She also committed her act before the vast majority of posters here, myself included, were born, and has no relevance for what any liberal today or of the last 20 years does. It's like me condemning Republicans for selling arms to Iran. They're generally not supportive of that now. Whether the individual carries on and supports candidates, when she has no influence or respect, is not relevant, any more than the Westboro Baptist Church defines Republicans.
If by some chance she were relevant now, she'd be condemned by everyone.
The anti-war movement of the 1960s is not identical as the anti-war movement of the 2000s, although a few older people now overlapped. There was nothing like Kent State because there was no draft, for example.
Well, of course, there are no identical times and periods is US history, even if radical movements share some common origins (you might recall that the Iraq/Vietnam comparison was made by Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy on the Senate floor).
But of course, I'm not the one who put her on TV. If you read the article and watch the video you'll see how MSNBC treated her like a relatively sympathetic figure, and so did Huffington post, and the assassin claims her actions are 'understandably wrong'. I personally wouldn't give someone who tried to kill a US President the time of day, but that's just me.
It's certainly curious to be outraged at so called rhetorical violence, but not quite as much at actual violence, especially given this thread's references to the history of violence. I think we should understand the origins of the violent left if we are going to ensure it doesn't reappear.
