Tuesday, May 27, 2008

On Clinton's comment about Bobby Kennedy UPDATED

Okay, folks. This is all I'm going to say about it. From the New York Times:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, defended her remarks in a telephone interview on Friday evening.

“I’ve heard her make that argument before,” Mr. Kennedy said, speaking on his cellphone as he drove to the family compound in Hyannis Port, Mass. “It sounds like she was invoking a familiar historical circumstance in support of her argument for continuing her campaign.
So to everyone who's still trying to get Hillary Clinton to be a good girl and get out of the way so the boys can finish their game, stop twisting the facts. And to the rest of you, who read and accepted the blowhards' take on Clinton's comments before you actually read Clinton's comments, stop. Stop and think. For yourself.

I just came across a post at Politico that is both enlightening and depressing. Politico played a huge part in flaming the fire of this non-story, and reporter John Harris describes the process and thought that went into the decision to take Clinton's comments, out of context, and make an issue out of them. He is unapologetic in his desire to increase traffic at his website:
The truth about what Clinton said — and any fair-minded appraisal of what she meant — was entirely beside the point.

Her comment was news by any standard. But it was only big news when wrested from context and set aflame by a news media more concerned with being interesting and provocative than with being relevant or serious. Thus, the story made the front page of The New York Times, was the lead story of The Washington Post and got prominent treatment on the evening news on ABC, CBS and NBC.

As leaders of a new publication, Politico’s senior editors and I are relentlessly focused on audience traffic. The way to build traffic on the Web is to get links from other websites. The way to get links is to be first with news — sometimes big news, sometimes small — that drives that day’s conversation.

We are unapologetic in our premium on high velocity. In this focus on links and traffic we are not different from nearly all news sites these days, not just new publications but established ones like The New York Times.
Look, we all want more traffic. But according to Harris, Politico is more concerned with getting linked by other established publications than it is about reporting relevant or serious news stories. Think about that next time you cite Politico at your blog.


Fred said...

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s support DOES NOT JUSTIFY her remarks to THE NATION.

Sue J said...

Fred, you do nothing but prove my point. I heard and saw the video of what Clinton said, and it was a benign comment. You give me a link to one of the most obnoxious and disappointing blowhards of the primary season, Keith Olbermann, to prove that she said something evil and despicable?

Fred, just because K.O. says it, it doesn't make it so.

Mary Ellen said...

Hi Sue--I have to laugh every time I hear Keith Olbermann and his "special comments". I've never heard so much whining in my entire life. I raised four children, have three grandchildren, and did daycare for 10 years....Keith just tops them all.

The hatred and vitriolic language, especially the sexist slurs that comes from Obama supporters is unprecedented. To hear members of your own party accuse their own members of being racists and bigots is something I never thought I would see in my lifetime. Pathetic lot, they are.

When I watched that tape of Hillary, I could see exactly what she was saying...just pointing out that other races had gone until June. There was no "code words" about someone assassinating Obama. The fact that our Democratic leaders are allowing this story to build and not step in to defend Hillary shows me how determined Dean the the rest of the elites are to destroy Hillary.

Can't wait to see the GOP go after Obama...let's watch the righteous indignation coming from Keith Olbmermann and his little crowd of Obamabots when Obama is hit with the same hate that he and others have been spewing at Hillary for the last 6 months. I'll enjoy every minute of it.

donald said...

i agree, the press has done a total hatchet job on her about the comments. it was obvious that she was only pointing out that there have been many many primary seasons that went well into june. every comment can be spun into just whatever you want. want proof, just look at everything bush says, and how it is spun into he is the great american protector, not at all what he is.

Sue J said...

It really scares me that the American public is going along with this media spin so willingly. I mean the New York Post, which first "broke" this story, ran the headline "Hillary Raises Assassination Issue."

WTF?! "assassination issue"?

In case anyone didn't hear or read the actual words she spoke, here is a transcript:

HRC: This is the most important job in the world. It’s the toughest job in the world. You should be willing to campaign for every vote. You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere. I think it’s an interesting juxtaposition where we find ourselves and you know, I have been willing to do all of that during the entire process and people have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa and I find it¬¬-

Editorial Board: Why? Why?

HRC: I don’t know I don’t know I find it curious because it is unprecedented in history. I don’t understand it and between my opponent and his camp and some in the media, there has been this urgency to end this and you know historically that makes no sense, so I find it a bit of a mystery.

EB: You don’t buy the party unity argument?

HRC: I don’t, because again, I’ve been around long enough. You know my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere around the middle of June

EB: June

HRC: We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. Um you know I just I don’t understand it. There’s lots of speculation about why it is.

As you say, Mary Ellen, there is no "code" or secret message. She was trying to put this race into a historical perspective. But since America seems to have no interest in intelligent thought anymore, we are easily led around by our noses, reacting however the MSM wants us to ....

Mary Ellen said...

Well, as Donald pointed out, look at the way the press stumped for Bush during both his terms. For some reason those who are supporting Obama seem to forget that. They fall for the newly packaged Obama--the one who has been made up to look and talk like a president. His speeches are almost word for word the same as other candidates that Axelrod has groomed. Now, he is suddenly donning that flag pin. He wears a pair of jeans on the plane and the journalist start drooling and swooning. He makes huge gaffes at the debates and the press make excuses for him and defend him when he runs like a scared child from debating Hillary again.

What bothers me the most are the lies that he has told, such as his relationship to Rezko, the Canadian NAFTA situation, and now we find out that Obama was present during those hateful sermons of Rev.Wright--after he claimed he wasn't. But the press continues to help Obama by staying silent. Where are all of Keith Olbermann's special comments about those examples? Instead, he and the rest of the press make excuses for Obama.

Just like they did with Bush, they're ramming another incompetent boob of a candidate down our throats....and the Obama supporters are eating it up.

Fred said...

No Sue, sorry, what Hillary said was NOT a benign comment. You are being totally subjective here and don't stick to the pure facts.
However, having an entire nation listening to words such as "assassination" during a Presidential run constitutes offending FACTS, no matter what you may be thinking.
Your comments on Olbermann are also purely subjective ("obnoxious and disappointing blowhards"). He sticks to offending facts such as having a Runner mentioning words like "assassination".
Being sexist and subjective won't help Clinton at all.
Oh, and since "there has been many many primary seasons that went well into june" why then mentioning such painful event as an assassination?? There has been more positive courses of event that Hillary, as a Presidential runner, should have been bringing up.
Bottom line folks: you don't mention "Presidential assassination" during election time, you just DON'T.
Finally, unlike what you may already be concluding, I am NOT an Obama fan, I will support whomever Al Gore decides to endorse because I trust him the most and he would have been the best candidate...without the sensitive comments and awkwardness so common to Hillary.

Sue J said...

Well, Fred, you and I disagree on this. I hope you had a chance to read my update, and perhaps you will be more open minded to the idea that the media has taken a comment that was meant to be a chronology of some well-known presidential campaigns and turned it into sinister "doubletalk" by Hillary Clinton.

As for Keith Olbermann, I actually used to really like him. But during this political season he has attacked Hillary Clinton so completely unprofessionally that I have lost all respect for him.

You say he "sticks to ... facts"? What about when he recently gave his "insight" into how to get Clinton out of the race:

"Someone takes her into a room and only he comes out."

Here's the transcipt:

Yeah, I find that pretty obnoxious, all right.

Fred said...

Sue, I do not argue on your great update. My original reply was to your original post, therefore BEFORE the update, which I did read anyway and which I tend to agree with (media seems so bored they tend to sensationalize any event instead of reporting the news... although note that media also encompasses editorial job).
My original post was in reply to these disturbing words:
"Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,[...] defended her remarks in a telephone interview on Friday evening", which is NOT an excuse at all sorry.
and to:
"So to everyone who's still trying to get Hillary Clinton to be a good girl and get out of the way so the boys can finish their game, stop twisting the facts" which is sexist and purely subjective. THE FACT IS: irrelevant words like "assassination" is mentioned during an official campaign.

And yes, WE people of the nation who pay State and Federal taxes are entitled to judge and comment BEFORE Clinton tries to save her ass with some easy excuses. Actually that's funny how every time somebody (not only Hillary) fucks up their speech, they try the "you didn't understand me" or the "you took it out of the context" defense as if they were NEVER wrong.

Again, your interpretation of Clinton's remarks is subjective: "that was meant to be bla bla..." while I'm trying to just focus on the very fact that Clinton NEEDS NOT to mention such negative and frightening historical event in her campaign.
Of course, we all know Olbermann goes pretty far but that's his job as an editorial journalist, however he also does say that referring to assassination is outrageous.

Just forget the journalistic drama and focus on the FACTS please...

Sue J said...

Fred, again, here's verbatim what Clinton said: "Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

Any interpretation of this statement of fact is subjective. So if that's your argument, please direct your ire equally to all.

I agree we should "forget the journalistic drama and focus on the FACTS." That's why I'm done with this conversation with you.

BAC said...

Hey SueJ ... cearly Fred needs to take a deep breath and then reconsider his position.

Any reasonable person would not conclude that Sen. Clinton was suggesting Obama might be assassinated. She was merely pointing out that RFK was still in the middle of a very heated primary battle in June!

Thanks for posting all this!


Fred said...

"Fuck you" or "I wanna eat ice cream" for example are both totally irrelevant statements to a job interview (there is NO interpretation in it whatsoever). So is any "assassination" remark to such Political interview!!! THIS IS NOT SUBJECTIVE. It's just plainly IRRELEVANT.

However, trying to explain what may have gone through Clinton's mind when she mentioned the assassination IS interpretation.
Please compare apples with apples.

I really felt the need to reply because your blog (a place to discuss and possibly argue by the way) is public therefore many people (a few of my friends among others) may read it and get some wrong influence/biased analysis.

Now, read again your very first post and you'll understand why I started the whole argumentation.

Hey me too I can quote her LOL!:

Finally, I'll tell you why Clinton is being asked to "get out of the way" as you say. It's not the sexist "so the boys can finish their game", it's because she's already lost the game and she is now hurting and dividing the whole Democratic party (again this division is a fact).

Some interesting count lately showed that Clinton has directed more attacks towards Obama than towards the extremely dangerous McCain. That's a shame. Oh, you may call that one "interpretation". It's too late anyway, the "game" is over.

Sue J said...

Sorry, fred. I'm not biting, no matter how ridiculous your argument may be.

Buh bye!

Sue J said...

bac, glad you stopped by! The hyperbole from some visitor's been a little thick over here today ....

Mary Ellen said...

sue j-

Ok, so according to those who are spewing this garbage about the evil intent of Hillary (like fred), we should never hear the word "assassination" during a campaign. Because in the small minds of people like Keith Olbermann, whoever would do such a thing would never think of committing such a crime unless they heard the "a" word first. Kind of like Pavlov's dogs or the Manchurian candidate? :-D

Fred said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sue J said...

Mary Ellen, you're exactly right. And that's why I found Fred's argument to be circular and pointless. Is this Orwell's "1984"? Are there certain words we must not utter? We've already learned this season that only Barack Obama is allowed to use the word "race," (just ask Geraldine Ferraro about that one). What word will be next?

Fred said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sue J said...

Just a quick note on the deleted comments. In the year that I have had this blog, I have only deleted comments twice. Please know, I do not do it lightly.

But when someone keeps posting the same outrageous point over and over, begging for a response, in increasingly hostile language, it's time for me to take editorial control of this blog, and rein in some commenting privileges.

When I say "buh bye," considered yourself escorted to the door. But thanks for stopping by.

Fred said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.