Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obviously, Senator Clinton's comment was a huge gaffe. But I think it's apparent that her intent...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:38 AM
Original message
Obviously, Senator Clinton's comment was a huge gaffe. But I think it's apparent that her intent...
...was to point out that the Democratic presidential primary in 1968 was still going on in June. I do not think she was trying to suggest that Senator Obama might be assassinated. For reference, here is the full text of the relevant section of her interview with the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader:

Senator Clinton: This is the most important job in the world. Its the toughest job in the world. You should be willing to campaign for every vote. You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere. I think its an interesting juxtaposition where we find ourselves and you know, I have been willing to do all of that during the entire process and people have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa and I find it-

Editorial Board: Why? Why?

Senator Clinton: I dont know I dont know I find it curious because it is unprecedented in history. I dont 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.

Editorial Board: You dont buy the party unity argument?

Senator Clinton: I dont, because again, Ive 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

Editorial Board: June

Senator Clinton: We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. Um you know I just I dont understand it. Theres lots of speculation about why it is.


When you look at the entire exchange, it is clear that she is talking about primaries that lasted into the month of June. The first reference is to her husband's campaign in 1992, which apparently lasted until June. Then she mentioned the RFK assassination, which is another Democratic primary event that occurred in the month of June.

Was it a stupid thing to say? Obviously. The comment is particularly bad when one considers that there has been considerable speculation -- especially among the African-American community -- that Senator Obama might be assassinated because he is black. I think Senator Clinton probably realized immediately that she made a mistake. She is extremely smart and politically savvy, and I think she knows a gaffe when she hears it. (Or says it.) This is pure speculation, but the "Um" in the transcript might suggest one of those "Oh, God what did I just say?" moments.

Another factor that makes the comment particularly unfortunate is that it seems pretty obvious (to me, at least) that one of the reasons why Senator Clinton has remained in the race even after victory seemed unlikely is that her campaign felt there was a chance that something might happen to harm Senator Obama's candidacy -- which would then open the way for Senator Clinton to win the nomination. But they were thinking more along the lines of "Jeremiah Wright" than "Sirhan Sirhan."

(And while we're on the topic: The suggestion that Senator Clinton's comments indicate a desire or, worse, a secret plan to kill Senator Obama is CRAZY TALK. And if you are thinking "But... but... Vince Foster!" you have no business on a progressive forum.)

For better or worse, this is the way politics is played. Senator Clinton's campaign is going to have a difficult time trying to convince her critics that this was a case of simply misspeaking -- in part because her campaign has spent so much time and effort flogging those times when Senator Obama similarly misspoke. ("Bitter" being the prime example.) Their task will be made more difficult by the fact that the media did 24-7 coverage of "bitter" and may feel an obligation to blanket the airwaves with Senator Clinton's comments to show that they are fair. I do not know what the coverage is like -- I have not turned on cable news since this controversy started.

The one question mark in how this plays out is how the Obama campaign chooses to use Clinton's gaffe. If they push it, then it'll almost certainly be everywhere for a long time. But if they choose to stand back and let it die, then it will die. My guess is that Axelrod and company will not see much advantage in pushing this thing too hard, considering the fact that they need to bring Clinton supporters into the fold, not antagonize them more. But we shall see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Higher Standard Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks.
It's always nice to see a calm, reasoned analysis, especially since passions are still high over yesterdays events.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CabalPowered Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Welcome to DU
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
453. Kiss my ass. Just sayin'
Edited on Sat May-24-08 08:41 PM by rhett o rick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Steely_Dan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #453
509. Oh, That's Mature...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #509
550. Yes it was and I apologize to the poster. But still not admitting to being mature. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue State Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
521. I agree that malice was not her intent. But...
Edited on Sun May-25-08 02:52 AM by ingin
She was trying to promote a false time frame. There are no "Californias" this June, and the party's nomination process, in both refereed to cases did not span a comparable length of time. I do believe that it may have crossed her mind, as she said over and over, "anything can happen". BUt I don't believe that she was attempting to lay such a scenario out to the public. BUt I hope that she can learn from this, the premise behind the reason behind the calls for her to end this.

This event is a prime example of the dangerous effects of dragging this process out. Hillary is far to seasoned to make such a political miscalculation. Her statement was the product of desperation by an exhausted candidate. The shear length of this primary season is unprecedented. It has taxed both Hillary and Obama. I just hope that Obama has the chance to sit back for a moment between now and the convention to tweak his GE strategy. And I hope that Hillary is made to realize that she is risking the party's chances by exposing Obama to the same stresses.

I believe that the venom DU exhibits toward Hillary is caused more by her more militant supporters, and the miss-management of her campaign by the advisers around her. I also believe that if we the DU community, known today for our majority support for Obama, could swallow our disdain for what we all know happens in political contests, and muster a united supportive front for a post-primary Hillary Clinton, we can prove to the rest of America what or favorite candidate is trying to achieve.

No more "dream ticket", no more "anything can happen", no more cowering from the responsibilities of citizenry, be they electors or electees.

Tell Hillary that if she steps back and fully supports Obama for the full 8 year as an honest broker, that we will support her as a leader in our party as we did for Edward Kennedy.

And it wouldn't hurt if we start talking about getting Chelsea a prime time spot in Denver, both for the youth voters and as a homage to the Clinton legacy in our party.

More on this here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6106467
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #1
522. To quote one of Tom Lehrer's best songs:
"Fish gotta swim and birds gotta fly
But they don't last long if they try."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jerryster Donating Member (685 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #522
533. Were those the lines...
or were the lines

sharks gotta swim
and bats gotta fly

I gotta love
one woman till I die
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #533
537. Yep, those were the lines:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPrAuF2f_oI
He introduced the song with this:

Time was when an American about to go abroad would be warned by his friends or the guidebooks not to drink the water. but times have changed and now a foreigner coming to this country might be offered
the following advice........

If you visit American city,
You will find it very pretty.
Just two things of which you must beware:
Don't drink the water and don't breathe the air.

Pollution, pollution,
They got smog and sewage and mud.
Turn on your tap and get hot and cold running crud.

See the halibuts and the sturgeons
Being wiped out by detergents.
Fish gotta swim and birds gotta fly,
But they don't last long if they try.

Pollution, pollution,
You can use the latest toothpaste,
And then rinse your mouth with industrial waste.

Just go out for a breath of air,
And you'll be ready for medicare.
The city streets are really quite a thrill.
If the hoods don't get you, the monoxide will.

Pollution, pollution,
Wear a gas mask and a veil.
Then you can breathe, long as you don't inhale.

Lots of things there that you can drink,
But stay away from the kitchen sink.
The breakfast garbage that you throw in to the bay,
They drink at lunch in San Jos.

So go to the city, see the crazy people there.
Like lambs to the slaughter,
They're drinking the water
And breathing **cough**the air.

Note--the version on the record was performed in San Fransisco, hence the reference
to San Jos, which was changed on the youtube performance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jerryster Donating Member (685 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #537
552. Yep!!
Thanks! I misidentified the song. He does have a song w/ the lines I cited, but I had forgotten all about the pollution son. And you're also right that it's one of his best. Of course I'm biased and consider all his songs one of his best>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #552
557. In that case, we have identical bias!
Lehrer was brilliant.

The Vatican Rag is one of THE best songs of the 20th century IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
2. ALERTED!1!!! No, I mean recommended. Excellent post. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
3. It's not a gaffe if you do it repeatedly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #3
44. Bingo. For those pushing the "gaffe" meme today.. it was a TALKING POINT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #44
53. Yes, it was a talking point
Skinner said: "I think Senator Clinton probably realized immediately that she made a mistake."

She would have realized it immediately in March when she first said it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tatiana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #53
130. Skinner is right on that point. Go watch the video.
Right after she says it, she realizes she fucked up... not only in the sense that she said something that sounds really horrific given the timing, but that the interview was being recorded. There's an immediate pause after she references RFK's assassination and then she stumbles and stutters.

Either she's really ignorant or has a dangerous character defect. People can make the case for either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #130
135. It matters not in the least exactly when she realized the tactic would go badly for her, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #130
151. I've seen it a couple of times
But it's the kind of thing you say once, smack your head, and never say again. It's the kind of thing a campaign tells a candidate: You do not say that again. The verbal mistake is chewed over by the entire team and scenarios for response drawn up should they be needed. As it happened, the media was otherwise engaged in March bludgeoning Obama, so this was overlooked, and maybe the Clinton camp decided it wasn't so bad as a talking point. This just isn't the kind of thing that is said a second or third time by mistake. I don't believe Clinton wishes death on Obama, not for a minute. I think it fits into the "anything might happen" strategy, to give people pause, particularly superdelegates. I think it was reckless and irresponsible to repeat it, but no gaffe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tatiana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #151
225. Well she was thinking "anything can happen"... absolutely!
We don't use assassinations to reference months of the year. We just don't.

So her point whether spoken or unspoken is "I'm staying in this race because something could happen to Obama. Look at what happened to RFK!"

And I think it's just dawned on her how unacceptable that sort of THINKING, that sort of thought process is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #225
253. Clinton's grotesque remarks are never "un-intentional"
she meets and measures every word.

What you hear from her is the product of careful planning and calculation.

She's been verbally lynching Obama for a long time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #130
366. Either way, she has no business being even near the WH
She screwed the pooch big time and permanently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #130
411. Well then she isn't as smart as everyone thinks she is because she said it in March too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #53
393. that is my problem with it - like Bosnia, you can't say its a slip up
if you do it again and again. How can people pretend that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #53
496. I agree totally with you WesDem. It is a horrible reference & it's been repeated. EOM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DUlover2909 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #53
520. Yeah Cenk did a whole bit on this. Pretty bad strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #53
526. I guess Hillary is a serial-goofer! Keeps making the same goof over again
In the context of the quote, it still makes no sense bringing up RFK's assassination. She could have simply pointed out that in 1968, the race was still going strong in June. She didn't have to even mention RFK to make her point, since there were other candidates campaigning hard up until CA.

I don't buy it that the mention of the assassination was not deliberate or that it wasn't meant to subliminally bring up the spectre of a black man running for office being likely to be assassinated. On its face, her comment makes little/no sense, was totally unnecessary, irrelevant to the point she was making.

I think it more likely that Hillary's pause was more like...well, these guys in the editorial board aren't buying this as well as it went over the previous two times I used this line....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #3
61. Once is a mistake. Three times is a pattern. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #61
65. Close. Three times is a TACTIC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #65
161. Good one! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #161
264. She's divisive and polarizing. She has no empathy. She's cruel and sadistic.
There is no excuse for her dog whistle to the crazies out there.

And for the "excusers" - she's a sociopath - a public figure does not make these
sorts of statements. Not accidentally. IF accidentally then she's a sick sick puppy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rainlillie Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #264
481. I toatlly agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #65
313. DING DING DING! BlooInBloo, you're our grand prize winner!
Edited on Sat May-24-08 02:12 PM by rocknation
Three times is a TACTIC.

Though yesterday makes it FOUR times:

(Hillary)...said in an off-camera interview with Time on March 6, "Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June, also in California. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual..." But somebody obviously warned her of the danger of that rhetoric.

After the Indiana primary, on May 7, she told supporters at a Washington hotel: "...(I)f you look at successful presidential campaigns, my husband did not get the nomination until June of 1992. I remember tragically when Senator Kennedy won California near the end of that process." And at Shepherdstown, West Virginia, on the same day, she referenced it again: "You know, I remember very well what happened in the California primary in 1968 as, you know, Senator Kennedy won that primary."

On March 6th she had said "assassinated." By May 7 she had avoided it. Today...she went back to an awful well...
link


With or without actually using the word, invoking the specter of assassination is self-serving at best and just plain ghoulish at worst. Also, Hillary should have taken into consideration that the anniversary of Bobby's assassination is barely two weeks away, and that Ted Kennedy's brain tumor was discovered barely a week ago. Combined with her Bonsia lie (NOT "misstatement"), this is just too unjustifiable to overlook (though it certainly should have been spotted sooner).

:headbang:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #313
381. Actually, somewhere downthread I saw that it's *5* times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thoughtcrime1984 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #65
327. Very true, and her "apology" indicates she didn't see the problem with using that example.
It was unneccessary, it shows her dark side, and it shows she is absolutely not able to own up for her poor decisions. She is not Presidential, and therefore is not Vice-Presidential either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #61
224. Yes
a pattern of pointing out that primaries frequently go into June.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #224
233. A pattern?
Edited on Sat May-24-08 12:21 PM by SOS
That is true, but it's not what Clinton said.
She mentioned only 1992 and the RFK assassination in June 1968.

In 1992, Clinton was the de facto nominee in the first week of April after the NY primary.
So while technically true that CA put Bill over the top in June, it was already finished two months earlier.

Which leaves us with the RFK comment.

Note to Clinton campaign: If you want to make this point, here's a way to do it right:

1984 - Mondale in July
1980 - Carter in August
1976 - Ford in August
1972 - McGovern in June
1968 - Humphrey in August
1960 - Kennedy in July

(It's also worth noting they all lost except Kennedy in 1960, who won by 0.2%. Going to July and August is a great way to lose)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #224
283. No they don't - she knew her husband had the math he needed by March - she knew Obama had the math
shortly after Super Tuesday. If she was establishing context she would have relied on the truth.

Your constant reach to attach integrity to her actions has become absurd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #283
422. Hillary rely on the truth?
She literally "can't handle the truth" and instead depends on snowing the gullible with her strained logic, ever-changing math and now her dogwhistle historical calendar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
disndat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #283
476. She forgot
Super Tuesday, February, was the "June" of past primaries because this time around, every state wanted to be the earliest and the primaries were clustered around February, instead of the previous,traditional, Democratic schedule of primaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heathen57 Donating Member (365 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #224
296. The pattern is that she has
'suggested' the assassination of Obama, and not just once.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #224
412. Except that she misrepresented the facts. That primary season was shorter than this one
It started later.

She could have used several other primary seasons but she picked this one all four times.

It was a tactic and it backfired. By doing it four times it is clear that it was intentional and she miscalculated.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #412
465. hilary misrepresent the facts?!!
She's made a career of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #224
500. If they don't start until March, obviously they go into June.
These days, April is the new June. It used to be that in June only a dozen or so primaries had been held. This year, there are only three very small states/territories left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Creideiki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #61
426. That's really not a road you want to go down.
Neither candidate is clean. Both are making screw ups. The Democratic Party--both official and its constituent members--can either attempt to unify things and allow for potential mistakes or it can throw the White House away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VolcanoJen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #3
136. Agreed!
I'm with Bloo and Keith Olbermann on this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dchill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #136
145. There you go! It was explained perfectly...
in KO's comment. No other way to look at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jerryster Donating Member (685 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #136
536. Re; Olbermann
I'm a big fan of Keith's. However, there was an article recently about sexism and Hillary's campaign. The article included a quote from Olbermann. I don't recall the exact wording, but he expressed a wish that someone take Hillary into a room and only he come out.

Can't this be construed that he wanted someone to use force to get her to quit, or to rough her up, hurt or even kill her? If so, is this an example of sexism being OK for Olbermann to espouse?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XtraProudDem Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #536
544. Nope
No, it's not an example of sexism.

It means the party leaders pull you aside and say "Get out. You're damaging the party."

It's called political strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XtraProudDem Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #536
545. And another thing...
Olbermann made the comment, but he wasn't "expressing a wish." He mentioned it as a possible scenario.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulfcoastliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #3
169. Nor is it very savvy. I don't understand how she's smart & savvy when she's said it several times?
I think she is a really nasty person - hardly a progressive.

Not only that, but this country was founded on the idea that monarchies are repugnant. What do you call 30+ years of 2 exclusive families controlling the presidency?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #169
290. Clintons have become as 'smart and savvy' about elections as the Bushes. Ruining the entire party
for years - we have been clawing our way back since 2002. Thanks to the truly brave efforts of most of the 2004 primary candidates, our 2004 Dem nominee and his ongoing efforts, Al Gore's post DC pursuits, and the strengthening of the Internet LEFT, and the subsequent turnover of the DNC from Clinton loyalists 1993-2005 to Chairman Howard Dean 2005-2008.

WE ARE DOING IT because WE and THEY didn't give up and give in to the Clinton-Lieberman wing of the Dem party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IllinoisBirdWatcher Donating Member (244 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
178. Let's look in detail at this "reasoned" analysis and responses
1. Correct observation that it is not a gaffe when it is rehearsed and repeated. Senator Clinton used this tasteless analogy at least two, if not three times in public.

2. It should not be necessary to use 748 words (the length of the post) to spin away one simple statement.

3. "...one of the reasons why Senator Clinton has remained in the race even after victory seemed unlikely is that her campaign felt there was a chance that something might happen to harm Senator Obama's candidacy -- which would then open the way for Senator Clinton to win the nomination. But they were thinking more along the lines of 'Jeremiah Wright' than 'Sirhan Sirhan.' "

There is no justification for the statement above other than "Only Clinton supporters know what Hillary really means when she speaks, and you don't." The example she used on multiple occasions is that one reason for staying in the race after it is mathematically impossible to win is in just case the leading candidate is assassinated.

4. "I think Senator Clinton probably realized immediately that she made a mistake. She is extremely smart and politically savvy, and I think she knows a gaffe when she hears it. (Or says it.) This is pure speculation, but the 'Um' in the transcript might suggest one of those 'Oh, God what did I just say?' moments.'

As documented by many others, this was not the first time Senator Clinton used this horrible analogy to justify her continued campaign. This talking point has been used before. I agree with the OP's conclusion that Senator Clinton knew exactly what she was doing and knew this was a "gaffe" the first time she spewed it, the second time she spewed it, and even this time. The only difference was that, like her Bosnia fabrications, she only reacted when the traditional media picked up the story.

5. "For better or worse, this is the way politics is played. Senator Clinton's campaign is going to have a difficult time trying to convince her critics that this was a case of simply misspeaking -- in part because her campaign has spent so much time and effort flogging those times when Senator Obama similarly misspoke. ('Bitter' being the prime example.) Their task will be made more difficult by the fact that the media did 24-7 coverage of "bitter" and may feel an obligation to blanket the airwaves with Senator Clinton's comments to show that they are fair. I do not know what the coverage is like -- I have not turned on cable news since this controversy started."

A) This is NOT the way "politics is played" by Senator Obama. Thank God. And viewers did not need to turn on cable news, nor read blogs. The traditional media had this story immediately. ABC evening news gave it balanced and reasoned play for several minutes, and I'm sure the others did as well. Equating the comparison of people being "bitter" when they are frustrated to ASSASSINATION of an opponent during a campaign is a unbelievable stretch even for the weakest of minds.

B) Judging from the past where the soundbytes from a supporter were played 24/7 for 36 news cycles, and the recorded lies of a candidate survived only 3 news cycles in the traditional media, this will die quickly.

6. "The one question mark in how this plays out is how the Obama campaign chooses to use Clinton's gaffe."

The media gave the latest repetition of this horrendous inuendo Clinton talking point above-the-fold attention even though both Senator Obama and his campaign issued clear, concise, and almost-instant statements. While the OP is now trying to spin potential future news coverage as the fault of Senator Obama, it is quite clear that all media outlets saw this insult for what it was.

There is so much more wrong with today's Clinton talking points to cover something she clearly elected to do intentionally and multiple times in recent weeks. If Camp Clinton hopes for this to die quickly, they should urge their supporters to let it die. They should urge her supporters to accept the fact that she issued a rapid almost-apology. They should not be putting out talking points attempting to explain away her chosen tenor for her campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dana_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #178
234. a very good, well thought out analysis. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kittycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #178
291. Excellent Analysis. For more reasoned than the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
King Coal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #291
447. Only if your conclusion preceeds and directs your logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #178
333. PLEASE make this an OP if it already isn't one. Excellent !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #333
561. I second that request!
Edited on Sun May-25-08 11:46 AM by notsodumbhillbilly
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #178
359. Solid analysis from IllinoisBirdWatcher
Well, it appears Skinner has a dog in this hunt. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #359
409. Yep, pretty apparent where the leanings go. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #178
373. THIS is the real reasoned argument. THIS POST DESTROYS THE OP'S ARGUMENT.
Well-done, and welcome to DU - we need more people devoted to honesty and reason like you around here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #373
382. What Zhade said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #178
375. Well said and welcome to DU
I think the tactic of using "assassination" as any kind of talking point at all is the gaffe, and a very deep one. The ability to use it implies something very shallow. I am very sad about that, although I pretty much expected it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #178
380. Excellent response, IBW!
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #178
414. Exactly. Great response.
Welcome to DU. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galloglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #178
490. You just skinned Skinner! Welcome!!
Nice job! You just peeled the pelt right off Skinner.

Neat, efficient, tidy, and deadly... and executed in only six bullet points (logic projectiles aimed at Skinner and cohorts), with answers.

Beautiful debut!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
186. Thank you. Secondly, you cannot compare theses primaries to those. We're at the end, not the start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MessiahRp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #3
216. Yep. Sorry Skinner but you're wrong on this one.
She's tested this one out at least three times previously. This is by no means a gaffe, this is a calculated statement and her fake non-apology that doesn't even address the real victim of this talk, Obama himself, shows what sort of intent she really has.

Rp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PoliticalAmazon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
378. She was wrong about the length of the RFK's campaign...
The NH primary that year wasn't until the very first week of March, so it wasn't a long campaign at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juno jones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #378
416. I wish I could find it...
A post here last night saying that there were also only 15 state primaries at the time, the rest of the states divvied it all up in smokey backroom agreements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrsT Donating Member (427 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
4. "Was it a stupid thing to say? Obviously. "
And that was what I have been saying. The "Hillary is always right!" brigade should be able to admit it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
6. I don't think it would have hit as hard if her apology had been genuine.
And I know--and many others do as well--she did not mean to raise the terrifying idea of assassination.

But the fact remains that she had several better examples of this kind of thing to choose from--yet she chose the example where the front-runner was killed before he could win the nomination as the best one to make her point with. This betrays an astounding lack of judgment and an inability to be diplomatic.

What troubles me the most is that she should have known better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hisownpetard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #6
100. Her apologies are never genuine. She seems genetically incapable of being sorry except
to the extent that anything she's said has a negative impact on her ambitions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #100
424. She's always "sorry"... that she got caught. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hisownpetard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #424
435. Yep. That's the only thing she really is sorry about. (Same with Bill).
Welcome to DU!:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #6
120. right
the 'apology' only added fuel to the fire. She looked sick like someone does when they know they've inserted foot in mouth. But she did not adequately apologize because that would have been incriminating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
7. the obama mob will be getting their torches and pitch forks and come after you for this
if obama is the nominee this nation better hope and pray he is nothing like his so called supporters on DU.

Msongs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #7
17. Yes, it is probably time for today's Lord of the Flies re-enactment. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #17
277. Actually, it's Lord of the Flies on acid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
busymom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
8. Thanks for a well-thought out post. I agree.
I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
9. Obama's Campaign was Classy as well as Savvy when they said
it was "unfortunate, and has no place in a Campaign.."

I don't think they'll push it, as you said, they are making every effort to be inclusive, extoll her virtues, and work towards Unity..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #9
117. The good thing is that that's as far as he'll comment on it.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that if he's asked again he'll say, "Please read my official statement on this matter...I have nothing more to say about it."

Obama's not the type to twist the knife.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #117
133. Thats why I appreciate the man
he's had many opportunities to destroy Clinton and has taken many passes on it, none I would have taken, a gentleman..

Let's hope he'll twist the knife when McSame shows up for his Public Beating :)

He's got a great Staff, I appreciate their youth, vigor, class, and sense of humor most of all..

"What is She? Annie Oakley?" while referring to Clinton as a Gun Person, I was ROFL at that, and really, isnt that something less than hurtful a Cool Cousin might say to rein you in? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #133
137. He's already shown he's not afraid of McGramps.
I'm not worried about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #137
185. Heh..
Like Frank Sinatra used to say about punks like McGramps..

"I got pieces of guys like that floating in my toilet.."

Gotta love Frank, and you Know he'd hang with Obama, baby :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #133
152. And it's not just class on his part, it's incredibly smart
Obama knows and Hillary doesn't that negative campaigning of the style she is doing hurts those on offense almost as much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #117
499. ha
I thought at first you were describing what the OP would say if asked questions. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
278.  Obama stays classy and hilary pushes whatever
she can. My son said the m$$$$fm smoothed it over today that she "apologized" so that's that.

But, give 'em a Pastor WRight and they fucking Pastorbait for how long?

Sooo, maybe hilary will STFU about Bobby Kennedy's assassination in June NOw? Ya think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #9
448. now that's funny n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NC_Nurse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
10. I agree with pretty much everything you said...but I would like to point out
that the Obama response to this will show how much better a candidate he is than Clinton.
She has taken the low road and pushed every little mistake or rumor or association of his
for her own gain. I am confident that he will NOT engage in such disgusting politicking.

That is one of the main reasons I support him - INTEGRITY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #10
125. except that when he e-mailed the news media
he, in his manipulative and underhanded way, cited the news article about Obama needing more security. He could have cited the KO comment about Clinton needing to be taken in a back room and killed, but he did not.

He is not classy, just underhanded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Levgreee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #125
298. you are totally off the wall with your interpretation of KO's comment
Edited on Sat May-24-08 01:48 PM by Levgreee
999 out of 1000 people(the 1 being those who WANTED to interpret it otherwise) would interpret "and only one comes out" as only one comes out still in the race. He wasn't implying they should take Hillary into a room and physically harm her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jerryster Donating Member (685 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #298
538. Are you sure?
Was he talking about someone taking her into a room for a stern talking to? A reasonable debate? Were his words said in anger?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XtraProudDem Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #538
546. Stop it
You're not a "fan of Olbermann" if you keep pushing this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
11. Thanks Skinner. I think it's very clear if you look at it with an unbiased eye. K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
12. then why, with other examples available, did she use THIS one three times
instead of less hurtful ones. She has never mentioned another example, just Bill and RFK.

I have to disagree with you on this one.

I do not think she is calling for his assassination, but I do believe that the triple reference speaks for itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #12
265. It sounds more and more that Hillary wants to BE LBJ
remember her snide remark about LBJ getting things done because it took a president,
verses MLK's activism?

think of the creepy parallels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnionPatch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #12
370. Maybe those are the only two campaigns that went into June that she can think of?
I'm very much an Obama supporter, but I have to give her the benefit of the doubt. She may have had some hidden insidious meaning behind that sentence, but it was not clear and it does our side no good to alienate all her supporters by villifying her over something that may have only been badly chosen words. I have enough valid reasons for supporting Obama over her without this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #370
397. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that,
when her campaign began researching late closing primaries, as you know they spent a lot of time doing, since this is their main talking point for her staying in, I am sure they made up a list of all that ran into the month of June.

Then they sat in a room, and decided which were the best to use.

Pushing her argument is what she and many highly paid people do for a living right now. She memorizes speeches, talking points, data, facts, poll numbers all day every day.

How in the world, with a list of options to choose from and a brilliant mind to memorize several, does she go back to RFK THREE TIMES OUT OF THREE.

I just can't buy it. They have been pushing 'something might happen' for awhile. I don't think she is calling for it to happen, but to plant the seed that these things DO happen, so please don't push her out.

And it makes me ill that that is a part of her strategy and argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnionPatch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #397
425. Well, I understand what you're saying, my husband says the same.
I'm just saying I don't think the current level of outrage is serving our cause. Not if there is a chance that she's innocent of any insidious intention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
13. Wow. Where to start. First of all, RFK had only been in the race for 3 months
when the California Primary of 68' took place. So the historical reference is bogus. Secondly, this was a planned and scripted talking point that had been used previously, three or four times to my count. Thirdly, you allege that it is Axelrod and the OBAMA CAMP who are pushing this? No, it is tens of thousands of grassroots and loyal DEMOCRATS. You know, the kind this board was created to support, or so I thought.

This post makes some things crystal clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #13
56. Crystal clear.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #56
84. Delete.
Edited on Sat May-24-08 10:54 AM by TBF
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #84
150. So what does the post make clear?
Please feel free to elaborate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hisownpetard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #13
105. Things That Make You Go "Hmmmmm..."
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #13
226. Agreed. The army of straw men mustered in her defense blow away in a breeze of scrutiny.
The primaries aren't comparable. Not at all. The meme has been repeated.

One of the more important assessments to make is regarding her actual objectives. The FACT of the matter is that the downfall of the leading candidate this late in the primary process has NEVER led to the election of the successor. Never. Nixon won in 1968.

Assuming the Clinton campagn comprehends that Obama's 'eventful' elmination from the nomination would result in a GOP win in November, then what do they WANT? The answer is clear. They want to consolidate DLC control over the Democratic Party ... making the Democrats and the Republicans merely two wings of the Global Corporatist Party. The "wealthy royalists" (as Al Gore calls them in 'Assault on Reason') would then be virtually unopposed.

If Obama is eliminated, the outcome of November would be CERTAIN: Corporatism.

That's not to say tha Obama hasn't placated the corporatists. But it does say they don't want to take the risk he'd not be under their control.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibraLiz1973 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #13
275. So your leaving? Because what he posted was rational?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #275
361. no... you'll just be ignored
Edited on Sat May-24-08 03:20 PM by fascisthunter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #275
391. Who is it, so can take them off my ignore list if they're leaving
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #13
360. Makes me Go Hmmmmm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #13
394. What is now crystal clear? If you think that Skinner is baised,
at least come right out and say it, like an adult would do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
14. Thanks Skinner. I think it's very clear if you look at it with an unbiased eye. K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Connie_Corleone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
15. She's said this several times before. It's not a gaffe.
And she didn't apologize. She gave a non-apology and didn't even mention Senator Obama. She gave an excuse about having Ted Kennedy on her mind. The media try to excuse her statement by saying she was tired.

That's a bunch of bull. She said the exact same thing in March and alluded to RFK's assassination a few weeks ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
16. Well, she has been admonished by the NYT editorial board
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftyladyfrommo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
18. This was so blown out of proportion.
I don't believe for one second that she meant anything about anything except that Bobby was still campaigning in June.

I hate this kind of stuff. People get destroyed for nothing. It's hideous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hisownpetard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #18
107. Blown out of proportion? Oh, please - don't even go there...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
urgk Donating Member (982 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #18
438. She may have meant no ill will toward Obama.
But, as President of the United States, Hillary Clinton would be in the unique position of declaring the will of our nation to the world. If she cannot handle the responsibility of delivering a clear, diplomatically-minded message while campaigning, what makes any of her supporters think she will be able to handle it from the White House?

We have all seen the international, world-changing consequences of first apologizing for, then electing a politician who repeatedly makes this kind of "gaffe." Our next President is going to have to face the Saudis, Putins I & II, the European Union, Corporate America and will have to make speeches to energize the American people to act against global warming, oil dependence and the effects of 8 years of Republican ineptitude. I've said it before, but we need someone who can lead, not someone who can apologize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ekelly Donating Member (303 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #18
470. Then why didn't she just say,
'We all remember that Bobby Kennedy was still campaigning in June.' and leave it at that, in order to draw the paralell between Bill and Bobby?

Why slip in the part about him being assasinated in June? What useful purpose did the assassination reference add to the conversation?

Anyone?.....anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
19. I disagree. She has raised the specter of assassination before.
She mentioned assassination back in March to TIME magazine. We are witnessing the meltdown of a candidate that needs to get out of the race before doing further harm to our future nominee Obama, and to the Democratic Party's chances in November.

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-blog.com/swampland/2008/05/hillarys_bizarre_rfk_comment.html

Please note that Hillary did not apologize to Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #19
37. yes, she has raised it before
that doesn't mean she wants it to happen, of course not (God, I hope not). but she has not realized that she was playing with fire when she said it and that's a huge lapse in judgement on her part
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourguide Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #19
38. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #19
43. Her husband had the nomination sewn up in April
and in '68 the first primary wasn't until MArch.

It's to put assassination into the minds of the suepr delegates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
masshole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
20. Still a poor analogy for her to use
So why even bring it up?
Only 13 Primaries in 1968 beginning in March. RFK didn't join the race until after the NH primary.
28 primaries so far this year, beginning in January. HRC has been a candidate since October of 2007 iirc.

No comparison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
21. I disagree completely
She is invoking assassination imagery purposefully and has done so on numerous occasions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #21
26. Hillary's assassination mind-set is troubling
It shows that she has a side to her personality that is as dark, if not darker, than Nixon's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryOldDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #21
149. I agree.
You "just don't go there" on some subjects, no matter what point you are trying to make.

Especially not now.

Sorry, I cannot rationalize this, or take solely a literal interpretation her remarks. She is an intelligent woman, and knows the impact of words. She could have chosen a different reference. Or no reference at all, which probably would have been the wiser course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
22. Excellent post....let's see how many people call you an
Edited on Sat May-24-08 10:09 AM by cboy4
asshole or a "Hillbot."

:kick:


On edit----------> THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING SOME MUCH, MUCH NEEDED BALANCE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonestonesusa Donating Member (630 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #22
249. Actually, you're the first person in this thread to use "asshole" or "hillbot"
in the midst of many reasoned arguments calling Hillary Clinton out for her insensitive, historically inaccurate, and politically suicidal remarks and non-apology. Reasoning proceeds from more than one point of view - add your reasoning if you want instead of accusing others of name calling that they are not doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #249
309. Of course I'm the first person....Anyone who said that to
skinner would have their Obama fan ass tombstoned.

But believe you me, there were a lot of people thinking those words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonestonesusa Donating Member (630 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #309
326. I don't know - intuit what you want.
I see plenty of substantive discussion on this thread, including rebuttals to Skinner, and I objected to your disregard of the honest attempts at exchanging views. The sideshow of "Obamatrons" vs. "Hillbots" isn't as interesting to me. I like to hear reasoned points from both sides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondie58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
23. I am trying to be open minded- I really am
thanks for this Skinner. I do find it a little odd that she has already used this three times yet- it still slips into her speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #23
83. Phew. So much slipping. It's amazing she can even stay on her feet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
24. Fail
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me three times, fuck her and the horse she rode in on.

This is at least the third time Hillary herself has alluded to RFK's death as a reason for remaining in the race; in addition, one of her supporters made a comment about JFK, RFK, and MLK being murdered (while comparing them to BHO) during a NH rally.

If we concede your point and agree that her motives were not malicious, then the question arises as to whether or not Hillary is capable of handling herself in a crisis situation. I don't want a president who is going to blurt out inflammatory statements unannounced during a tense situation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theoldman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
25. I don't think that Hillary took the low road intensionally.
I do think that Obama took the high road because it was the right thing to do. This is why I admire him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
27. as her plausible routes to the nomination have been closed off
she has offered implausible routes as alternatives.

as voting seems unlikely to go her way, she offers some other possibility. it's all actually very logical in her mind to stay in in case something happens.

assassination is a possibility (she grants that it's a horrible one) but just one possibility that makes it imperitive that she stay in.

but there's a huge problem with that thinking and it's undermining her very claim to be the alternative to Obama now or at the convention.

i'm also concerned that she has brushed up against this comment before, it's not totally inadvertent. what i find troubling is that she continually says ridiculous things and is surprised at the reaction from Democrats.

her reasoning is logical but politics is not about logic, politics is about emotions and connotations --this is the thing she doesn't get.

like you i realize that this is about getting her supporters into the fold, but her average supporters are just as troubled by this kind of talk and for example, comparing the civil rights movement to counting Florida and Michigan. they see it and most of them see it for what it is, forestalling what appears to be the inevitable.

politics can be crass like it was yesterday, but i think something as dark as she said, followed by such a weak apology, is not responded to by ignoring it. no, i wont' flog this for 3 months, but a few days, yes, her action earned that, most certainly, the white voters comment earned the same thing.

if she would just stop crossing the precipice and stop saying ridiculous things, i would have no new reasons to need to talk about ridiculous things she says --i'm ready to talk about McCain, but I can't. that's her fault, not because she has stayed in, but because of the *way* she has stayed in this race, the particularly harmful way she has stayed in this race.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #27
158. great post
:thumbsup:

"her reasoning is logical but politics is not about logic, politics is about emotions and connotations--this is the thing she doesn't get"

Exactly.

Didn't she realize that after putting these ideas out as talking points, that when Mike Huckabee thinks "sound of gunshots = that's Obama" --makes a great joke at a NRA rally, you'd better STFU, excuse me-- I mean that you would be smart to modify your message?

The Obama campaign doesn't have to do anything with this. They can just get out the popcorn and watch the wounded beast flailing around in the ring hurting itself.

After 8 years of Rethuglicans how can we NOT react, even though this is (technically) one of our own?

There is no thrill in this. None. But she betrays us all now. It's not a time for silence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #158
303. The saddest part of all of this is that she is only
Edited on Sat May-24-08 01:55 PM by truedelphi
As you say (Technically) one of our own.

In an oligarchy whose ruling elite figure out the easier of ways to establish their control, making each of two parties both dance to the same drumbeat is hardly a novel idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #303
328. all the more important
that we not show blind loyalty...but call it what it is no matter where it comes from.

What I really hate is all the lip service to democracy while the oligarchs have no interest in protecting it. That's a hard lie to swallow all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #328
356. It's a hard lie for us to swallow
And even more difficult for the Iraqis, who have seen their families shattered by death and injury, their streets turned over to militants fighting a civil war, their food crops to be given to them only through the Monsanto GMO channels, et cetera.

All in the name of "liberty and equality."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
28. Furthermore, the June thing is a red herring and she knows it
Clinton had his race sewn up in April. HE just didn't have the delegates until June.

In '68, the first primary was on March 12 and Bobby didn't get into the race until MArch 14. By June 5, only 13 races had been held.

Her June reference is a red herring in order to purposefully, and on multiple occassion, get the assassination imagery into the debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
29. No mathematical way of winning
Edited on Sat May-24-08 09:58 AM by Ichingcarpenter
Yet the charade continues.....

Can you tell us reasons why a political candidate would invoke assassination as a reason to continue running in a race which there is no mathematical way of winning possible?
Don't tell me the History because I know it, also Tsongas exponent and comparison is already
a fact that is ignored by Her.


Frankly, Clinton needs to end it now
and she needs to bring her supporters into the fold

An intervention is needed by Tuesday, to end her abusive campaign
I hope you are apart of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #29
77. "An intervention is needed by Tuesday, to end her
abusive campaign I hope you are part of it."

:wtf:

Yea, I'm sure skinner will call off her campaign before she does. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #77
94. The intervention is coming from the Democratic Party

The avalanche of supers endorsing will sink her little boat





The Field has learned that Cardoza is the first of a group of at least 40 Clinton delegates, many of them from California, that through talking among themselves came to a joint decision that all of them would vote for Obama . They have informed Senator Clinton that its time to unite around Obama.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #94
109. That's a wonderful little cartoon, but I was mocking you
Ichingcarpenter about your suggestion that skinner needs to intervene to "end her abusive campaign."

You people are so drunk with irrational thoughts, you're now calling on the owners of progressive discussion boards to get involved with stopping the voting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #94
441. I hope that's true - and it's really the way it should be done. That is why
they are the party leaders. They get to make the hard calls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jerryster Donating Member (685 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #94
540. Is this fact?
Or is it wishful thinking? One reason Hillary is still in is because the much awaited flood of super delegates coming out publicly for Obama (who I support, by the way) has not happened. It seems to me that they are keeping the option of selecting her open in spite of everything. The answer to why is known only to them. no matter how savvy we consider ourselves the supers know - or believe they know - things we don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #29
86. There are three scenarios for Clinton to win
1) Obama gets killed. Suspicious glances will now go her way.

2) Obama's character is killed. Once again suspicion goes to her.

3) She is able to get the supers to overturn the results of the election. This would probably be in conjunction with path #2.

Her loose speech is merely reflective of the reality of her situation. She should quit. No matter which happens, 1, 2, or 3, she won't be able to unite the party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #86
128. Hillary's RFK remarks spark widespread rebuke: a sampling
Hillary's RFK remarks spark widespread rebuke: a sampling (Updated x2)
by davidkc
Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:16:40 AM PDT

Hillary Clinton's RFK assassination remark has sparked a swift and widespread condemnation across the country, not just in the blogosphere but in the mainstream media as well. Since we can sometimes get insulated in our corner of the Net, I thought it might be helpful to compile some of the reactions from prominent bloggers, commentators and editorial pages. We're not alone in being shocked and outraged. "Reckless," "Tasteless," "Awful," "Offensive," "Faulty," "Strange" are just some of the reactions.

* davidkc's diary :: ::
*

First, some reaction from the mainstream press. One of my hometown papers, The St. Petersburg Times, gave perhaps one of the most charitable assessments:

Her remarks stunned the political world, including many of her own supporters, and by the end of the day she expressed her regrets. But the damage has been done, and it could be the gaffe that moves the remaining unpledged superdelegates to throw their support to Obama to bring this campaign to an end. The kindest view of Clinton's comments was that she is suffering from campaign fatigue. She clearly needs some rest.

As a quick aside, I have to point out that in the same editioral the St. Pete Times also called out Hillary for her cynical and hypocritical stance on the Florida delegates issue:

Clinton's fervor to count Florida votes might be more poignant if it weren't so pitiably self-serving. She did, after all, sign a pledge supporting the sanctions. Her senior campaign adviser, Harold Ickes, voted for them as a member of the DNC rules committee. She has spent the past two months trying to persuade superdelegates around the country to disregard pledged delegates, and has even hinted that pledged delegates should disregard voters.

Her only chance is to kick up enough dust to get superdelegates to change their minds. Or, as she hinted in South Dakota on Friday, to wait for some unexpected event to change the outcome.




The New York Times (from the editorial board blog) focused its criticism on Hillary's non-apology apology:

...she issued one of those tedious non-apology apologies in which it sounds like the person who is being offended is somehow at fault: "I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive."

If?

Is it even possible that Mrs. Clinton thinks someone out there was not offended by her remark, Kennedy relative, Obama relative, or just plain folks? ...

Whats next? "Mistakes were made"?





Libby Copeland, in an essay for The Washington Post, pulls no punches:

There are taboos in presidential politics, and this is one of the biggest. To raise the specter of a rival's assassination, even unintentionally, is to make a truly terrible thing real. It sounds like one might be waiting for a terrible thing to happen, even if one isn't. It sounds almost like wishful thinking....

The fear of a president or a presidential candidate being shot or assassinated is horrifying precisely because recent history teaches us that it can happen. We don't need anybody to remind us, and we certainly don't need anybody to remind whatever suggestible wackos might be lurking in the shadows.

In the context of Obama, Clinton's words broke a double taboo, because since the beginning of his candidacy, some of Obama's supporters have feared that his race made him more of a target than other presidential hopefuls. Obama was placed under Secret Service protection early, a full year ago. To be unaware that one's words tap into a monumental fear that exists in a portion of the electorate -- a fear that Obama's race could get him killed -- is an unusual mistake for a serious and highly disciplined presidential candidate.




The blogosphere has been no less unforgiving.

I have made that point that Hillary's RFK assassination comment, coming on the heels of her comment about hard-working "white Americans," shows that -- as Hillary would say -- there's a pattern emerging here, and it ain't a pretty one. Andrew Sullivan seems to agree:

You only have to spend a few minutes talking with African-Americans about this campaign to discover that the fear that Obama could be assassinated is very much on their minds. It is in everyone's subconscious, especially Michelle Obama's. To refer to the June assassination of Bobby Kennedy in the context of reasons to stay in this interminable race against Barack Obama is therefore catastrophically inappropriate. Coming after her pitch for "white votes", it is reckless...

Yes, this season has gone on for ever. And for Senator Clinton, it has now obviously gone on too long.

She's been waiting for Obama to implode. Instead, she just has.





Pam Spaulding at Pam's House Blend points out that Hillary's choice of historical reference is illogical at best:

WTF? I don't understand her reference to what happened to RFK except to set off a dog whistle that nominating Obama is a risk because of a fear of some whack job taking him out...

This is awful. She clearly didn't have to make her historical point about staying in the race through the end by raising RFK's California win in the context of the assassination.





Karen Tumulty at Time magazine's Swampland blog notes that Hillary's excuse that Ted Kennedy was on her mind rings hollow once you learn that this isn't the first time she's made the remark:

Though she has now apologized for that very strange and tasteless comment to the Argus-Leader, this was not the first time she's said it...

Her excuse now is that the Kennedys have been "much on my mind these days" with the illness of Senator Edward Kennedy, but that doesn't explain what brought it to mind more than two months ago.

And on the all-important teevee news, Mark Shields pointed out on the NewsHour that Clinton's comparison of this race to 1968 was misleading and historically inaccurate:





MARK SHIELDS: I think it was, at the best, totally reckless. I mean, her history is absolutely faulty. Robert Kennedy's first primary, Ray, was in May 7th of 1968. He was murdered four weeks later. She's talking about a long campaign.

This campaign began the first week in January. She's still talking about June. So, I mean, it's faulty there.

Along with Keith Olbermann's scathing Special Comment, Howard Fineman astutely pointed out on Countdown that if Hillary is trying to convince the superdelegates to turn her way, she has a strange way of doing it:

She seems constitutionally incapable of just saying I screwed up and her lead footedness about this here is being observed by all the people who are still undecided about whom to back, the last 200 superdelegates here, they've got be looking at this and saying that this is a campaign that needs To Be Put Out Of Its Misery Real Soon."





The reaction of uncommitted superdelgate (and DNC Rules Committee member) Donna Brazile to Hillary's remarks perhaps says it all:

Al Gore's 2000 campaign manager Donna Brazile, an uncommitted superdelegate who has been complimentary to Obama, told Newsday: "I am numb."




UPDATE:

As always, Juan Cole offers some wise and incisive observations about the uproar over Hillary's remarks. He states that Hillary "inadvertently stumbled into a hornet's nest" by reminding people "of April 4, not June 5, of MLK along with RFK." And he seems to gently upbraid folks like us in the blogosphere who perhaps sometimes give too much significance to candidates' misstatements than is deserved, but he notes that in this case it is Hillary's own fault:

Elections should be about issues, not about this sort of hothouse speculation about personalities.

But there is one sense in which her campaign, at least, bears some responsibility for her current straits. Clinton operatives behind the scenes have been smearing Obama as a Muslim, and it was they who dug up that photo of him in Kenyan clothes. Clinton even said Obama was not a Muslim "as far as I know." The malice demonstrated in those actions laid the groundwork for people to believe that Clinton was capable of such hostility toward Obama.

The incident, it seems to me, does tell us two other things.

The first is that the strategy of the Clinton camp, of continuing to campaign even after victory at the polls became numerically impossible--in hopes that Obama might stumble and alienate sufficient numbers of superdelegates--was not crazy. I don't approve of it, but that it could work or could have worked seems clear. It could easily have been Obama who stumbled yesterday. Ironically, it was Clinton.

The second thing the incident tells us is how traumatized the nation still is by those horrible killings 40 years ago, and how much unfinished business of healing those wounds there is. Hillary didn't mean to pick at the scab. But she did. And we bled a little, all over again.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/24/65451/0542/860/521896

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #128
175. Pick AT the Scab?!
She Ripped that Sucker Clean OFF! As a youth I recall one of my daily rituals which included picking up the Newspaper from the front porch in our suburb.. They didn't even roll it up, the town was so small :) that the paper lay flat, ready to read.,

There were special days that I picked it up that burned those front pages into my mind forever.. Pics of Martin Luther King's Balcony from when he was Assassinated.. The huge pic of RFK laying on the floor of a commercial kitchen, face as blank as the Future we all looked forward to that no longer existed, gunned down, the Liberals might have Ruled for 50 years because of that Man, our whole culture was snuffed in a moment and we headed for graft, right wing corruption, more deaths because of that Bullet..

I began to wonder why all these forward thinking men of Peace were being gunned down, and looking at being drafted soon enough on top of it all - meanwhile I was an Altar Boy, going to church twice a day, and Catholic schooling, where the showed me the OTHER Man of Peace who'd been killed by those Corrupted by money or Religion or power..

The memories invoked create a loss for many and a void that would NEVER be filled by the likes of Hillary, she has not Earned the Right or Respect or Class to "own" that Era, to make any mention of Any of it, in my mind..

Now, Obama, he's the Real Deal.. Ted let's him Speak for him for a Reason, he's like an Adopted Son of one if the greatest Liberal Families (and we can be PROUD of that word Again!) this nation has known in a Century or more..

This IS a big deal.. When all these images of Death, not just RFKs FLOOD the Collective Mind of the Country it will BUCK her OFF its back.

SHE does not have the RIGHT to talk of these things. They are Sancrosect. Not to be USED for Profit.

Off the Soapbox now.. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftrightwingnut Donating Member (434 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #128
268. I think that they were waiting for something -- anything.
Unlike the Dean Scream, they didn't have to manufacture it. Like the Dean Scream, it's a pile-on.

See my response to Skinner down-thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6108152#6110974
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RazBerryBeret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
30. I DO think she seriously "misspeaks" more than any Lawyer should...
Edited on Sat May-24-08 09:50 AM by RazBerryBeret
I think she said it multiple times because there have been reports that people weren't voting for him because they were afraid he would be assassinated (makes no sense to me, but...) (if you google voters afraid obama will be assassinated you will get lots of reading material) she was trying to plant that seed of doubt (to voters and more importantly to SuperDelegates) that maybe I shouldn't vote for the black man, maybe he ISN'T the strongest candidate, maybe something bad will happen....you have to remember she is a lawyer above all else.

it's all politics, and I don't particularly like this kind...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #30
362. Very Well Put
I agree as well... this is not just a mere gaffe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #30
417. Yes, well put
Increasing the sense of risk of siding w/ Obama for both voters and Supers.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
31. I disagree that her intent was innocuous. I don't think she is advocating
for his assassination. I do think she intended to say that anything could happen. Had she simply meant that primaries historically last until June, that is all she would have said. But she has raised the assassination issue over and over.

She could even have mentioned Bobby Kennedy's campaign going into June without referencing assassination. I would have had no problem with that.

She has been given a pass on this over and over again. She said it one too many times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
32. I give her the benefit that she doesn't wish harm on Obama.
Not, that she would even be happy gaining at harm to him.

But, this was a pre-written and repeated statement. It's purpose is NOT to give perspective on a long campaign, but to sow doubt in Obama's durability, electability, and fear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Celebration Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
33. LOL, more than a gaffe
But less than wanting him assassinated. No way do I believe that! It's more the "see, anything can happen" scenario. She was just trying to be a little subtle. The subtlety did not work this time.

She is a piece of work.

But, my husband agrees with you, and he is not a Clinton supporter. He is quite naive, though. Naivity can be refreshing, but it can also lead to incorrect conclusions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
34. Isn't it gratuitious to pick the RFK race to demonstrate that though?
The thing about the RFK race was how it ended, not how long or short it was.

To me, it was meant to combine the "anything can happen" scenario with the "campaigning in June" thing.

She has been using it for some time, at least 3 instances that I know of prior to this one. Someone engineered this example to evoke emotions. I think it was meant to scare us into considering "what if"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #34
429. I think the kindest interpretation that can be given is that she picked 1968
hoping to tug on some nostalgic heartstrings (though I think darker reasons are also possible.)

But even if you go with purely sentimental pandering as her reason, it still shows an ASTOUNDING lack of judgement, which is the main reason she is truly unqualified to be CIC.

Bad advisors + constant gaffes + divisive mudslinging + using GOP talking points = BAD JUDGEMENT = I DON'T WANT HER REPRESENTING MY COUNTRY IN THIS FRAGILE TIME (or ever, really) .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
35. She had so many other choices for her "long primary fight" example, but she went to RFK
Reagan/Ford, Mondale/Hart, Dukakis in 88... but no, she had to bring up the one where the candidate was actually killed. For someone with a history of carefully planned and calculated statements, I can't believe that this one just "slipped out".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #35
459. Right you are. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
36. Respectfully disagree. More than a gaffe when there is a pattern of this kind of talk.
Edited on Sat May-24-08 09:52 AM by DB1
But i do agree Obama will take the high road, but still this might take on a life of it's own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IDemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
39. The Obama campaign won't have to actively use Clinton's gaffe
Edited on Sat May-24-08 09:53 AM by IDemo
since the damage has already been done. I suspect the temporary lull in Super Delegates towards Obama will end, with the trickle continuing on Tuesday, increasing through the week and turning into a flood after May 31.

What this does do however, is give Obama an easy out (not that he required one, despite all the talk) in selecting a running mate other than Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
40. I'm no fan of Clinton
But in listening to her comments, I don't get the sense that she was suggesting or even darkly hinting that Obama might be assassinated. It sounded like she was trying to compare the fact that in both 1968 and 1992 the Democratic nominee had not been decided until June of election year. It was probably not the best historical analogy, particularly since we did not actually win in 1968 (and don't know what might have happened had RFK lived) to make perhaps given the sensitivity of the tragedy of RFK's assassination, as well as concerns that many of us have about Obama's vulnerability and the remarks made by Huckabee at the NRA convention, which were IMHO MUCH more disturbing, but I don't believe that she is expressing (or has ever expressed) any ill intent regarding Obama's life/ safety.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KSinTX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
41. Words sometimes matter
Just as one can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater then say sorry afterward without penalty, you can't play with assassination among a racist voter base that YOU encouraged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skooooo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
42. No one makes a "gaffe" THREE TIMES!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DerekJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
45. Sorry Skinner. Historically, the race in 1968 was nothing like the one now. So her historical
reference can't be established. There are other more recent and more relevant races, which would have supported her case. Yet she chose to use the 1968 example.

It's quite clear she chose the 1968 race as an example of something catastrophic that can happen to a candidate, giving her a reason to stay in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CookCountyResident Donating Member (209 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #45
67. That's exactly how I reacted
when I heard her comments and not just the "sound bite". When viewed within the context of the entire conversation, it's clear where she was going with this one.


In the past I would be the first to admit being hyper-critical of mis-speaks, but this comment, amazingly, didn't strike me in a bad way at all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
46. Ironically, it's the kind of "gotcha" politics that the Clintons have used against others.
Being hung on one's own petard is a form of delicious justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
47. Have you ever actually wondered about the 1968 primary and how different that
was in terms of process? There were only 13 primaries that year and most of the delegates could just pick whomever they wanted.

The point is that it is not applicable except maybe Obama is a lot like Kennedy and Clinton is Humphrey.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ginnyinWI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
48. I agree it was a mistake, but it's still very telling
I don't want another President who will mis-speak and then not give a full, heart-felt apology for doing so. I don't want another President who is that arrogant. It shows a distinct lack of moral character. And since Obama is better on that scale, he's the better choice. Besides all of his other qualifications and talents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #48
455. Good post ginny! If it really was a gaffe why the
the bogus reason and the non apology is what I'm asking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ginnyinWI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #455
472. it's clear to me that she's just not able to admit to any weakness,
no matter how small. Automatically finds an excuse for herself. It's a bad character trait of hers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #472
475. It's the worst in any work situation but
unbearable for our highest office. bush isn't setting the bar anymore, hilary. Not This Time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichardRay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
49. I'll go with that.
As always, I prefer not to ascribe to malice that which can be explained by mere incompetence (or in this case, a severe screw up).

It's damning enough as a screw up. I'll choose to view it that way. Others may make different choices, but I'm not convinced they are warranted.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
50. thanks for your perspective
now I can sign off and go back out to the garden and stop thinking about this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greiner3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #50
310. No!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
51. I'm wondering how many times one can reference the unspeakable
Edited on Sat May-24-08 10:02 AM by No Surrender
before it's no longer referred to as a gaffe. IIRC, yesterday was the fourth reference to RFK and the tragedy in June, and the second time she spoke the unspeakable word in reference to the situation.

And the only way referencing past elections "still going on in June" makes sense today would be if those elections also began in early January, which they did not.

edited for clarity


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #51
62. Yup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #51
78. I'm interested in seeing the other times she's said it
I thought I knew of one other, but I've heard there were two other times before this one. You seem to be saying there were three. Do you know roughly about when they took place? Right now all I can find in searching is this new incident and I pretty sure there was at least one other.

I'm just trying to put together the context of the other(s). For my own curiosity's (sanity's) sake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #78
92. Here are the two previous quotes and the links from which they are taken...
The first time was in MARCH:

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

CLINTON: No, I really can't. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.

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

Then again in APRIL:

"But I also think it's still early, I mean everybody is so focused on where we are right now, I, I, guess I remember in June of '92 that's when Bill really wrapped up the nomination, the middle of June after the California primary. Um, You know, I remember very well what happened in the California primary in 1968 as Sen. Kennedy won that primary."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24505208#24505208

The pertinent quote can be found around the 4:30 mark I believe

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #92
98. Thank you very much
I appreciate this!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #78
99. She said THE word in March to Time, and referenced the 'RFK tragedy' twice
in May.

To Time on March 6:

"Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June, also in California. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual. We will see how it unfolds as we go forward over the next three to four months."


After the Indiana primary, on May 7, she told supporters at a Washington hotel:

"Sometimes you gotta calm people down a little bit. But if you look at successful presidential campaigns, my husband did not get the nomination until June of 1992. I remember tragically when Senator Kennedy won California near the end of that process."


And at Shepherdstown, West Virginia, on the same day, she referenced it again:

"You know, I remember very well what happened in the California primary in 1968 as, you know, Senator Kennedy won that primary."


I read in another post here yesterday that she also referenced the RFK tragedy once in April, but I don't have a link.

I've pulled the quotes above, from Olbermann's latest Special Comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #99
127. The Time one was the one I recalled
Later that month Kristol's article appeared in Time where he equated Obama beating Clinton being the victory Bobby Kennedy was denied by an assassin's bullet.

After that until this time she appears to have not used the assassination reference.

Thank you for those! It's nice to know I wasn't imagining things. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #127
139. I see Spazito has linked to the reference in April, so that makes it 5.
Once in March, once in April, and three times in May.

That's no gaffe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #139
196. She did drop the direct reference to the actual assassination though
Until yesterday. I'm willing to bet she caught some amount of heat then and it was decided she change her wording a bit. Yesterday she screwed up and reverted back to the original. This time the backlash is considerable. It was an extremely foolish thing to say.

She should never have used the reference to being with. It's not an acceptable angle nor even a valid argument. Whatever her campaign thought to gain by using such wording will remain a mystery subject to speculation by future historians. She's made history. Just not in a good way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
52. Obviously, HRC's intent was to stay in hoping for some misstep ...
Edited on Sat May-24-08 09:57 AM by defendandprotect
and, thereby, gain the consolation or booby prize ---

On the other hand, HRC's lack of sensitivity merely showed her once again to be an unfit
candidate ---

As a female, I find her an embarrassment ---
As a Democrat, I find her DLC leadership/membership to be a betrayal of the values and ideals of
the Democratic party.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftrightwingnut Donating Member (434 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #52
274. Many games are played like that.
And many of those games end in just such irony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asjr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
54. Thank you very much Skinner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
55. unacceptable
leave DU now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftrightwingnut Donating Member (434 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #55
282. Cute. LOL n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
57. I totally agree with you, Skinner and I appreciate you being the Voice of Reason
DU is getting crazy around this issue. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigbrother05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
58. Why in the hell would Obama push this
what an assinine thing to say
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #58
60. Please go back and re-read my post. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #58
70. his style of campaigning has shown that he won't, publicly, but according to the NYT
"Privately, aides to Mr. Obama were furious about the remark."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24clinton.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #70
80. Of course Obama won't say anything. He will continue to ignore her outbursts,
Edited on Sat May-24-08 10:32 AM by TBF
as he has done all along. They make him look more presidential, and make her look more childish - every.single.time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #80
110. What do you find interesting? What does it explain?
Please feel free to come out and say what you think, rather than just do the old wink-wink-nudge-nudge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #80
123. What exactly are you implying, oh sage novice? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #80
144. No. he is underhanded and manipulative...he does not ignore
he plays politics. He sends an e-mail to the media citing the story about him needing more security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonestonesusa Donating Member (630 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #144
255. So why are you policing the methods Obama uses to get security?
I don't get that. Obama faces security risks - it's a fact. Why are you trying to make a judgment about his character based on that? It's a real, personal threat that he and his family faces due to the fact that he's entered this presidential race. Your suspicious attitude about this is out of bounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #255
263. you misunderstood my post
He was suggesting that Clinton wanted him assassinated. The idea that he is not using this politically is false. He is just doing it in an underhanded way. While pretending he is not, he sends e-mails to the media citing stories about assassination threats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonestonesusa Donating Member (630 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #263
338. When did he suggest that Clinton want him assassinated?
The articles in the NYTimes and the WashPo mentioned Obama's private anger and referred to a couple of the statements by his surrogates in the press, the first of which did assert that Clinton's statement has no place in a political campaign. More recently, though, Obama's campaign chair, Axelrod, has been quite conciliatory. I personally didn't see the private emails from Obama that were sent to the press, as you mention, so I don't know what you're basing your opinion on.

Plus, Obama didn't start this - it's based on Hillary Clinton's latest reference to the assassination of RFK, one of at least three references this campaign season. And yet all of your attention is directed toward Obama and your pernicious reading of his character. It's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but we've spent plenty of time on Bittergate, Wrightgate, Sweetiegate, Ayersgate, and HardworkingwhiteAmericansgate, thanks to Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Republicans, so it's not surprising to me at all to see this uproar over her casual references to assassination to help her explain why she's staying in the race. And most of the outrage is not coming from the Obama campaign - it's coming from Democrats nationwide, many of them, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #263
473. A newspaper runs a photo of Obama in the crosshairs...CNN picks it up and plays it over and again --
and right then HRC is suggesting that something like assassination COULD befall a candidate in this
election . . . and you're saying that its Obama who is "underhanded" --- ?? !!!

Did HRC send photos of Obama in a costume to the press . .
was that "underhanded" --- she she try to deny that it doesn't trace back to her?

This is all GOP-like PROJECTING one's own evil thoughts onto others . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #70
122. As is their right.
To say anything publicly would be a mistake on their part--but I don't give a damn what their feelings in private are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ScreamingMeemie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #58
566. Errr... because candidates don't always do the "right thing" as
evidenced by both candidates in this primary. He's not God you know...and I am hoping you aren't looking at him to be one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
59. I don't think a coordinated strategy can be called a "gaffe."
Hillary has used almost the exact sentence, including RFK's name and the word "assassination," in other recorded interviews, including one with Time magazine on March 6, and her surrogates have been pushing the "implosion" theme for months. The difference this time is that Ted is in the hospital and the calculated monstrosity of her statement finally hit home. But it can't by any stretch of the imagination be dismissed as a Freudian slip or misstatement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #59
371. "Ted is in the hospital and the calculated monstrosity of her statement finally hit home"
Exactly. Using "assassination" in any way at all is callous, those of us who were actual supporters of those assassinated find that exploit very hard to forgive.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
63. Yes she did suggest he might be assassinated or something else might
happen to him. That was her whole point.

:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
64. Disagree. She and her campaign have said everything but this for two months.
I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the Chief Justice.

Hillary has mentioned June 1968 and RFK in this regard several times. She could have chosen any of several other races, but she chose that year. I do not doubt for a moment that Hillary Clinton was thinking "it could happen this year." I do not believe that things simply happen to Hillary Clinton. She parses and chooses her words carefully. She knows the impact of her comments. She thought this would play out differently, but it backfired on her.

This is not simply a matter of DU's 90% antipathy toward Hillary Clinton. This statement by Hillary has been almost universally attacked in our media, and they are not swayed by the denizens of GDP.

If we're wrong about it, so are 95% of the public commentators.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mamalone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #64
166. Thank you...
Well said!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kittycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #64
299. And her comment about the Kennedy's being on her mind - causing her to make the statement
Was again, a deception. Since we can go back and cite specifically where she has said it in the past, to act as though this was a first time 'gaffe' - is similar to her lies about Bosnia - when that too was on record numerous times, and never once "late at night" as was suggested.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
66. "If you can't understand that she is a murderous psycho bitch, you're going on IGNORE!!!!111"
Can people ignore the site owner? lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gaspee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #66
511. I had EarlG on ignore for awhile
Never tried it on Skinner.

Don't even remember why but it was before the insaneness of the primary season hit, so it probably had to do with insulting women or gay people. Or maybe puppies - yeah, could have been puppies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
68. HRC has zero respect for democratic party principles. This was The Straw that broke the
proverbial Camel's back. Axelrod and Obama are always gracious, but to many of his supporters and the lion's share of the AA Community, her comments are patently indefensible.

No Slack until she bows out of the race. The cumulative effect is just ONE STEP TOO FAR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crankychatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
69. Obama is not going to try to read Clinton's mind and will give her the benefit of the doubt
... the "Gaffe" is that she accidentally told the truth.

The LIE was that Bill didn't secure the nomination until June.

The truth, is that assassination is one possibility of bad things that could happen.

The Secret Service, the most prestigious Police Force in the world, acknowledges that Obama faces extraordinary risk.

Many AAs believe he will NEVER be allowed to live. They pray for his safety every day.

For Clinton to apologize to everyone on earth EXCEPT Obama, his family, and his supporters, is EVIDENCE ENOUGH of her abiding hostility, and the TRUTH in her "Gaffe."

Gaffe or not, it's disgusting, Skinner. I don't see you acknowledging that.

my humble opinion...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #69
71. Yup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #69
73. Obama might, but plenty of people aren't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
72. It's become obvious that she's just waiting for an assassination (either of character or real).
Why should we ignore the logical extension of the kitchen sink strategy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reflection Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #72
113. Agreed.
I've cooled down a lot from yesterday, and I still find her comments grotesque and creepy. Worse, I also find them intentional. Oh well, different strokes and all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #72
260. she's priming the pump, using the media to incite the nuts who are on a mission
May 24 / 25, 2008
CounterPunch Diary

Death-Wish Hillary Primes Manchurian Candidate
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN


http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05242008.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveAmerica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
74. "In '68 RFK's primary went to June" No need at all to mention the word assassination - agree?
Hillary barrels through without thinking ahead to where her comments and actions will take her and the Democratic Party. It's a campaign that's run amok. It's why those of us who could see the writing on the wall recommended she bow out gracefully when it was apparent where she/we were headed.

I dare another person to make fun of Obama as he pauses mid-sentence to think his way through to where his statement will take him.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #74
389. So, you would dismiss the Anniversary of RFK's assassination because it affects Obama?
How?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
75. It was also
particularly bad timing. The recent news about Ted Kennedy, as well as the 40th aniversary of RFK's death, are things that are very important to a large and significant group of progressives and liberals who identify themselves as "Kennedy democrats." One does not have to subscribe to "Vince Foster" thinking to find it offensive.

I agree that it would be best if the Obama campaign not participate in the discussions of this, or better yet, express their hopes that people put it in the proper context of an error. But I do not think that it will ever be forgotten. This is a strange and clearly historic year, and the contest between Obama and Clinton will always be remembered. And that includes a lot of the controversial things associated with it. Yesterday's statement will be the most memorable example of that for many people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #75
96. I think the timing has a great deal to do with the media hoopla over this
Having heard it was said a few times before (which I'm not really sure about yet) and did not get this type of attention. Leaves me to think that timing was everything this time.

I really don't think she intended what she said to be as provocative as it's become. It was just a very poorly chosen thing to say at this moment in time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
76. Good business decision.
Well done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
79. Of course that was her intention. To think otherwise is simply
looking for crap where none exists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
81. How much benefit of the doubt does this woman deserve, before it
becomes apparent that she MEANS WHAT SHE SAYS? Why all the apologizing for her, the "obviously she didn't mean THAT", "obviously it was just a gaffe", "obviously she misspoke"? I'm tired of the excuses for this woman. Is it so hard to believe that she's just that awful--that even after the media said "Huh?" when she raised this spectre the first time, she or her campaign staff decided it might help her in some fashion to continue remind the country that "Hey, ANYTHING can happen?" Some Democrats are starting to sound like the last die hard Bush 30-percenters--the ones who insist that Bush is just misunderstood and that everyone else is out to get him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #81
87. It is amazing the number of crazy things she can get away with -
but if Obama misspeaks and calls someone "sweetie" then all of a sudden there are protests and the whole world is sexist against Hillary. More victim-mongering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #87
179. It's a five centuury old double standard
Black man misspeaks, he is excoriated for it.

White woman blows crap out of her mouth time after time after time after time after time and it's ajust a "gaffe".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #87
215. Or says the incorrect numbers of States
when everyone on the planet earth knows that he is well aware of the number.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #215
406. Incorrect # of states vs. assassination? O-Kay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #406
431. I am still seeing references to him being stupid and that he
didn't even know how many states ~ right!


I am not comparing the two by no means but I have seen many SPINNERS and some here at DU that said,"she didn't mean anything, get over it, she just misspoke."

I for one will not get over it because that word has no place in her speech.

She knows exactly what she says and why she says it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
82. Had this been the first time she made the reference in answer to...
why she was staying in, I would completely agree with you but it was the third time, the first in March, the second in April and now the third in May. I read her comments from the Time interview and, at that time, felt as you do now, I was, at first shocked, at her words but gave her the benefit of the doubt in that she wasn't meaning what the phrasing inferred. I no longer give her the benefit of the doubt.

What her most recent comments show, imo, is a window to her thinking, her strategy and that it is shockingly cold and calculating. Does she wish harm on Obama, not at all, imo, BUT she came right out and said she would make damn sure she was going to be in a position to benefit from it if it were to happen.

It is the cold calculation of the possibility of Obama's assassination and the clear strategy of staying in so she could benefit from it that appalls me and what I find despicable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gore1FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
85. The other alternative is she is insulting our intelligence
The years she mentioned:

* did not have elections starting in January.
* had contests in big states with large delegate counts

Additionally:

* No one called for her to drop out immediately after Iowa
* The Obama campaign has never called for her to drop out
* She, in fact tried to get Obama to drop out by dangling the vice presidency in front of him.
* It is not a historic anomaly for a candidate top drop out (or suspend their campaign) after IA, NH, or a sting of massive defeats
* It sort of blows the rhetorical question of "Why can't Obama close the deal?" asked so often earlier in the campaign.

So forgetting the tragic RFK gaffe, her entire speech was a gaffe in that it considered the voters as uninformed, showed her as uninformed, or both in addition to her randomly changing arguments that contradict the last.

No matter how this goes,the bottom line is her credibility gap is larger than the delegate gap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #85
433. And, just like oil, the price of gaffe is going up!
PLEASE let this be the one that finally forces her to admit it's o-v-e-r.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mconvente Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
88. Yeah, but the 1968 primary started in May
NOT January, so Clinton's argument is moot. Clinton has been going for 6 months; RFK had been going for 1 month before that infamous evening.

There is no comparison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aloha Spirit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #88
97. I thought it was late March?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aloha Spirit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #88
101. Also, her husband had basically won the primary by April.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:17 AM
Original message
Nope.
Eugene McCarthy and LBJ were in the now famous New Hampshire primary on March 12 (McCarthy had tossed his hat in the ring on 11-30-67). Though McCarthy won 42% of the vote, compared to LBJ's 49%, it was a victory, because McCarthy actually won more delegates from the state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #88
220. That's why I thought her "historical" justification didn't ring true at all.
Edited on Sat May-24-08 11:47 AM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
I seem to remember a lot of pressure on Kucinich and Edwards to cede very early in the piece. Nor was it, I believe that Obama could be murdered because of his colour, as Skinner contended, but rather it would be a most convenient cover for the dark forces in the Republican Party, whose billionnaires have always gained financially by the murder of populist Democratic presidents and candidates, to have the candidate of their choice, at least within the context, in place.

And since, as anyone with any political nous must realise it, she must realise that she is their "chosen one" in the current scenario, it made her remark however inadvertent, particularly difficult to stomach - not least, since she is the wife of Bill Clinton, beside whom her new Republican friends are the smallest of dwarfs.

That confirmed for me what I had tried to put out of my mind: that your country is, indeed, as Reverend Wright stated, under a curse. A curse whereby just about every significant area of your national life is stained by the pervasive influence of an out-of-control military-industrial complex. And democracy, itself, is apparently, the big "no-no". And will remain so, at least, as long as the election machines are private and voter oppression sanctioned by suborned, Republican-sympathising judiciary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
89. With all due respect, if the positions were reversed and Obama made the same reference
using Bhutto as the assassination example, would you feel the same way?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #89
106. If you're trying to claim that I'm a Clinton supporter, just come out and say it.
I don't think Bhutto is a good example, because she never ran for President of the United States. But if the shoe were on the other foot and Obama were behind in the race and said the same thing about RFK still being in the race in June, yes, I would feel the same way.

To be honest, I think it would probably be less of a mistake in that situation, since there aren't people speculating about Senator Clinton being killed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #106
124. are you a Clinton supporter?
My guess is that Axelrod and company will not see much advantage in pushing this thing too hard, considering the fact that they need to bring Clinton supporters into the fold, not antagonize them more.

It sounds a bit personal, considering the Obama campaign has tripped over itself to lavish praise on Hillary and her supporters, unless you consider internet ill-wishers part of the "and company".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #124
157. You're a brave foo.
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #124
176. I think it is obvious that ...
...whether or not the Obama campaign has been antagonizing Senator Clinton's supporters, a very large number of Clinton supporters do feel antagonized. That is all I meant with the use of the word "more." It was not intended to point the finger at the Obama campaign, although I see how it may appear that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #176
207. Skinnergate!!!!
:rofl:

:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #207
449. You're a funny
observer!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe the Revelator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #176
209. I'm really getting tired of worrying about a few wanna be victims' feelings
especially when they show their true colors by supporting statements like the one made by Clinton yesterday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #176
390. Are you a clinton supporter?
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #106
126. I think it is fair for Obama's supporters to be upset about Hillary's "gaffe" -
Hillary's supporters started protests over perceived "sexism" when Obama used the word "sweetie". If she had simply said "RFK still being in the race in June" it would have been a different statement. Why did she choose to use the word assassination? She is a lawyer, and a very intelligent woman. And she has made the statement more than once. Why use that particular word?

I'm not sure if she used it in a nefarious way, or to get attention (I think the latter is more likely). She only has a few states left and the press is moving on to Obama v. McCain. Perhaps she is simply trying to stay in the spotlight rather than be yesterday's news.

I have a hard time believing it's a simple mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #126
466. They can dish the shit but they can't take
the heat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mamalone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
90. Respectfully....
and I do mean that most sincerely:)

I disagree with your interpretation of her motivation. While I agree with you that she wasn't acting with an intent to incite anyone to harm Obama. I'll also agree with you had no desire for that to happen. I wholeheartedly agree that she'd never harm Obama herself- any suggestions to that are absurd. But I do think she was intentionally bringing that image up in our heads. Swinging it before our eyes... but doing it in such a way that she could say... but but but I never meant those words in that way.

And in my heart of hearts I think there's a part of her that would have almost rejoiced at something happening to him. Most of her would have been horrified and grieved, but, God forgive me for saying this, I think there is a secret dark place within her that just wants the presidency so badly that she'll take it however she can get it. I think that's the part we've been seeing lately, and that's what is so very horrifying.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Celebration Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #90
195. yes
Good vs. Evil

Ever since Tuzla, ya know, I just reconciled myself to the fact that she is friggin' weird. Not homicidal, but weird. There are things that lurk in her heart that some people just cannot consider.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mamalone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #195
218. friggin' weird?
oh. my. :rofl: That gave me a real laugh.... which I sorely needed today.


thanks:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reflection Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #90
236. That's where I'm at too.
I think if Obama got his brains splattered all over some backdrop, the first thing that would come to Hillary's mind is "ok, I need to make some phone calls and get this thing ramped up again," not, "oh my God, what a horrible development. I wonder how his family is doing." Whether or not her intentions are evil (and that is VERY debatable), she is singularly focused on one thing. Winning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
91. Yesterday, when I watched the video, I also thought that the pause after the statement...
...was an "oh shit" moment when she realized she shouldn't have said it.

Then I learned that she said almost exactly the same thing in a previous interview.
Someone in her campaign obviously thought that it could be damaging, so the next time she said it the reference to assassination was gone.

I suppose it could have been a slip up, but when you consider how similar the exact wording is those three times, it comes off as being purposefully scripted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #91
421. Maybe she paused because she REALIZED she'd used the word "asassination"!
Edited on Sat May-24-08 06:31 PM by rocknation
We have four previous examples of her using this talking point. But only the first example uses the actual word "assassination"!

:think:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pathwalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
93. At least it got McCain's medical records off the news!
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marrah_G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
95. Thank you Skinner- the vitrol on the board has reached new absurd hieghts today
The insinuations that Hillary is a monster just waiting for Obama to be killed is beyond the pale. I can't even bring myself to defend her because the charges are just so outrageous they don't warrant a response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
102. Excellent and OBJECTIVE political analysis, Skinner
Edited on Sat May-24-08 10:18 AM by turtlensue
Once again, thank you for at least attempting to put an end to the nonsense here. "Crazy Talk" certainly discribes a great deal of the threads in here in the last 24 hours.
:thumbsup:
I wonder how long before someone takes this post as evidence of your bias or endorsement of one candidate or another...x(
On Edit: Check that, I see its already happened..:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Irishonly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
103. I Agree
I don't think the Obama campaign will make an big issue of her statements. They don't have to as there are many pundits and commentators expressing their outrage. The MSM will either let the story die over the weekend or we will still be hearing about it during the convention. I thought Axlerod did an excellent job and I haven't heard anyone in the Obama campaign trying to exploit the comments.

What goes around comes around in life and it appears now Senator Clinton is getting it from all sides just as Senator Obama did over bitter gate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
104. The fact remains that she is clutching at straws.
The campaigns she cites are NOT analogous to
this situation, and she DID imply that it is
in our country's best interest that she remain
in the campaign "just in case" something horrible
happens.

I don't care whether or not she DROPS out.
She is FLAMING herself out of politics
forever.

What. Ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
108. Skinner, even if it was just a gaffe, it was really, really insensitive.
and she brought up the RFK assassination multiple times.

She damned well should have known better.

At best, that statement was downright ghoulish.

On top of that, her apology was half-hearted at best, and only towards the Kennedys, not the Obamas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #108
112. You are correct. It was extremely insensitive.
Even reckless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kittycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #112
304. Wish I read this before I commented. Thank you.
Darn threads are getting too long these days.

The point is though - it's one of many reckless comments, whether directed toward Obama, his supporters (think activists, AA, etc), or even in ways of building herself up (think 3AM & Tuzla).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gal Donating Member (534 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
111. I think it's important to note though
That she said this same exact thing in March...gaffe that it may be that doesn't explain why she lied and said it was because of the Kennedy's on her mind. To use them to cover her mistakes at this time is sick as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
114. Sometimes intent is less the point than result.
As in the present case, IMO.

Senator Clinton's remarks were careless, ill-considered, as well as beside the point.

They establish context for her candidacy in the event of Obama's removal by violence, and by no other justification.

Some of us have a hard time with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
115. She's not unaware that it's a tetchy subject
Her campaign issued a rebuke months ago when one of her supporters took her idiotic meme, "it takes a President to make hopes and dreams real" (that's the job Obama's applying for, innit?) a step too far.
Today, in Dover, Francine Torge, a former John Edwards supporter, said this while introducing Mrs. Clinton: Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually passed the civil rights legislation.

The comment, an apparent reference to Senator Barack Obama, is particularly striking given documented fears among blacks that Mr. Obama will be assassinated if elected.

Phil Singer, a Clinton spokesman said: We were not aware that this person was going to make those comments and disapprove of them completely. They were totally inappropriate.

Mrs. Clintons expression did not change noticeably when Ms. Torge made the comment.

Only a few hours later, she brought up the civil rights legislation herself in remarks to a Fox News correspondent.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/civilrights
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UndertheOcean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
116. Mr. Obama has class , he will not push this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
118. She had me at hard working, uh, white people. She's been melting down steadily since
BHO push the story?

Did you see David Axelrod on Hardball?
He didn't want anything to do with this story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
119. Hooray For Some Sanity Brought Into The Discussion.
My god is that refreshing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raejeanowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-26-08 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #119
575. Hi, OMC!
Are we having fun yet?

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PaulaFarrell Donating Member (840 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
121. You posted about the 'bitter' comments saying people should understand
why the commment could be considered offensive to some although it was clearly an off-the-cuff remark to a private audience for which no offense to anyone was intended; surely you can understand why so many of us are offended by the remark Hillary made, especially given this is the third time she has made an identical remark in public. It seems you are more willing to let Hillary off the hook than Barack for 'mis-speaking'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #121
129. 'It seems you are more willing to let Hillary off the hook'
What would you like for her to do, open a vein on national TV and pour lemon juice in it?

I don't think her campaign recovers from this remark at this time, please don't tell me you actually think she wants somebody killed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PaulaFarrell Donating Member (840 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:42 AM
Original message
do you always overreact this much? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
148. ME overreact? Hahahahahahahahahahaahahah
You're accusing the site owner of playing favorites and I'm over..wait..let me catch my breath hahahahahaha.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #121
131. Objective analysis is not "letting someone off the hook"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PaulaFarrell Donating Member (840 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #131
154. you mean the one he posted while I was reading all the responses?
yes, indeed, I did miss that.


and I still disagree with Skinner's analysis, and feel he is cutting her too much of a break. Make what you will of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #121
160. With all due respect...
When I posted the thread in defense of Senator Obama's "bitter" remarks, I was raked over the coals by Clinton supporters claiming that I was letting Obama off the hook. I do the best I can to be fair to both candidates. But there is a very large matter of perception which is outside of my control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #160
167. OK, I did not see that. Thank you for explaining.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PaulaFarrell Donating Member (840 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #160
173. I appreciate that you try to be fair
and also that people will not necessarily interpret what you say in the way it is meant. happens to me too ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #160
323. I appreciate your insight Skinner!
I think you are absolutely right in your OP. And I'm an Obama supporter. And yes, I have noticed that you get clobbered any time you try to bring some rationalily into the debate -- no matter which candidate you are discussing. So, thank you for putting your neck out there for us to chop off! Oops, I mean running the extra mile, even at the risk of a heart attack...Um...swimming with sharks at the risk of being eaten alive...***Sigh*** Nevermind. Thanks anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #160
582. I certainly do not envy the job you have Skinner... you defend both candidates quite well
And get punished for it, certainly. I appreciate and applaud your continued dedication.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QueenOfCalifornia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
132. I can't buy this one
The fact is that Kennedy who opposed Johnson's Vietnam agenda entered the race on March 16, 1968, stating, "I do not run for the Presidency merely to oppose any man, but to propose new policies. I run because I am convinced that this country is on a perilous course and because I have such strong feelings about what must be done, and I feel that I'm obliged to do all I can."
McCarthy supporters angrily denounced Kennedy as an opportunist, and thus the anti-war movement was split between McCarthy and Kennedy. On March 31, 1968, Johnson stunned the nation by dropping out of the race. Vice President Hubert Humphrey, long a champion of labor unions and civil rights, entered the race with the support of the party "establishment," including most members of Congress, mayors, governors and labor unions. He entered the race too late to enter any primaries, but had the support of the president and many Democratic insiders. Robert Kennedy, like his brother before him, planned to win the nomination through popular support in the primaries.

Kennedy promoted himself as a friend of the underdog and promoted racial and economic fairness, an open door, non-aggressive foreign policy, decentralization of power and social improvement. A central axis of his platform was to embrace the youth of America. Big business was Bobby Kennedy's enemy. Hardly can this be said of Senator Clinton.

Kennedy had only been in the race for three months when he was killed.

Hillary's comparison is delusional. This primary has been dragging on and on and on.

Hillary is not a stupid woman. She is very bright. In no way do I believe that she accidently conjured up the ugly assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Sorry but I believe she was not so nicely slipping another red herring into her campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
134. Sure she misspoke. But then again exactly why is she still in the race?
That was the question asked, and her answer was freaky, unsettling, disturbing and bizarre. Her answer was not 'I'm going have more pledged delegates', that would be stupid. Her answer was not 'I will have more popular votes', as that talking point is insultingly stupid and dishonest. Her answer was ...

Well she misspoke of course but her answer had something to do with Bill having to wait until the California Primary to be officially over the top despite having effectively won months earlier and Bobby getting his brains blown out after winning the California Primary. That was a freaky unsettling disturbing and bizarre answer. What exactly did she mean? No explanations are forthcoming that make any sense at all. Except...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quark219 Donating Member (311 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
138. Open and Shut
Edited on Sat May-24-08 10:40 AM by quark219
As has been said multiple times on here already:

ONCE is a mistake. THREE TIMES is a tactic.

Open and shut case.

I am amazed at the number of people who seem to operate on the principle, If it looks like a hyena, if it walks like a hyena, if it sounds like a hyena... it must be a cuddly widdle kitten. Please.

You're going to try to tell me that behind closed doors, Hillary and her strategists have not discussed the assassination scenario--and how it should play into their strategy--multiple times? Anyone who thinks campaign advisors who are orchestrating a campaign that's costing tens of millions of dollars with the presidency at stake WOULD NOT be discussing--behind closed doors--the assassination scenario is living in a world of plush toys. It's nice--but it's not reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
140. Can't agree with you Skinner
The pattern of this kind of rhetoric is clear. There was no reason to bring up the assassination if she was only trying to point out late primaries. I'm sure she could have found another example of a primary running late but she didn't, she used this same reference at least three times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #140
184. She could have brought up Ted's vanity run to the floor in '80.
Which is completely comparable at this point, except of course that it would be grossly inappropriate to bring up Ted's failed and futile '80 bid given his present circumstances, and ignoring that, it wouldn't help her cause anyway. Which brings us back to what she did say, for which there have been no reasonable explanations for why she would say that or what, other than the obvious implication of what she said, she actually meant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
141. Ooooh, there will be demands that you be tombstoned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doublethink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
142. Calling you out on this Skinner .....
Edited on Sat May-24-08 11:21 AM by doublethink
1. you said "the "Um" in the transcript might suggest one of those "Oh, God what did I just say?" moments." -snip- That's an impossibility since she's referenced this assassination on the campaign trail a few times (in Time Magazine for one)

2. See my response in #1 above to discount this as a 'misspoken' moment, just as the bosnia sniper fire lie wasn't a misspoken moment. She used it prior on the campaign trail ..... it's part of her 'spill' ...

3. Progressives who run from the 'Truth' when it is right in front of them (In this instance the NUMEROUS occasions she's referenced these incidents) and spin reality into something that is pure speculation have no business being a Democrat.

4. Having said all of the above .... NO I don't believe Senator Clinton has some secret plan to bump Senator Obama off. But putting this filth out there on the part of any of our nominees on numerous occasions is below my threshold of tolerance. Words cannot describe my reaction to it, really.

5. Mathematically this campaign is Over, Senator Clinton can suspend her campaign and if in the unfortunate event Senator Obama couldn't continue at some point ..... there is nothing from stopping her from re-seeking the nomination, nothing.

6. Lastly I believe the Clinton supporters who are genuine Progressives (see #3 above) will eventually back our chosen nominee come GE time. Our fight is not with them (never has been) ...... but with the continuing agenda of the last 8 years in the form of the corrupt disingenuous republican platform.

Guess that's all I have to say. Peace.

on edit: A grammatical correction, typing so fast on this one I should enter the Indy 500 tomorrow !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
143. Brilliant people do not have speech mishaps and accidents.
You can't have it both ways. I believe there is a hostile intention underlying her words. It would take a really uninitiated candidate to make such an outrageous mistake.

She knew exactly what she was saying and what it evokes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kid a Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
146. should have stopped you title @ gaffe...the rest is all interpretation and debatable
Edited on Sat May-24-08 10:43 AM by asSEENonTV
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #146
171. Of course it's all interpretation and debateable.
You are more than welcome to disagree -- that's what makes discussions interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cbc5g Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
147. It doesnt matter
Because she ran one of the worst democratic campaigns in history against her DEMOCRATIC opponent. If she ran a decent campaign then she would be forgiven. Not here. No forgiveness. She needs to get the hell out of the party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
153. Skinner, I've got to disagree with you on this one.
At least in part.

I don't think that her mentioning of assassination within the context of these primaries means that she personally wishes Obama any personal harm. I don't think she does.

But she has made repeated references to RFK's assassination in 1968, when discussion of the primary seasons in 1984 and 1980 would have been much more relevant to the argument she was officially making. And there's also the question of the necessity of even mentioning the assassination in the first place.

Honestly, I think that, in her internal monologue of justifying staying in the race, the possibility that Obama could be harmed did occur to her. Hell, it's occurred to all of us. But where she went wrong was using it as a dog whistle to remind others in the party what *could* happen. And where she really went wrong was bringing it up again so soon after Huckabee's "joke" and Teddy's diagnosis, without qualifying it as a "tragedy" as she had earlier.

Why did she do it? If you look at the dates where she had made the earlier references, they all occurred at times when she needed superdelegates to sit tight. And given the odd emphasis she kept putting on the word "California" in the interview, coupled with this news from yesterday, I'm lead to believe that superdelegates were the target of these remarks.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #153
192. I've gotta disagree with you on one point
That she would say this on numerous occasions gives us a glimpse into the deepest and darkest recesses of her soul and reveals some pretty shocking desires.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #192
201. .
I wouldn't go so far as to say "desires". Perhaps "tendencies"?

I still can't bring myself to believe that this is something she "wants". But it does seem that it's something she would "accept'.

I don't know. The possibilities here are just too ugly. I'd just prefer not to think about them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CakeGrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
155. No matter how it gets "played", people WILL remember
Edited on Sat May-24-08 10:52 AM by CakeGrrl
I have no doubt that Obama and Axlerod will take the high road as they have always, always done and had to do where the Clinton campaign is concerned.

But neither they nor the MSM need to play it up. I'll never forget what she said against the backdrop of the historical context and the swirling racial overtones of this campaign.

Considering her campaign's talking heads responding "Anything can happen" when they are asked by the MSM whether she can win the nomination barring an "act of God" or some "catastrophic circumstances", that exchange alone doesn't leave many options that come to mind.

The Clinton campaign has a pretty piss-poor record of choosing their metaphors. Of all references to primary contests, why has she on multiple occasions brought up the name of a young, handsome, popular, idealistic, charismatic senator who campaigned way back in '68? Gosh, I can't imagine what associations she might be trying to conjure...

All that aside, my hope is that the Superdelegates finally get off the fence, regardless of their reasons for remaining on it, to bring this thing to a close sooner rather than later. Left to their own devices with pretty much no plausible, fair chance of winning, this campaign has done zilch toward fomenting any sort of unity. Hillary herself dismissed the idea in this very panel interview of ever possibly pulling out for such a decent reason.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
156. I agree Skinner. I was writing a post on another thread when you posted this
But it fits at least as well here so I will repost most of it.

No matter what else can be said, this can't be the way Hillary Clinton envisioned her historic campaign coming to a close. Being scrappy, getting off of the mat to fight the next round still worked for her, through Indiana and North Carolina. Up until then she was showing tenacity and resiliency. Clinton was fighting against long odds but giving it everything she had to win. She still had an outside chance, like hoping for that inside straight with one card left to deal.

After that things shifted, after that it increasingly became obvious that there was no hand Hillary Clinton could still draw that would be good enough to win the pot. In order to win now it was going to take the equivalent of her opponent getting caught with aces up his sleeve, thereby disqualifying him from the game.

If Hillary Clinton's campaign had shifted into a different gear after Indiana, the worst case reads on her motivations would not so easily resonate as it now does. But the more it appeared that she was willing to employ every trick in the book in order to snatch victory out of the jaws of virtually certain defeat (busing her supporters to the DNC meeting called to decide on the fate of the Michigan and Florida delegations etc.) the easier it is to picture her rooting for some disaster to come along that will derail Obama's chances for the nomination.

I don't believe for a second that Hillary Clinton would be less horrified by another political assassination occurring in America than you or I would be. She lives with constant death threats herself. Subconsciously I think the RFK analogy serves to illustrate that Hillary knows that it would take extraordinary circumstances for her to win the Democratic nomination now, even if she is not consciously contemplating that specific circumstance any more so than any person who runs for President must (and they must - strictly by statistics, the odds to date of an American President being assassinated in office is about one in eleven - and that doesn't count close call attempted assassinations).

Hillary Clinton's end game hardball has been politically self defeating. It had virtually no chance of succeeding and it increasingly reinforced some of the worst stereotypes out there about her ambition, undercutting the more positive gritty framing of her political persona that her spirited back against the wall campaigning had begun to instill for her between Ohio and Indiana.

The ultimate irony is this, and others have pointed it out: If the only way she could win now was if something external derailed Obama - let's say some new terrible scandal for discussion purposes, then her own efforts could not win her the nomination no matter how hard she fought. And her chances of inheriting a united Democratic Party behind her as our nominee had some external event derailed Obama's campaign would have been greatly enhanced had she conducted the closing phase of her campaign with more grace and sensitivity toward her opponent, his supporters, and the feeling of hope that has propelled the Obama candidacy forward to date.

There is no silver bullet positive way out of this now for Hillary Clinton. The exact same events unfolding exactly the way they would have anyway now will be seen in a different light. If Super Delegates break to Obama after the last votes are counted - even if that was always their intention, now it may be spun as a slap in the face to Clinton for the way she has campaigned. No silver bullet will fully restore her honor in the eyes of those who now are profoundly disillusioned in Hillary Clinton. Only long hard work, day in and day out, doing what is right for the Democratic Party and for America, can repair most if not all of the damage to Clinton. If she does that some of her new detractors will one day come to respect her again sooner than others, and some probably never will - but that is always par for the course in politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #156
271. You have a very admirable grasp on what's going on. I wish I could recommend n/t
Edited on Sat May-24-08 01:23 PM by Catherina
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
159. It doesn't matter to me what she meant. What matters is the reckless
Edited on Sat May-24-08 10:57 AM by Kahuna
disregard for Obama's life. She should know that some fool could easily receive her words as a dog whistle to act upon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #159
163. I don't think she was remotely thinking about Obama
she is consumed with herself and this campaign. This was all about trying to spin everybody that there are historical precedents for her to keep going into June.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thewiseguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #163
205. She was asked why she was not dropping out. Who was she thinking about then? Sponge Bob?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QueenOfCalifornia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #159
198. Nicely worded.
My dog is too nice to keeeeeel anyone!


I agree with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #198
269. That is definately one sweet looking pup.
:loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
162. It's not even the right historical reference to make. It's never okay to cite an assassination as a
reason to stay in the race.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
judy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
164. Thank you Skinner
Thisreally wraps it up in sanity for me.
I do hope that the Obama campaign doesn't use it, or demand an apology, or anything of the sort. Just let it die. To use it would be a big mistake, I think.
Hillary's "obliterate Iran" comments were much more offensive to me, but did not generate such an outrage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
165. With all due respect, I have to draw the line here.
this remark, and especially the subtle, creeping repetition of the concept into Hillary's campaign rhetoric was not just pathetic, but despicable.

I used to like Hillary and wish her the best as a fellow Dem. Since her embrace of McCain, Scaife, and Murdoch my approval went to +20, because I understand you have to make alliances in politics, and I am not in her shoes so felt I had to trust her.

I started to really dislike her after the weaselly way she dealt with her own blatant errors--Tuszla etc.

But this is simply evil. You can't win the presidency by selling your soul and have it be worth a shit. Look who we have in there now, look at the competition.

It wasn't a gaffe. It was a talking point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skrelnick Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
168. But the 1968 primary didn't begin until mid-March
So it had only been going on less than three months at the time of the RFK incident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconicgnom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
170. Obama's campaign has been, as always, classy in its response.

I agree that this "gaffe" should be spun down, if only as part of an effort to clear the decks of internecine warfare so's to have fewest obstactles in Obama's GE campaign, which has already well begun in all but name. With Obama taking the fight directly to McCain now, with the Republican campaign stepping up the tempo in their attacks on Obama, we should allow no more distractions. If only...

But whether "mispoken", "a gaffe", of intentional -- and I think Hillary's statement was both fully intentional *and* a one-of-a-kind political gaffe -- the party should do everything it can to put this primary behind them. It's a terrible and sad thing that Hillary's closing statements are of this negative, extremely polarizing kind -- because she and Bill certainly have done well by the US, esp. on the economic front. But it was her choice to go almost entirely negative, to throw everything and the kitchen sink at Obama under the pretense of "vetting" him, after her own campaign had flatlined into a certain loss vs Obama's accelerating movement. She's been at this for a long time now and the GOP-style negativity, the McCain-style talking points introduced from within, is hurting the Dem party's chances while leaving the Repubs clean. It was her choice to enter that karmic minefield, it was the chance she in full awareness took, so I see no reason to *excuse* her for her misstep.

Guessing someone else's "real" motivation is a mug's game whether the guesses go toward spinning up or spinning down. The guesses are by nature unprovable. But however this is spun, nobody can deny that there are crazy irrational people out there, that the history of political assassination is as old as time, and that assassins have acted on every kind of impulse one can dream of and have been triggered into action by what they take to be both explicit and implicit commands from authority figures. Esp. when an authority figure is very powerful, underlings and hangers and devotees will try both to follow the authroity's direction and to anticipate the authority's wishes. This is such common knowledge that, however one cuts it, it is just because she and Bill are so powerful, so charismatic, that her "gaffe" is an indefensible political error at the very least. And that's just looking at a small cross-section of it.

Imagine, now, the unthinkable, and imagine the lawyer for some nutcase arguing diminished capacity because the nutcase "heard voices" that tie Hillary with the unthinkable, and Hillary's "gaffe" being entered as evidence. In that case the fallout that a Dem might want has no bearing on the issue whatever. At that point the politicians are no longer in the driver's seat and have no control over events. The fact that this is a plausible scenario is damning in itself.

However I might try to call it, Hillary's "gaffe" was campaign ending for her -- but until she knows that and stands down to give Obama the clear field the Dems need to win the GE in November, I don't see anything for it but to call her on it and to lay it down for her in clearest terms. Because, after all, this "gaffe" came about in the very argument she was putting forward in defense of her staying in the race to the bitter end, so there's nothing intrinsic to the situation that says she'll stand down voluntarily, esp. if this "gaffe" is dismissed as inconsequential by activist democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WA98296 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
172. Well, I guess it's YOUR board. So you must be right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibraLiz1973 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #172
280. Sweet!! Rudeness!!
Always a great way to communicate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
174. Nice try, but it won't fly.
1968 was a much different campaign than today.

George Wallace was the racist from the South who was pro-war for the Vietnam war then.
Hubert Humphrey was the rubber-stamp Democratic party candidate of LBJ, who would continue the war.
That's why there was a riot at the DNC by the Chicago 9.

RFK started his campaign to stop the Vietnam War - that was his campaign's theme, the biggest difference between him and Humphrey and the only reason he got into the race to begin with.
RFK didn't even get into the campaign from the very beginning, he didn't want to be the president in 1967, but after hearing the hogwash from the Democratic party all spring, after LBJ dropped out of the race, he started a grassroots campaign and won the primary in California - shocked the nation!

Yet, where was Hillary in 1968?
Well, Hillary went to the Republican convention in August of 1968.
She supported Rockefeller in 1968, a pro-war Republican candidate for president.

Her value system then was screwed up.
And it is still screwed up, to this day.

There was no apology. Go talk to a counselor who is dealing with a couple about to get divorced, and she or he will tell you that was the most unapologetic apology one can get - it means nothing.

Because Hillary just doesn't care anymore "if anyone was offended".
She offended everyone.

There is no justification for her bringing up the assassination of RFK.
None.

For millions of young men and women, RFK was the hope of the entire nation for change in the Vietnam war - wiped out by an assassin's bullet in an instant.

We will never know what impact RFK would have had on the future of our country if he had been allowed to go on with his campaign and compete against Richard M. Nixon.

We were robbed for all time of one of the greatest people that ever served this nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WA98070 Donating Member (782 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
177. How can you say it was a mistake when it was the third time? She does know what she said ....
Just like the Bosnia fish story. It was said repeatedly until she was called out on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaptJasHook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
180. I appreciate the call for reason, Skinner, but in the meantime
what are we going to do to control the Hillary holdouts who continue to disrupt the party?

The war on GD/P is heating up again. I used to think I just needed to let sleeping dogs lie, but I am tired of wishing for unity, only to have hard core supporters on both sides, but, especially the Hillaryis44 crowd stirring up the pot.

I refuse to leave GD/P to their delusional postings and poisonous bile. Hillary and her supporters need to stop hurting the Democratic party and the Progressive movement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2rth2pwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #180
259. Now you want to call us dogs? Have you, at long last, no shame?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaptJasHook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #259
270. LOL. You just called me a Pig?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2rth2pwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #270
273. A stinky pig.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaptJasHook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #273
289. A mangy dog?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2rth2pwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #289
293. A stinky fat pig.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaptJasHook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #293
300. Now I am really LMAO you are actually serious... I hope, for your sake
Skinner isn't actually continuing to read this thread.

You have tombstone written all over you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2rth2pwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #300
305. A stinky fat pig with a curly tail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
181. Having checked out a few things I'm ready to give my formal reply
She screwed up. I'll not deny it was a painful mistake on her part. However, I do think it was a mistake and she did not intend to revert back to her original reference of the assassination again. Which is why she became flustered when she realized she had.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lilyannerose Donating Member (106 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
182. No, Thank You
I just don't like Kool-Aid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happycozy Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
183. Some things are off limits...
Just like I think making fun of a disabled person is off limits, so is mentioning assasination when talking about a black leader. Clinton didn't explicity say Obama could die, but that was the subtext of her statement--"anything" could happen.

If you say assasination and your opponent is a black man--and black leaders such as Malcolm, Martin, and Medgar were killed for their political activities--you're going to receive some backlash. She needs to apologize to Obama, the black community, and RFK's family. And it needs to be a heartfelt apology--not this I'm sorry if you took offense bullshit.

And BTW, the veep is off the table. No one should expect Obama to put her on the ticket after this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
187. They have been PUBLICLY opining that "SOMETHING COULD HAPPEN TO OBAMA" for months
That has been their last gasp argument for staying in the race, and so it is natural to interpret this remark as indicative of their overall strategy. Obama might get bumped out of the race, one way or another.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/09/rahm-emanuel-obama-is-our_n_100992.html

"At this point, Barack is the presumptive nominee," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel during the New Yorker's magazine conference. "Hillary can't win but something could happen that could effect that Barack could lose the nomination."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #187
541. Oodbegate? OverObama'sdeadbodygate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bbgrunt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:09 AM
Original message
I have a hard time calling it a gaff right after
everyone jumped on Huckabee about his remarks. Like the B**** administration that tries to dismiss every failure as incompetence, after a while you get the sense that it was all planned. Now the whole nation is mentally primed for such an event. No need to do anything more to get the loonies to do your bidding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
188. I don't know if it's been mentioned here yet, but
Edited on Sat May-24-08 11:10 AM by Blue_Roses
Axelrod did speak about it (saw him on with Chris Matthews) and he didn't seem to think this was a big deal. They know it was a gaffe and know Hillary didn't mean anything "threatening" to Obama.

I agree with you. I think it was a really tacky thing for her to say, but I too, don't think she realized what she said until it flew out of her mouth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe the Revelator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
189. No more passes for her. This is at least the 3rd time she's raised this spector.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hutzpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
190. There is a saying,
if a drunkard tells you he is going to kill you run, because it shows
that that drunkard must have been thinking about it, when someone keeps
saying the same thing more than once it is no longer a gaffe, once yes,
twice start thinking, three times shows intention.

The main thing here Skinner is the consistency in the way and how many
times she has made this statement, I don't think this is something we
should all brush off as a misspoke or misstatement it is becoming too
apparent for us not to get worked up over this latest misspoke/tiredness.

This country for too long now has been losing her best and brightest to
envy, plot and murder in favor of the few while the rest suffers. The
Obama camp has to play this astutely because as you rightly mention they
do not want to antagonize Hillary's supporters, but that does not exclude
tension within the camp of her statement.

The worrisome part is Mike Huckerbee mention the same thing a week ago
at the NRA convention in a humorous way, but people where not as mad
because that was the first time he has made such statement publicly.
We should never take things for granted and assume the improbable, by
doing so we are leaving ourselves open for easy attack.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
191. She's either mentally ill or she meant it., since she's done it before.
I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt and say mental illness.

There is no way she can truly feel sorry for a mistake made multiple times. Since she didn't apologize after the first one, I'll assume she wasn't really sorry about the second one, only sorry she got caught.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RazBerryBeret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
193. THIS is all I'm sayin':
In the context of Obama, Clinton's words broke a double taboo, because since the beginning of his candidacy, some of Obama's supporters have feared that his race made him more of a target than other presidential hopefuls. Obama was placed under Secret Service protection early, a full year ago.

To be unaware that one's words tap into a monumental fear that exists in a portion of the electorate -- a fear that Obama's race could get him killed -- is an unusual mistake for a serious and highly disciplined presidential candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phrigndumass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
194. Thank you for posting this ... it goes well with your "bittergate" post
But she did offer an "as far as I know" when asked to clarify her Kennedy comment and why she didn't buy the party unity argument.

Her reply was, "Well I don't want to attribute motives or strategies to people ..."

In her own context, she doesn't buy the party unity argument because bad things have happened to presidential candidates in June in the past. Why step aside now, when it's possible that another candidate might be killed, as has happened before in the month of June?

In a historical context, however, at the very least her comments were extremely upsetting. These comments have stirred up very real emotions for those of us who remember the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LulaMay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
197. Skinner; Please see my post here. This board should not be allowing this slander to be posted!
These accusations against Senator Clinton are ON THEIR FACE ABSURD, FALSE, ILLOGICAL to any thinking person.

PLEASE STOP THIS.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6109568
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #197
200. good luck with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QueenOfCalifornia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #197
203. Welcome to my Ignore list
You did it this time.

You are only number 4.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #203
212. who cares?
Please. No one cares if you are so closed minded that you only want to hear one side of an issue. It just shows your ignorance and calls into question why the hell you would want to be on a 'democratic' board that discusses issues.

Perhaps you need to just e-mail yourself back and forth. (Although you might have trouble as there is no ignore feature on an e-mail).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #203
221. What, are people supposed to be devastated because you're ignoring them?
This "I'M GOING TO IGNORE YOU!!!!1!!" thing is so childish, like the bratty kid sticking his fingers in his ears and singing, "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

It's almost enough to make me wish Skinner would ditch the whole ignore feature.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #197
219. As usual, you add so much
:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #197
223. Why not have him come over and clean the garage as well?
Oh, and Skinner -- while you're at it, could you sweep off her patio?

And please drop the dog off at the vet on your way to the grocery store.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #223
272. and the usual suspects
attack with smart-ass comments adding nothing to the dialogue, except perhaps confirming that they are not all they think they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #272
377. As indicated, I'm all I think I am inasmuch as I am the King of Elves and
your go-to guy for carpet remnants in the Tri-State area.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #197
235. wow are you actually using this thread to promote you own inane rantings? Pick up
the phone Lula, get over yourself is on line 1.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntPatsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #197
257. It will not stop you know, not until the real race begins but I don't see anything
wrong with standing up for principals. I don't think people are realizing at this point in time how wrong this behavior is, frankly I don't think some care, but for those that do care about fairness and equality and truth, don't stop trying to help them realize how such qualities are more valuable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
199. Job aspirant A tells coworkers that her odds for promotion
Edited on Sat May-24-08 11:20 AM by Old Crusoe
are enhanced were someone to shove job aspirant B down the freight elevator.

I would not want to work for somebody like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
202. 3 x is not a gaffe; just like Bosnia mentioned 3 x is not a gaffe.
as I wrote elsewhere:

Her (and your) explanation does not fit with the lame albeit analogous analogy she (and you) claim she was trying to make. You punctuate the June part of her statement, but her (and your) analogy is applies and oranges. There are plenty of examples of protracted nomination battles available to make that point.

Assassination is the money point and she has reopened the wound of horror, trying to strike fear in the hearts of voters and especially superdelegates that Obama just might not survive in some demented forecast thinking that underscores why she should get the nod.

3 x is not a gaffe. Her statement was purposeful and unchanging. Trying to smooth over her ugly campaign tactics is like trying to bury cat shit in a litter box. It still reeks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thewiseguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
204. How was it a gaffe when she had made those comments before?
How as it a gaffe when one of her supporters in Dover brought it up before he introduced her to the crowd?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
206. Thank you.
Edited on Sat May-24-08 11:25 AM by cornermouse


Professional photographer I am not. :shrug: Oh well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sam Ervin jret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #206
307. I think your pink buds need hydrogen oxide man
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #307
368. What's hydrogen oxide?
and what does it do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sam Ervin jret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #368
567. just water, sorry, just me trying to be light on this heavy thread and obviously not succeeding
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
208. Her gaffe came so close to Huckabee's horrid comments.
You'd think she'd have had the instinct to cancel the RFK June reference with Huckabee's grotesque gaffe so recently in the news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jkoehler Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
210. I disagree
Is she staying in the race to win the California primary in June? There is no California primary in June of 2008. So she is obviously staying in race because something might happen in June. Maybe an assassination or maybe something else. That's possible but that should never be a reason for a candidate to be in any political race. A candidate should be in a race because they believe they are best for the job and will campaign to convince the voters of that fact, not because something might happen to their opponent. It's obvious that Clinton has given up on convincing the voters and is staying in the race because something might happen to her opponent. It's ridiculous to talk about past primaries that lasted into June. The primary votes in June of 2008 are not going to change the outcome of this race and everybody knows it. It's time for Clinton to step aside and support Obama as the Democratic candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quark219 Donating Member (311 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
211. CLINTON CAMPAIGN RELEASES NEW STATEMENT
Edited on Sat May-24-08 11:32 AM by quark219
"We think it is vitally important to the Democratic process that Hillary remain in the contest until ALL assassins have had an opportunity to make their voices heard!"

You go, Gurl!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #211
222. ...
:thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davsand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
213. This was one of those moments that make campaigns gasp when they happen.
I expect that most of us don't have to think too long before we can remember a campaign imploding in a most spectacular way. We have all seen it happen at one time or another, and I honestly think that the Clinton campaign was carrying that particular reality in the back of their mind--most campaigns do even at a local level. I also think that was what Hil was thinking about when she stepped in it yesterday with her comments.

Having said that, I am struck by not just the anger generated by her gaffe, but also the extreme level of distrust demonstrated as a result. Literally, I have a sense that there are people (who are not GOP wingnuts) that feel that the Clinton campaign is actually capable of murder. It speaks volume to me about how divided this Primary has made our party is right now. This is WAY deeper than just not liking a particular candidate, and it ought to scare hell out of the entire Dem party in the country.

I do not envy Dean in his role right now.



Laura
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
214. Good, worthwhile thread. Good discourse. I myself feel that context
and past history matter a LOT in this situation.

She is not a front runner who has taken the high road more often than not and who uncharacteristically mis- spoke about her opponent or herself. Her opponent is NOT just another candidate for whom safety concerns are merely normal and routine. And, it is NOT clear why she is still in the campaign (even to die-hard supporters like Feinstein) unless suspects some scandal or catastrophe on on the horizon. This is the context.

Lastly, assassination has been a word in the air with her and with Huckabee before....what lesson did she learn from that? Did she learn to stay far away from hinting at it or did she learn it is a hot button she can exploit? Not herself hoping for assassination but using it as a crutch for her crippled campaign to plant the thought as a possibility so that more people will be glad she's still in?

I don't see much reason to let her slide here. At the least, it appears to be a cold, distasteful campaign tactic worthy of scorn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
217. Multiple references by Hillary to the 1968 assassination prohibits this from being a gaffe.
Edited on Sat May-24-08 11:40 AM by BushDespiser12
This is a chosen tactic intentionally wielded in her public dialog. The exact intended motive is impossible to discern (not being Hillary or her adviser), but whatever conclusion one may deduce is below what the acceptable standard for "how politics is played" should be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ericgtr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
227. How this can be interpreted any other way than "hey.. he could get assassinated, then what?"
It was a terrible thing for her to say regardless of who it may or may not have been about. I have defended her over the last two weeks but I am absolutely done with that now. In fact, I don't even care what she does in this race from now on, I just don't want to see her face again. What she said was hurtful, uncalled for and completely unnecessary. To hell with her!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
228. Your comment is similar to Josh Orton's at MyDD, but
Edited on Sat May-24-08 12:01 PM by Jersey Devil
He also concluded:

"Let's not abbreviate the issue: it's clear that Clinton is not in any way calling directly for something to happen to Obama. But we also cannot divorce her comments from her public stature, her intelligence, her responsibility as a leader, or our history. So even with the most charitable interpretation, I think her negligence is disqualifying."

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/23/171038/941

I think that is the main point. Anyone who is supposed to be so intelligent and seasoned in politics and who says such a reckless and stupid thing has to be disqualified as being fit to hold office. Nothing more need be added.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
229. Y know what? She said it. Not once but more than once. Sorry if it
was not meant to mean what others took offense to, but she made "another mistake" and she owns it, lock, stock and barrel! That she didn't mean it the way many took it does not matter. It was offensive no matter how she meant it and it should not have been said, period! I am giving her no more slack. She deserves all she gets! There are no more excuses and no more free passes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
230. I agree about the intent but disagree with your framing of the issue.
I believe that you are too much into the 'now' of the issue.

It was an honest reflection of the Clinton political calculus.

It is the same calculus that ended her chances of becoming President when she voted for the IWR. Not because the vote could not be forgiven but because she could not admit the mistake.

Her vote and this statement to me are very symmetrical acts. Overly analytical and without the humanizing touch that her husband had the calculus is shown in all its stark emotionless brutality.

She voted for the war to protect her right flank in a general election battle. She continues a campaign that has no chance of winning because something terrible could happen to the nominee. Take out the word assassination. The only thing that is of concern to the Clintons is how it advances them personally. That is what is so sad and perverse to me.

There is absolutely no concern in the Clinton calculus on what her actions might do to undermine the General Election (and what actions of President Clinton does this also remind us of?). The only concern is that they appear to not be concerned about the General Election.

It is frightening to think what might have happened to have the party leadership return to this family.

We dodged a big bullet because one courageous skinny kid from Hawaii understood the sublime and compelling nature of the 'fierce urgency of now'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
231. I disagree. n/t
Edited on Sat May-24-08 12:11 PM by LoZoccolo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Willo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
232. Thanks for offering your opinion but I'm done buying.
You have to do a whole lot of bending and twisting to try and straighten this out.
I have typed and deleted so many responses to you I have given myself a headache.
Simple starts: this was no gaffe, mistake or misspeaking. So I dispute most of your OP.

I would like to know how and when the 30 or more Clinton body counts were debunked and if they weren't why the topic is discouraged on DU.

There is no question as to how Obama's campaign will handle it. Hope it dies of course. His physical life kinda depends on it.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
237. When i got my newspaper off the front porch this morning this story was on the front page.
I was surprised, i wasn't sure if it would be in the newspaper at all today never mind the front page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
238. Skinner, this is similar to her 'sniper fire' comments
It may have been a gaffe the first time she said it, but she continued to use it even after she was made aware of the inappropriateness of the comment.

Clinton needs to apologize for the comment, and not in the 'I'm sorry if you were offended' way but really say "I'm sorry for comparing this cycle to one forty years ago where an American treasure was killed, that was not appropriate and I was wrong."

Yeah, I know, that'll never happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papapi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
239. Bobby Kennedy DIED campaigning for the nomination. Don't you GET IT?
No one makes this kind of gaffe three times. It was insensitive and cruel for her to use any reference to RFK and she's gonna pay the piper. Her campaign is now over, as it should have been after last Tuesday. She's clinging to invisible straws and she knows it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #239
242. Nonsense. EOM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
240. I disagree with the part that excuses this as just a gaff.
In the larger context of the Hillary's campaign waiting for Obama's campaign to have a major setback, and knowing her great acumen and political savvy, and her having repeated this talking point two months ago, I do not buy this explanation. I do agree, however, that some nefarious plan on Hillary's part to assassinate or suggest subliminally someone do it , is ridiculous at best.

Though I am still angry at her IWR vote, I continued to defend the Clintons up until February. After my last favorite candidate, John Edwards, dropped out, I was left with Hillary and an unknown. I might have gone with Hillary as my next choice, but under the direction of Mark Penn, Hillary's campaign went negative, and so did my opinion of her. At this point, I hope she loses her senate seat to someone like RFKjr, as I do not want to see the Clinton name in politics anymore. Oh, I also did research on the DLC, and concluded their ideology and mission principles echo those of PNAC.

Nevertheless, if Hillary was our chosen candidate come November, I would vote for her for one reason: SCOTUS nominations... oh, and because John McCain is batshit insane. :D


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sam Ervin jret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
241. Well, I have learned a lot. Mostly I know I'd sooner be a ref. at WWE Smack Down than a moderator
or administrator during primary season on DU.

No learning is wasted. So thanks fo that lesson.

No one can say Democrats lack passion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robyn66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
243. I am sure she doesn't wish Obama ill but
Edited on Sat May-24-08 12:22 PM by Robyn66
I think it is something in the back of her mind that came out of her mouth. I know she said it before but to articulate it to the press especially when the campaign has reached such a rancorous level was nothing less than stupid. There were plenty of campaigns that have lasted through the summer and there was absolutely no necessity under the sun to mention assassination.

I have long since given up the hope that she will have the decency and the good grace to bow out but the party heads and the super delegates or whomever needs to has to step in to stop this.

I know there are many on this board who will never believe it no matter how much I say it, but I have been a huge Clinton supporter for most of my adult life and this race broke my heart. It was hard for me to choose who to support but once Hillary's campaign started going ugly with the Jessy Jackson comment my mind was made up. Hillary's behavior and the behavior of her supporters has angered and disappointed me because she has turned herself into what the right wing accused her of for years.

I am proud to support Obama and am glad we have him to rely on because he HAS proven himself to be the stronger candidate with infinitely more integrity and class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RiverStone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
244. Hillary should not play in lightning storms
Edited on Sat May-24-08 12:28 PM by RiverStone
Her campaign was already on life support.

On her comment - was it intentional? Probably not - but is there some subconscious psycho babble connect to her historical reference? Ultimately, all we can do speculate.

Hillary is savvy enough to know a polticial mind field, yet she is too exhausted to see them any more.

This comment just adds weight to the pile on...to gracefully exit ASAP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
245. This would have been a simple gaffe if
yesterday was the first time she said it. It wasn`t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:30 PM
Original message
My partner and I heard the remarks and came to totally different conclusions....
Honestly, it could be interpreted either way. Regardless it was regrettable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
246. Skinner I urge you to do more research on the matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
247. Why do you bother? You should rename DU "Welcome to ignore" Underground.
And on your "But... but... Vince Foster!" side note.

The "you're either with us or against us" crowd turns a blind eye to repurposed freeper comments and lingo like that.

I never thought that DU would devolve into FR, but it has.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #247
252. Yes, coming here now is like being magically transported to FR in the fall of 1998.
The same creepy obsessions, the same conspiracy theories, the same Monica jokes, even the same vocabulary: Hilliary, Clinton News Network, etc.

Who say there's no such thing as time travel?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #252
266. I concur.
Looks just like it or a number of other boards I was reading at that time through the time the SCOTUS picked
Bush.

Don't know why I bother.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #252
276. I wonder where we got the idea to call her Hillary instead of Senator Clinton....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ForeignSpectator Donating Member (970 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #276
348. Ouch, touch! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #276
384. Check the spelling: Hilliary. Again, Hilliary.
Pure retro freeper gold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #276
404. No kidding!
I've always thought the decision to use her first name on campaign signs was beyond stupid. "Hillary for President." Please. How lame is that. Thank God her name isn't Susie or Carol or Amy or any other name.

"AMY FOR PRESIDENT!" Woo hoo!!!!

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #404
444. Her name is not Hilliary.
And for the record, I don't think we should call Obama rude names either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #444
484. I don't understand your post
Edited on Sat May-24-08 09:43 PM by Phx_Dem
:shrug:

Nevermind. Typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #484
487. The post in question referred to her as HilLIARy.
It's a freeper golden oldie now considered the very height of wit on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #487
560. Okay. I've never seen that before.
I assumed it was a typo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #404
492. Seriously, why not use a heart to dot the "i" while she was at it?
"LOL" gets used a lot on the ol' interwebs, but "Amy for President! Woo hoo!" truly made me laugh out loud.

Thank you for that. :woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #276
543. It's an error of judgement on their part, imo. In many contexts, the familiarity
of first-name usage is complimentary, rather than overly familiar. But in politics?

I've always used Hillary, not to be disrespectful or overly familiar, but because "Clinton" bestows on her a cachet she hasn't earned. Bill was no New Dealer, but he was still a giant among Lilliputians, trying to tie him down. There seems to be an ambivalence, which perhaps does her some credit. She wants to be her own woman, but she must know she would have had mine and Buckley's chance of political prominence without Bill and his record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #252
339. Yep. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snarkturian Clone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #247
578. "Welcome to Ignore Underground"
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
248. I'm sorry, but she's wanting it both ways.. a gaffe is an accidental utterance
Edited on Sat May-24-08 12:35 PM by SoCalDem
usually said in an unplanned, off-the-cuff manner.. as soon as it's said, it's realized, and usually apologized for immediately..

When too many "gaffes" piler up, or the SAME one is repeated over and over, it's no longer a gaffe..

Terry McAuliffe says almost DAILY that "she can still win this thing"..."something unforseen..a catastrophe can happen"..what ELSE could he possibly mean, in conjuction with this recent "gaffe" and the OTHER 2 times she has "gaffe-ed" the same thing?

This is political Johnny-Appleseedery...the planting of evil seeds, in hopes that somehow, somewhere, they will sprout.

Once is a gaffe...daily or multiple utterances.. that's a "plan"..

Another thing..

We were told many times how astute the Clintons are, how well-prepared she is/was..They are masters of the "parse"..They say NOTHING accidentally
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redstate_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
250. I don't think he should push it. He should rise above it because
the media has an agenda and I'm not entirely convinced it's an agenda we think it is or that we want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
251. Thanks for a touch of sanity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftrightwingnut Donating Member (434 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
254. I am with you on this one, Skinner. Why the hysteria now?
Edited on Sat May-24-08 12:48 PM by leftrightwingnut
Let me say up front: I do not support Hillary Clinton for the nomination.

Apparently, this not her first reference to assassination. So why the pile-on of outrage now? It smells like media manipulation to me. Many are anxious to see the primary end and those folks are all too ready to be swept away by the outrage. That is the brilliance of this particular manipulation. Clinton did it to herself -- it was a huge gaffe -- and the media smelled blood and nailed her.

Any time that I see extremely emotional flaming outrage being fanned by media on any subject, I am extremely suspicious. I have to ask: who stands to benefit from this? Not Obama, he had only to bide his time and he was already taking on McCain and running for November. In fact, if he pushes it, he will not do himself any favors. The media could simply be tired of covering Clinton and that may have something to do with it. I fear that something big is waiting in the wings, something that will require our full attention and the media as well.

Drum beats have been hard to hear this primary season.

(Edited for spelling/grammar.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
256. Skinner, I respect your point of view and appreciate your call for calm.
However, I disagree that this was an unintentional gaffe on the part of Hillary Clinton and her campaign. I am going to find it difficult to forgive her statement.

I'll try, because Jesus and every other important spiritual leader in the history of mankind stress that forgiveness is essential, but it's going to be difficult for me to forgive this. I say that as a white female American. I can't even imagine how my African American sisters and brothers feel about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
258. I do not believe that Senator Clinton's intentions are the issue...

Clinton has alluded to or referenced Kennedy assassinations several times in her campaign and many listeners, not analyzing the precise intention of what was said, immediately jump to the conclusion that "the possibility that Obama could get assassinated is the reason she should stay in the race." We know that Clinton has the support of white Democratic demographic segments who would prefer that a black man not become president. We also know that there are jokes about him being shot at (ie Huckabee) and outright threats if he should move closer to the nomination. Merely bringing up the topic of presidential assassination feeds these threats and makes them seem more real. Clinton may not have consciously intended to do this, but she is trying to save her campaign at the expense of Obama's own safety.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2rth2pwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
261. How dare you try to excuse the unexcusable. If people keep their word, you are now on at least 10
ignore lists.

"Yeah, you're right ...

... it's all just pent-up, totally irrational, baseless Hillary bashing.

She has done nothing to deserve it.

It's not like she lied about sniper-fire, apparently thinking the voters too dumb to know she was lying. It's not like she talked about the "hard-working WHITE voters" she's concerned about. It's not like she suddenly became all-consumed with the unfairness of not counting MI and FL votes after realizing she was losing and needed them. It's not like she ever said McCain was the better bet for POTUS while her fellow Democrat was "just a speech". It's not she like discarded entire states as being "not important" when she lost them. It's not like she stirred the Reverend Wright shitpot every chance she got. It's not like she quoted Karl Rove, or ever uttered the words "as far as I know".

No, she didn't do any of those things. If she HAD, we would have a reason to be angry tonight, perhaps over-react to an off-the-cuff "gaffe" that has been repeated over and over.

But being as she has run a clean campaign and NEVER done any of the above, I guess we should all just laugh along with the slap your thigh silliness of raising references to "assassination" in the middle of a hotly-contested campaign in which one of the candidates just HAPPENS TO BE the first black candidate - a fact which many nutjobs in this nation are already not to thrilled about.

Get a fuckin' clue."

by NanceGreggs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6104676&mesg_id=6104856
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sundancekid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
262. cowpie is still cowpie - gaffe my a$$ :: it's repeated talking points
and while I admire your call to rational sanity, I disagree completely with your apologist take.
Skinner, you are a heck of a lot brighter analyst than this piece would show :: once in March, twice in May prior to the Argus ... gaffe???? puhleeeze
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibraLiz1973 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #262
285. His "apologist" take???
Things around here get crazier by the minute
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
267. It's a gaffe in the sense that she unintentionally told the truth.
Edited on Sat May-24-08 01:15 PM by smoogatz
And the truth is, part of the reason she's sticking around is that on the off-chance that something bad happens to Obama, like assassination, she'd be the logical choice as alternate nominee. That's why she brought up Kennedybecause the chance that something might happen to Obama clearly factors into her thinking. Which kind of indicates to me that what many of us thought about Hillary all along is, in fact, true: she's all about ambition and opportunism, prepared (hoping, apparently) to capitalize even on the murder of her opponent. Which is, in a word, detestable. Time to end this increasingly ugly primary and move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
279. I've stayed of of this so far, but that was my take on it also.
Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
281. The problem is her intention is a very small part of the whole context.
Someone should have taken her aside in March or whenever she first started going down this road and pointed out what a terrible idea it was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #281
288. Hasn't Terry McCauliffe been pushing the "we're waiting in case something terrible happens" meme?
and they've been baiting the racists for months now. This is Hillary's only
"hope" left.

Put it past her to bait some nuts?

Hell no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #288
302. "Anything can happen!' Yep. In fact, the last time I managed to watch him,
on Tweety's show, that was his exit line.

Maybe these are just some of the stupidest m@therf#ckers that ever lived who don't know how they sound. That's the best construction that can be put on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
284. "I think Senator Clinton probably realized immediately..." This was the third time she said this.
I highly doubt that she thought OMGWTF I DIDN'T MEAN TO SAY THAT each of those three times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RTBerry Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
286. Interested in a little experiment?
Try posting something like this under an alias.

(You've made good points, of course. I am amused to see the uncharacteristic politeness of the negative responders, that's all.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kittycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
287. Her comparison was still false and misleading. Regardless of the gaffe.
The primaries didn't used to be this long. So making a comparison to her sticking in through June is idiotic, and meant only to mislead - AT BEST.

I'm sick of her BS, her spinning, her lies - and her thoughtless choice of words. We've had 8 years of political gaffe's and at what cost? Sorry, Hillary - her calculated IWR, Kyl/Lieberman, Cluterbomb voting - OBLITERATE IRAN, "As far as I Know", Sniper Comments can just get the fuck out of this party. She's done nothing but bring disgrace and shame on this party and contest. She couldn't run on the issues, she had to go down this ugly deceitfulness path. And I hope when she reaches the end, she doesn't just lose - but gets her ass handed to her. And I hope someone with a bit of grace and dignity challenges her for her Senate seat and finally puts an end to the shame she has brought. They say it was only the Democrats race to lose this year... We can Thank Hillary for doing whatever she could to kneecap from within the party - to try and end it all. We can now only hope the bleeding stops quickly, so the healing can begin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveOurDemocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
292. Enjoying your creation, Stanley .... errrrr .... Skinner??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comradebillyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #292
568. Ouch that hurts
but the truth often hurts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoonerPride Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
294. I disagree.
She meant it and the reason she is in the race is she thinks something might happen to Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
295. I believe she was signalling the super delegates that she is the safer choice
It wasn't the first time she mentioned the "a" word. And for that I don't forgive her.

Assassination has been a no-no topic here at DU as far as I know. It's a good and decent policy. I can expect it to be totally off limits by candidates during election season.

I think you've misjudged Hillary Clinton. She not an innocent victim of a "huge gaffe". She's a perpetrator. And I hope the super delegates have the wisdom to shut her campaign down very soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barrymores Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #295
308. BINGO!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
297. "Clinton's gaffe"? There was no gaffe. Only manufactured outrage by the Followers.
DU, already circling the drain, has been sucked deep into the sewage by this latest stunt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaptJasHook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #297
301. And you love to swim in the sewage.
Perhaps you could take a moment and actually step into our shoes. The only manufactured outrage is your own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JimGinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #297
315. You Are Proof Clinton Supporters Are Given Too Much Latitude Here...
The only thing "circling the drain" your excuse to deride Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #315
317.  "The race can last into June" doesn't mean "She wants BO killed"
Silly. "The race can last into June" doesn't mean "She wants BO killed" no matter how much you roll on the floor holding your breath and kicking your feet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JimGinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #317
320. Find A Post Where I've Said That & I'll Start A Thread Denying You Are A Racist Slug...
Maybe you should hold something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #320
324. Look out the window, Your whaaaaaaambulance will be pulling up soon.
Edited on Sat May-24-08 02:17 PM by MethuenProgressive
Have you ever tried posting something other than Hate and personal attacks?
Try it some time. You might feel better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JimGinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #324
332. Typical - Pathetic Attempt To Deflect Fault
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #332
336. Citing an example of the race lasting til June doesn't equal "I want BO killed!"
You are up to your ears in this latest manufactured sewage if you believe and keep repeating that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JimGinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #317
321. Dupe
Edited on Sat May-24-08 02:11 PM by JimGinPA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #317
577. Only those wanting to trash HIllary believe/believed that sillyness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Medusa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #297
329. My outrage is NOT manufactured. It is very real.
And I only become more enranged when Hillary's Hillbot-brained apologists try to claim she "really didn't mean it". This is a woman who carefully weighs each and every syllable that comes out of her focus-grouped to death mouth. She knows exactly what she's saying just as she has known all along which comments play to her racist-based Appalachia crowd.

It is Hillary Clinton who is swirling in a drain deep full of sewage-where she belongs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #329
334. You've been played into a rage by profession manipulators.
Saying the race has historically lasted into June, and citing two examples, does in no way translate into "I want BO to get shot".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalLovinLug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #334
443. Strawman alert!
You know full well that the outrage against her statement was not a belief that she wanted Obama to get shot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

It's like some of you Hillary supporters cannot read.
It's about yelling fire in a theater, only much worse. Its about raising the specter of political assassination by linking another senator that was gunned down in June, and giving that as a reason (the only one she apparently has left) to stay in the race. And by saying it happened once she is suggesting it may happen again. Sick racists, of which there are a few, may take those 'suggestions' to bolster their resolve to act. Secondly it foments the idea that Obama is vulnerable to assassination, (he's had multiple death-threats) so if your a SD, you'd better think twice about voting for him.

Either way it stinks to high heaven. Disgusting insensitive behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barrymores Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
306. Disagree, Skinner. Her historical rationalization doesn't add up AT ALL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
311. Nice try but,
this attempt to calm the waters is equal to using an eyedropper to put out a raging inferno.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
312. I don't think it's at all clear what her intent has been for citing this numerous times
Like many things she says, it's wide open to interpretation. Like many things she does, it's easy to see darkness on her part.

The reaction is to be blamed on her, not us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shomino Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
314. There is no way Obama himself is going to push this topic...
Edited on Sat May-24-08 02:01 PM by shomino
But a lot of his supporters definitely are. He may be asked for a response by the media soon as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ekwhite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
316. Sorry, Skinner, but it is not obvious that it was a gaffe
Not when she said in March and repeated it in May. That sounds more like a talking point to me, and to a lot of other people. A very stupid talking point, but still a talking point. I believe she has jumped the shark with this one. Thanks for the generous interpretation, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
318. Thank you for this line.
" And if you are thinking "But... but... Vince Foster!" you have no business on a progressive forum."

They are here, but they still don't have any business being here. They do not understand the meaning of the word "progressive."

Please jump in often and help to quell the mutual firing squad tendencies of the Democratic activists - on both sides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
319. Her comment makes no sense historically, she took it out of context at the very least.
June in the 1968 primaries was near the beginning of the election cycle, RFK dying didn't happen as the primary season was coming to an end, but actually near the beginning. There was no clear cut front runner at the time of RFK's passing. She gave the impression that something terrible happened after everyone was ready to go home, and that's not true. It doesn't compare to her situation now, the only thing similar is the month of June, so I don't see her point in mentioning it at all, giving her the benefit of the doubt as to her underlying intention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
322. 100% agree. I don't like Sen. Clinton. And I think she is harming the party, but this was a gaffe,
one of the worst gaffes in recent years - but nonetheless - a gaffe.

When I was watching the news about this on the BBC with some Europeans the other night - when the story came out - we all looked at each other and broke out laughing - obviously not because anyone thought any assassination was funny -- but because this was a gaffe of such Biblical proportions.

Sen Clinton may have said things with devious intent at times. But these specific comments were simply NOT one of those times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skooooo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #322
330. 3 times does not make a "gaffe"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #330
337. if this was said as part of some cold calculation - then certainly she would be calculated enough to
Edited on Sat May-24-08 02:35 PM by Douglas Carpenter
predict the reaction and the harm it brought on her campaign.

I passionately do NOT want Sen. Clinton to win the nomination or become President.

But obviously this was one of those extremely dumb gaffes that people make.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skooooo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #337
342. Ok, then that makes her just plain dumb.
Either way unfit to be President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #342
345. as someone said " if you are arguing stupid versus evil - you have already lost"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
325. I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt even though many Clinton supporters...
didn't ever give Obama the benefit of the doubt when he makes gaffes. (Nobody can argue that he ever made a gaffe as big as this one though.)

But my main concern is a pattern here. Clinton also made that outrageous comment about white people among several other things. It may well be that she is exhausted from the long hours she has spent on the campaign trail, and the course of the campaign has been very stressful I am sure. But hey, presidents have long exhausting days too and they are always under a lot of stress. If she can't cope with it now then who knows if she could cope with the job of the presidency

Clinton's erratic behavior during this campaign has convinced me that she is not qualified to be president. She needs to go back to the senate and try to rehabilitate her image before it's too late.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
331. Then why didn't she just say that?
All she had to say was "The 1968 primary went on right up until the convention." That's all she had to say, despite the fact there is no comparison between 1968's campaign and this one -- the process is completely different. Why mention the "A" word, which any normal, decent person just doesn't say, especially in the context of a political campaign? You don't do that. Period.

The Clintons choose their words carefully -- these are people who debate the meaning of the word "is," for crying out loud. Both Bill and Hillary are too clever by half. They think they are being smart, but she may have outsmarted herself on this one.

But, I can tell you this -- if someone does make an attempt on Obama at this point, I will do everything I can to see that both Clintons are driven from political life forever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
335. Since this has been broadcast worldwide
people abroad are now wondering what she is up to. It was such a stupid thing to say at this point. Why doesn't she think before she says something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
340. Obviously, her comments do not indicate any sort of secret plan. However,
I truly believe that if - God forbid - Obama were to be assassinated, then behind closed doors Hillary would dance a jig. I see no reason to assume anything other than a Freudian slip of her biggest desire.

In her laughable "apology" ("The Kennedys have been much on my mind in the last days because of Senator Kennedy..."), she tried to do damage control by hiding behind a great American's brain cancer. That's SICK. There is no limit to the coldness of her heart or how low she will stoop to get what she wants.

Secret plan? No. Fondest deep-down desire? My guess is yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
341. Three brief observations (one for Skinner, one on Clinton, one on Obama)
Edited on Sat May-24-08 02:42 PM by anigbrowl
1. I don't generally second-guess moderation decisions, but I can't help thinking if someone had posted the offending remark under the heading of 'Why she should go to June' it would have been quickly locked.

2. You speculate that the 'um' in the transcript might indicate 'Oh, god what did I just say?' moments. We all have those, though none of us know what such extreme public scrutiny is like. But one thing I've learned is that when you know you've said something bad, the smart thing to do is address it immediately. Had she said 'oh wait - that was a very inappropriate example,' it would have caused annoyance but nothing like the same level of outrage.

3. Obama's campaign put out a one-sentence statement saying her remarks were 'unfortunate, and have no place in the campaign' in response to requests for comment. I don't know how much more restrained you can get. But the avalanche of anger here on DU reflects a lot of people's own feelings. All the comments I had with genuine Clinton supporters yesterday were civil and mutual. Obama-haters are a different bunch of people again, and I don't believe they represent Clinton's 'base'.

The Obama campaign most certainly needs to reach out to and convert Clinton supporters. But I think there's a big gap between sincere supporters and partisan trolls. As we know, on any internet forum 10% of the members consume 90% of the bandwidth; about 10% of those people are trolls, meaning that 1% of members can end up hogging 81% of the bandwidth. And for me the key characteristic of a troll is not the opinion they hold but the trashy rhetorical tactics they use to advance it and/or deliberately annoy other posters. Actually this is not an internet phenomenon as such, but the accelerated nature of online communication exaggerates such patterns.

My point is that while Obama supporters certainly blew a gasket yesterday, there's a small contingent of people who took great pleasure in that fact and who are in turn making great hay out of complaining how touchy the Obama supporters are, how evil his campaign is, how everyone but them is brainwashed by the corporate media, and generally feeding on the attention they get for saying outrageous things while pretending to be morally spotless themselves.

These people are not worth reaching out to. They're the same kids that thought it was funny in elementary school to say 'give me your hand' and then spit in it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ForeignSpectator Donating Member (970 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #341
351. I agree with your post but are you sure about...
...your percent calculations? Wouldn't the trolls end up with just 9% of the bandwidth? 81%, think about how that would be!! Oh lord...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #351
385. 90% of 90 is 81. Or, 100 x 0.9 x0.9 = 81.
Mind you, the 90-10 figures are meant as a descriptive cliche rather than a scientific measurement. You know, '10% inspiration, 90% perspiration' and many similar examples. If I was going to be properly scientific about it I suppose the appropriate thing to do would be measure replies vs thread views, but I was more aiming for a social comment than a rigorous analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalcommontater Donating Member (591 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
343. Hi, thanks for the thoughtful analysis...
I was miffed about the "crazy talk" and tried to point out that this crazy talk tactic will not work in the fall.

Locked for being inflammatory. Your presentation was much more measured than mine. Thanks for taking the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
book_worm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
344. Why bring up the word "assassination" at all? That was Keith O point and I agree.
Yes a big gaffe and one which makes me question if she is ready to answer that 3am call.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #344
547. You'd think in such a contest as this, with any eminently populist (aka democratic)
Edited on Sun May-25-08 08:53 AM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
African-American opponent, or indeed, any populist Caucasian opponent, simply not mentioning assassination at all would be an over-riding priority in an opponent's mind; all the more so, the more widely popular, the populist/democrat concerned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
346. K & R. And thank you. I especially agree with what you said here:
(And while we're on the topic: The suggestion that Senator Clinton's comments indicate a desire or, worse, a secret plan to kill Senator Obama is CRAZY TALK. And if you are thinking "But... but... Vince Foster!" you have no business on a progressive forum.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #346
352. That comment was particularly superficial n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
347. context matters
I think the remark cannot be heard outside of the context.

Clinton, over the last three months, has-

1. for the first time ever for a democrat in a primary, said her republican opponent is a better candidate than the member of her own party.
2. made a campaign point that white bubbas won't vote for Obama and didn't find this racism offensive in her remarks
3. called them hard working americans, white americans (this is simply flamebait... if it was yet another gaffe... she's pretty gaffie, huh?)
4. had her surrogate, Bill, tell people in KY that Obama and his voters don't care about them b/c Obama supporters have jobs (more flamebait)
5. threatened to use a "nuclear option" when the math became close to insurmountable.
6. threated an "October Surprise" when one of her top super delegates declared for Obama
7. tried to change the rules after she agreed to them
8. tried to declare only votes for her counted from a state in which neither or them were supposed to be on a ballot, simply b/c it favored her (MI)
9. declared she was meeting with the rules committee to try to change the game in the middle of play to favor her, just because she's Hillary
10. rallied her supporters to make a claim about "popular votes" when these have no bearing on a primary, but to play to low-info voters' outrage
11. compared her campaign to civil rights and civil war and suffragettes when the math was even more insurmountable.
12. threatened to continue her campaign all the way to the convention with the knowledge that this has always resulted in a loss in prior campaigns, if she cannot get the changes to the rules she wants by the first of June.

Then, to justify her continued presence in the campaign, at a time when many people feel she is doing harm to the presumptive nominee, she tries to justify it by using an extremely emotionally-laden example of assassination. Whoever she wanted to reference, the idea of assassination would make no sense in reference to herself because she obviously would not need the idea of *her* assassination to remain in the campaign. The remark fails to acknowledge the number of months of prior campaigns as well. This sort of gaffe has consequences in context.

Since this nation has a long and bitter history of racism and vigilantism, since the person she referenced was assassinated within months of the assassination of the most influential black American leader of this generation, since her recent campaign has played to historical prejudices...
the remark became the -- this is just too much -- moment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intaglio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
349. It was a gaffe
and it was a gaffe of the "Dean Scream" variety - a campaign stopper. What makes it so difficult to ignore is that it is the culmination of a series of gaffes. I am pretty certain that Sen. Obama will try to calm things down and, before certain factions step in and ask why he has not already done so, will have had informal contacts with the Clinton Campaign about this: the good thing about modern politics in the western world is that it is pretty damn honourable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #349
355. It was a talking point
IT was a talking point used several times before yesterday.

By the very definition of the terms "gaffe" and " talking point", what she said yesterday CANNOT BE A GAFFE.

IT was deliberate. It was planned, and it was practiced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiet.american Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
350. I don't want four more years of constant "misspeak" and non-apologies.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
353. Know what? If it keeps her from driving her train wreck of a campaign all the way to the convention
Edited on Sat May-24-08 03:13 PM by impeachdubya
I don't care what her intent was.

Does that make me callous? Mean? Insensitive? Perhaps. But as the Clinton folks have been so eager to remind us all along, politics is mean, callous, and insensitive. As you point out, they've had "Gotcha" squads ready to pounce on any word Obama or his wife might utter, anything his preacher or his dry cleaner or his college roommate's uncle's garbageman might have said once...

So now they want a free pass, so this blatantly ugly, idiotic, best-case-interpretation extremely insensitive comment can just "go away"? Why? Why are they still in need of passes for anything? Obama has won a majority of pledged delegates. So why does she need a pass? So she can drop out gracefully and acknowledge reality- that Obama has won the nomination?

No. I doubt it. She needs a pass so she can continue to raise a big phony indignant stink over DNC scheduling rules that she agreed to, so she can cynically compare MI and FL to the 2000 election, so Terry "The Rules are the Rules" McAuliffe can get back on teevee and blather about how she's "won the popular vote".

After the slimy campaign she's run, she's burned through any good will, any benefit of the doubt she was entitled to. Cut her some slack? Why? At what point do we as Democrats ask her what, precisely, the endgame is, here?

If she just wants to go until June 4, that's one thing. (Of course, we were repeatedly assured that she was going to "look for a graceful exit" after WV, she wanted to "go out on a win", etc.)

But if she intends- and I suspect she does- to drag this shit out to the Convention, please explain why anyone should be extending themselves to help her get past what was, -again at best- a really bad gaffe?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reflection Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #353
436. Spoken like a politician.
Edited on Sat May-24-08 07:24 PM by reflection
And I agree from a political standpoint. She's been waiting for him to step on an inflammatory landmine. Bittergate was a close call. Unfortunately for her, she jumped with both feet on this one, no matter what her intent.

edit for spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
354. it is especially untimley
considering the recent concerns regarding her voter base in KY and WV and their supposed racial bias and the propensity of the racially bigoted to raise the specter of assassination.

All this aside, The primary season was much shorter when Bill ran and shorter still when Kennedy ran. So she is in much longer than is usual. Not to mention the fact that simply suspending your campaign has the same net effect.

In summary, it is my opinion that she is far to careless for the role of president. Her campaign has been a train wreck thus far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
357. Please REC THIS THREAD if you agree with Skinner. This should be at the top of the Greatest page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #357
554. translation= please rec if you wanna kiss admin but
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
358. Great post except Obama supporters are looking to play the race card at every turn.
Edited on Sat May-24-08 03:19 PM by TheGoldenRule
This is a very calculated thing Obama's supporters are doing. That, or they all need psychological help to bring them back to reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zippy890 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
363. Thanks Skinner. I really appreciate your post

I just can't believe some of the posts upthread.

I agree with you that the Clinton camp is thinking more along the Rev. Wright type of stumble for Obama, and Hillary made a stupid analogy.

Thanks for wading into this one. Well said, I hope people read your whole post and calm down a bit.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
364. Nonetheless, she just assassinated her chances at the WH for good
and that's a good thing in my book. She'll be lucky to retain her Senate seat in '12.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kevinmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
365. It's Obvious she cannot win mathematically.... she can win if Obama is assassinated.
And that's the way she said it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnionPatch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
367. Thank you for the sanity.
I also think it was a really stupid thing to say, but I'm not going to get all outraged over this. Misrepresenting what an opponent says is one of the lowest tactics a politician can use, and I really hope the Obama campaign has more class than to push this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
369. I agree with you, Skinner,
I'm sure she meant no harm to Obama but was merely stating that campaigns these days -- or this year, at least -- go on a long time, and sometimes unexpected things happen. I worry for her now, though, because if anything should happen to Obama (God forbid), everyone will immediately assume that Hillary is behind it, which I think would be a huge and wrong assumption. The way some people on this board and elsewhere (Keith Olbermann) seem to hate Hillary, you just know that's what they'd think, and conspiracy theories would sprout up like spring flowers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #369
388. I think you've got it wrong...

the only people who will "assume Hillary is behind it" are the right-wing trouble makers who are behind Operation Chaos, and likely Fox News. Legitimate Democrats will blame Hillary because she has pandered to the Obama-haters who don't want him elected president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #388
415. You could be right.
In either event, it's an unfortunate situation. The sad thing is I don't think Sen. Clinton is nearly as evil as some of her detractors here and elsewhere make her out to be. Some of the things that she has said that people have gotten so upset about -- such as her comments about the hard-working white people who support her and this most recent comment about past campaigns -- are in fact true, albeit uncomfortable to accept. Her problem is that she speaks pragmatically rather than with the finesse that Obama shows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #415
427. If there is one thing that did in the Kennedys...

it was their compromise with the Mob in order to get JFK elected. When RFK, as AG, decided to go after the Mob, then they felt betrayed.

Democrats need to decide which of the two candidates in this election is the most compromised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
372. Post #178 destroys this laughable argument.
Making the statement repeatedly indicates it is NOT a "gaffe" - just like her repeated lies about Tuzla and her support for NAFTA were NOT "misspeaking".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
374. Only someone who thinks a woman candidate has no right to compare HERSELF to a
male candidate in similar circumstances could even call it a "gaffe." GEE--two Senators. BOTH from New York. Both in contentious Presidential contests. Both looking at a convention floor fight.

Naaah, no "similarity" there.

Obama wasn't even IN that fucking conversation. It wasn't ABOUT him.

But oh--he's a male. And gee--RFK was one too!!!!! So it "must" be that she was comparing THEM!!!

And gee, Obama, he has "The Kennedy Franchise" according to some.

No one, save Obama, can be compared to a Kennedy. That's a Team Obama rule.

Calling the historical discussion of two campaigns in an adult fashion a gaffe is just absurd. It's the dumbing down of campaigns that makes that kind of shit float.

And it betrays an unfortunate sexism afoot in this nation.

Oh well, I guess the two side dishes of this campaign season ARE sexism and racism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Steerpike_Denver Donating Member (114 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #374
516. She wasn't comparing HERSELF to RFK!
The analogy only makes sense if she is comparing the charismatic, insurgent FRONTRUNNER to Kennedy--that is, Obama--and the fact that his death left an opening for the party establishment candidate--herself--to step in and claim the nomination. (Not that that worked out so well for Humphrey, not would it for her)

To claim that the indignation over this ugly analogy is YET ONE MORE example of sexism is, frankly, risible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-25-08 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #516
534. Oh yes she was. The fact that you don't get it shows how well the bullshit has been spread.
What's risible is your gullibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
376. Sorry, I DISAGREE
she said this too many times for it to be a gaffe but even though I don't agree with you Skinner...I still love ya. :hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
379. But there's no valid comparison of '68 primary timeline and process to 2008.
Primaries lasted into June but started much later than today, were far fewer and were not the sole or primary determination of the party nominee. It was still the day of backroom deals determining the nominee and that's how Humphrey became the nominee in '68.

Hubert Humphrey was selected as nominee in '68 without having competed in a primary election. Bobby was on the ballot in California as we all know: Humphrey was not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
all.of.me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
383. That is exactly how I feel.
I just think she needs better communication skills. She is really smart and savvy, as you say, but she has a bad way of saying things that are not meant to be negative, they just come across that way. For this reason, I don't think she would make a good president. If she cannot be clear, she does not need to be leading. We do not need these kinds of gaffes, apologies and subsequent backlash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
386. It wasn't the first time she said it.
She said the exact thing to Time in March, changed her rhetoric for a bit, then came back with the original formula. It wasn't a "misstatement". Watch the KO segment for background.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K8-EEE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
387. IMO the RFK remark was just the craziest part of a big bucket o'
deep fried CRAZY! WTH is she talking about, she's the FIRST PERSON IN HISTORY TO BE PRESSURED TO LEAVE A PRIMARY RACE? How about EVERYONE is? WTH, she is COMPLETELY MYSTIFIED with why people want her out of the race....then the RFK bomb, honestly, she looks GWB-level DumbSpin in that whole schpeil, just sayin'.

And you know, if the HRC die-hards can't see that she LOST this campaign even more than Barack won it...she is NOT a victim of anything, well then there's no talking sense to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnnyLib2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
392. Your statement makes sense to me.

Basically, candidate puts foot way into mouth. Now we see what happens next.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tommy_Carcetti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
395. My faith in this website is restored.
Thank you for a little common sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #395
402. Well, let's not get carried away.
It would take a few tombstones handed out to the nastiest and most relentlessly vicious of the flamebaiters here to restore my faith.

The very reason we are in this situation is that the forum was flooded with noobies who couldn't be bothered to learn the culture of DU and the administration couldn't be bothered to teach them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chascarrillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
396. Would you allow posters here to make the same comments about another poster?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
398. Perhaps it is obvious what her intent was.
Edited on Sat May-24-08 05:29 PM by Phx_Dem
Let's think about this. She made the same reference on 3-4 occasions, and at least one surrogate stated that Obama likened himself to JFK, but JFK was assassinated. Hmmmm. What to make of that?

If you repeat something 3-4 times verbatim, how can it be considered a gaffe? No one noticed the first 4 times because it was in print, as opposed to video, and we all know that media pundits and reporters don't like to, or can't, read. Plus they were far too engrossed in the Rev. Wright issue to notice if the world was exploding around them. Thank God it wasn't.

So what could her intent possibly be in repeating this historic nightmare so many times in a presidential election? It's more than a little scary how it rolls off her tongue with such ease, you'd think she was ordering dinner. Frankly, I don't know what her intent was but I do know that she is a very seasoned politician who knows better. So why'd she do it? Who knows. Maybe she was hoping one of her Appalacian supporters would hear her incendiary comments and take the hint. Am I serious? You bet. Because, after witnessing the real Hillary for the last 5 months, I honestly believe that her quest for ambition and lust for power knows no boundaries.

It's not too hard to think about her in this way after listening to her many inappropriate and incidious comments over the past 5 months. Why should I believe that Hillary is above something so hideous when everything she has done over the last few months tells me otherwise?

Just for the record, I actually liked Hillary when this campaign started. In the beginning, I was torn between Obama, Edwards and Clinton. I thought any one of them would be a great President; but that changed pretty quickly. . . with respect to Clinton.

(Mrs Phx_Dem)

Edited for typos
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Writer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
399. Dear Brave Administrator,
It took guts to post this, given the poisonous atmosphere in this forum. Some will accuse you of being a Clinton supporter, but I know you're issuing a call to reason. Thank you for that. I know you're trying to remain impartial.

Of course, as a Clinton supporter, I fall on the side of believing that this was an unmalicious gaffe. We could make a laundry list of notorious gaffes from both of our candidates over the last several months, from which we can argue which are more damaging, more insidious, more destructive.

Everyone featured in the media - from journalists, to celebrities, to politicians - become two-dimensional figures in our minds. We dehumanize them to a degree, project our joys, fears, and anxieties on them, and assume we understand, by simply reading or viewing moments in their lives, what they're thinking and how they're feeling.

Unless we know them personally, we always will be wrong in our assumptions. I have made assumptions about Obama's character