Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« WTFday | Oooh, baby. Yeah. That's it. »

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Required Viewing

posted by on July 25 at 9:37 AM

A spokesperson for Hillary Clinton tells Bill O’Reilly to go fuck himself:

O’Reilly has mounted his high horse about examples of “hate speech” that his freshly louffa’d interns managed to dig up in various comment threads at DailyKos. Meanwhile numerous commenters at O’Reilly’s website have threatened the life of Hillary Clinton: “If [Hillary] wins… my guns are loaded.” Americablog reports that the Secret Service is looking into the threats emanating from O’Reilly’s hateful website.

RSS icon Comments



Posted by Mr. Poe | July 25, 2007 9:44 AM

Here's something for Megan to read that relates, since she's new to Maddox and all.

Posted by Mr. Poe | July 25, 2007 9:48 AM

Also, where and when did Mr. Wilson tell Bill to go fuck himself? The go f-yourself was from a DailyKos reading to Hillary.

Posted by Mr. Poe | July 25, 2007 9:51 AM

For a political campaign this is a "go fuck yourself":

"Unfortunately with all due respect for you, the days where you can dictate where Senator Clinton and other Democrats go, who we talk to, are over."

Posted by Dan Savage | July 25, 2007 9:58 AM

One gets on a high horse, not a high hoarse.

This would have been more effective if he'd actually read that "guns are loaded" comment to Billo. As it is, he gave him far too many "with all due respect"s. No respects are due. He shouldn't even go on the program.

Posted by Fnarf | July 25, 2007 10:00 AM

ha, i wonder where the stranger's blog lies in the spectrum of respectability according to mr. o'reiley? to compare comments from DailyKos to David Duke's website is more offensive than any of the comments he so elegantly edited for his sensitive tv viewers. what is this man's point?

Posted by kate | July 25, 2007 10:03 AM

Bill O'Reilly calling something a "hate site" is a whole lotta pot calling a little kettle black.

Posted by andy niable | July 25, 2007 10:06 AM


Message received, and duly noted. It's early. Forgive me.

Posted by Mr. Poe | July 25, 2007 10:08 AM

Wow, this has been a great week for the Hillary campaign, IMO. That was as calm and rational a defense as I've ever seen in the face of Bill's bluster, on his own show.

I'm a little amazed that some of Wolfson's comments made it past Bill's editing.

Posted by Peter | July 25, 2007 10:19 AM

I thought Howard did a great job. I wish he had said something to the effect of, "We don't ask democratic groups to stifle free speech," or something of the sort. But still, overall, Howard did great and kept his cool, and I thought O'Reilly's head was going to explode he was so mad. And I disagree, Fnarf, that the best thing to do is ignore these a**holes. That hasn't worked too well for us in the past. Remember the Swift Boaters?

Posted by arduous | July 25, 2007 10:24 AM

See, I want the Edwards or Obama campaigns to do this sort of direct response/counterattack (to Repbulicans; they seem better at infighting) before I'll consider supporting them. Show. Some. Stones.

Posted by Big Sven | July 25, 2007 10:26 AM

Look, let's get real.

Everyone except America-hating Red Bushies wants to tell Bill O'Reilly to go Fvck himself.

Posted by Will in Seattle | July 25, 2007 10:27 AM

Dammit, why you gotta make me sit through Bill O'Reilly's demagogue propaganda? Not only does he piss me off, the fact that a single human being watches/listens to him pisses me off. Do you work for Immigration Canada or something?

Posted by K | July 25, 2007 10:30 AM

Guys, where did we get anything good out of this? Far as I am concerned we kinda got fucked over there... 95% of the people that saw that are going to agree with O'Reilly.

Posted by Keven | July 25, 2007 10:42 AM

well played team clinton well played. Sticking up for the netroots on a the orly factor will help endear her to some of her critics on the left.

Posted by aarons | July 25, 2007 10:52 AM

I kinda wished he made the point that comments can be made by anyone and Daily Kos chooses to not censor comments. O' Reilly himself could have planted any one of those comments. Either way it's just another persons' opinion.... and anyone with any sense knows O'Reilly's opinion sucks.Why all the energy toward comments when it's not really the point. I think he let O'Reilly make his point that Daily Kos is a negative force. Too polite. Fuck all due respect regarding O'Reilly.

Posted by come again | July 25, 2007 11:01 AM

Keven, never fear. O'Leilly's audience is made up mostly of 65+ year olds. Few if any people in the 18-45 age bracket give him any attention. He overexaggerates his popularity and the popularity of his program. Olbermann over at MSNBC kicks his ass in ratings on a routine basis.

From what I understand, Faux News only has 2-3 million viewers. In a nation of about 300 million people, that's nothing. And considering O'Leilly only gets a fraction of that 2-3 million, he's much more of a joke than most people think.

O'Leilly can sit and crow all day long about how DailyKos is a "hate" site, but he has really only done the Kos folks a favor. He's caused so much free publicity for them!! I wonder how many 'cons have gone to DailyKos to check it out and see what it is all about. Additionally, O'Leilly seems to blur the difference between what the actual POSTERS write on DailyKos and what COMMENTORS write.

Oh, and it gets better. Check out what the folks at AMERICAblog have done. ( They are turning the tables on O'Leilly and finding comments on his website that are full of hate and threats of violence. One big difference between O'Leilly's site and AMERICAblog is that you have to pay and provide credit card information in order to access O'Leilly's site and comment; AMERICAblog doesn't charge to view their site or to post comments. If one needed to know the identity of the haters on O'Leilly's site, all they have to do is check their records and pull the real name from the credit card information on file!!

Sweet Jesus, I hate Bill O'Reilly!

Posted by Jonathon | July 25, 2007 11:03 AM

I love the way Wolfson sort of giggles at O'Reilly's sad parting shot of "hate site." What a child.

Posted by anners | July 25, 2007 11:03 AM

Arduous, I do hope you can think of some other way to counteract an attempt at Swift Boating besides doing nothing or going on the Billo Show. Isn't there anyone at the Clinton campaign who can write a sound bite? Here, I'll try: "Bill O'Reilly says that liberal blogs are hate sites, but his own web site is full of people threatening to murder Senator Clinton if she is elected". Press release. Put down. Fight back. What is hard about that?

Posted by Fnarf | July 25, 2007 11:08 AM

This whole "civility" meme is getting pushed hard, which proves to me that the right wing is scared that they can't effectively set the terms of debate anymore. Because what O'Reilly is really doing here isn't attacking Hillary (the people he's shilling for would love to see Hillary be the nominee) but trying to portray the most popular left-wing political site, and by extension the whole "liberal blogosphere" (god I hate that term) as a bunch of loonies. Obviously the Rupert Murdochs of the world have noticed that the internet's growing importance in political campaigns is pushing the political pendulum much farther leftward than anybody anticipated. "Journalists" like O'Reilly and his many lower-paid compatriots, seeing the diminishing importance of their own positions in the new media landscape, seem more than happy to play along by acting shocked, just shocked! that rude language is being allowed on this crazy interweb. Hide the children!

I just love the current vogue of criticizing anybody on the left (including, oddly, Hillary) for how "angry" they are, and how much "hate" they have for our current administration. Treating outrage as a character flaw allows the people doing it to completely avoid any discussion of what generated the outrage in the first place. So somebody who points out, quite accurately, that our President lied to get us into a war, is being hateful because calling somebody a "liar" is mean.

Anybody engaged in a confrontation who attacks his opponent for being confrontational is being disingenuous.

Posted by flamingbanjo | July 25, 2007 11:27 AM

flamingbanjo, is there any evidence that the right wing "would love to see Hillary be the nominee"? I just don't see it.

If she were a weak senator, or if her support consisted of only back room democrats (instead of the 45% she actually has), then I could believe it.

But she was resoundingly reelected last year. And everyone knows her- yes, 45% (there's that number again) dislike her, but guess what- those 45% are never, ever going to vote for a Democrat. Bill got 49.2% in 1996, remember.

Posted by Big Sven | July 25, 2007 11:40 AM

The problem with bringing reasoned, intelligent debate to Fox news is that the majority of their viewers don't understand it.

If you don't understand logic, think that science has a liberal bias and belive that the world is thousands, rather than billions of years old then there is nothing anyone can say that will convince them otherwise. These people, these loyal viewers of Fox news are impervious to evidence, information, knowledge or reasoned debate. You just need to know a few dozen "lizard brain" button-pushing catch phrases and repeat them often enough and in the right context (or the wrong context) in order to get your message across, which is usually just reinforcing the ignorant attitudes they brought with them.

For example, Bill O'Reilly had two buzzwords: trafficking and hate-speech, and rather than responding to his guest (who kicked major red-neck ass, I might add), he merely repeated the websites name and the buzzwords in the same sentences over and over and over again.

I wish I could claim that viewers of the O'Reilly factor must have been blown away by Howard Wolfson's amazing presence of mind and coolness of head, as well as his thoughtful, intelligent responses but I'll wager that few if any were actually impressed or influenced by it at all, if they didn't already agree (in which case they would have been jumping up and down with joy at seeing Papa Bear soundly whipped).

All O'Reilly could do was sputter ineptly and utter the last words "hate speech!" before the show went to commercial. I bet he wished he could have cut the guy's mike or had "technical difficulties" to stop his rebuttal.

Posted by Susan Woehrle | July 25, 2007 11:46 AM

Fair point, Fnarf, but what about the fact that going on the O'Reilly show didn't do her much harm (O'Reilly never attacked Clinton per se) and that it endeared her to many Kossacks who have been ambivalent about her up until now? Plus the fact that this thing was viewed like crazy on youtube and got more publicity than a mere press release would have. And also, given that it was free, the whole thing was FREE publicity. Yes, viewers of the O'Reilly show are going to side with O'Reilly, but plenty of youtube watchers are going to side with Team Clinton.

Posted by arduous | July 25, 2007 11:48 AM

She is our next president. Not my choice, but theyre running like front runners and everyone else is playing catch up. Slick willie taught her well*.

*spare me on the-thats a sexist comment- crap, I know- Im old school.

Posted by SeMe | July 25, 2007 11:56 AM

Big Sven- I know political moderates who think Hilary is a crook, liar, or murderer, and a lot of women (again, politically moderate) who wouldn't vote for her because she's a woman (or various other reasons which boil down to the same thing). The fight against Hil wil be easy for the same reason promoting the war in Iraq was: The american people were primed for it by a propaganda campaign in the 90s, and therefore any horseshit they heard which defended that artificially created worldview rang of truth. Americans, in washington state same as anywhere in this country, follow their guts. And their guts have hated Hil since the GOP went on a rampage and the press obliged them so many years ago. If I was Karl Rove, I'd be gaggin' for her. Yummy delectable Clinton bites for Satan.

Posted by christopher | July 25, 2007 11:57 AM

o'reily's real mission, of course: he's been instructed to start a dialogue using some outrageous and phony-ass "i'm concerned about HATE SPEACH (WTF???!!!!!!) AGAINST THE DEMOCRATS, no fucking less, specifically HILLARY CLINTON (WTFFF??????????). It is a ploy to try to start some national ball rolling and create it as a platform issue, so democrats will unwittingly help o'riely and his dark masters (whoever they really are) do what they really really wanna do ---get the internet censored and under their control. so they will start the dialogue by creating an issue hidden in "concern" over "hate speach" directed at HILLARY fucking CLINTON, on, excuse me, DAILY KOS???? the tragic ploys of our shadow government are getting more obvious. their getting desperate. their most dangerous when their desperate. world beware!!!
and i need another bong hit. o, wait. no i don't.

Posted by adrian! | July 25, 2007 11:58 AM

Yes... put down that bong, my good man. We love you.

Posted by christopher | July 25, 2007 12:01 PM

In spite of his trademark exclamation-point-heavy style, I think our fabulously be-sunglassed friend may be onto something. I suspect this "hate speech" meme (covering speech which is merely rude as well as speech that legitimately incites to violence) will be coming up again and again as "concerned parents" and other usual suspects begin to tell us that we must, simply must regulate this out-of-control internet. Free speech has limits, you know.

And Big Sven: Just the wonky political rumor mill. Pretty much what Christopher said, above -- they think she's beatable. I suspect also that if it comes down to it, the money that's calling the shots would also prefer to see a Clinton Democrat, who proved themselves pliable to the interests of big business in the nineties, in office rather than any of the alternatives.

But you busted me -- I can't actually provide a link to Karl Rove saying "let's try to win the nomination for Hillary" or anything. If there was such a message it would probably have been accidentally destroyed by now anyway. In an, uh, email fire. Or something.

Posted by flamingbanjo | July 25, 2007 12:20 PM

Previous commentaters are missing why the Right would love to see Clinton be the nominee. You are correct that none of the true believers in Bill O'Reilly would ever vote for Clinton. The problem is, they may not vote for Romney, or Guiliani either...unless Hillary is on the other side of the ticket.
I'm being more and more impressed with Hillary, and less and less with Obama. But the greatest way to boost Republican turn-out would be to nominate Hillary.
BTW, it will kind of be interesting to see what happens to turnout if both Romney and Hillary are nominated. Will anti-Hillary bias boost the turnout or anti-Mormon bias suppress it? Unfortunately, I'd bet on the boost.

Posted by hattio | July 25, 2007 12:55 PM

Had drinks with an old college roommate last night who is now a Republican he voted for GWB last two elections. He said if he had to vote right now it would be for Clinton. I think the more libertarian arm of R's are closer to HRC than people realize.
In my mind Obama better step it up or I'm voting for Hil in the primary.

Posted by Tim | July 25, 2007 2:23 PM

I wouldn't call myself a Clinton voter yet, but she's the strongest campaigner so far. This ploy, of sucking up to the Kossacks -- indirectly, by attacking their attacker -- is brilliant politics. Engaging the Kossites directly would be stupid; if anything, they're dumber on average than O'Really's crew of mouth-breathers. And yes, just as hateful, and just as directed by their Adored Leader, and just as irrelevant. Their main value is as a leverage point. Turn the kooks on each other, and everybody (except the kooks) wins.

Posted by Fnarf | July 25, 2007 2:46 PM

With all due respect for Howie, he was a weenie in college. Good to see him standing up now.

Posted by Jonathan | July 26, 2007 6:43 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).