You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What the hell was "RFK assassination" doing in her library of talking points to begin with? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
DanTex Donating Member (734 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-24-08 08:49 PM
Original message
What the hell was "RFK assassination" doing in her library of talking points to begin with?
Advertisements [?]
That's the real question. We know it wasn't some offhand remark; she's used it before in a similar context. If there was a "gaffe", it was in her delivery, but the reference to the "RFK assassination" was both intentional and premeditated.

I would think that when you're brainstorming talking points, anything with "assassination" in it would immediately throw up all kinds of red flags. Half the room must have said forget it, that's horrible and inappropriate. These guys are pros. They comb every single line for the slightest hint of potential controversy. The words "RFK assassination" aren't just going to slip by unnoticed.

So, there must have been some compelling reason to SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE the reference to "RFK assassination" in the context of "reasons I'm staying in the race". They thought about it, talked it over, and decided, yes, that's a good thing to say. You know it will be controversial; you know that if you happen to phrase it poorly just once, there's gonna to be hell to pay. Nevertheless, the perceived benefits to Hillary's campaign must have been enough to outweigh all that.

I don't know what she was thinking. The most sinister interpretation is unfathomable -- there's no way she meant "let's wait and see if Obama gets shot". On the other hand, it's also kind of hard to believe the most benign explanation: that bringing up the assassination was just an "effective reminder" that RFK's campaign went into June.

It's just too much fire to be playing with -- and it's not even a good talking point. I mean, 1968 isn't exactly a shining example of the great things that come out of a long and bitter primary battle: "there's plenty of historical precedent ... first a candidate gets shot ... then we have riots at the convention ... and finally Nixon becomes president ... so stop asking me to drop out for the sake of 'unity'".

Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of this. "Strange and tasteless" is probably the best description I've heard. So I guess I'm confused and disgusted.

:wtf:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC