She Had Nothing to Apologize For
To me it is the people criticizing Hillary for her remarks recalling the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy who have lost their minds, not the candidate herself.
It's quite clear that Senator Clinton was merely trying to make a point that, compared to the 1992 campaign of Bill Clinton, and the 1968 campaign of Robert Kennedy, her own appetite for staying in the fight for the Democratic nomination does not seem excessive. She was making a point about dates, not about assassination, and certainly not about any concern that somebody might try to assassinate Barack Obama. It is completely illogical to read her remarks that way.
The New York Times pointed out that she made precisely the same point, using her husband's presidential campaign and that of Robert Kennedy as examples, in remarks reported in Time magazine in March. Funny, I don't remember any uproar then.
If her remarks were so offensive, why didn't Robert Kennedy's son, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., withdraw his endorsement of Clinton? The Times reported his comments today (May 24): "It sounds like she was invoking a familiar historical circumstance in support of her argument for continuing her campaign."
What was so difficult about understanding that?
Loading comments…
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
How anyone who heard or read Hillary Clinton's words could possibly infer that she was suggesting Obama might, like Robert Kennedy, also be assassinated, and that therefore her staying in the race was reasonable, is beyond me. Even more fantastic is the idea that her words somehow contained a wish that Obama would, in fact, be assassinated.
If you disagree that Bill Clinton's '92 campaign or Robert Kennedy's '68 campaign were valid examples for her to use in making the case for continuing her campaign, fine, but in that case you're agreeing with me that she was trying to make a point about the timeline and nothing more.
Robert Davey
She was speaking in English and used the word "assassinated"... a word that wasn't necessary in making the point you say she was supposedly making.
How could we possibly "infer" anything from that?
My dictionary has two definitions for the word infer as commonly used today.
One of them applies quite well. Your argument would be better if you used the word imply. Not solid, but better.
As for suggesting that we "disagree" with the "valid examples", since you conclude they are valid despite being factually incorrect, it's not a matter of disagreeing. "Disagreeing" suggests a debatable opinion. There aren't two sides to every fact. Using false information to substantiate an argument isn't actually substantiation.
I'd add that Hillary's apology suggests she disagrees with your conclusion that an apology wasn't necessary.
Mr Davey, with the utmost respect.
While I have stated on several occasions that the '68 and '92 were piss-poor examples, it seems to indicate that your assertion that it was all about the timeline and nothing else is wrong.
Hillary is not stupid. I am certain that regardless of any fatigue, her comments are well-thought out, well-reasoned and thoroughly vetted before hand. With Clinton, hardly ANYTHING is left to chance or ad lib'ing.
This being the case, it boggles the mind that Hillary would choose such lousy examples to make her point.
To be perfectly honest, I don't know what Hillary was trying to say or do by bringing in the assassination angle. I am not sure if she was trying to heighten and re-enforce the fears of the black community that Obama might be killed and they should, therefore, vote for her to save Obama's life. It's even possible (albeit unlikely) that she was subliminally trying to goad some psychotic supporter into doing the nasty deed...
There are so many possibilities as to why Hillary would want to introduce this heretofore taboo subject in the waning days of her candidacy.
But of one thing I am certain. It was Hillary's intent to bring up the subject and idea of assassination. The fact that she choose an example that was completely illogical, irrational and downright wrong, indicates that the assassination was the point of her message.
Michale.....
But it seemed a lot like wishful thinking, pure & simple, did it not?
It seems obvious that she's still in it in case he get's assassinated.
As simple as that.
If you believe that's a decent think to do/say, then no problem. If you don't, then problem.
Most people I've talked to have a problem with her statements.
I've got a problem with it.
But don't try to spin the statements into something they are not. There are plenty of other examples of the nominating process going longer. She didn't have to invoke that specific example, in the context of assassination, of a young, fresh, inspirational candidate to make the point that sometimes these things take time.
Words have consequences. As a writer, you should know that better than anyone.
MIke
Your political instincts are impeccable. There must be dozens of people in the country who agree with you.
The difference is we could not see her face, eyes and mouth move in the quotes in Time magazine. We do in the video. In the video, her wistful eyes match the yearning in her spoken language. She sees something that might rescue her, bring her torment to an abrupt end. If only...if only. If you love me, you will....
Don't cry for me, America
Although you think I've lost you.
Back in those wild days, I was your obsession.
Now keep your promise.
I'll go the distance.
"It's quite clear" "to you" what she meant... you mean despite the factual inaccuracies?
It's quite clear to ME that at best it was tasteless... at best.
If Jr. wasn't offended, fine. But I was offended, and her non-apology to others wasn't exactly satisfying.
The only reason RFK Jr wasn't offended is because, if (and that's a BIG if) Clinton were to win the Presidency, then RFK would take over Clinton's Senate seat.
So, of course, he is not offended..
However, the rest of the Kennedy clan that has been interviewed are royally pissed off at Clinton for such a shameless comment.
Michale.....
If the ONLY point Senator Clinton was trying to make was how long Democratic Primaries have lasted in the past, she picked two of the WORST examples possible.
The '68 Primary was just 90 days long.. How could THAT possible have any bearing on the long primary facing Democrats today???
As far as her husband campaigning in Jun of '92, again, that is misleading enough to be called a lie. Yes, Bill was campaigning in Jun of '92. But he had already sown up the nomination a couple months prior.
The '68 Primary where RFK was assassinated had absolutely NOTHING to do with the point that Senator Clinton was trying to make.
So, this begs the question..
Why did she use that example??
The only LOGICAL answer to that is that it wasn't the Primary but the assassination that was the point.
Michale.....
Hey Michale,
Actually, there is another LOGICAL answer...at least, one that makes perfect sense to me. And, that is that Senator Clinton is ill-informed on this issue and has demonstrated a similar understanding about any number of issues that should be of importance in this campaign suggesting, basically, that she has no business even being in this race from the get go.
Of course, I believe the same can be said of the other two presidential hopefuls. Don't even ask where that leaves me - it's just too depressing to even go there.
Elect John Patrick Ryan!!! :D
Michale.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-ducat/death-wish-ii-what-hillar_b_103492.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chez-pazienza/the-world-i-knew-why-its_b_103486.html
some clarity for apologists
Yeah, I think Ducat has it pegged. It is a bit curious that RFKjr is still on the bandwagon after all of her fairly spectacular miscues, but then again, he seems to be in good company with a whole slew of superdelegates.
That was very well said - concise and to the point. It is nice to know that there are at least some sane voices of reason out there in a sea of illogical hypersensitivity and an asinine focus on meaningless issues which, unfortunately, have dominated most of this presidential primary season.
We certainly won't have to wonder why when we finally discover that the candidate most qualified and best equipped to lead America out of the abyss will not be sworn in as the next POTUS. Let's hope that we'll be able to muddle through, somehow or other, on a wing and prayer.
So, it's still Biden or nobody?
Or are you signalling a shift to Hillary?
It's OK, you can tell us. No need to refer to some unnamed "candidate".
Inferring that those who were (rightly) offended are insane or illogically hypersensitive suggests you don't even think her comment was in poor taste or poorly worded, allowing the supposed misinterpretation.
Very curious. It echoes the zero accountability framing of Bush.
Say it aint so!
Hey altohone,
...a shift to Hillary? ...echos...of Bush?? Oh, that hurt...to the core! In case I haven't already warned you...the fiasco in Iowa is going to take me a very long time to recover from. But, it's getting a little bit better with every passing day...
I'm now thinking that Obama doesn't get elected without Biden on the ticket. And, I don't think Biden should even accept that role unless it comes with full reign over the Iraq file, no matter what the incoming SOS may have to say about it.
What d'ya think about that!?
Yeah, it just so happened he was assassinated during that bid for the nomination, no reason to presume anyone in this country would make the connection.
Ridiculous.
It's insidious, it's subliminal and its despicable.
" He can't win," why can't he win???
Because he doesn't have experience fighting 8 year old girls on Bosnian tarmacs wielding poetry?
Why can't he win? Because he's black. She said she draws hard working WHITE voters, the undereducated throngs who formed that sea of arrogance and ignorance in West VA and Kentucky.
She's been running a stealthy campaign replete with racial baiting. 3: a.m. phone calls, are a soccer moms worst nightmare, not because of potential terrorists threats. Al Qaeda doesn't get up until 7:00.
It was a Brinks ad, showing pictorially a home invasion. And how many white females are associated with such break ins?
Not to my knowledge, Jesse Jackson references, and absurd elitist branding, ( read uppity, he thinks hes better than you hillfolk with his ten dollar words ) it all adds up. And you may not know your math, but I do.
Anyone who mentions a politician infamous for his assassination and doesn't think it will be a subliminal bat signal and call to arms to whack job racists, is too dense to be president. Period.
It is so difficult understanding that because this remark comes just days after a Republican (Huckabee) made a remark about someone aiming a gun at Obama http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/16/huckabee-jokes-about-obama-ducking-a-gunman//)!
Logic, shmogic.
It's well and good to note that referencing the RFK assassination simply as an event, a point in time in a previous political campaign, is itself straightforward and innocuous.
But context is everything, and beyond the antiseptic context of a candidate's logical comment about the status of her campaign is the larger context of the latest news in the Kennedy clan. And in THAT context, the dry correctness or appropriateness of her reference comes off as horribly tacky and tasteless.
This is not to countenance the unprovable attributions, insinuations, and inferences about Clinton's psyche-- in the permanent hysteria of campaign season, such gaffes indeed spawn their share of wild and cracked responses. Also, it's unfortunately true that any gaffe provokes a self-inflating, titillating air of scandal that magnifies and distorts the worst interpretations.
All THAT said, it's folly to simply blow off the negative reaction as an inexplicable case of people making a mountain out of a molehill. It's a telling tone-deafness that evidences narcissitic insensitivity.
What was so difficult about understanding that?
Well, if she were actually "making a point about dates," then she should have gotten her facts straight. The 1968 campaign for the Democratic nomination did continue into June, but it didn't *start* until mid-March of that year. So the comparison was not apt on that score. In addition, her husband basically had the nomination wrapped up by April in 1992, although the campaign was technically ongoing in June. But by that point, the other serious contenders had dropped out. So that comparison isn't apt, either.
Besides, all that's happening here is that people are applying Hillary Clinton's own standards to Hillary Clinton. As we know from the way she slammed Obama about his "bitter" comment, politicians do not misspeak. (Unless, of course, they're Hillary Clinton.) No, by Clinton's rules, a stray comment reveals important things about a candidate's character. Clinton claimed that "bitter" showed that Obama was an out of touch, "patronizing" elitist. Indeed, according to Clinton, things that *other* people say reveal unflattering aspects of Obama's character. (See Farrakhan/Wright) So she can't complain when people ask what Clinton's remark reveals about *her* character.
She'll complain about how unfair all of this is but should thank Obama for the measured tone he has taken. Unlike her cynical attempts to exploit Obama's misstatement, he accepts her explanation. Would that she had shown that much class when the shoe was on the other foot. Having chosen to live by the sword, she can't complain about dying by it.
You make some very good points - all of which speak to the fact that Clinton is wrong to suggest that a misstatement by Senator Obama reflects some substantial character flaw and it is wrong to be doing the same to Senator Clinton now.
This is just one more example of how this entire presidential primary season has been characterized by a complete lack of focus on the issues that really matter.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
