Unfortunate statement of the week

[Beet]

this is a bad thing to say I but i understand what she meant.  I'm so sick of gotcha crap.

^^^^^^^^^

I was listening to my FM classic rock music station which has no news, and between songs the DJ broke in like: "OMG BREAKING NEWS Hillary has just said that she should stay in the race because RFK was assasinated. Wow. Just wow. What a horrible thing to say."

No mention of her actual quote, no mention of "June", just "Hillary should stay in the race because RFK was assasinated" and the implication.

[Beet]

Okay, I feel kind of bad for jumping on this. I'll be honest, when I first heard about it, I was skeptical; how bad could it be? Then I watched the video and was horrified, and a bit more to learn that she'd said basically the exact same lines back in March. So, while I suppose I should be giving the benefit of the doubt, and I now am, this isn't jumping on her. The negative reaction was a honest first impression.

And I think that explains why the media has gone all over this. A lot of people's first view will see it as Clinton suggesting that something untoward will happen to Obama, including probably many of those who put it on air. And I don't think you have to prefer Obama for that to be the case. Certainly the most reasonable of the pro-Clinton Democratic sites, myDD, is not all that happy with her about this (understatement).

I have to disagree. Look at how easily this thing flows through the national media. People who put it on the air or who write about it online get exactly the reactions they are looking for. It's so easy to plug into because there's this exaggerated notion of Hillary already out there about who she is; and people are a lot less resistant to believing horrible things about her. Even the way you were presented it originally was filtered; 99.5% of the interview with the Argus Leader, including the portions where she's talking about water policy, are filtered out. You were told to look out specifically for the RFK assasination remark.

In any case, MyDD is better described as highly divided than pro-Clinton. It's inaccurate to call it a "reasonable" site, because most people there are hacks for one side or the other; any appearance of reasonability comes out of the even mix of the two sides .

[Beet]

It's a testament to how long and arduous this campaign is, to have someone as savvy and intelligent as Hillary Clinton say something so overwhelmingly stupid.

I think actual basis for the comment, her husband won the nomination in June, RFK was still running in June (had he not been killed) it would have gone well beyond that. But slipping the word "assassination" was just so f**king dense.

Yeah but the only reason anyone remembers that RFK was still in the race in June was his assassination.

RFK, Jr. has issued a statement:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Beet]

I think it was calculated but I don't think it's that horrible.  Just to remind voters and superdelegates that youthful idealism doesn't always work out, maybe make them more hesitant about throwing their weight to Obama.

It was very expertly brought in.  And now Clinton's public apology on the issue makes her comment get even more news coverage.

Huh? This doesn't make much sense.

[Beet]

OH, THE feigned OUTRAGE!!!

KO is a clown. It sounds like he broke his pencil when he was going "You! You!"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, that argument makes NO sense because she doesn't really have a significant chance at winning the nomination. It's funny how those who deign to give her "simple" advice come up with even more asinine suggestions. It makes one wonder how well most of her critics would do in her shoes. I'm guessing not very well.

The historical analogies are more appropriate.

[Beet]

It makes one wonder how well most of her critics would do in her shoes. I'm guessing not very well.

That's an easy one; they'd have swallowed the multi-million dollar debt and dropped out a long time ago.

Yes, I kind of anticipated that answer, but I meant assuming she decides to stay in.

[Beet]

No, that argument makes NO sense because she doesn't really have a significant chance at winning the nomination. It's funny how those who deign to give her "simple" advice come up with even more asinine suggestions. It makes one wonder how well most of her critics would do in her shoes. I'm guessing not very well.

I'm more than happy to excise that part of the post. It's the part I'm least enamored of.

Thank you for your thoughtful criticism.

However, if she has no significant chance of winning the nomination, then none of her arguments make sense. Why? Because they all rest on the notion that she can win the nomination.

Not quite. For one thing, there have been speculations that she's bargaining for VP slot or some other concession, though of course that can't be part of any public argument. But the main one I suppose would be that so she could say that she survived to the end of the primaries, "going the distance" in a Rocky-like fashion, so to speak, and came up short but was left standing. That's something some of her supporters would value, I think, due to the historic nature of her candidacy. My own bias would be toward the moving the party (and the country) toward examining the choices that confront us in the General Election sooner, but I can see how the argument could be made that she should go the distance even if she is doomed in the end.

[Beet]

No, that argument makes NO sense because she doesn't really have a significant chance at winning the nomination. It's funny how those who deign to give her "simple" advice come up with even more asinine suggestions. It makes one wonder how well most of her critics would do in her shoes. I'm guessing not very well.

I'm more than happy to excise that part of the post. It's the part I'm least enamored of.

Thank you for your thoughtful criticism.

However, if she has no significant chance of winning the nomination, then none of her arguments make sense. Why? Because they all rest on the notion that she can win the nomination.

Not quite. For one thing, there have been speculations that she's bargaining for VP slot or some other concession, though of course that can't be part of any public argument. But the main one I suppose would be that so she could say that she survived to the end of the primaries, "going the distance" in a Rocky-like fashion, so to speak, and came up short but was left standing. That's something some of her supporters would value, I think, due to the historic nature of her candidacy. My own bias would be toward the moving the party (and the country) toward examining the choices that confront us in the General Election sooner, but I can see how the argument could be made that she should go the distance even if she is doomed in the end.

I'm not talking about why she's truly staying in the race. Only she knows that for sure. I'm talking about her rhetorical justification for staying in the race. She's not likely to say "I haven't got a significant chance of winning the nomination but I'm staying in because of [insert reason here]." But saying "I'm doing it for my supporters who have fought for me" is not out of the realm of possibility and she has said things to effect on many occasions.

You mention the "historic nature of her candidacy." This is one of the reasons why I think her historical comparisons are so inapt. We're dealing with two groundbreaking candidacies. The most frontloaded primary season in American history has turned out to also be one of the longest in terms of picking a nominee. The nomination fight has spread into places that haven't seen a Democratic presidential candidate in years. This is a unique season, unlikely to be repeated soon, and the old rules don't necessarily apply.

I was referring to the fact of her being the first viable female candidate, not 'historical' in the sense that the primary season is frontloaded.

The reason that this has been one of the longest terms in picking a nominee is because the schedule set out at the beginning of the contests has been the most extended in years. Clinton's not saying that 'previous candidates stayed in for X months and I'm going to stay in for X months'. What's important is not how many months the race goes on but whether one stays in through all the contests or not, given the relative strength of her position.

Really, changes have been occurring with primary custom since 1992, which is the last time the primary season for either party really extended for any length of significant time. If the 'old rules don't apply', the most significant changes as far as custom begin with 1992 and 1996. It has been since then that the custom and tradition of short primary seasons has, until this year, dominated. The lengthening of the primary calendar itself, which is different than the customs that govern expectations of its de facto length, has been gradually expanding as certain states move earlier and earlier, and this year was no more than a continuation of that expansion.

Obviously, "I'm staying in the race because of my supporters" is one of the first reasons that any candidate will mention for staying in the race, and indeed it is the factor that John Edwards mentioned as most threatening to his decision to end his race. And of course she won't outright say that she hasn't got a significant chance at winning the nomination. What I meant was that she should not talk about her chances at winning the nomination in those terms, period. She should not say her justification for staying in is "I have a significant chance at winning the nomination", for such a statement would be mocked and doubted, and it would invite all kinds of questions about how she would actually get it.

The reason why the historical analogies work better is because many of the candidates in those analogies who fell behind but stayed in did considerably poorer than she is doing and arguably were even more hopeless than she is now. It forces the listener to accept that there is no litmus test in American politics for how long a politician 'can' continue to campaign, as long as they are willing and able to spend the money to do so. And it casts legitimacy on whatever justifications (apart from chance at winning) she might have for continuing her campaign.

[Beet]

The Caucus blog on the NY Times has an interesting retrospective on Friday's events. 

What bullsh**t. The only ones who needs a 'graceful way out' are the New York Post editors who seem to think that they deserve to be taken seriously as a news outfit after so many outright lies and distortions.

[Beet]

I was referring to the fact of her being the first viable female candidate, not 'historical' in the sense that the primary season is frontloaded.

The reason that this has been one of the longest terms in picking a nominee is because the schedule set out at the beginning of the contests has been the most extended in years. Clinton's not saying that 'previous candidates stayed in for X months and I'm going to stay in for X months'. What's important is not how many months the race goes on but whether one stays in through all the contests or not, given the relative strength of her position.

Really, changes have been occurring with primary custom since 1992, which is the last time the primary season for either party really extended for any length of significant time. If the 'old rules don't apply', the most significant changes as far as custom begin with 1992 and 1996. It has been since then that the custom and tradition of short primary seasons has, until this year, dominated. The lengthening of the primary calendar itself, which is different than the customs that govern expectations of its de facto length, has been gradually expanding as certain states move earlier and earlier, and this year was no more than a continuation of that expansion.

I'm not saying it's unique because of frontloading. I'm saying it's unique in spite of frontloading. Frontloading is designed to accelerate the nominating process so that the presumptive nominee can begin to focus on the general election, is it not? Well, it hasn't happened that way at all this time.

It's historic because states that are generally ignored by the Democrats in the primary (because the nominee is essentially decided) and in the general (because a Democrat is unlikely to win there) are getting attention from the candidates. The fact that the race has been fairly competitive has given the voters in those states an opportunity to make - to steal a phrase from a certain Arizona Republican - a choice, not an echo.

Anything that gives more voters an opportunity to participate in the democratic process is, to me, historic.

And the point is? Just because the nomination fight has spread into places that haven't seen a Democratic candidate in years, how does this mean 'the old rules don't apply'? First of all, many historical campaigns also took candidates to states that candidates from that party did not ordinarily compete in. The primary race 1976 was competitive in traditionally Democratic states such as Tennessee and Kentucky. I don't see how the breadth of the campaign invalidates historical comparisons.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was a joke. Of course she is going to put on a front as if she has a chance at winning, but if she outright came out and said "I am staying in this race because I have a significant chance at winning," she'd be ridiculed.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course not, but you leave it unspoken. Mondale then of course, had a greater chance than Clinton today has. Back then, even though Mondale was behind by 20 points in the polls, no one was talking as if Reagan had already won. Today, most people are indeed acting as if Obama has already won.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's a pretense that you make, but not a specific argument you make to justify staying in the race. If she tried to do so, she'd be raked over the coals.

[Beet]

Let's allow Bill Clinton to have the last word, shall we?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

God, I love politics.

Well, this race was "effectively over" on March 4, though it would have been a good deal more awkward for Hillary to drop out after two big wins than for Tsongas to drop out after his losses. Plus, Clinton has won a lot more states than Tsongas. Of course, the analogy isn't perfect, I think both in this example and the RFK example, Clinton was going for pedagogy rather than precision, and there will be a cost to that when speaking to the highly informed political class, but there is a benefit in relate-ability when speaking to more low-information voters.

[Beet]

Well, this race was "effectively over" on March 4, though it would have been a good deal more awkward for Hillary to drop out after two big wins than for Tsongas to drop out after his losses. Plus, Clinton has won a lot more states than Tsongas. Of course, the analogy isn't perfect, I think both in this example and the RFK example, Clinton was going for pedagogy rather than precision, and there will be a cost to that when speaking to the highly informed political class, but there is a benefit in relate-ability when speaking to more low-information voters.

Well, obviously, but that doesn't make her analogy any less intellectually dishonest. Stupid catering to "low-information" voters, whether it be George W. Bush asserting that Saddam Hussein has ties to Al Qaeda or whether it be Barack Obama using idiotic catchphrases to mask substance or whether it be Hillary Clinton giving asinine justifications for her continued presence in the Democratic Race exemplifies one of the largest flaws of the American political system. One of the [many] reasons why I'm having some difficulties taking this race very seriously.

I agree with you in general, though I don't think Obama's catchphrases or this remark quite equal the assertion that Hussein has ties to Al Qaeda. The latter is fundamentally more misleading and dishonest, actually, than what Clinton said, for it implied that justice for 9/11 was somehow tied into going into Iraq. Whereas this merely implied that previous candidates have stayed in the race until June, which is a point that is substantively true. And this example, is technically true. However, this example is not substantively true. Yes, it's "parsing" though, but not heinous.

[Beet]

He may have been referring to his great-uncle Ralph Dunham. I also think it's unfortunate that Maria Gavrilovic at CBS reported this as fact.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 Is it journalistic practice to take politicians at their word-- even on seemingly innocuous things such as family details?