babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Clinton speculates about Obama getting assassinated

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Clinton speculates about Obama getting assassinated
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 May 2008 06:21 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I guess when you've got nothing to lose, you scrape the bottom of the barrel.

quote:
Hillary Clinton's argument for staying in the race took a disturbing turn today. While meeting with the editorial board of South Dakota's Sioux Falls Argus-Leader, she raised the specter of assassination while discussing why she would stay in the race:

"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."


She later made her excuses and apologies (golly, I didn't mean anything like THAT, I was just comparing this race to other long races in the past, good gosh golly gee!), but she got the job done and got out there far and wide what has been an undercurrent all along - the idea that America "isn't ready" for a Black president, and that there's a good chance he'll be assassinated if he wins the nomination.

If you can stand him (I'm getting to the point where I can't, he's such a blustering dork), you can watch Keith Olbermann splatter all over the screen about it. Oh, sing it, you hissy-fitting diva, in that overwrought style you do best:

[ 24 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

[ 24 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 May 2008 06:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A faux pas, or a suggestion?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 24 May 2008 07:06 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Clinton/Huckabee '08?

code:
  


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 May 2008 07:07 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wow, I haven't seen that one before!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 24 May 2008 07:11 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have to say I really like Olbermann. He's best when he goes after Bush:

code:
  


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903

posted 25 May 2008 08:15 AM      Profile for MCunningBC        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
If you can stand him (I'm getting to the point where I can't, he's such a blustering dork), you can watch Keith Olbermann splatter all over the screen about it. Oh, sing it, you hissy-fitting diva, in that overwrought style you do best:




Sen Clinton's references to Robert Kennedy's assassination were indeed a major gaffe. I am sure that she intended no harm, but it's right up there with Reagan ("we begin bombing in five minutes") and about 100 million times past Kerry's ("stay in school or you'll end up in Iraq"), which was enough to terminate Kerry's chances of running again, because other Democratic politicians, mnay of whom accepted his help, turned on him when the Republican media jumped on the remark.

I am guessing that Clinton's slip was either extreme bad taste or extreme tiredness, but either way it's the sort of thing that acts rather like trashing the interview in a more ordinary job-search situation. It's kind of end-game on her Presidential hopes, and really reduces somewhat her prospects for Vice-President, which I admit she may not have really wanted, but Bill Clinton had been telling people in the days before Friday that he was starting to think that VP would be Okay.

I agree that the Olberman editorial is worded, shall we say, rather harshly? As the NYTimes put it, the video is "tough beyond measure" in it's treatment of Sen Clinton.

Still, I do have to ask about some of your terminology, Michelle. I am thinking of the phrase "you hissy-fitting diva". Does that have any kind of gender content? Would it be fair to critique an Maureen Dowd piece in those terms? Just thought I would ask.


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 25 May 2008 08:23 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am guessing that Clinton's slip was either extreme bad taste or extreme tiredness, but either way it's the sort of thing that acts rather like trashing the interview in a more ordinary job-search situation.

Thing is it wasn't just a one-time slip of the tongue - she made the same argument on two separate occasions. I don't think she wants Obama to be assassinated, nevertheless the two-time Freudian slip suggests a certain coldness in her thinking that leaves others cold as well as well as a shocking degree of insensitivity.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 25 May 2008 05:23 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MCunningBC:
I am guessing that Clinton's slip was either extreme bad taste or extreme tiredness...

Tiredness was also invoked by Clinton's team after she talked about ducking sniper fire. As was pointed out at the time, if your entire campaign is being staked on your ability to take a phone call at three in the morning, that might not be the best excuse to haul out of your bag of excuses.

Clinton was not saying that she was hoping that Obama would be assassinated. But she was suggesting that it was a good idea for her to continue her campaign, just in case he was. That's both an incredibly bad argument and incredibly stupid politics. But, most of all, it's incredibly inhumane to even invoke the spectre of assassination.

As for Olbermann, he uses harsh words to express anger when harsh words and anger are called for. Hissy fitting diva? Hardly.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
ch11lawyer
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10582

posted 25 May 2008 06:38 PM      Profile for ch11lawyer        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:

Thing is it wasn't just a one-time slip of the tongue - she made the same argument on two separate occasions. I don't think she wants Obama to be assassinated, nevertheless the two-time Freudian slip suggests a certain coldness in her thinking that leaves others cold as well as well as a shocking degree of insensitivity.


This is what we call in the US "Clintonian", i.e. "depends on what is is". They are a cutthroat, nasty couple, though Bill happened to be a good President. In terms of personal morality and maturity; none.

From: NYC Area | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
skarredmunkey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11117

posted 25 May 2008 07:15 PM      Profile for skarredmunkey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
Clinton was not saying that she was hoping that Obama would be assassinated. But she was suggesting that it was a good idea for her to continue her campaign, just in case he was.

Do you/anyone here honestly believe that Hillary Clinton is sticking around either wholly or even in part because a potential assassination against Obama would work in her favour? Or that she alluded to Bobby Kennedy for this purpose, rather than to talk about the historical precedent of long campaigns?

I get how people (re: the media) are interpreting it that way, but I have to admit, when I first heard the comment she made to the Post editors I actually thought the argument made sense. I assumed that she was simply trying to show why calls for her to quit the race before June were irrational given that they didn't happen in past cases, not, as Olbermann states, that it is "inappropriate" to even mention the dreaded word assassination (apparently we must not speak of how RFK died) or that she felt it could happen to Obama. It's ridiculous!

I generally despise Clinton's politics, and feel she should be condemned for any number of reasons (like, all of the items for which Olbermann noted in the video that 'we' have apparently forgiven her). This, however, is so obviously an example of media-hyped mock outrage that it is almost sickening.

ABC News: Obama Blames Clinton RFK Quip on Stress of Long Campaign

Obama gives Clinton a pass on RFK 'assassination' remark

[ 25 May 2008: Message edited by: skarredmunkey ]


From: Vancouver Centre | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903

posted 25 May 2008 08:42 PM      Profile for MCunningBC        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skarredmunkey:
I generally despise Clinton's politics, and feel she should be condemned for any number of reasons (like, all of the items for which Olbermann noted in the video that 'we' have apparently forgiven her). This, however, is so obviously an example of media-hyped mock outrage that it is almost sickening.


For all that he does go one, Olberman is right about one thing. Mentioning the word "assassination" as part of political roundup, in this case, why this particular contest must go on, is really very poor judgement.

That's why I believe that exhaustion is the most likely explanation. But as Scott points out, it really doesn't matter, because the tired person in question is the self-advertised "3 am phone call" candidate, ready on day one. Ready to do what?


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 May 2008 08:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nothing.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 26 May 2008 01:47 AM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It seems the exhaustion is spreading and getting much worse. Liz Trotta of Faux News chortles gleefully in anticipation of B. Obamas assasination:


From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 May 2008 01:51 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is all very disgusting.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 May 2008 02:04 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My question is, if we are actually to take "elections" in the USA at face value, how does Clinton propose to have her candidacy weather the storm of an assassination of Obama now? It seems to me, that she has basicly set up the perfect scenario for the election to be postponed indefinitely.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 26 May 2008 06:43 AM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Oh, sing it, you hissy-fitting diva,
[ 24 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ][/QB]

Posted by Michelle May 9:

"I don't care if you don't think shrill is a sexist term. Feminists do."

So a male politician can't be "shrill", but a male broadcaster can be a "hissy-fitting diva"?


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 26 May 2008 06:50 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What are you arguing? That Michelle made an incautious remark or that shrill is now acceptable? You are also misrepresenting Michelle's remark. She said that "shrill" carries cultural baggage when applied to a female politician, and that his was widely held in the feminist community. And she, among others, argued that such baggage did not apply when it was used against a man.

So be clear, and not petty. What are you after?


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 26 May 2008 07:15 AM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
What are you arguing? That Michelle made an incautious remark or that shrill is now acceptable? You are also misrepresenting Michelle's remark. She said that "shrill" carries cultural baggage when applied to a female politician, and that his was widely held in the feminist community. And she, among others, argued that such baggage did not apply when it was used against a man.

So be clear, and not petty. What are you after?


I argued that "shrill" is an equal opportunity term when it comes to male and female politicians, from experience in reporting on them and listening to them. Some posters in the other referenced thread argued that "shrill" is never applied to male politicians.

I'm also quite sure that "hissy-fitting diva" would carry cultural baggage if it was applied to a female broadcaster, but I guess it's all right to apply it to her male counterpart, just as I think it's all right to apply "shrill" to a male politician.

[ 26 May 2008: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 26 May 2008 07:21 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You are wrong. Shrill is a gendered term particularly when applied to politicians. Furthermore, the quote from Michelle in this thread has nothing to do with shrill, or politicians. So it would seem you are dragging an old grudge onto this thread where it has no place. If you want to know why "shrill" is a gendered term, there are plenty of threads in the feminism forum for you to read.
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 May 2008 07:27 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, okay, you got me. Although I've never said that male politicians can't be "shrill". I just said that it's a term people generally don't use against men - it's usually a sexist put-down of women.

I do sometimes like to stand sexist terms on their ear and apply them to men. Reclaiming the term, turning the tables, etc. You won't hear me apply such epithets to women.

That said, you're right. I shouldn't have said that, not because it was sexist, but because I did say in that other thread that when people used "shrill" to describe Preston Manning, it's a put-down of an "effeminate" characteristic (in his case, a high voice).

I don't think describing classic "male" bullying behaviour like yelling and ranting in terms that are normally reserved as sexist attacks against women is quite the same as making fun of a man's "effeminate" characteristics with sexist terminology.

But your point is still well-taken. I shouldn't have done it. Mea culpa.

[ 26 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 26 May 2008 07:50 AM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Yes, okay, you got me. Although I've never said that male politicians can't be "shrill". I just said that it's a term people generally don't use against men - it's usually a sexist put-down of women.

I do sometimes like to stand sexist terms on their ear and apply them to men. Reclaiming the term, turning the tables, etc. You won't hear me apply such epithets to women.

That said, you're right. I shouldn't have said that, not because it was sexist, but because I did say in that other thread that when people used "shrill" to describe Preston Manning, it's a put-down of an "effeminate" characteristic (in his case, a high voice).

I don't think describing classic "male" bullying behaviour like yelling and ranting in terms that are normally reserved as sexist attacks against women is quite the same as making fun of a man's "effeminate" characteristics with sexist terminology.

But your point is still well-taken. I shouldn't have done it. Mea culpa.

[ 26 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


Thanks, Michelle.


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 26 May 2008 08:19 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Makwa:
It seems the exhaustion is spreading and getting much worse. Liz Trotta of Faux News chortles gleefully in anticipation of B. Obamas assasination:

Worse than that, she also "accidentally" refers to him as "Osama", and then says that killing "both of them would be good. Every time I lament the level of political discourse in this country, something happens in the Empire to the south that makes me think we're doing a lot better than them at maintaining civility.

Clinton's remarks opened the door to this. If she's talking about assassination, it makes it OK for the wingnuts to do it.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blairza
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15227

posted 26 May 2008 08:22 AM      Profile for Blairza     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I like Olberman, but didn't he recently have to appologise for suggesting that someone take Clinton into a room from which she never reemerges? I think "shrill" is a sexist term as is hysterical, but I can't think of a better word to describe his rant.

If you watch the video, she's obviously exhausted. Also, though she must have known she was being taped, this looks to be a deep background kind of discussion with a newspaper reporter, not the sort of thing she ever expected to be broadcast.

I think this will not only end her run, but also eliminate her from the vp spot. The jokes will be too obvious.


From: Sonoma, California | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 26 May 2008 09:16 AM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blairza:
Also, though she must have known she was being taped, this looks to be a deep background kind of discussion with a newspaper reporter, not the sort of thing she ever expected to be broadcast.

I think this will not only end her run, but also eliminate her from the vp spot. The jokes will be too obvious.


It wasn't just a reporter, it was an editorial board meeting.


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca