23
May
Obama supporters lose it over Clinton’s Bobby Kennedy comment
When Hillary Clinton used the example of Bobby Kennedy’s June 1968 assassination to argue that withdrawing from the Democratic presidential primary contest would be stupid because other primaries have extended to June and beyond, some prominent Obama supporters (and many less so) translated her comments as “Obama could get killed, and I could win” rather than “Bobby Kennedy was still challenging Hubert Humphrey in June of 1968 and would have gone on past then had he not been assassinated.” John Aravosis at AmericaBlog, one of the largest and most adamantly pro-Obama (or anti-Clinton) “liberal” sites, went hysterical.
IT’S NOW CONFIRMED: Three trusted sources - two in the Senate, and one a family member - just confirmed that they were watching the video of Hillary’s editorial board meeting today and just heard the exactly quote that is in the NY Post story below. Hillary actually said that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June, so it’s crazy to ask her to pull out of the race in May. Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid need to tell this sick piece of shit to get out of the race now.
BTC News readers will know that we’re not exactly enamored of Hillary Clinton, but as little as we like her, we’re hard pressed to believe that she’s just hanging around waiting for Obama to get assassinated. In fact, the idea wouldn’t have actually occurred to us, and we think that arriving at it as one’s first conclusion is probably more reflective of an ailing turd mentality than was the remark, which seems just another, if particularly outstanding, example of the tone deafness that regularly afflicts Clinton and her campaign.
The reaction, in fact, strongly reminds one of the Jerry Falwell/Dan Burton insistence that Clinton, or her husband, killed Vince Foster, or had him killed. We’re opposed to resurrecting that sort of thinking, to the extent one can call it that.
Obama is not Jack Johnson, and Clinton is not whichever of the Borgia women deserved the reputation. Neither will make especially good presidents barring an unlikely epiphany. Both wish the other would go away; neither wants the other to die. Supporters of both, especially those on the Obama side, would be much better served preparing themselves for their respective, prospective bitter let-downs than giving the analytical processes of Dan Burton a good name.
![[Furl]](http://www.furl.net/images/logo-favicon.ico){kind=logo}
![[Newsvine]](http://www.newsvine.com/_vine/images/identity/button_seednewsvine.gif){kind=small}
![[Email]](http://www.feedburner.com/fb/feed-styles/images/email.gif){kind=small}
This has got to be the lowest day in the political history of the USA. The kind of subliminal courting, as opposed to national campaigning, that Hillary Clinton has just sunk to - beggars human belief. Her lies, deceit, chronic debt, personal attacks and ego in the last six months are but a taste of what she will offer for 4 years (heaven forbid). Her “anything can happen” claim to remain in the race has just been revealed and that revelation should horrify every sane citizen, irrespective of their political views. Her “since Iowa” is another subliminal and covert Hillary-Speak for “since Obama won”. Appalling.
I was one of a few who would have liked to see her as vp. Not now. Not ever. Remove yourself from Politics, Mrs. Clinton and go home, please. Thank you.
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:44 pmNotwithstanding my above comment, for HC to even reference RFK in the face of Senator Ted Kennedy’s tragic news is an unfathomable and immensely hurtful sting on his family and to a man loved by millions in USA and around the world. Shocking. Heartless… Talk about a jaw-dropping moment.
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:50 pmAre you kidding me? The Clintons had Vince Foster and many others killed! Go to this URL and watch for yourselves. It’s a 12 part series of clips that take a while to watch but are well worth it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1WHdViGycY&NR=1
Signed,
Another Cracker for Obama
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:25 pmA new LOW in politics has been descended into by the AWFUL Clintons.
Now, if you can’t beat your opponent with ideas and BOGUS “experience” and you CANNOT incite racial hatred against your opponent, you speak of a wish that your opponent be off’ed in June before the primary!
SHAME on BILLARY. You ARE UNFIT to be President!!
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:35 pm[…] 1968 assassination to argue that withdrawing from the Democratic presidential primary contest …http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1898Hill-Dog raises spectre of assassinationIt’s not talked about above a whisper, but since obama chose […]
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:40 pmFor me, the shock wasn’t because I thought she was saying she was waiting for him to get assassinated, it was that she would choose such incredibly poor wording. And the timing with Kennedy, I don’t think an Obamaniac could have timed it better.
She should at this point in time have been choosing her words even more carefully than she has in the last few months. It’s coming down to the wire and the pressure is on and she fumbles the ball. That’s what this is… being down by 7, with a minute left in the game, you’re on the 50 yard line and you fumble on the first down.
No super bowl for you.
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:04 pmThe media is so damn stupid. Hillary was simply making the point that even
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:04 pmBobby Kennedy’s campaign ran late into june. Her point was that many primaries have run late into june. Perhaps he was not the best candidate to bring up, but she was pointing out that many people remember the month he died- June, and that numerous candidates have continued till that month. Obama was not mentioned at all. His campaign is clearly trying to capitalize on this, to embarass and force her out. Hillary has championed civil rights and democratic values all her life, and it is digusting how they are trying to ruin her reputation. Obama’s campaign is just like any other- he is just another politician.
She’s hoping her opponent will be assasinated and that she will get the nomination by default?!? Now that’s some of the most twisted motivation I have ever seen. She’s driven right past mean and is coming up on Evil.
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:11 pmAny shred of respect I might have still had for Hillary Clinton (and I had tremendous respect for her prior to this campaign) is now completely gone. For her to suggest as a rationale for staying in the race that her opponent might get killed is, at best, a disgusting example of self-interest gone mad, and, at worst, a veiled threat.
This is not just pathetic, it is disturbing as well.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign isn’t just insulting; its now becoming physically dangerous to Obama. She needs to be forced out immediately before she offers any more thoughts on how he could be “removed.”
The RFK comment really took my breath away. Now we know why Clinton is staying in the race. The truth finally comes out. I don’t care how she tries to spin this. She is bad.
Honestly, you good people who support Clinton, how can you stand it? Don’t you want to turn your face away?
It seems obvious that HRC will do anything to become president. I wonder what’s been said in the back rooms that would bring her to mention the Bobby Kennedy assassination in light of her staying in the race. Her candidacy frightens me.
No apology or explanation can possibly excuse this kind of remark. If this is her judgment in the midst of the rigors of a campaign, I can only imagine how she would withstand the rigors of the Presidency.
I don’t think I’ve ever been as disappointed in a politician that I had faith in as I am in Senator Clinton. I started this year as a Clinton supporter, having voted for her in both senatorial elections. First, I watched in disbelief as she played to white racism as her chances to be the Democratic nominee diminished. That was bad enough, but now, as her chances have further deteriorated, she has chosen to remind voters, that assassination can determine the winner of a Democratic primary for president. She should be ashamed. she is REALLY A MONSTER………… PLEASE BE CAREFUL SEN.OBAMA
At best the comment was reckless and I rather doubt that it was simply thoughtless.
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:11 pmShe’s hoping her opponent will be assasinated and that she will get the nomination by default?!? Now that’s some of the most twisted motivation I have ever seen. She’s driven right past mean and is coming up on Evil.
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:14 pmAny shred of respect I might have still had for Hillary Clinton (and I had tremendous respect for her prior to this campaign) is now completely gone. For her to suggest as a rationale for staying in the race that her opponent might get killed is, at best, a disgusting example of self-interest gone mad, and, at worst, a veiled threat.
This is not just pathetic, it is disturbing as well.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign isn’t just insulting; its now becoming physically dangerous to Obama. She needs to be forced out immediately before she offers any more thoughts on how he could be “removed.”
The RFK comment really took my breath away. Now we know why Clinton is staying in the race. The truth finally comes out. I don’t care how she tries to spin this. She is bad.
Honestly, you good people who support Clinton, how can you stand it? Don’t you want to turn your face away?
It seems obvious that HRC will do anything to become president. I wonder what’s been said in the back rooms that would bring her to mention the Bobby Kennedy assassination in light of her staying in the race. Her candidacy frightens me.
No apology or explanation can possibly excuse this kind of remark. If this is her judgment in the midst of the rigors of a campaign, I can only imagine how she would withstand the rigors of the Presidency.
I don’t think I’ve ever been as disappointed in a politician that I had faith in as I am in Senator Clinton. I started this year as a Clinton supporter, having voted for her in both senatorial elections. First, I watched in disbelief as she played to white racism as her chances to be the Democratic nominee diminished. That was bad enough, but now, as her chances have further deteriorated, she has chosen to remind voters, that assassination can determine the winner of a Democratic primary for president. She should be ashamed. she is REALLY A MONSTER………… PLEASE BE CAREFUL SEN.OBAMA
Hillary Clinton is a national disgrace! She clearly said that her opponent (Obama) and others have been trying to get her out of the race since Iowa! This statement confirms that Hillary is waiting for Senator Obama to be assassinated. Where are the Superdelegates?
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:18 pmTo mention the assassination of Robert Kennedy during this critical time in the lives of the Kennedy family, especially Senator Kennedy, shows the depth of Hillary’s lack of respect and dignity. This is an American tragedy!
What else does she need to do to prove to the Superdelegates that she lacks the character, respect, and the integrity to run this nation? She is waiting someone to die so that she can be President. What is wrong with these Democrats? This woman is willing to KILL! This is a travesty!
I think we understand that Senator Clinton is not sitting around at night polishing a rifle, but this notion of using the murder of a prominent and popular political figure simply as a historical datum point–for the purposes of historical context or–is disingenuous.
There are a host of other ways she could have framed her point about primaries running into the summer. She may have even simply said that: historically, several primaries have run long when both candidates are popular. As well-versed in politics and as smart a person as Senator Clinton seems to be, she must know better than to reference a political assassination just to give her audience “a sense of history.”
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:55 pmHillary Caught in another lie.
Why did she say it? She is an intelligent calculated person that will do anything to win, including helping John McCain win, which would allow her to say, “I told you so. Elect me now.”
The media tonight are being much too kind, except Keith Olbermann blasted her with a history of her sleaze..
Hillary Clinton made the same statement about Robert Kennedy’s assassination a few months ago, which further shows her apology was false. She did not know about Ted’s tumor the last time she said it.
“The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy,” she added, referring to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s recent diagnosis of a brain tumor. “I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever.”
Keith Olbermann went through the different times she referred to Bobby Kennedy. He blasted her tonight, in my opinion, very much deserved, every word. Actually, I think Keith was still to nice in his word choices. Check out his site later for the video clip.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pa85uo1QyGw
Countdown: Special Comment May 23, 2008 Part 2
Part 1
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:57 pmhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=sny8VfgcjaI
This woman simply has no class. She wasn”t comparing the 1992 and 1968 nomination processes. She was comparing 1992 and the assassination of Bobby K.
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:46 pmIncredible how literal minded people have become. Wake up, idiots, she’s not saying that it’s prudent for here to stay in the race because he could be assassinated, she’s trying to get you to FEAR that he will be, so better to vote for her. That, in my mind, is even more manipulative and just plain evil than the former idea.
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:29 pmHere we part company, big time. There seems to be a pattern. Clinton has done this before, in an interview with Time magazine in March, and she used almost exactly the same words in explaining why she shouldn’t stop campaigning.
As Piter above said very sanely, there are so many ways for her to make her case without such references. Repeating that kind of link is no accident; it’s calculated. Clinton is intelligent and experienced; she doesn’t make that kind of egregious, nightmarish mistake (if she does, she’s automatically disqualified to be president).
There’s no other way to put it: It’s as if she’s subconsciously calling for Obama’s assassination. That doesn’t mean she consciously wants it to happen and that she wouldn’t be horrified - but we all have these inner selves whispering some pretty awful things to us, and they have their ways of emerging from our dark sides. Hers is emerging in a most ghastly way at the worst possible time. There is something going on there; it’s not innocent and cannot be explained away so blithely.
Having lived through all three ’60s assassinations (actually there were more), which marked me for life in a very bad way, I think Obama’s already in danger because of what he represents – some people love to be the one to destroy other people’s hopes and dreams – and I hate even to talk about it, afraid talking about it might make it happen, it makes me sick. I would think it would make Clinton sick, too, but there’s no sign of that, and that is a blacker-than-black mark against her in my book.
But Obama brings JFK and RFK – especially JFK – to mind just because he’s so new and fresh and different. I’m not naive enough to believe the image will fit the reality, much as it didn’t with JFK and wouldn’t have with RFK - images and reality very rarely coincide. But people who target leaders are just as taken by an image as anyone else, and an image, a spirit, a symbol is what they’re shooting at.
And now Clinton has said this at least twice, in the same language - RFK Jr. said he’s heard her say it before and it’s OK with him - and Huckabee has said it once. It’s what many people are beginning to associate with Obama, and that’s not only bad for the campaign but it actually increases the real danger to Obama; there are still Sirhan Sirhans running around loose, people who pick up on this meme and fantasize. And as we all know, the Secret Service can’t always save a president’s or candidate’s life. I’m very concerned that the media will take this ball and run with it in their usual over-the-top way, and that the intense focus and chatter could spell the end of Obama’s candidacy.
This is a horrible situation, and I’m appalled that Clinton could do this, and, given that she has repeated it and never apologized to Obama, she seems so unaware of how awful it is. This kind of character defect is major. I would have voted for her if Obama doesn’t win, but not now. No way. I wouldn’t vote at all. But I will be worrying for a long time and trying to will Obama’s safety.
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:37 pmNo, she’s not calling or hoping for Obama’s assassination.
She’s just hoping that Obama’s supporters will “mishear” her and that Obama himself will somehow become embroiled in the mistake.
Not a murderer, just a sneak. Ignore her, don’t play into her hands. It is sad that she has been reduced to a headline-grabbing has-been, the Farrakhan of her demographic, but that’s the way it is.
May 24th, 2008 at 1:12 amI tend to agree with ignatzh.
The FEAR card has worked for BushCo. for many years, why not for Hillary? I just hope (but doubt) that she’ll just go away… Obama still appears to be the only candidate that will bring a new set of policies to the Whitehouse.
McCain = Bush part 2
May 24th, 2008 at 1:35 amClinton = Bush lite
It is now quite obvious that Hillary could publicly pray for God to destroy an entire City in Kansas with tornadoes while Senator Obama was there so that she could become the nominee and her supporters would defend it. In fact, she could personally make an attempt on his life with a sniper rifle and they would defend her right to go “target shooting” and accidentally throw a couple of rounds his way. There is nothing she could do or say that her people will not defend and that itself is pretty sad.
This is something that can’t be defended. Hillary is now unelectable beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is so offensive to Black Community that there has been an irreperable breach created. I am a member of the Back Community in America and I can tell you one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt. If the Party nominates Hillary now, they will lose the White House and both houses of COngress. Black Voters will never vote for republicans, but they will unquestionably stay home and that means POLITICAL DEATH!!!! to the Democratic party in every national, state, and local race. Not because of Obama or race, but because they will not support a person who has publicly identified herself as their enemy. Hillary herself has earned this anger and disdain, it can’t be blamed on anything else.
If the party feels Obama is unelectable as Hillary Supporters argue, then they should know that they have no chance at the WHitehouse because Hillary has no chance without the Black Vote, meaning she has no chance. If that is the case, then the Party should then simply think about which candidate can get the most Democrats to the polls and worry about getting votes for the rest of the Party’s ticket in Congress and below. If Obama is unelectable, then both of them are because no Democrat can get elected without a heavy Black turnout and a high percentage of those voters. Hillary has no chance at either. Only an ignorant fool living in a dreamworld could possibly believe otherwise. I do not believe he is unelectable, but for the sake of argument, if he is then the White House is lost and the concentration should be on saving the rest of the ticket.
One more thing, Hillary says that Obama can’t possibly win, but she wants to run as vice with a guy who can’t possibly win? Why would she bother to run if she knows there is no chance at victory?? Its Bullcrap, there is no argument she won’t make, ot contradict, to get her and Bill back in White House.
Obama choosing Hillary as Vice would mean sealing his doom. Clearly eh wouldn’t live a year. What kind of fool would he be to choose a Vice president who says he can’t possibly win and that he might just get asassinated and leave her to take over. This thing is now oficially over.
I know her right wing followers could give a crap about black voters, just like their counterparts in the Republican Party. But they should at least consider their own butts in Congress and local elections.
May 24th, 2008 at 1:52 am“I think we understand that Senator Clinton is not sitting around at night polishing a rifle…” - Uhmm, in the PA primary I seem to remember commercials of her doing exactly that, after having a straight shot or two…
May 24th, 2008 at 7:00 amWell. That was interesting.
Regarding Clinton’s comments about people wanting her out of the race since Iowa, well, duh. Getting one’s rivals out of the race is the entire point of the process, and the press and at least some of her primary opponents were certainly looking at any possible reason to justify calls for her withdrawal. Which is to say, she’s right about that.
As for her being EVIL, well, maybe: it’s hard to find a politician who doesn’t shade in that direction, including the saintly Mr. Obama. But insisting that she’s waiting around for Obama’s assassination requires, in my opinion, the same mentality as that of Pastor Hagee when he insists that Katrina was retribution for gaiety in Nawleans, or of that other McCain-endorsing freak who says that the Holocaust was just God’s way of using Hitler to encourage Jews to emigrate to Israel so that there would be sufficient numbers of us to precipitate the apocalypse and get down to the business of melting the flesh from the bones of unbelievers.
Clinton certainly wants to win the nomination, and almost certainly won’t. But if she believes, as she probably does, that she’s the better candidate and that it’s important, if not vital, that she be the next president, why should she get out of the race before it’s clear that there is no circumstance under which she can win? If that means campaigning into July, as the late Bobby Kennedy would have done had he not been dead, or continuing on to the convention, well, whatever: she wouldn’t be the first candidate to think herself the last, best hope.
I seriously doubt that the comments increase the risk to Obama’s safety, which is already high, and will increase if he gets the nomination, and increase more if he wins the general election. Killers don’t need half-assed comments from Clinton for motivation.
May 24th, 2008 at 8:42 amDON’T BE DUPED AGAIN AMERICA !!!
IT’S ABOUT ELECTABILITY !!!
Large numbers of BUSH_McCain Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on with the backing and help of the medical and insurance industry. Under the direction of the George Bush, and Karl Rove vote fraud, and vote manipulation machine. Because they feel Barack Obama would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And they want to stop Hillary Clinton from fixing the HUGE! American, and Global mess they have created. shocking!!! isn’t it. Just gotta love those good old draft dodging, silver spoon Texas boys. Not! :-(
You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don’t want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves off of you, and your children’s suffering.
With Hillary Clinton you are almost 100% certain to get quality affordable universal health care for everyone very soon. And you are also certain to see major improvements in the economy for everyone.
The American people face even worse catastrophes ahead than the ones you are living through now. It will take all of the skills, and experience of Hillary Clinton to pull the American people out of this mess we are in. Fortunately fixing up, and cleaning up others incompetence, immoral degeneracy, and mess is what the Clinton’s do very well.
Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama’s. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!
Just look at Oregon for example. Obama won Oregon by about 70,000 votes. But approximately 79,000 Bush republicans switched party’s back in January to vote for Obama in the democratic primary. They are not going to vote for, or support any Democrat in November. Are you DEMOCRATS going to put up with that. Are you that stupid, and weak. The Bush republicans think you are that stupid, and weak.
As much as 30% of Obama’s primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses, and open primaries where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help. Except North Carolina where 35% of the population is African American, and approximately 90% of them block voted for him. African Americans are only approximately 17% of the general population.
Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED! and OUT SPENT! 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton. This is even more phenomenal when you consider she has been also fighting against the George Bush, Karl Rove vote fraud machine in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses. Hillary Clinton is STUNNING!.
If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. That is crystal clear now. Because all of the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. And the demographics, and experience are completely against him. All of this vote fraud and Bush republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is.
You will have another McGovern catastrophe where George McGovern lost 49 of 50 states. And was the reason the super-delegates were created to keep that from happening again. Don’t let that happen to the party and America again super-delegates. You have the power to prevent it. The only important question now is who can best win in November. And the answer is HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON. That fact is also now crystal clear.
And YOUNG PEOPLE. DON’T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose. As do African Americans. Support Hillary Clinton. She will do her best for all of you. And she will know how to best get it done on day one.
The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.
The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.
Fortunately the Clinton’s have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic, and heroic comebacks of Hillary Clinton’s. Only the Clinton’s are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen. Probably the best there has ever been. :-)
“This is not a game” (Hillary Clinton)
Sincerely
jacksmith… Working Class :-)
p.s. Cynthia Ruccia - I’m with ya baby. All the way. “Clinton Supporters Count Too.”
May 24th, 2008 at 1:25 pmIT’S ABOUT ELECTABILITY !!!
MY FELLOW “BITTER”, STUPID, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE :-)
If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of “BITTER”!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER. :-(
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary’s than they had ever been before or since.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)
Best regards
jacksmith… Working Class :-)
p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you don’t know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering…
You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)
Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don’t die from. And I could go on, and on…
OBAMA AIDE: “WORKING-CLASS VOTERS NOT KEY FOR DEMOCRATS” :o
May 24th, 2008 at 1:37 pmThis was not a historical analogy. She knows that Super Tuesday used to be in Late March and the CA primary used to be in June. In the context of her racial appeals, allegations of extremist ties by Sen. Obama & her claims that his victory over her is due sexism by Sen. Obama the unbalanced could very well take this as an invitation. The response of her supporters characterizing the Obama campaign’s tactful response to this as an attack on her indicate that they will act on her invitation.
May 24th, 2008 at 1:57 pmIf she did this without considering its implications she is unfit to be the President whose chance remarks can have global implications. If this was purposeful & her prior conduct militates against any presumption of good faith, the implications are horrific.
Either way, she should withdraw not only from the campaign but also from public life.
It is notable that RFK Jr. defended her on this. Well, that’s a good trick, though of course he could be naive or something.
It does seem that she is just trying to say that hey RFK staid around to June. She is comparing herself to RFK here. Thus, it is a bit ironic people think she is also sending a message that … like RFK … Obama could (should? uh …) be assassinated. Or, putting that in someone’s mind? Uh … no.
Atrios is right on this, including the fact that it is b.s. The situations aren’t really comparable, including the fact RFK — coming in late in a different set-up to begin with — really had a chance to win.
The wording is bad surely and puts further lie to Clinton defenders (TalkLeft comes to mind) who spend reams of talk to suggest how she is the better candidate, Obama is a gaffe inexperienced sort who can’t play the game, etc.
May 25th, 2008 at 12:57 amHey, Joe. Talk Left has been irritating, but not nearly so much as Kos and AmericaBlog, the latter of which features outright hysteria with respect to anything Clintonian. Among the stupid things about this incident is that given the apparent conspiratorial insanity of many Obama supporters, Clinton would probably have a considerably smaller chance of getting the nomination than the already small one she has now if Obama were assassinated or otherwise removed from contention. It’d be Vince Foster writ way large, only coming from the Democratic side this time instead of the psychotic right, although no doubt they’d want in on the fun as well.
I expect many of the same people who detest Clinton so thorougly to blame her, and anyone else at hand, for Obama’s failures once he’s elected. I was thoroughly chastised for referring to his following as cult-like, but the response to this incident makes apparent that if anything, I underestimated that element among his supporters. Clinton supporters have their foibles as well, but nothing like so many of Obama’s.
But hey, it’s morning in America again.
Oh, and … regarding RFK Jr., obviously Clinton must be blackmailing him, or perhaps holding one of the family hostage.
May 25th, 2008 at 10:35 amI’m not sure how many Obama supporters take this line. A good flavor can be seen in the likes of Lawyers Drugs and Money, who put it in proper perspective.
Her campaign said a lot of stupid things. No reason to help her by twisting another stupid thing to mean what it clearly doesn’t. Such stupidity and the passions of the situation does open up over the top rhetoric.
It bothers me too, but its a broad problem in these times.
May 26th, 2008 at 1:29 pmDon’t include me in your description of hysterical Obama supporters. My opinion - and that of those like Piter, whom I cited - has nothing to do with conspiracies, I don’t hate Clinton, and I think if anything happened to Obama now her career would be toast.
And I am no Obamamaniac, as you well know. I am only mildly hopeful about Obama’s prospects, given the history of politicians who symbolize change and given the institutionalization of static politics in DC - too many have too much to lose and are plainly threatened by change, even if it’s only minor change in language and approach.
I’ve got nothing in common with the wild-eyed idiots above who posted their slavering vitriol. And if you look just at readers’ comments on NY Times articles, you’ll Clintonites slaver as fluidly as Obamamaniacs. I really have no idea where these people have come from all of a sudden, but they’re a vast departure from the norm in other elections and by no means represent the thinking of most Americans on either side of the issue.
You can have your opinion that her comment was an awkward but innocent mistake; I can have mine that it was calculated and that it says something about the nature of her drive for power. You can doubt that more talk about assassination furthers the chance of it, and I can say it does (and if you don’t think that assassination’s move from privately and quietly expressed fear to blaring headlines doesn’t feed psychopathic fantasies, I’d suggest you read up on that dynamic a bit - to me, that impulse, not political conspiracy, is the real danger). Since neither of us can prove himself right and the other wrong, I think you owe a little more respect for opinions expressed with a substantial degree of calm and rationality - after all, I could say you’re in irrational denial, but I don’t, because I don’t think you are.
And given Clinton’s long and wide experience in politics, and given her repetition of that remark, I think I have a far better case in saying that remark was carefully considered, in the way she carefully considers everything she does, than you do in saying she merely slipped.
And if it was indeed a calculated remark, it’s natural to wonder why she would say such a thing. Thoughtful commentators who have nothing in common with many of those who posted here are saying the same things I am. I think also my intense memories of the assassinations and the civil turmoil of the ’60s (which I participated in) lead me to be more cynical about the reasons for such statements as Clinton’s. That doesn’t mean I’m wrong or hysterical - it might actually mean I have life experiences informing my reactions that you don’t. In other words, I’m in as good company as you.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:25 pmChiming in here to make two points, with a preface that my personal response to hearing Clinton’s comments and watching the video of her saying them, filled with hesitancies in her reply attempting to account for why people think she should face reality (that she cannot get the majority of delegates at this point, no matter what — within the context of “the rules” that is) .. I was stunned to hear her mention the assassination, even more stunned to learn she’d already mentioned it before and the media had blipped over it …
Two things: I think my tried-and-true ole cognitive dissonance is sufficient to account for RFK Jr’s uptake: He has committed to Clinton and that alone is enough for him to not hear chilling overtones in her reference, it being his own father notwithstanding… He wants to and needs to bend over backwards, cognitively, not to hear her being insensitive at the least …
And second, I suppose this falls into pulling rank, age-wise, but I do think there is a substantial dividing line here — and while I doubt that those being tagged as “Obamaniacs” are on the same side of the line I am on, it makes a huge difference if you were of voting age in 1968 and watched your own candidate or a hoped-for salvation you planned to work for in the general election be slain before your eyes. And Hillary, like me, cast our first-ever ballots that year. So it makes it even more unfathomable that someone of an age to be as invested in that election as I or any other politically aware 21 yr old was that year, could even refer to that tragedy in a self-serving way. And you cannot deny that it is self-serving for her to mention it - the only reason she mentions it is because it factors into a rationale, by her thinking, for her own potential (and miraculous) victory in this campaign, even yet.
It boggles the mind, frankly. It doesn’t mean she is evil, but it certainly adds a huge other notch in her belt of gestures that seem to suggest she’ll say anything to promote her cause - in a way that echoes too much of George Bush. She refuses to fully (sometimes even partially) admit mistakes in judgment, and she seems increasingly bent on thinking she is “due” to win this nomination. As a woman and as an age-peer of hers, I find her an increasingly unfortunate first-serious woman candidate for President. She does politics-as-usual way too fluidly, and I personally do not want a woman who merely plays the traditional male-politics version with the added intensity of a woman who thinks her job is to one-up the tactics of the “male” (i.e., traditional) manner of both politicking and governing.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:09 amMy bottom line got lost in all that verbiage. It’s this: By focusing on all the conspiracy-minded Clinton haters, you avoid the real issue: According to Bob Herbert in the NYT, 60 percent of Americans are afraid someone might try to hurt Obama if he becomes the nominee, and 80 percent of black Americans fear for his safety. Not many of these people fit your reduction of them to hysterics; as Herbert wrote, “But it’s also understood that an unforeseen catastrophe could involve harm to Senator Obama. Comments that bring that fear to the forefront are incredibly cold-blooded and hurtful…”
To judge from your comments so far, you don’t seem to recognize just how deeply her statement stabbed at the heart of this nation’s still-existing trauma. It’s not the crazies on either side that matter; it’s the truly profound collective national fear, the exploitation of which Clinton, by repeating her remarks, seems to have seen as a viable campaign tactic. The fact that some could over-react (in your view) just proves the import of her words, an import you haven’t seriously addressed.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:10 amHow do you mention that Bobby Kennedy was still campaigning in June and would have campaigned on into July, which was the whole point of the remark, without acknowledging that he was assassinated? Is he to be excluded from the short list of long campaigns because he got killed?
Monty, I wasn’t placing you among the ranks of insane Obama supporters, not least because so far as I know, you don’t support him. But you know, I was around and sentient when Bobby Kennedy and MLK were assassinated, I too think Obama’s life is in more jeopardy than anyone else’s in recent memory, and I still find the hoorah to be nonsense. I’m not denying the impact of her words, but I will contest the import because frankly, I don’t think it exists. Yes, it was stupidly put, but if that were the criterion for horror then we would simply have to suspend presidential elections until the next major genetic mutation for the better comes along.
I also have to contest your sense that not many of those offended by the remark qualify as hysterics: maybe it isn’t a majority, but it’s a hell of a lot of people. And much as I respect Bob Herbert, I don’t see any real point in adding potential assassination attempts to the long list of shit we’re not supposed to talk about. Why don’t we just cross Bobby Kennedy off as a topic of discussion, and King. May as well add Lincoln to the list too.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:47 amListen - My household was fairly firmly in the Clinton corner, mostly based on policy issues. We ended up voting for Obama in the primary, because the Clinton campaign has piled on mistake after mistake.
Does anyone honestly think Clinton is waiting around for a national tragedy? Not any more than I think her comment about cornering the uneducated white vote means she’s courting the David Duke demographic.
Nonetheless, it is another stupid, shoot yourself in the foot and blame Obama for doing so moment. Sure - I agree with her more on policy, but if this is the way she runs her presidency, she’s not going to get any of that policy implemented.
Is there any other good reason for watching these primaries other than seeing how these people act under extended, artificially stressful conditions with less sleep than they need? No. And at they end of the day, Hillary Clinton is an extremely competent person that, after extended stress, does some stupid stuff.
Barack Obama is further from me policy wise, but it’s arguing good versus better, and unlike Hillary Clinton, I think he can get his good policies actually implemented. I would vote Hillary over McCain (Not implementing Good policy being still better than successfully implementing bad policy-), but right now - Obama is the strongest candidate out there.
Jonnan
May 27th, 2008 at 1:53 pmHi, Jonnan. I agree with you that even the most charitable interpretation of this and other Clinton missteps doesn’t mitigate the stupidity of them. I don’t know to what extent they reflect on her ability to get anything done in office, but I’m happy enough not to get the opportunity to find out. I have serious policy beefs with both candidates and expect a mediocre presidency is the best we could expect from either.
Standard disclaimer: Obama, Clinton, and Skippy the Amazing Chain Man down at Palisades Park would all make better presidents than McCain.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:30 pmOne last observation: Yes, WB, I think RFK should be excluded from any self-serving rationale for staying in a race. And for actually far more reasons than even the tragedy she evoked. The fact that she repeated that evocation makes me think she was picking it for some purpose beyond making her argument. Note that the 1968 primary in fact was only held in 13 states. All the other states were decided by “party elders” who were in Humphrey’s camp. Humphrey himself did not actually campaign in any primaries. The actual race didn’t begin until April when LBJ bowed out on March 31. Nothing about that year is applicable to a rationale for staying in a primary through June.
If Hillary wanted to make her case, far more relevant would have been citing 1984 or 1976 — or 1980 which I dare say she does not want to cite precisely because it has been cited against her continuation. But those were far more relevant primaries-lasting-into-June situations. I think 1988 was also going into June.
But of course ALL of those primaries were in the days when the major primaries were in June. But as a California primary voter myself for all those years (except 1980 when I was out of the country), I know that I never once felt my vote actually mattered because the obvious winner was already clear well before the California June primary, and that was true for 1992 for Clinton as well. Just as it is this year for Obama.
History is not on her side in this. And she picked the most traumatic of primaries in our history as some sort of case for her continuation in the face of the reality that she came close but close is no cigar (eerg).
May 28th, 2008 at 7:19 amp.s. Note that by “actual race” not beginning in 1968 until April, I of course mean when it actually became “up for grabs” — of course, it started earlier and McCarthy’s vote vs. LBJ, coming close to beating a sitting President and triggering his bow-out, in New Hampshire set the “up for grabs” in motion.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:23 amHillary was making a reference to time, not assasination. For crying out loud, this woman is intelligent, she’s not an idiot. The media will do anything for a story. And as far as threats and safety, anyone in the position that these candidates are in are at risk for safety issues. I like Hillary and personally I think Obama is ok as well but where we are now in this race, I think I’ll vote for Kermit the Frog.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:16 amZ, I agree that the reference was self-serving, disingenuous and stupid. Since I don’t care for her anyway, it doesn’t change my opinion of her or of what sort of president she’d make. I regard Obama in much the same light. Circumstances and temperament point toward a difficult and uninspiring presidency for either, promises and rhetoric notwithstanding.
But I don’t think it was calculated. I expect that had she made the point in a speech rather than an off-the-cuff environment, she would both include other examples and not mention the assassination. Still strikes me as tempest and teapot.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:55 amSay it once, it’s off the cuff. Say it twice, it’s calculated.
And “off the cuff” is cutting her too much slack, because it surely wasn’t ever off the cuff. The first time was in an interview with the managing editor of Time magazine. You think she didn’t rehearse for that important interview, didn’t drill with her advisers on how to answer the “why don’t you quit?” question?
Twice on May 7 alone - in Washington and West Virginia - she backed off a bit, referencing it but avoiding the “a” word, instead using “tragically” the first time and the second time “I remember very well what happened in the California primary.” Those comments were also calculated, this time to avoid using the word while inarguably conveying the message.
She chooses her words very carefully. There was no uproar after the first time, and after twice more successfully reminding people of the assassination but without saying the word, she felt emboldened enough to try it again. This time she got caught.
It’s way beyond tempest and teapot in the minds of millions of people who aren’t posting on blogs, and just because you disagree doesn’t mean that even a substantial proportion of those people are hysterics. You’re labeling reactions by what you read on the blogs and applying that to Obama supporters in general when you have no way of supporting that claim. There could be many people - they could outnumber your “hysterics” 10 to 1, 100 to 1 - who are deeply affected by Clinton’s remarks without being Obama supporters. So your headline alone is off the mark.
Your remark that assassination is added “to the long list of shit we’re not supposed to talk about” is off the mark, too. It raises three questions:
* What else is on that long list?
* When in the history of American presidential campaigns has one candidate raised the specter of the possible assassination of the other candidate?
* And do you think the possibility of assassination is a valid and useful issue to debate in a presidential campaign?
Because when you describe assassination as being “added to the long list of shit we’re not supposed to talk about,” that’s what you seem to be saying.
Clinton can talk about the accomplishments of Lincoln, the Kennedys and King without using their assassinations as a reason for her to stay in the race. But how much has she really done that? Not much, probably not as many times as she’s talked about Bobby Kennedy’s assassination.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:26 amOh, come on, Monty. I wrote a piece about Obama supporters who went nuts. I linked to the examples that inspired the piece. I did not say that all Obama supporters are nuts. I do say, and will continue to say, that a lot of them are.
Absolutely no one here has commented on John Aravosis calling Clinton a “piece of shit.” There’s a guy who gets hundreds of thousands of readers, who has a law degree, who worked as a Congressional staffer and at the World Bank. That’s just fucking nuts. She’s gotten nearly half the popular vote, she’s not that far behind in delegates, and it’s not at all surprising that she wants to remain in the race because she clearly has a lot of support and she clearly thinks she would make the better president.
As it happens I think her argument is bogus, primarily, as it were, because of the early start to the primaries this year as opposed to years past, and because there doesn’t seem to be any way she can win in a fashion that won’t alienate too many potential Democratic voters.
I don’t dispute Zinya’s assessment of the 1968 primary or that Clinton’s use of it as illustrative is just self-serving bullshit. That’s true of Clinton’s other examples of extended contests as well. What I don’t think is that Clinton is wishing, consciously or otherwise, for Obama’s death.
You’re saying that on the one hand, she’s so calculating that she couldn’t possibly have meant anything else, and on the other, so stupid that she doesn’t realize that his assassination would doom her. Maybe her mind really does contain those multitudes, but I’m not seeing it.
Things not to talk about: the way Americans went psycho after 911, the utter futility of the drug war, socialized medicine, whatever. You know as well as I do that there is an unlimited number of subjects that are toxic for politicians and that get the rest of us hissed at.
Is anyone debating the issue of Obama’s assassination? I’m not sure what you mean. Pros and cons? If so, I missed it. Did Clinton raise the specter of it? I could swear it crossed my mind long before she mentioned Bobby Kennedy; it certainly occurred to the Treasury department, since they assigned a bunch of Secret Service agents to him considerably earlier than is the norm. Did she use Kennedy’s assassination as a reason to stay in the race? Not so far as I can tell, and I’ve read every reference she made to it.
At any rate, there are a whole bunch of reasons not to like Clinton (many of which apply to Obama as well) and for me this affair isn’t even among the top ten.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:24 pmWith any luck, this kind of debate will be moot shortly and even the assinine Father Michael Pflegers of the world will obey Bill O’Reilly’s injunction to “shut up! Just shut up!” Perhaps the Clintons will be consigned to the dust bin of history. I’d like that but I hope she works authentically for the ticket before she finds her nook in that bin. I’d hate to think of her white women of a certain age cutting off their collective noses to spite their faces.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:41 pm[…] are the only thing standing between McCain and electoral annihilation, not counting a successful Clinton attempt on Obama’s life, so it can’t be comforting for the McCain camp to see them reduced to helpless laughter in […]
June 6th, 2008 at 9:40 am