A man with a history of mental illness took hostages yesterday and some commenters jump to their usual conclusions:
Swampcracker: Although it is not logical to blame the actions of a disturbed person on the political leadership of this country; nevertheless, I do blame the leadership for their "take-no-prisoners" partisanship of the past 7 years.
The Republican field of candidates have been especially two-faced in joking about the use of the "B" word and pandering to it when they should have condemned it.
This kind of political rhetoric appeals to our worst instincts ... and the most unhinged and emotionally unstable elements within our society.
It turns out the man is mentally ill and was scheduled for a domestic violence hearing yesterday. He wanted to talk to Hillary Clinton about mental health care.
Unlike the kook fringe, I figured that this man went to Hillary's campaign headquarters for reasons other than that he was a white man, a redneck, a Republican, a misogynist or...well, you get the idea. But, unfortunately, if your ideology is based on paranoia and fear, then you assume everybody else is the same way.
It's a good thing Republicans have better mental health than others. We don't have to do this stuff.
UPDATE: Americanneocon, in the comments, points to this terrific analysis by Ann Althouse of Hillary Clinton's reaction to the event. I agree with her 100%; Hillary's reaction is totally inappropriate. She could have used the opportunity to say something political ("I'd like to include mental health care in my plan," etc., etc.), but, instead, went to the emotional ploy, which I don't think works for her anyway. She says she reacted "like a mother." WTH does that mean? I don't want a Commander in Chief reacting emotionally when making foreign policy decisions. I want someone shrewd and calculating, constantly concerned about America's interests. Save the tears for private life.
|