Hillary Clinton: Charmer


I don't care who it is, this kind of language and/or allusion has no place in our politics:

In an interview with the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader in South Dakota, she dismissed calls to drop out, adding, "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

Just wrong on so many levels. Make no mistake, I'm still highly ambivalent about Obama, but it doesn't look like she is going to go quietly.


Sean Paul Kelley May 23, 2008 - 3:31pm
( categories: Analysis | USA: Campaign 2008 )

Sick of her to even mention it.


“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” ~ Charles Darwin

darwin May 23, 2008 - 4:02pm

yea, don't forget the secret service stopped checking bags at an obama rally in Dallas. Too creepy.

Frankly these days i am most concerned that the cloud of military industrial corporations will send a patsy after Obama, probably someone with a useful identity to attach to 'external threat.' (sirhan sirhan seemed pretty thoroughly controlled, and Palestinian!)

At this point it would be useful to go back and look at how Ollie North and the Clintons cooperated on covert ops back in Arkansas - cocaine and everything, state police coverups of murders, etc. Hillary, of course, set up Trinity Oil & Gas at the Rose Law Firm as a pass through for lots of funny money. There's a big paper trail here, but it is totally deleted from the mainstream in part because no one wants to work out the consequences of having huge drug conspiracies within the innermost decisionmaking loops of the government.

With such an ominous remark from Hillary, we should also recall that Bill, as President, authorized killing all sorts of people, the first and largest bloc among them Iraqi children.

If indeed we're willing to consider that Howard Hunt's recent admission of his role in the JFK assassination was indeed a project mainly of LBJ and pissed off CIA dudes, then we gotta look at how rival Democratic pols are willing to actually wipe people out in the name of power.

(ironically at this moment this very quote has just come up on MSNBC!! Weird...)

--
Hongpong.com

HongPong May 23, 2008 - 4:15pm

Obama is The love child of the globalists. Webster Tarpley outlined it so well.

Lasthorseman May 23, 2008 - 8:37pm

She is forever alienating two constituencies she will need in a future run, the black caucus and the muslum vote. Works for me!

Takachi99 May 23, 2008 - 4:19pm

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/23/17853/8470

Hillary Clinton issued the following statement today in Brandon, SD:

“Earlier today I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June 1992 and 1968 and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That’s a historic fact. The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that, whatsoever. My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to, and I’m honored to hold Senator Kennedy’s seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family.”

Tina May 23, 2008 - 4:21pm

She again exposed her blind political ambition. Sheesh, hanging on in case Barak gets offed. As if she could not get back in the race if that were to happen.

Zman1527 May 23, 2008 - 5:34pm

Yep, it's true Sean, both Hillary and Barak are jerks.

The fact that you think the above post counts as political discourse says either of the two jerks is PERFECT for you!

Yeah yeah you hate Hill, but love Barak...but both are from the right wing of the party, so it must personal for you...definitely not policy.

Me?

Obama Sucks.

Hillary Sucks.

McCain sucks more.

Shorter Sean:

"if you don't support Obama you're racist scum"

Posts like yours help perpetuate the system that produces this crap.

S Brennan May 23, 2008 - 4:46pm

I'm an Edwards guy. Believe me, Obama and Hill are both choices of the last resort and much better than St. John McCain. Please, drink some coffee or something, cause your incoherent.

“Is not our first thought to go on the road? The road is our source, our vault of treasures, our wealth. Only on the road does the ‘traveller’ feel like himself, at home.”
Ryszard Kapuscinski

Sean Paul Kelley May 23, 2008 - 5:03pm

None of the Democratic candidates is perfect, but some are worse than others. Edwards (despite his Iran gaffe) was the closest to a viable liberal candidate, but he lacked universal appeal.

Hillary might have made a good president if she didn't have to run for the office; unfortunately, she did, and has really shown a nasty side that I didn't know existed. Not the hormonally wacky side Republicans would have us believe, but bad enough. Her flaws appear to be in her character, not her gender. Supporting Bush's war in Iraq, and his threats against Iran, killed any chance of me supporting her.

Obama is said to be the "least liberal" of the three (based on what, I don't know), but he's got major rhetorical abilities, which to me makes him capable of doing a good job as president. He also opposed Bush's Iraq invasion and his belligerence against Iran.

I don't see how anything SPK has said or published has distorted what appears to be true. Maybe my own perceptions are distorted. Maybe all these people are complete fakes. I'm not quite ready to go there.
.
Good times for Smiley! :-D

Jimbo92107 May 23, 2008 - 9:18pm

Based on his voting record he is less progressive than Clinton. Edwards voting record was pretty awful, I don't know how he'd stack up. But then Edwards was offering more progressive policies than Obama or Clinton, while Obama and Clinton are basically a wash, with points to Clinton on economics and points to Obama on telecom and foreign affairs.

Ian Welsh May 23, 2008 - 9:41pm

The biggest difference I know between the two of them was authorizing war with Iran, which Clinton did and Obama did not. What other difference, or accumulation of differences, is there that overrides this?

mbento May 25, 2008 - 11:45am

he wasn't in the Senate he didn't get to vote on the War. Once he was in the Senate his votes on the war were virtually identical to Clinton's. Obama talks a good game, but when he's in a position to do something, he doesn't. His VOTE record shows no more opposition to the war than does Clinton's.

Talk is cheap. Obama could have been anti-war in the Senate. Other Senators were. He chose not to.

Why is that?

Ian Welsh May 25, 2008 - 9:43pm

And I'm talking about Kyl/Lieberman. He had an opportunity to vote for that one, did not, and Hillary did. More specifically, he missed the vote because Reid changed the scheduling at the last minute (literally the night before), but he spoke publicly against the bill, and Hillary voted for it.

Why is that, Ian?

mbento May 25, 2008 - 10:38pm

Pathetic Sean,

Neither, Barak or Hillary are "choices". The MSM Incorp. ignored the Democratic candidates and told us to choose between two Republican-Lite jerks.

Your post above supports this type of simple minded buggery of the USA.

Also...you need to work on reading comprehension.

S Brennan May 23, 2008 - 5:13pm

How declasse to invoke a Kennedy tragedy, especially at this particular time. Is she subconsciously hoping Ted Kennedy will make a prompt exit, taking a large amount of Omama support with him? Who knows. Chilling and weird, no matter how you read it.

Chickadee May 23, 2008 - 5:51pm

..... upon leaving the hospital, Edward Kennedy's wish was to go sailing. If he were to die on the ocean doing what he loves best, what a lucky man he would be.


"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote

adrena May 23, 2008 - 8:51pm

Frankly, this is much ado about nuthin' and certainly doesn't have a thing to do with how one should choose who would best run the country, and I simply couldn't care less. Really. ok, maybe a little less.

Unfortunate? I guess. I mean, she's said similar things before and, honestly judged, one has to say she was making a point, not alluding to anything more.

No one threw a hissy fit then. The only difference is Senator Kennedy's unfortunate condition which puts Hillary's comment in an insensitive light. She drew upon an old line at a bad time. A minor error to be sure, one she apologized sincerely for, and in the records kept about slips of the tongue won't even get a footnote after the election. Those inclined toward Perseus and see Hillary as the next coming of Medusa are getting the vapors. How predictable. But think. It doesn't mean a thing.

So, calm down, everyone. It merely means its been a long season. Everyone is ready to jump off a cliff. Breath. She's not a monster, really. Just a person.

sigh. that's what I think.

ww May 23, 2008 - 6:30pm

"one she apologized sincerely for"

She did? Please ww, when she actually apologizes, please let us know. She expressed regret, mostly to the Kennedys.

She is nothing but blind political ambition that will do anything, say anything, and hope for anything to become the president. And that makes her very scary and very dangerous as a Presidential candidate.

Zman1527 May 23, 2008 - 8:13pm

the example before and no one freaked. Lot of people do nothing but read in the worst to Clinton.

Ian Welsh May 23, 2008 - 8:21pm

takes the heat off from the painting Appalachia as racist, and those pesky irritated women. ;)

Tina May 23, 2008 - 8:31pm

a floor fight in Denver.


"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote

adrena May 23, 2008 - 9:54pm

Does that make it okay ian? No one freaked out before so its okay to bring up the possibility of assassination as a reason for staying in the race?

Read the worst into Clinton? Shes gives us plenty of reasons. The current one is her non-apology for this outrageous comment.

Zman1527 May 23, 2008 - 8:36pm

Robert Kennedy Jr. issued the following statement this evening:

"It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June. I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband's 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June. I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."

Hilary doesn't need to stay in the campaign to be the candidate if someone assassinates Obama. She'd be the candidate in that case, since she'd have the most pledged delegates. It was clearly meant to indicate that long primaries have happened before and that the people calling for her to leave need to take a pill.

Ian Welsh May 23, 2008 - 9:39pm

Edward Kennedy himself offered reassurance and stated that Hillary Clinton cited Robert Kennedy's assassination in order to justify the length of the current campaign. He had no problem with it. So bury your paranoia, please.


"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote

adrena May 23, 2008 - 8:45pm

I didn't know I was exhibiting "paranoia". Is that like anger at politicians who will say anything, do anything to get elected?

Zman1527 May 23, 2008 - 9:41pm

'unrealistic' anger at politicians who will say what needs to be said. Even Pastor Wright got that right :)


"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote

adrena May 23, 2008 - 10:04pm

... usually get it if they crow long and loud enough. Suit yourself.

Funny though, now that you mention it again, it's you I see as the politically blind one who will say anything, fulfilling that righteous indignation nurtured so diligently. As for ambition to actually do anything, I couldn't say.

If you're scared -very scared- of Hillary than I guess the Republican dogs aren't completely wrong about everything.

ww May 23, 2008 - 10:13pm

it as much more than a tempest in a tea-pot.

Ian Welsh May 23, 2008 - 7:19pm

..it's not going to change the outcome (Obama likely getting the nomination), and most will write it off as 'foot in mouth'.

her 'non-apology apology' certainly didn't help her, though.

At this point I'm adopting a fairly sanguine approach to the Primary....let them fight it out all the way to the Convention floor. If the Dems cannot survive and get past that, then we don't deserve to win---especially with the Rethugs as weak as they are; losing would be the crowning indignity to a race lacking in character on both sides.

-5.75,-4.05
"We're all fucked. It helps to remember that." --George Carlin

justadood May 23, 2008 - 8:53pm

...to be the next Hubert Humphrey?

I really need to to write that letter commanding her to return to her job. As a New Yorker, she's my employee.

If you're reading this, Senator, stop wandering around the country and get back to work.

Yamara May 24, 2008 - 3:34pm

turkana of The Left Coaster

Now, if you believe that the liars and smear merchants of the corporate media and the shrillosphere are reasonable and objective in taking such great offense to Clinton's comments, you are forced to conclude that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who actually has a personal stake and personal feelings about the matter, is so in the tank for Clinton that he will give a free pass to the most despicable possible reference to his father. The opposite reading would be that RFK, Jr. is right, and that Clinton unintentionally used jarringly inappropriate language to restate what she has stated many times before, and that the hysterical hate-mongers of the corporate media and the shrillosphere have merely found yet another pretext to spew their hysterical hatred. I'll be blunt: the people using this incident to further promote their own despicable agenda by their own despicable means are every bit as despicable as their lies and distortions would make Clinton out to be. They are shameful. Their behavior is inexcusable. They like to accuse Clinton of being Rovian- and worse- but it is they who have most closely come to emulate the worst behavior of the worst Republicans. To whatever degree they have any political impact at all, they are a blight on political discourse, and they are systematically destroying everything the blogs were supposed to be. That some of them are now participating in the corporate media could not be more appropriate. They have become that which they were supposed to have been trying to change. I congratulate them on their success.

Tina May 24, 2008 - 5:04pm

DarkSyde in Kos


1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?

nymole May 25, 2008 - 8:16am

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.