Saturday, May 24, 2008
|
|
You Never Use the "A" Word
|
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
11:49 AM
|
Sitting in yesterday for Hugh Hewitt, I was surprised that so many callers disagreed with my assessment of Hillary's "assassination" talk. As I wrote last week in the wake of Mike Huckabee's joking aside at the NRA convention, "one never, ever, ever jokes about [or discusses] the possibility of a rival (or anyone, for that matter) being assassinated. Especially when many genuinely fear for that candidate's safety because of his race."
It strikes me as elementary that it's a baseline rule on which everyone, of all political stripes, should be able to agree.
There are two different ways to think about what Hillary said. On the one hand, some callers essentially argued that she was simply referencing historical fact, and that there was nothing inherently wrong with what she said. To me, that argument is way off base. It was despicable for Governor Pat Brown, running against Ronald Reagan, to mention that an actor assassinated President Lincoln -- yet that, too, was simply historical fact, wasn't it? What's more, her suggestion that her husband was running in a contested race until June doesn't square with the historical facts. Who would remember all this better than Hillary?
Then, on the other hand, there's the position that what Hillary said was wrong. Within that rubric, there's a first position -- that the comment was simply a gaffe, brought about by fatigue, etc. But if that's the case, how is it that she came to make almost exactly the same comment to TIME magazine back in March? And looking at her remark yesterday -- "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California" -- it's noteworthy that she doesn't mention that he was killed after winning a contested primary . . . she simply notes that he was assassinated.
That leaves one final possibility: That she thought there was some strategic advantage in playing on the fears about Obama's safety, suggesting that it's to the benefit of the Democratic Party for her to stay in the race, in case the unthinkable (except to her, apparently) happens. It's a contemptible maneuver, but is there anyone out there who really doesn't believe that either of the Clintons are capable of such a calculation? It's worth noting that Senator Clinton is a bright woman; her remarks weren't the result of an unexpected debate question (a la the Spitzer/illegal immigrant debacle) or a spontaneous attempt at humor (a la Huckabee). They came in front of an editorial board, answering a question she surely had anticipated.
It's impossible for anyone truly to "know" the heart of another in a situation like this, but sadly, I think Michael Goodwin is right:
We have seen an X-ray of a very dark soul. One consumed by raw ambition to where the possible assassination of an opponent is something to ponder in a strategic way.
Don't misunderstand. I disagree with all Barack's policies and think he is dangerously naive when it comes to foreign affairs. But politics stops at the hospital door, and when it comes to matters of personal safety for all the candidates. He will, I hope, be beaten like a bongo drum in the election -- but of course, remain healthy and safe.
The dangers confronting candidates are real, and they are serious. And to me, it should be clear that one just never, ever invokes the specter of assassination on the campaign trail.
|
|
Reminds me of when Bennet tried to say that if one just wanted to reduce the crime rate, they could abort every black baby conceived.
I'm concerned that those getting breathless about these things can't understand the POINT in an argument, but can just hear the WORDS used in an argument.
I have NO love for Hillary, but to ME it is perfectly OBVIOUS that she remembers a primary race going on in June and being EXCITED about it. Sure, an assassination happened to end it, but then, if it hadn't, NO ONE would have remembered that primary races go on into June -- a point that not only are some UNABLE to remember, but even UNABLE TO COMPREHEND.
Scary. |
|
|
I listened to the comments and because I am a loyal Hewitt fan, I tried to listen to the two hours you wasted on your personal interpretation of Hillary's words. You keep trying to get people to get worked up about something that was clearly not intended. I have no love for Sen Clinton, but I also recognize that when politicians are riffing about something, they will spew something that they would not say if they had the time to send it through all their PC filters. She was talking about June and all the reasons why the race isn't always over by June. No one except YOU suggests that she intended to suggest that Obama could/should be a target of assassination. Get off it. You are making other conservatives look bad by trying to sell your cranky theory. |
|
|
Another untimely shame: just what the Obama camp is looking and waiting for. Its also an indication of what is ahead. The Obama camp will pounce on every loose phrase from MacCain to extort it for their advantage. (100 year war etc) And they will find them. The funny part is we'll have too remember, along the way, that is not the kind of politics Obama is about. He'll probably use surrogates wherever he can, but one thing for sure is there is not much difference in his politics as politics as usual we're used to. |
|
I think you have an overactive imagination my friend. This isn't 1968. Being black today is absolutely beside the point. Politics is about ideas, and ideas don't have a race.
|
|
It is AMAZING and sad how the media, particularly CNN have trivialized the horrifically diobolital mentality of the Clintons.
Black Americans, and many of all races are EXTREMELY disturbed by Hillary's insinuation of a possible assassination of Barack Obama. To imply that her reason for staying in the race is because anything can happen, then nonchalantly say that even Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June, meaning therefore she should stay in, is not only pitifully diobolical but incredibly dangerous.
As I read some of the comments, I sense that some do not understand the true impact of her deadly insinuation. Keep in mind, when it was first announced that Obama was running for President, the initial concern in Black America was his safety. "Would some nut sniper him"? Obama had to hire secret service security right out of the gate.....why? Because of the true possibilty of some nut doing harm to him or his family.
Also, during the last 50 years, the people who have been assassinated have ALL been leaders who were working toward equality for ALL. John F., Robert and of course Dr. King. So just the WORD assassination brings to us not only an extreme fear but is a reminder of the incredibly sad loss to America, particularly Blacks, at the hands of the sick and wicked. For Hillary Clinton, a so-called leader, to insinuate, for WHATEVER reason assassination....is beyond disgusting. It subliminally sparks the hatred, bigotry and destruction that most Americans have worked so hard to overcome.
Greg Jones
http://www.Blacks4Barack.org
A Multi-Racial Org...Dedicated To Truth ! |
|
You've fallen victim to the PC police - "oops, you can't use that word" bullsh*t.
There was NOTHING directed toward Obama in that comment. In fact I felt that she substituted the words 'won California' for 'was assinated' because she thought it would be offensive to say that 'Bobby won' given what happened immediately after.
Regardless- this ENDLESS WHINING BY THE MEDIA over someone's unfortunate comment is RIDICULOUS. Her comment is out there- people will make of it what they will.
|
|
|
I've listened to the clip in it's entirety over and over...Only a listener seeking to find nefarious, dark and ominous implications could find anything out of place in the remark. It makes no sense to misinterpret on such a grand scale in order to generate a 'story'. There's no story here. Bobby Kennedy's campaign for the presidency DID extend into June, and at the time of his assassination, the nomination WAS still up for grabs. That's the point she was making, as a historical reference and a justification for her resisting all the 'quitter' suggestions that she pack up and go home to NY. It's not June yet, for anyone who needs assistance with our calendar. It's both sad and maddening how this campaign has produced so much twisted hate. There are a lot of people in the media who really need to to a little introspecting analysis of what kind of person they truly are inside, after the despicable and mean-spirited way they have conducted themselves this past year. Of course, they won't...because they're incapable of finding any fault in themselves, much less seeking to correct any such faults. They're blissfully perfect. |
|
The Left, which includes most of the Drive By Media is on PC overload. No longer is it acceptable to mention, let alone discuss, anything unless you are THE victim.
Cant say anything about Abortion unless your are a woman.
Cant say anything about Illegal Immigration unless you are hispanic.
Cant say anything about Race unless you are black.
Cant say anything supporting the War unless your are a veteran or against it...
It is fair game to attack any subject if you are the victim, otherwise you are Inhumane, Racist, Intolerant, Mean Spirited, Sexist, Homophobic, Zealots...
Hillary's remark is just an opportunity for leftist "victims" to attack. This is what Bill and Hillary did in the 90's but then it was them doing the attacking. Now they are "victims" of what they help nurture and spread. Guess Obama is part of the vast Right Wing-Mean Spirited-Racist-Sexist-Intolerant-Inhumane...
Guess this is reaping what you have sown and harvest time is not looking good for the Clintons. |
|
As much as I despise Hillary and her campaign I have to disagree with your assessment of her statements. I think she brought up Bobby Kennedy in order to make it seem like she's in the same mold as he was. I know it's a stretch but her campaign is full of similar stretches.
On the other hand, Pat Brown's statement was an attempt to denigrate Ronald Reagan by lumping him in with the likes of an assassin. THAT statement was despicable and bordered on slanderous. I can find no similarities in the statement that Hillary made.
|
|
|
I have listened to the tape. There was nothing offensive or even controversial in what Hillary said. Take a deep breath and get a grip. |
|
|
If you were an older political junkie, Hillary's age, the RFK assassination mention would sound more to you like a place-and-time reference, and you'd remember everything else that surrounded that event in 1968. Just before Robert Kennedy's murder that day, front and center was the excitement of his campaign. If you lived through it, everything is kind of tied together. I accept Hillary's explanation that it was just a time shorthand, and a stupid one at that. I'd like to bury her with it, but I don't think there were bad motives involved. I'm not sure I'd want you on my jury. :) |
|
|
always subject to more than one interpretation. The context, the background of the listeners, the intent of the speaker, all contribute to determining the meaning. I think this was equally true with the Rev. Wright, Pastor Hagee, Jerry Fallwell controversial remarks too -- different listeners derive different meanings from those remarks. |
|
Carol,
I joined your radio program yesterday afternoon just as you announced you had breaking news and played the extended clip of Hillary's remarks. Introducing the clip you said, "You won't believe what she says" (or words to that effect). So, I listened, prepared to take offense. At the end of the clip I wondered, "What did I miss? There was nothing offensive in that." You then went on to state that what Clinton had done was beyond the pale and completely unforgivable. She should be drummed out of society, her career should be over, etc. Huh? I was dumbfounded. I simply did not hear what you had.
It was ONLY after your explanation that I could conceive of how anyone could claim what Clinton said was offensive. I did not take her meaning to be she needed to stay in the race in case Obama was assassinated. (As you point out, such an argument borders on the stupid because Hillary could be named the nominee if Obama were to die before the convention -- whether she'd dropped out or not. Hillary may be a lot of things. Stupid's not one of them). Instead, her meaning, in context, was quite clear: Historically, the Democratic nomination has been up for grabs until June, so there's no sense to the calls for her to abandon the race in May. (It's not a strong argument, since it ignores the fact the primaries started much earlier this year than in the past.)
Your interpretation of her remarks requires the listener to supply an awful lot of meaning to what was said. In the end, you say Hillary's remarks were wrong because someone could twist them to mean something awful. While I believe we all have a duty to clearly communicate what we mean, I don't believe we are required to communicate in a manner that is not subject to willful and intentional distortion. That's not a standard I'm willing to bear and it's not one I'm willing to impose on those I disagree with, such as Hillary Clintion. |
|
|
... on the other hand, if a black person made referrence to it that would be just an accepted point of fact. It's when whitie (aka cracka's) mention things he shouldn't that causes all the problems.Certain people are licensed to use certain words. |
|
|
|
|
|