The MI/FL Delegate issue has been resolved.

Gimme a break! (4.00 / 1)

You must be watching MSNBO, because not even CNN is trying to distort her words that much.

She didn't invoke the assassination as a "justification" for anything, except as proof that the primary season has lasted longer in the past.  In fact, had RFK not been assassinated, it would have gone on even longer.

Not to mention that the Argus Leader's Executive Editor Randell Beck issued the following statement:

The context of the question and answer with Sen. Clinton was whether her continued candidacy jeopardized party unity this close to the Democratic convention. Her reference to Mr. Kennedy's assassination appeared to focus on the timeline of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself.

Hillary speaks for me.

---

by: XavierLA @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 23:39:44 PM UTC

I know exactly what the context was, and what her point was. (4.00 / 1)

Except that she cited two examples--the 1992 nomination of her husband (which was actually locked up in March, not June), and the 1968 nomination.

Except that there was absolutely NO reason to bring up Bobby Kennedy's assassination. All she had to do was mention '68 as being a year where the nomination season lasted into June.

In addition, her staff claimed that she mentioned it because she was "tired" (reflections of Bosnia?) and because the Kennedys were "on her mind" due to Ted Kennedy's tumor diagnosis...except that she said the same thing over a month earlier in an interview with Time.

Look, it doesn't matter whether she was deliberately implying anything or not--if anything, making a reference like that unintentionally is even worse, because she, of all people, should know damned well that you DON'T bring up the subject of assassination when discussing a presidential primary race that you're in unless someone specifically asks you about the subject.

As someone else said, you don't use the word "bomb" in an airport, and you don't use the word "assassination" when you're running for President.

It was an unbelievably stupid and unnecessary statement to make.

---

by: Brainwrap @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 00:06:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Especially this week (4.00 / 2)

You don't issue a public reminder to someone diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor just three days previously that two of his brothers were slain by assassins.

If you do, you promptly get on your knees and beg forgiveness.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 00:32:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I understand what you're saying (4.00 / 1)

Robert Kennedy Jr. issued the following statement this evening:

"It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June.  I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband's 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June.  I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."

Hillary speaks for me.

---

by: XavierLA @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 00:09:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's the Context (4.00 / 1)

Judge for yourself.

It's available at the ArgusLeader web site; transcript and video.  

---

by: rich @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:12:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the link! (4.00 / 1)

It's obvious she's providing examples of the process lasting longer than this.  Had RFK not been assassinated, that race would have continued after his win in the CA primary.

Hillary speaks for me.

---

by: XavierLA @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 00:11:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're missing the point, Xavier. (4.00 / 1)

First, I'm glad to hear that Bobby Kennedy's son, at least, didn't take offense.

However, the Kennedy angle itself was by far the smaller issue here. The larger point is that she unnecessarily brought up the reality of a young, dynamic Democrat running for President in a time of great turmoil being shot down just just before reaching a political triumph...in June.

Are you not aware of just how many death threats Barack Obama has had? Are you not aware that the Secret Service found it necessary to start a detail on him over a year ago, the earliest they've done so for any presidential candidate in history?

Hillary Clinton was, herself, the First Lady for 8 years, and is also a mother. She herself knows how seriously the Secret Service and, rightly, the rest of the nation takes this topic. Why on earth would she so casually and flippantly toss the Bobby Kennedy assassination into a response to a question about "why she should or shouldn't drop out of the race"? It was a horrible mistake at best.

All of that put aside, neither of the two examples she cited made any sense in the context of her answer. In 1992, Bill Clinton wrapped up the nomination in mid-May, not mid-June, and the Iowa primary was on Feb. 10, not early January. In other words, the '92 primary effectively lasted a total of 3 months, not the nearly 5 that this one is gonna reach.

In the case of the '68 primaries, aside from the fact that it was utterly unnecessary to mention Kennedy's assassination at all (a simple "the 1968 primaries lasted through June as well" would have sufficed), one MAJOR distinction is that in 1968 it was the CALIFORNIA primary that was in June (you know, the one with like 10% of the total delegates?). Utterly different situation.

---

by: Brainwrap @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 00:50:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Kennedys... (0.00 / 0)

Of course RFK Jr. doesn't want to see his father's murder turned into a campaign issue.  On the other hand, she shouldn't have put herself into the position where the son of a slain politician had to ride to her defense.  She showed abominable judgment here, and her initial apology wasn't much better.

It was made all the worse, in my opinion, that she made her comment -- and not the first time she did it, mind you -- three days after Teddy Kennedy was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor.  She should have omitted all references to '68 out of respect for that, and went with some other historical (although probably just as flimsy) precedent.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:31:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

::sigh:: (0.00 / 0)

I swore to myself I wasn't going to be one of these people. In fact, I've openly ridiculed these types of people as recently as last weekend. But this has gone too far.

Last August I had a chance to sit in a room with all of the Democratic candidates. I knew going in that I wasn't a huge Hillary fan, thinking at that moment that I was most impressed with Chris Dodd, and that ultimately I had to be an Edwards guy. Edwards annoyed me at YearlyKos, so I gave up my support of him and I was without a candidate for a long time. Still, as others spewed venom at Hillary, I always said, "I would be totally comfortable with Hillary Clinton as President of the United States."

Then it came down to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and as others abandoned Hillary and we heard the repeated refrain of "I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY!" I balked. As PatsBard at DailyKos would say: "In the primary, vote for the Democrat you prefer. In the general, vote for the Democrat."

But I just watched Keith Olbermann's "Special Comment" on the Kennedy thing, and he's right. We've forgiven too much with Hillary Clinton.

If Hillary Clinton is, by some weird twist of fate, the Democratic nominee, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON.

---

by: PerfectStormer @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:18:38 AM UTC

I'm not there - yet (4.00 / 1)

but it sure would be into 'lesser of two evils' territory at this point. Fortunately, it won't come to that.

How did Edwards annoy you at YearlyKos? I was there, most impressed with Obama, as I expected to be, but favorably impressed with Edwards too... don't recall any panders on his part...

---

by: memiller @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:01:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I went to Edwards' breakout (0.00 / 0)

and I wasn't impressed. He came across as dismissive and almost vacuous. His standard answer for everything was, "Well, I'd really like to give you a substantive answer, but we don't have time."

Then again, I was probably overly critical about the whole experience. I gave up on Bill Richardson at yKos as well, and I remember making snide comments about being able to see Hillary's blood-red lipstick from space.

---

by: PerfectStormer @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:08:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This was an obvious mistake (0.00 / 0)

Rather poor judgement.  

Julie

To prepare for when your life flashes before your eyes, make sure it's fun to watch.

---

by: JNelson @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:12:08 AM UTC