You know those math problems where they ask you to solve the progression?
2…7…16…39…94…?
What’s next for Clinton? Calling him a n*gger? I don’t accept her ‘June’ explanation because the 1968 nomination was not decided until late August at the convention. If she is trying to make a case for staying in the contest until June it would make sense to point out that the race in 1968 lasted until August, not June. It’s also not the first time she’s referred to the RFK assassination as a reason for her to stay in the race. This was no slip of the tongue. It has been a talking point with her since early March. And, as I have already pointed out, it makes no difference now whether she is campaigning or not, she already has secured the second most delegates. If Obama is killed or embroiled in scandal, Clinton has the strongest claim to the nomination right now and further campaigning can only harden Obama delegates against her candidacy at any brokered convention. Her argument makes no sense. Therefore, I cannot grant her the benefit of the doubt in this case. Her argument makes no rational sense and it was not a slip of the tongue. She has intentionally raised the specter of assassination, and she has no decent excuse for it. The best I can say for her is that all she was doing was making a magnificently disingenuous argument. And that’s being very generous.
She also needs to redo her apology so that it includes Barack and Michelle Obama and their two daughters.
227
very good. you get a cookie.
an update to my diary I posted that:
AL Giordano is reporting on the flood …“The Cardozo 40”
exodus of 40 of Clinton’s California delegates begins
Thank God for some leadership from someone, anyone in the Dem Party.
Agreed. Al may well have the reporting right on this one. If those 40 superdelegates do indeed come out, that’ll be the sixth or seventh lock on the closed door.
It’s time for this to be done.
She or her surrogates will complain about a media lynching. I figure the N word is being saved for Denver as a chant to rally her supporters.
I’ve been saying the last few days that Clinton’s supporters want the black man to step off the sidewalk so she can go by.
Maybe it’s more upfront than I thought.
No, I’m betting it comes during the general. We all know someone’s going to call him that eventually. Someone big. But I’m still betting on a big Republican — maybe a senator — close to McCain.
someone’s going to call him that eventually
Agreed. It’s pretty much inevitable. I hope (and expect) that his campaign has already thought through how to handle it, and have trained for it–some time ago.
But we won’t know until it happens.
They know how to deal with this stuff. One thing he and his team deserve credit for, regardless of how one feels about Obama on policy, is their ability to handle things like that. He’ll usually calmly call it “unfortunate” or something to that effect, and simply allow the frenzy to run over the other candidate.
And more lying.
And I suppose the Kennedys were ‘much on her mind’ in March, too, when she said the same thing.
She’s using Teddy’s cancer as an excuse. That’s almost as bad as the assassination part of it.
I’m sure that’s calculated too. After all, he was one of the first big Obama endorsements. Just another little payback.
Is anything she does not calculated? These are the Clintons we’re talking about. Aren’t they supposed to be calculating constantly?
She may have missed the calculation that just as McCain did a doc drop the Fri of Memorial weekend, H’s next move will go relatively unnoticed over the next 3 days. Instead, the picture of her words will stew with people uncountered.
I agree. She’s the nastiest person I’ve ever seen in our party in politics.
And BooMan – absolutely right. I can’t believe she hasn’t apologized to Obama yet. I’ve forgiven her everything for the sake of party unity.
Not this.
Not this.
good point.
I don’t buy it either.
Although I do think that the public outcry against this statement might be bigger this time than it might have been because of Teddy Kennedy’s situation.
If I may quote Samantha Powers….
SHE IS A MONSTER
She needs to apologize to Samantha Powers….
wasn’t she? That’s why people got all bent out of shape. She hit too close to home.
I find her apology and explanation even more offensive and staggeringly tone-deaf, because she had time to think about it and prepare for it. NOT ONE MENTION OF OBAMA?!?! No apology or acknowledgment of how this might cause “trauma” to his wife and family? No, no, no. She is either over the ragged edge, or so amoral that she can’t see the simple honest truth. And though there are apologists aplenty out there this evening — on air and online — there are many more, even among her supporters, for whom this is a final, unforgivable straw. I don’t see her recovering from this at this point.
RFK Jr.:
A “familiar historical circumstance”. It makes me so sad that he would talk about his father’s death in that way.
This was what I was waiting for…I recall that RFK, Jr. and his sister were supporting Clinton, even taping some commercial ads for her. It makes me sad, too.
It was said
A hard holiday weekend for the family, with the news about Teddy. Not really the time for the world to be forced to remember RFK’s death. Or maybe it is. I don’t know.
Perhaps, he’ll feel differently after he’s seen the video and spent the weekend with Uncle Ted.
I don’t think Robert Kennedy has come to terms with his father’s death. I think he has abstracted and buried that far from his psyche.
That’s sad.
“…invoking a familiar historical circumstance”?
Like lynching was a recognized display of public anger against minorities?
She offered regrets. You know, what you send when you cannot attend the wedding, cocktail party or whatever When you apologize you admit you were wrong. Straight and simple. And you ask for forgiveness.
I think she’s pathological. And people like that think they are right and do not apologize.
The “lady” has to bail, no other option for her at this point that I can see,
I come back from out-of-towning and find that Lady Clinton has lovingly presented to the world this to suck on?
I’m up to speed on it all now. Just appalling. There’s something about the way she said it that feels palpably malicious to me, not just thoughtless or callous, and it gives me a very creepy feeling. I already carry just those kinds of worries at the back of mind, as I’m sure most Obama supporters do (nevermind Obama himself and his family), and she feels the need to twist the knife. My take is that she comes off looking a little ghoulish and disturbed, not just cynically calculating. All she had to say was that she had promised herself and her supporters that she would stay in the race until everyone has voted — or something to that effect. Simple. But no, not her. She’s smarter than that, ain’t she? And then comes the clarification/apology. The thing that struck me first and hardest about that was that she — with utmost intent, I would say — neglected to apologize to the Obamas! The Kennedys, she felt, were the only ones to apologize to! What the hell does reminding us that she holds RFK’s Senate seat have to do with it? And using Ted Kennedy as a means of covering her ass comes off as tactless and disrespectful. Incredible.
I wonder if she feels she is destined somehow to be president, and always has, maybe. I just don’t want to deal with her anymore. If this is the second time Clinton’s mentioned this, I don’t think it’s a slip, a gaffe or anything except a tactical maneuver to sow doubt and fear. I can only remind myself that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. A great Democrat said that once.
Clinton is a lawyer and an accomplished politician. She knows what not to say — what’s out of bounds. She knows the power of words, of suggestion. But she has balanced her campaign, her reputation, her entire legacy — and that of her family maybe — on the edge of a knife, and all that may have very well toppled over. How anyone can not wash their hands of that which she has become, I don’t pretend to know.
And I’ll just add this: somewhere tonight, I’m sure, there is someone in this country who likely feels someone, somehow, must save the United States the indignity, the horror of the first black U.S. president taking office. Hillary Clinton has obviously thought about that in at least shrewdly political terms if in no other way.
There’s been a chorus of “Nobody has ever, in history, campaigned in a primary until June!!!1111 If she doesn’t drop out we’re all gonna die! She’s a monster!”
And so she said, paraphrasing, “Actually, you remember my husband? He did the same thing and things went pretty well, thanks. And remember RFK? Remember what an amazing person he was? Well, for christ’s sake, he was campaigning in June when they shot him. Was he a monster too? What the f*ck are y’all on about?”
Or, as the media paraphrased it, “HILLARY THREATENS TO SHOOT OBAMA”.
Yeah, that makes sense.
jezeus…another drive-by troll.
and l’m really not in the mood to debate with it …apropos rating applied.
stop by again when you’ve got something more substantive to contribute.
People used to campaign after June. There used to be primaries through the summer.
Maybe if you spent a little while and actually read some of the things here your arguments might be a little better informed.
For ex, her husband won the California primary in June. It’s been moved back to February, in case you didn’t notice.
And when Bill C. won the California, he’d for all intents and purposes won the nomination and the other candidates dropped out so that he could run his campaign against Bush. H. Clinton won’t do that. So the ’92 campaign is a bad example too.
In any case, no one assassinated any American presidential candidate since 1968. So why is Clinton contemplating the possibility of something that hasn’t happened in forty years?
>> If she is trying to make a case for staying in the contest until June it would make sense to point out that the race in 1968 lasted until August, not June.
Well, I think she was making a historical case for the contest still being underway in June. As for going to August…well, haven’t they been indicating that, if not yet openly stating it? You’re opening the door through which many think she’ll be interested in walking.
From Jeralyn this evening, on the matter:
“I’ve been in court all afternoon and just coming in now to all the hysteria. All I’ll say is Hillary is being treated unfairly here. The media and blog commenters are engaging in character assassination. She was making a historical statement on why she needn’t drop out of the race by early June. Democratic nominations have gone past that before. Her emphasis was on the word “June.”
“The leap that is required to think that her reference to the RFK assassination was in any way a statement or subliminal wish that it might happen to Obama is mind-boggling.
“This will be the final TalkLeft thread on the matter. I’m not going to spend the weekend on this. And I’m going to have a low threshold for accusatory comments. If you want a place to further your attacks on Hillary, go somewhere else.”
So it’s not Hillary talking about a possible assassination as a reason for her staying in, it’s character assassination of those bad people who want Hillary to drop out.
But of course, they were completely justified in crucifying the horrific, sexist Obama when he uttered the word “periodically”. These people are mentally disturbed. The only thing they care about is getting another Clinton in the White House.
Jeralyn’s evenhanded analysis of how Clinton’s dissected and twisted Obama’s statements about how people get bitter.
Yeah, me neither. 😐
The use of the phrase “character assassination” in this situation has to mark the nadir of Jeralyn’s idiotic and dishonest commentary this election season.
Hmm, somehow I’m not convinced that she can’t find a way to sink even lower. And I bet she can do it before June third gets here.
Unwittingly.
You have all bought into it. HRC is wrong no matter what she says or does.
So it goes.
I hope that the people who are orchestrating this…and I truly believe that is it is being orchestrated, that y’all are being played like violins by Rovian forces that are slavering over the idea of opposing Obama rather than Clinton…I hope that they are as wrong about this choice as they have been about most others.
However, the only areas in which that they have NOT been wrong have been political. So…we shall see.
Soon enough.
Best of luck. Either the biggest Fitzmas of all is headed our way this November…YOUR way, because I have had no part in this demonization/sanctification dumbshow… or the Rats have seriously misjudged Obama’s vulnerability.
We shall soon see.
They certainly haven’t misjudged yours.
Best of luck.
Hang by your thumbs, and call if you get work.
Later…
AG
I told my husband 3 hours ago, word for word what you’d post. Time to go to the second set.
Now if you could only FEEL it…
AG
If I had a billion dollars, Obama would be my candidate. He speaks well, he inspires people, and he is totally corporate–the ideal bait-and-switch.
The disasters that will be enveloping the US before this year is out will be so overwhelming that keeping the media show going will require someone who can appear lucid and in whom people can believe. That makes a strong argument.
Is he controllable? Why wouldn’t he be? Though this very question is undoubtably creating conflict amongst the powers that be. That and the old soft-force (propaganda, money, and misdirection)/ hard-force (just stick a gun in their faces) split.
So yes, for the PTB Obama is the high-risk, high-gain candidate.
But long before the election, the PTB will choose. It depends on what they want, how smart they are, and how subtle they are. Mostly this is not known, except that subtly is not one of their strengths. Crudeness has played well for well over eight years. But is it, or is it not time for a change of tactics? It really hangs on that.
At least partially.
They have chosen to make sure that Hillary Clinton is not going to be the President of the United States.
Why?
Because I believe that the “vast right wing conspiracy”…the PTB that you invoke…fears her.
It’s personal, don’cha know. They fucked with her family.
The next choice?
I don’t know.
It seems to me that that they do not think that McCain can be sold.
Too old, too tainted with ButchCo’s mistakes.
But of course…they are not monolithic.
And there are always the good old wild card routines that they keep up their sleeves along with their derringers and international incidents.
As Ms. Clinton so accurately noted recently, to her everlasting loss.
A bullet to the brain has been known to trump a million editorials.
Let us pray.
AG
Obama’s corporate? How? Where? Point to something specific that demonstrates he’s corporate, other than the fact that he’s succeeded at an election. His policies, campaign, and fundraising so far have been the very mirror of a “corporate” candidate. Almost all of his fundraising comes from small donors, so he’s not indebted to corporate interests. His campaign has been very decentralized and people-powered. He’s got, for example, by far the most progressive and housing crisis solution of any candidate.
If they are not, they are not allowed to run.
Not allowed? Well, the media can make anyone look ridiculous (the Dean “scream”), or the media can simply ignore (Kucinich), so all candidates are vetted* by the media before the campaigns go very far, and (by the end of the 20th century) the media represents corporate interests directly. It’s a closed system, a fixed game.
The candidates are not identical, but they have ALL passed the test of corporate acceptability. They disagree on several things, but their core values are the same. Oh . . . and NONE of them are progressive as far as I can tell.
Obama runs a people-powered campaign. Well, that’s a fine skill to have, and a good strategy. He raises his money from small donors. This is good. He speaks well and lucidly–a welcome attribute after years of politicians ignorant in their native language.
None of these good things will change the fact that if he becomes President, he will have a job to do, and that job will NOT be to create a new New Deal. THAT task is not possible–the US is looted out and bankrupt and there are no resources with which to do it. He will have the unwelcome job of managing the national decline, and the corporate powers–which played the major role in our troubles in the first place–will constrain him from taking most ameliorating actions.
Finally, judging from the discourse on this blog (and other places), most Americans are not prepared to face what is coming, nor support the steps a President would have to take to stave off the worst. Nor is the US going to become “green”: Re-doing the energy basis of our economy for a soft-landing transition from our oil-based economy would have to have been started decades ago–and worse, without a change in our values away from our consumerist culture, “green” energy would only provide us with more ways to destroy the Earth on the way to our own self-destruction.
About the most we can hope for from any candidate is that once in office they will find themselves too busy to interfere with local initiatives for survival.
*”vetted”–a word from the Soviet era meaning screen for political orthodoxy and compliance to the authorities.
Check out RFK Junior’s pathetic defense of Hillary:
“It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June. I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband’s 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June. I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense.”
How racist.
When you add the fact that she has not apologized to Barack Obama,the target of her comment,it makes it even more plain how venomous she has become.
I’ll take “Because She’s a Sociopath,” for $2000.00, Alex.
Seriously, it really is that simple, and anyone pretending otherwise or trying to delve deeper is really wasting their time. Personally, I have insomnia, but the rest of you, I recommend you realize who and what she is.
Strangely enough, I do accept her explanation.
It’s so ironic. I think this was the least intentional of all her outrages if not the most innocent. I’ve watched the video a number of times and all I see is that she’s referencing a marker in her memory (’68 campaign .. RFK .. assassination .. California .. June) for another campaign going on into June. She wasn’t trying to imply that she was staying in the race just in case of an assassination. Her explanation that ‘Kennedy’ has been on her mind because of Ted, leading to reaching for maybe not the most apt illustration of the point she was trying to make, that campaigns have gone on into June before, would be very plausible if she hadn’t used the same example back in March.
The fact that she referenced this twice, two months apart, using almost the same words, calling up as examples the same two campaigns, Bill’s and RFK’s, especially when they’re not particularly apt examples, is the strange and dark part. There’s either a subconscious or a deliberate reason for it – I think the former. She must be on autopilot to a certain extent, giving answers to the same questions over and over for many months on end.
And BTW it was the NY Post’s wording that put the inflammatory spin on this story that hadn’t been there in the March reference – maybe why it didn’t blow up then the way it did this time. I remember reading it back then and thinking how odd and inappropriate the reference seemed and wondering at the lack of outrage about it. But this time what the NY Post did is they insinuated motivation into the statement. Compare a transcript of what she said:
with the effect of the motivation frame the NY Post puts it into:
They supplied the causation frame (‘assassination was in June so I won’t drop out yet’).
Terribly unfair on the level of this one specific incident, but weirdly, karmically appropriate considering the whole scorched earth campaign she’s run, constantly trying to run Obama off the road, trying to goad him into making a fatal error, instead of showing us what a strong leader she could be against the real danger of another Republican administration. Who knows, if this hadn’t been a campaign full of ginned up gotchas about ‘bitter’ and Jeremiah Wright and obama’s ‘sexism’ and hard-working white people, if it had been about the big issues instead maybe there would be some leeway, some room for benefit of the doubt. But under the circumstances the hounds are loosed, the blowhards are baying for blood, and you know what? … it’s damn well about time. The value of a long campaign – the mask slips eventually and we get to see the real person we’re electing, or won’t be electing.