Hillary Melt Down means no VP
It's official. SHE HAS LOST HER MIND!
Obama needs to cut her off and cut her now!
Ted Kennedy is fighting for his life and she has the lack of judgment to invoke RFK's assasination to make a political point-- a point which also injects the idea of killing a presidential nominee. Do not even attempt to spin this for me. It's not gonna work.
This is a melt down. Things are out of control at her campaign. I think with this remark, she's taken herself out of contention for VP. Not just because I'm angry, but because she's too out of control to ever be President.
Obama needs to cut her off and cut her now!
Ted Kennedy is fighting for his life and she has the lack of judgment to invoke RFK's assasination to make a political point-- a point which also injects the idea of killing a presidential nominee. Do not even attempt to spin this for me. It's not gonna work.
This is a melt down. Things are out of control at her campaign. I think with this remark, she's taken herself out of contention for VP. Not just because I'm angry, but because she's too out of control to ever be President.
Advertisement
Agreed. It's time for the rubber room.
May 23, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama supporters, stay away from this one... let the fake Hillary supporters show the sincere Hillary supporters who they are, the provocatuers are the only ones who will touch it...
May 23, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's sick in the head. It's up to us to make sure she gets treatment.
May 23, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the Hillary supporters, real or fake, won't point out that this is the THIRD TIME she's brought up the RFK assassination in this fashion. It's just the first time she got any flack for it. So everyone should keep that in mind as she tries to spin her way out of it.
May 23, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
She skated around the edges before. This was the first time she directly invoked assassination as a possible reason for staying in the race.
In today's comment she invoked (1)Bill's campaign completing in June, and (2)the assassination in June. Are both reasons equal in in her eye? The first is somewhat logical, the second in indefensible and disgusting.
May 24, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is fascinating (if revolting) proof that people believe the TPM spin. You just used Greg Sargent's language verbatim.
"Invoke" is Greg Sargent's word, "a reason for staying in the race" is Greg Sargent's phrase.
Hillary didn't invoke anything. Invoke means "conjure." She spoke directly, matter-of-factly. Kennedy's assassination is not the "reason" she used to stay in the race.
There's that word "invoke" again. She didn't invoke anything. She didn't conjure Bill's campaign, she mentioned it directly.
There is nothing disgusting about what Hillary said. What's disgusting is TPM's spin and its gullible unthinking readers.
May 24, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
Invoke: To appeal to or cite in support or justification.
When asked about her reasoning to stay in the race she invoked (see definition above)
1. Bill's campaign ending in June
and
2. RFK's assissination in June.
There is no way these two events are equal except they both happened in June.
May 24, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, BTW your statement:
Directly? Matter of factly? Hmmmm...lets see
"People have been trying to push me out since Iowa"
Then asked if she buys the party unity argument as a reason, she said "I don't. Because again, I've been around long enough. You know, 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. You know, I just don't understand it. You know, there's lots of speculation about why it is. “
Yep pretty matter of fact to me.
May 24, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, mageduley. Congratulations. That's exactly why she mentioned Bill and Bobby in the same sentence. Duh.
I used Webster's, not American Heritage. Webster's is what the entire publishing industry uses, so I'm sticking with it rather than what some crazy blogger uses.
May 24, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too Funny.
In the Webster link you provided it is interesting you used the second definition "conjure" rather than the first (and most common meaning (cite as authority)
From the Webster link you provided:
Main Entry: in·voke
Pronunciation: \in-ˈvōk\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): in·voked; in·vok·ing
Etymology: Middle English envoken, from Middle French invoquer, from Latin invocare, from in- + vocare to call, from voc-, vox voice — more at voice
Date: 15th century
1 a: to petition for help or support b: to appeal to or cite as authority
2: to call forth by incantation : conjure
3: to make an earnest request for : solicit
4: to put into effect or operation : implement
You spin as well as Hillary. Congrats on your willful misrepresentation of your argument.
May 24, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You watch Olbermann. You have no authority whatsoever.
May 24, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
A nice reply when no other reasonable argument is available.
May 24, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You threw "nice" out the window some time ago.
May 24, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, not gullible here. Just angry and extremely upset by Clinton's comments. This is not the first time she's said this and it is just in plain "bad taste" - worse yet, it might actually fuel the fire of someone out there that is considering an option like this.
Comments like these just prove she is absolutely not "ready to be Commander-in-Chief on day one".
May 24, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's nothing to be upset or angry about. You must have a very active fantasy life.
May 24, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary crossed a line yesterday, and it will have its greatest impact on her "base," older boomers. Those who lived through the sixties will not be able to see Hillary's comments as just another "gaffe." And many influential superdelegates fall into this demographic.
My take is straightforward,
“It’s Over: Clinton Won’t be the Democratic Presidential or VP Candidate (and Boomers will make sure)”
http://msa4.wordpress.com/
May 24, 2008 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure what you mean.
Do you think I don't support Obama?
May 23, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sup, girl? I'd like to think she was thinking Bobby would have won if he hadn't been assassinated in June. Teddy's cancer makes me feel worse than I could ever have imagined. All of the times I've been angry with him, I guess I never really thought he could die.
May 23, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Billy. "Wassup" is I been pretty down lately, too.
You're right, Teddy's illness is a huge blow. I can't imagine what he and his family are going through. And it makes her remarks all the more insane.
My reaction to this is purely visceral and from the gut. I had to have my final say here. I wish you and all the Hillary supporters well. But it's time to give this guy his chance and see what he can do.
I think Obama has what it takes to be a great President and make an historic contribution.
May 23, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more thing:
Kind of odd that you and Desi are my peeps on this site, don't you think? The two big Clinton supporters. I can't help liking you guys because in many ways you two are the sweetest people on this site.
May 23, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I know Des is. But you'll get a lot of arguments about me. This campaign has been going on too long. I'm with you. Time to move on to November. Teddy's only about 10 years older than I am. Way too soon.
May 23, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, hard as you may try, you can't fool me.
May 23, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
GFTB, I must say the folks around here have been pretty hard on Mr. Glad. I think that's what he's refering to.
As for Clintons remark, it was a basic historical comparison that she made before Kennedy got ill, as well. It just sounds disrespectful at this time. A gaffe, but not a malicious one. I'm sure of it.
I agree with you about Senator Ted. This is horrible. We need him. He's a fighter, a tiger, right?
Let's all think good thoughts.
May 23, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Bee,
About Billy.. let's face it, the people who are so hard on him can't live without him.
May 23, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I hope he sees it that way, too.
:D
May 23, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll second that. He has a razor sharp wit and he's the guy I love to hate. He brings something real to the table in his opposition and breaks up the group think around here that I'm clearly guilty of at times.
May 24, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Think how I feel, Bee. I was joking about him getting drunk and falling down. You know what I think about when I think about Teddy? Sitting there watching CSPAN just waiting for Teddy's turn to come to go after the Republican bastards. We would sit there and say okay Teddy is next you lying bastards!
May 23, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one knew, Billy. Don't beat yourself up. We were all hoping it wasn't anything serious.
I guess that's why I blew a gasket at some of the disrespect I saw there. You weren't one that was being disrespectful. Not at all.
May 23, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't believe that is what she was referring to, she was referring to the floor fight at the 68 convention which would have been a floor fight between Kennedy, McCarthy and Humphrey.
May 23, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, and if RFK were alive, who do you think he'd be supporting?
May 23, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know who he would be supporting and neither does anyone else.
May 23, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd guess Teddy might have a good idea.
May 23, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama. But the ironic thing is Clinton is probably thinking of herself as the RFK of this campaign right now. Bobby would have gone into the convention facing a huge delegate deficit. Humphrey didn't even campaign in the primaries, but built a huge delegate lead through caucuses and state conventions controlled by bosses like Richard Daley. I do think reactions to her comments by Obama supporters might persuade her not to fight at the convention. There is just too much bitterness on both sides now.
May 23, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't discuss the convention with you, because I don't know enough about it. But I do think we've all hit some kind of collective boiling point.
Now Billy, you know I will shunned many in the TPM community for using a foreign language, but the perfect words for me are in German are -- "Wir sind alle fix und fertig!
May 23, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very appropriate. My favorite now is: Ich kann nicht mehr! If I remember it right. Saw it on a poster of Munch's The Scream on a tram in Frankfurt a long time ago.
http://www.ivcc.edu/rambo/eng1001/CopyofMunchScream.jpg
May 23, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Appropriate. My favorite now is: "Ich kann nicht mehr!" Saw it on a poster on a tram in Frankfurt a long time ago.
http://www.ivcc.edu/rambo/eng1001/CopyofMunchScream.jpg
May 23, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's hysterical! Thanks for the sending the link. Even though I know the painting, actually looking at it with the text was perfect. I always liked Frankfurt, even though it's not regarded as one of Germany's more beautiful cities. I think I liked the cosmopolitan flavor, being a New Yorker. There was a great American dancer/choreographer named Billy Forsythe who worked there.
May 23, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, another one more thing. After today, I'm taking a rest from TPM for a while, so if you see Desi, tell him I said, "Hasta luego." Take care,Billy Glad.
May 24, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hola, chica - you can drop by e-stuffus.blogspot.com - I understand wanting to take a break. I'm torn between commenting today and letting Billy do all the heavy lifting. I was going to mention your "Obama is the first black Kennedy" as perhaps the most insightful of this campaign - tying in with Billy's myth, perhaps the person/sentiment RFK invoked in his eulogy for MLK. Too distracted to write anything intelligent, glad German is taking off as TPM's 2nd language. Polyglotsville 'R Us. Hasta la bye-bye.
May 24, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desi,
Mi respuesta está abajo.
May 24, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, yes you can.
May 24, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why Clinton is comparing herself to RFK - she has the popular vote but not the delegates.
May 23, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. On Planet 12.
Got to love Hillarymath. So, popular vote = all the caucus states I don't like and I get to keep Michigan votes, but Obama doesn't because his name's not on the ballot, and never mind that we all agreed those votes don't count and nobody campaigned there so the vote was a "whose name do you recognize" contest anyway that early in the campaign anyway... .
Yeah. That math. That popular vote. The popular vote that no single vote counting analyst or pundit or politician or... mathematician... that does not work for the HRC campaign agrees with.
Sincerely,
55 year old hard working beer drinking latte-hating, white average American male Obama supporting Michigan resident.
May 24, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton was COMPARING HERSELF TO RFK? Oh, give me a break!
Please don't pull stuff out of your ass. It doesn't smell very good.
May 24, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find this lack of current history amazing. Wasn't she the inevitable candidate? Didn't she have a superdelegate lineup before the primaries even started? Didn't she have a boatload of rich donors and even more powerful "backroom friends"?
Then along comes this guy, basically unknown to anyone outside Illinois, with a funny name, no big Democratic party contacts who is now running a winning campaign while she is debt ridden?
How again is she like RFK the underdog? To use Hillary's words "I just don't understand it".
May 24, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, she wasn't the "inevitable candidate" in fact, the press from the very beginning we're commenting on Obama's overtaking her lead. Unfortunately, the press conveniently forgets what they said when they decide to move to a new narrative.
May 24, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I beg to differ. From Hillary's own lips before the IA caucus:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnEqZEh2eNo
I find her statement in this vid that she started in single digits amazing.
This Real Clear Politics graph shows her starting pol numbers in the 37% vs Obama's 17%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html
May 24, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sicko.
May 23, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No VP FOR YOU!!!!! http://i29.tinypic.com/34gxdw4.jpg
May 23, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I'm concerned, there's no spin possible on this one. It was undignified, it was desparate. She is unhinged and has lost her moral compass.
It's over.
I've held out for a month now thinking she might even be a possibility for VP.
But I'm done now and I think she is too!
May 23, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're entirely right. Maybe this will help people understand why Obama won't take her, which I'm certain was already the case.
May 23, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
A-man, my husband has been trying to convince me to support Hillary as VP for a month. He actually had convinced me for a couple of days. But after tonight, I think finally, he'll will "understand why Obama won't take her."
May 23, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
gftb, please see my forlorn comment below.
May 24, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama had said something as bad I would be forlorn too. I thought that was what your comment would be, but I see it is otherwise. Blaming the "Obama Camp" for misinterpreting what Clinton said is par for the course. Can you not step back and think for a moment about how an objective person might take that comment?
I didn't think so.
May 24, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's people like you, CVille Dem, who depress the shit out of me. Hillary is just fine in my book.
May 24, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know she is fine with you. I find that depressing.
May 24, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
That thought cheers me. Thanks.
May 24, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bipolar, then, huh? You'll feel better in November when Obama wins and you know that your phsyciatric care will finally be covered.
May 24, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's plan won't cover me. But he's not going to beat McCain in November anyway, so it really doesn't matter whether it would or not.
May 24, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's explanation does not let her off the hook. This is the same woman who beat Senator Obama over the head about the words, bitter, and cling.
There are some reports out there that this is not the first time that Hillary has mentioned the Robert Kennedy assassination.
Considering her string of Tuzla lies, then her "white Americans" remark, and now to have her bring up the Robert Kennedy assassination, and to then claim that she just did not realize how sensitive an issue it was, makes her unsuitable for to be on the ticket.
We can not have a VP who makes so many offensive remarks, and then always claims that she did not anticipate how they might be offensive. Some one who is that slipshod with words would cause an international incident every couple of weeks.
May 23, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. Also, Rabbitsmorg makes a good point that she said it several times before Teddy got sick. Shes smart, she knows what negative connotations hold for things like RFK, good grief she has 35 years of experience politicking to not gaffe. Not just a date reference, a disturbing insight into her mind.
May 23, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, it is Obama supporters who are in meltdown. It's as if the 68 convention never happened. It went to a floor fight - McCarthy had the popular vote, Humphrey who had avoided primaries had the bosses' vote. If Kennedy had lived it would have been a three way floor fight between McCarthy, Kennedy and Humphrey, instead of McCarthy, McGovern and Humphrey. If the stupid reporters and pundits don't understand her reference it is because they're either too lazy to research it or they do know and are deliberately misunderstanding the comment.
May 23, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spin, spin, spin...
May 23, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I am not spinning anything, I have no reason to spin anything - the comment makes sense if you understand the reference to the 68 convention and it doesn't make sense as a call to assassinate Barack Obama - that is just plain silly. Now if people want to act like paranoid fruitcakes I can't stop them, but I am not going to encourage this kind of stupidity.
May 23, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what you think is that she just used bad judgement.
May 23, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, what I really think is that people who believe this are gullible, spinnable rubes who want to believe it. It is tinfoil hat territory, it is insane to think she was calling for Obama's assassination, it is nuts to think she's deliberately calling for his killing, it is crazy talk. That is what I really think about this.
I can't believe that intelligent, rational, sentient human beings would truly think that Clinton is trying to trigger Manchurian candidates to kill Obama, or hopes that Obama is killed or anything so insanely stupid.
May 23, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't heard anyone infer that she was "calling for Obama's assassination." No one! Remember, this was in response to why people are suggesting that she drop out. I took it to mean that anything can happen; RKF was assassinated in June -- if something like that happened she would be around to pick up the pieces.
To me it was just a huge Freudian slip. But the kind that shows a nasty soul beneath.
May 24, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read the thread and other blog entries. It's embarrassing.
May 24, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't I see you on another thread lecturing people about not calling names and being insulting? Asking for civil discourse? Of course, when you are flinging crap for me, Ms. Pantsuit, I think it's just fine!
May 24, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was for Bev.
May 24, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
No.
May 24, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but why submit '68 -- assassination aside -- as a good reason for sticking it out till June? That doesn't make much sense either. She was trying to make a point but it exploded in spectacular fashion.
I think her focus was on June, she was thinking of June, and perhaps has been thinking of RFK and '68 in recent days due to Teddy's diagnosis, and then while fatigued she opened her mouth and something stupid came out. I think we've all been there, where our interior monologue is racing and we just utterly fail to articulate what we mean to and are left a bit embarassed afterward.
She's made a mistake. The pundits and reporters know what she intended to say, but they will love raking her over the coals for the gaffe that occurred instead.
May 23, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watch the interview, not the pundits. Then think for yourself.
May 24, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's fodder for pundits to seize upon. That's mistake enough, no?
May 24, 2008 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fodder? She didn't say anything wrong.
May 24, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now you are just being obtuse. The object in political speach is to speak so that one cannot be misubnderstood. Sen Clinton missed that mark by a mile.
May 24, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm obtuse? She was talking to 5 people. They understood her, why can't you?
May 24, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You missed My Point. She spoke so that she could be understood. In politics that is not the standard that one must meet. One must speak so that one cannot be misunderstood. She failed.
May 26, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that she might not have said it if she were at the top of her form. I also know that (based on the way she beats Obama over the head with anything he says that can be used against him) she would be out there doing a "Shame on YOU, Barack Obama" all over again.
At least Obama has the good sense to stay out of it. Hillary hasn't. He talked about bitter voters and she called him "elitist." etc etc etc
It's KARMA
May 24, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. That's what "it" is: karma.
May 24, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because of the parallels to the 68 convention - her situation and Kennedy's situation are similar - both are going into a convention where one candidate claims the popular votes and one claims the lead on delegate votes, the convention went to a floor fight as all conventions should.
May 24, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama leads in popular vote AND delegates. But facts mean nothing to Hillbots.
May 24, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thats a hanging curveball BevD, failed spin.
May 23, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, what's stupid and dangerous is playing this kind of spin to the rubes nonsense, instead of stopping it at the beginning. Clinton wasn't calling for Obama's assassination and every sentient being knows that.
I have had endless discussions about the 68 convention and its parallels to this convention, about floor fights, about balloting, about the rules of balloting and how it applies to the 68, 80 and 08 conventions. Clinton's mistake was in thinking that people who cover politics would get the reference - of course they wouldn't. Most of them don't remember the 2004 convention. We don't want our politicians to treat as dumbasses, and yet when they do make erudite references no one "understands" them. Of course when it comes to Clinton, it's always Cider House Rules around here.
May 23, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is just nothing in it for her to use the assassination as a reason to stay in the race. Staying in the race or not staying in the race doesn't change her situation one way or the other in the event of something happening to Obama. But if everyone who supports Obama is as full of mistrust for her as the people who believe she would bring up RFK's death instead of his fight for the nomination as a reason to stay in the race, she needs to walk away from this and let Obama go on to the campaign against McCain.
May 23, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I swear I didn't think a Unity Ticket was possible for a long time, but now I'm actually hoping for one. Obama-Clinton. Because I want all the snotty Obama supporters and snotty Clinton supporters to SUFFER. ha ha ha!
May 23, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like you, Joe Perez! Very funny. Thanks! ;-)
May 24, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, the reference wasn't to the assassination, the reference was to the 68 convention/election cycle. This is group insanity.
May 23, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
IF the reference was not to the assassination then why did she use the word assassinated?
May 23, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because she was giving the signal to the Manchurian candidate to trigger his mission.
May 23, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excelent non-answer.
May 23, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, I have answered this question several times. Perhaps if she had said, "God called Bobby home in June" it might have passed the rube test and the self righteously obtuse who can't seem to get their minds out of the conspiracy gutter.
May 23, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not making some conspiracy argunment and have not seen one (though I admit to not reading every post and comment on the internet). She was clearly refering to the assassination because she refered to it using that word. She was talking about contests lasting well into June but she did so by referencing the RFK assassination. That is what we call an amazingly stupid gaffe. It is only one of a long line of gaffes. She is worse than Biden or Kerry at going off message and distracting from her own candidacy. It has lost her the nomination and today it lost her the VP slot if she ever had a chance at it.
May 23, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please see my comment below. I watched the whole interview live, and one of my links has the interview. Watch it. It's like taking Rev. Wright out of context.
May 24, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is like taking Rev Wrigh out of context if Rev Wright were running for office. He is not. She is. She is also reported to be a political genius. This is an incredibly stupid thing to say regardless of what point she was or was not trying to make. Not because it is evil but becase it is political suicide. Watch the Sunday shows. This will be the number one topic. No one from the Obama campaign will touch this one with a ten foot pole because they are politicaly astute enough to let her alone when she is in the midst of self destructing.
If it were Obama's Gaffe she would be piling on trying to get a dig in about it and inadvertently kill the story for him because, as we have seen throughout this campaign, she is a political doofus who cannot be nice even when it is in her own selfish best interest.
May 24, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said Larry, I wish I'd articulated that myself.
Maybe the fleeting references before were excusable. But after Ted's illness hit the headlines, her people or Bill or her own "political genius" should've told her not to mention Kennedys anymore this election, except to wish Ted well.
The Kennedys have given more than any family should have to for this country and the Democratic party.
When Teddy Kennedy has a seizure and it turns out to be inoperable, malignant brain cancer, we're only reminded of their many, many other tragedies.
Remember that the Kennedys support Obama.
So soon after we learn about Teddy, HRC should have the class, the decency, and the diplomacy to know not to mention any Kennedy tragedy in any context - other than, perhaps, sincere condolence.
She referenced this tragedy, instead, to make a political argument about primary races going on for a long time - a self-serving argument to stay in the race. Even granting BevD's kindest & most generous spin, the comment is still:
1. bad timing due to Teddy's illness
2. terribly insensitive
3. more publicity on the Kennedy Curse at the worst time, when I'm sure they're in need of privacy
4. politically stupid
No matter how you spin it, HRC still loses. She can't claim to be a skilled politician AND make gaffes like this.
May 24, 2008 3:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 24, 2008 3:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was the day before yesterday. I wonde rif it is still true.
May 24, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a gaffe.
May 24, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I mean that YouTubing Hillary's comment and spreading it on the Internet should be viewed with suspicion.
TPM reported a story to its readers based on two things: a YouTube video and Bill Burton's spin. Greg Sargent didn't do what a reporter should, which is call the editorial board that Hillary met with and ask them if they thought it was a weird thing for her to say within the context of their discussion.
I watched the interview live, and there was nothing wrong or weird about her mentioning Bobby Kennedy's assassination.
May 24, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wether it was wrong or not it was politicaly stupid in the extreme and a bizare choice of example. It hurt her like nothing her enemies said could have. She has made these same sorts of gaffes time and again as she ran this campaign because she is a doofus. If Obama wanted his administration to be continualy distracted by one public mistatement after another he should choose her as his running mate. Other wise he should choose some one who can keep their foot out of their mouth and stay on message.
May 24, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not bizarre, either.
May 24, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is if your goal is to argue for your electability rather than against it.
May 24, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you ignorant fuck. The person who has depended on raising white racial resentment for every one of her victories from Ohio on does NOT get the benefit of the doubt when she also refers -- three times -- to the assassination of a Democratic front runner.
No. Piss off. Go home. You should be ashamed of yourself and your candidate. This cannot be excused or spun away.
And that bitch still hasn't apologized to Obama.
May 24, 2008 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a comment that should get you banned from this site, expatjourno2.
This comment is what Andrew Golis should be concerned about.
That no one has responded to you is what I mean when I say the "community" here doesn't function.
May 24, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes a relief pitcher needed here. Bev "how dare you question the queen"D has spun herself into the ground. An interesting point Billy, I would add that in no context does the RFK assassination justify staying in the race, trust her or not. Many June references to choose from without adding to the questions of her motivation (not to kill, but nice straw man try) or ability to speak responsibly.
May 23, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, this is just another silly, gratuitious comment about someone whom you don't know. "Don't question the queen" is a stupid retort that has nothing to do with my comments. Nothing.
Now if you want to believe this crazy talk, go ahead, I won't try to dissuade you, but for those with even a modicum of decency and intelligence left after the primary season, it would help if they had a point of reference and understood the context of the remark.
This is exactly why candidates cannot make candid comments and remarks - people are either too ignorant or deliberately obtuse and refuse to consider anything but the very worst pandering to their already held convictions.
May 23, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
As you know, MJ Rosenberg is over at the Cafe, fanning the flames of hatred. I just want to go back to the future where all I have to contend with are HK's and terminators.
May 23, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rosenberg is a hysteric in the clinical definition of a personality disorder.
May 23, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. But he has nothing on Olbermann. Most of the time when I talk to Hillary haters here, they seem to be channeling Olbermann. He seems to have quite a following.
May 24, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ever since he got possessed and thinks he's channeling Edward Murrow, he's been just horrid, but it seems to have done his ratings wonders, so we won't see the end of it. Personally I think he's channeling Eddie Haskell if Haskell got old enough to turn grey.
May 24, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, there you are, mein lieber chimpi.
Y gracias für den Kompliment! If I drop by in the future, would you mind if we don't talk politics in general? Wäre es okay, wenn I just come by to say hi to you and Billy? Je suis très, très fatigué von la politica.
Ich wollte auch etwas über Billy's Myth article sagen. Pero pense que no tenia nada intelligente que decir. Me senti mal das ich nicht contributed.
Hasta bye-bye. I love it!
May 24, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genau, tutti entiendo. C'ést la place de e-stuff, equipaje para viajeros cansados, le refuge pour les gens autre preoccupés. And completely silly and pointless.
May 24, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desi,
Ditto todo!
Und ich liebe es zu wissen das wenn wir
Polygotieren, die andere no pueden usar il dizionario. J'avais versucht dich zu finden an la otra bloga, pero ich habe kein Glück gehabt. Ich versuche otra vez. Io sono quasi fertig hier. Ich wünsche dich und Billy a great Memorial Day weekend! Ich habe deine neue post gerec'd.
May 24, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Das ist fremd, ale puedes envoyer a decader bei gmail versuchen, das stimmt email, hoffentlich entiendes. Neanmoins, io pienso che stuff doesn't just happen.
May 24, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ustedes sont tres malin. Il es mas dificil de suivre. :)
May 24, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ca sera meilleur mit group Sprache.
May 24, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey,Hillary, Sehr bien! Du kannst aussi Polygloten!
May 24, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
J'essaie. Mon allemand ist escaso.
May 24, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
All these reporters telling us what candidates are allowed to say and not say, words that must never be mentioned, discussions that are taboo - when did it come to this that this country defers to the judgement of the press? They don't get to make the rules, WE do.
May 24, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
KYLE! I thought you looked familiar!
Yeah, I'm slow on the uptake. But will coming with you mean we get to live?
May 24, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing's certain about the future. I don't even know if I can get back. I was supposed to go back in February, but I got stuck here, protecting Hillary Clinton and defending the Democratic Party longer than I expected. And the Hillary haters are tougher than terminators. You can't stop them. They'll wade through you, reach down her throat, and pull her fucking heart out. I know.
May 24, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know Billy, I really wish Hillary has somehow read your words about her. You are her Sir Galaglad!
May 24, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes they will. And rightfully so.
I wouldn't piss down her throat if her heart was on fire.
May 24, 2008 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude. Seriously. Get control.
May 24, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can kiss my ass, Hillbot. You support a candidate who not only spends weeks fanning white racist resentment, she also repeatedly points out that assassinations do happen after all.
May 24, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point. Unfortunately it immediately gave me the vision of politicians, after a few more years of having every word parsed by the blogopshere, resorting to using electronic voice synthesizers to communicate, with which they have prepared a stock of answers. Answer not in the synthesizer's database? Then the answer is "no comment." :-)
May 24, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
They'll have no choice, I'm surprised they haven't resorted to it now.
May 24, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have the right to use the word "decency." Not after you've tried to spin away this. No. You don't even know what the word means.
May 24, 2008 5:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. "Cider house rules"?!!! You pathetic, whining, fucktard. After all the BS your candidate threw at Obama for "bitter" and "cling"?!!! After all the BS your candidate's surrogates threw over "you're likable enough" and "sweetie"?!!!
And on and on and on.
And now you have the grotesque dishonesty to whine about how poor, poor pitiful Hillary gets ganged up on unfairly when she says something stupid?
Just piss off and go vote for McCain.
May 24, 2008 5:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Use enough exclamation points there? Your response looks like the diary entry of a 14 year old with thoughts of shooting up his classmates.
May 24, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at least I don't fail basic math like you and Hillary. What is it about girls and math?
May 24, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, a la 1968, Senator Clinton wants to remain in the race to have a fight at a contested convention, like the Chicago convention, and...what? The losers in 1968 were: Humphrey, McCarthy, McGovern, Robert Kennedy, the Democratic Party, and the American people. You reference a historical fact that you claim is somehow representative of the present in a way that should encourage us to encourage Senator Clinton's pursuit to the convention?
Hillary Clinton was the establishment candidate, like HHH. She had the Party leadership behind her, like HHH. She had the support of the last Democratic President, like HHH. She was ahead on all count before the primaries began, the inevitable candidate (remember that one?), like HHH. The newcomer was RFK, like Obama. RFK was considered the popular upstart candidate, like Obama. Gene McCarthy was the tried and true liberal like John Edwards... those are the truer similiarities between the candidates of 1968 & 2008. And yes, I was alive in 1968 & was a McCarthy supporter but switched to RFK.
Senator Clinton's comments and her and your allusions to 1968 primary and convention aren't too erudite for me, they're simply too wrong for me. And as the saying kinda goes "Too wrongs, don't make it right."
May 24, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a damage control attempt, this was very weak.
Maybe reporters and pundits did not understand Hillary's remark as a reference to the 1968 convention because it wasn't? Are you seriously trying to suggest that a good way to get people thinking about the convention in August is to speak about RFK's assassination in June?
The one deliberately misunderstanding the remark is you, because it's the only way for you to convince yourself that Hillary did not very seriously fuck up.
May 24, 2008 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, I'm definitely having a meltdown. I think it was cheap and classless to invoke this. I would still vote for her if there was no other choice, but what little respect I have left her went down yet another notch.
May 23, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly, I'm having so much of a meltdown that I can't check my grammar. Yikes!
May 23, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been meaning to ask...
What is your avatar?
It's hard to make out.
Doesn't match what you're saying either.
May 23, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies for the lateness, I'm still getting used to this reply system. I didnt have anything clever to use when TPM first offered the chance to put in an avatar. So I just found a picture of me with a bandana and a slingshot. I was thinking about changing, but only after finding something more fitting. Hope that clears it up!
May 24, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
What more evidence is required by the superdelegates before they end this thing. What's that phrase, "adversity doesn't build character, it reveals it".
The reference to RFK is unacceptable! This is beyond politics and it shouldn't be defended as just politics.
Competition is one thing, but who would have thought that the way that the Clintons would run their campaign would compete on a par with the GOP stealing the election in 2000 as being totally unbelievable!
Maybe if not in public, the superdelegates are shaking their heads in private. Only the MSM still pretends that there is a legitimate contest taking place.
May 23, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
FWIW, I'm inclined to cut HRC some slack about her "assassination" quote. I really think, in her mind, she thought she was talking about June, not about assassination. I wish there were a way to make Chris Matthews et al change the subject to something -- anything else.
I say this as a solid Obama supporter, and one who wants her nowhere near the VP slot.
May 23, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm on the fence about this, Don, but something just occurred to me that makes me agree with you.
The thing we're suspecting her of saying doesn't even make sense. If she withdrew, and BO was killed afterward (god forbid), does anyone think she wouldn't be pulled out of "retirement" to become the nominee? Of course she would be.
So "there could be an assassination" would not be, in reality, a rationale for staying in the race.
It's still odd (and suspicious) that it slipped out, and it's still a stupid thing to have said. But some of the more conspiratorial hypotheses about this leave me unmoved. There is such a thing as Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
May 23, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Snap!
Now I know what your other screen name is!
May 23, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, smart inference, but Ben and I came up with that thought independently. I wish I were Ben.
May 23, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect, Alex, that she was thinking about the fact that Bobby was heading into a convention way behind in delegates, too. Did you look at the Newsweek poll? There is no way this is over yet. Look at the support she gets from black voters in a head to head with McCain. I'm beginning to think that if her comment tipped us to anything, it may be that she intends to make a real fight at the convention. And to shock you even more, as crazy as this sounds -- and I'm not trying to make you angry -- she may have her eye on Bobby's mantle. Go back to 1968 and look at Bobby's base and at McCarthy's base. Maybe she thinks Obama has drifted off too far into McCarthy space and she can pitch herself at the convention as running in the RFK tradition against McCain.
May 23, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting thoughts. But I think this is over in a couple of weeks. It's already over for most practical purposes. Bloggers may still be divided, but I don't think the party is.
May 24, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just don't have it in me to get worked up about this. I think it was probably ill-timed to invoke any image of any Kennedy dying in light of recent news, but I'm with Bee on this one - I don't think it was malicious either.
We've got what, 10 days till the end of the primaries? 11? That's going to fly. At this point I guess I just feel like we've run the marathon all the way to the finish line, might as well cross it.
What I do think is funny is that I'm not sure how apt a comparison the current primary is to the 68 one or the 92 one. My friendly neighborhood Wiki reminds me that the first primary in 68 was on March 12th. Same day this year was the day after the Mississippi primary. We'd already been through 40 some contests by then.
In 92, it was the 25th of February. At that point this year, we were well past Super Tuesday and Obama had racked up his 10-in-a-row.
I guess my point is this has been The Longest Primary in the History of the Entire Universe. I'm amazed at the candidates fortitude at this point, because I'm exhausted.
May 23, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is incredibly stupid and tone deaf really that much better than malicious for a presidential candidate?
May 23, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillarym99,
Your comments are always penetrating and honest. You've certainly captured several things that I feel also-- the length of this campaign and the anxiety of it all. I'm very tired and am ready for the campaign to end and I use the Wiki too!
May 24, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don,
I think you're right to say " I really think, in her mind, she thought she was talking about June, not about assassination."
Only, when you're talking about June primaries, who chooses that as an EXAMPLE? Who gropes for a short hand way to remember when California used to vote and chooses "assassination" as her mnemonic? Who uses the forty-year ache over RFK's horrible death as a paper clip to hold together an argument for her political strategy?
Only someone who, "in her mind," no longer understands what she is saying, how it wounds people all around her, and how it indecently exploits enduring national grief.
I don't think she was calling for someone to be assassinated.
I think she was using RFK's death as a cheap prop for a shoddy argument.
I think that, "in her mind," that's a respectable way to behave.
May 23, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton is far too intelligent and her campaign far too calculating to say something like this without knowing precisely what it meant.
Occam's Razor, people.
May 23, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Especially since she has evidently said this a few times...
May 23, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet she claimed it was because Ted Kennedy was on her mind recently.
Well what about the first few times she said it?
I sense another Bosnia-gate style quagmire of lies and muddy corrections.
May 23, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Occam's razor" - I hope you're kidding.
May 23, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're kidding
Actually, apllying said Razor could yield a handful of arguably equally plausible explanations for Senator Clinton's (at best) insensitive remarks, Insofar as she's made similar comments multiple times in public fora.
The point nonetheless stands that raising the specter of assassination (as Olbermann put it so virulently yet so rightly tonight), in light of BOTH her and Senator Obama's historic (and hence demonstrably dangerous) candidacies AND the Kennedy family's wincingly recent brush with (further) tragedy, is simply unforgivable. I can't even begin to summon the words to describe it in the (to me, unlikely) event she spoke with malicious and/or crassly utilitarian intent!
I can only hope this egregious breach of party etiquette -- nay, simply human decency -- will help in separating the McCain/GOP trolls from the actual, ardent Clinton diehards. Because if you're a paid hack, there's a handful of (admittedly specious) rationalizations you can concoct to explain away, if not fully justify, this behavior. But if you're a Democrat, or rather, a liberal/progressive/whatever citizen with any civic sense whatsoever, you'll find it awfully hard to spin this away.
It's karma. Not terribly instant, but awfully appropriate. Just awful.
May 23, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just because Keith Olbermann is deliberately obtuse, it doesn't mean we all have to be.
May 24, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see you've volunteered to take one for the team.
May 24, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is just stupid. My team is the democratic party, my candidate is the one nominated in August and I have managed to get through this entire primary season without trashing any candidate. Why? Because what is happening is exactly what I thought would happen - silly, childish people who know nothing about politics or the political system would take it to such extremes that no unity would be possible.
Now you can claim all you want that Clinton was calling for Obama's assassination, triggering a Manchurian candidate, mentioning her hope that Obama is killed, but sentient human beings who are thoughtful, reasonable adults understand the reference and don't work themselves up into a frenzy over something that isn't there.
May 24, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing deliberately obtuse around here is you: that and your blind support for whatever crap spills out of Camp Clinton. If you don't at least understand why most Democrats would find the reference odious, then you're either a GOP plant or completely brainwashed.
But have at the Kool-Aid references. Assuming projection will help sleep through the night, that is.
May 24, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
What kool aid references? That makes no sense.
May 24, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is like some reckless driver who knocks down a gas pump, causing gasoline to spill all around. "Hard working White Americans" is the gasoline. She then takes out the assassination match and strikes it.
She is a very dangerous firebug.
May 23, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch. I was inclined to agree with Don in Seattle. But, the way you put it is pretty alarming.
On the one hand, watching the video makes me think it was an oddly phrased reference to campaigns that have continued into June. The thing I don't understand, is that if she wanted to reference the '68 primaries, she could've and should've said it in a completely different way. There's no need to bring up the assassination. It exposed something negative about Hillary, but we may never know if it just showed her lack of taste and good judgement, or if it was something far more nefarious.
May 23, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right! Listen carefully to what I say. I am feeding the little monster of racism. I like to exploit racism so people will vote for me. It works. I need to remind people that Obama is a risky investment--anything could happen. Well, not anything, but certain things.
May 24, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree! Today gives us yet another reason why she has NO BUSINESS being president!
May 23, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, anyone who has ever made a gaffe is not fit for public obvious. Bravo! Bravo! You so smart.
May 23, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It does not disqualify her for holding public office but can we quit pretending that she is a brilliant on-message politician yet?
May 23, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're suggesting she's made one gaffe? You poor thing.
May 24, 2008 4:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Decent people apologize when they say something so offensive. Hillary didn't. No "I'm sorry." No "I was wrong." Only a regret if anyone was offended.
That's not an apology.
What's more, the statement of regret was directed at the Kennedy family, not the Obama family, where it should have been. But Clinton can no ore apologize to Obama than congratulate him when he wins a primary.
May 24, 2008 5:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good luck trying to get a real apology from her. Remember the months of trying to get an apology for her Iraq vote. She just kept going on about how she would've done the war better than Bush. Not that she wouldn't have gone. That she would've done it better. After being asked over and over again, she finally cracked and said she wished she had her vote back. Wow. Nice apology. She's incapable. Reminds me of a certain "Decider" that seems to loom over this entire debate at every turn...
May 24, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was a gaffe like "I AIN'T NO MORE TIRED" was an
AD LIB.
THE HO IS NUTS!
May 24, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny thing is.......
In the dark recesses of my mind, I was opposed to Obama adding her to the ticket as VP nOminee PRECISELY BECAUSE I WOULD NOT PUT IT PAST THE CLINTONS TO HAVE THOUGHTS OF 'ASSASSINATION' IN THEIR MINDS........considering how many of their associates have ended up dead........
But I kept it back in the dark recesses of my mind - not out on the table for public consumption.
But now that Hillary has lowered the bar for the rest of us.......
May 23, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is crazy talk.
May 23, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
May 24, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Given that this is the third time she's said it, methinks it a Freudian slip.
I've been thinking this for a while: the Clintons know firsthand how a Veep can be treated - how they themselves treated Gore. Why in the world would Hillary Clinton want to sign up for an entire term - and maybe two terms - of playing second fiddle yet again to yet another charismatic male: having been humiliated publicly by the demonstration of what a superb organizer/manager he's been, in contrast to how pitiful she's been in this respect? She loses to him in a primary that the whole world took it for granted she had sewn up and then signs up to having to kwotow to him for 4/8 years instead of going off in a different direction and carving up a new image for herself in her own right?
I've wondered if this was why - they're both mindful of history and believe it's a good throw of the dice to punt on maybe being able to inherit the presidency without having to campaign for it.
It's not a very nice proposition is it? Every time I've thought it I've felt compunction wondering how I could even entertain the idea. How could I? She'd referenced assassination twice! And now again. Take this in conjunction with the Clintons' overwhelming ambition. If there's any doubt about *that* one we only need to reference Bill Clinton now fantasising about Chelsea assuming the mantle!
May 23, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fran,
I looked at your profile and see that you're from Australia! What kind of interest is there about this election there? For example, what's the TV coverage like? Thanks.
May 23, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well look I'm ashamed to admit that I myself have less idea about the coverage in Australia because I'm so immersed in this campaign that I don't watch much Australian tv news and only cursorily check the Australian newspapers at the moment. (I watch US tv news via cable. And I'm on the internet probably more than most Americans are covering all the important US papers and blogs) LOL! I know I'm covering it more than most of my friends in America.
But Bosniagate played over here hugely. And interestingly, much more than the Wright clips.
The thing is I lived in Portland, Oregon and loved it. My mother was a US international relations academic so I grew up with far more awareness of the US than most non-Americans overseas would. And I and most Australian were so appalled by the Iraq invasion and the US neocon dogma that Obama has really captured the imagination. No-one I know has forgiven Hillary for her Iraq vote.
(But in fairness, the reporting here in the lead-up to Iraq was far more sceptical of the Administration's spin than the American reporting was.
We get Jim Lehrer's Newshour on ordinary tv so many people who watch that (free to air) channel would see that.
Hillary was getting pretty bad coverage here until the Appalachia racist white vote started to be covered - then the sexism thing broke and now that's getting quite a lot of airtime. But fundamentally there's a sense that the rest of the world is desperate to get the sort of diplomacy that Obama's offering and Hillary's `obliterate Iran` went down like a lead balloon. Huge criticism of that. Massive. (Portrayed as yet more Bushism)
I should point out that I never watch commercial tv here (so I have no idea what our equivalent of your Fox viewers would be seeing) and coverage is different in different states.
I have to concede that there is at least one Hillary supporter in Australia. I was simply appalled the other day driving on a freeway when a little minicar flashed past me with a Hillary campaign sign on her car. LOL! I couldn't believe it. In Australia? I was so t'd off that she had one and I didn't have a corresponding Obasma one. I was tempted to start speeding, try to overtake her, give her the finger and yell OBAMA through the window! Sanity prevailed.
BTW McCain isn't really portrayed as a break from Bush here. ie He's not portrayed as a maverick - he's shown as a right wing hawk because of Iraq and to Australians it's truly shocking - no-one here can wrap their minds around it - that all people don't have basic health coverage. No politician who didn't advocate universal health care could ever get positive coverage in this country.
May 23, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, thanks for the news from Australia, Fran.
I spent the fall [your spring] of 2002 in WA [Fremantle] and watched and listened from there to all the drumbeats for war with Iraq. Have to say [even though Howard was aligning with Bush] the whole push for that war seemed to be a phony media-assisted creation. It seemed it was easier to get an objective perspective by being halfway around the world.
I shared in horror and sorrow the news out of Bali, and about all the nearby Perth folks and those teammates who were killed. What a tragedy, and to think that OBL and those kinds of terror cells are still operative, not the least still operative because of the Iraq focus. I left at the beginning of your summer, but after some fires had begun. Those fires and the water situation there is pretty daunting.
Anyway, let me say that I love and miss your country and your absolutely fine fun-loving citizens and sane policies.
May 23, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you enjoyed it, Donna. Unfortunately I don't know Fremantle - have never been over to WA, so I have no idea of the political culture over there.
(My image of WA is of mining boom and more mining boom + unfortunately a great deal of state political corruption.) But I know much of the state - the southern part - is beautiful.
I'm trying to remember what was happening in the 2002 autumn.
Hey I was in Seattle and Portland (on a three month holiday) when Bush invaded. It was excruciating.
I must admit had that been my only experience of life in the US I'd have come back feeling totally negative. One thing that stands back is how ona ll channels it was always referred to as Operation Iraqi Freedom. It was never called that here. Simply the Iraq War. And I don't know anyone who ever thought it was about anything other than oil and Israel.
I've always had a strange discomfort over it: ie I've always been opposed to it because of why Bush went into it. I believe the `why's` are always so determinative of results. But every time I saw reports of his dreadful sons - Uday such a psychotic sadist - my blood ran cold wondering what the hell they'd do when Hussein died and how could one possibly be opposing getting rid of them? It always came back to that wasn't the reason for the war.
Thank you for your empathy over Bali. It was ghastly. A friend of mine's cousin was there on her honeymoon and was never seen again. Ghastly.
Wish you hadn't mentioned fires. I'm right in the heart of Victorian bushfire territory - the last bushfires here (year before last) missed my cottage by 1km! wry smile They only missed me because the wind changed a the last moment. Think I should move?
Yes our politics are sane, now since we've finally got rid of that grotty little git Howard.
Anyway. I'm glad you enjoyed Australia. It's such a laid-back place, isn't it?
May 24, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Fran. I appreciate your taking the time to write about your experiences. It's certainly a dream of mine to visit your beautiful country. Who knows...
May 23, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
My pleasure. We'd always be delighted to offer you hospitality if you ever made it here. But do make it before climate change turns us into another Ethopia... (The Great Barrier Reef's dying now as we write All the marvellous elms and beech trees in Melbourne are dying.
sigh
May 24, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keith Olberman slams Hillary
Link to tonight's Special Comment
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24797758/
May 23, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link, what a great commentary by Olbermann!
May 23, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
WOW!
You know, watching him confirms what I concluded this morning.
Hillary Clinton is so damned polarising - she loses it so often that she ends up having the rest of us lose it too!
May 23, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy shit.
May 23, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNdbvvva1Zg
It's on YouTube too (the NBC video player never works on my computer). Hillary is sick! To demonstrate how love blind some of her supporters are, even RFK, Jr. tried to blow her unforgivable comments off. She will never be president or vice president. Thank God.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24clinton.html?ref=politics
May 24, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I'm concerned, there's no spin possible on this one.
No spin is needed.
May 23, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
So "there could be an assassination" would not be, in reality, a rationale for staying in the race.
RFK was still in the race because no one had won yet. Obama hasn't won yet. RFK was still campaigning in June because no one had won yet.
So is the manufactured outrage that she should have simply said that RFK was still campaigning in June without people calling for him to drop out?
May 23, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
That s right pretend that this was not the most hamhanded political statement of this cycle. It does not matter what she was trying to say she said it in a way that shows political tonedeafness of the highest order.
Even discounting that it is foolish and dishonest to compare June of a year when the last contest is on June third to years with later schedules.
May 23, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that there was no malicious intent. I think its crazy to think she is suggesting an Obama assassination, or anything conspiratorial. She was just trying to reference the 68 timeline to make a point about why its early to drop out.
Unfortunately for her, in typical Hillary fashion, she referenced RFK in a tactless way, which just makes her seem insensitive. That is her problem in a nutshell, and why alot of people dont like her personality.
May 23, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It just goes to show what a poor politicain she truely is.
May 23, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 3, 2008 is the new January 20, 2009.
May 23, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can you NOT love this woman? Class, style,warmth, empathy, and lots of it. And she shares it just like a redneck goober from Podunk Tennessee,Pennsylvania,West Virginia. Do shit kicker boots go with pants suits?
May 23, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
With a nod to Michael Scott, I say "Hillary, why are you the way that you are? Honestly, every time we Democrats try to do something inspiring, or exciting, you make it... not that way. I hate... so much about the things that you choose to be."
May 23, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That about sums it up about her. She is such a buzzkill.
May 23, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think many here are over the top. it is clear she is not talking about OBAMA being assassinated and for those on this board to infer she is it’s ridiculous. you will throw out anything ridiculous and say it’s reality. she apologized to kennedy and his family because she was not talking about OBAMA.
You statements are starting to sound even more desperate to get her out of the campaign in any way you can and it shows your fear of OBAMA losing in the general more than her fear of loss.
everyday you people keep pushing hilliary supporters closer to mccain. Since I am already voting for him for reasons i have stated before i am starting to wonder that OBAMA folks can not be this dumb. are many of you really GOPers in disguise? who knows, but many of us are already resolved to vote mccain if hilliary loses and the continued hilliary bashing has become overkill in my opinion
May 23, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
She has already lost. Are you innumerate?
May 23, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just can't say it enough. She lost. anything else is a waste of breath. If she was as tough and smart as some believe, she and McCain would have wrapped up nominations about the same time.
She is going to go 'Lieberman' on our collective ass.
May 23, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the delegate awarding systems were the same, she would have.
May 24, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then she needs to join the republican pary, she has so much in common with them already. Fox news is on her side, Terry McAuliffe called them Fair and Balanced, remember? Pat Buchanan sides with her on all of the racist crap, Richard Melon-Scaife is her new BFF and she is now quoting Karl Rove's math on the campaign trail.
She is clearly in the wrong party. If she likes the republican primary system so much, she should switch.
May 24, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since we now know you get your "news" from Keith Olbermann, your assessment of anything must be viewed with abundant skepticism.
May 24, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ready, there is no need to be nasty. And I get my news from many sources. Olbermann just confirms what has already been reported.
May 24, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and I have video links to the above assesments that are non Olbermann. Care to explain how any of my "assessments" are untrue?
Terry McAuliffe called them Fair and Balanced
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/36988-want-to-know-what-happens-when-we-sing-fox-s-praises
Pat Buchanan sides with her on all of the racist crap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qITwCtfgqw&feature=related
Richard Melon-Scaife is her new BFF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLVZUEfOejI&feature=related
Nothing like giving the right wingers fuel right?
She is now quoting Karl Rove's math on the campaign trail. We all know Rove is on Hillary's side right?
http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DdTTDknAhjqw
May 24, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm trying not to be nasty, mageduley, and I'm sorry to sound harsh. I don't care what Keith Olbermann or Greg Sargent think, but you seem to care, since you're the one who provided a link to Olbermann and quoted Greg Sargent almost verbatim. I don't think citing Olbermann is helpful or meaningful to this discussion, but I do think showing how you were influenced by Greg Sargent is important. I'm sorry if I embarrassed you. I really am. It wasn't my aim, but I can see how it may have felt shitty to you to quote you as an example.
I've patiently explained my own opinion from a firsthand assessment. I don't rely on Keith Olbermann or Greg Sargent to help me arrive at my assessment. They are no smarter nor better informed than I am or than you are. In fact, they've proved once again they are dumber and less informed.
I don't want to fight with you, mageduley. But I am going to protest this ridiculous manufactured outrage. You don't have to agree with me, but please don't lecture me about the definition of words as you did above. I'll try to temper myself further. Deal?
May 24, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ready,
I am trying very hard not to take offense. I listed Olbermann's link simply because he voiced the the knowledge I had already. I personally never liked Greg Sargent. I thought, in the beginning, he was too one sided on Hillary's side.
And a fight over the word "invoked" is just dumb. I have a pretty good vocabulary and that word is just one of many I use. I would note that it was you, not I, who started the lecture. I simply used your own reference since mine was one that "crazy bloggers use". Sorry to have offended your choice of definition.
To imply I am spouting other's talking points (and not my own) is just absurd and offensive. I do invoke news clips and videos that emphasize my views. A picture is worth a thousand words sort of thing.
I have been posting here since the US Atty scandal broke, and have posted on many progressive blogs against the right wing talking points and Fox Noise for many years. I abhorred the horrid deceitfulness and dishonesty. I don't need anyone to paint me a picture - I can see it with my own eyes and hear it from her own lips.
I have now seen Hillary use all of these RW tactics against a decent, honest and ethical candidate. Everything we progressives have been fighting against (kitchen sink) and everything we have said we wanted (ethics and honesty), are separately embodied in these two candidates.
I will not personally attack you, or your intelligence. I will however cite opposing views on your views. I will provide links to back up my views on request. We can debate whose links are more credible. But I will not attack you or your intelligence and I would appreciate you did not attack mine. Deal?
May 24, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you're a crazy blogger, mageduley. I had been quite rattled by Greg Sargent's spin on the RFK story and the insane furor he caused over at Election Central.
Then when I started reading this post and saw you were using the same wording Greg had used (he was the one who used "invoked" originally, btw, which is why I highlighted it), it upset me all over again.
If you can bear to look at my first comment, you might see I was attempting to focus on his influence over his readership. Although I was highly irritated with him, my own word choices ended up sounding more directed at you, and I sincerely apologize for that. I can see my mistake now. I'd rather have articulated my point clearly, however, than to have garbled it and upset you needlessly. (For me, it would help if TPM had a Preview function. I reread what I write before I hit Send, but some comments totally misfire anyway.) I'm not questioning your vocabulary or intelligence.
It really, really bothers me when I see TPM jerking everyone's chains. This is the third time I've watched it happen (the Shuster "pimp" comment and the Drudge Somali photo were the other two times). I think it's outrageously irresponsible of TPM to do that.
Anyway, I don't have a problem with the terms of your deal, okay? But I might criticize Keith Olbermann's self-important bombast! Deal? :-)
May 25, 2008 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely :)
I think we can, without a doubt, disagree without being disagreeable.
May 25, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you read any of the top American newspapers genius? Watch the Sunday shows. I'm sure you'll find something nasty to say about all of the pending journalism. Since Hillary supporters are desperate enough to support suggestions of killing, I guess there is no problem with killing the messenger. Hillary will never be president...or vice president!
May 24, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You scare me.
May 24, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
more --
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/clinton-calls-vp-chatter-completely-untrue/index.html?hp
May 23, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't believe she was suggesting, much less advocating, another assassination.
I do think she was offering RFK as shorthand for "California used to vote in June." She was just saying that if we think back for a while about the assassination, we'll realize that it's fine for her to stay in the race. She was just using that tragic death as a minor prop for her case that she should stay in the race.
Only, a candidate who doesn't understand what's wrong with that tactic is a one who must not be the nominee.
May 23, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
She didn't mean nothin by it, she was just sayin.............
May 23, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder what Teddy thought when he heard this?
May 23, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That he's even more glad he endorsed Obama.
May 24, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
seriously
May 24, 2008 4:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Took my daughter to Obama's rally in Sunrise, Fla. this afternoon. An estimated 20,000 people braved thunderstorms and a severe weather warning to stand in line hours ahead of his scheduled 3:30 appearance. Just after 3:30, the county campaign chair was introducing him, and she turned around to greet him and there was an aide waving her off. She spoke a bit more and then left the stage, saying when she came back, she would be bringing the next president of the United States of America to the stage. They started playing music. Almost an hour went by. My daughter said maybe he's sick. I had visions of RFK in LA. I was afraid they'd be making a tragic announcement. Seriously. Finally he came out, after 4:30, and we went wild. He called Sunrise "Sunshine," as in "How's it going, Sunshine?" and I thought he was just giving us all a "Sweetie," not making a mistake. My daughter and her friend were moved to tears by his words, as many were. I have seen many of his speeches on TV, and I thought he came out onstage today looking a bit wan. I thought maybe tired. Now I realize that the Hillary RFK news may have hit the camp right before his scheduled appearance, and they had to delay to have a pow-wow. Maybe he was sobered by the comment. In any case, he was very complimentary of Hillary and the crowd applauded his positive statements about her campaign. Also, he spoke about the debate over the gas tax holiday, mentioning only McCain's support for it, leaving Hillary out. I'm still trying to digest the incredible ups and downs of this day. Just watched Keith O's special comment. Wow. Just wow.
May 23, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Good evening Springton!" (Spinal Tap on The Simpsons)
May 24, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
RHR,
Thanks for this beautiful recounting of your day. It made me happy and sad. I've seen Obama in person when he was very tired too, and he still made 8,000 people go crazy.
May 24, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope he was just tired. NYTimes confirms that he heard about the Hillary gaffe on the way to the event. It HAS been a long campaign. He did that bit today about how babies have been born and learned to walk and talk since the race started. The crowd loved that. I think about his little ones.
My daughter said he was the best speaker she's ever heard. So glad I took her. McCain is toast.
May 24, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her June time line argument is specious for the reasons alluded to above. In 1968 the Primary season began in mid-March and in 1992 it began in late February - both facts she failed to mention. She also failed to mention California and the biggest delegate reward was late in the season and thus gave candidates more incentive to stick around. March to June is four months, so four months after January would be April. In this election cycle, the NC/Indiana primary should have been the decider and essentially the end of the primary.
The reason why I think this remark effectively eliminates any chance that she be VP is because should something happen to Obama a heck of a lot of people will suspect her involvement to varying degrees. And in the time the country would need the leadership of the Vice-President the most, this underlying suspicion could be disastrous.
May 23, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you channeling Rosenberg? There were only a few primaries in 1968. Humphrey sat them out and rolled up a big lead in delegates through caucuses and Party conventions run by bosses. Bobby was fighting the anti-war candidate, McCarthy and they both would have gone into the convention way behind Humphrey. The point to talking about June 1968 is that she is going to stay in the race until June. The point to talking about Bobby is that she is also facing going into a convention down in delegates. Believe me, if she could sell I'm Bobby, he's Humphrey or McCarthy to the super delegates, they'd "force" her to take the nomination, or at least the VP slot. Clinton/Bobby. Bobby/Clinton. That's the buzz all day.
May 24, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
In 1968 the Primary season began in mid-March and in 1992 it began in late February -
You're wrong and/or you're lying. McCarthy had been running long before March. Were you even alive in 1968?
May 24, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. He is right about when the contests were held.
2. What does when someone was born have to do with it? I was not born in 1066 but I have a prety good idea of what happened at the battle of Hastings.
May 24, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think I love you Larry Geater.
May 24, 2008 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love you back.
May 24, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love you both, but I don't love amber.
May 24, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
ANYONE BUT HILLARY!
Chuck Hagel, Edwards, Webb, Biden, Gore, McCaskell...please NOT Hillary. Her disapproval rating will hurt the ticket. She and Bill, after all of the RFK talk, might try to physically harm President Obama. She's nuts.
http://www.slate.com/id/2191981/
"The problem is, superdelegates aren't buying it. New York Gov. and Clinton supporter David Paterson said her argument that she's winning the popular vote has a whiff of "desperation." And the superdelegate split since Tuesday's contests has been two for Clinton, two for Obama..."
This crap that this is the only way that he can win over Hillary voter is ...crap. Democrats are already wising up just like Hillary superdelegates are flipping. Having Bill as well as Hillary would be a nightmare for Obama.
NO,NO,NO!
May 24, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her disapproval rating will hurt the ticket.
You guys provide a laugh a minute. Go here, scroll down slightly then read 'em and weep at all the dems you're throwing away. And don't forget that you already want to spot the republicans FL and MI.
It's really too bad that all of those "new voters that Barry has brought to the party" are childish as hell and dumber than shit.
May 24, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually checked your link. It's not clear what you are referencing, other than "scroll down a little", to "prove" your point.
You can engage in personal attack or provide actual data and fact, to make your point. It's up to you. Some of us really do check links to read data ourselves before coming to a conclusion.
May 24, 2008 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
So...you didn't see the Clinton/Obama vote count?
May 24, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The passion in these vigorously fought primaries has brought out the worst in both sides. The bitterness will fade. If it doesn't, go ahead and throw away the future of the country by not voting if that gives you some sort of feeling of retribution. But know that THAT would be childish and you would have to live with yourself if you allowed the alternative.
May 24, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Dumber the sh*t." Boy for such a clever retort with intelligent word use, you're showing who is really dumber that shit–you!
May 24, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah but if he were to take someone like Hagel just think how many Republicans he would get. Even by himself alone, Obama isn't totally anathema to them.
May 24, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
girl from the bronx, I watched the interview in its entirety streaming live.
Hillary did not invoke RFK's assassination for her gain, as Greg Sargent implied in his reporting. Hillary was talking about the length of the current campaign. She was trying to think of past examples of campaigns that lasted all the way to the convention. She mentioned RFK as a candidate who campaigned into June. She also mentioned Bill and his 1992 campaign in the same breath and for the same reason: his campaign went into June.
Her audience was middle-aged (or older) men on the newspaper staff who would have remembered the 1968 election. She referred to how we all remember that Bobby was assassinated in June ("while he was still campaigning" was implied in her reference, something her audience would know). This is how these people talk. I know because my family is from that part of the country.
There was nothing devious with Hillary's reference to RFK, and nothing wrong with her later elaboration:
When I read Greg Sargent's report at Election Central, I was sickened. He made it sound like the Obama camp presented Clinton's comment as a deliberate reference to Obama. I have to assume he got that impression from his Obama contact(s). That anyone has distorted Clinton's comment in this way is unfathomably despicable to me.
Meanwhile, TPM engages in disgusting chain-jerking of its readers, rather than reporting the facts as the South Dakota Argus Leader reports them. TPM did not go to the source and ask how the editors interpreted Hillary's comment. TPM provided its readers with a YouTube clip of the comment and spin from the Obama camp. I can't believe how irresponsible that is. It blows me away.
If you watch Hillary's interview, the thing you notice immediately is that she looks like hell. She looks extremely tired. She rarely smiles during the whole interview. She spoke energetically and knowledgeably, but the toll of campaigning is visible in her face. If you watched the entire interview, you would not conclude she "invoked" Bobby Kennedy's name in a calculating way in a million years. You would see she is focused on answering the staff's questions.
May 24, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
She did look spent in the interview. She looked even worse doing the apology, eyes cast down, shamed and desolate.
May 24, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your thoughtful explanation. By the way, you have by far, one of the best names at TPM. So, I'm going to have to give this some thought.
May 24, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, girl from the bronx. You have a great nick and a great avatar. :-)
This whole thing makes me incredibly sad. Hillary has absolutely nothing to gain from invoking Bobby's assassination, it wasn't even a "gaffe," and I was literally stunned when I saw Josh Marshall's "I'll leave it up to you" take on the front page of TPM. Why Josh would even go there makes me sick to my stomach. He should know his audience well enough to comprehend how easily he can whip up a firestorm. It's beyond irresponsible, especially given the topic.
The men Hillary was speaking to were professional newspapermen. They live in a harsh and remote part of the country. The people they know are farmers. Farmers know all about death and accidents, and speak of these events matter-of-factly. They say things like, "There goes the Sorensen boy, the one who got his arm caught in the combine," without batting an eye. Then they discuss the details of the accident, almost like an homage to the survivor or something. My grandmother used to say things like that all the time, scared the shit out of me as a kid. For my grandmother, it was a way of identifying a unique individual, since everyone knows everyone else's business and family several generations out.
The 5 or 6 people Hillary was speaking to did not utter a sound or protest when she mentioned Bobby Kennedy's assassination. She kept talking as if no one had reacted to it. Of course Hillary is not from that part of the country herself, but she does know her audience. She was asked about Native Americans, a topic of concern to South Dakotans, and she answered with some specificity about the most impoverished people in our country. I've driven through reservation lands in SD and can attest to the destitution and desolation unlike anything I've ever seen.
Whoever gave the spin to the media must have learned from the great master Karl Rove. They knew Olbermann would bite. There is no way Hillary intended anything diabolical in her reference. She exhibited no insanity or mental lapses or melting down during the whole interview. And I am sure she is truly saddened about Ted Kennedy's health. That someone would do this to her relationship with the Kennedys (Robert Kennedy Jr. said in a statement that she meant it as a historical reference), that someone would do this to the Kennedys right now, that someone would incite the public's assassination fears, that someone would say or do anything to take her out of the race makes me hopeless and sad.
May 24, 2008 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whoever gave the spin to the media must have learned from the great master Karl Rove.
Or maybe they just learned it from her. Ain't karma a bitch?
May 24, 2008 5:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gasket, honestly, I don't know what to make of Clinton's comment. It makes no sense whichever way one interprets it. But I don't buy the "she's tired and misspoke" excuses. She has commented on the RFK assassination as far back as March. And the same "tired" excuse was offered to explain her Tuzla misrepresentations, though she also made those claims on several occasions. When I hear excuses that don't make sense, I become even more skeptical of what the excuses where meant to excuse.
May 24, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, Genghis, I won't try to convince you. I trust my interpretation of the interview I watched. Did you watch it? Or just clips? Just curious.
May 24, 2008 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what? Presidenting is hard. It's tiring. Maybe we don't need someone who makes huge mistakes when she's tired to be the one taking that 3am phone call.
May 24, 2008 5:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what? She didn't say anything wrong.
May 24, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right and neither has Dubya.
The DNC should snuff her out TODAY!
HILLARY IS NOT WELL.
May 24, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Huffington Post front page's top story begs to differ. They have a comprehensive list of all of the people who disagree with Mr. Gasket and other Hillary apologists' opinion that she did nothing wrong.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/23/clinton-kennedy-assassina_n_103319.html
May 24, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I watched the longer clip with enough context. I think you will agree that RFK's assassination had nothing to do with her point, right? But then why bring it up? This shows, at best, incredibly weak communication skills. When you want to talk about the length of primaries, you don't bring up assassination because that's what everyone will focus on. Which is exactly what happened.
Her statement was, at best, bizarre. That was compounded with a non-apology apology - 'if my remarks caused offense, I regret that' is not at all the same thing as 'what I said was extremely insensitive and I am deeply sorry for bringing it up, I will never ever do it again'.
Hillary's problem is that at this point, far too many people are simply not willing to give her the benefit of the doubt anymore. She's supposed to be a smart politician, remember? Smart politicians don't say stupid shit.
Using fatigue as an excuse is also no good because that makes people ask, well, if she can't handle it, why won't she quit?
May 24, 2008 5:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for saying this because it demonstrates an interesting flaw in the argument for damning her.
Hillary was speaking to a group of about 5 people. She said things to those 5 people she has said to other people on the campaign trail. She said things to them that no one else had previously thought was bizarre. In other words, she thought she was saying something tested and safe.
What Hillary didn't realize was that the interview would get clipped like Rev. Wright's sermons and distributed to the blogosphere. Exactly like Obama found out with his "bitter" comments, there is no such thing as a closed-door, invitation-only audience anymore.
When you watch the entire interview (which you didn't), what's clear is that Hillary did not expect a video clip of something she's said before with no repercussions to go viral on the Internet and that TPM would use the clip along with Obama campaign spin to kneecap her.
There is nothing bizarre about what she said to a room of 5 people. What makes it truly bizarre is that we deem ourselves the audience of her words.
If she were indeed speaking before all of us, she would have chosen different words, different arguments to present her case. You tailor your argument to your audience.
Now that the Internet obliterates the boundaries of privacy, politicians are going to have to be much more careful about what they say anytime, anywhere. Is that what you want? Less openness from politicians for fear of making gaffes that go viral?
Did you defend Barack's "bitter" comments, btw? Have you defended Rev. Wright? If so, those defenses are valid and apply in equal measure to Hillary.
May 24, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If what she had on her mind was the fact that Bobby Kennedy was still campaigning in June, she could have much better said he won California in June, which he did, and was assassinated immediately afterward. To say instead that Kennedy got shot in June cannot make sense in support of her point unless she meant a similar event would change the course of today's race. But even if she isn't cynical enough to consciously be thinking about that, her remark still comes off more like a very telling Freudian slip -- somewhere in her reptilian brain, Sen. Clinton's pretty clearly does have assassination on the brain. Beyond that, the remark distasteful and crude; it totally trivializes RFK's death to bring it up within the context that she did.
May 24, 2008 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spot on.
also:
Worst.
Timing.
Ever.
May 24, 2008 4:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. Her way of referring to that tragedy so casually, as if it's just "one of those things" that sometimes happens in politics, show that she is unfit to be dog catcher, let alone president.
Hillary's defenders need to listen to the YouTube of Teddy Kennedy's eulogy for Bobby before they say or write one more word about this.
It wasn't just wrong to talk about assassination. It was wrong to talk about the assassination of that man in that tone.
Clinton and her supporters have no moral compass.
May 24, 2008 5:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, when I look at those earlier comments, they make me even more confident that this is being overblown. Because they're all in the context of "the race has often run till June." And no one freaked out.
So I'm coming to really believe that all she was trying to do is use an event that people will remember vividly, in order to remind them that races have often run into June.
Obviously, it wasn't a good strategy in the present context, with Teddy's illness and so on.
I've had a lot of arguments with readytoblow and BevD, but honestly, in this case, I'm surprised that they bother to stick it out and talk to us.
I freely admit that HRC has said things that were way out of line earlier in the race. Maybe that's what's really sad here. The Clinton campaign has done so much dog-whistling that they've destroyed the most basic assumptions of trust and fostered paranoia.
Also, I have to say, I am losing respect for Olbermann. The guy is basically becoming our Bill O'Reilly. The "our" part is great, but the "Bill O'Reilly" part, not so much.
May 24, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't trying to make a claim as to what she meant by the statement. I think it's a bizarre statement that is not easily interpreted. Alex, your interpretation is plausible but no more or less so than the insidious interpretations. I agree with you, though, that Clinton's lack of cred has caused people to assume the worst.
But whatever she meant, the "tired" excuse doesn't hold water. Yes, Gasket, I've seen the video, and yes, she looked tired, but tiredness might explain a single instance, not multiple repetitions of the same bizarre statement.
May 24, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't bring up her tiredness as an excuse, Genghis. I'm not making excuses because I don't think there's anything to excuse. She's said it before without any problems, why wouldn't she say it again? Candidates recycle shit all the time.
Are you saying you watched the whole interview? Or just the clip? You weren't specific.
Btw, is there a manual I can buy that lists all the politically incorrect things liberals should never mention? I truly had no idea that mentioning Bobby Kennedy's assassination was off-limits in a closed interview with 6 people in the middle of South Dakota. That's a stunner.
May 24, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis, I like this line of yours:
"When I hear excuses that don't make sense, I become even more skeptical of what the excuses where meant to excuse."
May 24, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
No she DID NOT! Watch it again. She said RFK was ASSASSINATED in June. The only mention of campaigning into June was in reference to her husband. There was no reference to RFK's campaign at all - only his untimely death.
May 24, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has done Obama a great favor. No need to consider her as veep, and everyone outside of Hillaryland will understand why. She crazy. Not crazy funny but crazy scary.
May 24, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know.....
This may be the first instance in recorded history where a candidate assassinated themselves!
The political Hillary (ID) in the limousine on Oak Street - the remains of the human Hillary (SUPEREGO) in the TSBD 6th floor window to fire the diversionary shots - and the darkness of Hillary's self-loathing and self-destructive soul (EGO) behind the picket fence on the Grassy Knoll.....firing the fatal shot that brings her relentless campaign to an end.
May 24, 2008 3:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
if she is vp it only helps obama and the democrats capture the whitehouse
May 24, 2008 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
if she is vp it only helps obama and the democrats capture the whitehouse
May 24, 2008 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
GFTB, like most of us, Senator Kennedy has made a few mistakes along the way. But I also think he's made up for them with a lifetime of service.
I just think we ought to give Senator Clinton the same chance.
May 24, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, that doesn't mean that I favor having her as a VP candidate. I just don't think she should be demonized for saying something stupid and graspingly opportunistic.
May 24, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great avitar.
I guess it's a good thing that you didn't hear the dog whistle.
There is a very small circle in which her statement would be considered appropriate.
I AM PROUD NOT TO BE A MEMBER!
May 24, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't seen to many people saying that this means she can't have a lifetime of service. Being president is something that not too many people get to do. If you don't win your party's nomination and therefore don't get to run and then get elected, it doesn't mean you are a loser.
Just as Ted Kennedy has remained effective in the Senate after he lost his try for the presidency, Hillary can most likely stay in the Senate herself.
And to your point about everyone makes mistakes, yes we all do. Hillary has piled on whenever Barack has even used one word over another that could be interpreted negatively. Unforgiving people don't inspire forgiveness in others.
That said, I wish her the best of luck in New York, as she continues to hold RFK's former position in the Senate.
May 24, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am now convinced more than ever that people are people. There is no such thing as a certain type of right wing nut. The left wing nuts are the same. Those of you who choose to fan the flames about yesterday's comment are no different than Rush Limbaugh's dittoheads.
This is embarassing and this Hillary Clinton supporter has now hardened as I'm sure millions of others have. I am starting to think that many of you want to lose this electon so that you have cause to stay angry and outraged.
Some day some of you, I hope, will look back on this and be sorry. In the meantime, bathe in your faux outrage, just like the dittoheads on the other side of the tracks.
Have a meaninguful Memorial Day weekend.
May 24, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just go and vote for McCain then.
May 24, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
He will. Now why don't you go and take your filthy mouth back to Little Green Footballs where you came from? We don't need you here. You have nothing worthwhile to contribute.
May 24, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who are you to tell someone to leave this site? You don't own it -- do you?
May 24, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to Andrew Golis, I do. We all do.
But why would you defend someone who calls people names like "ignorant fuck," "bitch," and "pathetic whining fucktard"?
May 24, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It comes down to judgment. Even if the spin surrounding the RFK remark seems plausible to some, it was an incredibly ill-advised statement. Sure not too presidential. I think she's reaching that stage where she'd appear at your kid's school disguised as the kid's mom to sneak him/her away for a secret after school roller coaster ride...bunny boiling is not far away thereafter...
May 24, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
From DSM-IV:
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
May 24, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama better watch his back. Several people surrounding the Clintons have ended up dying mysteriously. One of them was a Little Rock detective Hillary had used to dig up evidence of Bills cheating (Jerry Parks). Mr. Parks was shot to death while driving his car in broad daylight down a LR freeway. When Mr. Parks car ran off the road, the gunman exited his car and cooly pumped a few more rounds into Mr. Parks to make sure he was dead. The case has never been solved. This happened only a few months after Vince Foster's death making not one but two mysterious deaths associated with the Clintons. It's hard to know what to make of these bizarre events, but Hillary's statement about assassination is ominous.
May 24, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remarkable timing: a few weeks before the anniversary of RFKs death. Days after Ted Kennedy's diagnosis.
Reminds me of her incredibly bad timing in downplaying MLK's role in civil rights days before MLK Day.
You can't make this kind of stuff up!
May 24, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
But you certainly can.
May 24, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finally, Hillary seems unable to truly apologize for ANYTHING. She seems physically unable to say "I'm sorry".
NYT editorial board - which ENDORSED CLINTON!!! :
May 24, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finally, Hillary seems unable to truly apologize for ANYTHING. She seems physically unable to say "I'm sorry".
NYT editorial board - which ENDORSED CLINTON!!! :
May 24, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Predictable mumbo jumbo from another "thinking" Obama supporter who clearly gets her news from TPM, which gets it from Drudge, who gets it from the New York Post.
Yawn, any excuse to throw stones...
May 24, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful detective work Lalo! I'm glad you were able to clear that up for us!
May 24, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
With everyone so focused on imitating Keith Olberman imitating Bill O'Reilly, someone's gotta do it.
May 24, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is there any particular reason you are using Obama's image with Abraham Lincoln's to conflate the two? What are you thinking that they have in common?
May 24, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think one of those stones struck you in the head Lalo (not Lalo Alcarez) the spouter of nonsense.
May 24, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
observer2....Reminds me of her incredibly bad timing in downplaying MLK's role in civil rights days before MLK Day.
Please link the quote you're referring to. Thanks.
May 24, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll do you one better. Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9LhWUsrJnM
but Hillary is not the only one that thinks that MLK wasn't as instrumental in civil rights as LBJ. As a matter of fat I think Bill wasn't very interested in MLK at all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpEckWHSvXk
May 24, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your link makes my point for me. Thanks.
May 25, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looking at this discussion so far, I think it was useful, and I thank everyone who has already posted and any who might post later today. But I wanted to clear up some confusion about what I actually wrote. I never said Clinton was in any way suggesting harm to Obama by her reference to RFK. What I said, was that it was incredibly bad judgement to inject the idea of assasination into the collective mindset. I also found it
inexcusably tactless to say this in the same week we are all reeling from the news of Ted Kennedy’s devastating diagnosis. How does someone choose to make such a statement? It was reckless and thoughtless on both accounts. But I really think that she and her campaign are in some kind of melt down state and someone has to tell her that she is hurting her own legacy as people are watching this go on. I’m guessing that some of her strongest supporters believe that too but just can’t say it, and are wishing she would get out gracefully and get back to the Senate as soon as possible.
One more point about the fear many have regarding Obama’s safety. If you don’t think this is real, I would just ask you to go upthread and find the post by Rootman Hussein Rootman (the guy with the back pack)
May 24, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the thing, girl from the bronx, Hillary has her own life and is not thinking about Barack 100 percent of the time like his supporters are. She is not required to be tactful, she is not required to be concerned about Barack's safety. She's really not. It's not her job to think about him constantly, to choose her words for his benefit. Like it or not, he is responsible for his own life. It's his choice to run for president in a crazy, gun-filled, violent, bigoted country. I think it's totally bizarre that Obama supporters are so protective of him that they think Hillary should choose her words to have the least impact on his life, campaign, career. She can do whatever she wants. They are two independent people not responsible for each other.
May 24, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
True, Hillary Clinton is not responsible for Barack Obama and the choices he's made. But she's responsible for the choices she has made. For the things that she says.
Especially running for the highest office in the land.
May 24, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't she give a real apology? When you avoid such a mistake it's shows tact. When you make it and give a real apology it shows class. If you think that the POTUS does not have to be tactful and classy when dealing with heads of state of other countries, you're dead wrong. Civiliy, empathy, and a sense of respect are critical for a president. I don't buy the "she doesn't have to be tactful" argument.
May 24, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly what I was about to post. Glad I hit refresh first... :o)
May 24, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll agree with you here. In an analogous situation, I think Obama would give a more heartfelt apology.
That being said, I still think we're overreacting. Notice that Josh has said nothing. IMHO, he's saying nothing because he knows that this whole thing is kind of a Rorschach blot.
Obama's my guy, so I'm happy about this PR gaffe on the other side. But that's where I stop.
May 24, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
She apologized publicly to the Kennedys and will do so in private as well. The private apology is none of our business.
May 24, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
* it shows tact
* civility
May 24, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make valid points, readytoblow, but the bottom line is she offended a lot of people. The media is slicing her up for it and, across the net, there's outrage everywhere, thousands and of comments. And maybe that's not as important as those of us who post these comments like to think, but my take is that, in this case, considering the volume of the comments, Clinton really did a bad on this one. She offended so many people in so many different ways, it makes the bitter comments look like small potatoes, and, considering her shaky status at this point already, what it seems to me she did is drive a nail into her own coffin. Stupid, stupid, stupid beyond belief.
I also don't think this was simply an inartful gaffe. Because she has brought up RFK's assassination at least four or five times in the past few months, this is obviously not just coincidence. Like the gentle reminders about Obama's blacknless back when, these comments are gentle reminders of another liability. There are threats against him, you know.
Let's call this Hillary plays the assassination card. But this was a really crappy decision on her point, this time it was really bad timing -- way too close to the anniversary of RFK's death, and way too coming on the heels of Ted Kennedy's death sentence. She sat on the cake, ready to blow, and she blew it.
May 24, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see. And is it her job to fan white racist resentment against her opponent and then talk about assassination?
May 24, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the referral, girl from bronx. Here's a convenient link to the post you mentioned:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/hillary-melt-down-means-no-vp.php#comment-2842264
May 24, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the link:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/hillary-melt-down-means-
May 24, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
And damnit, I can't even send her a thank-you note for having effectively squelched any sane discussion of her as VP all by herself because she did this so publicly and put the thought that maybe it would serve her into more pinheads in Appalachia.
What an awful person she is.
May 24, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I assumed that in applying for the job of Commander in Chief, she was indeed required to think about the safety of all the citizens of this country, and that would not exclude Mr. Obama.
May 24, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
This was meant for blowgasket
May 24, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, that's the job description for comic book superhero.
It's not humanly possible to protect Obama and every citizen in this country. 9/11 should have made that crystal clear.
May 24, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too many things wrong with this comment to mention. The gasket must finally be blown.
May 24, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, there's nothing wrong with what I said. I have a reference for it but I'm not in the mood to share with you. Sorry.
May 24, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'll feel better when you get that thing fixed.
May 24, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel fine, thanks. I'm not carrying a 100-lb. backpack on a fucking bicycle.
May 24, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's good. You know how I worry.
I want to reply to your comment above, but first I want to make sure I am quoting you right. You say that 9/11 should have made it crystal clear that the president can't protect every citizen in the country?
May 24, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. That's what I said.
Before you comment, I was in New York on 9/11, the shock of which gave me a profound realization of my city's and my own vulnerability. I no longer expect my government to take care of me.
When American Flight 587 crashed into Belle Harbor, Queens, in November of that year, I felt the same acute vulnerability triggered in me all over again. Almost like a flashback. The feeling went away, of course, but it was a visceral reminder.
A couple years later, I was on a subway train that stopped before reaching the West 4th St. station. After 45 minutes, the conductor told us we must exit the front of the train and walk the tracks to the station.
I had never been on the tracks before, of course. Firefighters lined up about 10 feet apart all the way along the track to the station platform. What was amazing to me was how totally "open" the track lines were underground: there are huge gaps between the walls so that you can see or walk from one track line (say, the 6th Ave. line) to another (say, the 8th Ave. line). At a hub like West 4th St., you can see all the lines converging. I mention this because it proved what Mayor Bloomberg said about how the subway cannot be protected from a terrorist attack. There is no way to secure it.
The reason my train stopped is because there was a fire on the tracks. The fire was not caused by a terrorist, but by a crazy person, according to news reports. To keep us from panicking, we were not told there was a fire. There was no smoke or smell of smoke, so we had no idea what was going on until we got aboveground.
That's all I need to say about my 9/11 comment.
May 24, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
All the more reason why Hillary should not fuel the "crazy people" into trying to assassinate anyone.
May 24, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only "fueled" people seem to be bloggers. RFK Jr. is totally fine with Hillary's comment.
May 24, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
He supports Hillary because he wants her senate seat.
May 24, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are you doing, mageduley? Are you trying to have the last word, or are you trying to convince me of your point of view? Because you're not convincing me. What are you doing?
May 24, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ready, I know I am not convincing you. I doubt that anyone could. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. When you state things as fact, and if I have evidence to the contrary, I feel it is my duty to present it to the others who may be reading (and believing) your one sided assessments.
May 24, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not his goddamn safety or his family's that has been threatened by this. And he wants her NY Senate seat.
May 24, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
expatjourno2:
I guess you forgot it's Robert Kennedy Jr.'s own fucking father who was assassinated! It has nothing to do with wanting Hillary's senate seat! What is your problem?
If RFK Jr. can accept Hillary's comment as innocuous, your opinion about it doesn't even rate.
May 25, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The 9/11 Commission found that there was a great deal the administration could have done to protect the American people, even without superpowers. And it sure wouldn't take a superhero to do what bronx girl described: "think about the safety of all the citizens of this country."
You bringing 9/11 into this, like Hillary bringing up assassination, is why people are gravitating to Obama's "let's get real" post-Bush, post-bogeyman message.
May 24, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Back Pack! My man!
May 24, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rootman:
My reference to comic book superheroes has to do with an idea I developed on Billy Glad's The Myth of Barack Obama thread. It's a theory to explain (to me, anyway) the phenomenon of Obama and the public's reaction to him. I doubt you'll spend the time to consider it, since you haven't considered anything I've said so far; you're too busy coming to gftb's rescue. That's why I didn't want to share it with you: I expect that you won't get it.
Thanks, I know all about the 9/11 Commission report. I knew you would go into a bogeyman/Bush spiel about 9/11. That's your issue, not mine. I'm not afraid of bogeymen. The only person I'm afraid of is amber.
My bringing up 9/11 has nothing to do with fear or fear-mongering. It has to do with the exact opposite: it has to do with conquering fear and dependency. I don't expect you to get this either, but then, you don't live in NY, you haven't walked along the tracks, you haven't seen your city blanketed with ash as thick as snow, you haven't listened to the sirens screaming down your block on the way to St. Vincent's Hospital, you haven't walked 30 blocks down 7th Avenue looking into the space of clear blue sky where the towers used to be, you haven't seen hundreds of homemade Missing Person signs taped to every lamppost, you haven't walked past armed National Guardsmen patrolling the subway on the way to your work every day, you haven't noticed how nobody marked the "I Love NY More Than Ever" posters with graffiti like they do to every other poster in the subway. I tell stories, Rootman, so I'm not afraid to talk about life and death.
May 25, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's weird how the Hillary people are talking about 9/11 on several threads. Why now? Post-traumatic stress?
May 25, 2008 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't read all the threads, so how would I know? But I'm not stressed in the least. Especially now that I know you don't read.
May 25, 2008 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bottom Line.
If Hillary meant to imply that she was staying in the race because her opponent might yet be assassinated, then she is unfit for high office.
If Hillary did not mean that, and she did not understand that her assassination comments would be offensive, then she is unfit for high office.
May 24, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, liam. Her non-apology bothers me much more than the original statement. If she doesn't have the sense to understand what she insinuated (or worse, doesn't care what she insinuated) then she's not ready.
I hope she's finally learned her lesson: Words do matter!
May 24, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's nothing to apologize for.
May 24, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I NEVER want her in a position where she would benefit politically from the death of Obama, and unfortunately she is in that position now. He won't be out of that position until he is sworn in as president, and then I sure as hell don't want her as VP just waiting for her chance at the big seat.
My full analysis of her comments here:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/05/hillarys-new-game-plan-wait-to-see-if.html
May 24, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
...despite the math making it impossible for her to win...
You lied in the first paragraph of your so-called blog. "The math" is nothing more than counting delegates. If he has won, where is your listing of delegates or other source verifying that he has the required number of delegates for the nomination?
May 24, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just wait a couple of days -- I'm sure someone will get back to you with this information. (Just 56 to go, according to DemConWatch)
May 24, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do we have to wait? Why is it taking so long for Obama to close the deal?
May 24, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am waiting as is Clinton. You say there's only 56 to go. Doesn't the math change if FL & MI are seated? Dean has said that they will be seated.
The point is it's not over until it's over and claims that "he's won" and the like are garbage.
May 24, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure FL and MI will be seated at the convention, and exactly in such a way that they will have absolutely no bearing on the result.
But don't take my word for it, just keep waiting...
May 24, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've got inside info on FL/MI being seated? Where did you get it?
May 24, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry, we won't! lol!
Aren't you in Germany anyway? What do you care?
But anyway, you never answered my question: Why can't Obama close the deal already? Geez!
May 24, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
He has, dummy.
May 24, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
So how are my being in Germany and caring about the nomination mutually exclusive?
It's taking a while, but I think it's reasonable considering the hurdles he has had, not to mention being up against another very strong candidate.
Now a question for you, rtbag: Who will you vote for in November when Obama is the Democratic candidate?
May 24, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
To all of the TPM drama queens of manufactured outrage...
So don't just pick VP candidates because they'll appeal to one of this year's swing voter blocs du jour, or compensate for a perceived Obama weakness. Giving somebody a 15% chance of becoming our nominee (even barring tragedy) is a pretty big deal, so be sure to support somebody who would be an excellent presidential candidate and an excellent president.
You'd better head on over to Washington Monthly and vent over there as as well. Heck you can just copy and paste your hysteria from here.
May 24, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's one thing for someone to say they'd be an excellent VP because they could step into the role of president if needed. It's another thing to justify keeping your campaign going by suggesting that your Kennedyesque opponent might get murdered.
May 24, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
She doesn't need to justify keeping her campaign going. The nomination hasn't been won by either as yet.
As for the 'Kennedyesquse' ref, it must be an eye-of-the-beholder thing or something. I'm not seeing it.
May 24, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ted and Caroline Kennedy and many, many others have noted the Kennedyesque quality of Barack.
Hillary needs to continually justify continuing her campaign, just like every other active candidate, to keep donations coming in. I didn't mean she doesn't have a right to stay in. But she has seen donations drop off, so she needs to give donors a rationale. Her latest one is that June is, sadly, official assassination month.
May 24, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think of it as Hillary plays the assassination card, indiex. You know, just a gentle little reminder to the voters of another little liability. But it backfired. Just like Bill's and her playing the race card did back when. Sometimes you wind up dumb when you try to be too smart for your own good.
May 24, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
She had no sinister intentions in mind. But she did imply that anything can happen between now and Denver, and using assassination as an example of anything can happen shows a dark side of Hillary that we do not need in a presidential candidate. All the more because she had said it more than once in more than one venue...i.e., this was no inadvertent remark.
The thing that makes this a viral bomb is that it happened on video and as the Chinese said, a picture is worth a thousand words.
On the other hand if you are a Hillary supporter, that is fine, and I can respect that. But to say that Obama supporters are reading something that is not there is false...there is something there that is not becoming at all of a presidential candidate.
May 24, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you run for office, you are often asked the same question over and over by different groups of people. That answers would be similar or the same in different venues is no surprise whatsoever.
May 24, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
REAL CLEAR POLITICS ELECTION 2008
Democrats Obama-Clinton Spread
Total Delegates 1968 - 1779 Obama + 189
Super Delegates 310 - 279 Obama + 31
Pledged Delegates 1658 - 1500 Obama + 158
Looks like Hillary is counting on a big victory in this year's California June primary. It is her only hope to close the delegate gap.
Please do not tell her that the California primary has already been counted.
May 24, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is about the 4th thread you've spammed this onto. And she knows the CA primary is over. She kicked Barry's ass royally there. No wonder it slipped your mind.
Newsweek & Gallup - Clinton 48/McCain 44
McCain 46/Obama 46
McCain is pulling for Obama big time.
May 24, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-chair of Clinton Hispanic council endorses Obama
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/v-print/story/38408.html
Excerpt:
last updated: May 24, 2008 01:44:38 PM
WASHINGTON — A co-chair of Hillary Clinton's National Hispanic Leadership Council has defected and pledged his support to Barack Obama, Clinton's rival for the Democratic presidential nomination. He was joined by another California superdelegate.
The defections came as a new poll showed that Obama would handily defeat John McCain in California in November — and do so by a larger margin than Clinton would.
May 24, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't CA the state where the 'Bradley Effect' arose? But I guess we'd better believe the LAT poll while believing Newsweek and Gallup as well. Clinton is the stronger candidate against McCain. We're waiting to see if the Dems want to nominate someone that's likely to lose.
May 24, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was kind of shocked and angry yesterday. Mostly I was angry that she said anything so creepy and the fact that she injected our greatest fear for our charismatic candidate out into the open. She took it from the lizard brain and put it into consciousness.
Then I went and looked at the full clip. If you look at her when she's says that line about RFK, she does not look like she's spewing malice. She does not look angry and she was not sneering or mean. She may have actually felt defensive. Clearly, in her narrative, she's thinking of it very differenly than it was heard by my fellow Obama supporters and me. I also notice that she looks more and more exhausted and that could be a product of the fact she is also broken hearted. She is human and one of her greatest dreams has just slipped by.
Much of the backlash, as some friends pointed out to me this morning, as I was riding next to them on my bike, is that her wordage fell into a polluted pool. She has said many things this primary cycle that has turned toxic the general atmosphere. Some, not all, of the toxicity is also generated by a basic Hillary-hate. A Hillary supporter in my bike club pointed this out to me. I'm not sure that his views are wrong.
However, what was strange in that vid clip is why she focused on the assassination and not that RFK won CA in June. She could have left it at that. Instead she brought up the assasination. Therein, I think lies all the problem.
May 24, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point of mentioning RFK at all was that he was still campaigning into June because that nomination had not yet been won either. I thought that came through clearly in what she said.
May 24, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to get your hearing checked. She talked very clearly about an assassination, not about campaigning.
May 24, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Evainne. To make the point she claims she tried to make (and I'm almost 100% sure she meant nothing nefarious, though there is a somewhat bigger chance it revealed something she has privately thought), there was no need to mention the assassination to refer to that nomination year.
I've seen how tired she was, and I could have easily forgiven such a slip up. But she blew it with her "apology." If she had at least acknowledged how her choice of words could be interpreted as an insinuation that she's waiting for Obama's assassination and apologized for that confusion, it wouldn't have been such a big deal. But she's either oblivious to how her words have been taken, or it doesn't matter to her. Either way, that's very troubling.
May 24, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
hey, where'd my post go?
May 24, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's funny. It went to the "Internal Server Error" in Australia. ;-)
May 24, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been watching CNN this am and there has been NO MENTION of her comments. Nothing. When they go to the campaign they just mention campaigning in PR. I assume it will come up in the Ballot Bowl program but really, that statement was a shocker. Since when doesn't CNN sensationalize shocking statements ad nauseum? I guess they are afraid of being labeled as sexist.
May 24, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's because there's no story. CNN covered it briefly last night and determined it doesn't have merit.
May 24, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I noticed that too. Nothing about it on CNN at all.
May 24, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I hope that is a protection for Obama
We walk a fine line. Hillary's comments on assassination are disgusting and should never be uttered because of the sensationalization. That is a beacon for the crazies to come out of the woodwork.
http://www.lorencoleman.com/copycateffect/copycat_effect1.htm
May 24, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good point but I'm not so sure. Sensationalism tops all with the media and CNN is about as intense as it gets with that. Rev. Wright's comments drove the crazies out of the woodwork but they covered that round the clock for a week. If anything it seems they are protecting Clinton, but you could be right.
May 24, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's ironic that Obama supporters are apparently "the beacon" you refer to. Clinton was talking with 6 people in SD. That's no beacon. She made a comment regarding RFK campaiging in June 68 when he was shot.
The comment would have been accepted for what it was...ie and explanation that campaigns can go in to June...and that's the end of it unless the Obamadrama queens need a fix of faux outrage, thereby becoming your "beacon".
May 24, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another reason why I don't think people are NOT overreacting to this:
The power of symbols is unquestionable. A strong symbol has the capacity to illicit fear, bigotry, violence, hope or optimism.
Her choice to reference the assassination of RFK conjures up imagery that is so charged, so potent and so present in the minds of many. It is especially charged since we are in the week of the upcoming 40th anniversary of RFK, Ted Kennedy’s heart breaking diagnosis and the constant fears about Obama’s safety—all on the minds of many.
Her choice to utter these words revealed a lack of understanding of what the political temperature is out here. She walked right into it this time.
This was a serious miscalculation. She can't afford this and convince us that she wouldn't make a similar miscalculation as President or Vice President.
Her comment may seem trivial to some, but it unleashed an avalanche of pent up resentment and raw emotion from many who have tried to maintain some decorum throughout this entire campaign. And yes, the people who are over the top too.
But I think she messed with the wrong symbol here. This symbol transcends race, gender and political parties. This symbol tapped into one of our deepest fears-- that a human being can be struck down in the prime of their life by one senseless act.
I agree with those who pose the question:
She either put it out there to make the suggestion or she didn’t realize that the connection would be made. Either way, she exposed a crucial flaw.
I also wouldn’t be surprised if the entire Kennedy family came out to defend her. They are a gracious and stoic clan. But she has not shown the same kind of generosity and depth of character. Even if Teddy came out and defended her, it would say something about him; it would not say the same thing about her.
While it may disappear from the front page, it will haunt her for a long time to come.
May 24, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry:
Another reason why I think people are NOT overreacting to this:
May 24, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you were right the first time.
May 24, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
BG, as long as you're still here, you can still read my post on the subject. I have it stamped as June for both personal reasons and simple memory.
May 24, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can fool some of the people all of the time, right BG?
May 24, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
GFTB, I agree with you that Hillary evoked a powerful symbol just in mentioning the assassination of RFK. In a comment below, I wrote that I suspect that her decision to work that symbol into her argument for staying in the race was deliberate and purposeful.
Being of Hillary's generation, I know how powerful the mere reference to any of the assassinations of the 1960s to those of us who were alive at the time. It's worth remembering that regardless of the motives of the persons who killed JFK, MLK, Malcolm X and RFK, their assassinations were integrally connected to the civil rights movement. JFK and RFK were hated and reviled by many because of their commitment to civil rights, and the level of hatred was enough to inject the thought of assassination into people's minds and even into the common discourse.
At least that was true in the part of the South where I lived in the 1960s. I will never forget coming home for Christmas in my senior year of college in 1963, my heart and mind still raw from the shock of John Kennedy's assassination. I walked into church for the midnight Christmas Eve service and was greeted by a friend from high school who said, "Well, we finally got him!"
As I said, the thought of killing JFK was in the air well before it happened. And the fear that Obama could be killed is just below the surface for many of us. Hillary knows this. She couldn't not know it. As you said, she was using a powerful symbol.
May 24, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dunyazad,
You actually said it a lot better than I did. I agree with you, especially about the idea of "rehearsed talking points." Great comment.
May 24, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary did use the words "bitter" and "cling" to pummel Senator Obama, and he sure as hell did not help the War Mongers like Hillary has.
Hillary set the standards for using a candidates words against them. We are just now playing by her rules.
We are just citing her own words, and we have not even bothered to toss back her "kitchen sink".
May 24, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget, Obamanauts, that Ted Kennedy publicly compared Barack to his other assassinated brother, Jack.
May 24, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
He compared him in the sense that JFK was inspirational for chrissakes. Not because he was assasinated.
May 24, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet never did he compare a campaign to an assassination (as if they are the same kind of event)
May 24, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
No P or VP for Hillaree. That much is certaintee.
She should just curl up with her Crown Royal and think about what exactly happened to her campaign the last 10 months or so to cause her to lose what could have been a cakewalk.
May 24, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enough with these emotional wrecks of Obama supporters.
This is Presidential politics and you do not have the stomach for it.
I call on all Clintons supporters to take it all the way to the convention and lets show them how to fight .
Clinton is the one to beat McCain.
All the way to the convention like Ted Kennedy.
May 24, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
President Ted Kennedy? I remember him.
May 24, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who's a wreck? I feel great! Clinton has not only lost the nomination, but she's blown her chances at becoming VP.
I'm happy, what about you?
May 24, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Woo! Hoo! She is truely toast now!
May 24, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that sure worked out well.
May 24, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before this post expires, let me express on behalf of all of us our appreciation of the poster's gracious hosting of this thread and her courteous and caring replies to the many commenters.
May 24, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the title. Just yesterday I saw a very strong possibility that she would be on the ticket as VP. She has just marginalized herself enough to make that highly unlikely. She just doesn't act presidential. She's a loose cannon.
May 24, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I join in Rootman Hussein Rootman's appreciation of GFTB's gracious hosting the this thread.
I have to question whether Hillary's remark was spontaneous, "just blurted out" or the product of fatigue. I think it was a practiced talking point.
As others have pointed out, Hillary has said virtually the same thing before. I've read her remarks on March 6 in the interview with Time, in which she used the same shorthand reference to RFK's assassination to make the point that other primaries have lasted into June. Comparing those remarks and her remarks in South Dakota, it's clear that it's a talking point she had developed and practiced to respond to the question "why not drop out now?"
In a political campaign, people repeat the same talking points and arguments over and over and over and over. There is relatively little that is "just blurted out." And Hillary does not strike me as a particularly spontaneous politician. Personally, I think that she and her husband have shown a knack for honing their talking points to give out signals in their choice of words -- signals that are subtle enough so that they can't be faulted for saying something that would have been offensive if they said it explicitly. We've seen several other examples of this in the campaign. Sure, Hillary's rehearsed talking points don't always go over well, like the "change you can xerox" remark that got her booed in Austin. But that doesn't mean they weren't crafted purposefully.
Also, Hillary has suggested on other occasions that something might happen to destroy Obama's candidacy. The point of the "he hasn't been vetted" argument was that she has to keep going because something might come up that would make it impossible for Obama to be elected.
So, did she deliberately work the word "assassination" into her talking point about June as a dogwhistle, as a clever way to suggest, without saying so explicitly, that among the things that "might come up" is Obama's assassination? I can't know and can't prove whether she did or not. But I do not think her choice of words was a mistake or that she just "blurted it out."
May 24, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps her mistake was that she blew that whistle just a little too hard and it reached a wider audience.
May 24, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone pointed out (in defense of Hillary, I think) that she thought she was speaking to five guys in South Dakota and didn't expect that her comments would wind up on YouTube. If so, that seems rather naive especially after the fate of Obama's "bitter/cling" remark at a private function. But it does raise the question how many times she has used the same language in talks and interviews. It might be only three or it might be a lot more.
May 24, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, there's not a chance that she thought anything she said would stay in that room. Let's see, there was a videocam pointed at her, it was being streamed live (they would have told her that, me thinks), and, oh yeah, the folks she was talking with were editors of the local paper, who now and then are known to, you know, write stuff and publish it.
Was somebody really suggesting that Clinton wasn't aware that her words would be publicized?! LOL!
May 24, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
On January 8 before the NH primary:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/08/clinton-surrogate-makes-c_n_80449.html
It might have been more than 3 times. This one just happened to come from a surrogate, which back then the Hillary campaign backed away from. How the times have changed when Hillary is making a similar point herself.
May 24, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
On January 8 before the NH primary:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/08/clinton-surrogate-makes-c_n_80449.html
It might have been more than 3 times. This one just happened to come from a surrogate, which back then the Hillary campaign backed away from. How the times have changed when Hillary is making a similar point herself.
May 24, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
(sigh)
Kids, be careful.
I think I understand where you are coming from. Try to put yourselves in Hillary supporters shoes.
They were there.
You weren't.
You view it in the PC abstract.
They are emotionally engaged.
They look at you as the exploiters.
I'm not them or you, but in between, and that is what I am hearing. Just thought I ought to say so.
May 24, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bee,
It has nothing to do with emotional engagement. It has to do with mass hysteria. That's the problem. From Salon:
CNN reported that the editors were amazed at how Hillary's RFK comment had become a story.
May 25, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hum
rtbag, I'm playing unity bee this evening. It seems to me a lot of Obama's fervent supporters have parents a little older than me, that is to say, their parents were small children and grew up revering the Kennedy's without knowing much of a reason why.
I have a high schooler, and she's quite PC. She should be. Our text books and course curriculums surely are.
It's a formidable thing, I think.
May 25, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, unity bee. I get what you're saying now (except for the textbook/curriculum reference). I think I'm just a little older than you, so I'm kinda in between too. Interesting. ;-)
May 25, 2008 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink