Why we reacted so strongly: what Obama means to his supporters

I was going to re-enter the topic of Hillary's comments about the RFK assassination using the cutting edge of humor to explain how crass and how gauche those comments -- which I take to be a previously written, once-used and long-discarded draft of an explanation for why she is justified to remain in the race -- truly were.  I left some examples in comments; I won't even link to them here.  But I've taken some time away from the computer today and I'm no longer in that mood.  I don't think that's any longer the point that needs to be made.

This diary is aimed not at my fellow Obama supporters, with many of whom I argued yesterday at length, taking the position that we did not need to and should not inquire into her motivation in making those remarks, because even the kindest interpretation told a horrible story.

This diary is instead aimed at Hillary supporters, which is why I will (as I usually do not) cross-post on MyDD.  I want to explain the reactions of my cohorts here.  I want to explain what it means to be an Obama supporter these days -- and especially yesterday.

I want to give voice to our fears.

1. Good night, sweet prince

Many of us are, quite seriously, deep in the pits of our stomach, afraid that Barack Obama might well be assassinated.  He, as Bill Clinton did, as Hillary Clinton does, as John McCain does, as all prominent politicians do, has had to face the prospect of assassination and decide that it is a risk worth taking.  But more than any of the others, he has to take the prospect seriously.  He is, as a Black man in a nation composed in substantial part of people who don't like Blacks to get too "big," striking exactly the nerve that one might expect would trigger some racist nut (or some contemptible rational actor) to kill him.

I don't know if it keeps him an his family up at night.  To paraphrase Michelle Obama, as a Black man in America, he is already no stranger to the prospect of violent death.  Maybe they're at peace with the odds.  But the prospect of his becoming President is such an in-your-face insult to the culture of racial resentment in this country that the realistics possibility of violence hangs over him every day in a way that I'd say it has hung over no other American candidate for national office since RFK.  I think about it every day.

Whether we should give voice to our fears has been an interesting question of etiquette on this site.  I have been on the side of saying "no," gently (I hope) admonishing that these are thoughts that we may suffer, but that we do no good by sharing them.  I shift from that position now because, as was inevitable, as the demeanor and decorum of Daily Kos readers becomes a topic for discussion and derision elsewhere, we need to bring that simple fact to the fore to explain why people reacted as we did.

For by far most of us: we were not seeking political advantage.  We were not being cynical.  We were not being childish.

We are deeply scared that Obama will be taken violently taken away.  Do you get it?

2. Seeing things as you do

Clinton supporters sometimes ask us to understand what Hillary's campaign means to older women with work experience, some of whom view Obama through the lens of a callow male upstart who charms the bosses and gets a promotion that a more qualified female candidate is denied.

I reject the premise of the analogy in multiple ways: but I understand and honor its psychological basis.  Sexism, at home and in the workplace, has been a horrible scourge on this country's history.  I get why Obama's success rankles so many women and those who sympathize with them.  It is one reason that, as angry as I get sometimes at Hillary and what I view as her tactics, I am not really mad at the vast majority of her supporters.  You are reacting to something real.  I think your reaction is misplaced, but the emotion is understandable and real.

We differ from you as well in our beliefs about who can best beat John McCain this November.  Looking at the numbers and the facts, I find it strange that many people come to the conclusion that Hillary is more electable, but I believe that you believe it.  I believe that you believe that the country, when push comes to shove, simply won't elect a Black man, and that you share my fears over what the country will become if the Republicans win again.  I do not want to argue the point with you here and will not do so unless you successfully goad me into it, which I ask that you don't try to do (because I'm easily goaded.)  I just want to make the point that you want us to be able to see things from your perspective, and this is a fair (if difficult) request.

Now I want to ask the same favor of you.

3. MLK2 and RFK

I was an Edwards supporter; I was not one who accepted Obama's premise for campainging for quite a while, nor do I expect him to magically resolve this country's problems.  I am not sure how progressive he will turn out to be, though I think my hopes are justifiably high, and to a great extent it doesn't matter: any Democrat who ran this year would give space for the nation to heal.  So while I have become increasingly optimistic about an Obama Presidency, I'm not collapsing in a swoon.

But I will say this: in his ability to connect to voters, he reminds me of Ronald Reagan, and that is something I have been longing for in a Democratic nominee since I can remember.  Bill Clinton came closest to that before now.

You don't have to agree with me.  I don't want to argue about it here.  I just want you to accept that this is what I think, and what I think many Obama supporters think.

When people like me look at Obama, we see a mixture of many politicians.  We see the youth and vitality and hopefulness and ability to connect of an Robert F. Kennedy.  We see some of the soaring oratory and the presence and the dignity of a Martin Luther King, Jr.  Some, like me, don't think that this magically translates into the ability to solve all of our nation's problems, or whatever the parody of us might suggest.  But we see something striking, unusual, and precious.

And dangerous.  Very dangerous -- because we remember what happened to Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.

We know very well that the power structure of this country -- political, economic, and cultural -- does not like to be challenged in any fundamental way.  We know that the Republican Party is loathe to lose the Presidency.  And we know that Things Happen.

We think that Obama, absent a bolt from the blue, will win the election this fall and make some sorely needed changes in Washington.  And we know how much that may tempt evil forces to arrange for some bolt from the blue.

Again, you don't have to agree with any of this.  This is just about how we think.

4. The nerve that Hillary touched

Many of us feel that Hillary either is less likely to win this election or less likely to pose fundamental challenges to our political system, or both.  Again, you're welcome to disagree, as we know you do.  This is simply in explanation of our reaction.

We also, generally, don't have a problem with her remaining in the race, just as Jerry Brown did in 1992 and Ted Kennedy did in 1980 -- so long as she doesn't fundamentally undermine the chances of our nominee to win -- as Ted Kennedy, bless so many other things about him, did in 1980.  We think she has lost; you don't; so be it.

But we are afraid that Obama will be met with violence.  It haunts us.  It won't stop us from supporting him, no more than loving parents will shoot their son or daughter in the leg to prevent a possibly deadly deployment to Iraq, but it haunts us.

So, Hillary, asked to explain why people want her out of the race, found it inexplicable, because, in essence, "anything can happen." Anything can happen right into June -- and beyond, she might well have added.  And her mistake was to state out loud, as her only actual example of something happening in June that changed the race -- a political assassination.

I want you to understand that right now we don't like Hillary.  We will, I believe, like her a lot more again, as she and Bill make good on their promise to unify the party and work hard for Obama.  (This assuming that he wins, which I won't argue about here.)  But right now, we don't.  And one of our disaster scenarios right now is the prospect of Obama winning the nomination, being cut down violently, and being replaced by his current nemisis -- I have no better word than that right now -- Hillary.

It is bad enough that we wonder that it can happen.  It is worse -- I can't tell you how much worse -- for us to hear that she, too, is wondering whether it might happen, and -- inexplicably -- thinking that it is part of the unexpected "anything" that justifies her remaining in the race.

It drives us into a frenzy.  It would be as if Hillary had had breast cancer or ovarian cancer a few years ago, and was beating Obama, and he said that he'd stay in the race because you never knew if that cancer might come back before the convention, in which event he would be the logical person to replace her.

Imagine that for a moment, let it sink in, and understand our feelings.  You want to say it's not a fair analogy -- OK, I won't debate it -- this is again about what we're feeling.

5. Our rawest nerve

Hillary stepped on our rawest nerve, which we've tried to keep protected all this year as best we can.  This reaction is not, for me, about the hurt feelings of the Kennedy family.  This is about our feelings about Obama: not, for most of us, a savior, but a brave man placing himself in danger for what we believe is our collective benefit.

Hillary noted, in effect, what is logically so: that anything could happen and, implicitly, that she might well stand to profit if something did.  This doesn't meant she sought it or hoped for it; it was just the facts.

Every day, we pray for the safety of Barack Obama.  Every day, we fear that violence will engulf him.  Don't look further than that for why so many of us reacted with such fury when Hillary trod on that nerve.

I do not like putting these thoughts down on paper for public consumption, because I think that by and large these are feelings that are better off not shared.  But today, this once, I ask that you recognize them, acknowledge them, understand them, and respect them.

We were thinking about two deaths 40 years ago that in our hearts remain raw wounds.  And thus we reacted as we did.

I hope that any understanding this diary fosters helps clear the path to our eventual reconciliation.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, RFK Assassination (all tags)

Comments

65 Comments

This is a cross-post from DKos

where it got a mixed, but on average positive, reaction from both Obama and Clinton supporters, the detractors being those furthest from supporting conciliation.  Whatever you make of it -- and I don't assume it will be celebrated -- I'm happy for it to be part of the record here.

by Major Danby 2008-05-25 12:28AM | 0 recs
Assassination goes with the territory...

of being a leader. Assassination is not limited to just black people. Assassination is for the GOOD people...or people who pushes strong change.

JFK - white
MLK - black
RFK - white
Malcolm x - black
Lincoln - white
Bhutto - woman

Several times throughout this now clusterfuck primary campaign, I feared that would  happen to Edwards because of his strong anti-corp message.

In fact, he got white powder sent to his headquarters THREE times, wherein his staff had to be evacuated,  and nary a word from all the suddenly assassination hypocritical concern trolls crawling out the woodwork. The hypocrisy and rampant faux outrage have brought half the democratic party over into the realm of O'Reilly.

Jeezuseffingkryst.

by cosbo 2008-05-25 01:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Assassination goes with the territory...

i'm starting to suspect this is all the latest ploy by BO supporters, maybe the campaign, to knock hillary out of the campaign. they'd not be making such a fuss, especially since she's used the same example before to indicate long primaries with nary a peep, if they really believed their candidate had it wrapped up. this gives me just that much more hope for my candidate to ultimately come away with the nomination. at least that silver lining to all the drama.

by swissffun 2008-05-25 05:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Assassination goes with the territory...

bingo. the BHO supporters want everyone to 'sympathize' with them, but have no sympathy left for anyone outside their own little group.

by zerosumgame 2008-05-25 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Assassination goes with the territory...

Having lived thru the assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK, I can understand how the Obama supporters can be so touchy. Yet you are correct, they only care about their own sensibilities, not those of others, in regards to these situations.  Otherwise, if they indeed were so 'stressed' about the possibilities of assassination attempts on a candidate, they would also remember the attempt on Wallace and as such would have refrained from their tireless efforts to paint Hillary as 'racist'.  

In my opinion, both of them stand an equal chance of assassination.

by emsprater 2008-05-25 08:02AM | 0 recs
Good diary, Danby. -nt

by Dumbo 2008-05-25 04:03AM | 0 recs
Well-done, Major Danby.

I think that you're right about the fear that many do not want to openly acknowledge for fear of making it more likely to happen.

by vbdietz 2008-05-25 05:15AM | 0 recs
Re: This is a cross-post from DKos

Are you saying there are still Hillary supporters on DKos?  I'm not up for that kind of ad hominem abuse.  I left before March.

by Montague 2008-05-25 08:22AM | 0 recs
Hmmm

So what you are in essence saying is that Obama supporters secretly believe he is likely to be assassinated.  Ok, I sympathize for your feelings and until similar sentiments were publicized so much, as a basis for justifying all of the outrage, I never knew there was a private consuming fear that Barack Obama was so greatly at risk.  

"I believe that you believe that the country, when push comes to shove, simply won't elect a Black man, and that you share my fears over what the country will become if the Republicans win again."

Believe it or not, there are many arguments impugning the character of Barack Obama that have nothing to do with race.  Not voting for Obama does not make one a racist.  

by BPK80 2008-05-25 01:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmmm

I believe you whole-heartedly about there being many reasons not to vote for Obama besides race (I disagree with you, but believe you).

I think what the diarist is getting at is that the fact that others might not vote for Obama because of his race is often used by Clinton supporters as a point to establish his unelectability.

by vadasz 2008-05-25 01:46AM | 0 recs
Who has ever said that?

Produce a quote or retract that statement because I have never heard Hillary or one of her surrogates make that argument.  

by psychodrew 2008-05-25 02:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Who has ever said that?

Retract? On a blog?

I didn't say Hillary or her surrogates. I said supporters, which includes people on this blog, at is44, TM, etc. In case you don't recall, during the height of the Wright incident alone there were buckets of concern about Obama's 'black church,' his 'black pastor,' his 'black nationalism' and how those things (all associated with, um, his being black) would prevent his being elected in the GE.

The whole subtext of the 'white working class voter' not supporting him (which has been pushed by Clinton and her surrogates) drips with such concern, although not outright stated.

Choose not to see it, if you like, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

by vadasz 2008-05-25 05:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Who has ever said that?

I re-read your comment and you did say supporters.

The whole subtext of the 'white working class voter' not supporting him (which has been pushed by Clinton and her surrogates) drips with such concern, although not outright stated.

Hillary said that she does better among white, blue-collar voters.  That's a fact.  She's stating a fact.

YOU are the one assuming that it is race.  And you are attaching a negative connotation to Hillary's electability argument because you think Hillary is the root of all evil and that everything she says has a negative subtext.

by psychodrew 2008-05-25 05:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Who has ever said that?

Thanks for the psychoanalysis, let me know where to forward the $100 check . . .

. . . I don't think anything connecting Hillary Clinton and the emotion of hate. I don't hate her, I don't think she hates Obama, and I don't hate her supporters.

In the context of the original diary and some of the comments made, I'm merely making an observation that I don't think is outrageous or beyond the pale.

There are people in this country who won't vote for Obama because of his race--you've even noted such in some of your own diaries (and yes, I'm aware of the gender correlation in regards to Clinton); some of those voters are Democrats; because of this, some have factored into their electability argument Obama's race; some of those doing so support Clinton.

All of those things can still be true while the person making the argument is not a racist. I wouldn't claim anybody I don't know is a racist with want of direct evidence; and I've never claimed that either Clinton is racist (although I think their campaign has been slippery in the way it's used race as an issue).

BUT using the idea that others might not vote for Obama because of his race as an argument that he's not an electable candidate; that I do have problems with. I don't think it's necessarily racist. I just think it's a weak argument, and one that gives people who are racist more power than they deserve.

by vadasz 2008-05-25 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Who has ever said that?

oh so you now resent being 'psychoanalyzed' but you are more then willing to do it to others discerning their racism' via your magic mind-reading ability...but oh no, never ever do it to YOU since you are a super-magic-superhero better then all those 'others' you so easily denigrate.

by zerosumgame 2008-05-25 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Who has ever said that?

I don't think I've ever denigrated anybody in any of my posts on this topic.

I haven't claimed that anybody in particular was racist, or pointed to specific people on this site as being racially motivated in their support of Clinton over Obama.

It's been well documented that some (not all, not most, some) white Americans won't vote for Obama because he's black.

Throughout the past several months, some (not all, not most) Clinton supporters have pointed to this well-documented fact as part of their larger argument that Obama is unelectable.

I think that is a flawed argument, but I have not assigned racist motives to anybody who makes it.

If you can find words of mine in which I disparage others for no reason, I'd like to see them.

by vadasz 2008-05-25 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmmm

Yes, I think that is one plausible interpretation of the diarist's words.

I have seen people recite the argument you mention that "his race makes him unelectable to them [other people, presumably racists]."  I don't make that argument though.  My opposition to Barack Obama is based on what I perceive to be disingenuity.  

by BPK80 2008-05-25 07:22PM | 0 recs
RE: Why we reacted so strongly

In fact, I'm less afraid about such an incident occurring based on his race than on the way he threatens to change the way the country does business.

Perhaps having recently read James Ellroy's "American Tabloid" and "The Cool Six Thousand" put ideas in my head about what happens to those who would challenge the powers that be. Or listening to too much Bill Hicks.

by vadasz 2008-05-25 01:43AM | 0 recs
Why I'm reacting so strongly.

I rec'd this diary and mojo'd your tipjar because it is obviously a sincere effort to explain your feelings to the Clinton people here at MyDD.

Let me explain why I have been so offended at the backlash from the Obama people.  You illustrated it quite well in your diary:

Hillary noted, in effect, what is logically so: that anything could happen and, implicitly, that she might well stand to profit if something did.  This doesn't meant she sought it or hoped for it; it was just the facts.

For anybody to harbor such thoughts ("I'm going to stick around in case he dies so I can get the nomination!") or utter them on national television, that person must have a callous disregard for human life.  The idea that Hillary Clinton would actually intend to make that kind of statement is extremely offensive.

And when I point this out, people say that she didn't mean to say it, but that's how she feels.  How the hell does anybody know what goes on inside her head?  She has never said or done anything in this campaign to indicate that she has such a callous disregard for human life.  None.

As a Clinton supporter, this allegation, that she is waiting around for some harm to befall him is so offensive that I cannot even come up with the words to describe my disgust.  And even after the reporter who interviewed her and RFK Jr's son came out in her defense, the piling on continued.

I can't speak for all Clinton supporters, but I recognize the special danger in which Barack Obama has placed himself and his family by running for president.  I admire both his and Michelle's courage in facing this very real danger.  I worry about his safety.  I may not share the affection and admiration for him that his supporters have, but he is a leader in the Democratic Party and the progressive movement.  That concern for Obama's safety is not exclusive to his supporters.  I share it too.

The notion that Hillary would be cavalier about his safety or that her supporters don't take serious threats to his safety is extremely offensive.

I don't know where we go from here.  Until yesterday, I was confident that our party would be able to rally around the nominee (and I recognize that the most assuredly be Senator Obama and I plan to vote for him, in that event), but the anger that I witnessed yesterday makes me wonder if we've already gone over the cliff.

by psychodrew 2008-05-25 01:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Why I'm reacting so strongly.

I certainly don't know what goes on inside her head.  All I have access to is her words and her behavior.  But, the fact is that -- as is the case for a Vice-President at any moment -- a death is the surest route to advancement.  It's simply a fact.  I don't know what else you think "anything can happen" means, other than a deadly gaffe or some physical problem might befall him.  I believe that this was a gaffe and that she didn't mean to convey that she was staying in the race to be a vulture.  But she didn't convey any other reason other than that, and that is what set people off.

by Major Danby 2008-05-25 04:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Why I'm reacting so strongly.

But she didn't convey any other reason other than that, and that is what set people off.

She certainly did.  The interviewer made it clear and if you listen to the audio, she clearly emphasizes the words "in June."

The problem for Hillary is that a nefarious interpretation of her comments fits neatly with the negative view already held of her and the conspiracy theories of her candidacy.

by psychodrew 2008-05-25 04:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Why I'm reacting so strongly.

and you have thus demonstrated why this diary is not sincere in any aspect all.

by zerosumgame 2008-05-25 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Why I'm reacting so strongly.

yep keep on running from reality BHO supporters

by zerosumgame 2008-05-25 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Why I'm reacting so strongly.

Could anything that might have happened in June 1992 mattered to the result?

Jerry Brown was in the race as a protest vote.  Her citing 1992 as an example of the contest going on until June was ludicrous; the contest was over, and you coulnd't push Jerry Brown out of the race any more than Mike Gravel.

Mentioning 1992 at that point in the interview was a non-sequitur.  Had Jerry Brown been a sitting Senator with a following, there would have been great pressure on him to pack it in.  People didn't care because he didn't matter.

Why didn't she mention a year like 1980 there instead?

by Major Danby 2008-05-25 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Why I'm reacting so strongly.
I'm not in her head, but this is what I might guess:
Because 1992 is recent enough for some people to
remember and the year 1968 is memorable for anybody alive to remember.
by psychodrew 2008-05-25 09:11PM | 0 recs
One more thing.

Looking at the numbers and the facts, I find it strange that many people come to the conclusion that Hillary is more electable, but I believe that you believe it.  I believe that you believe that the country, when push comes to shove, simply won't elect a Black man, and that you share my fears over what the country will become if the Republicans win again.

I believe that Hillary is more electable than Barack Obama.  The reason I believe that is not because he is black.  I believe that a) because of the current GE polls and b) because the GOP won't be able to call her weak on national security.  I don't know any Clinton supporter who is out there saying that Obama can't get elected because he's black.  That is an inaccurate and unfair characterization of our views.

by psychodrew 2008-05-25 01:59AM | 0 recs
Re: One more thing.

I find that disingenuous.  Do you contend that, in Hillary's words, he's not attracting that much support (at least in Appalachia) of hard-working people, white people, simply because they think he's a Stevensonian intellectual?

I have a hard time believing that you believe that those (disputed) GE maps don't reduce down to racial resentment.  If you think it's all just about national security, you ought to be able to point to something convincing.

by Major Danby 2008-05-25 04:08AM | 0 recs
Thanks for the reminder.

So much for an open and honest dialogue.  This is why I left the big orange blog whose name we dare not speak:

I find that disingenuous.

I disagree with your notion that Hillary's white, blue-collar supporters in Appalachia are racist, so I'm a liar.  Lovely.

I grew up in West Virginia.  My parents, both blue-collar, union workers, voted for Jesse Jackson in 1988 and Hillary Clinton in 2008.  And it's not because they are Clinton lovers.  They voted for Jerry Brown in 1992 (to send the party a message about their dissatisfaction with Bill Clinton) and they voted for Perot in the 1992 and 1996 general elections.

Their opposition to Obama and support for Hillary Clinton have nothing to do with race.  They fully expect that Obama will be the nominee and plan to vote for him in November.  They went with Hillary because they want her to have clought at the convention.  They agree with something that James Carville said on the Meet the Press a few weeks ago:

There's a large segment of the Democratic Party that would like to win an election without these kind of white, working-class voters...

They have felt for a long time that blue-collar workers are being pushed out of the party and they see Hillary as the last bastion against that.  Obama's "Hope and Change" message has fallen on deaf ears.  To them and a number of other people, he is another elite liberal who is out of touch with the working man.  He is talking about changing Washington, something these cynical voters does not think is possible.  Hillary is talking about hard work and health care.  He talks about bringing people together.  Her message resonates.  His does not.  That said, my parents aren't big fans of either Clinton.  But with her--and this is typical what you will find among voters where I live--they know what they will get.   Obama, not so much.

No doubt, there are racists in Appalachia.  I know that because I grew up there.  There are people who will never vote for him because of that.  But that does not fully explain her 40 point victory in WV and 35 point victory in Kentucky.  

Something else you need to know about these voters is that they are cynical about Washington and politics and they have a tendency to believe in conspiracy theories.  There are members of my family who believe that the government is intentionally selling out blue-collar, middle-class families.  That the goal is to bring other countries up by giving them American jobs and bring the American middle class down.  Seriously.  And I can tell you even more.  The reason this is important is because of the muslim smear.  It has gotten all over the internet.  When my mother got the email, I told her to forward it to the Obama campaign and I convinced her that it was another GOP "swift-boat" smear.  But for millions of other voters who don't know Obama, but do know Hillary, she is a safer bet.

It's a lot more complicated than race, though race is undoubtedly a big factor.

So I'm not disingenuous.  I'm informed.  Until someone can produce a quote from a Clinton campaign official or surrogate arguing that Obama can't win because he's black, this accusation that she is using racism to scare off the superdelegates is unfair.

by psychodrew 2008-05-25 05:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for the reminder.

They voted for Jerry Brown in 1992 (to send the party a message about their dissatisfaction with Bill Clinton)

It was a protest vote then, and it's best understood as a protest vote now.  I would try to explain the racial basis of the appeal -- note that I say "racial" rather than "racist," a conclusion that requires some definitions that I expect we could not agree on -- but as you think that my saying you were being "disingenuous" was a heinous accusation that you're a liar that doesn't seem likely to be productive.

As it happens, I don't think that you're lying, I think that you're deluded.

by Major Danby 2008-05-25 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for the reminder.

It was a protest vote then, and it's best understood as a protest vote now.

So my parents are lying when they say that they  like Hillary?

You apparently don't know these voters.  You look at one polling question and assume that people aren't voting for Obama because he's racist.  I'm not the one the delusional one here.

by psychodrew 2008-05-25 09:16PM | 0 recs
Six degrees of Obama

So the new rule is Hillary (and Bill, her surrogates, etc.) cannot mention anything that someone might possibly, in some bizarre fashion, connect in some offensive way to Barack Obama within six degrees of separation?

Where was your concern over the "Hillary Deathwatch" or all the media statements about "taking her out" or somone taking her in a room and "only he comes out?"

This sounds to me like a poor attempt to spin an over-the-top fauxrage by Obama supporters into something reasonable.

No rational person can believe that what she said suggested that Obama should or might be assassinated.  She wasn't even talking about him.

It doesn't pass the laugh test.

by myiq2xu 2008-05-25 03:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Six degrees of Obama

I don't even understand your comment.

What she should not have conveyed is the notion that she is sticking around the campaign like a circling vulture waiting to see if the mammal it has its eyes on dies.  I don't believe that she intended to convey this.  It's how it was received, and not through anything other than honest reactions.

by Major Danby 2008-05-25 04:10AM | 0 recs
Good Lord, Danby

I find it difficult to believe that someone could have this 'honest reaction' to her statement unless they already felt Senator Clinton was less than a decent human being (that's the most charitable way I could put it).

"Circling like a vulture waiting to see if the mammal it has its eyes on dies" - WTF???

You say she didn't intend to convey this, yet that was how it was received. I think that says more about some supporters of Senator Obama than anything Senator Clinton said.
This whole thing has opened my eyes and I've never been more depressed about and disgusted with the Democartic party in my life.

by suki 2008-05-25 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Good Lord, Danby

The concept of the Vice-Presidency, of which it has been said that the first role is to check the papers every day to see if the President has died, must terrify you.

Given that the 1992 campaign is not an example of the race still being in play by June, the only example she gave of June making a difference is 1968.  Why did June make a difference in 1968?  Because one of the three leading candidates died.

Even if she had left out the word "assassination" one would still have to wonder why she was raising 1968 (pre-modern system) at all, rather than an actually pertinent year like 1980.  It's a macabre example to choose to make the point.

I don't think she's waiting like a vulture, but that's exactly where her words take you.  If you can't or won't see that, then I guess there's not much I can say to you.

by Major Danby 2008-05-25 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Good Lord, Danby
Oh yes, the concept of the Vice-Presidency 'terrifies' me. Thanks for the condescension.
I do think you're right about not having anything else to say to me. Christ.
by suki 2008-05-25 10:33AM | 0 recs
"What she should not have conveyed..."

No.

"What you should not have projected."

What you are reading into her words is not there, any more than the animals you might see when you look at clouds.

If watching the video does not persuade you, then read RFK's statement, or the statement of the Argus editorial board, who were actually in the same room and heard the words. You are projecting your fears into her words, but your fears are your problem, not anybody else's.

And as far as real fear, there is, so far as I know, exactly one violent incident in this primary season, and guess where? A hostage taking at one of Hillary's offices in NH. Anybody who has experienced or studied the history of this country knows that assassination of powerful figures is a reality. And a campaign, like Obama's, that takes that justifiable fear and leverages it for yet another baseless smear against a political opponent is nothing other than vile. You guys really need to walk this back.

Or possibly... You could give us a list of the words that trigger your projection problems, and then we could simply avoid using them? Like if the phrase "Unity Pony" triggers an anxiety attack for some Obama supporters, because they had a bad childhood experience with a pony, we could stop using it. Would that help?

by lambertstrether 2008-05-25 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re:

The way Obama and his campaign acted was way beyond disgusting. He should offer a full and complete apology to Hillary. To think that quoting a historical event is the same thing as wanted to have Obama offed is the lowest of the low.

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-25 03:40AM | 0 recs
And you attribute this sentiment

to "Obama and his campaign" based on what, exactly?

by Major Danby 2008-05-25 04:11AM | 0 recs
Re: And you attribute this sentiment

Based on the behavior of the campaign. They pushed the drudge item. Then the over the top reaction from his supporters drilled it into the media. Then the condescending statement from Obama. This has been beyond disgusting. Obama should offer a full and complete apology for the actions of his campaign.

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-25 04:15AM | 0 recs
Well, I can't argue with that

without saying somethng that would get me troll-rated.  Plonk.

by Major Danby 2008-05-25 04:22AM | 0 recs
Re: And you attribute this sentiment

I saw an itemization sometime over the weekend about the timeline of the newspaper interview.  I didn't keep the link to it.  I wish I had so that I could point you to it right now.  

Let's just say your assertion about how Drudge picked it up is completely false.  And the outrage appeared in the MSM pretty much simultaneously with the outrage in the blogosphere.  

I suspect that the 'jump to Hillary's defense' reaction has become so strongly ingrained in many of her supporters' minds, that it is very difficult to fight that reaction and take a step back and look at what was said and inferred. Major Danby's diary is meant to provide that opportunity if you choose to take it.

Finally, just as it is unrealistic for Hillary to offer apologies for things that her supporters say and do that are over the top, the same is true for Obama. Both of the candidates and their campaigns know that there are supporters who will cross lines that they shouldn't. But the campaigns cannot possibly be responsible for every action or word of a supporter nor should they spend time and resources on it.

In conclusion, his comment sounds pretty gracious to me:

"I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Senator Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make and I think that is what happened here. Senator Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it and I will take her at her word on that," Obama told Radio Isla Puerto Rico.

It certainly doesn't sound anything like what Hillary had to say after Obama's chat with supporters in CA got spread around.

by vbdietz 2008-05-25 05:45AM | 0 recs
Re:

I don't think the Obama campaign really crossed the line.  It's politics.  It's expected.  They pushed it at first and then backed off.  David Axelrod and Barack Obama both later defended her.

The media is responsible for this stupid feeding frenzy.  Get angry at Keith Olbermann and Maureen Dowd and the other Clinton haters.

by psychodrew 2008-05-25 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re:

Karl? Is that you?

I'm only guessing since this is a great example of your well-known and well-worn tactic of accusing your opponents of doing what you just did. Of course, we all see through that now. It's so 2004, you know. You may want to try something a little sneakier.

Points for making your argument especially appalling, though. I threw up a little in my mouth. Keep up the good work. Clinton's not gonna steal this thing by herself, as they say.

by Rationalisto 2008-05-25 07:08AM | 0 recs
It's not that I'm worried about Obama

being assassinated because of something Hillary said, or her reminding me of the prospect of that.

What bothered me is that, for so long, the Hillary campaign has dangled this prospect of some great bombshell coming out that was going to "change the game" in some way.  Something that removed him from the race and made way for her.

And then she brings up the subject of RFK's assasination.  In June of 1968.  June.  The coming month.  The implication, to my ears, being that "anything CAN happen," including a shot ringing out and ending her nomination problems.  

Whatever it is, she has been hoping for some time that some external influence would ruin Obama's campaign.  Many here say she isn't hoping for Obama to be assassinated, and that's what she meant, but her campaign has been wishing him ill, obviously, and dangling the prospect of some unforeseen circumstance removing him, so it doesn't seem that out of keeping with what she mentioned.

Perhaps she brought up the assassination of RFK as a metaphorical way of saying, "Yeah, really, anything CAN happen to change the game," to make the point.  I take it that way.  And I am still terribly, terribly offended.  A candidate that wants the nomination SO BADLY that they can speak out loud about such shit does not deserve to lead our party.

And just for kicks, ask yourself, how would the party respond if something did happen to Obama, perhaps not assassination, but something that DID remove him from the campaign before Denver.  Even a scandal that seems to come out of nowhere, or out of Republican ranks.  After Hillary's statement, too, too many people wouldn't give her the benefit of a doubt that she had nothing to do with it.  

She damaged herself with this.  Of that there can be no doubt.

by Dumbo 2008-05-25 04:02AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not that I'm worried about Obama

There is a huge bombshell. And it has nothing to do with a quote about RFK. Obama has tons of things he has lied about and hid. Have you noticed how many of the SD's don't talk about how he's the strongest candidate against McCain? They all blather on about unity and wanting the process to be over? It's like they are taking on some kind of deathwatch or something.

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-25 04:13AM | 0 recs
Something that you guys haven't

already beaten to death here on MyDD?  Then why haven't you, already?  Saving it for effect?  Waiting for somebody else to bring it up?  Just going to tease us with it?  Or is it like McCarthy's famous list of Communists in the State Department?

Personally, I don't care if he molested Hanna Montana in 3D videotape, at this point.  You can't take the nomination from the first black candidate to actually win it, fair and square.  That's not right.  He wasn't my candidate when this started. There are posts on this forum from clear back in 2006 where I called him an empty suit.  But he has earned it, now.

He won the nomination.  We need to rally around him instead of concern-trolling ourselves into oblivion for the next three months.

by Dumbo 2008-05-25 04:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Why we reacted so strongly: what Obama means t

Your post, which I don't doubt is a sincere appraisal of your thoughts, takes a wrong interpretation of her intention. As her previous mention of this underlines, and as was pointed out by RFK Jr., she was using the event of RFK's assassination to demonstrate that campaigns were still going strong in June. I wondered about this myself until I saw the video of her making these comments. The timeline was the emphasis, not the assassination. There's a famous quote that sums up the situation here very well: "I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

Now you're free to interpret her comments any way you want, but that freedom of interpretation has been the source of way too much of the ranker on both sides this entire primary season. I also do not agree with your premise that Obama is any more likely to be assassinated than Clinton. In fact, the Clinton hatred among certain groups in this country is far more overt, and unfortunately even encouraged by many on this site and others, than the racist hatred some may have for Obama. I'd honestly say she's probably at greater risk of assassination.

by bouvougan 2008-05-25 04:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Why we reacted so strongly: what Obama means t

That doesn't make sense.  If all she was trying to point out is that the primary contest sometimes continues through June, it was a terrible example as she well should have known.  The actual good examples to use were 1972, 1984, and especially 1980 -- where primary fights in June were setting up contested conventions.  For some reason, she avoided those.

Her reply to the question of why people wanted her out was a non-sequitur, with one exception.  1992 isn't relevant at all; to justify her staying in the race, you have to believe not simply that contested primaries take place, but that their outcome has much bearing on the nomination.  Brown had no shot at winning then, as pretty much everyone knew.

1968 -- the last cycle under the old system -- doesn't really explain why one would stay in the system as well, except for the fact that a "game-changer" did happen to occur that month: an assassination.  The question isn't so much why she mentioned "assassination," it's why she chose the example of 1968 -- as opposed to one of the actually pertinent years -- at all.

I don't know if it bubbled up from her id, or was due to the Kennedys being in the news, or it was intentional.  I do know that it was not responsive to the question she was being asked unless you interpret it in a way saying that the prospect that he could die justifies the continuation of her campaign.

by Major Danby 2008-05-25 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Why we reacted so strongly: what Obama means t

It might make sense if you actually view the video of her saying it, along with reading the interview from Time magazine in March where she says basically the same thing. It's obvious in both cases she's referring to campaigns that went into June, and that's the point she was making.

People don't have a point of reference to relate to the campaigns of 72, 84, and 80 as they do with 68. All of us old enough to remember the assassination also remember the month it happened, and how RFK's California primary victory had pretty much sewn up the nomination for him. What doesn't really make sense is your interpretation, which would be an incredibly stupid thing for her to say.

When I first read the outrage about her statements here, I was inclined to view it as you did. Then I watched the video and read the interview. I suggest you do the same. To claim your interpretation is the only one that makes sense is not only wrong, but is as I said above symptomatic of the closed mindset displayed by both Obama and Clinton loyalists that allows them to interpret everything said by the other in the most negative way possible.

by bouvougan 2008-05-25 01:23PM | 0 recs
I'm sorry but, I don't believe it

not that I don't believe you, but I don't believe the whole damned thing.  Additionally, I think your fear came not from what Clinton said, but from the feeding frenzy that followed.

She said nothing outrageous.  The very idea that we are suddenly not allowed to use certain words BECAUSE OBAMA IS BLACK is the single best INDICTMENT of this whole damned election, rather than a legitimate justification for outrage.  Look, the bottom line is that people are "outraged" (yes, the quotation marks are on purpose)because it was a great opportunity to stick a knife in Clinton.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  That they come right out and say, as you do, that the outrage is because she has to follow a brand new and different set of rules should cause, not anger at her, but a damned long look in the mirror.

Summary - for those who claim Obama has not benefited from special treatment for his race, but are "outraged" that Clinton would say "assassination" when running against a black man, well, JUST FUCKING LISTEN TO YOURSELF!  

by dhonig 2008-05-25 04:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm sorry but, I don't believe it

If your view of the "bottom line" is that I'm lying about what I and other Obama supporters felt in reaction to her pretty much otherwise inexplicable choice of 1968 as a model explaining why it's unreasonable for anyone to say she should get out of the race, then I have nothing more to say to you.

by Major Danby 2008-05-25 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm sorry but, I don't believe it

Read what I wrote, again. I said I think the reaction came, not from what she said, but as part of an absurd feeding frenzy in reaction to what she said, and that the frenzy flowed from a combination of a double standard and dishonesty.  Those who did not intentionally participate in that, but instead felt their own reaction therefrom did so honestly, but flowing from a sham.  In other words, you were as much a victim of the fraud as Clinton and her supporters.

On the other hand, if you truly feel the double standard is reasonable, that Clinton can't speak certain words because of Obama's color, well, that is a damned good indictment of the media and Obama's campaign, as you must therefore admit.

by dhonig 2008-05-25 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Why we reacted so strongly: what Obama means t

why are you still prolonging this silly drama, really?

by swissffun 2008-05-25 05:22AM | 0 recs
pathetic reaction to a sincere diary


Every day, we pray for the safety of Barack Obama.  Every day, we fear that violence will engulf him.  Don't look further than that for why so many of us reacted with such fury when Hillary trod on that nerve.

I do not like putting these thoughts down on paper for public consumption, because I think that by and large these are feelings that are better off not shared.  But today, this once, I ask that you recognize them, acknowledge them, understand them, and respect them.

We were thinking about two deaths 40 years ago that in our hearts remain raw wounds.  And thus we reacted as we did.

yup yup.  it's raw and real.  the fear for obama's safety is real.  and seeing the comments here from people you tried to reach outright rejecting your diary just makes me shake my head and wonder why the hell i even bother.

great diary, major danby.

by annatopia 2008-05-25 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: pathetic reaction to a sincere diary

Sincerity has nothing to do with it. I know the feeling from 40 years ago, unlike most of the people commenting on this site. I was a huge supporter of both MLK Jr. and RFK. As I said in my comment above, I don't doubt the sincerity of the diarist, but I think his interpretation of her statements is wrong, and the outrage over them is overblown and in many cases contrived. Just because a person is sincere does not give a person free license to make the claims, as many have, that Clinton was in any way talking about the possibility of Obama being assassinated.

by bouvougan 2008-05-25 06:55AM | 0 recs
1st Ladies know about assassinations

They have to live daily with that fear while their spouses are president, Secret Service protection notwithstanding.  Given this, Hillary is part of a special club with only Nancy, Barbara and Laura as members.

Likewise, presidential candidates (and their spouses)also live with the fear of assassinations.  Clearly, Michelle now knows what Hillary has have to deal with for years and years.

Somehow, with all this assassination brouhaha by obvious Obama supporters, I can't recall one person bringing up either of the above points. And by doing so, possibly realizing how callous and misguided all the insinuations about her assassination statement may have been:  She, of only a handful of people -- and definitely none of any of the MSM, bloggers, pundits, commentators, et al, who hammered her on her gaffe -- know first hand about the possible horrors and fears of assassinations.

Major Danby, you wrote a good rational diary.  You clearly have more articulated and depth of thought behind your emotions than legions of your fellow supporters on blogs.  But to write about your (and fellow supporters) fears on assassination with Obama justifying your reactions to her gaffe, while not even considering/acknowledging how she herself actually lived with those fears for herself as a spouse and as a mother for years, lends a hollowness to your explanation.

by dcrolg 2008-05-25 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: 1st Ladies know about assassinations

You no don't won't be surprised by me feeling that the fact that she has lived with the prospect of assassination for so many years if anything makes it worse.  I ask you, as I've asked others: why cite 1968 rather than 1980, or even 1972 or 1984?  Why choose the single inapt example, one that was ended in blood?

by Major Danby 2008-05-25 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: 1st Ladies know about assassinations

Make that "no doubt won't be surprised by my feeling that ...."  Sheesh.

by Major Danby 2008-05-25 09:37AM | 0 recs
I wouldn't know. Would you? Any of us?

IMO, when anyone makes an off handed comment -- which all folks are statistically going to do -- it should be taken for what it was.  I believe reading anything more into it or psychoanalyzing the remark is a worthless exercise.  What causes us to say things we do sometimes?  I don't know; but I don't believe it is a basis to believe the worse.

So, as I said in my comments, if one pauses and thinks about her experiences relative to assassinations, and even her working experiences with the Kennedys over all these years, I believe her remarks, although perhaps not one of the better things to come out of her mouth, dont deserve the flailing she received.  None of us do, should we ever misspeak.

by dcrolg 2008-05-25 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Why we reacted so strongly: what Obama means t

So in essence she gets the blame for the paranoia of  some of Obama's supporters.

What happened to the " Unity " / " Post Racial " candidate , the man that was supposed to unite the country ?

There are some ' white folks ' just hanging around to shoot the guy down , the post racial candidate just can't get past this racism thing.

Its just bizarre.

If anyone should be worried about being assassinated isn't it Clinton who 'supposedly " half the country dislike her and some have an irrational hatred for her ?

Yet she continues to move ahead .

by lori 2008-05-25 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Why we reacted so strongly: what Obama means t

So: worry about Obama's being assassinated is "paranoid."

The notion that some people would want to kill him due to his race shows that he can't "unite the country."

OK, thanks for showing your wares.

by Major Danby 2008-05-25 09:26AM | 0 recs
Of course. And if we respect your feelings,

will you respect the fact that she didn't mean what you think she meant? It came out horribly, yes -- it sounded terrible. But she didn't mean, "I'm waiting around for Obama to be assassinated."

She erred -- grievously, even. But she had no ill intent.

by sricki 2008-05-25 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course. And if we respect your feelings,

You may want to explain to some of your fellow commenters here that it "sounded terrible," because they haven't even come to accept that.

I can't read her mind so I don't know her intent.  I do not believe she means or wishes Obama harm.  But remember that those statements about 1992 and 1968 were in response to a direct question: why do people want you out of the race?  She professed not to know.  1992 doesn't explain why people shouldn't want her out; with the race over, people certainly wished that Jerry Brown would stop his quixotic challenge that June.  1968 doesn't make sense as a answer either -- not only was it just before the present system, in a three-person race, but on its face the example of 1968 is a reason for staying in the race only because of the force majeure ending.  It's an absolutely bizarre year to cite, with or without saying the word "assassination" out loud, especially because there are three years -- 1972, 1984, and especially 1980 -- where continuing the race into June did make sense.

The reason she didn't cite them is that they also provide good reason why everyone but her supporters would want her out of the race: they led to contested conventions, two of them really nasty ones.

by Major Danby 2008-05-25 09:33AM | 0 recs
So long as you understand

I don't like Obama.  Actually I did mostly like him when he got into the Senate.  The reason my like was tepid at the time is that he started in, early, with chastising Democrats for not being more religious or more willing to let religion into public life.  I want religion OUT of politics.  Nevertheless I understand that the reality is that a really sizable majority of power in the black community goes through or is attached to the black church.

So I thought Obama might be good for running for president some day.  I'd rather have another Shirley Chisolm, who was way ahead of her time, but you can't always have exactly what you want.  Oh well.

Then he started to act badly, before Iowa voting even started.  He used Rethug-style ads to poison the well for healthcare. His campaign started a frenzy over so-called race-baiting.   He treated Hillary with contempt in the way many men have treated powerful women over the millenia. He has ads floating around that show he feels "called to service" with religious iconography all over the ads.  His entire website uses religious iconography.  He acts very holier-than-thou - he's willing to put the blame on anyone but himself.  He reminds me, sadly, of the current occupant of the White House.  I realize he's not nearly as horrible, but still, I don't think we need another president who behaves like that or feels "called" to service.

Where I start to part company with you in a big way is this idea that Obama is to be compared with MLK.  MLK wasn't doing it for his own self-aggrandizement.  MLK sat in jail for his beliefs.  He was beaten for them.  He marched on. He was willing to die for his beliefs and in fact he did. Obama doesn't have that courage (very few people do).    

I realize that black people have to take the candidate who comes, just as women do.  I certainly don't want Obama or Clinton to be harmed or killed, nor do I think either one of them is thinking that way about the other.  What you need to realize is that idolizing Obama has so turned me off (in addition to his own, many and off-putting foibles) that nothing will induce me to vote for him.  I'll never vote for McCain, either.  But I can use my non-vote to send my message.  Jimmy Carter pissed me off big-time when he first ran.  I knew he'd win anyway, so I didn't vote for him.  That was the only time I haven't voted for the Dem for president.  During reelection, I feared Reagan could win, so I held my nose and voted for Carter.  I was right in both cases.

Obama cannot win the general election, so not voting for him won't change a bloody thing.  

by Montague 2008-05-25 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Why we reacted so strongly

Obama cannot win the general election, so not voting for him won't change a bloody thing.

I see you skipped the lecture on Kant's "moral imperitive," perhaps because it conflicted with your Divination class.

So does this mean you'd give me a million to one odds against Obama?  You wouldn't happen to be independently wealthy and up for a wager, would you?

by Major Danby 2008-05-25 09:36AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------