RFK, Jr. On Hillary's Remarks


“I’ve heard her make that argument before,” Mr. Kennedy said, speaking on his cell phone as he drove to the family compound in Hyannis for the holiday weekend. “It sounds like she was invoking a familiar historical circumstance in support of her argument for continuing her campaign.” . . . [H]is support of Mrs. Clinton has not wavered.

More from RFK, Jr.:

I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband's 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June. I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."

Update (TL) below:

From Eriposte at Left Coaster, The Fake Outrage Machine:

Here are some comments from other bloggers on this episode.

Vastleft at Correntewire: This is the end of the innocence

Frenchdoc at Correntewire: Lies and the Lying Liars

Lambert at Correntewire: RFK Jr's Statement

Jeralyn at Talkleft: Making Mountains out of Molehills

Susie Madrak at Suburban Guerilla: Sucker Punch

Likelihood Zero at MyDD: Fake outrage and republican-like behavior

Riverdaughter at The Confluence: RFK and the 1968 primary - she ends with:

The reaction of the Obamasphere and the media is totally indefensible. The HuffingtonPost is taking a very matter-of-fact discussion of primary history and twisting it into a vile insinuation that Hillary can’t wait until someone takes Obama out. It is time they stopped behaving like the Orwellians during a two minutes hate.

The Confluence would like to encourage Clinton to hang in there. Make it clear that you aren’t going before the primaries end, Florida and Michigan are seated with restored influence for the convention and every voter has spoken. We are losing patience with the media’s and oppositions efforts to force Clinton out of the race by creating scandalous and false accusations. The shame barrier has been crossed in a major way today and it is hardening our resolve.

I agree entirely.

< Making Mountains Out of Molehills | Newsweek Poll: Clinton Beats McCain, Obama Tied >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    A voice of reason (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by ruffian on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:52:47 PM EST
    Thanks for posting that BTD.

    What happens now? (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:50:12 AM EST
    Who feels sick? By sick, I mean like irrevocable damage has been done, and it's going to get worse. We have a long-weekend news cycle ahead for this monstrous thing to metastisize.

    Somebody deliberately unleashed this tsunami of hate on Senator Clinton today. I want to know who first twisted her simple RFK comment into a threat on Obama's life. Who?

    Who could not foresee that we now have hundreds of thousands of enraged Obama supporters who think Senator Clinton is responsible for planting an idea about assassinating Obama? Could anybody not foresee that Senator Clinton would become the direct object of that rage?

    Does anybody doubt how at-risk Hillary must feel tonight? Not for her political future, but for her life itself.

    Where is the outrage about the threat that Senator Clinton will continue to face throughout this nomination process, on through the election, and beyond? Would any one of us want to be in her shoes at her next public rally? I think not.

    Somebody spun this unspeakable thing. We need to take a very long look here at who was the intended victim and who was the intended beneficiary. The question answers itself. Yet that answer will not be forthcoming from the likes of the Kos or TPM or the MSM pundits. No, they'll put Hillary on the receiving end of an Orwellian, full-bore hate week.

    The only person who can put a stop to this madness is BARACK OBAMA and it needs to happen before the sun sets on another day.


    Sorry, I didn't know that comments were disallowed until I looked closely at comment #28. Truly sorry.

    Started at the New York Post (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CCinNC on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:33:24 AM EST
    per the NY Times:

    "Mrs. Clinton's remarks were initially reported online by The New York Post, whose reporters were not traveling with the Clinton campaign but were instead watching a live video feed of the meeting with newspaper editors. Its report quickly jumped to the Drudge Report, then whipped around the Internet and on television, with outraged comments piling up on Web sites."


    ahh Drudge - Obamamites main source (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by Josey on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:00:14 AM EST
    and Obama did his part by purposely interpreting Hillary's comments in the worst possible way to benefit himself.

    We've seen these Rovian tactics before - to distract from a Bush flip flop, gaffe, negative news, etc.
    And surely Obama wanted the public to focus on Hillary - rather than his flip flop on Cuba's embargo and his changing positions on Iran and his ongoing conflict with McCain.

    This is the last straw for me! Obama is just too REACTIONARY! to get my vote.
    Think of the reputations and careers he could destroy in his powerful position as president!


    i won't be voting for obama. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by hellothere on Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:07:58 AM EST
    i'll write in hillary's name. i'll support the local democrats. i have to say some of their blue dog tendencies disappoints me. they'd better get past the idea that long term we will continue to support anything but a repub. we are taking a good look at "just what have you done for us". i have never been a supporter of third parties till now. with what i have seen, i am wondering.

    you know with the amount of hatred (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by hellothere on Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:19:16 AM EST
    and sexism spun out of control in this campaign, if i were in the clinton campaign, i'd be worried about her safety. why don't we look at that? this whole thing is also dangerous for the welfare of the country. the obama campaign needs to be quelling it and distancing from it rather than trying to use it to end the hillary challenge.

    Don't hold your breath (none / 0) (#129)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:07:45 PM EST
    Obama will say nothing to stop this.

    If he thinks he'll be a beneficiary he'll say nothing.  It's his story from the start.

    Utterly despicable.


    Looks Like Many People Have Jumped The (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:16:05 PM EST
    gun.  They may not want to believe Hillary, but I
    am sure they will believe RFK, Jr.

    The first response I saw to RFK Jr's remark (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by andrys on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:29:08 AM EST
    was that certainly we must remember which candidate he supports.  

      Typical, isn't it.  The writer wouldn't care WHY his namesake is supporting Hillary.

      Since I saw that, I've seen tons of hysterical remarks about Clinton having done a call-out for someone to shoot Obama.

      This is really, really crazy stuff.  And very sad too.


    I got that response from someone (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by nycstray on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:48:15 AM EST
    I know when I posted this on another forum. Now I knew he was in the tank for O, but still . . .

    I would have preferred it from an anon poster :(


    for the past year, Obama blogs (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Josey on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:03:26 AM EST
    have been filled with rec'd comments suggesting physical threats to Hillary!
    No problem. It's just Hillary. move along...

    Warning: HuffPo weighs in on RFK (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:39:13 AM EST
    We have this from David Rees: Journey To The Center Of Hillary Clinton's Mind: "Why Would I Drop Out Before Barack Obama Is Assassinated?"

    How's that for putting a fine point on it?


    frikkem (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Salo on Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:38:10 AM EST
    last straw.

    This wil be no way to govern.


    Thank you Shannon (none / 0) (#73)
    by teachermom on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:09:49 AM EST
    for watching KO and abc and reading the hupo & other blogs -- I can't stand to!  I worry that I'm in my own little bubble because I am no longer the political news junkie (except for here!) I used to be. Obviously the mainstream wants O to be the candidate, because he is getting a pass on so much -- for now.

    rfk, jr. (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by DefenderOfPants on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:16:38 PM EST
    to me, RFK, Jr.'s endorsement is one of the few that matter. likewise, his opinion on this supposed gaffe.

    thank you RFK Jr (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by bjorn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:22:50 PM EST
    I think if RFK Jr takes no offense, no one else needs to fret about it either

    Seems to me people weren't offended by - (none / 0) (#44)
    by minordomo on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:07:51 AM EST
    - the possibility that the Kennedy family would be offended, but by the implication (regardless of whether it was intended or not) that she is hanging on in case Obama gets assassinated. That really doesn't have anything to do with how RFK Jr. feels about it. It's good to know that he isn't offended, sure, but it's somewhat beside the point.

    I'd like to add, though: I'm an Obama supporter, and I think this thing is completely blown out of proportion. I don't think she meant it in that way and was simply citing historical precedents (though the RFK one doesn't fly - that primary didn't start until March, not January; when did the 1992 primary process start?). I thought the same about the beating Obama got over "Bittergate" and Michelle Obama's "really proud of my country" remarks - things were completely blown out of proportion, and the person in question was not given a chance to explain / adjust / correct their words. The result: a boatload of egg on their face.

    I don't think it's necessarily due to some massive media conspiracy as such, however. It's more to do with the low quality of journalism and political discourse in general.


    Actually (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:11:02 AM EST
    considering the fact that Axelrod is trying to walk this back he obviously sees it as damaging Obama. Obama looks like a silly ninny. Who wants a silly ninny running the country?

    Seriously... (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:23:08 AM EST
    Overly excitable.

    This kind of behavior is right up there with people who see Christ's image on their breakfast toast.


    Their response was pretty low-key as is. n/t (none / 0) (#49)
    by minordomo on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:18:20 AM EST

    Where? (none / 0) (#54)
    by tnjen on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:34:11 AM EST
    Where is Axelrod walking this back?

    hardball (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:36:27 AM EST
    Ah, thanks (none / 0) (#57)
    by tnjen on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:39:12 AM EST
    I'll have to look for a transcript. :)

    Clearly, this has been blown out of proportion (none / 0) (#95)
    by ItsGreg on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:13:00 AM EST
    But sadly, that's the nature of modern politics. A candidate makes a comment that's not phrased in an artful way and the other candidate's boosters deliberately make more of the comment than it deserves.

    It happened with Obama's "bitter" comment. It's happening again now. It makes me ill to see this sort of crap take place. But once the pattern of "gaffe-hunting" begins, it's naive to think either candidate's team will rise above it.


    I can not believe that Obama supporters (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:30:59 AM EST
    still do not get why Obama's bitter comments were extremely offensive.

    On the other hand Clinton said NOTHING wrong.  There is no equivalence here and the Obama online screaming lunatics have ensured that Obama will lose in November.  People just are not going to vote to put this McCarthyite mob in to the whitehouse.


    It will be eye opening (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by hookfan on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:54:29 AM EST
    to see how this will harden the resolve of Hillary's supporters to NOT (as in no way in hell) vote for Obama. Looking forward to the next poll showing jump in percentage of supporters who will not vote for Obama. I suspect the unity pony has just stepped on a land mine of its own making. By the way, for the paranoid, the above is NOT a suggestion that anyone be assassinated. Just a reflection on what the Obama camp has done to itself. And I wonder what the super delegates are thinking observing all this?

    Good luck with that. (none / 0) (#115)
    by minordomo on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:14:56 PM EST
    Looking forward to the next poll showing jump in percentage of supporters who will not vote for Obama. I suspect the unity pony has just stepped on a land mine of its own making.

    The perception of the gaffe here is solidly that Clinton goofed, not that Obama took something that was nothing and blew it way out of proportion. Yes, the media overreacted (as they do to a number of things), but there is no blowback for the Obama campaign because, frankly, Obama's campaign reacted quite mildly. A brief statement to the press, and AFAIK Obama has not picked it up in speeches.

    Seeing as even the Wright "affair" (both parts), which were probably the lowest points of Obama's campaign, had no lasting effect on his standing in the polls (they were back to normal in 3 or 4 days IIRC), I predict that this will have no effect at all on Obama. May hurt Clinton a little though, regardless of how unfair that is.


    Obama blew it. . . (none / 0) (#131)
    by hookfan on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:00:09 PM EST
    My argument was about Hillary's supporters viewing this as Obama distraction by Media creating an uproar that wasn't justified and using Hillary's historical reference as the excuse for the hysteria.  Hillary's supporters, that Obama already is having problems with, taking an overblown response as further justification for NOT voting for him in the GE. I want to see if the defection numbers jump. iirc the defection rate from Hillary's supporters is something like 40%. I suspect it will go up and that ain't good for Obama's GE prospects. But we'll see.

    I think this is part of the problem (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by ItsGreg on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:09:17 PM EST
    If I respond by stating my reasons for claiming what Obama said wasn't offensive, then the discussion again devolves into dueling interpretations. For the record, I'll just say I lived in rural PA until about three years ago and while most of my former neighbors might dislike being described by an outsider as bitter, they would probably have described themselves as bitter about the economy...which was the topic Obama was addressing.

    But sure, I understand why people were upset by it. And I understand why people are upset by Hillary's remarks. But in my opinion, both of those instances illustrate the same sad point: each campaign and the news media have been reduced to seeking out gaffes that can be exploited.

    I don't believe Obama was insulting the working poor and I don't believe Hillary was suggesting she was staying in the race in case Obama was assassinated. But I'm not surprised that the media and the individual campaigns treated those gaffes as campaign fodder.

    By the way, I'm an Obama supporter. Not an Obamabot, not an Obama-maniac, not an "Obama online screaming lunatic" nor part of a "McCarthyite mob." I know you're using those terms in a generic sense, not a specific insult. I also object to the way some Obama supporters use generic insults to refer to Clinton supporters.


    No, this is the problem (none / 0) (#130)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:10:51 PM EST
    "But in my opinion, both of those instances illustrate the same sad point: ..."

    No itsgreg, these instances are not the same and do not illustrate the same sad point. There is no correlation.

    Hillary Clinton cited history. Barrack Obama revealed his attitude and complete lack of understanding American culture and tradition. He backhanded an entire segment of the population.

    The press will jump on Hillary Clinton for deigning to exhale, accusing her of adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

    The press reported Obama's statement because it was simply unavoidable and in that instance actually did as they should, as they're expected.


    As ItsGreg said above - (none / 0) (#118)
    by minordomo on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:40:51 PM EST
    But sadly, that's the nature of modern politics. A candidate makes a comment that's not phrased in an artful way and the other candidate's boosters deliberately make more of the comment than it deserves.

    Obama's "bitter" argument was basically "What's the matter with Kansas", though it was poorly phrased (as well as taken out of context). That argument is a valid one though, and it was completely lost in all the bluster.

    Press attention is a fickle beast. Clinton benefited from it when Obama got nailed with "Bittergate", and this time it's to Clinton's disadvantage.

    the Obama online screaming lunatics have ensured that Obama will lose in November.  People just are not going to vote to put this McCarthyite mob in to the whitehouse.

    I don't really see a big backlash against Obama in this story. It may seem that way to you as a Clinton supporter (and your mind seems pretty made up as it is), but in the mainstream this story is focused on Clinton's "gaffe" and perceived that way.


    thank you RFK Jr (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by bjorn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:23:43 PM EST
    No one else need to take offense now

    Bless your heart. (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by mrjerbub on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:15:11 PM EST

    I think that BTD (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by kateNC on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:57:20 PM EST
    Should put his apology on the front page, after all, he put everything else on the front page. And above the fold.

    Let's not put it on page ten column eight, shall we?

    It was over the top IMO (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:45:06 AM EST
    Thanks 2 Jeralyn for restoring some perspective

    The scare behind it (5.00 / 10) (#12)
    by koshembos on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:05:47 AM EST
    We should be scared as hell that the Obama people will win in November. The thought police is already in full force. Whenever someone says something they don't like they pounce screaming bloody murder.

    It's reminiscent of the worst regime on earth: Saddam, Fidel, the Burmese junta, etc. The whole country will be a big Gitmo. This is the way the Soviet Union started.

    Will RFK jr.'s comments get more airtime? (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by AX10 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:06:08 AM EST
    We will need to get his message out.

    I was appalled to hear (5.00 / 11) (#24)
    by oldpro on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:48:29 AM EST
    Mark Shields take up the criticism while David Brooks was the sane observer as The News Hour with Jim Lehrer talked about this issue tonight.

    Horrible what Obama partisanship has done to the ordinarily sensible people we used to think we knew.

    Only one word to describe how I feel about this election now...


    He parroted Obama's press release (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by catfish on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:50:32 AM EST
    which said Hillary's comment was unfortunate, given that Obama's been the subject of threats. Hello - every candidate and president is the subject of threats.

    Am looking for Mark Shields' contact information.


    and who does that remind me of? (none / 0) (#105)
    by hellothere on Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:10:31 AM EST
    why the bushies is the answer.

    I would imagine (5.00 / 8) (#26)
    by echinopsia on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:58:48 AM EST
    when the almost certain nominee stops looking like a completely certain loser.

    I gave her $100 tonight just because the furor over an innocuous remark was so ridiculous.

    Just to let her know my support has not wavered.

    Your dollars cannot be better spent right now than on her campaign.

    Donate. Even if it's $5.

    I couldn't disagree more.... (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by kdog on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:47:59 AM EST
    Your dollars cannot be better spent than stocking the cupboard and keeping the gas tank full.  There is a world of economic hurt on the horizon and you think chipping in towards deli platters and campaign commercials for a millionaire is the best use of your dough?  Can I interest you in a bridge in Brooklyn?

    I do agree this "furor" is retarded...more gotcha politics while issues are ignored, what else is new.  Energy, food, war, criminal justice...who cares eh?  But did you hear what stooge X said?  Yeah, that's important.


    Not (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:00:10 AM EST
    if you have the extra money and you see it as an investment in the future of a brighter country.

    Yeah.The real one. n/t (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by echinopsia on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:02:54 AM EST

    His campaign added to it (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by catfish on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:48:29 AM EST
    when they sent out a press release saying that comment was unfortunate, given Obama's early secret service protection:
    "Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign," wrote Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton in a missive to reporters.

    Burton's e-mail included a link to a New York Post story which noted that Obama, who received a Secret Service detail early in the campaign, has been the subject of threats.

    Sorry, but every president and presidential candidate gets that protection.

    Obama was the earliest ever (early May 2007) (none / 0) (#47)
    by minordomo on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:16:18 AM EST
    - and as of January, only Clinton and Obama had it.

    McCain refused (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:35:47 AM EST
    a SS detail until quite recently. I'm sure McCain has received death threats during his career, too. As have the Clintons.

    For sweet swan's sake, Britney Spears and Paris Hilton receive death threats, too, I'll bet.


    From which we are to conclude - (none / 0) (#116)
    by minordomo on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:31:15 PM EST
    - that all death threats are bogus, or what?

    Surely we can agree that an AA candidate for president is at a higher risk for assassination than Britney Spears, no?


    I'm not quite sure (none / 0) (#120)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:53:04 PM EST
    how to answer that. I'm thinking of John F Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and Dr.King. I'm thinking of the Reagan assassination attempt and Gerald Ford's.

    I don't think madness thinks in color.


    No, and I'm not saying - (none / 0) (#124)
    by minordomo on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:44:04 PM EST
    - that only AAs are at risk, but certainly an AA presidential candidate that has a real shot at winning is somebody I would think is at a very high risk of assassination attempts.

    I don't know if Paris Hilton or Britney Spears receive death threats, but I can't say I see that as a reason to dismiss the risk that presidential candidates (all of them, not just Obama) face.


    No, we cannot assume that. (none / 0) (#125)
    by catfish on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:09:44 PM EST
    What about a female candidate?

    Why can't we assume that? (none / 0) (#127)
    by minordomo on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:55:15 PM EST
    You don't provide a reason for saying we can't assume that an AA presidential candidate is at a higher risk of assassination than Britney Spears.

    In response to your question: is a female candidate at a higher risk of assassination than an AA candidate running for president? I have no idea, though I would say they're both at a pretty high risk, and of course both should have Secret Service protection.

    Incidentally, as of January of this year only two of the presidential candidates had Secret Service protection: Clinton and Obama.


    There is an ugliness here (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by catfish on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:07:04 PM EST
    of holding voters and people hostage - you cannot talk about race, RFK JFK, anything because it offends one special candidate. His specialness is offensive. Wish I could articulate this better.

    I guess (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:24:26 AM EST
    this whole thing must be blowing up in Obama's face since Axelrod defended Hillary on Hardball.

    After hearing KO on this... (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by tnjen on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:01:45 AM EST
    I am convinced that he's certifiably insane. What on Earth is the Obama campaign thinking pushing this lynching (and I do mean lynching)? Do they want to insure that NO HRC supporter will ever vote for them?

    Woke This Morning (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by creeper on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:14:12 AM EST
    to this news.  My first thought was "Oh, for crying out loud!"

    What will they drum up to complain about next?

    For a presumptive winner (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:39:08 AM EST
    he sure acts like a loser.  Manufactured outrage is the favored weapon of the Obama campaign.  It may be helping him now, with guilt-ridden liberal Dems, but it will surely backfire in the GE.

    She should be excoriating the swiftboaters (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by lizpolaris on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:20:22 AM EST
    rather than apologizing.

    Here's a golden opportunity to point out how obviously her words have been twisted.  Even a 'moran' can see that she was asked about being asked to drop out of the race and was citing examples of campaigns that lasted until June.  Even the press corpse couldn't fail to note the frikkin' date of the assasination and those of us old enough to remember can recall the intensity of the campaign that year, that late in the race.

    So how about getting tough with the blasters on this one and saying 'here's an clear of example of people claiming that day is night, manufacturing a slur out of thin air, and hoping that by repetition, the public will assume that I've insulted one of the most honorable families in the nation.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  And if I apologize for something I never said, the perception will be that I insulted someone - and that just didn't happen.  No matter how much my opponents would like that to be true.'

    Kick back!

    As most of you know (5.00 / 9) (#41)
    by digdugboy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:22:15 AM EST
    I support Obama for the nomination. I have been sickened by the manufactured outrage against Sen. Clinton over this episode. In particular, Keith Olbermann's pander to the already hysterical masses is utterly shameful.

    Over at DailyKos, for awhile anyway, it was impossible to state a dissenting opinion without receiving deeply insulting responses at best, and troll ratings at worst.

    I am deeply trouble by how diametrically opposed these emotional crusades are to the whole concept of liberalism, humanism and progressivism. If we are not going to be the intelligence and the unity of our political principles, who is?

    A true voice of reason from the Obama side! (none / 0) (#66)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:55:16 AM EST
    I still support Obama (none / 0) (#96)
    by ItsGreg on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:26:57 AM EST
    While I'm sickened by the way this gaffe is being pumped up into a major issue, I don't see it as being materially different than the way Obama's "bitter" gaffe was made into an issue.

    Very clearly, Hillary was NOT saying she was staying in the race on the chance that Obama might be assassinated. Only the most partisan Obama supporters will interpret it that way. But only the most partisan Clinton supporters interpreted Obama's "bitter" comment in the way they did.

    Gaffe-hunting is a disgusting way to run a campaign, whether it's done by the Obama camp or the Clinton camp. Sadly, that's what this primary has devolved into on both sides.

    Any "teaching moment" took place months ago. Unfortunately, neither the Obama nor the Clinton campaign seem to have learned the lesson.


    agree, but (none / 0) (#102)
    by sleepingdogs on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:39:11 AM EST
    I agree that gaffe hunting is reaching record levels this summer.  However comparing the comment Clinton made with the "bitter" comments of Obama are not remotely the same.  His bitter comment was a direct comment about the voters who would not vote for him.  No one thought he was talking about Clinton when he said it.  Her comment was a comment about the length of this race and the unprecedented pressure to get out.  The hubbub about this supposed gaffe is all the suposition of people's opinions and guesses about what she may perhaps be implying.  

    Not everything she says has something to do with Obama.  Not every question she answers is about Obama.  A parallel would be something like this:

    Clinton:  I have to go the grocery store and pick up some food.
    Obama campaign and supporters:  Oh, so now you're saying Obama doesn't feed his family?

    OTOH, Obama's "bitter" comments were a comment aimed directly at people, like me, who chose not to vote for him.  He stated in no unclear way that my hesitance to chose him was likely because of religion, guns or racism.  Being an object of his comments, I took umbrage.  Do you see the difference?

    That said, I agree the gotcha moments have reached intolerable levels.  But back when Bill Clinton tried to say that it would be nice to have a campaign without all this other stuff, even that was twisted to mean something about Obama.  I think there's a pattern here.  


    Your point might make sense but for a few facts (none / 0) (#109)
    by digdugboy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:27:12 AM EST
    1. The Clinton side of this -- the campaign and its supporters -- have been just as guilty of manufacturing outrage over gaffes. Thus, if that were the dispositive measurement for choosing a candidate, it wouldn't tip the scales in either direction.

    In fact, you'll note that so far Obama himself hasn't said anything about it. Contrast that to Hillary's use of "bitter," "clinging" etc.

    2. I've stated in the past that I would happily vote for either candidate should either become the democratic nominee. Nothing about yesterday's manufactured outrage changes that. My honest feelings are that Senator Clinton would be at least the equal, if not the superior, Chief Executive in all respects except a couple. Obama seems to be far better in inspiring a far larger cross-section of supporters, including young voters. That is reflected in part in his campaign's treasure trove, and the difference between his current bank account and Senator Clinton's.

    In addition, appears to possess greater "leadership" skills, a largely indefinable set of characteristics that somehow combine to create a positive reaction to him. Senator Clinton's negatives are a matter of wide public acknowledgment.

    I think Senator Clinton's campaign staff has served her so poorly that she ought to demand a refund. As Kos mentioned yesterday, Senator Clinton is one of the warmest and most personable politicians you will ever meet, if you sit with her one on one or in a small group. Yet for some reason her campaign completely cloaked this winning side of her personality and put her out on the campaign trail disguised as a piranha.

    There has been a lot of talk about sexism thrown around in this campaign, but there has been no mention of one aspect of sexism that I believe accounts for a great part of the appeal discrepancy between the two candidates.

    Men interrupt women in conversations far more than women interrupt men. Thus, a woman who wants to hold the floor learns at a young age that she has to take a deep breath and keep talking until she's made her point. In large part, that is why you will notice that the speech patterns of women do not take advantage of the effect of silence. If a woman pauses for emphasis, it is an invitation to be interrupted.

    Men can get away with pausing for emphasis, and can adopt a preacher's cadence, because they are far less likely to be interrupted. Obama has mastered use of that rhetorical tool.

    We will all be far better off when the words of a woman, and her claim to the floor to state them, are given the same respect that the words of a man are given.


    Part of why I'm not an Obama supporter (none / 0) (#133)
    by Eleanor A on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:19:10 AM EST
    is my having seen him at a rally in November 2006 and noticing he had, well, borrowed verbatim a bunch of concepts and even whole phrases from Dr. King.

    Despite being a Clinton supporter, and thereby a racist according to many, I'm a fervent fan of Dr. King's and know many of his speeches more or less word for word.

    I just can't stomach the manipulations and distortions I see out of the Obama camp.  It's one thing to try to appeal to Dr. King's audience, it's another to steal his ideas without attribution.  (This in addition to the many outright fabrications he's put forward vis a vis his voting record, among other topics.)


    Up until this point, (5.00 / 8) (#43)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:53:06 AM EST
    I was just not going to vote for Obama and keep my mouth shut, for the sake of "Unity" and overall hatred of the GOP. A remnant of party loyalty, I guess.

    But no more. These fanatics are a menace to society. Out of respect for Jeralyn and BTD and others, I won't do it here again. But with friends, family and any person on the street who asks (or not) will get my full, unvarnished opinion of the Obama campaign. A few minds have already changed (pre-Wright, btw) so I figure I'm good for a few more.

    I know what you mean. (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:16:45 AM EST
    After the race-bating and gender bashing, I didn't think Obama could slink any lower. I was wrong.  

    Obama is not ready to be president. (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:19:02 AM EST
    His reactions still spring from his community-based training of manufacturing outrage, ala Rev Wright.

    Both camps... (1.00 / 2) (#63)
    by kdog on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:50:07 AM EST
    see quite adept at manufacturing outrage.

    As if outrage needs manufacturing...all you need to do is visit your local correctional facility to find existing outrage, or hop a flight to Baghdad.


    Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:40:17 AM EST
    campaign is based on UNITY, HOPE, and CHANGE (from politics as usual)

    Obama cannot even exercise his platform promises during the primaries let alone a presidency


    Obama's campaign... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:50:38 AM EST
    is a con-job...same as Clinton's and McCain's.

    Little recollection of history.... (5.00 / 9) (#52)
    by murrayewv on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:29:12 AM EST
    As stated above- RFK was the spoiler running to president and dividing the party.  RFK was the one accused of exploiting family connections to become the Senator from New York and being a carpetbagger.  Perhaps Hillary saw herself in the RFL role rather than Obama.  All the "figurative" weapons are certainly turned on her now.

    I had to leave DailyKos just now since they are just over the top and hysterical about this.  No rational thought is left over there.  Obama is not that nuts, surely, to want to promote this line of discussion.

    Interesting parallel (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:44:30 AM EST
    I remember the '68 race.  My parents (and therefore I as well) were McCarthy supporters and they resented RFK's entry into the race, which they saw as opportunism.

    My mom was an Adlai Stevenson supporter back in the day.  Then there was McCarthy, and more recently Dean.  Now she's an Obama supporter.  She keeps sending me worried e-mails, asking whether I'd vote for him if he chose Hillary as VP, and I keep smacking her down.  


    Transcript of the "party unity" question (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:16:29 AM EST

    ...people have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa and I find it...

    EB: Why? Why?

    I don't know I don't know I find it curious because it is unprecedented in history. I don't understand it and between my opponent and his camp and some in the media, there has been this urgency to end this and you know historically that makes no sense, so I find it a bit of a mystery.

    EB: You don't buy the party unity argument?

    I don't, because again, I've been around long enough. You know my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere around the middle of June

    EB: June

    We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. Um you know I just I don't understand it. There's lots of speculation about why it is.

    Hillay could have mentioned Ted Kennedy's taking it all the to the 1980 convention ... but since Kennedy lost the nomination fight, there is no reason reason for her to highlight that race for editor's.

    Hillary stayed with winners (WJC) and perceived winners (RFK) for making her case


    It wasn't 2 random presidential campaigns (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by katiebird on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:37:36 AM EST
    She mentioned the June Primaries of her husbands first presidential election AND the first election in which she could vote -- the 1968 election was burned into the brains of everyone who lived through it.

    But if you were a 21 year old that year it would have been especially significant.


    Adlai to McCarthy to Dean (none / 0) (#92)
    by brodie on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:56:35 AM EST
    to Obama -- sounds about right in the consistency of backing elitist losers or those who would have gone on to resounding defeats.  (Though I wish that other clueless elitist we nominated, Kerry, had taken away some of Howard's feisty fighting spirit from the primaries.)  We'll see about Obama, who does have the advantage of running in a solidly anti-Repub year, and is up against an aging and not particularly sharp opponent prone to gaffes.

    As for RFK's opportunism, all pols have those tendencies, or at least the good ones do.  Maverick McCarthy, not having as many personal concerns about his safety, was freer than RFK to make a quick decision, and he jumped in fairly early for those times, Nov 67.  RFK, pre-March 68, also had to worry about a fierce party backlash against him about "dividing" the party by entering the race against a sitting Dem prez.  Such non-trivial concerns applied far less to the quirky McCarthy, who was just the sort to do what he did.


    Sure I can see that (none / 0) (#100)
    by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:22:01 AM EST
    now.  All politicians are opportunists.  It's the nature of the beast.  I was 13 in 1968 so I got most of my opinions from my parents.  My mom in particular was furious at RFK for joining the race and ruining McCarthy's chances.  Now, of course, she  hates Hillary for not bowing out so Obama can be coronated.  She's come down with a severe case of CDS this election season.

    And yeah, my mom is definitely an elitist.  When I was a kid, I once asked her what class we were (i.e., lower, middle, upper).  Her response: "We're intellectuals!"  


    1968 was a brutal year (5.00 / 11) (#59)
    by vcmvo2 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:12:43 AM EST
    Historically it is at its 40 year anniversary. How could we not , Hillary included, be reflecting on it. Both from a primary perspective and his assassination.

    But it is historical and it is Democratic history. And she's made the reference before so it would have been unnatural to leave out the reference. What Bobby was trying to accomplish when he was assassinated was really a late primary challenge for the Democratic nomination. It looked like he just might do it too. Even against an establishment that was weighed against his run.

    So to push it that she was hinting at Obama's assassination is really out there. And outrageous. If anything she sees herself as Bobby trying to get into a race where the preumptive nominee has already been framed in the MSM.

    On a personal note, my brother was killed in Vietnam in April of 1968 right after MLK, Jr's assassinatiion and just a couple of months before RFK was killed. I think of my brother nearly every  day but this year at the 40th anniversary has been  particularly painful. And when I think of my brother I always think of the horrible deaths that bookmarked his. It would be unnatural not to speak of it.

    The hysteria about this is disingenuous and is meant to harm Hillary. She has not threatened Obama. I think we, the more reasonable ones, should stop this. If Obama is encouraging this, he is making a huge mistake. If it is his campaign, they are doing him no favors.

    And, imo, Obama is no RFK, not even close!

    I'm glad RFK Jr... (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by kimsaw on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:38:07 AM EST
    came out with a statement. He demonstrates there is a voice of reason out there in the foolish sphere. I know he supports Clinton, but he still is his father's son. A reasonable man, with great sense of public obligation and fairness.

    That is what the... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by kdog on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:52:34 AM EST
    politically correct police too...twist things around while ignoring context and not making the least bit of effort to understand where the speaker is coming from.

    s/b.... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:53:19 AM EST
    what pc cops do...not too.

    I can sympathize.. (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by pettyfog on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:01:12 AM EST
    .. and simply ask: "Well, how does it feel being a Republican?"

    And I am not trolling here!  I'm a conservative - but NOT Buchanan's TYPE!  And I've been following Hillary's campaign on here, first referred by Instapundit and a couple other links.

    You are absolutely RIGHT, Hillary made NO gaffe! We all relate events with historic mileposts and it was certainly natural to do that with the primary races.  That the biggest single event of that primary was RFK's death cannot be disputed.

    I get a little smile when I see that you guys recognize you get better treatment on Fox than on the despicable MSNBC.  It's not new, you just didnt realize it.
    And how does it feel to be the target of Lord Haw-Haw Keith, the Rabid?

    The singular outcome of this campaign, for me, has been that Hillary has really grown her image as a statesman and learned how to REALLY relate with folks.

    Gone is the 'screeching' from the podium.  Gone is  the cheap shot, and perception of entitlement. She is now really likeable!
    Hillary has elevated her discourse, while Obama has proved he is 'not so much change and hope' as golden boy opportunist, above the fray while his little minions encourage the lefty attack machine.

    If you want MORE..her pointing out the voting demographic she can carry is in no way, racist, either.  It's a fact, same as Obama can point out 90% for black voters.
    But now, you know, dont you... what happens when you go against the Agenda Media.

    What I hope is; Whatever the outcome of this primary, that Hillary takes her experience forward and becomes more effective in resolving our country's problems.

    Thanks (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:09:05 AM EST
    for your wonderful comment. And it is odd that I find myself agreeing more and more with the GOP about the media. It is disgusting but what can be done?

    I know there are plenty of Republicans out there who are disgusted with what Bush has done to the party. I don't imagine they'll be voting for Obama though if he's the nominee.

    Perhaps we can all join in defeating the media? What do you think?


    Dont get me wrong... (none / 0) (#82)
    by pettyfog on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:36:07 AM EST
    All due respect, it wasnt what Dubya DID that splintered Republicans so much as his ineloquence in keeping us, meaning ALL Americans, informed.

    Think about it.  You cannot say that Bill, or even Al Gore would have done anything different given all the circumstances.

    As to defeating the blatant partisan media, it's already being done.  While tree-media circulation is delining overall, look who is losing circulation the most.
    The same as blatantly spin America as responsible for everything wrong in the world. The same as refuse to review Doug Feith's book on what went on in the Iraq run-up. The same as dont want its readers to buy Michael Yon's book on Iraq.
    That would be the little family fiefdom at NYT, wouldnt it?

    I'm not on here pimping for my politics... I'm reminding you that you cant parse what you like and dont like from the media.  
    You can throw rocks at O'Reilly, and express disgust for Hannity (he really IS annoying as hell, Conservatism for Pre-Schoolers!) but you have to look at balance in coverage and comment.


    Uh. (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:49:53 AM EST
    I don't think Clinton or Gore would have done much of anything that Bush did. I don't think even John McCain would have started a "preemptive" war on an international credit card.

    As far as keeping (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:56:07 AM EST
    everyone informed, yes, that is true. W. had an opportunity to really pull the country together but decided to divide it instead for his own benefit. While that worked for a while to the benefit of the GOP, it eventually ended up dividing the them too imo.

    I do agree with you that many people seem unwilling to go outside their comfort zone for news. Even cable news is nothing more than an echo chamber that pushes more divisiveness. I'm tired of it and it's why I don't care much for Obama. He sounds too much like Bush with all the you're either with me or againt me mindset.

    Listening to Hannity is like fingers on a chalkboard. O'Reilly can be as much of an outrage junkie as Olberman is.


    We'll agree to disagree.. (none / 0) (#97)
    by pettyfog on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:27:47 AM EST
    I guess I'm done here.  I could point to various Dem speeches and statements on all Dubya issues in retort but that's useless.
    MAny of guys still have the blinkers on.. it's just you dont like YOUR ox being 'Gored'.
    Do you nod your head in agreement when Olby attacks Bush?

    While I'm dismayed at seeing McCain as too much like Hillary, platform-wise, I bet you are seeing him as too much like Dubya.

    Whatever.  Just read MORE, please.  I read the left blogs, how many of you read AND CONSIDER the CONTENT  of the right blogs?


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:46:18 AM EST
    I'm beyond Bush. He's a lame duck and really doesn't matter much in the larger scheme of things.

    I think Olberman is a waste. I used to like when he attacked Bush but I've come to realize he has no ethics just like a lot of other journalists. O'Reilly has had ethical lapses too. I'll not say one is better than the other because I see them both as opportunists selling their wares. That's the thing that I've learned moreso than anything about "my ox being gored". And I have had a problem with the MSM for quite a while. They made excuses for W. and then they turned on him with a vengance. Perhaps they should have just been neutral from the beginning.

    McCain? Actually I like him quite a bit. And I do agree that he is more like Hillary platform wise which is probably why Hillary supporters are going to abandon Obama if he's the nominee and vote for McCain. I have great personal admiration for John McCain. I think he is a true patriot and a hero. I think that the attacks on his age are beyond tasteless.

    I do read the right blogs and even comment on them sometimes. Lately at least I can find some kind of agreement on issues with the more liberal republicans.

    I'm a moderate so don't think that everyone on left blogs are the raving lunatics.


    Obama exploiting Kennedy's death (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Josey on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:30:12 AM EST
    to benefit HIMSELF!

    It's acceptable on Obama blogs and Obamedia to suggest physical harm to Hillary!
    I've seen horrible things on Obama blogs. A recent comment at DK was about putting a gun between Hillary's teeth and had several recs.
    And owners of Obama blogs don't dissuade comments about physical violence to Hillary.

    And now - Obama and Obamedia are exploiting Robert Kennedy's death to benefit Obama!

    Watch this -- and imagine Obama as the target.


    Thank you for the link to that video (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by sleepingdogs on Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:12:18 AM EST
    I have been trying so hard to handle this like a 'big' girl.'  Some says I am more successful than others.  Hillary's statements at the end of the video tell me how to do just that.  I knew she would pull trough with the right words ot encourage me during this unbelieveable battle.

    I started out merely favoring her.  Now the more I see, the more I admire her.  


    Anything that will (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:33:47 AM EST
    distract as many people as possible from noticing the fact that it is him who is squarely planted in Florida's way.

    The comment is a one news cycle blurb. (1.00 / 3) (#22)
    by knowshon on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:45:10 AM EST
    I dont think anyone (except the paranoiacs) thinks that Hil would imply somethin so untoward.  But still, what she said was an accident but was still creepy.

    That's what I thought about Bosnia. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:27:06 AM EST
    Where there's a will there's a way, and we certainly know there's a will to destroy her candidacy as well as her reputation.

    That soon? (none / 0) (#18)
    by MarkL on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:38:44 AM EST

    What does Section "Off Topic" mean? (none / 0) (#28)
    by kinglet on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:32:26 AM EST
    Curious why my comment applauding TalkLeft for the way the RFK thing is being handled would be deleted is all. I thought "Off Topic" would mean something like "Open Thread," but I guess not...

    Hello...Is anybody still up? (none / 0) (#32)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:53:35 AM EST

    No (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:11:06 AM EST
    I certainly don't think she's moses. I just happen to think that she'd be able to solve SOME of our problems whereas I don't see Obama having that ability.

    Are you kidding? (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by kdog on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:16:59 AM EST
    Clinton, Obama, and McCain won't even talk about our problems.  Has one of them even mentioned the drug war during the campiagn?  How about the bases we have in 100 or so countries...they mention that?

    They are battling for the position of ignoring our problems (and cashing out) for the next four years.


    kdog, advice from a friend. step back (none / 0) (#108)
    by hellothere on Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:21:14 AM EST
    and take a deep breath. have a nice weekend!

    Step Back From What? (3.00 / 1) (#114)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:59:56 AM EST
    kdog is just as entitled to his opinion as anyone her, he has been posting for years and as far as I know, is one of the very few longtime TLers who have never had a comment deleted. He has the widest tolerance of anyone around here. You and your pals can learn quite a bit about respect toward other commenters from kdog, if that was really what you cared about.

    Nothing that he said was out of line with TL's policies. You are the one that should step back and think about what you are recommending. Your advice is nonsense, imo.


    I Was Touched By (none / 0) (#113)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:50:32 AM EST
    Hillary's remarks about RFK, and find them entirely appropriate. Her remarks were also politically smart. I was also touched by Obama's response.

    It is the lower forms of life, on both candidates sides, feigning hurt and insult at every turn, who seem hellbent on ruining it for all of us.

    Sociopathic (none / 0) (#117)
    by jondee on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:40:26 PM EST
    These gotcha sleazoid tactics on the part of hired weasals angling to pad their resumes or obtain a post-election position have been going on since Adams people painted Rachel Jackson as a scarlett woman not fit to be seen with in decent society.

    Is it just? An exercise in common decency?

    We've allowed demoratic, representative govt to degenerate into some sort of Roach Motel that serves as bait for a certain type of cunning, hyper-ambitious, mercenary personality and the only explanation there seems to be for the almost terminal naivete about this developement is ahistoricism and the capacity for wish fullfillment fantasies.

    squeaky, this is the first and last (none / 0) (#126)
    by hellothere on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:18:44 PM EST
    post i am putting a comment on here for you and the only reason the one rating is for your name calling. sure, state all you like and have any opinion that suits you. that is your business.

    if you comment to me again, i won't be answering. experience has taught me that is a useless exercise.

    she did not imply that (none / 0) (#136)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:36:01 AM EST
    your comment is being deleted JMorgan. Do not falsely state facts here.