Clinton Steps Back

Bumped -- Jonathan... The other two threads on this subject are full and it appears folks are interested in continuing the discussion.

Per First Read, the initial response from the Clinton campaign was one of denial, not apology:

Clinton campaign spokesperson Mo Elleithe: "She was simply referencing her husband in 1992 and Bobby kennedy in 1968 as historical expmales of the nominating contest going well into the summer. Any, any reading into it beyond that is inaccurate."

Hillary Clinton herself subsequently made an apology -- apologizing for how people took her statement, not for having made it:

"I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever. My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to and I'm honored to hold sen. Kennedy's seat in the United States Senate in the state of New York, and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family."

I, like others, am having difficulty seeing this as a reference to the fact that campaigns lasted into the summer in the past. There are much clearer examples of the race for the Democratic nomination lasting late into the cycle -- 1980 and 1984, for example -- that would do much more to prove this point.

I don't mean to parse the statements of Senator Clinton too closely, but it's hard for me to understand how, even if this was about illustrating that races previous years have lasted past this point, someone who has spent so long in the national spotlight, someone whose words have been so closely scrutinized, could so flippantly talk about the assassination of a presidential candidate -- particularly at a time when the possibility remains of the first African-American or the first Woman being elected President in this country.

So I don't come down on this issue too far away from Josh: I don't have any problem with Clinton remaining in this race at least through the end of voting early next month. But if this is the type of language that Clinton will be using for the duration of this primary process, I have a real problem with her continuing her campaign.



Display:


Can you step back ttoo!! (none / 0)


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:07:16 PM EST

Re: Can you step back ttoo!! (2.00 / 2)

Thanks for saying that.

Josh (or per Bob Somerby, The person who has kidnapped him) tries to twist everything into a pretzel to get an anti-Hillary present out of it.  Josh has lost all credibility in my eyes at least, and among many in blogsphere.

Jonathan, I know you are a huge supporter of Obama, but please don't join Josh Marshall, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olberman.  

Josh's statement is not laughable.  It's pathetic.  It's clinging to straws.  

If you guys are right and your candidate has won, isn't it time to act not petty, but magnanimous?


I have yet to see what [Obama] has done to take the highest office in the land. He is no Martin Luther King. --Helen Thomas
by ghost 2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:13:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who the f are you? (none / 0)


Talk about trolling.
Mooseburgers? Careful Sarah. Moose bite back!
by spacemanspiff on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:24:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who the f are you? (2.00 / 2)

I don't engage with obvious t's.


I have yet to see what [Obama] has done to take the highest office in the land. He is no Martin Luther King. --Helen Thomas
by ghost 2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:19:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She made a valid point.They have a double standard (2.00 / 3)

The people who are trying to attack Hillary over everything she does or says are more than a little bit laughable.

How can people let them get away with it? This is a democracy.


http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money
by architek on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:17:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She made a valid point.They have a double stan (none / 0)

Yeah, I mean...I wish they would actually start parsing some of Obama's words.  Oh wait....


by ProgressiveDL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:36:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what Clinton proved today (1.50 / 4)

is that she is not only unqualified for the white house, she is unfit to hold any political office what so ever. This should be the end of her political career. I have kept out of the endless flame wars over this primary season, cut all the candidates a lot of slack over gaffes and mis-statements, but this appalling. I am calling both of my Senators (Cantwell and Murray) on Tuesday to tell them that if they want my vote ever again, they need to recant their endorsements of Clinton. Disgusting.


Bush murders soldiers for profit. McCain wants to wet his beak.
by awobbly on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:07:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How sad (1.00 / 3)

How sad that Hillary now hopes to break that Glass Ceiling with a gunshot aimed at her opponent.


by ruscle on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:16:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How about Michele's own words? (2.00 / 1)

"I don't lose sleep over it because the realities are that . . . as a black man . . . Barack can get shot going to the gas station," Michelle Obama said in the interview, set to air Sunday night. "You can't make decisions based on fear and the possibility of what might happen."

Can't have it both ways!


by suzieg on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:51:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about Michele's own words? (none / 0)

Being unafraid of assasination isnt the same thing as encouraging it.  Thats what Hillary has done here.  She has spent the past solid month dividing us into her trusted white versus non white voting blocks, and has now described her scenario of staying in the race in terms of Barack being blasted.  There are nuts out there who shoot people because they think their dog tells them to do it!

Michelle related the feelings all black people have in this country.  Hell I like to go to a club occasionally and sit in my car I could get shot 50 times like Sean Bell.  That's our normal reality.  We don't need our so called leaders stoking any flame.


by Adept2u on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:18:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about Michele's own words? (none / 0)

exactly. phantom mojo comin' your way.


Bush murders soldiers for profit. McCain wants to wet his beak.
by awobbly on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:00:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (2.00 / 6)

She needs to to make an apology to Senator Obama.

This is not the kind of talk you want to hear from a Veep wantabee.


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:08:14 PM EST

Re: Clinton Steps Back (2.00 / 6)

Exactly! She made an apology to the Kennedy's. But not Obama.

It seems like she should apologize to the person she insinuated (on purpose or by mistake) could be assassinated.


John McCain defends Bush's Iraq strategy.
by recusancy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:21:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

How she approaches an apology will make it clear if she really wants veep or not.


by mikeinsf on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:45:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why can't we have some SUBSTANCE? (none / 0)

The Obama camp want to avoid issues. Isn't it obvious?


http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money
by architek on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:19:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why can't we have some SUBSTANCE? (none / 0)

How about... the AUMF vote?

There's an issue that's pretty important to me.


by ogre on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:06:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why can't we have some SUBSTANCE? (none / 0)

Oh, that's been well-covered.  She thought it was for diplomacy, and y'see, Obama would have voted for it too if he was there even though 22 senators didn't and every quote at the time made clear his stance, and, anyway, it was just one vote, and she feels really really bad, and it's sexist to bring it up, and and and and and


by mikeinsf on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:56:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (2.00 / 1)

And this isn't the first time she's made the association.  She made the same comment to Richard Stengel of Time, back in March.


John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:45:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (2.00 / 3)

She sounded as if she was saying 'Oops sorry I wasn't aiming at the Kennedys'.
by french imp on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:47:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (2.00 / 1)

Exactly. It shows how pathetically desperate and self absorbed she's become in this campaign that it doesn't even occur to Hillary to apologize to Senator Obama for her so-called 'gaffe'.

To Hillary it would be just as much 'beneath her' to apologize to Obama for this horrific remark as it would have been congratulate Obama for his wins in the primaries and caucuses since January.

Hillary's assassination comment today will not wash off with spin, denial, or 'blame it on Obama'.
She's writing her own tawdry legacy. This one can't be blamed on the media, sexism, or the boyz club.


Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie
by toyomama on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:42:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (1.00 / 1)

She WASN'T talking about Obama.

I know your camp is desperate and petty, but really this takes the cake.  

Hillary supporters are already angry at the treatment by the media and the Obama camp, don't make it worse.

And then you wonder why something like 60% of her supporters claim to want to vote for him?


I have yet to see what [Obama] has done to take the highest office in the land. He is no Martin Luther King. --Helen Thomas
by ghost 2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:16:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

No, she wasn't talking about people at all, she was talking about a process.  It just so happens that the process she was talking about is one in which she is participating along with only one other person and that person is believed by many to be under extraordinary threat.  But I concede that she was not precisely talking about that person.


Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.
by Endymion on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:24:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

I'd go so far as to say not only was she talking about a process and not a person, but that she wasn't necessarily implying anything by her comment beyond what she says she really meant - iffy apology statement notwithstanding.

But it's an insensitive comment to have made in the charged atmosphere that permeates our country right now.  It's decidedly unproductive, and as others have pointed out, there are plenty of other examples she could have used that had none of the connotations and fears associated with that event.


by Phoenix Rising on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:00:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

Who was she talking about? Ron frickin' Paul?


Bush murders soldiers for profit. McCain wants to wet his beak.
by awobbly on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:08:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

Please don't threat us with that HRC supporters wont vote for BO in the fall.  I am tired of hearing about it.  By the time the election rolls around, those folks will have a decision to make.  They will decide how they want their future to be.  If they decide to go for another term of Bush, then they deserve exactly what they have coming to them.  

Hillary made a huge gaffe today.  I doubt that she wants BO killed, but it's a very stupid reference to make about RFK.  


by sbbonerad on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:33:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:55:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

You are taking this awfully personally, aren't you?  I mean, everyone from professors to Senators to the media is saying you just don't bring up the word assasination (particularly in this crazy campaign)... and you claim that people are in some kind of secret plot out to get her?  She said the words.  She tried to apologize and failed there.  What about this scenario makes it conspiracy theory?


by Chelseain32 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:38:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (2.00 / 2)

Has Obama apologized for the 'claws come out" remark? how about the "periodic" comment? Maybe for his wife wanting to scratch Clinton's eyes out?

Is it acceptable for Michelle to want to blind Bill Clinton but not acceptable for Clinton to consider RFK's death in  context of her experience running for office?

How bizarre the standards in the Obama arena. Threatening to blind a former president is a joke. Using misogynist language to describe a historic run for the presidency is acceptable. But reflecting on actual historical events is beyond the pale.


by glitterannebegay on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:22:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (2.00 / 1)

I may be naive, having lived for just over two decades, but I never in my life associated the word "periodically" with the menstrual cycle... until it became a faux outrage in this campaign.

They just occupied two totally different spheres in my head.


by nwodtuhs on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:49:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

I should add that I'm willing to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt on this comment. But if people care enough, let 'em go after her for it.


by nwodtuhs on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:58:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

I know: the 'periodic' thing is ridiculous.  You could, like 99.9% of the people think it mean from
"time to time".  Or you could be on misogyny patrol and read the menstrual cycle into it.  Crazy.
by mikeinsf on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:47:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (1.40 / 5)

if you didn't think it was misogynist, then you missed the point. Whoever heard a male politician get accused of "getting down" and attacking to "boost their appeal"?

It was the ugliest, most misogynist comments I've ever heard out of a Democratic politiicans, and should have forced Obama from the race. Real low life shit.


by glitterannebegay on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:47:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

Uhhh.... you're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding.


by odum on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:56:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

See - this is why Clinton supporters are saying they will not vote for Obama. He engages in overt misogyny - the kind of rhetoric that Claytie Williams used against Ann Richards - and you don't recognize it as misogynist.

Now, why would anyone expect that Obama would deal well with women's issues in the White House if he engages in rhetoric like that and his supporters find it acceptable?


by glitterannebegay on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:18:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"overt misogyny" (none / 0)

Using the word "periodic."

O-kay. Gotcha.


by odum on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:28:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "overt misogyny" (1.00 / 0)

Yes, in  context of a sentence where he says that "periodically" clinton gets down and needs to boost her appearl. the word periodically alone isn't a problem anymore than the word niggardly. but to deny that either can be used perniciously is to deny how people use language to attack.

You want to pretend like it's innocent - that makes you part of the problem. You talk exactly as racists do. It's no different.


by glitterannebegay on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:46:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "overt misogyny" (none / 0)

I have to admit, I've read your whole diatribe and I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Something about the word "periodically" being misogynistic and some other crap that makes no sense whatsoever. I realize that I don't post here often but it seems to me you've probably gone round the bend.


by Geiiga on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:01:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "overt misogyny" (1.00 / 2)

Why are you challenging me on a comment you're unfamiliar with? How stupid do you have to be to think that's reasonable behavior?


by glitterannebegay on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:28:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "overt misogyny" (none / 0)

But calling someone stupid is acceptable?  Perhaps my folks just raised me differently, but that's too cool!  Is it reasonable?


by Chelseain32 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:45:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "overt misogyny" (none / 0)

Male politicians are accused of doing things to "boost their appeal" all the time.  So if "periodic" isn't the problem, and "boost their appeal" isn't the problem, what is?


by ProgressiveDL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:39:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (2.00 / 1)

I get magazines and they call themselves periodicals.  I will surely rot in hell...that or you are just imagining things.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:58:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

Wow. Go ahead. Ignore it. but this is why Clinton supporters are saying they won't vote for Obama. You do realize that he will need our votes to win, right?


by glitterannebegay on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:20:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (2.00 / 1)

Look, if you want to have real issues that is fine but "periodically" being the WORST THING YOU HAVE EVER HEARD is just so hyperbolic in nature that it makes me want to ignore you.  I mean, using the word periodically is totally way worse than women treated like garbage on the Iron Range in the 80s for trying to do "men's jobs" right?

Just dial back the hyperboles a bit is all i am saying.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:28:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

Yes, the "Periodic" comment is probably the sleaziest thing I've ever heard a Democratic politician say - it's real low life, misogynistic shit. I'm sure it's considered a triumph of rhetoric in Obama's campaign but if the equivalent was made using racist rhetoric, no one would defend it.

It's just that we've discovered that there are as many misogynists on the left as on the right.

Chicks to the front.


by glitterannebegay on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:48:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (1.50 / 2)

Yes, the "Periodic" comment is probably the sleaziest thing I've ever heard a Democratic politician say

Okay, well then this is obviously your first political race and you also aren't really paying that much attention so I hope you realize as you grow older that this was a .01 on the ricter scale.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:53:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

really? so, since you know so much more than i do (even though I've worked on about 40 races), give me a few misogynistic comments from DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES that are worse than that. I've never heard of any.

Since you know more than me about misogynistic comments from Democrat candidates, list 'em. I'm betting you have no idea what you're talking about.


by glitterannebegay on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:31:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

Wow, 40 races?  Are you Geraldine Ferraro?  I'm honestly curious!

I'm a 19 year old female, I've no idea what you are talking about, nor do I really care.  Barack Obama has not been sexist in this campaign at any point in time.  The closest he got was "sweetie".... only my bf and I call eachother that all the time!

And before you lecture me, I was a supporter of Hill before I switched to Barack.  Look at my comments.  But seriously, I've seen some militant types on these boards and it just makes me wonder...


by Chelseain32 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:52:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

There are three types of Clinton supporters who say they won't vote for Obama:

1) The ones who won't vote for him because he is not a woman and Hillary is.  

2) The ones who say it as an empty threat as a way to try to push superdelegates to throw the nomination to Hillary.

3) The ones who are centrist/moderate or slightly conservative and rightly see Hillary as being between the neo-con McCain and the very liberal Obama.  Some of these people, whether they be Dems, Independents, or Republicans, have made a rational (though debatable) decision that McCain is closer to them than Obama.  And these are the only ones that I respect.  I don't agree with them, but I respect their choice.  I don't respect the number 1s or 2s at all.


by ProgressiveDL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:45:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

Please explain what "getting down" and "boost their appeal" have to do with misogyny.  Because for the life of me I honestly can't find any relationship at all.


by ChrisKaty on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:22:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

It's the full comment - that Clinton periodically gets down and attacks to boost her appeal. It's a really ugly misogynistic attack from a male Democratic candidate for the nomination on a historic run by the first viable female candidate. He uses language that is reminiscent of all the crap right wingers have said about women being too emotional to be president - that's the kind of low life rhetoric that Obama engages in.

I have never heard a major Democratic candidate refer to another male candidate in language that speaks of them "getting down" and "needing" to "attack" to "boost" their appeal.

Obama is a shameful candidate who uses the languages of bigots to attack.


by glitterannebegay on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:38:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

Sounds like you are on a hunt to find more and more ways to be a victim.  Good luck.


by hawkseye on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:05:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

LOL - Humorous coming from someone who supports a candidate who claimed Clinton's fairytale remark was evidence of racism. Or that Clinton's statement that Civil Rights requried a president's signature was racist.

That which is not resolved is projected.


by glitterannebegay on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:40:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

I'm sorry - I still don't get it.  I'm usually pretty good at picking up code words and understanding hidden meanings, but you've completely lost me here...

Please, tell me it's snark.


by Phoenix Rising on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:55:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (2.00 / 1)

"boost his appeal" gives 2620 Google results.
"boost her appeal" gives 3110 Google results, and most of them are to discussions of this very thing. This would mean before it happened, there'd be more references to men boosting their appeal.

"he periodically" gives 46300 results.
"she periodically" gives 19700 results.

I also googled "gets down emotionally" -- only 4 results, 3 of them for men and 1 of them for a woman.

So I don't know whether it was meant as sexist or not, it may have been for all I know, but the "whoever heard" argument that you made isn't working.


by Aris Katsaris on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:54:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

It's just like all these people who were suddenly telling me that 'whore' isn't a gender-neutral word bake when Randi Rhodes got fired.


Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.
by Endymion on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:05:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

**With all due respect, how can you possibly compare "periodically" with Hillary's latest gaffe?  Do you continue to wave this red herring because no one is "getting" how "periodically" MUST HAVE SOMETHING to do with a woman's menstrual cycle?  When you become too absurdist, people stop listening.  Hillary will soon find this to be the case.


If the choice is between hope and fear, always choose hope. BC
by greylox on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:40:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (2.00 / 1)

Could you explain why she needs to apologize to BO? She didn't mention him, she didn't mean his campaign when she referenced Kennedy, she only meant to say that campaigns can and do last into summer. Indeed another Kennedy took his losing campaign to the convention.

Can you see past the curtain of your hatred of this woman to reason this out? Can't you accept her apology?

I'm serious -- if you can explain why she needs to apologize to him, then maybe I can at least see that you have an argument even if I don't agree with it.


by cuppajoe on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:33:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

I'll take a shot at it.  Basically, there have been a few other examples of races lasting until June.  Why not pick one of those?

I'm not saying she is encouraging or wishing Obama harm, but the fact she mentioned RFK's assassination leads people to believe that she might be staying in the race in case something like this should happen.  This is why she should apologize to Obama.  And holy crap what about the timing?  With Kennedy's illness and all.

Again, I don't think she meant any harm, it's just a very poor choice of words and her apology sounds like it's our fault this is an issue.  "Sorry, if I've offended."?  How about "I apologize for mentioning the assassination of RFK in this context, especially in the light of Senator Kennedy's recent illness."


by chewie5656 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:41:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

She needs to make a real apology and then go home to stay.  She is not fit to be POTUS.


by hawkseye on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:52:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok this is where I defend her (2.00 / 1)

sorta.

When I first heard this, my first response was "ok, what she means is Kennedy's assassination (and her husband's California win) both occured in June, later than where we are now, so it's possible to still win the election with a primary going this late"

I can see how it would be taken as "Well, Obama may die"

But I don't think that's what she meant.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:08:15 PM EST

Re: Ok this is where I defend her (2.00 / 3)

I don't think it is either.

But that doesn't make her saying it any less boneheaded.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:51:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok this is where I defend her (2.00 / 1)

""Well, Obama may die"
or
"the horse may talk."
McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.
by catilinus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:02:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok this is where I defend her (2.00 / 1)

There are much better ways, none of them offensive, to get her point across, and her explanation, unless she's able to predict the future, do not excuse her past usages of the specter of assasssination.

She's not just being criminally careless, unlikely for a skilled politician and considering the consistent phrasing.  She forgot 'great tragedy' this time, implications I don't want to entertain.

She's not doing anything as crude as threatening Obama.

But she's coldly calculating on the risks to an Obama presidency, the real possibility of an assassination, as an excuse to continue her campaign for as long as she wishes. Because something might happen.


"I'm all for the delegate battle, and now that Obama's campaign is too, I'm all giddy. It's going to be the supers as kingmaker." J.Armstrong 01/19/08
by obscurant on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:17:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok this is where I defend her (none / 0)

"criminally careless"?

Isn't that a bit OTT?


by cuppajoe on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:34:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok this is where I defend her (none / 0)

MLK, RFK, JFK, all charismatic leaders, all assassinated.  

No, I don't think it's OTT.  Too explosive of a topic to use for political purposes.


"I'm all for the delegate battle, and now that Obama's campaign is too, I'm all giddy. It's going to be the supers as kingmaker." J.Armstrong 01/19/08
by obscurant on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:17:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok this is where I defend her (none / 0)

Doesn't really matter what she meant.  It was heard by many as "Well, someone might kill Obama..." (so I should keep running).

It's not plausibly possible for her to win the nomination without something extreme--like an assassination.  Obama needs only another 19% of the total delegates... and it's even worse than that, because he may get them, at this rate, from SDs (and pledged delegates) who abandon her.

If her reason for staying in is to be sure that the party has a "spare" candidate... then she could stop campaigning, acknowledge that she's not winning... but not drop out.  Suspend campaigning.  And if a house falls on Obama, or he decides to give up politics to teach constitutional law and have a slightly saner life... she'd be there.

In context of not having a plausible hope, what the hell does her remark mean and refer to?


by ogre on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:17:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

Amen.  This really does cross all lines of decorum, especially in a primary campaign.  This was not a mistake or a "misstatement," but a calculated attempt to steal the nomination out from under Obama through any means necessary.


by marley on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:08:21 PM EST

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

How would that comment help her steal the nomination?

I'm an Obama supporter, but I don't understand how this could possibly benefit her.


by emptythreatsfarm on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:40:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (2.00 / 3)

It was a slip of the tongue that seems to have pulled back the curtain, providing a rare glimpse of how she really thinks. People have been asking for months why she stays in when she can't win. Does this reveal her secret hope? That Obama will be assassinated? I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and say maybe, maybe not. But it sure stinks to high heaven.


"No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November." -Hillary Clinton
by fugazi on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:11:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because it's helped her so much? (none / 0)

You people are truly crazy.


by denise b on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:46:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What fucking bullshit (none / 0)

Please God, help me exist in the same party as these people.  I have no choice!!!


by Trickster on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:46:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

This is the second time she has made reference to the RFK assassination.
It's not an accident, and it shows me that it has been on her mind a great deal and that's why it "slipped" out.
It's disgusting.
by hawkseye on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:55:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She's saying increasingly damaging (2.00 / 2)

things as the race progresses. The longer this goes on, the more she's going to have to take back, refute, deny, reject, denounce, etc, once she concedes.

Who will believe her at that point? There is a question of sincerity. You can't deem someone unfit in a thousand different ways while presenting one's self as the only true path to victory...and turn around and expect to be taken seriously as an ally for that person, once the game is called.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:08:52 PM EST

Ok this is where I defend her (none / 0)

sorta.

When I first heard this, my first response was "ok, what she means is Kennedy's assassination (and her husband's California win) both occured in June, later than where we are now, so it's possible to still win the election with a primary going this late"

I can see how it would be taken as "Well, Obama may die"

But I don't think that's what she meant.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:08:52 PM EST

Re: Clinton Steps Back (2.00 / 2)

Again, good front page MyDD post.  Much appreciated.

There were myriad primaries that have lasted into June, and these did not contain assassinations.  I'm still floored by her remark.


by Pat Flatley on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:11:32 PM EST

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

I wouldn't quite call this a non-apology apology.  

I'd note she said that she apologizes if the words "were offensive" not the usual tripe "if people were offended."  The former implies an objective standard, the latter that the people hearing it were crazy.

So its a major improvement on the earlier statement.  I'd also note that Obama's campaign is already playing it down.  But something stronger, like "I realize my choice of examples of long presidential campaigns was an offensive one.  It wasn't my intent, and I apologize to those that I offended with that comment" might be good.  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:13:08 PM EST

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

Right.  Weak apology.  Sorry, if it offended, blah, blah, blah.

How about I'm sorry I offended anyone.  It was not my intention.

I don't think she meant any harm, but what an extremely poor choice of words.


by chewie5656 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:41:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

I don't buy the 'poor choice of words' argument. Clinton has been in the spotlight forever. She is a pro in public, at debates, on the floor of the Senate. She is a polished public speaker. and if you do buy into the argument that she keeps 'mis-speaking', than do you really want her talking to heads of state about delicate, complicated issues? I no longer have any confidence in her at all.


Bush murders soldiers for profit. McCain wants to wet his beak.
by awobbly on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:16:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

It was reckless and we don't need another reckless Pres.


by hawkseye on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:58:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Double standards (1.16 / 6)

The lack of an apology for the misogyny in the campaign is beyond the pale. The same thing can be said for the continuation of Obama's campaign.


--donna darko. I don't read or respond to comments. There's too much hate and misogyny here.
by nonwhiteperson on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:13:53 PM EST

Re: Double standards (2.00 / 3)

This is not about Obama.

This is about Hillary.


Mooseburgers? Careful Sarah. Moose bite back!
by spacemanspiff on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:18:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not to me (1.00 / 1)

She apologized.  Now it's about the asshats that won't accept reality when they have a chance to burn the witch.


by Trickster on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:48:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Double standards (2.00 / 1)

HRC has a responsibility to be careful when mentioning assassination - you don't use it to make a political point.  That's just inexcusable.

She used assassination as part of her argument.  Tangetal or not, it's there.  She could have chosen other examples, but she didn't.  Now, put on your critical apparatus and consider...why Bobby Kennedy, why assassination?

She's raising a health issue, I think - Obama might not be longlived.


"I'm all for the delegate battle, and now that Obama's campaign is too, I'm all giddy. It's going to be the supers as kingmaker." J.Armstrong 01/19/08
by obscurant on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:22:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (2.00 / 3)

She issued a classic non-apology apology. I'm sorry "IF" I offended...  Given the timing with what the Kennedy family is going through, that was an especially sick thing to say. I don't know how anyone can defend it.


by grasshopper on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:15:12 PM EST

Re: Clinton Steps Back (2.00 / 3)

And it didn't explain that she used this example before, before the sad news about Ted Kennedy's cancer came out.  Her apologia is a lie.


"I'm all for the delegate battle, and now that Obama's campaign is too, I'm all giddy. It's going to be the supers as kingmaker." J.Armstrong 01/19/08
by obscurant on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:23:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This fits a familiar pattern (2.00 / 4)

I remember her having some difficulty admitting a mistake on a certain vote.

Apologizing and admitting error are not the Clinton strong suit.


by TL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:22:42 PM EST

Re: Clinton Steps Back (2.00 / 4)

Not only is this a non-apology apology, but her explanation is simply false.  She says that, with Ted Kennedy's health problems, the reason she made the comment was because she's been thinking so much about the Kennedy family these last few days.

Except that she made precisely the same analogy more than two months ago:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/ 05/hillarys_bizarre_rfk_comment.html

Like her "explanation" for the sniper fire gaffe (she couldn't have been that tired EVERY time she repeated the story), this simply doesn't hold water.

Does she wish for let alone advocate violence against Obama?  Of course not.  But this is sloppy talk and sloppy thinking of the very worst kind.

And that's not even taking into account the other false claim in her original statement: Bill's '92 campaign, which everyone at the time agreed was more or less over by late March or early April, even if he didn't have the requisite number of delegates until later.  Sound familiar?


by boffo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:30:38 PM EST

That's it. (2.00 / 1)

She has been stirring up the racists with her 'white people' comments and now this.  She has got to get out of this race ASAP.  She's a menace.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:41:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bill wrapped it up in March (2.00 / 4)

when Tsongas dropped out.

She can't even get her own husband's campaign straight.  Bizzaro world....

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9E0CE0DE1F3FF933A15750C0A96495826 0


by Regenman on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:35:14 PM EST

Technically... (2.00 / 1)

... she's correct.  Jerry Brown was still in the race, and -- had he pulled off a major victory in California (his home state) -- he could have gained enough delegates to keep Clinton from going over the top.  As a resident of California, I have to say, I didn't at the time seriously think Brown had a shot.  But it could've happened.

The fact is Clinton for all practical purposes had it wrapped up in April.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/03/q-did-the-1992.html

Were there calls in the media to for Jerry to drop out?  I don't remember any, but I wasn't as big of a news junkie as I am today.  And bloggers didn't exist, so they couldn't have.

But I'll bet you they did in the Clinton camp.  At least privately.


by Y Knot on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:36:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Technically... (none / 0)

technically?  jeebus I'm so sick of the parsing of words......

i did not have sexual relations bs!


by ktmnyny on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:27:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Technically... (none / 0)

Time to step AFK for a bit?

The poster is merely pointing out the facts.  Technically, the poster above is correct, and so is Hillary.

Kennedy/Carter is a better example, but given the outcome of it and the circumstances surrounding it, I'm sure she didn't want to use that particular race...


by Phoenix Rising on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:11:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Steps Back (none / 0)

She had better step way back -- the blowback is turning into a release of all the frustration she has stoked in this campaign

She's become the Don Imus of politics, or the crazy offspring of Don Imus and Tracy Flick

Holy crap, Hillary -- offensive or dumb, or both, but nothing else!


by fightbull on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:44:36 PM EST

Re: flippantly? (2.00 / 1)

I watched the video of her whole conversation, and she didn't sound flippant!  What is this flippant stuff?


by moevaughn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:09:16 PM EST

This hysteria is so stupid (none / 0)

Hillary is neither this devious, callous nor unfeeling.  I mean, she had her marriage open for the entire world to see.  I admit it was less-than-ideal, but yet an altogether innocent, stream of thought.

This disqualifies her from nothing.  

All it does is it becomes yet-another-reason for her detractors to flail Hillary.


by dcrolg on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:18:15 PM EST

Obama, on the other hand... (2.00 / 1)

Is the antichrist. Every scratch an obscene gesture, and reference to time a misogynist slam based on menstrual cycles. Every look, comment, expression, word, pause between words, compliment, subject change, point of agreement with CLinton and point of disagreement only further proof that he is a sinister, racist woman-hating liar who secretly lurks to either throw the election to the Republicans, or be victorious himself and bring Karl Rove on as his VP.

I think I've got it right, yes?


by odum on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:02:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This hysteria is so stupid (none / 0)

Using political assassination as an example of anything beyond the horridness of political assassination is criminally careless.  She's done this before, it's a planned attack that is meant to damage Obama.


"I'm all for the delegate battle, and now that Obama's campaign is too, I'm all giddy. It's going to be the supers as kingmaker." J.Armstrong 01/19/08
by obscurant on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:26:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hysteria? (none / 0)

You know that's a misogynistic term, right?  

The term originates with the Greek medical term, hysterikos. This referred to a medical condition, thought to be particular to women, caused by disturbances of the uterus, hystera in Greek. The term hysteria was coined by Hippocrates, who thought that suffocation and madness arose in women whose uteri had become too light and dry from lack of sexual intercourse and, as a result, wandered upward, compressing the heart, lungs, and diaphragm.

Just sayin'.  If one can condemn a man for saying 'periodical', surely you can see why you should never use a word like that...


by semiquaver on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:28:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This hysteria is so stupid (2.00 / 1)

You don't see anything tacky in invoking RFK's assassination as an example of campaigns lasting until June? Surely Hillary - and you - are aware of the fears out there of an assassination of Obama. I admit it was tactless and nothing else. But what a horrible thing to say.


by elrod on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:32:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This hysteria is so stupid (none / 0)

For me this is not about Hillary intentionally evoking the assassination of Robert Kennedy in a devious, callous or unfeeling manner.  It is far more disturbing to me -- it pulls back the curtain on her thought process.  Why is she sticking around?  Apparently because it's in her mind that if Obama died, she could easily pick up the pieces and get the nomination at the convention.  

This is not, for me, about her using invoking a shocking and totally inappropriate image in a quest to get a nomination that is far beyond her grasp; it's about her apparently calculating that, though her prospects of getting the nomination through the pledged or even the superdelegates is practically nonexistent, there is a small but constant possibility that the secret service will somehow fail to protect Barack Obama.  


by Headlight on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:47:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I assume you're under 50 (2.00 / 1)

If you had been 13 years old when RFK was assassinated, as I was, you'd realize it's perfectly natural to date events of that time period by that milemark.  I remember every detail of his assassination, what I was doing when I heard he had been shot, what I did all day while his life was in the balance, where I was when I heard he had died.  Furthermore, it was all inextricably tied up in the primary battle.  His last public words were "And now it's on to Illinois, and let's win there!"  If I were to speak of the latter stage of the '68 Democratic primary campaign, damn straight I would use the RFK assassination as a reference.


by Trickster on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:53:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I assume you're under 50 (none / 0)

"it's perfectly natural to date events of that time period by that milemark."

That's one of the most disingenuous comments I've heard in support of Hillary (which is saying something).  That's like saying, "Back when I was in college, you know, about 3 years after AIDS began killing the gays?"

Ridiculous.  


by ProgressiveDL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:53:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I assume you're under 50 (none / 0)

No - he's got a point, though perhaps it wasn't best-used.

I don't know how old you are - don't know what events have touched your life.  Where were you when you found out about the attacks on 9/11?  The Challenger disaster?  RFK's assassination?  MLK?  JFK?  Perl Harbor?

Each generation has its indelible events - etched into memory with a stylus of grief and shock, or maybe wonder and awe.  Part of the RFK Assassination is its context: it happened the night of the California Convention, and as pointed out, RFK's final words had to do with the election.

This doesn't make her statement good or even acceptable.  The lack of tact displayed (repeatedly) by her use of this comment is obvious by the reaction it's getting.  Just don't get so tied up in the reaction that you irrationally dismiss a poster's point.


by Phoenix Rising on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:20:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I assume you're under 50 (none / 0)

I watched the Challenger explode on tv in school.  I was young, so I don't remember it very well.  I do distinctly remember the Columbia explosion, the start of the Persian Gulf War, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and I cried when I heard JFK Jr. had died.  

But I don't date anything by those events.  Those events are entirely separate from other things that happened on those days or in those years.  

I am absolutely convinced (since it was the second time she has done it) that Hillary is sending a little signal to her low-info supporters that Obama might get assassinated and then they'll want her around.  

I don't see it as her encouraging someone to do it or hoping it will happen, but there were many other better examples (1980, 1984) for her to use.  This was the second time she's done this, so, like Tuzla, it's no longer just a mistake.


by ProgressiveDL on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:10:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I assume you're under 50 (none / 0)

I'm 48, actually, so your assumption is correct (of course, the odds are 7-3 that that would be the case, and probably a lot higher than that as this is a discussion on the internet which is used less frequently by the elderly than those under 50).  

But whether or not someone dates events to the assassination of Robert Kennedy, this matter is not at all about how Clinton conceptualizes historical events.  It shows a really disturbing lack of self awareness on her part, at the very least.  She can't figure out that evoking Kennedy's assassination treads in dangerous rhetorical territory?  It seems like this is of a piece with many other instances where Clinton's public statements seemed oddly unaware -- much like the stand by your man comment in 1992 -- of how the statement would be heard by others.  And that's a skill that a successful president needs.  


by Headlight on Tue May 27, 2008 at 09:12:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She never made an Apology. NEVER (2.00 / 3)

She "explained" and "regretted" how some might interpret her words.

She, who DEMANDED that for others, DENOUNCE was not as strong as REJECT.

So, since REGRET is no where near APOLOGIZE, we all wait breathlessly for her apology.

Like we did for the Bosnia lies.  Same spin, different lie.


by Eman on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:20:20 PM EST

Re: Clinton Steps Back (2.00 / 4)

She has disqualified herself from the VP slot with this offensive remark, and her non apology to Obama for saying that she was staying in the race just in case he gets assassinated is worse than the original statement.

This woman says nothing without careful thought.

This statement is no accident.


by telfishbackagain on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:40:50 PM EST

Keith Olbermann to comment on Countdown (2.00 / 1)

KO will be doing a special comment regarding this on Countdown.  Should be interesting.


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:42:10 PM EST

Re: Keith Olbermann to comment on Countdown (none / 0)

sorry, who? should be BO.


by peartree on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:56:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Olbermann to comment on Countdown (none / 0)

Keith Olbermann


by semiquaver on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:30:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Olbermann to comment on Countdown (1.00 / 1)

BTW, who care what Bill Oreilly jr said. Big Deal


by peartree on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:58:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What apology? (none / 0)

Where is it? I don't see any apologetic language there.


by Bee on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:43:01 PM EST

This is like the 57 states boner (1.50 / 2)

People say dumb things when th