Ok, based on Hilary's mention yesterdaythat RFK was still campaigning in June when he was assassinated, I'm hearing reasoning that Clinton is staying in because if Obama gets assassinated, then she'll get the job.
Enough. Does no one think these things through for two seconds before setting fingers to keyboard?
So follow with me down the following logic chain. Clinton drops out this very second and does not release her delegates. Obama is assassinated before the convention. Who has the most nominees? Who is most likely to get the nod?
It is, in fact, damn near unthinkable that Clinton would not get the nomination in that case. Hilary Clinton does not need to stay in the nomination race in order to be the nominee if someone assassinates Obama.
The level of near hysteria, of complete unwillingness to read Clinton's words in any context with any good will that is sweeping large portions of the blogosphere is tiresome. Clinton has used the exact same examples in the past, and no one has objected.
If you don't believe me, believe Robert Kennedy Jr., who said:
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.
Turns out Hillary was wrong about her own husband, amusingly, but the point remains that all she was doing is saying "races have gone this long before."
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
She said this 4 times since March. We were quiet during once, twice and thrice, not the fourth time.
Also the NYPost says many Kennnedy were "fuming"....how about a fair reporting and not a personal opinion?
Doris Kearns Goodwin said that neither example Mrs. Clinton gave was an apt in terms of the current primary.
Bill had it pretty much wrapped up by April, except for the fallout from Jerry Brown's questions about Mrs. Clinton and her conflicts of interest with regard to the real estate deal Whitewater. The Clintons managed to snow at least me into the belief that it was the right wing who started that all up, when in fact it was a former Jesuit, a group not generally known for their rightward leanings.
To my mind, the repeated reference to RFK is to scare those of us who are concerned for Mr. Obama's wellbeing and to stir those who might be called to action to assassinate a black man who would be president.
Mrs. Clinton says things in veiled ways, and then when the people she is trying to reach, don't quite get it, she has to ratchet up her language.
Also, I don't believe for a nanosecond that the Clintons will survive the scrutiny of being vetted. There is no way there is not a viper in their financial dealings.
Thank you for saying this
People just LOVE to have something to be indignant about.
THe "news" shows love to feed that indignation
we are... IndigNATION!
Frankly, I'm appalled!
You make about as much sense as Hillary Clinton saying its all Obama's fault. Good grief. What a horrible post. You should be as ashamed as Hillary should be for thinking such thoughts. And that's exactly what she's thinking. EXACTLY. Which is why every person who spoke in a justifiabley outraged manner did so of their own volition. Even her supporters are done with her. It was a cold a calculating little bit her drama. She meant to say it and its exactly what she's been referring to when she says "He CAN'T win".
It was not a time reference.
Well said! As this 4th time and the previous three times words tumble from her mouth without thinking, without her knowning any consequenses, which would make her too stupid to be President. Americans aren't buying it.
You do recognize that a person's chosen examples in situations like that tend to reveal their true thoughts, don't you?
What she meant is irrelevant, unless you wish to continue the double standards that handle Hillary with kid gloves while pounding on Obama. What she SAID was tasteless and inappropriate, and the fact that she had pretty much done so before isn't a good thing--it suggests a deep-seated desire to see her opponent dstroyed.
It has nothing to do with Obama, who isn't involved in this argument, but has everything to do with Hillary and provides a glimpse into a mind that apparently has a darkly inappropriate sense of humor or a wildly inaccurate sense of social and political propriety, neither of which are desirable traits in those who wield som degree of power.
Attention Hillary supporters and logical thinking voters! Just remember this fabricated media assault on Hillary the next time you read about some wascally wepubwican "attack machine". Of course the Texas ad implying that W's policies pretty much lead to blacks being dragged behind trucks is "political discourse", "valid discussion of issues", etc., etc. No one remembers that Willy Horton was first brought up by Algore. Engage your brain. Ask what Messiah Obama really stands for. You'll be surprised how little you'll find other than hype.
Al Gore brought up Willy Horton first? Kindly reference that assertion.
Algore was clearly the first national candidate to attack the Mass. furlough program. Also, it was the liberal press (Time & Washpo) that first brought Willie's picture to the country. Finally, no ad run by the Bush campaign ever featured Willie's picture or mentioned his race.
Here's a good report on the time line:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38d170420847.htm
Where's the logic?
Why mention June? Why JUNE?
She intends to stay in this race until the convention. Nothing will change her mind. She's not going to suspend her campaign. She's not going to release her delegates.
So why does she even mention June? To what possible end?
Because the primaries end in June? Since she's staying in until the convention and since she intends to appeal the decision on the 31st of May regarding FL and MI, she has no intention of dropping out in June or making any kind of decision in June.
Since Bill Clinton had the nomination all but wrapped up when Tsongas dropped out on March 20th, 1992, her statement about Bill not winning the nomination until mid June is a lie. It's an excuse to bring up the month of June.
Why is she so obsessed with June? Only so she can continually mention RFK's assassination. Since it's not the first time, we know it isn't an error.
Every word she says is rehearsed, calculated and carefully parsed.
She is either trying to convince the superdelegates not to back Obama because he could be assassinated, or she is trying to incite violence against a Presidential candidate.
"Since Bill Clinton had the nomination all but wrapped up when Tsongas dropped out on March 20th, 1992, her statement about Bill not winning the nomination until mid June is a lie. It's an excuse to bring up the month of June."
Yeah... probably why they cancelled all the remaining primaries at the end of March.
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
It is clear to any reasonable person that every word she says is certainly not
'rehearsed, calculated, and carefully parsed".
That would be impossible for anybody taking questions along the campaign.
Gaffes happen!
Sheesh.
Gaffes don't happen three times. The Kennedy reference was made before.
First by one of her surrogates, and then picked up by Clinton who has made the statement twice. http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/05/hillarys_bizarre_rfk_comment.html
When do real apologies happen?
You think everybody's got "Stupid" tatooed in the middle of their foreheads?
We all know exactly what Hillary was doing, that her comments were intentional, and why she made them. That's because they come up with a new excuse every week for why Hillary continues in this campaign, why she continues to attack and undermine Obama and rally voters against him, why she continues to tell millions of Americans to vote for McCain. She's doing it because she plans to show up at the convention with a big wad of dirty money, hand it to the insiders, and say here, if you pick me it's yours, if you pick the other guy, you'll get nothing. In fact, maybe we should re-name it: Siege at Denver, Ordeal By Clintons.
The assassination reference was to show Hillary is brutal, insensitive, and quite willing to do or say anything to destroy the party if she can't get her way. It was also intended to tell the insiders, without any fluff, that he could get killed, they'd better keep that mind and choose her instead. All the subtlety of Dick Cheney with a shotgun. All the integrity of Jack Abramoff near an open cash register. We get it. We know why she said it. And that's why we all want her to go away.
Ian, that's fine if you want to defend Hillary on her statements, but how about being truthful about it? When you say in your post "...that RFK was still campaigning in June when he was assassinated..." you are carefully glazing over the key point that made her comments so offensive. Her exact quote was: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."
She mentioned *nothing* about RFK's campaign in her comment, only that he was assassinated in June. You have now twisted it to make it seem like she said that RFK was campaigning and oh by the way, he was assassinated. Her mention of only the assassination is what has many of us incensed, and her weak apology simply adds insult to injury. Whether conscious or not, what she is implying by her comment is that she's going to hang around to become available for the nomination in case something very bad happens to Obama, whether it be a major gaffe, damaging new revelations, or if he gets killed. She has obviously thought of all the possibilities...
Your argument looses all credibility when you have twisted the words to support your argument. Try acknowledging the truth first, and dissemble from there....it will be less ludicrous...
to clarify...*Ian says* that Hillary says..."...that RFK was still campaigning in June when he was assassinated..."
Ian, you are a gentleman and an honor to your profession to try to help Hillary out. But come on, think about it...if she wanted to make a point about how long primaries run...there are a million ways she could have said it without referring to Bobby's assassination....three to four times! This is a fixed idea in her mind. I am no Freud, but there is something in there that is not right, and we need to acknowledge that for a presidential candidate this can be bothersome. I am sure there is no conscious wish on her part to harm Obama, but at the very very least it is a kind of tone deafness that can be offensive to the Kennedy family as well as to the Obama family, not to mention the American voters.
Your citation of Bobby Jrs. defense proves nothing. He is a strong supporter of Hillary's and is trying to be kind to her, like you are. For that he deserves credit. But he does not speak for the rest of us.
Whatever viability she had as a presidential candidate is now gone.
Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in early June of 1968.
It is not a shameful secret. It is fact. It is history.
There is nothing wrong with stating a truth.
RFK was assassinated June 5, 1968. How does that give any merit to her argument that she should continue her campaign? BTW, Bill says his campaign was "effectively" over in April 1992. How does her fudging the facts bolster her argument? To give her the ABSOLUTE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT her comments were artless, disingenuous and tangential. She's simply staying in because she doesn't know how to gracefully exit the scene.
The truth of course is that she makes it up as she goes along. From her miraculous cattle trades to Bosnia to assassinationgate she isn't a credible person. I hope she reflects deeply on this campaign and devotes the rest of her career to becoming an extraordinary senator, salvaging her reputation and providing an inspiring example for young people of all stripes.
Then why didn't she just say nomination processes have gone on into June? Why did she mention assassination? Why didn't she use other examples of the process going into June?
She has so much experience that she doesn't think about he implications of her words?
Words matter. If it was a mistake then she should issue a real apology. She has never been good at taking responsibility for her votes or her words. This time is no different.
lets figure this out together. A presidencial candidate who is far behind her competitor in delegates, states won, popular vote, financial funds, and a litany of other metrics; references a prior Presidential assassination for the third or fourth time during the campaign as a reason to continue her futile attempt to obtain the nomination of her party. Her competitor, the first black canditate to be a true contender for the highest office in the U.S. has recieved a secret service detail sooner than usual because of early threats to his life as he announced he would contend. The secret service in the middle of a racial decrimination suit since 2000 by people of color. a noose found by a black Secret Service trainer in the training facility rescently, the offender suspended with pay. If anyone does not find this disturbing and can't see why Hillarys statement was at least reckless and unbecoming a presidential candidate they should question their own motives for supporting her.
I have to say, the Obamabots have become professional victims. No matter what any is said, it is taken in the WORST possible construction. I just listened to this entire question. The entire thing. All she was doing was saying that folks have been trying to push her out of this race and that there's no reason she should be because campaigns have gone on for a long time. And she used that instance as one of them.
There is absolutely no apology due. How do we get to the point that we are unable to discuss the role of assassinations in our own political history? George Wallace got shot in 1972 and turned the race dramatically by taking away the preferred choice of Southern Democrats, leaving them to turn Republican and give him a landslide. Robert Kennedy got shot in California in 1968 and that made a difference too.
No apology is due.
The Obamabots HAVE to stop this freaking whining about EVERY single criticism. It's like, someone says one word that is not of praise, and all the Obamabots write, as bloggers or respondants, a million words bewailing the statement.
They're such crybabies it's pathetic.
How about a deal, mickeyrat: "Obamabots" will "stop this freaking whining about EVERY single criticism" when Hillary and Bill do the same. After all, "Politics is a contact sport..... if they [Hill and Bill] can't stand the heat [they] should get out of the kitchen." The Clintons being such big crybabies is sooooo pathetic, don't you agree?
I suppose you were just as outraged during Bitter-gate and you never wrote or said anything about the Rev. Wright? Get real.
It's your candidate who energetically fanned those fires - even though she knew what he meant when he used the word bitter. That didn't matter a lick to her. Oh, and Obama is a Christian, as far as she knows.
Your post is so typically Hillary - always someone else's fault. Everyone is supposed to cut her a break even though she has never given anyone else a pass. She "mis spoke" again and has the unmitigated gall to demand an apology from Obama! What a world she lives in!
You probably will never be able to process the truth about Hillary - her supporters never seem to. It was all hers to lose and through mismanagement and bad decisions - through completely missing the point about what most people want and need. Her incompetence and the incompetence of those she chose to surround herself with led to this. Stop blaming everyone else for this loss - it is all her fault and no one else's.
Bitter and clinging to guns and god (was truthful) but a poor choice of words.And Obama ACTUALLY said them .H.C said nothing about Obama and the A word.His supporters have conjured that horrible vision again and again , putting them in her mouth when she was talking about a diffrent topic entirely- why she was staying in the race.
Your post make sit obvious that this is about vengeance and not about real concern .
Thank you, donkat, for saving me the trouble of making this point. So far, I have yet to see a single Clinton supporter explain why Hillary should receive better treatment from the media for her assassination remark than Obama got for his "bitter" comment. She's already received far better treatment on this issue from Obama himself, who, unlike Clinton, has declined to turn this into a campaign theme complete with buttons dedicated to the issue. (Remember those cute little "I'm not bitter" ones?)
Hillary Clinton is claiming that she's the *victim* of a double standard, but in fact, what she really wants is to be the *beneficiary* of one. She wants everyone to draw the worst possible conclusions from anything Obama says, but then she demands that people give her the benefit of the least offensive interpretation on things she says.
She played up the whole "bitter" controversy as much as she could. Now the same thing is happening to her and she's screaming that it's unfair. What's happening to her is something she richly deserves.
The only person that needs to apologize is Keith O. His tirade against Clinton for using the word "asassination" was matched by his hypocrisy for using the same word he condemened, a dozen times. I'm boycotting MSNBC. I will vote for Obama with great pride if he's the nominee, but no network should be allowed to be so bias and unfair.
Yes and Axelrod sent Olbermanns commentary around to many people in order to fan it in the media, while Obama talked about mistakes happen.
Olbermann's rant was quite dishonest.
And he NEVER forgave her for ANY of those grievances on his list.
No wonder we have so few people wanting to run for public office ,when the media is willing to join in to create outrageous interpretations to sell "news".This is so reminescent of Dean's scream and the way it was played to finish him off... high tech lynchings indeed.
Posted May 23, 2008 | 11:15 PM (EST)