Death Wish II: What Hillary Was Aiming at With Her Two Assassination "Gaffes"
Opinion polls are the vital political weather reports that all politicians rely on, especially during campaigns. Arguably, there has been no political couple in history more vigilantly attentive to their fluctuations than the Clinton's -- and never more so than during the stormy conditions of electoral contests. Senator Clinton's campaign has used polling data as more than a guide on how to adjust her message to the prevailing winds. It has utilized such surveys to point up potential weaknesses of the Obama brand that can be exploited, even if the ultimate beneficiaries of these efforts are the Republicans.
On March 2 an ABC/Washington Post poll showed that 59% of Americans were worried "that someone might attempt to physically harm Barack Obama if he's the Democratic nominee for president." By March 6 Hillary Clinton was reminding her interviewer, Time Managing Editor Richard Stengel, of "the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A." This was a response to a question about whether her decision to stay in a race she couldn't win would hurt her party. It only seemed like a thoughtless non sequitur.
As we have recently learned, two months later, on May 23, while discussing the same issue with the editorial board of the Argus Leader, she called upon her audience to "remember [that] Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California." When two utterances of the same "gaffe" are nearly identical, like Senator Clinton's oft-repeated Bosnian sniper "misstatements," such mistakes are likely to be motivated, either by a conscious strategy or an unconscious wish. Of course, at this distance, we cannot know which. But what do we know?
We know that Senator Clinton's determined efforts to assassinate Barack Obama's character have not killed off his chances for the Democratic nomination. We know, as I observed in my last post, that her primary strategy has been to portray him as an effeminate, elitist, and fragile ectomorph who will be weak in the face of aggression, and who will be readily done in by America's more burly antagonists. She, on the other hand, we were often told, is the only one butch enough to stick it to the baddies of the world.
We know that on March 2 it was widely published that Americans saw Obama as vulnerable to assassination. We know that it took only four days for her to remind us that he could indeed be knocked off, just like that other premature peacenik, Bobby Kennedy. What can we conclude? Perhaps her infelicitous phrasing was driven, in part, by a conscious or unconscious death wish towards Obama. After all, in her remorseless "apology" she never apologized to him, only the Kennedys. The other, perhaps more likely determinant is Clinton's by now reflexive effort to paint her opponent as a vulnerable, sweet-talking pretty boy -- more likely to find himself in the sight of another's gun, than pulling the trigger of his own.
Stephen J. Ducat, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist from the San Francisco Bay Area, an advanced candidate at the Psychoanalytic Institute of Northern California, and has published widely on the psychology of politics. His most recent book is The Wimp Factor: Gender Gaps, Holy Wars, and the Politics of Anxious Masculinity.
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
the timing of her 2nd "gaffe" may have been obama's standing up to bush/mccain after bush went before the knesset on may 18th and implied that obama would negotiate with terrorists. obama responded quickly, forcefully, and effectively, and everyone agreed that round 1 had gone to obama. there are at least three reasons she had to take him out. first, he had effectively undermined one of her rationales for chosing her over obama, to i.e., that he wouldn't be able to go toe to toe with the republicans. second, the party rallied around obama, and it felt really good to be united. third, obama had moved on, gone into general election mode, and he and the media were ignoring her. she had to expose another vulnerability... yeah, well maybe he can take mccain, but he could be assassinated. it also served to get people talking about her again. pretty sick.
Frankly, I think you're sick for reading into this what you are reading into this. I think you've been drinking too much Republican kool-aid. I think you've bought, hook, line and sinker the Republican B.S. about the Clinton's being behind the deaths of people close to them. Next thing, you'll be talking about black helicopters.
If Obama can't handle the Clintons, what the heck makes you think he can handle world leaders?
your not paying attention.
I think a lot has been said about these comments already. They are on record and so is the responses by both campaigns. God is still in control. I think the folloiwng comments sum a lot about Hillary and Obama...........................what do you think?
Adversity and Triumph does not SHAPE character but REVEALS it instead.
So true. Thanks, Faith.
Thanks for your piece. It was pretty obvious to me. Why other writers can't connect the dots is what worries me. She wishes to promote insecurity about nominating Obama. Everything they do fits into their narrative to undercut him. Still, he is the one I envision as our president.
Consider this: Obama has won 25 states to Clinton's 8 with over a 10% lead.
SUPERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STAND UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, it's all speculation. God knows what's on her mind. The only thing I know is that Hillary has talked herself out of a slot on the ticket. She has done the country a huge favor by giving Obama a good and immediately apparent reason not to pick her. None of her supporters will be able to complain about it without being laughed out of the room.
I'm with you.
As a pychologist myself, I lean towards Ducat's thinking: All you have to do is look at the Bush Gang for the past 8 years. Every message they they send that instills fear in us about Iraq, Iran, Al Qaeda, the 'terrrorists', etc. are really projections of a) the Bush Gang's own plans or b) their own actions. For example ---- WMD became 'Shock and Awe'.
N.B. In the future, we should assess every attack Hillary makes or ratiionale she posits for continuing her campaign and then flip it: What she has just accused Barack Obama of, for example, is really about her thinking, planning, acting. Listen carefully; it's chilling!
Agreed, especially since she just flipped the assasination blame back onto him! There seems to be very little critical thinking going on with her followers to be so blind to these obvious ploys ... keeping in mind that this is the electorate that voted a SECOND time for Bush. I do find it heartening how many people ARE getting it this time around.
Yes, I think she has sunk herself. The party elders could not be happy with any of this. Obama is showing himself to be the class act we knew he was in the way he is handling him. After all, with Hillary, you don't need to do anything except watch while she digs her grave and buries herself.
I predict that they will let her play out these last three primaries and then she will be told to get out, either by the rest of the SD's coming out for her or by pressure from people like Kennedy, Gore, Biden, Dean, Pelosi, etc. Or both. Either way, the writing is on the wall.
i have a sneaking suspicion that we won't be seeing a whole lot of her pretty soon. i think she will be neutralized, or if you will, neutered. maybe the party elders will cut off her legendery three balls.
Hillary Clinton's unconscious mind is a cauldron of hate too hideous for us to contemplate.
Her madness is eating her up. Left to her own devices, she will implode into a rocking and silent mental patient before our tired eyes.
You hit the nail on the head. These remarks were consciously put together to reinforce people's fears and doubts. Does anyone whose eyes are open really think she would say such a thing, on more than one occasion, by accident.
She wouldn't. She's the one who's "vetted and experienced." She KNOWS what she's doing. This was no "gaffe."
I have no sympathy for her. I find it hard to believe her supporters will forgive her "Mis-statement" once again. How many chances do you give someone who continues to denigrate the Democratic party, and debase herself with her scorch and burn policy? Bill is no better.
Have you been following the 17,000+ comments on the Clinton's Bad Day story? Very very very many are sticking to her. They seem to be identifying with her as blindly as football fans who paint their faces with team colors. Team Hillary is so seemingly close to winning the pennant they can taste it. To mix sports metaphors, bring on Tonya Harding...
I FINALLY realized that the more rabid of Hillary's supporters are just as delusional and dishonest as she is. They have NO sense of fair play, and are more than willing to condone lying, cheating, and stealing as legitimate means to install their candidate. When she repeated at least 3 different times that she had ducked sniper fire in Bosnia AND HER SUPPORTERS blamed the media instead of HER, I knew that there was no sense of moral decency left in them.
I firmly believe that the Big Guy Upstairs remains in control, and, that Hillary and her entourage are reaping what they have sown. They aren't even lucid enough to understand that the lunatic fringes lurk in all corners of society. As many people as Hillary has offended, she may be in just as much danger of assassination as Obama is. The only difference is, Obama has not been inciting it, as Hillary has.
The question is, if a candidate like Hillary is running based on her ability to communicate, and bring people together, and experience, how could she not foresee the possible misinterpretation of her Robert Kenndy remark.
Giving her the benefit of the doubt, that it wasn't a subliminal call to arms, a bat signal to the racist lunatic fringe out there, why wouldn't she see that as a potentially offensive and insidious remark?
It calls into question her judgment. She's alienated the black vote in this country, save for Earl Ofari Hutchinson and the few remaining African americans who refuse to acknowledge the race baiting she clearly employed in this campaign. Uppity, elitist, you make the call, as any one calling any black person in this country an elitist has got bigger balls than every GOP member combined.
Maybe she misspoke. Maybe she misspoke when she endorsed John McCain over a fellow Democrat, or about Bosnian sniper fire. But these are the kind of gaffes that to the very heart of leadership ability. Maybe she voted mistakenly to go to war, and now barely acknowledges that, or her support of Nafta, but there underlies all this mispeaking an undercurrent of opportunism. Every gaffe has a potential upside. Which calls into question the validity of calling them gaffes, or outright lies.
It's her inability to either admit she's wrong or apologize that tags her as Bush lite.
I think she made the remarks intentionally. She has made similar remarks several times throughout the campaign as did Terry McAulliffe two weeks ago on "Meet the Press".
I think she is playing to the "we can't elect Obama because he will be assassinated" fear.
I hear this from New York City Clinton supporters all the time.
I don't think she wants Obama dead or that she is waiting like a vulture for his death.
I think she is playing the fear card.
Typical Clinton slime tactic.
I read this, and found the premise disturbing. Some might consider it offensive and a little overreaching but I believe you. Just watching the way the Clinton team has handled it, and explaining it, digs them deeper in a whole. And now Terry McCoulough, to Chris Wallace on Fox News, is saying Obama's camp inflamed it. But
There could be another motivation you might want to consider. If the Clintons are this vindictive, then the endorsement of Bobby Kennedy's widow, brother Ted and JFK's daughter, to Obama's Presidential election more than likely angered the Clintons. The Kennedy family has been hurt by assassinations. Could it be, that the Clintons were taking a vindictive stab at the Kennedy's that endorsed Obama - by reminding them of that awful moment - by reminding them that it could also happen to a candidate they endorsed? - just to be mean? Especially while Ted Kennedy is dying? Maybe that is why HIllary is apoligizing to the Kennedy's. Wouldn't an apology to them, rub it in, some more? That is another motivation to consider. That I find appaling.
Nonetheless, I think it backfired on the Clintons because it turned out to be an issue that became all about Obama. But I believe this post, and I also think there was another motivations directed at the Kennedy family. This is not tough, its pathetic an ruinous.
If the word IF is used in an apology then it's really not an apology. I know she didn't apologize to Obama, but she didn't apologize to the Kennedy's either. This woman is slick and low down.
I think, her comments play into two thoughts:
A deep-seeded concern over Obama's welfare, and Hillary's no-holds-barred on her fight to get whatever she wants.
To use as a rationale for staying in the race, the reason of something unfortunate happening to an opponent... is beyond words. "Sick" doesn't even come close. If this were any other candidate, their career would be over. But for some reason, we allow her to continue her campaign.
She's not making many friends herself lately
I am afraid this is worse that people want to admit.
Hillary did this on purpose just like she did with sniper fire, race, sexism and white working voters. She deliberately used RFK because of the June reference and, more importantly, because it was not as caustic or presumptuous as invoking the memory of the JFK assassination directly. Yes for the JFK reference to be technically accurate she would have to actually be VP, but she was fast becoming the presumed VP.
Bill Clinton had already stated publicly that Hillary should seek the VP spot on the ticket. The buzz was that she was dragging this out to force a spot on the ticket as VP.
She actually did the most damage she possibly could on purpose by invoking the RFK assassination at this time of year, while simultaneously, if not automatically, invoking the JFK assassination by virtue of her being the presumed VP.
If you have any doubts, keep in mind that Hillary quoted Karl Rove at least two times last week as her reference on why she is stronger in the GE. If you don’t see his fingerprints on this then you don’t remember how vicious the Swiftboat campaign was or how badly Max Cleland was savaged.
This was done intentionally with a great deal of careful thought.
I really hope you are wrong but I see the dark logic in what you're saying.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
