I hate it when candidates throw their knowledge around! You don't need no book smarts to run a country, lady!

Eh, it's hard for me to assess the rigors of the campaign trail, etc., and it's true that there have been Kennedys in the news lately, but this seems pretty bad to me. Sentences 1 and 3 are a common refrain by now, but where does assassination come into it? For a non-sinister slip of the tongue we need a non-sinister reason for that to be floating around in her head, and I'm not sure I see one.

Dude, Clinton, if he's shot you'll be the nominee by default anyway. Quit trying to pretend you have an argument. (Also, this year the California primary already happened.)

For a non-sinister slip of the tongue we need a non-sinister reason for that to be floating around in her head, and I'm not sure I see one.

I was thinking something like this: there aren't that many presidential primaries to choose from, and one that was competitive late was 1968, and rather than the more felicitous "Bobby Kennedy was running strong against McCarthy in June," she referenced the date he was shot, which might have stuck in the minds of people who were alive then. That's the best I can do.

I think "calculatedly malicious" describes it exactly.

Clinton criticized an "urgency" to end the campaign prematurely, saying, "Historically, that makes no sense."

"Leading Presidential candidates have been assassinated in this country as late as June," said Clinton as she winked significantly. "Hint, hint," she continued.

What a weird thing to say. The most charitable reading I can think of is "I might still be the nominee--maybe Obama will be assassinated (not that I want that and I am NOT asking anyone to do that.)"

But if she dropped out, and Barry O was assassinated, certainly she would be allowed, even expected, to drop back in?

Maybe she has precious few scenarios running around in her head where she gets to be president. Like one is the assassination of Obama, and another involves space aliens coming down and telling everyone they will obliterate the earth unless Hilary Clinton is the democratic nominee for president.

But after making that comment, were a crazy Hillbilly dude or the KKK to actually assasinate Obama, do you really think she could just drop back in?

I think charitably she's trying to say 'we've had primaries run as long as June before, everyone calm down', but there's no way she accidentally mentions an assassination.

Not that I believe she's malicious, just calculating. Secret Muslim Radical Christian Assassinated Albatrosses are heavier.

"Wait, I know, maybe Obama will be revealed to be a cyborg from the future! And then I'll be the nominee! And then I'll be President!! Of America!!!

But wait, if Obama is a cyborg from the future, perhaps that would make all democrats look bad, and I'd loose the general.

What bad could happen to Obama that would also get me sympathy in the general...hmmm..."

6: Yes, if Obama were to get shot, it was already going to be the mother of all conspiracy theories re: the Clintons. Now it would be beyond even that. Gad!

but I'm guessing it will be the thing that turns the most people off.

Somehow, I doubt it. Most people will reasonably believe that, at worst, she misspoke. I don't think she's even guilty of that. I didn't think anything of it when I read it, because I don't think she's advocating the assassination of Obama, and I think it is deeply crazy to suggest otherwise. She's just not that great on her feet.

OTOH, maybe her new base will hear it as a dog-whistle promise, and love her all the more for it. They'll even be outraged by the outrage. Well played, Hillary!

So, calling her a monster isn't sexist anymore, right?

Was it ever?

Rob Helpy-Chalk,

Please, please stop the "Barry-talk" about Obama. I've got an innate aversion to that name (the "b" name that rhymes with scary) and I want to like the candidate I vote for.

I'm begging you.

As long as you don't say she's periodically a monster.

do you really think she could just drop back in?

If she drops out, BHO gets to pick a VP; if it's not her, things get really awkward...

tripp: ok. I just did it because I found his HS yearbook page so endearing.

But after making that comment, were a crazy Hillbilly dude or the KKK to actually assasinate Obama, do you really think she could just drop back in?

This is a good point. But evidence that she misspoke, rather than said this for effect.

As opposed to them beign incredibly comfortable if it is her.

15: I like to think of him as Barry Hussein X. But then, I'm from NJ and "Barry" and "scary" do not rhyme for me at all.

It is a remarkably dumb and tone-deaf thing to say, but I can't think of any reading of it that involves malice.

If one wanted to be really charitable, maybe you could say that she's finally acknowledging that lightning needs to strike (figuratively speaking !) for her to get the nomination. And that her husband's long nomination fight didn't do him or the Party any harm.

20 to 17

If one wanted to be really charitable, maybe you could say that she's finally acknowledging that lightning needs to strike (figuratively speaking !) for her to get the nomination.

That was my point.

19: Indeed.

She's gone around the bend. I trust someone has already linked to her Florida/Zimbabwe comparison. Next, she's either going to start waving around a queen of diamonds or mentioning Vince Foster in a sinister tone of voice.

If she drops out, BHO gets to pick a VP; if it's not her, things get really awkward...

How great (I mean, not "great," but, you know) would it be if she was trying to signal to the whackos, "If you're going to do it, you need to shoot him now, because I can't stay in forever"?

20,23: My point being, she can't just drop back in if BHO has picked a running mate.

4: yeah, that's my interpretation. He was shot June 5, which was the night he won the California primary, and there were more primaries to go (plus the fact that I don't think it would've been possible to get the nomination from Humphrey w/o a convention fight). But this is only because the "hey, Obama might get shot like RFK did!" argument is so bad & so alienating to Democrats that I don't know why she'd make it--my first reaction was "what the hell?

I don't think "hey, superdelegates, I'm showing the same Democratic party loyalty as Jerry Brown!" or "don't worry superdelegates, this isn't destructive for the party at all, it's just like 1968!" are very good arguments either.

28: Gotcha. And 27 would be really great.

I just posted this myself. It's really hard to view this charitably.

A Hillary vice presidency would protect Obama better than a Kevlar vest.

the "hey, Obama might get shot like RFK did!" argument is so bad & so alienating to Democrats that I don't know why she'd make it--my first reaction was "what the hell?

Exactly. I had the same kind of "Oh my God, I can't believe you just gave vocal expression to your id" feeling that you get when someone says something like, "If that girl were over 18, I'd totally bone her."

"don't worry superdelegates, this isn't destructive for the party at all, it's just like 1968!" are very good arguments either.

"I'm really looking forward to the convention in Chicago. What's that? Denver? Well, let me assure you, my supporters will be partying like it's Chicago.

"Yippee!"

"What? What did I say?"

Hillary "explains" herself:

"The Kennedys have been much on my mind in the last days because of Senator [Ted] Kennedy, and 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. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever," she added.

Holy fucking even more offensive bullshit, Batman!

There's no way this wasn't calculated. The Clinton campaign has certainly gone over every possible argument they could make for her staying in the race, including something happening to Obama. And if it's calculated, isn't is necessarily malicious? She knew exactly how it would be perceived before she said it, and she said it anyway. I beginning to think that Clinton is so pissed at this point that she gets a perverse enjoyment from taking these parting shots. She's proving to be quite the poor loser.

35: Shorter Hillary:

Teddy's brain tumor made me do it!

There's no way this wasn't calculated.

Calculated to do what, exactly ?

In Hillary's apology, she should have said: I realize that bringing up Bobby was inappropriate, but I was just trying to convey that unexpected things can happen. I mean, for all we know, Barack could be diagnosed with a brain tumor tomorrow !

It's not calculated to get offered the VP slot, that's for damn sure.

Calculated to play up the 'Obama's too much of a risk' to nominate.

Calculated as defined in the following sentence of my comment! Are we really to believe that the campaign discussed this possible justification for her continuing in the race without realizing how it would sound?

write and punctuate my last so it makes sense.

There's no way this wasn't calculated.

Whether it's calculated or not is beside the point. It's the revelation that the thought was coursing around in her brain. And not just in some deep, subconscious way, but somewhere in the realm of rational thought. And that her superego didn't SUPPRESS SUPPRESS SUPPRESS the awfulness of it (I mean, really; the assassination of RFK is one of the single most awful events to befall this country in its history).

It raises the suspicion that she has discussed the scenario out loud before (in private), which most Democrats would rightly view as tasteless beyond belief.

It's not calculated to get offered the VP slot

Thank God.

I've been wondering for a bit that perhaps it's in the party's best interest for her to continue to say crazy shit and kill her chances of ever running again.

Hillary and Bill seem determined to destroy their legacy, which wouldn't be that hard given that a lot of Democrats and most Republicans have grudges against them.

Time is saying that she said the same thing to them in March:

CLINTON: No, I really can't. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.

42: See, this is what I'm not getting. You're telling me that this statement was made with the full realization of how it would sound ? I gotta tell ya, it doesn't sound good.

I had the same kind of "Oh my God, I can't believe you just gave vocal expression to your id" feeling that you get when someone says something like, "If that girl were over 18, I'd totally bone her."

Noob.

It's either that, pf, or she's flailing about desperately. I chose the more charitable interpretation.

You're telling me that this statement was made with the full realization of how it would sound ?

Yes. She and her advisors are anything but politically inexperienced or morons. And, as we see, she has said it before! Perhaps it was simply calculated to piss off Obama and his supporters. To twist the knife a little more. Maybe those "talks" ended in Obama telling her that he'd never offer her the VP slot? Who the hell knows.

Also--and I can't believe I'm the one that needs to say this--but people need to cut Clinton some slack. It turns out that it's an odd formulation, but not much more than that. At worst, it"s an attempt to goad Obama supporters into outrage, OUTRAGE!, to make him seem like the candidate of the crazy people, and, if the Clintons are very lucky, crazy black people.

I don't know, I still think "when bobby kennedy was assassinated" registers as something like "just when had started running strong" or something like that in her brain. It just doesn't make a lot of sense otherwise, not because there isn't a possible message there, but because the downsides are too obvious.

It raises the suspicion that she has discussed the scenario out loud before (in private), which most Democrats would rightly view as tasteless beyond belief.

I don't know about this. I think the potential for an Obama assisination has been whispered about since Iowa. I'm sure it has been in the African-American community. The problem occurs when Clinton adds her warped, narcisistic positive spin to the discussion.

Wow. If we've got Tim and ogged defending Hillary, I believe I'll just stand down.

"Well, Hitler didn't really wrap up the Chancellorship until quite late in --- I'm sorry, what?"

I don't quite get why it's an outrage now but wasn't in March.

I'd say what it's "calculated" to do is to remind people of the best-known June when Dems were still contesting the nomination. It's a historical marker - an awful one, to be sure, but a relevant one when people are claiming that no one who cares about the Democratic Party would compete for its nomination beyond, say, April.

I'm not saying it's not tacky, I'm just saying it's neither a call for Obama's assassination nor a Freudian slip. It's another tone-deaf statement from a candidate who has made dozens of them.

53: I don't think the downsides register beyond a 'what the...?' She explains she meant 'just when things were going strong', apologizes to Kennedy, and then the news media wonder for the nexxt week whether America is ready for a President with a target on his ass.

I think the potential for an Obama assisination has been whispered about since Iowa.

Considerably before that.

She explains she meant 'just when things were going strong', apologizes to Kennedy, and then the news media wonder for the nexxt week whether America is ready for a President with a target on his ass.

Maybe you're right, although not even I think she's that horrible (still plenty horrible enough to get hit by a bus).

BTW, did y'all see about the 40 (!) Clinton supers who have told her that they'll announce for Obama, a couple every day over the course of 2-3 weeks of she doesn't go graciously after June 3?

I just watched the video at Marshall's, and I don't know how you read this charitably. At best it's an incoherent response: the passage comes in reply to the question, "you don't buy the party unity argument?" As noted above, 1968 isn't what you'd call a textbook case for party unity.

Now, politicians offer non-responsive replies all the time--but usually it's because it's something they want to get out there, no matter what they're asked. So I'm with Cala--either this is something she wanted to float into the stream of the public discourse, or something she inadvertently let slip out there, but either way, it's not good.

||

Um, this crazy blind date deal -- when do they send you the match? Hours before? Minutes?

Frankly, the friend I'm going with is losing enthusiasm and my not-so-blind lunch date went fabulously enough that I am not terribly inclined to bother either.

|>

I just saw this on my blog and assumed there would be a better conversation over here. And look, there's Eric! God, we're losers.

Anyway, I think this is another case where she said something out loud that her advisors talk about all the time. In other words, she shouldn't have said it. Because it was really, really stupid. And her non-apology apology is infuriating. But I don't think it's a big deal. That said, I'm more troubled that she's still pretending that she can win. She seems to have taken leave of her senses some time over the past month. Which, come to think of it, suggests a more sinister reading of the comment. Really, though, I'm sick of thinking about her.

but either way, it's not good.

Who among us has not wanted to assassinate a rival? This just shows she's still in touch with the common folk.

She seems to have taken leave of her senses some time over the past month

Don't you read our blog? Apparently this isn't true.

Don't you read our blog?

This is a rhetorical question, right?

Real Americans assassinate rivals all the time.　That pansy Obama just shows he isn't up to the challenge.

John McCain may be 71 but he could kill any of the other candidates simply by beating them to death with his 96 year-old mother, who herself would be perfectly fine afterwards.

Apparently this isn't true.

Which part? She hasn't taken leave of her senses, or it's been a lot more than one month?

It seems that several other blogs have picked up this story as well. And here I thought it would just be us and Unfogged. Rats.

Sheesh, you guys. Get a blog.

Robert Kennedy was a total asshole for announcing his run so late in the season. Or at least that's what I've been told all my life.

I don't quite get why it's an outrage now but wasn't in March.

In March, Sen. Clinton hadn't shown just how destructive she was willing to be in a losing effort. And it seems clear enough that there are depths yet unplumbed in this regard.

I just watched the video at Marshall's, and I don't know how you read this charitably. At best it's an incoherent response: the passage comes in reply to the question, "you don't buy the party unity argument?" As noted above, 1968 isn't what you'd call a textbook case for party unity.

Yes, but she's clearly just continuing the answer she was giving before the guy asked about party unity. Although she did annoy by saying that Obama had been pushing for her to get out, when I'm pretty sure he's been careful to avoid doing that.

when I'm pretty sure he's been careful to avoid doing that

I'm willing to bet you anything that, behind closed doors, you're wrong. I'll bet there's been tremendous pressure on Clinton from the Obama camp, though probably not from the candidate himself.

Could be. Wouldn't know, obviously. Not sure why you're so sure. Goolsbee calls Blumenthal and says, "Hey, shouldn't you guys drop out? Whaddya think?"

This entire comment is anti-semitic.

John McCain may be 71

...at the moment, but he can't seem to stop himself from inching towards 76.

77: Right, I don't know for sure, either. Also right: you're an anti-semite. Also also right: and so am I. Comity!

Bopping over to TPM, I'll say again my impressed I am with the naivete of the chattering classes on the subject of the coming Grand Bargain. There's a group of people who have it in their heads that the authority figures are going to step in, and either dictate terms, or make contenders reach agreement, and then all will be well. There was the deal that would avoid impeachment, the set of understandings that Bush would appoint moderates to the cabinet to heal after BvG, and on and on. I'm not saying there's never been a deal, but this sort of thing is so much the exception.

If Obama's people are giving Clinton slack to make a graceful exit, they're chumps. She's shown, pretty conclusively over the last month, that grace is no part of the thing.

That said, Obama can pursue something of a Sharon strategy: unilateral moves that are both in his interest and give the other side an opportunity to choose conciliation over confrontation. (Not trying to set off an I/P thing here). That Clinton won't take advantage of them is always a good bet, but doesn't mean the gestures aren't worth making.

Who among us has not wanted to assassinate a rival?

HRC as Aaron Burr. It has a certain historicity to it. Keep it in the picture.

Steven Teles at the RBC has me sold on Webb as VP. How do we get the Obama campaign to agree?

I think everyone agrees that Webb (if he's not a loose cannon) would be a great pick. The reservation is giving up his Senate seat.

Not all agree about Webb

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathaniel-bach/jim-webbs-baggage_b_103203.html

I'm not sure why there's so much concern about the potential of losing Webb. He was just elected, so if Obama loses, then Webb can continue in the Senate just as Lieberman did. And if Obama wins and Webb is the VP, then Tim Kaine appoints another Senator (right? is the procedure the same for all states?) who will be a Democrat and who will, presumably, have a big advantage in the next election since they will then be the incumbent.

I'd be astonished if the Obama and Clinton camps weren't conversing privately over the prospect of her dropping out. After all, when she's defeated, whether she drops out before the convention or not, she needs to endorse Obama.

In March, Sen. Clinton hadn't shown just how destructive she was willing to be in a losing effort.

I don't buy this for a split second. March came after SC. By the time of the SC vote, every Obama supporter, around here at least, was more than happy to compare HRC to anyone from Wallace to Rove. This view of Hillary as beyond the pale long predates PA or OH (I won't deny that it's been reinforced).

then Tim Kaine appoints another Senator (right?

Quick googling says that's right. Maybe being the incumbent would help a lot, but Webb--ex-military, non-wussy, former Republican--barely won the seat last time around, so it's iffy.

if Obama wins and Webb is the VP, then Tim Kaine appoints another Senator (right? is the procedure the same for all states?)

It's not the same for every state, though I'm pretty sure Virginia allows for gubernatorial appointments to fill vacancies. Most states allow the temporary appointment to last until the next general election, though some have a special election a few months after the vacancy is filled by the governor. A few don't have temporary appointments at all (Mass. and Alaska, among others, due to concerns about Romney and the Murkowski situation, IIRC.)

Meant to add before I posted 87:

Obviously, the quote in March wasn't publicized (published, but not chattered about). Which is why I'm having trouble with all this "How could she possibly say such a thing?" talk. She said it, almost word for word (although the March formulation is less glaring), 2+ months ago, and no one said boo. But now when she says it, the best anyone can say is that she's only subconsciously pining for Obama's assassination.

Point being, it must not be that horrific a phrasing (setting aside Teddy's situation), or someone (like, for instance, a rival campaign, if one existed) would've made some fuss about it in March. But now that we all agree she should dance across the freeway in rush hour, of course it's unacceptable, the only question is whether it's manslaughter or first degree murder.

Oh, and I'm of the party that says Webb is problematic even if his seat weren't an issue (which it is). The guy has some very good positions, but he is, in fact an ex-Republican, and he's not reliably liberal by any means.

If your goal is to see the Democratic Party as a big power that owns the left and center, leaving only the 27 percenters for the GOP, then Webb might be your man. If you want to see a more liberal Democratic Party, then we shouldn't have a VP more conservative* than centrist Obama.

Personally, I think Webb does more good as a vocal, articulate Senator than as a symbolic VP. In the Senate his less progressive tendencies wash away, while as VP he's either a cipher or you're stuck with the whole mixed package.

I'll admit that my confidence that Obama will crush is part of my feeling here; I do think Webb would shore up a lot of Obama's weaknesses, but I don't think Obama needs it.

* Granted that Webb's economics are populist, if not New Dealish

every Obama supporter, around here at least, was more than happy to compare HRC to anyone from Wallace to Rove

I really can't imagine how it was that I thought you supported Clinton, JRoth. What an unseemly and absurd mistake on my part.

" But now when she says it, the best anyone can say is that she's only subconsciously pining for Obama's assassination."

This is just plain not true.

Further to 86: Given that attempts on Obama's life are a possibility (this is indeed grim, but bear with me), anyone who ignores that possibility is not living in the reality-based community. The Muslim-hating is real.

So if (this is a strong "if") both the Clinton and Obama camps have the best interests of the country at heart, this will be something they've both discussed: we do not want to see rioting in such an event. This isn't a game, however much we might wish it were only that. It's understandably on people's minds.

Honestly, Ari, I never felt more than ambivalent towards her, but the shit that was thrown at her around here really pissed me off.

This is just plain not true.

OK, maybe it's hyperbole. But the debate seemed to be between the "intentionally evoking assassination" side (Grumpy, Melvin) and "subconsciously evoking assassination" side (Cala, Jesus). Your comment was actually quite moderate, which is part of why I responded with a joke in kind (34).

OK, maybe it's hyperbole.

That actually describes every conversation about this election on the entire Internet.

And I think there's a difference between her pining for Obama's assassination, something I didn't think Clinton did, and evoking the spectre of assassination, which I think, given that the words are kind of right there in her speech, is going to be a hard claim to shake. (Maybe she just meant character assassination!) I have no idea whether she wants Obama to be assassinated. I expect not.

Not that I expect much better at this point, but I didn't claim Clinton was pining for anyone's assassination, and even allowing the normal Internet reading deficiencies, this is pretty weak.

I think most politicians understand that if Obama were assassinated, a shitstorm of monumental proportions would be unleashed and that it would suck and shit would get burned down and that was the part of the 1960s that wasn't groovy at all.

Cala, I had you on the "she was subconsciously evoking [Obama's] assassination" side. Which appears to be where you place yourself in 96. I'm not actually sure what you're objecting to.

Obviously, she mentioned the assassination explicitly. I think she did it because it's a landmark of memory - everyone of her generation knows when it happened, and she wants people to think, "Oh yeah, nomination battles in June aren't bad/wrong." You seem to think that she did it, probably subconsciously, to make people think, "Gee, Obama is more likely than HRC to be shot." Grumpy apparently thinks that she calculated that reminding people of RFK's assassination would make them scared to vote for Obama. Other than Ogged and SCMT, I didn't see a lot of people here with my take on things. Which is why I characterized the discussion here the way I did. As I said, hyperbolically, but not dishonestly or tendentiously. It's not like I took a single commenter casting aspersions on HRC and made him/her into the entire thread.

that was the part of the 1960s that wasn't groovy at all.

Well, that and Sha Na Na.

And I think there's a difference between her pining for Obama's assassination, something I didn't think Clinton did, and evoking the spectre of assassination

Exactly. Her back is against the wall, and she's determined to keep her campaign going, so everything that comes out of her mouth in public is going to be meant to keep her candidacy viable—and that means raising doubts and fears about Obama. Of course it was intentional. She knows it's in the back of people's minds, just as we do.

Christ. RFK didn't even announce his campaign until mid-March (cite). No wonder McCarthyites were pissed.

You seemed to be putting me in the 'Clinton is subconsciously pining for Obama's assassination' camp. That struck me as a little more than hyperbole and more into 'No wonder JRoth has had such a tough primary season because if that's how he's reading things, by saying 'I voted for Obama' his computer is translating is as 'Let's disembowel the Clintons and wind their entrails around the tree.' Gee, I'd be upset, too, poor dear.'

I think she's a talented enough politician to not make mistakes like accidentally mentioning assassinations. I'm not, pace SCMTim and the other gremlins, particularly worked up about this, but it strikes me as implausible that it was a slip of the tongue. She's not that tone deaf.

Now the question is, does she really think that can make any significant difference in terms of her chances at the nomination? Or, assuming this is what she's going for at this point, hurt Obama in November?

it strikes me as implausible that it was a slip of the tongue. She's not that tone deaf.

Not generally, but this is actually kind of interesting. She's in a position now, more, maybe, than even other politicians generally, where every single thing she says is parsed for malign intent, and there are all sorts of normal ways of talking that politicians have to avoid, and it could be that she's just flagging at this point and doesn't have the mental energy not to fall back on habitual phrases. That this is a repeat from March seems like evidence for that. Obviously we can't know for sure what she was up to, and there's not much reason to give her the benefit of the doubt, but since there's a benign explanation available, and the alternative is so malign, I'm going to go for happy talk in this instance.

No, I didn't think anyone was seriously arguing that her secret wish was assassination. Rather, that her secret wish was that people would wake up one day and realize, "we can't have this guy, he's sure to be assassinated." And that this was her way of getting the thought "out there." Reread 36 - I'm not inventing this interpretation, nor is my computer doing funny translations.

I don't think that it has to be tone-deafness (although I think that in her bubble of desperation, we shouldn't discount this entirely) or a mistake. Who's the most famous Dem to compete for president into June? RFK. Is there any way to mention him without evoking his assassination? No. So you go ahead and mention it - it's not as if Obama supporters will say, "Ooh, see how tasteful HRC was to mention Bobby Kennedy's big California win without mentioning that he was shot that night. She must not in any way be hinting at assassinations." I mean, come on. You mention Bobby in June, and you've evoked assassination.

The argument for not mentioning RFK at all is, "It's not worth it." But, obviously, the Clinton camp has long since departed the land of "it's not worth it."

103: Oh, the whole campaign is just flailing at this point. They obviously decided some time ago that they'd get to June 3 no matter what. And so they trudge along, alternating between happy talk / going after McCain and nasty/stupid attacks on Obama/the process. I don't think there's any strategy or even tactics at this point - after all, they've lost. Insofar as their hope was to bury Obama with shit, it failed, and now they're hardly trying (the change in frequency pre- and post-PA is huge). Not that the bullshit is harmless or innocent - just that it's autopilot.

Conciliate, pander, attack, repeat.

I think she's trying to build a case that says Obama ran a kickass primary campaign, and in fact it was so good that it showed the weaknesses in our primary system, in that someone who studies the hell out of the game will be able to win the primary without a good shot at the general.

Fortunately, goes the argument, that's what you wise superdelegates are for, and the reason we set up the system this way, in case the electorate gets gamed or gets a whirly-eyed complex.

And here's the rest of it:
a) Obama cannot win PA, OH, or WV because he can't appeal to the main white working class demographic there. (Why WV Alone Contains Real Americans.)
b) The delegates from FL and MI should be seated, because cutting them out would be dangerously stupid for the general, and the best way to count them is by the unfortunately suboptimal elections we did have. (Why, If You Count Those, Clinton Wins The Popular Vote and is Close-E-Fucking-Nough On the Delegate Count.)
c) Here Clinton's stayed mostly out of it, but the media has been running with the Secret Muslim Madrassah Pastor Hussein Albatross. (No Way The Country Is Going To Elect A Black Man.)

Since the rules say superdelegates count, the longer she stays in, the longer she gets to make the case for a) and b) and lets events make c) for her.

||
Holy mackarel. Here in Ohio I just watched saw a John McCain for President commercial. He's going to hold corporate CEOs accountable and restructure mortgage debt! Hooray!
|>

On topic, I recognize that she doesn't want even to admit that there was any reasonable way for BHO to be offended, but it would have been gracious, when she apologized for any pain she might have caused the Kennedy family, to offer similar apologies to the Obamas.

to offer similar apologies to the Obamas.

In which case it would have been said: "She's doing it again ! The nerve of that woman to invoke Obama's possible assassination in her so-called apology !"

Oh come on. HRC can be extremely caring and gracious and ought to have said something like, "and my sincere apologies to Barack and his family for any pain this may have caused them." I recognize that politically she can't really say that. But now, it seems to me at least, her problem is less with being politic and more with appearing craven. She could have gained some goodwill.

I just saw Olbermann denouncing Clinton and I think that he's overdoing it. I usually like him. It looks like one of those media feeding frenzies.

she wants people to think, "Oh yeah, nomination battles in June aren't bad/wrong."

See, this might make sense as a justification for talking about RFK's fortunes in June if the Democrats hadn't totally imploded in 1968. But inasmuch as they epically, completely, blew themselves up in 1968, this is completely useless as a point of reference if your argument is, "late nomination battles are jim-dandy for the party!" So it's reasonable to suppose there's some other reason (conscious or sub-) for bringing it up.

I wish this would really hurt her performance in Puerto Rico so that she would shut up already, but it won't.

112:Bullshit

Democrats lost 4 Congessional seats in 1968 from a large majority of 243, gained 12 seats in 1970 and lost them back in the 1972 landslide. Maintainig a 50 member margin over three elections doesn't seem destroyed.

The Senate remained in Democratic hands in the 55-57 range over the period.

There have been realigning elections in which a party took horrific losses. 1968 wasn't one of them. You'd think a historian would have a fucking clue.

Unless the great historian thinks a party holding the Presidency for two terms usually wins a landslide in the third election, instead of losing a very close race.

Bob gets very testy when anyone disagrees with his interpretation of the events of '68, 'cause he was there, man.

This view of Hillary as beyond the pale long predates PA or OH (I won't deny that it's been reinforced).

It's not a binary state. She can go, and has been going, deeper beyond the Pale.

After all, when she's defeated, whether she drops out before the convention or not, she needs to endorse Obama.

She's already done as much as she "needs" to do -- her claim that she'll support the nominee is out there, so she can keep repeating it all the way to Denver. Where she will speak for the damned, disinherited, disrespected and the despised. And stand up to The Man.

116:Well, wtf KR? Do we have look at statehouses, Mayors, dogcatchers to see how Democrats "imploded" in 1968? It's really hard for a party to hold the Presidency for three terms, and should not be a surprise that the Democrats lost in 1968.

Maybe the implosion had delayed effects that didn't show up til 1980 or 1994. Whatever.

This is the Unfogged official historian, either a liar or bullshitter or more likely delusional like all Obamabots.

Bye.

Bob, I think it's possible that Eric was talking about Chicago and then Humphrey losing to Nixon, because, y'know, the party looked like it couldn't find its own ass without asking help from a bunch of dancing hippies being led around by a small cadré of black Muslims fresh off of bombing a police station. But hey, your rejoinder was pretty convincing, so...

117.2 is very good. Maybe even excellent.

Christ. RFK didn't even announce his campaign until mid-March (cite). No wonder McCarthyites were pissed.

Yeah, but New Hampshire wasn't until March, either. Still makes him late, but with LBJ running, not that many people were going to declare much earlier (or as long as they weren't sure how weak he was - this latter part isn't really a defense).

EPA, OSHA, AA, expansion of New Deal & Great Society, War Powers Act, resistance to impoundment, impeachment, cutting off funds for Vietnam. Hard to say the liberal elements of the Democratic Party were seriously weakened & damaged after & because of 1968.

Quite the opposite. The 60s were a cultural civil war, fought state-by-state, city-by-city, neighborhood, high-school that the left fucking won. There are useful lessons stil to be learned for greens and gays etc.

The fact that millenials see 1968 as a disaster instead of a victory means they must get their history from television or sumpin.

7:my most charitable takes on it:

A. She reads unfogged but mispoke on the VFK/JFK/RFK meme.
http://www.unfogged.com/archives/comments_8558.html#813490

B. RFK kept campaigning until June, why can't I ?
(We remember he was campaigning in June 1968 because people of a certain age know where they were when Elvis/the Space Shuttle etc died.)

The analogy is between Hillary campaigning in June and RFK campaigning in June.

C. H wont quit until she's dead done Hillary NQNS '08.

D. She only has 35 years of experience making change happen, not 40, so she fumbled 1968 material.

112: The Democrats had a lot of complicated problems in '68, but Bobby's decision to run was more a result of those problems than a cause.

Hillary is quite right to cite Bobby as an example of someone who ought not have given up the fight. One can reasonably argue that Hillary's and Bobby's circumstances aren't analagous, but to the extent they are, the analogy clearly plays in Hillary's favor. There's nothing surprising at all in her wanting to draw that comparison.

The fact that millenials see 1968 as a disaster instead of a victory means they must get their history from television or sumpin.

Television told me Nixon won.

Or maybe just obsessed with the images and symbols of politics instead of actual policy or improving people's lives. Or authoritarian, desperately needing a charismatic leader instead of themselves concentrating on congress and gruntwork. Obama will stop the war, Obama will get health care, Obama will do whatever.

We didn't need Bobby or Gene. We had Robert Drinan and a cast of millions.

Who knows?

Hillary is quite right to cite Bobby as an example of someone who ought not have given up the fight

Except in that "getting shot in the head" is not the same kind of "giving up the fight" as "losing."

cause he was there, man.

Care to wager?

Also, I don't think Humphrey even bothered to contest the California primary. Very different rules for delegate allocation back then.

I know I shouldn't read unhinged pro-Clinton sites, but what is the deal with staying in to fight for Florida and Michigan? Everyone knows that the day Sen. Clinton bows out, the DNC votes to allow every MI and FL delegate to the convention.

15,21 I'm from NJ and "Barry" and "scary" do not rhyme for me at all.

What part of Ogden Nash's language don't you understand ?

Short confession: I almost misread HRC for Her Royal ...

I know I shouldn't read unhinged pro-Clinton sites, but what is the deal with staying in to fight for Florida and Michigan?

You can't win if you don't play. I think the best explanation of Clinton's (actually, the Clintons') behavior is that she knows the Democratic nominee is going to win. Emerson might be able to win this year on a platform made up solely of his comments. If Obama wins, there's a new power in the party, and she and Bill and the DLC would prefer to extend their sixteen year reign. And there's little downside for her: if she somehow blows up the party, what's the harm to her?

130: TPM posted something yesterday under the heading, "Oxygen," in which a reader remarked that all of the Clinton gambits now amount to little more than buying time and trying to seize a tiny bit of limelight to keep the campaign going into June. Sounds about right to me. Come June 8, we'll see. But I do think she'll bow out then. Also, this is interesting: seems Puerto Rico isn't winner take all and is a caucus. Huh, who knew?

132: You're not the biggest believer in civic virtue, are you? And by the way, if Emerson's on the ticket, I'm quitting my job and going to work for him full time. Just so we're clear.

Henley is great on this.

About a day when you'd have a girlfriend and no longer be spending Friday nights online?

Fuck, wrong thread.

135: That really is great. I'm not sure why I don't read Henley more often. I guess because I have you to do it for me. You're like the bestest clipping service ever, Ogged.

135: Indeed, a little more perspective than provided by some of us (me, that is) caught up in the throes of WTFedness. "The full Budd Dwyer" is some hard shit, though. (But to Henley still I say hey man nice shot.)

The full Budd Dwyer" is some hard shit

Word. I've seen the video. If I decide to do that to myself, I hope I'm polite enough to do it outdoors, because a serious amount of blood came out of that dude.

140: Ah, but the spectacle was what drew attention to what Budd wanted the attention drawn to. If he'd done it tidily and quietly, a great many things would have been hushed up, and there would have been time to 'find' a letter of resignation...

I just noticed, in a linked small-town paper story, the statement: "this is not 'excellent news for Hillary Clinton'" So that that phrase has migrated off the comment boards and into the general discourse.

I know I am being ignored, amd I am trying to avoid a slander suit, but I did find a published historian knowingly & publicly distorting or misinterpreting the facts for some purpose that might trivially support an argument or candidate very disturbing. How far will Obama supporters go?

if the Democrats hadn't totally imploded in 1968. But inasmuch as they epically, completely, blew themselves up in 1968

Perhaps Eric Rauchway can defend that statement with something better than Ari's clowning in #119. One might compare 1968 to the 1948 D, 1964 R, or 1980 D intraparty fights. Or one might defend a thesis that the Democrats should have been expected to win in 1968.

Otherwise, some books might need re-examination.

Preferred scenario: HRC goads Obama into fighting a duel. Mark Penn coats HRC's rapier blade with poison - but in the fight they switch weapons. Bill lifts a goblet to toast HRC's victory after she stabs Obama, unaware that the wine, too, has been poisoned by Sidney Blumenthal, who intended it for John Edwards (stabbed through the wall hanging by Obama in the previous scene). Enter Al Gore, to carry off the nomination, being the only prominent Democrat left alive.