The Politics Of Violence

by Josh Orton, Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:10:38 PM EST

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)

Display:
Permalink :: 374 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: The Politics Of Assassination (1.92 / 13)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:12:25 PM EST

Re: The Politics Of Assassination (2.00 / 5)

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


by KevinT on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:14:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Assassination (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:24:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Assassination (2.00 / 3)

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.


If I had to make a prediction right now, I'd say Barack Obama is going to be the next president.
by Andre X on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:31:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Assassination (2.00 / 1)

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


by ellend818 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:34:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Assassination (2.00 / 4)

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


The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:43:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Assassination (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:47:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Assassination (2.00 / 1)

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


by niksder on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:02:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Assassination (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:12:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Assassination (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:15:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Assassination (none / 0)

Yes that was a translation, not verbatim.  


by kesiac on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:49:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Assassination (none / 0)

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


by wilder on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:27:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Assassination (none / 0)

No she was comparing herself to Humphry


McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.
by Lefty Coaster on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:57:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Assassination (2.00 / 1)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:43:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't speak rubbish. (none / 0)

stretching it, aren't you?


I have yet to see what [Obama] has done to take the highest office in the land. He is no Martin Luther King. --Helen Thomas
by ghost 2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:17:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't speak rubbish. (none / 0)

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 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:25:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Assassination (2.00 / 1)

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.  


Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.
by Endymion on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:49:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Assassination (none / 0)

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].  


Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.
by Endymion on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:56:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Assassination (none / 0)

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


by SophieL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:03:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Assassination (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:44:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Assassination (none / 0)

"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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:54:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, come on (none / 0)

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

/s


by bookish on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:12:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, come on (none / 0)

so she should stay in, in hope of being shot

/s


by wrb on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:00:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not her first time making this remark (2.00 / 1)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:56:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Assassination (2.00 / 1)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:03:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Assassination (none / 0)

"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 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:20:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Assassination (2.00 / 1)

Then she would have stopped the analogy at winning California.


by niksder on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:59:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Assassination (none / 0)

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.


I have yet to see what [Obama] has done to take the highest office in the land. He is no Martin Luther King. --Helen Thomas
by ghost 2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:18:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She immediately issued a statement. (1.00 / 15)

Unlike Obama who never acknowledges any mistakes.


by CoyoteCreek on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:17:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She immediately issued a statement. (2.00 / 1)

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.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:22:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She immediately issued a statement. (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:12:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She immediately issued a statement. (2.00 / 1)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:24:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She immediately issued a statement. (2.00 / 1)

Kitebro's right, sweeties.


by niksder on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:04:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She immediately issued a statement. (2.00 / 1)

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


by kitebro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:06:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She immidiately issued (2.00 / 2)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:40:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She immidiately issued (2.00 / 1)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:47:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She immidiately issued (2.00 / 1)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:50:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She immidiately issued (2.00 / 1)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:03:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She immidiately issued (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:17:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She immidiately issued (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:46:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She immidiately issued (none / 0)

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


by kesiac on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:20:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She immidiately issued (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:24:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She immediately issued a statement. (2.00 / 1)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:47:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She immediately issued a statement. (none / 0)

SHE HAS NOT APOLOGIZED TO SENATOR OBAMA.

Why????????


Obama/Clark will CRUSH John McCain
by spacemanspiff on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:51:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because the original comment WASN'T (2.00 / 1)

ABOUT OBAMA!!!!!

Dooh!


by CoyoteCreek on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:57:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because the original comment WASN'T (2.00 / 1)

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.


Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.
by Endymion on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:02:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But she never apoligized to Obama for (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:52:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, this is the first statement (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:21:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To those who don't think HRC was being malicious (2.00 / 1)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:55:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A reality-based FP post? (1.42 / 7)

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.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:12:32 PM EST

Re: A reality-based FP post? (1.50 / 4)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:13:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A reality-based FP post? (2.00 / 5)

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.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:14:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A reality-based FP post? (2.00 / 1)

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


by JustJennifer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:19:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then why don't you tell us what she was doing? (none / 0)


by Tenafly Viper on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:22:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then why don't you tell us what she was doing? (none / 0)

Comparing herself to Kennedy?


by wilder on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:26:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then why don't you tell us what she was doing? (none / 0)

No.

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


If I had to make a prediction right now, I'd say Barack Obama is going to be the next president.
by Andre X on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:33:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then why don't you tell us what she was doing? (none / 0)

No, I'm just able to read.


by wilder on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:36:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then why don't you tell us what she was doing? (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:17:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then why don't you tell us what she was doing? (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:18:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How does that make any sense? (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:44:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then why don't you tell us what she was doing? (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:00:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A reality-based FP post? (1.00 / 1)

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


by Metrobot on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:26:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then why don't you tell us what she was doing? (2.00 / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:31:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then why did she use that particular word? (2.00 / 2)

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.
A ship adrift in a sea of rhetoric & recycled clichés.
by DemsRising on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:38:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A reality-based FP post? (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:20:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A reality-based FP post? (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:39:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A reality-based FP post? (none / 0)

Far be it from me to infuse a reality check.


by wilder on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:20:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A reality-based FP post? (none / 0)

well i'm glad that's cleared up!


by Metrobot on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:40:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A reality-based FP post? (none / 0)

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


by wilder on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:25:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you want to (2.00 / 1)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:43:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you want to (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:21:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I meant to do you... (none / 0)

... 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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:59:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

/silently passes him his crazy pills (none / 0)

and walks away slowly...


by wilder on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:26:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

/hands them to Hillary (none / 0)

because she obviously needs them more...


by kraant on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:18:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Now, now, swallow them like a good boy (none / 0)

There you go...


by wilder on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:54:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nup... (none / 0)

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 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:31:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nup... (none / 0)

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


by wilder on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:31:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A reality-based FP post? (none / 0)

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


by NY Writer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:45:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A reality-based FP post? (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:14:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A reality-based FP post? (none / 0)

My post was addressed to Firewall.


by mady on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:15:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Josh you have a reader for life (2.00 / 11)

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.


Obama/Clark will CRUSH John McCain
by spacemanspiff on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:15:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not appropriate. (none / 0)


by jimotto on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:17:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A reality-based FP post? (none / 0)

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


by annita on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:49:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rightfully so...I can't believe she said it (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:29:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A reality-based FP post? (none / 0)

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


by muggle on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:24:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (1.50 / 12)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:13:18 PM EST

Re: The Politics Of Violence (2.00 / 4)

I don't hate her at all.


by Josh Orton on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:18:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (none / 0)

That's obvious.


by wilder on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:30:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (2.00 / 4)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:44:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:31:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (2.00 / 6)

"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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:19:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:14:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (none / 0)

Name one instance.


by kitebro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:08:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (2.00 / 7)

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.


I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!
by hootie4170 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:22:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (2.00 / 1)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:22:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (none / 0)

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!!


I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!
by hootie4170 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:46:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (none / 0)

Thanks,

dg


by giusd on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:11:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (none / 0)

garbage comment.  victomology victomology...


by bluedavid on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:29:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (none / 0)

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.


Peace, S.
by Reluctantpopstar on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:54:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (1.92 / 14)

There really isn't anything more to say.

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


by AlexScott on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:13:36 PM EST

Re: The Politics Of Violence (1.66 / 6)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:13:45 PM EST

Re: The Politics Of Violence (2.00 / 4)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:21:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:34:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (2.00 / 1)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:42:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:48:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:48:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:40:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:35:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:55:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (none / 0)

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


by JitteryZeitgeist on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:49:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (none / 0)

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


by colebiancardi on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:24:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (2.00 / 2)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:32:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Politics Of Violence (none / 0)

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


by The Distillery on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:43:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I dont find it offensive... (2.00 / 7)

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 !!


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:13:48 PM EST

Re: I dont find it offensive... (none / 0)

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 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:20:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I dont find it offensive... (none / 0)

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


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:23:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I dont find it offensive... (none / 0)

Please see the comment just above yours!!


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:26:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I dont find it offensive... (none / 0)

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.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:42:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I dont find it offensive... (none / 0)

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.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:46:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I dont find it offensive... (none / 0)

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.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:46:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Assassination... (2.00 / 2)

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


I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!
by hootie4170 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:25:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And she immediately issued a statement (none / 0)

acknowledging her mistake and clarifying her intent.

Obama never admits anything wrong...ever.


by CoyoteCreek on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:32:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

<