Ok, Enough With the Hysteria About Clinton's Kennedy Statement

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."

Comments

[Sneakerface]

Where were YOU, Mr. Welsh, when Michelle Obama told the world she was particularly proud of America in seeing her husband, the first AA, with a serious chance to be President.­...and then everyone jumped on her wording and said she Hates America and is ashamed of her country ??

[skibum49]

Ian,
You arent old enough to have lived through the times that you write about but I am. I vividly remember that night in June 1968, a 19 year old college kid sitting bleary eyed in front of my black and white TV listening to words of hope from Robert Kennedy after he won the California primary.
"On to Chicago"! At that moment I believed that all things were possible. That maybe just maybe there was a chance that Kennedy could indeed outsmart the Democratic Machine intent on making Vice President Hubert Humphrey the parties candidate for President. And suddenly it was all gone. I will never forget the sense of utter dispair that I felt in that moment when the guy on the TV announced that Senator Kennedy had been shot. So we went on to Chicago and we got Humphrey a man of good intent I'm sure but one who was too tied at the hip to Johnson's administration to effectively battle Dick Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam. Of course that "secret plan" took five years and cost 25,000 of my countrymen's lives before Nixon finally got his "peace with honor."
So 40 years later once again we have a choice of the politics of hope vs. the politics of fear. Personally I'm going to go with the politics of hope.

Some people see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not?

[Cunningham]

I take her at her word. She regrets if I'm offended.
And she was not insinuating that an assassin should kill anyone.

As far as I know.

[Cunningham]

We all remember Bobby Kennedy campaigning for the nomination in June.

That's what she should have said if she was making a time reference. Why the explicit reference to assassination? No, really, WHY?

Since she's done it before, her explanation that the Kennedys have been on her mind lately doesn't hold water.

[lisad]

Agree
If she was making an innocent comment about long campaigns there's no reason to add any reference to assasinatin, or to skip from a 1992 example to 1968, when there have been other long campaigns in the intervening years. One can only think that the assasination example was deliberatly chosen. I suspect just to plant a small seed of doubt about Obama's ability to survive as the democratic candidate, or for the whole term of his presidency. It's like subtly referencing McCains age and the possibility of him dying in office.

[mawrm]

Well, I hope Hillary Clinton is enjoying a taste of her own medicine. You suggest that we shouldn't read too much into her statement, that was an honest observation. Well, so was Barack Obama's comment about people being "bitter" and turning to God and guns when they face hardship and feel politicians aren't listening to them. Hillary Clinton knew EXACTLY what Barack Obama was talking about since her own husband made a similar comment about "angry white men". But what did she do instead? She tried to exploit it for political gain, labelled Obama an "elitist" a label that remains in the minds of many to this day and has hurt him politically. She intentionally misrepresented the true intent of what Barack Obama was trying to communicate and continued down that nasty street into race-baiting territory with statements about "hard-working white Americans". Note however the tenor of Barack Obama's response to the whole RFK situation. Does he try to inflame it as Clinton did to score points? No. Even his spokesman's response was subdued but firm, saying plainly that that sort of talk doesn't belong in this contest.
Call it karma, Hillary Clinton is getting her "reward" for her underhanded behavior toward Obama with the false "elitist" characterization.

[MrWinky]

Lol. I said the same thing. If I had read yours, I wouldn't have bothered, well done.

[batspaul]

Obama supporter here- I think we should just let this blunder (and I do think it was a blunder) speak for itself, and we should move on. I would like to see Obama and the rest of us take the high road on this, whatever we think of the motivation. I watched video of the initial remark, and I watched Senator Clinton's explanation in the supermarket. In the first case, I saw a politician worn out and off her game, and in the second instance, I saw a person thoroughly demoralized by the realization that she had made a colossal error.

We don't need to argue about the motivation of this remark. It is pretty universally regarded as an awful thing, a wrong thing, to have said, without our pointing that out. Righteous indignation is pretty useless when it comes to our real focus, defeating McCain. It is time to start on reconciliation, and creating room for Senator Clinton's supporters to get behind Obama. The writing is on the wall. We'll be stronger if we give everyone time to read it without beating each other up.

[gbht12]

Enough with the hysteria! Where were you when she was spouting "bitter"remarks, Ayers, clinging to your guns, Rev. Wright. She expanded the coverage for months on bullsh*t, she said she would be ready on day one , McCain would be ready on day one to be president, Obama had a speech in 2002!

If this was reversed and Obama had said the word assassination it would be covered on every channel 24/7. Because she was tired and she didn't mean it we forgive her. AGAIN. She has talked about this before in March. This is not hysteria. This is a woman that has gone off the deep end. She has calculated that something bad could happen to him like Bobby and therefore I need to stay in this race.
That is not funny at all. Excuse me for being alittle hysterical about ASSASSINATION remarks. I know it is not as important as the bitter remarks, or the clinging to gun remarks, or Rev. Wright.

Give me a break!!!

[Knute]

I walked precincts for Bobby Kennedy when I was 8 years old. I shook his hand in late May, 1968 at Dari-Delish in St. Helens, OR. I went to bed on June 5 delighting in the fact that he had just won the California primary, only to get up on June 6, the morning of my 9th birthday, to find out that he had been shot.

It creeps me out to even type the word "assassina­tion." I can't figure out what Bobby Kennedy's assassination has to do with why Hillary should stay in this race. Maybe the fact that the 1968 race went into June can be cited, in an disturbingly macabre way. But why "ASSASSINATION?"

After living through the horror of June 6, the idea of using THAT word, in the context she used it, is unthinkable. I worked the Clinton's 1992 campaign. I've been a fan for 20 years. But this is too much. Whether this was a deliberate effort to plant a seed, a freudian slip of something she's been contemplating in the desperation of a losing campaign, or the poor choice of an ugly example of "politics in June," I DON'T CARE. This is simply not something that's discused the way she did. Period.

And the fact that she didn't immediately recognize the inappropriateness of what she had said and apologize (except in a typical Clintonian, parsed, non-apology apology) says more about her than the original comment. Enough already. Please. Just. Stop.

[Gericault]

It's called "Outrage", not hysteria.

Hysteria is what you are feeling if you're a Clinton supporter.

[mrBlue1]

Oh yeah. Obviously you have not perused the main thread on the gaffe. It's like premenopausal syndrome and steroid abuse gone frankly manic. Hillary is being accused of everything from being the antichrist to Mommie Dearest. As an Obama supporter from day 1, I am continually apalled at the scope of hatred being expressed about HRC. And don't make the mistake of trying to insert a modicum of sanity into the discourse, for when you do you will be attacked and accused of being a "hypocrite", "ignorant" and a covert HRC supporter. I'm almost beginning to understand why the political elite believes the masses are too dumb to have much say in things. ALMOST.

[partyofone]

Very well said.

[ChiGuy]

I detest the person Hillary has become.
She said a really, INCREDIBLY stupid thing.
But Welsh, and Robert Jr., THE SON of the man Hillary referenced, are right.

Given the overwhelmingly negative reactions she has received for SOOOO many other blunders, can anyone HONESTLY assert that she wouldn’t have taken ramifications into consideration when “planning” her words about RFK?
That doesn’t sound like clever calculation to me.

Some have also proffered that she has this coming after “bitter-gate”. People should remember that it was HuffPo’s own Mayhill Fowler who broke that story. NOT the Hillary camp.

The question that Mr. Welsh suggests, is the same one I have been asking since this came to light Friday:
Considering how many times she has used this reference, where was the outrage the first time? Or the second? Or the third?
Why is this now so outrageous when it didn’t seem to be before?
Could it be because some see it as an excuse to pile on?

Using the ill-chosen analogy to viciously pounce on Hillary because she's down and pretty much out, resembles the attacks on Obama for his affiliation with Wright.
It’s blown WAY out of proportion with one obvious goal in mind: To destroy a candidate that’s already going to lose.

P.S. - Many of you have seen me post often of my dislike for the Clintons.
Before anyone that doesn’t know me, accuses me of being a Hillary-ite or Repug troll, check my profile.

[Janemas]

If Clinton truly wanted to make her point on past primaries lasting till June (that never started in January but March) she could of left the "assasination" OUT! Her slip of the tongue was her concious speaking out loud admitting to all of us who knew all along what she is hoping for!

[chasanne]

I have read her words very carefully. The fact that she raised such an issue when Obama's life is at stake and then did not even apologize to Sen Obama is beyond the pale. And in the context of all her Republican tactics versus a fellow Democrat, and the fact that she has referred to the Kennedy assassination before, all combine to make this statement far worse than to just read her words in a vacuum.

[karela]

Interestingly enough, every other presidential candidate in memory has known better than to do this. I take Hillary at her word. She says she has thirty five years of political experience. I assume that means that she knows this is a giant taboo---and she did it anyway. Not funny. Not nice. Not OK.

[dtd]

What sane person mentions an assassination to make a point?! There were several instances she could have cited. If she wanted to use a Kennedy, she could have mentioned Ted Kennedy who took his fight to the convention. How the hell does assassination just role of the toungue to make a point. It's stupid, callous and insensitive and revealing of a sick person.

[mileage]

If you were alive in June 1968, you might have the month of June emotionally entangled with the RFK assasination, especilaly since it came weeks after MLK's assassinttion. Remember also she was a junior at Wellesley that year and class President. I'll bet these events and their exact dates are seared into her memory.

[Gatling]

And if you were NOT alive then, what you saw was simply a reference to assassination.

For better or worse, candidates have to watch what they say. She made a statement that was going to sound deeply morbid to anyone under 39.

[partyofone]

What? Hillary used the assassination line before, and her surrogates too. There is no defense for this. She knew what she was saying. It was an outrageous thing to do and her defenders should also be outraged. You may give the Clintons license to damage Obama, the Democratic Party, the democratic process, and the nation to serve their selfish agenda. I do not.

[LGrace]

Finally, a voice of reason. Thank you. With all the rabid HuffPosters unwilling to stop shrieking long enough to think this through, I thought I was being punk'd.

[partyofone]

Hillary has brought presidential politics to an historic low. Like Bush, she has a core group of followers who will always be loyal, but it is shrinking every day. One by one, the outrage grows. Our nation can no longer tolerate this type of dishonest, divisive, hurtful, reckless rhetoric from our "leaders."