First of all, you don't need to be Sigmund Freud to understand the kind of deep, twisted misogyny that leads to fantasies about shooting a powerful, accomplished woman in her private parts. I'd even go so far as to suggest that old Pete can only perform with women with the aid of a certain little blue pill. (After all, he didn't suggest shooting her in the knees.) Do men who have successful, loving relationships with women have fantasies like this? I'm guessing not.
There's no way you can convince me that Pete isn't trying to encourage his listeners to act as surrogates for the job he's too impotent to do himself. And while the legal responsibility for such cheerleading can be murky, most of us are ethically aware enough to see where the moral responsibility lies:
Extremist radio host Pete Santilli is defending and reiterating his inflammatory attacks on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, stating on his program that he wants "to shoot her in the vagina and let her suffer right before my eyes."
In a May 17 rant captured by Right Wing Watch, Santilli called for the Bush family and President Obama to be shot and for Clinton to be "shot in the vagina." The Secret Service told TPM Media that they would investigate Santilli's comments in order to "determine what a person's intent is when making comments like this."
Ordinarily I wouldn't give this kind of a story attention, but the radio host who said that disgusting thing has somehow gotten enough traction in radio-land to attract the likes of Larry Pratt and Ted Nugent. Plus, I've had my own personal encounter with him.
Back in 2008 I did a daily online radio show called NewsGang Live with some techies, some political types, and others. At the time, there was no BlogTalkRadio but Steve and Tina Gillmor managed to figure out how to do it with uStream and a call-in conference number . Peter Santilli would call into the show often, presenting himself as an independent voter who wasn't sure how he would vote in 2008. He was disruptive and annoying but he wasn't crazy and he wasn't especially much of an independent either, but more of a straight-up conservative and conspiracy nut.
Furries do it Gangnam Style! No, not the video in question, it's just entertaining.
Too bad no one's leaked the video (yet), but I suppose you would want to hang onto it for the lawsuits those interns will probably bring. And they think liberals are the strange ones, huh? What brilliant young staffer came up with the bright idea of showing this to Christian conservatives?
I have to say, this sounds like it was planted by Dick Armey to blow things up now that he got his payday. But still entertaining, nonetheless! Via Raw Story:
The controversial conservative super PAC FreedomWorks created a promotional video that depicted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton having oral sex with a woman in a giant panda suit, according to a report published on Thursday.
Former FreedomWorks officials told Mother Jones‘ David Corn that an internal investigation was focusing on the group’s president, Matt Kibbe, and a possible area of inquiry was the video in question.
“The video included a scene in which a female intern wearing a panda suit simulates performing oral sex on Hillary Clinton,” Corn reported, noting that the film had been created to play on large screens the FreePAC conference in July 2012.
Sources told Corn that the premise of the video was a dream sequence, where Executive Vice President Adam Brandon voyeuristically observes “a giant panda on its knees with its head in the lap of a seated Hillary Clinton and apparently fellating the then-secretary of state.”
Oopsy! Slip of the tongue, so to speak. There are so many wingnuts in the closet, I guess they forgot that you don't "fellate" women.
Wow. When was the last time you heard anyone applaud like that for their boss? Hillary Clinton said goodbye to the men and women of the State Department yesterday, stressing that gender equality can change the world for the better:
Then there's human rights and our support for democracy and the rule of law, levers of power and values we cannot afford to ignore. In the last century, the United States led the world in recognizing that universal rights exist and that governments are obligated to protect them. Now we have placed ourselves at the frontlines of today's emerging battles, like the fight to defend the human rights of the LGBT communities around the world and religious minorities wherever and whoever they are. But it's not a coincidence that virtually every country that threatens regional and global peace is a place where human rights are in peril or the rule of law is weak.
More specifically, places where women and girls are treated as second-class, marginal human beings. Just ask young Malala from Pakistan. Ask the women of northern Mali who live in fear and can no longer go to school. Ask the women of the Eastern Congo who endure rape as a weapon of war.
And that is the final lever that I want to highlight briefly. Because the jury is in, the evidence is absolutely indisputable: If women and girls everywhere were treated as equal to men in rights, dignity, and opportunity, we would see political and economic progress everywhere. So this is not only a moral issue, which, of course, it is. It is an economic issue and a security issue, and it is the unfinished business of the 21st century. It therefore must be central to U.S. foreign policy.
One of the first things I did as Secretary was to elevate the Office of Global Women's Issues under the first Ambassador-at-Large, Melanne Verveer. And I'm very pleased that yesterday, the President signed a memorandum making that office permanent.
In the past four years, we've made – (applause) – thank you. In the past four years, we've made a major push at the United Nations to integrate women in peace and security-building worldwide, and we've seen successes in places like Liberia. We've urged leaders in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya to recognize women as equal citizens with important contributions to make. We are supporting women entrepreneurs around the world who are creating jobs and driving growth.
So technology, development, human rights, women. Now, I know that a lot of pundits hear that list and they say: Isn't that all a bit soft? What about the hard stuff? Well, that is a false choice. We need both, and no one should think otherwise.
Sadly, we've seen the erosion of women's equality right here in the United States, thanks to the warped priorities of the Republican party. Maybe we can do something about that.
Fox & Friends welcomed author Howard Wasdin as the latest in their series of pre-emptivestrikes against a Hillary Clinton candidacy – in this case, to argue that Benghazi is Clinton's “Black Hawk Down.” Of course, the attack on an American outpost in Benghazi was nothing like the mission in Somalia that led to the Black Hawk Down incident. Still, it made for a neat way of tying Hillary to Bill and tarring them both in one segment. But the Curvy Couch Crew got more than it bargained for when Wasdin began preaching the benefits of "two to the body, one to the head."
Wasdin said it looked like Hillary Clinton “took a page from her husband's playbook, which is not to give what's asked for.” Nobody pointed out that Hillary Clinton has recently testified before Congress that she never saw the request for increased security in Benghazi, nor that she said, “Obviously, it's something we're fixing.”
Meanwhile, a banner reading "A CASE OF DEJA VU: IS BENGHAZI THIS PRESIDENT'S BLACK HAWK DOWN?" hit the screen.
But Wasdin wasn't about to let his 15 minutes go by without holding forth on the evils of the liberal media and President Obama, too.
Michelle Malkin visited Fox & Friends yesterday to jeer discuss Hillary Clinton's Benghazi testimony in front of Congress Wednesday. The Los Angeles Times noted that the Republicans were so intent on “resurrect(ing) a specious political attack that got them nowhere in the final days of the presidential campaign,” they missed opportunities to get real answers as to how to prevent such tragedies from happening again. And, in the process, made Clinton look “stronger than ever.”
Malkin and her Fox News hosts were so busy following in those footsteps that they failed to consider how they missed the mark in just the same way
Malkin began her “analysis” by sneering that the hearings seemed all about “Hillary 2016.” But that's all the Republicans at both hearings were focused on, too -- getting a sound byte to use against her potential candidacy.
Malkin gave special attention to the widely-seen clip of Clinton responding to Republican Senator Ron Johnson in which he beats the political dead horse alleging that the Obama administration deliberately oversold an anti-Muslim YouTube video as the cause of the attack. Clinton's forceful and persuasive answer: "Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?”
“It makes all the difference in the world,” Malkin said contemptuously. But she never explained why. She became too caught up in attacking Republicans for having “squandered the opportunity to really stick it, not only to Hillary and the State Department, but to this entire lying administration.”
She continued, “Now I understand that there are a lot of staffers and a lot of Republicans on Capitol Hill who have been so steeped in this that they don't realize that the basics still need to get out to the American public and that was the missed opportunity, I think.”
It's time for some Clinton Derangement Syndrome after a long absence on this front by the wingnuts who inhabit the intertubes and it comes from Hillary's big testimony day on Wednesday. Leading the charge of those severely infected was John Nolte of Breitbart.
When Hillary Clinton was a young lawyer in 1974, she earned her bones in DC as a member of the impeachment inquiry staff during the Watergate scandal. But why? What difference did a little burglary make when thousands were dying in Vietnam?
Poor Condi Rice. Why didn't she pull this during the 9/11 hearings? "What difference does it make what we knew and when we knew it, Senator? 3,000 Americans that September morning! "Yeah, that would've have gone over real well with the media. But Rice never would have done such a thing, because she and the Bush Administration had nothing to hide.The Obama administration, however, cannot say the same.
This is the one of the the douchiest political paragraphs I've ever read. It's rife with untruths along with nonsensical correlations about things that never took place. First of all the whole BenghaziGate faux scandal was perpetrated to help Romney win the White House, but even with Conservative media screaming nonstop for weeks on end, Americans didn't buy their lies. It wasn't some Nixonian political scandal that was used to cover up some nefarious criminal activity and they've never explained what the conspiracy is all about that's worthy of the 'gate' extension.
OK, now back to some of Nolte's false equivalencies. Watergate was a story about a Republican political criminal gang composed of Nixon's own people. I won't explain it here since most people know the story, but please click on the link for a quick refresher. However, this was about Nixon's reelection plan and not, let's say, a group that dug up false intel and fed it to the UN to persuade the world to go to war with a country that had WMDs just ready to be detonated against us all. (Sorry, that's part of Iraq's history!) Nixon's WH covered it up because people would go to jail and or be impeached.
The idea that Watergate is the same as Benghazi is Huckabeeridiculous.
As for the 9/11 Commission, the Bush administration did all it could to not have one at all, because they did have things to hide. Condi Rice had to admit to Congress that she received a PDB that said Bin Laden wanted to fly planes into US buildings a month before the Twin Towers happened. She also was exposed for her lies about those pesky aluminum tubes. which also aided in helping getting Bush's Iraq war off the ground. Bush, Condi and his entire warmongering cabinet had a lot to hide as we know and so should Nolte. Then Nulte spins his version of reality by saying BushCo had nothing to hide about the Iraq war, but the Obama administration is as guilty as those who perpetrated Watergate without actually telling us what they are guilty of.
I guess they feel they can use this if Hillary runs for office in 2016.
"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans," Clinton responded, raising her voice at Johnson, who continued to interrupt her. "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."
Clinton continued, defending the State Department's efforts in the wake of the assault.
"Honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is people were trying their best in real time to get to the best information," she said, before blasting the senator's line of questioning. "Give me a break, Senator Johnson. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."
In his questioning obnoxious browbeating of Sec. Clinton, Rand Paul actually said this:
"I'm glad that you're accepting responsibility," said Paul. "I think ultimately with your leaving that you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11. And I really mean that."
Erick Erickson, of all people, just lamented that the GOP keeps losing elections because they're wasting lots of time and energy on faux scandals like Benghazi.
A former intern shares what she learned about work ethic from working for Hillary Clinton.
Blogger Historiann is one of the handful or so of people who still read Bloomberg's Michael Kinsley, Professional Liberal. (I didn't even know he was still around. But I'd like to point out to Mr. Kinsley that you judge the Secretary of State's job performance by what doesn't happen.) You don't have to be a Clinton fan to see just how offensive Kinsley's column is. As soon as a male writer uses the phrase "I don't mean to be ungallant," you know he's about to unleash a truckload of misogynist horse manure:
The world is a better place because of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. That’s not the question. The question is whether it is a better place because of those last 20 hours of her 80-hour work week. Or because of the extra miles she flew to distant capitals?On one trip in 2009, according to the New York Times, “she traveled from talks with Palestinian leaders in Abu Dhabi to a midnight meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, then boarded a plane forMorocco, staying up all night to work on other issues, before going straight to a meeting of Arab leaders the next morning.”Very impressive, but did it bring us any closer to peace in the Middle East?
Kind of strange, don’t you think? Has anyone ever written about a man that he worked too hard or was just too dedicated to his job, let alone that his dedication was a form of self-aggrandizement? What’s worse is that in Kinsey’s estimation, Hillary Clinton looks like a 65 year-old woman:
Clinton looks awful and has looked worse and worse for years, since long before her recent hospitalization for a blood clot resulting from a fall. I don’t mean to be ungallant. It’s just that she clearly has been working herself to death in her current job as well as in her past two, as senator and first lady.
And what for? Despite all the admiration she deserves for her dedication and long hours, there is also a vanity of long hours and (in her current job) long miles of travel. You must be very, very important if your work requires you to be constantly flying through time zones to midnight meetings that last for hours. Of course our secretary of state is very important — so why does she have to prove it?
Yeah–she’s the U.S. Secretary of State! She should just sit back, relax, and bake up some vegan, gluten-free cookies or something. She doesn’t need to log all of those flight miles–she can just Skype Angela Merkel or Abu Mazen from Chappaqua if something comes up.
In spite of my voracious consumption of political journalism (because who else do you know who reads Michael Kinsley?Lolz!), I must have missed all of those articles that complained about Teddy Kennedy’s unattractive corpulence, or that Robert Byrd was a hideous old fossil who should have resigned long before he died, or Barney Frank’s weird speech impediment that means he spits all over anyone who’s near him, or that Bob Dole was a self-aggrandizing mummy with a chip on his shoulder and corpse-breath for daring to run for President at the age of 73. I totally missed the endless calls during the Bush presidency insisting that Dick Cheney was ineligible to serve as Vice President because he was 60 going on 95 and was clearly too hideous and too sickly to serve.
As a matter of fact, I’ve missed every single article in the world written either in English or French in which male politicians are criticized for their age, their looks, or their hard work.
