The Politics Of Violence

Speaking to the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader's editorial board in South Dakota today, Hillary Clinton drew a parallel between her campaign against Barack Obama and Bobby Kennedy's against Eugene McCarthy:


HRC: ... You know, I have been willing to do all of that during the entire process, and people have been trying to push me out of this ever since --

Q: Why?

HRC: I don't know, I don't know.  I find it curious, because it is unheard of in history.  I don't understand it.  And you know, between my opponent and his camp and some in the media, there has been this urgency to end this.  And, you know, historically that makes no sense.  So, I find it a bit of a mystery.

Q: You don't buy the party unity argument?

HRC: I don't.  Because, again, I've been around long enough - you know, 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.  You know, I just - I don't understand it, and, you know, there's a lot of speculation about why it is.  But --

Q: What's your speculation?

HRC: You know, I don't know.  I find it curious.  And I don't want to attribute motives or strategies to people who I don't really know ...

Video here.

This must now end.

Over the past weeks, many have called for Clinton to end her campaign based on metrics. But with the infrastructure-building the primary keeps delivering, I've been reasonably comfortable waiting until June for closure.

But this is unacceptable.

The United States has a history of profound political violence - and the use of violence to oppress and coerce. And while I'm not quite willing to accept that Clinton spoke maliciously - it doesn't matter. There is no excuse for flippantly referencing assassination, especially given the historic nature of Obama's campaign and our nation's grim history of racial oppression through violence. When Hillary Clinton speaks of our history, she is not reflecting academically or only in a vacuum - her words and influence are real. To act otherwise is negligent, at best.

No context can save her. She must go.

Update [2008-5-23 17:57:13 by Josh Orton]: Let's not abbreviate the issue: it's clear that Clinton is not in any way calling directly for something to happen to Obama. But we also cannot divorce her comments from her public stature, her intelligence, her responsibility as a leader, or our history. So even with the most charitable interpretation, I think her negligence is disqualifying.

Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Comments

374 Comments

Re: The Politics Of Assassination

Agreed.  I was amenable to her as a possible VP but  reading the statement and then seeing the video has left me still pretty stunned.  

by Pat Flatley 2008-05-23 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Assassination

Even if she was simply trying to make a comparison, she's certainly smart enough to realize how it would be viewed.

by KevinT 2008-05-23 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Assassination

Hmm, no.  If anything, Clinton is drawing a comparison between Kennedy and herself, not Kennedy and Obama.  Just because some people see Obama's candidacy as a natural extension of the Kennedy legacy does not mean everyone would view it that way.

by wilder 2008-05-23 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Assassination

Uh no, I think that 99% of the people viewing this video and that would include 100% of the super delegates are all thinking the same thing.

Everyone of us have been worried about Barack Obama safety.  Just being the first Black man to come this close to the presidency is going to bring out the racist nut jobs prone to violence.

Saying that she is in it because she this might happen is just plain CRAZY.

I'll give her the benefit of doubt and chalk it up to being too tired.

She should suspend her campaign.

by Andre X 2008-05-23 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Assassination

Just being the first woman inspires the crazies too. Or didn't you notice the hatred directed against her?

by ellend818 2008-05-23 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Assassination

And if Obama had alluded to Clinton being assassinated, we'd be pissed.

by really not a troll 2008-05-23 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Assassination

Since she mentioned Kennedy in reference to herself, it would appear that she was comparing herself to Kennedy, rather than Obama to Kennedy.  And what about the fact that she mentioned Bill before mentioning Kennedy?  Should we take that to mean that Bill Clinton should have been assassinated in 1992, or that he will be assassinated?

by wilder 2008-05-23 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Assassination

Don't see that anywhere in the comments.  She mentions that he was assassinated, not that he won the primary.

by niksder 2008-05-23 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Assassination

She was not comparing herself to Kennedy.  The subject was primarys that run for an extended amount of time.  Then, she gave two examples; The first being her husbands primary, the second was an assasination.  Had she said, Robert Kennedy was running in June.  Had she mentioned the 1980 and 1984 primaries that ran long, her comments would be valid.  She, an Ivy Leage, professional, former first lady, Senator, Presidential candidate did not make like examples to support her point.  What she communicated is many things can happen in June, he could be killed.  Its not very hard to understand.  I realize you may support her, and you are trying to fight her case, I do the same with Obama.  But had he made these statements, I could not support him.

by kesiac 2008-05-23 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Assassination

So she was comparing herself to Kennedy, in the sense that his primary ran for a long time and so is hers.

But of course, that is a direct translation for: "I could still win because Obama might be assassinated."  Give me a break.

Given the level of animosity I've seen toward Clinton these past several months, part of me wonders if not for the Secret Service, a gang would have descended upon her and ripped her apart.

by wilder 2008-05-23 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Assassination

Yes that was a translation, not verbatim.  

by kesiac 2008-05-23 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Assassination

I guess if you can't prove it outright, there's always our good friend, Insinuation.

by wilder 2008-05-23 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Assassination

No she was comparing herself to Humphry

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-23 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Assassination

There's a famous recent history of violence assassination of leaders of the anti-racist movement in the United States, and in particular violence against black leaders. Martin Luther King, the Kennedys, Malcom X, are the most famous but there are lots of others.

I know of no comparable history of assassination of pro-woman politicians in the United States.

by vinc 2008-05-23 01:43PM | 0 recs
Don't speak rubbish.

stretching it, aren't you?

by ghost 2 2008-05-23 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't speak rubbish.

what? Look at the comment I was responding to. The crazies in the United States have demonstrably been more violent towards blacks in politics than women in politics. I don't see why this would even be particularly controversial.

This is not to say that sexism is worse than racism or vice versa, but the two obviously take different forms. And one of the ways which racism has manifested itself is in the killing of black political leaders, while sexism in the United States does not manifest itself in this fashion.

by vinc 2008-05-23 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Assassination

No. No I didn't.  I didn't notice a Republican runner-up making a joke about her diving to avoid assassination.  I didn't notice the Secret Service acknowledging right from the start that simply running was risking her life far more than a candidate is normally risking their life.  I haven't noticed people doing analysis of pictures of her campaign rallies talking about how dangerous it is to have so many trees around.  I haven't seen camera phone video of her SS detail posted on the internet.  I don't know what you're talking about.  There is no reasonable comparison between the danger of being H. Clinton right now and the danger of being B. Obama right now, and for you to suggest otherwise is foolish, degenerate, hateful, pathetic, disingenuous, and damaging to party unity.  

by Endymion 2008-05-23 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Assassination

And just to be clear, it's damaging to party unity because you and I are in this together and right now I just want to [be anti-social to you].  

by Endymion 2008-05-23 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Assassination

Well then maybe he should just back out now. It's way too risky.

by SophieL 2008-05-23 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Assassination

And I'm sure you know exactly what the superdelegates are thinking, when even they aren't even all decided.  I think you'd be surprised to learn that other people are capable of reading and interpreting information just fine without your "helping hand."

My interpretation came straight from the posted transcript.  To say that it is wrong would mean that the transcript posted was not accurate of her entire interview.  If so, why would that be the case?  Could that imply that the poster was aiming to post something that would lead people to distort her words?

by wilder 2008-05-23 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Assassination
"If anything, Clinton is drawing a comparison between Kennedy and herself, not Kennedy and Obama."

How the hell do you get that? Her point was clear: "I'm staying in because anything can happen, including something to Obama." This is the most disgusting, inappropriate thing I've heard ANY politician say (and I'm including Cheney and Buchanan in that!)
by Rhizomorph 2008-05-23 01:54PM | 0 recs
Oh, come on

She was saying that she was like RFK...she could be shot.

/s

by bookish 2008-05-23 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, come on

so she should stay in, in hope of being shot

/s

by wrb 2008-05-23 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Not her first time making this remark

On March 6 it was published that  she made the following remark during her interview with Time Managing Editor Richard Stengel:

TIME: Can you envision a point at which--if the race stays this close--Democratic Party elders would step in and say, "This is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall"?

CLINTON: No, I really can't. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/ 05/hillarys_bizarre_rfk_comment.html

Now, go ahead and make more excuses for her. This is unacceptable.

by Bastet 2008-05-23 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Assassination

Be logical for God's sakes.  She was referencing the assassination of Bobby Kennedy as a reason to stay in the race; if her reference was meant to compare herself to Kennedy, why would she be using that as a reason to stay in the race...

Think about it for God's sakes...

"I'm staying in this race because Bobby Kennedy was assassinated; I'm like Bobby Kennedy, so I too might be assassinated, which is why I'm staying in the race."

You're not  too bright, are you?

by Obamaphile 2008-05-23 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Assassination

"Clinton is drawing a comparison between Kennedy and herself"

She was saying she should stay in the race until June and she might get assassinated? Sorry, that's a weak line of logic. It's crystal clear what she meant. I don't think this is a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, she wasn't calling for his assassination, but it's just the straw that broke the camels back. She needs to get out, by Wednesday. If so won't go willingly, the super delegates need to step up and declare who they are for. Voter registration drives in the primary states are over, nothing good can come from extending this primary season. Every day is making the democrats weaker.

by blinkingidiot 2008-05-23 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Assassination

Then she would have stopped the analogy at winning California.

by niksder 2008-05-23 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Assassination

What? will be viewed by whom? by you? obviously!

Like the press who write in the passive voice to absolve themselves of responsibility, you are learning to play the game.

This front page post, especially the title, is a DISGRACE.  It's a complete and utter disgrace. It is stupid. It is inflammatory.  It is insulting to intelligence.  It is manufactured outrage.

I don't know if the author wants to audition for Keith Olberman's job.

by ghost 2 2008-05-23 05:18PM | 0 recs
She immediately issued a statement.

Unlike Obama who never acknowledges any mistakes.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-23 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: She immediately issued a statement.

WTF are you talking about?  Obama has acknowledged many mistakes.  And Hillary STILL hasn't really acknowledged just how poor her judgement on AUMF was.

Now that being said, I don't think anything bad or ill was intended by this.  It was a an innocent statement BUT a stupid gaffe on her part, on par with the bitter comments.  It probably just cost her some SDs.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-23 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: She immediately issued a statement.
You are aware, aren't you, that Obama never voted against AUMF.
There are two reasons why I point this out:
1.) Many people are not aware of that.
2.) He dismisses her 35 years of experience because she was only the First Lady, but he claims that brilliant foresight as his own experience. He never once acknowledges that she could have had many moments of brilliant foresight during those 35 years or that they could actually count.
by SophieL 2008-05-23 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: She immediately issued a statement.

Bullshit. That guns and religion statement was immediatly appologized for. And Clinton went on to call him elitist. And the MSM still calls him that. But she is such a nice cuddly person!

by kitebro 2008-05-23 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: She immediately issued a statement.

Kitebro's right, sweeties.

by niksder 2008-05-23 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: She immediately issued a statement.

Exactly. "Sweetie". She sent out a surragate to crucify him over one word. You reap what you sow.

by kitebro 2008-05-23 03:06PM | 0 recs
She immidiately issued

a statement trying to say she didn't say what she said. She's trying to parse this as if there is nothing inappropriate about what she said.

There was no apology.

by Tatan 2008-05-23 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: She immidiately issued

I watched the video of her "apology?" twice and didn't hear her say anything about Obama. She is sensitive to the Kennedys, but she is not addressing the obvious statement that Obama could be assassinated. She needs to issue an immediate apology. This is horrible.

by bethmydd 2008-05-23 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: She immidiately issued

Maybe it boils down to: "She's just not that into you."

Sounds like she wasn't thinking of Obama at all when she said what she said.  Which would mean that she was not floating a suggestion that Obama could be assassinated.

by wilder 2008-05-23 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: She immidiately issued

Yea, right, she's just staying in the race because you know sometimes other candidates get assassinated.

Who the hell else is she talking about????

This is beyond disgusting, and far worse than what Huckabee said a few days ago.

by tysonpublic 2008-05-23 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: She immidiately issued

Right, because Obama is the only one who could get assassinated.  He's the only historic candidate in this race, the only one that stirs controversy.  I keep forgetting.

by wilder 2008-05-23 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: She immidiately issued

So she's staying in the race, just in case she gets assassinated? Doesn't that seem like a reason to get out of the race?

by Tatan 2008-05-23 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: She immidiately issued

Well who would she be talking about.  How many candidates are still in the democratic primary.

by kesiac 2008-05-23 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: She immidiately issued

Hmm, she makes a comparison between her lengthy race and Kennedy's lengthy race, only cut short by tragedy...

I know many of you Obama voters like to pretend that she doesn't exist and that the general election is already on, but that's not yet the case.  So maybe... I don't know... she was talking about herself?

by wilder 2008-05-23 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: She immediately issued a statement.

And apologized if what she said could be interpreted as offending the Kennedy family. A statement, yes, an apology for loose lips, not. Her husband became the "definition of is" parser. I could give her the benefit of the doubt, but according to her no one should think twice. Like the IRAQ vote. All her political calculations are correct. like McCain, so go on with your little life as she and O'Reilly are the blessed rich folks.

by ttmiskovsky 2008-05-23 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: She immediately issued a statement.

SHE HAS NOT APOLOGIZED TO SENATOR OBAMA.

Why????????

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-23 01:51PM | 0 recs
Because the original comment WASN'T

ABOUT OBAMA!!!!!

Dooh!

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-23 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Because the original comment WASN'T

Well, no, it wasn't about any person in particular at all.  It was about a Presidential primary race.  The names and status of the participants in that race are ancillary data; she doesn't need to refer to anyone, she's only got one opponent.

by Endymion 2008-05-23 02:02PM | 0 recs
But she never apoligized to Obama for

making that reference.  She has to be very cautious because we have no idea what kind of threat is out there.  After all, he did get Secret service protection at a much earlier juncture than most candidates and a republican president granted it.  It must have been really serious if George Bush approved it.

by mishiem 2008-05-23 01:52PM | 0 recs
Actually, this is the first statement

before the apology.

Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithe just said to a group of reporters in South Dakota -- including Memoli -- that this is "one of the more ridiculous" issues that has come up in a long race. The campaign, he said, will soon send out an official comment.

* UPDATE * Here is the official statement from Elleithe: "She was simply referencing her husband in 1992 and Bobby kennedy in 1968 as historical expmales of the nominating contest going well into the summer. Any, any reading into it beyond that is inaccurate."

by bookish 2008-05-23 02:21PM | 0 recs
To those who don't think HRC was being malicious

Let's assume, for the moment, that Hillary Clinton didn't mean this comment in a malicious or ugly manner.

This comment still is important, because it shows that after all these years, Clinton doesn't actually understand how the political media world works.

She knew she was on video.

She knew that this was a very, very sensitive and inflammatory topic.

And yet she used the line anyway.

So one can only conclude:

1) Despite decades in the public spotlight, Hillary Clinton still hasn't learned the "message discipline" necessary to win an election;

OR:

2) She does understand how the media works, and she said it anyway for some godawful reason -- just to draw attention to herself? To scare people away from Obama because maybe he might not survive? What?

And might I add -- this is hardly the first such gaffe. Tuzla being Exhibit A.

CONCLUSION: There is no good way to spin this. If you think she didn't mean it the way it's being taken, then she needs to go back to Politics 101 and learn how to communicate. If you think that she knew how it would be taken, then it's time to concede that HRC is not Presidential material.

by Hudson 2008-05-23 01:55PM | 0 recs
A reality-based FP post?

Three cheers for Josh!

Seriously, this has to end now.

Mark my words:

If anything happens to Barack Obama between now and his inauguration, the blame will be placed (justly or otherwise) on Hillary Rodham Clinton.

by Firewall 2008-05-23 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: A reality-based FP post?

Right, because we can't blame anyone who would be so vile as to assassinate a sitting Senator.  It's all Hillary's fault!!!  GIVE ME A BREAK.

by JustJennifer 2008-05-23 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: A reality-based FP post?

This is indefensible, Jennifer.

She has to go. You don't get to float assassination talk about the Democratic nominee.

Not even as the wife of a former president.

by Firewall 2008-05-23 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: A reality-based FP post?

She wasn't floating assassination talk about a Presidential candidate.  

by JustJennifer 2008-05-23 01:19PM | 0 recs
Then why don't you tell us what she was doing?

by Tenafly Viper 2008-05-23 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Then why don't you tell us what she was doing?

Comparing herself to Kennedy?

by wilder 2008-05-23 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Then why don't you tell us what she was doing?

No.

You are just trying to make up excuses for her, now.

by Andre X 2008-05-23 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Then why don't you tell us what she was doing?

No, I'm just able to read.

by wilder 2008-05-23 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Then why don't you tell us what she was doing?

So you believe that she's staying in the race because SHE might get assassinated?

And that makes sense to any rational person in what universe?

by Obamaphile 2008-05-23 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Then why don't you tell us what she was doing?

Comparing her long run for the White House with Kennedy's long-run for the White House, which was tragically cut short by the assassination.

Again, she wasn't thinking of Obama at all.  She's just not that into him, I'm afraid.

by wilder 2008-05-23 02:18PM | 0 recs
How does that make any sense?

So your saying that she thinks she's in lead and that she might be assassinated.  

Either you're dense or I am,  because I don't get that at all.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-05-23 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Then why don't you tell us what she was doing?

Wilder.  It is always Obama who is compared to Kennedy not Hillary.  Ted Kennedy passed the Kennedy mantle on Obama's shoulders not Hillary's.  

I have a hard time picturing Hillary as anything but a street brawler.  That's why those hard working white people love her so much.  They don't need no class in this campaign.

by Destiny 2008-05-23 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: A reality-based FP post?

you're right. Not floating, she was suggesting it, apparently.

by Metrobot 2008-05-23 01:26PM | 0 recs
Then why don't you tell us what she was doing?

Because it certainly appears that that she was saying that there is always a chance he'll be assassinated, and she can step into his place.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-05-23 01:31PM | 0 recs
Then why did she use that particular word?
I simply don't see any other reason for invoking the RFK's assassination unless she meant that there is an "anything-can-happen" scenario which means (to her) that she needs to stay in the race.
by DemsRising 2008-05-23 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: A reality-based FP post?

Maybe I'm reading the transcript wrong, but it looks as though she's citing Kennedy as an example of someone who couldn't finish the primary because he got assassinated.  Not that she is suggesting Obama will or should get assassinated.

by wilder 2008-05-23 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: A reality-based FP post?

Yes.  She's basically saying that she's staying in the race in case Obama gets assassinated.  That's how I'm reading it anyways, as I think most people are.

by ChrisKaty 2008-05-23 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: A reality-based FP post?

Far be it from me to infuse a reality check.

by wilder 2008-05-23 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: A reality-based FP post?

well i'm glad that's cleared up!

by Metrobot 2008-05-23 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: A reality-based FP post?

If only we all had as much common sense as you. eyeroll

by wilder 2008-05-23 02:25PM | 0 recs
Do you want to

go back an reread your statement? Try to see how ridiculous you sound. Is there nothing this woman can say that you won't try to parse or excuse?

by Tatan 2008-05-23 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you want to

Only after you pinpoint the exact spot where it's clear that she's talking about Obama, especially given that he was not even on her radar when she apologized to the Kennedys.

by wilder 2008-05-23 02:21PM | 0 recs
I meant to do you...

... no personal injury, and if I did, beg your pardon.

Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

by kraant 2008-05-23 04:59PM | 0 recs
/silently passes him his crazy pills

and walks away slowly...

by wilder 2008-05-23 05:26PM | 0 recs
/hands them to Hillary

because she obviously needs them more...

by kraant 2008-05-23 07:18PM | 0 recs
Now, now, swallow them like a good boy

There you go...

by wilder 2008-05-23 08:54PM | 0 recs
Nup...

http://www.americablog.com/2008/05/break ing-hillary-reportedly-invoked.html

Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.

"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 said, dismissing calls to drop out.

Clinton made her comments at a meeting with the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader's editorial board while campaigning in South Dakota, where she complained that, "People have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa."

I ain't the one needing to pop sanity pills.

by kraant 2008-05-23 09:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Nup...

I agree -- John A. at Americablog has needed to take crazy pills for a long time.  

by wilder 2008-05-24 12:31AM | 0 recs
Re: A reality-based FP post?

She didn't float assassination talk about the Democratic nominee.

by NY Writer 2008-05-23 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: A reality-based FP post?

Your comment is close to being as bad as hers.  And you need to change your tag line unless you want to become part of the problem.

by mady 2008-05-23 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: A reality-based FP post?

My post was addressed to Firewall.

by mady 2008-05-23 01:15PM | 0 recs
Josh you have a reader for life

I admire your front page post here and am glad that MyDD won't stand for this bullshit.

I was one of the few who could see Hillary as VP.

I don't want her near the White House.

I have lost all respect for her as a politician.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-23 01:15PM | 0 recs
Not appropriate.

by jimotto 2008-05-23 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: A reality-based FP post?

Don't you think that statement is a little absurd?

by annita 2008-05-23 01:49PM | 0 recs
Rightfully so...I can't believe she said it

She just needs to leave...it is absolutely past time...the kitchen sink is turning into literal sniper fire and she is behind the scope.

by netgui68 2008-05-23 07:29PM | 0 recs
Re: A reality-based FP post?

Psst, ever think of trying out for the long jump? That's quite a leap you have there.

by muggle 2008-05-23 09:24PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Please, i saw this clip.  She takes a long pause and then talks about how Kennedy's campaign also went into June.

This is sad that you feel so comfortable twisting her words that she has already clearified.  And then demand she quit.  Just say you hate her and demand she quit.

david

by giusd 2008-05-23 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I don't hate her at all.

by Josh Orton 2008-05-23 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

That's obvious.

by wilder 2008-05-23 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I don't. I think she's brilliant, brave, and more progressive than many people are willing to admit. But we can't divorce her from her influence, civic responsibility, or intelligence. When you're Hillary Clinton running against Barack Obama, you just can't say what she said, no matter what.

by Josh Orton 2008-05-23 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

But if you genuinely like her, why not pause for a moment and ask if that's what she was really saying?  Why automatically assume that any reference to a historic assassination is a) suggesting one could happen in 2008 and b) suggesting that it would happen to Obama?

If anything, it's the controversial figures who are the most vulnerable to violent acts, and Obama strikes me as less controversial than Clinton, who has been taking rhetorical hits since 1992.

by wilder 2008-05-23 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

"they cling to guns and religion" "sweety" are  examples of the Clintons jumping onto words out of context to make a nasty point. She does it all the time. She deserves all the sh*t-storm that is coming her way over this. It is, after all, exactly what she and her surrogates would do. And I couldn't be happier to see it done to her.

by kitebro 2008-05-23 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Obama's campaign has been the standard for this.

Your "...couldn't be happier to see it done to her" is exactly what I've come to expect from Obama supporters.

by dembluestates 2008-05-23 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Name one instance.

by kitebro 2008-05-23 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

David..

I respect everything you do for the mydd community. Her point could have been made by just say "anything could happen", she did not, inartfully or intentionally, have to use RFK as an example of this.  Especially when the news of Ted has come out and the 40th anniversary of this tragic event is on the horizon.

The word "assassination" has no place in any type of election, especially when we are dealing with the first AA and woman with a legitimate chance to win the POTUS.

by hootie4170 2008-05-23 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

HI Dude,

OK my temper is controlled.  I will tell you why this makes me so mad.  And first let me say i just didnt see anything in her statment and there were pauses in her statement and the interviewer was pushing her and imho the two statements were seperated by time and werd not connected but that aside.

Here is why i am upset about this.  First BO supporters will use this to just be even more pissed at the clintons and push the HRC must go. And no on the war path and now is unity time not warpath time.

While at the same time HRC supporters (and not the internet crowd i mean average voters) will use this as just one more reason to think about voting for McCain.

Both my mon and step mom are moving toward McCain and both have never voted GOP and my step mother has already called me angry about this.  It is just not helping.

That really upsets me.

david

by giusd 2008-05-23 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Understood...I will do what I can, it's just been such an emotional campaign and some Obama supporters are focusing on when she brought the "bitter" comments out and labeled him an elitist...I think some feel there is no difference regarding her statements today, as he was given no free passes after he apologized.

I understand where you are coming from...my stepdad and I had an argument over McCain/Obama last night...pretty  heated.

Sometimes, I just need to step back and chill...but God,I cannot afford four more years of Bush...I just can't!!

by hootie4170 2008-05-23 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Thanks,

dg

by giusd 2008-05-23 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

garbage comment.  victomology victomology...

by bluedavid 2008-05-24 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Okay.  I hate her and I demand that she quit.

But this ain't about me.  It's about her:
losing the pledged delegates
losing the superdelegates
losing the popular vote
losing the number of states won
losing in many polls vs. McCain.

It's not like I'm demanding that the winner quit the race.

by Reluctantpopstar 2008-05-24 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

There really isn't anything more to say.

This is truly a disgusting and unfortunate end to the whole thing.

by AlexScott 2008-05-23 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

oh please.  
so much for the "new" politics.

I doubt that anyone with 1/2 a brain thinks that Hillary wants Obama killed.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-23 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

And anyone with 1/8th of a brain can recognize that no one is claiming that.  She implied that the possible assassination of Obama was a reason to keep going.

by KevinT 2008-05-23 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Bullshit.  She was comparing Kennedy to herself.  By that logic, Obama could benefit from Hillary's assassination.  The only people who automatically think Bobby Kennedy = Obama are those who have bought into the idea that he is the natural heir to the family legacy.

by wilder 2008-05-23 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

why would she be saying that she should continue so that she could be assassinated? That seems to be a stretch. I'm not sure what she was getting at, and certainly hope she wasn't saying what it sounds like. But there's no real way you can say this gaffe wasn't a gaffe.

by Metrobot 2008-05-23 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

She was getting at: nominating contests often take until well into June.

I think she's sleep deprived to use this as an example. and it's poor taste. and can't endear her to Michelle.

by NY Writer 2008-05-23 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

If Obama is Kennedy in her example, precisely how is that a reason for her to remain in the race?  I'm willing to chalk this up to a stupid remark that she didn't think through, but your proposed explanation strains all credulity.  

by HSTruman 2008-05-23 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

She was saying that he was running a long campaign, when it got cut off by assassination.  Maybe not the best comparison, but how many campaigns is a person expected to remember?  All of them?  I saw some ridiculous comment about how she should have cited a campaign from the nineteenth century, as if any of us would have known what she was talking about, and as if there aren't any relevant campaigns to choose from in recent modern history.

by wilder 2008-05-23 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I guess I have to be the token Obama supporter who doesn't think she meant anything offensive by this. I really don't think she was implying that Obama might be assassinated and therefore she should stay in. Had she not included the 1992 example before the 1968 one I might be more outraged. I just think it was an extremely unfortunate choice of words and historical examples. She should have stuck to the 1992 example and she would have been fine.

That being said, I can certainly understand why people are upset about this and I do think it will be the final nail for her floundering campaign.

by wasder 2008-05-23 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Even the 1992 example doesn't work.  Bill Clinton had the nomination all but wrapped up in April and Brown was nowhere even close in delegates.  Brown was Bill Clinton's Mike Huckabee.  It's a wrong example for Hillary to use, and if anything, Hillary is closer to Brown, who, admittedly, was not running against Bill Clinton to win the nomination.    

by reggie23 2008-05-23 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Agreed.  It was a stupid (really stupid) choice of words, but nothing more than that.

by JitteryZeitgeist 2008-05-23 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I guess there are half a brains out there, as they trolled rated my comment

by colebiancardi 2008-05-23 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

But anyone with a 4th grade education knows that our country has a nasty history of political violence. When you are running for president, when you are the wife of a former president, or for other reasons you are one of the most powerful people on the planet, you should be responsible enough not to allude to the fact that we could have another great leader end up like MLK or JFK, unless for some reason you think that could happen and are trying to prevent it.

by Djo 2008-05-23 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Uprated only for HR abuse.  I'll keep my opinion about your comment to myself.

by The Distillery 2008-05-23 01:43PM | 0 recs
I dont find it offensive...

Sorry, she made a reference to an assassination... she did not call for anyone to be assassinated, as you (and so many other commenters) seem to be darkly implying !!

by SevenStrings 2008-05-23 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: I dont find it offensive...

I don't think she was calling for him to be assassinated. Any more than she sincerely calls people to not vote for him because he's black. She's not personally racist and she doesn't want Obama killed, she's just comfortable taking advantage of the racism of others and the fears/desires that he'll be killed. I completely buy that she didn't intend it to come out that way, but I think it was also a freudian slip in revealing her inner calculations.

by Mobar 2008-05-23 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: I dont find it offensive...

Please show me comments of people saying she was implying that Obama should be assassinated.  I

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-23 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: I dont find it offensive...

Please see the comment just above yours!!

by SevenStrings 2008-05-23 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: I dont find it offensive...

Where.  The person above me says SHE WASN'T CALLING FOR IT...

Link it please.  

I'm sure there are a few stupid people out there.  She OBVIOUSLY wasn't calling for that.  She made a stupid stupid mistake, but she may have just cost herself a lot with that gaffe.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-23 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I dont find it offensive...

Never mind... you are right there are several assholes who are insisting that.  Sorry about that... all I can say is those guys are assholes and I hope Jerome bans them.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-23 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: I dont find it offensive...

Never mind... you are right there are several assholes who are insisting that.  Sorry about that... all I can say is those guys are assholes and I hope Jerome bans them.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-23 01:46PM | 0 recs
Assassination...

..is a word that should not be used, period.  Especially considering the two Democratic candidates.

by hootie4170 2008-05-23 01:25PM | 0 recs
And she immediately issued a statement

acknowledging her mistake and clarifying her intent.

Obama never admits anything wrong...ever.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-23 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: And she immediately issued a statement

Let's see, he apologized for the sweetie comment, he apologized for the bitter comment.  Not sure what else he should apologize for.

by igottheblues 2008-05-23 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: And she immediately issued a statement

He apologized for the sweetie comment by saying that he calls everyone sweetie. He apologized for the bitter comment by saying his words were taken out of context. His apologies tend to be non-apologies.

by SophieL 2008-05-23 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: And she immediately issued a statement

Let's see, he apologized for the sweetie comment, he apologized for the bitter comment.  Not sure what else he should apologize for.

by igottheblues 2008-05-23 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Clinton's response:

"Earlier today I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June 1992 and 1968 and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That's a historic fact. The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that, whatsoever. My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to, and I'm honored to hold Senator Kennedy's seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family."

by JustJennifer 2008-05-23 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

That response is beyond unacceptable.  She insinuated that her opponent could be assassinated and that that is an appropriate reason for her to stay in the race.  Apologizing to the Kennedy's is one step.  Next step, apologize to Barack Obama.  Next step, apologize to Democratic voters.  Next step, apologize to the American people.

by The Distillery 2008-05-23 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

You are completely insane.  She never insinuated her opponent could be assassinated.  She never said this is a reason for her to stay in the race.  You are parsing her words to feed your hatred.  

by JustJennifer 2008-05-23 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

but i'm having trouble finding the harmless interpretation. what is it??

by Metrobot 2008-05-23 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I agree with you that she didn't intend any harm.  Frankly I've been afraid all year that either one of them could get assassinated because there are some stupid stupid people who can't fathom a woman or black man as President.  I think it was an innocent comment on her part and understand her point... BUT....

But you have to admit, IT WAS a STUPID STUPID STUPID comment on her part.  Just like Obama's bitter comment was stupid on his part.  There were many other examples she could have used and should have realized as soon as she said it that it was a dumb thing to say.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-23 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I agree with you that she didn't intend any harm.  Frankly I've been afraid all year that either one of them could get assassinated because there are some stupid stupid people who can't fathom a woman or black man as President.  I think it was an innocent comment on her part and understand her point... BUT....

But you have to admit, IT WAS a STUPID STUPID STUPID comment on her part.  Just like Obama's bitter comment was stupid on his part.  There were many other examples she could have used and should have realized as soon as she said it that it was a dumb thing to say.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-23 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

She absolutely did insinuate that.  She was asked about staying in the race, and referenced an assassination in the context of "you never know what might happen".

by ChrisKaty 2008-05-23 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

That's your jump, not hers.

Her context was: races last until June.

I am old enough to remember the RFK assassination, and it's indelibly in my mind as JUNE IN CA. So her reference immediately, in my mind, backed up: races last until June. I think that for younger voters who don't remember the RFK assassination, and for whom it could have been June or could have been January....I understand that the STUPID comment takes on a much more sinister tone.

by NY Writer 2008-05-23 01:56PM | 0 recs
i accept this

the thing about gaffes is, it's not what they meant. It's how the misinterpretation fits into preconceived notions that the public already has about the candidates. I'd say this fits the "untrustworthy" part of Hillary. And "will do anything to win"

by Metrobot 2008-05-23 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I see - but Keith Olbermann stating that someone should take hillary into a shed and beat her until only he comes out - is acceptable?

Or another commentator that suggested hillary "needs to be taken out" just goes without notice by YOU.

by nikkid 2008-05-23 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

links please.  I think you  may have misquoted Olbermann there.

Thanks for bringing up that example though.  Remember the OUTRAGE on the rec list over that metaphor by Olbermann?

by map 2008-05-23 01:32PM | 0 recs
Okay, and neither of them should be Potus either.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-05-23 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I'm sure you're willing to provide links to both of the incidents that you are referencing and it just slipped your mind to post them.  Care to rectify the situation?

by Demosthenes112358 2008-05-23 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Next step, take the nomination.

by SophieL 2008-05-23 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Just want to point this out:

On April 8th of 1992 a full two months before he would secure enough delegates to claim the nomination Bill's staff was calling him the presumptive nominee:

[Apr 8, 1992] Clinton's showing yesterday convinced many Democrats that, even with the depth of concern about his character and his ability to win in November within his own party, his nomination is now all but assured. "Bill Clinton is the presumptive nominee," declared Mark Mellman

by venician 2008-05-23 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Hey you're quoting my awesome comment... without giving due credit.

by Tatan 2008-05-23 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Was it you I got it from? Kudos to you for finding that one. I will give credit where it's due. I incourage you to use it OFTEN. Next time I'll give yoou credit.

by venician 2008-05-23 04:04PM | 0 recs
As usual, no apology from Clinton

From the person who DEMANDS specific terms like "denounce and reject" from others, Senator Clinton once again demonstrates her inability to accept responsibility for ANY of her actions.

Just like the Bosnia lies.  She excused herself and "regretted" but not-quite apologized.  Then several days later, when asked, replied "Oh, I've already apologized for that."

So today she explains herself away again, and in a few days she can say she already apologized and all the kool-aid drinkers will believe her.

by Eman 2008-05-23 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: As usual, no apology from Clinton

Don't throw around the term Koolaid drinker like that. It's offensive and serves no purpose other than to inflame others.

by Djo 2008-05-23 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: As usual, no apology from Clinton

Well that HAS been said about Obama supporters for a year on here... but you are right 2 wrongs don't make a right.

MMM... Kool-aid.  OH YEAH!

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-23 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: As

Don't throw around the term Koolaid drinker like that. It's offensive and serves no purpose other than to inflame others.

by Djo 2008-05-23 01:43PM | 0 recs
Thank you for front paging this Josh.

There are no sides now.  You either disown this shit or you leave the party.  Period.  I don't give a fuck about reconciliation now.

by The Distillery 2008-05-23 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for front paging this Josh.

you never gave a shit about unity anyway.

this is just another excuse.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-23 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for front paging this Josh.

BS.  based on your history and comments, you never gave a shit about unity

(for some reason, my original comment, which pointed this out, was removed.  I know that my comment history is used against me in other diaries, so I am not sure why this one was offensive)

by colebiancardi 2008-05-23 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for front paging this Josh.

I uprated your previous comment just for shits and giggles.

by The Distillery 2008-05-23 01:48PM | 0 recs
My thoughts

1. Not long ago, a news photographer covering Obama was interviewed. He said that he was afraid to stand near Obama because of "what happens to charismatic leaders".

2. The timing is horrific. June 6th will mark thre 40th anniversery to that night in Los Angeles and all of California has been thinking of it. I've been thinking a lot about RFK and await a new book next week.

3. Last night I attended the unveiling of a bust at SF City Hall to honor Harvey Milk as November marks the 30th anniversery of his assassination.

by RandyMI 2008-05-23 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

You just don't say that.

You don't risk putting it in the mind of the true crazies who are out there.

And someone who had staffers held hostage should damn well know that.

It's time for her to go.

by DeskHack 2008-05-23 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Crazies?  You mean like the Obamabrats?

by Demogrunt 2008-05-23 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Samantha Power stands vindicated.

These comments serve as a "dog whistle" to some of those gun-owning "hard-working, white, working-class white American" in Appalachia and elsewhere.

Senator Obama is now in great danger.

by baghdadjoe 2008-05-23 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

B.S.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-23 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

BS BS.

Samantha Power called her a monster.

Hillary Clinton invoked the assassination of a Democratic Presidential Candidate as a reason for her to continue to stay in the race.

Everyone can judge HRC for themselves.

Me?

She IS a monster...as far as I know.

by The Distillery 2008-05-23 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

BS.  I guess all history professors and students of history are all monsters as well with that line of thinking.

you just wanted another excuse to express "faux" outrage.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-23 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

"I guess all history professors and students of history are all monsters as well with that line of thinking."

Hmm, difference between students of history and historical figures: the words of the latter ones have impact beyond their classrooms.

I'm quite willing to concede she was merely an moron in this case, not evil.

And that's a big concession on my behalf, since I usually go for the "diabolical genius" explanation for all her words, not the "moronic innocent" explanation.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-23 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Whoa, but she's not a history professor and she's not teaching a class. She's one of the most powerful politicians in the country running for the highest office in the nation. Does she believe Obama may be assasinated in June like Kennedy?

Why would you bring something like that up? Furthermore, do you not see how this could bring up painful memories, particularly for AA's, of MLK? Obama didn't win over the AA community, this comment is a symptom from the same disease that has caused her to lose the AA vote since SC.

by Djo 2008-05-23 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Bullshit.

Obama and Clinton are both in danger, have been in danger since they began running, and I'm sure they're both aware of the fact. That's why they have Secret Service protection.

Sirhan-Sirhan certainly didn't need a dog-whistle.

by jeffdavis 2008-05-23 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

oh, and Hillary's run is also historic.  I am sick of hearing that Obama's run is historic without noting that Hillary is also just as historic.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-23 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Histrionic is more like it.

by parahammer 2008-05-23 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence
Yes, her candidacy is historic. But this country doesn't have a history of assassinating white women leaders.
Every time I see Obama speaking in front of a huge crowd, I get nervous. I can almost hear the shot ring out.  
For her to reference this is, at best, a horrifying lack of understanding of the fears of millions of Americans and, at worst, an attempt to play on those fears for her own benefit.
by EvilAsh 2008-05-23 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

that is because we never had a white woman leader before.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-23 01:29PM | 0 recs
I didn't know that Alice Paul was black. n/t

by nklein 2008-05-23 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

What the fuck are YOU talking about?  Have you studied ANY women's history?  Ever heard of Gloria Steinem, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Coretta Scott King, Harriet Stanton Blatch, Eleanor Roosevelt, Eve Ensler, Sojourner Truth, Mary Wollstonecraft, Zainab Salbi, Millicent Fawcett...

No, we've never had any women leaders.  White or otherwise.  You make perfect sense now.

by The Distillery 2008-05-23 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Yeah...I remember all of their presidential runs...particularly Mary Wollstonecraft, whose UK citizenship was overlooked for the duration of her candidacy.

by SophieL 2008-05-23 06:44PM | 0 recs
Right

The tenor of this debate is insane. I make a point that women leaders haven't been assassinated in this country, then someone says there have been NO women leaders in this country.
Then, someone else reminds us that there HAVE been woman leaders in this country, and then SophieL suggests that doesn't count because they weren't presidential candidates. As if MLK and Malcom X  lived in the White House.
Does anyone else see how absurd this is? The Pro-Clinton argument in this thread is actually arguing AGAINST the fact that women have been important leaders in this country! Essentially  suggesting that they never had the HONOR of being assassinated!
I think my head is going to explode.
by EvilAsh 2008-05-24 01:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Right

Actually, one of my points was that one of them wasn't even American--which I found completely ridiculous. It looked like you just Googled famous women and pasted them in.

by SophieL 2008-05-24 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Right

Umm, that wasn't my comment, that one belonged to someone else.

by EvilAsh 2008-05-24 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I don't know if her run is AS historic.

There have been quite a few female Governors(28)and Senators (35). There have been, 4 African American Governors (3 elected) and 5 Senators since reconstruction.

I would suggest that an Obama Presidency is somewhat a larger leap considering that African Americans have only been elected to an Executive office 3 other times.

by Darknesse 2008-05-23 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

are you serious?  What is the percentage of women in the US?

and what is the percentage for AA's?

I think that ratio-wise, it balances out that both gender & race are under-represented.

Both candidates are running historical races - one an AA male and the other a white female - for the highest office in our land - and both have a chance.

never before has that happened.  Sure, women and AA's have been candidates before, but they never got 50/50 like this before.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-23 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

if she wasn't the wife of an ex-president, it'd be more historic. This obviously gives her a leg up, and diminishes the impact of breaking the gender barrier.

Still historic, though, but has overtones of dynasty and machine politics that make it less pure.

by Metrobot 2008-05-23 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

sort of like the Kennedy's, then?  ironic to say the least.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-23 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I don't remember there being a female Kennedy presidential candidate. Way back in the day, I remember thinking that the one downside of a Hillary victory would be, I'd rather not have a woman get the office that way. Not that it's a deal breaker by any means, but there'd be something more satisfying if a female governor does it, or some such independent person.

Of course I know you won't like this, but that's my opinion.

by Metrobot 2008-05-23 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

you talk about dynasties - well, that is more in line with the Kennedy's, not the Clinton's.  Hillary and Bill are not blood related, so Hillary being president would not be a dynasty.

also, Ted wants his wife to fill his seat in the senate, just because she is his wife.

Hillary would have been a star in the Democratic party even without Bill - hell, I think Bill held her back so he could go first.

and a lot of talk about certain female governors (like Kansas) and others - well, they came from a political family.  Now, that is a dynasty.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-23 02:20PM | 0 recs
(Comment Deleted)

This comment has been deleted by an administrator.

by Runstadrey 2008-05-23 01:15PM | 0 recs
Your comment

is a perfect example of why one just does not say something like this.

I glance at NoQuarter and Hillaryis44 occasionally...  There is some virulent shit posted on those sites.   I've seen threats of violence posted in those forums (and yes - deleted by admins).

You don't say something like this because some people really take this campaign to a lunatic extent.  All it takes is one deeply angry and marginally disturbed supporter to decide this is the only way.

All it takes is one neonazi to hear something like this and figure the time is now - take out Obama, and a good portion of the country will just get over it.

There are a lot of disturbed people in the world.  Some of them get heavily invested in political issues like this.   All it takes is one of those people to hear this, take it as a wink and nod, and we're in a very bad place.

by zonk 2008-05-23 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Your comment

So why wouldn't Hillary be at risk from being harmed by someone as well?  She certainly seems to inspire a lot of hatred amongst people who are probably considered pretty sane and rational in real life.

by JustJennifer 2008-05-23 01:38PM | 0 recs
As soon as Obama

says something to the effect of him winning because former frontrunners have been assassinated you might have a point.

You're being obtuse.

No one denies the truly tragic and horrible for our nation could happen -- to either Clinton or Obama.

The candidate him or herself should NEVER raise that specter because you don't want to be the inadvertent, unintentional catalyst to a hyper-emotional, simmeringly pissed, disturbed backer.

It was a terrible gaffe.  If she's reached the point where she's making gaffes of this magnitude, she ought to leave the race for her own good.

If - heaven forbind - Obama is assassinated tomorrow, after a period of mourning.... do you think the party and the nation is going to blithely turn the nomination over to the candidate who just days previous ruminated about something like that happening?

by zonk 2008-05-23 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: As soon as Obama

It's not going to happen.  Hillary doesn't wish that it would.  None of us do.  

by JustJennifer 2008-05-23 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Your comment

Chivalry is a component of misogyny.  Many of those who hate her would not do anything to her because they'd 'never hit a girl.'  

by Endymion 2008-05-23 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: (Comment Deleted)

Welcome to MyDD.  Quite a first post.  Oh, and goodbye.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-23 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

You've got to be kidding me.  What part of her talking about campaigns historically going into June did you not understand?  So what if she referenced RFK?  She was clearly talking about his campaign in JUNE 1968 not being over (and indeed still would not have been over had he not been killed).

Why don't you just use any excuse to trot out the tried and true "she must go now!"

by DC Bill 2008-05-23 01:16PM | 0 recs
I'm cringing

I'm cringing right now.

Are you though, Josh, speaking for MyDD in urging Clinton to leave the race?

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-05-23 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm cringing

No - I always only speak for myself.

by Josh Orton 2008-05-23 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm cringing

Thank you.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-05-23 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm cringing

your cringe is appreciated.

by Metrobot 2008-05-23 01:38PM | 0 recs
40th Anniverary of MLK's Assassination, too

He was killed in April of 1968, just a few months before RFK's death.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-23 01:16PM | 0 recs
(Comment Deleted)

This comment has been deleted by an administrator.

by emsprater 2008-05-23 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Seems the comment is ok...she was talking about campaigns that went into June. Which Bobby's did was [historically] accurate.

Once again, the politics of "GOTCHA" is back.

by Jaz 2008-05-23 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

You're right.  It's unacceptable for you to think my reading comprehension is that bad.  

I know exactly what she was saying in that statement. So do you.

You should be ashamed of yourself for front paging this monstrous smear.

by bellarose 2008-05-23 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

You should be ashamed of yourself for calling it a "smear".

It is what it is:  the lowest point of this campaign, and a permanent stain on Hillary's political career.

by baghdadjoe 2008-05-23 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I'm ashamed all right.

But not of Hillary Clinton.

by bellarose 2008-05-23 01:20PM | 0 recs
WTF !?!?!?

Shameless. How are Hillary supporters on this blog blaming Obama and his camapign, the media and are now attacking Josh?

What's wrong with you people?

Geez. Fuck reconciliation with the deadenders.

I don't give a shit what you think. Freepers in my eyes.

Can some REAL Clinton supporters please stand up to these trolls?

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-23 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

The funny thing is that Bill Clinton was the presumptive nominee in around March 1992 (he didn't have the requisite number of delegates at that point, but everybody else was beaten or had dropped out), so the soundbite doesn't make sense any way you look at it.

by rfahey22 2008-05-23 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I'll repost this:

On April 8th of 1992 a full two months before he would secure enough delegates to claim the nomination Bill's staff was calling him the presumptive nominee:

[Apr 8, 1992] Clinton's showing yesterday convinced many Democrats that, even with the depth of concern about his character and his ability to win in November within his own party, his nomination is now all but assured. "Bill Clinton is the presumptive nominee," declared Mark Mellman

by venician 2008-05-23 01:21PM | 0 recs
Hehe

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Taking credit for other people's hard research :-)

by Tatan 2008-05-23 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I'll repost this:

On April 8th of 1992 a full two months before he would secure enough delegates to claim the nomination Bill's staff was calling him the presumptive nominee:

[Apr 8, 1992] Clinton's showing yesterday convinced many Democrats that, even with the depth of concern about his character and his ability to win in November within his own party, his nomination is now all but assured. "Bill Clinton is the presumptive nominee," declared Mark Mellman

by venician 2008-05-23 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Post it, repost it, and do me one more favor:

Super-glue it to the foreheads of the no doubt well-meaning but historically ignorant Clinton supporters who still don't -- or simply refuse to -- get it.

I know Sen. Obama wants to go over the top officially with pledged delegates from Montana and South Dakota, but I can't take even one more week of this nonsense. Please, SDs, end it. Now.

by BenderRodriguez 2008-05-23 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

That was originally posted by Tatan.

by venician 2008-05-23 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Thanks venician.

Here is a link to the origional comment... feel free to copy it in it's entirety... it has much more supporting info.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/10/1 81112/055/36#36

by Tatan 2008-05-23 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

This is so not fair! Why is Hillary getting held accountable for her gaffe, she clearly did not mean that Obama might get assassinated.

When Obama made the "bitter" gaffe, Clinton completely refrained from bringing it up. Her surrogates didn't mention it, and she didn't use it in her campaign literature. In fact, she was so kind that it left the news cycle in a day.

We all knew what Obama said was true, and he just misspoke. And If he has any decency, he won't use this gaffe against her just like she didn't use his against him.

Oh, wait.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-23 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

phantom mojo.

by igottheblues 2008-05-23 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

No possible VP spot now. I was against it and am even more against it now. This woman is toxic. This is the third time that she has said this acording to MSNBC

by telfishbackagain 2008-05-23 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-23 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

There was no malicious intent, but that doesn't matter.  It is absolutely verboten to deliberately bring up the spectre of assassination in the context of a presidential election.  It just isn't done.  It's too sensitive an issue, and too real a threat.  

I'm sure Obama's secret service is now on special alert because of her comments.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-23 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Perhaps some people should take some history courses in college, because it seems that you all slept through them.

This topic is not taboo in American society.  

by colebiancardi 2008-05-23 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

To clarify, NO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE should ever raise the spectre of assassination during a presidential election.  That is beyond the pale.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-23 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Hillary Clinton, Evil or Moron? It's up to the viewers to decide!

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-23 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Should the Democrats nominate someone prone to gaffs?

Apparently there's a block of HRC supporters that think this behavior is OK.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-05-23 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I disagree I am an Obama supporter but THIS, this should not be the reason she stops her campaign.

yes she should apologize, and she should actually apologize to Obama!, she really really screwed up here, but I do not think this should be the reason she should drop out.

I see this EXACTLY like the bitter gaffe, Obama screwed up there she screwed up here, sure her supporters didn't give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but lets not be that way.

there are 2 weeks left, I want Hillary to go out at the END of the campaign.

she didn't mean it that way and no she should stay.

by TruthMatters 2008-05-23 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I have to agree with you.  It was a remarkably stupid and insensitive thing to say but that is all.  I'm afraid that that won't be the end of it.  

Where would it rate on the kinsley scale.

by tired of dynasties 2008-05-23 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I don't think that this is equivalent to the bitter gaffe.. not at this stage in the race.

However I agree with you that this should not be the reason she leaves the race - without having expired all her options.

Senator Clinton always manages to make my jaws drop. First Zimbabwe and now this.

by v2r1 2008-05-23 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

This comment will end her campaign because she is going to lose support now.  It really takes the sails out of the HRC campaign's energy and rhetoric over Florida and Michigan.  

In light of her statement, in light of news of Ted Kennedy, in light of the upcoming 40th anniversary of Robert Kennedy's assassination, and in light of Memorial Day, all this squabbling over the meaning of popular vote and the political in-fighting over Michigan and Florida just seem so crass and petty now.  

Now, I think democrats are just feeling the grief and sadness of having lost our charismatic, inspirational leaders, JFK, RFK, MLK, to assassination, and feeling some dread about the possibility of losing another one 40 years after the death of two of our heroes.

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-23 01:47PM | 0 recs
Thank you, Josh.

I keep watching it and I can't believe it.  I just can't believe that she'd ruin the legacy of being the first serious woman contender for president and then go out like an idiot scorned.  

Ugh.

UGH.

by lollydee 2008-05-23 01:20PM | 0 recs
It's always about Obama

Why does everyone always assume that it's about Obama?  It's not.  It's about campaigns that head into June.

by DaveOinSF 2008-05-23 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: It's always about Obama

No shit.  She never even said "Obama" but damn if this didn't become all about him.  Some people are just obsessed.

by JustJennifer 2008-05-23 01:26PM | 0 recs
(Comment Deleted)

This comment has been deleted by an administrator.

by marley 2008-05-23 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: It's always about Obama

Only uprated due to HR abuse.

by The Distillery 2008-05-23 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

This screed does not belong on the FP. Hillary was talking about campaigns going into June and nothing else. Any sane and reasonable person can see that.

But keep it up. She made a statement and it should be enough. Let's see what happens if the harping continues.

by americanincanada 2008-05-23 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

She is obviously not calling for violence. And you calling her out as if she were is not going to help your future calls for unity.

Of all people, she is not going to call for violence.

If your meme is adopted, the possibility of a unity ticket could be harmed.

She was pointing out that no one has called for others to drop out and trying not to point out the insane sexism of the media.

from http://angryforareason.blogspot.com/

* In 1980, Ted Kennedy carried his run against Jimmy Carter all the way to the convention, even though it was clear he had been routed.

* In 1976, Ronald Reagan contested the "inevitability" of Gerald Ford all the way to the convention. Few, then or since, have ever thought to criticize Reagan's failure to step aside and let Ford assume the mantle.

* Also in 1976, three candidates -- Mo Udall, Jerry Brown, and Frank Church -- ran against Jimmy Carter all the way through the final primaries, even though Carter seemed more than likely to be the eventual nominee.

* Even in 1960, Lyndon Johnson and Adlai Stevenson fought the "certain" nomination of John F. Kennedy all the way to the convention floor.

Although I think in 1988 Jackson was mercilessly slammed and ridiculed by the media for going to the convention, so I deleted that from the blog quote above. I also think that is the best comparison. As the first black man to make a widely supported, continued, competitive run for the Presidency, ridicule was heaped upon Jackson. I think that his actions opened doors for others in the future at many levels of political participation. And I think her run is doing the same.

And just as Jackson was an agent of change by his fight, so is Clinton.

What's next? She murdered Vince Foster? Come on unity bloggers, blog for unity not division.

by redwagon 2008-05-23 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

She should have used the examples you cited...but to interject the RFK assassination as an example of why she is staying in the race is just plain wrong, insensitive, naive and harmful.

by hootie4170 2008-05-23 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

The convention fights in 1976 and 1980 worked out really well, too, right?

by Wee Mama 2008-05-23 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Wow - can you imagine how these comments are going to make Obama's little girls feel?

This is just so sad - such a dark day.

by baghdadjoe 2008-05-23 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Hillary's comment is unacceptable.  Period.  You don't reference that event for several reasons; the history of violence against African Americans in this country, the recent tragic circumstance involving Ted Kennedy, and the upcoming 40th anniversary of the event being among them.  

However, the hand-wringing about this increasing the likelyhood that Obama will be assassinated needs to stop.  No one is going to take this as a call to action, and no one can legitimately claim that Hillary is hoping for or even expecting something like that to happen.  It was a very ill-advised and insensitive example to try to make her point.  

However, people do need to be held accountable for the words they choose, and her insensitivity on this should be noted and acted upon by those who have the power to hold her accountable.

by ThinkerT 2008-05-23 01:22PM | 0 recs
(Comment Deleted)

This comment has been deleted by an administrator.

by nikkid 2008-05-23 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

So I can make any comment I want and as long as I apologize for them it's ok?  

Great, then I can call you a *, or a **, or even a ***** - but wait, I apologize, it was just ill-chosen words in the heat of the moment.  That makes everything ok, right?

Bunk.  Regardless of the point she was trying to make, there are some things you just don't say or reference.  She could have made her point in a variety of other ways.  Besides, it's a horrible example of her point, anyhow - if, god forbid, Obama were assassinated like RFK, would that mean that she somehow wouldn't be considered if she were to suspend her campaign now?  Ridiculous.

I don't give one fig if she drops out or not, but this is insensitive and unacceptable language from a candidate, and no amount of justification will change that.  

by ThinkerT 2008-05-23 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Please note that my *'s above were meant as fill-in-the-blanks, not as any particular bad language towards nikkid.  My point being that you should come up with the worst thing you can think of and realize that sometimes apologizing just isn't sufficient for some things that are said, not to actually call nikkid any particular names.

Just wanted to clarify with all the sensitivity flying around in here.  :)

by ThinkerT 2008-05-23 01:46PM | 0 recs
Nope, just like Bosnia - NO APOLOGY

But here comes the spin.

Just keep saying SHE APOLOGIZED until people give up.

by Eman 2008-05-23 01:54PM | 0 recs
Nope, just like Bosnia - NO APOLOGY

But here comes the spin.

Just keep saying SHE APOLOGIZED until people give up,

but watch out for the sniper fire and the cork-screwing cargo transports.

by Eman 2008-05-23 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Wow - can you imagine how HRC's heartless assassination comments are going to make Obama's little girls feel?

This is just so sad - such a dark day.

by baghdadjoe 2008-05-23 01:23PM | 0 recs
(Comment Deleted)

This comment has been deleted by an administrator.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-23 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: are you out of your fucking mind?

I understand your sensibilities, she has been smeared so much already that anyone can speculate the worst motivations for her. If anything would motivate me to leave the party if this kind of garbage.  

by anna shane 2008-05-23 01:34PM | 0 recs
Unreal

Hillary Clinton makes a verbal gaffe by raising something verboten in political campaigns -- raising the specter of assassination -- and you get more pissed at Obama!?!?!?!

See - this is why it is simply verboten to bring up some things.

Some people get so blinded by bile, hatred, and rage - there are certainly some among them that are marginally disturbed, if not more.

What happens when someone who's been posting about Obama needing to be stopped at all costs -- and I've seen exactly those comments at places like Hillaryis44 and Noquarcer -- what happens when such a person hears this and mistakes it as a wink and nod?

Unreal...

I suppose if Obama were actually to get shot - but was only slightly injured - you'd be pissed that he stole a news cycle of sympathy, too?

by zonk 2008-05-23 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: are you out of your fucking mind?

Sod off to the GOP then, NOW

by telfishbackagain 2008-05-23 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence
no matter my frame of mind...I turn to music..
I am way to angry to respond in words..
to Sen. Clinton...
so I will respond with an angry song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eini1ivax xU&feature=related
by nogo postal 2008-05-23 01:24PM | 0 recs
ending her campaign is not enough

If she had decency she would resign from Robert F. Kennedy's seat in the United State Senate.

RFK was succeeded by Charles Goodell.

Goodell was succeeded by James L. Buckley.

Buckley was succeeded by Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

And Moynihan was succeeded by Clinton.

I do not accept that this statement is an innocent misstep that's being misunderstood.

First, if HRC is this clumsy that she says things that are profoundly offensive by accident, she has no business being the Dem nominee for POTUS. The position is too important for a person that carelessly offends.

But I don't think the statement is an accident.

HRC is deliberately invoking the idea Obama could be assassinated. This is just another way of playing the race card. HRC not only is subtly stroking the race issue, she's also legitimizing the idea of someone attempting to kill Obama b/c he's Black.

Here's HRC's implied message: Of course, I wouldn't kill Senator Obama, but I could see why some people would.

This kind of dog whistle discourse is beyond acceptable.

I call for HRC to resign from the United States Senate.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-05-23 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: ending her campaign is not enough

Is this a snark or are you serious.

david

by giusd 2008-05-23 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I'm scared out of my mind. Is she planning to kill Obama???

by MissVA 2008-05-23 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

You can't be serious.  Of course she isn't.  She has spent most of her adult life in the spotlight.. in high risk security situations.  She is a MOTHER for pete's sake.  She understands better than anyone the risks they all take each and every day.  

by JustJennifer 2008-05-23 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I guess we won't know until she tries.

by Metrobot 2008-05-23 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

You are a fool.

by Jim J 2008-05-23 02:10PM | 0 recs
Obama guy here...

I don't think she meant it the way you're reading it.  She just meant that Kennedy hadn't wrapped it up by then, it's a point of placing the date of June into the campaign, not in any way saying she thinks Obama will get hurt.  At least that's how I see it.

Now, I'm not a big fan of hers for other reasons, and think it's best if she gracefully exits, but that's a story for another day and another thread.

Peace.

by SpanishFly 2008-05-23 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama guy here...

That's exactly what she meant.

They will probably hide your comment now, like they've been hiding mine in this thread.  

by bellarose 2008-05-23 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama guy here...

Your reasonable assessment is very welcome.  Thank you.

by Montague 2008-05-23 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama guy here...

Fly, I think you missed his point.  It wasn't about Obama getting hurt, it was that some things are unacceptable to mention as examples given the situation regardless of the point you're trying to make.  Referencing the assassination of RFK at a time where there is legitimate concern about the first serious AA presidential candidate being a target of attack and Ted Kennedy suffering health issues is seriously ill-advised at best, and incredibly insensitive and hurtful at worst.

by ThinkerT 2008-05-23 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama guy here...

I agree, she shouldn't have said what she said.  It was a bad reference to use.  She screwed up and it was insentitive.  But I think it was accidentally insensitive.  I seriously hope it was just a bust.  I'm not one to give her the benefit of the doubt very often but in this case, I will.

by SpanishFly 2008-05-23 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama guy here...

I'm with you on this. The fact that she appologizes to the Kennedys makes it even more apparent. To imply something similar could happen to Obama is not even in her mind it seems to me.

by KttG 2008-05-23 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I am just getting SICK of the Obama campaign. They would whine about racism and now, violence,  where there is none.  

The Obama campaign is politics-as-usual. Although so subtle, it is so disgusting and condescending.

by pleaseno 2008-05-23 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

The Obama campaign has said her remarks were "unfortunate" and "have no place" in this contest...How are they whining about violence.  People, average Americans, who were alive when this tragic event occured are pissed off because she brought this up.  Get your facts straight.

by hootie4170 2008-05-23 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

stupid. read the title of this thread.

by pleaseno 2008-05-23 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

The Obama campaign has said almost nothing about this.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-23 01:50PM | 0 recs
Good lord

Yeah...

You're pissed at Obama because what... he had the gall to exist, run for president, and be on track to win it... and by doing so, put Hillary Clinton in a position where she ruminates on his possible assassination?

Gimme a break.

The reason comments like this are verboten is because there are plenty of deranged, hyper-emotional, hate-blinded supporters that might take something like this the wrong way.

I'm getting close to concerned some of them might be in thread.

Pissed at Obama because Hillary said something outrageously stupid.

Geez.

You haven't jumped the shark, you've jumped a bunch of sharks lined up like buses.

by zonk 2008-05-23 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

This is the single most disgusting smear campaign I've witnessed during this Primary.

Go ahead and hide my comments, again.  You should be ashamed of yourselves.

This goes too, too far!!  I will never forgive or forget about this vile, vile tactic to get her out of this race.

There will be no unity.

by bellarose 2008-05-23 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

It's freakin' unbelievable, isn't it?  My jaw just about dropped.

by Montague 2008-05-23 01:28PM | 0 recs
Excuuuuuuuuuuse me?

Only those who want to jump to conclusions like that will and do.  It didn't even occur to me that there was any such nefarious meaning in her words, perhaps because I don't go looking for nastiness in either candidate.  I mean, it's been all across punditry that Hillary is expected to bow out when one man after another ran for the nomination right up to the convention.  

by Montague 2008-05-23 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

What drama.  Are you going to update your front-page story with Clinton's statement of clarification?  You can find it in this comments thread.

by TexasDarlin 2008-05-23 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Clinton "clarified" nothing.  Her non-apology only worsened the offense.

They say lying damages the soul.  It appears now that her constant lying has left her completely soulless.

by baghdadjoe 2008-05-23 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Get out racist.... why are you still here?

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-23 01:43PM | 0 recs
Statement of clarification???

At least you used an appropriate term for the statement, unlike others here who keep incorrectly labeling her "clarification" as an apology.

Part of the fault with Senator Clinton is that she has yet to apologize for anything.  

Even the blatant fabrications of Bosnia.  She "explained," "regretted," and even spun it as being over-tired, but she never, ever apologized.

Then a week later when pressed, she was able to claim she had already apologized, as her spinners are claiming on this site right now.

Disengenuous, bordering upon more pure fabrication.  She makes it worse rather than better.

by Eman 2008-05-23 02:15PM | 0 recs
false outrage

only an obama supporter can read this text and infer that clinton is asking for obama to be assasinated.

take your outrage somewhere else.

by njsketch 2008-05-23 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: false outrage

But you can see why this is bad, I hope.  She's describing why she should stay in the race and says that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June.  Intentional or not, it's a horrible thing to imply.  

by Bargeron 2008-05-23 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I'm thinking the ensuing hysteria to this remark must be proof positive that thw Obama forces are scared to death that they cannot win with Clinton in the race. Why else for this reaction?

by glitterannebegay 2008-05-23 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

We know he can win, he already has.  We're scared that he won't live long enough for his win to matter.

by Endymion 2008-05-23 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

You shouldn't be scared. He has Secret Service protection and there's no evidence of any threats on his life that are exceptional. If Bill Clinton can survive with GOP senators directly threatening him, then Obama's safe.

by glitterannebegay 2008-05-23 02:28PM | 0 recs
Grow A Pair

Dude, that is all in YOUR head.  I saw the language and thought she was just recounting history.

You sound like a big ol baby.  But, why should I be surprised with the Obamabots.

by BRockNYC 2008-05-23 01:30PM | 0 recs
Conclusions based on nothing

She just referred to an event that happened in June during an ongoing primary, showing that primaries have historically gone on longer than they have now.

She could have referred to her mother working at during World War II, another awful event.  This is preposterous that it means anything else.

This is an example of twisting something Clinton has said and making it something it isn't, something sinister.

by edonyoung 2008-05-23 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Conclusions based on nothing

yeah, because no-one ever twists anything obama says out of context.

oh wait....

that being said I think she really didn't mean it that way.

But since when did reality and intention find their way into a political campaign.

by tired of dynasties 2008-05-23 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

She insinuated this on purpose. Hillary Clinton does not make mistakes like this. Not think quickly on her feet? Have you ever seen her in a debate? She's the quickest person on her feet I've ever seen. Well, hopefully she just destroyed her chances of being a VP.

by MissVA 2008-05-23 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

as if anyone would want to be on the ticket with obama, a sure loser if there ever was one

by Ignored and Disgusted 2008-05-23 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

as if anyone would want to be on the ticket with obama, a sure loser if there ever was one

by Ignored and Disgusted 2008-05-23 02:15PM | 0 recs
People Like Drama III

I'm thinking the ensuing hysteria to this remark must be proof positive that thw Obama forces are scared to death that they cannot win with Clinton in the race. Why else this reaction?

by glitterannebegay 2008-05-23 01:31PM | 0 recs
We have won...

that's why this is so upsetting.  Not b/c we're fearful of him losing, but we're fearful of someone who we have put so much hope in being shot.

by nklein 2008-05-23 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: People Like Drama III

the reaction comes because Hillary invoked Kennedy's assassination while reciting her rationale for staying in the race.  

Anything can happen, her supporters are fond of saying.  

I'm afraid it just did.   Lights out.  

by Bargeron 2008-05-23 01:36PM | 0 recs
She has provided a clarification...

I don't believe it justifies her comments, but she deserves to be heard on this.

by nklein 2008-05-23 01:32PM | 0 recs
She Apologized

All she was doing was giving examples of primaries that went into June. But when she realized that so many people were offended with the statement she quickly apologized.

I don't understand why Obama supporters are so persuaded by the Republicans back in the 1990s that Clinton is a bitch, witch and everything that is evil, worse than any Republican.

by Zzyzzy 2008-05-23 01:32PM | 0 recs
Funny that

I was never persuaded by the Republicans. In fact when she announced her run for the presidency I was looking forward to her as the president.

What came out during the campaign from her own mouth   and from her campaign has caused me to reevaluate my support for her.

by v2r1 2008-05-23 01:52PM | 0 recs
Despicable...

She is embarrassing herself and the party.  What an incredibly stupid comment, if nothing else.  

by Seeking Cincinnatus 2008-05-23 01:32PM | 0 recs
Take this diary down Josh

if you think Obama has it wrapped up already, who the heck cares what Hillary Clinton says?  All you are doing is fanning the flames.

Besides, Axelrod and Susan Rice just stated that they believed she didn't mean it in that way.

by Blazers Edge 2008-05-23 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

by Seeking Cincinnatus 2008-05-23 01:32PM | 0 recs
Please read the names of those accusing

Obama supporters of propagating a smear.

Are you people for real?

I really don't give a rats ass who you vote for.

I'm not intereseted in your vote.

These are the same people who felt insulted when Obama used the word "bitter".

How dare he say people are "bitter" ?!?!?!

It's ok to use the words assassinate though. It's a smear to respond to this outrageous statement.

The  people who spread the most baseless rumors and accusations are OUTRAGED at the outrage. I pity you folks.

You don't have a clue.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-23 01:32PM | 0 recs
Right, because it's so the same thing

I didn't care about the "bitter" comment, but at least that was referring to people who will actually vote in the upcoming election.  Hillary's comment referred to a historical event that neither mentioned present-day voters nor even alluded to Obama.  There is no comparison between the two.  To see her comment as suggesting an assassination attempt on Obama suggests that you already have that fear in your mind and would therefore be quick to condemn anything that seemed to hint of it.

by wilder 2008-05-23 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

No one jumped on the AA supporters who threatened violence in the streets if Obama didn't get the nomination.  Funny how selective the outrage is among Obama supporters.

But hey, keep it up.  Keep pushing Hillary supporters away.  Do you think we will forget in November?  The longer the list of insults gets, the longer the memories will live.

by badu 2008-05-23 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Buh bye!

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-23 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

As other news organizations are tirelessly pointing out, there were MANY other primaries that lasted until June.

To bring up the RFK one is completely fucking uncalled for.

There are no excuses.

I truly don't want her anywhere near the White House except down the street on Capitol Hill.  Send Bill instead.

Again, there are no excuses for this.

Many, many other primaries last until June.

by AlexScott 2008-05-23 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Wow, look at all the people complaining about twisting words that are twisting Josh's words!  He never says anything about this increasing the likelyhood of violence against Obama - all he says is "There is no excuse for flippantly referencing assassination".  It is horribly insensitive at best, given the Ted Kennedy situation and the history of violence against AA's.  

No one is suggesting that Hillary is advocating or hoping for violence against Obama, so stop with your own fake outrage.

by ThinkerT 2008-05-23 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

BTW--Wasn't RFK's 1968 contest against Humphrey as much as McCarty?

by wasder 2008-05-23 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

so when the nytimes did that article a few months ago about a hushed concern around obama (citing past leaders who have been assasinated...and the times assuming that he's such a messiah), the outrage was where?

she was obviously referencing primaries that went on through june. even if she left out the assasination part, obama's supporters and campaign would have made it look like she inferred it. whatever.

by darwinism 2008-05-23 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I understood Hillary to imply that she's staying in the race to capture the nomination in the event that something tragic happens to Obama. I can see she was trying to say that anything can happen before the convention, but that was an appallingly bad and hurtful way of saying it. And her apology is to the Kennedys, as well it should be, but she makes no apology to Obama?

This is bad on three levels:

  • She makes it look like she is so cynical that she is staying in the race to profit from a potential tragic event.
  • She flippantly brings up Bobby Kennedy's death when Teddy Kennedy is seriously ill.
  • She has made this comment at least once before, so she can't downplay it by saying that it was an off-the-cuff remark.

Her remarks were way out of line. This is a very unfortunate way for her campaign to come to an end.

by sitesatlas 2008-05-23 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Yeah, you basically said what i said, but better and quicker.

by obscurant 2008-05-23 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Josh, I agree.  I don't think she had a malicious intent, but it's inexcusable to raise the subject of assassination in this context.  A national figure must be very careful with making such statements, on a national stage, with untold numbers of possibly disturbed people listening...I just think it's incredibly careless.

It's also incredibly thoughtless to the Kennedy family, at this moment.

Again, even with the best of intentions, HRC chose her words horribly.  She apologized, but I agree that she should bow out.

by obscurant 2008-05-23 01:40PM | 0 recs
Cool Out, Folks

People, simmer down.  Frankly this contest is already over, the only thing left is to discover what depths of insanity both sides can reach before the nomination is officially declared over.  Voicing OUTRAGE (TM) at this point does nothing to bring the party together to help us defeat McCain.  The race will end in about two weeks and then we all have to figure out how to reconcile - stuff like this just makes that more difficult.

Take a breath and think about the situation pragmatically.

by rfahey22 2008-05-23 01:40PM | 0 recs
Her apology

5/23/2008
Statement from Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton issued the following statement today in Brandon, SD:
"Earlier today I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June 1992 and 1968 and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That's a historic fact. The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that, whatsoever. My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to, and I'm honored to hold Senator Kennedy's seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family."

She was referencing past primary seasons reminding voters that unexpected things can happen.   Your insinuations are truly irrational about her advocating violence.

Before the primary season even began, Randi Rhodes was taking a poll from her listeners, especially from the AA community.  Most of those who called in were definitely concerned about Obama's safety if he ran.  About 8 out 10 AA callers said they did not want him to run because of their fear about a possible assassination attempt (perish the thought).  It was a concern of many and it may be a current concern.  It is a horrible thought that it could ever happen.  

Both candidates have misspoke on numerous occasions (Obama's reference to Bataan Death  march---horrible, insulting reference for the survivors of that, along with many of his supporters advocating Hillary's demise---Keith Olbermann's taking her into a room and having only him come out---very, very violent---and Hillary's Bosnia misstatements, etc.)----but let's not go there about her insinuating violence.   Please get real.

by truthseeker2 2008-05-23 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Her apology

In other words, Clinton was saying she should stay in the race because Obama, son, husband and father of two, could be murdererd by June... after all it happened to Robert Kennedy in June following the assassination of his brother John F. Kennedy and incidentally, the last remaining of these brothers, Edward, was days ago diagnose with brain cancer so the family is terribly, terribly burdened now which is more proof you just never know what might happen by June... and IF for any reason anybody found any of that offensive (or sickening) Hillary is sorry.

by grasshopper 2008-05-23 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Her apology

In other words, Clinton was saying she should stay in the race because Obama, husband and father of two, could be murdered by June... after all it happened to Robert Kennedy in June following the assassination of his brother John F. Kennedy and incidentally, the last remaining of these brothers, Edward, was days ago diagnosed with brain cancer so the family is terribly, terribly burdened now which is more proof you just never know what might happen by June... and IF for any reason anybody found any of that offensive (or sickening) Hillary is sorry.

by grasshopper 2008-05-23 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Like this:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/n orthfulton/stories/2008/05/21/89031625_P icture_6.html

Funny, how the editorial board that asked her why they were trying to force her out thought it was nothing.

Of course, then the kool aid drinkers got ahold of the comment to produce the outrage.

Much ado about hate as usual.

Get a grip man.

by gotalife 2008-05-23 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Kool Aid drinkers?

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-23 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

who gives a shit whether you think she should go? There are millions still voting for her. I think you should get a refund from your college for being so obtuse. She is talking about the calender.

by rocky 2008-05-23 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Regardless of lack of ill intent, this is certainly her Dean Scream, but worse.  She is now probably clearly out of the running for VP or anything else.

by rf7777 2008-05-23 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I get what Hillary was saying, and I know it wasn't meant the way it came out.  She was talking about races going into June, I get that.

Unfortunately, in a race like this, there are some things you just can't say.  And it's not just WHAT you say, but how it is going to be perceived/interpreted/misinterpreted.  We've already seen a lot of that here - I can't believe anyone in their right mind really thinks she was advocating violence in any way.  That's just not the kind of person she is.  

That said, she has unfortunately been escalating her historical parallels over the last few days (2000 recount, Civil Rights struggle, Zimbabwe, etc) and I think things just got out of hand here.  You just cannot raise the spectre of assassination  in the context of a presidential campaign when the nominee is black.  You just can't.  It was a stupid, stupid thing to say and I'm sure she deeply regrets it.

I think it will blow over - but I do think it will torpedo her chances to be VP.  This thing is going to be pretty widely disseminated through the mainstream media, and some of those supers who have been wavering are probably going to make up their minds that the potential of her doing damage to Democratic chances in November is getting bigger every day.  And it gives Obama a good excuse not to put her on the ticket.

by travelerkaty 2008-05-23 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

for those who don't think she jumped on the "bitter" misinterpretation...

by eeruck01 2008-05-23 01:47PM | 0 recs
If Obama Supporters

are saying that Clinton hopes that Obama should be shot they should apologize. Because they hate Clinton so much they are overly sensative to everything she says and ignore the many sexist comments she receives. I am a hard core progressive democrat. But sometimes the Obama supporters make me think about voting for John McCain. I just don't like the self-righteous attitude that so many Obama supporters have. I feel like I'm in 1988 talking to Pat Robertson supporters, except they hold different ideologies.

I always have to remind myself that Obama is not the Obama supporters. But as time passes, I'm not sure that reminder is going to work anymore.

by Zzyzzy 2008-05-23 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: If Obama Supporters

I for one am not saying that she was calling for,is hoping for,or expects violence.  It simply was a very unfortunate thing to say.  

I'm glad she apologized to the kennedy's but I think an apology to obama is deserved.  

I know she didn't mean it that way,at least as far as I know.

by tired of dynasties 2008-05-23 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: If Obama Supporters

I agree that anyone who says Clinton is hoping for assassination needs to apologize.  In fact, I'm not even sure if apology is enough.    

However, Sen. Clinton needs to apologize for bringing up assassination.  Such comments simply do not have a place in acceptable discourse.  

And to equate what Sen. Clinton herself says with the comments by some extreme Obama supporters is, I think, a false equivalence.  Sen. Obama has never said anything approaching this about Sen. Clinton, and we both know that there are unhinged folks who hate her the way some unhinged folks hate him.

Also, on the Obama supporters stuff, I'm sure I've been equally angered by what Clinton supporters have said ("I'm going to call a spade a spade" being a front-page post at No Quarter being a primary example) as well as what the Clintons themselves have said (Bill calling Obama supporters naive, for example).  But I certainly wouldn't not vote for the Democrat b/c their supporters said me stuff to me or about my candidate on the internet.  Or even that they personally said that stuff.  

Issues, not personalities, is what I believe to be more important.    

by bosdcla14 2008-05-23 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: If Obama Supporters

it's more honorable to admit the size of the gaffe, say it was indeed poorly worded, and hope it blows over soon. This kind of deflective defense just makes it worse.

by Metrobot 2008-05-23 02:01PM | 0 recs
I wonder what some..

....Clinton supporters would have done if she was in the lead in late May, and Obama said well the reason I'm staying in the race is because no one has enough delegates yet, her husband stayed in until June, and remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June of his primary run...so anything could happen.

There would be soooooo much outrage, diaries out the ass, and Obama would, and rightfully so, asked to withdraw from the race.

Hypocrisy at it's finest

by hootie4170 2008-05-23 01:49PM | 0 recs
I've had it.

This is going over the edge. We've heard for years from the right-wing, over 16 years, that people who happened to have died were because of the Clintons. Vince Foster, Ron Brown, that whole "body count," and now, from our supposed own, THIS? She is NOT intending to kill Obama. She just got taken out of context. Seeing people even here insinuate that she is going to have him killed is deserving of being banned. I would initially say all those here who are insinuating another smear should have their comments hidden, or banned, but instead, I say this diary needs to be deleted. I will not stand, and I hope others here will not, to hear such Democrats be smeared as murderers, or potential murderers. There needs to be a cap on this anti-Clintons diaries and comments. It starts at this diary.

by DiamondJay 2008-05-23 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: I've had it.

Where were you when Obama said his "bitter" comments were taken out of context and poorly worded??  Oh, that's right jumping on every diary you could find to smear him into oblivion...Such hypocrisy!

by hootie4170 2008-05-23 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I've had it.

because Obama directly insulted voters. Hillary just made a point about our nominating process.

by DiamondJay 2008-05-23 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: I've had it.

and his words were poorly chosen as he tried to explain...but you wouldn't buy it...but when Clinton poorly choses her words you expect people to give her/you the benefit of the doubt?  You had/have the chance to accept Obama's explanation, and you did not...Why is it different when it involves Clinton misspeaks?

by hootie4170 2008-05-23 02:40PM | 0 recs
Her statement is as clear as possible and if you

read into it ANYTHING else then that she is trying to give some historical reference that previous primaries did go WELL into June (1960, 1968, 1972, 1984, 1992 and so forth), you are just dishonest and trying to spin it and milk it for just cheap cheap cheap political gain.

Those who do that are very twisted and we don't want  you in our campaign and we don't want you supporting Senator Obama and you do not deserve supporting Senator Obama. In fact, i am calling pure nasty republicans who are trying to exploit perfect innocent remarks and into us against each other.

Please, we need to be better than this. Our campaign is better than turning some innocent remarks into something that she didn't mean. Yes, i support Obama and Yes i am telling the Obama supporters to be honest and stop THIS BULLSHIT.

by likelihood zero 2008-05-23 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I have to agree.  This was a clinker of the first magnitude.  I've been one to slam Obama supporters who pile onto Hillary and mock her supporters (and I still think I was right) but with this she spun off into a whole new dimension of appalling stupidity.

Hillary seems to have forgotten how you get and keep political power - first and foremost you have to persuade people you are right and let them develop and keep confidence in you and your judgment and motivation.  Up until she made this comparison, you could squint and see how she might be persisting so all the states get a chance to make their votes count and give her the benefit of the doubt.  It just got exponentially more difficult to do that, however.

by beerwulf 2008-05-23 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

ok, obviously she didn't mean to imply that Obama would be or should be killed. Obviously she didn't mean to promote that possibility.

However, this was a massively stupid and careless thing to say and she should apologize forthrightly. This deserves more than the typical "I apologize if people were offended" thing which she's done.

by vinc 2008-05-23 01:53PM | 0 recs
She Is Not Ready

Her reputation was one of inevitability because she was so politically savvy, she had experience with diplomacy, she was a campaign genius, etc.

Whether she meant to plant the seeds of such horror in some unbalanced mind, or whether she simply meant to point to an instance in the past where the candidate had not been locked in by as late as June---doesn't matter.

Either way you look at it, this is a monumental display of extremely poor judgment.

She has shown why she is not ready to be President.  She has shown that she never was ready to be President.  

Yes, she looks truly remorseful in her apology statement.  That's how somebody looks when they know they've just sustained a self-inflicted mortal wound.

by baghdadjoe 2008-05-23 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

calm down. Can't understand why obama supporters got such excited.

by peartree 2008-05-23 01:56PM | 0 recs
Maybe now you Hillary backers will understand

Hillary is in this for one reason, and one reason only: Hillary Clinton. She doesn't care WHAT she has to do to win. There's been plenty of examples of this during the campaign, and now .... this!

"Look. Everyone thought Bobby Kennedy was about to wrap it up. Humphrey could have just given up and dropped out. But then look what happened. See... you never know what's gonna happen."

Hillary cares about Hillary.... period.

by ratmach 2008-05-23 01:56PM | 0 recs
you guys are pathetic

Primary contests more often go long than short. The truncated schedule is a post-1980's effort. Yes, we Democrats suffer from a tragic history of assassinated leaders. Yes, Clinton made the mistake of referring to one of our leaders who was assassinated. Those who extrapolate that reference into wild accusations, including Obama spokesman Bill Burton, are a disgrace to the Democratic party.

by souvarine 2008-05-23 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: you guys are pathetic

All burton said was that such comments had no place in the campaign.  It's not as if he made a commercial quoting her.  She didn't mean it the way it came across,I get that.

But she did say it.  And it is EASILY misinterpreted.

And it is'nt Obama supporters spreading the meme.  Unless youtube came out for obama and I missed it.

by tired of dynasties 2008-05-23 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: you guys are pathetic

Sure, it was a dumb thing to say and she has apologized. Sometimes politicians say dumb things.

The comment below mine is an example. Obama compared the campaign to the Bataan death march:

For those of you who are just weary of the primary, and feeling kind of ground down or that it's like a Bataan death march, I just want everybody to know that the future is bright,

An uncle of mine died on the Bataan death march, my wife's grandfather died on the Bataan death march. I objected to his mistake at the time, but I didn't make wild accusations about how he disrespected my relatives sacrifice or should withdraw from the race. I did not see the Clinton campaign fan those flames, and I have not seen an apology from Obama.

This manufactured outrage is deeply divisive to the Democratic party, and Obama is responsible for fanning the flames.

by souvarine 2008-05-23 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: you guys are pathetic

what precisely has OBAMA done to fan the flames?

 

by tired of dynasties 2008-05-24 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Yes.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-05-23 01:58PM | 0 recs
she has given everything to you

to you who are her supporters. She has given all she can possibly give. Yet you continue to demand she give more and more, with no end in sight. Go, fight, go, fight. Don't stop. We need you to win. All our hopes and dreams rest upon your victory Hillary.

You are running her into the ground. When will you give her a chance to stop?

by Mojo Risen 2008-05-23 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: How Old Are You, Josh ?

Because I believe that she was thinking - June.

The reason I remember June of 1968 is because school was ready to get out and Bobby Kennedy was assassinated.  It was association and association only.

Funny, though, nothing the Clintons can say is right.
Nothing the Obamas say is wrong.

Good fucking gawd -
Obama compared the lengthy nomination campaign to the Bataan Death March
and there was hardly a peep.

Now THAT was intentional.

I.AM.FUCKING.SICK.OF.ALL.OF.IT.

by johnnygunn 2008-05-23 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: How Old Are You, Josh ?

You're right, I think, that she was thinking of the timeline, and just referring to the uncertainties of the nomination process. For those too young to remember, it wasn't at all unusual, in the days before the current front-loaded calendar, for the nomination process to go on into the summer. Conventions were a bit earlier, so there was still adequate time for the party to heal and come together behind the nominee for the November general election.

The nomination process has changed greatly in the years since 1968 (thankfully); under the current rules, which award delegates for primary victories, Gene McCarthy probably would have emerged as the party's nominee after Kennedy's death. In any case, the nomination certainly wasn't settled until after June.

by jeffdavis 2008-05-23 02:24PM | 0 recs
For the crowd who tried to crucify Obama

over the word "bitter" to now be calling for the dismissal of Hillary's "assassination" remark  is the height of delicious hypocrisy.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-23 02:05PM | 0 recs
This is not the first time she's said this
My apologies if someone already posted this, but for some reason I can't get all the comments to open up.

March 6, 2008

Not only that, but Bill wrapped up his nomination at the end of March or April, 1992 - Not June.

by DemsRising 2008-05-23 02:06PM | 0 recs
PUHLEEZE

Seriously Josh? Seriously?  No, seriously?   Such a ridiculous argument doesn't even deserve comment.  Other than, well- seriously Josh?  Wow, this whole Obama victim crap has worn super thin.  No wonder he's been losing states left and right.  

by easyE 2008-05-23 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: PUHLEEZE

Actually, just Right.  As in, not Left.  Get it?  Get it?

by Endymion 2008-05-23 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Seems to me the time-line is what inspired her remark - and she's accurate. The California primary did take place in June both in 1968, when Bobby Kennedy was killed after his victory, and in 1992, when Bill won it and finally clinched the nomination. She was alluding to the uncertainties of the process, and nothing more.

All you guys who are fainting over this should lay in a store of smelling salts; you're going to need them for the GE.

by jeffdavis 2008-05-23 02:11PM | 0 recs
No wonder he's been losing states left and right.

Like NC and OR?

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-23 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Congratulations Obama supporters.  Unity was around the corner but you choose to destroy that with despicable diaries like this.  I was just about to throw my support behind Obama, and you guys start another smear campaign against Hillary.  Fuck this, I've had it with this party.  I do not care if Obama is better for this country, but I will not be voting for him in November.  I do not want to be united with people like you.

by musicpvm 2008-05-23 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

oh i so believe you.

by Metrobot 2008-05-23 02:17PM | 0 recs
I was just about to throw my support behind Obama

Good one. But you'll no doubt consider the ramfications of a third Bush term by November and vote accordingly.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-23 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Oh come on, be reasonable!!  It's not the Obama people that is peddling this.  The MSM has caught wind of it and going wild.  This is like when they got hold of Rev. Wright.  HRC made a very very dumb judgement when she invokes RFK reference and the MSM is crucifying her right now.  Don't blame Obama.  Axelrod was nothing but gracious on Hardball tonight.  

by sbbonerad 2008-05-23 04:26PM | 0 recs
Amen

I've been saying this for months. It's like they think they can win without us. I can't wait to hear all of them crying when McCain whips his ass worse than Bush did Kerry in the fall. Oh and I will be one of those voting for McCain. At least he has some principles.

by hwebb54 2008-05-23 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Face it, folks, she jumped the shark this time.  Spin it how you like but in the reality-based community such a comment in the context of her current position in the primary campaign is going to hurt her, and badly.

I was shocked the first time she made such a reference but nobody seemed to notice back then.  It certainly has grabbed everybody's attention this time and rightly so.  As errors of judgement go, which I accept this may well be, it is a whopper.

Can you imagine her on the ticket with Obama after this?  Really?

by Shaun Appleby 2008-05-23 02:15PM | 0 recs
death march

Oh come on, Shaun. You were here for Obama's Bataan death march comment in late March. I objected, of course, but did you see me saying that he had "jumped the shark" over that error in judgment?

As I mention above an uncle of mine died on the Bataan death march, my wife's grandfather died on the Bataan death march, but I don't believe in crucifying Democratic politicians when they make mistakes. No matter how strongly I oppose them.

by souvarine 2008-05-23 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: death march

Well, with all due respect to your relatives I don't see those two comments of the same magnitude on the Richter scale.  I am an unusually tuned-in person around military history and the honour of the fallen, have visited Allied military gravesites in Europe and elsewhere with genuine reverence and humility.  But I use historical analogies like 'Stalingrad' and  'Gallipoli' in political contexts without shame.  Even my thirteen-year old was taken aback by Hillary's comment today.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-05-23 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: death march

How very nice of you to be oh so reverent to the fallen and tour their graves with such humility. The men I knew who survived that march and that war would not view your flippancy with any favor.

It deeply disgusts me to see you and your compatriots on this thread exploit the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy for political gain. I hope your thirteen year old learns what it means to have respect for the dead from someone who knows not to exploit them.

by souvarine 2008-05-23 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: death march

That's about as self-righteous and insensitive a post as I have seen from you, Souvarine.  We were doing much better arguing the pros and cons of health care, so long ago.  If you can't see why the remark Hillary made is perceived as playing into the negative perceptions of her which have reinforced by her own actions in the course of this campaign what more can be said?  Still, we have had some respectful discussions in the past and for that I am grateful.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-05-23 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: death march

Sorry Shaun, insensitive is too weak a word for someone who uses RFK's assassination to concern troll. In any community, reality-based or otherwise.

by souvarine 2008-05-23 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: death march

Yeah, whatever...  It was your candidate who mentioned it, in her typically calculating, cynical, dog-whistle way.  Sorry, Souvarine, she jumped the shark and you're headed that way yourself.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-05-23 08:42PM | 0 recs
This will play into Hillary's victim meme.

But it is the final stake in the heart of her death march campaign. Look for Obama to go over the top on Monday as SDs flood from Hillary.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-23 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: This will play into Hillary's victim meme.

so, death march (and we know where that tidbit came from) is acceptable?  wow

by colebiancardi 2008-05-23 02:22PM | 0 recs
I thought this was ridiculous

When I read it on Salon.  And now I think it's even more ridiculous.  No one in their right mind could possibly believe that Hillary carelessly - let alone deliberately - invited harm to come to Barack.  

I mean, if you want to talk about "The Politics of Violence" in the context of this campaign, Hillary's supporters can refer you to any number of comments by pundits where they use violent metaphors to describe how she should be made to leave the race - those are worthy of outrage.

This?  Well, if this is worthy of it, then this concern for the candidate's well being is pretty damn selective.

by Drew 2008-05-23 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: I thought this was ridiculous

There's a difference between using violent metaphors and saying "One of the reasons I'm staying in this race is in case my opponent is assassinated".

It's not malicious, but it's incredibly tactless and crude.

by ChrisKaty 2008-05-23 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

So Samantha Power was totally right...

WOW.

by baghdadjoe 2008-05-23 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I wonder if anybody's tried to get a comment from her?

by Endymion 2008-05-23 02:45PM | 0 recs
It just shows

that Hillary will say anything without regard for the harm it might cause others.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-23 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Having seen the video I think it was thoughtless rather than sinister, but I think it's too glib to say "she was just listing other primaries that went on past May". By saying "we all remember that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June" rahter than simply "the 1968 race also dragged on into June" she really does lay herself wide open to the interpretation that she's staying in the race because she thinks Obama might be assassinated. Her apology was pretty weird too - it seemed to be addressed just to the Kennedy family; I'd have thought she might have wanted to apologise to her opponent as well. To be charitable, I'd say she looked very tired, but it's still a horrible think to say.

by al1 2008-05-23 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

So, let's forget the assassination reference, it's causing so much strife.  Let's just all calm down and examine the rest of the statement for validity and context and think happy thoughts as best we can.  In 1968, the primary had been going on for just over two and a half months by the start of June.  In 1992, the Iowa caucuses were uncontested, and the primary season again began in New Hampshire, so that the primaries had been running for just under three and a half months at the start of June.  This year, Iowa was relevant, meaning that the start of June will be just shy of the five month mark.  So: apples to oranges?

by Endymion 2008-05-23 02:43PM | 0 recs
Let's ask Michelle Obama

One quick question, Josh. When Senator Durbin called for early secret service protection for Senator Obama, was he dogwhistling? Was he sending a signal out to all those racist and even just fucked in the head Americans that it was open season on Democratic candidates, or just Senator Obama? I think Michelle Obama's actual take on it is so much more honest : Refresh your mind. She doesn't need a reason to stoke any transparent anti-Hillary hatred with a call to pull out of the race.

Can't wipe this off your shoe now through "clarifying". Well, based on your original statement I'm already so outraged my moral indignation is so great your career as an American left wing blogosphere poster is, regrettably but non-negotiably, over. I've seen your posts before and you are obviously an intelligent Democrat, so your initial post even before your "Update" is all I had to read to know that your real intent was to degrade the Democratic Party in the eyes of all sentient beings who recoil at this type of political warfare. I don't even know you except by your otherwise excellent posts, but just like that something comes along and changes everything. What's the historical precedent for that,Josh?

by Jeter 2008-05-23 02:47PM | 0 recs
How About

The Politics of Hysterical Overreaction.

For Christ's sake, it was an obvious blooper.  Do you have ANY IDEA how hard she has been going at it for the last 6 months?

by Trickster 2008-05-23 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: How About

Its not just this. She has been equating a procedural squabble over MI and FL with Jim Crow era discrimionation???

by Pravin 2008-05-23 03:33PM | 0 recs
Procedural squabble my ass

Right to participate in selecting the next President of the United States in the closest and most hotly-contest primary election in history is a procedural squabble???

?????

Good God.  I'm guessing you're involved in a closed communication loop, possibly internet-based.  Look elsewhere.  Get some reality.

by Trickster 2008-05-23 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Procedural squabble my ass

It is a procedural squabble. Jim Crow era discrimination wasnt even close to what is going on. It is not some kind of deliberate thing going on because of some hatred for FL and MI residents and their loss of votes is because of that. It is purely procedural politics. The FL and MI voters are getting victimized as collateral damage. Big diffference. And if Hillary is interested in MI voters being disenfranchised, is she really worried about the voters that stayed home because of everyone saying the elections wouldnt really count anyway?

by Pravin 2008-05-24 07:04AM | 0 recs
"Gee Ted, sorry to hear you're dying..

and all.. but I gotta stay in this thing in case someone shoots Obama...

...like they did your brother."

Has she lost her freakin' mind?

by baghdadjoe 2008-05-23 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: "Gee Ted, sorry to hear you're dying..

Please stop posting duplicate posts. Also, your opinion and what you would see come of this are extremely clear to anyone reading this diary. How bout you stop the spamming,BJoe?

by Jeter 2008-05-23 03:18PM | 0 recs
Update... disqualifying?

Now you decide you are the arbiter of who gets disqualified?  Excuse me, only the voters have the right to disqualify someone.

This diary is just fucking absurd.

by Montague 2008-05-23 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Hillary is getting desperate.
But she must run. I always felt that Obama people had no right to ask her to quit. I am a strong supporter of people's right to run. The only thing people should ask her to do in the name of party unity is not to hit below the belt too many times at this final stage of the campaign when memories are still fresh in voters minds. Other than that, Obama can only become a better canddiate as he finetunes his answers to Hillary's challenges on different topics. I really believe that Obama has become a better candidate already.

But hillary is testing my patience.
Someone should have told Hillary that Obama has repeatedly publicly supported her desire to keep campaigning. There is a way to end this legally. Dean has every right to ask the superdelegates to come out now and declare their preferences. End the suspense by June 3 and Hillary has nothing to complain about and all she can do is last minute desperate attempts to attempt to change superdelegates minds in the ensuing weeks. Even the great BIll Clinton wont be able to succeed then.

The funny thing? If the superdelegates declare by june 3, just watch a lot of the MYDD Hillarites who have been championing superdelegates change their tune on how superdelegates are screwing them.

by Pravin 2008-05-23 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Horse puckey!!

The question is right there in front of you: why (people have been trying to push clinton out of the race since Iowa). part of the answer she gives is  "it is historically unprecedented" (if you watch the video) and after the next question of "you dont buy this party unity argument" she responds with examples of contests ending in June (first her husband's contest in June and then RKF's with his tragic assassination as she said in the previous march comment). Actually I cant recall many other protracted contests that ended in June, without googling for it. SO the question and the answer makes it clear that this response was about taking the nomination battle to June (which was when she kept saying she expects the contest to end, many times, earlier)

But it is clear that obama camp would rather use anything at their disposal to paint hillary as secretly wishing for a murder and a racist who would like to see an assassination of the AA opponent. That plays well into the hands of the guilt ridden SDs who can then flock to Obama en masse with faux outrage and end the contest before he embarasses himself by losing the popular after Puerto Rico.

Obama camp (of which mydd has become an integral part now with Josh and Jonathan acting as the campaign mouthpieces) was playing from the same faux outrage playbook back in Jan, right before SC primary to get AA votes conveniently after talking racial unity up until NH. LIterally overnight "clintons are racists" accusations reached fever pitch after the NH primary where minority votes were limited and before NV/SC where minority votes mattered (in SC it mattered way more than anything else) Obama camp has gone to the most vile extent to denigrate the clintons as racists (who apparently became racists right before the crucial SC primary to lose all those votes they spent years courting, if you can believe this garbage). I thought I would stay home this Nov. Now we must defeat this man or we will be make this the permanent strategy for future presidential aspirants to denigrate long standing progressive democrats as racists and as seekers of murder and mayhem. Well, McCain is a lucky man!

by pdxarch 2008-05-23 03:42PM | 0 recs
More important than her comments...

Is the stunning notion that so many on the left believe she is actually hoping Obama comes to a violent end, or that she is in some way encouraging the belief Obama will be assasinated. She clearly, and I have watched the video, was trying to make a historical point about the length of nomination contests and the ability of the party to unify at the end.

It is this kind of over the top reaction that hads first induced me to re-register as an independent after 30 years as a loyal Democrat, and second to actually consider voting against the nominee of the Democratic Party...a party I hardly recognize anymore.

by SaveElmer 2008-05-23 03:50PM | 0 recs
Thank You. n/t

by temptxan 2008-05-23 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

It is obvious from the video that she was in no way trying to insinuate that god forbid anything would happen to Sen. Obama. She was referencing primary campaigns that have stretched into the summer. This is pure and simply character assassination of a good Democrat.

I'm just so angry. The Obama campaign preaches the politics of unity and trying to move this country beyond artifical distractions, and then they pounce on this comment to suggest something insidious. The thing that pisses me off more are his supporters though who think they can just ignore almost half of the Democratic primary voters and still unify the party to win in November. What gives you the right to say her campaign should end?

This whole episode has upset me so much I can say that I hope he loses in November.

by TarHeelStateDem 2008-05-23 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Please point me to where the Obama campaign has pounced on this comment. Link Please.

by telfishbackagain 2008-05-23 07:28PM | 0 recs
I now know Obamabots are retarded.

Good lord you Obamabots are killing me with this fake outrage. You just want to find something (even if it doesn't exist) to push Hillary out. Fuck that. She needs to go all the way now to prove her point. Fuck the Party, fuck the Obamabots, fuck Obama. This "hidden meaning" bullshit has got to end. Why aren't you picking apart Obama's words like this? Would you be so "outraged" if Obama said this? I don't think so. It's like your dealing with spoiled brat children dealing with these Obamabots.

by hwebb54 2008-05-23 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

Hillary needs to stay in there and fight till the end and destroy Obama any way she can.  He can not and will not win.  Hillay supporters will not and could not with a clear head ever vote for him.  I will be voting for McCain in the fall if Obama is the canadate.  At least I know McCain is a centrist and will not destroy America like Obama would.  He is the son of satan.

by kmr1964 2008-05-23 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

I just donated to Hillary and McCain both tonight and might do it again tomorrow.

by kmr1964 2008-05-23 07:57PM | 0 recs
I hope you like 100 years in Iraq,

a conservative supreme court, tax cuts for the rich and more government corruption.

by malik5470 2008-05-23 10:28PM | 0 recs
Why are you being front-paged?

You apparently work for Obama. http://pdf2007.confabb.com/users/profile /Josh+Orton

by anna belle 2008-05-23 09:04PM | 0 recs
Disgusting.

The race-bating and 'white people' comments were bad enough but this is truly disgusting.

by malik5470 2008-05-23 10:30PM | 0 recs
RFK Jr.

"In a statement, Kennedy Jr. 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."

Nuff said.

OK, fine, we can save that statement for whenever RFK Jr. runs for president. In the meantime, perhaps Hillary Clinton would have the courtesy to apologize to her actual opponent. Not that I expect this to happen. Hillary Clinton views apologizing as weakness.

by joeldanwalls 2008-05-24 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: The Politics Of Violence

YES!  Where are the superdelegates?  Hillary has proven multiple times since it became clear she will not be the nominee that she cannot hold her tongue.  

it's clear to everyone with any sense that she's shooting for VP, but at this point her tactics are harming the party and time is running short to get started on john mcsame.

SUPERDELEGATES SHOULD END THIS SOON

by bluedavid 2008-05-24 10:27AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads