Earlier today, Senator Hillary Clinton referenced Bobby Kennedy's assassination in June 1968 — and it wasn't the first time she's brought this up in the campaign …
This time, though, reporters asked her, considering the death threats made against her and her opponent in the race to win the Democratic primary, if she thought it appropriate to reference that event:
MSNBC's Keith Olberman, in a remarkable 10-minute long rant, tells Sen. Clinton that she was most definitely wrong. You probably want to stick with this one all the way through …
Frankly, a strident venomous rant such as Olbermann's is much more worrisome than Ms. Clinton's allusion to Robert Kennedy's assassination. And even more troubling is the fact that the possibility of another assassination has even become a topic of discussion.
Olbermann bemoans the fractured state of his country, yet adds fuel to it with his hate-filled rant, resorting to meaningless sentimentality, interspersed with mournful lowering of voice and change of position, to deliver his diatribe.
This is supposedly political analysis and commentary? Where a former reader of sports news can suddenly read the very heart and soul of Ms. Clinton, deciphering her motivation for saying what she said?
Why is it impossible to believe that Ms. Clinton was simply pointing out that other primary campaigns had gone on well beyond the point she's at now? That is, JUNE? Why should the reference to JUNE be construed as a dark veiled wish on her part?
Olbermann may delude himself he has access to the dark recesses of her mind, but maybe he's just looking at a mirror. An assassination, regardless of whose, would certainly provide him and others of his ilk plenty of fodder to fill those long hours of air time, wouldn't it?
Olbermann's vituperative comments and his performance are worthy of an entire Jerry Springer episode.
I think that Ms. Clinton screwed up. I think that under the circumstances with Ted Kennedy, and the anniversary of the assassination of another, that she was trying to imply the “catastrophe scenario” as a scare tactic in order to keep her in the race; trying to back it up by saying that Primaries going into June are not unusual as a parallel. Either her handlers screwed up bad, or she got an idea and just went with it. In either case, very poor judgement.
You'll notice that she didn't apologize for the statement, or even for the conclusions it alluded to. All she apologized for, was if what she said offended anyone. Basically, “I'm sorry if you're offended by what I said, but I'm standing behind it.”
I also saw on other commentaries, that her references to June are totally meaningless. June during her Husband's campaign, and June during Mr. Kennedy's campaign, are not this June. She said her husband won the California Primary in June of that year. Well, I can understand why California is very important, and why the DP would wait until California spoke before ending primaries, but California voted a LONG time ago and that race is over. That parallel is null and void. As far as the reference to an assassination…… Under NO circumstance, you should EVER plan for “In the event my opponent is assassinated”, much less even say as much in American Politics.
Bottom line is this. Hilary screwed up in a way that has effectively ended her aspirations.
The commentaries I have read/heard all purport to be able to read Ms. Clinton's mind, and consequently, her motivation.
If one is into “reading” people, then one should also include her voice when she made that statement. The voice indicated great fatigue. Mistakes are then inevitable.
I wonder what any of us would say or sound like if we had been campaigning for as long as Ms. Clinton has been campaigning, and at her pace.
If anything has “effectively ended her aspirations” it is the concerted efforts of some people, be they Republican or Democrat, portraying her as a cold calculating b**ch (my apologies for the language).
And the Democrats who are so impressed by Mr. Obama on the basis of the rhythm of his speeches and his impressive oratorical skills are engaging in the worst kind of character assassination, like that idiot Olbermann, who thinks he's the incarnation of Edward R. Murrow, even imitating Murrow's salutation “goodnight and good luck.”
To oppose Ms. Clinton on her policies, on her ambition, on her husband's time in office and his womanizing, even on her being a woman, is one thing.
But to suggest that she's waiting for something BIG to happen – like the assassination of her opponent – is simply despicable.
I have no horse in this race, but having frequently been angered by the misrepresentation of PM Harper's words, where I do have a horse in the race, this accusation levelled at Ms. Clinton has raised my usually very stable and near normal blood pressure quite a few kPas.
It's possible that her voice conveyed great fatigue, but it can be argued that her voice sounded like someone who realized they committed an inexcuseable gaffe that is going to cost them dearly and their resigned to the fact. It could also be argued that she had the voice of someone who only later realized the implications that could be taken from what she said and was simply in shock but had to respond in some manner to offer some kind of clarification.
You also asked about what any of us would sound like after campaigning as long as she has. I'd think we'd all be weary, but the job of the President of the United States of America in the coming years is going to be just as hectic. But it's understandable that she'd be exhausted, as anyone else would be, under that kind of schedule.
Analysts and Hilary's staff have said on occasion in the past that they are, in fact, waiting for a disaster to strike the Obama Campaign, and that such as event would allow them to pull ahead in the polls. They didn't know what kind of disaster might “derail Obamamania”, but they knew that's what it would take. For a time, they thought that his Pastor's comments was going to be that disaster, but were disappointed on that front.
Now the longer this race goes on, the more concerned I get about any possibility of Hilary Clinton as President. I'm not trying to employ scare tactics, but I have a genuine concern that should she somehow manage to get the nomination and win the election, she'll be out to prove something to the American Public that she's just as capable of making the tough decisions as any man, and that she might just go out of her way to do so, or maybe overreact in other ways as a result. What she calls steadfastness and dedication to a principle, I see as pure stubbornness and a blind recklessness to prove a point or make a statement, even if it hurts the Democratic Party.
While she may not like it, and it may not be spectacularly obvious that Barak Obama is going to secure the nomination, I believe at this point it's inevitable. If her handlers and communication directors were unable to get her message out effectively and consistently, then the fault lies with her own people, regardless of what anyone else has said and/or projected onto her and her campaign. And her continuing in this race can only serve to provide further fuel for the Republicans to throw onto the election fires and damage and divide the Democratic Party, thereby decreasing the likelihood of a Democratic Win in November. Inner-Party competition has the blessing and the curse of being both gentler and more viscious than outside the party. However, the Republicans will not hold back or pull any of their punches in the fall election. If she can't get her message out IN the party, what makes anyone believe she'll be more effective OUTSIDE the party?
This past month, had she bowed out gracefully, could have been used to heal the party and prepare a united front against the Republicans. She may have even been seriously considered for the Vice President position, but I believe that she has all but destroyed that prospect. Right or Wrong, the longer she stays, the more damage her reputation will take. Instead, I believe her Pride got the better of her, and as they say “Pride goeth before the fall.”
I believe that Hilary is now acting out of a misguided dedication to a principle that only she and a few others share. In the end, she will have done more harm than good, regardless of her promises to work hard and with dedication for the Nominee should it be someone other than herself. If that were true, she would heed the advice being given by even some of her own advisors. Get out while the gettin' is still good.
“… she'll be out to prove something to the American Public that she's just as capable of making the tough decisions as any man, and that she might just go out of her way to do so, or maybe overreact in other ways as a result.”
Oh my, I thought the “hysterical woman” portrayal had gone the way of the dodo bird.
Sorry, but that's the way your statement sounds. Yeah, I know, the interpretation of one’s words by someone else really sucks, doesn't it?
As history could certainly show us, even very recent history, women are not the only ones subject to “hormonal derangement syndrome.”
You state “I believe that Hilary is now acting out of a misguided dedication to a principle.”
What principle are you referring to?
The principle of the electability of a woman?
But then, the same could be said of Mr. Obama – the electability of a non-white.
Look, despite the fact I’m a conservative, I prefer Ms. Clinton for a couple of reasons (and it's not because she's a woman):
1. John McCain is too closely identified with the Bush policies, especially the Iraq War. America needs to turn the page to try to regain the respect from the world community it has lost since the Iraq War began.
2. Ms. Clinton is more experienced than Mr. Obama, and that is the sole reason why I would rather she became president. Mind you, perhaps I've been influenced by the fact that I was not too impressed with Mr. Obama's “borrowing” quite freely from speeches he likes, like the very same words spoken by a governor friend of his, and the fact he initially defended Pastor Wright’s execrable speeches.
3. On the other hand, having heard Ted Sorensen on tonight's Charlie Rose show explain why he supports Mr. Obama, comparing him to Jack Kennedy – well, he almost made me change my mind. Hey, it’s a woman’s prerogative …
At no point did I intend to portray her as hysterical. That was not my intent. On the contrary, I think hysterical would be the last word to describe her. However, I believe that she is stubbornly determined and would enter the White House as a juggernaut who is likewise fired by iron-willed resolve to prove she's capable, especially after so many people openly doubted her ability. THAT is the source of my concern, not any kind of “female hysteria”.
Regarding the principle I was talking about. I believe that Hilary is determined to stay in the race as long as she possibly can in order to prove that she could have been a contender. I believe that she wants to keep the numbers close and never bow out (before being forced out) so that if the Democrats lose the election in November, she can point back and say “I told you so”. Nevermind that her actions now may cause that loss in the future by dividing the party more than is currently is instead of focusing on uniting it. I got over the whole Black/White/Man/Woman issue long ago.
I don't disagree that Hilary has more experience. Being the First Lady grants a great deal of exposure to the job and to the tasks associated with it. However I also believe that putting Clinton in the Oval Office would be a return to the Status-Quo. To me, Obama represents a refreshing voice of enthusiasm and genuine desire to break away from the “Establishment” and bring about a change to the way things are done. I believe he has the charisma, and the passion to win people and politicians to his side on the changes he's talking about. He's about doing things differently without slagging his opponents, and I think he's proven that he's capable of doing just that. This is why I support Obama over Clinton.
This article, found via Susan Delacourt's blog, is instructive:
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=203F9A7D-3048-5C12-00F893045DC51923
“How small stories become big news By: John F. Harris May 27, 2008 04:53 AM EST
“The signature defect of modern political journalism is that it has shredded the ideal of proportionality.
Important stories, sometimes the product of months of serious reporting, that in an earlier era would have captured the attention of the entire political-media community and even redirected the course of a presidential campaign, these days can disappear with barely a whisper.
Trivial stories — the kind that are tailor-made for forwarding to your brother-in-law or college roommate with a wisecracking note at the top — can dominate the campaign narrative for days.
Who can guess what stories will cause the media machine to rev up its hype jets? …” An interesting read.
What we are witnessing on both sides of the border is not exactly the best kind of civil political discourse.
“To me, Obama represents a refreshing voice of enthusiasm and genuine desire to break away from the “Establishment” and bring about a change to the way things are done.”
I hope you're right, for the sake of America and the world, that Mr. Obama is able to bring people together to establish a more conciliatory tone in international affairs.
Now, if only certain groups could adopt that same line of thinking ….