Why we MUST NOT "Get Over" Hillary's Assassination Statements.

[Yes We Did]

I don't know how best to make my point here without sharing a bit from my own personal experiences... so here goes.

I have a family member who voted for Dubya. Now, 7 1/2 years later that person cannot stand him and regrets ever voting for him in the first place. Every time we talk about politics that person says that someone should just "shoot him" or "kill him" or "assassinate him."

And every time I have to tell that person not to say things like that. If for no other reason than because I don't want to see something bad happen to that person. We all know they're listening to our phone calls. *Of course this person would never do anything like that themselves, and it is just idle talk... but still...

As much as I despise Dubya and everything he stands for and everything he has done, I don't hate him that much. I don't believe in capital punishment and I don't believe in "an eye for an eye."

Hillary Clinton has invoked RFK's assassination not once, not twice, but THREE times now, each time using it in a way to say she has reason to remain in this race, despite the FACT that she cannot win it legit.

Now, even if I were to give her a pass ALL THREE times, and say that she was just making a historical reference (which the context DOES NOT support) I would still take issue with what she said.

There are two things in politics that you just do not talk about. You don't talk about Hitler, and you don't talk about assassinations. You just don't do it. At best it's tasteless and at worst it's illegal.

There are plenty of legal things in this country that you just shouldn't do; like waterboarding. I made the argument that words can't actually physically "hurt" someone not too long ago and was rebuffed by a Hillary supporter. And right about now I'm glad I was. Because words like the ones Hillary used hurt millions of people; not just the Obama family.

You could also look at it this way. If you were at a Clinton Rally and said:

"Mrs. Clinton, many are calling for you to get out of the race, but as we know your husband didn't officially sew up the nomination until June, the same month RFK was assassinated in all those years ago. I just don't get it. Can you tell me why they would want you to get out"

You would be arrested on the spot, or at the very least put on every single watch list this country has to offer. Your phones would be tapped (if they weren't already) and you would probably never be able to fly again.

Hillary gets a pass for what she did because of who she is...
Hillary Clinton.

Well you know what, that isn't good enough for me. She doesn't get a pass this time; at least not from me. We already have a bunch of politicians breaking all the rules that rest of us normal people have to follow. And one more person doing it is one too many. I don't care what party they belong to, and I don't care who their husband is.

Who am I? Why does it matter what I think?

I am a voter. I am a voice. That's who I am and that's why it matters what I think.

We all have voices. That's why it matters what each and every one of of thinks.

So please, stop asking me to "get over it." It's not going to happen. Wrong is wrong, and this time she is wrong; and there is NO excuse for it.

[Swamp Rat]

1. Let's focus on the REAL enemy>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[JuniperLea]

20. Well done, Swampy!

The picture and the post!

[Jersey Devil]

2. Well, the Boss says to move on so I think we should follow his lead

Obama is in general election mode and we must follow if we want to help him.

[papau]

12. LOL - Obama press kit pushes OP attitude despite it being stupid relative to the facts (seeRFK;s son

[marylanddem]

15. I love him but he's not my boss

Her comments were so vile they transcended this political contest.

[Cronus Protagonist]

3. Link?

Hilary never mentioned assassination, I bet.

[Yes We Did]

4. Are you Freaking Kidding Me?

Wow. Just Wow.

[Cronus Protagonist]

9. Link?

...crickets...

[Cronus Protagonist]

19. I found one myself... one with context

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080525/pl_politico/10604

The RFK remarks were deep in a 20-minute clip of an otherwise routine conversation. Then, once we actually got to the relevant portion of the video, it was hardly an electric moment.

Clinton does indeed mention the Kennedy assassination, speaking in a calm and analytical tone: “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.” Martin and I both thought we saw a slight twinge in Clinton’s facial expression, as though she recognized she had just said something dumb. Whether she recognized it or not, she had.

But it was also clear that Clinton’s error was not in saying something beyond the pale but in saying something that pulled from context would sound as if it were beyond the pale. It would be a big story if Clinton said something like this: “Hey, I know it looks bad for me now. But, think about it. Obama could get shot and I’d get to be the nominee after all.” It is a small story if Clinton said something like this: “Everyone talks like May is incredibly late, but by historical standards it is not. Think of all the famous milestones in presidential races that have taken place during June.”

It seems pretty obvious that the latter is what Clinton meant, and not too far from what she actually said. It was not surprising that the Argus Leader’s executive editor, Randall Beck, put out a statement saying, “Her reference to Mr. Kennedy’s assassination appeared to focus on the time line of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself.”

Make no mistake. Clinton stepped on a rake with her comment and got bopped in the face. This was entertaining political slapstick, for those of us who like that kind of thing. Little wonder she apologized. But Clinton’s clumsiness does not excuse news media clumsiness in making a minor story seem like a major one. A note on the randomness of the news: If this really was a big story, then the media has blown it for months. Clinton made similar remarks to Time magazine back in March. (The Wall Street Journal reporter with Clinton has an entertaining look at how the pack traveling with the candidate initially missed the story.)

[Cronus Protagonist]

10. Link?

...crickets...

[Lucky 13]

5. Have you been under a rock?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x137210
Here's the video link of her saying it this most recent time.

But she also said similar remarks to Time Magazine in February and another source in March. Do a search... it's there. If you can't find it, I'd be happy to do the research for you.

She said it... 3 times no less. Truly a glimpse into a disturbed mind, if you ask me.

[Cronus Protagonist]

13. Oh, I see. Bad grrrl. She mentioned part of the history of our country!

OMG.. This is HUGH!! I'm SERIES!!!

I saw a whole miniseries on the History Channel a while back that completely dug through the entire assassination plot and JFK - was that also reprehensible?

[Yes We Did]

14. So Sad...

[Cronus Protagonist]

16. ...that the Obama people have to inflate non-issues rather than talk about substantive topics

n/t

[stillcool]

25. Hillary's strategy is a substantive topic...

the sky will open, the light will come down, a lightening bolt will strike Senator Obama, and the celestial choirs will be singing my name.

Interview with Clinton: One Day at a Time
Thursday, Mar. 06, 2008
TIME: Can you envision a point at which--if the race stays this close--Democratic Party elders would step in and say, "This is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall"?

CLINTON: No, I really can't. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1719900,00.htm

Clinton campaign on ropes

BY JOHN GUERRIERO
Published: May 08. 2008 6:00AM
Murray, who has supported Bill and Hillary Clinton since 1991, said these are tough times for people like him who are in the Clinton camp but want to unify the party.

"The sense is, absent some catastrophic event that would take place in this campaign, it's going to be very difficult to see a path to victory for Hillary given what happened" Tuesday, Murray said.
http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080508/NEWS02/805080437

Sun May 11, 2008
Analysis: Could Clinton land the VP nomination?

Several Clinton associates say there is still a ray of hope among some in her campaign: that a "catastrophic" revelation about Obama might make it possible for her to win the presidential nomination. But barring that, Hillary and Bill Clinton recognize that her candidacy is being abandoned and rejected by superdelegates whom she once expected to win over and that, even if she were to win the popular vote in combined primary states, she will almost certainly be denied the nomination.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/10/bernstein.clinton/index.html?section=cnn_latest

CBSNews.com Reports: N.Y. Senator Now Faces Nearly Impossible Odds To Capturing Democratic Nomination
May 7, 2008

Clinton's Path To Victory Slipping Away
There is one scenario which does work for Clinton and that’s a massive movement of superdelegates leaving Obama and supporting her. The party leaders could do that, but it would take some unforeseen development in the race between now and the convention for them to do so. Obama, in some way, would have to be rendered so unelectable that the party rejects him at the convention. That’s not much to hang a hat on but it’s starting to look like her best option.

And even that might not be a viable option, said Joe Trippi. “Even if the catastrophic thing existed or happened, if she were perceived to have caused it, I think it would end her campaign too,” Trippi said. I don’t think there’s any way now for her to gain the nomination. She’s at the point now where if she tries to make a case against Obama, it will actually speed up superdelegates joining his cause just to shut the campaign down.”

But Trippi notes that the Obama campaign and Democratic leaders are still likely to give Clinton the room she needs to go forward on her own terms, provided that she does so in a positive manner. “I think there’s lots of tolerance for her going on, running the table into the convention and having a presence there,” he said. “But if she actually tries to compete in the trenches for the nomination in a way that looks like it’s damaging the nominee … I don’t think there will be any tolerance for that at all.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/07/politics/main4078586.shtml

[Max_powers94]

6. I am over it but it is in back of my mind.

[Kokonoe]

7. Its not about Hillary's attempt to dominate the news cycle

It about us and our families and friends. Stay on message, its about America and the world. Much bigger.

[Carolina]

8. I disagree

with: "There are two things in politics that you just do not talk about. You don't talk about Hitler, and you don't talk about assassinations."

You should talk about both and especially the part both have played in history, in war (WWII, Vietnam), geopolitics, power, etc.

Where HRC crossed the line was by saying she's still in the race because as we know RFK was assassinated in June, thereby suggesting she's waiting in the wings should the same fate await Obama. Her timeline history (her bogus excuse) was wrong and her context was abominable. That is why what she said was specifically wrong.

But talking about Hitler and assassination is not, nor should it be, verboten.

[barack the house]

11. The positiive is the word is receiving the scorn it deserves. Although in..

this instance I feel there was no mcalice.

[AndyA]

17. I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I call BULLSHIT on this.

I saw Hillary make her statement. And anyone who puts the emphasis on the assassination of RFK is just intentionally looking for something they can use as an issue. Period.

Hillary's point was that this isn't the first time multiple candidates have been in the race so late in the year, and that even in 1968 there were multiple Dem nominees running in June.

That's it. There is nothing else there.

Anyone who took it as a threat of some kind is really stretching to make it one. And crap like this does not do much to encourage those of us who are still undecided to hop on board the Obama train. :eyes:

We could have done better. Hillary and Barack will not bring about real change. Some of us KNOW BETTER.

[JuniperLea]

22. I agree with everything you've said here...

Hillary said what I've been saying here for months... there's no rule that says a nominee must be selected before the convention... the convention was originally the intended venue and moment for that. It's happened far more times than Clinton noted that the clear nominee wasn't known before the convention. This is a very typical witch hunt situation, and it stinks. It's dirty politics... you know, the kind Obama has been denouncing. Stinks. Every time I think perhaps Obama is different, he and his supporters and campaign people pull crap like this... there's nothing "change" about him afaics.

We got the two lamest candidates for sure. Pity, too, because this is an important election.

Remember this... there will be a lot of us wanting to say "I told you so" the first time Obama (or Clinton) acts like a Republican.

[Bake]

23. Amen. We could have done so much better.

This is just going to be more of the same, even if we win the White House, which I very seriously doubt.

The Obamatrons hoping for "change" are going to be sorely disappointed.

Bake

[StevieM]

18. There is nothing to get over--you're lying. Hillary said nothing wrong. And the fact that you

believe she did is just more proof that we are living in a second McCarthy era. Barack Obama is the Joe McCarthy of our time and he has wipped up mass hysteria.

The context of her remarks makes it absolutely clear that she was talking about how long these contests go. Even in the remark where she mentioned RFK she accented the word "June." But in a wave of McCarthyite hysteria people hear what they chose to hear.

If it is horrible that she mentioned it before, then why wasn't she accused of doing something wrong before? Because there is no substance to these charges--just McCarthyism.

I am not asking you to "get over it"--there is nothing to get over. You deserve no apology, and you didn't get one. Neither did Sen. Obama, nor did he deserve one. Of course, that didn't stop Axelrod from "accepting."

Wrong is wrong and Hillary did nothing wrong.

Steve

[SeattleGirl]

24. "Barack Obama is the Joe McCarthy of our time and he has

wipped up mass hysteria."

WHAT. THE. FUCK??????

Are you crazy or just deliberately stupid?

Just the fact that you are using McCarthyism to describe Obama tells me you really don't understand what the hell it means.

[TNOE]

21. Anybody who thinks this is some sort of "accident"

isn't very politicall astute these days. The Clintons (and Bushes) are political machines. Nothing is "uttered" unless it has been discussed and vetted thoroughly. personally, I think it was a veiled threat against Obama - or putting the word out there for someone to take care of the Clinton problem.

This is Karl Rove, pure and simple. And she figured she had plausible deniability - just that most of us weren't stupid enough to fall for her shit any longer.

See Keith Olbermann's Special Comment Friday night. This time she has gone to far.

[PoliticalAmazon]

26. ITA. Any politician who uses assassination as a campaign tactic...

should be considered a political pariah, leper, unclean.

[backwoodsbob]

27. I'm an Obama Supporter and...

I got *over it* about...I don't know...three seconds after I heard about it? :shrug:

[PoliticalAmazon]

28. I guess the assassinations that have occurred in my lifetime impacted me a tad more....

I don't think that assassination is dismissable with a flippant "whatever."