Assassinating The Truth

The news outlets and internet was ablaze last week with the story of Hillary Clinton's statement supporting her long running candidacy in the Democratic primary.  The awkward, yet innocuous statement about Robert Kennedy's unfortunate demise in the 1968 Democratic primary was intended to illustrate that fact that her presence in this primary contest is not extraordinarily late in the process.  But a hostile media and netroot community saw an opportunity to distort her words and assail her very character.  Using hyperbole and conjecture, the various outlets told a narrative of Clinton suggesting she should be in the race in case Obama is befallen by some similar circumstance.  This narrative is as dishonest as it is virulent.  Determined to put the worst possible spin in the story,  and hoping to exact the final blow to a candidate for whom they have shown nothing but contempt, those of the media went into full attack mode.  

Within hours, Keith Olberman was abusing his position as a `news' anchor to gush out his unique form of bile, and to accuse Hillary of unspeakably bad intentions.  Shouting and tossing about as though he had been possessed by the spirit of Bill O'Reilley, Olberman went on a ridiculous rampage about how Clinton's comments are putting Obama in danger, falsely conflating her comments to the death threats received and heightened security necessary to insure his safety.  Never missing an opportunity to try to drive his knife further into Clinton's torso, Olberman used the event as a segway to catalog a litany of other utterly false and plainly stupid accusations, many in which he himself led the efforts to distort; Clinton's Civil Rights & LBJ comments, her ad expounding her security credentials ( which he dishonestly called an "anti-Obama" ad ) and so on.  As he ticked off each supposed transgression, he pretended to say that she was forgiven for each, as in "We've forgiven you for all of the horrible things you've done to us, but it was too much."; this from the man who has done everything in his power to keep each of these lies about Clinton front and center in the national dialog.  He went on to say that that part of history should never be discussed, or as he put it, "The image should not be invoked, EVER!"  

Olberman's psychotic rant and subsequent demand that this particular historic event never be discussed illustrates a bizarre political climate.  It strikes me as very strange that Hillary Clinton, or anyone for that matter, should not comment or discuss the tragedy of Kennedy's assassination.  According to Olberman, the even was too "dark" of an event in our history to even mention.  Who the hell is making these rules?  There are feature length documentaries detailing the unfortunate events that took the lives of some of our most revered leaders.  There are discussions devoted to these events, even lots of conspiracy theories.  We discuss these things every day.  But for one of our leading candidates for the President of the United States, OH NO!  She's not allows to mention it, "EVER!"  King media has spoken, and has declared the first amendment does not apply to Hillary Clinton!  In much the same way, Bill Clinton must not discuss Jesse Jackson's historic campaign or compare it to the present campaign, least he is being racist.  Similarly, Hillary is not allowed to talk about the Civil Rights movement, Martin-Luther King or LBJ.  You see, only her African-American opponent is allowed to discuss such things.  White people need to just shut up about it!

With a candidate so muzzled, we cannot have a legitimate primary contest or even a legitimate election.  The first amendment was intended to make democracy a reality by guaranteeing the right for people to speak freely and for all people to have a voice in government.  Demagogues like Keith Olberman and his brothers and sisters in the media don't actually revoke this guarantee by any legal of extra-constitutional means.  Rather, they misuse the trust afforded to them to sway public opinion against the free practice of this precious right.  In so doing, they have a `loophole' through which to manifest their own brand of oppression.  Through their ability to affect public opinion, they attempt to suppress Hillary's freedom to discuss important historical facts and events, and thus knee-cap her capability to run an effective campaign.  This isn't democracy in action.  This is un-American.

For more information, see:This Link

< Michigan/Florida Myths, Mistakes and Misinformation | The Importance of the Latino Vote >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Oh My goodness (4.66 / 3) (#2)
    by NavyMom on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:03:41 PM EST
    I tutor an advanced 6th grade class, their assignment is this years election. These students are broken into groups, given research questions, booklet "What did you Learn", "Where did you find it" and corrobarating information".

    During the their speeches, presentations some students were stating it is ok to "bend" the rules, we can change them as "we see fit". One of the teachers asked them why would they assume this, when one of the students passed her info from this (and other) blogs some of the teachers were horrified at their students conclusions.

    My 12yr old son (currently attends 10th gr) speech that what their research is panning out to be is "if you don't like the record change the song". He means if you don't like what you are hearing then it is okay to make up your own rules.

    As each of them received copies of the DNC rules, were shown 2000 news casts, shown all candidates announcing their candicies, with a list of each candidate website (Democrat, Republican) they were to keep journals as though they were reporters also. So, as a consequence some of these students are perplexed as to "changing the rules now" and why can't they?

    As a woman I can understand some of the comments/reports on HRC but; has ANYONE taken a look at what it is doing to your kids? Coming from a military family we are very strict with our rules (my sons father is an officer in the Navy) and expects our son to follow each accordingly. My group now wants to know "Why must we do as they (adults) say but no as they do?" Their teacher, correctly, informs them their word is their bond and if you lie consistently no one will ever trust you.

    So, we would like to thank you all for making our kids/students believe they should not be accountable if they give their word, it is subject to change.

    We thought this would give these students encouragement during this election year, but all it did was have them question the words and actions of the "adults"

    Well put (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:39:15 PM EST
    I thought this election is about ending the total disregard for the rule of law by the current administration.   What I've been saying for a while, is that the Dems having taken impeachment off the table and otherwise failing to hold anyone accountable for violations of our laws is promoting the notion that it's okay to bend the rules to achieve your goals.  

    I thought Watergate was a national exercise in why our laws are important. Hearings started with only 25% of the nation in favor of impeachment, and ended with (I think) over 75% in favor. The case was made effectively as the public watched the testimony.  


    I see the same (none / 0) (#4)
    by madamab on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:40:29 PM EST
    lack of accountability in Obama's candidacy as I see in George W. Bush's presidency. I posted on this at my blog yesterday. (Warning - a bit of swearing. ;-))

    This is SO NOT where I want the country to go.


    PS (none / 0) (#1)
    by flashman on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:25:17 PM EST
    Sorry, I messed up the link to my reference.  I'll try again.