This one, in particular, sounded pretty wierd:
“GOD WILL GUIDE THE HAND OF JUDGMENT THAT WILL STRIKE YOU DOWN!
Do not email us again. Thank you.” — from Carolyn Warner, Arizona Super Delegate and former state senator, to a Democratic voter who requested that she help make sure that the Convention includes an open roll call vote as in years’ past, July 18, 2008.
Via Avi Zenilman, posting at Ben Smith's place at Politico, I followed a link to Rum, Romanism and Rebellion, where "Tedski" took the extra step of contacting Ms Warner about the email.
Apparently, the email is not from her:
I gave Warner a call, because, frankly, this didn’t sound much like her. I was interested in seeing what kind of e-mail she recieved that would have prompted this response. She was quite offended. She told me flat out that she didn’t write any such e-mail. She made it clear to me that she doesn’t take the Lord’s name in vain, and what I’ve seen of her over the last twenty years, I believe her. Despite her gruff voice, she’s a class act, polite and level headed. Would I have sent this reply? Probably. Would Warner? Nope.
Darragh herself showed up in the comments over there, defended her story, and posted what she said was the text of the email exchange between the PUMA member and Ms Warner:
———- Forwarded message ———-
From:
Date: Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Subject: RE: Obama surrogates are making death threats and he does nothing
about it. He is not qualified to be president. You must save our country and
vote for Senator Clinton.
To: Ton*****“GOD WILL GUIDE THE HAND OF JUDGMENT THAT WILL STRIKE YOU DOWN!”
Do not email us again.
Thank you.——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Obama surrogates are making death threats and he does
nothing about it. He is not qualified to be president. You must save our
country and vote for Senator Clinton.
From: “Ton****” gmail.com>
Date: Fri, July 18, 2008 2:28 pm
To: cwarner@car*******.comThere is no hate in my messages. I am telling you that ordinary citizens
are being threatened just because they do not believe Senator Obama is
qualified to be president. How you interpreted that to be hateful I do not
know.
Darragh's intro to the above email states:
As you can see, the original email from our Puma PAC member was neither provocative nor rude. I would never knowingly publish an unfounded rumor or accusation against any person — public or private.
Depends on your definition of "provocative," doesn't it?
I'm thinking if I'm a DNC member, and I get an email with a subject line accusing the Democratic party's nominee for President of sending his minions out to make death threats against random people on the internet, I'd consider that a little provacative. Bordering on paranoia and conspiracy theory, actually.
Especially when the "subject line" of said email - is three fucking lines long. Anyone else listen to Stephanie Miller? Heard her bit on Republicans and email - "Lurleen, how do I get the words in the big box?" Just saying.
Secondly, it's not exactly rocket science to take an email you've received, forward it to someone else, and modify the text of the original email to say anything you want it to say. And if it's a matter of credibility, let's just say that I'd take the word of the DNC member over some random PUMA who's accusing Obama of condoning death threats.
Besides, we all know that Ms Murphy seems to be a little hung up on the idea of death threats, m'kay? How do we know that email wasn't fabricated by her?
What's the deal, Darragh? Sounds to me like you've been caught in a lie, and the evidence you've offered up in defense of that lie is pretty flimsy, and could easily have been forged (by you) to prop up your story.
Your credibility has been taking a real beating lately, hasn't it? And your sheeple are dropping like flies.
UPDATE:
It's been brought to my attention in the comments that what Darragh submits as supposedly the "first" email in this exchange, must be a response to a previous email. It has "re:" in the subject line, and the line "There is no hate in my messages" - is obviously referring to what must have been Ms Warner's response to the sender's original email. Which Darragh doesn't bother to include.
Why not? Darragh, what are you hiding? What did your PUMA say to Ms Warner that she thought was "hateful"?
Maybe it's time for someone to ask Ms Warner if she saved those emails.
6 comments:
Yes, she's a liar, but as a long-time McCain supporter, she probably thinks of her fabrications as part of "covert operations" rather than bald-faced lying.
Wonk: you missed the most telling part (unless I am reading the e-mails backwards) "there is no hate in my message" that can ONLY be a response to something in the reply, the reply that was posted does not even contain the word "hate" just the god and justice nonsense. Therefore, my guess would be the response was "please stop sending me hate mail" or some such thing, and as you said the response was changed to suit PUMA's purposes. Just a thought.
Litlebritdifrnt
Actually, what happened here is Darragh was being willfully dishonest (surprise!). You'll notice she didn't provide the full email thread. There was obviously at least one more previous instance of back and forth between Warner and the PUMA (look at the "re:" in the subject line). What probably happened was the PUMA sent the text of the alleged threat Murphy received on July 15th (further explained here). You'll notice at the second link the post title is "GOD WILL GUIDE THE HAND OF JUDGMENT THAT WILL STRIKE YOU DOWN!" (the text of the "threat"). So what happened was that one of Murphy's flying monkeys copy and pasted that quote into an email and sent it to Warner (and probably other SD's) as proof that Obama's supporters are threatening Hillary supporters. Warner then sent a reply that we haven't seen yet and then the thread concluded with what we got from Murphy (blockquoted in Wonks post). It's fairly obvious, looking at it that way, that Warner was merely quoting the threat from the original email (notice it's in all caps like Murphy's post title) from the flying monkey.
And to make it even more confusing (but revealing), we have this new "teaser" for the upcoming PUMA documentary where Darragh reveals that the person who threatened her ("HAND OF JUDGMENT") at first asked for her help to kill Obama (yeah, I know ... makes no sense). That was confirmed by one of the filmmakers at Yes to Democracy after Betty (and I) asked questions about the threat:
Betty,
Yes, she reported the caller. There was only one caller for people who are confused. He started off talking to her about having Obama assassinated and then switched the conversation into a death threat against her. The point of that story isn't that all Obama supporters are deranged cultists, but that the drama of this election is attracting the mentally ill and encouraging them to act out. Standing up for clinton will draw the attention of the mentally weak.
Posted by:Lori | August 04, 2008 at 08:37 PM
So, if this person really exists, he's obviously a crazy person and not representative of Obama's supporters, but Murphy and her minions seem to think that Obama should be held accountable for every deranged person in America now. And, without a doubt, Murphy's portrayal of Warner's response was underhanded and thoroughly dishonest.
Kevin, and anon - you are exactly right ... I posted that very late last night and that point went right over my head.
That's what I get for thinking that throwing up a blog post at 1:30 in the AM would be a good way to pass the time while waiting for the water to stop leaking into my basement.
Thank god my boss decided to work from home home today.
betty, I love your name. :)
What's a shame is that Warner has been smeared with this deception by Murphy all over the place by Murphy and her flying monkeys. If you Google the "HAND OF JUDGMENT" quote you'll see it's attributed to Warner everywhere (including by the Freepers, the PUMAs' bestest buddies ever).
FWIW, I sent Darragh an email tonight asking if she would be kind enough to release the earlier emails in the email chain she had posted at Rum, Romanism & Rebellion.
You know, so we could tell whether or not they were "provocative."
Not holding my breath.
Post a Comment