The reason we are wrapped up in the primary is because that's were we want to be. This primary has shown how far we need to go and how far we've come. Hopefully at the end of the primary everyone will stop hating each other

Odd that the comments on this particular thread are coming in so slowly.

Two months ago: Day #1: "It's an honor to share the same stage with Senator Obama".

Day#2: "Shame on you Barack Obama! Shame on you"!!

For Clinton to have invoked RFK's assassination in any context was stupid and insensitive. For her to then turn around, and ONCE AGAIN play the "outraged victim" card, is pathetic.

Or am I being sexist?

If Hillary is using the examples of folks being in the race until June to justify staying in the race, then why did she mention the assassination? Why didn't she just say that over the years Democratic primaries have not wrapped up until June?

It must be perfectly OK for HRC to relentlessly invoke Rev. Wright when politically advantageous but when called on statements like she made about RFK the excuse is "you took it out of context." Oh sure.

Spare us your situational ethical standards and selfish entitlement mentality and drop out---NOW.

Look, this wasn't a slip up, it was calculated. This was the FOURTH time she had chosen to invoke Kennedy's June death which just shows how desperate, and IMO, pathetic she has become! GUTTER POLITICS against her own party!

There's no way her comments can be spun or justified, ESPECIALLY since it's about the 4th time she's made similar comments and in the same context, which btw is misleading at best. Her facts are inaccurate.
That along with McCauliffe saying with that chit eating grin that "anything can happen" is very cringe worthy. She and her camp should not get a pass here.

And once again I'd like to say how disappointed I was with C&L not posting Keith's Special Comments about this. (Yes, I know it was available everywhere, but that's not the point.)

[That is exactly the point ez. It was everywhere. Site Monitor]

"TPM Cafe suggests that we’re all—myself included, too caught up in the primary process and missing some other important issues. What do you think?"

I think you missed the boat on this one, John. i think you ticked off a lot of your readers and i would not be surprised if some don't come back. Mass deletions and censorship are not what we are accustomed to on C&L and we don't deserve it. This is old news now. Two days too late to matter anymore.

No Keith Olbermann Special Comment was a first for this site. I am not exactly sure what you are afraid of, but if it is us i suggest that you should fear losing us because, actually, i think you just did. You lost our trust.
[ You know Xoites, We can't win for losing , First we're accused of being all Obama all the time, Then we're accused of being against Clinton all the time.
Which one is it? So are you saying that we're pro Clinton now? As you know we don't endorse any one candidate. get over it.]

xoites defends Constitution @ 15:

"TPM Cafe suggests that we’re all—myself included, too caught up in the primary process and missing some other important issues. What do you think?"

I think you missed the boat on this one, John. i think you ticked off a lot of your readers and i would not be surprised if some don't come back. Mass deletions and censorship are not what we are accustomed to on C&L and we don't deserve it. This is old news now. Two days too late to matter anymore.

No Keith Olbermann Special Comment was a first for this site. I am not exactly sure what you are afraid of, but if it is us i suggest that you should fear losing us because, actually, i think you just did. You lost our trust.
[ You know Xoites, We can't win for losing , First we're accused of being all Obama all the time, Then we're accused of being against Clinton all the time.
Which one is it? So are you saying that we're pro Clinton now? As you know we don't endorse any one candidate. get over it.]

That is not what i am saying and i think you know it. There was a serious issue that EVERYONE wanted to talk about and you stiffled it. Straight out did not want any discussion and we all know it. Noone was allowed to defend Hillary or take her to task. I have never accussed this site of being pro nor anti either candidate. So this statement, "So are you saying that we're pro Clinton now?" is disingenuos at best.

[Here. Site Monitor]

I've got to agree with Mr. Amato on this one. I heard Clinton's comments but I felt that they were taken out of context and was meant in more of a historical manner than a literal one.  It was a very stupid comment to say the least but I doubt that she meant it in that way. No politican that I have ever heard of would make an open, public statement about assasinating a political rival and not expect to feel the heat from it.  If a politican really wanted to assassinate a rival they would say nothing at all, order the hit, and would react publically with a false shock when the assassination was carried out.  This is why each candidate has Secret Service agents assigned to them after a period of time. 

xoites defends Constitution @ 18:

I reserve the right to read other blogs and delete C&L from my "favorites."

I am embarrassed for you. You were a much better than this at one time.

C'mon Xoites, perhaps C&L has just taken the Reid, Pelosi and Dean approach to this issue. Where are they? Playing ostrich? There seems to be a lot of that going around.

[Here. Site Monitor.]

Lets get something straight. This woman sees no problem in reminding us that we should all question our rationale in wanting to vote for a black candidate because, through her way of thinking, it is a big mistake, because, he will probably get bumped off. This woman is despicable and I believe certifiable. This woman doesn`t realize that if Mr. Obama is whacked the first people that I and many others will suspect as the masterminds in such a conspiracy will be the Clintons. Hillary should stick to fairy tales like sniper fire in Bosnia.

She made a reference to RFK's assassination because the journalists in that room would remember it occurred in June while the primaries were ongoing. It was a closed meeting, not a public speech, being recorded by what appears to have been someone's cellphone camera. This is hardly the way you plant a thought into the minds of the masses. Moreover, she had already finished her response to the questioner but he wasn't satisfied with her more brief answer and pressed her for more. That is when she reminded him of the RFK assassination timeline.

No one on that editorial board in that room had a creepy feeling about her response or thought she was drawing attention to the assaissination rather than the June timeline because, unlike us, they were in the room and had experienced every aspect of the perfectly innocuous and innocent context of her response.

There was absolutely nothing controversial about it. Keith Olbermann has gone insane with the glorious prospect of stealing away some of Faux News' audience ratings as long as he continues bashing the Clintons mercilessly. His behavior in that regard is truly embarrassing.

xoites defends Constitution @ 18:

I reserve the right to read other blogs and delete C&L from my "favorites."

I am embarrassed for you. You were a much better than this at one time.

Hi Xoites and ditto.
[Here. Site Monitor]

Also, please don't tell me that Presidential candidates couldn't possibly be aware that comments are being recorded even in the setting of a newspaper's offices. Everything is recorded everywhere all the time, somehow. I haven't seen an article which says that "no one in that meeting thought the comment was creepy" -- have all of those present been interviewed?

I think that Hillary is over-managed and over-counseled, to the point where someone gave her the line about the assassination of Robert Kennedy in March and there were never outcries the other times that she used it. (Why no one from the media, the blogosphere or a party elder said nothing when she brought up the assassination earlier perhaps shows their deference to her as a candidate, then. Or maybe it was because there was so much activity in both parties' primaries that her words were not scrutinized as closely as they should have.) She felt that it was acceptable then and, therefore, she could use it now in May because it would not harm her and bolster her case for staying in the race past May.

However, with the primary campaign dragging along with no real news, as the conflict and tensions between the two campaigns has died down, places any misstep or use of inappropriate language in a magnifying glass. Add to it the speed that news (and video) travels by way of the internet (and the viral nature of videos that are e-mailed or shared), creates an avalanche that a traditional candidate cannot escape.

So I think that Hillary is a victim of her own handlers' bad advice (which a sensible friend out of the campaign bubble should have corrected in March, but did not) and the new context of political campaigns.

Personally, I found the statement to be a game changer and harms her ability to negotiate for the vice presidency.

xoites defends Constitution @ 15:

"TPM Cafe suggests that we’re all—myself included, too caught up in the primary process and missing some other important issues. What do you think?"

I think you missed the boat on this one, John. i think you ticked off a lot of your readers and i would not be surprised if some don't come back. Mass deletions and censorship are not what we are accustomed to on C&L and we don't deserve it. This is old news now. Two days too late to matter anymore.

No Keith Olbermann Special Comment was a first for this site. I am not exactly sure what you are afraid of, but if it is us i suggest that you should fear losing us because, actually, i think you just did. You lost our trust.

I'm sorry you feel that way, Xoites, because yours has been a valuable voice on our comments.

What it came down to is that John and the team felt that the Special Comment did nothing more than feed into the divisiveness within the party and ultimately will hurt the Democrats. It wasn't an easy choice to make, but I think that John made the right one.

You may not agree, and it's your right to do so. However you choose to interpret Clinton's words, she does have millions and millions of supporters who did not perceive it that way and whose votes we desperately need to keep the White House. We have had a standing policy for many, many months that we were not going to get into the primary fight, but let the process work itself out and support whomever the nominee turned out to be. That editorial choice is consistent with our decision not to run the Special Comment. Let me quote Paul Krugman:

Why does all this matter? Not for the nomination: Mr. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. But he has a problem: many grass-roots Clinton supporters feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment. And the lingering bitterness from the primary campaign could cost Mr. Obama the White House.

To the extent that the general election is about the issues, Mr. Obama should have no trouble winning over former Clinton supporters, especially the white working-class voters he lost in the primaries. His health care plan is seriously deficient, but he will nonetheless be running on a far more worker-friendly platform than his opponent.

Indeed, John McCain has shed whatever maverick tendencies he may once have had, and become almost a caricature conservative — an advocate of lower taxes for the rich and corporations, a privatizer and shredder of the safety net.

But elections always involve emotions as well as issues, and there are some ominous signs in the polling data.

In Florida, in particular, the rolling estimate produced by the professionals at Pollster.com shows Mr. McCain running substantially ahead of Mr. Obama, even as he runs significantly behind Mrs. Clinton. Ohio also looks problematic, and Pennsylvania looks closer than it should. It’s true that head-to-head polls five months before the general election have a poor track record. But they certainly give reason to worry.

The point is that Mr. Obama may need those disgruntled Clinton supporters, lest he manage to lose in what ought to be a banner Democratic year.

So what should Mr. Obama and his supporters do?

Most immediately, they should realize that the continuing demonization of Mrs. Clinton serves nobody except Mr. McCain. One more trumped-up scandal won’t persuade the millions of voters who stuck with Mrs. Clinton despite incessant attacks on her character that she really was evil all along. But it might incline a few more of them to stay home in November.

Again, you may think that Hillary's comments--as in bad taste as they unquestionably were--is the most paramount thing for us discuss. But we're looking at the bigger picture and we can't agree. Is it worth winning that battle and losing the war?

Joe O. @ 19:

I've got to agree with Mr. Amato on this one. I heard Clinton's comments but I felt that they were taken out of context and was meant in more of a historical manner than a literal one.  It was a very stupid comment to say the least but I doubt that she meant it in that way.  

In one sense it doesn't matter what she meant or at least that she didn't mean what reasonable people could infer from her statement -- namely that she could still win if someone would assassinate Obama. What matters is that reasonable people could immediately make that connection. This is a candidate with a mountain of baggage and more than a few steamer trunks of that baggage are filled with suspicions that HRC would do almost anything to get the nomination. I say almost, because the list of what people believe she wouldn't do will vary from person to person. Few would argue that she would be willing to kill Obama herself or have him killed, but I'm sure there are a lot more people who think little enough of Clinton to accept that she would welcome his elimination from the contest no matter what form it took.

Several other duffel bags are filled with her victimhood and her ability to apply double standards to herself, i.e., solicit votes from women because she is a woman, and complain about how she is treated unfairly...as a woman.

Should something happen to Obama, I'm fairly certain Clinton already has her fantasy nomination plan worked out. First, she steps in to assume the nomination and leadership of the party, while leading the nation's mourning over the loss of Obama (her rhetoric would soar and sound nothing like the petty, whining she has resorted to so often in the campaign). Then, after trouncing McCain in the fall, partly on the strength of the sympathy vote, she would at long last take her rightful place in the White House.

The problem with Clinton is she can't be separated from her baggage, much of which she has earned through reprehensible behavior. When she says something like "as far as I know" (referring to whether or not Obama is a Muslim), or talks about "hard-working...white people," or points out that Bobby Kennedy lost the nomination by being assassinated it is natural for Clinton doubters to interpret her words in as negative a way as possible. That's one reason why she should not be the nominee and should never be president -- we will never escape Clinton's past, and the country will suffer every time we have to deal with it.

LunaStick @ 36:

Nicole Belle @33,

This comment of yours made into a post would have been perfect! Just something to explain how you all felt about this would have been all anyone could have asked for. As it was, your silence on the issue left a lot of people confused and I'm sure some of your more loyal and long time readers were even upset by that. What you just said, if made into a post, could have been helpful towards bringing unity. As it was, the silence just let the divisions simmer to boiling. Those on both sides of the Obama/Clinton race respect your opinions and many were looking for them in hopes of bringing some clarity to the issue.

Not my site, Luna. The post had to come from John. I just wanted to add my two cents, now that he's done his post.

I'm not defending her comments. They were just plain stupid. But I don't believe that she was advocating violence, hoping for violence or in any way suggesting that there may be violence done against Obama. She used a really, really bad invocation to say that primary races have gone into June before. Incredibly bad taste, to be sure, but not as malevolent as people seem to claim.

The thing that frustrates me so much is that while the blogosphere and the news shows have been riled up over the interpretation that initially came from Drudge, we've ignored 60,000 deaths in China; $4.00/gallon gas; McCain's Friday night dump of his medical records and SOME (but not all) of his wife's tax records, Lebanese elections, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Myanmar, etc., etc. It's really hard for me to look at all of these other stories and think that Clinton saying something she's said before without anyone batting an eye is suddenly THE issue.

To be honest, I believe each blog has their own way of covering an event.

With that being said, I felt that it should have been covered because of the pathos behind such an event. I think it was newsworthy because it did strike a chord in a lot of readers not only here, but across the Internet.

From what I've read (and despite the attempts to water down the impact of what she said), people were pretty upset by her words. I also agree that I am tired of excuses from Sen. Clinton. I have witnessed too many times her subtle meanness, her callousness and her mocking of Sen. Obama's behavior. She comes across as brittle and hard--especially when she sits in judgment of someone else. I wouldn't like a President--in her MO--to speak as if she (or he) is finger-wagging the public (and especially in a dry, monotone voice).

I realize that there are folks out there who "won't see it". I also realize that there are "apologists" for Mrs. Clinton because they support her. As a woman, I think it is great that a woman is running. But, I believe that this isn't the right woman. As many others have said, there are woman out there who are more deserving and humble than she is. They have double the service, twice the candor and more of a personality.

As a result, I think the platitudes about Sen. Clinton "not really meaning what she said", come too little, too late.

There is one unique thing this entire Primary process has laid bare in front of the American public: that is the fact that white people get to uniquely see the impact of racism on a person of color, whether they are rich or poor. And hopefully, there are some folks out there that will realize that what happening to Mr. Obama is not an unique event. The bias, the anger, the violence and the slurs against him occur on a daily basis for a lot of minority folk. Some of it is blatant, for sure. But in the guise of Hillary Clinton's behavior and in the actions of others like her, it is insiduous and subtle.

And because of that, I think that Hillary's behavior provides a unique perspective regarding her attitudes and linguistic affronts. She is not entirely innocent. For one thing, she is cold, calculating and intelligent. Weariness does not make someone who so badly wants the nomination to slip up--especially with someone who has naked ambition. So, do I believe that the RFK comment was a mistake? No.

She knew better. And she threw it out there in such a way to justify her case. What she didn't expect was that people would be upset so much that they flooded many sites on-line to voice their disgust.

We did speak about it in the Open Thread, yes. But, it would have been helpful to at least address Mr. Olbermann's remarks. From a lot of circles, he spoke what a lot of people were feeling.

However, this is not going to make me stop reading C & L. I love this blog and its style. And when I read certain blogs, I pour over them because they have content that is not only informational, but delivered with a sort of guts that the MSM doesn't have.

So, I wish all sides the best. And I appreciate that we have a venue for spirited and thoughtful discussion. There are so few places where it is offered on-line.

Thank you for hearing me out. :)

Joe O.: I will continue to visit this site (20-30 refreshes a day). It has been pretty clearly staying out of the Obama vs. Clinton thing, and many of us are wondering why, when Clinton has put so many feet in her mouth, it is hard to see her head anymore. Fortunately, this site is so much more than that, I wouldn't even consider not visiting it. There is great information here, and even after I started to feel the bias, I still rec'd and linked you elsewhere, because at least you weren't trashing Obama. I felt compelled to comment this time, because it was just a bit too much to see the apologia, and to see you seemingly defend the indefensible. You folks do great work, and have been above the fray on much of the race. I only wish your candidate had followed your lead...

I'm a life long democrat, Obama has been my candidate for president since before he even announced.

Now that thats out of the way, lets take a look at what I think about the latest top story from the 2008 campaign. Hillary joined Huckabee in ruining their political career with alluding to assassination to further their political goals. Huckabee did it while pandering to the NRA. Hillary did it to give reason to why she is staying in the race, because Obama is in the lead now, but we all remember from Bobby Kennedy's assassination, the candidate nominated is still up for grabs.

I am not quoting Hillary, but thats what I got from the statement, just like i didn't quote Huckabee, but that is exactly what i got from the both of their speeches. They were alluding to assassination to further their political goals. As for democrats that still support Hillary after this, who do they want as Hillary's vice president? Liz Trotta???

LunaStick @ 42:

All I'm trying to say is that a post from someone saying exactly what you are saying in relation to this and the other stories you mentioned would probably have helped prevent some of the people I've seen get so upset over the silence here. Not saying anyone should have taken sides or even commented on whether or not the comment by Clinton was as some have taken it. A post saying that there are more important issues (like the ones you mentioned) coming from any one of you who write posts could have helped people keep their eye on the more important issues. What you have been saying in your two comments would have been perfect. It wouldn't have settled anyone down elsewhere on the web, but it might have helped some here who consider this site as their news "home".
Just my 2 cents.

I hear you, but that wasn't my call to make. It's John's name on the masthead and it was his decision.

j0e @ 41:

I only wish your candidate had followed your lead...

So did you read my post above and come to the conclusion that HRC was "our candidate"?

It only shows that no matter what we do, you'll read what you want into anything.

My apologies, Joe O., but this has been my impression of the site since Super Tuesday in this regard. I'm sorry if you're taking the heat for it, but your responses haven't been completely contrite, and I can understand that. At least you don't delete posts like HuffPo... I realize your position, and I am not trying to put you in an impossible position. But many of us are ready for you to take a different approach. Sites like this one carry a lot of influence, I think, and it is time to get her on out of the race so we can win the max down-ticket. I am sorry if it feels like we're beating up on you. I hope you got some kudos from my post, as well...

j0e @ 47:

My apologies, Joe O., but this has been my impression of the site since Super Tuesday in this regard. I'm sorry if you're taking the heat for it, but your responses haven't been completely contrite, and I can understand that. At least you don't delete posts like HuffPo... I realize your position, and I am not trying to put you in an impossible position. But many of us are ready for you to take a different approach. Sites like this one carry a lot of influence, I think, and it is time to get her on out of the race so we can win the max down-ticket. I am sorry if it feels like we're beating up on you. I hope you got some kudos from my post, as well...

I'm not sure who you are addressing. I'm Nicole, not Joe O. Whatever your "impression" has been, we have stated innumerable times that we will support whoever the Democratic nominee is and our primary concern is making sure that there is a Democrat in the White House come next January. Why you can't take that at face value and why you expect contrition for that stance is really beyond my ken.

The approach was chosen by the site owner, John Amato. He believes in letting democracy work. Beating up on fellow Democrats helps only John McCain, because this race has been so close and there are many HRC supporters who we need to bring back into the fold to ensure a united Democratic party so I can't see how your approach will allow us to "win the max down ticket". It may feel good and righteous to you to beat up on HRC, but our eyes are on the prize: the White House. Let's not alienate any Democratic voters. We need to focus on destroying John McCain's chances, not ours.

I LOVE Hillary!!!!!!!!!!

Joanie @ 51:

I LOVE Hillary!!!!!!!!!!

I loved Joan Collins as Alexis on Dynasty.

When someone throws a stone into the water, typically long after the rock has sunk to the bottom of the pond, the ripples still make their way across the surface for quite a while.

This was a statement intended to create a lasting impression in people's minds, one that after the initial shock and apology wears off, the ripples of fear and division linger.

Thus we have to stay strong in our convictions and look beyond the pond and its daily ripples, because our only hope is stay positive and to believe what is possible.

I am trying very hard to give her the benefit of the doubt. I think she likes referencing it because she wants to associate or compare her candidacy with RFK. I think she's saying now would people have wanted RFK to drop out? She uses her husband's candidacy too for the same reason.

I refuse to let any media - blogs included - give me my view on a topic. I would like facts presented such that I can check them out myself. I wish more people would do that as well. I acknowledge that others can come to different conclusions based on the same information - some of that is based on interior biases we all have. Those that dislike HRC will conclude her comment about RFK means the worst and those that like her will come to the opposite conclusion. There is nothing wrong with that except in the tone and language used on both sides. I read the entire comments she made that included the RFK reference and came to the conclusion - before reading any comments here or elsewhere - that she was pointing out that primaries can go late, as late as June. That is a debatble point since based on the math she is pretty much done now in the race. I think it is a waste of time - now - to let these gotcha moments blow up like they do. All it does is it helps the GOP, McCain, Faux, and the punditry. It does nothing to focus on the real issues effecting real americans.

As for C&L, I appreciate that it is focusing on the prize in November since the nomination process is winding down and articles like this including the comments give me a headache.

Welcome to the game of politics, friends one minute, enemies the next then friends once again. I admit I am a Hilary supporter but will back any democratic nominee when the time comes. So my wish is that instead of contributing to this meaningless story (which shouldn't have been a story to begin with)...let's focus on the main goal and that's to keep the focus and help our nominee win in November and not engage in this useless diatribe. If anyone really thought for a moment, did you think that maybe what RFK JR said in his statement after what Hilary said should be honored? After all he is the son of RFK. Did anyone of you think of him and his wishes regarding this story? He wishes it to go away because it's not a story.
As the old saying goes...If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

I am constantly impressed by the ability of people, many of whom are demonstrably intelligent, to act against their own self interest. The idea that hurling constant abuse at a democratic candidate and referring to her supporters as ignorant racist morons will somehow persuade those people that their best interests rest with voting for the presumed democratic nominee Obama. I watch as McCain moves away from the extreme right back towards the center moderate positions he once held with the clear intention of going after those disaffected by what I have to agree was grotesque abuse of their candidate. I thought that this might moderate as the primaries came to an end but this is clearly not the case. It would be a tragedy if those demographic groups that favored Hillary and which Senator Obama has tried so valiantly to connect with are lost by those of his supporters who don't get it. If they'd model their behavior on the candidate they purport to admire (as I admire him) they would stop. I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Doug, I feel you are missing the point. It doesn't matter to me what Faux News, McCain or even Obama think about Hillary's remarks. What matters to me is what crazy people with guns think about Hillary's emphasis, and not just this one instance, that people are trying to "take the election away from her" due to injustice, or sexism, or whatever reason she has this week.

Her latest remark would seem to suggest to people who are racist, or fanatical, emotionally unbalanced supporters, that they would gain her approval if only they could fix things for her. And before you think that's a stretch, think of all the crazy stalkers there are in the world who think celebrities are talking to them personally in their songs and movies, and want them to be involved in their lives.

Why say something that can be easily misinterpreted by such a person? Surely Bill had threats at one time - Hillary must have been advised on how to act and what to say not to set such people off. It would have been so easy for Hillary to immediately apologize to the Obama family publicly, saying, I would never wish them harm. Instead, she declined, leaving the impression she wouldn't mind if something did happen to them. What's worse, Wolfson actually had the nerve to say there was no reason for her to be sorry. Just what a racist, unbalanced person wants to hear.

There is nothing more heart-wrenching than seeing the entire democratic process subverted by one idiot with a gun. It only takes one. Bill O'Reilly may be obnoxious, but he's not going to physically harm anyone.