Video: Michelle slams San Francisco, defends Webb on O’Reilly
posted at 9:33 pm on December 4, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
What is it with the boss and Jim Webb? This isn’t the first time she’s defended him on Fox, and while she’s been right in both cases, there can’t be many other Democrats she’s gone to bat for on multiple occasions. Have conservatives been that unfair to Webby? Is it his Marine pedigree and Reaganite roots that appeal to her? Or does he boast a certain intangible quality that all too many members of his new party lack?
She also got to talk about San Francisco values — specifically, the one that leads the city government to be so perversely antipathetic towards the U.S. military. Is Bill O getting segment ideas from Vent now?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
O’Reilly has really gone mushy. Michelle was dead on about the hatred emanating from San Francisco. Props to the Navy on this. Much more welcome down in San Diego, one of my favorite cities.
JammieWearingFool on December 4, 2006 at 9:36 PM
If the Lord wanted to give the world an enema, he would put the tube in San Francisco.
Wade on December 4, 2006 at 9:44 PM
Don’t be hatin’ Bill. He has to play devil’s advocate to allow MM shine through. Besides, anything to have KP sitting across the desk from you is a good thing.
kevcad on December 4, 2006 at 9:56 PM
Pretty ‘fluffy’ on MM, AP. Needin’ a raise?
Anyway-
Webb was wrong. In the White House, invited by the President who kindly remembered Webb had a kid in the service, asked him about the son, and Webb slams politics back at his sons boss….If the son had not volunteered, maybe. But said son is a man, who volunteered, after the war started. As O’Reilly said, I’ve lost respect for Webb.
shooter on December 4, 2006 at 10:04 PM
Michelle,
I strongly disagree with your opinion
Given Webb’s history and also as you stated you would disagree with Jimmy Carter based on facts
Then you completely glossed over Jim Webbs career, his problems, his conduct during and of his campaign and he still is in full Daily Kos campaign mode.
Defend him, speak your mind, but be reminded yet again you do it at your peril.
Webb is not worthy of risking your reputation for, he’s way way way too much of a wild card to defend, he said he wanted to strike the President - the advocation of such a thing is unthinkable.
EricPWJohnson on December 4, 2006 at 10:10 PM
Forget SF. Come on down to San Diego where we’ll welcome and love you! Nicer weather, lots of diversity and good food, and nicer people too!
Entelechy on December 4, 2006 at 10:10 PM
Webb is in the same category as Howard Dean: arrogant, moody, unpredictable and spiteful.
Entelechy on December 4, 2006 at 10:13 PM
Webb is a moron and SF blows(Yay NY)…and here is something original..Michelle is hot…and stuff…
EnochCain on December 4, 2006 at 10:22 PM
San Diego is a Navy town whereas San Francisco is a Nay town.
I’ve never been to FleetWeek in San Francisco; but I will consider making a minivacation to San Diego.
allie on December 4, 2006 at 10:29 PM
I know what a skilled hand AP is with the screen captures…I am assuming the crawl segment ‘Girl Ingested The Alcohol’ right under Michelle’s picture is a bit of Christmas fun with the boss? No, I didn’t notice that first…I actually noticed how nice in lavender Michelle looks, then I saw the crawl and thought it was quite funny. Cheers all.
austinnelly on December 4, 2006 at 10:30 PM
He’s definitely too soft on Carter. As far as I am concerned, he stopped being presidential when started kissing
up toArafat.E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 4, 2006 at 10:32 PM
Webb is an arrogant, narcissistic ass and Carter is danger to the Republic. If O’Reilly admires Carter and feels it is necessary to defend him and his ilk, then I believe O’Reilly’s judgment is questionable.
rplat on December 4, 2006 at 10:33 PM
Both Michelle and Kirsten outshined Mr. Bill… Again
He is as Jammie said “gone mushy”
Michelle in ‘08
We need a “Commander In Chief” with b–ls.
Texyank on December 4, 2006 at 10:36 PM
Perhaps this is enough for O’Reilly to (again) tell terrorists to target Coit Tower. Ahhhh Bill, your patriotism is inspiring.
GregH on December 4, 2006 at 10:40 PM
I also disagree with Michelle’s defending Webb. His behavior was rude and out of line. To show such lack of decorum in a social dealing with the President, while a guest of the White House, is just not appropriate. Webb is more uncouth than initially thought, and, as with the wearing of his son’s boots during the campaign (a weird thing to do if you don’t want your son out there fighting for freedom, in my mind), I see this as Webb trying to make his name known and using his son’s service to do it. In other words, Cindy Sheehan with a Senate seat.
eucher on December 4, 2006 at 10:46 PM
Or perhaps senile. Every time the three of them are on, O’Reilly gets his clock cleaned.
Hmmm, “The Malkin-Powers Factor” has a nice ring to it.
infidel4life on December 4, 2006 at 10:50 PM
Hey GregH, click right here and then do a little reading. I dare you.
Bryan on December 4, 2006 at 10:56 PM
Allah, did you have a falling out with KP?
mikeyboss on December 4, 2006 at 10:56 PM
Mr. Born Fighting was more like Mr. Am I Even Here? during the election. He allowed his cronies to control the race, then waited until he was elected to show his true colors. James Webb shames my home, the Commonwealth of Virginia. I Really, Michelle is far too intelligent to waste her breath on James Webb, and it is a real shame that she did.
CR UVa on December 4, 2006 at 11:02 PM
Here’s Michelle *ESSENTIALLY* saying that the caller in question was cut off, and so could not explain her premise; and then there’s Bill, stuck on stupid about “civility” one minute, calling someone a “pinhead” the next.
Ex-presidents should not have guarenteed immunity. If he wants civility as an *EX-* president, he should consider being more civil with the *SITTING* president.
If Carter wanted to rest on his laurels, he’d've been better off *RESTING*, and not galavanting about, calling this president’s judgment into question constantly. He’s jumped back into the political arena (Clinton envy? How Freudian!), and so should expect to be called on his performance.
He’s still scribbling his self-serving little books. He’s still making public utterances. His party hasn’t pulled any punches in the last six years. No holds barred in a free country, no?
Kirsten had it right. He’s a big boy.
She didn’t have it right on the whole Webb thing. He’s granted exactly *ZERO* points for having a boy in Iraq. No absolute or even incremental moral authority granted, do not pass “GO”. It was a civil question, and he blew it.
That failed Dem candidate on the show earlier, the one referred to in this interview, was a loser. Isn’t he the same guy who came on O’Reilly (with a guest host, as I remember) and who called someone a Sturmbahnfuehrer or something rather like some months ago…the mother of the target being a Holocaust survivor? Seems like.
Frankly, if civility is the issue, O’Reilly’s show is hardly the place to go. It gets pretty heated, and Ol’ Bill gets up on his high horse, pronouncing, a bit more regularly every successive show. He’s often on the side of the angels on things — child predation issues, for example — but he’s got the war all wrong for one.
Poor Ol’ Bill…on TV, so he never gets to see Olbermann…poor ol’ Bill….
Puritan1648 on December 4, 2006 at 11:03 PM
For once I agree. In comparison to your psuedo-patriotic citizen-of-the-world drivel it is awe-inspiring.
infidel4life on December 4, 2006 at 11:07 PM
Yeah, but San Fran would like it.
Blacklake on December 4, 2006 at 11:15 PM
Webb would have been on O’Reilly’s show but they didn’t have a large enough wide-angle lens. Webb’s head has been inflated for a l-o-n-g time. His recent political victory will only enlarge it.
MCPO Airdale on December 4, 2006 at 11:23 PM
I am forwarding my carefully-collected scientific data on the increasing swelling of O’Reilly’s actual physical head ( no metaphors here, just a huge and growing noggin) to the Royal College of Cranium Examiners in London for extensive tests and verification
And Michelle upstaged him, of course
Janos Hunyadi on December 4, 2006 at 11:27 PM
Jury’s out on Webb. Signs point toward a paleocon who ran Democratic out of opportunism (like Bloomberg pretending to be a Repub). I know that means he doesn’t sit well with some fine folks around here on one big issue, but maybe he’ll stand firm on others.
Alex K on December 4, 2006 at 11:28 PM
Bryan, what do Clinton and Iraq have to do with O’Reilly calling for terrorists to target Coit Tower?
You waste your pitiful attempt at misdirection on somebody who is not a Clinton supporter, or a supporter of the Democratic party for that matter.
Stick to the argument, and try not to play feeble games.
GregH on December 4, 2006 at 11:38 PM
…now….
That whole “hate-filled city” exchange was odd. Ol’ Bill just wouldn’t let it lie. He was paddlin’ and paddlin’ as if he wanted Michelle to say “I take it back”. He didn’t want it to stand for some reason. Odd.
It *IS* a hate-filled city. Michelle called it. You should just be able to say “I don’t agree”, figure that both viewpoints’ve been expressed, and move along.
Puritan1648 on December 4, 2006 at 11:59 PM
You called SF the country’s “most enlightened” city in another thread. Only a lefty moonbat would say such a thing, especially given that the thread was about the city’s hatred of the military that defends it, so your saying that makes you a lefty moonbat. Therefore it was only natural to assume that you’re one of those “Bush LIED” bots. That link proves the “Bush LIED” mantra is itself a big lie.
If you’re not one of those “Bush LIED” types, feel free to pass that link around among your friends.
Bryan on December 5, 2006 at 12:11 AM
If the Lord wanted to give the world an enema, he would put the tube in San Francisco.
Wade on December 4, 2006 at 9:44 PM
…and they would welcome it.
O’Reilly has been “mushy” in the head for a long time. He said at the end that the one should back up assertions of anti-Semitism with facts–which is exactly what the caller was going to do before he got cut off–which O earlier in the segment said was what should have happened. So which is it, Billy? Back up with facts? or get cut off by the “slavish” (actually apropos here) network before you can?
sactimonious moron
urbancenturion on December 5, 2006 at 12:21 AM
damn, wrong button
urbancenturion on December 5, 2006 at 12:22 AM
You still have completely ignored the point that I made here. What does any of what you have said have to do with O’Reilly calling for terrorists to target Coit Tower?
The sequence of your logic above is worrisome. Simply trying to discredit me with guilt by association may fly with your fanclub, but an outsider looking in will smirk, I’m sure.
And exactly how is the Navy currently defending San Francisco? Are there enemies swimming in the Bay? Who are they defending us against?
GregH on December 5, 2006 at 12:26 AM
Jaibones on December 5, 2006 at 12:32 AM
oops
Jaibones on December 5, 2006 at 12:32 AM
Michelle, I watched the segment with you and KP tonight and, as usual, I’m puzzled by Bill’s positions on Webb and Carter. You know, as a parent, Webb has a right to feel emotional about his son being in a war he doesn’t approve of - for whatever reason, and despite his chosen profession. It’s his son and people are parents first. As for Carter, he has REPEATEDLY proven he is anti-Israeli and it was perfectly right for the caller to point it out - although the caller was cut off before the points could be made about why he/she felt that way (I suspect it would have been good). I think Bill is defensive (or sensitive about) public attacks because he is so often a target of those attacks. Like Webb, Bush, and Carter, Bill gets paid plenty of money to take it like a man. I know…it’s his show and he can say what he wants.
thedecider on December 5, 2006 at 12:34 AM
What I want to know is: what is going to happen that changes San Fran’s mind about the Military/Navy to have Star Fleet HQ stationed there?
- The Cat
MirCat on December 5, 2006 at 12:39 AM
A strong navy is a deterrent to having enemies swimming in any of our bays, GregH. That is among the ways the navy is defending San Francisco.
O’Reilly sarcastically called for terrorists to attack Coit Tower after SF displayed its hatred and contempt for our military in the midst of a war against terrorists. Your liberal friends said, on 9-11 itself, that we had it coming. Your truther friends have said that Bush secretly engineered it, super-villian style.
Which is worse? And which do you spend more of your time denouncing–O’Reilly’s one remark or the day in, day out garbage coming from people on your side of the aisle.
Bryan on December 5, 2006 at 12:43 AM
Puritan, this is - quite possibly - the best point I’ve heard in a long time. Why do we assume ex-Presidents have some noble wisdom to impart without considering their time in office? Carter had, probably, the worst presidency on record in the entire 20th century. I really can’t recall one thing of note this man did during his time in office that would require me to give credence to anything he has to say about a sitting president, or current events. He is, no doubt, a shining example of a leader who should be absolutely shunned for any sound bytes on political or world events today. I believe he should also have to answer to the caller who was charging him with anti-Israel sentiment, and anti-American hate speech. No ex-President should be immune from criticism at any time, EVER!
thedecider on December 5, 2006 at 12:57 AM
GregH, that is probably one of the dumbest questions you have asked to date - what is your point?? Are you one of those that thinks we should do away with the military?
Rick on December 5, 2006 at 1:15 AM
Bryan, do you really believe your own BS, or are you typing it because you’re paid to do so?
The O’Reilly comment was sarcasm? His tirade came the day after San Franciscans had voted to discourage the practice of military recruitment on public high schools (not ban it mind you, but simply discourage it). O’Reilly stated : “And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. We’re going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.” If those words had been spoken by somebody with the last name of Sheikh or Qiblawi, you’d be calling it a fatwa, not sarcasm.
And at the risk of sounding like a broken record… stick to the argument. Stop trying to lump me in with my “liberal friends” or my “truther friends”. How about debating this argument? Otherwise, it would be like me pointing to the Bolton thread and attempting to argue that all Conservatives are racists. As honora reminds another of your readers in that thread, “Intelligent people don’t tar everyone with the same brush”.
You are a leader here - you should hold yourself to a higher standard. As an editor you do a disservice to this blog by doing anything less.
GregH on December 5, 2006 at 1:22 AM
And BTW - I do think that “Bush lied”, but that’s for another thread.
GregH on December 5, 2006 at 1:27 AM
Apparently not. I guess Bryan was right all along.
Rick on December 5, 2006 at 1:29 AM
You’re taking a bit of editorial license with that statement GregH. O’Reilly was making a sarcastic point. I watched the episode. As for the argument of ‘discouraging’ or ‘banning’ the military, what’s the difference? Both the sentiment and point are made loud and clear: the military is not welcome in our city.
thedecider on December 5, 2006 at 1:35 AM
Really? I saw the episode as well. For those who didn’t, “click right here and then do a little reading. I dare you.”
GregH on December 5, 2006 at 1:52 AM
No need. I know what I saw and heard. You obviously took a view of the segment that supports your pre-conceived supposition. You say, I say…irrelevant.
thedecider on December 5, 2006 at 2:11 AM
You may look at some of your WW2 history. The Germans had subs go up the Mighty Mississippi river. May not happen again, but could. Cubans don’t even need subs, they use inter tubes.
CharlestonCritic on December 5, 2006 at 2:12 AM
BTW,
She looked sober enough to me. Looks like she can hold her liquor pretty good:)
CharlestonCritic on December 5, 2006 at 2:18 AM
Civility isn’t served by the halo (and “Peace” Prize) placed on “nice guy” Jimmy Carter, a man who has repeatedly embraced America’s enemies, who now sides with fascist Jew-killers in “Palestine”, and who has repeatedly lied about president Bush in attempts to undermine ongoing national security policy. Because of his perceived halo, the man is a menace. I’m with Michelle - Carter should be exposed, not tippy-toed around. The caller merely said what every American should have the guts to say. And hooray to Michelle for calling the SF moonbats what they are - bigots. We need a “truth in labeling” campaign about the Left. Letting them get away with their own laughable description of themselves as “compassionate” “concerned” “for peace” or whatever, while - in real life - exhibiting nothing but hate and mental illness (OK, maybe that’s harsh, perhaps they’re just emotionally crippled) is like a failed “New Tone” muzzling the entire country. By rejecting the US military, SF moonbats are essentially saying “Americans deserve to die at the hands of Islamofascists”. That’s pure hatred in my book, however they try to rhetorically disguise it.
Halley on December 5, 2006 at 2:33 AM
All the lip gloss is distracting…….what did they talk about?
quax1 on December 5, 2006 at 3:35 AM
I switched back to Fox News just in time for Michelle appearance. And I agree with most here, her point about San Fran is correct. Mr. O’ was playing the middle to keep the discussion going. Kristen looked as lovely as ever but Michelle is in a class of her own.
Zorro on December 5, 2006 at 6:59 AM
And based on your assessment you’re quite possibly brain damaged. Or a liberal. Or both.
Pablo on December 5, 2006 at 8:38 AM
O’Reiley doesn’t get topic ideas from anyone other than his cadre of producers. He is utterly clueless outside of the studio crib sheet his “people” prepare for him on a daily basis.
Remember, it was Dan Rather’s producer Mapes who created the Fake but Accurate memo story, Dan simply blabbed about it on-air (and wanted it to be true so badly he defends it to this day).
And to be “balanced” Rush Limbaugh also has a long list of culled info from web sites, newspapers and now blogs (after deriding blogs when the concept first came to light years ago, oh yes I do remember his sneer towards bloggers). You can literally recreate the day’s Drudge Report page based on what Rush talks about on some days, most every topic Rush talks about is taken directly from Drudge with verbatim blurbs in some cases.
Neo on December 5, 2006 at 8:41 AM
Go to bat? Yeah, MOON bat.
I can’t get the segment to load, but I’ll guess…maybe…
I do see that he has wolfish qualites that might sneek in under the wool. But that exchange with Bush was his way of flexing his muscle with a party who thinks his hard liberal candy coated shell is a cover for his mushy center.
seejanemom on December 5, 2006 at 8:43 AM
Michelle looked like she was this close to laying into Carter as an anti-Semite.
Damn you, O’Reilly.
Readymade on December 5, 2006 at 8:57 AM
Michelle, I have to disagree on Webb. Manners count! In a time when we are desperately searching for leaders, we must hold them accountable for their behavior. Webb has not displayed any leadership qualities to me and his latest poor mannered display with the President further confirms my opinion.
Would you excuse your children for acting like Webb? If the answer in no, then why excuse Webb as he is setting examples. I.E. President Clinton and BJ’s.
Wade on December 5, 2006 at 9:04 AM
CharlestonCritic,
Indeed. Then there’s the Japanese and their patrols of our West Coast and their largely forgotten shelling of the US mainland.
But GregH would rather the military be like an after hours janitorial crew so he doesn’t have to look at them.
Pablo on December 5, 2006 at 9:12 AM
I have to agree with MM on Webb. I don’t think she defended him. Her point was that this was a minor incident, and nothing to get wrapped around th axle over. In the big picture it really isn’t that big af a deal. Yes, it was rude, but…….not a front page story.
That being said, I am a Virginian and I didn’t vote for him, and won’t in six years.
KennyB on December 5, 2006 at 10:06 AM
Nothing like an open mind, huh?
honora on December 5, 2006 at 10:17 AM
On the CSPAN caller, here is the distinction:
NOT Personal attack: “You have done anti-semitic things [such as...].”
Personal attack: “You are an anti-semite.”
At least that’s where I would draw The Line when I moderated BBS forums back in the days before everything moved to teh Intarweb.
The Monster on December 5, 2006 at 10:17 AM
Ahhhh, Michelle melting ice with that smile. san francisco doesn’t have any values, much less the wrong ones. Their elected officials have just sunk it again for the city. I have no pity or remorse for them.
Do without and frolic. As is your muse.
tormod on December 5, 2006 at 10:37 AM
I didn’t view this as Michelle defending Webb, but rather Michelle saying that this incident isn’t the big deal that O’Reilly is trying to make out of it.
Note that Michelle never says Webb was right in his response to Pres. Bush’s question.
Both sides are trying to spin this issue into something bad for the other side, and both sides are beginning to look a bit silly… and in to this silliness steps Bill O’Reilly…
No, I’m not an O’Reilly fan. Bill gets it right only about half the time, but he does speak to issues that the Legacy MSM won’t touch. And he has Michelle and Kirsten on all the time. Except that I’m sure Kirsten would rather not be out-shined by Michelle all the time.
Lawrence on December 5, 2006 at 10:41 AM
Honora,
I like to think I have an open mind. I also have the ability to form an opinion. I think both are good things.
KennyB on December 5, 2006 at 11:34 AM
She’s not so much defending Webb as she is downplaying the magnitude of the incident, so I think the headline is slightly misleading. That being said, I still think Webb is a buffoon and that this is the first of many incidents that will draw negative attention to him.
KP DID defend Webb, and while her points are understood, Webb could have simply declined the invitation instead of going and acting like himself (i.e. like an ass).
As for the incident with Jimmy Carter, given the opportunity to lay the facts on the table the caller could have made a pretty strong case for everything he said.
thirteen28 on December 5, 2006 at 11:34 AM
…this is, quite simply, *REPREHENSIBLE*.
…oh…and, though it doesn’t serve your rock-rigid ideology, what Mr. O’Reilly said about the Coit Tower was, to anyone with a free-ranging brain call, simple sarcasm.
Puritan1648 on December 5, 2006 at 11:41 AM
Michelle and Kirsten are trying to get Bill dewussified! Yeah the Prez can handle it but the office should publicly be respected. I was thinking maybe the Webb fella thought Bush was trying to use his son to gain public approval of the war or something. Jima scares me anybody bring him into the public light would be fine by me. San Fran you you might want to think twice about piss’n off the US military considering how the Radical Islams want to handle homosexuality!
Drtuddle on December 5, 2006 at 12:36 PM
When I was USN, Frisco was a great liberty town. I was stationed in San Diego and found the people more friendly to USN than frisco. I even considered retiring there(dago) and think the attitude of San Diego is far superior to frisco. I wrote the legion, VFW and MOAA oven a year ago and requested they not include frisco in any national get togethers and hope that ship reunions will be someplace else. Bravo Zulu to Secretary of Navy.
navy1946 on December 5, 2006 at 1:20 PM
For me the best part…which seems to be getting missed (maybe because Mr. Ego cut her off)was when Michelle responded to a question about whether carter was anti-Semitic by wondering if it’s anit-Semitic to state what someone is. Then she said that one person’s mud-slinging is another’s “speaking truth to power”.
Exactly. Great stuff.
Blaise on December 5, 2006 at 1:26 PM
Carter deserved what he got. He wasn’t threatened with death; he was called a racist and anti-semite. How is this a smear?
Bill, where is the fire?
Black Adam on December 5, 2006 at 1:39 PM