--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert <babajii_99@> wrote: > > > > Questions for the Clintons > > By BOB HERBERT > > Published: January 26, 2008 > <snip> > > Bill Clinton, in his over-the-top advocacy of his wife's > candidacy, has at times sounded like a man who's gone off his > medication. And some of the Clinton surrogates have been flat-out > reprehensible. > <snip> > > And then there was Bob Kerrey, the former senator and another > Clinton supporter, who slimed up the campaign with the following > comments: > > "It's probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the > fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a > Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There's a > billion people on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that > experience is a big deal." > > Pressing the point, Mr. Kerrey told CNN's John King: "I've > watched the blogs try to say that you can't trust him because he > spent a little bit of time in a secular madrassa. I feel quite the > opposite." > > Get it? > > Yes. Sounds to me like Kerrey is trying to counter > the false rumor that Obama is a Muslim. How that > could be considered a "slime" is rather strange; > to call it a "slime" appears to be an attempt to > slime the Clinton campaign. > > > Let's start with the fact that Mr. Obama never attended a > madrassa, and that there is no such thing as a secular madrassa. A > madrassa is a religious school. > > "Madrassa" is the Arabic word for "school"--any > kind of school, secular or religious. So we're > not starting with a fact at all. > > <snip> > > The Clinton camp knows what it's doing, and its slimy maneuvers > have been working. Bob Kerrey apologized and Andrew Young said at the > time of his comment that he was just fooling around. But the damage > to Senator Obama has been real, and so have the benefits to Senator > Clinton of these and other lowlife tactics. > > Consider, for example, the following Web posting (misspellings > and all) from a mainstream news blog on Jan. 13: > > "omg people get a grip. Can you imagine calling our president > barak hussien obama ... I cant, I pray no one would be disrespectful > enough to put this man in our whitehouse." > > Cherry-picking one nasty *comment* (not a "posting") > on a blog as if it were somehow representative of > the purported "damage" the Clinton campaign is doing > to Obama is really beneath contempt. Herbert knows > better, but he knows many of his readers will not. > > <snip> > > Still, it's legitimate to ask, given the destructive developments > of the last few weeks, whether the Clintons are capable of being > anything but divisive. The electorate seems more polarized now than > it was just a few weeks ago, and the Clintons have seemed positively > gleeful in that atmosphere. > > I see no "glee" coming out of the Clinton campaign. > What I do see is a relentless attempt by the media > and the Obama campaign to paint the Clintons as > divisive, including deliberately quoting perfectly > reasonable remarks by the campaign misleadingly out > of context.
I can't believe you feel that way about the now infamous "Ronald Reagan" remarks about Obama by Bill Clinton, Judy. Do you really feel that that was "a perfectly reasonable remark by the campaign misleadingly out of context"?
