Class Act: Barack Obama provides cover for Hillary for assassination comment
During an interview with Radio Isla Puerto Rico on Saturday, Obama reacted to the Clinton comment.
According to a quote released by the campaign, he said, "I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Sen. 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. Sen. Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it, and I will take her at her word on that."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/23/clinton.comments/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps Hillary will return the favor one day. Time and time again he provides her with a save harbor when she screws up. I would like to see her take the hight road and stay on it, just once, possibly twice.
As I predicted, I'm sure Obama bashers will see something wrong in this as well, bt well done Obama.
May 24, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect you're right. Let's hope not. But they hate him right now and are unwilling to look kindly at anything he does. Hopefully that will pass.
May 24, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! You got an avatar! Is that you, or is it a famous person I'm too ignorant to recognize?
May 24, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's me. I just figured out how to do it.
May 24, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Perhaps Hillary will return the favor one day. Time and time again he provides her with a save harbor when she screws up. I would like to see her take the hight road and stay on it, just once, possibly twice."
You're not suggesting she find herself again, are you?
May 24, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. All I ask is that she not turn into a feral cat every time Obama screws up a sentence.
May 24, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
He let her twist in the wind yesterday. His official campaign release certainly didn't strike this tone. Obama isn't the paragon of virtue - he let her get hammered for the day, maybe to score political points or maybe just to teach her a lesson. His remarks today are probably calculated as well, to appear the above-it-all bigger person only when the initial furor is over and the damage has been done.
May 24, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. First, when someone suggests (though not intentionally) you might be killed in June I'm sure you don't feel the need to take the higher ground. Also, he doesn't have the responsibility to control the news cycle.
He responded with class in 24 hours. You're being too harsh.
May 24, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you.
Even the initial statement from Camp Obama was simple: there is no place for this kind of comment in the campaign. They did not try to interpret her remarks, just a straightforward reaction.
The only thing I think was missing from Obama's statement was a well-placed "as far as I know."
May 24, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention that David Axelrod was out defending her before Barack responded. Clinton people will never be satisfied until Barack tosses aside his bid and gives her the nomination. Even then, they would probably call him sexist for doing it.
May 24, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, your comments emphasize a remarkable imbalance in this primary. The standards have been defined very differently for Obama and Hillary. It Hillary herself (not even via campaign staff but her)who exploited the "bitter" comments before any major news source using a qote from a Huffpo article and made it into a two weeklong ordeal.
Can anyone recall when Hillary took the high ground?
May 24, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she stepped away from Wright for a bit until she was slapped down by the press for the heroine of tuzla story. To take attention off herself, she dug the Wright story out of the gutter.
May 24, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think it was the Clinton campaign that brought up the Wright story.
May 24, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
As opposed to Hillary's typical reaction... "Reverend Wright would not still be my pastor." or "Barack said 'cling' and 'bitter;' he must be an elitist."
...True. Hillary doesn't wait for 24 hours to respond. She jumps right on!
As to "appearing" above it all. No one an accuse Hillary of that.
May 24, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not Obama's job to defend Hillary from herself! If she says something stupid, that's her problem, not his. Obama took the high road by not trying to make anything out of her remarks, but he didn't really need to say anything at all.
May 24, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonze. I don't think the Obama camp should have released a statement at all in response to this controversy, and I certainly don't think Obama is the "paragon of virtue." But let's be real here. HRC has had no problem jumping on Obama's mistakes/gaffes and repeating them to death, and using them in an argument as to why he is unelectable.
Obama is not perfect, and he made a statement on this issue, when a no comment would have sufficed, and now he has given HRC a "pass." But look at HRC's past behavior, surely you can agree that there is a lot of room for improvement there.
May 24, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're not being too harsh. You're being ridiculous. He let her twist? Who put her out there? Was it Chris Matthews' fault this time? Did Rove make her say it?
It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Obama is a paragon of virtue. It doesn't have anything to do with how quickly he responded. As usual, the content of his response meant nothing, right? Just disregard that. Anything to turn this around so the focus isn't on that embarassment of a campaign Hillary is running...
May 24, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, I agree with Jonze. Not that I think it's a bad thing. This ain't beanbag, folks. He's got much higher ethical standards than most pols. But when HRC slips on a banana peel, it's not his job to catch her.
May 25, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hehe, I think the cover of Rolling Stone magazine with Obama may have clouded your thinking. He's not superman, but he may be "better than average" man because I know if it were ME or my wife she were referring to, and especially after all she had said about me, I would have had my surrogates jump all over that comment and threw in about 15 more kicks and punches before she went down.
May 25, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jonze:
Of course the comments were calculated-- it's a campaign. The answer to whether they are motivated by some kind of genuine magnanimity or purely as some kind of Machiavellian cunning depends on whether you're an Obama believer or a non-believer.
Personally, since I've seen no convincing proof he's a spiteful S.O.B., I'll just take him at his word. That said, I definitely think Obama recognizes that it benefits him to seem magnanimous.
May 25, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I echo Jdw. Axelrod defended Hillary last night in much the same way. Axelrod's a class act. He kept this from spiraling out of control, and probably cringed a bit at Keith's rampage. (I enjoyed it, but I am not an Obama campaign official, and if I were, I would say precisely what Obama said: Poorly chosen words; we've all been there when we are talking 18 hours a day and every word is being recorded and often videoed.
May 24, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
" I was referencing the campaigns that both my husband and Sen. Kennedy waged in California in June in 1992 and 1968 to make the point that we have had nominating primary contests that go into June."
Why didn't she just say it that way in the first place?
Moving right along.
May 24, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or why didn't she reference any other primary that went into June? The answer is that her reference wasn't an accident. 1992 was only technically wrapped up in June. Bill had been the presumptive nominee for some time before he clinched in California. She didn't say it that way the first time because she said exactly what she meant on her fourth pass at bringing up these examples since early March. She's absolutely shameless.
May 24, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Monsters are incapable of taking the high road.
May 24, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Gollum Clinton, the monster seeking her "precious ring." [Thanks go out to new10
for noticing the Gollum simalarities... I've been perpetuating non-stop since... :)]
May 24, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must've read the Samantha Powers comment I did:
"It appears Samantha Power has been proven to be correct in her assessment of Hillary Clinton, again."
From commenter KGH on Truthdig.com:
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20080523_clinton_brings_up_assassination_in_campaign_talk/
May 25, 2008 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is a better man than I. Personally, I would have let her twist in the wind until doomsday. But then, I'm not presidential material.
May 24, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know the story about how he saved Bill Richardson during one of the debates, right? He's a decent, honorable guy.
May 24, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
hrebendorf: Great story! Puts a big smile on my donkey face!
May 24, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect that Obama already has been told in confidence that he has a sufficient number of supers to get the nomination.
I had been puzzled about how overly magnanimous he's been recently. While he needs to court Clinton supporters, I thought it was too soon for that because Hillary hadn't yet conceded and was still attacking.
But now, I suspect that he knows its safe to reach out to those still snapping Clinton teeth because the contest is already over. The critical number of supers are probably waiting on the last primary voters before announcing their support for Barack.
May 24, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's just the way he is.
He made his place in Illinois by advocating and mediating. That's the way he claims he wishes to govern when he becomes President.
It's just the way he is.
May 24, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's manners and judgment is impeccable. He is, actually, a saint. Hillary is, in fact, likable enough, but her political instincts outweigh her humanity almost every single time. By the way, I'm not being ironic here. I think Barack's description of her as being "likable enough" was right on.
May 24, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is Obama's version of "As far as I know". Fair enough.
May 24, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not throw in a reference to Rev. Wright while you're here? It wouldn't be any less transparent.
May 24, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, just to deflect the attention away from where it should be...
May 24, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just ignore him. He's a racist piece of shit.
May 24, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Lalo is admitting "As far as I know" was a way of deliberately qualifying the statement and thus casting doubt on its veracity. Truly, this is an excellent day where we are all moving closer to mutual understanding. I may shed a tear.
May 25, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my. A real magical unity pony.
May 25, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Come on. Obama "took her at her word" - which is pretty much all you can do when its 'words' that are the issue.
When its someone's religion, it's a simple fact that you can verify or disprove. Obama isn't a muslim. We can verify that. But Clinton seems to think that there might be some other interpretation to be had? Give me a break.
May 24, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are delusional from time to time. This is nothing like "as far as I know." His faith was not open to interpretation. If he had said "I don't know what is in her heart," or something to that effect, perhaps it would be close. Because the statement was open to serious and starkly different interpretations, the responsiblity of explaning it fell squarely on her shoulders, and saying he trusts her word is good enough.
May 24, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Echo-chamber to that.
May 24, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if that's so, then I have to say that his version is by far the classier and more decent.
May 25, 2008 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's magnanimity always seems to infuriate her supporters. How can he ever hope to win them over if he won't stop being a decent guy. Geez.
May 24, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You gotta get into the mindset of one of Mrs. Clinton's women.
Believe me, if you can interpret every held chair as an insult, you are a rabid women's libber.
Real liberated women hold chairs for men!
May 24, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the Richardson story where he notes that Obama helped him out of a jam by saying Katrina when Richardson hadn't heard the question about Katrina, is there any doubt Hillary would have whispred, Iraq, Iraq.
May 25, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Haha, I like it. But I think she would have whispered "high gas prices", so it would look like in a question about Katrina all Richardson cared about was the effect it had on gas prices.
May 25, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Next, Bill will come out and defend her comments. Something like, "She was sleep-deprived and don't forget that she's 60. Let's see if you don't talk about assassination when you're old and tired."
May 25, 2008 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
They probably need to keep Bill chained in a basement somewhere just to stop him from poking any more holes in the boat.
May 25, 2008 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since everyone's discussing Obama's motive and state of mind in downplaying this gaffe, there's one that should be very obvious.
He has a very practical, personal interest in seeing talk of assassination disappear from the front pages and the blogs.
Much as it drives a stake through the heart of Hillary's campaign, it has a serious cost for him in terms of added risk.
So he clearly doesn't want to prolong the debate over what Hillary meant or didn't mean.
And I'm sure sure he doesn't want loudmouths like Al Sharpton staging speeches and rallies about it. (I'm pretty sure I read something to that effect; if not, Al, my apologies.)
BTW, I love the Richardson anecdote.
May 25, 2008 3:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
He also did it during the whole Bosnia thing during the debate. He has shown himself to be a good guy time and time again. Given his track record of providing cover for his peers when they are under fire, questioning it from the personal interest standpoint, merely because they do coincide, is nitpicky because he does it under all circumstances.
May 25, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are right on the money. This comment, although helpful in the sense that it ruins Clinton, is in not helpful to Obama at this point because he is de facto nominee and all it REALLY does is fire up people to really follow through with what Clinton is implying. Its much better for him -- and for all of us -- that this story fade out of our memories.
May 25, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Terry McAuliffe returned the favor yesterday when he accused the Obama campaign of creating this whole furor and working to keep it in the news cycle for three days over the Memorial Day weekend.
May 25, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
He is such a tool. I don't think anyone will take him seriously after this. I think Clinton's team has been very loyal, for the most part, which is a virtue, but they have all taken hits on their credibility and many have looked like complete liars.
May 25, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that after this disastrous campaign, McAuliffe will have ruined his future as a politician, but I really do think he will have a bright one as a television personality.
May 25, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. There are many tools on TV helping to shape our politics.
May 25, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear, after listening to his comments on Fox News Sunday this morning (my deepest apologies to MoveOn.org and Daily KOS for watching any damn television program I feel like watching) that he's planning on winning this thing and coming out of it smelling like a rose. He said that they were going to take the Florida and Michigan vote to the Rules and Bylaws committee, and if they were satisfied with the results, that would be the end of it. Otherwise, it's going to the convention.
These people will not stop. The remaining uncommitted superdelegates are doing the party a great disservice.
May 25, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
For what it's worth, I actually think the Obama campaign did help flag this as a newsworthy item. They didn't create the story, but on the first day they did help make it news, by saying "this kind of rhetoric has no place in the campaign."
Doesn't bother me at all. I don't want the guy to be a saint. I'll settle for a much-better-than-average-leader. We needed to get the VP talk off the front pages, and this gaffe was fair game. Certainly, after the kind of cr*p the Clinton camp has pulled for the last two months, it's fair game.
May 25, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good points.
And if the Clintonites actually disagree with what Obama's campaign said and think this kind of stuff does have place in the campaign, Hillary is welcome to repeat it. Let's see how far she gets.
(If they don't disagree, WTF are they complaining about then?)
May 25, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Obama campaign's response was restrained and surprisingly mild. They didn't say they were outraged or that Clinton owed anyone an apology. They didn't personalize it in any way. They just said that it was "unfortunate". That's pretty bland, considering what they could have said.
May 25, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
STOP THE PRESSES: Hillary Clinton is secretly campaigning for Barack Obama! lol
May 25, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Provides more cover:
“I think that when you’re on the campaign trail for 15 months, you’re going to make some mistakes. I don’t think Senator Clinton intended anything by it, and I think we should put it behind us.”
Also talks about McCain’s age, Florida delegate, gas prices and his own hybrid car.
http://thepage.time.com/
May 25, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary: No longer likable enough.
May 25, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is a nicer guy.
He didn't kill HRC over the Tuzla sniper lie.
She didn't mean to suggest that Obama will be shot (though I don't think she'd mind).
He wasn't trying to denegrate working class Pennsylvanians when he said bitter in SF.
He is letting the issue rest, she rode "bitter gate" as far and long as she could. Both statements were meaningless, but the reactions are telling.
May 25, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out how Fox News responds to the whole deal - by laughing out loud about the possibility of 'Osama - er Obama' getting assassinated. I'm not kidding. Check out the Youtube clip from earlier today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/25/15389/8576/115/522617
Utterly vile.
May 25, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink