There's an old joke about knowing when a politician is lying. When their lips move.

The kernel of truth in that joke is that few sentences escape a candidate's mouth without purpose. I am convinced Sen. Clinton does not harbor any wish for harm to Sen. Obama. But I do believe her choice of time markers served her peculiar purpose of fer mongering in pursuit of the veep slot.

That said, Nice post. I recommend.

Yes, all politicians are guilty of some dishonesty. But there is a question of how far a person is willing to go to win.

Hillary unabashedly brags about her ability to win white votes in Appalachia, as though these voters have more value than Obama supporters. Polls consistently show that part of her support is from racists who would not vote for a black for President. Yet she claims victimhood because of sexism, and openly states her opinion that racism has played no part in this campaign. This is a demonstrable falsehood.

She has consistently tried to change the rules of the primaries, always to her own benefit. She shows that she and Bill are cut from the same cloth: rules are for other people to follow. The Clintons make their own rules, tailored to their interests, whether it involves philandering, real estate deals, delegate selection, or calculating the popular vote.

Politicians always get in trouble if they are caught redhanded in a lie. Except Hillary. She has lied so much, and soldiered on in denial, that one hardly notices the lies anymore.

I do believe that she deserves the reactions we are seeing. The Clintons have corrupted the public square with self serving behavior for long enough. Fortunately, no matter whether Obama or McCain wins in November, we will finally have a President with some degree of integrity and honesty.

I think it is telling the radically different reactions her remarks about Kennedy make in March as opposed to May. she said the same thing both times but the first time it was "ho hummm" the second time it was "how dare you". I don't think it is politically a wise move to implicitly compare Obama to a martyred popular democrat like Bobby Kennedy but I don't think she deserves the condemnations either.

The reaction to this incident exactly follows the Obama talking point that has been completely digested and internalized by the blogosphere and the media: that she will say and do anything to win. It's so predictable, it's now a formula.

So I as soon as her words were streamed yesterday, I knew exactly what to expect.

I'd be saying dumb shit all the time.

Nah. I sincerely doubt it.

To the author of this post:

Your starting premise is flawed from the start.

Senator Clinton’s reference to RFK’s assassination and the lengthy primary he participated in

Hillary, nowhere in her statement, NOWHERE, did she reference the lenthy primary of RFK. She mentions her husband's lengthy campaign, but not RFK's. She did not even mildly connect RFK and Bills campaigns. They were two separate items she used to prove her point.

The only mention of RFK in her statement:
"We all know RFK was assassinated in June."
Period.

Now some can give her the benefit of the doubt, as if she couldn't have meant it that way. She must have meant they both had lengthy campaigns.

This goes to the heart of the matter. Those who believe that Hillary is being railroaded will give her the benefit of the doubt.
Those, like me, who have seen her throw the kitchen sink at Obama, would not hesitate to note she meant what she said.

Normally, when there is a question of semantics, we go to the written account - there she loses.

Reality Check:

RFK did not, I repeat, did not participate in a lengthy primary season. It was a far shorter season than this year's.
Beware of Hillary spin. She just makes up stuff, and distorts the truth, to justify her obduracy.

At this point I simply can't 'defend' Hillary but I don't think that she was explicitly or implicitly trying to raise the specter of assassination to justify continuing her campaign. For one thing, I doubt that she would like people to see Obama as the reincarnation of RFK, particularly during the primary. It strikes me that both she and Bill have seen themselves as the natural heirs to the Kennedy legacy. It must have been devastating to have Ted and Caroline back Obama and to so explicitly pass him the Kennedy mantle. I have noticed that she mentions the Kennedy name whenever she can and in as many contexts as she can. I think this is yet another example.
That said, I am deeply disappointed in how she has run her campaign. I have worked for politicians and I agree that they tend to be very complicated and not always nice people.They can be very progressive effective legislators and still be ambitious and strategic, etc. BUT and this is important, they have to have core values that anchor them (at least for me). We have witnessed Hillary behave like the core values we thought she had were easily set aside in order to win that next state. The absolute final straw for me was the repeated examples of wink wink nudge nudge racism. I don't think that Hillary is evil and I hope she continues in politics (maybe senate majority leader or NY Governor) but I am pleased that this comment should give Obama enough ammunition (pun intended) to push back any attempt by Hillary and her supporters to force him to offer her the Veep position. Given the vast right wing conspiracy having already accused her of the murder of Vince Foster the optics of her being a potential Veep after she repeated this comment several times is unthinkable (even though I give no credence to either the Foster rumour or believe, as stated at the beginning of this post that she intended to allude to assassination in regards to Obama).

The problem with her comments on RFK's assassination was not that she was wishing ill on Obama. I am certainly not inferring that. The problem is her statements are not worthy of someone wanting to be the President of the United States. A president must constantly give speeches and answer questions by the press. The president must be consistently careful not to say something that would offend the public or, in this case, open an unnecessary wound. She failed this test. Under the pressure of almost being eliminated, she failed to exercise the discretion we expect from presidents and we haven't been getting from our current one. Whether or not she had malice is unknowable. But whether she was needlessly reckless is not.

"I don’t doubt the woman’s convictions because I recognize her calculations."

This is a good observation about Clinton and shows the nation would be in competent hands were she president; the nuanced style differences between Obama and Clinton, however, are what most Obamaites blog about; i.e. he is so upstanding, she's so down and dirty yada yada yada . . .

But I have to weigh in on her comment about Robert Kennedy being assassinated, and how when he died it was already June, so the primaries can go longer (yada yada . . .) it made me uncomfortable to hear her bring up this incident. I thought it was a definite appeal to our fears with respect to the charismatic Obama, and in this case I wish her "nuanced style" would have taken a back seat and not mentioned it.

I never once suggested that the US has no political dynasties. That would be foolish. Personally, I don't think a dynasty is either inherently good or inherently evil. The Kennedy one has produced very fine (if somewhat flawed - aren't we all) public servants.

I raised the Kennedy dynasty and mantle to suggest a more personal and psychological reason for Hillary's RFK reference.

In terms of not having a Clinton dynasty. I think progressives have been less enthused by the prospect because of a certain disappointment with the lack of action on a progressive agenda during the Clinton years. The personal dynamic of the Clinton team coupled with the animus that the Clinton's seem to engender from many voters makes the continuation of the Clinton dynasty less than appealing.

I really don't think the majority of Obama supporters (plse ignore the rude nasty folks) have rejected Clinton because she is a woman but because of the kind of politics she and Bill do. The triangulated, reactive and combative style of politics that is understandably ingrained.

As an outside observer (Canadian) the US is facing considerable difficulties trying to undo the damage of the Bush years. It will require a new approach, a new message. That is what Obama offers in this race (whether against Hillary or McCain). This is not an oversimplification or a line but something that is deeply passionately felt.

It is the belief that they deserve to be the most powerful people in the world that drives all presidential candidates.

That would be the wrong person for president. They deserve it? Deserve to be the most powerful people? I'd say that shows sign s of a growing megalomaniac.

Wonderful post thank you!!!!!!!

Actually, lemme modify my post just a bit: My impression is that Hillary thought she could suggest it was fine for her to wait around because something might happen to take Obama out of the race without having to own that she was suggesting that. She and Bill both have done this. They think they can state the "facts" and let the "consequences" speak for themselves without being seen as intending to evoke those consequences. They don't want to be seen "winding up" the key on the back of the "facts." But they keep getting caught doing just that -- at which point they express dismay and outrage, because getting caught wasn't what they intended.

Whatever her motives and whatever her rationale, the race is over. Back when that was not a given and she still said things like about how she and McCain have passed the commander-in-chief test and Obama hasn't, that was just rude, crude, hardball politics. Now the only way she could win would be for something terribly to happen to Obama. She should recognize this fact and step down because anything she says at this point isn't helpful to anyone.