Hillary: I am dividing the party to unite the party
The NY Daily News gave homegirl Hillary a chance to explain why she's beating this dead horse relentlessly. Proving she's firmly fixed in the new millenium and completely in touch with the politics of change, she regurgitates the most famous excuse for Vietnam, only in pretty Democratic blue:
I am running because I believe staying in this race will help unite the Democratic Party. I believe that if Sen. Obama and I both make our case — and all Democrats have the chance to make their voices heard — in the end, everyone will be more likely to rally around the nominee.
She's not asking to destroy the village to save the village. She just wants to make sure the party remains united by dividing the party.
And she makes no attempt to apologize for making her stupid, insensitive comments about Bobby Kennedy. Instead, she blames other people for taking offense, because she was only teaching history and had no intent to hurt people's feelings:
I made clear that I was [going to remain in the race] — and that I thought the urgency to end the 2008 primary process was unprecedented. I pointed out, as I have before, that both my husband's primary campaign, and Sen. Robert Kennedy's, had continued into June.Almost immediately, some took my comments entirely out of context and interpreted them to mean something completely different — and completely unthinkable.
I want to set the record straight: I was making the simple point that given our history, the length of this year's primary contest is nothing unusual. ... I realize that any reference to that traumatic moment for our nation can be deeply painful — particularly for members of the Kennedy family, who have been in my heart and prayers over this past week. And I expressed regret right away for any pain I caused.
But I was deeply dismayed and disturbed that my comment would be construed in a way that flies in the face of everything I stand for — and everything I am fighting for in this election.
Obviously her team had time to make her non-apology sound not only more apologeticky but become a chance to blame everyone else for thinking mean thoughts about her when the truth is that her heart and mind were so heavy with anguish for Uncle Teddy she simply could not help repeating the "they shot Bobby in June hint hint" comment yet again. Those who accuse her of inviting the country's sharpshooters to send in their resumes are just out of touch with her proven affection for Sen Obama. Plus it's stupid. Not as stupid as making the original comment on camera when you want everyone to believe you are the most experienced and capable politician on the planet, too experienced and capable to make stupid "shoot my opponent, please" comments. But stupid enough. Gaining the nomination that way would be too horrible, and even the Billary isn't that crass or self-centered. Even if she has said it several times over the past three months. And insists the point is still valid. Just not that way.
So all you HillaryHaters: Knock if off. Stop being mean to Hillary. She was only making an inaccurate and misleading historical reference of elections that were completely different than this year. She did not mean she should stay around "just in case ... ya know." She wasn't meaning to hurt anyone's feelings. The simple truth is that Hillary, and Hillary alone (although maybe John McCain, too, it depends on which audience she is addressing) represents long-suffering women, working class white men, ignorant hillbillies, folks what got no quit in 'em, and, of course, the Clinton Legacy. Since Barack Obama is fully incapable of representing the valuable people she represents — the people who will add up to 270 electoral votes, just the way her primary voters added up to a Super Tuesday nomination wrap-up — it's vital she remain in the race until at least a week after Obama makes his acceptance speech in Denver because not only will he lose to the maverickly experienced McCain but all them womens and poor folk will be left alone with no good Democrat to care for them.
And bad stuff can happen. Just not that bad stuff. The other bad stuff, the kind that requires Hillary to remain on the attack in order to be ready to reunite the party.
Just in case.
|
May 25, 2008 |
T.A. Barnhart | Comments (101 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Dan | May 25, 2008 3:23:22 PM
Wow, is that Chris Corbell? Welcome to the realm of reason.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | May 25, 2008 3:44:37 PM
Hillary Clinton is solidifying her case to be the Democrats vice presidential nominee. It' an easy case for her to make: She'll campaign in Florida and Ohio and the Appalachian states where Obama doesn't do quite as well.
Posted by: John | May 25, 2008 3:50:25 PM
Boo. I am so tired of hearing everyone with a keyboard and a blog who was already an Obama supporter jumping on this story. Keith Olbermann the other night made me MORE committed to Hillary Clinton. This faux outrage is ridiculous. Did you tell Ted Kennedy to get out of the race in 1980? I don't think so, even though he was down by 900 delegates. Now Hillary Clinton made a big mistake, but the response has been repugnant.
Posted by: Cray | May 25, 2008 3:55:27 PM
This is so ridiculous. She made a poorly phrased comment. This assassination possibility is a scary one, but very unlikely. And it could happen to any leading candidate. The first female nominee or the first black nominee both need extra secret service protection. The idea she suggested this is ridiculous, and I am tired of her comments being blown out of proportion. Does Obama get a pass on calling reporters 'sweetie' and brushing dirt off his shoulders like Hillary Clinton is one of the "b***ches" in the songs (or playing the atrocious anti-woman "99 problems and a b*** ain't one" song at his Iowa victory rally? But Clinton makes a mistake and that is it, huh?
Posted by: denial_is_not_an_excuse | May 25, 2008 3:59:38 PM
She did not give it a break. She turned around and blamed it on Obama... wake up and stop being in denial.
He can call me sweetie anytime he wants. It's not even remotely the same.
Oh and I am a 54 year old woman.
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | May 25, 2008 4:08:15 PM
Hillary has fought a tough fight. At times, her approach has been too tough, she has crossed lines she shouldn't. Her candidacy has paid the price, by failing to gain traction; Obama's ability to, generally, stay above the fray has been more effective. He's held his lead. Good for him; he is an excellent candidate and, in my view, by far the best candidate to lead the country in the direction it needs to go.
But to call Hillary's mention of the Kennedy assassination a "mistake" or worse makes no sense to me. Politicians make reference to emotional and political touchstones all the time. She noted a moment that sticks out in many people's memories, in support of her point that primaries have lasted into June before. Big deal. I've read lots of comments claiming that there's something improper or untoward about it, but nobody has made a case that is remotely convincing to me. I watched the clip, it was a perfectly reasonable point for her to make.
Of course Obama supporters would like Hillary to concede, I count myself among those who would prefer that outcome. But hanging on her every word, looking for an exploitable issue to make her concede is bush league. She's earned her right to make her case, and parlay her strength into whatever she can. She's been an incredibly strong candidate (even though her approach has vastly diminished her stature in my eyes and those of many others.) She clearly wants to play a role in guiding this country to a better future, and she will attempt to do so, whether as a Senator or in some other role.
Casting her as the villain at every (non-) opportunity is getting very old.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | May 25, 2008 4:17:00 PM
it was reasonable to bring up the specter of political assassination? it was reasonable to conflate 1992 & 2008, which have nothing in common other than the name "clinton"? it was reasonable to once again say, sorry, no that's not what i meant (sorry, no, i didn't mean to imply anything racist; sorry, no, i didn't mean to belittle dr king/jfk; sorry, no, i didn't mean bush to screw up the war i voted for).
pete, she's not making an historical point: she's be self-serving. even if she meant well, even if you give this the best possible interpretation -- it was stupid. it was flat-out stupid. if that was the best historical reference she had, then she should have kept her mouth shut. why wasn't the 1992 reference good enough? it was; i disagree with it, but it was sufficient. but she had to add the assassination reference as if it wouldn't be horrific to millions of Americans. and it was.
Posted by: Ed | May 25, 2008 4:20:29 PM
I guess the faux outrage over the bitter comments was ok, but this isn't.
For someone who was supposed to be such a seasoned politician, Hillary sure does make alot of mistatements. And has awfully thin skin.
Her campaign is a trainwreck of lies, spin, and missteps. She squandered the money and recognition advantage by running a poor campaign. As with Rudy Guiliani, the more people get to know her, the more they realize she is not only unlikeable, but unqualified to be president. Not now, or ever.
Posted by: Karen | May 25, 2008 4:27:09 PM
If, God forbid, something does happen to Senator Obama during this campaign I'm sure Senator Clinton will also blame THAT on him and his supporters. AND if we find the culprit, I guarantee you it will be someone linked to the Clintons. Remember all those mysterious deaths that happened when Bill was in office???
Posted by: Don | May 25, 2008 4:45:06 PM
Sal, had HRC quit even after IN/NC and certainly before PA there is little question she would have been strongly considered for VP. However, given the slash and burn politics she has employed since then, Obama would really anger his supporters if he picked her.
Posted by: Pete Forsyth | May 25, 2008 4:48:10 PM
T.A.: In a word, yes. It was a perfectly reasonable response to the question posed to her, from where I sit.
Okay, I respect that it appeared unreasonable to you -- but if you're going to convince me, you've got a ways to go.
Personally, I'm much more disturbed by the whole "he wouldn't be there if he wasn't black" stuff and the "me and McCain are the only ones with enough experience" stuff. But this one doesn't cause me any concern. Kennedy's assassination was a historical event, and I don't understand why mentioning it should be off limits.
Posted by: marketgeek | May 25, 2008 4:58:47 PM
Senator Clinton did not mean the RFK comment as taken, I feel sure. For me however, it was like someone tearing a bandage off of a wound. I remember sitting with my family with tears streaming down our faces as we watched the film of JFK in the car, his wife scrambling to pick up pieces of his head. I remember the shock at the assassination of Martin Luther King. And I remember the final blow to our hopes with the assassination of Robert Kennedy.
The remarks of Senator Clinton were rudely insensitive to me, and immediately brought those still fresh images to mind. For someone of my age group, more or less, to bring this up in this campaign was simply astounding to me. It is not whether it was meant one way or another--it was the sheer tone-deaf use of such an explosive subject to make such an inconsequential point. It makes me wonder of she has the capacity to understand the effect of her remarks on on anyone other than herself. Surely there were other elections to talk about?
I have no objection to HRC running for as long as she feels necessary--after all, the popular vote is close enough to be disputed depending on what and how one counts. But why this? Why this now? It was both unnecessary and hurtful. For me, it has brought her judgement into question since avoiding the topic seems like a no-brainer.
Also, as always, if she is the nominee I will still be voting a straight dem ticket. Because I do believe in party unity and hope that along with our new Senator Merkley we can send a new dem president to Washington.
Posted by: Beej | May 25, 2008 5:03:14 PM
CBS/AP) A political tempest over Barack Obama's comments about bitter voters in small towns has given rival Hillary Rodham Clinton a new opening to court working class Democrats 10 days before Pennsylvanians hold a primary that she must win to keep her presidential campaign alive.
Obama tried to quell the furor Saturday, explaining his remarks while also conceding he had chosen his words poorly.
But the Clinton campaign fueled the controversy in every place and every way it could, hoping charges that Obama is elitist and arrogant will resonate with the swing voters the candidates are vying for not only in Pennsylvania, but in upcoming primaries in Indiana and North Carolina as well.
Political insiders differed on whether Obama's comments, which came to light Friday, would become a full-blown political disaster that could prompt party leaders to try to steer the nomination to Clinton even though Obama has more pledged delegates.
"This helps both his opponents," Politico.com's Mike Allen told CBS News. "It lets Senator Clinton off the mat, gives her basically a club to hit him with. And it helps Senator McCain because it makes it easy for him to cast this as a race against a snob."
The Clinton campaign handed out "I'm not bitter" stickers in North Carolina, and held a conference call of Pennsylvania mayors to denounce the Illinois senator. In Indiana, Clinton did the work herself, telling plant workers in Indianapolis that Obama's comments were "elitist and out of touch."
Check out paragraphs 3,5, and 6 particularly. What was that you were saying about the Obama camp overplaying this? Why is it that when Clinton does it it's tough politics but when Obama says he doesn't believe that Clinton was doing anything more than offering a historical reference about primaries running into June, he's overplaying it for political gain and that's "not fair"? Wow! Just wow. Get a clue people.
Posted by: Nick C. | May 25, 2008 5:54:38 PM
"Shame on you, Barack Obama!" That was faux outrage.
This one really has folks asking what the hell Hilary could have meant besides Obama might get assassinated. I've listened to the explanation from Hilary (and others from her supporters), but as I repeatedly listen to the original comments, I only see three reasonable interpretations, or some combination thereof.
(1) Hilary really wants to stay around in case "something bad" happens to Obama. Not necessarily an assassination, but a scandal or anything else that could happen in the real world. Let's call this the worst case scenario. Although this is probably on the minds of some politicos as a real strategy, public advertisement of this is dumb and makes Clinton look like a vulture. This seriously calls into question her ethics and reinforces the growing sentiment that she is a win-at-all-costs, opportunistic, and mean-spirited politician.
(2) Hilary was really trying to make the point that some primaries aren't decided until late in the game (sometimes as late as June!), in which case she chose to erroneously apply the 1992 situation, as if it were truly comparable. While technically true, this has been debunked as a genuine argument at BlueOregon and elsewhere.
(3) Hilary misspoke or was thinking out loud without really formulating some other complete thought. To me, this seems least likely, as multiple people have already pointed out that Hilary publicly used the Kennedy assassination meme before in a similar context.
I'm going with (1) with a little bit of (2). I think that this is a line of reasoning that the Clinton camp wanted to get people to consider out loud. Maybe they figured that because it really is on the minds of Americans that if they stoked the fire a bit, people would agree that shit happens and not press so hard for the primary to be over. They just didn't count on the fact that Americans are unwilling to accept the possibility that an assassination will decide this contest. She may have been just trying to communicate that stuff happens, but hey, she used Bobby as the example... people didn't even have to read it in.
To me, it is not the reference itself that is offensive; it is the whole context. To quote Charlie Murphy, Hilary "is a habitual line stepper."
I TOTALLY agree that we should try to step back from our strict scrutiny of every single word that candidates say. Mistakes definitely happen. I'm just waiting for someone to explain to me how this could have been a mistake. I mean in the absolute best case scenario, Hilary is still using the 1992 primary completely out of context.
We Americans are a pretty sensitive bunch about certain words that we don't want to hear. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I think this one is worthy of scrutiny. But I've been wrong before...
Posted by: James X. | May 25, 2008 5:59:20 PM
I believe the reason the Clinton campaign continues to try to foment outrage about disrespectful media, disenfranchised voters, shameful Obama, sexism, and unfairness in general is because it acts as a bargaining chip in their pressure campaign to make Clinton his running mate. Obviously, such tactics also make her a horrendous choice for his running mate. The Clintons will play by their own playbook. They won't take orders from Obama. They are nobody's second in command.
Posted by: Bill R. | May 25, 2008 6:11:06 PM
If anything this campaign season has been successful in revealing that Hillary Clinton should never come anywhere close to the presidency because of a pathologically flawed character. In so doing she has ruined her standing forever as a leader in the Dem. party. She will be fortunate if she is able to keep her senate seat in New York. Perhaps if she runs as a Republican as the champion of the "hard-working white people" she can regain a political political life. And as for Bill, he is reduced to spending his life on the rubber chicken circuit to pay off campaign debts. Instead of the elder statesman he is now a pathetic diminished figure.
Posted by: Leo Schuman | May 25, 2008 6:28:50 PM
"Wow! Just wow. Get a clue people."
I agree. Get a clue, everyone.
Hillary and Barack aren't tearing the party apart. We are, by projecting anger that should be directed at McBush, instead at two of the strongest, bravest, and certainly most unique candidates in American history, along with, by proxy, the many millions who - for obvious reasons - like and appreciate both of these amazing people, in whatever relative degree.
Any Democrat who cannot say "yes, America would be better off with either Clinton or Obama in the White House" needs to have their head examined.
So yes, indeed. Get a clue. Think beyond the 72 hour scandal-cycle, pumped from all ends of the media to keep their ratings up (what, you think Olbermann's so pure, just because you agree with him?). Instead, take a long look at the nearest child, and ask yourself how mis-projecting pent-up political outrage over the latest slight between two people who are under an amount of public pressure no one reading this has ever experienced or could fully understand ... is helping give that child a decent future in the world we've created?
There's a bigger picture here folks. Yes, it is about our children. And, it's time we start acting like it. We're driving towards a cliff, but fighting over the paint job.
Have you heard Canada just discovered massive cracks in the Arctic ice cap this week? Do you know anyone who has lost their job? And how about the wars, and the debt, and the foreclosures, and the super-germs, and the spiraling food costs, and our oil addiction?
Yep, there's a bigger picture available folks, if we wanna pull our heads up (and out) to look at it. And, it's going to take all of us to win this election, and have any hope to avert some of the problems we're facing. So what are we each doing to make that happen?
Posted by: Leo Schuman | May 25, 2008 6:32:16 PM
p.s. I've been openly supporting Barack Obama since the 2006 DPO Platform Convention, when people did nothing but give me funny looks. And I would proudly cast my vote for Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | May 25, 2008 6:51:46 PM
so, Leo, you admit to be an appeaser?
seriously, though: i'm not the one using horribly inappropriate language to promote my own cause. nor is Obama. hell, even Bill never went this far. this is a failure of judgment and leadership, and, as i've said repeatedly, really really stupid.
Posted by: Dan | May 25, 2008 7:11:39 PM
Is it really too much to ask that the 16 million people who voted for Hillary get to see the finish of all the primary elections first? Even though I don't share your decision to support Obama, I still have a right to want my candidate to stay in a race (which looks pretty close to me).
You know something? Your article could have been written by the likes of Dick Morris or Sean Hanity. It has the exact same conspiratorial rhetoric and emotional appeal to the lowest common denominator that is the life's blood of the GOP's echo chamber.
Once the primaries are over, and assuming Obama wins, he is going to need people like me in order to beat John McCain. The vindictive denunciations of my candidate, by you and countless other hacks, is harming your candidate's chances far more than Hillary's fight to the finish ever could.
Posted by: derek eddy | May 25, 2008 7:55:26 PM
Dan, let me get this straight, you and other Hillary supporters are going to vote for McCain because Hillary is not being treated well? If you and others like you choose to vote for McCain or stay home, I hope you all enjoy the next four years of unemployment, war and high gas prices. You would rather the country go down the tubes. I guess you and Hillary are alike.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | May 25, 2008 8:38:56 PM
She will be fortunate if she is able to keep her senate seat in New York.
If New Yorkers would re-elect Chuck Schumer, they won't have any problem re-electing HRC.
Posted by: Robert G. Gourley | May 25, 2008 8:56:32 PM
It's a death rattle, it'll be over soon enough.
Posted by: DH | May 25, 2008 8:56:44 PM
There are just so many relaitve 'ifs'.
Dan, IF, HC was running a classy but tough campaign, you bet we could just let the rest of the primaries play out. Alas, she's NOT and it is damaging the party and jeopardizing the general election. The sooner she's out the better for her, her legacy and the party.
IF HC had not so boldly and coyly, manipulated people's fears about, terrorism, race, gender, class and religion, I could have supported her with some degree of enthusiasm.
As it stands now, I would, if given no alternative ( and McCain is certainly not an alternative) still cast my vote for her only because of SCOTUS. But make no mistake. The politics of the Clinton's, Penn, McCauliffe, Wolfson, Begala, Carville, etc... have contributed to this sorry state of affairs. The GOP may have started it, but our party ended up playing some mighty slimy politics as well. I don't want to be a part of that if I don't have to. You can call me a Pollyana or whatever you want, but I want to be a member of a party that's better than that. I want to be part of a party that says to all the working poor of the Appalachia's. "You are part of this party and part of this nation. We need to help you. We need to improve your schools, access to healthcare , and provide you with a family supporting job. But we reject your racism and your ignorance."
I am trying to understand the perspective of HC supporters, as I am absolutely sure that many of them are wonderful, civic minded and engaged people. But for the life of me, I don't understand their unchecked loyalty to someone who has used the very tactics that we are supposedly against. I am not comfortable with her character and/or ethics. That , for me, has always been the problem.
Posted by: Dan | May 25, 2008 9:03:30 PM
derek eddy: Yes, please! Let's do get this straight. I never said I was voting for John McCain. Those are your words. Why not stick to what I said and respond to that? Ah...it's far easier to make up something outrageous and denounce that.
So here's a question for you. Isn't the lie-based attack the very kind of thing people like you claim to despise about Hillary?
If I and Hillary are alike, it's that we believe in something more than someone. If you understood that, you'd not worry that I'd fail to vote for your darling Barak this coming November.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | May 25, 2008 9:08:02 PM
DH, you said that very well. thanks. i especially appreciate your words "to" Appalachia. i know i was snotty in my post about "poor hillbillies" -- you said the right thing in the right way. i was leading with my disgust. but that was directed at HRC, not the voters. i wish i could say i respected them as voters & citizens, but i find it hard to do. "Christian" voters who won't vote for a black man? jfc.
Posted by: lin | May 25, 2008 9:15:50 PM
Hillary Clinton, as with the Bosnia sniper fire delusion, suffers from a fantasy that she is the front-runner, and with her forever shifting goalposts, her new lunatic math and kitchen-sink-sewer, failed and bankrupt campaign, wants Obama to give her MORE TIME as some evil and psychotic person can clear the road to the WH for her . I am a feminist older than Mrs. Clinton and as an American patriot, I need to do the right thing and tell Mrs. Clinton and sex-addicted impeached Bill, get out already! The Clinton dynasty has been spoiling not just Obama's race in November but also the entire Democratic Party and its representatives'-- congressmen, governors, district officers, mayors, etc, etc--ability to win in future elections. Bill is fighting Obama to return to the WH for a third term, and Obama has been fighting not just two Clintons (both playing every dirty card in politics) but also the GOP and the mainstream media who want to see the contest continue and their high ratings maintained. To claim Senator Obama is not electable because he is black is to say that only white Americans, like Bill and Hillary, can become President, as they have for over 200 years. No Native, Hispanic, or Asian American need apply as well just in case they'll end up like Robert Kennedy as well. Is this what we want for our republic? Senator Obama MUST denounce and reject Hillary's shameless agenda. He MUST stop treating Hillary as an older white woman like his mother and therefore to be respected, and show her for the corrupt (25 million dollars gained from influence peddling last year alone), lying (Bosnia sniper fire), bullying (Judas name-calling), ruthless (just look at her ads), unelectable (highest negatives ever in a presidential candidate, and negatives increasing every day) small human that she is. The Party Elders Must remove Hillary, the basest fear-mongering, saber-rattling candidate ever, before something really really bad happens with all the hate-inciting she and Bill have been doing.
Posted by: derek eddy | May 25, 2008 9:21:50 PM
Hey Dan, You wrote: "assuming Obama wins, he is going to need people like me in order to beat John McCain. The vindictive denunciations of my candidate, by you and countless other hacks, is harming your candidate's chances far more than Hillary's fight to the finish ever could."
That is the sort of thing that Hillary says. Its amounts to electoral blackmail. Clinton stated that the Florida votes would be welcomed by the GOP if the Dems refuse to include their votes in her total. She agreed to sanction those votes with the other candidates and is now making it a civil rights issue. She is also egging the voters to vote GOP.
Your statement is consistent with Hillary's in that it is a slash and burn policy that tells people that if they do not support Hillary then the Dems will loose (with Hillary's assistance).
Posted by: Beej | May 25, 2008 9:25:11 PM
Leo,
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I will vote for Obama because he is going to be the Democratic candidate. I would have voted for Clinton had she been the Democratic candidate. I will not, under any circumstances, vote for one single Republican in this election. That includes my local Republican candidate for dogcatcher. (That was a little levity. Very little.)
Dan may not be one of them, but all you have to do is go to Talk Left or No Quarter to see the totally irrational threats of Clinton supporters to vote for McCain if their candidate is "robbed" of the nomination. Robbed seems to be a synonym for getting less votes than the other guy.
Just one questions for these outraged and wholly delusional Clinton supporters: Do you really want John McCain appointing the next 2 or 3 justices to the U.S. Supreme Court? Do you? Really?
BTW-The quote I posted above was from CBS News.com. I thought I had included that in the post, but evidently it got cut off.
Posted by: James X. | May 25, 2008 9:37:32 PM
Dan, in May 1992, Jerry Brown stopped his attacks on Clinton. He didn't advertise in California. He was still in the race, but he knew just as well as everyone else who the nominee was. And the party united around Clinton.
But the Clintons don't want unity unless we're uniting around them.
This is the longest nominating process in American history. Your candidate has a right to continue to contest it, and a right to hijack it with inflammatory, resentment-inspiring rhetoric. But I have a right to point out how destructive and unfortunate that is.
Posted by: Miri NY | May 25, 2008 9:39:13 PM
We New Yorkers are not going to reelect Upchuck Schumer, Tom Paterson, Tom Rangel, Carolyn Baloney, Nita Lowlife or any other of the spineless hacks who continue to support the racist provocateur Clinton.
But that deal was done when we found out that they sat by knowing her husband was taking millions from Dubai when she voted for the Iraq war.
As a New Yorker I apologize to the rest of the country for this sorry lot.
Posted by: joel dan walls | May 25, 2008 9:45:01 PM
The sad thing about the NY Daily News op-ed is that it further demonstrated Hillary Clinton's kneejerk circle-the-wagons approach to all criticism, as well as her inability to make anything approaching a sincere, meaningful apology. "So sorry if you were offended, but RFK Jr. has absolved me of all guilt."
Sen. Clinton's inability to admit error and apologize--for her war-powers vote--is the reason we're even having this discussion. If she'd emulated John Edwards, she would be the nominee now.
Inability to admit error; inability to apologize; an overbearing sense of entitlement: no, she's not at all like Dubya except for these crucial character flaws.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | May 25, 2008 9:48:20 PM
(i hate to use this tired cliche, but) Miri, please tell us how you really feel!
no need to apologize to Oregon: we foisted Bob Packwood's french kissing on the nation. none of us are pure.
Posted by: Dan | May 25, 2008 9:49:31 PM
derek eddy: Try to remember, I'm on your side. Is it really necessary to talk about the person I want as though she were Satan? That's kind of being a poor winner. Maybe if you can't say something nice about Hillary (clearly!) it would be better to tell me about all of the wonderful things Obama will do for us next year. I do expect him to win, and I am truly excited about it.
I don't buy the Hillary is a demon crap. She is far from perfect, perhaps very far, but she isn't the character so many have cravenly claimed on these pages. You'll never make me her enemy, but you could make me your friend if you treated my my choice with a modicum of respect.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | May 25, 2008 9:57:09 PM
Part of the problem is that Hillary apparently thinks she needs more of a justification to stay in than saying she owes it to people like Dan, or Katy who frequently comments here, or Chris Corbell, and on and on. They are all the reason she needs. It is too bad she couldn't just say that & leave it at that, and point out to Obama backers that Barack Obama has said as much too.
I truly don't believe that Senator Clinton meant anything evil by what she said, and we should reject remarks like that by Karen up above in the same way we should reject Hillary (or maybe R provocateur?) trolls who will still retail anti-Muslim smears against Senator Obama.
But I do still believe her statement was grossly irresponsible and reflects a disturbing obliviousness to the power that her words carry, coming from the heights she's reached. It seems to me part of a pattern of irresponsible speech. But part of the reason I don't see a bad intent is that I believe she has put herself at risk too, not just Senator Obama, given the depth of animosity by some toward her.
All that said, we should also give credit where credit is due. One piece of Hillary's NY Daily News article that T.A. didn't quote is where she said this:
"if Sen. Obama wins the nomination, I will support him and work my heart out for him against John McCain ..."
For reasons to which Leo alludes, and others, I will work for whomeever is nominated in order to defeat McCain.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | May 25, 2008 10:09:47 PM
no Chris, i didn't quote that part, but where do you think i got my title from? i read the op-ed piece, and when i read that -- i flipped. that's was just the capper.
"We had to destroy the village to save the village."
Posted by: joel dan walls | May 25, 2008 10:10:43 PM
Well, here's the Washington Post on Sunday evening, with my emphasis in italics:
Clinton Camp Stokes RFK Flap by Blaming Obama
By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign accused Sen. Barack Obama's campaign of fanning a controversy over her describing the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy late in the 1968 Democratic primary as one reason she is continuing to run for the presidency.
"The Obama campaign ... tried to take these words out of context," Clinton campaign chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said on "Fox News Sunday." "She was making a point merely about the time line."
The issue is particularly sensitive given longstanding concerns about Obama's safety as a presidential candidate. (He first received Secret Service protection last May.) The Obama campaign called Clinton's words unfortunate and circulated a TV commentary criticizing them, although Obama himself said Saturday that he took Clinton at her word that she meant no harm.
...
Asked if Clinton has personally called Obama to apologize for the reference, McAuliffe said she has not, "nor should she." He added, "Let's be clear. This had nothing to with Senator Obama or his campaign."
McAuliffe noted that Robert F. Kennedy's son -- who endorsed Clinton last November -- has said that Clinton's reference to his father's death did not cross the line.
"If Robert F. Kennedy Jr. doesn't find offense to it, why is it that everybody else should?" McAuliffe said. "They shouldn't. They ought to take Robert F. Kennedy Jr. -- he did not misinterpret it or misjudge it."
Appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation", Clinton senior strategist Howard Wolfson said McAuliffe is "absolutely right" that Clinton didn't want to apologize to Obama for the remark and said: "I think it was unfortunate to attack Senator Clinton's remarks without knowing fully what she had said."
****
Just like the war-powers vote, folks. "I'm sorry" is not part of Hillary Clinton's vocabulary. And guess what? This obstinacy, this "toughness" is why she's not going to be the nominee.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | May 25, 2008 10:12:11 PM
Dan (assuming there is only one Dan posting here),
Thank you for clarifying your position. But while it is not the only way to read what you originally wrote, reading it as a threat to sit out the election due to the disrespect of some Obama supporters for Hillary Clinton and / or her supporters is not unreasonable.
Now that you have been clear I don't need to worry about that. However, I would really, really like to say that this has very much been a two-way street at the level of supporters on blogs, and it still goes on, in circulations of smears of Obama by people purporting to be Hillary supporters, and in name-calling against Obama supporters.
You have a fair complaint, with respect to some people. But so do Obama's supporters, with respect to some on your side. Can you acknowledge as much?
Probably we should all take into account the likelihood of false-flag trolling, when looking at comments on blogs.
Posted by: Dan | May 25, 2008 10:21:04 PM
Chris, GLADLY! I will gladly acknowledge some Hillary supporters do the exact same things I am decrying.
Thank you for the olive branch.
BTW I have seen at least one other Dan commenting at Blue Oregon. I don't post very often (maybe once or twice a month), but all of the above are my comments tonight.
Dan (K)
Posted by: Chris Lowe | May 25, 2008 10:27:47 PM
T.A.,
Wasn't meaning to take a shot at you. I assumed you got the title from the Vietnam-era quote you cited.
My frame of mind is pretty well reflected by Kristin Teigen's recent article.
I respect a wide range of other points of view and frames of mind, outlooks, feelings, however one wants to put it. That includes yours, that includes Dan's (esp. given his clarifications), Katy's and many many others, not all of which are compatible with one another.
I think Leo speaks eloquently to the fierce urgency of November. I have no idea how to achieve what he says needs achieving, except to start with myself, and my awareness of how much I have been whipsawed by various things in recent weeks, not all of them having to do with Obama and Clinton (actually the most profound being the war funding votes in the House and Senate). So I'm seeking a kind of dispassion, insofar as I can achieve it, to be ready for however it plays out.
There may be outrageous stuff to come, or there may not. I'm trying not to buy trouble at this point.
This is purely subjective and is not advanced as a point of view anyone else should take up if it doesn't make sense to them.
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | May 25, 2008 10:30:42 PM
Leo,
If Hillary were to be the nominee, I'd hold my nose, go throw up a couple times and then mark Clinton on the ballot. John McCain.
John McCain
John McCain
John McCain
John McCain
John McCain
It would, however, be a bad idea for anybody involved in that decision to get within earshot me for several days.
No, I don' buy the kill Obama theme,
she wants to piggyback off RFK as another victim which I find offensive as hell.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | May 25, 2008 10:31:41 PM
Thanks Dan. I appreciate your candor.
Posted by: Dan | May 25, 2008 10:41:51 PM
Sorry...I misspoke. The very first "Dan" post was not by me.
My apologies to the original "Dan".
Good night all...even you Hillary Haters. Our side (the demos) will win this fall and the world will be a far, far better place for it!
Dan (K)
Posted by: Ed Bickford | May 25, 2008 10:53:10 PM
Another member of the tin-foil hat brigade speaks his mind... as is his right. Not that it's anything but embarrassing themself.
Posted by: Kevin | May 25, 2008 11:15:52 PM
Posted by: Leo Schuman | May 25, 2008 6:28:50 PM
Well said, Leo (and BeeJ whom you riffed off of).
Posted by: KJBEugene | May 26, 2008 12:02:27 AM
Hey, everybody, jacksmith is back! Isn't that an old Native American name that means "total troll"?
There's enough idiocy in his post to fill a book, so I'll just pick on one point: Even if his idea that 79,000 Republicans switched just to do an Operation Chaos were possibly true, Obama won Oregon by 108,000 votes, not 70,000. So even in this guy's fantasy world, Obama still won by 39,000 legitimate votes.
Thanks for playing, though. Feel free to try again next election.
Posted by: KJBEugene | May 26, 2008 12:08:48 AM
Oops, make that 29,000 instead of 39,000. See what happens when I try to perform simple subtraction after midnight?
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Chris | May 25, 2008 3:08:17 PM
I am astonished that I once entertained the idea that someone like Hillary Clinton was capable of being the president of the US. Ugh!