Obviously, Senator Clinton's comment was a huge gaffe. But I think it's apparent that her intent...

...was to point out that the Democratic presidential primary in 1968 was still going on in June. I do not think she was trying to suggest that Senator Obama might be assassinated. For reference, here is the full text of the relevant section of her interview with the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader:



When you look at the entire exchange, it is clear that she is talking about primaries that lasted into the month of June. The first reference is to her husband's campaign in 1992, which apparently lasted until June. Then she mentioned the RFK assassination, which is another Democratic primary event that occurred in the month of June.

Was it a stupid thing to say? Obviously. The comment is particularly bad when one considers that there has been considerable speculation -- especially among the African-American community -- that Senator Obama might be assassinated because he is black. I think Senator Clinton probably realized immediately that she made a mistake. She is extremely smart and politically savvy, and I think she knows a gaffe when she hears it. (Or says it.) This is pure speculation, but the "Um" in the transcript might suggest one of those "Oh, God what did I just say?" moments.

Another factor that makes the comment particularly unfortunate is that it seems pretty obvious (to me, at least) that one of the reasons why Senator Clinton has remained in the race even after victory seemed unlikely is that her campaign felt there was a chance that something might happen to harm Senator Obama's candidacy -- which would then open the way for Senator Clinton to win the nomination. But they were thinking more along the lines of "Jeremiah Wright" than "Sirhan Sirhan."

(And while we're on the topic: The suggestion that Senator Clinton's comments indicate a desire or, worse, a secret plan to kill Senator Obama is CRAZY TALK. And if you are thinking "But... but... Vince Foster!" you have no business on a progressive forum.)

For better or worse, this is the way politics is played. Senator Clinton's campaign is going to have a difficult time trying to convince her critics that this was a case of simply misspeaking -- in part because her campaign has spent so much time and effort flogging those times when Senator Obama similarly misspoke. ("Bitter" being the prime example.) Their task will be made more difficult by the fact that the media did 24-7 coverage of "bitter" and may feel an obligation to blanket the airwaves with Senator Clinton's comments to show that they are fair. I do not know what the coverage is like -- I have not turned on cable news since this controversy started.

The one question mark in how this plays out is how the Obama campaign chooses to use Clinton's gaffe. If they push it, then it'll almost certainly be everywhere for a long time. But if they choose to stand back and let it die, then it will die. My guess is that Axelrod and company will not see much advantage in pushing this thing too hard, considering the fact that they need to bring Clinton supporters into the fold, not antagonize them more. But we shall see.

It's always nice to see a calm, reasoned analysis, especially since passions are still high over yesterdays events.

:hi:

She was trying to promote a false time frame. There are no "Californias" this June, and the party's nomination process, in both refereed to cases did not span a comparable length of time. I do believe that it may have crossed her mind, as she said over and over, "anything can happen". BUt I don't believe that she was attempting to lay such a scenario out to the public. BUt I hope that she can learn from this, the premise behind the reason behind the calls for her to end this.

This event is a prime example of the dangerous effects of dragging this process out. Hillary is far to seasoned to make such a political miscalculation. Her statement was the product of desperation by an exhausted candidate. The shear length of this primary season is unprecedented. It has taxed both Hillary and Obama. I just hope that Obama has the chance to sit back for a moment between now and the convention to tweak his GE strategy. And I hope that Hillary is made to realize that she is risking the party's chances by exposing Obama to the same stresses.

I believe that the venom DU exhibits toward Hillary is caused more by her more militant supporters, and the miss-management of her campaign by the advisers around her. I also believe that if we the DU community, known today for our majority support for Obama, could swallow our disdain for what we all know happens in political contests, and muster a united supportive front for a post-primary Hillary Clinton, we can prove to the rest of America what or favorite candidate is trying to achieve.

No more "dream ticket", no more "anything can happen", no more cowering from the responsibilities of citizenry, be they electors or electees.

Tell Hillary that if she steps back and fully supports Obama for the full 8 year as an honest broker, that we will support her as a leader in our party as we did for Edward Kennedy.

And it wouldn't hurt if we start talking about getting Chelsea a prime time spot in Denver, both for the youth voters and as a homage to the Clinton legacy in our party.

More on this here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6106467

"Fish gotta swim and birds gotta fly
But they don't last long if they try."

or were the lines

sharks gotta swim
and bats gotta fly

I gotta love
one woman till I die

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPrAuF2f_oI
He introduced the song with this:

Time was when an American about to go abroad would be warned by his friends or the guidebooks not to drink the water. but times have changed and now a foreigner coming to this country might be offered
the following advice........

If you visit American city,
You will find it very pretty.
Just two things of which you must beware:
Don't drink the water and don't breathe the air.

Pollution, pollution,
They got smog and sewage and mud.
Turn on your tap and get hot and cold running crud.

See the halibuts and the sturgeons
Being wiped out by detergents.
Fish gotta swim and birds gotta fly,
But they don't last long if they try.

Pollution, pollution,
You can use the latest toothpaste,
And then rinse your mouth with industrial waste.

Just go out for a breath of air,
And you'll be ready for medicare.
The city streets are really quite a thrill.
If the hoods don't get you, the monoxide will.

Pollution, pollution,
Wear a gas mask and a veil.
Then you can breathe, long as you don't inhale.

Lots of things there that you can drink,
But stay away from the kitchen sink.
The breakfast garbage that you throw in to the bay,
They drink at lunch in San José.

So go to the city, see the crazy people there.
Like lambs to the slaughter,
They're drinking the water
And breathing **cough**the air.

Note--the version on the record was performed in San Fransisco, hence the reference
to San José, which was changed on the youtube performance.

Thanks! I misidentified the song. He does have a song w/ the lines I cited, but I had forgotten all about the pollution son. And you're also right that it's one of his best. Of course I'm biased and consider all his songs one of his best>

Lehrer was brilliant.

The Vatican Rag is one of THE best songs of the 20th century IMHO.

Skinner said: "I think Senator Clinton probably realized immediately that she made a mistake."

She would have realized it immediately in March when she first said it.

Right after she says it, she realizes she fucked up... not only in the sense that she said something that sounds really horrific given the timing, but that the interview was being recorded. There's an immediate pause after she references RFK's assassination and then she stumbles and stutters.

Either she's really ignorant or has a dangerous character defect. People can make the case for either.

But it's the kind of thing you say once, smack your head, and never say again. It's the kind of thing a campaign tells a candidate: You do not say that again. The verbal mistake is chewed over by the entire team and scenarios for response drawn up should they be needed. As it happened, the media was otherwise engaged in March bludgeoning Obama, so this was overlooked, and maybe the Clinton camp decided it wasn't so bad as a talking point. This just isn't the kind of thing that is said a second or third time by mistake. I don't believe Clinton wishes death on Obama, not for a minute. I think it fits into the "anything might happen" strategy, to give people pause, particularly superdelegates. I think it was reckless and irresponsible to repeat it, but no gaffe.

We don't use assassinations to reference months of the year. We just don't.

So her point whether spoken or unspoken is "I'm staying in this race because something could happen to Obama. Look at what happened to RFK!"

And I think it's just dawned on her how unacceptable that sort of THINKING, that sort of thought process is.

she meets and measures every word.

What you hear from her is the product of careful planning and calculation.

She's been verbally lynching Obama for a long time.

She screwed the pooch big time and permanently.

if you do it again and again. How can people pretend that.

In the context of the quote, it still makes no sense bringing up RFK's assassination. She could have simply pointed out that in 1968, the race was still going strong in June. She didn't have to even mention RFK to make her point, since there were other candidates campaigning hard up until CA.

I don't buy it that the mention of the assassination was not deliberate or that it wasn't meant to subliminally bring up the spectre of a black man running for office being likely to be assassinated. On its face, her comment makes little/no sense, was totally unnecessary, irrelevant to the point she was making.

I think it more likely that Hillary's pause was more like...well, these guys in the editorial board aren't buying this as well as it went over the previous two times I used this line....

There is no excuse for her dog whistle to the crazies out there.

And for the "excusers" - she's a sociopath - a public figure does not make these
sorts of statements. Not accidentally. IF accidentally then she's a sick sick puppy.

Three times is a TACTIC.

Though yesterday makes it FOUR times:



With or without actually using the word, invoking the specter of assassination is self-serving at best and just plain ghoulish at worst. Also, Hillary should have taken into consideration that the anniversary of Bobby's assassination is barely two weeks away, and that Ted Kennedy's brain tumor was discovered barely a week ago. Combined with her Bonsia lie (NOT "misstatement"), this is just too unjustifiable to overlook (though it certainly should have been spotted sooner).

:headbang:
rocknation

It was unneccessary, it shows her dark side, and it shows she is absolutely not able to own up for her poor decisions. She is not Presidential, and therefore is not Vice-Presidential either.

a pattern of pointing out that primaries frequently go into June.

That is true, but it's not what Clinton said.
She mentioned only 1992 and the RFK assassination in June 1968.

In 1992, Clinton was the de facto nominee in the first week of April after the NY primary.
So while technically true that CA put Bill over the top in June, it was already finished two months earlier.

Which leaves us with the RFK comment.

Note to Clinton campaign: If you want to make this point, here's a way to do it right:

1984 - Mondale in July
1980 - Carter in August
1976 - Ford in August
1972 - McGovern in June
1968 - Humphrey in August
1960 - Kennedy in July

(It's also worth noting they all lost except Kennedy in 1960, who won by 0.2%. Going to July and August is a great way to lose)

shortly after Super Tuesday. If she was establishing context she would have relied on the truth.

Your constant reach to attach integrity to her actions has become absurd.

She literally "can't handle the truth" and instead depends on snowing the gullible with her strained logic, ever-changing math and now her dogwhistle historical calendar.

Super Tuesday, February, was the "June" of past primaries because this time around, every state wanted to be the earliest and the primaries were clustered around February, instead of the previous,traditional, Democratic schedule of primaries.

'suggested' the assassination of Obama, and not just once.

It started later.

She could have used several other primary seasons but she picked this one all four times.

It was a tactic and it backfired. By doing it four times it is clear that it was intentional and she miscalculated.

She's made a career of that.

These days, April is the new June. It used to be that in June only a dozen or so primaries had been held. This year, there are only three very small states/territories left.

Neither candidate is clean. Both are making screw ups. The Democratic Party--both official and its constituent members--can either attempt to unify things and allow for potential mistakes or it can throw the White House away.

I'm with Bloo and Keith Olbermann on this one.

in KO's comment. No other way to look at it.

I'm a big fan of Keith's. However, there was an article recently about sexism and Hillary's campaign. The article included a quote from Olbermann. I don't recall the exact wording, but he expressed a wish that someone take Hillary into a room and only he come out.

Can't this be construed that he wanted someone to use force to get her to quit, or to rough her up, hurt or even kill her? If so, is this an example of sexism being OK for Olbermann to espouse?

No, it's not an example of sexism.

It means the party leaders pull you aside and say "Get out. You're damaging the party."

It's called political strategy.

Olbermann made the comment, but he wasn't "expressing a wish." He mentioned it as a possible scenario.

I think she is a really nasty person - hardly a progressive.

Not only that, but this country was founded on the idea that monarchies are repugnant. What do you call 30+ years of 2 exclusive families controlling the presidency?

for years - we have been clawing our way back since 2002. Thanks to the truly brave efforts of most of the 2004 primary candidates, our 2004 Dem nominee and his ongoing efforts, Al Gore's post DC pursuits, and the strengthening of the Internet LEFT, and the subsequent turnover of the DNC from Clinton loyalists 1993-2005 to Chairman Howard Dean 2005-2008.

WE ARE DOING IT because WE and THEY didn't give up and give in to the Clinton-Lieberman wing of the Dem party.

1. Correct observation that it is not a gaffe when it is rehearsed and repeated. Senator Clinton used this tasteless analogy at least two, if not three times in public.

2. It should not be necessary to use 748 words (the length of the post) to spin away one simple statement.

3. "...one of the reasons why Senator Clinton has remained in the race even after victory seemed unlikely is that her campaign felt there was a chance that something might happen to harm Senator Obama's candidacy -- which would then open the way for Senator Clinton to win the nomination. But they were thinking more along the lines of 'Jeremiah Wright' than 'Sirhan Sirhan.' "

There is no justification for the statement above other than "Only Clinton supporters know what Hillary really means when she speaks, and you don't." The example she used on multiple occasions is that one reason for staying in the race after it is mathematically impossible to win is in just case the leading candidate is assassinated.

4. "I think Senator Clinton probably realized immediately that she made a mistake. She is extremely smart and politically savvy, and I think she knows a gaffe when she hears it. (Or says it.) This is pure speculation, but the 'Um' in the transcript might suggest one of those 'Oh, God what did I just say?' moments.'

As documented by many others, this was not the first time Senator Clinton used this horrible analogy to justify her continued campaign. This talking point has been used before. I agree with the OP's conclusion that Senator Clinton knew exactly what she was doing and knew this was a "gaffe" the first time she spewed it, the second time she spewed it, and even this time. The only difference was that, like her Bosnia fabrications, she only reacted when the traditional media picked up the story.

5. "For better or worse, this is the way politics is played. Senator Clinton's campaign is going to have a difficult time trying to convince her critics that this was a case of simply misspeaking -- in part because her campaign has spent so much time and effort flogging those times when Senator Obama similarly misspoke. ('Bitter' being the prime example.) Their task will be made more difficult by the fact that the media did 24-7 coverage of "bitter" and may feel an obligation to blanket the airwaves with Senator Clinton's comments to show that they are fair. I do not know what the coverage is like -- I have not turned on cable news since this controversy started."

A) This is NOT the way "politics is played" by Senator Obama. Thank God. And viewers did not need to turn on cable news, nor read blogs. The traditional media had this story immediately. ABC evening news gave it balanced and reasoned play for several minutes, and I'm sure the others did as well. Equating the comparison of people being "bitter" when they are frustrated to ASSASSINATION of an opponent during a campaign is a unbelievable stretch even for the weakest of minds.

B) Judging from the past where the soundbytes from a supporter were played 24/7 for 36 news cycles, and the recorded lies of a candidate survived only 3 news cycles in the traditional media, this will die quickly.

6. "The one question mark in how this plays out is how the Obama campaign chooses to use Clinton's gaffe."

The media gave the latest repetition of this horrendous inuendo Clinton talking point above-the-fold attention even though both Senator Obama and his campaign issued clear, concise, and almost-instant statements. While the OP is now trying to spin potential future news coverage as the fault of Senator Obama, it is quite clear that all media outlets saw this insult for what it was.

There is so much more wrong with today's Clinton talking points to cover something she clearly elected to do intentionally and multiple times in recent weeks. If Camp Clinton hopes for this to die quickly, they should urge their supporters to let it die. They should urge her supporters to accept the fact that she issued a rapid almost-apology. They should not be putting out talking points attempting to explain away her chosen tenor for her campaign.

:)

Well, it appears Skinner has a dog in this hunt. LOL

Well-done, and welcome to DU - we need more people devoted to honesty and reason like you around here.

I think the tactic of using "assassination" as any kind of talking point at all is the gaffe, and a very deep one. The ability to use it implies something very shallow. I am very sad about that, although I pretty much expected it.

:yourock:

Welcome to DU. :hi:

Nice job! You just peeled the pelt right off Skinner.

Neat, efficient, tidy, and deadly... and executed in only six bullet points (logic projectiles aimed at Skinner and cohorts), with answers.

Beautiful debut!

She's tested this one out at least three times previously. This is by no means a gaffe, this is a calculated statement and her fake non-apology that doesn't even address the real victim of this talk, Obama himself, shows what sort of intent she really has.

Rp

The NH primary that year wasn't until the very first week of March, so it wasn't a long campaign at all.

A post here last night saying that there were also only 15 state primaries at the time, the rest of the states divvied it all up in smokey backroom agreements.

And that was what I have been saying. The "Hillary is always right!" brigade should be able to admit it.

And I know--and many others do as well--she did not mean to raise the terrifying idea of assassination.

But the fact remains that she had several better examples of this kind of thing to choose from--yet she chose the example where the front-runner was killed before he could win the nomination as the best one to make her point with. This betrays an astounding lack of judgment and an inability to be diplomatic.

What troubles me the most is that she should have known better.

to the extent that anything she's said has a negative impact on her ambitions.

Welcome to DU!:hi:

the 'apology' only added fuel to the fire. She looked sick like someone does when they know they've inserted foot in mouth. But she did not adequately apologize because that would have been incriminating.

if obama is the nominee this nation better hope and pray he is nothing like his so called supporters on DU.

Msongs

I agree.

it was "unfortunate, and has no place in a Campaign.."

I don't think they'll push it, as you said, they are making every effort to be inclusive, extoll her virtues, and work towards Unity..

I'd bet dollars to donuts that if he's asked again he'll say, "Please read my official statement on this matter...I have nothing more to say about it."

Obama's not the type to twist the knife.

he's had many opportunities to destroy Clinton and has taken many passes on it, none I would have taken, a gentleman..

Let's hope he'll twist the knife when McSame shows up for his Public Beating :)

He's got a great Staff, I appreciate their youth, vigor, class, and sense of humor most of all..

"What is She? Annie Oakley?" while referring to Clinton as a Gun Person, I was ROFL at that, and really, isnt that something less than hurtful a Cool Cousin might say to rein you in? :)

I'm not worried about that.

Like Frank Sinatra used to say about punks like McGramps..

"I got pieces of guys like that floating in my toilet.."

Gotta love Frank, and you Know he'd hang with Obama, baby :)

Obama knows and Hillary doesn't that negative campaigning of the style she is doing hurts those on offense almost as much.

I thought at first you were describing what the OP would say if asked questions. LOL

she can. My son said the m$$$$fm smoothed it over today that she "apologized" so that's that.

But, give 'em a Pastor WRight and they fucking Pastorbait for how long?

Sooo, maybe hilary will STFU about Bobby Kennedy's assassination in June NOw? Ya think?

that the Obama response to this will show how much better a candidate he is than Clinton.
She has taken the low road and pushed every little mistake or rumor or association of his
for her own gain. I am confident that he will NOT engage in such disgusting politicking.

That is one of the main reasons I support him - INTEGRITY.

he, in his manipulative and underhanded way, cited the news article about Obama needing more security. He could have cited the KO comment about Clinton needing to be taken in a back room and killed, but he did not.

He is not classy, just underhanded.

999 out of 1000 people(the 1 being those who WANTED to interpret it otherwise) would interpret "and only one comes out" as only one comes out still in the race. He wasn't implying they should take Hillary into a room and physically harm her.

Was he talking about someone taking her into a room for a stern talking to? A reasonable debate? Were his words said in anger?

You're not a "fan of Olbermann" if you keep pushing this.

instead of less hurtful ones. She has never mentioned another example, just Bill and RFK.

I have to disagree with you on this one.

I do not think she is calling for his assassination, but I do believe that the triple reference speaks for itself.

remember her snide remark about LBJ getting things done because it took a president,
verses MLK's activism?

think of the creepy parallels.

I'm very much an Obama supporter, but I have to give her the benefit of the doubt. She may have had some hidden insidious meaning behind that sentence, but it was not clear and it does our side no good to alienate all her supporters by villifying her over something that may have only been badly chosen words. I have enough valid reasons for supporting Obama over her without this.

when her campaign began researching late closing primaries, as you know they spent a lot of time doing, since this is their main talking point for her staying in, I am sure they made up a list of all that ran into the month of June.

Then they sat in a room, and decided which were the best to use.

Pushing her argument is what she and many highly paid people do for a living right now. She memorizes speeches, talking points, data, facts, poll numbers all day every day.

How in the world, with a list of options to choose from and a brilliant mind to memorize several, does she go back to RFK THREE TIMES OUT OF THREE.

I just can't buy it. They have been pushing 'something might happen' for awhile. I don't think she is calling for it to happen, but to plant the seed that these things DO happen, so please don't push her out.

And it makes me ill that that is a part of her strategy and argument.

I'm just saying I don't think the current level of outrage is serving our cause. Not if there is a chance that she's innocent of any insidious intention.

when the California Primary of 68' took place. So the historical reference is bogus. Secondly, this was a planned and scripted talking point that had been used previously, three or four times to my count. Thirdly, you allege that it is Axelrod and the OBAMA CAMP who are pushing this? No, it is tens of thousands of grassroots and loyal DEMOCRATS. You know, the kind this board was created to support, or so I thought.

This post makes some things crystal clear.

:thumbsup:

Please feel free to elaborate.

:hi:

The primaries aren't comparable. Not at all. The meme has been repeated.

One of the more important assessments to make is regarding her actual objectives. The FACT of the matter is that the downfall of the leading candidate this late in the primary process has NEVER led to the election of the successor. Never. Nixon won in 1968.

Assuming the Clinton campagn comprehends that Obama's 'eventful' elmination from the nomination would result in a GOP win in November, then what do they WANT? The answer is clear. They want to consolidate DLC control over the Democratic Party ... making the Democrats and the Republicans merely two wings of the Global Corporatist Party. The "wealthy royalists" (as Al Gore calls them in 'Assault on Reason') would then be virtually unopposed.

If Obama is eliminated, the outcome of November would be CERTAIN: Corporatism.

That's not to say tha Obama hasn't placated the corporatists. But it does say they don't want to take the risk he'd not be under their control.

at least come right out and say it, like an adult would do.

And she didn't apologize. She gave a non-apology and didn't even mention Senator Obama. She gave an excuse about having Ted Kennedy on her mind. The media try to excuse her statement by saying she was tired.

That's a bunch of bull. She said the exact same thing in March and alluded to RFK's assassination a few weeks ago.

I don't believe for one second that she meant anything about anything except that Bobby was still campaigning in June.

I hate this kind of stuff. People get destroyed for nothing. It's hideous.

But, as President of the United States, Hillary Clinton would be in the unique position of declaring the will of our nation to the world. If she cannot handle the responsibility of delivering a clear, diplomatically-minded message while campaigning, what makes any of her supporters think she will be able to handle it from the White House?

We have all seen the international, world-changing consequences of first apologizing for, then electing a politician who repeatedly makes this kind of "gaffe." Our next President is going to have to face the Saudis, Putins I & II, the European Union, Corporate America and will have to make speeches to energize the American people to act against global warming, oil dependence and the effects of 8 years of Republican ineptitude. I've said it before, but we need someone who can lead, not someone who can apologize.

'We all remember that Bobby Kennedy was still campaigning in June.' and leave it at that, in order to draw the paralell between Bill and Bobby?

Why slip in the part about him being assasinated in June? What useful purpose did the assassination reference add to the conversation?

Anyone?.....anyone?

She mentioned assassination back in March to TIME magazine. We are witnessing the meltdown of a candidate that needs to get out of the race before doing further harm to our future nominee Obama, and to the Democratic Party's chances in November.


Please note that Hillary did not apologize to Obama.

that doesn't mean she wants it to happen, of course not (God, I hope not). but she has not realized that she was playing with fire when she said it and that's a huge lapse in judgement on her part

and in '68 the first primary wasn't until MArch.

It's to put assassination into the minds of the suepr delegates.

So why even bring it up?
Only 13 Primaries in 1968 beginning in March. RFK didn't join the race until after the NH primary.
28 primaries so far this year, beginning in January. HRC has been a candidate since October of 2007 iirc.

No comparison.

She is invoking assassination imagery purposefully and has done so on numerous occasions.

It shows that she has a side to her personality that is as dark, if not darker, than Nixon's.

You "just don't go there" on some subjects, no matter what point you are trying to make.

Especially not now.

Sorry, I cannot rationalize this, or take solely a literal interpretation her remarks. She is an intelligent woman, and knows the impact of words. She could have chosen a different reference. Or no reference at all, which probably would have been the wiser course.

asshole or a "Hillbot."

:kick:


On edit----------> THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING SOME MUCH, MUCH NEEDED BALANCE.

in the midst of many reasoned arguments calling Hillary Clinton out for her insensitive, historically inaccurate, and politically suicidal remarks and non-apology. Reasoning proceeds from more than one point of view - add your reasoning if you want instead of accusing others of name calling that they are not doing.

skinner would have their Obama fan ass tombstoned.

But believe you me, there were a lot of people thinking those words.

I see plenty of substantive discussion on this thread, including rebuttals to Skinner, and I objected to your disregard of the honest attempts at exchanging views. The sideshow of "Obamatrons" vs. "Hillbots" isn't as interesting to me. I like to hear reasoned points from both sides.

thanks for this Skinner. I do find it a little odd that she has already used this three times yet- it still slips into her speech.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me three times, fuck her and the horse she rode in on.

This is at least the third time Hillary herself has alluded to RFK's death as a reason for remaining in the race; in addition, one of her supporters made a comment about JFK, RFK, and MLK being murdered (while comparing them to BHO) during a NH rally.

If we concede your point and agree that her motives were not malicious, then the question arises as to whether or not Hillary is capable of handling herself in a crisis situation. I don't want a president who is going to blurt out inflammatory statements unannounced during a tense situation.

I do think that Obama took the high road because it was the right thing to do. This is why I admire him.

she has offered implausible routes as alternatives.

as voting seems unlikely to go her way, she offers some other possibility. it's all actually very logical in her mind to stay in in case something happens.

assassination is a possibility (she grants that it's a horrible one) but just one possibility that makes it imperitive that she stay in.

but there's a huge problem with that thinking and it's undermining her very claim to be the alternative to Obama now or at the convention.

i'm also concerned that she has brushed up against this comment before, it's not totally inadvertent. what i find troubling is that she continually says ridiculous things and is surprised at the reaction from Democrats.

her reasoning is logical but politics is not about logic, politics is about emotions and connotations --this is the thing she doesn't get.

like you i realize that this is about getting her supporters into the fold, but her average supporters are just as troubled by this kind of talk and for example, comparing the civil rights movement to counting Florida and Michigan. they see it and most of them see it for what it is, forestalling what appears to be the inevitable.

politics can be crass like it was yesterday, but i think something as dark as she said, followed by such a weak apology, is not responded to by ignoring it. no, i wont' flog this for 3 months, but a few days, yes, her action earned that, most certainly, the white voters comment earned the same thing.

if she would just stop crossing the precipice and stop saying ridiculous things, i would have no new reasons to need to talk about ridiculous things she says --i'm ready to talk about McCain, but I can't. that's her fault, not because she has stayed in, but because of the *way* she has stayed in this race, the particularly harmful way she has stayed in this race.

:thumbsup:

"her reasoning is logical but politics is not about logic, politics is about emotions and connotations--this is the thing she doesn't get"

Exactly.

Didn't she realize that after putting these ideas out as talking points, that when Mike Huckabee thinks "sound of gunshots = that's Obama" --makes a great joke at a NRA rally, you'd better STFU, excuse me-- I mean that you would be smart to modify your message?

The Obama campaign doesn't have to do anything with this. They can just get out the popcorn and watch the wounded beast flailing around in the ring hurting itself.

After 8 years of Rethuglicans how can we NOT react, even though this is (technically) one of our own?

There is no thrill in this. None. But she betrays us all now. It's not a time for silence.

As you say (Technically) one of our own.

In an oligarchy whose ruling elite figure out the easier of ways to establish their control, making each of two parties both dance to the same drumbeat is hardly a novel idea.

that we not show blind loyalty...but call it what it is no matter where it comes from.

What I really hate is all the lip service to democracy while the oligarchs have no interest in protecting it. That's a hard lie to swallow all the time.

And even more difficult for the Iraqis, who have seen their families shattered by death and injury, their streets turned over to militants fighting a civil war, their food crops to be given to them only through the Monsanto GMO channels, et cetera.

All in the name of "liberty and equality."

Clinton had his race sewn up in April. HE just didn't have the delegates until June.

In '68, the first primary was on March 12 and Bobby didn't get into the race until MArch 14. By June 5, only 13 races had been held.

Her June reference is a red herring in order to purposefully, and on multiple occassion, get the assassination imagery into the debate.

Yet the charade continues.....

Can you tell us reasons why a political candidate would invoke assassination as a reason to continue running in a race which there is no mathematical way of winning possible?
Don't tell me the History because I know it, also Tsongas exponent and comparison is already
a fact that is ignored by Her.


Frankly, Clinton needs to end it now
and she needs to bring her supporters into the fold

An intervention is needed by Tuesday, to end her abusive campaign
I hope you are apart of it.

abusive campaign I hope you are part of it."

:wtf:

Yea, I'm sure skinner will call off her campaign before she does. :eyes:

The avalanche of supers endorsing will sink her little boat





The Field has learned that Cardoza is the first of a group of at least 40 Clinton delegates, many of them from California, that through talking among themselves came to a joint decision that all of them would vote for Obama . They have informed Senator Clinton that it’s time to unite around Obama.

Ichingcarpenter about your suggestion that skinner needs to intervene to "end her abusive campaign."

You people are so drunk with irrational thoughts, you're now calling on the owners of progressive discussion boards to get involved with stopping the voting.

they are the party leaders. They get to make the hard calls.

Or is it wishful thinking? One reason Hillary is still in is because the much awaited flood of super delegates coming out publicly for Obama (who I support, by the way) has not happened. It seems to me that they are keeping the option of selecting her open in spite of everything. The answer to why is known only to them. no matter how savvy we consider ourselves the supers know - or believe they know - things we don't.

1) Obama gets killed. Suspicious glances will now go her way.

2) Obama's character is killed. Once again suspicion goes to her.

3) She is able to get the supers to overturn the results of the election. This would probably be in conjunction with path #2.

Her loose speech is merely reflective of the reality of her situation. She should quit. No matter which happens, 1, 2, or 3, she won't be able to unite the party.

Hillary's RFK remarks spark widespread rebuke: a sampling (Updated x2)
by davidkc
Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:16:40 AM PDT

Hillary Clinton's RFK assassination remark has sparked a swift and widespread condemnation across the country, not just in the blogosphere but in the mainstream media as well. Since we can sometimes get insulated in our corner of the Net, I thought it might be helpful to compile some of the reactions from prominent bloggers, commentators and editorial pages. We're not alone in being shocked and outraged. "Reckless," "Tasteless," "Awful," "Offensive," "Faulty," "Strange" are just some of the reactions.

* davidkc's diary :: ::
*

First, some reaction from the mainstream press. One of my hometown papers, The St. Petersburg Times, gave perhaps one of the most charitable assessments:

Her remarks stunned the political world, including many of her own supporters, and by the end of the day she expressed her regrets. But the damage has been done, and it could be the gaffe that moves the remaining unpledged superdelegates to throw their support to Obama to bring this campaign to an end. The kindest view of Clinton's comments was that she is suffering from campaign fatigue. She clearly needs some rest.

As a quick aside, I have to point out that in the same editioral the St. Pete Times also called out Hillary for her cynical and hypocritical stance on the Florida delegates issue:

Clinton's fervor to count Florida votes might be more poignant if it weren't so pitiably self-serving. She did, after all, sign a pledge supporting the sanctions. Her senior campaign adviser, Harold Ickes, voted for them as a member of the DNC rules committee. She has spent the past two months trying to persuade superdelegates around the country to disregard pledged delegates, and has even hinted that pledged delegates should disregard voters.

Her only chance is to kick up enough dust to get superdelegates to change their minds. Or, as she hinted in South Dakota on Friday, to wait for some unexpected event to change the outcome.




The New York Times (from the editorial board blog) focused its criticism on Hillary's non-apology apology:

...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? ...

What’s next? "Mistakes were made"?





Libby Copeland, in an essay for The Washington Post, pulls no punches:

There are taboos in presidential politics, and this is one of the biggest. To raise the specter of a rival's assassination, even unintentionally, is to make a truly terrible thing real. It sounds like one might be waiting for a terrible thing to happen, even if one isn't. It sounds almost like wishful thinking....

The fear of a president or a presidential candidate being shot or assassinated is horrifying precisely because recent history teaches us that it can happen. We don't need anybody to remind us, and we certainly don't need anybody to remind whatever suggestible wackos might be lurking in the shadows.

In the context of Obama, Clinton's words broke a double taboo, because since the beginning of his candidacy, some of Obama's supporters have feared that his race made him more of a target than other presidential hopefuls. Obama was placed under Secret Service protection early, a full year ago. To be unaware that one's words tap into a monumental fear that exists in a portion of the electorate -- a fear that Obama's race could get him killed -- is an unusual mistake for a serious and highly disciplined presidential candidate.




The blogosphere has been no less unforgiving.

I have made that point that Hillary's RFK assassination comment, coming on the heels of her comment about hard-working "white Americans," shows that -- as Hillary would say -- there's a pattern emerging here, and it ain't a pretty one. Andrew Sullivan seems to agree:

You only have to spend a few minutes talking with African-Americans about this campaign to discover that the fear that Obama could be assassinated is very much on their minds. It is in everyone's subconscious, especially Michelle Obama's. To refer to the June assassination of Bobby Kennedy in the context of reasons to stay in this interminable race against Barack Obama is therefore catastrophically inappropriate. Coming after her pitch for "white votes", it is reckless...

Yes, this season has gone on for ever. And for Senator Clinton, it has now obviously gone on too long.

She's been waiting for Obama to implode. Instead, she just has.





Pam Spaulding at Pam's House Blend points out that Hillary's choice of historical reference is illogical at best:

WTF? I don't understand her reference to what happened to RFK except to set off a dog whistle that nominating Obama is a risk because of a fear of some whack job taking him out...

This is awful. She clearly didn't have to make her historical point about staying in the race through the end by raising RFK's California win in the context of the assassination.





Karen Tumulty at Time magazine's Swampland blog notes that Hillary's excuse that Ted Kennedy was on her mind rings hollow once you learn that this isn't the first time she's made the remark:

Though she has now apologized for that very strange and tasteless comment to the Argus-Leader, this was not the first time she's said it...

Her excuse now is that the Kennedys have been "much on my mind these days" with the illness of Senator Edward Kennedy, but that doesn't explain what brought it to mind more than two months ago.

And on the all-important teevee news, Mark Shields pointed out on the NewsHour that Clinton's comparison of this race to 1968 was misleading and historically inaccurate:





MARK SHIELDS: I think it was, at the best, totally reckless. I mean, her history is absolutely faulty. Robert Kennedy's first primary, Ray, was in May 7th of 1968. He was murdered four weeks later. She's talking about a long campaign.

This campaign began the first week in January. She's still talking about June. So, I mean, it's faulty there.

Along with Keith Olbermann's scathing Special Comment, Howard Fineman astutely pointed out on Countdown that if Hillary is trying to convince the superdelegates to turn her way, she has a strange way of doing it:

She seems constitutionally incapable of just saying I screwed up and her lead footedness about this here is being observed by all the people who are still undecided about whom to back, the last 200 superdelegates here, they've got be looking at this and saying that this is a campaign that needs To Be Put Out Of Its Misery Real Soon."





The reaction of uncommitted superdelgate (and DNC Rules Committee member) Donna Brazile to Hillary's remarks perhaps says it all:

Al Gore's 2000 campaign manager Donna Brazile, an uncommitted superdelegate who has been complimentary to Obama, told Newsday: "I am numb."




UPDATE:

As always, Juan Cole offers some wise and incisive observations about the uproar over Hillary's remarks. He states that Hillary "inadvertently stumbled into a hornet's nest" by reminding people "of April 4, not June 5, of MLK along with RFK." And he seems to gently upbraid folks like us in the blogosphere who perhaps sometimes give too much significance to candidates' misstatements than is deserved, but he notes that in this case it is Hillary's own fault:

Elections should be about issues, not about this sort of hothouse speculation about personalities.

But there is one sense in which her campaign, at least, bears some responsibility for her current straits. Clinton operatives behind the scenes have been smearing Obama as a Muslim, and it was they who dug up that photo of him in Kenyan clothes. Clinton even said Obama was not a Muslim "as far as I know." The malice demonstrated in those actions laid the groundwork for people to believe that Clinton was capable of such hostility toward Obama.

The incident, it seems to me, does tell us two other things.

The first is that the strategy of the Clinton camp, of continuing to campaign even after victory at the polls became numerically impossible--in hopes that Obama might stumble and alienate sufficient numbers of superdelegates--was not crazy. I don't approve of it, but that it could work or could have worked seems clear. It could easily have been Obama who stumbled yesterday. Ironically, it was Clinton.

The second thing the incident tells us is how traumatized the nation still is by those horrible killings 40 years ago, and how much unfinished business of healing those wounds there is. Hillary didn't mean to pick at the scab. But she did. And we bled a little, all over again.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/24/65451/0542/860/521896

She Ripped that Sucker Clean OFF! As a youth I recall one of my daily rituals which included picking up the Newspaper from the front porch in our suburb.. They didn't even roll it up, the town was so small :) that the paper lay flat, ready to read.,

There were special days that I picked it up that burned those front pages into my mind forever.. Pics of Martin Luther King's Balcony from when he was Assassinated.. The huge pic of RFK laying on the floor of a commercial kitchen, face as blank as the Future we all looked forward to that no longer existed, gunned down, the Liberals might have Ruled for 50 years because of that Man, our whole culture was snuffed in a moment and we headed for graft, right wing corruption, more deaths because of that Bullet..

I began to wonder why all these forward thinking men of Peace were being gunned down, and looking at being drafted soon enough on top of it all - meanwhile I was an Altar Boy, going to church twice a day, and Catholic schooling, where the showed me the OTHER Man of Peace who'd been killed by those Corrupted by money or Religion or power..

The memories invoked create a loss for many and a void that would NEVER be filled by the likes of Hillary, she has not Earned the Right or Respect or Class to "own" that Era, to make any mention of Any of it, in my mind..

Now, Obama, he's the Real Deal.. Ted let's him Speak for him for a Reason, he's like an Adopted Son of one if the greatest Liberal Families (and we can be PROUD of that word Again!) this nation has known in a Century or more..

This IS a big deal.. When all these images of Death, not just RFKs FLOOD the Collective Mind of the Country it will BUCK her OFF its back.

SHE does not have the RIGHT to talk of these things. They are Sancrosect. Not to be USED for Profit.

Off the Soapbox now.. :)

Unlike the Dean Scream, they didn't have to manufacture it. Like the Dean Scream, it's a pile-on.

See my response to Skinner down-thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6108152#6110974

I think she said it multiple times because there have been reports that people weren't voting for him because they were afraid he would be assassinated (makes no sense to me, but...) (if you google voters afraid obama will be assassinated you will get lots of reading material) she was trying to plant that seed of doubt (to voters and more importantly to SuperDelegates) that maybe I shouldn't vote for the black man, maybe he ISN'T the strongest candidate, maybe something bad will happen....you have to remember she is a lawyer above all else.

it's all politics, and I don't particularly like this kind...

I agree as well... this is not just a mere gaffe.

Increasing the sense of risk of siding w/ Obama for both voters and Supers.
:thumbsup:

for his assassination. I do think she intended to say that anything could happen. Had she simply meant that primaries historically last until June, that is all she would have said. But she has raised the assassination issue over and over.

She could even have mentioned Bobby Kennedy's campaign going into June without referencing assassination. I would have had no problem with that.

She has been given a pass on this over and over again. She said it one too many times.

Not, that she would even be happy gaining at harm to him.

But, this was a pre-written and repeated statement. It's purpose is NOT to give perspective on a long campaign, but to sow doubt in Obama's durability, electability, and fear.

But less than wanting him assassinated. No way do I believe that! It's more the "see, anything can happen" scenario. She was just trying to be a little subtle. The subtlety did not work this time.

She is a piece of work.

But, my husband agrees with you, and he is not a Clinton supporter. He is quite naive, though. Naivity can be refreshing, but it can also lead to incorrect conclusions.

The thing about the RFK race was how it ended, not how long or short it was.

To me, it was meant to combine the "anything can happen" scenario with the "campaigning in June" thing.

She has been using it for some time, at least 3 instances that I know of prior to this one. Someone engineered this example to evoke emotions. I think it was meant to scare us into considering "what if"...

hoping to tug on some nostalgic heartstrings (though I think darker reasons are also possible.)

But even if you go with purely sentimental pandering as her reason, it still shows an ASTOUNDING lack of judgement, which is the main reason she is truly unqualified to be CIC.

Bad advisors + constant gaffes + divisive mudslinging + using GOP talking points = BAD JUDGEMENT = I DON'T WANT HER REPRESENTING MY COUNTRY IN THIS FRAGILE TIME (or ever, really) .

Reagan/Ford, Mondale/Hart, Dukakis in 88... but no, she had to bring up the one where the candidate was actually killed. For someone with a history of carefully planned and calculated statements, I can't believe that this one just "slipped out".

But i do agree Obama will take the high road, but still this might take on a life of it's own.

since the damage has already been done. I suspect the temporary lull in Super Delegates towards Obama will end, with the trickle continuing on Tuesday, increasing through the week and turning into a flood after May 31.

What this does do however, is give Obama an easy out (not that he required one, despite all the talk) in selecting a running mate other than Hillary.

But in listening to her comments, I don't get the sense that she was suggesting or even darkly hinting that Obama might be assassinated. It sounded like she was trying to compare the fact that in both 1968 and 1992 the Democratic nominee had not been decided until June of election year. It was probably not the best historical analogy, particularly since we did not actually win in 1968 (and don't know what might have happened had RFK lived) to make perhaps given the sensitivity of the tragedy of RFK's assassination, as well as concerns that many of us have about Obama's vulnerability and the remarks made by Huckabee at the NRA convention, which were IMHO MUCH more disturbing, but I don't believe that she is expressing (or has ever expressed) any ill intent regarding Obama's life/ safety.

Just as one can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater then say sorry afterward without penalty, you can't play with assassination among a racist voter base that YOU encouraged.

reference can't be established. There are other more recent and more relevant races, which would have supported her case. Yet she chose to use the 1968 example.

It's quite clear she chose the 1968 race as an example of something catastrophic that can happen to a candidate, giving her a reason to stay in.

when I heard her comments and not just the "sound bite". When viewed within the context of the entire conversation, it's clear where she was going with this one.

In the past I would be the first to admit being hyper-critical of mis-speaks, but this comment, amazingly, didn't strike me in a bad way at all.

Being hung on one's own petard is a form of delicious justice.

was in terms of process? There were only 13 primaries that year and most of the delegates could just pick whomever they wanted.

The point is that it is not applicable except maybe Obama is a lot like Kennedy and Clinton is Humphrey.

I don't want another President who will mis-speak and then not give a full, heart-felt apology for doing so. I don't want another President who is that arrogant. It shows a distinct lack of moral character. And since Obama is better on that scale, he's the better choice. Besides all of his other qualifications and talents.

the bogus reason and the non apology is what I'm asking?

no matter how small. Automatically finds an excuse for herself. It's a bad character trait of hers.

unbearable for our highest office. bush isn't setting the bar anymore, hilary. Not This Time.

As always, I prefer not to ascribe to malice that which can be explained by mere incompetence (or in this case, a severe screw up).

It's damning enough as a screw up. I'll choose to view it that way. Others may make different choices, but I'm not convinced they are warranted.

now I can sign off and go back out to the garden and stop thinking about this.

before it's no longer referred to as a gaffe. IIRC, yesterday was the fourth reference to RFK and the tragedy in June, and the second time she spoke the unspeakable word in reference to the situation.

And the only way referencing past elections "still going on in June" makes sense today would be if those elections also began in early January, which they did not.

edited for clarity

I thought I knew of one other, but I've heard there were two other times before this one. You seem to be saying there were three. Do you know roughly about when they took place? Right now all I can find in searching is this new incident and I pretty sure there was at least one other.

I'm just trying to put together the context of the other(s). For my own curiosity's (sanity's) sake.

The first time was in MARCH:

TIME: Can you envision a point at which--if the race stays this close--Democratic Party elders would step in and say, "This is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall"?

CLINTON: No, I really can't. 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. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/05/hillarys_bizarre_rfk_comment.html

Then again in APRIL:

"But I also think it's still early, I mean everybody is so focused on where we are right now, I, I, guess I remember in June of '92 that's when Bill really wrapped up the nomination, the middle of June after the California primary. Um, You know, I remember very well what happened in the California primary in 1968 as Sen. Kennedy won that primary."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24505208#24505208

The pertinent quote can be found around the 4:30 mark I believe

I appreciate this!

in May.

To Time on March 6:



After the Indiana primary, on May 7, she told supporters at a Washington hotel:



And at Shepherdstown, West Virginia, on the same day, she referenced it again:



I read in another post here yesterday that she also referenced the RFK tragedy once in April, but I don't have a link.

I've pulled the quotes above, from Olbermann's latest Special Comment.

Later that month Kristol's article appeared in Time where he equated Obama beating Clinton being the victory Bobby Kennedy was denied by an assassin's bullet.

After that until this time she appears to have not used the assassination reference.

Thank you for those! It's nice to know I wasn't imagining things. :)

Once in March, once in April, and three times in May.

That's no gaffe.

Until yesterday. I'm willing to bet she caught some amount of heat then and it was decided she change her wording a bit. Yesterday she screwed up and reverted back to the original. This time the backlash is considerable. It was an extremely foolish thing to say.

She should never have used the reference to being with. It's not an acceptable angle nor even a valid argument. Whatever her campaign thought to gain by using such wording will remain a mystery subject to speculation by future historians. She's made history. Just not in a good way.

and, thereby, gain the consolation or booby prize ---

On the other hand, HRC's lack of sensitivity merely showed her once again to be an unfit
candidate ---

As a female, I find her an embarrassment ---
As a Democrat, I find her DLC leadership/membership to be a betrayal of the values and ideals of
the Democratic party.

And many of those games end in just such irony.

leave DU now!

DU is getting crazy around this issue. :crazy:

what an assinine thing to say

"Privately, aides to Mr. Obama were furious about the remark."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24clinton.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

as he has done all along. They make him look more presidential, and make her look more childish - every.single.time.

Please feel free to come out and say what you think, rather than just do the old wink-wink-nudge-nudge.

he plays politics. He sends an e-mail to the media citing the story about him needing more security.

I don't get that. Obama faces security risks - it's a fact. Why are you trying to make a judgment about his character based on that? It's a real, personal threat that he and his family faces due to the fact that he's entered this presidential race. Your suspicious attitude about this is out of bounds.

He was suggesting that Clinton wanted him assassinated. The idea that he is not using this politically is false. He is just doing it in an underhanded way. While pretending he is not, he sends e-mails to the media citing stories about assassination threats.

The articles in the NYTimes and the WashPo mentioned Obama's private anger and referred to a couple of the statements by his surrogates in the press, the first of which did assert that Clinton's statement has no place in a political campaign. More recently, though, Obama's campaign chair, Axelrod, has been quite conciliatory. I personally didn't see the private emails from Obama that were sent to the press, as you mention, so I don't know what you're basing your opinion on.

Plus, Obama didn't start this - it's based on Hillary Clinton's latest reference to the assassination of RFK, one of at least three references this campaign season. And yet all of your attention is directed toward Obama and your pernicious reading of his character. It's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but we've spent plenty of time on Bittergate, Wrightgate, Sweetiegate, Ayersgate, and HardworkingwhiteAmericansgate, thanks to Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Republicans, so it's not surprising to me at all to see this uproar over her casual references to assassination to help her explain why she's staying in the race. And most of the outrage is not coming from the Obama campaign - it's coming from Democrats nationwide, many of them, anyway.

and right then HRC is suggesting that something like assassination COULD befall a candidate in this
election . . . and you're saying that its Obama who is "underhanded" --- ?? !!!

Did HRC send photos of Obama in a costume to the press . .
was that "underhanded" --- she she try to deny that it doesn't trace back to her?

This is all GOP-like PROJECTING one's own evil thoughts onto others . . .

To say anything publicly would be a mistake on their part--but I don't give a damn what their feelings in private are.

evidenced by both candidates in this primary. He's not God you know...and I am hoping you aren't looking at him to be one.

Hillary has used almost the exact sentence, including RFK's name and the word "assassination," in other recorded interviews, including one with Time magazine on March 6, and her surrogates have been pushing the "implosion" theme for months. The difference this time is that Ted is in the hospital and the calculated monstrosity of her statement finally hit home. But it can't by any stretch of the imagination be dismissed as a Freudian slip or misstatement.

Exactly. Using "assassination" in any way at all is callous, those of us who were actual supporters of those assassinated find that exploit very hard to forgive.

happen to him. That was her whole point.

:crazy:

I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the Chief Justice.

Hillary has mentioned June 1968 and RFK in this regard several times. She could have chosen any of several other races, but she chose that year. I do not doubt for a moment that Hillary Clinton was thinking "it could happen this year." I do not believe that things simply happen to Hillary Clinton. She parses and chooses her words carefully. She knows the impact of her comments. She thought this would play out differently, but it backfired on her.

This is not simply a matter of DU's 90% antipathy toward Hillary Clinton. This statement by Hillary has been almost universally attacked in our media, and they are not swayed by the denizens of GDP.

If we're wrong about it, so are 95% of the public commentators.

Well said!

Was again, a deception. Since we can go back and cite specifically where she has said it in the past, to act as though this was a first time 'gaffe' - is similar to her lies about Bosnia - when that too was on record numerous times, and never once "late at night" as was suggested.

Can people ignore the site owner? lol

Never tried it on Skinner.

Don't even remember why but it was before the insaneness of the primary season hit, so it probably had to do with insulting women or gay people. Or maybe puppies - yeah, could have been puppies.

proverbial Camel's back. Axelrod and Obama are always gracious, but to many of his supporters and the lion's share of the AA Community, her comments are patently indefensible.

No Slack until she bows out of the race. The cumulative effect is just ONE STEP TOO FAR.

... the "Gaffe" is that she accidentally told the truth.

The LIE was that Bill didn't secure the nomination until June.

The truth, is that assassination is one possibility of bad things that could happen.

The Secret Service, the most prestigious Police Force in the world, acknowledges that Obama faces extraordinary risk.

Many AAs believe he will NEVER be allowed to live. They pray for his safety every day.

For Clinton to apologize to everyone on earth EXCEPT Obama, his family, and his supporters, is EVIDENCE ENOUGH of her abiding hostility, and the TRUTH in her "Gaffe."

Gaffe or not, it's disgusting, Skinner. I don't see you acknowledging that.

my humble opinion...

Why should we ignore the logical extension of the kitchen sink strategy?

I've cooled down a lot from yesterday, and I still find her comments grotesque and creepy. Worse, I also find them intentional. Oh well, different strokes and all.