« An Invitation to Hillary Supporters or Common Ground Part III | Liora's Blog | One-post bloggers, or send in the trolls? »
If Hillary wasn't being morose, then what to make of Bill's suggestion?
This from today's New York Times:
"Still, the comments touched on one of the most sensitive aspects of the current presidential campaign — concern for Mr. Obama’s safety. And they come as Democrats have been talking increasingly of an Obama/Clinton ticket, with friends of the Clintons saying that Bill Clinton is musing about the possibility that the vice presidency might be his wife’s best path to the presidency if she loses the nomination."
Admittedly, there is no direct source quoted for this, and it is possible that Bill is looking toward 2012. But it sure sounds horrendous.
Thoughts?
Advertisement
Note: I am only so wary of the intent behind Hillary's "innocuous" historical reference because assassination has been a major concern from the beginning of Obama's campaign. In light of this, it would have been prudent to steer clear of any reference to this possibility unless the intention was actually to remind others of it. It's not like there weren't other examples she could have used.
I have read elsewhere that the comparison of Obama with JFK has been used as an argument for her vice-presidency (i.e. in case Obama gets assassinated), but I can't find where just now. Anyone have a source for this?
May 24, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's definitely been made before, but:
(a) I don't know that it's ever been made by her campaign, or if it's just come from those who want to see it happen, and
(b) The focus of that conversation isn't JFK's assassination, but that LBJ was someone that JFK didn't care for too much, but who was the #2 candidate. (Note: I have no idea how true either of those sub-points are, but unless someone contradicts them, I'll assume them to be true.)
May 24, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's remark was neither sinister nor innocuous. She was referencing the possibility of assassination because it bolsters her "ready-on-day-one" argument, now modified to mean ready in a worst-case scenario to assume the presidency (or the top slot on the ticket that might otherwise be given to someone ELSE if Obama failed to name her as his veep). Talk had turned to Obama choosing a veep, and she wanted to make the case before the window closed.
May 24, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
tape of her making the jfk comment is sometimes run on msnbc. what she actually said is (while referencing comparisons between obama and jfk) is that kennedy was assasinated and it took lbj to get his legislation through. similar to the remark about king and johnson. i believe this was also in a time magazine article.
May 24, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am well beyond giving the Clintons the benefit of the doubt on anything. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing--and I mean NOTHING--they wouldn't be willing to do to get her into the Oval Office.
I'm done speaking politely about those people. They're monsters and they have NO principles whatsoever.
May 24, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink