Wow
OK, I’ve defended Hillary against sexism. I can’t defend her against charges of being completely tasteless:
Hillary Clinton appeared to raise the specter of assassination in defending her decision to stay in the Democratic race despite Barack Obama closing in on the delegate number to clinch.
In an interview with the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader in South Dakota, she dismissed calls to drop out, adding, “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.”
I got nothin’ to add to this. Wow.
(Via.)
UPDATE: TPM has the video. Watch for yourself:
I don’t think there’s anyway this is being taken out of context. She literally listed potential assassination as a reason for her to stay in the race. [OK, now that I’ve had time to calm down and think about this some, I realize that’s not true. She actually didn’t do that. But that is how it came off to me at first blush after I’d watched the clip in its entirety. I initially reacted emotionally to this and I should have thought it through more carefully before posting.]
As I said in the comments, I don’t think she’s praying for Obama to get assassinated or anything that gruesome. I think she was trying to think of examples of Dem primaries that didn’t end until June, and she picked the absolute worst possible one to mention.
But wow. Wow-wuh-wee-wuh-wow. It’s about the most shockingly dumb thing I’ve ever heard her say. And it’ll probably be the final nail in her candidacy’s coffin. [This I’m going to stand by, though.]
UPDATE II: And yes, by the way, Big Tent Democrat agrees that there’s no way to justify this. I’ve criticized the dude quite a bit over this campaign, but I think in recent weeks he’s been very thoughtful and level-headed.
UPDATE III: The folks at NoQuarter are just fucking crazy, however.
Yeah. It’s a shocking statement, especially from an experienced politician.
We all certainly do remember Bobby getting assassinated. It’s just not something you want to wish on a candidate and a nation.
The desperation reeks.
…
I’ve been inclined to view Clinton’s utterances like this as stupid slips of the tongue when under pressure. That’s what I’m guessing this is, but damn.
The fact is, that doesn’t even make any sense. It sounds more like something I wood say.
Double tasteless that his brother just found out he has brain cancer.
We all certainly do remember Bobby getting assassinated. It’s just not something you want to wish on a candidate and a nation.
I don’t think she wishes it on anyone. I just think it was a carelessly stupid and irresponsible statement.
I try not to get too much into the whole “Cult of the Offhand Remark,” but this was just too egregious to ignore.
Mrs. Iselin: Why don’t you pass the time with a game of solitaire?
that is just really wrong.
That’s unbelievable. That’s the worst thing she’s said, that I’ve ever heard any candidate say.
She should stay in the race because RFK was assassinated in June?!?!
She’s had more rationalizations for her candidacy than Bush had for the war in Iraq. if she conducted the Presidency the same ever-shifting way she’s run her campaign, coming after 8 years of Bush, we might as well stop teaching our kids about the constitution altogether. All that stuff is so over.
What.
Seriously, I can’t even make any sense of that complete non sequitor. Unless it really does mean what you think it means, and… oh god, I need to go lie down.
you guys, she needs to keep running even if obama wins the general in november. what if he gets hurt or dies?
what, there’s something called a…VeePee? what’s that?
(seriously, we know the answer to the latter question isn’t “hillary clinton”.)
Right now, she’d better hope for the Laura Roslin, 24th-in-the-line-of-succession, route. The audacity!
Oh, man. Do I dare check Corrente, Taylor Marsh, or Shakesville? I don’t know that I could handle the possible response…
Classy move bringing that up this week, too. As if the Kennedy family didn’t have enough to deal with.
But her mention of the RFK assassination is simply is an indefensible remark, and in very poor taste.
But the statement was a terrible mistake. Indeed, a politically damaging mistake.
Wow, even Big Tense Democrat agrees.
This one can’t be chalked up to the under-pressure-I-misspoke-column,
Not this time. She wasn’t talking about Tuszla, she was specifically using one of the most painful chapters of Democratic history to wink-wink, nod-nod.
That hurts Hill, that hurts.
I’m not sure that her response really clarified things for me either.
video here
That’s what I said!
I think Obama should probably send her some flowers and a thank-you note for giving a nice public reason to not feel pressured to be forced into giving her the VP slot.
Proverbial straw? Meet proverbial camel.
Are you all insane? All she did was point out that RFK was still in the race in June. Everybody take a dep brath and calm down. The most you can say is she took RFK’s name in vain, and since I don’t give a shit if you do that to God’s name, I sure as hell won’t lose it over a Kennedy.
(And in a futile attempt to deflect accusations of Clinton-support let me add that I don’t, I’ve never liked Clinton’s right-wing politics.)
I feel like half of Brad’s posts are titled “Wow”. It’s very telling, like there is nothing else that can be said.
She cannot possibly mean that she wants to stay in the race just in case Obama gets assasinated. Nobody says that on TV. Anyway, she could suspend her campaign like John Edwards and Mitt Romney did – you know, just in case.
I think she just means that the party will have plenty of time to unify after the nomination wraps up.
It does have a “Who will rid me of this troublesome priest” ring to it though.
We’ve decided at my place to pretend this isn’t happening and watch cute animal videos instead. You’re welcome to join us.
As I said in the comments, I don’t think she’s praying for Obama to get assassinated or anything that gruesome.
I don’t know. This woman reeeeeeeeeeally wants to be President. I don’t want to offend, but let’s just say – if Obama was campaigning in Dallas, I’d keep Hillary clear of any book depositories with loaded weapons.
@ christian h.,
I don’t know that I would suggest that there is any sinister intent behind it; it just sounds completely out-of-place and, well, loopy. Who in the hell raises the spectre of assassination? It comes off really bad, you gotta admit.
Now, if it were a Republican staying on in a doomed primary race, saying, “Look, the wetsuits could surface at any time,” that would be one thing. That would be logical, possibly even likely depending on the candidate.
This, this is not that.
And that he was assassinated.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the statement itself was proof of any nefarious intent. Far from it. It is, in fact, a coldly logical statement:
If I stay in the race, and the matter is not settled by the primary / caucus results, then I might be the nominee if the other candidate dies. I am now going to cite an example in which a candidate who was leading died, in order to give clear historical precedent to indicate that if Obama somehow died, I would be the nominee, because that happened in June, too, when the other guy was killed. Therefore I have at least one reason to remain in the race and to suggest it is neither harmful to the overall Democratic nomination nor unnecessary, since someone can always die.
Yes. We get that.
Yeah, that is ridiculous. However, somehow what I lock onto more is the focusing on June being a time for California primaries, considering that this year, the California primary ALREADY HAPPENED AND IT IS MAY.
Brad,
You’re right. ‘Wish on’ wasn’t the right construction. Shoulda been ‘remind of’.
I offer no defense other than I am bored outta my mind!
Oh Noes! Hitlery’s gonna shoot Obama with Vince Foster’s gun! And I’m pretty sure she called him a ni@@er once too! SHE’S E-VILE!
I’m not sure that her response really clarified things for me either.
video here
Damn. And she thinks she has a better chance of being elected?
Relevant info: It was reported last night that Obama told Hillary “no” to VP slot.
Oh Noes! Hitlery’s gonna shoot Obama with Vince Foster’s gun! And I’m pretty sure she called him a ni@@er once too! SHE’S E-VILE!
Dude, stop being a clueless prick. What she said was wrong. If you can’t ever admit that your candidate ever says or does anything wrong, then you’ve stepped into cultist territory. Please grow up.
Man….I think we lucked out big time that she did not cruise to the nomination, as was expected.
I really can’t believe that the long-shot guy who rejected lobbyist funds actually won against the name-brand candidate with the big-money-donors and a former President in the family.
That never happens in real life.
Beyond. The. Pale.
I think BTD has had a ‘my god, what have I done?’ moment. He’s come to realize just how unhinged the folks at TalkLeft are and is trying to dial it back a bit. Of course, he can’t very well unsqueeze that particular toothpaste tube. Still–credit for being more reasonable of late.
What moophisto said.
The primary scheudle is far earlier than it used to be so besides tasteless, the comparison is just stoopid.
Most of the TalkLeft posters are on board with us on this one. They understand that this was a shockingly dumb thing to say.
Just as a purely political issue, this was monumentally stupid.
I’ve been wondering what Hillary has been doing.
How she seemed to be waiting for some other shoe to drop.
Clinging to the campaign as if hoping for some GREAT EVENT to happen.
hehe, Hillary you do NOT disappoint.
It’ll be interesting to see over time how large a bullet hole she put in her own foot.
When does her Senate seat come up?
Damn. I agree with your take, but that’s really bad.
Hate to say it but it really felt like a freudian slip, an unconscious wish manifesting itself. A shame really. She’s had a really crazy kind of life, but I’m starting to think it has warped her a bit, and like McCain she’s kinda not right for America right now. She’s too exhausting and exhausted.
Hillary you fighter, you really need to give yourself a break and a long vacation.
Billy Bob Obomite said,
May 23, 2008 at 23:22 (kill)
Oh Noes! Hitlery’s gonna shoot Obama with Vince Foster’s gun!
How is this not great for Obama? Not getting the trolling or the faux-trolling on this one.
When does her Senate seat come up?
2012 I believe.
Even if her point was that a primary battle into June is no big deal, 1968 is the absolute worst example. Besides the assasination, fights on the floor, brokered nomination, and riots outside of the convention, it was a giant cluster fuck for Democrats.
Thanks for that No Quarter link, seeing this should pretty much guarantee me about three years worth of nightmares. Can’t sleep, Larry Johnson will eat me… can’t sleep, Larry Johnson will eat me…
I blame the snipers.
I mean, she could have picked a year when Nixon didn’t end up winning the election.
Now that most of us have agreed that it was a (fill in the blanks) thing to say, it does bring up an interesting question (for either side). Just for the sake of reducing any potential frictions, let’s approach it from the GOP side. What would happen if McInsane were to croak all of the sudden (I mean, the dude is ancient and all), weeks from the election? Would Cheney decide that this was a national emergency and “postpone” the election? We all remember the Wellstone accident (*cough*assassination*cough*) and how he was on track to win (curious how no “sympathy vote” rose out of that, eh?), yet his scumbag of an opponent ended up “winning”, so there ARE some legitimate questions about the process, Hillary’s insanity aside.
When does her Senate seat come up?
2012 I believe.
Not according to the Mayan calendar.
Here she is back in March
Yuck.
We all remember the Wellstone accident (*cough*assassination*cough*)
Yeah, but the guy who wrote the book about that is a 9/11 nut and we know those guys are idiots.
sorry, WordPress ate my link:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1719900,00.html
Here she is back in March
Thanks pedestrian, for making me understand that it’s a gruesome talking point.
Umm… third try.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1719900,00.html
Well, her defense is that she slipped because she is so gosh darn worried about the Kennedy family these days. At least if Obama is a liar, he’s a better liar.
And I tried to post my link three times but wordpress ate it. Once more:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1719900,00.html
I’m not sure that her response really clarified things for me either.
Jeez – it’s a classic Washington non-apology apology….
“I regret that if my referencing that moment was in any way offensive…”
Do not want.
“Most of the TalkLeft posters are on board with us on this one. They understand that this was a shockingly dumb thing to say.”
Are we reading the same blog, Brad? I see a whole of paranoid delusion over there–i.e., “the Obots going crazy about this” and even more in the way of their standard denial of real life.
Yeah, but the guy who wrote the book about that is a 9/11 nut and we know those guys are idiots.
If you’re dying to get into this, I’m here for you.
Any. Fucking. Time.
“Dude, stop being a clueless prick. What she said was wrong. If you can’t ever admit that your candidate ever says or does anything wrong, then you’ve stepped into cultist territory. Please grow up.”
And she’d already apologized for the poor example before your post went up. So its not really about wanting some admission of wrongdoing for you, is it. Was the apology not worded right? Do you need some other act of contrition? Or is it just time for the five minute hate?
This clueless prick breathlessly awaits your further instruction on how to be mature.
She has her plan, it’s pretty obvious.
She will go to the convention, and when the time comes that she has lost, she will get up on the stage to make a speech that will sound gracious, but it will really make her supporters sit out this election. She will not how unjust it is that the person with the most votes did not win, she will talk about how the history she was aiming to make will not be stopped.
Then she will go on vacation and refuse to campaign for Obama.
I don’t find anything wrong with her comments, because I think she is capable of doing that. Remember that hundreds of people have been killed by the Clintons to advance their careers.
The fact is that the feminists will deliver this election to John McCain.
Clinton was bullied out of this race. She was the most qualfied on the Dem side, and she got robbed.
It has been pointed out that teh Clenis clinched his nomination in April after winning the New York primary.
I’m with christian. You guys are guys are off the deep end with your interpretations of her comment. It’s pretty obvious that she’s expressing astonishment that on the one hand people are freaking out that this primary race isn’t all wrapped up already, and yet there’s this historic event that happened during a previous primary season that was still not wrapped up in June.
Whateverdude:
That issue is a third rail. Quit trying to touch it.
We don’t come here to fight.
If you’re dying to get into this, I’m here for you.
We did. You lost. Give it up.
Clinton/Booth ’08!
Moi –
I can’t disagree more. She listed bobby Kennedy being assassinated as a reason to for her to stay in the race. How can you spin that when it is something that has crossed most peoples’ minds?
I haven’t read all the comments, but this isn’t the first time she’s mentioned RFK as a reason to stay in the race. She did this at least once before about a month ago. I’ll see if I can find a link, but I remember it well because at the time I was thinking how damn tasteless it is, particularly in light of the fact that probably all of us have heard at least one person say “if Obama’s nominated/wins, someone will try to shoot him.” I’ll go see if I can find a link.
Jennifer: I think it was a Time magazine article in March.
I posted the relevant quote from Time upthread. I also posted the link four times and WordPress ate them every one. I will try again, now that it’s had a chance to sate its hunger.
she’s expressing astonishment
No, she’s not. She’s repeating a tasteless and wrong-headed talking point from months ago. I don’t think she’s nefarious, but she certainly is tone-deaf.
Can’t you all see that she was just trying to demonstrate that a horrible gaffe can end a campaign, even late in the game?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1719900,00.html
Fuck.
Is that an order, pedestrian?
And she’d already apologized for the poor example before your post went up. So its not really about wanting some admission of wrongdoing for you, is it.
Pedestrian’s comment upstream at 23:46 — citing a Time interview from back in March — might be relevant to the sincerity of the apology, and the likelihood that the RFK argument was a momentary lapse.
I would like to think that she was placing things in a historical context and phrased it very badly. I would like to think.
And she phrased it in the kind of bad way that can ( and may be should) be used to cause some serious political damage to her.
Man, it was hard to write that previous sentence without resorting to suggestively violent analogous language.
Oh, and if this was said by a dem about a rep etc…. bla bla bla.
That issue is a third rail. Quit trying to touch it.
We don’t come here to fight.
(heh)……dude? Miss a comment in the thread, maybe?
Ok, never mind. I see pedestrian already linked it. Thanks, pedestrian, for affirming that I’m not crazy and/or senile.
For the Hillary apologists who insist that it’s not offensive: it is, and here’s why: I’ve heard several people say that if Obama wins the nomination or election, someone will “try to shoot him”. Every time I’ve heard it I’ve told the person “don’t even say that.” Why? Because, the more it gets said, the more it creates an impression that it’s an expected occurence. The more expected it is, the more likely that some loonytune will seek to fulfill expectations.
And if Hillary doesn’t know that and/or is unable to stop herself from participating in it, she’s not fit to lead.
The end.
I wish she’d just come out and say what she really means:
If Barack Hussein Obama is nominated, fire will rain from a screaming sky. Islamofacists in white hoods and jackboots will march down the streets over a carpet of fornicating cats and dogs, while our children cry tears of blood as their limbs melt away.
Assassination? We should be so lucky. On that day we’ll all fall on our knees and pray to be shot down quickly.
Is that an order, pedestrian?
Doubletime!
Well. *NOW* I think we can say she’s been tested.
And, well…
We did. You lost. Give it up.
We did. You lost, badly. Now you can’t give it up.
Are you sitting on a phone book to reach the keyboard, little man?
Mom, Sagra’s been plagiarizing comments off No Quarter again.
There is a difference between having a spirited conversation, and having one where neither side is willing to listen to the other because both have their minds made up.
RB, don’t you dare take that bait.
Are you sitting on a phone book to reach the keyboard, little man?
I use a collection of masonic implements.
RB, don’t you dare take that bait.
Toby, it’s a laff.
Wait a second…You aren’t trolling yourself, are you?
because that would be some masterful parody trolling.
BTW- Anyone in the Seattle area want to come with me to a creamed corn wrestling Birthday party on Sunday?
Hit me up through my blog.
I’m not kidding. Nor am I planning on wrestling. I’ll take pictures)
There is a difference between having a spirited conversation, and having one where neither side is willing to listen to the other because both have their minds made up.
I’ve *never* brought the issue up, chum (not here or anywhere). I reserve the right to reply, however.
She must be smoking “dope” (see Apt 3G). A sober person wouldn’t say something like that. . . unless s/he was a Republican. Is she angling for McCain’s VP?
You aren’t trolling yourself, are you?
No no no. I prefer actual masturbation.
This is not an open thread.
TaylorMarsh | Homepage | 05.23.2008 – 5:26 pm | #
Bit O/T but this is in her comments (early) for her Clinton/RFK post. Reminded me of the BTD post. She basically says Clinton needed a nap so quit picking on her.
I just posted a link to the NYT article on this in the previous thread not realizing this entry was up.
I haven’t read all the interpretations but from the NYT article, it isn’t clear what she intended. The remark is utterly absurd and stupid (perhaps symptomatic of a mind gone awry from an exhausting campaign and now dithering in the blathersphere?) What she was thinking is anyone’s guess.
Why do people keep coming back to Sadly No? I think its the grown up attitude here. Well, that and the Madlibs. I luvs me some Madlibs.
She’s had more rationalizations for her candidacy than Bush had for the war in Iraq.
Never forget that she bought Bush’s rationalizations and clung to them far longer than anyone should have. That’s always been the deal-breaker for me.
She didn’t have to go there at all. The best argument I’ve heard against her dropping out is historical: even when the nomination is locked up long before the convention (which is most of the time), the second-place candidate stays in, if for no other reason than to have some influence on the platform. Historically, there’s never been such a widespread call for a second-place follower to drop out this early; that she’s so close to the lead means, to me, that she has every right to stay in it.
And I don’t even like her.
christianh: the key to any historical reference is context. RFK was the leader in the primaries, his support was primarily anti-establishment, populist and youthful; Humphrey was the party establishment’s choice, he didn’t have sufficient primary victories and was counting on party insiders at the convention to hand it to him; and the nomination which is usually sewn up before June was still in play- which was her main point. Multiple parallels between 1968 and this election exist, which is why she mentioned it.
BUT- She didn’t have to mention the assassination specifically, since it’s a major area where there is no parallel between 1968 and 2008- by doing so, she implies that the possibility of one this year is a reason to stay in the race, that it is a potential parallel.
If she didn’t intend to imply that, then it was at best a jaw-droppingly stupid thing to say. If she did intend to imply it, then it was just evil.
Stupid or evil? Isn’t that usually applied to GOP candidates?
.
Hey, will we get another round now of Bill shaking his finger at someone and saying “How dare you”?
“Most of the TalkLeft posters are on board with us on this one. ”
not anymore.
Which brings me back to my question: What would happen if the last standing candidate died/was too badly injured? If Mccain had a sudden lethal heart attack (be still, my heart), how would the process go on? Would the entire thing have to begin again? Anyone know?
Billy Bob Obomite said,
May 24, 2008 at 0:27 (kill)
Why do people keep coming back to Sadly No? I think its the grown up attitude here.
Well Billy Bob, if I may presume the familiarity to call you by your first two yokel names, POOPOO.
http://www.ontheissues.org/AskMe/succession.htm
Granted, it was an exceptionally tactless, stoopid, idiotic thing to say. But…I don’t think she meant it in the way so many people are taking it. Project much?
One person here sed: She listed bobby Kennedy being assassinated as a reason to for her to stay in the race. How can you spin that when it is something that has crossed most peoples’ minds?
Hadn’t crossed my mind. As I say, if you’re going loopy about this it says as much about you as about her.
RobW is incredibly sane, and he will thus be ignored.
BUT- She didn’t have to mention the assassination specifically, since it’s a major area where there is no parallel between 1968 and 2008- by doing so, she implies that the possibility of one this year is a reason to stay in the race, that it is a potential parallel.
Well, that, and she also places herself in the role of runner-up who emerges from a ginormous clusterfuck of a convention only to lose to Dick Nixon.
Would the entire thing have to begin again? Anyone know?
I read a not terribly good not teribly funny satire based on a similar premise. But it did have a pretty good explication of the process. Can’t remember author, title, nuttin. I’ll look into it.
Billy Bob Obomite wrote:
For me, it’s the articulate and thought-provoking input from clueless pricks who occasionally drop by and drool on the carpet.
And the poop jokes.
Let me rephrase that – It’s your interpretation that she said the assasination was a reason for her to stay in. That’s not what I heard so that’s why I think you’re projecting.
Be careful, fella. I sit on a couple ammo cans to reach the keyboard.
I have custom made leather boots and a .357 revolver made from depleted uranium.
I carry a forty three inch switchblade.
I ride a Vincent Black Shadow.
Oh. And my girlfriend looks like Angelina Jolie.
mikey
Never forget that she bought Bush’s rationalizations and clung to them far longer than anyone should have. That’s always been the deal-breaker for me.
Right. And she decided to defend her vote for the war in Iraq – and her hawkish stance afterwards – because to admit a mistake meant backing down and that might be a negative in the campaign. Edwards, among others, made a different choice. But sticking to her decision to back the war in Iraq was her considered choice.
But I think she should concede and unify the party because that’s what is best for the country, if not the best for her career. She has no right to inflame the split in party with a drawn-out convention fight.
Somebody doesn’t want to spend more time with her family.
“Well, that, and she also places herself in the role of runner-up who emerges from a ginormous clusterfuck of a convention only to lose to Dick Nixon.”
That bitch! She’s using the Hubert Humphrey Gambit! She’s a lock for the presidency now.
Comment by Gary Ruppert | 2008-05-23 17:00:51
It’s a shame that the Obama cultists are relying on bullying Senator Clinton out of this race. She has won the most votes of any candidate and if she were a man, she would have the nomination now.
Obama is a disaster waiting to happen. Just wait until we find out in October about plagirism of his books, and Obama speaking at the Million Man March.
As seen at No Quarter. Real Gary, or FAUX?
Thanks, Ken, but I’ve got a record of insanity that proves otherwise. Fortunately, it’s a quiet self-destructive form, thus nothing for anyone else to worry about.
Well, that, and she also places herself in the role of runner-up who emerges from a ginormous clusterfuck of a convention only to lose to Dick Nixon.
Well said, SM. That tends to argue for Stupid, rather than Evil.
I ride a Vincent Black Shadow.
Oh, you HAD to say that, didn’t you?
(Brother, if you knew the “back story”…).
Be careful, fella. I sit on a couple ammo cans to reach the keyboard.
I have custom made leather boots and a .357 revolver made from depleted uranium.
I carry a forty three inch switchblade.
Jeezis I forgot about that dimwit.
Just ask Vince Foster if she’s only kidding.
Hey, I’ve got a replica of Angelina Jolie made of leather that I bought from a black guy named Vincent, and a thirty four inch switchblade made from undepleted uranium.
Just ask Vince Foster if she’s only kidding.
Or Jody Foster.
RB you’re like an Encyclopedia of Sadly No Awesome. I totally forgot about that guy. Remember this one: http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/7131.html#comment-276346
speaking of, has anyone see Dave recently?
So I guess Obama asking her to be Vice President is kinda out of the question now, huh?
This guy at Balloon-Juice nailed it:
I got a life-sized picture of Edwards being allowed to get away with all this sh*t the Clintons have pulled.
I misremembered. I was recalling
Which, as clearly stated, concerns the death of the president-erect.
Dave is now working for the McCain campaign, note bumpersticker.
And speaking of belligerent dimwits, don’t forget Vinnie. He’s still sitting by his back window, waiting to shoot some of them hippie revolutionaries.
Shorter Undeclared Superdelegates: “Dude”.
President-erect?
Polatikins hard.
As less-than-sensitive-or-politically-astute as the comment was, and really, could the timing have been any worse, the other story here is that the point she was trying to make was complete bullshit in the first place.
I’ll let the Rude One do the talking.
Apples, meet oranges.
I used to like her. Sort of. Upon closer examination…
Even if (and that’s quite an “if”) this is not some sort of calculated insanity on the Clinton’s part, do we really want a President who is going to answer the phone at 3 A.M. mumbling “We’ve outlawed Russia. We begin bombing in five minutes.”????
The fact is, the liberal media is biased. This is why they are cheering for a Marxist, hard left Hate USA black power muslim extreamistlike Osama. He will never be elected, he scares too many people in the heartland. We don’t want the socialism here, we work hard and take care of our own.
We don’t want the socialism here, we work hard and beat our own.
What? You can blame her???
One question of fashion etiquette: When Barack Obama leads his inauguration in his black beret and black shades and black leather jacket and black leather gloves with an AR-15 strapped on his shoulder, mirrored by his 1,000 member black sister security squad dressed likewise, should white people attending the inauguration dress the same or is simply holding the black power sign at appropriate times enough?
Well, he is kind of low key.
Say you were hanging out and drinking with a bunch of friends. Suddenly, in the middle of some vaguely related subject, you mention that several years ago, the relative of one of those friends died in a drunk driving accident or from alcohol poisoning.
Mentioning the assassination of a presidential candidate when you yourself are a presidential candidate is just like that: ominous, rude, and vaguely threatening.
PeeJ said: Granted, it was an exceptionally tactless, stoopid, idiotic thing to say. But…I don’t think she meant it in the way so many people are taking it.
I wish… but then she followed up without the grace to make a straightforward apology (for making an exceptionally tactless… etc)
She gave the non-apology apology. That’s a lot of chutzpah, and that doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.
A: The proper etiquette is for the whiteys with short hair, shave their heads to 1/4″ length to match the great leader Barack HUSSEIN X. Those with long enough hair should get them permed with tight curls and plenty of hair product to match the afros of the Soul Sistah Security Squad.
Okay.
You were hanging out and drinking with some friends.
As for president-erect, I was channeling Emily Litella.
“I did nothing really wrong and I am deeply sorry that there exist people who think I did, and most of all I would like to express my profound regret that I have done something which inconvenienced me through the wrong interpretations of others.”
Oh no! Not the SSSS!
The really bad part about that analogy is that the 68 convention was a horrorshow that led to Hubert Humphrey getting the nod from superdeligates alone, fracturing the party, and leading to a drumming in the general against nixon. Sounds familiar… cant place why….
Max, when I watched her “apology” or better, her “explanation” my impression was she realized she put her foot so far in she didn’t know what the fuck to say. She did know that nothing she could say would make it better, I think I got that too.
Eh. I once respected and even admired her. She lost me long ago so this latest is just…eh.
Okay, well, if this is all a reference to ’68, who gets beat by the police outside the Convention?
One question of fashion etiquette: When Barack Obama leads his inauguration in his black beret and black shades and black leather jacket and black leather gloves with an AR-15 strapped on his shoulder, mirrored by his 1,000 member black sister security squad dressed likewise, should white people attending the inauguration dress the same or is simply holding the black power sign at appropriate times enough?
A: The proper etiquette is for the whiteys with short hair, shave their heads to 1/4? length to match the great leader Barack HUSSEIN X. Those with long enough hair should get them permed with tight curls and plenty of hair product to match the afros of the Soul Sistah Security Squad.
I don’t know about the fashion aspect of it, but of late I have been experiencing a distinct craving for 70’s-era funk. Ripped some P-Funk CDs and have been riding around sounding like a porno soundtrack for the last few weeks.
Just getting prepped for life in the United States of SHAFT.
When Barack Obama leads his inauguration in his black beret and black shades and black leather jacket and black leather gloves with an AR-15 strapped on his shoulder, mirrored by his 1,000 member black sister security squad dressed likewise…
I have to admit, I hope that really happens. It would look so goddam cool.
Just getting prepped for life in the United States of SHAFT.
One Nation Under A Groove, y’all.
If Bootsy Collins isn’t the Groovemaster Laureate, I’ll be disappointed.
El Cid said,
May 24, 2008 at 1:31
Okay, well, if this is all a reference to ‘68, who gets beat by the police outside the Convention?
Mike Gravel, DFH.
Y’know, that Shaft is one mean ass muthuh…
Say what?!?! Watch yo’ mouth!
Denver police don’t beat or taze, El Cid–they shoot.
…or the “Double SS”, as us liberal fascists like to call them.
Max Power said:
“She gave the non-apology apology. That’s a lot of chutzpah, and that doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.”
Yes.
There are misstatements. There are malapropisms.
Then there are specific references to murders.
Enough.
Just getting prepped for life in the United States of SHAFT.
Well, OK, but I was hoping for the United States of Love.
note bumpersticker.
Life’s getting kinda nice when other people are making my poop jokes for me.
You know what, though? If you watch the clip — and this is important — WITHOUT THE FRAMING supplied by Josh Marshall or the NY Post, the devastating wrongalicious wrongness of her comment is much less evident. Bad taste, maybe. But, honestly, don’t trust the NY Post. Or, for that matter, Josh Marshall, who’s been on I Can Haz Lexion? Kthxbai watch for months.
It’s the first paragraph that makes it bad. It sets you up to say, ZOMG what did the ruthless bitch say now? And then you read obvious malice into the statement. She’s making the point — and has made it before without this hue and cry — that there have been plenty of primary seasons that have lasted into June.
Like the “cling” comment, this is a lot of wind over a lot of nothing.
It’s the first paragraph that makes it bad.
Nope.
Flip – I agree that it wasn’t her intent to say that she was waiting out for Obama to get shot. But when you’re talking about assassinations, you gotta be REALLY careful. Like, really, really super careful. I see your point about Obama’s bitter gaffe having the same kinds of unintended consequences, but when you mention assassination, the emotional stakes are significantly raised.
Right there wit’cha, Jennifer.
I’ve been loading up on Staple Singers, Sister Sledge, Billy Preston and Isaac Hayes.
Oh, and “Superstition”…..
mikey
So, remembering Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June is simply a mnemonic placeholder reminding her that a primary season hadn’t been concluded? Combined with an explanation of why she, who is not leading, should remain in the race, explicitly stating that all sorts of things could happen?
Nixon – Humphrey was pretty close, actually. Not a drubbing. Or even a “drumming”.
You know, I was thinking she ought to drop out and, if something did happen, she could always come back. Now, I’m not so sure.
re: UD3. I stopped reading No Quarter after they accussed Obama of starting the Kenyan Election Riots. Besides I was picking up a Reagan Afghan war good / Bush Afghan War bad vibe that I couldn’t figure out. It’s sort of
mess we started = mess is not our fault
sort of thing.
Oh, and as to the Hillary comment?
Two very simple things.
She has been willing to say the most horrific, scorched-earth, in or out harsh madness since the clinton campaign was essentially finished. At least since march. We keep being surprised. When are we going to GET that she’s a sad, sad victim of a toxic cocktail of ambition and desperation.
Second. She already lost.
Obama’s the nominee.
We would be better served to quit playing into the media’s narrative (they are selling cars, tvs and cell phone service, so it’s GOOD for them) and begin to ignore her. No matter who your chosen democratic candidate WAS, the primary season is over, and despite her smarmy, smug daily tantrums to the contrary, she is completely irrelevant at this point…
mikey
God damn it Hillary YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THIS
Just withdraw already for the love of God.
Well, apart from the explicit statement that all sorts of things could happen. Which in the clip I viewed (via TPM) she didn’t say. The context was, why are the calls for you to drop out of the race so intense? And her answer was, I don’t know, because we’ve been through unresolved primary election fights later than this.
What she regrets is using an _old_ line about how there have been lots of election years that have included June primaries — a history that includes a traumatizing event, the assassination of RFK — given the recent news about Ted Kennedy’s health. That’s where the “bad taste” comes in.
I really don’t think she’s arguing that she should stay in because Obama might get shot. I guess there’s been more talk of that possibility than I’ve heard myself. It seems like it’s many people’s view that the subtext to her statement had to have been that, but I didn’t pick it up at all.
Oh no! Not the SSSS!
Unicode does not seem to have a single character for ‘SSSS’. You could write it in German as ßß, but that just looks like a pair of pregnant madonnas in profile.
Otherwise Corman could have made a movie called Gaß-ß.
“…they still call it the White House but that’s a temporary condition, you dig it, CC?“
It seems like it’s many people’s view that the subtext to her statement had to have been that, but I didn’t pick it up at all.
Flip – see the new post I wrote about that. Like I said, I don’t think she meant it in a “Obama might get shot and I’ll win” sorta way. But she should be smart enough to know that some things just elicit emotional responses from people. Any mention of assassinations during the end of such a tense campaign is just bound to freak some people out.
SS²
~
I keep coming back to SN because it’s the one asylum I feel at home in.
Hillary said something similar in March. It is clearly on her mind. Remember her flyer with the rifle barrel next to Obama’s head? I expect more suggestive comments & ads can be found.
I believe she is really trying to wreck his campaign by pointing out his vulnerability in that area. “Oh nos! Obama is Black and Americans are Racist!”
She make me ashamed to be a woman and a feminist.
I am big supporter of Obama and am desperate to see this nomination process come to a close. But I have to say I think Hillary’s comment is being grossly misread. The relevant fact was not that RFK was assassinated, but that as late as mid-June of 1968, was rising from dark horse status to challenge the presumptive nominee, HHH.
Hillary was comparing herself, not Obama, to RFK.
Hillary’s repeating of this nasty talking point could be construed as encouraging violent fantasies. It’s only a few steps to Hate Speech. I really think she’s considering an “Independent” run, a’la Liebermann.
Me too. It’s because my fellow lunatics are in charge.
Brad — I think that’s fair.
I would just put the remark in a box with other inartful lines, like Kerry’s thing about how if you don’t work hard in school, you get stuck in Iraq. It’s bad because someone out there can make it _look_ bad — not because it’s made with ominous intent or as a Freudian slip about her deep-seated murderous wishes.
So mentioning an assassination is probably not the smartest thing to do. That’s the offense. IMHO it ends there.
Here’s a good way to indoctrinate our future generation*:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_ul7X5js1vE
* Check out the kid grooving out on the balcony.
Re the speculation that H means Obama is vulnerable to assassination – which I’m not buying…it’s too far out there for me…but anyway…just to humour those who are going there. Wouldn’t this make him the better prospect for the Presidency? A sign that he’s a threat to the evil establishment? I dunno, but it seems if Hillary meant to imply this she’s once again not doing herself any favours, really.
Brad, I just said this at LGM and I said it at Ezra’s. My reading is the exact same one as the Clinton elaboration. She was talking about campaigns that go into June. RFK was on the campaign trail in California in JUNE, just like Clinton. I think you are way off base here. I totally admit that it was expressed really poorly but the fact that everyone in the world would easily jump to the conclusion that she would say something so beyond the pale suggests that they already have no respect for her to begin with. So Somerby has been right all along. We’ve all internalized the fact that she is a horrible monster and horrible monsters say horrible things.
The two instances 92/68 were what was in common. The assassination was not what she meant to highlight, it was the fact that that campaign was still going in June, in California.
I am really tired of this stiff.
And in this instance, the reason why the “horrible monster” image popped up is… it was placed there by the New York Post and Josh Marshall, two peas in a rotten pod. (Include the cadre at MSNBC if you like your peapod to have more than the proverbial two peas.)
Transcript of HRC’s statement from the Wall Street Journal:
Versus her statement in March, to Time:
Forgetting that her husband’s trailing opponent had left the race in March, so there was zero historical parallel, there is simply no logical justification for bringing up Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination as a chronological placeholder to remind the listener that the 1968 primary went until June — unless, that is, someone were to say, “Prove it, because I don’t think it did.”
It’s a terrible year to pick as suggesting that ‘it happens all the time and hey look we’re fine’, because the Democrats lost in 1968, so it certainly isn’t an argument that nomination battles which go into June unresolved turn out peachy.
The context is that the trailing candidate with no clear path to the nomination is clearly stating that not only are primaries long but that things can happen.
Finally, you specifically mention the 1968 nomination fight and Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination to support an argument that “Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual”?
WTF? You use Nineteen-Sixty-Fucking-Eight as your reference for why long primary contests are nothing particularly unusual?
You explain that trail of thinking to me. Go ahead.
If Rush were king? Everybody.
Sad but true. Oddly, my first take on the flap upon seeing a headline that she brought this up was, “Man, that’s tasteless with Teddy’s condition, and all”. It took reading the text for me to think “Whoa. Dude. Not O.K.” and catch the equivocating I don’t think I bothered reading any lead-in stuff until later.
See my comment above, RE: the Rude One. Apples and oranges. There was absolutely no decent reason for her to bring up that election or event to illustrate that point. Period. Even her claim that the ’92 primary was contested into June is pretty weaselly. Sure, Brown held out for a shred of hope that California would put him back in the race, but please, he was already out, and so was Tsongas.
Also, any time you have to get into the “what the candidate _really_ meant” business, it shows that there’s at least a modicum of damage done. (Obama supporters know all about this; see lambert at corrente’s “W.O.R.M.” creation.) But I still think that’s the level of damage that Clinton ought to sustain on this one.
Get that man a kewpie doll.
Nah. It’s because she’s shown to us all, even those of us who once respected and even admired her, what a hydra-headed intolerable monster she can be. Josh and the rest aren’t repsonsible for it in everyone else, they’re suffering from the same syndrome.
a history that includes a traumatizing event, the assassination of RFK — given the recent news about Ted Kennedy’s health. That’s where the “bad taste” comes in.
No. It’s worse given Ted’s ills but the RFK assassination is still a big deal to a lot of folks and invoking it is a vulgar scare.
That’s my point. The headline told you what was important about the remark and positioned you to receive it in a certain way. I would argue that without that framing there would be little reason to lock in on “Clinton brings up RFK assassination” rather than “Clinton downplays criticism of prolonged campaign.”
OK, so put her through the wringer about how it’s a bad analogy and that it’s hardly proof that June primaries are S.O.P. when one of her examples is all about tragedy and disaster. Those are legitimate and thoughtful criticisms. I don’t think “Hillary raises specter of Obama assassination” is.
Hillary is finished and these are but the dying gasps of her campaign. Now if everybody could move past the the hysterical speculation and useless non-insights into her subconscious, perhaps the party could be unified going forward.
I don’t like Hillary for any number of valid reasons based on facts, not speculation. She made a number of terrible and stupid mistakes, some of them calculated. I don’t believe she’s a monster or an evil person, but she’s demonstrated a lack of suitability for the big job and now people are piling on to add insult to injury.
Hillary may have a lot of fence mending to do, but she also needs to save face and we’d all do well not to indulge in this hysterical bullshit. Really, we’re better than that aren’t we?
I don’t see the “scare,” or, I should say, I don’t see that the “scare” was intended to be a scare, but, OK, right, talking about assassinations is A Bad Thing.
I don’t think “Hillary raises specter of Obama assassination” is.
I agree, that is sensationalized.
I dont’ think it was intended to be a scare. She needed an analogy that worked- so she has to try and find nominating contests that are still going (whether it was only a technicality in 92 or not a technicality in 68). That’s what her rhetoric was. I have no idea whether she is coding about assassination attempts or not. The fact that a bunch of people would automatically go there first is what is bothering me.
As John Oliver said on his Bugle podcast (10:30 or so into episode 28) in reference to Zimbabwe, “98% of me is sure that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t have her opponents’ supporters beaten up, but there’s just that 2%…”
Yeah, at it’s absolute worst, it’s an unintended or vague threat. But really, it is something “vulgar” in that it’s rude and tactless.
She was talking about campaigns that go into June. RFK was on the campaign trail in California in JUNE, just like Clinton.
Mondale’s campaign went into June. The 1976 GOP primary went to the convention.
Yes, we remember 1968 as a year when the primary went into June, but we know it not because of historical interest in the primary, but because Bobby Kennedy got shot. A few months after he’d given a famous speech in Indianapolis, in the wake of a charismatic black leader getting shot.
I don’t see that the “scare” was intended to be a scare
I figger you’re right and that the intent was to invoke how hopeful RFK made some people feel. Which should indicate how clumsy the folks who assemble her talking points are.
The fact that a bunch of people would automatically go there first is what is bothering me.
With RFK Google suggest goes there first, I do, and a bunch of people I know do.
If you can’t beat your opponent, wish that he be off’ed in June before the primary!
SHAME on BILLARY. She is UNFIT to be President!!
Clinton said it twice and McCauliffe mentioned the possibility of “something” happening. It’s become a talking point, not a gaffe.
And even if you cast about for the kindest possible interpretation for Hillary, it remains a stupid and regrettable thing to say once, let alone repeatedly make or follow with a non-apology apology.
We already have a President like that. Do not want another.
I think you’re seeing it in a mirror, Pinko.
It’s not that people went there first.
She laid it on the table. She put the turd in the punchbowl. In this entirely toxic envirnonment, you could not expect people to go anywhere else.
And I’m sorry. She’s smart and experienced. She HAD to know the feelings her words would evoke. That’s what they use words to do. That’s the whole audacity of hope thing. That’s the whole jeremiah wright challenge. The feelings, the anger, the memories, the sensations the words engender.
And she has to own responsibility for the fear and the outrage and the anger that HER words created.
If she didn’t think it thru, shame on her.
But it’s much more likely that she did, ’cause she’s a pro…
mikey
Pinko Punko, she had plenty of examples to refer to if she wanted to talk about summer nominating contests. This wasn’t a spontaneous best-she-could-come-up-with example — it’s one she’s used before, practically verbatim. As for whether she was “coding” about assassination — no, she wasn’t. She stated the word quite plainly. See, that’s the thing. If she just wanted to use RFK as an example of a guy still running in June, why not just say “Hey, RFK was still running in June of ’68”? Why mention repeatedly that he was assassinated? How is that relevant to proving that sometimes the contests run late?
if she wanted to use RFK as an example of a contest that went into June, she could’ve left off the “assassinated” bit.
she’s utterly, completely, tone deaf
why would a pro deliberately use a talking point guaranteed to backfire?
why would a pro deliberately use a talking point guaranteed to backfire?
That is a GREAT question. Maybe she thought the benefit would outweigh the damage? Maybe she thought she had nothing to lose by putting it in play?
But if you wanna make the case that Senator Clinton is NOT a political pro, you’re gonna have to work pretty hard. Her position, history and experience gives her that station by default. So either she miscalculated, or it’s another case of tossing everything into the line ’cause there really isn’t anything on a personal level left to lose…
mikey
I have no doubt she’s a pro and I also have no doubt that people are all too eager to play the jump to conclusions game. This smells a lot like the TBogg thread from yesterday.
you know what sucks? taking the garbage out and having a bunch of it fly out of the bag in your face and all over the pavement just as you toss it in the bin. feck!
June, shmune. I’ve had it with that garbage. The Iowa caucus was in the first fracking week of JANUARY. Everything is earlier this time.
why would a pro deliberately use a talking point guaranteed to backfire
She’s too deep inside the campaign machine. She’s surrounded by loyalists who believe the all the lines they came up with – little states don’t count, FL and MI is like civil rights, Obama can’t win white votes, Obama is only winning because he’s black – all the crap the campaign puts out.
All campaigns suffer from this but sometimes when things are desperate, the stupid gets too concentrated and reacts and boils over when it is exposed to oxygen.
Just read the whole thread and I’m surprised nobody mentioned Huckabee’s recent gun+Obama “joke” that’s still hanging in the air. Don’t pretend the idea isn’t floating around.
Assuming the Dem nominee wins, the next 8 yrs. will be a mini-golden age for skinheads, survivalists and unibombers, I’m sorry to say. Obama’s SS detail will be earning every penny.
Paranoia off.
Now Sasha and Malia Obama will have to ask their daddy what “assassination” means. Shame on you, Hillary Clinton!
Is that you, Chuck Norris?
I think with as incompetent a campaign as Hillary has run, I find arguments about how she’s a pro- they just aren’t as compelling as they would be prior to the campaign. I have seen Josh Marshall constantly invoke her “pro-ness” to legitimize any argument possible about possible dog-whistling and manipulative intent from the Clinton campaign. I just can’t imagine she would be so callous and calculating. I do know that if it she did mean it, she would be abhorrent. I put it this way, even if she ended her campaign and Obama was kidnapped by aliens, she’d be the nominee. It makes no sense whatsoever for her to make an argument “I need to stay in the race just in case.” This doesn’t make sense on any level to me.
I think I just get tired of everyone being whipped into a frothy frenzy because nobody ever wants to come down from the frenzy. Nobody ever wants to admit they were wrong.
I’m also tired of arguments about “look, even this totally crazy person, BTD, agrees with me, so therefore my argument has more weight.” If Michelle Malkin said “cancer is bad” I wouldn’t use it in a post about how cancer was bad.
I think I just get tired of everyone being whipped into a frothy frenzy
“Everyone” is a somewhat inclusive category.
Yeah, I don’t think the “these people are pros” point holds much water, because Obama has made his share of gaffes, too — are his people not pros? Or are his gaffes likewise not truly gaffes but in actuality well-calibrated sooper-seekrit dogwhistles?
Hillary Clinton, a pro policy maker….a terrible campaigner. Case closed.
And Brad, don’t be so kind. That is what she kinda said.
Well, because then the reaction would be — yeah, he was, and he got killed. Or, yeah, he was, and he got killed, and don’t pretend that wasn’t what you wanted us all to remember, you horrible human being.
Well, because then the reaction would be — yeah, he was, and he got killed.
Uh, YES.
So she shouldn’t say he got killed, and she shouldn’t _not_ say he got killed. Got it.
My only point is that there’s a difference between pounding her tone-deafness or bad taste in mentioning assassination at all — vs. alleging that her point is to suggest that if Obama should have an “unfortunate” “accident”, nudge nudge, wink wink, she’ll be there to swoop right in.
Righteous Bubba,
I meant everyone but me, natch.
Simply muttering the word “assassination” with regard to the contest was totally inappropriate. If any of us had done that, we would be in jail pronto. Adding to it is her public posturing that just screams that she is in denial about the implication of a repeat of that history – intended or not.
She might want to wish this away by avoiding public acknowledgment (requiring a huge apology and closure of her campaign),but it just ain’t gonna go away and she will neurotically/obsessively/compulsively press ahead. If ever a candidate sank their own boat, this would be the textbook case.
Does anyone think that she was trying to put a bug in some deranged follower’s ear?
So she shouldn’t say he got killed, and she shouldn’t _not_ say he got killed. Got it.
We both seem to agree that it was a bad idea to go there at all so…yes, she shouldn’t and she shouldn’t. Absolutely correct.
Are you referring to something in particular?
Does anyone think that she was trying to put a bug in some deranged follower’s ear?
Where’s whateverdude? He’s the credulous type.
I meant everyone but me, natch.
Man when you’re right you’re right. You show no mercy and twist the knife.
Again I note that Capt. Trollypants totally punked Brad.
I wish Bush would have an unfortunate accident nudge nudge wink wink but then Cheney would also have to meet with an unfortunate accident and so on and so on…
Seriously, if he did meet with an unfortunate accident after I push “submit comment” I wouldn’t lose any more sleep over the remark than he has over his decisions.
RB, is the problem still that she was (supposedly) implicitly pondering Obama’s assassination? Or that talking about any assassination was a bad idea?
The latter I have no issue with (although let’s not forget the early dust-up between the candidates over Benazir Bhutto). The former I don’t find to be supported by a fair interpretation of the original remark, which neither RFK Jr or the South Dakota newspaper that conducted the interview have found objectionable.
The latter.
{clinks RB’s glass}
{clinks RB’s glass}
Drink up. Heh heh… [sneaks off]
It’s a year that ends in an 8. That focuses the mind in American politics.
Look, I think this was spoken more out of tiredness and the unending campaign bubble, but the past five months have taken place with the undercurrent of ‘what happens’ to charismatic and/or black public figures in America. There is, however much those involved in covering the Obama campaign, the same perverse what-if approach that accompanied every space shuttle takeoff landing for a long while in the aftermath of Columbia.
Except it hasn’t happened in a long while. The sense that it has applies most of all to Clinton’s generation. McCain remembers Pearl Harbor as a kid. Obama was not yet seven years old when MLK and RFK were killed. But for people of Hillary’s generation, the blood of 1968, from Memphis to LA to Chicago, was part of their formative years in political terms.
Invoking it is taboo because it’s been so long. Because there’s a feeling that America might be able to lay 1963 and 1968 to rest — but you don’t want to jinx it. That was Hillary Clinton’s failing here.
Yes, but am doing it badly. Apologies. What I am inarticulately trying to say is that that when she was giving the non-apology, the body language and non-engaging facial expressions conflicted with her verbal message to the degree that to me, there was much that was deliberately left unspoken. She was quite rigid in remaining within the framework of heresy against a sacred persona while the greater offense of drawing a parallel between 2008 and 1968, when the front runner in 1968 was assassinated, was never even approached. In the non-apology, her voice was uneven and weak, and her final thanks to the reporters was flat. She knew her response did not address the real problem — you could just tell.
This is what “screamed” out to me — even if she was only callous in her original comments, she simply can’t allow herself to admit making a mistake. She sidestepped the greater of the two offenses rather than agree that she made a mistake in judgment. Now, why would she do that?
Hence the denial comment.
henry lewis said,
May 24, 2008 at 4:41
Just read the whole thread and I’m surprised nobody mentioned Huckabee’s recent gun+Obama “joke” that’s still hanging in the air. Don’t pretend the idea isn’t floating around.
Assuming the Dem nominee wins, the next 8 yrs. will be a mini-golden age for skinheads, survivalists and unibombers, I’m sorry to say. Obama’s SS detail will be earning every penny.
Paranoia off.
Anyone seen this post by Pam Spaulding over at Pandagon?
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/21/georgia-publication-features-obama-in-crosshairs-on-cover-for-article-on-white-supremacist-threat/
Yes it is being discussed. I’d be really surprised if it isn’t being discussed within the Clinton campaign. Presumably with the same sense of dread that the rest of us feel at the mere mention of the possibility, at least I hope so. That would explain why it’s on her mind better than the explanation that she’s been thinking of Ted’s trouble.
I’m not sure if it’s a talking point: I really do think it’s a gaffe- that hesitation, the “um” after she said it, maybe shows that she knew it as soon as she said it. It was a huge mistake.
There’s no doubt Hillary and the people around her are pros. So what? Doesn’t mean they really know what they’re doing- these are the same DLC’ers who have been advising Democrats to be the GOP-lite since ’92 and with disastrous results. The big winners in ’06 were the ones who didn’t follow the triangulation suicide strategy.
I mean, Karl Rove’s a pro. Doesn’t mean he’s not capable of completely misreading the American political pulse.
Paranoia On:
I hope the Secret Service are, in fact, earning their pay.
Anyone else remember this?
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4571
Or this?
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5208
RobW: Thanks for finding that linky – I’ve been worried about BO’s security since I saw that Dallas thing. Apparantly, the SS weren’t earning their pay that day.
Let’s face it – there are people who do see an Obama parallel with RFK in many ways and bringing up his assassination is “beyond the pale”. It would have been perfectly possible for her to mention RFK’s campaign going on into June without specifically referencing such a tragic event.
Like someone said upthread: Stupid or Evil?
“The Republican party is the President, on top of the Vice President, etc.”
“What do they stand on?”
“A rectum”
“But what is the rectum on?”
“Another rectum.”
“But… what is that rectum on?”
“Silly, the Republican Party is rectums all the way down.”
After lots of thought, I think she was trying clumsily to draw a comparison of herself to RFK (which makes her “apology” make more sense), and completely missed the more obvious suggestion of her remark. It’s still a bad enough gaffe that I think after her series of gaffes (hard working white people vote for me, Florida 2000, Zimbabwe, etc.) she should bow out. Actually, she should have bowed out after her hard working white voter gaffe; now she’s made things worse for herself.
I initially reacted emotionally to this and I should have thought it through more carefully before posting.
Well, you know it seems to me that that invoking that initial emotional reaction was the actual point of what she said. It was a particular kind of attack meant to go for that deep emotional response many of us had. I said to my girlfriend that I didn’t even know that rhetorical weapons like that existed (on a large scale to affect so many as this did and at the level that this went to).
Live and learn.
I did not get the same subliminal message some other folks did. I thought she uses the 1968 contest for two reasons. 1) to connect with her generation ‘we all remember’. I assume the we is either everyone who was in the room or boomers in general 2) In Clinton’s mind, she is RFK not Obama. Kennedy was behind (probably hopelessly so) in delegates to Humphrey even after winning California. In his victory speech he stated he was going to take it to the convention and fight on. If there was a hidden message there I thought the idea might be this: Kennedy wanted to fight to the convention – he was killed – tragedy = Clinton wants to fight to the convention – she is force out – another tragedy. This seems more in line with the entire discussion about the Obama campaign and media wanting her to drop out.
[…] at Sadly, No!: OK, I’ve defended Hillary against sexism. I can’t defend her against charges of being […]
The problem with her comment is that the corrolation between those two contests and this contest is non-existent.
Both of those contests were fueled by the biggest state in the union having a June primary.
The biggest state in the union’s primary was 3 1/2 months ago.
The remaining primaries now have delegates which are about 1/5 the size of California’s.
Even forgetting about her stupid assassination comments, those two races have nothing in comment with this one.
The friggin current President of the United States decided not to run for re-election the last day of March, 1968. The real race began that day, 2 months before June, not 5 months. Of course it was still going on in June.
This settles it -CDS is alive and well. The whole world ignores the Obama camp’s race-baiting, the whole story of his parents’ meeting and marriage (which was false), they believe him when he says he never heard Rev. Wright say anything bad, he never takes responsibility for anything (ABC’s count is up to 14 times where he blamed a staffer for a mistake) – and THIS is who you want as leader of the free world.
Very sad.
and THIS is who you want as leader of the free world.
You know, many of us who DO want to see Obama as the “Leader of the Free World” (yeah, right) do not believe your summation accurately describes him. Any more than Senator Clinton is defined by her laugh, her pandering and her personal-ambition-over-party statements.
They are both very bright, powerful people with lots of good things to say, and plans to execute. I just happen to come down on the side that thinks Barack Obama would be a better president, especially factoring where we are at this moment in history…
mikey
Ah, the racists show up!
THIS is who you want as leader of the free world.
I want Pee Wee Herman. I’ll settle for whoever the dem nominee is.
The desperation is on the Obama side, trying to slant an innocent remark in such a way as to take it all out of its context to its actual intent. RFK, Jr. said as such, and the real analogy she’s drawing is far deeper: RFK was cut down (stopped) as he was building momentum and before he could make his pitch to the convention.
But hey, the important thing is to apply pressure on Superdelegates to back a flawed, inexperienced candidate who has no business to run for president. It’s also to continue the attempts to suppresss voters who might otherwise come out and vote for her; contributors who might donate to her historic run.
The low level that Obama people have stooped will never be forgotten. And guess what. It ain’t over till it’s over, which will be after the convention.
in such a way as to take it all out of its context to its actual intent
Because you are such a crappy writer I will take great pleasure in your explanation of exactly what she meant.
the real analogy she’s drawing is far deeper: RFK was cut down (stopped) as he was building momentum and before he could make his pitch to the convention.
Wait, so you’re saying the analogy is intended to compare herself to Bobby Kennedy?
I agree with RB. I can’t WAIT to hear you explain that one.
So I won’t. The comparison is absurd. As has been pointed out over and over on this thread, any comparison between now and 1968 is absurd- the whole process has changed in the last 40 years. There hasn’t been a convention that mattered since. Perhaps because 1968 was such a huge clusterfuck for the party.
#
Jennifer said,
May 24, 2008 at 1:33
One question of fashion etiquette: When Barack Obama leads his inauguration in his black beret and black shades and black leather jacket and black leather gloves with an AR-15 strapped on his shoulder, mirrored by his 1,000 member black sister security squad dressed likewise, should white people attending the inauguration dress the same or is simply holding the black power sign at appropriate times enough?
A: The proper etiquette is for the whiteys with short hair, shave their heads to 1/4? length to match the great leader Barack HUSSEIN X. Those with long enough hair should get them permed with tight curls and plenty of hair product to match the afros of the Soul Sistah Security Squad.
I don’t know about the fashion aspect of it, but of late I have been experiencing a distinct craving for 70’s-era funk. Ripped some P-Funk CDs and have been riding around sounding like a porno soundtrack for the last few weeks.
Just getting prepped for life in the United States of SHAFT.
“Dolomite is my name and fuckin up motherfuckers is my game”.
Dolomite
Dolemite.
RobW
You might want to read up on the history of the Democratic Party.
The 1980 convention mattered. Carter had a majority of the delegates at the end of the primaries but Ted Kennedy would not concede. Kennedy won several of the late primaries and Carter’s numbers were falling due to the Iranian hostage crisis. Kennedy, hoping to build on this, took the fight to the convention and relentlessly lobbied for the delegates to select him.
my god — they really are fucking crazy over at noquarter. i couldn’t bring myself to visit before today, and just popped over to see how they’d respond to a reasonable, non-trolling post from an obvious obama supporter. they went thermonuclear. honest-to-god, i felt like i was back at freerepublic.
that said, i’m sure i’m not off the mark. i think there’s a ton of agent provacateurs working as part of operation chaos, pretending to be hillary supporters, but their hateful diction gives them away.
Sadly, no, you are simply a fool. People remember dates mostly when important events happen. Otherwise, they must be looked up to pin down.
Clinton was in the middle of a live interview defending her decision to stay in a tight primary race (neither candidate has enough delegates to secure the nomination), mentioned instances where she could distinctly recall a deep primary race. Both cases are completely understandable. She would remember her husband wrapping up his nomination, probably to the hour. She would also remember the date of RFK’s assassination and recall that he was in the middle of a presidential primary campaign.
Sadly, partisans don’t want to reason in this way, they want Clinton out, and any event will do, to hyperventilate and declare a final gaffe that ends the campaign in favor of their guy.
Sadly, people who do so cannot be trusted to have integrity or deal with any issue honestly if it involves something where they are heavily invested.
Sadly, I’m not surprised, but Sadly, I am mightily disappointed.
he would also remember the date of RFK’s assassination and recall that he was in the middle of a presidential primary campaign.
Granted 1968 sticks out, but it’s still a lousy analogy.
1) June in 1968 was 3 months in – New Hampshire primary was March 12. June for Hillary is 6 months in. No nominee after 6 months is a far cry from no nominee after 3.
2) As vic noted above, there were still big primaries left in ’68. Not so in June this year.
So, was it a reference to a “you remember where you were” moment? I think that’s true, but for a misleading reference. Using it to make a legit point? Tacky. Using it to bullshit a little bit more? No-business-being-President tacky.
Once again, she had used the reference before. It was a talking point, not a fumbled-for reference during a live interview.
Once again, she had used the reference before. It was a talking point, not a fumbled-for reference during a live interview.
Yes. It came to her mind during the live interview because she’d used it before in another media venue and hence it was closer to the front of her mind when she was on the spot than any less-dramatic lengthy primary was. Emphatically not because she was in any way trying to invoke the spectre of assassination. Hillary Clinton sometimes says stupid things when put on the spot in exactly the same way that all of the rest of us do. There is nothing at all sinister about the remark, merely tone-deaf. We’d all be perfectly happy to forgive even a total stranger that kind of slip of the tongue during a probing conversation.
I watched the TPM coverage of this in reverse order, catching up on my RSS feeds. I saw the clip of the interview in which she made the remark first, before I read any of the commentary on the use of the word “assassination”. I found the video clip totally innocent, and it would never have occurred to me to make any kind of sinister associations from it. The outraged commentary, when I read it afterwards, seemed a complete overreaction, a knee-jerk kind of thing that got totally out of control.
It’s not worth anyone’s bother. Really it’s not.
She’s talking about primaries that extend into June. That is all.