Tuesday, May 06, 2008

"I want to rip his eyes out"

Referring to Bill Clinton, she said, "I want to rip his eyes out."

No, it wasn't Hillary, it was Michelle Obama. Michelle is a lovely lady but she seems to have trouble keeping her foot out of her mouth. On the other hand, maybe Barack could appoint her as ambassador to the U.N. We need someone there who won't pull any punches. I'd love to hear her tell Mahmoud Ahmadinejad she wants to "rip his eyes out."


Brent said...

I'll admit it, I love WND. They can be counted on for a chuckle and examples of bad reporting and writing. Oh, and sign me up for one of the Ronald Reagan t-shirts I saw advertised there. That would be stylish at any event!

As for the "latest gaffe" as they call it, it's from a lengthy article in the New Yorker and it's over two months old!!! And I would hardly call it a gaffe. First, notice how WND sets up the premise: "Asked how she feels about Bill Clinton's use of the phrase "fairytale" to describe her husband's characterization of his position on the Iraq war, she first responded: "No."

That sentence doesn't even make sense. Nice job WND. Here's the actual account from the New Yorker, from the reporter who actually spoke to Mrs. Obama:

"In Wisconsin, I asked her if she was offended by Bill Clinton’s use of the phrase “fairy tale” to describe her husband’s characterization of his position on the Iraq War. At first, Obama responded with a curt “No.” But, after a few seconds, she affected a funny voice. “I want to rip his eyes out!” she said, clawing at the air with her fingernails. One of her advisers gave her a nervous look. “Kidding!” Obama said. “See, this is what gets me into trouble.”

Maybe it's funny, maybe not. But it's just a joke either way, and we're all getting too serious. All of the candidates have made jokes about each other at some point. The way WND tries to frame this "latest gaffe" (I guess they're a few months behind in their reading, and getting desperate) just adds to the humor.

Dennis said...

Brent, I actually agree to some extent. WND is kind of like the Christian version of the National Enquirer.

I wasn't defending the WND article. I was just citing my source for the quote. If she didn't actually say that, then you have a legitimate grip.

I was aware of the context of her quotes but I'm sure Barack's political advisors would prefer that she not talk about ripping the eyes out of her political opponents, even in jest (it reminds people of what totalitarian dictators do to their political enemies when they gain power :-)

L'oiseau said...

I think that it is more important what the candidates themselves say. Hillary is talking about obliterating Iran, and McCain has been exposed as calling his wife a "c***". Michelle Obama is not running for President. She will not be in charge of much, if anything, in the White House.

Dennis said...


I agree with you that what the candidates say is more important, but I don't think what their wives say is unimportant.

I'm not going to defend McCain--as I've said before, he wasn't my first or second choice for president. But I'm not sure its fair to compare something someone said someone else heard McCain say (apparently in jest) some 16 years ago with things that come out of Michelle Obama's mouth now.

And Hillary's comment about obliterating Iran is the main reason I would want her to win over Obama--not that I want to obliterate Iran, but her statement (and her husband's military actions in the Balkins and Iraq) lead me to think that Hillary would at least stand up and defend our country. I am genuinely afraid that Obama might turn out to be another Neville Chaimberlain.

Brent said...

L'oiseau, please watch your language. There are some very sensitive readers here. :-)

Yep, Obama could be the next Chamberlain. I hear he's willing to discuss giving Florida to al-Qaida if they'll leave us alone.

Dennis said...


I think you are misinformed. He only wants to give up Florida if the DNC decides to include Florida's votes for Hillary :-)

Brent said...

I suppose we couldn't blame him for that. :-)

L'oiseau said...

Iran: http://lucasgray.com/slideshows/peacetrain.html

Still want to obliterate them?

Dennis said...


If you re-read my post above you will see that I said, "not that I want to obliterate Iran." That means that I really don't want to obliterate Iran.

I've actually been to Tehran, Iran on two or three occasions. My quarrel is not with the people of Iran--it is with the Islamic radicals who oppress them. The very people you are supporting with your Cat Stephens Islamic propoganda video!

I can just imagine back just before World War II while the Nazi threat is growing, the l'oisesu's of the world showing cute little videos about how nice and wonderful the German people are, implying that the Nazi threat is all just right wing fear mongering and that we should never go to war with the German people under any circumstances.

I don't want to kill Iranians, but the potential consequences of a nuclear Iran make Nazi Germany look like a minor annoyance!

And regarding that idiot on the video who talked about the killing of 50,000 to 500,000 Iraqi's, implying that it was all our fault:

We took out Iraq's unimaginably monstrous dictator with a bare minimum of civilian casulties; we helped the Iraqis begin a democratic govenment designed to let Iraqis decide their own future. Then we started pouring millions and millions of dollars to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure, making it better than before.

Our opposition is from the Islamic radicals who supported Saddam Hussein, and from Islamic radicals who are coming from other countries, like Iran, to fight America in Iraq.

They are responsible for the VAST majority of the deaths. When you and other Leftists imply that we are responsible for all these deaths, that is one reason why many on the Right think the Left is unpatriotic, anti-American and sometimes even treasonous.

Imagine if a group of cult leaders were torturing and molesting their members, and after negotiating for days, the police swat teams finally intervene. The cult leaders then start slaughtering their own people--and Leftists like you blame all the deaths on the police!

And then there was the video quote about how maybe there was another way to solve the Iraq problem. Yeah, right! We had been negotiating with Saddam Hussein for TEN years!!! All the while he was in cahoots with the United Nations, France, Germany and Russia, ripping off money we sent for food and medicine for the Iraqi people, making himself more and more filthy rich while his own people suffered more and more.

And you and the Left's answer is to just negotiate longer and longer and longer and longer!

Negotiation is necessary and important but when there is no end to it, negotiation can easily become a head-in-sand way of making people think you are dealing with a problem when in fact you are just avoiding tough decisions.

I am afraid Obama would just negotiate with Iran until nothing is left of New York City but a gigantic crater!

Brent said...

It fascinates me how every conservative must compare our fight against terrorism with World War II. Do you really think those comparisons are even remotely valid? Or do you just think it gives your position more moral standing? Yes, it was great that we won WWII, we all know that. And it was probably the last war this country fought that we can truly feel good about. But comparing multiple pre-emptive wars (one actual, one the necons happy dream at this point) to WWII is not a valid comparison. Comparing Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler is not a valid comparison. Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is not a valid comparison. (I've read all of those comparisons on this site.) So stop evoking WWII to justify your beliefs. If what you are saying has merit, let it stand on its own. Stop comparing this struggle, against radicals from many different countries (most of which we are completely ignoring) to fighting Nazi Germany and imperialist Japan 60 years ago.

Dennis said...


To say that I have compared Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler is so deceptive as to boarder on outright lying.

I was comparing the MESMERIZING EFFECT Obama seems to have over his audiences with the mesmerizing effect Hitler had over his audiences.

To say I was comparing Obama to Hitler implies that I think Obama is (or may become) a psychopathic mass murderer and I do not think that about Obama at all.

Whether the comparision of Obama to Chaimberlain is valid--only time will tell. Let's talk about it again in a couple of years.

And I think the comparison I made with World War II above is absolutly accurate.

Brent said...

The comparison was still made, which proves my point about everything somehow relating to WWII for you and your conservative friends. Hitler is the only mesmerizing speaker you can think of? You knew what you were saying when you made that comment.

You're right, time will tell about your Chamberlain analogy (sounds like you're preparing for an Obama victory already). But to make it now is baseless, unnecessarily invokes WWII, and yet again proves my point.

professor ed said...

Brent: understandably you dislike the comparison, in terms of charisma, of Obama and Hitler. But given the VERY LIMITED political experience of Obama, it is hard to accurately evaluate him on much more than his Charisma; which admitadly is quite strong. What would you think of comparing him to another WWII figure, namely FDR, who was famous for his statement that "we have nothing to fear but fear itself". And since you don't care for the Chaimberlin analogy, let's use Senator Henry Clay (the great compromiser). But, as history showed, his "great compromise" merely delayed the inevitable.

Dennis said...

Well maybe you're right, but there have been reports of people actually fainting at rallies at which Barack Obama was speaking. I don't recall ever reading about people fainting over Henry Clay or FDR, but I could be wrong.

Maybe its just me, but when people start fainting over a politician I start wondering if something other than just agreement on political issues is going on.

Brent said...

Professor Ed I'm not really in to making comparisons, I prefer to look at each person individually. I'll let those to like to do so debate that with you, I won't condone or disagree with the examples you gave.

Dennis That sounds like more WND reporting. Even if true though, campaign events are sometimes held in hot, crowded spaces, and people pass out in those circumstances all the time. People throw the name Hitler around all the time now without really stopping to think what it means. When you play the Hitler card based on something so flimsy it demonstrates that you are one of those people. It also says something about you as a person and detracts from whatever point you are trying to make. What do you think is going on other than agreement on political issues, then? Do you really not see how over the top you sound?

Dennis said...


Not WND but WSJ, Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120300929392268785.html

And if the fainting is all about hot crowded spaces, why don't we hear about fainting at the Hillary or McCain rallies?

Some have suggested, however, that the fainting is all orchestrated by the Obama campaign so he can step in (as he often does) and look compassionate as he helps the fainting victim recover. It wouldn't surprise me a bit.

L'oiseau said...

No. If you compare ANYONE to Hitler for ANY reason, the implications are obvious. Don't take it back now. That's deceptive.

People fainting at Hillary rallies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78rfAAjriBo

It probably happens at most rallies, but McCain's not on youtube much. Except for It's Raining McCain, which is a must see, by the way.


Brent said...

Do you mean Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal? That's a reliable source. Your link is cut off, so I can't access the article. But I'll assume what you're saying is correct. Do you even realize how far off the reservation you are? Is this what politics is to you, criticizing a candidate because people faint at his rallies? You and your fellow Republicans really have lost all grip on sanity, not to mention the reality of the direction the people of this country want to go in. You're out of touch, and, when you compare a Democrat to Hitler and think he's staging faintings at rallies, out of your mind.

L'oiseau said...

My unfortunate perspective always ends up being one of humanity instead of country versus country. It is hard for me to condone killing innocent people to avenge the killing of innocent people. I understand that sometimes things have to be done. I think that Saddam Hussein being overthrown is a good thing. I think the way the administration went about it and continues to go about it, was and is not good at all.

I have seen the pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the detonations. If (and that's a REALLY big if) Iran gets nukes and if (another Big one) they actually use them on Israel, the fallout will probably already affect them, not to mention the rest of the middle east. Why would we add to that disaster, by killing thousands more and making the possibility of our air getting polluted that much more real? Israel has their own nukes, let them fire back at their discretion.

Of course, to me, this is all hypothetical, I do not believe we are in such a dire state as the Republicans would have us think.

L'oiseau said...

Oh, and everything's propaganda these days, sorry about that.


Dennis said...

Brent, you wrote, "Do you even realize how far off the reservation you are?"

Off the reservation? Do you realize how racist that is? Why, it's even worse than comparing someone to Hitler! :-)

My point is that its pretty easy to pick something to pretend to be offended at. If you want to keep ranting at my comparisons rant on.
I'm done with this post.

But if you really want to talk about over the top, just re-read l'oiseau's last post! Unbelievable!

L'oiseau said...

Cool, well, when Iran nukes Israel, I'll come back here and admit I was wrong.

Brent said...

I'm certainly not pretending. But you are correct, it is easy for me to get upset about a flippant Hitler reference made for the sole purpose of trying to score a cheap point in a debate about a Presidential candidate. Maybe that makes me the strange one in your crazy wing-nut world. I'm OK with that.