 | Hillary Clinton Was Referring to the Assassination of a Pickle |
Clinton surrogates are rolling out their prescribed talking point de-French-word-for-week about Hillary Clinton’s assassination remark. On Friday, Clinton said the following when asked why she wouldn’t drop out:
We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it.
And here’s the talking point:
Paul Krugman: “It’s absurd to suggest, as some Obama supporters immediately did, that Mrs. Clinton was making some kind of dark hint about Barack Obama’s future.”
Terry McCauliffe: “Let’s be clear. This had nothing to with Senator Obama or his campaign.”
Howard Wolfson: “Well, her remarks were not about Sen. Obama. They had nothing to do with Sen. Obama, and so, you know, there would be no reason for her to apologize to Sen. Obama. The remarks were not about him.”
Yeah, you heard them right. When Hillary Clinton says she’s staying in the presidential race because “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California,” she’s not talking about Barack Obama.
Who’s she talking about, then? Is she saying that she’s staying in the presidential race because Hillary Clinton herself might be assassinated in June? That doesn’t make any sense; that would be a reason for her to get out of the race now. OK, then, is she saying that she’s staying in the presidential race because John McCain might be assassinated in June? That doesn’t make sense, either, since Barack Obama would still have the majority of the pledged delegates and would reach the majority of all delegates after the June 3 primaries. In fact, the only way Barack Obama will not reach the majority of all delegates after the June 3 primaries is if he… oh, right, no, she wasn’t saying Barack Obama could be assassinated. It wasn’t about Barack Obama at all!
Uh huh. Well, that leaves only one option. You see, when Hillary Clinton made that remark, she was saying that she should stay in the presidential race because of the possibility that a dill pickle will be assassinated. You see, if a dill pickle is shot in Puerto Rico during the next week’s time, people will become nervous about being seen next to their own pickles, in fear of what might come to pass. Millions of shoppers around the nation will attempt to return their pickle jars to grocery stores for refunds, causing a cash liquidity crisis that will spread fear around the country, leading to mass marches and demonstrations, during which people tend to leave trash on the street, causing superdelegates everywhere to slip, fall, suffer intracranial bleeding and be replaced by new superdelegates who see the light and throw their support to Hillary Clinton.
Yes, it all makes sense. If you are completely insane.
I expect this kind of nonsense from Howard Wolfson and Terry McCauliffe. They’re fully employed by the Clinton campaign, earning lots of money so that when the campaign tells them to spit they’ll ask, “how big a gob?” And a year ago, I wouldn’t have expected it from Paul Krugman, but I’m not at all surprised now. Paul, fella, it’s embarrassing how you’ve surrendered your intellect. Clinton can do no wrong in your columns, and Obama can do no right. How did you become a toady?
Look, what Hillary Clinton said was true: assassinations have gummed up presidential elections in the past. I don’t have a problem with her pointing that out (although I can see how others would). But this claim that Clinton’s remarks were somehow not about Barack Obama are just ridiculous, clearly ridiculous, so over-the-top ridiculous that it would be no more ridiculous to claim that Hillary Clinton was really referring to the assassination of a pickle.
Contact Us
This controversy reminds me of the words of a conservative TV pundit, affecting bug-eyed outrage over global warming. He quoted the words of a high-profile politician. “This guy says, quote, ‘People who deny global warming are like people who deny the Holocaust.’ Can you believe that? These liberals think that anyone who doesn’t jump aboard the Global Warming Express is as evil, as vicious, as a crazy Holocaust denier!”
The pundit was in error. The original speaker meant that deniers of global warming and deniers of the Holocaust are INTELLECTUALLY equivalent, not that they are morally equivalent. Both (in his view) close their eyes to a mountain of hard evidence and cling instead to unscientific beliefs.
The furor over Clinton’s remarks is just the same. She was reminding her audience that hers is not the first campaign to go into June, and she gave examples of others that had done so. I think she stated her point in a clumsy way, and I wish she’d had the foresight to realize how her reference to the bygone RFK primary would sound if applied to the current primary. But it’s ridiculous to believe that a smart pol, on the edge of losing, is out in public purposely hinting that her opposition is likely to be assassinated or that she’s hoping for his death.
All this idiocy only deepens my dim impression of Obama’s campaign and Obama’s followers. I will face a sad choice in the general election — between a man I respect but disagree with, and a man I find grossly hypocritical, criminally ignorant about the world around him (Iran, anyone?), but who gives lip service to policies I support.
Comment by jocely — 5/26/2008 @ 10:01 am
Do I hear you right?
1. It would have been stupid for Clinton to have explained her persistence in the race by referring to people getting assassinated
2. And Clinton is really smart
3. But not so smart to avoid saying things clumsily
4. So she must have meant something other than what she said
5. And the Obama campaign is full of idiots to think that Clinton meant what she said
6. So I just may vote for John McCain, who calls his wife a “cunt,” who has promised to take away a woman’s right to choose, who says that pay discrimination by gender doesn’t really exist, who has promised to appoint authoritarian Supreme Court justices, who has voted repeatedly to gut the Constitution, whose campaign is staffed with scores of corporate lobbyists, who sings with a smile about bombing Iran, who says it would be a good idea to keep American soldiers in Iraq for a hundred years, need I go on?
You know, Obama wasn’t my first choice either. He was my third. I’m disappointed that my first two choices didn’t make it to the nomination. But I’m not going to vote for John McCain because my first two choices didn’t get as many delegates as he did. In the fall, I’m going to vote for the best of the candidates that remain. If you think that’s John McCain, well, hmm, er. Let’s just say I disagree with you there.
Comment by Jim — 5/26/2008 @ 10:13 am
Good post! I found it unavoidably logical in a time that most Americans will accept Clinton surrogate spin no matter how nonsensical it is!
Comment by Alaphiah — 5/26/2008 @ 2:11 pm
For the Clintons and their surrogates– They always blame their shortcomings on others—right wing conspiracy, obama supporters, etc.
They are master of the spin game. Howevr, it wont work this time. This comment exposes that darkest sides of the clintons, no spin will wash it away. It is a permanent stain.
Isnt it amazing, that while waiting for something terrible to happen to your competitor you actually ended up digging your own political grave? God is wonderful
Comment by Mike — 5/26/2008 @ 7:20 pm
It’s pretty obvious that even though she didn’t say she was thinking about Obama getting killed, that’s what she was really thinking and that’s the real reason she’s still running. All that June primary stuff and the delegate count stuff and the electoral vote stuff are just bogus arguments. I mean, if there was an assassination and she was still running, they would think of her being the president immediately. Whereas if she dropped out of the race and there was an assassination nobody would even THINK of her for president. Duh.
Comment by Anonymous — 5/26/2008 @ 8:38 pm