Hillary's Assasination Comment

nimh touched all the bases.

0 Replies

Clinton is right.

America is the most powerful force (hyper power) in the history of the planet at a point in world history some people might say looks like armageddon.

She and others understand reality the stakes and the politics and if we could rise to this level of reality we would be a more in touch voter instead of keeping things copacetic and politically correct.

0 Replies

Mame wrote:

Sorry, but can you explain what the big deal is?

Exactly.

I can remember the day of the week and approximately the time of year when John Lennon was shot because I heard the news reported by Howard Cosell during a Monday night football game, so I know it was on a Monday night during the fall or winter (it was Monday, Dec. 8, 1980). Likewise, I remember the day of the week when John Belushi died because I saw the news at a bar that I always went to on Friday afternoons (he died Friday, March 5, 1982). The memory of shocking events can be tied to certain days or months or seasons. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Sen. Clinton specifically remembers that it was June when Robert Kennedy was shot. That's how memory works. What's the big deal?

0 Replies

Uh, and now they're going to crawl out of the woodwork, would be assassini. Cripes.

0 Replies

I do get it that nominations have been played out over longer time than this present democratic scenario.

Easy enough to say in that a sentence or two.

Talking about assassination is a slip? Big word to get out in a slip of the tongue. If I was going to slip, I'd just say, Bobby....
I just figure that it is all part of HC's gaming, not that she wants such a thing, but she takes the possibility as a given, and it came out.

0 Replies

I generally look at Keith Olbermann as a little bit of a grandstanding sideshow, but he said what really needed to be said here.

A "slip of the tongue", nimh? Really? Like the slips about Obama not being prepared to be president, or the slip from her husband about Jackson winning Florida, or the slips about Fox News being fair and balanced? A "slip of the tongue"? I don't think this family - the Clintons - the ones that produced "the meaning of is"- slips up very much in what they intend by their words. They are bought and sold political animals - motivated by their assumed privilege of power. She doesn't think anything she says in the pursuit of her 'rightful' place in history can really be bad.

If she had much of a soul left and hadn't sold it to get what she thinks she is owed, she would aqueeze out of that shriveled heart an apology that clearly acknowledged the ANGUISH that bringing up assisination invokes.

FOR CHRIST SAKE, she - the first viable woman - is running against the first viable black man for the presidency of the United States. If anything "slipped" it was what was left of her righteous mind.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Again, none of this is the stuff you're ever supposed to talk about. Least of all if you're a top politician. About your rival. It's just not done, beyond the pale, etc. For reasons of basic civility if nothing else. But she's tired, and slip out it did, twice even. And if we're honest it's really only logical that she would be thinking about this kind of stuff. It's just stupid of her to let it slip out. She's obviously exhausted, but it's still a gaffe.

What it's not, in my humble outsiders instinct, is some cunning devious evil plan to convince superdelegates to support her rather than Obama because at least she doesnt run the risk of being assassinated as much. What it's not, going on my gut instinct and common sense, is some kind of conscious political game any which way. But considering how poisoned the relations between the respective core supporters are (and are largely due to Hillary's machinations), outrage will be taken, at length and with the ascription of pure, unadulterated evil rather than mere flaws to Hillary.

I think you underestimate Clinton's political skills. This particular approach, suggesting Obama's assassination, has been a low level Clinton talking point for three months. She personally has mentioned it four times since March. Since this is a fear of some in the community, she is clearly playing on it. If she stopped actively campaigning today, she would be the clear choice if something happened to Obama. She doesn't need to stay in the campaign for that to happen.

0 Replies

I saw Sen. Clinton's remark on re-play, and don't see anything terribly wrong in it. She didn't suggest that anyone will be assassinated, only that unexpected events can happen right up until the Convention finally chooses the party nominee. In these times assassination of leading political figures is just a fact of life, that's why the Secret Service is on the job. Her point that "it aint over, 'till it's over" was obvious. The Clinton's are well known for many things, not least of which is their stubborn refusal to ever "give up" so long as even the most remote possibility continues to exist. Sen. Clinton is perfectly capable of carrying her campaign onto the Convention floor. Who knows, she might still pull it out of the fire, stranger things have happened in previous Presidential campaigns.

The suggestion that Sen. Clinton is playing a "race" card is typical of this Democratic race for the nomination. Both candidates have been quietly relying on gender and racial chauvinism among voters as a major element in their campaigns. Obama's campaign has profited greatly from racism, and the only time it's been made public was after Rev. Wright's racist bigotry became public fodder. Now, after 20 years of being joined at the hip to Rev. Wright, Obama has totally repudiated Wright and his prejudices. A year ago, the Clinton's were the darlings of the Black Community and that block of voters helped create the notion that Sen. Clinton had the Democratic nomination locked-up. When the Black Community shifted to a black candidate, the whole nominating race opened up.

The contention that past primaries were longer is, of course nonsense. This is the longest and most expensive primary in our political history. In earlier, shorter primary campaigns that started later it was only natural that candidates stayed in the race right up to the Convention. When the various States decided to hold primaries months earlier, the campaign season lengthened. With a longer more dispersed campaign trail, the cost of campaigns shot upward, and each candidate's "stake" in the result increased. So long as the margin between the two leading candidates is narrow, and there are imponderables that might result in victory, we should expect long, bitter campaigns. When you add into that mix the gender/racial components of this Democratic nominating season, the result should have been evident a long time ago. This Democratic primary has made racism a major campaign element for the first time in a very long time.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

If she stopped actively campaigning today, she would be the clear choice if something happened to Obama. She doesn't need to stay in the campaign for that to happen.

Yeah, that's probably my main problem with the content of what she's saying.

I'm just not sure if it was a purposeful "card" or not. Could see it going either way.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

engineer wrote:
If she stopped actively campaigning today, she would be the clear choice if something happened to Obama. She doesn't need to stay in the campaign for that to happen.

Yeah, that's probably my main problem with the content of what she's saying.

I'm just not sure if it was a purposeful "card" or not. Could see it going either way.

Oh...is THAT what the drama is about?

People are thinking she was talking about Obama being assassinated?

I didn't even think of that.....I just thought she was speaking before she thought, and dating a previous primary by a major event.

0 Replies

fm-

You can't vote against your wife. It defies common sense, the laws of energy conservation and good manners. You both get in the car, drive to the polling booth, cancel each other out and drive back. It's idiotic. Objectively. Subjectively there might be other reasons but that's psychology not politics. Strictly speaking using labels I mean. In real life they are entangled in an irreducibly complex manner.

Women were give the vote for two reasons. It was felt that a married man deserved two votes as compensation for the trials of his station. Still today many millions of women vote the way they are instructed because they got married in the first place to provide themselves with a protector and guide. A large majority I would think although shrinking.

The other reason was to quiet the independently minded, liberal, busy-bodies whose screechings were getting on everybody's nerves despite their numbers being derisory from a democratic point of view.

So if your wife won't vote how you tell her to you should vote how she tells you to. Which would make sense if she knows better than you which of the three candidates will best further your own and your nation's interests. Which comes close to fortune telling. With slips of the tounge instead of tea-leaves.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

A "slip of the tongue", nimh? Really? Like the slips about Obama not being prepared to be president, or the slip from her husband about Jackson winning Florida, or the slips about Fox News being fair and balanced? A "slip of the tongue"? I don't think this family - the Clintons - the ones that produced "the meaning of is"- slips up very much in what they intend by their words. They are bought and sold political animals

OK, here's a kind of doublethink I see many of my fellow Obama sympathisers having - and I think they're not even aware of the contradiction.

On the one hand you'll see them posting often enough about how incompetent a campaign Clinton has run. That Obama deserves the nomination even already because he's simply shown himself to be the better and more presightful organiser and strategist. How could she have lacked any post-Super Tuesday strategy? How could she have decided to simply skip the caucuses? How can someone as allegedly "ready on day one" as her make such major, lethal, basic mistakes? Add the uncontrollable f*ck-ups Bill is prone to and see - the argument goes - if nothing else, she has simply shown herself to be the less competent manager, the less skilled campaigner. The Clintons have just been up in their own bubble for so long, they've lost touch with reality in some ways, and end up making the most basic mistakes. Obama has done so much better, one cant help feel confident that he will run the better general elections campaign too.

And you know what? I agree with all of the above. I approve this message.

But then Hillary or Bill says something that many of the same Obama supporters find offensive. Something that suggests, at least indirectly, that they're pursuing a deliberate strategy of playing the race card against Obama, for example; or well - whatever, you know what I mean, we've seen countless examples. Either one of them will have said something more or less ambiguously offensive, and when Hillarybots argue that the media and those hypocritical Obama campaigners just twisted an innocent remark all out of context again, many Obama supporters will use this exact line of argument of Snood's here:

Nothing the Clintons say is just an "accident". They are political animals. They are devious, instinctive and unscrupulous political strategists, and you can bet yer life on it that everything they say, they damn well know what they're doing. If there's any implicit racial or other subtext to anything they say, no matter how off-hand a remark it may superficially seem to be, that could rally bigotry or fear - oh you'd better know that it's not an accident! They dont do slips of the tongue. If you think so, then you dont know the Clintons.

There never seems to be an awareness that these two lines of argument are directly in contradiction with each other.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

OK, here's a kind of doublethink I see many of my fellow Obama sympathisers having - and I think they're not even aware of the contradiction.

On the one hand you'll see them posting often enough about how incompetent a campaign Clinton has run.

..

But then Hillary or Bill says something that many of the same Obama supporters find offensive. ... many Obama supporters will use this exact line of argument of Snood's here:

Nothing the Clintons say is just an "accident". They are political animals. They are devious, instinctive and unscrupulous political strategists, and you can bet yer life on it that everything they say, they damn well know what they're doing. If there's any implicit racial or other subtext to anything they say, no matter how off-hand a remark it may superficially seem to be, that could rally bigotry or fear - oh you'd better know that it's not an accident! They dont do slips of the tongue. If you think so, then you dont know the Clintons.

There never seems to be an awareness that these two lines of argument are directly in contradiction with each other.

Actually, I think they are the same argument. The Clinton campaign is completely tone deaf on some of this stuff. What they see as playing hardball within limits is actually outside the limits and backfires. This is part of the problem with their campaign. The another part is organizational and still a third is message, but that is another thread. Once Senator Clinton has personally made a point several times over a few months, I don't think it is a slip of the tongue. Someone with her campaign once made it very directly and had to be let go.

The really bad part of this is suppose it really happened. The right wing would be out there saying Clinton called for it or actually "ordered" it. The Obama faction would be crushed and looking to scapegoat Clinton as well, saying she was hoping for this scenario. If Obama was assassinated, Clinton would basically have to hang up politics.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

The really bad part of this is suppose it really happened. The right wing would be out there saying Clinton called for it or actually "ordered" it. The Obama faction would be crushed and looking to scapegoat Clinton as well, saying she was hoping for this scenario. If Obama was assassinated, Clinton would basically have to hang up politics.

I dont believe this for a second. If I remember correctly (not gonna look it up), even Obama supporters who posted angrily about Hillary's comments here have said that they were redundant if nothing else, because of course she'll be the obvious one next in line IF something were to happen with Obama.

I'm sure the more loony rightwing fringes and even some of the most fiery Obama supporters would theorise that Hillary "ordered" it, but no, the mainstream Democratic response would be very far away from that. I think the Democratic Party, including most of Obama's prominent backers, would just be looking to quickly rally behind a leader to avoid chaos and mayhem, and I dont see anyone who could be that but Hillary.

Revel posted a good article in another thread just now, which I think puts it well:

revel wrote:

I haven't looked through the past post past the page I am on, but I assume eveyone has heard by now the remarks by Hillary and assination remark. I go everyday to Jaun Cole to catch up on Iraq and other middle east news (one of the few places still talking about Iraq despite people from both sides still dying) and I agree him on this. I know not everybody agrees with him on many things nevertheless...

Quote:
Saturday, May 24, 2008

Clinton Touches off National PTSD

Senator Clinton's reference to the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in June of 1968 does not seem to me consequential, for all the brouhaha it has provoked. She was just saying that many previous primaries have gone on into June, including that of Bobby Kennedy before he was cut down.

The idea that she was thinking of the possibility that her rival, Barack Obama, might meet a similar fate is absurd. But I saw pundits on cable t.v. intimating that it was plausible.

I fear she inadvertently stumbled into a hornet's nest, though.

Because fears for Obama's safety are widespread, and they are shared by Homeland Security, which gave him Secret Service protection 18 months ago.

It is well known that Colin Powell's wife did not let him run for president because she was afraid he would be assassinated. Imagine the power of that fear to shape American life. Imagine if Powell had run and won, forestalling W. from ever coming to power.

Former Republican presidential aspirant (and apparently huge tool) Mike Huckabee recently went so far as to joke about Obama being shot at. He was speaking at a National Rifle Association event:

' Huckabee made an off-color joke during his speech in Louisville, Kentucky, when a loud bang was heard off-stage. "That was Barack Obama," Huckabee quipped, "He Just tripped off a chair. He was getting ready to speak. Somebody aimed a gun at him and hehe dove for the floor." '

The shadow that falls on African-Americans who devote themselves to public service at the highest levels is that of Dr. Martin Luther King.

In evoking the tumultuous year of 1968, Clinton was trying to remind people of the long and divisive Democratic primary. But without meaning to, she reminded them of April 4, not June 5, of MLK along with RFK.

I don't think it is healthy that the information age causes such memes to circulate with such velocity that they are given far more significance than they deserve. Seeing Hillary abjectly and in a stunned voice apologize for any offense made me feel sorry for her. When you speak in public, you always risk misspeaking or having the audience misunderstand your intent. We make our presidential candidates speak constantly in public for 2 years straight, now. It is like a medieval form of torture. It is amazing that anyone runs this gauntlet.

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.juancole.com/2008/05/clinton-touches-off-national-ptsd.html

0 Replies

Hillary also said "They've been trying to push me out of this race since Iowa". Which is completely true. She's probably pissed off beyond speaking in niceties or being careful who she offends. That's how she's been dealt with after all.

I'm not saying it was an okay remark... but I can understand why she wouldn't be concerned about what she says.

0 Replies

I also find it odd but not surprising that some of the same people both on A2K and in the media... have been making remarks about how if Hillary was VP Obama should hire a food taster and get a bulletproof vest.... find Hillary's remark offensive. Et tu?

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Hillary also said "They've been trying to push me out of this race since Iowa". Which is completely true.

You think that is completely true? Perhaps since Ohio and Texas, but I don't remember any calls for her to drop before that.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

fm-

You can't vote against your wife. It defies common sense, the laws of energy conservation and good manners. You both get in the car, drive to the polling booth, cancel each other out and drive back. It's idiotic. Objectively. Subjectively there might be other reasons but that's psychology not politics. Strictly speaking using labels I mean. In real life they are entangled in an irreducibly complex manner.

Women were give the vote for two reasons. It was felt that a married man deserved two votes as compensation for the trials of his station. Still today many millions of women vote the way they are instructed because they got married in the first place to provide themselves with a protector and guide. A large majority I would think although shrinking.

The other reason was to quiet the independently minded, liberal, busy-bodies whose screechings were getting on everybody's nerves despite their numbers being derisory from a democratic point of view.

So if your wife won't vote how you tell her to you should vote how she tells you to. Which would make sense if she knows better than you which of the three candidates will best further your own and your nation's interests. Which comes close to fortune telling. With slips of the tounge instead of tea-leaves.

That was pretty funny, actually.

0 Replies

LOL!!!

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/1976/hillaryassassinuo8.jpg

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

sozobe wrote:
engineer wrote:
If she stopped actively campaigning today, she would be the clear choice if something happened to Obama. She doesn't need to stay in the campaign for that to happen.

Yeah, that's probably my main problem with the content of what she's saying.

I'm just not sure if it was a purposeful "card" or not. Could see it going either way.

Oh...is THAT what the drama is about?

People are thinking she was talking about Obama being assassinated?

I didn't even think of that.....I just thought she was speaking before she thought, and dating a previous primary by a major event.

I think that's part of the drama.

I still don't fully understand the whole drama -- I think it's a bit Rorschartzy (I KNOW I didn't spell that right but just here for a sec, hopefully you know what I mean).

What I take from it is that she was saying "I'm staying in the race because who knows, something major could still happen."

I think it was a dumb thing to say because a) if something THAT major happened, she'd be brought back in anyway, whether she had already dropped out or not (so it's not a valid reason for her to stay in), and b) the way she said it was just politically oof.

What I am not sure of is whether she has been purposely pushing the idea that Obama is vulnerable to assassination as a rationale for superdelegates to choose her instead. I can kinda-sorta see it, but I tend to think it's more towards gaffe than strategy.

0 Replies

Hillary's Assasination Comment

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know