How you hear Hillary's remarks is a product of how you viewed her before she said them

[ruggerson]

Those who were inclined to already detest Senator Clinton believe that she said she is waiting for Obama to be assassinated, so she is staying in.

Those who were inclined to be supportive of Senator Clinton think it's clear, in context, that she was referencing the political timeframe of June as it relates to the primary season, and she mentioned RFK's murder as a calendar reference that his campaign lasted into June and the nomination was still up for grabs.

People who are neither Hillary detesters nor huge fans think she made a political gaffe in the exact same way that John Kerry did when he made the joke about how when you don't get educated, you end up in Iraq. A joke the press ran with as a huge slight to the military while Kerry fans knew it was nothing but a joke about Bush.

My personal take is that the press uproar over this reemphasizes what a steep mountain Clinton has to climb, as much of the MSM truly loathes her, a mutual loathing, since the CLintons both deeply distrust and dislike the press.

This has real bearing on her electability. Fairly or unfairly, the press continuously jumps her, driven partly by Matt Drudge's loathing of her and partly by her own complete inability to charm them.

Obama is a far better natural politician than she is. The press responds to that, because they see someone who is comfortable in his own skin and comes across, for the most part, as authentic. Whether he is or not is irrelevant, this is how people VIEW him and it's become accepted wisdom. He certainly is far more graceful in front of the public eye than she.

John Kerry suffered from much of what Hillary does, though his public persona was quite different. What they share in common is that when the press has defined you and defined your personality and built up public ill will against you, and you feed that dislike with mistakes, there is no way out politically.

Hillary is well intentioned, extremely smart and hugely driven.

But, she is gaffe prone. And the MSM's extreme dislike of her amplifies and echoes and enlarges her gaffes to mammoth proportions.

Obama is masterful at controlling the press, getting out in front of them and leading them where he wants them to go. This is a quality that, quite simply, is needed to win elections.

Putting aside polls, demographic groups, white people, black people, when it comes down to it, Obama is the better politician.

And the better politicians usually triumph over those whose every stumble, unfairlly or not, turns into a national debate.

And we need a better politician if we want to take back the White House.

[Bicoastal]

1. THIS! This is why Obama takes his time before saying ANYTHING.

He knows the brainiest of us make mistakes when we speak without thinking, and as a black man, any out-of-context gaffe he makes would be blown out of proportion. You think he would bring up ANY assassination in the context of an election?

I can only conclude that if Clinton wasn't so insistent on running such a negative campaign--"He has the delegates and the momentum, but he can't actually WIN--vote for Meeeee" this wouldn't have happened.

[madeline_con]

4. She refuses to accept the idea that everyone's not in love with her.

[NatBurner]

21. for real.

we all saw his rev wright II speech, right?
that was a textbook example of sound bite prevention
there was no singular sentence that couldn't be played
over and over and over-

each sentence said the exact same shit

i bet it drove the spinners insane

hillary could learn a thing or a hunnit from the gentleman from illinois

[roguevalley]

33. no. i react to assassinations this way for anyone. having seen my

hopes for the country snuffed out three times, i am entitled to this feeling. on assassinations and that sort of talk, i know how to feel already.

[madeline_con]

2. Just explain what she meant, then.

Anyone?

I'd like to hear a good reason for her to even mention RFK's name in reference to staying in the race until the convention.

The two have no common bond except the one suggested by all of us who are incensed by it.

What the hell do RFK, Obama and her not getting out have in common?


"Obama is a far better natural politician than she is."


She's just a gurl, who makes mistakes? I'm not buyinhg THAT bull. :puke:

[Buddyblazon]

6. I heard it as she was talking about a time of year...

June.

And the OP said the same thing.

I don't hate her. So to me, it just didn't offend me.

I am in Obama's court...but not enough to shriek and scream about comments that I, in my heart, didn't find offensive.

Apparently neither did RFK Jr.

[madeline_con]

13. I'm beginning to see your point.

To be fair, she could have just been going on about campaigns that have lasted into June.

The RFK invocation was insensitive at best, and seen as a theat by some. She could have left it alone after the Bill comment...

[DogPoundPup]

19. Bill's campaign DID NOT LAST INTO JUNE!

She is sadly making this up! And RFK Jr.'s did not start TWO friggin yrs. before the primary's as this one has so there IS NO RESEMBLANCE to what she is "making up"!

[madeline_con]

20. Thanks for the correction...

more sniper fire, then?

This just keeps getting better.

[DogPoundPup]

27. Here is a clearer explanation of the circumstances in '68&'92

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6103851

[DogPoundPup]

25. self delete

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6103851

[juajen]

48. I heard one of the pundits say that she had the wrong campaign

I honestly don't remember and haven't looked it up, but he said (I believe it was Wolf) that it was the second campaign in 1996 where it lasted into June. If so, this is simply not remembering which one at the time. Even though she looks great, she is tired people. She is not a windup doll, nor is she the energizer bunny. If O can say we have 57 states, and be excused because he's just so tired, I believe you should give Hill some slack, also. Or, we can continue to see which one screws up next and make a big deal about it. Sure seems to feed DU.

[Quixote1818]

26. I agree. And I support Obama too. nt

[JVS]

63. yeah, because we mark the calender by assassinations.

[texshelters]

16. There are no good reasons to invoke RFK

My theory is her megalomania over came her intelligence and dignity.

Clinton is so focused on winning that she's lost her humanity, sense of decency, and party loyalty.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Barack_America]

18. She was blowing a dog whistle...

Trying to get superdelegates to freeze in their endorsements by spooking them that *something* might happen. That she kept mentioning California makes me think she was directing the comments to those 40 supers/pledged delegates from California who plan on coming out for Obama en masse.

As someone else said here tonight, she was blowing that dog whistle and she choked on it, because:
1). Huckabee's remarks have sensitized us to violence against Obama
2). Teddy's cancer has us thinking a lot of the Kennedys

[Buddyblazon]

3. I'm in the third party you mentioned.

And I have a problem manufacturing outrage.

Another beer please.

[Pirate Smile]

5. Great post, ruggerson. I agree with most of it. I hope you are doing ok.

I know this isn't easy.:grouphug:

[Patsy Stone]

7. I don't think she means him harm

And I don't hate her. But it was a horrible choice of words, and it's not the first time she's said it. If I'm supposed to believe it wasn't on purpose, I still have an issues with a president who says "assassinated" by mistake when they should have said something else. How much slack am I supposed to cut her because she's a woman named Clinton? What would be the right amount of times to let that slide?

[Whisp]

47. o yes she does mean him harm.

that's been her program ever since her inevitability has been threatened.

physical harm, not so sure. but I wouldn't put it past her. yeah, I do think she is that despicable.

[last1standing]

8. What about those of us who think it's more of a Gerald Ford in 1976 gaffe?

Much like Ford suggesting that the East Germans thought they were a free people, this is a lot larger than forgetting a single word in a joke. This is the kind of remark that turns a campaign.

But your right, Obama is the better politician. I wasn't much of a fan, and I still think he is far too centrist, but he's proving that win or lose, he is something we're unlikely to see again for many years to come. Extraordinary skills for someone so new to the scene.

[tishaLA]

9. I'm not a supporter or a hater of Sen Clinton

I have been exceedingly fair with her, I think, during this campaign and I have had a great deal of respect for her on a number of levels. That said, this is many times worse than Kerry's botched joke. Assassination is simply an unspeakable subject, particularly in light of what we know--and what one can imagine we don't know--about the death threats Sen Obama has received; it is the reason he received Secret Service protection so early and it is something that has to haunt Michelle, at the very least, every day. Its unspeakability is precisely the reason we got so upset with Huckabee last week, but this time it is made worse by the fact that the person who gave voice to it is on Sen Obama's side of the aisle.

[juajen]

54. As a matter of fact, Michelle doesn't seem haunted to me.

I was thinking of those death threats when she brought her two children to campaign with she and hubbie in Indiana, you know when she dressed down and had the children in blue jeans to appeal more to the lower class, uneducated white people. The older little girl was walking with her father up to strange houses (I know, it was probably photo opped) and discussing his campaign. I wondered then just how big a threat this could be, if he didn't mind his two little girls being exposed as they were. As a matter of fact, they have been with their parents on stage and off several times that I saw during this campaign. I don't remember ever seeing Chelsea on the campaign trail with her Mother and Father during Bill's campaigns.

What is your opinion on having the girls around their father when he is afraid of being assassinated?

[genna]

64. Cough it up, what are you insinuating? That he's careless or a bad parent?

Spin up or spin down.

Nasty.


If on one hand you are argue he has nothing to worry about, then HRC's comments are unacceptable but not horrific.

If on the other hand, you are he is in danger then what kind of person puts themselves and their children's lives in danger like BHO and MO?


Nasty in and nasty out.

[Mooney]

10. I concur.

[Barack_America]

11. I fall into category 3. But, man, do I wish she'd learn to say, "I made a mistake and I'm sorry".

If anything is holding her back politically, it's that.

And I don't want her to be eviscerated by these primaries. We need her to have a strong voice when she returns to the Senate. Particularly as it seems our strongest voice may not be there for us.

[jsmirman]

12. Everyone should be appalled, however. It was truly ugly.

I think a deep, dark ugliness lives inside her powerful mind.

But I am glad, at least, that you realize that it's time for her to be put behind us. Not in the back of the bus, just off the stage. Enough is enough.

[Ice-9]

14. This is a very, very thoughtful analysis.

It's spot-on. Although I take it from your other posts that my perspective on Senator Clinton is quite different from yours (I confess that as the campaign has dragged on I have lost a lot of the respect I once had for her), I can't really quibble with anything you say.

K&R.

[MadBadger]

15. Speaking of Drudge, just like Mellon-Scaife, it seems she's getting along much more

The fact that her campaign keeps in contact with Drudge as Ambinder reported earlier in the year. Just look at the PA, IN, and NC primary. Those Hillary internals that Drudge said he had were spot on, werent they?

[ruggerson]

31. Go there now

he's driving this story.

And as far as the New York Times piece from October that everyone drags out as some kind of proof that Drudge is in Hillary's corner, when of course just the opposite is true, this is what the Times has to say about it now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/us/politics/20nagourney.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=drudge&st=nyt&oref=slogin

The Drudge Report

In October, The New York Times published an article examining the relationship between Mrs. Clinton and the Drudge Report. The article related how the Drudge Report, which historically had tormented the Clintons, had begun routinely posting items boosting Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, at the prompting of an intermediary between Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the Web site.

For the Clinton campaign, things changed almost overnight after that: The Drudge Report returned to being a vehicle driving negative stories about Mrs. Clinton, bad news about the Clinton campaign got extensive attention, and Mrs. Clinton’s war room spent many hours trying to tamp down rumors and suspect information being trumpeted on the site.

[MadBadger]

34. I dont use the times story, I use the reporting by Marc Ambinder

And not to mention, somebody from the campaign has been feeding him internals.

[ruggerson]

37. If they are, and the attempt was to woo him, they failed miserably

personally, I think most of the stuff he claimed he got from the Clinton camp, he makes up entirely. The "Muslim photo" being exhibit A.

You don't even have to read the stories on his site. The pictures of Obama vs the pictures of Clinton tells everything you need to know.

[MadBadger]

41. Maybe the muslim photos, but not the internals

He had her winning PA by 11, losing NC by 15 but winning Indiana by an undisclosed amount.

[Frank Booth]

53. I'm 100% for Obama, but it's pretty clear to me that Drudge has had it out for Hillary for months.

Drudge has been playing up all the freakouts by Bill and all the stupid things said by Hillary, and has only posted polls that show Hillary trailing. In all the pictures he posts of Hillary she looks deranged (similar to the Pelosi pictures he posts), and all the pictures of Obama look calm, cool and collected (though, admittedly, it's pretty hard to find a bad shot of Obama). And Drudge hardly even mentioned the whole Jeremiah Wright story, which would normally be right up his alley.

In general I think the press has been biased in favor of Clinton, but definitely not Drudge.

I have noticed that Drudge has been more critical of Obama lately, though. I'm sure we can expect Drudge to do the same thing to Obama when he's running against McCain that he did to Hillary against Obama.

As far as getting the internals from the Hillary camp (assuming Drudge wasn't just making that up), I assume it was someone in the Hillary camp still trying to bribe him for positive coverage. Obviously it didn't work.

[ruggerson]

60. Exactly

n/t

[Gore1FL]

17. I would be outraged

If anyone mentioned a Clinton, Bush, McCain, or Cheney assassination.

I don't care if it was said by Obama, Harry Reid, Rush Limbaugh, or Daffy Duck.

Perhaps I am more outraged that It went against my candidate, but only marginally so.

It was foolish, obnoxious, and completely unpresidential if not unamerican.

[Jim Lane]

40. I too would be outraged, but this is completely different.

Clinton didn't mention a hypothetical assassination of a current candidate. She mentioned an actual historical event, a tragic assassination that did occur.

Her underlying point wasn't that someone might kill Obama, it was that the 1968 campaign was still hotly contested in June. The real objection to what she said isn't that mentioning one event from that campaign is unacceptable. The real objection is that the calendar was totally different than. California voted in June, with a lot of delegates at stake. By contrast, this year, Montana and South Dakota aren't going to turn it around for Clinton.

Call me a cynic, but I find blatant stupidity more offensive than insensitivity.

I agree with the OP, a very fair and thoughtful analysis.

[BlooInBloo]

22. Your post has every virtue except for being true.

[texshelters]

23. Certainly there is bias, but the inability

of most Clinton supporters and many Obama supporters to admit there candidate make a mistake show a lack of maturity I don't expect to see from adults. Clinton made a mistake and said something very distasteful when she talked about staying in the election. To mention RFK, June, and assassination in the same statement, at this point in the election, is unfortunate at best. Her lack of skills as a campaigner at times is unfortunate. I don't believe it was intentional, but perhaps there was some unconscious desire coming through. I don't know. The fact of the matter is, she said those words.

So, instead of defending the comments of your beloved candidate, how about admitting it was a poor choice of words. Here's how it works:

1. Obama made a mistake when he said "clinging to guns and religion." A better choice of words would be "people are afraid and we need to give them something to fight for and look up to."

2. Obama made a gaff when he said "sweetie" to a reporter. He needs to be careful.

3. Obama shouldn't have mention "Clinton having tea parties".

4. Reverend Wright is a fool who said somethings that are true and I am glad Obama finally distanced himself.

See? It's not so hard. Try this, "Clinton misspoke, it was unfortunate, no one want harm to come to any candidae. I am sure she's sorry and regrets her words."

See, it's not so hard. Now you try it.

Tex Shelters

[Quixote1818]

24. I don't care for her but I leaned toward it being a gaff than malicious

However, as a whole I think your post is probably pretty spot on.

[chill_wind]

28. "Gaffe prone"? She's a cold, calculating machiavel who panders to the lowest common denominator.

One reference is a "gaffe". Three or four times is a preoccupation. An ugly one.

One "misremembered" sniper fire story is a tactical mistake. Stubborn repetition is a contemptuous insult to voters' intelligence.

I could go on forever, but Olbermann, as ever, did it so much better tonight than I ever could.

[Lisa0825]

29. I don't think it was malicious in that she is *hoping* for assassination....

however, I do feel that her only hope in staying in is that *something* bad happens, and assassination is one of those remote possibilities. By mentioning it, she dredged up our greatest fears. Her lack of understanding of that is just pathetic.

[Awsi Dooger]

45. I've had 5 arguments with my dad today

Both of us support Hillary. He's tried to dismiss her comment, and I've repeatedly told him he couldn't be more off base.

I can't believe the aspects that are left to chance in politics. How can a campaign of this length, and undoubtedly hundreds of strategic meetings, not include a list of what not to do and not to say, including never to mention assassination? When Gore sighed away the presidency during debate #1 in 2000 I was astonished no one ever told him make sure to look respectful in a setting like that, regardless of how inept/ignorant the opponent was.

Lisa0825 has an excellent summation. For 2 months Hillary's only logical path is some type of revelation and/or misfortune regarding Obama prior to the convention. But to highlight the most grave possibility, among hundreds, was beyond disgusting.

She seems to be at her worst dealing with local press, in seemingly obscure settings with unfamiliar journalists. I've seen that dynamic before in politics, in fact very often. Those interviews are typically throw-ins, scheduled as an annoying necessity and frequently at odd hours when the candidate may not be at his/her best. Not an excuse, merely an observation.

But to ruggerson's point, I don't see Obama as any type of masterful politician. He benefited dramatically from situational influence and we can't downplay that. The Democratic base was buoyed by '06 and determined to punish anyone who voted in favor of Iraq. Hillary still had wiggle room until masochistically forging a par 72 strategy on a par 70 course. When Michigan and particularly Florida were shuttled to the corner with a cone on their head, there was no way Hillary's general election-type prioritization made any sense. It had become a par 70 course, when you remove two of her major strongholds.

It reminds me of Tiger Woods' varying fortunes in majors played on different layouts. Given a par 72 with four par 5s, he's dominant, at nearly 50% success rate. Drop to par 71 and especially to par 70 and his edge (par 5s) is decreased, and his win percentage plummets. The numbers are astonishing.

Hillary essentially birdied and eagled the par 5s, parred the par 4s, but triple bogied the par 3 states. And that forfeited the nomination. I give Obama credit, a talented guy, but it's somewhat like Paul Lawrie in '99, saying thank you very much while holding up a British Open trophy that Jean Van de Velde gave away.

[genna]

66. a sports analogy for Tiger Woods = Obama? Where have I heard one before?

Bah.

[juajen]

55. You know, I am sure Hillary has also had assassination threats.

Do you honestly believe that her SS protection is not historically needed. I have read that they are threatened on a daily basis; but you would think that only O has this problem. Ya see how ya are?

[Lisa0825]

61. That is not the point. Of COURSE she needs SS protection.

Obama did not say basically "Anything could happen! She could be killed, so I should stay in." Now that obviously is an exaggerration, but that is what it sounded like. Whether or not a person believes that is what she MEANT is another matter. I don't think she literally meant that. But she brought that fear out into the open, and it was a horrible thing to articulate. I don't doubt that she has also had death threats, but Obama is not staying in with the hope that she falls victim to some bad thing, as the only way he can win.... SHE is doing just that, and she and her surrogates have often meantioned the "anything can happen" meme long after the mathematical possibility had evaporated.

[Tatiana]

30. This is a very astute post. Recommended.

You make several great points.

One, that Obama is comfortable in his own skin. It is true that he is a better politician than Hillary, but that isn't want has him on the verge of securing the nomination. It's, in part, the quality of being comfortable in his own skin. Hillary, quite frankly, is not. This is why she has to hire coaches, this is why her staunchest supporters like Dee Dee Myers say she has a hard time with getting voters to connect with her. Who is the real Hillary? Her attempts to define herself have come across (via the media) as inauthentic and schizophrenic. They use her own words and video to paint the picture.

This is where having a spouse like Bill Clinton is a hindrance. I believe the Clintons have used code language. I believe they have attempted their own version of a southern strategy. However, they are running a Bill Clinton-like campaign and not one geared towards Hillary's strengths or characteristics. Honestly, Bill Clinton circa 1992 could have made (and has made as some scholars have later unearthed) similar comments and no one would have blinked an eye because it's not only what you say, but sometimes it's how you say it as well. He had charisma and she simply doesn't. He had empathy and sensitivity. These qualities do not come across in Hillary.

So if you don't view her as an empathetic and sensitive person, then it is very easy to draw the worst of conclusions. I don't. But where I fault Hillary is in listening time and time again to what is obviously bad advice from her husband and his people. "Change you can Xerox" was not Hillary. Jesse Jackson winning South Carolina was Bill Clinton-style campaigning via Mark Penn. (And even Bill Clinton version 2008 couldn't pull that one off.) "White working class voters" was, again, a Bill Clinton-style campaign argument.

Bill Clinton and Penn and Ickes and MacAuliffe have destroyed both the best things about Hillary and her political future. But she and Bill share quite the co-dependent relationship. She couldn't quit him if she tried. They took a person who was a strong advocate for families, for women, for children, civil rights, for values that we all share and they have reduced her to this.

A champion for white working class voters, obliteration, and a ridiculous plea invoking the assassination of RFK to stay in this race and the media narrative until June because... because why?

What a fucking waste of a brilliant mind and a fierce woman. No matter what happens after this, she is toxic in every way imaginable. She is toxic on a presidential ticket - no one can trust her (or her husband). She's toxic at the convention - no one wants to hear anymore from the person who endangered our chances at taking back the White House (and Congress via downticket coattails). She's toxic as a campaigner - EVERYONE will remember the arguments that she made against Obama's candidacy, they will be repeated ad nauseum by the Republicans and to turn around and tell the public to now vote for him will seem a little hypocritical. She's toxic as a member of the Democratic party - a good portion of the people who were loyal to her and supported her through thick and thin have caught hell from their constituents (Sheila Jackson-Lee comes to mind) who are wondering how they could have ever supported a woman who makes these kind of (at best) gaffes. Not to mention, a good number of honest Dems who supported her in good faith now run the real risk of being Lincoln Chaffe'd due to their support. That's the real reason you see the California delegation bolting from her like animals from a wildfire.

Her candidacy will have negative consequences beyond November, for herself, for the Clinton legacy, and for the candidates who supported her. And it's a damn shame.

[ruggerson]

46. I agree entirely

that she was ill served by her husband. I think the larger problem, other than bad strategy, was that she needed to be out there by herself, so she could appeal to the public imagination as her own woman, not as an appendage to a former President. Every time Bill said something stupid and got shoved into the background and she hit the trail as her own act, her numbers went up. They hugely miscalculated as to how to use Bill Clinton. In hindsight, she would have been better off had he sat at home in Chappaqua. Though, he was only one of her problems.

I disagree about how this will affect her future. There are second and third and fourth acts in American politics. Richard Nixon and Teddy Kennedy are both prime examples. There have been worse presidential campaigns than the one she has run, and if she is as smart as we think she is, she will pick herself up, dust herself off and begin to reinvent the next part of her public life. Sometimes it is hard for us to see that amidst the wreckage of a failed presidential campaign. But if she does resolve to reimagine herself, and there is no hint she's given us that she won't, the only question is how she will do it and how successful she will be.

[BigBearJohn]

32. Yep. We are expected to forgive Obama's BITTERGATE gaff, but oh no, not Hillary.

Shall we start tallying the gaffs made by each candidate?

Ho boy. This general election is going to get super ugly.

I can just picture the feathers flying here on DU when the GOP
attack machine really goes into full gear.

[anigbrowl]

36. Unbelievable.

[anigbrowl]

35. Ruggerson, I have a different interpretation - please take a look

I certainly don't think she sits around with Bill in the evenings and says 'I sure hope someone does you-know-what'. To me her remarks today (which was not spontaneous - she's made it before, been criticized here, but the annoyance was short-lived) indicate something else.

That Obama faces an additional threat because of his race is not news. When he first announced, it was alluded to by a variety of people I know, long before the media made mention of it. It has cropped up periodically in the media. It is, bluntly, something that I and a lot of Obama supporters worry about in the backs of our minds; of course he is well-protected, but there are a lot of irrational people and guns to go around in the world.

What bothered me about Clinton's statement was twofold. First, it reactivates such worries, and the effect (if not the intention) is to remind us of the possibility that his progress (and by extention, ours) can be interrupted. I imagine that if Obama referred to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan last December, a number of people who support Hillary would take umbrage, to put it mildly.

Secondly, I feel that while violence can touch all our lives, those in the public eye are paradoxically both more insulated from it and more threatened by it. To bring it up in a discussion of electoral strategy was not just tacky, but grants violence a role in political calculations which it does not deserve. It is for this reason that Bhutto's name will live on as an example of great political courage; in that case the threat was distinct, imminent and not even the first attempt. To cite assassination as a campaign consideration deeply debases our political culture.

Ask yourself seriously - do you think that Obama's secret service guard will more on edge as a result of this comment, or less? I am not suggesting that they would become complacent, they are highly trained and know their job far better than any of us as observers. The sad fact is that there are people out there whose response to such comments may not be rational or predictable. There's a woman in New Mexico who filed for a restraining order against David Letterman (and astonishingly, got one) because she says he has been sending her coded messages through her TV for 10 years.

[ruggerson]

43. but you're focusing on the "assassination"

part of the remark, without looking at what she was actually discussing. She was having a talk with the editors about nomination timelines and her SPIN was that
historically there are precedents for campaigns lasting into June. She was trying to lend support to her contention that staying in this late is not a big deal and that other politicians have done it. When she mentioned her husband and RFK, it was in the context of their campaigns lasting until June. Unfortunately, instead of saying 'Bobby Kennedy was campaigning into June and the nomination was still up in the air' she referenced his murder in June. A stupid, ill constructed way of trying to lend credibility to her own campaigning into June. And, because she phrased it the way she did, she aggravated her own problems with yet another scandal du jour. She unfortunately gets what she deserves, because politicians cannot be careless with language.

[TwilightGardener]

49. How can anyone NOT focus on the "assassination part"?

Holy crap. Hillary does not say things off the cuff. In fact, the "old" rap against her (before Sniperfire and the myriad excuses that followed--fatigue, etc.) was that everything out of her mouth was too pre-planned and calculated for effect. She certainly knows the power of words, and I have no doubt that very little that comes out of her mouth is spontaneous and not run across some handlers first. She's made this reference before, and it raised eyebrows in some media outlets--that reaction ALONE should have told her to stop using RFK as a reference--and yet, she persists in offering the June '68 reminder. Unless, she's extremely stupid and isn't aware that assassination is a big (and better left unspoken) fear in regard to Obama in particular. I don't think she's that stupid. But she said a monumentally, unpresidentially stupid thing.

[ruggerson]

51. It's the same reaction to the Kerry "botched joke"

people took great umbrage that he was insulting the military. But the fact is he wasn't talking about the military. He was talking about Bush.

But all a politician has is their ability to convey meaning with language. If Kerry gave his opponents fodder to spread their ridiculous narrative that he was somehow anti-military, then the only person to blame was himself. We live in a stupid, lowest common denominator media frenzied society. And agile politicians know that.

Likewise, if Hillary is dumb enough or tired enough or sloppy enough to use the phrase "assassination" when she is discussing historical campaigns that lasted through June, then she will have to bear the brunt of the stupid media frenzy that will follow.

[anigbrowl]

50. That is true. But that is what made it so monumentally stupid.

There were a lot of other late-running campaigns she might have referred to. Picking on this one to make her point was bad enough; alluding the circumstances which changed the political landscape and tilted the nomination to RFK's rival was terminally foolish. I think your OP was thoughtful and respectful, and I'm glad we could have a civil disagreement about how to assess the issue rather than a heated one.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

38. Yup. As all of these "breaking news" things go, interpretations fall along support lines.

[billyoc]

39. That would explain why the entire country is outraged.

It. Is. Over.

[Major Hogwash]

42. Allow me to disagree.

Like Kerry?

Excuse me, but you're so full of hot air it isn't even funny.

For your information, I put over 16,000 miles on my pickup truck during the summer of 2004, running North and South and back and forth clear across the state of Idaho for Kerry all summer long, telling anyone who would listen at any truckstop, any cafe, or any wide spot in the road why they should vote for Kerry instead of Bush.

I put over 3000 hours of my own time into the Kerry campaign and I only got to meet him once, in October of 2003, before the first primary was even held!!

I didn't do this beccause I wanted to get a job in Washington, D.C.
I did this because it was the right thing to do.

From Memorial Day to Labor Day, I ran up and down almost every dirt road there is in Idaho to spread the word about John Kerry.

So, just imagine what I'm going to do this year for Obama.

[ruggerson]

44. That's very admirable

I worked for him as well, though not nearly as hard and diligently as you.

But I'm not sure what that has to do with the OP.

[Frank Booth]

52. R&K.

This is the most intelligent analysis I've read about Hillary's gaffe today. There are times throughout this campaign when I have detested her, but I don't think she had malicious intent in saying what she did today.

She said something really dumb, and a good politician would have caught him/herself before it came out. She's got a bit of a tin ear, and she doesn't connect well enough with people to be able to compete on a national stage, especially against someone as politically skilled as Obama.

I really don't see the point in getting so worked up over a stupid gaffe, but I guess this site would be a lot less entertaining if people didn't get so worked up.

[juajen]

57. Gee, is that why she's won every debate with him and, pray tell,

why does he refuse to debate her. Don't give me that 22 debates excuse either. She and Obama only debated by themselves four times. She is very good on the national state, but if you say it enough, perhaps someone will believe it. There's a sucker born every minute.

[anonymous171]

58. They are both democrats, there is hardly any difference in their platforms.

What would they debate? More "gotcha"-style questions and knife twisting?

[Frank Booth]

59. Wow, that's a lot of anger you have there.

I never said she isn't a good debater. I'm happy to admit that she's an excellent debater. But so was John Kerry. And it didn't make him a great politician.

Bill was a great politician. Hillary might have made a better President then Bill, but she didn't have the political skills to get there.

[anonymous171]

56. 60% of Americans view her as untrustworthy.

Therefore, gaffes that play into the belief that Clinton is plotting to do something to Obama, or counting on his demise, would be incredibly potent.

[AtomicKitten]

62. 3 x is not a gaffe; just like Bosnia mentioned 3 x is not a gaffe.

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

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

Finally, laying the blame of her bankrupt campaign tactics (bankrupt on a number of levels) at the doorstep of the MSM is the epitome of buck-passing and, quite frankly, a slap in the face to Americans who grieve still for the loss of our fallen leaders.

3 x is not a gaffe. Her statement was purposeful and unchanging. Trying to smooth over her ugly campaign tactics is like trying to bury cat shit in a litter box. It still reeks.

[ruggerson]

65. But you are inclined to see everything in black and white

and see dark motives in everything that anyone does that you are predisposed to dislike.

The editorial board that interviewed her sees it exactly as many of us do. I realize you are able to see further into CLinton's soul then they are. After all, they only sat across the table from her and you have the vantagepoint of being a keyboard commando.

Robert Kennedy Jr. sees it exactly as many of us do. But then, he is only Kennedy's kid and has a close relationsip with Senator Clinton by which to guage his opinion, again, you are far better suited to judge her meaning and intent than he. You have observed her on television.

I do not trust nor value your instincts. Political or otherwise.

[AtomicKitten]

67. The outrage is real and universal.

I do not trust nor value the knee-jerk instincts of anyone willing to trivialize such offensive, outrageous comments. Leaning on the comments of HRC supporter RFK Jr. is cowardly and misguided.

Shame on you for allowing your own partisan bent to cloud yet another egregious tactic of the Clinton campaign. You have glommed onto her candidacy so pervasively you yourself have drifted far from the ideals of the Democratic party and have rendered yourself bereft of integrity, decency, and judgment.

* edited for a double word contrary to yet another talking point from the OP in his efforts to cover the poo in the litter box that is the Clinton campaign

[ruggerson]

68. Maybe I wasn't clear enough

I do not value your thoughts.

And for the record, you are lying:

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080523/UPDATES/80523051

[AtomicKitten]

69. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

You have debased yourself beyond redemption.

:puke:

[ruggerson]

70. Enjoy your day!

[ruggerson]

71. And let the record show

you keep editing your posts after I've responded, to delete your false assertions after they've been debunked.

And you talk about integrity.

See ya.

[ruggerson]

74. No, what you edited

was a statement you made, in post #67 that Robert Kennedy Jr. had not seen the context of the entire discussion and that he had not definitively issued an opinion on the matter.

I responded with post #68, with a link showing your statement was false.

You then quickly edited your post #67 to remove your lie about RFK Jr.

And then added in another lie as a disclaimer to hide your bungling.

[RichardRay]

72. Trying to find some value in the whole thing.

Your third category is very broad. I'm certainly not a 'Hillary despiser', and, while I like Barack Obama, I wouldn't call myself a 'huge fan' - he's my pick in the field by a wide margin, but that's not the same thing as being a 'fan'. What I am is incredibly frustrated with Senator Clinton.

I agree with you that Senator Obama is the better politician and that we need that to win in November. As the contest continues I see more and more things that confirm my choice. I also mourn for the lost opportunity to tap the full potential of Senator Clinton's mind and spirit. I feel that Senator Obama's ability to reach into communities like the Cuban-Ameican community in Florida demonstrates a willingness to go straight at a problem that I want to see get a chance on the national and world stage. I feel that he's waged a very effective campaign, winning so convincingly that the only hope Senator Clinton has of fighting her way to the nomination involves seriously changing the rules.

I want to get to the main show, I want the country to start to see and hear the clear distinctions between Barack Obama and John McCain. I want that to be the primary focus in U.S. national politics. As long as the Democratic nomination process continues that can't happen. So, if this whole brouhaha helps to oust Senator Clinton from the race then I'll take it. Not because I think she's a monster. Not because I think she wants to see anyone assasinated. Just because I want her out, and if this helps accomplish that then that's the best that I can hope for. I guess it's a 'silver lining', but it sure doesn't shine very brightly in my vision.

[liberaldem4ever]

73. Great post! K&R

:kick:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

75. I had high hopes she would fight on policy issues alone not kitchen sink

[demokatgurrl]

76. As a former Clinton supporter, though not my first choice

my take is that she made a remark that was insensitive on a lot of levels- why must she bring up an other Kennedy tragedy when the family is facing another one right now? She may or may not have also been trying to plant the seed about a potential attack on Obama. I do not think she was entirely innocent. Sometimes- OFTEN- I hear things she says and think they are just extremely stupid. This time, she probably realizes NOW it was stupid but at the time, it was no accident, IMHO.

For a long time I thought it was fine for her to stay in. Now I wish she WOULD go away, but I know she won't.

[Swamp Rat]

77. The OP is a Tautology

However, I agree "Obama is the better politician." We must unite behind him now if we are to defeat McLame.

[yardwork]

78. i'm sick of the Clintons.

I'm tired of hearing excuses for their behavior. Several months ago I was a Hillary supporter on this board! She lost my support. Now she and her husband have lost my respect.

I suspect that I speak for millions who feel the same way. And it's not the mainstream media's fault this time. In fact, the msm has been fairly kind to Hillary compared to their treatment of every other Democrat. No, the Clintons did this to themselves.

[Buck Rabbit]

79. I agree with your post. I am in the gaffe camp but ....

one of things that causes her high negatives is her bully/victim response to other peoples gaffes versus her own.

I wasn't a big Kerry fan but I was really disappointed that it was Hillary that jumped in with the right wingers on the blown joke. During the ABC gotcha debate, Obama wanted to cut the bullshit questions for both himself and Hillary. Hillary wanted to join in on every attack on Obama.

I think it is cosmic justice that someone who pounces on other-peoples gaffes is being roasted by one of her own.

[polichick]

80. I think it depends on how closely you've been listening...

...whether or not you realize that she's used the same sentence several times before (once with that word; twice without it), whether or not you've noticed how many times she and her surrogates have said she should stay in because "anything can happen," and whether or not you pay attention to the current talking points and put some thought into what their purpose might be.