Hillary says she's not going to drop out because Obama might still be assassinated before the convention...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well, it raises that question if you indulge in this eighth grade standard analysis of politics.

You think her behavior over the last few weeks when it became obvious and undeniable that she lost the contest by each and every count is worthy of a US Senator? If so, you have mighty low standards for that important an office. She's in the process of ruining what's left of her political career.

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, so now it's time to insult me because I don't agree with you? Nice.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't think Hillary has done anything that she should be ashamed of nor has she sullied the office of Senator nor has she ruined her political career.

[metta 0]

Congratulations Are In Order

by Turkana I'd been without electricity for a day, and without internet for a couple days, so I'm late to the game, on the latest Clinton Crime Against Humanity.

Hillary Clinton made a clumsy comment about the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, and the reaction was typical. People who have spent months dishonestly post-parsing and demonizing her for every evil conceivable once again writhed and caterwauled in convulsions of self-righteous shrill, attributing to her the most heinous motives, and demanding that she leave the presidential race, and perhaps public life, altogether. Shocking that these people would once again find an excuse to behave like rabid rodents.

I've said it many times: the most disheartening and disgusting aspect of this presidential race has not been the discovery that prominent politicians like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama behave like prominent politicians, it's been the complete meltdown of the supposedly liberal blogs, as they've collectively abandoned any pretense of honesty and rationality, transmogrifying into but a weak shadow of the corporate media they once were supposed to replace as the source of credible information. These people no longer have any credibility as political commentators or analysts, and less and less as people capable of even a modicum of human decency. What they are saying about the latest incident reveals less about Hillary Clinton than about themselves.

You know who does have credibility to talk about Clinton's comments? Robert F. Kennedy's son, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. This is what he said:

"It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June. I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband's 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June. I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."

Now, if you believe that the liars and smear merchants of the corporate media and the shrillosphere are reasonable and objective in taking such great offense to Clinton's comments, you are forced to conclude that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who actually has a personal stake and personal feelings about the matter, is so in the tank for Clinton that he will give a free pass to the most despicable possible reference to his father. The opposite reading would be that RFK, Jr. is right, and that Clinton unintentionally used jarringly inappropriate language to restate what she has stated many times before, and that the hysterical hate-mongers of the corporate media and the shrillosphere have merely found yet another pretext to spew their hysterical hatred. I'll be blunt: the people using this incident to further promote their own despicable agenda by their own despicable means are every bit as despicable as their lies and distortions would make Clinton out to be. They are shameful. Their behavior is inexcusable. They like to accuse Clinton of being Rovian- and worse- but it is they who have most closely come to emulate the worst behavior of the worst Republicans. To whatever degree they have any political impact at all, they are a blight on political discourse, and they are systematically destroying everything the blogs were supposed to be. That some of them are now participating in the corporate media could not be more appropriate. They have become that which they were supposed to have been trying to change. I congratulate them on their success.

(UPDATED inside...)

Continue reading "Congratulations Are In Order"

Email this • Technorati Links • Add to del.icio.us

Turkana @ 12:32 PM :: Link :: Comments (61) :: Spotlight :: Digg It! <h3 class="title">The Fake Outrage Machine</h3>

by eriposte Sen. Clinton's comments on RFK were unfortunate because they could be misinterpreted by those unwilling to take the trouble of checking out the facts independently - but it is clear reviewing her statement (<a target="_blank" href="http://www.correntewire.com/lies_and_the_lying_liars">video) and the context (also see the Argus Leader's Executive Editor's comment) that her observation (one that she has made before) was not offensive and that the outrage spewing forth against her is beyond ridiculous. Borrowing a phrase from Digby from another topic altogether - my reaction to the fake outrage is probably best described as "projectile vomiting".

Here are some comments from other bloggers on this episode.

Vastleft at Correntewire: This is the end of the innocence

Frenchdoc at Correntewire: Lies and the Lying Liars

Lambert at Correntewire: RFK Jr's Statement

Jeralyn at Talkleft: Making Mountains out of Molehills

Susie Madrak at Suburban Guerilla: Sucker Punch

Likelihood Zero at MyDD: Fake outrage and republican-like behavior

Riverdaughter at The Confluence: RFK and the 1968 primary - she ends with:

The reaction of the Obamasphere and the media is totally indefensible. The HuffingtonPost is taking a very matter-of-fact discussion of primary history and twisting it into a vile insinuation that Hillary can't wait until someone takes Obama out. It is time they stopped behaving like the Orwellians during a

two minutes hate

.

The Confluence would like to encourage Clinton to hang in there. Make it clear that you aren't going before the primaries end, Florida and Michigan are seated with restored influence for the convention and every voter has spoken. We are losing patience with the media's and oppositions efforts to force Clinton out of the race by creating scandalous and false accusations. The shame barrier has been crossed in a major way today and it is hardening our resolve.

I agree entirely.

Edited May 25, 2008 by metta

[rebeccajo 14]

I'm so glad you posted this link.

I didn't realize you all had a rule book.

Now, I see you have graduated to no.38 from Schopenhauer's "The Art of Controversy"

Thirty - Eight Ways to Win an Argument

from Schopenhauer's "The Art of Controversy"

...per fas et nefas :-)

(Courtesy of searchlore ~ Back to the trolls lore ~ original german text)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.

The more general your opponent's statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it.

The more restricted and narrow your own propositions remain, the easier they are to defend.

2 Use different meanings of your opponent's words to refute his argument.

Example: Person A says, "You do not understand the mysteries of Kant's philosophy."

Person B replies, "Of, if it's mysteries you're talking about, I'll have nothing to do with them."

3 Ignore your opponent's proposition, which was intended to refer to some particular thing.

Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it.

Attack something different than what was asserted.

4 Hide your conclusion from your opponent until the end.

Mingle your premises here and there in your talk.

Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order.

By this circuitous route you conceal your goal until you have reached all the admissions necessary to reach your goal.

5 Use your opponent's beliefs against him.

If your opponent refuses to accept your premises, use his own premises to your advantage.

Example, if the opponent is a member of an organization or a religious sect to which you do not belong, you may employ the declared opinions of this group against the opponent.

6 Confuse the issue by changing your opponent's words or what he or she seeks to prove.

Example: Call something by a different name: "good repute" instead of "honor," "virtue" instead of "virginity," "red-blooded" instead of "vertebrates".

7 State your proposition and show the truth of it by asking the opponent many questions.

By asking many wide-reaching questions at once, you may hide what you want to get admitted.

Then you quickly propound the argument resulting from the proponent's admissions.

8 Make your opponent angry.

An angry person is less capable of using judgment or perceiving where his or her advantage lies.

9 Use your opponent's answers to your question to reach different or even opposite conclusions.

10 If you opponent answers all your questions negatively and refuses to grant you any points, ask him or her to concede the opposite of your premises.

This may confuse the opponent as to which point you actually seek him to concede.

11 If the opponent grants you the truth of some of your premises, refrain from asking him or her to agree to your conclusion.

Later, introduce your conclusions as a settled and admitted fact.

Your opponent and others in attendance may come to believe that your conclusion was admitted.

12 If the argument turns upon general ideas with no particular names, you must use language or a metaphor that is favorable to your proposition.

Example: What an impartial person would call "public worship" or a "system of religion" is described by an adherent as "piety" or "godliness" and by an opponent as "bigotry" or "superstition."

In other words, inset what you intend to prove into the definition of the idea.

13 To make your opponent accept a proposition , you must give him an opposite, counter-proposition as well.

If the contrast is glaring, the opponent will accept your proposition to avoid being paradoxical.

Example: If you want him to admit that a boy must to everything that his father tells him to do, ask him, "whether in all things we must obey or disobey our parents."

Or , if a thing is said to occur "often" you are to understand few or many times, the opponent will say "many."

It is as though you were to put gray next to black and call it white; or gray next to white and call it black.

14 Try to bluff your opponent.

If he or she has answered several of your question without the answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow.

If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the technique may succeed.

15 If you wish to advance a proposition that is difficult to prove, put it aside for the moment.

Instead, submit for your opponent's acceptance or rejection some true proposition, as though you wished to draw your proof from it.

Should the opponent reject it because he suspects a trick, you can obtain your triumph by showing how absurd the opponent is to reject an obviously true proposition.

Should the opponent accept it, you now have reason on your side for the moment.

You can either try to prove your original proposition, as in #14, maintain that your original proposition is proved by what your opponent accepted.

For this an extreme degree of impudence is required, but experience shows cases of it succeeding.

16 When your opponent puts forth a proposition, find it inconsistent with his or her other statements, beliefs, actions or lack of action.

Example: Should your opponent defend suicide, you may at once exclaim, "Why don't you hang yourself?"

Should the opponent maintain that his city is an unpleasant place to live, you may say, "Why don't you leave on the first plane?"

17 If your opponent presses you with a counter-proof, you will often be able to save yourself by advancing some subtle distinction.

Try to find a second meaning or an ambiguous sense for your opponent's idea.

18 If your opponent has taken up a line of argument that will end in your defeat, you must not allow him to carry it to its conclusion.

Interrupt the dispute, break it off altogether, or lead the opponent to a different subject.

19 Should your opponent expressly challenge you to produce any objection to some definite point in his argument, and you have nothing to say, try to make the argument less specific.

Example: If you are asked why a particular hypothesis cannot be accepted, you may speak of the fallibility of human knowledge, and give various illustrations of it.

20 If your opponent has admitted to all or most of your premises, do not ask him or her directly to accept your conclusion.

Rather, draw the conclusion yourself as if it too had been admitted.

21 When your opponent uses an argument that is superficial and you see the falsehood, you can refute it by setting forth its superficial character.

But it is better to meet the opponent with acounter-argument that is just as superficial, and so dispose of him.

For it is with victory that you are concerned, not with truth.

Example: If the opponent appeals to prejudice, emotion or attacks you personally, return the attack in the same manner.

22 If your opponent asks you to admit something from which the point in dispute will immediately follow, you must refuse to do so, declaring that it begs the question.

23 Contradiction and contention irritate a person into exaggerating their statements.

By contradicting your opponent you may drive him into extending the statement beyond its natural limit.

When you then contradict the exaggerated form of it, you look as though you had refuted the original statement.

Contrarily, if your opponent tries to extend your own statement further than your intended, redefine your statement's limits and say, "That is what I said, no more."

24 State a false syllogism.

Your opponent makes a proposition, and by false inference and distortion of his ideas you force from the proposition other propositions that are not intended and that appear absurd.

It then appears that opponent's proposition gave rise to these inconsistencies, and so appears to be indirectly refuted.

25 If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary.

Only one valid contradiction is needed to overthrow the opponent's proposition.

Example: "All ruminants are horned," is a generalization that may be upset by the single instance of the camel.

26 A brilliant move is to turn the tables and use your opponent's arguments against himself.

Example: Your opponent declares: "so and so is a child, you must make an allowance for him."

You retort, "Just because he is a child, I must correct him; otherwise he will persist in his bad habits."

27 Should your opponent suprise you by becoming particularly angry at an argument, you must urge it with all the more zeal.

No only will this make your opponent angry, but it will appear that you have put your finger on the weak side of his case, and your opponent is more open to attack on this point than you expected.

28 When the audience consists of individuals (or a person) who is not an expert on a subject, you make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience.

This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes your opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs.

If your opponent must make a long, winded and complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen to him.

29 If you find that you are being beaten, you can create a diversion--that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had a bearing on the matter in dispute.

This may be done without presumption if the diversion has some general bearing on the matter.

30 Make an appeal to authority rather than reason.

If your opponent respects an authority or an expert, quote that authority to further your case.

If needed, quote what the authority said in some other sense or circumstance.

Authorities that your opponent fails to understand are those which he generally admires the most.

You may also, should it be necessary, not only twist your authorities, but actually falsify them, or quote something that you have entirely invented yourself.

31 If you know that you have no reply to the arguments that your opponent advances, you by a find stroke of irony declare yourself to be an incompetent judge.

Example: "What you say passes my poor powers of comprehension; it may well be all very true, but I can't understand it, and I refrain from any expression of opinion on it."

In this way you insinuate to the audience, with whom you are in good repute, that what your opponent says is nonsense.

This technique may be used only when you are quite sure that the audience thinks much better of you than your opponent.

32 A quick way of getting rid of an opponent's assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.

Example: You can say, "That is fascism" or "Atheism" or "Superstition."

In making an objection of this kind you take for granted

1)That the assertion or question is identical with, or at least contained in, the category cited;

and

2)The system referred to has been entirely refuted by the current audience.

33 You admit your opponent's premises but deny the conclusion.

Example: "That's all very well in theory, but it won't work in practice."

34 When you state a question or an argument, and your opponent gives you no direct answer, or evades it with a counter question, or tries to change the subject, it is sure sign you have touched a weak spot, sometimes without intending to do so.

You have, as it were, reduced your opponent to silence.

You must, therefore, urge the point all the more, and not let your opponent evade it, even when you do not know where the weakness that you have hit upon really lies.

35 Instead of working on an opponent's intellect or the rigor of his arguments, work on his motive.

If you success in making your opponent's opinion, should it prove true, seem distinctly prejudicial to his own interest, he will drop it immediately.

Example: A clergyman is defending some philosophical dogma.

You show him that his proposition contradicts a fundamental doctrine of his church.

He will abandon the argument.

36 You may also puzzle and bewilder your opponent by mere bombast.

If your opponent is weak or does not wish to appear as if he has no idea what your are talking about, you can easily impose upon him some argument that sounds very deep or learned, or that sounds indisputable.

37 Should your opponent be in the right but, luckily for you, choose a faulty proof, you can easily refute it and then claim that you have refuted the whole position.

This is the way in which bad advocates lose good cases.

If no accurate proof occurs to your opponent, you have won the day.

38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.

In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.

This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect.

[Caladan 19]

I'm no Clinton fan, but I don't think she was calling for Obama's assassination or wishing for it, especially since if he were to get killed, god forbid, she'd be the presumptive nominee anyway. I think she meant to evoke the comparison with young, hotshot Robert Kennedy, who entered the primaries late and really meant the race wasn't decided. She's mentioned that before.

Still, kind of stupid, as the reason the 1968 primary was competitive at this point was that California had yet to be run.

[rebeccajo 14]

I'm no Clinton fan, but I don't think she was calling for Obama's assassination or wishing for it, especially since if he were to get killed, god forbid, she'd be the presumptive nominee anyway. I think she meant to evoke the comparison with young, hotshot Robert Kennedy, who entered the primaries late and really meant the race wasn't decided. She's mentioned that before.

Still, kind of stupid, as the reason the 1968 primary was competitive at this point was that California had yet to be run.

It's a tacky and tasteless comparison that should have never been made. Anyone with any class, dignity or real leadership skills wouldn't have made it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Several weeks ago I saw Jabberwacky post a statement something in the order of "Republicans like to take statements our of context and blow them into something else" and my jaw just about dropped while I read it. This here is why.

Why I...I'd never make such a claim. Seriously, this was a gaffe, a Freudian slip perhaps, but she's apologized and Obama accepts her explanation that it was a poor choice of words. It was a much needed relief for many Democrats, from all the tension over the long drawn out race, especially to those of us who wish that Hillary would accept her defeat and throw her support behind Obama so we can focus on the general election....that is, unless she's worried about Obama's safety.

[rebeccajo 14]

Several weeks ago I saw Jabberwacky post a statement something in the order of "Republicans like to take statements our of context and blow them into something else" and my jaw just about dropped while I read it. This here is why.

Why I...I'd never make such a claim. Seriously, this was a gaffe, a Freudian slip perhaps, but she's apologized and Obama accepts her explanation that it was a poor choice of words. It was a much needed relief for many Democrats, from all the tension over the long drawn out race, especially to those of us who wish that Hillary would accept her defeat and throw her support behind Obama so we can focus on the general election....that is, unless she's worried about Obama's safety.

Explain the 'relief' to me. I don't get that bit.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

Absolutely, now she's trying to "whack" the competition.

Yeah, cuz (obviously) no one hates the idea of a black president.

Evidently mob bosses like Sen. Clinton believe that or she would not be ordering the whack job on Sen. Obama. The KKK isn't even that bold to get on TV and let people know that they have a hit out on Sen. Obama. She's got balls. They say she's tough but that a whole new level of tough politic. You can't explain away or dismiss her comment. Sen. Obama should fear for his life.

Edited May 25, 2008 by Sheriff Uling

[Caladan 19]

I'm no Clinton fan, but I don't think she was calling for Obama's assassination or wishing for it, especially since if he were to get killed, god forbid, she'd be the presumptive nominee anyway. I think she meant to evoke the comparison with young, hotshot Robert Kennedy, who entered the primaries late and really meant the race wasn't decided. She's mentioned that before.

Still, kind of stupid, as the reason the 1968 primary was competitive at this point was that California had yet to be run.

It's a tacky and tasteless comparison that should have never been made. Anyone with any class, dignity or real leadership skills wouldn't have made it.

I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt because she's been mentioning RFK in the context of the June primaries since she failed to knock Obama out on Super Tuesday, without mentioning the assassination. In poor taste, sure, but not malicious.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think she meant to evoke the comparison with young, hotshot Robert Kennedy, who entered the primaries late and really meant the race wasn't decided.

It wasn't. Only 13 states had held their primaries by the time RFK was assassinated - those colored in the map below. That, of course, calls into question the relevance of this reference in her arguing her case for continuing the race beyond the point where she can actually win it. It's not like there are still 37 contests to be held come June of 2008 as was the case in June of 1968. The contests are decided and she lost by every measure (except her own fuzzy math on the popular vote count which doesn't mean anything in the real world).

[aravis227 1]

The reason she made the comment was simply to illustrate that no one can predict the future, at least that is the way I took it. A wise illustration? Well, obviously with the ultra sensitivity that is being shown here, clearly not. Still, how anyone can even suggest that is was some wishful thinking, 'oh, you never know Barack could get assasinated' [Nudge, nudge, wink wink] is just ludicrous. Hillary is a US Senator for goodness sake, not some Jane Nutjob from Hicksville.

I am in absolute agreement that this is what she intended to mean. I don't believe for a second that she was actually suggesting or attempting to plan for Obama to be assassinated. However, in the current political environment, it was an incredibly stupid thing to say. There ARE assassination threats out there for Obama...that is simple fact. Whether she intended to condone them or not, is not the point...the point is that there are people in this country who listened to what she said, but what they HEARD was "Obama should be assassinated." Every candidate is monitored and listened to and dissected in every presidential race...which means they have to analyze everything they say BEFORE they say it. As a friend of mine used to say "perception is reality." What she MEANT is a drop in the bucket to what was PERCEIVED.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Several weeks ago I saw Jabberwacky post a statement something in the order of "Republicans like to take statements our of context and blow them into something else" and my jaw just about dropped while I read it. This here is why.

Why I...I'd never make such a claim. Seriously, this was a gaffe, a Freudian slip perhaps, but she's apologized and Obama accepts her explanation that it was a poor choice of words. It was a much needed relief for many Democrats, from all the tension over the long drawn out race, especially to those of us who wish that Hillary would accept her defeat and throw her support behind Obama so we can focus on the general election....that is, unless she's worried about Obama's safety.

Explain the 'relief' to me. I don't get that bit.

For myself, my reaction was more a relief than an outrage. What she said was outrageous, but I was trying to explain to Dale that at least for me, I'm reacting to what she said as a release, believing that this was a huge gaffe for Hillary, especially after so many things have been brought up in the media in an attempt to discredit Obama's character. I agree with Obama's response to this, that going through such a long campaign, candidates are bound to to say some things that they later wished they had worded differently. As outrageous as the statement alone is, like Obama, I'll give Hillary the benefit of the doubt that she truly is sorry for saying it and didn't mean it to be taken the way people here have reacted.

[natty bumppo 297]

Absolutely, now she's trying to "whack" the competition.

Yeah, cuz (obviously) no one hates the idea of a black president.

Evidently mob bosses like Sen. Clinton believe that or she would not be ordering the whack job on Sen. Obama. The KKK isn't even that bold to get on TV and let people know that they have a hit out on Sen. Obama. She's got balls. They say she's tough but that a whole new level of tough politic. You can't explain away or dismiss her comment. Sen. Obama should fear for his life.

Racking up a body count is nothing new for the Clintons ...