Hillary Hits Critics For Taking Her RFK Assassination Remarks "Out Of Context"
Via The Page, Hillary has written an exclusive Op-ed piece for Sunday's New York Daily News in which she discusses her comments about RFK's assassination and hits unnamed critics for taking her remarks out of context to twist their meaning.
"Almost immediately, some took my comments entirely out of context and interpreted them to mean something completely different -- and completely unthinkable," she wrote. "I want to set the record straight: I was making the simple point that given our history, the length of this year's primary contest is nothing unusual."
"I was deeply dismayed and disturbed that my comment would be construed in a way that flies in the face of everything I stand for -- and everything I am fighting for in this election," she continued.
Meanwhile, it appears that Barack Obama accepts the notion that she didn't intend the remarks as some have chosen to interpret them. Yesterday he said that he thought her comments were the result of the carelessness that inevitably sets in amid the rigors of extended campaigning, adding that he takes her "at her word" when she says that "she did not intend any offense."
With that in mind, it's worth taking a quick look at how the coverage of this unfolded. After her remarks were blared on Drudge on Friday afternoon, Obama spokesperson Bill Burton quickly put out a statement calling her remarks "unfortunate." Burton's initial statement didn't say whether the Obama camp believed she'd intended the worst by them, but that didn't matter: The simple act of offering any sort of criticism, however vague, ensured that this would become a major story.
Nor did anything change when, after the story blew up, Obama senior strategist David Axelrod explicitly stated that he didn't believe she'd meant the worst, claiming that he didn't think she was hoping that a "tragic, catastrophic event" would "intervene."...
Now Obama, too, has basically said the same, and that won't change the coverage of this in any material way, either. Outside observers will continue to insist that she meant the worst, without noting that the Obama campaign has said twice now that they don't think this.
Whatever you think of Hillary's intended meaning, this tells us something about how our gaffe-hungry political press and punditry works, and about how the constant insult-and-offense tennis match has played out in this primary. If Candidate A says something that could be interpreted as an out-of-bounds attack on Candidate B, it simply doesn't matter if Candidate B says he didn't take it as one. It's still a story anyway, because the simple fact that it could be interpreted as such makes it a "gaffe," and therefore news.
Once the comment in question has been deemed news, it simply doesn't matter at all what the aggrieved party says about it, and never will.
Both the Clinton and Obama camps know full well this is how our discourse functions. And both have used it to great effect throughout this campaign.
To be clear, I'm not saying that's necessarily what's happened this time. I'm trying to make a more general point: No matter what Hillary meant here, the pundits and opinion-makers on both sides who throughout this race have professed outrage at this or that slight while pretending that both campaigns don't know exactly how the insult-victim game works have been at best willfully naive, and at worst outright deceptive.
I think Barack's comments will take some of the wind out of the sails of this story. Hillary will still take heat, but it won't be as severe and prolonged.
May 25, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not the brightest move in a campaign where bright moves have been scarce to begin with.
On this one the best advice - SHUT THE F UP
May 25, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember Hillary's famed "cackle" and the Obama STFU moment in the Iowa debate last year? Well, it's interesting that she's doing it to herself now. Another point is that Senator Obama is essentially saying the same thing as he did in answering that debate question when answering the "will you consider Hillary your VP" question.
Memory lane:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhPxSm9Es0w
May 25, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Sargent, I knew I could count on you to start the Clinton work on blaiming the press as well as Sen. Obama's campaign for her statement... Have you any idea how angry to Afr. am. community is? And even taken in context, the commnets are jsut as wrong and offensive - plain dumb and insensitive. As Sen. CLinton said, this is a job interview. In my opionin, she failed - period. After pitching black v white, brown v black, workers v others, men v women - this great divider should move on, and allow us to do the same. As she stated in the CA debate, she will be fine - let's concentrate on the isses and make sure that the party and all the ones she claims to champion will be fine, too.
May 25, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well my god.
If this isn't a fine thing - if you can't find one excuse for her you make up another - now it's Drudge's fault.
No it isn't. It doesn't matter what she meant - it was the stupidest damn thing I've heard a candidate ever say and it was deeply offensive no matter what she meant - and who will ever know now? She lies.
She is a liar.
She has a hell of lot of nerve complaining.
May 25, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it's Drudge and "the discourse" that's at fault. It couldn't be Hillary's responsibility for blowing her dog-whistle.
May 25, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
This might have damped down somewhat if she had just apologized for real and kept saying she was sorry if someone brought it up - but NO!
This is Hillary. She has to hit out at people when she's in trouble. That's how she deals with it.
May 25, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, it's not her fault.
Nothing ever is.
May 25, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the pop analysis bullshit~ do you ever plan to land your own balloon sweetheart or is your never ending hyper shrill Hillary hating going to go on forever??? Give it a rest chick, you sound like something from the Onion or SNL. " Hillary is evil ...everything she says is lies .....she wants Barak dead .... she probably will kill him and eat him before the convention .... with a recipe she got from Martha Stewart ..... who is also such a bitch ... ooohhh I hate hate hate rich powerful women ....oops well I mean I love love love Barack and lookout Michelle I want him all for my own .... see Barak how I hate Hillary so much and love you so much don't you love me back ..... hate her ...love me... hate her ... love me ...... oooh TenaX is tired now ..... but must keep hating!!! AARRGGH!!! ....."
May 25, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
" Give it a rest chick..."
That's a little sexist, don't you think?
I'd be careful, I'd hate to find out what of all of your cohorts over at Hillaryis44 might do to you if they find out about this.
May 25, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
CHICK is the female equivalent of DUDE. It is best described as "casual affection" and you are best described as "complete PC asshole"
May 25, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coming from a supporter of Hillary "those mean boys are out to get me" Clinton I find your response absolutely comical.
Whose camp freaked out at the use of the word "pimp"? Whose camp freaked out when Obama wiped at his shoulder? Whose camp freaked out when Olbermann talked about someone taking Hillary into a room to talk to her? Whose camp freaked out at the Hillary "Deathwatch" widget at Slate?
May 25, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
YOU are calling me out on "CHICK" and you think "PIMPING HER DAUGHTER" is OK!?! You are so far gone ......... more kool-aid???
May 25, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say it was okay....although it's become a bit of a colloquialism for today's youth, it's a term I would never use.
I just find it quite comical that someone from the Clinton camp has the unmitigated gall to accuse someone else of being, in your own ever-classy words, a "complete PC asshole".
May 25, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait! I thought she loved SNL? Didn't she even quote a SNL skit at a debate? It seemed then that she believed the satire was right on - "Would Barack like another pillow?"
But ahhh, alas SNL has fallen into the Hillary Clinton "your either with me, or against me" media dustbin. They are joining a growing number.
In fact, I think only Fox News is still OK in Clinton's book.
Hillary Media Mantra: If you love her, you are Fair and Balanced - good media, good dog
If you criticize her in any way - bad media, vast sexist conspiracy, they are all out to get her.
May 26, 2008 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg is pretending that this is all a game that both sides play in the same way. He could not be more wrong. It is true that sometimes camp Obama pounces on an idiotic thing Hillary says or does, but it also has been a standard Obama campaign practice to retreat if the opponent offers a benign explanation of a controversial remark and to accept the explanation at face value and move on. Obama is willing to allow gaffes to become one or two day brouhahas IF the other side offers some explanation. Team Hillary will ride an Obama gaffe or slip up as long as humanly possible. Think: "Plagiarism-gate," "Bittergate," and saying to Scaife (of Wright) "well HE would never be MY pastor."
There's no moral equivalence, Greg, no matter how much it would soothe your conscience to see it that way.
May 25, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, Lincoln.
May 25, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lincoln, I think this is a key point. Compare Hillary's jumping on Bittergate to this case-- Obama and his people are all publically saying it's no big deal, they accept her explanation.
Meanwhile on the Sunday shows this morning, I heard Wolfson basically blame the OBAMA CAMP for the whole thing-- imply that it would be nothing if they weren't blowing it up.
Wow.
May 25, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now you're willing to give Drudge a blow job.
May 25, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
blow jobs and assholes- why is this idiot still allowed?
May 25, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please, don't feed the trolls.
May 25, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Registered User" is such an a-hole bitter troll that his name might as well say "troll" and shows his level of debate capacity by his choice of words. You're an idiot, you troll.
May 25, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Opinions are like assholes - everybody's got one.
May 26, 2008 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am frustrated--I knew Greg Sargent wrote this post without checking the by-line. This post seems to imply that Obama played some game by denying she meant something untoward.
Seriously, is Sargent working for the Clinton campaign, or TPM?
May 25, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is Obama's seedy campaign that first jumped on this, and they have since milked it for all that it's worth. Bill Burton not only said it was "unfortunate," but he acted outraged and said that "it has no place in this campaign." They are the ones who originally put the worst possible spin on this and got the press fired up about it as if Hillary was threatening Obama's life, and as George Stephanapolis pointed out this morning, the seedy Obama campaign is still sending around copies of Keith Olbermann's searing attack on Hillary over this issue.
And so for you or anyone else to characterize Obama as being the "aggrieved party" is so spectacularly false and disingenuous, I can only believe that it must have much more to do with your liberal guilt than the facts in evidence. In your mind Obama will ALWAYS be the "aggrieved party," no matter how fanciful or low he sinks, simply because he is black.
This also reminds me of how the far right took some innocuous facts and eventually made a case that Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster. The exact same malevolent and paranoid mentality that drove the far right to accuse the Clintons of numerous fictional felonies is now driving the the cult of Obama. Very sad.
There is absolutely nothing in what Hillary said or did that had anything whatsoever to do with any implied threat towards Obama. And those who think otherwise are either very sick and paranoid individuals - or shamelessly ruthless. Any sane person listening to what she said knows that all she was referring to was the fact that there have been Democratic primaries that have not been over until June.
But in the exact same way that political scum on the far right grabbed onto anything that they could possibly use in their desperate effort to drive Bill Clinton from office, we have a situation where the same kind of paranoid and unethical political scum in the Obama camp that is using anything that they possibly can to drive Hillary from this race.
And I've just about had it. I always intended to vote for the Democratic candidate. But I can no longer see how I can, in good conscience, vote for a candidate who could sink this low. And I doubt that I'm the only one at this point.
Obama has proven himself to be not only the weaker candidate, but the candidate with absolutely no character or moral scruples.
May 25, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
WTF??? What has Obama had to do wih this disaster??? Please point out where Obama has done anything to take advantage of this situation. Where is it in his stump speech? Where has he condemned her in the media? He's actually come out and defended her. Holy crap. Please tell me you have something to back up this load of road apples.
May 25, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Either you can't read, or you're so far in denial about Obama that it doesn't penetrate, so I'll try again and see if you can get it this time:
It is Obama's seedy campaign that first jumped on this, and they are the ones who milked it for all that it's worth. Bill Burton not only first jumped on it and said it was "unfortunate," but he acted outraged and said that "it has no place in this campaign." They are the ones who originally put the worst possible spin on this and got the Obama-loving press all fired up about it as if Hillary was threatening Obama's life, and as George Stephanapolis pointed out this morning, the seedy Obama campaign is _still_ sending around copies of Keith Olbermann's searing attack on Hillary over this issue. Even Obama's two-faced "I'll take her at her word" was only a way of mocking Hillary when she said on 60 minutes that that "I'll take him at his word" that he was a Christian and not a Muslim. Obama has done everything that he possibly could to keep this story alive and to rub her face in it. He's a liar and shameless phony.
And so for you or anyone else to characterize Obama as being the "aggrieved party" is so spectacularly false and disingenuous, I can only believe that it must have much more to do with your liberal guilt than the facts in evidence. In your mind Obama will ALWAYS be the "aggrieved party," no matter how fanciful or low he sinks, simply because he is black.
This also reminds me of how the far right took some innocuous facts and eventually made a case that Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster. The exact same malevolent and paranoid mentality that drove the far right to accuse the Clintons of numerous fictional felonies is now driving the the cult of Obama. Very sad.
There is absolutely nothing in what Hillary said or did that had anything whatsoever to do with any implied threat towards Obama. And those who think otherwise are either very sick and paranoid individuals - or shamelessly ruthless. Any sane person listening to what she said knows that all she was referring to was the fact that there have been Democratic primaries that have not been over until June.
But in the exact same way that political scum on the far right grabbed onto anything that they could possibly use in their desperate effort to drive Bill Clinton from office, we have a situation where the same kind of paranoid and unethical political scum in the Obama camp that is using anything that they possibly can to drive Hillary from this race.
And I've just about had it. I always intended to vote for the Democratic candidate. But I can no longer see how I can, in good conscience, vote for a candidate who could sink this low. And I doubt that I'm the only one at this point.
Obama has proven himself to be not only the weaker candidate, but the candidate with absolutely no character or moral scruples.
May 25, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typical response from a Clinton supporter -just keep repeating the same old shit long enough and eventually people might believe it.
May 25, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just pointing out the difference between the facts and the empty ad hominum attacks, because all that people like your ever do is respond with the latter.
Either you can't read, or you're so far in denial about Obama that it doesn't penetrate, so I'll try again and see if you can get it this time:
It is Obama's seedy campaign that first jumped on this, and they are the ones who have milked it for all that it's worth. Bill Burton not only first jumped on it and said it was "unfortunate," but he acted completely outraged and said that "it has no place in this campaign." They are the ones who originally put the worst possible spin on this and got the Obama-loving press all fired up about it as if Hillary was threatening Obama's life.
It's part and parcel of how the Obama campaign has perfected the art of playing the race card and taking offense at innocuous statements or gaffes. And as George Stephanapolis pointed out this morning, the Obama campaign is _still_ sending around copies of Keith Olbermann's searing attack on Hillary over this issue. Even Obama's two-faced "I'll take her at her word" was only a way of twisting the knife and mocking Hillary when she said on 60 minutes that that "I'll take him at his word" that Obama was a Christian and not a Muslim. Obama has done everything that he possibly could to keep this story alive and to rub her face in it. He's a liar and shameless phony.
And so for you or anyone else to characterize Obama as being the "aggrieved party" is so spectacularly false and disingenuous, I can only believe that it must have much more to do with your liberal guilt than the facts in evidence. In your minds Obama will ALWAYS be the "aggrieved party," simply because he is black.
This also reminds me of how the far right took some innocuous facts and eventually made a case that Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster. The exact same malevolent and paranoid mentality that drove the far right to accuse the Clintons of numerous fictional felonies is now driving the the cult of Obama. Very sad.
There is absolutely nothing in what Hillary said or did that had anything whatsoever to do with any implied threat towards Obama. And those who think otherwise are either very sick and paranoid individuals - or shamelessly ruthless. Any sane person listening to what she said knows that all she was referring to was the fact that there have been Democratic primaries that have not been over until June.
But in the exact same way that political scum on the far right grabbed onto anything that they could possibly use in their desperate effort to drive Bill Clinton from office, we have a situation where the same kind of paranoid and unethical political scum in the Obama camp that is using anything that they possibly can to drive Hillary from this race.
And I've just about had it. I always intended to vote for the Democratic candidate. But I can no longer see how I can, in good conscience, vote for a candidate who could sink this low. And I doubt that I'm the only one at this point.
Obama has proven himself to be not only the weaker candidate, but the candidate with absolutely no character or moral scruples.
May 25, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please state ONE example of Obama or someone from Obama's camp trying to drive Hillary out of the race. Just one, please.
May 25, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, please. Everything that Obama and his flunkies have done - including on this blog - is aimed at driving her from the race. Now he's acting like he's already the nominee, so in practice he already has pushed her out of the race. This latest underhanded attack is just the natural extension of that.
May 25, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not good enough...one specific example, please.
May 25, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I already gave you one example in the post you just replied to - ignoring her and acting as if He is already the nominee is just another way of trying to drive her from the race. Your real problem is that you like to have the last word after you've already lost the debate.
May 25, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Ignoring her" is driving her from the race? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Awesome....maybe the same strategy will work with McCain. Why waste millions on overpaid political consultants? Just ignore your opponent! Brilliant!!!!
May 25, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is so damned Bushian. Rovian: Smear the opponent, wait for response, accuse them of whining, accuse them of pushing the story, make nice, smear the opponent, repeat as often as needed to solidify the smear and whiner meme.
May 25, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Repeat it often enough and maybe people will believe you. Sounds like Rove.
May 25, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like you guy you are a cute little TROLL!!!Can I keep you????Now be a good little TROLL and get back in your Cage!!!
May 26, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are seriously, seriously nuts.
May 25, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another ad hominum attack from someone who can't refute the facts.
May 25, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a fact for you...
Obama is going to be your next president. Better start getting used to the white house going black because both of your white candidates are going down.
May 25, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your delusional predictions are not facts.
May 25, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's far more likely than Hillary becoming president. she'll be bowing out any day now
and mccain is going down like bob dole in '96, regardless
mark my words
you're delusional faith (pretend or not) in hillary having a shot is the most delusional thing in this entire thread
May 25, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whether you like it or not Hillary does have a shot since there will not be a nominee until August. I know you don't like that, but you really only make yourself more upset when you subscribe to some alternate view of reality that you believe everyone else must submit to.
May 25, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
delusional. straight up. hillary already lost. she'll be gone soon enough.
you just can't stand the idea of an african american president and it's obviously freaking you the fuck out (i.e your constant black, black, black comments). surely all whiteys will come around to your ol' time racist perspective, you just keep hopin' and prayin'. but it ain't gonna happen. you are a dinosaur and, well, we know what happened to the dinosaurs over time
May 25, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you mean "she'll be gone soon enough."!? Are you making some sort of violent threat against Hillary's life? She's is in perfectly good health and she's not that old - so are you hoping that someone will assassinate her? Why are you calling for the assassination of a political candidate???
May 25, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
you're an idiot. but I guess you like arguing with yourself and your straw men more than you do in actual two-way discussions here.
you know exactly what I meant. she'll drop out of the race in two weeks.
then you can really explode into your racial tirades about "self-hating whites". I fear for those around you at that time
you know who else is into your line of thinking about race traitors? the folks at freerepublic.com. I think you'd be a lot happier there after obama ties up the nomination
May 25, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do I know what you meant when you start talking about getting rid of Hillary? Why can't I make the same assumptions that you made? You seem to hate Hillery enough to do violence. It seems to me that you are projecting your own hate onto her, and assuming that she feels the same way towards Obama. But she doesn't.
May 25, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: "getting rid of Hillary"
okay, you are obviously just a provocateur as nobody could be as stupid as you pretend to be
I said nothing about "getting rid of" Hillary. I said she'd be gone, and you know that
you are a very hateful and dishonest person. sad to boot.
May 26, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's not going anywhere unless one of you Hillary haters assassinate her. She is still going to be right in your face so get used to it. Either she will be president next year or she will be the Senate majority leader, leading the fight against President McCain. Obama is the only loser who will eventually fade into history. So get used to the idea.
May 26, 2008 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention giving monkeys a bad name.
May 25, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you mean "she'll be gone soon enough."!? Are you making some sort of violent threat against her life? Hillary is in perfectly good health and she's not that old - are you hoping that someone will assassinate her? Why are you calling for the assassination of a political candidate???
May 25, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
see my related comment, you disingenous twit
okay, you had me going for a bit, thinking that your comments were real. now it's obvious they aren't. you are just too stupid and dishonest to be real.
have fun having your heart broken when mccain loses
May 26, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...but the candidate with absolutely no character or moral scruples."
Ummm....who was it that got the blowjob in the Oval Office? I keep forgetting....
May 25, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Ugly Troll is B-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-ck!
Spinning his Bullshit and convincing no one but his Taylor Marsh echo chamber!
May 25, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't give Greg too much crap about this. I happen to believe they've got an office pool going to see who can get the highest outraged comment to recommendation ratio on a post. I think Greg's got it nailed.
May 25, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, but I still didn't see an apology to the Obama family anywhere in there.
Is there any other role she knows how to play other than "the victim"?
May 25, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
ITs never her fault - just like every fucking convicted felon I represented on appeal - its never their fault.
They always have 25 excuses for why they shouldn't do the time for the crime.
Goddamn people.
May 25, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is always other people's fault:
According to Hillary, the problem is not what she said, but how others "construed" it. It's the fault of the "construers," in other words.
May 25, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's always someone else's fault, and she's always being victimized. A sincere, heart-felt apology would have taken the wind out of this story's sails. But she can't admit a mistake (just like the current occupant of the WH, Mr. Disaster). Maybe she just lacks empathy altogether.
This is exactly why it's time for a change.
May 25, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You could have simply said that she never intended her words to imply what some are suggesting but she apologizes for misunderstanding and taken her licks. Since Obama is trying to take a higher road, he wouldn't have pushed it further so it would have died rather quickly. But now Chris Mathews and others are going to be offended that they have been blamed and are going to keep talking about this into next week.
May 25, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a perfect example of Hillary Clinton's moral vanity -- one of her many annoying traits. Her logic proceeds in three steps: 1. I stand for all that is good and decent and humane. 2. Everyone knows that everything I stand for is good and decent and humane. 3. When someone suggests I have done something not good or decent or humane, that person, by definition (see step 2), knows that he or she is being insincere or manipulative, but is willing to act that way because my goodness and decency are a threat to them. 4. If I make a statement open to more than one interpretation, all those who adopt the ungenerous interpretation are deceptive manipulators, and probably are sexists to boot; and none of it is my fault for choosing words poorly.
This would be bad enough, but it's worse, because one of her themes is " I am best qualified to be the Democratic nominee because I am experienced at campaigning and do not say stupid things."
May 25, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Narcissist = Hillary
Definition: A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy.
May 25, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Narcissist = Obama
Definition: A pervasive pattern of grandiosity, as when a candidate takes an innocuous statement out of context and believes it is all about him.
May 25, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read much? Obama has done the opposite.
May 25, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's campaign has done the exact opposite of what Obama said. That's another characteristic of a narcissist - they are very convincing LIARS. They even tend to believe their own lies, which is part of what makes them so convincing.
May 25, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"they are very convincing LIARS. They even tend to believe their own lies, which is part of what makes them so convincing."
"I remember landing under sniper fire...."
Now, who exactly are the LIARS?
May 25, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I suppose Obama didn't twist the knife over that either.
May 25, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Twisting the knife? Right. When Obama supporters start walking around with "Assassination" stickers like the Clinton supporters did with "I'm not bitter" crap...then we can talk.
May 25, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're already walking around with assassination stickers. That's what this is all about.
May 25, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, could you possibly be trying to change the subject?
Surely not! Not you, Mr. Facts!
May 25, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's my main problem in all of this.
Even if I take her explanation at face value, why does she keep insisting it is the KENNEDY family that was offended when clearly it was the Obamas that could have taken umbrage.
Is she so petty she can't bring herself to apologize to Obama ? I mean he is gracious all throughout but he is the one that could be offended !
May 25, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
She pointed out the obvious - that anyone alive in June 1968 would remember that campaigns were still in swing at that time, and the awful event that ended RFK's. And she of course remembers as well as most anyone that Bill was being challenged by Jerry Brown in June of 1992 - a long-shot, but with 3 of his 4 opponents not endorsing him, he had problems to deal with.
She apologized to the Kennedy's because it's a bad time for the Kennedy's. In terms of assassinations, she's in as great a danger as Obama.
May 25, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please. For her to reference RFK's tragic run for the presidency as a means of justifying her tiresome and bumbling campaign was trivializing in the extreme -- whether or not her substitution of the word assassination for campaign has enormous import or none at all. The woman is lacking in both judgement and taste.
May 25, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess your white supremest mumblings doesn't have a readership on your blog.
http://e-stuffus.blogspot.com/
stuffus...that's f'ed up.
May 25, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with Obama is that he will ALWAYS take umbrage simply because he is black, and that's how he thinks. There is no real difference between Obama and his pastor, Rev Wright. They both see themselves as the constant victims of white racist speech and racist actions.
Obama believes that Hillary unconsciously meant to threaten and do him harm because she is white and that's what white people do to black folks. And that's how he justifies playing the race card, as his modest attempt to expose the all-pervasive nature of white hostility and racism. When actually it is his own resentment and hostility towards white people that we need to be concerned about.
May 25, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Replace "Obama" with "Hillary" and replace "black" with "woman"...
May 25, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I knew it wouldn't be long before I ran into something like this from you...
"because he is black"
and all "blacks" act and think just like that.
If they only knew their place better, huh rstephen?
You're disgusting
May 25, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm disgusting for pointing out what a self-hating white racist YOU are.
May 25, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow, talk about straw men. you don't know shit about me other than what I write here. talk about that, or just continue on with your racists rants.
but don't expect me not to call you on them
oh, and you forgot to call me a "n-lover" and a "race traitor"
May 25, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's obvious that you're a guilty, self-hating white liberal who is obsessed about proving that you're not a racist and that I am. Your support for Obama is how you do that, and it really doesn't matter to you if he loses in November because that will only strengthen your phony and self-righteous argument.
May 25, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, because that's the only reason a white person could support obama, not because he's the best candidate out there now in either party.
one day, soon, before obama wins in november, you're going to become completely unhinged and start calling white democrats who will vote for the democratic candidate "race traitors", because you are already just a tiny step away with your "self-hating white" rants. at that point you'll probably just start beating your dog or your kids (if you don't already) because you'll feel so out of touch and powerless in a country that could actually elect an african american to the highest office in the land.
you are a sad person
May 25, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your bizarrely self-righteous prediction. It only proves my point that you see the world in strictly racial terms.
May 26, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"black this, black that, black everything in between"
sayeth the troll provocateur
May 26, 2008 3:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
S/he is a McCain sock puppet, sent here to rile people up with ridiculous commentary.
Its not really worth engaging with one of these sad little creatures, because the whole point of the game is to turn everything on its head and deflate the positives of the Obama message as much as possible. They're clever, but not too smart, and useful mainly because they're so willing to subvert normal discussions.
This isn't a real Clinton supporter. No one could be that strange, unless being strange is the whole point of the act.
May 25, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"rstephen" I meant, and whatever other agent provacateur identity s/he adopts. Given how easy it is to do, I wouldn't doubt that the same person is probably posting under several names, in fact.
May 25, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apologize to Obama for what exactly? Apologize to him because he is black? Isn't that what you're already doing by voting for him?
May 25, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
black, black, black, black, black
there now maybe you don't need to focus so much on his race for a bit. I got out five "blacks" for ya right there
oh, and don't forget that black is the new president bitch. get used to the idea.
May 25, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're the one who is focussed on his race. I don't see John McCain taking offense at what she said. You take offense because of his race.
May 25, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
every other comment, you call out his race. it's why he's so easily offended. it's why folks are voting for him. black, black, black, black, you say
I'm just calling you on it
I never mentioned race here except in response to your preposterous racial comments
if you saw people here saying hillary was doing this or that because she's a woman (which they don't), over and over and over again (like you do), you'd be up in arms about sexism. but you can't even see your own racism oozing out here. it's gross and despicable, and it demeans you and every thread you spill such tripe into
May 25, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every single time you've replied to me it's ALWAYS about what a racist I am for not supporting Obama. NOBODY is as extreme and obvious in doing that as you. Not that they don't do it, but they don't do it to such a ridiculous - and even comical - extent as you.
May 25, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: "what a racist I am for not supporting Obama"
another straw man argument, and a lie
frankly, I don't give a flying fuck who you support. when clinton goes down, vote for the only other white candidate remaining (mccain) if it makes you happy.
when I call you racist, it has nothing to do with what candidate you support and which one you don't
it has to do with your constant references to black, black, black, "self-hating liberal" and "white guilt" nonsense, and so forth.
basically, you are a racist dickhead who just can't stop from interjecting race into threads that have absolutely nothing to do with race. it'd be funny if it weren't so sad.
May 25, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has everything to do with it in your twisted way of thinking. That's why why you can't even say "vote for another candidate" but instead you say "Vote for another white candidate." For you, there are two kinds of candidates - black or white - and everyone who votes for a white candidate is racist.
May 26, 2008 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
re:"everyone who votes for a white candidate is racist"
no, just you, based on your racist comments here, TROLL
May 26, 2008 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama was gracious, once again, if it had been reversed she'd be jumping all over him for weeks, just like the stupid "bitter" comments, that weren't at all offensive if you look at them in context, so she can shove her hypocrisy up her ass.
That said, her example of her husband's race in 1992 was completely wrong because he had the nomination wrapped up in MARCH, and that was even with the primaries starting much later. And there was absolutely no reason for her to mention the assassination of RFK, she could have mentioned the 1968 election going long (again, not comparable to this election) without mentioning the assassination of the frontrunner. Her comments were NOT taken out of context, we all know exactly what the context was. She was asked why she was still in this race given the math makes it mathematically impossible for her to win, she answers with bogus comparisons to past elections that don't explain her refusal to leave, and then raises the possibility of a tragic summer assassination (on what would have been 2 weeks from the day she said it). No one said she WANTS this to happen, but I think it betrayed the fact that it has been on her mind. Out of all of her excuses to stay in the race, Obama dying was the ONLY one that is actually possible at this point. Maybe if she could give a SINGLE other way she could win this race people wouldn't jump on this, but there are no other reasons for her to be refusing to leave. Read more here if you are so inclined:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/05/hillarys-new-game-plan-wait-to-see-if.html
May 25, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bwaaahaaaahaaahaaa! What a load. The Obama campaign was the first to jump on this and give it the worst possible spin with "Senator Clinton's statement...has no place in this campaign." Obama's press people have been sending out Keith Olbermann's over-the-top condemnation for even saying the word 'assasination.' Even Obama's "I'll take her at her word" is only a back-handed way of mocking what she once said and calling her a liar.
Obama is the opposite of 'gracious'; he is condescending, arrogant, and he LOVES to twist the knife.
May 25, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
This reminds me of the story Bill Richardson tells of how Obama helped him out during one of the debates. Something about Richardson not paying attention and Obama whispering the context of the question.
May 25, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg: I fully agree with your contextual analysis. But I have to ask whether you made the same effort and a winning case against Obama's "bitter" gaffe episode. If so, I stand corrected.
Hillary is resorting to now predictable "attack is the best form of defense" strategy. Her highly unapologetic article screams "victim," and attacks those who had reason case question her words and judgement.
I have to say, Hillary is at best to rile up the troops and depict herself as punching bag- while infact, she's a attack dog.
May 25, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if I made the same case about "bitter." If not, it's simply because I hadn't reached this conclusion yet.
But let me state here, emphatically, that I believe the same dynamic was at play there, that it didn't matter what Obama really meant: The simple fact that Obama said something that could be construed badly enabled the pundits to declare it a "gaffe" and make it a big story.
One interesting difference: In that case, the Hillary camp didn't take Obama at his word when he sought to explain those comments. Camp Hillary repeatedly suggested he'd meant the worst. Which stands in sharp contrast to Obama's handling of the current story.
May 25, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, made my day. Really, any reservations I may have are fading. Thanks.
May 25, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Hillary deliberately put the worst possible spin on the bitter comments. She knew damn well what he'd meant, and yet she consistently took the worst interpretation, and she pushed it over and over again.
Which is why I have no qualms about seeing her twist in the wind on this comment. These are the politics she has championed. This is the bed she has made. Let her suffer for it.
I'm glad that the Obama campaign is taking the high road on this. That's the presidential response. But I'm not personally that noble. I'm happy for everyone else to give her hell.
May 25, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nailed it.
May 25, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
:):):):)
You said it, Phoebe Fay and thanks for saying, it, too!
May 25, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
it's the revenge aspect that I find distateful about the reactions.
May 25, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I saw it once expressed that "sympathy" is a word in the dictionary; it's found in between "shit" and "syphllis."
May 25, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
is that like the dictonary equivalent of the bible code, or something?
May 25, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hardly believe that, indiex. What you find distasteful is the fact your candidate made an incredibly stupid remark and can't talk her way out of it.
May 25, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not indiex, and I'm not a supporter of Senator Clinton. But the injustice of the bitter gaffe is the same as here. I'm not here to tear down one candidate (especially a democrat) out of a sense of revenge because my candidate was wronged.
I'd rather fight to have people see this sort of thing, search out the facts, and then duly ignore it, if it is ignorable. Mere slips of the tongue is no reason to form a mob.
Were her remarks ignorable. mostly, for me, yes. The way her campaign is now puching this on Obama, saying he is responsible for the dust-up, that bothers me. That's crazy.
I stand by my thoughts that this is all the problem of the Dem leadership. This race should'ev been ended after Penn. It was fairly impossible for her to win before Penn, and has only become increasingly more impossible with each day. Fear has kept it going, that women might sit this one out if Senator Clinton was allowed to do as she saw fit. But it has only grown more division in the party, in my opinion. Emotions are high.
Did her comments belie some inner thoughts, some sort of Freudian slip. It's possible. It's ugly. It's only another reason for this primary season to end.
May 26, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes indeed. How nice it is to see the shoe on the other foot this time.
May 25, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You GO girl!
May 25, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg said: "In that case, the Hillary camp didn't take Obama at his word when he sought to explain those comments. Camp Hillary repeatedly suggested he'd meant the worst."
EXACTLY! Granted, Obama is in a much better position electorally to be magnanimous in this instance, but it also shows a true difference in their ways of dealing with the world. Watching the morning shows now, her people are hitting back. McAulliffe is not giving an inch, even suggesting that Hillary had no need to personally call Obama to apologize. She and her people consistently show poor taste in dealing with these kinds of blowups.
Did Hillary really suggest she wanted Obama to be assassinated? Of course not. But her crappy non apology on Friday and her self serving editorial in today's Daily News tell me a lot about her values as a human being.
May 25, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Yes she did. And it's a huge difference in who these two people are & how they conduct themselves.
Thank you for mentioning this, Greg.
If anyone doesn't think Hillary would be "shaming" Obama from rooftops had this been his blunder, you haven't been paying attention.
It would have gone something like this:
May 25, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg Sargent's comment up (as well as Joshuablog's affirmation of it) above is exactly what I was going to post--note the difference between Obama's handling of this and HRC's handling of the so-called "bittergate" gaffe. HRC's comment was indeed "unfortunate" and has no place in this campaign, no matter what she supposedly meant by it (it was, at best, a crassly stupid thing to say, on several different levels--it's not even a mathematically accurate comparsion, as several commentators have pointed out). Obama and Axelrod have both said they don't think she meant it in the worst possible way, and I'll be surprised if they mention it again, frankly. HRC, otoh, ran with "bittergate" for days on end. It's strikingly reminiscent of her failure to take the moderators to task for the Ayers line-of-questioning at the Philadelphia debate; instead, she ran, Fox-news-like, with it and joined the attack on Obama. As opposed to Obama's dismissal of "Snipergate" in the very same debate! Time and again he's proven himself to be the more gracious, classy, and levelheaded candidate. It's yet another reason why he's winning--he has all of those qualities as well as an underestimated toughness.
Also would've been nice if HRC had apologized to Obama for this (esp. given that Fox News is now making jokes about Obama being killed)--but, as always, it's poor Hillary who's the victim.
May 25, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
well. wow. Absolutely Greg. I mean, too bad you didn't care enough to give it such thought then to reach that obviou clonclusion, but you're there now, and I appreciate that.
May 25, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
It wasn't just the "clinging to God & guns" bitter-comment that she ran into the ground...she then took it to the next level with the "Elitist" lable that's still be bandied about by the TV talking heads...
Please STOP enabling her - Stop giving her the benefit of the doubt - she is an adult and needs to take responsibility for her actions and words.
May 25, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Love your avatar. Maybe we can get together some time.
May 25, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I got dibbs on a puppy!
May 25, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must screen all takers. I was bred to hunt but I prefer chasing tennis balls.
May 25, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tip for Lab owners: Get a cheap tennis racket to help play fetch. My Yellow Lab Maggie lasts a lot longer than my beat up shoulder joint will.
May 25, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lacrosse stick works well too!
May 25, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lacrosse stick works well too. You don't have to touch the ball!
May 25, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea why when I hit send I get an error message then it either repeats or loses the message for a time. It happened twice twice today today.
May 25, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, except for one thing. That "difference" is not just "interesting," it is enormous and clearly points out the contrasts between the two. And that contrast not only does not paint Hillary in a flattering light but gives reason to the lack of sympathy for her.
May 25, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you said that, Greg, because you try to be even-handed in your post whereas I think Obama has been much more often the victim of this dynamic than Hillary. She and her campaign have jumped all over his gaffes along with the media whereas he has taken the high road when she has made them. Admittedly others have done the work for him and kept the stories going, distracting us from more important issues, but after being in politics for over 30 years Clinton certainly knows how the game is played. She is running on that experience so she can't cry victim now.
May 25, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly the point many of us Obama supporters have been making for months. There is a decency and a sense of fairness about this guy that stands in sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton.
May 25, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes thanks. I wish the media would do a comparison of the Clinton/Obama campaigns' integrity and fairness. I try to look at this objectively, and I admit, I dont', but can a factual analysis address which candidate has run the cleaner campaign?
May 25, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can find a bit of that analysis here:
http://xpostfactoid.blogspot.com/2008/05/obama-does-it-with-integrity.html
May 25, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another contrast is that Obama did say, and continues to say, "I chose my words poorly."
He did not blame others for how his words were interpreted. He did not say, "I regret that some people misinterpreted me because they choose to misconstrue my words in evil ways." He did not blame the media for bias against him. In fact, if I recall, the woman who broke the story, who was greatly reviled by commenters over at Huffington post, when asked about how she had been treated by the Obama campaign, said, "I have one word to describe the Obama campaign's treatment of me after this story: classy."
Hmm. Can we imagine someone describing Hillary's reaction that way?
I certainly don't think you have a horrible bias, Greg, but I don't agree that just because Obama has chosen to be gracious, that means everyone should automatically buy her explanation whole and stop talking about it. I think, in fact, it is the job of journalists and pundits to examine these statements, take her explanation into account and assess independently how credible that explanation is. Obama's opinion is actually kind of irrelevent.
I, personally, do not buy her explanation that she only mentioned the assassination because people would somehow remember that that happened in June. First, she could list other long primaries (not that 68 was one) and people would take her at her word about when they ended or fact checkers would call her on it. There was no reason why people had to remember personally that previous primaries went that long for her to make her point. Second I doubt many people did remember that it happened in June. It happened 50 years ago. No one under 60 probably remembers it very vividly and probably only people over 70 would have been old enough to remember the month. I was alive for Reagan's attempted assassination and the Pope's but I have no idea what month they occurred in. I could be mistaken if there is something specific about Bobby's assassination that would make people remember that it was in June, but I don't know of anything.
I think the fact that she used exactly these two examples--Bill's campaign and Bobby's assassination--all four times she brought it up was specifically to give her plausible deniability if anyone pounced on the assassination quip. But it's not plausible that she didn't mean to nudge that idea into the discourse. Especially since they'd been chastised for a supporter nudging it into the discourse before. And if she really had wanted to mention just the June timeframe, why didn't she say, "and we all remember that the primary was still going strong in 68 when tragedy struck Bobby Kennedy," rather than "we all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June."
May 25, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
But then, for Obama to do otherwise in this case would be for him to say that he thought Hillary wanted him killed. That accusation is beyond ridiculous when held up to the light.
The "bitter" comment was distorted, but at worst, Obama would come across as an elitist, not a would-be murderer.
May 25, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
proof read Hillary is resorting to now predictable "attack is the best form of defense" strategy. Her highly unapologetic article screams "victim," and attacks those who had reasonable case to question her words and judgement.
I have to say, Hillary is at best riling up her troops by depicting herself as a punching bag- while infact, she's a attack dog.
May 25, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her fucking nerve is breathtaking - she can't apologize, acknowledge that she made a mistake and shut about it. She has to start complaining that it's not her fault.
Goddamn it - who is she? She is George fucking Bush - he does this. He's a master at it.
That's who she is.
May 25, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
And anyone who can not apologize (and that does not mean "*if* someone was offended...") or take responsibility to admit when they are flat out wrong has definite insecurity issues. Not a leadership/presidential quality at all!
May 25, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
As nearly always, what Tena says.
May 25, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, you're absolutely killing me today. I'm not much of one for the "have a beer with" test for voting for president, but among commenters here, you're way high on the admittedly large list of people here I'd love to knock a few pitchers back with. (And possibly even end a few sentences with prepositions with.)
May 25, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Narcissistic Personality Disorder is recognized in persons exhibiting 5 or more of the following traits:
1. Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates accomplishments, talents, skills, contacts, and personality traits to the point of lying, demands to be recognised as superior without commensurate achievements).
2. Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion.
3. Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions)
4. Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation – or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (Narcissistic Supply)
5. Feels entitled. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her unreasonable expectations for special and favourable priority treatment.
6. Is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends.
7. Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with, acknowledge, or accept the feelings, needs, preferences, priorities, and choices of others.
8. Constantly envious of others and seeks to hurt or destroy the objects of his or her frustration. Suffers from persecutory (paranoid) delusions as he or she believes that they feel the same about him or her and are likely to act similarly.
9. Behaves arrogantly and haughtily. Feels superior, omnipotent, omniscient, invincible, immune, "above the law", and omnipresent (magical thinking). Rages when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted by people he or she considers inferior to him or her and unworthy.
May 25, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't Hillary exhibit pretty much all of these?
May 25, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, if someone exhibits all nine of those traits then that means they're pretty sick, huh?
May 25, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not somebody you'd want to count on in a pinch to help you out.
May 25, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, I just cracked a cold one and toasted you.
May 25, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
kind of late in the thread for me to see this - thanks.
enjoy it for me, too.
I haven't had a beer in - I have to do some math, wait a minute - 19 years.
[but I'll blaze one up in response to your toast. ;)]
May 25, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree that this story is way out of proportion re: some nefarious intent on Hillary's part. That said, I also agree with all the comments about the distortion implicit in her self-justifying argument that the length of this primary is not unusual. Not unusual? We have never seen anything like the length, cost and intensity of this primary. Never! In addition, I am even more annoyed at what preceded this disingenuous (for the umpteenth time) argument about "staying in the race." When asked in the interview about why people are urging her to get out of the race, she claims she doesn't know why. Then makes her ill-conceived point using RFK. She doesn't know why? Here is the place where she really jumped the shark. She knows why. The reason is simple. She is playing this out against all logic and all math. Thus, she is forced into the "anything can happen" point. Remember Huckabee? "I don't do math, I do miracles." Is it an Arkansas thing? Goodness.
May 25, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
If her intent wasn't nefarious --- and it was --- then this is at best an example of reckless rambling that we don't need from the president of the United States.
Either way it's a story that deserves attention, especially since the speaker constantly ballyhoos her experience, presidential readiness ("on Day 1," etc.) and the like.
Nefarious intent or not, the comment proves expressly that we don't need her anywhere near the White House.
May 25, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The worst part of it is that her underlying point is untrue, and she knows it very well. Hillary knows that those primaries in 1968 or 1992 did not start at the beginning of January. She knows very well that the length of this year's primary contest is in fact quite unusual.
Well, if she's going to lie through her teeth, I for one think that a bit of the old raking over the rhetorical coals is fully justified.
May 25, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
And yet she went on and used the same fucking example 3 times before she was called on it.
And it doesn't even fit as an analogy. Her people knew she was saying - why did they let her? Why?
This did not come out of nowhere. She's said it repeatedly.
And now she's making excuses and acting the victim. AGAIN.
This is ridiculous.
May 25, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
HER POINT STUPID ASS WAS THAT PRIMARIES OFTEN GO INTO JUNE AND THE GOD DAMNED ELECTION IS IN NOVEMBER AND SOMEHOW WE ALL MANAGED NOT TO BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF THE LOOSER ALL THOSE OTHER TIMES SO WHAT THE FUCK IS WITH YOU BARAK LICKERS NOW??? I HONESTLY DO NOT GET IT EITHER .... IS THIS YOUR FIRST ELECTION PEOPLE? TAKE A PILL!
May 25, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yelling your shit doesn't make it any less wrong and/or stupid.
May 25, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
..... oh ok sweetie how is this .... your hyper hate filled posts never make any sense to anyone who isn't filled with hate .... like you ... bitter much?
May 25, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"sweetie"....again with the sexist talk. Tsk, tsk, tsk.....
May 25, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Tena here. In addition to all the things that make both "Bill in '92" and "RFK in '68" poor analogies--the very different starting dates and voting sequences in those primaries--how does the '68 analogy work even if you try to give it the most generous interpretation possible?
Hillary was asked if staying in the race hurt party unity, and she invoked the 1968 election as a defense? In addition to the tragic assassination of RFK--which she inexplicably explicitly chose to reference--has she forgotten how '68 worked out for the Democrats? My recollection is that the divisions and demoralization in the party paved the way for a Nixon victory. Isn't concern about a consequence similar to THAT exactly the reason folks are nervous about her interminable lingering this year?
Of all the things I am prepared to believe about Hillary, one is not that she is stupid. So, if she wasn't evoking sinister subliminal "stuff happens" imagery, what then was her point? That elections have dragged on into the summer before and look how well those worked for us, 'cause we're all real proud of the Nixon legacy? WTF?
May 25, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
TAKE A PILL!? That made me smile. Thank you :)
May 25, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Both the Clinton and Obama camps know full well this is how our discourse functions. And both have used it to great effect throughout this campaign."
Could someone lay out at least 2 examples of the Obama campaign using this sort of discourse?
*The Annie Oakley comment doesn't count bc he was defending himself against the bitter comments.
May 25, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, please, Greg, give us at least two examples of the Obama campaign using the same tactics. I can't think of a single one. And please explain how the reference to RFK's assassination as a market for the primary's continuing into June could be a "gaffe" and not a practiced talking point given the number of times she has said it.
May 25, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, should have been "as a marker".
May 25, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, so now it's Obama camp's fault that this is a major story?
Why should Burton's statement have said anything in the direction you suggest? Is it their job to defend Clinton from herself?
I find his initial reply quite classy, actually. "Unfortunate" was by far the nicest way he could have put it.
May 25, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's something else.
I'm looking forward to an article in which you compare Obama's reaction to Hillary mis-speaking this last Friday to Hillary "bitter"-attacks (and let's not forget, tv ads).
May 25, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm stunned that anyone could blame the story's "legs" on the Obama campaign's mild response. I think the causal connection Greg imputes is just factually wrong.
When I first read the story and then watched the video I had no idea that the Obama campaign had commented. And I was shocked by the comment -- I was at work, and I was shocked that I ran down the office to tell people what Hillary had just said.
I didn't know about the other times that Hillary had said the same thing. When I read the Time interview from March, I realized that this was a crafted talking point. I was even more astounded and dismayed.
That anyone could put this and Obama's "bitter" remark on the same footing amazes me. That kind of false equivalence seeking is a habit of the media that I wish you, Greg, would learn to overcome. Obama's statetment was a sociological analysis that you may agree with or not, but it distorted no empirical facts; it was not a personal attack, and it was not a dogwhistle.
May 25, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe he is referring to the fact that when the Obama campaign released their initial statement, it thereby granted Clinton's comment validity as controversial. If I understand it correctly, he wishes to imply that had Obama's campaign initially ignored it, it would not have been seen as so controversial.
I disagree with this assessment: I feel the implication here is far too serious to have fallen by the wayside due to lack of the opponent's response. Something like, say, Obama's "bitter" comments perhaps would have fit the bill as something that could have gone unnoticed had Clinton not made it into such a big deal.
I feel that while Clinton's comments are definitely excusable, her handling of the situation isn't by any means. Had she simply apologized for her poor choice of words (regardless of the fact that she had already used it before), I believe it would have blown over much sooner than it likely will. Her stubbornness and self-victimization are only fueling the fire.
May 25, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
Thank you for pointing out that Hillary pounced on Obama's comments about guns and religion and played it for all it was worth. But when she makes a gaffe, how dare anyone take it the wrong way.
I am so glad she will not be our president. The policies may be different, but her political instincts are very similar to those of Rove wing of the Republican Party.
Pablo
May 25, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, now it's the media's fault for "blowing up" this thing?
Is it ever Hillary's fault?
She openly encourages assassins to do their thing, so she can get her coveted nomination.
Given the lack of integrity on the part of Hillary, as well as her supporters, it's likely that at least several of these lunatics would be willing to give it a shot.
Obama should not even dream about making her VP. We all know what she can and will do to fulfil her long-cherished dream of becoming president.
May 25, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Obama hacks for giving her reason to take it to the convention and not attack Obama.
Brilliant.
May 25, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
We don't want a fight at the convention. I was a delegate to the 1980 Democratic National Convention in NY. We lost that year because we had a divided party.
We need to unite the party behind Obama now, wouldn't you agree?
May 25, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes I would agree.
That's exactly what I want to see happen Tuesday morning. I want her to withdraw so we can get on with it.
May 25, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
NO YOU WANT HER DEAD OR SOMETHING! UNITED PEOPLE DO NOT TALK THE HATEFUL TRASH YOU ARE NOW FAMOUS FOR ON THIS SITE! LET US ALL UNITE IN HATE! (let me tell you something personal ..... you project you own inner bullshit in your posts and it smells bad to anyone who doesn't hate HIllary)
May 25, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Says the person who is screaming at me in all caps.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 25, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. We are taking to the convention after the overraction by the Obama hacks.
Thank you Obama hacks.
May 25, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your desperation is showing. If you want to go to the convention simply say so. Do not try to use minor things to justify it, you do not need to. It makes you look stupid.
May 25, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You probably still believe in Santa Claus too.
June 3rd. Good riddance.
May 25, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey gotalife, maybe now is the perfect time for those Michelle Obama videos you were peddling a while back to come out.
May 25, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Troll droppings. Just step around them.
May 25, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Got A Life I know you are just a troll joining in with Operation Chaos. I've seen you lies on HuffPo too.
May 26, 2008 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please, don't feed the trolls.
May 25, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
As opposed to losing because of the Iranian hostage crisis and stagflation.
May 25, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're hilarious, GotALife. Like Hillary needs a reason to stage a convention fight? The only way Hillary will not generate drama at the convention is if she is either heavily sedated or threatened with serious personal consequences.
Bring it on. Every step Hillary makes ends up backfiring. I'm enjoying the show.
May 25, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Poor Hillary - life is so unfair.
Wellesley, Harvard Law, First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, then a US senator, but it's all so very fucking difficult for poor little Hillary.
Everybody is so mean to poor widdle Hillary.
We can't say Obama has won - cause it will hurt poor widdle Hillary's feelings.
Poor damn thing. Such a monumental struggle she's had.
May 25, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
In great irony, Obama is giving the commencement speech at Wellesley today, standing in for Teddy. She must be sizzling.
May 25, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I believe he will be speaking at Wesleyan in Connecticut, not Wellesley.
May 25, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, you're right. I stand corrected. Perhaps I was wishing for such irony. Those New England schools all start to blur together.
May 25, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I think HRC is a Yale Law grad. But your point stands.
May 25, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never can keep Harvard and Yale straight anymore.
I honestly don't think much of either school anymore - they both graduated the Monkeyinasuit who masquerades as our president.
Thanks for letting the point stand. :)
May 25, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like many graduates of both schools, Bush was admitted because his daddy and granddaddies were rich and powerful, and Harvard and Yale always want the support of the rich and powerful.
Of course, John McCain would be nothing if he hadn't been the son and grandson of Navy Admirals. He graduated third from the bottom of his class. If his admission to the Naval Academy were based on his ability he would have never been admitted and he would never have made it to flight school.
Social promotion, baby, social promotion. Come to think of it social promotion is what makes the Republican party "great." Heck of a job.
May 25, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"social promotion" is what it was - I know that.
And this is how you end up if you start that kind of aristocratic privilege bullshit, which has no place in a democracy. You end up with the feeble minded inbred least capable people on earth running things -
The Aristocrats!
May 25, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
So true.
Much prefer the AristoCats! ;)
May 25, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
PLEASE NOTE the massive bitter jealousy of this comment ..... why do women hate other successful women so much? Do you ever get laid?
May 25, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, as a successful scientist with a Master's degree, I am SO jealous of Hillary....I want to be a woman best known for being the wife of a philandering husband who didn't have enough self-respect to dump him after he embarassed and humiliated me in front of the whole wide world....not to mention being the first viable female candidate who somehow managed to drive a campaign with all of the money, all of the hype, and all of the establishment behind me straight into the ground. I SO wish I was HER.
May 25, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Greg,
I do certainly agree with you. It is very sad, but it is the daily bread of the times:
Empty, shallow, untranscending, morbo-seeking sensasionalism sells.
I think it is a sign that the values of too many are empty, shallow, untranscending and morbo-seeking; such lack of awareness!
Finding a candidate ready to attempt transcending that garbage is, well, refreshing; and encouraging.
May 25, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
First there was the mandatory Health Care tax, then there was the delusion of bosnia, then the obliterate Iran comment, then the well if all else fails maybe Obama will have the back of his skull shot off, after playing the "her white voters" card.
This is the part of the Clinton legacy, this type of trailer park narrative, that we want to just leave behind.
I cannot in good concious vote for this woman, as a registered republican never vote for Bush.
If it McCain Hillary in 2008 I'll vote McCain.
May 25, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh what a pity!
Hillary casts herself as the victim once again.
What does RFK's assassination have anything to do with the length of the primary season?
She didn't mispeak; her illusion was intentional.
Her statements and "explanation" are Exhibit A as to why the Democratic Party said "no mas" to the "inevitable Clinton machine."
May 25, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is absolutely breathtaking that she doesn't
"get it" not only in terms of why her explanation for staying in the race until June is wrong but more importantly, why people where offended on behalf of Obama and his family. Surely, if she decided to write an op-ed piece didn't one of her advisers say "hey, you need to acknowledge that this was ALSO hurtful and scary and upsetting for reasons unrelated to the Kennedys?
And to think I've been actually feeling badly for her because I just cannot believe that she wishes harm to Obama but this piece of drivel she's written is just fucking unbelievable!
May 25, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
I find it breathtaking as well.
May 25, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think she wishes harm to Obama, she just wants to remind us what could happen to him, which is why we need to buy the Clinton life insurance policy.
May 25, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
The money quote in the Clinton statement is:
"I realize that any reference to that traumatic moment for our nation can be deeply painful - particularly for members of the Kennedy family, who have been in my heart and prayers over this past week."
Yes, Senator, you knew your comment could be deeply painful before you gave your answer. You knew it before you walked into the meeting. You knew it before you said the same thing in March. You knew it when you sat down and committed that talking point to memory.
But somehow, you still memorized that callous Kennedy reference, and you used it in March, and you used it again in May. The part you that understands the old loss and the living grief over RFK does not control your mouth.
Your ambition controls your mouth. You decided the assassination was the best way to make your point, so you used it. You needed a convincing way to describe June primaries, and mentioning a murder seemed like get people's attention.
So, you decided to let the tears fall where they may.
Please get out of the race.
May 25, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
AND she is not being honest about exactly what point she has been trying to make with that reference. But, you know what? We get it. And we don't want the likes of her leading this country. Go back to Arkansas.
May 25, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting,she opted to write the op-ed in Daily News. A pattern this primary reason- Hillary taking refuge under media organizations that treated her like scum for years.
I'm fully expecting her attack article to back fire big time. While, I defended Hillary's initial gaffe, this comes across are arrogant, unapologetic and condescending. This will keep the word "assisnation" on the headlines for a few more days. May be thaat's what she wants, to force media to keep attacking her.
May 25, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeedy. The fact that Hillary's statement is now being referred to as a gaffe indicates the extent to which many have been willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.
However, the subsequent smokescreen and finger-pointing show even poorer judgment than the initial gaffe itself and reek of opportunism.
May 25, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a Freudian slip. Somebody in their right mind wouldn't have been in a state of mind to utter a statement about assassination.
May 25, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
She used that example for a reason. She used it 3 times. It doesn't even fit the scenario.
she used it on purpose to plant that idea in people's minds.
I cannot see one other explanation for this that makes any sense - of all the examples she could have used, some of which actually fit, she chose 3 times to mention Bobby Kennedy's assassination in June.
3 times.
There is a reason why they chose that example and kept using it.
May 25, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
To put the superdelegates in mind of it, Tena. It's Hillary plays the assassination card.
May 25, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, does anyone remember if Bill Clinton actually apologized for the Lewinsky situation? Did he ever actually say "I'm sorry for...and I apologize to..."? I ask because I'm curious whether this is some Clinton tenet: "Being a Clinton means never having to say you're sorry?"
May 25, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ya huh it sure does. Rove stole the "never say sorry" from the Big C's and then they stole it back for this campaign.
May 25, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's very sorry that she sent the signal she wanted to send to the lunatic fringe of her supporters.
May 25, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your opinion about this was quite clear from the beginning: It was a "gaffe" exploited by the OBAMA campaign. Reality doesn't matter.
In fact, it was an appalling, horrific thing to say and still, to this second, she has yet to apologize to Obama for it. And she clearly has not intention to do so. She is deplorable.
May 25, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to admit, I am (and probably lots of others are) losing confidence in the Democratic party.
To continually put up with this loose cannon, no matter what she says, and to try to rationalize every insane word she utters, is not what you want to see from a party professing to be better than the right-wing Republicans.
Every time they make excuses for Hillary and allow her to continue her meaningless pursuit, you wonder if these guys are any better than Bush and his minions.
May 25, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I kind of agree with you, but I suspect the party is very nervous about being charged with sexism (even though HRC has received more passes than Obama) and they don't want to alienate her female voters. What they need to realize is that women will vote for Obama if they care about women's issues--how could they vote for the man who calls his wife a c*** at a fundraiser?...Let alone McCain's policy positions. It's like watching someone have a nervous breakdown and everyone is trying to quietly steer the patient to the clinic without anymore violent incidents. I suspect she is also blackmailing the DNC, threatening to say and do certain things if it doesn't go her way--and now we know she is fully capable of that.
May 25, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I kind of agree with you, but I suspect the party is very nervous about being charged with sexism (even though HRC has received more passes than Obama) and they don't want to alienate her female voters. What they need to realize is that women will vote for Obama if they care about women's issues--how could they vote for the man who calls his wife a c*** at a fundraiser?...Let alone McCain's policy positions. It's like watching someone have a nervous breakdown and everyone is trying to quietly steer the patient to the clinic without anymore violent incidents. I suspect she is also blackmailing the DNC, threatening to say and do certain things if it doesn't go her way--and now we know she is fully capable of that.
May 25, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
sorry about that sorry about that, got an error message, and when I hit refresh I guess it registered twice twice.
May 25, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. And I'm sure that many of us have worked in organizations with Managers who develop problems and watched how difficult that can be for the Administration to address. The things that those in power do to address it (if they do their jobs right) will typically not be visible to those in the rest of the organization.
Of course, I'm giving the Party a lot of credit here. I think they are handling it delicately. I think they also recognize that the good of the Party is paramount. And I think that the support that Hillary came into the campaign with is ebbing away, so any threat that she may have posed is probably ebbing with it.
The way I see it, she is self-destructing as we watch - but she is causing a good bit of collateral damage in the process. The Party Leaders need to do something about that.
May 25, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter whether she meant it as nefariously as some took it or not.
She only has herself and not the media to blame for people taking it that way, because of the way she has conducted herself throughout this campaign.
We all know she those details, but we also shouldn't forget that she has been waiting for some calamity to cripple Obama's campaign and made no bones about the fact that that's why she's staying in.
Yes, the media can be blamed for making big deals about almost every unimportant issue, but people thinking the worst in this blunder of hers -- the fourth time she's "blundered" -- is her fault and her fault alone.
May 25, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
The media let it slide 3 previous times.
It's about time they picked up on it!
May 25, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Given this latest Bullshit excuse, I thank the creator of this you tube for his/her prescience
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo
May 25, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hadn't seen that in awhile. Seeing it again, I noticed the words at the end, "On January 14, 2008......" Brought to mind all the MI and FL line-jumping since the video was made and how that scrambled the primary calendar that had been set over a year ago.
May 25, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, I think you're kind of missing the point here. Clinton's comment wasn't a "slight" in the usual tit-for-tat sense. The problem is that it landed somewhere between tone-deaf and bizarre. You can completely ignore the intent of the remark and still see that its effect damages her image as a competent candidate. And if she really was angling for the VP slot, it gives Obama all he needs to illustrate how she could be a damaging distraction to his campaign. I think the pundits are correct in sensing this as a pregnant moment.
May 25, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
I think you made some good points in this article, but you used some unfortunately language to do it.
Emphasis added.
Why "appears"? Why is that necessary? How much clearer does he need to be? I know you know the various connotations of "appears".
I agree with you that too much of the press wants to address the horse race rather than the issues. My view is that too much of the press is too lazy, or management doesn't want to invest in real reporters, to do investigative journalism. That's one of the great things about reporting on TPM. (There's also the problem that too many things don't get reported unless there's video tape.) But as I said here, in this case I think that for many it was just one time too many to be ignored.
The main issue with her statement is her using the word at all. What's worse was her non-apology apology. She's not the wholly innocent victim in this case. As you say, her campaign knows how this stuff works and she should know better.
May 25, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe I'm defending Greg, may be coz he yielded some ground this morning. But appears is a reasonable word, considering reports in the NYT. Apparently Obama camp insiders are furious for what her assisnation insinuation and her refusal to apologize. They didn't think Obama shouldn't defend, but he did it anyway.
May 25, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
See, this is the kind of drama she would cause in the White House. Her statement on Friday created MAJOR blow back for her and instead of coming out with something to really tamp this down, especially since Obama gave her an exit strategy, she digs herself deeper into the black abyss.
I feel like a crazy person trying to make sense of her political strategies.
May 25, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
I'm so sick of the Clintonian Soap-Opera style of governance.
May 25, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. It creates anxiety. You wait for some balm from them, some acknowledgment that they've caused distress and while you're waiting you feel anxious and unsettled and when the apology never comes you're left with this dark disappointment and a sense of hopeless and rage. This is what I have felt for the best 8 years with Bush.
May 25, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes - she and Bill are yet another political psycho-drama and I'm sick of drama in the WH - we've had 20 years of drama, thanks to the Bushes and the Clintons.
I want out of here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 25, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
So does this mean that people who are addicted to psycho-dramas are addicted to the Clintons? I see no other reason to want to entrust the WH to them at this point giving what's transpired under Bill Clinton and how Hillary's run her campaign. If there was ever a time for SD's to move away from her and endorse Obama, this is it. Today's op-ed provides perfect cover if they feel they needed something other then pure common sense.
May 25, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Hillary just do what she accuses her critics of doing, i.e., taking her words out of context???
Here is part of her op-ed:
"I made clear that I was - and that I thought the urgency to end the 2008 primary process was unprecedented. I pointed out, as I have before, that both my husband's primary campaign, and Sen. Robert Kennedy's, had continued into June.
Almost immediately, some took my comments entirely out of context and interpreted them to mean something completely different - and completely unthinkable."
Hillary says, 'I pointed out......that both my husband's primary campaign, and Sen. Robert Kennedy's, had continued into June.'
Well, Hillary Clinton, If you really had said that at the Argus editorial interview [what you re-phrase now in this op-ed], there would have been no problem.
Truth is, you are now re-wording what you actually said in South Dakota, which was "We all remember that Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June". In that re-wording, you do not even add some level of honesty and recognition of the context of your words [The Kennedy family's distress, and the fears of some crazy going after a candidate]. To be honest and contextual, you would have said: "This is what I meant to convey, so I realize that my phrasing was really unfortunate, for which I offer a deep apology."
Instead of being honest or apologetic, I guess you think that the re-phrase will simply block out your earlier wording, so you can go on to use the publicity to reiterate all your campaign talking points, many of which are dubious spins in themselves.
May 25, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Intellectual honesty has never been a strong suit of the Clintons.
May 25, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
- my dear, straight up honesty has never been a long suit of the Clintons.
May 25, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are lying. She said "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June _in California_." clearly referrring to the Democratic primary in California.
May 26, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama doesn't have the luxury of playing the victim to the same extent that Hillary does and she knows it. She gets to cry misogyny! at the top of her lungs but Obama cannot cry racism! because his campaign has always has to walk a much tighter rope.
May 25, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very astute observation.
May 25, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
Very astute and very true.
Poor widdle Hillary - meantime the Obama campaign walks the razor's edge and manages to stay upright and display a great deal of finesse and elegance doing it.
She looks like a fishmonger's wife at this point - screeching out the day's specials in the market place.
May 25, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL..."fishmonger"!
May 25, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
That literally made me LOL.
May 25, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will pass along to my darling mother in law, because that's one of her expressions and it is a good one; I agree.
Thanks!
May 25, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ready to mong fish on day one!
May 25, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
But not only that. Obama doesn't make excuses. He says, I'm not perfect, I make mistakes and I'll probably make more because I'm human. Hillary wants us to believe she is beyond reproach and everything she does is 100% right all the time, hence she doesn't have to say "sorry." Her theme song should be that old Helen Reddy song: "You and Me Against the World."
May 25, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very true - I've never heard him make one yet.
How many times have we heard the Clintons - both of them - making excuses for their bad behavior? How many times do we have to hear them before we get rid of them?
They are poisonous - it's one bad decision followed by an excuse after another. For close to 20 years!
May 25, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's amazing to think what kind of power they have that they can get away with it. Us common folks just couldn't pull this kind of shit yet they're still revered and given support and respect. That's why "Power conceded nothing without demand." If we continue to accept them as it, we are to blame that it continues.
May 25, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"concedes"
May 25, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Lost in the excitement of Barack Obama's coronation this week was an inconvenient fact of Tuesday's results: Hillary Clinton netted approximately 150,000 votes and is now poised to finish the primary season as the popular-vote leader. In some quaint circles, presumably, these things still matter. But, alas, her fate may be the same as Al Gore's in 2000."
Take it to the convention thanks to the Obama hacks.
Thank you very much.
May 25, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you have an account at Hillaryis44, Taylor Marsh or HillaryHub that you can go stalk?
You'd fit right in.
May 25, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please, don't feed the trolls.
May 25, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Presidential nominating process is not American Idol.
Give it up, chump.