The Clintons have an excellent track record of making "historical references".

Jesse Jackson winning in 1984 was just a historical reference.

LBJ passing the Civil Rights Act was just a historical reference.

RFK's assassination is just a historical reference.

Wow, you people apologizing for this are rubes.

...but a girl can try...

I was actually going to say something along the lines that this was an unfortunate gaffe.  I was searching for a Clinton supporter's diary that expressed this, or even an Obama supporter to say this so that I could reccommend the story.  When I did find one that said something along these lines they added the sentence that turned my stomach, which is that "the only person trying to score political points on this is Obama".  That is when I decided not to reccomend the story and while I felt the comment didn't deserve the kind of attention it had been getting from many, the respose was so crass and classless that I decided to stand back and allow people to flame on eachother about this.

Needless to say that Clinton supporter came off as a total ass, but it is unfortunate bceause they ruined the important part of it, which was eloquently expressed here.

For this reason I can recommend this story and return to my original feeling that it was an unfortunate incident which could have been expressed much better with a different example.

My mind is wide open, and I use it to think.  Meanwhile, Clinton defenders use the tired she was tired excuse to explain away something she has said four times now (just as with Bosnia).  They resort to hyperbole, claiming that Obama supporters are saying Clinton wants Obama hurt or worse.  They refuse to acknowledge just how poor an analogy the Kennedy tragedy is to her own situation (inasmuch as, were the unthinkable to happen, it wouldn't matter if she had conceded or withdrawn).  

So she uses this bad non-analogy, with its terrible resonances, four times.  And I'm closed-minded because I won't cut her some slack?

My condolences.  That sounds like a good diary.

Obama should defend her.  Axelrod and Susan Rice wer right and classy to have done so.

The quote in its original and full context is offensive.  I can read.  Too many coming to her defense have suggested that many think she was suggesting assassination.  Nope.  She just evoked it.

And as classy as the Obama campaign has been in holding its fire, I can't help but think that people simply have to process this.  Clinton supporters denying anything untoward while asking for forgiveness is a bit odd.

Here's something else.  There have been many many times, not too long ago in the campaign when Hillary could have taken the high road.  I probably couldn't have been more disappointed when she threw out the name Farrakhan during one of the debates.

I'm glad Obama's folks have not tried to pile on.  Instead of the apology to anyone "if" they were offended, I'd recommend Hillary Barack directly and apologizing and then calling Michelle Obama and apologize for her language coming wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy to close to Michelle's  nightmare.  "If" Clinton wants to demonstrate a connection reality that's what she would do and apologize to someone she likely did offend.

I hope, but I cannot imagine the majority of Clinton supporters on this site having the same position if Obama had made a gaffe? of this proportion.

I rec'd this.

The way the diaries attacking Obama have cropped up blaming him for the a mistake Hillary made (she apologized) is mindboggling.

in a Twilight Zone sorta way, eh?  

Reminds me of the days when I was arguing with the Bushwhacked before he got reelected...

Or as the famous transcendentalist once said, it's like a victrola in a gherkin.

Not too long.  Just through November.

You know, I still think it was a really dumb comment, but seeing this made me feel very badly for her:

You can almost feel her dejection.

I agree thats not what she meant, but KO's special comment brought up a good point

the first time she used it she backed away from it, after that first time she only said RFK won in june, she never referenced the assassination

why didn't she do that here? why go back this time and also add the assassination? I don't know why but for some an answer to this would be needed before they would give her the benefit of the doubt.

Of course she doesn't want harm to Obama, but what she meant is, "Vote for me, 'cos this guy might get shot, heaven forbid."  She knows that he is the most likely of the three remaining candidates to be potentially assassinated.  She knows that it was a very real fear among the african american community in the beginning of the campaign... so, it plays on that fear to gain support for her candidacy.

Considering that NOTHING from the Clinton camp is "off the cuff"... every word is carefully chosen... I have a hard time believing that it was simply a gaffe... It's certainly not as nefarious as people make it out to be, but there is a subtle, subliminal message of "I'm the safe bet, select me" in her delivery.

True enough, but it's not wrong to point out that they're limping.

What "it" are you referring to?

Axelrod defending Hillary is PANDERING?  

Oh.......my............GOD!

No, actually the NY Post started it and then Drudge jumped on board...

I think Hillary started it.  She's the one who said it, right?

the "her comments were unfortunate and have no place in this campaign" firestorm...

I give Clinton the benefit of the doubt in having made, simply, an insensitive and tone-deaf comment... but Burton's statement was entirely accurate.

Wouldn't that be stupid to say, "just look at RFK, he was still in the race in June"?  Then we could have sat through endless hours of did she know or didn't she know he was assinated in June?  If she did know, why didn't she say it, and on and on.  Here is the point, some Obama people can't help themselves.  they sit on the edge of their chairs waiting for something Clinton says that they can twist into something that finially gets her out of the race.  My question, is what the hell are they so worried about to the extent of making themselves transparent conspiracy theorists, if he has already won?

Basically, today we have had the chance to peer into a bunch of bloggers subconscious who will apparently do anything, say anything, and twist the obvious truth about what she meant in order to get her to leave the campaign.  It is really deperately sad, and they should just give it up.

I'm upset this comment was TR'd.  

Hillary seemed to offer Kennedy as an example of previous campaigns that have lasted into June - not as an example of why she still has a chance.  So on that point, I disagree with your comment.

But I do think there's still a point to be made here.  Once somebody dies while campaigning in June, they can no longer be your default example for how some campaigns can last into June.  That's just crass and insensitive, to say, "Oh, and remember old Lenny.  His campaign lasted into June... right up until he croaked."  No matter how they died.  And esp if it's the way Kennedy died, which is so painful to so many of us still today.  

If someone wants to speculate about why this was Clinton's example anyways, I think that's kosher.  I can also say as a psychotherapist - I see nothing wrong with speculating about someone's subconscious.  For some of us, that's a pretty standard way to consider the behavior we see from people.  I mean, it's not like she's not aware on any conscious or subconscious level that violence is a possibility.  It's not like this comment COULD NOT have shown us anything about her subconscious.  It's a possibility.

I'm being careful how I talk about Kennedy, because of the psychology of violence.  When violence or suicide get media attention, and particularly if there's any suggestion of it being somehow okay or justified, people can become more likely to commit violence or suicide.  To my mind, this is the real harm of her statement and the firestorm it created... it brought lots of attention to historical examples of something we don't want repeated.

I'd encourage everyone not to throw around specific language about violence, details, or to dwell on any historical examples.  And if anyone wants coaching on how to talk about suicides, let me know and I can offer tips.

Which is why I said:

What I am outraged about is that so many people here are claiming Hillary called for Obama's assassination while others are blaming Obama for the "faux outrage" (your words not mine).

:)

Please show me the links to this. I honestly haven't seen anyone say this.

"like when Obama called the woman sweaty?"

You DO mean "sweetie," right? Did he call a woman "sweaty," too?  ;)

actually he has used the term sweetie more than once. But... it is still stupoid to argue over it and it was also a stupid thing to say. No it is not on the same "offensive" level, but it does offend some.

It really does, she just refuses to engage in character assassination. She'll jump on Obama when he says something that demonstrates a misunderstanding of why people have faith, for instance, but she doesn't twist his words in an attempt to make him out to be evil. Obama has used character assassination since the beginning of the campaign, raising it to a fever pitch with the race charges after he lost New Hampshire. But I think Axelrod realized that they went too far with Bill Burton's press release distorting her words, and knew he had to walk it back.

I don't think anyone with an open mind was really offended by this.  The people demonstrating the most outrage are the people who have always been her biggest detractors.

And thank goodness for the Democrats that this guy is running Obama's campaign, not someone like Keith Olbermann.

axelrod comes across as a leftie karl rove.

neither is a good thing.

It did NOT offend Bobby Kennedy Jr.

I would think his feelings should go above yours in this situation.