Once, I could call it a mistake; twice, well, it's a little harder.

She could have easily said "Bobby Kennedy wrapped up his nomination in June."  What's the point of bringing up his assassination?  The Clintons are too genius by half on this one.  It's a reminder to the populace, definitely.

However, look, it was a re-used phrase that she shouldn't have re-used.  She made a mistake, maybe her mind went on automatic.  Look at the video of the meeting with the editorial board.  She looks tired. She probably wasn't thinking, she may repeat herself answering the same questions day after day and borrowed something she said before.  Who knows?

Obama's almost certainly the nominee. Obama is one making a big deal about this statement.
He's the one who's bringing up assassination in a self conscious way.

She's simply pointing out that history is random.

She could have easily said "Bobby Kennedy wrapped up his nomination in June."

I mean, it isn't like Bobby had any say in the matter, is it?

Problem is they don't even see that they are hardening people against them.

This is obviously about June, why unless you are voting on race, would this automatically be about Obama being assassinated? Or if you accept that Hillary Clinton is racist or will do anything to win.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, to accept such a thin resume from a black man is the true racism. She is currently beating him in most polls about the GE, they need to slow her down and make him look a hero. He'll rush out to defend her and we'll have another unity post for all the emotional people to return to the fold because look how Obama has ridden to the defense of Hillary.

Build the straw man and then chop him down.

What is a farce is the feigned outrage.  And supposedly Olbermann will have a special comment tonight.

What happened?  When did the progressive blogosphere become the opposite coin of those hatemongers on the right?

When did we forget how the media sold us GWB and the Iraq War and now push no less hard for Obama.  Yet now they are trusted.

Three posts in what, an hour? I would have made this an update to the other one.

What would happen if a Hal Turner type whack job ever managed to to do it?

It would produce an armegeddon of riots. But we will avoid a serious discussion for a gotcha type twisting of a passing example of unpredictable history.

anybody watch the whole video?

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.

The perceptions people draw are based on scant words, few will waste their time dithering about the context. The perception of Clinton's words here is striking, which is why they went viral so quickly.

However, the reaction to the statement is utter ugliness, an absolute travesty, the desire by NBC and all of it's minions in the "regressive" blogosphere to destroy a candidate that they don't want to win.

Remember, her Kentucky win was all about the racism, and this is all about her waiting in the wings for an Obama assassination.

I really don't understand why you in particular BTD found this over the top now.  It is an historical fact. Ted Kennedy's condition may be on your mind, but none of what she said had to do with his condition.

Paul Krugman, 2-11-08:

Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

I won't try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We've already had that from the Bush administration -- remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don't want to go there again.

What's particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of "Clinton rules" -- the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

it's terrifying.

Bill wrapped up the nomination in June and RFK was killed in June while he was in the midst of the primary campaign.

We are making wayyyyyyy to much about this.

But to infer something overtly or covertly sinister is beyond my ability to grasp.

I think you may need a rest yourself, BTD. Really, there's just nothing there, other than Hillary having said something without the full delicacy it required.

Carter decisively defeated Kennedy everywhere except Massachusetts, until impatience began to build with the President's strategy on Iran. When the later primaries in New York, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut came around, it was Kennedy who won largely due to such impatience.

Carter was still able to maintain a substantial lead even after Kennedy swept the last batch of primaries in June. Despite this, Kennedy refused to drop out, and the 1980 Democratic National Convention was one of the nastiest on record. On the penultimate day, Kennedy conceded the nomination and called for a more liberal party platform in what many saw as the best speech of his career. On the platform on the final day, Kennedy for the most part ignored Carter.

The delegate tally at the convention was in part:

    * Jimmy Carter - 2,129.02
    * Ted Kennedy - 1,150.48

It's called piling on.

It's as Somerby said: HOW the MCM treats a mistake or possible error by a candidate says everything about where they stand on that candidate's run for office and how they're going to hinder or aid that run.

I still remember that June night -- I was ecstatic that Bobby had won CA. We were cheering him on to the convention.  We were sure he would win the nomination.

I bring that up because Hillary is getting slaughtered for this RFK comment and Obama was beaten up for Wright, etc. and despite the AMAZING number of GAFFES and utter foolishness of McCain and his campaign, they STILL call him a maverick independent.

Good luck.

I really don't think Obama is going to win this. I don't see the fight in him I see even in Michelle Obama.

OMG you're suggesting Obama should be assassinated!!!!!!!!!!

The unforgiving wurlitzer that is directed at her is staggering.

Tough luck. But is up to the people, the voters and the SD who will be the nominee.

That is what Democracy is about.

If you had listen to the video you posted 2 threads before first (I have no cable TV and listen to her video before reading your post) then it was crystal clear what she meant.

1.  In March, Hillary hadn't won the PA, IN and KY primaries.  The two that were landslides have really shaken the Obama campaign and his supporters.  The possibility of counting the FL and MI votes have made them even more crazy.

2. The frenzy has been building and building, and the media and some progressive blogs are even more bats**t crazy now than they were two months ago.  The frenzy has been pretty steady and linear.  Actually, maybe it's been more like a logarithmic progression instead of linear.  At least it feels that way.  People are acting insanely.  Absolutely nuts.

Too many of 'the unity candidate's' supporters are hate mongers.  What has he done to stop their tearing the democratic party apart?  Anything?

It's divisions may well cost  him either the nomination or the final election.  Pretty poor planning.

Who cares, really?  Is it something that has any chance of affecting Democratic turnout in November?  No.  Is it something which is at all a divisive political issue?  No - Americans of all stripes are pretty opposed to assassinations.

It is simply another manners gaffe.  Ohmygawd, someone running for President might of hurt someone's feelings!

The purpose of highlighting this story is for the people who believe (or enjoy pretending to believe) that Sen. Clinton is genuinely insane.

I've seen the whole quote, and though it wasn't the bestest of references, I see where she was headed.

Senator Clinton deserves to be cut some slack.  She obviously didn't mean what some people are trying to twist her words into meaning.  She was tired and made an unfortunate choice of words.  She has been "on" for a long time now.  Who among us wouldn't commit gaffes if our every word, 16 hours a day, was being recorded and examined to see if it could be twisted to mean something nefarious?

I think perhaps what is different from March is that Teddy Kennedy has been diagnosed with cancer, which has been getting a lot of media play.

It's no mistake. I imagine Hillary can't think of June of '68 without also thinking of Bobby.

Neither can Ted, I'd bet.

The basic fact is that she made essentially the same point back in March, with only minor differences (granted that her use of "the great tragedy" in March better accommodated the delicacy demanded of the statement).

And what could have been a more prominent interview than that in Time Magazine. Can anyone pretend that it somehow escaped the public eye? How can the Obama Boyz and the MSM now ratchet up outrage over it, if no one batted an eye when she said the same thing in March?

And what is the absolutely obvious conclusion to draw from this about the Obama Boyz and the MSM?

That they are now simply making something up out of nothing. It could hardly be a clearer example of it: in March, nothing; now, because they will seize on anything -- anything -- to create a sense of outrage, it's just a terrible and bizarre and disturbing statement.

& Why?

They're all LIBERALS!  Everything offends liberals because they have become victims of their own political correctness.  

Or the price of food.

The Obama campaign has spent months and months smearing Clinton's character by repeatedly claiming that "she will say or do anything". They have set up the expectation that allows those same shameless bloviators to  spin off that smear by twisting her statements to fit their preconceived narrative. Axelrod may be smart to keep quiet now, but he is in large part responsible for unleashing the rabid attack dogs. This is just another example of astroturfing a "controversy".

They know it. They have even said so in moments of candor.

So they have driven themselves nuts.

[