Does apology make up for assassination references?

Is anyone else as upset as I am about the, "I apologize if I offended anyone" apologies that Presidential Candidates now seem to routinely offer up?

HRC apparently spoke about staying in the race because unexpected things happen -- like as the RFK assassination. The apology she offered for the comment seemed to address only the hurt she might have caused the Kennedy family.

To clarify - Clinton said, “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the
California primary somewhere in the middle of the June, right? We all
remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t
understand it.”

She later clarified her statement talking about the trauma of events that shaped us and that she now holds RFK's seat, but did not address the connection everyone made per potential assassination attempts on Obama.

Then there was Huckabee's horrible humor about Obama getting shot. Huckabee may be out of the race, but his comment at the NRA conference about a loud sound implied Obama was reacting to a shot, or threat of a shot, was inexcusable. I know Huckabee was not a candidate at the time he made this horrible comment, but still it is difficult to believe that he didn't understand the implication of his words. Likewise I find it rather amazing that she didn't apologize for the larger implication.

The assissination references are inexcusable. People's candidates (as opposed to corporate candidates) and potential candidates have a horrible history in this country. JFK, RFK, MLK, Medgar Evers, Malcom X, and on and on.... This is not funny. I do not like putting these statements out in the public consciousness. Wackos could take that as encouragement or sanction.

My eyes welled with tears when I heard this, I remember those horrible assissinations, they shaped my childhood. Mention of such things hurt. Intentional or not... candidates for the highest office in the land cannot speak of such things.

Sigh.

Submitted by artpax (view blog

) on Fri, 05/23/2008 - 16:22

Posted In

Comments (15)

Tell a Friend

Comments

It Was A Wicked Thing To Invoke

HRC is a former first lady. More than anyone else she knows the fear of someone trying to take a shot at the President.

It was profoundly insensitive to the Kennedy family and gruesome to wished it upon your competition.

I remember those days too. I want no part of the faintest of echoes of that time. Maybe HRC is exhausted, maybe she is so focused on the possibility of not being selected is making her say things that in hindsight she never would have done eight months ago.

Heartbreaking thing for her to say.

Gena - Out On The Stoop

Submitted by Gena Haskett on Fri, 05/23/2008 - 17:29

I agree, but...

I posted a clip of the video of her making this comment on my blog today, and I just don't know. I agree completely it was a poor choice of words, but the idealist in me still wants to believe that even she who wants to win so desperately wouldn't plant that kind of fear.

It is a tough call, and by reading only the script of her comments, I was angry; however, the video made me wonder if there is some spin on it...

I can't decide.

Notions of Identity

Submitted by Laracolvin on Fri, 05/23/2008 - 18:01

My phone rang

this evening while my kids were playing on the front lawn. It was one of my co-workers, who said, "Hillary has lost her damn mind" before even saying hi.

Obviously, it was a horribly offensive comment. Equally obviously, it lacked any logic at all. The reason that Bill Clinton didn't clinch the nomination until June was that HELLO! the California primary was in June. As in, a state with a lot of delegates at stake had yet to vote.

Even disregarding her crazy statement about RFK, I'm shocked that the interviewer didn't push back even a little on how different the situtation is this year.

Submitted by landismom on Fri, 05/23/2008 - 18:10

Clumsy and Insensitive

After listening to the quote, I think she made a clumsy attempt at mentioning a democratic candidate who was still campaigning in a primary in June.

I agree with Gena:

Maybe HRC is exhausted, maybe she is so focused on the possibility
of not being selected is making her say things that in hindsight she
never would have done eight months ago.

I don't think she was trying to wish the same fate on Obama, and I don't think she was doing anything sinister.

I do however think it was very insensitive, and as someone who also remembers that awful period of time, it hurt.

I don't know about you, but I'm ready for this primary season to be over.

Megan
BlogHer Contributing Editor, TV/YouTube
Megan's Minute
Video Runway

Submitted by Megan Smith on Fri, 05/23/2008 - 18:40

I'm so ready for the primaries to end...

and I am not looking forward to the nastiness that will undoubtedly be unleashed but I want to build, to focus on the positive, to get us the hell out of Iraq, and to remember the common purpose that the Democratic Party once had that was to be a voice for the little gal.....

I've just about had it with negativity, cynicism, divisiveness, and out and out lies over these past eight years and to see it intra-party during the primary is disheartening. I want my country back.

I have no idea what was behind the statement but I'm disappointed and like Meagan just want to get on with the election race.

Build Peace
Virtuality
My Life As An Avatar

Submitted by artpax on Fri, 05/23/2008 - 19:20

Much ado about nothing

In November 1963, I was in 4th grade. The entire class broke into tears when the news of JFK's assasination broke. To us at that time, he was larger than life. From New England, Catholic, articulate, humorous, and 19 years removed from WWII, a war hero.

His assasination was the end of my innocence in terms of life. 9 year olds just don't ponder mortality, yet here was our hero... gone. And two days later, I ran in the front door of our home, turned right to look at the tv my parents were watching - and saw live someone - Oswald - be murdered.

It is probably hard to picture this, but for years thereafter, any event that triggered political thought was painful, because we missed him, were pissed he was murdered and taken from us.

Fast forward to 1968. Eighth grade. We've just seen LBJ resign due to the war, McCarthy's unexpected success in NH, and the looming elephant in the room, RFK. One of my teachers was a young nun, probably ten years older than me. We would have lengthy conversations on politics - outside of the classroom - and she was a heart and soul devotée of RFK. She sold me. On one Saturday night, I watched an hour long interview with him.

I was hooked. And more importantly, I had that hopeful innocence lost with his brother's murder, back. It hadn't seemed possible.

Five days later, he was shot.

Imagine me given the above. I was crushed. This was two months after MLK was felled, two months after we all gathered around the school's one television to watch news coverage - for the entire schoolday.

And here we were again. To this day, I believe RFK as president would leave the world and country we live in a vastly different place.

The only person since who has so moved me is Barbara Jordan. Anyway, back to the thread topic.

I just watched Hillary's comment. Is she insulting the memory of an icon, is she insulting his family?

Hardly.

She was clearly expressing an opinion on the historical significance of June in a campaign season. She wasn't saying 'take into account this sort of possibility,' she was saying 'this incident happened in June.' Continuing her thought would look like this 'showing the campaign was still very much in flux at that time.'

And she is exactly right. RFK was actively campaigning for the nomination at that point in time, it was not yet over.

In a campaign season, people will seize upon the most innocent of thoughts in order to score political points. Leave a thought out there undeveloped, and others will finish your sentence for you - just as I've just done.

nelle

Submitted by nelle2nelle on Fri, 05/23/2008 - 19:27

I Listened But I Can't Shake the Subtext Of
Her Remark

It gripped me with intent. Maybe you are right. Maybe it was a poorly choice of words or delivery.

But this was not an innocent thought. She wasn't insulting the memory of RFK, she was invoking memories of political murder.

I heard her say that we have a different time perception towards campaigns.

I heard her say that things didn't click for her husband until California. Then there was the next statement and whether she meant it or not it came across to me as "
if something happened to the other candidate she would be standing ready in June."

You know - if she would stand up and say "I f**ked up and I made a grievous mistake that I didn't intend to say" that would go a long way. Not her flunkies. Not through the media. She should take her last dime if necessary and for 10 minutes talk directly to the American people.

That might be the most presidential thing she could do to repair the damage.

Gena - Out On The Stoop

Submitted by Gena Haskett on Sat, 05/24/2008 - 12:17

I'm afraid you are right

And not afraid because I don't want to believe you, but because I want to believe that one wouldn't stoop so low. I think I've questioned her intent so much because my natural inclination is to dislike anything she says - because I don't like her or her campaign. So I have questioned and double questioned to make sure I wasn't being overly critical as a result of my aversion alone.

And I still don't have my answer. What is clear to me, though, (and this is stating the obvious a bit) is that her comments have impacted people in a profoundly hurtful way - and I agree that she has to be held responsible for that. An apology - sincere or not - doesn't excuse the action.

Notions of Identity

Submitted by Laracolvin on Sat, 05/24/2008 - 14:19

Exactly Lara

We are all responsible for our own words and actions, and like it or not for the things that evolve from them.

For some reason I'm reminded of "Oh what a wicked web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

Nancy

Build Peace
Virtuality
My Life As An Avatar

Submitted by artpax on Sat, 05/24/2008 - 14:41

Watched again

- same conclusion.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say people are really reching in assigning a meaning that implies 'you never know what can happen.'

And logically, that would make no sense, anyway. If such an unthinkable tragedy played out again, what difference would the continuing of a campaign make? A party will select someone to represent them in the election. A continuing campaign would add precisely nothing to this, other than perhaps having a campaign organisation in place, but I don't see anything in that such that a candidate would actually make such an argument.

And Hillary is way too intelligent to come up with such a lame argument.

I'll stand by my original post and thoughts on the issue.

On balance, I've been very disappointed with the accusations and counter accusations tossed about in this campaign - from every direction. Guess it continues on.

nelle

Submitted by nelle2nelle on Sat, 05/24/2008 - 15:25

I like Calendaria Silva's answer, Artpax

Artpax, thank you for raising this question. I like Candelaria Silva's answer over here on BlogHer: In summary, she says no.

I'm still reeling from the combination of the dailyKos post about Michelle Obama, well blogged by Professor Kim, and this HRC comment. I think I have to digest before I comment further. For now, I'm with Candelaria.

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

Submitted by Lisa Stone on Sat, 05/24/2008 - 13:39

I thought about this all night.

I find myself on a more opposing side of this than I usually am when it comes to Hilary debacles.

After reading about this incessently yesterday, and this morning, I finally did write about it - once I got my thoughts together.

I don't find it "much ado about nothing", and I think it clarifies she should not be president - her judgement is not all that sharp. I do not feel this was an intentional evocation of assasination. I just think it was Hilary being her usaly selfish self - so intent on the goal post that the field goes unoticed.

I also find it odd that Olberman, with all his concern over her "evocation", would mimnic the evocation Ad nauseum thus doing his own unfortunate evocation.

ooper

Submitted by cooper on Sat, 05/24/2008 - 14:09

You raise a very good point, Cooper, IMHO.

Perhaps the media needs to take a hint from Harry Potter and the use of "He Who Must Not Be Named" and realize that the evocation of an evil is an evil in and of itself by perpetuating and personalizing the evil.

Saying doesn't make it so, but it does make it just a bit more common and ultimately just a bit more tolerated.

Build Peace
Virtuality
My Life As An Avatar

Submitted by artpax on Sat, 05/24/2008 - 14:34

Gessssssssssssh

Senator Clinton was referring to a fact. Don't you see that ANYTHING that is said by her, or Senator Obama for that matter are going to be taken the way the media wants you to. Or for that matter, if you are a Hillary supporter we feel we know the meaning. Likewise to Obama supporters. I wish she wouldn't have apologized. No need to. Besides, she said she was thinking about Teddy.

Submitted by omgiamgoingnuts on Sat, 05/24/2008 - 18:49

Did you see this Fox News segment?

After the host explains why everyone hates Hillary, the woman being interviewed actually jokes about killing Barack Obama. What the hell is going on over there?