The second question was about an Arizona professor and 9/11 conspiracy theorist who staged a hunger strike outside McCain's office requesting a meeting with the senator. McCain said the professor ended his strike although he was refused an audience.Obviously the word "threat" must have sent a few tingles up the legs of the truthers but when some zealot parks himself outside an office and demands an audience or he'll starve, that's pretty much a threat. It's the same type of intimidation Cindy Sheehan tried on Bush. Everyone knows if they get their audience nothing will come from it except publicity for the cause (he didn't tell the truth, etc, etc).
"I did not" meet with him, McCain said. "Because I don't take well to threats."
These people are unstable but their confrontations can sometimes provide a useful window into our elected leaders' reactions to unscripted verbal assaults. McCain was fairly cool in that video. By contrast, we've seen Bill Clinton's technique, ironically much more confrontational than the presumed warmonger.
How about Barack Obama? After all, he's the man of change so it would seem logical they'd either hitch their wagons to his campaign or if rebuffed, go after him with a vengeance. The truth on this seems a little fuzzy. Here's an encounter from awhile back (happens towards the end). Notice Obama said he didn't think some of their issues had merit and the interviewer simply said "thanks for answering". That's pretty tepid compared to how other politicos have been treated.
Hmm. Maybe these nuts are smart enough to understand that the easiest way to discredit their entire movement would be to hound a well-liked populist promising the very same thing they are demanding--change. Let's not forget the color angle, either. Most truthers seem to be white. Too much harassment of Obama might lead to a charge of racism, which could pigeon-hole their movement into the same gutter as occupied by the Ayrian nation, neo-Nazis, and KKK. Perhaps best to wait and confront him after the election.