TNR BLOGS

September 06, 2008 | 4:31 PM
September 06, 2008 | 3:43 PM
September 05, 2008 | 8:32 PM

September 05, 2008 | 2:53 PM
September 05, 2008 | 3:45 AM
September 05, 2008 | 12:25 AM

September 06, 2008 | 3:14 PM
September 06, 2008 | 3:10 PM
September 05, 2008 | 4:28 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

September 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
September 03, 2008 | 1:01 PM
September 02, 2008 | 6:20 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
23.05.2008
Did She Really Say That?

Hillary Clinton today:

"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. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.

An interesting argument. The first part of it been addressed before. The second part...well, that's a new one.

Incidentally, on the subject of California, the Los Angeles Times has the first poll on the ballot initiative to overturn the state Supreme Court's gay marriage decision. It finds 54 percent in favor of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and 35 percent opposed. Initiatives generally lose support over the course of the campaign, and I imagine that once couples start getting married, there will probably be some swing voters who won't want to undo their unions. On the other hand, whether to legalize gay marriage is an unusually salient and straightforward question for a ballot initiative, so public opinion is probably more solidified in this case than it typically is in May. I expect it to end up being very close.

Update: Another questionable piece of logic from the Clinton campaign: If you ignore the three-quarters of states that held their nominating contests before March 4, we're marginally ahead! In other news, my softball team would have totally won our game this week if not for that ten-run second inning...

--Josh Patashnik 

Posted: Friday, May 23, 2008 4:20 PM with 66 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

liberal reformer said:

Supporters of the California Supreme Court decision have been downplaying the idea of a backlash. But these numbers are just about what I expected they would be. The left never learns.

May 23, 2008 4:49 PM

sprechs said:

oh come on, she was referring to the fact that the primaries have, in the past, gone on much longer than they do currently and that there is no need to wrap up now, not intimating that she wants Obama to be shot.  Or. Hillary, the world's worst person and an overt bigot,  was probably signaling that her supporters should kill Obama.  Guess you could read it either way.

May 23, 2008 4:50 PM

scire said:

that's all you have to say on the topic? You don't think this was completely completely inappropriate? She's staying in the race just in case Obama gets assassinated?

I never thought something Hillary Clinton said would shock me. She's just shocked me. I hope there is some severe backlash from this. If Obama gives in to her bullying for VP now, I will never vote for him. If the DNC continues to let her spin her narrative and take down the party with her then the Democrats deserve to lose in November.

May 23, 2008 4:50 PM

Rhubarbs said:

The "What if Obama dies?" thing is the only good reason for Hillary to have stayed in the race since March. If he dies while she's still in the race, she gets the nomination. If he dies after she's dropped out, the party might draft Gore or someone else.

But that's on the short list of true things that you just. Don't. Say. Out. Loud. And if it must be said out loud, you let someone else say it for you.

If Hillary really lacks whatever vast list of things a person has to lack in order to say such an impolitic thing out loud -- at a newspaper office, fer crissakes -- then she really, really is not qualified to be president. Presidents sometimes have to be willing to leave things unsaid, even if the saying might conceivably be thought to benefit the president. A person who would blurt out, "Well, maybe he'll be killed, and then I'll replace him," cannot be trusted _not_ to blurt out, for example, "Oh, no, we broke the Japanese codes months ago."

May 23, 2008 4:52 PM

WoodyBombay said:

/smiles

Yes, Hillary. That's right. Whatever you say, Hillary.

/nods

OK, I gotta go now. Bye.

/quickly walks away

May 23, 2008 5:04 PM

ChanRobt said:

I would be frightened as hell to walk down the dank corridors of Hillary's subconscious.

May 23, 2008 5:13 PM

ChanRobt said:

Why doesn't Hillary say the truth for the first time in her life:  "Barack Obama is not qualified to be president.  I would feel safer having John McCain in the White House with a Democratic Congress than see Obama elevated to an office he is not yet ready to handle.  If Obama is nominated, I will not support him, but will instead back McCain.

She as much as said this earlier in the campaign, only more cryptically when she said that she and McCain were qualified for the presidency, but Obama not yet.

May 23, 2008 5:16 PM

WoodyBombay said:

FWIW, Hillary has already apologized for this.

LR, you're right that the left "never learns" that some forms of bigotry are still acceptable to large numbers of people. Probably won't ever learn, either.

May 23, 2008 5:26 PM

Mahler48 said:

Is there anything more pathetic then the obsessive anal-retentive Hillary haters?. Really now, you all have to move on. It is springtime, get some romance in your life or something, sheesh.

May 23, 2008 5:37 PM

Hungarian Great Bela Tarr said:

Oh, well, as long as she's made an insincere half-apology, there's nothing to discuss, I guess.

In this primary season, the only thing more disappointing than the conduct of the Clintons has been the conduct of Clinton supporters. That so many cruel, ignorant people count themselves as Democrats -- and apparently care enough about the nominating process to post comments on boards like TNR's -- is truly mystifying.

May 23, 2008 5:44 PM

blackton said:

channy, for Hillary, there is no truth, no lie, just Hillary.

Not sure how March 4 got to be the second half. the 6 weeks to Pa. was a hell of a long seventh inning stretch. Why don't we try a different metric and consider the second half to be after Super tuesday, numbers look a hell of a lot worse then, don't they Hillary? That was the part where you essentially took the month of February off losing your delegate lead and popular vote lead that you had on Supertuesday.

Paging Sirhan Sirhan Junior, please meet Hillary Clinton in the lobby. This is so unsurprising, I have been saying for weeks the woman is pretty much batshit insane.

May 23, 2008 5:48 PM

gary21cp said:

As Rhubarbs said, this "slip" or gaffe or whatever it was on Hillary's part makes her unfit to be President. Once you add this to the Bosnia story, the "hard-working white people" remark, etc., you've got a person who should not be speaking for the United States of America.

We've already had enough of that for the past seven-plus years.

May 23, 2008 5:54 PM

AlanSP said:

I don't really see what her point is.  If your best argument for staying in is, "well, my opponent could get assassinated," you need to seriously rethink your position in the race.  If, God forbid, something like that were to happen, I don't think very many people are going to care whether Clinton stayed in the race or not.  

Her campaign's explanation is that she was just pointing out that June isn't all that late in the game by historical standards.  I'm not sure why she felt she needed to bring up Bobby Kennedy's assassination if she was just talking about the calendar, but it's a stupid point to make anyway.  The nominating process was entirely different in 1968; primaries started much later and had very little direct impact (only 13 states had primaries that year, none of which were won by Humphrey).  In any case, it's probably a bad idea to point to the year that tore the party apart as a historical analogy.

May 23, 2008 5:54 PM

sprechs said:

FYI: Hillary invoked RFK's assassination in a March 6th interview with Time (www.politico.com/.../Not_the_first_time.html).  

So here's to being slightly less ignorant (if no less cruel).

May 23, 2008 6:01 PM

blackton said:

Mahler, give me a goddamn break, Obama made one impolitic and true remark at a private fund raiser where there was no visible microphones, and Hillary jumped all over him for weeks in Pa. as did her batshit insane supporters. Obama, otoh, has consistently downplays Hillary's massive goofs because he has known for a long time that she is a loon that is best coddled to lest she dance naked on the dining room table.

Pardon us for having a little fun at her expense.

And for the record I am not anal retentive, is there such a thing as being penile retentive though? because I am pretty sure I am that.

May 23, 2008 6:03 PM

liberal reformer said:

WoodyBombay: I am disappointed in you. What I clearly mean is that the left doesn't learn tactically. Attitudes are changing rapidly; it is a generational thing. Between the Roe decision and busing school children, the Democratic party took a huge hit. If the demography was trending in the wrong direction, I would say go for it judicially. I detest retrograde attitudes as well but it is forever interesting to me that so many tribunes of the People are really contemptuous of actual people en masse and wish to do judicial end runs around their sensibilities. Vox non populi.

May 23, 2008 6:05 PM

nturner said:

Hillary Clinton clearly was referencing historical facts:  Democratic nomination contests have often gone into the summer; she shouldn't be forced out of the race because people are afraid of a summer campaign.  

Her referencing RFK was intended to give a historical benchmark -- one which people actually remember themselves.  I would wager than many older Americans remember exactly where they were and what they were doing when RFK was shot.  Many such Americans were on summer vacation, in fact!

So fuck all of you Hillary haters who would use the tragedy of RFK's assassination to gain cheap political advantage.  Every one of you knows what Hillary meant, but you don't seem to care.  You'd rather sully her reputation so that you can sell your own Obambi snake oil to an unwitting American electorate.

May 23, 2008 6:11 PM

hellx said:

In totally unrelated news, the Clinton campaign has replaced Chris Penn with Jeff Gillooly...

May 23, 2008 6:42 PM

GSpinks said:

nturner, I agree with your first two paragraphs; this is probably an "innocent" gaffe.

As for your third paragraph, all I can say is:

...fuck all of you Hillary lovers who would use a misspoken sentence to gain cheap political advantage. Every one of you knows what Obama meant, but you don't seem to care. You'd rather sully his reputation so that you can sell your own Hillarista snake oil to an uneducated American electorate.

knowwhatimean?

May 23, 2008 6:42 PM

williamyard said:

[blows whistle]

Y'all, listen up.

It's Memorial Day weekend. We are having this and our other discussions for various reasons. The alpha and omega reason is that men and women risked their lives in war to defend our right to say practically anything that comes into our pretty little heads.

Run that up the flagpole this weekend, and see who salutes it.

Okay, back to work.

[blows whistle]

May 23, 2008 6:53 PM

blackton said:

nturner, ha ha ha ha. You are always good for a genuine laugh. Now go back to your Hillary love doll, it sounds like you need some relief. Yeah, I know what she meant, but the woman is a terrible candidate. Does she not need to apologize? Good ones don't. I am so happy she is getting crucified with this if only for a day. I feed off of your and her misery. Her tears are like nectar to me, sweet, sweet nectar.

May 23, 2008 6:58 PM

dannyc said:

She's not just nuts, she's absolutely certifiable!

May 23, 2008 7:02 PM

pgutermann said:

When you think she can't sink any lower, she does something like this.  She has left no doubt that she is inherently unfit to be President.  Is there any chance she and Bill will just go back to Arkansas and never darken our doors again?  i know there is not, but maybe it is just the audacity of hope in me.

May 23, 2008 7:02 PM

icarusr said:

GSpinks and Woody - no more need be said :-).

May 23, 2008 7:23 PM

fougasseu said:

Listen nturner, you scumbag. I'll listen to all of the Clintons clever maneuvers and frown like every other decent American, but suggesting Obama is flawed because he may be murdered...back off, you moron.

The Clintons NEVER misspeak. I have an old friend who worked closely with the Clintons in Arkansas, and he was in awe of their drive, intelligence and ruthlessness. She knew EXACTLY what she was doing.

This is no time for your coy parsing of mindless remarks. She boldly stated that Barack Obama is flawed because he may get murdered...in June.

Trash like you belongs on one of those redneck websites that are convinced Obama is related to Saddam Hussein. Please, disappear.

May 23, 2008 7:40 PM

scire said:

She did not apologize to Obama for what she said, only to the Kennedys. I think an apology to Obama was in order, don't you?

And Hillary haters who would use the tragedy of RFK's assassination? Are you kidding me? She's the one who said it. She's the one who used it as HER EXCUSE FOR STAYING IN THE RACE!!!! What, are you nuts too, nturner? Why did she need to reference those particular historical facts? Where is her sensitivity to the African-American voters who are worried that Obama is going to be assassinated?  She showed what she's thinking. Is Obama taking advantage of this? No. David Axelrod said he's sure she didn't mean it. Had he said something like this, she would have taken it as far as she could.

May 23, 2008 7:49 PM

fougasseu said:

The Clintons NEVER apologize. They regret that they've been misunderstood, or are offended by the many "mischaracterizartions" of their beyond belief remarks. This time, they've crossed a line. Where did she pull "June" from? She just happened to recall Kennedy was murdered in June? Check the calendar, nturner and the rest of you bottom-feeding Clinton acolytes. June? The Clinton crime family is as dangerous as the Bush crime family. When will the Democratic Party wake up?

And we spent weeks debating "bitter". How long will we debate Sen. Clinton "absent-mindedly" suggesting Obama is likely to be murdered?

May 23, 2008 8:11 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Any day now, I expect Michelle to blow.  I'd stand up and cheer.  

May 23, 2008 8:13 PM

roidubouloi said:

I don't think for a moment that Hillary misspoke, and apparently she said something similar a couple of months ago.  The question then, is what, in Hillary's mind, has she got to gain be this?  Surely, it cannot in any way enhance her chance of getting the nomination if some disaster should befall Obama. It can only make that less likely.  Surely, she doesn't think that by speculating out loud she can provoke such a disaster.  Than what?

I think she is simply trying to start a row, a party-destroying row, that will produce a major rift within the party and sink its chances in November.  This is part of her hostage-taking -- either give me, the loser, the nomination or I will destroy the party's chance.  Why not?  I am sure she would rather see McCain in the White House than a Democrat other than herself.  If McCain wins, she imagines that she gets a giant I told you so and a grateful party turns to her in four years, all is forgiven.  If Obama wins, it is likely eight years before she could run again, as a practical matter, and it is very likely that in the interim other leaders would emerge from the Obama administration or from among its Capitol Hill supporters who are more likely than Hillary to win the nomination.  There is probably also a large measure of spite born of furious anger that Obama came along and took away the chance of a lifetime that she and Bill believed to be theirs:  16 years in the White House

Is she batshit crazy as blackton says?  Probably.  But her specific goal at this point is to wreck the prospects of the Democratic party for having scorned her.  She is off in Joe Lieberman territory, big time.

May 23, 2008 8:58 PM

ChanRobt said:

blackie, you wrote, "...This is so unsurprising, I have been saying for weeks the woman is pretty much batshit insane."

I'm starting to think you may be right about that.  Those eyes get kind of wide and starey.  You could definitely make a case that she's nuts.

But, for me, the assassination thing bubbling up into that was pretty damn Freudian.  Some sort of wish slipping out when she meant to just say, her husband rant until June, Bobby ran until June.  And then, her male doppleganger Dick Nixon got to be president.  How the hell did that happen?

May 23, 2008 9:34 PM

ChanRobt said:

Roid,, we finally fine common ground.  Hillary absolutely every incentive in the world to see Obama lose if she does get the nom.  

What possible upside is there to have Obama in the White House, with him, not them, as the new head of the Democratic Party.  Saboutging him makes all the sense in the world for the Clintons.  Helping him win makes zero sense.

May 23, 2008 9:36 PM

ChanRobt said:

Only, Roid, she is not off in Lieberman territory.  Lieberman is a decent man who articulates a very reasonable position and point of view, even if it happens to be antiethical to yours.  

May 23, 2008 9:38 PM

jobeek2 said:

I'm an Obama supporter, and I think y'all need to take a deep breath and/or a step back.

May 23, 2008 9:45 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Enough.

Howard Dean, earn your salary. Step in and tell this woman to knock it off. Resolve the MI=FL issue. Get this behind us and get on to the general.

May 23, 2008 9:46 PM

nturner said:

The Democratic Party, which is apparently full of people like those on this blog, deserves its loss in November.  

May 23, 2008 9:47 PM

mpatrickhendri said:

nturner,

Fantasy can fun. The train is on the tracks and the Democratic lead in the Congress will grow. Obama will be president. Tough to hear, but if you think this pissing match during the democratic primary will mitigate the fundamentals, you're dreaming.

The beating will be epic.

May 23, 2008 10:02 PM

fougasseu said:

jobeek2: You take a deep breath and you take a step back. Clinton is not "batshit insane".

The Democratic Party is not full of people like those on this blog, this blog now and then gets posts from a few Americans who are revolted by the use of murder to advance one's career.

I'll say it again. The Clintons don't have Freudian slips or "goof up". These are masters of the game.

They've gone too far this time. Where are the supposed leaders of this feckless thing called the Democratic Party? She said JUNE!! This is MAY!! Even Mark Shields tonight said this was inexcusable, and he's as reasonable (far too reasonable) a pundit as it gets.

Where is Howard Dean? Does he EVER speak up? When will a line ever be crossed by HRC that would cause that egomaniac Dean to do his job?

Was Bush's thinly veiled reference to Obama in the Knesset  (that everyone rightly screamed about), linking him to Nazi appeasers, any less outrageous than HRC suggesting that important things can happen in June...like charismatic candidates getting shot?

It was more outrageous.

May 23, 2008 10:30 PM

timteeter said:

Having watched a fair amount of air time on this, I should point out the results of my research.

1 - No, this is not the first time HRC made this strange connection between Bill Clinton's finishing in June and RFK's assassination in June.  The first (on record) was in Time some weeks or months ago.

2 - The reference to Bill Clinton finishing in June is not true.  Yes, that was the month he went over the top in delegate numbers, but he had been the effective nominee for some time before then.

3 - There were plenty of other references to contests going into June that she could have referenced--1988, for example.  Or Reagan carrying the fight to the Republican convention.  Or many others.  That she should *at least twice* reference the RFK tragedy *as a reason to stay in the race* is clearly a Freudian slip.

4 - Nor does it, in fact, make sense.  If HRC dropped out after, say, IN and NC, by "suspending" her campaign, and something happened to Obama, she would be in as good, if not a *better* position to be the party's fall back nominee.  Now she's seriously damaged goods.

5 - The good news is, the chances of her being even *offered* the VP slot just dropped dramatically.

May 23, 2008 10:32 PM

nbarry said:

As this publication has stated repeatedly, a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth.  I think what Hillary was trying to say was the spiel of New York's lottery pitchmen: "Hey, you never know." In other words, a message of desperation.

May 23, 2008 10:38 PM

WoodyBombay said:

/smiles

Yes, nturner. That's right. Whatever you say, nturner.

/nods

OK, I gotta go now. Bye.

/quickly walks away

May 23, 2008 10:39 PM

cspencef said:

Apparently the likes of nturner and Mahler48 (damn, it's a crime to see a perfectly good composer so smeared by having the likes of you sharing his name) can sleep well at night while being (damn, I am struggling to be decent here) seriously separated from the obvious.  It would be impressive if it weren't so horrifying.

There is absolutely NO reason to reference the assassination of RFK (all by ITSELF, mind you) in order to make a point about the length of the 1968 campaign.  If that's what you're going for, you say something like "we all remember that Bobby Kennedy had only clinched the Democratic nomination by winning the California primary in June 1968, the night he was so tragically killed."  Or whatever other formulation you like that puts the emphasis on the primary, not on RFK being assassinated.  You don't leave the fact of the assassination itself hanging out there as your only point.  We know she can do this because she has managed to invoke the 1968 campaign before without sounding like she was hoping for Obama to be gunned down.

Now if this is a misspeaking, then say "Good Lord, I screwed up."  Or "I was so wrong."  And a generous use of the words "sorry" (preceded by several "so"s, preferably) and "apologize" is MANDATORY.  (Yes, I'm shouting, dammit.  I think this deserves a little screaming here.)  None of this "I regret that you took offense" bullshit.  And certainly none of this "you're a bad person if you read anything into this" obscenity that came from her spokesfool at first.  And you don't restrict your apologies to the Kennedys, though they are certainly entitled to be first in line.  Hell yes you apologize to Obama, and you damn well better use the word "apologize" most profusely.  You apologize to the spokesfool who you hung out to dry with that horrid attempted defense of your inane words.  You apologize to every superdelegate who will take your calls at this point.  

And if you want to blame this on fatigue, or stress, or whatever copout comes to mind, don't just talk about it.  Go home.  Sleep, if you can.  Do something about the fatigue.  I'm not even saying drop out of the campaign.  Just get enough rest to keep yourself from misspeaking so hideously.

(And before you say anything, jobeek2, some things do not get a pass.  Some things get you verbally beaten and bashed and hounded until you know damn well never to say them again if you want to be taken seriously as a potential leader of the United States, no matter how unintentional they were.  She doesn't get to call "oopsies" on this one.  She either apologies all around, with no wiggle room or fudge factor, or she is something on which pond scum would look down its nose in disgust.)  

Frankly, it's less the misstatement itself (grotesque as it was) as the absolute refusal to "woman up" and admit she screwed up bad.  This honors no one and demeans everyone.  

It's Memorial Day weekend.  I will go see the Indiana Jones flick, read a little, sleep a lot, take some time to remember my dad, and God willing, by Tuesday this person will have had the decency to issue a real apology.  Until then she is...I can't even think of an expletive strong enough.

May 23, 2008 10:42 PM

liberal reformer said:

Jobeek2: No kidding. Besides hosting some extremely fine commentary, overwhelmingly from the TNR staff but also from teplukhin2you, rhubarbs, williamyard, etc, this website seems to draw (as I know so many others do, too) more than a few people who are venomous in the extreme, at least some of whom are probably only tolerated by their computers.

May 23, 2008 10:52 PM

AlanSP said:

Man, nturner's posts make me miss pccostello.  Sure, her posts are usually tendentious and often misinformed, but at least she's generally good-natured.  I don't think I've seen a single nturner comment that was anything other than pure bile.  You'd think that at some point a thoughtful comment would sneak its way in there among all the hate-filled rants, but you'd be wrong.  You have to admire that kind of consistency.

May 23, 2008 11:00 PM

GSpinks said:

Speaking of screaming, a cross post that is worth crossing and posting:

www.youtube.com/watch

May 23, 2008 11:05 PM

timteeter said:

jobeek2, I'm an Olbermann fan, but I'll be the first to say the he frequently goes over the top.  Hyperbolic to a degree where his point, even if I agree with it, is in danger of being lost.  Etc.

But tonight his reaction was not an overreaction.  You should see it.  It's on he MSNBC site, as well as HuffPo.  Keith is on the money for once.

There is a time and a place for apoplexy.  This is one.

May 23, 2008 11:08 PM

timteeter said:

BTW, historical question: I remember 68 pretty well (I was fourteen but politically precocious), but *did* Bobby clinch the nomination in California?  His last words at the podium were "Now it's on to Chicago," but that didn't mean he had a delegate majority.

May 23, 2008 11:16 PM

scire said:

Darn, I'm not usually an Olbermann fan, EXCEPT when he goes ballistic in his self-righteous way, 'cause when he does, it's righteous. Wish I'd seen him tonight.

cpencef: I agree with everything you said so eloquently in your post.

The clintonistas can spin it any way they want. If somebody else besides her had said it, there would be NOBODY defending the statement. How she can possibly say the media is against her, I don't know, but who else would have gotten pass after pass as she has?

May 24, 2008 12:12 AM

scire said:

and you too, timteeter: you are right on: if ever there was a time to go ballistic, this IS the time.

May 24, 2008 12:13 AM

teplukhin2you said:

where the f--- is the party leadership?

does this party even HAVE any leaders?

May 24, 2008 12:45 AM

scire said:

no it doesn't. And one begins to understand why the Republicans win election after election. If the party leaders don't act soon, the Republicans may -- despite all the odds -- win again.

May 24, 2008 12:59 AM

roidubouloi said:

Chan,

The comparison of HIllary to Joe Lieberman has nothing to do with his opinion about the Iraq fiasco.  It has to do with his betrayal of the party, beginning with his publicly undermining Gore during the FL recount, followed by his accusation that Democrats were threatening the security of the country by criticizing the Idiot Who Lives in The White House, and reaching a new low with his active campaigning for the Republican presidential nominee.

I do think that the motivations are somewhat different.  In Lieberman's case, it is motivated by his ostentatious self-righteousness.  He thinks he demonstrates his commitment to high principle by constantly betraying his friends and erstwhile political comrades.  In his self-absorption, he cares nothing about the common enterprise in which all of them are supposedly engaged; he cares only about demonstrating what he imagines to be his moral superiority.  Hillary, on the other hand, is motivated by her grasping ambition and need to prove that she is something more than the wife of the ex-president,  However, similar to Lieberman, she cares nothing for the political enterprise for which many thousands of people labor with neither recognition nor reward other than seeing Democrats elected to office.  She spits on their efforts, far more noble than hers, and is blithely willing to destroy them in order to realize her personal ambition.  Both Clinton and Lieberman have in common that they think that their behavior is acceptable because "the party rejected me" first.  That is a special sort of ego-mania that supposes that the purpose of the party is merely shared ambition rather than an undertaking to realize the common good.

They are both execrable, their support for Bush's Folly aside.

May 24, 2008 7:29 AM

arsonplus said:

More than anything else, more than any imperfect interpretation of Senator Clinton's remark, I mainly find myself comparing and contrasting her apology with Mike Huckabee's simple direct "That was dumb, off the cuff and I apologize  to Senator Obama and any and everyone else."

It's not the statement, 1968 has been on a lot minds this year -- including mine, it's Clinton's need to parse rather than simply apologize that's troubling, the cold instinct that prompted her to try and placate the two children of Robert Kennedy on her team rather than to offer a humane apology to Michelle Obama for the  nightmare she surely provoked.  Especially considering that she's certainly had that nightmare herself, about her own husband.

I'd have a higher opinion of her today.

May 24, 2008 9:00 AM

PeteBeck said:

The speculation about what Hillary Clinton really meant, particularly after her qualifying half apology, is a total waste of time.  

Top level politicians are presumed to mean what they say and to intend what they do.  If Hillary doesn't mean what she says and intend to do what she does, she isn't qualified to be POTUS.

Even in local politics, where I've been involved, no one could survive a comment like Hillary's about Obama and Bobby Kennedy.  No one.  It would be seen as simply disgusting and over the top undisciplined.

By the way, Pollster.com shows Obama three points ahead of McCain.  After Hillary's comment, the lead will probably go up a point or two.  Even the Hillary people will begin to see that she is out of control.

May 24, 2008 9:39 AM

sephirothic77 said:

hold on...  so first she runs a campaign targeting hard-drinking gun-loving racists and then she lays this rfk comment out there...  i think she's got a master plan to have the competition taken out!

seriously though, this is just one more in a long line of obscene remarks (equating the florida delegation to the civil rights movement strikes me as much more offensive)...  this is what happens when you are willing to say anything to get elected.

May 24, 2008 10:04 AM

JackR said:

I'm now even gladder that Sirhan Sirhan's most recent application for parole was denied-- it wouldn't do to have him out and about and available to be recruited by the Clinton campaign.

It's time to re-read "MacBeth".

May 24, 2008 10:06 AM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

JackR,

I was going to say something about this grim insight into the defeated Clinton psyche but your post says it all...

Just when you think that Clinton cannot sink any lower, it gets worse...

May 24, 2008 11:18 AM

tomeg said:

When Clinton is prompted to say something on her behalf after she commits gaffes such as this (though the RFK remark *was* egregious) her affect turns strangely inward - or so it seems to me - and it both looks and sounds as if she were having a conversation with herself as much as with her interlocutor, weighing her words as she utters them, rather like prospecting for heavy metal. It's a bad habit, one she should have curbed long before now, since it gets her into trouble nearly every time.

Frankly (I know this is rank psychologizing) I think she is having a conference call with her conscience, trying on the one hand to censor her unconscious desires (who doesn't have them) and on the other defending them against the censor's attacks and accusations. All else aside, she is a fascinating individual, no less so than her husband. She might make a great President but her willfulness unseats her.

May 24, 2008 1:06 PM

AlanSP said:

To answer timteeter's question, no, RFK hadn't clinched the nomination with his win in CA, although it was certainly a big victory for him.  He was actually still trailing Humphrey, who hadn't competed in the primaries, but had racked up delegates with support from the party establishment in non-primary states.  Between Kennedy, Humphrey, and McCarthy, it probably wouldn't have been decided until the convention.

May 24, 2008 1:33 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

AlanSP.

Exactly. In fact, the last words RFK spoke before the shots rang out were "I guess we will just have to struggle for them" in reference to the question that "Humphrey was backgrounding him with the delegates."

I still think that Bob would have taken the nomination but it was not, by any stretch of the imagination, in the bag, at least at that point.

May 24, 2008 2:30 PM

petelush said:

Is anybody praying harder for Obama's welfare than Hil?

May 24, 2008 4:33 PM

LMorland said:

@teplukhin2, you  said:

"Howard Dean, earn your salary. Step in and tell this woman to knock it off. Resolve the MI-FL issue. Get this behind us and get on to the general."

Just want to echo those well-said words.  And I sent an email to Howard Dean yesterday urging him to do just that.  We all should do so.  Here's the link to the DemParty page: www.democrats.org/.../contactissues

May 24, 2008 5:09 PM

aeromonas said:

timteeter, If you believe Wikipedia--and in this instance I tend to--then RFK did NOT clinch the nomination in California.  A couple of biographers/historians have addressed the contrafacutal question as to whether he would have secured the nomination and reached different conclusions, though the drift of the Wikipedia entry seems to be that it probably would've been Humphrey even had Kennedy lived.

That said, the rules of the 1968 nomination contest were so different from today's as to render its example irrelevant to Clinton's arguments for remaining in the race.  At the time, many states did not hold primary elections and instead submitted panels of Electoral College delegates selected by state party leaders.  Sitting VP Hubert Humphrey declined even to contest the primaries, instead focusing is efforts on getting his non-elected electoral ducks in a row, which he had managed quite successfully.  

Kennedy's most significant opponent in the primary states was anti-Vietnam War candidate Eugene McCarthy, and while Kennedy had lapped him by eking out a narrow victory in CA, McCarthy refused to resign from the race and may have given RFK trouble in the upcoming New York primary.  It remains debatable whether Kennedy could have overcome Humphrey's overwhelming advantage in the non-primary states.

May 24, 2008 11:44 PM

psantillana said:

I'm with arsonplus on the apology.

When I saw the clip to the Argus, I did think she was just making an insanely clunky reference to June, and mentioned the RFK assassination as a sort of guidepost - "remember that, everyone? JUNE - remember?". Whether or not she has any subliminal assassination wish - who knows, but assuming she does not, it was still jaw-droppingly boneheaded. Insensitive.

But I joined the ranks of the outraged when I saw the "apology". To the Kennedys. Please. At that point she's just ratifying the mistake, and casting doubt on whether it even was a mistake.

Also, her reference to '68 and '92 as being somehow parallel to this contest were flat-out-wrong. And I wish more people were calling her out on THAT because it's not a misspeak; she knows better. It's a deliberate mislead.

'68 was not the same because it started in March, not January, and when RFK won Cali there were still plenty of states and votes left for him to get. '92 is even worse, because Bill was as presumptive in June - and had been for months - as McCain is now. This is all just disingenuous bad faith garbage. Surprise surprise.

May 25, 2008 3:32 PM

jayfram said:

Could someone please explain why the link to this post on the front page of the TNR website carries the headline:  "Crowley:  HRC Wasn't Talking Murder"?  

May 25, 2008 5:55 PM

matthawk said:

The Clintons have a penchant for claiming that they are victims of problems of their own making. At first blush it is not at all clear what Hillary Clinton was trying to say when she said that she should stay in the election because, afterall, Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in June. Her efforts to clean up her statement make sense, but it is noticeable that, in typical baby boomer fashion, Hillary Clinton expects the public to be more lenient with her awkward phrasings than she has been with others.

When John Kerry made the botched joke about Bush getting "stuck in Iraq" because he didn't study back when he was in college, Hillary Clinton did not waste any time to figure out what he really meant; she just piled right on him like all of the rest of the yapping dogs.

And when Obama made the sociologically sound point that people embrace the cultural attributes that give them familiarity and comfort when they see no prospect for relief from economic conditions, using the unfortunate phrase "cling to guns and religion," Hillary did not ask that we understand the context and nuances of what Obama was saying; she just piled right on.

But now Hillary demands special privileges and special consideration; just as she has done by expecting the superdelegates to hand her the election after failing to win the popular vote of legitimate primaries and the failing to win the majority of delegates during the primary/caucus season.

The Clintons never want the same rules applied to them that they gleefully apply to everyone else for purposes of political gain. Oh, the advantages of power and privilege. Do we want that mentality to return to the White House?

May 25, 2008 10:09 PM

sleepyavl said:

Obamista accuse Hillary for a historically accurate remark - so they pretend she wants him assassinated. Do we want that kinbd of mentality in the White House? Try criticizing the Anointed One, his supporters will tell you're insane. Of course, if you think your candidate is the Messiah, then it does follow that whoever dislikes the demagogue with a racist Wright mentor is insane.

May 26, 2008 9:36 PM