Would someone tell Ms Obrien

[malaise]

to STFU! If I were Cynthia MCKinney, I'd walk out of the interview.

[fasttense]

1. Is she being an idiot? Obrien not the Congresswoman. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

2. Forget Obrien, how about The House Minority Leader ...

screwing over "her own" before the evidence is in?

"I don't think any of it justifies hitting a police officer," said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California. "If it did happen I don't think it was justified."

[seabeyond]

4. how is that screwing anyone. IF she did it. she doesnt know

and she isnt going to defend mcckinney if she did. that is being responsible, not SCREWING anyone over.... firstly

secondly, i think this is all bullshit what people are doing to mcckinney and the way media and repugs are treating this. and the asshole capital cop being a wuss and pressing charges. but to point finger at pelosi to me is equally wrong

[ShortnFiery]

6. She pre-judged McKinney ...

Aside from this PROCLIMATION, Pelosi has been all talk, little action. McKinney has more moral courage to talk truth to power in her little finger - than Pelosi has in her entire big campaingn contributions chest. She's a go along to get along.

If the Democratic Party once again disowns those who stand up for the poor and downtrodden, be prepared for a serious backlash. Many of us "proud liberals" are ready and willing to prevent McKinney from being "swift-boated" again.

[seabeyond]

9. this is just funny. a dems stands up and speaks. you dont agree

with the accessment and then you accuse the person of a go along. the whole point of you being pissed at pelosi is cause she said IF mckinney hit, it is wrong. she stood up. she spoke out. she contradicts exactly what you accuse her of. you just dont agree with her conclusion.

i say to my kids, if you.... then it is wrong

there is NOTHING wrong with what pelosi said. i think you/we are more than capable of standing up for mckinney without swiftboating another of our own, pelosi.

[ShortnFiery]

17. There were three young women who TRUSTED a

Highway Patrolman on deserted highways in San Diego County. Their parents wish to GOD that they did not also "buy into" the unilateral, no matter what, you don't strike a police officer.

Pelosi was PANDERING to the moderate-right of our Democratic Party and both you and I know it.

No, these young women were raped and murdered by a LEGITIMATE San Diego County Highway Patrolman during the late 1980s. To this day, if a woman is on a deserted highway and a cop tries to flag her down, but instead, she drives toward population and stops at a gas station, the Highway Patrol will NOT, I repeat NOT issue her a ticket.

It's tragic to hear from fellow Democrats, perhaps due to the back blast of fear and paranoia, that we "unthinkingly submit" to authority. First McKinney states that she did not believe it was her that was being called since she showed her ID badge. and Second, any man, even a cop touches me inappropriately, I'll instinctively react to protect my person. The parent of the women senselessly murdered because they chose to "fully trust" THIS cop, sure wish they would have raised their daughters toward a healthy dose of suspicion.

No Nancy, not every cop cares about an individual's welfare. If you had lived in a poor neighborhood where the authoritarian "the bad" cops let off steam, you would not have been so unilaterally supportive of our police force.

I respect the police force, but like bad doctors, some graduate at the bottom of their classes and/or harbor hidden agendas.

Please don't assume just because the republican party is imploding that you, moderate big-business loving democratic leadership - that you can continue to either neglect or disrespect those fellow democrats who have the COURAGE to speak truth to power.

What's worse, if you help the right wing destroy McKinney, we may never know what really happened on 9/11. :(

[seabeyond]

22. i just think your post is poorly argued in many places

i am not lock step with rule followers. totally oppose them and have lived a lifetime challenging and not following rules. to the anger of many on this board, that insist i should not think for self, and blindly follow their rules cause they deem that it will keep me safe, even though for 44 years i have done well making my own choices, in the face of rules

i do not blindly respect nor get intimidated by police. the thing, with expectation of intimidation, demand of intimidation..... to not be can create a mess for me with repercussions. kinda what i see with mckinneys action. no, i would not do well with someone, anyone, even a cop grabbing my arm. walking thru a damn airport is challenging enough for me. i refuse to lower my eyes. i refuse to be intimidated. i refuse to pee my pants at the authority of someone paid 8 bucks an hour

i dont trust the police. i dont teach my boys to trust the police. this all started happening with my first child when he was about one, and i tried to get police on breaks to interact with boy, so he could learn to trust..... 9 years ago, a different world. stopped trying with police, started using firemen. they are grand and NOT in a power obsession.

i am generally the one those on this board, a strong majority on this board, say, they are protecting us, we must succumb and i say fuck that shit.

to suggest it is right wing to say not allowed to hit a cop is bullshit. we have lots of totalitarian liberals on this board dictating the rules i must follow

i..... just understand i am in minority. i dont assume a motive of pelosi. i can easily see she may strongly believe you dont hit a cop. go figure. way out there. she MUST be right wing. bullshit

you make assumption of pelosi throughout you post. you interpret her few words freely and liberally. and then suggest that i MUST agree with you

i dont

again, doesn't mean i have to attack pelosi to stand up for mckinney

btw...... there are times a seat belt kill. i am sure at those times people can say, man i wish they hadn't followed the seatbelt rule. but then i think there are a strong majority here that will say over and over and over. must wear seatbelt. saves lives. no looking further. must wear seat belts. goes along with never hitting cop. always wear sunscreen, dont smoke or you will die, and kill everyone that inhales your smoke. yada yada yada

[ShortnFiery]

24. I would not have cared if Pelosi would have made "no comment"

What's troubling to me, is the FACT that she make a glaring (and potentially pandering to the blue dog democrats) generalization that serves to reflect poorly on one of "her own" fellow Representatives?

This is what I mean by the Leadership of the Democratic Party disrespecting the left of the party. It's cool if you consider us bat-shit-crazy, but come election time, don't look for any favors if your are ACTIVELY INSTRUMENTAL in destroying, what many of us believe to be a heroine. :-)

Even if, you fully believe that she may have been wrong, if you are colleagues, is it not best to error on caution and basic respect for the fact that she is a FELLOW DEMOCRAT?

No, perhaps you don't believe the "lock step submit to the uniform" meme, but I get an uncomfortable feeling that a lot of fear-mongering has brought some good people to that belief.

Again, if the leadership of the Democratic Party chooses to pile on, I and many others like me may just conclude that the nation has to "really hurt" in order to cleanse ourselves of these Big Money, "Don't Rock the Boat" Representatives of all stripes.

[seabeyond]

26. well again i dont even f*in believe in fear. it is all illusion, made up,

self created. it is never actual, it is always a story told to self remembering a past (not real) or what if, future (not real). damn straight this nation is running around in circles all cause of fear. (dems do it all over the fuckin place and pisses me off) we agree, and probably live life comparatively.

but

i suggest that for pelosi to say no comment would be the kind of dem you and many bitch about. we arent repugs. we dont say bush such a good honest man, knowng he is a cheat and corrupt. or delay did nothing wrong. or cunningham. or blackwell. or abramoff. or cheney. or or or

further, we dont know what pelosi knows. she may know that mckinney's behavoior was inappropriate. and she MAY not agree with what she did.

still, not pandering to right or anything else.

as much as we dont like that dems dont support regardless, (they also didnt like clinton fucking around on his wife, getting blowjobs in the oval office. just didnt agree he should be impeached or a political to do) they just dont do that and i have to have a certain amount of respect for that

one dem that i knew about during campaign did something wrong. repugs all over the place. one dem and like 25 votes. he is trashed. not a single dem supported it on this board or our reps. a repug, excuse, say it didnt happen, lie.... we are not the same

hey..... respectfully, you and i disagree on this. no biggy

[ShortnFiery]

27. You make serveral viable points ... thanks, I'll ponder

We do disagree and I'm glad we don't support other democrats without analysis.

It's just the term, "You don't punch a cop!" generalization is so superfical - I'm saddened that Pelosi choose to use this in her statement.

I won't lie to you. I'm seriously considering staying home for the first time in my life on this upcoming election day. Those of us on the left have compromised seemingly forever, and like the African Americans, we see no appreciation for our loyalty to The Party.

Well, that's just my little bat shit crazy left wing stance. There are still a few of us who are unafraid to call ourselves "liberals."

Thanks for the input for you did make some interesting points that I will consider further. :hi:

[rodeodance]

8. I assume McKinney was startled and acted out of reflex-But I do wish

she would have handled it differently. I am not a black women and do not have her history, but just saying--oh, i did not mean to do that-you startled me--might have been a start. I only imagine.

[fasttense]

3. Just caught the tail end of the interview.

Obrien slammed the Congresswoman by saying if she had been quicker in her response they could have covered the other racial lawsuits against the police agency (or words to that affect). What a nasty remark by Obrien. The Congresswoman seemed perfectly reasonable.

[ShortnFiery]

5. Bless McKinney!

I sure hope our illustrious Democratic Leadership knows better than Obrian how to STFU when it comes to pre-judging fellow Democratic Representatives.

[displacedtexan]

11. At one point, O'Brien snipped...

"This is my program."

She lost control of the segment completely after that.

[fasttense]

7. Yeah, what I caught of it was pretty bad.

You know the Congresswoman was one of the few Democratic leaders who came to the protests in DC. She gave a stirring speech and was carried only on C-Span. But of course the media didn't interview her then when about a quarter of a million people surrounded the WH. But now, with this stupid story they interview her.

[malaise]

10. The hypocrisy is

mind-blowing but I'm not surprised.
Sp.

[Flubadubya]

12. Soledad O'Brien's behavior was unconscionable... it was outrageous!

This little bitch media whore was truly just AWFUL. During practically the entire time she was addressing McKinney her attitude was extremely hostile. The little twit was so angry that the veins were popping out on her neck. She looked like she was about to stroke out at any time. She was practically yelling at McKinney.

However, when she interviewed the representative from the Capitol Police her demeanor completely changed... she did a 180. She calmed and spoke respectfully and in a normal tone of voice with him.

Then, when she went back to Cynthia, her venom was spewing again, noticeably so!

What Soledad was doing was outrageous because she was insisting that McKinney give her details about the incident knowing full well that it is now a matter of criminal investigation and that Cynthia could not and would not give her the words she was demanding to hear. It was a fool's quest and Soledad knew it. She was just using it as an opportunity to trounce and demean Congresswoman McKinney. I don't think I have ever seen such reprehensible behavior on the part of a "journalist" in my life.

It has become quite obvious to me that this is now nothing more than a media-driven, right wing vendetta against the Congresswoman. If I ever doubted it before, I no longer do.

Weirder than hell was this little interchange: As soon as the interview was done they panned over the the weatherman who was about to give his report and he also took up the attack. He put his hand to his head, shook it, and complained that all this had just given him a headache. This was some of the most inappropriate behavior I have ever seen from so-called "news people", and even from CNN. Disgusting doesn't even begin to describe it. :grr::puke:

[Justice Is Comin]

13. Mckinney is turning me off more

every time I see her. She's making a fool of herself. It's apparent she doesn't want to talk about refusing to comply with a police officers command to stop for 30 seconds.

She has no superiority rights because she is black, only equal rights. She cannot refuse an authoritative order to stop when commanded to do so by an officer of the law. That officer is vested with the authority to detain anyone.

She bypassed a security point of highly strategic importance and had full intentions of continuing on her way. The only thing that officer could do is verbally tell her to stop and that failing, take the next most reasonable action to have her comply. And that was to grab her arm.

She has no basis to assault the officer, hit him, poke him, or use any aggresive resistance when his intention was clear that he was trying to get her simply to stop.

Her arrogance was put above 30 seconds of time it would have taken for her to say who she was and show her ID. If she keeps pushing this nonsense of racial profiling and refusal to admit she simply escalated the situation she IS going to find herself charged with resisting an officer and her two lawyers are not going to be able to defend it because she is completely in the wrong.

Even wearing the pin would not prevent an officer assigned with the responsibilty of who enters that building from stopping a Congress person that he or she did not recognize. And it is not incumbent on the officer to forego that right because he should recognize members. That is ludicrous. His job is to confirm beyond any question who is entering that building.

McKinney better be careful what she dares to happen because she is going to have a problem if she keeps this up.

[Flubadubya]

14. You may not have seen the O'Brien/McKinney interview this a.m. ...

you do not comment upon it (though it is the subject of this thread). See if a video shows up and take a look. It might at least give you a perspective on the media coverage of this. I suspect that Ms. McKinney could have done a lot better job of handling the situation at the time, but how our media is handling it is much, much worse. Check it out and see what you think.

[Justice Is Comin]

18. I did see it

and my comment above is exactly why I am saying she is turning me off.

Soledad was just trying to get her to say what happened and she doesn't want to say what happened. She wants to deflect any talk about what happened and turn it into racial profiling or that the officer was obligated to know who she was.

It made her look evasive, it made her look like she didn't want to talk about the facts of the event and it made her look foolish. I bet you coffee and donuts it is going to appear to most of the audience who saw her that she lost credibility by consistently refusing to answer any substantive question of the event or defend her action.

She is pissing off the Capitol Police and if this results in charges, she is the one who caused her own problem because she doesn't have a leg to stand on. And this could have been a one minute conversation between her and the officer.

My committment to fairness requires me to call this as it is. McKinney is being an idiot and she just might end up profusely regretting it.

[Flubadubya]

20. Just one question...

What person who has been accused (or charged) with a criminal offense is going to discuss details of the incident in public and pre-prejudice the case... and, what news person would continue to insist that the person give details that could harm his or her case in a possible future court trial?

Of course, McKinney was NOT going to discuss the facts of the case on television and Soledad knew that, yet DEMANDED that she do so (knowing full well she wouldn't -- i.e. baiting and taunting McKinney). Only a fool would ask such questions and only a fool (the accused) would answer them in a public forum. That's all.

[Justice Is Comin]

21. That's exactly what I mean

about her appearances being more detrimental than anything else.

She could have simply said, my lawyers have advised me that I should not get into the facts of the case at this point because of an ongoing investigation. Soledad would have accepted that.

She did not say that. She totally ignored Soledad's repeated request for any information about her side of what happened and she launched immediately into "it's about my hairstyle." The lawyer also stupidly kept up the same tact of how black people are "profiled."

It is making things worse, it is not being handled professionally and they are going to find themselves defending criminal charges which are not defensible. You cannot resist a police officer who has the legal right to detain anyone.

Don't go on the programs if they don't intend to discuss the incident. If they think the networks are just going to allow it as a platform for them to claim racial profiling with no description of what even happened in the incident, they are going to end up with the same result of what happened on CNN this morning. And they looked foolish.

[Flubadubya]

28. Well, I just watched this again...

They have replayed this three times this morning, by the way.

You said, "She could have simply said, my lawyers have advised me that I should not get into the facts of the case at this point because of an ongoing investigation." Well, very early on in the discussion Cynthia's lawyer did tell Soledad that because of it being a legal matter neither he nor is client were going to discuss the details of the case. 'NUFF SAID there, I'd say. Sure didn't stop Soledad from INAPPROPRIATELY continuing to pound and pound for the "sordid" details. The lawyer said right away they were not going to discuss it. See if you can catch that again yourself. You will see that the conditions which you purport were necessary for a "meaningful discussion" and were not met by Cynthia or her lawyer indeed were... which brings us back again to my point regarding Soledad O'Briens deplorable deportment, something you simply cannot step around (whether you like McKinney or not).

[mwb970]

15. She comes across as arrogant and crazy.

Who needs her?

[Flubadubya]

16. self delete

delete

[ShortnFiery]

19. Because if she's destroyed we may NEVER know more about

what happened on 9/11. Our moderates who are pro big business will not wish to open this can of worms. It takes firebrands like McKinney.

Congress is not a girl's finishing school and the officer grabbed her from behind and inappropriately ... thank goodness McKinney did not have a black belt in martial arts because, as a woman, protecting oneself from such attacts is instictive.

[xultar]

23. Yup. that is about right, arrogant and crazy is perfect.

[ShortnFiery]

25. self-delete Uncle! that is :-)