Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
AncientAssyrian
Published Letters: 769 Editor's Choice: 54
1. Clinton says Johnson's statement was out of line
2. Johnson says that "what Obama was doing around the neighborhood" was working as a civil rights organizer
So, if that's the case, then what exactly was out of line about Johnson's statement???????
Those of you who are getting on Tim, or saying that this issue is over -- it's NOT.
Because if he was out of line, as Hillary is saying, then Hillary is admitting that Johnson was taking a potshot at Obama and bringing up the "drug" innuendo.
But she's NOT admitting that, is she.
In which case, she's a liar...
If, as you said:
"Johnson's (eyebrow wriggling) comments were [not] an "attack"
and all Johnson was referring to was Obama working as in the neigbhorhoods as a civil rights organizer, as he backpedaled, then two questions:
-- why the eyebrow wiggling and innuendo tone?
-- why was that, which would be a compliment, "out of bounds" as Hillary says?
All you Hillary apologists are acting just like her. You want it both ways. Either it was
(A) an "out of bounds" potshot at Obama, to raise something that is, as you said, already mentioned in his book (and NOT lied about, like Hillary's husband did), or it was
(B) a totally innocent comment about Obama being a civil rights activist (albeit one delivered with mysterious eyebrow wiggling and an unexplainable tone of innuendo).
And it's quite obvious which one it REALLY is...
Hillary is rewriting history, yet again, to suit herself.
susansunflower suggested that perhaps Hillary LEARNED and CHANGED...
Hillary DID in fact LEARN and CHANGE.
Hillary LEARNED that the voters realized Johnson was her racist proxy, and she LEARNED that this was going to backfire on her campaign, and so she CHANGED her story in the public from believing that what Johnson said was fine, to, recognizing that what he said WAS racist and that he subsequently lied about his meaning, said it was now "out of bounds."
It is so very obvious that it Johnson's comment was intended to be an innuendo-potshot, and Hillary has admitted as such by finally saying that it was "out of bounds." But it appears that Hillary only decided it was "out of bounds" because she LEARNED that some other people -- namely VOTERS -- thought it was.
The idea that Hillary somehow made some sort of realization that the public didn't like what Johnson said, and THEN she changed her tune reinforces the pattern that her decisions/opinions/interpretations quickly sway with the winds of public opinion.
http://www.scrabulous.com
Christofascism is alive and flourishing!
That hole you're a diggin' shore is a gettin' deeper!!!
YeeHAW!!!!!!!
To those of you who keep slamming Tim, how about YOU all get off the attack bandwagon, and save all your vitriole for the candidates themselves.
Because YOUR candidate Hillary is showing her true colors. She found her voice last week all right, and it's coming out of her #$*$#($* because it's more spin, more nonsense, and more self-serving revisionism.
How it SHOULD have gone..
1. Johnson makes obnoxious smear comment about Obama
2. Clinton says it was inappopriate RIGHT AWAY
3. Johnson apologizes for taking potshots
4. Issue over, case closed
Instead it was...
1. Johnson makes obnoxious smear comment about Obama
2. Public recognizes it's offensive, calls Johnson AND Clinton on it
3. Johnson claims he didn't mean what he did mean
4. Hillary says "I believe he didn't mean what he did mean"
5. Public outcry at offfensive, racist comments continues
6. Hillary realizes it's political liability, and changes her story, now "He was out of bounds"
7. Johnson FINALLY admits he was out of bounds
8. Hillary exposed yet again as a panderer who can't tell the truth
Keep talking, Johnson, and keep documenting the bad moves of Hillary Clinton et. proxies and supporters, Tim. Those of us who don't want Hillary in the White House figure every time you one of them opens their mouths, Hillary's lost more votes...
As a vocal critic of Salon and Joan, I want to say that I've appreciated the increasingly balanced coverage we're seeing in Salon in the past 2 weeks or so.
I don't know if you've just decided to put the Hillary lovefest on the back burner for business reasons (as in, not losing the many readers who are not Hillary fans), you're rethinking your support given various developments, or if being in the thick of it is just making you want to step back and look at it all more objectively, but I've appreciated that Salon is offering varied coverage, and it's not the "all Hillary, all the time" channel anymore.
I've also gained new respect for Tim Grieve. (And I'm so grateful that Patrick the Pilot and Cary Tennis haven't yet figured out ways to inject politics into their columns!)
But in the meantime, keep up the more open-minded view of the various campaigns -- I'm warming up to Salon again, and getting the feeling you heard us...!
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
