Who has Harmed the Democratic Party?

by Deb Cupples |  Children do it often.  When they get caught misbehaving, they tend to point fingers in every direction except toward the mirror.  When adults engage in such behavior, it inspires questions about their rationality and character.

As adults, we can all agree that any negative statement by any Democratic candidate against another Dem candidate during a primary could undermine the party's ultimate efforts to establish unity before a general election.

That said, the DNC (and many media) seem to blame Hillary Clinton's campaign as the one that advanced all the divisiveness.  She certainly has said some negative things about Barack Obama.  I admit it, and the media has been all over it for months, so I need not provide examples here.

Hillary is not the only one whose words (or actions) might have caused party division.  Obama said and implied very negative things about his fellow Democrat, Hillary. Yet, the DNC (and many media) never really called Obama out. 

The most recent example was on Friday, when the Obama campaign bizarrely made an issue of  Hillary's reference to Robert F. Kennedy. Preferring to start with less recent examples, I'll get into the RFK non-issue later.

Starting in January, Obama supporters falsely called Hillary a racist after she acknowledged that Martin Luther King had needed a president's help to turn his dreams into laws. Obama supporter James Clyburn lobbed implied racism accusations twice -- just before the primaries in two heavily African American states (North Carolina and South Carolina).

That was downright harmful to the cause of party unity, but the DNC didn't chastise Obama's campaign. And Obama didn't timely chastise his surrogates or supporters.

Actually, implied racism seemed to be an official strategy: evident from the Obama campaign memo listing instances of what it perceived as "racially sensitive" statements from Hillary's campaign or surrogates. (HuffPo)

The memo became public in January, but the DNC didn't chastise Obama's campaign for divisively implying that his opponent (the party's possible nominee) was a racist.

Starting in January, Obama falsely implied that he and his money were clean and that Hillary and her money weren't.  Before Indiana's primary, Obama ran an ad making that false comparison -- despite news reports about Obama's having taken money connected to oil companies, drug companies, and lobbyists.

Make no mistake: the message "I'm clean and my (Dem) opponent is dirty" did the opposite of promoting party unity.  Still, the DNC was silent.

On Feb 4, Michelle Obama told ABC (Good Morning America) that she might not support Hillary if Hillary were the nominee.  That was before Hillary's comment about McCain's experience.

In short, Mrs. Obama told millions of viewers that it was okay to not support the other Dem if her husband lost.  This message undermined the cause of party unity -- yet the DNC didn't chastise the campaign that she represented.

Nearly two weeks later, incidentally, Bill Clinton said this in Texas: "I'm for Hillary.... If you disagree, you have another very attractive choice" [i.e., Barack].

Then there's the March 11 email (signed by Obama), which claimed that Hillary was attacking his supporters. Crazy, I know, given that Hillary is seasoned enough to grasp that candidates lose when they attack their opponents' supporters.  Logic aside, the Obama campaign sent another divisive email containing a similar message on April 14.

Disseminating common-enemy talking points is a way to split a party, not unify it.  Obama likely knew this and did it anyway.  The DNC remained silent.

This brings me to the most recent example: the RFK non-story.

Friday, at an editorial board meeting, Hillary was asked to defend her decision to stay in the race through June. Her answer involved pointing out two historical primaries that had ended in June:

"'My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?' she said. 'We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.' (NY Times)

It wasn't a graceful statement.  She should have said, "RFK was still campaigning in June of '68" (though someone might have found evil intent behind that, too).

Does anyone really think that Hillary meant to insult a national figure -- who was also the father of three Kennedy children who have endorsed Hillary?

Given the context, I found it odd that Hillary's statement created such a media frenzy -- until the New York Times explained it:   

"Her remarks were met with quick criticism from the campaign of Senator Barack Obama...." (NY Times)

Ahhh. I should have known that Obama's campaign was throwing gas on the fire.

Did it matter that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. publicly indicated that he is not offended? That Hillary apologized for her clumsiness? No and no.

Instead, multiple Obama-supporters in the media pounced on Hillary and used the statement as evidence of evil thoughts.  MSNBC's Keith Olbermann implied that she was staying in the race just in case Obama is assassinated before the convention.

Update: I've learned that an Obama campaign staffer sent an email to various media folks, pointing them to Olbermann's video. (CNN)  Yes, other media could have found it on their own, but that Obama's staffer sent an email shows a clear intent to fan the flames of the non-controversy.  And it worked: Hillary got 2 or 3 days of horrible coverage.

While the media (and Obama's campaign) tried to pitchfork Hillary, the DNC remained silent.

I could go on with examples, but my point is this: Hillary's not alone in deserving blame, because Obama has contributed a good-sized share of the negativity and divisiveness that may ultimately hinder efforts to unify the party.

Moreover, the candidates aren't the only ones who contributed to the party's division. The DNC's own leaders chose to act in ways that have infuriated many Dem voters. Below are a few of those actions:

1) Disenfranchising Michigan and Florida

2) Refusing to fix Michigan and Florida

3) Making misleading public statements about MI and FL

4) Trying to prematurely push Hillary out of the race

5) Urging super-delegates to end the race before all states vote

Those actions gave many Dems the impression that the DNC wanted Obama to win at any cost -- even if 2 sates' Dem voters were disregarded.  That the DNC has remained silent while Obama's campaign used divisive tactics only intensified that impression.

Naturally, many Hillary-supporting Dems feel that the DNC does not care about what they think or want.

This top-down, disregard-the-little-guy style of leadership has caused many ordinary Dems to notice similarities between the DNC and the GOP. That's a major deal breaker.

In short, the DNC's own leadership countered its own purported goal of party unity by repeatedly alienating so many of its members.

So, if we must point fingers, let's not leave out any valid targets.

Comments

[Adam]

I've responded to your past examples before. I think you are looking for signs of negativity that are barely there, and/or conflating people who Obama has almost no control over with Obama's campaign. But let me stick to the RFK issue. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Obama campaign.

Obama's campaign did NOT "light the fuse" on this. It was picked up by many news sources, including major ones, before Obama's campaign had ANY response. I believe the New York Post was the first (non-South Dakota) source to pick up on it, but that's from memory so I could be wrong.

After it had started to spread across the 'net, there was a very short statement from an Obama staffer, saying something along the lines of "it's unfortunate that she brought that up". It was an exceedingly mild rebuke; nothing compared to what she got on the front page of many papers the next day.

Obama, scheming manipulator that he is, then let the seeping wound fester for a full THREE HOURS before he *personally* issued a statement *explicitly* defending Hillary, stating that he took her at her word when she explained what she meant, and that he took no offense. Oh, the horror! How dare Obama wait a full 180 minutes to defend her?

Seriously, if you want to accuse a large set of pundits of desperately searching for any way to point towards Hillary's departure from the campaign, then be my guest. I won't argue with you. But you've got to use a comically broad brush to hit Obama, or his staffers and campaign, with the blame for this story.

[BW]

Adam - it is not a comically broad brush. It is the obvious reality of Obama's campaign tactics, and it is destroying the democratic party. Which is ok with Obama--he believes that he can build a new Obama-party, and/or that the people he has deeply offended will support him anyway. I personally do not believe the people he has deeply offended & alienated will support him. What I wonder is - can he build a new Obama-party? I don't know. Do you think he can?

[D. Cupples]

Adam,

Concerned about your objection to my statement that Obama's campaign was involved in helping ignite the fuse, I looked around the web.

As stated above, NYT says the campaign "quickly" responded.

CNN reported on Sunday:

"...The program's host, George Stephanopoulos, noted that a member of OBAMA's STAFF sent to the media Saturday a "searing commentary" by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann slamming Clinton for her remark.

"Mr. Olbermann did his commentary and he had his opinion," Axelrod responded, adding, "As far as we're concerned, this issue is done."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/campaign.wrap/index.html

ABC NEWS said this on Friday:

"When Clinton referenced RFK's assassination while discussing previous Democratic nomination fights which stretched into June, she was QUICKLY SCOLDED by the Obama campaign.

"Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign," wrote Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton in a missive to reporters.

[Incidentally, if Obama's people believed that her statement was innocent (as Kennedy's son thinks), then why did it have "no place in this campaign"?]

"Burton's e-mail INCLUDED a link to a New York Post story which noted that Obama, who received a Secret Service detail early in the campaign, has been the SUBJECT TO THREATS.

"The Obama campaign's DECISION to target Clinton's RFK reference forced the former first lady to express regret for her remarks.

"It also ensured that the dust-up would be covered on all three network newscasts. "

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105455&page=1

My thoughts:

Burton planted an ugly seed when indirectly bringing up SS detail and threats -- a pairing of imagery that Oblmerann focused on heavily Friday night when implying that Hillary was staying in just in case Obama were assassinated.

I've followed this race pretty closely, but the notion that Obama had received death threats was the furthest thing from my mind when I saw Hillary's initial statement. I didn't make the connection until I saw Olbermann do it.

I suspect that viewers who are less familiar with the campaigns probably didn't make that connection either -- until Olbermann made it for them.

I'm still truly horrified over that one. Have you seen Olbermann's video yet?

About Axelrod's statement "'As far as we're concerned, this issue is done': all I can say is HOW GRACIOUS.

Of course, timing matters. He said it two days AFTER Olbermann did his brutal hatchet job and one day after Obama's staffers sent the link to O's video around to a bunch of media folks.

The other media likely would have gotten it on their own, BUT that Obama's staff pushed it DOES SHOW intent to fan flames. I don't see how you can validly dispute that.

In short, let's move on -- AFTER Hillary's ribs have been kicked in.

I've pointed out this tactic twice before:

1) Obama graciously said it was ok if Hillary stayed in the race -- only he waited until the cries for her to drop out had grown for weeks.

2) Obama stayed silent during the pre-SC racism cries coming from his prominent supporters (e.g., Clyburn and Robinson). On principle (and for party unity's sake), Obama SHOULD have quickly stood up and told supporters that the racism accusations were unfounded. He might have done so AFTER SC (I don't remember that, though).

I know it's all coincidence to you and you don't like the idea that Obama's campaign would even consider using such strategies.

I CAN'T prove what's on the strategists' minds, but with three examples now of gracious words coming only AFTER Hillary has suffered undeserved damage, it looks more and more like a strategy to me.

Back to my original point: the evidence I've found so far seems to indicate that Obama's campaign people certainly DID throw gas on the fire -- and seemed to be among the initial match lighters, too.

On top of it, the campaign benefited (at least short term): i.e., the vile accusations against Hillary got 2-3 days of play.

[Adam]

You're not presenting any actual counter-arguments to the timeline I wrote. Again:

- First picked up by the NY Post.
- Druge picks it up, suddenly it's everywhere. Obama's campaign had NOT RESPONDED IN ANY WAY at this point.
- Short statement from a campaign staffer that is extremely mild. ("unfortunate she would bring that up")
- 3 hours later, Obama himself makes a statement, says he accepts Hillary's explanation of her earlier comment, and takes no offense.

You're saying this was sparked by Obama... how? There's NO evidence of that. NONE. Burton's statement was a relatively mild response given in a time when, no doubt, tons of reporters were calling the campaign asking for a comment to run. No, he didn't put out the fire, but he didn't start it either. It took Obama only three more hours to actually come to Hillary's defense. Axelrod's statement was merely reiterating what had already been said by Obama.

Again, if you want to make this about the media wanting Hillary out... fine. I'm not arguing that. But the idea that this was sparked or encouraged by Obama's campaign is nothing short of a total falsehood.

[Sap]

It really is a lesson in futility to try to debate logically with the majority of Obama's supporters. The fact that the Obama campaign will hypocritically say they take Clinton at her word and take no offense while one of the campaign's own staff members is sending KO's insane rant to the media is completely lost on them.

"But the idea that this was sparked or encouraged by Obama's campaign is nothing short of a total falsehood."

If this Obama supporter can't see how his candidate's own campaign staffer is encouraging the false outrage over Clinton's comment by sending the email of KO's video to the media, then you might as well save yourself the effort of even discussing it.

I have given up trying to reason with them. I will use my vote to make my point. I encourage everyone that has endured their Rovian tactics to do the same.

[Denny]

Deb Cupples,

I agree with your article.

You have given us a thoughtful understanding of the situation. The media is simply ignoring examples of divisive behavoir on the part of Obama and his supporter's.

The elites in the media, DNC and elsewhere DECIDED who they wanted WITHOUT (public) vetting of THEIR nomineee by the press. The media has thus reduced itself to functioning as propaganda zealots of their owm making for their own agendas of radical leftism diguised as a person who is a perfect example of the meaning of the word charalatan; Barack Obama.

CHARLATAN: A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracks sutomers with TRICKS (deception) or (jokes.

Obama=CHARLATAN

[D. Cupples]

Sap,

Thanks for the support.

That said, Adam and I have been civilly debating for months.

He really is reasonable (and friendly and polite): we just see things from different angles.

[Sap]

Deb

You are a better person than me if you have been able to remain civil in the face of statements such as...

"But the idea that this was sparked or encouraged by Obama's campaign is nothing short of a total falsehood."

Nothing short of a total falsehood? As if the Obama campaign is not saying one thing in public and doing another off the radar. Axelrod was confronted with the actual email and would not even answer the question in the face of hard evidence. And Adam accuses you of lying?

Yes, you are a much better person than me to be able to remain civil. The frustration of such hypocrisy is what has finally made me realize just how little the Democratic Party thinks of me.

[BW]

Adam - How could you think that sending around Olbermann's hate rant to the media is not fanning the flames? Seriously, Obama is not just pouring gas on the fire, he is a master at it-- he even has you believing that he does not do it. I do admire his sleight of hand. Still. . .when you say there is NO evidence of this, I wonder - did you even read Cupple's post?

[skeptical]

I share Deb's and Deb Cupple's opinions and feeling.

Mr. Obama's approach was inherent in his covert race card strategy, which became overt late, but not too late perhaps. There are two things the media can be proud of: the Nafta incident and Mr. Wright, although I don't think they were very quick on this last one.

[D. Cupples]

Adam,

You're right to make the distinction between Obama and his campaign -- and to say that the campaign did NOT NECESSARILY light the fire. Thus, I changed that line in my post to:

"Ahhh. I should have known that Obama's campaign was throwing gas on the fire."

No, I didn't counter your time line -- because I didn't have evidence.

Still, I DIDN'T make up the notion that O's campaign acted quickly (i.e., early on). In the post, I QUOTED the NYT, which said (again):

"Her remarks were met with QUICK criticism from the campaign of Senator Barack Obama...." (NY Times)

Because you challenged that notion, I went online looking for another source that mentioned timing.

I found one: Friday, ABC NEWS (quoted above) said:

"When Clinton referenced RFK's assassination while discussing previous Democratic nomination fights which stretched into June, she was QUICKLY SCOLDED by the Obama campaign."

That said, I DO have evidence that O's campaign acted early: two sources.

I DON'T have evidence that the campaign was among the first to react: hence, my edits.

About throwing gas-- the NYT also said (linked but NOT quoted above):

"Privately, aides to Mr. Obama were furious about the remark."

Why the private fury if the campaign REALLY saw the gaffe as sans evil intent? And why did staffers "privately" tell reporters that?

I see that as stirring up trouble -- or at least evidence of a desire to do so.

And let's look at Burton's first statement. It seems mild on its face -- but loaded.

If the campaign's REAL stance was that Hill's gaffe was no big deal, then why the initial comment "it has no place in this campaign"?

I asked you that before, and you didn't respond.you just re-referred to Burton's statement as "mild."

I see it as a very politic way of saying "She said something bad" -- while the other part of his statement said merely "unfortunate."

If O's campaign had NOT wanted to fuel the fire early on, it's FIRST statement would have been something like "we understand she made an error and aren't offended."

They didn't write that as their first statement.

Now, let's get back to the Saturday emails encouraging media folks to look at Olbermann's vile hatchet job.

[You still haven't told me whether you've seen the video and what your thoughts are about it.]

Yes, media would have found the video on their own, BUT the staffer's emails show INTENT on the campaign's part to throw still more gas on the fire a day later.

Incidentally, I answered you last night BEFORE my long response with the links.

I couldn't find it in typepad's comment list, so I suspect that I'd shut down the puter with open windows (and one of them was waiting for me to type in the comment-upload code).

'Sorry about that. Below is what I remember about my first (lost) response.

I asked about your sarcasm and exaggeration, which surprised me, because I hadn't called you mother "ugly."

I asked you to lay out the time line and give me sources. I said that I'd be willing to correct if my statement wasn't accurate. CORRECTION DONE.

I also pointed out that I hadn't simply made up the notion that Obama's campaign had lit the fuse (acted early on) -- but that I'd quoted it from NYT.

That's all I remember about the lost comment.

Oh-- I also asked why you seem to get angry when my attacks are against Obama and his campaign -- not you.

They're not mere name-calling. I actually list evidence and sources.

Yes, my analysis leads to conclusions that you don't agree with, but they ARE honest arguments on my part.

I think it's natural that you and I draw dif conclusions from the same facts, if only because our perspective makes us sensitive to different things in the media and might even lead us to different news sources.

I, for example, make a point of (mostly) not watching Olbermann any more. I doubt that you have such an aversion to him.

[D. Cupples]

BW,

Thanks for the support. What Adam was saying (from an earlier comment) is that Obama himself wasn't the first to respond and that there was no evidence that Obama's campaign was among the first to respond.

It's a minor point that I'm willing to concede, because I don't have time stamps on who reacted when.

That said, I DO AGREE WITH YOU that Obama's campaign had thrown gas on the fire (and early on).

[D. Cupples]

Denny,

I do agree with you about the media's (and DNC's) having ignored Obama's negativity and divisiveness.

What they don't understand is that their ignoring has struck many people as unfair treatment and has intensified their resentment toward the media, the DNC and Obama's campaign.

This is part of what makes the healing of the party rift so difficult, I think.

[D. Cupples]

Sap,

Adam isn't calling me ugly. He's just defending politicians/operatives that I'm neither related to nor know on a personal basis.

I see no cause to take it personally or get angry. And Adam doesn't actually think I'm lying -- he's just totally averse to my conclusions.

That said, I AM angry at the Obama campaign -- precisely, as you said, because it talks out of both sides and has made many misleading statements.

I'm also angry at the DNC, for the same reasons that you are.

But it would be irrational of me to direct that frustration at Adam, who has been a really cool online buddy for months.

[Adam]

Wow, go outside for a few house and this place goes crazy. Deb, thanks for seeing my comments for what they are and defending me against personal attacks. I certainly value this site as a place I can have a discussion with a Clinton supporter without things descending to name-calling.

Sorry about the sarcasm in the part where I wrote about Obama defending Hillary. It wasn't meant as condescension. I just find the situation particularly ridiculous, even given the Umbrage wars" of this year. Citing this story as an example of Obama's campaign being negative is not only incorrect, but 180 degrees from the truth. Obama personally defending Hillary is what, more than anything, makes that clear, so please forgive me for going a little over the top when I wrote about it.

The idea that Obama's campaign "threw gas on the fire" is a vast overstatement of the campaign's involvement.

If you want to blame somebody, the #1 culprit is Matt Druge. (File that under "things which do not surprise me")

The initial Obama staffer statement was:

1) AFTER it was already getting coverage on several media sources, and flying through the blogs. It gave people a quote to run, but the idea that it accelerated anything is somewhere between highly questionable and totally unsupportable. I didn't see a single story that ran that comment as the lead.

2) Far, far below the level of criticism Hillary was ALREADY getting from many sources. The Obama staffer statement didn't ratchet the criticism to a new level, or even match the tone of what was already being said. Whatever you think of those comments, they were, by the standards of the atmosphere in which they were released, very mild.

You note that two news sources note a rapid response from Obama's campaign. This is basically the MSM embellishing and creating a nice narrative. They want more Obama vs. Clinton drama, so they take the statement that they almost certainly solicited, and turn it into virtual crossfire. Given that these stories make no effort to dispute the timeline I gave, I don't see a need to defend it any further. I understand how you could have interpreted their statements to mean that Obama's campaign started the media fury, but that's not what actually happened.

And again, Obama explicitly defended Hillary the same day. I think that's pretty exceptional by the standards of any campaign. It would have been perfectly acceptable for Obama to stay silent, but in stead he tamped down the criticism.

Happy memorial day, everyone!

[Hillary or Bust]

It seems to me that as long as Obama keeps repeating the mantra "I'm above politics as usual," many people will mistakenly believe that he is sincere and somehow magically above the fray. But the very fact that he continues to paint his opposition as "divisive" IS divisive.

He's like the cheating husband who blames the wife when she suspects him of wrongdoing...the guy who says "how could you possibly doubt me, dear?" and makes her out to be crazy and hysterical, while meanwhile he's having sex with his secretary.

Obama has run an extremely insidious campaign. But he is not somehow this annointed saint that his fans make him out to be. Most of us see beyond his BS.

And we're not suggesting Hillary is perfect. But the huge difference is, she never CLAIMED she was perfect.

[D. Cupples]

Hi Adam,

Yes, Obama did right. Unfortunately, two of his staffers -- one before and one after O spoke -- squirted lighter fluid on the fire (as opposed to throwing a gallon of gas).

This is not the first time Obama said nice stuff, while his campaign staffers were doing the opposite with the press.

Remember that Saturday in Indiana (or was it Ohio)? Obama said that the Bosnia thing was no big deal, give her a break.

Meanwhile, his staffers were bringing it up during media calls. I blogged about it, remember?

I don't understand why you don't see the inconsistency between some of the campaign's positive gestures versus its damaging (simultaneous) actions.

Matt Drudge: the MSM quickly disregarded him when he said pro-Bush stuff, but when he said stuff that made Hillary look bad, they repeated it unquestioningly (e.g., RFK and Samoli dress). Interesting.

Can you see why Hillary supporters might be unhappy about the media? This sort of crap (multiple standards, unfairness) has been going on for months.

IT sucks when we have to watch Scarborough to get positive stuff about Hillary when she does well at something -- and he doesn't even trash Obama.

He points out some flaws here and there, but it's NOT the evil-enemy crap that you might see on Fox.

To answer your other points directly:

1) whether the staffers' involvement did or didn't cause it to escalate tremendously (as opposed to a little), their reactions showed INTENT to escalate it or keep it going.

That's irrefutable.

2) You don't have to defend your time line: I made the edit.

3) Burton's comment was loaded -- and NOT aimed at putting out the fire. Period.

Obama's defense was NOT exceptional. I've pointed out that Hillary has at least three times PUBLICLY said that Obama would be better than McCain.

Thus, they've both defended each other, so there's nothing exceptional about it.

She did it a couple weeks ago too, on a different issue, but I forgot which one. Maybe the Bush comments?

My point was that someone in Obama's campaign should have written the FIRST comment to be similar to Obama's later comment -- if putting out the fire is what the campaign really had in mind.

That's the way to not fuel or prolong a story, and Axelrod -- of all people, with his media savvy -- knows this.

OFF TOPIC

Have you seen Olbermann's piece yet? If so, what do you think?

Make no mistake: Olbermann IS a campaign volunteer -- it's just unofficial.

And he has riled up SOME supporters to the point that they downright loath Hillary, seeing her as the EVIL enemy. I'm not exaggerating.

Rush had convinced my father to view Daschel and a bunch of other Dems the same way some years back.

That's how they've been talking -- for months-- even before many Hillary supporters started getting that way.

You'll find pissed-off Hillary supporters saying things they shouldn't (with tremendous emotion).

But you don't see major MSM figures painting Obama as the EVIL enemy, and you don't get even a hint of that crap from Hillary's campaign emails.

[Adam]

""Privately, aides to Mr. Obama were furious about the remark."

Why the private fury if the campaign REALLY saw the gaffe as sans evil intent?"

Well, the obvious answer is that perhaps they DID see some "evil intent", or at least found it to be extremely insensitive. They just chose not to come out and say that.

Personally - I was not deeply offended when I first saw the comments. I'm not easily offended. But I *did* think she was, be it lazily or intentionally, making a reference to the possibility that Obama will be assassinated. My reaction was not "OMG SHE SAID KILL OBAMA WTF", but "That's ridiculous. If Obama is killed she gets nominated even if she suspends her campaign tomorrow."

My point is that it wasn't, in my opinion, absurd to draw a link to assassination after hearing her comments. That's only taking the comment "out of context" (Clinton's words) if we assume that the assassination line was ITSELF "out of context" - totally unrelated to the sentences that came before and after it. That's essentially what Hillary is claiming; that she was thinking of the Kennedy family and just threw in the comment about RFK dying for reasons totally unrelated to the question she was answering. So, if we take her own explanation at face value, her statement was merely a clumsy and unfortunate reference to a candidate being killed.

[Adam]

I did actually see KO's comments - I would not have searched this "special comment" out, but I happened to be watching.

(A brief word on "e-mail forwarding gate". To say some anonymous staffer Stephanopoulos mentioned was the driving force behind the continuation of this controversy is completely ridiculous.

Firstly, the connection to Obama's campaign here is not even proven - this is on the same level as Matt Druge claiming a Clinton staffer sent him the "dressed picture" of Obama. I recall you were rather skeptical of that.

Secondly, even if some staffer did send an e-mail, it's irrelevant because Olbermann has a national TV show, and George Stephanopoulos probably has a TV. He may even have internet access. Forwarding Olbermann's "special comment" is not exactly a breaking story.

Third, it's very unlikely that this anonymous staffer, if he exists, actually was speaking for the campaign, while we have three actual statements from the campaign that are drastically less harsh in their treatment of Hillary than KO was.

OK, enough on that. If it did happen, it's unfortunate, and not something I would excuse, but not relevant either.)

Anyway, I'll make some comments on KO's "special comment":

1) As I've said before, Olbermann in my mind is more of an editorialist than a reporter. He's never pretended to be impartial about most of the stories he covers. He's an Obama supporter at this point, for sure. He's not hiding that.

I still think you should watch some of his stuff, because he covers a lot of important stories that nobody else on broadcast media is covering. He's one of the few progressive voices in the media, and that shouldn't be ignored simply because of his bias in the primary campaign. Just know that at certain times, you're going to have to hit the mute or power buttons.

2) The "special comment" was totally over the top and blew things far out of proportion. The comment, even if you DO interpret it as a reference to the possibility of Obama being assassinated, just wasn't as deeply offensive as he made it out to be. Not in my opinion, anyway.

3) One interesting thing about Olbermann's criticism of Hillary here was that he pointed out that this was not a random line she threw out one time - it was a talking point that she has said on at least three occasions. But, interestingly, the specific reference to RFK being killed disappeared, then reappeared, over the three versions.

This is very interesting to me, because it seems to reveal that the choice of 1992 and 1968 as the examples was intentional. This is, frankly, a very strange pair of years to pick. 1992 is a very poor example because Bill had effectively eliminated his opposition by April, and was just coasting until he finally OFFICIALLY clinched in June. And 1968 was a year when the process started MUCH later, so June then would be late August now. Much better examples of campaign fights dragging late would be or 1980 or 1984, or even 1972.

I think it's pretty easy to see why Hillary would pick 1992 and not those three to demonstrate her point - not only does it hearken back to the Clinton legacy, but it skirts the issue of whether the extended nomination fights cost the Democrats the election in the other years. But the conscious choice of 1968 - particularly given the fact that RFK's death was mentioned TWICE in this context, makes it hard to see this as an offhand mistake.

Again, I, personally, don't really care if she IS making a reference to the possibility of Obama being shot. I think it's an extremely poor argument for her candidacy, but it's not as if avoiding the subject makes the threat on Obama any smaller.

4) I don't expect you to listen to his comment again, if you already have, but there's one passage in it that I find... well, if not illuminating, at least illustrative.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24797758/displaymode/1098/

Note the littany of statements in the latter half, all followed by "we have forgiven you".

Now, some of those, like Ferarro's comments, seem pretty minor to me. Others of those, most notably the favorable comparisons of McCain to Obama, have been serious no-no's in my mind, as well.

My point is not to debate each and every one of those. My point is that just as there are Clinton supporters angry about the media attacking Hillary and, to some degree, Obama attacking Hillary, there are many Obama supporters angry about the way Clinton has attacked Obama.

Point being, I think it's a bit myopic for Clinton supporters to be angry at Obama or his campaign for the way they've treated Hillary. Hillary's attacks have been at least as bad, and in my opinion much worse, at least since early March. The biggest issue is that a lot of Clinton supporters get angry at OBAMA for things the MEDIA, or supporters Obama can't control, say or do.

[D. Cupples]

HoB,

Yes, you're right. Hillary didn't claim to be "perfect" or anything close to it.

I think Obama set higher standards for others to judge him by the minute he started claiming that he and his money were cleaner than Hillary and hers.

That and the politics-as-usual thing. Ironically, if Axelrod is any indication of politics as usual in his neck of the woods, I'd be more comfy with old Washington- style politics (pre-GWB) than Chicago style, any day.

[Hillary or Bust]

Adam, I'm not angry at Obama so much as sick to death of him. And that's what happens when the media anoints a superhero based on his own inflated image of himself.

I have Obama-fatigue in the way that I have Britney-fatigue.

And because I've done my homework on Obama, I know that he's a pandering politician who isn't the saint he claims to be. So at this point any pro-Obama stuff in the media has about the same effect on me as a piece on Paris Hilton might. In other words: I turn it off.

In that way, he's the victim of his own hype.

[Adam]

Joe Scarborough doesn't trash Obama? Whaaaaa??? I think he went at least 20 straight episodes talking about Jeremiah Wright. It was like he had a bet that he could stretch it out longer than Lou Dobbs.

You see plenty of MSM figures painting Obama as the evil black mean black cowardly black elitist black enemy. I fully expect more to come in the general election. It didn't work in the special elections, or in the primaries, but the GOP playbook has been the same since the mid-90s and it's going to take them more than a few months to re-write it.

Olbermann is not an Obama volunteer. He talks about plenty of stuff that is unrelated to the campaign. If you insist on conflating him with the Obama campaign, then you will end up feeling more negatively towards Obama, and I think that's unwarranted.

[Adam]

HoB,

I can't really talk you out of that viewpoint and I won't really try to. All I will say is, there ARE policy differences between McCain and Obama, and the "Hillary or Bust" viewpoint seems to imply that you think they are indistinguishable. I don't see how you can think that if you step back and look at the candidates rationally.

[Hillary or Bust]

I never said that there weren't differences between McCain and Obama. But I am sick and tired of the treatment of Hillary in this campaign and in protest of the DNC's pushing of Obama, who is unvetted and underqualified, I will not vote for Obama in November if Hillary is not on the ticket.

I have nowhere said I am voting for McCain. There are plenty of 3rd party options. I may also write in Hillary. But Obama without Hillary? Never in a million years. His association with Rezko sealed that for me.

I don't like Republicans, but I dislike a pretend leftist self-proclaimed Messiah who is a hypocrite even more.

[Molly]

GOOD TRUE FACTS!!! Hillary Clinton has been bashed by the media, DNC, and the obama group - they are a DISGRACE. The LIE told by the obama group about RFK - is dirty politics - where is the outrage from the DNC - they were all over any racist comments ever made. The obama campaign is the Unity guy of Change - what a FRAUD!
Obama is NOT qualified - that is why MILLIONS of Hillary supporters will NEVER vote for him - BUT - now he is just a Disgrace with his tricks to win at all cost - push her out - I've won - how ARROGANT!
KEEP FIGHTING HILLARY MILLIONS VOTE FOR YOU