See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On January 17th, 2008 at 11:36 am, vickisoup said:

   If I heard any GOP candidate mention this kind of Hillary gaffe, I’d be inclined to listen more to their position on other things. To my mind, if a GOP can’t show me they can go after Hillary (ala Rove’s recent recommendations), I am unlikely to vote for them. McCain is so in love with her that I wouldn’t give him a second glance even if he WAS a conservative.

2. #2
   On January 17th, 2008 at 11:40 am, meatpieandtatters said:

   The damage has already been done. Johnson’s apology is just a little window dressing cause his verbal straifing had the desired effect.

3. #3
   On January 17th, 2008 at 11:41 am, ajmontana said:

   ajmontana said:
   lol, now the coverage of BET apology for Obama drug use, they’re playing the media like a violin…. keeping the drug use out there… say something, it gets played all over then dies a little then here comes the apology….stays out there…. media playin directly into the hands of the clinton mafia.

   had to re-post this here also…

4. #4
   On January 17th, 2008 at 11:41 am, ThackerAgency said:

   Of course Bob Johnson did. He is all about publicity for himself. He was over the top in hopes that people would talk about it. Once Obama wins, he’ll be just as over the top about the ‘triumph of the black people’ and how white people who don’t vote for Obama are ‘racist’.

   Bob Johnson is a publicity hound out to glorify and bring attention to himself. He couldn’t care any less about Hillary or Obama. Neither of them will ever have as much money as he has wasted. . . and that’s the contempt he has for both of them.

5. #5
   On January 17th, 2008 at 11:46 am, John Ansell said:

   If an apology was a vote, Obamination would win running away.

6. #6
   On January 17th, 2008 at 11:46 am, Blind_Mule said:

   ajmontana

   ding ding ding, you hit the jackpot.

   1000′s of coins to you.

7. #7
   On January 17th, 2008 at 11:47 am, Barry F. said:

   You hit the nail on the head, AJ.

8. #8
   On January 17th, 2008 at 12:07 pm, gregorystephens said:

   I’m confused. Why is Obama’s past drug use off limits? I think there are questions that need answering. I don’t like the Clintons, but Bill had to answer the questions about his pot usage. Why does Obama get handled with kid gloves? And why is it that if you ask Obama a tough question, it’s because you’re a bigot?

9. #9
   On January 17th, 2008 at 12:12 pm, mnmike said:

   The words Johnson spoke were in public.

   The apology letter was in private.

10. #10
    On January 17th, 2008 at 12:16 pm, Rusty said:

    Gregory, the reason it’s treated with kid gloves is because it really doesn’t matter. We’re at the point where the MAJORITY of people under the age of 60 have at least tried marijuana. And President Bush’s past cocaine use isn’t really a secret.

    I can understand giving President Clinton a hard time over trying to have it both ways (I did not inhale!? Talk about having it both ways!), but attacks on President Bush and Senator Obama are dirty pool. Bush’s reasons for non-disclosure strike me as legit (he allegedly told an adviser that he didn’t want kids thinking they could use drugs and still become president even if it’s true) and Obama discussed his past drug use to point out how he overcame self-inflicted personal obstacles. Neither of their performances in public office were put in jeapordy by drugs, so what does it matter?

    Anyways, I’m a HRC supporter. But this whole flap made me seriously consider switching over to Obama. Robert Johnson is a bully and I am sick of HRC’s people resorting to gutter attacks. I prefer her policies, but I prefer Obama’s campaign.

11. #11
    On January 17th, 2008 at 12:35 pm, zorro said:

    That’s the Klinton Machine MO, throw out some lie or slur, wait for the lie or slur to sink in, note the reaction then quietly apologize, conveniently, after the damage has been done. They are the Masters of the Politics of Personal Destruction. It’s their trademark.

12. #12
    On January 17th, 2008 at 12:38 pm, J S Ragman said:

    But, you know, this is all the media’s fault.

    Yeah, if they’d just stick to the talking points we gave them, and stop sticking their noses into our ding-dang business.

    /sarc off

13. #13
    On January 17th, 2008 at 12:39 pm, Boomer said:

    Nicely put ajmontana and mnmike!

14. #14
    On January 17th, 2008 at 12:41 pm, Azygos said:

    OT:

    Rusty,

    Are you insane? Why would you vote for a Clinton scumbag who has proposed so many proven failed socialist ideas? Or do you relish having more of your paycheck stolen by the government? Just a guess but the only people I can think of who would vote for her are the ones receiving the handouts we pay for. Can you explain your position?

15. #15
    On January 17th, 2008 at 12:48 pm, gunslingerpatriot said:

    azygos,
    just a friendly piece of advice-Don’t feed a troll.

    If there were any real leaders in the DOJ; they (who shall not be named) would already be in jail for a long time. As for me; I am preparing for the sudden interest in my tax returns when a dhimicrat gets into the White house for my support of conservative causes.

    GSP

16. #16
    On January 17th, 2008 at 12:52 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

    Dear Mr. Johnson:

    Too little, too late.

    Thank you,

    The rest of America.

17. #17
    On January 17th, 2008 at 12:53 pm, Azygos said:

    gsp,

    Sorry, I’m so sick of his/her? stupud comments.

18. #18
    On January 17th, 2008 at 12:57 pm, mytake said:

    Just looked at info on Obama’a church and think, unless you are black, you should reconsider a vote for him. At his church, being black is more important than being American. That would be worrisome no mater what the minority is, female, gay, or that new minority with no special rights…white male.

19. #19
    On January 17th, 2008 at 1:33 pm, Rusty said:

    Azygos, I think her health care plan is stupendous. I love it. It’s about the same as Edwards’s, but I’m not really comfortable with his populist rhetoric.

    And she’s a bit more concerned with runaway budget spending than Edwards or Obama.

    Also, the tax thing isn’t a concern of mine since I don’t make enough money. Bush’s tax cuts didn’t affect me.

    Most of my fellow Dem friends are voting Obama or Edwards based on Iraq. They don’t trust Hillary on that issue since she won’t apologize for her vote to authorize force there. But that’s a low priority for me because there is no way that we’re leaving Iraq any time soon. I trust all the Dem candidates to get us out in a reasonable period of time.

    And, finally, part of my support is because I don’t like the way other people treat her. People use “ambitious” against her as if it were some kind of slur. It’s a compliment for a man and an insult for a lady and that drives me up the wall. And the Clinton Derangement Syndrome is baffling. People think the Clintons killed off all of these people with absolutely no proof. No documents missing. No evidence. Nothing.

    I wouldn’t expect a Republican to vote for her, but I’m a registered Dem (which equals troll to many around these parts). I think she’s the best candidate for what I want.

    If only her supporters would shut the Hell up and get out of the mud. And I know that’s an HRC MO and I want it to end.

20. #20
    On January 17th, 2008 at 2:20 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    I am not a fan of Obama, but when writing a formal letter of apology for your comments, it would behoove you to refer to him as Senator Obama, not “Barack”.

    Whenever I write my representatives, even if I dislike them, I always address them by their title. And Russ Feingold is one of my senators, so I have *a lot* to dislike.

    It’s called respect.

21. #21
    On January 17th, 2008 at 2:22 pm, The Raging Republican said:

    BET founder Robert L. Johnson

    What? R. Kelly wasn’t available to make a comment on behalf of Hillary???

22. #22
    On January 17th, 2008 at 2:39 pm, Azygos said:

    Rusty,

    Thanks for taking the time to respond. I’ll not respond here as I want to re-read your comment and think about it first.

23. #23
    On January 17th, 2008 at 3:16 pm, MDH3 said:

    it would behoove you to refer to him as Senator Obama, not “Barack”.

    beat me to it. But really, are we surprised?

24. #24
    On January 17th, 2008 at 4:36 pm, Barry F. said:

    Azygos, I think her health care plan is stupendous. I love it.

    Rusty, I don’t mean to be antagonistic. Really. I’ve been having quite a bit of fun on here today to be too antagonistic.

    But, I can’t read the quote above and not take time to ask you what, specifically, about Hillary and her socialist ideas, including the socialized/universal healthcare are so appealing to you.

    Have you really looked at countries that have already gone down this path to get an idea of where it leads? It sounds wonderful that everyone would have health insurance. But, the reality in Canada and other subscribers to this ideal stand in stark contrast to the plan(s) being espoused by Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

    It doesn’t help much to have health insurance, if you can’t get in to see the physician, let alone the decline in quality care. I met two Canadian physicians in a small town in Florida where I lived in the late-90′s. They both told me they left because the healthcare system had become so deplorable.

    Granted, they are only two doctors. But, to have both of them in the same small town would likely be what we might call a clue that there are many in similary towns across the U.S. It is no secret that, at least as of now, have the best healthcare system in the world. I would suggest that Canadian officials coming here to get treatment, instead of the wonderful socialized system they have implemented, would be an obvious sign for all of us.

    And, the idea of mandating that persons carry insurance is smacks of government infringement on peoples’ personal liberties. Now, I frankly think it is moronic not to carry insurance, when you can. But, to force it upon people seems to go against even the things for which liberals claim to despise. I remember hearing the Democrats speak repeatedly of “mandating” individuals to have healthcare.

    Maybe I am off base here. Someone correct me, if am missing something.

25. #25
    On January 17th, 2008 at 5:07 pm, Rusty said:

    The Canadian system is decent and the English system is in tatters. But the French system of universal health care is the best in the world.

    If it means I have to wait in line longer so that 45 million Americans can get affordable health insurance, then so be it.

    The reason mandates are in Edwards’s and Clinton’s plan is because that’s the only way that health care providers will go along with this plan. If only the sick opt in, the providers lose money.

    And with 45 million people buying in, the costs should go down for the rest of us.

    Yeah, this plan goes against conservative principles, but that’s fine by me. I have a bleeding heart.

26. #26
    On January 17th, 2008 at 5:29 pm, nbarry said:

    Any slur by a purveyer of vulgar hip-hop videos honors the recipient.

27. #27
    On January 17th, 2008 at 6:13 pm, DBNinKY said:

    Whenever Clinton, Inc composes one of its famous muddy-the-waters attack package for some tertiary accomplice like Mr. Johnson to deliver against an opponent, e.g. anyone who stands in the way of a Clinton’s wants, needs or desires, they always include an out for the deliverer.

    As we all have been exposed to these attack packages since 1992, we pretty much know to expect them to consist of three distinct parts.

    The first part consists of comprising some outrageous, spurious charge, cloaking it in a double-entendre, and then leveling it against an opponent: The muddying the political waters effect.

    The charge, while often unprovable and licentious, always captures media attention and creates enough doubt in the minds of potential voters as to cause them to wane in their support for the Clintons’ opponent or foe.

    The second part consists of the attack always being delivered by some well known figure who shares some common background with the opponent.

    With Obama, they felt they had to have an African-American deliver the charge against him for it to be non-racial, thus enters Mr. Johnson. However, when the Clinton’s need a tertiary to attack a Republican, they usually get a former GOPer or RHINO, like David Brooks of Media Matters or that belligerent senator from Virginia, the one with the red race who claims to have been a Reagan-man, or some other such sad lot.

    The third and final part, the out, consists of an apology. Simple and sweet, the “I’m sorry my statements were misleading” or the ever-popular “The media took my words out of context” seems to always follow three to five days after the initial attack – thus giving the attack sufficient airtime to register in the minds of voters everywhere – and never a day before!

    It would seem after all these years of muddy-the-waters attack packages, the Clintons would be as sick and weary of making them as we voters are of enduring them!

    For once in their political careers couldn’t they come up with something new, or is it really that pat for them to annihilate the reputation of their fellow human being?

28. #28
    On January 17th, 2008 at 6:15 pm, Barry F. said:

    The cost doesn’t go down for the rest of us, Rusty. If by chance our premiums do, miraculously, decrease for a short time, we (i.e. taxpayers) just end up picking it up out of our payroll for everyone else. This stuff doesn’t come free.

    Now, were liberals willing to allow only the taxpayers that wanted to help subsidize this hair-brained scheme foot the bill, I would be all for it. But, I don’t know any “bleeding heart” that is willing to do that themselves. They want all of us to have to pay for their socialist ideas.

    The info you have on the “French system of universal healthcare being the best in the world” is news to me. I haven’t known much of anything that the French do well, except surrender. That have that down to an artform, given their history in the last centry. Now, if you are simply comparing their system of universal healthcare to Canada and Britain, you should probably trying raising the bar a bit.

    This would definitely be a good time to compare apples to oranges, instead of apples to apples. We don’t need to be comparing one universal healthcare system to another. We need to compare what we have now to universal/socialist healthcare.

29. #29
    On January 17th, 2008 at 6:54 pm, DBNinKY said:

    …one of its famous muddy-the-waters attack package… .

    OOPS! Number/sub. agreement error! Should be one/packages. I thought I had hit “s”?

30. #30
    On January 17th, 2008 at 8:14 pm, Azygos said:

    Is that the same French who went on vacation for a month and let 15,000 elderly die from the heat?

31. #31
    On January 17th, 2008 at 9:37 pm, garyt said:

    To any of the HRC supporters out there I would like some answers concerning the Islamofascists. Are they hoping for a Clinton win because they think she and the demos will surrender? Does Hillery think that by withdrawing from Iraq the enemy will also withdraw too? Would Hitler and Tojo have laid their arms down too had the Allies surrendered? I am just wondering. Also under any new Health Plan will congress people have to live with it or will they have their own special one? Just wondering what the demos plan is.

32. #32
    On January 18th, 2008 at 8:54 am, Dimsdale said:

    I’ll take a bite….

    And, finally, part of my support is because I don’t like the way other people treat her. People use “ambitious” against her as if it were some kind of slur. It’s a compliment for a man and an insult for a lady and that drives me up the wall. And the Clinton Derangement Syndrome is baffling. People think the Clintons killed off all of these people with absolutely no proof. No documents missing. No evidence. Nothing.

    I deride her ambition as the kind of ambition that comes from someone who, despite no real documentable achievements, particularly as Hillary Rodham vs. Mrs. Clinton, thinks that they are eminently qualified, or worse deserve the presidency. Go ahead, name any real achievement that would make me say, hey, she really is eminently qualified to be president. I won’t hold my breath.

    Secondly, perhaps you might ask Billy Dale about “Clinton Derangement Syndrome.” She not only had his butt fired, but she sought to destroy his reputation in the process.

    And please, don’t mention the word “documents” around the Clintons, unless you want to explain the 900+ secret FBI personnel files, including dossiers of prominent Republicans, that (look up Deborah Perroy) “mysteriously” came into the possession of the Clintons.

    Why do I loathe Hillary?

    A simple Google search would answer the question, but to summarize, the depth and breadth of her corruption, documented from her earliest days, would seriously put the country at risk. Pick any of the “-gates” scandals.

    One thing you can remember about the Clintons: either they “can’t recall” or
    “there is no evidence of (insert scandal here)”. One thing I learned in science is absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It holds true in politics too.

    As for her health plan, at best, it will lower our standards to that of Canada, which you seem to like, or at worst, that of Great Britain.

    Either way, we lose. Want to cut health care costs? Kick out the 12 – 30 million illegal alien parasites that are driving up costs and lowering the quality of our health care. Look at how the ERs in California are closing left an right, then project that on the rest of the country.

    Why does Hillary invest it those dreaded pharmaceutical companies, but sell them off before her presidential run for apperances sake (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3282302)?

    Double standards anyone? One wonders if she had money in aparteid South Africa.

    Bottom line: based solely on her socialist worldview and her inherent corruption, Obama would be the better choice for president if one had to vote Democrat. The way she is sliming Obama is reminiscent of the way Ted Kennedy once slimed a black opponent (Jack E. Robinson) in Massachusetts. I guess all that time in black churches is just for show (always was for Bill!).

    I am sure he could become as bad, but at least it would buy us some time!

33. #33
    On January 18th, 2008 at 9:04 am, Dimsdale said:

    On January 17th, 2008 at 9:37 pm, garyt said:

    To any of the HRC supporters out there I would like some answers concerning the Islamofascists. Are they hoping for a Clinton win because they think she and the demos will surrender? Does Hillery think that by withdrawing from Iraq the enemy will also withdraw too? Would Hitler and Tojo have laid their arms down too had the Allies surrendered? I am just wondering. Also under any new Health Plan will congress people have to live with it or will they have their own special one? Just wondering what the demos plan is.

    The election of Hillary is an tacit admission to the terrorists that we will be surrendering on January 21, 2009. She said so herself, although only to claim credit for military and political progress in Iraq. She just left out the obvious and predictable consequences of her intentions. The better she looks, the less will happen in Iraq, simply because the terrorists know they simply have to sit on their hands and wait. Then the carnage would start anew with no restraint. No doubt it would be “Bush’s fault” once again.