What is a farce is the feigned outrage.  And supposedly Olbermann will have a special comment tonight.

What happened?  When did the progressive blogosphere become the opposite coin of those hatemongers on the right?

When did we forget how the media sold us GWB and the Iraq War and now push no less hard for Obama.  Yet now they are trusted.

Three posts in what, an hour? I would have made this an update to the other one.

anybody watch the whole video?

I thought she was brilliant.
And once again Clinton or her surrogates are not permitted to mention any historical references.

As we learned from LBJ and Jesse, things are blown out of proportion.

I do not think it was anything but saying "it isn't over till it is over and unexpected things can happen" she just used another touchy historical reference.

With the millions of words she's spoken on the campaign trail they have jumped on things she does to such an extreme while entirely ignoring the controversial statements of her opponent.

Her reply should put an end to it, but of course it will not. Clinton's mole hills are mountains.

And I found the rest of the meeting to be outstanding, of course THAT won't get any mention, just the sound bite to harm her will.

However, the reaction to the statement is utter ugliness, an absolute travesty, the desire by NBC and all of it's minions in the "regressive" blogosphere to destroy a candidate that they don't want to win.

Remember, her Kentucky win was all about the racism, and this is all about her waiting in the wings for an Obama assassination.

Paul Krugman, 2-11-08:

Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

I won't try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We've already had that from the Bush administration -- remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don't want to go there again.

What's particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of "Clinton rules" -- the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

Bill wrapped up the nomination in June and RFK was killed in June while he was in the midst of the primary campaign.

We are making wayyyyyyy to much about this.

But to infer something overtly or covertly sinister is beyond my ability to grasp.

I think you may need a rest yourself, BTD. Really, there's just nothing there, other than Hillary having said something without the full delicacy it required.

Carter decisively defeated Kennedy everywhere except Massachusetts, until impatience began to build with the President's strategy on Iran. When the later primaries in New York, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut came around, it was Kennedy who won largely due to such impatience.

Carter was still able to maintain a substantial lead even after Kennedy swept the last batch of primaries in June. Despite this, Kennedy refused to drop out, and the 1980 Democratic National Convention was one of the nastiest on record. On the penultimate day, Kennedy conceded the nomination and called for a more liberal party platform in what many saw as the best speech of his career. On the platform on the final day, Kennedy for the most part ignored Carter.

The delegate tally at the convention was in part:

    * Jimmy Carter - 2,129.02
    * Ted Kennedy - 1,150.48

It's called piling on.

It's as Somerby said: HOW the MCM treats a mistake or possible error by a candidate says everything about where they stand on that candidate's run for office and how they're going to hinder or aid that run.

I still remember that June night -- I was ecstatic that Bobby had won CA. We were cheering him on to the convention.  We were sure he would win the nomination.

I bring that up because Hillary is getting slaughtered for this RFK comment and Obama was beaten up for Wright, etc. and despite the AMAZING number of GAFFES and utter foolishness of McCain and his campaign, they STILL call him a maverick independent.

Tough luck. But is up to the people, the voters and the SD who will be the nominee.

That is what Democracy is about.

If you had listen to the video you posted 2 threads before first (I have no cable TV and listen to her video before reading your post) then it was crystal clear what she meant.

1.  In March, Hillary hadn't won the PA, IN and KY primaries.  The two that were landslides have really shaken the Obama campaign and his supporters.  The possibility of counting the FL and MI votes have made them even more crazy.

2. The frenzy has been building and building, and the media and some progressive blogs are even more bats**t crazy now than they were two months ago.  The frenzy has been pretty steady and linear.  Actually, maybe it's been more like a logarithmic progression instead of linear.  At least it feels that way.  People are acting insanely.  Absolutely nuts.

Too many of 'the unity candidate's' supporters are hate mongers.  What has he done to stop their tearing the democratic party apart?  Anything?

It's divisions may well cost  him either the nomination or the final election.  Pretty poor planning.

Who cares, really?  Is it something that has any chance of affecting Democratic turnout in November?  No.  Is it something which is at all a divisive political issue?  No - Americans of all stripes are pretty opposed to assassinations.

It is simply another manners gaffe.  Ohmygawd, someone running for President might of hurt someone's feelings!

I've seen the whole quote, and though it wasn't the bestest of references, I see where she was headed.

Senator Clinton deserves to be cut some slack.  She obviously didn't mean what some people are trying to twist her words into meaning.  She was tired and made an unfortunate choice of words.  She has been "on" for a long time now.  Who among us wouldn't commit gaffes if our every word, 16 hours a day, was being recorded and examined to see if it could be twisted to mean something nefarious?

I think perhaps what is different from March is that Teddy Kennedy has been diagnosed with cancer, which has been getting a lot of media play.

It's no mistake. I imagine Hillary can't think of June of '68 without also thinking of Bobby.

Neither can Ted, I'd bet.

The basic fact is that she made essentially the same point back in March, with only minor differences (granted that her use of "the great tragedy" in March better accommodated the delicacy demanded of the statement).

And what could have been a more prominent interview than that in Time Magazine. Can anyone pretend that it somehow escaped the public eye? How can the Obama Boyz and the MSM now ratchet up outrage over it, if no one batted an eye when she said the same thing in March?

And what is the absolutely obvious conclusion to draw from this about the Obama Boyz and the MSM?

That they are now simply making something up out of nothing. It could hardly be a clearer example of it: in March, nothing; now, because they will seize on anything -- anything -- to create a sense of outrage, it's just a terrible and bizarre and disturbing statement.

& Why?

They're all LIBERALS!  Everything offends liberals because they have become victims of their own political correctness.  

Or the price of food.

The Obama campaign has spent months and months smearing Clinton's character by repeatedly claiming that "she will say or do anything". They have set up the expectation that allows those same shameless bloviators to  spin off that smear by twisting her statements to fit their preconceived narrative. Axelrod may be smart to keep quiet now, but he is in large part responsible for unleashing the rabid attack dogs. This is just another example of astroturfing a "controversy".

All I can gather from that cynical timing is the DNC is hoping that Obama is also assasinated. /snark Sound ludicrous?  Yes, just as ludicrous as this ranting and raving over Hillary.

It's incredibly obvious to me what Clinton was saying. Here's my example:

What time of year did we take that vacation to Disneyland? It was in August--remember that we visited the Smiths, and their daughter Ann had just been born, and her birthday is in August.

How do you know that the 1968 campaign went on so long? I sadly remember that RFK was assassinated just after winning the California primary, and the CA primary was held in June back then. (Just like it was in 1992, when Bill ran.)

Ridiculous.  Clinton had the tightest security detail of any first lady during the second term.  She was triple-dutied at some public events because of the nature of the threats against her.  She knows what it is like to be married to a man in a job whose previous holders have been shot at or murdered in cold blood.  She has herself dealt with myriad death threats herself.

Where was the outrage among the so-called progressives when KO said that Clinton should be taken into a room and only one person should come out? Sure, he had to apologize, but that was just a slap on the wrists.  He was calling for violence against a sitting United States senator.

I think I have it figured out, because it's something I've dealt with all my life: because I'm strong and appear unflappable in public, no one thinks about defending me against crap because they assume I can take care of myself.

The New York Post didn't run anything either.

Who moved this?

Probably Obama. Why now? Who knows.

It only works because the public seem to have forgotten how close the race in '68 was and how it wouldn't have been over if RFK had lived. Which was the argument being made.

Who played this outrage card?

The next thing. Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, and they have a daughter. For the past 16/17 years, Hillary Clinton has probably feared, at some level, for her husband's and her daughter's lives. I refuse to think that she would EVER be wishing assassination on the Obama family. That just doesn't make sense.

She might wish he'd take one of Bush's Mars flights, though.

So yeah, totally blown up to create more faux-outrage.

This is just like that.  The over-analysis of what she meant by that was over-the-top.  This will pass soon enough.  She (and we) need to stay on message:

1. she's won the popular vote
   
2. seat FL & MI

I said that because it is a time flag as to how long campaigns have persisted into an election year in the past. I don't even remember any other campaign time lines.

And right now, MSNBC goof-balls are suggesting that HRC must have been talking about an Obama assassination because, otherwise...."Why didn't she say 1964 or some other year?"

Well, why didn't I? Because I remember the day of RFK's death. Who the hell knows when LBJ had it wrapped up in 1964?!

She couldn't just say, "RFK was still in the primary race through June of 1968," and leave it at that.  His assassination would have loomed in the background and would undoubtedly have been discussed, taking away from the point she was trying to make.

She certainly couldn't say, "RFK was still in the primary race through June of 1968.  Um, he was assassinated, you know."

Her phrasing was very elegant and covered the problem of discussing RFK, the assassination, and of course, the obvious fact that the primary race ran into June:

Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A.  My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June.  

This time, she said (my transcription from the video),

You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992, until he won the California primary, em, somewhere in the middle of June.  We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June, in California.

Clearly she was repeating what she'd said in her previous interview. The words are very close.  The only possibly significant difference was omitting the words "great tragedy."

This is a non-issue. It is not worthy of TL. It does not deserve to be a thread. It does not deserve the time that is being wasted here to argue with people who want to argue over non-issues. Seriously people. By discussing this, we are legitimizing something that has no substance. It's like Gore's dog medication and all the other great non-issues that the right just loves to wring their hands over. Enough of this. Let's move on to another thread.

First off, using something so traumatic for yardstick purposes is just plain odd. How often do people do that? It would be as I said, when wanting to mention July 1994, "It was in the middle of the month, when O.J. Simpson's wife and boyfriend got murdered."

It comes across as the equivalent of Dan Rather's "Kenneth, what's the frequency?" moment. It plays into a sense that she's, well, maybe not quite all there.

Secondly, her doing it twice puts the lie to her explanation about the Kennedys having been on her mind. And you know what that brings up? Yeah, you got it: the Bosnia story. Why the lie? And the explanation, by the way, was a classic non-apology. You know, the old "if anyone was offended ..." line.

Between this, Bill Clinton's public lobbying to make her Obama's running mate, and her having equated seating Florida and Michigan with the discovery of America and the invention of electricity, Sen. Clinton has hurt herself pretty badly.

Two Obserbations:

1. EVERYTHING gets over-reacted to on the Internet;

and

2. Without thinking Hillary was a terrible person, I thought she was wondering out loud how anyone could assume something bad will never happen again, and that she was asking "what happens if Obama gets shot like RFK?" I honestly thought that was what she meant.

Let's look at it from many Obama supporters' point of view, which is that this is more than a gaffe.
Recently, a politician joked to people attending a gun lover's convention about shooting Obama.
A news magazine publishes a picture of Mr. Obama in the crosshairs of a rifle.
There are billions of dollars at risk if the Obama quickly end the war in Iraq, as opposed to slowing it down over the next four years (McSame's likely process).
Their candidate has inspired them and infused politics with the potential to reclaim our government, bringing millions of new and REENGAGED voters back in to the Democratic process.
Now their candidate's opponent makes reference to the assassination of another inspiring Democratic candidate, possibly encouraging wackos to make a bid for their sick place in history.  

I say this because it's important to remember that Obama's supporters are necessary in this election, and the only way for all of us to win is to understand each other.  Put yourself in their shoes for a moment by imagining the above events had happened to Hillary Clinton.  

 The context of the interview was different as well.  The interviewer was asking about whether the party elders would step in to appoint SOMEONE and she responded no because it isn't uncommon for the race to last until June.  So the RFK reference was simply to point out that the race commonly runs until June.

 In the context of today's interview she is being asked why she shouldn't drop out now.  In this instance she uses the RFK assassination as an example of unforeseen events changing the dynamic.

If this has indeed been refuted, be generous and show me where.  Not so much to ask I would think.

And while we're on the facts, let's examine that '68 race a bit more closely.  There were myriad reasons why that primary was close in June, not the least of which is that Kennedy did not get into the race until March 31st.  That's March 31, 1968.  Now how many in class were surprised by this little bit o' knowledge; raise your hands.

If nothing else, I really do think she needs some rest. Hillary Clinton has been saying some crazy things this week. She ought to take the weekend off before we all wake up and find out that she was endorsed by the space alien who landed at Roswell in 1947 or something.

America has a free press last I heard so they get to discuss, wonder aloud and attempt to understand what might have happened. Many in the press have sympathetically described Hillary as tired.

Unfortunately, some superdelegates may say enough is enough and make a move to Obama. Democrats get real testy about the Kennedy family. Some supporters will wonder why Hillary is so tone deaf on the week of the very sad news that Ted Kennedy has a brain tumor that will end his life.

When my husband, who is not the least interested in politics called me from work to tell me about the remark, I knew then Hillary's inartful comment was going to continue on to next week and longer.

Hillary made a simple statement based on facts in answer to the question of why she is still campaigning.

Of course, the simple answer is that she's leading in the people's votes and in the electoral votes.  It would be stupid to quit when she is ahead.

But, some people aren't satisfied with that, therefore she has to elaborate. So, she stated a couple more facts - Bill Clinton wasn't nominated until June, and Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June while campaigning. Simply, more reason she shouldn't quit.

Shields: Statement she has to be held accountable for. Bcz everyone knows that Obama was given Secret Service protection earlier than any other candidate, that people "hold their breath" when he plunges into a crowd.

OMG.

He's been dead a long time.

Shame on people who take a perfectly reasonable statement and distort it for political gain.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080523/ap_on_el_pr/clinton

Words like "unfortunate," "careless," "no place in this campaign..."  

I can't find anywhere where Obama himself addresses it.  Overall, I think their reaction has been appropriate. (At least, so far)  So, I don't understand why people are assuming the worst from them.

Obama's not behind this.  This is just another case of someone in the public eye, offhandedly saying something stupid, tasteless or surprising which the media is trying to stir up a controversy for the sake of ratings.   In the end, it affects nothing.

I'm disappointed, I'm hurt, I'm sad that her last chance may have just slipped by! Jesus!! When you're down in the fourth quater of a basketball match, you don't give up 3's or foul your opponent and put them at the free throw line..this is what she did!!!

Fact is, the woman spoke and interested parties took the opportunity and pounced.  Nothing new here.  To blow this out of proportion can only be looked on as a excuse to lambast a candidate the writer doesn't like.

"apparently no one else did either. Why now?"

I wish we were asking the same things back in '03 just before we occupied Iraq.