Hillary Clinton's Assassination Gaffe: Bad Idea In January, Worse Idea Now

Is there a better time to drop a gigantic campaign gaffe than on a Friday before the first holiday weekend of summer? No — but if it's really big, it won't matter. Such was the case with Hillary Clinton's bewildering statement Friday to the Sioux Falls Argus Leader expressing confusion at calls for her to leave the race, since primary fights had stretched into June before:

"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."

The statement invoking Kennedy's assassination touched a nerve when it was picked up by the New York Post and then blared across the Drudge Report, understood to invoke the spectre of another potential assassination in this campaign. Considering that fears for the safety of Barack Obama have been circulating among black supporters for some time, and that threats have reportedly been received, the statement was widely held to have been a reference to him, conscious or unconscious on Clinton's part.

As political sites started buzzing and cablers went nuts, the Clinton campaign issued a statement from the one person who ought to have been able to quell the furor: Robert Kennedy Jr..

"It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June. I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband's 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June. I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."

You know the rest: It did not quell the furor, nor did a statement by Obama supporter Dick Durbin asserting confidence that "the last thing in the world she'd ever want is to wish misfortune on anybody....[it was] a careless remark, and we'll leave it at that." The tabloids plastered it across their front pages (NY Post: "She Said What?";The NYDaily News: "Hil's Killer Gaffe"; Newsday: "What The Hill?"). Keith Olbermann dedicated yet another agitated Special Comment to the matter. There was outrage, scorn, mockery, and even pity. Oh, and she also got the facts wrong re: her husband. It was another very bad day in the Clinton campaign.

So: Is all the furor worth it? Answer: Yes. On a number of points. First and foremost, it was a boneheaded thing to day — at any time, but particularly now. Even the people who assume she is pushing some sort of secret wish-fulfillment agenda are scratching their heads as to why she'd actually say it that way. Especially after a long campaign of having her gaffes hyper-amplified at every turn (remember 60 Minutes?) She definitely wasn't going to squeak this one by. But also, she already had her chance to make a bizarro assassination-as-part-of-the-process comment back when she pointed out that JFK hadn't passed civil rights legislation, LBJ had. The same reaction bubbled up then, but more muted (it was early, it was the first time) — between now and then we've had the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King's death, and, more recently, the sad news about Ted Kennedy's health reopening this national sadness. All which underscores the fact that it was an absolutely moronic thing to say — and if it was calculated, then it was even worse.

By now many outlets are pointing out that Clinton has made similar comments before — to Time managing editor Rick Stengel on March 6th (almost to the word), as well as her JFK/LBJ comment back in January. The lack of response may have lulled her into thinking the analogy would fly; alas, all it takes for something like this to flare into a major issue is for someone to notice. When someone finally does, watch out — even on a holiday weekend.

NB: For a great summation of how the remark took hold and why, exactly, the New York Post broke the story far away from the traveling campaign press gaggle in Sioux Falls, see the WSJ's 'Washington Wire' here: "The fact that it did become big news is illustrative of journalistic competition in the Internet age. The entire pack of reporters sent to watch Clinton's every move had somehow gotten beat, and forced into following a New York Post reporter who was nowhere near the campaign, but who, apparently, had a much-better Internet connection."

How Clinton's Comments Didn't — Then Did — Catch Fire [WSJ]
Hillary's Bizarre RFK Comment [Swampland]
Clinton Sorry For Remark About RFK Assassination [WaPo]
Olbermann: "You Invoked A Political Nightmare" [MSNBC]
Ok, Enough With the Hysteria About Clinton's Kennedy Statement [HuffPo]
Worst Person In the World [HuffPo]
Hillary's Apology, Ish [Swampland]
Clinton's Very Bad Day [The Caucus]
Sympathy for Hillary [Swampland]

Last January:
Clinton's Civil Rights Lesson [The Caucus]

Comments

[RobtBrock]

10:45 PM on 05/27/2008

Playing...­Solitaire.­..just...p­layed...Qu­een...of..­.Diamonds.­..must...s­top...Obam­a...now!..­.enable...­Hill...to.­..get...he­r...victor­y...as...e­ntitled.

[FogBelter]

09:01 PM on 05/26/2008

I think the hard part of this for Hillary is, as has previously occurred with comments she has made relating to Bosnia and such, she has stumbled into a trap of her own making. I believe Olbermann made mention that the media let Clinton down by not calling her on the RFK reference when she brought it up earlier in the campaign ... after saying the same thing a couple of times previously she seemed dumbfounde­d that he became the dustup it did. Obviously her campaign didn't put further thought into using the RFK reference and it being such a loaded reference, it was really a huge error on their part to allow Hillary go back to it over and over again.

What really undermines Hillary isn't this particular incident but a pattern of her stepping on a mine of her own placing, giving a half-heart­ed semi-apolo­gy, and then going on to blame Obama and pundits for overplayin­g a non issue. It is kind of a smarmy, intellectu­ally dishonest way of dealing with a mistake, and to repeatedly use it as a political response strategy really defies reason.

[hwebb54]

08:10 PM on 05/26/2008

Anyone with a BRAIN could see what she was pointing out. Primaries use to go all the way to the convention and her husband and RFK both were in a primary fight in June. The election will be in November just like with Bill and Robert so there will be plenty of time to campaign. Now that is what she meant and The New York Post and the Drudge Report snatched the word "assignati­on" from its context to make up a "fake controvers­y" Journalism has taken a real hit this year and credibilit­y is hard to find. The stand alone winner this year is FOX News. (Shocking huh) In every study done this year, they have been more "fair and balanced" than any other. MSNBC is a joke but a joke that many Americans haven't figured out. They mistake it for actual news so they take their "opinion" as "fact" and that the kind of journalism that Edward R Murrow warned us against. He is no on his fifth roll in the grave after this election season.

[DasBoot]

10:24 PM on 05/26/2008

Yes, Fox News, where they are openly joking about an Osama, I mean Obama, assassinat­ion. Good one.

[SeriousBlack]

07:01 PM on 05/28/2008

ummmm, no, they didn't "snatch the word assassinat­ion from it's CONTEXT". She USED the word assassinat­ion. Just a minor difference­.

And if she wanted to say, as you put it, "her husband and RFK both were in a primary fight in June.", she could have simply said, "her husband and RFK both were in a primary fight in June."

NOT "her husband was in a primary fight in June, and Bobby Kennedy was assassinat­ed in June."

Simple enough for YOUR brain?

[verlaine]

05:57 PM on 05/26/2008

Hillary has her head stuck up her rear-end. The undeclared SDs must endorse Obama now and put Hillary out of her misery.

[lizwatch]

12:50 PM on 05/26/2008

I was looking for this on the post but had to go to a search. Why is Hillary's Bad Day no longer on the post? I also did not see this posting up and found it on the search site. I think the response to all of this is so large because it is what people believe she is thinking. I told my husband a long time ago that she would want to be V-Presiden­t because of the same thing. I think they are pure evil and the fact that she will not appologize to him says it all.

[DasBoot]

09:12 AM on 05/26/2008

In this case I actually believe that Hillary was tired and careless more than anything else. She did not realize how such a statement might sound at the other end of the line.

This incident illustrate­s the vicious circle Hillary's campaign is caught in: For weeks now she's been traveling the country, telling everybody again and again why she is staying in the race, talking and talking until the words out of her mouth stop making any sense. Then, when people call her on her gaffes, she becomes even more determined to defy the adversaria­l world around her, talking and talking even more, which makes even more people angry. And so it goes.

How can she break free form this? I don't think she's capable of doing it. The unresolved Florida and Michigan issue will give her enough reason to stay in, strictly for "the people" of course. Maybe if all, or nearly all, remaining SD's come out, maybe if Al Gore finally finds his cahones and gently encourages her to get out. Maybe.

One more thing: Hillary' feminist defenders constantly cry foul when chauvinist­ic journalist­s use sexist language. Fair enough, it's often true. But how come Hillary herself is so tone deaf and positively refuses to even consider that Obama might be legitimate­ly offended by a remark like this?

[apduncan1]

11:51 AM on 05/26/2008

Believe me: this was no gaffe.

This was a call to arms to the erratic fringe out there; nothing is stopping Barack Obama from becoming the nominee. Only a bullet can stop him and she knows it, Bill knows it and I hope the Secret Service is offering the best protection possible.

[SeekerOne]

12:08 PM on 05/26/2008

Her delivery was a gaffe. It was blurted out in such a way, that the intended ambiguity receded far, far into the background­.

[Bozwellian]

10:11 AM on 05/27/2008

..SHOULD someting "occur" that would render Obama "UNABLED".­..there is NO WAY IN HELLE THAT THE MANTLE SHOULD THEN FALL OVER TO THE CLINTONS..­..they should be scorned and in NO WAY be REWARDED for having their "wish" fulfilled !!!

[deecee22]

03:12 AM on 05/26/2008

This is what Obama meant when he said, "clinton says these provocativ­e things" and hope that the media will pick it up"
well FOX tv picked it up with direct threats to the Senators life. No one will be arrested because no white person is going to get arrested for threaten a person of color life. even if it's on the national media.

"its just a joke" "i mis-spoke" " no one believe I would mean that" every f*cking excuse in the book.

I am not proud of my country. And it just disgusting to see all the pundits making excuses for her. gaffe my ass. she's a lawyer and skilled politician­. words are a lawyers weapon as well as tools.

[kee]

09:58 PM on 05/25/2008

Hillary is the screamer who just wants attention! She has to say something outlandish to get attention these days. The more outlandish­, the better. When she was trying really hard to play nice, nobody paid her any attention. Now that she is advocating someone kill off the presumptiv­e nominee, all eyes are on Hillary! She gets to shop a letter to every New York newspaper and everything­.
McAuliffe, Garin and Wolfson get to scream to the top of their lungs on cable networks. They're in heaven!

[kingsbridge77]

09:28 PM on 05/25/2008

Rachel Sklar used to defend Hillary Clinton every once in a while. But the pressure of being part of an openly pro-Obama site owned by pro-Obama Arianna Huffington caught up with her.
I don't blame her. She has a job to keep.

Please read today's Politico article explaining how the RFK assassinat­ion story is trivial, unimportan­t, and was blown out of proportion by the media:

http://www­.politico.­com/news/s­tories/050­8/10604.ht­ml

[Rachel Sklar]

11:29 PM on 05/25/2008

I have to pipe up here and reiterate what I've said on these comments boards many times: I'm not a defender of Hillary Clinton, I am a defender of whatever candidate happens to be on the receiving end of unfair/bia­sed/lopsid­ed media treatment at any given time - I try to respond to the response, see if it seems fair to me, and explain why. I have posted favorably on Obama here as well as Hillary, and critically about her too (I have even posted in defense of Mitt Romney, for goodness sakes!). I realize that it's tough in this very - what was that phrase, "highly charged" election - but I do try to be balanced and even-hande­d. You guys don't always agree, but the best I can do is provide the reasoning behind my position and hope that gives a sense of where I'm coming from.

But - and it must be said - I have never, ever been told what position to take by anyone at the Huffington Post. Not ever. No one has exerted pressure on me to support or criticize any one candidate. Just wanted that out there for the record.

And yes, saw the Politico piece - I especially liked the part about how Martin and Harris crowed with excitement when they saw the clip, and rushed to slap it up online. I'm mulling that piece in conjunctio­n with a few others right now and expect to slap my own response up tomorrow. And so

[Rachel Sklar]

11:32 PM on 05/25/2008

...that is to say, "and so it goes!" Thanks for your comment.

[Promisin1]

10:30 AM on 05/26/2008

Rachel
Thanks for your blog. What I don't understand is why you did not give credence to the fact that the media and the Obama supporters did not make a big issue over a similar statement made earlier by Hillary about RFK's assassinat­ion? Not to mention to the two statements of Hillary's about the same subject without using the term assassinat­ion. To me your article and the Politico piece you and a poster alluded to did not care to expand on those previous Hillary statements­. The JFK/LBJ comment wasn't related to the RFK statement whatsoever­. When is the correct time for a poster or the media to take umbrage with a repeated insensitiv­e comment without appearing unfair, biased and piling on?

[marla219]

11:42 AM on 05/26/2008

It would be nice if they referenced and debunked the significan­ce of Obama's "bitter" comments in this article. Let's remember that candidates suffer from "gaffes", but also benefit when others make them. The "bitter" comment, ripped from context and exploited heavily by the Clinton campaign, shows that politician­s who live by the sword, die by the sword. (For clarificat­ion, this is a metaphor, not an incitement to violence). She has been hanging on Obama's every word to find a gaffe to blow up into a firestorm: if the press treats her the same, she shouldn't be complainin­g too much.

[FreeThinkn1]

07:38 PM on 05/25/2008

The Clinton camp is now blaming Obama for the RFK/assass­ination gaffe. During an interview on Fox News and reported by the Washington Post Terry McAuliffe said, "the Obama campaign ... tried to take these words out of context...­she was making a point merely about the time line." Who are they going to blame next...the Obama family pet? Yeah. That's right. The Obama hamster made her do it.

The Washington Post: http://blo­g.washingt­onpost.com­/the-talk/­2008/05/cl­inton_camp­_stokes_rf­k_flap_b.h­tml?hpid=t­opnews

[kingsbridge77]

09:29 PM on 05/25/2008

That is not true. The Clinton camp blamed the Obama campaign, not Obama himself.
Read the own story you linked to, genious. Its title is deceptive.

[mabs0]

09:58 PM on 05/25/2008

Oh, right, 'cause the two are completely separate entities. Nothing in common. Couldn't be more separate. Conversely­, Clinton is not even blaming the Obama campaign of fanning the controvers­y. Nah! It's the Clinton camp doing it and we know that the Clinton campaign has nothing to do with Clinton herself. (Oh, wait, given the disarray in the Clinton camp, that might be true).

Why does the Clinton camp insist to treat everyone like they were idiots? Would it kill you to show some respect? (And that has nothing to do with how Clinton herself treats everyone else. She is a very respectful person... except when she goes around dreaming about her opponent being taken out of the picture, permanentl­y.)

[FreeThinkn1]

10:32 PM on 05/25/2008

I think you meant to call me a genius…but who’s trifling over words? Oh yeah. It’s you the “genious.”

But if it makes you feel better about yourself here goes.

The Clinton camp is now blaming Obama camp for the RFK/assass­ination gaffe. During an interview on Fox News and reported by the Washington Post Terry McAuliffe said, "the Obama campaign ... tried to take these words out of context...­she was making a point merely about the time line." Who are they going to blame next...the Obama family pet? Yeah. That's right. The Obama hamster made her do it.

The Washington Post: http://blo­g.washingt­onpost.com­/the-talk/­2008/05/cl­inton_camp­_stokes_rf­k_flap_b.h­tml?hpid=t­opnews

[longislandlol]

06:48 PM on 05/25/2008

New Yorkers are all talking about it over their memorial day barbeques; they who were old enough to embrace Senator RFK's NY magic- are horrified that the person sitting in his chair has slipped off it...

[devadasi]

06:29 PM on 05/25/2008

Rachel, my apologies to you....I didn't read through your story fully enough and I posted: 'Stop enabling Hillary'..­...then I finally read your article word for word. You weren't enabling her at all.

[devadasi]

05:56 PM on 05/25/2008

Rachel, Stop enabling Sen. Clinton.

Now today on Fox News, Liz Trotta commented that she would like to see both Obama and Osama
'knocked off'.

Enough is enough!

[verlaine]

05:49 PM on 05/25/2008

Hillary has grown so warped and frustrated that she's incapable of understand­ing how despicable her remarks were. Her apology was as lame and pathetic as her entire campaign. Hillary never takes responsibl­ity, nothing is ever her fault. According to Queen Hillary, it's our fault for misunderst­anding and misinterpr­eting what she said. No Hillary, It's your fault for being so thoughtles­s and stupid. Hillary would rather go out in a blaze of glory like James Cagney in White Heat than accept her defeat and go out gracefully­. The undeclared SDs must endorse Obama now and put Hillary out of her misery.

[hawkai]

05:41 PM on 05/25/2008

Yeah, as much as the Clinton apologists would wish it, this isn't going away. Many people haven't heard it because of the holiday weekend. But, wait until everyone hears it and sees the video on Tuesday. Clinton may have destroyed her entire political career with this one. Her VP chances are now DEFINITELY gone!!!