However we choose to make sense of, respond to, and move on from, Hillary's statements, we need to understand a few things.
A gaffe is something said once. A gaffe comes out in opposition to what was intended. A gaffe runs contrary to a person's general stance and record. Thus, a gaffe is easily apologized for, and with an apology, a gaffe warrants forgiveness.
This, however, was NOT the first time Hillary Clinton has invoked the specter of assassination by using that word in comparison to the current primary. That makes her comment not a gaffe, but a strategy. And she has not apologized for the offense to Obama, who was (intended or not) the referent people heard. Hillary seems not even to apprehend the horror to Obama, his family, or his supporters in invoking "assassination" to argue for why she continues to fight on the campaign trail.
These factors need to be kept in mind.
I am still in shock and going through layers of reaction to Hillary's statement. But first, here was Hillary's March 6 invocation of "assassination":
"Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June."
I reacted with nausea the first time Hillary said this. I immediately flashed on Johnson's creepy quip upon accepting the VP position: "1 in 4 presidents die in office, and I'm a betting man." But I was sick of "gotcha" politics. And Hillary didn't repeat "assassination" after March 6, so I, along with many others, let it go as a gaffe, a mistake she had caught and wouldn't make again. In retrospect, maybe letting it go then was the mistake. How could such a disciplined candidate do it AGAIN, unless it was strategy?
Not to mention the fact that the entire reference to campaigns "lasting a lot longer" is itself disingenuous. Bill Clinton had the nomination essentially sewn up in March 1992 after Tsongas, wary of being a spoiler, dropped out. RFK had only been campaigning for four weeks when he came to California. Which means that the comparison was even more unfitting and a stretch Why not reference Gary Hart? Or Jimmy Carter? What was she thinking?
No, we don't believe she was "calling" or "wishing" for Obama's assassination. But the subtext, intended or not, of her odd choice of comparison is: "I'm hanging around in case.." Or "Are you sure you want to vote for a candidate who may well not make it through his first term? It's a daaangerous country.." This almost inescapable subtext is what warrants apology.
But Hillary, having lived through the assassinations of MLK Jr., Malcolm X, JFK and RFK, does not even seem to recognize why or that her words were gravely mischosen, and that Obama was the unspoken referent-in-the-room. How can she not see this?
Surely Hillary knows Obama's campaign has received death threats from day one. No candidate as savvy as she is could not know this. Why does Hillary suppose that 20% of those polled in WV, KY, and PA said race was a deciding factor in their vote? Not a single person I know (supporter or not) has not breathed fear of the unmentionable, were Obama to prevail. African Americans I've talked to have, TO THE PERSON, said "If he wins, they will kill him." Their terror of assassination has skipped right over into cynicism. Which is horrible. And speaks a great deal to the cultural environment into which Clinton let loose her irresponsible statements. This debaucle will cast a pall over Hillary's prospects for VP, and will make it much harder for her to be the one to assume the mantle, were tragedy in any form, heaven forbid, to strike.
I believe in forgiveness. I believe in unity. I believe in moving on. But until Hillary and her supporters show recognition of the gravity of her word choice (many already have), and until Hillary apologizes to Obama's family and his supporters, this unfortunately will stay with us.
(Also in blue.)