I spoke this weekend wth a couple of people about Hillary Clinton's comments on RFK. At the risk of drawing conclusions from a sample size of two, I thought that their reactions might have been instructive.
The first person is a good friend of mine, a financial professional in his late 20s. He likes Obama, is lukewarm on McCain, and absolutely can't stand Clinton, to the extent that he'd consider voting for John McCain if Obama named Hillary as his running mate.
The second person was an older woman that I spoke with at a Memorial Day picnic. College professor, very progressive, big fan of Obama, indifferent about Clinton, hates Republicans of any stripe. She was probably in her early 60s, and her formulative political years would have coincided with the Kennedy tragedies.
Each of these people are politically astute, but not the obsessive consumers of political news that I am, or that many of you probably are. But they're also the sort of people who, for somewhat different reasons, you might expect to be greatly offended by Clinton's RFK comments.
But neither of them were. Instead, they reacted with indifference when the subject came up, wondering what the big deal was.
It is possible that there are some sort of regional considerations in play. I live in the Midwest, and while we have ample respect for the Kennedys, we perhaps don't have the same deep-rooted affection for them that you might find along the Eastern Seabord (or for that matter in much of the media establishment).
For the record, I found Clinton's comments to be sloppy and somewhat unbecoming. But I didn't find them instrinsically offensive in the way that, for example, Liz Trotta's comments on Fox News were, or for that matter something like Clinton's comments to USA Today on "hard-working" whites. Merely speaking of RFK's assassiantion is not offensive. It is all about the context, and the context in this instance was ambiguous.
That is not to suggest that Clinton can claim any particular moral highground by attempting to stoke the flames of media backlash around this incident. The Clinton camp is so dedicated to their particular brand of smallball politics that they have made it more difficult for their candidate to appear above-the-fray, accountable and Presidential (forgive me for applying the most overused term in the American political lexicon). At the same time, I think the Obama campaign may somewhat overplayed their hand. This is probably not more than a 24-hour story that can't be elongated without somebody looking craven.
But I'd be curious to hear what your friends and acquaintences are saying about Clinton and RFK at your Memorial Day barbeques.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Limited Sample Size Department
-- Nate Silver at 11:19 AM
Labels: clinton, controversy
103 comments
My under-40 crowd has been relatively unoffended by it. Perhaps not having that strong a memory of a major political assassination is a part of it.
I was more bothered by the RFK thing being yet another in a line of specious arguments for Clinton to stay in the race. Neither 1968 nor 1992 are really equivalent to the current situation. Besides that, the real question she was asked was whether or not she's concerned dragging this thing out was hurting party unity and she didn't really answer that.
I've seen various bloggers bring up other examples she could have used, but, in every case, the eventual nominee lost. (Since Clinton in '92 doesn't really count) Is there a a good recent case of a long, divisive primary battle (going to the convention or no) resulting in a nominee that wins the general election? What's the ratio of wins to losses there?
The Obama supporters I know were offended. The Clinton supporters I know weren't
"At the same time, I think the Obama campaign may somewhat overplayed their hand. This is probably not more than a 24-hour story that can't be elongated without somebody looking craven."
The Obama campaign barely spoke a word about this issue, despite it being the top story in the media. How can you possibly say they overplayed their hand here when they barely used a card up on the issue?
For what it's worth neither myself nor my significant other found her comment particularily "offensive" we did, however, think it was insensitive given that...
A: It's so close to the anniversery of his (RFK) death
B: The fact that the ink is still wet on Sen. Ted Kennedy's diagnosis.
C: The fact that as the first African-American to likely get a major party nomination Sen. Obama will likely face a greater then average risk of having to face that.
Bottom line, it was a poor example for her to use, but ultimately won't cost her anything.
People around me were offended not because of the reference to Kennedy but because of the reference to assassination.
They felt she might be secretly hoping that someone assassinates Barack Obama.
The people I've talked to about this think it is a big deal... But the people I talk to all think Clinton is the devil for the most part.
People care more about the economy and health care than petty little issues like this.
The Obama campaign immediately sent out a statement to the media fueling the story. Then they sent out the link to the Keith Olbermann attack on Clinton to all reporters. All while saying it is not an issue. They present on image to the public and behind the scenes they are as dirty and underhanded as any other politician. There is no "New politics" with Obama. He is phony and a hypocrite. I am a democrat who once supported Obama because I initially believed him, but at this point, I don't know if I can vote for someone who does things like this.
Also, what does the Obama campaign gain from exploiting this non-story. All they do if fuel Anti-Hillary hate. That is not something a "uniter" does.
I don't respect John Mccain's policies but I don't respect Barack Obama.
The Obama campaign may have overplayed their hand ?
What in hell does it have to do with them ?
They said it was an unfortunate comment - word she used herself in her "apology" and then both Axelrod and Obama himself the next morning told people to move on and it was no big deal.
How is IT their fault ? The Clinton campaign is now TRYING to make it their fault but that's a testament of their inability to admit to a mistake.
But the Obama campaign had almost nothing to do with the media frenzy
I am 44 and male. While the mention of RFK, is insensitive to the dynamics of the current climate, I didn't take great issue with that respect of the comment. What really bothered and still does bother me is the complete lie that she spouted when implying that those two Dem races (68 and 92) had been long drawn out affairs. RFK had only been campaigning for about 8 weeks in June of '68 (not long at all) while Bill Clinton had essentially wrapped up the race in March '92 when Paul Tsongas withdrew leaving only Jerry Brown. Clinton had a massive delegate lead and only the crowning ceremony, but never the outcome, was in doubt.
So my problem with her comment is more akin to her Bosnian fairy tale. In other words she lied again.
Happy Memorial Day to all who have, and will, serve for this wonderful nation of ours.
Btw to the Clinton supporters who complain about Obama supposedly playing hardball politics, isn't her spin about why she is more electable about the fact she is supposed to be better at fighting dirty and he is supposed to suck at it ?
So why are you complaining when he is proving to be a great fighter as well ? Is she the only one allowed to throw punches ?
I am Barack Obama. I am no different than any other politician, but I pretend to be. Vote for me because of my great speeches and rock star appeal even though I have no experience. We can change the world.
35, from Italy.
What bother me is a simple question:
Hillary knows (as all of us know)
that Obama risks his life in this campaign (for a lot a reasons) and SHE make a reference to an assassination?
She is crazy, she is stupid or she isn't able to imagine what it can succedd in us if Obama get killed?
Now, a lot will think she is beyond..
Just a little Perspective from here in Massachusetts, where digs on the Kennedys probably have the greatest effect. (admittedly, from an Obama supporting family as well):
I was WICKED pissed off when I first heard about it, as were my mother and sister. Having cooled down some, I'm not quite as pissed at the comments themselves, but the fact that she hasn't apologized to the Obama family (whatever she meant by the comment, she raised the level of threat to Obama,) and the fact that her camp has been trying to blame the Obama campaign for "fanning the flames."
The flames needed no fanning. Bill Burton's initial statement was much tamer than I would have put it at the time, and the Obama campaign's subsequent stance has been painfully kind to the Clintons. She needs to really apologize for her unfortunate remark, not try to blame it on Obama.
I do agree, however, that she wasn't calling for his assassination, and I'll concede she may not have even been intentionally bringing up the possibility of it either... but I'm less sure of that.
Anyways, that's just my perspective on it.
I am Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Vote for me because through my decades of experience in Washington, we've made it and America what they are today.
If you want years of experience that produced war, a massive debt, limited healthcare for some, and none for 50 million Americans, please vote for me.
If you want lobbyists and special interests running the show, vote for me.
My campaign is 20 million in debt but I swear I will do a much better job in running the nations finances than my own!
Come on, what do you have to lose?
I've heard more about how even her comparison is a self serving twist on the facts. If she hadn't made the gaffe then people wouldn't have learned that her husband had essentially wrapped up the nomination months before June or that Kennedy was in a much much shorter primary season that started later..
That kind of trick really gets people upset because they see the pattern.
I thought it was a stupid example for Clinton to use, but I wasn't particularly offended. On the other hand, my mom, who was working for RFK in California when he was killed, took the statement like a punch in the gut.
I think Clinton walked into an emotional minefield with her comment. There's really not much more to it than that. Although I do sorta blame the media for pushing the story. The Politico piece describing how the story developed was pretty interesting.