Where’s The “Special Comment” About Obama’s Auschwitz Remark?

Last week, in the land of gaffes, Keith Olbermann delivered another of his much-lauded (by some) “Special Comments” about Hillary Clinton’s use of the word “assassination” in this political campaign.  While thought-provoking to a point, Olbermann’s Special Comments are obviously more of an Editorial than actual Journalism:

Senator, we cannot forgive you this.

“You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

We cannot forgive you this — not because it is crass and low and unfeeling and brutal.

This is unforgivable, because this nation’s deepest shame, its most enduring horror, its most terrifying legacy, is political assassination.

Lincoln.

Garfield.

McKinley.

Kennedy.

Martin Luther King.

Robert Kennedy.

And, but for the grace of the universe or the luck of the draw, Reagan, Ford, Truman, Nixon, Andrew Jackson, both Roosevelts, even George Wallace.

The politics of this nation is steeped enough in blood, Senator Clinton, you cannot and must not invoke that imagery! Anywhere! At any time!

Our “deepest shame?”  Our “most enduring horror?”  Really?  Someone lend Mr. Olbermann a history book.  While political assassinations are an abominable instance that have recurred in our history, I can certainly think of at least two historical references that are much more shameful, horrible, enduring, and a “terrifying legacy.” 

One of those is, obviously, slavery. 

One other enduring, horrible legacy of the United States is that we idly stood by while Jews were slaughtered by the millions in WWII Germany.  Not until our own physical security was breached at Pearl Harbor did we deign to go to the aid of the Poles, Jews, and Homosexuals that were systematically butchered by the Nazis.  The fact that we waited so damned long contributed to the popularization of the phrase, “Never Again,”  originally coined by Meir Kahane.

While I hate to offend Mr. Olbermann’s sensibilities, Meir Kahane was also assassinated.  In New York. 

And yet Barack Obama’s false assertion that his own uncle was part of the “American forces” that liberated not just any concentration camp, but Auschwitz itself, escapes Mr. Olbermann’s scathing comment. 

Why? 

It was the Russian army that liberated Auschwitz, not the Americans.  And it has always been, to me, an unwritten rule that you do not refer to Auschwitz unless you know what the hell you’re talking about.  While Bobby Kennedy’s assassination is indeed an enduring and horrible image, for many, many Americans, the gas chambers and ovens of Auschwitz are far more horrifying. 

 

Advertisements

42 thoughts on “Where’s The “Special Comment” About Obama’s Auschwitz Remark?

  1. Yeah, Olbermann’s been overreaching a lot as of late. He started out full of appropriate vim and vigor but has had to lose his shit in larger and larger proportion over smaller and smaller things in order to maintain his popularity wave. He’s closing in on Jerry Springer territory now.

    This is actually an interesting example, though. So everyone’s losing it over Clinton making a questionable comment regarding assassination and Obama, but did Olbermann provide a similar rant about Huckabee’s even more tasteless assassination joke? Or Liz Trotta, the Fox News analyst who came right out and said that she hoped both Osama bin Laden and Obama would be “knocked off” after yet again confusing Barack Obama with Osama bin Laden? Perhaps he did, but frankly I can’t be bothered to take the time out of my day to listen to him rant anymore.

  2. I like watching Hardball when I get the chance, often when I’m folding laundry. (Me and my “domestic bliss.” ) Even though so many liberals tar Chris Matthews, I think he’s more objective than most.

  3. Obama’s comments were incorrect in that it was his Great Uncle and it was a different concentration camp. Whoop-dee-do. The basic statement is that he had relatives that did such things in WWII. We can all forgive him that slight misstatement. I know my grandfather was in the Navy during WWII but I couldn’t tell you the name of the ship or even which ocean he was sailing in.

    This is a long way from the outright fabrications of Hillary and the propaganda of the Bush Administration. You can’t seriously think that mixing up little facts like the name of the camp and such is that big a deal. It’s just more “gotcha” politics. I even forgive Hillary her stupid Robert Kennedy reference, but not the lies about Bosnia.

  4. You can’t seriously think that mixing up little facts like the name of the camp and such is that big a deal. It’s just more “gotcha” politics. I even forgive Hillary her stupid Robert Kennedy reference.

    The point, Keith, is that Olbermann’s Special Comment was a direct rant and over-the-top haranguing about her Kennedy reference. I’m not defending Hillary, merely pointing out the inconsistency in the media coverage.

    And yes, I do think misrepresenting the involvement of a family member in freeing Auschwitz is a very big deal. Especially following so closely on the heels of Bush’s retarded remarks to the Knesset, and Obama’s subsequent courting of Jewish voters. After all, there was nothing factually inaccurate about Hillary’s retarded remarks regarding RFK. It was just insulting. As was Obama’s attempt to tie his family to freeing the most prominent concentration camp of all.

  5. I disagree that there is any difference whatsoever between the evil and horror of Auschwitz, or Buchenwald, or Treblinka, or . . .

    I have an aquaintance who is a woman with a tattoo on her arm from Auschwitz (we celebrated the seder, together) and she, I am sure, agrees.

  6. I do think misrepresenting the involvement of a family member in freeing Auschwitz is a very big deal.

    But is it misrepresentation or just plain mistake? It’s not like he was out and out lying, although one would think a little more prep time might be advisable from here on in. It is true, though, that whenever McCrazy slips up it’s pounced on like the last X tablet at a 1992 rave, so it seems unfair to cut Obama slack in this regard.

    Everyone makes mistakes. The true test of character is how one addresses those mistakes, owns them and learns from them. For an example of that we need look no further than the last years of BushCo: The Administration That Couldn’t Even Spell Apology. It may show favoritism, but I’m inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this one. It does indeed feel like “gotcha politics” and I’m not super thrilled about that being leveled at any candidate.

  7. I have to agree with the above commenters, Jamie. Campaigning nearly seven days a week must take a toll on all the candidates (I sometimes wonder why anyone would want to President). And even with the screw-up, his point remains the same.

    And Olbermann is a tool.

  8. Wow, we’ve elevated KOlbie to a journalist’s perch? I thought he was just another MSNBC failed sports reader turned opinionist. You actually listen to the guy, Jamie? For me, he’s just Ann Coulter without the wit or the slit.

    It’s all about a double standard for whether or not BarryO misspoke, was misunderstood, or was just fabricating facts as he went along -I think, like Hillary and Bill often do, it was the latter. If McCain had misremembered (didn’t Bill coin that term) and then misspoke, the farLeft media fringe would have been howling about his age, dementia, incapacity to lead, serve, campaign and then played it on a loop 24×7 and the Left’s circle of jerks would have compared it to Ford’s “Poland is free” quip.

    If character is about how a candidate corrects his misremembered “facts”, then BarryO has no character because for the longest time, he refused to accept his mentor and pastor was a looney racist. But when his own legion of MSM pundits started to turn on him, BarryO tossed the Rev Wright so far under the bus, you couldn’t even see the red slippers on the evil witch.

    Oh yeah, that BarryO and KOlbie both have a lot of character… but not in a good way.

  9. If McCain had misremembered…yadda yadda yadda…Left Circle Jerk…they were mean to our guy first…etc.

    So then you endorse this sort of gotcha politics so long as it’s applied across the board? Wouldn’t it be better to just call it a mistake in all cases and judge campaigns on issues rather than who screwed up a talking point today?

    If character is about how a candidate corrects his misremembered “facts”, then BarryO has no character because for the longest time, he refused to accept his mentor and pastor was a looney racist. But when his own legion of MSM pundits started to turn on him, BarryO tossed the Rev Wright so far under the bus, you couldn’t even see the red slippers on the evil witch.

    Let me parse this: Obama was wrong for not denouncing Wright, but he was also wrong for denouncing Wright.

    And none of that double bind has anything to do with misremembering anything. So, um, swing and a miss, basically.

  10. As I’ve said before, those who suggest that Wright’s wrong about everything have their own agendas. Undoubtedly, many of his comments are offensive and inaccurate. I’ve already noted my opposition to these in the appropriate context.

    However, Wright has spoken out about numerous issues over the years. And sometimes he does get it right. His denounciations of apartheid in the 1980s were spot-on. The white minority regime in South Africa was a renegade state. It invaded sovereign nations without provocation. It had weapons of mass destruction. It terrorized a segment of its own population through torture and murder. And it flagrantly operated outside international law in areas ranging from olympic sport to trade policy.

    And yes, Wright’s correct when he says America supported them. Just as we supported Pinochet, Marcos, Diem, Chiang, Franco, Mobutu, the Argentine Junta, and one Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti.

  11. Am I the only one getting the point here? Olbermann went off for ten minutes about Hillary’s use of the word “assassination,” but lets Obama’s inaccurate reference to Auschwitz fly without the same venom. That’s the point. Not Wright, or anything else.

    I’m supposed to sit here and believe that a reference to Auschwitz wasn’t a calculated mistake? From the man who said, “words matter?”

    Yeah. Right.

  12. Um… Olberman is NOT a journalist and he’s paid specifically to NOT be impartial. Just like “O’Really?” he’s a pundit that is expected to pound out outrageous comments to get people excited or agitated. Looks like he deserves a raise by the way he’s got you and others worked up.

    People think the media should be neutral but they consistently will not watch the outlets that pretty much are (PBS). They want a little fire in the presentation and that’s what they get with the pundit shows.

    So step back and take a broader look. The media OVERALL is pretty neutral. You have left leaning, right leaning, and crackpot opinion all mashed together on your TV dial and print media. Taken as a whole it’s pretty neutral.

    Now radio on the other hand… bunch of fascists!

  13. Until I start seeing, “I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message” when Olbermann makes those special comments, I expect him, and the rest of the media, to give equitable treatment to both Barack and Hillary.

    Or we may as well just stop voting for nominees right now and outright let the media pick them for us. Which is basically what’s happening anyway.

  14. As I’ve said before, those who suggest that Wright’s wrong about everything have their own agendas. Undoubtedly, many of his comments are offensive and inaccurate. I’ve already noted my opposition to these in the appropriate context.

    Maybe so. But it looks like Obama disagrees with you.

    QuakerJono, I think it was only the media attention that spurred Obama’s condemnation of Wright. I’m fairly certain Obama knew of Wright’s views, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Same with McCain and his bud Hagee.

    On the one hand, it’s amusing watching these candidates falling over themselves with these games. But it’s sad that we let this happen, and let the media decide who should be president with all this gotcha crap.

  15. “Until I start seeing, “I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message” when Olbermann makes those special comments, I expect him, and the rest of the media, to give equitable treatment to both Barack and Hillary.”

    That makes no sense when your talking about a commentary or opinion piece.

    You and all people who choose to express thier opinions choose to write about what you write all the time. Does that mean your not being equitable when you chose to write about one subject but not another? No.

  16. When one portrays oneself as a “journalist,” one has the obligation to be impartial.

    It’s not just Keith, either. Print media,internet, and the big 4 TV news outlets have all been in the bag for one candidate for another. I have a problem with our “news” being presented to us with such partiality.

  17. News is always biased, Jamie.

    Even the Founding Fathers had to deal with hostile press coverage. Jefferson was savagely attacked in the New York and Philadelphia newspapers.

    Media concentration – and a lack of genuine competition – concerns me far more than individual cases of bias. If you tune into Countdown, you know Keith Olbermann and his motley crew of “commentators” (Maddow, Huffington, Shuster) will fawn over Obama as if he were Pharaoh. Not a big deal.

    It only becomes an issue when 90-95% of them are doing the same shtick as Olbermann. And with the Barack Obama campaign, that certainly was an issue earlier this year. Whether it still is an issue at this point seems debatable. They’ve gotten tougher on him. Contrary to the assertion of some, the “58 states” comment was played over and over and over again.

  18. I think it was only the media attention that spurred Obama’s condemnation of Wright. I’m fairly certain Obama knew of Wright’s views, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Same with McCain and his bud Hagee.

    Possibly…probably even, but isn’t that what all politicians do in this day and age? Until the vast majority of voters reject this media game, they sort of have to respond to media pressure which is going to focus on issues like this instead of “big picture” issues like health care reform, energy dependence and military fitness. So blaming the candidate for responding to a media blitz seems to just be playing into this false evaluation.

    And Jamie, I do get the point of the post. Olbermann is obviously agenda-driven, nuff said. If you agree with that agenda, he’s a powerful voice, if you disagree he’s a fool and that’s pretty much the way of all pundits (which is what he’s relegated himself to, not a journalist, but a pundit). However, I do think there’s a qualitative difference between Obama’s gaffe and Clinton’s extremely questionable statement and her response to it.

    Obama moved to acknowledge and correct his error. Clinton, however, tried to dissemble and spin in the exact same way we’ve seen happen over the last eight years by our Presidential administration, the latest example being the nonsense spewing from Bush’s pie hole in front of the Knesset. People are becoming less and less accepting of this, “Oh, I’ve been misconstrued” tactic and it’s beginning to piss them off more than the actual first comment. It’s laughable since the easiest way to diffuse the situation is just to admit the fault and move on, but it’s a Rovian tactic to just deny and ignore and most politicians appear to be following his playbook nowadays.

    Olbermann is keenly aware of this growth of public outrage over something as simple as an admission of guilt and an apology and is riding it for all it’s worth. He can’t get that sort of traction out of Obama’s comment as, like I said, Obama and his camp moved quickly to admit and correct. Clinton, however, has once again set herself up as a massive target with her seeming inability to admit she’s human. That’s why Olbermann went after her; if she’s going to set them up and point them out, he and pundits like him are going to take her down.

  19. Obama moved to acknowledge and correct his error. Clinton, however, tried to dissemble and spin in the exact same way we’ve seen happen over the last eight years by our Presidential administration

    Granted, but then again, she didn’t make a factual error, but an error in judgement. And I have no problem with her being raked over the coals for it.

    But just this morning, Crooks&Liars has a post up calling the reactions (admittedly, over the top on the right-wing side) to Obama’s Auschwitz gaffe as “molehill politics.”

    So evidently it’s okay to criticize only the people who aren’t currently the most popular.

    How very much like high school.

  20. “When one portrays oneself as a “journalist,” one has the obligation to be impartial.”

    I’ve only seen his show on occassion and (I don’t think a whole one) but “impartial journalist” is not what I got from it ,at all.

    Wasn’t he a sportscaster? Dosn’t he go to somone else to read the news? Aren’t all his segments things like ‘Most Heinous person ever?’ Its a strange standard you apply to this “entertainment.”

  21. MSNBC advertises itself as “The Place For Politics.”

    5 times each hour.

    Not “entertainment.”

    Other MSNBC slogans:

    “America’s Fastest Growing News Channel”
    “A Fuller Spectrum of News”

    So, I expect there to be NEWS on that channel.

    (And I don’t watch him regularly. Nor any of the other ones–though I do like Hardball. )

  22. (So evidently it’s okay to criticize only the people who aren’t currently the most popular.)

    Popularity does matter. But this isn’t a phenomenon that’s unique to Obama. Once upon a time, George W. Bush was very popular too. You couldn’t speak out against him from 2001-2004 without practically being accused of high treason.

    Remember what happened to Bill Maher after he dared to criticize Dear Leader over 9-11? Or when the Dixie Chicks said they were ashamed that Dear Leader came from Texas?

    Maybe I’ve been living in a different America than you. But this doesn’t seem out of the ordinary to me. For all of our bluster about independence and self-sufficiency… we’re a very comformist, hierarchal society.

  23. Maybe I’ve been living in a different America than you. But this doesn’t seem out of the ordinary to me. For all of our bluster about independence and self-sufficiency… we’re a very comformist, hierarchal society.

    No, I’ve noticed it all along . . . and been as vocal as I could. Some things I just . . . can’t say for fear of my job. But I’m quite sick of all of it.

    I founded this blog on the notion that I could maybe, just maybe, change some minds about labelling people instead of behaviors, shatter some predisposed notions about gay people in general, or get people to think critically about what effects them in their everyday lives. Instead all I end up doing is fighting with people over trivial word-choices when I’m trying to make a broader point.

    It’s all very disturbing.

  24. I was hoping for critical thinking.

    Well, that’s just it. Gotcha politics doesn’t advocate critical thinking. Indeed, our whole media-centric culture doesn’t advocate critical thinking. However, I would hasten to point out that critical thinking about this situation leads to a number of conclusions:

    1. Obviously, Olbermann is not a journalist. He is therefore not bound by journalistic maxims such as impartiality.

    2. If it is wrong for one, it is wrong for both and relational arguments are invalid. Assuming point one wasn’t true and Olbermann was indeed a journalist, then it would still be an incorrect argument to say, “He jumped on Clinton, but not Obama,” if one is judging absolute values, because the correct argument would be, “He is focusing on issues that are irrelevant to both campaigns.”

    3. There is a qualitative difference between an incorrect fact and a flawed and offensive logical premise.

    4. Continued debate about the issue plays directly into gotcha political models by dragging the focus of the campaign away from substantive issues and platforms and into the realm of the pundit-friendly sound-byte. Indeed, it pretty much encourages Olbermann (and other pundits) to do this sort of thing again and again as it works, it gets people talking and talking about them.

    So there’s you critical thinking for you, but then again, this is the Internet, so all arguments are suspect.

  25. Instead all I end up doing is fighting with people over trivial word-choices when I’m trying to make a broader point.

    Okay, sorry about the double post, but perhaps this is key. I don’t see your broader point in this. I see that you feel Olbermann stepped way over the line in his ranting. I also see that you feel there is a disparity between the way Clinton has been treated and Obama has been treated in this campaign. I’m inclined to agree with you on both of these points, but I’m disinclined to support your logical structure for reaching these points because, in its way, it’s exactly what Olbermann is doing. Pehaps, though, I misunderstand this point.

    So tell me, as simply and concisely as possible, what the main thesis is here.

  26. Upon review, QJ, this might be the larger point. (Although I agree that it is perhaps not well made with a commentary show person like Olbermann.)

    “It’s not just Keith, either. Print media,internet, and the big 4 TV news outlets have all been in the bag for one candidate for another. I have a problem with our “news” being presented to us with such partiality.”

  27. 1. Obviously, Olbermann is not a journalist. He is therefore not bound by journalistic maxims such as impartiality.

    Yet MSNBC refers to itself with the previously mentioned slogans, leading the less critically examining to think he is a journalist. Particularly with his adoption of “Good night, and good luck,” one of the most famous taglines from a well-respected journalist.

    2. If it is wrong for one, it is wrong for both and relational arguments are invalid. Assuming point one wasn’t true and Olbermann was indeed a journalist, then it would still be an incorrect argument to say, “He jumped on Clinton, but not Obama,” if one is judging absolute values, because the correct argument would be, “He is focusing on issues that are irrelevant to both campaigns.”

    If I had said he should have jumped on Obama, that would be accurate. I didn’t. I was only pointing out the disparity.

    3. There is a qualitative difference between an incorrect fact and a flawed and offensive logical premise.

    The logical premise you’re assuming (I think!) is not one Hillary made, but one that pundits have alluded to (probably correctly). She continues to assert that she was merely pointing out the “June” facet of her argument (which I don’t buy, either). I would submit that the qualitative difference is purely subjective, as indicated by the actual offense I took at his usurpation of the visions of Auschwitz.

    4. Continued debate about the issue plays directly into gotcha political models by dragging the focus of the campaign away from substantive issues and platforms and into the realm of the pundit-friendly sound-byte. Indeed, it pretty much encourages Olbermann (and other pundits) to do this sort of thing again and again as it works, it gets people talking and talking about them.

    I agree 100 percent. It’s how we ended up with Bush in the first place. And Buchanan as a “political commentator.” Ugh.

  28. So tell me, as simply and concisely as possible, what the main thesis is here.

    I have a hard time determining how that isn’t clear, since I’ve said (as Tommy correctly pointed out) that it isn’t just Olbermann. But I didn’t really have the time to write a dissertation on ALL the idiot pundits.

    And maybe it’s just idiot day for me today, but I fail to see how I’m doing what Olbermann is doing.

    I have a hard time believing that anything any of these politicians or pundits say is by accident. But in the case of Hillary referring to RFK, I’m torn, because while I certainly don’t put it beneath her, I have a hard time believing she’s actually that stupid.

  29. The idiot pundits are really just a reflection of the general population though. If you look at alternative media and new media, where consumers supposedly have a little more freedom than television, they almost never use those powers wisely. And if the media’s stupid, it is because people are stupid. Heck, why do you think I’m here all the time?

    Aside from the fact that I know you from HomoMojo…

    The reason why I frequent this group of blogs (which perhaps leans a bit to the right) is because “popular” sites like Americablog, Queerty, and Towleroad are so full of paranoid anti-American, anti-heterosexual drivel that it makes my head explode.

    So, I think your anger at the pundits – and Olbermann in particular – is really just a reflection of your fustration with the Borg-like nature of this society in general. If we want more thoughtful philosophical discussion, it is clear to me that we’re going to have to do it ourselves. Both mainstream and niche media will go with what sells or reinforces the prejudices of their constituency.

  30. First of all, thanks John (I almost called you TBS right there). I don’t think I really lean any one way in particular, but some of my blogpals do, I agree. What most of you don’t know is that I also occasionally post on Pam’s House Blend or TalkingPointsMemo. I like to spread my wisdom around to the unwashed of all denominations. You should see me in the topix threads. 🙄

    I wish I could say you were wrong, and that I’m not fed up with stupid people, but I truly am and that’s the heart of it. Why can people not stop and think for themselves instead of following each trend like sheep? To address that fully we’d need a livechat forum for about 20 years, I think.

    Most people, when they find themselves nodding in agreement with someone, don’t ask themselves “why” they’re nodding in agreement. I’d like to think most of the people here, do that. That’s why I stick up for Tommy over at the Malcontent when jackasses start in with their crap. He and I may disagree on a great many things, but from the conversations we’ve had I can tell that he’s actually looked at things for himself. That’s the kind of honest dialogue we should all be having.

    And I admit, I’m quite reluctant to change views or admit I’m wrong sometimes, but I continually fight that stubborn instinct in myself. That’s what I want other people to do. But as popular as the phrase “open mind” is, finding one is a rare event.

    I guess my lack of conformity explains why I’m not one of those popular blogs. But I’m okay with that. History will record my brilliance. 😆

  31. Besides which, my father, who voted for Bush, sees eye to eye with me on politics right now for the first time ever. IF either one of us votes, it would grudgingly be for Hillary. (My mother is quite surprised about that, btw. )

    I cannot vote for McCain for president. I will not vote for a Republican president while they have antigay measures in their platform. For me, that means DADT, DOMA, etc. The Democrats aren’t perfect on gay rights, but they’re generally better and do not have explicit language in their national platform that is antigay at all. So that’s how I continually register my disappointment in the Republican party. I will vote for them for other offices, but not President. Perhaps if McCain was better himself on gay issues, but he isn’t.

    I’ve made no secret of why I do not trust Obama. I see a pattern of words and deeds he himself has not explained to my satisfaction, and my initial and continuing impression of him is of a slick used car salesman. (This latest ridiculous Reverend Flagler or whatever his name is “scandal” is patently ridiculous, btw.) And Obama’s pretense that he’s a “different” kind of politician is just spin that I’ve read before.

    I don’t trust Hillary, either, as far as I can throw her. But I do think she’d make an earnest go of it and wouldn’t back down on security issues either. I think the prospect of a female president is an opportunity for real change, because men and women just think differently. And she is well aware of her possible legacy, perhaps Joan of Arc in her mind, and hopes for her daughter to follow in the footsteps of her parents as a future female president.

    Okay, boys, tear that one up.

  32. No, I agree with you to some extent. Hillary is great when she allows herself to actually behave like Hillary.

    I don’t know if that makes any sense. But I think Senator Clinton has a tendency to listen to bad advice from Bill’s gang of spin doctors. Those folks try to mold her into something she’s totally not.

    And unfortunately, after a couple hours with Begala and Carville, she becomes “Robo-Hillary.” Simply put, she can’t run a slick Bill Clinton style campaign. She’s absolutely horrible at delivering one-liners and quips. She doesn’t do well in Town Hall meetings either. She’s basically a policy nerd (i.e. the sort of person who reads academic journals at 1 AM). That’s what she does.

    But instead of playing to her strengths, she went straight to the 1992 playbook and get creamed for it.

  33. You simply have to stop watching the pundit shows Jamie. Olberman, O’Reilly, and any show that ever has anyone raise their voice is simply an entertainment show.

    Watch the News Hour on PBS tonight instead… seriously. It’s the only show that I think meets your high (borderline naive) standards. The media has NEVER been unbiased. Admittedly, it’s getting more biased as we go along but there are balanced news outlets out there if you look for them. They are mind-numbingly boring to watch but they are available if you look. News is a “product” now and it’s now targeted to specific markets. That’s how Fox News exists on a network with some really raunchy and liberal shows.

  34. What if He is not lying but actually believes the fairy tales he comes up with ? the left is quick to cite the lack of funding for mental health issues, we do know that several social diseases can damage the mind to the point of delusional behavior. What if this guys is simply NUTS ! and these addle minded liberals so quick to want to make things right elect a mentally challenged person to the White House where he will have his finger on the buttons that could end our world. Can we risk this ? We have already seen that Hilary was allowed to imagine she was under fire when a girl scout was giving her cookies ! If we allow a man into the white House who has auditory and threatening hallucinations, would this not be the biblical anti Christ ?

  35. Obama is mentally ill and the anti-Christ? He’ll start a nuclear war and destroy the world?

    Apparently, some of us haven’t been paying attention to the tone of this discussion.

    This is precisely the sort of nonsense we’re talking about. It is idiotic when the lefties at the aforementioned sites engage in it. And it is equally idiotic when the right-wingers (such as this “genius” above) engage in it.

  36. Looks like that weird commenter is advertising, something (perhap how deranged he is).

    Ooh, I hope it’s penis enlargement because he would have the best proof that it works: Just look at what a huge dick he is!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s