« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Assassins' Gate
Among my plans for the weekend was to blog about the electoral college math for November. The title--I had a title ready and everything--was going to be "We Don't Need Her." I've been playing with electoral college calculators and polling data and, notwithstanding Hillary's insistance that only she can win the big states and the Republican strategists quoted on Politico as saying they think they can pull off a Republican blowout (god, that one's like Idiotic--it just doesn't stop being funny), I've come to the conclusion that the GOP is hosed. All very interesting stuff. It was going to be all about Virginia and the states out west of the Mississippi that Obama puts into play and how she doesn't really do anything for us if she's on the ticket.
Then, late yesterday afternoon, Hillary rendered the whole thing moot, because one of the immutable laws of politics is that trailing presidential candidates who use the word "assassinated" in the answer to the question "why are you still in the race" don't get to be vice president. Regardless of what you meant, or whether you meant anything, it doesn't matter. No president wants a morbid veep, especially not one with thousands of aggreived supporters.
So we've had ourselves a good big ol hissy fight over it, possibly the biggest ever here. The Clintonites are here gamely defending her comment, insisting that it doesn't mean anything, while the Obama supporters are split between the "revealing Freudian slip" camp, the calculated attempt to instill doubt camp and the "now, now, let's give her yet another break because I'm sure she didn't mean anything about it." But it doesn't matter. Her veep gambit is over and she knows it and so do Bill her thuggish money people.
Count me in the Freudian slip camp. Maybe it was just her subconscience's way of sabotaging the veep talk. I expect, however, that it truly was a reflection of her real reasons for staying in this long. Reasons that are much noted and much talked about: anything could happen. She's been staying in hoping that something would turn up--a big scandal, a career ending gaffe or a genie in a bottle or something. Anything, really. Yes, including that.
Much has already been written, and I'll no doubt write more about myself, but I did want to point out one huge irony about this thing.
Hillary has been staying in this thing, stretching it out, hanging on, in large part, because she was hoping Obama would utter some huge, career-ending, gaffe before it was all said and done.
Comments (50)
Well said, NC Steve.
May 24, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hill$hit Lesson # 159...
i.e. “I'm sorry if I offended you” [05.23.08]
translates to: “ I’m puzzled, and quite frankly disappointed that you could be so stupid and / or cantankerous as to have construed negative implications from the harmless, indeed incontestably accurate statement I made...”
May 25, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You left out the "It don't matter what she meant it was politaly suicidal idocy camp".
May 24, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well said. Got me thinking though. I pulled this out of the archives.
Today, in Dover, Francine Torge, a former John Edwards supporter, said this while introducing Mrs. Clinton: "Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually" passed the civil rights legislation.
The comment, an apparent reference to Senator Barack Obama, is particularly striking given documented fears among blacks that Mr. Obama will be assassinated if elected.
It is not surprising the the Hillary camp backed away from this surrogates comments then. It is interesting how long this meme has been simmering under the surface now that she has virtually done the same thing herself.
May 24, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry..screwed up the blockquotes
May 24, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. Hillary backed away from this knowing it was offensive. Now all of a sudden she is trying to make excuses for a similar statement as if it's somehow less offensive for her to be saying it.
May 25, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't see her getting the VP. I also cannot see her giving up and not taking it to the convention for a fight, at this point. I hope I'm wrong.
Your header --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Assassins_Gate_Baghdad.JPG
At first I thougt it might be sci-fi book title.
May 24, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a book title in fact, but it's a book about the aftermath of the Iraq war by George Packer. Not sci-fi by a long shot. Unfortunately.
May 24, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Codegen86,
Have you read The Assassin's Gate? It's the first book I read about the Iraq War. It's the best one I've read so far, too.
George Packer gives a fairly brief but substantive treatment of the lead-in to the invasion by describing all of the players, their backgrounds and motivations for pushing for invading, and their relationships to the Bush Administration and several administrations before it.
I highly recommend it to anyone who hasn't read it yet.
May 24, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
In answer to the questions, I started to name the title Assassingate, but the pun was just too foul, so I went for the metaphor instead.
May 25, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, haven't read it. I have read Hubris and The One Percent Doctrine, which aren't strictly about Iraq but it's very prominent in both.
Reading TPM provided me with a lot of information too :) In fact that's where I heard about The Assassin's Gate when it first came out. George Packer even made a few posts about it at TPM Cafe; I don't know if you'd been reading TPM back then.
May 25, 2008 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
From Kos:
"It looks like many of Hillary Clinton's apologists and several political pundits claim that her assassination remarks can be explained because of fatigue.
Perhaps. In fact, it's likely.
But won't she be fatigued at 3 a.m. in the morning?"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/24/12953/9637/715/522033
And a Truthdig commenter:
"It appears Samantha Power has been proven to be correct in her assessment of Hillary Clinton, again."
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20080523_clinton_brings_up_assassination_in_campaign_talk/
May 25, 2008 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Much has already been written, and I'll no doubt write more about myself, ..."
Haha! Freudian typo!
"... but ..."
No "buts"!
Well, okay, just one:
"... but I did want to point out one huge irony about this thing. Hillary has been staying in this thing, stretching it out, hanging on, in large part, because she was hoping Obama would utter some huge, career-ending, gaffe before it was all said and done."
Nemesis.
May 24, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lol! Freudian typo, anyway.
May 25, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Count me in the Freudian slip camp".
Rock Hackshaw (Room 8) attests to this:
"..last month I had a long conversation with a journalist who has flown on the Clinton campaign plane on many occasions. That person has been covering this campaign for over a year now. I was arguing my persistent point, that this race was a wrap. The person agreed; that person even said that she had about a one per cent chance of being the nominee of the Dems. Then I was told something that sent chills up my spine. I was told that amongst the press corps covering this campaign, many individuals believed that the only reason the Clintons were staying in this race, was because deep down, they must feel that someone is going to take a shot (whack/bullet) at Barack Obama.
After quickly regaining my composure, I asked why no one has written this. The answer was put to me this way: “who is brave enough to do that”? This was when I decided to do it. I decided right there that I would do that column, even if I was going to -somewhat reluctantly- put this journalist in a spot. I felt it had to come out. I felt it was my responsibility."
"Hillary, Bill and Barack: The column I refused to write last month.*
May 24, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your final paragraph here, NC Steve, is, I think, the best comment I've read on this whole things so far. Brilliant.
May 24, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Second that.
May 24, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Straight up and down I think she was exhausted, especially considering the way it came out in context of everything else. The woman has been campaigning continuously for months.
That is giving her the benefit of the doubt. However, it was clearly offensive to most if not enough of the people who heard it. Why won't she admit that without a real apology!? It's killing me, because we're all human. One of her best moments was in New Hampshire when she was nearly brought to tears talking about how personal politics and the presidential race mean to her. When can she admit that's she's a flawed human like the rest of us!? Instead, she decided to go with the typical, "I can do no wrong and if you took offense it was your fault for being oversensitive." Like Clinton, I don't understand any of this. Clinton if you're listening, give a heartfelt sorry and move on girl. I can't wait for this whole nomination process to be over....
May 24, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question: during the Texas primary, didn't a policeman get shot who was part of a motorcycle escort for Hillary? And didn't Hillary visit his wife that afternoon at the hospital? And then -- am I imagining this? -- didn't the story drop out of the news completely, with no follow-up at all as to investigation?
I remember thinking at the time -- did the shooter know which motorcade was which? And, as time has gone by, I have found it remarkable that there has been no update, at all.
Do I have these facts right?
May 24, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hit by a car I believe.
May 24, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
yep, car accident. Hillary stopped campaigning and went to the funeral. Plenty of coverage.
May 24, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Motorcycle cop hit a bridge abutment.
May 24, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You win. He hit the barracade on the bridge, a one person/vehicle accident.
May 25, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a crazy way I think this could actually increase the chance that Hillary would be on his ticket simply because it would be seen as 100% his choice now. Before this incident it would always be seen that he was forced into having her as his VP one way or the other meaning he couldn't possibly choose her without the prevailing belief being he bowed to pressure. However now he has the out if he didn't want her and nobody could really object, so if she did end up on his ticket it would be seen as his choice and not any weakness.
If that makes any sense, I'm rambling...
May 24, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it makes a lot of sense.
May 24, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mmmmm....only if he wants to be perceived as being completely out of his ever-loving mind.
May 25, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree, I think Jonze makes a very savvy point that Obama would be seen as being less beholden to Clinton as a result of the RFK remark.
That being said, I still don't think Obama-Clinton is dreamy as all that. It would seem to undercut Obama's better judgment rationale, it would give McCain a great debating point, and, if elected, it would give Clinton a do nothing job.
May 25, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great observation! I can see where you're coming from, and perhaps a magnanimous gesture by Obama of that magnitude might be enough to make friends of the Clintons and her supporters for a lifetime. She seems to have genuinely devoted herself to snakes like Penn and Carville who helped her and Bill throughout the years, why wouldn't she do the same with Obama?
May 25, 2008 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, he was not shot. He lost control of his motorcycle and crashed.
May 24, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, that's what they told us.
May 24, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, NCSteve. I agree with you. And I would like to see that post, and if you throw in a couple more Buffy references, that would be awesome.
May 24, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I was going to do a blog comparing Hillaryis44.org to the Sunnydale Hellmouth, but I thought better of it.
May 25, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lordy, I'll take the Hellmouth.
May 25, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to suggest we look into getting that scrubbing bubbles amulet thing to use on the place, along with Taylor's marsh. Then I remembered it came from Wolfram and Hart, whose main office I'm pretty sure is a Republican lobbying firm in D.C., and thought better of it. Besides, the closest thing we have to an ensouled vampire on our side is Andrew Sullivan.
May 25, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once upon a time there was a Republican. He opposed health care, social security, was in favor of sending other people to die for an ideological battle. Then, some gypsies, enraged by the idea of a flat tax, decided to get revenge. There was only one good way to do it. Now, he wanders the streets alone,trying to make up for past crimes but unsure how, fitting in nowhere, a man without a home--a gay Republican.
May 25, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Eric Alterman is a pretty good stand-in for Jenny's uncle. Sullivanus did the McCarthy thing after 9/11 and now its not about justice, its all about the grudge, baby.
May 25, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
This was just my point when I wrote this morning on another post:
The point much missed in this whole fiasco it that she is right:
The longer one runs, the more chances for something obscure to happen. Which is exactly what is happening to her:
The longer she runs, the more chances SHE has to put HER OWN foot in her mouth and ruin her own chances. She doesn't dissapoint; White voters and all that...
What did she really mean by her unfortunate latest comment?
Who cares?
We can speculate all we want, but SHE is the only one who knows (as fas as I know ;-) what is truly in her mind (feel free to include or exclude freudian slips and the like.)
Running for too long could be a double edge knife for anyone; it seems she is the one getting cut!
But for the Obama campaign, this couldn't come at a better time. While, despite not being invited, she insists on forcing herself onto the VP slot, this foot in her mouth makes it so much easier to say "no, no and NO!
May 24, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean I didn't get there first? Dammit!
So, were you as totally gobsmacked by the irony when it hit as I was?
May 25, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Andrew Sullivan got there first!
May 25, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I don't know when you got there; just saying that many of us got there, and hoping she and Bill will too soon enough ;-)
I am about to read this now:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/on-the-road-clintons-very-bad-day/
They might have arrived at the same page too.
May 25, 2008 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
What isn't said too much is that EVERYONE in political life and on it's fringes knows that you don't say the A word. Hillary Clinton is the only presidential candidate in memory who has dared to say it. And not just say it, but say it in response to the question, Why are you still in the race? I take her at her word. She says she has thirty five years of experience in public service and politics. I think with all that experience she knew she was breaking a serious taboo. She just assumed she could get away with it. Not this time. She has gone one comment too many and I agree with Keith Olbermann's assessment. This is not to be forgiven and glossed over.
May 24, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I don't think she thought she could get away with it. Sometimes when you're stressed and fatigued, that exact thing you're most at pains to suppress will just slip out of your mouth. Its like the harder you try to suppress it, the harder your subconscious pushes back until it finally takes advantage of the first opportunity your defenses are weakening to ambush you.
However, all that's just another way of saying it's clearly been on her mind, tucked, perhaps, into a dark corner of the "anything can happen" box or maybe something she guiltily contemplates late at night as she wrestles with the reality that all her years of planning are coming to naught.
I'm also wondering whether the first season of "24" is tangled up in that psychic knot a bit.
Regardless, she knows she's done. Given the way her campaign has tried to portray herself as a superior candidate because Obama is so weak and inexperienced that he's bound to utter a fatal gaffe once the pressure's on, she has to know she's done.
May 25, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her lame "no apology apology" is almost as bad as her breathtakingly insensitive comment. If you're tired and you say something REALLY, REALLY stupid, just offer a sincere apology! Something like "I'm horrified that I said something so inept that it could be misinterpreted in a horrible way. I apologize to Sen. Obama and his family, and everyone else in the country who was traumatized back in 1968. Please accept my sincere, deeply felt apology." Instead, we get justifications and victim-talk.
Just think how deep in the muck this race would be if Obama wasn't such a class act. The contrast between the two candidates couldn't be more stark.
Ready on Day One? Ready at 3 AM? Clearly, not ready for prime time!
May 25, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Josh Marshall's Post with the NYT link was an interesting read, (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/on-the-road-clintons-very-bad-day/), but I found Maureen Dowd's Sunday column much more prolific mostly for this quote:
"...She’s made the tasteless assassination comment before, including in a March interview with Time.
But coming right after the anniversary of the King assassination, right before the anniversary of the Bobby Kennedy assassination, right in the midst of the wrenching news about Teddy Kennedy’s brain tumor, and right in the middle of Billary’s hostile takeover attempt on the vice president’s mansion, the image was jarring...
Obama now has the perfect excuse not to pick Hillary as his running mate. She has been too unseemly in her desire to be on the scene if he trips, or gets hit with a devastating story. She may want to take a cue from the Miss America contest: make a graceful, magnanimous exit and wait in the wings."
I am a big NCSteve fan, but I am on the other side of this and know the Clintons are too cold and calculating for this to be more than an innocent slip. It's sick, and I'm fully on the side of Keith Olbermann: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF04kdgJeJs
Once again, Shame on you Hillary Clinton! And once again, shame on those Hillary supporters who repeatedly try to defend inexcusable garbage like this.
May 25, 2008 5:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry - I think she planned to make the comment although she may have underestimated its effect.
The giveaway was her effort to make the remarks about her husband's campaign sound unrehearsed:
"...when was that? June?"
Of COURSE, SHE KNEW he won California IN JUNE, that's why she brought it up. But she was trying to appear spontaneous in her scripted response, so she hesitated, searched the ceiling for the date. Part of that calculation was mention of the Bobby Kennedy assassination - which changed the campaign frontrunner IN JUNE also.
BTW - OBama's campaign is the first time many of us have had any hope SINCE June of 1968...
May 25, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have to agree that it was planned and the effect was underestimated. She used the same remark before with no backlash so she figured it was safe.
It is only fitting that she takes a massive hit for choosing her words poorly (or precisely, depending on who's hitting her) while her main purpose was to use a false argument on why she should still be around in June.
May 25, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Have to agree that it was planned and the effect was underestimated. She used the same remark before with no backlash so she figured it was safe."
TM - well put. I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt, or lay it off to fatigue, but your post makes sense in a maniacal way. She wasn't called on this kind of statement in the past, so had no expectation as to the backlash it would engender this time. Perhaps her miscalculation was the fact that many newspapers were live streaming the interview on line so her "gaffe" got quite a bit of instantaneous attention, whereas the previous comment was (I believe) in a print statement (never underestimate the power of the 'net!). So you could be right.
It could also be just another look into the dark abyss of a soul that will do anything to win the nomination - even subconsciously hope her opponent is eliminated from the race through violence. We'll probably never know for sure. But we do know, is that this is by far the most vile statement any presidential candidate as said in recent history and puts a nail in the coffin of the Hillary campaign for President or VP. She needs to go back to the Senate for some much needed "quiet time".
May 25, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's a gaffe, I do think it's calculated. The intended audience is not Obama's supporters but those who are unsure about supporting him, Dems and Indies. It drives us nuts, but it doesn't hurt Hillary with her supporters or the undecideds, and it's another dog-whistling pushing the race-divisive issues back to the front burner.
There will be those who fear further social unrest and political turmoil based on race alluded to and hinted at by Hillary.
May 25, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, you can still do one on the math, NCSteve.
I see that Obama got four more SDs, now needs 52 to get to 2025.
May 25, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Irony?
...often likens Obama to Robert F. Kennedy...
And glad to hear you don't need those Clinton votes. (Clinton - 17,410,209 Obama - 17,234,194)
May 25, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment