Breaking: Hostage situation at Clinton campaign office

Oh dear. Stay tuned for more.

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

20 Comments

  1. sunburned counsel
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    well shit.
    and so it begins.

  2. Posted November 30, 2007 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    One of the comments at the Caucus (NYTimes blog that is, inexplicably, the only part of their website covering this) says:
    No offense to any Hillary supporter out there, but if she cant protect one of her campaign HQs from insane morons, how is she gonna protect the nation?
    — Posted by ananchi
    CLASSY.

  3. Blitzgal
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    Commenters over at Digg are convinced that her people staged it as a publicity stunt! I refuse to venture into Freeperland to see what they’re saying.

  4. Josh
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    Every time there’s a school shooting, the MSM goes nuts with stories about how violent, hate-filled entertainment brought on the tragedy. Will they engage in the same kind of inquiry here?
    Right wing media outlets have spent the last 15 years egging on all of the nutjobs who are afraid Hillary is going to steal their guns and their penises and turn their daughters into communist lesbians. This is just the logical outcome of 15 years of capitalizing on the sexual anxiety of angry white men, and I for one, would love to see the media step up and take some responsibility.

  5. walkingundine
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    I can just see the amazing commentary coming. One of my coworkers, upon hearing about this a moment ago, just exclaimed ‘Good!’ and chuckled to himself. This is lunacy.

  6. ShelbyWoo
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    I can just see the amazing commentary coming. One of my coworkers, upon hearing about this a moment ago, just exclaimed ‘Good!’ and chuckled to himself.
    WTF is wrong with people? At least everyone in my office was appropriately appalled and worried, and none of them are Clinton supporters (most of them are right-wingers).
    Blitzgal: I had called my hubby to see if he was following the story. First thing he said was: “Oh god! You just know the right-wing lunatics are gonna say she did this as a publicity stunt!”
    I just hope everyone comes out ok. One of the two hostages was released just before I came here to post…that’s a good sign, right?

  7. SarahMC
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    This is only the first of what I predict will be a number of attempts on Clinton’s life, the lives of her staff members, or the livelihood of her operation.

  8. UltraMagnus
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    No offense to any Hillary supporter out there, but if she cant protect one of her campaign HQs from insane morons, how is she gonna protect the nation?
    — Posted by ananchi
    CLASSY.

    I’m sorry, did this asshat just totally forget that our nation was attacked on our own soil on 9/11 while BUSH was on his watch? What kind of pass does he get? “My Pet Goat” was too good to put down?
    And if Bush can’t protect the nation while he’s President what does that mean?

  9. Vervain
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    “This is just the logical outcome of 15 years of capitalizing on the sexual anxiety of angry white men, and I for one, would love to see the media step up and take some responsibility.”
    Me too, Josh…but I’m not holding my breath.

  10. JennD
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    CNN is reporting that both hostages are now free.
    I don’t even want to think about what all the jerks out there are saying right now. It’s too depressing.

  11. Nightingale
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    If this were hostages from Romney’s campaign, I bet the right-wing nut-jobs would be trying to blame Hillary for it.
    Sigh…
    People’s lives are at stake as hostages, and it sickens me how the issue gets trivialized as a “campaign stunt”. People who believe that should see a psychiatrist.

  12. MLEmac
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    “she can’t protect her campain HQ”
    what do they expect her to do, strip search every person who walks into the office? What does a nut at one of her many campain HQ have anything to do with her ability to protect the country?

  13. CarmelizedMe
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    This makes me so fucking angry. The US pretends we’re so advanced, we’re so modern, and we can’t even let a woman run for President without physically threatening her.
    I also found a lot of these comments about right-wingers blaming Clinton for the attack. It’s not so often that the concept of victim-blaming is acknowledged outside the concept of sexual assault, specifically, but I these comments make it abundantly clear that women will be blamed without fail for any violence against them, whether it’s what is socially recognized as “abuse” or something like this.
    And just on another note, I keep catching myself wanting to write “Hillary,” and while I know that’s what everyone’s calling her because “Clinton” is her husband who’s already been President once, it just seems to me to illustrate the difference in perception between the male and female candidates. We don’t talk about Obama or Edwards or Giuliani as just “Barack” or “John” or “Rudy” all the time, but we do call Clinton “Hillary” all the time, which is more casual and less serious, and which also emphasizes that she is a woman, since her first name is a traditionally feminine one.

  14. CarmelizedMe
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    And wow, sorry about the missing words. I found “these comments…” INTERESTING. I THINK these comments make it abundantly clear…

  15. werechick
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    No offense to any Giuliani supporter out there, but if he cant protect one of his CITY from insane morons, how is he gonna protect the nation?
    — Posted by ananchi

    Fixed.

  16. Robbie121
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

    CarmelizedMe,
    I feel you. But Hillary’s campaign decided to uses her first name—exclusively on her campaign signs.
    Of course, perhaps they do so to “warm” up her image, which, of course, is giving a nod to patriarchal notions of what we should expect from women.
    Still, I think that most who refer to HRC as “Hillary” take their queues from her campaign.

  17. Stephanie
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

    According to the NYT, “Mr. Eisenberg had been scheduled to appear in Strafford County Superior Court at 1:30 p.m. today with his wife for a domestic violence hearing.”
    Don’t even know what to make of that.

  18. Caro
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

    @ CarmelizedMe,
    I totally agree with you — it bugs the crap out of me when people refer to her as “Hillary” all the time, and it bugs me even more that her campaign encourages it. In an effort to maybe “warm up” her image, they disrespect her stature as a United States Senator. I understand the desire to identify her separately from her husband, but I think that’s easily done by calling her “Senator Clinton,” since Bill Clinton was never a Senator.

  19. Dani
    Posted December 1, 2007 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    I never really realized/thought about using “Hillary” for HRC as opposed to “Clinton” was a way to warm up her image or that it could be used to make her seem weaker by calling her by a more feminine name. In some other aspects I think it helps her identity by simply calling her “Hillary.” For one, people just know who you’re talking about, and to me it really conjures up images of who she is and what she stands for, and even her strength as a female politician. For a young woman interested in getting into politics like myself, where she has gotten (not necessarily her policies or stances, but the inroads she has made as a female politician) are inspiring. When was the last time we had a serious female candidate for president? Even if she doesn’t get elected, or even get the nomination, she’s breaking down some barriers.
    That isn’t to say that her campaign isn’t pushing “Hillary” as a way to make her seem more accessible, or that opponents aren’t using it to make her seem weaker– those just didn’t occur to me. I get a strong female image from it, and I think that’s true of other people as well.

  20. thenakedcat
    Posted December 1, 2007 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    As to the name thing, I think it’s a relic of her years as first lady, when “Hillary” was what she was almost always called. While it’s certainly less appropriate now, since candidates for political office are generally referred to by their last names with or without the title of their present office, I think there’s a strong pragmatic issue that “Hillary” has instant recognition and doesn’t confuse her with Bill.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

189 queries. 0.835 seconds