Tuesday, May 27, 2008
A short note on AssassinationGate
I have not written about Hillary Clinton's repeated references to Bobby Kennedy's assassination as evidence that in days of old Democratic primary campaigns have extended into June. I'm too busy, and the controversy is too tedious. That said, if you dislike Hillary Clinton you really should not miss Keith Olbermann's extended evisceration of her on account of same. Talk about your incandescent rage.
Taking Olbermann seriously for a moment -- always dangerous, to be sure -- may I respectfully suggest that his singling out of the use of the word "assassination" as somehow vastly more offensive than mere allusions to it strikes me as contrived. Or if it is not contrived then it is just another example of post-modern ideological rage arising from nuance in language.
More troubling, Olbermann's suggestion that we somehow live in times that are troubled comparably to 1968 strikes me as delusional. This is a foolish conceit that is popular among lefties of, well, Olbermann's age. There is nothing particularly troubled about 2008. Yes, we are on the brink of a recession, and yes the country is burned out -- again -- on a presidency that seems to have gone on longer than anybody wishes it had. But there is nothing comparable to the social upheavals of those horrible, destructive years from the late 1960s to the mid-1970s. There are no massive demonstrations, no riots, no armed takeovers, no domestic terrorism, no shattering cultural changes, no assassinations or assassination attempts, notwithstanding the "fears" of leftists who think that Barack Obama is a target. He has criss-crossed the country for two years and nobody has even hinted at a threat. Back in the day there were two attempts on the life of Gerald Ford, for heaven's sake, in less than a month. Nobody has so much as taken a shot at George W. Bush, who has done far more to irritate the left than issuing an unpopular pardon.
That said, there is no way that Hillary repeatedly mentioned Bobby Kennedy's assassination purely to introduce evidence that nominating campaigns extend into June. She is much smarter than that. But she was not inviting Obama's assassination, either. I believe that she was trying to trigger flashback anxiety on the part of her base, which is older than Obama's and will in many cases remember how terrible those times were. No, let's not promise too much change again.
Olbermann, meanwhile, has gotta chill-ax, as my daughter would say.
4 Comments:
By 
joated, at
Tue May 27, 08:13:00 PM:
You're right on about the hyperbole of the negativistic doom sayers. More people need to turn off the TV and cancel their newspaper ad news magazine subscriptions and get away from all the negative reporting. Left to themselves I would venture to say most people would realize that thisngs aren't all that bad.
I watched a clip of Olbermann's rant and thought for sure he was going to pop a bloodvessel right then and there. The man is a total hack. That MSNBC would give him prime time...well, it says a lot about MSNBC. And none of it's good.
By 
, at
Tue May 27, 08:17:00 PM:
Flipping channels tonight I hear Bill O'Reilly claim that Hillary mentioning assassination somehow will encourage some crazy to try it.
Now if he along with so many other commentators are so concerned that mentioning assassination could lead to someone trying it why do they keep bringing it up?
alan
By GreenmanTim, at
Tue May 27, 11:13:00 PM:
On the other hand, Hillary's follow up claim that she holds Bobby Kennedy's Senate Seat is, strictly speaking, correct. But by that same logic, she also holds Jim Buckeley's seat. It went Kennedy to Goodell to Buckley to Moynihan to Clinton, if your are keeping score at home.
By , at
Wed May 28, 10:21:00 AM:
Did any one actually see the interview with Hillary where she made the comment? I had read all of the stories prior to actually seeing her speak and two things struck me:
1) It was a throw away comment that did not appear to be in any way unconsciously purposeful.
2) As much as I wish Mr. Bush was a better public speaker, he never suffers the consequences of these "throw away comments" that are regularly killing these supposedly really smart and engaging Democrats. How many times has Hillary put her foot in her mouth or flat out stretched the truth needlessly because of some throw away line (think Bosnia - the fact that she went to the front was enough - sniper fire too much!) Just yesterday, Barack had two wacky comments: 1) "My uncle helped liberate the prisoners of Auschwitz" (it would at least begin to explain some of his political views since it was the Russians who were the liberators.) 2) In speaking about the growing concern of Post Traumatic stress disorder of our troops coming back from Iraq, he then throws in the line that it is particularly complicated for women who served because "many of them were also sexually abused as well."
Huh...? I am going to need to see the stats on that one?
If you think about all of the air time that guys like John Kerry lose because they try to be too smart or too deep. There is no doubt the Swift Boat guys had a hand in people questioning his leadership skills and the record he was displaying, however how much gasoline did he throw on his own fire when he would say stupid stuff like "I voted against the war before I voted for it?" or "If you don't do good in school you will end up in Iraq" (as if joining the military was the choice of the desperate and stupid?)
Think back to Al Gore (I invented the Internet) or any one of a number of choice dicksteppers that Joe Biden has let loose (assuming of course it was actually his words and not some other nut job that he copied?) There is something to be said about staying on message and never diverting.
