Horserace
May 24, 2008 1:32 PM

Did Hillary's RFK Remark Doom Her?

Following Sen. Hillary Clinton's statement that presidential nominating contests have historically lasted late into the calendar year, citing the June 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as one example, an observer said the comment probably dooms any chance that she would be picked for the number two position by frontrunner Sen. Barack Obama.

"This probably means the end of her campaign," said David Mark, senior editor of Politico.com, on The Early Show. "She was already treading on pretty thin ice. To raise the specter of a tragic event like an assassination, this probably ends any vice presidential hopes she had."

Clinton was quick to apologize for the statement, saying Friday, "I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation - and in particular the Kennedy family - was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever."

However, Mark doesn’t believe the retraction will work.

"She trying to walk this back as furiously, as quickly as she possibly can," he said. "But yes, the damage is essentially done. There's no way of taking it back. It's right there in black and white, on videotape. And whatever she meant, it will be taken a certain way."

What does this mean for talk of the "dream ticket," which has been building in part as a means to allow a graceful and perhaps productive way to end the standoff between the two presidential hopefuls?

Mark believed the chances of an Obama-Clinton pairing were slim before her comments on Friday. "I don't think he particularly gains much from having her on the ticket," he said. "I don't think he particularly needs her. Yes, half the Democratic Party is with her, but most Democrats are not going to go over and vote for John McCain" if their candidate doesn't get the nomination.
Tags:
hillary clinton ,
rfk ,
assassination
Topics:
Hillary Clinton
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 498 Comments
by bajaan May 27, 2008 3:09 PM EDT
Why are libra and cryhavoc2 picking on rufisgufis?

He must be telling them some facts they don''t want to hear. Or maybe they are just some Hillary Whackos, can''t tell the difference these days.
Reply to this comment
by starleo146 May 27, 2008 1:29 PM EDT
rufis, I didn''''t post this one. It''''s really WAY past your bedtime. You can''''t even keep your inflammatory attacks straight as to who you''''re picking on. Does it make you tingle to lie and abuse other people whose posts are sincere, intelligent, competent and well-informed? I see you''''re picking on Libra127 too. I''''ve seen you pick on everyone you don''''t agree with, using lies, name calling, foul language, etc. If you are a representative example of an Obama supporter, Obama''''s got REAL PROBLEMS! Poor Obama.

Posted by cryhavoc2 at 03:00 AM : May 27, 2008
+ report abuse

Thank you cryhavoc2 this man did the same to me put other peoples post and put posted by me I know he is either a extreme woman hater or a McBush or Obama supporter he needs to be reported never to be on this forum again.
Reply to this comment
by ericv2644 May 27, 2008 12:52 PM EDT
All Blacks should leave the democratic party and start their own party, so that they may enjoy party unity
Reply to this comment
by ericv2644 May 27, 2008 12:51 PM EDT
If Obama were to suggest that Hilary could be assinated he would have had to leave the race. So Hilary do the right thing for the good of the party. If she steals the nomination I would like for blacks to start their own party.
Reply to this comment
by txgrouch2004 May 27, 2008 9:32 AM EDT
LET''S IMAGINE what would happen if Obama HAPPENED to get assassinated before the DNC.

Wouldn''t Hillary''s RFK comment be suspected as THE FREUDIAN SLIP of the century???

Would our nation allow a SUSPECTED MURDERER to be a candidate for President???
Reply to this comment
by rufisgufis May 27, 2008 5:34 AM EDT

My, your comprehension really IS slow, isn''t it? I said it is your OPINION that what Hillary said was "inappropriate". You claimed it is FACT. It is MY OPINION that there was nothing wrong with what she said. RFK Jr. said there was nothing wrong with it (that''s HIS opinion). Obama said there''s nothing wrong with it (that''s HIS opinion). Your INTERPRETAION is not FACT, it is OPINION.

Posted by libra127 at 02:15 AM : May 27, 2008
_________________

I was under the impression that any reasonably intelligent person would conclude that the USE of the word "assassination" in this particular climate is inappropriate. There is evidence of attacks on Obama''s campaign offices in Indiana, a litany of threats on his life and other possible credible threats. It appears my conclusion that you were a reasonably intelligent person was erroneous. For that, I apologize.
Reply to this comment
by rufisgufis May 27, 2008 5:28 AM EDT
Posted by rufisgufis at 01:10 AM : May 27, 2008

My, your comprehension really IS slow, isn''''t it? I said it is your OPINION that what Hillary said was "inappropriate". You claimed it is FACT. It is MY OPINION that there was nothing wrong with what she said. RFK Jr. said there was nothing wrong with it (that''''s HIS opinion). Obama said there''''s nothing wrong with it (that''''s HIS opinion). Your INTERPRETAION is not FACT, it is OPINION.

Posted by libra127 at 02:15 AM : May 27, 2008
_________________

I was under the impression that any reasonably intelligent person would conclude that the USE of the word "assassination" in this particular climate is inappropriate. There is evidence of attacks on Obama''s campaign offices in Indiana, a litany of threats on his life and other possible credible threats. It appears my conclusion that you were a reasonably intelligent person was erroneous. For that, I apologize.
Reply to this comment
by libra127 May 27, 2008 5:25 AM EDT
The truth of the matter is, what she was saying was that you can never know what can happen, alluding to the fact that something similar to what happened to Bobby Kennedy can happen to Obama and that someone had to remain in the race to pick up the mantle. That is the only TRUTH.

Posted by JISantiago at 09:09 PM : May 26, 2008

No, that is NOT the truth. The proof of my statement is that IF (god forbid) something did happen to Obama, she could still "pick up the mantle" whether or not she had formally stayed in the race.

Therefore, she CANNOT be staying in the race BECAUSE harm might befall Obama. She neither said that nor implied that. The idea is nonsensical.

Reply to this comment
by libra127 May 27, 2008 5:15 AM EDT
Posted by rufisgufis at 01:10 AM : May 27, 2008

My, your comprehension really IS slow, isn''t it? I said it is your OPINION that what Hillary said was "inappropriate". You claimed it is FACT. It is MY OPINION that there was nothing wrong with what she said. RFK Jr. said there was nothing wrong with it (that''s HIS opinion). Obama said there''s nothing wrong with it (that''s HIS opinion). Your INTERPRETAION is not FACT, it is OPINION.
Reply to this comment
by libra127 May 27, 2008 4:02 AM EDT
Posted by rdp842003 at 12:48 AM : May 27, 2008

I said nothing about "reverse racism". If you''ve spent any time at all on these boards, you know that just as many hateful things have been said about Hillary (and even McCain) as about Obama. One of Hillary''s campaign headquarters in the midwest was torched and burned to the ground.
Reply to this comment
by libra127 May 27, 2008 4:00 AM EDT
Hillary inappropriately used the word, "assassination." That is not an interpretation, that is a fact.

Posted by rufisgufis at 12:44 AM : May 27, 2008

It is YOUR opinion. It is NOT a "fact".
Reply to this comment
by padeb-2009 May 27, 2008 3:58 AM EDT
I guess the media does not want Obama to win. Their frenzy over her latest comments are nonsense.
I am a long time Democrat who was set to run as an Edwards delegate. Clinton and Obama are my third and fourth choice for president. I feel either one is a good choice and will stick with the party.
However, I cannot take the unending Clinton bashing it just has to stop! Remember the Newsweek Cover post election "Angry white male"? If this keeps up you will be seeing angry older white female on the cover after Obama loses if this keeps up.

I make phone calls on behalf of candidates and the Clinton campaign for obvious reasons has alot of older households in the data bank and they volunteer they will not vote for him w/o Clinton. We elect a president based upon the electoral college. The fact that most Ds will not defect is not the issue. It is where the attrition is that matters. He cannot lose PA, OH, FL, and W. VA. You put a Veep on the ticket not b/c you like them but they can deliver something for you. Clinton delivers big time!!
Reply to this comment
by flreason May 27, 2008 3:49 AM EDT
cryhavoc2: (Continued)

You appear to be one of the Republican flunkies carrying out Limbaugh''s directive to wreak havoc in the Democratic primaries. Why don''t you come clean, instead of portraying yourself as a Hillary supporter?

You also appear to demand a higher standard of behavior from Obama than you do of Clinton or McCain.

The facts of Obama''s dealings with Rezko, as reported by the Chicago Sun Times can be found at:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article

In summary, there were some connections, but they were mostly minor with the exception of the real estate deal. Is that a smirch on Obama''s record? Certainly. But if you''re going to find fault with Obama, ompare that to Hu''s involvement in the Clinton campaign, and Rezko is small potatoes. Not to mention White Water. The Clinton''s involvement may not have been criminal, but it certainly was ethically questionable. McCain isn''t squeaky clean either...and it''s not just the Keating Five involvement. Look at the records of the people he has chosen to run his campaign.

Political ethics may be an oxymoron, but Obama is certainly no worse than the other candidates. And the fact that most of his campaign funding comes from small donors makes him less vulnerable to pressure from larger donors.
Reply to this comment
by rufisgufis May 27, 2008 3:44 AM EDT
Hillary inappropriately used the word, "assassination." That is not an interpretation, that is a fact.

Posted by libra127 at 12:35 AM : May 27, 2008
Reply to this comment
by libra127 May 27, 2008 3:38 AM EDT
R u basically telling me that she is not bright enough to know that that example was inappropriate?

Posted by rdp842003 at 12:25 AM : May 27, 2008

You are basically telling us that you are not bright enough to see that your disgraceful interpretation of her statement is completely wrong.
Reply to this comment
by libra127 May 27, 2008 3:35 AM EDT
please give me a break everyone knows that there is a portion of america that does not want to see a black president correct?

Posted by rdp842003 at 12:25 AM : May 27, 2008

Gee, rdp, can you really not have noticed that there is a portion of the country that does not want to see HRC as President ? Is it really possible you''ve failed to notice that there is a portion of the country that does not want to see McCain as President ?
Reply to this comment
by libra127 May 27, 2008 2:51 AM EDT
It shows how many sick and hateful people there are in this country that HRC''s mere mention of RFK''s assassination, as a historical reference on the length of primary seasons, is immediately taken as proof that she wants to see him dead ! That she is a murderer-in-the-making ! An evil, terrorist hag ! Unfit to live amongst us ! A witch intent on doing Obama in and stealing the job that is rightfully his ! An insane woman who should be confined to an asylum, if not a prison !

Can''t any of you haters stop and think for a moment and see how RIDICULOUS you sound ? This seems to be a moment of MASS HYSTERIA. This is how true evil is done, by mass hysteria such as this.

"Let''s lynch her and smash her to pieces!" "Let''s drive her away so we never have to look upon her again!" "Look! She''s just salivating, waiting for someone to gun him down!" So pathetic. So sad. I''ve lost all faith in my fellow human beings. She said nothing wrong.
Reply to this comment
by flreason May 27, 2008 2:51 AM EDT
cryhavoc2:
I had no idea what Obama-supported legislation you were talking about that would commit $800 billion in aid worldwide, so I researched it. What I found was that Rush Limbaugh erroneously reported that figure. The truth, as recounted in Media Matters is:

"In fact, the Global Poverty Act, while noting several Millennium Project goals and declaring that the goal of reducing global poverty by 2015 "is the policy of the United States," does not address the recommendation of spending 0.7 percent of GNP on foreign aid to achieve the Millennium Project goals. According to the Millennium Project website, the 0.7 percent of GNP recommendation "was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution." The Global Poverty Act directs the president, acting through the secretary of state, to develop a strategy to meet the goal of reducing poverty. It also states that strategy "should include" among its components "[i]mproving the effectiveness of development assistance and making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate," but it does not require that foreign aid be increased or mandate a funding level for foreign assistance. The Global Poverty Act of 2007 was sponsored in the House of Representatives by Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA)."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802210011

Please refrain from repeating the bilgewater spewed by right wingnuts like Limbaugh as fact.


Reply to this comment
by libra127 May 27, 2008 2:42 AM EDT
You need to stop spamming this idiotic cr@p. It''s not only a violation, it''s quite silly.

Posted by rufisgufis at 11:35 PM : May 26, 2008

Who put you in charge, rufis ? What cryhavoc wrote is NOT a "violation" and it is NOT silly. She has every right to say it. Buzz off.
Reply to this comment
by rufisgufis May 27, 2008 2:35 AM EDT
HILLARY SUPPORTERS - Please, please, before you vote for McCain, or worse, stay home, please consider writing in Hillary

Posted by cryhavoc2 at 10:34 PM : May 26, 2008
________________

You need to stop spamming this idiotic cr@p. It''s not only a violation, it''s quite silly.
Reply to this comment
See all 498 Comments

About Horserace

Description for Horserace

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn