the third--and last--post about this story (unless of course it's not)

[this was actually a comment to another blogger's post about what he sees as over-the-top hillary-bashing re her assassination remarks; because i make a point about this story i haven't seen made anywhere else (and because it's the only thing i've written in the last two goddam days), i'm making it a post of my own.]

here's the thing--before she pulled this latest rabbit outta her seemingly bottomless hat, this subject got no airtime. people might have discussed it around the water cooler at work, but any tv or radio talk-show host--or, for that matter, any caller--who even dared make an on-air reference to assassination in the context of this election could probably have expected a visit from the secret service.

but then hillary, a public figure, opened her big fat mouth and, in a very crass and deliberate way (remember, she said it twice), did for assassination pretty much exactly what her horndog husband inadvertently did for fellatio--i.e., transformed, in one fell swoop, what was once a taboo subject into a legitimate news story. now everybody's freely talking about it, and god only knows how many nutjobs are out there listening.

and that, i think, is what bothers most reasonable people about this situation.