News

Clinton, Discussing Nomination Battle, Invokes RFK Assassination

»

by: Katharine Q. Seelye, The New York Times

photo
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defends her RFK assassination comment at a Brandon, S.D., supermarket on Friday. (Photo: Elise Amendola/Associated Press)

    Brandon, SD - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defended staying in the Democratic nominating contests Friday by saying that her husband did not wrap up the nomination until June 1992 and that, "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

    Her remarks set off a torrent of criticism, and within hours of making them Mrs. Clinton expressed regrets, saying, "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."

    Still, the comments touched on one of the most sensitive aspects of the current presidential campaign - concern for Senator Barack Obama's safety. And they come as Democrats have been talking increasingly of an Obama/Clinton ticket, with even former President Bill Clinton musing with associates about the possibility of his wife as vice president as the best path to the presidency if she loses the nominating fight.

    It was in the context of discussions about her political future that Mrs. Clinton made the remarks Thursday, in a meeting with the editorial board of the the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.

    "People have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa," where she came in third, behind Mr. Obama and former Senator John Edwards, Mrs. Clinton said. When asked why that would be she said she did not know; primaries sometimes go on a long time and there was no reason she should give up hers prematurely.

    "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," Mrs. Clinton said, dismissing the idea of dropping out.

    Update, 8 p.m.: Our colleague Jeff Zeleny, who is traveling with Senator Obama, tells us:

    Mr. Obama learned about Mrs. Clinton's remarks as he rode in his motorcade from Miami to Sunrise, Fla., on Friday. He and his aides discussed the matter, but decided he would not address the comment when he arrived at an afternoon rally.

    Instead, to an audience of 16,000 people who filled the Bank Atlantic Center arena, Mr. Obama praised the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton and assured Democrats that their party would be united after the long primary campaign ended.

    Privately, aides to Mr. Obama were furious at the remark, particularly because his safety is a particularly sensitive issue. He was the first presidential candidate to receive Secret Service protection more than a year ago because of specific threats, none of which were disclosed.

    In an interview earlier this year, Mr. Obama said he was aware of the threats, but felt safe because of the Secret Service protection, which he pointed out was given to presidential candidates because of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.

    "It's not something that I'm spending time thinking about day-to-day," Mr. Obama told The New York Times in February. "I made a decision to get into this race. I think anybody who decides to run for president recognizes that there are some risks involved, just like there are risks in anything."

    Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, which has refrained from engaging Mrs. Clinton in recent days, called Senator Clinton's statement "unfortunate and has no place in this campaign." And Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, an uncommitted superdelegate and the majority whip of the House of Representatives, said trough a spokeswoman, "This is beyond the pale."

    An aide to Mrs. Clinton said that she was simply using the Kennedy assassination as a benchmark to underscore that nomination fights can go a long time and that she was in no way implying anything else.

    "She was simply referencing her husband in 1992 and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 as historical examples of the nominating process going well into the summer," said Mo Elleithee, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign. "Any reading into it beyond that is outrageous."

    At Sunshine Foods here, Mrs. Clinton said the following:

    "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, in 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. I am 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. Thank you."

    Time's Karen Tumulty noted tonight on the magazine's political blog that Mrs. Clinton made a similar remark during an interview published in March.

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, defended her remarks in a telephone interview Friday evening. "I've heard her make that argument before," Mr. Kennedy said, speaking on his cell phone as he drove to the family compound in Hyannis for the holiday weekend. "It sounds like she was invoking a familiar historical circumstance in support of her argument for continuing her campaign."

    Mr. Kennedy said he has been traveling and had not seen the video or read Mrs. Clinton's comments, but said his support of Mrs. Clinton has not wavered.

    But he added that the protracted fight for the Democratic nomination would only last "two more weeks."

    "The candidate's going to emerge within the next two weeks, and the party will get behind them," Mr. Kennedy said.

    The Clinton campaign sent a statement from Randell Beck, the Argus Leader's Executive Editor, that sought to provide the context for Mrs. Clinton's remarks:

    The context of the question and answer with Senator Clinton was whether her continued candidacy jeopardized party unity this close to the Democratic convention. Her reference to Mr. Kennedy's assassination appeared to focus on the timeline of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself.

    During the editorial board meeting Friday, Mrs. Clinton also denied reports of any contact with the Obama camp regarding an exit strategy for her, or discussions about becoming Mr. Obama's running mate.

    "It's flatly, completely untrue," she said, "It's not anything I'm entertaining, nothing I have planned, nothing I'm prepared to engaged in."

    But she also said, "I can't speak for the 17 million people who voted for me and I have a lot of supporters."

    Mrs. Clinton chalked up news accounts of any discussions between her camp and Mr. Obama's as "part of an ongoing effort to end this before it's over."

»


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live.

SHE HAD TO VOTE YES AS THE

SHE HAD TO VOTE YES AS THE SENATOR FROM RECENTLY BOMBED NEW YORK! Hillary's vote for war was what her constituants expected, for God's sake!

U guys all talk about the

U guys all talk about the Kennedys like they were the gods. JFK grew the industrial war machine at a faster pace than any pres before or since. JFK got us into Viet Nam. We have to focus on today. What will move us in a positive direction ( at least a deferent direction) 12 years of Bushs 8 years of Clintons. Let's give the Black guy a chance, all these 43 white guys have not done us in, how could Obama. Take a chance do something different from what we are supposed to do, support a guy who does not look like you. You can always say you voted for another Bush (mccain)

Anon (and why not use your

Anon (and why not use your own name?) I caucused for Obama, since Kucinich andEdwards had dropped out. While Obama and Clinton may not be far apart on many issues, they differ significantly on wars in the Middle East, and that gets him my vote in November. Yes, Edwards voted for the war, but he was willing to say he was wrong. Clinton made the calculated decision to stand behind her vote, because she thought it was a winning position.. That, not misogyny cost her many votes, and I think will cost her the nomination. But for that choice, I could have considered supporting her.

Misogyny running rampant in

Misogyny running rampant in America guarantees that Hillary is in just as much danger as Obama. To play the Freudian slip card means you would have to also allow the slip to be from fear of personal danger. Other than their sex and race, Hillary and Obama's policies are intercxhangeable, except for the fact that she has much more experience on how to quickly and easily implement them.

vera: -I had thought that

vera: -I had thought that most of the dissension would be aimed more toward racism rather than misogyny.- 'Thought' or 'hoped'? It's not about black vs white or he vs she. It's about 'vote for war' vs 'vote against the war'. If Clinton had 'known' then what 100,000,000 or so Americans did, she likely would have voted in lockstep with Bush. Hillary Clinton/John McCain are interchangeable. Only Obama has the capacity to bring about any change in US politics.

I think next she'll call

I think next she'll call Obama 'boy' and then claim we're reading too much into it.

Ah, I see. A candidate

Ah, I see. A candidate invokes the assassination of her opponent and when criticized for that her supporters blame the criticism on "misogyny." Excuse me, but there are many many other "historical" examples of nomination races running into June. The citing of RFK's murder was deliberate and appalling. She appears to hope the superdelegates will give her the nomination because the other guy might get killed. The fact that Senator Clinton is a woman does not justify such reprehensible and disgusting behavior.

It seems to me that even if

It seems to me that even if Hillary made the perhaps disappointingly political inference that is an allusion to Robert Fitzgerald Kennedy, which is perhaps implied by her speech or imposed by the commentators. Is a tragically valid supposition. After all it was not Hillary who first chose to compare Barack Obama to an assassinated Kennedy. If anyone remembers the origins of this campaign battle? So I don't personally consider this a monumental occurrence in the campaign despite the death warrants pronounced by the New York Times. In addition on a personal, if understandably anecdotal, note: having lived for so long in the southern states (Capital of Republican ideology) I am very well aware of the starkly real hate rhetoric that accompanies a discussion of both the Democratic nominees, simply from a gender/race standpoint. It has been tragic in the utmost to see the eyes of women gloss over as they hear their husbands denounce Hillary's campaign and then timidly or on occasion vehemently agree with the inadequacy of a female in control. Or generally a more familiar rhetoric involving barely concealed vehemence against an educated male who happens to possess dark skin. The reason these discussions seem to me to be tragic and often flustering is the fact that it is truly not sexism nor racism that motivates them, but rather an all to understandable desire for the familiar experience. Rambling investigatives aside my personal thought is that she meant to imply an assassination, simply because Hillary is far to smart to not know what she is saying. While Barack Obama is not as naive nor politically impeccable as he would have himself appear. He is very much aware of the potential, if unlikely, threat he faces as the first probable black candidate for president in recent memory. On a note of hope: either one of them will handily defeat John McCain whom the populace sees more and more as George Bush III and a special pet of lobbyists. So whomever the Democratic nominee will be it would be an anti-miracle if they lost to a party who's only claim to fame is presiding over a time when every mass issue (national security, war, human rights, taxes, ECONOMY) has gotten perpetually more disastrous. Have faith, we will win again.

Well, Sunil Ramalingam at

Well, Sunil Ramalingam at 06:11, who will you be voting for, since Obama's positions are basically the same as Hillary's?

I was a strong supporter of

I was a strong supporter of HRC at first because she was the woman candidate (if there's no difference I'll take the woman), then because she was a strong candidate too. I had high hopes for her. Rather than being racist, I dismissed Obama as just another man. However, those who are privy to what the candidates ACTUALLY say instead of what the mass media WANTS us to focus on, have a very different picture (of the election and the world, actually). If you get your news from TV, radio, or print media, you know what 'they' want you to (for reasons of space I'll leave 'they' undefined) but you don't know the truth. You have to actually compare their remarks onn the same subjects to hear Hillary directionlessly issuing words intende to reassure but not to inform. Barama, on the other hand, goes for the gut. Clinton answers the gas price problem with a let's-win-Iraq and look into other energy rhetoric. Obama says. let's go to the oil profiteers, the prica-gaugers, and he lists alternative energies, and even knows about them. In other words, Hillary is concentrating on winning a campaign. Obama is concentrating on understanding and improving the lot of the lower 95% of Americans. All you have to do is watch them both on youtube. These are not snippets, and 30-minute videos give you enough material to chew on. And of course read Truthout, which you all do anyway, right?!

Anon at 06:11 says 'the

Anon at 06:11 says 'the truth is that many of you, including many in the media, don't like Hillary and you are threatened and enraged that she is clearly the best, strongest, and ONLY promising candidate that we have for this election.' No, many of us don't like her positions on the Iraq War and on Iran. Many of us don't like her willingness to destroy the village to save it, since salvation apparently lies in supporting her. I wouldn't vote for a man with those positions either.

BTW, to the note that I just

BTW, to the note that I just posted about Obama in the hands of the Republicans, I want to add that some campaign advisors of Obama's have close contacts with Republicans in this current administration. And I am certain that there are many more weirdnesses that we are not privy to. I have believed that Hil knew and knows that she will be able to be a much more effective president. I look at Hillary Clinton right now and I see sincerity that I never saw before. When she was the first lady she seemed slightly arrogant, slightly self-centered. Younger, I guess. Easy to make into political mince meat. Now she seems to have let go of childish dreams of being first female president and embraced the idea of being an effective president who will work her hardest to follow FDR's lead to help all the people and lead the USA back to its former strength.

Kennedy grew up in the

Kennedy grew up in the middle of power and big money so it was an environment that he absolutely understood, and all of the players in it he was either familiar with himself or had people close to him who knew the individuals. And still, look what happened to him (definitely no Freudian slip intended here).Obama is new in this environment and new among people in this level of power. He will not be able to "hit the ground running" should he make it to the White House, But I doubt that he will make it to 1600 Pensylvania, because the Republicans will never allow it. When /if the Obama card finally pushes the scary Clinton specter out of the picture for them, they plan to turn Obama into political mincemeat. And then we'll all be enjoying more of the leadership policies we've had since Bill Clinton got out of office, which will be leading all of us and the rest of the world into a lovely new dark age!

First you throw an elitist

First you throw an elitist card -- "I know many other Women Professors who are leading scholars and researchers at prominent institutions who strongly support Hillary Clinton" -- then you take potshots at Obama -- "empty rhetorical flourishes". You decry the media's treatment of her while ignoring the way the media has made mountains out of molehills against Obama (Rev. Wright). Look in the mirror with objectivity, and you'll see that you are doping the same things you decry in others. I'll tell you what tipped my thinking -- when Clinton and her husband began to make comments that would undermine the party if Obama won the nomination. That tells me she's more interested in personal success than anything. "By God, if I can't win, neither will he" kind of mentality. As for "young man"... wasn't JFK one of the youngest presidents in modern history? Of course, the fact that I disagree with you will make me either a misogynist or uninformed or some other moniker with which you will dismiss me. And that is elitist to the core.

Many career women support

Many career women support Clinton strongly -- I'm one of them...I know many other Women Professors who are leading scholars and researchers at prominent institutions who strongly support Hillary Clinton. She has strong support for many reasons including well articulated policies on education, health care, and in and for science. Many thoughtful folks are attracted to her because of the systematic way in which she has deeply thought about solving problems....At this level we can see through what to me are Obama's empty rhetorical flourishes that are neither as well specified nor linked to detailed plans and mechanisms to bring about the systematic changes that would be needed to achieve goals. I am also attracted by Clinton's unwillingness to give up and to persist in the face of obstacles...that's the hallmark of successful innovators....and how people (especially strong women) in this society succeed. The women academics I know see the sexism Clinton's encountering and are really mad about it...many have known sexism first hand too ... But, many of us are shocked to see the extent to which Clinton has had to endure it without the outrage that comes from racist comments......it's obvious to many of us that the MSM have a bias against her (I say this, in part, because of comments from journalist colleagues in the know)..every little thing she says that can be misconstrued and twisted is...the more the Obama supporters do this the more they alienate Clinton's supporters they'll need in the fall..I'm sure I'm not alone in noting that if they really cared about Obama they would knock it off. ...or better still come to her aid!

Hillary's comment maybe what

Hillary's comment maybe what is commonly known as a Freudian slip showing that she is well aware of the fact that the only way she could win the nomination is if that horrible event occurred again. It may also indicate a state of disarray in her campaign.

So right now, when the

So right now, when the economy of our country and the entire planet is spiraling downward at lightning speed, it's a better idea to put a young man with no experience into the White House (sort of a captain's internship while the ship is going down) or an old man who has said himself "I don't know much about economy." Hillary's vote for war is not a happy memory for me either, but as a New Yorker, I remember the climate of the time. Although I did not believe the reasons that we were given by this administration for attacking Iraq, I think that she truly felt, at the time, that she was doing the right thing and now feels that it would be dishonest if she recanted. I'm sure that she's clever enough to know that it would be politically better for her to recant. We can see that she has no problem admitting that she has apparently offended someone, and she's obviously very much against the Iraq war now.

If Ms. Clinton felt that

If Ms. Clinton felt that invoking the assassination of RFK would help her clinch the Democratic primary, she would be right. There are only two candidates left after all. However, I would not then bank on her winning the general election. Bobby Kenedy was well on the way to becoming the Democratic candidate when he was shot. And guess who won the general electon in 1968...

Hillary sucks...anyone who

Hillary sucks...anyone who voted for war as irresponsibly as she did, and never recanted, should be put to pasture. A new crop from a new seed is needed.

No matter which way you look

No matter which way you look at, Hilary is trying every trick in the book. Here comments are demeaning , and some think it amounts to really nothing. Well, I keep hearing the same from George Bush and his innocent rhetoric, and how not to take him seriously, now we all know hes not very innocent at all. Frankly, I think it shows you the kind of person Hilary truly is. Her record speaks for itself. For someone who has voted for war and never recanted, I don't know why anyone would want to be on her side. The signs are there...

Blah, blah, blah...she

Blah, blah, blah...she should bow out, she must end her campaign for the good of the party, she is a liar, sophist, low-road taker, spineless female, reckless bitch, invoking witch, in denial, fantasizing, psychopath, sociopath, her campaign's in debt so she shouldn't be president, she told a story with an embellished detail so clearly she'll murder small children and the elderly, she said the word assassinate so clearly she she's hoping Obama will get whacked...and on and on and on. Endlessly. Whether it is misogyny, sexism, or some other ideology or personal agenda, the truth is that many of you, including many in the media, don't like Hillary and you are threatened and enraged that she is clearly the best, strongest, and ONLY promising candidate that we have for this election. With all of the excitement and delight of the citizens of Salem in The Crucible, you are hunting for any plausible excuse to start piling the wood and straw at her feet. And just as much in denial about the mistake that you are making. This latest sham is pathetic.

I am stunned by the number

I am stunned by the number of people posting here who do not seem to recall that back in 1968 the entire nomination process was entirely different than it is today. In January that year we had no inkling that Lyndon Johnson would not seek reelection. I believe it was March when he stated he would not run. We've been forced to listen to HRC for over a year now telling us how she's the best person to be the next president. Sorry, but she is not and it's not because I hate women as I am one...one who was around to vote in '68. Please do not be fooled, HRC and Bill will do most anything to return to the White House. I do not believe that Obama is the best person to be our next president, either, but he surely is better than HRC.

Ms. Clinton's comment about

Ms. Clinton's comment about Robert F. Kennedy's assassination don't fit into the "context" argument. She has her quirks but the Senator from New York is not stupid. She knew exactly what was doing by invoking the assassination of the last Golden Boy candidate of the Democratic Party. Her words sent a chill down my spine. I cannot understand what her motives were, but then I've had to give up trying to discern Ms. Clinton's motives weeks ago. For the good of the Democratic Party and for the nation as a whole, this misery-inducing chapter of Clinton history must end. Senator Clinton should withdraw from the campaign and return to Washington to do the job she is currently being paid to do.

One could go to 'mysogeny'

One could go to 'mysogeny' card. I am male and I voted for HRC in the Californai primary, but have since had considerable cause to both regret that decision and to financially support BO's campaign. Anyone who feels that she would do better at retaining her temper and her foot out of her mouth during a presidency, where the level of scrutiny and pressure is much higher, should now have serious reason to question that judgement. HRC is, simply put, vindictive and nasty. That she happens to be a women is to me quite beside the point. I thought she was someone capable of taking the high road, but she has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to descend to the mosh pit

RFK did not announce his

RFK did not announce his decision to run for president until March 16th, 1968. His campaign didn't even last a full three months before its tragic conclusion. Mrs. Clinton's comment citing RFK's presidential bid as validation for her refusal to bow out of the race makes no sense to me at all. Furthermore, she made specific mention of his assassination, not his campaign. No matter how I look at it, her remark has only a negative connotation. RFK Jr.'s statement of support for Mrs. Clinton's comment was given over the phone and seemed to based around earlier comments she had made, since he apparently had not read about nor seen video of this most recent incident. Using his good faith support of her as evidence that what she said was not meant in an offensive way is ridiculous. Mrs. Clinton has said a number of things during this campaign that were very unsettling to me. I used to have a high opinion of her as a person, but lately I find her as repugnant as George W. Bush and his ilk.

I'm trying to see things

I'm trying to see things from your perspective, 21:04 anonymous poster. Could you please offer your answer to the second question I posed at 20:47? Without a clear answer to that, I have trouble seeing a benign explanation.

I see nothing wrong in what

I see nothing wrong in what Hilllary said. She made a reference, so what's the big deal? There are those just trying so hard to find something to say against her. They are dying for her to quit the race. I hope she never gets out. As for Keith Olbermann, MSNBC should fire him. He was hysterical last night 5/23 and gave a tirade of monumental proportions. In fact he out did Pastor Wright. All this without a real provocation. Why is Olbermann acting like a Doberman? May Hillary never give in to the likes of such as you.

Regarding comments made

Regarding comments made about Truthout - I am a supporter of this site, both as a regular reader and a monthly donor. The artiles published here from the mainstream media are very relevant and frequently buried on back pages of the publications they appear in. I, for one, do not have time to peruse more than one or two daily papers and I greatly appreciate the service that Truthout provides by selecting important, well- written pieces from many, many sources. In addition Truthout's own articles are informative ad valuable. I strongly urge other regular readers of this site to join me and sign up for a monthly contribution, just as you would pay monthly for your daily newspaper. Even a small amount each month will help them, and is certainly the least one can do for the wealth of information they provide and the countless hours they put in to do this.

I have a couple questions

I have a couple questions for those of you who find her remarks benign and persuasive historical references simply meant to justify her remaining in the race: (1) Do you really find the analogy to Bill in '92 persuasive? The primary calendar was very different then, with some big delegate hauls coming in June (e.g., Ohio and California); that's not true this year, when less than 100 pledge delegates remain to be allocated. Moreover, the nominating process began in January this year, meaning that by June, it will have dragged on for half a year--also not true in '92. (2) But lets say that you--unlike me--do find the Bill in '92 analogy apt. Then can you please explain to me what the RFK analogy was meant to show, how exactly it bolsters her argument that no harm is done by prolonging the primary? In 1968 we also had an extremely contentious nomination process, culminating in a tragic.assassination, followed by the extremely unfortunate election of Dick Nixon as the result of a divided and dejected Democratic party. Clinton supporters think that proves exactly what about why she should stay in the race this year? Of all the things I think about Hillary, one is not that she is stupid. But if the '68 nomination process (and note that she explicitly references the assassination, not the process per se) was invoked NOT to show that "hey, anything can happen," but that the nominating processes dragging on and on would have no downside for the party, then I may have to rethink that assessment of her intelligence. She's a lawyer and she knows how to craft an argument. The RFK assassination evidence she cites here undercuts rather than supports the point that her supporters claim she was making. That is, assuming you want to see a Democrat in the White House in January...

She wonders why people tried

She wonders why people tried to push her aside after coming in third in Iowa, but she did nothing to object when Kucinich was pushed aside and ignored by the media and kept from even participating in a debate, along with Paul and then later suddenly when Edwards was totally ignored suddenly by the media as if he no longer was important!!! Such hypocricy! I am convinced this whole election was manipulated from the start by the corporate republicans who own the media in this country for the most part, and have tried to set up the "Woman" versus the "Black Man" so that they can have a field day with their racist, misogynist attacks when either one of these candidates win, and somehow slip McCain into the presidency by their mean spirited manipulations of people in this country. I expect and hope that the ticket will be Obama/Clinton... it would be the best combo...both have things to contribute ///// but! I want them to include some of the ideas of the great minds of Kucinich and Edwards instead of coming to the conclusion that the electorate have bought their own limited programs without some misgivings...especially where it concerns the war in Iraq (keeping troops or total withdrawl...I favor total withdrawal! and now!) and the health insurance issue (I favor Kucinich one payer plan not either of Obama's or Clinton's). I hope people pressure them in the right direction...and I hope the press does to, for a change.

This is NOT "much ado about

This is NOT "much ado about nothing". Like him or not, Obama's candidacy is historically significant, and sadly, some racist and unbalanced citizens have responded by making death threats. This has been a fact and a fear from the start, and continues to be a concern with every step Obama takes towards the White House. It's not been talked about at length, but it's surely an important issue in this campaign, an unspoken but very real concern lurking in the background at all times. Clinton is certainly aware of this; she's not stupid. Given that context, to reference the Robert Kennedy assassination is, at best, profoundly insensitive, and at worst, a deliberate provocation. There are other ways Clinton could have worded it, there are other examples she could have cited, yet she went with this one. To claim that it was "just a historical reference" completely ignores the larger setting in which her remarks were made -- the first real possibility of an African-American President, and the history of race and racial discrimination in the US. If Clinton is insensitive to that, to the degree that she can toss off comments like this recent one, she's not fit to be President. Hasn't Bush shown us enough of what it's like to have a President who repeatedly fails to engage his brain before speaking?! I think it's unlikely, however, that Clinton's remark was merely insensitive or ignorant. As above, she's not stupid. As a lawyer, she understands that what's been said can't be unsaid, and she knows the value of voicing a comment even when it'll be "removed from the record" immediately afterwards. I don't even want to speculate about what her reasons might have been for this. There have been sexist, misogynistic attacks against Clinton, but it's ridiculous to interpret EVERY complaint about her in this light. Her record, her statements, and her character will be evaluated to determine her suitability for the Presidency; she doesn't get a free pass just because she's female. And sadly, for many of us she's failed. She's demonstrated that she's not a good choice for President. She lies, she changes the rules, she twists the facts to her advantage. That people dislike her for that has nothing to do with her gender; anyone who behaved in that manner would earn the same reaction that Clinton has. Perhaps one or two times, a misstep of hers has been blown out of proportion because she's female. But when you've got to explain away dozens of them, no. At some point, it's time to accept that the problem is not with the reactions to Clinton, but rather with the candidate herself.

There's something about

There's something about Hillary Clinton that really turns me off. And it's not because she's a female; it's because she seems to be too ambitious for her own good. I believe women can "rule" every bit as well as men (who have certainly made a mess of the world) BUT now is not the time for our head of state to be female, not when we're dealing with Muslims who on the whole, don't respect women--and not a few Christians and Jews who also don't. Obama should be able to bridge several gaps between races and religions, plus he's not a professional politician like Hillary is--yet. She's part of the political machine.

Ms. Clinton is really

Ms. Clinton is really starting to loose it. It was a depraved remark to make. I can only hope she is not planning on something nasty. Obama is clearly the only candidate that has integrity and is for the people. Yes, like RFK in '68, today in '08 the choice is crystal clear, and only an assassin's bullet can thwart the people's choice. Even as she is correct in pointing this out to her own detriment, it is perverse for her to say it, a sign of a desperate, conscienceless, megalomaniac. I hope her ill rooted campaign is finished SOON. And I pray that Obama stays safe, and we are not forced to face the violence and fascism of the war pigs as we did in the 60's again.

Hillary's "hiccups" have

Hillary's "hiccups" have been base and blatant. If people don't get it, well most of them didn't get Bush until too late. Supporters of Clinton would be appalled at her agenda in the presidency; as a Clinton, it would be DLC all the way, with all efforts on behalf of corporations and workers and women be damned. Bill C campaigned Left and governed Right, pushing through NAFTA and welfare "reform" without childcare in the package, and so much more that we didn't know about until after he had left office. The Clinton are imperialists, uber capitalists, and elitists to the core, and all one needs to do to get it is see whom they surround themselves with. Hillary has stupidly lied for no good reason except ambition (Bosnia) and both cheated and lied, (Michigan and Florida), and still her supporters believe. Are they all folks who left their brains at the church door, or have they got estrogen poisoning? Just asking, as a lifelong feminist utterly disgusted with the woman. Thank god there are some fine, principled women in the House, mostly black, of course, and a few in the Senate (e.g., Boxer) so hope remains with us. Just not with this woman.

There's nothing wrong with

There's nothing wrong with what she said! RK was assinated in June in California! The Presidential Race is not until one of them is elected****THAT IS IN NOVEMBER -08.....No one takes office until January 20th _09....There's nothing here but nit-picky nothing! She tells the truth (this time) and their all over her. Check out McCain and how he is a probable clone of Bush! How America is getting ripped off and how Bush is not under arrest! If Hillary so much as "Hic-kups" the press goes bonkers! Assine swine will always wallow in the mud!

Misogyny is not the reason I

Misogyny is not the reason I don't support Clinton. Her vote for the Iraq War, her calculated decision to stand by that vote, and her support for Kyl-Lieberman are the reasons I don't support her. I suspect that's true for many others. I'm not saying there aren't sexist reporters around, but they didn't falsely report her positions on the issues most important to me in this election.

I'm sure Clinton didn't

I'm sure Clinton didn't really mean anything by her remark, but that is the scary part. That she is so unaware confirms my feeling that she is a fantasist, almost bordering on sociopathic. Truth and fiction intermingle all too effortlessly, and the sad thing is that even she doesn't seem to know the difference. I admire all that she has done, all she has accomplished as a woman, as a person, but we do not need a loose cannon in the role of president. This has nothing to do with misogyny. I would feel the same way about a man saying the things that she does.

Hilary is starting to make

Hilary is starting to make Ann Coulter look classy!

Senator Clinton has finally

Senator Clinton has finally explained her reason to continue campaigning in spite of grim odds: she is waiting for something terrible to happen to her opponent like "Assassination of Robert Kennedy." It is time for superdelegates to put Mrs. Clinton's campaign out of misery by declaring their preferences immediately.

Regardless of all previous

Regardless of all previous comments here and the historical truth, to bring up the death of Robert Kennedy at a time when Ted Kennedy has just been diagnosed with a fatal and inoperable cancer represents to me the height of indecency. I also do not want a president who seems to step over everything and anyone who stands in her/his way to get what he/she wants - including rules and regulations. Sounds too familiar, no?

I reacted with more than a

I reacted with more than a little surprise when the news first came to my attention that HRC had mentioned the assassination of RFK in June of 1968 as part of her rationale for continuing through the end of the primary campaign. Surely, some other reference point was available to her beyond her husbands 1992 nomination. (Karen Tumulty of Time has a blog post with a link to a NY TImes article noting that the 1992 nomination was actually settled months before the final California primary when Paul Tsongas withdrew from the field leaving only Edmund Brown to challenge Bill Clinton, with Clinton holding a 7 to 1 advantage in pledged delegates over Brown). It should come as no surprise that there would suddenly be a chorus of outrage as that has become a de facto standard response whenever someone in the public sphere utters something that is, or can be interpreted to be, offensive to someone or some group. What is a bit more surprising is the way that many supporters of HRC see this reaction as being based somehow in media misogyny, as if the outrage level is heightened simply because of her sex. It may well be the case that there are lingering pockets of misogynistic thinking amongst some in the media, but is it any worse than the racist undertones that surface from time to time in the coverage of Obama? During the primary coverage, one of the analysts (I think it was on MSNBC but may be mistaken) mentioned that HRC was not bowing out of the race hoping for some big scandal to break that would swing the remaining contests in her favor. Or perhaps that Obama would say something even more "offensive" to the coveted swing voters than his now infamous "bitter" comments. In any case, there was at least a hope that he might trip before reaching the finish line. I think that much of the reaction, and some of what I have seen is exasperation more than anger, stems from the way that her campaign is seen as creating new paths to the nomination with each new setback. It is eerily reminiscent to my mind of the current administrations ever-morphing rationale for the war in Iraq. I'm hopeful, for the sake of the party's chances in November, that the rules will be followed and the divisions can be healed so that we don't have to endure another 4 years of bankrupt conservative leadership.

No matter what Senator

No matter what Senator Clinton "meant" by her remark, it showed a remarkable insensitivity to the culture around her. Why would we want to have a President who was not even able to read her own culture much less others in the world? I am flabbergasted that anyone could believe that criticism of this callous and ill-judged remark is based on misogynism. The mainstream media spent at least a week on Senator Obama's "bitter" comments to the glee of the Clintons. It certainly seems fair that the media spends time on this much more destructive and thoughtless remark.

Seems to me to be quite a

Seems to me to be quite a chilling development-and marks an extremely rapid degradation in the level of political cultural discourse in the US--which has not been very high to begin with. Does this spector of assassination Clinton has raised mean she is putting in her dibs as the replacement candidate, should such a final horror befall the US? Is this a bid to be named for VP so she can jump right in? Her remarks have now become a fact in the world - the Clintons are asking the voting public to take this possibility into consideration--no matter how the campaign spokespeople try to spin it. And as for Ms Clinton's vaunted feminism, where was she and her female cohorts when her husband was busy kicking poor women off welfare, without any back up whatsoever? They committed race, class and gender war all in one fell swoop. I wonder how many NYT readers have any idea how many of the victims of that dastardly deed have not forgotten, because we continue to live with those consequences. adohr

Not a Hillary supporter BUT,

Not a Hillary supporter BUT, a) it was obvious what she meant, b) over-reaction is what we will get until the November election, reagrdless of who says it or what they say, and c) out of any of this will come this endless bickering among Americans who have no useful purpose in their time-passing useless lives. Your welcome.

This is the most unfair and

This is the most unfair and contentious fight for the nomination I have seen in all my years. I agree with Sue. I had thought that most of the dissension would be aimed more toward racism rather than misogyny. But I guess that this country will never grow up and quit wetting it's pants like little children. There is no other explanation other than resentment that a Mere Female would dare have the audacity to even think about becoming President. Hey ! Anyone would be better than what these Boys voted for the past two times. That is where the true shame lies.

I'm not a Clinton supporter,

I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I'm sure people mtook her intention. I interpreted her words as additional proof that campaigns sometimes run into June without a nominee having been chosen: Bill Clinton and Robert Kennedy being two examples. I think it's tremendously unfair, not to mention unjustified by the words she actually spoke, to claim she was saying she should stay in the race in case Obama is assassinated. Get real, people. There's plenty about her with which to find fault, but this is not worthy of the airplay it's getting.

Oh, puh-leez! The media

Oh, puh-leez! The media loves to make mountains out of molehills, regardless of which Democrat they're attacking. Remember the beef about John Edwards' haircut? What about all the mess about Obama's old pastor? Or Senator Clinton jumping all over an out of context remark from her opponent? Were you jumping up and down about that? Probably not, as it's so much easier to pardon your own candidate, isn't it? The media is doing its best to help the Democratic party self destruct. And so many Dems are helping by swearing they won't vote for any candidate except their own. Next you'll be claiming that since I do not support Sen. Clinton, I'm MUST be a misogynist, with no regard whatsoever to my opinoins or supporting reasons. Sounds almost like a Republican. Here's a thought... focus on the issues. And get over your female self. We don't all hate women in power... any more than all who support Clinton are closet lesbians. On a side note -- I find it highly objectionable to use an organization's resources to promote your own competing entity. For that reason alone, I will not support Jason's site. And I will encourage others to boycott it as well.

The U.S.A. is the Mecca of

The U.S.A. is the Mecca of Misogyny. If women commentators were as rabid as the men have been over everything Hillary says and does, we would call them hysterical -- a word derived from the Greek word for female. Yes, even the English language reflects misogyny. Over a dozen countries currently have women presidents or premiers, and there have been others in past years, including some we consider "third world." If and when the U.S. ever reaches that pinnacle of achievement, it will set no world record. The men who have screamed rabidly as they deliberately misconstrued every word Hillary has spoken are dangerously irrational -- most recently and notably Keith Olbermann in his Countdown program of May 23. Hillary deserves to run the whole race, and lose if that's how it turns out -- she owes nobody her self-sacrificial, self-effacing surrender.

Any time Ms Clinton makes a

Any time Ms Clinton makes a mess her defenders parry her critics as anti-feminists. The polls reflect that her critics include college educated voters and her followers include the less educated and older white population. Would you theorize then that career women would reject Clinton because she is a woman. Come on. At first they preferred Obama because of his better qualities. Now they despise her because she is not a very nice person who happens to be a woman.

I'm still stunned at the

I'm still stunned at the anti-feminist sentiment in this country. At the beginning of the campaign, I truly expected more racism than misogyny. This issue is media driven pap. Hillary has not gotten a fair shake yet and this continues the trend. She mentions historical facts, with no emotional intent, and people are off to the irrational races. By pointing out that RFK was assassinated in June doesn't condone the tragedy, insinuate anything about Obama's having Secret Service protection earlier than usual, or have ANY significance OTHER than to make the point that other inspirational Dems have run their campaigns until the END of the primary cycle. This is supposed to be an election, not a coronation.