All she meant was that Bobby Kennedy's campaign was still active in June

[bigtree]

Any other interpretation is just another opportunistic smear on Hillary Clinton.


(I also got it wrong, initially, listening to the ONLY snippet her critics in the press have offered.)

[boobooday]

1. Bobby Kennedy's campaign was only 2 months old in June

With many primaries left to go. Why choose RFK? I keep asking that, and nobody has an answer.

[Jawja]

7. And why throw in

"ASSASSINATED" on more than one occasion?

[polpilot]

47. Just a glimpse inside Bill & Hill's private conversations. Sick.

[JoFerret]

164. How is it private if you know about it?

.

[flowomo]

2. I agree, but that won't stop the feeding frenzy....

here and elsewhere.

[Bettie]

3. Then she should have SAID that!

I think the whole thing has been blown out of proportion, but the fact remains that she brought the subject up in an inflammatory way.

A president (or presidential candidate) needs to THINK before they speak. Words have power and perception is reality.

[DemVet]

4. Agreed. K&R

[GarbagemanLB]

5. She could have said that. Instead, she said he was assassinated in June. Why the fuck would you brin

g that up??

[Quixote1818]

135. Thats a good point. nt

[CreekDog]

6. AND that he was assassinated

just sayin' :eyes:

[Jawja]

8. Why bring it up when making the argument why

she should stay in even though she can't win?

[bigtree]

13. because of the calls for her to quit now. She was making the case that, historically.

. . . the Democratic primary has stretched to June before, and that there is still time for an insurgent campaign to gather support, no matter how remote that possibility may be for Clinton.

[CreekDog]

15. but if that actually happened, Clinton's remaining in the race would make no difference

she'd be the go to person anyway as a close second.

and secondly, in June 68 the race was far from over, in June 92 Clinton's CA victory made no practical difference, he was the nominee by then effectively. i had friends who cast protest votes for Brown back then in the CA primary, but that's all it was, there was no thinking that Brown was going to win, even if he won CA. Heck, in a closer race, Hart won CA and it was clear that it was not a game changer either.

[DevonRex]

24. See how easy it was for you to make that case without assassination

being mentioned?

[bigtree]

41. so no one should 'mention' the assassination in any context, even a benign one?

What a lame argument. We now know what Clinton meant, but there are still those folks who will insist on presenting her statement in the worst possible light for whatever political purpose.

She was indicating that his campaign was still active in June. That's all. There wasn't any sinister motive in mentioning the fact of the assassination. Axelrod and the editorial board agree.

[Warren Stupidity]

Not in the context of 'why stay in the race'. DUH.

[bigtree]

49. And you can go around spreading that lie if you want

But it's still a lie.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. You have reached the delusional stage where we are all liars.

Clinton, who has made similar statements previously, said she was simply illustrating that other nomination contests have dragged into June. Editors of the Sioux Falls, S.D., Argus Leader had asked why she remained in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?" Clinton told the newspaper. "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

Bill Clinton's nomination was a foregone conclusion by March 1992, although he didn't officially clinch it until later.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-clinton24-2008may24,0,3156156.story

[bigtree]

65. You cite the newspaper but ignore the conclusion of the ones who interviewed her

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."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/clintons-contex.html

[DevonRex]

56. Assassination is totally irrelevant to her point. So why keep

keep on saying it? She can easily reference Bobby Kennedy still campaigning in June without talking about him being assassinated.

OR, if she wanted to avoid the subject altogether, she could have used any number of examples.

And no, that argument is not lame. If her point is June that's all she had to say. If her point is assassination, that's what she has to say.

Pretty simple.

[midnight]

96. Jennifer you bring up a good point about how easily it could of

been for Hillary to refrence her point without assassination. And since Bobby's son has let everyone know that that point is not important we should respect his point. How easily can we accept Bobby's son's point about this matter? For the sake of this race lets make this a simple acceptance and move to more pressing issues.

[DevonRex]

99. I'm tired of this too. I would dearly love to move on to more

pressing issues. This one has worn me out. :)

[gal]

113. You forget that this also affected the Obama family and Ted Kennedy's family.

Let's not forget she blamed this on the fact that the Kennedy's were on her mind lately, but in the meantime was already spouting this in March.

I don't think people are outraged at this because of Robert Kennedy's family, their outraged at what it implies to Obamas family. She knows this and purposely did not apologize to them.

[Bjorn Against]

78. The editorial boards have torn her apart over this, and Axelrod knows better than to go after this

Axelrod does not want to make the possibility of Obama being assassinated a campaign issue, he can not go after Hillary on this. I am sure he knows very well why this was an extremely bad thing for Hillary to say, but as a spokesperson for the Obama campaign he also knows that assassination is not one of the issues this campaign wants to focus on. He had to let Hillary off the hook, that does not mean he agrees with what she said.

[earthside]

79. Here's what she meant:

"Anything can happen, especially in June ... and I want to be ready in case 'anything' happens."

Unfortunately, as many have now documented, she has made references like this before and used the word 'assassination' -- and many, many of her supporters have brazenly predicted something catastrophic is lurking around Obama that will collapse his candidacy. (Go take a look at the comments on the blog at her official campaign web site and see how creepy and scary some of her supporters have become -- there is reason for concern.)

For old Hill, it is the context of her increasingly bitter and desperate remarks over the past month and a half that has made her words yesterday so potent.

Her increasingly irrational rationalizations for her continuing campaign against Obama also show why it is a matter of judgement and character to know when to leave the stage. This incident has 'legs' because it shows the spiral down for her ... a development that could have been avoided if she and her husband had put a higher priority of unity and victory in November.

[bigtree]

91. those interviewing her don't agree with that interpretation of her words

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."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/clintons-contex.html

[HousePainter]

167. Worse than the crass insensitivity of her choice of example

if campaign timelines was all she was referencing (i.e. it was still going on well into June and then finishing the thought.... until all that momentum and hope ended with a few gunshots)
Especially crass choice given the sad diagnosis handed to Ted Kennedy, the last surviving brother and fervent supporter of Sen Obama, a few days earlier.

But worse than that crass insensitivity, far worse was her mealy mouthed "if any one found it offensive" half apology.
She just doesn't get it or just doesn't care to.
The only pain she and her husband "feel" is that of their losing.


God help her.

[cali]

53. the first primary or caucus that year was March 12. It's a lousy

and yes, dishonest comparison. Campaigns started much later then and went well into June.

[bigtree]

93. but the GENERAL ELECTION DATE was the same

same amount of time to organize before the general as now.

[unapatriciated]

114. yes, not a fair comparison since most large states such as California

have already held their primaries and the primary voting started much earlier than in 1992 and 1998. It was like comparing apples to oranges.

[Irishonly]

108. The problem with her statement

regarding comments about the June primaries is up until this past silly season the campaign season didn't start until much later. Someone in Iowa would know better but I think the caucus used to be in March. This time all candidates announced earlier and states played leap frog trying to be first. There were other examples she could have used but chose not to.

I don't believe she was calling for an assassination attempt on Obama but her comments cannot be brushed aside. Her apology to the Kennedeys was sorely lacking IMHO but only the Senator and his family can judge it. Whether Senator Clinton's supporters wish to admit it or not, she owes the Obama family an apology. It doesn't matter what she meant only how it sounded to non Hillary supporters.

Most politicians get a case of foot in the mouth disease many, many times. Senator Biden was taken to task and what was done to Senator Kerry for a botched joke was terrible. Senator Clinton was trying to justify her staying in the race and instead of saying she wanted to stay until the primary season was over she said something stupid.

The Clintons need to listed to black leaders and social commentators but I guess they can't because she has also said black journalists are part of the problem. If my statement is incorrect and a rumor they also need to pay attention to it. From being touted as a champion for civil rights, the legacy if not gone is tarnished.

Senator Clinton can stay in the race until the convention. It is her choice but she needs to make sure her brain is engaged before starting her mouth. My mom raised me as one of the if you don't have anything nice to say, say nothing at all but I think Clinton's statement may have even caused her to rethink her stance.

[bigtree]

110. from her statement:

"I remember very well 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, where some who had contested in the primaries, you know, were determined to carry their case to the convention."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/clintons-contex.html

other examples were offered by her, as you suggested . . . )

[Irishonly]

115. Question

Because of the examples she cited do you have any idea why she chose to to bring us the assassination of Kennedy especially since we just found out about Teddy's cancer? I also thought it was taboo for assassination and a politician's name to be used together while campaigning. I thought that before all of the outrage by pundits. As I said I do not believe she was hoping for anything bad to happen and you can tell by her reaction that she had no idea of the backlash she was going to get. Senator Clinton is a smart woman but I have been bothered by several of her comments.

[bigtree]

119. I really don't know how to talk about Bobby Kennedy

without eventually mentioning the tragedy. Try and talk about Ted without someone raising the cancer. Or try and have a conversation about the Kennedys in general without mentioning just one of the many tragedies they've endured. It's obvious she respects the family. I just refuse to attribute the worst of motives to her statements. So does RFK Jr.

[Irishonly]

124. I Didn't Say She Had A Motive

I am saying I don't understand why she brought it up specifically, that's all. It's ridiculous to think she was hoping out loud that something bad was going to happen to Obama. BTW, there would be many more things to discuss with the Kennedeys than just the tragedies, but that's me. I am a cancer survivor and no one talks about it much. If someone asks, I will answer but cancer doesn't define me. I don't disagree with much that you say, I only asked for an opinion. Where we differ is that while I think there was no malice in her statement, I think she stuck both feet in her mouth. Senator Clinton doesn't need to worry about what I think though. I am sure we can agree on my last statement.:)

[SOS]

160. Re: History

Clinton mentioned only 1992 and the RFK assassination in June 1968.

In 1992, Bill Clinton was the de facto nominee in the first week of April after the NY primary.
So while technically true that CA put Bill over the top in June, it was already finished two months earlier.

Which leaves us with the RFK comment.

Note to Clinton campaign: If you want to make this point, here's a way to do it right:

1984 - Mondale in July
1980 - Carter in August
1976 - Ford in August
1972 - McGovern in June
1968 - Humphrey in August
1960 - Kennedy in July

[Onlooker]

9. In the best case, it shows how utterly incompetent she is

This is just a continuation of a terrible, inept campaign.

[DevonRex]

10. She didn't even have to mention assassination. She still could

have used Bobby Kennedy's campaign as an example. Nothing wrong with that. It's referring to assassination, either directly or the way she did it a couple of times saying that we all know what happened to Bobby Kennedy in June, that makes it really really creepy.

I agree with Howard Fineman's take on it. No matter what she meant, it's a very dark thought that has apparently been in her mind a lot.

[Medusa]

11. There were many other, more recent examples she could have used

she chose this one because it's what she's been hoping for all along. Something catastrophic to happen so she could be the nominee. She knows she doesn't have the math to get her to the nomination. This is her one and only hope. And it's disgusting that she would think it and it's revolting that she would actually voice those words. She made no mistake. She meant what she said and she said what she meant. The attempt by her Hillbots to "spin" this for her is even more insulting. Just keep on pouring gasoline on the fire why don't you? The best thing that you and she can do is quit NOW.

[Higher Standard]

12. I agree with what she meant...

...but I don't agree that any other interpretation is an opportunistic smear. There's a very disturbing way that the statement can and has been read and it's demeaning to suggest that many people aren't having a legitimate, gut-wrenching reaction to it.

[burythehatchet]

14. you ought to get to know your candidate better.

[Cirque du So-What]

16. Her own words betray her intentions, and no amount of spin will help

Responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race, she said: "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, I don't understand it," she said, dismissing the idea of abandoning the race.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24796393/

She couldn't possibly be more clear in articulating her bloodthirsty fantasy.

[bigtree]

18. the Argus editorial board AGREES WITH ME, not you're sick interpretation

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."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/clintons-contex.html

[Cirque du So-What]

36. I tend to disregard those who call me 'sick'

especially those who don't know the difference between the contraction of 'you are' - which is 'you're' - and the 2nd-person (singular, in this instance) possessive 'your.'

The opinions of the Argus Leader editorial board carry about as much weight with me as Clinton apologistas in full spin mode.

[bigtree]

Oh, but you want room to accuse Sen. Clinton of having some 'bloodthirsty fantasy'

You must be sick to post something like that.

[Cirque du So-What]

55. I calls 'em like I sees 'em

Besides, 'bloodthirsty fantasy' has a certain je ne sais quoi that I believe articulates her statement quite well and I wouldn't mind if others used freely. If that's 'sick' to your way of thinking, so be it. I can live with that.

[JackRiddler]

80. We can all watch the video you know.

There are good things about TV I guess.

[bigtree]

94. here's the statement

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/clintons-contex.html

[JoFerret]

165. It's YOUR fantasy on display. Not hers.

What's with your obsession?

[chascarrillo]

17. Who's drinking the fucking kool-aid now?

[bigtree]

20. I guess the editorial board who conducted the interview

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/clintons-contex.html

[BklnDem75]

77. Oh! Well since the editorial board agrees...

Are you nuts!?! It doesn't matter what she meant. It's how it came out. There was no need to mention RFK's assassination. There were many other instances of other primaries running until June. The way she said it gave the impression that she's waiting for something terrible to happen to Obama, so it doesn't make sense for her to drop out just yet. It's not just DU that thought that. It's on ALL the networks and newspapers. Unless you just think everyone but you is making it more than what it is. It was a stupid thing to say.

[bigtree]

95. what about RFK Jr.?

Is he 'nuts' too?

[BklnDem75]

107. You mean Hillary's lone Kennedy endorsement?

What do you think he's gonna say? He has to protect her to save face. Do you expect he'd rip into her, getting egg on his face in the process?

[bigtree]

111. but folks outside of the family can play victim, ignoring his own response?

Good luck with that.

[BklnDem75]

120. Nobody's playing victim

Just pointing out that it was an incredibly stupid thing to say. It didn't even help her argument.

[Carolina]

137. RFK Jr wants her Senate seat

I would love to hear what his mother Ethel has to say about HRC and her son's dismissal of the intent of HRC's words.

[JVS]

19. BULLSHIT

[bigtree]

21. bullshit yourself

I can cuss too. I'm just as angry as anyone here, so take your best shot.

[symbolman]

45. Why do you keep opening a big old can of "Whupass" on yourself?

Over and over? Why not just Concede the point most Rational people are making for Once, and quit Farting in the Middle of a Tornado?

Everyone is WRONG once in a while, just not all at the same time.. This time the Crazy Lady has blown it..

Her supporters can no way apologise either FOR her or themselves any more than SHE can..

Give this one UP man, you don't have to "win" them ALL.. And you still may garner some Respect here instead of flushing it all over One Person's bullshit, Clinton's... :)

[bigtree]

59. You apparently have no idea how secure with myself I really am.

I'm not the least bothered to put myself on the line for the truth.


RFK Jr. Says No One Should Be Offended

May 23, 2008 10:23 PM

This evening Robert Kennedy Jr., who has endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., cautioned folks not to be offended at Clinton's mention of his father's assassination when discussing why she was staying in the race and how there was precedent for the primaries lasting until June.

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.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/rfk-jr-says-no.html

[symbolman]

106. Okay lonely Secure guy..

Knock yourself out.. Its pretty obvious there's no talking to you.. People that are Never Wrong are Always wrong :)

[bigtree]

109. I know myself. That's what's important, not how I'm viewed by the rabble here.

I love how folks here always think they can judge someone from this distance. Weird.

Does everyone always agree with you? Have you never been sure of what you believe, secure in the face of dissent from your view? I hope so.

[gal]

117. I think Ted Kennedy and the Obama family have a right to be offended.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

25. give him a break

hey, their candidate is toast. they know that. BUT THEY HAVE 31 MILLIONS to get back. If she does the honorable thing, the right thing, the only thing she can, that money is gone.

So she sent out her army of clones to make believe she didn't say what we all heard her say. They continue to follow orders, make shit up, lie, just like her, just so she can exit gratefully, graciously, and millions in the black.

By saying bullshit, you attack a paid political soldier for simply following orders, ignoring that they don't think for themselves. They lie on command, they dissemble under orders, and the post threads like this because their boss told them to. Don't attack the poor underpaid foot soldier. Have some sympathy for their horrible future and plight. Is it his fault that his candidate sucks so badly?

[bigtree]

35. I just got home from work, read the press accounts, heard Axelrod yesterday

I don't need any marching orders from anyone to post the truth. And, I don't need anyone's patronizing bullshit.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

40. I presume, that includes her bullshit, too?

Obviously not.
in that case, I take back everything nice I said about you

and replace it with,


BULLSHIT!

[think4yourself]

87. Then why do you keep coming back?

There is NO spin, no retraction that will change what I heard. She didn't even apologize. She never does. NOW is the time for some forced, calculated faux tears. That seems to help her. She is done. She is proving all the Wingnuts right, who said she's a power hungry bitch that will do anything for power.

[Warren Stupidity]

69. I doubt he is being paid for his delusional posts.

bigtree is a long time du'er, and while I frequently disagree with him, I have generally respected his opinions. Until recently that is. Now it seems he has lost a bit of his former rationality as his chosen candidate self destructs.

[bigtree]

90. funny though that RFK Jr. has offered the exact same defense of her statement

. . . that I've offered here. Albeit, without the admonition I made to those here about misrepresenting her words.

[jsmirman]

22. That's bullshit, the idea that this is "opportunistic smear" territory- this is wtf is wrong with

this person territory, plain and simple.

You are damaging whatever credibility you had left on this board.

[DaLittle Kitty]

23. bull shit!

:puke:

[bigtree]

27. right back at ya

. . . on behalf of those who made the (correct) defense of Sen. Clinton.

[NorthCarolina]

26. If you are a rational thinking individual who has listened to her words

then you cannot actually believe what you posted. There is little room for doubt that she has been holding out for the possibility that there might be an assassination attempt on Obama. Considering that he is the first black American to have a real chance at POTUS and offers real CHANGE, she is hoping to drop a dime on some nutcase to do her dirty work for her and rid her of her "Obama problem". Words DO matter.

[AlabamaBrightBlueDot]

28. One thought...

"From the mouth flows the heart's abundance"

[SemiCharmedQuark]

29. No doubt a good portion is anger from those already angry but she could have referenced RFK w/o

the "assassination" word thrown in there. She'd done that very thing before. She simply referenced RFK running in June. She brought "assassination" in for no good reason.

[Marrah_G]

30. They know that- they are just making it into something it isn't

More fake fucking outrage.

[windbreeze]

122. Interesting point that...."fake outrage"

Do you really believe the outrage IS fake?? I don't..You know, the funny thing is, I didn't want Clinton, and I have said so...but I wasn't sure of Obama either...Just about the time I was going to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt, this happens...I remember all those assassinations, and just the thought of such a thing, raises my hackles...I don't think she's suitable for president, no matter how much experience she has, IF she doesn't know any better than to say something like this..considering the following things...

1. She's said she's staying in, until SHE'S the nominee
2. She's behind Obama in just about every category
3. She's seriously in debt..
5. She has mentioned RFK's assassination several times, when we ALL know that comparisons about Democrats previously campaigning into June could have very well been made w/o ever mentioning his or anyone's unfortunate demise.
6. One does NOT expect an experienced candidate to commit faux paux like this...
7. She knows Obama's life has been threatened
8. She knows he had to have SS earlier than most candidates do
9. She just campaigned in two states that showed her that racial bias IS alive and well out there, so if she were alert, she would have caught a clue...right?
10. NONE of us know what she meant, NONE..but MOST of us do KNOW HOW IT SOUNDED...and that's why the OUTRAGE is NOT FAKE...!!IMO...no matter what she meant, her reference to RFK's assassination was thoughtless, insensitive, uncalled for and totally out of place...wb

[Marrah_G]

127. Yes, I really believe the outrage is fake. People here hate her so much they will twist anything

The reaction on this forum is absurd and bordering on insanity.

[slinkerwink]

129. it is not 'fake' outrage. It's real anger, hurt, and sadness that many of us here feel. To dismiss

what we're feeling as partisanship is wrong.

[gal]

133. Have you seen the reaction from the rest of the country on the MSM forums?

Maybe you should look. It's not just people here.

[Marrah_G]

134. I don't much care what the MSM says- remember when they were all over Wright?

Or was that somehow different in your mind. It's more manufactured outrage, it sells ads, and once again people fall for the bullshit. Hook line and sinker.

[windbreeze]

148. I don't know how old you are...

Dare I say, that I feel this country has never healed from those acts of madness that took place 40 some yrs ago????I was absolutely astounded that a seasoned politician such as Hillary Clinton...would refer back to those very sad times, especially considering what this primary season involves...it almost made my heart stop in disbelief..

Having said that, I don't believe it is proper or necessary to call her derogatory names...and I have not..but knowing how determined she's been to hang on, until the last dog is hung...makes me wonder what she was thinking and why would she say such a thing...it makes me damned uncomfortable...

We each are allowed to have our own individual AND differing opinion...I can only address how I feel...who am I to say others honestly don't feel stronger about it than I do??? wb

ps: Let's just pray that Obama stays safe, shall we? Hillary too for that matter...Can we agree on that at least?..Perhaps the knowledge of how possible it would be, for us to have another tragedy, is also having some bearing on the responses...

[JerseygirlCT]

152. It's not fake, Marrah. It really isn't

I read that, and then watched the tape, yesterday, and it felt like a punch in the gut.

With a little time I went from immediate outrage to just another layer of disappointment in her. But her non-apology apology added yet another thick layer to the pile.

She said an unbelievable thoughtless and hurtful thing while trying to forward her campaign. She really did trouble and even hurt many people. It's a scary thing to contemplate, and it's really hard to imagine someone saying something like that - again and again, we now learn - without realizing how awful what they're saying is. And she's NOT stupid. So why is she continuing to say that in that way?

I think she had a weak point with the June stuff - but who cares? That's the sort of thing that happens in campaigns. But there was no need to add the assasination stuff in my mind. That went over the edge.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

31. ...and THEN it wasn't active.

:thumbsdown:

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Oh bullshit.

I see you now have two posts on this. What a shame you are going down this road.

I have no idea what she meant, only she knows that. What she said, in response to why she is staying in the race (when she cannot win by pledged delegates) is that there can be events, such as the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, that alter the situation. What situation? The situation where Obama is the presumptive nominee. What sort of events alter that sort of situation? The only example she gave that was 'situation altering' was Bobby's assassination. You cannot get around that. There is no wiggle room. There is no spin. It is out there and it cannot be unspoken.

[bigtree]

37. What a shame that all you can do is attack me personally

Pathetic, but typical of this place.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. I'm begging you to come to your senses

If you choose to view that as a personal attack, so be it. You are one of the good ones, one of the Clinton supporters I respect, and I am truly sorry to see you destroy your credibility here over her failed candidacy.

[bigtree]

48. I'm going to have opinions and I'm going to ocassionally post them

You can agree or disagree, but I'm not taking any lectures from people who know absolutely NOTHING significant about me.

[H2O Man]

33. Attempts to frame

her statement as either inoffensive or evidence she wants harm to come to Obama are equally incorrect. The truth is that it was the wrong thing to say, and she said it at a wrong time. People are upset by the recent news about Ted Kennedy, and we are two weeks away from the 40 year anniversary of RFK's death.

Saying that people are wrong to be offended by her statement is not helpful, in my opinion. As a retired psychiatric social worker, I am reminded of family systems were there are demands that certain family members deny their feelings, or that emotional reactions are "wrong." That isn't the avenue to producing healthy, well-rounded people.

The outpouring of anger, sadness, resentment, and other emotions that your consider "just another opportunistic smear" seem to me to be a normal response to something that people found highly offensive. I note that other Obama supporters have very different reactions, and attribute the comments to Senator Clinton being tired, and making a poor choice of words. We have a very wide range of reactions, and that is a good thing.

Likewise, Clinton supporters have a wide range of reactions. I think many of us are wishing that more of the Clinton supporters would admit that her words were hurtful, and brought to mind some painful images. I would ask that you just give that a little thought, because her statement really has upset people.

[bigtree]

51. Well, I'll be in good company where I stand. RFK Jr. Says No One Should Be Offended

This evening Robert Kennedy Jr., who has endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., cautioned folks not to be offended at Clinton's mention of his father's assassination when discussing why she was staying in the race and how there was precedent for the primaries lasting until June.

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.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/rfk-jr-says-no.html

[H2O Man]

57. Yes, Robert is

a very good and decent man, who clearly understands that there is a "highly charged atmosphere" in the democratic community. I'm glad that he had the decency to say what he did. It reinforces my high opinion of him.

I note he did not attribute anything negative to either Clinton's intentions, or the reaction of those who were offended by her comment. You would certainly be in good company if you took the same stance.

[bigtree]

66. point taken.

thank you.

[H2O Man]

70. And you, as well.

We are moving in the direction of significant democratic gains in November. Then we rebuild the foundation of our Constitutional democracy. We aren't going to be distracted from that goal. We're keeping our eyes on the prize.

Enjoy this weekend!

[graycem]

147. That's fair of him to say

he is her supporter, however, if you believe she was saying anything negative, or even just distasteful, it wasn't to RFK Jr. or the Kennedy family. They are not in this primary race as an opponent to her. True, her remarks just "sounded really bad" and are not calling for anything nefarious, I completely agree with you on that point, but the comments are only relevant to Senator Obama, he is the one "anything could happen" to. That is who the apology is owed to, not the Kennedy family.

[chitty]

34. A Drunk Man's Word Is A Sober Man's

Conscience.

And this woman is intoxicated with the thought of being President.

Her mind got in the way of her mouth.

[marions ghost]

38. "All she meant" is crystal clear.....

This was a talking point she has used before in various ways. She used it one time too many.

Those who can say that her pointed comments yesterday are merely "historical reference" are made of the same sleazy substance as Hillary Clinton.

Her apologists would do better to argue that she was having a bad day or a mental slippage of some sort, than to argue that she was perfectly justified in using the RFK assassination argument in that context.

The Indy 500 is over for Hillary. She hit the wall and is spinning towards the pit.

[DevonRex]

60. Great post. Thanks. nt

[Seabiscuit]

39. Note that the Tweety's out there never show us the context - they never play the tape of the

question she was asked.

Watching the snippets they played over and over, it was obvious what she meant. It was also obvious she was very tired. Had she been feeling more energetic, (1) she probably wouldn't have mentioned it, and (2) if she had mentioned it anyway she would have phrased it better.

[Blondbostonian]

46. It's about time your side dealt with it

Michelle Obama's "really proud" of my country suddenly went to "proud" which changed everything about the statement.

The fact is Clinton never apologized to Obamam for her idiotic mis-step.

She's toast though so it's all good.

[Bavorskoami]

42. Careless language

I do believe that Hillary Clinton really only meant to be pointing out how late some primaries were going on in the past. However to bring up the an assassination in 1968 was extremely careless. To keep the focus on the calendar she should have chosen other years. I am no hot-head and the Clintons have always received my support in the past. I believe they have been unfairly treated for years. However, I did immediately think it was a bad choice of language on her part and would raise a sh**storm. Her "apology" was even worse. There is no danger from wackos out there to any of the Kennedys during this primary race. It is the Obamas to whom the apology is owed.

Many of the comparisons between past primaries and now are weak. For one thing the primary season didn't start so early then. You just need to think that when RFK was assassinated he was campaigning in the California primary in June. If the CA primary was still in June she would still have a point that a very large portion of primary voters had not yet spoken.

During the primary in 1968 I was in the Army attending language school at the Presidio of Monterey, CA. I was in the crowd to hear RFK's campaign speech at the Monterey airport a couple of days before the primary and I remember how much the nomination was still very much in doubt.

[Elspeth]

44. You're attempting logic in a mosh pit. Good luck.

:hi:

[skooooo]

52. So you don't find anything disgusting with her statement?

[Elspeth]

75. The OP's statement? Bigtree is as welcome to her opinion as you are to yours?

..

[Crunchy Frog]

50. The primary schedule was completely different in 1968.

It has absolutely no relevance to this year's primary schedule. I'm calling bullshit.

[my3boyz]

58. Well, then why didn't she just say Bobby Kennedy was still fighting for the nomination in June

instead of mentioning he was killed then? Why not cite other examples? Why Bobby Kennedy in light of everything the Kennedy's are going through now. I'll tell you...because she is heartless!

[GarbagemanLB]

62. EXACTLY. WHY bring up assassination?

[DevonRex]

63. Exactly. That was my point to him above. But he says that's

a lame argument. I'd laugh if it weren't so sad.

[BeyondGeography]

161. As were Eugene McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey

but they weren't KILLED.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

61. No, that's not what she meant...

She meant that in June, Bobby Kennedy was assassinated and the Democrats needed a new candidate. By implication, she's saying that something could happen to Obama's campaign in the month of June and she needs to be their to fill the void.

[weezy2736]

64. She said "assassination" in a discussion about why she's still in the race.

And the worst part is that she invokes the memory of one of the most painful assassinations in American history, one that hurts me deeply.

You're saying that my grief for the Kennedys is a direct attack on Hillary Clinton. If you can't see the many many things that are wrong with this, I question your membership in the human race.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. Yep. It was a stupid gaffe. But, one that will happily sink her chances for VP.

For once, the masters of "gotcha" politics have been hung on their own petard.

[IndianaGreen]

68. Hillary has mentioned assassination before--She has a mental problem

and she is unfit for higher office.

[OzarkDem]

71. Hordes of newbies signing in w/ manufactured outrage

Their only interest is in fanning the flames of rumor and innuendo.

[MrsT]

88. And where were you during snubgate/ bittergate/ facescratchinggate?

Were you fanning the flames? Or were you talking about what a non-issue they were?

[cottonseed]

141. He was rubbing one out nightly in front of the computer.

[Arkana]

72. No, it is not.

Answer me this: Why were Hillary supporters allowed to be angry about "Sweetiegate", "Bittergate", "Typicalwhitepersongate", and "Wrightgate", but we're simply overreacting when she raises the specter of POLITICAL FUCKING ASSASSINATION as a reason for her staying in the Presidential race?

[Terri S]

73. The lengths some will go through to excuse this is astounding

As I've said in other threads, a younger candidate could be excused not understanding the excruciating pain of those times and the horror that word conjures up in the minds and hearts of people who lived through them. She cannot be. She is 4 years older than I am, and for me, Ted's diagnosis brought back his eulogy of Bobby as if it were yesterday. Her using the word is inexcusable. Period.

As many have said, there were ample examples of other primaries running long. She could even have brought Bobby's candidacy up if she couldn't think of another, but to refer to his assassination..as someone who lived through all of it.. it's just simply mind-boggling. It was not done once, but several times. It was purposeful. And it was beyond disgusting.

[bigtree]

84. You mean like RFK Jr.? Did he go to 'astounding lengths' in his defense of her?

RFK Jr. Says No One Should Be Offended

May 23, 2008 10:23 PM

This evening Robert Kennedy Jr., who has endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., cautioned folks not to be offended at Clinton's mention of his father's assassination when discussing why she was staying in the race and how there was precedent for the primaries lasting until June.

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.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/rfk-jr-says-no.html

[gal]

123. You keep using Robert Kennedy like this only matters to him.

There are 2 other families affected by this as well.
She used the situation with Ted Kennedy to excuse this when it is not the first time she said it. Did she know about his health situation in March when she said it then to? Why didn't she warn him if so..

What about an apology to the Obama family?

[LuckyLib]

74. When you are running for President, you have to think carefully and speak carefully.

You don't get do-overs. It's part of the burden of being in the media eye, and campaigning yourself into exhaustion. Perception is everything. Nuances are everything. What you intended sometimes gets lost in the media frenzy. Anticipating that is being a smart candidate.

[Barack_America]

76. Bigtree, I'm sorry.

This must be awful for you.

But she said it. She mentioned RFK's assassination when there was no reason to. She mentioned his assassination when mentioning the primary seasons in '84 and '80 would have strengthened the argument she was officially trying to make.

Why she has mentioned this on several occasions, only she and Bill truly know.

I certainly don't think that she wants anything to happen to Obama, but that something *could* has certainly crossed her mind. And, for some reason, she has been trying to communicate that.

[bigtree]

82. she had a full statement which included that comment. I just think this is overblown

So does RFK Jr.. So does the editorial board who interviewed her.

Here's the full statement in context:

"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," Clinton said, according to a transcript assembled by the ABC News political unit's Talal Alkhatib. "And 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 go all the way to the convention. I remember very well 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, where some who had contested in the primaries, you know, were determined to carry their case to the convention.

She said, "People have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa. ... I find it curious because it is unprecedented in history. I don't understand it. And between my opponent and his camp and some in the media, there has been this urgency to end this. And, you know, historically that makes no sense. So I find it a bit of a mystery."

"You don't buy the 'party unity' argument?" she was asked.

"I don't," Clinton said. "And again, I've been around long enough. You know, my husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary sometime in the middle of June. Right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just-- I don't understand it. And you know, there's lots of speculation about why it is, but uh..."

She was asked: "What's your speculation?"

"You know, I don't know," she said. "I find it curious, and I don't want to attribute motives or strategies to people that I don't really know. But it is-- It's a historical curiosity to me."

The debate seems to be whether Clinton was merely suggesting that previous Democratic races have gone on a long time, through June, and, "Hey, remember that horrible moment in 1968 with Bobby Kennedy's assassination was in June?" -- or whether she was saying, "Hey, anything could happen. Obama might get assassinated. No reason for me to drop out yet."

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."


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/clintons-contex.html



I'm not out on some limb. People relevant to the time, place, and subject have given her a pass on this. I agree with them.

[Barack_America]

97. And if it weren't...

...For the previous references to the assassination, I would too. I really would.

But this is the third or fourth reference to RFK's assassination and, apparently, one too many.

We've all in the back of our minds feared this was a particular possibility with Obama, but there are some things you simply don't vocalize.

I think she'll recover from this, but not this election cycle.

[bigtree]

100. Well, I'm with Kennedy

He didn't see anything pernicious in her raising it before, and neither do I.

(Thanks for being the comity in your responses. I'm a real hothead. Recovering hothead, but still a hothead. Thoughtful folks, unlike my hothead self, inspire me to be better.)

[LibDemAlways]

81. That's how I interpreted it, too. And I'm not a

Hillary fan.

[JackRiddler]

83. Too bad for her that she didn't say that - in her repeated comments!

There are levels of meaning. She didn't simply make this (irrelevant) point, she mentioned the assassination specifically and on other occasions as well. Didn't she figure out someone would notice it?

[bigtree]

86. In a statement, Kennedy Jr. said:

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.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/rfk-jr-says-no.html

[JackRiddler]

126. That's very nice of him - as a Clinton endorser.

Nevertheless, the reference sounds like she's in the race because she's hoping Obama will be assassinated.

Sounds like is not is, you say. Well, yes and no.

RFK Jr. inadvertantly nails down the case against her by saying, "I've heard her make this reference before..."

Once she says it more than once, it means it's a vetted part of her standard repertoire.

Which suggests:

1) Stupid. Tone deaf.

2) Giving voice to not-so secret wishes.

3) Both.

Given how stupid and meaningless and basically autocratic/apolitical/disempowering/insulting her daily rhetoric is otherwise, one has to wonder why she's still in a race, for vanity reasons alone... if not 2.

[Skip Intro]

85. AMEN! The fevered fauxrage here is worthy of an oscar.

That is CLEARLY what she was trying to say. Many, it would seem, would rather wallow in false indignation than see the truth that dances before their eyes.

:kick:

[phiddle]

89. Would someone who is truly "ready on day one"

make such a mistake? What benefit to all of the "experience" she claims, if it cannot keep her from this gross a blunder?

[midnight]

92. The information about this and Obamas minister has

been a huge winfall for someone. But I would like to see the issues that are being sweept under the rug. Who is for repeal of the patriot act?

[intaglio]

98. Maybe she did

but she "mispoke" on a scale comparable to Dubya. Then, instead of offering a true apology, hummed and harred and came out with the whimpering little mouse of "if people were offended ..." which is little better than the "... as far as I know" rider to her statement about Sen. Obama's religious faith.

Start being honest with yourself, bigtree, you may not "get" Obama but surely you have got to get that Hillary is not Presidential material. She made great play earlier in the campaign about the 3am phone call; well now she has shown she, herself, is incapable of answering that call. A President; no matter how tired, no matter how many words she has spoken through a day; has to be aware of the capacity for destruction inherent in words uttered at any time.

You like Hillary, but recent history has shown how poor a basis simple liking is for choosing a President. Hillary may have been a fine Senator and an excellent First Lady but the last months have shown she is not ready for the the ultimate step - President. She has shown herself weak in choosing staff, encouraging loyalty, managing funds, foresight, recognising problems, contingency planning and speaking. On the other hand, Obama - for all his faults - has shown himself more capable in these areas.

[bigtree]

104. heh, I've not criticized him in any significant way and I'm not going to start now

But I still believe Clinton would be stronger in the general election.

Sen. Obama will have his 'gaffes' and his stumbles. We'll get to judge, then, whether he's 'presidential material' or not. I personally find him to be a good Democrat and a gentleman. I also am impressed with his ability to fashion fresh arguments in defense of longtime Democratic priorities. But, we will see.

[intaglio]

142. This honesty what I have come to expect from you

You have been honest about how you feel and about your support. I suspect that you will be surprised at how strong Sen. Obama is in the GE - but that is my prejudice speaking.

[Andy823]

101. Then she should have said that.

If it had not happened twice before, then I might agree with you, but 3 times?

[Shine]

102. Exactly right, bigtree. n/t

[Blue Diadem]

103. Then she should have said it that way.

She's a politician and certainly not a newbie. She knows the importance of her words and certain words are going to grab attention and cause a reaction, IOW, a media/internet frenzy.

IMO, she knew it would bring attention to her and take the spotlight off Obama.

[kid a]

105. bigtree - you are totally being biased here - accept she messed up and move on.

[bigtree]

112. Tell that to RFK Jr.

Tell him to move on. He doesn't believe folks should be offended at the statements. I agree with him.

[cottonseed]

140. You gotta quit with the RFK Jr. thing.

It's not his call to make. You can defend Hillary's comments, but throwing RFK Jr. out there is lazy.

[ShortnFiery]

116. There are at least a dozen other examples, she conveyed, "June is the month for assassinations."

[cbc5g]

118. Nice pro-clinton damage control

Hillary is DONE.

Get that?

DONE

[cbc5g]

121. She should have run a positive campaign

If she wanted her verbal gaffes to be forgiven. But unfortunately she latched onto every small gaffe Obama made like the bitter comment (which happened to be recorded by an undercover hillary supporter at a NO PRESS meeting where recorders were banned)


You reap what you sow.

[odelisk8]

125. I feel sorry

for Clinton defenders...this is just endemic...with every passing day she shows herself unfit to speak for the USA...to be so flippant about the assassination...to bring it up NOW...to coldly use murder as a tool of argument WHEN SHE HAS NO CHANCE OTHER THAN death...i mean, she mentioned Bill...Bill WON...so there she sits, with no other chance, by her own admission, than the DEATH of B Obama...and she flies around, burning up the atmosphere, throwing MILLIONS into her bloody dreams, while children starve...she's so empathetic, isn't she? what a caring, loving, wonder woman of experience, principle and character...

good god...

[slinkerwink]

128. Still NOT okay to say, by the way, he was assassinated. there are many other references to make

about other politicians that had a long primary season. IT's never ok to cite an assassination as a reason to stay in the race.

[JVS]

130. Hitler campaigned hard against seemingly impossible odds.

I'm just saying. It's a historical fact.

[mystieus]

131. I can buy Clinton didn't mean anything by the statement, but god, what a stupid, tactless statement

[mishte]

132. actually she said "through June". It was only 4 days.

He was shot on the 5th, so the "historical reference" is dubious at best. I don't think he was facing a mathematical impossibility, either. Nor had he been in an inordinately lengthy nomination. He had announced his candidacy on March 16, 1968 - he ran for 2 and a half months.

There is no context connecting that with today, other than 1968 and 2008 are both years with the month of June in them.

It really is pretty weak, I think.

[Carolina]

136. Bullshit

She channeled her wishes and thoughts, using the same words that she had voiced to less notice on two other occasions.

Plus, her alleged timeline argument/excuse is flawed. In 1968 and 1992, primary campaigns didn’t really get started until ~February. In fact in 1968, RFK didn’t announce until March much to the ire of those who felt he was undercutting Gene McCarthy who had won in New Hampshire and shown how weak LBJ was. That’s why LBJ announced, also in March, that he “would not seek nor would he accept the nomination of his party…” I remember it like it was yesterday since I worked on RFK's campaign and lived in DC.

And while CA may have put Bill officially over the top in June 1992, he had already essentially sown up the nomination in April.

Hillary is a liar and a sociopathic narcissist whose words truly revealed her ugly and craven heart. There is no justification or absolution for them. She's not even fit to serve in RFK's senate seat!

[thewiseguy]

138. Bill had the nomination wrapped up before June and she had made the assasination remarks before

[RoadRage]

139. Bullshit.

She could have simply said "My husband didn't have the nomination wrapped up until June, RFK campaigned into June".. she didn't need to make the point about him being ASSASINATED (three times now) if her point was to explain why she was remaining in the race.

[Skrelnick]

143. There were 100 ways to say it. She picked the absolute worst one.

Coincidence? She's not stupid.

[last1standing]

144. Then why didn't she just say that - and leave the assassination remarks out?

I know Hillary doesn't want Obama assassinated, but it still pains me that she had to bring Bobby's specter into the room. Why does she keep using his murder in her example of why the primaries should continue?

[Overseas]

145. Oh yes, poor little darling. Never mind Huckster's comments at the NRA Convention

That was almost TWO WEEKS AGO already when the Huckabee made his gaffe at the NRA convention. Just because I'm still reeling doesn't mean she needed to recoil from mentioning the RFK assassination in her "active in June" reference list. Oh how unfair everyone is being. We're not supposed to get mad at the super tough fighter. No no no.

[graycem]

146. The reason I think

many are upset, is because why wouldn't she just say that if it was her point? I don't think she should be stoned for it, but it was completely crass. She should've said what you just said, not "Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June."

Of COURSE she didn't mean "it could happen to Obama too" but it's the way it sounds, and she really should've known better. What makes it worse is this isn't the first time she did so. Even worse than that, I don't think they're her words but a talking point her advisors are recommending she push to the SD's.

You really don't see how bad it sounds? I'm not being sarcastic by the way, but imagine if anyone else had said it. Imagine if maybe John McCain had said it? Imagine if someone had said it about her?

[smiley_glad_hands]

149. Spin and twist her comments all you want.as. Rove would be proud. eom

[JerseygirlCT]

150. I think that's what she meant. The problem is, that's not what she

said. She brought assasination into the conversation when it didn't need to be there. She made a terribly bad choice. And it's not the first time she's done that with the same topic.

I don't think (I couldn't really bring myself to think this about anyone) that she was somehow hoping someone would do something awful. But if she (and her supporters) don't see how her words certainly could imply that... well, they're being intentionally obtuse, I think.

And for me, she magnified the whole thing with a whimpy "apology" that really didn't accept responsibility for her own very poor decision. "I'm sorry if you were offended" isn't a good apology. It puts the onus on the person who was harmed. She needed to admit she'd blown it, and express true regret for that. But I don't think I've *ever* heard her truly apologize - she seems to find that impossible - so I don't know why I was expecting it now.

For me, once again, the contrast between her behavior through this, and Obama's graciousness in her moment of need... it speaks volumes. And confirms that I made the right choice of candidates to support.

[MethuenProgressive]

151. NONONO!! "June" is racist code speak for "Hope he dies!!!"

According to www.democraticunderground.com, the open sewer of HillHate.

[Hippo_Tron]

153. It's symptomatic of Hillary wearing herself out trying to make an argument that she can still win

No I don't think she meant to bring up the assassination and as Obama said, people say dumb things when they are exhausted campaigning for so many hours.

But this is getting to the point where people are antsy about what it's going to actually take to resolve this thing. I think she will drop out and endorse the nominee in the second week of June and I'm fine with that. But others aren't as convinced as I am. I think she needs to justify staying in by saying that she owes it to her supporters to the people in the upcoming states. But when she talks about popular vote, Florida and Michigan, and the DNC Meeting on May 31st she's scaring the shit out of people making it seem as though she's going to tie this thing up as long as possible and ultimately hurt Obama's chances in November.

Barack Obama is going to be the nominee of the Democratic Party and IMO everybody knows that. Some people are concerned, however, that Hillary is an exception to that everybody.

[BurtWorm]

154. I am an Obama supporter and I think you're right about her intended meaning

I think there is a lot of phony outrage and barely disguised glee among the pundits, in particular, over this gaffe. The media have absolutely zero credibility when it comes to gauging the Clintons. She seems to have been almost innocently making the point about how often in the past nominations continued into June and beyond. The RFK reference seems to have been merely about the unpredictability of outcomes even this late, not a wink to all those who fear for Obama's life. She's just as vulnerable as he is, after all, to blind hatred from weapons owners.

I don't blame Obama supporters, however, for being shocked, outraged and disgusted by this clumsy analogy of Clinton's. She should have been more careful with her words and examples (especially considering the inaptness of the historical comparison between this election cycle and that one).

But I do tip my hat to you, bigtree, for your courage in defending her. :toast:

[Freda People]

156. Clinton's intended meaning--for the 4th time...?

I felt the same way too--she must be totally exhausted.

Then-- I learned that a couple months ago, she stated a similar case using "assassination"--
The second and third times, a repeat of the case, using just Bobby Kennedy--no "assassination" word...
Then again yesterday, but with the word "assassination"

Senator Clinton has known exactly what imagery and circumstance she was invoking. It got in under everyone's radar for a couple months because the "A" word did not send a red alert...but yesterday, we HEARD her loud and clear.

I do not believe Senator Clinton wishes ill welfare on Senator Obama. I do believe she has been playing the strongest cards possible to make delegates, pundits, and the electorate KNOW it totally makes sense to wait, to be patient...

However, I now believe Senator Clinton has so totally tipped her hand. She let us see the Reach for the lowest common denominator.
Her judgment has failed, courtesy of the fact that "we" had not told her to knock it off for the last 2 months--making the case re: Bill and Bobby I mean.......I have felt very sad at her apparent desperation and that this may cost her so much more than the nomination.....

[Phx_Dem]

155. Please God. Tell me you're kidding.

How could Kennedy's campaign be "active" when he was fucking murdered on June 6. Not to mention the primary didn't even start until mid-March! Less than three months of campaigning. That's almost double the amount of time Hillary has spent pretending she could win (it was over after Obama's 11 straight wins). Hillary knew exactly what she was saying. She actually used the word assassination. Last time I checked assassination meant killed, murdered. If she simply wanted to point out that candidates continued to campaign in June, there are multiple other examples. She intentionally chose to use Kennedy's assassination as her example. That tells me all I need to know about her.

Also, Hillary doesn't need any "opportunistic" smears because she's doing just find destroying her reputation all by herself thank you very much.

[Joe the Revelator]

157. Here's Bigtree, here's a picture to illustrate your point

[bigtree]

162. post like this are what make you so popular here

keep up the good work.

[Joe the Revelator]

163. You're right, I could take your route to popularity

I don't know if I could whine that much though.

[grantcart]

158. take out the word assassination and put in hang nail

(the assassination gaffe is still there but now we get to the point)

The reason that she is staying in the campaign is because she hopes that Obama will be unsuccessful and that some calamity ends his campaign. She has no illusions of winning the nomination but she is interested in capitalizing on Senator Obama's campaign not being successful even though he has the majority of the delegates. It could be a number of things, assassination, political change, scandal, anything.

Does it make it any better? She is trying to delegitimize the process and say that he has won by an unfair system. It is a sexist system with undemocratic caucuses.

Is this what you signed up for Bigtree? Once Senator Obama has achieved the majority of all delegates (he is only 55 away) do you want to change the rules and take it away from the Senator and his supporters. My family is more than willing to move to Denver and stay in the streets to defend his victory. There will be hundreds of thousands of us. Senator Clinton is more than willing to plunge the party in civil war. She has no chance of winning the delegate battle. Of course this is all a bluff of sorts so that she can demand a spot on the ticket - extortion in slow motion.

[Combative Democrat]

159. You are correct. Even his son admits it n/t

[ecdab]

166. She phrased it very poorly if that is what she intend to convey.

Phrasing things poorly costs a bit in political campaigns. Hillary supporters are well aware of that - every time Obama has chosen his words poorly Hillary herself has been leading the charge of her supporters to exact a price from Obama. One of the many differences between Hillary and Obama is that Obama doesn't lead such charges, he actually tries to slow his own supporters down. That's what I would call class.

It doesn't surprise me to see Obama supporters jumping on a poorly chosen wording uttered by Clinton - they have had to defend Obama's own verbal missteps from attacks not just from supporters of Clinton, but from attacks by Clinton herself - attacks from Clinton that get national media coverage - unlike some posting on DU.

Hillary's campaign is almost entirely a psychological one at this point because she can not win the nomination based upon the normal metrics. Obama supporters understand that, and given the opening on the psychological front that Hillary has provided - they are doing what seems appropriate to them - they are doing what has been done unto them - and many truly are offended by what the Clinton campaign has become - I know I am.