the link to the article:

Clinton was responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race.

"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. You know I just, I don't understand it," she said, dismissing the idea of dropping out.

Clinton said she didn't understand why, given this history, some Democrats were calling for her to quit.

Her remark about an assassination during a primary campaign drew a quick response from rival Barack Obama's campaign.

"Sen. Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

You can say that again, Bill.

(We're cross posting.)

If that is what she's thinking, well, then, she should definitely sign up for the VP slot.

Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said the senator was only referring to ... Kennedy "as [an] historical example[...] of the nominating process going well into the summer and any reading into it beyond that would be inaccurate and outrageous."

Really, Mo, outrageous?  And that's why she used the phrase "assassinated in June"?

But, hey, if it's only an historical example, there's also the historical example of JFK getting assassinated three years into his first term.  And Obama's been compared to JFK.   So, yeah, VP.

makes me sick everytime I listen to hear.  

See here:

The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive," Clinton said.

To whom did Sen. Clinton apologize?

...to those who might have been offended (wrongly, of course) by her totally innocent remarks. :)

While commenting on Senator Clinton hanging in there because RFK was assassinated in June, Faux News's Liz Trotta first refers to Senator Obama as "Osama", laughs at her slip, then adds that they should both be killed.

Assuming Senator Obama is successful on November 5, at what point does revolting crap like this become a Federal offense?  Is it only after he actually takes office?

is revolting.  What a demonic thought.

This reminds me of when Bush speculated that a terrorist could blow up the Clinton Library. It also reminded me of when my step mother asked me if I ever drive across the bridge which was hit by an airplane a few years ago. Its easy to see what lurks in the dark recesses of consciousnes in these people.

Hillary has been saying for some time that SOMETHING might happen to Obama. I has been very unsettling. I'm sorry folks but at this point and after this comment all I have to say is Hillary Clinton is piece of trash!

courtesy of Memeorandum.com:

AmericaBlog: "It's particularly sick that Hillary would somehow use Bobby Kennedy's assassination as a reason for staying in the race the week that Ted Kennedy left the hospital with a brain tumor."

The Plank: "Did She Really Say That?"

Marc Ambinder: "Even if her point is legitimate, surely she is aware of the sensitivity of the subject."

Oliver Willis: "She is fracking crazy."

OpenLeft: "Look, I don't feel that strongly that Clinton should drop out, she will do what she wants, and I think she will unite behind Obama because it's the smart thing to do.  Still, the assassination talk is, shall we say, suggestive of an extreme lack of character."

Pandagon: "I don't understand her reference to what happened to RFK except to set off a dog whistle that nominating Obama is a risk because of a fear of some whack job taking him out."

Donklephant: "Umm...umm...WTF?!?!?!

Yeah, sure, if Obama somehow gets assassinated, I'm sure she'd be the next one in line, but IS SHE OUT OF HER MIND? What on earth possessed her to say that?"

Huffington Post: "She has a point: June is a great month for political assassinations.

Why drop out of the race before all the assassins have had their say?

After all, we know Barack Obama has received multiple death threats -- because he is black, of course, and because some of our fellow citizens think he's a secret Muslim terrorist who is going to take the oath of office on the Koran and make us all pray to Mecca five times a day with that screechy music coming over the loudspeakers(?) and then he'll fly Air Force One into the White House(?).

And the truth is, Obama has consistently failed to win over those voters who want to see him murdered."

MyDD:  "...this is unacceptable.

The United States has a history of profound political violence - and the use of violence to oppress and coerce. And while I'm not quite willing to accept that Clinton spoke maliciously - it doesn't matter. There is no excuse for flippantly referencing assassination, especially given the historic nature of Obama's campaign and our nation's grim history of racial oppression through violence. When Hillary Clinton speaks of our history, she is not reflecting academically or only in a vacuum - her words and influence are real. To act otherwise is negligent, at best.

No context can save her. She must go."

Daily Kos: "For any left who still think she'd be 'dreamy' as the V.P., this should put it to rest."

No biggie.

"I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever," the former first lady said.

She misspoke, nation.  Y'know, like winning the Silver Star in Tuzla.  Like being named after Sir Edmund Hillary after he climbed Mount Everest.  Like being the candidate who could bring in the hard working white racists who would never vote for a black man.  

Clearly, what she meant to say before she misspoke was that, hey, you know, these Democratic primaries sometimes run on into June.  And if she referenced the Democratic front runner in 1968, the charismatic populist, Bobby Kennedy, being assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan in June, well, it's a historical fact that he wasn't the front runner after he was shot and killed.  That's just historical fact.  She's just saying, historically speaking, that she should continue because if Obama is assassinated in California in June, well, then she would be the front runner.

Yes, these assassinations are real opportunites, aren't they?

The very fact that she is even THINKING about this in terms of an opportunity for herself is sociopathic.

how subconsciously obssessing about something allows forbidden thoughts and hopes to slip out as a quick aside.

I certainly don't think there's any 'dog whistle' intended here, just that she's having trouble letting go of her ambitions, as it becomes clearer day by day that there's no way she will be the nominee. So an assassination of the presumptive nominee becomes one of the few plausible scenarios which could possibly lead her to still become president.

1) She needs to go before the cameras again and truly apologize - to Obama, not just the Kennedy family.

2) She needs to cry.  It worked to allow her to re-enter the race before the New Hampshire primary.  It's only fitting to adorn her exit with tears.

3) She needs to cite exhaustion, take a break from the campaign, and tell any of her delegates that it's o.k. with her if they wish to go to Obama - she might as well - according to Al Giordano, they're about to do that anyway.

but please, watch the video. When viewed in context, all she seem to be saying is that nomination battles have gone on into June. In her mind is her husbands, and also Bobby Kennedy's, which is in anyone's mind over the age of 50.

She has apologized and explained what was obviously an ill-considered remark. Does it reveal some deep-seated expectation or hope on her part that some harm will befall Obama?

I, frankly, have no idea. But there are numerous commentators at this site and generally on the Intertubes who do seem to have an inside line on and unique, even preternatural insight into Sen. Clinton's various mental pathologies, innermost emotions of which even she is unaware and subconscious motivations for her every utterance, and so I guess we should all defer to them and their super-human abilities.    

...I'd also say that this is the end of any chance for Clinton to be Obama's running mate.  Clinton knows she made a huge mistake, and so does just about every other observer.  For instance, I just watched Mark Shields on the NewsHour, and he said she had to be held accountable for her remarks.  Basically, the rule is that if you're a politician, you don't raise the JFK, RFK or MLK (or Abe Lincoln, for that matter) assassinations to make a point.

I just want to say with respect to the Olbermann comment, I think he can be a real bore at times.

I mean, everyone understood that Clinton made a big mistake here. Other than articulating the anti-Clinton talking points that have been edlessly repeated and argued about on blogs for months, and tacking this last incident on at the end, I'm not exactly sure how KO advanced the ball with this comment.  

Olbermann showed how Hillary has made the same point in other places and to Time magazine. This wasn't an ad lib statement that just escaped when in a moment of exhaustion. This is a message that has been crafted by her campaign and which she must have thought that it was fine to make.

that both Clintons seem to have a highly developed sense of entitlement.  

But Clinton went beyond saying that nomination battles last a long time -- she said essentially "things happen".  

Truth is if THAT happened (what happened to RFK) and she had suspended her campaign after the Ohio and Texas primaries she would be in a much stronger position than she is right now.  

Her remarks this past month have pretty much sunk whatever hopes she might have had of getting the nomination via a super-delegate decision.

You consistently dismiss all attempts to ascribe any psychological motivation to Senator Clinton.  

She's a human being, not an automaton.

unless you are psychic, I doubt you can discern what the motivation behind any of her actions are.  I'm sorry, but neither you nor I know Hillary Clinton on such an intimate basis that we could accurately ascribe any psychological motivation to her.  Anything here is just pure speculation.

You're about 180 degrees wrong on this one.  If there is any living politician we have been forced to get to know intimately, it would be Senator Clinton.

Being human, most of us are authorities on human nature.  

Yeah, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  But not in her case.

Anybody who lived through 1968 knows what a trauma Bobby Kennedy's assassination was.  It was the death of hope.  Particularly after the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King.  It is incomprehensible to me that ANY so-called Democrat would raise it in this context.  I do not have to plumb Hillary Clinton's inner-most thoughts to discern the deeper meaning.  The plain meaning is sitting right out there, on display for all to see.

For the dwindling few who deny that Clinton will do anything or say anything to win, well here it is.  It turns out that gives her too much credit.  She'll do anything or say anything, and not even have a chance to win.  Her outrageous pronouncements serve no purpose, destroy everything in her path, and still she does it.

Hillary Clinton's apology was as bad as her original statement.  The only people she "apologized" to were the Kennedys.

And Bobby Kennedy, Jr.'s statement is in equally poor taste.  WE lost your father, too, Jr.  It is telling that his far more sober relatives have endorsed Barack Obama.  Please stop trying to pretend what Hillary Clinton said is anything other than what Hillary Clinton said.

you see someone on Television everyday does not mean that you know them intimately.  What knowledge do we possess that allows us to deconstruct Hillary Clinton's every action?

To your second point, so because I am human, I can immediately discern the motivations of all human beings?  This gives me immediate insight into why people do the things they do?  

And to your last point, I understand that every move she makes is calculated.  She doesn't pick up a cup of coffee without considering the cosmological implications of doing so.

If your inability to get the cigar allusion is indicative of your ability to parse meaning, it's no wonder you can't see the forest for the tree.

Insult me, brilliant way to end an argument.  

I got the Sigmund Freud reference.  And I was responding with sarcasm.

But it is my sense that when someone tries to ascribe a psychological motivation to the actions of a person they do not know, have never met, have never spoken with and have rarely seen outside of either a carefully stage managed event, or under incredible pressure, I just think such attempts have zero value.

I mean, they seem to reveal more about the person doing the analysis than they ever do about Clinton.

...if I think George W. Bush is a borderline sociopath with no intellectual curiosity, a rigid mind, and a frat-boy faux-macho attitude, that says what about me exactly?

you have eyes, and ears, and are simply describing what you plainly see and hear.  No psychoanalysis necessary.

those actually are observations, not analyses. If you said, however, he has those qualities because of [fill in the blank], I'd be able to answer your question. :)

I mean, don't you agree that often when people analyze the motivations of others, they often project their own sensibilities on them?  

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.  And I'm not really sure exactly what you mean by "those actually are observations, not analyses."  What we're trying to do here is to understand what makes another human being tick.  That certainly involves observation, but it also involves "analysis."  And, I'd point out, we all do it all the time.

There are a good deal of people here who have a negative opinion of Hillary Clinton and think that everything she does is motivated by some ill, negative emotion.  They just wait for their buttons to be pressed and spring to life in self-righteous, angry judgment.  And people who disagree with them are dim because we cannot recognize that Hillary Clinton is a pawn of the establishment, a racist, and someone who wants Barak Obama killed.  We should watch out, lest we forget that she killed Vince Foster.

Funny how people like tx2vadem and aznew can ascribe all sorts of motivations to people they haven't even met, just because those people point out the obvious, that Hillary Clinton lacks integrity.  Each and every time Hillary Clinton once again displays her lack of integrity,  they ignore it and attack the messengers, ordinary voters who are simply describing the facts.

And yet these same Clinton supporters claim that no one can begin to plumb the depths of Hillary Clinton's soul; we can't begin to know what motivates her.  As a result of which, Clinton should be able to get away with just about anything, no matter how outrageous and unspeakable.

So they can psychoanalyze, insult, and name-call against ordinary voters, but they cannot tolerate anyone else even trying to figure out what the heck is going on in the head of this screwed-up seasoned political professional and elected official.

By the way, tx, I don't think you're dim at all.  I think you're clearly smart enough to know better.

Who I have insulted, name-called?  

As far as my Agreed post above, I am just matching ascription with ascription.  An act of frustration, nothing more.  It is sarcasm and speculation.  I don't claim to know your motivations or anyone else's who frequents this blog.

I can't speak for anyone else, and I certainly don't object to discussing what it is that motivates politicians.

But with the Clintons, it gets out of hand, IMHO. All she did here, for example, was make a clumsy point. I'm open to discussing how it is a clumsy point, how it affects the race, etc.

This thread does not exist in a vacuum. Hillary Clinton can't pass gas without someone somewhere attributing it to the trauma of her potty training by an overbearing father that she recreates in her life by her public humiliation at the hands of her husband.

As for engaging in ad hominem attacks, I'm not sure that is a fair characterization of my arguments, but you are of course entitled to view them in your own way.

...perhaps it gets "out of hand" because the Clintons make it "all about them" all the time?  

do you remember a while back the NYT published that front page story looking at the Clinton's marriage, including the exhaustive analysis of how many evenings the spent together based on their public schedules?

So, how much of this is due to the way the Clintons themselves behave, and how much is due to some other factor or combination of factors, including the so-called "Clinton Rules," as exemplified by this NYT Times piece, that seem to set the bar for what is acceptable to say or write about them much lower than for other politicians?

I honestly don't know.

But step by step, this is infecting our political discourse to the detriment of Progressives. Just when you can't think it can get any worse, it does. It's not about Clinton in my view, but about us.

Maybe the Clinton's enable it in some way, but they will be out of the picture soon.

What do you think is going to happen when Clinton finally throws in the towel? What do you think all those journalists, "professional" and citizen, are going to do when, to paraphrase RMN, they don't have Hillary Clinton to kick around anymore? Do you think that bar will somehow be raised?

This hurts Progressives more than Conservatives because as a governing ideology, Conservatism collapses under its own weight over time. A philosophy that says, "Government is the problem, not the solution," is too contradictory. It's like when computers in science fiction are on the cusp of taking over the world, but humanity gets saved by their inability to resolve a paradox, like the game of Tic-Tac-Toe at the end of War Games.

So, conservatives don't wish to discuss issues, because when issues matter, Progressives win over time.

To an extent, Progressives engaging in this with respect to Hillary lends this approach more currency than it deserves. In the long run, it creates incentives  for approaches that run counter to the long-term interests of Progressive issues and approaches to governing.

our media in general, the trivialities they focus on, the shark attacks and "missing white girls," etc.  It's also a sign of our popular culture, with its focus on what "Brangelina" are (is?) up to, the latest with David Cook/Archuleta, "if it bleeds it leads," etc., etc.  Barf.

To be fair, Clinton's attacks have toughened Obama for the upcoming brawl.  

Yes, politics is an elbows out contact sport.  Fouling and drawing fouls are part of the game.  

A gratuitous hit after the clock has run out is beyond the pale.

Absent a referee, the elastic boundaries of acceptable play in this elimination round have been enforced only by the mass groans of the Democratic electorate watching from the stands.

There are no red cards here in the bleachers.  There are only virtual beer cups and whatnot garbage to toss onto the field.

The barrage and the jeering seems to have gotten through to Senator Clinton.  

She is, finally, wincing.

For her, this could be a breakthrough.  If she's capable, which I personally doubt, it's something to build on.  But now she needs to take that long, lonely walk to the showers.

For the rest of us, we're on the wrong field.

I understand wanting to give her the benefit of the doubt.  I understand that it can't have been easy to go back before the cameras and apologize, even if the apology was a strange one.  In fact, seeing her tired eyes and subdued manner, one can almost admire the risk she took in ad libbing the apology instead of secluding herself overnight and coming out with something more polished tomorrow.

But, let's cut some slack for the pro-Obama crowd who have had to endure Clinton's absurd dragging out of this race long past the time she could honorably win it.  If she had been a populist from the start, instead of arrogantly assuming that she was so inevitable she didn't need a backup plan, it would be one thing, but her late pandering to angry fearful disadvantaged white people has been disgusting.  If she had truly cared about the voters of Michigan and Florida before she desperately needed their delegates....If she didn't take advantage of those who were most loyal to her by begging for more of their money, just to pay that moron Penn....If...If...If....

And, now to think she's been done in by the very shocking surprise that she was hoping would work against Obama.  And it comes in the context of a simperingly stupid allusion to the magic month of June.  I mean, seriously, it's entirely possible that she could have hung on until Denver by saying that that's when the delegates actually cast their votes and pre-convention pledges are meaningless.

No, I don't believe that Clinton would trade Obama's life for the Democratic nomination, but for the political animal she is to be done in by a remark (which is the definition of politics, as in ballots not bullets) should leave all but the most die hard Clinton supporters with only one thing to say -

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry to reply to my own comment in my own diary, but having been prompted by Douglas Brinkley on Olbermann just now to look back at Clinton's remark to Time Magazine in March, I now think that it is probably a coincidence that she paraphrased something she said before that wasn't so outrageous then, but is now because she really now does not have any good reason to stay in the race.

Politicians in long tough races frequently trot out the same blather over and over to the point where it sounds almost like babbling (there's a great scene by Robert Redford in The Candidate on this).  I think that's what happened here.

I do think she can still apologize for creating the appearance of voicing a subconscious and unconscionable wish that Obama would disappear, and I think she should.  I don't think she will, however, and I still resent her prolonging the race; so, the savaging she's getting in the media and in the blogosphere is political justice.

I am reminded of this refrain from Wicked at the moment.

Time to break out the torches and pitchforks, it's time to burn a witch.  You see Hillary Clinton must be infallible like Obama.  She must be Midas like Obama, who everything he touches turns to gold.  Oh, if only she was without flaw like Obama, then we wouldn't need to crucify her.  If only she had perfect, infallible judgement like Obama , then we wouldn't need to criticize and bash her for everything she does.

The fact that she is human, makes mistakes, and is a politician like so many of her peers is why she is damnable.  She's obviously a wretch, a troglodyte, how she made it out from the bowels of the Earth to become a US Senator is beyond most of us.  But we know that we must fight to put her back in the wretched place where she belongs.

Even if we would consider that you are right, and assume that HRC really only made reference to any "long primaries" that came to her mind - this would be a really bad remark.

The primary season in 1968 didn't start until the middle of march, i.e. essentially two and a half months earlier than 2008. The current primary is effectively already 2 1/2 months longer. And: in 1968, only 13 states had primaries at all. No way you can compare this to a primary where 47 (?) states have already voted, over a time frame of 5 months.

This means that if she really did compare the '68 primary to the '08 primary only for the status at a certain time of the race, then it was a bad comparison and a bad comment. And she has mentioned this way too often for a mere blunder, and she would also be smart enough to know about those differences between then and now (or to look them up after she said it for the first time).

For me, this leaves no other conclusion than assuming that she really did want to refer to the assassination part of the 68 primary, in a subtle or not so subtle way. And that is not acceptable for any kind of leader.  

was born in 1947. She was 20 years old at the time, and politically active.  She does not need to look this up; she lived it, as did we all.

It was a lot more than a bad comparison -- she said what she meant.  Obama could get assassinated.  She should stay in the race.

That "apology" was nothing but a rambling regret that she said something that will haunt her for the rest of her political career.  Some will say that it's much ado about nothing, but if the shoe were on the other foot Hillary Clinton would be livid.  

Watch Countown with Keith Olbermann tonight-He is supposed to do a special comment about it.

As you can tell from my "name" Robert Kennedy is a hero of mine, as he is for many Democrats right now, and I have never been more upset with Hillary (which I didn't think was possible).

from the NewsHour:

MARK SHIELDS: I think it was, at the best, totally reckless. I mean, her history is absolutely faulty. Robert Kennedy's first primary, Ray, was in May 7th of 1968. He was murdered four weeks later. She's talking about a long campaign.

This campaign began the first week in January. She's still talking about June. So, I mean, it's faulty there.

And then her explanation afterwards was just unbelievable. She said, Senator Kennedy, Edward Kennedy, had been on my mind. And, therefore, I was thinking in these terms.

I mean, it's absolutely bizarre. And I just -- I really do think it was a reckless statement and one for which she should be held accountable.

I hope everyone saw Olbermann's special comment...it'll be online soon I'm sure.

Wow.  Speak truth to power, Keith.

on Daily Kos: "The use of the word 'assassination' is not open to misinterpretation. It has no place, not with our country's history."

Near the beginning of Olbermann's comment there was a bang that actually made him flinch.  spooky

Keith Olbermann, tell us how you really feel!

God knows, Senator, in this campaign, this nation has had to forgive you, early and often...

And despite your now traditional position of the offended victim, the nation has forgiven you.

We have forgiven you your insistence that there have been widespread calls for you to end your campaign, when such calls had been few. We have forgiven you your misspeaking about Martin Luther King's relative importance to the Civil Rights movement.

We have forgiven you your misspeaking about your under-fire landing in Bosnia.

We have forgiven you insisting Michigan's vote wouldn't count and then claiming those who would not count it were Un-Democratic.

We have forgiven you pledging to not campaign in Florida and thus disenfranchise voters there, and then claim those who stuck to those rules were as wrong as those who defended slavery or denied women the vote.

We have forgiven you the photos of Osama Bin Laden in an anti-Obama ad...

We have forgiven you fawning over the fairness of Fox News while they were still calling you a murderer.

We have forgiven you accepting Richard Mellon Scaife's endorsement and then laughing as you described his "deathbed conversion."

We have forgiven you quoting the electoral predictions of Boss Karl Rove.

We have forgiven you the 3 a.m. Phone Call commercial.

We have forgiven you President Clinton's disparaging comparison of the Obama candidacy to Jesse Jackson's.

We have forgiven you Geraldine Ferraro's national radio interview suggesting Obama would not still be in the race had he been a white man.

We have forgiven you the dozen changing metrics and the endless self-contradictions of your insistence that your nomination is mathematically probable rather than a statistical impossibility.

We have forgiven you your declaration of some primary states as counting and some as not.

We have forgiven you exploiting Jeremiah Wright in front of the editorial board of the lunatic-fringe Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

We have forgiven you exploiting William Ayers in front of the debate on ABC.

We have forgiven you for boasting of your "support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans"...

We have even forgiven you repeatedly praising Senator McCain at Senator Obama's expense, and your own expense, and the Democratic ticket's expense.

But Senator, we cannot forgive you this.

"You know, 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."

We cannot forgive you this -- not because it is crass and low and unfeeling and brutal.

This is unforgivable, because this nation's deepest shame, its most enduring horror, its most terrifying legacy, is political assassination.

Lincoln.

Garfield.

McKinley.

Kennedy.

Martin Luther King.

Robert Kennedy.

And, but for the grace of the universe or the luck of the draw, Reagan, Ford, Truman, Nixon, Andrew Jackson, both Roosevelts, even George Wallace.

The politics of this nation is steeped enough in blood, Senator Clinton, you cannot and must not invoke that imagery! Anywhere! At any time!

And to not appreciate, immediately - to still not appreciate tonight - just what you have done... is to reveal an incomprehension of the America you seek to lead.

This, Senator, is too much.

Because a senator - a politician - a person -  who can let hang in mid-air the prospect that she might just be sticking around in part, just in case the other guy gets shot - has no business being, and no capacity to be, the President of the United States.

Good night and good luck.

Both my mom and I jumped when we heard it...I think it was as simple as him banging his pen on the desk, but spooky nonetheless.

n/t

there was a hesitancy, at first, to enthusiastically embrace Obama for fear of the nightmare returning.  Among the middle-aged and older blacks with whom I shared my enthusiasm for Senator Obama, not a few voiced a genuine -- and understandable -- fear that this historic candidacy could be violently cut down.  That fear seems to have dissolved as the pro-Obama tide has continued to swell and the prospect of a black president has become more and more real.

Let's all hope that the Secret Service is doing their job.

As to Senator Clinton articulating what has likely been dinner table discussion in every progressive household in America, it's not that any of us are denying that, given this country's history, it could happen.  What was disgusting was her letting slip that she considered the horrific possibility an opportunity.

....I had heard earlier that she apologised, etc, etc, but she really is in melt down mode. I do think she needs to step out now, and perhaps take a month long vacation or something,before she says something else crazy. When Olbermann listed all the things that we have forgiven Clinton for: Jermiah Wright, hard working white Americans, etc, wow, that really was a long list. She has been given the benefit of the doubt to the Nth degree.

Boy, once again Hillary's memory is failing her once again. Bill wrapped up the Democratic Nomination in JUNE 2,not mid-June as she likes to remember...Now someone has to remind her that she's marginalized herself in this campaign and it is time to graciously bow out...

There is no chance left for her to do any gracious thing. She has fallen beyond grace.

Would we want this person answering the phone at 3 am? I wonder what she's like when she's REALLY upset?

No one should defend Hillary Clinton.  Her statements were not taken out of context.  I think everyone should acknowledge that they were insensitive at best and should understand why everyone is upset.  Clinton should have known better, especially just one week after Mike Huckabee was widely denounced for making very similar comments.

That brings me to my next point.  Democrats and the media cannot have a double standard.  We cannot criticize Huckabee one week for making a statement and then make excuses for Hillary Clinton the next week when she makes very similar comments.

Third, Hillary Clinton and her supporters have stated repeatedly that she is the better candidate because she is "battle-tested" and more politically savvy.  She has now "misspoke" about being shot at, made comments that "could be taken the wrong way" when it comes to race, and now she is apologizing if anyone was offended by her RFK comment.  How many of these "mistakes" will she make in the general and what impact will they have on our chances?  Obama has made mistakes too, but they have been fewer and less severe, in my opinion.  Also, he has never proclaimed to be the distinguished campaigner Clinton and her surrogates claimed her to be.

The time for the superdelegates to shut this thing down has long passed.  This race is causing the Democratic Party that may endure beyond the 2008 election.  I can only imagine what our party leaders would have done had Hillary Clinton won eleven contests in a row, had an insurmountable pledged delegate lead, had won more states, had a lead in the popular vote, and if Obama had "misspoke" about being shot at in a foreign country, referred to a tragic even in history as a reason he should stayed in the race, AND made insensitive comments about working class and older whites.  Imagine Obama making the "bitter" comment in addition to all the reasons people say Clinton should withdraw.  Do you really think this race would still be going on?  The double standard is obvious and it is something I will keep in my mind for a very long time when I am deciding who to vote for.  

I don't think anyone is defending the statement.  But I do think it is very different than Huckabee's joke.  Huckabee was making crass joke, Clinton was making a case of why she should stay in the race.  As far as context, this is what the executive editor of the South Dakota paper that conducted the interview had to say:

the context of the question and answer with Sen. Clinton was whether her continued candidacy jeopardized party unity this close to the Democratic convention. Her reference to Mr. Kennedy's assassination appeared to focus on the timeline of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself.

Why should no one defend her when so many seem intent on attacking her every opportunity they have?  I would see it differently if Hillary Clinton was evil incarnate.  And I see much of this as overreaction.

Where is the double standard?  The media was all over this and a portion of Democrats are all over it.  I think of the two, Huckabee got more of a free pass than HRC.  But please correct me if there was some massive media coverage that his joke got.

To your third point, I don't know how you rate Obama's challenges as less severe.  I'm an Obama supported, but I don't see his challenges as less then hers, just different.  People may say HRC will do anything to get elected, but that's not really true when compared to the Republicans.  McCain may denounce it, but the 527s and Rove and his friends will have no problem taking the low road.  They demonstrated this quite clearly in their whisper campaign in the South Carolina Republican Primary of 2000.  

The time for superdelegates to do something is totally up to them.  And why should they deprive significance to the people in the rest of states and territories that have yet to hold their primaries?  Why should Guam or Indiana be more important than Montana, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico?  As far as I can see, this is driving up Democratic participation and interest.  Each primary has resulted in historic turn-out results.  I think this will be massively beneficial in the fall.  You have all of these state organizations, voter rolls, and participants to take advantage of.  You have trained people on get-out-the-vote efforts in all of these states.  You have given people great experience going into the fall campaign.  This will truly be the realization of Dean's 50 State Strategy.  This has done more than the DNC has the money or resources to accomplish.  Why pooh-pooh that?

As to your last point about the shoe on the other foot, are you asking whether racism trumps sexism?  To your specific hypothetical, I think the race would still be going on.  And superdelegates would have been equally hesitant to force the first black candidate with a broad coalition in the party out of the running.  No one would so overtly slight a large constituency of the Democratic Party.

I think if you want to talk double standard.  We can talk about how the media has largely overlooked overt sexism.  And we can talk about how the outrage over perceived race-baiting and racism has not been matched by outrage over overt sexism.

First, her comment was not taken out of context.  No matter how anyone tries to spin this latest gaffe, it is inappropriate for any candidate to bring up assassination as a reason for why they should remain in a race.  Should I believe that her comments are less offensive than Huckabee's because he did it for laughs and she did it to make a political justification for why she should stay in the race?

Huckabee's joke did get massive media coverage, but this is a subjective judgement.  I can remember flipping channel to channel and seeing its coverage.  We should also be sure to remember, however, that Huckabee is no longer a candidate his party's nomination.  McCain is the presumptive nominee and has reached his party's delegate requirement.

My point was not that Obama's weaknesses are less severe, but that his slips of the tongue have been fewer and less offensive than Hillary Clinton's.  

The superdelegates have a job to ensure the stability and viability of the party.  I believe this primary has been damaging to the party as a whole.  Regardless of who gets the nomination, some large constituency in the Democratic Party is going to be very upset.  It didn't have to be this way.  It started occurring when the media and yes, Hillary Clinton started pointing out our differences and using them as a wedge.  The media has done it for a storyline and the Clinton campaign has done it for political gain.

I don't care what anyone says.  Had the situation been reversed, I do believe the superdelegates would have shut the process down.  This has little to do with racism and more to do with this fear Democrats seem to have of the Clintons.  Everyone appears to tip-toe around them and do their best not to offend or anger them.  They revere them for some past era that is never coming back.  I am tired of seeing politicians like the Clintons being put on a peddle stool because of who they are or what they did in the past.  They need to be held to the same standards as everyone else and need to be held accountable for the things they say.

I would like for you to point to these incidents of "overt sexism."  Please show me an incident when Obama or his surrogates made a sexist comment that rose to the level of "Obama wouldn't be where he is today if he were not black" or "egg-heads and African Americans" or "hard working Americans, white Americans" or "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina..." or "if blacks want to vote for him out of racial pride, I understand" (as if that is the only reason).  If you can find such incidents then I would like to know what the response was.  Did Obama dismiss the person and apologize or did he explain to everyone that he "misspoke" or that they "just didn't get what he was saying" or some other sorry excuse for a real apology.

Everyone else can play along with this "I misspoke" or "you took it the wrong way" or "my comments were taken out of context" or "the big bad media is after me" game if they want, but you will have to forgive me for not wanting to join.

I am not directing anger at anyone on this board.  I am just expressing my agitation and frustration with a lot of things that happened during this primary season.

I agree with you, uva08, that Clinton is getting special treatment. However, I believe that this is rooted more in respect and love for the Clintons rather than fear.

If Democrats really feared the Clintons, major Clinton supporters from the past such as Bill Richardson would not have publicly backed Obama. And you wouldn't see prominent democrats publicly switching their support from Hillary to Obama either.

The reason why we Democrats give the Clintons a break is because we just like them and respect them a lot. Clinton was the only Democratic president that was elected to be president twice since FDR. He also contained the lunatic conservative movement of the time. Just imagine the state of the country today if Dole were president in 1996 with a Republican Congress.

I like the Clintons a lot myself, and I often find myself giving Hillary a break for all of the horrible things she has said and done during this campaign.

But this last talking point of her really is crossing the line.

but whether you think it is love, fear, admiration, or anything else, like you said, they are getting special treatment.  

As for the double standard, When it became clear that it was basically impossible for Huckabee to get the nomination, the media treated the situation as such.  They made passing references to Huckabee, but they did not pretend the contest resembled anything like a "horse race."  Many in the media have admitted that it is almost impossible for Hillary to win the nomination.  However, almost immediately, they retreat a little and go right back into the talking points and media narrative that they have been pushing these past few months.

You were originally saying that her statements were not taken out of context and you have repeated that.  I was providing the paper who conducted the interview statement on this to provide that context.  Do you dispute that context?  And what do you think the context was, that is indisputable?

The comparative weight of the two statement is certainly subjective.  I was providing again the context for each since you brought up Huckabee's joke.  The only qualitative judgment I made was that Huckabee's joke was crass.  But since you bring it up, I do think his joke was worse than her statement because he was talking about a direct threat to Obama.  And the fact that he did so casually as an ad-lib to a prepared speech, I think, makes it worse.  

I understand your point on verbal gaffes.  But they are not the totality of someone's campaign, though they can be.  But you were also making a comparative statement between the chances for success each candidate has in the fall.  So, you would need to look at more than just these things.

On party unity, I think you are not giving enough credit this process has had in training and organizing Democrats around the country.  You say regardless of who gets the nomination some significant constituency is going to be upset.  I think it is still too early to make an assessment of that.  But Obama is most likely to get the nomination, what significant portion of the Democratic Party is going to be upset to the point they switch their votes or don't vote at all?  

Your saying that it didn't have to be this way.  But it most certainly did.  This process was designed by the Democratic Party.  Proportional allocation of the delegates was all a part of the design.  If we mirrored the Republicans, this could have been done differently.  But I don't see where you come to the conclusion that it didn't have to be this way.  Yes, if the party was more unified behind Obama or Clinton on Super Tuesday, then it could have all been over.  But it wasn't.

To your point about divisions, there is a 400+ year history that led us to where we are today.  The media and the Clinton campaign pointing out those differences did not create them.  And whether they had mentioned them or not, it is doubtful that the divisions would not have had the same impact.  Here I think your postulation that had the media and the Clinton campaign not mentioned the divisions in our society that something would be different is wrong.  Unfortunately, we can't run a control and test case to determine whether an absence of mentioning distinctions would lessen the effects of division.  I see it more of the wedge was already there, it didn't really need anyone to verbalize it in order to make it effective.

On the Clintons, I think Hugo has made this point for me.  In order to make the case for fear, you would need some more substantive points to demonstrate that is what is going on here.  Also, you keep saying there is some double standard, that benefits the Clintons, I think you need to more clearly demonstrate what that is in order to make this point.  How have they not been held to the same standards or not been held accountable?  You made this point in your first post, but what is the double standard that the media and Democrats have with the Clintons?  

On your reverence point, the Clintons have made contributions to the party; people can be appreciative of those things without that constituting revering them.  If you are tired of people putting politicians on peddle stools, then perhaps you also feel the same way about how people do that with Obama.

To the sexism point, I was not speaking to Obama's campaign specifically.  I was speaking to the general bias.  I think there are much more better speakers on the topic than I.  And I would just direct you to their work.  One I would recommend is Shakesville's Hillary Sexism Watch.  But there are plenty more places to look if you are interested.  I'll also post a great video piece that the Women's Media Center put together separately below.

This is "Sexism Might Sell, But I'm Not Buying It!" put together by the Women's Media Center, along with their partner Media Matters.

That was a powerful video, but it still didn't give any examples of Obama or his surrogates being sexist.  My point was not that no sexism was going on, but that Obama's campaign has not used gender like Clinton has used race to divide the electorate.

It was never my assertion was never a comparison between the use of gender or race by the two campaigns.  That was your comparison.  My point about double standards was that the media and general outrage are all over race as issue, but they treat gender as an issue differently.

We are basically talking about two completely different subjects.

Before I respond anymore, I would just like you to "put things into context" for me.  How should I interpret Clinton's RFK comment in the "proper context" as you see it?  Is the point that primaries have gone into June before?  I get that point (although it is flawed to compare past primaries to this year's front loaded season), but her Bill Clinton example was sufficient to prove that point, so why bring up RFK?

We are basically talking about two completely different subjects.

Before I respond anymore, I would just like you to "put things into context" for me.  How should I interpret Clinton's RFK comment in the "proper context" as you see it?  Is the point that primaries have gone into June before?  I get that point (although it is flawed to compare past primaries to this year's front loaded season), but her Bill Clinton example was sufficient to prove that point, so why bring up RFK?

We are basically talking about two completely different subjects.

Before I respond anymore, I would just like you to "put things into context" for me.  How should I interpret Clinton's RFK comment in the "proper context" as you see it?  Is the point that primaries have gone into June before?  I get that point (although it is flawed to compare past primaries to this year's front loaded season), but her Bill Clinton example was sufficient to prove that point, so why bring up RFK?

This is my favorite comment of the approximately 17,000 on huffingtonpost.  (No, I didn't read them all):

Last note: HRC doesn't seem to understand that many of us who have walked in high heels down the halls of courthouses and corporate offices and have held both low wage and high paying jobs during our long careers don't want her as the role model for our daughters and granddaughters; don't want her as the leader of our great country; and don't want her blaming sexism for her loss. It's the one thing she's earned all by herself.

to this "time-line" defense argument that some are making.  For me this argument is flawed and another example of how dishonest Hillary Clinton is willing to be.  She knows that those past primaries started at a later date and the amount of delegates at stake in June was greater than this year's primary.  It is really hard to compare one year when when states like California were holding their primary in June along with other states to a year when only two states and one territory are.  

Hillary Clinton's comment was horrible because it publicly raised a spectre that many have privately recognized and feared.  It should not have been publicly acknowledged for safety reasons.

I don't think it was motivated by a secret desire to see Obama harmed.  I also believe that the whole argument over whether commenters should ascribe subconscious motives to every thing Senator Clinton says and does to be a valid discussion.  To clarify on some points, describing the objectionable behavior of a public figure (Lowell's example of describing Pres. Bush as a sociopath without intellectual curiosity) is different from guessing at somebody's motivation for his actions.  Nobody is guessing why Bush lacks intellectual curiosity - nobody is delving into how Barbara Bush failed to potty train him, or how growing up in the shadow of a famous father caused him to act like a macho jerk.

It's that quick, glib attachment to psychobabble that some of us object to.  It doesn't matter whether it's Hillary or John McCain.  No reputable psychologists would do an analysis or diagnosis of somebody's dysfunctions without having even met the person.  Note, I said no reputable professional - there are plenty of media hacks who do just that.  But they are not reputable pyschologists who practice their profession.

And for those of us who once took Psych 101, we just aren't qualified to analyze somebody's deepest motives, no matter how satisfying that might feel.

That's different from describing their behavior.  That is fair game and that's what makes this site interesting - controversy stimulates thought when it's done well.

Having said that, Hillary's argument that she should stay in the race, citing an assassination is worthless for another more pragmatic reason.

All of us are human and mortal.  Any one of us, including any candidate, no matter how vigorous and healthy, can meet an untimely end due to perfectly natural causes.  I'm sorry to bring this indelicate fact up but none of us gets to live forever and nobody has a crystal ball that will tell us when our time comes.

Any candidate, Hillary, herself; John McCain, or Barack Obama could get sick, could meet with an accident, or anything on the campaign trail or off.  If you want to use the "life is uncertain" excuse, you could stay in a losing campaign forever.  

On the other hand, should something awful happen to a candidate, there would be no reason that provisions couldn't be made for a replacement at that time.  That, aside from any other reason, is the real reason that the example of RFK's assassination had no place in the argument.  Hillary should simply have stuck to the argument that other primaries have gone on to June, including her husband's, and that she had a right to finish out the last contests in June.  Period!

There was simply no need to bring up talk of assassination and it is an example of the growing exhaustion on the campaign trail.  That concerns me more for both candidates.  I think Hillary should go to the last primary, be given the respect she deserves for a well fought effort, then she should move quickly to reunite the party.  Talk of an effort going all the way up to the convention is counter productive.  Nobody needs a brokered convention or mutually assured destruction.

I also think that Obama will need to pick somebody with strong military and foreign affairs credentials for a running mate, and as everybody here knows, my choice is Jim Webb for that.

Hillary can also return to the Senate and forge a fine career as a leader there, run for governor of New York, or even consider another run in, hopefully, 8 years.  She has a great future and this would definitely not be a swan song unless she is blamed for the party's defeat in November.

Even with time to reflect and assess, Clinton in her New York Post (or Daily News) piece refuses to simply apologize.  She simply repeated the same non-apology she uttered in that South Dakota grocery store.  I don't agree that she ever had any "right" to finish out the last contests in June, and I feel even more strongly that she should pack it in before then to allow that action to speak louder than her tepid words.

The only reason that Clinton is not facing near unanimous calls to quit now is because June 3 is only nine days away and no one thinks whatever the DNC committee decides about Florida and Michigan on Saturday or whatever the voters in Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota say will make any difference.  In fact, it seems more likely that the superdelegates will continue to put Obama within reach of the nomination.

I will not be surprised if Clinton insists on staying in until the next step later in June on the Florida and Michigan situation.  In fact, I can see her staying in until enough superdelegates commit to Obama, including those who switch from her, to give Obama the new magic number of 2,210.  If Clinton does not signal that she's done soon after June 3, I'd really like to see Pelosi and others persuade the superdelegates to take away from her the only thing she's still clinging to, the technicality that it's not over until she's says it's over.