« Republic Buyout Update | Main | Thank you Mr. Harper »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Senator Clinton's comment is indefensible.

The media is treating Hilary as if she were a Republican.

Can't they just go back to good old days of the VRWC and fawning over the "lovable rogue" Bill?

The intent of her words has been defended by Bobby Kennedy Jr., who said he has heard her use that historical reference before. He has endorsed Mrs. Clinton.

According to Doris Kearns Goodwin, on Meet the Press today, HRC was wrong on both accounts of the June history. Bill had secured the nomination by June and the Bobby had just entered the Dem race shortly before his assassination; the old days held a very different calendar.

The attention to the possible subliminal message has brought headline attention to the story she was trying to get across. We can’t give up yet. Every time that quote is played, she tells the story again, and again. Every time a pundit debates the quote, the listener hears the same thing; it isn’t over yet.

Don’t shed too many tears for Sen. Clinton, earned media may not always be good but it is free.

Slate magazine said the problem with the example is the logical extension: "Good thing Hubert Humphrey didn't decide to quit before California's primary." So, you could accuse Hillary of saying, basically, "I need to stay in this thing in case Senator Obama is assassinated. You know, the same way Bobby Kennedy was."

It's a reach, but it's a reach that at least explains some of the anger at the comment.

Hillary never mentioned Barak Obama. She actually talked about Bill Clinton and the slain senator, Bobby Kennedy. Clearly, she was expressing her desire that her husband be assasinated.

It's too funny watching the Clintons suffer under the media assault that the Republicans endure on a daily basis.

My first reaction was similar to Greg's. She wasn't advocating assassination. She was simply saying that things change.

But it does go further than that. It points to a desperation, a tin ear to nuance, and I won't call it hopeful speculation, but it does reflect some of the cold-blooded tendencies of the Clintons. That's why they've been successful in the past.

As someone said on Meet the Press (don't remember who), it's a window into a very dark soul. I find the view kinda scary.

PS - welcome back Greg. Where've ya been?

Yes, Travis, it is exactly the "tin ear" aspect of her remarks that is bothersome. Also, I must say that with Dems fortunes rising, it's really ironic to see Republicans "whining" and "playing the victim"..........

As a liberal Dem who occasionally peruses this site to see what the "other half" is thinking, my comment is that Hillary is WAY, WAY too smart to go around saying something, then playing victim (again), as in "oh, I was misunderstood" etc. The truth is, she knew EXACTLY what she was saying (and has said it several times before) and the subliminal insinuations - how utterly appalling, whether or not you think she should quit or keep trying for such a desperate power grab, her tactics, "I can't quit because you never know, the guy could get assassinated" is so beyond the pale, gut-wrenchingly evil, desperate, dark, stomach-churningly HORRIBLE, that I'm out of adjectives in this long run-on sentence.

I honestly don't think she'd be a bit sorry if something like that happens, God forbid. She'd consider it taking back her destiny. Her attitude is, hey, if it happens, here I am - and I'm better than him anyway.

DISGUSTINGLY depraved and arrogant.

WOW, Liberal Dem. Thanks for your honesty. I'm a conservative Republican, and I don't even think of Hillary in such unflattering terms.

"Liberal Dem" pretty well sums up how far around the bend the group from which he takes his/her name has gone.

The legitimate criticism of Clinton in this statement is that an experienced pol like her should know better than to give her opponents (Obama and the media) something twistable.

I agree with Greg on one point. We should view these comments in context, I just think the context extends far beyond the "full quote" shown in the video.

Let's start with the fact that Obama has received the earliest Secret Service protection ever for a presidential candidate. It is well-known that his detail has subsequently been beefed up because of numerous threats. Add to this the fact that there have been a great many ridiculous comments reported in the mainstream press (not just Fox News) that attempt to paint a picture of Obama as a closeted Muslim Marxist who, if elected President, will take payback against the Nation's hardworking, white, working class while sipping wine with terrorist. And on top of all this you have portions of the Democratic party taking pages from the GOP's 40 year old racial politics playbook and using all sorts of slimy tactics.

Now with all this in mind, a statement along the lines of 'you never know what might happen, someone might even be assassinated' does take on rather different meaning.

I echo Liberal Dem's statements, and with the constant drone of "Ooops! I was trying to be funny/make a point!" comments from politicians and the media (Huckabee, Clinton, Fox News' Liz Trotta), this kind of commentary plants the seed in some James Earl Ray-wannabe's mind to make sure that the "uppity negro" will "get what's coming to him." It's sickening. It's shameful.

I remember all the "OMG look at all the Bush Derangement Syndrome" commentary coming from the right whenever someone talked about offing Bush. The slightest criticism was met with a full-on attack. And we're *ambivalent* about two national political figures and "the dominant force in cable news" making jokes about the murder of a politican?

This is the kind of weak commentary I expect from a hack like J.D. Hayworth. Do the words "double entendre" or "hidden meaning" mean anything to you?

bobh: The reason some of us (liberals) have gone around the bend, as you put it, is because Hillary has been 'forgiven' for so much because of who she is, and she just keeps getting worse. For example, Obama says some people are 'bitter' because of their economic situation and she jumps all over him. She mentions ASSASSINATION and then plays victim - again "it's the media, it's sexist, it's out of context' whatever. And this thing about her being the working class 'gal' is so over the top stupid - she's a graduate of Wellesley and Yale, was first lady for 8 years, yet she is pulling one over on some people that she's just a down-home girl, throwing back a beer with a gun rack in her pickup...

Whether you agree with him or not, it's hard to deny that Obama bears many similarities to RFK, messages of inspiration, hope, even down to lanky looks and big smiles, that for her to even whisper such a thing is an abomination, IMH Liberal Dem opinion.

I just can't let the comment pass that "the Dem's fortunes are rising". The Democrat congress has a lower approval rating than the president and cannot decide who they hate more - women, African-Americans or Republicans. They are dying by their own swords - media death by a thousand cuts and the inability to run an election and come up with a winner.

I wouldn't be going to Vegas with that hand.

What's Obama made of, wax paper?

He's going to run out of 'whine' long before Hugo and that Iranian schoolteacher make fun of him.

Travis,

Oh, please please please keep holding on to that belief. Please ignore the loss of seats that haven't been held by democrats for decades. It'll make November that much more hilarious.

No one is arguing that the Republicans haven't had losses. Demographics are always changing and sometimes they change enough to change a seat.

However, as was seen in the last two election cycles, it is the overall color of the map that counts. It's the "red vs. blue" that counts.

The Democrats are still fighting the "white vs. black" and "man vs. woman". The Republicans aren't fighting those battles. They chose the right side a long time ago and moved on - see Condolezza Rice.

Travis,

As much as I would love to feel the same confidence you report, I don’t. We cannot accept this false expectation but need to be prepared to fight like never before. A fight...that is what it will be.

Howard Dean makes Karl Rove look like a really nice guy. Dean is still that angry guy we all saw in 2004, but now with the built up force of 4 years worth of internal “I told you so!” bursting to get out. We are not just going to have Bush's low approval ratings and the war; we will be going against generations of very real and perceived racial/gender inequality, an economy that will be put squarely on the shoulders of the GOP, and uncertainties that lend people to want “change”, even undefined change, when the status quo isn’t calming their fears.

As unfair as it may be, it remains the hand we have been dealt. Whether we play it well or try to bluff in order to wear down the other side is our call. I’m ready to go all in, lay the cards face up, and deal it out in the open. That is how we will win.

"Demographics are always changing and sometimes they change enough to change a seat."

So, you're saying MS-1 was lost because of a sixteen point demographic shift in 2 years?

HI-larious.

"They chose the right side a long time ago and moved on - see Condolezza Rice."

So, you're saying the appointment of one or two minorities to cabinet positions means the GOP has taken care of its problems with minorities?

You never cease to amuse.

MS-1 was lost because the Dem candidate had a solid conservative message, was believable, and won over voters. The R candidate went on the attack rather than on the issues and was a weak candidate that had bad relations within his own party.

That tells a big story for those who are willing and brave enough to accept it.

Ann, you wrote, "MS-1 was lost because the Dem candidate had a solid conservative message, was believable, and won over voters. The R candidate went on the attack rather than on the issues and was a weak candidate that had bad relations within his own party."

This analysis was proved right in the last three losses by GOP candidates in the last month in the midwest.

And the RNC is laying off people in Washington, DC during an election year when they should be hiring people because tried and proven GOPers have given up on the party and will not send anymore money in. I talked to one of the laid off RNC fundraisers and he told me the message he was getting consistently when he was calling for the bucks was this: "You guys had 8 years and more and you have wasted all of them. I am not giving you one more penny."

Those are the hard, cold facts that the GOP doesn't want to admit to.

More importantly, we as the true grassroots need to understand we cannot throw the word “liberal” around and believe that is enough to scare voters like the fear of a bogey man in the closet scares little children. The brand of the candidate is not as important as the message of the one seeking office. Those that try to brand themselves as either a Dem or good ol’ GOP, better have some walk to back up the talk. R’s need to be on their game or become another notch in the belt of Dems who took OUR message, made it sound legitimate coming from their mouths, and fooled a majority into believing they will not be Pelosi/Reid zombies.

We need to be prepared to know our candidates and demand they know us. We must insist they have a message not just an attack theory or a lot of hot air. If they cannot articulate what, how, and when they will get the necessary job done, we need to remind them that this is a job interview and they better be prepared to meet the demands of the employer…US!

Ann, you wrote (eloquently, I must say): "We need to be prepared to know our candidates and demand they know us. We must insist they have a message not just an attack theory or a lot of hot air. If they cannot articulate what, how, and when they will get the necessary job done, we need to remind them that this is a job interview and they better be prepared to meet the demands of the employer…US!"

Wow, you must be hanging around the same community activists I do!

I hope the electorate applies the same tack to those running for Maricopa County supervisors. Talk about 'supervisors' who don't know how to supervise!

I immediately thought the whole thing was overblown and told my wife "Even if she did have some kind of ulterior motives in mind, it makes her opponents look petty to glom on to such a flimsy thing."

But then I remembered that her opponents are largely made up of the Left wing media right now.

Oh the irony.

Think about it; had a media favored liberal said such a thing, those making a stink about it would be portrayed as grasping at straws.

Just look at the gaffe machine that Obama is turning out to be.

The comments to this entry are closed.