USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[jtm1631]

Originally Posted by ryberg

WTF?!?

Nice timing, too!!!



Steve

Comments like this by Clinton are why I send those text message tirades to you. She will take this "fight" to the convention floor and continue to put these kinds of comments out there.

I liken this to the attorney who in closing arguments at trial makes some type of completely inaccurate statement to try and win the case. The attorney knows it is going to be objected to and they know the judge will tell the jury to disregard the comment, but the attorney knows all that has to happen is the jury hears the comment and than it is out there.

We can only assume Clinton's new argument to the Super delegates is don't give this guy the nomination, we all know he is going to get assassinated.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by jtm1631

Comments like this by Clinton are why I send those text message tirades to you. She will take this "fight" to the convention floor and continue to put these kinds of comments out there.

I liken this to the attorney who in closing arguments at trial makes some type of completely inaccurate statement to try and win the case. The attorney knows it is going to be objected to and they know the judge will tell the jury to disregard the comment, but the attorney knows all that has to happen is the jury hears the comment and than it is out there.

We can only assume Clinton's new argument to the Super delegates is don't give this guy the nomination, we all know he is going to get assassinated.

Good morning, John!

You don't send too many text message tirades.

I must say that while I didn't think of it so specifically in terms of the convention or her message to the superdelegates or those other things you said, it did occur to me as well right off that the approach was exactly like that: a lawyer who intentionally says something outrageous or shocking or that s/he knows will garner a reprimand from the judge and be stricken from the record, but that then gets out there in people's minds, anyway. And the lawyer may very well apologize, even almost immediately, for the outburst, you know.

I don't want to make it sound overly nefarious, but when you consider that this kind of thing has happened various times on various points, now, it gets hard to continue seeing it as not intentional, or to see all of the incidents -- this remark, the "hard-working people, white people" remark, the weird trumpeting of LBJ over MLK as the sort of "true" civil rights champion, the Jesse Jackson/SC remark, etc -- as unintentional, especially for such intelligent, astute, and seasoned politicians as the Clintons. (In which case, anyway, they still call into question judgment and consistency and so forth.) And hey, they're not exactly unfamiliar with lawyer tactics, right?

Steve

[jtm1631]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Good morning, John!

You don't send too many text message tirades.

I must say that while I didn't think of it so specifically in terms of the convention or her message to the superdelegates or those other things you said, it did occur to me as well right off that the approach was exactly like that: a lawyer who intentionally says something outrageous or shocking or that s/he knows will garner a reprimand from the judge and be stricken from the record, but that then gets out there in people's minds, anyway. And the lawyer may very well apologize, even almost immediately, for the outburst, you know.

I don't want to make it sound overly nefarious, but when you consider that this kind of thing has happened various times on various points, now, it gets hard to continue seeing it as not intentional, or to see all of the incidents -- this remark, the "hard-working people, white people" remark, the weird trumpeting of LBJ over MLK as the sort of "true" civil rights champion, the Jesse Jackson/SC remark, etc -- as unintentional, especially for such intelligent, astute, and seasoned politicians as the Clintons. (In which case, anyway, they still call into question judgment and consistency and so forth.) And hey, they're not exactly unfamiliar with lawyer tactics, right?

Steve

Yeah, I don't think Clinton is racist, I think she just sees a potential winning strategy of playing into other people's racist fears.

Regardless, Clinton once again comes off looking like a desperate "do anything to win" loser.

[MWC]

Originally Posted by jtm1631

Yeah, I don't think Clinton is racist, I think she just sees a potential winning strategy of playing into other people's racist fears.

Regardless, Clinton once again comes off looking like a desperate "do anything to win" loser.

Worse, now if anything does happen, people will think it's the Clintons behind it ... and all hell will break loose.

Whereas before, most would have assumed it was some sort of pro-McCain commando-type. Less hell, more angry voting in that scenario.

I'm sure the Kennedy family found great solace in her later apology.
Geesh!

[MikeW]

Words you won't hear coming from Obama's mouth "I'd like to introduce my VP running mate, Hillary Clinton"

[MikeW]

Questions being said in the McCain campaign.
"Anyone know the names and phone numbers of the social conservative religious leaders we're supposed to be pandering too? Someone gave us the wrong list."

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by jtm1631

I liken this to the attorney who in closing arguments at trial makes some type of completely inaccurate statement to try and win the case. The attorney knows it is going to be objected to and they know the judge will tell the jury to disregard the comment, but the attorney knows all that has to happen is the jury hears the comment and than it is out there.

Nooo....

Say it ain't so!








(Guilty.)

Actually, I would never say something inaccurate. That would be unethical. I have however, on occasion, made an accurate statement which I know may be objectionable. It very much depends on the case, the lawyers involved and most importantly, whose Court I'm trying the case in. Some judges are pretty tolerant of the occaisional toe over the line, and some will just smash it to bits with their gavel!

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by jtm1631

Yeah, I don't think Clinton is racist, I think she just sees a potential winning strategy of playing into other people's racist fears.

Regardless, Clinton once again comes off looking like a desperate "do anything to win" loser.

I fail to see much of a distinction, actually.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by MikeW

Questions being said in the McCain campaign.
"Anyone know the names and phone numbers of the social conservative religious leaders we're supposed to be pandering too? Someone gave us the wrong list."

Does seem so!

Steve

[Daddy B]

Originally Posted by ryberg

WTF?!?

Nice timing, too!!!



Steve

Didn't she mean it as "Robert Kennedy was still campaining hard for the Democratic nomination in June 1968 when he was assassinated"?

That it ain't over until the fat lady sings and anything can happen without necessarily intending to say she hopes her rival is assassinated?
Maybe careless and extreme to use an assassination as an example of a candidacy campaign cut short but aren't all politicians prone to hyperbole and exaggeration??!!

Hillary Clinton may be a lot of things, but she isn't stupid: she knows that putting a contract out - for all intents and purposes - on her rival would almost mean the end of her presidential aspirations.

[jtm1631]

Originally Posted by StewartG

I fail to see much of a distinction, actually.

As I was typing that post I thought to myself "self, I'm not sure one is more deplorable than the other".

After having thought it through, I agree with you. Pandering to and excusing another person's racism is condoning the action and essentially becoming racist yourself.

There is no excuse for a number of the actions of both Clintons during this campaign. I said it before and it continues to become more evident, racism is the dirty secret of the 2008 campaign.

In a number of article's I read, I will read them a second time through and frequently replace the term "working class" with "racist". There was an article in the Chicago Tribune last week which contained an interview with a man from Kentucky who openly admitted he would never vote for Obama because of the color of his skin. This man used his full name and there was a nice color picture of him in the paper. No discussion of how unfortunate it is in this country that people still openly admit that they base decisions on the color of another person's skin. No discussion of the rampant racism that still exists in this country.

It seems to me that in 2008 a person coming out saying they would never vote for Clinton because she is a female would be condemned as a sexist pig (and rightly so). Racism on the other hand does not carry the same stigmatism in this country. Hopefully our first black President can help change that. An added bonus to electing Obama.

[jtm1631]

Originally Posted by Daddy B

Didn't she mean it as "Robert Kennedy was still campaining hard for the Democratic nomination in June 1968 when he was assassinated"?

That it ain't over until the fat lady sings and anything can happen without necessarily intending to say she hopes her rival is assassinated?
Maybe careless and extreme to use an assassination as an example but aren't all politicians prone to hyperbole and exaggeration??!!

Hillary Clinton may be a lot of things, but she isn't stupid: she knows that putting a contract out - for all intents and purposes - on her rival would almost mean the end of her candidacy's aspirations.

I think the intent was to show examples of nominations that carried on into June. I would disagree on whether Clinton is stupid or not. When you are running against a black candidate it is stupid to use the example of one of the nominees being assassinated and that you should never quit because you just don't know what is going to happen.

If that argument were true, shouldn't all the Democratic and Republican nominees still be running? The insinuation is that because Obama is black he is more likely to be assassinated and apparently until Obama is sworn in to the presidency in January, 2009, Clinton still has a chance.

HOG WASH! Drop out now and save some dignity.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Daddy B

Didn't she mean it as "Robert Kennedy was still campaining hard for the Democratic nomination in June 1968 when he was assassinated"?

That it ain't over until the fat lady sings and anything can happen without necessarily intending to say she hopes her rival is assassinated?
Maybe careless and extreme to use an assassination as an example but aren't all politicians prone to hyperbole and exaggeration??!!

Hillary Clinton may be a lot of things, but she isn't stupid: she knows that putting a contract out - for all intents and purposes - on her rival would almost mean the end of her candidacy's aspirations.

I don't think you have to assume she's actively planning something like that to find the reference to the assassination to be in poor taste (and as I was saying, especially just days after this Ted Kennedy thing, though that's a separate point). As someone pointed out, if just talking about teh calendar was her point, then why didn't she say "We all remember that Bobby Kennedy didn't wrap up the nomination until June" or "Bobby Kennedy was still campaigning for the nomination in June"? Or for that matter, are those the only 2 examples, her husband in 1992 and Kennedy in 1968? I don't know, but if they are, then it's not exactly consistent with her argument of saying, hey, nothing unusual here, because then it's only happened 2 times in the last 40 years! And if it has happened more, why suddenly jump back to refer to Kennedy and 1968?

It's very, very much like Bill's remark after SC, where he suddenly and unprompted compared Obama's success to that of Jesse Jackson there 20+ years earlier. No one was talking about Jesse Jackson, just as no one was talking about Bobby Kennedy. There was no other logical reason to bring up Jesse Jackson in particular, and not other cases, except the race connection; there was no other logical reason to bring up the assassination and 1968 in particular, and not other more recent cases, except the potential connection with Obama and the specter of a possible assassination. Bill later apologized -- or actually I don't know if he did, but I know Hillary apologized for him -- and then in this later case, Hillary apologized. But the ideas got out there, because of what they said. The apologies don't erase them, by any means.

Just the 2 examples alone are remarkably similar; when you start to add more in, it's a pattern. And I don't think they're dumb enough or politically inept enough for these to be accidents, either.

Steve

[Daddy B]

Originally Posted by jtm1631

I think the intent was to show examples of nominations that carried on into June. I would disagree on whether Clinton is stupid or not. When you are running against a black candidate it is stupid to use the example of one of the nominees being assassinated and that you should never quit because you just don't know what is going to happen.

If that argument were true, shouldn't all the Democratic and Republican nominees still be running? The insinuation is that because Obama is black he is more likely to be assassinated and apparently until Obama is sworn in to the presidency in January, 2009, Clinton still has a chance.

HOG WASH! Drop out now and save some dignity.

Having reread La Clinton's remarks I fail to see how you go from this

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June... We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

to this

"The insinuation is that because Obama is black he is more likely to be assassinated."

Where's the connection between race and the probability of an assassination?
Wishful thinking?

[Daddy B]

Originally Posted by ryberg

I don't think you have to assume she's actively planning something like that to find the reference to the assassination to be in poor taste (and as I was saying, especially just days after this Ted Kennedy thing, though that's a separate point). As someone pointed out, if just talking about teh calendar was her point, then why didn't she say "We all remember that Bobby Kennedy didn't wrap up the nomination until June" or "Bobby Kennedy was still campaigning for the nomination in June"? Or for that matter, are those the only 2 examples, her husband in 1992 and Kennedy in 1968? I don't know, but if they are, then it's not exactly consistent with her argument of saying, hey, nothing unusual here, because then it's only happened 2 times in the last 40 years! And if it has happened more, why suddenly jump back to refer to Kennedy and 1968?

It's very, very much like Bill's remark after SC, where he suddenly and unprompted compared Obama's success to that of Jesse Jackson there 20+ years earlier. No one was talking about Jesse Jackson, just as no one was talking about Bobby Kennedy. There was no other logical reason to bring up Jesse Jackson in particular, and not other cases, except the race connection; there was no other logical reason to bring up the assassination and 1968 in particular, and not other more recent cases, except the potential connection with Obama and the specter of a possible assassination. Bill later apologized -- or actually I don't know if he did, but I know Hillary apologized for him -- and then in this later case, Hillary apologized. But the ideas got out there, because of what they said. The apologies don't erase them, by any means.

Just the 2 examples alone are remarkably similar; when you start to add more in, it's a pattern. And I don't think they're dumb enough or politically inept enough for these to be accidents, either.

Steve

How many other Democratic nomination campaigns cut short would be instantly recognisable to the greater number of people?

I doubt it very much her intention was to plant the seeds for a future tragedy.
Such an event before the presidential election would have many reasonable - and ALL the unreasonable - fingers pointing at her, and a post-inauguration fatal attempt wouldn't benefit her in the least because she would have ruled herself out of being chosen as VP by making such remarks; therefore, she'd be in no position whatsoever to acceed to the throne by being next in line.

Maybe she's just playing Macbeth, but I doubt it.