<p>hey tommybill: suggest you find more credible sources. :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So a very drunken guy with a history of mental issues had a flare strapped to him .
The only “hostages” were campaign workers… sounding more and more conspiracy like…</p>
<p>And both Clintons acted very Presidential. Both canceled scheduled speeches so they could keep on top of the CRISIS. Thank goodness.</p>
<p>PS… I loved the swat team and sniper coverage. It added all the necessary drama.</p>
<p>1sokkermom, are you saying that Hillary created this drama herself?</p>
<p>There are so many loony people in the world, and that’s the theory you go with??</p>
<p>^ A conspiracy theorist might come to that conclusion.</p>
<p>Whether she (or her campaign workers) created the situation or not, they certainly will use it to her advantage in a state where she has been losing ground in the polls, and in a state that seems to be a must win for her. </p>
<p>We will never really know what prompted this situation. CNN took advantage of the situation. CNN seems to be supporting Clinton too. Oh well, at least that is what the right wing nut cases are saying.</p>
<p>"Whether she (or her campaign workers) created the situation or not, they certainly will use it to her advantage in a state where she has been losing ground in the polls, and in a state that seems to be a must win for her. "</p>
<p>I don’t think the campaign had anything to do with the hostage taking, but they are smart people and know that victimhood is what got her to the senate in the first place, so they’ll be going with that.</p>
<p>I live in NH. (not far from the CRISIS location…)
Hillary has always complained about the right-wing conspiracy in this state.
Maybe she said that if she can’t beat them, she’d join them.
[Clinton:</a> Right-Wing Conspiracy Is Back - washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031300638.html]Clinton:”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031300638.html)</p>
<p>Kinda seems to me that she’s damned if she does and she’s damned if she doesn’t.</p>
<p>So you’re saying that she (or her campaign) somehow convinced this nut to go into her campaign offices there with a bomb strapped to him, and got CNN to follow it closely.</p>
<p>And that if that in fact isn’t the truth – that the guy was really a disturbed individual who took it upon himself to do this – that her campaign will
</p>
<p>What’s wrong with that?</p>
<p>I really don’t understand the passionate hatred of this intelligent, articulate woman. I can understand disagreeing with her positions, but I don’t understand the visceral hatred of her as a person.</p>
<p>But Giuliani gets to throw around statistics that are actual falsehoods??</p>
<p>wow, away to take it away from rudy sleaze. eh…typical republican response…ignore the story and try and deflect the fact that your guy is a sleaze</p>
<p>Verry Happy,</p>
<p>I just posted some information and links on the other thread regarding CNN. Yes, CNN was following the hostage crisis story very closely throughout the day. Apparently, the hostage (who happened to be a Clinton campaign worker) called the CNN Washington Bureau. The hostage spoke to CNN and the “nut” also spoke to CNN throughout the day.</p>
<p>I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make, 1sokkermom. You mean that because the hostage called CNN, it must have been a publicity stunt??</p>
<p>Very Happy,</p>
<p>Your previous post questioned whether Clinton’s campaign got CNN to follow the story. My point is that yes, the Clinton campaign did indeed get CNN to follow this story. The hostage was a Clinton campaign worker. She called the CNN Washington bureau. There will be differences of opinion as to whether it was a publicity “stunt” or a publicity opportunity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This quote is what you said. But that doesn’t mean that Hillary’s campaign “got CNN to follow this story.” What should CNN have done – ignore it? </p>
<p>One is always free to turn CNN off and go watch Fox.</p>
<p>Lets see, we have a guy who is basically a terrorist and you say that CNN just followed cause the Clintons made them</p>
<p>That logic is so flawed, its laughable…nice try though</p>
<p>From CNN : " On Friday afternoon, one of the hostages contacted the CNN Washington bureau and then put Eisenberg on the phone.</p>
<p>The hostage and Eisenberg called CNN multiple times throughout the afternoon and talked to CNN staffers.</p>
<p>Eisenberg said he had mental problems and couldn’t get anyone to help him. CNN assumed Eisenberg could be watching CNN’s broadcast and chose not to report his calls to avoid compromising the safety of the hostages. "</p>
<p>My last comment on this: CNN did not report the calls to the authorities. CNN’s rational for not reporting these calls to the local or NH state police is absurd.</p>
<p>I don’t understand your point.</p>
<p>That’s ok. I don’t understand yours either. Have a good night. Time for me to sign off.</p>
<p>In addition, the local NH News (WMUR) confirmed that, “CNN later released a statement confirming that the man was Eisenberg and that he had been in contact with the network throughout the day. CNN immediately contacted law enforcement after the first call”</p>
<p>Sokkerman- ^^^this was YOUR statement from this other thread today</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/425500-gallup-poll-republicans-report-better-mental-health-than-others-2.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/425500-gallup-poll-republicans-report-better-mental-health-than-others-2.html</a></p>
<p>And now you are saying this???
“CNN did not report the calls to the authoritities”</p>
<p>Hello? Which is it? You can’t have it both ways.</p>
<p>Good catch menlo. The quoted statement was not my statement. It was quoted from the WMUR report.</p>
<p>It seems that CNN reported the initial call, but did not report the subsequent calls. I don’t understand why they didn’t report the subsequent calls. </p>
<p>Good Night.</p>
<p>and watch Fox’s coverage…now THAT"S an “interesting” way to cover the news, talk about sensationalism…they are the leaders of sensationalizing news</p>
<p>if the guy had called Fox, just imagine</p>
<p>and maybe I missed it, but where did it say that CNN didn’t contact the police? I saw where they chose not to report his calls, but assume from the article it was on the TV they chose not to report…to not give him the publicicty he wanted</p>
<p>where does it say exactly that CNN never told the police</p>
<p>the word REPORT doesn’t just refer to the police, it can be to the public</p>
<p>that is how I read the report - they didn’t publicize to the world the subsequent calls, that does NOT mean they didn’t report them to the police</p>
<p>the reporting is not clear…</p>
<p>but of course lets bring in Arkansas…and ignore ROVE who is trying to blame the republican congress for Bush going to war…now THAT’s funny</p>
<p>I’m fully aware of the trampling Giuliani did. He had good points and bad points - on the whole I think bad points outweighed the good ones. I think Bloomberg for the most part has been terrific. (He reminds me a lot of our previous high school principal - they have exactly the same way of talking - it’s kind of unsettling.)</p>