<p>Woodwork:</p>
<p>There are different issues at work here. One is the timeline; the other is the reference to assassination.
On the second, I have agreed that it is a gaffe. On the first, I believe that HRC is doing everything to win the nomination, and that some of it is, to me, quite unpalatable.</p>
<p>That sounds reasonable to me. </p>
<p>Perhaps, from my point of view, cynical (we are talking about politicians here), but certainly with in the bounds of polite discussion.</p>
<p>I supppose the gaffe, such as it is, did not necessarily require the indignation and high dudgeon that it has recieved either here or in segments of the media. As you know, most here disagree with not only you, but me, on your second point.</p>
<p>I liked it better when everyone was demanding that we talk about the issues. </p>
<p>Still, I respect the opposing view on this one, even if I don’t feel or get it.</p>
<p>Many remarks and allegations Hillary made earlier in the week have been real head scratchers, and seemed to arise from a sort of last-gasp desperation. First, she compares the Florida/Michigan delegate seating controversy to the 2000 Election’s Florida recount debacle, though really there’s no comparison. Then she compares it to the Presidential election in Zimbabwe (an election rigged by a ruthless and brutal dictator), suggesting that if Obama becomes the Democratic Nominee, his nomination will be illegitimate, and that if the DNC abides by the rules she herself once agreed to, it is guilty of vote suppression. She even compared “her plight” to The Civil Rights struggle and the Women’s Suffrage Movement:rolleyes: It appears she’s just throwing stuff against the wall in the hope that something will stick. </p>
<p>So, this latest thing is not that surprising. I don’t think she expected the blow back, though. Part of me thinks a lot is being made over not much. I believe the hyper-parsing of every word a candidate says, in a effort to demonize and discredit has gotten waaaaaay out of hand. But then I think of the fact that Obama came under Secret Service protection due to a torrent of death threats very early on in his campaign. And then there are things like this rather “unfortunate” cover of The Roswell Beacon:</p>
<p>[The</a> Story of the Roswell Beacon Cover - Barack In The Crosshairs - Featured Image on BuzzFeed](<a href=“http://buzzfeed.com/scott/barack-in-the-crosshairs/the_story_of_the_roswell_beacon_cover]The”>http://buzzfeed.com/scott/barack-in-the-crosshairs/the_story_of_the_roswell_beacon_cover)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Democrats always lose.</p>
<p>I challenge any of us to talk nonstop for 16 hours a day (surrounded by press and microphones) and not ever misspeak.</p>
<p>I mean, did her tone and body language look threatening? Was she channeling Tony Soprano?</p>
<p>Obviously it was a dumb thing to say. We really don’t want to put any ideas into any sick minds out there. But it’s also obvious that she was thinking about it in terms of JUNE - she remembered that Bobby Kennedy was still campaigning in June, because that was when he was assassinated.</p>
<p>I’m willing to cut her slack on the statement, spidey, unlike Keith Oberman, whose head I thought might start spinning around on his shoulders, while in the throws of his tirade against Hillary. The question is, why would she keep mentioning Bobby’s assassination if it had no relevance to her point? You must admit it seemed as if she was saying, "it makes sense for me to stay in the race because “anything could happen—look at how Bobby Kennedy was assassinated just when it looked like he had the nomination locked up!” She’s mentioned this unfortunate turn of events on at least two other occasions. I was mystified as to why such a turn of events would preclude her from being the alternative nominee, should such a tragedy occur, though. If she suspended her candidacy now, and the unspeakable happened, she would need only to un-suspend it and present herself ready (which she undoubtedly would be:rolleyes:). Please note that I am not suggesting that she drop out. I have no problem with her fighting for the nomination until there’s no fight left to be had. I was just speculating as to the logic behind her reference to Kennedy’s assassination… </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, quite true. As I said, I think the current tendency to hyper-parse every word that comes out of a candidate’s mouth has gotten way out of hand, and is seriously destructive to the whole process. The Gotcha imperative only serves in the short term, and can obviously easily be turned back to bite one in the arse. Both Obama and McCain also “talk nonstop for 16 hours a day (surrounded by press and microphones”. But who cuts whom slack for their “unfortunate misstatements” largely depends upon whose ox is being gored, doesn’t it?</p>
<p>I thought I read somewhere that Hillary has more death threats than Obama but I can’t find the link anymore. Can some tell me if that is accurate ? </p>
<p>Also, Kennedy is white not black, and he was the senator from New York, like she is, so she could just as likely to be assassinated by extension ?</p>
<p>All I can say is people, GROW UP! I must admit, when I first saw the reporting of her comments, I thought, ‘OMG, can’t she keep from putting her foot in her mouth?’ But when I actually saw the video clip of her comments, it is obvious that she was not referring to the RFK assassination as a veiled suggestion that Obama could (or should) be assassinated. She owes no apology to Obama for this. As simba pointed out, the journalist who interviewed her confirmed the true context and meaning of her remarks. What, Americans can’t handle a reference to a political assassination in our history without going apoplectic? It seems to be fine with RFK Jr. who dismisses the matter (yes, I know, he’s a Clinton supporter, but still…). That said, calmom (in comment 44) is right. 1968 is not a great example for Hil to use if she wants to make the point that uncertainty close to the convention won’t jeopardize party unity.</p>
<p>Given the context, that makes no sense -she was arguing she should stay in a race she has already lost because something could still change the dynamic. The only way she could win at this point would be if that ‘something’ was an event that knocked Obama out of the race.</p>
<p>Also, I’d point out that the media has frequently drawn parallels between Obama and RFK over the past year. (I personally didn’t agree with the comparison – but the bottom line is it is something that has been said over & over again resulting in a meme that Obama=RFK that is not easily discarded):
Examples, from Time Magazine, March, 2007:
[In</a> 2008 It’s Ronald Reagan vs. Bobby Kennedy - TIME](<a href=“http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1604561,00.html]In”>http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1604561,00.html)
From The Guardian, January 2007:
[Martin</a> Kettle: In Bobby Kennedy, we saw the best of ourselves | Comment is free | The Guardian](<a href=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jan/20/comment.usa]Martin”>In Bobby Kennedy, we saw the best of ourselves | Martin Kettle | The Guardian)
</p>
<p>Patrick Leahy statement on Obama endorsement, January 2008:
[Election</a> Central | Talking Points Memo | Leahy Endorses Obama, Likens Him To Bobby Kennedy](<a href=“http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/01/leahy_endorses_obama_likens_him_to_bobby_kennedy.php]Election”>http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/01/leahy_endorses_obama_likens_him_to_bobby_kennedy.php)
</p>
<p>Poetsheart: “The question is, why would she keep mentioning Bobby’s assassination if it had no relevance to her point?”</p>
<p>I have no idea. It’s just weird.</p>
<p>Farmdad: I was defending her as well. But it just wasn’t a great thing to say. That kind of stuff really is a possibility, and we really don’t want to float any ideas out there with the sitting-home-waiting-to-be-a-shooter set.</p>
<p>I think the bottom line is that HRC is trying with every plausible or not-so-plausible argument she can come with to convey the idea that Barack Obama is not electable:</p>
<p>he can’t be elected because he doesn’t have enough experience as compared to McCain;
he can’t be elected because low-education, rural white voters won’t support him;
he can’t be elected because he doesn’t really have a majority of the popular vote if you count Michigan and Florida (and don’t count the caucuses and don’t treat any of the Michigan votes for “uncommitted” as leaning his way);
he can’t be elected because his pastor said bad things;
he can’t be elected because he is sexist and women won’t vote for him; </p>
<p>and now,</p>
<p>he can’t be elected because something really bad is likely to happen to him.</p>
<p>I think I understand the <em>why</em>, because I think the meme of Obama being like RFK and the fear that a black man running for president is a target for assassination is very much alive in her mind, though it might be tooling around at a subconscious level. (I also think that anyone who lived through the events of 1968 would have the assassinations of RFK and MLK tied together indelibly in their minds – they were too close in time, only 2 months apart, for we folks over age 50 to ever be able to think about one without having the other come to mind). So for her, it probably is part of her perception of Obama as the high-risk candidate. I just don’t think she really thought out the full ramifications of expressing that idea (i.e., that it could be perceived as a veiled threat or incitement). </p>
<p>What I don’t know is whether these statements are, as asserted, accidents from an overexhausted candidate – or calculated statements in an effort to continue to plant seeds of doubt as to the viability of the Obama nomination, in a still-desperate belief that she can win over super delegates to her side.</p>
<p><a href=“I%20also%20think%20that%20anyone%20who%20lived%20through%20the%20events%20of%201968%20would%20have%20the%20assassinations%20of%20RFK%20and%20MLK%20tied%20together%20indelibly%20in%20their%20minds%20–%20they%20were%20too%20close%20in%20time,%20only%202%20months%20apart,%20for%20we%20folks%20over%20age%2050%20to%20ever%20be%20able%20to%20think%20about%20one%20without%20having%20the%20other%20come%20to%20mind”>quote</a>.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I absolutely agree. I’ve always had these two events connected in my mind.</p>
<p>IMHO her comments were an expression of a subconscious or conscious wish that something is going to happen that will propel her into the nomination.</p>
<p>Her ‘apology’ was weak. I thought about Mike Huckabee’s terrible statement re Barack Obama falling off a chair after someone pointed a gun at him. This was a week ago. Huckabee on Meet The Press and possibly other places gave a sincere (again IMHO) apology and said the statement was ‘dumb’. </p>
<p>Clinton on the other hand said a weak apology, couched in the words ‘if anyone found it offensive’ paraphrased. Obviously many people found it offensive. She seems to have a problem stating her words were wrong and she is sorry for them. period. </p>
<p>I also think that someone running for President, capable of taking that 3 am call, should have better control of their words. If she cannot handle campaign stress, she cannot handle the pressures of the Presidency. She was also supposedly ‘exhausted’ per her husband, when she made up the Bosnia escapade.</p>
<p>After the pathetic Huckabee joke recently, Andrea Mitchell tried to bring up the event on the Chris Matthews show, and Matthews immediately stopped ANY meniton or discussion of it by saying something like:
"we are not going to go there, because there are too many nutcases out there, end of story we are NOT GOING TO even DISCUSS THIS one " </p>
<p>There is a recognition that this is a very sensitive issue, as addressed by Michele Obama as something the family had to consider before they decided to run. Just like RFK, Obama had to realize he IS a target for the racists out there.</p>
<p>Calmom- good job of reminding us that MLK and RFK assinations are forever linked in our minds. </p>
<p>As Keith Olbermann (even with his head spinning ) made the point that the USE of the WORD “Assasination” does NOT HAVE A place in THIS CAMPAIGN, and sadly, this gaffe ? will stick to the HRC legacy.</p>
<p>Tired or not, it wasn’t the first time (ala Bosnia) and, the word was (IS)unforgivable.</p>
<p>Baystate Nutmeg makes an excellent point, that is worth repeating below:</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I watch Hillary put her foot in her mouth again and again. Today’s comment was, at the very least, in very poor taste. At the most, it was truly frightening.</p>
<p>Which person do we want negotiating with foreign heads of state? <<<<</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And yet, he was still hamstrung by his unfortunate “bitter” comment. Then, just as now, everyone was dissecting every word, every nuance of tone, trying to extract as much political ammunition as possible from the candidate’s gaffe. </p>
<p>My point is, in today’s political climate, it really is impossible to run for major political office without having to defend and explain what in many cases, should simply be dismissed as an inartfully expressed thought. The Gotcha imperative has become so poisonous to the process, I just don’t see how we can move beyond disingenuous pettiness to honest analysis of the issues. So what’s the result? The candidate with the least number of Gotcha’s—or the least damaging—wins? It really is quite sad for America if you think about it. When we as voters relish such opportunities, we only play into the hands of those who really don’t give a rosy rat’s ass about the fate of this country. It’s like a collective insanity, really:(</p>
<p>If it’s any consolation, I don’t think that many average voters pay any attention to this nonsense. The only people who were upset about the “bitter” comment were people who weren’t going to vote for Obama anyway; no Clinton voter is going to be upset about the RFK or sniper gaffes, and McClain’s voters don’t care if he knows the difference between Sunnis and Shiites or not. It’s all silly season fluff, ignored by the average voter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I prefer not to believe that she had any nefarious intent when she said this. I honestly don’t think she did.</p>
<p>
Poet, I love your description of Olbermann. It’s pretty accurate. I can’t take watching Olbermann more than a few minutes, even though I try.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>God, I hope you’re right, kluge…:(</p>