Are We Overreacting To the RFK Statement?

It turns out that Hillary Clinton said something similar regarding RFK and the 1968 race in a Time Magazine interview in March 2008, but there was not an uproar then. Here is what she said in March:

TIME: Can you envision a point at which--if the race stays this close--Democratic Party elders would step in and say, "This is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall"?

CLINTON: 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. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.

More . . .

Apparently, at the time, I did not think it was the most grievous mistake ever. And apparently no one else did either. Why now? Since I do feel it was bad, I am asking myself that question and my quick answer is this - it seemed clearer in that formulation that she was talking about the race being contested in June 1968. But that seems a weak argument to me. Anyone want to help me out here? What is different now than then?

By Big Tent Democrat. speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Hillary Clinton's Statement Of Regret | Pre-Memorial Day Weekend Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Orchestrated (5.00 / 20) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:24:16 PM EST
    to create the "outrage" and get the DNC rules committee to vote against her.  I tell you, this is all part of the theatrics, my buddy Axel knows what he is doing.  Puppet master and the machine rages on.  

    BTD, why did you hype this bogus story? (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:34:59 PM EST
    Are you making nice with TPM?

    I can't see it as bogus (1.00 / 1) (#131)
    by ksh on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:04:11 PM EST
    although I don't for a minute believe she wants something bad to happen to Obama, I do believe this nearly exact phrase has been repeated for a reason and that is to raise the specter of the danger of a young, attractive politician for change.

    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.

    By the way, didn't Bill Clinton wrap up his campaign in April 1992?


    bad things will never ever happen again (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:07:08 PM EST
    Once obama is President.

    Do you really see him as some Fukayama-like end point in history?


    I didn't say that and definitely don't think (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by ksh on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:26:52 PM EST
    it.  He's got my vote, not my adoration.

    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?

    But look...no matter who you support in this race, they will not be a perfect president and their term will not be without controversy.  There's no point adoring either candidate or ignoring criticism of them.  Not all their positions are the best (I like Hillary's health care plan better, for instance) and not everything that falls out of Obama's or Clinton's golden.  


    I'm not supporting either of them (none / 0) (#211)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:30:40 PM EST
    at this point  in a competative sense.

    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.

    He looks like a twitchy coward with this sort of attack on this sort of statement.   As pointless as the attack on her for mentioning LBJ.


    Ksh, I disagree. (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:12:11 PM EST
    By my definition Obama is not "young", nor is he "attractive". However, he is a "politician", on that we agree.

    ok.... (none / 0) (#180)
    by ksh on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:20:01 PM EST
    although I meant attractive in a general way. And he's relatively young compared to McCain.  My point is that there are some similarities in the tenor of the Kennedy and the Obama campaign and they've been compared (fairly or unfairly).

    There are many more similarities (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by RalphB on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:23:41 PM EST
    between the Obama campaign and the Bush 2000 campaign than to any Kennedy run.

    June 2, 1992 (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by magisterludi on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:16:21 PM EST
    Clinton clinched it officially.

    But RFK DIDN'T wrap up his (5.00 / 4) (#175)
    by tree on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:18:19 PM EST
    nomination in June. He was not the frontrunner and if he had not been assassinated he would have had an uphill battle going into the convention that year. The RFK-Clinton parallels are much stronger than any RFK-Obama parallels. Obama is in some ways equivalent to Humphrey in being the front-runner, and in some ways equivalent to Eugene McCarthy, in being the  youth-movement egg-head anti-war candidate.

    And Bill "wrapped up" his campaign in April 1992 rather like Obama "wrapped it up" in February. In other words, Bill was the solid front-runner in April but he didn't clinch the nomination( get the real magic number) until June. And his final competition didn't drop out even then, but continued on to the convention.


    The RFK factoid doesn't help Clinton (none / 0) (#207)
    by ksh on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:29:42 PM EST
    if he didn't wrap up the nomination in June, why did she bring up his assassination?  If she meant late in the primary season, that's what she should have said.

    WHAT? You think saying "Bobby (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:19:56 PM EST
    warpped up his nomination in June" is a better way to talk about a man who was assassinated?

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

    I can only imagine how you and your fellow members of The Obamanation would scream if she had said that.


    Context (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by ksh on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:33:39 PM EST
    she was saying it was too early to ask her to drop out of the race....any mention of Kennedy's assassination is not relevant to her rationale for her remarks, unless she was talking about timing.

    I think Obama supporters are already talking a lot about it. Hopefully without any ad hominem attacks on other posters, but that would probably be hoping against hope.  I don't engage in that kind of name calling myself.


    No. Bill wrapped it up (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by RalphB on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:21:57 PM EST
    in June, by winning CA, prior to then Brown was still actively running against him and if he'd won CA the nomination could have been hosed up.  Prior to June Bill was the presumptive nominee but hadn't locked up enough to win, like Obama now.

    paranoia fueled by hatred (none / 0) (#152)
    by sarahfdavis on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:10:49 PM EST
    i don't know how else to understand how you
    got to your conclusion.

    I agree with you completely (5.00 / 11) (#31)
    by MMW on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:35:11 PM EST
    This is just the latest ploy to discredit her once more.

    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.

    I stand by my oft stated position.


    Stellaaa is exactly (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by rnibs on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:16:47 PM EST
    right.  They're creating false outrage so they can play fast and loose with FL and MI.  

    Hillary will still stand up for what's fair though.  


    Maybe (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:24:32 PM EST
    the meme that Hillary is divisive is subconsciously working on you too.

    YES! (5.00 / 20) (#5)
    by citizen53 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:25:08 PM EST
    The fact that Clinton even had to apologize shows just how ridiculous and cynical the partisans of hope are.

    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.

    We will deserve whatever we get.

    That's a big YUP! (5.00 / 13) (#68)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:46:33 PM EST
    As Larry Johnson just put it:

    "So if Hillary makes reference to the bombing of Hiroshima in August of 1945 does that mean she wants to nuke the convention?"


    No (5.00 / 5) (#150)
    by Dr Molly on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:10:00 PM EST
    It means she wants Obama to get nuked apparently.

    RFK History (5.00 / 8) (#109)
    by Athena on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:58:57 PM EST
    Her point was fair - she used shorthand to note that RFK was still pursuing the nomination in June after winning California.  That's all.

    I've been thinking about this lately - because, if you recall, RFK announced his intention on that fateful night to fight for the nomination all the way to the convention "On to Chicago and let's win there!"  At the time, he had only about 60% of the delegates that McCarthy did, and Humprey was waiting in the wings.


    Good point! (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by citizen53 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:01:31 PM EST
    The Orwellian nature of this is apparent.

    Yes. Even the Argus editorial board (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by masslib on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:19:17 PM EST
    issued a statement to that effect.  This is nothing but cynical politics.

    Well, I think it was proper to apologize to (none / 0) (#161)
    by ksh on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:13:50 PM EST
    the Kennedys, given what they've been through recently.  I mean, the timing looks bad. I also think she could have apologized more generally, saying something like: "Given the history in this country, bringing up assassination in this context is a bad idea.  I shouldn't have done it and I apologize to all." Bosnia basically went away when she came out definitely and said she made a big mistake.

    Done, over.  The fact that she only apologized to the Kennedys and used the word "if" didn't help her.


    Simple answers to simple questions (5.00 / 11) (#6)
    by lambertstrether on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:25:33 PM EST

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

    In any case, if K.O. and Avarosis and the rest don't start a wankfest, it's because of pushback from us. And our pushback has only begun. Nothing that the press, and that includes these guys, now says matters to us.

    I needed a new thread because (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:26:33 PM EST
    of the comments limit anyway.

    are we overreacting to the rfk statement? (5.00 / 21) (#7)
    by english teacher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:25:34 PM EST
    does a wild bear cr@p in the woods?

    Apparently bears do... :) And A Resounding (5.00 / 10) (#22)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:29:48 PM EST
    YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS would be the answer to the question, "Are we overreacting to the rfk statement"?  After reading some of the comments on the other threads I wanted to do my best Susan Powter impression yelling "STOP THE INSANITY".
    C'mon folks....we need to stop playing into the obamatrons and trolls hands!

    These bears cr@p all over their shoes (5.00 / 9) (#26)
    by RalphB on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:32:14 PM EST
    and then track it all over the house.  God, this is so stupid I can't stand it.  

    Is the pope a catholic? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:38:12 PM EST

    Here's a serious discussion.

    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.

    petty pedandic and unserious...


    Or is the pope German? (none / 0) (#204)
    by bridget on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:28:43 PM EST
    She gets great mileage from (5.00 / 22) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:25:41 PM EST
    these editorial board interviews.  By focusing on this minor statement, they divert attention from her arguments.  

    That would be it, (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:27:54 PM EST
    of course.

    Yes! (5.00 / 9) (#18)
    by DEM on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:28:47 PM EST
    Excellent point, Stellaaa!  I thought the same thing myself as I watched it.  I learned so much about her positions, policies, musings... then I realised that, alas, all that makes the news is an arguably clumsy statement about RFK.  sigh  It never ends.

    The headline from the interview (none / 0) (#223)
    by Boston Boomer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:42:55 PM EST
    Clinton did in SD should be that she categorically denied any discussions about her being VP or dropping out.  

    I refuse to be hysterical about this (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by catfish on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:26:55 PM EST
    There is too much hysteria in our discourse, to play into it this time is to reinforce it. This is just like middle-finger-gate and I want no part of it.

    posted on the "regret" thread (5.00 / 10) (#12)
    by karen for Clinton on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:27:05 PM EST
    but want to add it here since that one is coming to be filled up... that I expect an overblown reaction and why. I just don't see it being that much of a biggie.  They are grasping at straws to smear her for decades! here's my cut and paste:

    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.

    Double standards and Gotcha are typical.

    It Is All About Perception (3.00 / 3) (#84)
    by KnightErrant on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:51:16 PM EST
    Only a few obsessive-compulsives (like you and me) will listen to every word of the video. Most people are too busy to hear more than the key words.
    [Clinton: I'm staying...June...Kennedy...assassinated...]
    And they will judge her based on their perception of those words. It may not be fair but it is fact.

    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.

    Politicians have to be wise enough to think before they talk and choose their words carefully. Those who don't end up with their toes tickling their throat.


    Lord what fools these obamabots be (none / 0) (#212)
    by angie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:31:25 PM EST
    The perception of her "key" words is striking you say? How about "they're bitter so they cling to their guns and religion and antipathy toward people who aren't like them" -- how striking did you find the perception of those words, I wonder? Or how about "G** D*** America" -- how was your perception there? Oh, I bet a million dollars that you argued that those words from Obama and Wright were taken out of context. Yet, you have no problem literally taken Hillary's words out of context to make her say "I'm staying . . .June . . .Kennedy . . . assassinate."  HA! Do you realize the kind of libel you are committing here? You are accusing Hillary Clinton of threatening murder. I'm reporting this bs post to the mods -- oh, and learn a little comprehension.

    And BTW (5.00 / 16) (#15)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:27:48 PM EST
    No, I'm not overreacting to the statement.  The statement meant very little

    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.

    It's putrid HATE at it's finest directed at the first viable female candidate for president.  And it's wrong, utterly and undeniably WRONG.

    hope and unity makes me incredibly depresssed (5.00 / 13) (#37)
    by sarahfdavis on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:36:49 PM EST
    I said in the last thread that the hatred and divisiveness that the O camp engages in reminds me of how I used to feel when Rove & Co. would constantly jump on anything a Dem said as "supporting the terrorists". They so deliberately place intent where there is none. Now we are racists instead of terrorist lovers. The hope candidate certainly inspires...is this the voice of the new generation? My ears are bleeding.

    Sadly, yes (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by Valhalla on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:08:57 PM EST
    You know, if Obama had done the classy thing and responded by saying "I cannot imagine Senator Clinton meant to imply anything untoward in her remarks" I might have relented an iota on my no-vote-for-Obama stance.

    Just one.  He'd have to add a lot of iotas before November if he gets the nom, but it would have been one.


    It's offensive because (1.00 / 0) (#145)
    by Natal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:08:58 PM EST
    some people feel it's a subconscious wish for history to repeat itself. God forbid.

    Absolutely it's about Teddy's condition (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:27:51 PM EST

    No it is not, IMOP. (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by alexei on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:35:13 PM EST
    It is about kneecapping Hillary (not you BTD) but from all of the others.  It is about changing the subject from FL and MI.

    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.

    Why do we have to have these type of non issues?  Because it helps Obama by turning attention away from the real issue of FL and MI.


    Thank you for your honesty BTD (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by stillife on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:28:52 PM EST
    I wasn't aware of this and it certainly casts new light on the subject.

    I would say that the only thing that is different is that the race has become more heated and the cries for her to drop out have increased in volume.

    Maybe she said it in March because... (5.00 / 8) (#21)
    by citizen53 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:29:32 PM EST
    it also applied then.  In June of 1968 there still was a race for the nomination.  I followed it.

    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.


    In June of '68... (none / 0) (#148)
    by lama amal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:09:40 PM EST
    how many primaries had taken place?  How many big states were left?  Leaving out the facts is convenient, but for an analogy to be true, it must be true on all points, no?

    A hint... (none / 0) (#158)
    by lama amal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:12:11 PM EST
    California was contested on June 5th.  Let's gain a measure of perspective here.

    What is Your Point? (none / 0) (#217)
    by santarita on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:35:52 PM EST
    In 1968 in June Humphrey was the presumptive nominee on the basis of pledged delegates.  McCarthy and RFK were duking it out in primaries.  By winning California RFK had momentum going for him into the convention.  

    I think Hillary is right to stay in the race because anything can happen between now and the Convention.  The presumptive nominee today is not necessarily who the nominee will be.


    If you saw her statement in a TIME (5.00 / 10) (#23)
    by chancellor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:30:44 PM EST
    Magazine interview, you were probably reading it in context with other information she was providing. If that statement had been lifted out separately, as it was today, you might have had a different reaction. We've all seen how the press can choose to isolate a statement to make an idea sound repellent.

    Oh, and Americablog (5.00 / 8) (#25)
    by andgarden on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:32:03 PM EST
    will take any opportunity to flip the bird to Hillary. This is as good an excuse as any.

    It's truly amazing (5.00 / 13) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:33:19 PM EST
    to watch how a nothing issue can be manipulated in seconds and it can get a life of it's own when it is used by what I think is a dangerous propaganda machine.  I shudder to think where this is going.  People, stop and think.  This instant outrage and denouncing is becoming a travesty.  I must say I hate it when both sides do it.  It's really witch hunting and a reign of terror.  

    This machine this wurlitzer (5.00 / 9) (#55)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:40:50 PM EST
    can and has been turned on you before.

    it's terrifying.

    it's similar to how Ferraro was raked over the coals.


    I actually watch that interview live (5.00 / 9) (#33)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:35:20 PM EST
    If you saw the whole thing, she was talking about the people who are trying to stop the process now. She the brought up Bill Clinton and RFK:

    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 hey, it's about Hillary Clinton.

    Yes we are overreacting (5.00 / 7) (#34)
    by lisadawn82 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:35:59 PM EST
    But the Obama campaign got what they wanted.  An apology from Clinton after a great speech that puts her in a defensive position going into the weekend.

    YES! (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by hellothere on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:36:03 PM EST

    Much ado... (5.00 / 13) (#36)
    by lentinel on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:36:27 PM EST
    I must admit I don't know how anyone can take this statement except at face value. I don't know what she could have to apologize for - except for the fact that the mere mention of the assassination of Robert Kennedy could be a source of discomfort for Ted Kennedy and for others who cared for RFK.

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

    I think people are really nutty when it comes to Hillary Clinton.
    I also think that people are nutty when it comes to Senator Obama - but in a different way. With her, everyone is aggressive and judgmental. With him, it is a strange sort of defensive and protective reflex.

    Reign of terror. (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:38:05 PM EST
    i am so frigging sick of all this false outrage. (5.00 / 7) (#38)
    by hellothere on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:37:09 PM EST
    is there not someting more important to talk about like the future of our country and the world.

    I think it's funny (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:37:46 PM EST
    BTD's first inclination was to think the worst.

    Just like everyone else.

    Let's not beat up so much on BTD (none / 0) (#147)
    by Kathy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:09:33 PM EST
    you don't see anyone else on the net asking if they over reacted.  At least he is asking the question and listening to the answers.

    I don't thnk he realized (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:23:18 PM EST
    it until he saw the reaction from his fellow Obama supporters.  The piling on and realized he was suddenly part of it.

    Remember. BTD, although tepid, is an Obama supporter.


    Look, (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by frankly0 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:37:53 PM EST
    What's obvious is that what Hillary meant to say was more artfully said in the March interview with Time. Simply inserting "the great tragedy" makes all the difference in how it sounds (or more precisely, how much it can be twisted into meaning something other than what is intended).

    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.

    And I think it's going to be very, very hard for the Obama blogs to maintain that Hillary must have been saying something terrible when there was not a peep out of them when she said something in no relevant way different way back in March.

    The comment, BTD, about the (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:38:09 PM EST
    SD's stepping in to say enough (paraphrasing) is ridiculous. If that were true, they would have stepped in already. Obama fans are outraged, but they're not outraged enough to actually count the votes? Something is wrong with this picture.

    overreacting (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by cigan on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:38:14 PM EST
    I listened to her comments now a number of times and I still do not hear anything offensive in it or see the need for her to apologize for anything she said.

    why 1968? isn't 1980 the obvious example? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Lisa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:38:45 PM EST
    That year the primary process went through August.  From Wikipedia:

    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


    Perhaps because (none / 0) (#72)
    by stillife on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:48:33 PM EST
    passions were so high in 1968.  I was 13 in 1968, but that's been the most memorable primary election of my life.  Maybe I missed the boat, but in 1980, when I was 25, I don't recall caring that much about Carter vs. Kennedy (I voted for Anderson).  

    I'm referring to the March article, not now (none / 0) (#76)
    by Lisa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:49:18 PM EST
    Just to clarify, I was wondering why she did not mention 1980 in March...

    The MCM puts anything a Clinton says int the worst (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by jawbone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:39:23 PM EST
    possible light.

    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.

    It was a crushing, crushing blow to our nation to have RFK also assassinated.

    This is a bunch of bs (5.00 / 7) (#53)
    by angie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:39:23 PM EST
    What, she isn't allowed to mention RKF because he was killed and her doing so is "regretful" (BTD's word from earlier thread)? But meanwhile, Obama is allowed to make JKF & RFK the central meme of his campaign. It is pure and utter manufactured bs and the reason Axlerod is making a big deal about it this time is because he wants to exploit  Teddy Kennedy's condition, and the fact that the timing is ripe re: the DNC.

    What? (none / 0) (#101)
    by kaleidescope on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:56:18 PM EST
    Do you have a quote from Axelrod making a big deal about it? A link would be nice.

    Give me a break, a third grader could see (3.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Raven15 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:05:43 PM EST
    ...that the "controversy" is obviously propelled by spin from the Obama campaign.

    Tim Russert... (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by Marco21 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:40:09 PM EST
    just called McCain a "maverick independent" on MSNBC.

    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.

    The media will murder any Democratic nominee this fall. I am convinced of it.

    Of course. (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:43:26 PM EST
    And Obama is doing nothing to get my vote.

    Good luck.

    We need to go to the convention.


    It will and should. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Marco21 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:50:17 PM EST
    I agree. The segment with Timmy also mentioned McCain's recent attacks on Obama. They were brutal.

    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.

    Obama gets my vote if he's the nominee, but jeez...


    D: (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:15:53 PM EST
    "The media will murder any Democratic nominee this fall."

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



    positively. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:46:59 PM EST
    Although thee media held off on wright for a long time so that the impact was nullified for the purposes of the primary.  effectively it never really hurt Obama's primary chances.

    The unforgiving wurlitzer that is directed at her is staggering.

    i'm not sure it was much of a problem either. Literally anything could happen.


    What is different (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:41:27 PM EST
    now is the desperation of the Obama campaign and the media that Clinton keeps winning and is "ruining" their script of having made the decision that it is over. It is not. Noone has 2210 delegates and until one reaches so all bets are off.

    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.

    So, yes the media is overreacting; and so did you I know why the media is doing this. I am not sure why you did.

    BTD, you're about the only Obama (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by lorelynn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:41:36 PM EST
    supporter I still like. The esteem in which I hold much of the blogosphere has just plummeted. I started reading TPM when his site was just a few weeks old. I was proud to be a member of DK.

    Now, I'm just flat out creeped out by the way these people around Obama act.

    Agreed. I guess DK people are expecting tickets (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by jpete on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:50:13 PM EST
    to the Lincoln bedroom.  I don't think it works that way.  But what do I know?  Maybe Kos and Michelle are choosing curtains right now.

    Mentioning Lincoln!! (5.00 / 7) (#90)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:52:31 PM EST
    An assassinated president...I'm outraged!!!!!

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:54:59 PM EST
    and they are making their candidate creepy along with themselves.

    So with you. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Marco21 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:00:40 PM EST
    This has been said better by many before me, but to attempt destroy two of the best Democrats the party has ever had with vile smears and GOP-style attacks is beyond creepy - it's insane.

    Kos, Arianna, Aravosis, etc., deserve nothing but scorn for their lies and hate.


    It's the recent primary wins and the frenzy (5.00 / 9) (#60)
    by joanneleon on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:41:44 PM EST
    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.

    Yes! (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by jpete on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:44:19 PM EST
    Mentioning his death to remind us of a time?  If that is considered awful, our standards have gotten way too high.

    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.

    Meanwhile Rush is wondering where all his money is coming from.  So here we go again.

    Yes! This is absurd. (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by robrecht on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:47:41 PM EST
    This is a completely innocuous statement of historical fact.  Those making a big deal of it are blowing it completely out of proportion.  The RFK assasination was such a horribly sad and memorable event, it's natural to reference the on-going campaign in June of '68 with this terrible memory.  How could she refer to the Democratic primary race in '68 extending into June (and beyond) without reference to the RFK assassination?  Maybe she should have added a tribute to Teddy Kennedy and mention of his current health struggle, that would have certainly added a touch of class.  But she should not be criticized for her historical reference.

    In my opinion... (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Jay Elias on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:48:36 PM EST
    ...yes, we're massively overreacting to it.

    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!

    Everyone who wants politics to be substantive, no matter what candidate they support, ought to consider this pretty much beneath them.  Which says a lot about why our politics isn't substantive at all.

    omg.... (none / 0) (#80)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:50:02 PM EST
    Have missed you...hugs.

    Back to the topic already under discussion...


    Nice to see you Kredwyn... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Jay Elias on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:51:53 PM EST
    ...hope all's been well.

    all is well here... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:54:38 PM EST
    too beautiful outside to be inside blogging. But until the hardware store opens in the morning, I'm pretty much done.

    Hope all's well up there...


    If anyone wants a serious discussion about (none / 0) (#96)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:54:54 PM EST
    th epotential impact of assassinations, which are real randomn event sthat have altered history we could look at Rabin, JFK, Lincoln, various Czars, Caesar himself, etc and have a real discussion about real history.

    Instead we observe the manners and are all diminsished by the self censorship.


    A "serious" discussion? (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Jay Elias on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:59:46 PM EST
    During a Presidential race?  You must be joking.

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

    For all of us who, regardless of how we feel about her candidacy, sincerely doubt she's actually crazy, this ought to be about nothing at all, really.


    yes you are overreacting (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by nycvoter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:49:09 PM EST
    this is the dumbest thing that is being pounced upon.  The statements often heard of we will never forget where we were when something happpend, is what she was saying.  If we didn't have such outrageous media, it wouldn't be twisted.  Your earlier post saying it was outrageous or whatever, was overreacting.  Did you look at the interview before your post???????????????

    I think so... (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:49:10 PM EST
    And frankly, I'm tired of it.

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

    No, I do not think that she was making some sort of veiled threat or implication with regards to Obama.

    To Answer Your Question (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by kaleidescope on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:49:21 PM EST

    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.

    I hate media ghouls.

    JFK, MLK, RFK. (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by AlladinsLamp on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:49:41 PM EST
    Time stopped, if ever so briefly.

    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.


    It seems worse now (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Manuel on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:51:27 PM EST
    because the process is almost at an end and June is around the corner.  Also, back in March, there were many other ways for Hillary to get the nomination other than some unspeakable tragedy.

    It is easy to project these thoughts into our reactions.  Watching the video, however, it was clear to me that is not what she was talking about.  The main topic was the mad calls for her to quit the race which we have had to endure for the last three months.  Part of me wishes Hillary would take it to the convention just to spite them all.  I would support her if she did but she is too loyal a democrat to do it.

    After thinking (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:52:11 PM EST
    about it, yes there is an overreaction.

    Also this is standard issue Bush propagands mode. Anybody remember Ward Churchill? The blogosphere has become exactly what they hated about the conservatives--outrage junkies. It's another reason why I think Obama is much closer to Bush than McCain. I don't see McCain being "outraged" at anything Obama says. McCain just hits him hard and with the facts. We need more no nonsense in this country not more hysteria.

    MSNBC is having a giddy Obamafest over this (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Joebasic on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:52:13 PM EST
    Of course it is being blown out of proportion. Olberman is doing one of his special comment rants on the topic tonight.
    You may actually be able to see a speck of spittle as he foams at the mouth while he reads it.
    An Obama nomination means a McCain presidency. Its as simpl as that.

    Olberman is SUCH and ASS I can't stand it (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by nycvoter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:57:46 PM EST
    a special comment?  How do we get him off television?

    We all stop watching (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:06:26 PM EST
    (I have already)and bring his numbers way, way down.

    Overwrought special comment? Has KO jumped the (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by jawbone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:22:10 PM EST
    shark yet? For me, he's no longer watchable. I watched his attack on Ferraro and Clinton and I couldn't believe it. Finito.

    KO jumped the shark with his insane Ferraro-rant (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by kempis on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:23:53 PM EST
    I love it (none / 0) (#118)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:00:53 PM EST
    Makes me feel better about Obama losing in November.

    Hey BTD how about an open thread (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:52:25 PM EST
    instead of the exhaustive focus on this. It's a non-issue IMO

    I really do think that if (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by frankly0 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:53:13 PM EST
    the Obama blogs and the MSM try to make something out of this, it's going to be very very embarrassing for them -- indeed it will probably prove to be even as it is.

    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.

    It's practically a scientific experiment demonstrating without question the utter and overwhelming bias of these people.

    Of COURSE (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:53:40 PM EST
    everyone's over-reacting, ESPECIALLY the Obama supporters and the media.

    & Why?

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


    victims of nothing is right (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by RalphB on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:04:58 PM EST
    I may be an agnostic at best, but I am praying that Obama loses this thing.  That he might win is too repellent for me to consider.

    Too bad (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:56:21 PM EST
    the price of regular unleaded gas hitting $4 a gallon doesn't get this much g*d-da**ed attention.

    Or the price of food.

    The media is truly the enemy within.

    I paid 4.05 for regular (none / 0) (#110)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:59:04 PM EST
    this afternoon.

    Wound up only getting 1/3 a tank...


    Expectations (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by tree on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:58:06 PM EST
    The MSM and some of the more egregious Obama blogs and supporters have compared Clinton to Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction, or to a "monster". Some idiot gasbag even claimed that Obama would need a food taster if he picked Clinton as Vice President. With these kind of hateful and malicious statements floating in the political atmosphere, its made it  much easier for people to jump to pernicious conclusions about what Clinton said and meant.

    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".


    who actually said the foodtaster thing? (none / 0) (#122)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:02:02 PM EST
    Because thety were actually slandering her.

    CNN Alexander (none / 0) (#129)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:03:44 PM EST
    the Republican slime ball.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by santarita on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:58:38 PM EST
    It is a sad commentary on the state of intelligent political discourse in this country that that remark has gotten any attention.  

    I mistakenly listened to 30 seconds of Rachel Maddow pontificating that this remark would make it difficult to have Hillary as vice-president because somehow this reference to assassination indicated that Hillary has this on her brain.  She conveniently overlooked the raison d'etre of a vice -president - to serve in the event that the president is unable to continue to serve.  Take the Diplomas from Punditry University away from these fools.

    At least some of this madness (5.00 / 6) (#125)
    by lentinel on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:02:30 PM EST
    is rooted in the fact that what is called the progressive blogoshere is actively and viciously supporting a candidate who is not progressive.

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

    So they have driven themselves nuts.


    Hillary is too good to be vice president (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by Lisa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:20:01 PM EST
    so that works out fine.

    Really, that comment is BEYOND absurd.  I'd say Maddow lost all credibility, but that has been long gone.  I guess Olbermann will insinuate this trash as well, when Mr. Sportscaster gets all solemn and righteous tonight, as he plays dress-up pretending he's Edward R. Murrow (as if).  This sweetie can't keep up with the leaps of illogic by the Obama camp.  It's farcical.


    The DNC (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:59:21 PM EST
    has timed their nomination convention so that Obama will give his nomination speech on the EXACT 25 YEAR ANNIVERSARY of MLK's "I have a Dream" speech.

    All I can gather from that cynical timing is the DNC is hoping that Obama is also assasinated. /snark Sound ludicrous?  Yes, just as ludicrous as this ranting and raving over Hillary.

    (actually I find the timing of the DNC convention as proof that the DNC knew who THEIR nominee was going to be all along, stupid voters be da**ned.)

    WTF?!? I've been gone all day and tuned into (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Exeter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:00:05 PM EST
    this nonsense? There is NOTHING wrong about what she said. She was talking about long primary seasons and referencing a memorable primary event to jog people's memories. The issue isn't June, though, things were not completly settled in 1984, 1980, 1976, or 1972 until the convention or right before the convention.

    Yes, this is overreaction (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by sonya on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:00:48 PM EST
    Faux outrage to distract from Obama's very real problem of being unelectable.

    BTW (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:01:14 PM EST
    Lest anyone forget, Robert F. Kennedy JR ENDORSED HILLARY.  Maybe that's why he was on her mind.  Ted Kennedy endorsed the other guy, so why bring him up?

    See a Doctor BTD, You have caught CDS (5.00 / 8) (#124)
    by Richjo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:02:15 PM EST
    Her point was clear to any intelligent person listening- it is commonplace for a race to go on this long, to go on even longer in fact. She made two historical references to validate that point. Bill in 92 did not wrap up the nomination until June, and clearly Bobby Kennedy was campaining for the nomination in June when he was tragically killed. To read anything else into that statement is simply wrong and rather disgusting in fact. You owe Hillary an apology BTD. You have been a really force for good in this campaign and to see you behave this way is heartbreaking. Many of us have come to rely on your for sanity, sense, and intelligent analysis. This is a hack job worthy of NBC. Whoever kidnapped Josh Marshall must have gotten BTD too. The Clinton campaign should demand an apology from the Obama campaign for attempting to smear her in this way. This is unacceptable. It has been going on for too long and it has to stop.

    The collective insanity... (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by OrangeFur on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:04:21 PM EST
    ... of the O-blogs and some O-supporters is astonishing. How can we possibly come together when they're willing to think our candidate is hanging around in case something happens to Obama?

    It's incredibly obvious to me what Clinton was saying. Here's my example:

    What time of year did we take that vacation to Disneyland? It was in August--remember that we visited the Smiths, and their daughter Ann had just been born, and her birthday is in August.

    How do you know that the 1968 campaign went on so long? I sadly remember that RFK was assassinated just after winning the California primary, and the CA primary was held in June back then. (Just like it was in 1992, when Bill ran.)

    That the media and some Obama supporters is making a huge storm over this is despicable and scurrilous beyond words. It's the same thing that happened to John Kerry when he dropped a word from the punchline of his joke.

    Can (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:09:27 PM EST
    we all agree that this primary has been a travesty? Obama has been an extremely divisive candidate that has driven large swaths of the party away from him. The media is a joke. Our country is a disaster.

    The context is important (5.00 / 6) (#151)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:10:29 PM EST
    Asked about calls for her to drop out, Clinton said, "This is part of an ongoing effort to end this before it's over. I sure don't think it's over." She mentioned how non-frontrunners took their delegates to the convention in 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992. She then mentioned how her husband wrapped up in June of 1992 and that was also when Bobby Kennedy was assassinated, meaninng also in June.  

    I think this is an hysterical response to something taken out of context.  Infuriates me!!

    Not only overreacting (5.00 / 6) (#155)
    by Raven15 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:11:15 PM EST
    ...but also overlooking the Obama campaign's shameful exploitation of sympathy for the Kennedys.

    Hopefully (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:11:54 PM EST
    Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will come out with a statement this weekend.

    With any luck he'll do this and make Olbermann the salivating loser and the rest of the media look like the fools they are.

    This would be interesting. N/T (none / 0) (#163)
    by LoisInCo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:14:05 PM EST
    Are you serious? (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by katiebird on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:16:54 PM EST
    This is an issue?  Whenever I think of June and presidential elections I think of June 5th and Bobby Kennedy.  And the 2am (in Kansas) phone call from my uncle telling us about the shooting.

    (shaking my head)

    Was she supposed to mention 1968 (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by Kathy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:21:40 PM EST
    and leave out the assassination?  Then, the blogs would be all over her for implying the assassination.

    Ridiculous.  Clinton had the tightest security detail of any first lady during the second term.  She was triple-dutied at some public events because of the nature of the threats against her.  She knows what it is like to be married to a man in a job whose previous holders have been shot at or murdered in cold blood.  She has herself dealt with myriad death threats herself.

    Where was the outrage among the so-called progressives when KO said that Clinton should be taken into a room and only one person should come out? Sure, he had to apologize, but that was just a slap on the wrists.  He was calling for violence against a sitting United States senator.

    I think I have it figured out, because it's something I've dealt with all my life: because I'm strong and appear unflappable in public, no one thinks about defending me against crap because they assume I can take care of myself.

    Why do folks rush in to shield Obama?  They know he can't take care of himself.

    Hogwash (none / 0) (#200)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:27:30 PM EST
    The difference between your examples is that in one case you are talking about a sitting Senator running for President and the other you are talking about a buffoon talking head.  

    She shouldn't have used 1968.  1972 would have sufficed.  

    Then again in both cases the Democrats lost.  Perhaps she could reference the last time a floor fight yielded a winning candidate in the General Election.  Then again maybe she doesn't want to tie herself to Warren Harding.


    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by phat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:28:02 PM EST
    Obama didn't respond to the Time article.

    The New York Post didn't run anything either.

    Who moved this?

    Probably Obama. Why now? Who knows.

    It only works because the public seem to have forgotten how close the race in '68 was and how it wouldn't have been over if RFK had lived. Which was the argument being made.

    Who played this outrage card?


    What's less-than-balanced is (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by kempis on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:28:22 PM EST
    really thinking that Hillary intended to say "Hey, I'm in this thing at least through June. Ya know, RFK was assassinated in June and Obama-supporters think he's like RFK, so .... there ya go! I'm in!"

    Absolutely nuts. There is no way in hell she intended to convey that. And furthermore, many Obama-supporters who claim she did are just blowing smoke. They know better. Surely they know better.

    This is ridiculous... (5.00 / 4) (#208)
    by NWHiker on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:29:58 PM EST
    I was 3 when RFK was assassinated, so no first hand memories here, but from talking to people I get the impression that for someone of HRC's generation, thinking of long drawn out primary battles, her spouse's would come to mind, but so would RFK's.

    The next thing. Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, and they have a daughter. For the past 16/17 years, Hillary Clinton has probably feared, at some level, for her husband's and her daughter's lives. I refuse to think that she would EVER be wishing assassination on the Obama family. That just doesn't make sense.

    She might wish he'd take one of Bush's Mars flights, though.

    So yeah, totally blown up to create more faux-outrage.

    I'm so sick of these people and Obama, I'm finding myself hoping McCain wins so I don't have to listen to them for the next 4 years. Ugh.

    Remember (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by MonaL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:34:31 PM EST
    "I don't believe he's a Muslim"?

    This is just like that.  The over-analysis of what she meant by that was over-the-top.  This will pass soon enough.  She (and we) need to stay on message:

    1. she's won the popular vote
    2. seat FL & MI

    Otherwise, we'll get drowned out by the noise.  She needs to get some surrogates out on the different shows to make her case on the above, and poo-poo the over-reaction of Obama and his crowd as ridiculous.  That is from the Rove playbook.

    I am so dead tired (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by michellemarie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:37:46 PM EST
    of having to answer dumb Obamabots. Anyone with half a brain could see that she was talking about how it was unprecedented for the media to get her to drop out and that long nominating contests are not unusual.

    Guys, the less we pay attention, the more we will be able to move on to substantive issues.
    And hey, Clinton is back in the media spotlight.

    Yes, you went way overboard. (5.00 / 3) (#220)
    by masslib on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:38:21 PM EST
    I read the full comments and the statement from the Argus editorial board and this entire thing was just ridiculous.

    Insanity, bigotry, or stupidity (5.00 / 3) (#221)
    by Lacy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:38:56 PM EST
    When some people called for Hillary to fold her campaign last month, that it was extending too long, I remarked to my spouse that "Heck, Bobby Kennedy wasn't assassinated until June 1968".

    I said that because it is a time flag as to how long campaigns have persisted into an election year in the past. I don't even remember any other campaign time lines.

    And right now, MSNBC goof-balls are suggesting that HRC must have been talking about an Obama assassination because, otherwise...."Why didn't she say 1964 or some other year?"

    Well, why didn't I? Because I remember the day of RFK's death. Who the hell knows when LBJ had it wrapped up in 1964?!

    Can we not somehow muzzle these fools?

    Overreacting isn't the word I'm thinking of (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by kimsaw on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:47:19 PM EST
    sorry civility would not permit me my preference. Clinton sites a historical fact once again and she getting assaulted by the media once again and the foolishsphere. The only difference in her words now and in the Time article is timing of  Kennedy's medical news and the media's use of the Kennedy tragedies coupled with the nearing of the Dem convention.  

    Is it really a big surprise to anyone that Obama's campaign and its supporters are feigning their outrage? They have been willing to trash her with anything they can conjure up from those simple "words". If this is Obama's idea of new politics- I'm leaving the country and going to look for that island in the stream beyond the borders of his reality. There is madness afoot here and people have got to get a grip. Could the Obama campaign give Americans a list of acceptable words, phrases,and facts that we can use so they all won't be offended? Are we still in America? I'm thinking the mob mentality of foolishness has finally taken over common sense  even the sanest of places!

    No difference, really (5.00 / 2) (#228)
    by Lora on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:48:14 PM EST
    Hillary had mentioned RFK before.  I think at that time she figured she could not bring up RFK without somehow mentioning his assassination.  How to do it?

    She couldn't just say, "RFK was still in the primary race through June of 1968," and leave it at that.  His assassination would have loomed in the background and would undoubtedly have been discussed, taking away from the point she was trying to make.

    She certainly couldn't say, "RFK was still in the primary race through June of 1968.  Um, he was assassinated, you know."

    Her phrasing was very elegant and covered the problem of discussing RFK, the assassination, and of course, the obvious fact that the primary race ran into June:

    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.  

    This time, she said (my transcription from the video),

    You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992, until he won the California primary, em, somewhere in the middle of June.  We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June, in California.

    Clearly she was repeating what she'd said in her previous interview. The words are very close.  The only possibly significant difference was omitting the words "great tragedy."

    Now, she could have omitted discussing RFK at all, but why should she?  She was making a point and the fact of the 1968 primary running into June backs up her point.  She used "great tragedy" the first time.  Maybe she felt it was overdoing it and left it out on purpose, or maybe she just left it out accidentally.  But to leave out any mention of the assassination -- it would surely have been brought up later, so I believe she brought it up at the time to get it out there and not be looming or be fodder for speculation as to why she didn't mention it.  It would be like talking about JFK's trip to Dallas without mentioning his assassination.  You couldn't do it.

    Mentioning a Kennedy name (5.00 / 2) (#234)
    by christinep on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:08:43 PM EST
    This is almost insane...to carry on about a gifted Democrat holding Robert Kennedy's New York seat because she referenced a few examples of the primaries extending meaningfully into June. ( I remember very much the closeness of the 1968 race--the first in which I could vote--and the exhilaration followed by the horror of June 5th.) What is she (or we) supposed to do...expunge any mention of any important and tragic figure in our lifetime? I supported Robert Kennedy in 1968, voted for him in the Indiana primary, and waited with hope that he would win the California primary;then a blur of tears and watching his coffin transported and his funeral Mass. I remember it. And, when Hillary Clinton mentions that time, she does him no dishonor. To try to turn this on her--in my opinion--is one of the most dishonorable and disgusting displays of hypocrisy that I have yet witnessed in this campaign. How dare you take anything and everything she says and try to turn it into something that at any other time (non-campaign)would be considered acceptable and accurate. This whole "uproar" demonstrates that it may not be McCain that has "lost his bearings." Perhaps, we all need a primer on Chicago-style politics.

    I am an Obama supporter... (5.00 / 2) (#237)
    by NvlAv8r on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:23:47 PM EST
    But I don't think it was that big a deal.  Really, both times she probably shouldn't have brought it up (because it is a touchy subject, and I don't think it was apropos, either time), but this is one of those things that the media is making too big a deal of.

    Must be a slow news day on the political front.

    Comments now closed (5.00 / 2) (#240)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:43:16 PM EST
    I put up my own thread on Hillary's statement. I agree with Weltec 2 above who said,

    This is a non-issue. It is not worthy of TL. It does not deserve to be a thread. It does not deserve the time that is being wasted here to argue with people who want to argue over non-issues. Seriously people. By discussing this, we are legitimizing something that has no substance. It's like Gore's dog medication and all the other great non-issues that the right just loves to wring their hands over. Enough of this. Let's move on to another thread.

    My new thread will be the last thread about this. It's a non-issue. We will move on.

    BTW (4.70 / 10) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:38:16 PM EST
    If the analogy to Kennedy were direct, HILLARY IS KENNEDY.

    Humphrey was the front runner in 1968 -- with the help of Mayor Daley. Kennedy was closing in.

    Exactly right T-snow (none / 0) (#64)
    by DFLer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:44:14 PM EST
    and therefore assasination comparisons would have Clinton in the gun sight, not Obama.

    Senator Kennedy's medical condition and (4.00 / 4) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:22:49 PM EST

    I agree (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by DEM on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:26:20 PM EST
    Just as HRC herself said, the Kennedys are on our minds, so it seemed... yuckier.  Perhaps?

    Also, I think, we all heard about this first from the NY Post which did a faaabulous {snark} job making it sound as horrific as they could manage.  I'd bet good money that 8 out of 10 blog-readers do not know that she also mentioned 1980 and 1984.


    i hope and pray that whining (4.00 / 4) (#44)
    by hellothere on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:37:54 PM EST
    self involved man loses the election.

    The setting was very different. (3.66 / 3) (#20)
    by sweetthings on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:28:59 PM EST
    If you recall, BTD, back in March even you were convinced Hillary had the nomination sewn up. And you're an Obama supporter!

    Now, Hillary is in a very, very tight spot regarding the nomination. Yes, she can still win, but her options are more limited ever day. This means she has much less room to maneuver...back in March, she could afford mistakes. Right now, not so much.

    Obviously, (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:33:06 PM EST
    Obama is also in a tight spot, ot you wouldn't be here.  :)

    Of course. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by sweetthings on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:38:26 PM EST
    The longer the contest goes on, the hotter the pressure cooker gets for both candidates. Obama is not immune to this effect; he can't afford mistakes either, though he probably has a little more wiggle room than Hillary, by virtue of his media darling status if nothing else.

    Yes, of course, sweetthings. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:43:26 PM EST
    I didn't hear any outrage from his followers when in the course of one day, during 2 different speeches on Iran he invoked 2 different strategies! That Fla and Mi votes are in limbo, where's the outrage! That Teddy invoked JFK's name when endorsing Obama people didn't shriek and say Oh My God! JFK was assassinated in office. Could this happen to another president...where was the outrage!!!!!  

    The presidency (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:45:25 PM EST
    is a pressure-cooker for most presidents.

    Bush has been the exception.

    She won't blow her top.  Obama?

    Not enough info.


    apparently the time magazine (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by english teacher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:37:16 PM EST
    reporter didn't think she had it sewn up in march, lest s/he would not have asked clinton to explain her rationale for staying in.  your "context" baloney doesn't pass the smell test.

    BTD was convinced HilIary had it sewn up? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:44:54 PM EST
    In March of this year, right after she had lost all those February primaries? Really?

    Yes and No (3.50 / 2) (#113)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:59:48 PM EST
    It was a careless, stupid and insensitive remark to make, largely because it was unnecessary.  She could have made the point a dozen different ways without making it so tastelessly and opening herself up for criticism.  That said, I really think it was nothing more than a misstatement and her qualified apology was sufficient.  For me.

    That said, I do think it presents an interesting exercise.  Imagine if Senator Obama made such a remark, if the roles were reversed.  What do you think the reaction would be by Clinton supporters?  By commenters here at Talk Left?  While this is somewhat rhetorical, as Obama has been heavily criticized for far less inflammatory remarks on this site (I can imagine the commenters using such a gaffe as an example of his inexperience, that he is not ready for primetime, that he is an evil mysoginist, etc...), I do think that the one lesson we can all take from this is that our candidates are flawed people who will make mistakes.  As supporters, we really do a terrible disservice to our candidates, ourselves and our system of government when we continue to play gotcha politics.

    But remember (none / 0) (#123)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:02:02 PM EST
    Obama really does look down on some voters.

    If Obama said the same thing (none / 0) (#127)
    by Exeter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:02:41 PM EST
    it would not be offensive. Why? Because people that hate Hillary project venom into everything Hillary says.

    It's a 2 way street (1.00 / 1) (#139)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:06:52 PM EST
    Rabid Hillary supporters project the worst into everything Obama says.  As Armando has correctly pointed out, this is politics and hypocrisy runs rampant (the latter is my opinion, the former is Armando's).

    Nutpicking (1.00 / 1) (#162)
    by rilkefan on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:14:00 PM EST
    vs jaw-dropping big media bias.  No comparison.

    Imagine seriously (none / 0) (#133)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:04:39 PM EST
     take the topic you are raising and enter in to the realm of policy.  I suppose we have the media bouncing all over this and Obama's set the dogs on her for talking.

    Suppose he were assassinated?

    America would burn and you'd have race riots.

    But no one is willing to think seriously of course.


    What about the earlier formulation? (none / 0) (#137)
    by rilkefan on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:06:09 PM EST
    That's the subject of the thread, not hypothetical tu quoques which would play better if the Obama campaign hadn't been profiting from blatant misreadings of benign Clinton comments for the entire campaign.

    Say what? (3.00 / 2) (#225)
    by suzyqueue on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:43:58 PM EST
    She was tone deaf.  Nothing more. She should never say it again, though. I can't believe she's said it before. But she was emphasizing the June part, not the assassination part.  She also needs to get more sleep.  I love you Hillary, but, in making your case for not dropping out, find another reference to a June primary that doesn't involve a charismatic senator's death.

    The Comment Was Weird (2.00 / 5) (#226)
    by myopinions on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:44:54 PM EST
    It's not offensive to me. I don't think she was trying to suggest that Obama would or might or should be assassinated. I think she mentioned it as a time-line marker. But there are a couple of problems.

    First off, using something so traumatic for yardstick purposes is just plain odd. How often do people do that? It would be as I said, when wanting to mention July 1994, "It was in the middle of the month, when O.J. Simpson's wife and boyfriend got murdered."

    It comes across as the equivalent of Dan Rather's "Kenneth, what's the frequency?" moment. It plays into a sense that she's, well, maybe not quite all there.

    Secondly, her doing it twice puts the lie to her explanation about the Kennedys having been on her mind. And you know what that brings up? Yeah, you got it: the Bosnia story. Why the lie? And the explanation, by the way, was a classic non-apology. You know, the old "if anyone was offended ..." line.

    Between this, Bill Clinton's public lobbying to make her Obama's running mate, and her having equated seating Florida and Michigan with the discovery of America and the invention of electricity, Sen. Clinton has hurt herself pretty badly.

    I'd better not say I admire her, or I will be a trained brownshirt, right?

    There's no there there (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Sunshine on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:47:09 PM EST
    Roll the dice, fairy tale, now RFK was still campaigning in June....   How terrible, all excuses to spin a false story...  Here we go again, next she'll be claiming to have invented the internet....

    interpretation... (1.00 / 5) (#94)
    by noodles on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:54:16 PM EST
    I hope some screwball doesn't  interpret Hilary's statement as a hint or suggestion that her supporters take matters into their own hands.

    given the people that have (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:00:29 PM EST
    done these sorts of acts before, communists like Oswald, or fringe merchants like Sirhan Sirhan or the guy that capped Rabin:

    a set of stodgy centrists

    The likely hood that her support would do it is absurd. you should be ashamed of yourself.

    It's more likely that a madman from a Nazi group or a jilted leftist would it.


    agreed (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by noodles on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:12:37 PM EST
    RE: "It's more likely that a madman from a Nazi group or a jilted leftist would it. "

    I'm thinking more along the lines of some goofball like the movie Taxi Driver not your average person.


    weren't you banned (1.00 / 1) (#144)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:08:58 PM EST
    as noodles noodlemann?  The tone of your comment is very familiar.

    huh? (none / 0) (#176)
    by noodles on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:18:50 PM EST
    No, I've never been banned. I rarely post here. I've never had a login as "noodleman" or perhaps this is just your passive-aggressive manner of saying you don't like my post?

    I wasn't in the least (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:24:41 PM EST
    passive-aggressive.  No, I didn't like your comment.  Why else would I have referenced a tone that got someone banned?  It was a ridiculous reference suggestion that her supporters take matters into their own hands. Yeah, right.

    y'mean like (none / 0) (#106)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:57:49 PM EST
    Since it seems only Obama (none / 0) (#195)
    by Valhalla on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:25:54 PM EST
    supporters are taking her statement as encouragement to do Obama violence, then I don't think we have to worry.

    I think most people wonder (1.00 / 3) (#103)
    by dem08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:57:08 PM EST
    about assassinations.

    Two Obserbations:

    1. EVERYTHING gets over-reacted to on the Internet;


    2. Without thinking Hillary was a terrible person, I thought she was wondering out loud how anyone could assume something bad will never happen again, and that she was asking "what happens if Obama gets shot like RFK?" I honestly thought that was what she meant.

    Perhaps nobody should speculate about assassinations, but she is hardly the first to wonder if some nut is out there waiting to get famous by attempting to kill someone, and hardly the first to suggest that Obama is the most likely person to draw such an attempt because there are racists in this and every known country.

    I've recently admired Hillary's ability (1.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Newt on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:07:27 PM EST
    to communicate, her inflection, her choice of words, her absolutely brilliant precision.  After reading comments here at talkleft for the past few weeks, I was convinced that she wouldn't make the kinds of gaffes Obama seems to keep doing.  I'm still convinced of that.  She's way too smart to make this kind of mistake.  

    Let's look at it from many Obama supporters' point of view, which is that 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.

    This is (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:10:57 PM EST
    the kind of reaction that doesn't help Obama.

    I have admired Hillary's ability to (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:14:55 PM EST
    I don't see how this could be the coup de grace for Hillary's end.  Anyone who supports Hillary would recognize this for what it is - a political overresponse to something innocently said and taken out of context.    

    LOL (5.00 / 0) (#203)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:28:35 PM EST
    If all you're doing is showing that Obama supporters know how to string together a bunch of unrelated events to whip outrage over something Clinton said, c'mon, that really went without saying.

    We know.

    We know.


    The potential for (none / 0) (#168)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:15:36 PM EST
    massive riots and the resultant property damage and enormous loss of life that would result from him being assassinated should be a dampener on that sort of mongering. the powers that be are comfortable with obama right now.

    Hal Turner fringe merchants might relish the oportunity though.  This is almost a perfedt scenario for their brand of race war madness.


    Yep, part of the training (none / 0) (#213)
    by Raven15 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:33:27 PM EST
    Agree that no one said anything the first time in (1.00 / 1) (#142)
    by ksh on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:08:38 PM EST
    Time Magazine....perhaps the fact that she said it again almost exactly made it seem intentional.

    She says it. . . (5.00 / 4) (#166)
    by Bellarose on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:14:20 PM EST
    . . . because it goes to her argument.

    Historically, campaigns have gone into June.  If RFK hadn't been assassinated, his campaign would have gone on even longer.

    I have to give CNN credit here as they are now showing the entire exchange and not just a snippet of it.  

    There was no evil intent here.  


    Except whoever it is filling in for Dobbs... (5.00 / 0) (#197)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:26:59 PM EST
    I don't remember her exact quote but they completely made up the meaning of Hillary's statement before even playing it, saying that she was invoking the potential assassination of Obama or some such.  I almost broke my TV, and I'm not even in the same room as it!

    The difference is (1.00 / 3) (#191)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:24:30 PM EST
    that in March the race was still very much in doubt.

     The context of the interview was different as well.  The interviewer was asking about whether the party elders would step in to appoint SOMEONE and she responded no because it isn't uncommon for the race to last until June.  So the RFK reference was simply to point out that the race commonly runs until June.

     In the context of today's interview she is being asked why she shouldn't drop out now.  In this instance she uses the RFK assassination as an example of unforeseen events changing the dynamic.

     Thus in the former example RFK's assassination was ancillary to her point but in the latter it was much more central to her point, albeit her point being about unforeseen events rather than politician's getting assassinated.

    You guys are hilarious (none / 0) (#218)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:37:41 PM EST
    Oohh I don't like what you said so I'm going to low rate you.

    My post was a direct response to the query by BTD.  You may not agree with me but that doesn't mean it should be troll rated.


    What is it with the bullying and name calling,,, (1.00 / 1) (#199)
    by lama amal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:27:22 PM EST
    on this site that brings people to somehow think they are in the right?  

    If this has indeed been refuted, be generous and show me where.  Not so much to ask I would think.

    And while we're on the facts, let's examine that '68 race a bit more closely.  There were myriad reasons why that primary was close in June, not the least of which is that Kennedy did not get into the race until March 31st.  That's March 31, 1968.  Now how many in class were surprised by this little bit o' knowledge; raise your hands.

    Or do the facts get in the way of the meme?

    Ah, I See (1.00 / 3) (#209)
    by myopinions on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:30:17 PM EST
    If you think it's time for her to pack it in, then you're a brownshirt who has been trained. Well, look, not that you'll believe me, but I actually maxed out for her: $4,600. But she has lost, and she is not playing a good endgame.

    If nothing else, I really do think she needs some rest. Hillary Clinton has been saying some crazy things this week. She ought to take the weekend off before we all wake up and find out that she was endorsed by the space alien who landed at Roswell in 1947 or something.

    Seriously, though. The woman's been pushing herself too hard. Obama took a vacation in April. She can take a few days off too.

    Clinton put her foot in her mouth on her own. (1.00 / 3) (#231)
    by 1jane on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:03:07 PM EST
    The press reported she made a serious misjudgement because she did. She made a sincere apology for her tasteless remark. No one orchastrated anything. Clinton put herself on defense. She, and she alone, did this to herself and her own campaign and she knows she did. She looked totally regretful on the video.

    America has a free press last I heard so they get to discuss, wonder aloud and attempt to understand what might have happened. Many in the press have sympathetically described Hillary as tired.

    Unfortunately, some superdelegates may say enough is enough and make a move to Obama. Democrats get real testy about the Kennedy family. Some supporters will wonder why Hillary is so tone deaf on the week of the very sad news that Ted Kennedy has a brain tumor that will end his life.

    When my husband, who is not the least interested in politics called me from work to tell me about the remark, I knew then Hillary's inartful comment was going to continue on to next week and longer.

    Hillary typically does not admit she is wrong, even in the face of ample evidence..this time she sabotaged herself.

    Not overreacting, but sad (1.00 / 4) (#232)
    by sfbayani on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:07:10 PM EST

    Clintonites may pass this comment as really, unintentional. Which it was, I guess.
    But surely, it was stupid, graceless and does not speak very well of a president, much more, a leader of the free world - that is, if she gets the nom.
    I am really disappointed and sorry for Hillary to have gone down to this level of embarassment and stupidity.

    The remark was unacceptable (1.00 / 5) (#235)
    by 1jane on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:14:21 PM EST
    and Hillary knew it to be true, otherwise whe would not have made her hasty apology.

    Yes!! (none / 0) (#3)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:24:18 PM EST
    Thank you.

    It's almost June... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Addison on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:27:15 PM EST

    Which is to say... (3.25 / 4) (#29)
    by Addison on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:33:32 PM EST
    ...that back in early March Hillary still had a chance to win. After a grueling February she was nevertheless still very much in it, and so the quotes reads as a time issue.

    Now we're almost in June, and Obama is virtually assured of the nomination no matter how long it goes on, so the time issue isn't so relevant anymore. Unless, something happens to Obama. Hence the increased sensitivity.

    The fact that Obama is the generally presumed nominee means that the "time" issue is less applicable to the current situation than the "shot in June" issue.


    He is not the nominee. (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:41:27 PM EST
    He doesn't have the votes.

    We're going to the convention...


    I Want a Blow Out Convention (1.00 / 1) (#126)
    by kaleidescope on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:02:30 PM EST
    Though I'm an Obama supporter, I hope the Clinton campaign takes it to the convention.  I want a bloody fight on the floor with votes and re-votes and fifth and sixth ballots.  I'm tired of boring coronation ceremonies.

    I want Clinton and Obama supporters fighting it out with each other in the streets.

    I love the smell of teargas in the morning.  It smells like, victory.


    just curious (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by DFLer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:12:17 PM EST
    Have you ever been tear-gassed, K?

    Yes n/t (none / 0) (#198)
    by kaleidescope on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:27:17 PM EST
    I'm glad I'm not the only one (none / 0) (#187)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:23:13 PM EST
    that thinks taking it all the way to the convention sounds like fun.

    Tear gas? (none / 0) (#210)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:30:23 PM EST
    Plenty of big talkers in the "Free Speech Zone" country.

    Thanks, George.  Worst President Ever.

    BTW, both candidates benefit, in case you're trying to say otherwise.


    stick to worm (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by english teacher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:53:23 PM EST
    your effort at wcrm falls short.

    We're not talking about what Clinton meant... (1.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Addison on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:16:01 PM EST
    ...we're talking about the changing context of the race.

    Your comment is irrelevant.


    coming from you that's rich (none / 0) (#224)
    by english teacher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:43:46 PM EST
    too funny.  your comment is irrelevant.  she said the same thing today she said three months ago.  why is the context different?  obama needs a distraction and another cheap shot at hillary.  if it was egregious today, it was egregious in march.  just say you didn't know about the march comment.  at least pretend to have some intellectual integrity.

    Are we overly sensitive (none / 0) (#14)
    by 0 politico on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:27:15 PM EST
    due to the current condition of Senator Kennedy, or are we just getting more touchy after this long (but not overly so) primary season?

    Was anything she said this time around inaccurate, or did it simply come out sounding a bit "off" to you?

    YES WE ARE !! (none / 0) (#24)
    by Mrwirez on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:31:05 PM EST

    I wonder if the Time Magazine interview (none / 0) (#42)
    by stillife on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:37:52 PM EST
    will be mentioned by the MSM, to keep the story in context.  I'm not holding my breath.

    Breath in now, please (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by DFLer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:49:42 PM EST
    because the idea that the MSM would mention the Time's story supposes that they do actual-factual research, as opposed to reaction-action-abstraction.

    Reporter on NBC said Hillary has said this before, (none / 0) (#56)
    by jawbone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:41:18 PM EST
    but made it sound as if somehow it were different today, somehow worse. Sheesh.

    In all sincerity, BTD ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:41:59 PM EST
    I am heavily influenced by your opinion on just about everything you write about. But I have to say that I couldn't quite muster the indignation that you had on this particular one.

    For me, the earlier quote washes away whatever stain the current one might be supposed to carry rather than the reverse.

    I watched the video (5.00 / 6) (#83)
    by lentinel on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:50:23 PM EST
    I thought I was watching someone truly intelligent. I was watching someone reliving an era. I saw someone speaking honestly.
    I wished that this person were the President.

    Watching it, I didn't feel any kind of twinge.
    Obviously, neither did the interviewer.
    He reacted to the meaning of what she said.

    People are really on the brink if they're going to get all huffy and puffy about this.

    I just don't get what is going on - but it feels like we really are on the brink of some kind of fascism.


    We are on the brink of a new Nixon. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:56:14 PM EST
    If the analogy to 68 holds any water.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by kaleidescope on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:05:11 PM EST
    McCain is much dumber than Nixon.

    He appears that way (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by Salo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:10:00 PM EST
    because voters like a guy who hides his intellect.

    She's getting murdered because she knows her history.


    The more I think about it (none / 0) (#98)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:55:03 PM EST
    The use of "we" as the pronoun in this post is very telling.

    Sad.  And telling.

    Why Obama-ites are in a dither... (none / 0) (#99)
    by chopper on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:55:34 PM EST

    Hillary made a simple statement based on facts in answer to the question of why she is still campaigning.

    Of course, the simple answer is that she's leading in the people's votes and in the electoral votes.  It would be stupid to quit when she is ahead.

    But, some people aren't satisfied with that, therefore she has to elaborate. So, she stated a couple more facts - Bill Clinton wasn't nominated until June, and Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June while campaigning. Simply, more reason she shouldn't quit.

    However, I think the Obama followers are in a dither because they read about Bin Laden, Al Queda,  Muslim tradition, and Obama over at www.noquarterusa.com.  It was something like if your father is Muslim you are considered to be a Muslim, and if you leave Islam to are a traitor and subject to death. Go there to read the entire article.

    Ya think? (none / 0) (#104)
    by Raven15 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:57:15 PM EST

    Hillary is passionate, and has a sense (none / 0) (#130)
    by MarkL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:04:11 PM EST
    of her place in history; of the enormous stakes of this year's race; and of the real risks.
    I don't fault her for this.
    I wish Obama were half as passionate as Hillary---he would be an excellent candidate in that case.

    Not her (none / 0) (#182)
    by sarahfdavis on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:20:23 PM EST
    the people that hate her are the imbalanced ones.
    the bile that is allowed by the O camp is deranged.
    and thanks for the utterly fake concern.

    Obama was not (none / 0) (#193)
    by kayla on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:24:53 PM EST
    the likely presumptive nominee then.  He wasn't as close, people weren't as excited about his chances.  Now the word "assassination" in this campaign is all the more sensitive.

    Mark Shields on NewsHour going crazy about (none / 0) (#222)
    by jawbone on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:42:28 PM EST
    what Hillary said: Utterly reckless! For once, Bobo is making absolute sense. Brooks said that Obama actually said to the the Jewish audience that he likes those Woody Allen movies. Okaay.

    Shields: Statement she has to be held accountable for. Bcz everyone knows that Obama was given Secret Service protection earlier than any other candidate, that people "hold their breath" when he plunges into a crowd.


    Mark Shields has not been a good Dem spokesperson/analyst on NewsHour for a good while now, but this is just part of the CDS among the MCMers. Can't go wrong dissing a Clinton.

    suzy, (none / 0) (#229)
    by pie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:48:27 PM EST
    get some sleep.

    He's been dead a long time.

    We're in the here and now.

    I'm so tired of that stuff. (none / 0) (#230)
    by TheRealFrank on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:02:52 PM EST
    Two words: "botched joke".

    Shame on people who take a perfectly reasonable statement and distort it for political gain.

    I hate that part of politics.

    I've been googling for awhile now... (none / 0) (#233)
    by Y Knot on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:07:27 PM EST
    And I don't see any outrage coming from the Obama camp.   The stories I've seen seem to have the same quotes from his campaign.  They're all much like this:


    Words like "unfortunate," "careless," "no place in this campaign..."  

    I can't find anywhere where Obama himself addresses it.  Overall, I think their reaction has been appropriate. (At least, so far)  So, I don't understand why people are assuming the worst from them.

    Obama's not behind this.  This is just another case of someone in the public eye, offhandedly saying something stupid, tasteless or surprising which the media is trying to stir up a controversy for the sake of ratings.   In the end, it affects nothing.

    Its just more noise.  Ignore it.

    non-issue (none / 0) (#238)
    by weltec2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:36:32 PM EST
    This is a non-issue. It is not worthy of TL. It does not deserve to be a thread. It does not deserve the time that is being wasted here to argue with people who want to argue over non-issues. Seriously people. By discussing this, we are legitimizing something that has no substance. It's like Gore's dog medication and all the other great non-issues that the right just loves to wring their hands over. Enough of this. Let's move on to another thread.

    Should have been phrased it better (none / 0) (#239)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:41:09 PM EST
    I thought it could have been an over-reaction by the Obama supporters too but the fact that Hillary has made this reference before does make it seem a tad egregious. The reason is because the only real memory of RFK for most people wasn't that he was in a long drawn out primary.
    I know that other primaries have carried on into June. She could have mentioned 1980 between Carter and Ted Kennedy, which has echoes of this primary.

    How could she give them more ammo? (none / 0) (#241)
    by sotonightthatimightsee on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:50:12 PM EST
    I'm just at a loss for words right now! I know Hillary meant no disrespect to the Kennedy or that clown Obama, but his supporters, i.e MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post, Chris Matthews,  etc, will have a field day with this gaffe. This may very well be the break the Obama nation and the biased Media were waiting for. They will use this to discredit Hillary and completely force her out of the race. Why did she say that? We know what she meant, but she knew something like this could be taken out of context.

    I'm disappointed, I'm hurt, I'm sad that her last chance may have just slipped by! Jesus!! When you're down in the fourth quater of a basketball match, you don't give up 3's or foul your opponent and put them at the free throw line..this is what she did!!!

    I love Hillary and respect her- and also know she's not the monster that clown Eugene something from the Washington Post tried to make her out to be. His bias has been pretty evident. People like that makes me sick! I guess "brothas" gotta stick together, but to demonize a good, honest person like Hillary?!?! Anyway, I'm just said and disappointed!

    Olberman is losing his mind right on TV (none / 0) (#242)
    by Bob Boardman on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:58:44 PM EST
    It's the end of the world as we know it....

    What is happening to journalism in this country?

    Less than balanced??? (none / 0) (#243)
    by suki on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:58:59 PM EST
    One could say the same thing about your comment.
    Giving up her dignity? Somehow I doubt you've been a 'long time' admirer.
    What's tragic to me is what's happened to the Democratic party throughout this primary.
    I'm so sick of all of this.

    Comment rating mistake (none / 0) (#244)
    by just victory on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:03:21 PM EST
    Sorry. Gave a 5 when I meant to give a 1.

    Faux outrage (none / 0) (#245)
    by margph on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:18:16 PM EST
    Trying to assign intent to a comment is a guessing game.  Trying to twist the words so they make the person who said them either "good" or "bad" is rationalization for an already held bias.  Pretending that you know what she meant subconsciously is....blah, blah, blah.

    Fact is, the woman spoke and interested parties took the opportunity and pounced.  Nothing new here.  To blow this out of proportion can only be looked on as a excuse to lambast a candidate the writer doesn't like.

    Eureka !!! For once it isn't a discussion about race or gender !!

    This outrage seems like it may be a... (none / 0) (#246)
    by Chesserct on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:21:02 PM EST
    pre-planned response to me. Perhaps someone in Obama's camp goes over all her speeches in detail, and notes statements that could be turned around on her, kind of like a football coach reviewing tapes of opposing team's game's. The statement may have been marked as a "missed opportunity" or a possible opening the first time it was used, and a forceful response was planned if she made the mistake of using it again. Then, when she used it again the response was immediate.

    I really wonder how this "Gotcha" strategy and painting the opponent as a racist will work against McCain.

    Re: Missing it March and now. (none / 0) (#247)
    by ctrenta on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:34:30 PM EST

    BTD writes

    "apparently no one else did either. Why now?"

    I wish we were asking the same things back in '03 just before we occupied Iraq.

    The press missed it back the and they missed it in March as well. Go back and chack out the top news stories when this was published and maybe that might indicate why the press missed it.

    I'm an Obamabot too :^) but I agree (none / 0) (#248)
    by Get 27 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:36:59 PM EST
    Hillary was making a time reference. It was a clumsy reference, and a gaffe. I am not outraged, and I think we can see that the media is overreacting.

    The media is pushing this one. I even caught a clip of Axelrod downplaying it, and leaving it alone. Of course, he doesn't need to say anything with Olberman and Co. running on about it.

    Are we to assume that everything negative (none / 0) (#250)
    by Get 27 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:44:30 PM EST
    the media grabs onto originates from somewhere in the opposition's camp? I don't point the finger at Clinton for Reverend Wright crap. Sean Hannity was the guy that was screaming about Rev. Wright for months before it hit in a big way.

    I will say it again, the media are making a big deal out of this RFK statement. It is not coming from the Obama camp.