Hillary's comment is being misinterpreted
[Editor's note: The following comment was posted on the guest column by Jenny Greenleaf. It's by Doretta Schrock of Portland, a longtime commenter here at BlueOregon.]
My take on what Hillary said was not that she was suggesting that Obama might be assassinated. She was trying to say only that it is not unusual for campaigns to go into June before they are resolved. The two campaigns that came to mind were Bill's and RFK's because those were the two that went into June and made enough of an impression on her that she remembers they went into June.
Hillary deserves every bit of pushback she's gotten on "white Americans" and the Zimbabwe comparison but I think she's being tarred unfairly on this one. What she said came out in a horribly inappropriate way but I don't think what people heard was reflective of what she was thinking.
And practically speaking, what people are suggesting she was suggesting doesn't even make sense. If the leading contender for the presidential nomination is suddenly not available to be nominated--for whatever reason--it wouldn't make much difference whether the second place contender had stopped his or her primary campaign or not. That person would still be available to be nominated but the nomination would not be automatic just because they were still contending in the remaining primaries.
|
May 24, 2008 |
notable comment | Comments (90 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | May 24, 2008 9:12:54 AM
After all that she has done in this campaign, it is a little hard cutting Hillary Clinton some slack on this. She has made a lot of tasteless remarks. That is a sign of bad judgment and a poor character.
Posted by: jefffrane | May 24, 2008 9:15:19 AM
You would get farther with this approach if she hadn't already made the connection once before, all the way back in March in an interview with Time. She's had ample time to reflect on how inappropriate the connection is and chose to go with it again. It's no different than her answer about whether or not Obama was a Muslim, or her comment about how she and McCain had years of experience and Obama had a speech. And, finally, it's a grotesque distortion of the calendar; in 1968, primaries didn't start in January.
We've already suffered through eight years of a president who is incapable of acknowledging error. We don't need four or eight more.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | May 24, 2008 9:26:41 AM
And really there are a lot of examples of June campaigns that do not include the absolutely inexcusable word:
Assassination
Sorry Jenny. I think that my tone has been conciliatory up until this point and I think that a lot of us have allowed a lot of crap that's come out of her mouth to go by. But not this one.
We've worried about this possibility for months and decent people accross the political spectrum have avoided even bringing it up, so as not to goad the unstable.
Guess that's over with too.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | May 24, 2008 9:29:00 AM
Juan Cole has an excellent commentary (May 24) on this topic, essentially supporting Ms. Schrock's comment.
However, we might note that Hillary and Bill have shown a capacity for indifference to human lives with Bill presiding over the US-sponsored UN sanctions that cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqis their lives and Hillary voting for the horrendous Iraq war for political reasons. Accordingly, if people are predisposed to thinking of her (and him) as some kind of ogre no one should be surprised whether that thought is justified or not.
Posted by: jim bradach | May 24, 2008 9:38:21 AM
"As far as I know" Clinton doesn't make comments that have not been tested.
She says what she intends to say.
Posted by: Kevin | May 24, 2008 9:44:37 AM
I absolutely agree with Doretta on this one. Mentioning the assasination was incidental to the self-evident point Hillary was making - that campaigns have been up in the air as late as June.
My personal hunch is that the actual assasination itself serves as an internal memory trigger for Hillary and that's the only reason it came out of her mouth.
Posted by: Bill R. | May 24, 2008 9:45:56 AM
This is predictably lame, Doretta. The content is clear. She is saying "as long as Obama has any chance of meeting his demise, I'm going to stay in this." We got a snapshot of her mind. And if she is that confused and inarticulate and undisciplined, and has such a lack of awareness of the impact of what she says, her choice of words, how her statements are going to be perceived, she is so grossly inept, she is disqualified from being president. She has made this statement before, in another setting. And factually it's just wrong. Kennedy had only been in the race for two months. She made this same statement before so it's not like it was a misstatement. And the non-apology, apology, "if anyone was offended." IF, IF, IF, how non perceptive can you get. She should have apologized to Sen. Obama and his family and accepted full responsibility for the implications of what she was saying. So your defense of her is indefensible, and lame, lame, lame. And disingenuous...
Posted by: vivela | May 24, 2008 9:47:51 AM
One thing I find weird is that it's not even a good example as a matter of political history. The question that triggered HRC's remark was something to the effect of, "so, you don't believe the party unity argument?" Her remark was framed as an explanation of why she didn't agree with the argument that an extended primary season would compromise party unity. A lack of party unity is presumably of concern because it may have a negative impact on the party's ability to compete in the general. So, even if we pretend for a moment that she didn't say "assassination," and only meant to reference 1968 as an example of a primary season lasting through June, the analogy points the wrong way. The details of what happened in 1968 are fascinating and complex, but for now, suffice it to say the Democratic party was not unified, and Nixon won.
Posted by: Bill R. | May 24, 2008 9:49:14 AM
A brief addendum. Her statement about the '92 campaign was not factual either. I worked in that campaign and by April it was pretty much over. Jerry Brown had become a marginal candidate by then but the nomination was in Clinton's hands.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | May 24, 2008 9:53:50 AM
Oops.
Apologies to both Jenny and Doretta, for mistaking the source of the comment.
The fact is, that I was so furious last night that I was gonna post a screed like Olbermann wound up doing, but I would have had way lower impulse control than he did. I'm still furious this morning, but maybe I can take it out on an acre of overgrown lawn.
And again, this Kabuki Theater which we have endured so as not to piss off Clinton supporters sharing in the mass self delusion perpetrated by their candidate is
done.
Over With.
Finished.
All the "What Ifs" boil down to:
If my guy had said something like this, he's be pilloried for it. In fact he is attacked daily from all sides for much much less.
I have demoted Party Unity in the National Interest.
Senator Clinton,
Every day you continue this race, you hurt yourself, your party, and your nation. Get out. Now.
Posted by: John Mulvey | May 24, 2008 10:01:00 AM
For months, we've been hearing how Clinton needed to get out so that Obama could begin running against McCain. Well, you've got a majority of pledged delegates and supers. What exactly are you guys waiting for?
Go ahead and run your campaign. If you've got any ideas other than "Hillary's a bitch," or any storylines that don't involve the Great Clinton Menace, now would be a great time to start hearing some of them.
Something tells me the threads about actual issues will never be as active as this one's been.
John
Posted by: Chuck Roppa | May 24, 2008 10:02:21 AM
[Obnoxious and libelous conspiracy theory deleted. -editor.]
Posted by: anoregonreader | May 24, 2008 10:05:55 AM
I don't think that it is necessary to try to probe into Senator Clinton's heart and soul to analyze her remark about Robert Kennedy's assassination. It has been a long and grueling campaign for her, especially in the last month. She could easily have botched the point she was trying to make. (I also think that we all are a little too quick on the draw to judge a person's heart by one comment, whether that person is Clinton, Obama, McCain or a co-worker or friend.)
The effect of the statement, though, is subject to analysis. (I can immediately discount some of the more fevered voices. Keith Olbermann, who I often like, is apparently starting construction on a wonderful palace in Bavaria.) The remark WILL be interpreted as a speculation about Obama's death. It WILL stir deep distrust in the African-American community. It WILL squelch any talk of Clinton being the VP on the Democratic ticket. And at a minimum, it WILL lead many sober minds to question whether Clinton is up to the job. By itself, it would not have wrecked her campaign. In her current fragile position, and on top of other remarks, I think the result will be quite toxic.
Posted by: James X. | May 24, 2008 10:06:20 AM
If she only meant the June part, and not the assassination part, why did she put assassination into a talking point that she has repeated? That word doesn't enter an experienced politician's campaign rheroric by accident. Her point was that anything could happen, even at this late stage. And since suddenly winning California ain't gonna happen in June, she added a second, more plausible example.
Posted by: Josh Kardon | May 24, 2008 10:15:05 AM
Here was Sen. Dick Durbin's (closest Obama ally in Congress) comment on Hillary's unfortunate use of the Kennedy reference:
A close Obama ally in the Senate, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, said he accepted her explanation.
"I know Hillary Clinton, and the last thing in the world she'd ever want is to wish misfortune on anybody. She and Barack are friends," Durbin said. "It was ... a careless remark and we'll leave it at that."
What is lacking on this blog is a similar sense of proportion and grace in victory. Every Hillary misstep is an unforgivable outrage; every Obama gaffe another manipulation of the Clinton attack machine.
I realize some of you find it outrageous and unforgivable that I remain loyal to one of the greatest Democratic women in our history. My loyalty to a woman I have known for 15 years is based on my enduring belief that she happens to be the best prepared progressive for the job and my knowledge of her extraordinary intellect, strength, and decency. As I stated last night, the race is about to be concluded, and I won't be surprised if I am soon busting hump for a candidate I don't know personally, but whom I already admire a great deal.
But if you want the other 41% of Oregon Democrats who support Hillary to help Sen. Obama this fall, you might want to save your huffing and puffing for the candidate for President who wants to keep us in Iraq indefinitely, make permanent the Bush tax cuts, bust unions, impede universal health reform, and appoint right-wing judges. There were 26,000 Hillary volunteers in this state, and -- unlike me, Paddy, Erik, etc, -- most of them aren't used to getting swatted around just because they happen to support one good Democrat over another good Democrat.
So be good winners and we'll be together soon. And enjoy your holiday weekend.
Posted by: James X. | May 24, 2008 10:17:25 AM
John M, Obama is indeed running a general election campaign now. The problem is that his greatest possible allies, the most prominent members of the Democratic party, are campaigning for his defeat.
Also, please don't use that word regarding Hillary. I don't.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | May 24, 2008 10:19:00 AM
I'm inclined to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt on this one, but I certainly wouldn't argue with others who think otherwise. It could have been a careless choice of words - or a Freudian slip. She just has too many skeletons in her closet.
This is from an article on Alternet: "Nothing reveals more clearly how utterly unprincipled the Clintons are than their assertion that rules set by the Democratic Party's Rules Committee, and endorsed by all Clinton representatives on this Committee, now should be abandoned. Nothing reveals more clearly that the only rules the Clintons follow are rules which favor them. Nothing reveals how exaggerated their claims are than Hillary's recent comparison of the votes in Michigan and Florida to the civil rights movement, the suffragette movement, the fraudulent election in Zimbabwe and the 2000 election in Florida."
Click here for the full article: What Game Is Hillary Playing?
Posted by: Kristin | May 24, 2008 10:20:05 AM
Pat,
I could not agree with you more. I too was about to post about this but waited because I expected my furor would subside. It has not.
She not only needs to leave the campaign, she does not deserve a place on the ticket, nor a significant role at all. As I said yesterday, are even junior senators from New York allowed to say this kind of crap?
Posted by: jim bradach | May 24, 2008 10:22:35 AM
Democratic headquarters should issue a directive on whether I should be offended or laugh at last weeks Huckibee joke!
Posted by: Bill Bodden | May 24, 2008 10:23:25 AM
Dick Durbin via Josh Kardon: "I know Hillary Clinton, and the last thing in the world she'd ever want is to wish misfortune on anybody."
I have a lot of respect for Dick Durbin, but his remark doesn't square with Hillary's thought about obliterating Iran.
Posted by: James X. | May 24, 2008 10:24:02 AM
Josh K., I agree with Durbin that she wasn't saying Obama should be shot. And I expect leaders of the party to work hard to walk back and tone down the divisive remarks in this campaign.
But Durbin is clearly using a straw man here. As though as long as she doesn't openly advocate for her opponent's death, her assassination rhetoric is acceptable.
We're allowed to disagree, and strongly.
Posted by: joel dan walls | May 24, 2008 10:28:18 AM
Editor, please remove the Clintons-as-serial-killers garbage by the Troll Known As Chuck Roppa.
Posted by: John F. Bradach, Sr. | May 24, 2008 10:31:17 AM
That Bobby Kennedy comment was no accident, although I don't think Hillary anticipated the blowback.
I find it particularly odd, in light of Huckaby's similar faux a week or so ago in a speech to the National Rifle Association. There was the bang of a metal chair tipping over. Said Huckaby:
"That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he's getting ready to speak," said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. "Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor."
Hillary's Bobby Kennedy remark, now and back in March, may be intended as a bridge to discussing a Convention floor fight.
People forget that Bobby Kennedy was not the front runner, even with the June 5, 1968 California primary victory, on the day he was shot. Bobby was going to Chicago to try to jam up the Convention and get by Humphrey.
That is, evidently, what Hillary intends to do.
All the facts needed for Oregon's Super Delegates to choose between Obama and Clinton are now on the table. The rest should, now, follow Jenny Greenleaf and announce, to erase any doubt about the winner of Oregon's Presidential primary.
http://john.bradach.net/
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 24, 2008 10:31:27 AM
JDW - Done.
Posted by: Kevin | May 24, 2008 10:46:50 AM
She not only needs to leave the campaign, she does not deserve a place on the ticket, nor a significant role at all.
I agree with that. But her comment the other day wasn't anywhere close to being the deciding factor in it. In fact, it's irrelevant. She doesn't deserve a place on the ticket on the merits (or lack thereof) of how she's campaigned for months now. We don't need to misinterpret her to make a solid case for why she doesn't deserve to win or to be on the ticket.
I'll reiterate my solid agreement with what Doretta said. This thing is getting blown way out of proportion and I for one am grateful for how succinctly and fairly she framed the issue.
Posted by: Alex | May 24, 2008 10:48:35 AM
For those of you sick of the last 8 years, why do you wish for another candidate who is unable to accept responsibilities for mistakes and say "I was wrong, I am sorry." If Hillary wins, it's another 4 years of spin and dissembling and subterfuge. She should have apologized to Obama as well as the Kennedy's for the statement. But instead she and her surrogates are spinning this thing as usual.
Posted by: LT | May 24, 2008 10:50:01 AM
"I absolutely agree with Doretta on this one. Mentioning the assasination was incidental to the self-evident point Hillary was making - that campaigns have been up in the air as late as June.
My personal hunch is that the actual assasination itself serves as an internal memory trigger for Hillary and that's the only reason it came out of her mouth. "
People of my generation (in college when Bobby Kennedy was shot) may still be able to picture exactly where they were when they heard the news, have a visceral reaction to the words "now it is on to Chicago and let's win there" and otherwise have instinctive reactions to comments like this. Given the bad news the Kennedy family got this week about the health of the last remaining Kennedy brother, it struck some people of all ages as being in extremely poor taste.
Some things like this are like a dentist's drill hitting a nerve, and she was right to apologize. It is possible to get a point across without causing that rection, and anyone who has been in politics as long as the candidate who says she would be "ready on Day 1" should know any words coming out of their mouths have consequences!
Posted by: James X. | May 24, 2008 10:57:20 AM
Kristin, I agree, she's not doing her VP chances any favors. First, she's got her surrogates, including her husband, out publicly campaigning for it, which is such a faux pas. Then, the tone of the VP campaign is "she deserves it." There's actually a pressure campaign going on. That would get most people crossed off the list. Who wants a VP who's telling you how to make your decisions, and getting their friends to add to the pressure?
And then, she goes and talks about assassinations. Repeatedly.
Before her comments became public, Senator and DLC leader Tom Carper said in his Hillary-for-veep advocacy, "She would be a good president if something ever were to happen to him." But people can't say things like that anymore.
I once joked that if Obama were to make Clinton his VP, he would have to hire an official taster. That joke just isn't funny anymore, because now it sounds serious. It's sad that that's where the campaign is at now.
I wish she had exited when I still respected her.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | May 24, 2008 10:59:54 AM
A close Obama ally in the Senate, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, said he accepted her explanation.
Well good for him, and I don't give a good Goddamn what his opinion is. Guess what, I'm as able as Durbin to read a series of quotes, discern a clear pattern of behavior and draw a conclusion from it.
Don't even try to patronize us.
I realize some of you find it outrageous and unforgivable that I remain loyal to one of the greatest Democratic women in our history.
Nothing you've done (or failed to do) in your role on the Clinton steering committee has not altered my opinion of you Josh. If I were a Clinton supporter I might have had some strong words for you, but I've been quite happy with your behavior maybe even ecstatic. And guess what? This ain't about you at all.
There were 26,000 Hillary volunteers in this state, and -- unlike me, Paddy, Erik, etc, -- most of them aren't used to getting swatted around just because they happen to support one good Democrat over another good Democrat.
That's why I've waited until now to take this position. As for you and Paddy and the other tattered remnants of the DLC in Oregon, hopefully this will further diminish youur reach in the state.
Posted by: John Calhoun | May 24, 2008 11:04:59 AM
Just a day or so ago we had a unity day for Dems in Oregon. We need to have one on Blue Oregon. I'm with Josh on this one. We Obama supporters need to cease with the worst possible interpretations of everything Hillary and start trying to unify the party. The race is over. We won. Let's show some grace in victory.
Posted by: Pat Malach | May 24, 2008 11:06:44 AM
[Obnoxious and libelous conspiracy theory deleted. -editor.]
Unfortunately, our Libel laws make it near impossible to libel public figures like the Clintons.
Thanks for deleting the crazy talk, but most of us recognized it for what it was before the editor labeled it as such.
Maybe in the future when you delete a comment, you should delete the author's name as well.
If you're not going to delete the entire comment, (as well as the author's name), maybe you should just leave the entire thing so that readers can judge it for themselves on its own merit, or lack thereof, rather than being fed the editor's characterization.
Seems like that would be the fairest way to handle such cases, for both the authrors and the readers
Posted by: Pat Malach | May 24, 2008 11:10:41 AM
Slip of the tongue or not, it was a wholly inappropriate comment.
And Clinton has been saying this since March (as reported by Time magazine).
Maybe when a candidate gets to this point, slip of the tongue or not, the campaign has run it's course and is beginning to spiral into places even Hillary Clinton doesn't want it to go.
Posted by: DH | May 24, 2008 11:13:17 AM
Pat; Well said.
Josh, you are right, I cannot fathom your loyalty to HRC. Her intellect, toughness and drive have never been in question. But decency ? The myriad of ways that she has been willing to sell out the various groups of people she purported to champion, call her "decency" into serious question. And that will force many of us to question the decency of the DLC, DNC, etc.
Posted by: James X. | May 24, 2008 11:17:40 AM
John C: The Oregon primary is over, true, and our nominee is decided, too, but Clinton is still advocating for his defeat. Until she decides she's done with that tune, I won't be harmonizing with her.
Posted by: Unit | May 24, 2008 11:19:09 AM
I have long felt that HRC should ride out the primary until the first week of June before conceding. I have also felt that she has earned the VP nomination.
Our country has a sinister history when it comes to our greatest leaders. This is certainly not HRC's fault, it is just reality. Obama is the brightest political star we as a nation have had in my lifetime. HRC's comment was in all likelihood unintentional. But at best it was still dangerous, inappropriate, and irresponsible. At worst, much worse.
I now think she should drop out early next week. I no longer think she is an appropriate VP choice. I say this with a heavy heart, because I have long respected her, but this is serious. It's time to end this now.
Posted by: karol | May 24, 2008 11:20:50 AM
Josh Kardon,
I don't know you and maybe I'll meet you some day, but I know people respect you. But on this one, I think you are very wrong.
I do not think HRC wants Obama assassinated. I also do not think she is even close to racist. I do think she's a bit desperate - to say the least - and has been tooting this RFK horn over the last 3 months in order to get other democrats to realize one of their fears; that Obama may be hurt or killed in his attempt to become president. While they are afraid, she hopes they will not vote for Obama out of fear for his safety.
HRC is a great democrat and a great leader. She and many women before her have broken many a ceiling for me and my fellow females. But she also has a responsiblity to those women to lay a trail that none of us would be embarrased to follow. Unfortunately for gender and race, the actions of one reflect on the rest. I do not the next woman who makes the decision to run being bogged down by the ideas of desperation, shrillness, and incapability to do math.
My candidate has made gaffes and I feel its important to call our candidates on them. Its what makes them better, not more Teflon and the exact image of what folks are voting AGAINST this election. Let us not pretend that by defending HRC with this action is helping her become a better representative of this United States. From letting Ferraro run at the mouth unanswered, Osama Bin Laden in an attack against Obama, to invoking thoughts of assassination, she knows what's she doing. If that's an example of how she will lead this nation, I cannot accept it.
Posted by: Rob | May 24, 2008 11:22:00 AM
I disagree in the strongest terms possible. The Kennedy's were the candidates of hope and change. The Reverend Martin Luther King too. All silenced. The losses demoralized individuals who would otherwise have worked for a better country.
It is morally wrong for a national figure to engage is such talk. Once it is said, it cannot be unsaid.
Posted by: sadie | May 24, 2008 11:46:37 AM
Josh, when my son was born 1 month after 9/11/01, I gave him the middle name William, after William Jefferson Clinton. I ran a family child care business for 3 1/2 years that I called Pumpkin Village Progressive Family Child Care, because I believed in Hillary's idea that it takes a village to raise a child. Clearly I have honored and respected this family for a long time.
What is so hard and so devastating for me, as one who completely supports Obama but who has respected the clintons for many years, is that they have acted in this campaign in a way that makes me sad and ashamed. When one of your heroes makes you question how you could have ever looked up to them in the first place, it hurts in a way that words cannot describe.
I've tried to be gracious to Hillary Clinton and her supporters as she finishes out this race, in part because of the memory I have of what it felt like to be one of them through some difficult times in the 90's, and in part because we are all Democrats who want the same things. The burden is not on me or any Obama supporter today to ignore these comments, to prove that we can let her lose with grace.
The burden has been on her to show her followers that losing a well fought campaign is nothing to be ashamed of. She hasn't seemed to have any desire to do that. This comment was part of an argument she's been making that she was treated unfairly. She's constructed an argument that she hasn't lost this race because Obama won, but rather because the media has been unfair, the process and rules she agreed to were unfair, and in this claim she stated that the calls for her to quit have been unprecedented and unjustified. Instead of using comparable campaigns as examples, like say Carter/Kennedy in 1980, she chose to use one of the most devastating moments in our party and our nation's history as justification for why we should continue to respectfully stand by while she battles on, all the way to the Convention (as she claimed she would do earlier this week).
Well, I won't defend the indefensible for the Clintons. Clearly, Hillary believes that words don't matter - they are "just words", but I teach my children that words can wound for a reason. These words hurt me. I and others have every right to feel hurt and saddened by them today, and you sir have no right to tell me or any other Democrat that we are being unloyal when we refuse to excuse the inexcusable.
Posted by: DB | May 24, 2008 11:47:54 AM
This is ridiculous. This was a stupid statement like "bitter" and "sweetie". Lets move on, this is just one of the last gasps of her campaign. Dwelling on it for the next few weeks is going to have no impact on the outcome, except to further embitter Clinton-ites.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 24, 2008 11:58:52 AM
Josh sinks deeper into apologia:
What is lacking on this blog is a similar sense of proportion and grace in victory. Every Hillary misstep is an unforgivable outrage; every Obama gaffe another manipulation of the Clinton attack machine.
Two things jump out here--first the attempt to slide past the notion of this as a "misstep" when it is at least the fourth time she's been noted making this argument using the same two examples, and the second time to use the word "assassination"...and secondly the rather stunning use of the word "victory." You do it again, indirectly asking Obama supporters to "be good winners."
So, if you're openly conceding that Obama has effectively won the nomination, what on earth is Hillary Clinton doing in the race? One point I haven't seen made yet regarding her husband's run, beyond the fact that he had basically clinched in April...her husband had basically clinched in April, and thus his opponents conceded and united the party. California's delegates were huge, and I'm sure there was some mathematical chance Clinton might have lost the nomination, and all those voters surely MUST have been given their chance to vote so as not to disenfranchise them with the reality that the show was over...yet the field cleared for her husband, having seen the writing on the wall.
And being the savvy and experienced person that you are Josh, of course you see the writing here in 2008, and by your comment you do. So why on earth are you still excusing Clinton's continued attacks and divisions after it is clear to all but believers in fairy dragons and psychotic stalkers that this is wrapped up? It's unsconscionable, frankly. It serves no real purpose perhaps beyond allowing Clinton to pay herself back with contributions.
This was no gaffe nor misstep. She quite bluntly said she is in the race because they take a long time, and besides that the other guy could be shot. She's said it before. It's intentional. It's disgusting. And it's the dumbest goddam reason I've ever heard a non-fringe candidate ever give as qualifications for office...."because something could happen to the other guy."
The clubbiness is striking again in our august body, and it is I regret to say our senior Senator's biggest weakness. We all know his style with Smith (and how frustrating and counterproductive that can be, especially when Smith does jack and then literally shows up unannounced to take credit for political gain), his faux support for Lamont and subsequent rallying around Zell Lieberman after his declaration of open revolt on the backs of the Republican party, and then this ridiculous quietude that he knows only feeds Clinton's pathology, letting the congeniality of the Senate club obscure the proper rational path to take: get this unbalanced person off the stage, away from the mike and out of the picture so we can move on with the nomination of the winner. The guy needs about 20% of the remaining supers to rally behind the winner before May 31 and he can present 2026 to the committee. They can make any deal they want with FL/MI at that point, so long as their inclusion retains his majority of actually-counting delegates. No one's saying suspend the primaries; let people in MT SD and PR cast their votes like they did in California 1992--when they knew who the winner was.
There should be limits to collegiality. The racist dog-whistling is beyond the pale and has continued throughout the primary to its most grotesque conclusion. Having moral standards means enforcing them most closely among your own. The club needs to do some enforcing. You've admitted we have a victor. Stop.
Posted by: dyspeptic | May 24, 2008 1:01:53 PM
This was no gaffe nor misstep. She quite bluntly said she is in the race because they take a long time, and besides that the other guy could be shot. She's said it before. It's intentional. It's disgusting. And it's the dumbest goddam reason I've ever heard a non-fringe candidate ever give as qualifications for office...."because something could happen to the other guy."
Totally agree. The overt and dog-whistle racism, and this vulture-watching-for-an-opening assassination BS are not slips. It is all calculated as hell, and completely nauseating.
Much as I've wished for a woman president, and cheered Shirley Chisolm, and dreamed of Barbara Jordan or Pat Schrader in the oval office, and rooted for Geraldine Ferraro, as far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't vote for Clinton for dog catcher after this. She is morally disqualified.
Posted by: naschkatzehussein | May 24, 2008 1:14:24 PM
John Calhoun at 11:04 a.m. But does Clinton realize that the race is over? Andrea Mitchell thought so and said that the Clinton campaign was just going through the motions now. I would like to see that in the remaining primaries, but I don't. Clinton's behavior has gone nuclear instead. Setting aside the assassination remark, I am referring to the meeting a week from today before the rules committee and the expected demonstration by Clinton supporters. I do not think the rules committee will decide in her favor in spite of the number of her representatives on it, but even after the meeting and Obama's passing the finishing line soon after, she is indicating that she will attempt to poach superdelegates until August and may fight for them at the convention. Neither is she going to agree with any settlement of MI and FL which does not give her alone their pledged delegates. I have no assurance that she will try to bring her supporters around to Obama before November either. There is also such a thing as grace in defeat, and I don't expect it to happen.
Posted by: mamabigdog | May 24, 2008 2:16:53 PM
While some here may want to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt on whether she actually wants to see Obama out of the race one way or another...
You cannot discount the fact that Hillary cannot admit when she's wrong. She cannot admit to making mistakes. She cannot accept defeat under any terms. This is evident in her marriage, her Iraq vote, and her conduct during this campaign. Doesn't this remind you of anyone?
This is a remarkably irresponsible comment for her to have made as a candidate for the Presidency. Can you imagine the kind of trouble comments like this will cause if she ever actually made it to the White House? Do you really think the leaders of other nations would take kindly to such commentary?
If she cannot work well under stress/sleep deprivation as some say this comment reveals, we should not expect she would function any better as the Leader of the Free World. this is a character-baring moment for Hillary, and she clearly isn't standing up well to the scrutiny.
Posted by: Daniel K | May 24, 2008 2:21:31 PM
The problem was that she said it. Whatever her motives, she should have had the better sense not to evoke the image, not to make reference to the possibility. That she does not recognize that shows a very serious lack of understanding about "words" and how they matter.
Posted by: Kristin | May 24, 2008 2:34:45 PM
DB's comment analogizing Clinton's remark to "bitter" or "sweetie" is painfully untrue.
Whether she meant to say it or not, she has completely failed to see the danger in what she has said.
Rhetoric of national leaders either emboldens or discourages certain activities -- it's easy to track. During national debates about hate crimes legislation, DOMA and ENDA, anti-gay hate crimes in this country went up, as bigots were emboldened by homophobic comments by national leaders.
In contrast, organizations that track hate crimes were able to detect a strong surge of anti-Muslim violence after 9/11 until Bush came out and firmly denounced it (one of the few things he has done right). After he did so, violence declined dramatically (until the war, when, well, we all know what happened.)
It's not just insensitive, what she said was flat-out dangerous. The fact that she has been proud of her ability to court white voters at the same time that she has not issued a vehement, blistering apology, as a way of sending a message to racist crazies, means that she just does not get it.
Posted by: joel dan walls | May 24, 2008 2:57:31 PM
This afternoon, Barack Obama responded to Hillary Clinton's comments yesterday when she referenced th assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as a reason she's staying in the race this year. Obama said he believes that Clinton was not trying to be offensive.
"I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Senator Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make and I think that is what happened here," Obama said in a radio interview today.
"Senator Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it and I will take her at her word on that."
Posted by: Jack Bog | May 24, 2008 3:46:29 PM
What a vulture. She and her crooked husband, both disgraces to the party. May this be the end of their predatory careers.
Posted by: Jamais Vu | May 24, 2008 3:56:06 PM
HRC's record in the White House:
* Health care reform failure; failed mostly because of secrecy and unwillingness to compromise
* Travel gate. Not much of a scandal, but it became one because it was so poorly handled
* Missing FBI files. Remember this? FBI files went missing then miraculously appear in a closet of coffee table. Sure.
HRC's record on the campaign trail:
* Agreed early on the MI and FL delegates would not be seated; kept her own name on the ballot in MI; compared following the rules previously agreed upon to Mugabe's Zimbawe--claimed the Democratic Party was conspiring to disenfranchise voters
* Made up an insane story about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire when she had actually been greeted by a poem read by a 13-year-girl (OK, teenage poetry CAN be scary, but still...not sniper fire.)
* Issued statements designed to intentionally confuse her supporters amount the number of delegates needed to win (hint: FL and MI's don't count)
* Said she was staying in the campaign because sometimes your opponents get assassinated
* Referred to her supporters as "hard-working Americans, white Americans" implying those are synonyms
* Employed husband in hateful race-baiting in the S.C. primaries
* Said she would obliterate Iran if they gave us any trouble
This is a person of extremely poor judgment who would never have risen to national prominence without riding on the coattails of her husband just like G.W. Bush road the coattails of his father. She has an appalling political record steeped in failure and a clear tendency to panic under pressure (the Bosnia remark was INSANE; the recent Obama plainly threatening.)
She does not belong in the White House or the senate. Time for the party leaders to put away their fear of the Clintons and lead HRC offstage.
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: joel dan walls | May 24, 2008 9:11:55 AM
Of course Hillary Clinton was not asking for someone to take out Barack Obama. Nobody in their right mind is suggesting that.
The crux of the matter for me, anyway, seems to be that Hillary Clinton inadvertently portrayed herself as a kind of political vulture. Talk about conduct unbecoming of a serious presidential candidate....
I think we would all be advised to look at the African American press reaction instead of endlessly gazing in our mirrors. Suggestions to this white man for how to do that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.