Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I think I've made it fairly plain on this blog that I have almost nothing but disdain for Hillary Clinton, but this latest episode of feigned and misplaced outrage over her reference to Bobby Kennedy is utterly ridiculous. I had several people last night claim, in all seriousness, that she was advocating Obama's assassination with her simple comment that we all remember his assassination being in June to support her point that campaigns often last this long.
Keith Olbermann threw a fit about it on MSNBC last night in one of his special comments. Now I usually like Keith Olbermann. I liked him when he was a sportscaster and I love watching him use Bill O'Reilly as his (well deserved) personal pinata. He fumed and sputtered and raged into the good night and my only reaction was: get a grip. She was merely using a well-known historical date as an example of campaigns going into June.
All of this is just ridiculous. Olbermann repeatedly claimed that the mere use of the word, in any context, is some horrible rhetorical crime. Huh? Why? Yeah, it wasn't the most artful wording, but for crying out loud, let's not lose our minds. There are a million real criticisms of Hillary Clinton but this simply isn't one of them.
And while we're at it, can we end, once and for all, this silly hagiography of Bobby Kennedy as a combination of Ghandi and Jesus Christ? Bobby Kennedy was the man who unleashed J. Edgar Hoover on the world, the man who personally signed off, as Attorney General, on the illegal warrantless wiretapping and spying on Martin Luther King and a wide range of other legitimate civil rights organizations.
That led directly to the blackmailing and undermining of individuals doing nothing more than seeking to make this country fulfill its promises of liberty and equality. This man was the highest law enforcement officer in the land and he was using the constitution as toilet paper every bit as badly as anything George W. Bush has done. I don't give a damn how charismatic he was, his actions were indefensible and his reign in office was a stain upon the country. In a sane world, he would have been in jail in June of 1968 rather than running for president.
Comments
Uh, Ed was Bobby Kennedy even alive in 1924 when John Edgar Hoover took over what would become the FBI?
And you think Keith Olbermann should get a grip -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 24, 2008 9:46 AM
Absolutely! From what I saw, she didn't say anything offensive: her husband didn't secure the nomination numbers until June (true? certainly irrelevant since nobody else was close enough to matter) and Bobby Kennedy was still campaigning for a very open nomination in June also true, and certainly more relevant.
I have countless reasons to despise the Clinton campaign, but this is not one. I have been very impressed with how Obama has handled his rhetorical skirmishes with McCain. I honestly thought that the "Faux Outrage" bandwagon that plagued the season earlier, with daily resignations of supporters who said something mildly questionable, was long since over. It's a shame to see him bring up that nonsense again.
Posted by: Mr. Upright | May 24, 2008 10:04 AM
I don't think the issue is that she was advocating the assassination of Obama. That's obviously not the case.
The issue is that she is saying "I need to stay in, because Obama might get assassinated." It's obviously possible that he might get assassinated, but it's pretty poor taste to bank your entire campaign on the other guy getting shot in the chest.
Posted by: Gordon S | May 24, 2008 10:11 AM
Re J. Edgar Himmler
The late and unlamented J. Edgar Himmler was collecting blackmail information on potential political foes when Robert Kennedy was still in diapers. I suspect that Mr. Himmler was probably blackmailing Mr. Kennedy over his and his brothers' relationship with Marilyn Monroe, among others (his brothers' relationship with Judith Exner and her relationship with Mafia dons for instance). This in no way excuses Mr. Kennedys' acquiescence in Mr. Himmlers' activities relative to Martin Luther King but does explain it.
Posted by: SLC | May 24, 2008 10:14 AM
I've heard several times from acquaintances and in the blogosphere that people didn't want to vote for Obama to run because he had a high chance of being assassinated. Even if it was remotely true (I don't think he has a higher or lower chance than anyone else) to me this is an incredibly stupid reason not to vote for someone. However - its been out there and discussed for months and months. So it should be of no surprise to anyone (including the Hillary campaign which has screwed up time and time again) that people would associate the remarks to Obama. This is yet another example why this person shouldn't be let near the whitehouse again unless its on a tour.
Posted by: yoshi | May 24, 2008 10:21 AM
Just to clarify, I heard the section of the speech refering to Bobby Kennedy, and in no way did I think that Senator Clinton was hoping for Senator Obama's assasination. However it did show poor judgment, indicative of her campaign as as whole, in my opinion. Would a person like this, desperate, willing to stoop to anything to get elected, make a good president? I think not. (Not that I have any horses in this particular race).
But really Ed, Faux outrage on Faux outrage is a little below your usual standard. Bobby Kennedy didn't "unleash" John Edgar Hoover, personally the Kennedys hated Hoover's guts. Hoover had the goods on them so they had to play along. They seriously contemplated dumping him in Dec 1964 but events intervenved. Lyndon Bains Johnson had a much greater rapport with Hoover, perhaps because both had fathers they thought of as "failures", or perhaps for other reasons, it was he who "unleashed" Hoover.
I may not have read much, but this much my reading has lead me to believe. Is there contrary evidence? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 24, 2008 10:29 AM
There have been rumours of attempts (difficult to prove of course) to kill Senator Obama. Apparently Senator Clinton isn't worth the price of a round, although, no doubt, her campaign staffers will circulating stories to improve her stock really soon. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 24, 2008 10:36 AM
I love you, Ed.
I can't write about politics because I get to pissed off and snarky but you almost always say what I've been thinking in calm and intelligent fashion.
Posted by: writerdd | May 24, 2008 10:37 AM
I agree. Her reference was just a calendar bookmark. Of course, it's all irrelevant to the case, since this primary season started so much earlier than 1992 and 1968.
BTW, Obama is less likely to be assassinated -- he's so skinny!
Posted by: Mim Song | May 24, 2008 10:40 AM
See, I'm with Gordon here: I think she finally said out loud what's been obvious for a while now. I think it was a Freudian slip, and a big one. She's staying in because there's a chance-- and there have been credible death threats, just go read Stormfront-- that someone will take a shot at Obama. That's a pretty big calculation of hope in her campaign right now.
Staying in a race and tearing apart an entire political party because the guy in the lead might be killed along the way is amoral political calculation of the worst kind. She didn't say "I hope he does" or "I wish someone would do it," she just said out loud what really shouldn't have been said, and showed that she's banking her career on it. She's not vicious or mean, she's just horribly, terribly, stupidly vain.
Posted by: Elf M. Sternberg | May 24, 2008 10:55 AM
Personally. I'm appalled at the timing of her remark a day or so after the news that Ted Kennedy has a malignant brain tumor. Thoughtless, no class.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | May 24, 2008 11:16 AM
Ed,
I agree with you, but it would have been a great deal smarter for her to have said "You just never know what might happen between Memorial Day and the election."
She has said other things that make me wonder how she would handle diplomatic situations, but that is the least of my worries about her.
Posted by: BaldApe | May 24, 2008 11:17 AM
I agree that the outrage is misplaced. Still it was tactically a very stupid thing to say. And I think her detractors will rightly say if she can't even articulate a point that prolonged primaries have happened before (which is another issue, the 1968 primary was only in it's 3rd month in June and the 1992 primary was effectively over in March when Tsongas pulled out) then how can she argue that she'd be the best person to answer the phone at 3 AM?
Posted by: ks | May 24, 2008 11:22 AM
Clinton's whole rationale for staying in the race doesn't add up anyway. As she was basically saying, she can't win unless some major scandal or calamity happens to Obama, but if she dropped out now it's not as if she's suddenly disqualified from being the alternative nominee if something did happen to Obama. She would be the only choice.
In any case, Bill Clinton had his nomination in the bag weeks before June even though he didn't pass the finish line until the middle of June and the California primary, and the whole primary process was later than it has been this year, so Clinton's comparison is more talking point than truth.
And raising the specter of Kennedy's assassination in the context of this year's nomination process is just crass, no matter what spin you put on it.
Hillary Clinton just needs to go away. The Democratic party doesn't need this kind of stuff between now and November.
Posted by: tacitus | May 24, 2008 11:35 AM
While I don't think it is worthy of THAT much outrage, I do think that it was a ridiculous choice of words. I mean of all the campaigns that have gone to June she really had to use the example of an assassination when there are groups who while "not planning anything" would be okay with something of that sort happening:
http://beaconcast.com/articles/20080521_1
It was a terrible example and does not make her look good at all.
Posted by: Robert Ward | May 24, 2008 11:36 AM
She just sounded really, really tired and a bit punchy. Which doesn't auger well for here 3am scenario. Everything I've seen of Obama (from the time Paul Simon recommended him to the people of Illinois) is that whatever else he is, he is level-headed and not quick to anger. Those are good traits in a president.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | May 24, 2008 11:45 AM
This is plain wrong: I heard a radio commentator making the same point. The California primary used to be, famously, in June. Kennedy was assassinated after it. The nomination was still up for grabs.
The point is: it isn't all that unusual for a primary to be fought for this late. It has happened before, it's happened in living memory, and it's happening now. The reason why California WAS so late is that it was then well-placed to make the call in a closely-run primary. They were expected and accepted as a normal part of the process. We should, too. An we shouldn't be hand-wringing and whining over the fact that we have a contested primary.
That's the point. The assassination is only what makes the memory poignant and immediately accessible.
I am, btw, an Obama supporter.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | May 24, 2008 11:47 AM
The MSM has treated Hillary just like a Republican...Dems normally don't have to put up with that.
All she was doing was referencing the month of June in presidential politics. The Media would never, ever, treat their boy Barry this way.
George Allen uttered "macacca" and it was over for him...it's about over for Hillary too.
God help us if Barry gets into the White House, we are looking at the second Carter administration.
Posted by: Increase Mather | May 24, 2008 11:49 AM
The Obama folks are purposefully misinterpreting this so they won't have to put Clinton on the ticket. The goal is commendable. Publicly lying and distorting to get there . . .
As much as I'd like Obama to get his way here, this looks terrible for him and his campaign. They look stupid and hypersensitive--precisely what the way they should be working overtime NOT to appear.
I am surprised how often Obama's campaign looks to be run by either a)total amateurs or b)urban machine politicians whose grasp of national politics looks far from certain.
Obama's campaign usually looks solid and disciplined, but every few weeks there seems to be a terrible, hurtful blunder. A blunder that was no accident but a blunder that reflects truly bad judgment on someone's part.
This is one of those moments, I think.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | May 24, 2008 11:58 AM
Exactly! I'm no fan of Hill, but this phony outrage reeks of manufactured political crap. I couldn't watch all of Olbermann's comment because it was so blatantly unfair, and has made me rethink my opinion of Keith.
In LOL speak: Komentare, Ur doin it rong.
Posted by: Bert | May 24, 2008 11:59 AM
Gimme a break. How long did The Media (tm) stretch out the Rev. Wright "controversy"? Obama's getting the same treatment as any other candidate.
Blaming The Media (tm) for one's self-inflicted woes is usually a sign of desperation.
Posted by: Wes | May 24, 2008 12:02 PM
The fact that Hoover was in his position before RFK took office does not challenge my argument at all. It wasn't until RFK signed off on it that he was unleashed on MLK and the civil rights movement. The claim that Hoover was blackmailing RFK is simply speculation to excuse away the idea that the golden boy could possibly have done such a thing. On the other hand, we know that they were blackmailing MLK and it was done with RFK's permission in a flagrant violation of the Constitution. The blackmail claim on RFK is just plain absurd - is that really supposed to rescue him? Even if it's true, it means that RFK went along with a tyrannical abuse of power and watched the constitution be rendered worthless in protecting the rights of Americans in order to save his own reputation. Oh yeah, that's so much better.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 24, 2008 12:02 PM
I'm sorry, IM, but you really think that if Obama was carrying on the way Clinton is doing if he had no hope of catching her for the nomination they wouldn't be dumping on him too?
And where have you been? The press was bashing Obama for weeks about the Reverend Wright issue, and they're still taking the odd pot shot over it. Not to mention flag pins and hands-on-hearts and other such pseudo-patriotic nonsense. And all that's in addition to Clinton's continual attacks over Obama's suitability to be Commander in Chief (3am phone calls) and mentions of Wright and Ayers.
Now, when was the last time Obama went after Clinton in anywhere close to the same manner? When was the last time he mentioned Travelgate, or Whitewater, or any of Bill's many shenanigans?
So let's have a little less self-righteous indignation about Clinton's treatment in this campaign. Compared with the raking over the coals Obama had with Wright, she's had it easy with the press -- they didn't even touch on the Clinton scandals of the 90s.
Posted by: tacitus | May 24, 2008 12:03 PM
Tacitus:
It doesn't matter what Clinton has done or will do, Clinton isn't going to be the nominee.
The question is NOT whether this is fair play in the game with Clinton. That game is over. The question is how does this play out in the general election campaign.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | May 24, 2008 12:15 PM
Yeah, I thought Keith kinda went off the rails on that one.
The thing that struck me, though, was the wrongness of her point about primaries often running beyond June; she even said, very wrongly I think, that primary seasons often used to be longer. No; they used to end later, but they also started much later. The primaries keep getting pushed earlier and earlier, and this election season is, AFAIK, the longest it's ever been (counting from the first primary to the general election). June is not in the same relative position in the primary season as it was in 1992 or 1968.
Posted by: Nemo | May 24, 2008 12:16 PM
You guys are all missing the point that Hillary was making: She was basically saying that if she's VP, nobody in their right mind would take a shot at Obama for fear of leaving her with the presidency.
I keed, I keed..
Posted by: Soldats | May 24, 2008 12:29 PM
Sorry Ed bit of a history lesson for you, John Edgar Hoover was apointed Acting Head of the Beaurea of Investigation by Calvin Coolidge on 10 MAY 1924. Bobby Kennedy was born 20 NOV 1925. Hoover's attacks on persons he sonsidered "subversives" began in the 1930's, and continued until his dismissal and death in 1972.
How exactly did Bobby Kennedy direct Calvin Coolidge from the womb? How did he direct John Edgar Hoover's anti-subcersive campaign from the nursery? What level of blackmail/coercion was involved in Bobby Kennedy's later career?- Curiously DJ
Posted by: DinGoJack | May 24, 2008 12:29 PM
The MSM has treated Hillary just like a Republican...Dems normally don't have to put up with that... The Media would never, ever, treat their boy Barry this way.
I pretty much agree with Ed's take on this, but I've enjoyed watching as right wingers who, for years, applied the most sinister possible interpretations to Hillary's every utterance now accuse the press of abusing her. What a difference a common enemy makes for some people.
Posted by: Dr X | May 24, 2008 1:02 PM
If Hillary was simply using examples of contested primaries, she could have cited RFK's primary battles with Eugene McCarthy or the former's unexpected victory in California (they were polling neck and neck up until the primary). She most emphatically did not have to go straight for the assassination angle. I don't think she's outright malicious, but she was stupid and deserves all the bashing she's getting right now.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | May 24, 2008 1:09 PM
Relative to what? Relative to the convention it isn't. And that's the relative that counts here: the point being that the primary has been open as the last few primaries ran in the relatively recent past.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | May 24, 2008 1:10 PM
No, I think the Obama supporters are the ones who are stupid and the ones who look stupid. Clinton is backing off because she has everything to lose and nothing to gain through a controversy, but the Obama supporters look like idiots and they look they they think we're idiots.
And it isn't an issue like the flag where people ARE really idiots.
This probably won't matter in the general election, but it doesn't bode well. If this is Obama's brand of gotcha politics, he'd better stick to the high road.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | May 24, 2008 1:23 PM
Thanks for the sanity, Ed.
Posted by: Zeno | May 24, 2008 1:26 PM
"No, I think the Obama supporters are the ones who are stupid and the ones who look stupid. Clinton is backing off because she has everything to lose and nothing to gain through a controversy, but the Obama supporters look like idiots and they look they they think we're idiots."
You seem to be taking the position that no one has an honest disagreement with you, Oran. Unfortunately, I do. Let's get one thing straight: anyone who would think about it for more than five seconds would recognize that such a reference would be controversial. This is especially true at a point in time when it has become all but certain that Clinton won't win unless something very bad happens to Obama.
Clinton. Was. Stupid. She was also tasteless (bringing up the RFK assassination in the immediate wake of Ted Kennedy's brain cancer diagnosis) and tactless. She deserves the thrashing she is receiving right now.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | May 24, 2008 1:33 PM
So far we have seen nothing but manufactured controversy.
That doesn't qualify the issue as "controversial."
And it doesn't matter whether Clinton was stupid or not. Fine Clinton was stupid. So was Millard Fillmore. So what?
Obama's got another election to run in in November. He's not Millard Fillmore yet, but is he working on it?
Posted by: Oran Kelley | May 24, 2008 1:42 PM
For those who think this was a "slip" caused by carelessness or fatigue, think again: she said it, on the record, back in March as well.
Posted by: Jim Anderson | May 24, 2008 1:42 PM
Yes, I see that argument being made over and over again in this thread. Good thing you put a stop to it ;-)
Posted by: Oran Kelley | May 24, 2008 1:48 PM
So far we have seen nothing but manufactured controversy. That doesn't qualify the issue as "controversial."
I don't agree. There is legitimate controversy over these remarks, and the same would true if they came from the Obama camp or the McCain camp or whatever. That Clinton saw it fit to raise the specter of political assassination when grasping for a saving grace for her campaign says quite a bit about her.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | May 24, 2008 1:49 PM
Oran, I'm referring to Elf M. Sternberg's "Freudian slip" claim, above.
Posted by: Jim Anderson | May 24, 2008 1:54 PM
Tyler:
"raise the specter of assassination."
So, no one else has had the bad taste to mention the topic thusfar in the campaign, even in passing?
I would have sworn to God and dog that Obama talked about assassination on the anniversary of . . . I wouldn't want to raise the specter so I won't go any further . . .
Let me be curt: this is MORONIC. Anyone who thinks that mentioning a historical fact in a conversation about past primaries is somehow stepping over the line is being moronic. People who pretend to take offense at this are moronic. People who think this petty crap makes Obama look good are moronic.
I recognize the need to get clear of Clinton as a VP candidate, but this is drifting toward PC police territory. PRECISELY where McCain would like to paint Obama.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | May 24, 2008 2:01 PM
I think Elf was making the argument that it was a Freudian slip of the unconsciously revelatory kind, not an understandable slip caused by fatigue.
She's made some sort of reference to Kennedy on the brain, but that's just the usual apology bs--as I said, she has too much to lose to not apologize at this point.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | May 24, 2008 2:05 PM
Let me make this perfectly clear so that there be no misunderstanding since my previous comment was apparently not clear.
1. It is now well known that both Kennedys were involved sexually with Marilyn Monroe. Had that information been made public at the time, President Kennedy might well have been forced to resign from office.
2. In no way, shape, form or regard does the fact that he was being blackmailed excuse Robert Kennedys' actions in collaborating with J. Edgar Himmler in the Martin Luther King affair.
3. However, I would take strong exception to Mr. Braytons' comment that Himmler needed approval from Kennedy to wire tap and harass Rev. King. Himmler had been conducting such activities long before Kennedy became Attorney General and continued to engage in them after the latter left the office. Himmler was a law onto himself, a perfect example of Lord Actons' comment that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Posted by: SLC | May 24, 2008 2:29 PM
I agree with the post, but I would go farther. Robert Kennedy was an opportunistic asshole. At the time of the primaries, Eugene McCarthy had already stated the anti-war position in a speech in October. Only when RFK realized that McCarthy was on the right track did he enter and contest the anti-war vote.
Besides authorizing the spying on MLK, RFK was one of the primary supporters of anti-Castro policy.
There is nothing honorable about RFK.
Posted by: bernarda | May 24, 2008 3:03 PM
I'm kind of inclined to agree with the "consensus" around here, that Mrs. Clinton wan't calling for Obaam's assassination. She has done some excruciatingly dumb things, and the dumb things she's done have only gotten dumber, but she's not that dumb! However, she just doesn't have much judgment. And it increasingly shows. Unfortunately, this seems to be very hard for her to grasp; she seems to think that somehow she is owed the nomination, despite what's been happening with the delegate count and the primaries.
As to the queston of J. Edgar Hoover and the Kennedys, you have to remember that J. Edgar Hoover got away with a lot of what he did, simply because he seems to have collected information on all the presidents under his "watch", not just the Kennedy administration. They all had "stuff" they didn't want made public. The episodes with Marilyn Monroe were just one of a number; few people liked him, and it wouldn't surprise me if they only very reluctantly went along with his spying on Martin Luther King(of course, the Kennedys may have been afraid of what Dr. King represented, too).
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | May 24, 2008 3:19 PM
Meanwhile, my generation is asking: Who's Bobby Kennedy?
Posted by: Carlo | May 24, 2008 3:29 PM
My initial reaction to Hillary's comment was different from anything I'm hearing anyone else say about it. Maybe this is because I live in a state that always had its primary in June, but this year had it in February's big "super Tuesday." I distinctly remember back in February, when I was trying to recall which other states had previously had June primaries, that California was the first one that popped into my head. Why? Because Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June. I just assumed that this was why it was the one that popped into Hillary's head too, and thought nothing more of her use of it as an example until everyone started over-analyzing it.
My problem with Hillary's comment was her comparing this year's timeframe to that of previous primary seasons, simply because things are different now that so many of the primaries that used to be held later have already been held, making her reasoning that this one should drag into June because this wasn't unusual in past years flawed.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | May 24, 2008 4:32 PM
In 1968 in June there were big-state primaries coming up. That's not the case now. There's no way for upcoming primaries to make a difference for Hillary.
So the argument is, on its face, nonsensical at this point.
When she first started talking about 68 and 92, it was early March, and there were some biggish states left, so it was at least conceivable that she could win.
Now? Staying in is just burning money. That is, if she's staying in in order to win, and not for some other reason.
Posted by: Jon H | May 24, 2008 4:48 PM
". I just assumed that this was why it was the one that popped into Hillary's head too"
It didn't pop into her head, she's been saying it since early March. As Olbermann showed, earlier this month she changed the message to drop the 'assassination' reference and only noted that RFK was *competing* in June in 68, which is true and has the advantage of not tripping over what might well be the 'Scottish Play' of politics.(*)
And, really, political coverage is *so* superstitious, and so hungry for symbolism to spin into story lines, it takes a real failure in judgement to tempt fate by talking about assassination for three months.
(* meaning, actors have that silly thing about not saying 'Macbeth', and saying 'The Scottish Play' instead. This is like that, except there isn't a history of Shakespearian actors being shot down like dogs.)
Posted by: Jon H | May 24, 2008 4:54 PM
Look, when you talk to a friend (who happens to be black) about Obama, and the *very first thing* he tells you is "oh we'll never actually see a black man in the White House, he'll get assisinated first", and when there are people out there who have publically expressed they think it would be swell if he was assisinated, it seems incredibly moronic for anyone to publically state they have something to gain from Obama being assisinated.
I don't think it is reasonable for Obama himself to take offense, since I don't *think* it was supposed to be a subtle way to make Obama afraid for his life. That said, there are Obama supporters out there who might be afraid for his life. Even if there wasn't any reason for that... let's say for the sake of argument that the reality is that he is the least likely person on the earth to be assinated- people are still worried about it. It is not good or right to play on people's fears like that. It's a good degree more subtle than terror-mongering by Bush et al, but it is no more morally justified.
I am *sick and tired* of politicans playing on people's fears, subtly or unsubtly. Those that think that Clinton is "stupid not evil" for "inadvertantly" building up the assoication between assination and Obama in people's minds are the moronic ones.
Posted by: Becca | May 24, 2008 4:57 PM
Once again I am deeply and perhaps irreparably offended by the assumed offense of someone else.
This happens all the time and I am about to make friends with a legislator and force the acceptance of a law that would impose criminal penalties on anyone who does it anymore. So there.
Why is it that life is so very enjoyable until someone with designated authority mucks it up? I mean, why? Isn't their job description clear enough?
Sarcasm, of course, but dammit all the same!
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | May 24, 2008 5:00 PM
Note that a woman in New Hampshire at a Clinton event got the microphone and said something to the effect of "People compare Obama to JFK, but JFK got killed..."
Posted by: Jon H | May 24, 2008 5:02 PM
Wes: The Wright tapes were around for months before the MSM was dragged kicking and screaming into covering them. The media is simply not interested in covering ANYTHING that may hurt their annointed. Hillary used to have that protection, but Barry is their boy now.
The only reason the liberal media covered Wright was because the tapes showed up on u-tube and Fox. Rush also had the audio. Trust me, but for the GOP media, the big nets and the NYTIMES would NEVER have covered Wright.
I'm still waiting for the libs to ask Kerry appropriate questions about his Vietnam service...like, why won't he sign his 180 form?
Posted by: Increase Mather | May 24, 2008 6:08 PM
Re Increase Mather
I'm still waiting for the right wing shitheads like Mr. Mather to ask where the draft dodging, coke snorting, pot smoking lying Dubya was when he got himself into the Air National Guard using his fathers influence so as to avoid service in Vietnam.
Posted by: SLC | May 24, 2008 6:46 PM
Ed, thank you. The reaction is definitely way over the top, and Keith Olbermann claiming to speak for "we as a nation" is at best terribly self-aggrandizing.
Olbermann seems to have forgotten his own recent remark that "someone should take Senator Clinton into a room and only he comes out." Alex Castellanos has had to apologize for his statement the other day that the word "bitch" is appropriate when speaking of Clinton, but his remark a few weeks ago that someone in the Democratic Party has to realize "it's time to take the old family dog to the vet" raised very few eyebrows. Various commentators have spoken of putting a stake through her heart, running her over with a truck, putting her down like the filly in the Kentucky Derby, and all of these things together have raised not a hundredth of the outcry that this has. Can you say "contrived"? I knew you could.
---
Jon, what conclusion are we to draw from your New Hampshire anecdote? I don't see a point.
Posted by: Pieter B | May 24, 2008 7:47 PM
Pieter B wrote: "Jon, what conclusion are we to draw from your New Hampshire anecdote? I don't see a point."
The point is that she has no excuse to claim that it never occurred to her that there was concern about Obama being assassinated.
When people are saying things like the woman said in New Hampshire, and have said it to your face, it takes a very... special... kind of person to then make a weird passing reference to an assassination a part of your stump rhetoric. Especially when Obama's the one getting compared to RFK and JFK.
Oh, and Olbermann apologized, on-air, for his comment, quite a while ago.
Posted by: Jon H | May 24, 2008 8:46 PM
Dingojack:
Your comment was answered before you left it. The fact that Hoover was appointed long before RFK was AG is irrelevant to my claim. I didn't say that RFK is responsible for everything Hoover ever did, I said that he was the one who signed off on the flagrant constitutional violation of warrantless wiretapping and spying on MLK. And he did. If you're going to take the position that Hoover didn't need it, then why would you claim he blackmailed Kennedy into giving it?
I have no problem with those who think Hillary's comment was stupid, ill thought out or tasteless. All of those are reasonable criticisms. It's the ridiculous overreaction of "Oh my god she wants Obama assassinated" or "how dare you even mention assassination, that makes you Hitler incarnate" that I'm reacting to. Olbermann went completely off the deep end on this one, as have a few others (and I don't think Obama has, nor has his campaign, so it's not reasonable to blame them for it either).
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 24, 2008 9:17 PM
So the Nostradamus spambot is taking credit for James Randi no longer offering his prize, and the president of American Atheists stepping down...
Well, in mjones's defense, his claim makes about as much sense as blaming the "liberal media" for being mean to Hillary (Increase Mather), or spinning this incident as if it somehow reflects poorly on Obama (Oran Kelley).
Posted by: Wes | May 24, 2008 9:26 PM
Hey, Ed. The comment threads on your posts are getting bigger and bigger these days (or at least, that's how it seems to me anyways). I've been wondering if you intended to introduce comment numbering, to make it easier to navigate these 60 or 70 post threads.
Posted by: Wes | May 24, 2008 9:30 PM
Thank you for injecting some sanity into this maelstrom. It wasn't a tactful thing to say, but the outrage is disproportionate.
Posted by: Chris | May 24, 2008 10:26 PM
My God, at what point will it be acknowledged that Hillary Clinton's behavior is totally unacceptable? This was not a gaffe or an off-the-cuff comment. She has apparently made this same comment before and she was undoubtedly aware that Mike Huckabee drew strong criticism for his moronic "joke" at the NRA gathering, so I cannot believe this was an innocent poor wording on her part.
She has been given the benefit of the doubt one too many times. She was given a free pass when she blatantly lied to the American people about Bosnian sniper fire which was very charitably dismissed as "misspeaking." Then she claims she was always against trade agreements as Hillary and Bill made $800,000 last year negotiating the Colombian Trade Agreement. Every time she gets away with something, it only spurs her to even greater heights of outrageous behavior. Haven't we had enough of this type of behavior the past 7 years?
Hillary has gone too far this time. This is behavior that should not be tolerated. How is it that she can utter such things and still have people muse, "hmmm, I think the media is making too much of this" or better yet, "hmmm, I think Obama should pick her as VP?" Well, Hillary just burned the bridge to that VP hope with this comment.
As Big Ed said yesterday, this "graceful exit" and "exit strategy" stuff was nonsense. Every other Democratic candidate who ran this year and didn't make it said thanks to his supporters, we tried but didn't make it. Big Ed went on to say he didn't get the "kid gloves" when it comes to Hillary. Then Big Ed said, "Senator , you ran a good, strong campaign, but you lost. Time to get out so we can go after the Republicans."
Hillary imploded yesterday. It is time for the superdelegates to get off the fence and end this.
Posted by: Melissa | May 24, 2008 11:04 PM
Ed - I'm not saying your wrong. I agree with you totally. From what she actually said in no way called for anyone;s assasination. Ohters might read sinister motives into her comments, that's thier perogative.
The only thing I'm calling you on is your hyperbolic statement
(I believe that was Mrs Hoover who did that intially :).
RFK didn't unleash Hoover, that rabid dog had slipped the lead when Bobby Kennedy was in short pants. Hoover used his "Personal & Confidetial" files to avoid being restrained.
Did RFK collaborate with Hoover willing or not? I don't know (although I suspect not, as there was no love lost between Hoover and the Kennedys.)
That is what I am saying. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 24, 2008 11:47 PM
Nice to see that someone is able to maintain perspective about this ridiculous campaign. Nice post, Mr. Brayton.
Posted by: bullet | May 25, 2008 2:36 AM
Ed: You are completely right about RFK. The Left wants to forget that he served with Roy Cohn on the McCarthy committee. As late as the 1950s Bobby considered becoming a Republican, he was close to the Jacob Javits, Ken Keating crowd, though he later beat Keating in a Senate race.
There is no proof that Hoover was blackmailing the Kennedys, and if he were, what kind of Attorney General would stand for it? Maybe, the kind who someday wanted his own administration?
RFK was ruthless, relentless in pursuit of his family's interests, to a point where he and Jack OKed the CIA's working relationship with the Mafia...oh, how some have forgotten.
Posted by: Increase Mather | May 25, 2008 9:26 AM
Re Increase Mather
"There is no proof that Hoover was blackmailing the Kennedys, and if he were, what kind of Attorney General would stand for it? "
The answer is an attorney general who knew that his brother might well have been driven from office if his affair with Marilyn Monroe was publicized. The fact is that Hoover, through his information gathering activities had dirt on many important politicians, including Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. All three of them wanted to fire him but were dissuaded from doing so because of the fear that the information he had would become public. After Hoovers' death, it is well known that his deputy and long time lover, Clyde Tolson, emptied out Hoovers' secret files and destroyed them.
Posted by: SLC | May 25, 2008 10:45 AM
IM wrote:
I'm still waiting for the libs to ask Kerry appropriate questions about his Vietnam service...like, why won't he sign his 180 form?
Every claim in that sentence is demonstrably false. Your filthy insinuation that Kerry is hiding something in his military record was exposed as partisan bullshit 3 years ago. Kerry signed form 180 six months after the election of '04. Not only that, the liberal media did ask why he waited to sign it and Kerry gave an answer that made sense: partisan operatives were demanding that he sign it and he didn't want to appear to "kowtow" to them during the campaign.
What was found when Kerry's "undeleted" military records were released in 6 months after the election? Kerry was hiding nothing, much to the chagrin of right wing nutjobs (I guess they don't talk about this around the ol' nutjob rumor mill). Kerry's record is clean. The record also contained considerable praise from his superior officers.
From the Boston Globe:
The Wright tapes were around for months before the MSM was dragged kicking and screaming into covering them.
Where were the Wright tapes for months? And what evidence do you have the the MSM was "dragged kicking and screaming" into covering them? You've already shown that you're three years late and a dollar short on the form 180 story, so there is no reason to assume that you care about facts or evidence.
Trust me, but for the GOP media, the big nets and the NYTIMES would NEVER have covered Wright.
Trust you? Why would anyone trust you? You don't bother with minimal fact-checking before you go off half-cocked with slanderous accusations.
Posted by: Dr X | May 25, 2008 2:19 PM
Yes! Thank you for pointing out some of the facts about Bobby Kennedy. The man wasn't the saint everyone tries to paint him as and, while he felt content mouthing the platitudes of civil rights while doing what he could to stall and undermine the movement for the sake of his family's political ascent, people like LBJ and Shriver were actually out there, on the floor and in the White House, changing society for the better. If you want to look at a good, conscientious Kennedy, then look at Ted; despite his drinking problem, he's always been the best of the bunch.
Posted by: Julian | May 25, 2008 3:08 PM
On the issue of Bobby and Hoover, those who defend him need to consider Bobby's career before he joined the Justice Department. Look at how he handled his Senate investigations; look at his relationship with Hoover then. Bobby never had any qualms about doing anything that advanced his family or harmed an enemy; this, in fact, was what he was known for until his brother's assassination transmogrified him into the noble King-In-Waiting (and, by the way, when the heck did U.S. Citizens become so infatuated with aristocracy anyway? Him and his brother have enough to answer for just for encouraging that kind of thinking).
Posted by: Julian | May 25, 2008 3:16 PM
Increase Mather, your repeated references to Obama as "Barry" seem to lack the emotional punch that you're apparently going for. If you want to deliver more effective propoganda, I suggest you pepper your posts with his middle name of Hussein as much as possible. It's a great way to insinuate that Obama is a filthy Muslim as well as being a treasonous librool propped up by The Liberal Media TM.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 25, 2008 4:37 PM
I may be a little late to the game, but saw the best take yet on this whole issue. The essence of it:
"Hillary cannot stand the idea that her doggedness is being viewed by the leading opinion makers as pathetic or Huckabeean. So she is desperate to compare her quest to that of great figures in history. That is why she never cites Gary Hart's long battle in 1984 as a precedent. Hart, in her eyes, is too insignificant a personage. She had to wrap herself in the legacy of an iconic historical figure, no matter how inapposite the analogy -- or how unsettling. Hence, the reach to Bobby Kennedy."
It all comes down to narcissism, or a personality disorder. You can read the whole thing at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/25/155016/918/119/522621
Posted by: Opus | May 25, 2008 4:53 PM
I think that the connections between the two McCarthys needs to be emphasized. Joe Kennedy made connections with Joe McC and JFK were frequent allies even though they were from different parties. RFK cut his teeth as Joe McC's counsel during the witch hunts and he always showed deference to Sen McC. RFK did have some taste since he despised Roy Cohn. Arthur Schlessinger points out that RFK walked out of a banquet that was honoring him when Edward R Murrow was speaking.
details here
I remember my feelings about RFK in '68 when he played coy for a long time and let Gene McC do the rough stuff in getting LBJ out of the presidential race. Only when Clean Gene looked like he was going to win did RFK join the race, even though he had already put together a campaign - blatant opportunism. I also remember RFK's belated adoption of environmentalism - after he and Ethyl had made a significant contribution to overpopulation. He still would have made a better president than Tricky Dick.
Posted by: natural cynic | May 25, 2008 8:03 PM
Ed,
You're usually one of the best commentaries on the web. You're dead wrong on this. The point Olbermann (et al, he's hardly the only one) is making is that this is beyond the pale for a sitting US Senator and candidate for the Presidency to make.
He (and the others) are completely correct.
Some people are calling it a "Dean Scream" moment. I view it more as a "Barney Fag" moment--when you slip and repeat something in public you've discussed behind closed doors with your intimates. Viewed in conjunction with her previous, slightly more oblique references to Obama being killed, the only reasonable explanation is that this is part of her campaign strategy.
That is appalling to the point of disqualification. Or alternately, letting it slip this way is stupid to the point of disqualification. The outcome is the same regardless.
Posted by: usagi | May 26, 2008 5:17 PM
On Robert Kennedy: for those that don't know much about "the Left" it should be noted that RFK wasn't a favorite of said group when he ran, and many people recognize(d) his role in the 1950s with Cohn. My own family had issues with his stand towards organized labor, which was a mixed bag on the best days. Yes, he went after Hoffa, who was mobbed-up, but people like him created the conditions for unions to get mobbed up by confining unions to a very narrow range of political activity. (One reason we are the only industrialized country where unions need government approval to form and operate. The other one used to be the USSR).
Ed, I think you pose a bit of a false dichotomy. Hoover acted as he did whoever was in office. I've seen the COINTELPRO papers and I saw no evidence that any AG, either Kennedy or his predecessor William Rogers officially signed off on the program, though I think that both could have stopped it had they chosen to do so. I think the problem was that Hoover had built his little fiefdom and made it terribly hard to root out. After all, look how long it took after Hoover was dead to rein the FBI in.
This doesn't excuse Kennedy, but it does mean that the picture is a little more complicated than either sainting him or demonizing him. RFK wasn't even that liberal when it came down to it. But he did oversee enforcement of the civil rights laws even as Hoover was trying to destroy the movement. That counts for something and says to me there's more going on.
As to Hilary's remarks, I'll reiterate what's been said before. She could have picked any other example or just said "hey, you never know" and ended it there. She didn't, and anyone in the public eye for as long as she's been doesn't make that mistake twice. I don't think she's hoping Obama gets shot, except in the way I hope that my boss gets hit by a bus when I have a bad day. It's just her letting off steam.
But dang, that wasn't the place to do it.
Posted by: Jesse | May 26, 2008 6:42 PM
Few interesting things:
1. How many people pontificate righteously about the bad bad thing Hillary said who do not know a) what it was she actually said, and 2) the context in which she said it. As much as media commentators might like to have it different, she said absolutely nothing about Obama being assassinated, and she implied absolutely nothing about it.
She didn't say "You never know" because that's not what she was saying.
This incident has been a startling demonstration of the arrogance of the functionally illiterate.
2. The fact that so many Obama supporters so quickly infer that reference is also interesting. I've heard the "he'll be assassinated first" comment dozens of times--every single time it was from an Obama supporter. I've never heard a republican or an Obama-hater (I know a few) suggest this. There seems to be an unhealthy fixation among Obama supporters here--almost as if they wish their hero would be martyred so he can die unsullied by the dirty business of real politics.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | May 27, 2008 8:43 AM