Senator Hillary Clinton Has Jumped the Shark

Why?

By bringing up Bobby Kennedy's assassination in conjunction with reasons she should continue her race to become the Democratic Nominee she has officially lost her mind. It's beyond irresponsible and beyond reprehensible.

Just the other day I was willing to hug it out and even push for an Obama/Clinton ticket.

Today I realize this candidate will go to any lengths, including the discussion of assassination, to get what she wants, and I am disgusted.

Please don't tell me this was an innocent turn of phrase meant to make some point.

It's not. We all know Senator Clinton knows better and says NOTHING innocent.

Clinton says, "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."

Yeah, I'm guessing those white, blue-collar voters just ate that up.

While cleaning their guns.

My call from February 12th, 2008 stands now, more than ever.

Senator Clinton, Step Down NOW.

Comments

[Karoli]

Her remarks were intended to invoke fear in voters in her base (older voters who remember that day vividly) and discourage them to vote for Obama. It was also a message to superdelegates to wait. At this point, I think the supers have made up their minds, but are timing announcements strategically.

The question is, was it more of a play for the VP slot or not?

Whatever the intent, the comment itself was reprehensible and her apology was not much better, given that it was directed to the Kennedy family and not Sen. Obama, who was the intended target.

I no more believe it was off-the-cuff than I believe the sun rises in the west. It was as intentional as the "hard-working white voters" comment was, and you're right to call it out.

She won't step down. The next battleground will be the rules committee meeting. There's only one way she'll step down, and that will be if superdelegates step up en masse and make their decisions public, which they won't, because of the primaries scheduled for June 3rd.

What bothers me the most and what usually bothers me about her remarks is her offhand delivery with the innocent "I just don't understand it."

[Gunfighter]

You can't be surprised, Erin. I know you better than that.

[Karoli]

Her remarks were intended to invoke fear in voters in her base (older voters who remember that day vividly) and discourage them to vote for Obama. It was also a message to superdelegates to wait. At this point, I think the supers have made up their minds, but are timing announcements strategically.

The question is, was it more of a play for the VP slot or not?

Whatever the intent, the comment itself was reprehensible and her apology was not much better, given that it was directed to the Kennedy family and not Sen. Obama, who was the intended target.

I no more believe it was off-the-cuff than I believe the sun rises in the west. It was as intentional as the "hard-working white voters" comment was, and you're right to call it out.

She won't step down. The next battleground will be the rules committee meeting. There's only one way she'll step down, and that will be if superdelegates step up en masse and make their decisions public, which they won't, because of the primaries scheduled for June 3rd.

What bothers me the most and what usually bothers me about her remarks is her offhand delivery with the innocent "I just don't understand it."

[Kristin]

Hey Hillary -- We're done. All done. I had a post ready in which I thanked you for your service, for being a role model, and now, I think you has absolutely no place whatsoever in the Democratic Party. None. Again, we're done. Bye, Hillary. Go away now. Far, far away. You have thoroughly sickened me.

[cynematic]

Obama-Sebelius '08.

Hillary who?

Next.

[Kris]

Keep in mind, however, anything Hillary says will be scrutinized, pulverized and blown out of proportion by the media. Even more so than Obama and McCain combined. Pretty evident, I think.

[Amy@UWM]

She has officially gone off the deep end and continues to prove that she's more interested in herself and her own ambitions than she is about the party or the country.

[anniegirl]

I don't think anyone can spend as much time talking as a presidential candidate and not say something ill-advised or even stupid. Let's not forget Obama's "bitter" people remark (and even though I agree with the man to some extent - very dumb thing to say anywhere/anytime for someone running for office.

Jumping the shark? No. It will not lose her anything with those who already support her nor will it gain her anything with those who don't because there are plenty of older folk who already think that something like what she suggests is possible anyway because they remember the 60's and the murders of the Kennedys, Dr. King, Malcom X, Medgar Evans. They don't need any prompting.

Is it desperate? Possibly. She isn't the front runner and though she has a strong base in demographics that Obama needs and might not be able to win over in the fall, he doesn't want her for his VP, so she angle that all she likes but I would be very surprised to see the Democrats come together at the convention and do anything as radical as assemble a ticket for the good of the party and to rid the White House of the current Republican debacle.

[Daisy]

I have a "why Hillary should stay in the race" post waiting in the wings. I'll hold onto it for now; it's not going to look good after this odd statement.
My husband, BTW, supports Obama even while he's afraid of the risk of assassination.

[Kristin]

Next she'll be making incendiary comments about, say, Iran....uh...wait...

[Gunfighter]

It's not just a dumb thing to say. Not considering the fact that she has said almost the same thing at least for, or maybe even five times in the last few months. With this repetitiveness, it certainly comes across as calculated, to me.

If it was just a repeated gaffe, which I don't buy... but if it was, how do we expect her to use careful judgement when speaking as President?

[Gunfighter]

It's not just a dumb thing to say. Not considering the fact that she has said almost the same thing at least for, or maybe even five times in the last few months. With this repetitiveness, it certainly comes across as calculated, to me.

If it was just a repeated gaffe, which I don't buy... but if it was, how do we expect her to use careful judgement when speaking as President?

[Diane]

I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, I'm genuinely confused. Obama gave a speech in Indianapolis where he referenced Bobby Kennedy, the MLK assassination, and compared Bobby Kennedy's speech asking for change to his own stance in this election. Why is Clinton's comment inappropriate and offensive, when Obama's wasn't considered offensive? Why is using the Kennedy name or a significant assassination repugnant or exploitive when Clinton says it, but now when Obama says it? I'm not saying this to criticize Obama at all -- but I don't get how they can use the same reference, effectively, and Clinton is slammed for it and he is not.

[jaelithe]

Diane, I think the key here is that Clinton used reference in response to a question about why she is continuing to stay in the race despite long odds. Someone asked her, why are you still running, and she answered, well, Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June. As if to imply that Obama might be assassinated, and she would be needed to take his place.

It wasn't about her using the Kennedy name. It was about her insinuating that Obama might share RFK's fate. And if that is really what she meant to do, it is NOT cool.

[Diane]

Wow, that's not at all how I heard what she said. And in fact, that's not exactly what she said. I understood her to say that Bill Clinton's primary race was still going in CAlifornia in June during one of his races, and Kennedy was assassinated in June in California when he was there for the primary race. I understood her comment as linking that unforgettable point in time to remind people that there was still an active race at that point before the convention. I took it as a marker of tying the event that everyone remembers to a point in the primary race... not the suggestion that she needs to stay in because Obama might be assassinated. That seems like a pretty huge, and unfairly negative, leap to make from the comment she made....Just as it would be a similarly unfair stretch to think that Obama referencing MLK and Bobby Kennedy to imply that he is a national hero in a simlar vein. I understand what you're saying, but I think it's a really unfair and unduly nasty way to interpret what she said ... at least if you're not going to subject Obama to the same sort of close scrutiny from that same sort of mindset.

[Karoli]

But Bill Clinton's primary race WASN'T still going in June, for starters. Even if it was just totally off-the-wall and stupid, it was..off the wall and stupid. Where's the linkage between Bill Clinton's nomination and RFK's assassination? Why not link up the floor fights at the convention, the Teddy Kennedy/Jimmy Carter battle, for example? Why not link up just about any other contentious to-the-convention event?

Why 1968? Why RFK's assassination? Because it speaks to the fear we all try to suppress. That something might happen to the candidate now, or after he's nominated, that would cause the nomination to be lost. This wasn't a death wish on Obama, it was intended to play on the fears that we all have that it COULD and MIGHT happen, so that there would be a lean away from him and toward her.

Because white women haven't been assassinated, and god forbid, we won't see ANY more political assassinations in our lifetimes. But black men have been assassinated, and the strongest part of Clinton's base remembers that all too well.

The message she sent? Be afraid, little hopers, because it's happened before and it could happen again. She doesn't have to shit-stir in Fl or Mi to be ready and waiting if something so awful should happen again. But by saying what we all work hard to suppress, she invites us to succumb to the fearmongering and surrender.

In her world, she wants that surrender sooner rather than later, in the hopes that the fear paralysis will send the supers and remaining voters to a place where they choose her to save him.

[jaelithe]

Diane, just because I am an Obama supporter does not mean that I am a Hillary-hater. Really. I respect Hillary. As a woman, I am proud of her for running. I have said so here and on my own blog. I think Hillary gets an unfair treatment in the media a lot of the time, and I've spoken out against it.

My support for Obama is, at the core, largely policy-based. I strongly prefer his foreign policy philosophy to hers. I prefer some of his ideas on defending the Constitution, too. At the beginning I chose Obama because of policy. It was a HARD decision for me, to turn away from the first truly viable female candidate for president. Hillary has said and done some things during this campaign that have upset me and made me like her less than I did at the beginning. But that does not mean I'm ready to pounce on any gaffe and twist her words.

I saw that video of Hillary making that comment BEFORE the media pundits had at it with their own interpretations. The news broke on Twitter and the blogosphere a full hour before I saw anything about it on CNN. I happened to be sitting at my computer at the time, so I saw this story unfold pretty much as it happened.

I watched that video three or four times in a row, in utter disbelief, trying to figure out if I was misinterpreting what she said. I didn't WANT to believe she would imply what I thought she was trying to imply. If you notice, even if my comment, I said "IF that is really what she meant to do." Because I still want to give her an out. Maybe she really was talking about primaries continuing into June (even if that totally ignores the fact that this primary started earlier than any Democratic primary in history, and even if her comment that her husband's nomination was not sure until June seriously stretches the truth).

But I tell you, I watched that video ready to think that this was a flash-in-the-pan internet rumor, that people were exaggerating what she said. And then I listened to her tone of voice, to her choice of words, to the order of those words. To the emphasis she placed on the word ASSASSINATED. And I could help but think she did mean to imply that a candidate could be assassinated at any time. And I don't think it was an appropriate comment to make.

I do subject Obama's words to scrutiny, too. I am tired of veiled accusations of bias being lobbed at me, and other Obama supporters, every time one of us forms a negative opinion about something Clinton says. I'm an educated, thoughtful, careful woman who LIKES powerful women, who would LOVE to see a female president, and I generally think before I speak. I know there are mindless minions on both sides of this debate, but I am not one of them.

[cynematic]

Diane, the problem I have with Clinton's remark is that she could've made her point about primaries not being decided 'til June (erroneous in any case with the examples she gave of Bill Clinton and RKF anyway) WITHOUT referencing RFK's assassination. The fact that she did and has several times before is troubling.

Just what kind of sick scenarios are they spinning--or hoping for--inside the Clinton campaign bubble? You would think as a former First Lady she's well aware of the nutjobs and crazies out there who don't need any encouragement to strike out. So why she would stir that hornet's nest really defies belief or understanding. If she had any compassion or sensitivity, she should apologize to the Obamas.

[Carol]

Oh please.

Hillary made this comment before and no one batted an eye. This time she shortened the full phrasing and that is that. That everyone has their panties in a wad over it now says more about them as supporters of Obama, a candidate who they know is a lightweight and who won't win against McCain in the fall, and that they are still beating into Hillary and beating away the last few Clinton supporters who might vote for Obama in the fall says more about their fear of realizing that they haven't backed the best person. If I can't build my candidate up, I might as well keep trying to tear down the opponents.

In the end, it only says something about their own ego, not even the desire to beat McCain in the fall. Keep bashing down Hillary even after Obama stands on the brink of coronation. I wonder what Cindy McCain is going to wear to her husband's inauguration?

And Michelle Obama played the same fear-mongering with an added touch of race baiting when she talked about the possibility of Obama being shot at a gas station. Give me a break, Michelle, and stop being an embarrassment, sweetie.

You want to talk about something scary, lets talk about electing a Harvard (supposedly) educated man who doesn't know the difference between Buchenwald and Auschwitz.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/where_in_the_world_is_auschwit.html

Pathetic pandering and lying in the same breath. Nicely done. And with the 57 states. Didn't we have 8 years of this kind of thing with Bush? Can't we find an educated person to nominate for president and who can speak two sentences in a row without sounding like he was educated in American public schools? Because it sure isn't Obama.

[cynematic]

Carol, think as a mom for a minute. Setting the candidates themselves aside and just on a human-to-human being level, I'm a parent/you're a parent level: is it okay for a former First Lady who had a young daughter in the White House and was fully aware of the risks and dangers--is it okay for her to allude to assassination when the Obama daughters, 9 and 6 years old, can hear and understand the news? Would be asking their mother, "What does 'assassination' mean, and is that something that could happen to daddy?" Or is it only Chelsea who needs protection from the harsher realities of life in the public eye, and not Sasha and Malia Obama? Why don't the Obama daughters' feelings count?

This coldness is why people are upset about Clinton's comments. That, and she offered it in a thought-cloud justification to WHY SHE SHOULD STAY IN THE RACE when there's no possible way she could win.