One of the things about blogging is that if, for whatever reason, you take a few days off from posting and then return, wanting to comment on something that happened in that time period, you find that when you do chime in, somebody else (or a number of somebody elses) has pretty much said anything you might have to say on the topic.
Such is the case with Hillary’s reference in South Dakota to the assassination of Robert of Kennedy. Asked why she was not dropping out of the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination, the former First Lady said:
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. You know I just, I don’t understand it
My first thought was what a bone-headed comment. My second was somewhat sympathetic, understanding what she was trying to say and realizing that it came out differently than she had intended (wanting to point out that the 1968 contest for the Democratic nomination was still ongoing at the time of the California primary that year). My third thought was that the inartful remark would destroy the little remaining chance the former First Lady had to win her party’s presidential nod.
And this largely because of her family’s history, the rumors swirling about it, coupled with the pro-Obama blog and media machine, eager to cast anything she says in the worst possible light.
Click on more to read comments I found particularly insightful and the conclusion I draw from them.
Brendan Loy offers a thoughtful, but uncharitable view:
When you build a career, and more immediately a campaign, on a foundation of lies, deceit, and a willingness to say & do anything for power, people aren’t going to give you the benefit of the doubt on something like this. That doesn’t make it right for them to reach the implausible conclusion that she was deliberately suggesting Obama might get shot, but at some level, she made this bed for herself, and now she has to lie in it.
(As Glenn who links the post might say, read the whole thing.)
Echoing Glenn, Dean Barnett offers a more charitable view:
The modern workaholic candidate puts in 18 hour days for 18 months with hardly a day off. The fatigue gets to him (or her), and he (or she) says stupid things. Working themselves as hard as they do, the candidates make the gaffes inevitable. No human being can stay sharp when demanding so much of himself (or herself) for such an extended period of time.
Kind of how I see it. But, Brendan has a better sense of how it’s going to play. Given her family’s record, she’s not going to get the benefit of the doubt on this one, even if she deserves it (as I believe she does).
It just goes to the point that a gaffe can really destroy a candidate where the comment reinforces an image of the candidate (see e.g., Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond) or whom the media dislikes. So, this gaffe may not have made all that much difference had the media not transferred its affection from the Clintons to Senator Obama.
Commenting on that Democrat’s recent gaffe on his uncle’s World War II service, Jim Geraghty offers perhaps the best insight on gaffes in contemporary politics:
If the MSM would either A) be more forgiving of Republican officials who they don’t like or B) be a little tougher on Democratic officials they do like, the world would be a better place. In this case, I don’t think Barack Obama is deliberately lying, or trying to pull a fast one.
The media does have different standards for Democrats, particularly its favorites. And now Hillary is learning what happens when you lose the media’s favor. Maybe that’s why she’s been a bit gaffe-prone of late. She had gotten used to the media covering for her in the past.
Following up on Geraghty:
Per James Piereson’s study of the (first) Kennedy assassination, Camelot and the Cultural Revolution, the MSM (along w/ liberal pols) played a key role in contributing to an instant hagiography of the fallen president. Instantly, the reigning liberal assumption became that “hate” was responsible for taking out the president – and that conservatives were responsible for that “hate.”
The facts, of course, were that a Communist shot JFK (and that a Palestinian shot RFK).
If BHO or HRC were assassinated, I would watch for the other candidate’s handlers to spin commemoration of the assassination to their advantage. It’s a terrible presumption, but not without precedent.
step right up and get your last week’s chances to shoot that fish in a barrel…..
Ok, Kevin. Hold still…
That fact that her statement got blown up so much just shows how in bed with Obama the media is, not to mention the rest of the Democratic Party. Anyone with half a brain would know what she meant, its not that hard to see. I am so disgusted with what has happened to her, and the fact that none of the major party players stood up for her…is what has done it for me. Robert Kennedy Jr did come out in her defense but thats not enough for the Obama wing of the party…well its not a wing as much as the entire party.
Unless Hillary is on the ticket, I won’t vote for Obama. I am just waiting to see how it goes before I devote myself to making he loses. Now I know how Republicans have felt, sorry I didn’t see it sooner.
Um, I know it is tempting to side with Hil v Barry for tactical reasons but let us not forget that the puffery that Barry has enjoyed and the scrutiny that Hillary has suffered are the inversion of the state of affairs during the Clinton years with Any Republican standing in Hillary’s shoes. For the Clintons to complain about press bias, as valid and obvious as that is, is deplorable, hypocritical and perfectly predictable. The worthless mutt who blamed OKC on Rush Limbaugh is crying now? Why does anyone care? The Clintons are getting the business end of the business they perfected and named so aptly: The Politics of Personal Destruction. And forget not, either, that as soon as Hillary is put to sleep the double standard machine will point its withering eye on McC and Barry, of course, will enjoy an even more coddled position, not having to deal with intermural strife. The pressies will do more lying and covering up for Barry than was ever imagined with the Clintons. Think on that. Digest that. Prepare for that. Screw Hillary.
It’s important to remember that all the people who were in the room with Hillary when she mentioned RFK’s assassination have said that, hearing the entire conversation in its context, it was very clear that the reference to the assassination was strictly to emphasize that a primary contest was still underway in June.
I find it ironic that in the past few weeks, each time someone either mentions “assassination” or “appeasement,” B. Hussein Obama gets his dander up. And his name isn’t even connected with either one!
Yet he sits in Rev. Wrong’s “church” for 20 years and he can never recall any of the preacher’s “damning” statements.
If this guy were Dan Quayle, the MSM would be having a field day.
Bias? What liberal media bias?
Asshats.
Regards,
Peter H.
Doesn’t matter. The left doesn’t seem to interested in counting real, individual votes anyway.