Politico admits pushing the RFK quote too soon.

[grasswire]

"Perhaps half an hour after the story broke Martin called me back over to his desk. It turned out the Argus Leader had video of its big interview. I huddled over Martin’s computer as we watched.

It was a deflating experience.

The RFK remarks were deep in a 20-minute clip of an otherwise routine conversation. Then, once we actually got to the relevant portion of the video, it was hardly an electric moment.

Clinton does indeed mention the Kennedy assassination, speaking in a calm and analytical tone: “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

Martin and I both thought we saw a slight twinge in Clinton’s facial expression, as though she recognized she had just said something dumb. Whether she recognized it or not, she had.

But it was also clear that Clinton’s error was not in saying something beyond the pale but in saying something that pulled from context would sound as if it were beyond the pale."


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10604.html

[FrenchieCat]

1. Who gives a shit about Politico and what they do?

Really? Where did they come from, and why are they here?

Do you know?

[grasswire]

5. ::::shhhh::::

They AREN'T here.

But you knew that.

Right?

::::backing carefully away from the crazies::::::

[Cha]

11. Look who's calling anyone

crazy, grasswire.

[Schema Thing]

6. I understand them to be the world's preeminent mind-readers

[Miss Authoritiva]

10. If you can't see where the shit is coming from, you'll never duck in time

The Politico article is fascinating to read because you get to see how these guys really screw up. Now, this time, it's Clinton. Next time, it'll be Obama. And the time after that, McCain.

Don't care about Clinton or McCain? Okay. But it's a good idea to understand how these idiots work so you can protect Obama's candidacy from their idiocy.

[FrenchieCat]

14. That's why I don't respect them as a source as of now........as before

Do you understand that?

How they work is that a bunch of folks go over to their website and treat them like they are the Drudge report.

Personally, I already know that Politico was put together specifically for these elections, and that they feed bits here and there to get folks to care about what they report.

I already know that it is a set up; including what they are writing about now. They didn't break the story, which is why I find it puzzling that they are acting as though they did, and now backtracking as though the public reaction was based on what they had to say about it.

I wasn't born yesterday....and so yes, I already understand how it all works.

Plus, several newspapers have already debunked the fact that Hillary referencing 1968 or 1992 doesn't make sense based on why she said she used the word assassination.

Politico means not a thing to me....one way or the other.

[LTR]

23. Here's some background on them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politico

Like 'em or not, they've got their shit together. They've broken a lot of stories and have become very influential in a very short period of time.

[gateley]

2. Oh well. No qualms, apparently, about blowing up

"bitter" before learning about the context in which it was said.

This remorse is bullshit.

[Connie_Corleone]

3. The media always makes excuses for Hillary.

They had no problem running with the "bitter" comment for weeks. And Hillary eagerly piled on. Her camp even made a stupid ad about it.

[Mme. Defarge]

4. I watched the entire, dull, interview, and --

in context, or out of context, her "assassination" coment WAS beyond the pale.

[jsmirman]

8. And her "calm, analytical tone" was just so much more Hillary bullshit

just hilarious watching her try to make something sound casual and conversational when SHE'S HITTING A TALKING POINT FOR THE THIRD TIME.

And by hilarious, I mean makes me want to see her eaten by a land shark.

[blitzen]

7. The reason this is BS is this:

The way Hillary emphasized the word "assasinated" and NOT the word "June." Whether or not it was intentional, she did in fact connote that something casatrophic may happen to Obama in June. Sure, she was talking, overall, about the length of the primary season. But there were also, even if subconsciously, very unpleasant connotations. So Politico can shove it up their right-leaning rear-end!

[Berry Cool]

9. Look, a lot of people have seen that video a million times. They KNOW she was "calm and analytical"

in appearance when she said it. What the hell does THAT have to do with anything?

Only true idiots believe that if someone appears "calm and analytical" about something that it's a sign of the person actually BEING calm and analytical. They think that unless someone rants and raves and foams at the mouth, the person is completely "normal," no matter what he or she says. Professionals would tell them otherwise.

[DarienComp]

12. So it's not "beyond the pale" because there was "a slight twinge in Clinton's facial expression"?

[thewiseguy]

13. Someone made the same exact thread two days ago. The coordination is just amazing.

Whats striking is that the title of Politico's article was not what you posted and yet you and that poster came up with the exact same headline.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6125543

Whats more striking was that the poster there was new and he/she got banned very quickly.

[murielm99]

22. Yet it is okay to post a thousand threads condemning

Clinton for what she said. It is okay to get so hysterical about it that DU goes into Defcon 3 over it. Uh huh.

[jillan]

15. Anyone who thinks that Hillary wants that to happen to Obama really needs

some medical attention....and fast.

Newsflash - she wasn't even talking about Obama, but was talking about how this is not the first primary that went into June.
Yes, it was an unfortunate comment.

It is really sounding alot like Fox news around here....talking one soundbyte and twisting it into something that it is not.


DUne.

[slinkerwink]

16. Remembering timelines by assassination references...so stupid.

[thewiseguy]

17. Take a look at this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6125543

;-) Amazing..Huh?

[mystieus]

18. Seriously, there were no reason to bring up assassination period!

[sam kane]

19. She SAID THE SAME THING IN MARCH.

IT is a talking point, obviously.

[dailykoff]

21. Exactly. n/t

[dailykoff]

20. She's been saying the same thing since March 6 at least.

Nobody ambushed the clintons. If anything, they've been trying for months to gin up a shitstorm and finally got their wish.

[smiley_glad_hands]

24. Just repugs running cover for their gal Hill. eom

[Cha]

25. "Yet the assassination reference wasn't clinton's only mistake"

<snip>

"Yet the assassination reference wasn't Clinton's only mistake. In the same breath, she maintained that her husband had not wrapped up the nomination until June. In truth, he did so in March with the Illinois primary. While California made his victory a mathematical fact, the outcome had not been in doubt for months."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080524/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_remark;_ylt=AkZR3NoSD3_U45IdK85Mksis0NUE

Another day another damn hilary lie.

[McCamy Taylor]

26. Politico makes a living pulling shit from context to divide the Democrats

Politico also misquotes Democrats---they misquoted Hillary on MLK LBJ and that was the reason KO aired the misquote on national TV and got everyone else doing the misquote that they are still misquoting--even though Politico cutely corrected themselves within a couple of hours of their initial "error".

Ben Smith is being paid by someone to post flamebait.

I guess he is getting grief now from someone accusing him of inciting people to assassinate Obama and so he is trying to cover his ass.

[autorank]

27. Panzys

What do you expect from a blog with Washington Post alumni and other MSM ers.