Hillary Gets Endorsement Of Newspaper Editorial Board That Heard R.F.K. Assassination Remarks
The editorial board of the Argus Leader of South Dakota -- to whom Hillary made her remarks about Robert F. Kennedy's assassination -- gives her a glowing endorsement today:
Her mastery of complex policy detail is broad and deep, and her experience as a senator and former first lady matches that...As those who have attended her South Dakota rallies can attest, she is quick on her feet and energetic. She frames her ideas clearly in speeches and answers questions with genuine directness.
Her resilience and determination never should be questioned. She has met or overcome every challenge or roadblock in her way, and there have been many. Her determination to carry the nomination process through to its real conclusion has perhaps earned her a grudging respect from those who would never support her.
Clinton might not win this race. In fact, it's a long shot. But whatever some might say, the race is not over, and her name is on the ballot. Win or lose, she's also the best Democratic candidate for South Dakota.
The Argus Leader is the state's largest paper. Clearly, the people who actually heard her make the assassination comments first hand were not terribly offended by them.
Did they mention that she's prone to lie and her campaign is $20 million in debt?
Just askin' ...
And I won't even mention the blatant Clinton apologia in the last line.
May 30, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama makes a pattern of good cop/bad cop maneuvers: He uses his campaign as the bad cop to make false and outrageous accusations against his opponents and then he plays the good cop with a lame apology. A lot of people caught on to this in his latest false outrage about Hillary reciting history in describing what campaigning had occurred in June. The fact is that Hillary used the same language in March --- and no one, NO ONE -- took any offense. Obama viley imputed bad motives and untoward effects to her remarks and his echo chambers bought it. Anglachel’s Joural quotes in full Somebyr’s recounting of the history (http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/)
“In fact, no mainstream pundit (no one; nobody) said a word about Clinton’s statement in March—a statement which was published in Time, and on-line at the magazine’s web site. No one at Time said a word; no one in the wider press corps. And yet, this past weekend, everyone keened and wailed and tore their hair when Clinton so vilely said the same thing! Olbermann, “The Worst Con Man in the World,” offered a heartsick restrospective in which he blamed himself:”
Snip
Readers, if you’re dumb enough to buy that sh*t, you’re as dumb as this big fraud thinks you are. For the record, that was in Olbermann’s “Special Comment.” In it, the man who suggested, just last month, that someone should “take [Clinton] in a room and only he comes out”—that delicate poodle barked deep outrage about what Vile Clinton had said.
Except, she had said the same thing back in March—and this hound from hell hadn’t barked at all! In fact, nobody barked back in March. And everyone barked this past weekend.
But readers, you may understand why this happened—because we’ve all seen this movie before. Let’s explain what happened this weekend. Let’s explain why Robinson, Olbermann, Herbert/Dowd/Matthews all sat up and started to bark.
How did the chronology go down this time? As usual, it all came down to a famous old question: At present, who is scripting your “press corps?”
In fact, a familiar old pattern reappeared in the wake of Clinton’s remark in Sioux Falls. As John Harris explained at Politico, the Associated Press filed an initial report about Clinton’s session with the editorial board—and the AP didn’t mention her remark about Robert Kennedy’s death! At the AP, it was March in May; no one seemed to be troubled by Clinton’s outrageous comment (link to story below). But then, the people who script your “press corps” got busy! As Katherine Seelye reported on Monday, the brilliant minds at the New York Post got the nasty episode started. Then, your press corps’ current masters told the dogs to bark:
SEELYE (5/26/08): Shortly after Mrs. Clinton spoke on Friday, the Obama campaign jumped on the story, sending an e-mail message to reporters saying her comment had no place in a presidential campaign. It linked to a online report in The New York Post that said Mrs. Clinton was ''making an odd comparison between the dead candidate and Robert Kennedy—a phrase the newspaper later dropped."
Any one who peddles such false charges is a Pied Piper of Hatred and Obama is guilty as charged.
May 30, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
His latest false outrage -- don't know where you're getting this, as Obama hasn't said a word. His campaign issued a brief statement of maybe two sentences, that basically said statements like that had no place in this campaign. Not exactly "outrage." But that you for your concern.
May 30, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. It was the Obama campaign that created the firestorm.
Please read the account from John Harris of politico.com. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10604_Page2.html
The false accusation whipped around the media via the New York Post and inflamed by the Obama camp:
May 30, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
AJM, you just do not get it.
Regardless of intent, a person IS responsible for their words. Hillary was all over Obama for his "bitter" comment in which he clearly misspoke about a position he has articulated in the past yet she somehow expects to get a free pass for using words that implied she might be staying in the race in case the worst possible scenario happens to Obama. She is completely inconsistent.
But this case was much, much, much worse than the bitter comments because raising this possibility actually makes this possibility more likely so her words had the impact of putting Obama, McCain, and herself at a greater risk. And, again, she expects a free pass?
What is soooooo hard for her to admit that her words came out wrong and she never intended to make such an implication and to apologize to Obama, McCain, and all Americans?
I can't remember Hillary ever apologizing for anything. I'm not talking about using the word "regret" or an "if, then" statement; I mean her actually saying that what she did was a mistake that had negative impact for which she was sorry and apologized. Why is that?
Haven't we had enough of this sort of leadershp?
May 30, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
As opposed to all of that genuine outrage Hillary felt over the "bitter/cling" comment. Spare me your pontification. You guys don't get to say every offhand comment that Obama makes is fraught with deep and disturbing meaning and yet blow this off like its nothing. Sweetie.
May 30, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
What has been deeply disturbing to me has been how the so-called progressives have been engaging in roveian "gotcha" politics. Making "much ado about nothing" with regard to political gaffes.
It hasn't been pleasant to watch no matter who was the source.
Progressives for the past 8 years have been proclaiming that we were better than wingnuts because we were reality based and not reactive. The 2008 Democratic primary season has shown that we're no better than the republicans when it comes to this.
May 30, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
actually, I am another naive jerk. but this was my reaction too (that as a member of this committee who drew up and approved the rules and sanctions that he wuld perform his duties on the committee in an honest way regardless of his subsequent positions and passions).
May 30, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was wondering why they were so quick to defend her. It's now obvious that they were always on Hillary's side.
The funny thing about these endorsements is that we assume these papers were completely neutral until they made their endorsment. That's simply not true.
May 30, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's newspaper endorsement gets a thread, but Obama's 3 SDs don't. That makes sense.
May 30, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
that's just not news. It's expected! Now when Hillary gets one, they'll post it.
May 30, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who are they, hyper?
May 30, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two from your great state of TX and one from WA, I think.
May 30, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Texas Democratic Party chairman Boyd Richie endorsed Barack Obama for president Thursday as the final primaries and Texas' state party convention approach.
Richie's wife, Democratic National Committee member Betty Richie, also endorsed Obama. They are two of Texas' 32 superdelegates and were among the few remaining who had not committed to either Obama or Hillary Clinton.
May 30, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess they endorsed yesterday, but the story is from today.
May 30, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you thank you thank you.
May 30, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Clearly, the people who actually heard her make the assassination comments first hand were not terribly offended by them."
so what?
May 30, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Greg, this is really pretty weak - and as a journalist, you should know better than to throw something like this out there without any context.
Yes, clearly they weren't that offended. Was there a lot of over-hyped outrage over this? Yes. But there is much more to it than that - we all know that the historical analysis was just wrong on Hillary's part - and that she is waiting for SOMETHING (no, not assassination) terrible to happen to Obama.
But no, that now gets swept under the wrong with a journalistically lazy statement like that which essentially says, "Well, if the people who heard it weren't offended, neither should you be."
May 30, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Furthermore, isn't that last silly line implied by the content of the story? Clearly, Greg wanted to poke a sharp stick in the eye of TPM's Obama supporters.
May 30, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course he was trying to poke a stick in the hornets nest. Greg lives for the 200 comment thread.
Truly nothing to see here. I am going to move along.
May 30, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg is kicking the ass of all other TPM sections.
if they count on clicks for ad revenue, Greg is their cash cow.
May 30, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like to think it's intentional.
That Greg is like, "Hey Erik, Josh, check this out. I'm going to make 100 adults have a hissy fit by adding the word 'probably' here. It's going to be hilarious."
May 30, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Me too.
I'd like to think at the end of each "outraged" thread in the archives is a last post by Greg, and it reads, "Muahahahahaha!"
May 30, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, and that's a weak inference to make.
May 30, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, many heard those comments firsthand while watching Hillary live at that meeting, and they were offended. Just because a newspaper group wasn't offended doesn't mean that others weren't.
May 30, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
How's this - I was.
I think it's the worst form imaginable to mention assassination like that when you are running for office and have opponent - no matter how you might have meant it - it's not an innocent statement no mater what interpretation you put on it.
It's offensive. And the Argus is welcome to not be offended, but don't tell me I have no reason -
May 30, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
How's this for another interpretation Greg - maybe they agreed because they don't like Obama either.
May 30, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
What? No! Never! I'm sure they are quite unbiased.
Oh, except for this glowing endorsement.
Actually, maybe they feel guilty.
May 30, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
No comment comes to mind . . .
Except . . . Follow the money . . . The corporate ownership's money.
May 30, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that RFK & assassination was mentioned and it didn't trigger and immediately followup question, makes me wonder what kind of journalists these people are.
Did they go to the Wolf Blitzer school of tabloid journalism or what?!
LOL.
May 30, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. These folks are used to covering state politics (in a sparsely populated state, I might add), school boards and council meetings. I doubt there are many budding Bob Woodwards on the staff.
May 30, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the fact that she sat there and feigned confusion and puzzlement over why anyone would want her to leave the race. How do you not at least roll your eyes over that one?
May 30, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
We all saw the video, we saw the context, it doesn't matter if we weren't breathing the same air as her, people were offended. It isn't like they got some inside look into what she meant just because they were in the room.
Are we supposed to not be offended now because they endorsed her?
May 30, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly, the people who already preferred her were inclined not to be terribly offended by the comments.
May 30, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly - my point too. Maybe they weren't offended cause they'd like to see something happen to him.
Unless Greg can read minds, there's no way to know what they think there except through their endorsement and I don't find anything obvious about that.
But that's me - maybe that's why I don't edit this page.
May 30, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The members of the Argus Leader Editorial Board could be a bunch of stupid hicks. Always consider the stupidity factor first.
May 30, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The folks in Rev. Hagee's church weren't terribly offended at his remarks.
What's your point?
May 30, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was about to make the same point with respect to Reverend Wright. I still think she was being clumsy instead of sinister in making the reference, but the comment isn't scrubbed clean in everyone's minds by the approval of her immediate audience.
May 30, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
With respect to Hillary's RFK comment, I don't think "offended" is the right word. It was more a reflection of her - her unprincipled ambition and manipulativeness - than a slight against someone else.
May 30, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Her determination to carry the nomination process through to its real conclusion has perhaps earned her a grudging respect from those who would never support her." [From the endorsement]
If anyone who fits this category is in the room, would you please stand up?
May 30, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, uh, of course they weren't offended. They have no reason to be offended.
They're not the ones Hillary wants SHOT!
May 30, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
priceless. This is indeed news. I bet she wins the primary now.
hard hitting. Relevant.
The Post was listening to it live. Do they not count?
May 30, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, it made my stomach hurt.
May 30, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently, they appreciated her honesty with the RFK remarks. Most politicians wouldn't allude to an assassination when asked why they are staying in a race, but Hillary "answers questions with a genuine directness."
I guess that is one way to put it...
May 30, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's unfair to ask an editorial board to endorse a candidate based on a gaffe ignoring the rest of the board interview.
I wonder if Obama sat with the board for an interview? Did he make the same effort for an endorsement?
If not, the board had fewer options but endorse Hillary. If Obama spent time with the board- then I would question their intelligence.
May 30, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama didn't sit down with them, I think.
May 30, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're probably right.
May 30, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would still question their intelligence if they base their endorsement solely off of who was willing to court them more. I see your point, though.
May 30, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have to question how much these endorsements are worth, anyway.
I don't know if there is any way to gage that, either.
May 30, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Obama have all major TX paper endorsements?
Newspaper endorsements, especially this late in the game, I think are meaningless.
May 30, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Dallas News endorsed him but I'll be honest - I didn't keep up with the rest of the majors in Texas. I don't know about the Houston Chronicle or the Austin American Statesman, though I think both did.
I don't know for sure. But I agree - I said so upthread. I don't know that these endorsements are really worth much any more.
May 30, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it was all the major papers in PA. It was some big state that he didn't win. My original TX claim, notwithstanding. Either way, we agree. Meaningless.
May 30, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Newspaper endorsements can mean something if the readers know nothing about the candidates.
In a presidential race they're nothing but a tag line on a TV or radio commercial.
May 30, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about the good folks at the Argus Leader truly do believe Hillary is the best candidate? It's certainly in the realm of possibility, isn't it? Let's just say good for Hillary and move on. In the long run, I don't think it matters one iota.
May 30, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about Greg didn't write this post that way - he wrote with that in your face final statement.
May 30, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I don't think Greg is the Hillary Hack he gets made out to be sometimes. I just don't think it's necessary to attack the Argus Leader or the folks in Sount Dakota at this point.
May 30, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I found it offensive and millions of people across the country found it offensive as well. The third rail in politics is mentioning the a word. If she is so dumb that she doesn't see that she clearly shouldn't be the nominee. Also, she should have apologized to people that she might have offended. She didn't. Pathetic.
May 30, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
So they weren't offended by the RFK comment. Maybe they could have been offended by her proceeding statement that people have been trying to push her out of the race since Iowa, which is a blatant lie.
Whatever. I expect this will have the same affect on Hillary's chances as all those newspapers endorsements for Obama did in Pennsylvania.
May 30, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Firstly, they very well might have been offended. They don't address the point in their endorsement. The only factual statement you can draw is that, whatever their level of offendedness or lack thereof, it was not enough for them to endorse Obama over Clinton. Secondly, the endorsement itself is fairly weak sauce, imho. Corn ethanol and universal health care are the only substantive issues mentioned. Universal health care is debatable as to who has the better plan, though I will point out that neither are truly the type of plan that the US needs to catch up to other Western nations. And the whole thing about ethanol, corn or otherwise, comes across as pandering to me. As the endorsement itself says, ethanol has been a boon in SD. Why not offer SD a gas tax holiday while you're at it. Besides, the whole ethanol thing isn't working out too good for food prices.
May 30, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Utterly disingenuous and embarrassingly transparent. We have no faculties of our own to evaluate the cruel comment on our own, independent of the idiots in the room?
By this logic, what Trent Lott said in that 100th birthday celebration was not offensive. Bush's "search" for WMDs skit was not offensive either. And on and on.
Often, people in rooms listening to idiotic comments seem too much in the moment to realize the nonsense they are hearing is bad. To use that (d/n)umbness as an argument is just appalling and appallingly embarrassing. STOP.
She is crazed because she is crazy about wanting to be President -- why are you crazy enough to justify that lunacy?
May 30, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a beautiful comment, Radha.
Just beautiful.
May 30, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great points Radha!!!!
It reminded me of when Colbert did his thing at the White House Correspondents dinner and no one - or at least not many people - in attendence thought it was funny. It was a case of "you had to not be there".
Sometimes not being in the room makes it easier to be objective.
May 30, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with this is that the video is out there for all to see and judge on its own merits.
Each of us saw and heard exactly what the editors did and came to very different conclusions.
May 30, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course the people who heard the assassination comments, BUT WHO WOULD NOT BE THE TARGET OF THEM, would not be offended. After all, it's "just words." And as Hillary has reminded us time and time again, "Words don't matter."
May 30, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to let everybody know, for historical reference, that May 30 was the day Joan of Arc was burned at the stake.
I just automatically think of May 30 as Joan of Arc Burning on a Stake Day, in case that ever pops up in conversation and it seems inexplicable or inappropriate to you.
That's just how I remember it's May 30.
So don't freak out or make a big deal out of it if I bring it up.
May 30, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Clearly, the people who actually heard her make the assassination comments first hand were not terribly offended by them."
Yet, of course, all of the outrage and offense over Rev. Wright and "Bittergate" was absolutely sincere, with no political motivation behind it whatsoever, right?
I mean, you only devoted several week's worth of postings to those two issues because of their deep relevance to the issues facing the country in this election, correct?
May 30, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
you only devoted several week's worth of postings to those two issues [Wright, bittergate] because of their deep relevance to the issues facing the country in this election, correct?
the difference in the coverage by TPMEC is undeniable. No doubt.
May 30, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm bracing for a lot of garbage today as Monsters Inc adopts a "smoke 'em if ya got 'em" attitude in light of the inevitable on Tuesday.
Watch out for low-flying kitchen sinks today.
May 30, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know this is off topic, but it would be nice to get some news here every once in a while and I am sure it will be appreciated. Obama's 1st 100 days in office will include a comprehensive review of all of the king's unconstitutional antics and the overturning of all executive orders and laws that violate the constitution. Ahhh, that sounds soooo good. I think someone found that blasted constitution that's been lost for 7 1/2 years.
http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/05/28/bushs-laws-will-be-scrutinized-if-i-become-president-obama-says/
Why isn't this headline news and getting a ton of press? I really don't get it.
May 30, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because Hillary said something.
May 30, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently you didn't get the memo, Michael. This site is for broadcasting all of Hillary Clinton's (and occasionally John McCain's) charges against Barack Obama, and how serious a threat they pose to his oh-so fragile candidacy, along with cherry-picking the polls that show he is doomed to defeat in November.
That, and downplaying any mistakes by the Clinton campaign, as well as condescension towards anyone who might have a problem with her constant distortions and negative attacks.
And, I have to say, TPMEC is fulfilling its mission admirably.
May 30, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton remains the best choice for president.
Good Democrats support her quest for the nomination.
May 30, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good morning, fogu2. Slept well, I hope.
May 30, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a naughty democrat
May 30, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Join the club.
May 30, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Me too!
I've been a BAD Democrat!
May 30, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hee! Me too! A bad, BAD Democrat. One could even say rebellious. Like that group of madmen in the 1770's... who were they again?
May 30, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Argus Leader endorsed BUSH in 2004. (Ick.) So, reading between the lines, the Argus Leader endorsed HRC because she's the most Republican-like candidate--and I suspect that their general election endorsement will go to McCain. Winning the "closest to McCain" prize is not something I'd be bragging about.
May 30, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
They did specifically say that she is the "more moderate" candidate, which is a nice, laid back way of saying that Obama is TEH LIBERAL!!11l!!
May 30, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are TEH RIGHT!
May 30, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Slightly OT - an interesting article on Politico, about Hillary as drama queen as compared to "no-drama Obama."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10694.html
Oh, the Humanity!
May 30, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent.
Choke on that KO and the rest of the Obama hacks.
May 30, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
So goes the Siuox Falls Argus Leader so goes the nation, right?
May 30, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that's right1
Take KO off the air!
CENSOR HIM!
Replace him with a REAL journalist like Taylor Marsh!
May 30, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come on. That's like someone who made a racist joke and then says "Well my one black/Hispanic/Asian/whatever friend wasn't offended, so neither should you." And I think most people see the problem with that kind of reasoning.
May 30, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you LadyGo.
I was trying to come up with that exact analogy, but I was too slow to the punch.
May 30, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
South Dakota is a conservative state with an aging population. However, it's got more of a Libertarian feel out west. There is no state tax there. The idea is that government should keep its hands out of most things, which was a crucial theme in the defeat of SD's first abortion ban in 2006.
Ultra-liberal doesn't play well with the majority. You will, however, find small pockets of stunningly progressive movements.
Clinton is a safe bet in this state that has seen it's fair share of racial tensions (White vs Native American). I still don't think she wins it, though. There are a lot of moderate Republicans that are fed up with the neo-con era, and we know Obama is good with the voter reg.
May 30, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say they're clearly feeling a need to justify their stupified failure to call her on it.
May 30, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg: I'm glad you finally found SOMEONE who shares your appreciation for a good Obama assassination joke!
May 30, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly, the people who actually heard her make the assassination comments first hand were not terribly offended by them.
I fail to see the significance of this fact. Millions of people have heard Clinton's comments by now. A number of those people were offended; and a number of people were not offended. Don't those people count equally? Is offensiveness something that can only be gauged in some mysterious way by a live audience? Is there some new "sitting in the room" criterion of political offensiveness, stupidity, callousness or what have you?
George Bush has said all manner of crap on Rush Limbaugh's show over the years, and Limbaugh wasn't offended by any of it. Should I therefore be reassured?
May 30, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The RFK flap was bogus from the beginning.
May 30, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Argus Leader editorial board is very conservative.
You lose credibility on a daily basis anymore, Greg.
May 30, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh Hussein--
I'm pretty positive that your constant Greg-bashing proves only one thing.
To which I ask:
Why do you hate freedom?
May 30, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
so greg that makes everything fine.
strange because I thought that was one of the oddest things about the story: the fact that the questioners appeared not to actually listen or hear what she said whereas almost everyone else understood the implication immediately.Perhaps another conclusion would be that the times argus people do not hear nuance or just did not see the window that opened into her soul for a minute.
I really did not buy into this Greg is pro Clinton stuff but this is a weird defense of Clinton but keep it up Greg, you are right : it is not June yet and maybe something will happen and she can step in and save us all.
May 30, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink