Shame on you, Hillary.
So I was considering a post on the ridiculous comparison between the "disenfranchisement" of FL & MI voters and the civil rights movement, but I suppose the news cycle has moved onto other matters, hasn't it?
To point: Clinton's comment referencing the assassination of RFK is beyond the pale, even in a primary campaign that has seen no end of unfortunate gaffes.
The statement in question: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it."
To be clear, there is absolutely no reason to believe she had malicious intent. However, for a country that has a long history of political bloodshed and racial divides (and during an already difficult time for the Kennedy family), drawing such a parallel is unacceptable at best.
But we wouldn't be so lucky. The statement has no factual basis in supporting her claims -- her husband's campaign effectively ended in March, while RFK's didn't start until the same month. It is far from the first time such a statement was made by her, with quotes available as early as several months ago. The non-apologies issued by both the campaign and candidate herself were insincere to the Kennedys and failed to even address Obama.
If it was just a matter of political outrage and unfortunate timing, the electorate would likely give her a pass. Haphazardly namedropping a victim of America's largest political taboo and using it to misrepresent the state of her campaign, however, will keep this in the news for the holiday weekend.
At long last, this race has run its course. It's time for it to end.
To point: Clinton's comment referencing the assassination of RFK is beyond the pale, even in a primary campaign that has seen no end of unfortunate gaffes.
The statement in question: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it."
To be clear, there is absolutely no reason to believe she had malicious intent. However, for a country that has a long history of political bloodshed and racial divides (and during an already difficult time for the Kennedy family), drawing such a parallel is unacceptable at best.
But we wouldn't be so lucky. The statement has no factual basis in supporting her claims -- her husband's campaign effectively ended in March, while RFK's didn't start until the same month. It is far from the first time such a statement was made by her, with quotes available as early as several months ago. The non-apologies issued by both the campaign and candidate herself were insincere to the Kennedys and failed to even address Obama.
If it was just a matter of political outrage and unfortunate timing, the electorate would likely give her a pass. Haphazardly namedropping a victim of America's largest political taboo and using it to misrepresent the state of her campaign, however, will keep this in the news for the holiday weekend.
At long last, this race has run its course. It's time for it to end.
posted by Jason at 2:42 AM
3 Comments:
1. I didn't see the real point of this story being so provocative in the first place. And you still haven't convinced me why I should really care about this. Yeah, it was a pretty absurd statement, but isn't this just politics?
2. I shouldn't be signed on when I try to comment, cuz I always click on the little "edit post" button >.<
3. American media sucks. I am in love with BBC News. George would be proud.
Why should you *personally* care about it? Because while absurdity is the norm in American politics, I'd like to believe that our political discourse is a step above this.
In truth, it isn't my place to convince you on the matter. The incident speaks for itself. Whether you feel it is or is not provocative is for you to decide.
I feel that it matters because I think we deserve better, and we should demand it from our officials. Once would have been forgivable, but this was a repeat occurrence. Regardless of intent, the conscious (and inaccurate) referencing of a widely-respected political figure's assassination to bolster your political rank is in extremely poor taste.
This is where I draw the line; you may feel that this is "just politics," but I believe this has no place in a presidential campaign.
Now, as far as the overall race goes, you should care because the American media you're currently railing against is going to beat this sound bite to the ground. Depending on how the news programs cover the story today, this could easily become Hillary's equivalent of the "Dean scream."
Speaking of which, you're a tad bit late on the BBC train, no? =P
I know I am late on the BBC train... but I have a legitimate love affair with Washington Post.
And yeah, she shouldn't have said that. But honestly, I think this "we should expect more from our elected officials" business only discourages qualified persons from seeking public office. It's this rat race in which the media and the electorate tries to pressure the candidates into fucking up and then pouncing on them when they eventually do.
Post a Comment
<< Home