Jesus Christ, another one of these. Where the hell am I, anyway? McAuliffe promised me that Iowa, Nevada, a few other states, and it would be over. I never expected to be talking to every Pennysaver operation published on the Great Plains.
Another two-bit newspaper, asking questions I’ve answered thousands of times. Asking questions I answer seven times a day. But these self-important small-time journalists want to feel big just once in their lives, so here we go.
Do you think Shirley Chisholm went through this? She’s lionized now as a groundbreaker, but I bet from day one the pundits were telling her to shut up and go home. Funny how we never hear about them anymore.
I suppose we could skip this “meeting” if we were in a state with a decent number of Democrats…or people. But noooo…the votes of the three Democrats of South Dakota count more than the votes of the Democrats of Florida. Still don’t get that one. Well, I do get it…it was a dumb move, and the people must be punished. Idiots.
What’s after this? Some cattle ranch, and then talking to Stephanie Herseth’s assistant fart catcher, while she hypes Obama. Obama. Jesus, Barack…get over yourself and stop refusing to put me on as VP. that’s what most Democrats want…including the working class and Latino voters you just can’t win. I can’t win African-Americans and upper middle class. We can help each other…you need me in North Carolina, Arkansas, Florida, Nevada…God knows where else. Edwards was right…Obama’s a nice guy who doesn’t have what it takes to win.
Edwards. Heh, another Richardson type…happy to play both sides of the street until they think it’s safe to take a stand. And they talk about leadership.
Hell, I want this whole thing over, too. I haven’t spent a week in the same place for months. I’m a multi-millionaire. I’m a respected and feared Senator, a mother with a classy daughter, and a husband who was the most successful president of our lifetimes (they’ve lied about him as much as about me). The media hates me — what else is new — and a loud sliver of the Democratic Party hates me. It’s not enough to see for them to see Obama win, they want to see me lose. Christ, how long has it been since I wore shorts for a whole day? The pundits are bored now, and everyone wants it to be Obama v McCain and wants me to shut up. As if the world would end if they had “only” four months to talk about flag pins and crazy clerics. It’s not as if they’re going to carefully study policy issues for four months — it’ll be more horserace shit, an hour of news stretched and repeated for 24 hours. Why not give them what they want? These people deserve it!
Because I did this shit for several years, and they want me to shut up two weeks from the finish line. Because they have no attention span, and it ticks them off that not everyone has signed on to their little program. It ticks them off that some people still like me. It ticks them off that I’m still here, and most people in Puerto Rico want to vote for me, and thousands of people on Montana and South Dakota do, too. It’s gonna make them uncomfortable to see thousands of people still voicing their own opinion that maybe Obama isn’t so great after all…even though they don’t care that 1 out of 4 Republicans are still telling McCain to get stuffed. Even though this shit keeps McCain off the front page and holding sad little barbecues in Arizona.
Okay, speech is winding down and lo and behold he has a question..here we go again. “Why am I in the race?” Why the hell not? This is the closest nomination race in decades, and I didn’t come all this way to give up when Chris Matthews’ leg gets tingly.
Cue answer: I’m the natural substitute in case something happens to Barack. Is anything going to happen? Of course not…but I’m not going to back out two weeks away from the finish line after two years of this crap.
Offer examples: how about 1980, when Ted Kennedy contested the nomination at the convention with a fraction of the odds that I have. Did the media try to push him back into the kitchen? Nooo…he was a Kennedy, even if he was undermining a sitting president in serious trouble, everyone ate it up. Ted…poor Ted. We can’t lose him. These days we need every Kennedy in the Senate we can get. How many tragedies can they stand…
Frankly, a lot of this — the good and the bad — could be flipped. The presidential campaign is an exhausting, nearly endless exercise in superficiality that demands the tolerance and patience of a Paris Hilton while also the incisiveness and smarts of a James Wolcott. It’s a testament to the professionalism of Obama, Clinton, and McCain that more of this stuff doesn’t happen everyday.
The comment was a piece of somewhat careless reasoning, but … the response is frightening. The pundits are building to a frenzy, like they smell the chance to destroy Hillary, not just her candidacy but her career — they’re claiming that she is soulless and the next stage of the narrative will be that the American people have rejected her, want her out of public life completely. If she gets the VP spot the media will try to submarine the Dem ticket, making every independent comment by her a sign of undermining Obama, and finding voters to say they won’t vote for him with her on the ticket. Bums me out to see liberal outlets like HuffPo leading the mob.
is that the people who actively support change are knee deep in supporting and spreading the media garbage. I no longer wonder why people register as independents.
She meant nothing by it. All she was trying to say was these primary contests often last this long if not longer. As a fervent Obama supporter, I am certain Hillary did not mean to imply that something bad could happen to her opponent so there was reason to stay in the race.
<
p>When she does something I disagree with I am usually first to jump on her back, but this was not meant the way some have tried to make it sound.
It was ugly. And it should be repudiated.
I’m not making an opinion here about Hillary and what she did or didn’t say, but someone gave detailed thoughts and you just said they’re “ugly.” Why do you disagree? What’s your rational?
I should probably stay away, as I wrote too much on the other recent thread about this. I have studied RFK extensively and have been surprised that there seem to be more people defending Senator Clinton’s remarks than upset by them. So I replied, trying to show why her comments were wrong and out of place.
<
p>First, Clinton raised a very sensitive topic regarding assassinations and death at a time of fierce discussion about death threats on Barack Obama. As Mark Shields of the Newshour said on Friday, Clinton’s comments were “at the best, totally reckless” in this context. Unintentionally, she linked her continued candidacy with Obama’s death based upon a linkage to Robert Kennedy’s death forty years ago. It’s hard to figure out why else she would have made a statement about RFK’s assassination. In my mind, it’s ugly to use another politician’s death to justify your presidential campaign and we should repudiate those who make such bizarre arguments.
<
p>Second, her comments about Kennedy took place amidst a number of other specious arguments, particularly about her “lead” in the popular vote count and the longevity of the Democratic primaries. In 1968, the Democratic state primaries were not binding and they began in earnest in May, not January and early February like today. When California was at the end of the primary season, its delegates meant that a large pool remained to be won. That is not so today. The race is practically over, unless some catastrophe happens (in which case, Mrs. Clinton would get more than her fair shot at the nomination, she wouldn’t need to make the argument).
<
p>Third, one struggles to figure out how Clinton’s comments DON’T undermine Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. Rather than compliment Barack Obama, and he is at least starting to reach out to her supporters, Clinton seemed to be hinting that the leading nominee might die, in Montana or South Dakota no less! This cuts much too close to signal any real effort on her part for reconciliation between the Dems warring factions.
<
p>Now, admittedly, this doesn’t help anybody get health care, any soldier come home safely from Iraq, or reduce greenhouse gas emissions so I should move on. But it really shocked me that Clinton would be so careless regarding Robert Kennedy, sometimes considered the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.
The logic of the argument is (was): I should stay in the race in case Obama gets shot. And as the NYT editorial board (which endorsed Clinton) pointed out today, she’s said this more than once (more than a month ago). I haven’t heard anyone contest that this is the basic logic of the Clinton statement. The NYT editorial also pointed out that Clinton issued a not-really apology apology (to paraphrase: “I’m sorry if anyone was offended by what I said”).
<
p>I agree that Clinton has the right to stay in the race. But good lord, the logic of this particular statement is basically delusional and really quite offensive. It does damage to the reputation of what is otherwise a strong candidate. An unfortunate statement yes. No need to repeat it. What does it mean that a potential leader is saying such bizarre things? Aren’t tactfulness and a sense of realism and pragmatism desirable traits in a leader? We just had 8 years of a president that can’t face reality and we’ve paid dearly for it. We just had 8 years of a president who can’t say I made a mistake. I hope Clinton says tommorow on the sunday circuit: “I made an in error in making that statement referring to the RFK assasination, I’m very sorry”.
<
p>In terms of legacy, I think people will remember these things. I still recall McCain’s denouncement of the Swift Boat tactics. McCain showed integrity in that time. That increased my respect for him. This event decreased my respect for Clinton.
Had Clinton immediately said:
<
p>
<
p>I would have thought better of her and been comforted that she would admit a mistake and reach out to make amends. But she didn’t.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new…
Because it sounds like you do not. The comment Hillary Clinton made about Robert Kennedy;s assassination was in a conversation she had about how the primary season has gone on into June in past campaigns. I actually had the same conversation with someone I know a few weeks ago. We both talked about Robert Kennedy’s assassination and how it happened in June. Barack Obama never entered my thoughts or our conversation.
<
p>Maybe you were not alive when Robert Kennedy was shot. Hillary Clinton was and so was I. There is nothing in Hillary Clinton’s commnent and my conversation with my friend that anyone without an agenda would take any other way than as a time marker. The primaries continued into June in 1968.
<
p>Your last statement, which implies that Hillary Clinton somehow smeared Robert Kennedy by her statement is just nonsensical and absurd. Maybe you should study Robert Kennedy a little harder. Sadly, he was assassinated and it was in June. Those are the facts and that is all Hillary Clinton relayed. BTW, Robert Kennedy really appealed to the working class and poor; some of the same groups that have been the bigggest supporters of Hillary Clinton.
<
p>Finally, Hillary Clnton’s reasons for why she should stay in the race are not specious. You keep making the point that 1968 primaries are different because they were not binding. What does that even mean? If it means the so-called pledged delegates back in 1968 could vote anyway they wanted back in 1968, how is that different from now? Also, your comment that the primaries did not begin in earnest until May 1968 ignores historical fact. The New Hampshire primary, which was a very crucial primary, was at the beginning of March. Hillary Clinton has received the most popular votes. Many Democrats feel that that fact is important in deciding on who to select as the party’s nominee. The party’s nominee must be someone who can win in November. BTW, neither Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama have sufficient delegates pledged to claim the nomination yet, despite what Barack Obama and his fawning media fans claim.
<
p>This active member of the Demoratic Party, along with thousands of others, think Hillary Clinton is helping the Democratic party by staying in the race, despite what Obama and his fawning media says. We know the Democratic Party needs to make sure we have nominated the best candidate to be the standard bearer of the party who can win in November. Finally, we konw that we need to make sure everyone gets to vote who wants to vote and we need to make sure that every vote counts. In that way, the legacy of Robert Kennedy and others will be preserved.
<
p>
In 1968, the primaries had little to do with who the Democratic party nominated at their convention. By the time Robert Kennedy entered the race, the majority of delegates had pledged themselves to Lyndon Johnson (around 1500 or so out of 2026); when Johnson dropped out on March 31st, they pledged themselves to Vice President Hubert Humphrey. In effect, there were more “superdelegates” than pledged/elected delegates, the reverse of today. So, “what that means” is that the party was not going to nominate the elected representative but someone who did not run in any of the state primaries.
<
p>That is far far different from today, when the results from the states are formally binding on all delegates who come to the convention, except for the superdelegates. People from California or Missouri cannot bolt and change their minds at the convention and reverse the results of their primary or caucus. So the party rules changed significantly in 40 years and the process is much more open and democratic. For all his efforts, Robert Kennedy would have had a tough sell to win over the Democratic Convention in 1968, as conservative bosses around the nomination distrusted he and his unorthodox coalition of African American and white anti-war voters. That would not be true if Robert Kennedy ran in 2008.
<
p>You’re right about Kennedy’s support from working-class blacks and whites, although he desperately wanted to get the college-educated youth vote as well. Neither Obama or Clinton has managed to win as broad a base as Kennedy did in 1968, and that’s something that the Democratic Party will have to work on in the general election.
<
p>Anyway, people on this forum are right when they say that it’s time to unify to defeat McCain and the Republicans. We obviously disagree on this matter, but it doesn’t help anybody in the real world very much and it’s gotten exaggerated here by both Clinton and Obama supporters, myself included. Let’s find some common ground and move on.
Primaries and caucuses aren’t binding now, either, short of the same popular expectation that affects the electoral college. We’ve already had pledged delegates switch against the process; many caucusgoers have been silenced because conventions at later stages have flopped away from people no longer in the race. For example, I’d have caucused for Richardson in Iowa, and would be disgusted today if my vote had been streamed into Obama’s column.
That is quite simply a lie. The only way she can claim anything like that is by entirely ignoring results from four states and also ignoring all the uncommitted votes in MI; that is hundreds of thousands of voters that aren’t being counted in her supposed “popular vote”. How does that show a commitment to making sure that “every vote counts”? It doesn’t. That is is just empty rhetoric. You can repeat the claim as many times as you like, but it does absolutely nothing more than to rile up already committed Clinton supporters while pushing away the rest.
<
p>Clinton has every right to stay in the race and even to continue to run the kind of aggressive campaign she has been running, but if she does so, she cannot really expect to have her opponent give her a free pass every time she makes a gaffe, and the assassination comment was indeed that. Yes, RFK was assassinated in June, but that was also one of the worse moments in the history of the Democratic party and most certainly the worst in Democratic primary history. Invoking that event, even unintentionally, touches a sore spot, especially when used in a context where Clinton is trying to benefit herself. Obviously, the reaction to the comment has been overblown, but that is not in any way Obama’s fault and is also par for the course during an election in which the Clinton campaign has not hesitated for a second to jump all over every misstatement by anyone in the Obama campaign.
<
p>
And the Clinton campaign has hardly “jumped all over every misstatement by anyone in the Obama campaign.” BTW, Obama’s arrogant comment about small town people in Pennsylvania deserved to be criticized. Even its plain meaning was offensive to a lot of people; it required no stretching as the Obama did, and what you just did with the reference made to Robert Kennedy’s assassination. BTW, I, and other Democrats who were around at the time, do not need you or Barack Obama telling us what Robert Kennedy’s assassination meant. It is that type of arrogance, and the dishonesty in his campaign tactics, that is going to make me think twice about voting for Barack Obama in the fall. And no, I will not be voting for John McCain. I will write in Hillary Clinton’s name. Obama and his campaign need to really make up a lot of distance, especially with this latest tactic, to get me and millions of other people to believe that he is worthy of my vote.
You say about Hillary’s RFK statement:
<
p>
<
p>Here’s what they actually said, starting with pokesperson Bill Burton:
<
p>
<
p>David Axelrod:
<
p>
<
p>and later
<
p>
<
p>Senator Obama:
<
p>
<
p>What specific comments made by Obama campaign officials shows them spinning the RFK comment into something it wasn’t? I don’t think there’s one example; I think it’s an urban myth that the Obama campaign is behind this controversy. Fact is that her statement was controversial enough for the blog/MSM chattering class to run with it on their own. No campaign “tactics” except staying above the fray.
<
p>Sorry, Obama is not to blame for this one.
Jerome Armstrong has a great post about how this throwaway comment was turned into a controversy, with the help of one Obama staffer. The whole thing is worth the read, but I’ll quote one passage he lifts from Politico:
<
p>
<
p>
I read the Jerome Armstrong piece. And the Bill Burton quote mentioned in your excerpt is the first quote cited in my last comment, “Senator Clinton’s statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign”. I dunno, seems tenuous to say that is the Obama camp spinning this out of proportion, no? What am I missing?
<
p>I still think the blogs/media reaction would be the same, with or without Burton’s statement.
I think that Obama’s campaign breathed a light wind into the embers, and the media took it from there. No, it isn’t being used as a club, but nor would it have been a story without the help from Obama’s spokesman.
You continue to repeat the bogus popular vote lie and now want to lecture me on dishonest? And in support of the candidate who feels the need to confabulate sniper fire stories in order to sound more impressive? Give me a break.
<
p>I also resent you accusing me of “stretching” the meaning of the JFK comment. I did no such thing. I did not claim her comment meant something different than she intended. I only pointed out that it touches a sore spot, which it most definitely does. I know she didn’t mean anything bad by it, but it really did not come out very well. If you are honest with yourself you will have to admit that Clinton would have killed Obama with this if he had said the same thing.
<
p>And yes the Clinton campaign has most defintely jumped all over every of Obama’s gaffes. I cannot think of a single gaffe that her campaign has not responded to within 24 hours of it happening.
My statement was that the Obama campaign has been dishonest. For example, see how the Obama campaign misrepresented the quote by President Bill Clinton- a Democrat- when he said that Obama’s claimed opposition to the Iraq war was a fairy tale because Obama kept voting for funding of the war. Maybe that is what you mean by a “lecture?”
<
p>In any event, it would be helpful if you could give one example of an Obama gaffe that the Clinton campaign “jumped all over,” besides of course the comment he made about small town residents, which I mentioned.
We all know that Obama will be the Democrat’s pick for President. That doesn’t mean that were out. Like many of you, I am a white middle class voter who feels that my party has been hijacked by a bunch of super left wing wackos who put the needs of illegal immigrants before the workers losing jobs. They are also the ones who support persecution of others in the name of their own cause. Don’t even get me started about their plan for the economy, lets just say you can kiss dreams of making it goodbye. I think those of us who support Hillary should start a third party based on moderate ideas so as we can combat the extreme right and extreme left. These people are ruining our country and we need to stop them before its to late. I say if an when the Democrats turn their back on Hillary and us, we gather all of the moderates and build a new movement. Hillary can still run as an independent and if she wins, we can build a viable third party.
Do you really think that the Democratic party “has been hijacked by a bunch of super left wing wackos”? That type of rhetoric is far from moderate, and of course the reality is nothing like remotely like that.
<
p>In any case, there is really no way Clinton can run as an independent unless she funds it mostly out of her own pocket and is willing to go back on all her past promises to support the party and whoever the eventual nominee is. I don’t think that is going to happen.
As a matter of fact I do, it may not be 100% there but it is becoming that way. The Democratic party of my day was about support of families, workers and the middle class American. Today’s Democrat is more concerned with the needs of a small sub section of people. Look at the average middle class family in this country, were getting killed. We pay most of our salaries to taxes and see no return on what we give. I could have sworn that Deval Patrick was going to lower my property taxes, what happened. Instead he is spending my hard earned money on nonsense like a grassroots organizer and paying his friends $100,000 to push an agenda that does little for the people of this state.
<
p>I hate to break the news to you all, but were in for some rough times in the next few years. Our state has spent so much money that the only option is to increase taxes. As a small business owner in the western part of the state, I wonder how I will survive. Meanwhile I get to hear about hope and change for a few, while I am seeing my way of living go down the drain. Do you honestly think people aren’t seeing through the nonsense, why do you think Mass has one of the highest net migrations in the country.
<
p>Its not because they are Republicans, its because they are sick and tired of seeing their state turn into a socialist hell whole. Middle class people are being exterminated and were all becoming poor. There is no hope for the people of this state until we get some politicians who know how to run something. We can’t live in a world where we can solve every problem by spending more and more money.
<
p>I am an old school Democrat and I am reminded of the days of the great Ed King. He knew what it was like to be working class so he froze all property taxes and also reduced spending so we could attract the jobs that made this state the economic powerhouse that its used to be. Nope, were left with Dukakis two and were all gonna pay with no jobs and no homes. Until I see another person like Ed King, I have no faith in todays Democrats. Their nothing more then a bunch of children who know nothing about the value of a dollar.
but does not in any way indicate that the party has been hijacked by “wackos” as you put it. Do you really think that the reason we are we are is because there aren’t enough moderates in government? On the contrary, it is exactly because Democrats have been too moderate and have not stood up for solid Democratic principles and have allowed the Republicans to drive this country in the direction of ruin.
<
p>It is not the left, but the right you should be attacking.
<
p>In any case, I don’t know what you think the solution or MA economic woes are. People have been leaving the state not because there are no jobs but because the cost of living is so high, mostly because of an inflated housing market but also because of rising heating costs. I don’t see how you can blame either of those things on bad government, unless perhaps you think the government should have been doing more to build more affordable housing.
<
p>
She would never run as an independent. If she were even thinking about that, she would have been a lot harder on Barack Obama than she was.
Despite the Obama campaign spin and the fawning media, neither Obama or Hillary Clinton have sufficient delegates yet to gain the party nomination. If you really want to make Hillary Clinton your presidential candidate in November, then contact her campaign and volunteer make phone calls to the remaining states. If Hillary Clinton is still ahead in the popular vote by the time the primaries are over, then the Democratic Party has a difficult decision to make. That is why the Obama campaign spun the RFK reference by Hillary Clinton (besides the fact that they hoped it would give him an excuse not to offer her the VP slot) and why his supporters will not give it up; they are worried. So go to HillaryClinton.com and volunteer. Also, donate some money while your there. Change your words into action.
hey sorry I’m sure you totally endorse that stance but just on the offchance that you might really mean something like:
<
p>”was the most craven self centered triangulating SOB who through a combination of idiocy and dumb luck landed a republican majority in ’94 and then rode the dotcom bubble to glory, appeared like all he did was get a blow job from a 21 year old intern which is a hell of alot better than lying about WMD!”
<
p>I just thought I’d pipe up.
<
p>I mean and thats just setting aside that Reagan dropped the top tax rate from 70ish% (!!!!) to 20s and killed the global communist threat while he was at it.
<
p>The thing that sucks about democracy is that the mob can always vote to take your livelihood (ya greedy bastard!) but the thing thats great is that when it fails they can chuck Jimmy Carter under the bus.
<
p>
Aside from involving a Kennedy? It’s not so much that the challenger stayed in the race until June, it’s that the nomination process divided the party and was a major factor in the Democrats losing in Novemner. Me thinks Hillary needs a better talking point than these two elections.
<
p>Certainly her talking point about Bill’s 1992 nomination not being decided is intellectually dishonest also. First, the primaries started in mid Febuary and a bulk of them where still to be held in June. Secondly, by mid March Paul Tsgonas quit the race and Clinton had to hold off a late surging Jerry Brown. But Clinton never was in no real danger of losing, winning 3372 delegates to Brown’s second place finish of 596 delegates. My point is that is this is not a valid comparison either.
<
p>As an early Obama supporter, and someone who appreciates that stress of a campaign, I give Hillary Clinton a pass on the RFK remark. She mindlessly used this talking point before and used it again and this time it blew up. Stupid comment, but people are making a mountian out of a mole hill.
<
p>I do object to the intellectually dishonest comments I mentioned above regarding ’68, ’80 and ’92. I also object to her equally dishonest comments comparing the Michigan and Florida issues to suffurage and slavery. I also object to the two-faced approach her campaign has taken with Flodia and Michigan Primaries, siding with the DNC pre-Iowa and New Hampshire when it was in their interest and then changing positions when it suited their needs. Yes, it reminds me of the worse aspects of the Clintons. Does nayone for a second believe that Hillary would be fighting to “count all the votes” in Florida and Michigan, if it was not in her interest to do so?
<
p>Given how close this race is, Clinton should be in this race. But with a very small chance to win, she and her campaign should be equally concerned about the Dems chances in November than her long-shot chance in Denver. Sure some Obama supporters and to a lesser extent Obama staffers have crossed the line a few times themselves. But Obama himself has not displayed the low road rhetorical flair that Hillary and Bill have soon since January. This has only solidified my respect in Obama and confirmed my fears about Hillary.
This issue reminds me so much of Howard Dean’s innocuous howl, and how it was used to thrust him from the 2004 election. Ironically, by attempting to push her from the race, Dean has been doing the same to Clinton over the last several weeks.
<
p>I appreciate Obama’s attempts to reduce rhetorical flaring, but I’ve been disappointed by the fact that he has demonstrated a willingness to spin issues like any other politician. So much so, in fact, that I switched to Hillary because (among other things) I believe she is better suited to engage the Republicans in these kinds of rhetorical battles. We’ll see. I continue to hope for an Obama-Clinton ticket.
…I think the mood of the electorate has changed and they want a “kinder, gentler” race. Frankly that’s why I jumped for Obama early. For a change, I don’t think the nastiest candidate wins. Certainly the candidate that is best at IMEDIATELY turning their opponents attacks against their opponent is essential for victory.
<
p>Parts of John McCain is trying to convey the kinder, gemtler side (parts of him are failing). Next to Hillary he’ll be a charmer. Next to Obama he’ll seem like the next Dick Cheney.
<
p>I lean towards an Obama/Clinton ticket, but research could presuade me otherwise (and I’m am concerned by having to “radical” a ticket)
… of what kind of a race it will be, it’s whether the Dems will be prepared for any kind of attack by the Republicans. Obama has defined himself as a high-road candidate — we’re not even sure if he can take the low-road — so having Hillary’s team in the mix would allow more flexibility to respond to McCain’s strategy. And let’s not forget how many well intentioned and better qualified Democrats have been beaten on the low road. I always think of John Lovitz’s Mike Dukakis on SNL: “Why am I losing to this guy?”
…I think the dynamics will be different…especially with a Republcian TRYING to take the high road. I’m not ignorant of the past and the failures of not having a quick response. Obama’s team has done OK on rapid response and certainly needs to get better. His two responses to Rev Wright illustrate that point.