Posted by Damozel | I have been in England for the last couple of weeks not doing any blogging at all. I am very sorry to find myself, on my return, still writing about Obama versus Hillary. The Times Online (London, that is) is now referring to Obama as 'the probable nominee' and a London betting shop I happened into favored Obama over Hillary (Al Gore was a rank outsider at 20 to 1). But what do they know? 'What is a primary, anyway?' a relative asked me. 'They seem to take an awfully long time.' Don't they just.
Hillary seems to have put her foot in it while I was off thinking of something else. And by 'put her foot in it' I mean 'made the mistake of saying something that could be twisted into a meaning that no one who knows anything about her could conceivably believe she intended.' Yes, indeed: it's never too late in the day for some faked-up outrage and negative spin:
Barack Obama, the probable Democratic presidential nominee, wants Bill Clinton to help him heal the deep party rifts created by his wife Hillary’s divisive campaign – culminating in her dramatic claim this weekend that the 1968 assassination of Robert F Kennedy was a reason not to be pushed out of the race.
The tension between Hillary Clinton and Obama intensified after she told the Sioux Falls Argus Leader in South Dakota, which holds the last primary contest in 10 days’ time: “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June.”
She quickly apologised, ashen-faced, for a comment which appeared dangerously close to wishful thinking about Obama, but the damage was done. (TOL)
It didn't appear that way to me. And I don't think that anyone --- in the media or in the Obama 'camp' or anywhere on planet earth --- really thought for a moment that she thought this, meant this, or wished this. And in fact, she explained her remark:
Hillary, 60, claimed that her remark about the assassination had arisen because the “Kennedys have been much on my mind” after Senator Edward Kennedy, Robert’s younger brother, was diagnosed with a brain tumour last week.
She insisted she was referring to the timing of his assassination in June, when he was still a presidential candidate, rather than his killing, to make the point that there was nothing unusual about her determination to take this year’s race for the nomination into the summer.
However, while she expressed regret for “referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation”, she did not apologise to Obama, who has been receiving secret security protection for the past year after death threats.(TOL)
I've yet to understand how one can apologize for something one didn't actually say, but there you are, even in the British press: the expectation that people will apologize for the twisted inferences of others.
“We have seen an x-ray of a very dark soul,” wrote...a New York Daily News columnist. “One consumed by raw ambition to where the possible assassination of an opponent is something to ponder in a strategic way. Otherwise, why is murder on her mind?”(TOL; emphasis added)
Methinks the above-referenced columnist doth project too much. But before you airily say to yourself, 'That's just 'Clinton rules' in action; what else is new?' and move on, stop and read the bolded text again. Think about what that columnist is seriously implying about a respected former first lady and Democratic Senator. Think about what that means.
Of course, this entire campaign --- initially mainly on the Obama side of the fence, subsequently on Hillary's as well --- has been characterized by pretend shock/horror/outrage thinly masking the sincere at catching out the other candidate and shrieking 'GOTCHA!' The glee springs from joyful anticipation of twisting out of the candidate's words --- and subsequent corrections --- the 'true' interpretation of what the candidate 'really meant.'
No apology or explanation, however ashen-faced, can stop the media, or the candidates' supporters, from spinning each and every slip-up or wrong-footed stagger off the intended message as a deeply significant clue to the candidate's true beliefs..
It's become so absurd and pointless and middle-school malicious that I can barely stand to think about it anymore, which is why I was hoping it would all go away while I was gamboling among the buttercups and daisies in the fields of the Cotswolds. I plan to ease back into writing about politics slowly, but to ease back into it.
Anyway, I'm pleased to learn that there is going to be a rally by Hillary's Florida and Michigan supporters in DC. Represent!
Hundreds of Hillary Clinton's supporters were travelling to Washington yesterday before a crucial Democratic Party meeting that could extinguish one of the last hopes she has of reviving her candidacy.
Security was being tightened outside the Washington hotel where the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee will decide on Saturday how to resolve the disputed primary elections from Florida and Michigan.
A huge demonstration by Mrs Clinton's supporters is being planned, with demands that the results from the disputed elections — both of which Mrs Clinton won — be counted in full. (TOL)
I commend all Democrats from Florida have resisted Howard Dean's scheme for disenfranchising Democratic voters to punish the party for decisions made by our Republican legislature. Whatever Obama's supporters or others believe, fighting back against Dean & Co. is the only way to ensure that the DNC climbs down off its high horse long enough to realize the wrongfulness of punishing individual voters who bothered to turn out for Democrats for decisions over which we had no effective control. How would they have liked it if we'd all stayed homes?
To return to the rally: According to The Times, Mr Obama has sent a nationwide e-mail urging his backers not to attend, amid fears that the rally could turn violent. Have we really come to that? I doubt it. We're Democrats. We might argue our opponents into a coma, but I can't imagine even the most impassioned supporters of either candidate flinging anything harder than words at the other's.
But Obama may have another objective in asking his supporters to refrain from going head to head with Hillary's. Again according to the Times Online, Obama insiders and advisers apparently believe that only Bill Clinton has the power to reunite the divided Democratic party.
Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton? Well, well, well. Wasn't he recently discovered to be secretly racist (and never mind his and Hillary's lifelong support of civil rights)? Weren't campaign advisers and commentators united in demanding that he sit down and shut up? How can a big ol' racist heal this, or any, rift?
But apparently --- at the same time Bill Clinton's wife is being accused of secretly hoping for a dire fate for Obama --- the Obama campaign has discovered that B. Clinton has the power to heal all rifts, presumably including all the many rifts the Obama campaign and Obama's supporters have deliberately generated.
Senior officials on Obama’s campaign believe Bill Clinton has the unique status and political gifts to reunite the party after such gaffes. They expressed confidence that the former president would rise above the perceived slights and grudges of a hard-fought campaign and work flat out for an Obama victory in November’s presidential election.
“If anybody can put their arms around the party and say we need to be together, it is Bill Clinton,” a senior Obama aide said.
“He’s brilliant, he has got heart and he cares deeply about the country. It’s tricky because of his position as Hillary’s spouse, but his involvement is very important to us.
“Bill Clinton will give permission to Hillary supporters to come into our camp and become one party. He is critical to this effort.” (TOL)
Because this is true, it gives me some consolation. And because it is so absurd, juxtaposed with all the dark and asinine allegations about Bill Clinton's wife, it makes me laugh out loud.
Comments