Make your own Bill O'Reilly tantrum remix

Straight from the FOX Attacks! folks:

No doubt you've already seen this recently unearthed clip of Bill O'Reilly experiencing, um, temperamental technical difficulties on the set of Inside Edition during his pre-FOX days. The O'Reilly Factor really hasn't changed him that much - he's still the same unhinged, unstable, belligerent blowhard.

O'Reilly has tried to laugh this off, but there's plenty more fun to be had. Stephen Colbert released a clip of one of his own past freakouts, and Keith Olbermann invited an O'Reilly-type body language expert to talk about O'Reilly's dictatorial body language. Some terrific remixes of O'Reilly's meltdown have started surfacing, like this hilarious one from Barely Political; there's even been a dance remix.

So we at FOX ATTACKS! thought we'd invite all of you to submit your own O'Reilly Tantrum remixes! As you can see from the clips above, there are a lot of directions you could take this, so go for whatever you think is the funniest, most entertaining and adheres with the Fair Use doctrine. You can find a downloadable Quicktime version of the original clip here - the rest is up to you!

When you have finished your video, post it on YouTube and paste the URL into the comments section of our blog. Once we have enough videos, we'll put them on a page where everyone can view them and vote on them. There will be prizes for winners in multiple categories.

Can't wait to see what you guys come up with!

Billo is going to bust a blood vessel yet.

Sunday Funnies (on time this week)

The ugliest election

Open Source Dem, who hopefully will be more regular here with some Texas Democratic Party convention-related postings as we draw closer to the first weekend in June, submits the following ...

===================

“Recount” in your review and Salon sounds fascinating. I imagine it is possible to maintain decorous appearances on the street while actually fighting ferociously in the courthouse. My guess is that Warren Christopher and David Boies were just inept from either perspective.

What I remember from Jake Tapper’s coverage at the time was (a) the Florida Democratic Party attorney’s success with an expeditious and fair recount in Volusia County before the Washington/Tennessee team flew in and took over and (b) Tapper’s observation that those local “demonstrations” were staged by GOP operatives flown in from Washington and coordinated using DynCorp commo vans rolled out from Homestead AFB –- the ones we ordinarily use to stage coups in Latin America on behalf of particular concession-holders.

This coup-meme is a left-wing cliché today, but it was documented to a fare-thee-well by Alabama Senator BLOUNT and by General Smedley BUTLER during the nineteenth century.

(Senator BLOUNT was previously a Confederate General but appointed High Commissioner to sort out the coup in Hawaii. The coup stood but he freed the Queen and kept the natives from being entirely exterminated. General BUTLER was the retired Marine hired to overthrow FDR. He declined and, indeed, exposed his employers. The conspirators, too-big-to-fail bankers even then, decorously were not shot. But as a precautionary measure, Douglas McArthur was sent off to the Philippines with a commission in that not-the-US Army.)

The left/right narrative in our constitutional history seems less durable to me than the Federalist/Anti-Federalist one that only sort of tracks what little we have actually had of “responsible two-party government”. We have always had at least two parties, but they are usually in various coalitions.

Someday I think history will show that while he was not convicted in the Senate, Bill Clinton was under something like House arrest by the end. I recall that General Clark was forced out and the constitution was reversed from what it had been in 1876. Clinton did not use his military authority to keep order in Florida and force the matter at issue into the Congress, as had happened in the close election 124 years earlier. Who rolled the vans?

In any case, I think “overly decorous” is also a good description of our approach to election integrity here in Harris County, anything to avoid embarrassing Sylvia Garcia, Bill White, and now, Sue Lovell. I see these risk-averse individuals hanging back, while all those other poor suckers run for countywide election this year, unsupported by office-holders we supposedly already have. Yeah, the polls are all good. But, are we really going to storm the courthouse with no artillery or sappers at all? Is “decorous” the new “dumb”?

There are some major differences within the GOP coalition: Darbyites, Trotskyites, and Thatcherites. But the GOP is not decorous about clinging to power and can put aside their esoteric differences as well as our Constitution to do so. They however are very plain about the latter, never having consented to the principles of popular sovereignty or of universal suffrage, not in 1789, not in 1874, certainly not now.

The Darbyites, however, are suspicious of DRE machines and would be in an uproar over the VUID, if there was any public controversy over it. I do not understand why we whine over marginalia and provide cover for the GOP on election integrity matters rather than trying to drive a wedge among them.

The “winning elections” meme of Democrats habitually collaborating with the GOP and not willing to fight for those, or any, principles at all seems like a suicide pact to me. How can a Republican or Democratic party expect to win elections without upholding popular sovereignty or universal suffrage? As Alexander Keyssar points out, they have always been contested, never established in this country or state.

Clinton to Remain in Race Until Obama is Assassinated

"I Can Still Win, If Somebody Were to Pop A Cap In His Ass"

"It's June, After All"

"Thank you for welcoming me here tonight."

I know that we are all proud of Barack Obama, who has risen from humble beginnings to such heights -- great heights, perilous heights. As you may know, 30% of serious accidents occur from a height of 10 feet or above.

And so we now set out together on our journey -- a journey of hope, a journey of change, and yes, a journey of great demands. For the presidency places great demands on all of us -- err, those who hold the office -- we have seen how quickly it can age people, as in the poignant photographs of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was succeeded by Harry S. Truman while still in office.

In this journey, we have put forward our shared goals -- of expanded health coverage, against the unexpected and often fatal illnesses that can rob even those citizens that seem the healthiest of their ability to work, even of their lives. Of protection against unexpected attack on our country, often aimed at those who are placed in the most critical positions to lead this nation. Of conservation of our precious energy resources, without which, even the most powerful of us can wind up stranded in a desert motorcade, without food, water, or wireless reception to contact others for help. Of greater support for culture and the arts -- beginning with increased support for our very own Ford's Theatre here in Washington, DC.

Many of you will hear Barack speak later today, from a platform in Norman, Oklahoma -- a humble platform, a rickety platform, a platform susceptible to Norman's notoriously strong and unexpected winds. There -- God willing -- he will tell you of what we hope to accomplish. He will speak of the unity that he and I wish to achieve for this nation, just as Andrew Johnson and Lincoln strove for such national unity. And he will tell you of our wish for change.

Change. An important word. None of us can know the changes that will occur in our lives. None of us can predict what momentous events, what disasters may befall us. A simple damaged left engine turbine stabilizer in a campaign plane. A frayed electrical line dangling, unseen, from a remote access satellite hookup van. A safe, falling unexpectedly to the sidewalk from the 8th floor of the Hotel Aldion in Norman, Oklahoma.

And so we must dedicate ourselves, we must consecrate ourselves, to reach these most important national objectives today -- while we still can. And like Kennedy, Garfield, McKinley, and other Presidents before him, we know that Barack Obama will strive to achieve these goals -- in the face of the awesome unknowns that lie before us all.

Thank you."

Update (I thought I could do 'dark humour' better, so I did):

Hillary Clinton promised voters in South Dakota today that she would stay in the contest for the Democratic nomination "until this battle reaches its final solution." She further reassured her supporters, who have braved continuous rumors of the demise of her campaign, that she will continue "no matter what the polls say, no matter what the media says about me, no matter what. Whatever it takes, I'm in it to win it."

"I've been ready from Day One of this struggle to lead this nation, even the non-white working class Americans who have supported my opponent. I'm not going to let them, or anyone else, push me out now!" Clinton said to her cheering crowd of about forty Caucasian women over the age of fifty. "And because it's so important that every single state in this great nation gets an opportunity to vote for me, if this contest goes into the month of June with no obvious winner then I will declare myself the victor!"

"And if America has voted and I'm not the winner, I believe it's just as important that the Democratic Party has a 1-A choice for President, because the month of June in years ending with an 8 are usually bad for the front-runner. Unusually bad, in historic fact."

"So pay no heed to the naysayers, the pundits, the polls, the pledged delegates, the caucus states, the primary states, the popular vote, or even your head, heart or conscience. I am going to be the nominee. And nothing and nobody is going to stop me."

And all this time I thought she was praying for an aneurism

Responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race, she said: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it," she said, dismissing the idea of abandoning the race.

The response has been as any reasonable person might expect.

Even the statement about her husband campaigning to June of 1992 is false. Though he did not have had enough delegates to be the nominee until June, all of his meaningful opponents had dropped out and the race was basically over by early March. The 'campaigning' after that was for the general election.

Her statement that Bill Clinton was still campaigning in the primary in June, like the sniper fire episode in Bosnia, is just more historical revisionism.

But this -- what she said today as rationale for remaining in a contest she cannot win any other way -- was nothing short of inexcusable. It breaks down like this: if she had no malignant intent, then she is clearly not poised enough to be President. If she meant what it sounded like she meant, she is no one to be defended.

Imagine for a moment what the uproar would have been if the roles were reversed and Barack Obama had said: "I want to be Hillary's vice president, because, you know, JFK was assassinated in office."

One positive that I can see from all this: Obama has been freed of the burden of making Hillary his vice-presidential pick. He probably has been under a lot of pressure from party insiders to select her for the sake of unity. But after these comments, no one is going to hold it against him if he doesn't.

(As I post this Keith Olbermann is about to say it, in one of his Special Comments, better than any of the rest of us ever do. I'll update this post with it once it's online.)

Update:



Excerpt:

"I was discussing the Democratic primary history, and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged California in June in 1992 and 1968," she said in Brandon, South Dakota. "I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That's a historic fact.

"The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy. I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive, I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever."

"My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to and I'm honored to hold Senator Kennedy's seat in the United States Senate in the state of New York and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family."

Thanks. Not a word about the inappropriateness of referencing assassination. Not a word about the inappropriateness of implying - whether it was intended or not - that she was hanging around waiting for somebody to try something terrible.

Not a word about Senator Obama.

Not: I'm sorry.

Not: I apologize.

Not: I blew it.

Not: please forgive me.

God knows, Senator, in this campaign, this nation has had to forgive you, early and often. And despite your now traditional position of the offended victim, the nation has forgiven you.

We have forgiven you your insistence that there have been widespread calls for you to end your campaign, when such calls had been few. We have forgiven you your misspeaking about Martin Luther King's relative importance to the Civil Rights movement.

We have forgiven you your misspeaking about your under-fire landing in Bosnia.

We have forgiven you insisting Michigan's vote wouldn't count and then claiming those who would not count it were Un-Democratic.

We have forgiven you pledging to not campaign in Florida and thus disenfranchise voters there, and then claim those who stuck to those rules were as wrong as those who defended slavery or denied women the vote.

We have forgiven you the photos of Osama Bin Laden in an anti-Obama ad.

We have forgiven you fawning over the fairness of Fox News while they were still calling you a murderer.

We have forgiven you accepting Richard Mellon Scaife's endorsement and then laughing as you described his "deathbed conversion."

We have forgiven you quoting the electoral predictions of Karl Rove.

We have forgiven you the 3 a.m. Phone Call commercial.

We have forgiven you President Clinton's disparaging comparison of the Obama candidacy to Jesse Jackson's.

We have forgiven you Geraldine Ferraro's national radio interview suggesting Obama would not still be in the race had he been a white man.

We have forgiven you the dozen changing metrics and the endless self-contradictions of your insistence that your nomination is mathematically probable rather than a statistical impossibility.

We have forgiven you your declaration of some primary states as counting and some as not.

We have forgiven you exploiting Jeremiah Wright in front of the editorial board of the lunatic-fringe Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

We have forgiven you exploiting William Ayers in the debate on ABC.

We have forgiven you for boasting of your "support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans".

We have even forgiven you repeatedly praising Senator McCain at Senator Obama's expense, and your own expense, and the Democratic ticket's expense.

But Senator, we cannot forgive you this.

"You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

We cannot forgive you this -- not because it is crass and low and unfeeling and brutal.

This is unforgivable, because this nation's deepest shame, its most enduring horror, its most terrifying legacy, is political assassination.

Lincoln. Garfield. McKinley. Kennedy. Martin Luther King. Robert Kennedy.

And, but for the grace of the universe or the luck of the draw: Reagan, Ford, Truman, Nixon, Andrew Jackson, both Roosevelts, even George Wallace.

The politics of this nation is steeped enough in blood, Senator Clinton, you cannot and must not invoke that imagery! Anywhere! At any time!

And to not appreciate, immediately - to still not appreciate tonight - just what you have done, is to reveal an incomprehension of the America you seek to lead.

This, Senator, is too much.

Because a senator - a politician - a person - who can let hang in mid-air the prospect that she might just be sticking around in part, just in case the other guy gets shot - has no business being, and no capacity to be, the President of the United States.