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
while I don't think intent was that obama will get killed..it
Bewildering but amusing-- a psychologist who uses projection as proof of another's motivations, and then cites his last post as a kind of proof for his projections. Physician, heal thyself!
Right. The fact the two RFK comments, among many others, contribute to at least an unconscious unmease in the hearer, is brilliant politicking. I believe there is very little the Clintons do that is not carefully articulated and based on years of dividing and tearing down anything they perceive to be in their way. Smart as they are, they are, in the end, destroyers, not builders. And it comes out over and over again. Too Bad for America
Call it what it was, a FREUDIAN SLIP. In a moment of carelessness, she told us what she's really thinking.
The fact that Hillary didn't apologize to Obama is just another indication of her flawed character. She has no class and doesn't belong in the White House. Not only is she an embarrassment to women, she's an embarrassment to humankind.
Hillary blew it this time. She reached a little too far ie the definition of a gaffe in D.C. - an honest statement. I'm sure she does not consciously wish Obama bodily harm - but she certainly wishes that he would self destruct in some way. Why would she keep reminding us of the pain of Kennedy's ASSASSINATION in JUNE? It's pretty evil - even putting the best face on it.
And yet anyone is vulnerable to assassination if the threat exists. It's not like she or any other human being can deflect bullets like "Wonder Woman" or "Superman.
I guess Obama was supposed to quote Frank Purdue: it takes a tough man to make a tender chicken. But in this case it takes mental toughness to be an advocate for diplomacy. We've had enough of Bu$hco's pseudotough guy failed polcies. Isn't Clinton aware of this?
Truth!!
I am seriously troubled by Clinton's comment. I do not think it was incidental. Whether conscious or unconscious, such recklessness can have major consequences, disastrous consequences.
There is already a terribly disturbing clip of a FOX newwoman today joking about shooting both Osama and Obama:
http://www
I appreciate this analysis. I suppose it's an article of faith among standard journalists to treat all such statements at the surface level and never venture into the unconscious realm where the real answers are probably lurking. The unconscious motivation, of course, is guesswork, but important nonetheless as part of a full understanding of what Clinton was saying. I note that Bobby Kennedy in 1968 was in a similar position to Obama's. He had just won the California primary but had not won the nomination yet. Hubert Humphrey stood in his way. Eugene McCarthy's chances had probably been finished by the California win. So the nomination looked as if it would go all the way to the convention. Hillary, in other words, may see herself unconsciously in the position of Hubert Humphrey. A long shot, but "anything can happen," for example Sirhan Sirhan. It's not much of a stretch at all to see why this analogy would occur to her. If she was only talking about long campaigns, there are numerous other examples that were not cut short by assassination. When someone is as obsessed as Hillary about winning, I doubt that she has much control over the inadvertent expression of death wishes.
Exactly. I think the fact that she chose in particular the 1968 election is the most telling part of this entire thing. And you really can't even use 1968 as a valid reference as the primaries were on a completely different calendar back then (I believe they started in March - anyone got the figures?), so there really isn't any comparison. In addition, if she did want to use it as a comparison, why bring up the A word? Why go there? Unless you are either 1) sending a subtle message or 2) subconsciously hoping something terrible will happen to your opponent.
Interesting insights. Painful to contemplate - but sometimes the truth IS painful, isn't it?
Her statements were deliberate and vindictive. She wanted to remind Obama and his supporters what could happen to dreamers.
She cannot help thinking certain thoughts but she certainly is responsible for what she says. She must know she wields enormous power and influence over a large number of people. I also very much noticed that there was no apology to the Obamas and wondered how that could be. It is not too late Hillary...
Thanks Stephen. Good research and analysis.
Yes... it is amazing how well the Clinton Party spin works on those who are prone to self-delusion. It's in full force today.... more lies and deception.
Addicts will say and do most anything for that next score. On a level of destructive pathologies, it's very sad to watch those "power junkies" and their enablers, in a codependent spiral of loss and debilitati
As an Obama supporter I firmly believe that Senator Clinton was not in any way implying that she thought that Senator Obama might be assassinated. However what is implied is that she believes and is hoping that someone will be able to successfully slime him enough for her to take the nomination. That in and of itself, should be enough to cost her the chance of being on the same ticket with Senator Obama.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
