<p>Wow. Just wow.</p>
<p>[Media</a> Matters - O’Reilly: “I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels”](<a href=“http://mediamatters.org/items/200802200001]Media”>http://mediamatters.org/items/200802200001)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Media Matters is such a credible source, I’m immediately going to be outraged at this news.</p>
<p>media matters posts actual stuff and oreilly and drudge actually used doctored video and audio to trash Ms. Obama</p>
<p>vyse have you followed the story at all</p>
<p>and if you go to media matters, they show ACTUAL footage, not fake stuff that Oreilly quotes</p>
<p>are you actually denying that media matters is accurate in this case…with no cut clips…gee, REALLY? </p>
<p>listen to the clip…which hasn’t been doctored…</p>
<p>I dont know if they’re accurate or not, but given their partisan nature, their funding from Soros, and their long history of obfuscating facts, I’m going to wait to see if this story is corroborated by a more credible source before I make up my mind.</p>
<p>Oh, Puuuuuleeeeeeeeze! This is a classic example how mindless gossip gets started by those, like O’Reilly, who love to stir things up.</p>
<p>This MediaMatters/Olbermann vs O’Reilly/Hannity/Rush feud is so childish and boring. Why does anybody with any sense of intellectual curiosity waste their time with these demagogues?</p>
<p>Mr. O’Reilly’s already shoved one of Sen. Obama’s staffers to get a better camera angle on the senator; can a physical confrontation with the senator’s family members really seem that far away? I mean, if Mrs. Obama is blocking the perfect Fox News camera shot, she’s fair game according to Mr. O’Reilly. You know - in order to uphold The Constitution.</p>
<p>You can go to the link and see the video and judge for yourself if he really said it, vyse. I’ve never been to mediamatters website so I have no idea what you are even talking about.</p>
<p>
Do you have an example? All I see on the Drudge site are links to other sources.</p>
<p>I listened to the clip - it sounded like O’Reilly was defending Michelle and going out of his way to make sure she wasn’t mis-represented by the caller. His choice of words wasn’t real swift.</p>
<p>That’s the point… the use of the word “lynching” is stupid and has historic racial overtones, especially in referring to a black woman (an “angry” black woman). The guy on MSNBC was suspended for saying the Clintons were pimping out Chelsea. Do you think there will be any repercussions for Bill?</p>
<p>Why is that racist misogynist allowed airtime on television? And what is wrong with what Michelle Obama said–from any angle? She is proud of the involvement of people who have never been involved in politics before, or she has been ashamed of the U.S. for the last eight years. Most thinking people have been. Both interpretations of her statement make sense and express what many people feel.</p>
<p>I need to hunt it down on cspan, where you can hear and see the actual speech…I have heard the speech undoctored on numerous radio shows, and if you listen carefully to the drudgelink, you can see where they cut the words…why, well…</p>
<p>Just got copy of Newsweek. Michelle is very attractive.</p>
<p>Can any of you read? </p>
<p>O’Reilly is clearly DEFENDING Michelle Obama. His use of the word lynching is in the context that those who are going after her are on a lynching party and he will not participate with them.</p>
<p>Actually - he’s clearly saying that they’ll track down evidence, and if there is evidence that Mrs. Obama feels “that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever” that it is “legit” to “go on a lynching party.” Horrendous choice of words for someone whose primary stock in trade ends up being words, neh?</p>
<p>Oh - to answer your question - yes. Else it would be very difficult to respond to posts. :-D</p>
<p>razorsharp… it’s the word UNLESS that obviously refutes what you are saying. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
No it doesn’t. </p>
<p>You are clearly misinterpreting his comments. O"Reilly is defending Michelle Obama. He says,
</p>
<p>Why does O’Reilly have sympathy?
</p>
<p>O"reilly says:
Why doesn’t Oreilly want to go on a lynching party? Because he opposes throwing someone into a hopper where everybody is waiting for them to make a mistake. </p>
<p>Oreilly’s statement
means he does not believe any hard evidence exists at this time. </p>
<p>Those of your criticizing OReilly are doing exactly what he said should not be done with Michelle Obama – thrown her in the hopper waiting for her to make a mistake.</p>
<p>How about listening to the call and make sure you listen to the caller’s initial statement against Michelle Obama that OReilly rejects.
[Bill</a> O’Reilly: “I Don’t Want To Go On A Lynching Party Against Michelle Obama Unless There’s Evidence” - Media on The Huffington Post](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Bill O'Reilly: "I Don't Want To Go On A Lynching Party Against Michelle Obama Unless There's Evidence" | HuffPost Latest News)</p>
<p>
I disagree, based on the rest of his statement. He’s going to “track it down” - which is to say, evidence of how she feels. So it’s not that he doesn’t think there is evidence, it’s that he doesn’t have evidence or know which direction it points. I read it with the following inflection and continuation
</p>
<p>Metaphorical “lynching party,” to be sure, but as a man of words - he does know exactly what that word means and how it will be taken. As a man who pays careful attention to all kinds of media, he absolutely knows about the latest case with Kelly Tilghman and Tiger Woods. He’s basically taking one step back from the most rabid caller and expecting the universe to applaud his discretion and caution…in being the second-most rabid.</p>
<p>I can’t believe that you would defend his statement, razorsharp. There is no other way to interpret it. He won’t call out the lynchers unless there is a reason to.</p>
<p>If he were employed by an reputable news agency he would be suspended or fired ala Shuster on MSNBC, Imus on the radio last year or Kelly Tilghman. We’ll see what tomorrow brings.</p>