The news media have been buzzing about Clinton's latest blunder. Speaking to a newspaper's editorial board last Friday, she said, "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."
Her campaign was quick to say that her emphasis was not on the assassination, but on the primary still being undecided in June. That's a bit disingenuous though. There were a lot more states holding late primaries in 1992 and 1968.
In 2008, most states have moved there primaries and caucuses up -- in fact, they will all be completed by June 3rd. In those years, it was also not impossible for Bill Clinton or Kennedy to catch up in pledged delegates, as it already is this year for Clinton.
Clinton did say, "The Kennedys have been much on my mind in the last days because of Sen. Kennedy, and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for the entire nation and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever."
She's right that it was insensitive of her to bring up the Kennedy assassination just after the tragic news about Senator Edward Kennedy's cancer diagnosis. But that was not the worst thing about her statement. Far worse was the implied imagery of something like that happening to Barack Obama.
This nation still has far too much racism. But in spite of it, a majority of the Democrat's pledged delegates have chosen a black man as their presidential nominee. Add this to the fact that Clinton has continued her campaign even after being mathematically eliminated. The only way she could become the nominee is if something bad happened to Obama.
In light of those facts, I have to wonder about Clinton's assassination reference. Is she continuing her hopeless campaign because she thinks something like that will happen to Obama? That's pretty ghoulish.
It wasn't a gaffe.
ReplyDeleteWhen you reference assassination in historical context as an insinuation to your political opponent on three separate occasions, that's a tactic.
This was not the first time she made that statement. It was a talking point used at least three times prior to this, but it went largely unnoticed by the media those times, in part because the airwaves were dominated by Wrightgate then.
ReplyDeleteObama gives me hope.
ReplyDeleteJust like Kinky gave me stupidity.
Her rapid descent into irrational thought disqualifies her from
ReplyDeleteholding "ANY" public office, and also shows that she doesn't think
well under pressure two traits no one wants in a President.
For her to invoke an assassination to advance her pathetic arguments is as low as one can go in a public forum. She is, in my mind, inciting some moron(s) to carry out her thought.
I wish I could disagree with you, TGB, but I can't think of any other reason for her to bring up assassination as a topic.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I thought by linking to this comment that it'd show up here as a comment. It didn't...dangit...I hate computers...foul evil..confusing...wicked things.
ReplyDeleteAnyway...umm... assassination references. It hit me like Huckabee's JOKE about Obama dodging bullets. It hit me like nooses hanging from a tree as a joke or a warning. None of it has any place in our democracy.
I'm ashamed of Hillary.
Menopausal Mick
It's time for Hillary to concede. Gracefully is out of the question, but concede.
ReplyDeleteThese comments are beyond reprehensible and part of a pattern of such behavior throughout this campaign. It's past time that the Democratic leadership reigned her in.
The only way you link Obama with Hillary's statement is by using what you call "implied imagery". Is that like mind-reading? You seem to know exactly what Hillary meant even though she never said what you are implying. Imagine that.
ReplyDelete