New Page 1

 Sunday, May 25, 2008

The Superdelegates Should Convene NOW, TODAY, and Put an End to this Prolonged Process

  Read here commentary by "Desperado"

The Cancer That Is Hillary Clinton

As a follow-up to yesterday’s post on Hillary Clinton’s remarks in South Dakota in which she referenced the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, I was appalled at the number of people who left comments excusing her comments as the result of fatigue or just an unfortunate choice of words.

So I did a little research and found out that this was the THIRD time Hillary or a member of her campaign has made similar statements regarding the assassination of a Kennedy.

I would hardly call that a momentary lapse in judgement, more like an obsessive thought, in my opinion.

  1. On January 8, while introducing Hillary before a speech in New Hampshire, a retired teacher said this:
    "If you look back, some people have been comparing one of the other candidates to JFK, and he was a wonderful leader. He gave us a lot of hope," the retired teacher said. "But he was assassinated, and Lyndon Baines Johnson actually did all of his work and got both the Republicans and Democrats to pass those measures."
    How do those of you who claim Hillary was just making a historical reference explain that away? Saying that "people have been comparing one of the other candidates to JFK"?

    How can that be construed to be anythi
    ng other than a direct correlation to Barack Obama?

  2. The day after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries Hillary made this comment:
    "Sometimes you gotta calm people down a little bit. But if you look at successful presidential campaigns, my husband did not get the nomination until June of 1992," she said. "I remember tragically when Senator Kennedy won California near the end of that process."
    That is almost word for word what she said yesterday. However she did have the good sense not to include the word "assassination" on that occasion. Still, the inference is clear.

  3. Then yesterday Hillary repeated virtually the same thing she said then without omitting the A-word:
    "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?

    We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."
Following the uproar over her remarks yesterday Hillary issued a LAME excuse as an apology that really wasn’t an apology:

"I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever."

I DON'T read the words "I’m sorry" in there anywhere.

In my opinion, her intentions were crystal clear,
to say that she needs to stay in the race in case some tragedy befalls Barack Obama.

The superdelegates need to convene NOW, not May 31 or June 3, TODAY.

They need to throw their unanimous support behind Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee and put and end to this process NOW.

They must rid their Party of the cancer that is Hillary Clinton before it spreads any further.

Not just for the good of the Democratic Party, but for the country as a whole.



IN THE WASHINGTON POST by Libby Copeland: Read here

Hillary Clinton Raises the Specter of the Unspeakable


"...Smart candidates don't invoke the possibility of their opponents being killed.

This seems so obvious it shouldn't need to be said, but apparently, it needs to be said.
She was in an editorial board meeting with a South Dakota newspaper, and she didn't even seem to notice she'd just uttered the unutterable.

The nation's political science students, our future strategists and campaign managers, would do well to pay attention to this moment.

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.

If there were any doubt about the taboo nature of discussing such a thing, witness the reaction Barack Obama's campaign put out, which carefully avoided any repetition of what Clinton had actually said. To repeat it would be to repeat the possibility of the terrible thing.

"Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign," spokesman Bill Burton e-mailed.

Clinton issued a statement apologizing "if" she'd been in "any way offensive," and a spokesman tried to clarify what she meant.

"She was talking about the length of the race and using the '68 election as an example of how long the races in the past have gone," Howard Wolfson said, missing the point.

What she meant was: We can wait a little longer to know who the Democratic nominee is. What she said was: assassinated.

In fact, she had used similar, more carefully phrased language back in March, in a Time magazine interview: "

"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."

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.

It's surprising, too, because something very similar just happened last week, when Mike Huckabee made a joke at an NRA convention about somebody aiming a gun at Obama. He later apologized and called his remarks "offensive."

He also could have called them "instructive" for any politician paying attention.

If they didn't already know.

Commentary by Charles Krauthammer: Read here

"It was an amazing gaffe.

She has spoken in the past about how about in '68 and '92 the campaigns have gone on long into June, but she had never uttered the word "assassination."

And the reason is that you don't in presidential campaigns.

We all worry about it, and we worry about it in particular when you have the first African-American candidate who can be the president.

And that's not a paranoid fascinating.

You remember that Colin Powell was on a wave of support in 1996, and thinking of running. According to Bob Woodward, his wife Alma had said that he could not run, and, in fact, Woodward writes that she had said she would leave him if he ran for one reason--she thought he would be assassinated.

We have a history of that in our country. It was obviously on the Powells' mind, and it is in the back of people's minds today. And you worry about it. Whenever you see a presidential candidate wade into a crowd, everybody worries about it.

But for her to say the word is astonishing. I have to attribute it to fatigue, exhaustion, because raising it in this context is really toxic. She had to come out and apologize immediately. But I think it resonates. ..."

From Jay Hancock's Blog: Read here

Hillary's CONDITIONAL apology on Kennedy remark

I love these conditional apologies from people who have made public gaffes and insults. A genuine apology -- an expression of regret and an implicit request for forgiveness -- should be unconditional.

It should be an acknowledgment that a wrong has been committed -- NO ifs ands or buts.

But here's Hillary, who defended that fact that she's still in the race by saying, "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

She responded to the uproar by saying:
“And I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive.”
Note the "if."

One way to interpret this is that she's saying:
Hey, I'm fine with what I said. But if you have a problem with it, OK, my bad. I
don't really regret the remark. I regret that you're offended.
It WAS offensive, Mrs. Clinton. Just apologize without the fine print.

Here's a (very partial) collection:

Janet Jackson after partially disrobing during the Super Bowl:"I am sorry if anyone was offended by the wardrobe malfunction during the halftime performance at the Super Bowl."

Bill O'Reilly, after putting "Michelle Obama" and "lynching" in the same sentence:"I'm sorry if my statement offended anybody. That, of course, was not the intention."

Hillary Clinton after her husband compared Barack Obama's candidacy to Jesse Jackson's losing bid for the presidency: "You know I am sorry if anyone was offended. It was certainly not meant in any way to be offensive."

Trent Lott, after seeming to wax nostalgic for the days of segregation: “I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement."

  Go to Latest Posting

Comments 0