Via HuffPost Hill:
Bill Clinton in an interview set to air on BBC World News tonight: "On the 15th Anniversary of the Oklahoma City incident, in April, I wrote an essay in which I said I could see this level of anger rising as it did once before when I was elected, and that no one intends to do anything that encourages this sort of behaviour -- and I think it's wrong for anyone to suggest it. But we cannot be unaware of the fact that, particularly with the internet, there's this huge echo-chamber out there, and anything any of us says falls on the unhinged and the hinged alike, and we just have to be sensitive to it."I'm not sure whether anyone "intends" for people to use guns on their political opponents, but I'm also not sure that they give it much thought either way. It's almost as if they don't care. To wit: Palin continuing to use her gun imagery, and gun language, when asked to stop by the woman her bullseyes were targeting. She simply didn't care what the repercussions were, or didn't believe they were possible. The same way she and McCain didn't care what might happen when they told their gun-toting followers that Obama palled around with terrorists (and also didn't seem to care that their followers were showing up at Obama rallies with their guns). Anyone could tell that it wasn't a very safe combination - enraged McCain/Palin lemmings and guns - but it's as if McCain and Palin either didn't care, or had some bizarre notion that nothing bad could ever come of it.
Either way, even if it's not intentional, it certainly sounds negligent.
