Clinton cites possibility of Obama assassination reason to remain in race

As someone who worked in the DC media and met most of these pundits, I could care less what they "universally agree." There are some exceptions, but by and large, the bias from so many of these journalists paid for positions of neutrality is sickening. No different than Daily Kos posters, really.

It wasn't a stupid comment, much less incredibly stupid or asinine. And the insensitive comment is laughable, given that RFK Jr. didn't even take issue with it. It was a simple, true, matter-of-fact statement related to the timeline of campaigns. Honestly, I feel stupid even arguing this, because it's all based on a hypothetical, and the Obama campaign hasn't given me a reason to think they have the same level of paranoia as so many supporters.

I accepted Clinton's loss a long, long time ago. It's not about that. This is about the illogical, irrational paranoia and hatred so many people have toward Hillary Clinton for few legitimate reasons, and it's an issue that has been important to me for years and will be important to me for however long she's a politician. I understand it can't be changed, and it is what it is. But if the Obama campaign either participates in that paranoia or panders to that emotion (like Bush) instead of deciding things on merit and substance, that, to me, speaks to hypocrisy in his overall theme and message.

 

The Cat, the quote from RFK, Jr. didn't surprise me. He's an intelligent person who has lived the Kennedy family drama as up close and personal as anyone could. Here's another bit of info about him. A lot of people simply don't know much about the guy. He has a bit of a speech impediment that prevents him from making full use of his "genetically aquired" (no joke intended!) talents in oration.

He was 14 in June 1968, when the rector of Georgetown Preparatory School woke him to tell him his father had been shot. He flew to California, where Senator Kennedy had just won the Democratic primary. He was at the hospital when his father died.

Mr. Kennedy graduated from Harvard College and the University of Virginia Law School. He received a master's degree in environmental law from Pace University, where he is now a law professor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/fashion/25bobby.html?pagewanted=2



I have to say, however, that George W. Bush would have to unleash his torture guys on me before I would vote for a Republican this November. Just an FYI. I don't blame you for being angry at some of this stuff, but you need to keep your head on straight!



Impeach Bush.

 

Eh, I'm not losing sleep over it. Obama's campaign has never been like that, and I doubt very seriously it ever would be. Like I said, it's all based on a hypothetical that I'm pretty sure will never come to fruition. When it's all said and done, Obama will win in November and I'll definitely be happy with that.

 

The Obama camp has been very, very generous on this. In light of what the Clintons would do in a similar scenario, they are amazingly generous.

I don't understand how this alone exonerates her, unless there's further explanation. Re-worded: "Invoking the assassination of a presidential candidate in support of her argument for continuing her campaign." Like many others, I'll buy the "timeline" argument, but you're going to have to try harder to explain why she had to use this example (repeatedly) when there are far better ones out there.

Again, the Obama campaign has been more than generous in this regard. Obama has turned down multiple opportunities to attack and twist the knife and emphasize her gaffes. By comparison to Clinton herself, he's a saint in the "jumping on gaffes" department.

 

Ok, I need to calm down.

 

I don't think Hillary meant to say "Obama will be assassinated" or anything like that, but what a stupid, tactless statement she made. Moving on.

 

The problem with this statement is that her argument doesn't hold water. Her continuing her campaign is totally unconnected to the historical circumstance from that election. If Obama were to be assassinated, she would be the nominee regardless of if she continues or suspends her campaign. She would automatically have an overwhelming plurality of the remaining delegates in that scenario.

Ignoring the political correctness or sensitivity of it, her claim that it's a justification to continue her campaign has no merit. She's just saying it hoping someone will believe it and it will stick and justify her campaign. This is the same as her harping on the popular vote argument (but excluding Iowa, Washington, Maine, and Nevada - for some reason, that's OK), and all the other random arguments she's made.

 

Yeah, and I apologize if any of this seems over the top. It's just that this is a very sensitive issue to me independent of the status of the primary right now. I'm always going to be a fan of the Clintons as politicians, and I'll support and believe in Hillary in whatever role she serves after this comes to an end. And when I read comments like some of those on the first page -- especially the post that hinted that the Clintons would be suspects if the unthinkable ever happened -- it brings back all the countless examples over the last 15 years of America's illogical paranoia toward Hillary's ambition (which is no different than most politicians).

It drives me crazy, as you can tell, and sometime it's a fine line to walk because I find so many flaws with the arguments from Obama's supporters. However, it wouldn't be fair for me to judge him by arguments he has no control over. He's run a classy campaign and has been fair toward the Clintons, and I really appreciate and respect that. I shouldn't even have brought up the hypothetical I did, because like I said, I doubt it'll come to that. But this thread had me thinking about it a lot, so I did.

In the end, any hostility is directed toward some of the first page comments and not toward him as a candidate. He's run a great campaign on every level and I think would be great for the party.

 

I have to disagree. Hillary did in a big way. I say that as someone who believes she was only trying to reference the timeline, and not saying she'll stick around in case Obama gets assassinated.

Even so, her words were horrible. There were other primary seasons that went on into June besides just her husband's and RFK's. She didn't bring up 1984's primary season. Why did she chose that one to bring into play?

When one of the candidates has been getting death threats, and is leader who happens to be black and been involved in civil rights(like MLK, or Malcolm X) you don't bring up staying in a race and point out the assassination of a previous candidate who was also active in civil rights.

Then her "regret" didn't even bring up the stupidity regarding Obama himself, is what makes it even worse.

I've said from the very beginning that she didn't say it because she believed she ought to be in the race in case something happened. I think she honestly was trying point out that primaries can go into June, but her words were still clumsy and a ****-up.

First of all her comparison no matter what previous primary she was referring to is like comparing apples and oranges. Those primaries weren't totally front loaded like these were. They didn't even really start until March. So no matter what her comparison is off base. Add to it the offensiveness of her comments, and she definitely made a mistake.

To pretend it was nothing at all, but political correctness is ignoring the reality of the situation.

 

She would be the nominee, but the party would be thrown into complete chaos because you'd have an already defeated candidate who has been off the radar for months coming back into play in this bizarre hypothetical. (And it's not all about an assassination -- could be a random scandal, whatever.) If for whatever reason, something crazy happened and Clinton were the nominee, she'd have a much better chance of winning by continuing her campaign.

Of course, all of this has a < 0.1 percent chance of happening, and it's another hypothetical. If there were any evidence whatsoever that Clinton was harming Obama by staying in the race, I'd immediately call for her to drop out, as would most superdelegates. But take a look at the polls. Almost universally, Obama leads McCain by more points now than he did in late February and early March. That's the period when Clinton has supposedly used the "kitchen sink" desperate approach, according to so many folks here. That's the period McCain was supposed to make all this headway since he wouldn't have a direct opponent to criticize him.

I've said from the beginning that I thought this extended, high-profile race was good for the party, and I stand by that. These are two excellent politicians, and there's not a lot to lose here. Obama's poll numbers have gone up overall, if anything. He continues to rake in a ridiculous amount of money. As Clinton said, numerous other primaries have extended into June.

Having gone this far with so many passionate supporters, it's tough to see a compelling reason for her not to let the remaining primaries play themselves out. It's only a week-and-a-half more, anyway. What's to lose?

 

I have a huge disagreement with that. Hillary should not be allowed to say something like that and have nothing said in return. That seems like what you are saying, and the Obama campaign's response was not taking advantage at all. When someone says something offensive, it isn't taking advantage to say it has no place in the campaign.

1. The greatest offense wasn't to the Kennedy family. It was to the Obama family. They have been getting death threats since Barack declared his candidacy. The people defending Hillary in this thread are completely ignoring that.

For some reason that may not be a big deal to you or Cat, but I think it's a big deal. If I was on edge because my family and I were getting death threats, and other prominent leaders who were also black(MLK, Malcolm X) were assassinated as well as members of the Kennedy clan who pushed for civil rights, then yes Obama has a right to be offended, and to respond, even as mildly as he did is no way making political advantage of the situation. Hillary deserves to be called out for her clumsy words.

2. The second reason the words have no place in the campaign, is because it isn't even a similar situation at all. It is totally different. Back then the primaries weren't even started until March, and weren't front loaded the way they are now. So for her to compare the fact that it wasn't wrapped up until June back then with the way the primaries are now, doesn't have any place in this campaign.

Batman is right, it is ridiculous for Obama to be on trial for how he responds, when Hillary made offensive comments about candidates being assassinated to someone who receives death threats regularly, is at a far higher risk of assassination, as well the history of this nation.

Of course she didn't mean to say that she would stick around in case that happened, but her words were still offensive, poorly chosen, and someone calling her out on that, isn't a political low blow, disguised to not be one.

 

Every political candidate gets death threats. Fact of life. White politicians have been assassinated as well.

If it's so offensive, why isn't RFK Jr. offended? He's the one who would have the most logical case of all to take offense. That's why this seems so agenda-driven, to me.

 

So have the Clintons! So have the McCains!

We're ignoring it because it's an inevitability and true regardless of who the candidate is. It shouldn't be like that, and it sucks, but that's the reality of the world we live in.

 

Not the same given the history of leaders who are African American in this nation. Yes White Politicians have been assassinated. It's a reason why you don't bring up assassinations when talking about staying in a political race, white or black, but especially when the opponent is black.

I disagree. RFK has less reason to be offended since he isn't a candidate in the race receiving regular death threats.

That's also why her apology was offensive.

 

Which is why Obama didn't make comments about candidates being assassinated. When someone does they should be called out on it, and it's offensive.

I doubt that Hillary's death threats started the first day she declared her candidacy. But even if they did, Hillary doesn't have the same history of racially motivated assassinations added on top of the history of political assassinations that Obama does. Given the history in this nation it seems wise to not talk about assassination, even if that isn't the point.

 

Sorta off topic: Why is this? I just don't get why people become so attached to political figures that they can almost do no wrong. From my standpoint this seems like blind loyalty. I'm assuming she has some sort of idealistic appeal that has completely captured you.

When I disagree with people, I can often understand why they hold an opinion. This is baffling. Please educate me.

 

So, you can't even talk about it in private meetings (which this was)? I think everyone in this nation knows what happened to RFK -- do you really think it's some secret? I would see your point, even though I disagree, if Hillary had referenced RFK on a stump speech. This was a private meeting with an editorial board where she mentioned a historical example of a primary extending into June (again, assassination wasn't even the point) for less than five seconds. You're twisting it into something entirely different to push your agenda.

 

My apologies if I made it seem as though my support were unconditional. Clearly, there are some things she or Bill could do that would eliminate my support. But much for the same reasons I embrace the modern Democratic party, I hold deeply many of the values and policies shared by the Clintons. I greatly respect Bill's time as President and greatly respect the work Hillary has done as Senator.

It's nothing exclusive with the Clintons. I feel the same way about many people within the party, Obama included. But the Clintons have gone a long way toward shaping the party as it is today, and I respect that.

 

The exit polls show that in each successive primary since TX/OH, a larger and larger percentage of Clinton voters say they wouldn't vote for Obama. Doesn't that suggest there might be damage being done?

I agree with this part - the part I don't agree with is the tone of the campaign. She ran a functional, decent campaign the last couple of weeks - until Wednesday, when she went nuts. Her camp did the following:

1. An advisor suggested "open civil war" if Hillary wasn't the VP.

2. She demanded the full seating of MI/FL - with Obama getting 0 delegates from MI - and suggested nothing less was acceptable. This after, a week ago, the head of her campaign and Bill Clinton both saying a half-vote compromise would be perfectly reasonable acceptable.

3. She compared the FL/MI situation to Zimbabwe's election. Does riling up FL/MI voters not have potential consequences down the line?

4. She spoke with one of her FL SuperDelegates on Wednesday - and that guy filed a lawsuit against the DNC on Thursday. Is filing a lawsuit before evening allowing the rules committee to meet on May 31st not potentially damaging to the party?

5. She threatened to take the FL/MI issue all the way to the convention - that's not a week and a half away.

6. She made her bizarre assassination remarks yesterday. Regardless of what you think of them, they were politically tone-deaf. It was easy to see a mile away that she would get a massive backlash for it - so why did she do it? She's supposed to be a very smart politician; it wasn't slip of tongue. I disagree with your characterization that the media attacks her specificall. They do attack stupid comments - as they did with the Obama bitterness comments. She just seems to a make a lot more of them than anyone else.

She's literally gone off the deep end in the last 3 or 4 days. I suspect Obama said no to her as VP and that caused it - but that's purely conjecture. But regardless, she's gone back to destructive-Hillary mode.

 

I admit that I didn't know that the meeting with the editorial board was a private meeting.

That lessens the significance somewhat as far as how offensive it is. However, she should remove that example from her talking points at any time. It's just poor form in this case.

That primary going on until June isn't at all the same as one going on until June this year, so her point is off base anyway. And again there were other primaries that went on into June, so why use that one.

I know that it isn't a secret what happened to RFK. It just isn't smart to bring it up when talking about why she should stay in the race even if that wasn't the point. (I believe she is entitled to stay in the race if she would like).