Thursday, April 03, 2008

Tree, this isn't good news ... for you

My friend, the one who wants a Democrat in the White House next term, cannot be happy with this story. She has been worrying that the primary races, between Clinton & Obama, are a continuing divisive factor causing harm to the Democratic party. Certainly there is an argument to be made for this proposition.

And supporting this contention is a story on Drudge today, wherein a person apparently favoring Obama was described as having used vulgar language when she likened Hillary Clinton to a prostitute. I could have clicked the link and watched the YouTube video and listened to it from the (w)horse's mouth, but was too excited about writing this post to take the time.

And who was the author of the critique? None other than liberal commentator Randi Rhodes, who prior to making the comment was the 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. host on Air America… She has been ‘indefinitely suspended…” So much for freedom of speech.

Three observations:

If this inter-mural squabbling continues to take place between now and the nominating convention, Republicans don’t need to say or do anything...

If Rush or Sean had called Hillary a hoor, there would have been blood in the street.

There may be some hard working prostitutes out there who were offended by the comparison.

6 comments:

Sonya said...

I always thought of Randi Rhodes as coarse and a bad representation of progressivism. Whether she's fired or not, either way, I won't notice. Maybe if we spent more time dissecting John McCain's watery plan for health care (the market!) then the squabbling wouldn't mean so much. Thank you for thinking of me, Bert B.

Anonymous said...

I don't know who Randi Rhodes is, but every once in a while somebody in politics says what they really think and gets fried. This is another case, similar to the lady who used the word "Monster" to the British press, not knowing that they don't observe off-the-record comments.

Until one of them emerges as the Nominee, the Democrats are going to fight it out. Noo? And whoever goes against the Republicans will be Swift-boated at least once, whether McCain likes such tactics or not. If the nominee is Clinton, she'll give as good as she gets. If it's Obama, it's more likely to be a civil and therefore frustrating debate for the Republicans -- who will likely lose.

It's hard to imagine a Republican winning after the last eight years - but if they get the fight they relish with Hillary, they might just pull it off.

Leonesse said...

Does it really matter anymore who wins? Do you think either Dem will give back what Bu$h has taken? I think not.

Anonymous said...

I think whoever comes next will have the biggest mess to clean up that has ever been left in Washington. Whether or not it can be corrected may be doubtful, certainly whether everything is going to be fine in four years, but at least we might have someone in there who wants to.

In fact, any of the three in the running will do something to make things better. I don't think either party is less corrupt than the other, but that crew in there now is one for the books.

Bert Bananas said...

Even Handed Hope, good to see you being so Even Handed. I loved your cooking reference: "...and gets fried."

I prefer getting basted.

paperback reader said...

I'm voting for old candidates because I'm too bored to learn about new ones. Millard Fillmore was okay once - why not now?