Yes, she’s talking about cases of the Democratic Primary stretching into June. But the Kennedy case is only relevant if we’re supposed to make political decisions based on who is likely to be assassinated.
In any case, that she said it means the RFK Assassination is one of her camp’s talking points regarding the reason she’s still in the race, and that’s bad enough.
-FrL-
To be clear, I don’t think (most) people are saying Clinton was encouraging someone to assassinate Obama. Rather, what they’re saying is that Clinton’s message is “Don’t bother to vote for Obama, you know he’ll just be assassinated anyway. Abandon all hope. Vote for me instead.”
-FrL-
I agree if you follow someone long enough, they’re going to say something stupid. Kerry made a joke- period. I think he was raked over the coals needlessly for that, as did Obama for the “bitter” comment. I think it’s a bigger deal to say I’m staying in the race just in case the other guy gets shot. To his credit, Olbermann faulted the press for not going after Hillary on earlier similar statements. I don’t think she’s getting unfairly roasted now, she was unfairly not roasted earlier. We’ll see how big an impact this makes, she was quite fortunate this happened on a holiday Friday and most folks are more concerned about grilling steaks and watching Indy.
Which she did not say and only the most rabid haters would ascribe to her.
With all the stupid stuff she HAS said, (“he’s not a Muslim–as far as I know”), trying to make this look like any sort of hope that Obama is harmed is silly.
But, Tom, as others have pointed out, her analogy to 1968 is faulty, since the primary season started so much later; the race was only about six weeks along when RFK was assassinated. Her analogy to Bill is also faulty since he’d actually wrapped up the nomination in March. There would be better examples within living memory (Ted Kennedy, 1980, for example) if accuracy mattered to her.
Unless she’s far dumber than advertised, she saw the connection. It’s crossed her mind, I have no doubt.
Actually, Tom, there was some controversy when she first blurted this out to Time. That’s why the next three times she mentioned it, she carefully removed the RFK references. They aren’t there. But this time, she tossed it back in. And because of the timing, it was a doubly stupid fuckup. The conditional regrets she expressed to the Kennedys notwithstanding, if she ever does apologize, it should be to Michelle Obama and their children for comparing a campaign involving a young attractive inspirational presidential candidate to a campaign involving another young attractive inspirational presidential candidate in terms of assassination. If it isn’t stupid or malicious, then at the very least it is crass.
According to Eugene Robinson and Michelle Bernard on MSNBC yesterday, her remark was especially hurtful to the African-American community nationwide. That community is particularly sensitive to this because of what assassination has cost them. Bernard went so far as to say that the Clintons have put the last nail in the coffin of their relations with blacks. Sure, they’ll find some modicum of support and a token or two who will shill for them, but in terms of block votes, the majority support they enjoyed in November 2007 will virtually disappear in November 2008. Exit polls that had measured her support in earlier primaries are now useless as data, and her argument about electability becomes more and more suspect.
I think it is also important to mention that the other example she includes in this stock spiel of hers is factually inaccurate. It is not the case that Bill didn’t have the nomination sewn up until June of 1992. In fact, it was in March, 1992, that Phil Angelides said, ‘‘Today is really the day we start the general election campaign against George Bush.’’ Two weeks later, George Stephanopoulos declared that the process was finished. Tsongas had already suspended his campaign, and Brown needed 90 percent of remaining delegates to win, and even California couldn’t have given him that.
So whatever reason you choose for her, it can only be bad. Is she uninformed? Is there something dark she has revealed about herself? Is she desperate? Is she mean? Is she stupid? Clueless? Wreckless? … or what? There are no good choices for the combination of these:
(1) misrepresenting or misremembering the particulars of her husband’s 1992 campaign
(2) raising assassination as a context when Obama’s family has always been terrified of the possibility
(3) raising in particular the death of a beloved Democrat in the same week as his brother was diagnosed with malignant brain cancer
(4) formulating a bogus conditional apology that didn’t even mention Michelle and the children
It’s just too fucking much.
Here’s the quote referenced in the OP:
Hillary Clinton’s argument for staying in the race took a disturbing turn today. While meeting with the editorial board of South Dakota’s Sioux Falls Argus-Leader, s[COLOR=Blue]he raised the specter of Obama’s assassination as a reason to stay in the race:
[/COLOR]
“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. I don’t understand it.”
What difference does it make if her analogy is faulty? Can her argument be any clearer than this?
Agreed – her phrasing was starkly egregious.
Of course the analogies are faulty - she’s lost the race and she’s grasping at straws! If there were any really good analogies available, she’d be using those instead, but historically, when a candidate is hopelessly behind in every measure and voting is basically over … that candidate loses.
Could this have been intended to provide superdeligates with a darned good reason to declare for Obama, thus uniting the party? I’m thinking Clinton has pretty much painted herself into a corner as far a leaving the race willingly. This way she can claim she was forced out by the evil press, not Obama’s camp or the party bosses.
Yes, I know, I give her too much credit…just thinking out loud mostly.
Regardless of her intentions, yes Hillary has committed career suicide, at least as far as presidential politics are concerned. The best Hillary can shoot for now would be a cabinet post or a Supreme Court nomination.
Hillary will never be on a national ticket. She will not be on the ticket this year. She will not be on the ticket in 2012. Her reanimated head will not be on the ticket in 3048.
She has alienated too many Democratic voters.
Gonna have to respectfully disagree with you here, Tom. She did, basically, say that she’s staying in the race just in case the other guy gets shot. I am not a rabid Hillary hater, and certainly not among the most rabid. The second paragraph of your post appears to be a non sequitur.
I agree. I think it’s just a bit of bad writing – she wants to invoke two June primary campaigners, but she can’t mention RFK without nodding to the tragedy. It came off badly but I don’t think she was thinking about Obama at all.
Then why didn’t she simply say this? “In this, this and this instant the primary season lasted into June.” Gaffe-wise, even had she been talking about RFK not peaking until very late into his campaign, this was an odd way to discuss that.
I don’t believe for a moment she was calling for assassination either but I suspect she may have been attempting the raise the spectre of “it’s been rumored anyway, so I suggest you all go ahead and vote for the candidate who has the best chance of surviving all of this.”
You won’t have Hillary Clinton to kick around anymore, because, gentlemen, this is her last SDMB thread.
And when she answered it, she said:
“I dodged Bosnian snipers! Florida is Zimbabwe! RFK blown away, what else do I have to say?”
I think she’s said enough now, don’t you?
Well, after further thought I’ve decided Hillary was right. She’s hit on another key weakness of Obama.
Face it, he’s just the sort of guy who could wind up being assassinated.
Whereas Hillary is strong. She’s a fighter. You wouldn’t have to worry about her. She’s been under fire (literally), she’s been tested. She’d spit a sniper’s bullets right back at him.
This whole thing could play out exactly like Hillary’s been intimating. Just like in 1968 - the charismatic young leader is felled, and a new Hubert Humphrey rides a popular wave to victory…uh…wait a minute.
Never mind. :dubious:
Mods, I think just about everything relevant’s been said on this subject, so any time you feel like killing this thread is okay by me.
Your call.