You know, I still don't quite know yet why Hillary said what she said. There's all this outrage but this morning I woke up thinking, so why'd she say it exactly? 'Cos the reason her campaign is giving is kinda stupid. Though some people -- like those on CNN -- have apparently accepted it and painted her as an innocent victim.
I just watched CNN's Politics Daily Podcast and they almost sounded sorry for her, lamenting how "every little thing you say is used against you" in a campaign. The guest, and Wolffe, spoke slowly and clearly tailored their words: "Hillary got in trouble for mentioning assassination when discussing campaigns that continue until june."
I haven't watched CNN in months, but after reading the diary about Hillary's comments being panned everywhere, I thought, you know we live in our own little corner of the web, and many of you, like myself, are probably watch nothing but Stewart/Colbert and Olbermann. So I went over to Hillaryclinton.com where the commenters on her blog hardly discussed it, then downloaded CNN's podcast to see what they had to say. I was surprised.
Why don't they report the whole news? Like the fact that even though she was talking about "june", aren't pundits on other stations pointing out that the reasons she gave make no sense? She wasn't discussing battles that went on as long as this, like she was asked. Her husband's battle had only started in March, not January like it did this year. I hear that for RFK, there had been only one primary at that point. Her husband had basically gotten the nomination wrapped up before June, and all Cali did was put him over the threshold. So WTF? If this was an essay, "Describe long and bitter primaries," and the answer had been the one she had given, she would've gotten a C- at best. Isn't she supposed to be smart?
Some guy on MSNBC's "Road to the Whitehouse" show said that he simply had to believe that Clinton had been misinterpreted because beleiving otherwise meant believing things about Hillary's goodness as a person that he just couldn't believe.
Yeah. Me too. Any attempt to rationalize to myself that this was meant as some subtle, disguised, calculated way to encourage voters or supers not so much to support her, but to be afraid to support him, takes me to such dark and uncomfortable places. [Someone in the comments said it more succintly: this might simply have been a caluclated way to play the fear card.] We already know that she has benefited in some ways from this fear, as many African American leaders already expressed fear that danger might befall Obama as a reason behind their decision to back Hillary (and heaven knows how many others have privately voted for her because of this fear). On her facebook page I was surprised by the number of people who said it was true and we're getting mad at her for just stating the reality of what happens to such leaders. And mind you, it's not like this reasoning hadn't already been put forth blunty by a Clinton supporter who introduced her at a public event, who said, while Hillary looked on, "Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F Kenned. But he was assassinated." A point blank message: "Look, you're excited about this guy, but what happens to people like him is that they get killed, so just be intelligent and vote for Hillary." Is it possible that Hillary was finding a way to "inadvertedly" remind people of this? This is the kind of thing where you, like that MSNBC person, simply cannot believe it because that is wayyy too far for anyone to go.
Hillary says something that someone as intelligent as herself MUST realize will spark an uproar. Was she tired? Perhaps. But, as was the case with Bosniagate, in which she also cited fatigue as an excuse, she had said this multiple times before; perhaps not as crassly.
Is she simply insensitive? Is she so lacking in sensitivity that she simply doesn't understand that referencing traumatic events like that will hurt a lot of people?
Was she really just talking about June? But as we discussed earlier, June in the two cases she described was not the same as June now, seeing as primaries started later. There are other examples, more fitting examples, of drawn out primary battles that she could have used, like 1980 and 1984. So to believe the argument her campaign is putting forth also means to believe she's not very bright... or that she's hoping the American people aren't very bright.
Was it a simply nothing more than a Freudian slip that she was so unsophisticated as to state out loud? Maybe. Of course, many have pointed out that if she dropped out and what we fear did come to pass, its not like she wouldn't be considered the one to replace him anyway. Yea, I think she's waiting for a disaster, but maybe a scandal, or two Reverend Wrights, but not this.
Why'd she do it? Here's a bunch of my beliefs. It's clear that she doesn't want anything to happen to Obama, or is dog-whistling to anyone out there. No way of that. I have a hard time believing that this was about June, because that makes no sense. For me the explanation falls somewhere between two explanations, one of which I have no trouble believing, and another that my mind wanders to but shrinks back from in horror: (1) she has no class, and (2) she's trying to communicate a controversial message that she can't say directly. Yes, everyone will attack me for reason #2. I am quite certain she believes that Barack will be targeted if he's elected, but yes, suggesting that she might be calculated enough to try to communicate this means believing some awful stuff about how low Hillary would go for votes.
I suppose for me, the most likely explanation, the only one I want to believe is the one Bob Herbert gave up in his column after the "white voters" thing: "Class is not a Clinton forte.". She's a bit classless, a bit shameless, that's why things like "white voters" and RFK come out of her mouth. I firmly believe that Hillary Clinton does believe that America is too fundamentally racist to elect Obama, which is why she cried to Bill Richardson "he can't win!" and which is why she cited the "white voters" comments.
And yes -- this might upset people -- I do believe that she shares the rationale of some of those black leaders who wouldn't support Obama because they were sure he'd be target, or of nobel prize winner Doris Lessig who bluntly stated that if we elected Obama, he'd be killed. She has mentioned RFK and JFK too often for me not to suspect that she believes this. (She mentioned in New Hampshire that everyone talks about how great JFK is, but let's not forget what happened to him in the end, and how it was LBJ that had to carry out his work. I shuddered then, and shudder at what it allows me to think now.) Does it mean I believe that she was also trying to "inadvertently" inject the same thought in the minds of Americans? This is the dark awful place my mind starts getting to scared to go. It went there in January, and if anything prevents me from believing this completely is that it's getting a little late in the game to try to use this tactic, unless she's gotten super super desperate.
I try to look at the picture, and it takes me to dark and chilly places. The Clintons and their surrogates say something that they must have the sense to know that it will cause an uproar. The uproar ensues. They then go back to try to explain it, giving an explanation that makes little sense to those who know more, but makes sense to those who know less. The result is vitriol in some circles, vigorous defense of Hillary in others. But most of all, it makes you wonder if there was an ulterior motive, a hidden message... "what exactly is she trying to say? Was MLK/LBJ just a cover to say that he's all talk and no action? Was Jesse Jackson a more calculated way of saying he's only winning 'cos he's black? Was white voters a way to try to say that we are a racist country so vote for me 'cos he can't win in Nov? And was this, and her JFK comment before, a way to say that if we elect him, something could happen? What is she trying to say, exactly, because if we buy the explanation she's giving, it makes no sense!" And your mind goes mad with the thought.