PUBLIC RELATIONS DEBACLE AFTER SEN. HILLARY JEERED AND BOOED BY HEROES

October 21, 2001 6:25 PM

PUBLIC RELATIONS DEBACLE AFTER SEN. HILLARY JEERED AND BOOED BY HEROES When something goes wrong, blame it on the extreme right. "How could we not know this would be the wrong forum for Hillary?!" shouted one confidante. "These are cops and firemen who listen to right-wing talkradio. They still think she killed Vince Foster, for Christ sake!"
posted by Oxydude (120 comments total)

Being a member of the FDNY or NYPD does not put you on the far right, even though much of that group can be characterized as not-so-liberal. When I think right wing I think Falwell et al.
posted by tomorama at 6:38 PM on October 21, 2001

I didn't see that portion of the broadcast. It strikes me as lacking class to treat her like that. You may disagree with Senator Clinton (or even the notion of Senator Clinton) but she has been doing her bit to ensure that New York gets maximum help from the federal government during this crisis.

I guess even heroes can be jerks at times.

I did see the part of the broadcast when Richard Gere got up and told everyone that "we would all remember this moment, when music helps bring us together". Then he really gave them a moment to remember by imploring the assembled that their thoughts should turn to thoughts of love and peace. That brought on a cascade of boos.
posted by MAYORBOB at 6:47 PM on October 21, 2001

bah, this ain't about politics, this is about insecure men who can't handle a woman being in a position of power.
posted by machaus at 6:50 PM on October 21, 2001

we are referring to the same woman who was so rude during Dubya's speech a few weeks ago?

I think Hillary is in a class by herself....she is absolutely the only person I saw during this whole
911 thing who seemed to be lacking a soul...she seemed to be so robotic .......I am a woman, and I wouldn't vote for her if she were the only other woman on the planet.

There are plenty of strong women in positions of power who do not come with the baggage she has....
so please do not drag out that old chestnut.....we are all smarter than that.
posted by bunnyfire at 7:00 PM on October 21, 2001

she is absolutely the only person I saw during this whole 911 thing who seemed to be lacking a soul

Evidently you missed the speech she gave together with her fellow NY congressman on (I think) the 12th. It was one of the better speeches I saw from a politician at the time or since (not quite as good as Giuliani). I find it rather refreshing that someone out there resists the urge to try to score points with the populace by playing up their emotional response and competing to "feel our pain." I'm neither pro- nor anti-Hillary, but I certainly haven't seen anything in how she's doing her job post-9/11 to warrant such rude and ignorant treatment as described herein.
posted by rushmc at 7:07 PM on October 21, 2001

we are referring to the same woman who was so rude during Dubya's speech a few weeks ago?

explain...
posted by machaus at 7:09 PM on October 21, 2001

come with the baggage she has....

Uhhh bunny, they found box cutters in her baggage on her flight the night before so that's why everyone was booing.

Ha ha ha.
posted by HoldenCaulfield at 7:10 PM on October 21, 2001

Shameful. I don't care what you think of the senator. The position deserves respect. I am appalled that firefighters and police officers would act in such an immature manner.
posted by fleener at 7:16 PM on October 21, 2001

we are referring to the same woman who was so rude during Dubya's speech a few weeks ago?


This was propogated by Rush Limbaugh of course. I saw the same clips of her and it didn't occur to me that she was being disrespectful (I am a New Yorker who voted against her). Of course later we found that that Rush couldn't even hear Bush speaking at all. Sorry, but someone has to say it.
posted by jamsterdam at 7:26 PM on October 21, 2001

look, this woman just gives me the creeps, okay? I am furious with Bill for a lot of reasons, but he has NEVER given me the creeps like she has.

maybe that's just me though.
posted by bunnyfire at 7:28 PM on October 21, 2001

Someone who heckles their Senator at a gathering like this is just making their cause look even more far right and radical.

If she's evil incarnate, fine. I just wish I could hear the age-old argument from someone who doesn't meet the traditional classifications:

1. Rush Limbaugh fan
2. Insecure man
3. Bill Clinton hater

I'm sure they exist (bunnyfire), but I've never had the pleasure to talk to them in person. "News" like this is trying to shame the Clintons, but it just further alienates the right from mainstream America.
posted by jragon at 7:30 PM on October 21, 2001

'Someone who heckles their Senator at a gathering like this is just making their cause look even more far right and radical." so if i boo bush, am i a left-wing fanatic? your criteria is short on thinking-like jargon
posted by newnameintown at 7:36 PM on October 21, 2001

machaus: sen clinton made comments to the person sitting next to her, as many senators do during presidential speeches. there was no way of knowing what she was saying; it could have been the highest praise for the president or total agreement with his position, or a wish that he would bomb away, or rude comments about his delivery, or anything at all, you couldn't tell.

she looked grim, but the president was discussing a grim situation; if she had had a big smile on her face, she would be reviled for not caring about the severity of the situation or something.
posted by rebeccablood at 7:44 PM on October 21, 2001

jragon - I think that depends on how you define "Bill Clinton hater" - unless you refer only to the "Bill is the Antichrist" types, it's rare that you'd find someone who disliked only one Clinton and didn't dislike the other for the same reasons.

I don't fit the first two categories but I thought both of the Clintons were corrupt and useless, along with their fellow fundraiser-in-crime Gore and the ever-loyal Janet Reno. There's a reason why most of the less-influential people involved in, say, the fundraising scandal were found guilty and there's ample evidence that they were just as involved. That said, I harbor no illusions that the same sort of games aren't practiced by almost every other politician - the Republicans going after Clinton were like a group of hookers castigating another for loose morals.
posted by adamsc at 7:50 PM on October 21, 2001

I saw that part of the speech too, rebecca, I was just trolling... :P
posted by machaus at 7:55 PM on October 21, 2001

jragon,

I'm no Limbaugh fan, I don't think I'm an insecure man, I do severely dislike Clinton though.

I also don't like Hillary and the thing I dislike about both of the Clinton's is that they are transparently lying most of the time. It shows a presumption of the general public's stupidity on their part. Also neither has the courage to face anyone without legions of handlers and sycophants on hand.

They also are in perpetual spin, turning ANY situation into political gain.
posted by prodigal at 7:55 PM on October 21, 2001

she got what was commin' to her.

Teach her to roll her eyes during a presidential speech!
posted by BlitzK at 7:56 PM on October 21, 2001

your criteria is short on thinking-like jargon

I can't decipher that, but I can answer the first part. If Bush was speaking at a similar event and was drowned out by boos, then yes -- the people heckling him would make "their cause look even more far [left] and radical."

Adamsc, you're right -- there were some shady things in the Clinton administration. Same with Bush. Same with Reagan. Same with Dub when he's done.

By now, I know that dirt will be brought up on everyone, so I look at what they do in the White House. I find it's a more realistic and satisfying judgement than stomping around angry that my politicians dare lie to me.

Clinton did more things that I supported than any other president in my lifetime.
posted by jragon at 8:01 PM on October 21, 2001

Well, maybe this just teaches us that firefighters and police officers, whose jobs may require them to be heroes while on duty, are still human beings, and as such are capable of being utter jackasses.
posted by Hildago at 8:08 PM on October 21, 2001

There's no question the people who chose this forum to jeer and boo lacked class. I also would not be one bit surprised to find out that this was a pre-organized claque: it's called "freeping" (for fans of Free Republic) and they are quite proud of their classless behavior at any and all venues; here they probably didn't even care that their behavior was unrepresentative and made the real fire and police heroes look bad.

Don't believe me? Get a load of the insightful, adult political commentary. Duck if you see a spitball, and watch out, 'cause teacher might come back in the room at any time.

(And they call the left haters. This isn't hate?)

Expect aaron to come it at any moment and defend the scum in this thread as "spirited right-wing humor commentary". Like Rush is fond of saying, he's just an entertainer. Like David Letterman. "Let me show another picture of how short Robert Reich is! My audience isn't laughing at him, they're laughing with him!"
posted by dhartung at 8:19 PM on October 21, 2001

like no one on this thread ever made fun of dubya......
posted by bunnyfire at 8:22 PM on October 21, 2001

I think when we bash Dubya, we generally have better factual foundations than "she gives me the creeps." Yankees win!!!!
posted by machaus at 8:30 PM on October 21, 2001

"Damn Yankees. I blame Hillary. She's Hitler, y'know? She sacrifices babies to Satan, so the pastor at church tells me."
posted by holgate at 8:34 PM on October 21, 2001

First, most of the cops and firemen in this town are not heroes. They are working stiffs looking for a secure job in which they can retire in 20 years. The "heroes" mumbo-jumbo should have stopped before now, but lionizing such people seems to have gone beyond those super men who raced up the stairs in those buildings as everyone else ran down. So far has the lauding gone that it now encompasses the schmucks, turds and rejects who clutter up what are otherwise a decent professions, until the undeserving started to believe they are somehow deserving. (It's also gone so far that a disproportionate amount of the money raised is earmarked for the families of the few hundred emergency personnel, while some of the thousands of others find themselves being turned away again and again for aid (unless they want something simple, like a cot to sleep on or a hot meal). And where are the millions for those left homeless from the disaster? They're still homeless.)

Second, a large number of the cops and firemen in this town are politically conservative. They are also, not by correlation necessarily, from the white neighborhoods. They are, also not by correlation necessarily, not educated, on average, much above high school. They are also as small-town as you can get and still be from New York City.

Third, the Clintons tend to bring out anti-intellectualism. It's an ugly American past-time, hating the smart. It's everywhere, pervasive in all media, in the schools, in the workplaces, in the newspapers. The Clintons are big, fat targets, too good to resist by people who feel their anti-intellectual tendencies are supported and approved of by others.

Fourth, it is my experience that unless you sound like a dumb-ass or country hick, people think you're lying. If you know what you're talking about, and you're confident, people think you're lying. Hell, it's my experience that if you're smarter than even 51 percent of the population, that 51 percent tends to think you're lying. Same reason why it's always the idiots and morons are the biggest conspiracy freaks: they're so dumb they think smart people are just making shit up, too, and they try to imagine what it might be.
posted by Mo Nickels at 8:38 PM on October 21, 2001

See, that's exactly it, bunnyfire. Making fun of him or anyone else is fine. Booing and jeering in this specific venue is what shows poor class.

This isn't a "you pushed me/you pushed me first" thing. It's just rude, which I believe further alienates the far right.

Mainstream America tuned in to watch the broadcast, not be reminded of the right's undying hatred of the Clintons.
posted by jragon at 8:41 PM on October 21, 2001

Fourth, it is my experience that unless you sound like a dumb-ass or country hick, people think you're lying.

You are absolutely right. After some searching, I found Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, unedited.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, YEEEEEE-HAWWW!!!! and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
....fires a pistol in the air

you sir, are the dumbass.
posted by dcgartn at 8:48 PM on October 21, 2001

There are plenty of strong women in positions of power who do not come with the baggage she has....


What baggage would that be? The baggage that was chased after and sniffed at for four years at the tax-payers' expense, only to find no wrong-doing except that her husbad lied about a blowjob?

If you don't like her, fine. Just don't perpetuate these "Hillary is evil, we all know it" assumptions.
posted by GriffX at 8:55 PM on October 21, 2001

One time in a porn newsgroup (I was just there to write a report about it, really) I found a series of postings by one guy of plump women's feet and legs. Dozens or even hundreds of pictures, only feets and legs, and they all had subtitles like "Hillbitch Clinton, ugliest politician in America", "Hilly-WHORE: our national disgrace" and stuff like that (sorry, can't recall the exact texts), some also referring to her husband. All done by a single person, the posts had subjects in UPPER CASE of the same type. The guy is probably masturbating to such retouched photos of "Clinton-feet" as you read this. Fortunately, most of these people are of the non-violent kind.

There's lots of fanatic Clinton-haters in the US. There's not much rational about it - rationality is not about hatred. As Rush put it in his "Hey folks, I'm deaf" speech: "And finally, here came a guy, Rush Limbaugh, who didn't tell you what to think but simply reflected what you already thought, what you already believed. He validated what you already thought and believed. That made you feel confident.." The right wing, lacking any sort of rational foundation except the bullshit ("Second-hand smoke isn't really harmful. 50% of the studies that examined it found it isn't, so this is the expectable statistical result you would get if there is no effect") turned out by corporate think tanks (emphasis on tanks) like Cato & Co., has chosen to create a religion of its own, which has cult-like followers and uses stereotypes similar to Christianity: People are identified as good and evil, and these stereotypes are then taken to their logical extremes. Unsurprisingly, Limbaugh in one speech, which he described as a "routine", extensively compared Tom Daschle to the devil. The right-wing-religion is built on a foundation of emotional basics which all of its followers share. These basics are then "validated" using people and motives from the real world.

In truth, of course, it is the very values of the right wing which are causing all of our (as in the world's, since I'm fortunately not an inmate of the United States Asylum) problems in the first place. Anti-abortionism, anti-pleasure, anti-drugs, anti-(whatever) -- you will find right-wingers in the US who are as extreme as your average Taliban freak. However, you'll have a hard time finding one who advocates arms control or regulation of the CIA. The Clinton-hatred is just one expression of right-wing-fanatism.

Sure, the people booing Clinton may have had rational, understandable motives to do so. The Clintons were a corrupt bunch (whereas in the case of Bush & Co., you can't really speak of corruption -- they directly represent the oil & arms industry), as so-called democracy in the US required them to be. But what are the chances that the people who booed Clinton here were closet-Naderites?
posted by Eloquence at 8:56 PM on October 21, 2001

>> Fourth, it is my experience that unless you sound like a dumb-ass or country hick, people think you're lying.

> You are absolutely right. After some searching, I found Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, unedited.

[snip]

Wow dcgartn, way to prove his point ...
posted by sylloge at 9:07 PM on October 21, 2001

Hey Mo Nickles... word to yo mutha!
posted by spilon at 9:13 PM on October 21, 2001

I love all the broad generalizations going on here. Everyone assumes that the American public, if liberal are totally left-wing and if conservative... Jerry Fallwell wannabes.

Get in the real world people. Most conservatives you see on TV/radio/newspaper are going to be the radicals.... as with the liberals. No one wants to see Joe Republican or Jane Democrat, they want to see the gay-bashing and the naked college kids parading around.

As far as the Clintons go, they are despicable bunch. Everything is so fake about them. It has nothing to do with them being smart, I know smart people who hate them. I know liberals that hate them. In fact I know virtually noone who likes the Clintons. I just got done reading a history book on the 20th century. As unbiased as you can get... what did it say about the Clinton era? "The first time in American history that parents didn't want their children to grow up to be president."
posted by geoff. at 9:21 PM on October 21, 2001

I'm fortunately not an inmate of the United States Asylum

Eloquence - exactly what enlightened corner of the world are you in where your government is so without fault that you can comment on other nations while you simultaneously condemn them? I'm about as liberal as they come, but I'm still offended by your little crack up there - I did notice that your email is .DE; how acceptable would it be for me to say "thank God I'm not living in the German Please-Think-Of-Us-As-Friendly-And-Pudgy-Bewhiskered-Bureuacrats-And-Forget-About-All-The-Jews-We-Offed Republic"? Not very acceptable?
posted by GriffX at 9:24 PM on October 21, 2001

I just got done reading a history book on the 20th century. As unbiased as you can get... what did it say about the Clinton era? "The first time in American history that parents didn't want their children to grow up to be president."

I find that VERY hard to believe. Don't tell me that everyone found the position of "President of the United States of America" to be honourable and noble while "Tricky Dick" Nixon was in power (and right after he resigned).

And every history book has a bias, especially one that was written less than 2 years after the fact. There is no way of gaining any perspective that soon afterwards, and unless it is just a book of numerical facts, there is bias in what is written.
posted by Grum at 9:42 PM on October 21, 2001

If this is true, I just lost respect for some people whom I considered heroes (hopefully the bunch who were booing were NOT involved in the rescue effort.) But Mo Nichols' comment also puts things in perspective.
posted by Rastafari at 10:06 PM on October 21, 2001

grum, actually this history book (Pageant of America, ISBN 0669397288.. if you want to check it out) stopped at 1996. Let me give you a better glimpse of what context it was putting it in. It was trying to show, (from various facts, polls, et al) that the American people were beginning to distrust the government (and politics as usual) after double-agent scandals and the Whitewater controversy.

I agree with you that every history book has a bias, which is why I said "as unbiased as you can get". I believe this history book is as unbiased as you can get (or I've read) in a history book. If there is any bias it is slightly liberal.
posted by geoff. at 10:19 PM on October 21, 2001

Mo -- exactamundo
The crowd lost the last veneer of hero-ness when someone gave a shout-out to Osama to "kiss his big Irish ass!!..Bitch!"
I think there was a huge gap between the producer's idea of the purpose of the show (benefit tribute to heroic acts) and the crowds (we deserve it because we're all heroes). At least when they have these shows for the military, the chain of command is on hand and in control to ensure they represent their profession well. The crowd there came across more like a fraternity than a professional organization.
posted by dness2 at 10:19 PM on October 21, 2001

Yeah. A lot of genuine a-holes have taken the oath of office, of which Clinton may or may not be one. However, any history book which gives you a statement as unverifiable and generalized as that is clearly, CLEARLY biased.
posted by Hildago at 10:22 PM on October 21, 2001

Geoff.. that's not "The American Pageant" by Thomas Bailey by any chance, is it? I had that as a history textbook for one class. It had its eccentricities.
posted by Hildago at 10:24 PM on October 21, 2001

Oh yeah "The American Pageant"... it has a few quirks that make me chuckle, but as a whole I think it's very good. This is the "new" edition by the way...
posted by geoff. at 10:35 PM on October 21, 2001

hey geoff, you're right there:
"It was trying to show, (from various facts, polls, et al) that the American people were beginning to distrust the government (and politics as usual) after double-agent scandals and the Whitewater controversy."
But not because of the Clintons, but because of disgust with the Republican manner of pursuing them.
posted by semmi at 10:38 PM on October 21, 2001

semmi... while I detect sarcasm... for the record the paragraph before it talks about how that America just elected Republican majorities for the House and Senate. It was definitely talking about how people held "low esteem" for Clinton. What I gathered was that it was saying people generally liked Clinton for his leadership, but not as a person.

I just want to know why I keep defending a book I didn't write...
posted by geoff. at 10:48 PM on October 21, 2001

hate attacks on firemen and policemen

aaron, what are you talking about?
posted by dness2 at 10:51 PM on October 21, 2001

""The first time in American history that parents didn't want their children to grow up to be president.""

How quickly people brush aside the tainted history of Nixon.
posted by Sqwerty at 11:37 PM on October 21, 2001

You either love them or hate them with no in-between. Look at the number of responses this has gotten. Looks like were getting back to normal.
posted by slowlightning at 11:46 PM on October 21, 2001

> > hate attacks on firemen and policemen
> aaron, what are you talking about?

It sounds like a standard attempt to claim moral superiority by labeling the other side of an argument as hate speech. In aaron's case, the other side is always the non-Republican side, but it's equally annoying when coming from anyone, regardless of politics. People should save accusations of hate speech for when it is justified.

> Third, the Clintons tend to bring out anti-intellectualism.
> It's an ugly American past-time, hating the smart. It's
> everywhere, pervasive in all media, in the schools, in the
> workplaces, in the newspapers.

It's the worst and most perverse part of American politics. "President wanted. Only average guys need apply." Bush won because he out-averaged Gore. Every guy in every Moe's Tavern in America saw a little bit of himself in Bush: bad English, alcoholism, drunk driving, drugs, a simplistic and undeveloped moral stance, and personal interests limited mainly to baseball and money.
posted by pracowity at 12:25 AM on October 22, 2001

After all, how can anyone hate firemen? And how can not approving of boorish behavior by supposed "heroes" be a political agenda? I'm prepared for knee-jerk name calling like tree-hugger (as if they know what goes on in the privacy of my bedroom) from rabid Clinton-haters, but he's gone off the deep end.
posted by dness2 at 12:36 AM on October 22, 2001

Bush won because he out-averaged Gore.

Psssht.

Can of worms now open.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:48 AM on October 22, 2001

That sounded more like tennis balls.
posted by dness2 at 1:02 AM on October 22, 2001

Google search: site:metafilter.com "hate speech" aaron
posted by sylloge at 1:02 AM on October 22, 2001

sylloge --
hmmm, so I see my protestations are wasted on him. Maybe he's a lawyer trying to drum up business... I can't imagine why anyone normal would be obsessed with the "hate speech" label. I find condescending to be much more handy; whomever I'm try to cut off often doesn't know what it means and thinks I'm flattering them.
posted by dness2 at 1:08 AM on October 22, 2001

I find there are a bunch of crazed liberals on MetaFilter... can't call Hijacker's fags without the military being a bunch of homophobes and can't boo a shady politician without being a sexist right winger. Well I say LIGHTEN THE HELL UP. Jesus this place is all PC.
posted by dancu at 2:21 AM on October 22, 2001

>> Bush won because he out-averaged Gore.
> Psssht.

Where do you get those vacuum-packed worms? I've been looking all over.

> ...can't call Hijacker's fags without the military being a
> bunch of homophobes...

Moe's Tavern and Internet Cafe.
posted by pracowity at 3:21 AM on October 22, 2001

my main beef with Hillary is she put up with all Bill's crap without throwing him out on his butt.

I mean, come on, this was PUBLIC humiliation he put her thru......

couldn't she be a politician on her own merits without staying married to such a one? if you want to CALL that a marriage......
posted by bunnyfire at 3:33 AM on October 22, 2001

This "history book" was written in the MIDDLE of Clinton's terms of office? How in the world do you get any perspective when the "history" is still happening?

that the American people were beginning to distrust the government (and politics as usual) after double-agent scandals and the Whitewater controversy

That's just plain silly. That ignores any history involving the Vietnam War, Iran-Contra, the failed rescue of the Iranian hostages, the Gulf War, and Watergate. To think the American people only began to distrust the government because of stuff that happened in Clinton's terms is just being ignorant.
(I'm not saying YOU are ignorant geoff, just any history book that pushes that idea.)
posted by Grum at 5:35 AM on October 22, 2001

I almost felt bad for Richard Gere, but how stupid do you have to be to not realize that those statements weren't going to be well recieved in that atmosphere.

Hillary made her own bed. There are a lot of people who don't like her. A lot of people do. I don't feel too bad for her.
posted by jbelshaw at 5:47 AM on October 22, 2001

Eloquence, methinks you need to study up a bit on the difference between "rational" and "emotional." From what you just demonstrated, I'd guess their isn't an objective bone in your body.
posted by John Galt at 5:57 AM on October 22, 2001

galt: eloquence's post seems pretty rational to me. can you rebut any of its arguments, or are you limited to taking personal potshots?
posted by rebeccablood at 6:08 AM on October 22, 2001

"my main beef with Hillary is she put up with all Bill's crap without throwing him out on his butt."

oh, and throwing him out would have won you over? give me an effing break.

i always, ALWAYS love when i read critiques of politicians that assault them for being 'fake.' when someone trots out a 'real' politician - someone who writes her own speeches and bases those and her other actions on her innermost thoughts and tenets, not focus groups or party lines or strategic image-positioning - i think the world will stop dead.
posted by maura at 6:19 AM on October 22, 2001

look, this woman just gives me the creeps, okay?

You give me the creeps, bunny, but I would never advocate or condone people's shouting you down and booing, keeping you from saying your piece. And you're not even a senator!
posted by rushmc at 6:23 AM on October 22, 2001

my main beef with Hillary is she put up with all Bill's crap without throwing him out on his butt.

hey critique hillary all you want as a senator, but making fun of her marriage is low. how many of our own personal decisions would give people "the creeps" if we were all held up under the same glaring public spotlight that she is? she's fair game as a senator (that spotlight she chose to be under), but her marriage is her business, and her business alone.

PS i would just like to say that i have LOVED hillary ever since her classic "cookie" comment back in NH in 92! that made quite an impression on then 16 year old me. hillary rocks!
posted by saralovering at 6:43 AM on October 22, 2001

Look, those guys had the right to express their dislike of Senator Clinton. But a lot of New Yorkers voted for her, and she won her seat. Same thing for her husband, he won two national elections (close race in '92, almost a landslide in '96) even if many people hated his guts and still do.
It's really about manners: nowadays in the US there's a lot of bipartisanship, and booing a Senator in his own State during a concert for the victims of 9/11 is simply in not very good taste.
saralovering
sara, her 1992 cookie comment came back to haunt her so many times and gave her so many enemies that I'm sure she does regret it now. Lots of people admired her guts for that comment (like you did, and that's good) but she really lost a big part of Conservative America right then.
What's even more interesting (and kind of ironic) is that she made that comment following criticism of her law firm's work with the state of Arkansas. And the Rose Law Firm really gave a lot of trouble to the people who worked there: Vince Foster's dead, Webb Hubbell has been in Federal prison for a long time and is now broke.
By the way, the Rose Website does not mention Hillary
posted by matteo at 7:08 AM on October 22, 2001

I am not making fun of her marriage. I am dead serious. She sets a pretty poor example for other women re what we should put up with from a spouse.
As far as her marriage being private, don't make me barf.
She rode his coattails to power, and you know it. If she is so smart why not do it on her own?
But I guess since she is a liberal I am supposed to give her a free ride.
When pigs fly.
Her speeches are nothing more than one cliche right after another.
There are a lot of politicians whose politics I abhor who I still have respect for.
She ain't one of them.
And just in case you care-i am a registered Democrat.
posted by bunnyfire at 7:13 AM on October 22, 2001

my main beef with Hillary is she put up with all Bill's crap without throwing him out on his butt.

Bunny, this isn't As the World Turns, it's American politics, and it's a little more complex than, apparently, you'd like it to be.
posted by jpoulos at 7:16 AM on October 22, 2001

jragon- your criteria is based on booing=radical politics. what about the politican beaten to death before the civil war in the HOUSE. (sumner?) so your criteria is flawed. Blitxk saw what i saw during prezdent speech. a big ...women, looking like the constitution is gone. eyerolling, barely clapping. she looked like a teenager at a cakewalk. FUCK HER and her evil husband (his midnight pardons should be publicized on every papers front page.) Holgate: do i detect a radical shift in humor sir? Praco- your just pissed cause the level of cynicism is not your caliber:)"When pigs fly" IM WORKING ON THAT AS WE SPEAK.
posted by newnameintown at 7:24 AM on October 22, 2001

I didn't see Senator Clinton at the concert, but Democratic mayoral candidate Mark Green was also heavily booed during his appearance. While it was a surprise, I can't say mistreatment of politicians is high on my list of concern.

If she is so smart why not do it on her own?

You'd like her better if she wasn't married?
posted by rcade at 7:46 AM on October 22, 2001

his [Clinton's] midnight pardons should be publicized on every papers front page

Do you really wanna us to bring up Bush Sr.'s Christmas Pardons? You know -- the ones that effectively prevented Lawrence Walsh from exposing "evidence of a conspiracy among the highest ranking Reagan Administration officials to lie to Congress and the American public" regarding the arms-for-hostages scandal? (I'm thinking there are alot of younglings here with MTV attention spans and memories).
posted by RavinDave at 7:48 AM on October 22, 2001

J.P., I hate soap operas. And as far as complexity goes, some things ARE simple.

If the woman doesn't have sense enough to hold Bill accountable, she sure as heck doesn't have sense enough to be elected to the position she now holds.

I used to get A's in many of my college courses because I knew how to "shoot bull", not because i was particularly knowlegeable in the subject matter.....going by some people's standards I missed a great career in politics......
posted by bunnyfire at 7:49 AM on October 22, 2001

Whatever happened to: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
posted by Carol Anne at 8:08 AM on October 22, 2001

was this the same concert where stern bared his ass again?
posted by lotsofno at 8:37 AM on October 22, 2001

bunnyfire: Sometimes some things are simple, most of the time they are not. It was her choice to stick with him. That's a personal choice. Hilary Clinton hasn't lost my respect as a public person because of it. I don't care about her personal life.
Perhaps if it was different man (for all I know Bill could be the love of her life) or if she was in a different position she would have chosen otherwise. Who's to tell?
posted by ginz at 8:38 AM on October 22, 2001

She rode his coattails to power, and you know it. If she is so smart why not do it on her own? But I guess since she is a liberal I am supposed to give her a free ride.

a) She's never had a free ride. Do you not remember people ragging on her for using her maiden name? For her hairstyles? For daring to have her own opinions?
b) she's obviously smart, yes (why does that bother you so much?)
c) if you want to talk coattails, start with George W. Bush or maybe Sonny Bono's wife Mary; Hillary worked from day one, both on her (successful) career as a lawyer and on Bill's political career, and was always the moneymaker in the family.

If the woman doesn't have sense enough to hold Bill accountable,

How? By getting a divorce? Would that make you happy? And what makes you think she hasn't held him accountable in her own way? Certainly their marriage isn't a private one, but it's their marriage and not anyone else's and they have every right to deal with their own problems in their own way, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks.

she sure as heck doesn't have sense enough to be elected to the position she now holds.

Actually, she was elected. So what's your point?

I used to get A's in many of my college courses because I knew how to "shoot bull", not because i was particularly knowlegeable in the subject matter.....going by some people's standards I missed a great career in politics......

Going by mine, you had pisspoor professors. Just because you got by with a minimum of effort doesn't mean everyone else has, including people you dislike. You can slag her personal life as much as you like, but one of the things that is indisputable about her is that she's always had a solid work ethic.
posted by lia at 8:40 AM on October 22, 2001

> Whatever happened to: "I disapprove of what you say..."

It became a cliché, and most people who say it probably would not die for someone's right to say the things they are usually talking about when they trundle this quotation out of the cliché storeroom, so it's also hyperbole.
posted by pracowity at 8:46 AM on October 22, 2001

so when y'all start talking about a Republican's marriage, etc can i quote you?

All I know is if my husband did what that man did with that cigar in the oval office, he would be history.

Too bad THAT wasn't kept private....who knows, if Hillary had held him accountable years ago, maybe our country would not have had to go thru that PUBLIC humiliation .....

and none of us would ever have HAD to know about it.
posted by bunnyfire at 8:59 AM on October 22, 2001

by the way- I have some respect for Giuliani AND spouse.....go figure.
posted by bunnyfire at 9:00 AM on October 22, 2001

Who made it public
posted by Outlawyr at 9:01 AM on October 22, 2001

Mo--What people were made homeless? I thought the WTC was a purely commercial zone, no residential areas.
posted by NortonDC at 9:07 AM on October 22, 2001

so when y'all start talking about a Republican's marriage, etc can i quote you?

Feel free.

All I know is if my husband did what that man did with that cigar in the oval office, he would be history.

Well, that's you. Some people move past infidelity into stronger marriages, some people have open marriages, some people break up. Whatever floats your boat.

Too bad THAT wasn't kept private....

bunnyfire, hello, it's not like Hillary wrote Geraldo to be on his show -- they weren't the ones who made a mountain out of that molehill.

who knows, if Hillary had held him accountable years ago, maybe our country would not have had to go thru that PUBLIC humiliation .....

Again, they weren't the ones who made it public, and arguably the biggest humiliation was felt by Clinton-haters, when they realized most people didn't really give a shit.

and none of us would ever have HAD to know about it.

Nobody needed to know then and pretty much no one wanted to know (as Newt Gingrich and friends discovered).
posted by lia at 9:14 AM on October 22, 2001

She sets a pretty poor example for other women re what we should put up with from a spouse

Staying together instead of breaking up a family is setting a poor example? I would agree with you if he was physically abusing her, but that's not the case here. Who are you to pass judgment on someone's else's marriage? Why do you care? Why does it matter even if, or especially if, he was president at the time?

Hillary Clinton, along with Chuck Schumer, have worked very hard to get all resources necessary to get NYC through this tragic event. Would it have happened anyway, regardless of who was the senator, maybe, but it was in extremely poor taste to boo her, at that time, in that venue. And to bring up her demeanor during Bush's speech, please! Maybe if they focused on ALL the senators who were there, and then compare to hers, then maybe something is to be said.

"You can dress 'em up, but you can't take 'em out."
posted by Rastafari at 9:27 AM on October 22, 2001

"someone who writes her own speeches and bases those and her other actions on her innermost thoughts and tenets, not focus groups or party lines or strategic image-positioning"

i'd say giuliani comes pretty close. he's very public about not giving a shit what public opinion is, and for the first term of his administration people hated him for it. now they love him for it because they know he's going to be honest with them and say what he thinks, regardless of the consequences. sometimes he makes inflammatory comments that piss people off but even the pissed off mutter under their breath that he "doesn't mince words," and they respect him for that.

i think people have trouble warming up to hillary because she's just the opposite. i don't think anyone really cared whether she divorced bill, but it would have been nice to hear her say even once that the whole thing really pissed her off. you want to just grab her by the shoulders, shake her, and say "for god's sake, tell me what you really think!" she's obviously a smart woman with strong opinions, some of which are sure to be controversial. but she never voices them. not without consulting a pollster anyway. as a result, she seems very cold and distant.
posted by lizs at 10:24 AM on October 22, 2001

I think some people are overlooking the obvious. Senator Hillary Clinton defeated the now extremely popular Gulliani. They were probably also booing (classless no matter why) because while Gulliani is about to become an ordinary citizen (despite his tightrope walk with opportunism), Senator Clinton is fighting for the people of New York.

Sure she may come across as a carpetbagger—although I don't think many people were saying similar things when New York elected a Kennedy from Massachusetts, but I digress—and she may have aspirations down the line and NY is only a stepping stone, but you know what. She can't fake the job. If she doesn't get the job done then she will fail at all the things she does in the future. So it is rather ignorant to bite the hand that feeds you.

She has been instrumental in getting a butt-load of money for the city's efforts to rebuild, including money that will help the families of the police and firefighters who gave their lives.

Maybe the ones who were no where near so-called ground zero until later to clear debris should feel a little guilty about their actions. Perhaps being paraded everywhere as a hero simply because they wore the uniform goes to some people's head. *shrug*

Heroes don't boo.
posted by terrapin at 10:32 AM on October 22, 2001

THANK YOU.
you hit the nail on the head, lizs........

a little reality would have done Hillary a lot of good.
Not holding my breath tho.
posted by bunnyfire at 10:34 AM on October 22, 2001

The turn this thread almost immediately took upsets me, and I find a lot of the comments made towards NY Fire Figthers and Police officers to be outright appalling.

We are talking about an arena full of men and women who, regardless of what labels you attempt tack on them, are heroes. Saturday night's concert was indeed a Tribute to the Heroes, meaning more precisely that it was a night off for all of the people who so rightly deserve it. It was assembled to be a few hours where people who've been going out in the morning and coming back 12 hours later day in and day out for the past month, guarding bridges and tunnels and sifting through thousands of tons of dirt, pulling out dead bodies while they breathe in asbestos could step off the earth for a while and attempt to take a break from this God-awful mess. I say this as a fact, as I know people whose lives have consisted of exactly this since September 11th. People whose friends and coworkers and loved ones are dead. People who keep going anyway.

People who are heroes, no matter what the swivelchair generals have to say about them.

When there's as much dislike for a person as there is for Hillary Cliton, it's not something that's just risen up out of nowhere, undeserving and innapropriate. That dislike, combined with the tremendous sadness, human emotion and utter exhaustion that was common to the people sitting in Madison Square Garden that night, is why she got booed off the stage. I'm sure she's been prominant at plenty of other gatherings since her inception where the not-so-liberal members of the crowd weren't booing her down.
posted by tomorama at 11:02 AM on October 22, 2001

Not holding my breath tho.

Not holding my breath on bunnyfire answering any of the questions Rastafari and I raised, but whatever.
posted by lia at 11:11 AM on October 22, 2001

Senator Hillary Clinton defeated the now extremely popular Gulliani.

uh, no she didn't. giuliani dropped out of the race when he found out he had prostate cancer.
posted by lizs at 11:12 AM on October 22, 2001

another factor - and maybe people that aren't living in Manhattan aren't aware of this - is that Hillary did a lot of handholding with some virulently anti-cop public figures (i.e., Al Sharpton) during her campaign. These people were effective in spewing propaganda that made the NYPD look like organized crime. The anti-cop sentiment before Sept 11 was so strong, that even level-headed New Yorkers that should know better, including myself, looked at every NYPD cop and thought "Amadou Diallo." (Forget the thousands of cops that risk their lives all the time to save other people; let's just concentrate on the handful of jerks...) The boos Hillary got had nothing to do with her general political views, which are fairly moderate anyway. It had to do with the fact that she publicly associated herself with people who built entire political platforms on police corruption and refused to acknowledge the vast majority of NYPD officers that go to work every day and risk their lives to serve the public.

anyone can support the NY fire department. they rarely have to do anything controversial or make hard decisions in morally ambiguous situations. they don't ever have to kill people. the NYPD, however, is much easier to criticise, simply because of the nature of their work and the inevitable fact that there's more room for moral error. at the same time, many NYFD officers consider the police brothers in the same service, so she's not going to get a warm welcome from the fire fighters either.

In short, I think it was rude to boo someone that made the effort to come out and be supportive, but i can certainly understand why the heroes thought she had no business being there.
posted by lizs at 11:28 AM on October 22, 2001

I just wish I could hear the age-old argument from someone who doesn't meet the traditional classifications:

1. Rush Limbaugh fan
2. Insecure man
3. Bill Clinton hater

Just like we wish we could hear these age-old VRWC theories from someone who doesn't meet the traditional classifications:

1. Bitter Hillary partisan
2. Insecure Democrat (esp. in a post-911 political environment)
3. George Bush hater
posted by aaron at 11:34 AM on October 22, 2001

lizs makes another good point. One of the reasons I didn't vote for Hillary was because Sharpton was on her side. One of the reasons I didn't vote for Gore was the image of Jesse Jackson standing behind him on stage.
posted by tomorama at 11:57 AM on October 22, 2001

Tomorama: One of the reasons I didn't vote for Hillary was because Sharpton was on her side. One of the reasons I didn't vote for Gore was the image of Jesse Jackson standing behind him on stage.

So by that logic, if you voted for Bush, you must have done so knowing of his speech at Bob Jones University, or that he had the backing of Jesse Helms, et al. So tell me, do you agree with Bob Jones University's philosophy, as well as Jesse Helms'?
posted by Rastafari at 12:13 PM on October 22, 2001

it would have been nice to hear her say even once that the whole thing really pissed her off

i wouldn't want her to do that. i was always taught that you don't air your dirty laundry in public. i neither need nor want to know. it's much more fun to make up my own stories about how she's punishing or torturing him.
posted by tolkhan at 12:37 PM on October 22, 2001

What's that smell?

Oh. It's this thread.
posted by websavvy at 12:51 PM on October 22, 2001

True part of the reason I avoided Hillary and Al were who they had on their side, but that logic doesn't mean I voted for Bush because of everybody who's on his side. Not voting Gore doesn't mean I support BJU or Helms. To tell the truth, even though I like GW a little bit more as time goes on, I'm not a fan of any of the names that have been dropped.

I voted for Bush because I'd rather Bush than Gore, plain and simple.

</topic-drift>
posted by tomorama at 1:42 PM on October 22, 2001

From Bartcop, an alternate explanation for the Hillary booing. As good as any other reason:

Hillary's inMatt Drudge hates Hillary so much he makes stuff up
PUBLIC RELATIONS DEBACLE AFTER HILLARY BOOED BY HEROES ner circle is furious at Harvey Weinstein after she suffered through a
public relations nightmare during Saturday's CONCERT FOR NEW YORK.

Hillary and booed by thousands gathered at Madison Square Garden as
she took to the stage -- unannounced -- to introduce a movie clip.

VH1 cameras captured firemen and police heroes wildly booing Clinton,
who attempted to raise her voice above the shouting crowd.

That's how "fair and balanced" Matt Drudge saw it.
I mentioned in my report that she seemed to have been booed,
but why would they boo Hillary and cheer like crazy for Big Dog?
It doesn't make any sense.

Leave it to Marty at She knows what happened:

Oh, and a side-note on the 'boo-ing of Hillary' at the McCartney concert---in reviewing the tape,
something happened during the ending of Macy Gray's set....the chorus sang a line, and she shot them
a look that would have chilled Datan's soul, and then she walked off, before the number was finished.

There are a couple of beats missed, and then, frantically, there's Paul Shaffer cueing the back-up singers
to finish the chorus, they do, the band crescendo's and the song 'ends'.

I believe what was perceived as booing for Hillary was actually intended for Macy and her snit,
and that Hillary had to have stones of brass to go out there & face that audience.
-- Marty
Now see?
That makes a lot of sense.
Koresh, if New York hated Hillary they wouldn't have elected her.
And if Big Dog got the biggest applause of the night - why hate his wife?

...but when Matt Drudge can't find any dirt on the Clinton - he makes shit up.
That's what press whores do - they make shit up.
posted by Rastafari at 1:59 PM on October 22, 2001

Holy grammatical errors, Batman.
posted by tomorama at 2:10 PM on October 22, 2001

hey rasta-believe in the easter bunny too????

I heard the tape of the boos myself.....

and believe it or not it makes perfect sense that big dog got applause and she didn't.

With all his crap Billy Boy still comes off as human.
posted by bunnyfire at 2:19 PM on October 22, 2001

These people were effective in spewing propaganda that made the NYPD look like organized crime.

The NYPD did enough on their own to bring on anti-cop sentiment, what with all the ass-raping and murdering some of its members took part in.

Indeed, many died heroes on September 11, and I wouldn't dream of taking that away from them. But it doesn't give anyone a free pass.
posted by jpoulos at 2:20 PM on October 22, 2001

Oh look what I found:

Another emails:

Drudge,

I was there also and stayed until the end. I had to walk around 3/4 of the Garden to get to the exit I wanted. I saw NO vomit and no rowdy Firemen, The booing of Hillary came from all over the hall not just theFiremen and cops.

The Firemen sitting near me said she shows up for photo session events but was not to be seen when a Fireman or Policeman were killed pre Sept 11.

They know her for what she is! I need say no more.

When Bubba walked out there were lots of boos and were heard the whole time but Firemen and Cops around me were telling people to stop because he had been the PRESIDENT and deserved respect for that regardless of anyone's feelings.

Most of the Firemen, Cops EMR workers were with their wives and kids so the writer who you printed was LYING, plain and simple.

It was the usual ad hominem attack by a Liberal who could not deal with the facts.

x x x x x
posted by bunnyfire at 2:21 PM on October 22, 2001

bunny: can you kindly show me the ad hominem attack in the post you're rebutting?
posted by rebeccablood at 2:30 PM on October 22, 2001

One of the last issues of Brill's on Blumenthal's lawsuit against Drudge reveals why many suspect a VWRC. Drudge published an unconfirmed rumor from an unspecified source and lied in the story about attempting to contact Blumenthal for comment. Drudge won the suit primarily through attrition having been granted an unlimited legal warchest vs. Blumenthal's personal funds. With an anonymous source providing a fictious story to a gullible hack protected by a bottomless legal fund the prospects of, if not a conspiracy, at least an organized dirty tricks effort is quite plausible.

But then again, has this really been news since Nixon got caught wiretapping offices? It seems like organized dirty tricks are a staple of contempoary politics. While the Whitewater investigation turned into a fishing expedition for something to nail Clinton with, the Clintons started their own fishing expedition into FBI files. Once the Lewinsky scandal broke it looked like both sides were leaking information as part of a media spin campaign.

Personaly, the realization that I was living under a government of the weasles, by the weasles and for the weasles came early when during the summer I channel flipped to the Iran-Contra investigation and caught the admission that President Reagan was basically a rubber-stamp machine for anything the CIA recommended no matter how illegal.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:32 PM on October 22, 2001

bunnyfire: An hour or so ago, that page had an email from a purported eyewitness that refuted much of Drudge's account of the event. It's since been reduced to one line:

"All things considered, Hillary had nothing to be ashamed of when you consider the company she was in. "
posted by nikzhowz at 2:43 PM on October 22, 2001

The NYPD did enough on their own to bring on anti-cop sentiment, what with all the ass-raping and murdering some of its members took part in.

"All?" A small number of regrettable and indefensible incidents do not a trend, pattern or consensus make. The entire department does not deserve to bear a permanent taint due to the acts of fewer than (generously speaking) two dozen individuals who were not acting on orders but made personal decisions to act in reprensible fashion.

Are you responsible for everything that all of your colleagues do? If someone in your department embezzles from the company, are you also a thief? If your boss snakeoils a client, are you a huckster by association?

As lizs eloquently pointed out, the NYPD has an incredibly difficult job, one which really doesn't compare to any other, anywhere in the world. There are thousands of men and women who put on those blue uniforms and act with honour, courage and integrity every single day, their numbers far, far outreach the numbers of those who don't. It is a pathetic reach to attempt to continue to tarnish the entire organisation due to a few rogues, and it serves no legitimate purpose whatsoever.
posted by Dreama at 3:09 PM on October 22, 2001

If you're a physician and you tolerate a drunken colleague in the operating room, your own ethical standards are compromised, and the entire profession suffers.

Same with the NYPD or any organization where such horrible acts are manifest and/or institutionalized. The NYPD hires, trains, and supervises their officers. They share some of their guilt. They sure don't seem to mind sharing vicariously the reflected "glory" of the dead firefighters and police...maybe they should consider the sins as well as the virtues.

As for this Hillary booing nonsense, I thought our conservative friends were urging America to "unite"....be bipartisan in our "time of national crisis", "come together as a nation", "forget past political differences", etc, ad nauseum. Why, I thought we were supposed to gather lock-step behind our fearless leader from Texas now, as well as leaders including the lawfully elected junior Senator from New York.

That attitude just wasn't for political expediency on the part of our conservative friends, now was it? That would sure be out of character...hypocritical...you know.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 3:46 PM on October 22, 2001

ravin dave.yes, i would like to see the old mans dirt.
posted by newnameintown at 5:01 PM on October 22, 2001

ad hominem-see drudge report.
posted by bunnyfire at 5:24 PM on October 22, 2001

ad hominem-see drudge report.

I would like that definition to be preserved in carbonite, please.
posted by holgate at 5:27 PM on October 22, 2001

she sure as heck doesn't have sense enough to be elected to the position she now holds

so a couple of drunks booed her, so what? the fact remains that not only was she elected, she was elected but quite a wide margin as well. AND she managed to get elected without any of the sketchiness we saw in the general election.

so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
posted by saralovering at 6:01 PM on October 22, 2001

Same with the NYPD or any organization where such horrible acts are manifest and/or institutionalized. The NYPD hires, trains, and supervises their officers. They share some of their guilt.

share some of the guilt? are you kidding? by that logic, we could entirely justify a "war against Islam," as it's supposed to be a self-policing community (according to the Qu'ran) and clearly no one in the Mulsim community was policing Al-Qaida. it's their responsibility, no? Thank god most people don't follow that logic or we'd have a real holy war on our hands. it would be ludicrous to hold every muslim responsible for the acts of Osama bin Laden. how is this any different?

I live in a very non-eventful section of Manhattan and the most action the cops in this precinct see is the occasional kid falling off his bike. Do you honestly feel justified in blaming these guys for things like the Diallo shooting? They don't know the guys that did it; they don't work with them; they sure as hell didn't train them, and they had no power to stop it. they just get up everyday and do their jobs.
posted by lizs at 6:10 PM on October 22, 2001

so a couple of drunks booed her, so what?

So this thread has now resorted to name calling and stereotyping? Oh, pardon me, I forgot that all cops and firemen are slobs who beat brown people on-duty and down mugs in the corner pub while off-duty. They MUST have all been drunk at the concert. Heck, they probably couldn't even see who they were booing!

Puh-lease. If you're going to attempt to add weight to your side of the argument, at least do it in an intelligent fashion.
posted by tomorama at 7:35 PM on October 22, 2001

You know, in my third reading of this thread, I've still yet to see any reason why the attendees of the concert should not have expressed their displeasure/disapproval of Hillary Clinton in any lawful way they chose, other than "it was rude" and that she "deserved better as a duly elected Senator."

I'll refrain from scrolling through the annals of MeFi history for the combined weight of nasty comments directed toward other duly elected Senators such as Helms, Dole, Thurmond, etc. and instead I'll ask again -- the people at the concert had an opinion and they expressed it. What, precisely, is wrong with that?
posted by Dreama at 8:44 PM on October 22, 2001

It was wrong if the people expressing it were in uniform. If someone is in uniform they represent their organization, and while having opinions is certainly fine, expressing them by disrespectful methods is not. If the people who were booing were not in uniform, then they were individuals and it falls under free speech. The uniform makes all the difference.
posted by dness2 at 10:27 PM on October 22, 2001

Senator Hillary Clinton defeated the now extremely popular Gulliani.

As has been pointed out before, no she didn't. Nor would she have had he stayed in the race.

I don't think many people were saying similar things when New York elected a Kennedy from Massachusetts

Guess again. An opportunist is an opportunist, then and now.

She has been instrumental in getting a butt-load of money for the city's efforts to rebuild

How exactly has she been instrumental in anything? NY would be getting huge amounts of federal money regardless of who represented the state in the U.S. Senate.

Metafilter, where it's ok to boo the president when he visits Yale University, but it's a tragedy if a NY Senator gets booed.
posted by ljromanoff at 8:20 AM on October 23, 2001

This has been my favorite thread in a long time, and I hope marks a beginning of booing against all politicians.

I'm going to start now...
Ahem...
BOOOOOOOOOOOOoooo HILLARY!
BOOOOOOOOOoooo GEORGE!
YOU BOTH SUCK!
BOOOOOOOOOooo!
posted by thirteen at 3:52 PM on October 23, 2001

boo-hoo
posted by newnameintown at 7:32 PM on October 23, 2001

Do you honestly feel justified in blaming these guys for things like the Diallo shooting?

Obvioiusly I don't blame uninvolved individuals for Diallo, but the original point was that the NYPD as an organization was being unfairly demonized in the media before 9/11. As an organization, it does a lousy job of weeding out bad cops.

Also, by your logic (as fold_and_mutilate suggested), those officers in your neighborhood should not be considered "heroes" if they didn't specifically do anything on 9/11.
posted by jpoulos at 9:37 AM on October 24, 2001

Metafilter, where it's ok to boo the president when he visits Yale University, but it's a tragedy if a NY Senator gets booed.

Is there something in objectivist philosophy that makes adherents prone to tiresome generalities?
posted by rcade at 10:38 AM on October 25, 2001

Metafilter, where it's ok to boo the president when he visits Yale University, but it's a tragedy if a NY Senator gets booed.

Is there something in objectivist philosophy that makes adherents prone to tiresome generalities?

I don't know. Ask an objectivist.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:08 AM on October 25, 2001

Sorry ... I obviously have you mistaken for one of the Randians wandering around here. I hope my goof has not overshadowed the point of my message, which is "neener-neener" on you for claiming that there's any kind of consensus at all in this thread.
posted by rcade at 1:46 PM on October 25, 2001

I do think the thread is leaning in a certain direction, but your mileage may vary I suppose. No matter, it's old news now anyway.
posted by ljromanoff at 1:53 PM on October 25, 2001

"All I know is if my husband did what that man did with that cigar in the oval office, he would be history"

Bunny, what you don't know won't hurt you.
posted by semmi at 9:19 PM on October 27, 2001