« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
HILLARY RAISES ASSASSINATION ISSUE
Since Greg hasn't gotten this posted on TPM's front page yet, allow me.
Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.Is this because of sleep deprivation, too? That's the most charitable interpretation I can think of.
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.
Honestly, this is going to go very, very badly for her, as it should.
Intentional or not, you just don't talk about the possible assassination of your rival as a reason for anything.
Truly below contempt.
Advertisement
Comments (151)
Hillary is working sooooo hard on burying her political career.
Keep digging and good riddance!
May 23, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you mean? She won't suffer any negative criticism from the media, and most of her supporters have been dreaming of an Obama assasination for months, she'll simply call Obama supporters childish and irrational for acting negatively and the media will pick up on that and repeat it over and over.
May 23, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is her "anything can happen" strategy that Terry M was going on and on about last weekend.
May 23, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the most outrageous thing I've ever heard. I see her apologizing on TV, but that's not enough in my opinion. She owes Obama a personal apology and should withdraw from this race immediately. If ever anything shows she doesn't deserve to be president, this is it.
May 23, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
My reposted comment from OMG assassination story 3,118:
Let's not blow this too far out of proportion. In the context of her statement, she was talking about not leaving the race in June, citing two examples of those who stayed in, her husband in 1992 and RFK in 1968. She did not mention Obama anywhere in that statement, so it might as aptly applied to her.
I hate defending her, but this is a reach, IMHO.
May 23, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I've seen your comment three times now, but I don't buy it--and I'm the Unity Baby. It sounds damn well like she's saying, "It's a good thing the primary process is dragging on, because anything could happen--even assassination."
Not only is that reprehensible, not only is it poor strategy, but it's the kind of irresponsible statement that could be misinterpreted by a wacko.
May 23, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have rescinded my comment on the original post:
Okay, maybe I gave her too much credit. Shit. Hate it when that happens! Taken with the Nemazee quote Jonez put up and her push for the veep slot, it DOES seem like a suggestion to put her on the ticket "just in case" someone offs Obama.
May 23, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I apologize to all for initially having given her so much benefit of the doubt. I can hardly wrap my brain around the monstrosity of her remark.
May 23, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, I think your hesitation was appropriate. This is a weird ambiguous remark, and I still don't think we should overplay it.
I still think it *could* have been an incredibly unlucky choice of example, though I would admit that when an example like that just pops out, it kind of suggests that you are spending a bit too much time thinking about assassination.
She'll catch some shit for this, and probably deserves to. But I'm with ondioline, below. Instead of turning her into the monster from Alien, let's give her the weekend off.
May 23, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Alex. While I always agree with you, I write to stake out a difference on this one point.
The not Moslem "as far as I know" was exactly the same comment from Hil, and could be described with the same response you come to, I suspect out of weariness. It was standing on the edge of a blurry line separating unfortunate from extreme bad faith, you could say this or that for it, but you know neither you nor your candidate would ever go there.
It's almost calculated to foster division by dividing the world into the sensibly angry and those in deep denial.
The only reason it doesn't make me more angry is I had my adrenal glands removed several months ago after Dressed Obama was leaked by her campaign, which made watching her campaign much easier, medically speaking.
Like the family deaths in The Godfather, her statement was an accident.
May 23, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, her answer to the question as to whether Obama was a Muslim was, "no, no, no, of course not." She did not leak "dressed Obama" that came from a republican operative as was the entire "he's a muslim" campaign."
May 23, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her response to the Muslim question was "Not as far as I know."
May 23, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sure as hell was not. Go look at the video.
May 23, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/02/clinton-as-far-as-i-kno_n_89488.html
IT SURE AS HELL WAS
May 23, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for proving my point.
May 23, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
what part of, "No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know," were you having dificulty understanding?
May 23, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which part of "no, no, no" don't you understand? Which part of "of course not" is difficult to parse? She was asked the question THREE times, and THREE times she answered "NO".
May 23, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just like she always does. She starts to say or do the right thing, gets our hopes up and then shatches it back.
No, No, No, Not as far as I know.
It is like a sutor who says "You're beautifull, You're lovely, You are capivating, for a fat girl."
It is politicaly stupid. Kind of like saying "Working, hard working Americans, white Americans."
May 24, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
so what. she answered 3 times that "yes" Obama could win the GE yet she continued to base her campaign on the premise that Obama's candidacy is destined to fail.
May 24, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not exactly disagreeing. I really don't know what to make of it. If I had to guess, I'd say we just got an accidental glimpse of back-room conversations at Clinton HQ. This example popped out because it's been the subject of chatter in the famous war room.
In which case, it's not a pretty glimpse.
But I strongly endorse the adrenalectomy. That's about where I am with HRC.
May 23, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't anyone remember the 68 convention? McCarthy went to the floor with the most popular votes, Humphrey had the bosses' votes.
May 23, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well. It was only after 1968 that the Democratic party decided to make sure that delegates voted for whoever won their state. Hubert Humphrey didn't run in any primaries, he just amassed delegates. Eugene McCarthy contested the primaries against Robert Kennedy and was actually losing to Kennedy. After Kennedy had won California, McCarthy should have pulled out because he was behind, but he didn't and Kennedy was assassinated. So, Kennedy's delegates didn't know which way to go, they didn't want to go with Humphrey because he was too associated with the Vietnam War, they refused to get behind McCarthy, so, they went for the only other anti-war candidate, George McGovern. So, since Kennedy's supporters and McCarthy's supporters refused to come together, Humphrey won because he had the most delegates. Democrats decided to fix the system after the debacle that took place in Chicago.
May 23, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you go, there are rational people left in the world...
May 23, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but it still made no sense for her to reference an assassination as to a reason why she should still stay in the race. Personally, I think she and McCarthy should have pulled out when they realized they were behind. Then if something happened, McCarthy could have gone into the 1968 convention with the Kennedy delegates who wouldn't have been as bitter and who knows who would have emerged as the Democratic nominee?
May 23, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reference wasn't to the assassination. The reference was to the 68 convention/election cycle and what happened during that period. The circumstances are very similar to that convention, in fact, they parallel them. You pointed that out yourself. If Kennedy hadn't been assassinated, that race would not have been over in June, it would have gone to the floor, just as it did go to the floor, and the top three contenders would have been Humphrey, Kennedy and McCarthy. Humphrey did not have the popular votes, Kennedy and McCarthy did. Kennedy would have continued the fight to the convention IF he had not been assassinated. No one called for McCarthy to drop out, no called for Kennedy to drop out so why are people calling for Clinton to drop out? The 80 election was similar too - Carter had the popular votes and the delegates, but Kennedy thought he could take the nomination in a floor fight. Kennedy lost on all three ballots.
May 23, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then why not reference Ted Kennedy's run? Or Gary Hart? Or Michael Dukakis? Why go for the very worst case scenario?
May 23, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know. I'm sure there is some sort of sordid, tawdry plot to trigger the Manchurian candidate that the Clintons have ready to fulfill his mission of destroying her opponents. Perhaps if she had said, "God called Bobby Kennedy home in June" it might have passed the rube test.
May 23, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
She was referring to, "everyone should remember June is still a campaign month", citing 2 memorable Junes. I add more here.
May 24, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
After listening to as many editorials calling for him to drop out as Hillary has had to.
May 23, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one was calling for Bobby Kennedy to drop out of the race.
May 23, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bobby Kennedy was ahead of Eugene McCarthy in delegates on June 5th.
May 23, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bobby Kennedy was ahead of Eugene McCarthy in delegates on June 5th, 1968. Eugene McCarthy should have pulled out after he lost California but he didn't and the point is moot anyway because Kennedy was assassinated.
May 24, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong Kenedy, My bad. I was talking about Edward in '80.
May 24, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the best way to not reference assassination is to talk about it? What color is the sky in your world again?
Sorry, your argument just doesn't fly. It doesn't even have wings. If people want to talk about drawn-out campaigns and convention floor fights, they talk about about drawn-out campaigns and floor fights. They do not talk about assassinations.
May 24, 2008 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I read just the transcript of her comment, I thought it could be taken a couple of ways. But, seeing the video, where she stresses, about the RFK shooting --"in June, right?" -- it's clear she is saying that anything can happen and it's not even June yet. The wrap-up of the nomination ... or the assassination of a candidate.
It almost sounded (I hate to think this, but —), like wishful thinking on her part.
After her "as far as I know," Muslim comment, her "hardworking white people" comment, and her RFK assassination reference, I hope a slew of super delegates decide enough is enough. Toxic is too mild a word for HRC's campaign tactics. If she can't figure out why people want her out of the race, all she needs to do is review her own quotes.
May 23, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Well, I'm not hoping for him to be assasinated so I can take over, as far as I know." *Glance sideways*
May 23, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary and Bill have been dropping codes for months.
This has people psyche's disrupted.
She's divisive and polarizing. She has no empathy. She's cruel and sadistic.
No mas.
Not this time.
May 23, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those alleged dropped codes are mostly in the eye of the beholder. Don't fall for the trap of being so touchy. Do you think Obama was dropping a code when he said McCain was "losing his bearings"?
May 23, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
In saying McCain was "losing his bearings", Obama was reacting to McCain's obvious elderly age, whether consciously or unconsciously. In bringing up "assassination", Hillary is also showing us what she is thinking, consciously or unconsciously. There is no other way to explain the comment, IMHO, explained in more detail in recent post.
May 23, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I just think McCain really is losing his bearings!
May 23, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton/Huckabee, 08!
May 23, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
No.
He just flat out said he was "losing his bearing". He's out to sea. His marbles are tossed. The Straight Talk express is losing it's wheels.
Sorry I pseudo-Rick Rolled you the other day.
Get over it.
May 23, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You as a beholder sir, have no eyes.
May 23, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that their example for Obama choosing Hillary would be a kin to JFK choosing LBJ, and now when it looks like she won't be his VP choice they start talking about Bobby getting assassinated, of course with the implication that if Obama got assassinated, that she'd be the obvious Dem choice to run in November.
May 23, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not so obvious as she apparently would like to believe.
I'm disgusted, but the reality is that this is a Friday on a holiday weekend, and she'll probably get a pass on this beyond what she'd get if it were a weekday.
Everyone's thinking about other stuff.
But I think she stepped right in a huge stinking pile and it's going to be hard to pretend otherwise. I don't think the supers will forget.
May 23, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we all agree to grant Senator Clinton the long weekend off? I don't care whether or not she withdraws from the race, but how about just the weekend? Gawdamnit, she's unbelievable...
May 23, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Intentional or not, you just don't talk about the possible assassination of your rival as a reason for anything."
To be fair, she did not refer to the possible assassination of her rival, Obama.
May 23, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not directly, not. Not any more than she pushed the Muslim meme by the "... as far as I know" artful dodge.
But at best, at best, it was a slip of the subconcious that lets us see how desperate she is, to even bring up the possiblity that she would be the beneficiary of someone being assassinated. It's not like the possiblity is news to anyone, but it's a step over the line for a candidate to say it.
At worst, it was a calculated way to play on the fears of assassination, to taint the process and prejudice the electorate.
Either way, it is a disqualifying act. You can see it as a simple slip, an insensitive remark if you want to. But that interpretation requires you to ignore a long track record. See what you want.
May 23, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary, you need to take some time off. How about permanently? How can we trust your being the VP after you say this? We have heard about your not wanting to get out in case something happens. This is really scary, lady. I am afraid you have loose lips, and you have sunk your own ship. All by yourself. Someone else can fill in for you who isn't waiting for something to happen.
May 23, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama supporters,stay off this one, leave it to the fake Hillary supporters, they will keep it burning. This might help some of her really sincere supporters (which most Hillfolk here are) see who the trolls are among you... only the provocatuers will touch this...
May 23, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, OK. We know you want to stifle the discussion. You can stop now.
May 23, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
A repost...
I don't think Hillary holds a sadistic view of possible Obama assisination as her pathway to nomination. I'm not her supporter and I don't for a second doubt her gaffee. But what bothers me is the reckless disregard in her non-apology follow up. While she seems to address the historical context of such a statement she had the chutzpah of blatanly and intentionally ignoring the fact her mistatemen has direct comparisionto Barack Obama.
That's what is dissappointing.
May 23, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder why it hasn't occurred to people that she might be thinking of herself as Bobby Kennedy? Humphrey had the bosses' votes, but Kennedy would have had the most popular votes. It would have resulted in a bigger, messier floor fight than it was.
May 23, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe because she didn't say anything to make any rational person think she was talking about herself as similar to RFK.
She didn't say, "Well, you know, RFK and I have a lot in common, and when he stayed in the race through June, he got assassinated. That's why I'm staying in!"
Is that what you mean?
May 24, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, no, that's not what I mean.
May 24, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a dopey dopey gaffe, right along with "white voters" and Barack's "bitter" remarks. I chalk it up to sleep deprivation, for Lord knows she must not even alude to the fact that many people (esp. African-Americans) cite their fear that Obama might be killed as a reason for voting the way they do. Politicians aren't allowed to even allude to that in any way, even if it's true, because the public is not mature enough to handle it.
Grow up, people. This is a nothing scandal. Don't be distracted. Not this time!
Obama '08
May 23, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Troll.
May 23, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe's remark is so not troll-worthy.
May 23, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bet real trolls feel like he's making them look bad
May 23, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I cannot believe you called Joe a troll. I think he's understating things, but you can disagree without labeling someone a troll.
May 23, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, your blinders do not show in your picture.
May 23, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't a simple distraction, there is alot of emotion around kennedy's and assasination. the fact that hillary is highly intelligent makes this statement calculating. Maybe she is pissed off that barack will be giving the commencement for ted kennedy at weelysian, which is her alma matre (not quite sure about the spelling). either way the people interept this as no big deal and big fucking deal. maybe she needed some spot light she did loose a SD today. I am an Obama supporter and I was to young to know about the rfk assasination, but It is not lost on me how this nation felt about jfk and rfk's assasination. Remeber where Barack was on mlk day, in Indiana where rfk acknowledged the pain and helped keep the peace.
May 23, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder at your comment about being too young to remember the RFK assassination - could it be that you're too young to remember the 68 election and therefore do not understand her comment?
May 23, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt us whippersnappers have a different view on this than you old farts do, but I've heard several other OFs mention that their sharp memories of it make it even more of a gaffe as opposed to being more forgivable. No doubt we're also influenced by our candidate preferences. Almost no one is suggesting that she wants him to be assassinated, but it's poor form to even allude to the possibility of him being assassinated as a reason for her to stay in, as well as being a poor reason. If she were to suspend her campaign and he was then assassinated, she would still be in position to take over as the presumed candidate.
May 23, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that wasn't the reference. (And I didn't call anyone a whippersnapper, I asked the poster if her lack of knowledge of the era might be the cause of her misinterpretation of the reference?)
She makes a reference and with no attempt to research it or understand it or consider it in context of the era, it is assumed that Clinton has ulterior motives and those motives are the worst that any candidate could have - wishing the other candidate killed. This accusation, one of the worst you can make about someone is accepted without anyone questioning this interpretation or even examining the motives of those persons offering such an interpretation? Why would anyone assume that she is "speaking in code" or triggering Manchurian candidates to kill Obama? That is tin foil hat territory - it is crazy talk, it is nuts, it is conspiracy theory at its very worst. It is playing to the gullible rubes who will buy anything if it plays to their hatred of another person.
This is dumb, Ben, you have to know that, you're too intelligent not to know it.
May 23, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually didn't really read the comment you were responding to, but, yeah, saying that she wishes Obama killed is stupid.
I was just having fun with the whippersnapper/OF thing. I didn't mean anything by it.
It's just that I think you're absolutely correct that whether we remember that event or not will definitely shape our reaction to what Hillary said. However, different people who do remember it have reacted in very different ways.
May 23, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
So it is not a reference to his possible assassination. That would make it just another in her long line of off message politcal gaffes that detract from her message and have lost her this nominating contest.
May 23, 2008 11:40 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 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You;re a fucking spammer.
May 23, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do not know what spam is.
May 23, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah liam stop spamming us with your cogent arguments. You;re getting sound reasoning all over the place.
May 24, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don’t care for Hillary on the basis of her Senate voting record and have lost what little respect I had for her during this campaign. That said, I think she is profoundly, bone-achingly TIRED. Her face and her voice are tired. She is propping herself up on her arms. She should not be talking at all.
If she had good boundaries, she would take a day or two off every now and then. What she has proven is that she will work “for the people” to the point that she is completely ineffective and frankly dangerous. This is not what we need in a president — or teacher or pastor or legislator or engineer or stockbroker. None of us should let ourselves get this tired.
Whether the reference to RFK was sadistic or innocent, it was obviously on her mind. And it should never have been said aloud.
May 23, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it would be nice to let Ted kennedy answer this one.
May 23, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It goes without saying how cruel, to the Obama, his family and all of us who support him, was Hillary's RFK analogy.
But I think she's lashing out at Kennedy.
With Ted Kennedy being diagnosed this week with a brain tumor, how cruel and insensitive is it that Hillary brought up his brother, RFK's tragic death when he is facing his own mortality? She is a psychopath and is openly lashing out at Kennedy for supporting Obama whether or not she is conscious of her actions. Think about it.
This was no accidental slip... this is the narrative on her mind and it shows total disregard for human life if it stands in the way of her goals (like her Iraq vote). Presidential candidates avoid saying deeply negative things whenever possible. This is part of the concerted Clinton campaign to remind people of assassinations and the CODE talk about those hard-working voters in appalachia.
May 23, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, it is the need to interpret this remark in the most cynical and small minded way possible that is so objectionable. The 68 election was headed to a floor fight at the convention and the circumstances of that year's convention are very similar to what is going on now. The 68 convention was one of the most hotly contested conventions in the history of the democratic party - if Bobby Kennedy had lived, it would have been one hell of a floor fight between him, Humphrey and McCarthy and it was a hell of a floor fight between Humphrey and McCarthy. McCarthy had the popular vote and Humphrey had the bosses' vote.
What is most amazing to me is that Clinton would expect anyone in this country to remember his own history. You would think that reporters, pundits and political junkies who profess such interest in the system would understand her comments - this is why candidates have to dumb down, play dumb and generally give dumb answers to every question.
May 23, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This comment is from a troll. She is spamming it on all threads about this subject today.
May 23, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quit posting silly comments.
May 23, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I click on your name at the bottom of your comment I can see that you have only commented on this site starting this evening and all your comments are pretty much the same on any thread you can find to spread it. That's called a troll.
May 23, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't think you could get any sillier, but you can. I've been posting here as long as there has been a TPM cafe and before that in comments. Why don't you ask people before you make remarks about trolls? I could have told you that and saved you some embarrassment.
May 23, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's right. She's been posting here a long time. She's also a reasonable person, even if she is a Clinton supporter. :P
May 23, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you say one more time that I'm a Clinton supporter...
May 23, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry! Don't know why I thought you were. At least I called you a reasonable one, though. :)
(For some people I remember very clearly where they stand. For other people I just have a general sense of whether they're reasonable or not.)
May 23, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just kidding - I support the democratic candidate nominated in August. That's who I support, that's who I am for, that is who I will vote for in November.
What I object to is the Gore - ing of Clinton which is so over the top that I see no hope for the democratic party.
May 23, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bev, please remember that you're only overhearing the comments of people who have decided to join this thread. That's a very, very self-selected bunch, leaning toward people who immediately felt convinced that this was an outrageous and deliberate provocation. It doesn't necessarily reflect any sort of consensus among supporters of Obama.
May 24, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is insane, it's as if everyone has taken leave of their senses and can no longer reason. They complain of the Bush administration spinning the American people into a war, and this is exactly how it happened. Why can they not see this? It is the worst kind of fearmongering I have seen since the war - these are fearful, awful accusations to make about a candidate and why anyone with sense cannot see how they are being manipulated is frightening.
May 24, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand the sentiment. But no one's perfect. Here's the difference. Doug Feith still thinks he was right about Iraq. But by tomorrow morning, a lot of people who posted on this thread (from whatever point of view, and including me) will have second thoughts.
That's why the left is still better than the right.
May 24, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
BevD is not troll. She is a long time and valued poster on this site. She is often as wrong as it is posible to be but she does not post insults and she is not a contrarian.
May 24, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I recognize the name BevD and know that name as a long time poster here, but I assumed that the BevD in this thread was an imposter. It's my understanding that there has been a lot of masquerading as other posters in recent days here. Anyway when I clicked on her name I saw nothing but todays comments, no previous posts or comments so I assumed she was posing. My sincere apologies for misinterpreting your comments, BevD. I'm a bit besides myself today after hearing the assasination comments and am not very receptive to hearing excuses for them at the moment.
May 24, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
BevD has a tendency to call people crazy, fruitcakes, tinfoil-helmeted people. That's insulting to people with mental illness, and to their families.
May 24, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
She also calls people who don't agree with her "rubes," and worse. The thrust of what she says when she disputes people is that they are uneducated, manipulatable fools. I think that is MEANT to be insulting, but most of us here have a pretty thick skin.
May 24, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't call anyone here a rube. I did say that anyone who thinks that Clinton was alluding to the assassination of Obama is a spinnable rube, but I refuse to think that anyone who posts here can really be that gullible and stupid.
May 24, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you have that completely wrong. I said that anyone who believes that Clinton was intimating, insinuating or subliminally suggesting that she is encouraging, counting on or hoping that Obama is killed is dangerouly close to tin foil hat territory, has a screw loose or is in danger of losing any capability to reason rationally.
May 24, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am giving Hillary the benefit of the doubt on this one. I don't think anyone with any scruples Democrat OR Republican would intentionally imply the assassination of an opponent in the presidential election.
However that being said, it is a verbal gaffe of monumental proportions and should rightfully be interpreted as worse than the infamous "Dean Scream".
May 23, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who said Hillary had scruples?
May 23, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe she misspoke, but I also believe the comments were painful and horrific, The term assassination should have not mentioned. Sadly the damage has been done, and even worse she again refuse to admit that she misspoke and she should apologize to Senator Obama. This is very sad of affairs.
May 23, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keith Olbermann slams Hillary in special comment.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24797758/
May 23, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really took this as her pointing out examples of primary elections still being competitive in the month of June. To me, her RFK mention was meant to help the listener recall the month the primary was in when it happened. So I don't take this as her saying she's staying in just in case of... that. That said, I do think she is staying in for largely that reason. She's mentioned RFK several times before in the