Clinton Touches off National PTSD
Senator Clinton's reference to the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in June of 1968 does not seem to me consequential, for all the brouhaha it has provoked. She was just saying that many previous primaries have gone on into June, including that of Bobby Kennedy before he was cut down.
The idea that she was thinking of the possibility that her rival, Barack Obama, might meet a similar fate is absurd. But I saw pundits on cable t.v. intimating that it was plausible.
I fear she inadvertently stumbled into a hornet's nest, though.
Because fears for Obama's safety are widespread, and they are shared by Homeland Security, which gave him Secret Service protection 18 months ago.
It is well known that Colin Powell's wife did not let him run for president because she was afraid he would be assassinated. Imagine the power of that fear to shape American life. Imagine if Powell had run and won, forestalling W. from ever coming to power.
Former Republican presidential aspirant (and apparently huge tool) Mike Huckabee recently went so far as to joke about Obama being shot at. He was speaking at a National Rifle Association event:
' Huckabee made an off-color joke during his speech in Louisville, Kentucky, when a loud bang was heard off-stage. "That was Barack Obama," Huckabee quipped, "He Just tripped off a chair. He was getting ready to speak. Somebody aimed a gun at him and he…he dove for the floor." '
The shadow that falls on African-Americans who devote themselves to public service at the highest levels is that of Dr. Martin Luther King.
In evoking the tumultuous year of 1968, Clinton was trying to remind people of the long and divisive Democratic primary. But without meaning to, she reminded them of April 4, not June 5, of MLK along with RFK.
I don't think it is healthy that the information age causes such memes to circulate with such velocity that they are given far more significance than they deserve. Seeing Hillary abjectly and in a stunned voice apologize for any offense made me feel sorry for her. When you speak in public, you always risk misspeaking or having the audience misunderstand your intent. We make our presidential candidates speak constantly in public for 2 years straight, now. It is like a medieval form of torture. It is amazing that anyone runs this gauntlet.
Elections should be about issues, not about this sort of hothouse speculation about personalities.
But there is one sense in which her campaign, at least, bears some responsibility for her current straits. Clinton operatives behind the scenes have been smearing Obama as a Muslim, and it was they who dug up that photo of him in Kenyan clothes. Clinton even said Obama was not a Muslim "as far as I know." The malice demonstrated in those actions laid the groundwork for people to believe that Clinton was capable of such hostility toward Obama.
The incident, it seems to me, does tell us two other things.
The first is that the strategy of the Clinton camp, of continuing to campaign even after victory at the polls became numerically impossible--in hopes that Obama might stumble and alienate sufficient numbers of superdelegates--was not crazy. I don't approve of it, but that it could work or could have worked seems clear. It could easily have been Obama who stumbled yesterday. Ironically, it was Clinton.
The second thing the incident tells us is how traumatized the nation still is by those horrible killings 40 years ago, and how much unfinished business of healing those wounds there is. Hillary didn't mean to pick at the scab. But she did. And we bled a little, all over again.
posted by Juan Cole @ 5/24/2008 12:30:00 AM
|
Facebook
67 Comments:
Off Topic Juan but I have to ask your opinion on this
Remember Gulf war 1 Bush 1 had great approval ratings after that one just like his son would but higher oil prices tanked both of their economies and popularity.
Obama our press screams has a Muslim Dad!
Tell me if you were a Saudi watching satellite TV just whom would you want as President?
What do you want to bet the Saudi’s will turn on the oil pumps full blast for Obama to help the son of a Muslim have a good economy when he is President.
I’ll bet that if Obama wins the Muslim world will have high hopes for him I just hope Obama has a plan.
Oh a neither Bush 1 or 2 ever got oil from the Saudi’s even though they went to war for them do the Saudi’s prefer Democrats?
Have the Bushies ever figured out that they are getting played?
I don't see any trauma over this comment, but then I wasn't born until AFTER men walked on the moon...
The comment does show how clueless Clinton is. - HINT - The reason the '92 and '68 elections weren't decided until June was because MAJOR states (like California) hadn't voted yet.
This year California voted the 1st week of February. It's not a similar comparison at all... The fate of the candidacy doesn't hinge on Montana and North Dakota.
Frankly, I think you are being incredibly naive, Juan. I love your blog and your insights on Middle East politics, religion, and culture, but on this you seem to underestimate the gravity of what is being implied and the intrigues that were the cause of the political assassinations in the 60's and 70's. Political assassinations are almost always committed by politically calculating and self-interested human beings, not like acts of nature or by lone lunatics, as the beneficiaries of these acts would lead us to believe.
The "official" government and corporate media line was that they were each committed by a "lone deranged gunman acting alone" -- a recurring modus operandi I like to refer with the acronym LDGAA. Anyone who has bothered to scratch below the surface of the evidence in any of those cases knows that the assassinations were NOT committed by LDGAA, but involved many sophisticated people both in committing the horrendous crimes and the subsequent cover-up of those crimes. Black operatives in the CIA, among others, were clearly implicated in the assassinations of the two Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King, Jr. Certain elements in the CIA have been closely associated with the Mafia and organized crime at least since the time the OSS (predecessor to the CIA) recruited mobster "Lucky" Luciano to help bring down the Italian Fascist regime of Mussolini.
I think most Americans are emotionally unwilling to penetrate too deeply into these official mysteries because they will discover just how profoundly corrupt our government is and how true is the adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as Lord Acton famously said.
Do you remember the movie Fargo? The story was of Jerry, who thought he needed some money and thought he had a "win-win" way of getting it. Pulling off a crime that wasn't "really" a crime because no one would "really" get hurt. Once he'd dealt with the folks who do crimes for a living things got "out of hand".
That movie comes to my mind when I think of Bush, Cheney, the Oilmen, and the Robo-Warriors from 30,000 feet. They thought they needed some more money so they'd just do a crime that wasn't "really" a crime. They didn't actually DO the crime, they just exercised a little "benign neglect", really, the phrase the pros used to to describe their purposeful inattention. It was a "win-win" really, that'd pay off big time for all concerned. No one, who counted, would "really" get hurt. But once they'd dealt with the Neocons things got out of hand.
The same thing could happen to the Clintons. They crave just another looong toke on the pipe of power. They're pulling off a crime or two that aren't "really" crimes because no one who counts will "really" get hurt by them : reviving the Southern Strategy, diddling with the results of two stillborn primaries. But now they're hanging with the folks who do crimes for a living. Things could get out of hand.
"What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their Lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born Barack?"
And off will ride Reggie and Hugh, and William and Richard. And at the third blow he may fall on his knees and elbows... and they then dance in his brains and his gore... 'Let us away, knights; this fellow will arise no more.'
I marvel with Marge. How can they do these things for just a little bit of money or power?
Professor Cole:
Thank you for your reasoned response to Sen. Clinton's unfortunate choice of words. As a scholar you have to provide sources and evaluate the credibility of those sources. Could you at some future time provide sourcing for your charges that the Clinton campaign is responsible for the dissemination of the photograph and charges Sen. Obama is a muslim? I hope your sources are more reliable than Matt Drudge.
Professor Cole,
I must respectfully disagree with your confident conclusion that -- by pointing to RFK's assassination in June of 1968 -- Clinton was merely pointing to a divisive and drawn-out primary process, and the attendant characterization of any other interpretation as "absurd."
If, as you suggest, Sen. Clinton was simply using 1968 as an example of a divisive and drawn-out primary, why didn't she say so. That's an easy enough thought to put into words. Words like, "You know, in 1968, the primary was drawn out considerably as well," leap to mind. Why reference "assassination"? That was the only feautre of the 1968 primary that she referred to. She did not mention its duration or any other features of that primary that would be salient, if she were interested in making the point that you ascribe to her.
The most natural interpretation -- given that, in context, she was attempting to justify the continuance of her doomed campaign -- was that she was saying, "you never know what might happen." But in any event, there is nothing "absurd" about this reading.
"The idea that she was thinking of the possibility that her rival, Barack Obama, might meet a similar fate is absurd."
I think you're both right & wrong on this one. In terms of the propositional content of her utterance, yes -- she referred successfully to the end-date of Robert Kennedy's campaign. But there's no way to escape the resonances, implications, implicatures, and analogical connections that are as intrinsic to human language as reference and truth-functionality. To make a comparison along one dimension is to invite comparison along others that accompany it -- whether you want to or not. One does not say "the number of people killed in WWII" as way of casually alluding to the number 50 million. Hillary has a history of loose-lips pronouncements (running from the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" to her recent self-crowning as the white worker's candidate). These have the dual characteristics of evoking unwanted analogies and giving a peek into her otherwise well-hidden internal world of associations and valuations. The Kennedy statement is, alas, the latest in this series.
I agree. She was only using it to remember that primaries were going on in June. The liberal (and conservative) press is wrong on this, and I'm a Clinton hater.
Even moving past the tin-eared insensitivity to bringing up RFK's assassination as some cheap mnemonic placeholder for "June nomination fights", nothing else holds together for the analogy.
The entire context of Hillary's repeated references to June of 1968 (even momentarily leaving behind RFK's assassination) is to give an example of how nomination fights can drag on until June and, in her words, it's "nothing particularly unusual" (her March Time interview).
So, you, if you're Hillary Clinton, are trying to argue that nomination fights drag on until June all the time, no harm done.
And as your example, you choose Nineteen-Sixty-Frigging-Eight.
The year in which LBJ was a lock to run for re-election, until he announced he wouldn't at the end of March. After which Humphrey throws his hat in the ring. He then faces not one but two anti-war challengers, one of whom gets shot and killed after winning the late California primary. Then, at the convention a police riot breaks out against anti-war demonstrators. And then Humphrey is selected by the party insiders though his vote totals trail and without having campaigned in a single primary.
And then the Democratic candidate loses to Richard Nixon in the general election.
And THIS is the example that comes to your mind when you seek to establish that nomination fights drag into June all the time, and are "nothing particularly unusual", nothing to see here, everything's fine, move along.
Despite the fact that it was a spectacularly unusual nomination fight, one which began astoundingly late and which ended up in a loss for the Democrats and the victory of the criminal Richard Nixon.
Stuff and nonsense.
My reaction to this "news" was much the same: let's not make a thing, okay? I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton, and look forward to her official exit from the race. But this kind of silly-season kerfuffle is tedious and unhelpful, regardless of who happens to be on the receiving end. Live by the flag pin, die by the flag pin, I suppose.
I have appreciated your blog for a long time now. Thank you very much for critical information I would not get otherwise.
I think, however, you are wrong on this one. Who in their right mind would mention the word "assassination" in an answer to "why are you staying in the race?" It is not inconsequential. It is not even unprecedented in her comments.
It shows she has very few boundaries-limits that she places on herself. It is no surprise that the first serious woman candidate for president has very sharp elbows. But this last jab is too much.
Phooey. The real problem is that it was a slow news day and the media trashing of the Clintons knows no bounds. The vast majority of Americans have ZERO grasp of history, NO emotional attachment to the memory of either RFK or MLK, and don't even know what Clinton said or why. Nor do they care. The vast majority of primary voters on all sides have spent little or no time informing themselves about the candidates' positions or background, unless you count endless hours of watching TV comment and reading political spam emails, including inane and misleading YouTube videos. This is a manufactured controversy, which is part and parcel of the process of manufacturing consent for FOUR MORE YEARS of the same crap we've been inflicting on ourselves and the world for the past four DECADES.
And by the way, Juan, I love your blog. I've learned a great deal about Iraq and the region from your informed comments. When you're laying out facts, you're great. However, in speaking about Clinton's statement regarding whether Obama is a Muslim, you've missed the boat. If you can, put yourself in the shoes of a woman who confidently stated to the entire world that she and her husband had had difficulties in their marriage, but that they had put that behind them. Then imagine that you were she, and when the Lewinski allegations were made, you stepped forward to call it all a big lie. Then, imagine standing by your husband's side as he admitted that he had, once again, strayed. Now, I ask you - would you be willing to unequivocally make any statement whatsoever about the beliefs or behavior of another person? Would you, really? I would not. I would, if pressed, qualify any such statement with, 'as far as I know.' You also fail to mention that she finally added that disclaimer after having said more than once that Obama is not a Muslim.
The ax I'm grinding is with the media, not you personally or Obama. The piling on of imputations every time Clinton opens her mouth is simply appalling. She's been turned from an accomplished individual with whom many have reason to disagree, into a Bitch/Goddess to be loathed and feared. It's a measure of the insanity and immaturity of the American people that they tolerate this behavior, much less participate in it.
Hillary misspoke? Hardly. She made the same statements, nearly verbatim on March 6 to Time magazine and made similar remarks in her May 7 speech.
Using the excuse that the Kennedys were on her mind in recent days is sadly disingenuous and rather disgusting.
Death threats were what prompted Obama to begin secret security protection last year, earlier than any other presidential candidate.
This is the woman who said "words matter" remember?
Thank you for your sane analysis. I immediately rejected the thought that she was intimating a possible assassination. I still hold that view, and hearing that intent attributed to her is quite, to me, unfair and painful. Especially to hear it from one of the longtime calm voices, Daniel Schorr, was one more shock. I especially think she would not have engaged such a proposal in a way to offend the Kennedy family. All that said, honestly in her defense, the other things you mention are quite unfortunate as well. The picture, the Muslim, maybe, and the rest at a time we need to heal....well, thank you very much for a cogent, lucid, and sensible analysis. Rev. Bev
In 1968, I worked for the BK campaign although I was too young to vote. I understand the assinations more clearly now, especially MLK having been gunned down by our government as the civil suit proved. What was more traumatic at the time were the riots and Chicago.
As for Clinton's gaffe, it wasn't nearly as ugly as Huckabee's, which until now I hadn't heard. You're quite correct about our marathon presidential election cycle being torturous, it's length clearly being absurd as is most of its content. Clinton's comment served to remind many how violent and militaristic our culture is. Unfortunately, if Obama starts telling it like it is, he could easily become a Bullworth; one need only look at Iraq to understand why. In that respect, 2008 is a lot like 1968.
I disagree that elections are about issues - whats more important than the issues is some expectation about how issues yet to be mooted will be handled, and for that, all you have to go on is personality and maybe history.
There was a great TV show here in Australia a decade ago called Geoffrey Robinson Hypotheticals, in which put a selection of notables through a hypothetical crisis of some kind.
http://www2.agsm.edu.au/agsm/web.nsf/Content/AGSMMagazine-Hypothetically
No current politician would ever put themselves through such an uncontrolled situation, but it would sure as hell give us an incredible insight into the prospective candidates - far more than the various so-called 'debates' we've seen. Why are the journalists involved in these debates as anything but moderators - why aren't the competitors allowed to ask each other questions and debate each other, and given a set amount of time each? Its pathetic.
I wonder if people were truly appalled or this just gave them more cannon fodder for complaining about Clinton's irrelevant candidacy.
More and more, her presence is not helping to advance any substantive issues within the Democratic party. I mean, this isn't like Edwards pressuring Obama and Clinton to talk about poverty, or Nader's inevitable candidacy. All she's doing is whining.
If indeed she were forcing Obama to talk about issues important to average joes and janes, I might support her soldiering on. But, of course, this is why Obama won over the democratic base--Clinton has demonstrated a lack of character, integrity, and substance. You can't vote for the bankruptcy bill in 2005 and then act like you're some populist prophet for whitey. It's pure narcissism.
You are giving Sen. Clinton the benefit of the doubt. What she said is beyond the pale.
She hinted in the past that the reason she is still in the race is because something catastrophic could happen, possibly to Sen. Obama. For the second time yesterday she references RFK's assasination as this "something" leading to her nomination.
It is unacceptable for anyone, especially Sen. Obama's nomination opponent, to bring up this tragic possibility as a reason for staying in the race.
Further, apologizing means that you recognize what you've done or said is offensive and wrong and you are sorry for your mistake, for saying it. Apologizing does not mean that you are sorry if someone is offended by what you said.
All some crazed, "hard working," "white, working class" nut job needs is a signal from Sen. Clinton that this could happen before it does.
If you watch the tape of the comment, you see a moment of hesitation, as if she immediately realized the possible implications of what she had said. For some reason, though, she let it stand and continued on.
"Clinton operatives" WERE NOT responsible for the photo of Obama in Kenyan clothing. Hillary said "as far as I know" after being badgered with the question several times. Your take on the RFK remark is appreciated, but you still fall prey to other urban myths about Clinton.
Juan, thank you. You have said what I believe many others have thought. This constant rant about every misspoken word that Hillary says in order to sell a story, speaks more about the people that says it than it does about her. You never hear Obama refer to himself as a white man (for obvious reasons) but nobody questions that. The MSM doesn't want a woman president, period.
Why this residual respect for Powell?
His lies helped get us into Iraq.
It is worth noting that Ms. Clinton didn't have to use the 1968 primaries as one of her two examples. In 1980 Ted Kennedy stayed in the primary race against Carter, in fact winning the June primaries, and also refusing to drop out of the race. Perhaps Hillary didn't want to remind us of that one, because Ted Kennedy ultimately lost that nomination. Either way, I believe that as a former First Lady who has spent a lifetime in politics, she and her advisers should be able to select less divisive examples to use while campaigning.
Mr. Cole,
I've been an avid reader of your blog for some time.
I agree with you that there was no malice intended in her words. I do take issue with her apology though. Too many times we hear "I regret that if..." That is not an apology. An apology would be "I made a mistake/error in judgement and offended people. For this, I'm sorry". THAT is an apology. Very few people in the public eye are able to make a real apology these days. Needless to say, it was disappointing.
Senator Clinton continues to amaze me.
There was a photo-op on Martin Luther King day, earlier this year, in which Senator Clinton visited the site of Mr. King's assassination.
She was filmed with a large smile on her face waving to onlookers below from the balcony - the very spot of the assassination.
As a candidate she is so focused on winning us over that she forgets to act as graciously, and humanely as I am sure she truly is.
It's time for her to drop out, and start repairing the damage.
I don't agree with you...which I was surprised to find, as I very much respect your thoughtfulness on almost all subjects.
Watch KO's special comment...it makes it clear that they have been teasing at and sometimes brandishing this meme for a while now.
I know that it is hard to imagine a Democrat to be so craven, but then she did hire the "Democratic Karl Rove" (of Monsanto fame) to run her campaign, and he is still a part of her team.
I think that you, at risk of being driven into discussing the minutia of politicking, should call it for was it is...a shameless candidate fishing around in her bag of tricks and getting caught.
That is not to say that she actually wants him to be assassinated--but you knew that part already.
Yes, I completely agree. Thank you.
We make our presidential candidates speak constantly in public for 2 years straight, now.
No, the candidates choose to do that. They also choose to do it without sufficient sleep. They also choose to do it after the odds are so long against them that they are screeching with increasing desperation. This blunder is not the fault of the public, or the "system." This blunder is on her.
I think you're basically right that Hillary MEANT to cite the June aspect of Robert Kennedy's assassination. She certainly didn't consciously mean anything else by her comments. But I also think only the Hillary camp would even be THINKING about this assassination in relation to this race, June or otherwise. Who else has even brought this June/RFK connection up besides HIllary? This was 40 years ago when the primary race was a very different process. To compare the timeline then with now is tenuous at best.
Even worse, resurrecting this tragedy in the context of justifying why she's still in the race - even if it relates to the month the tragedy happened - shows a callousness unbelievable in someone as savvy as she is. She knows how politically charged that word is - especially in the black community. She knows she is hoping that something bad will happen to Obama (whatever that might be) to help her overcome his delegate lead. She may not have meant her comment that way, but it's very troubling that "assassination" was such a big part of her psyche that it came to the surface.
Thanks for trying to inject some sanity into this issue. By the look of some of the comments, it hasn't done that, but it's the thought that counts.
There is a bullying antagonism about Hillary Clinton, who I much admire, that is astoundingly sexist and almost impossible to bear coming from supposedly progressive people.
I am going to have a hard time voting for Barack Obama, a very hard time, after this ceaseless sexist bullying. A fine person is constantly vilified by Obama supporters in a way I never dreamed possible.
I admire Clinton.
Thanks to Juan Cole for being fair. I find the Clinton bashers quite frightening, because they are so completely sexist while pretending otherwise.
Instead of welcoming the candidacy of Obama, I am each day driven to turn away by the Clinton bashers.
I must disagree with you. Senator Clinton exhibited jaw-dropping insensitivity and poor judgment when she chose to refer to a political assassination in her remarks, and her non-apology completely omitted any possibility that the might have said something wrong.
Prof. Cole-thanks for your sane take on this. I agree with another commenter upthread that this is another reason to pile on Sen. Clinton. I agree with you that I think Sen. Clinton was simply noting the lateness that Sen. Kennedy was in the race in '68. That said, I can understand people being upset. Sen. Clinton has said some truly disgraceful things in the course of this campaign and really has taken the Dem. nomination into the toilet. That said, as another commenter said, her statement that Sen. Obama was a Christian "as far as I know", was indeed made only after she had been asked the same question several times by the CBS interrogator. Here is a Media Matters column about how Steve Kroft asked her the same question repeatedly until she finally said, "as far as I know". It includes a link to the "60 Minutes" clip in which it happened. Really, Sen. Clinton's decorum in this primary, and the very fact that, as another commenter said, she's in it this late, really are testimony to egotism, plain and simple. If she cared about the Democratic party more than her own candidacy, she would have conceded at least six weeks, maybe two months ago.
I don't know about the Kenyan photo, but it is very clear that this particular 'kerfuffle' is driven by hysteria.
I see a good number of Obama supporters realizing Clinton may pull off the popular vote win- the caucus strategy coming back to bite them- and turn into the de facto President-in-Waiting for four years, which they can't bear. That is low level True Believer supporters, who already are starting to "fear" every time the man gets into an airplane, and the Red State conservative Party establishment that rigged the caucuses for him as best they could.
And the hardcore conservatives- including the pundits and their media outlets- are realizing that Clinton support is holding rather than fading. Just when they thought they were safe with the more personally moderate/centrist and conservative-dependent Obama. And they've rolled out what Paul Krugman calls 'the Clinton Rules' once again- that everything the Clintons do reflects their evil nature. Their unforgivably evil nature being to consistently ruin the Right's power.
So, my take is that the noise is all basically "to hell with the rules and fairness and numbers, it's a militantly moderate or centrist moment in time and we demand Obama". As a Clinton supporter, that may ultimately be correct and the outcome. But it does show up that all the eyeball rolling, claims of lies, and other assertions and projections on her are not truthful or truly believed. They're instrumental and they are projections.
I keep on seeing the dynamics and outcomes of 1976 recapitulated in this Presidential campaign. We have a Carteresque candidate, a bad rerun of Ford, and a much-decried candidate who comes in third but for whom the long term trends are all favorable.
Jim Dickinson, in his post RFK Assassination Gaffe Mystery Solved?, observes that Jeffrey Toobin mentioned the assassination, in relation to the primary timeline, when answering a question from Larry King, and that Toobin's mention was on March 5.
Any deduction of who my political choice is from my pointing out Dickinson's observation would be groundless.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGCMCY
May 23, 2008
Renewing U.S. Leadership in the Americas
By Barack Obama
Since the Bush Administration launched a misguided war in Iraq, its policy in the Americas has been negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in peoples' lives, and incapable of advancing our interests in the region.
No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum. His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past. But the United States is so alienated from the rest of the Americas that this stale vision has gone unchallenged, and has even made inroads from Bolivia to Nicaragua. And Chavez and his allies are not the only ones filling the vacuum. While the United States fails to address the changing realities in the Americas, others from Europe and Asia – notably China – have stepped up their own engagement. Iran has drawn closer to Venezuela, and just the other day Tehran and Caracas launched a joint bank with their windfall oil profits.
[Huh???]
Sorry, I am just not impressed by this sought of foreign policy approach by Barack Obama.
Senator Clinton was speaking in a pre-arranged meeting with a newspaper editorial board, which she apparently knew was being video-recorded. It defies belief that the Clinton operation, which prides itself on rapid response and advancing, would not have the Senator fully prepared to answer the most obvious question to be posed to her, i.e., "why are you still in the race?" This leads one to believe that the Clinton operation is as shocked as Mr. Cole is that the "dog-whistle" message intended for super-delegates got picked up and amplified by the cable-blog echo chamber.
Lost of people are gunning for Nasrallah, but he doesn't care. Just saying...If you're black and you run for the highest office in the USA, of course the KKK will be gunning for you.
Most people in our country have constructed intellectual and emotional blocks in their mind that our country's government might be as vulnerable to ruthless power struggles and intrigues (of which political assassinations are manifestations) as are foreign governments.
So many people think "it can't happen here," like it can in Russia, or Chile, or other "lesser" countries. But it can, because we Americans are not inherently superior to any other people on earth; our political leaders are prone to the same corruption, vices, flaws, and ruthless intrigues as anyone else that make assassinations happen.
Hillary Clinton's recent remarks about Robert Kennedy's assassination June 5 of 1968 at the end of the primary process identify her as just such a flawed and profoundly corrupt political personality. However much we like to think the best of our American political figures, real people (like Hillary Clinton, Richard Nixon, and George H. W. Bush) secretly plot horrendous acts like assassination, unjustified wars of aggression against foreign peoples, and the like, for extremely self-serving reasons. People need to pinch themselves and wake up to reality.
I see that some people have been arguing that because people choose to enter this process they are not entitled to any sympathy or compassion. I think this is wrong--the fact that someone is suffering is the only pretext for showing them compassion.
In the same vane, I don't think there is any need to defend Clinton's judgment. As others have noted it seems part of a pattern and she had said this in March only to back off. So let's show the candidates some compassion for this brutal process while holding them accountable to the highest standards. I have expand3ed on this a little here.
Senator Clinton's comments may have been unpleasant to hear but they were valid. The real obscenity is that hate heads such as Huckabee and O'Reilly can get away with joking about violence towards Obama without being investigated and detained by the Secret Service. Afterwards, one might hope, their paperwork could be lost for an indeterminate period of time.
And the folks who keep whining about sexism are making it very hard for me, a feminist since the age of 11, to keep promising myself that I'll hold my nose and vote for Hilary if she is the nominee.
I dislike Hilary intensely - only since 2000 or so, when she switched sides on Palestine in order to win the NY Senate seat. Before 2000 I liked her well enough, and was puzzled by the Hilary haters. i thought they were sexists who hate strong women. Since I am a strong woman myself, I sympathized with Hilary.
Since 2000 I have looked over her record and I understand why so many dislike her.
I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on this RFK matter. I agree with Juan's assessment. THe rest of her argument in that video just grates on me and I think she is, indeed, self-righteous, deluded, and a poor sport.
My sisters who keep projecting their own fear of anti-feminism onto Obama's supporters are not making a good case. Sorry. This feminist is not convinced - and supports Obama.
I'm articulate, well-read, and have a Masters of Science degree. I consider myself a rather intelligent fellow. The common-sense understanding of what she said is that she's staying in the race on the chance that Obama is assassinated. I'll accept that she didn't mean to say that but rather meant to simply give examples of the process extending into June but that's not what she said. To assert that I'm stupid and that I'm grossly misinterpreting her comments is insulting.
I don't care why she said what she did, the words were reckless and dangerous and unfitting for someone who wants to serve as POTUS.
She looks very, very relaxed, and the associative chain "June" + "California" is not an obvious one.
I agree with many of the post above. The statement definitively stick out in the larger context and is far from obvious. Quite a mental flight from 2008 - to 1992 - 1968.
What Does RFK's Assassination Have to Do with It?
... My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary in--somewhere in the middle of June. Right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assasinated in June in California. Ah. you know I don't understand it ...
Sorry Juan and readers, but Oberman's commentary was spot on. Clinton's comment wasn't about merely RFK; rather it put the cross-hairs of political assassination on Obama. It shoved our long-bloody national shame of political assassination and its attempts to the forefront of this campaign. After such comments, uttered on more than three occasions, Clinton is unfit for public office.
Recall in 1968 that Humphrey was selected to run against Nixon. Humphrey was like 9th in the primary popular voting. Clinton's operating at the extreme of self-delusion that she would be an heir-apparent, a fait accompli, that she would receive the coronation she was denied - should Obama not finish.
Recall also that Clinton's history is fantasy, again. Bill sowed up the nomination 6 weeks before the early June California (and other states primaries). He needed to win those - but it was a mere technicality to amass the number of delegates for by that time he dispatched the competition.
The second thing the incident tells us is how traumatized the nation still is by those horrible killings 40 years ago, and how much unfinished business of healing those wounds there is.
Juan, I believe you have summed up the situation very well. It's hard for me to put into words how sad Senator Clinton's statement has made me. Though I wasn't old enough at the time to know what was happening, I learned later on that the events of 1968 changed the course of history, and not for the better. Trauma is the best word for this. I never thought I'd have that reaction to something a Democratic presidential candidate said.
Juan Cole wrote, "Clinton even said Obama was not a Muslim 'as far as I know.'"
Well, that's not quite accurate. Here's the transcript. Note how many times Senator Clinton denies that Senator Obama could possibly be a Muslim (EMPHASIS added). Oh, and please try to remember that there's nothing wrong with BEING a Muslim; what would be wrong is lying about it.
KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?
CLINTON: OF COURSE NOT. I mean, that's -- you know, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THAT. You know, I TAKE HIM ON THE BASIS OF WHAT HE SAYS. And, you know, THERE ISN'T ANY REASON TO DOUBT THAT.
KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.
CLINTON: RIGHT. RIGHT.
KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim --
CLINTON: NO. NO. Why would I? There's no --
KROFT: -- or implying, right?
CLINTON: No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.
KROFT: It's just scurrilous --
CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.
Even after the fateful "as far as I know," Senator Clinton went on to describe the Obama-is-a-Muslim story as a rumor meant to smear him.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803030004
Hmmm, after sleeping on it, I've decided the reason that it has stirred up a hornet's nest is that in the way it was phrased, it reminds people of both (increasingly specious) arguments that have been common currency from the Hillary campaign. 1) It's not unusual for a nomination contest to continue into June or even to the convention (actually it is increasingly unusual as the primary calendar shifts earlier and earlier) and 2) Stuff can happen between now and the convention (this one got heavy rotation with the superdelegates, though in relation to Wright and "vetting", as well as having received an unambiguous airing by Terry MacAuliffe on one of the cable talking head shows).
Was Hillary trying to make both arguments with the one example? Probably not. But when your most realistic hope for the nomination has been reduced to "something could happen", the very last place you want to go looking for an example of why you have any reason to remain in the race is California in June 1968 and Bobby Kennedy's assassination. As I and others have noted in many other venues, June 1968 is not a good analogy to June 2008 in the first place. She had used it as an example before, and it's hard to believe that neither she nor anyone in her campaign had noticed the potential pitfalls of using it again.
In short, more of the same we've seen from them all along: poor judgement.
Nicely put, Lynne.
The cited previous uses of this idea by Clinton appear to reflect that it is an established talking point that happened to come up again -- except that this time it is almost June, and its irresponsible potential to lower the barrier to some nut acting stands out more.
But it was not a slip of the tongue, any more than Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" was. The difference is, his words could only hurt him, politically, while hers could increase threats to him.
I don't think it had that intention, it was stupid politically, doesn't benefit her. It possibly raises her own risks as well, being someone who also may be seen as disrupting the proper order of things by extremists, and is clearly the target of misogynist hatred by some (though not mostly Obama supporters or many Obama supporters).
It also was gratuitous. She need say nothing more than she feels she owes it to her supporters to keep on at this stage to justify doing so. Conversely, suspending her campaign would not affect in any way her position if Obama had a heart attack or some scandalous implosion.
Use of the word "assassination" in the context of justifying continuing her run reflects a singular lack of self-awareness as to the power of the words of a person in her position.
It seems to me quite similar in its lack of self-control and judgment to her threat to "obliterate" Iran.
It deserves more serious attention than the dismissal you give it.
Jaun,
This is all a M$M distraction, while bush plans to bomb Iran and completely bankrupt the country. I say god damn the white man repub party to hell!
Anyone old enough to remember 1968 is appalled. Anyone not old enough does not have enough information to comment.
The Obama campaign is very successful in less admirable ways when even YOU (one of the best writers) came to believe the stock lies of
1. The Kenya garb photo being released by Clinton staff
That was a photo scanned by a Free Republic Forum member (Drudge has been a member there from the beginning) on Feb 23 and uploaded and re-posted several times for 2 days there and no-doubt mailed about by one-and-all -- TWO days later, Drudge reported he "obtained" an email that was sent by a Clinton staffer, with the photo but he would not provide the email to anyone. MANY would be sending that around for those two days to their friends as it circulated from the Republican forum.
See Named Source of that photo with full details, including the other copy of that photo online for over a year. There are other myths discussed there.
Obama said in a debate that he accepted Clinton's explanation and that they should get beyond that,
and yet days later on March 10-11 he told his rallies in Mississippi that "She... leaked the photo...of me!" getting them empassioned against her and you see that on the blogs everywhere; he was effective in that game.
2. The infamous clause from 60 minutes.
He implied her main reply during 60 minutes was only the clause they pass out to press -- and someone has already printed the full transcript above. But do go to the Media Matters site to see the analysis and the highlighting of EIGHT defenses. The clause was said with real puzzlement she was being asked a 3rd time and it seemed some kind of trick question.
That she ended it with
"Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."
should have made it even clearer, including the "Of course not! ... There's no basis for that"...
I watched him tell his Missisippi audiences that "She didn't defend me!" in the 60 minutes interview.
That is an outright lie, as you can see. But again, it inflamed his audiences and you see this over and over again as the lie is mentioned in blog after blog, even the most intelligent ones, such as yours, where I otherwise learn a lot.
It's awful to me that the clause is still used against her this way.
But, thank you for this well-reasoned post on the hysteria over the "in JUNE" explanation which she bookended with "I don't understand it... at beginning and end of the statement when answering why she was being urged out so early.
As for "wrapping up the nomination" that is not done until the total required number of delegates is attained. That has not happened yet. HuffingtonPost's Arianna has pleaded in her top-left post for 3 days that all MUST write the Uncommitted Superdelegates to get them to COMMIT "NOW" and not wait for the 3 other states (because they may well determine the total-popular-vote number).
Howard Dean told Financial Times on April 25 that:
"I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote or anything else."
So, that is making Obama supporters nervous. It's over WHEN it's over.
And the instructions for SDs are to vote what is best for the party, with a focus on electability. The rules do not mention going with any lead in pledged delegates (especially with such a close one with contests before more was known about the candidate).
If they wait until all primaries are in, to announce, it'll be better for party unity in that they'll have shown respect for all the votes in a race that's virtually tied as far as actual voting goes. Florida and Michigan WILL be resolved in some way that allows the Democratic nominee to not lose those states in November, unless the party is self-destructive.
I don't think any has mentioned this in this thread -- and I can't find anything about it.
What happens if the Prez-elect and Veep-elect are not able to assume their respective offices?
What happens if they are disabled in some way before the Electoral College assembles?
Everthing is pretty well locked in as soon as they are sworn in -- for example, during the state of the union speech, one of the cabinet members is sent to an undisclosed location, just in case...
Chris,
When Clinton was asked what she might do if Iran made a nuclear attack on Israel (a very serious action, to put it mildly), she'd said there'd be massive retaliation in that case (I think there'd be little resistance to some kind of very-strong response).
When asked to expand on what she meant by that response, she went on to say that in whatever stage they're at during the next 10 years and planning a nuclear attack on Israel, they'd do best to 'understand' that "we would be able to totally obliterate them" if they did something that hideous. She continued,
"That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that. Because that, perhaps, will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic."
I do think she could have worded it better, but Obama's wording tends to constantly need explaining by his staff also. We have two good, but sometimes careless candidates in a tough race.
But 'would be able to' is not akin to 'vowing to' as I saw written at Huffpo the other day.
Many of us had wondered why Clinton didn't mention the many instances of campaigns going on to the convention as that would have made more sense, though it would definitely not have been politic at this point to mention that Ted Kennedy challenged sitting President Carter into the convention when Kennedy was 750 delegates behind him.
But it turns out she did mention the various years that the campaigns did go to the convention, but that part of the video was not shown until now. You can see the full context and entire statement at TruthDig.
When Clinton said Obama wasn't a Muslim "as far as I know" she had already said "No" about five times and the reporter kept badgering her. She was exasperated. How many ways can a person say no without eventually slipping up, which is exactly what the reported wanted her to do?
Thanks at least for showing some restraint in the latest silly blow-up over a comment that was intended to highlight the month, not the event she mentioned. It was a clumsy use of words, but she'd said it before with no repercussions at all, so she probably didn't think twice about repeating it. Who would?
Who in their right mind would mention the word "assassination" in an answer to "why are you staying in the race?"
For the record, the question was not why she was staying in the race, but why people were trying to push her out of the race. Her answer was that she didn't know, that it mystified her because other primary races had run at least as long as this one. It seems to me she cited the '92 and '68 races because those were the ones folks were most likely to remember--the '92 race because it was relatively recent, and the '68 race because of the RFK tragedy.
She hinted in the past that the reason she is still in the race is because something catastrophic could happen, possibly to Sen. Obama.
The hints I've seen (from the media and from her campaign people, not from Hillary herself) clearly indicated the "something catastrophic" would likely be some scandalous revelation from Obama's past that would derail his campaign. I've not seen any such hints suggesting Obama would be the victim of an assassination attempt.
--Swift Loris
Now that HRC has apologized, there is a new controversy over whether her apology was merely 'conditional' or whether it was whole-hearted. I have a long post on this on my blog.
simsby, re your question:
It’s obvious to me that many people KNEW instantly that she was referring to the “in JUNE” timeline because of the question asked and her voice emphasis for ‘June’ — and therefore a bleeding-apology was not needed, except by Obama-intensives.
RFK,Jr. understood it, saying “I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense.”
Both candidates are under secret-service protection and there is extreme hatred and also many death wishes posted against Clinton, which for months people have found quite acceptable.
The atmosphere is pretty sick these days. When I see videos of either one of them in crowds and see the secret service guys very tense, I worry for both of them.
Consider how we’d feel if SHE were shot tomorrow. Some, from what I see, would be quite happy, from all that I’ve read. And that's sad.
Juan, I disagree strongly with your giving HRC a pass on this assassination meme. That was her 3rd time to raise it in this way -- she and her campaign have had plenty of time to correct and avoid it. She should have known better than to say such a thing. It was stupid.
Also, your lamenting the way in which the new media allows for these items to fly so far so fast is disingenuous. Your blog depends on it, even if your "informed comment" trope of a blog name attempts to assert authority and expertise.
BTW: I am a regular reader of your blog and admire your work overall -- only I think you are off base on this issue.
For the record, the question was not why she was staying in the race, but why people were trying to push her out of the race.
HRC is staying in the race because it is her only way of avoiding having to help/assist/support Obama's campaign. Her only real hope now of ever becoming President is for him to lose in November. She cannot openly hope or work to that end. But she can stay in the race as a legitimate candidate till the convention. Hence the trope we are hearing repeatedly lately: "it is a very close contest, she is still winning races..." Staying in his her best tactic in terms of affecting a negative outcome for Obama in November.
Actually, a huge driving force happens to BE the various current poll of electoral college map matchups, virtually of which are showing Clinton ahead of McCain outside the margin of error while Obama trails him. That includes not only big states we need to win but North Carolina of all places. A 9 point difference.
Also, Howard Dean told the Financial Times
http://tinyurl.com/5re2dj
that "I think the race is going to come down to the perception in *the last six or eight races* of who =the best opponent for McCain= will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote =or anything else=."
That puts a different complexion on things, and I am certain she is running for THIS year and not for 2012. May 31 Mich/Fla will be important for both of them. But if superdelegates want to hesitate longer because of polling and some investigations going on in Chicago, then the polls of electoral-college matchups become important (not to mention the popular-vote total that includes caucuses with individual votes).
I think this dynamic has been important in explaining why the Washington Post says that after Obama campaign was saying this was all behind them they were sending out to press the 11-minute Comment rant by Keith Olbermann of MSNBC saying "We will NOT forgive you this time!"
and just 11 minutes of hate.
Washington Post article:
http://tinyurl.com/5bh9nn
The 11-minute rant against Clinton as a human being is viewable at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24798368#24798368
And CNN asked them about sending it out and why, after they had said they were not going to press it.
But, you know? That's Old Politics, and Winning is the name of the game. Nothing new under the sun...
Re how people interpreted that, I was struck by how it wouldn't make sense to even WANT to say such a thing - because if you were consciously wanting it you certainly wouldn't say it. And there was no need for an unconscious operating there, as pointed out by Mort Kondrake, Executive Editor of 'Roll Call' in the Roundtable transcript at RealClearPolitics --
"Look, every time I have thought about June as an ending date, I don't think about Bill Clinton getting the nomination in 1992. It is just seared in the memory that the 1968 campaign ended in June, because everybody remembers Robert Kennedy's assassination.
I think this was a slip of the tongue. If something did happen to Barack Obama, she would get the nomination anyway. [Key point]
She doesn't have to bring it up. It doesn't have to be a conversation with Bill Clinton that something would happen. I just don't get that."
And as the full rfk-clip shows, she did mention the years when the battles went to the convention. The June ones came later when asked about why there was such urgency about her getting out well before May even.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20080523_clintons_rfk_remark_now_in_video/
or, http://tinyurl.com/5k7gtb
There are a few holes in what you state here. You don't see any possible interpretation of her words which is unsettling - ok fair enough, I guess that's possible. Now, the real crazies are not the people horrified that Clinton believes she needs to remain in the race in case Obama is killed (and to me, I've known they felt this way for a while, since they've said the same thing numerous times, and I've talked to a wealthy, well-educated Clinton supporter who told me, with no hesitation, that one of the reasons he didn't want to support Obama was that he will be killed, straight up, no chaser - and I read blogs a lot, and have seen her supporters state this, fairly often. its not coming from nowhere!) but the people who think she is putting out a 'dog whistle' for him to be killed. there are plenty who believe that, and I think that's crazy. but part of why the comment was in such poor taste was that crazy people out there will hear such a thing as a dog whistle, intended or not (it certainly was not). that is where we get into 'crazy' territory here.
Clinton very plainly states that she remains in the race in case Obama is assassinated. She was once introduced by a speaker who said something like "one of the candidates in this race compares himself to JFK, but he was assassinated, and Lyndon Johnson had to be the one to do all that work", something along those lines. this happened after Clinton's own unctuous comments about MLK vs. Lyndon Johnson. the reason I don't buy her 'timeline' argument is that when taken entirely in that context, everything she said was bogus. Bill effectively won the nomination in late April of 1992. he says so IN HIS OWN BOOK! and the RFK example, as some kind of reason as to why she herself still needs to be in the race, is silly on its face. was the Democratic party somehow saved because of the candidates still running against RFK in the primary? what is she even talking about at all here?
the truth is, Clinton could have left the contest after Pennsylvania, and if something happened to Obama, re-enter the race as the current front-runner, no problem. there are many, far-better examples of an actually contested primary going into the later months, but RFK and Bill in 92 - neither are really even close to being good analogies. no, she really thinks this, if you ask me, she just shouldn't have let herself state it so plainly. people running around trying to find any alternate interpretation, I suggest that sometimes the simplest answer is the most correct.
Post a Comment
<< Home