Jay Bookman

By Lyn

May 24, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

Wrong,She was repeated this the on the third time.

Then,she apologized back,but her own excuses was the Kennedy’s.

By Sylvia

May 24, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this

I am sure you must know that the Obama campaign chose not to interpret her statement at all. Perhaps she misspoke. It is interesting to note that she did not give Senator Obama the same respect when she exploited again and again his ‘bitter’ statement. Don’t you dare paint the Obama campaign with the political brush that colors the Clintons.

By zjm

May 24, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

http://lightfromtheruins.blogspot.com/2008/05/it-is-you-hillary-not-what-you-said-you.html

Enough Hillary, enough!

We’ve heard your lame-a* excuses as you claimed that you meant no offense for race baiting in South Carolina, ethnic/religious baiting by not standing by Obama during the Jeremiah Wright/Muslim smears, and your recent “hard-working white people” slurs against all working people, and Obama - and now you give the impression that your reason for staying in a campaign you lost months ago is that you are waiting for an assassination in June!

Hillary, your insincere, b****** apology doesn’t cut it - remember when you said the same thing to TIME back in March?

Sad, pathetic, mentally ill, delusional, despicable, or unabashed evil - short of some unimaginable act of contrition, Hillary, the above adjectives are apt descriptions of your shoddy political legacy.

Get the hell out of this race!

zjm

By Kevin C

May 24, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this

I disagree that she was using this a simply a time marker. She could have chosen many other examples of grit and determination in campaigns. Even in this example, she could have simply said, “Bobby Kennedy was still campaigning in June. (Although in 1968, the primary season started two months later, so it’s not really a fair comparison).

But, instead, Clinton used the word “assassination.” She said simply, “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

Her example of Bill still campaigning in June is a time marker. The mention of Bobby Kennedy’s assassination in June is clearly meant to illustrate that “bad things can happen”, “the unexpected can happen”, or “anything can happen.”

As I was re-reading, re-listening, I now see that she did not even mention Bobby Kennedy’s campaign as her so-called “apology” claims. She said a simple sentence,

“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California”

She could have said, “Bobby Kennedy was still campaigning in June, just like my husband.” And left it at that. But she didn’t. She said,

“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June”

She’s a smart woman. She’s a highly skilled politician and, by all accounts, a master campaigner. She has brought up the spectre of assassination, not once, not twice, but at least four times since March. She said,

In Iowa, “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June”

In a March interview with Time magazine, “We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A.”

At a fundraiser in Washington, DC, earlier this month, “I remember tragically when Senator Kennedy won California near the end of that process.”

And in Shepherdstown, WV, you said, “I remember what happened in the California primary in 1968 as Senator Kennedy won that primary”

She “apologized”, so some say. She didn’t actually say the words “apology” or “sorry”. She didn’t even say she regretted her words. What she said was she regrets if her words were in any way offensive. She regretted if this was offensive,

“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June”

She’s a highly educated woman. A lawyer by training and profession. She has 30 years of experience, ready to lead on Day One, and immense diplomatic experience in over 80 countries. She has the finely honed ability to pick and choose, and to demand exactly appropriate words. Remember “reject and denounce?” She said,

“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June”

Those words were intentional. They were chosen months ago and repeatedly stated since as her “anything can happen” rationale for continuing in this race. She meant them. She meant them as they were stated. I don’t think she’s actually calling for an assassination (as any fair-minded person would agree), but she was bringing up political assassination (no mention of Kennedy’s campaign, remember) as an example of what can happen.

I’m still in this because anything can happen, like ..

“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June”

Simply, Sadly, Shameless.

By Willie Benson

May 24, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this

What are you talking about, the Obama campaign has been silent about this incident. When asked, David Axelrod said he didn’t think that Senator Clinton meant anything ill of Senator Obama. They are not exploiting her dumb statement. I do know that Senator Clinton has some wackos supporting her, just based on the racist comments I have read in blogs from them since the start of this campaign. Statements like this do serve to plant seeds in the minds of sickos out there. With our history of political assassination, that word should never be used in political speech.

By Jay Bookman

May 24, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this

To Willie Benson:

from the Washington Post:

“‘Senator Clinton’s statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign,’ Obama spokesman Bill Burton said.”

By Faux Pas

May 24, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this

In 1968 RFK had just won the California primary, before he was killed. His last public words were: “And now it’s on to Chicago and let’s win there.” So the 1968 campaign was no where near ended with this California primary. There were many political battles yet to come, only to be resolved finally by a vote of delegates at the convention in Chicago. So Clinton’s remarks were absolutely correct - for her it’s on to Denver and she will try to win there. Nothing new and she’s right.

By Pelu Maad

May 24, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

The Obama campaign interpreted Clitnon’s remarks? I don’t think so. Ain’t no “gotcha” in your “gotcha”.

By mp

May 24, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this

Deos this come as a suprise to anyone when its comes to Obama’s campaign. They has been doing this all campaign long. Taking Clinton’s words and twisting to make her look bad, or racist. No, Obama is not a different kind of candidate. He is the worse kind of candidate.

By Pelu Maad

May 24, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this

“Hard working white voters”….where’s the twist?

By Atico

May 24, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

Power hungry politicians,and “oat tailers”on the Obama side will do, and say anything to win. Then they lose. Senator Clinton’s remark about RFK was only the truth. That Obama team, ex Clintonites most, will nit pick all statements she makes. Hang in there Hillary. I am a Republican, and appreciate grit against the scruffy, wisdom vs Duh!

By James

May 24, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this

It doesn’t matter what she meant, if came out the way it came out, it was wrong and she didn’t even apologize to Obama. And the apology she offered wasn’t even an apology, she makes it sound like if someone was offended she regrets it but it is your own fault for being offended.

It is not acceptable to use that word when refering to Obama when many of his supporters are fearful for his safety. It has been reported that he has already had numerous threats, anything said that would seemingly give permission to a looney racist who may already be following Hillary because of her past actions and words is unacceptable.

You would think someone with “35 years of experience” should know better.

If she was just refering to the length of past campaigns she could have said that. She could of said RFK was still campaigning in June or used many other references but she used “assassination” when it wasn’t germaine to the issue for some reason. her past actions and words have showed she would lie, cheat, steal, and character assassinate her opponent which makes one wonder, how far would she really go? I don’t think she would use violence herself, but by driving up the racial tension as she has and now uses the word “assassination”, what other reason could she have to do it?

By Eagle

May 24, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this

She would have been forgiven by most Dems if she would come out and just offer a real heartfelt apology. Why can’t the Clintons ever apologize when they do something wrong?

I think some Clinton supporters would makes excuses and blindly stand behind her even if she had the smoking gun in her hand. Some of these people are delusional… and scary.

I liked Hillary but every day she seems more unbalanced and makes no sense. I will be putting my support behind our nominee and try to ignore Hillary for awhile and hope she gets her act together before she ruins her legacy and goes down in history as insane, if it isn’t too late.

By Cam

May 24, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this

Oh please, Sylvia, the Obama Campaign certainly did choose to react negatively to Clinton’s referencing of a well known example of a campaign lasting into June. If the Obama Campaign was everything you apparently believe it to be, it would most likely have made no comment - or, if forced to comment, would have watched the video and then only said that what the Clinton Campaign has said, and what this article says. If you want to be charitable, then let us suppose that the Obama Campaign simply did not watch the video before reacting to something they heard third-hand and inaccurately reported. That would not be the first time either campaign has done that. There is no point in elevating the Obama Campaign to the same level as you have elevated Barack Obama himself. When it comes to it, an Obama administration will only be as good as his advisors, most of whom are too fixed the in the established ways of politics to actually realize his vision of a new politics (or a new America, for that matter). That’s not to say that I won’t be voting for him in November, although I am a Clinton supporter. But I would like to see what he does to heal any perceived rifts before I do, and that includes resisting attacking his rival’s character (however well it goes down with). Remember, his Campaign’s attacks (or particularly Axelrod’s) on Clinton have been extremely personal, i.e. have been character defamation (and calling her and her supporters part of the problem, which is no way to win votes, so I think they are even on that score, since you mention her attack on his ‘bitter’ remarks). Her attacks on him, on the other hand, have been consistently to do with his in experience, which is hardly as objectionable! I haven’t seen him attack McCain’s character in this way. Incidentally, don’t you think your ‘don’t you dare’ is a bit over the top?!

By felicitus

May 24, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this

In the last month (in print and/or on TV & radio) Clinton has been called: brutal,ruthless,arrogant,racist,lying,pimping,”big-assed woman”. Most comments have been said in the “spirit of fun” by white males with a chuckle. There aren’t words to express my disdain for this treatment and the persons involved. Ferington

By George

May 24, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this

big-assed woman!

That is a new one. Where did you see that?

By Mari

May 24, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this

Steven Covey wrote, “the only way to stop playing games is to stop!” There is too much political game playing and “gotcha’s” in the political discourse in this country. I don’t think Senator Clinton meant anything nefarious in her reference to Bobby Clinton. However, it’s difficult to give her the benefit of the doubt when one thinks about her defining Obama as an elitist. That old saying that what goes around comes around is true.

By ron

May 24, 2008 5:08 PM | Link to this

Gutter politics are always entertaining.The Clintons have been at it a long time.They’re good.

By Jack ATL

May 24, 2008 5:14 PM | Link to this

Hillary Clinton has lost a tremendous amount of credibility, and doubt if her integrity has any measurement! Her comments regarding RFK were obscene, and disgusting. This was not the first time she had hinted at the possibility (first time in public forum was with TIME magazine in March 2008). Time for both of the Clintons to leave the scene — permanently. What pathetic role models!!!

By Cam

May 24, 2008 5:28 PM | Link to this

James, what on earth are you saying? “It is not acceptable to use that word when refering to Obama when many of his supporters are fearful for his safety.” What an absurd claim! For one thing, Clinton was NOT referring to Obama. And for another, any presidential candidate (or president), not just the first viable black candidate but the first viable FEMALE candidate might be considered a target by some nutter. Clinton’s remark was about Primary campaigns running into June, not about assassination. And, if you took the trouble to think it through, you’d realize that even had she not mentioned assassination, as you suggest she should not have, the fact that she didn’t would have people like you inferring from her omission the very thing you are imagining now.

By Peggy McGilligan

May 24, 2008 5:41 PM | Link to this

Again, it takes practice to screw-up on day one. Hillary Clinton is clearly ready. Its not like Hillary’s been screwing-up all along either; she simply misspoke, again. Anyway, Hillary will wangle her way out of it, and blame those who cry foul. I’ve seen her do it a thousand times. And, wasn’t another Kennedy (JFK Jr.) slated for her current senate seat? I’m not the only one who wonders about that. The Clintons; truly in a class by themselves: http://theseedsof9-11.com

By Mari

May 24, 2008 5:41 PM | Link to this

If anyone wonders about the conservative slant of FOXNews’ talking heads, they only need to observe how they have treated the story regarding John McCain’s problems with ministers. No back to back playing of sound bites with both preachers making outrageous remarks against other ethnic groups. If they were really “fair and balanced”, we would be sick and tired of Hagge and the other guy (whose name I don’t know because the story has literally been hidden).

My 86 year-old mother complains about her minister every week. But do you think she would leave that church? Heck no. Why should she? She has outlived every pastor that church has had for the last 86 years. She will leave that church when they roll her out in a casket, and then she’ll be just a few yards away in the church cemetery. It’s a black thing and most other ethnic groups just don’t understand. So for Obama’s detractors who wondered how he could have stayed in his church for 20 years, I get it! In the Black church, we join the fellowship of the church, we don’t join the pastor. We believe in the theology that you stay in a church and make it better; you don’t jump from one church to another. In fact, members are frowned upon and labeled church hoppers when they run from one church to another. Now, I respect my white Christians who may do otherwise, but don’t tell me what I should do.

By Mac Walton

May 24, 2008 5:47 PM | Link to this

Jay, I usually agree with you but not on this one. Look, Kennedy’s assassination shouldn’t have been referenced. That assassination, along with his brother, our president, and Dr. King, is a sore spot that still plagues this country today, Look, there are many black people that are still fearful of Obama getting the democratic nod for the presidency out of concern for his safety. It’s very real for the.

And don’t get me started with the pain the Kennedy family, no matter how much they say graciously say otherwise. Face it: That was extremely poor judgment on Senator Clinton’s part. And that’s the broader problem here, isn’t it? In other words, from the big-state strategy, to the landing under sniper fire in Bosnia, to giving out of money, to the attempts to make Clinton appear tough all the time instead of a real person, to race-baiting, her campaign has been a series of one bad judgment after another.

By Susan Powers

May 24, 2008 5:49 PM | Link to this

If his own son, his namesake thought it was no big deal, then why is everyone else acting like it is a big deal?

By GOP -Victor Forever!!

May 24, 2008 5:49 PM | Link to this

Mr.McCain should not worry about not having enough money to run against Mr.Obama, should he be the Dem nominee. All he has to do is use what Ms.Clinton has dished out through this campaign! and the beauty of it is, not only does Mr.McCain get free campaign material against Mr.Obama, he also gets the people who are so angry with Ms.Clinton losing that they are willing to vote for Mr.McCain and sacrifice all their principles! the circus of the Wusses, that is what the Dem party is - from its voters to its leadership! You see now why smart people belong to the Republican party? they know discipline and they know a winner among them when they see one, and they know how to campaign and unite behind a winner! The Dems are just looking out for their own egos! Ms.Clinton and her voters seem so angry and bitter that they not only campaign but vote for McCain! It makes me dance with joy! That is why never believe all the “GOP is disintegrating” crap! the Dems are self-destructing before our very eyes! I respect Mr.Obama for being a gentleman, and seems like a thoughtful, even-keeled guy. But the Dems don’t like that kinda smart stuff. Keep going, Donkey-clan! Victory is for the Elephants!

oh, btw, if Ms.Clinton is so smart, how come she cannot manage her money, her staff or her words? its sad for you, but great for us. I cannot resist it, so here goes: So long, suckers!

By Julia

May 24, 2008 6:05 PM | Link to this

Poor Misunderstood Hillary.

No one to blame.

No staff. No media. No Bill No Obama.

Hillary

By Tom in California

May 24, 2008 6:14 PM | Link to this

The RFK reference is telling because it illuminates Senator Clinton’s way of thinking. In her world, Obama is significant only because he is an obstacle that stands between her and what she wants. And a number of things (an unforeseen scandal or a plane crash — or even assassination) might fortuitously remove that obstacle from her path at any moment.

Given that outlook, put yourself in Obama’s position for a moment. Would you want Clinton as your vice president?

By Lyn

May 24, 2008 6:37 PM | Link to this

She was repeated this the on the third time. I would prefer to vote McCain

By michael mcclintock

May 24, 2008 7:00 PM | Link to this

your article has incorrect facts and reaches a preposterous conclusion; bill clinton had the nomination sewed up weeks before california- that was a bogus reason for hillary staying in the race; the only other one given was in case of assassination; that’s not an idle thought that just tumbles out as another clinton misstatement (like bosnia bullets and so many others); if she actually has this gruesome thought (and mentioning it to press two other times seems she must) to actually say it out loud, not to know it is dangerous aside from despicable, shows monumentally bad judgement that would be catastrophic in the white house

By CBL

May 24, 2008 7:03 PM | Link to this

Par for the course for Clinton feeling entitled to this office or any other political gain. This is the modus operandi for her, to consider how to remove her obstructions to gaining power, and this time she let her thoughts slip out into the public domain. This is the same woman who removed records as a young lawyer prior to the Nixon scandal, hid the Rose Law firm records, and is suspected at being involved in the death of Vince Foster.

By JAY BOOKMAN

May 24, 2008 7:09 PM | Link to this

To those who believe that this was in some way calculated, or that she is staying in the race just in case the horror of horrors is inflicted on us, help me out a little bit here.

If something were to happen to Obama, it seems to me that Hillary would automatically assume the nomination, whether she had dropped out of the race or not. The official status of her candidacy at that point would be a meaningless detail — she would be the nominee. So what could she possibly gain by consciously raising this theoretical trauma? If you are conspiracy-minded, I suppose you could believe she is trying to scare people off from voting for Obama, but the tiny number of votes that might gain her is surely swamped by the controversy this has caused. So …. where’s the angle that would justify this? What would she possibly have to gain?

By jacksmith

May 24, 2008 7:16 PM | Link to this

DON’T BE DUPED AGAIN AMERICA !!!

IT’S ABOUT ELECTABILITY !!!

Large numbers of BUSH_McCain Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on with the backing and help of the medical and insurance industry. Under the direction of the George Bush, and Karl Rove vote fraud, and vote manipulation machine. Because they feel Barack Obama would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And they want to stop Hillary Clinton from fixing the HUGE! American, and Global mess they have created. shocking!!! isn’t it. Just gotta love those good old draft dodging, silver spoon Texas boys. Not! :-(

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don’t want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves off of you, and your children’s suffering.

With Hillary Clinton you are almost 100% certain to get quality affordable universal health care for everyone very soon. And you are also certain to see major improvements in the economy for everyone.

The American people face even worse catastrophes ahead than the ones you are living through now. It will take all of the skills, and experience of Hillary Clinton to pull the American people out of this mess we are in. Fortunately fixing up, and cleaning up others incompetence, immoral degeneracy, and mess is what the Clinton’s do very well.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama’s. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

Just look at Oregon for example. Obama won Oregon by about 70,000 votes. But approximately 79,000 Bush republicans switched party’s back in January to vote for Obama in the democratic primary. They are not going to vote for, or support any Democrat in November. Are you DEMOCRATS going to put up with that. Are you that stupid, and weak. The Bush republicans think you are that stupid, and weak.

As much as 30% of Obama’s primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses, and open primaries where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help. Except North Carolina where 35% of the population is African American, and approximately 90% of them block voted for him. African Americans are only approximately 17% of the general population.

Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED! and OUT SPENT! 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton. This is even more phenomenal when you consider she has been also fighting against the George Bush, Karl Rove vote fraud machine in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses. Hillary Clinton is STUNNING!.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. That is crystal clear now. Because all of the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. And the demographics, and experience are completely against him. All of this vote fraud and Bush republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is.

You will have another McGovern catastrophe where George McGovern lost 49 of 50 states. And was the reason the super-delegates were created to keep that from happening again. Don’t let that happen to the party and America again super-delegates. You have the power to prevent it. The only important question now is who can best win in November. And the answer is HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON. That fact is also now crystal clear.

And YOUNG PEOPLE. DON’T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose. As do African Americans. Support Hillary Clinton. She will do her best for all of you. And she will know how to best get it done on day one.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton’s have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic, and heroic comebacks of Hillary Clinton’s. Only the Clinton’s are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen. Probably the best there has ever been. :-)

“This is not a game” (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith… Working Class :-)

p.s. Cynthia Ruccia - I’m with ya baby. All the way. “Clinton Supporters Count Too.”

By George

May 24, 2008 7:21 PM | Link to this

Jay

“consciously raising this theoretical trauma” is what she know how to do. It isn’t a plot or scheme, it is the real her talking out loud. Sad but true.

By George

May 24, 2008 7:27 PM | Link to this

Hey jacksmith, why are you posting your Hillary Masters Thesis on the Bookman blog? Ya think anyone is really going to read it.

(Is that a paid political announcement)

By Vincent

May 24, 2008 7:35 PM | Link to this

Absolutely dead on. Headlines like “The Cancer that is Hillary Clinton”, “Has Hillary Gone Insane?” No, but a good many members of the press corp apparently have …

By jacksmith

May 24, 2008 7:39 PM | Link to this

IT’S ABOUT ELECTABILITY !!!

MY FELLOW “BITTER”, STUPID, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE :-)

If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of “BITTER”!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER. :-(

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary’s than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith… Working Class :-)

p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you don’t know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering…

You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)

Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don’t die from. And I could go on, and on…

OBAMA AIDE: “WORKING-CLASS VOTERS NOT KEY FOR DEMOCRATS” :o

By Dale Rodgers

May 24, 2008 7:41 PM | Link to this

Seems like more of the same silly BS over a valid comment.

However I will predict that if Obama wins the white house he will not last out a year - some nut will have to kill the first ‘black’ president. Hillary’s best shot now @ the white house/presidency would be to be the VP on an obama/clinton tix.

??

By Piter

May 24, 2008 7:49 PM | Link to this

Jay Bookman is either a fool or desperately trying to spin the story for suggesting that the Obama campaign “chose to misinterpret” Clinton’s remark about RFK’s murder. The Obama campaign simply said that her comment was unfortunate, and there was no place for it in this race.

Regardless of the Obama camp’s reaction to Clinton’s comments, referring to political assassinations during a long and (at one time) close primary is—to say the least—stupid and reckless.

By Theguy

May 24, 2008 7:51 PM | Link to this

People that ridicule Hillary like the way alot of you are doing, just love to hate her. Yeah she might have slipped up and her remarks probably meant nothing. But shes been campaigning for over a year and you cant even give her the benefit of the doubt. Obama only didnt reply to the remarks and didnt care because he’s close to a nomination. Totally agree with this article. Hillary 08!

By John

May 24, 2008 7:56 PM | Link to this

We must ask Hillary Clinton in her use of the word “assination” was this intentional or unintentional? No matter, because the damage has been done no matter what the intentionality was.

On television Hillary kept saying for weeks over and over that something was going to happen. Then she used the A WORD assination. And a nightmare image was created in your head.

You cannot yell fire in a theatre or use an emotionally explosive word like “assination” during a political campagin in the U.S. And not expect a firestorm to erupt. Especially if that comment lands on TV.

This was also front page news today in the New York Times, in The Washington Post, in The Guardian yesterday in London. And for hours and hours on the national cable news programs. Makes the uproar over the Rev. Wright comments small in comparison.

I have always admired the Clintons. But fear this comment will impact on their future lagacy. Because the damage done means there is not a whisker of a chance Hillary Clinton will become the Vice Presidential candidate for the Democrats.

The end has come because the smart super delegates know the damage that has been created to the campaign and to their party by the use of this sound byte by Hillary Clinton.

HOW SAD THIS IS FOR HILLARY CLINTON who has worked so hard to be a great leader for the country. But we live in a fast age where a sound byte can kill you.

Check out the powerful words of Keith Obermann msnbc.msn.com/id/24797758/

John. Cousin to Sir Winston Churchill

Who was always careful with the words he used because bang he knew they coould go right into the history books.

By George

May 24, 2008 7:59 PM | Link to this

Theguy, Obama did reply. Sen. Barack Obama gives Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt that she had no hidden meaning when she invoked the assassination of Bobby Kennedy as an explanation for remaining in the Democratic presidential race.

jacksmith, You might be an idiot if you think anyone is going to read all that paid drivel from the Hillary campaign.

By John

May 24, 2008 8:00 PM | Link to this

Edited copy

We must ask Hillary Clinton in her use of the word “assignation” was this intentional or unintentional? No matter, because the damage has been done no matter what the intentionality was.

On television Hillary kept saying for weeks over and over that something was going to happen. Then she used the A WORD assignation. And a nightmare image was created in your head.

You cannot yell fire in a theatre or use an emotionally explosive word like “assignation” during a political campaign in the U.S. And not expect a firestorm to erupt. Especially if that comment lands on TV.

This was also front page news today in the New York Times, in The Washington Post, in The Guardian yesterday in London. And for hours and hours on the national cable news programs. Makes the uproar over the Rev. Wright comments small in comparison.

I have always admired the Clintons. But fear this comment will impact on their future legacy. Because the damage done means there is not a whisker of a chance Hillary Clinton will become the Vice Presidential candidate for the Democrats.

The end has come because the smart super delegates know the damage that has been created to the campaign and to their party by the use of this sound byte by Hillary Clinton.

HOW SAD THIS IS FOR HILLARY CLINTON who has worked so hard to be a great leader for the country. But we live in a fast age where a sound byte can kill you.

Check out the powerful words of Keith Obermann on msnbc dot com.

John. Cousin to Sir Winston Churchill

Who was always careful with the words he used because bang he knew they could go right into the history books.

By Piter

May 24, 2008 8:02 PM | Link to this

@ Vincent: you might want to actually read more than the headlines: those were from some blogger on the Houston Chronicle’s website, and this tone has not been reflected by “members of the press corps” at large.

By drew

May 24, 2008 8:06 PM | Link to this

You might be an idiot…

…if your name is jacksmith.

Your girl has lost dummy…get over it!

By Piter

May 24, 2008 8:08 PM | Link to this

@ theguy: Yes, a pandering and condescending power-hungry demagogue who agrees to abide by a set of rules—until they are no longer expedient for her own crusade of satisfying her personal ambition (seating FL and MI)—is JUST what we need in a president!

By Piter

May 24, 2008 8:12 PM | Link to this

@ Susan Powers: because Bobby Kennedy Jr. does not speak for the American public at large, and we all are allowed to express our own individual feelings and opinions on the matter. Nice try, though.

By bob

May 24, 2008 8:15 PM | Link to this

Reporter: Sen. Clinton, why are you still in this race when you have no mathematical path to the nomination?

Clinton: Well, like RFK was assassinated, I’m hoping my opponent will get assassinated before the convention. Then I’ll be the nominee.

By Mary J

May 24, 2008 8:17 PM | Link to this

We finally get a Woman close to the Presidency and she turns out to be loco.

Thanks Hillary

By b2

May 24, 2008 8:21 PM | Link to this

To Susan Powers

Why will RFK Jr. take offense when (a) the assassination threat was directed against Obama, and (b) when RFK Jr. is a Hillary Clinton supporter? Clinton supporters conveniently make the remark out to be entirely about RFK, when it was entirely about Obama.

By Hillary Girl

May 24, 2008 8:31 PM | Link to this

The fear emanating from more than a few white males regarding Hillary is truly amazing. They do not, under any circumstances, want a woman president. The blacks, of course, want B.O. I am continually amazed at Hillary’s gumption and tenacity in spite of all of the nasty, ugly publicity thrown at her, as the media seemed to decide B.O. was the nominee months ago. I truly respect Hillary and if she were a man it would be no contest. Women in this country better wake up and see what lies ahead of them.

By bp

May 24, 2008 9:43 PM | Link to this

atlanta will vote for the oman

as will all blacks

racist? yeah, but we can’t call it that, can we

is it because of his very few firm views on issues? Nope

the hinterlands will vote for mccain

just the way it really is

By George

May 24, 2008 9:59 PM | Link to this

Um Lucien BONNET, noone is going to read that manifesto you posted. So what do you have to say about the subject of this blog?

By Mary J

May 24, 2008 10:09 PM | Link to this

Hillary Girl

It isn’t Hillary’s uterus that is the problem, it is her.

By Vermontlefty

May 24, 2008 10:13 PM | Link to this

If you are trying to establish a time line, why use Robert Kennedy’s 1968 bid at all? She knows that the primaries start earlier and that the use of the California primary as an example of how events may play out in 2008 is spurious. California’s primary is now months ahead of the June examples she uses. It’s understandable that she invokes the RFK legacy, but to specifically use the term “assassination of Bobby Kennedy” when explaining her reasons for staying in the race is at best careless. In a race that has EVERYONE concerned about the safety of ALL, but especially Obama, the spectre of an assassination, used in the eleventh hour of her all but failed Presidential bid is clearly Irresponsible. I can and do forgive her for saying it, but I question the judgment and leadership of someone who does not understand why it should not have been said.

By jeanrenoir

May 25, 2008 12:18 AM | Link to this

Obama’s campaign has been extremely measured in its response to Clinton’s mind-bogglingly stupid and self-destructive Mother of All Gaffes. I thought she was supposed to be so “experienced” and “vetted.” I thought she’d been contrasting herself throughout the campaign as the cool, experienced candidate “ready from Day 1” to take over the Oval Office and run it with applomb, always in contrast with the implicitly “dangerous” (3AM!) “inexperience” of Obama. Yet Obama’s only gaffe in the entire campaign was his honest “Bittergate” comment to what he assumed was a private, off-the-record group, for which he was only “outed” by an obvious Clinton mole who’d been following him to these fund-raisers to get “dirt” on him. The problem with Clinton’s stupid assassination remark was its being so typical of the ineptitude not of one “gotcha” moment but of Clinton’s entire campaign. And the comment was so radioactive only because Clinton seems now so insane in her delusional “determination to fight” a battle that is long over, that her comment couldn’t help but give objective listeners the sickening feeling that maybe, just maybe, the woman is truly losing it, and blurting out a twisted dream out her her crazy inability to accept defeat the way every normal politician in our lifetime always has, as a matter of course. Nixon’s petulance is the only precedent since 1960 for being such a sore loser as Hillary.

By JB

May 25, 2008 12:39 AM | Link to this

I am happy to see more than one candidate until the convention. It shows that as Americans we have a right to choose. Let this be peaceful. It seems that everyone is focused on the wrong issues and not the ones we should be. Remember the race between two candidates starts officially after the convention(S)!

By h ryder

May 25, 2008 5:22 AM | Link to this

Mrs. Clinton, or should we tag you Hill-Bill for short, or Hillbilly for a joke. You are not wanted by a majority of people in this country. The majority of programs you have touted or been directly involved have been failures, largely due to no recognition of reality and theory differences. The reality is that the world will go right on without you and any and all of the self absorbed baby boomers who believe they they and only they have the requisites to solve this countries problems. Do sonething correct for a change, get out of the nomination process, dump your husband, resign from the U.S. Senate, and move to Iran or Korea in retirement to aid them in improving their world’s image. GET OUT!!!!!!!

By Bud Wiser

May 25, 2008 7:15 AM | Link to this

This Democratic “race” is just that, and more. The party that has long trumpeted itself as the shepherds of the disenfranchised flocks of conglomerative assimilation, now has two of the sheep vying for the leadership, and the party is in chaos trying to figure out how to react. In atypical matter, the Dems try not to count votes they do not like (Florida and Michigan), leaving the result to a back-door resolution, the “It’s a bird…no, it’s a plane…no, it’s SUPERDELEGATES!” Frankly, I am surprised they can get anything done at all. With the impending addition of 20 Plus million illegals to the soon-to-be-registered-because- everyone-needs-a-vote Democrat party, maybe they will not feel so insecure. The next convention in 2010 should be a doozey though! I can see it now…the chaos erupts when they cannot decide about who shall cater the event; Church’s Fried Chicken, Taco Bell, Capt Johnnies in Key West, or PETA-approved Salads from Dallas.

By tina

May 25, 2008 7:26 AM | Link to this

Thank you for putting it straight. Remember, this is a woman who has faced the real threat of assassination for at least sixteen years, and a mother who has lived with that threat hanging over her daughter’s head. Shame on Obama. He’s actually the one exploiting RFK’s death here. Why doesn’t he get called on it?

By Eric1

May 25, 2008 7:38 AM | Link to this

Amazing how anyone can be so filled with hate for someone who clearly does not deserve it. Hillary Clinton is a gracious, honest, intelligent, patriotic servant of the United States. She has run a noble and honest campaign and she has nothing to apologize for. Every little word she says is turned into a “story”, when there is no story. The way many of the Obama supporters act, I’m beginning to think they’re not democrats at all, they look exactly like cold blooded, empty headed rebublicans to me. We’re lucky to have someone like Hillary in the Senate and we’d be lucky to have her as our president. Her love for her country must be overwhelming. Why else would anyone put up with the constant abuse she is suffering at the hands of almost every major news outlet in the country. Thanks, Jay, you’re exactly right on this issue.

By Roger

May 25, 2008 7:48 AM | Link to this

There’s no logical connection between RKJ being assassinated in June and this year’s primary running through June. 1968 was a completely different primary schedule. RFK won his frist primary contest in May. He was four weeks into the primary season when he was murdered. RKF did not battle through a long primary, he was killed four weeks after winning his first state. Clinton’s continued reference to RKF is part of her “anything can happen” belief and the hope that she is destined to be president even under the worse circumstances. She is a desperate, selfish person in the extreme.

By George

May 25, 2008 8:25 AM | Link to this

tina, here is Obama’s response to Hillary’s RFK statement. Please let me know how Obama is “exploiting RFK’s death”. Please let me know since I have no idea how you can interpret this as exploiting RFK’s death.

“I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Sen. Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make, and I think that is what happened here. Sen. Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it, and I will take her at her word on that.”

Well tina, what is your interpretation of Obama’s remarks.

By Sop

May 25, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this

I have to disagree with Bookman on this one. The sniper-gate. The Bobby-gate. Why is she winging it? She needs to keep it close to the vest when she meanders around reflective comparisons to other campaigns or narrates scenes from war movies. It’s an indication of inexperience, naivety, and it almost disqualifies her 2B prez.

The snipergate was really bad, really really astonishing in it’s grandeur. This latest gaffe is aligned with rifles and guns and people getting shot, and it just stinks her campaign up beyond salvation.

If it wasn’t over, it is now.

Obama 08: He wont stink it up. And he wont let anyone else let one go either.

By Michael

May 25, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

[Hillary Clinton said – in a stupid way - that Democratic primaries have gone into June before and it didn’t damage the party. Of course everyone is free to interpret what Clinton really meant or insinuated like Bob Cesca of the Huffington Post or Keith Olbermann. But if one really believes or fears that Hillary Clinton is somehow hoping for a climactic event - such as an assasination - that could win her the nomination after all, they should get her to say exactly that. And if one really considers her remark as part of a pernicious plan to steal the nomination and invoke fears about Obama’s safety, there is an easy way to spoil those efforts: Don’t write about it.] (http://blogs.dw-world.de/acrossthepond/michael/1.6480.html)

By chesserky

May 25, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

Another example of the Obama team’s and his media ally’s gotcha politics. Like many traditional Democratic voters, this media frenzy only reinforces my determination. I could never vote for Obama for numerous reasons: 1. Constantly using the race card and “gotcha” attacks against opponents. Do we want to listen to this for four years, as his surrogates attack anyone that disagrees to him. 2. There almost a “personality cult” that surrounds him. Anyone that disagrees is publicly slapped down. You almost wonder when he will issue his little red book, to guide us all. 3. I refuse to let the media force feed me a candidate via extremely biased reporting and rabid attacks on Clinton. 4. I will not vote to a candidate that constantly touts “the Math”, when this math relies on the Florida and Michigan votes not being counted. A democrat that does not want to count the votes - I think not! 5. We made the mistake of electing a President that had a short track record and was a “uniter” eight years ago. See where that got us. This far in the campaign, we know little of Obama’s real positions, other than “we can do it!” and “change!. Many of us are not quick to fall for empty slogans. 6. Rev Wright and Bittergate give many real pause to ponder where Obama’s real positions lie. I am not going to vote for a question mark. Of course according to much of the media, only ingorant, racist hillbillies refuse to vote for Obama. Every time the media paints us in that manner it further reinforces the decision to never vote for Obama under any circumstances. reply

By Abundance of the Heart

May 25, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

There is a scripture that reads, “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.”

As Keith Olbermann would say, “Good-bye and Good Luck.”

By Xylem

May 25, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

Terrible, terrible little column of yours, Mr. Bookman. In a listing on this topic from Google News, you were the only one to have the gall to interpret Hillary’s comments this way — and Kevin C. above analyzes carefully the history of her making these remarks very, very well. Obama spokesman Bill Burton responded in a restrained and reasonable way, and Obama himself has not been making hay of the comment — as Hillary of course would do immediately. she needs to leave this race, now, and in my opinion never run or serve in any elected office again in America. After this grim campaign, ugh, is all i now have to say, to the Clintons, and the Clinton ‘legacy.

Double UGH.

By Bob from Canton

May 25, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this

This year will be full of these type of items. Obama says he wants a different type of campaign, but let anyone say anything he or his camp doesn’t like and they will be smeared to death! You are a racist for saying anything about Hillary and the “white” vote, but Obama gets 90% of the black vote and that is not racist???? Please show me that logic cause it won’t compute!

By Robert Luciano

May 25, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this

From tenacious, to delusional to falling into the abyss of utter insanity. Was her “wishful thinking” musing an attempt to expand her base of white trash bigots to now include potential assassins?

What more will it take for the remaining “undecided” Super Delegates to rid our nation from this mendacious, despicable, craven monster? She and the Big Dog have reduced the Clinton legacy to nothing more than race baiting and a stained blue dress.

By chesserky

May 25, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

Hey, Xylem, go ahead, keep disrespecting the Dem candidate that has received over 17 million Dem votes. That will win them over. Try riding half a Unit Pony to the GE. You hate filled Obamamites really creep a lot of us out.

Double UGH back to you.

By chesserky

May 25, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

Robert Luciano, isn’t terrible what CDS does to a person. They regress to the point where they remond many Dem’s of a snarling, foam-mouthed rabid dog. Like I said above, it just creeps me out.

By The Banditry of Pundits

May 25, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

Hillary is careless with words. She needs the thesaurus that Luciano flips through before he blogs.

Never use a big word when a little one will do.

That’s blog rule number 1. Blog rule number 2 is “go stick your head in the commode”.

bwa

By hmm..

May 25, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this

Why doesn’t anyone mention that the 1968 primaries didn’t even start until March of that year and that RFK also didn’t enter until March. Comparing the 1968 primary to now is like comparing a cat to a dog. Clinton knows this and her advisors know this, so they are bringing up RFK to spark emotion, sympathy and hope that the voters see a comparison between her and Kennedy. Shame on you Hillary!

By Michael

May 25, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this

I don’t think Hillary meant Obama was in any more danger of assassination than she was, but I also don’t think the Obama camp is really making a big deal about it. I think it has been blown a little out of proportion in the national media because 1) What else is there left to write about in this race? 2) Ted Kennedy’s cancer diagnosis has the family in the news.

It was in poor taste to mention it, but it was in disgusting taste for Saxby Chambliss to run the ad he ran about Max Cleland with not-so-subtle hints at Saddam Hussein. The fact that Georgians elected such a despicable human being should be a stain on the state. I may or may not vote for Johnny Isakson, but Saxby is a sack of poo.

By BOB

May 25, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

IF YOU JUST LEAVE HILLARY AND OBAMA ALONE LONG ENOUGH THEY WILL SCREW THEMSELVES OUT OF THIS RACE. JOHN JUST HAS TO BE SMILING EVERY TIME THEY GET IN FRONT OF A GROUP OF PEOPLE, ITS FUNNY HOW THESE JERKS “MISSPEAK” EVERY TIME THEY HAVE AN AUDIENCE. OBAMA HAVE YOU GOT TO CAMPAIGN IN THAT 58th STATE YET? WHAT A DUMBA$$.

By The Punditry of Bandits

May 25, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

Why cant the media leave hillary alone? leave her alone, sniff, she’s doing her best and you’re all mean to her, why? corkel snortle sniff choke, sob sob, leave her alone!

I know, you get the bit.

By James

May 25, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this

A demagogue is defined as “someone who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions and prejudices of the people”. As we approach the (Democratic Convention/2008 election), I already have a multitude of reasons why I would never vote for Hillary Clinton including her stance on the rights of unborn children, her disdain for the U.S. military and her socialist touch on every program or policy she proposes. However, if for no other reason, her unbridled demogoguery at the end of the 2000 Presidential election showed me just how far she would go in a disingenuous and even dangerous effort to gain popular support. President Bush lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote and thus the election; the U.S. Supreme Court solidifying his victory with a narrow 5 to 4 ruling. Then Mrs. Clinton, a Yale Law School graduate who knew better, angrily insinuated to the American masses that Vice President Gore had been robbed of the election since he won the popular vote. She even stated that one of her first acts as a U.S. Senator would be to propose legislation eliminating the electoral college (she thankfully failed in that attempt). I guess she felt she possessed more wisdom than James Madison and our other founding fathers. Unfortunately, the great majority of American voters are totally ignorant of the purpose of the electoral college and the incredible history of how this country was founded. Hillary used this sad ignorance to appeal to the public’s fears and to incite them during a time of Constitutional crisis when Florida’s electoral votes were still in doubt and the rule of law and calm needed to be promoted. She knew full well the electoral college was instituted to protect the influence of the smaller states, that those states would never have signed the Constitution without it and that it prevents one region of the country from dominating others in being able to choose a President. It forces a Presidential candidate to appeal to the nation as a whole as opposed to just densely populated areas. In effect, it attempts to bring us together as a nation rather than dividing us as a direct popular vote would. This is the United STATES of America not the United PEOPLE of America; it is thankfully a constitutional republic and not a pure reactionary democracy and there’s a big difference. Our present “electoral system” allowing the States to have a proper and constitutional role in electing a President mitigates demagoguery. Hillary’s desire for a “popular vote” system would allow demagoguery to thrive. She showed me her true colors back then in her blatant effort to do anything in a quest for power and that reveals the naked soul of a dangerous demagoguerette.

By CJ

May 25, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

BEING A WOMAN OF HILLARY AGE YES, I HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT HILLARY AND BILL LATELY. YOU CANNOT MAKE COMMENTS AND THEN SAY “I’M SORRY I DID NOT MEAN FOR IT TO COME OUT THAT WAY” EVERYONE THAT IS OVER 30 YEAR OLD KNOW ABOUT THE KILLINGS OF THE KENNEDYS AND DR. KING. THE FIRST THING I PICTURE IN MY MIND WAS, IF SHE HELD ON A LITTLE LONGER UNTIL JULY, THEN MAYBE SOMEONE WILL…AND THEN SHE’LL BE THE DEMOCRATIC FRONT RUNNER BY DEFAULT AND BE CHOSEN STRAIGHT UP AT THE CONVENTION. WELL, IF THIS IS THE CLINTON’S PLAN SHAME ON THEM, OR IT COULD BE THEIR WAY OF MAKING A LIE OUT OF EVER EAR THAT HEARD HER WORDS ON THIS STATEMENT AND THE DUCKING AND HIDING STATEMENT, WHICH WAS A LIE AS WELL. BUT WHEN YOU ARE 60 YOU SOMETIMES THINK OUT LOUD WHEN YOU SHOULDN’T, BUT AS A WOMAN OF HER AGE SHE WILL NOT BE GETTING MY VOTE. THE LADY JUST TALK TOO MUCH ABOUT THINGS I CONSIDER OFF LIMIT.

By Joey

May 25, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this

Obama never went after the Black vote- maybe he didn’t have to. But in the early days of his campaign he wasn’t getting 90 percent of the black vote and his wife was talking about how blacks are not supporting her husband believing he could not win. After a few wins, in mostly white states like Iowa, blacks jumped on board for Obama in higher numbers.

After losing a few states to Obama, Hillary targeted what she called “working class whites” and positioned herself as their champion. Obama was getting the college educated and young whites and Hillary went after the blue collar whites calling them by name. That’s when the campaign began to be about race. Hillary set the tone to divide the party on race and create an “us against them” campaign. She didn’t say she was the champion of change, or the champion of healthcare, she said she was the champion of working-class whites.

Had Obama not been the leading candidate, blacks would have supported Hillary much the same way they supported her husband when he ran for presidnet. But because race became the issue out of Hillary’s mouth, race became the focus of the campaign.

But this is also why Hillary’s supporters are viewed more as racists and some of them even leave the polls saying they voted on race. Hillary set the tone as the champion of blue collar whites. Obama is the champion of change.

One is about race. The other is not.

By The Pudwankery of Banditos

May 25, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this

I witnessed racism yesterday at a block party in a elderly 55 and over development of little pink houses about 40 miles south of hotlanta. The mostly white revelers were fine, it was my own brothers and sisters who kept making racial remarks about the handful of black people who lived there and were part of the fun, the hotdogs and the picnic tables. I’m so hurt and embarrassed. My own family has hidden their racism from me, or I wasn’t paying attention, or I didn’t want to know.

We are going to take a temperature reading of Racism during this march to November. We are going to know it’s breadth, it’s depth, and it’s height as we spin the poll’s reactions to Obama. Racism is love’s antimatter particle; the impossible vestige of humankind’s original sin.

By The Pudwankery of Banditos

May 25, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

Well.

By Edward

May 25, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

“Give all of us a break” “Go off the screen. No-one will miss You!!!!!!!!!!!”

By RoxMySox

May 25, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this

I disagree with you Jay. It was an inappropriate comment that is offensive to the Kennedy family. She could have made a comment about her intentions to remain in the race without bring the subject of assassination into the mix. Moreover, to me there was an implication made by Mrs. Clinton. I believe that she is making the message that she will stay in case Obama gets assassinated.

By Adam

May 25, 2008 5:33 PM | Link to this

I disagree. Numerous primaries have been taken all the way to the convention, but the ONE she chooses to mention is 1968??? Either she’s entirely disingenuous (which is not unprecedented) as this race has no where near the complex issues faced in 1968. Or, she was trying to draw a legitimate comparison. Is it not possible that she just had a little freudian slip and her subconscious motivation came out?

I’m not suggesting that Sen. Clinton wants Sen. Obama to be injured or killed, but is it not conceivable that she’s running out the clock just in case?

Sorry if I’m a little touchy on this issue, but Bobby Kennedy wasn’t the only person assassinated that year. It was the person who was assassinated a couple of months earlier that year who has me on edge at even the possible intimation of a similar fate befalling Sen. Obama.

My anger is not “ridiculous” and Sen. Clinton was right to apologize for either an incredibly callous or insanely stupid comment.

By Clinton is RACIST

May 25, 2008 7:07 PM | Link to this

She wants the black man dead thats all she was saying. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised next time she at least should wear her KKK outfit while she is saying it though.

By MC

May 25, 2008 7:55 PM | Link to this

Her words absolutely suggested that things – her example was assassination – can happen to a candidate in June. Seriously, any one not wanting to suggest that would simply say, “Both my husband and Bobby Kennedy campaigned in June” – assuming someone wanted to pick an example – utterly inapt — over 30 years old. The Obama campaign took the high road – something she has yet to do in this campaign or after this comment.

She was not encouraging assassination, she was not predicting assassination, she does not want assassination, but she was giving assassination as an example of things that can happen and really there is no other interpretation. That is outside the bounds.

The reason she was jumped on so hard is that she has not come up with any credible argument for continuing the campaign and her comment suggested a logical, albeit macabre, explanation.

By Pee'er Pressure

May 25, 2008 8:28 PM | Link to this

We are going to measure racism in the USA in the march to november. WE will know it’s breadth, depth, and height. Obama’s candidacy will force americans to finally look at each other, and maybe even talk.

Racism is love’s anti-matter particle and the last impossible vestige of makind’s original sin.

I hope Obama picks an all black cabinet too.

Obama 08: A Man. An American. A President.

By Billy

May 25, 2008 9:19 PM | Link to this

Jay, I normally agree with you, but I think she really stepped off the edge here. First of all, it didn’t really answer the question she was asked. It’s not as if she’ll vanish into the ether by dropping out. If something were to happen to Obama, she’d be right there to seize power.

Secondly, given the number of Black leaders murdered over the years, not to mention Blacks in general who were/are victims of racially-motivated violence, this is an enormous slip of the tongue. It’s all the more egregious since in some states the number of her voters admitting race was a factor in their vote reached double digits. It was a full quarter of her West Virginia support, I believe. If that many people admit to it, than how many base their decisions on that but not admit it? Given the above things, fears that some nut would take her words as a call to action are not entirely unwarranted.

Also, you unfairly characterized the Obama rep’s comment. I know you updated it with the candidate’s own, better response, but I don’t think the spokesperson’s comment was at all out of line. Clinton has not hesitated to pounce on any issue that might cast Obama in a negative light — Rev. Wright, “bitter-gate”, “Obama’s not a Muslim that I know of” , etc. I, for one, found her assassination remark exponentially more offensive than his “bitter” remark and his response to this infinitely better than hers was to the whole “bitter” brouhaha.

By just me

May 25, 2008 11:05 PM | Link to this

Why does Senator Obama always have to be the one who doesn’t take offense to a statement? No one else has to apologize for what they say and Obama can’t take issue with it. Apparently, he’s not allowed to be offended like Clinton and McCain. Each of them has jumped all over statements he made and given run of the press for weeks. His staffer makes one comment and everyone jumps on him instead of her! Apparently, what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander.

By Rosemary

May 25, 2008 11:57 PM | Link to this

Jay, I think Ted’s reply was best.. To all those praying for my return to good health , I offer my heartfelt thanks. and to any who’d rather have a different result, I say , don’t get your hopes up just yet.. you don’t think he was speaking directly to Hillary !

By Betty

May 26, 2008 12:10 AM | Link to this

I know what I heard and maybe you heard it different, but she is staying in the campaign because he might also, get shot. She shows her true cold, calculating self.

By Mike

May 26, 2008 1:13 AM | Link to this

No, Just Me, it’s not just you who thinks Obama has played the gentleman throughout all this messy campaign. And that’s why he’s gonna go all the way.

By alan dinno

May 26, 2008 2:03 AM | Link to this

Jay Bookman —

Please don’t insult the intelligence of loyal ajc readers. We are not little kids.

I never believed negative stuff people said about Hillary, until I listened to some of her statements in this campaign. It’s enough already !!!

Alan

By plain jane

May 26, 2008 3:42 AM | Link to this

Hillary was not referring to Obama. Why should she even have to defend staying in the race? Obama has tried to get her out for months. I don’t trust Obama.

By Herb Yood

May 26, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

As the premiere finger pointer in the nation, Senator Clinton has no right to complain if her words are misconstrued. She and her husband’s ability to twist facts and to lie are well-known. Has the American public forgotten what the meaning of “is” is?

And when have the Clintons taken responsibility for much. Instead of blaming “the vast right-wing conspiracy,” Senator Clinton has Senator Obama to bash.

Enough of the snarling face of Carville politics. Get the Clintons out of the arena.

By GOP's got to go

May 26, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this

For Christ sake,can we not stop this stupid, silly, stone throwing behaviour and unite so that we can WIN in November!!!!!!

By Erbie

May 26, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this

Only “white folk” logic would dictate that a candidate who is LOSING in all applicable categories should get the nomination for President.

Ridiculous.

By brom

May 26, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this

I personally believe that she was TRYING to use the Robert Kennedy statement in the context of the timeline. I also think that how it came off was woefully inartful to be generous. The way she phrased it definitely made it sound like she was referring to assassination as one of the events that could happen in the race. For her to try and make this seem like a ridiculous and impossible interpretation of her statement is a startling denial of the reality of what she said.

I don’t believe in her heart of hearts that she wants Obama to be assassinated, but to raise the specter of it in a racially charged election where death threats towards him are a reality is at best seriously tone deaf.

By Mike In Woodstock

May 26, 2008 7:17 PM | Link to this

Well I for one am glad to see Jay rushing to Hillary’s defense. It means the Clinton’s made their payments on time to the right wing media.

I guess we’ll never see an investigation of how much the Clinton’s have doled out this year to their cronies in the media.