A man who claimed he had a bomb strapped to his chest seized four workers in Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign office here Friday afternoon, police said, holding them for more than five hours and demanding to speak to Clinton before surrendering to police....
No one was injured, and police said the alleged bomb turned out to be road flares....
[Leeland] Eisenberg demanded cigarettes, alcohol and Pepsi throughout the tense afternoon, police said late Friday. They said Clinton had been willing to talk to the suspect but was discouraged from doing so by tactical officers who did not want to meet that demand too quickly...
Anderson Cooper, an anchor with CNN, later revealed that Eisenberg had also been communicating by phone with the network's reporters throughout the afternoon. Cooper said that the suspect called CNN offices several times to complain that he had "mental problems and couldn't get anyone to help him."
The reason the police would discourage Hillary is that whenever someone uses an unnecessary threat of violence to achieve a goal, allowing them to achieve that goal encourages more violence--something Hillary is obviously clueless about. A chilling revelation about her competence as the leader of a nation constantly beset by those threatening violence to achieve their own goals.
What's also disturbing about this event is that the hostage taker granted interviews to the one network most noted for slanting their news to favor the Clintons--CNN. Could this also be another example of an orchestrated event engineered to garner political advantage for Hillary's campaign? It's not like she doesn't have a long history of such antics, albeit less extreme.
Posted by Danny Carlton at December 1, 2007 10:24 AM
Comments
What this says to me is that Clinton was able to recognize the difference between a man crying out for help and a man crying out "Death to America". She was willing to solve the situation even by putting herself at risk. I seriously doubt there's anyone in the White House right now that would be willing to take the same chance.
As for your generalizations about CNN and the possibility of this being a Clinton publicity stunt, I'll just say this. There is nothing, and I'd like to emphasize, NOTHING to substantiate that claim. It's just another example of Danny Carlton trying to find something negative to say about a situation that was handled well by someone he doesn't like.
Give respect where it's due Danny.
Posted by: Mike at December 1, 2007 1:10 PM
She didn't agree to talk to him face to face, just on the phone. Not a lot of risk there, but still pretty stupid since it encourages others to use the threat of violence to get their way.
That you think Hillary is more willing to risk physical harm to help someone while anyone in the current White House wouldn't is laughably naive on your part.
Hillary didn't handle anything, so there was nothign for her to "handle well."
Posted by: Danny Carlton at December 4, 2007 12:27 PM
In case you've missed the last 7 years, this country uses the threat of violence to get it's way. I might be worried about a phone call if there weren't so many other great examples to be encouraged by.
It's laughably naive on your part to think that there is anybody in our White House that would put themselves in harms way to protect anybody. They're big on asking for everything from others, not so big on giving.
The fact that you don't think that there was anything for her to handle speaks volumes. I'd be interested to see what your take on this matter would have been had it been a Republican candidate. I'm sure your opinion would differ greatly.
Posted by: Mike at December 4, 2007 7:44 PM
Post a comment
NOTE: I am under no obligation to preserve the incoherent mutterings of illiterate morons. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but make sure you actually know what you're talking about, or your comment will be removed.
