Perhaps it is not necessary to add another diary about the word offered by Hillary Clinton that have created such a firestorm. Others have written profoundly and insightfully about what she said, and how it was not the first time she has used the word "assassination." Certainly anyone who watched Keith Olbermann yesterday has a very clear picture of how many times Clinton and her campaign have been outside the lines of what is acceptable. For me it was a sad way to end my 62nd birthday, to come home from dinner and spend the hour watching Keith, and then my wife and I talking about the show, and especially the Special Comment, and even more the litany of transgressions included in that special comment.
And yet, and yet . . .
To some of us the real sadness is that there is little new at which to be shocked. In this diary I want to revisit in part what I wrote on March 8, which I originally entitled In Sorrow. That diary was posted two days after Clinton first made the reference to assassination, which she did on March 6 with Richard Stengel. I had not at the time I wrote that diary seen those remarks, but they were unnecessary: I reached the conclusion I did even not knowing them, and their existence only makes more clear how obvious the problems with Clinton were in early March, more than 10 weeks ago, 10 weeks which have seriously damaged the Democratic party's ability to come together in common cause.
I am quoting myself. That is dangerous. It will seem self-glorifying. That is not my intent. Rather, I hope to point out how clear the pattern has been, and for how long. I will not quote the entire piece - you have the link if you wish to inflict that upon yourself. I will only quote two snips, parts I think worth repeating now. And I will add some bolding to words on which I especially want to focus.
I have to live with my conscience. For months I have at times sought to put the best case on things that bothered others. No longer.
Let me be blunt. As I look at the campaign run by Hillary Clinton, not just the words and actions of her surrogates and employees, but her own words and actions, I have regrettably come to the conclusion that based on that campaign, and in light of that campaign her record as a Senator, that she is morally unfit to be President of the United States. Thus I cannot and will not support her, should she achieve the nomination of the Democratic party.
It did not have to come to this. Clinton could have run a very different campaign, even when she was behind. There were legitimate issues that could be raised, questions with which to challenge Obama. It is not merely the issues, it is the manner in which the challenges have been done. She - and her campaign - have chosen the path on which they now tread. There are consequences for each decision we make. There will be consequences for the one I make in this diary - I may lose friendships, and I will certainly not be offered any position in a Clinton campaign or administration. The possible loss of friendships will sadden me.
The consequences for Clinton may be far greater. I know I am not alone in coming to the decision about which I have written. Some have reached that point in the midst of great anger. I have not. My decision is the result of wrestling with many things, over several weeks.
To me there is now a clear pattern of unwillingness to accept responsibility on the part of both Clintons, one visible back to Bill's presidency. On the one hand Hillary should not be held accountable for the misdeeds of her husband in his service, except that she wishes to claim that service as a major part of her own qualification for the office she now seeks, and because she has chosen to use him as a major surrogate on her behalf. I would prefer that we be lead by people willing to acknowledge, own up, accept responsibility for the mistakes they will inevitably make: my students need that modeling, hell, I need that as a reminder in my own life.
For some the latest statement is finally a last straw. Some, like David Axelrod, have chosen not to assume deliberate intent on Clinton's part in using the word assassination, even though this was not the first time she had done so. The words from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that he had heard her use that construct before is even more troubling, even though he chooses to interpret it as merely providing a framework in which to view the extended contest.
Let me repeat a few things to remember.
- In the two earlier contests to which she referred, 1968 (when RFK did not get into the race until after NH) and 1992, the primary contests did not begin until much later than this year, thus a proper comparison of length would have ended this year's stretch sometime in April
- Bill might not have mathematically clinched until California, but given the rules he had locked up the nomination by the end of April
- Last cycle Kerry was considered to have locked up the nomination more than a month before he actually had the majority of the delegates.
- It is interesting that Clinton did not use examples of extended contests which badly damaged the eventual nominee, among Democrats Kennedy's continued challenge of Carter in 1980 and among Republicans Reagan's challenge of Ford. In each of those cases the extended challenge and lack of healing were major contributors to the incumbent president being defeated in the subsequent general election.
- Even before the most recent incident, Clinton and her campaign had attacked her "opponent" by saying he did not have experience - only a speech he gave in 2002 - to cite bu one example of inappropriate and over the top rhetoric. On the one hand she wants to claim she is demonstrating how tough she is while simultaneously seeking sympathy by asserting she is a victim of sexism.
Given the entirety of Clinton's remarks and actions in this campaign, those she has made personally and those she has allowed or even encouraged on her behalf, it seems clear that she refuses to accept the will of the people in choosing someone other than her. She is acting like the person who goes from best out of three, to best out of five, or seven, or more, in the desperate hope that something, anything, will change what is happening.
The American people need honesty. Clinton has for several months been offering selective citation of information, often not only taken out of context but even distorted, to justify what is happening. I will not reiterate all of what could be cited to illustrate this, but let us consider only one example. Clinton and her husband and her campaign have multiple times tried to use as a justification that her opponent has been outspending her two or three to one. Umm, Mrs. Clinton, could that be because people are voting not only with their ballots but also with their money, and that they have voted for Obama rather than you? And could that also be because you have demonstrated, starting in Iowa, that you and the people you selected cannot properly manage a campaign and its finances?
It is not yet 3 AM. It is only sometime in the morning. The candidate is tired and exhausted, at least she says so, and so she makes an outrageous statement. Let us grant that for sake of discussion and consider: when it is 3 AM and the President is not awakened from sleep but still up wrestling with a major crisis, will that President be able to speak clearly and not make a statement that inflames a dangerous international situation? If the candidate is prone to such misstatements, what does that say about the judgment behind those misstatements?
And if, as I believe, this - and the tale about Tuzla and so many other things - are not simply the result of being tired, but rather exemplify at least the thought processes if not a deliberate choice of actions and words in an attempt to gain an office that seems to be slipping away from one, perhaps the moral disqualification of which I wrote in March is too narrow - perhaps we need to consider whether Clinton is morally disqualifying herself from any elective public service. I am not a resident of New York State, and she is not up for reelection until 2012. And perhaps we need not address that now. After all, there have been politicians who have acted and spoken egregiously and yet been able to turn around and make up for it with exemplary public service. I will go no further back with Robert Byrd than his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill and remind people of 44 years of additional and at times magnificent public service since. And clearly Clinton is capable of doing something similar, even if not over so extended a period of time.
I am not shocked by what we saw yesterday, including what I consider a non-apology, an unwillingness to accept responsibility, a patent dishonest statement about the use of the word "assassination." I am somewhat saddened that the process has gone on so long that Clinton has further damaged her own credibility as a public servant. For a women as intelligent and as gifted as she is, that is a loss for her constituents, and even for the rest of us. I am chastened by the realization that even when people clearly point out a pattern, others are unwilling to accept the reality of that pattern, because in general we are a generous people, willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. While on a personal level that is good, in the political arena it can serve not to dissuade someone from continuing a pattern of egregious behavior. That seems to have happened with Clinton. The litany of forgiving that Keith offered last night is well worth printing out and posting by one's computer and/or television set, not just because we ALL should have drawn the line with Clinton earlier, but because we - the American people and our eyes and ears the media - should be challenging and drawing the line with all who are in or are seeking positions of political leadership.
We did not watch Keith until the 10 PM rerun. It was a sad end to my 62nd birthday. I can only hope that we can go beyond the immediate situation and learn some lessons more broadly applicable. We cannot allow our politics to ever approach this kind of debacle. We need to be challenging careless use of words, and certainly reject deliberate abuse of language, whether by talk radio hosts, comedians, or political figures. There need to be voices of authority willing to speak up immediately to make clear that there are some limits that should not be transgressed.
I do not know what can be considered a totally unforgiveable action or set of words. I'd like to believe that despite the pain and anger that can be caused we as a people are capable of seeing beyond the immediate situation, providing the one acting or speaking accepts responsibility for what has been said or done, lest we be in a situation of a constant "gotcha" mentality where people are afraid of making challenging statements or doing bold actions lest they be accused of gross error. I would hope that we judge things in context, within a broader pattern of statements and actions. Of course, even in such a broader context what Clinton said yesterday, both to the editorial board and in her "apology" afterwords is not acceptable, not to me, not in light of all else that has happened in this campaign.
I apologize for adding still more words to this current brouhaha. If what I have offered is of use to anyone, even one person, and not unnecessarily offensive, then perhaps I can justify the electrons and the minutes involved in the creation of this diary.
I hope and pray we can move forward in a more positive fashion, learning as we must even from the worst of our experiences.
peace.