UPDATE: Maureen Dowd has an interesting column on the issue in Sunday’s paper. (You’ll be happy to note that her tone and her assessment are far less high decibeled than mine or Keith Olbermann’s, yet some of her points are the same.)
I’ve been sitting with this for the past 24 hours, trying to wrap my mind around what Hillary Clinton could have been thinking. Her campaign says that people are making too much of the Robert Kennedy assassination remark made to the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader’s editorial board, that she was simply trying to make the point that sometimes the nomination isn’t settled until the very end, and so this is why she stays in, because it ain’t over ’till it’s over.
Look, we can all understand a slip made in the exhaustion of a campaign of this length and intensity. ( I am thankful daily that my life is not spent in front of a microphone. It wouldn’t be terribly pretty.)
But then we find that Clinton made nearly the identical statement previously to Time magazine….. we have another kind of situation altogether.
Look: I don’t know what she meant by saying such a damn fool thing. Frankly, I don’t think we need to care what Clinton meant by it. (The more one tries to parse the statement, the more unpleasant the speculation becomes.) But to say it at all, to invoke the specter of the assassination of a front-running democratic candidate—-not once but twice—-given the unspoken fear about Obama’s safety that runs silently through the minds of many in this country, is beyond stupid.
It is willfully reckless.
The fear that Barack Obama could be shot is the topic that, in the past, most of us in the media or in the blogging world have chosen not to mention in public. Frankly, we didn’t want to put ideas into anybody’s head.
But the worry is there.
Since the beginning of Obama’s candidacy, I’ve heard the fear stated over and over, in a variety of circumstances, voiced by people ranging across a broad spectrum–both Obama’s supporters and not. I’ve heard it particularly in LA’s urban neighborhoods where violent death is all too real a threat.
So what is the bottom line in all this? For me—and I am betting for the Obama camp—one thing is now extremely clear:
Hillary Clinton cannot possibly be Obama’s running mate. The VP slot is now off the table.
The Robert Kennedy remark was the deal breaker.
Why? Because despite the fact that Clinton is enormously bright, enormously capable, enormously talented, and that she brings with her a huge and loyal following, when it comes anyone and anything that stands in the path of her reaching her political goals, she is not to be trusted. She has proven that fact repeatedly.
Yet everything else Clinton has done or said up until now can arguably be classified as allowable within the bounds of hardball politics.
Not this time.
The assassination remark is more than out of bounds. It is dangerously irresponsible. In the heat of a campaign, you are allowed to say things that might threaten somebody’s political future. You are not allowed to say things that could indirectly trigger a threat to their physical safety. Not ever. For any reason.
If I were Michelle Obama, I would do whatever is necessary to keep Hillary off my husband’s ticket.
And, trust me, dear ones, we don’t need to have a conversation with Barack’s ferociously savvy and loyal wife to know that, if Clinton as VP was ever an option, as of yesterday, that option is gone for good.
What Keith Olbermann said.
Oh, no. Eveerything was great in the post until you put up a video of Keith Oberlmann. I can’t stand to even listen to him, even if he was pulling for the Braves.
Since I tend not to fall within the ‘normal’ range of any measured attribute used to define folks, I guess I’m not surprised by Clinton’s remark. Nor, am I eighty-five kinds of outraged.
I am, however, intrigued this way … Is Obama in the minds of his supporters so close to Robert Kennedy that an assassination is a real fear? Is it something people half expect someone to try? Let me try again. Obama is not charismatic to me. (Please note. He wouldn’t need to be for me to vote for him.) But, apparently, he is that charismatic to others. And, charisma invites both strongly positive, and strongly hostile responses in folks. Maybe my amygdala is malfunctioning. Is the hostile sentiment towards Obama so profound that all one crackpot needs is for someone to say the word out loud? And, if Clinton never gave voice to the possibility would that be sufficient to defer that crackpot?
If there are credible threats out there, I’m not sure Clinton’s words make the threat any more credible than it already is. If the threats are credible (I’ve read about the early Secret Service assignments.), then the speculation has already begun.
Anyway. Cooper made this statement.
My question is, why haven’t they? Or, is this what they’ve been waiting for?
Hillary’s comment clearly defines her ruthless desire for power, even if that power would be gained through the assassination of her competitor.
If in fact, something does happen to Obama prior to the election, I hope her comment has eliminated Hillary Clinton from the presidential running for 2008.
Listener,
I don’t know that my reaction is typical. And, no, I don’t actually think that Hillary saying something like this is going to send somebody over the edge. But, to me her remark is so cavalier, considering the worry people have, that….well I can’t come up with a better way of putting it: It’s reckless.
I just had a discussion with a friend about the whole thing. And, as a consequence I took down the part of my post that went on and on about how worried everyone is—as I don’t want to unwittingly add to the problem either.
About why the superdelegates don’t end her nomination…..I think most people at this point think the whole primary process needs to play out. I agree. As furious as I am at Clinton, I think she’s earned that much. Also, I think—as I suspect many do—-that the last few states deserve to have their say. We’ve come this far; we should see it through.
But, about Hillary’s RFK remark: I was surprised at the level of visceral reaction I had to it. But, however I try to reason myself around the issue, I still come back to the original WTF??? reaction and am truly troubled by her lack of boundaries on such things.
Don’t know if that explains my thinking. I feel that I’m a bit inchoate today.
What an election year we’ve had!
Listener, I realize I didn’t answer your question.
In part, people are fearful because there have been threats. As you likely know Obama was given secret service protection earlier than any other candidate.
But I realize that doesn’t explain it. I don’t know why so many people are so very fearful about this issue. But I’ve heard it over and over again from people here in LA, back east and in DC—-to the point that it has truly spooked me and a lot of others.
Maybe it’s just people’s fears about racism. I don’t know… But it’s assuredly there.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Celeste. I’m just now nosing around the tubes to see what’s being written. At first glance, people seem to be all over the place with it. Guess I need to give it some more thought myself.
A few dozen superdelegates can stand up and put her -and us- out of our misery. …My question is, why haven’t they?
Hey, it’s possible that those superdelegates who could end the nomination are aware that assassination could extend as far as them.
I am not outraged by this – I think Keith Olberman is typically huffing and puffing a bit too much – so much as impressed, again, by what a terrible, self-defeating, tactically and strategically gaffe-prone candidate Hillary is.
Hillary could have easily had this nomination had she positioned herself on the war – even given her godawful, opportunistic vote in 2002 – the way John Edwards did and not cemented doubts about her foriegn policy credentials with the vote for Kyl Lieberman or the “obliterate Iran” rhetoric, had she not gone into the race as the candidate of “Beltway experience” (typefied, unfortunately, by her 2002 vote), had she not surrounded herself with the kinds of arrogant political consultants who represent the worst of the breed, had she – counterintuitively, I admit – kept Bill way in the background, and had she not played the gender card so relentlessly. She also should have learned something from Howard Dean’s campaign about the importance of the internet, before she started looking desperate.
Personally, I’m glad she screwed up because I detest the DLC wing of the Democratic Party the Clinton’s represent. Actually, I don’t think it was “screwing up” so much as revealing of who she is, which isn’t an attractive political package from where I sit. It also seems to me that the number of old-school Democratic senators who lined up behind Obama indicate some back-story of little love lost for the Clintons among some of those who’ve dealth with them most closely over the years and who know them best. The most interesting aspects of this campaign were seeing moderate Dems from the midwest and “non-coastal” west flee from her – particularly high-profile women office-holders, key Senate colleagues like Ted Kennedy fail to sign on and many old-school black elected officials tie themselves to her even as the black voters decided that the Clintons had sucked quite enough devotion from them over the years and enough was enough.
After this latest musing from Hillary, any argument that she’s a more viable, experienced candidate than Obama is faith-based and against the evidence of the actually quite terrible losing campaign she just ran in the midst of the Democratic faithful. And, of course, it’s more than enough reason to reject her as a strong VP who would add credibility to the ticket.
Celeste I couldn’t agree with you more. I was shocked and had to sit and ask myself did I hear her say what she actually said because it was so alarming. This goes to the heart of her character as a human being and the desperation of wanting to win at all cost. I’m an Obama supporter and many of my friends were Hillary supporters. However, after they read what she said and saw for themselves on TV her saying it they were disgusted. She should be absolutely ashamed of herself but isn’t this typical of the Clintons?
Janet: She should be absolutely ashamed of herself….
What a laugh! The Clinton’s have no shame.
While many episodes come to mind, one that stands out to me is Bill Clinton and Democratic leaders standing in a public display on the White House lawn just laughing it up after Clinton was impeached.
Speaking of the Clinton’s and the death of a prominent black government leader, do you remember Ron Brown’s funeral when Clinton was yukking it up going into the service until he spotted a camera and then instantly, and I do mean instantly, switched to a sorrowful appearance.
Such phonies, and no shame at all. Oh, did I ever tell you that they were also whitetrash? Well, they are.
In weaving my way around the web, I found this from BAGnewsNotes. And, I wonder the extent to which Obama’s vulnerability is being fed by the media in some subtle, and not so subtle, ways. I don’t want to downplay, or dismiss real and credible threats. I lived through Bobby, Martin, and John and recall clearly what it felt like. However, I’m also conscious of the degree to which I’ve been sensitized by having had that experience.
Ergo, I wonder which it is. Is the outrage people might feel in response to Obama’s genuine vulnerability? Or, is it the implication of his vulnerability which might give some voters an excuse to not support/vote for him?
Clinton’s remark left me shaking my head. I’m more inclined to credit stupidity as opposed to malice. But, I ask myself why I’m shaking my head. Is it because I expect people to react poorly because Clinton has possibly named the elephant in the room, or because she has provided yet one more possible excuse for people to not support Obama? It’s possible she’s done both, but if that’s the case, the former may actually lend strength to the latter.
Lest I come off sounding like a concern troll, my mojo tells me Obama is no more at risk of assassination than Clinton or McCain are. That could be blind optimism on my part. But, if I’m correct in my risk assessment then where does this fear others feel for Obama’s safety come from?
Still cogitating…
Hillary is yesterday’s news. I’m for not wasting time or emotional energy on her or her crazy dead-enders like Taylor Marsh and Jeralyn Merrit. The superdelegates are in the process of jumping ship and the professionals around her will make the move with a bit of regret but a clear view of what their new job is, i.e. helping elect the Democratic nominee. Obama is the presumptive nominee – if Hillary continues to attempt to keep the spotlight on herself rather than unifying Democrats to beat McCain, she’ll just do further damage to the Clinton image (basically by giving full credence to the “blind ambition” take on her and Bill) more than she will hurt Obama.
The Democratic Party is MUCH better off for the “Clinton brand” having been tarnished and a new generation of activists, a fundraising base and political professionals not tied to them coming to the fore. The biggest deal for Democrats at this point is to look to the congressional races that can use a boost in “purple” and even “red” regions and start throwing some bucks their way. I’m gonna focus more on donating to folks like Patrick Murphy in PA than Obama from here on out. I’m also planning to spend a week or two prior to the November election in Missouri or Indiana (whichever looks to be closest) working for Obama. I’d advise any Californian – or anyone from a solid blue state – with family or friends in a swing state to consider taking a spot on the couch sometime between September and November for as long as you can afford.
Also, I may be alone on this, but I find Keith Olberman – much as I agree with his political perspective – to come off like a blowhard and even something of a phony. He invokes Edward R. Murrow as the inspiration for his “special comments”, but watch Murrow delivering his editorial pieces (there’s a great box DVD set of old Murrow shows that I would recommend as essential to anyone with an interest in the history of journalism and mass media) and he relies on a much more dispassionate gravitas to make his points far more convincingly than Olberman. This may not be a fair comparison – Murrow to any contemporary broadcast journalist, frankly – but Olberman just reeks of ginning up the outrage as a gimmick. I’m sure he believes everything he says, but he needs to abandon the “schtick” to earn my attention. On the other hand, if these stunts drive up ratings because people have become used to crap journamalism by ignorant blowhards, I guess I shouldn’t criticize Olberman’s ratings success – since he’s a more well-informed blowhard. I wish Rachel Maddow would get her own show, because she’s the most intelligent, articulate and credible voice in the pop broadcast journalism universe IMHO.
Hi, Janet. Thanks for the comment.
Reg, I pretty much share your view on Olbermman. I generally agree with what he says, but I realize he’s worked out a successful shtick—that reads as shtick. On the other hand, the words themselves, while calculated to incite, are usually smart, reasonably well-thought out and researched, and quite well-written. And while over-the-top in presentation, not terribly far off the mark for those of us who feel fury at Bush Co (and, of late, at Billary).
Nuanced he ain’t.
And, I too am a Rachel Maddow fan.
I agree that Olberman’s comments are reasonably well-thought out and researched – in terms of general perspective – but I’m not sure they’re well-written in the sense that they feed deliberately feed outrage. A lot of that is in his delivery, but it’s also there on the page. I’m a master of outrage – most of what I write in comments sections are an exercise in finding an acceptable way of letting off steam because I’ve been almost absurdly pissed off over the past eight years. But I don’t really think it’s helpful when the tone is self-righteous (again I say this knowing anybody who reads the tone of crap I conjure up in comments couldn’t help but be amused) or painted with an “anybody who doesn’t feel this as strongly as I feel it is a moral dwarf” brush. You can be right and draw folks who tend to agree with you and love to watch you let off the steam that they’ve also accumulated but it’s not good journalism – it’s not even good opinion-mongering – and I find it a bit embarrassing. That said, in a land of Bill O’Reilly’s I won’t complain too much if some of the career-saavy guys and gals who make a good living playing journalists on TV lean our way. It’s certainly better faux journalism than the “High Broderism” predicated on a sanctified “centrism” and bogus “objectivity” that preceded huffing and puffing opinioins as the stock in trade of countless mediocrities. When Olberman just does news and off-the-cuff commentary, he’s actually much better than most of his colleagues. I attribute this to his sports background. Ironically, sports journalists are some of the best reporters in the broadcast business IMHO and seem less able to fake it than the political punditry. Maybe it’s because more of their listeners care more about the subject and are generally better informed on the empirical data than the audience for politics and issues.
I know this is belated, but I’m not sure that the public is aware of just how many “credible threats” certain public figures receive. In 1980, I was working for Teddy Kennedy’s campaign. I was talking to one of the Secret Service guys assigned to Kennedy. He was effusive (well, for a SS guy) in his praise of Kennedy as a person, primarily for 2 reasons. (1) He was in constant pain, resulting from the 1962 airplane crash he survived; and (2) he received some 3,000 death threats per month. I still find that staggering, and I’m guessing it hasn’t gotten any better in the ensuing 30 years.