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.
5.26.2008
Limited Sample Size Department
@ 12:19 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
106 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.
You know what you are right, we finally figured it out. The reason the country is so screwed up is because experienced people have been put in charge. It has nothing to do with the fact that George Bush destroyed this country. It all comes down to experience. So let us find the most naive and inexperienced politician and that will solve all of our problems. The argument you make to defend Obama's lack of experience is LAUGHABLE.
to 13:00 anonymous above.
You write "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."
Where do you get this? The campaign sent out a link to the Olberman piece? No doubt Obama supporters did - but the campaign itself?? And what specifically was the statement "fueling the story"?
If the Obama campaign is "behind the scenes...as dirty and underhanded as any other politician", I am very interested in penetrating that - many of us are.
As an Obama supporter, I was not particularly offended with the assassination comment, nor did I find it to be that big a deal. Just a minor speaking gaffe and terribly unfortunate choice of words (there's plenty enough of those to go around for ALL candidates - remember Biden's "clean and articulate" comments?)
However, the comments themselves were a minor problem in comparison to how she and her surrogates handled the situation afterwards. The non-apology apology was the salt that was rubbed vigorously into the small wound. If she had come out and said "I'm sorry, I was wrong", this would have died down by the end of Friday. Instead, by basically shifting the blame onto others, this became a much larger story that it should have been.
Basically, it basically plays into the "Clinton cannot be trusted" narrative. By itself, the minor speaking gaffe is nothing more than that -- a minor speaking gaffe. But taken into the greater context of her entire campaign, it becomes just the latest example of Clinton carefully parsing her words, shifting blame, and showing a she is COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of ever admitting error ever, ever, ever.
So don't just look at this one little molehill as an event isolated all by itself -- you have to look at how it plays into the entire long campaign.
George W Bush destroyed the country and look at how much "experience" he had. The President sits atop a coalition of advisors. It's not a one man job. Obama has significant experience at the community and state level. Take a look at his economic policies and you'll get an education in a very unique way of dealing with our finances. The look at the economists who agree.Take a look at his foreign policy and the numbers of military people who agree.
Experience isn't quantified by time but impact. What has Hillary or McCain done that gives them executive experience? He claims he doesn't understand the economy (yeah that'll help). Her biggest initiative was failed healthcare reform. Neither of them have ever created a job. First lady is not an elected position. She basically got to the senate because of her husband and Giulianis prostate.
So by all means please laugh your ass off. Come November, I'll be laughing last.
Response to 13:31 anonymous:
The Obama camp sent out a response to her comments within minutes stating. "Stating the comments were unfortunate and have no place in this campaign". Not a harsh statement but why was a statement needed if they felt it was a non issue. I wasn't really bothered by that as much. They came out to the public and stated that they did not think that Hillary has any devious motives. Axelrod was actually defending her on Hardball. It wasn't until yesterday, CNN reported that the Obama campaign, not supporters, sent a link with the Keith Olbermann attack to reporters no doubt trying to fuel the story. If they were genuine in their public comments about not inferring anything from Hillary's comments, why spread the story. In addition, Axelrod was on Fox News and said it was time to move on. When questioned about the Olbermann link , Axelrod avoided the question saying it was time to move on. The Obama campaign did overplay their hand in an attempt to further increase the dislike towards hillary, which is not something I expect from a leader who says unity is important.
It looks a bit overwrought after a cooldown period.
Then again, so does the Dean Scream.
You can refer to me as Anon64. I'm 64 and lived through the political nightmares of '63 and '68. Clinton's reference to the RFK assassination was clearly part of her stock response to the "why are you still running?" question. It didn't just pop into her head, nor reveal some inner yearning for an "act of God" to allow her to overcome the overwhelming odds against her.
But IMO reference to RFK never should have been part of her stock response. To be frank, she needs a better reason for prolonging the agony of this nomination process (and constantly changing the criteria in doing so) than that some "event" might make her suddenly viable.
And it was just stupid to invoke the RFK rationale, because if disaster truly were to strike, those who oppose her within the Democratic party are going to be even more opposed to naming her the successor. There are alternatives. And it would be "taken all the way to the convention."
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama are both exceeding more intelligent than George Bush. George Bush had experience but lacked the right ideas and intelligence. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have similar ideas (although in my opinion, Hillary has a stronger knowledge and command of the issues) I give Barack credit for being a community organizer and a politician at the state level, but if that alone means you are qualified to be president, there would be a much wider field. Hillary's experience in the white house, while i agree she was not accountable, she had a first hand perspective of what a president has to deal with, she met with leaders in foreign countries, fought for health care, civil rights, and womens rights throughout the world. On top of all that she is clearly the stronger candidate against John Mccain based on this very website. While I concede that Barack will almost certainly win the nomination and I hope for the country sake beats John Mccain in the fall, I do not feel very confident.
"On top of all that she is clearly the stronger candidate against John Mccain based on this very website. While I concede that Barack will almost certainly win the nomination and I hope for the country sake beats John Mccain in the fall, I do not feel very confident."
The general election projections listed on this website change every day. Sometimes Hillary's up; sometimes Obama is. They're both strong against McCain.
Obama's camp's done a good job of running the numbers and putting together what he needs to take the nomination; Hillary's camp has not. I see no reason to believe the superior strategy that Obama's campaign has displayed throughout the primary process won't serve them well in the general election.
You are right that in the primary, the Obama campaign's strategy to focus on the caucus states was brilliant and why he is where he is even though the popular vote margin is razor thin and may be completely gone after PR, He will still win the nomination, but to think that a primary electorate is similar to a general election electorate is just irrational. She is consistently performing better against John Mccain, there is not one day up and one day down. I am looking at state polls and that is how general elections are won by the way, not national polls. She is stronger in more states. Ones that we typically need: PA, OH, FL, NV and ones in which she expands the Map MO, AR, WV, KY, NC. She is a stronger candidate against Mccain at this point. That is a fact that is indisputable. Now anything can happen before November, but I personally would rather go into the general with a lead, wouldn't you?
Both generation and degree of attention to the campaign matter a lot here. The generation factor is clear. But for people paying attention to the campaign, this remark has a context in Clinton's constant "Anything can happen" refrain over the last few months. Every time she said that those of us already worried about this would flinch but say to ourselves no, she doesn't mean that, she can't want that. As her rationale for continuing has dwindled and the question "What does Hillary want?" is more persistent, this mistake clicked right into place: "Anything can happen" "why should I get out before June when primaries have gone on into June?" "RFK was assassinated in June" "Anything can happen".
But you have to be paying attention to have heard all this, and it's no crime to have been paying attention. I think in actual complicated fact what really happened is that this is regular talk inside the campaign on 2 tracks: 1st, a conscious spin playing on people's fears about assassination designed to be conflated with fears about something really damaging coming out (another Wright), so people would be afraid that he wasn't viable, and 2nd, a less-than-conscious incredulity that this is really happening, surely it can't happen, we know this can't happen in this country, etc. She was tired--it WAS fatigue--and she failed to make the complete transformation of the inside kind of talk to the publicly acceptable form. The horribly unfortunate thing about this is that anyone in her situation of course gets to a point where one wishes one's opponent (or thorn-in-side) *hadn't been born*, but this is very different from wishing that an existing person die.
Spin-deployment (some reckless) + fatigue + unconscious wish (that he would just go away *politically*) = major mistake.
But complication rarely makes it into our thinking about these things.
My husband and I both lived through the assassinations of JFK. Malcolm X, MLK and RFK. We had a similar reaction to the comment --it hit us like a punch in the gut. Some of the younger white people I talked to this weekend were not affected this way, but a younger African-American colleague was.
When I found out that Hillary had used the same 'talking point,' stated in more or less the same way, with the reference to RFK's assassination included, I must say I had to agree with Gwen Ifill that the Clintons are "wordsmiths" -- they know what they are saying, including what they are signalling when they embed "dogwhistles" in their statements. To me, Hillary was saying not only that it's OK for a primary to last into June, but reminding us that "anything can happen" to Obama. Perhaps it was just a dramatic way of making that point, but I don't see it as just a gaffe.
My impression on this gafflet is that most people have heard about it and are saying 'so what?' One of my friends, an ardent Clinton supporter in his 40s, thought it was bad on first reflection but has grown increasingly annoyed with the Obama camp pushing the story. He claims that the Obama camp can't actually be worried that much about his safety since they are peddling it to the media ad nauseam. It seems to have made him more hardened in support of Clinton.
Barack Obama will win the nomination according to the process laid out by the Democratic Party. That fact is indisputable.
Any arguments for Clinton's superiority in a general election are debatable. At best, popular vote is a push, given the illegitimate MI/FL contests and difficulty incorporating the legitimate caucuses. Polling and projections are also a push. Obama's a clear winner in cash raised and number of donors/potential volunteers.
There's no compelling, indisputable argument that I can see for overturning the collective will of the voters and, given that superdelegates are breaking for Obama, they're clearly not seeing it either.
The anonymous comment at 1:15 PM was in reference to this:
"She is a stronger candidate against Mccain at this point. That is a fact that is indisputable. Now anything can happen before November, but I personally would rather go into the general with a lead, wouldn't you?"
Sorry for the confusion.
to catherine:
No one pays attention to the coverage more than me and to be honest, I have no idea what you are talking about. When the Hillary camp states that anything can happen in politics. I never inferred assasination. The thought never crossed my mind. You have to be a dark person in general for that to be the first thing that comes to your mind. I am glad I am not like that.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/obama-campaign.html
The Obama campaign is full of liars. They are fueling this story behind the scenes while claiming not to be in public. It's a shame that they have fooled so many people into believing he's some sort of new politician. He'll never get my vote.
The temperature in this nominating race needs to come down a notch or two. Doesn't anyone remember when democrats were raving about having several great choices?
I blame the media for blowing all these gaffes and trivial issues out of proportion. I also blame both the clinton and obama campaigns for trying to take advantage of the media frenzies. I think it's pretty clear that the clinton camp has been the worse offender, one need only look at Hillary's disgraceful performance in the ABC debate, but obama's hands aren't completely clean either. I give Obama more credit because it's clear he has qualms about attacking hillary and has expressed regret at getting into the mud whereas hillary clearly has no problem with hardball politics.
You are right, he will win the nominating contest. I don't dispute that. But I do stop short of saying the will of the people is accurately reflected by pledge delegates. Texas: Hillary gets more votes, but Obama more delegates. Doesn't seem like a good representation of the will of the people.
"You are right, he will win the nominating contest. I don't dispute that. But I do stop short of saying the will of the people is accurately reflected by pledge delegates. Texas: Hillary gets more votes, but Obama more delegates. Doesn't seem like a good representation of the will of the people."
Obama played the delegate allotment game better than Hillary did. Maximizing delegate acquisition is how the primary contest goes, not popular vote. His camp did a better job of winning those delegates than her camp did.
Hillary knew there would be caucuses. If she failed to run the kind of ground game necessary to win the caucuses, that's her fault. It reflects poor strategy and tactics on the part of her campaign, in spite of the fact that she has more experience with a national campaign than he does. Why should I trust that she's going to learn how to run a big-time campaign between now and November when she couldn't beat Obama?
I'm sorry but Hillary has been too disingenuous in this campign.
Firstly all camps agreed to not having MI/FL votes count. She went along with this because all polling at that time showed her as the major front runner.
After Iowa she lost momentum. She wins NH but then gets thoroughly thrashed in following contests.
Yesterday on MTP Russert was showing that in Dec of 2007 she was polling at 52% of the Black vote! Once Obama showed he could win she lost that vote big time.
Only after she was way behind in terms of contests did the issues of MI/FL become a concern to her.
Then the blaming and dirty campaigning started. Bill Ayers, Elitism over bitter comments despite her making $100 million over ten years, the Bosnia nonsense. Then blaming the DNC, Bill Clinton going off his hinges blaming the media, blaming sexism, blaming any and everyone they could point a finger at. And then finally this ludicrous timeline assertion that conveniently mentions a horrible time in history involving RFK. This woman is a professional and she is scripted.
The bottom line is that she underestiamted the strength and appeal of the Obama campign and she is not the stronger candidate for if she were, she would be on the verge of clinching the nomination in a manner that respected the rules; rules which she has now also blamed.
I have had enough of Bill and Hillary Clinton. I need to feel good about my President and I will take my chances with Barack Obama.
Hillary MEANS what she says.
Get that into your head.
Rachel Maddow pressed this point regarding Hillary's stated plan to take the primary to the convention.
Eugene Robinson TOLD you that Hillary meant what she said about the assassination.
Now Hillary has set into motion the vast dog whistle to the disgruntled racist hard working white people - and her friends at Fox Noise have voluntarily provided an assist.
Fox Noise "journalist" Liz Trotta has played games like this before.
Barack Obama: less support by actual voters but played the game better.....sounds like a great campaign slogan.
Barack Obama: less support by actual voters but played the game better.....sounds like a great campaign slogan.
2008-05-26 14:36
--------------------------------
It worked for W in 2000!
The last thing that you want to do is compare Barack to Bush. I would not even do that.....
"Barack Obama: less support by actual voters but played the game better.....sounds like a great campaign slogan."
Again, popular vote is at best a push, given the difficulty of working out an accurate number due to the nonsense with MI/FL and due to the presence of caucuses in the nominating process.
And, yes, he played the game better, but it's not like the general election is going to be determined by a straight-up popular vote either. It's going to be determined by putting together a collection of states that gets you the magic number. Obama has proven he can do that; Hillary hasn't, in spite of what some of the current polling may suggest.
Hillary wants to make some kind of argument that she's going to run better in a general election based on what? She lost the nomination and every other metric is, at best, debatable this far out.
I originally wanted Edwards, but I voted for Hillary once he was out, partly because I thought she would run a better campaign. Instead, she's run a terrible campaign. Both Clinton and Obama can beat McCain and their platforms aren't substantially different. Not enough for me to get worked up about anyhow. But I don't much care for the disingenous arguments being made for Clinton to take the nomination she lost fair and square. It hurts the party and all I care about is putting a Democrat in the White House.
It's fair to say that Clinton didn't mean anything beyond a reference to the time-frame and that other campaigns have gone into June. Fair enough.
I do believe that it was entirely uneccesary for her to use the word assassination. Why would she use that word if it was not really part of the reference? She is not politically green and knows what she's doing.
to anonymous 1:43
I understand your point. Just to let you know, it is a long shot, but it is possible for her to catch up in the popular vote without Florida and Michigan. Secondly, you can't just ignore polls as if they aren't there. The polls show her a stronger candidate in key states and show her being able to broaden the democratic electoral map more than Obama. I acknowledge that a lot of the things you say are correct, but to disregard arguments that favor Hillary is biased.
Yeah sorry for the Bush comparison, low blow.
But you can't blame Obama for the rules of the DNC and the various states. Hillary's camp should have known better and they just were not prepared. My God even Mark Penn thought the states were winner take all!
"The polls show her a stronger candidate in key states and show her being able to broaden the democratic electoral map more than Obama. I acknowledge that a lot of the things you say are correct, but to disregard arguments that favor Hillary is biased."
I'm not ignoring the polling. I just think that the party needs to have some compelling argument for ignoring the outcome of the process it's devised for selecting a nominee and the hypothetical possibility that Hillary Clinton may match up marginally better against John McCain in November is not a compelling argument. The fact that numbers can be collected in a certain way to show that Hillary Clinton may have amassed a relatively small advantage in popular vote in the primary against Barack Obama is not a compelling argument either.
The furor over Hillary's use of the "A word" draws attention away from the fact that the argument she was trying to make (regardless of how ill-phrased) was inaccurate and illogical.
First she mentioned her husband's campaign in 1992, which she said only "wrap[ped] up the nomination in 1992 [when] he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June." Well, perhaps that's the point at which he clinched the nomination with that final delegate that put him over the threshold, but that's hardly how long it took him to "wrap up" the nomination. He swept Supertuesday, and for all practical purposes sealed his nomination with his April 7th win in New York.
Second, she implied that - for whatever reason - should Obama not be able to fulfill the role of Democratic nominee, she would need to be prepared to step up. Well, that may be true, but that hardly justifies her continued campaigning. That thinking suggests that she's basically campaigning for second place..."just in case." But that's absurd. There's no competition for second place. The other Democratic candidates have won a combined .3% of the delegates available. They have all dropped out of the race. She faces no competition in that respect. If her concern is simply ensuring that she's in the runner-up spot, in beauty pageant style, in case "the winner is unable to perform his duties as nominee," I think she can rest easy. Her place is secure. No need to continue the long and increasingly bitter struggle.
Finally, Mrs. Clinton said she was using "historic fact" to show that there's precedent for carrying the Democratic nomination race all the way through the summer. Well, there is some precedent for that. However, in the years in which that was the case, the Democratic Party lost the election pretty badly. So in making historical allusions to, say, 1968 and 1972, she's merely undermining her own argument as to why she should continue the race.
Focusing on Clinton's invocation of RFK's assassination only plays into Clinton's argument that Obama fans make mountains out of molehills to vilify her. Obama supporters would be wise to focus on the thrust of her argument, which has enough flaws of its own, rather than crying foul over her poorly chosen diction.
republicansforobama.org
Poblano: Even us over-40s on the east coast, in my circle at least, were not offended by her remarks in terms of her referring to the Kennedy's. It was her use of the a-word (AGAIN) in the context of staying in the race vs. Obama that was offensive and insensitive.
I winced at her comment, just as I did at the "cling to guns and religion". However I generally think people are way to invested in character/likability issues as opposed to serious policy issues, and on the latter, either Clinton or Obama is so much better than Bush/McCain that I really dont see why democrats care much about these gaffes. I didn't care much for Bill's character but he was a better president on policy than most. I think Hillary or Obama would probably be just fine too.
To anonymous 1:57. I actually agree with you. Electibility alone is not enough, but if she manages to win PR by 500,000 (difficult but not impossible) then she would have the popular vote undeniably in every circumstance and the electibility argument. That in my opinion is enough. If not, then I agree that they can't overturn it, but it terms of bringing these large factions of the democratic party together, I feel it is very important for Obama to put Hillary on the ticket.
Again, I'm left with nothing to say but to point out that for months the Clinton supporters actively ignored and pooh-poohed this site, and its broad-based and in-depth analysis of the polling status quo.
Why? Because Obama's electoral strength was made obvious, and it demolished the Clinton camp's "he's unelectable" argument. Even 2 months ago, Obama clearly had a clearly defined path to victory in the GE.
Also, because his odds were better than Clinton's.
Now that Clinton is ahead in the EV probabilities, for a change, and because they've lost the actual nomination contest, the Clinton camp is singing a different tune. I hear regularly, although clearly with no understanding of the underlying methodology or how to interpret it, about how Clinton now "is a stronger GE bet" than Obama.
The Clinton camp becomes the new definition of "cherry picking," both in terms of individual polls as well as time periods and interpretations. Gallup when it's in their favor, mid-May when that's in their favor, literal interpretation when that's in their favor.
Gotta admire their persistence, but their blindered view, and the destructive nonsense they spout as a result of their convictions, are pathetic.
The "I poll better in the general election" argument is dumb. Yes, that currently is the case. But there's some psychological gaming going on here. Clinton's supporters will mostly get over their issues with Obama when she stops comparing him to Robert Mubague and tells them to vote for him. Obama's supports at this point more view Clinton as a frustrating joke, so don't bother with tactical polling. Plus he still does better in NM, CO, VA, IA, and WI, not to mention a bunch of smaller western states. (and I'd seriously like to see someone check SUSA's numbers in NC.
"I actually agree with you. Electibility alone is not enough, but if she manages to win PR by 500,000 (difficult but not impossible) then she would have the popular vote undeniably in every circumstance and the electibility argument. That in my opinion is enough. If not, then I agree that they can't overturn it, but it terms of bringing these large factions of the democratic party together, I feel it is very important for Obama to put Hillary on the ticket."
Superdelegates are certainly free to take popular vote into account when they make their picks. Seems to me they're clearly breaking for Obama, especially if one removes the hundred SDs she had in the bag before any votes were cast.
I voted for Hillary, but, as far as I'm concerned, she can stay in the Senate. She and Bill have used a lot of divisive rhetoric against Obama and they've dragged this thing out longer than necessary. If she was open to being Obama's VP, she maybe should have gone a different direction the last few weeks. Seems to me she went all in trying to win the nomination.
All Democrats.......
You are taking big risks by nominating Obama. He is susceptible to the elitist attack that sunk many democratic candidates in the past and on top of that his experience pales in comparison to Gore and Kerry. Remember, Bush beat them, and Mccain is viewed more favorably by America that Bush.
WAKE UP
WE HAVE TO WIN
BARACK IS NOT THE ANSWER.....
And the VRWC is going to treat Hillary with kid gloves?
2008-05-26 14:25
It's interesting that Clinton fans are complain about the rules they wrote.
McAuliffe and Ickes have written the rules about caucuses and were the most passionate fans of discounting Florida and Michigan elections.
I'm a former Clinton supporter who switched to Obama in March. Her comments didn't offend me in the typical sense, but they do lead me to (further) question her judgment and candor.
Politics isn't just issues, it's also timing and symbolism. At best, her citation of RFK's assassination was clumsy, and at this point in her campaign it's not something she could afford. There have been too many cases of clumsiness already.
I was also struck by her early explanation, in which she sought to blame her remark on her having had Teddy's health issues on her mind. That was plainly a lie; in fact, she's been using the RFK data point all spring.
I suppose it's unfair that Clinton's opponents pounced on her comment, but politics isn't fair. And Obama is no saint. But he's got a lot more campaigning skill than she does, and it's showing.
For better or worse, the RFK comment was the final nail in the coffin for Hillary Clinton's campaign. Stick a fork in her; she's done.
The Obama supporters, many of them, are of the same mindset regarding the Clintons as the right-wing was in the 90s. They see everything as an evil conspiracy. The right wingers had Vince Foster... while he left wing Obamabots have the RFK remark, "racism"...
Thats not surprising though. When you get out that far on the political spectrum, whether it be far-left or far-right, and that far out in partisanship, thats the kind of paranoid, irrational, non-objective thinking you get.
Obama is making a HUGE mistake by siding with these people. He needs to separate himself from them or theyre going to cost him the election. It may be too late already.
Regarding Fla, despite pledging not to campaign there she still did.
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/01/28/FLA28.ART_ART_01-28-08_A1_AO96BHC.html?sid=101
Clintons cannot be trusted.
Senator Clinton used a murder as her way to remind folks that primaries have stretched into June before.
It wasn't a bad turn of phrase or a slip up. It was a planned talking point. It was planned. She used deeply similar words in March.
I'm sure she didn't mean to encourage new killing.
I don't think she was trying to make political hay out of the fact that the other Democrat lives with greater risk than she faces herself. At least, I hope she wasn't doing that.
But she used a bloody, tragic death for her own convenience.
A person of judgment and decency would not have done that deliberately. A responsible person might have slipped into such a statement when deeply fatigued, but she would have been genuinely upset with herself when she realized what had happened and sincerely committed to undoing the damage.
It was an appalling, premeditated comment, and I will be very glad when she is out of the race.
I'm an Obama supporter old enough to remember the RFK (and JFK, for that matter) assassination, and I wasn't offended by Hillary's remark.
Frankly, I regarded it as a typical (and understandable) political ploy of falling back on a familiar talking point when trying to deflect a question.
She was asked about unity, and she didn't want to answer, because she knows her unwillingness to let go is destructive to the party, so she deflected the question onto timing, with words she's used before, and wasn't called out on in the past. Referencing the 1968 campaign is not a good argument for anything positive except grassroots opinion, and is completely irrelevant to the current selection system.
I'm more offended by her constantly changing rationalizations, moving goalposts, and unwillingness to admit she's done anything wrong (traits we see in GW Bush).
There's no comparison between Clinton's miscalculated self-justification, which is offensive only by inference, and Trotta's deliberate and offensively casual suggestion equating Obama and Bin Ladin and suggesting they both deserved death.
Of course there's "no comparison" between Trotta and Clinton. Trotta's a two-bit reporter working for a highly partisan "news organization"; Clinton's running for the presidency. The first was trying to titillate her partisan audience, the second was trying to make a persuasive case for her candidacy. Neither distinguished herself in these utterances.
FYI: the Obama campaign hasn't even been pushing this, actually they've been very gracious about the whole thing. So I don't understand your remark about how they may have 'overplayed their hand'. What hand? Did I miss something here? Insofar as this story has gotten any legs, it has gotten it from the media and from the Clinton campaign, not from the Obama campaign.
"Secondly, you can't just ignore polls as if they aren't there."
Granted. But what do the polls mean? Obama has let Clinton spew her nagativity for months now...it's all she's got. Obama has been relentlessly attacked from both her and Bill and McCain, so naturally he polls lower NOW.
But this is all a sideshow, courtesy of hill 'n bill, who lost this fair and square going back to February. Just a bunch of sour grapes and whining.
Anon @ 15:25
The elitist thing will fall flat if the Republicans try to use it once he has the whole party behind him. He's the only truly self-made candidate we've had in years.
Also, If you think Clinton ISN'T vulnerable to the elitist attack, just because it hasn't been used on her, think again... The republicans haven't bothered because they know she's not gonna be the nominee, because she's an ally of sorts. But if you think this former first lady turned Senator turned presidential candidate will really be immune to being called an elitist... try again. She's only been able to pretend to be a populist in this race because the... erm... well, (people who self-report ethnicity as "American" on the census) don't like Obama.
All the Obama campaign did was say Clinton's assassination reference was "unfortunate and has no place in this campaign." How is that "overplaying their hand?" They were exceedingly generous. Saying it's unfortunate is like saying it was just bad luck, a slip of the tongue, when in truth it was coldly calculated. Then Axelrod and Obama both defended Clinton and then quickly dropped the subject, refusing to entertain any speculation of nefarious intent on Clinton's part - even though SHE HAS STILL YET TO APOLOGIZE. I'm sick of hearing that she's apologized. Saying "I regret if anyone was offended" and then attacking those who were offended is not an apology.
No one can truly know what she meant. She may not even know. But purposely raising the spectre of assassination in a political campaign is not just morally reprehensible, but potentially very dangerous, especially in this case of a bi-racial man on the cusp of the nomination. It could easily be seen by some racist supporter (of which she probably has millions based on the exit polls) as a call to arms.
If this had really been a gaffe, an isolated occurence we could accept as accidental rather than the continuation of a pattern existing in the larger context of the Clinton campaigns repeated racial dog-whistling, and if Clinton had given a sincere, heartfelt apology rather than attacking those who were offended and blaming Obama, then I could forgive. But that's not where we are. It was not a mistake. It was a premeditated wrongdoing she refuses to apologize for.
""but if she manages to win PR by 500,000 (difficult but not impossible) then she would have the popular vote undeniably in every circumstance and the electibility argument.""
How does winning Puerto Rico, a non-EV entity in November, have anything to do with her electability argument.
If superdelegates consider popular vote at all (and it's unlikely, since they too would be breaking rules in a sense by doing so), they certainly won't overturn the outcome based on Puerto Rico.
The only way Hillary can claim the popular vote win is if she is ahead, even with Michigan, Florida, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. excluded.
What will Obama do when an entire party brings the full weight of its guns to bear?
We all know that Hillary is very capable of handling anything the Republicans can throw her way.
The polls all show Hillary beating McCain just like they show Mcain beating Obama.
The polls also show a larger voter defection to the Republican Party if Obama is nominated vs Hillary
Obama my be able to sidestep his voting record to the unaware "newly registered" voters, but to the adults that will be making the decision in November his "present" votes and "missed" votes will mean that Obama will be fighting a "no but really I can, honest I mean, just because I didn't vote that way doesn't mean I don't stand for that. Remember its what is in my heart, not my actions that define what I stand for" battle
To me, one consequence of the right-wing ascendancy has been the degradation of rational discourse. They often can't make a logical argument, so the right wing injects various types of sophistry into the system.
This has leaked over to our side. In discussing her RFK gaffe the Clinton campaign has employed the Composition Fallacy, i.e., the applying to the whole the properties of the parts. Others have been doing the same thing in this thread.
Obama's campaign has not pushed the conspiracy-minded interpretations of her gaffe. Both Obama and his top lieutenant, Alexrod, have publicly accepted her explanation. Yet, the Clinton campaign continues to allege that they're pushing the matter.
What's actually happening is that Obama supporters have independently pushed the argument, in particular the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. I can understand why the Clinton camopaign, and its partisans, would equate them, but in doing so they are ignoring what the Obama campaign has actually said.
Now, let's imagine, just for the sake of argument, that the Obama campaign itself was playing a double game, i.e., pretending to forgive her while surreptitiously pushing the issue through its surrogates.
If this were the case, it would be something I'd call Chicago politics. It would be a little like having a surrogate say that Obama wouldn't be where he is if he were white, or tellinng the media that you have more support among the hard-working white voters, or magnifying the importance of a quote about people of modest means clinging to guns and religion.
So, even if this isn't a case of the Composition Fallacy at work, I think it's disingenuous, to put it mildly, for the Clinton campaign to whine so piteously about this. If their point is hat Barack Obama isn't a saint, well, when was it that I heard Hillary Clinton arguing, in essence, that her attacks of March and April would, if nothing else, toughen him up?
It could be that this is exactly what happened. In that case, file it under "Live by the sword/Die by the sword," Hillary.
More misinformation. Obama has consistently been beating McCain in the polls by a 2-4 point margin for months. Currently RCP has him ahead by 3, better than Clinton at 1.4.
Obama has been attacked on two fronts for months and remains ahead of both.
Clinton attacks on Obama for his present votes failed miserably. I hope McCain makes the same mistake. In fact, I hope their voting records get a lot of attention, beause McCain has flip-flopped on most issues. There is nothing wrong with voting present in certain circumstances, which for Obama only amounted to 3% of his votes.
"We all know that Hillary is very capable of handling anything the Republicans can throw her way."
This sort of statement really pisses me off. Clinton NEVER faced a republican who had a chance in an election for public office. Being first lady doesn't count, because they were doing that to get at Bill, not her.
And "the polls" show Obama about even with McCain, despite a great deal of strategic polling / psychology games.
>>What will Obama do when an entire party brings the full weight of its guns to bear?<<
Well, based on how well he has handled himself this past week when McCain was slamming him at every opportunity, and Bush was 'slyly' attacking him from abroad (wink, wink), I'd say Obama will do quite well.
>>We all know that Hillary is very capable of handling anything the Republicans can throw her way.<<
Really? Care to back this claim up with anything substantial?
>>The polls all show Hillary beating McCain just like they show Mcain beating Obama.<<
Now this is just plain factually incorrect. Easily disproven by the very polls on this very site, no less.
>>The polls also show a larger voter defection to the Republican Party if Obama is nominated vs Hillary<<
Really? Which polls?
Be careful what you say on this website. This website has a fairly intelligent and well-researched readership, and if you are willing to make a claim, you better have the data to back it up.
"The polls all show Hillary beating McCain just like they show Mcain beating Obama."
Please.just.stop.
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/05/what-is-barack.html
As far as her comment went: I started out admiring both of them and wasn't settled on BO until late January. Since then, I've grown to hate the Clintons. I'm not proud of that, but they've earned my hate over and over.
That said, I didn't understand the hubub. She's said far more egregious things over the last 6 months or so. I could only surmise that what happened was that the press has been patiently allowing the clintons to spew their BS, building a literal mountain of BS, until the pile got so high they just couldn't take it anymore. They overreacted, when they should have been constantly blowing off steam by citing the clinton's lies, instead of swallowing them.
I started out admiring both of them and wasn't settled on BO until late January. Since then, I've grown to hate the Clintons. I'm not proud of that, but they've earned my hate over and over.
If anyone has reason to "hate" the Clintons, I do. After all, I contributed $7,100 to her, and then switched when she played the race card. But I don't "hate" her.
Her campaign irritates me at times, but in spite of it all I think she's a good Democrat. If she keeps it up after June 3rd and decides to take it all the way to the convention, then I'll harden toward her.
But "hate?" Child, if you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen. It's politics, and it's an adult sport. Grow up.
I spent Sat. night with 3 late 20's Obama supporters. One understood Clinton (as did I), even if it was in poor taste. The other 2 took great offense. All four of us agreed that possible gaffes like this are reason enough for her to drop out.
First of all, I'm glad I found this site! (You first got my attention with your eerily on-target NC and IN predictions.) I certainly have much more confidence in your predictions than any of the polls or pundits.
As for the question: I'm an Obama supporter who, as one of the early posts mentioned, falls into the "under 40" category. Thus, I don't personally remember any huge political assassinations, so my reaction to her remarks might not have been as strong as those of someone who does. I will admit that the commentary by Keith Olbermann (who I love) took my breath away. I certainly wouldn't have been nearly as harsh. Then again, as mentioned, he probably has stark memories of other assassinations that shaped his reaction. It will be interesting what (if anything) he says on his show tomorrow when he's had few days to cool down. Then again, he's probably already blown another gasket over Liz Trotta's remarks, so who knows?
I truly don't think Hillary meant to suggest that something terrible might happen to Obama, and that's why she was staying in the race. Nonetheless, her remarks were at the very least insensitive and ill-conceived (especially right after Ted Kennedy's diagnosis, and also just a week after Mike Huckabee's highly unfortunate "joke" before the NRA). I'd have felt better about her if she'd offered a heartfelt apology (both publicly and personally to Sen. Obama) -- and one that didn't blame anyone but herself! -- for making remarks (even unintentionally) that could be construed as suggesting something so horrific. Her attempt to spin this around so that she's the victim is infuriating to me.
And as has been pointed out, it's amazing that with all the controversy, much of the media is STILL overlooking the fact that her "historical examples" are BS, and she knows it. Her husband had the nomination essentially secured long before June, AND the first contest was in Feb. And the first contest in RFK's race was in March! This intentional deception should be at least as much of an issue as her (probably unintentional) offense around mentioning assassination.
As for the allegations that Obama's campaign sent copies of Keith's commentary to the news -- if it's true, so what? That may be politics, but there's nothing particularly sleazy or underhanded about it. (I can't imagine there's anyone in the media who didn't already know about Olbermann's commentary!) I imagine both campaigns probably send all kinds of things to the media every day that might be favorable to them and/or unfavorable to the other candidate. It's the job of the press to decide what if anything to do with it.
I will absolutely agree with Poblano that on the "offensiveness scale", Hillary's remarks don't even come close to approaching those of Liz Trotta on Fox News. (The major difference, of course, being that Ms. Trotta isn't running for President.) My jaw dropped when I heard her remarks. I'm waiting to see what Fox News does. If going on the air and saying that she'd like to see a major presidential candidate assassinated (even as a "joke") isn't enough to get her fired immediately, Fox News has lost whatever shred of dignity and credibility they might have had left.
Again, thanks for the great site, Poblano!
"But "hate?" Child, if you can't stand the heat,"
Child? Condescension is an ugly thing, too.
"Her campaign irritates me at times, but in spite of it all I think she's a good Democrat."
Do 'good Democrats' play the race card?
I think the main distinction is whether people are more detail-oriented or holistic thinkers. In context, it does not strike me as a particularly offensive comment. It is an example - and actually a good one - of primaries that have dragged on.
Actually, with all the talk of McCain's age, why is it not appropriate to discuss the strong likelihood that Obama will be assassinated. You have to think that there are a lot of bitter neo-fascist people with guns that don't care for Obama all that much.
Of course the news-media is obsessed with sound-bytes, deprived of context, and hence they like their feeding frenzies.
I wonder if Myers-Briggs or something like that could predict one's reaction (with N's not caring, and S's going nuts).
hosertohoosier, More likely the other way around. It drives the Ns nuts because they make an automatic subconscious link to a potential Obama assassination, but the Ss just see it at face value.
hosertohoosier, More likely the other way around. It drives the Ns nuts because they make an automatic subconscious link to a potential Obama assassination, but the Ss just see it at face value.
Child? Condescension is an ugly thing, too.
Sorry, but when someone runs around saying they "hate" someone, I think it's appropriate to condescend in return. It was a childish statement.
Do 'good Democrats' play the race card?
Her having played the race card is a matter of my opinion and interpretation. It is also a matter of degree. I obviously felt uncomfortable enough with it to disassociate myself with her campaign and, in doing so, tell her that I felt it unDemocratic to do what she did.
That said, I think if one looks at the totality of Clinton's career, that she qualifies as a "good Democrat." That, too, is a matter of opinion about which reasonable people can reasonably disagree.
But "hate the Clintons?" Sorry, but I think that's foolish.
"Sorry, but"
You are either sorry or not. 'But's' are for people that really aren't *sorry* for insulting someone with petty names, but just want to justify it with an excuse.
But you have given me pause, and a chance to reflect. I figure if a condescending person like yourself, who chooses to label someone who disgrees as a 'child' and 'foolish'- yet can be so highly evolved to forgive race baiting after giving the Clintons $7,100- then the least I can do is to not feel 'hate'.
So, I will choose to merely feel intense loathing. You can keep your reaction to that to yourself, or continue to insult. Suprise me by keeping your need to advise me to yourself. And if you do decide to post an unsolicited reply, perhaps you can include a real apology for the personal attack.
Let's be very clear. Clinton does not need to give valid reasons to stay in the race. In this country, we have something called a democracy. She has ever right to take it to the convention. If you don't believe in this, then you don't believe in what has founded America and frankly don't deserve to be a member of this great country.
Obama supporter!
Hey everybody, chill. We have a historical election occurring and all anyone can do is talk trash. The first female is running against the first african american. It is a great moment in american history and all you can do is argue. They are both good candidates who would make a far better president than Mccain, so just relax and let it play out.
"Let's be very clear. Clinton does not need to give valid reasons to stay in the race. In this country, we have something called a democracy. She has ever right to take it to the convention. If you don't believe in this, then you don't believe in what has founded America and frankly don't deserve to be a member of this great country."
Hillary Clinton will lose the delegate race to Barack Obama. If she wants to stay in the race, she does have to give those delegates a reason to ignore the fact that she lost and give their votes to her. If she can't and she has yet to do so, there's no point in her continuing on.
Hillary Clinton has a right to take it to the convention. But, if she does, she's not likely to achieve the result she wants, namely winning the Presidency. A bitter convention battle coupled with months of her undermining the legitimacy of the process from the podium is likely to seriously hurt the Democratic Party's chance of taking the White House this year, at a time when the party is well-positioned to do so and at a time when the negative consequences of a Republican taking the White House have never been more clear.
Given the divisive rhetoric she's already employed, if she continues, she's likely to do damage to the party's relationship with young voters and African-American voters, thus hurting the party's chances in future electoral cycles. She's also likely to do damage to her own political future and her family's legacy.
She can run out the clock if she wants, but there's no upside any more.
At the very real risk of getting into one of those classic Internet fights for the last word, I'm going to respond to the "Anon" who I've tangled with. I'm going to try to do it in such a way that lowers the temperature a little bit, or at least that refrains from raising it.
You have every right to your opinion, as do I. I wasn't calling disagreement foolish or childish. I was reacting to your use of the word hate which I'll get into in a second here. And my use of the worry "sorry" was sarcastic, not literal. You might not like sarcasm, but sarcasm happens.
Since I've used my real name for these posts, you can go to the Seattle Times's website, where in addition to the Op-Ed that I linked to, you can do a search for my many letters to the editor that they've printed. A few things should leap out at you. First, I'm generally left of center. Second, I don't pull too many punches. Third, I'm often sarcastic. Bad habit, I suppose.
But what you won't find is the word "hate" in anything I've written. To me, that word is in pretty much the same category as the typical obscenity. When you uncork it, you've declared that you've stopped using your cerebral cortex and are now in lizard brain territory.
Ecclesiastes teaches us that there's a time to hate, but I haven't found it yet. The closest I've come were right after 9/11; during Hurricane Katrina; and when the full story of the Bush administration's use of torture emerged. Of those three, the use of torture brings me the closest to "hating" the people who ordered it.
But I still can't go there, because once you hate you stop thinking. And once you stop thinking, you stop being fully human. So, you can get mad as hell, but "hatred?" Not in my kit bad, I'm afraid.
I think that, in most cases, people who use the H-word don't mean it. In this culture, you hear it most often from two groups: junior high school girls who "hate" (fill in the blank) and right-wing talk show hosts who accuse anyone to the left of them of "hatred."
It's not a word I like, to put it mildly. So, I'm glad you recharacterized your viewpoint with respect to Hillary Clinton. I'd still differ with you, but that's all. There's certainly room to do that.
One last point to make, and that's the use of resentment in politics. This will be my 9th or 10th presidential election, and if there's one thing I've observed about the Republicans and the right wing in general, it's that they're driven to find enemies. The communists. The homosexuals. The unruly poor. The "islamofascists."
It bothers me a lot, and it's hard to deal with because of the risk of becoming a mirror image. One of a number of things that have impressed me about Sen. Obama is that he's trying to break that mold. So, I suppose when I read one of his supporters expressing "hate," I find it jarring. Trust me, I don't for a minute think that politics is a matter of a group singalong to Kumbaya, but I do think we can solve these things without resorting to hatred and the naming of enemies.
I've gone on way too long, so I'll let anyone else have (as that one rat bastard on Faux News says -- and yes, I'm a hypocrite, too) "the lat word." Just remember, we're on the same side, and I think that includes Hillary Clinton too.
Misprint there: "the last word." Now anyone else can have the last word!
My problem with the comments were that her "explanation" for them was terrible.
I'm willing to accept that she didn't mean what it sounded like she meant (even if the example she was given for what she was TRYING to say was disingenuous at best). However, there's no question that her comment was sloppy and stupid, and she should've immediately followed it up with a "I am sorry for the way that I worded my response. I in no way meant any harm by it and was simply trying to point to another timeline I thought was relevant. I certainly understand that this is a sensitive issue, and I sincerely apologize to everyone who felt justifiably offended."
No, instead, she blames everyone else for blowing it out of proportion, and completely fails to recognize the sensitivity of the issue. I don't believe she was trying to say something so offensive in her original comment, but her response to it has been disturbing, to say the least.
Everyone I've spoken to was, and still is, appalled. If you've paid close attention to the Clintons--you're not supposed to, by the way--they have been using sleezy word games and dog whistles of various kinds throughout the campaign. The RFK comment was a trumpet blare.
The power of the Clintons is entirely negative at this point. Yes, they have continued to sow discord in the midst of a humiliating defeat, and many in the party remain intimidated by them. What Hillary Clinton has demonstrated, in addition to being unfit to run a campaign let alone the USA, is that she's not the icon of feminism she was touted to be. A strong feminist wouldn't have felt the need to constantly "prove" her toughness--one of the worst characteristics of men like George Bush and John McCain. Obama has been the strongest man AND the feminist in the race.
Hillary Clinton has done absolutely nothing wrong. I have paid close attention to the constant attacks she receives from vile people like you and the media. Get over yourself and stop wasting so much energy hating someone. It is not worth it.
to anon 8:43
What is the matter? Can't barack handle a convention? The fact of the matter is the party is already split and with people like you pissing people like me off it doesn't seem to be on the way to healing. Face facts, She is the better candidate. I am a lifelong democrat and will never voter for an inexperience lying arrogant hypocrite who lacks any leadership qualities. Stop pretending she is more divisive than he is. He has done some pretty dirty things. He is just much better at hiding them. But you know what its politics. Its for the big boys (or girls in this case) so suck it up.
Congrats to Barack for winning the nomination. Congrats to John Mccain for winning the general election. Oh well dems, maybe next time we won't let these young bucks who know anything about politics or these left wing rich freaks pick our candidate anymore, but somehow I doubt it. Anyway there is always 2012
Barack Obama can handle a convention. He has people in place who have prepared themselves for a convention fight. Even if it goes to the convention, Obama is likely to win.
The problem is that a bitter convention fight only a couple of months before the election is likely to result in an exhausted campaign and a divided party, giving the Republicans an opening through which to steal the White House.
As far as I'm concerned, I would have accepted any of the top seven Democrats as President (sorry, Mike), but that's not the issue any more. I supported Edwards then Hillary, but Obama won the nomination. It's time for the party to come together and work on defeating McCain.
how can the party come together when barack is doing everything he can to fuel the fire of dislike. What he did this weekend hardened supporters of his against hillary and her supporters against him. You better talk to him and tell him to start healing the wounds and unite which he so often proclaims to be able to do. He is behind. He better get on the ball.
Short of quitting the race or putting her on the ticket, what could Obama do to make you happy?
Honestly, I am mad at barack, but i will probably vote for him because I could never support Mccain. However, if he does not put her on the ticket, which she should be able to force on the convention floor during the vice president vote, I will seriously consider voting for a third party candidate. If he comes out and offers it to her which i do not expect, they would tell me a lot about his character and his desire to unite. I think my opinion would rise of him. After all, he always talks about Lincoln and his approach to appointmnents. It would be nice to see that Barack actually practices what he preaches.
My husand and I are 64, and we lived through the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. we were both severely socked when we read Hillary's statement. She is almost the same age and she must remember these times as well as we do. Don't forget, MLK's death was followed by riots and National Guard on the streets of Washington, D.C. (where I lived at the time). These were memorable and shocking times, and I'm disgusted by Hillary that she would mention them so lightly. What exactly does this say about her mind? It's hard to say, but I certainly don't want her to be president!!
Glad you brought this up, Poblano, because I'd been thinking that the reaction was excessive though not entirely unjust when we consider the whole context.
I was 19 when RFK was assassinated and remember that day very well. Seems to me that what HRC said was not grossly offensive in itself, but still it was revealing. Lately the Clintons have fallen into the bad habit of thinking out loud about the increasingly remote (and often unpleasant) scenarios that could give HRC the nomination. So, maybe someone will shoot him. Or, maybe white Americans are at bottom more racist than most of us had hoped.
I also remember the 1992 primary race which the Clintons have just been spinning beyond recognition. Jerry Brown had effectively conceded that contest by early June.
I agree with the earlier commenter saying that Obama has done little to unite those nearly half of us in the Dem. primaries that supported Clinton. I don't want to vote for either Obama or McCain, and am planning on writing her name in unless Obama taps her for VP, or at least asks. I like the Lincoln scenario. He can be Lincoln, not by choosing a cabinet afterwards of rivals, but starting with vice president. He doesn't seem to be much of a guy that likes to appoint people who are not 'yes men' though (and they are almost all men, btw). I hope he chooses Clinton as VP, because his recent behavior is over the line.
i am 36 years old, female, white, hold a JD and an MS, and I support obama (although i originally hoped-- until it became completely futile--that gore would run, after which i supported kucinich until he withdrew).
i found hillary's comment grotesque--to me it was similar to a freudian slip in that it reveals her thought processes: it shows that she is actively considering, if not assuming, that obama will be assassinated, and wants to be around to reap the benefit if it happens--like a vulture on a corpse.
i have only discussed this with my parents: my mother is 62, white, holds two MA's, supports obama, and felt exactly as i did (she has supported obama all along). my father is 61, white, holds a BA, and supports clinton (but because he wants bill back in the white house not because he really supports hillary); he felt the same way as my mother and i, and that hillary had lost her mind.
i was slow to move to obama, but one reason i did move to him was because i became increasingly disgusted with how clinton was campaigning--she reminds me too much of the republicans. her practice of constantly changing the goal posts and rules is indefensible--we don't need anymore leaders who believe the rules do not apply to them. i also have become disgusted with the clinton chorus that women, such as myself, who do not support hillary are self-loathing. she and her most rabid female supporters, like ferraro, are reinforcing negative stereotypes about my gender--they are making it harder for us to be taken seriously--not easier.
ps: to the poster curious about MBTI, i am an infj (i agree with the poster who replie dto you that N's probably interpreted her comments more negatively than S's--and for the same reason).
pps: great site! thanks so much!
Part of the art of political rhetoric is saying something without saying it. By making the RFK reference, I think it's pretty clear that the intent was to get the idea or the possibility of assassination "out there". The Clintons don't say much without thinking through twice over. What she said in SD is almost verbatim what she said to TIme in March. The gamble was that the comment wouldn't raise any red flags and be taken in the context of primary timing, rather than "maybe he'll be killed".
Ultimately, what this campaign has showed us is what a COMPLETE JOKE journalism and media coverage are. I used to think that only Fox News was biased, but it appears not one single journalist is able to coverage the campaign in an objective way.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment