Hillary Clinton's Statement Of Regret

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.”

More below

I took a moment to watch some of the coverage and Hardball's panel is actually going to do clinton a world of good, by blowing it out of proportion. the panel is E.J. Dionne, who should knwo better, Chris Cilizza, who knows about as much as you and I, and Michelle Bernard, who is an Obama supporter.

Bernard made the biggest mistake of all by making it racial. She flat out accused Clinton of saying that Clinton is staying in the race because Obama might be assassinated. It was offensive and gross. Indeed, Bernard has shamed herself in such a way that will make her hard to be considered as anything but a fool.

The problem for the Clinton haters is there really is not much more to be said about this. Clinton made a huge mistake. The mistake speaks for itself. She apologized for it. at this point saying much more about it is simply piling on.

This is Memorial Day Weekend. No one except the sickest political junkies will be watching cable television. Their views of Clinton are made up. And Clinton supporters will see any attempts to keep this story alive for a week as piling on.

Another important event also intervenes. The airing of Recount. Florida to the fore again. Clinton will be talking about Florida and Michigan. That story will overtake this gaffe soon enough. like by Sunday.

In a way, this is the equivalent of a Friday news dump. Clinton made some bad news for herself on the best day possible - the Friday before Memorial Day Weekend.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Hillary Clinton's Meeting With SD Newspaper : The RFK Mention | Are We Overreacting To the RFK Statement? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Good for her. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:09:40 PM EST

    Is this the Michelle Bernard you're talking about? (none / 0) (#249)
    by TheViking on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:18:12 PM EST

    I did a Google Image Search for her and found another women in the results. However I get the impression THIS must be the one you mean.



    It still amazes (none / 0) (#250)
    by TheViking on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:20:38 PM EST
    me how Hillary cannot say a F**king thing without the Race Card being thrown at her...

    To me it was nothing, and simple point that she was making...

    She didn't need to apologize, but you know, those Race Cards are REALLY SCARY!!!



    KO's worst person award (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Chimster on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:12:17 PM EST
    Five bucks says Olbermann will crucify her tonight as one of the world's worst people. Watch for it.

    Who's still watching KO? (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:31:42 PM EST
    Not I (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by flashman on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:49:23 PM EST
    What a loser.

    I would hope not (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:14:08 PM EST
    but for the Clinton campaign, I would hope so. Overreaction might help her politically here.

    AMEN BTD (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by americanincanada on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:15:39 PM EST
    I totally agree. KO and the rest of the breathless Obama boys over reacting will backfire.

    They're about to backfire themselves into (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by kempis on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:35:31 PM EST
    a President McCain.

    Heads are exploding all over... (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:51:53 PM EST
    at MyDD.  One can only imagine the gore (no pun intended) happening at Daily Kos.

    I was just gonna mention MyDD. (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by Marco21 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:59:16 PM EST
    Josh Orton says she has to drop out over this.

    I am really struggling to understand all the outrage.


    At the Orange, drop out AND (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by nycstray on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:02:44 PM EST
    give up her senate seat. If she doesn't she should be stripped of them both. Plus she's insane!! lol!~ Oh, and it needs to be the lead in on ALL MSM news. Hate to break it to them, we had weather and holiday travel as our lead in on all 3 half hour slots so far  ;)

    And the Senate seat? (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Marco21 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:06:44 PM EST

    They were just (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by rnibs on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:37:14 PM EST
    waiting for an excuse to start up the tired old "she must drop out" meme all over again.

    One dKos diarist is calling for a prayer circle (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Jim J on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:16:10 PM EST
    for Obama's safety. I kid you not.

    I think (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by ajain on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:15:50 PM EST
    She actually seemed reasonable on the CNN news report.

    But I think her enemies are going try hard to make hay out of this behind the scenes.


    It was a tough time (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:25:04 PM EST
    for the country then - JFK, MKL, the Vietnam war.  When RFK was killed, I was a junior in high school and had just gotten up and turned on the radio.  I was stunned to hear the news.  I ran downstairs to tell my parents, and my mother started to cry.  MLK's death was just as shocking - it seemed the whole world had gone crazy.  The war was horrible.

    We survived.

    Bush's damage has been more insidious and will be harder to repair, IMHO.  Certainly, the media are terribly guilty of enabling what they deem to be the best outcome.  Unfortunately, that outcome doesn't benefit the majority of us.  This has all been very disappointing.

    But whatever happens, we'll survive this, too.

    Growing pains.


    MLK. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:25:55 PM EST
    I often wonder (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:33:50 PM EST
    Whether the history of the U.S. would have been drastically different -- in a good way -- had the Kennedy brothers and MLK not been assasinated. I long for the good old days when there were leaders that lead by appealing to what is good and decent in Americans and urging us to use that to do better for the good of the country.

    Last summer I read David Talbot's "Brothers:  The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years."  One of the most poignant books I've ever read.


    thats if she gets the Benefit (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:25:17 PM EST
    of the doubt, but a good question is WHY that year? other years went to june, why not use those, why use the one thats famous for the likely nominee being assassinated?

    I know what she meant, but I also know what Obama meant with the bitter comment and you saw the benefit of the doubt the MSM and HRC campaign gave him.


    Oh, yes. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:26:52 PM EST
    Let's analyze this to death.

    I'm sorry (3.00 / 2) (#89)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:34:21 PM EST
    are you new to politics?

    the first AA with a legitimate chance on the verge of being the nominee, who had to have SS protection given to him earlier then normal because of this and has recently had that protection beefed up because of threats, has his rival remind the nation "hey remember in '68 when the likely nominee was assassinated?"

    ON a holiday weekend meaning slow news? yeah your right this is no where near the bitter comment I mean if that got WEEKS of news coverage, then this should be forgotten tomorrow.


    Stop! (4.42 / 7) (#112)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:40:02 PM EST
    You're killin' me!

    You're making this about Obama, pal.

    Obama's bitter remark was directed at the voters.

    And that remark will come back to bite him if he's the nominee, because the repubs will give it new life.


    She mentioned 1992 (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:33:20 PM EST
    and I understand 1980 and 1984.

    we all know what she meant (none / 0) (#93)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:35:53 PM EST
    but its a gaffe and its a holiday weekend so slow news, this isn't going any where even IF every pundit goes "well thats not what she meant" they will spend ALL weekend telling us well thats NOT what she meant. meaning they play the comments over and over

    JUST like with the bitter comment my point is I see this gaffe on the SAME level as that. and that got weeks of media coverage


    Didn't Obama not apologize for that? (none / 0) (#109)
    by nycstray on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:39:43 PM EST
    I thought it was a meant what he said?

    I was about to say... (none / 0) (#200)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:17:58 PM EST
    Teddy took it all the way to the convention, didn't he?

    you can tell a lot about people's character (none / 0) (#182)
    by Josey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:09:18 PM EST
    by the way they react. And as usual - Obama took the low road, interpreting Hillary's remarks in the worst possible way. There could be no other explanation as far as he's concerned.
    Obama's published statement is reactionary and similar to "shoot from the hip" comments uttered by middle school students.
    Scary traits for a presumptuous nominee.

    but that was AFTER Obama's (none / 0) (#246)
    by Josey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:07:58 PM EST
    published statement.
    Usually campaigns are more "together" - unless they purposely want to provide conflicting messages.
    Until Obama takes the mature route on this - his followers will continue emulating his exploitationS.

    Which other years went to June? (none / 0) (#222)
    by Boston Boomer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:27:12 PM EST
    Dates and details please?

    Yawn (none / 0) (#252)
    by TheViking on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:29:38 PM EST
    Please don't make comparisons to you candidates insulting Bitter comments and this...

    ...and please stop trying to 'analysis' this to try and find some ill-will when there isn't one.

    ...in fact doesn't comments like this show your true colors?



    Overreaction (none / 0) (#218)
    by joanneleon on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:25:06 PM EST
    It helped in 1998.  

    Americans can be pretty stupid when it comes to the media, but there's a limit to their stupidity and gullibility.  People can see what's going on.  Hence, the primary results of late.

    It's pretty clear who "will do anything to win" and it's not Clinton.


    Naw, this is going to be a long wknd blip (none / 0) (#224)
    by Ellie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:29:58 PM EST
    It's the kind of "outrage" that can't be neatly encapsulated by the faux-offended opportunists in few enough words to outline the nature of the offense.

    At worst it was in bad taste but that context relates more to Sen. Ted Kennedy than Obama anyway.

    By the end of the weekend, for Obama himself or any of his team or supporters to turn that from the Kennedys towards Obama will look bad on them and be in even worse taste.

    Clinton was right to apologize and swiftly and should just move forward.


    He's doing one of his (none / 0) (#199)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:17:45 PM EST
    "special comments" on the subject, it was just announced.

    Yes, good for her (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by lambertstrether on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:13:40 PM EST
    Admit you're wrong, move on. Good.

    In a way, it's a lot like Bill Clinton's comment in SC. Two deeply knowledgeable, world-class politicos talking politics and about history, about what truly happened. Then, and now. But mention a trigger, and all hell breaks loose, as it will, and all the pent up hate gets projected again.

    Yep. (none / 0) (#15)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:17:04 PM EST
    Which is why Obama is so carefully controlled.

    Unfortunately, that makes him a weaker candidate, not a stronger one.  And he is the darling in this cycle.


    He's being given a hard ride in (none / 0) (#29)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:21:51 PM EST
    Republican politics today. Between his Cuba statements, and a very anti-Obama internet ad, he's under fire, too.

    hmmm.. "admit you're wrong" (none / 0) (#21)
    by DJ on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:19:50 PM EST
    is The Chosen One paying attention?

    There is NO NEED for the Chosen one... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by lambertstrether on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:36:33 PM EST
    ...to pay attention, since He knows in advance whatever would have needed paying attention to!

    good and quick apology, nicely done (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by DandyTIger on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:14:36 PM EST
    I'm glad that was handled quickly. I think she handled that well too. Basically she covered the issue of didn't mean anything by it, and was thinking of historical close races, etc.

    Now we get to measure the character of her opponents and the media by how they cover this or respond to this.

    we saw Obama's character - again (3.66 / 3) (#123)
    by Josey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:42:47 PM EST
    How quickly he responded - as usual - interpreting her comments in the worst possible way.
    For a "president" to be that driven by Hate and Animosity is frightening.

    If the MSMharps on this (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by americanincanada on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:14:54 PM EST
    after she has apologized deeply and sincerely as well as explained what she meant...it will backfire on them.

    yep we saw how that (3.00 / 2) (#32)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:23:08 PM EST
    worked with bitter gate, once you apologize the other side drops it and they don't try and use it to attack your character

    err wait.


    Hmm, yes... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:26:00 PM EST
    Saying that the working class cling to guns and religion because they can't find work and hate immigrants...  vs. a poor choice of mentioning what month a historical event occurred.  Same thing.

    Honestly (1.00 / 2) (#106)
    by brad12345 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:39:09 PM EST
    You really think that saying that people are bitter is worse and more offensive than implying that you're staying in the race in case your opponent--who happens to be the first prominent African American candidate with a real shot at becoming president and a guy who has required an unusually large amount of security--get shot and killed?

    Gee, are the Obama talking points (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:44:07 PM EST
    out this quickly?

    you implied it - she didn't (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Josey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:44:12 PM EST
    Hillary suggested nothing of the kind ... (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by Inky on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:44:19 PM EST
    and you either know it or you are so blinded by your hatred of the Clintons that you really should take a rest from reading the blogs for the sake of your own mental health.

    She wasn't even talking about why (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by americanincanada on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:00:14 PM EST
    she is staying in the race.

    She was answering a question about why people have been asking her to drop out.


    Silly season, indeed. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by magisterludi on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:08:43 PM EST
    Honestly (5.00 / 2) (#232)
    by MonaL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:50:40 PM EST
    do you really think that's what she meant?  Or do you want everyone to believe that's what she meant so you can justify your dislike for her.  Play hardball politics much?  

    See this is another problem I have with Obama.  He pretends he's going to change the way WA works, and then plays the same game he accuses everyone else is playing.  That's so Bush-like.  If he'd just be a regular politician without pretending to be more, then I can get behind that.  It's like a priest who denounces sex with minors, but then has sex with minors regularly but in secret.  It's a different kind of hypocricy, worse.


    Obama Was Given A Break On His Comment (none / 0) (#256)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:05:10 PM EST
    as the media chose to focus on the "bitter part."  Had the focus been on people clinging to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them it would have had an even greater impact.

    But Obama (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:26:03 PM EST
    Really does look down on us.

    Well.  Not you.



    Obama replied with "it's true" (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by Davidson on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:36:46 PM EST
    Difference: Obama immediately replied to the bittercling controversy with "everyone knows it's true."  So, no.

    Clinton was wrong.  She apologized quickly, recognizing what a f*** up it was.


    I was wrong about one thing (none / 0) (#233)
    by Davidson on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:51:40 PM EST
    She didn't f*** up.  We did.  She didn't say anything wrong and we shouldn't buy into the Clinton Rules because it only entrenches the conditioning process where she's always wrong for something.

    He didn't apologize. He explained away... (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by alexei on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:04:31 PM EST
    and he is wrong about it anyway.  This is not the same.  She was making historical references to long campaigns - and 1968 was one.  She apologized for this and to the Kennedy family.

    But according to (none / 0) (#210)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:21:09 PM EST
    what I've just been hearing, she didn't apologize correctly, you see.  She apologized in general and to the Kennedys.  She should have apologized to Obama, according to the developing conventional wisdom.

    Yes, we must all apologize (none / 0) (#223)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:28:07 PM EST
    to the thin-skinned one, for every imagined slight.

    I don't know if I can take four years of him as President.


    Ridiculous that she has to apologize (5.00 / 9) (#11)
    by stillife on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:15:09 PM EST
    but that's politics.  Good that she addressed it immediately.  If Obama were in a similar situation, he'd probably find a way to blame his staff, or the bigoted, bitter voters.

    Yep (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:21:01 PM EST
    After waiting a few weeks for it to really fester before giving another one of his carefully-scripted primetime speeches that somehow causes everyone in the MSM to fawn over how amazing he is and fully forgive his transgressions.

    And it would be hailed as (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by stillife on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:22:49 PM EST
    the most awesome speech about RFK evah!  

    I dunno... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:23:46 PM EST
    I'm sure he'd find a way to fit all the Kennedys under the bus as well.  :p

    I Don't Know, There Are An Awful Lot Of (none / 0) (#41)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:25:31 PM EST
    Kennedys... :)

    It's a big bus,,, (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:27:35 PM EST
    I'm sure if the 17 million of us shift around a bit, we can make room.

    You're either on the bus (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by stillife on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:30:18 PM EST
    or off the bus...or under the bus.

    Several Kennedy's (none / 0) (#234)
    by MonaL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:52:58 PM EST
    are Hillary supports, RFK Jr. for one and a few of his sisters.

    I still don't get it (5.00 / 15) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:18:25 PM EST
    It's a historical marker, I will never forget the California June primaries because of that event.  It always reminds me how long primaries went.  I think this is ridiculous.  

    I agree (5.00 / 6) (#138)
    by frankly0 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:45:47 PM EST
    No honest person can insist on interpreting Hillary's statement to mean other than what she said it was: a way of referring to the event that would have been emblazoned in people's memories that Bobby Kennedy was still very much running in June.

    If the Obama side tries to pretend that it "really" meant something else, when the innocent interpretation is the obvious and natural interpretation, that says nothing about Hillary, and everything about who they are.


    One other point (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by frankly0 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:59:39 PM EST
    one reason it would make sense for Hillary to have mentioned that Kennedy was assassinated was that the fact that he was still running in June did not imply that he was even finished running -- had he not been assassinated, he might have been running still later, all the way to the convention.

    Of course, it would have been vastly better had Hillary not said he was assassinated, but had instead that his campaign was still ongoing when it came to a tragic end, or some other, more acceptable way of expressing the fact. But on the spur of the moment, the better formulations often escape us.


    I do too. She made an historical reference. (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by alexei on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:11:06 PM EST
    So, now we can't discuss this as well?  Damn, I remember what happened, I was in eighth grade and had gone with my former sister-in-law to see the Israeli Dance company.  I stayed up late and went to school, and everyone was talking about it.  It was June, and the race was still going on.  

    I am sick and tired of people who were not even alive flipping out on this.  Get a grip.  We need to put this in perspective.  Yes, the nomination was  still going on.  Blame Sirhan Sirhan.


    As an Obama supporter (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Maggie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:18:29 PM EST
    I'm perfectly willing to believe that all she meant was that nomination battles have continued until June.  

    But as you all get your knickers in a twist about potential overreactions from the Obama side of the ledger, might I say that people in the Clinton camp have very rarely practiced the art of charitable reading when it comes to Obama.  So maybe this would be a good chance for us to all pause and remember that everyone is vulnerable to making statements that can be construed in a very negative light by others and maybe learn that it would be best to start cutting each other some slack?

    I'll cut the Obama movement some slack (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:20:18 PM EST
    When the media starts comparing Obama to black characters from the movies.

    And no, it's not Obama's fault, but it's there.


    I think you may have meant (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Valhalla on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:32:10 PM EST
    black psychotic killer characters from the movies.

    Fine, but a little late (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by rilkefan on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:22:46 PM EST
    The Obama campaign has relied heavily on faux outrage (e.g. freaking out about the entirely benign "fairy tale" remark).

    obama Has Been Cut Slack Time And Time (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:24:23 PM EST
    again...and it is his continued parade of half-truths, untruths, not sticking up for other dems, and not holding himself accountable for ANYTHING makes one wont to not be in his corner.  And don't get me started about the voting blocs he feels he doesn't need to win the election.  If he doesn't need us, why would we want him?

    Just for the record (none / 0) (#260)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:47:31 PM EST
    If you could site a specific example where Obama or someone in his campaign said that women, or Hispanics, or any other demographic, was "not needed," I would appreciate it.  Thank you.

    Look to my comment (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:27:24 PM EST
    for Obama's reaction: it wasn't about the primary battle, it was a hint that he could be assasinated.

    Which is the most despicable part of this entire.. (none / 0) (#201)
    by alexei on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:17:58 PM EST
    episode.  Obama and his followers in their arrogance  jump on this comment to mean something will happen to him.  F*k this!  I am tired of this arrogant, elitist a*hole comparing himself to the Kennedys and jumping on these comments and implying nefarious intent.  Stop this now.  This is not about Obama, not everything is about Obama.  This is about how before the last two election cycles, most primary battles went far into the primary season.  That is all.  Stop this faux outrage. In particular, those who were too young or not even born stop talking about events you have no idea about.

    Axelrod & MSNBC - Giving HRC Benefit of Doubt (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:27:49 PM EST
    I am listening to Hardball; 1st David Axelrod - said he is sure Hillary did not mean RFK comment in any untoward way; then Chuck Todd, Pat Buchanan & Andrea Mitchell said same; Mitchell pointed out that Hillary is quite tired; Todd said when she apologized, she was cleared personally pained, both for the unintended potential meaning of her statement and for having made a gaff that could irretrievably damage her campaign.

    Axelrod was incredibly generous toward Hillary on all questions posed by Matthews.  He also emphasized that the race would not be over until June 3; said he thought Obama would get good chunk of vote in Puerto Rico. Only thing Axelrod said of concern was that Obama campaign has made clear its support for seating Michigan & FL delegations after something like "giving effect to the rules."  

    Why the sudden generosity? Intent to overtake her through the "rules"????


    The Obama Campaign... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:32:14 PM EST
    Finally realizing being nice to Hillary and her supporters might actually be necessary to get any of them to vote for Obama in the GE?  Nahhh, Axelrod isn't that sharp.

    It's part (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by rnibs on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:37:38 PM EST
    of pretending to be nice to her now so her supporters will forget everything that happened the last five months.

    Note how they're trying to force her out by June 3rd now.  It's the new drumbeat.  

    I hope she takes it all the way to the convention.  She's got the support of half the party.


    I fear (none / 0) (#124)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:43:07 PM EST
    it may be to soften the blow of the 'rules' to be enforced to disenfranchise FL & Mich

    Uh oh (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Davidson on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:38:10 PM EST
    Axelrod being generous scares the hell out of me.  Damn it.

    Axelrod's words (none / 0) (#226)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:30:49 PM EST
    were completely at odds with his expression.  His face was full of glee.

    Later MSNBC panelists E.J. Dionne, Rachel Maddow, Tony Blankley, Eugene Robinson all hit the outrage button hard.  The only sane person in the group was John Harwood, of all unexpected people.


    Rest (5.00 / 1) (#247)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:12:45 PM EST
    Hillary needs to rest -- everyone has a limit.  But I think this gaffe may be just the thing the Obama camp needed to converted a bunch of SDs.  She has to be so perfect at the time.  

    "knickers in a twist" is troll sign (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by lambertstrether on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:34:03 PM EST
    And we've been dealing with over-reaction from the Obama camp ever since they deliberately smeared the Clintons as racist after NH.

    So we'd be stupid not to expect your over-reaction, or to plan a response.

    Don't you have a bridge somewhere to go under?


    Well, months after his boneheaded (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:40:46 PM EST
    Bataan Death March comment, he's going to try and make nice by going to a memorial on Memorial Day.

    At least Hillary realized her mistake and took immediate steps to clarify her intent and apologize.

    I image everyone at Daily Obama is all a twitter - MyDD is about to explode with OUTRAGE!!!


    Outrage du Jour (none / 0) (#193)
    by Fabian on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:13:17 PM EST
    That was my name for the Daily Kos habit of dredging tabloid trivia up for about 48 hours of OMG! Have You Seen This?

    Excuse my ignorance (none / 0) (#248)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:13:44 PM EST
    But what was the Bataan Death March comment?

    Here Is The Quote (none / 0) (#257)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:13:54 PM EST
    "For those of you who are just weary of the primary, and feeling kind of ground down or that it's like a Bataan death march, I just want everybody to know that the future is bright." The Page

    Look, what Hillary said (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by frankly0 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:51:32 PM EST
    clearly has a perfectly innocent meaning. It takes no great brainpower to see that. No "charity" need be applied.

    This is a case in which, if you impute a truly ugly meaning into what she said, then it is you who are practicing the purest of malice. You know perfectly well of the innocent meaning, and are doing everything in your power to try to pretend to people that it was not that, but some incredibly malevolent thing meant instead. And you would be doing so with the most pernicious of motives, to slime someone you know to be innocent of the accusation.


    92 primary campaign was over in APRIL (1.00 / 2) (#117)
    by seesdifferent on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:40:58 PM EST
    She made it up.
    Clinton effectively won the Democratic Party's nomination after winning the New York Primary in early April.

    The convention met in New York City, and the official tally was:

    Bill Clinton 3372
    Jerry Brown 596
    Paul Tsongas 289


    Um (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Shawn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:50:25 PM EST
    Do you not understand the diffence between "effectively" winning the nomination and "clinching" the nomination? You can make a case that Obama "effectively" won the nomination in February, but he still hasn't "clinched" it - ie. won a majority of delegates (despite his victory party the other night).

    Re: Um (none / 0) (#261)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:05:52 PM EST
    But her argument was that one reason she should stay in the race was that the race was still ongoing in June of 1992, and it wasn't.  Bill Clinton had it locked it up two months earlier.

    To argue that he hadn't clinched it is like arguing that a president-elect hasn't really finally completely won until they're sworn in two months later, because a meteor might fall on them.  Which I guess is technically accurate, but...


    Will you please stop repeating that untruth? (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by ChrisO on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:58:07 PM EST
    Saying Clinton "effectively won" after New York is not the same as saying the race was over. If you bothered to look up Jerry Brown on Wikipedia, you'd see the following: "Although Brown continued to campaign in a number of states, he won no further primaries. Despite this, he still had a sizable number of delegates, and a big win in his home state of California would deprive Clinton of sufficient support to win the nomination, which Brown apparently thought would revert to him by default. After nearly a month of intense campaigning and multiple debates between the two candidates, Clinton managed to defeat Brown in this final primary by a margin of 48% to 41%."

    Saying Clinton had it wrapped up after New York is like saying Obama had it wrapped up in February. Clinton had to battle Brown to the end, much as Obama is battling Clinton. Please know what you're talking about before you start bloviating.


    If the game being played this primary season (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:19:13 PM EST
    wasn't so quick to jump on everything, people would have realized that her statement was meant to serve in reminding people more than one primary has gone into the month of June. That RFK was still campaigning in the primary at the time of his death would jog memories of a big share of the population.

    Why in the world does she have to explain to anyone her choice to continue campaigning until a nominee has been decided? It isn't new, nor is the thought of a brokered convention.

    Haven't you heard... (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:21:24 PM EST
    she is evil and shouldn't be in this campaign and she should annoit Obama and get the heck out of his way. The Obama camp actually issued a statement (first I believe) critizing her and the (true) statement.

    :) Actually, on FOX News, that was the (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:25:00 PM EST
    topic that immediately followed.

    1st up: RFK assassination = her warning to Obama
    2nd up: WWTBQ

    They are really looking desperate.


    LOL! (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:20:47 PM EST
    Obama has thrown entire constituencies under the bus as "Archie Bunkers" and has gotten less mention than this.

    Remember, she's dying as a candidate, has NOOOO chance. She apologized.  I don't care if the Obama supporters don't think it's good enough. Leave her alone.

    And BTW (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:28:16 PM EST
    she rarely gets coverage for anything positive she says, only for the negative.

    I suspect this gaffe will be covered heavily and the apology barely mentioned.  And I have no doubt if the crazy idiots on channels like NBC can cover it, they will in the worst possible light.

    I'm sick and tired of this.  I hope she quits.  I hope she tells Florida and Michigan to stuff it, and I hope she leaves the country.

    I don't want anything to do with politics in this country.  It's all just a bunch of garbage.

    Okay, I feel better.


    Now we hav to see how much hysteria (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Xeno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:20:53 PM EST
    the cable bloviators and the blogger boyz can gin up about this. They'll be hampered by the fact that ir happened on a Friday afternoon, but I expect them to keep it alive until Monday so they can amp up the hypocritical pseudo-indignation. Of course, Monday is Memorial Day, so that will probably hamper them. They can be counted on to give it a good go, though.

    Not just Friday afternoon (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:26:35 PM EST
    but, Friday afternoon leading into a holiday weekend. Most folks are already on their way to the campsite.

    And a lovely holiday weekend here (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by nycstray on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:32:03 PM EST
    it shall be. Most folks just care about the weather and the price of gas at the moment. Politics not so much. Local news is more about the weather (NICE!).

    on their bicycles (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by DFLer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:43:51 PM EST
    no doubt

    I live in the Maryland suburbs - it's nice here (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Xeno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:49:36 PM EST
    The weather is going to be too nice this weekend for even the most hardened political junkies to obsess over this nonsense. (Cable bloviators excepted, of course.) And plenty of people are going to stretch the holiday weekend past the official three days.

    Given that impediment to public attention, the Clinton haters will have to go to great lengths to flog this. It's likely that Olbermann and MSNBO will feel compelled to reignite the flames, should they die sown too soon. Expect a Special Comment on Tuesday, accompanied by much spittle-flecked invective from Tweety & company. If any of them are on vacation they will probably fly back to their studios just to get their licks in.  


    It is indeed beautiful... (none / 0) (#220)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:26:52 PM EST
    I'm spending most of the weekend riding in Rock Creek Park and cleaning up the backyard.

    Seeds to sow and all that...


    Sadly, I'm under the weather (heh) (none / 0) (#235)
    by Xeno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:04:41 PM EST
    Everyone in my household is sick, right down to the cats. (They're barfing, but then they always do.) Since I'm the least sick, I plan to spend the long weekend tending to everyone else. Hopefully we'll all be well enough to enjoy the beautiful steaks I have on Memorial Day.

    On their way to campsites listening (none / 0) (#100)
    by 1jane on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:37:54 PM EST
    to their radios and discussing Clinton's remarks over marshmellows.

    doubtful... (none / 0) (#219)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:25:24 PM EST
    lots of CDs, tapes, and DVDs to listen to.

    And lately? The news is covered by AM radio and NPR. Most music stations aren't paying attention to this blip.


    Obama's comment from Boston paper: (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:25:13 PM EST
    "Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign," Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.

    Axelrod said (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:29:19 PM EST
    the opposite -- as did all pundits on MSNBC!.  See my other post.

    Axelrod is smart (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:30:54 PM EST
    & cunning? (none / 0) (#119)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:41:20 PM EST
    Not all pundits by any means (none / 0) (#238)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:17:54 PM EST
    see my earlier post...

    disgusting.... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by kempis on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:30:37 PM EST
    No... (none / 0) (#139)
    by Addison on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:47:02 PM EST
    ...it's not.

    Oh wow. (none / 0) (#46)
    by masslib on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:26:50 PM EST
    That was befpore her apology (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:28:30 PM EST
    I think Burton is right.

    Her statement has no place in this campaign.


    Why not? (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by citizen53 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:56:54 PM EST
    The fact is that he was killed in June, right after winning the primary and showing his viability?

    So what is wrong with saying it?

    Or is the wrong the way people react?

    I think the latter.


    And that race wasn't settled yet, was it? (none / 0) (#227)
    by nycstray on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:30:54 PM EST
    Get real. She was referring to lengthy primaries. (5.00 / 1) (#242)
    by masslib on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:26:38 PM EST
    Second, this is the most like 1968, ie wide open primary with no obvious nominee in either Party.  Totally cynical of the Obama campaign.  This is just like the article you posted this morning.  Odd you reacted so harshly.

    I disagree. Why is an historical fact.... (none / 0) (#211)
    by alexei on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:21:42 PM EST
    though tragic, verboten?

    your wrong (none / 0) (#253)
    by TheViking on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:55:27 PM EST

    Highlighting the need for an apology is no better than inferring she meant that she condoned an assassination on Obama.

    I am sorry.. (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by JustJennifer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:25:27 PM EST
    but I see what she was trying to say and I am so so very sick of everyone making everything about Obama.  She never even mentioned the guys name and all of the sudden it's all about him.  Sick.

    Everything is all about Obama (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by stillife on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:28:06 PM EST
    Not that I'm one to defend Bush, but the Obama campaign was quick to seize on Bush's remarks last week as being all about Obama, when in fact Obama's name was never mentioned.

    What? (2.33 / 3) (#55)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:28:09 PM EST
    So it's ok to say something offensive as long as you don't mention the person's name explicitly?  Are you serious?

    Not about him...a warning to him (none / 0) (#61)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:29:04 PM EST
    this is getting real boring.

    Both Hillary and Obama are now under attack by the Republican owned media.


    Axelrod is outdoing (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:29:36 PM EST
    Rove and he has all the liberals in a collective panty twist.  I have never seen such an easily manipulated bunch of people, we are in danger I tell you.  These guys are scary.  Frnakly, at this point, I would prefer McCain.  Not all the pretense of being on the side of good.  

    Axelrod is smarter than you think (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:30:21 PM EST
    He said nothing about it.

    he orchestrates (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:31:38 PM EST
    it's his machine.  Of course he says nothing.  Who could ever pin anything on Rove?

    I love ya Stellaaa but (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by jes on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:40:54 PM EST
    Axelrod was terrific at backing away from this. I'm not his biggest fan either but I give him kudos for his response.

    Chris Matthews however wanted blood. No one was going there. Not Todd, not Buchanan, and not Mitchell. I bet KO does though...


    Stellaaa - I'm currently banging my head (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by Anne on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:42:03 PM EST
    on the desk - care to join me?  I think I have some wall I'm not using, and I can probably squeeze you in next to some other people I know who cannot believe this whole non-event.

    If anyone knows of a good cover-up for the giant bruise I am developing on my forehead, please let me know.


    Actually, I want to bang (none / 0) (#157)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:56:25 PM EST
    some other people's heads.  My head is still fine.  They are truly disgusting.  I am utterly scared about giving them power.  

    Huh? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Addison on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:36:01 PM EST
    In what way did Axelrod orchestrate this?

    The statement from Obama's campaign was the shortest, undramatic, most subdued thing imaginable.


    As I said (none / 0) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:38:13 PM EST
    Axelord is smart. trying to make political hay would be counterpoductive, as Aravosis and Olbermann will sooon prove.  

    It's all part of the PC (none / 0) (#118)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:40:59 PM EST
    war for SDs.  "now you don't want to be linked to this?" I know that routine.  Of course he does not have to say anything, the noise machine is well trained.  

    Was my comment deleted? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Addison on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:43:27 PM EST
    That's weird. In any case, have you seen Aravosis' take? Because he won't "soon" prove it. He already did. He practically broke the story.

    Aravosis is totally unhinged in his Hillary hatred (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by kempis on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:58:46 PM EST
    ...to the point that it's like reading Donald Duck having a temper tantrum. A profane Donald Duck.

    He's another blogger I've stopped reading.


    Another Greek Hater? (none / 0) (#254)
    by TheViking on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:00:02 PM EST
    "That's weird. In any case, have you seen Aravosis' take? Because he won't "soon" prove it. He already did. He practically broke the story. "

    -- It must be the new GreekDemMafia! :)


    Hardball Found others (none / 0) (#153)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:54:10 PM EST
    to go after Hillary for her comment.  Now Chris Cillizza & Michelle _???  attacking Hillary's comment & not only predicting doom for her but generalizing from RFK remark to total breakdown in support for her among AAs.  About to have another round table on Hillary's comment.  

    Stop the hysteria (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:30:19 PM EST
    you think we are not afraid of the first woman getting shot?  This is bs.  

    Yes. (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:59:49 PM EST
    Especially a woman where the media, the "regressive" blogosphere are fueling the racist meme (e.g. Kentucky), and other BS memes, trying their hardest to make people hate her to the core.

    Might be a few people out there who take this seriously to do some harm.

    Personally, I think she's in greater danger than Obama will ever be.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#255)
    by TheViking on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:01:34 PM EST
    It makes me sick to the core...

    it is a travesty (none / 0) (#186)
    by Kathy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:10:26 PM EST
    they were looking for anything, no matter how innocuous, to try to "nail" her on.  Let them have it.  As BTD says, this is beating a dead horse.  It will backfire if they keep harping.  I doubt the average American will ever even hear about it.

    I still count on RECOUNT knocking the wind out of some sails.  THAT is what folks will really be talking about next week.


    That's nice, dear. (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:30:37 PM EST

    That statement had NOTHING to do (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by vicsan on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:31:25 PM EST
    with BO. How the he** did you manage to spin that to be about your messiah? How ridiculous. Not everything revolves around BO. I know you find that hard to believe, but it's true.

    Haven't you heard? Obama now has (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by Anne on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:44:33 PM EST
    exclusive rights to all the Kennedy history and legacy, so no one can be more outraged than he can.

    I think you missed a talking point or 3 (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by nycstray on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:34:19 PM EST
    not enough character asualt in your comment either  ;)

    I watched the video...so what? (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by citizen53 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:35:50 PM EST
    The fact that it becomes fodder for the news cycle is yet another bit of evidence of how sick and corrupted the partisan and media driven campaign is.

    The blogs included.

    Will Obama now march (none / 0) (#110)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:39:45 PM EST
    out more SD's as having switched from that "awful" Hillary to the sainted Obama.

    Hillary is being reviled with (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:37:27 PM EST
    vitrolic comments. She, too, stands a chance of someone deranged person's idocy as a woman and as a candidate. GWB lives with that every day, as does BC, GHWB, JC and every other former president. John Lennon was assassinated. Should we never again mention his name in any way?

    Have people completely lost their minds? (5.00 / 15) (#105)
    by Anne on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:38:33 PM EST
    I posted this near the bottom of the previous thread - I've added a couple things to it:

    The interpretation the 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 have no doubt that had she said, "we all remember that Bobby Kennedy was still on the campaign trail in June in 1968," there would be as much outrage for even a veiled reference to what happened to RFK.  She would not have gotten a pass no matter what she said.

    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.  You won't find Clinton walking into a meeting unprepared on a subject she has had months to learn about.  She was in South Dakota and, by God, she probably knows more about SD than the editorial board of the Argus leader.

    But 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.  I am really beginning to fear for the decline in intelligence of far too many people.

    Again, would give you 10 Fives if I could. (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Valhalla on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:49:32 PM EST
    Excellently put.

    Yeah, this (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by frankly0 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:07:50 PM EST
    is a case in which what Hillary said could have two potential meanings: a perfectly benign one, and a simply unbelievably evil and malevolent one.

    The natural interpretation, given the manner in which was uttered and the surrounding context, is clearly the benign one.

    So if someone absolutely insists that it must instead be the second one, or that there is serious doubt about which one was meant, who is the person harboring the evil motives here, and whose heart is clearly filled with the darkest, most disgusting malice?


    I call out (none / 0) (#239)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:21:34 PM EST
    Gene Robinson, Rachel Maddow and E.J. Dionne on this.  Even Chris Matthews kept saying he wasn't sure the interpretation was right.  Not them.

    It partially shows the way her mind works. (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by wurman on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:41:40 PM EST
    Maybe, in part, it's a generational thing in which many folks pin their memory tags on significant, milestone events.

    [Something Sen. Obama seens not to do very well.]

    I remember things in the manner of where was I when JFK was killed, what was I doing when ML King was killed in 1968 (or RFK), where was I when looking at the Moon as Armstrong stepped down, how drunk did I get the day Nixon resigned, was my divorce final on the day Mt. St. Helens erupted or the day after, how drunk did I get the day Rehnquist & chumps ruled that Bu$h xlviii was denied equal protection under the law by Gore . . . ?

    At least Sen. Clinton remembers.

    Fair enough (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by PaulDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:42:39 PM EST
    I'm not a Clinton supporter but I take her at her word and am satisfied with her apology.  

    I am bored to death with the hyper-examination of every word that comes out of both candidates' mouths.  

    Every candidate is bound to have a brain cramp from time to time and say something that, if construed in the worst possible way, could be damaging.  I wish we could move beyond the games of mutual gotcha.

    I didn't hear this, because (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by camellia on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:43:57 PM EST
    I spent the afternoon in my garden.  The eggplants and tomatoes were complaining to me about how cold it is for late May, and the beans were shivery too.   That's what seemed important to me today, not a remark that is being deliberately misunderstood in the hope that the misunderstanding will bring some advancement to the O-ther side.  

    This is Ridiculous!  How stupid can things get?   Oh, don't answer that!

    "How stupid can things get? " (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:47:31 PM EST
    I dont think we have reached the bottom.

    I think you're right (none / 0) (#178)
    by Emma on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:07:49 PM EST
    God help us.

    People pretend as if Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by ajain on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:44:02 PM EST
    Is in no danger. She has had secret service protection for 16 years. She has travelled to places with high risk to her life. I just think this is outrageous.

    Who is pretending this? (none / 0) (#263)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:31:26 PM EST
    As a presidential family member, her life is always going to be more at risk than the average citizen's.  Just a reality for all former presidents and their families, that's why we extend them protection for the rest of their lives.  Who is pretending otherwise?

    Wow! (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Elporton on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:44:10 PM EST
    Now that's taking the art of reading unintended meaning into Sen. Clinton's reamrks to a new level.  "Tapped into the core of fear for Obama's like"?!?  That can't be serious!

    Whether Obama's supporters want to believe, not everything said or done is designed to harm him.  There just isn't a bogeyman around every corner!

    Don't actually find it a gaffe (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Valhalla on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:47:09 PM EST
    In fact, I feel like I've fallen down the rabbit hold.  It was perfectly clear from the context what she meant.  She was talking about the timing of when primaries are declared over.

    Slightly OT: I'm so weary of the failure of MSM (can't call a single one of them journalists anymore) hyper-parsing everything eveyone says.  There is no reporting anymore, just writing down what someone says and minutely examining it for hypocritical-ness or error or some offense that can be wrung out of it, or, failing that, made up.  I don't think even older TV 'news' people even remember what reporting actually is.  


    "parsing everything eveyone says" (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:48:44 PM EST
    not everyone.  if they did that it would be a bit more acceptable.

    CJR said no reporters anymore (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by catfish on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:54:28 PM EST
    Your sentiment was in Columbia Journalism Review. There are four thousand fewer newsroom jobs this cycle than in 2000, and more pundits.

    It also says the conventional wisdom about the current contest has been especially wrong. A March 9 NYT analysis said the "accuracy rate" has plummeted to "new lows".


    Special Comment from Obamaman tonight? (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:57:27 PM EST
    Just askin'.

    Let's just make a computer president (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Jim J on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:57:39 PM EST
    one programmed to say nothing remotely controversial or referencing anyone or anything factual.

    Install some game theory and decision-making flowchart software and equip it with a cute mechanical hand to sign bills into law with.

    Even if she had said (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by joanneleon on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:09:46 PM EST
    "RFK was still in the primary race in June of 1968" she still would have been crucified for it.

    Referring to the New Statesman article:

    "What's particularly saddening," says Paul Krugman, professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton and a rare dissenting voice from the left as a columnist in the New York Times, "is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the . . . way pundits and some news organisations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent."


    A few brave souls had foreseen the merciless media campaign: "The press will savage her no matter what," predicted the Washington Post's national political correspondent, Dana Milbank, last December. "They really have their knives out for her, there's no question about it."

    The point she was trying to emphasize was the fact that the primary was still going on in June, not fact that he was assassinated.  

    Obama has been given the benefit of the doubt and many people have done the What Obama Really Meant explanations many times, and it has been accepted.  Hillary deserves the benefit of the doubt and the same courtesy of explaining what she really meant too.

    It would be one thing if she was really inferring that she should stay in because an assassination might occur, but it's another thing if that's not what she meant.  The latter is the case.  People need to calm down and knock it off with the evil intent insinuations.  

    Good grief! (5.00 / 7) (#187)
    by Manuel on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:10:53 PM EST
    The reaction to Hillary's comment says way more about the observers than it does about Hillary.  What it says about some Obama supporters is that in no way do I want to be associated with them.  Their paranoia and capacity to see evil where non exists is scary.  I think I'd rather have McCain than four or eight years with a cult surrounding the presidency.

    You will have McCain (none / 0) (#204)
    by Kathy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:19:13 PM EST
    because McCain's folks will look at something like this and call it for what it is because they won't be walking on eggshells so that SD's delicate egos don't compel them to "punish" mean ol' Clinton.

    Obama has the aa and egghead vote.  Do you really think McCain (and the PACs and 527s) is going to freak out over being called a racist every ten minutes?  It's crying wolf time now.  McCain isn't worried about keeping the dem party intact.  He will destroy them.

    PLEASE, Senator Clinton, stay in and fight.  


    Lord. (5.00 / 4) (#191)
    by Marco21 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:11:43 PM EST
    Actual Huffpo story lead -

    David Rees: Hillary Clinton: "Why Would I Drop Out Before Barack Obama Is Assassinated?"

    I've had my fill of fake outrage today. Anyone else?

    The speed of the apology (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by cannondaddy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:12:02 PM EST
    shows how serious this was.  It kinda came off as an apology to the Kennedys, but not to anyone else.  But it should be enough to work...

    himsteria in the media (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by DFLer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:14:09 PM EST

    Clinton is staying in the race because Obama might be assassinated

    How utterly ridiculous! It's apparent to anyone who listens to the tape that she just says, in answer to the question, many campaigns have gone into June, right, including RFK, as we all remember that because we remember his death in June? (wasn't he the underdog at that point?)

    Of course the media dialog will not be about the original source, but will be an endless stream of remarks about remarks  about remarks made about remarks.


    She said this before, no outrage (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:20:50 PM EST
    I tell you this is all orchestrated for the DNC vote next week.  The PC mafia will fall on them and they will decide in his favor.  PC  race politics is the new "patriot" and "unamerican" card.  

    anybody watch the whole video? (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by karen for Clinton on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:20:53 PM EST
    I thought she was brilliant.

    And once again Clinton or her surrogates are not permitted to mention any historical references.

    As we learned from LBJ and Jesse, things are blown out of proportion.

    I do not think it was anything but saying "it isn't over till it is over and unexpected things can happen" she just used another touchy historical reference.

    With the millions of words she's spoken on the campaign trail they have jumped on things she does to such an extreme while entirely ignoring the controversial statements of her opponent.

    Her reply should put an end to it, but of course it will not. Clinton's mole hills are mountains.

    And I found the rest of the meeting to be outstanding, of course THAT won't get any mention, just the sound bite to harm her will.

    Double standards and Gotcha are typical.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by blogtopus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:24:08 PM EST
    The Boiz would be calling for her to quit for peeling an orange, much less a regretted statement.

    Funny how she apologized HOURS after realizing what the reaction was, not after she was forced to after days / weeks of outrage.

    The statement (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by abiodun on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:26:54 PM EST
    An unfortunate faux-pax- no one in their right mind will think HRC meant Obama any harm. But the Obama campaign has been gracious about this.

    I feel bad for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by Niffari on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:25:25 PM EST
    This comment was obviously not meant to be taken as an affront. An explanation with apology is enough.

    I suspect that (1.00 / 0) (#37)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:25:09 PM EST
    this isn't going to be enough.

    She didn't address the crux of the gaffe instead apologizing to the Kennedys who I suspect didn't find much offense in her comments.

    She should have addressed the part that was actually offensive to some.  Instead she is letting the story continue.  

    We will now have a week's worth of dog whistle commentary.  And while I am sure the denizens of TL will find it completely unfair, she could have nipped it in the bud with the apology but instead left it dangling out there.

    Um... (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by nell on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:29:23 PM EST
    what more would you have her say? Would anything short of "I quit" suffice?

    She was stating a historical fact, and she made a gaffe. She has apologized if anyone read it the wrong way, which is what is happening, and most importantly, apologized to the Kennedy family for whom her comment may bring up painful memories. She did not even mention Obama's name and everyone jumps to the conclusion that she wants him dead. That is a ridiculous conclusion to draw.


    She did not make a gaffe. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:33:02 PM EST
    She was stating historical fact. Anyone who took anything else from her statement, which also mentioned Bill's securing the nom in June 1992, is just too anxious to start trouble.

    I've heard her say this about (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:47:18 PM EST
    Bill's campaign quite often. I've heard Bill say it as well. Where was the "outrage" then when it was only Bill. So Bill's is not true and RFK's is not to be brought up and discussed. During MLK's birthday we marched, we talked about him, we honored him. MLK is allowed, RFK is not?

    Oh, it was a gaffe (none / 0) (#137)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:44:39 PM EST
    I do not impute any evil motivations to her, but to say it was not a terrible mistake, is simply inaccurate.  Do you really think if given the chance, she would say it again?  If your answer is no, then it was a gaffe.

    The reason it is so problematic is because of her phrasing.  She actually referenced Bobby Kennedy's assassination.  She could have made a similar point by merely referencing races that continued into June, such as 1968, 1980, 1984 and 1992.  Directly linking the 1968 race to RFK's assassination was where she made the terrible mistake.

    Parenthetically, I am not sure that the 1968 race is really one worth mentioning either.  If memory serves, the primary season was not so front-loaded and less than half the delegates had been awarded by that time--much different than the scenario today where over 98% have been allocated.


    Hillary said -- (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Josey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:56:49 PM EST
    the Kennedys were on her mind. You know - Ted's brain tumor.

    The reference to Ted Kennedy explains it. (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Emma on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:11:36 PM EST
    Maybe she really meant she should stay in the race in case Obama gets a brain tumor.

    Seriously (none / 0) (#213)
    by Shawn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:22:57 PM EST
    Can you imagine how THAT would've gone over?

    not a historical fact (1.00 / 1) (#127)
    by seesdifferent on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:43:48 PM EST
    she made up the stuff about 92.

    What in the world (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by americanincanada on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:04:57 PM EST
    are you talking about? Bill Clinton did not clinch the nomination until the California primary in June of 1992. there is no disputing that fact.

    This guy thinks wikipedia (none / 0) (#214)
    by RalphB on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:23:07 PM EST
    proves a point.  Apparently he can't read off the intertubes and has no historical education.  Just a typical lie.

    First of all (none / 0) (#83)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:32:52 PM EST
    I'm not outraged over this.  

    I am simply talking about the political fallout.


    I am not in agreement with you (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:27:54 PM EST
    I actually think some Obama supporters and NBC could save Hillary's bacon on this if you push it.

    Keith Olbermann might inadvertently help her here.


    Help her by exposing (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:30:16 PM EST
    the ridiculousness of the "outrage" of this?

    she made up the stuff about the 92 campaign (1.00 / 2) (#125)
    by seesdifferent on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:43:23 PM EST
    that was just fluff to set the stage for the Kennedy killing remark.

    wow - more conspiracies (none / 0) (#162)
    by Josey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:57:56 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:31:23 PM EST
    That would be (none / 0) (#59)
    by stillife on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:28:36 PM EST
    pure poetic justice.

    Possibly (none / 0) (#74)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:31:20 PM EST
    Sometimes that happens.  But not usually.

    Look flyerhawk (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by abfabdem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:39:30 PM EST
    Your candidate is more than likely to be the candidate so just enjoy it.  Perhaps find some other blogs that are more interested in sharing your glee.

    Meant what? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:39:57 PM EST
    There is not actually anything to mean.

    If you mean her regret, I guarantee you she regrets it.

    Even if you think she is evil you must know she regrets it.


    Oh, wow. (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:51:49 PM EST
    Thank you for posting this.

    Interesting... (none / 0) (#176)
    by americanincanada on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:06:31 PM EST
    where was the outrage then?!

    Interesting find (none / 0) (#180)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:08:40 PM EST

    Excellent. Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:20:47 PM EST
    One group that probably ultimately wouldn't want it to go on too long is the Democratic Party itself. Can you envision a point at which -- if the race stays this close -- and with the difficulties that everyone has analyzed in accumulating enough delegates to get any distance ahead where party elders would step in and say "Senators Clinton and Obama, this is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall. We need to figure this out."

    No I really can't. I think people have short memories. 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, also in California. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual. We will see how it unfolds as we go forward over the next three to four months.

    Go with this, BTD.  Post, please.


    Of course even they (none / 0) (#203)
    by americanincanada on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:18:37 PM EST
    are losing their minds over this. they claim she even got Bill's info wrong except they ruin their own argument.



    What has Matthews's (none / 0) (#241)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:26:14 PM EST
    panties in a twist is exactly the fact that she's now mentioned RFK in June three times.  (Obviously, that makes it much more sinister...)

    If that's so, why was a blaring red "BREAKING NEWS!!!" banner all over MSNBC this time?


    Savew Hillary's bacon from what (none / 0) (#217)
    by RalphB on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:24:23 PM EST
    an idiotic made up gaffe?  That you fell for this gives me pause.

    LOL (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:28:33 PM EST
    Yes.  You should keep this going.  And the pundits should keep this going.

    It will create a lot of unity.

    I always an excuse to attack Clinton would supercede General Election priorities.

    I hope this lingers a long time.

    I hope Obama supporters are dissing Clinton on this in September.


    Sorry, folks - (1.00 / 8) (#156)
    by scribe on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:55:51 PM EST
    she's jumped the shark with this one.

    In 1963, I'd just turned 4 and we had just moved (within a couple weeks) when JFK was killed.  I remember my dad being home from work and watching the funeral on TV with him sitting beside me on the new floors in our new house.  

    I remember being in grade school and trying to understand why all the teachers were so upset when MLK was killed.

    I remember, a couple months later, when Bobby was killed, and all the adults at the school were even more upset, and some were choking back tears.

    Those nearly tore the country apart.  And, a fair argument can be made that Bobby would easily have beaten Tricky Dick.  Where would we be, had people like Cheney and Rumsfeld not gotten their start in bureaucratic warfare in Tricky Dick's administration?  Where would we be, if all those now-dusty antecedents for today's Unitary Executive had not been laid down by Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean (and Kissinger and Rehnquist and Bork and Rove and Liddy and all the rest of them) in the Nixon WH - which likely never would have been, had Bobby not been shot?  Where would we be in our relations with the rest of the world, had it not happened?  Where would our race relations be?

    "Likely in a better place than we are now" seems the fairest, most accurate answer.

    Using the possibility that someone might whack another candidate, as a reason for staying in the race, or as an explanation, or as an excuse is not just wrong.  It's reprehensible.  And it exemplifies what Mike Lupica said in his column the other day - for HRC, it's all about getting elected.

    I have little doubt that, if something untoward were to happen, those campaigns which were suspended, would get un-suspended in a hurry.  And the delegates and superdelegates would be able to figure out how to nominate someone and put together a campaign.  That all goes without saying, and should have gone without saying.

    I'm glad she apologized.  Now, she should go home and put some tape over her mouth.   Because I've heard enough.

    And, for that matter, I suspect just about everyone else has, too.

    Absurdly ridiculous and insulting of you (5.00 / 5) (#168)
    by Jim J on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:59:43 PM EST
    Imagine, you actually think an entire political campaign for president should be suspended over an ill-advised, ultimately harmless remark such as this one.

    And who are you, exactly?


    Put tape over your own mouth (5.00 / 5) (#183)
    by sarahfdavis on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:09:45 PM EST
    or your keyboard. You know she would never intend what the Obamahaters are furiously flaming. You are maliciously finding intent where there is none. Just as it was with all the fake racist outrage. Obama and his supporters are the most divisive bunch I've witnessed. On par with Rove and "the democrats love terrorists". Jesus christ - you wanting to believe that a former first lady and champion of human rights is casually commenting that she's staying in the race because Obama might be assassinated?! You all disgust me. It is you and Obama that have ripped the party right in half. And you do it with such joy.

    Keep trying (none / 0) (#231)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:50:08 PM EST
    What a story!  All of that for a rehash of a statement she made said almost verbatim a couple of months ago.  Oh the drama.  Oh the angst.

    The teebee says no deal.  Ha! Ha! for once the Obama faux brigade gets slapped down.

    Fox was just discussing how when June comes around what happened in 1968 is seared in the mind.  MSNBC (the Obama lovefest channel) Tweety couldn't stir the outrage and passed on it.

    Keep trying.  It's sad but almost entertaining.


    Oh good. (none / 0) (#2)
    by masslib on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:11:47 PM EST
    I know what she went but she has too many knoves out for her to make errors like that.  They'll be talking about this all weekend.

    Gosh, I totally screwed this up. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by masslib on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:17:52 PM EST
    I know what she "meant" not "went".  I need coffee.

    knives not knoves (none / 0) (#3)
    by masslib on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:12:02 PM EST
    Oh there are probably knoves too! They are (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:18:44 PM EST
    are trying to skewer Hillary by any means, legitimate or not.  She misspoke and apologized...end of story for those who will try to make it bigger than it is.  

    Totally unecessary, though (none / 0) (#5)
    by samanthasmom on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:12:23 PM EST

    Lets see how things shape out (none / 0) (#8)
    by ajain on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:14:17 PM EST
    This seems to be a pretty wholesome statement but wait for her enemies to make hay out of it.

    Why the outrage? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:16:52 PM EST
    Because he was assassinated. He was campaigning in Ca in June of 1968. That campaign was still ongoing. What did she say that wasn't true and so horrible that Obama's campaign was outraged and issued a statement of outrage???

    Don't mention elephants (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by nell on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:20:41 PM EST
    We aren't aloud to talk about elephants in the room.

    That is what happened to BC in SC, he mentioned Jesse Jackson because his margins were similar to Obama's. That is a historical fact. But don't mention it just in case you remind voters of Obama's race. I don't mean this with any disrespect, but I thought the faux outrage over this was actually really disrespectful to Jesse Jackson, who has done a lot of progressive work. It is not an insult to be Jesse Jackson, he has done a lot of good, but that is how it was spun.

    In any case, had she just said RFK was still competing in June, but not mentioned the word tragedy, people would not have made such a fuss. She raised the elephant in the room and that is why it is being criticized.

    I wish she had not said it because of the political hay people are making out of it, but only the truly deranged could think she was trying to imply something about a tragedy striking either her or Obama.


    Let's no be obstuse (1.00 / 3) (#48)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:27:15 PM EST
    Saying that she should stay in the race because in 1968 everything changed after RFK was assassinated was an incredibly stupid thing to say.  And if you don't realize the implications, then you are being willfully ignorant.

    That is NOT WHAT SHE Said! (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:31:26 PM EST
    Reach and Stretch!  Bend and Stretch!  Touch your Toes!  Make it Fit!  

    yes she did (none / 0) (#114)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:40:36 PM EST
    "My husband didn't wrap up the nomination until sometime in June.  We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

    That's what she said.


    yes, and clearly her point was that it's silly (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by kempis on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:48:58 PM EST
    to insist that the nomination should have been settled months ago. Her point was simply that "there is no historical precedent" for people insisting that she quit the race. Races have run much longer in the past.

    I honestly couldn't see what was so sinister about her remarks until the Obama-supporters came here to explain what she really meant: that Obama may be assassinated and therefore she should stay in the race.

    That is simply craziness.

    This is off-the-wall, Limbaughesque, Hillary-hating mind-reading. And it makes. No. Sense.

    What does she stand to gain by raising the specter of assassination? Seriously.


    I agree (none / 0) (#164)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:58:29 PM EST
    completely that she wasn't trying to reference the potential for an assassination.  But it was a really poor choice of words and she should have known how that would be taken.

    There are a subset of supporters who are looking to be offended by comments from the opponent.  Happens here all the time.  

    Just about anytime Obama says anything there is a cadre of Hillary supporters who get offended because of some reason.


    She said it in March. (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:10:01 PM EST
    Wasn't a poor choice of words then, apparently.

    Yes it was (none / 0) (#190)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:11:39 PM EST
    but the context was different so no one cared.

    Why was the context different? (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:40:19 PM EST
    It seems exactly the same to me.

    Because at this point (1.00 / 1) (#236)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:15:09 PM EST
    she appears more desperate thus more willing to say something outrageous.  

    You called us a 'cadre' (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by Jim J on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:19:30 PM EST
    How dare you.

    You are implying we are hardcore Communists who will take up arms to bring on world revolution.

    We are offended.

    You must apologize.

    Then you must be fired from your job.

    Then you must be blacklisted from your career for the rest of your life.

    </fake Obama supporter outrage>


    The operative word is (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by joanneleon on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:30:07 PM EST

    That was the whole point.  And you know it.


    You guys keep arguing (none / 0) (#237)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:16:35 PM EST
    with me about what she meant.  I KNOW what she meant.  It doesn't change the fact that it was a gaffe.

    FlyerHawk... (none / 0) (#258)
    by TheViking on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:28:36 PM EST
    ...you need to fly away now. Why? Because I'll get Hillary's "hit squad" on to you! QUICK QUICK FLY AWAY BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE



    Those are not the words (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by americanincanada on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:38:24 PM EST
    she said. Please, if you are going to talk about the quote...then do it EXACTLY.

    Well, you know (none / 0) (#90)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:35:23 PM EST
    she did have Vince Foster killed, so I'm SURE that's what she meant here!  </snark>

    I believe this is the first time (none / 0) (#27)
    by nycstray on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:21:18 PM EST
    in who knows how long, that CA isn't voting in June. IIRC, they were traditionally the first week in June.

    Good thing this is a Friday before a (none / 0) (#60)
    by vicsan on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:28:46 PM EST
    long week-end. Another non-issue put to rest.

    That;'s weird.. (none / 0) (#97)
    by JustJennifer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:37:13 PM EST
    I haven't heard that people are overly concerned about Obama being assassinated?  I am sure there is always that chance for every public figure but I think (or at least I hope) that precautions are being taken for all of the candidates.  

    The fear is real (none / 0) (#154)
    by zzyzx on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:54:25 PM EST
    Clinton obviously didn't intend to reference it and I can see what she was trying to say, but for the record, both my fiancee and my mother have mentioned that they're terrified he will be shot.  

    Your critical thinking skills are poor (none / 0) (#171)
    by Jim J on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:02:11 PM EST
    Referencing an event in 1968 does not increase the likelihood that a similar event will happen in the future. This fails basic logic.

    Why in the world would some crazy person decide to be a little bit crazier because of some off-hand remark Hillary Clinton says?


    Why? (none / 0) (#259)
    by TheViking on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:30:38 PM EST
    Because he's Half-White? Oh wait, I forgot, silly me...

    Re: That;'s weird.. (none / 0) (#262)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:28:07 PM EST
    Actually Obama has had Secret Service protection for some time now, far earlier than would have ordinarily been the case.  This was because of several death threats he and his family received.

    I would hope that this was not a serious problem in 2008, but I'm afraid we're not quite there yet.


    More like this, please! (none / 0) (#103)
    by lambertstrether on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:38:21 PM EST
    I'm all for the OFB showing themselves as they truly are. It's a teachable moment. Especially because you won't be able to help yourselves.

    But (none / 0) (#113)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:40:07 PM EST
    I am a Hillary supporter, but I see where Obama's supporters could take her comment the way you did.  However, I truly think was merely pointing out that anything can happen during the course of a race; I agree that the example was unfortunate; so do Axelrod, Todd, Mitchell & Buchanan; just heard them on Hardwell.  I don't try to pretend that HRC's statement was not unfortunate, but you cannot seriously maintain that Hillary or any of her supporters wishes anything untoward for the health and safety of any opponent.  

    do tell how this would help Hillary get elected? (none / 0) (#152)
    by kempis on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:53:46 PM EST
    You can't possibly believe that. And this means you can't possibly believe that she intended to telegraph the notion that Obama may be assassinated and therefore she should stay in the race.

    Who's she going to win over with that argument? Anyone? No.

    Who would she alienate, if she had deliberately made such an argument? A whole lotta people.

    Therefore, how on earth can you argue that this was a deliberate attempt to draw a parallel between Obama and RFK?

    To me, Obama is SO not-RFK that I honestly had no idea what the snit was about until Obama supporters started explaining [thunder] what Hillary really meant.[/thunder]

    Good Lord....

    The headline on CNN (none / 0) (#194)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:14:05 PM EST
    "Clinton explains the assasination reference".

    Concern trolling at its finest.

    Man, and people think we should reward this primary and all of its atrocious media players with a GE win?

    LOL.  I don't.  This is bigger than Hillary Clinton.  At some point we need to say, NO, the MEDIA isn't allowed to choose our candidates.

    Maddow, Robinson, Blankley (none / 0) (#216)
    by jes on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:24:19 PM EST
    and Moran are scummy. Harwood is the only one who acquits himself well on MSNBOs 'Race for the White House'.

    jes - aka a sick political junkie

    From many Obama supporters' point of view, (none / 0) (#230)
    by Newt on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:49:56 PM EST
    this is more than a gaffe.
    Recently, a politician joked to people attending a gun lover's convention about shooting Obama.
    A news magazine publishes a picture of Mr. Obama in the crosshairs of a rifle.
    There are billions of dollars at risk if the Obama quickly end the war in Iraq, as opposed to slowing it down over the next four years (McSame's likely process).
    Their candidate has inspired them and infused politics with the potential to reclaim our government, bringing millions of new and REENGAGED voters back in to the Democratic process.
    Now their candidate's opponent makes reference to the assassination of another inspiring Democratic candidate, possibly encouraging wackos to make a bid for their sick place in history.  

    I say this because it's important to remember that Obama's supporters are necessary in this election, and the only way for all of us to win is to understand each other.  Put yourself in their shoes for a moment by imagining the above events had happened to Hillary Clinton.  

    This could be a gaffe that blows over, or it could be the coup de grace for her end.  Either way, please remember that Obama's supporters are as invested in reclaiming our government as you are.

    I think it may be generational. (none / 0) (#243)
    by NY Spotlight on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:36:32 PM EST
    Those of us who were there remember the dates of some events, and associate less memorable events with them. (For the same reason that I remember today, almost forty-four years, six months and two days later, that I had debating practice after school on November 22, 1963).

    So June 2, 1968 is a memorable date for those of us of a certain age, and, though it's just eleven days short of forty years ago, we remember vividly the date of that California Primary, and therefore remember that, with the convention coming up in August, the big-state primaries were still going strong into late June (NY, as I recall, was June 18, 1968).  

    Hillary's point, though, was that if you believe, you fight until the fight is over.  That year, 1968, the insiders had picked Hubert Humphrey, and there were never enough delegates even in play to defeat him simply by accumulating delegates, because from the beginning superdelegates loyal to LBJ's heir apparent outnumbered all the delegates even up for election in those days before the McGovern Commission reforms.  The primaries were about demonstrating strength, and articulating message, not just about running up a delegate score. The convention, for good or for ill, was intended to perform a deliberative function, not just a coronation.  And with the two finalists this year so close that neither has enough elected delegates to achieve an outright majority, it's not necessarily a bad thing that the convention provide a deliberative function, and be a safety valve, this year.

    Safety valve? Yes. Those who took the outraged view of Hillary's statement her referencing RFK's death was subliminal messaging.  With a longer perspective, one needn't leap to that conclusion.  But even if it were, then the message is not that she wishes anyone ill, but that three months is an eternity in politics.  Remember, for example, the imperfect vetting of Tom Eagleton and Gerry Ferraro. For that matter, recall that on March 16, 2004, Jack Ryan, an attractive, charismatic, ex-Goldman Sachs multimillionaire, won the Illinois Republican primary for United States Senate, and was favored to win the general election for the open seat, until on June 25, 2004, only 100 days later, scandalous allegations from his ex-wife ended his candidacy, after which his opponent, a certain Barack Obama, coasted to election over Ryan's carpetbagger replacement.

    Which of us can be sure enough right now that nothing will happen in the next 100 days to make us wish for a Plan B?  How can any of us be sure that the national press won't "discover" the what the Chicago Trib has been covering in depth? Or that that story, or some other, won't explode with new details and a compelling narrative?  I'm not prepared to bet my country on the proposition that the "vetting" process has been completed. Let's just let the process play out, according to the rules, and see what Denver brings.    

    Obama's campaign (none / 0) (#244)
    by djcny on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:39:11 PM EST
    ignores Hillary for weeks, as if she doesn't exist anymore but let some statement get out there that reflects negatively on her and they seize the opportunity to release a critism so fast it makes your head spin. All of a sudden She exists again, give me a break.

    Hillary Clinton's Statement Of Regret (none / 0) (#245)
    by bridget on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:40:06 PM EST
    This whole nonaffair again is so overhyped and pushed into overdrive - ZZZZZzzzzzzz ......

    But anything goes when its Hillary and Bill Clinton.

    Be strong, Hillary! I know you will be! :-)