Good Point!

New HRC campaign rationale -- Obama might get shot and killed before formally securing the nomination, so she may as well stay in the race!

UPDATE: On a more serious note, the difference between the current race and other previous campaigns that may have lingered on into June is that given this year's primary schedule there simply aren't enough delegates left at stake for future primaries to make a difference. If she were holding out for a June primary in California that she thought would let her catch up, that'd be a very different story from the actual "waiting for Puerto Rico" scenario we're currently in.

Comments

Well, this is probably the only scenario where she would come close to sniffing the Oval Office. This is such a mental fuck up that its hard to believe she didn't know EXACTLY what she was saying.

Posted by Stacy | May 23, 2008 5:04 PM

This is great news!!! For the Unity Ticket!!

Yay!

Posted by southpaw | May 23, 2008 5:04 PM

I didn't think Hillary's campaign could go any lower than they already have, but at least many of their most egregious statements have been made by surrogates like Geraldine Ferraro and her husband, whom I used to greatly admire.
But her direct reference today to Bobby Kennedy's 1968 assassination as another justification for her to stay in the race is one of the most shameful -- and shameless -- things anyone has said in this entire campaign. It shows that there's just no humanity left in the Clintons, and, heartbreakingly, makes me question what was there in the first place.

Posted by Michael Sigman | May 23, 2008 5:05 PM

the superdels need to put a stop to this.

this is disgusting.

Posted by jb | May 23, 2008 5:05 PM

OK, does this finally give Obama the "excuse" to say he will not have her on the ticket and some of her less rabid superdelegate supporters the "excuse" to go support the presumptive nominee?

Posted by JMS | May 23, 2008 5:05 PM

Actually, having read the numerous exigeses already published across the Web, I think her point was that RFK stayed in until the month of June--that he dropped out because he was fatally shot is just a way of reminding her audience of the time frame.

I'm pretty sure, though, that if Hillary were fatally shot she would still find some way to stay in the race.

Posted by James Gary | May 23, 2008 5:06 PM

Why didn't we ever think of that before? Why the hell did we let John Kerry win and count his delegates when he could have been SHOT!

Posted by Vaughan | May 23, 2008 5:06 PM

Offensiveness of her statement aside, that doesn't make any sense. She'd be the presumptive candidate even if she had already dropped out by then.

Posted by matt | May 23, 2008 5:07 PM

Does she really want to evoke comparisons to 1968?

Posted by Doug H. (Fausto no more) | May 23, 2008 5:07 PM

And if she hadn't so thoroughly antagonized Obama's base, she might even be a viable backup in the event that something /does/ happen.

Posted by The Atlantic cleaning staff | May 23, 2008 5:08 PM

So Clinton's publicly admitting she's considered the possibility of him being assassinated? And she still thinks she has some kind of a chance of him asking her to be VP? Jeebus.

Posted by Tel | May 23, 2008 5:09 PM

OK, I have been trying to give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt, but this bit of insanity does it for me.

please ask her to stop

Posted by Stan | May 23, 2008 5:09 PM

I'm hardly a pro-Clinton person, and even I think it's a bit of a stretch to get worked up about this. It's an odd but important reference point for some people, especially of her generation. I didn't think anything of it the first time I saw the quotation. People need to calm down.

She's just not the quickest person in the world on her feet.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 23, 2008 5:09 PM

the superdels need to put a stop to this.

this is disgusting.

Posted by jb | May 23, 2008 5:09 PM

Just checking, have you watched the video of the comments, or are you just spouting off based on headlines?

Posted by Alex | May 23, 2008 5:11 PM

"Well, we all know that General Custard died at the Battle of Little Big Horn. But what this book presupposes is...maybe he didn't?

Posted by Stacyq | May 23, 2008 5:11 PM

Every time I dare to think that HRC's complete lack of shame has hit its nadir, she manages to stoop to a new low.

Posted by jcm | May 23, 2008 5:12 PM

OK, I have been trying to give the Clinton's the benefit of the doubt, but this bit of insanity does it for me.

please ask her to stop

Posted by Stan | May 23, 2008 5:12 PM

I don't trust the New York Post farther than I can throw Rush Limbaugh, so I'll take this with a grain of salt, not just because of the source but because it is just such a stupid thing to say after a certain Senator from Massachusetts was hospitalized, revealing he had a brain tumor.

Posted by Reality Man | May 23, 2008 5:14 PM

James -

You can't kill vampires with a bullet ...

So you would be correct - she would rise again.

The funny thing about Clinton logic is that everytime she falls further behind in these contests she claims "I'm the comeback kid"

The only reason she is still around - is because she won't go away.

Anyone with grace, and duty-bound to their party - would have dropped long ago.

And this thing with "Obama may not get Clinton voters"

That is CLINTON"S JOB UNTIL NOVEMBER.

Posted by sn00t | May 23, 2008 5:14 PM

Just checking, have you watched the video of the comments, or are you just spouting off based on headlines?

I'm sorry, what? Is there some tone of voice or gesture that would make it okay to publicly give voice to the idea your opponent might be assassinated?

Posted by southpaw | May 23, 2008 5:15 PM

Probably not a good idea to offer the Vice Presidency to a woman who is publicly musing over his assassination.

Posted by jbryan | May 23, 2008 5:15 PM

yeah, because that's exactly what she meant. you people are simply insane.

Posted by Israel | May 23, 2008 5:16 PM

She should know better. Tone-deaf, borderline offensive, and twisting history for her own ends.

Did her husband and RFK stay in the race til June despite having no mathematical possibility of securing the nomination? Or did it have to do with an entirely different primary calendar (eg California not until June)? C'mon Hillary, it's tough and hard to take, but the fact is, it's time for you to give up gracefully. When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Posted by Ruth Adkins | May 23, 2008 5:16 PM

Either her argument makes absolutely no sense (the Democrats lost in 1968) or she really did just suggest she's going to keep running because someone might kill Barack Obama.

Go. Away.

Posted by Nav | May 23, 2008 5:18 PM

What a stupid post by Yglesias. Obviously Clinton was referring to the calendar, and making the point that THE NOMINATION WAS STILL BEING CONTESTED IN JUNE when RFK was shot.

But if you are truly an idiot, then yes, I guess you could deliberately misread that comment to say that she's calling for Obama's assassination.

Posted by Vidor | May 23, 2008 5:18 PM

I just saw the video on MSNBC, by the way, and it's chilling.

Posted by southpaw | May 23, 2008 5:18 PM

I think one of the big underreported stories of this campaign cycle has been that despite Clinton supposedly being the seasoned, experienced candidate who is "readyon day 1", she has proven to be incredibly gaffe prone. Just last week there was the "white Americans" remark, and now this. A few weeks ago Ben Smith compiled a list of a half-dozen gaffes involving foreign leaders (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/A_flap_in_New_Zealand.html). She's quicker on her feet than Obama in rattling off policy proposals, but she has horrible political instincts.

Posted by ronald mcmurphingale | May 23, 2008 5:18 PM

I've been worried about this scenario for a long time, but certainly not this angle. I was more concerned about what would happen if Hillary were the VP or VP candidate and then that which is too unbearable to mention happened. Or it would happen after the convention, and she would try to strongarm her way back into the nomination. The JFK conspiracy theories would pale in comparison.

OTOH, for a while I've thought somewhere someone in both parties should be running through these scenarios. Not to scheme, but to have some idea where to head. You know, instead of just rolling Walter Mondale out onto the stage again.

Posted by Buddha Edwards | May 23, 2008 5:18 PM

Maybe this explains Hillary's newfound affection for white gun owners in Appalachia.

The kind that have heavy barrel Remington 700s with 10x telescopic sights for ..uh..hunting groundhogs.

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2008 5:19 PM

It's kinda hard to believe she chose this analogy completely innocently. If she mis-spoke, which is entirely possible, she should retract, apologize and clarify. Arguing that there's nothing wrong with this, as her campaign is now doing, is just nonsense. Surely every sentient human being is aware of the sensitivity of this topic. The fact that he's recieved threats and secret service protection earlier than any candidate in history has been widely reported at this point.

PS: surely this point can be made without calling her a vampire, etc

Posted by greg | May 23, 2008 5:20 PM

James -

You can't kill vampires with a bullet ...

So you would be correct - she would rise again.

The funny thing about Clinton logic is that everytime she falls further behind in these contests she claims "I'm the comeback kid"

The only reason she is still around - is because she won't go away.

Anyone with grace, and duty-bound to their party - would have dropped long ago.

And this thing with "Obama may not get Clinton voters"

That is CLINTON"S JOB UNTIL NOVEMBER.

Posted by sn00t | May 23, 2008 5:20 PM

I'm sorry, what? Is there some tone of voice or gesture that would make it okay to publicly give voice to the idea your opponent might be assassinated?

She was listing primarie fights that had continued on into June. She started off with Bill Clinton in 1992, then went on to mention '68. Kennedy hadn't wrapped up the nomination at that point (with it being a three-way race). The context isn't "Hey, RFK got shot and someone else won." but "Hey, those races weren't decided until an even later point in the year than right now."

Then she says RFK got shot, and it went off the rails. But the context isn't "Obama could be assassinated so I should stay around." It's "It's not even June yet, these other races weren't decided in June, there's no reason to drop out."

Posted by Alex | May 23, 2008 5:21 PM

What a stupid post by Yglesias. Obviously Clinton was referring to the calendar, and making the point that THE NOMINATION WAS STILL BEING CONTESTED IN JUNE when RFK was shot.

But if you are truly an idiot, then yes, I guess you could deliberately misread that comment to say that she's calling for Obama's assassination.

Posted by Vidor | May 23, 2008 5:22 PM

I've been worried about this scenario for a long time, but certainly not this angle. I was more concerned about what would happen if Hillary were the VP or VP candidate and then that which is too unbearable to mention happened. Or it would happen after the convention, and she would try to strongarm her way back into the nomination despite being left off the ticket. The JFK conspiracy theories would pale in comparison.

OTOH, for a while I've thought somewhere someone in both parties should be running through these scenarios. Not to scheme, but to have some idea where to head. You know, instead of just rolling Walter Mondale out onto the stage again.

Posted by Buddha Edwards | May 23, 2008 5:23 PM

It's kinda hard to believe she chose this analogy completely innocently. If she mis-spoke, which is entirely possible, she should retract, apologize and clarify. Arguing that there's nothing wrong with this, as her campaign is now doing, is just nonsense. Surely every sentient human being is aware of the sensitivity of this topic. The fact that he's recieved threats and secret service protection earlier than any candidate in history has been widely reported at this point.

PS: surely this point can be made without calling her a vampire, etc

Posted by greg | May 23, 2008 5:23 PM

She insinuated this on purpose. Hillary Clinton does not make mistakes like this. Not think quickly on her feet? Have you ever seen her in a debate? She's the quickest person on her feet I've ever seen. Well, hopefully she just destroyed her chances of being a VP.

Posted by cnnr | May 23, 2008 5:25 PM

"Earlier today I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June 1992 and 1968 and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That's a historic fact. The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy and 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. I certainly had no intention of that, whatsoever. My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to, and I'm honored to hold Senator Kennedy's seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjWCM_RSIY0

Posted by Alex | May 23, 2008 5:25 PM

It's an odd but important reference point for some people, especially of her generation. I didn't think anything of it the first time I saw the quotation. People need to calm down.

I agree.
People should remember, politicians spend hours every day answering difficult questions in complex ways. Poor choice of words, unfortunate references, are inevitable from time to time. I really dislike Clinton, but I'd prefer to continue to give her the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.

If you're going to get angry about something, get angry about the way Clinton is ginning up her supporters' resentments about Florida and Michigan, even after it's clear her odds of securing the nomination are somewhere between infinitesimal and none. If you're someone who doesn't spend a lot of time following politics, it's very easy to misunderstand the full context of Florida and Michigan. Clinton is obviously taking advantage of that ignorance in many of her supporters, in a way that will tangibly hurt Obama's chances in the fall.

Posted by Ban Johnson | May 23, 2008 5:25 PM

She insinuated this on purpose. Hillary Clinton does not make mistakes like this. Not think quickly on her feet? Have you ever seen her in a debate? She's the quickest person on her feet I've ever seen. Well, hopefully she just destroyed her chances of being a VP.

Posted by cnnr | May 23, 2008 5:25 PM

Another example of the Tale of the Off-The-Cuff Comment:

(1) Take some off-the-cuff trivial comment that was not articulated well.
(2) Explain that the politician really intended to say something heinous.
(3) Rinse.
(4) Repeat.

Posted by dogfacegeorge | May 23, 2008 5:25 PM

Either her argument makes absolutely no sense (the Democrats lost in 1968) or she really did just suggest she's going to keep running because someone might kill Barack Obama.

Go. Away.

Posted by Nav | May 23, 2008 5:26 PM

have you watched the video of the comments, or are you just spouting off based on headlines?
Watched, it didn't change a thing.
But I just watched her apology and you can tell that she realizes she just stepped in a pile of dung 18 stories high. She seemed very sad and regretful.
Meanwhile, in Iraq, a camel's back is broken.

Posted by bjd | May 23, 2008 5:26 PM

She points to the primary season lasting until mid-June in 1968. But back then, it started much later later. The New Hampshire primary was on March 12 in 1968. This primary season has already lasted over a month longer than RFK's.

Posted by Terry | May 23, 2008 5:28 PM

She was listing primarie fights that had continued on into June. She started off with Bill Clinton in 1992, then went on to mention '68. Kennedy hadn't wrapped up the nomination at that point (with it being a three-way race). The context isn't "Hey, RFK got shot and someone else won." but "Hey, those races weren't decided until an even later point in the year than right now."

I don't buy this, Alex, and the reason I don't is because this isn't a one time comment. It's the second time she's brought up RFK's death. She made reference to the event right after the Indiana primary as well.

If she was just randomly listing elections and the fact that a presidential candidate was killed just happened to slip out... okay, I can buy that once. Not twice. It was deliberate.

Posted by jbryan | May 23, 2008 5:29 PM

Re: Clinton's "invocation":

From "Head of State"

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/vice-presidential-candidate-clinton.html

Friday, May 23, 2008

A Hypothetical Speech by Vice Presidential Candidate Clinton

Thank you for welcoming me here tonight. I know that we are all proud of Barack, who has risen from humble beginnings to such heights--great heights, perilous heights. As you may know, 30% of serious accidents occur from a height of 10 feet or above.

And so we now set out together on our journey--a journey of hope, a journey of change, and yes, a journey of great demands. For the Presidency places great demands on all of those who hold the office--we have seen how amazingly quickly it can age people in the poignant photographs of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was succeeded by Harry S. Truman while still in office.

In this journey, we will put forward our shared goals--of expanded health coverage, against the unexpected and often fatal illnesses that can rob even those citizens that seem the healthiest of their ability to work, even of their lives.

Of protection against unexpected attack on our country, often aimed at those who are placed in the most critical positions to lead this nation. Of conservation of our precious energy resources, without which, even the most powerful of us can wind up stranded in a desert motorcade, without food, water, or wireless reception to contact others for help. Of greater support for culture and the arts--beginning with increased support for our very own Ford's Theatre here in Washington, DC.

Many of you will hear Barack speak later today, from a platform in Norman, Oklahoma--a humble platform, a rickety platform, a platform susceptible to Norman's notoriously strong and unexpected winds. There--god willing--he will tell you of what we hope to accomplish. He will speak of the unity that he and I wish to achieve for this nation, just as Andrew Johnson and Lincoln strove for such national unity. And he will tell you of our wish for change.

Change. An important word. None of us can know the changes that will occur in our lives. None of us can predict what momentous events, what disasters may befall us. A simple damaged left engine turbine stabilizer in a campaign plane. A frayed electrical line dangling, unseen, from a remote access satellite hookup van. A safe, falling, unexpectedly, to the sidewalk from the 8th floor of the Hotel Aldion in Norman, Oklahoma.

And so, we must dedicate ourselves, consecrate ourselves, to reach these most important national objectives today--while we still can. And like Kennedy, Garfield, McKinley, and other Presidents before him, we know that Barack will strive to achieve these goals--in the face of the awesome unknowns that lay before us all.

Thank you.

Cite:

Head of State

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/vice-presidential-candidate-clinton.html

Posted by Robert Hewson | May 23, 2008 5:32 PM

Hillary Clinton, May 8th 2008:
"You know, I remember very well what happened in the California primary in 1968, as, you know, Senator [Robert] Kennedy won that primary."

Posted by jbryan | May 23, 2008 5:35 PM

Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vyFqmp4wzI

Posted by southpaw | May 23, 2008 5:37 PM

A few problems with what Hillary said: first, if something were to happen to Obama to the point where he couldn't run, she'd obviously be the nominee even if she did drop out now, so it doesn't make any sense. And most of the criticism of her isn't that she's continuing to run; it's that she's campaigning in a way that insures her supporters will be nursing mindless grievances against Obama.

Second, it's simply not factually true that Bill Clinton didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until the California primary. The nomination fight was over by the Illinois and New York primaries, which happened in late March. To the extent there was any wavering, it was because Clinton was running third in the polls for much of June 1992, behind both Bush and Perot.

And third, as has been pointed out by others, it's a different era than 1968, which was likely going to be a convention fight had RFK lived. Most delegates were still not chosen in primaries. Obama is something like 50 delegates away from clinching now, to the point where he almost doesn't need any more superdelegates. This is more like 1984 than 1968 or 1992, with Clinton in the role of Gary Hart. And Hart, if memory serves, wasn't going around in late May of that year destroying the party by suggesting Mondale was the moral equivalent of Robert Mugabe.

Posted by ChuckE | May 23, 2008 5:42 PM

She's also wrong about Bill's campaign; he was the presumptive nominee by March.

March 20, 1992

THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Primaries; TSONGAS ABANDONS CAMPAIGN, LEAVING CLINTON A CLEAR PATH TOWARD SHOWDOWN WITH BUSH
By ROBIN TONER,

Former Senator Paul E. Tsongas of Massachusetts withdrew from the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination today, a decision that many in his party said all but insured the selection of Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas.

Mr. Tsongas announced his departure at a news conference in Boston, where he said his campaign did not have enough money to continue. His move leaves only former Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. of California to compete with Mr. Clinton in the remaining primaries and caucuses in 21 states.

Without adequate money to win, Mr. Tsongas said, "the alternative was to play the role of spoiler."

'That Is Not Worthy'

"That is not what I'm about," he continued. "That is not worthy. I did not survive my ordeals in order to be the agent of the re-election of George Bush."

Posted by southpaw | May 23, 2008 5:48 PM

All of us -- even politicians -- very occasionally just slip up and say what we're really thinking. These rare instances should be utterly disregarded.

Posted by Elatia Harris | May 23, 2008 5:48 PM

The idea that Hillary is staying in the race because of the RFK scenario, or that she intended to say as much, is preposterous.

She is staying in just in case the Larry Sinclair allegations get any traction.

Posted by Charlie H. | May 23, 2008 5:50 PM

She's just not the quickest person in the world on her feet.

"Ready on Day One", indeed.

Posted by Chet | May 23, 2008 5:50 PM

Without adequate money to win, Mr. Tsongas said, "the alternative was to play the role of spoiler."

'That Is Not Worthy'

"That is not what I'm about," he continued. "That is not worthy. I did not survive my ordeals in order to be the agent of the re-election of George Bush."

Isn't that interesting. Tsongas didn't believe all the states should count, I guess.

Posted by Persia | May 23, 2008 6:06 PM

Larry Sinclair allegations
Me, I'm waiting for more news about Bat Boy's 3 way with Michelle and Rev. Wright. I hear Drudge has the video.

Posted by bjd | May 23, 2008 6:12 PM

This is an interesting gaffe. It's so bad, so chilling, so outrageous, that people are inclined to deny its plain meaning.

As Matt says in his update, California has already voted. It's very very late in the primary season. In fact, enough states have voted that Clinton cannot hope to overtake Barack Obama by virtue of the voting. She's manifestly waiting around for something--something other than people voting--to happen. Now, I don't want to think that Hillary Clinton meant what she said either. I wish she hadn't said it. But she did say it.

Then she comes out and apologizes in a very stilted way to the Kennedy family, but offers no expression of regret to Senator Obama. At some point you run out of excuses.

Posted by southpaw | May 23, 2008 6:12 PM

She said it before, in an interview on March 6th to Richard Stengel of Time. Which was shortly before she started positioning herself as the candidate of patriotism and guns and portraying Obama as an enemy of rural whites. I don't know, I don't want to believe what it looks like.

Posted by Glacier | May 23, 2008 6:21 PM

Alex, if that's what she meant, it's odd that she didn't say, "We all remember Robert Kennedy ran in the California primary in June." No, what she said was that we all remembered him getting assassinated in June. There's pretty much no way to read that other than her raising the fact that tragedy can strike the campaign. And she was raising it specifically in response to why she is still in the race.

And her non-apology apology doesn't help, either.

Posted by TKD | May 23, 2008 6:27 PM

If either the Clinton campaign or the Republicans are staking serious hopes on "the Larry Sinclair allegations" taking off, I would suddenly move from feeling very optimistic about Obama's general election victory to ecstatically happy.

Posted by El Cid | May 23, 2008 6:28 PM

My dear lord, if something happened to Obama, whether she's in the race or not (which was the question) has nothing to do. She would be next in line regardless. That's why your interpretation of this statement is flat out wrong.

All you people are nasty, ugly people. You call her a racist, and now this. You've lost the Clinton wing of the party. You should "go away."

Posted by Israel | May 23, 2008 6:33 PM

This is silly season. Can the Obama campaign not pass up a single opportunity to play the victim?

Posted by Tim K | May 23, 2008 6:33 PM

My dear lord, if something happened to Obama, whether she's in the race or not (which was the question) has nothing to do. She would be next in line regardless. That's why your interpretation of this statement is flat out wrong.

All you people are nasty, ugly people. You call her a racist, and now this. You've lost the Clinton wing of the party. You should "go away."

Posted by Israel | May 23, 2008 6:33 PM

She would be next in line regardless.
So why is she still in the race?

Posted by bjd | May 23, 2008 6:39 PM

Fuck Hillary and fuck you, Tim K.

Posted by EK | May 23, 2008 6:39 PM

You've lost the Clinton wing of the party.

You mean the coalition of racist rednecks, post menopausal hags, and emasculated softies like you, Israel, and Tim K?

Posted by Tim J | May 23, 2008 6:41 PM

You people are 'foaming at the mouth' crazy.

Posted by Tim K | May 23, 2008 6:41 PM

The real non-story was Obama and the bitter comments that Hillary herself blew all out of proportion on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary. Now she said this stupid thing and the response from some is that she's sleepy and not quick on her toes. Well, excuse me while I look the other way. She's been on easy street this entire primary and Obama has been raked through the coals. No pass from me.

Posted by Rainy | May 23, 2008 6:42 PM

and you're a limp at the dick softie...

Posted by Tim L | May 23, 2008 6:44 PM

Can the Obama campaign not pass up a single opportunity to play the victim?
No word from the Obama campaign, except to say it was an unfortunate remark. But after listening to camp Hillary whine all week your comment is really funny.

Posted by bjd | May 23, 2008 6:45 PM

Bringing up RFK's assassination -twice- in the past couple months is an explicit manuever for what? More votes in Puerto Rico and South Dakota? Trying to get the VP? Not like the convention that year was noteworthy for a smooth transition to back Humphrey.

As an Obama backer, to be honest, I'd be more willing at this time to back Edwards than Clinton.

Posted by Bo | May 23, 2008 6:45 PM

All you people are nasty, ugly people. You call her a racist, and now this.

OH NOES! Does this mean I have to get rid of my "imaginary hip black friend"? Can I still vote for "the black candidate"? Am I allowed to read the black journalists who are out to get her? I mean, they're not hard-working whites, but how will I ever get my fix of anti-Hillary nastiness without them? I mean, I gots to call some Democrat a racist, but the other ones just don't give me anything to work with.

Posted by calling all toasters | May 23, 2008 6:50 PM

I suppose it's inevitable that this thread will be a flame war. When candidates for the presidency are dropping assassination references, it's hard to ask blog commenters to be temperate.

As I've explained, the timing explanation does not make sense. All the contests Hillary referred to were--objectively--at a far earlier stage in June than this contest is in May. No one knows this better than Hillary Clinton, who has participated in 48 state contests (and some others).

So, given that the timing explanation is absurd, what do Clinton supporters think she actually meant?

Posted by southpaw | May 23, 2008 6:51 PM

Well, apologising to the Kennedys, as is just bizarre.

Yes, 1968 weighs heavy on this race. Yes, you know that the ids of cablenews producers tell them to linger on the scene after Obama speeches just because dot-dot-dot.

I've said it here a number of times that Obama either takes the nomination or his career ends this summer, because there is no feasible way for him to concede from the front. The Clinton campaign obviously knows this, and is waiting for the dead girl / live boy.

But you just don't go there. And that's the cue for anyone in the DNC with a spine to shut this one down, along with whatever hope might exist of a Clinton on the ticket.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 23, 2008 6:52 PM

bjd:

Yeah an unfortunate remark that has no place in this campaign.

Translation: WHAAAA!!!!!

Posted by Tim K | May 23, 2008 6:54 PM

My question is, who in their right mind would still give money to a campaign which, when describing why they're still in it, doesn't actually have anything better than "because my opponent might get shot?"

Posted by J K | May 23, 2008 6:56 PM

"Offensiveness of her statement aside, that doesn't make any sense. She'd be the presumptive candidate even if she had already dropped out by then."

That's precisely why one cannot believe she made the comment as anything more than a hint to her more fanatical followers that it would be nice if "something happened" to Obama.

She knows damn well she would be the nominee if that happened.

Who was the moron the other day who proudly posted that Hillary has run a "gaffe-free" campaign for 18 months?

Want to say that again today?

Moron.

Anybody who can't see through this BITCH by now is a BITCH themselves (male or female).

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 23, 2008 7:00 PM

Can the Obama campaign not pass up a single opportunity to play the victim?

I defy you to tell me how David Axelrod could've been more courtly on Hardball.

. . . video in a second if I can find it. Or just turn on the TV, MSNBC is replaying it right now.

Posted by southpaw | May 23, 2008 7:01 PM

"You mean the coalition of racist rednecks, post menopausal hags, and emasculated softies like you, Israel, and Tim K?"

I'm brown, big, and grew up among feuding gangs. Emasculated softy? that's right.

Posted by israel | May 23, 2008 7:02 PM

I suppose I ought to know this already. Could somebody fill me in on where "excellent news for hillary" comes from?

Posted by Daniel Koffler | May 23, 2008 7:04 PM

is a BITCH themselves (male or female)

cut to Tim K

Posted by Marc | May 23, 2008 7:05 PM

That's why your interpretation of this statement is flat out wrong.

All you people are nasty, ugly people. You call her a racist, and now this. You've lost the Clinton wing of the party. You should "go away."

Then give me a better interpretation, Israel. Explain the rationale to me.

So far I've heard a few contextual defenses for why she has invoked the assassination of Robert Kennedy as a justification for her continued campaign:
1. The Kennedys were on her mind because of Teddy's circumstances, and this made her think of RFK's death. Problem: she brought up RFK several times before (in March and early May), before Ted was diagnosed with a tumor or even fell ill.
2. She was just trying to ground her thinking in the month of June and was grasping offhand for June things. Problem: in her May 8th interview with Newsweek, she didn't mention RFK's death in reference to June, or in a June context. It was simply, "I remember what happened even after RFK won a big primary."
3. It was just a casual slip that she obviously didn't mean to bring up. Problem: then why has she brought it up before? Why is this at least the third time she's used RFK's death, specifically?

So give me a more charitable explanation to this ghoulish invocation. Please.

Posted by jbryan | May 23, 2008 7:05 PM

"Anybody who can't see through this BITCH by now is a BITCH themselves (male or female)."

This may be the nadir.

Posted by dogfacegeorge | May 23, 2008 7:06 PM

How are people even defending her comment by saying she was referencing the length of the 1968 primary race? If she was actually doing that then she could have done so without invoking Bobby Kennedy's assassination quite easily, but the fact she made a direct reference to it makes her comment indefensible. And anyone trying to defend it should know better. Why make reference to Bobby's assassination when it would have been just as easy and made more sense to say the 68 primary went on to June with no clear winner. You needn't even mention the candidates let alone that one was shot and killed. There is no excuse for her comment. and Tim K, I feel sorry for you. really I do.

Posted by expostfacto | May 23, 2008 7:07 PM

I'm brown, big, and grew up among feuding gangs. Emasculated softy? that's right

Yeah, and I'm King Kong Bundy. No doubt you're about 5'5 and 130 lbs soaking wet. Does your Mother keep your balls in the cupboard or the freezer?

Posted by ken | May 23, 2008 7:08 PM

Funny: if I happened to have on my mind the Kennedy family's numerous tragedies, especially the horrible shock to Ted Kennedy & his family of his diagnosis with a terminal illness, I would be less likely to toss out mentions of his brother being gunned down when I'm supposedly talking about how interestingly long some primary seasons go.

But that's just me.

Posted by El Cid | May 23, 2008 7:15 PM

TimJ, as a post-menopausal woman I really find your comment offensive. Because we can no longer bear children we and our opinions are worthless?

I am appalled that Clinton would make such a reference TWICE to assassination. Thank God we have Obama as our candidate and not her. She has just topped off a terrible campaign with a gaffe as big as her debt.

I want a woman prez. I'm sorry Hillary is a poor candidate. I'm surprised she blew it so completely. We will have the first woman in the job -- sometime. It's not likely to be Hillary.

And to all the "I will only vote for Hillary" voices, you are being ridiculous. I know it hurts when you believe in someone and they lose, but you need to grow up and work with the rest of us to make sure McCain isn't the prez. Do you want another war? Do you want McBush in charge of FEMA if your town is hit by a hurricane, tornado, or whatever? Do you want to lose your employer-paid insurance as McCain wants you to AND have no alternative? Get with the program. McCain is not an option and not voting for the Democratic nominee is the same as voting for McCain. Do you really want to be responsible for more of the same? Can you afford it? I can't.

Posted by eve | May 23, 2008 7:18 PM

Maybe she needs to call Joe Lieberman and get her bearings checked.

Posted by Joe | May 23, 2008 7:19 PM

JBryan,

Well, you're the mindreader here, so the burden's on you, but this is what she said in March, without the clumsiness and inartfulness that we saw today:

Question: 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.

Just for one second stop thinking of her as some "evil, power-hungry bitch," and you'll realize how immature you people are being.

Posted by Israel | May 23, 2008 7:23 PM

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.

Primary contests did not last longer. They started later. This contest has lasted so long that no voting can now alter its outcome.

Posted by southpaw | May 23, 2008 7:35 PM

As Chuck Todd noted, the 1968 primary is generally invoked for one reason. You can't get away from it.

Clinton could have talked about the 1984 primary going past June, but given the outcome that November, she probably either forgot or suppressed that memory.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 23, 2008 7:40 PM

Can you envision a point at which--if the race stays this close
Close means Clinton would have a chance to win. She does not. Her only hope is to gain super delegates, but that is not happening.
Another Clinton supper delegate defected to Obama today. Todays's count Obama +4, Clinton -1.

Posted by bjd | May 23, 2008 7:41 PM

This is silly season. Can the Obama campaign not pass up a single opportunity to play the victim?

Tim K speak for "With Clinton you have a candidate who performed almost flawlessly during a score of debates, and rarely made a gaffe during the entire 18 month campaign to date."

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/obama_and_appallachia.php

Practically on cue, Tim. Amazing timing, even for you.

Classic.

You'll be put out of your misery soon enough.

Posted by SoCalJustice | May 23, 2008 7:46 PM

The sooner that fatass evil crone is gone, the better.

Posted by Kim T | May 23, 2008 7:51 PM

You guys are just trying to bait Tim K. now. Always be careful, because when you rub the doo-doo lamp, it grants its wish, not yours.

Posted by El Cid | May 23, 2008 7:54 PM

Wow Tim K is still at it! Just like his classy dame.

Posted by Lucy | May 23, 2008 7:58 PM

I'm brown, big, and grew up among feuding gangs.

I also hear you have a girlfriend in Canada. You met at band camp, right?

Oh, and speaking of that "clumsiness and inartfulness": every time Clinton is about to stick the knife in, she throws in a "you know" or an "I don't know" or an "I find it curious"--ways of distancing herself from the hit she's about to deliver.

The assassination remark was littered with them.

That isn't clumsiness and inartfulness. That would be a tell.

Posted by Marc | May 23, 2008 8:01 PM

Hillary Clinton is an atrocity. The undeclared SDs must endorse Obama now and put an end to her toxic sludge campaign.

Posted by jerry | May 23, 2008 8:01 PM

come on guys can't you see what's happening?
Clinton's fallback to the racist vote wasn't enough so now she's appealing to silent racist/assassin vote.
really, how can we expect to beat McCain in Novemeber w/o them?
btw, how much trouble would JMac be in if he had said something along these lines.
oh, and for all the Clinton koolaide drinkers, relax, no one has even brought up Vince foster.
No clinton for Vp, and i would even consider voting for McC over her now. this is appalling.

Posted by gunther | May 23, 2008 8:02 PM

Exodus
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 at the convention. They have informed Senator Clinton that it’s time to unite around Obama, and that they will be coming out, one or two at a time, and announcing their switch between now and the convention if Senator Clinton doesn’t do the same.
And this was before the today's unfortunate comment.

Posted by bjd | May 23, 2008 8:35 PM

And this was before the today's unfortunate comment

Actually, given that this most likely will serve as a boot in her fat ass on the way out the door, today's comment does have it's *fortunate* aspects...

Posted by JimmyJack | May 23, 2008 8:46 PM

Obviously Clinton was referring to the calendar

What on Earth do assassinations have to do with calendars?

Posted by Chet | May 23, 2008 8:48 PM

Daniel: "Could somebody fill me in on where "excellent news for hillary" comes from?"

I don't think anybody knows, but it's been going on here for months. Individual has posted that thing in practically every thread. Most people think it's hilarious since it frequently doesn't apply to the thread at all.

Obviously it's a snark about (some) Clinton supporters being certifiable freaks.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 23, 2008 8:59 PM

Olbermann has a Special Comment devoted to her now. If this primary keeps up he's gonna bust an artery or something.

Posted by Persia | May 23, 2008 9:03 PM

"The undeclared SDs must endorse Obama now and put an end to her toxic sludge campaign."

The problem is - it won't.

I'm telling you, she's going to the convention and beyond. She's determined to kill Obama's election chances - and oh wait, excuse the "unfortunate choice of words"...

Yeah, right. She knows exactly what she's saying.

And it was moron Tim K who said she ran a "gaffe-free" campaign,

Say it again, Tim! We need another laugh here.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 23, 2008 9:07 PM

I've actually devoted an unhealthy amount of thought to what should happen if Obama wins the nomination and is then assassinated. Given his insurmountable lead, I hope Obama has given it a couple minutes of consideration, too.

My call would be for Michelle Obama to ask Gore to run in his stead with Hillary as VP on a unity ticket. However much they might dislike it, I can't conceive how anyone would say no under the circumstances and the ticket would win in a landslide.

This isn't really a fantasy replay to right the wrongs of 2000 - I just don't see who besides Gore could fill that role and I'm assuming Obama would go to some lengths, even posthumously, to deny Hillary the nomination by default.

Posted by AlanW | May 23, 2008 9:11 PM

How was this even a gaffe? She was making a comment about the nomination contests usually going into June. I watched part of her interview before the editorial board, and it was an innocuous comment that no one there questioned her about. It was simply 'matter of fact.' Since when is referring to historical events some kind of taboo?

Here's the inconsistency with many people's (on this blog and in the media) interpretation of Clinton's comment. On the one hand they feel she is so wicked and conniving that every statement she makes is carefully calculated for political gain or for subtle psychological games. Yet on the other hand you think she is so stupid as to intentionally imply that Barack Obama could be assassinated, as if doing so would gain her anything.

It's so predictable by now that Obama's press operation and his allies in the media will exploit any racial, or other, comment to maximum advantage as a victim.

Posted by Tim K | May 23, 2008 9:32 PM

The Argus Leader editorial board issued a statement saying:

"The context of the question and answer with Sen. Clinton was whether her continued candidacy jeopardized party unity this close to the Democratic convention. Her reference to Mr. Kennedy's assassination appeared to focus on the timeline of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself."

Posted by Tim K | May 23, 2008 9:34 PM

Since when is referring to historical events some kind of taboo?

Since humans developed historical memory.

This has been another edition of simple answers to stupid questions.

Posted by southpaw | May 23, 2008 9:43 PM

Tim K:

You're either the most naive rube I've come across in my many years on this planet, or the most disingenuous, duplicitous asswipe on this board. I'm inclined to vote for option #2.

You're a true loser. Your family should be ashamed.

Posted by Walter | May 23, 2008 9:49 PM

So, Tim K, since Clinton got "the facts" WRONG - what, she's stupid or lying?

Posted by Chester | May 23, 2008 10:00 PM

Tim K: "The Argus Leader editorial board issued a statement saying:

'The context of the question and answer with Sen. Clinton was whether her continued candidacy jeopardized party unity this close to the Democratic convention. Her reference to Mr. Kennedy's assassination appeared to focus on the timeline of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself.'"

Except that there is more "context" than just this one statement as JBryan points out in a post above:

"So far I've heard a few contextual defenses for why she has invoked the assassination of Robert Kennedy as a justification for her continued campaign:

1. The Kennedys were on her mind because of Teddy's circumstances, and this made her think of RFK's death. Problem: she brought up RFK several times before (in March and early May), before Ted was diagnosed with a tumor or even fell ill.

2. She was just trying to ground her thinking in the month of June and was grasping offhand for June things. Problem: in her May 8th interview with Newsweek, she didn't mention RFK's death in reference to June, or in a June context. It was simply, "I remember what happened even after RFK won a big primary."

3. It was just a casual slip that she obviously didn't mean to bring up. Problem: then why has she brought it up before? Why is this at least the third time she's used RFK's death, specifically?

So give me a more charitable explanation to this ghoulish invocation. Please."

This is the point the Argus Leader misses in their explanation. She's done this before.

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action." - Goldfinger

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 23, 2008 10:05 PM

So, then, 1968 really is a great example for Hillary to use repeatedly to prove that nomination fights which go into June are "nothing particularly unusual" and all's well?

Posted by El Cid | May 23, 2008 10:12 PM

Hey simpletons,

The reason you mentioned those other contests went until June is to point out that there are still five months to the election and the winner will have enough time to campaign. Clinton is trying to counteract the meme that unless she drops out now Obama will somehow be compromised for the fall campaign.

By the way, the convention in 1968 was the last week in August (just like this year) while 1992 it was in mid July.

Apparently, none of you clowns ever considered the horrible possibility that harm could come to Obama before Clinton referenced RFK. Either you have no idea what transpired in this country prior to 2001, are living in some drug and boradband induced utopia, or you are disingenuous asshats. That Obama (and to a lesser but real degree Clinton)has a greater chance of being a target than any presidential candidate or president of the last 20 years has been fairly obvious since they both declared. That Obama and Clinton still go out there everyday to make their case to voters despite the heightened risk is one of the more inspiring aspects of this campaign.

Posted by Yglesisas: Now with twice faux outrage | May 23, 2008 10:31 PM

With the evidence coming in that Obama actually does just fine with Latinos, here's hoping this spurs an Obama blowout in Puerto Rico that finally ends this thing. Or am I being pollyanna-ish thinking that reducing herself to a figure of pity + getting blown out would be enough to deter her from making good on her threats to provoke a floor fight in Denver?

Posted by Daniel Koffler | May 23, 2008 10:33 PM

Daniel: "Or am I being pollyanna-ish thinking that reducing herself to a figure of pity + getting blown out would be enough to deter her from making good on her threats to provoke a floor fight in Denver?"

You're being Pollyanna-ish.

This is Clinton we're talking about.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 23, 2008 10:46 PM

So, yeah, like, so, 1968 is a great example, then, for Hillary to cite on why nomination fights which continue on into June are perfectly normal and peachy?

I mean, since it turned out so well for the Democrats, you know.

Posted by El Cid | May 23, 2008 10:56 PM

Eventually, if all you wankers die, then I'll be president. We all remember how the Black Death wiped out 75 million people in the 1340s . . .

Not that I'm hoping you all die of the plague. Just, you know, it's happened before. That's a Historic Fact.

Posted by southpaw | May 23, 2008 11:23 PM

@Tim K: Pray tell, Timothy, if "an unfortunate remark that has not place in this campaign" is too whiny to your mind, how would you have phrased the Obama campaign's official response?

Posted by moff | May 23, 2008 11:46 PM

@moff: No place, that is. And I know it's not a direct quote.

Posted by moff | May 23, 2008 11:49 PM

Check intrade.

Clinton is the most likely VP choice, even after (or because of) the assassination comment.

Maybe the thinking is that she is threatening to keep saying crazy things, unless Obama gives her the consolation prize.

The super delegates are sure scared of her, or they would have come out a long time ago to lock this up for Obama.

"Assassination" was not a gaffe, but a great tactical move.

So what wacky pronouncement can we expect next?

At this point nothing she says will lose her any of her remaining support, so it is all upside, with no downside.

Posted by Mike Furlan | May 24, 2008 12:23 AM

the Clinton supporters out there trying to spin this comment as anything other than what the overwhelming vast majority of people see it to be have become as totally batshit crazy as their candidate.

there are a hundred ways to historically reference long primaries without referring to 1968 and Bobby Kennedy. you could EVEN MENTION Bobby Kennedy's long primary, that went into June, without mentioning how he died. that she would deliberately choose to invoke, unprompted, both 1968 and his assassination is a VERY obvious indicator of where her mind was, consciously or otherwise, regarding her rationale for staying in the race long past the point of her mathematical ability to win. this fact is painfully obvious to anyone who watches the video with anything approaching clearheadedness.

Posted by BA | May 24, 2008 12:42 AM

Moff:

Why does that warrant any official response at all? Clinton mentioned (completely in passing if you took the time to watch, listen to, or read the context of her remarks) that RFK was assassinated that nomination fights have routinely continued into June of the election year. She also referenced, in the same sentence, that Bill Clinton won the California primary in June of 1992. Just as RFK won the California primary in June of 1968. THAT was the parrallel... both Clinton and Kennedy won the California primary in June of their respective election years. What really would have been negligent if she had simply said "Robert F Kennedy won the California primary in June of 1968" without mentioning she was killed immediately after. That definitely would have been misleading as well as tasteless.

Posted by Tim K | May 24, 2008 12:43 AM

In a statement, Kennedy Jr. said:

“It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June. I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband's 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June. I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense.”

Posted by Tim K | May 24, 2008 12:45 AM

Tim K,

you are unbelievable. how does a person's reasoning even get that twisted? it's like you have some kind of mental disability. Clinton's negligence would have been NOT referring to RFK's assassination? it's truly opposite world over there in Hillary's corner isn't it?

Posted by BA | May 24, 2008 12:47 AM

So what wacky pronouncement can we expect next?

Rifle range photo-op.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 24, 2008 12:57 AM

You're right BA, it would have been even more accurate for her to reference Teddy Kennedy's race against Jimmy Carter in 1980 when he took his fight all the way to the convention despite having virtually no chance of winning the nomination.

Yet, if she had dwelled on that no doubt many of you would be calling that "beyond the pale" because of Kennedy's diagnosis of brain cancer.

Posted by Tim K | May 24, 2008 1:00 AM

@Tim K: I'm well aware that a good way to "win" an argument on the Internet is to change the subject, but I'm afraid it won't work here. It's standard practice for a campaign to respond to statements made by an opposition candidate that are picked up by the news media, even if their own candidate isn't mentioned.

So, given that, how would you have phrased an un-whiny response?

(Please try not to clutter up this answer with justifications of Clinton's statement, like you just did above. They're not pertinent, since I haven't attacked her at all for having said it. Thanks!)

Posted by moff | May 24, 2008 1:09 AM

Moff:

This is what Bill Burton said:

“Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign."

Here is what he could have said:

"Senator Obama is focused on becoming the Democratic Party's nominee and defeating John McCain in November, not on Senator Clinton's statements before the Argus Leader editorial board which didn't seem out of the ordinary."

Just move on, why even draw any more attention to it. It's not necessary other than to score political points.

Posted by Tim K | May 24, 2008 1:27 AM

I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband's 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June.

When I take the trouble to debunk your nonsense with actual research, the least courtesy you could extend would be to rebut my claims or offer some other, more creditable nonsense.

Posted by southpaw | May 24, 2008 1:33 AM

southpaw:

What you quoted just there was from a statement from Robert F Kennedy Jr. Maybe you should email him instead and complain.

Posted by Tim K | May 24, 2008 1:45 AM

@Tim K: Of course, however the statements were intended, many people think they did seem out of the ordinary -- which is why the statements made the news. Clearly, though, for anyone to even think Clinton's words were unusual (since presidential candidates routinely reference assassination while addressing the media) is merely indicative of limited mental faculties. Hmmm.

Anyhoo, I'm going to bed! But I liked this Clinton quote from an AP story about the remarks:

"People have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa."

Um, does she mean her opponents? I don't know if that quote qualifies as whiny, but it certainly displays an astute understanding of how elections work!

Posted by moff | May 24, 2008 1:45 AM

moff:

No, if you were paying any attention you know people in the media were writing her political obituary from the moment she lost the Iowa caucuses.

Posted by Tim K | May 24, 2008 1:48 AM

"At this point nothing she says will lose her any of her remaining support, so it is all upside, with no downside."

Good point. That is probably true. Since she's been playing the "crazy card" a couple weeks now, both about Iran and the election, nothing would surprise me from her from this point on. She's already said she's going all the way to the convention, and I predict again she will go further - with lawsuits and actively campaigning against Obama if she doesn't get the VP slot.

Also, everybody notice how Tim K ignored the Bryan post and continues to cite the Argus and other comments that also ignore the fact that she's done this three times now?

Face it, folks - Clinton is bat-shit crazy. She's on a par with McCain or Rudy Giuliani at this point for being a disaster as President.

But she's going to torpedo Obama - with the help of the Iran war - and there's nothing anyone can do to stop her.

The Dems have lost yet another election that should have been a "slam dunk".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 24, 2008 1:49 AM

Hack:

This is political correctness run amok. We can't even reference past historic events if some related aspect might upset somebody or remind them that something bad might happen in the future? It's silly and juvenile.

And I didn't even see this Bryan post you are referencing. I know it's hard to believe but I don't read this whole comment section from top to bottom.

Posted by Tim K | May 24, 2008 1:55 AM

@Tim K: I remember! Like when Newsweek made her obituary the cover story after New Hampshire and even went so far as to disguise it as a feature article.

It would be baffling to me that "unfortunate" -- a description that the subsequent fallout has proven to be true -- seems "whiny" to you, Tim, while your own remarks don't, except that I'm, y'know, familiar with your comment history. Night!

Posted by moff | May 24, 2008 2:01 AM

@moff: I guess they don't let you post images here (or I screwed up the tags), but that would be the entirely flattering Newsweek cover story about her great comeback after New Hampshire.

Posted by moff | May 24, 2008 2:05 AM

Yet, if she had dwelled on that no doubt many of you would be calling that "beyond the pale" because of Kennedy's diagnosis of brain cancer.

Or not. Because a man in his seventies having cancer really is quite different from a man in his forties getting fucking shot.

I was going to say that whatever you're getting paid for this, it's not enough. But I'll check myself and say that it's too damn much, because it's likely coming out of the proceeds of some idealistic little kid selling his bike.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 24, 2008 2:08 AM

Moff:

Yeah but after unfortunate he said it had no place in the campaign. In other words, she said something bad. Which, y'know, she didn't.

Posted by Tim K | May 24, 2008 2:09 AM

pseudonymous:

It was 40 years ago. Not exactly an open sore. I'm not one of those people who deifies the Kennedy clan. Of course the assassinations of historic figures like RFK, JFK, MLK and Abraham Lincoln are national tragedies, there comes a point where people should be able to casually discuss historic events that are common knowledge.

By the way, how much are you being paid to shill for Obama on a daily basis?

Posted by Tim K | May 24, 2008 2:16 AM

She said something bad, Tim. Really bad. Really offensive to Senator Obama and his wife and his daughters. To openly appear to speculate about Obama's assassination is abominable. Those words would be offensive coming out of anyone's mouth (yes, even if a member of the Kennedy family had said it). It is horrifying coming from someone who seeks to be our president--an office that has already known far too much political violence in this nation's turbulent history.

To excuse her comments betrays a depth of moral callousness I have not known in my lifetime.

And to be clear, the casual discussion of historical events is fine. She could tell us what she thought the assassinations of the 60s meant for our history. She could tell us how she felt at the time or how it inspired her. The salt she's rubbing in the wound is the implicit suggestion that it may happen again. And again, when you reckon with facts of the primary calendar and the delegate counts as they actually exist today, I don't see how the alternate construction of her statement holds up in the least.

Posted by southpaw | May 24, 2008 2:30 AM

Note to Senator Obama: If Hillary and Cheney invite you on a Senate hunting trip, do not go!

Posted by Ingvy | May 24, 2008 2:38 AM

southpaw:

What exactly did she say that was so offensive? It's your interpretation that you're taking offense to, not what she said in the context of how she said it. I don't see how it was an implicit suggestion that it may happen again. Unless simply mentioning that it happens so reminds people that it could happen again. But she can't be held responsible for what people think when an example is brought up.

And, to be clear, the facts of the delegate count and primary calendar as they actually exist today is the closest race in living memory. The only reason Obama's advantage is insurmountable is the peculiarity of the Democratic delegate allocation rules. But his lead is actually puny.

Posted by Tim K | May 24, 2008 3:23 AM

It's your interpretation that you're taking offense to

Yeah, you're probably right. It's just me. Look outside the foxhole every now and again buddy.

Unless simply mentioning that it happens so reminds people that it could happen again.

That's the gravamen of the whole motherfucking complaint, you fool. It's not legitimate "that it happens" when "it" is assassination. Political violence is barbaric and unworthy of this great nation. It's not something "that happens" like catching a cold or getting a flat on the way home. And that's the exact problem: No civilized person would make such violence a part of her political calculations. A person who would is frightening.

Q: Hillary, why are you staying in the race? Don't you buy the party unity argument?

A: Look, I may have no mathematical chance of winning enough delegates. But there's still plenty of time for the guy in first place to get shot.

Obama's advantage is insurmountable . . . But his lead is actually puny.

How does your head not just explode when you write something like that? How can you go on pressing the case of a competitor whose opponent has obtained an "insurmountable" lead? This is bizarre behavior.

I've put up with it for a long time, but no more. I'm stocking up on garlic, crosses, and wooden stakes. Dark spirit that lives within the heart of Tim K: The power of Christ compels you!! Begone!

Posted by southpaw | May 24, 2008 3:55 AM

southpaw where is the implicit suggestion assassination may happen again? Her actual statement was "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California
Only in the minds of the most hateful and disingenuous Obamabots did Clinton 'openly appear to speculate about Obama's assassination.'
Look at the tortured sentence you had to construct to make your accusation.

I will type slow and use simple words so you can understand.
In 1968, Bobby Kennedy was competing for the nomination in June, three months before the convention and five months before the general election. In 2008, Hillary Clinton will be competing for the nomination in June, three months before the convention and five months before the general election. In 1968, Kennedy was behind in the delegates but vowed to fight until the convention. In 2008, Clinton is behind in the delegate count and has vowed to fight to the convention.

I find you relentless misrepresentation of the actual interview reprehensible. You have stooped beyond Rovian levels in pushing a lie created in your own deranged mind. That you veil your twisted hitjob as concern for the Obama family who know all to well the dangers Barack faces is the basest toolery I have ever encountered. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by right hook | May 24, 2008 4:40 AM

In 1968 the winning candidate, Humphrey, didn't enter a single primary. There is no f*cking parallel.

Posted by El Cid | May 24, 2008 6:34 AM

Hillary Clinton isn't hoping Obama will be assassinated, as far as I know.

Posted by otto | May 24, 2008 8:24 AM

Geez, roll out of the rack this morning and I see that our resident asshole, Tim K, has been a busy little bee late into the night. Tim, obviously you have no life up there in Canada.

Do tell, Timmeh: when Hillary is officially put out to pasture and out of the race, what will you do with your time? Stump for McCain?

Posted by JimmyJack | May 24, 2008 8:50 AM

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. issued a statement supporting Hillary last night.

"It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June. I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband's 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June. I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."

Posted by EWard | May 24, 2008 9:19 AM

EWard:

One man's opinion. Given his track record on other topics such as autism, his incredible hypocrisy when it comes to Global Warming, and his serious lack of judgement pertaining to which candidate to endorse, I expected nothing less from him.

Posted by Wally | May 24, 2008 9:29 AM

With these comments and others, she has exposed a very Ugly and Evil Soul which will do anything, say anything for her own personal power! She always has. She can't stand the thought that she cannot win so consciously or subconsciously she is wishing an assination attempt on Barack. Does that show she has no love at all or friendship for Barack or his family? She certainly has blown her VP credentials! I reminded of Dorian Grey who was a beauty but when looking in the mirror you could see his hideous soul!

Posted by Angellight | May 24, 2008 9:50 AM

Isn't this simply a classic case of Clinton plausible denialability? To those delusional Clinton supporters (rednecks, old women, Tim K-type softies, etc), no doubt your defense of this entire unfortunate incident is based around this concept - as it always is. There's a reason more than 50% of the electorate has historically detested Bill and Hillary Clinton. They are arguably two of the most polarizing political figures in US history. Simply put, they are masters of plausible deniability. Amazing isn't it that two people who reputedly are so intelligent have for decades now somehow gotten themselves into these situations? Always the victim, always misunderstood, never meaning any harm. A time or two, maybe. But how can you explain time and time again the same scenario? Some sort of vast conspiracy against them? Perhaps if you're incredibly naive or myopic. The time has come to cut these Machiavellian assholes loose. The world is far too complex, the problems we face far too immense, to rely on lying, cheating, disingenuous, miscreants who are masters at the game of plausible deniability. Get on with it.

Posted by Kenny | May 24, 2008 10:12 AM

El Cid hits the nail on the head. I've been saying she's Hubert Humphrey for months -- establishmentarian, once-liberal, caught up in a war she should have known to oppose, and trying to salvage his career by actively running against the left (i.e., the people who got it right).

Olbermann last night got it right, if a little bit over the top -- you just can't say assassination, especially when it's clear that you expect to benefit from it. I'm not sure I agree it's the worst thing she's ever said (which i would call her 2002 floor speech supporting the war) or this campaign (so hard to choose, but i think "hard working voters, white voters" edges it), but it would be nice if HRC would recognize many of us want her to end her campaign for her own damn good. Maybe if she goes back to the Senate and doesn't spend 7 years running for President, she might accomplish something legislatively. Or, maybe Paterson or even Bloomberg can take a run at her in 2012.

Posted by David B. | May 24, 2008 10:13 AM

Wally

What in the world are you talking about? It is not just one man's opinion. Robert F. Kennedy's son has placed this statement in perspective.

What does autism and global warming have to do with this thread?

Posted by EWard | May 24, 2008 10:14 AM

Since when is referring to historical events some kind of taboo?

So, Tim K, now you're defending John Hagee?

Figures.

Posted by SoCalJustice | May 24, 2008 10:17 AM

What does autism and global warming have to do with this thread?

My guess is that he was calling Robert Kennedy's judgement, or lack thereof, into question. If someone is a known wacko on a variety of topics (like you, for example) why should we take them seriously on this?

Posted by Loggin | May 24, 2008 10:21 AM

Just because Hillary picks off the occasional fly with her forked tongue and can spit out a deadly poison acorn from the stash she keeps in her cheeks, or the fact that her eyeballs shape-shift to lizards eyes right on camera does not mean she has the slightest plan to harm her most respected opponent. As her ardent fembot fans will point out, she is merely stating a fact. Quite random. No context. Lets not be conspiracy theorists. You all know you just hate her because she can cackle like a fey macaw and a man can't. If Hillary doesn't get in, and a billion male children are castrated - the mountains of flesh processed in a tanning factory to create a pale magenta pants suit for her...well, you've come a long way, baby!

Posted by Joe The Cleaner | May 24, 2008 10:34 AM

Earth to Obama Cyberbullies

Of all the opinions about this subject, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the most credible.

Judging from your comments, Obama supporters have only one agenda to foment hate. Citing Olbermann is not a good idea. He has become the Senator Joseph McCarthy of journalism along with Russert and Matthews.

Posted by EWard | May 24, 2008 10:40 AM

EWard:

Evidently you're a sociopath as well. Good luck with that.

Posted by KI | May 24, 2008 10:49 AM

Hillary Clinton is our last best hope for building a better America as well as a better world. She actually reminds me of my own Mother: a somewhat emotionally cold and detached women, but deeply committed to doing right and making the world a better place.

Posted by EWard | May 24, 2008 10:54 AM

Wait -- so now I have to ask Robert Fucking Kennedy Jr. what my analysis of some contemporary political actor before I get to make up my own fucking mind? What a pathetic, typical insider party hack approach.

Posted by El Cid | May 24, 2008 11:02 AM

SoCal, that's bullshit. Tim obviously wasn't defending Hagee, and Clinton's assassination comments--crass and repulsive though they are--have nothing in common with Hagee's crackpot history.

I have no respect for Clinton anymore, in large part because she and some her supporters are being so thoroughly dishonest in their dead-ender arguments. That's all the more reason not to join them.

Posted by Marc | May 24, 2008 11:05 AM

Robert F. Kennedy's son has placed this statement in perspective.

Non sequitur. It wasn't a comment aimed at Bobby Kennedy, or the Kennedy family. RFK Jr.'s opinion is no more or less valid than that of anyone on this topic. I could say 'no more or less valid than any Clinton endorsee', but that would set Tim 'Fla' K a-whining.

It was a comment that tapped into a formative time for people of Hillary's age: the one in which charismatic political leaders in their forties got shot.

That was forty years ago. It hasn't happened in a while. On the one hand, there's a deep desire to believe that it's firmly in the past. On the other hand, you can't erase it from cultural memory. The best you can do is not jinx it.

Perhaps Clinton cared more about not invoking 1976 (Reagan/Ford) or 1984 (Hart/Mondale), because they're only remembered for primary wrangles and getting beaten in November. Better to misremember 1992, then throw in 1968, which gave us Richard M. Nixon.

Convention fights lose elections. Settling the nomination late usually loses elections. She knows this.

So perhaps she really is embarked upon the 'fuck over Obama and see where the pieces lie in 2012' strategy. In which case, she might want to seek out another country for the remainder of her political career. Or become a Republican, because the GOP will owe her one if she gifts them with a McCain victory.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 24, 2008 11:40 AM

Pseudonym:

You're right, no one of you care that it could have offended the Kennedy's. As always, the capital offense is somehow offending Barack Obama: God's gift to America. It's really pathetic how you people worship the ground this man walks on and protect him as if he is some small child. Obviously Senator Obama is intelligent enough to realize that a small risk of assassination exists. And if America is a country of adults every one should be able to deal with that terrible possibility, just as every one deals with the possibility of another terrorist attack. People mention that possibility all the time, and that's a lot worse than one politician being shot. And Clinton didn't even mention that Obama, or anyone else, could be assassinated.

Use logic, people. What does bringing this up gain Hillary Clinton at this point? Absolutely nothing! Except for grief from people like you all. She was just drawing a valid historic parallels and failed to anticipate the offense that some people would take. That's all.

Southpaw:

Do you think I care if you "tolerate" me or not?

I'll support Hillary Clinton until the convention, or until she decides to withdraw on her own, as she is the stronger candidate and would be the stronger president. Calling me a vampire isn't going to change that.

Posted by Tim K | May 24, 2008 12:49 PM

For what it's worth, only 13 states held primaries in 1968 and the voting part of the contest was three months long.

In 1968, Bobby Kennedy was competing for the nomination in June, three months before the convention and five months before the general election. In 2008, Hillary Clinton will be competing for the nomination in June, three months before the convention and five months before the general election.

This is pure sophistry. In June 1968, Kennedy had a very creditable shot of gaining enough delegates to win the nomination on his own electoral strength. In 2008, the calendar is different; all but two states and one territory have voted. In 2008, Hillary Clinton has no credible path to victory unless something happens to Barack Obama, something other than losing an election. Until now, most people have explained Clinton's continued presence as waiting for a scandal to break . . . then she mentions assassintion . . . and here we are. I really don't think it's much of a stretch to be outraged by it.

Posted by southpaw | May 24, 2008 1:01 PM

I think some of the hateful comments on this blog are coming from Republican troublemakers. If you are an advocate for Obama, I do not believe that any of you would be so foolish to stand behind these rude remarks. It doesn't help your candidate.

Jackie Robinson was the symbol of class and courage. Obama's supporters could learn a lot from him.

Posted by EWard | May 24, 2008 1:07 PM

Jackie Robinson was the symbol of class and courage. Obama's supporters could learn a lot from him.

Jackie Robinson? Ohhhh, i get it.

Posted by southpaw | May 24, 2008 1:14 PM

Yeah, we need another president given to making tasteless remarks.

Now watch this drive!

Posted by Lucy | May 24, 2008 1:25 PM

EWard: Jackie Robinson was the symbol of class and courage. Obama's supporters could learn a lot from him.

Jesus Christ. This explains so much.

Tim K: As always, the capital offense is somehow offending Barack Obama: God's gift to America.

You don't get it, Tim. This isn't about offending anybody. Framing the issue as Obama or Obama supporters or even the Kennedys taking offense is a classic strategy for deflecting responsibility.

This isn't about anybody taking offense. This is about Clinton evoking the possibility of her rival's assassination, and using that as an argument for why she should stay in the race. That argument is reprehensible on its own merits, or lack thereof. The controversy is about her comments, Tim, not anybody else's feelings. Acknowledge that.

Posted by Marc | May 24, 2008 1:58 PM

no one of you care that it could have offended the Kennedy's. [sic]

Oh, that's precious from Fla K. It's boneless jujitsu.

The offense is to Obama because, as southpaw notes:

1. He's the only other Democrat campaigning in June;
2. The 2008 primary calendar makes any analogy stupid;
3. Absent something happening to Obama that ends his political career -- scandal, megagaffe, and that other thing, the nomination is his.

Nothing the voters in MT, SD and PR do now can alter the outcome. It's the stuff that happens outside voting that the Clinton camp is laying its hopes on. That can be done passively, by suspending the campaign; or actively, by staying in the race.

Thus: the reason the Clinton campaign actively continues is to hasten the end of Obama's political career.

EWard: why not recruit a few dozen people from the official Hillary site to fight your battles? That worked so well the last time you did it.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 24, 2008 2:00 PM

I am pretty much decided. The frightening hatred of Hillary Clinton coming from supposedly progressive people is just too much for me. I would only have imagined such hatred from extreme conservatives, but it has been there for month after month from Obama supporters. OK, I will not be voting for President under such conditions.

Posted by Jennifer | May 24, 2008 2:11 PM

OK, I will not be voting for President under such conditions

Jennifer,

Grow up. How old are you? 12? I can only assume you to be progressive. As such, imagine how you'll feel when President McCain, after appointing one to two Supreme Court Justices, effectively revokes Roe vs. Wade. Imagine how you'll feel when President McCain starts a unilateral conflict with Iran. There are many other examples I could name as well. But hey, those mean 'ol Obama supporters maligned your candidate so you'll show 'em, won't you?

Posted by JimmyJack | May 24, 2008 2:20 PM

No; even being in the same room with these Clinton haters would be too much for me. I will definitely not be voting for Obama, which means I will not be voting for President.

I also find Obama's Latin America speech as highlighted above needlessly offensive, but hey, that's just me.

Posted by Jennifer | May 24, 2008 2:28 PM

but hey, that's just me

Ok...evidently that puts you in the spoiled brat, entitled, camp like many others in America today. Seriously, you need to grow up. You sound pathetic.

Posted by JimmyJack | May 24, 2008 2:31 PM

Gee, Jennifer, I tend to make up my mind about candidates by what *they* say, not as much their opponents' supporters!

But while we're on the subject of paying for the sins of one's supporters, and possibly the most extreme ones at that, how about the Kentucky miners who used the term "colored" in saying they won't vote for Obama? Or the people who say he's a Muslim? Et cetera, et cetera.

I'm not sure what Obama should have done differently in this contretemps. He's said nothing, and Burton was like "people shouldn't talk about assassinating Presidential candidates." Maybe if Obama were to say Clinton's a Christian, "as far as I know," Hillary supporters would recognize that as strong, presidential leadership.

Posted by David B. | May 24, 2008 2:55 PM

JimmyJack:

You're just being needlessly defensive because your brain cannot fathom that anyone would be offended by your hatred of Hillary Clinton. The difference between some of us Clintonistas and you is that our opposition to Obama has been political, while your opposition (more like hatred) of Hillary Clinton has been personal.

I haven't even been advocating for Hillary as the nominee for days, not because I don't think she'd be the strongest nominee, but because I think this ship has sailed. What I've been arguing is that the two factions of the party need to find a way to reconcile, perhaps by choosing Clinton as VP.

Even with the race effectively over though you people can't help yourself but throw childish tantrums and hissy fits over imagined slights in the form of innocuous comments.

Posted by Tim K | May 24, 2008 2:55 PM

Timmeh:

Hilarious. So in addition to being a pedantic putz you're evidently also some sort of Miss Cleo-like psychic. I stand in awe. Too bad I don't live in Canada as well. A man of your talents would be well worth meeting.

Keep it real, Timmeh.

JJ

Posted by JimmyJack | May 24, 2008 3:10 PM

1.) As someone who for a long time admired Hillary Clinton, the fact that I do so openly hate a liberal democrat is something she earned.

2.) The VP serves one purpose and one purpose only: to be President if the President dies. When HRC casually throws around assassination talk in political terms, that's the last job she should have.

3.) While Tim K's opposition to Obama may be political (not sure I buy it, but whatevs), if you don't think there are a lot of people who hate Obama for who he is, you're crazy. Oh, wait -- that's part and parcel with the political opposition to nominating Obama!

Posted by David B. | May 24, 2008 3:11 PM

David B:

1) This might come as a shock to you but you are not the judge of who deserves to be hated.

2) To even suggest that Hillary Clinton wants any harm to come to Barack Obama is disgusting.

3) Of course there are people who don't support Obama because of race, or because they mistakenly believe he is a Muslim for no good reason. Just as there are people who don't support Hillary because she's a woman, or a Clinton, or because they mistakenly think she killed Vince Foster.

I am not responsible for the irrational beliefs of some nut cases, whether they are racists or paranoid, delusion Clinton haters.

My opposition to Barack Obama is for two reasons:

a) I believe Obama to be a very intelligent man, a prodigious public speaker, talented writer and all around nice guy. Having said that I don't believe he has the depth of knowledge and experience - either in politics or public policy - that Hillary Clinton has gained over more than 30 years of leadership and supporting roles.

b) I believe Hillary Clinton to be the strongest general election candidate:

i) Due to her perseverance and tenacity during this campaign, where she has only campaigned better with time.

ii) Due to her very strong and consistent debate performances, that have come closer to flawless than any of the other candidates this cycle.

iii) Due to the Clintons' history of sensing where the centre of American politics lies and gravitating toward it.

finally, and arguably mostly importantly:

iv) Due to her stronger appeal in the vital electoral college votes in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida, in addition to her ability to deliver states that Obama cannot: Arkansas, West Virginia, and arguably Missouri. (Kentucky is a long shot for her, just as Virginia is a long shot for Obama)

You can argue with my reasons, but they are valid and backed up by evidence.

Posted by Tim K | May 24, 2008 3:23 PM

Hillary Clinton has gained over more than 30 years of leadership and supporting roles.

You can argue with my reasons, but they are valid and backed up by evidence

Bullshit. Six years in the Senate, that's it. Please provide your "evidence" for the other 24. First Lady doesn't count and you know it. She had no official capacity other than miserably failed healthcare czar. Perhaps you count osmosis or association, but no one else outside your delusional band of zealots does. What a joke. You really need a new drum to beat, Timmeh.

Posted by JimmyJack | May 24, 2008 3:36 PM

JimmyJack:

As strong as screaming "bullshit!" is, I don't find it all that persuasive a counter-argument. It's not the role of First Lady that gave Hillary Clinton political experience, it was her role as informal strategist and chief surrogate for Bill throughout his runs for governor of Arkansas, and his first run for president, and first term in as president. She, along with Dick Morris, was his most important advisor during his 1982 comeback to the governor's mansion. She was the person most responsible for the development of the "War Room" rapid-response operation, and the "Department of Defense" that sought to neutralize scandals that could de-rail his presidential bid. She was an effective campaigner for congressional candidates during the 1998 midterm elections. Read Carl Bernstein's "A Woman in Charge" before you come at me screaming "Bullshit!."

Posted by Tim K | May 24, 2008 3:46 PM

What I've been arguing is that the two factions of the party need to find a way to reconcile, perhaps by choosing Clinton as VP.

Let Clinton suspend her campaign first.

Why? Because if she's campaigning in the belief that there's a way to secure the nomination, she's campaigning to end Obama's career. It's hard to reconcile with someone who wants to put you out of business. If she's doing so simply to secure a position for herself, then it's holding the party to ransom. It's hard to reconcile with someone who does that.

I'm prepared to grant her a third option: that she's got "campaign fever" as a result of being in the bubble so long. Continuing to campaign means you don't have to confront the world outside the bubble. In which case, she needs an intervention.

You can argue with my reasons, but they are valid and backed up by evidence.

Curiously reminiscent of Amy Poehler as Hillary: "So there you have it, sore loser, racist supporters, no ethical standards. Qualities Senator Obama simply cannot match. That's not an attack on my opponent, it's just the truth. When you consider that, the choice is obvious."

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 24, 2008 3:58 PM

I believe Hillary Clinton to be the strongest general election candidate:

Due to the Clintons' history of sensing where the centre of American politics lies and gravitating toward it.

Funny--that's one of my main reasons for opposing Clinton's campaign and supporting Obama. Whether her centrism makes her a stronger general election candidate or not--and this year, the Democratic-leaning fundamentals suggest it won't--it would make her a much, much worse President.

Clinton-style "centrism" brought us weak-kneed Democrats who caved to the Republicans on every single issue, most notably and disastrously the decision to invade Iraq. Enough already.

By the way, who was the more effective campaigner for Democratic candidates in the 2006 midterm elections?

Posted by Marc | May 24, 2008 4:26 PM

The hatred of Clinton by Obama supporters is impossibly offensive and sexist and obviously beyond the control of the haters and tells me I will not be voting for President.

Posted by Jennifer | May 24, 2008 4:28 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RAUm6l_t6k

Posted by southpaw | May 24, 2008 4:44 PM

Marc:

It may be one of the main reasons for a doctrinaire left-wing ideologue to oppose Hillary Clinton. Most rational people realize that no program is going to have long-term viability that doesn't take into account this the United States does not have a social democratic political culture.

NC:

Why should anybody care about Barack Obama's political career? This should be about choosing the most electable Democrat. But since that's not likely to happen it should be about electing Barack Obama. I think sucking it up and choosing Clinton as VP-nominee is the best way to do that. And I can tell you why I think that's the case down to the exact states I think it nails down or puts into play for the ticket.

Unlike some people my argument doesn't boil down to "I hate the bitch and want her to drop dead."

Posted by Tim K | May 24, 2008 5:55 PM

Even with Hillary as the VP, her supporters would not vote for Obama. Out of all three Presidential candidates, "he is the weakest one."

"...she's campaigning to end Obama's career..."

This is why he is losing the big-swing state voters. His campaign is an exercise in narcissism. It's the voters that matter and not Obama and his pundits. With gas at $4/gallon and a fragile economy, they want a President that serves their needs and not the other way around.

Posted by EWard | May 24, 2008 7:24 PM

It may be one of the main reasons for a doctrinaire left-wing ideologue to oppose Hillary Clinton.

Ah, yes, beaten on the merits so you resort to name-calling. I'm starting to think I was too hard on SoCalJustice.

Most rational people also realize that Obama is not a doctrinaire left-wing ideologue, Tim, nor are his supporters; just as most rational people also realize that centrism is only a means, not an end in itself, and it's a means that seems to have served the Clintons, and conservatives, and nobody else.

Maybe you and EWard can start an Obama Cyberbullies Survivors Anonymous.

Posted by Marc | May 24, 2008 7:44 PM

Marc:

Do you suffer from amnesia? America was much better off during the 1990's than it is now, or during the 1980's. The delusion you and Barack Obama seem to be under is that he is going to be able to do any better than Clinton did.

Posted by Tim K | May 24, 2008 8:08 PM

Tim K: "I know it's hard to believe but I don't read this whole comment section from top to bottom."

Nor do you pay any other attention to your critics, that's obvious. You just keep citing the same crap over and over again, like most trolls.

I personally don't think going ballistic like Keith Olbermann did is necessarily the correct approach to this. There is a touch of political correctness to that - and I'm never politically correct.

But there's no doubt in my mind of the following:

1) Clinton knew exactly what she was saying - and she intended to refer to the assassination as an example of suggesting that "something bad" could happen to Obama specifically because he's black. As Olbermann pointed out, SHE is at least as much as risk since a lot of people hate her. It was stupid to raise the "specter" of assassination in this bitter campaign for that reason alone.

2) Clinton is grasping at straws for reasons to continue her candidacy. She's playing the "crazy card", just as she did with her Iran comments. That's all she has left - the "crazy card" and lawsuits. There's absolutely no way she's going to be the nominee - and unlikely to even get the VP slot at this rate.

Her goal now is simply to destroy the Democrats chances for being elected. She goal is to PROVE Obama can't win the election by sabotaging it herself.

Olbermann is right about one thing - this BITCH has no business being President of the US.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 24, 2008 8:40 PM

Timn K: "I'm not one of those people who deifies the Kennedy clan."

So what? Neither am I. I couldn't care less that either Kennedy ended up dead. Politicians should end up dead.

In fact, I've said repeatedly here that unless Bill Clinton has Obama assassinated, Hillary isn't going to be the nominee. Other people have suggested that unless Obama gets caught with a live boy or dead girl, she isn't going to be the nominee.

What has that got to do with being tone deaf in an election campaign? What does that have to do with hinting that somebody could get assassinated if SHE doesn't get the nomination?

What does it have to do with the fact that she is misrepresenting the start and end points of nomination campaigns in order to justify not dropping out when it's totally clear she cannot be the nominee?

Bottom line: She CANNOT be the nominee unless something serious happens to Obama's campaign. She knows this. So why is she coming up with this crap?

Because her goal is to torpedo Obama's nomination, no matter what it takes or how low she has to go. Her goal is to PROVE that Obama cannot win the election. Like I said, the only way to prove that is to DO it.

And this comment is just part of that process.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 24, 2008 8:52 PM

EWard: "She actually reminds me of my own Mother: a somewhat emotionally cold and detached women, but deeply committed to doing right and making the world a better place."

Bwahahahahahaha!!!

You gotta crack up!

This reminds me of the line in "Hitman". The hooker says she doesn't even know 47's name. 47 tells her where he was raised, they didn't have names, only numbers. "Mine was...47." The hooker says, "Well, that explains a lot."

Bwahahahahahah!!!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 24, 2008 8:58 PM

Tim K: "The difference between some of us Clintonistas and you is that our opposition to Obama has been political, while your opposition (more like hatred) of Hillary Clinton has been personal."

Look, stupid, there are two sets of reasons to dislike or even hate Clinton: political and personal. That, you got right.

Unfortunately for you, Clinton actually HAS both sets of reasons to dislike and even hate her nearly as much as disliking and hating Bush.

What, you don't hate Bush? Probably not, since you adore a candidate who might as well be Bush.

One, her foreign policy is crap (not that Obama's is that much better, but it seems to be somewhat better.) She's a right wing hawk on Iran, specifically, and an AIPAC flack on Israel.

That's a political reason to dislike her. She's "Bush Lite" in foreign policy whereas McCain is "Bush Enhanced".

Two, Clinton is a lying, corrupt BITCH, as is her husband. Google for numerous citations.

That's an excellent reason to dislike her personally.

Obama has not established either of those reasons to dislike him (for me, of course, being a politician is sufficient reason.)

I dislike Obama's foreign policy because I think he's clueless and ignorant. I haven't seen any evidence he's malicious - although being a politician, I assume we'll see some evidence eventually. He tries to pander to the AIPAC crowd and Israel, but how much that will actually influence his actions in office is debatable.

I've seen no solid evidence produced that he is AS corrupt as the Clintons - although being a politician, I assume we'll see some evidence that he IS corrupt eventually as well. But AS corrupt as the Clintons? He hasn't had the time in office yet.

Clinton is scum. She proves it every time she opens her mouth. Obama hasn't PROVED he is - yet. It's that simple.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 24, 2008 9:13 PM

Why should anybody care about Barack Obama's political career?

The presumption in most political contests is that the loser is able to concede with grace and go back to whatever he or she was doing beforehand.

An inter-party contest in which one person is able to concede with grace, but the other cannot, is an uneven and unhealthy one for the party. A contest that continues in the hope that one's opponent is scuttled by extra-electoral events is an unhealthy one for the party.

Why should Obama think it makes political sense to be coerced into choosing his running mate? The same criteria would apply if the roles were reversed.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 24, 2008 9:31 PM

So far Hillary's game is working great.

Say something wacky to provoke a response.

Claim that response as proof of sexism or bias in the media.

Repeat as necessary.

And, as Rachel Maddow has explained in detail, she has the rules of the Democratic party to exploit to keep Obama from the nomination until the convention.

And she has enough delegates and leverage to force the party to take her as VP even over Obama's objections.

If she choose, this is all a long way from a resolution.

Posted by Mike Furlan | May 24, 2008 9:41 PM

Hillary is a horse's rear-end. All undeclared SDs need to endorse Obama now, so that Hillary can be put out of her misery, get fitted for a straitjacket and get some psychiatric care to treat her messiah complex.

Posted by jerry | May 24, 2008 9:42 PM

Hillary Clinton said something she shouldn't have, as we all do from time to time. While the remark was accurate and in context, some have taken offense to it, and she probably should have anticipated that. She regrets it and we should all move on.

Posted by Tim K | May 25, 2008 3:51 AM

Tim K, good job showing how much of a jackass you are again and earning people's disdain. I bet you're one of those guys who says "you have to get to know me first before you'll like me." This is why you'll die alone. I bet you're crying right now, you little bitch. You don't understand American politics and you're a poser.

The problem with the defense of her comments here is that the two main defenses don't add up together. If she suspended her campaign now and Obama was assassinated, she would still be the nominee because she came in a close second. As such, the danger of assassination isn't a justification for her to keep campaigning. Bringing up the RFK assassination isn't just an artless but accurate data point that backs up her argument, it is a complete non sequitur to bring up when asking why she is still campaigning. Not only was it irrelevant, it was also offensive to many progressives, especially considering how Teddy recently fell ill.

Jennifer, how is being offended by referencing assassination sexist?

Posted by Reality Man | May 25, 2008 4:44 AM

Tim K: "She regrets it and we should all move on."

As Olbermann noticed, no, she doesn't regret it, her "apology" was nothing of the sort, and we should not move on.

EWard: "Even with Hillary as the VP, her supporters would not vote for Obama. Out of all three Presidential candidates, 'he is the weakest one.'"

More proof that Ward - and many of Clinton's supporters - are nothing but right wing Republicans masquerading as Democrats. Obama needs their votes that he needs being assassinated.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 25, 2008 6:09 AM

"Obama needs their votes like he needs being assassinated", that should be.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 25, 2008 6:12 AM

"Hillary Clinton is our last best hope for building a better America as well as a better world. She actually reminds me of my own Mother: a somewhat emotionally cold and detached women, but deeply committed to doing right and making the world a better place.

Posted by EWard | May 24, 2008 10:54 AM"

As for your first sentence, an assertion is not a fact. You have offered exactly 0 arguments as to why that is so. Second of all, to put it gently, you may love your mother and she is probably a fine woman, but no one else cares. Saying "she's like my mom!" isn't going to convince anyone else to vote for Clinton. You can vote for her because of that all you want, but it's not an argument. Instead, it makes you look emotionally damaged and that you are seeking the approval of another cold, emotionally detached woman. Instead of convincing anyone of anything you want, it just makes people feel sorry for you that you bring this up as an argument.

Posted by Reality Man | May 25, 2008 6:51 AM

THIS IS GREAT NEWS!! FOR TIM K!!

Posted by Kim T | May 25, 2008 6:59 AM

EB: The reports this morning and overnight were that your campaign had made certain contacts or overtures to Mr. Obama's campaign just in the past 24 hours and were working on some sort of deal for your exit.

CLINTON: That's flatly untrue. Flatly, completely untrue.

EB: No discussions at all.

CLINTON: No discussions at all. At all. Now I can't speak for the 17 million people who voted for me, and I have a lot of supporters. But it is flatly untrue, and it is not anything that I am entertaining. It is nothing I have planned. It is nothing that I am prepared to engage in. I am still vigorously campaigning. I am happy to be here. Looking forward to campaigning here. Going to Puerto Rice tomorrow and I expect to be back here before the election. But this is part of an ongoing effort to end this before it's over. I am very heartened by the strong support that I've shown in Kentucky and West Virginia just in the last two weeks. They sure don't think it's over. I don't think the people who are here in South Dakota looking forward to vote think it's over and I sure don't think it's over. Neither of us has the number of delegates needed to be the nominee and every time they declare it, doesn't make it so. Neither of us do. I've never seen anything like this. I have, perhaps, a long enough memory that many people who finished a rather distant second behind nominees went all the way to the convention. I remember very well 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, where some who had contested in the primaries were determined to carry their case to the convention. I'm ahead in the popular vote. Less than 200 delegates separate us out of 4,400. Michigan and Florida are not resolved. No one has the nomination, so I would look to the camp of my opponent for the source of those stories.

EB: Well, I was just going to ask, one presumes that's where it originates.

CLINTON: I would think so. But that's been the pattern for quite some time now. Honestly, I just believe that this is the most important job in the world, it's 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 it's an interesting juxtaposition where we find ourselves. 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.

EB: Why?

CLINTON: I don't know. I don't know. I find it curious because it is unprecedented in history. I don't understand it. Between my opponent and his camp and some in the media there has been this urgency to end this. Historically, that makes no sense, so I find it a bit of a mystery.

EB: You don't buy the party unity argument?

CLINTON: I don't because, again, I've been around long enough. You know my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just don't understand it and there's lot of speculation about why it is, but . . .

EB: What's your speculation?

CLINTON: You know, I don't know, I find it curious and I don't want to attribute motives or strategies to people because I don't really know, but it's a historical curiosity to me.

EB: Does it have anything to do with gender?

CLINTON: I don't know that either.

Posted by full transcript readily available | May 25, 2008 8:58 AM

Reality Man & RSH

You are responding to an EWard imposter. The remarks at 10:54AM came from someone else.

Posted by EWard | May 25, 2008 10:20 AM

"...the punditocracy may have landed the Democrats with perhaps the least qualified presidential nominee ever..."

"...Obama and Axelrod have achieved their objectives: to belittle Hillary Clinton and to manoeuvre the ever-pliant media into depicting every political criticism she makes against Obama as racist in intent..."

"...Gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins..."

This is not a Republican talking head. It is British journalist Andrew Stephen writing in the New Statesman.

The whole world is watching Obama and the MSM manipulate this race.

Posted by EWard | May 25, 2008 10:53 AM

"...EWard is one of the most delusional characters we've come across in some time"

"...if obstinance and personality quirks were currency, EWard would be quite well-to-do."

"...talk about coming home to roost! EWard and his/her band of merry idiots have gravitated towards the amoral candidacy of Hillary Clinton like moths to a flame."

"...Duplicitousness, world class rationalization skills, and acute myopia mark EWard's world view and speak to his/her desperate need for psychotropic medication."

Incredible insights by John Jones, senior writer for Jones Journal.

We're watching you, EWard. Yes, we are.

Posted by EWard's watcher | May 25, 2008 12:22 PM

Reality Man:

What the hell is wrong with you? People should be allowed to debate political issues without being attacked in the most personal and tasteless ways. Citing unspecified things I have said some time in the past does not justify such immature and rude behavior. Saying that I will "die alone" has to be one of the most uncalled for things I ever seen written on this blog, and that's saying that.

Hillary Clinton did not bring up the assassination of RFK as an example that assassinations are possible. She brought it up because it happened as an example of nomination contests stretching well into June.

Posted by Tim K | May 25, 2008 1:00 PM

Hillary Clinton did not bring up the assassination of RFK as an example that assassinations are possible. She brought it up because it happened as an example of nomination contests stretching well into June

Just cause you say it, Timmeh, doesn't make it true.

Have fun dying alone, asshat.

Posted by Walter | May 25, 2008 1:07 PM

Many Obama supporters represent living examples of why Barack Obama's promise of a "different kind of politics" is so absurd.

These people villify Sen. Hillary Clinton at every opportunity and consistently disrepect her supporters - who are half the Democratic party.

These people repeatedly refer to Sen. John McCain as a corrupt and angry warmongerer who wishes to invade Iran unilaterally.

They demonize Republicans, and they even demonize Democrats who don't support Obama and don't agree with them.

The irony is when Obama talks about the destructive politics that took place in the 1990's, the cult of personality that surrounds him today is in the exact same vein as the worst political excesses of that decade. Not only does it descend into near thoughtless adulation of Senator Obama himself, but it routinely practices the politics of personal destruction against Senator Clinton.

You people can't unite the country.

Posted by Tim K | May 25, 2008 1:29 PM

Tim, have you considered that people just don't like you and consider you a blowhard jerkoff?

Given that you're slated to die alone it might be worth some introspection.

Posted by Mort | May 25, 2008 1:35 PM

This is like One Flew Over the Coo Coo's Nest.

Where's Nurse Ratchet?

Posted by Tim K | May 25, 2008 1:42 PM

Die, evil seed, DIE!!

Posted by Tom J | May 25, 2008 1:57 PM

EWard Watcher, Mort, & Tom J

Whether you are Republican trolls or Obama cyberbullies, your comments damage Obama. Andrew Stephen is not even a Hillary supporter, and he has accurately described the norms of the Democratic race.

"None of these male candidates had a premature political obituary written in the way that Hillary Clinton's has been, or was subjected to such righteous outrage over refusing to quiesce and withdraw obediently from what, in this case, has always been a knife-edge race."

"...The media, of course, are just reflecting America's would-be macho culture. I cannot think of any television network or major newspaper that is not guilty of blatant sexism..."

Posted by EWard | May 25, 2008 3:00 PM