And now she is apologizing but still acts as if she doesn’t get it.
So she’s sorry because it may have been offensive to the Kennedy’s. So, if anybody did get it into their head to kill this Kennedyesque figure for her, well, I guess she’s not sorry about that.
Airman again, I’ve been trying.
Okay, she just “misspoke”, that’s all.
Thing is that is probably true … this was not an intentional shout out for an assassin to take a shot, but sometimes you unintentionally say what you mean.
Probably not fudging; just ignorance (perhaps willful) of history. I’d been thinking along the same lines recently; I remember 1968, and that the Democratic nomination hadn’t been locked up when Kennedy was assassinated in June. But then, there were no Super Tuesdays then, either…a fact that Hillary conveniently forgot.
Some pol said something like:
In Washington, a gaffe is when you say what you mean."
A vote here for pointless non sequitar. I don’t see any reason in her clip to take anything away from it beyond pointing out that it is entirely common for the process to go well into June. Which is true. I can’t begin to wrap my head around the notion that she’s trying some sneaky innuendo about Obama’s target potential.
A lot of us have gotten a wee bit stressed out over this nomination struggle, and, given its potential importance, understandably. But what she said was clumsy, not crazy.
Chill, children. A bong hit, a nice cup chamomile tea, watch a baby sleep. Gather your chi, its going to get a lot rougher. And you will need every scrap of calm forbearance you can muster.
I watched the clip and was more struck by her claiming that there’s been a huge effort to push her out of the race “since Iowa” and that it’s… (wait for it)…
“unprecedented in history”
Can you wrap your head around the notion that you need to shoot Ronald Reagan to impress Jodie Foster? Well, someone did. There are crazy people out there, Luc.
She says a lot of things. If it was an isolated incident, I’d cut her some slack. But it isn’t. Just one more in a long line of lies, hysteria, and fearmongering. I want her head shaved to see if there are three sixes under it.
That’s not an apology, that’s weaseling.
You can’t get blood from a stone, and you can’t get feelings from a sociopath either.
If she wanted to bring up contested primary campaigns, why go back to 1968? What’s wrong with 1984 , where Mondale didn’t wrap up the nomination until “Super Tuesday III”, June 8?
Or, heck, why not 1980, since she had Kennedys on her mind?
There have always been crazy people out there. As someone who has (IIRC) been antagonistic to the Pubbie-spin that we should self-censor in order to avoid saying things that a terrorist would twist to fit as support for his anti-America rhetoric, you appear to be suggesting that similar care should be taken so as not to give whackos any ideas.
That strikes me as a bit, well, jarring.
Perhaps more jarring is the appearance that anyone would suggest Clinton had put that comment out there in a calculating way (a careful reading of your post does not support the notion that you had done so). It’s on that level that I particularly agree with 'luci’s take on the matter.
This is rather bizarre. Y’all read that as an assassination threat? Come on.
She was saying, essentially, “the race isn’t over until it’s over.”
And it’s no good saying, “she should be more careful”. If I have learned anything from my years on the Dope, it is that you cannot phrase something clearly enough that some idiot will not misinterpret it.
Sure, but that doesn’t make it Jodi Foster’s fault for appearing in Taxi Driver.
Crazy people might do crazy things, but you don’t address that by adopting crazy standards of behavior.
Regards,
Shodan
Right. The problem is, she’s running for president.
Almost everything she says makes me queasy these days, but I agree. She made her point poorly, but I think she was saying that the campaign was still going in June. She’s made this point in the past: I vaguely remember her carping last year, ‘Why do people want me to declare that I’m running so early?’ making reference to the fact that Bill didn’t have to declare himself a candidate until [whenever] but people were asking her to do it six months or more before the primaries started. So she’s said this kind of thing before - granted that it’s a silly, complainy, apples-to-whatever ancient fruit apples evolved out of comparison - and I don’t think she was trying to suggest someone could shoot Obama. That’d be silly anyway. If she quit the race and Obama was killed, she could get right back in.
Her base might believe that, but do you honestly think that under such tragic circumstances she get the nom?
I’m certain she would get it. Who else is there? If something happened to Obama, everyone else has been out of the race for months and she’s got the support of half the voters.
You’re Obama.
No matter how much you want to win, could you allow yourself to accept her in the VP slot, now?
Does it take a Psychiatric degree to interpret Hillary’s mindset as just waiting for your death?
Of course not. After all, there’s her soulful non-apology apology - to the Kennedys, for goodness sake. :rolleyes:
No, but I’ve said repeatedly that he shouldn’t take her because it would compromise his message. And it’s too bad, too, because on paper the combination make perfect sense: they’ve split the electorate between them. She’s seen as having experience, does well with older voters and the Democrratic base, and has been honing her populist appeal, while he’s a fresh face, does well with younger voters, can put some new states in play and educated people love him. The only reason it doesn’t work is that she’s Hillary Clinton.
I watched the video and she makes the statement almost right away, then is asked a couple more good questions that put her on the spot and are worth watching.
The funny thing is that she relies on Karl Rove’s assessment (which is obviously unreliable), says stuff about averaging polls giving the best results, then, based on all these poll results (some of which are 3-4 months old by her own admission) says the supers should pick her after doing the math
Later, she says every vote must be counted when she refers to Florida and Michigan.
So, she wants supers to overturn pledged delegates to nominate her, and to do this, she needs to make every vote count. Especially Florida and Michigan, which she voted to strip of all votes.
I’m very confused, can someone straighten out these apparent contradictions?
To refer back to the OP - has she committed political suicide? No. She’s no less likely to win the nomination than she was before because she has practically zero chance. And she could still be a Senator from New York, if she so chooses, for many years.
I think Obama has to be pissed off about this on the surface, but inside, he’s probably grinning from ear to ear. This doesn’t hurt him at all, and if Clinton is really angling for a Vice Presidential offer or some other concessions from him, which I think she is, she has just seriously damaged her bargaining position.