It's time for Oregon's uncommitted Superdelegates to step up and speak out

By Jeremy Wright of Portland, Oregon. Jeremy describes himself as a "former political hack, now an aspiring woodworker."

Hillary Clinton just used the assassination of Bobby Kennedy as a rationale for continuing this campaign.

Yes you read that right.

See the video if you don't believe me, she says it about 59 seconds in.

I don't think there is any other way to interpret her words. There are numerous other examples in recent political history of a Presidential primary going to June. But she wasn't talking about that. She was giving a rationale for her staying in this race: the death of her opponent by violent means.

She didn't just cross a line, she obliterated it. You simply do not go there. If you talk to your friends in the African-American community there is a real and nearly universal fear that something is going to happen to Barack Obama. Hillary's words just further cement those fears and if we, as Democrats, do not stand up to this type of behavior we are not only saying it is okay, but we are sending a strong signal to the African-American community that their fears are justified.

It is time for Oregon superdelegates to end this. I am looking at you Ron Wyden and you Bill Bradbury and you Frank Dixon and you Wayne Kinney and you Gail Rasmussen and you Meredith Woods-Smith.

Do you condone Hillary Clinton using the specter of the assassination of Barack Obama as her rationale for staying in this race?

As long as you remain silent, as long as you sit on the sidelines the answer to many of us Oregon Democrats is: YES.

Comments

  • RALPH (unverified)
    (Show?)

    [Ranting gibberish removed. -editor.]

  • Mike Austin (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Her point, obviously, is that "it ain't over 'til it's over." RFK was the front-runner for the nomination at the point he was gunned down... Bad choice of words on her part; not a call for the assassination of BO. Let's not go wingnut-hysterical over this...

  • Fair & Balanced (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, please take down Ralph's obscene post.

  • Mike Austin (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oh, I forgot! She and Bill did have Vince Foster murdered...

  • Fair & Balanced (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This was obviously a slip of the tongue, not a threat. Her mind went from Bill winning the California primary in June, to RFK winning the California primary in June, immediately to RFK being assassinated. I'll leave the shrinks to debate how "Freudian" the slip was. It wasn't evil, and she should not be excoriated for it; that way leads nowhere good.

    It is evidence, however, regarding fitness for an office where slips of the tongue can be catastrophic.

  • DH (unverified)
    (Show?)

    While I am not a supporter of HC and would only vote for her over McCain because of SCOTUS, I do not for an instant think that she or anyone associated with her campaign has any violent plan. The whole " Vince Foster" saga has been found to be wholly untrue and insulting. HOWEVER, she has made this statement before ( Time Magazine Interview/March 2008). I would not put it past her campaign to raise assassination risks in her increasingly bizarre argument for staying in the race. Some will make a connection, intended or not, to her slight earlier in the year to Dr. King

  • Geeba (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Fair & Balanced, sorry. No former first lady and senator in a presidential race accidentaly uses the word "assassination" in a race with an African American. She's dropping hints, scoring attention, anything out of desperation. Not he person I want at the helm, thank you.

  • (Show?)

    I am sorry but it is more than a slip of a tongue.

    Reasonable people simply don't go there as a rationale for staying in a race. Many many candidates for President have managed to either a) stay in a race or b) suspend their campaign without invoking the rationale that maybe their opponent will be killed or die.

    I don't think, nor did I suggest, that she was advocating his demise. But she did use it as a rationale for staying in the race.

    At the very least it is a reason to end this thing now.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It isn't a slip, because she's said it before. It's strategic. Now that it's created a firestorm, however, she's clarified that she didn't mean offense.

  • (Show?)

    I am a very strong Obama supporter and I think that much of Hilary's positioning over the past 2 months has been offensive, but the reaction to her statement today by Jeremy and many other bloggers is just nonsense. Maybe it is an age thing because Hilary and I are roughly the same age and Bobby Kennedy's death did have a big impact on us. It also is one of those events that you remember where you were and when it happened. For me her point was simply to remind people that the nominations used to go beyond June. Kennedy's death was a date in time that she remembered because of the tragedy. Everyone should take a deep breath and let this go.

  • bobbuck (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Said it, meant to to say it to plant concern in the minds of superdels...

  • (Show?)

    For those who don't want superdelegates to have power, does this mean that Oregon's superdelegates should split up just like Oregon's pledged delegates did?

    So, Obama won 31 of 52, so our 12 Supers should split 7 to 5?

  • Donnice (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary used this reference before in March before Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with a brain tumor, so she is lying when she says that her reference to the assassination was related to how heavily the Kennedys were on her mind. This is not the 1st time she has clearly stated that she is staying in the race, just in case something cataclysmic happens. This may fuel some crazy person to try and hurt Him. She ought to be ashamed of herself, but she is the same woman who took a child's money after he sold his toys to help her campaign. I just don't understand why her constant lying and evil ways are so acceptable.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    John, Hillary didn't just happen to recall the assassination, and that it was in June, it is a talking point that she has used before. And the word "assassination" doesn't accidentally slip into a talking point.

    (Of course, the whole June thing doesn't make sense when you're comparing a nomination that started in early January, had California voting in early February, and has only MT, SD and PR left in the process, to a nomination process that started in mid-March and had only thirteen participating states.)

  • tOd (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Please ...this woman(sic) must go. This is over the top folks.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    She's clearly trying to say that the nomination used to go on a lot longer than it has lately because people are freaking out and telling her she needs to get out of the race now. To say it means anything else seems a little goofy to me.

  • Dan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Katy, you're so cute. You're like a child trying to cleverly lie to their parents. And themselves.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Evan: I think the superdelegates' greatest role is to settle a disputed nomination. Here, we have Obama, who has competed and has won according to the rules as they were established, and we have Clinton, who has competed and lost according to the rules as they were established. She now argues that popular vote plus straw polls minus caucuses should be the measurement of victory. Of course, if those had been the rules from the beginning, Obama would have played by those rules, too, and would have campaigned heavily in all the nation's highly populous urban centers to inflate his popular vote win. But it is unfair to retroactively change the rules now just to benefit one candidate. The superdelegates should endorse the winner according to the rules as they were established and settle this nomination. That's their greatest role.

  • Don (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Slip of the tongue? Hardly. It does not have to have been a call for shooting Obama to be intentional and unworthy of a presidential candidate. Ever since the "inevitability" of Clinton's candidacy got crushed by the voters, she's been digging herself into a deeper and deeper sewer of race baiting and insults. It is far worse than a tin ear. It is desperation politics by a narcissist who cannot stand the FACT that she's LOST.

    I made my call to Wyden's office to tell him it was time to get off the fence. It is time to retire Clinton from national politics.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Katy, in 1968 the primaries started in mid-March, had thirteen contests, and ended in less than two months. If only.

  • Rick (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Even if she was not implying anything grim, why would she think to connect a specific violent event to today's race? That in itself is just odd.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Strike that, under three.

  • JohnRoss (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Anybody got direct e-mail addresses for Oregon's still uncommitted superdelegates? I'm looking for something that doesn't get screened in an office--just to encourage them to choose, like we did.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Wow, what's with the nastiness "Dan?" It's quite clear to me at this point that a whole lot of Obama supporters on this site are going to completely freak out no matter what happens in this campaign if they don't get their way immediatly. And Jeremy, I do recall you telling me a few months ago that "Hillary Clinton is a bitch."

    "Hillary Clinton issued the following statement today in Brandon, SD:

    "Earlier today I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June 1992 and 1968 and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June.

    That’s a historic fact. The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that, whatsoever. My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to, and I’m honored to hold Senator Kennedy’s seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family."

  • dartagnan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Katy, I don't see anybody "freaking out" except Hillary Clinton, who simply can't/won't accept the fact that she has LOST this race and is coming up with increasingly absurd and grotesque rationales for refusing to quit.

  • Jim (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Why did she say it? She is an intelligent calculated person that will do anything to win, including helping John McCain win, which would allow her to say, "I told you so. Elect me now."

    The media tonight are being much too kind.

    Hillary Clinton made the same statement about Robert Kennedy's assassination a few months ago, which further shows her apology was false. She did not know about Ted's tumor the last time she said it.

    "The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy," she added, referring to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s recent diagnosis of a brain tumor. "I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever."

    Keith Olbermann went through the different times she referred to Bobby Kennedy. He blasted her tonight, in my opinion, very much deserved, every word. Actually, I think Keith was still to nice in his word choices. Check out his site later for the video clip.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

  • naschkatzehussein (unverified)
    (Show?)

    And you Ted Kulongowski and you Darlene Hooley. You need to reevaluate your endorsements and put yourselves on the side of the righteous, not the corrupt. You ARE allowed to do that, don't you know?

  • (Show?)

    Katy, Through the posts here on Blue Oregon regarding Clinton v. Obama, I always thought you were just diligent for your candidate, no shame in that. But for you to state that HRC was only referencing the 2nd Kennedy assassination as a reason to stay in the campaign and no more than that insults all our intelligence. That is so disingenuious.

    Jeremy is right (haha, Wright), many Black people fear for Obama's safety. Warranted or not, I'm always worried that I'm going to see something bad happen to him or his family live on television. The Clintons and their subtle and not so subtle race/assassination references are tiresome and disgusting. I'm tired of them, I'm tired of it and it needs to stop quickly. If HRC thinks she's going to win this election and maintain support of the 88% of blacks who voted for her husband in 92 and 96, she's got another thing coming.

    Also, her claims of whomever wins will bring the party together is crap. She's putting up road blocks to Barack left and right and we know she's sinking him on purpose. UGH. Its all quite outrageous.

  • lg (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It is obvious she is stressed and stress reveals character. She has made monumental errors and "misspoke" multiple times: "bullets over Bosnia," invoking Osama Bin Laden; stating that John McCain has experience and she has experience and Obama made a speech; her crying, her yelling, her race baiting comments re: hard working WHITE Americans; but she needs therapy. This is a woman with a cyclothymic personality disorder that is exposed under sleep deprivation and stress. Bill needs to take his wife home and give her a rest and some therapy. She has unraveled and her supporters should help her, not foster blind ambition.

    Hey Wyden, time for once in your life to not be a wimp and support Obama. You have been in DC way too long not to wield any significant influence. Just look at your lack of power and the power of Senators from tiny states like Nevada, Delaware, Utah, New Mexico. Maybe you can have some influence some day.....or maybe you should get a job in the private sector.

  • naschkatzehussein (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Fair & Balanced at 4:43 p.m., I find it very ironic that you chose to end your comment with the word "catastrophic". Are you aware that last week on a talking head show Terry McAullife said that Clinton was staying in the race because something "catastrophic" may yet happen to Obama? That was his very word. I do not think what Clinton said today was a slip of the tongue. It's a part of her campaign. She either was making a veiled threat, or her campaign is playing fear factor roulette with the gun pointed at Obama's head.

  • (Show?)

    Mike Huckabee made a similar crack a couple days ago at the NRA convention--a door slammed or something in the background during his speech and Huckabee said Obama must have fallen off his chair thinking someone took a shot at him. It was offensive in the extreme and not just for what was said but for what saying it meant, maddening for what Huckabee's and Clinton's statements reveal about the images lurking in their minds; those themes reoccurring in American language and narratives, reinforced and ingrained by centuries of ugly, nasty, brutal behavior. Just when we thought it was all beind us.

    It's different to joke about or even mistakenly imply threats of assassination on a African-American (let alone to do it repeatedly as Hillary has done.) It's different because...it just is, and if you don't get it you never will. I don't know what Hillary meant or why she is repeating and reinforcing this image; but someone on her team must understand the message between the lines and the horrified responses from the public about what it has revealed about the subconscious of even a progressive Democratic candidate who used to live in the White House--if this is the image in Hillary's mind, the Freudian slip she repeats, then how far can the rest of us have come?

  • (Show?)

    I'm an Obama supporter. I think this was a slip of the tongue by Hillary, nothing more.

    For those of you that disagree, please explain how you think that Hillary would think this helps her.

    Here's a clue: it doesn't.

    Barak Obama for President. Not because Hillary is as bad as Republicans have tried to insinuate for all these years, but because he's simply better.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    One of the more stridently pro-Clinton/anti-Obama websites is referring to this incident as "lies and the lying liars" and implying there is some sort of media conspiracy against Clinton.

    No, of course HRC did not call on anyone to "take out" Obama.

    Yes, she came off sounding like an insensitive, clueless jerk, and her ersatz apology was absurd in its failure to even mention her opponent.

    Yes, she she keeps grasping at straws.

    And yes, she seems to be ready to take the Democratic Party down with her. "It's my way or the highway."

    I also wish there would be a stampede of superdelegates telling Sen. Clinton that she'd really, really screwed up and lost the chance to earn their respect and support. But I don't actually expect this to happen. Way too many people are still in thrall to the Clinton brand name.

  • exxonmobil4prez (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Here's the thing.. Obama as usual is handling this in a very classy way. BUT if Obama had said something that was totally imappropriate Hillary would have spun that pup out of orbit. You know it's true. She needs to just go home now.

  • (Show?)

    the point isn't that she's made a threat -- that's just foolish to argue. it's that she said something really really stupid and amateurish. and her #1 reason for being president is that she's so much more experienced, you can trust her in a crisis.

    and she says this in an interview? in South Dakota? we've had a relatively gaffe-free campaign, but this tops any. and it rates high on the all-time list. it's offensive, it's ugly, it's completely unnecessary. and it's sad.

    i hope she's demonstrated to the SDs that she really isn't capable of handling the pressure. between this, the racism (only I can win working class <<white>> voters) and now the charges that she's the victim of nothing but sexism; she has demonstrated that the voters have been right in their decision to make Obama the nominee. at the worst point of his campaign, what did he do? made the speech on race.

    pressure seems to bring out his best. it's bringing out her worst.

  • Jim (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Countdown: Special Comment May 23, 2008 Part 2 http://youtube.com/watch?v=sny8VfgcjaI

    Part 2 has the part about Hillary's statements about Bobby Kennedy in March 08

    Part 1 http://youtube.com/watch?v=pa85uo1QyGw

  • (Show?)

    James X, btw: thanks for the history lesson. i knew someone would have that.

    you'll also note that because you gave a reasoned and informed response, Katy is ignoring you. i spent 2 months trying to get her to explain why i should trust Hillary with my son's life when he goes to Iraq next year after her vote to give Dubya his lil war. i'm still waiting for that answer.

  • Shy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As a long time feminist (75 yrs old), At times, Hillary has made me cringe. Now with the assassination comment she frightens me.

  • (Show?)

    We're done. All done. It's time to end this. I have been terrified enough that some racist wack-job would go after Obama, and while Clinton might have not intended to do so, she's emboldened the crazies.

    No matter how you see her remark, there's no denying that she's either extremely imprudent, to the point of being dangerous, or just pure evil -- either way, not presidential material.

    Next she'll be making remarks like this about, say, Iran -- oh....wait...

    It's time to end this.

  • DB (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm another Obama supporter, and I think her statement was stupid, but I don't think it helps her. It doesn't fit into any of the narratives they've been trying to push as far as I can tell.

    That said, I can't wait for this to end.

  • Karl (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Holy cow... This is got to take the cake. However, you still have some Hillary supporters like Katy who will defend her to the bitter end. What will it take Katy? For Hillary to pull the trigger herself for you to stop and see how low she has gone? Step back and see how awful this remark is.

    Yes, Hillary has apologized to the Kennedys. How about manifesting some class and apologizing to Obama???

  • Dave Muckey (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Olbermann says it all: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24797758/

    Hillary only apologized to "those she may have offended."

  • interpreter (unverified)
    (Show?)

    After a full morning tracking the back and forth about Hillary being a VP candidate, this comment from her sounded a death knell in my head. This is it for her. Whatever her motivation, whatever she meant, it was unconscionable. And her "apology" wasn't an apology at all. If you watch the video of her apology, she looks like she knows exactly how bad it is...

    Anyway, my response to it was to email all the Oregon supers I could find, including those who've come out for Hillary. These are the people who can officially end this. Here are their email addresses:

    Wayne Kinney: [email protected]

    Gail Rasmussen: [email protected]

    Frank Dixon: [email protected]

    Meredith Wood-Smith: [email protected]

    Bill Bradbury: [email protected]

    to contact Ron Wyden, here's his email form page: http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/

    For Governor Kulongoski email page, to ask him to switch: http://www.governor.state.or.us/Gov/contact_us.shtml

    Google Darlene Hooley--her url is way too long to include here. Again, ask her to switch.

    And then there's the DNC: http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues

    Let them know what you think.

  • (Show?)

    Are even junior senators allowed to say ghoulish crap like this?

    Are there any dogcatcher jobs open in Barrow, Alaska, maybe? Someplace where you can only get to by plane?

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    PS: I think the Hillary for VP campaign is over now, too.

  • (Show?)

    I agree with those who say that the comment was a slip. A gross error in judgment, to be sure.

    But where I cannot forgive Hillary Rodham Clinton is that her apology, if it even was one, was directed at entirely the wrong person. She knows she was alluding to Barack Obama's possible fate, and talking in code, and everybody knows it.

    In fact, the fact that she has NOT apologized to the Obama family is evidence that she is not as innocent as her supporters believe her to be.

    I was willing to cut Team Clinton a little bit of slack. That just dried up like our water supply.

    As I write this, Barack Obama has rallied 15,000+ in Broward County, FL. For those of you unfamiliar, that's the one that holds Fort Lauderdale and the surrounding sprawlvilles. Team Clinton may not want to seat Florida, especially if we get to revote.

  • Bridget (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I was shocked to hear her say it. Just shocked. I'm not sure why she brought it up. I think it was a freudian slip. I haven't cared if she stayed in the race until now. Now I think she's just finished it for herself.

  • (Show?)

    As the great lense of history has shown us over and over again, people who love power more than purpose, invariably bring on their own demise.

  • (Show?)

    It's different to joke about or even mistakenly imply threats of assassination on a African-American (let alone to do it repeatedly as Hillary has done.) It's different because...it just is, and if you don't get it you never will.

    Well there you go. I think our complaceny has seeped so deep that we just can't comprehend these things happening here anymore. There are alot of things we never thought could happen here. The last seven years have proven us wrong. Anything can happen. Do I think Clinton is planning to eliminate Obama? No, not really. But to ignore, in this day and age, what her words could mean to someone else, is foolish. And to ignore that almost every African American who has been on the verge of causing real upset to the status quo, has been killed..assassinated, and in particular what that means to an entire group of people...is mean, insulting, and too-far removed from reality. I am not Black, and even I couldn't keep vague worries from entering my mind last Sunday. She has now mentioned this in one way or another, at least FOUR separate times. When does it stop being a mistake? Finally, as others have noted, if this is how she reacts to stress, what else is there to know?

  • Julie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary rarely apologizes. She lied again in her supposed apology, watch the videos above by Keith O

    In part 2, Keith Olbermann provides information from when she made the Robert Kennedy statement in March. He also goes through her history of sleaze during the last few months.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=pa85uo1QyGw Countdown: Special Comment May 23, 2008 Part 2

    Part 1 http://youtube.com/watch?v=sny8VfgcjaI

  • (Show?)

    Katy,

    We may be on different sides of the same team but please do not impugn my credibility by saying I typed somewhere "Hillary Clinton is a bitch". That is simply not true.

    I am using my full name here and am dealing with you in a respectful manner and I would appreciate the same thing in return. An apology would be nice.

    Thanks Jeremy

  • (Show?)

    Statement from Robert Kennedy Jr.

    Robert Kennedy Jr. issued the following statement this evening:

    “It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June. I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband's 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June. I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense.”

  • Judith (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary Clinton is becoming increasingly odious as her true colors become more manifest day by day.

    She certainly is not displaying the type of leadership qualities I believe our great nation needs.

    Unfortunately, due to her extreme narcissism, I doubt she herself is able to understand it is time to give up her candidacy.

    I wonder if there is anyone in the party leadership with the courage to stand up to Hillary and tell her it is time to go.

  • (Show?)

    Josh,

    With all due respect to RFK Jr., he has nothing to do with the offense at hand, and forgiveness is not his to grant, here.

    Hillary's assassination comment was an unconscionable attack on Barack Obama and his family. The apology goes there. The forgiveness comes from there.

    Time to work on the Merkley campaign.

  • (Show?)

    Mr. Kardon,

    With all due respect, your candidate needs to get out of the race now. There will be no graceful retreat at this point. Too many opportunities for her and her campaign have slipped on by. When opportunities presented themselves to show her supporters that changing who was in the White House was more important than her political ambitions, she choose to continue at the peril of the party. In her quest to fulfill her dream, she has dismantled decades of service to her country , in 5 short months. It is beyond sad. I am sure that Sen. Wyden is torn between his loyalty to you ( I hear truly wonderful things about you-really) and his obligations as a super. Its time for him to do the right thing.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary rarely apologizes

    Exactly. Her inability to make a sincere apology, her defensiveness, her circle-the-wagons approach to all conflict--the qualities that she and her biggest supporters always view as "toughness"--are precisely the things that led me away from supporting her a few months ago--long before her absurd remarks about Bosnia, long before her allusions to assassination, long before most of her attacks on Senator Obama. This New Yorker essay covers the subject better than anything else I've read.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    For those with a taste for black humor, I just saw this in a discussion thread at mydd.com:

    "Clinton apologized. She even got Sen. Obama two tickets to Ford's Theater as an apology gift."

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This comment was revelatory of character while under stress. I think a bit of her fantasy life is leaking out. Since she has said this same thing before one has to wonder why and how she didn't see how utterly inappropriate and inflammatory it would be. On grounds of sheer lack of discipline, and poor judgment it is a disqualifier and effectively rules her out of a VP spot on the ticket. She needs to quit now, and the Oregon SDs need to step up and end this travesty that she calls a campaign.

  • calripken08 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This MUST happen Oregon! How can supporters of Hillary Clinton, no matter the justification, defend her?! This is just plain wrong! 3 times she has mentioned assassination and Barrack Obama in the same speech, much less in the same week. Absolutely unforgivable!

    To interpreter, thank you for posting the uncommitted SD's contact information. I will be digging further to see if I can get phone numbers. I will do my best to get my displeasure with HRC's comments and beliefs to these 5 uncommitted delegates.

  • steveballmer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Given all of the things throughout history which have happened in June, Hellary mentions the assassination of Bobby Kennedy? An unusually close parallel to Obama or wishful thinking or maybe instructions to the wack job racist out there?

    "You guys aren't doing your job!" That's what I hear Hellary saying! Maybe that's just me, .... we will find out at Barak's wake.

  • steveballmer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Given all of the things throughout history which have happened in June, Hellary mentions the assassination of Bobby Kennedy? An unusually close parallel to Obama or wishful thinking or maybe instructions to the wack job racist out there?

    "You guys aren't doing your job!" That's what I hear Hellary saying! Maybe that's just me, .... we will find out at Barak's wake.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeremy, I didn't type it, you said it to my face.

  • (Show?)

    Obama friends --

    There are only 3 more contests and every state will have had its voice heard. What, precisely, is the harm to our democracy of a 50-state primary system?

    We conducted a 100% positive race in Oregon and the last I checked, Sen. Obama emerged stronger than ever after running in yet another state that some of you tried to push her out of long before the votes were ever cast. How about giving Hillary a little credit for running a responsible race in Oregon.

    I know Hillary well enough to know that what some of you are accusing her of is beyond ridiculous. Most of you know that, too. And give Katy a break -- you didn't see Katy posting an article accusing Sen. Obama of being a sexist for slipping up and calling a woman reporter "sweetie."

    This race will end soon and we will be united behind our candidate. It should all be official by around June 10, or so. Root for your guy, enjoy his success, and relax.

  • kmg (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Karol:

    You are not the only one afraid for the safety of BO (and I'm a white, middle-aged woman.) Although, I've been afraid to discuss it openly in the event that there is some crackpot nearby or it will spread and some crackpot will . . .

    Anyway, given how saavy HRC is - I can't imagine she didn't think through how harmful this could be. She has lost perspective.

  • (Show?)

    The problem isn't 50 state primary season, the problem is your candidate's campaign. It's a disgrace.

    "And give Katy a break -- you didn't see Katy posting an article accusing Sen. Obama of being a sexist for slipping up and calling a woman reporter "sweetie."

    Surely, you jest. She was absolutely consumed for awhile by this silly non event.

  • interpreter (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Josh, I do appreciate your sentiments. Yes, of course, we need to get together and win this election. Still, you have to admit that calling a reporter "sweetie," however ill-advised, doesn't remotely rise to the level Clinton has reached today.

    No one is saying Hillary actually wants Obama assassinated. I began by having great respect for Senator Clinton. I still wish her well. But what I see now, sadly, is that anyone--particularly someone with the sense of history she has--who can say something this brutally insensitive should not be close to the office of the President.

  • Matthew Sutton (unverified)
    (Show?)

    For all of you saying this was a slip of the tongue, please note that she made similar remarks on March 6th in an interview in Time. She was obviously expressing some reasoning that has been on her mind that she should have kept to herself. Check Keith Oberman's rant on MSNBC.com.

    I agree, I don't understand why the superdelegates aren't closing this process like they are supposed to. Who knows what damaging comments Hillary or Bill may have next.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As someone who is dog tired after a long week at work, I would hold no slip of the tongue against a candidate, esp. if they a) were tired and b) they apologized.

    I think it was Dee Dee Myers who said "Sometimes words come out of your mouth and as soon as you have said them you wish you could take your hands and push them back into your mouth".

    Having come this far, Hillary deserves to stay in until the last primary. She will go down in history. But as a woman her age supporting Obama because (among other things) he is more inspiring and has managed his campaign organization better, no one will win me over with rhetoric like "women support Hillary".

  • (Show?)

    DH - Hillary's race a disgrace? No, Hillary's race is a campaign. Lots of high points, some low points, many in-between.

    Interpreter - If one accepts your premise that she said something "brutally insensitive" then, of course, my comparison would fail miserably. I don't accept it, however, not for a second. I believe both comments were inadvisable, unfortunate gaffes. Nothing more.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Matthew, Keith Olberman also said, "Someone takes her (Hillary Clinton)into a room and only he comes out." If we're being fair, isn't that pretty scary? I mean, if you're willing to use the guy as a reference and all...

    I'm just so completely wowed regarding this witch hunt, not only of Clinton, but of her supporters as well.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oh and of course to DH; I was "consumed?" Wha? Yes, I left the "T" off on purpose. Wha? I left a comment. How is that "consumed?" Sheesh.

    I think everyone needs to take a very deep breath.

  • interpreter (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Okay, Josh. You really think that calling a reporter "sweetie" is equivalent to saying, in effect, "I should stay in this race because Obama, like RFK, might be assassinated"??

    This isn't what she said, but it is what a whole lot of people heard--particularly African-Americans who hear it as a reference to MLK's death.

    Whether it was a slip of the tongue or a conscious analogy (and since she's said it before, I'd be inclined to think the latter), either way, it's being perceived as self-serving, tone-deaf, and insensitive. And not without reason. Consider the history.

    And I don't think she meant what she did say literally, don't get me wrong--but how can you not see that her statement is more than simply "inadvisable"?

  • lambert strether (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Personally, I welcome the latest w*nkfest by Obama's Fan Base -- all they're doing is increasing the buyer's remorse and discrediting their candidate. Not that discrediting Obama is hard....

  • (Show?)

    The thing is, the very premise that's supposed to make her comments just a about timing is flawed. In March she told Time magazine:

    "I think people have short memories," she said then. "Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual."

    But it's her memory that is short, or at least selective. Primary contests didn't last longer, they started later. There is no meaningful way to compare the Primary schedule this time to any that has gone before.

    What strikes me on a visceral level about this is that she is plenty old enough to appreciate the RFK assassination as more than a piece of data regarding the nomination calendar. It's not particularly reassuring to hear her or anyone speaking on her behalf protest that it was just a comment about timing.

  • where did you Drudge this up? (unverified)
    (Show?)

    SHOCK: CLINTON RAISES ASSASSINATION ISSUE; DEFENDS LONG-RUNNING CAMPAIGN

    http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/05/23/hillary-brings-up-assassination-press-freaks-out/

    This is the story, along with the NY Post story, that started this whole nonsense. First, Hillary goes on O'Reilly. Now Obama people whipping up Drudge/NY Post-created outrage. Can't both sides show a little more class?

  • (Show?)

    Kristin wrote:

    We're done. All done. It's time to end this. I have been terrified enough that some racist wack-job would go after Obama, and while Clinton might have not intended to do so, she's emboldened the crazies. No matter how you see her remark, there's no denying that she's either extremely imprudent, to the point of being dangerous, or just pure evil -- either way, not presidential material. Next she'll be making remarks like this about, say, Iran -- oh....wait... It's time to end this.

    Exactly. Thanks Kristin.

    Steve Maurer is right that this likely wasn't calculated on Clinton's part, because it hurts her, not helps her.

    Another aspect is that I think that as another "historic first" whose own election would disrupt some extremist people's vision of the right order of the world, the remark also raises her own risk. But it wasn't just a slip of the tongue. It was a thoughtless treatment of something terribly serious as just another talking point.

    The possiblity of a catastrophe to Barack Obama, say a heart attack, doesn't justify staying in the race. She could suspend her campaign. She still has all her delegates. She would have been the one to whom the party turned under circumstances of a catastrophe, even if she had suspended her campaign a month or two months ago, almost certainly. I don't see how she could be now.

    So I don't think it's a conspiracy. And I don't think it probably was calculated in some lesser way, personally. But any way you cut it, it shows her as unfit.

    1) If it was calculated, it shows her unfit in her willingness to raise the risk of something terrible happening to Senator Obama, and perhaps even herself. If it was calculated, it also was a terribly bad calculation, bound to hurt her, a kind of misjudgment I don't want in someone conducting international negotiations. Especially someone willing to talk carelessly about obliterating other nations.

    2) If it wasn't calculated, it shows a singular lack of judgment and self-control and lack of awareness about the consequences of her words. As Kristin alludes, same kind of lack of judgment shown in her "obliterate Iran" comment.

    I don't think it was just a "slip of the tongue," but I think she may well have felt it was just another talking point. That's how I read her previous use of it. They sat around and talked about June, what do you say to justify staying in the whole way. This was one of the points that came up. She used it before, hasn't for a while, its turn came up in the rotation again. Except now June is upon us, and it caught more attention because of the trauma so many people felt in June 1968.

    Her utter obliviousness to how reckless it is to use this as a talking point, the added danger it creates, which is the best interpretation I can put on it, makes her unfit. Jeremy is right.

    Oh, and about June 1968. Bobby Kennedy's assassination didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened almost exactly two months after Martin Luther King was assassinated. For anyone who was conscious of events in the world then (even as young as 4th grade), the two were linked. If this was some sort of monstrous (mis)calculation, the fear and pain it would be intended to invoke compasses the assassination of a great black leader too.

    More likely, it reflects more a horrendous, grotesque obliviousness to the power of her words, and a profound misunderstanding of her position as a potential president advancing what she says remains a credible claim potentially to be the nominee. The more credible that potential, the grosser the misunderstanding. That obliviousness and lack of understanding also renders her unfit, and decisively refutes all of her claims about her experience, preparedness and judgment.

    Senator Clinton of course has the right to fight on. And I have a right to not have any respect for her decision to do so under the circumstances. And the superdelegates have a right to do what many have already done, including several hundred who support Senator Clinton -- make their decision based on the evidence in front of them.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Let's see, Josh Kardon, Hillary's representative, says that her stating she should wait out the primary because an assassination might happen, like it did to RFK, is on the level of Obama calling someone "sweetie." Great moral equivalence there, Josh. Does that also represent your boss, Sen. Wyden's point of view? A slip, perhaps a Freudian slip. I think we got a little snapshot of Hillary's fantasy life.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary- "I'm sorry if my comments caused offense..." IF, IF, .. is that an apology? And to whom?? She talks about assassination of her opponent as a reason to stay in a race and says "IF" . An invitation to the lunatics out there to clear the way to the White House. Who isn't offended?

    And Josh Kardon comes here and tries to defend this.. is this what's become of the Dem. party?? This is an utter disgrace.

  • What A Bunch of Vacuous Blowhards (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Of course all of you demonstrate exactly why Clinton had no qualms saying what she did because she know most of the kind of people who were listening were like virtually all of the commenters here --- totally ignorant of the real history. Of course most of you are 40 and under so you're just too young and dumb to know any better. (Even though I support Obama, that's just because his age means he's will be forced to be a change agent against his pro-corporate will, although his recent pandering comments in South Florida suggest he still has a lot growing up to do.)

    By the California primary in 1968 the entire campaign season was far less than a year old. Kennedy didn't even announce his candidacy until March 1968, just 3 months before the California primary. Bill Clinton announced his candidacy for the 1992 election in October 1995, just 8 months before June 1992, and the story of that election is that he gamed the super-delegate system to get enough super-delegates to support him within days after he announced that the press was widely reporting he had all but a lock on the nomination before the first primary in New Hampshire and the first caucus in Iowa. Hillary announced her candidacy in JANUARY 2007, fully 18 MONTHS before June 2008. (Obama announced his candidacy just a month later, by the way, in Feb. 2007 so he hardly can cast aspersions - but as a voter I have the right to.)

    So her claim about history is at best intellectually disingenuous. Obviously though, she knew most of her and Obama's supporters are simply too ignorant of history to even know better. Given the historical facts of the duration of her failed candidacy, and her betrayal of core Democratic values for her own selfish interests, it is time to end this and for her and her supporters to leave the Democratic Party if they don't grow up and repent for the damage they have selfishly caused.

    And by the way, the Democratic nominating process of 1968 ended up with police riots in Chicago and the nomination of a candidate (Humphrey) who hadn't even run in the primaries, giving us the election of Nixon. That is hardly the example a responsible Democrat, much less some one with even a modicum of integrity, would be citing to rationalize the destruction she and her morally bankrupt supporters like Katy is choosing to visit on our party.

  • What A Bunch of Blowhards (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Bill Clinton announced his candidacy for the 1992 election in October 1995, just 8 months before June 1992" obviously should be "Bill Clinton announced his candidacy for the 1992 election in October 1991, just 8 months before June 1992".

    (On review I see Sue Hagermeier is apparently the only commentator who picked up on the real deceit in Clinton's comments but most of you posers blew right past that because you just had to posture ridiculously.)

  • (Show?)

    Katy,

    Do I know you? Will you please point out the time and place I called Hillary CLinton "a bitch" to your face?

    Josh, I have no problem with Hillary staying in this race until the end. As you rightly pointed out the race was quite postive here in Oregon. This is a massive turn for the worse.

    Thanks Jeremy

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    @Steve Maurer-

    Obviously this remark doesn't help Hillary. Your question has a faulty premise. It presupposes that Hillary Clinton is acting out of rational self-interest. Clearly this comment is not rational but comes out of an irrational thought process that spills over when she is in the middle of a fatigued and stressed campaign. But the gist of it is clear. 'Bad things can happen, and do happen to one's political opponents, so I can wait out Obama, just in case the way is then clear for me.' It doesn't help her, but it's a snapshot of truth leaking out of her fantasy world. Did the explicit remark about the "hard working white people" help her, I think not, but it represented the truth of her thinking. It shows a lack of discipline and a poor judgment. It's a disqualifier. And her supposed apology is a disgrace. Josh Kardon further disgraces himself and this party by attempting to defend it.

  • (Show?)

    From Wikipedia:

    "Brown scored surprising wins in Connecticut and Colorado and seemed poised to overtake Clinton but a series of controversial missteps set Brown back and Clinton effectively won the Democratic Party's nomination after winning the New York Primary in early April."

    There were a lot more delegates at stake in June in 1992 than there are now:

    Schedule of 1992 primaries from Congressional Quarterly’s Presidential Elections, 1789-1996

    February 10: Iowa February 18: New Hampshire February 25: South Dakota March 3: Colorado, Georgia, Maryland; also Minnesota, Idaho caucuses March 7: South Carolina March 10: Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, plus caucuses in Hawaii, Missouri, Delaware March 17: Illinois, Michigan March 24: Connecticut April 7: Kansas, Minnesota [primary], New York (Democrats), Wisconsin April 28: Pennsylvania May 5: DC, Indiana, North Carolina May 12: Nebraska, West Virginia May 19: Oregon, Washington [primary] May 26: Arkansas, Idaho [primary], Kentucky June 2: Alabama, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio June 9: North Dakota

    All we have in June this time are Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota.

    In 1968, the New Hampshire primary fell on March 12. Kennedy didn't even enter the race until March 16th.

    This election season can't be compared to previous years because it started so early - Iowa fell on January 3rd this year as compared to February 10 in 1992.

  • (Show?)

    I just watched the Keith Olbermann video; he should have added, "BOOYAH!" at the end.

    Seriously, he was very, very right. We have put up with a lot from Senator Clinton and many things have gone by the wayside. She has been the inevitable front runner for PUSA since she moved to NY to run for the seat held by RFK. She didn't plan for an entire election season, she couldn't hold her own against Obama, and she's close to losing. To lash out in such a dangerous way is offensive. The previous comment from the woman was right, many people of all races were disgusted by what she said and what her underlying suggestions were.

    To even attempt to say that she is waiting around for something to potentially happen to Obama so she can get in there is SICK. Go home, Hillary. We are done. I've said it before out of frustration but I'll say it again out of self-respect: if HRC manages to take this away from Obama, I'm not voting for her.

  • still pissed (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Let's get to the God damn point. Ms. Smith, Mr Dixon, et all, show some leadership and announce your decesion NOW. The party is tearing itself apart as evidenced on this BLOG. Your inaction is deafening. Leadership is making the tough call. Make it. Hillary is losing it. She is no doubt exhusted, demoralized and shame based, as well she should be after her recent string of comments. All of you need to annonce your decesion and then resign as your lack of leadership is a Disgrace. To Ms. Greenleaf. Thank you for your courage. You should fight for leadership of the state party, regardless of who you announced for you ALONE exhibited courage. To teddy k and bradbury. TAKE A HIKE. Regardless of who you support you have allowed this thing to fester and are cowards as leaders.

  • (Show?)

    Please remember that Bill Bradbury is the head of elections in Oregon. Many would find it inappropriate for him to come out in support of one of the candidates while he was overseeing their election. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see him wait at least until the delegate numbers are finalized, if not until the election in certified.

    It's extremely obvious that Wayne Kinney wouldn't come out in support of a candidate yet - he's the one who is in charge of the delegate plan and awarding delegates to the two candidates.

    Unlike some states, the Democratic Party of Oregon is neutral in primaries. Had the officers come out in support of a candidate, it would be hard to claim the party was neutral. It would be my guess that you'll see party officers supporting a candidate once the delegate numbers are finalized and they can feel that they can stop being neutral.

    I know people are frustrated, but please remember our election was just a few days ago - the party's role in this race isn't over yet. Just give them a little more time. Believe me, they aren't just holding out for the fun of it.

  • still pissed (unverified)
    (Show?)

    ARE YOU DRUNK OR HIGH. bradbury has been a clinton backer for quite some time. Do you think we are all stupid, or do you just like to insult folks. IT'S about leadership for Christs sake. Keep on Fiddleing my fiend, Rome is burning.F$#@%^$ Teddy k has all but publically endorsed INsane McCain, while shunning Obama.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Many of you know I have little enthusiasm for Hillary as nominee, but this is not about Obama, it was as usual about Hillary trying to find something to hang her campaign on. Hillary owes it to her supporters at this late date to finish the Primaries. How she chooses to do it is important. I may support Obama, but before that I am a Democrat and I am a member of DNC. I take real exception to Hillary's dishonest attempts to blow up the DNC over MI/FL. Most of the rest of her stuff pales in comparison to freezing her supporters with a notion of a stolen election. The mess in those two states not being cleared up by now is primarily her doing, by hardening their positions with false promises on false basis. Her delegation at the Rules Cmtt voted to strip those states and it was fine with her until she saw herself needing their votes and then she attacked DNC.

    Some Democratic Senators need to take her to the side and explain that trying to wreck the Party can easily be translated into total Senate obscurity, no seats, no co-signers or co-signing and no earmarks, so long. Finish your campaign as a competitor but get yourself squared away about the Party's interests and learn how to be a politician instead of a coattail.

    Josh, I know you're not one of the wheels over there, but somebody needs to inject some sense of polity into that campaign.

  • (Show?)

    Not drunk or high. I just happen to know how these this works, what the procedures are, etc. This isn't my first presidential contest that I've been heavily involved in - it's my 5th. I also know most of Oregon's "super" delegates.

    They take this very seriously. And they take the state party's commitment to being neutral very seriously. Their official part in this primary isn't over yet - give them time to finish their work and get to the point where they can announce and not feel they're violating that commitment.

    I'm getting very tired of people just making assumptions and bashing the leaders of the party. Believe me, they understand how serious this situation is and the damage that all this bashing back and forth has been doing to the party. And continuing in these attacks just continues the pattern.

  • Michael Hanna (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Josh Kardon: How does the Clinton Campaign explain this remark from Senator Tom Carper: "I'll encourage [Obama] to ask, and if he does, for her to say yes...She would be a good president if something ever were to happen to him."???

    Senator Carper said that yesterday, in the context of pushing for Clinton to be Obama's VP. It was a TALKING POINT, and intended to win people over to the idea. Maybe Senator Clinton just "misspoke" by using the term "assassination" several times, and maybe Senator Carper is VERY OFF MESSAGE. I am willing to give your campaign the benefit of the doubt. But wow, that is incredibly sloppy if that is the case. I have been an active Obama campaign volunteer for some time now, and I really hoped to see a respectable exit for Clinton and some movement towards party unity. But my optimism for that outcome is dwindling by the day. Does it really need to end badly? Really? Please Josh, can we pull together now?

  • orexpat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Josh Kardon:

    You have officially jumped the shark. It's confusing that you are so willing to let HRC's decisions take down your own reputation.

  • hex (unverified)
    (Show?)

    omg. I just watched AC360 on CNN and they excused Clinton's comment. Cooper&panel summarily suggested that she did not know the statement was callous, afterwhich they all went ahead to agree the statement was indeed insensitive.

    Giving her the benefit of the doubt,which she does not deserve,I have to ask myself the question --If she did not have the judgment/"emotional IQ" to see the stupidity in her statement that EVERYONE ELSE SEES, how come she could detect at a moments notice that Obama's "bitter" comment was derogatory&elitist? After watching her "apology", I'm certain her conviction that something would happen to Obama is terribly strong. She's been nursing the idea so hard that she's grown numb to how overtly foul it is and thats why she said it.

    The argument at CNN amounts to-- "the statement does not benefit her in anyway, so she cant seriously have meant to imply what she DID imply." I let this one slide because goodfolks at CNN ignorantly but genuinely underestimate HRC's evil nature.

    if she wanted to draw historic references to make a point 1) There are many more non-caustic examples 2) If she must use the Kennedy example, there are a million ways to make her point without the assassination

    INTERPRETATION Why are you still in the race? Because Obama can get assassinated.

    I hope CNN is excusing it because they don't want to fuel the subliminal-hatred. Subsequently, they should do all they can to asphyxiate her campaign.

  • Prentiss Riddle (unverified)
    (Show?)

    No one in their right mind is saying that Hillary is condoning the assassination of Obama.

    What's objectionable is the implication that the country shouldn't elect a black president because he would be at risk of assassination. This idea gives the hypothetical racists with guns veto power over our democracy.

    It's a sad argument when you hear it from voters in the street; coming from a presidential candidate it's outrageous.

    Stepping back from the moment: Okay, I have some sympathy for politicians under 24x7 scrutiny, who are bound to say stupid things from time to time. But Hillary is now regularly implying that white people aren't ready for a black president and that's why Democrats should nominate her.

    I'd feel a lot better about this if she weren't apologizing to the Kennedys but to Obama, and if she would say flat out (as David Gergin has suggested): I don't want to have anything to do with claims about the unelectability of a black candidate, and if you're voting against Obama because he's black, I don't want your vote!

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's called racism by proxy, Prentiss. "These other people are racist, so I won't vote for a black man (and you shouldn't, either). Not that I'm racist. It's those other people who are the racists."

  • naschkatzehussein (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Prentiss Riddle, my jaw dropped as I watched Olbermann's special comment when at the end he went through that litany of her "gaffes". Were there really that many. Thank god for the memory man. She was given a pass on all of them, but this one shall not pass. Good comment BTW.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This from a one-time enthusiastic Clinton supporter:

    Senator, it's time to go. Now.

    Sure, many people are giving you the benefit of the doubt, saying that certainly you didn't mean to suggest that you need to stay in the race in case something sad happens to Barack Obama. Others are saying that you must have been tired at the back end of a long campaign. Sorry, no sale. Because today's disaster isn't simply a gaffe from a tired candidate; she brought up RFK's asassination to justify a continued candidacy months ago to Time magazine. Well, others may be willing to give you a pass, but I am not. And I was one of your earliest supporters. You may recall that I endorsed Hillary because of her smarts, judgment, and demeanor. And all of these things have been gone from her and her campaign for a while now.

    There is no reason or justification whatsoever to mention the word assassination at all, especially given this country's sad political history, after you have spent weeks talking about the white vote, and three days after RFK's brother basically found out he has months to live. Sure, Olbermann was damn near hysterical in his delivery tonight, but that doesn't make what he said wrong.

    Why would any remaining superdelegate endorse you now? Your judgment and decency have left you.

    Before you offer another lame mea culpa and say something else stupid, trashing any remaining legacy you have left, get out please.

    Now.

    Postscript: Please spare me the "She didn't mention 'Obama'" defense. She's running against one remaining candidate for the party's nomination, and he ain't Daffy Duck.

  • joyce in eugene (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am organizing a phone-a-thon campaign to Senator Ron Wyden's offices this weekend. Senator Wyden is quoted in today's Register-Guard as saying that he will not cast his vote until the "warm days of August in Denver." The voters of Oregon have spoken. The Democratic voters of Oregon have spoken. Let Senator Wyden know of your outrage. Call: 541-431-0229 and let his office know that this will not be tolerated.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    National PTSD:

    "The incident, it seems to me, does tell us two other things.

    "The first is that the strategy of the Clinton camp, of continuing to campaign even after victory at the polls became numerically impossible--in hopes that Obama might stumble and alienate sufficient numbers of superdelegates--was not crazy. I don't approve of it, but that it could work or could have worked seems clear. It could easily have been Obama who stumbled yesterday. Ironically, it was Clinton.

    "The second thing the incident tells us is how traumatized the nation still is by those horrible killings 40 years ago, and how much unfinished business of healing those wounds there is. Hillary didn't mean to pick at the scab. But she did. And we bled a little, all over again."

  • here they go again (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm actually glad the Obamatons are showing their true colors yet again, attacking Hillary Clinton for something no one else would have received a second glance.

    Keep it up, your candidate is suffering from your irrationality.

    Superdelegates can switch back and forth to their hearts' content until they cast their votes in August. And they will, to distance themselves from you.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What is revealing in this, besides the character of Hillary Clinton, is the character of the Dem. party leadership in Oregon. Sen. Ron Wyden and his chief of staff, the Governor of the state, The Sec. of State, have this inbred and unquestioning allegiance to the Clintons at the expense of the well being of the party. They defend the indefensible, and stand behind the candidate who trashes every value the Dem. party claims is important. Apparently waiting for the assassination of one's opponent as a means of ascendancy to the presidency is on the table. It's time for a clean sweep, beginning with Wyden and his chief of staff, and continuing to the chair of the DPO. Then we have the non-apology apology. An apology to Sen. Obama, apparently not forthcoming. Today there is utter silence from them. Bradbury, you're finished. Wyden, you should be finished.

  • Elaine (unverified)
    (Show?)

    She's made too many public statements that fully indicate that she is not the person for the job. This last one, repeated for a second time, was not a mistake and her timing, impeccable. It's not just a poor choice of words, sorry.

    As a conscientious voter, my memory is long. The many astonishing mistakes she has made will come back to haunt her after the primary party is over. She has managed to embody all that is divisive in political campaigning at a time we need unity. As a feminist, I find her constant "broken-wing" acts ridiculous, inappropriate and harmful to women everywhere.

    How she has run her campaign is indicative how how she would've run her presidency and I won't buy into it. Anyway, her run is over and she has no one to blame but herself. Betcha she won't own up to it, either.

  • james r bradach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    She can assassinate Iran and blow Obama off the face of the earth. I can't see how, in this lifetime, I would cast a vote for her. The Senate has to approve Supreme court nominees right?

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Perhaps someone who represents the party leadership can answer this for me, because I'm at a loss to understand what I thought was the Dem. party. Why has it become acceptable for the Clinton campaign to organize busloads of supporters to attend the DNC Rules committee meeting with the intent of harassing and intimidating the members next week?

    I’ve seen so many campaign actions this season that I would have thought would be unacceptable. But it seems now they are. Using the 9/11 fear card, marginalizing the opponent by race, making yourself the champion of the white race (” hard-working white people”), attacking the Dem. party election rules by comparing the party to the Mugabe regime, and not the least- asserting that you are a viable candidate as long as your opponent has any chance of meeting his demise through violence before the convention. I haven’t seen anyone in the party leadership saying “this is off limits.”

    So, is anyone now welcome to come to a DNC meeting with the purpose of rioting and influencing the outcome? Or is this just a prerogative reserved for the Clintons? What kind of party is this? As some are now saying, "Have you no shame, have you no integrity?" Since Wyden, Bradbury, and the rest of them are giving tacit consent, I have to say, why are any of these people worthy of our support?

  • Rob (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Her comments are literally sickening to anyone who lived through the time. Not content to destroy the party, she is at work destroying the country. It is time for even the committed delegates to think deeply.

  • (Show?)

    I can't for the life of me see how this is a problem. Clinton has done all kinds of questionable things during this campaign, this isn't one of them. She has a distinct memory from a campaign that went into June. So what?

  • Marci (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "As long as you remain silent, as long as you sit on the sidelines the answer to many of us Oregon Democrats is: YES."

    Exactly.

    And we will remember when you're up for re-election.

  • (Show?)

    Pete, Except that it didn't. Her husband's nomination was in the bag in April. Also, the Primary schedule was totally different, both shorter and later. And THAT is "a historic fact."

  • (Show?)

    Why has it become acceptable for the Clinton campaign to organize busloads of supporters to attend the DNC Rules committee meeting with the intent of harassing and intimidating the members next week? ...

    I haven’t seen anyone in the party leadership saying “this is off limits.

    That's my interpretation of the fact that they've made a rule that people can't bring signs and such and that comments from the public won't be allowed.

  • (Show?)

    Sue,

    There are certainly significant flaws in the timing argument itself but most of the arguments Hillary is making these days are pretty weak. I'm not sure why you think that's relevant to whether or not that's the argument she was attempting to make.

    If I were Hillary, I'd argue that the real timing question is not how long or short the primary season has been but how much time the presumptive nominee has to campaign for the general. In '68 the convention was at the end of August, the election in early November--just as it will be this year. Thank goodness I'm not Hillary because if I were the last things I'd want to remind people of are the most infamous convention of my lifetime and the ultimate election of the guy who was, at least until the Current Occupant, the most infamous President of my lifetime.

    Eugene McCarthy's primary campaign in Oregon was my first foray into politics. Ironically, to me, at age 17, Bobby Kennedy and his campaign were the Hillary Clintons of 1968. They came in with the backing of the Democratic establishment to roll over the guy who was considered too outre.

  • (Show?)

    Katy, you are absolutely right about that Olbermann quote from a while ago -- you were right then, and still are. But Olbermann isn't asking me to vote for him for president.

    Josh Kardon, I think Hillary Clinton has every right to see it through the primaries, and needs no more justification than that she's following the wishes of those who have supported her and brought her close. It's too bad in a way that she couldn't see her way to just leaving it at that.

    The harm is that she's ended up in this place, in part.

    And it's partly in the remarks of "here they go again." Does he or she think that Hillary could possibly win the presidency without those he dismisses as "Obamatons"?

    But it's also Hillary who has said that it's up to the supers to decide, and as a result, there is an element of live by the sword, die by the sword, in terms of the calls of people outraged by this comment that the supers should decide sooner rather than later. It's not like Hillary has ever called on the supers who endorsed her earlier to hold off until all the primaries had occurred. She had little concern about the voters in the last three primaries when she wanted to clinch it with overwhelming victories on Super Tuesday.

  • Elaine (unverified)
    (Show?)

    With all the sage advice and wisdom of the posters here that it's pretty obvious why Senator Clinton stays in the race and is causing such a stir.

    She's lost the race long ago, if we play by the rules, and she does need to pay for her campaign. So long as she runs, she will still be able to collect donations for her run. In order for that to happen, she still needs to act the role of contender and distract from her loss.

    Imho, it's really that simple. Unfortunately, it just adds to my disgust.

  • David (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hello, IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHO'S MAKING UP THE RULES!! THE CONSTITUTION AND SUPREME COURT HAVE STATED ALL CITIZENS OF THE USA HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE!! What gives the DNC the right to over rule our laws???? The Florida delegates should have ALL their delegates seated. Michigan should either be a revote,(Obama pulled his name of ballot), or ALL the delegates seated,(it's Obama's problem he pulled his name of ballot,probably because he knew he'd lose)

  • (Show?)

    What gives the DNC the right to over rule our laws????

    You left out several question marks and exclamation points, and forgot to capitalize the rest of your message - it confuses Blue Oregon's geezer noob and right-wing wack-job filters when you do that, so you'll need to edit your original post before you can write a new one.

    For the 392,874th time, the DNC overruled nobody's law. I voted in my Florida straw poll way too damn early without any interference or threat from the Democratic National Committee, and whether you lived in Florida or Michigan, you also got to vote way too damn early without any interference or threat from the Democratic National Committee.

    In fact, I still have the same voter registration card that I had from before I voted, so I don't believe I've been kicked out of the Democratic Party. But I'm sure that's coming.

    I gotta go - I think the Florida Primary for 2012 is this morning.

guest column

connect with blueoregon