Hillary Clinton, in a crude attempt to justify her continued candidacy for the Democratic nomination, used Robert Kennedy's assassination in June 1968 as an example of why she has not dropped out. click here
Is she so desperate, or so stupid, as to think that the American people won't see through her statement and be rightfully appalled by it? Thank you Hillary, for hanging in there in case Barack Obama is assassinated, like RKF was, so the Democratic party will have a live candidate to fall back upon. How thoughtful of you to anticipate political violence of the worst kind. How small-minded. How grotesque and self-serving. How easy to take the low road and position yourself as the beneficiary of someone else's death.
Beyond the indignation which will come crashing down upon her for her statement from citizens of the USA, imagine the reaction of the rest of the world. Will we wake up tomorrow and find our standing around the world in any way diminished by what she has said? Unfortunately, yes. For Hillary, as a U.S. senator, presidential candidate, and former first lady, occupies a unique place, and thereby represents the USA to the world in a unique way. This requires her to be uniquely careful about what she says. She has failed the USA and our great country will pay the price.
Hillary, try to find your moral compass. Then, change its setting from pointing towards you and your ego, and take your carpetbag back to New York.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I don't dislike Hillary or Obama because of personal traits they cannot change (her being a woman, him being black), but because of their policies and behaviors. There are however, a ton of people who don't like them for those very reasons because they can't see past that.
That out of the way, I agree that throwing out the idea of an assassination of Obama benefiting her is kinda nasty, but on the flipside, she knows the exact same thing could happen to her for similar reasons. They're both walking around with target signs on their backs because of hateful bigoted people in the world who can't see past things about them that cannot be changed.
bfoxy - I agree with you that, unfortunately, there are still people who hate on the basis of race and/or gender. It is therefore even more imperative that even making an oblique suggestion about assassination, as Hillary did, must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Let's hope that no wacko out there hears Hillary's comment and thinks that physically attacking Obama is a way to attain notoriety. I suggest increasing the Secret Service contingents protecting both Obama and Hillary be doubled right now.
Hmm I hate them all!!! Maybe someone will like Achmed The Dead Terrorist will take care of Hillary!!! LOL LOL LOL
Here comes a new challenger!
If you actually look at history and what happened in California in '68, you'd know that Kennedy was TRAILING Humphrey severely in delegate count.
Therefore, if she meant that there was any parallel... she was inadvertently predicting her own assassination. Not Obama's.
Go figure.
For those who are curious:
At the moment of RFK's death, the delegate totals were:
* Hubert Humphrey 561
* Robert F. Kennedy 393
* Eugene McCarthy 258
That makes Hillary the equivalent of Kennedy. Thus, referring to the possibility of her own death. Why? Because she doesn't have a clue as to what the hell she's talking about.
Based on the above statistics (and a bit of understanding of history) I deduce the following:
Fact #1: RFK was also being pressured to get out of the race, but he believed sincerely that there was still a chance that the convention would nominate him.
Fact #2: Obviously, someone also thought there was a chance he could pull it off and decided to make sure he couldn't.
Hillary was explaining her reasons for remaining in the race when evoking RFK's name. Meaning how she too (just as RFK did) feels that there is still hope that she might get the nomination.
Remember, she was being asked "why aren't you dropping out." And she was making a point that "My husband didn't clench the nomination until June" "RFK obviously thought he still had a chance in JUNE" "So, I just don't understand it... why am I being asked to drop out in May"
Not suggesting that anyone would be assassinated, but rather the similarity between her stance and RFK's stance.
Fair enough?
But she's still an idiot for being unable to say a simple sentence.
Perhaps Humphrey supporters were pressuring RFK to drop out. But, it had become quite clear that the two anti-war candidates, Kennedy and McCarthy, were, in total delegate count, ahead of the pro-war Humphrey. A Kennedy-McCarthy alliance prior to the convention would have defeated Humphrey.
Does Clinton have some hope of aligning herself with another candidate and thereby defeating Obama at the convention? No. Therefore, her stance is very dissimilar from RFK's stance.
Not in her twisted little misguided head. All she sees is that "they" (her husband and RFK) stayed in the race until JUNE... and therefore she should be allowed to also.
She's an idiot... but she wasn't calling for Obama's assassination. She was trying to parallel her nobility to RFK's...
**He still believed... Just like I still believe. So stop asking me to drop out.**
I love how the media can take half of a quote and turn it into something ridiculous and get all the sheeple to think she wants an Obama assassination.
Stop letting the boob-tube do your thinking for you. You're too smart for that.
The media did not have to take half her quote and turn it into something ridiculous. She did that all by herself.
And speaking of RFK's "nobility", how noble was it of him to wait until McCarthy, an unknown senator from Minnesota, challenged a sitting president on an unpopular war, and proved that LBJ could be beat before tossing his own hat into the ring? Political expediency won the day yet again.
So you still think she was calling for Obama's assassination? Crazy talk.
Or you think she was suggesting that she should stay in the race "just in case "something" might happen to Obama?" Ridiculous.
Please tell me you don't believe either of those two things.
I can't stand her... (him either) but it was clearly just loud whining about "hey... I'm not the first person in history to stick it out through JUNE, so lay off pressuring me to drop out."
No... you're probably right... she's definitely plotting his murder as we speak. Can't believe I didn't see it.
Now that I think about it, the historical parallel is indeed uncanny.
Let's explore:
If Obama were to be assassinated, then the second place contender (Clinton) could step up and easily win the nomination.
Holy cow! That's EXACTLY what happened in 1968 when Hubert Humphrey was assassinated and the second place RFK stepped up to get the nomination.
It's so similar it's scary!
Err...Wait a minute...
Seriously... you people are nuts.
Her words speak for themselves. Of all the reasons she could possibly give to justify her quixotic quest, she chose to include RFK's ASSASSINATION. She could have just listed those candidates who campaigned into June, so why didn't she? Why dredge up violent and painful memories? Why speak with such reckless abandon? Take a chill pill, Hillary, and delete 'assassination' from your top ten list of reasons you're still in the race.
If the words speak for themselves, then I'm really curious...
What do you suggest those words mean?
In plain English. Without spin.
Your own opinion, please... not a parroting of a media bent on slandering her words. Just your own words.
If you still say she is suggesting that she can benefit from someone assassinating him (hoping for this even)... then I'll bow out of the debate.
She could have listed, without emotional references and in a logical sequence, all the previous candidates whose primary campaigns extended into June. She chose to include the word "assassination" in her RFK reference. She wanted a strong emotional response in the listener. She perhaps hoped that the fear factor, so invoked in a subconscious subliminal fashion, would nudge the uncommitted superdelegates into her camp. Was she calling for Obama's assassination? Of course not.
Sorry, scratch that.
I forgot that I was debating part of the "media machine" where character assassination is acceptable practice.
A place where "analysis" means only to "analyze" one side of an equation.
I find it very curious, that when Senator Obama "misspeaks", bloggers are quick to jump in and explain what "he meant to say". Biased media as usual.
The pen is mightier than the sword, and with that power comes responsibility. It is clearly within reason to question what Senator Clinton might have meant by the remark... to analyze ALL the possible connotations. It is another thing to shoot first and ask questions later. Yes, as a blogger, you have become part of the media cloud... so be careful of who you indict for "moral crimes". It might be libel.
I understand that this blog is "editorial comment", but I still believe in the principles of unbiased reporting. Therefore, I believe the responsible way to have written such an article would have been:
1) Give the quote in question
2) State clearly that since there is NO reference to Obama in the quote, that all following comments are speculative.
3) Provide ALL possible meanings and inferences from all sides of the argument.
4) Then, tackle the one meaning that you want to exploit and have a field day with it (with all the fervor you like). At this point, you can throw opinions like darts fairly.
I prefer asking questions. Something that the media no longer does.
As promised, I'll bow out now... and go back to having an open mind and an appetite for truth.
Thank you for your suggestions. I do appreciate feedback. In response to your 4 listed items, let me address them in order. Item 1: Since I provided a link to Hillary's comments, I satisfied this one. Item 2: By listening to her comments, the listener does not need to be told that there was no direct reference to Obama. And I respect my reader's intelligence, so I do not feel it necessary to explain to them that my comments are speculative. Item 3: Listing ALL possible meanings and inferences of an issue is not the purpose of this blog. I state my analysis of an issue (your item 4) and then let others provide their own interpretations and opinions. I enjoy reading postings that contrast with my own. I feel we can all learn from such a free exchange of ideas.
I'll give you credit for all but #1.
While you did Link to a place that contained the quote in question, the quote was not given equal "screen time".
It kinda like saying, "I have proof that Elvis is alive. It's upstairs in the attic, behind a picture in a secret bookshelf... but why not just stay here and let me tell you about it instead."
In other words, don't make your reader jump through hoops to get the full story. It's okay to recap the important parts and link to the rest.
Links are wonderful... but your articles need to be able to stand on their own merit. It wouldn't have hurt to include the quote in your own text (as well as provide a link).
After all, there's no word-count limit on your articles, and it'll show that you can write a complete article of professional quality.
And yes, opposing views are always fun. Heck, you made me defend the words of someone I DON'T admire at all... imagine that... all for the sake of argument.
I remember, when I wrote the post, I was so upset with what Hillary had said, that I was in full response mode. I wanted to vent, post, and in so doing feel catharsis.
I don't think that clicking on that link was akin to "...make your reader jump through hoops...". It was an easy way to get the actual quote, and provided not only her words, but also her tone of voice and body language. However, I will take your suggestion into consideration on future posts.
Post a Comment