- Got tips? Send them to tips (at) r8ny (dot) com
- Blog on Room Eight
- sign-up to receive a daily digest by email
- Advertise on Room Eight
- Login / Sign-up
AdvertisementAround Room EightGot Something To Say? Blog It on Room Eight Subscribe
Want a Daily Digest of Room Eight by Email? Sign-up Here! AdvertisersRecent Posts
Advertising SpaceRoom Eight is a member of the NYC BlogAds network. BloggersBlog RollNew York Politics National Blogs Misc New Yorkers |
Hillary, Bill and Barack: The column I refused to write last month.
In July of last year, in my finale of the three-part series on Barack Obama, I made a few predictions about the presidential race. One of those predictions upset many of my friends. It was the one where I said that Barack Obama will be president of the United States of America, unless a couple things happen: one of which was “an assassination”. I have never retracted this. In fact I wrote later in the year that the Secret Service needed to step up their detail, and protect this man at the highest level ever afforded a presidential candidate. I also berated Barack (slightly) for his cavalier attitude towards the fears of many many black people. I wasn’t kidding. I have met him on three different occasions and I didn’t like what I saw as the security arrangements around him. I took a lot of flack from readers here, for many of my columns on this presidential primary. Some of these readers are enthusiastically rooting for Obama today. That’s why I prefer names to commenters: there should be some kind of accountability to your blogging. You shouldn’t be able to just come up and rag people who take their time and effort to express themselves and their points of view. As most of you know I have been saying since February that this race is over. I even critiqued the mainstream media for perpetrating a fraud on the public: there is no horse race going on; it has been essentially over for months now. The “fat lady” has been singing in overtime. Because of the way that the Dems had set up their rules, Barack Obama was going to end up with more pledged delegates than HRC, after he had racked up a dozen wins in a row starting back in February. All indications were that he was also going to win the most votes cast in primaries and caucuses that counted (remember the Florida and Michigan violations). All those who came on these blogs to castigate me and attack me mercilessly, are now awfully quiet; aren’t they? All through this campaign, blacks all over the country have been praying and crossing their fingers that some whacko won’t try to assassinate Obama. This has been the biggest fear of blacks all through this race. When the governor of Arkansas (Huckabee) made his dumb remark at the National Rifle Association (NRA) convention, telling the crowd that someone just pointed a gun at Barack Obama, and that the bang they just heard was Obama falling while ducking out (timidly running for cover); many in the black community cringed. Others were so livid that they stayed awfully quiet. It was an insensitive remark that pained many. For once blacks didn’t act out with typical “flair”. That was refreshing to see. Then last month I had a long conversation with a journalist who has flown on the Clinton campaign plane on many occasions. That person has been covering this campaign for over a year now. I was arguing my persistent point, that this race was a wrap. The person agreed; that person even said that she had about a one per cent chance of being the nominee of the Dems. Then I was told something that sent chills up my spine. I was told that amongst the press corps covering this campaign, many individuals believed that the only reason the Clintons were staying in this race, was because deep down, they must feel that someone is going to take a shot (whack/bullet) at Barack Obama. After quickly regaining my composure, I asked why no one has written this. The answer was put to me this way: “who is brave enough to do that”? This was when I decided to do it. I decided right there that I would do that column, even if I was going to -somewhat reluctantly- put this journalist in a spot. I felt it had to come out. I felt it was my responsibility. Before I did the column however, I decided to speak to a few of my closest friends and advisers. Every single person I told about this, told me not to write the column. They said that my fears and concerns on this issue are already on record. I overruled myself. I don’t regret that decision really, but today I was left to wonder about the efficacy of my choice. You see, today, Hillary Clinton brought up the June 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy, ostensibly as a justification for her staying in the race this long. She apparently said this before the editorial board of a newspaper in South Dakota. It was disgraceful. Her words were something to the effect that, Robert (Bobby) Kennedy was assasinated in "June" that year. In other words:shit happens; and it can happen very late in the race. She needs to withdraw from the race immediately. The obvious implications of her statements are that Obama could be assassinated before the nomination is finalized at the August convention. This is shocking and beats all the disgraceful things she has already said and done in this campaign. This is indefensible. Once again she has messed with something that is sacred (and taboo) in American politics; and just like her Martin Luther King/ Lyndon B. Johnson remarks: she will pay a big price. Politically speaking: this woman is mortally wounded. She has finally assasinated herself. Desperation, deviousness and hunger for power can do that. Stay tuned-in folks.  To CYNICAL NEGRO: Thanks for the congratulatory wishes. Many people seem to think I deserve the selection /lol. On the serious side I always hoped that my analysis relative to Obama's security risks were treated more seriously by bloggers/ commenters here.
This was an outrageous , unforgiving ,remark Senator Clinton made. She should be punished politically for her remarks. Not only should she drop out NOW from the race, she should never be considered for VP or any other position in Senator Barack Obama's future cabinet. In addition there should be a candidate to step up to plate when it comes time for the NYS Senate race & challenge her for that position. It's time that the people speak up instead of the political hacks that have supported her.Even though she does have a base of women voters , there are many capable women who could fill her shoes.
For a women who has been highly educated and politically savvy, just the reference to RFK's assination in this instance is odd and out of place given the many answers she could have given to question asked. She is and should stay in the race until she drops. I don't care. But the idea of using the word 'assassintion" tells me she is really a transplant from Arkansas, comes with all the baggage. Mike Huckabee was like a 'sweet bear' during the GOP elections, made the same off-the cuff remarks. These are people telling us they have what it takes to lead. Neither are presidential material. Just dumb founded I bought into the lies and voted for Clinton. Finally, my eyes are open, an not too soon!! The unsciousness "mind" does not always allow one to 'hide things under the rug" in time the real truth comes forth. Rock this is certainly a 'stain' on the Democratic party.. the world watches to see their performance in this most important election; and I would be interested to see what grade they are given. " D-" for disgrace!  I've posted a piece in response. http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/lamour_viole_its_a_cinematic_reference.html Are you James Kilpatrick or Nicholas Von Hoffman? I wonder if you realize what you have revealed about the press corp's behavior and thinking during this campaign season? The press corp is speculating, the press corp thinks this, the press corp is sure of this, the press corp "believes this". The press corp is responsible for this sick and twisted thinking and projecting their beliefs onto the Clintons and assume that the Clintons are thinking the same sick and twisted thoughts the press is. It is obvious where the sickness resides in this campaign and it isn't with the Clintons, it is with the press corp. The reason no one would ever publish such a claim is because they know that it is filthy and so are they for thinking such a thing.
Pretty much the point I made; see:
http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/lamour_viole_its_a_cinematic_reference.html
If I had gone with my story EVERYONE (and maybe even the journalist involved) would have DENIED it. All HRC did was endorse the potential veracity of said story (if I had gone public).What HRC did was the most disgraceful thing ever done in a presidential campaign. EVER.
The most disgraceful thing ever done in a presidential campaign was done by the press and continues to be done by the press. This deliberate obtuseness concerning Clinton's comment illustrates the bias, lack of historical reference and knowledge that this press corp has. It is obvious to any sentient adult who has done even a modicum of research that the reference made by Clinton was to the 68 primary season and the length of time in which it played out. Clinton is making the same claim that Kennedy and then McCarthy made - they were ahead in the popular votes going into the convention although Humphrey had the bosses' votes locked up by that time. No one was telling Bobby Kennedy to drop out because he did not have the convention delegate votes so why should anyone be telling Clinton that she must drop out. Clinton's mistake wasn't in the comment, it was supposing that the political press corp would understand historical reference and since they're covering politics would have done some due dilligence in researching the field in which they write. Of course the press wouldn't get it, they didn't get it the first time she said it in March either. But now that it fits their speculation all of a sudden it verifies there worst speculations that they toss among themselves on the back of the plane and in the bars at night. There are no quotes, no comments made by Clinton, no discussion in which she says anything remotely like you claim she thinks - which of course, goes to the very heart of the matter - this is what you think she is thinking. That is not journalism, that is mind reading, something that despite the Vegas acts, can't be done in real life. Speculation isn't reportage, in fact, it is the antithesis of it. Of course the journalist who told you about this gossipy speculation would deny it - he knows that it is political hackery at its worst and would expose the press corp for what they are - back fence dirty, small minded gossips who have no sense of pride or dignity in what they do for a living. Those who cautioned you not to publish this story were doing you a favour - they knew it wasn't a story that would expose Clinton, but would expose the press for the venal gossipmongers they are. That's because the story you had wasn't a story about Clinton at all, it was a story about the dark hearted, twisted reporters who cover political campaigns. What is truly disgraceful about this incident is the lack of morals, ethics and journalistic prinicples of the press corp. What is truly sad about this is that sooner or later, these same reporters will be sitting on the back of Obama's plane and on his press buses and speculating on what he is "really thinking" and they will spread vicious, gossipy, small minded smears about Obama - and you won't have the moral authority to stop it - you've become part of it. BEV: do check your facts. Bobby Kennedy entered the race in mid March of of '68; back then the whole primary season was less than four months long. It started in March (not January as in this year). Twice before in this year's race she had mentioned the death of RFK. She had many other avenues open to make her point, but she chose the sociopathic way out. Stop apologising for people (Bill and Hillary) who have demonstrated time and time again that they are classless liars and possibly even in need of some psycho-theraphy. I don't even think this is debateable amongst scholars anymore. There is overwhelming proof of this. There is no defense for this remark. Go see Keith Olberman's commentary from last Friday night. His list pertains only to this campaign; what about the lists developed over years of Clinton-fatigue?
which is why I call into question your comments and the comments of the punditry. The primary season begins when the candidates announce their candidacy and ends at the convention. I don't apologize for anyone, I don't have to, I'm not the one in error here, you and your press cohort are. I defend the truth no matter which candidate is being skewered. Your choice to characterize the Clinton as a "sociopath" is the prime example of the press making judgements for which they are not qualified. You don't have the knowledge to make that sort of judgement, nor should you be making such judgements, that's not your job as a journalist. Your claim that this is not "debatable among scholars" is a deflection and doesn't answer any of the charges that I made about this sorry episode. First of all, everything is debatable among scholars and secondly there is no "overwhelming proof" of anything you've written, no proof at all, in fact. There is nothing more than your claim that the press was speculating that the only way that Clinton could win was if something happened to Obama and you offered no proof whatsoever to verify your claim - no provenance, no primary sourcing, no secondary sourcing, nothing. That, Sir, is the material point - without sources you have no story. As to Keith Olbermann's comments, while he may be entitled to his opinion, he is not entitled to tell any candidate running for office what that candidate is allowed to say or not say, (especially when he is being deliberately obtuse in his understanding of what Clinton said) that is neither his duty nor his responsiblity as a broadcaster and his job does not entitle him to tell others what to think of a particular candidate - he has neither the background nor the knowledge to do such a thing, he is a broadcaster of news - that is his sole job. Anyone who understands the meaning of a free press, should certainly understand that he is not the arbiter of speech and never, ever should be telling anyone that he/she should never, ever mention anything, especially a historical event. The lists you mentioned are just ridiculous - politics isn't about keeping score, anyone could (and probably will) come up with all kinds of lists of mistakes, gaffes, misunderstood statements and candid remarks that the broadcaster doesn't like. politics is about electing a candidate that will best serve the people, it's not a sporting event where people keep score and the game is won or lost. This is exatly, and I mean exactly, the tactics used by the press to skewer Gore and I think we can all see what judgement they exercised then - they're responsible more than any other group of people for leading us into the election of this administration and this terrible, terrible war. The state of this country is the result of the bad judgement, the lack of restraint in exercising the bias and preference and the complete lack of decency of the press corp of this nation. That is the list of gaffes and mistakes they should be score keeping, because the historians will in the future, that is a certainty. This isn't about Clinton or Obama, this is about responsible journalism and the future of this country. at me, I have been voting for a very, very long time, and have always voted for the democratic candidate nominated for the office and I always will. In my opinion, both candidates would be good presidents and I will happily cast my vote for the nominee of the party.
(I preface this only because of your specific comments as to my ability/ qualifications to make the call I made in my last reply).
I have worked professionally in the area of psyco-theraphy; I have also worked professionally in the area of education (all levels); as a scholar I have studied and graduated in Political Science and Public Communication (amongst many other areas); I have lectured mainly in these two areas -at university level- for almost 20 years; I have been invcolved in politics all my life (since childhood); and I believe that I am competent, capable and qualified to call something I have observed over many years, exactly what I think it is as it relates to psychology/psychiatry. I believe that both Hillary and Bill Clinton are sociopathic. I also believe that they are both narcissistic. To me there is a preponderance of evidence to support my view/conclusion/evaluation. I grant that you are entitled to your opinion -and I do feel that you are intelligent enough to be respected here- but I don't value my opinion any less or more than yours. I also believe that I have the right to express my opinion here -just as you too have a right to express yours. I am unfraid to put mine into columns for you and others to critique here on this website. I look forward to you doing the same soon -especially on this topic. We all make observations about other people's behavior; we also draw conclusions based on those observations. I don't think that one needs a degree in psychology to make a call like the one I have made after almost 20 years of observation. I intend to do another column on this last RFK remark soon, I hope to explore this even further.
In 1996, 2000 and 2004 I voted for Ralph Nader (for whatever that is worth).
Also: there are different genres of media-people. Keith Olberman,Wolf Blitzer and Sue Simmons all do different things. You can't just pigeon-hole media-people into little boxes you create. It is one thing to report the news, but it is another thing to give your interpretation and/or impressions of what it all means. I am sure you can recognize the difference. The communication revolution that we are experiencing -mainly because of relatively new technology- has created areas osf specialization unheard of only a decade ago. Appreciate this as you sip your latte, drambuie, coffee, tea, or whatever, later today or tommorrow -during the holiday/lol. Take care.
It was directed at Rock. And it wasn't hostile, just curious. In fact, if he didn't vote for Bill, then it lends creedence to my belief that Rock is a longtime anti-Clinton obsessive (There must be a Richard Melon Scaife related pun to make here, but I son't have the guts to make it.) Which, in a way would be helpful to him, since it would disprove the libel that this was all about race for him Bev, my question to you is, why don't you post a coment on my pice on this matter?
but I blame that on television. No, you (and no one else for that) matter, is capable of diagnosing or should be offering psychological diagnoses of candidates and public figures. Anyone who has been trained in the field would know that you cannot diagnose someone based on his public persona. Fortunately, there is a far more stringent criteria that is followed by professionals, observation is but one of those tools and observation coloured by political bias is not a tool of diagnosis but a weapon. Frankly, I am not pigeon holing media people, you are. You're abdicating your right as a citizen to free speech and thought and allowing a broadcaster like Olbermann to tell others what is taboo, forbidden, unacceptable and unallowable in the political discourse of our candidates. By default you've made media broadcasters the arbiters of free speech - I've done nothing more than catagorize them as news broadcasters, which is what they are. Of course it is one thing to report the news and another thing to interpret the news - that is my point. By their abyssmal record, their failure to discern the important from the trivial, their fixation on the banal, they've forfeited the right to interpret events. People have (and give) opinions on everything under the sun, but somehow we can't give an opinon on something of a psychological nature; right? I say BS. Plus you are totally contradicting your earlier point by taking this stance. Have you really read any of the almost 200 columns I have posted here? I am a proponent of free speech Bev; not the reverse. I also study and lecture on media. I am now wondering if you really understand the unique role of media in this society (given the constitution, and also the intent of the framers). I think you are one fo those blindly loyal Clintonistas who can't see the forest from the trees. That's so sad; so sad. Look, you are always free to post a rebuttal of any of my articles right here on Room Eight.
what it is I'm an telling you, Rock. You should know better than to offer a psychological evaluation and diagnosis of a public figure whom you don't know, haven't met and have not observed in anything but a public forum. That's 1. People have opinions on everything under the sun, but that doesn't absolve them from the responsiblity of an informed opinion, tempered by reason and rational thought. That's 2. It doesn't matter how many lectures you give on the media or the media's role in relation to the constitution or the public political discourse, if you don't understand 1 and 2. That's 3. Not only do I understand the role of the media in a free society, I am a proponent of it. That is why I am always skeptical when anyone in the media tells us what we can say, what we can't say, what is taboo and what is permissable. That is the abdication of free speech by a thinking citizenry and the tyranny of a press who does not recognize its duties, responsibilities and function in that free society. That's 4. Lastly, your comment that you think I am a "blindly loyal Clintonista" is a prime example of my first comment - I am not a blindly loyal supporter of anything but the democratic party, not because I think they are the best party, but because they are the better party. I have no objection to either democratic candidate as the nominee of the democratic party. The reason I am critical of your article is because I can see the forest for the trees, and am more interested in the future of the forest than I am in chopping down individual trees and especially those trees that are neither needed nor useful in building that future. You are mistaken in your inference of Clinton's statement. No rational, thinking adult can think that she was intending anything other than what she said. Your interpretation is demonstrative of the lack of judgement, discernment and decency by the press corp of this country. You have no story that would confirm your suspicions (which is what they are, unwarranted suspicion) you have a reporter gossiping with you about what the press has been speculating about for the last few months and the projection by this press corp onto the Clintons of their sickest and most twisted idle gossip. You have an obligation to report the truth and an informed opinion and if you can't understand that, then free speech is meaningless. Anyone can publish anything and be completely irresponsible. I'm not trying to rebut your story, I'm trying to impart to you the most valuable lesson you'll ever learn - almost anyone can write political opinion (and does) the only thing that differentiates you from all those other writers is your reputation and your absolute faithfulness to the truth. If you squander that on this kind of disreputable reportage then you have nothing but a collection of rumours and gossip and you will never have a body of work you can be proud to call your own. Just some friendly advice. I will take your "friendly advice" in the spirit it is given, but I disagree with about half of what you are saying. Still, you are entitled to your view and I will always respect that. My reputation speaks for itself. And yes I do have many admirers and a few detractors at the same time. At least 95% of what I write here is praised and admired based on the feedback I get personally. You can review the the threads, of almost 200 articles that I have written here over the years, and come to your own conclusions. I happen to get the most responses by far -of all the contributors/writers to this blog site- and I could only wonder why? Let me analyze those remarks in this way: if you are thinking it, and publicly articulating it, then you could be wishing it. I find it the most dispicable remark ever made in my lifetime -by someone running for the US presidency. She has at this point only ONE opponent for the nomination Barack Obama; who else could she have been referring to? I will try to develop another column on this when I am free. Just be aware that in the Daily News survey that garnered a record on-line response, 86% of the respondents thought that the remarks were absolutely inappropriate.
(I preface this only because of your specific comments as to my ability/ qualifications to make the call I made in my last reply). I have worked professionally in the area of psyco-theraphy.
Rock, I am interested in your credentials cited above as to working professionally in the field of psycotherapy. Please elaborate, as I know that one needs to be credentialed to say that they have worked professinally in my field. You know, sir, you have stated, and I quote: "I have worked professionally in the area of psyco-theraphy." I want to let you know that to declare you are a professional in a licensed, certified profession, is not a cool thing to say, unless you are. And if you are, GREAT. You can't claim to have worked professionally as a lawyer, if not, nor professionally as a teacher, if not. My profession is the same, and I'm merely wondering if you are also a psychotherapist, particularly since in your information about yourself, you don't appear to have a Ph.D in Psychology or an MSW in Social Work. If you do, that's all i asked. Please don't get your knickers in knots about this one. Merely respond to a query about your cite.
Before I respond to your request, do tell me why you are interested in my credentials herein? Also before I eleborate are you saying that one has to be a lawyer to make a legal call? Or a doctor to make a medical call? Or an architect to obeserve than a buliding is defective? This is where you contradict. You say that you are for "freedom of speech", but it appears to me that you are the one restricting free speech, once you are willing to limit lay-people from making certain calls that are nothing but expressions of their opinions- no matter /however limited or however professionally unqualified they may be. You see whenever I am called upon to defend my credentials/experience here, detrasctors come up and call me all sorts of names: elitist, intellectual snob, arrogant, thin-skinned, boastful, egotistic, etc. etc. I don't care to revisit these terrains for silly meaningless points. Contact me through Room Eight or E-mail me and we can further this discussion. I am serious in my psychological observations of this political duo. I may even write about them down the road.
Before I respond fully, please answer all aspects of my last post. AGAIN: I HAVE WORKED PROFESSIONALLY IN THE AREA OF PSYCHO-THERAPHY; YES. You don't know all my credentials/ areas of study/accomplishments/ professions, etc. I am sure you don't, so don't imply what you don't know. BTW: one minute you are "anonymous", and another you are "BevD". One minute you are on this column, another minute you are on Gatemouth's blog; what's all this about? Provocation? Or are you trying to draw me into some tiff?
Make sense and explain all this and what it all means, or I will ignore you.
reader. I have signed everyone of my responses. I would no more presume to ask to view your CV than I would ask to view your income tax returns. I take you at your word. I responded to "Gatemouth's" blog because he asked me to. I have no idea as to who the reader is who is requesting your credentials. I am the person who asked about your credentials, and it was such a benign query --- one psychotherapist to another. I don't understand why you are making it into some kind of melodrama. If you are a licensed, credentialed psychotherapist, that is GREAT, as I said earlier. Because of your obtuseness on this issue, I tend to think that is not the case, and I am really shocked that you would be identifying yourself as something other than you what you are. There's no need to do that, and it's actually against the law. Can you tell me where I did this? Where did I claim to be a licensed, credentialed, psychotheraphist? I stated that I have worked in the area of "psycho-theraphy". I never told you in what professional capacity, nor exactly what my title was, nor my credentials were/are for the post. Nor what was the program, institution, research entity,academy, hospital or whatever. Again (for the second time today): tell me the column, thread, page, line, paragraph, verse, etc. where I said the things you claim I said. BTW as I said in the other thread; there are many professionals in the area of psycho theraphy. There is support staff and other professionals beyond psychotheraphists. JUST TO LET YOU KNOW.
Oh; so I am a crybaby? Well then tell me why is it, that whenever I send a detractor, to find and reproduce what they claim I said or lied about, that they never come back with the supporting evidence. IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED ONE TIME. AND OVER THE YEARS I HAVE CHALLENGED AT LEAST A DOZEN PEOPLE TO DO THIS. If I don't challenge the lies I will leave fools like you out there believing lies as truths. That's why I dislike anonymous bloggers; they are irresponsible and vicious. They hide behind their anonymity.
Post new comment |
Hot Topics
Political Update
Gov Wire
Google AdsSearchRoom Eight Extras |
delicious
digg
Rock,
Clinton's implication that Obama might be assassinated was utterly disgraceful, and she should resign not only from the Presidential campaign, but from the U.S. Senate. It's not surprising, really - she is a duplicitous, egomaniacal carpetbagger from Arkansas with no real agenda except the accumulation of political power.
Clinton's comment was not only outrageous but dangerous. And the media is still not being completely forthright about this issue, because this is the "gorilla" that you've referred to in prior columns. There is only scant mention of the very real threat Obama faces at the hands of assassins.
Huckabee has publicly joked about shots being fired at Obama. Now Clinton reveals her belief that his murder - let's call a spade a spade - is a variable that could not only alter the race, but provides her with a reason to continue campaigning. Unbelievable.
If these high profile figures can say such things, isn't it reasonable to believe that somewhere out there - are other, less stable people who may agree? What a nightmare for Obama, his family and the U.S. Secret Service.
Congrats, Rock, on your selection as a NYS Blogger.