Palin Ignores Supporter Who Yells "Kill Him" After She Insults Obama

Shameless, clueless Sarah Palin, speaking at a Florida rally today, did her Obama the terrorist-sympathizer schtick, leading one supporter in the audience to yell "Kill Him!"

Palin's response? Nada.

"Now it turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers," Palin said. "Boooo!" said the crowd. "And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,'" she continued.

"Boooo!" the crowd repeated. "Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.

Palin went on to say that "Obama held one of the first meetings of his political career in Bill Ayers's living room, and they've worked together on various projects in Chicago."


Palin went on to question Obama's patriotism:

"I am just so fearful that this is not a man who sees America the way you and I see America, as the greatest force for good in the world. I'm afraid this is someone who sees America as 'imperfect enough' to work with a former domestic terrorist who had targeted his own country."

Deplorable. And McCain is no better.

< McCain Portrays Obama as Scary Mystery | Late Night: Desperado, Running On Empty >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Man I hope that little teapot (McCain) (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:17:30 PM EST
    explodes tomorrow! Am I the only one who wonders how McCain is going to be received and how he is going to conduct himself in the increasingly likely event of a Palin/McCain loss?

    How long will he stay in the Senate? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:04:32 PM EST
    I'm betting this is his last term.

    That crossed my mind too! (none / 0) (#53)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:09:41 PM EST
    I was trying to realize why McCain seems to be going for broke in the most cynical of ways, really for months now. Maybe this is the end of the road for him in politics. Or he could be just a 100% jerk.

    Both can be true. (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:15:48 PM EST
    I can't think why he would stay in the Senate - maybe to stay close to the military.  He does love that life.

    well (none / 0) (#83)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:12:34 PM EST
    He would stay in the senate to stay close to his one true love; the media.

    Though that relationship might be a bit rougher.


    No need to wonder (none / 0) (#99)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 01:56:35 AM EST
    I was trying to realize why McCain seems to be going for broke in the most cynical of ways, really for months now.

    Because he's a Republican and that's what Republicans do.

    When Lee Atwater and company went to talk to G H W Bush about Willie Horton they thought they would have to spend a weekend trying to convince him to give the go ahead.  They were surprised when he gave his approval immediately after their presentation, a total of 5 minutes. At the time he was trailing Dukakis in the polls.


    Wikipedia (1.00 / 2) (#92)
    by chopper on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 12:27:13 AM EST

    Sen. John McCain, along with Sen. John Glenn, was cleared of any wrongdoing.


    Yes, and Wikipedia went on to point out (none / 0) (#111)
    by barryluda on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:21:37 AM EST
    that they

    were criticized for having exercised 'poor judgment'

    by the Senate Ethics Committee.

    So, chopper, McCain shouldn't be POTUS since he showed poor judgment then and continues to show poor judgment today in so many ways.


    Disgusting and dangerous... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Michael429 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:19:07 PM EST
    Dubya almost looks good compared to Palin and McCain...


    You know. . . (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:22:48 PM EST
    I've spent months telling people they had no idea what was in store from the Republicans in the last few weeks of the campaign.

    And even I'm shocked by what's going on.

    The level of vitriol is higher than I was expecting, the fact that it's coming directly from the principals (McCain as much as Palin after today's speech), the lack of any attempt to paint it as anything other than personal destruction.

    And the worst thing is I'd expect them not to release the real slime until about two weeks before the election -- enough news cycles to take gain traction, but less time to organize a response.  The fact that they're doing it now either means they're panicked by the polls (a good thing, I guess) or they have another round of worse stuff for the grand finale.

    I thought the exact same thing. Isn't (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:26:38 PM EST
    it a little too early to be going nuclear?

    You mean (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:53:09 PM EST
    going NU-KU-LAR, don't you?

    No, the timimg is pretty good (none / 0) (#123)
    by rdandrea on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:13:22 AM EST
    Early voting has already started in Virginia, Kentucky, Georgia and Ohio; Colorado ballots were mailed yesterday.  I don't have a full list of which states start when, but 34 states allow people to vote early.

    Even if it takes a couple of weeks for backlash to develop, many people will have already voted.  Last election, more than two-thirds of the people in my county in Colorado voted before election day.


    They are forcing the issue before the debates (4.50 / 2) (#18)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:33:11 PM EST
    so Obama will get a question about it. This is his chance to hit it out of the park. He has not done so yet, with his half-truth responses, IMO.

    I was wondering when someone was (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:41:04 PM EST
    going to realize the strategy. But I have to say, while Wright is a fair subject although now exausted, the "half-truth" Ayers response is appropiate considering it's a half assed question to begin with.

    Yes, there is that (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:45:11 PM EST
    Does a stupid question deserve an honest response?  In my personal life, the answer is no.  Maybe Obama thinks that applies to politics also.

    Your underlying point is a good one. :) (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:49:11 PM EST
    I'd be horrible in politics (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:55:22 PM EST
    I'd never answer anything. I think these guys and gals are all nuts to put themselves through this.

    After Ayers, Wright (none / 0) (#9)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:27:05 PM EST
    and Rezko whats left?

    flat out scream he is a scary muslim?

    did you see Keith's special comment? EVERY angle you wanna attack Obama with, McCain or Palin have it too.

    at the end of the day they both look even and people decide based on the economy.


    Obama is closer to Ayers family than you think (1.00 / 2) (#95)
    by chopper on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 01:16:34 AM EST




    Why did he shamefully vote in favor of the worst pro-energy industry bills that created disasters for our environment and our health?!

    It was Obama's Thank You to Big Oil for all the Big Money they gave him.



    Scary, Black, Angry Muslim... (none / 0) (#11)
    by EddieInCA on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:29:06 PM EST
    ...that will be all that's left.

    Well, maybe Scary, Black, Angry, Muslim Terrorist.

    Yeah, that will be the last one. Look for it on Wednesday.


    What defense do you propose the (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:17:24 PM EST
    Obama campaign set forth, other than Keating V [why the Roman numeral, BTW?].  

    Try sticking up for the truth (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:45:17 PM EST
    Obama should not try to hide the fact that he knows him more than as a guy he sees in the neighborhood. At least admit the stuff that is public knowledge, like the fundraiser in the guy's living room.  And then say again what he has said, that he does not condone what Ayers did as a young man. Be bold and say that Ayers in recent years was trying to help public education, which is why Obama is proud to have served on the board of the organizations doing that work.

    When they attack, serve the real truth right back at them instead of running away. That's what I want to see.


    If I knew that. . . (none / 0) (#68)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:25:17 PM EST
    I'd be in politics, not computers.  Maybe we could erase all their hard drives and unplug their surge suppressors?

    For a long time I've thought that the Democrats had to be just as willing to get into the mud as the Republicans.  The idea is to fight them to a standstill and negotiate a truce - a la "mutually assured destruction" pact of the cold war.

    That would mean questioning McCain's sanity, his involvement in Watergate (on the grounds that he's friendly with one of the conspirators), his military record which he appears, at least in part, to have falsified in his biography, his past alcoholism, his reprehensible behavior with respect to his first wife, and so on.

    But look, you can see I don't have the hang of it because I'm only suggesting things that are actually rooted in fact.  A real master of this stuff doesn't limit himself that way.

    And it's hard to do well.  The media seems to only let it go when the Republicans do it.  When the Dems try it, they usually tend to muck it up.  And it definitely isn't Obama.

    So, I don't know.  My only hope -- a forlorn one, I'm afraid -- is that the Republicans are overreaching and it will be seen for what it is.


    One thing to note... (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by kredwyn on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:32:13 PM EST
    is that the discussion isn't that it happened XX years ago...it's that Ayers A. Didn't regret it and B. Thought they should've gone further than what they did do.

    If there'd have been some level of regret, this'd be a bit different.


    No such discussion. . . (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:41:47 PM EST
    is happening or relevant.  When Ayers is running for something let me know and I'll decide what I think about him.  For the time being I know that Obama doesn't support Ayers past actions and opinions and that's fine by me.  What Ayers thinks is not relevant.

    Ayers had influence on Obama's views (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:42:25 PM EST
    on education such as vouchers, that is clear.  So that matters to me in foreseeing Obama's policies.  (And seeing how disastrous some of Ayers' policies have been, it ought to matter to others.)

    Many people share the views on vouchers (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:58:14 PM EST
    Do you think they ALL have been influenced by Ayres?  Hell, I did not even know he was a educator until this year and this election.  

    It's not what we knew (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 01:07:44 AM EST
    it's what and whom candidates knew -- although I was well aware of Ayers before because of his wife being from my city, with the usual "where are they now" updates in the media.  And there have been many reports about programs in my city with which we was and is involved -- and my colleagues in the school of education have been talking about Ayers for years.  His massive funding gives him great influence in the field.

    Sure, lots of others like vouchers, but only one other is running for president, too.  So both candidates are pro-voucher, and those of us who have seen the program's impact and paid and paid for it and will keep paying for it even beyond our soaring property taxes, because the costs are beyond the classrooms, are left only with the ability to warn the rest of you.  Fight this.


    Palin isn't attacking Ayers on vouchers (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 01:58:48 AM EST
    What straw is too slight to grasp?

    yeah, vouchers are GOP bread and butter! n/t (none / 0) (#105)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:29:58 AM EST
    HA! (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:35:27 AM EST
    Did he also influence Obama to put his pants on one lega at a time? Did he influence the entire right-wing establishment to push vouchers?

    I didnt realize Ayers controlled the republican party.  


    Ridiculous non-sequitur (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:57:42 AM EST
    We weren't talking about vouchers....

    So, you rationalize the accusations thrown Obama's way because of the vouchers issue?....That is really straining at a gnat...


    Yeah...actually it is... (none / 0) (#112)
    by kredwyn on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:44:39 AM EST
    I heard it at the table of a dinner party 2 nights ago.

    There you go thinking again (none / 0) (#128)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:26:11 AM EST
    If you rearrange all the pen strokes of Ayers name it spells Obama.  :)

    That's certainly the problem I have with him. (1.00 / 0) (#77)
    by MoveThatBus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:46:23 PM EST
    What he said after 9/11 made me think he would pick up where he left off if given the opening or reason to do so.

    What Ayers did hurt innocent people. Vigilante justice isn't tolerated here. Homes were set on fire with families in them. Targeting a judge, at his home, while his entire family slept inside puts Ayers in the same category as Manson to me.

    I think it is a very bad association for a potential president to have.

    I forget, when did Obama say Ayers was no longer his friend?


    well (none / 0) (#117)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:36:43 AM EST
    After McCain stopped extolling the virtues of Adolf Hitler.  Around that time.

    Btw, have you stopped beating your wife yet?


    And note c -- the problem is (none / 0) (#85)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:40:07 PM EST
    Obama's answer in a debate only a couple of months ago that dismissed Ayers as only a neighbor he had met a couple of times.  The evidence simply contradicts that, so that makes the problem a current one (although most media are buying the "four decades ago" line for now -- but not the Chicago media, so others may see this).

    Um... (none / 0) (#90)
    by EddieInCA on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 12:10:03 AM EST
    What evidence contradicts this?

    The NY Times ran an exhaustive piece on Sunday and it basically said... They weren't close. At all.

    So what is the evidence of which you speak?


    The NYT story was such a joke (3.50 / 2) (#94)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 01:16:29 AM EST
    so search the Chicago media archives -- and use common sense.  Anyone who has served on boards (and the Times omitted at least one with both of them) knows that in addition to full board meetings, there are committee meetings and many calls and discussions to be done in between.

    Basically, even about the Annenberg board, the Times did not delineate the food chain:  Ayers got the massive multihundredsofmillions of dollars grant.  He ran one part of it but it has two other parts, including the foundation board.  To suggest that Ayers as the grant-getter had no role in picking the chair of that board, Obama, is just inane and actually would mean Ayers was abdicating his responsibility to the donor.

    Then they served on the board together -- the Times also does not seem to know what ex officio means -- and such minutes as were accessed before that was rescinded as well as other reports (the Annenberg Final Report is online in full, for example) show that they were together on committees, subcommittees, etc.

    And more -- but actually, I'm more intrigued and concerned about Obama's work on the board of the Joyce Foundation and what it did to our schools, too.  But that can be put together from what's online, plus some common sense, too. . . .

    Bottom line is that we better hope that Obama gets a sensible cabinet member for education.  


    So you disagree with Ayers on education policy (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:35:09 AM EST
    What does that have to do with the Weathermen, or for that matter Obama?  Unless you are arguing that Obama will ruin the country's schools, this is a load of crap and just cheap guilt by association.

    You need to stop reading No Quarter!  It's not healthy.


    I have no concerns at all that Obama (none / 0) (#144)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:20:44 PM EST
    was influenced in the least by Ayers' radical past.  Obama is the last one I can imagine being on the line in the '60s.  I was; I know the sort who were not.

    What I'm saying is that's what is silly about this talk of Ayers' influence on Obama's political philosophies -- but there is good cause to consider Ayers' influence on Obama's educational philosophies.  Obama himself said, when he entered politics, that Ayers had great influence -- and Obama ran then in part on his role in chairing the Chicago challenge, Ayers' grant.

    In sum, it's not about what Ayers did, it's about what Obama will do -- about education.  But nobody here wants to talk about that, because the media don't talk about that, so it's work to go find out some of this for yourselves.

    So go back to your usually scheduled programming here of superficial silliness.  Bye.


    Cream, so you see an opening? (none / 0) (#97)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 01:53:46 AM EST
    Your attacks are quite tiresome now......

    Attacks on NYT's lousy reporting (none / 0) (#145)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:22:56 PM EST
    are not okay with you now.  You've become an NTYbot, MKS?  Then we have nothing to discuss, if you believe that the NYT tells all -- as then you believed it that there were weapons of mass destruction, too.  Pffft.

    Railing against the NY Times (none / 0) (#156)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:51:58 PM EST
    because they are not tough enough on Obama? Really?  Take a step back and think about it....

    There are always gaps in reporting....You wanted more on vouchers....That really wasn't relevent....


    This has nothing to do (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 01:55:58 AM EST
    with Ayers 1960s activities....and you know that....

    It's not as bad... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kredwyn on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:29:25 PM EST
    as I expected.

    I've been hearing about the Ayers thing for months coming out of the radio...and online.

    And this is the first time I've heard anything about it on the mainstream campaigns.


    I figure if the Rs thought it would work ... (none / 0) (#87)
    by FreakyBeaky on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:43:27 PM EST
    ... they'd have gone negative in August.  These are Republicans we're talking about.  I think this is their last(?) Hail Mary.  May it work as well as the others.

    I'm betting (none / 0) (#102)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 02:00:59 AM EST
    worse for the last two weeks.  Quite possibly racial.  Something like what was used in Tennessee against Ford.

    I don't know why anyone would be surprised.  These are Republicans we're talking about.


    ya (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:23:15 PM EST
    When McCain asked, "who is Barack Obama?", the loudest reply? "A terrorist!".  I'm guessing that's kinda the response McCain is looking for.  

    Meet the new crazy, same as the old crazy.

    Is Dana the only one who heard this? (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:43:15 PM EST
    If he was in the back where the journalists seem to be, I don't see how we can hold her accountable for what some idiot yelled. What is really scary is that this idiot felt comfortable enough to yell that. The Secret Service, if they heard it, should have arrested him.

    Exactly. Objection, calls for (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:18:47 PM EST
    speculation as to whether Gov. Palin heard what the guy yelled.  

    One guy in a crowd of thousands (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 01:31:19 AM EST
    I've got to say, as someone who speaks to several hundred almost daily -- and indoors, so it ought to be less noisy -- I have to concentrate on my notes and not let the crowd noise distract me, or we'd never get through the material.  The coughing and paper-rustling and book-stacking and backpack unpacking and repacking and laptop computer whirs and (banned) cell phone ringing(and flirting and giggling and note-passing:-) comes down to the podium in a cacophonous wave that you can't imagine until it happens to you. And then if there are others chatting in the hall, even behind closed doors hundreds of feet back . . . and cars waiting outside, below windows closed as well, but CD players booming rap and hiphop at high volume -- it's just nuts.  So I focus to screen it all out as best I can.

    Then, if a question comes from rows past the first few, I rarely can hear it and have to have it shouted -- and even then, I often still can't hear it amid the crowd noise even of a few hundred.  Often, I don't even know there is a question and have to be signaled by a staffer, focused as I am on looking like I'm looking at each and every one alone. . . .

    Add in hundreds of media -- and broadcast types and their cameras and mics are especially awful -- and I would want to know that Palin heard it, and heard the words before going so prosecutorial here.


    So Obama has to account for his supporters (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:36:59 AM EST
    But Palin gets off the hook when hers call for Obama's death?  Incredible.

    ha (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:40:49 AM EST
    Given your tortured defense of the Ayers link, your lengthy protest here confirms my suspicions about your voting plans.

    Interesting (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by Ted Bert on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:11:15 AM EST
    Yup (none / 0) (#137)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 12:00:58 PM EST
    The indentification with politicians can become toxic to reasoning...

    You approved of booing Granholm? (none / 0) (#146)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:25:47 PM EST
    Well, that says it all about you -- and about the style of politics you approve.

    Of course, we can guess that Granholm could hear dozens of Obama supporters booing, but what does that have to do with one guy and his hate of Obama or Biden or ?  Explain.


    Your apologies of Palin (3.00 / 2) (#100)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 01:57:29 AM EST
    reach new low levels....

    No, your rating reached a new low level (none / 0) (#122)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:02:04 AM EST
    even for you, so have a reciprocal 1.  

    We have a deliberate (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:48:47 AM EST
    wave of McCarthyism launched at the Democratic Nominee, and you--attack the Democratic nominee....suggesting, albeit around the edges, that perhaps the McCarthy-like attacks are justified....

    You have indeed reached a new low....


    You don't understand McCarthyism (none / 0) (#147)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:26:21 PM EST
    either, I see.  What do you know?

    Sure it is. (none / 0) (#154)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:42:42 PM EST
    The famed list in Joe's shirt pocket of communists in the government.....And, of course the Hollywood blacklist.....

    It was guilt by association.....Did you once know someone who was a communist?.....Or, are you now or have you ever been.....

    It is trying to tar Obama as a terrorist (communist) sympathizer because he knows someone who used to be a terrorist (communist.)  It fits perfectly....

    But, heh, minimize this too.....


    Okay, ignore reality and go (2.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:00:40 AM EST
    with your hate.  Of course, the guy ought to be stopped, questioned, perhaps arrested -- so the defense lawyers here can do their part for him, if there are defense lawyers remaining here who haven't turned prosecutorial for political reasons.  Heck, maybe the guy meant "kill O.J."  

    But what all that has to do with the certainty that that a speaker heard someone in a crowd of thousands, I don't see in the idiotic replies you three give here.  Your hate destroys your reason.


    "Your hate destroys your reason" (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:52:09 AM EST
    I wish you would really think about that....

    We are uspset when someone yells "kill him" at a rally spewing McCarthyism and hate at Obama, and you minimize it....


    I do not minimize it. I am upset by it. (none / 0) (#148)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:27:27 PM EST
    And my reaction and yours has nothing to do with the topic, which is whether the speaker heard it.

    Try logic.


    You can bet that the McCain campaign... (none / 0) (#124)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:26:09 AM EST
    ...and Palin have certainly heard it by now.  I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to speak out against this kind of hate speak.

    I don't care who was being refered to--OJ, Obama or you.  It has no place in civilized society.


    McCain/Palin campaigns should (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:57:01 AM EST
    denounce and desist.

    Yes. That's all that needed (none / 0) (#150)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:31:07 PM EST
    to be written in this post -- a call for blogs and other media to find out what happened, and no matter what that was, a call for the speaker and that ticket to denounce, reject, etc.

    That is what I have waited to see from all sides in this campaign.  They all have disgusted me with their inability to inspire their supporters to civil discourse.  Leaders are supposed to inspire their supporters to do more than vote.


    you made my point for me (none / 0) (#141)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 02:38:00 PM EST
    Your hate destroys your reason.
    Physician, heal thyself.

    You make your point (none / 0) (#149)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:28:19 PM EST
    repeatedly here, and it's so pointless that you have become a topic of the other board.  Keep it up!

    Not sure saying 'kill him!' (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:48:51 PM EST
    about someone (unclear who from the context - Ayers or Obama?) 1000 miles away is the same as shouting "Fire!" in a theater.  While I agree he's a thug, arresting him may be a little extreme.

    lol, I didn't mean to sound so harsh. But don't (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:53:41 PM EST
    they usually arrest anyone who says something like that until they check them out to see if they were serious. You can't actually threaten to kill a Pres. candidate can you?

    I know you didn't :-) (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:58:09 PM EST
    I'm sure they would detain him if the candidate in question was actually in the room. Not sure if this counts. I'm sure the lawyers will weigh in!

    Yeah.... (none / 0) (#139)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 01:54:54 PM EST
    an arrest would be far more troubling than some knucklehead in a crowd yelling "kill him".

    Maybe the heckler meant "kill him" as in "kill him in the election"...who knows?

    We arrest enough people for far too reasons, let us not cheerlead for more chains.


    s/b... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 01:55:25 PM EST
    for far too few reasons.

    Isn't there a law (none / 0) (#65)
    by bluejane on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:19:38 PM EST
    against threatening presidential candidates, just as for threatening the president? If so, while sorting out who the yeller was referring to, Secret Service should have detained him (if they heard it or it was reported to them) until it was ruled out that he was not referring to the presidential candidate Obama. I don't think this is going too far at all but prudence to safeguard those who are leading candidates for president whose safety is crucial to our democracy.

    Meanwhile, it seems clear (to me at least) that the yelled threat was aimed at Obama and Palin should have responded immediately if she heard the yeller say "Kill him!" Not doing so would place her on the same plane as street fascists in 1920's and 1930's Italy and Germany. She will likely deny she heard the shouted threat (she would have to politically) but even if she really didn't hear it, the crowd did and her staff did and she's heard about it by now from them and could issue a statement denouncing such threats. When I see that happen I expect birds will have teeth.

    Wait! Birds were once dinosaurs and, silly me, they did have teeth only four thousand years ago!


    If she heard the yeller... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by kredwyn on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:26:49 PM EST
    if the Secret Service heard the shout. If, for sure, it was aimed at Obama.

    Lots of sorting out...


    Yelling for the killing of anyone (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 02:01:00 AM EST
    at a political rally is not a good thing......

    The apologists for thugs is amazing....


    If it had been an Obama supporter (none / 0) (#108)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:39:05 AM EST
    it would be all over the front page of every PUMA site in existence.  And it would be served up as an example of the "angry left."

    If it's not heard... (none / 0) (#115)
    by kredwyn on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:02:00 AM EST
    and then later pointed out that "that guy over there in the baseball cap yelled 'kill him'" with a wave of a finger over in the general vicinity of campaign rally goers, the next step is to ask the reporter--who BTW should've reported hearing it--"which guy over there in the baseball cap?" followed by a more in-depth investigation.

    In other words, just because a reporter hears it clearly, that doesn't mean that either the candidate or the Secret Service contingency heard it.

    But no, it's not a good thing.


    Disgusting (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:11:04 PM EST
    Palin should have disavowed such comments. This kind of vile talk has no place in the campaign. Last week she was winking and blinking, and this week she's a junkyard dog.

    Maybe I'm being naive (again) (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:29:27 PM EST
    but it's not clear to me Palin heard the comment. I think maybe we should reserve judgement either way until or if we find out the answer.

    No, not naive. "Your hate (none / 0) (#151)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:33:14 PM EST
    destroys your reason," according to other commenters here who replied to similar reasoning.  You and I are hate-filled nasties, huh?  

    You sure she heard it? (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by kredwyn on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:13:44 PM EST

    Even if she did, what was she supposed to say? (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by MoveThatBus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:54:18 PM EST
    I can't stand it that the crowd boo's at the mention of Obama. But, I also hated it when Obama's crowds boo'd at the mention of Clinton. Obama never raised a hand to stop that, so I guess it's even.

    Horrible things are hollared, and signage is offensive at these things this election. I think there is enough security around that they are the ones who should be in charge of knowing and handling those things that are out of bounds or illegal.


    The difference is (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by stevea66 on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:00:04 AM EST
    that no one shouted "terrorist" about Hillary and no one shouted "kill her" about Hillary.  This is dangerous ground McCain is treading on.  Given his history, you'd think he would feel at least SOME resistance to provoking the angry, radical, racists that are on his side of the ticket.  Do we really need another assassination?

    McCain - you should be in prison again for attempted murder.


    I clearly recall Obama (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by sarany on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:58:19 AM EST
    cooling off some of the Hillary hecklers in a rally audience.  I was a strong Hillary supporter, but I give Barack full credit for not letting the audience cross a line.

    Palin and McCain are clearly calling on the worst in people and counting on it to emerge.  Throwing up their hands afterwards and disclaiming responsibility is just despicable.


    Just not that made the blog news channel (none / 0) (#130)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:49:31 AM EST
    at least.

    You can bet there is something that can be stretched out of reasonable proportion at every single campaign event.

    For what's happening at the Obama rally's, you probably would need to check in at some red blogs.


    I think it is a good idea (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 02:02:04 AM EST
    to draw the line at yelling for the killing of someone?  Don't you?

    If you hear it... (none / 0) (#113)
    by kredwyn on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:52:22 AM EST
    well (none / 0) (#119)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:43:28 AM EST
    Palin likely wouldnt say a thing even if she heard it.  This is the woman who chuckled when a radio host called an opponent of hers a bunch of names.

    Polical impressions are what they are and their rallies had a certain brown shirt aura yesterday.  We all know who the racists are voting for.  They seem pretty welcome as well.


    yeah, for once I wish K.Olbermann would (none / 0) (#142)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 02:40:32 PM EST
    do a Special Comment.

    Not true. Obama stopped the crowd from (none / 0) (#159)
    by Newt on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 12:06:28 AM EST
    booing Hillary. The crowd started in, he raised his had in a stop motion and he shook his head No.  The crowd quit, and Obama went on speaking.

    Palin should have done the same.  Inciting violence or even encouraging aggression by lying about another candidate is NOT presidential, and it degrades our country's political discourse.  Their dishonesty is obscene.  The MSM should help put an end to it with headlines about their dishonest tactics:

    Palin Implies Obama Is A Terrorist


    McCain Campaign Encourages Culture War With Obsessive Use of Obama's Middle Name

    or their many other lies:

    McCain Claims He Supports Veterans Five Months After Voting Against the 2008 GI Bill

    Their lies and distortions that feed the culture war are the real story, and they should be called to task for their manipulative, dishonest tactics.


    OBAMA ADMIT IT???? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by stevea66 on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:12:51 AM EST
    Whoever believes that Obama has not answered every single question about Ayers over and over and over again in the past 16 months has been way out of touch.  None of this is new....at all.  Here are the facts - the facts.  Forget about what Palin and McSHame and Guliani, etc. say.

    1.  Ayers did not 'launch' Obama's political career

    2.  Ayers gave him a $200 donation and hosted a coffee at his home - 10 years ago

    3.  They served on two boards together - one of which was funded by a very conservative republican - for education.  The other was a charitable board.

    4.  They never, and don't, pal around - certainly not like McCain palled around with Keating!

    5.  Mr. Ayers did not kill anyone.

    6.  Mr. Ayers is respected by many now, including all of the faculty in the College of Education at the U of Illinois, Chicago.

    7.  Think about their "connections."  Was Obama the ONLY person on those boards?  IT's not like those boards had some vile purpose.  Should Obama also refuse to talk to anyone who works or goes to the U of Ill?  C'mon!

    8.  If you want to talk about "associations," McCain is still married to someone whose father DID launch his political career - with mob money.  It's a fact and everybody who pays attention knows it.

    Take care.

    $100 was what I heard (none / 0) (#155)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:46:33 PM EST
    And that was in 2000 before Ayers popped off in 2001 about not doing more in the 60s.....

    Cindy McCain's father was a convicted felon whose business partner was a mobster suspected by the FBI of killing reporter Don Bolles in the 1970s.


    Sigh (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Joebasic on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:43:06 AM EST
    anyone not drunk on the Kool aid realizes that the "kill him" was directed at Ayers.
    Faux outrage is so yesterday. Get a grip folks.

    If Palin Didn't Hear It (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:46:53 AM EST
    Then, since she reads "all" the newspapers, she knows about it NOW. And today we should get a statement from her denouncing such attacks on Obama. McCain too.

    I would like to add that from another site, I unwitingly followed a link to a right wing site, and the thugs there are openly calling for Obama and Ayers to be shot. This kind of garbage needs to be stopped NOW.

    Like I said above... (none / 0) (#133)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:16:28 AM EST
    ...don't hold your breath waiting for them to apologize.  In fact, it seems that they might be encouraging such things.  To wit...

    'Worse, Palin's routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness. In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her "less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media." At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."'
    --Dana Milbank/WaPo



    First., I read the article (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 01:37:42 PM EST
    as somewhat ambiguous, but mostly that the "kill him" comment was directed at Ayers.

    Second, I've never really paid Ayers much attention until this.

    While I accept his assertion that when he said "he didn't do enough" he was talking about his general anti-Vietnam activities and not his specific anti-Vietnam domestic bombing activities, the guy still was a domestic bomber.

    What's the insinuation Jeralyn? (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by DaveCal on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:05:51 PM EST

    This story makes me sick.  

    The comments are littered with complaints about McCain * Palin hitting Obama on his associations; Its unfair, we knew they'd stoop to this crap, its irrelevant, etc. etc.  

    Yet your story insinuates what exactly? That Palin somehow agrees with the "supporter" who supposedly yelled "kill him"?    

    And before you go jumping all over me with "I didn't say that", why don't you tell us what you meant?  What are you suggesting Jeralyn?  

    It's called, from what I learned here (none / 0) (#153)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:41:33 PM EST

    How liable is the McCain campaign (none / 0) (#25)
    by RedJet on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:44:50 PM EST
    if the Secret Service has to work overtime because of increased, let's say hatred, against Obama?

    McCain is being more than disgusting here, he is being reckless. Isn't he?

    I'm looking forward to Obama wiping the floor with McCain tomorrow. Can't wait.

    I hate the audience question debates. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:47:24 PM EST
    God, me too (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:50:31 PM EST
    Not sure what's worse - the audience questions, or when the moderator rephrases the audience question into something he wants to ask - sometimes not their question at all.

    My family is cringing because it's here in (none / 0) (#37)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:55:55 PM EST
    TN. I hope they don't let any of those idiots CNN interviewed from here in the room. I can just imagine the questions.

    And here I was thinking I was alone (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:00:58 PM EST
    in this opinion, then I find you two. Everyone else I talk to, this is their favorite debate because it features "real Americans". You know, the kind that voted for Bush. Twice.

    The only one I've seen that I liked was (none / 0) (#45)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:03:32 PM EST
    the you tube one. That was probably because of the funny videos. I think most of the questions are not as good as even biased moderators ask. I think they are a waste of time but maybe this one will surprise me.

    They are a little more unpredictable (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:11:40 PM EST
    I will give them that.  But then the moderator tends to rephrase the question into MSM-speak.  

    Well, Al Gore is from Tennessee (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:02:28 PM EST
    so that's good enough for me.  Oh, and Teresa, too!

    That's sweet Radiowalla. My state let Al (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:05:43 PM EST
    down. The whole country actually. That shows you that we do have a majority of dummies here. We also sent you Bill Frist!

    Don't feel too bad about Tennessee (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:24:29 PM EST
    There are dummies wherever you look.  My next door neighbor, right here in No. California, is a fervent fan of Sarah Palin.  You can't escape it.

    My sister and her family too (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:08:12 PM EST
    My niece and nephew are native Tennesseans! I've been there many times and always liked the places and people.  I hope the questioners tomorrow night do the state proud.

    ya (none / 0) (#120)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:50:38 AM EST
    Bill Clinton won TN iirc.  Lots of democrats in the south, they are just outnumbered by a good 10-15%.

    But ya, I hope they dont let any idiots in.


    Lots more Secret Service on Palin's stage (none / 0) (#88)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:46:08 PM EST
    today, too, I noticed in surfing by that speech.  It must be a busy year for Secret Service -- remember Obama asking for a detail 'way ahead of the usual time frame?  And, of course, Senator Clinton had to have an increase, too, with the threats.

    Busy year for them (none / 0) (#125)
    by CST on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:34:47 AM EST
    Hillary has had secret service ever since Bill was president, although I imagine they ramped it up significantly once she started running herself.

    Obama had secret service during the primary, long before any other presidential candidate in history, because they had received an unprecedented number of threats.

    I think it's to be expected any time you have any "first" candidates.  A lot of people are very afraid that if Obama wins he will be assasinated.  I have to keep reminding my parents that it's not the 60s anymore...


    There are people on this board (none / 0) (#152)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:40:38 PM EST
    and elsewhere whose behaviors suggest to me, and I was involved in the '60s in a lot of protests and groups, that it is worse today.  I say that with serious concern for all of the candidates -- and for the country.

    I was sad to see the need but glad to see that Obama did ask for the Secret Service detail as soon as he did.  I got the impression that the Secret Service was glad for it, too, but read that they have to be asked.  However, I would bet that means they were doing what they could do before that.  

    And yes, I know that the Clintons have had to have a heavier detail, even before the campaign, than many other former presidents' families have had.  The Clinton hate continues.  And again, the level of hate on all sides in this campaign and in this country is worse than what I saw in the '60s -- through JFK, MLK, RFK, etc.  It used to be just a couple of crazies.  It's now epidemic and considered the norm.


    Verbal hate is different from physical violence (none / 0) (#157)
    by CST on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:01:32 PM EST
    Especially with the advent of the internet, where everything is anonymous, it is a lot easier to express your frustration/anger/hate verbally, and in an open manner than it was in the 60s.  I think that's a lot different from the actual physical violence that was seen in the 60s.  For example, there are no college kids getting shot by the national guard, or massive riots.

    It's a slippery slope (none / 0) (#160)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 08:51:36 AM EST
    and my fellow college students were shot at the end, at Kent State and Jackson State, in 1970 -- not in the '60s.

    The Cheney plot (none / 0) (#38)
    by A Voice of Sanity on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:55:55 PM EST
    Prediction: McCain gets elected after a desperate, bottom trawling campaign. He resigns due to illness or (???). Palin appoints Cheney as VP and he effectively 'runs' the country as he did with Bush. One dummy out, one dummy in.

    (I'm jus' sayin' that's all).

    You need to change your name, fast. :) (5.00 / 9) (#39)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:56:48 PM EST
    LOL! (none / 0) (#48)
    by NYShooter on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:06:53 PM EST
    I couldn't take Cheney again, could you? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:08:13 PM EST
    I'd rather have Bush! What a scary thought.

    Who's left to attack? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by NYShooter on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:09:50 PM EST
    we owe them all money....Our checks would bounce.

    McCain/Palin = War (none / 0) (#73)
    by stevea66 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:33:39 PM EST
    I think McCain was always a jerk, but his captivity made him more so.  Combine that with his short stature and you have Napoleon.  I don't know what Palin's excuse is, but both seem to be set on invading another country.  It's like a board game to them.  Frightening.

    Napoleon (none / 0) (#91)
    by echinopsia on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 12:10:19 AM EST
    Wasn't actually that short. He was about 5'6", which was average at the time.

    He surrounded himself with a royal guard who were all at least six feet tall.


    Thread cleaned (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:39:13 PM EST
    of off topic comments, there are plenty of open threads up. Please post comments here that relate to the topic of the post.

    Yet Obama and Biden persist (none / 0) (#127)
    by McKinless on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:57:18 AM EST
    in saying McCain is "honorable." He is not, and they should say so.

    So are we going to investigate (none / 0) (#158)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:27:49 PM EST
    what McCain's full relationship is with the terrorist extremist Hagee?

    how many times he talked to him leading up to asking for his endorsement...

    did he ever attend his 'church' or receive personal guidance from Hagee or any of Hagee's associates...

    the public wants to know...

    we have a right to know whether the relationship a candidate has with a hate extremist like Hagee...

    Palin ignores shoutouts (none / 0) (#161)
    by UnderCoverGuy on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 05:05:24 PM EST
    Well, Palin ignored the people shouting bad things about Obama?  The Secret Service just investigated this and found no proof.

    On the other hand, I HAVE SEEN FIRST HAND - at a McCain/Palin Rally, liberal protestors physically charged at and attempted to attack John McCain.  The Secret Service dropped the wusses quickly and arrested them - and they deserved it.

    So the left wants to complain about words?

    That's funny...