Hillary Clinton's Meeting With SD Newspaper : The RFK Mention

You will be hearing about this meeting tonight because of an unfortunate, inappropriate statement by Senator Clinton regarding the length of the contest. She invoked President Clinton's 1992 fight for the nomination and most regretfully, the fact that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s fight for the nomination was cut short the night of his win in the California primary in 1968 as well as the fights in 1980 and 1984.

But her mention of the RFK assassination is simply is an indefensible remark, and in very poor taste. I believe Clinton's point was that the fight for the nomination was going full bore in June 1968. But the statement was a terrible mistake. Indeed, a politically damaging mistake. Senator Clinton should apologize and I imagine will apologize for it. Her enemies will of course use it against her and accuse her of hoping for something bad to happen to Senator Obama. And that tells you about them. But there is no getting around this - Senator Clinton made a terrible statement and she needs to apologize for it immediately.

Below the fold you will find a video of the statement.

Speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Obama Tells Cuban-Americans He'll Meet With Cuba's Communist Leaders | Hillary Clinton's Statement Of Regret >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I also think she was discussing the fact that (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Teresa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:04:24 PM EST
    the race in both cases was still going on. Boy did she phrase it badly, though.

    True enough. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by MarkL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:04:43 PM EST
    That's what it looked like to me, too. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Iphie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:09:46 PM EST
    If she hasn't already, I imagine she will apologize to the Kennedys -- the sooner the better.

    Funny when RFK's children (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:15:19 PM EST
    came out for Hillary, when identified as RFK's children, no one said a word! Hmmmm. Or when Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama and said he was reminicent of John Kennedy, no one gasped and said a word. We need to grow up people!!!!

    Yes, that was her point. (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by masslib on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:13:14 PM EST
    Still not good.

    Terresa what was bad about the phrasing? (none / 0) (#178)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:09:55 PM EST
    I believe (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by nell on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:05:30 PM EST
    she has already responded...I haven't seen the response, but from comments I have read elsewhere, she apologized sincerely, esp. to the Kennedy family, and explained the point she was trying to make about June.

    given what's been said about her (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:05:43 PM EST
    in the mass media i wouldn't be surprised if she's had a huge up tick in death threats herself.  Everytime she was ribbed about dodging snipers I wondered if someone might  think twice about linking her and sniper fire in a mocking way.

    Yes, she's saying that SHE might be (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MarkL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:07:20 PM EST
    assassinated because it looks like she might win.
    Not that it makes her statement much more politic, but it's not about Obama, IMO.

    no not quite (none / 0) (#54)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:22:20 PM EST
    I think she's thinking about how unpredictable this year is. And the pararllels to 68 are fairly strong.

    Assassinations are a worst case scenario.

    She's pretty much defeated anyway...the superdels are trickling away and the media don't care what she says unless she's putting her foot in her mouth.


    Again, (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:02:13 PM EST
    all she was saying was that primaries do and have run into June.  Period.  Bend and Stretch!

    To say this (none / 0) (#57)
    by Melchizedek on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:23:21 PM EST
    is about her own assassination is highly implausible, if not disingenuous. I realize you may WANT it to be about that, because then it's less of a gaffe. But she's really saying that RFK was assassinated in June, and the race at that point was not over. She's not saying she's waiting to see if Obama is assassinated (although that is much more reasonable than it being about her own assassination).

    It's a mistake, she should apologize, and folks should move on to the real issues of the campaign.


    No (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:28:58 PM EST
    bhuttio just gopt shot and that fool who did the mock pipe bombing.

    She was also mocked for pointing out that she was in danger in Bosnia.  We even had the video of her made by an obama supporter with bombs going off all around her.

    Obama's a sensitive wuss and so is his campaign.  Really, he's a complete narcisist.  He acts like a kid with a splinter in his thumb.


    There are only two candidates. Assuming she wasn't (none / 0) (#110)
    by dugan49 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:45:33 PM EST
    alluding to her own possible asassination, Obama is the only one left. There is no way for Hillary to spin this in a way that can mitigate it. If this were March and the race were dead even , time and circumstances could overcome the gaffe. That will not happen now. Her less devoted support will jump ship forthwith.

    She alluded to the assassination (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:03:27 PM EST
    in passing.  The point was that primaries run into June.  

    He attempt to steal the nomination (none / 0) (#138)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:55:25 PM EST
    by means of racism and dirty tricks could easily be seen as motivating factors. I've seen the vitriolic comments by plenty of posters ion plenty of sites.

    I'm not spinning anything.

    No one complianed when pundits were joshing about her dodging sniper fire. Were they?

    I thought it sounded a bit more threatening than bringing up examples of randon events in history.


    she attempted. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:57:06 PM EST
    I'm not defending her btw. her camapgn is dead in the water.

    i am just commenting on how hysterical and cowardly obama appears to be right now.

      There's literally no point in hounding her down in my opinion.  He's not a magnanimous man, and his followers are unforgiving puritans.

    Makes me sick to watch  the spectacle


    Melchizek, so in your words (none / 0) (#184)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:14:17 PM EST
    Hillary said "that RFK was assassinated in June, and the race at that point was not over".

    How is that a "mistake" that she should "apologize" for?


    Ugh (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Robert Oak on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:06:34 PM EST
    More gotcha's.  An entire gotcha season.  I know exactly what she means the 1968 convention ended up choosing a nominee who didn't have any delegates really and it was a very rough, long drawn out campaign battle that year.  She was probably thinking of the brokered deal and as a result how Dems lost big time and we got Richard Nixon.

    Why is it when I hear this constant gotchas I understand what they mean but it's like this gigantic word parser from hell is following these people around and if they sneeze wrong it's a disaster.

    Seriously, on every candidate, every race this is getting to be ridiculous.

    she was thionking about 68 (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:08:42 PM EST
    that's the case.

    Many of us have been thinking about 68 (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by stillife on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:19:47 PM EST
    I know I have.  I haven't seen such a hotly contested primary season until now.

    Still, I expect the media to jump all over it.


    68 (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Robert Oak on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:22:38 PM EST
    I think this might be due to age.  I think that was her first campaign where she was involved but even I remember the incredible, long, drawn out battle and gee if one gets the history channel the RJK assassination threw the entire convention up in arms in terms of getting a nominee.  Plus there was the Chicago political machine, the riots, the busting of heads outside the convention and it completely blew up any chance of getting a Dem into office that year.  Also, the Vietnam war was a huge issue, major and because of all of these back room deals well Humphrey got it and all was lost.

    RFK was about to challenge Humphrey for the nomination after winning California and because it was going to be a huge battle, I'm sure that's what she was referring to.  


    Ya know, it's like no one remembers that Hillary and Bill were part of the 1960's/1970's new generation, anti-war Democrats of the time so I'm sure, like everyone else, they probably wept at the news of that.  I don't see how some 1960's political almost hippies can now be construed as some sort of cold war mercenary comments.

    But, seemingly if Hillary speaks someone will be sure to pounce and try to spin it as such.



    literally (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:26:00 PM EST
    I have no idea what 68 must have been like and how it impacted the minds of various people.     Also, for that matter, look at Bhutto getting murdered.  

    No, No No. (none / 0) (#152)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:00:24 PM EST
    Was NOT referring to a battle!

    ouch, that is bad (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by DandyTIger on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:09:30 PM EST
    she just said "you know, Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June". Wow, what the hell does that mean. What is she trying to say. I'll go with BTD that she's making a point about that race was close, and of course that anything can happen. Hopefully she's not implying something really bad can happen. But of course it can. So yes, she needs to do a big apology immediately, and say what she meant and that there was nothing negative meant about JFK or about negative prospects for either candidate, that she was just clumsily trying to refer to the amazing closeness of that race.

    That was not her point. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:56:05 PM EST
    She did not say anything can happen.  She just said that this is NOT the first primary to continue into June! The End.  Finis.  -30-

    She is human (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by nell on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:10:17 PM EST
    We all say dumb things sometimes. I understand her point, that the primary that year went into June.

    This was a gaffe. But only the truly deranged would think she was trying to imply something dark about Obama. That says more about them than it does about her comment.

    Nell, did you watch the video? (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:17:14 PM EST
    What was "dumb" about it? I still fail to see ANYTHING wrong with the statement.

    I disagree (5.00 / 8) (#28)
    by samanthasmom on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:10:46 PM EST
    She's just pointing out that historically the primaries were still going on in June.  The hypersensitivity is getting ridiculous. If anyone takes that to mean that she thinks Obama might be assassinated, that's a real stretch. I'm moving to New Zealand. This country is going nuts.

    Dems and the Left look like (5.00 / 8) (#53)
    by RalphB on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:22:11 PM EST
    political correctness dipsh!ts.  Any misstatement is a "horrible mistake" or "indefensible".  It's enough to make you lose your lunch at the complete wimpiness of it all.  Hypersensitivity doesn't even begin to describe this bullsh!t.

    The Democrats are turning into (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:24:33 PM EST
    namby pamby light weights before my very eyes.

    I don't don't think she's all that brilliant but why not point stuff out?  


    The fauz outrage (5.00 / 6) (#78)
    by RalphB on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:31:03 PM EST
    makes me ashamed of the Democratic party and a lot of the people in it.  And it would be even worse if I thought the outrage was real.  

    Thank you RalphB and Molly Pitcher. (none / 0) (#193)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:19:00 PM EST
    Samanthasmom....the only ones hypersensitive (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:39:32 PM EST
    are the ones trying to twist it into something it is not.  Hillary made a mistake, already apologized and enough already from the wolves.

    Thanks for adding some sanity to this thread.


    Ridiculous (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:41:34 PM EST
    Again Hillary Clinton correctly states an historical fact and everyone gets all geeked up.  When she cited Lyndon Johnson's civil rights success the Obama crowd, the media and a-blogistan went ballistic.

    That year, 1968, was an emotionally wrenching year.  The year I always think about whenever current turmoil sets me on edge.  Historical memory is of vital importance in a free society; discouraging it is suspect at best.

    This is criminally stupid.  We've reached a day when history cannot be correctly cited without many people and especially those afflicted with CDS get a serious case of the vapors. We can expect the PHONY rage to burn for days.

    Calling this a gaffe is the real outrage here.  


    cal1942....I Think Part Of The Problem Is The (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:47:26 PM EST
    obamabots are on full troll patrol on TL today.
    Do not buy into what they are trying to sell.



    And that comment was meant for the entire (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:48:17 PM EST
    board, not cal1942 who isn't falling for the faux outrage.

    I find it indefensible that BTD hyped this. (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:22:05 PM EST
    And he linked to TPM in the bargain. They're driving the story right?

    Distractions, distractions (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:52:44 PM EST
    distractions....anything but counting the votes!!!

    FEEDDDING FRENZY!!!!!!! (5.00 / 8) (#29)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:11:09 PM EST
    STOMP HER DOWN!!!!!!!!


    Guess what?  She's not perfect.

    I'd agree with BTD if I knew one could do so in an objective environment.

    That's really the problem with BTD, he thinks he exists in an environment where his objectivity can be administered with some sense of self-purpose.

    The fact is, all this does is give people an excuse to call her names.

    And that's just yet another problem with CDS, it renders legitimate criticism defunct.

    Who the hell cares at this point????

    Obama supporters have their hissy fit.  It's not like they weren't going to have a hissy fit, anyway.

    Wow... (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:12:01 PM EST
    I know it wasn't a great comment but I'm surprised you all are as freaked out by it as you seem to be.  She already came out and apologized, almost immediately (as opposed to Obama who would wait 3 weeks and until it completely blew up to make a primetime speech about it that would make the MSM swoon).  Her apology was fine, it was heartfelt as far as I could tell, she apologized to the Kennedys and reiterated that they've been on her mind the last few days.  The media have been chomping at the bit for her to say something they could harp on her about, and she did, and they're going full throttle about it.  One statement out of the thousands of statements she makes a day and everyone's acting like it's the end of the world?  Get over it.

    I'm not sure people are freaked out (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:18:59 PM EST
    Obama supporters on this thread are calling this a "huge gaffe" and a "major mistake" but of course that would be their reaction. Others just think it was a mistake and are glad she apologized and clarified.  No freaking out here. :-)

    that's what they are paid to do (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by english teacher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:27:15 PM EST
    please get a grip.  this is more fake b.s.  why do you fall for it?

    The Race To Be The Biggest Doushbag (1.00 / 2) (#40)
    by flashman on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:15:09 PM EST
    has many contestants.

    And the Race to be the Worst Speller (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by kaleidescope on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:39:35 PM EST
    Also has many.

    And We Have A Winner! (1.00 / 1) (#118)
    by flashman on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:47:40 PM EST
    The head spelling, typing cop!  Take a bow!

    1968 was the closest race. (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by phat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:12:40 PM EST
    1968 was the closest race since the modern primary and the most comparable to this race.

    It wasn't over in June. This one isn't over.

    Whatever. Poorly phrased, I suppose and (as Armando would say) pols shouldn't be phrasing things this poorly. But come on.


    Wasn't Over in June? (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by kaleidescope on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:44:32 PM EST
    I was there.  My whole family worked for Eugene McCarthy that spring.  California's primary in early June was the last primary of the year.  Once Bobby Kennedy was killed, it really was all over.  Hubert Humphrey (who didn't run in a single primary) was handed the nomination at the Convention.  There wasn't really any campaigning after Bobby Kennedy was killed.

    That was one hell of a bleak spring.  MLK was killed, then one of my best friends was hit by a train and killed, then Bobby Kennedy was killed.

    It's hard to describe what that did to the feeling for the year coming on the heels of 1967, which had seemed to be a hopeful year.

    And then we got Nixon.


    1968 (none / 0) (#141)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:56:11 PM EST
    Does not compare to this race.

    There were (trusting memory here) 15 or 16 primaries. The battle for the nomination was ALWAYS settled at the convention. The only reason to compete in primaries was to prove a point.  It was not to win vast numbers of delegates.

    Candidates didn't necessarily enter any primaries and it was not unusual for a candidate to announce their intention to run at the start of the convention as Lyndon Johnson did in 1960 or Adlai Stevenson did in 1952. In fact Stevenson didn't intend to run until after the '52 convention started.

    There were no delegate counts that made the evening news, no popular vote count to debate.  

    That year, 1968, was before the McGovern Commission put us on the road to demogoguery and more money corruption.


    Honestly...about the outrage (5.00 / 8) (#37)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:13:36 PM EST
    I remember the June Bobby Kennedy and that the primary was still going on and that is when he got assassinated.  What is wrong with people.   There is this idiocy that only Obama can be assassinated, this is idiotic.  She does not need to apologize, this is the media and TPM making a fuss.  

    She can't have any history (5.00 / 6) (#89)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:38:08 PM EST
    belong to her.

    She can't mention Bill, LBJ or JFK or RFK.

    yet Obama has free range.


    Stellaaa (5.00 / 7) (#99)
    by Kathy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:41:28 PM EST
    Yet another time when Clinton makes a statement about history--a history she lived through and fought through--and it's turned around into an issue of race (assassinating the first black president!    Yeah, president.  Apparently, he declared at breakfast that he's already won)

    Yes, she this was inartfully stated.  She makes three mistakes the whole campaign, all of them get turned around into a 'racist' statement, meanwhile Obama makes gaffe after gaffe and it's all good.


    Ban me (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:46:46 PM EST
    or I will really blow up here.  

    Look at the double standard,  Precious will be assassinated and Hillary is like totally immune to the nut cases in this world.  Wowzers.  


    they have no idea (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Kathy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:52:10 PM EST
    how many death threats, how many fake bombs, how many aggressive @ssholes she has had to deal with over the years.

    I heard this whole (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:03:10 PM EST
    bit of the AA community not wanting him to run cause of fear of assassination.  Now that the whole DNC committee gonna meet, they create this so the PC DNC members vote his way.  Man, I have worked way too many years in America's race politics to not now this cr@p.  

    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by sleepingdogs on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:53:27 PM EST
    Now if she has said something like "You never know.  People sometimes die during these things."  That would be outrage worthy.  This just isn't.  Not that a humongous deal won't be made of it anyway.

    I wish I could buy her a shot and beer right now and tell her to just 'brush it off.'


    You're wrong (1.80 / 5) (#45)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:19:29 PM EST
    The risk of Obama being assassinated simply because of his skin color has been discussed MANY times.  

    It is a VERY touchy subject which is why the Clinton campaign immediately apologized.  

    And to make matters worse this comment feeds right into the caricature of Hillary that she will say anything to win.


    That is BS (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:21:38 PM EST
    the risk of her getting assassinated with all the hatred against her is just as great, this is BS and touchy subject because people are sanctifying him.  This is pure BS.  

    Sorry, but I don't understand your comment (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:21:51 PM EST
    Hillary is a very smart person. In what universe would such a smart person imagine that this comment would help her win? So how does it feed into the charicature?

    please (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by english teacher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:28:21 PM EST
    you are full of cr@p.  

    Check your facts (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:32:50 PM EST
    There have been death threats against Senator Obama.  In fact, they were taken so seriously by the Secret Service that he received protection earlier than any candidate in history.

    and there have been none (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:34:13 PM EST
    against Hillary?  are you delirious?  Ford and Reagan got shot. They were not black and they were Republican.  

    Stay focused (none / 0) (#116)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:47:21 PM EST
    I was responding to Flyerhawk point.  No need to bring in any strawmen.

    Yes focused on your comment (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:49:30 PM EST
    about Obama, you think Hillary has not faced death threats?  The straw man is the big idiocy about her comment.  

    Huh? (none / 0) (#144)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:57:00 PM EST
    How does the fact that Senator Clinton faced threats in anyway negate Flyerhawk's point?  Now if Obama had  been second in delegates at this point in the primary season and raised RFK's assassination, I have no doubt you would have been outraged and then, perhaps, your point about Senator Clinton having been threatened would have some relevancy.

    Um...Bobby Kennedy was white, (5.00 / 6) (#79)
    by cosbo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:31:43 PM EST
    maybe you didn't know that.  So was Lincoln. So was JFK.

    Here's thing... assassination is not limited to black people or even white people, it's for the GOOD people. The ones we look up to. The people with souls, people who actually care about their fellow men.

    Malcolm X
    Martin Luther King
    Robert Kennedy


    we can mention Christ here (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:39:42 PM EST
    Julius Caesar, Socrates...

    i'll smack him down if he does of course. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:47:04 PM EST
    I'm immpressed she recalled the bloody date he was killed in.   I didn't know that happened so late in teh 68 primary.

    June 4th 1968 (none / 0) (#155)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:01:04 PM EST
    About 5 hours before I was born.  My father remembers being in the hospital when a nurse came running down the hall wailing that they killed Bobby. I was born in CA no less.

    Flyerhawk, I thought you were born yesterday :-) (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:29:47 PM EST
    Get a grip, flyer... (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by oldpro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:41:58 PM EST
    so can Obama not mention Lincoln any more?

    People...time for a reality break...


    You guys want to live in denial (3.00 / 2) (#111)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:45:57 PM EST
    be my guest.  

    I'm sure that will make things easier next week when the media makes this into the scandal of the week.

    You guys have perfected the art of the contrived outrage so color me unimpressed with your claims of anger at this particular contrived outrage.


    lol (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:48:23 PM EST
    why bother man?  She's been out of it since February.

    You don't have clinton to beat up anymore. Mccain must be laughing up his sleeve at how sensitive obama is.

    Obama is an easy mark.


    I'm not bothering (none / 0) (#150)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:59:39 PM EST
    I am simply talking about the politics of it.

    I don't engage in gotcha politics.


    Then turn off (none / 0) (#180)
    by oldpro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:11:50 PM EST
    your computer.

    But he's not running on the (none / 0) (#147)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:57:23 PM EST
    color of his skin. He's above racial..he's a new kind of candidate..inclusive, no racial overtones going on, he is above it so please do not refer to him that way.

    flyerhawk (none / 0) (#156)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:01:18 PM EST
    would you explain this:

    "this comment feeds right into the caricature of Hillary that she will say anything to win."

    You comment is complete nonsense.


    Ugh (3.00 / 2) (#163)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:03:14 PM EST
    Do you even know what a caricature is?  

    Are you people simply incapable of discussing things rationally?  

    Hillary screwed up.  It happens.  Denying that she screwed up doesn't change the fact that she did.


    I didn't deny that she screwed up (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:09:37 PM EST
    But I also asked upthread what your comment meant because it didn't make any sense to me.

    To paraphrase an opinionated friend of mine, denying that your comment is non-sensical doesn't change the fact that it is.


    One of the things (none / 0) (#188)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:15:45 PM EST
    that many people claim about Hillary is that she is willing to do or say anything to win.  

    So if you have that belief it is much easier for you to believe that she intentionally referenced the assassination to scare people about Obama.  


    i swear, (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by english teacher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:20:36 PM EST
    this is the dumbest godd@m thing i have ever seen.  

    The outrage is ridiculous. (5.00 / 7) (#66)
    by RalphB on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:26:08 PM EST
    What the hell is wrong with people in the dem party and the media?

    headed for defeat (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:38:42 PM EST
    That's the underly psychological feeling i am getting from the hysterics.

    I understand what she's saying. (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by vicsan on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:22:30 PM EST
    Why is this so outrageous? She's stating facts from our history. Now history is out of bounds? Was Bobby Kennedy killed in June? YES. Did her husband clinch the nomination in June? Yes he did. What's so outrageous about this statement? I don't get it.:( Indefensible? This nit-picking stuff is really getting ridiculous. UNFORTUNATELY, Bobby Kennedy's assassination is a part of our sad HISTORY and just happens to be true.

    I don't get the outrage. IMCPO, it's feigned outrage over a non-issue.

    She stumbled but will rise again (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by sleepingdogs on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:25:13 PM EST
    It was uncomfortable and awkward, but I'd imagine as soon as anyone brings to her attention that it can be construed that she worries Obama (or she) could meet the same fate as RFK, she will be happy to explain herself.  There is no way she meant anything such as you are inferring.   She was being asked why she felt there was so much early pressure for her to get out of the very tight race.  She was referring to other cases where the nomination process was still going on into June. It was a gaffe to mention the REASON for RFK's race being cut short, but the race was still going on in June.

    Obama has also made gaffes.  Many of which have been COMPLETELY glossed over by the MSM.  If the MSM plays this over and over again, I will chock it up to media darling syndrome.  

    She is not perfect.  That's news to no one, especially her, but clubbing her over the head with this like it's the most dastardly thing said in this campaign so far is going a bit far.  Speaking for myself only, of course.

    She is out of time (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by dugan49 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:35:47 PM EST
    to overcome major verbal gaffes such as this. Her campaign was running on fumes as it was. This comment will be a feeding frenzy for the anti-Clinton zealots at the exact time she cannot withstand it.

    Hillary cannot get the nomination, and while I don't have any objection to her screwing over Obama on general principles, I doubt if that is what she really wants to do (the rest of us can though).


    Wow - I think the interpretation that the (5.00 / 8) (#64)
    by Anne on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:25:23 PM EST
    hysterical Obama people are giving this is truly desperate.  It is clear to me her point was the time of year - June - and not anything to do with assassinations.

    I am frankly less-than-impressed with this gasping, grasping horror over one sentence when for months and months we have been treated to a litany of statements - on an almost daily basis - about what Obama really meant.  There is no position he cannot reverse, no comment he is not willing to deny saying, no group of people he is willing to sacrifice in order to curry favor with another.

    I happened to listen to the audio of that interview, and once again, was completely impressed with Clinton's ability to speak with actual knowledge about the state she is contesting, the issues that face the people of South Dakota, what her plans are that will help their economy, etc.

    So, now I suppose we will be treated to non-stop outrage since apparently Obama now has exclusive rights to the Kennedy legacy and history; only this paragon of unity and transcendence is deserving of absolution for the hundreds of inartful, false, misleading, disrespectful, snide, cheap and smug comments he has made - and will continue to make.

    Color me...over it.

    Obama campaign already exploiting this (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by OxyCon on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:28:48 PM EST
    This, for me, gets to the heart of the reason why I despise Obama and David Axelrod with a passion. They take everything the Clintons say, then twist it around and ascribe the most sinister intent to it.
    This is why most of Obama's supporters are a bunch of rabid, crazy Clinton haters. They've been trained to hate the Clintons by Axelrod and Obama.
    Axelrod and Deval Patrick used the same exact disgusting tactics against Patrick's opponent in Massachusetts. Look it up.
    This is how Obama personally smeared both Clintons as being racists, by taking a simple comment and twisting it so that alot of people believe the most horrible things imaginable.

    I don't (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by rnibs on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:29:50 PM EST
    think that many outside the blogosphere and the raging pundits on TV will be losing sleep over this.  

    A little clumsy, but it's not a federal case.  

    She's still the same person she was this morning, i.e., the best candidate in the race.

    assassinated (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Robert Oak on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:30:15 PM EST
    Ok folks now I have a major challenge, what makes you all think the black candidate has a greater chance of some crazed nut job trying something than the woman candidate?  There are more women murdered in the United States due to hate than any other group!

    I have thought for the longest time she was much more at risk for this than his is because the crimes against women, generally are greater.

    Why is this  faux pas not immediately perceived to be against herself!  

    Ask the Secret Service (none / 0) (#81)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:33:49 PM EST
    Ask the Secret Service why Senator Obama was given protection earlier than any other candidate in history.

    Hillary already had it (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Robert Oak on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:35:12 PM EST
    So that isn't a metric.  As first lady she has had Secret service protection the entire time.

    lol (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:41:50 PM EST
    she was ribbed for suggesting there were sniper hthreates in Bosnia.

    i can safely bet that Serbs issued death threats to her that year.


    Ummm.... (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by BRockNYLA on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:38:17 PM EST
    Am I the only one that doesn't get what all the drama is about?  One can no longer reference historical facts anymore?  WTF?

    This is for the PC politics (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:38:34 PM EST
    for the SD fight.  This is manufactured to scare the SDs into switching.   Fear mongering and hysteria for a mediocre man who will be manipulated by every Tom Dick and Harry.  

    RFK Comment (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by hysperia on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:38:42 PM EST
    Oh for goodness sake!  "Indefensible"?  You people are absolutely mad, you truly are. I've been thinking of RFK since 2008 began, and MLK and everything that happened in 1968 - on my mind all the time.  ESPECIALLY with this election cycle.  Who could be remembering it more than Sen. Clinton, smack in the middle of the campaign as she is.  "We all remember ..." she says, as she is remembering.  Obama's campaign says the comment is "way out of line" and she has to apologize, as she is doing right now on my tv screen.  I just don't get it.  I think they, and you, must be just out to humiliate the woman.  I just can find no reason at all why anyone would find her comments offensive.  Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June, so he was still in the race in June.  That's something we remember.  He wasn't forced out of the race even though he likely would have lost.  What the HECK is up?  She spoke only truth and was genuine, it was CLEARLY not some kind of deliberate attempt to capitalize on anything and just what would she b capitalizing on anyway?  This is truly and finally nuts.

    Obama's really nothing isn't he? (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:44:12 PM EST
    He borrows other people's struggles, takes on mantels he hasn't earned and trashes perfectly good legacies like the 1990s.

    then an old lady who actually lived the period of upheaval remembers history and how capricious politics is and she's evil again.

    it's barmy.


    Well said !! (none / 0) (#157)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:01:42 PM EST
    hysperia. You are spot on.

    BTD, I just listened to that. (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:43:56 PM EST
    "The fact that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s fight for the nomination was cut short the night of his win in the California primary in 1968" is not a faithful rendering of what she said.  

    Listen to it again--yes, if you refer to June primaries and RFK, you almost have to add something about the sad fact of his death.  But what she was obviously getting at was two examples of dem primaries that continued into June.  And that's why she apologized only to the Kennedys, particularly for mentioning the death as Ted faces a final fight.

    Let's just elect McCain by acclamation, ok?  

    Assasinantion means what to you? (1.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:46:16 PM EST
    You might be better off asking (none / 0) (#151)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:00:11 PM EST
    what RFK's demise means to Clinton.

    Can somebody remind us (none / 0) (#153)
    by oldpro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:00:29 PM EST
    which comedian it was who immortalized the line ...

    "And how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"

    Am I excommunicated for mentioning this?


    There than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how (none / 0) (#160)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:02:42 PM EST
    did you like the play?

    Maybe you meant to type... (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by oldpro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:06:48 PM EST
    "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln....how did you like the play?"

    Was that it?  I think you're correct...sounds like Bob Newhart, now that I say it out loud.

    Jeez...I hope we're not going to gang up on good old Bob....


    Whaaa? (none / 0) (#165)
    by oldpro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:04:18 PM EST
    Bartlett's is a better auth. than I am. (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:24:37 PM EST
    Outrageous.... (none / 0) (#166)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:05:11 PM EST
    I think you and the media are listening this really
    with the worst possible intention.

    NPR is reporting that

    "the assasination of Bobby assasination is a reason for her to stay in the race"

    (verbatim they just said this at 6pm EST)

    Are they crazy ?????

    She never said this and it angers me ad infinitum
    this is how her words and intention are being twisted. There is the video. It is clear what she meant.


    The Desm almost deserve to lose (none / 0) (#181)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:13:25 PM EST
    if they allow this sort of BS to go on.


     Anything can happen

    two examples:

    1992 and 1968.

    case closed.

    The press are insane now.  And The leading candidate is abetting the process.


    Yeah, I agree (none / 0) (#190)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:16:33 PM EST
    with what you say.

    Did you hear the words: (none / 0) (#172)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:07:05 PM EST
    assassination, death, cut short his campaign, or anything related to his death said by her?

    All it means to me (none / 0) (#179)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:11:30 PM EST
    is that she was saying primaries run into June.  She gave 2 examples.  And who can think of June and primary and RFK without acknowledging that he was murdered then?  

    You parody yourself sir. (none / 0) (#183)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:14:15 PM EST
    I (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by tek on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:07:59 PM EST
    disagree with your take on this.  If Obama had made the same reference it would have gone by unremarked.

    Hillary's statement per video (5.00 / 5) (#175)
    by fem voter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:09:11 PM EST
    I've never posted here before but I have to say (& no offense to anyone here) that, IMO, way too much is being made over HRCs statement.  For one, I don't see any reference here to her own assassination.  Two, to me, it's obvious that her emphasis is on the month of June which in turn is a reference to the lateness of primaries in the past.  All of this is within the general topic of her not understanding why it is there is such a push for her to exit the race.  She even states people have been after her to leave the race since Iowa.  

    I just wanted to put in my .02.

    I completely agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by frankly0 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:26:43 PM EST
    I had at first just read a transcript, but when I saw the video, it became even more obvious that what's really going on here is that some very malicious people are simply fabricating and imputing a very evil meaning into what she said.

    What she said should be transcribed thus:

    We all remember that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June.

    The emphasis is so obviously on the month, and the event, scorched in our minds, is clearly meant merely to bring up the month in which it took place.   The month of the assassination is emblazoned in most people's minds every bit as much as the month in which John Kennedy was assassinated, or the events of 9/11.


    One more reason to not vote Obama (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Sunshine on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:15:13 PM EST
    She was talking about campaigns that went into June, that one went into June...  And she mentioned how it was ended...
    Obama people can't wait for a chance to slander, thats another reason not to vote for them.....

    Comments like this cannot be taken seriously (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Seth90212 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:35:10 PM EST
    Hillary launched an entire ad campaign around the so-called bittergate. It was talking point #1 for her for weeks.

    This kind of hypocrisy stinks.


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#201)
    by rnibs on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:25:57 PM EST
    Sorry, BTD, but this is fake outrage of the (5.00 / 3) (#208)
    by bridget on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:32:57 PM EST
    kind we heard thruout this campaign. Hyped in overdrive.

    Really, Hillary just can't win. No matter what she says.  Fake outrage follows her around like a stalker ready to pounce. Forcing apologies, twisting things around, making mountains out of molehills, throwing innuendos in the manner of Huffington around and around.

    So HIllary did apologize. It's her decision to do so. But for a Hillary supporter like me it's incredibly tiresome and annoying to see this happen time after time. Since 92, in fact.

    I just came online - haven't read anything else about this. I first decided to listen to the video. Okay? What was the big deal?

    Then I saw words like " indefensible,"  "terrible statement," "terrible mistake," "poor taste," - and "must apologize" .... all in one short paragraph.

    At first, I actually thought Hillary Clinton had done something so terrible (which I could hardly believe at the same time)that she decided to end her campaign. That it was all over and I got a bit sick all over, too. Quite a bit actually.

    Well, thankfully, that was not the case.

    So If there is a chillpill to be had, over the counter maybe, may I suggest now is the time to take it? IMHO.

    Yawn (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by Dr Molly on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:45:20 PM EST
    Yeah, OK, we're now supposed to believe that Hillary intentionally used a very oblique analogy because what she really nefariously meant to imply was that she wants to stay in the race because she thinks/hopes that Obama might be assassinated and that would give her a better chance to be President.

    Jeezus H. Christ.

    I will not vote for this movement of purposefully hysterical idiots.

    frankly0 --- Thank you! (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by fem voter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:02:39 PM EST
    Yes, it's quite obvious she is emphasizing June and furthermore, the person talking to her doesn't seem thrown by her answer either.  

    I also agree with others calling the outrage over this as phony.  It most certainly is phony outrage and yet another attempt to politically harm HRC.

    The Obamabots and Obama have long ago sealed the deal with me in my not voting for him and they continue to keep sealing it.

    I continue to hold out hope for Hillary wrt the nomination and I don't think this supposed "gaffe" will hurt her.  To the contrary, I think the fake outrage will only strengthen the divide.

    So Sick of the OBAMA tactics (4.20 / 5) (#61)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:23:59 PM EST
    They float this BS that he is gonna get assassinated cause he is black, then she mentions a historic marker, which I remember vividly as a June event and the create a frenzy.  This is exactly the same thing they did with the Jessie Jackson brouhaha.  YOu are all being manipulated.  This is so, egregious and disgusting to watch.  

    WHEN DID THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN EVER (3.66 / 3) (#136)
    by Bluebeard on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:54:00 PM EST
    use the "tactic" of floating the notion that he is "gonna get assassinated cause he is black"?!


    This is absurd.  SHE (intentionally or unintentionally) implies that HE might be assassinated, and you turn it into an ATTACK ON HIM.

    Is there anything left that is out of bounds for an attack on Obama?


    huh? (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:02:26 PM EST
    More the pedandry of the campaign really.

    He's going to be aweful to deal with as a president if this sort of thought police stuff is any iondication of governing style.


    The way I see it, (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by rnibs on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:02:56 PM EST
    the attacks are all on her.  

    She made a historical reference, and now she is being accused of calling for his assassination?

    Sounds like an attack on her character, not Obama's.


    Uh-huh (3.00 / 2) (#103)
    by dmk47 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:41:58 PM EST
    Well. Hats off to Hillary --- this will help unify the party behind its nominee like nothing else.

    Where do you get that idea? This mistake (none / 0) (#128)
    by dugan49 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:51:32 PM EST
    of Clinton's doesn't improve Obama or his chances.

    He is going to be blasted by the right about Rev Wright and his other questionable personal alliances , and it will take it's toll. If there is somehow good news about the war and economy before Nov. (and incumbencies have been known to manipulate such information for public consumption) Mc Cain could win easily.


    Ouch. Huge ouch. (3.00 / 4) (#132)
    by zyx on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:52:50 PM EST
    Her campaign is on life support and really, lately, she's said things that make me cringe at a pretty fast clip, over and over.

    I don't think she's doing anyone, especially herself, any good.  I don't understand why she is not finding an exit, to tell the truth.

    In a way you are correct (none / 0) (#189)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:15:58 PM EST
    OTOH she's Obama's punching bag now and the media are the trainers holding the bag in  front of him.

    She misspoke (2.71 / 7) (#30)
    by Seth90212 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:11:26 PM EST
    But she really needs to get out if she has no chance to win. She is damaging herself for a nomination that is totally out of her reach.

    Seriously, why do you care (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:15:08 PM EST
    if she is "damaging herself"? It's her decision. She's staying in, and it's not unprecedented to have a primary go on this long (which I think is the point she was trying to make). And she's immune to the cries of WWTSBQ, so quit crying.

    She has her Senate seat to think about (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Seth90212 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:29:39 PM EST
    As the NYT editorial said, New Yorkers expect her to return to the Senate with her influence and integrity intact.

    Given your concern (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by oldpro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:46:01 PM EST
    I certainly hope you'll be volunteering for her campaign for reelection to the senate, should that eventuality pertain...

    Or at the very least, send money.

    That will be the measure of how genuine is your concern.


    New Yorkers (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:54:55 PM EST
    appreciate people who don't give up.

    She'll do fine (none / 0) (#129)
    by rnibs on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:51:50 PM EST
    I wouldn't worry about her, Seth.  

    She apologized already... (2.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Addison on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:06:31 PM EST
    ...but did so in a frankly less-than-satisfying manner, apologizing if the comment was offensive (which is a little boilerplate for my tastes), and offering the apology mainly to the Kennedys (I don't think they're the main offended group here). She also mentioned sort of irrelevantly that she holds Bobby Kennedy's NY Senate seat.

    Additionally she said that the Kennedys have been on her mind recently due to Ted Kennedys illness, and so that's why the example sprung to her mind. That's a little unconvincing since, of course, if Ted Kennedy was on her mind there was a better example of a long primary to be had. Mainly, Ted Kennedy's.

    That said, she DID apologize (outside a supermarket, according to CNN), and it was a MUCH better go-round than the initial statement from the Clinton campaign.

    Good (none / 0) (#20)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:08:45 PM EST
    She does seem to realize when she's put her foot her foot in her mouth, and usually responds quickly to fix it.

    Huge gaffe... (2.00 / 4) (#24)
    by mike in dc on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:10:08 PM EST
    ...to continue the unfortunate violent allusion, it's the rhetorical equivalent of not just shooting yourself in the foot, but shooting yourself in the face.  
    She did herself a lot of damage with this poorly-chosen allusion.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:11:53 PM EST
    With a teaspoon of sanctimony.

    Purely and Unabashedly Distasteful (1.57 / 7) (#58)
    by HsLdyAngl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:23:26 PM EST
    choice of words for Hillary to make, offering justification for her carrying fighting on into June for the nomination.

    She is deliberating reminding American voters, that she will be there in case of the ASSASINATION of Obama, justifying her continuance into June and beyond.

    Shame on you, Hillary Clinton!!!  You have crossed the line of political impropriety in your quest for the Democratic nomination.  I denounce and reject your words.  You seriously must pray that something doesn't tragically happen (read that to mean an attack on his life) to Obama in the next months in his quest for the nomination.

    What BS. You can't possible think that is (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Teresa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:27:38 PM EST
    what she meant. She should have left out the assassination part but the point was the length of the race.

    Wow. You can't be serious (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by ChrisO on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:44:04 PM EST
    Yes, it was a poor choice of words. But it seems clear to me that she was basically saying "anything can happen." So now, she has to "pray" that nothing happens to Obama? Why shoould she bother? If something were to happen to him it would be blamed on her anyway.

    And she's deliberately reminding American voters that Obama could be assassinated? Please. When did you have the conversation where she confided this to you?


    Jeebus (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by rnibs on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:14:30 PM EST
    The listening comprehension skills of the Obamacons are appallingly low.

    What Drama, Hyperbole Much- Blech! (none / 0) (#168)
    by Boo Radly on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:05:22 PM EST
    Good for you Armando (1.50 / 2) (#17)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:08:13 PM EST
    I could not agree with you more.  It was a stupid, indefensible gaffe.  However, in no way do I think she was telegraphing a message to some wacko or hoping for Obama's death as I'm sure some Obama supporters will contend.

    Just a tone deaf, stupid statement that did not need to be said.  She has plenty of legitimate examples to point to such as Bill Clinton in 92, Ted Kennedy in 1980 or even Gary Hart in 1984.  Really inexplicable and I hope she gets in front of this and apologizes so that the rift does not widen.

    She's already apologized... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:14:59 PM EST
    And I suspect invoking Ted Kennedy would have been even worse, and both he and Hart ended up losing, as well, which would not make them good examples...  I know RFK didn't win either, but that's a slightly different case.  She shouldn't have said it, but I don't think she had any other good examples.

    How many commenters and (none / 0) (#149)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:58:35 PM EST
    reporters listened to her?  How many simply read what others were cawing over and picked up what she might have said but actually did not?

    Sure, but (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:05:15 PM EST
    that's what makes these kind of off-the-cuff remarks potentially damaging, right? People don't have the time or inclination to investigate every thing that a candidate says and that can be twisted by the opposition. Any candidate is subject to these mistakes, and she's no different in that regard. I think she makes fewer of them than "gun-clinging, arugula-eating, Arabic-speaking Afghani" Obama and "bomb-bomb-Iran, 100-years-war" McCain, but she makes gaffes occasionally. She usually rights herself very quickly, which is a good skill.

    She's having any connection to (3.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:21:02 PM EST
    Democratic history systematically stripped form her intellectual possession.  It's humiliating stuff. These events do not belong to Obama.

    The logic of her thought (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by oldpro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:53:55 PM EST
    led her to mention RFK

    Listen to the tape again....Bill Clinton, JUNE, CALIFORNIA.....Bobby, JUNE, CALIFORNIA.

    That is the obvious connection and thought process.  So what?


    I have defended Hillary all over the place (1.44 / 9) (#59)
    by dugan49 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:23:47 PM EST
    on forums and blogs,but this is devastating politically. No one is going to care anymore that she will win the popular vote. She's going to have to get out on June 3, and that is the end of it. Doesn't make Obama any more palatable or any more electable, but Hillary went an insult too far this time. It's over gang.

    Insult? (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by oldpro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:48:06 PM EST
    What insult?

    There is no insult.

    Is English your native tongue?

    Watch the video.



    I doubt you've (none / 0) (#194)
    by rnibs on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:20:55 PM EST
    defended her anywhere if you're willing to twist her comments using the most complicated pretzel logic ever.

    This is a pretty major mistake (1.00 / 2) (#35)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:13:05 PM EST
    I understand where she was going with it, that unexpected events can occur at any time and change the entire process.

    But she really stepped in doodoo on this one.  The good news for her is that she said it on the Friday before Memorial Day.

    But you can expect a week's worth of fainting couches on the networks.  

    get out. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:30:05 PM EST
    This is absurd.  

    what a load of crap (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by RalphB on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:34:39 PM EST
    NOT what she said OR meant (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:50:27 PM EST
    The bigger mistake (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by rnibs on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:57:16 PM EST
    is folks like you trying to read things into it there weren't there.  She was making a point that primaries sometimes last a while.

    Stupidity, not Perfidity (1.00 / 2) (#196)
    by Chris Andersen on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:21:46 PM EST
    I don't for a minute think she was suggesting that the potential for assassination was a good reason to stay in the race. But it was an incredibly stupid comment to make because it demonstrates a cluelessness on Clinton's part about just how serious the question of assassination is taken by voters in this election. A group of us were talking about this very topic this morning and I heard a discussion on Thom Hartmann this morning in which several callers told Hartmann that they were seriously worried about this.

    It's time to go Hillary.

    Go away, Chris. (none / 0) (#202)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:26:34 PM EST
    Anyone, anywhere, anytime, especially presidential candidates are vulnerable, thus they have secret service. GWB, HC, BC, GHWB, JC all have protection for the exact same reason. Please grow up!

    suppose for a moment that it happened. (none / 0) (#204)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:27:52 PM EST
    I guess you are bringing up the issue in a serious way for discussion right?

    What would happen in the US if Obama was assassinated before Nov or during a presidency is that we'd have a race war on our hands.  Every large black population center would riot. So every Hal Turner wannabe will be gunning for obama.

    Do you want to seriously discuss that?


    And the outrage wouldn't be (none / 0) (#207)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:32:42 PM EST
    the same for any presidential candidate who met an assassin..you're only worried that the aa's would riot!! Remember, Obama is supposedly running trans-racial (beyond race), however, he's not doing a vew good job of it, is he?

    What's strange (none / 0) (#205)
    by rnibs on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:29:28 PM EST
    is that all the Obamabots think that this is another reason to try pushing her out of the race.

    She was tired.  I give him the benefit of the doubt when he makes all his statements (e.g., 57 states).  I don't try to use it as a reason to push him out.

    Half of the Obamabots are acting like she's taking a contract out on him.  The other half are saying this one single sentence means that she must drop out now.

    It's like they were all waiting to start up that tired old chorus again.


    Oh boy... (none / 0) (#1)
    by masslib on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:01:44 PM EST
    what would make her say that?

    No room for outrage when you're on the (none / 0) (#2)
    by MarkL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:02:04 PM EST
    Bataan death march, BTD.
    Actually I think her point is that SHE might be assassinated, btw.

    That doesn't make sense... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Addison on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:08:30 PM EST
    ...why would she talk about reasons she's staying in the race, and then reference her own potential assassination? That simply doesn't hold water. I'd stick with the other argument about her wanting to give past examples of long races and simply picking a bad one, since that argument has the benefit of probably being accurate.

    She was not talking about (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by americanincanada on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:51:32 PM EST
    reasons why she is staying in the race. GOD! I wish people would do the research before hitting post.

    She was answering a question about why people are asking her to step out and have been since Iowa.


    asdf (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Addison on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:58:11 PM EST
    ...her answer gave, as a reason for her staying in, the longevity of past races. And she feels people/pundits asking her to get out don't recognize or remember that. Reasons for staying in and the media's non-coverage of those reasons are two sides of the same coin.

    this is living proof (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:08:24 PM EST
    that Democrats are now a party of light weights and petty trivial individual power seekers.

    Yes indeed, Democrats are ready to win the Presidency with such folk.


    THANK YOU! (none / 0) (#171)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:07:05 PM EST
    She can't be assassinated (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by stillife on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:20:31 PM EST
    she's like Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction".  Didn't you get the memo?

    If so, (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by oldpro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:49:40 PM EST
    I'd find that reassuring.

    oh right a rabbit boiler. (none / 0) (#192)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:18:18 PM EST
    What a nice image the media gives.

    No. (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by oldpro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:27:30 PM EST
    Her point was that JUNE is not late for Dem primaries to still be up for grabs...

    JUNE.  Bill Clinton....Bobby Kennedy...

    I see nothing wrong with what she said.  It was perfectly factual and I find all this Kennedy sensitivity overstated and ... well, silly.

    What next?  Can't mention Lincoln?  Uh oh...Obama's gonna lose a major theme of his campaign....

    FDR seems to be OK tho...



    Yes, but.... (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by miriam on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:50:34 PM EST
    He's so vain/ I bet he thinks that comment's about him.....

    Everything is about Obama, have you forgotten?  This is the phoniest outrage I've seen yet in this campaign.


    wow. (none / 0) (#3)
    by mindfulmission on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:03:18 PM EST
    What was she thinking?

    she may have been thinking about Bhutto. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:07:46 PM EST
    Or MLK or RFK or any number of other leaders who have been cut down.  And why not?  She's probably a target herself.   2008 is a momentous year in all sorts of ways.

    What is the purpose? (none / 0) (#21)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:09:30 PM EST
    Heaven forbid someone assassinates Obama, Hillary would likely become the nominee by default.  That is an inane reason to continue a campaign and one that does not even pass the smell test.  There simply was no reason to use this as a justification.

    small petty (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:09:51 PM EST
    fake and trivial.  that's where this party is headed.

    That was a stupid statement (none / 0) (#5)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:04:41 PM EST
    She needs to walk that one back, and quick.

    I'm sure she will but I don't think for a second (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Teresa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:07:49 PM EST
    she was saying she needs to stay in in case Obama gets shot like RFK did. She meant she can't understand why the race going on in June is such a bad thing. Of course, the media well eat her alive over the way she phrased it (which was bad).

    You are right (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:10:38 PM EST
    She's not allowed to make any mistakes, or she gets pilloried for them.

    I agree -- it was more about the length (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Iphie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:15:44 PM EST
    of the campaign, using a bad example to underscore her point.
    Of course, the media well eat her alive over the way she phrased it (which was bad).
    Which is why she needs to get an apology out there quickly, so that Olbermann's special comment about her original words this evening will have to include it in the coverage (and also because it's the appropriate thing to do).

    it gets her in the news (none / 0) (#47)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:20:25 PM EST
    at this point it's all she's got as far as the media care.

    Please People....Hillary Was Referring To (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:34:26 PM EST
    the fact that many primaries have gone on until June...THAT WAS HER POINT!  Yes, she certainly could have phrased it differently, and she has already apologized, so let's move on.

    For the conspiracy theorists who want to surmise that she could be talking about obama being asassinated, don't get your hopes up.  That was not her point.  We know the obama camp has been sending up balloons testing those waters and making people feel he might get taken out, but I would guess this is more of a play for being perceived as the victim once again.  Would like to think that is not true, but judging from past performances, it seems to be his m.o..

    Anyway...Hillary apologized and it is over...NEXT!


    She should (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:05:57 PM EST
    just come out and say that it was a mistake.

    NOT very tactful (none / 0) (#12)
    by lambertstrether on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:06:38 PM EST
    I imagine all the knobs will be turned up to 11 shortly. At this point, none of them have any credibility, so we'll have to see what the impact is.

    Apology to Kennedy family outside supermarket (none / 0) (#33)
    by Addison on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:12:38 PM EST
    One Little Quibble (none / 0) (#82)
    by kaleidescope on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:34:07 PM EST
    Senator Clinton is wrong about her husband not clinching the nomination until the California Primary.  According to the Wikipedia  Bill Clinton clinched the nomination in April after winning the New York Primary.

    Clinton needs to start getting some more sleep.  Running herself ragged is just going to create more of these gaffes.

    I agree that she was only arguing that it isn't uncommon for primary fights to go on until June. But she got just about every fact imaginable wrong here.  That didn't help her standing with the editorial board.  And it certainly changed the media narrative, just when Clinton had captured it with her threats to create drama at the Convention.

    Nope, not true (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Shawn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:40:04 PM EST
    Clinton "clinched" the nomination in New York in the sense that Obama "clinched" the nomination after Indiana/North Carolina - he became, in practical terms, the presumptive nominee. But he didn't numerically clinch the nomination - that is, capture a majority of all delegates - until after California. This is what Hillary is saying.

    And this is easily the most bogus "gaffe" of the entire campaign. TPM ought to be ashamed of itself.


    Sorry Dude (none / 0) (#154)
    by kaleidescope on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:00:39 PM EST
    I was living in California in 1992 (and voted for Jerry Brown) and covering the campaign.  There was no drama and Brown had essentially stopped campaigning by the time the California Primary kicked off.  There was no campaign drama going on anymore.  Bill Clinton won 39 states that year.  Jerry Brown won 3.  Clinton won 3372 delegates to 596 for Brown and 289 for Tsongas.  

    1992 was not a closely fought Democratic Primary.

    You're right, though, in the sense that no one "clinches" the nomination until all the votes are counted at the Convention.  And in that sense, Bill Clinton didn't clinch the nomination until the Convention in New York.


    I tend to think Bill was a fluke. (none / 0) (#199)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:24:11 PM EST
    A southerner who had a history of philandery.  How he beat Tsongas I have no idea.

    she was THERE (5.00 / 5) (#119)
    by Kathy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:47:50 PM EST
    I think she knows the facts of her husband's candidacy better than Wikipedia.  For the love of God.  You know how Wikipedia works, right?

    It's not like she talked about Oregon's Great Lakes or didn't know about the largest environmental tragedy on American soil.

    Why is this such a big deal, except that suddenly, like everything else, it's about race?  She misspoke.  Obama misspeaks all the time.  It's laughed off, or excused, and then folks go on down the road.

    This smacks of waiting for something--anything--to pounce on.


    It Shouldn't be a Big Deal (none / 0) (#169)
    by kaleidescope on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:06:16 PM EST
    But it does rob her of the media narrative she had been building.

    And she looks like she is really, really tired.  People make mistakes when they are over-tired.  Look at what her schedule is some time and ask yourself if you think you could keep something like that up when you're 61.

    Look, if Barack Obama is elected president, he'll be a year older than Bill Clinton was when he was elected.  The last time Bill and Hillary Clinton were running a full-bore primary run and then a general election, they were in their mid-forties.  They ain't anymore.

    One advantage that Barack Obama has over Clinton is that he's 16 years younger than she is.  He's the age she was last time she did this.


    I think this campaign (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:13:44 PM EST
    is wearing him out way more than her. She's a freaking energizer bunny compared to him.

    I don't really see the mistake. (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:22:57 PM EST
    I just see a campaign where she's having her words twisted and her legacy trashed needlessly by a guy who may well lose in november in a spectacular defeat for the ages.

    Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by americanincanada on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:56:18 PM EST
    Bill was the effective or presumptive nominee in April after the NY primary. But he did not clinch the nomination until June in California since being ahead is not the same as reaching the magic number.

    this is a who cares moment... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Mrwirez on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:53:53 PM EST
    We all know this is a fact.... Nice try now move along.... nothing to see here.

    Lets make a big deal about a VERY well known tragedy and twist it.... and spin it and cry about it 40 years later. This is why democrats never win General Elections for POTUS. WIMPS..... quit being so freaking sensitive.

    I disagree with (none / 0) (#139)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:56:02 PM EST
    BTD outrage; her point is clear: she first said Bill wrapped it in June and then Bobby Kennedy that was assasinated in June in CA: everyone knows
    or should know that Bobby was campaigning in CA in June. What did you wanted her to say? Bobby was campaigning in CA in June? Then people would say how did she dare to dismiss the fact that  he was assasinated there?

    Was it badly phrased for you? Fine. But save the "outrage". You know what her intention was and making this more than that serves only one purpose. Make her look like a monster.

    Frankly Obama's recent gaffes like saying 10,000 people died in the KS tornados or that he visted or that he has "visited 57 states and had one more to go" or that in "Afghanistan they speak arabic" were far more politically damaging or should have. But nothing happened.

    P.S. The last thing I need right now is to (none / 0) (#210)
    by bridget on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:40:51 PM EST
    read Obama blog stuff re the lasted Hillary gotcha

    no thanks

    so I will log off and brush my cat who will thank me since its hairball time ;-)

    Let's not make this more than what it is Pod Peopl (none / 0) (#212)
    by ap in avl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:52:08 PM EST
    Yeah, right.  Hillary is calling for Obama's assassination?  

    Give me a frigging break......

    Great (none / 0) (#213)
    by jondee on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:56:28 PM EST
    Go with the self-lacerating, chastening and Rapture Ready, trickle-down folks.

    Btw, Show me where I defended abusive polygamists; speaking of purposive hysteria and related matters.

    I'm an Obama supporter (none / 0) (#215)
    by dell on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:32:24 PM EST
    ...and I put this right up there with 57 (varieties of) states and bitter/cling.  

    That any of these people can talk any sense at all at this point is astounding.  That they occasionally mangle their own meaning, particularly when trying to make points that can be taken the wrong way is, given their exhaustion, entirely unsurprising.

    OTOH, if you were a producer on a cable news show on Friday night on Memorial Day weekend, which would you go with: this, or John McCain's gallstones, kidney stones and colonoscpy (film at 10!!)?  Much as we all criticize the media, we all know the answer.

    wow, this goes beyond molehill/mountain, (none / 0) (#216)
    by cpinva on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:29:14 AM EST
    all the way to molehill/new continent! i guess no one should make mention of lincoln or mckinley now either, lest they be accused of poor taste. oh, let's not forget william henry harrison while we're at it; not assassinated, but died from bloviating too long in the washington march weather at his inauguration.

    puhleeeeeeeeze! get a life everyone, especially BTD! apparently, you've supped from the media kool-aid cup.

    sen. clinton has nothing to apologize for, the point she made was on-point, with respect to the recent history of the democratic nominating process. that it includes RFK's tragically shortened campaign is a fact. a tragic fact, but a fact nonetheless. anyone who would seriously challenge this needs help, beyond that which a blog can provide.

    how truly, uttery pathetic.

    I'm suprised to see the usually sound (none / 0) (#217)
    by lizpolaris on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:31:23 AM EST
    judgement of BTD go so far astray on this one.

    There no getting around that this was not at all a terrible statement, unless the listener decides to hear something that was never said and imagine some insult from a historical reference.  

    She should apologize for what - having a memory and using it?

    Yes, applying a modicum of intelligence to a conversation instead of just mouthing hopeful platitudes is certain to get a candidate in trouble.