Hillary Clinton Cites RFK Assassination

Jumpin’ Jehoshaphat!

Asked by South Dakota newspaper the Argus Leader why she didn’t buy the argument that the party was fracturing because of the prolonged contest, Clinton said “my husband didn’t wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June.”

“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California,” she continued. “You know i just dont understand it.”

She has already apologized for it.  And to think that SHE was waiting for Obama to commit another gaffe. 

1. I don’t believe for a minute that she meant to suggest that Obama might be shot late in the primary—or even specifically to evoke memories of when Kennedy was.  I think it just goes to prove that if you put someone in front of a microphone for long enough, they’ll eventually say something dumb, offensive or inflammatory—even when they don’t mean to.

   Posted by scott on May 24, 2008 at 1045 hrs




2. And, if they’re a democrat we forgive them.
   Republican gaffes are permanent.

   Posted by Aaron on May 24, 2008 at 1229 hrs




3. This is really such a non story it is laughable.

   It is really a shame how the media and fellow democrats are DEMONIZING her for a reasonable remark.

   Keep it up Dems and media. It won’t be long before the average voter will be sick and tired of having everything said about anything being an attack on Obama.

   Oh, Oh, here comes the Obama insult patrol heading up my driveway. Gotta go…

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 24, 2008 at 1242 hrs




4. I agree with John.

   It’s a non-story. The Obama camp, the media, and everyone else piling on Hillary for this look kind of ridiculous to me.

   You’d think Hillary said, “I’m staying in the race because I expect my opponent to be assassinated or otherwise incapacitated before the convention.”

   That would be shocking, beyond the pale, etc.

   Posted by Mary on May 24, 2008 at 1321 hrs




5. Is the political news this thin, or are you just starting at the bottom, and working up to real issues?

   I see nothing to raise an eyebrow over. A perfectly reasonable answer if you ask me.

   Posted by Sandi on May 24, 2008 at 1324 hrs




6. When it comes to screwing-up on day one, Hillary Clinton is certainly the frontrunner. Although its not like Hillary’s been screwing-up all along, she simply misspoke. Anyway, Hillary will wangle her way out of it, by blaming those who cry foul. That’s what she does. A tasteless remark taken out of context? I don’t think so. And, wouldn’t yet another Kennedy (JFK Jr.) have been a shoe-in for her senate seat? Before the Clinton’s began their end-run around the 22-Amendment, both of them knew there was a fatal flaw. The mere mention of a Hillary Clinton nomination should send paroxysms of moral indignation up and down the nation’s spine. The Clintons: truly in a class by themselves: http://theseedsof9-11.com

   Posted by Peggy McGilligan on May 24, 2008 at 2149 hrs




7. I don’t believe for a minute that she meant to suggest that Obama might be shot late in the primary

   I agree with you scott.  I think that when you have politicians that are in the habit of saying anything at any given moment that will parlay them into favor with the direction of the wind, they are bound to not have thought about the implications of their comments.

   Its not their fault. Please don’t blame them.  They are just trying to tell the people what they want to hear when they want to hear it.

   As with most of their comments, they don’t mean a f’n syllable of it.

   And second of all. 

   I think it just goes to prove that if you put someone in front of a microphone for long enough, they’ll eventually say something dumb, offensive or inflammatory—even when they don’t mean to.

   Of all people scott.  Unbelievable.  i could give a shit about hillary’s comment.  But could your double standard be any more hypocritical.

   If a conservative made an off color remark you’d be as irritated as a chair-tester with hemroids.

   But Hillary makes one and your ready to brainstorm the excuses for her before the ink dries off the press.

   Are you for real?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 25, 2008 at 0005 hrs




8. All it really shows is HRC’s blind ambition for power and she’s obviously been entertaining all kinds of scenarios in her head as to what options are left to her now to fulfill her lifelong quest.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 25, 2008 at 0716 hrs




9. I completely agree with you Bill.  And I’m not big on these mindless gotcha games people play with comments made by candidates, I think there is plenty of legitimate policy issues to take them to task on. 

   But I do think Hillary’s quest for power is VERY indicative of how she would run the office of president.  With absolutely no regard for anything but her ‘ends justifies the means’ approach.

   And I think that is legitimate criticism because the Constitution is about the last thing in the world she’d let get in the way of what she wants to do with the country.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 25, 2008 at 0903 hrs




10. Hillary: Why I Continue To Run

    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.

    http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/25/why-we-conti nue-hillary-and-me/#more-2698

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 25, 2008 at 1217 hrs




11. It’s ironic to listen to conservatives carry on about Hillary Clinton’s unquenchable thirst for power, when, on the remote chance she were elected, she would assume a presidency whose powers were swollen beyond all Constitutional restraints by a…conservative.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 26, 2008 at 1013 hrs




12. It’s ironic to listen to liberals carry on about George W. Bush’s unquenchable thirst for power when, in American history,  perhaps the most flagrant instances of a president swelling his powers beyond all Constitutional restraints were attempted and often achieved by a liberal… FDR.

    Posted by Mary on May 26, 2008 at 1039 hrs




13. Touche. But FDR will forever be remembered as a great president. GWB, to put it kindly, will not.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2008 at 0849 hrs




14. Not only that, but Mary must remember that FDRs New Deal doesn’t exceed any constitutional boundaries in the minds of most Americans.  Certainly the courts have not seen it that way.  It is only a small portion of citizens who seem convinced that it is.

    Posted by scott on May 27, 2008 at 0856 hrs




15. when you have politicians that are in the habit of saying anything at any given moment that will parlay them into favor with the direction of the wind

    Two thoughts occur.  First, I think politicians are given a somewhat unfair rap about this.  After all, if people truly wanted politicians who shot from the hip, then they would have them, ipso facto.  And besides, isn’t it in the nature of the job to be “politic” about what one says in politics? 

    But the other thought is that Hillary in particular gets a bad rap on this.  I haven’t found her to be any more opportunistic or power-hungry than any other national political figure.  Frankly, I think this—like other explanations given for Hillary hatred—are largely based in sexism: a woman who acts the way a politician should act is deemed a ball-busting bitch.

    could your double standard be any more hypocritical.

    It would only be hypocritical, xxpilot, if I were found to have said or written the opposite of what I’m saying now.  If indeed I have such a clear pattern of going after Republicans for their speaking gaffes, then it should be no challenge for you to cite a couple of examples today.

    Either that or you should apologize for calling me a hypocrite.

    Posted by scott on May 27, 2008 at 0907 hrs




16. It’s ironic to listen to conservatives carry on about Hillary Clinton’s unquenchable thirst for power

    Its actually not ironic, see I’m not a conservative pal.  Ignorant would be the assumption that someone that noted Hillary’s thirst for power must be a conservative.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2008 at 0926 hrs




17. I agree.  Sexism of the kind I’m talking about above is quite well represented in both parties.

    Posted by scott on May 27, 2008 at 0927 hrs




18. Forget the New Deal.

    Remember that little thing during World War II, the internment of Japanese U.S. citizens? FDR suspended the   Writ of Habeas Corpus. We’re talking about U.S. CITIZENS—men, women, and CHILDREN—tens of thousands!

    The overwhelming majority of detainees under Bush during war time have not been citizens of the United States.

    Let’s not forget what he tried to do with the Supreme Court. He wanted to expand the number of justices on the Court so he could stack it, thereby avoiding the checks and balances defined by the Constitution. Talk about abuse of power!

    And Scott, you certainly know that just because something is acceptable in the minds of most Americans, that doesn’t make it right.

    Posted by Mary on May 27, 2008 at 0949 hrs




19. Whoa, okay.  Now I see your point—and quite a valid one it is.

    And Scott, you certainly know that just because something is acceptable in the minds of most Americans, that doesn’t make it right.

    Who are you telin’?!  I’m a atheist who voted for Kerry in 2004! 

    Posted by scott on May 27, 2008 at 0955 hrs




20. After all, if people truly wanted politicians who shot from the hip, then they would have them, ipso facto.

    I do agree with this.

    I think that politicians say whatever even if they don’t really mean it, because it works.

    Thats the reality and its also the problem.

    Nothing gets fixed when everything is just lip service.

    Its unfortunately that most people voting don’t have a clue about what the effect of the policies touted by their respective preferred candidates would do.

    Its sounds great to have ‘free’ healthcare.  Most people don’t realize what the economic ramifications of that really would be, but it sounds good, so they go for it.

    The people who truly take the time to understand economics and the effect of social policy are the minority.  And their votes don’t even create a ripple in the turbulent waters of american politics.

    It would only be hypocritical, xxpilot, if I were found to have said or written the opposite of what I’m saying now.  If indeed I have such a clear pattern of going after Republicans for their speaking gaffes, then it should be no challenge for you to cite a couple of examples today.

    I don’t believe this blog has a ‘search by poster’ function. If it did, I’ll surely take the opportunity to demonstrate your hypocrisy, since it doesn’t, I will decline to take the time to manually wade thru pages and page of threads to find one.

    I do, however assure you that I’ll point out the next time you do.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2008 at 0958 hrs




21. Its sounds great to have ‘free’ healthcare.

    Yeah.  Like tax cuts, less government, the sanctity of life, and family values.  Who could be against those things?

    I’ll point out the next time you do.

    I think it might be a while.  Nobody’s perfect, but I think I’ve been pretty darned consistent in my exasperation of people, media outlets and blogs who insist on focusing on political gotchaism as opposed to issues of actual import and substance.  I may be a lot of things, but one thing I’m surely not is the political version of Nelson of The Simpson’s fame—blurting out a hearty Ha, ha! every time a political opponent sticks his foot in his mouth.

    Posted by scott on May 27, 2008 at 1147 hrs




22. Yeah.  Like tax cuts, less government, the sanctity of life, and family values.  Who could be against those things?

    Well one thing at a time there…

    Some of those things have fatual and legitimate economic benefits behind them.  Some do not.

    Again, the kind of thing that the average dumb f’n vote doesn’t understand.  And that’s probably like 70% of the voting public.

    But I’m as miffed as the next when I see people trying to legislate issues like ‘family values’

    Nobody’s perfect, but I think I’ve been pretty darned consistent in my exasperation of people, media outlets and blogs who insist on focusing on political gotchaism as opposed to issues of actual import and substance.

    My point is that you said:

    I don’t believe for a minute that she meant to suggest that Obama might be shot late in the primary—or even specifically to evoke memories of when Kennedy was.

    I find it very very very hard to believe that given the way you are the consummate pessimistic devils advocate, if Owen had posted a topic about a republican who had made a comment that had the potential to be taken out of context, and subsequently opined that he was “confident said republican didn’t mean anything pejorative” and people were misinterpreting the comment, you would be all over it.

    In short, I just don’t think you’d be so dismissive if this was coming from a conservatives mouth. 

    After all, aren’t you the guy who thinks that if someone says Obama looks like curious goerge, they are being a racist, but saying george bush looks like curious georage is not big deal?

    http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/perma link/obama_calls_reporter_sweetie/

    You seem real quick to dismiss the ‘mis-statements’ as just a gaffe when its a liberal making them.  Thats your hypocrisy.

    As in the thread above, yeah, you’re quick to agree with owen that the “sweetie” comment means nothing. 

    I haven’t noticed you letting anyone else off the hook.  But like I said, I’ll make sure to point it out now that you claim to not participate in such ‘gotcha-games’.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2008 at 1237 hrs




23. You seem real quick to dismiss the ‘mis-statements’ as just a gaffe when its a liberal making them.  Thats your hypocrisy.

    So you keep saying.  Yet you can’t point out where I have shown such a double standard.  Look, I’m not even saying that I have never done so—only that I think I have been pretty consistent in decrying gotchaism politics in general.  If in these pages you rarely see me rising in defense of Republican gaffes, I would suggest that it’s because they are so infrequently discussed here in the first place.  (If you are on a hunt for double-standards, I suggest you start there.)

    I think if you’re going to charge into a discussion and call me a hypocrite you should at least be able to back it up.

    Posted by scott on May 27, 2008 at 1316 hrs




24. Charging in and name-calling is what he does.

    Speaking of which, xx, sorry I called you a conservative. I was only going on a year or so’s worth of comments. What would you prefer? Libertarian? Rugged individualist? O Irascible One? Thank you for pointing out my ignorance.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2008 at 1648 hrs




25. Charging in and name-calling is what he does.

    Boo Hoo…  Let me grab you a kleenex

    Libertarian thanks…

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 0947 hrs




26. No kleenex needed; I don’t really give a damn if you call me a name or not. I was simply making an observation.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1109 hrs