Hillary Clinton Analogizes RFK's Assasination

by: Matt Stoller

Fri May 23, 2008 at 16:47


Here's Hillary Clinton, classing up the joint.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.

Clinton is not going to get a majority of the delegates, but it appears she's not going to drop out on the off chance that someone might kill Obama.  Howard Wolfsen clarified:

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson defended the comments to The Post, "She was talking about the length of the race and using the '68 election as an example of how long the races in the past have gone -- she used her husband's race in the same vein."

In some sense, what he's saying is right.  The call to drop out is premature by the standards of the 1992 and 1968 race.  But her staying in the race has no precedent, since in both of those cases the race was not decided.  It's not like Hubert Humphrey was waiting around in case someone went off and shot RFK, or Bill Clinton was hoping he could convince superdelegates to override the will of the voters in a clearly losing strategy.  There were still primaries going on that could have a significant impact on the outcome of the race.

2004 is a better analogy.  Did John Edwards or Howard Dean wait around, musing that perhaps John Kerry would be killed, even though he was clearly going to lock up the majority of the delegates?  Of course not.  They lined up behind the winner.

Look, I don't feel that strongly that Clinton should drop out, she will do what she wants, and I think she will unite behind Obama because it's the smart thing to do.  Still, the assassination talk is, shall we say, suggestive of an extreme lack of character.
Matt Stoller :: Hillary Clinton Analogizes RFK's Assasination

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Hillary Clinton Analogizes RFK's Assasination | 74 comments
At The Very Least (4.00 / 2)
This will probably knock her down a few notches on the VP short list.

At worst, this is a big enough gaffe that it could force her to suspend her campaign earlier than planned.

She has jumped the biggest shark on Earth with this one. (4.00 / 6)
Hillary Clinton just jumped Jaws.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.
LOLZ! (4.00 / 1)
THAT is a great line!

She just jumped Jaws.

*-Fresh-*

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
thanks. yeah, i cannot think of a bigger shark to jump than "assassination." (4.00 / 1)


For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.
[ Parent ]
LOLZ! another great line (0.00 / 0)
mmm... good roast beef too. I'll have to come back.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Look at what she said in March .. (0.00 / 0)

http://www.time.com/time/natio...

It's hard to see this as a one time thing .. given she now has a history

[ Parent ]
"The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days" (4.00 / 2)
is what she said as a rationale for why she brought up the assassination now.  So were the Kennedys on her mind in March also?

Her apology for this Freudian slip is as insufficient and mendacious as her apology/explanation of her Bosnia break from reality.

Conclusion: Sen. Clinton is temperamentally unfit for the office of the presidency.

Slacking toward the apocalypse

[ Parent ]
Put her on the back bench... (4.00 / 4)
... in the Senate.  The Clinton name has rightly become toxic.  

I'm hard-pressed to think of another campaign where assassination has been bandied about.

Lee Atwater approves.

I can see what she was trying to say.. (4.00 / 1)
but that doesn't matter.  It sounds like she's waiting around for an assassination.  She's really waiting around for something cataclysmic to happen with Obama's campaign; though what could come out NOW is beyond me when the campaign has been going on full-tilt for many, many months (it only seems like forever).

Even that description of what she meant is uncharacteristically off-message for Clinton; she doesn't want to say she's waiting around for something to happen.  The message is that she thinks she can still win (she probably doesn't, but that's not the point).

-New Mexico politics from the local perspective.

Well, hasn't she been? (4.00 / 2)
She's been saying she's staying in the race "in case something happens."  Tell me that hasn't meant two possibilities:  A major Obama flub/scandal or exactly this.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
It's not the first time she's mentioned it (0.00 / 0)
and I doubt she's staying in for that, but I have to wonder if she's trying to tell voters she's a safer bet for that very reason.

What a gaffe.  

It's about time.

[ Parent ]
As usual (0.00 / 0)
the truth doesn't matter?  
[ Parent ]
Hillary is toast (4.00 / 5)
This is the last straw. I don't think Hillary recovers from this, unless Obama himself comes out and throws her the biggest lifeline in the world.

At this point, I think Hillary has disqualified herself from the nomination EVEN IF Obama were somehow taken out. In that case, his delegates should go to Al Gore or John Edwards. How can Hillary say this? It's incredibly offensive, not to mention a bad analogy. Democrats did not unite in 1968. There were riots at their convention.

I think Hillary is going to face a Bosnia-level wave of bad press over this. She's done.

And let's hope a wave of superdelegates (4.00 / 2)
I was willing to let her go to June 3, but this should push more supers to Obama, especially to switch sides.  I really do think he will win the last 3 primaries, which puts her in the position of going out a loser.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
gaffes (4.00 / 2)
Tuzla, hardworking white Americans, now this....and Obama's big screw up was "bitter/cling".....

there's no competition in the relative gravity (or number) of the verbal miscues.  I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting.  This is part of the reason why Clinton has lost this race.  

Even though the first two occured after Obama had pulled ahead in delegates, it's indicative of candidate message talent.  She's decidely inferior, and it's demonstrable, unless you reject the premise.  When I reflect on her campaign, what I think of are these gaffes,but mostly just an endless sequence of tactical '96 Bill Clinton-like micropositions.  Kinda like the Kerry and Gore campaigns.

Obama haters make fun of "change" and "unity"....but people remember them. It's called message discipline.  That's a big part of why GWB overperformed in 2000.  That was one thing he did well.    

Wow, I guess she has the tinest of ears for politics and human decency. (0.00 / 0)
Lets have her say the same words to the Obama family, whose portrait hangs in her Senate office.
update title: assas"S"ination (4.00 / 1)

but she's wrong on the facts (4.00 / 7)
The fact that he was assassinated in June is irrelevant, given the length of the primary season that year.
The 1968 Democratic primary season lasted only 12 weeks, from March 12 in NH to June 11 in Illinois. There were only 15 contests.
http://www.geocities.com/Athen...

Yes it was at the end of the series of primaries, but comparing that to this year is absurd.

Also, in the Argus interview she said that people calling for a candidate to drop out or concede is "unprecedented", and "historically makes no sense". Huh? Perhaps in the case of one who has amassed as many delegates and votes as she has, but obviously not in general. Her logic and arguments are really falling apart.

-AL

Jesus (0.00 / 0)
I just wrote a long comment on Chris's diary about VP speculation about how Obama might be able to choose Clinton as VP without appearing weak.  But this . . . doesn't help her cause.

I don't know if I see this as a lack of character, but it certainly is a lack of political sense--a problem that seems to have become more and more apparent as the race has slipped away from her.  That's just a horrible analogy to make in all regards.  It does her campaign no favors.

Couple this with the beyond-annoying popular vote arguments that conveniently leave out four caucus states and allocates no votes to Obama in Michigan, and I simply get more and more frustrated with Clinton.  I don't think any of these actions are particularly reprehensible.  She's playing politics, and politics is often petty and stupid.  What strikes me more is how uneffective and even damaging some of these arguments seem from a political standpoint.  It's surprising, really, considering how smart a politician she is.

Is she really? (4.00 / 7)
She was the prohibitive favorite a year ago.  She had all the money and endorsements.  But she was out organized, out hustled and out fundraised.  And she has veered between smart and having a truly tin ear.  I'm no longer so sure she is that smart a politician.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
No, I Think She's Very Smart (4.00 / 2)
But I think she also ran up against a few problems.  One is that she had to run against another extremely smart and effective politician.  Another is that her political smarts were more applicable to past cycles rather than the current one.  She got caught in an environment in which multiple cracks in our social structure created a huge desire for change.  Her support of the AUMF and--maybe even more crucially--the Iran resolution gave Obama openings to come in and dominate the "Change" message and to cast doubt upon her judgment.

This won't be particularly popular to say here, but I also think sexism played its role.  Not by any means the only role, though.  Without the above issues, she would have already won the nomination.  But sexism also helped provide openings to run against her.

And yes, racism also had its effects on Obama--no question about that.  I tend to think Clinton took a bigger hit from sexism than Obama did from racism, but that's not really a provable point and I'm sure others would make the opposite case.

[ Parent ]
Agree (4.00 / 1)
Good analysis, especially that she was agsinst an at least equally smart politician and was tuned to a past cycle.  I think that there has clearly been sexism in the Chris Matthews mold.  But I also think that for many people (myself included) the intrusion of Bill into the campaign and the stuff around South Carolina did remind us of what we didn't like about the Clinton years, and sexism has nothing to do with that.  Lots of women don't support Clinton for reasons having nothing to do with sexism.  But yes, there has clearly been sexism from the Press,  but not from Obama or his campaign.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Largely Agree, Too (0.00 / 0)
South Carolina was a legitimate tipping point and there are plenty of women, and men, who don't support Clinton for reasons that have nothing to do with sexism.  I certainly am not making the case otherwise.

I don't totally agree there's been NO sexism out of Obama's camp, but I haven't noticed too much.  It's mostly been from outside forces.

[ Parent ]
Sexism? .. (4.00 / 1)
It's not sexism .. it's because people have been given good reasons, especially lately, to dislike the Clintons .. I'd vote for a woman president in heartbeat .. but Hillary is not one(at this point)
[ Parent ]
Yes, Sexism (4.00 / 1)
I didn't say you were sexist, Calvin, and I didn't say all Obama supporters are sexist.  But yes, Clinton has suffered to a degree from sexism.  And yes, she's suffered from her own mistakes.  And yes, there are plenty of people who have voted against her because of her politics, positions, etc. and not her gender.

I also said Obama has been hurt by racism, and I also did not say that every Clinton voter is racist.

Just because someone says that Clinton has suffered from sexism--which is true--does not mean that person is saying that anyone who didn't vote for her is sexist.

[ Parent ]
The most sexism I see by far ... (0.00 / 0)
is from the TradMed ... are there going to be one or two trolls in the Progressive blogosphere .. of course there are .. but guys like Russert and Tweety have gone way over the top  
[ Parent ]
"I don't know if I see this as a lack of character" -- Huh? (4.00 / 1)
"...I don't think any of these actions are particularly reprehensible...

...Only in America... Only in America...

[ Parent ]
I Think She's Being Stupid, Not Hateful (4.00 / 1)
I'm very skeptical that she made the argument because she actually thinks Obama could be assassinated and that will give her the nomination.  I think it was a very poor analogy to make the "anything can happen" argument.  Thus, I think it was a stupid political argument, but I don't see it as indicative of some moral failing.  Hence, not reprehensible.

If she literally is saying "Hey, who knows, Obama could be assassinated so why shouldn't I keep going?" then that's another thing.  I don't think that's what she was saying, though.

[ Parent ]
I guess my point is... (4.00 / 1)
If a candidate for say Prime Minister made a comment like this, say in, Canada or UK -- for stupidity reasons or whatever -- their chances for election, or even future political career would be TOAST...

What she said is beyond crass...  esp. from someone who is supposed to have amazing on the spot debatable skills...

[ Parent ]
Well, I Guess Here In America (0.00 / 0)
We just have the joy of hearing stupid political statements all the time.
[ Parent ]
Looks like the comment was Deliberate... (4.00 / 2)
She's said if before... so the excuse about having Kennedy on her mind is another HRC BS moment...

http://www.time-blog.com/swamp...

Shame that in America really really crass comments seem to have absolutely no consequences.  Hence Bush gets elected -- twice...  

[ Parent ]
she has plenty of character, some of it bad (0.00 / 0)
she reminds me of so many litigators I've met: any argument, no matter who tenuous, is usable, including "hey, you never know, you may need me later on" or "I'm the safer bet!"  
[ Parent ]
Her inevitable apology is funny too (4.00 / 1)
Story here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...

Among other things, she says that she was just preoccupied with the Kennedys recently:

"The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy," she added, referring to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's recent diagnosis of a brain tumor. "I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever.

"My view is that we have to look to the past to our leaders who have inspired us, give us a lot to live up to, and I'm honored to hold Senator Kennedy's seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York and have the highest regard for the Kennedy family," she said.

RFK Jr (4.00 / 2)
Didn't RFK Jr endorse her?  I'll be curious his reaction.  If HE comes out against her, she's in a lot of trouble.
[ Parent ]
This is the part that gives it away somewhat (0.00 / 0)
It's not just funny but rather looks suspiciously to me like another fib. Hmmm...why would Robert Kennedy be on her mind lately? I wonder...

I'm a firm Maddow-ist on this: Hillary is in it to win it and the logic of her argument, which she no doubt on some level believes by now, leads her to the convention. For Hillary, the only real vote that counts is the one at the convention.

Anyone in this situation believing they've got a real shot at it (which I admit is nothing more than a suspicion on my part), would no doubt have regularly entertained the possibility of something big happening. Pundits have been talking about it regularly -- her last hope is for something big and bad to happen to Obama.

[ Parent ]
Well... (4.00 / 2)
I don't think she intended offense, nor do I think she is waiting for that to happen per se...  But this was a STUPID STUPID GAFFE.  I don't know why she didn't bring up Hart in 84 or Kennedy in 80 or something like that.
yeah (0.00 / 0)
I'm inclined to give this a charitable reading, having seen the video.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/a...

Recommend you watch the video.

[ Parent ]
Where is SayItLoud (4.00 / 5)
I can't believe they're missing this.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
hahahaha (0.00 / 0)
Yes, I'd like to hear how this will doom Obama's candidacy once and for all.
[ Parent ]
Here is Clinton's next argument for not dropping out (0.00 / 0)
Obama could be diagnosed with a brain tumor.
Your comment reminds me of how bad the timing (0.00 / 0)
of her remark is for the Kennedy family.  She did apologize only to them, didn't she?
[ Parent ]
Beyond Stupid (4.00 / 3)
The remark was beyond stupid.  

For people over a certain age, the older voters she has appealed to in this race specifically, the two Kennedy Assassinations are just not something you remember in a public way without remembering the grim shock and profound sorrow of the days you learned about and absorbed the reality.  There are lots of those hard working white people in West Virginia who have three pictures on their walls, Granddaddy's FDR Picture and the two Kennedy's.  

(And if you are in Minnesota, you darn well better remember not to make any crass jokes about plane crashes.)

When you run for President, you run on a positive vision for what you will do for the country, not on the possibility of tragedy.  The comment tells us where her mind is right now -- hey, maybe lightening will strike him when he is walking from car to speaker's podium.  It is hardly a compelling vision for the country, and she needs to be confronted directly with this interpretation.  

Hillary or her staff have done this before -- we see references to the convention of 1968, where according to Carl Bernstein's book, Hillary was in the crowd on the Lakefront, and helped bandage up some of the wounded in the police riot.  Does she want a repeat?  The Party sure as hell doesn't want anything of the kind.  The polls show that Democrats increasingly are supportive of Obama -- apparently many of the Superdelegates are ready to move after next week, and this will only speed it up.  

Personally, I am ready for Vespers.  

[ Parent ]
Saying anything again (0.00 / 0)
Regardless of the suggestive nature, it is extremely poor taste to use this historical context for political positioning. Robert Kennedy was not a martyr for her presidential run.
She did mention other races (0.00 / 0)
Earlier in the segment on the press for her to drop out, HRC did, in fact, mention 1980, 1984, and 1992.

Here's an important note:  I watched the interview twice.  There's something weird about that media player.  First of all, I could never get it to begin at the beginning. Second, I heard some things the 2nd time around that I didn't hear the first time.  I didn't hear the segment about Native Americans the first time, nor did I hear the beginning of the "drop out" segment where HRC mentioned 1980, etc.  Something to keep in mind when relying on secondhand accounts.

What's offensive (4.00 / 5)
Is that, in apologizing for an obviously stupid gaffe, she apologizes to the Kennedys for talking about RFK getting shot, but not Obama, who she's more or less suggesting could get shot in the next 2-3 months.
Oops (0.00 / 0)
which isn't to say she shouldn't apologize to the Kennedys, but it's pretty crass to not include "her opponent" in that apology.
[ Parent ]
Small bad, big stupid (4.00 / 2)
I don't think what Hillary said was all that bad.  It is clear from the video she was thinking back to obvious roadmarkers people would remember.  She wants people to go "yea, that was in June, wasn't it."

But it was big stupid.  Clearly people are very sensitive to the notion Obama might be assassinated.  It is also insensitive to what the Kennedys are going through right now.  A politician as good as she is supposed to be doesn't say stuff like that.

How much life have you (0.00 / 0)
lived and do you get fooled often?  It's either that or you are the most protected, charmed person in the world.
[ Parent ]
Oh... he just has some 'blind spots' that's all... nothing serious (0.00 / 0)
...usually when it comes to HRC and how her fundraisers er... politically blackmail...
[ Parent ]
Huh? (0.00 / 0)
I'm an Obama supporter.  And a pretty strong one at that, who often gets pissed off at Clinton.  But this isn't one of those times.

I'm much more offended by her comparing the Florida vote to every bad thing that has happened in the past century than this comment.  This is just one of those comments that sounds bad and gives everyone an excuse to sound all offended.

[ Parent ]
Sorry, my friend (4.00 / 1)
But using the death of an icon to promote your campaign and analogizing it to your chances over your opponent DOES offend me. I do not know myself that Sen. Clinton was not speaking her mind and that she doesn't truly wish for the death of Sen. Obama to help ensure her win. I don't know if maybe she was trying to be humorous. I don't know if she wasn't just trying to think of something that seemed familiar. In any case, it's still offensive. It's not a "small bad" unless it's not that offensive, Mark, and to me, it's deeply so.

I don't say this to be theatrical; it really enrages me, as an African-American proud of Sen. Obama, as a person who has been continually wary of Sen. Clinton since her AUMF vote, as a person who wants a new America to emerge from the ashes of the shitstorm that we currently are living through somehow, it's sickening to hear someone running for president say something like that.

[ Parent ]
Hillary...Guns...White Racists...Assassination (4.00 / 3)
Let's face it, Hillary is a master of saying things but not saying them. You can argue for any number of meanings or intentions in her words...and they'd all be equally right or wrong. That's the genius of her rhetoric. She says things that can't reasonably be interpreted in any malign way, but if someone out there does get the worst possible interpretation and acts on it...well, it's certainly not her fault, is it? So okay, for the past month she's been out there COMPLETELY UNINTENTIONALLY sending out these subliminal messages that all seem to add up to a COMPLETELY UNINTENDED yet disturbing message. None of it is her fault, and nothing that happens subsequent to these messages can be said to be her responsibility.

Wow.

Paging Sigmund Freud! (4.00 / 2)
Off course it was a Freudian slip.  C'mon.  Even if she were sleep deprived, saying something in that condition reveals what one is REALLY thinking.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.
[ Parent ]
Give Hillary Some Sominex (0.00 / 0)
Seriously, the lady needs to get some sleep already. She sure is making a lot of "misstatements."
[ Parent ]
Also (0.00 / 0)
NOT THAT I'M SUGGESTING ANYTHING, but let's also not forget that, back in the early days of Obama's candidacy, one reason many black Democrats weren't backing Obama was specifically the fear that he would be assassinated. Coming after her super-subliminal message about white racists and Obama, well, boy, if Hillary were trying to send some kind of subtle message to black voters, WHICH SHE IS NOT, this would be a good way to do it.
[ Parent ]
Yup, (0.00 / 0)
assassination comments right on the heels of her march through Appalachia standing in the backs of pickup trucks, adding some twang to her voice, pounding back the brews and the boilermakers.

Makes you go hmmm.  

[ Parent ]
Please. (0.00 / 0)
You're either far, too kind or unaware that every happens for a reason.  Hillary isn't that stupid.
Look HRc intended nothing by this remark, no one could (0.00 / 0)
see anything good to come out of this remark, she and her entire team are kicking themselves for this horrible gaffe.

So it was a flub of the tongue, the result of thinkling on your feet in great stress for months, I don't know how many can do this, it is a grueling test of the people who attempt it. I can't get to the end of the sentence without professional editors crying in despair, and I think I'm pretty smart, on my good days.

But this pretty well closes out her chances on the ticket. When you pile up all small and great gaffes, it has to be clear, the Party cannot risk having her on the ticket.

In a similar vien, when you consider the pressure, the attacks, the chances for flubs, Obama has sailed through this cruel test with amazing aplomb.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

er... she used this Huckerbee-style talking point before.. (4.00 / 1)
in March with Time...

http://www.americablog.com/200...

gaffe er not so much...  class of sewer rat...

[ Parent ]
A Clinton themed Campaign talking point even? (4.00 / 1)
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), a vice chair of the Democratic Leadership Council, said, "I'll encourage [Obama] to ask, and if he does, for her to say yes."

He added, "She would be a good president if something ever were to happen to him. She'll deliver a heck of a lot of women in a lot of states."

h/t boomantribune.com


[ Parent ]
Maybe it's a matter of historical perspective, or maybe (0.00 / 0)
it's a just generational thing, Matt.  Those of us who were there remember the dates of some events, and associate less memorable events with them. (For the same reason that I remember today, almost forty-four years, six months and two days later, that I had debating practice after school on November 22, 1963).

So June 2, 1968 is a memorable date for those of us of a certain age, and, though it's just eleven days short of forty years ago, we remember vividly the date of that California Primary, and therefore remember that, with the convention coming up in August, the big-state primaries were still going strong into late June (NY, as I recall, was June 18, 1968).  

Hillary's point, though, was that if you believe, you fight until the fight is over.  That year, 1968, the insiders had picked Hubert Humphrey, and there were never enough delegates even in play to defeat him simply by accumulating delegates, because from the beginning superdelegates loyal to LBJ's heir apparent outnumbered all the delegates even up for election in those days before the McGovern Commission reforms.  The primaries were about demonstrating strength, and articulating message, not just about running up a delegate score. The convention, for good or for ill, was intended to perform a deliberative function, not just a coronation.  And with the two finalists this year so close that neither has enough elected delegates to achieve an outright majority, it's not necessarily a bad thing that the convention provide a deliberative function, and be a safety valve, this year.

Safety valve? Yes. You assume Hillary's referencing RFK's death was subliminal messaging.  I think if you had a longer perspective, you might not leap to that conclusion.  But even if it were, then the message is not that she wishes anyone ill, but that three months is an eternity in politics.  Do you remember Tom Eagleton? Do you remember what happened after Gerry Ferraro was hastily nominated?  For that matter, recall that on March 16, 2004, Jack Ryan, an attractive, charismatic, ex-Goldman Sachs multimillionaire, won the Illinois Republican primary for United States Senate, and was favored to win the general election for the open seat, until on June 25, 2004, only 100 days later, scandalous allegations from his ex-wife ended his candidacy, after which his opponent, a certain Barack Obama, coasted to election over Ryan's carpetbagger replacement.

Are you sure enough right now that nothing will happen in the next 100 days to make us wish for a Plan B?  How can any of us be sure that the national press won't "discover" the what the Chicago Trib has been covering in depth? Or that that story, or some other, won't explode with new details and a compelling narrative?  I'm not prepared to bet my country on the proposition that the "vetting" process has been completed. Let's just let the process play out, according to the rules, and see what Denver brings.    

I didn't realize that (4.00 / 2)
if you dropped out of the Democratic Primary, you could never be considered for President, even if the nominee dropped dead of a heart attack.  She knows just as well as anyone that if something bad happened to Obama, she would be next in line regardless if she drops out now or at the convention.  
[ Parent ]
Oh please (4.00 / 1)
So by that logic no candidate should ever drop out of a primary because you just never ever know...I mean, the 15 people in front of you could just, you know, die.  Just like that.  And then, there's the party, grateful and waiting for you.
[ Parent ]
Shorter Hillary Clinton: (0.00 / 0)
"My path to victory is your death."
My less snarky response (0.00 / 0)
Anything could happen to the nominee in any election. He or she could fall ill, for example. Why single out assassination? And would her dropping out of the race prevent the party from handling any unforeseen contingency? I'm sure the party would figure out a backup plan if its nominee couldn't run for any reason.
[ Parent ]
Correction (0.00 / 0)
"And would her dropping out of the race prevent the party from handling any unforeseen contingency?"

should read

"And why would her dropping out of the race prevent the party from handling any unforeseen contingency?"

[ Parent ]
Jesus, Matt (4.00 / 1)
You "don't feel that strongly that she should drop out..."??? Whats it going to take, Matt - a dead candidate?
Racism and Sexism (0.00 / 0)
Both of these campaigns have broken ground, and both have faced incredible difficulties with folks that would not vote for them because of their race or gender.  My impression is that Obama has handled the issue of race with amazing dignity; Clinton has not handled the sex issue nearly as well.

The real issue has been that the Clinton campaign has done almost everything they could do to make race an issue.  The most offensive remarks were spoken by Bill Clinton (after the SC primary) and by Geraldine Farraro.

The assassination remark is subtle racism, and it is not acceptable behavior.  Hillary is too experienced to make such a mistake.  Her lack of an apology implies she is unwilling to admit fault.  We have had 7 years of a President that did terrible things and never admitted any mistakes.  

What a shame that such a gifted person who could have made such a great contribution to lifting the glass ceiling for women would end her campaign on such a low note.  

She still has time to reclaim her legacy.  Ted Kennedy made a serious mistake earlier in his life, and he has become one of the greatest Senators in the history of the country.  I hope that Senator Clinton can reclaim her calling to serve, and that she will help President Obama pass legislation that will restore our country from these past years of shame.  

It's a shame either had to "handle" anything (0.00 / 0)
Both of these campaigns have broken ground, and both have faced incredible difficulties with folks that would not vote for them because of their race or gender.  My impression is that Obama has handled the issue of race with amazing dignity; Clinton has not handled the sex issue nearly as well.

While I think this assessment is true, what does it mean to our country that someone who isn't a White Male has to "handle" the issue of their identification with dignity or grace in order to be taken seriously?  That Obama plays the role of the "magic Negro" better than Clinton plays the role of the "magic woman" may speak well of his chances in November, but that either had such a prerequisite speaks very poorly of us as a nation.  Basically, as the rest of this site reminds us daily, no matter what happens this Election Day, we still have a lot of work to do.

As for the comments:  Does anyone seriously think she was trying to say "hey, you never know, Obama might get shot"?  Seriously?  I mean, like if this were an election in another country (PRI's analysis of the national news media's lack of intenational coverage notwithstanding), and a candidate who was obviously tired said something like this, mentioning a primary in history where the election was still up for grabs but also mentioning a tragic event that happened at that primary in the same breath, would you think that candidate was truly wishing for their opponent's demise?  Really?  No, I mean really?  Really really?

I thought I'd see something on this site more in line with the rest of its analysis of the media coverage in this race, because it seems obvious to me that, if it's clear that Clinton wasn't wishing for anything to happen to Obama, then 24/7 coverage that states "Clinton references RFK assasination in talking about primary race" is irresponsibly inaccurate in describing what she was talking about.  In other words, this is another example of the media injecting itself into the campaign rather than just covering it.

I will agree that the apology needed to be an actual apology (i.e., not the "I'm sorry if I offended anyone" formulation), and required something along the lines of "I was only trying to say that primaries going into June are nothing unusual", but there's a kabuki quality to the hysteria over the original comment that I thought readers here would see through.

PS:  Looking over what I've written, there's a bit of a conundrum:  We've seen the Republicans run this sort of kabuki outrage over comments made by Democrats over and over again, so by extension, I should be saying that Clinton should not have apologized at all.  Yet, that doesn't sit right with me, even though I know (and I truly believe everyone knows) that she isn't hoping for Obama to be assassinated.  I suppose what would fit would be to respond with quasi-kabuki outrage with something like "anyone with a whiff of common sense knows that I don't want anything to happen to any candidate for the President of the United States, or any other office for that matter".  Anyway, it's 3am here, so I'm just going to leave it as is.

PPS:  Oh, and for the "anti-troll" trolls who have been knocking anyone on this thread who tries to let common sense prevail on this particular item:  I'm an Obama supporter.  Really.  Yes, really really.

[ Parent ]
Kabuki Theater (0.00 / 0)
It's not false outrage.  It's a genuine feeling of "I cannot believe she just said that out loud," followed by "that's not an apology, it's a challenge."

She was not "fatigued".  Nor can she claim she didn't know what it was going to trigger.  I'm sure Penn focus-grouped that sentence back in March when she said it the first time, and told her it wouldn't play any better than bills "Fairy Tale" and "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina" statements did (as evidenced by her using the same statement, without the RFK reference, repeatedly in the next week, it was a memorized talking point that was altered on purpose).

And this is not Howard Dean or Bill Clinton we're talking about, nor were they ad-libbed remarks that happened to get recorded.  She was being very precise about what she said and how she said it.  She wanted Obama supporters angry. She wanted her supporters confronted by incoherent rage they didn't understand, even if it shook some of them from their support and turned SD's against her.  It's a declaration of "scorched earth" politics.  She didn't get what she wanted, so she's bringing the whole thing down.

Full disclosure: I was anti-Clinton long before I was pro-Obama.  So I'm disposed to see everything she does as part of an effort to further a devious agenda.

[ Parent ]
"Heuristic" rather than "false" outrage (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for the discaimer at the end, because it's that element of belief in unending deviousness that I'm trying to get at.

I'm about to read Paul Rosenberg's take on this, which from the front page part seems to lay blame squarely at Clinton's feet, but, again, it's the belief in Clinton as the indefatiguable, utterly devious other, who people here seem to believe would stoop so low as to wish for Obama's assassination that I think we all ought to examine.

[ Parent ]
The line? It's back there, somewhere (0.00 / 0)
There's a lot of people who support Barack and have been afraid of an assassination all along.  Her "I shouldn't drop out because sometimes frontrunners die" (which is the very most generous honest interpetation you can give what she said) brings all of that to the fore.

Following it up with the apology to everyone but those fearing an Obama assassination, that crosses the line.  And her supporters that don't see that line has been crossed, and keep backing her and trivializing their anger?  None of Barack's supporters are going to give a damn about their feelings anymore.

We just crossed from "kitchen sink" to "scorched earth".  Either Obama will win in spite of the Clintons and everyone who continues to support them, or the whole party gets burned to the ground.  No more "healing the rift", let the bridges burn.

Against my better judgment (0.00 / 0)
I feel almost compelled to agree with you. I am getting more and more tired with Clinton apologists with each new episode.
[ Parent ]
What A Pathetic Loser... (0.00 / 0)
you are.

Oh she may say she does, but her sewer dwelling surrogates will be pulling every trick in the book to be sure he loses.

She is a deranged pychopath that is playing to run against McCain in four years.

Look at her RFK gaffe.  What Gaffe?  It is exactly what she wants her base to think about, and probably the light bulb went out in one of her followers.

Just to clarify, I'm sure Hillary has people that believe she is doing everything for the right reason.

But a whole lot of people aren't voting for her, they are voting against the muslim that wants to sell America to Bin Laden.


Hillary Clinton Analogizes RFK's Assasination | 74 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox