That’s great news!

PS: Looks like the Google Ads are going crazy trying to find her, too.

As we explored a little in the Rumper Room, this seems to be a two-pronged attack, both from opportunists of the first water:

Christ, that gives Peter Dauoche’s persistent pearl cramming a run for the money.

From the same post by KendallJ—I’ve seen this cynical twist on Olbermann’s original remark several times now:

if white commentators referred to taking him “out back in the woods” and only the white guys come back, people would assume that they were referring to lynching him.

In the actual on-air segment, Howard Fineman suggested that some major Dem player needed to step in and tell Hillary it was time to stop playing games with the delegate math and concede the primary for the good of the party. Olbermann agreed, and casually invoked an “offer she can’t refuse” scenario:

Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.

As we all remember, that precipitated a clown-horn chorus of outrage over the use of “violent imagery” in the proximity of St. Hillary.

It was dumb then, but it’s even dumber now that the vastly more incendiary misremembered version is propagating freely on PUMA blogs, unchallenged and uncorrected by the Comment Wardens.

Also. From that Hot Air thread:

Having broken my right elbow (twice), I can verify that the only difficult thing to do is wipe your a**.

...

Flyover Country on July 6, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Given the quality of analysis on offer, I’d need to see evidence that this difficulty was solely the result of the injuries.

I guess the Nutty Professor at Legally Insane can cancel his Amber Alert for our Invisible SOS.

Strange, btw, I swear I meant to add Jacobson (and Peretz) to the post but forgot. Don’t want you to think I pinched w/out crediting. Saw your comment after I updated.

KK, the thought never even crossed my mind.

But now that it has, I’m really crabbed-off.

Given the quality of analysis on offer, I’d need to see evidence that this difficulty was solely the result of the injuries.

Comment by YAFB on 07/08/09 at 09:41 AM

Tee hee.

Sorry - it looks like it’s set to be a long day here.

Purple Pose may have been banned. But gdaddo has decided that she’s Betty Cracker, and proudly quoted all the media outlets foolish enough to have interviewed NAGhead Amy, as if that lent Amy credibility that Betty lacked.

I do know that Purple Pose would have pointed out that Michelle Malkin is also interviewed on those same outlets, and her blog traffic dwarfs the NAG, therefore by gdaddo’s standard, the NAGhead isn’t fit to polish Michelle’s patent leather jackboots. Unless, by the increasing similarity of their views, particularly concerning the weakness of Hillary, Amy Siskind IS Michelle Malkin.

I also am in possession of the knowledge that by mistaking Purple Pose for Betty Cracker, gdaddo flattered the hell out of Purple Pose. Made her day, in fact.

gdaddo exhibits all the symptoms and finesse of a would-be wingnut (bold mine):

YAFB, the comment button at Amy’s should really be exchanged with the rumproast one, since we don’t wipe comments or ban commenters: Amy’s shouldn’t say “Speak your mind”, it should either say “submit” or “Speak Amy’s Mind”.

Since gdaddo proudly references Amy’s work on the Sullivanians, a cult within which she had the misfortune to be raise, I will remark here that it’s a shame to have survived that only to found another organization where dissent is banned.

If the NAG spent as much time actually promoting women’s and girls’ rights, as Amy does as a talking cablehead, they might be a useful organization.

Like NOW, for instance. Which wants no part of these PUMAs without pawprints.

Mrs. Polly, you just said that so much more kindly than I ever would have. I would have gone straight for “You can take the girl out of the cult, but you can’t take the cult out of the girl.”

I left a comment about Palin and Lyda Green over at NAG’s Place (wondering if they would target the shock jocks who giggled with Sarah over that “bitch” and “cancer” in the way they so successfully put David Letterman out of business), but I assume it didn’t make it through moderation and don’t care enough to check. They know they are cowards and hypocrities and liars in their “defense” of Palin, and we know that they know it. Though I wonder, given all the bandwidth Palin’s defenders spend on promulgating the nonsensical theory that we’re “afraid” of Palin’s “strength,” why they are so “afraid” of showing any dissenting viewpoints themselves? Are these warrior women or hothouse blossoms we’re talking about?

Okay, my comment is still up for now. I’m sure I’d be banned if I cared to return. I’ve never encountered a group so desperately in need of a faux-Mommy figure to kiss their boo-boos for them.