Underneath those Remarks


While everyone is pointing the finger at Hillary Clinton's remarks about Robert F. Kennedy, no one is focusing on the essence of her comments which led to the remark.

The interviewer is asking her why so many are trying to push her out of the race:

Hillary states "I don't know why, they have been trying to push me out since Iowa."

"Why""Why" the interviewer persists.

"I don't know I find it curious" Hillary says. She continues to say that it is unprecedented in history (trying to force a candidate out of the race).

She states that her opponent and the media have called for an "urgency" to end the race.

"Historically it makes no sense, so I find it a bit of a mystery." Hillary says.

The interviewer continues - "you don't buy the party unity?" 

"I don't" says Hillary, "I've been around long enough"

at this point she goes on to talk about Bill's nomination being in June and "we all remember Bobby Kennedy was assasinated in June" (she put emphasis on JUNE).

Hillary goes on to talk about speculation as to why so many are trying to force her out of the race. "I don't want to attribute motives or strategies to people because I don't really know."

Very soon after her interview finishes, the Obama camp fires off it's statement of disgust over her comments saying "they have no place in the campaign".

And there lies the immediate swift-boating (once again) of Hillary. It is EXACTLY what the Obama campaign & media pulled when Hillary made the remark about MLK/LBJ and turned her into a "racist".

Hillary immediately apologized to the Kennedy family yesterday and has said she regrets the remarks.

here is the video from CNN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gn-UY6uS 2A

(sorry don't know how to embed videos)

QUESTION: The Obama campaign fired off a memo about the Kennedy remarks but why did these remarks never bother their campaign before?

Hillary has used the remarks before, again for historical significance, but the obama camp never cared before.

ANSWER: To take the focus off of what the interview was really about, what they were discussing:


The Obama campaign and the media-soaked-Obama-love-fest-paid-shills like Olbermann came after her like Bats out of Hell.

To Avoid

The TRUTH and the SPECULATIONS and the MOTIVES as to why they are trying to force Hillary to quit the race.

So - ask yourself - WHY are they?

Tags: assasination, Barack Obama, campaign, Election, Hillary Clinton, Primary, remarks, Robert Kennedy (all tags)



Re: Underneath those Remarks

To get the focus on McCain and the General Election, since McCain's had a free ride essentially since February?

by ragekage 2008-05-24 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

but who is the media to do that for us? Who the hell are the talking heads to tell us how our party should go? Let the VOTERS decide. Apparently, they don't want her out of the race. Thats why she's still close in every metric,and wins landslide victories in states like WV, PA, KY and will win one in PR.

by DiamondJay 2008-05-24 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

The media has been in this for their own benefit all along. The American public has a thing for winners; it makes them money, and thus the dynamic becomes what it has. The talking heads don't have any "right" to tell us what oughtta happen... except they keep saying it, and they keep generating ad revenue like no tomorrow.

Now, the "voters" (some anyway) don't want her out of the race, certainly. Although Obama had his share of blowout wins, and keep in mind that voters in places like West Virginia (the only place I've got firsthand knowledge of) voted in large numbers against Obama, rather than for Clinton- she still wouldda won, the demographics favored her, but it doesn't tie as closely to your argument as you're making it sound.

Now, I've never been an Obama supporter to demand she leave the race, now!!!! Look what we've gotten- four million new voters registered, Democratic infrastructure where it never existed before, fundraising records, etc. And Senator Clinton, perhaps unintentionally, has made Barack Obama a better prepared candidate for the general election than he would've been had she dropped out after the Wisconsin primary. When Obama wins, it will be in no small part thanks to Senator Clinton.

by ragekage 2008-05-24 04:29PM | 0 recs
This is a GREAT DIARY - REC It Up Folks!

Seriously - I've been wondering why the rush lately too.  Why ARE they trying to get her out of the race?  What's the hurry?

More to the point... why haven't they been able to force her out after all those chances?

I'll tell ya why gang - it's because the people want her to STAY IN THIS RACE ALL THE WAY TO DENVER!!!!

by alegre 2008-05-24 05:09PM | 0 recs
Who are the people?

Because really, I think the people at this point are trying to be nice.  We tried giving her subtle hints, a chance to leave the room gracefully, but I have to say at this point we might have to be more direct like tell her we're out of alcohol and our landlord says we can't have anyone over after 2am.

by lollydee 2008-05-24 06:23PM | 0 recs
Why tell her anything? Count the votes!

by itsadryheat 2008-05-24 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Why tell her anything? Count the votes!

In the USA it is traditional for the media to "call" an election after their mathematical and political analysis deems it to be over with a sure winner. The presidential primary has been called by even the most conservative in the media as over with Obama the winner. In this case the loser irrationally continues campaigning causing deep trauma for her loyal supporters as they deny reality and follow along into the leaders illusionary reality. I am not kidding by saying this can have very harmful psychological effects by those who must try to bridge the gap between fantasy and fact. We are witnessing Hillary slowly lose her mind in front of millions.

by ImpeachBushCheney 2008-05-24 10:31PM | 0 recs
Key concept - Project a winner. No votes,

by itsadryheat 2008-05-25 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: This is a GREAT DIARY - REC It Up Folks!

Because taking the nomination process to a floor fight is the only way to be sure that John McCain is the 44th President of the United States. I suppose that's the biggest reason it's time for her to go.

by Geiiga 2008-05-24 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

The media doesn't want Hillary out because it has a financial interest in having the nomination continue.  Of course the media would love for the nomination to go to the convention -- floor fight and all -- with the suspense of an unknown floor vote outcome.  That's in the media's financial interest.

Also, there aren't many voters left.  We have PR, MT, and SD left.  That's it.  And because we have so little voting left, Barack Obama's lead -- although close by historical margins -- is insurmountable.  The superdelegates would prefer to allow Hillary to exit on her own terms, but should she make statements like the one she did yesterday, insists on seating in full the FL/MI delegations, and refuses to drop out one week after the SD/MT primaries, the superdelegates will unhappily write Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign's obituary.

by Brad G 2008-05-24 04:34PM | 0 recs
Kennedy took it to convention hoping to

"turn" 977 delegates he was behind Carter in assumed delegate votes.  He did not concede and was not ahead in the popular or nearly as closely tiedd as this race.  But he and THE RULES think we have no nominee untill the floor vote or till there is only one candidate.

The only reason I can think of for one candidate to try to push another candidate out is because that is the ONLY way He thinks he can beat her.  Since he has been trying since Iowa to get rid of Clinton we have to ask what it is that he knows about his chances that he doesn't want the party to know?

Why take the terrible risk to try and try to push her out, trash her reputation by say things out of his own mouth over and over in his stump speech.

Obama:"She is not honest.  You can't believe what she tells you. She is desperate.  She will say and do anything to win."

Why play the race card and risk reviving and refurbishing the tensions we so need to reduce?  Why take such risks with sexism and racism that the voters might see thru and detest.  Why alienate a large portion of the party with your constant demeaning, dismissive, abusive tactics and make sure all the media is watching?  Isn't it possible a few will catch on and call you out?

We can see from the data that your appeal is fading among some core groups and that McCain and Clinton beat you handily in the various electoral college maps and swing states. Is that it?  You want to get her out before your internal pooling data bedomes publically known.  We saw in Pennsylvania that your expectations about newly register voters didn't pan out becasue they didn't go to the polls in the numbers you needed.  Nor did the Black turnout produce the numbers you said you would get.

And the Philly suburbs went astonishingly for Hillary, your rich latte folks dissed you, over there anyway.  You changed then.  You canceled some stuff, went home, looked really down and only gave speeches that sounded half hearted there for a while.  Is that when you finally knew it wasn't working?

For a guy who wants to be President, you take a lot of risks that could keep you from getting there.  Looks like you think you can't make it unless Hillary gives it to you.

by itsadryheat 2008-05-24 07:48PM | 0 recs
yep - that scenario fits, too

by tornsneaker 2008-05-24 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Kennedy took it to convention hoping to

Remind me again...what was the end result in 1980?

by ipsos 2008-05-24 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Kennedy took it to convention hoping to

I got this one. Reagan won the White House and the Republicans were in power for the next twenty-eight years. Thirty-two if Hillary fights this one to Denver.

by Geiiga 2008-05-24 08:55PM | 0 recs
I knew it was going to be Hillary's fault!

Here's a solution.  Since she is going to make him lose by finishing the race, he could drop out for the good of the party now.  Then we could all come together and all of those errant Hillary voters can come home to the party and there won't need to be a big unity effort; we can return to democratic values again.

It's ponies all around!

And, oh yeah, the White House and a president who knows what to do with it.

by itsadryheat 2008-05-24 09:56PM | 0 recs
It's Almost Stepford Sometimes... n/t

by RNinNC 2008-05-25 12:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

Here is the story of how everything went down.

The Wall Street Journal was kind of enough to pimp the parties involved in this catching fire.

Please read this and get back to me.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/05/24 how-clintons-comments-didnt-then-did-ca tch-fire

What did Obama have to do with anything?

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-24 09:04PM | 0 recs
That's just... incredibly wrong

the MSM has almost completely ignored the fact for over two months now that Hillary had virtually no chance to win the nomination, save some utterly unforeseen personal tragedy.

Go back to right after Wisconsin and Hawaii voted on February 19, and from that point forward, try to figure out some path for Senator Clinton that's more favorable than it has been without something even more damaging than the Reverend Wright story was.  Because at that point, the rest of the states were set.  I wrote my DK diary on February 25 where I correctly called the delegate winner of every contest between then and now ... because they were essentially all set back then.

The media chose to largely ignore it.  Sure, on MSNBC or CNN, they'd give 2 minutes to Chuck Todd or John King to say something like "well, she needs 68% of pledged delegates" but that was never translated to, "well, in the format of this election, that means there's no chance."  The news outlets just continued to act like it was in doubt long, LONG after it ceased to be by any rational analysis.

by Rorgg 2008-05-24 09:41PM | 0 recs
People saw they didn't count MI and FL

or for a long while even superdelegates. And they always counted people who had not even voted. Bogus, in terms of the rules of the nomination process but according to the Obama meme of delegates, a mathematical certainty.  Did you know there were 7 types of delegates in the rules?  Todd and King don't either.

by itsadryheat 2008-05-24 10:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Shoot the Messenger

It's called the First Amendment, idiot.  Live with it or go to China.

by LtWorf 2008-05-24 11:15PM | 0 recs
I heard several comments yesterday

about how there is no way Hillary could be the VP after this. So, apparently they were looking for a molehill to make that mountain possible. They don't just want her out of the primary, they want her out of sight and out of mind. How dare she spoil their predictions and narrative? And they probably think that if they can say later on that she was a lock for VP until she suggested Obama be assassinated, her supporters will be mollified and flock to Obama.

by georgiapeach 2008-05-25 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

Um, no! If Obama wants to focus on McCain exclusively, nobody is stopping him. He can just pretend Hillary has already been vanquished and ignore her. The reason Obama continues to interact (sporadically) with Hillary is the same reason he and his supporters want her out of the race: she can still win. It's not likely, but it's possible.

On a lighter note, McCain's "free ride" has caused him to alienate the religious right by rejecting preacher endorsements, demonstrate that he can't tell a Sunni from a Shiite, reduce the size of a fundraising venue for lack of enthusiasm and lose military supporters by rejecting the GI bill. If that's a free ride, I'll pay the fare.

by STUBALL 2008-05-24 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

He has been focusing on McCain generally, but he hasn't ignored Senator Clinton in deference to her stature and her supporters. Tell me you wouldn't be up in arms if he ignored her completely.

She can't "win", per se; she could be named the nominee, certainly, as we're all quite aware after yesterday, but if something were to make Barack Obama unelectable, she certainly would be our first pick. As I explained above, I haven't wanted her out of the race, and have been glad she stayed in. Most Obama supporters would agree with me. So your brush is broad and inaccurate there.

Now, three of those gaffes you mentioned have happened in, what? The last week? And the Sunni/Shia thing was mentioned, but widely ignored. So your point is pretty much shot there- they only happened after the media, as so many have decried, have done their post-mortem on Clinton's campaign.

by ragekage 2008-05-24 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

Also, adding to your point, that sort of coverage of McCain only started after Obama started focusing on McCain. I look forward with great anticipation to what Obama can do with the remaining 5-1/2 months until election day to frame McCain as a washed-up old Bush wannabe.

by edg1 2008-05-24 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

I have been calling for him to treat her as irrelevant for weeks.  I believe the reason he has not done that has nothing to do with the miniscule chance she has.  It has everything to do with not wanting to look like he is ignoring the woman in the race.  He can't look like he is ignoring her or every female Hillary supporter will be up in arms about the patronizing Obama.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-24 04:45PM | 0 recs
They already are.

They thought Kentucky and West Virginia should've changed the race.

No one is fucking buying it and they're complaining.

I wish Obama was a black woman so everyone would just shut the fuck up and be happy.

by Lord Hadrian 2008-05-24 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: They already are.

In 2016 Michelle can play the part of Hillary this year!

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-24 04:50PM | 0 recs
And hopefully lose, too.

There is no place in America for dynastic presidency. You'd think we'd have learned it with Adamses and confirmed it with Bushes.

by edg1 2008-05-24 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: And hopefully lose, too.

What about the Harrisons?  Or does Grandfather-Grandson not count as a dynasty?

by sasatlanta 2008-05-24 09:01PM | 0 recs

but then I'm not sure William Henry counts as a presidency ;)

by Casuist 2008-05-24 09:22PM | 0 recs
Re: perhaps...

I don't know.  Look at ANY 30 day period of W and he probably does enough to ruin a country.  :-)

by sasatlanta 2008-05-24 09:24PM | 0 recs
Re: And hopefully lose, too.

What about the Harrisons?  Or does Grandfather-Grandson not count as a dynasty?

by sasatlanta 2008-05-24 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: And hopefully lose, too.

Or 5th cousins Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt?

by edg1 2008-05-25 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks


Love that word there. Obama pays no attention to Hillary.

He's been warming up with Bush and McCain for some time now.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-24 08:59PM | 0 recs
RageKage:1:44 after diary opens -slipping.

by itsadryheat 2008-05-24 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

That's a legitimate concern (focusing on McCain) but clearly if that were the intent, exacerbating the Obama/Clinton debate wasn't the most effective means of accomplishing it.

by BPK80 2008-05-24 11:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

To get the focus off the fact that this race isn't over and the turtle is overtaking the hare :)
by linfar 2008-05-24 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

The story had already broken when they gave as mild a statement as I've seen in this campaign season, that her remarks were "unfortunate".  They were.  Hillary herself would admit that.  Within hours, I believe even before Hillary issued her full apology, Obama's campaign was defending her on MSNBC.

Wake up, Linfar.  It's not too late to reclaim some of your lost credibility.

by map 2008-05-24 04:05PM | 0 recs
Unfortunate and I might be assassinated!

From ABCNews:

The Obama campaign's decision to target Clinton's RFK reference forced the former first lady to express regret for her remarks.

Target. Interesting. How did they target these remarks:

No such "presumption of good faith" was extended to Hillary Clinton on Friday.

When Clinton referenced RFK's assassination while discussing previous Democratic nomination fights which stretched into June, she was quickly scolded by the Obama campaign.

"Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign," wrote Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton in a missive to reporters.

Burton's e-mail included a link to a New York Post story which noted that Obama, who received a Secret Service detail early in the campaign, has been the subject of threats.

by catfish2 2008-05-24 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Unfortunate and I might be assassinated!

You are quoting an op-ed style blog post.  

by map 2008-05-24 04:28PM | 0 recs
Triple byline is not an OpEd

Not that I've ever seen.

by catfish2 2008-05-24 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Triple byline is not an OpEd

It's from The Note.

by map 2008-05-24 04:39PM | 0 recs
Obama campaign pounced on this

is what the facts say. I'm so sorry to tell you this.

by catfish2 2008-05-24 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama campaign pounced on this

Don't be sorry.  They sent out a tepid "her words were unfortunate" response after the story broke and then defended her on national TV when more context came to light.  I'm proud of them.

by map 2008-05-24 04:42PM | 0 recs
Politics rule: if they say it's nothing personal

look out, because they're about to twist that knife in your gut. - Bill Clinton, last weekend in Portland.

by catfish2 2008-05-24 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Politics rule: if they say it's nothing person

What are you even talking about? I can't find a reference anything close to that in any source. What are you even trying to say?

by upstate girl 2008-05-24 05:20PM | 0 recs
Why does BO always think it;s about him?

Since she has had secret service protection and death threats for 16 years and lived 8 years with enourmous threat to her husband, maybe she, when when ever has to think about a possible future assassination, thinks about a Clinton and ,,,,da, da,da, dump,,,not an OBAMA

by itsadryheat 2008-05-25 02:25PM | 0 recs
It must be hard living day to day

when you have to be this desperate to blame someone.

You have my condolences.

by Lord Hadrian 2008-05-24 04:43PM | 0 recs
I see haystacks, fields of haystacks...

by itsadryheat 2008-05-25 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Unfortunate and I might be assassinated!

I would have bolded the word "forced" in the first quote. Why should she have to be forced into apologizing for tasteless remarks? Shouldn't she have engaged brain before inserting foot in mouth? Or failing that, have retracted the words after they were spoken as comprehension dawned on her of the monstrosity of what she had just said?

Also, here is the sequence of events. Your analysis seems to be a few steps short of complete: 1. she made the remark to the Argus Leader editorial board 2. New York Post ran a story on her remarks 3. Drudge report headlined New York Post story 4. ABC news emailed Obama campaign for comment 5. Bill Burton responded and said it was "unfortunate".

by edg1 2008-05-24 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

The turtle can't catch the hare.  There's not enough track left.

by fogiv 2008-05-24 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

Her examples were very dishonest.  Her husband esentially wrapped up the nomination in March, and RFK didn't even begin his run until March.  The Primary calendar was very different back then.  Maybe you could ask Hillary why she picked two such misleading examples.

But the bottom line is... who cares at this point.  The race will be over in a couple weeks and we'll have our nominee.  


by map 2008-05-24 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

Jerry Brown was still in the race, so he didn't secure the nomintation until June - it is similar to 2008.

by nikkid 2008-05-24 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

HA!!!!  Please... you slay me.  Jerry Brown?

Clinton had all but secured the nomination in March.  California put him over the top in June, but that was a foregone conclusion.  The situation isn't at all similar.

by map 2008-05-24 04:08PM | 0 recs
You prove Hillary's point

Bill still had to formally wrap up the nomination in June, even though "everybody knew" it was his.

And winning California Ohio New Jersey are not exactly insignificant states.

And Obama is not as far ahead as Bill Clinton was.

by catfish2 2008-05-24 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: You prove Hillary's point

Bill Clinton wasn't running against a very popular former president and the former president's Senator wife. Bill ran against a very weak primary field. I don't think Bill would have done as well as Obama has under the circumstances in which Obama is running.

by edg1 2008-05-24 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: You prove Hillary's point

I don't think Bill in 1992 comes close to beating Obama in 2008.  And while I am an Obama supporter, I think Bill is the greatest President of my lifetime.

While Barack started encountering problems in March, before then he was a machine (except in the debates).   The only person he didn't blow away was Hillary, and she was a far greater force at the time than Bill was in 1992.

by sasatlanta 2008-05-24 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: You prove Hillary's point

Obama has been running against the tag team of Hillary and Bill. I've heard it compared to John McCain trying to win a primary against Nancy and Ronald Reagan.

I'm not sure if you were criticizing or amplifying my comment, but thanks for responding.

by edg1 2008-05-25 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: You prove Hillary's point

I think we both completely agree in all our comments.  Barack 2008 was a better (if not much better) candidate than Bill 1992.  If I misunderstood you, please tell me.

I hope Barack wins and then becomes as good of a President (like I said, I think Bill was great)!

by sasatlanta 2008-05-25 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

Jerry Brown had been governor of California. There is no such thing as a foregone conclusion with a candidate who is on the national stage for the first time. Heck, look at Kerry's nomination and campaign against Bush - there's no foregone conclusion about someone who has been vetted on the national stage.

There was nothing inappropriate in Clinton's remarks. This is simply a case of obama supporters falling for Rovian manipulation.

by glitterannebegay 2008-05-24 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

You are kidding right.  Look at this link then tell me Brown was still in the race with a straight face.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/03/q-did-the-1992.html

by reggie23 2008-05-24 04:56PM | 0 recs
Good article. Thanks.

Tsongas got most votes, but Clinton says he won

It's like deja vu all over again.

Harkin endorses Clinton, expressing concern that the fight between Clinton and Brown will cause divisions in the party that would hurt the nominee in November.

And yet people on this very site say there's no historical precedent for asking one candidate to drop out.

by edg1 2008-05-24 06:27PM | 0 recs
And when people look back at this race

they won't say "Senator Obama defeated Senator Clinton in June". Historians look back at defining moments and "the moment" when it became impossible for someone to change the outcome - that moment was after the twelve victories and a lead that was made statistically impossible to overcome.

So while both then-Governor Clinton and Senator Obama will wrap the nomination up "officially" in June, it will be the February contests pointed to as when David defeated Goliath.

Otherwise, everyone would just say "Well, technically, he didn't win the nomination until the roll call at the Democratic National Convention on [insert date]".

Which would be retarded. But I know quite a few direly hope that that is the case. And I cannot stress enough that Senator Clinton winning is not worth the Democrats losing in November, which is what going to the convention means. And that goes for Senator Obama as well.

Whoever leads is who the superdelegates will put over. And that's going to be fortunately for me, unfortunately for others, Senator Obama.

by Lord Hadrian 2008-05-24 04:10PM | 0 recs
Fortunately for all of us.

Since Obama will be a far superior president.

by edg1 2008-05-24 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

QUESTION: The Obama campaign fired off a memo about the Kennedy remarks but why did these remarks never bother their campaign before?

Because every media outlet in the country had gone to defcon 1 and was asking for comment.  

Face it, he gave Sen. Clinton the kid glove treatment on this issue.  Far better than she would have, had the roles been discussed.  

by nextgen 2008-05-24 04:04PM | 0 recs
ABCNews disagrees on kid gloves

But what do they know:

No such "presumption of good faith" was extended to Hillary Clinton on Friday.

When Clinton referenced RFK's assassination while discussing previous Democratic nomination fights which stretched into June, she was quickly scolded by the Obama campaign.

"Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign," wrote Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton in a missive to reporters.

Burton's e-mail included a link to a New York Post story which noted that Obama, who received a Secret Service detail early in the campaign, has been the subject of threats.

by catfish2 2008-05-24 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: ABCNews disagrees on kid gloves

You are quoting an op-ed style blog post.  That isn't a news story.

by map 2008-05-24 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

LOL - No, he's worried about alienating her supporters with this Rovian ploy. He doesn't want to get too dirty - not when he can have drudge roll in the mud for him.

Remember, we're one party. He needs Clinton's voters should he be the nominee, and there is an overwhelming feeling in our half of the party that Obama and his cammpaign went way too far yesterday. He lost himself a lot of votes in November with that little stunt.

by glitterannebegay 2008-05-24 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

Gee... I hope we can reach people like you, that say stuff like this...

Half the party doesn't care what you think and we're the half that live in blue states and actually elect real Democrats to the White House. Guess you're just gonna have to suck it up and wait for the convention because most of us think your candidate is the biggest loser we've seen since McGovern.

How's Rezko's trial going?

Talk about Rovian.  Look in a fucking mirror.

by map 2008-05-24 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

I see nothing Rovian there - just the God's honest truth. There are a lot of Democrats who despise Obama and, unfortunately for Obama, we're the people who traditionally elect Democrats to the White House. The demographics that supported Bill Clinton in both elections are supporting Hillary in this election. The demographics that supported Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry are supporting Obama.

Obama told his supporters to dial it back, because the outcry yesterday alienated a lot of people.

by glitterannebegay 2008-05-24 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

You'd think with all that support she wouldn't be in second place. You have to be able to win a nomination before you can win the Presidency.

by upstate girl 2008-05-24 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

Yeah, at least a couple hundred of you.

by Geiiga 2008-05-24 08:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

How's the Rezco trial going?  Nah, nothing Rovian about that.  Ya know what, please don't ever support Obama.  I'm fine crushing McCain in Nov without your help.

by map 2008-05-24 09:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

Way too far?

Please tell me you're not serious.

One single sentence release in response to numerous press inquiries, condemning the remarks in about as mild terms as you can condemn remarks, followed by Obama surrogates on the talking-head shows defending Sen. Clinton, is "way too far"?

What, pray tell, wouldn't be too far?  Is it possible for anything the Obama campaign does to be acceptable to you?

by mistersite 2008-05-24 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

All those diaries here and other places, KO's special comment - all of that brouhaha on behalf of one Barack Obama and accusing a Clinton, of all people, of saying something that could jeopardize his safety. All the demands that she apologize to him.

Way too far. Too much frothing at the mouth. Too much sanctimony. Too many accusations.

by glitterannebegay 2008-05-24 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

You said "Obama and his cammpaign" [sic].  Which one of these...

-Keith Olbermann
-MyDD Diarists
-The Press

...are Barack Obama?  Which of these are officially associated with his campaign?

by mistersite 2008-05-24 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: You're a fucking idiot

You want to know why?  Because NO Democrat has carried the election with a majority of the white vote in four decades.

You want to keep framing things this way, there will be a blackout come November.  I defy HRC to steal the election.

by LtWorf 2008-05-24 11:22PM | 0 recs
Re: You're a fucking idiot

Lead the way- I'm sure a couple hundred will be covering your back.

Besides I like blackouts. I love burning candles and we have a portable CD player and propane for cooking and I know we're conserving energy and it gives me a good feeling to know I'm saving the planet and it's sort of romantic too.

by Justwords 2008-05-25 05:41AM | 0 recs
Because Senator Clinton hasn't dented

Senator Obama's lead by a single delegate since February 5th.

And it's common for "the Media" to declare a winner after Iowa or New Hampshire. But after Super Tuesday and the string of twelve straight wins, Senator Obama has amassed a 150 delegate lead.

That lead has not budged. In fact - it's about to hit 200. Not exactly a successful endeavor on her part - she's lost the Superdelegate lead and most are now talking of Superdelegates letting her go "gently" and with "dignity".

I'm sorry some people want to believe she's taking it to the convention; the reality is, it won't be and that what Senator Clinton is engaging in is just a waste of money and time.

She won't overtake his lead; the superdelegates won't overrule the Pledged Delegates and at the end of the day, Senator Obama will be the nominee.

So the real question is - why is Senator Clinton still in it when it's statistically impossible for her to do so even with Florida and Michigan counted fully?.

by Lord Hadrian 2008-05-24 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Because Senator Clinton hasn't dented

It doesn't matter - she has every right to STAY IN THE RACE. NO ONE should force her out of the race.

by nikkid 2008-05-24 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Because Senator Clinton hasn't dented

And no one is. The race will end in two weeks and we'll have our nominee.

by map 2008-05-24 04:09PM | 0 recs
OR it could go all the way to the convention......

and I don't see why that would be a bad thing either.  I know a lot of people here do (both Obama supporters and Hillary supporters).  But wasn't the purpose of having a convention in the first place to vote for a nominee????????   The conventions were never intended to be infomercials for the Party.  As long as the attention stays on the Democrats,  Mccain is getting ignored by the media- no free publicity.  And his fundraising sucks.  So we win no matter what!!!

Let Hillary take it all the way.  Kennedy did.

by Sandy1938 2008-05-25 12:23AM | 0 recs
And if she stays in beyond

the primary contests, threatening to take it the convention, then the Superdelegates have every right to make it impossible for her to get anything accomplished at the convention by putting Senator Obama over the top by an even further insurmountable lead.

It works both ways. Senator Clinton isn't free to run until the cows come home. There are end-dates and hers just happens to be June 4th and maybe a little longer if she's lucky.

by Lord Hadrian 2008-05-24 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Because Senator Clinton hasn't dented

No one has forced her out of the race, no one can force her out of the race. If she weren't a multi-millionaire, she would be out of the race several months ago, but since she is self-financing, she could keep campaigning all the way to 2012 if she wants to.

The fact that she keeps running doesn't mean that people keep treating her campaign seriously. Look at how the media treated Huckabee once it was hopeless (puzzled, amused contempt and frequent plays of his comment that he didn't believe in math, he believed in miracles) or the media's treatment of Jerry Brown in 1992. Yes, it took Clinton until June to get the majority of delegates, but Brown was treated as an irrelevancy and a joke after it became clear that Clinton would get the nomination.

by letterc 2008-05-24 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Because Senator Clinton hasn't dented

No one has, and no one will... at least until enough superdelegates declare their support for Obama that the Clinton path to victory is mathematically impossible without some form of natural disaster.

Or are you suggesting that even if enough SD's declare for Obama to make her victory impossible without flipping them, she should stay in and continue to say stupid things like this until August, rather than our united party firing as many broadsides at McCain as we possibly can?

by mistersite 2008-05-24 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

In 1992 (an election she may remember), Paul Tsongas dropped out of the race in April, essentially clinching the nomination for Clinton, because he didn't want to be a spoiler. Jerry Brown stayed in and ran a very hostile campaign. Clinton made a point of ignoring him, and the press mocked and reviled him. I take it Jerry Brown is now Clinton's role model (I supported Brown, so I completely agree with her choice, although I wish she would do a better job of arguing for something other than her own electability - not that Brown didn't run a nastier campaign than Senator Clinton has, but at least he was running as a champion of old school Democratic liberalism as well).

At this point, no one is trying to push Clinton out of the race. The race will be over in about two weeks.

by letterc 2008-05-24 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

there were HUNDREDS of calls for her to DROP OUT OF THE RACE just on MYDD alone....YES THEY ARE.

by nikkid 2008-05-24 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

So?  There are HUNDREDS of people calling for Obama to drop out on MyDD alone, and he had an insurmountable lead.  Talk about stupid.

by map 2008-05-24 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Yes, there are people who called on Clinton to drop out. They aren't forcing her out of the race. It is impossible to force her out of the race.

by letterc 2008-05-24 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

Ah, wrong comment of mine.

You are right. I meant that no one would be calling for her to drop out of the race at this point if not for her gaffe. Her former supporters are objecting to her advocacy for fully seating MI/FL, but I think everyone agrees that if she had managed to continue to campaign as she has since shortly after "hard working Americans, white Americans" then her staying in would have been good for the party.

by letterc 2008-05-24 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

Underneath those remarks are two lies.

The first is that Hillary needs to stay in the race in case something happens to Obama or he becomes unelectable. Wrong. She could suspend her campaign and if she was needed she would get the nomination in those circumstances.

The second lie is more of a misdirection. She'd like us all to think that staying in until June is not unprecedented. Of course what she leaves out is that we've never started this early before, and talking about Californina in June is different than waiting on Montana and Puerto Rico. Not that those places aren't important. They just don't have a whole lot of delegates.

Then there's your false premise that most people were trying to force her out before yesterday. My impression is that most people, myself included, were more than happy to have her stay in until June 3rd, if she did no harm. That is no longer the case. She is doing considerable harm.

So the question isn't why is everyone suggesting Hillary should leave the race (which they weren't), but rather why is she still in? Particularly after this gaff, she is doing great harm to the party by not gracefully suspending her campaign.

by Travis Stark 2008-05-24 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

Obviously THEY WERE or the interviewer would not have asked it and brought it up.

So you are wrong on that account.

They HAVE BEEN trying to get her to exit the race since Iowa.

She is IN the race because she IS WINNING all the final contests and for people like ME who are her supporters and want her to stay in the race.

Since there are many of us who will not support Obama, she owes it to US to stay in and fight until the end.


She is the First Woman ever to get this far and FOR THAT REASON ALONE she needs to remain in until SOMEONE has the magical number and is declared a WINNER.

by nikkid 2008-05-24 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

Will you get behind the winner when they reach the magic number in two weeks?

by map 2008-05-24 04:24PM | 0 recs
Ask Donna Brazile

So the question isn't why is everyone suggesting Hillary should leave the race (which they weren't), but rather why is she still in?
Ask Donna Brazile.

by catfish2 2008-05-24 05:24PM | 0 recs
Thank YOU!

by LatinoVoter 2008-05-24 04:16PM | 0 recs
It is odd. The calls to drop out.

I wonder why?

by catfish2 2008-05-24 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: It is odd. The calls to drop out.

Can you link to the calls? I havent noticed any. This is more fabricated outrage. I swear sometimes it seems as though the Clinton campaign is arguing with itself.

Clinton has been left to finish the races, which is how it should be...but no one is asking her to drop out.

by Newcomer2 2008-05-24 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

Constructive criticism:  Paragraphs.  Give 'em a whirl.

One you get formatting down, then we can work on content.

by fogiv 2008-05-24 04:32PM | 0 recs

It's called math.  Judging by the number of these type of diaries, apparently the educational system of America is doing a poor job of it.  

If candidate A has more delegates than candidate B, and the metric to win is to have more delegates, candidate A wins.

The myopia of Clinton supporters continues to amaze....

by Seeking Cincinnatus 2008-05-24 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Seriously?

If Candidate A has more delegates than Candidate B- it means nothing

If candidate B has more popular vote than Candidate A- it means nothing.

If more SD's vote for Candadite A or Candidate B- then whomever has the most SD votes wins because SD's don't have to use ANY of the metrics applied by Candidate A or B- they get to choose whatever metric or gut feeling or flip of coin they want.

But keep pushing the delegate math- it's the only thing that works for your guy. SD's and Pledged delegates vote at the August Convention and not before. We will have no official nominee until August. The DNC didn't move the convention up because those were the rules we all agreed to, now the DNC would love to have done that- but they can't change the rules in the middle of the game.  

by Justwords 2008-05-25 05:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

Campaigns can be ruthless, and Barack has been able to successfully disguise his own tactics, by first accusing Hillary and then expressing righteous indignation.  He is so consistent as to be predictable.  It's nothing new, and we don't really know if she would do the same thing were it possible.  In fact if she criticizes Barack even rightly his ratings go up, as if there are many who seek to protect his image from her scrutiny. HIs rating go up, for some period of time, when anyone attacks him. he went up after Wright, and his bitter remarks too. She was seen as having fostered his media check, even though she said nothing about Wright for two weeks and when she did it was a mild observation.  

We've never had a woman candidate, so this may simply be new. I doubt anyone wold feel the need to protect Rudy from her observations.  Barack is seen as a nice guy and his image seems important to maintain.  

But whatever it is, with all the bias against her, she's continuing to gain momentum and he's continuing to lose it.  She won the second half, with more votes, more states and she's won more delegates in the. That she continues to be smeared isn't the issue, it's that she doesn't cry and go home, that's why she's gaining support, and that's why this tactic is backfiring.

Pushing her out would possibly make his win look more legitimate, rather than getting it over the one that's gaining and who looks far stronger for the GE.  

By the way, nice diary, have I been missing your work?  Glad I didn't miss this one.  

by anna shane 2008-05-24 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

One request- define 'second half'...and tell me if that includes all delegates, automatic or otherwise.

by Newcomer2 2008-05-24 08:20PM | 0 recs
Do you hear

The crickets ...Anna Shame has no answer...typical isn't it?

by LtWorf 2008-05-24 11:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

I read it, but Al has a diary about it now.  Sorry I didn't get back to you in time to avoid being scolded and called out. Oh well, it's rough out there and more seem to think I have to answer faster and more clearly  their own candidate?  

by anna shane 2008-05-25 06:43AM | 0 recs
Donna Brazile herself said premature

shutting down of the primary would cause her to quit her DNC seat: (about 7:30 in)

I believe that if this process is prematurely shut down because we want to rush to get a nominee to take on John McCain -- meaning we will not hear from the voters in some of the upcoming primaries and caucuses -- I will vacate my position on the DNC.

by catfish2 2008-05-24 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Donna Brazile herself said premature


      Donna Brazile should really vacate her seat at the DNC now, for her remarks that Obama's new coalition of young and black voters was enough and the old coalition of women, Latinos and whites was somewhat irrelevant now.

by optimisticBoy 2008-05-24 07:46PM | 0 recs
Oh, stop that.

Donna has championed the Clinton campaign and her right to continue it at EVERY juncture - as well as the benefits to the party of her continuing.  She and Begala cleared up that bit of confusion during the discussion on the show that night and it is not fair to continue to characterize her statements as alienating the older base when she clearly used the word "expand" - eg. build on the existing base while adding new voters and young voters to the fold.

Play the victims if you must, but need you try to trash all of the party leaders in the process?  Either way, Hillary's legacy deserves more than to be casted as some bipolar mix of latter day helpless victim unable to defeat her misogynistic naysayers and a never-say-die winner who will take it to the convention if she must.  Her entire career heretofore has predicated on her strength and I find it very unappealing to watch that trait be conveniently whitewashed in the interest of political posturing.

Let her be the strong fighting Hillary and let those who support her champion her as such.  How does it help her or we women to regress into victimhood in this situation?  I just don't get it...

by ILean Left 2008-05-24 09:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, stop that.

Donna Brazile has championed Clinton's campaign?

Nope. Absolutely not. I think many people would say the same thing.

by optimisticBoy 2008-05-25 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

Nice article, nikkid!

by optimisticBoy 2008-05-24 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

Here is the problem with the swift boat attempt, not that many non-bloggers or political fanatics,  are paying attention to it. It, meaning the spinning of it to be about Obama.  After talking with "common people", the non fanatical, non blogging aspect of society, all day, I have found most people to actually "get it" and think that she was empahsizing the aspect of campaigns running into June.  By this time, most of the country is on to the attempts by the press and subtle attempts by the Obama campaign to trash Clinton.  It's a yawn to them.

by Scotch 2008-05-24 07:52PM | 0 recs
Hey, nik, you are on the rec list! goodonya!

by itsadryheat 2008-05-24 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

Because her campaign has spent most of it's time, money, energy, and publicity on attacking the presumptive democratic nominee and telling democrats that they shouldn't vote for him.

by really not a troll 2008-05-24 08:02PM | 0 recs
Because she has done nothing since February.

Because the end result of the contests since February would not allow her to catch up.

Because she has done nothing useful except further divide the party, and has had no impact on the outcome.

Because she keeps lying, misleading, and distracting as the entire basis for her campaign.
And when that doesn't work she brings up sexism, and "white" voters.

Because all her negativity has no positive outcome, she has invited a blacklash on Democrats and Democratic organizations.  How can you justify the attacks on the Left that has been a reult of her continued  candidacy?  She and her supporters have been a black hole consuming the Left.

by Tumult 2008-05-24 08:12PM | 0 recs

Could the diarist provide some examples of all of these folks calling for HRC to quit. Sure seems like HRC (and this diarist) are enjoying the role of the victim.

by Newcomer2 2008-05-24 08:24PM | 0 recs
Since when have they ben calling for HRC to quit?

Please. Ever since Iowa. Actually some before the race even started with their projections of her "likability" ratings and the ability of the Republican Party to instantly energize their base of disgusted cretins. It's obvious that that was meant to imply that there were certain Democrats who shared that feeling - actually outright hatred of Hillary Clinton. Son't make me cite all the examples of people repeatedly calling for Clinton to drop out. Because I won't.

by Jeter 2008-05-24 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks


Not everyone is trying to force her out. I hope she drops out sooner then later, and your diary is a pretty good example of why I wish that.

However, she is being forced out by events. Similar events force out losers in other contests.

by catilinus 2008-05-24 09:41PM | 0 recs
Oh, I have to ask this
First off, some of you Obama people have nasty sig lines. Actually, some of you Clinton people have nasty siglines as well. One has a donate to Hillary link that goes to my favorite Monty Python skit ever. I get the snark, but see it more as a metaphor of Donna Brazile claiming she has been impartial towards all Democratic candidates during this primary. Just really tacky.

And mentioning you just folded time to come here from DKos or cross posted at DKos will always be treated with disrespect. Some of us have a very hard time accepting a site that has Keith Olberman, an employee of a communications corporation, selling his wares at a progressive site. It all seems so HuffPO/NOQuarter level vomitus - the stuff a hungry dog wouldn't eat, ya know?  

But the point is that even after a nominee is chosen I ain't having nothing to do with those people at DKos and I won't be watching MSNBC or CNN.A sea of corporate sponsored propaganda that only shocks and awes viewers into believing they are ingesting substance has popped up during this primary, and it is repulsive.

So, I understand some of you have expressed exasperation about having to state what you have stated repeatedly and with amazing consistently in other threads. I myself often feel that perhaps a function key associated with a stock phrase directed at Obama supporters who offer up a hoary old posit from talking points from one, two or even six months ago would be useful.

I know it all seems pointless since you are only expressing what you believe to be facts or mathematical theorems, if not laws, but has anyone started using functions keys (or macros, javascript, etc.) to participate in these repeated stand offs that we end up getting into?

Also, new proposed guideline: anyone posting pictures or images of racist, sexist, classist or homophobic images used by the Republican Party or even an independent hate group will be zeroed out. There really shouldn't be much resistance to that, right?

One last point that is really baffling me. Something which I don't understand. How come I never see really positive posts about Obama's proposed plans or policies? I was discussing two foreign policy speeches he gave this week and got no response at all from either Obama or Clinton supporters. What is up with that?

by Jeter 2008-05-24 09:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, I have to ask this

While I have no idea how your random thoughts ended up as a comment on a totally unrelated diary, I am stunned at the irony of your rant in light of your sig line; a link to a blog where the first post is a smear against Obama.

Get off your high horse.

by map 2008-05-24 10:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, I have to ask this

I stand corrected. I should have used the permalink to another piece on the site about Clinton supporters standing up against the e-mail innuendo and attacks on Obama. My mistake.  

by Jeter 2008-05-24 11:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, I have to ask this

"Get off your high horse."

"While I have no idea how your random thoughts ended up as a comment on a totally unrelated diary, I am stunned at the irony of your rant in light of your sig line; a link to a blog where the first post is a smear against Obama."

An utter stark personal attack.  If I ever wrote something like that to an Obama supporter, I would be troll rated to oblivion.  

by BPK80 2008-05-25 12:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, I have to ask this

I just meant that his post jumped around a bit.  If you think it was a personal attack you should troll rate it as warranted by the site rules.

by map 2008-05-25 05:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

Thanks nikkid for your diary....

I've been stuck in a refridgerator all weekend (trying to outlast an atomic bomb)..(heh) and missed all the hooplah about RFK. Im super glad I missed it. Seriously, if anyone tried to explain this to someone who didn't know what was going on, they'd laugh at you

This overreaction shit is laughable.

BTW: I heard that RFK jr. is sticking to Hillary, even after her remarks. I guess he wasn't offended and actually understood what she was trying to say.

by alyssa chaos 2008-05-24 10:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Underneath those Remarks

In 1968, the first primary (NH) was held on March 12. This year, the first contest (Iowa Caucuses) took place on January 3rd. The only reason the '68 primaries went into June was because they started over two full months later. Not only that, but there were only 13 primaries in the '68 contest. Most of the states had their delegates appointed by local party leaders. The reason that Kennedy and McCarthy were fighting for every last delegate was because there were so few contests where one could actually win pledged delegates.

I completely agree that Senator Clinton, while using a very poor choice of words, was attempting to cite examples of other nominating campaigns that have gone into June. But even having said that, the analogy is a poor one.

by JENKINS 2008-05-25 12:33AM | 0 recs
Re: "Why are they saying she's lost?"

Thanks for the picture of the Empty Suit.. with his head in the sand. Makes more sense to me now.

by Justwords 2008-05-25 04:49AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads