I agree - how could anyone possibly misunderstand?
Her argument to the superdelegates is that her path to the nomination is over Obama's dead body.
There's absolutely no way to misintepret what she said. It wasn't a gaffe - she's mentioned the same Vulture Waiting In The Wings strategy numerous times.
Thanks for bringing attention to this!
Posted by sherifffruitfly at May 24, 2008 09:41 AMSo you think Steve is part of that "whacked" obama crowd? Do you advocate all the bloggers spewing vitriol at Steve, this site and evenhanded Obama fans? Eri do you think there are clearheaded, intelligent and reasoned Obama & HRC supporters? Do you think there are idiot boneheaded HRC & Obama supporters?
Posted by jesse at May 24, 2008 09:54 AMSo Clinton supporters are now "bitter" about fake outrage? That's rich. Karma will get you every time.
When I saw the video, my immediate impression really was that she was staying in the race because of the contingency that something could happen to Obama. There would be no need (or historical accuracy) to talk about the RFK assassination with respect to long-running primary seasons. The context was saying why she was in the race, and the contingency scenario is easily the most straight-forward way to interpret what she said.
I wasn't offended, as I think Clinton was giving a maudlin but accurate assessment of her chances at the nomination, but I do not dismiss the feelings of those who truly were offended. Barack Obama has a giant target on his back because he is an African-American running for president. Millions of people are deeply concerned for his safety and that of his family. Clinton's non-apology apology was way off the mark.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at May 24, 2008 09:55 AMAgain, what really amazes me is the outrage by Keith, Tweety, Timmeh, and the MSM talking headlice that some fringe dweller might hear Hillary use the "A" word and escape from their padded room and start acting out.
Then they REPLAY the "A" clip all day to make sure that no mental patient was left behind.
I wonder how Keith would feel if someone was moved to the "A" deed from hearing his special education comment?
Is the MSM trying to get Obama "K"ed so McCain will win and continue to buy their war toys and help the rich folk?
Newsflash: There are plenty of "Deliverence" cast members who would not shed a tear if the first woman presidential nominee was "A"ed, either.
Posted by TIKI AL at May 24, 2008 10:09 AMWhat some people don't get - especially those who weren't around and didn't experience the events of that year - is the visceral reaction for so many of us. First it was MLK and then a few months later, Bobby Kennedy.
Hillary could have made reference to Robert Kennedy as a time frame reference without the use of the "A" word.
Juan Cole mentions that this incident and the reactions to it tell us how traumatic those memories of 40 years ago still are in our collective psyche and that they still need healing.
"Hillary didn't mean to pick at the scab. But she did. And we bled a little, all over again."
To be honest, I think I'm going to sit on the fence with this one. Admittedly I had a double-take when I heard what she said, and I realize she's stated something similar a couple months back, but I just don't quite hook into the line that she's banking on Obama's assassination in parallel to what happened to RFK.
I get what she was trying to say, but damn did she say it poorly. It just comes across as a bit desperate to me with her campaign right now.
In other news, looks like Obama could take a Big State like California fairly well:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-poll24-2008may24,0,7088406.story
He's also pulling ahead in those darn swing states like New Hampshire:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_presidential_election
(gasp)Ohio:
Colorado:
http://www.pollster.com/08-CO-Pres-GE-MvO.php
Oregon:
http://www.pollster.com/08-OR-Pres-GE-MvO.php
(double gasp)Pennsylvania:
http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Pres-GE-MvO.php
And Virginia:
http://www.pollster.com/08-VA-Pres-GE-MvO.php
And the only dynamic left that Hillary is still ahead of Obama is women over 50 yo.
Fancy that.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 24, 2008 10:15 AMTo be honest, I think I'm going to sit on the fence with this one. Admittedly I had a double-take when I heard what she said, and I realize she's stated something similar a couple months back, but I just don't quite hook into the line that she's banking on Obama's assassination in parallel to what happened to RFK.
I get what she was trying to say, but damn did she say it poorly. It just comes across as a bit desperate to me with her campaign right now.
In other news, looks like Obama could take a Big State like California fairly well:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-poll24-2008may24,0,7088406.story
He's also pulling ahead in those darn swing states like New Hampshire:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_presidential_election
(gasp)Ohio:
Colorado:
http://www.pollster.com/08-CO-Pres-GE-MvO.php
Oregon:
http://www.pollster.com/08-OR-Pres-GE-MvO.php
(double gasp)Pennsylvania:
http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Pres-GE-MvO.php
And Virginia:
http://www.pollster.com/08-VA-Pres-GE-MvO.php
And the only dynamic left that Hillary is still ahead of Obama is women over 50 yo.
Fancy that.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 24, 2008 10:16 AMOops, here's the latest Ohio poll:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b03c08ab-30b9-463d-8be2-5cb118e05b74
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 24, 2008 10:17 AMWhat some people don't get - especially those who weren't around and didn't experience the events of that year - is the visceral reaction for so many of us.
Somehow, I suspect most of the strongest reactions are coming from people who wouldn't be born for another two decades.
Posted by wilder at May 24, 2008 10:26 AMSurprise, surprise, the media has jumped all over this stupid gaffe by Hillary. They jumped because they always jump on the sensational and stupid. But, they also jumped because it IS outrageously stupid. It IS a huge gaffe at this juncture, given Clinton's bleak outlook. And, again, as she has done several times now, Hillary has displayed a woeful ear for history and public articulation.
Given the very real history of political assassination in this country, PARTICULARLY against people struggling for racial justice (and it goes WAAAAAAYYY beyond King and Malcolm and numbers in the thousands and thousands of dead bodies), as well as the well-known increased threat-level the Obama's have lived with since they won Iowa many moons ago, it is particularly problematic. It reveals some kooky place in the Clinton mind and the considerable desperation that she and her campaign is under as it lurches toward the inevitable end that approaches faster every day.
This assassination stuff is simply not a legitimate argument to raise within a campaign, particularly THIS campaign and THIS opponent. And, even if there is some truth in the danger Obama faces (of course there is), and thus the prospect that at some point some dumbass will try to take him down (a sad possibility, to be sure), Hillary need not stay in the race to be available later for her close-up, God forbid that from actually happening.
And to offer her any defense in this is equally lame and revealing about folks like eriposte. Hillary created this mess and she will go down with it, too. Her campaign has made many mountains out of many smaller molehills, so now they are getting a taste of it themselves. This is purely her own responsibility and the judgement is deserving on some basic level. If you watched her lame non-apology yesterday afternoon, you could tell she knows it inside; you can now see the campaign swirling down the toilet with one shark jumping after the next. It is simply another sad chapter in the public demolition of the Clinton name and legacy.
It didn't have to be this way. Yes, sexism has been present in this campaign. yes, the Clintons face steep institutional and popular opposition - not all of it fair - to their run for more power. But, this is not why she has lost. Obama played by the agreed upon rules, ran an excellent campaign, and won within the agreed upon parameters, fair and square. Conversely, Hillary ran a bad campaign, squandered her name and resources and institutional prowess, and made poor decision after poor decision. We now know that the approach her campaign took to this race from day one was deeply and mortally flawed. And, if we dare, we can see in that, the great failure of the whole DLC, triangulating approach to politics...
So, do not be all dramatic in your condemnation of the media's overblown coverage or in the fact that many folks are happy to push Hillary's daggar-holding hand deeper into her belly after she stuck it in herself... We are all watching an old political star flame out in grand fashion. It can be jarring and uncomfortable to watch, but it is her own doing, more than anyone else's or any outside factors.
Own it.
Posted by Patrick at May 24, 2008 10:29 AMWhat the OFB -- many of whom are quite likely to be paid AstroTurf operatives, since that is Axelrod's day job -- are telling is that Hillary wishes Obama's death so that she can get the nomination.
That is, quite simply, indefensible on any honest viewing of the YouTube. RFK says the OFB are lying. The Argus Leader people, who were there, say the OFB are lying. Yet our famously free press, who have "thrown their support" to Obama, as Somerby says, propagate the lies. As do the commenters, paid, and -- if any -- unpaid here.
As was asked of McCarthy: "Have you no decency? At long last, have you no decency?"
This campaign is now about justice and legitimacy.
Straight up. Right out front.
Posted by Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA at May 24, 2008 10:34 AMI guess the "bar" for Gen'ral "Fight to the Death" Eriposte is simply that an a Hillary comment be "not offensive".
Do you think it was a valid comment as a basis for continuing her (now hopeless) campaign? Do you think it's a wise to resurrect a beloved assassinated Dem primary candidate at the very tail end a primary campaign that's clearly bitterly turned to race? With the first black nominee in history? AFTER her comments that Obama is "having trouble" winning "white voters"? Eriposte doesn't say. It's just "not offensive" and any Dem who thinks it is is "beyond ridiculous"
I think the comment was indefensibly stupid and imprudent and, at best, (another) sign of bad judgement. I'm not prepared to go to the worst interpretation.
As for the "she said it before!" "defense", well, then why's she bending over backwards to apologize for what is "really" in Hillarian minds a fabulously useful and insightful historical anology to today's primary? Are her supporters now stronger Hillarians than the Hillary herself?
This comment was made several days after Obama obtained a majority of pledged delegates. That's different than saying it a couple months ago. He's now the putative nominee, as many Super Ds have said that they'll support whoever wins the pledged delegates. And what does Hillary do when asked why she's still "campaigning" (as though undermining the legitimacy of the process is "campaigning")? Well, she says that other races have gone into June, including RFK who was assassinated, doncha know.
Pretty fucking stupid at best. And quite a ways beyond offensive at worst.
And as for the "don'r force her out! cry, who's calling for that now? It doesn't matter now, and all the states are going to vote and some resolution to MI and FL determined. She's not being told to get out, she's being called on absurd, reasonably offensive, and highly imprudent statements.
Posted by euzoius at May 24, 2008 10:42 AMSomehow, I suspect most of the strongest reactions are coming from people who wouldn't be born for another two decades.
I was young, trying to stay hidden among the tragic twirling history.
My folks were just getting over JFK's assasination... '68' brought on MLK's assasination... we then moved from CT to to San Jose, CA... then RFK's assasination... my older sister's rebellion and moving up to Haight Ashbury... my older brother returning from 'running away' and his number coming up in the draft, so he enlisted in the Navy... my folks lost all hope after Bobby got killed... to invoke that image, again, in American politics is unforgivable... my Mom was an avid Clinton supporter... not after yesterday.
I can't believe Hillary fans can dismiss her REPREHENSIBLE comments!
Once again... Obama would have never gotten away with saying this!
Posted by Seven of Six at May 24, 2008 10:42 AM...the media has jumped all over this stupid gaffe by Hillary.
Well, thank gawd Hillary was so completely smeared by the vast right wing conspiracy during Bill's administration that there was nothing...absolutely nothing...that they could do to her this time around. Clinton opens her yap and another theory propagated by her supporters bites the dust.
It's the experience and judgment thing, and she demonstrates damn little of both with this nonsense. It is only going to open the door so that every reich-wing AM radio conspiracy goof and commentator starts to bring up all the dead people around the Clintons.
Posted by phidipides at May 24, 2008 10:45 AMI was around in 68. As I recall Sirhan Sirhan was pissed about the US selling jet fighters to Israel. I don't recall any outrage against the Jews in Milwaukee at the time.
Of course we walked 30 miles to school back then, ate lead, asbestos, and DDT, and didn't have the blessing of 24-7 MSM talking headlice.(DDT prevented that infestation)
Posted by TIKI AL at May 24, 2008 10:46 AMThis campaign is now about justice and legitimacy.
And this started suddenly right after the humilating losses on Super Tuesday, right?
Posted by Seven of Six at May 24, 2008 10:47 AMShe said this before on Time in March. She got a pass then. This is eerily reminiscent of the multiple-Bosnia gaffes. Where were her advisers telling her to stop playing with fire? The Clintons do seem to take inordinate risks.
Now that this has become such a flap, I do believe Hillary has essentially disqualified herself from the nomination even if a tragedy did befall Obama before the Convention. I believe the Convention would then prefer to coalesce around Michelle or someone else rather than around the person who might have seemed to incite the act, intentionally or not. Surely she has planted a seed, intentionally or not.
Could Humphrey have gotten the nomination if he had actually said what Hillary said before Kennedy's assassination? I doubt it.
This, in addition to other problems, further disqualifies her from the VP nod. Throughout Obama's presidency there would be the perrenial fear that a wacko Hillary supporter would seek to fulfill her dream of being President by the expedient of a single bullet.
yeah, lambert, when asked why she's hanging on, Hillary gasses on about political assassinations in prior Dem primaries (while in a hopeless position) but (in your view) the people calling her on it are REALLY the ones who have no decency, no shame.
What a fucking upside down world you live in.
Posted by euzoius at May 24, 2008 10:49 AMI read what she said...and frankly I couldn't tell what the hell point she was trying to make. It sounded like blabber to me. I'm noticing that a lot lately with her....just blurting out anything that crosses her mind that in any way justifies her "I'm in it until the final vote at the Convention and don't try to cheat me out of it" mentality. At this point, there's no telling what she might say. She's lost her bearings. Thankfully, Obama is on the trail taking on John McCain and George Bush's failed policies while Ms.Clinton blabs away in her own world.
Posted by T2 at May 24, 2008 10:59 AMWe don't need an apologist on this issue. It's the use of the "A" word during a very socially charged campaign season. Are you so delusional, you can't see what all the hubub is about?
Posted by joe B at May 24, 2008 11:00 AMHere is why Clinton lost:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080524/ap_on_el_pr/obama_s_team
Posted by Patrick at May 24, 2008 11:01 AMPatrick: Does "Own it" mean "Fuck you, I'm right and you are wrong, you stupid bastards!"?
Posted by TIKI AL at May 24, 2008 11:03 AMTIKI:
Were you in Milwaukee during the 1960s? If so, you might be interested in my book on the civil rights movement in Milwaukee, which will be published this fall by Harvard University Press. It is titled, "The Selma of the North: Civil Rights Insurgency in Milwaukee." It deals with Fr. Groppi, the Youth Council, Commandos and the broader context of civil rights/Black Power activism in the city from the late-1950s through about 1970.
If you were around then and conscious of what was happening in Milwaukee, I'd be interested in talking to you further...
Let me know.
best,
Patrick
TIKI:
No. "Own it" means it is time for Hillary folks to stop the delusion and begin seeing things for how they are in this race. I understand full well how our passion for a candidate and for what that candidate represents (which is often different than what they really are or do) can blind us to a clear understanding of the election, but the time has come to call bullsh*t on a whole host of silliness emanating from the Clinton campaign and their supporters.
That is what I mean. Stop the ridiculous excuses. Stop the slash and burn. Clinton LOST this race of her (and her campaign folks) own accord. The other campaign was better. In the final analysis, that is the basic truth.
Anyway, that is where I am coming from. This is all so stupidly exhausting. Obama is the guy. Please. It is over. Let us all get over it and move on to the main event, the general election. Yes, she plays out the remaining contest and then it ends very quickly. No one forces her out. It plays out... But, it is over. For those of you offering a never-ending array of always changing tenuous arguments for how she just might still win the nomination, knock yourselves out, but I must say that you seem kind of silly from my vantage point.
Posted by Patrick at May 24, 2008 11:13 AMOne of the resons, I believe, that so many people were willing to jump on this gaffe and take the least charitable interpretation is that the least charitable interpretation is actually the most realistic.
Whether she intended to or not, Senator Clinton has given everyone a reminder that her only real path to the nomination is that something catastrophic happen to Senator Obama.
If you want to be charitable, or you just don't see how anyone could assume something so dark, you still must admit that the darkness is the reality and admitting that reality is what's happening for a lot of people right now.
For several months now, Senator Clinton and her campaign have been coming up with new and implausible explanations for how she could still win this thing. Her latest, that super delegates should consider factors other than pledged delegates (like the popular vote, electability, swing states, big states, states that matter, etc.,) implausible paths to the nomination are all just fantasy.
Maintaining that fantasy was critical to keeping the money flowing into the campaign so that she could continue to fight while she waited for something catastrophic to happen to Senator Obama's efforts. That catastrophy didn't necessarily have to be physical harm. It could have been some major gaffe or other failure of his campaign. It could have been him deciding that he just didn't care any more. It could have been anything, but it needed to be something.
Senator Clinton's "A" word gaffe was probably just that, a gaffe. But it gave light to a truth -- that for Clinton to win the nomination, something catastrophic must happen to Senator Obama.
That's the reality here and that's why even the press hysterics around this are meaningful. The reality of the Democratic primary is no longer spinnable with ifs and buts.
Posted by at May 24, 2008 11:27 AMT2,
It's really funny that you think Clinton is blabbering.
Have you been paying attention to Obama's utterances?
He has been disoriented with respect to place and time on numerous occasions.
He sounds totally punchy. And not knowing about hanford??! What an idiot.
E,
Consider the following subliminal message:
"As far as I know, your mother isn't a pig-bitch"
See, it's not a direct statement of fact, but, if I was trying to convey a message.....I could do so without being held responsible for a direct attack on your mother's character. Let's call it Rovian (ready for that 3:00AM phone call) English.
Sen. Clinton must have said "something" bad to keep the nets buzzing over the holiday weekend.
Here are a few "minor" facts to go with the heavy net research you've done to condone the indefensable.
Let's see...
1) Ted Kennedy didn't endorse her
2) Ted Kennedy is very, very ill
3) The Kennedy family is freakin' over his illness
4) Sen. Clinton brings up the RFK murder...AGAIN
5) Sen. Clinton says she's ONLY sorry she upset the Kennedy family...ONLY
6) Dear Ted, Happy Memorial Day, Love, Bill & Hill?
SERIOUSLY????????????????????????????????????
Dude....?
One World,
Domino49
Posted by Domino49 at May 24, 2008 11:32 AMWhy Obama fans want to act like Republicans is beyond me. First place I saw the "outrageous" Hillary comment was on Drudge. The only link he had at the time was to an Obama spokesman. The first place I saw the video of what she said was on TPM, and it was very clear what she said (this thing should go on to June, just like with Bill and with RFK), and why it wasn't offensive -- unless, of course, you've got the irrational Billary hatred running through your veins!
Why don't the GOP parallels bother Soto/Kos/Marshall? This seems designed to keep Hillary off the VP slot. If the goal is to lose in November, then I guess they've moved the ball forward.
Posted by Calvin at May 24, 2008 11:33 AM"And not knowing about hanford??! What an idiot."
He voted for hanford cleanup and didn't even know it!!!
He'd sign legislation and not know what he's signed.
We need someone more "present" than this guy.
Posted by peter at May 24, 2008 11:46 AMThanks for talking good sense, eriposte.
At this point I suspect that the over-the-top paranoia and hypersensitivity coming from the 'quit-now Hillary' crowd is mostly fueled by the slowly dawning realization that Obama is a bullshit candidate running a bullshit campaign, but that we might be stuck with him. People are still clinging to the hope-y change-y high that's clearly dissipated since the early primaries. Hell, I supported him too -- liked him even -- until I figured out that, as Lambert alluded to upthread, he is not a legitimate candidate -- and that the media was going to do nothing but tell lies about HRC. Just like they did with Bill in the 90's. That's the really sad and ironic part, that 'progressives' have become little better than Ken Starr in support of their empty suit candidate. They don't even realize they've been played. I'm still not a big fan of HRC's policies but she impresses me more every day with the way she bears up under all the psychotic hatred and abuse. I hope she takes it all the way to the convention floor.
Posted by madam, i'm adam at May 24, 2008 11:47 AMPatrick: Glad to hear that Hillary folks are merely silly delusional bullshitters. Does it get cold blogging from the top of that mountain, oh wise one?
Father "grandstander" Groppi was even more annoying than you. If he wasn't such an abbrasive silly delusional bullshitter with a media ego he could have actually helped the cause.
During the riots we had to turn off the headlights on our locomotives operating in the Menomonee Valley because the snipers on the North side were shooting at us. Did you know that was the "Mason Dixon Line" in Milwaukee?
I actually met some of the looters who broke the first windows on 2nd st in downtown Milwaukee after they read about the Detroit riots in the Milwaukee Journal, and decided they should get some "free stuff" too.
What, are you writing a book or something?
Posted by TIKI AL at May 24, 2008 11:48 AMEriposte
The use of the word assassination is the indication of the deep thought behind this comment. You accept a defense by Hillary and her supporters that she was just citing "June" as a month which others have campaigned until. This brings up two separate questions, why not just Bobby Kennedy ran in the month of June in Ca. as we remember? This country has a history not just of June running primaries but more importantly of Assassinations. In your post of course as usual you pay no attention to Obama and the security needed above usual, of the first african american running for President. When he appears at large open air rallys Eriposte there are armed snipers on all roofs of buildings. The Democratic Community at large all democrats worry about assissantions of all candidates including our first woman. Do expect with her thirty years ready on day one superior cammander in chief ability, we are supposed to believe the word assassanation was not a deep, dark, souless intention? Nonsense
If this is so outrageous, why wasn'[t it outrageous in March?
Bcz now it's another way to play WWTSBQ?
If this is so outrageous, why wasn'[t it outrageous in March?
Like so many things Hillary, it was a gift, a pass... now everyone knows it's plain political calculation.
Fucking REPREHENSIBLE!
Posted by Seven of Six at May 24, 2008 12:07 PMI'm offended by the over-the-top ranting over the remark. I'm offended by "gotcha" politics.
And I'm also offended by eriposte's attempt to rationalize the original statement away. The notion that invoking "assassination" is harmless is just as silly and blind as the reaction you are objecting to. There are probably a hundred ways Clinton could have made her point without using that word/imagery. She's not a stupid woman. She's not incapable of making a wiser choice of words.
Dear god, is anyone willing to stand at the middle road and acknowledge that her comment was astoundingly tone-deaf and a real gaffe, while also acknowledging that there's been an over-reaction to it?
Or shall we just continue with the circular firing squad? Christ.
Posted by FeverDream at May 24, 2008 12:07 PMThe outrage isn't fake, She's done. The game now is for Supers, who are looking for an excuse to shut this down. She just gave them a doozy. I think Keith O. had it about right personally.
Posted by JohnShreffler at May 24, 2008 12:14 PMLet me assure you it isn't fake outrage and you know you would be be excoriating Obama if he had said the same thing. I would.
She was tired? Was she tired in March when she said the same thing to Time magazine? Ted Kennedy's illness was on her mind? I think his diagnosis came just this week, not before March.
Look at her 'I regret if anyone was offended' non-apology. She looked like she had just tasted a mouthful of excrement. It was painful for her to say it. She doesn't admit mistakes. Never says she's sorry.
A politician who doesn't say 'sorry.' Hmm. Who does that remind you of.
Whatever stage of grief HRC supporters are in (denial on the cusp of anger it looks like), I do hope you can process through them to acceptance quickly. I'll say I'm sorry since HRC can't say it...
I'm sorry, HRC supporters, that your candidate, the first woman to have a shot at Pres., is a complete, transparent sociopath. It is time for a woman president. Let's hope for better, someone who doesn't actually set the feminist movement back. Maybe in 2016 it will happen. Not this time.
Posted by Mr. Larry at May 24, 2008 12:26 PMAnother thing the hysterical crybabies don't realize is that party unity isn't going to happen as a result of their uber-creepy lust for the political blood of HRC. Seriously, are we democrats or ancient Aztecs? Is the political death of HRC going to ressurect the hope-y change-y buzz of the early primaries? Obviously, no.
I've always assumed that the reason for having a nominee well before the convention was for the party to put its best foot forward as a unified front. Demonstration of strength and resolve, and so forth. But clearly the party isn't unified, so why pretend it is? The party is split. The convention floor is where it should be resolved. Obama's 'insurgent' campaign is, for better or for worse, the motivating force behind the split. If you still believe that Obama is a progressive reformer, then it's for the better. If you believe he's a weak, capitulating fraud, it's for the worse. I believe the latter. So: all the way to the convention floor!
Posted by madam, i'm adam at May 24, 2008 12:36 PMHere's the thing, folks, there is no internal logic to her statement. The date of the assassination of a Presidential candidate, in 1968 when the primaries stretched through the summer, is not a rational way to date the current political season. It makes as much sense as to say, "I'll be graduating college in June, when RFK died." You just don't bring up the murder of a candidate for Presidency when you're second in the current race and the "removal" of that candidate is the only practical way you'll become the nominee.
Even the rationale that Obama doesn't make sense in the context of her public behavior. "I'm sticking around because I might win because Obama may die" will only infuriate Obama supporters. Clinton is intentionally (or delusionally, you decide) creating a situation whereby she is antagonizing at least half of the party (and any Clinton supporters with the wit to admit what she is doing). If, God forbid, something awful happens to Obama what is the natural reaction to anyone who has heard Clinton's ramblings about assassinations?
She isn't setting herself up to win in case Obama falls. She's setting herself up for a bloody, ugly floor fight. Not to win, but to destroy the Obama candidacy. Qui bono? Maybe the same folks who paid Bill and her 109 million over the last decade.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 24, 2008 12:41 PMIt's the experience and judgment thing, and she demonstrates damn little of both with this nonsense. It is only going to open the door so that every reich-wing AM radio conspiracy goof and commentator starts to bring up all the dead people around the Clintons.
Posted by phidipides at May 24, 2008 10:45 AM
The only "lack of judgement" I see comes from the usual CDS sufferers. Historically speaking, primaries can last into June. That's all that was said.
But, like a pack of schizophrenics, you CDS suffers just continue to embarrass yourself over these made up "gaffs" that "prove" how EVEEEEEL Hillary Clinton is...
Like it or not, way too many of us are going to vote McCain and hope for the best once he doesn't have to pander to his nut-job base. And YOU'RE THE REASON WHY. You people are JUST LIKE THE MOUTH BREATHING REPUBLICANS. All emotion, no thought.
Posted by Moses at May 24, 2008 12:42 PMI read the anti-Hillary rants here, and listen to this particularly vicious RFK swiftboat attempt, and it pisses me off so much that not only do I want to vote for McCain, it makes me want to send him money.
But I'll wait till the fat lady sings, hoping that Dems will come to their senses. If they have any anymore.
Posted by No Blood for Hubris at May 24, 2008 12:55 PMEriposte:
You say yourself, "Sen. Clinton's comments on RFK were unfortunate because they could be misinterpreted..."
You say "unfortunate" - you obviously recognize the error, yet you then try to pretend it was not. Moreover you delude yourself with the pretense that there is somehow a "fake outrage," as you willfully ignore the many sincerely expressed concerns about Obama's safety from the outset of his campaign.
Senator Clinton was terminally foolish to say what she said, precisely because - as you said yourself - that her words "could be misinterpreted."
Yes, all sorts of motivations are attributed to Senator Clinton which are unfair and wrong. But she is the one who said the words, they fell out of her mouth. And by your own admission, they are words easily subject to being misinterpreted.
She was stupid to say it. Monumentally stupid. And it's that stupidity which is the problem. If anyone should know better than to give ammunition to critics, it is Hillary Clinton.
Do you also give Ronald Reagan a pass for his campaign joke about launching a bombing attack on the USSR? After all, it was just a joke. He didn't mean it. Did you see no offense in that case as well? Did you see only "fake outrage" expressed at Reagan's remarks, from critics "projectile vomiting"?
There appears to be absolutely nothing Senator Clinton could do or say that you would not defend or try to minimize.
She admits herself having made a mistake. You concede it was wrong ("unfortunate"). Yet you simply refuse to hold her accountable. Instead you cling to the delusion it's everyone else's fault.
Sad to say, but you and right wingers defending George Bush display a lot in common.
Correction to BZ: The comment was not a mistake. She has said this several times, just got caught yesterday. Her campaign has alluded to this. Terry McA said there was a chance of something "catastrophic" happening to Obama, and that's why she should stay in. He said this last week.
It was a calculated campaign decision, a strategy that her whole team was on board with, not a sleep-deprived slip of the tongue. That's what makes it worse.
Posted by Mr. Larry at May 24, 2008 01:41 PMComplete agreement with BZ: HRC defenders and Bush defenders have a lot in common these days. Also there are fewer and fewer defenders of each. And at this rate both GW and HRC will be welcomed at their respective conventions with the glee most people have at the diagnosis of anal warts.
For defenders of both, it really is an alternate reality universe. And both should enjoy voting for Grandpa Bomb-Bomb.
Posted by Mr. Larry at May 24, 2008 01:47 PMTIKI,
OK, so you want to just be a jerk, I guess. I get it. I don't and never have thought ALL Hillary folks uncritical, but as I explained, I do think many of us do go all in for our favorite candidates and then get lost in that love affair along the way and become tremendously disappointed when it doesn't work out.. that is basic relationship psychology. Right now, as the Clinton candidacy implodes, many are going through the stages of grief. I respect that, but it is getting silly when folks try to excuse away what was clearly a massive blunder by Hillary. Again, yes, the media and her various foes have seized the gaffe and tried to make the most of it (though note that the Obama campaign has consistently downplayed it and let her off the hook).
By the way, her two historical examples were bad ones. Bill had the thing wrapped by March, for all intents and purposes. The only thing about California in June was that former Guv Jerry Brown was running well there and looked competitive, but there was no chance for him to pull off some overall upset. '68 started much later and thus ended much later... and, had the added chaos of Johnson surprisingly bowing out earlier that spring! So, AGAIN, Hillary shows a woeful clueless-ness in her historical examples. But, like Reagan, they seem not to ever let the facts get in the way of their argument.
As for your lame comments about Fr. Groppi, all I will write is that you are so unbelievably wrong on this issue. You sound like a lot of the reactionary white folks I interviewed for my book. You also sound a lot like the reactionary white folks Rick Perlstein writes so well about in his great new book, Nixonland.
From a racial justice standpoint, Groppi was a hero, no doubt about that. Was he perfect, hell no; he was a man. But. Milwaukee was and remains one of the most segregated cities in the nation. It took someone with some chutzpah to help compel those in power to respond to the urban crisis. He and the Youth Council and Commandos played a critical role in that. The Milwaukee story is an important and tragic one in the ongoing narrative of racial injustice in the U.S.
I'd love to hear your theory about how school desegregation, equal employment opportunity, fair housing, an end to police brutality, etc., would have been achieved in that historical moment without a forceful social movement going into the streets and forcing resistant leaders and institutions to change, including leaders like Groppi...? Do tell.
It is also interesting that you attack the civil rights activists, but not the 13,000 (yes, 13,000) hateful white people who came out to throw rocks, bricks, dirt, spit, human feces, urine and fists and hold openly white supremacist signs and shout openly racist slogans at a few hundred peaceful fair housing marchers. Funny. In September of 1967, there was a much bigger "riot" in Milwaukee than the one you reference... it was a white racist riot on the South Side.
And, yes, I know that the Menomonee River Valley was known as the city's "Mason Dixon Line" because it separated the poor and segregated African American North Side from the white, working-class and (sadly) overwhelmingly racist South Side. It was that South Side of town that gave George Wallace his biggest welcome as he ran for President in 1964 and stunned the nation by earning 1/3 of the vote in Wisconsin at the height of Johnson's term. It was that result in Wisconsin, followed quickly by similar tallies in Maryland and Indiana, that catapulted a regional white supremacist into a national political phenomenon among the white working class. And, yeah, it was THAT George Wallace, you know the one that pointed modern elections to the divisive racial politics that employ coded-language to animate racist fears among whites. Recall, after Wallace's stunning success in Wisconsin, he said that if he ever had to live anywhere outside of Alabama, it would be on the South Side of Milwaukee!
I collect local stories, good and bad and everything in between, about race relations and civil rights (and the 60s, more broadly) in Milwaukee during the 60s and early 70s. I had hoped to perhaps discuss your experiences in Milwaukee during that time, but it seems clear you are not interested. Cool by me. Check the book out in the fall when it hits your local bookstore...
Patrick
Posted by Patrick at May 24, 2008 02:50 PMLike it or not, way too many of us are going to vote McCain and hope for the best once he doesn't have to pander to his nut-job base.
Were you laying on your back and kicking and screaming while you had your little tantrum? BTW: How a douche bag like you votes in the general election does not concern me in the least.
And YOU'RE THE REASON WHY. You people are JUST LIKE THE MOUTH BREATHING REPUBLICANS. All emotion, no thought.
Awww! Isn't that cute! You're going to do something really stupid and blame it on me. That's so sweet. You're one of those uneducated Clinton supporters, aren't you? C'mon. Fess up. It's good for your soul. Then you can drink a 6-pack of your favorite tranquilizer, run your tongue over the open spaces between your remaining teeth, and slap your spouse around to feel better about yourself.
CDS
You mean Clinton Distraught Supporter syndrome?
I feel for you and the others with CDS. You're so....uhhh...distraught. It's gotta be tough when your candidate fucks up her lead with race-baiting and being caught completely unprepared after sooper-dooper-toosday. Not even her new right-wing media buddies could help her out. All she really has left is her...uhhh...distraught supporters. Those who supported her so well that she is way broke. You folks were good to her...not generous...but good.
Posted by phidipides at May 24, 2008 03:52 PMEven a third grader could understand what Hillary was saying. And it was NOT anything untoward AT ALL - it was clearly a time/date reference in answer to a question about why people wanted her to quit.
So what does that say about the Obama blog shrillosphere, Olberbaby, and the rest? They're fucking stupider than third graders, that's what.
Posted by at May 24, 2008 03:52 PMThey're fucking stupider than third graders, that's what.
Or an anony-mouse commenter.
The Obama folks are sooooo stupid they won this election fair and square, based on the rules ALL candidates agreed to at the start, over a candidate that had a TON of advantages in her favor at the start: name recognition, a popular former president husband, a massive, well-oiled political machine, massive amounts of resources, etc.
If the Obama folks are dumb, what the heck does that make the Hillary folks???!!?!?!?! C'mon, people. This is ridiculous. We are missing the forest for the trees.
Victory in November is the goal and right now all the poll numbers are looking very good for Obama. Winning in four crucial swing states, including Ohio and Pennsylvania. Winning in the national polls. And the unification of the party hasn't even happened yet. Again, c'mon, let the sour grapes go and let's bring it together...
I feel your pain, Hillary supporters, but this is all but over. After June 3, this will end quickly. Time to move to the next phase.
Posted by Patrick at May 24, 2008 04:31 PMERIPOSTAL RIDES AGAIN!!!!!
What's that smell...manure?
As the old saying goes: 'The [average weight] lady has sung!' Too bad for her that she was looking in the mirror.
For those of us who were alive (and aware) in those years, the assassinations will always be a part of our psyche.
Sen. Clinton, my senior by 6 years, was a student at Wellesley; working for the Young Republicans and Barry Goldwater. She no doubt grieved with the rest of us.
She also knows about alternative meanings of 'scorched earth policy'. For her to again repeat her 'RFK assassination' statements of March again, to me, means only one of two things:
(1) Clinton will attempt to win at all costs; no matter how devisive (I hate to think to what group she was speaking) OR
(2) She needs to go quietly to Martha's Vineyard or the Caribbean and reflect on the essence of her soul.
What's *really* disturbing about the reaction to this is that all the people freaking out about the comment are completely ignorant of the fact that *HILLARY* is in the Bobby Kennedy position. I somehow don't think she's calling for her own assassination.
Kennedy, like Hillary, was staying in the race while behind in hopes of building momentum and catching up (some differences--he was behind in part because he started late; she is a lot closer and actually has been voted for by more people than her opponent).
It seems pretty obvious to me that this is part of the media's continued desire to annoint Obama and get Hillary out of the race since she *does* have credible arguments to make as to why she should be the nominee, and also has less corporate friendly policies with regards to health care (NBC/MSNBC's parent makes more from its health care division than from its tv stations, for what it's worth), the private mercenaries in Iraq (she introduced a bill to get them out, Obama has alternated between opposing it and equivocating), and energy policy--there's already entrenched money in nuclear, which would always have to be centralized, whereas if the country pursues her solar power plan, there would be a lot of decentralization as many people would eventually be producing a lot (and some people all) of their own power, and the manufacture of solar panels and batteries and such would be difficult to keep in the hands of a few monopolies.
I suppose one could counter this by pointing to the fact that some Obama supporters have been blogging about the possibility of his being assassinated since, oh, December or early January, and Hillary should be constantly thinking of how some paranoid Obama supporter who hates her anyway could misinterpret her words, but I wholeheartedly disagree for a couple of reasons.
(1) Martin Luther King and the Bobby Kennedy were genuinely transformative figures who were fighting entrenched power structures, thus, there was a reason for said structures to want to kill them. Obama is as friendly to corporations and entrenched power structures as Dick Cheney--they want to keep this guy, not get rid of him.
(2) The people who are freaking out about this are going to find something to go nuts about no matter what she does. If she said nothing they could twist for a sufficiently long time, the news story would soon appear, "Latest proof of Clinton racism--Hillary continues breathing, while the body language in photos of Bill and Chelsea, here shown eating dinner, appear to indicate they are involved in conspiracy to blackmail superdelegates with threats of violence. Obama shows usual nobility by taking high road and refusing to condemn his rivals, saying 'we have to leave open the possibility that the way they chewed their food was completely innocent and not secret code, and I don't find it too hateful if Hillary insists on breathing for a while longer yet.' "
mojave_wolf, a historical comparison of the 1968 primary season to this one would fall flat. The biggest problem is that in 1968 the primaries started in May; this year 97% of the voters have already made their choice.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at May 24, 2008 07:47 PMFor a political junkie you are not very bright.
In 1968 there were only 13 primaries and they began in March. Clinton knows this and obviously isn't comparing when the contest started but when they ended. She is making the point that there are three months before the convention and five until the election in November which is exactly the same as 1968. By the way, RFK was almost hopelessly behind Humphrey in delegates even after winning the CA primary but he vowed to fight to the convention in his victory speech that night.
In six of the last nine contested Democratic nominations went into June or beyond. 97% of votes may have been cast but Clinton is closer to Obama than any other competitor has been to the front runner during the last 40 years.
Posted by read more books at May 24, 2008 09:29 PMCA Pol -- I know we disagree about this campaign, but I think the comparisom was apt in that both RFK and Hillary were trailing but had momentum going for them and were probably more electable in the general. I'll grant you several differences, including the one you mentioned, but also including some important ones that favor Hillary (assuming Puerto Rico goes the way I hope, she is going to be leading in nearly all methods of counting the popular vote).
In any event, she's naming races where a trailing opponent plans to carry races to the convention, and it's no surprise that the two which first popped into her head were her husband's and the one where she first voted that involved a Kennedy, what with the Kennedy's being in the news this week. Given the context I suspect she also meant to reference that NO ONE has ever been pressured to quit like this before, and it's really crazy (or misogynistic, in the case of some of those doing the pressuing) to suddenly expect her to when she actually still has a *good* chance to win the popular vote and Obama is unlikely to get enough pledged delegates.
And again, it seems if anyone was going to be upset, it would be RFK Jr, and he's not, so I don't think I'm being irrational in my take on this. Likewise, women politicians and activists throughout the world have gotten assassinated as often as black activists, Benazir Bhutto most recently in a *very* similar situation to Hillary, and heck, this is getting silly. I don't think there is any rational way to look at this as a call for anyone to be assassinated, and in no way was it an illegitimate remark in any sense, really. I appreciate you being respectful towards me when we have very different takes on this situation (I don't comment here that often but read nearly everything, including the purely issue oriented politics where I totally love this site's take on environmental and personal freedom issues and the idiocy of what passes for our mainstream press corps), but if you think the outrage over what Hillary said is a remotely fair reaction, I think we see Hillary's comments and the coverage of it so fundamentally differently that I'm not sure where the common ground is . . .
Posted by mojave_wolf at May 24, 2008 10:30 PMClinton crew fake outrage so far:
- bittergate
- elitism
- sexism, etc
so now Hillary blogger is trying to spin RFK as fake outrage, which is going to give hilarious result, specially baby boomer voters.
Posted by Phill at May 25, 2008 04:56 AMRFK family apparently IS upset at Hillary's comments:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05252008/news/nationalnews/kennedys_feel_bobby_socked_112469.htm
Posted by Patrick at May 25, 2008 09:14 AMPatrick, used the link you provide. The article linked says a Kennedy relative and Kennedy insider. Which relative and how close is this supposed insider to the Kennedy's? One would think that Bobby's son actually has a bit more clout on this matter than some distant relative or a "friend of the family.
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Radix,
Well, obviously, we don't know which family member, but it does seem clear that some of the Kennedy's are not happy about Hillary's comments. And, we need to put RFK, JR's support in context, as I have done elsewhere here. He is a Hillary supporter and surrogate. He is a party stalwart. He wants to help unite the party. He is saying the right thing publicly. Did you expect anything else, really, given his position and relationship to the Clinton campaign? We have no clue what he thinks and feels privately right now. Some day we probably will. Perhaps it is the same as his public comments. Perhaps not. I suspect it is some mixture of emotions.
Anyway, the original post cited RFK Jr as if we should all stop in our tracks and put aside our own critical perspective. We shouldn't. It is clearly more complex than that...
Posted by Patrick at May 25, 2008 01:11 PMNo one needs to try and destroy Hillary...she is doing such a good job of that herself.
This is the first time I've been to this website and after reading several diaries and a lot of posts, I can only wonder in awe at the irrational arguments put forth by many of the Hillary supporters. I'm always willing to at least to listen to the oppossing side--but my lord, this garbage of everthing and anything is someone elses fault,and Hillary can do no wrong--and even if she does--that just means that thing is no longer wrong anymore. One poster talked about how a candidates supporters represented the candidate and thus they were equivalent to each other in her eyes. Well, that is certainly true, in my view, of the Hillary supporters after what I've read here.You people suck to high heaven. If all Democrats were like you, I think I would have no trouble becoming a loyal Republican by tommorrow.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Winston Churchill
This is a perfect litmus test to determine if a person's hatred of Hillary has overcome their ability to form rational thought.
Posted by Dazir at May 26, 2008 09:45 AM