The Assassination Factor

Jeff Zeleny does a piece for The New York Times on anecdotal evidence of widespread fear that Barack Obama is likely to be assassinated if nominated for (or elected to) the presidency. I've heard this worry before, and it's something that I have to say never occurred to me until I started hearing other people talk about it. You're looking, really, at two different interpretations of what went on in the 1960s. From one point of view, this is a time in which two very prominent black leaders (Martin Luther King and Malcolm X) were assassinated, as were two very prominent pro-civil rights white politicians (John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy) that should make us worry that the assassin's bullet is unusually likely to meet figures identified with racial progress.

Another way of looking at it is that there was just a kind of assassination fad in the "long sixties." Its victims included not only progressive racial leaders, but also George Wallace. Meanwhile, nothing in the pre-assassination JFK record singled him out as an especially noteworthy civil rights leader and there's no real indication that this is what Lee Harvey Oswald had in mind when he shot him. Basically during the sixties people were getting assassinated irrespective of race, while since the sixties people haven't been getting assassinated even though we've had several noteworthy black politicians.

There was, I would note, a similar assassination fad around the turn of the previous century associated with anarchism, but eventually extending out of any particular ideological niche. That's how William McKinley got killed, along with Jean Jaurès in France and a whole bunch of other political leaders. It seems plausible that one or two high-profile assassinations helps spawn copycats without there necessarily being any deep "cause" behind the whole thing. Long story short, while this account should leave us less concerned than many that Barack Obama would be shot, but more concerned that a single assassination could turn into a wave.

Comments

There were also, I believe, two serious assassination attempts on Ford in the mid-70's, and then one on Reagan in 1981 or so. Due to "Geronimo's curse", we all expected Reagan to get snuffed before his term was over.

Posted by Jim W | February 25, 2008 10:20 AM

The nature of the presidency of any country is that there are crazy people out there who want to kill you. Hinkley wasn't too upset over voodoo economics, after all. That's why we have a Secret Service in the first place. Hell, the CIA and the Mafia couldn't even kill Castro, yet multiple American presidents have taken bullets from total loons. Remember that tourist at the White House who looked like Clinton and got shot in DC (IIRC he lived)? Hell, we're probably in Iraq because Hussein tried to kill junior's daddy.

Also, that Long Sixties (stretching into the 1970's) assassination fad almost took, of all people, Larry Flynt, not exactly a paragon of high-minded liberalism. He got shot by a racist for having pictures of naked black and white women posing together and by a radical feminist for publishing porn.

Posted by Reality Man | February 25, 2008 10:22 AM

Maybe not civil rights, but Kennedy as liberal attracted assassination. In any case, I think you're drawing too fine a distinction. And a LOT more than two blacks were murdered in the 20th century, from children to civil rights figures. I'm surprised you wouldn't make that link.

Posted by John DE | February 25, 2008 10:25 AM

Yah - jfk was SOOO pro civil rights that it took LBJ to sign the bill.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | February 25, 2008 10:26 AM

Yes, the turn of the last century was a big time for assassinations - McKinley, President Sadi Carnot of France, Empress Elisabeth of Austria, King Carlos I and Crown Prince Luiz Filipe of Portugal, King Umberto I of Italy, King Alexander I of Serbia, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, Jean Jaurès, Prime Minister Antonio Canovas of Spain, Prime Minister José Canalejas of Spain, King George I of Greece, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich of Russia, Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin of Russia, Interior Minister Vyacheslav Plehve of Russia, various other Russians...

The 60s were pretty weak by comparison.

Posted by John | February 25, 2008 10:27 AM

I'm leery of The Right's attempts to paint a Democratic victory in November as a surrender to terrorism. Many conservative loyalists earnestly believe a scheming, marauding horde of evil Muslims are literally on the verge of destroying the United States. By extension they also earnestly believe a Democrat would hand them the keys to the kingdom. There are always reasons conservatives fear rule from the left. High taxes, continued liberal abortion policies, interference in various issues such as education or religion. However none of these differences carry with them the fear of an actual collapse of the nation. Terrorism evokes an entirely different level of dread. Many on the right quake in their boots at the thought of a radical Muslim takeover. They'd rationlize taking out Obama was an act of supreme patriotism.

Posted by steve duncan | February 25, 2008 10:27 AM

Dallas

Posted by Walker | February 25, 2008 10:29 AM

Um, not to be contrarian, too much, but does anyone else find it a little superficial or frankly in bad taste to ascribe assassinations to a fad? I think empirically based on large numbers of decisions made by lots of people you could conclude that bell bottoms were a fad, but I really wouldn't say the same about shooting politicians. On MY's original point, let's get real - people aren't likely to try to assassinate Obama (Knock on wood, hope that never happens) because it's a crazycool new fad but because lots of people in this country don't like black or brown people and don't want to see one of them rising above his station or his preassigned place in the "natural" racial order.

Posted by scottreads | February 25, 2008 10:31 AM

My understanding is that RFK was assasinated for his support of Israel, not his support of civil rights, so that also tells a bit against that theory.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | February 25, 2008 10:31 AM

Steve Duncan - this is why the "Obama is a Muslim" rumors are particularly dangerous, I think.

Posted by John | February 25, 2008 10:31 AM

First, it doesn't matter whether or not conspiracy theorists are paranoid. It doesn't matter whether lone-nut theorists are in denial about, oh, mom's drinking problem. It doesn't matter what ideologes think. What matters are the facts of the case. And in the facts of the cases of JFK, MLK, RFK, the Wallce shooting, etc., we know for a fact that our government continues to lie through their teeth. The Jack Kennedy assassination a pure case in point. Look before, during, after; macro; micro. The fake autopsy, the Zapruder film, the Nix film. There is not a single area where there isn't serious b******t going on. Oh, Lee Harvey Oswald was in on it, all right; he just didn't know he was going to be the fall guy. As he said in his interview, "I'm just a patsy." NO matter how loathesome a Gerald Posner makes Oswald, that does not somehow retroactively, magically change the fake autopsy, the two filmings, etc. Posner's nothing more than the Warren Report on steroids. Those bullets came from the right.

As my daddy always said, "Son, the bullets always come from the right," at least in my time. There is every reason to fear for Obama's life.

Posted by MaxGowan | February 25, 2008 10:35 AM

I would have created a link for this post by David Niewert at Orcinus, but I couldn't, so here it is:

The Obama haters
Wednesday, February 20, 2008

-- by Dave

It's not really news that Barack Obama's candidacy is drawing out the worst tendencies of conservatives, including the way they're painting Obama's white supporters as race traitors.

But the far right and its minions have been particularly ugly, including at least one explicit assassination threat, as well as an outpouring of racial bile in anonymous comments sections.

As the likelihood of Obama capturing the Democratic nomination looms ever larger, these folks are apparently starting to ratchet the hate talk even higher. Mark Potok at the SPLC reports:

With the nomination of Barack Obama as the first black Democratic nominee for president seeming more possible by the day, racists and white supremacists are posting increasingly ugly and even threatening remarks on the Internet.

“OBAMA WILL DIE, KKK FOREVER,” concludes a Feb. 15 post by “Rodney” to a blog run by a person identified only as Strider333. Above that signoff, Rodney wrote: “The KKK or someone WILL assassinate Obama! If we get a NIGGER President all you NIGGER’s [sic] will think you’ve won and that the WHITE people will have to bow to you[.] FUCK THAT.”

As Potok notes, a lot of this kind of rhetoric skirts the assassination talk but isn't explicit, mostly because a lot of them are careful not to attract Secret Service attention. But the reality is that there's been enough of it already to warrant early protection for Obama, and heightened protection now.

The most heated anti-Obama talk appears to be on Internet sites that allow people to post messages anonymously. One such site, JD Underground, is a list ostensibly devoted to lawyers, although further details were not available. It has carried a particularly venomous thread, entitled “Nigger President,” that has stretched from January into this month.

“I’m hoping someone will do his public duty of putting a bullet through Obama’s head,” said a poster identified as “Kill Da Nigga.” Another poster suggests “bring[ing] back lynchings” and concludes with a warning: “LOOK OUT NIGGER. THE KLAN IS GETTING BIGGER!!!!!!” And a third, using the screen name “amerikkkan,” says only, “The deep south is making plans.”

Some of them, as the post notes, are hoping to set off a race war. But I think what they'd be most likely to accomplish is a final repudiation and marginalization of racist-right ideology.

Posted by MGJ | February 25, 2008 10:37 AM

The rise in random shootings hardly makes me feel sanguine about being a public figure in this day and age.

Posted by dbt | February 25, 2008 10:40 AM

"My understanding is that RFK was assasinated for his support of Israel, not his support of civil rights, so that also tells a bit against that theory."

It would make sense, considering that his assassin was a Palestinian.

Posted by Fred | February 25, 2008 10:41 AM

John at Amerciablog has reports from readers that the Secret Service hasn't been doing security checks at many Obama events:

http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/more-readers-weigh-in-about-obamas.html

Posted by thinga | February 25, 2008 10:43 AM

A whole article about fears of an Obama assassination without mentioning recent major security lapses in Secret Service weapons screening at Obama rallies. That's some high quality journimalism there.

Posted by phil | February 25, 2008 10:44 AM

I don't see as Arthur Bremer or John Hinckley were right wingers. Nor was Sirhan Sirhan.

BTW, did anyone realize that Arthur Bremer was released from prison a few months ago?

Posted by John | February 25, 2008 10:45 AM

Um, not to be contrarian, too much, but does anyone else find it a little superficial or frankly in bad taste to ascribe assassinations to a fad?

I don't agree. I don't know whether the data support the idea that assassinations have clustered enough to conclude that they are fads. We do know, however, that things like school shootings and teenage suicides are extremely faddish. There are many striking examples of this. So, its not unreasonable to hypothesize that the same might be true of assassinations. The best way to prevent behaviors you don't like is to understand them first.

Posted by Jim W | February 25, 2008 10:45 AM

If they kill one of ours this time, I say we just kill one of theres. If they kill Obama, we should kill Jeb Bush or someone else they actually care about.

The actions of OBama's security detail make it clear that any assassination would likely have secret service helps. Their actions are so stupid as to preclude the possibility of an accident.

Posted by Soullite | February 25, 2008 10:48 AM

You've seen the Obama derangement syndrome that people like Tim K., Ruth Kaplan, "Still Undecided" and katie have.

Imagine what the "Christian Identity"/Order/KKK types are thinking.

We can be optimistic and think that times have changed, but safety first. Same would go for a Hillary presidency, honestly.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 25, 2008 10:48 AM

MaxGowan, I think you might be lost. The Loose Change forums are over there.

Posted by Cain | February 25, 2008 10:49 AM

"I think empirically based on large numbers of decisions made by lots of people you could conclude that bell bottoms were a fad, but I really wouldn't say the same about shooting politicians."

I want to agree with you, but I do think at the time there was an aesthetic of a certain type of assassination and terrorism in general as an "in" thing, from the Weather Underground to Baader-Meinhof to the Symbionese Liberation Army. Abbie Hoffman joked in "Steal This Book" that people shouldn't take needle drugs because "the only dope worth shooting is Richard Nixon." It wasn't widespread, but conspiracies usually aren't what Marc Penn would call a macrotrend.

Posted by Reality Man | February 25, 2008 10:58 AM

Cain, name calling is not an argument; it's an admission you have no argument.

Posted by MaxGowan | February 25, 2008 10:58 AM

Vernon Jordan was shot in either 1979 or 1980. The man charged (but not convicted) with the crime was an avowed racist.

Posted by cemmcs | February 25, 2008 11:00 AM

Judging by the amount of vitriol directed against him, it's McCain who I've been worrying about.

Posted by mark | February 25, 2008 11:01 AM

Soullite,

What possessed you to write something so stupid?

Posted by Fred | February 25, 2008 11:02 AM

"Cain, name calling is not an argument; it's an admission you have no argument.

Posted by MaxGowan | February 25, 2008 10:58 AM"

It is when arguing against a conspiracy theorist.

Posted by Reality Man | February 25, 2008 11:03 AM

If you consider that an assassination wave may be global, remember that Benezir Bhutto just got killed, the President of East Timor is currently recovering from bullet wounds, and Hamid Kharzai is high up on the list of "likely to be assasinated at any moment."

Posted by Spike | February 25, 2008 11:03 AM

Due to "Geronimo's curse", we all expected Reagan to get snuffed before his term was over.

Tecumseh's curse, not Geronimo's.

Posted by right | February 25, 2008 11:08 AM

Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK, because of JFK's involvement in attacking Cuba, not due to any connection to the issue of racial integration. But before that, Oswald attempted to assassinate Major General Edwin Walker, because Walker was a John Bircher who opposed racial integration. In addition, Jack Ruby was motivated to shoot Oswald, because of an anti-Kennedy ad published in Dallas newspapers attributed to a man with a Jewish surname. Ruby thought the ad would lead people to blame Jews for the assassination of John F. Kennedy, which convinced him that it was necessary to kill Oswald as an act of patriotism.

Posted by jonp72 | February 25, 2008 11:09 AM

Soullite,

Please never make such a comment again.

Posted by Jennifer | February 25, 2008 11:09 AM

Come on. Anyone with any sense, and the ability to see past government propaganda, knows that JFK committed suicide. It's all right there if you want to see it. Don't just call me names, prove me wrong.

Posted by JB | February 25, 2008 11:10 AM

Fred, what's the matter? I thought conservatives were good at taking jokes like that?

Posted by Soullite | February 25, 2008 11:14 AM

Jennifer
Don't ever respond to me again. Unless you have some sort of authority, don't ever make a statement like that again.

Posted by Soullite | February 25, 2008 11:17 AM

Ummm, Medgar Evers was also assassinated by a white supremacist. That's three prominent black civil rights leaders--at least--that were killed in 60s.

Posted by PTS | February 25, 2008 11:20 AM

Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK, because of JFK's involvement in attacking Cuba
Posted by jonp72 | February 25, 2008 11:09 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Possibly true. Although such surety of motive and perpetrator would certainly put more than a few competing conspiracy theories to bed.

Posted by steve duncan | February 25, 2008 11:20 AM

Would it really surprise you if Obama took a bullet. I'm not talking about probabilities or anything, but would such a tragedy run counter to the pathological violence that animates the criminal enterprise running this country?

A.M. radio could add another name to the Clinton hit list. And the warmongering billionaires could sleep tidy for at least four more years.

Get the man some security. How about Pope John's bullet-proof golf cart? Obamobile?

Posted by john stephen lewis | February 25, 2008 11:21 AM

"Steve Duncan - this is why the "Obama is a Muslim" rumors are particularly dangerous, I think.

Posted by John"

I totally agree. We need to somehow completely stop these smears and fast. I may have watched one too many movies, but I think somewhere out there, there probably is some (firearm owning) wacko out there, who is utterly convinced that he is an Islamic "Manchurian Candidate", and who is distraught that no one is taking action over this.

Posted by Charles | February 25, 2008 11:21 AM

Yitzhak Rabin's assassination shows that thankfully not all assassinations result in a cascade of copycat assassinations.

Also Soullite should FOAD.

Posted by phil | February 25, 2008 11:23 AM

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable.

Uh, Matt...if there is ever a time for you to delete a comment, the one posted by Soullite at 10:48 is it.

Posted by Mark | February 25, 2008 11:24 AM

Steve Duncan - this is why the "Obama is a Muslim" rumors are particularly dangerous, I think.

Posted by John"

I totally agree. We need to somehow completely stop these smears and fast.

Posted by Charles | February 25, 2008 11:21 AM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why dosen't someone suggest labeling Obama a Muslim is not a smear? A falsehood, a lie possibly, but not a smear. Would labeling him a Hinduist of Buddhist constitute a smear? Acquiescing to such talk seems destined to demonize Muslims merely for practicing their religion. Labeling Keith Ellison a Muslim is not a smear. Why is it so for Obama?

Posted by steve duncan | February 25, 2008 11:32 AM

"Fred, what's the matter? I thought conservatives were good at taking jokes like that?"

First, there was nothing humorous about it, and your referring to it as a joke now seems like a belated attempt at ass-covering. Second, the Secret Service and the FBI aren't good at taking "jokes" like that.

Posted by Fred | February 25, 2008 11:33 AM

Mark, I will follow you until the end of time telling people how pro-censorship you are. no matter how poor the joke may be, plenty of people will hold it against you.

Tell me, do your employers know about every E-mail you've ever written? Because they can. Do they know about all of your comments? Because they could.

IF Matt does Delete my comment, it will raise some troubling questions about the many racist rants of Fred that he has allowed to sit in this comment section. It will raise plenty of questions about all of the comments that have been allowed to stay here.

Posted by Soullite | February 25, 2008 11:34 AM

"I've heard this worry before, and it's something that I have to say never occurred to me until I started hearing other people talk about it"

Likewise. It hadn't occured to me (except in the sense that all presidents are at risk) until my mum mentioned it out of the blue when talking about the primaries. She tied the fear to Bobby Kennedy, which hit her and my dad pretty hard when they were young. So I'm torn between it being a reaction to "Obama derangement syndrome" or being a manifestation of the more general "60s derangement syndrome" that everyone's blogged about - the way people of a certain age view everything in politics through that particular prism.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | February 25, 2008 11:36 AM

If you're going to talk about assassinations, you should mention the one that showed an impressive degree of planning and organization: the killing of Akhmad Kadyrov in 2004, which involved a bomb that had been planted months before the attack itself.

Of course, the end result was that Kadyrov's son took his place.

Posted by Marty Busse | February 25, 2008 11:37 AM

Following up on JonP72, aside from MLK (back to that in a moment) the 60s assasinations were more a matter of flaky leftists shooting less flaky liberals than anything else.

Oswald tried to defect to the USSR but couldn't hack it so he came back to the US.

Sirhan Sirhan was the sort of pinko Palestinian activist that even the Palestinians couldn't stand.

There's some dispute about Malcolm X, but the consensus (Rage Against the Machine excepted) is that he was killed during a power struggle within the Nation of Islam, not by any sinister outside forces. NoI is plenty sinister all on its own.

MLK is the big exception here, because he was killed by a racist. I have to admit that this worries me, a little, but on balance I think there's little risk of a repeat. MLK didn't have Secret Service protection, and Obama does. They haven't lost a President in 45 years.

PS: Soullite, that was a crude display. Worse, it wasn't in the least bit funny. Please try a little self restraint next time.

Posted by heedless | February 25, 2008 11:37 AM

Awww, and all your right wing trolls are always going on about how the left can't take a mean, obnoxious and terrible joke.

You laugh when people sell 'liberal hunting licenses'.

You laugh when Ann Coulter calls our people Fags.

But someone makes you feel threatened or hurt, and it's the fucking apocolypse. Pathetic. you people have been dishing out worse for years, if you can't take it what does that say about all of your supposed toughness?

You should be cleaning up your own house before you start howling in outrage like pathetic little girls.

Posted by Soullite | February 25, 2008 11:41 AM

One astonishing tidbit in Talbot's "Brothers" about JFK & RFK, was that immediately after the assassination, RFK and Jackie sent a back-channels message through a trusted friend to the Soviet Union to say that they didn't think the Soviets had anything to do with the assassination. RFK's imediate impression was that the CIA was trying to pin the blame on the Soviets and they weren't buying it.

Posted by ESaud | February 25, 2008 11:43 AM

Heedless, please. You're not attacking me about that joke, you're attacking me because I called you a moron in another comment.

Pathetic AND Petty, amazing. You auditioning for the joe Klein hand wringing award or something? Thi is why the left fails, the right ignores all of our outrage, while the left bends over backwards to listen to theirs. Stop being so pathetic and start acting like a man.

Posted by Soullite | February 25, 2008 11:43 AM

Heedless, not all jokes are funny. Some are cruel and meant to be so. Some are meant to cause a small rise of fear.

conservatives have been doing this to us for years. I don't really give a fuck if your stuck up ass thinks it's 'crude' or not. It makes us look weak that they do it and we don't. People like you make us look weak. conservatives need to be made to understand why we hate them, and their use of these tactics are the reason why. Until you make them feel that, they will never understand.

Posted by Soullite | February 25, 2008 11:49 AM

It's not so much the race thing or civil rights lead to assassination, but at least for me, the idea that God or Fate or Republicans just won't LET America become better.

That everytime we have a chance, a real chance, it will be taken from us.

Once again, refer to Eagle. The Asian American Dem provoked a double assassination attempt that failed--and that's how he defeated the John McCain-like Republican. I would tend to agree with the fictional premise, if someone does try and fails, especially towards November, he will win.

Posted by MNPundit | February 25, 2008 11:58 AM

Soullite,

What makes you look weak is your inability to admit that you were wrong in making that comment. But if you insist, by all means, keep digging.

Posted by Fred | February 25, 2008 12:00 PM

As for trends and copycats, Benazir Bhutto was killed only 2 months ago.

Posted by Alex | February 25, 2008 12:02 PM

Soullite, tu quoque isn't going to cut it here. You suggested murdering someone was a good idea. Own up to it and apologize. Or, you know, continue lash out at anyone who calls you on it. Whatever.

And MaxGowan, name calling is simply that, it denotes nothing else. Though I'm sure it's comforting for you to think that all who mock your tinfoil hat are morons.

Posted by Cain | February 25, 2008 12:02 PM

Soullite,

Please never make such a comment again.

Jennifer

Don't ever respond to me again. Unless you have some sort of authority, don't ever make a statement like that again.

Clarifying: Soullite, you are a moron and worse, far worse for such a hideous even criminal comment. Clear enough? I am responding to you again, hideous moron, this time that way you deserve. Clear enough, now?

Posted by Jennifer | February 25, 2008 12:07 PM

Soullite's a jackass. Delete his stupid comment, Matt, and let him go around whining about 'censorship' because you deleted a comment calling for assassination of public figures, for chrissake.

This is pissing me off not least because you've got me agreeing with Fred, dammit. And your suggestion at 11:49 that it's some sort of brillant tactic in the War (In Blog Comment Sections!!) Against Teh Wingnuts is idiotic.

Posted by aporia | February 25, 2008 12:09 PM

Soullite,

I actually hadn't realized that you called me a moron. (Clearly my reading comprehension needs some brushing up, so maybe you have a point) I thought we simply disagreed about the efficacy of deregulation.

I'm not actually a liberal, more of a wishy-washy libertarian, and I'm not interested in taking sides in the great liberal vs. conservative BSD contest. It's the ideas and arguments that I find interesting.

So, do you think the whole Obama-will-be-assasinated theory is at all valid? I don't, but if I'm wrong, I'd rather it was pointed out to me here, and not as breaking news on CBS.

Posted by heedless | February 25, 2008 12:14 PM

Why dosen't someone suggest labeling Obama a Muslim is not a smear? A falsehood, a lie possibly, but not a smear. Would labeling him a Hinduist of Buddhist constitute a smear? Acquiescing to such talk seems destined to demonize Muslims merely for practicing their religion. Labeling Keith Ellison a Muslim is not a smear. Why is it so for Obama?

It's not labeling him a Muslim that's the smear-- it's labeling him a 'secret Muslim.' It's a double smear-- it smears him as a liar, and then there's the nasty implication that Muslims are by definition un-American.

Soullite, whatever your intentions, IMO your comment was tasteless and inappropriate. And pointing at the Rethuglicans crying "they do it toooo!" is not making you look any better.

Posted by Persia | February 25, 2008 12:16 PM

Why dosen't someone suggest labeling Obama a Muslim is not a smear?

It's a smear, because it's meant to scare people and call Obama a liar - because he says he's Christian.

Is calling someone a liar, when they're not lying, a smear? Or is it merely a falsehoold or a lie?

Labeling Keith Ellison a Muslim is not a smear. Why is it so for Obama?

Because Keith Ellison is a Muslim and is proud of it. Obama is not, and is proud of his own religion. Calling him a liar, also in a clear attampt to play to the worst instincts of a certain percentage of the electorate (and we should not pretend this is not what's happening), is a smear. And a lie, and a falsehood.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 25, 2008 12:28 PM

What I said wasn't bad. And besides, other people say stuff that's just as bad. In any case, censorship is the real issue here; merely suggesting censorship raises very serious concerns. But, my impassioned defense of free expression notwithstanding, because you suggested my comment was inappropriate I have commenced a campaign of harassment that will last for the rest of your life.

Besides, where's your sense of humor? It was just a joke. And if you didn't laugh, hey, it's because it was a joke that wasn't supposed to be funny.

And, really, I'm only being called out by conservatives who can't handle the fact that I'm dishing out what they've been serving for so many years. Or, alternatively, by liberals who just don't have my exquisite political and rhetorical instincts, and therefore don't understand how my unique brand of assassination-centric blog commentary can break the GOP's stranglehold on America.

Posted by Soullite II: Obfuscation Boogaloo | February 25, 2008 12:30 PM

Matt,
I'm with aporia and the rest; please don't let your area degenerate into allowing posts calling for the murder of anyone, including public officials. If that isn't over the line, then nothing is over the line.

Best

Posted by MaxGowan | February 25, 2008 12:30 PM

Add George Lincoln Rockwell to your list of 60's assassinations. He was founder and leader of the American Nazi Party and was assassinated in 1967.

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

Perhaps the assassinations of the 60's were partly a function of a highly polarized, angry atmosphere + extreme political speech + a period of rapid social change + a controversial foreign war + what now looks like a quaint non-security environment. I'm old enough to remember entering airplanes and buildings WITHOUT passing through metal detectors and security checks.

Posted by Cathy in Portland | February 25, 2008 12:33 PM

As far as I know, the Secret Service hasn't lost a high-profile protectee since JFK (RFK wasn't under protection, which is why major candidates now are). I don't know what the actuarial tables say, but I'll take their 45 year oh-fer streak over the chances that 72-year-old John McCain makes it until November (or through a first term). The Republicans are much more likely to end up with a dead candidate than the Democrats, realistically speaking.

Posted by doofman | February 25, 2008 12:40 PM

Some of you liberals are pathetic.

Keep being the better man while the right kicks your teeth in, and then wonder why Americans won't vote for you because you're unpatriotic and weak.

Next time Matt and the rest of you wonder why there's a 'hack gap' in politics, this is it. You liberals are idiots who will bend over backwards to respond to right wingers howling in fury.

You think they don't know it's wrong for ann coulter to suggest blowing up the NY time building? You think they don't know it's wrong to suggest killing people to 'prove to liberals they can be killed'. Of course they do. They defend anyway, because to do otherwise makes you look weak. nobody who is the equivalent on the left will EVER stick their necks out and start

Idiots like Matt and and the Clinton's just throw them under the bus for the sake of good taste, and out of a cowardly fear that right wingers will call them names too. Democrats don't deserve to win, they don't have the personal fortitude necessary to govern.

Posted by Soullite | February 25, 2008 12:44 PM

"I don't know what the actuarial tables say, but I'll take their 45 year oh-fer streak over the chances that 72-year-old John McCain makes it until November (or through a first term). The Republicans are much more likely to end up with a dead candidate than the Democrats, realistically speaking."

If John McCain's 96-year-old mother read this blog, she'd probably warn you not to get your hopes up.

Posted by Fred | February 25, 2008 12:47 PM

Kennard assassinated Omar.

Posted by sean | February 25, 2008 12:49 PM

Soullite: awsome joke dude!!

Here's some free advice for your burgeoning career as a comedian: next time you take a plane somewhere, make a joke to the security personnel about how you've got explosives strapped to your body. That will relieve the tedium of their jobs and everyone will have a good chuckle. They'll remember you as "that wacky guy" who made that funny joke that time.

Who knows, it could get you some free publicity!

Posted by hum | February 25, 2008 12:50 PM

I'm cynical enough to write off the Secret Service lapses as the standard "never confuse with malice that which can be explained by incompetence."

I also think that there are enough White Power enthusiasts out there that one of them would actually take a shot at Obama in an attempt to bring on the Race War/Apocalypse. So I do hope the Secret Service takes their duties a little more seriously in the future than recent reporting seem to indicate--there are indeed people that cracked out there.

How much a successful assassination affected the US would depend very much on what the powers-that-be did afterwards. A "gee, that's too bad, we'll have to get around to investigating this someday, but Obama should have known the potential risks when he started his candidacy" would NOT help matters...and I do think this administration is that dumb. On the other hand, I can also see the average American taking matters into his own hands, searching down and pounding any loudmouth White Power freak into a bloody pulp. On the whole, I think any assassination attempts on Obama, successful or not, would have quite a backlash.

Posted by grumpy realist | February 25, 2008 12:53 PM

I'm not trying to make any of you think I've done a good thing. I'm trying to make you understand that it doesn't matter. Right wingers would never turn on one of their own like this, and thats what makes them strong. This is what makes you weak, you're too interested in staying ethically and morally pure to be anything but a bunch of whining little bitches who clutch their pearls and wring their hankies whenever someone says something out of bounds about your opponents.

You are weak, and as long as you let the right play on those weakness you will continue to lose. As long as you keep declaring that people on your own side are beyond the pale, you will NEVER be able to argue that anyone on their side is. It doesn't give you credibility to attack your own, even if you're right to. It makes you look calculating and disloyal. That is why attacks on patriotism and personal strength work so well against the left, patriotism is about loyalty and leadership is about stick up for ones own.

And yes, by deleting one comment you embrace all undeleted comments. Thats how it works, and why comment monitoring is a fools game to begin with. simply by listing that statement below his comment box, Matt is taking ownership of ever bigoted comment on this site. Delete one comment, and that means that every comment that hasn't been deleted is considered perfectly acceptable. They may not represent the posters view, but they clear represent the posters own personal Overton's window. It's always smarter to simply say 'Hey, I don't pay attention to what the whack-jobs on my site say'. Being drawn in primarily by right wing howler monkey's establishes a bad precedent, one that means that every statement right wingers could ever possibly purposefully misconstrue as impolitic will receive a torrent of e-mails and comments.

Have fun with that.

Posted by Soullite | February 25, 2008 12:54 PM

Re the Wallace assassination - folks who need to think all bullets come from the right should keep in mind the notion that the real beneficiary was Nixon; that is buried in Matt's link but gets more play elsewhere.

A poll taken one week before the final election asked potential voters whom they would have voted for had George Wallace not dropped out of the race after he was shot. The results were: Nixon, 44%; McGovern, 41%; Wallace, 15%. Wallace had been Nixon's big stumbling block. The election probably would have been sent to the House of Representatives, where Wallace would have had considerable bargaining power. As it was, almost all of Wallace's supporters shifted their votes to Richard Nixon, enabling him to win a landslide victory in November.

In 1968 Wallace got 13.5% of the popular vote and 46 Electoral votes (from the Deepest South, natch.)

The idea that Nixon needed to pick up a few more Southern states to be sure of beating McGovern in 1972 is daft, but so was the apparent Nixonian belief that a B/E job at Dem headquarters made sense - good luck gauging Nixon's paranoia.

As to "fads" - wasn't Hinckley inspired by Taxi Driver? And what about John Lennon's killer? I would think (if I were being cold-blooded about it) that a star-shooter would find Obama to be the most appealing of the current candidates.

OTOH, if I were reflecting deeply, I might wonder whether some terrorist group would prefer to kill McCain even more. Al Qaeda in Mespotamia would probably prefer to kill McCain; Al Qaeda in Waziristan, maybe Obama. Either way, it did seem to me that the Times story reflected a 60's lone gunmen mentality, not a 2008 bomber approach.

Posted by Tom Maguire | February 25, 2008 12:54 PM

What the...? Ok, now I know you're a fucking idiot. I'm insufficiently opposed to Republican because I don't advocate their murder? Or is it because I don't back you 100% in everything you say?

As I said before, tu quoque is a logical fallacy, stop basing your argument around it. Just because righties defend idiots on their side doesn't mean it's right for us to do the same.

Posted by Cain | February 25, 2008 12:56 PM

Wow, has Soullite always been this unhinged? I don't recall this level of craziness before, but maybe I've just forgotten.

personal fortitude = calling for assassinations... just like all those keyboard kommandos showed their personal courage by calling for more war.

Only the weak are afraid of looking weak.

Posted by nolaboyd | February 25, 2008 12:59 PM

Tom - Good points on who benefitted from the Wallace shooting. We don't know two-fifths of our own real history. Something fishy there as well. In this country, you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to be a conspiracy theorist! (And looking at, say, the Gallup polls from, oh, December, 1963 through the present, that means about 70% of all Americans.) Shaw once said something along the lines of the power of accurate observation is oft termed "cynicism" by those who haven't got it.

Posted by MaxGowan | February 25, 2008 1:01 PM

"The main problem selling a Scandinavian-style welfare state here is that Americans know it won't be competent Scandinavians administering it but the sort of surly affirmative action hires one sees working for the newest federal workforce, the TSA"--Fred 'Tax and Deregulation' February 24, 2008 1:23 PM

The above is an example of the kind of ideas that Matt and Heedless find perfectly acceptable. Note, this is not a joke. This is something someone actually said. None of the howler monkey's now bitching had anything to say about that.

But make a joke completely representative of your average friday post at Little Gree Footballs, and the conservatives and bend-over-backwards liberals throw a hissy fit. Amazing.

Posted by Soullite | February 25, 2008 1:03 PM

Obama needs simply to say "I'm not a Muslim but if a was, what of it?" It shouldn't scare people if you're a Muslim and treating being labled as one a smear concedes to the haters their point. Immediately after 9/11 dozens of politicians and theologians rushed to caution the public our anger and fear shouldn't be directed at those practicing the Muslim faith. Obama need merely play the tapes of Bush and countless others mouthing such sentiments. There is nothing wrong with being a Muslim. Bush himself said so. Being erroneously pegged as one and then denying it is immaterial and a distraction.

Posted by steve duncan | February 25, 2008 1:10 PM

It's clear, anything that upsets your delicate sensibilities is a travesty against the body politic. It's just a shame that racism doesn't upset the sensibilities of many here...

Seriously, I've issues about 12 Fatwas in the last 4 months alone. this is the first site that ever pretended to take it seriously. Hell, I've done it on this site before and nobody said dick about it. So don't act shocked that I doubt the intellectual honesty of some here, especially given that the people screaming the loudly are those I've had dust-ups with in the past. It seems to me like you all knew full well that I'm not entirely serious about this over-the-topness, that is until I started disagreeing vocally.

Posted by Soullite | February 25, 2008 1:12 PM

Soullite, Fred and Sailer have been called out on their racist crap many, many times in comments on this blog. The fact that you can find one comment where no one bothered to take the bait doesn't mean it's considered "perfectly acceptable."

Posted by hum | February 25, 2008 1:15 PM

MaxGowan,

I think you'll need to give this paricuar theory a rest. Arthur Bremer, who shot George Wallace, also tried to go after Nixon first. He got a revolver within firing distance of Nixon's limo, but didn't shoot because he wasn't sure that the bullet would be able to pierce the car's windows.

Wallace seems to have been his Plan B.

Posted by heedless | February 25, 2008 1:19 PM

heedless, You may be right, of course. I don't know that much about this case, except that some funky stuff surfaced a few years back by way of the Committee to Re-Elect the President (dubbed by Bob Dole, at the time, "CREEP." Gotta love Dole for that one), of all places. OTOH, it's been proven more reliable just to assume every word the government tells us about this stuff is a lie, including the words "and" and "the." I'm sure some of these shootings were by lone nuts. But all of them that the government claims?

Posted by MaxGowan | February 25, 2008 1:28 PM

nobody demands their comments get deleted from existence. You make a mean comment and then forget it even exists. But if you really cared, if you thought it posed the same threat as my comment, you would demand it be deleted. IF you had any respect for the black community, some of which might want to actuall involve themselves in this discussion, they would be deleted.

Merely keeping them here intimidates people in a way my bad joke never could. You can pretend otherwise all you want, but that you reacted one way to my statement and in another, entirely less offended way at the racism. That shows your priorities. You're more concerned about being linked to my offensive statement than you are about the ability of black Americans to take part in this blog without having to endure harassment and racism. The same can be said of Gay Americans, and Americans with minority religious views. Don't pretend your upset about my statement because it caused actual harm.

Posted by Soullite | February 25, 2008 1:29 PM

"On the other hand, I can also see the average American taking matters into his own hands, searching down and pounding any loudmouth White Power freak into a bloody pulp."

Like the "average American" did with that "White Power freak" Reginald Denny?

Posted by Juan | February 25, 2008 1:29 PM

"I don't know what the actuarial tables say, but I'll take their 45 year oh-fer streak over the chances that 72-year-old John McCain makes it until November (or through a first term). The Republicans are much more likely to end up with a dead candidate than the Democrats, realistically speaking."

If John McCain's 96-year-old mother read this blog, she'd probably warn you not to get your hopes up.

Except McCain mere didn't undergo five and a half hours (some sources claim nine hours) of cancer surgery in 2000.

To the extent that McCain's life expectancy will be inherited he'd better hope it's from Mom's side. His father the admiral died at 70 and his grandfather the admiral went to Davy Jones' locker at 55.

Posted by Peter | February 25, 2008 1:37 PM

"I don't know what the actuarial tables say, but I'll take their 45 year oh-fer streak over the chances that 72-year-old John McCain makes it until November (or through a first term). The Republicans are much more likely to end up with a dead candidate than the Democrats, realistically speaking."

If John McCain's 96-year-old mother read this blog, she'd probably warn you not to get your hopes up.

Except McCain mere didn't undergo five and a half hours (some sources claim nine hours) of cancer surgery in 2000.

To the extent that McCain's life expectancy will be inherited he'd better hope it's from Mom's side. His father the admiral died at 70 and his grandfather the admiral went to Davy Jones' locker at 55.

Posted by Peter | February 25, 2008 1:38 PM

Soullite,

"IF you had any respect for the black community, some of which might want to actuall involve themselves in this discussion, they would be deleted."

Why do you automatically assume that "surly affirmative action hires" refers to blacks?

Posted by Fred | February 25, 2008 1:40 PM

I'd be wondering what the heck anyone's worried about, if it hadn't been for this story in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram last week: Police concerned about order to stop weapons screening at Obama rally

DALLAS -- Security details at Barack Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena.

The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said they believed it was a lapse in security.

Dallas Deputy Police Chief T.W. Lawrence, head of the Police Department's homeland security and special operations divisions, said the order -- apparently made by the U.S. Secret Service -- was meant to speed up the long lines outside and fill the arena's vacant seats before Obama came on.

"Sure," said Lawrence, when asked if he was concerned by the great number of people who had gotten into the building without being checked. But, he added, the turnout of more than 17,000 people seemed to be a "friendly crowd."

More at the link.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | February 25, 2008 1:45 PM

An Obama assassination would be blamed on the Left, just like Malcolm, MLK, JFK, and RFK were blamed on the Left. Just look at what the "non-conspiracy" theorists are saying.

Oh, and every assassination was followed by a rightward political shift. If Obama were killed, it would be attributed to Al Qaeda and the Nat'l Security State would be solidified.

Posted by Luke | February 25, 2008 1:45 PM

Max,

CREEP is pretty accurate, though my understanding was that Nixon's CIA assets ran more to third-rate burglars than to first-rate assasins.

Plus, by 1975 you had the Church committee airing the CIA's (and every other agency's) dirty laundry with inquisitorial glee. They would have pinned the Crucifiction and 8 of the 10 plagues on the CIA too, but records didn't go back that far.

If there had been even a hint of "wet work" on American soil, we would have heard about it.

Posted by heedless | February 25, 2008 1:48 PM

My advice to the staff of the Atlantic web site: remove the 'By using this service' language below the comment box if you are never, ever going to enforce the policy.

Posted by Nell | February 25, 2008 1:55 PM

Luke,

You don't think Sirhan Sirhan and Oswald were left wing? Or do you think they didn't do it?

I'm pretty sure no one tries to claim that MLK was killed for any reason other than racism.

Call my naive, but I tend to think a (not-gonna-happen) Obama assasination would be blamed on whoever did it. Too many people watching the watchers these days for the FBI to sweep it under the rug, even if they were so inclined.

Posted by heedless | February 25, 2008 1:59 PM

heedless,

I well remember the Church Commission in '75, coming off a great Watergate buzz. I respectfully disagree with your last sentence, though. As Norman Mailer wryly noted (before going over to the other side, sadly), anything of real importance in these files would have the same life expectancy as a car left overnight in the South Bronx. (Mailer was referring to the files of the House Select Committee on the assessinations of JFK, MLK and RFK, which concluded in '79, where, indeed, some "wet work" of some kind evidently did take place.)

Moreover, in '87, when Oliver North started to testify to Congress on Iran-Contra, once his testimony got into the "setting up detention camps; suspend the Constitution, suspend Congress" etc., then the committee immediately adjourned to behind closed doors. There are just some things the children cannot hear.

Posted by MaxGowan | February 25, 2008 2:03 PM

I felt soullite's original comment was bitterly funny, and as he said, the sort of thing you frequently hear from right wing satirists. If you can't abide by the comment, report it to The Atlantic. Don't waste time feeding the trolls.

Posted by cmholm | February 25, 2008 2:14 PM

Well, I dunno about your theory because those fads and waves of copycats seem to last kind of long if you factor in the assassination attempts on

Teddy Roosevelt in 1912,
Gerald Ford in 1975, and
Ronald Reagan in 1981,
not to mention poor old Abe.

(If you haven't read the Teddy R story, you should, it's quite dramatic.)

Posted by artappraiser | February 25, 2008 2:28 PM

P.S. On the fin de sie