke echoed Maureen Dowd "theory" that "Hillary's a vampire ... sucking the blood out of Barack Obama"
SUMMARY: On Fox News, Morton M. Kondracke presented a "theory" for why Sen. Hillary Clinton may be having a "good time" on the campaign trail: "[S]omebody I know has a theory about this. Remember back when [Bill] Clinton was president of the United States, people said that he's really Satan because he walks through life and people collapse around him and go to jail and die, and all this kind of stuff? Well, this person says Hillary's a vampire. She's sucking the blood out of Barack Obama." Kondracke did not name his "theor[ist]," but the purported "theory" has been publicly articulated before, by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd.
During the "All Star" panel on the May 5 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Roll Call executive editor Morton M. Kondracke presented a "theory" for why Sen. Hillary Clinton may be having a "good time" on the campaign trail: "[S]omebody I know has a theory about this. Remember back when [Bill] Clinton was president of the United States, people said that he's really Satan because he walks through life and people collapse around him and go to jail and die, and all this kind of stuff? Well, this person says Hillary's a vampire. She's sucking the blood out of Barack Obama, and you can watch him wilt and she gets healthier and healthier every day."
Kondracke did not name his "theor[ist]," but the purported "theory" has been publicly articulated before, by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who, in her April 27 column, wrote:
Maybe I've been reading too many stories about the fad of teenage vampire chick lit, worlds filled with parasitic aliens and demi-human creatures, but there's something eerie going on in this race.
Hillary grows more and more glowy as Obama grows more and more wan.
Is she draining him of his precious bodily fluids? Leeching his magic? Siphoning off his aura?
It used to be that he was incandescent and she was merely inveterate. Now she's bristling with life force, and he looks like he wants to run away somewhere for three months by himself and smoke.
Dowd has also wondered -- in a March 11, 1998, column -- whether Bill Clinton was, in fact, "the Devil":
Well, Mr. President, this is a case of you know you're in trouble when ... You know you're in trouble when all the Hollywood liberals and Scientologists do their best to soften Joe Klein's mordant novel and give you a valentine -- and the sweetened version depicts you as Lucifer.
It had occurred to me that Bill Clinton's swelling popularity could be explained by America's love of bad boys and anti-heroes. He's the charming Butch Cassidy to Kenneth Starr's relentless Pinkerton man. Hillary and Bill are the joyriding Bonnie and Clyde to Kenneth Starr's killjoy Texas Ranger.
It had even occurred to me that Bill Clinton was so preternaturally lucky he seemed to have cut a deal with the Devil. Given the carnage that always surrounds Mr. Clinton, and given the fact that he always smilingly walks away stronger than ever, I could easily see him as Faust or Dorian Gray or Joe Hardy in ''Damn Yankees.''
But in light of the latest triumphs of the President -- in public opinion, at least, he has vanquished the hymn-singing, holy-rolling Starr, as well as Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp and the Nosy Parkers of the press -- Time is right. We must think cosmically about this.
Perhaps Bill Clinton is the Devil. It would explain a lot. Certainly, Hillary Clinton is condemned to her own little hell. Certainly, the voters have closed their eyes and made their pact with the Devil: Keep us prosperous and we won't hold you to any special moral or ethical standards.
The Mephistophelean scenario has a wonderful logic. It would explain the extraordinary level of human sacrifice around Bill Clinton -- why so many people around him end up dead, jailed, betrayed, shackled, exiled, subpoenaed, depressed, humiliated, broke, ruined and smeared. (And, in the case of poor Buddy, neutered.)
James McDougal dies abruptly, a broken, crazy man, in solitary confinement in Federal prison while his ex-business partner has more political lives than a black cat.
It explains why our moral universe has turned upside down. It's fine if Mr. Clinton preaches against tobacco one day, and the next goes to a fund-raiser given by a lawyer trying to reap a tobacco windfall.
From the May 5 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
BRIT HUME (host): It is one thing to seek to appeal to those voters, Mort, but it is quite another to be so obviously happy and comfortable and seemingly in her element doing it.
KONDRACKE: Well, if everybody is cheering you all the time, and there are a lot of them, and the results are good, as they have been in the big states, and she's got an argument --
Look, she is throwing herself at this task with everything she has. She's coming from behind. She may catch up or she may not catch up. And why should she look morose about it? She may as well look as though she's having a good time, and she has every right --
[crosstalk]
HUME: It doesn't seem forced, though, does it?
KONDRACKE: It doesn't seem forced.
You know, somebody I know has a theory about this. Remember back when Clinton was president of the United States, people said that he's really Satan because he walks through life and people collapse around him and go to jail and die, and all this kind of stuff?
Well, this person says Hillary's a vampire. She's sucking the blood out of Barack Obama, and you can watch him wilt and she gets healthier and healthier every day.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER (Fox News contributor and syndicated columnist): I have a less exotic theory.
HUME: Please!
KRAUTHAMMER: I think that she is genuinely energized because she's figured out how to run against him. The frustration of running a year and a half without understanding how to do this, I think, was killing her. Win or lose, she has a strategy.
Remember back when [Bill] Clinton was president of the United States, people said that he's really Satan because he walks through life and people collapse around him and go to jail and die, and all this kind of stuff?
When did anyone ever say this? They said everything else, but this is a new one.
These people just make things up. They're diseased, and they need to be indentified as such. And then quarantined.
This crowd knows no bounds.I've been reading Maureen Dowd for years and she is incapable of supporting any women.
Talk about the living dead! It's a hoot to see her on tv and hear her talk ... the Fran Dresser of print media and whatever work she's had done has made her face immobile.
Daily Kos is worth mentioning. While the crooners claim that Barack isn't 'negative'... take a peek at any posting by one of his minions. Two contributors to the Kos boycotted the site because of the venom that the Hillary haters are allowed to spew.
Randi Rhodes called her a whore, Keith Olbermann called her David Duke -Penn Gillette said she was doing well in March because it was 'White Bitch Month' the media has brought more than the worst in Americans it has brought out the monsters. Bill Jean King has said that the women-hating has made her feel that all her accomplishments were for nothing.
Many women feel that way and what was the goal of these monsters? To make us hate ourselves? To put us in our place? The Graham Norton show displayed a Hillary 'nut cracker' - what depth of cruelty and disrespect is next?
How will we ever trust the people who have so viciously attacked us? McCain is looking better and better as the Obamaniacs continue their violence.
Voters using the logic you represent are one reason there is such a mess in government.
Gee, another right wing smear. Democrats are either commies, nazi's or vampires, no outrage. But if you dare say the same thing about one of them, all hell breaks loose.
That would be proof that right wingers are devils, BTW...
Hillary and her husband have taken a beating from the press this election season when compared to the other candidates, that is fairly evident; however that being said, to blame the media for her actions is ridiculous.
That would be like blaming TMZ.com for the antics of Britney Spears.
I agree Nerzog, and you make a good point about the coverage now as compared to earlier with regards to Mrs. Clinton.
>Reverend Wright = six weeks of wall to wall coverage.
>Generals pimping Bush's War on television = three days (at most).
You think that's a fair allocation of news time?
Hillary fueled the Wright story.....
Completely untrue. Are you being sarcastic? because many Obama-heads actually believe this. Wright's big mouth propelled the story.
WZ, I don't think Truthseeker is Justus, because let's face it, Truthseeker can make a coherent point from time to time. And I've never once seen Truthseeker say:
"Justus Truth fact check"
Though you do never know...
That was part of JuTru's MO.
There are also two different TRUTHSEEKERS. One is one of us, one is not.
Some of the most infuriating comments have come from Chris Matthews... not about Obama per se, but about the coverage. He asserted last night that the public "just can't get enough of Reverend Wright". BULLSH*T. It's the media whores who can't get enough, and they've been spoonfeeding it to their viewers, while they've neglected other more important stories.
Reasonable people are far too concerned with kitchen table issues to worry about a handful of ultraconservative whackos getting the vapors over some scarey black man.
Dems,
Each voter needs to make up their minds with regard to Obama's truthfulness over the Wright issue. I am satisfied with his answers, his explanations, his denounciations, and his handling of it. If you are not, that is your choice.
Nerzog,
Not long ago Matthews was drooling over Obama & getting tingles up his leg hearing the man give a speech. He changes direction with the way the political wind is blowing.
For most of this campaign Obama was the media darling. Now some are cheering on Hillary.
It would of course be better IF they didn't appear to take sides & just stayed neutral.
Sometimes I yearn for the old days, when Walter Cronkite just looked into the camera and said "And that's the way it is."
Me too Nerzog, me too :-/
Sometimes I yearn for the old days, when Walter Cronkite just looked into the camera and said "And that's the way it is."
Those were the "good old days" when the corporate (business) part of the news network was somewhat separated from the information portion of that network. But in our new "information" age they're blended. The result is perhaps good for the business part of the corporation, but for the information part it may not be so good. In fact, it may be downright bad as opinion and fact are routinely interchanged. That's the way it is now and there's probably no way back other than to hope.
For most of this campaign Obama was the media darling. Now some are cheering on Hillary.
It's May 2008 and Obama and Clinton each have a legitimate shot at the nomination. I don't really see the blood sucking and ruthless battle that many in the media are describing. If the GOP didn't have to settle so early on such a weak candidate from a historically abysmal field, perhaps we'd get more substantive reporting on the Dem race.
Yeah. Limbaigh and Hannity come to mind. They know who will be marginally easier to defeat in November.
Jeter joins the crowd that pretends that receiving good coverage whn one is down 130 delegates balances the atrocious anti-Hillary bias that helped put her in the hole she is now.
Why didn't the media stop bashing when it counted? Say, in January or February.
Actually Seeker Of Truth I've been pointing out the media's love affair with Obama for many many months, & how I felt it was unfair towards Hillary.
I happen to agree with you that the media's sudden kindness towards Hillary has only materialized now that it's too late for her to secure the nomination.
I still believe the MSM prefers Obama, not only over Hillary, but also McCain.
I still believe the MSM prefers Obama, not only over Hillary, but also McCain.
Gramps will get a free pass by the MSM because they LOVE deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy. You wait and see - I predict that their unyielding love of everything Gramps will put the Swift Boater Liars to shame in their assault on the Obama candidacy.
Again, the media is taking Hillary''s side because she can no longer win.
Plan A: eliminate Hillary, elect Obama.
Plan B: Stop pretending to love Obama, eliminate him too, and elect McCain.
I hope to God complainers become an anachronism in the Democratic Party. I mean, of course the Democratic candidates will be savaged by the corporate press, no suprise here, nor should the capacity for mischief in the corporate conservative press cirlces catch you unaware. It's who they are, it's what they do. Cons have to prevaricate on the issues, smear their opponents and outright lie to people to win elections because their policies are arguably deadly for human beings. So help formulate a cognitive infrastructure to counter the con game, face the reality that Clinton let us all down or simply move on because it ain't like any of this rightwing skulduggery is new or likely to change by endlessly complaining about those mean ole reporters and their puppetmasters.
It's in the self interest of the corporate press to push the conservative agenda and conservatives know how to play real dirty.
Come on. We know our opponents very well by now. We know their vile depths and their searing lust for control. We know they value revenge and intimidation; ask Don Siegleman. We know they will use every lever of government power available and the might of every possible institutional organization to crush the progressive movement. They think liberals are secular socialist terrorists to be smited in the name of preserving the strict, intolerant culture they cherish.
What will produce the best results for the future of our democracy? Complaining about these guys or accepting them for the unpersuadable cads they are and get on with the work of repairing the damage done by decades conservative dominance?
he does have a point. She is getting stronger at his expense.
But John McCain got stronger at the expense of Romney, Thompson, Giuliani, etc. I don't recall anyone referring to HIM as "a vampire".
Obama has seemed a tad more subdued on occasion in the past few weeks, probably exhausted by the barrage of questions revolving around Rev. Wright. Hillary has been increasingly buoyant & exhilarated on the campaign trail. The more troubles for Obama, the stronger she gets.
Anyone familiar with Dowd know this is her style of writing. Kondracke echoing her "theory" is no big deal.
And after all, isn't that what we depend on an "executive editor" to inform us of on a "news" channel?
To give us insightful theories of supernatural evil manifesting itself in the form of Democratic politicians?
To contrast Democrats with Republicans by portraying them as unholy and sacrilegious abominations?
I know, I need to "lighten up," since Kondracke and Dowd are just being "conservatively funny."
Guess I'll try this journalism stuff:
You know, somebody I know has a theory about Dick Cheney... people said that he's really Satan because he walks through life and people collapse around him and go to jail and die, and all this kind of stuff
Well, this person says Karl Rove's a vampire. He's sucking the blood out of America, and you can watch the U.S. wilt and he gets healthier and healthier every day.
That would mean that all the bumper stickers I see that read:
CHENEY/SATAN '08
are all wrong. Someone can't be their own running mate.
But then again if anyone was able to do it, it would be our Dark Lord.
You know, somebody I know has a theory about Dick Cheney... people said that he's really Karl Rove, because he walks through life and people collapse around him and go to jail and die, and all this kind of stuff
Well, this person says Karl Rove's a vampire. He's sucking the blood out of America, and you can watch the U.S. wilt and he gets healthier and healthier every day.
Satan was quoted earlier as saying "If I'da kept him any longer, he'd a ruined hell."
Be honest Mary...if Dowd had written what you just did in your post, you'd think it was funny.
Dowd pokes fun at both Republicans & Democrats.
I would suggest anyone offended by Dowd not read her column.
J.
Of course. And that is the inherent dilemma for those who are so rigidly attached and overprotective of one political party, all attempts at any form of humor is always measured on who is the recipient and who said it - it can't be evaluated on it's own merits, but done through the prism of politics.
If it's against your guy/gal, it's not funny......if it's against the one you don't like, it's hysterical. Simple.
Ok, interesting. I'm still waiting to find out what the merits are. Why is it funny? What is it about this that leads you to believe that Kondracke should be writing for MADtv instead of Roll Call?
"it has nothing, nor should it, have anything to do with political affiliation"
Which is why I laugh my @** off when people who know how to make a joke start poking fun at Democrats. SNL has skewered Democrats for decades and it's funny because they know what funny is. Jon Stewart masterfully roasts them on a regular basis as well.
If Kondracke and Dowd aren't serious with their devil and vampire analogies, then it means they're joking. And if it is a joke, I don't find it offensive, it's just plain lame and not funny. As always, YOU'RE FREE TO DISAGREE.
I never said it was funny, it isn't. But you were the one who described as "conservative" humor, meaning you must evaluate it in that context.....I am saying that has absolutely no bearing for me on what is or isn't funny. Like I said, I could care less who the politician is, or whether the person said it was right or left on the political spectrum. That is totally irrelevant to its humorous content
But considering the way you categorized it, first finding out the political party to which they belong is quite important in whether you determine if it's funny or not, otherwise you wouldn't label humor with a conservative or liberal label, who cares?
I don't.
We thought that all that made up stuff about the Clintons from the 90's was just garbage...but actually according to you two, it's the same as Rove/Bush/Cheney causing the death of thousands of people through military imperialism and shredding the constitution. Another case where the devil is in the details.
And no matter who smarmy Maureen Dowd is being smarmy about, she's too catty for me.
I know, I need to "lighten up," since Kondracke and Dowd are just being "conservatively funny."
Pete,
Dowd has poked fun at both Democrats & Republicans in her columns. As far as Kondracke goes, the guy is allegedly an Independent. I don't catch the Beltway Boys very often, but I've seen/heard him challenge Fred Barnes on many occasions. And as you know, Barnes is a rigid Republican.
I get it though. You republican thugs are scared pantless at the possibility of a unified Democratic Party. Too bad for y'all.
Rasmussen daily tracking poll, 5/6, Hillary leads McCain 47% to 43%....McCain and Obama tied with 45%.
Double digit lead for McCain.......please tell us where you pulled that from Gov?
I was referring to a New York Times/CBS poll where respondents by a margin of 51 to 40 percent said Obama would defeat McCain and by 53 to 41 percent said Clinton would defeat him.
How odd?....because the latest NY Times/CBS poll conducted 4/25 - 4/29 shows Obama/McCain tied at 45%, and Clinton leading McCain 48% to 43%.
Gosh Governor, are you fibbing again?? If not, please link to the poll you are referring to, thanks again.
For all the concern voiced by some Democrats about the potential damage the party is suffering from this fight as it heads into the fall election, the survey found both Clinton and Obama in a strong position against McCain in a hypothetical general election matchup: Obama would defeat McCain 51 to 40 percent among all voters, and Clinton would defeat McCain 53 to 41 percent.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/05/MNLV10GQP9.DTL&type=politicsSue,
Nobody is perfect and the number's have changed since last the Gov. took a look . Lets not go casting aspersions.
If the Gov. is in error, it will be pointed out. That is good enough for me.
Round,
I was listening to Air America the other day and they said that the Democrats cannot prove that anyone has been disenfranchised by the Voter ID.
(Yes... I now get it on XM while driving in my new gas guzzler.)
I heard the other day that Republicans cannot verify more than six cases of voter fraud.
See how that works?
Round,
Getting back to the subject at hand, I heard basically the same thing you did. I think the Republicans had to go back to the late 1800's for one of their examples.
According to the guys at Air America.. (I wish I could remember them,) the argument the Supreme Court seemed to settle on is that the appearance of a fair vote (no voter fraud) outweighed the argument that it was some sort of hardship for some to get an ID before voting. (Please correct me if I am wrong.)
One of the Justices, (maybe it was Souter, in one of the opinions?) did mention that both sides had little or no evidence to support their claims.
So, I simply wondered why you brought up voter fraud if there is virtually no evidence of it? It seems a bit disingenuous to me.
"One of the Justices, (maybe it was Souter, in one of the opinions?) did mention that both sides had little or no evidence to support their claims."
It wasn't Souter. Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer all came down on the dissenting opinion that there was sufficient evidence:
STEVENS, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered anopinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, J., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined. SOUTER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
"JUSTICE SOUTER, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG joins,dissenting.
Indiana’s “Voter ID Law”1 threatens to impose nontrivial
burdens on the voting right of tens of thousands of theState’s citizens, see ante, at 14–15 (lead opinion), and a significant percentage of those individuals are likely to be deterred from voting, see ante, at 15–16. The statute is unconstitutional under the balancing standard of Burdick
v. Takushi, 504 U. S. 428 (1992): a State may not burdenthe right to vote merely by invoking abstract interests, be they legitimate, see ante, at 7–13, or even compelling, but must make a particular, factual showing that threats toits interests outweigh the particular impediments it has imposed."
http://search.access.gpo.gov/supreme-court/SearchRight.asp?ct=Supreme-Court&q1=voter+fraud&x=0&y=0
It's a PDF, so you have to download it.
DB,
Thanks for the correction. It was Stevens. My apologies.
That's pretty funny. You calling an argument disingenuous! I brought it up because there is virtually no evidence of voter fraud being a threat to the integrity of fair elections. So why even bother to force a citizen to show an ID at the polling station if voter fraud is a sham?
I don't buy the majority opinion. This appears to me to place undue burdens on poor people, the vast majority of whom vote Democratic, for the sake of suppressing voter turnouts. And we all know when voter turnout is low, Republicans win.
I agree...but I think it's primary fatigue and once a candidate is actually announced, the game will change drastically. However, the primary fatigue is a 400 lb block around my neck right now.
Round,
I don't care who you are. kondrackula was funny!
Good one!
Nerzog, That is exactly what has happened here in Pa. A rout was expected but the final tally was 55%--45% no quite 20 points. But the Hilary people in Pa. only point out that Hilary won 60 of 67 counties. That is true but if you look at the counties, they are White. they are in the rural, conservative areas of Pa. No black man would do better, none, zilch.
So Pa. is not the working man for Hilary state, the rural areas voted color. As the urban areas were split.
Again, I don't blame Clinton for taking advantage of this free media ride, but if she manages to squeak past Obama and win this thing, they'll turn on her like a pack of jackals on a wounded hamster.
Kondrake's comment was very appropriate...just in the wrong context.
Blood sucking vampires would apply to McCain, Clinton, Obama, the democrats and the republicans...when looking at their feckless economic proposals and the gluttonous self-serving spending plans.
However, there was that one guy on Fox News, can't remember his name, but he definitely had the V hairline going on with the slick black hair and pale face.
More and more people are ignoring the Corporate message. The Wright thing seems to have little effect on the voters.
I'm torn between wanting relevence in the media, and wanting to see more shark jumping by the media.
Upon reflection, the media will continue to torture relevence, and try for new records in shark jumping. Something to do with negative reinforcement I think. Public needs, are irrelivent. Something from a planet far far away.
Hi Eweston, I saw your reply to me the other day, concerning my more pessimistic take on the gullibility of the American public. You were more hopeful than I was (on that day, anyway), and I'm thinking you may be right, based on a poll result I saw on Fox News the other night;
It was a Fox poll, and if I remember right, it said that 51% of respondents considered Rev. Wright "anti-American".
I assume the Fox audience skews pretty heavily GOP, but even if we pretend they represent average Americans, all this poll says is that the only ones fooled by the media are those whose probable vote wasn't affected at all - that is, the Republican 1/2 of the country has gladly found another reason to not vote for the candidate of the other party, for whom they never would have voted anyway.
Maybe people are paying attention.
Col.
Here is what I found. (It may be a different poll.) It is from Fox News, May 4th. 42% of the respondents were Democrats.
The poll was conducted among a random sample of 671 adults, including 283 Democratic primary voters, from May 1-3. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 4 percentage points for the whole group, plus or minus 5 percentage points for the Democrats.
Three-quarters of voters polled said Wright’s statements had not changed their opinion of Obama.And a majority of those polled — 56 percent — said the news media have spent too much time covering the controversy.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/04/poll-majority-of-voters-approve-of-obamas-handling-of-wright/Thanks, AA. You sure do like you some polls ! ;0)
I'd throw out the one stat, that the issue hasn't changed opinions, as this could include supporters who weren't swayed by the media coverage, as well as non-Obama-supporters who didn't gravitate to his camp because of the Wright issue.
Overall, though, I think the polls do indicate that Joe and Jane regular American aren't being suckered by the rantings of Sean Hannity and the others who have found their pet boogeymen and aren't letting go.
OUTSIDE of the people at MMFA, who take a professional interest/obligation in the things this "all star" says, I find it hard to imagine people so bored or with such a low threshold for entertainment or amusement (this stuff is amusing?) or information (this stuff is information?), that they watch these "all stars" regularly, or at all.
Go figure people who stare mindlessly at television: without them, where would these "all stars" be? I'd rather watch The Weather Channel.
As far as that dowd woman at The New York Times goes, the excerpted words provided here are the most words of her's I've ever read... I knew there was a good reason why this columnist was mostly unknown to me: she reads about as informative and amusing as the "all star" characters.
The venom, spit out in such a pretentious style... the movie references, the esoteric language (maybe you know what a Nosy Parker is, but I don't), and I hate people who use terms like "Mephistophelean scenario"... if language like that is meant to draw some kind of dividing line, between those intelligent folks who know what's being said, and the rest of the peons of the world, then I'm glad for it: it makes for the surest and shortest route taken, to know that you don't want anything to do with such intelligent and amusing people, be they columnists at The New York Times, or "all stars" at Fox.
There's the dowd reference to James McDougal, and his death in a Federal Penitentionary... it's my impression that, all conspiracies and all Clinton hatred aside, he did in fact try and cover his personal financial losses with funds from the Savings and Loan that he operated: sure, that'll get you a medium long stretch in a Federal Pen.
But both the man and dowd's reference to him, being now passed and long past, it seems more recent and far more tragic, what happened last Thursday, when Deborah Jeane Palfrey hanged herself.
She was facing a 5 or more year Federal Prison sentence (maybe much more), which would have been the same as a life sentence, she claimed, because of her age (which I know not). And the stiff sentencing would have been the result of the serious charges she was convicted on: money laundering, racketeering and mail fraud (all under the general heading of the RICO Act)... and she said she'd rather die, than go to the Federal Pentitentiary for most of the rest of her life. And so she did die, having put a rope around her neck to be sure of it.
Just for being a prostitute... or at least for being what the media called the "D.C. Madam": Sen. David Vitter's Madam, as you recall; other's in the Bush administration were her clients also.
I mean no indictaion of conspiricy in her death (I leave that kind of thing to dowd and limbaugh and the other Clinton haters): she took her own life, I'm sure, as she said ahead of time she would. But racketeering? The RICO Act? Money laundering, and mail fraud? Such harsh sentences for prostitution?
It's tragic, I think. The result seems way disproportionate to the cause. I wonder whether the media payed much attention to Ms. Palfrey's suicide. I don't know, I don't watch the danged thing that much. I wonder what David Vitter thinks. I don't know, I don't know him, nor do I care to.
I know this much: that there are prostitutes who are actually honest about what they do... they provide some sort of pleasure or amusement, for a fee... and when it's all over, usually both parties are satisified, and no one has been hurt (and certianly no one is hanged for it)...
But there's another kind of prostitute, who charges a fee, oftentimes a great one, yet the pleasure they supposedly give is a strange one to me, all venom and insult and false accusation, hardly amusing to a human person... I'd rather see that kind of prostitute hanged, than the other more honest kind...
dowd and the "all stars": they're the ones who are better off hanged, I say.
I find it rather unsettling that you advocate the hanging of people with whom you disagree.
Ewe,
Simply repeating the obvious is not much of a reply. Your attempt at implying that I missed some part of Dem's rant without you providing any evidence to back up your claim is telling.
Col's. lack of reply until he found someone to carry his water before and then resorting to snarkiness rather than defend his comment in good faith does not speak well for his motives either.
If any of the three of you (Dem included) can explain how the following quotes from Dem do not call for hanging pundits with whom Dem disagrees, I'll be grateful.
"I'd rather see that kind of prostitute hanged, than the other more honest kind...dowd and the "all stars": they're the ones who are better off hanged, I say."
Please disregard the word "before" in the second paragraph above.
The sentence should read:
Col's. lack of reply until he found someone to carry his water ___ and then resorting to snarkiness rather than defend his comment in good faith does not speak well for his motives either.
Sorry for any confusion.
Carrying my water? Do you even know what that means, AA? I went to lunch, and was getting some work done before I looked back at the site. Eweston was simply available and generous enough to do the hand-holding that you seem to require here just about every single day.It takes a village, you know.
And it's pretty ridiculous to accuse somebody of stating the obvious, when the obvious was obviously not obvious enough to get through your impressively thick skull.
Now tough up & quit being such an irresponsible crybaby.You'd think that after all the time you spend at this site making a fool of yourself you'd get a little thicker skin, and maybe start to understand that (I'll tell you this again);
1. It is NOT everybody else's job to make sure that every item and every post is painstakingly dumbed down to the point that you can understand it. Go to Human Events if you want your beliefs presented at a 3rd grade level .
2. It is NOT everybody else's fault for having a laugh when you make a clown of yourself .If it weren't for the inadvertent humor you supply, you would be absolutely worthless here. You should revel in your one strong area, instead of denying it.
And please, don't disappoint me here, be sure to snivel about my "ad hominum" attack.
Col.
You've tried the gambit before. It is obvious to me, and I suspect others, that you are still not defending your original quip. Instead you are going off on a tangent that really makes no sense.
My apologies for thinking you were not answering when you were at lunch. However by your two replies it shows me again that you were relying on Ewe to carry your water. :-)
Like I said, this is not the first time you make a snarky comment, follow it up with insults instead of simply answering a question. Until you can carry on a discussion like an adult you are simply in the little dog pretending to be a big dog.
Dammit, AA, where's the "ad hominum" rambling? That's my favorite part of your incoherent ,whiny and confused posts, "Big Dog"!
I checked back to see if you worked that in, and the optimistic part of me checked back to see if you had managed to do the work of trying to understand Dem's post.Nope. Just more childish babbling, but I have hope for you yet.I'm not giving up.
Col.
You fool no one. You never have explained why you made the comment, " AA, did you read only the last line of that post? I hope so."
I can see you are not interested in any discussion but simply intent on heckling.
K AA I went back and reread it, just to be sure. Much as I prefer folks make up their own minds. You attempt to paint Dem as bloody minded stinks. It is an age old complaint, the inequity of punishment. Ms Palfrey, who supplied a service, hung herself. I suppose the money that passed though her hands could have gone to better things, but a long way from any great evil.
Dowd and Co, are active parts of our body politic. Is the damage they do a capital offence? Outing a CIA agent could qualify. So far the inquiry has stopped at Scooter. Who's what, emptying the trashcans in some conservative catch and release institution? Will his future cause him to put a noose arround his neck? How bought the journalists involved with pushing what ever the administration wanted? More recently most of MSM is studiously avoiding any coment on their use of compromised "Military Analyists". Evil? Incomptitent? Harmful? The questions should come up. Justice served.
So if some of us are colorful in our rhetoric. Yes there is some anger there. Not of a type in favor of lynching. Nor in favor of encouraging suicide. We want justice, objective nonideologically based honest justice. And if we come to fail with its use, this is acceptable.
Don't be too upset, Colonel. AA did pretend to see through some "gambit" of yours. I think that's a new one.
Also, his response nicely exemplified your two points above.