Hillary defends staying in because of assassination.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-05-24 03:11pm

CaptainZoidberg wrote: But nonetheless I think there's some moral distinction between having a premeditated plan to say something rude and selfish, and saying it in the spur of the interview to avoid making a fool of oneself (which is what would happen if she had no examples to back up her claim).

Why give Shillary the benefit of the doubt at all? She's already demonstrated she's willing to lie and "misremember" facts when it's convenient. What possible reason is there to believe she wouldn't bring up assassination attempts if it suited her campaign?

CaptJodan · Post by **CaptJodan** » 2008-05-24 03:12pm

CaptainZoidberg wrote:

I agree with you that she shouldn't have brought it up, and that frankly I'm amazed that she made excuses rather than apologizing immediately. I would've imagined her using the "misspoke" defense that she used on the Bosnia issue.

But nonetheless I think there's some moral distinction between having a premeditated plan to say something rude and selfish, and saying it in the spur of the interview to avoid making a fool of oneself (which is what would happen if she had no examples to back up her claim).[/quote]

That excuse might, and a stress might, fly if she hadn't used the same example through several interviews, as Olberman demonstrated. Fact is there were better examples to be made, and a little research would have revealed them.

I'll admit I found the conclusions to her comments questionable, ie I don't think she was actively trying to say "go shoot Obama so I can win", though it's pretty clear she should never have used the words she used. Regardless, this kind of shows a pattern with her, especially with the "hard working WHITE voters" that she covets so much. In my view, her sucking the cock of the white-trash voters is far worse than this comment, but this certainly tightens the noose further on her.

Ultimately, I'm sure she'll say that this isn't fair to her because the media is out to get her and they're sexist. The fact that she seems to be displaying borderline racist tendencies doesn't seem to be dawning on her. Or she doesn't care.

CaptJodan · Post by **CaptJodan** » 2008-05-24 03:13pm

Ok, I don't know what I did to the tag to make that happen, but apologies in advance.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2008-05-24 03:21pm

Clearly, Keith Olberman is sick of her shit. We need a poster.

CaptainZoidberg · Post by **CaptainZoidberg** » 2008-05-24 03:56pm

If I were Hillary Clinton right now, I'd be staying quite except for a few friendly remarks towards Obama, and rhetoric about staying in it until the final hour and being a fighter. In that sense, she's not completely alienating herself, and she's giving a somewhat noble reason for staying in it. My primary object would be to save face for a potential run in 2012. If I was devious, I'd try to sabotage Obama so that McCain wins and I get another chance, but I'd have to be extremely subtle so that no one would realize that I was an enemy of the party.

I don't think pointing out that Obama's assassination could happen fits anywhere into the strategy ^^^

But then again, I expected Clinton to drop out right after Kentucky, where she could say "We've lost the pledged delegate victory, and although we could win with superdelegates, I believe that such a move would go against every principle of democracy that I have fought for thus far. We made a valiant effort in the campaign, and got farther than anyone could've imagined, but in the end we have to unite behind Barack Obama and the principles of democracy".

That would let her save a little bit of face for a 2012 run.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2008-05-24 04:05pm

CaptainZoidberg wrote:
General Zod wrote: Who gives a shit if it was a slip of the tongue or not? The fact that she made excuses instead of immediately apologizing makes any reason she might have had for saying it be incredibly questionable. Assassination is not something you glibly bring up in politics, and anyone running for any office who isn't a complete imbecile should realize this.
I agree with you that she shouldn't have brought it up, and that frankly I'm amazed that she made excuses rather than apologizing immediately. I would've imagined her using the "misspoke" defense that she used on the Bosnia issue.

But nonetheless I think there's some moral distinction between having a premeditated plan to say something rude and selfish, and saying it in the spur of the interview to avoid making a fool of oneself (which is what would happen if she had no examples to back up her claim).

The problem is that this was no "slip of the tongue" but a thing she has been saying multiple times, and has been quoted in at least two other interviews repeating, as if it's become part of her regular script.

CaptainZoidberg · Post by **CaptainZoidberg** » 2008-05-24 04:15pm

Patrick Degan wrote: The problem is that this was no "slip of the tongue" but a thing she has been saying multiple times, and has been quoted in at least two other interviews repeating, as if it's become part of her regular script.

That's pretty disturbing, and I have trouble believing that some of her supporters are really compelled by the possibility of Obama's assassination.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that she was using that line regularly when I first posted.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-05-24 07:02pm

CaptainZoidberg wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote: The problem is that this was no "slip of the tongue" but a thing she has been saying multiple times, and has been quoted in at least two other interviews repeating, as if it's become part of her regular script.
That's pretty disturbing, and I have trouble believing that some of her supporters are really compelled by the possibility of Obama's assassination.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that she was using that line regularly when I first posted.

Yup this goes as far back as March 6th in a TIME interview. As KO pointed out somebody must have pointed out the taboo she was breaking because she stopped using it from then until just recently.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-05-24 07:44pm

Bringing up the issue was to test the waters to see if it was something that she could use against him with the superdelegates and it's only her complete detachment from reality that's at fault for her shell shocked response over the uproar this caused . And to do it the same week that the brother of RFK gets diagnosed with terminal brain cancer just shows what a tactless cunt she is.

She dipped her toes in the water expecting at most a nibble from a guppy and the bitch got her leg taken off at the knee by a White Shark. And it couldn;t have happened to a nicer person.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2008-05-24 08:00pm

When you think she can't go any lower, she starts drilling for oil. It's almost like she WANTS to destroy any chance she might have ever again of being taken seriously. The Vince Foster conspiracy theorists also are starting to look a little less crazy.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2008-05-24 08:31pm

Well, looking at the situation logically, how else is she going to get the nomination?

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-05-24 08:46pm

I neither like nor support Clinton, but I saw the original footage this morning, and I think this is a non-issue. Maybe a foolish and ungraceful moment, but no way this is like huh, huh, fingers crossed someone shoots him.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-05-24 08:59pm

Kanastrous wrote:I neither like nor support Clinton, but I saw the original footage this morning, and I think this is a non-issue. Maybe a foolish and ungraceful moment, but no way this is like huh, huh, fingers crossed someone shoots him.

Like I said above, who gives a shit if it was intentional or not? You don't casually bring up assassination when you're running for one of the most powerful offices in the world and expect people to take it as "just" a joke. People routinely get investigated by the Secret Service for joking about killing the President, so why isn't this bitch getting hot coals breathed down her neck?

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-05-24 09:24pm

Because it would be an obvious waste of law-enforcement resources.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-05-24 09:30pm

Kanastrous wrote:Because it would be an obvious waste of law-enforcement resources.

Which is absolute horseshit. They've investigated teenagers over art projects before, so why not someone in Hillary's position? If anything at all happens to Obama, who the fuck do you think is going to be the first person on the suspect list after that kind of remark?

Jadeite · Post by **Jadeite** » 2008-05-24 09:44pm

General Zod wrote:
Kanastrous wrote:Because it would be an obvious waste of law-enforcement resources.
Which is absolute horseshit. They've investigated teenagers over art projects before, so why not someone in Hillary's position? If anything at all happens to Obama, who the fuck do you think is going to be the first person on the suspect list after that kind of remark?

There would probably be a shit ton of people on a suspect list before her, starting with a list of known Klan members, radical Christian groups, etc. There is no precedent for Presidential candidates trying to bump each other, and suggesting that a well known public figure like her, surrounded by Secret Service bodyguards and having the press watching every move, is going to try and kill her opponent, is pure idiocy and tinfoil nuttery.

Now I don't like Clinton, and I voted for Obama in the Indiana primary, and I still think this is a non-issue. It was an incredibly bad choice of words and a terrible example to bring up, but to suggest that she's hoping that someone murders Obama and especially that she might be planning it is making a huge fuss over nothing. It is essentially an attempt to Reverend Wright her, although its at least using her own words rather than an associate.

Not that this shouldn't keep it from being used for shameless political advantage and hopefully finally knock her out of the race, but that's a different issue.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-05-24 09:45pm

General Zod wrote:
Kanastrous wrote:Because it would be an obvious waste of law-enforcement resources.
Which is absolute horseshit. They've investigated teenagers over art projects before, so why not someone in Hillary's position? If anything at all happens to Obama, who the fuck do you think is going to be the first person on the suspect list after that kind of remark?

So the fact that they have made pointless and wasteful investigations before, means that they should therefore make another one, now?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-05-24 09:51pm

Jadeite wrote: Now I don't like Clinton, and I voted for Obama in the Indiana primary, and I still think this is a non-issue. It was an incredibly bad choice of words and a terrible example to bring up, but to suggest that she's hoping that someone murders Obama and especially that she might be planning it is making a huge fuss over nothing. It is essentially an attempt to Reverend Wright her, although its at least using her own words rather than an associate.

The two situations aren't even remotely comparable. This was something Clinton herself said, not something somebody somewhat associated with the person running for office said. The fact that assassination is such a touchy subject means it should be treated with deadly seriousness. Not even Bush the dumber was retarded enough to make a glib comment about assassination. Whether or not she was planning anything is completely irrelevant to the fact that the remark was incredibly shameless, opportunistic and inappropriate. The fact that she isn't getting raked over coals for it by the press and by others where the Wright issue is still news just shows the blatant hypocritical double standards the media has.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-05-24 09:54pm

Kanastrous wrote: So the fact that they have made pointless and wasteful investigations before, means that they should therefore make another one, now?

It means that if they're not treating this with the same deadly seriousness that they treat anything else that can be perceived as a threat there's some serious double-standard problems going on. Frankly I'm surprised that her resignation as senator isn't being asked for.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-05-24 09:57pm

It wasn't a threatening comment, is why it's not being treated as one.

A foolish thing to say, for sure. That's all.

Jadeite · Post by **Jadeite** » 2008-05-24 09:59pm

General Zod wrote:
The two situations aren't even remotely comparable. This was something Clinton herself said, not something somebody somewhat associated with the person running for office said. The fact that assassination is such a touchy subject means it should be treated with deadly seriousness. Not even Bush the dumber was retarded enough to make a glib comment about assassination. Whether or not she was planning anything is completely irrelevant to the fact that the remark was incredibly shameless, opportunistic and inappropriate. The fact that she isn't getting raked over coals for it by the press and by others where the Wright issue is still news just shows the blatant hypocritical double standards the media has.

Because it doesn't matter. It was an inappropriate comment, and that's it. The only reason a big deal is being made of it here is because no one likes Clinton. If it'd been something equally stupid that Obama or another popular politician had said, there wouldn't be nearly as much outrage.

Whether or not she was planning anything is completely irrelevant to the fact that the remark was incredibly shameless, opportunistic and inappropriate.

What the fuck, you were the one who brought the issue up, with your retarded demands that the Secret Service waste its time investigating the issue, and your comment that she'd be the "first on the suspect list".

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-05-24 10:07pm

Jadeite wrote: Because it doesn't matter. It was an inappropriate comment, and that's it. The only reason a big deal is being made of it here is because no one likes Clinton. If it'd been something equally stupid that Obama or another popular politician had said, there wouldn't be nearly as much outrage.

Do you honestly think she'd make a slip of the tongue twice if the remark wasn't intentional?

What the fuck, you were the one who brought the issue up, with your retarded demands that the Secret Service waste its time investigating the issue, and your comment that she'd be the "first on the suspect list".

They're two separate points numbnuts. It's hardly a retarded demand to expect the same and even greater scrutiny of someone running for one of the most powerful offices in the world than the amount of attention the SS give a fucking high-schooler.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-05-24 10:07pm

Kanastrous wrote:It wasn't a threatening comment, is why it's not being treated as one.

A foolish thing to say, for sure. That's all.

This is the second time she's mentioned the assassination. "Foolishness" is not an adequate explanation.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-05-24 10:14pm

General Zod wrote:
Kanastrous wrote:It wasn't a threatening comment, is why it's not being treated as one.

A foolish thing to say, for sure. That's all.
This is the second time she's mentioned the assassination. "Foolishness" is not an adequate explanation.

I think it is.

Part of the reason I'm not planning to vote for her.

Jadeite · Post by **Jadeite** » 2008-05-24 10:17pm

General Zod wrote:
This is the second time she's mentioned the assassination. "Foolishness" is not an adequate explanation.

Why not? It's not like her campaign hasn't made plenty of other enormous blunders. Hell, their chief strategist didn't even realize California awarded delegates proportionally, and that's not even the stupidest thing they've done. People say stupid things all the time, particularly politicians. She was talking about the fact that nomination races lasting until June have happened before, and brought up a bad example to illustrate it. Nothing more. Quite frankly, this is the sort of bullshit fuss over pointless things that is more appropriate to idiot Republicans.

General Zod wrote:
It means that if they're not treating this with the same deadly seriousness that they treat anything else that can be perceived as a threat there's some serious double-standard problems going on. Frankly I'm surprised that her resignation as senator isn't being asked for.

Christ, give it a rest. Do you get this worked up over all pointless bullshit, or just this?