« Hillary Supporter Dianne Feinstein Pushes Her As Veep | Home | Attack Ad In Jersey Senate Primary: Lautenberg Made Fun Of A Woman's Age »
Hillary Invokes RFK Assassination While Describing Why She's Staying In Race
The Obama campaign is criticizing Hillary for invoking the assassination of RFK while explaining why she's staying in the presidential race.
Her comments came during that Argus Leader editorial board meeting that we posted on below. Here's what she said...
...which prompted this statement from Obama campaign spokesperson Bill Burton...
"Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign."
...and here's Hillary's subsequent clarification of her remarks...
Advertisement
A classic non-apology apology.
May 23, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The psycho HRC doesn't need to make bullshit apologies, she needs to explain why she brought it up in the first place.
For those who would like to see her "a heartbeat away," this should be really creepy.
May 23, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
If she goes on tape and says "OMG I didn't mean Barack, I'm horrified that anyone would suggest I was predicting Barack would be assassinated" -- the problem with that is that she is now talking about it. She's on tape talking about the assassination of her rival. And there is no way that can look good -- not even as an apology. It would make us feel a lot better, but it would make the other 99% of the American people look up from their mashed potatoes and say "What? What did she just say?"
That's why she made it about the Kennedys and just about them.
May 23, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alex you have a promising career as a flack. I do mean that as a compliment. Taking the best of some crappy options is still crappy, however.
May 23, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but Alex is MY flack, so what's wrong with that?
May 23, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hate to tell you guys this
but your ni$%er
IS NO ROBERT KENNEDY!
Jesus, the effing ego of Hussein!
So now we can't reference RFK's assassination?!
I guess Lincoln is off limits too huh?
F$%K HUSSEIN!
May 24, 2008 5:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
♪ I see your truuuuuue colors. ♪
May 24, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't there a stagnant, fetid pond you should be floating on?
May 24, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Night of the Living Craigslist Rants & Raves post.
May 24, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
now here's a troll.
May 24, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know Alex,
That's some weak fake candy passive aggressive business you throw out there in your comments.
As always...you're dully undecided.
May 23, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
And about how she's holding Ted Kennedy's seat. Did you catch that part of the apology?
May 23, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
She meant Bobby Kennedy, not Ted Kennedy. Her statement was still in poor taste but unfortunately that has come to be the expectation from Hillary and her campaign.
May 23, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that makes sense. Being a young'un of only 38, I only think of Ted Kennedy when someone mentions "Senator Kennedy".
May 23, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben, why would Hillary claim to be holding Ted's seat? Why?
May 23, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
She wouldn't, which is why I found it odd. Obviously, she was referring to Senator Robert Kennedy, but as I thought I just explained, that hadn't occurred to me as there's only one "Senator Kennedy" to me.
May 23, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It really doesn't matter which Kennedy you were thinking of, Ben, because she doesn't hold either one's seat. Charles Goodell took RFK's seat in 1969. The seat Hillary Clinton ran for and won THREE DECADES LATER was Daniel Patrick Moynihan's seat. This woman just makes it up as she goes along.
May 24, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. Clinton succeeded (2000) Moynihan, who succeeded (1976) Buckley, who succeeded (1970) Goodell, who was appointed (1968) by Nelson Rockefeller to fill Kennedy's unexpired term.
Do you people ever think before posting?
May 24, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben, you're showing your youthful lack of knowledge. She was talking about Robert Kennedy, not Ted. Robert Kennedy was the Senator from NY, running for President, behind in the polls, and still in the race in June. If she was "threatening" anyone's assassination, it would be her own.
Robert was assassinated in June, while behind in the polls but pressing on to win. I know; I was there, supporting his candidacy.
May 24, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Alex, you nailed it -
May 23, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I thought she'd hit the lowest spot she could hit when she decided to be Al Gore and make Obama Bush.
And I was sooooo wrong.
May 23, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? I expected as much from her. She's turning out to be the monster we warned everyone of.
May 23, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, of course, the last thing she said in her "apology" was to remind people that she has moved into Robert Kennedy's seat in the Senate.
May 23, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who was she apologizing to? It sounded like she was apologizing to the Kennedys as if mentioning RFK's assassination was somehow forbidden.
How did she not think to apologize to Obama and Obama's children for the insinuation that if he were to get assassinated in the next month she'd be able to claim victory as the only remaining candidate.
Maybe Edwards should get back in the race in case someone drops a grenade into HIllary and Barack's secret, private VP negotiations this weekend.
May 23, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
just stop! she didn't suggest anything of the sort. anyone who thinks that she was sending out some kind of coded message is deranged, and i hope that doesn't include the obama campaign... sometimes these things can go too far. no one in their right mind is going to believe that hillary meant anything other than the 1968 primaries lasted until june. i think the obama campaign is making a mistake to pounce on this one.
May 23, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If all she meant to say was that the 1968 primaries lasted until June, than that's all she had to say. She went quite a bit farther than that in making reference to Bobby Kennedy's assassination. You can make of that what you will.
May 23, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. All she had to say is "There are many examples of the Democratic nomination not being decided until June." I mean, most political reporters have a sense of history. Hell, posters to TPM have a sense of history. There's no need to spell it out. And there's certainly no need to invoke tragedy, especially this year when there's already been a great deal of consternation about the safety of the first competitive black candidate for the nomination.
May 23, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe she's not quite as programmed as you think she is. She voiced what she remembered without thinking of its connotations.
May 23, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Complete bullshit! She has 35 years in public service remember? And had to deal for years being publicly scrutinized. Do you really think she speaks without thinking about the political fallout? She knew exactly what she was doing. Put the doubt into the undeclared superdelegates minds so they dont push Obama over the top before the rules committee.
May 23, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
One word: Bosnia
I'm not defending her. I'm just pointing out that you're exaggerating her political acumen.
May 23, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sounded like random bullshit. Maybe she was tired.
May 23, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS of course her "apology" made no sense either. Who knows what was going through her head.
May 23, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, dude - then you interpret it for me - what did she say according to you?
May 23, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was wondering where you were when this first broke.
This is Unfuckingbelievable!
May 23, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, real slowly now for those who are having a hard time with this, those of us who grew up in the '60s and '70s remember the primary season ending in California in June. For me, the most memorable one was '76 when I was visiting a girl up in Vermont and we walked in the local newstand and the NYT was headlined with the announcement that despite Carter's defeats in California, the senior Mayor Daley was declaring that he "deserved" to be the nominee based on his overall record.
But most other people would first remember the 1968 campaign lasting till June because of the tragedy of the election night in California. Hillary simply reached back into the old memory bin and came up with the first June primary memory she had --- a very bad one to bring up in her particular circumstances, particularly given the cur-like characteristics of her attackers.
May 24, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
She did not have to mention the assassination. She could have just said, RFK won CA in June. This is going to cost her significant support among older influential boomers, who have been her "base."
This is very serious for those of us who actually lived through the sixties.
“It’s Over: Clinton Won’t be the Democratic Presidential or VP Candidate (and Boomers will make sure)” http://msa4.wordpress.com/
May 24, 2008 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kensdad what do you think she meant? She said her husband won in June and RFK got shot in June. What else could she have meant but "I am staying in this race because Obama might get shot, too"?
May 23, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bull****. Hillary was thinking back, as I often do, to the 60s and 70s when nomination battles didn't get settled until California in early June. She just reached back in the old memory bin to the most memorable event illustrating that and it sure was an unfortunate thing to make the point with.
May 23, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, well, you Clinton apologists go ahead and cling to that. But, for a women who supposedly possesses such brilliance and political acumen, this is a MAJOR gaffe. As was Bosnian sniper fire.
Brilliant? Politically astute?
I don't think so.
May 23, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's such weak ass shit I cannot believe you posted it.
May 23, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I can't believe you are so hung up in Clintonoia that you actually believe what you are saying. The rest of the country is laughing at you guys.
May 24, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really... nothing to see here, folks, lets move along...
May 24, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The primary season didn't start back then in January either. Bill's had essentially wrapped up the election in March, regardless of when he technically went over the top. I think she is tired and said what was actually on her mind. The Clinton campaign has been referencing that "something might happen" between "now and the convention" in many different ways over the last weeks. How else would you interpret that logic? "Something might happen" covers a lot of territory.
May 23, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Something might happen" covers a lot of territory.
Yes, it does, but the sick minds on this board go right to assassination.
May 24, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shrillary's the one who brought up ASSASSINATION you disingenous Jackass.
No wonder you're a fucking Clinton apologist.
Your disingenuity knows no bounds.
May 24, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take your pill and come back when you've settled down. I was replying to sweetnonnie's statement that "something might happen" covers a lot of territory.
May 24, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not going to comment on the intended or implied meaning of what she said, but you have to admit... she probably should't have said it that way, because of what some people could infer.
Really, not her best day... but I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt as to her intent, as she's already basically lost the election anyway.
May 24, 2008 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
She wasn't sending any kind of coded messages, such as the Bush Administration always insists are in every OBL communication.
But aside from everything else, it's not much of a rationale for continuing to run.
It would have been better not to mention it all. They're plenty of other contentious down to the wire primary races, for example 1960.
I suspect that she mentioned 1968 because she was a junior in college at the time, and it likely made a big impression on her. Then free association got the better of her.
May 23, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
In reply to Kensdad saying that the Obama campaign is making a mistake to pounce on this: they are doing nothing of the kind. I just watched Axelrod say of course she didn't mean anything by it, she was just tired.
On the other hand, most of the media is saying that it is absolutely unforgivable and should be the end of her campaign.
I couldn't agree more.
May 23, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unbelievable. You're wrong. I watched the original, you don't know what you are talking about.
May 23, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you be more specific? As in what about, "I'm holding out in case one of Huckabee's pals shoots Obama." don't you find offensive?
May 23, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please stop, CVille Dem. Please?
May 23, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama camp is manipulating it, kensdad, not just pouncing on it. I saw the original interview live. Clinton said nothing wrong. Next thing I know Obama is twisting it into a melodrama.
May 23, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama campaign is not fanning this. Axelrod was very gracious about it. He gave Clinton the benefit of a doubt.
May 23, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was absolutely nothing to bring up in the first place. That's the twist. If it got as far as Olbermann, then someone fanned it plenty.
Hmmm. I wonder who would do that?
May 23, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please stop it rtbag, please?
Do you honestly think Keith Olberman can't think for himself -- that he needed to be told by an Obama person to write his comments?
And my reference above that bothered you so much -- remember Huckabee joking just last week about someone pointing a gun at Obama? (This was at an NRA convention and everyone thought it was so funny!) It just makes Hillary's comments even more crass. And, no I won't stop it.
BTW, I don't think she is ADVOCATING that Obama be hurt, I just think it was a freudian slip, which indicates her below-the-surface thoughts.
May 24, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
readytoblow,
Please open you eyes. There is much to bring up.
The point much missed in this whole fiasco it that she is right:
The longer one runs, the more chances for something obscure to happen. Which is exactly what is happening to her:
The longer she runs, the more chances SHE has to put HER OWN foot in her mouth and ruin her own chances. She is not dissapointing; White voters and all that...
Hers (not anyone else's response) was an unfortunate comment. What did she really mean by it?
Who cares? We can all speculate all we want, but SHE is the only one who knows (as fas as I know) what is truly in her mind (feel free to include or exclude freudian slips and the like.)
Running for too long could be a double edge knife for anyone; it seems she is getting cut!
But for the Obama campaign, this couldn't come at a better time. While, despite not being invited, she insists on forcing herself onto the VP slot.
This foot in her mouth makes it so much easier to say "no, no and NO!
May 24, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
No they're not!
May 23, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed--but you've got to admit there's something a bit cold-blooded about blithely dropping the assassination of Robert Kennedy into the middle of an argument for Why I should be allowed to stay in this race for as long as I want.
May 24, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
She sincerely apologizes...as far as I know.
May 23, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you can discern sincerity in Hillary Clinton, then you're waaaaaaaaay ahead of most of us!
May 23, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hah!
May 23, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting that they claim she was "tired" or she misspoke when she used the exact same example for the exact same point in March in an interview with Time magazine.
see here
Interesting that she mentioned Bobby's assassination both times--not that the primary was still going--and interesting that she returns to that same instance when explaining why she isn't quitting But, yeah, it's outrageous to think she meant anything by it.
May 23, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow... great post in pulling this older quote.
May 23, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I watched the interview live, and Clinton mentioned RFK as a candidate who campaigned into June. There was nothing wrong with her reference to him, and nothing wrong with her later elaboration:
That the Obama camp would twist Clinton's comment is unfathomably despicable to me.
Same goes for TPM. This is disgusting chain-jerking. Greg Sargent, you didn't watch the original, did you? I can't believe you are "reporting" via a YouTube snipped video c/o the Obama campaign! You are not reporting the facts as the South Dakota Argus Leader reported them. I hope you get sued.
May 23, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's people actually are giving her the benefit of the doubt; but the media is laying in pretty hard.
May 23, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are they? Most importantly, why is Greg Sargent skewing it?
May 23, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an Obama supporter who has given her the benefit of the doubt as far as her intent on what she meant.
That said, the possible implication of what she meant is a terrible thing, and the media are pouncing all over this one, in part because I think they see this as the straw that broke the camel's back, and in part because they see this as major faux pas, especially in the wake of Senator Kennedy's health issues.
Really, it's horrible timing all around, and she really put her foot in it, so of course it will lead to some people to suggest that she should pack it in. It could also give a few fencesitting delegates a push.
Most Democrats are moving together and looking towards McCain, and really don't want to see the negative overtones in the campaign anymore. The public resents it, I think... which is good news come fall.
May 24, 2008 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, its always due to a great big secret Obama Campaign driven conspiracy with you guys, isn't it? Never has anything to do with her or her campaign. She's only losing because of a big secret conspiracy to deprive or of that which is rightfully hers. The only evidence you need is that she's losing. If there was no conspiracy, she wouldn't be losing.
May 24, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You people are fucking ridiculous.
The context of what she said is ABUNDANTLY clear.
She is talking about campaigning in June. PERIOD.
I don't know what you people are clucking about. Anything to bitch about her. Sheesh.
May 24, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look at the response of the two campaigns. Obama makes his "bitter" comments and her campaign pounced on them. Hillary made it a central theme of her campaign, drinking in bars and chatting about teenage gun use.
The Obama campaign released a one paragraph response and Axelrod was extremely gracious on Hardball.
Obama's campaign knows when to get the hell out of the way and let the story play out properly. Hillary will benefit that this was said on a Friday before a long weekend, but the damage is done.
If you're a Hillary supporter you can think that she is being poorly served by the media here. But did you think that Obama's bitter comments were innocent as well? It really sucks being misinterpreted, doesn't it?
Bill Clinton did say you have to suit up and be prepared to take some hits.
May 24, 2008 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama talked in an interview about when Monica Lewinski's dress (the one with the stain) showed up, and then later said it was just a reference to a beautiful day in September (or June, or whenever it was)...you'd believe him, wouldn't you?
May 24, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't get tackier than this. I hope this can be the end of her. Finally.
May 23, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not tacky. It's sick and it makes me sick to think of her on any ticket.
May 23, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can end that VP talk now.
May 23, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
MSNBC is reporting this remark as "terribly damaging" "because she is tired" "and she seemed to profoundly regret it"
No VEEP slot. No Senate leadership post. No SCOTUS justice. There must be consequences. For too long accountability has taken a back seat to Clinton ego.
Not this time.
Pax,
M.
May 23, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
She says an awful lot of stuff she "regrets" when "she's tired". How is that POTUS material?
May 23, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I just realized that I'm REALLY TIRED at 3AM.
May 23, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry...was it 3am when she made these sorts of statements (3 times now)? Didn't think so.
May 23, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, there's a red phone ringing.
May 23, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, blaming blatant lies and references to assassinations on being "tired" is getting a bit old.
And it certainly runs counter to her "3 a.m. phone call" ad. Wouldn't she be tired at 3 a.m.?
May 23, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
They don't always blame her gaffes and lies on being tired. sometimes they blame them on "The Obama Camp."
May 24, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
CHARACTER IS INDEED, AT LONG LAST, FATE.
May 23, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Over at Taylor Marsh's site, they don't think she said anything wrong. How amazingly sad.
May 23, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, of course not. And, truthfully...I would bet that Hillary doesn't either.
May 23, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've never really read the Taylor Marsh site but I looked over there at their thread on this and they were all talking about how bad they felt for Hillary because she looked so pained during her apology. We get a lot of both sides here and certainly some crazies on both sides; but this was all one sided and just one long pity fest for Hillary.
It's nice to have a site that maybe leans toward your existing opinions but one were there is such a group-think mentality is kinda scary and pretty boring I would think.
May 23, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
so, did Hillary really suggest that she was staying in the race in case Barak Obama was assassinated like Kennedy?
May 23, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, that was her insinuation.
May 23, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's what your sick mind reads into it.
May 23, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then you tell us what she means, since you're the main Hillary mind reader, to judge from your comments - which do show a very decided lack of content other than to repeat bullshit about us.
Tell us what she said, then.
May 23, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
))))))))))))))))-crickets-((((((((((((((((((((
May 23, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what makes you say that?
May 24, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
BECAUSE THERE IS NO EXPLANATION, other than bullshit coming out of the Clinton Camp (big surprise...NOT).
As the NY Times put it today in an editorial:
http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/say-what-hillary-clinton-does-it-again/
Say What? Hillary Clinton Does it Again
By The Editorial Board
We have no idea what, exactly, Hillary Clinton was thinking when she referred to the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in explaining her decision to keep on campaigning when it looks like there is virtually no hope of her winning the Democratic nomination.
(We’ve supported her decision to do so. This is a democracy, after all.)
But she could, at least, have apologized.
Instead, she issued one of those tedious non-apology apologies in which it sounds like the person who is being offended is somehow at fault: “I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive.”
If?
Is it even possible that Mrs. Clinton thinks someone out there was not offended by her remark, Kennedy relative, Obama relative, or just plain folks?
Mrs. Clinton tried to excuse her inexcusable outburst by saying she was distracted by the shock of the news of Senator Edward Kennedy’s malignant brain tumor. But there was something familiar about what she said, and thanks to Ben Smith of Politico, we remembered what it was. Mrs. Clinton said basically the same thing in an interview with Time on March 6:
“I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A.”
What’s next? “Mistakes were made”?
May 24, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
talking points from the NYT, so what else is new?
May 24, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The same newspaper that endorsed Hillary for President.
they smell Bullshit when it wafts into the dialogue.
May 24, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
which do show a very decided lack of content other than to repeat bullshit about us.
Where did I repeat bullshit about you?
May 24, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what, whether ot not her subtext was hey, Obama could be shot and then it would be me, she still was bringing up the assassination of Robert Kennedy within a context that totally trivialized it. For her to justify her vanity production of a run by drawing an analogy to the tragedy of Kennedy's run is totally tasteless. Add that to her comparing her Michigan/Florida saga to the Civil Rights Movement and you've got Madame Clinton in a nutshell. No matter what her particular struggle, she sees it as epic, if not titan. There's no end to her self-glorification, including the claim that she sits in RFK's senate seat now, when it was Daniel Patrick Moynihan who was retiring when she ran, and it was his seat she won. And there's another really telling slip. Apparently sitting in a great senator's seat isn't quite grand enough for her, not quite mythopoeic enough for her inflated sense of her own self importance.
May 24, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not an apology with the "if" as a clarifier.
May 23, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
hm.. not sure she really "clarified" her remarks, but rather restated them.
May 23, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Clinton's "invocation":
From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/vice-presidential-candidate-clinton.html
Friday, May 23, 2008
A Hypothetical Speech by Vice Presidential Candidate Clinton
Thank you for welcoming me here tonight. I know that we are all proud of Barack, who has risen from humble beginnings to such heights--great heights, perilous heights. As you may know, 30% of serious accidents occur from a height of 10 feet or above.
And so we now set out together on our journey--a journey of hope, a journey of change, and yes, a journey of great demands. For the Presidency places great demands on all of those who hold the office--we have seen how amazingly quickly it can age people in the poignant photographs of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was succeeded by Harry S. Truman while still in office.
In this journey, we will put forward our shared goals--of expanded health coverage, against the unexpected and often fatal illnesses that can rob even those citizens that seem the healthiest of their ability to work, even of their lives.
Of protection against unexpected attack on our country, often aimed at those who are placed in the most critical positions to lead this nation. Of conservation of our precious energy resources, without which, even the most powerful of us can wind up stranded in a desert motorcade, without food, water, or wireless reception to contact others for help. Of greater support for culture and the arts--beginning with increased support for our very own Ford's Theatre here in Washington, DC.
Many of you will hear Barack speak later today, from a platform in Norman, Oklahoma--a humble platform, a rickety platform, a platform susceptible to Norman's notoriously strong and unexpected winds. There--god willing--he will tell you of what we hope to accomplish. He will speak of the unity that he and I wish to achieve for this nation, just as Andrew Johnson and Lincoln strove for such national unity. And he will tell you of our wish for change.
Change. An important word. None of us can know the changes that will occur in our lives. None of us can predict what momentous events, what disasters may befall us. A simple damaged left engine turbine stabilizer in a campaign plane. A frayed electrical line dangling, unseen, from a remote access satellite hookup van. A safe, falling, unexpectedly, to the sidewalk from the 8th floor of the Hotel Aldion in Norman, Oklahoma.
And so, we must dedicate ourselves, consecrate ourselves, to reach these most important national objectives today--while we still can. And like Kennedy, Garfield, McKinley, and other Presidents before him, we know that Barack will strive to achieve these goals--in the face of the awesome unknowns that lay before us all.
Thank you.
Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/vice-presidential-candidate-clinton.html
May 23, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
She left out Harrison, Taylor, Lincoln and Harding.
May 23, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Hillary wake up every morning and say to herself, "Today, I will strive to achieve a new personal low?"
May 23, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
omg, OMG, OMG.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/northfulton/stories/2008/05/21/89031625_Picture_6.html
It can happen you know.
May 23, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are sick.
May 23, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't blame the messenger. That's a real magazine cover.
May 23, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, you can exaplain it to the Secret Service. I just called them to report your threat-mongering. I'd lawyer up.
No I am not kidding, and neither will the Secret Service be in a kidding mood. You have crossed a line today.
May 23, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I mentioned, it's a real magazine cover.
May 23, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
We know that. It's the "It can happen you know" part that makes it not so funny.
May 23, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I misread goatlife's intent. If the OMG part was supposed to be funny, I'd say he could go fuck himself. But I took it as genuine. Am I giving him too much credit? Believe me, I'm the last person who would be defending him otherwise.
May 23, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check his other posts on this thread. He thinks it's funny that people are upset.
May 23, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've read comments on TPM from other Hillary supporters that relish the same fantasy. Sickening.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/is_hillary_outperforming_obama.php#comment-2813983
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/attention-obama-bloggers-who-d.php#comment-2832255
May 23, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pissed that he even posted that filthy piece of shit, frankly.
May 23, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really stupid is that we can't flag it and oust it!
May 24, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're not kidding, you have a terminal case of the dumbass.
May 23, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Marioth!
Maybe Gotalife needs a visit from the Secret Service.
May 23, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU LOW LIFE SCUMBAG.
May 23, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goat droppings. Yuk.
May 23, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I fully apologize for all my thoughtless, destructive comments over these past few months.
May 23, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
dude, if he called the SS, there is a very real chance that they will come to see you. Obama is a small step away from the Oval Office and the boys in the SS take their work very, very seriously.
It is not something to mention neither in error nor jest.
Coupled with a long history of aggressive and bitter remarks, you should be afraid.
May 23, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm on a mattel-o-phone land line with turtle speed hookups, might someone supply a short precis of what the RFK remark was about? Please.
May 23, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Essentially, Hillary said that she was staying in the race because there was always the possibility that Obama might be assassinated.
May 23, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another way to interpret it is that she was saying that primaries going to June is not unusual -- she cited examples of Bill's campaign (a little disingenuous since he was presumed to be the winner at this point) and the fact that Bobby Kennedy was still running in June (because he was assasinated the night of the CA primary).
I'm beginning to believe that's what she really was doing -- looking for June references. Still bad choice of example.
May 23, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're giving her the benefit of the doubt. She doesn't deserve it. If a private citizen talked like this in public, they'd be put on a watch list. If a newsperson said it, they'd be fired. Hillary Clinton crossed a very, very dangerous line today. It's not acceptable--not if it was intentional, and not if it was a mistake.
May 23, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we know the conclusion of this thinking: obliteration.
May 23, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
She made no reference of Kennedy "still running in June." I'm no knee-jerk Hillary hater, but I find your interpretation exceedingly soft.
May 23, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
She said that it was ahistorical to try to get her out of the race now because primaries have gone into June regularly.
She gave two examples -- Bill did not wrap up the nom until mid-June and "we all remember" Bobby Kennedy was assasinated in June. Everyone knows that he was assasinated after the CA primary so she's relying on people remembering that he was shot in June and therefore that the contested primary must have been ongoing in June.
I'm not saying it's crystal clear but she looks pretty horrified on that tape at what people think she said. I think it was a very very unfortunate choice of words.
May 23, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bette, there are many reasons she could have cited for staying in the race. She chose to mention an assassination. And if you're a Hillary observer, you know that when she does that thing where she stares down at the floor, she's about to deliver some filth. And she definitely delivered today.
There is NO EXCUSE for what she said. None whatsoever. And you know that if someone had said something similar about her, you'd be outraged.
May 23, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I wouldn't.
I just don't think this is as clear as you all do. I'll concede that she may have been telegraphing about the assasination thing (and to read the comments on pro-HRC Talk Left, that's fine with her supporters because Obama is at risk, which is totally ridiculous and gross). But, I think there's a greater than 51% chance that she did not mean to raise the specter of Obama being shot.
May 23, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you see her do it in person? I didn't but I have noticed on clips just before she says something really ugly or lies her eyes shift back and forth really fast - avoiding any eye contact or looking for someone around that might call her out on it. What did she do this time? Both when she first said it and when she made her "clarification". Are people in NY really disgusted with her yet?
May 23, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, let's say it was "a horrible, horrible choice of words." Do we want someone capable of such a gaffe as our president? Or vice president?
Uh, no.
May 23, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Hyper:
Did you see the entire episode as shown on ABC news? It's very clear when it's all seen that it was an entirely innocent comment re: people in the past who were still campaigning in June.
You look too intelligent to buy into this Obama Krap-Spin !
May 23, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Innocent my ass.
She's toast, and you're a Troll.
May 23, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe a good choice to keep the superdelegates from pushing her out of the race?
May 23, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
She did not say that. You infered it. She did not say anything about Bobby running until June. What she said:
"We all know Bobby Kennedy was assinated in June in California"
There was no inference to Bobby running, just his assasination.
May 23, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yuh huh. How about "You wanna be sure somone's on deck, just in case."
May 23, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton has dealt with Secret Service for several decades. She knows the hell of what she's talking about. I'm not saying she's a death-eater, but she would do well in Slytherin.
May 23, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the quote from the New York Post:
May 23, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
her explanation is just as bad as the statement. She was so broken up about Ted that she had to point out his brother's assasination?
Can someone please give me a reason to see Hillary as anything other than wtretched?
May 23, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only was her comment extremely offensive, it doesn't even make any damn sense.
If, on June 15, Obama were to pull off his rubber mask and reveal that he was Dick Cheney all along, why wouldn't Hillary Clinton be the nominee regardless of the status of her campaign?
May 23, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, she is apologizing to the Kennedy family for bringing up the possibility that Senator Obama might get assassinated, thereby rendering her the nomination> Nice. I wonder what her next act of public self immolation will be?
May 23, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
And she said Ted Kennedy's BRAIN tumor made her think about RFK's assassination. WTF.
May 23, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's genuine and appropriate.
His colleagues are really broken up about Ted Kennedy's diagnosis. She probably feels really bad for saying something that might be hurtful to him this week.
May 23, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you nuts ?
May 23, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what about how hurtful this was to Obama's wife and children? I didn't hear an apology to THEM.
May 23, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cogitation is obviously not your strong suit.
May 23, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
As David Gergen put it so aptly, if Obama were to put Hillary on the ticket he needs to hire a full time food taster. For her the road to the White House involves assassination. I have to think there was a bit of the unconscious leading out here due to fatigue.
May 23, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is truly beneath contempt.
Everyone knows exactly what point she was trying to make.
The only good news from this is that hopefully it will convince Obama not to select her as his running mate.
May 23, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm no Hillary fan, but this is a tempest in a teapot. All she was doing was fixing in her own mind that the California primary was in June.
It's obvious that she was having difficulty remembering when Bill won the California primary (at least a precise date) and it was in that context that she said, "We all remember that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in California in June, right?" She was just reinforcing (in her own mind, above all) the idea that Bill didn't wrap up the nomination until California, which occurred (as we all recall) in June.
She should have acknowledged that she was having a "senior moment" and let it go at that.
May 23, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not defensible.
May 23, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've never had a senior moment?
The commonality in the two back-to-back references is the California primary. Her reference to the Kennedy assassination makes no sense without that.
May 23, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, no, that's not an acceptable reference for continuing the primary race. There's the 1980 primary race as a better reference.
May 23, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah but there's no sense in her staying in the race anyway, y'know?
... or is there?
May 23, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It only makes sense in the presence of deep denial. If I did not have a long list of wretched moments from Bill and Hillary, you MAY have had a point.
But not this time.
Senior moment my Great Aunt Bertha's toenail...
Pax,
M.
May 23, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand your defense of her....the California primary is OVER..it is not in June this year....I don't understand why she would be trying to connect those dots.
May 23, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
35 years of experience? I don't care how "tired" you are.....democrats must never use the word assassination in combination with an election.
Is there something she could say that you would not excuse?
May 23, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bet she thought "Hey Huckabee got away with it without too much backlash."
May 23, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Clinton does not get off that easy. The comment was beyond the pale. If she's so experienced, and "prepared to lead from day one" then she knows better. If anything, this proves just the opposite.
May 23, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then why did she say it 3 times?
May 23, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've seen nothing that suggests she said it three time. She said it in the editorial board interview and then bungled the job trying to explain what she said.
May 23, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
She made the references to RFK twice before at different campaign stops.
May 23, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
That this would be in her mind as a point of argument is the reason why it is indefensible.
Being tired leads me to misspeak - like a spoonerism, or a funny replacement of words. This is a line of thought that was obviously on her mind as a talking point if and when she needed it.
She might have been tired enough to utter it, but she couldn't be too tired to have it in her game plan.
May 23, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meh, I have all kinds of weird thoughts floating around in there, not gonna convict someone for a thought-crime.
Further, I'm a strong Obama supporter but this seems like a lot of faux outrage to me. She was pointing out that things can change drastically even up to June. And Kennedy being in the news certainly might bring that thought to the top of one's mind.
May 23, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
She could have brought up Ted Kennedy or Gary Hart. She chose RFK.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/get_ready_get_set_parse.php
May 23, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like Obama's "bitter" senior moment which she referenced forever? She is a very seasoned politician. She should know better.
May 23, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
so she doesn't remember campaigning in CA? if her moments are that damn senior I think she needs to skip the white house and go straight to shady pines.
look, even if you assume her intent was pristine at best she has THOUGHT such things before. she has certainly made this reference before. if one's strategy for winning is to hope the other guy - or, god forbid my female self is sexist, the other GAL - loses, then you have already accepted defeat. and i'm tired of losers who don't know when to quit. that's our new Iraq strategy: we'll keep fighting to prove we didn't lose. it doesn't fly for logical, rational people.
now, I'm colored so I'm also prone to believe that her motives were not pristine. a white woman of her age knows better than to raise the spector of violence. Hillary is politically savvy, tired or no, and, again, this was NOT her first time saying this. much in the way she has suggested white voters are the only ones that matter, she was suggesting that Obama's candidacy is a wild card. more than just an insinuation based on his race, I am insulted by the fact that she continues to totally negate the fact that the man simply out hustled her. that's the real racism most of us know. it's not burning crosses and klan picnics. it's the assumption that the black guy must have done something inherently wrong to even be in the race, and it's just a matter of time before it comes to light.
Hillary is worse than a liar or a race-baiter or a tired old haggard woman with delusional feminist ideals. She is anti-American. Who else but someone who hates America would bet their entire presidential run on the hope that America has not progressed?
May 24, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm sorry for what I said about RFK. There are no plans to assassinate Obama -- *as far as I know*."
:-O
Maybe it would have been safer to say something like:
"Who knows what can happen between now and November? Barack could have a bimbo eruption."
May 23, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, that is some seriously crazy shit.
May 23, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's it - the Unity Pony is Not Amused.
I wonder if it bites...
May 23, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way to stay classy Senator Clinton. Just so your supporters know, this is one of the MANY reasons she won't be part of the Dream Ticket.
May 23, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Say "g'night," Shrillary.
You are FINISHED.
Now STFU!
May 23, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I certainly had no (widening eyes) intention of that whatsoever".
Ugh. It just reminds me of all the bullshit we had to endure during the Clinton I years. Spare me.
And, was she apologizing to Obama at all, or only to the Kennedy's? That snippet is so short. That's it? That's all she had to say for herself?
May 23, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, no mention of Obama.
Her "apology" was to the Kennedy family for bringing up those unpleasant memories, not to the man whose possible death she had evoked as a reason for her staying in the race.
I would hope Wolfson and his team are drafting a dignified withdrawal speech even as the internet tubes buzz.
She really has no fallback position from this, nor does she deserve a soft landing.
I trust the voters in Puerto Rico and the Dakotas were listening.
May 23, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, no, no, of course not. Because that would require that she have some shame or inclination towards accepting personal responsibility for her actions and she has none of that. She will carry on as if she hasn't a care in the world and will NOT leave this race until she is put in shackles and forced out.
May 23, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by the way - she said it before. This wasn't the first time. I'm trying to track it down but she said it a couple of months ago.
I've already e-mailed and called the DNC. Left a message stating clearly - if she's anywhere on the ticket I'm not only NOT donating another nickel to the party, I'm switching my affiliation to "Independent". I voted for her for senator - now I deeply regret it.
I'm old enough to remember all the assassinations of the 60s. RFK's was just after Martin Luther King's. I was 10 years old. It forever scarred my image of America. For her to use it as a reason to legitimize her selfish ambition is unpardonable. No matter how she tries to finesse it.
May 23, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I emailed the DNC, Reid, Pelosi, Durbin and Schakowsky. It's got to stop.
May 23, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I quote from D. Rees @ HuffPO who pretty much sums it up for me:
"Why drop out of the race before all the assassins have had their say?
After all, we know Barack Obama has received multiple death threats -- because he is black, of course, and because some of our fellow citizens think he's a secret Muslim terrorist who is going to take the oath of office on the Koran and make us all pray to Mecca five times a day with that screechy music coming over the loudspeakers(?) and then he'll fly Air Force One into the White House(?).
And the truth is, Obama has consistently failed to win over those voters who want to see him murdered."
Nuff said
May 23, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this was fatal.
This may not last a week.
Oh, and Ted Kennedy is going to rip her ass to shreds.
May 23, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Her only hope was that this blew up late on a Friday of a holiday weekend.
May 23, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even Taylor Marsh is lamenting over it.
This is the straw the broke the Clintons' back.
Beneath contempt.
May 23, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on people. It was an artless remark. These people speak and speak and speak. Things are going to come out badly sometimes. It looked to me, in context, that it was cited as an example of a primary contest very much ongoing in June. RFK was where he was when he got shot because he had just won a crucial victory. People who live and breathe politics as she does take the context of where RFK was and what was happening as given knowledge.
Again, artless. Please, please, I do not want the left to play these stupid "gotcha" games.
May 23, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly!
May 23, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Gotcha" games? You must be joking.
May 23, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It most definitely wasn't an artless remark. It was Hillary's inner demon revealing itself. Samantha Power was right: the woman is a monster.
May 23, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. This is the same hole in her psychological bucket that caused the sniper confabulation and her persistence in holding to it after it had been vaporized by the MSM. She even lied about apologizing for that one (she didn't, anymore than she has apologized for this one).
Again, the only remaining question is how bad the trail of scorched flesh will smell, and for how long.
May 23, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, she was getting the not-so-subtle message across that she should stay in the race so she would be the nominee if something, God forbid to happen to Obama, and failing that, that she should be his running mate so she could take over if something, God forbid should happen to Obama. That was the point she was trying to make and it is beneath contempt.
May 23, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
And is exactly why I support Barack. He speaks and speaks and speaks and I've never heard him make such a ridiculous statement.
She does not get to shrug this off as being tired, or old, or whatever nonsense she'll use to try and spin this. It was a horrible thing to say.
The quality differences between these two candidates is becoming abundantly clear.
May 23, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you. The problem with Senator Clinton in particular is that in general, her speech is laden with innuendo. So when she says something like this, it gets read as innuendo.
May 23, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a "gotcha"--it's a "gotme".
Don't feel too bad for her, campaigns have been destroyed over less. Remember Howard Dean?
See, ever since the Jeremiah Wright situation, she's been waiting for a shoe to drop. And finally, one has.
But it's her own.
May 23, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's so obvious why everyone wants her out!! Not only is she staying in, by her own words, in case Obama is assassinated; but she is a pro-NAFTA warmonger who is much closer to McCain - hardly a Democrat or progressive.
May 23, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully, this at least puts to eternal rest any further calls by party elders to put Hillary on the ticket.
This was offensive, inexcusable and her low point of the campaign.
And the last point is saying quite a lot.
May 23, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if we're sticking with the Talking Heads analogies, has Hillary slid right into her "Psycho Killer - Qu'est-ce que c'est " phase?
May 23, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better, run, run, run, away.
May 23, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Key line from that song:
"I CAN'T SEEM TO FACE UP TO THE FACTS . . ."
May 23, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Got no patience, can't relax -
can't sleep, bed's onfire
don't touch me I'm a real live wire
oooooo -
May 23, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
mydd is now calling for her to end her campaign:
The Politics Of Violence
MYDD!
May 23, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The entire Democratic Party should DEMAND that she end her candidacy immediately. This is far beyond the pale. This is inexcusably reprehensible behavior.
May 23, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I just saw a pig fly!
May 23, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. I am truly impressed that MyDD understands. Wow.
Good for them!
May 23, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
God, I'm watching a flock of flying pigs! MyDD called for her to end her campaign?! Remarkable. I'm trying to look for myself, but can't get on the site. Must be overwhelming traffic.
May 23, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, if she was only meaning to talk about her husband's nomination not being decided until June, then her mind works in very strange and scary ways. I just don't get how one could combine having a nomination wrapped up with an assassination.
I'll say it again, she's straightjacket crazy.
May 23, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, how the editorial board that asked her why they were trying to force her out thought it was nothing.
Of course, then the kool aid drinkers got ahold of the comment to produce the outrage.
Much ado about hate as usual.
May 23, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if the editorial board at the fucking Sioux Falls Argus Leader didn't think anything of it, then I'm sure it's nothing.
May 23, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're in fucking Wisconsin and you're dissing South Dakota?
Bwahahaha.
May 23, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Birthplace of the progressive movement, hell yea.
May 23, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Flyover country.
May 23, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elitist.
May 23, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
haha, ok...
May 23, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
goatlife, you wis-disser, my army of badger-educated kitten ninjas knows where you live, and they're coming for you.
May 23, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a tool.
May 23, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wisconsin is a midwest state like Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan.
South Dakota is not.
May 23, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
GREAT point! These guys (and gals?) are used to covering state politics (in a rather sparsely populated state, I might add), city council meetings and cold snaps. They had a BOMB fall in their laps and had no clue how to follow-up.
May 23, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
SHE is the one that said it, no one else . . . as such an "experienced" politician, she certainly would know to be more careful . . . especially coming on the heels of Huckabee's shooting joke...
May 23, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes! Thank you for point this out.
Enough of this shit. Call these people out and hold them accountable for what they say.
May 23, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I fully apologize for all my thoughtless, destructive comments over these past few months.
May 23, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, that's better.
May 23, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama had better watch out for Goat, too.
May 23, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Freudian slip, perhaps? She's staying in to the bitter end in case Obama gets assassinated. Ah, if only California hadn't moved up it's primary...
May 23, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I literally feel sick to my stomach.
The woman's been angling for Vice President. I've been wondering why she'd want the job. She had to know that Obama would cut the OVP back from Cheney's shadow presidency to John Nance's Garner's pitcher of warm piss regardless of who his running mate was, but that if it was her she'd be lucky to even have a secretary.
My assumption was that she figures he'll lose and it would position her for 2012.
Looks like her old pal's Ms. Fatigue and Dr. Freud just blew that theory out of the wate.
May 23, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I truly feel sorry for HRC. I dont think she meant it like the way it sounded, but make no mistake, she knows she just hammered the last nail in the coffin.
May 23, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aye, there is some relief here. Good night nurse, it will all be over soon.
May 23, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you. This election has been so strange.
May 23, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor Hillary.
May 23, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey folks. For what it's worth, I'm really not hearing these remarks the same way you guys are. To me it just sounded like she was saying "primary races often used to run into June."
May 23, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not even an acceptable rationale. She could've used other historic primary races, the 1980 primary race, and the 1984 primary race, as a reference for continuing the campaign.
But to mention the RFK assassination as the reason for continuing the campaign?
May 23, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think so. Of all the examples she could have used, she picks the assassination of RFK? Just days after Ted's terminal cancer diagnosis?
It's over. When you're running for POTUS, you don't make these kinds of mistakes. You just simply do not.
You can't even blame this one on her lame advisors and shitty campaign managers. These were her words. She blew it big time.
May 23, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
It's like Huckabee's statement, and you're left asking: "why was that the first thing that came to your mind."
Unfuckingbelievable!
May 23, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are exactly right, it's eerily similar to Huckster's comments before the NRA. He almost had that "did I say that with my inside of my head voice, or the outside one....oooops"
It really does peel back the layers and expose how rotten to the core some people are.
May 23, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
But okay, as I think about it, I would admit that this was an odd and unfortunate choice of example. So much so that it could suggest that she was (privately) thinking what y'all are saying.
But still. Let's not overdo it and turn her into Lady Macbeth.
May 23, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
What more prominent marker of a California primary in June is there than Bobby Kennedy? We all remember where we were that day (at least those of us of a certain age). It's a natural to come to mind when searching for topics on June + California primary.
May 23, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is "California primary" of any importance to her references?
May 23, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because it was in June you dumbfuck. That when her husband clinched. And it is May and you idiots insist she must concede.
Go tell your boss you have absolutely no comprehension skills and then resign.
May 23, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
My boss actually took the day off - memorial day weekend and all. I'll leave him a note.
But you're missing my point. rltroxel said, "What more prominent marker of a California primary in June" and I don't get the importance of the "California" part.
I get that it was in June and that goes to her point about nominating processes going long in the past, but I don't see how the fact that it was a California primary has any relevance. There are many other primaries that ran long (1980 is the most obvious) but rltroxel made it seem like she brought of RFK because of the California aspect and that I didn't get.
May 23, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her point was that Bill clinched it in June. So, he had to stay in until then to clinch. There were no calls for all the other candidates to drop out in May for him.
California is where he clinched.
California was in June.
RFK was in California in June when he was shot, still runnung for the nomination.
It is now May.
Do you get the California reference now.
There are other ways she could have made the point. I agree she might have chosen a less charged reference point.
May 23, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you answering my direct question to another user? I'm not talking about what Hillary said I'm talking about what rltroxel said. I'm asking for a clarification from him on what he said, not from you on what Hillary said.
May 23, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
'Just caught this and will answer it, although I don't know if you'll look back here.
It is, in fact, for the reason that Registered User said: she was casting about for some other marker of a primary season that lasted into June in California, like her husband's did. The one that came to mind for her (most salient because it is the most memorable) is the Kennedy campaign.
If I, on the spur of the moment, wanted to speak of a significant event occurring close to Thanksgiving in comparison to another at the time I was speaking, I might happen upon JFK's assassination, since that is, for me, a highly memorable marker of that time of year. Hillary pulled the same sort of associative memory. To see it as something sinister seems all out of proportion to me.
May 23, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, thanks.
For me the fact that it was a primary in California was besides the point. Her point was that primaries have dragged on many times in the past. I don't think she pulled up RFK because of the California connection, it just doesn't seem relevant to her bigger point. I don't know. Not a big deal, really. Just curious.
May 23, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it in June this year? NO? Then her reference didn't make any sense.
May 23, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nooooo.... but the last primaries still are. And as it happens, the 1968 campaign didn't even end then. George McGovern got in later and McCarthy and McGovern were both actively campaigning at the time of the convention.
May 24, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. The California Primary & The Puerto Primary are soooooooo similar.
There aren't 1/4 of the delegates remaining in the last 3 primaries than there were in 1992, 1984, 1968, whenever. It's a shitty analogy and she fucked up big time. There is now total cover for keeping her off the ticket.
May 23, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's mentioned it twice before.
May 23, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question is why would she even think of it? (why has she been thinking about it?)
RFK. June. That doesn't evoke anything other than death and tragedy. Many many people who couldn't even tell you who the other candidates were in that race still know that.
May 23, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the question alright.
she sure gets tired at just the right times a lot.
May 23, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, if all she wanted to say is that there's a long history of races going into June, there are many innocuous ways that she could have done so without referencing Bobby Kennedy's assassination. She chose to go there - and apparently for the third time. Whether she's being careless with her words or she's making a point that she shouldn't be, it's time for her to leave this race. She's causing an awful lot of collateral damage and she has got to go.
May 23, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is exactly my point.
Rltroxel seemed to be saying that she brought up RFK instead of 1980 or 1984 because of the California aspect and that didn't make any sense to me.
May 23, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."
Because the point is that the nomination process has sometimes gone to California in June? ... Except California was in March and assassination is not a form of democracy.
May 23, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, back when they started in March. The 1968 New Hamprshire primary was held on March 7, 1968. As she knows quite well.
May 23, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get a hearing test; then take a remedial "understanding plain English" class.
You don't have to stretch it - she just fucking said it straight up.
May 23, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was supposed to post as a response to Alex, way back upthread.
I think "Comments" is developing a rudimentary consciousness and rearranging the threads to suit itself.
{giggle}
May 23, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a sad statement but I have said publically for weeks now that she is waiting for one of two things to happen and no one wants to say it:
1. Obama gets assassinated
2. Some horrible scandal comes out like a Marion Barry videotape of drug usage or sex
These are her only hopes at the Presidency and all the tacits she has taken over the last month or so has been to stall in order for one or both of them to happen. She hoped that the Rev. Wright thing would be the scandal but she would just as soon take the helm if some crazy killed him. Her career waits for someone else's tragedy. It is truly sad but I am glad she said it plainly so those people who could not see that or hoped it wasnt true had to face facts.
May 23, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or Cheney launches his long-awaited attack on Iran.
May 23, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!
That's the October surprise, 2008 edition.
May 24, 2008 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will say that I don't think Hillary is actively hoping Obama will be assassinated.
What this classic Freudian slip reveals is that the Clinton campaign has actively discussed the possibility that Obama might be murdered, and if that happens they want to be around to pick up the nomination.
What could be more innocent? She is only looking out for her own best interests in the unlikely event that someone might have an interest is shooting the Black Muslim who wants to be President.
Given that it is Memorial Day weekend, which will be a slow news weekend, this is all the media will talk about for the next three days. She's done. She can kiss being VP or Senate Majority Leader goodbye unless, of course, someone shoots Barack Obama.
May 23, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Choska,
To even talk about anybody shooting anybody is beyond the pa