She needs to to make an apology to Senator Obama.

This is not the kind of talk you want to hear from a Veep wantabee.

Amen.  This really does cross all lines of decorum, especially in a primary campaign.  This was not a mistake or a "misstatement," but a calculated attempt to steal the nomination out from under Obama through any means necessary.

things as the race progresses. The longer this goes on, the more she's going to have to take back, refute, deny, reject, denounce, etc, once she concedes.

Who will believe her at that point? There is a question of sincerity. You can't deem someone unfit in a thousand different ways while presenting one's self as the only true path to victory...and turn around and expect to be taken seriously as an ally for that person, once the game is called.

Again, good front page MyDD post.  Much appreciated.

There were myriad primaries that have lasted into June, and these did not contain assassinations.  I'm still floored by her remark.

I wouldn't quite call this a non-apology apology.  

I'd note she said that she apologizes if the words "were offensive" not the usual tripe "if people were offended."  The former implies an objective standard, the latter that the people hearing it were crazy.

So its a major improvement on the earlier statement.  I'd also note that Obama's campaign is already playing it down.  But something stronger, like "I realize my choice of examples of long presidential campaigns was an offensive one.  It wasn't my intent, and I apologize to those that I offended with that comment" might be good.  

The lack of an apology for the misogyny in the campaign is beyond the pale. The same thing can be said for the continuation of Obama's campaign.

She issued a classic non-apology apology. I'm sorry "IF" I offended...  Given the timing with what the Kennedy family is going through, that was an especially sick thing to say. I don't know how anyone can defend it.

I remember her having some difficulty admitting a mistake on a certain vote.

Apologizing and admitting error are not the Clinton strong suit.

Not only is this a non-apology apology, but her explanation is simply false.  She says that, with Ted Kennedy's health problems, the reason she made the comment was because she's been thinking so much about the Kennedy family these last few days.

Except that she made precisely the same analogy more than two months ago:

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

Like her "explanation" for the sniper fire gaffe (she couldn't have been that tired EVERY time she repeated the story), this simply doesn't hold water.

Does she wish for let alone advocate violence against Obama?  Of course not.  But this is sloppy talk and sloppy thinking of the very worst kind.

And that's not even taking into account the other false claim in her original statement: Bill's '92 campaign, which everyone at the time agreed was more or less over by late March or early April, even if he didn't have the requisite number of delegates until later.  Sound familiar?

when Tsongas dropped out.

She can't even get her own husband's campaign straight.  Bizzaro world....

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9E0CE0DE1F3FF933A15750C0A96495826 0

She had better step way back -- the blowback is turning into a release of all the frustration she has stoked in this campaign

She's become the Don Imus of politics, or the crazy offspring of Don Imus and Tracy Flick

Holy crap, Hillary -- offensive or dumb, or both, but nothing else!

I watched the video of her whole conversation, and she didn't sound flippant!  What is this flippant stuff?

Hillary is neither this devious, callous nor unfeeling.  I mean, she had her marriage open for the entire world to see.  I admit it was less-than-ideal, but yet an altogether innocent, stream of thought.

This disqualifies her from nothing.  

All it does is it becomes yet-another-reason for her detractors to flail Hillary.

She "explained" and "regretted" how some might interpret her words.

She, who DEMANDED that for others, DENOUNCE was not as strong as REJECT.

So, since REGRET is no where near APOLOGIZE, we all wait breathlessly for her apology.

Like we did for the Bosnia lies.  Same spin, different lie.

She has disqualified herself from the VP slot with this offensive remark, and her non apology to Obama for saying that she was staying in the race just in case he gets assassinated is worse than the original statement.

This woman says nothing without careful thought.

This statement is no accident.

KO will be doing a special comment regarding this on Countdown.  Should be interesting.

Where is it? I don't see any apologetic language there.

People say dumb things when they're tired

The Obama camp reaction, however, shows how concerned they are.  The polls in the swing states are bad for Obama.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/latestpolls/index.html

That's why pro-Obama commenters here are being so reactive.

Most of the people doing the attacking and smearing are Clinton supporters. No idea how this is all Barack Obama's fault.

I don't think it is either.

But that doesn't make her saying it any less boneheaded.

Ok, taking a step back.  What was the larger context?

The larger context was why stay in the race.  

If the question was why stay in the race, would simply going till June be a reason?

If the date of June was not the reason, what would be the reason?

I think after trying to take a fair view of her comments, the reason can't be just a date or month, it's because anything can happen.  

She used Kennedy as an example of anything happening.

So her reason for staying in the race is that anything can happen, being assassinated for example.  

Here is the link:
//www.mogulus.com/argus_leader_tv

Jonathan I bet you are not interested!

she even got Sen. Obama two tickets to Ford's Theater as an apology gift.

Sen. Clinton's comment was not one I would expect from a capable politician.

Meh.  It was an unfortunate and ill advised remark, but I don't think she was talking about the possibility of Obama being assassinated.  It seemed as though she was trying to say that unforeseen events happen late in the campaign and was citing RFK as an example.  It was a poorly chosen example, no doubt about it, but I don't think there was any nefarious intent.

Getting exercised about it doesn't really help anyone, including Obama.

A crazy hateful rant is on the Rec.List!

of this campaign dramatically.

I fear that the reason so many folks- including some Hillary supporters (comments I read on Talk Left, Sadly No!) - are so troubled is that this type of comment does not present itself as an exception to the previous tone of the campaign, but as an escalation of tone, instead.  It reeks of the desperation that the Gov. of NY mentioned, who is himself a Hillary supporter.

The reason Huckabee's statement could be relatively dismissed after a day of press was because folks, in general, did not believe that his statements were aligned with his character or philosophy. - right or wrong.  He could apologize and be given the benefit of the doubt.

However, Sen. Clinton's character, campaign tone and objectives have been the subject of doubt for so long - again, right or wrong - that it seems much easier for folks to believe that she meant something more by what she said than what she implied.

There is one thing I think we can all agree on at this point - the rhetoric needs to tone down from all sides, now.  When we are discussing candidate assassinations in the context of our own primaries, our rhetoric has gone over the top.  It's a sad time in the Democratic Party.  This is truly regrettable.

Altogether now: Samantha Power was right!

The 1968 nomination voting DIDN'T START UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF MARCH.... please just shut up for the day Senator Clinton. Please.

Is the reaction on the left and in the blogosphere...

Rather than gove a fellow Democrat the benefit of the doubt and assume she simply made her point poorly, there is this rabid desire to believe she is hoping for or is holding out in the campaign hoping Obama is assasinated.

I remember the days when Democrats first insticnt was to defend fellow Democrats...

No more...those days are gone...at least where the Clinton's are concerned..

Months ago I resigned from my local party and re-registered as an Independent...a decision I am getting more confident in by the day as I look at what the party is descending into...

WHERE IS THE APOLOGY TO OBAMA?

Oh yeah, there isn't one.

Don't bother with the calls for her to drop out.  Does anyone actually believe that she will?

She's in until the supers force an end to the process.  Even then, we'll probably hear "Nothing's official until the convention."

She just made the type of mistake she was hoping Obama would make.

I think the reason she referenced Bobby Kennedy is that she wanted to use examples where the Democratic nomination was contested into June, and the winner won (or would have won) the general election. 1980 and 1984 are examples where contested nominations led into a loss in the general election. It is easy to argue that if Bobby Kennedy had not been shot, he would have gone on to win the general election after a nomination battle that went on into June.

That said, this was clearly a disastrous (and deeply offensive) choice of phrasing.

I hope Obama will come out and defend her. I don't particularly think she deserves it and that comment is not ... smart ... but that would be a good moment to make a gesture.

Unfortunately, this apology seems only to apply to the Kennedys.

I would like to see Clinton apologize to Michelle Obama and to his little girls for the nightmares they'll have in the weeks and months ahead thanks to Clinton.

I take Hillary at her word.  I don't believe she had an ill intentions at all.  It was just a dumb choice of words, like George Romney's "brainwashing" comment in 1968.

But it was also a super-dumb example, because in 1968 the party was divided, and we did lose.

Well she says she did not mean anything of the sort by the comment. So as far as I know she did not mean anything sinister by it.

But then I usually don't know much either.

Hmmm I wonder.

Peace
:)

I am truly afraid of what she may have unleashed in some sick person's mind.

Obama has had serious threats on his life since he announced is run for the presidency.  Clinton's comments are sure to increase the danger for Obama.

To prove the point in my above comment, Al Giordano weighs in:

Everybody - I have long followed the work of Dr. Lloyd deMause and the Institute for Psychohistory, which has, for two decades, studied the psychology of why nations go to war among other sticky societal problems.

I urge everybody who wants to flap their gums about Senator Clinton's statement today to read his chapter, The Assassination of Leaders:

http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln01_l eader.html

Messages sent like the one sent today - whether from the mouth of the original person whose fantasy flew out of her mouth - or from those decrying it, are precisely the kinds of signals that set off potential assassins.

If you think of many of the assassination attempts in the United States and the unstable mental states of the perpetrators (John Hinckley, Jr., Squeaky Fromme...) it is of the utmost irresponsibility to aid in the telegraphing of those suggestive messages to a public filled with people like that.

That is my point.  At the very least, Clinton's assassination comments are a colossal error in judgment. that have put Obama in danger.

No worries...

I am an Obama supporter, and like many I found the remarks offensive and frightening.  Ultimately, the possibility of the first AA presidential nominee being assassinated is very real.  That being said I believe Senator Clinton was only trying to point out that "anything could happen" and use that as a justification for staying in the race.  Just my 2 cents.

I took her comment to mean that other races have gone on into the summer months -and she brought up two that were quite personal to her-
Her husband and RFK.

Was is dumb to use the RFK reference? Sure it was - in hindsight.

I doubt she had any sinister forethought about using that particular analogy in respect to Barack Obama though.

Wow.. feels funny defending Hillary Clinton, since I am a firm supporter of Obama.

Well this is just the kind of language hysteria that always gets the Dems in trouble. No one can ever talk about history anymore I guess. Obama and his campaign look like a bunch of hysterical ninnies and the GOP is laughing their heads off.

As some posters here know, I have no trouble railing against the Clintons for their various manipulations and dissemblings.  This RFK comment was a gaffe, though, nothing more.

Clinton, clearly, was using the RFK assassination as a way of marking the calendar.  "We all remember...".  That's really the key phrase here, because if you're under 45 (like, erm, me) you have no memory of this event at all.

But Clinton, like, well, everyone her age, does remember this event (the way we'll all remember, for instance, what we were doing when 9/11 occurred).

That's it.  Horrible phrasing.  She corrected herself.  I'm not even sure this even merited an apology (though as a public figure, sure, one isn't entitled to make gaffes this big without there being some consequence).

This should be a one-day story.  Lastly, think it would be wrong to come down hard on Obama, since, well, her phrasing was awful (and they're right, the sentiment, as it could be interpreted, is totally beyond the pale).

But c'mon.      

I'm sorry but this women is running for the highest office in the land and if she's inclined to make statements off the lip without thinking them through, I'm not sure she is the right person for the job. Her campaign has been doing this kind of crap from the beginning and frankly I'm tired of it. It's long past time for her and Bill to salvage their loses and get the hell out and maybe she should make a run at the Senate Majority Leader against the totally impotent Harry Reid and hopefully finally do some good work against the "Bush administration" on getting the hell out of Iraq, Heath Care and working to get the middle class back where it should be in the scheme of things.

I'm sorry but this women is running for the highest office in the land and if she's inclined to make statements off the lip without thinking them through, I'm not sure she is the right person for the job. Her campaign has been doing this kind of crap from the beginning and frankly I'm tired of it. It's long past time for her and Bill to salvage their loses and get the hell out and maybe she should make a run at the Senate Majority Leader against the totally impotent Harry Reid and hopefully finally do some good work against the "Bush administration" on getting the hell out of Iraq, Heath Care and working to get the middle class back where it should be in the scheme of things.

Look, no one believes that this has anything to do with Clinton wishing harm to anyone, but this is the ultimate taboo in the post-JFK era.  You just do not use the word, or refer to the event in a casual way, particularly in the middle of a presidential campaign when you are talking directly about your opponent not being able to complete the race.  NO ONE does this because it is just too scary.  

For her to have broken this taboo shows a loss of some kind of basic rationality.  I don't know where she was or what she was thinking to put assassination in the context of "just another thing that might keep him from the nomination."

Hillary made a simple statement based on facts in answer to the question of why she is still campaigning.

Of course, the simple answer is that she's leading in the people's votes and in the electoral votes.  It would be stupid to quit when she is ahead.

But, some people aren't satisfied with that, therefore she has to elaborate. So, she stated a couple more facts - Bill Clinton wasn't nominated until June, and Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June while campaigning. Simply, more reason she shouldn't quit.

However, I think the Obama followers are in a dither because they read about Bin Laden, Al Queda,  Muslim tradition, and Obama over at www.noquarterusa.com.  It was something like if your father is Muslim you are considered to be a Muslim, and if you leave Islam to are a traitor and subject to death. Go there to read the entire article.

This is definitely a case where it's pretty obvious about what she meant but also obvious that her words actually said something different.  I imagine she'll figure out the actual apology she needs to make soon.

And then breathe out.

The context of her statement makes pretty clear that she was pointing out that RFK was shot during a still-contested race in June.

Clumsy? Yes.  But absent of ill intent.

Please, we have an election.  Can we not eat our own?

Hillary Clinton said nothing out of line.  When asked about her campaign going into June, she merely pointed out thT Bill Clinton didn't get the nimination until June, and Robert Kennedy was campaigning in June when he was assassinated.

Very simple.

She certainly should not quit when she is ahead in the people's votes and in the electoral votes.

Benefit of the doubt no ill will behind it.  But politically its a major gaffe and she will pay harshly for it - rightly so.

And I am just talking in a political sense.  The daggers are out for Hillary now on all sides and she is going to watched like a hawk for 'how she exits' and anything she says is going to be dissected to the nth degree.

She will pay hard for this and the press wil eat her alive for it.

Im a thick skinned person and can accept that stupid issues that should be greeted with 'so what' or 'that was a pretty dumb way of trying to make a point but no ill intent meant' and thats it.  So Wright, bitter, Bosnia are all examples of things that never should have been issues but in our hyepr political world they because major issues.

The problem we have now is a declining primary where one candidate has lost and she is at a juncture as to how she is going to exit, so she has to be careful.  My other problem is that the Clintons are constantly hailed as political genuises, they are always credited with knowing exactly what they are saying at all times and at all times are playing politics.  So which is it - are they genuises or do they screw up?  They cant have it both ways.  If they keep the mantle of genuis then this comment (and Hillary) should be thrashed, if they arent, well then maybe we were wrong about the Clinton brand and they are only above average politicans (most likely this).  

They are now suffering a bit for their reputation that they always know what they are saying and always on the ball.  So they will get hosed for this.

It kind of sucks because I would have loved to see these last two weeks play out nice and quite, but oh well, it is what it is.  Thankfully for Hillary this is a Friday of a long weekend and she may get lucky and this disappears quickly in the wash.

But she should know she is on notice and being watched hard.

Benefit of the doubt no ill will behind it.  But politically its a major gaffe and she will pay harshly for it - rightly so.

And I am just talking in a political sense.  The daggers are out for Hillary now on all sides and she is going to watched like a hawk for 'how she exits' and anything she says is going to be dissected to the nth degree.

She will pay hard for this and the press wil eat her alive for it.

Im a thick skinned person and can accept that stupid issues that should be greeted with 'so what' or 'that was a pretty dumb way of trying to make a point but no ill intent meant' and thats it.  So Wright, bitter, Bosnia are all examples of things that never should have been issues but in our hyepr political world they because major issues.

The problem we have now is a declining primary where one candidate has lost and she is at a juncture as to how she is going to exit, so she has to be careful.  My other problem is that the Clintons are constantly hailed as political genuises, they are always credited with knowing exactly what they are saying at all times and at all times are playing politics.  So which is it - are they genuises or do they screw up?  They cant have it both ways.  If they keep the mantle of genuis then this comment (and Hillary) should be thrashed, if they arent, well then maybe we were wrong about the Clinton brand and they are only above average politicans (most likely this).  

They are now suffering a bit for their reputation that they always know what they are saying and always on the ball.  So they will get hosed for this.

It kind of sucks because I would have loved to see these last two weeks play out nice and quite, but oh well, it is what it is.  Thankfully for Hillary this is a Friday of a long weekend and she may get lucky and this disappears quickly in the wash.

But she should know she is on notice and being watched hard.

I think Clinton did have an ulterior motive when making this reference, btw.  A large part of her campaign, clearly, is devoted to reminding men and women who are baby boomers and older that she's one of them, they've shared the same experiences, and if her political story is over, so to speak, that might portend something about their own lives which they'd rather not hear.  

Think her invocation of these generational cues is totally mindful (and the subject we could have a heated debate about, of course, is the racial stuff--a hint here, a wink there, the point when I became convinced was when former Sen. Bob Kerry did the "Barack Hussein Obama" dance--"But I was complementing him!"--yeah, sure you were.  Of course politicians do this stuff (and the Clintons, I think, more than most).

But c'mon.  To put the worst spin on this comment, one has to believe that Clinton is, well, both evil and stupid.  

Clinton's reference to the 1992 campaign and RFK's assassination has been made at least several times since January. Her statements were made in public and before reporters. No one made a big deal of her statements until now.

Perhaps, she could have mentioned the 1968 election without mentioning the RFK assassination. However, for the purpose of her arguments, the 1992 and 1968 elections were proper.

Jonathan Singer mentions that she should have used 1980 and 1984 as examples instead. But that would have defeated the purpose of her point she was attempting to make. (and aha would make the point Singer wants to make!) ln 1980 Jimmy Carter lost 44 states and in 1984 Mondale lost 49 states. In 1992, despite a long primary season, Bill Clinton won the election, and in 1968 despite the nightmare split in the Democratic Party, Hubert H. Humphrey lost the popular vote by less than one percent.

If the Obama campaign is so offended by the remark that is factually true but perhaps inappropriate, then would an Obama administration be tough enough to lead this country? (I don't believe Obama is offended, but certainly his campaign and his supporters claim they are).

I, like others, am having difficulty seeing this as a reference to the fact that campaigns lasted into the summer in the past. There are much clearer examples of the race for the Democratic nomination lasting late into the cycle -- 1980 and 1984, for example -- that would do much more to prove this point.

This is a great point.  I had the same problem when Bill Clinton, whom I love and respect, compared Obama to Jesse Jackson after the South Carolina primary.  Sure, it was true that Jackson won South Carolina twice, but if it was Clinton's point that winning South Carolina doesn't mean winning the nomination, why didn't he say, "John Edwards won North Carolina in 2004"?  It would have proven the point perfectly.

Instead he seemed to be looking for a way to discredit the victory by couching it in racial terms, so he chose a black man to compare Obama to.

I know this was a bit off-topic, but your point made me think of it.  The Clinton's aren't stupid -- they say everything for a reason

I don't have any problem with Clinton remaining in this race at least through the end of voting early next month. But if this is the type of language that Clinton will be using for the duration of this primary process, I have a real problem with her continuing her campaign.

This is how many Clinton supporters feel about the lack of apology for sexism in the campaign. Clinton has apologized at least four times now for racism in the campaign. Once for Shaheen, once for Ferraro, once for Bill Clinton and once for herself.

Obama supporters said nothing when Olbermann said a SD kill her. There has been no commentary on Slate's Hillary Death Watch, comparing Clinton to a euthanized horse at the end of a race and many other examples. Race does not trump gender. This is a double standard.

the narcissism of the Obama campaign and its supporters is breathtaking.  and their hatred of Hillary knows no bounds.  the world doesn't revolve around your guy and everything that comes out of Hillary's mouth doesn't mean she's thinking about him all the time.  you're like freak republic devotees from tbe 90's.  unity much?  the faux or imagined outrage is tiring.  among the many reasons not to vote for Obama is the nasty attitude and toxic tirades of his supporters and media hand maidens.  

further it's quite stalinist to tell Hillary to drop out.  what you Obama supporters want is a potemkin election where he's coronated not nominated (sound familiar)?  I checked into Kos on the day of the Kentucky primary and he called it meaningless.  a forty point blow-out is hardly meaningless.  do you get that half the party doesn't like or want your guy?  Kerry 2.0 is an understatement.  Hillary should fight this all the way to the convention in my opinion.  the future of the Democratic Party is at stake.  If it's given over to the likes of Obama and his supporters, many lifelong Dems like this one will be heading for the exits.

Hillary said essentially the identical thing back in March, in Time Magazine, no less.

Don't you think that if there were a real and inherent, rather than a manufactured, problem with the statement, that some of the legions of Obama fanboys within the media and without would have made an issue of it?

This is really like a scientific experiment demonstrating, inescapably, the bias of the Obama fanboys. In March, Hillary says something, and not a peep is said about it; today, she says the same thing, and it's time for the smelling salts, and she absolutely must -- MUST!! -- leave the race.

And what has changed: the sheer desperation of the fanboys to find something -- anything -- to tar Hillary with.

I have had so many "final straw" moments with the Clinton Campaign, it would be dishonest for me to say that this was one of them.  But I have long supported the concept that Clinton should stay in the campaign until the last primary vote on June 3rd and then close down her campaign being able to say "we fought to the end".  She has fought hard, and should be respected for that.  But my caveat to her staying in until June 3rd was that she would end the negative attacks on Obama and focus on Democratic party unity.  But sadly, the best interests of the Democratic party do not appear to be what the Clinton campaign is interested in at this point.  You had Ferraro driving a further wedge with female Democrats with her comments about sexism last week, and you had AFSCME's McEntee driving the wedge between working class Americans again yesterday, and now you have Clinton once again playing the fear card with her "slip" of mentioning Bobby Kennedy in relation to Obama (which was very disappointing when she did it back in March, but is absolutely tasteless when done right now given Ted Kennedy's condition).  Clinton's presidential campaign is now ending, but I can't understand why she is determined to further divide the Democratic party and further diminish the Clinton legacy?

Clinton doesn't owe an apology to anyone.  

Politics is reaching the point of absurdity in this country.  So many people want to take a politician's words and twist them to the point where they have no relationship to what was originally said and meant.

For example, Michele Obama's comment about finally being proud to be an American.  Some would have us believe that she hated the US until her husband started campaigning for President.  Or some would have us believe that McCain's comfortable with the war in Iraq going on for 100 years when that was clearly not what he meant.  And as for Hillary; I think some people would have us believe that she was inviting someone to assassinate Obama.

Get a life everyone and stop this crazy crap.  Hillary's going to continue to run until the primaries are over and then she's going to fold her tent and make nice and kiss and forgive.  And Barack is going to continue to forge ahead with his eyes on McCain because the nomination is solidly his now.  And once Hillary folds, Barack will also kiss and make nice.

So let's all take a chill pill and make nice just like them and stop pissing in our sandbox.

I have had so many "final straw" moments with the Clinton Campaign, it would be dishonest for me to say that this was one of them.  But I have long supported the concept that Clinton should stay in the campaign until the last primary vote on June 3rd and then close down her campaign being able to say "we fought to the end".  She has fought hard, and should be respected for that.  But my caveat to her staying in until June 3rd was that she would end the negative attacks on Obama and focus on Democratic party unity.  But sadly, the best interests of the Democratic party do not appear to be what the Clinton campaign is interested in at this point.  You had Ferraro driving a further wedge with female Democrats with her comments about sexism last week, and you had AFSCME's McEntee driving the wedge between working class Americans again yesterday, and now you have Clinton once again playing the fear card with her "slip" of mentioning Bobby Kennedy in relation to Obama (which was very disappointing when she did it back in March, but is absolutely tasteless when done right now given Ted Kennedy's condition).  Clinton's presidential campaign is now ending, but I can't understand why she is determined to further divide the Democratic party and further diminish the Clinton legacy?

Obama followers are easily excitable and don't think things through.

They don't listen to reason and have very negative outlooks.  They see things that aren't there.

This is just another example of their shortsightedness and inability to comprehend.

Said it all.  I thought she had misspoke at first, but then I saw her press conference on CNN. She couldn't look the reporters in eye and she was shifting around searching for some type of spin or lie (reminded me of my teenagers when they got in a jam).  I was disappointed. Senator Clinton did this intentionally and she knew what she was doing. She thought the press would give her a pass.  It took the bad news on the internet to get her to respond to her comments. There are so many folks who idolize Hillary Clinton and some deranged supporter may just think that she's giving them a signal to harm Senator Obama. This is inexcusable. She knows  better...She lived with this type of threat herself in the White House and for her to cavalierly make this comment about RFK which really was not necessary in the context of the sentence she was speaking was calculating and harmful.  Mr Huckabee did the same thing.  I see a pattern.  I hope the Secret Service gives Senator Obama extra protection.  Hillary is running as the experienced candidate, however, she is acting like a moron. This is not Presidential behavior.  This truly saddens me.

" I don't have any problem with Clinton remaining in this race" spoken like a true Obama promoter.

And as if this diary is a surprise.  HAve you EVER been anything but partisan Obama for Obama always against Hillary with your posts?

I'm surprised you didn't come up with some slurr with, gee, is there something wrong that she only mentioned white guys? (sic)

I hear "hate" and "hysteria" in the comments above. I hear that HRC's JFK piece incited fear for O's life. As HRC is a human I am sure all of these crossed her mind. Just as human circumstance visited HRC when she signed onto the Iraq invasion. That's how HRC works. I will say this ...not since JFK have the words of anyone, and I mean anyone in Washington before O, brought tears of hope to my eyes. Just as JFK used to do.

But then, that's part of HRC's human attack strategy too. I'm glad she apologized. But we've been waiting months for that JFK cut to come. And being human, she knows that too. I do wonder how O's sentiments and care reach out to embrace HRC, what with all her excessive indulgence of strategic intentions. The next 5 years should be interesting. O obviously has a mixed up party to unite. I do hope HRC can hang on. I thought all multi-millionaires were Republican by birth. Yes, JFK suddenly feeds into that patronizing "you poor people" undercurrent in everything that comes from her. She is definitely not the saint who will give all she has grabbed to charity. More like a low-cut grave robber. An insult for sure.

That being said, one has to wonder, how shallow her apology. How unpleasant her Husband's Monica mishap now feels ...how suddenly very unpleasantly immoral, that family's nepotistic flirtations with power.

This comment has been deleted by an administrator.

The pro-Obama diarist is deliberately misleading? Clinton did not apologize.

This comment has been deleted by an administrator.

I'm an Obama supporter and I don't believe for a second she meant anything dark or nefarious with this. This is no better than the endless posts by TD and Alegre making crazy claims against Obama about phantom middle fingers, and other such random nonsense.

This campaign has clearly gone on too long. SHE DIDN'T MEAN ANYTHING MORE THAN CAMPAIGNS GO TO JUNE! Oh the irony.

Olbermann is really going on a rant about this.  I don't think I have ever seen him this pissed off.

That said, let's see if she gets a "pass" by saying that she just chose her words poorly, that she meant nothing by it .... not.

Like I have said, many many times and I will write it in all caps now:

I HAVE NEVER ONCE HEARD THAT HILLARY, IF THE TOP OF A "DREAM TICKET" (CLINTON/OBAMA), WOULD NEED A FOOD TASTER!  I HAVE, HOWEVER, HEARD MANY MANY TIMES THE MEDIA SAY THE REVERSE.  Put those little snickering words together with "she'll do anything to win" and the media has OUT AND OUT, DOWNRIGHT SAID THAT OBAMA WOULD BE AT RISK OF BEING POISONED BY HILLARY!  I have not seen any backpeddling on the media's part.  They seem to be damned proud of their treatment of Hillary.

All that said, her words were very poor.  She should not have said them.  I can understand that Senator Kennedy is on a lot of people's minds and maybe that's what brought it to her mind, but it doesn't matter.  Bad thing for her to say.  I will not and cannot bring myself to believe that there were any sinister thoughts behind the words.  I'm sure many others will disagree.

As for the media, I can remind the vast majority that for many, many years they sat on their effing hands and kept their effing mouths shut while George W. Bush was trotting our country down a dangerous path - to war with Iraq and to hell with torture and to hell with civil rights.  Heard much ever from the media how Dubya has shunned the NAACP meetings from the start!!!  Remember the outrage over a stolen election?  Remember the outrage over outing a CIA agent?  Probably not!  The media can all look in the collective mirror on the colossal mess that the USA is in!  Shame on them!  But they'll get all up in arms over Hillary's bad wording - she has apologized but it will mean nothing to the load of creeps that run rampant in the media now!

Blood pressure medicine please!

"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.

Barack recently said we have primaries in 57 States. Clearly, he wanted people to start thinking about conquering and annexing Canada and Mexico to come up with 7 more States. What other possible explanation could there be for him saying such an outlandish thing? People need to get out of their bubble for a while. There was nothing "flippant" about the reference to the RFK tragedy. See the reaction of RFK Jr. on this point. But I suppose he is part of the plot.

To Clinton supporters, I'm sure this is Obama's fault. I'm sure you think it is no big deal. What Rev Wright says means more than what the candidate says right? This shows me that there is just something wrong with Senator Clinton. I need to stay in the race because Obama might be assassinated? Who thinks this way? This is not even a good reason. If Obama were assassinated, a somber, but gleeful Clinton would be the nominee even if she quit now.  The reason Clinton made this gaffe is because she is crazy. The other reason is that she has no reason to stay in the race and she has to make up crazy excuses. Clinton supporters should ask themselves this question, why are you still staying in the race. It is over. Obama won. Move on. Stop making crazy excuses.  

Everyone knows what her point was, so continuing to shriek about this is just politics that's all it is.

Everyone knows what she meant.

Obama's campaign didn't have to put out a statement. Why should they?  This wasn't about him at all. She didn't even mention him. What did any of what she said have to do with him?

To Obama, it's always about him.  If Clinton was thinking of assassination, maybe she was thinking about her own. She has received death threats and horribly vile, hate-filled treatment this whole election season.  I have read numerous wishes that she would die or be killed online.  If she is worried anyone will be harmed, she's worried about herself.

But to Obama, it's always about him.

It's all the Hillary haters with their claws out like Olbermann (who I won't watch, but from what I hear) who want to characterize this is a nefarious act when it was a poorly timed and poorly worded comparison.

Wait until the general starts and the REAL incoming comes from the Republicans and the Obamatrons freak out they can't keep their skin.

People just want to kick her in the gut when she is down and not look at the context of what was said.

Thankfully I won't care because I wouldn't vote for Obama even if Hillary personally asked me to.

And I'm deliberately restraining my language here.

She is unfit for any office.

She has 35 years "experience" as a lawyer,
politician and campaign assistant to her
disbarred lawyer husband.

She knows exactly what she's doing and saying.
There's nothing she won't do or say to win.

After pandering to the racist and stupid vote,
who is she dog-whistling to now?

Fuck, I can hardly believe it.

A Freudian slip born of desperation.
She didn't say that Obama could be assassinated, but the thought has crossed her mind.  The thought has crossed Huckabee's mind as well (as recent events have exposed) and the minds of others like you and me have thought this too.  

Clinton desperately wants the nomination.  
Obama stands in her way.

Doesn't really matter what she meant.  It was heard by many as "Well, someone might kill Obama..." (so I should keep running).

It's not plausibly possible for her to win the nomination without something extreme--like an assassination.  Obama needs only another 19% of the total delegates... and it's even worse than that, because he may get them, at this rate, from SDs (and pledged delegates) who abandon her.

If her reason for staying in is to be sure that the party has a "spare" candidate... then she could stop campaigning, acknowledge that she's not winning... but not drop out.  Suspend campaigning.  And if a house falls on Obama, or he decides to give up politics to teach constitutional law and have a slightly saner life... she'd be there.

In context of not having a plausible hope, what the hell does her remark mean and refer to?

Perhaps if she had not said it before this could be written off as a gaffe or an poorly thought-out off-the-cuff statement.  But she had said it before, which makes it pre-meditated.  If her point was what she claims then she could have easily made it by referencing the contests in 68, 80, 84 and even the incorrect reference to 92 without the word assassination included.  Whatever the motive, it was no accident.

As others have noted, all this has done is divert attention from McCain's screw-ups of the day.  That is the real risk and result of continuing this lost crusade.

For those of you who say that Obama is overplaying this, he isn't.  She created this situation, he had nothing to do with it.

The initial comment, I'm sure, was just a screwup.

The real problem is that she refuses to apologize, as always.  I know she doesn't want to suggest an Obama assasination.  But she did the classic non-apology apology (she didn't say she was wrong, just that if anyone was offended, she was sorry for that), and she restricted even that partial apology to the Kennedy family.

She, and some of her supporters here, just don't get why this is such a sensitive topic.  Many people, particularly African-Americans, are deeply afraid that some sick person will kill Barack Obama.  This is not a topic to be trifled with.  A profuse apology is called for, one that takes full accountability.

Any apology that doesn't acknowledge that she said something truly awful, but that instead says she's sorry if anyone offended, is just bullshit.  The possibility of presidential assassination is a horror, and bringing it up could give some sick person ideas.

RFK didn't even enter the race until March.

I can entertain the notion that Clinton said something stupid, and didn't calculate its impact or consider its multiple meanings, even though this is one scary smart woman who seems to choose her rehearsed words carefully. The thing that gets me about this is the feigned outrage on the part of the CLINTON camp and all of her supporters on this site. The hypocrisy is almost impressive in its ballsiness...after seizing on Obama's "bitter" comment like pit bulls, making campaign issues, advertisements, and entire state primary platforms from it, I can only laugh at Mo Elleithee, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, responding to the RFK kerfuffle:  "Any reading into it beyond that is outrageous."

And look, Clinton supporters, all Obama's campaign said about this was that it was "unfortunate" and "had no place." I don't see them bringing in attack dogs, or making commercials about it.

I am tired of the vitriol, and threats, and personal attacks. Clinton, and no one, has done anything to DESERVE to be the VP. Obama can choose whomever he likes and in the end, does not have to offer her a consolation prize.  

OR go ahead, vote for McCain if you things don't turn out the way you  "we will settle for nothing else" want. Explain to your children and grandchildren how McCain got to stack the supreme court, or left us in Iraq, or did nothing about greenhouse gas emissions...You will have REALLY made your point, then.

Jonathan, you and your fellow pro-Obama bloggers have been calling for her to end this race since Iowa, why should she take your call seriously now?  

And what's more, where is your outrage over the sexism that has elevated Obama to his current position?

Robert Kennedy's son, Robert Jr., has endorsed Clinton, and in a statement through her campaign, he 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 understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."

If Robert Kennedy's son is not offended then how can the black wanna be relative be offended.

Robert Kennedy's son, Robert Jr., has endorsed Clinton, and in a statement through her campaign, he 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 understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."

If Robert Kennedy's son is not offended then how can the black wanna be relative be offended.