I am not so sure, Michael. The stress of this campaign seems to be wearing on her, increasingly. Her Zimbabwe metaphor was just bizarre. Look for perhaps more weirdness yet from her, especially if she is convention-bound.

Ridiculous.

She was talking about reasons to stay in. She mentioned her husband's June victory to illustrate that sometimes it takes a long time for a clear winner to emerge. She mentioned RFK to illustrate that sometimes a second-place candidate moves into first place because the front-runner is murdered.

The explicit meaning of the comment, in context, was: it's possible that Obama will be murdered, and thus it makes sense for me to stay in the contest.

This "gaffe," which I believe was injected into public discussion with as much purpose as Ferraro's recent racist remarks about Bob Herbert and others, will be the thing that finally ends this hideous campaign.

People like Michael Crowley will always stand for this sort of thing, and will always find reasons to excuse it, when it's done by "serious" establishment figures. Most Americans -- even the most entitled and cynical DC elites -- won't. Hinting that your opponent will be murdered is like hinting that an unpopular federal judge should, or will, be murdered; it's something that's never, ever done. Brace for an anti-Clinton backlash like nothing you've seen before.

I think your reader is spot on. Hillary's Freudian slip was showing.  Anyone who wonders if HRC will "go there" wherever "there" might be (i.e. the convention floor in Denver) should wonder no more. David Gergen, who briefly served as an advisor to Bill Clinton, said it best when asked about whether Barack Obama should have Hillary be the Vice-Presidential nominee. Gergen noted that if Obama chose Hillary to be his Veep, he'd better hire a food taster.

I absolutely excuse this remark and find it completely understandable since I have long ago come to the conclusion that the woman is completely unhinged. Obama has made one impolitic remark at a private fundraiser without visible microphones, and Hillary and her crowd jumped all over him for months. She has said outrageous thing after outrageous thing for months and has always gotten away with it because she has a fiercely loyal crowd of other unhinged people, as well as her assortment of clueless old people and redneck racists holding the Democratic party hostage (go to taylormarsh to see the lunacy). I, for one, am counting the days until she is found ranting naked in a Capitol Hill fountain.

Huckabee recently said a far worse thing, but everybody let it slide because they know that funny people sometimes make tasteless jokes (and also have a dark streak that makes them funny) but this is number what of batshit things Hillary has said?

Bela, no, sorry I disagree. She is holding the Dems captive. She knows she can say or do anything and no one will really do anything.

Hey, while we're just talking about historical context, maybe we should point out that sometimes the second-place Democratic candidate gets shot. Why, I bet many of us remember the George Wallace was shot in May in Maryland. Heck, Teddy Roosevelt was in second place in 1912 when he was shot in Milwaukee -- in October!

I'm not saying I think anyone should shoot Hillary, mind you, I'm just discussing the very real historical context of the calendar.

I love the Huffpost headline: "My Husband Did Not Wrap Up The Nomination" Until June ... "Bobby Kennedy Was Assassinated In June"

The Clinton campaign response: "She was simply referencing her husband in 1992 and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 as historic examples of the nominating process going well into the summer. Any reading into beyond that would be inaccurate and outrageous."

How long until this becomes Obama's fault?

I think people need to chill a bit. It wasn't the best of references, but hardly an insight into her subconcious. I would have thought her Iran threat or racist rants were more damaging than this.

Clearly, she needs to leave the stage (Although pitchfork did make the point that after winning NY/California she would have been the Republican nominee. Maybe someone can clarify that for an Ignorant Populist.) and the chance of her doing it gracefully has sadly gone.

Obama's lucky he's facing one of the weakest Republican nominee's in living memory.

I was troubled when Samantha Power's characterization of Hillary as a "monster" turned up in print, but only because I knew that this otherwise immensely valuable Obama aide would have to go.  Of course she got it right. . .Hillary will do and say anything to win the presidency.  I commend the generosity of those who attribute this latest reference to RFK's assassination to her exhaustion, or even to a bursting forth of "unconscious" desires.  Invoking Bobby Kennedy's untimely death is an appallingly overt reminder to the lunatic fringe that there is, after all, a solution to her delegate problem.  That's the precedent to which she was referring (it's also how we got Richard Nixon).  It is indeed monstrous.

[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]

Williamyard: You are spot on yet again.

Iggy, I would have excused it if she had excused Obama's "cling" comments, but she beat that issue to death. Politics ain't beanbag, the sooner we drive a stake through her campaigns heart, bury it a mile deep, and pour holy water all around the better.

I've heard elsewhere people trying to excuse this comment as coming out of exhaustion. You say she blurted it out. However, she said the exact same thing back on March 6, so I hardly call it a mistake. She meant it. Unfortunately, she got called out this time. Unfortunately for her, that is. But maybe fortunately for the rest of us who are sick of this endless race, and for the democratic party which needs her to stop her campaign.

And I thought it was telling that she apologized to the Kennedys but not to Obama or his wife and children.

I hope this does her in. She certainly deserves it after this. And if it had been anybody else but her, the media would not be tripping all over itself to try to excuse this as a "gaffe."

Obama won't need to say a word. She did it to herself.

This is May. You think she just pulled June out of her cyborg-like memory bank? This is ten miles beyond the pale. She's a monster. She is suggesting Obama is a flawed candidate because he's likely to be murdered. Period.

The Clintons are brilliant and ruthless, they NEVER misspeak. Time for everyone with a conscious to stand up, speak out, and let her know enough is more than enough.

She appeals to rednecks and assorted cretins, now to assassins. The Clinton crime family, the Bush crime family, what's the difference?

Iggy and William, first down (whistle).

Where did the beanbag thing come from? It's so silly, its beyond understanding. My friend from Germany whose English is almost perfect, said to me last week:

"what exactly is a beanbag?"

I couldn't figure out for the longest time why in God's name he would ask me that.  Now I know.

Curled upon his beanbag as we speak,

Little Willie slept another week.

Let's hope that his weekend holds some treats

To tweak him to attention 'tween the sheets.

By the way, I think the point of her slavery and Zimbabwe references are to cover her tracks on the "nigger, nigger, nigger" campaign she is running behind the scenes, trying to persuade supers that a black man can never get elected while trying public to evoke racist sentiment to try and make it so.

Ignorant Populist -

The point about her being the nominee after winning the NY and CA votes were she the Republican nominee is based on the Republican's using winner-gets-all primaries while the Democrats use a proportional system. Under the Republican system Clinton would have been awarded 722 pledged delegates from CA and NY alone - almost half her current total - while Obama would have got 0. As it was she only got 343 to Obama's 259.

One of the great failings of her campaign is that she did not appreciate the effect this proportional allotment would have on her ability to win just on the big states while ignoring caucus states - where Obama was able to rack up numerous large delegate majorities. Both of them knew the rules going into the campaign - but Obama understood them a lot better than Clinton did.

Roid, I had the same thought about Zimbabwe. Like she was hinting that this is how Africans win elections. I am normally not at all a conspriacy theorist, and I don't even think Hillary is as cynical as others around here do. But I do think, that while her ends may good, she has gone waaaaaaaayyyyy Machiavellian in her means. I hate hearing people say she ran a great campaign. She ran a lousy campaign and said truly represnsible thing after truly reprehensible thing. And it's only gotten worse.

And I don't even understand how her apology is regretful, as some say it is. If I had said something like that, I would say "I feel absolutely sick about this. I would never have meant anything remotely like what this sounded like. It was beyond infelicitous, and I extend my deepest apologies to Senator Obama and his family." Instead, she only apologized to the Kennedys.

Of course, I would also have said "Please don't vote for me if you are only doing so to vote against a black man."

Aside from the RFK-assassination which is simply indefensible, what gets me about her statements is that even if you believe her explanation for saying what she said, it's just more of her trademark bullshit.

It is a misrepresentation--er, lie--to say that Bill Clinton didn't "wrap up" the nomination until the CA primary in June.  Yes, it was not until then that he formerly secured a majority of pledged delegates, but he had been labeled the "presumptive nominee" ever since he crushed Jerry Brown in the NY primary in early April.  The California primary result was a foregone conclusion and Clinton faced no effective opposition.

And while it is not the case that RFK had the nomination sewed up when he was shot on June 5, that was a completely different era, with large numbers of states choosing their electors the old fashioned way, in smoke-filled rooms.  Kennedy had edged out McCarthy in the primaries--though New York remained, but Humphrey hadn't even contested the primary states, focusing his efforts on old-school influence peddling.  So comparing this nominating contest to 1968 has about as much relevance as comparing it to the election of 1884--unless of course your trying to insinuate that your opponent might get shot.

you're, not your.  uggh

She said JUNE. This is MAY. She did not misspeak. She suggested he is vulnerable because he could get murdered. Next month. Where is the outcry? This is the most scandalous remark EVER made in any primary. Where is that egomaniac Howard Dean? He needs to step in and shut her down. Now.

Where is Gore? Hugging a polar bear? This monster, who is not batshit insane, who does not make Freudian slips, wants somebody to go for her opponent's jugular. Literally.

Race-baiting hasn't stopped him. Pandering to morons and white trash hasn't stopped him. Now she's reaching out to assassins. This isn't Evita. This is Lady Macbeth.

Machiavellian? I'd say she's more Catherine de Medici.

Michael, no, the fact that she said it before in Time a few weeks ago does not make it any less a Freudian slip.  Your "reader" has it exactly right.

Of course, I would also have said "Please don't vote for me if you are only doing so to vote against a black man."

Touchdown, epicciuto!!

"Where is the outcry?"

Ask, and ye shall receive: www.youtube.com/watch

THe apology that didn't mention Obama once = "Shouldn't have brought up RFK getting offed in this difficult time for their family. Sorry. Should have just said, 'Anything could happen - Obama could get shot!'"

Remember how Hillary's first campaign for elective office went?  Guiliani fell apart.  Not just the G campaign, but G himself.  I think deep in her mind, Hillary is expecting that to happen again to her current opponent.

Bill and she are both the comeback kids .... she thinks.

Or ... maybe all this hearty campaigning is just a pretense to get her supporters to send in more money before the thing inevitably shuts down in a few weeks.  She has to get them to believe that there's still a chance, if she's expecting them to put their money down.  Of course it will all go to pay off her debts, not to carry on a viable campaign.

The bottom line is that whether she meant to suggest the possibility of assassination or not; whether she is exhausted or not; whether she really believes the supers should give her the nomination or not, she has repeatedly shown that she's not fit to be President.

The election is the beginning the journey, not the end. If she's exhausted and lacking judgment now, what could we possibly expect when she's pulled in a million directions as President? Is this how she behaves under duress?

Keith Olberman's Special Comment this evening had a very power bit where he lists all the egregiousness she has exhibited in this campaign (and he missed a few). To sit and listen and realize how long the list is and to have all of it laid out for you in one fabric, rather than threads here and there, is very visceral. You can't imagine having this person become the leader of our nation.

In the end, it's all very sad. To watch her go down like this. And, really, she may have just destroyed her entire political career, not just this candidacy. Still, I think that in this interview today she looked less guarded than usual and when she let her guard down we got to see what she's really thinking. It wasn't anything about Florida and Michigan. It wasn't about being the first seriously viable female candidate and sticking out for women everywhere. It wasn't about her being more electable. It was about the possibility that something might happen to Obama. What a maudlin and unjustifiable reason to stay in the race attacking the man and dividing the party.

Thanks Mac, I get it now. Maybe, she should have run as a Republican. At times she sounds like one.

I see Obama has also pointed the way toward a sane Cuban policy.

The sooner he gets in, the better. I like the look of his FP, more and more.

Of course if Hillary were selected as VP, she would wake up every day praying and go to sleep every night praying that Obama be assassinated so that she might be restored to her rightful role as President. He stole it from her. Its only fair. "Whatever it takes" "I will never quit."

Imagine the scene: Two assassins are running for Obama's back with knives in their hands. Hillary as VP is charged with covering his back. She is such a gracious individual, I am sure she would say to the assassins: "Oh, Excuse me. Please just let me just get out of your way." Gracious. "Whatever it takes."

I keep thinking: Here's someone who's obviously had a nightmare or two about her own husband being assassinated, why wasn't just plain human enough to apologize to Michelle Obama for provoking one.

I'm not a shrink but I do watch 'Criminal Minds'. Mr. Crowley proposed, "...she was talking about the calendar in historical terms--not the uncertainty of the process."  No, Hillary's analysis cherry-picked a most sensational example in history which bore no relevance to June 2008.  She became unhinged months ago when she realized her only chance to prevail demanded she destroy her opponent.  Ignoring the "process" (the rules?) and demeaning Barack have been her sole tactics since Super Tuesday. Michael, it can't be ignored that Bill and Hillary do succeed but it is in a reality that demands they dehumanize others.  

Back to TV and 'Criminal Minds'. It is believed those most disturbed characters are not 'psychotic' but they are motivated by a psychology.

Consider the diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder from DSM IV:

Three or more of the following are required:

  1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.

  2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure

  3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead

  4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults

  5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others

  6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations

  7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

I expect she'll be excused and perhaps Mr. Crowley is correct. But the alternative is more than "a Freudian Slip". The pathology of the Clinton's is more disturbing than a scary faux pax.  

Further, time will tell!  We'll all be watching if she respects the process and shows a lack of aggression and is less reckless.  

If you are correct? Yes, she will humbly concede (soon) and support Mr. Obama.  

That's the process.  

Or it could be #7 from the list above: "Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another."

A slip or a clear pattern? I'm patient and I'll return to apologize if I'm wrong.

When it comes to Hillary, everyone's a pop psychologist, conspiracist and psychic. Sometimes, she's just saying what she's saying, even if somewhat sloppily and with a tin ear.  If anything, this shows she's not always calculating or in control of the forces of nature.  If she had considered how this sounded from a political standpoint, there's no WAY she would have said it.

Maybe I'm being contrarian, but what confounds me even more than the RFK mention is the statement before when she says that she "just doesn't get why people think she should drop out" (or something to that effect).  The flip side of it would be, "In what scenario does she win?"  I see the RFK faux pas as an unintentional byproduct of all the bad faith she's been radiating over the nomination process and Florida and Michigan.  

The thing that is really frustrating me about her campaign is that it is continually trying to undermine a reasonable nominating process.  I don't think she is pathological, but simply manipulative.  Responding to her with histrionics - i.e. Olbermann - is strangely to her benefit.  If we over-react to her comments, then it just creates more of a circus in which she and her campaign can make new, contextless claims about the nominating process.  

Keith Olbermann is the one who should be worrying about his reputation.  He's has become completely, irrevocably unhinged, spitting, mouth-foaming, drooling mad.  Chris Matthew looks positively Buddha like in comparison.  Who made Olbermann the arbiter of hidden meaning and evil intent in all things Hillary?  To quote his lord and savior, KO has "lost his bearings."  For me, it calls into question every last thing he has ever railed against -- and that includes Bush.  What a fool.

"If she had considered how this sounded from a political standpoint, there's no WAY she would have said it."

Hmmm . . . how to interpret this?  If she did not *consider* how it would sound, then presumably she either

1 - did not consider it at all, and said just what she thought, or

2 - did in fact consider it--just not from a "political standpoint"--and went ahead and said it anyway.

In either case,

1 - she is not the consummate politician we've been told she is; rather, she is a political incompetent, and

2 - she really does mean that, well, you never know, there might be an assassination, and

3 - Keith Olbermann was being mild.

In other words, both lack of intent and intent are bad.  It's a toss up as to which is worse.

Just found this on a link on Andrew's site, I laughed my head off: hilarious -

"Best comment I read anywhere yesterday, by "whiskeybaby," in a thread on Wonkette:

***

Dear Hillary,

Please don't take this the wrong way, but it's really time now for you to stop talking -- mid-sentence if needs be -- and just go away. You are not only embarrassing to yourself, your family, your party, your gender, your country and possibly the entire world, you're embarrassing to ameobic life forms that haven't even been formed yet.

Best of luck with future projects though.

Yours sincerely,

The United States of America"

Well, this reader took the words out of my mouth. But I'm psychologically oriented and I tend to think Hillary is not. What might be painfully obvious to so many may simply perplex Clinton, prompting some of these strange soliloquies. Politicians are rare creatures, and some are downright exotic. Hillary is one of the latter, fascinating, inspiring and disturbing. I (seriously) wonder if it might explain the paranoid craziness expressed by some of her fans and admirers.

...and detractors, for that matter.

Wandrey, that's very funny, if inappropriate.

;-)

The Screw Turns (via Andrew Sullivan):

ruralvotes.com/thefield

"The endorsement by US Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-California) of Obama today sends an extremely firm message to the Clinton campaign, and not only because he was, until today, a Clinton superdelegate.

The Field has learned that Cardoza is the first of a group of at least 40 Clinton delegates, many of them from California, that through talking among themselves came to a joint decision that all of them would vote for Obama at the convention. They have informed Senator Clinton that it’s time to unite around Obama, and that they will be coming out, one or two at a time, and announcing their switch between now and the convention if Senator Clinton doesn’t do the same.

Cardoza is one of the leaders of this effort (which includes not only superdelegates, but here’s something that should set off some paranoia in Camp Clinton: there are pledged Clinton delegates in “The Cardoza 40,” too). One Field Hand reports that during a recent Cardoza fundraising event in California the effort was discussed openly in front of other Democrats. Cardoza’s announcement, today, sent the message that the effort is serious and for real.

This is not 'excellent news for Hillary Clinton.'"

tim,

I'd think that the myth of Hillary as the "consummate politician" would have been debunked by now.  She's displayed remarkable ham-handedness and tone-deafness this entire campaign. There was the MLK/LBJ stuff (not inaccurate, but also not very politically astute), saying that the states she lost were insignificant, the "hard-working Americans, white Americans" comment, comparing the Florida situation to everything from the civil rights movement to Zimbabwe, and now the RFK analogy.  There are numerous other examples, but that's a decent snapshot.  Either she doesn't think about the political implications of the things she says, or she's incapable of understanding how comments like those will play.

This is why I don't buy the theories that suggest that her comments have some sort of insidious subtext, or that they're deliberately calculated to send subtle signals.  Hillary and her campaign simply haven't shown themselves to have that kind of political astuteness.

hayleykelse  wrote, "Keith Olbermann is the one who should be worrying about his reputation."

Don't panic, so far the Special Comment which has you fuming has received 4 Stars out of 5 from nearly 1000 online visitors. Regardless, I hope someone close to Hillary is able to better distinguish her "reputation" from that of Keith Olbermann. Are you suggesting he can get fired and she can return to the Senate?  Does Keith have more to lose than Hillary?

Think that through...

Anyway, though he can be an Excitable Boy he does provide a (not short) list of where she proved to try the patience of everyone and kept on going. Do not accuse the media of being stingy with forgiveness:

"We have forgiven you your insistence that there have been widespread calls for you to end your campaign, when such calls had been few. We have forgiven you your misspeaking about Martin Luther King's relative importance to the Civil Rights movement.

We have forgiven you your misspeaking about your under-fire landing in Bosnia.

We have forgiven you insisting Michigan's vote wouldn't count and then claiming those who would not count it were Un-Democratic.

We have forgiven you pledging to not campaign in Florida and thus disenfranchise voters there, and then claim those who stuck to those rules were as wrong as those who defended slavery or denied women the vote.

We have forgiven you the photos of Osama Bin Laden in an anti-Obama ad...

We have forgiven you fawning over the fairness of Fox News while they were still calling you a murderer.

We have forgiven you accepting Richard Mellon Scaife's endorsement and then laughing as you described his "deathbed conversion."

We have forgiven you quoting the electoral predictions of Boss Karl Rove.

We have forgiven you the 3 a.m. Phone Call commercial.

We have forgiven you President Clinton's disparaging comparison of the Obama candidacy to Jesse Jackson's.

We have forgiven you Geraldine Ferraro's national radio interview suggesting Obama would not still be in the race had he been a white man.

We have forgiven you the dozen changing metrics and the endless self-contradictions of your insistence that your nomination is mathematically probable rather than a statistical impossibility.

We have forgiven you your declaration of some primary states as counting and some as not.

We have forgiven you exploiting Jeremiah Wright in front of the editorial board of the lunatic-fringe Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

We have forgiven you exploiting William Ayers in front of the debate on ABC.

We have forgiven you for boasting of your "support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans"...

We have even forgiven you repeatedly praising Senator McCain at Senator Obama's expense, and your own expense, and the Democratic ticket's expense."

Hillary is tired. When she spoke of her hard-working patriotic "white" supporters, she wasn't pandering to racism or tossing aside the liberal values she has devoted her life to defending. She apologized and I believe her when she says that she didn't mean to say it. But it is clearly what she wanted to say. Clearly she and her campaign have been nurturing, coddling racism. "What ever it takes."

Hillary's non-apology reflects the fact that she didn't mean to say it, but it is certainly what she and her top people know: The only way she can win is if Obama has a disaster. They are hoping for disaster. They are praying for disaster. Nothing against Obama really. Its all about Hillary and the Clinton's being restored to power. Power. That's what they like. If Obama has a disaster--and Hillary being gracious will offer every opportunity to others to make such happen, she's so unselfish--well that's terrible! Now the Restoration. The Perks. The Power. "What ever it takes."

Can you imagine Hillary as the VP, with Bill by her side.(Only she can control him!) The assassins are running towards Obama's back. I can just hear gracious Hillary Clinton saying "Oh, excuse me. Let me just get out of your way." She's just that kind of person. "What ever it takes."

hayleykelse, Olbermann is a TV journalist, who really cares about his reputation, if you don't like him don't watch him, but Hillary wants to be President of the US and leader of the free world. She has shown she is simply not fit for that position (and there is nothing wrong with not being President, why she is acting as though it is an injustice to her that she is not going to be one is simply bizarre)

I gotta say though, the Hillary show has been one of the most entertaining in a twilight zone way campaign I have ever witnessed. I will miss the daily lunacy (Dean is Mugabe, hard working whites vote for me, lazy blacks for Obama, etc.)

Here's my question: she said she didn't mean anything by the RFK remark, she's just had the Kennedy family on her mind since Ted's cancer was reported.....um, ok, but then why is she remembering *Robert* when *Ted* also ran for president and took it all the way to the Convention? Ted is the one who is ill after all. Wouldn't you remember *his* run for the Presidency and not his brother's? What's that you say, she doesn't want to remind us of Ted's run to the Convention since many people claim that's why Carter lost, and now she wants to do the same thing so she doesn't want us to remember that year? Hmm. Sounds about right.

She said the exact same thing a month ago.  This was not a slip--and clearly had nothing to do with Ted Kennedy, and was clearly calculated.  She's low.  Really, really, really low.  I feel bad for Chelsea.  I'd be so ashamed if she were my mother.  

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 by this?  Surely, it cannot in any way enhance her chance of getting the nomination if some disaster, beyond her control, 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.  Then 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 without being seen to have started the brawl.  She says very provocative things hoping that the ensuing uproar may descend into a pro- and anti-Hillary brawl that will make it impossible to unify the party.  She intends to go all the way to and through the convention causing as much intra-party dissension as possible while, of course, observing the obligatory ritual of reciting her support for the eventual nominee.

This is part of her hostage-taking -- either give me, the loser, the nomination or I will destroy the party's chance.  The threat emanating from her is not Obama's assassination so much as it is that she can and will pull down the walls.  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.

Once again, we - WE - are at fault for Hillary's latest Hillary moment:

"This past Friday, during a meeting with a newspaper editorial board, I was asked about whether I was going to continue in the presidential race.

I made clear that I was - and that I thought the urgency to end the 2008 primary process was unprecedented. I pointed out, as I have before, that both my husband's primary campaign, and Sen. Robert Kennedy's, had continued into June.

Almost immediately, some took my comments entirely out of context and interpreted them to mean something completely different - and completely unthinkable.

I want to set the record straight: I was making the simple point that given our history, the length of this year's primary contest is nothing unusual. Both the executive editor of the newspaper where I made the remarks, and Sen. Kennedy's son, Bobby Kennedy Jr., put out statements confirming that this was the clear meaning of my remarks. Bobby stated, "I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."

I realize that any reference to that traumatic moment for our nation can be deeply painful - particularly for members of the Kennedy family, who have been in my heart and prayers over this past week. And I expressed regret right away for any pain I caused.

But I was deeply dismayed and disturbed that my comment would be construed in a way that flies in the face of everything I stand for - and everything I am fighting for in this election.

And today, I would like to more fully answer the question I was asked: Why do I continue to run, even in the face of calls from pundits and politicians for me to leave this race?"

*sigh*

What this is an example of is Hillary's pervasive and ongoing Cynicism.

Since before she declared as a candidate for the Democratic nomination Hillary has been running one of the most cynical campaigns in recent memory.

The logic of cynicism is that values and principles don't matter. The only thing that matters is the cold mathematical calculation that will get you elected.

In her votes for the Iraq war, the flag burning amendment, her remark about the white working class and her most recent remark about JFK she reveals a deep-seated cynicism.

She does not try to enlighten or uplift the electorate but rather plays to the lowest common denominator.

Unfortunately for Hillary, this is a year in which the American electorate hungers for more than the cynicism of politics-as-usual. We long for hope.

Hope that we can overcome our differences and unite as a people. Hope that we can again be respected in the world and lead. Hope that our American initiative and genius can overcome the several crises looming on the horizon.

I agree with Hungarian Bela Tarr in the second comment. There's no way to interpret this comment except that Clinton what was on her, and everyone's mind, that what she's really waiting around for is Obama to get killed. We've all been thinking this for month, but nobody wanted to say it aloud. Now, low and behold, she does. But she may have defeated her purpose now -- if something should happen, Hillary's succession would be so distasteful that they'd probably go to someone like Gore.

And, by the way, the conspiracy theorists will have a field day with this one. Thanks for another gift, Hillary.

roid, I'm not sure what her aim is either except that she seems to be extremely passive-aggressive; it's as if she thinks something, realizes it might be inflammatory, gets indignant that she shouldn't be able to say it, and goes ahead and says it anyway. It's more like a pathology than a strategy.

OK Hillary haters, let's get a drumming circle together and chant "Hillay is evil ugh ugh ugh, Barack Obama, O Exalted One, you have shined a light that exposed this force from a cauldron of Macbeth/Liliths, and saved our country from this shrew and her wicked husband. and by the way all you GOP freaks who said the same thing about them in the 1990's, it doesn't matter, you are all a bunch of right wing loonies, while  we are all progressives whose intent is noble, therefore our hate comes from a good place, and your hate from a bad place"

This chant may be repeated with the theme and variation of your choice. But most of all, keep that Hillary hate going far past November. There is 2012 and 2016 to think of. Also let's not forget 2028 when the spawn of evil Hillary and Bill, Chelsea, might run for office.

Mahler, February called and it wants its overwrought Hillary-as-martyr statements back.

Mahler, jeez relax buddy, no one called Obama the exalted one (except you). Honestly, why the hell can't you deal with her having lost the nomination, why are Hillary supporters so relentlessly anal? You know what, life will go on if Hillary is never President, I promise. The same with Obama (except Obama supporters are not such bad losers). Hillary will never be President, that is obvious to everyone except her delusional supporters. In four years if Obama loses someone like Mark Warner will run and crush her, she has lost the black vote forever, the same with college educated and young people. I can't see many people forking out millions in 4 years as she careens all over the place again. Beyond her huge negatives, four years to an already old woman won't be kind, her crows feet will be crows legs. All of the bleech blonde piroxide and botox will only keep her looking presentable for so long. McCain is taking hits for his age so don't cry ageism. It is a simple fact. In 4 years it will be Sunset Boulevard for Hillary.

So when she goes and slithers back to NY to brood and shriek hysterically at her hired help, I take comfort in the fact that this is it for her. I need not nurture any hatred for her, and with her millions I sure as hell won't have any pity for her. I have been reserving my pity and heartbreak the past few weeks for the victims of the earthquake in China (where I have my home) and the victims of the typhoon in Burma. Unlike Hillary, I realize there is more to the world than just myself.

Mahler, are you arguing that Hillary is the innocent in this particular drama?  That all of the problems of her campaign are the results of outside sources?  That somebody forced her to bring up the spectre of RFK's murder as a way of attempting to say something about a long, contested campaign season?  That somebody forced her husband to shoot of his mouth too many times?  That somebody else compelled her to compare the Florida imbroglio as akin to Zimbabwe?  Etc, etc.  Did somebody push her on to the national stage and make her stumble through the campaign after realizing that she may actually have to work for the nomination?  

Enough.  Enough of making excuses for someone who is not a good candidate.  What we have learned is that Senator Clinton may have won her elections in New York with more than a stroke of luck, as she certainly does not fare very well in a tough contest.

Blackton, 'I need not nurture any hatred for her."

Ha! Now that's comedy!

I'm going to reserve my pity and heartbreak for the women in your life.

Rosebud,

I'm not saying her behavior is not pathological, but I think she is aware of the reaction her comments will cause and is not just willing, but eager, to have them provoke a brawl between her supporters and Obama's supporters that will be unreconcilable and make victory in November impossible.  I don't think it will work, but I think it is what she is aiming for in her pathological way.

And now - surprise, surprise - IT'S OBAMA'S FAULT!:

Washington Post

"Clinton Camp Stokes RFK Flap by Blaming Obama

By Zachary A. Goldfarb

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign accused Sen. Barack Obama's campaign of fanning a controversy over her describing the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy late in the 1968 Democratic primary as one reason she is continuing to run for the presidency.

"The Obama campaign ... tried to take these words out of context," Clinton campaign chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said on "Fox News Sunday." "She was making a point merely about the time line."

The issue is particularly sensitive given longstanding concerns about Obama's safety as a presidential candidate. (He first received Secret Service protection last May.) The Obama campaign called Clinton's words unfortunate and circulated a TV commentary criticizing them, although Obama himself said Saturday that he took Clinton at her word that she meant no harm.

Hours after mentioning Kennedy's assassination, Clinton said, "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."

Obama senior strategist David Axelrod dodged questions about why the campaign was still circulating commentaries criticizing Clinton even after suggesting it wants to move beyond the controversy.

"We're beyond that issue now, so certainly we're not trying to stir the issue up," Axelrod said.

Asked if Clinton has personally called Obama to apologize for the reference, McAuliffe said she has not, "nor should she." He added, "Let's be clear. This had nothing to with Senator Obama or his campaign."

McAuliffe noted that Robert F. Kennedy's son -- who endorsed Clinton last November -- has said that Clinton's reference to his father's death did not cross the line.

"If Robert F. Kennedy Jr. doesn't find offense to it, why is it that everybody else should?" McAuliffe said. "They shouldn't. They ought to take Robert F. Kennedy Jr. -- he did not misinterpret it or misjudge it."

Appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation", Clinton senior strategist Howard Wolfson said McAuliffe is "absolutely right" that Clinton didn't want to apologize to Obama for the remark and said: "I think it was unfortunate to attack Senator Clinton's remarks without knowing fully what she had said.""

etc...

Anything. Everything. (And Nothing.)

tomeg,

This is certainly evidence of just the point I was making right before your post.

blackton, how do you know that Obama and his supporters are not sore losers? Wouldn't Obama have to, you know, lose something in order for us to know whether he is a gracious or a sore loser?

Now, Hillary has been in second place for the entire primary season (well, technically, she was in third place for a few days after Iowa), so she and her supporters have had plenty of time to prove that they are sore losers.

rhub. he has lost a few primaries and was gracious in defeat, he even went so far after Ohio to say "If I am chosen as the nominee" no Hillary's "when" and he was a basketball player in High School, as such he had the opportunity to learn how to lose gracefully. In her entire life Hillary has never had to, everything was handed to her from the start.

hey peter, thanks for the compliment, but there is only one woman in my life though with my ever present charm and grace I can easily understand how you think there are many. Ha.

And while we think of the soldiers who have died this day, might I be so bold as to ask people give a little consideration to the dead in Asia. It has been a rough two weeks for my family there (I have relatives in law in China, thankfully no fatalities but still a heartbreak)

Thanks roidubouloi, I have been thinking the same thing for weeks, only I underestimated the impunity with which she could say just about anything w/o anyone to call the bell on her... RFK really crosses the line, but again, this is her "window of opportunity" to do as much damage as possible.  

After May 31st and June 3rd you can expect to hear a growing chorus of "The Time Has Come To Rally Around Our Candidate" From Dean, Gore, Pelosi, Reid and of course a host of other delegates who do not want to see their party torn to shreds.  Personally, I don't see how she wins another election in NY State, but I also don't see how she loses a Democratic Party in same state )where I happen to live as well).  

R- I know your active in State politics, any chance we can get some "early announcers" for the Senate Race of 2012, preferably an older accomplished female?  It would be relatively easy to raise hundred of thousands for such a candidate now, and they could even cover themselves with "I take Hillary at her word that she intends to be the nominee.  And if things don't work out in 2008 I am sure she'll run in 2012."

I have a theory, recently formed as to why in the hell she would shoehorn that "assassination" reference in. She could have just said "June" if she meant "June". It seemed like a weird insertion.

So my theory: Lots of people are apparently afraid he's going to get killed - it's one of the biggest reasons black people who won't vote for him give [maybe the biggest now that "white people won't vote for him" was disproven in Iowa]. So maybe she just wants to plant that seed of fear. Especially with the pattern of bringing it in every time she talks about the length of the primary.

Either that, or she really does think of RFK being shot as just a memory jog, like, "you remember, the fall of 82, when the Cards won the series against Milwaukee?" In which case, she's got the intuition and sensitivity of a cinder block.

"The Ignorant Populist said:

Thanks Mac, I get it now. Maybe, she should have run as a Republican. At times she sounds like one."

Maybe you should run as a Communist or an Al-Qaida, Europe division bitch. You sound like one most of the time.

Gavriel,

One of the things about a state where a party is dominant, such as New York, is that the internal party politics become very important to political careers.  Where the party is weaker, there is more room for free-lancing.  Democratic office-holders in NYS are VERRRRY reluctant to buck the organization.  Believe me, they get punished if they do.  A good friend at home asked me why our congressman, who for every reason you could imagine ought to be sympathetic for Obama, was a super delegate who declared early for Hillary.  I explained that he simply had no choice, as a relatively junior congressman, but to cover his behind by going with the establishment, and that is Hillary for the time-being.  

The only one to buck the system lately has been Suozzi because he has a pretty good power base in Nassau county that isn't going anywhere.  But he is definitely not popular in the party at the moment.  For that reason, I just don't see any of the women officeholders in the party bucking Saint Hillary, the patron saint of NYS feminism, at least not until something happens that makes her appear vulnerable.  It will have to be someone who is a bit of an outsider with everything to gain and not too much to lose.  Suozzi is the sort who might try if he thought he had a shot (but he is neither older, a woman, nor very established).

I think getting together a PAC that builds a war chest for a potential challenger could help some bright politician to find the courage.