Listen, I’ll say right up front that I think Clinton should stay in the race as long as she wants. She would be an excellent nominee and, if that’s how the party goes, I’m ready to vote for her.
But this?
“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. You know I just, I don’t understand it,” she said, dismissing the idea of dropping out.
What the fuck?
I know campaigns are long and grueling. But to act as if–especially in the context of her citing her appeal to discontented whites–bringing up Kennedy is not some way of saying “Well, hey, someone might shoot Obama and then I would be the nominee” seems hard to believe.
Have we ever had a campaign where one candidate suggested he should stay in the race in case the other candidate was killed?
Yuck.
Tiny Cat Pants 
oh dear…
I don’t think that she meant “just in case the other candidate is killed”, though. My first instinct was to read it as her using that date as a reference for how late he was still in the race.
Even then, it was pretty tacky to use that event to make the point.
Oh, gosh, what a dreadful thing to say. I think it was even more stupid than what Ginger suggests, though. I think this was a shout-out to older voters, who, ya know, remember hearing the news about that — a “we older folks have seen how quickly everything can change” sort of thing. The fact that it was also a “Obama could get shot” winky sort of thing either sailed right by her or was deemed not to matter so much. And the fact that recently she’s been willing not to care about that sort of offense gets to me. Obama rather pissed me off with “sweetie,” but Clinton manages to cap him in insulting insensitivity. Wow.
I’m no Hillary fan at this point, believe you me, but I read this quote in context and I think the uproar is a lot of fuss about nothing. It was clear to me she was talking about the history of Democratic primaries going into June. Sometimes, people, a cigar really is a cigar.
There’s been a lot of stuff we can criticize her about (comparing the FL/MI primary issue to the 2000 election, for one), but I don’t see it here.
Here is Clinton’s response, BTW (via Salon’s War Room blog, look it up I’m too lazy to post the link):
“Earlier today I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June 1992 and 1968 and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That’s a historic fact. The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that, whatsoever. My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to, and I’m honored to hold Senator Kennedy’s seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family.”
Pingback: Ignorance Or Ignorance? : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee
Yeah, like she really offended the damn Kennedys. There’s a way to go to defeat graciously that builds your political capital for the next go-round and there’s a way to be completely classless.
If you remember, B pointed out that Recalcitrant Brother’s friends think that voting for Obama is a wasted vote because he will just get whacked anyhow. And then we have Huckabee saying roughly the same thing. And now Hillary just happens to mention RFK’s assassination (which was the other significant high-profile execution of a prominent US public figure in the first half of 1968…a young good-looking man who promised unity and change…). I’m sure that’s all just coincidental, right? Reading it in broader context of the last month or two of political discourse, I think it’s more than a cigar.
This is it. I was initially an Edwards supporter. Then, after the obnoxious Obama supporters, I went towards Clinton. But this is abslutely ridiculous and classless.
I was Edwards, then I was Obama, and for awhile there I was just holding the **** out to see how the dust settles in my city in August.
Each of the candidates has said some WTF? things in this campaign….
I figure if I base my vote just on the WTF factor by August the list should be dead even.
I want someone smart, who can speak and spell nuclear properly….I do.
I also want someone with the least amout of WTF statements.
I admitted to a bias towards smart to some family members on the other side ….
“But this election is too important for that! You’ve got to vote for…”
“Someone I percieve as stupid?”
Well, *yes* as long as they love America!”
(Sigh)
JESUS WOMEN…..stop playing stupid because it is time to be smart.
Hillary was discussing the timeline in democratic primary races. PERIOD.
Of all the things that I have eternal sadness over, the ability of women to kill the movement–ANY MOVEMENT–toward equality of the sexes is the single fact that keeps me sleepless.
Obama and his team, the media, and many Americans are trashing us girls, and until we stand up for Hillary (a true champion and a wonderful person, much less woman) we deserve to play second fiddle.
I challenge all women everywhere to support Hillary Clinton, speak out about sexism, and join together. If not now, when?
Jennifer, here’s your problem. You come to a thread full of people, many of whom voted for Clinton and even now support her, many of whom would vote for her if she won the election, and, of course, many of whom would not, wouldn’t before this or wouldn’t because of this, and address us all as if we’re in uniform and hostile opposition to Clinton.
As I said in my post, I don’t think she was intentionally saying anything nefarious. I don’t think she was calling for Obama’s assassination or anything. I’m just saying that when you’re running for the highest office in the land, in a country where picking off leaders you hate is a time-honored tradition, and where the discussion of “What if someone kills Obama?” has been slithering in and out of the sunlight since his announcement to run, I want you to not bring up assassinations and to not leave room for people to interpret what you’re saying as “I should stay in the race in case something, you know, should happen to Obama.”
I don’t think that’s what she meant. I, too, think she was just saying ‘Hey, lots of these campaigns have gone into June. Here are some examples.’
But what a horrible example to pick!
Does she not get how afraid we are out here of that?
Then, let’s get to the second part of what you’re saying here, that somehow our inability to throw ourselves whole hog behind Clinton means we deserve to play second fiddle.
Really, fuck you.
That’s not how it works.
And for you to come in here trying to talk feminism while also calling Clinton by her first name–like she’s not worthy of the same respect afforded her opponants (few are calling Obama only “Barak” and I haven’t heard anyone call McCain just “John”) and calling us “girls” and asking why we can’t get onboard with your cause?
Well, color me mystified. You don’t even show us or Clinton the respect you claim you want to bring to women.
And, I’m sorry, but for you to ever, ever, ever insinuate that we women have to earn basic personhood, that we don’t deserve it if we don’t behave properly?
Fuck you.
Seriously.
I’m almost convinced you’re a troll.
Aunt B-
I’m not trying to instigate an argument. And you probably are already aware of this. I’d like to point out that Clinton operatives chose the “Hillary” logo to try to circumvent the aloofness that critics chide her for.
I classify myself as a feminist even though I am genitally challenged and rabblerouse over at Tennessee Guerilla Women. (I should try biting my tongue.) In political discussions, I use ‘Sen. Clinton’ or ‘Hillary Clinton.’ I think it’s disrespectful in spite of the official campaign line. However, I think it’s a fuzzy no-man’s land as far as language is concerned.
Or woman’s land, rather.
As I said in my post, I don’t think she was intentionally saying anything nefarious.
I went back and read the original post after I read this comment. Still getting the impression you said she meant it in a nefarious way.