Skip to main content

I've been reading, with increasing alarm, the ever-more pumped up rhetoric on this page about Clinton's RFK remarks.  Like any feeding frenzy, this one grows in strength with each remark.  Mobs work that way, as Gibbon described the mob seeking the death of Cleander:

The people... demanded with angry clamors the head of the public enemy. Cleander, who commanded the Praetorian Guards, ordered a body of cavalry to sally forth and disperse the seditious multitude. The multitude fled with precipitation towards the city; several were slain, and many more were trampled to death; but when the cavalry entered the streets their pursuit was checked by a shower of stones and darts from the roofs and windows of the houses.

The foot guards, who had long been jealous of the prerogatives and insolence of the Praetorian cavalry, embraced the party of the people. The tumult became a regular engagement and threatened a general massacre. The Praetorians at length gave way, oppressed with numbers; and the tide of popular fury returned with redoubled violence against the gates of the palace, where Commodus lay dissolved in luxury and alone unconscious of the civil war... Commodus started from his dream of pleasure and commanded that the head of Cleander should be thrown out to the people. The desired spectacle instantly appeased the tumult...

In this case, it is the head of Hillary Clinton that is demanded.  This emotion has been growing with each day, with each of her speeches and interviews, and with her remarks yesterday have now reached a fever pitch.

However, there is in this feasting for revenge an increasingly troublesome thread.  Wading through the rivers of accusation here on the rec list, I have encountered numerous suggestions that Hillary's supporters might be so discouraged or desperate at her loss of the nomination that they might snap.  Who knows what they might do?  And people write here, with absolute seriousness, that Hillary is suggesting that they remove Obama to open the way for her coronation.  This kind of talk would be nonsense, if people didn't take it so seriously.  As it is, I find such thoughts dangerous, depressing and outrageous.  

Here are just a few examples:

Depression is more and more common in this difficult time in the US. And now a political admirer of HRC may be reaching his/her limits. What the hell! Even HRC mentioned it, right? It has to be done.

She claims to be so fond of children--did she ever think of what it would be like for BO's two lovely little girls to hear that his opponent in a political race wished him dead from an assassins bullet so that she could benefit?

What about her lack of understanding that there are people out there, crazy with hatred people who live beyond the psychotic fringe of reality, who need little if any provocation to use violence?

To make the leap from Clinton's remarks about campaigns, including RFK's continuing into June, to the idea that she is signaling her ignorant, gullible and desperate supporters to commit violence is irresponsible and borders on paranoid.  This kind of conspiracy theory does not belong on a site devoted to electing Democrats.  It only has a proper place on right wing hate sites.

Originally posted to SottoVoce on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:21 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Sorry, Dude, Don't Want Her Head At All (13+ / 0-)

      though she is certainly not using it.  I want her ass kicked out the door.

      The lady's toxic now.  And about time.

      You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.

      by mattman on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:32:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I won't flame you, I will take responsibilty (10+ / 0-)

      for my feelings for the Clintons.  I have nothing left for them but pity.  Before this election, I'd been defending the Clintons for as long as they've been around.  I've felt betrayed by the way she ran her campaign and that she's been disingenuous all the way (my opinion).
      herself in a way that will take her decades to recover from.  I take no joy in this. BUT, as someone pointed out in another diary, Sen. Clinton took great joy in Sen. Obama's innocent comments and expoited them, forgetting that we're all in the same party.  It's sad that the season has come to this.

      Her comments (no matter how she meant to express them) have been so horrific to me that it's been the 'key' to letting go so much of my disgust for this election season. I don't know how she could get much lower. I think what's happened is the culmination of her fighting such a nasty campaign and I don't want to be a part of making the ugliness worse.

      I'm not condemning anyone else for how they express their frustrations about this season, btw.

      I'm moving on to focus on Sen. Obama... oh, and John S. McCain - it's time for the public to know who this man REALLY is.  He's hiding behind his now defunct 'maverick' brand. No more!

      Not only is another world possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing. Arundhati Roy

      by Denni on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:33:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There's no way this rates a 'HR' (7+ / 0-)

      It just shows how beyond reasoned discussion we've become.

    •  We don't even want her out ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tecampbell, Scubaval

      ... of the party.  
      We want her in.
      We want her to be the best possible Democrat she can be.

      She's failing miserably, and we are obliged to help.
      Especially since those closest to her have failed her so miserably (anyone wanna stick up for Penn here?).

      (Most of us)

      It's an intervention.

      What's the matter with Hillary?

      by chicago jeff on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:46:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And so the comments about (0+ / 0-)

        getting her out of the Senate, and not being fit to serve on a school board - thats an intervention?

        •  Didn't say it was perfect. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mattman, tecampbell

          A good sign that you're doing something wrong is when people start acting as though they've been provoked.

          *****

          There have always been some Democrats who didn't like the Clintons.  But it tells you something when Democrats who LOVED them react so strongly.

          *****

          So, yes.

          There is an intervention underway.
          Since it's not being done by trained professionals and since the Clinton camp is resisting by ramping up their behavior, you should expect it to get ugly.

          There's one person who can fix that and she's oblivious.

          What's the matter with Hillary?

          by chicago jeff on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:02:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The counter-side is that (0+ / 0-)

            there has been some uglyness well before the kitchen sink, and to think that she hasn't been paying attention to the grass-roots and the blogs, and some of the ugly things that got said here, well - the point is that provocation goes both ways.

            •  That is not logical at all. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mattman, Alohilani

              All you're doing now is using "the devil made me do it" defense. It doesn't work in court and it doesn't work here. It's not like we made her play that card.

              •  We aren't in a court of law (0+ / 0-)

                thats the problem.  Is it justified, almost certainly not, but that is a card they play quite frequently, and when they have that card, they use it all the time, and will use it against anyone, friend or foe, if they feel there is a direct attack.  

                The point isn't whether she has a legitamate victim claim or not - the point is that she uses it all the time, and therefore, if we want to keep her (and the rest of the party sane) we can't allow her to play it - we can't allow her to see herself as the victim

                •  She would do it no matter what we did. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mattman

                  Just like Karl Rove would attack Jesus Christ if he were to run. You see, you're acting out of fear that Hillary will do something mean and horrific. That's what she wants you to do. We have to do what is right, and in this case, silence means consent. We can't do anything about what Hillary does, but we can do something about what the person in the mirror does.

                  •  I'd argue that (0+ / 0-)

                    I act out of the realization that she CAN hurt us.  I don't have to like it, and think it stinks, but she CAN hurt us.  

                    If you call that acting out of fear, then I guess it is.  

                    As for maintaining silence - I am in no way suggesting that - but the condemnations and tone of condemnation is important, and the tone has lent itself to play the victim card

                    •  It's a matter of right and wrong. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mattman, Alohilani

                      The only time the victim card can work is if the party was actually wronged; for instance, Florida 2000 helped galvanize a lot of the opposition to Bush in the first place. Here, all she was doing was scaremongering and recalling the memories of the Kennedy assassination right at the time that his brother is in the hospital. No reasonable person can argue that she is a martyr except for herself.

                      •  But which is the more important right and wrong? (0+ / 0-)

                        that she can hurt us?  That she isn't the victim?  That we can't afford a McCain presidency?  

                        And as for reasonableness, well, never put your stock in something like that.

                        •  You're right -- we can't. (0+ / 0-)

                          And that means that we don't owe the Republicans or the DLC jack shit. We don't need to appease them in any way, shape, or form. A lot of good appeasement did in 2002 and 2004 when the DLC was still ruling the roost. We have to take a stand for right and wrong no matter what our fears of the consequences may be. We are a reality-based party -- that means that if people are going to act like Republicans and see these attacks on Hillary as attacks on them personally, then we don't need their votes.

                          •  And if that means we lose? NT (0+ / 0-)

                            no text

                          •  We won't lose. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LeanneB

                            Standing up for what's right is a lot more likely to win elections than playing the politics of appeasement like the DLC has. By your logic, we never should have passed the Civil Rights Act, because that meant we were going to lose elections for the next 40 years.

                          •  Damn skippy. (0+ / 0-)

                            We've put up with enough bullshit.  It's time for this crap to stop, NOW.

                            "The thought of McCain being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me." --Thad Cochran

                            by Initiate Plan B on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:44:34 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I wish I coudl believe that (0+ / 0-)

                            I am sorry, but this election will not be a cake walk.  

                            As for saying my logic implies that we should've never passed the Civil Rights Act - I don't quite see how you get that

                          •  I said we have to stand up for right and wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                            It was not the most popular thing in the world to pass the Civil Rights Act, but it was still the right thing to do. It hemorrhaged away our Southern support to the Republicans over the next 40 years, a fact that they were well aware of at the time. But it was still the right thing to do. Sometimes, it is more important to be right than it is to be afraid of winning and losing.

                            We don't need to appease the DLC any more than we need to appease the Bush administration. Their time in the party is over. And no reasonable person who is a feminist would stay home when John McCain would institute forced pregnancy as the law of the land, take away Roe, and appoint radical right-wing judges to the bench. And no reasonable person would let McCain win when he would appoint judges who would make it harder and harder to sue employers for unequal pay.

                        •  I don't understand this persistent drive (0+ / 0-)

                          to give her all this power.  The way I see it, she can only hurt the party and Obama's candidacy if we continue to sit back and allow her to.  There are all these people constantly shushing us and fearfully admonishing us to play nice at all costs, lest Hillary do something even worse.  Well, she's finally done some even worse, and it's time to draw the line in the sand and say, "That's it, this is the limit.  This goes no further."

                          I'm not the least bit worried about "reconciliation" at this point.  People will vote according to who they really are.  If they are petty, vindictive people who cared more about electing that one person than about the future of civil rights, the Constitution, a never-ending and pointless war, and the dissolution of personal privacy, then they were never really Democrats anyway!

                          Real progressives will vote for the candidate more likely to uphold their principles.  And real progressives need to make sure we're heard on what is acceptable behavior from our candidates.

                          Ask me about my sig line.

                          by LeanneB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:06:14 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't see how (0+ / 0-)

                            I am arguing for giving her all power - I am not saying that she she get the nomination over Obama, nor am I even saying she should necassarily get VP - all I am saying is that we have to tread carefully, and provide a path that allows her to withdraw from the contest, but one that feels like she isn't (and her supporters as well) aren't being told to sit down and shut up.

                            Part of what I am talking about goes back to earlier times that at this point don't matter, except to say it might be worthwhile to know what to do differently

                          •  That's what I mean (0+ / 0-)

                            All these incessant calls for being careful and not making her feel forced out and so on and so forth ad nauseum are indicative of an attitude that does, indeed, give her power that she doesn't deserve.  She is, in fact, counting on that.  We have to gather the courage to collectively say, "No.  No more."

                            That's the only moral thing to do at this point.

                            Ask me about my sig line.

                            by LeanneB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:34:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  As a leader, she has a greater responsibility. (0+ / 0-)

                  She's chosen to take on a position in which she can do more good or harm than you or me.  Not that we aren't responsible but I expect more out of her.  You should too.

                  I wouldn't vote for any of us for president.
                  The fact that she descends to our level pretty much disqualifies her.

                  What's the matter with Hillary?

                  by chicago jeff on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:16:56 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  do you find it a wee bit ironic (6+ / 0-)

      that in a diary complaining about overheated rhetoric you claim that we're demanding Hillary Clinton's head?

      I do.

      •  Clinton apologists do this every single (5+ / 0-)

        time.  Clinton behaves objectionably, her apologists swarm blogs in order to change perception by arguing that Obama (or his supporters, which they have totally conflated at this point) have done whatever Clinton has done.

        So Clinton has clearly and unequivocally stated that her continued campaign is justified because Obama might be killed.

        And of course here comes a diary claiming that the "Obama Mob" wants "Clinton's head."

        Deeply, deeply dishonest tactic which IMO has no place on dkos.

  •  People think Bush did 9/11 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, OldPhart

    There are crazy people everywhere re: Hillaryis44.

    This isn't the norm so stop acting like it is.

    Hope this helps.

  •  Who said she is calling for violence? (11+ / 0-)

    I never did.  But her comments indicate that she thinks she should stay in the race just in case, you know, Obama is assassinated.  In June.  Because assassinations can happen in June.  Or something.  And it's not a slip of the tongue--she has said it several times.   She is one strange person.

    Northern Illinois University: Kate's and Matt's parents meet, 1976

    by chicago minx on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:27:01 AM PDT

    •  I've seen people here say (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WisVoter, joanneleon, buddabelly

      that Obama needs a food taster if she were picked for VP - and that was before this comment.  

      There have been multiple comments with either implicit or explicit comments about her orchestrating his death.

      •  I'll admit to that too (4+ / 0-)

        before this point, I thought of it as a harmless joke.  I never believed she would have him harmed, and still don't.  I DO believe she would work to undermine him.  She's done it so many times before.  I think so many people who've used the phrase meant it metaphorically.

        Not only is another world possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing. Arundhati Roy

        by Denni on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:41:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And exactly how TASTEFUL was that joke? (0+ / 0-)

          when you made the food taster?  Yes, I will admit, we've never had a president poisoned , at least I don't believe we have, but Olbermann's comments last night would apply equally to comments about food tasters a it would about bullets.

          If you want to say she would undermine him (something that I probably would dispute), then say that - invoking the food taster comment is, arguably, as bad as invoking bullets.

          •  How many pols in modern history and memory (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Eternal Hope, tecampbell

            have been poisoned?
            How many African American leaders?
            How many Presidents or Presidential candidates?
            NONE?  Exactly.
            It's not the same as invoking the use of bullets.

            Not only is another world possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing. Arundhati Roy

            by Denni on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:53:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  dead is dead (0+ / 0-)

              as I see it - and it is a person's life after all, and an important one at that.

              •  Don't give into what the right wants. (0+ / 0-)

                They want you to be afraid -- they want you to be afraid that if you vote for someone, they will be shot. That's the sort of thing that means that we will get more of the same in the next election. We have to vote our hopes, not our fears.

              •  as opposed to unimportant lives? eom (0+ / 0-)

                In the primary you vote for who you want to and in the general you vote for who you have to.

                by fToRrEeEsSt on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:35:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I did mention the life first (0+ / 0-)

                  but lets not kid ourselves - if I were to commit suicide tomorrow, the world would, by and large remain unchanged.  It would go on.

                  Bush committing suicide, or something like that, it can be very game changing.

                  •  It can. (0+ / 0-)

                    But by the same token, Hillary or McCain could be shot tomorrow as well. So, this whole exercise by Hillary is pointless, and there is no defense to it.

                    •  Then we shouldn't be outraged about (0+ / 0-)

                      her invoking the assisnation of RFK.  

                      Look, there is 2 points Im trying to make - The large point is that Hillary's supporters, if we lose them, may very well mean we lose in Nov.  And most of them prefer her, IMHO, not out of policy, but out of identity - not placating the Rs, or being more moderate, but out of shear identity - they want Hillary because they Want Hillary (and a GOOD chunk of that is because they see themselves in Hillary) - yes, I admit this is beyond the realm of rational thought, but thats the situation right now.  

                      And she galvanizes these supporters by playing the victim card and the siege card, and a number of anti-Hillary posters and people took a position that ALLOWED her to play the victim card - not necassarily with any level of legitamcy, but the attacks were quite direct, which allowed the apperance of legitmacy.

                      The 2nd, smaller point, of this particular thread, is that any comment made, about killing people, is not something that should be made lightly - Hillary's comment was unacceptable, but I would also argue the numerous comments of "if Obama picks Hillary as VP, he'll need a food taster" is also unacceptable.

                      •  Yes we should: (0+ / 0-)

                        Then we shouldn't be outraged about (0 / 0)

                        her invoking the assisnation of RFK.  

                        Because scaremongering like she did is a Republican tactic that is the sort of thing that loses elections for us. Next:

                        Look, there is 2 points Im trying to make - The large point is that Hillary's supporters, if we lose them, may very well mean we lose in Nov.  And most of them prefer her, IMHO, not out of policy, but out of identity - not placating the Rs, or being more moderate, but out of shear identity - they want Hillary because they Want Hillary (and a GOOD chunk of that is because they see themselves in Hillary) - yes, I admit this is beyond the realm of rational thought, but thats the situation right now.  

                        You're right -- we do. But that does not mean that we should stay silent when Hillary says something totally outrageous like she did. Again, silence means consent. The fact that we need the votes of her supporters does not give her special rights to say whatever she wants and then turn around and make a martyr out of herself when people call her on that. That's why she thinks she can act with such impunity -- if we show her that she has no more power, then these Republican scaremongering tactics will lose their effectiveness.

                        The 2nd, smaller point, of this particular thread, is that any comment made, about killing people, is not something that should be made lightly - Hillary's comment was unacceptable, but I would also argue the numerous comments of "if Obama picks Hillary as VP, he'll need a food taster" is also unacceptable.

                        There is no equivalence here; Hillary is a public figure, meaning that she has a much greater responsibility for what she says. That is why there is such a visceral outrage over her exploiting the RFK assassination for political purposes.

                        •  Re (0+ / 0-)

                          You're right -- we do. But that does not mean that we should stay silent when Hillary says something totally outrageous like she did. Again, silence means consent. The fact that we need the votes of her supporters does not give her special rights to say whatever she wants and then turn around and make a martyr out of herself when people call her on that. That's why she thinks she can act with such impunity -- if we show her that she has no more power, then these Republican scaremongering tactics will lose their effectiveness.

                          And I've never said people should be silent - what I am saying is that tone and level need to be remember, more than they usually are, espcially when condemning her.  Something that tends to get forgotten.  

                          Let me put it another way - look at the Wright situation - when Obama first gave his great speech, he did so in a way that avoided outright condemnation, and allowed for the potential that we could get through it, without Rev Wright being tarred and feathered.  Now, the flip side is true that Wright took that olive branch, and bashed Obama over the head, ment that complete condemnation had to happen, but we have a tendancy to rush headlong into complete and total condemnation for every action, when it might not be the best option.  Careful and deliberate response, that is seen as saying you disagree, but makes it clear that you aren't claiming the person is without values, or morals.  That they aren't truly a member of the Democratic party.  These things should've been done for months, espcially given the VP situation, IMHO.  

                          There is no equivalence here; Hillary is a public figure, meaning that she has a much greater responsibility for what she says. That is why there is such a visceral outrage over her exploiting the RFK assassination for political purposes.

                          I'd argue that we are all public figures, or at least all having a part in the public discussion - I doubt Clinton or Obama is reading this thread, but they might be.  

                          I suspect we'll just have to agree to disagree about the equivalence issue.

                          •  Speaking for myself: (0+ / 0-)

                            Now, the flip side is true that Wright took that olive branch, and bashed Obama over the head, ment that complete condemnation had to happen, but we have a tendancy to rush headlong into complete and total condemnation for every action, when it might not be the best option.

                            Hillary has as well. The door is always open for her -- she can, even now, accept that Obama has won and get to work helping us out in November. In the same way, Wright can always come back. But by the same token, people have every right to be angry at Wright's lack of loyalty or Hillary's Republican scaremongering -- as long as she wants to go on, this is still politics. She can't make these kinds of outrageous comments and not expect to get hit back.

                            I don't know if she is without values or morals or that she is not a member of the party, but there are two observations -- the first is that one can have them and then lose them. That is what happened to Nader. Clinton lost some of his values and morals when he threw the Black community under the bus. And whether or not Hillary is a Democrat or not is up to her -- whether or not I think she is depends on her cooperation once this primary process is over.

                            I'd argue that we are all public figures, or at least all having a part in the public discussion - I doubt Clinton or Obama is reading this thread, but they might be.  

                            But it's not like millions of people are hanging on every word that we are saying in the same sense that Hillary is.

        •  Yes, I will be VERY interested to see (4+ / 0-)

          how fervently she works for Obama once he is the nominee.  She has said she will work her heart out for him, blah blah.  We'll see.  I'm trying to visualize the Clintons throwing themselves wholeheartedly into getting Obama elected president--and why am I having trouble with that image?

          Northern Illinois University: Kate's and Matt's parents meet, 1976

          by chicago minx on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:46:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Here's a problem with Hillary though ... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mattman, Alohilani

            Her behavior in the campaign limits her ability to support our nominee in November.  Her behavior makes her future endorsement less believable.  

            That would be okay if her only obligation in life is to herself ... but, as a self-proclaimed leader in our party, it isn't; she has taken on responsibilities to US.  And she is failing US with every day she chooses to campaign without regard for November.

            What's the matter with Hillary?

            by chicago jeff on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:09:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'm having trouble with that image not because (0+ / 0-)

            I don't think she will be willing to offer her help as much as I think that there is a significantly large enough portion of Obama's camp who will unceremoniously reject her help.

            It is pretty clear from the response to this comment alone that people hate her - mistrust her - loathe her with every fiber of their being - and that hatred is likely to impede her ability to help.

            I believe that there are some people who are intent on destroying her entirely and I believe that they are likely to succeed.  In the meantime, Clinton supporters become evermore alienated from Obama's candidacy.  Some of the aggitators around her I think are probably Republican trolls - others I think are probably just garden-variety idiots who can't see how much dammage they are doing to their own candidate's long-term prospects for winning the general election.

      •  David Gergen said that this week (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mattman

        you can call him if you don't like what he said.
        And not blame kossacks.

        •  You can also call... (0+ / 0-)

          Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post he's said it several times too....

          Also, I will admit that I started out an Edwards supporter.  Once he dropped out I was looking at both Clinton and Obama to support.  At first I was like, hmmmm I like both it doesn't matter to me who wins.

          Then all the nasty campaigning from the Clintons started, or what I thought had started.  I had to go back and catch up on all the other shit they had been doing.

          As this UNREAL EXTENDED CAMPAIGN has gone on the worse they got the more hate filled I became....

          Hillary wins the State of Denial by 40%! Victory at last!

          by Moxie Gurl on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:51:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I was for Dodd (0+ / 0-)

            I expected I would go from Dodd to Clinton, since a lot of people I know were for her.
            But I held back for a time seeing how they all performed under pressure. I thought her campaign got too negative around the holidays (madrassa etc) and went to Obama before we voted.

      •  Well, I think you're confusing actual violent (0+ / 0-)

        intent with jokes about Clinton's obvious attitude toward Obama and his candidacy.  When someone says, "He can't have her as VP!  He'd need a food taster," people aren't seriously proposing that Clinton would poison him.  They are using deliberate exaggeration - a valid and traditional humor technique - to illustrate that her conduct of her campaign has indicated that she would not be trustworthy as Obama's running mate.

        Ask me about my sig line.

        by LeanneB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:15:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  There's a lot of good literature on this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WisVoter, C Barr

    phenomenon. I'd suggest starting with the classic study by Elias Canetti, Crowds and Power.

    Is that a real poncho, or is that a Sears' poncho? - Frank Zappa

    by JoesGarage on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:27:27 AM PDT

  •  Oh, get off it. (12+ / 0-)

    Hillary uttered a reprehensible statement, yet Hillary supporters flock to the web to defend her and accuse anyone who criticizers her of 'mob rule'.

    Instead of focusing your tirades on Obama supporters for a moment, take a second to consider how truly painful her words might be for some people.

    People who watched while JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X were murdered.

    To have any politician raise the spectre of political assasination for their petty interests is behond reprehensible.

    We have become what they fear.

    by tecampbell on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:27:47 AM PDT

  •  Agreed. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    inclusiveheart, mango, C Barr, smellybeast

    It's been astonishing to watch.  Somehow Hillary pushed the magic button and it seems everyone's pent up rage over everything she has ever said, over all the violence and injustices of the past, and over their fear for Obama's safety (plus a whole lot more I'm sure) has come pouring out.

    It really does seem like mob rule. There have been only a few reasoned voices and those don't get much traction here.  It would be great if we could at least take a cue from Obama himself and condemn the remarks while at the same time being reasoned and not making them worse than they actually were.

  •  Take the scabs off your eyes (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, GN1927, citizenx, Alohilani

    The comments you cite are sharp and pointed, perhaps emotional, but not wholly unreasonable.

    There is not correlation to 1968. Back then the primaries didn't start until around mid-March, and only 12 primaries had been run by early June. The race had not been that long.

    Everyone knows what this was about. Hillary wants to stay in the race and she needs a reason to do so. In her heart she believes Obama is a flawed candidate and won't survive the GE campaign. She can't attack or criticize him, so the possiblility of him being assassinated is her pathetic last resort for rationale.

  •  Too Bad - Clintonistas must be stopped (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, Lefty Ladig

    You are SOOOooo Blind to what you are witnessing.
    Unreal - And you are a Kossack? How Long?

    Progressives - stay UNDECIDED on 2008 -4.63 -7.54

    by AustinSF on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:29:51 AM PDT

  •  RE: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, applegal, tecampbell, LeanneB

    This emotion has been growing with each day

    Each day? She made the comment yesterday afternoon.
    Sometimes outrage is warranted.

    You bring up the right wing which views our opinion on the current administration quite the same way you view the reactions to Sen. Clinton's remarks.

    Your disconnect from the emotions involved from the remark is not held against you, sometimes some people dont just get it.

  •  And how does her comment compare (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    applegal, tecampbell, Alohilani

    to bitter?

    to Wright?

    "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell

    by zic on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:31:18 AM PDT

  •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WisVoter, C Barr

    Thanks for writing this.  There's an element of enjoyment in righteous indignation and stunned outrage, and it feeds on itself sometimes.  Very dangerous in groups.  Plus, there's the practical point that her statement was so bad that it might make her drop out of the race.  Since many of us have been wishing that she would do so for, oh, the last five or six years, it's hard to keep from feeding the frenzy.

  •  I NEVER SUGGESTED (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, LeanneB

    that someone "remove" him. I have not read where anyone said that.
    I have read where her goulish "wait" was in the event that someone "did" then she would be able to step into his place in line.
    That is what she said basically. She is waiting "incase" something happens to him just as it did to Bobby Kennedy.

  •  For the love of God. (5+ / 0-)

    Yes, some people are overreacting. But this is no gaffe--Clinton has raised the specter of assassination twice now (this is the 2nd time since March that I know of), and she seems totally clueless about why or how this is so offensive to Obama and his supporters.

    Until she grows a clue and apologizes appropriately, she will be on the receiving end of a lot of deserved vitriol. And it's not a little poetic, given how uncharitable she was about "bittergate" (which actually WAS a gaffe).

    How we know Daffy Duck is Republican: "It's mine, understand? Mine, all mine! Get back down there! Down down down! Go go go! Mine mine mine! Mwahahaha!" --BiPM

    by rhetoricus on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:39:40 AM PDT

  •  People being emotional? Not thinking before they (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tecampbell, Alohilani, LeanneB

    express themselves? On the internet? Wow, nobody saw that coming. Don't worry, Hillary supports can hide from the mob at my house. Oh, wait. I HAVE THE INTERNET. Is there anywhere that's safe from this dangerous mob?!?

  •  Is not her head is her candidacy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ETF, LeanneB

    first neither BHO nor his campaign are voicing those sentiments.

    second, the damage that she caused to her candidacy and  the Clinton's relations with the AA comunity are real.

    third, there is a law of unintended consequences, when  HRC and Bill went public with the white americans (HRC) and vote for somebody like you i.e. white (Bill) the result was a that a bunch of closeted bigots came out to spout racist stuff on national news as good and proper. What would be the consequences of the RFK comments I don't know.

    fourth, the race is over, she can not win in the only metric that really counts and as of now if anything happens to BHO politically or physically she could not expect to benefit from it either in Denver or in the GE.

    It is fair? probably not, it is happening yes and it will affect her polling badly and put to rest her electability argument, and she did it to herself  

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by IamTheJudge on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:42:29 AM PDT

  •  Gratuitous, self-admiring crap n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tecampbell, Alohilani
  •  Please Clarify (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FerrisValyn, SottoVoce

    Was she standing in front of a crowd with a bullhorn, screaming, "Kill Obama! Kill Obama!" ...

    Or did she make the remarks in a private meeting -- albeit with the knowledge that she was speaking on the record -- with a handful of people in North Dakota, who asked a specific question, within context, about what circumstances she believed her campaign was still relevant.

    The only answer that she could give -- tellingly -- about the relevance of her campaign dealt with an extremely remote possibility.

    And, of course, it was an admission that only extremely unusual and unlikely circumstances could stop Obama from being named our general candidate in Denver.

    Certainly, though, she violated A Well-Known Rule in mentioning the assassination of political candidates.

    Remember, half -- or more -- of Democrats who cast votes in this process, declared "legitimate" by the DNC or not ... did not vote for Obama in their state's primary or caucuses.

    We need to get back to making sure that these voters choose Obama in the general election.

  •  So you've found a nugget to grasp onto (5+ / 0-)

    and post a diary about. Interesting that this has been the pattern with every Clinton gaffe and desperate tactic.

    As her campaign's gaffes and tactics (lately I can't tell the difference) have grown ever increasingly outrageous, a subset of her most loyal supporters here have looked for the small handful of outlandish comments and loony Kossacks as "proof" that some significant portion of Obama supporters, and even irrationally that his campaign, are unfairly     attacking Clinton.

    The victim complex rears its un-Presidential head yet again!

    Interesting that some of Clinton's supporters are following the same trajectory as her sad campaign.

    White woman over 50 for OBAMA!! (Endorsed 10/07)

    by Glinda on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:45:34 AM PDT

  •  Another "Let's Play Nice Diary" WRONG WRONG WRONG (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    heyhellowhatsnew

    Not yet Baby!

    Hillary, HillBill, The Clintonistas all must pay a stiff price for what has transpired.

    Remember Hillary has done nothing but convince her supporters that this election was stolen FROM HER this last 2 months. They will never see it differently. Just check with my "Hillary Walks on Water" Parents who even this week told me they "Can't for the Life of them see why Obama is so popular". Makes me mad as hell what Hillary has created for our party.

    Yes - we'll need to come together - and we've got some time to do it.

    Hillary must pay for what she has done first.

    What are your suggestions. Mr. Unification?
    These Diaries like this JUST SUCK.

    You are very short-sighted if you think today is the day we all will Forgive and Forget.

    BET HER SUPPORTERS aren't ready either. Not one bit.

    Obama WON
    HillBill LOST

    Remember that....

    Obama is in charge. He'll let us know when it is time to bring in the Clinton Supporters...

    Progressives - stay UNDECIDED on 2008 -4.63 -7.54

    by AustinSF on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:47:31 AM PDT

    •  nicely put, Austin (0+ / 0-)

      What are your suggestions. Mr. Unification?
      These Diaries like this JUST SUCK.

      I won't ask you to read the diary before commenting, but I am not suggesting that 1)she won 2)we should have unification 3)we should forgive and forget

      only that HIllary is not advocating violence, and that this absurd theory should be dropped.

      And I'm not a man, BTW

    •  THen there is a damn good chance (0+ / 0-)

      you may never bring them in, and when you do need them, it'll be too late

      •  Nobody says that we shouldn't unify. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alohilani

        But Hillary did this to herself.

        •  The problem is (0+ / 0-)

          she is known for invoking the realm of victumhood, and of using siege mentality - look at the 90s.  Knowning that, supporters of Obama, and frankly of other candidates, should've known that attacking her directly would end up causing a trap that could divide the party - I remember seeing a diary on the Rec list, back in Feb or March (I think), well before the kitchen sink strategy, (I think it was Bob Johnson, but anyone who wants to go back and check, feel free), when there was still a lot of feel good, and people saying we had 3 good candidates, and there was at least one diary on the Rec lit saying, no, we only have 2 good candidates, and another candidate who, while better than McCain, is just barely acceptable.

          You let her use the victimhood when you go down that path.  

          •  Then, let her. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Alohilani

            Nobody is listening to her playing the victim and claiming that she was somehow misunderstood. She did it to herself. People have every right to express their outrage at her.

            •  They aren't? (0+ / 0-)

              you think her victimhood has NOTHING to do with her supporters?  That ain't at all what I see.

              •  People are getting tired of it. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Alohilani

                People are starting to break away from her and support Obama. There was a superdelegate who flipped to Obama yesterday. There may well be others coming up. Obama is now up double digits in the Gallup poll. People don't like candidates who try to make martyrs out of themselves. It's not like you see Obama doing it over Hillary's scaremongering tactics.

                •  She still has a lot of support (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  WisVoter

                  yes, they are breaking away, and yes, if it comes down to it, Obama can beat her at the convention - does anyone REALLY think he won't get the nomination, EVEN if it goes to the convention?  

                  The problem is that she does have significant support, and we need all (or as many ) of the 17+ million supporters, and by this point, we are well into a game of identity politics.

                  Therefore, attacking her means you are attacking them, in their minds.

                  •  Look: (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Alohilani

                    If people are that emotional or irrational about their candidate, then we never had their votes in the first place. These are the kind of people who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 because they thought he was the greatest man since the Bible was complete. These people are called Republicans.

                    •  Not the ones I know (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      joanneleon

                      yes, I am think of some people in particular, and people who are my friends - they have voted D most of the time (wouldn't be surprised if all the time), one was a teacher and in the teacher's union, and yet they are going down the exact path that we are seeing Hillary surrogate go down - they've gone from being Countdown watchers, to fox news, just to give an example.  

                      I am very concerned that we will end up either losing the election, or at least seeing the creation of a party split, that is very dangerous.  

                      •  All that is anecdotal. (0+ / 0-)

                        If people are going to do that, then we never had their votes in the first place; it seems that they were DLC/Dixiecrat types. This split between the progressives and the DLC types has already existed and has since the 1968 convention when the DLC types defied the wishes of the grassroots and nominated Humphrey. We don't need their votes if they are going to get their news from FOX -- I'm sick and tired of those who would advocate the appeasement of the right. We will get enough new votes to more than make up for any Dixiecrats/DLC types who bolt the party over this.

                        •  I will admit its anecdotal (0+ / 0-)

                          but it has me worried - to claim that they will come around, or are coming around, especially when you are talking about SuperDs and I am talking about average voters, makes me rather nervous.  For the people I am talking about, it wasn't by any stretch about appiesing the Republicans (and in fact, I will admit to having a discussion on line here, with a Hillary supporter, who is convicned he is going to placate the right).  

                          What its about is HER story, and the idea that she was forced to make a choice about career and family, and therefore gave up her career, much like they were.  

                          •  This is how it's always done in both parties. (0+ / 0-)

                            Once we have a clear winner, as in this case, the losers are expected to step aside for the good of the party and the country. Now, there have been a fair share of primary fights that went into June on our side, but for the most part, the losers still stepped aside for the good of the party. There is nothing sexist about it at all; it is a matter of bringing the party together after a long, tough primary fight.

                            And you know why else it is not sexist? Because all of the other people who have stepped aside for the good of the party over the years have all been men. Edwards could have taken it to the convention in 2004, but he chose not to for the good of the party. Ditto for McCain in 2000. Ditto for Dole's rivals in 1996. Ditto for Clinton's rivals and Pat Buchanan in 1992. It's not like we're expecting Hillary to do anything that the losers of both parties have not done over the past few decades.

                          •  Im not arguing it is sexist (0+ / 0-)

                            merely that Hillary is known for playing the victim card quite frequently, and knowing that, if you want to ensure she steps aside, never let her play it.  

                            Further, while its true that they would step asside, at the same time there was also an understanding that the party that lost didn't mean it had to shut up and follow orders - Just as Bush did not "have a mandate" afte 04, when Jesse Jackson ran for President, there were deals involved, in him stepping aside.  And we need to do what we can to help those deals along.  And yes, that means being open to the idea of an Obama/Hillary ticket, but more importantly, not just screaming out of hand that it can't happen (and yes, I've seen that quite often in the VP threads)

                          •  Obama has already ruled it out. (0+ / 0-)

                            So, for him to pick Hillary as VP is out of the question. The fact is that she has no power anymore and that we, the progressive populists, have taken over. That means that we are going to get our people in power and run things our way. This election was a clash between the old DLC interests of the party and the left-wing progressive interests who supported RFK and McCarthy in 1968. Obama is doing no worse than Hillary against McCain, which means either that Obama is bring in new voters or that people are not as anti-Obama as they say they are.

                            And we need to do what we can to help those deals along.

                            They're obviously not happening at this point, given Hillary's recent inflammatory behavior.

                          •  So, in other words (0+ / 0-)

                            Bush was right to claim "I have a mandate, and those who disagree with me should shut up!" in 04?

                          •  No. (0+ / 0-)

                            What I am saying is that Hillary has no moral right to continue to hold the party hostage in the way that she is.

                      •  I am seeing the same thing (0+ / 0-)

                        among both Democrats and Independents.

                        "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." --Samuel Johnson

                        by joanneleon on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:51:09 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  And the further point is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WisVoter

          a lot of Hillary supporters will see you as attacking them, when you attack her - there is a lot of identity politics attached to her

          •  But we still have to do it. (0+ / 0-)

            Bush supporters were like that as well. But that does not mean that we don't call people out when they do something wrong. By that logic, we should never have spoken out against Plamegate.

            •  How you speak out depends on (0+ / 0-)

              who you need to speak about, and what they said - not everything is the same, and the level of vitrol aimed at her, and this is before the kitchen sink, was not helpful.  And even after the kitchen sink.

              To put it another way - you want her to get out, the surest way is to make certain she can't keep playing the victim card - That has helped her throughout the campaign.  And yet, in multiple blog posts, I've seen people going on the direct offensive attack - you think that will get her to quit?  Does it help?

              •  She'll have no choice. (0+ / 0-)

                Even people at MyDD are now starting to call for her to get out. Frankly, I don't stay where I'm not wanted. If enough people tell me that I'm not welcome anymore where I live, I would go and live somewhere else. People may dig their heels in as much as possible and present this tough exterior, but it's a fact of human nature that people don't stay where they are not wanted anymore.

                •  The only surefire way is (0+ / 0-)

                  if this goes to the convention, because then it will be laid bare to see.

                  Now, I admit to being in the camp that says "get everyone naked, and no-one can lie about their size" (yea, crud I know).  The problem is that the R's aren't getting naked, and because of that, if this goes to the convention, we end up in a bad place.

                  •  It's a personal decision for her. (0+ / 0-)

                    But the more she makes a martyr out of herself, the more she hurts herself. She has to understand that she no longer rules the world. If she wants the VP, the answer is no. She has to understand that she has lost the election, and at this point, if she keeps this up, she will lose the good will of the party.

      •  Obama will get them in time. He'll Lead the Way (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alohilani

        Until then though- Clintonistas must be taken on and defeated.

        Progressives - stay UNDECIDED on 2008 -4.63 -7.54

        by AustinSF on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:57:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ah, I see. (7+ / 0-)

    Those who are horrified at her remarks and confused about what she might intend are the ones who are out of line.

    Thanks for clearing that up.

    Saying, "The surge is working" . . . is working my last nerve.

    by Crashing Vor on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:47:35 AM PDT

  •  Mob rule? (5+ / 0-)

    Where the hell were you when the Hillary mob came out to go after Obama for his "bitter" comment?

    Where the hell were you when the Hillary mob came out to go after Obama for Reverend Wright?

    It is just amazing to observe the hypocrisy of the Hillary people...

  •  Look, there is no need to play the victim. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, hideinplainsight, tecampbell

    That's what Hillary wants you to do -- make her into a martyr of some kind. She crossed the line with that comment, and she needs to take it back. This sort of scaremongering is only appropriate when done by Republicans.

  •  the "mob" of which you speak is the DEMOCRATIC (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tecampbell, Alohilani

    PARTY.

    62169 - which apparently means A LOT.

    by jj24 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:50:22 AM PDT

  •  "Sotto voce," translated into English, means... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tecampbell

    "Impaired ability to reason".

    Replete with "misstatements" and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions.--Carl Bernstein on HRC's record.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:51:54 AM PDT

  •  Respectfully... (5+ / 0-)

    This has nothing to do with mob rule.
    It only seems that way to people who feel extremely entitled and threatened by not getting what they want.

    All we want is for Clinton and her supporters to be reasonable and loyal to OUR party, the values we stand for, and the people we represent.  That's all.

    That means ...
    Knock it off with the systematic lying.
    Knock it off with the systematic condescension.
    Knock it off with placing HRC's wishes ahead of our need to win in November.

    Knock it off with the arrogant disregard for the majority of the party and the electorate that disagrees with you.

    Knock it off with the Republican-ish behavior.

    That's all.

    Is that too much to ask of HRC and fellow Democrats?

    What's the matter with Hillary?

    by chicago jeff on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:55:27 AM PDT

  •  The emerging truth is hard to take (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eternal Hope

    I have not wanted to see it and at first I gave Hillary every charitable explaination, but her increasingly disturbing pattern of unsavory political behavior must be called out.

    Hillary is toxic and ruthless.

    In a democracy, the most important office is the office of citizen.- Louis Brandeis

    by crystal eyes on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:55:57 AM PDT

  •  But she spoke of RFK's death, not his campaign (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eternal Hope, ETF, Alohilani

    You say that Clinton only spoke innocently of the fact that the 1968 campaign was still under way in June of that year.

    But that's not what Hillary said.  She said point blank "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."  

    No one is calling for the "head" of Clinton.  Many are calling for her to concede and fur superdelegates to hasten that moment.  Given that she has lost in pledged delegates, given that she is damaging the Dmeocratic Party with her comments and strategies, no wonder many of us are calling for her to cease and desist.

    You are being dishonest in calling it a mob.  I'll agree the idiotic comments about Vince Foster and "she's advocating it!" are to be condemned.  But the vast, vast majority of comments on this issue do not veer in that direction, they simply call upon Clinton to end her campaign and/or the Party to end this bitter nomination fight.  That's the gist of this so called "mob" -- and it's a valid viewpoint.

    And you know it.

    •  It's a memory device. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      C Barr

      I remember exactly where I was and when it was when I heard the news that the space shuttle blew up.  It was January 1986.

      If I thought someone were making the argument that it was highly unusual to launch space shuttle flights in January and I were searching for a counter example, this would quickly come to mind.  If I were smart, I would really think carefully before I used such an example.  But then again, I'm not always that smart.

      Disclosure: I'm an Obama supporter.

  •  I certainly don't want Clinton's head (0+ / 0-)

    She's made some serious mistakes and she shouldn't be the nominee, but she's been a pretty decent Democrat, vote-wise (apart from on Iraq and Iran). I just want to see her up on a stage with Barack Obama, saying that she wholeheartedly supports his White House bid for 2008.

  •  The reaction you (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smellybeast

    are seeing is not just the result of what she said yesterday (and if you check my comments, you will see I agree with Juan Cole's interpretation; she just said a dumb thing, she wasn't dogwhistling).

    Hillary Clinton has run a really destructive campaign.  At the point when it became mathematically clear she couldn't win via pledged delegates, she continued attacking the presumptive nominee of her party.  That is not in the party's best interest.

    Some of her supporters have said the most racist crap I've read outside Stormfront.  Go to Hillaryis44 for proof.  She has shown a willingness to use racially motivated fear and anger to gain advantage.  

    There are serious questions as to just why she is doing this now, when she cannot win via pledged delegates.  Why is she insisting that her votes in the DNC discredited primaries of Michigan & Florida be counted - when she previously agreed they should not?  Why does she discount the voters in caucus states (except when she wins?)  Why did her campaign apparently release the photo of Obama in Kenyan garb, and why did she say he wasn't a Muslim "as far as she knows"?  These are not the actions of someone acting in the best interest of the party.

    So when she made what I actually think was just a dumb move (explaining why it's valid to stay in a primary in June when you are behind)  it's hardly surprising that many read it in the worst possible light.  It's way past time for Clinton to get out of this race.  She is not going to be the nominee, she's harming the actual nominee, and this is NOT about Hillary Clinton.  It's about those of us who are dying for lack of health care, dying in foreign wars of imperialism, losing our jobs and our homes.  It's about us.  Not her.  And she does not seem to get that on any level.

  •  I don't agree with the diary (0+ / 0-)

    but I recommended it to counter the HR - don't think it's justified.
    I am pretty upset about HRC's comments, however, I am also a bit disturbed by the fact that every diary on the recommended list is on this topic.
    (and yes, I am biased because I posted a diary on a different subject this morning).

    "Superstition, idolatry, and hypocrisy have ample wages, but truth goes begging." - Luther

    by Cartoon Messiah on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:11:51 AM PDT

  •  Mob Rule? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927

    I respect your right to your opinion and to humbly disagree with most of what you said but since when is calling a person out and correctly criticizing them for unforgivable remarks the equivalent of mob rule?

    I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

    by davefromqueens on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:14:35 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for your diary, I agree (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    C Barr

    as well and have written about the Dems risk in fall about all of this reactive rhetoric splitting the party.

  •  My new diary, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, LeanneB

    "Hillary's Heart of Darkness":

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    puts this in a different light.  Perhaps it is not mob rule, as you suggest, but the voice of the people trying to rein in someone who has moved outside the boundaries of acceptable behavior.

    Never give up! Never surrender!

    by oscarsmom on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:26:13 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site