What Will the Hillary Deathwatch Say?
I was motivated to write a post defending Clinton for her remark about Robert Kennedy's assassination. Certain things have come to light, though, and now I don't really know what to think.
Here is the video (I use the TPM version because I think it gives the right amount of context):
And here is her apology:
Now, my first reaction on seeing the video was that Clinton had made an unfortunate mistake. I'm inclined to cut politicians slack when they make careless remarks, unless those remarks reveal something worse than carelessness.
The only problem is that this is something that Clinton has said before. That means that at the very least it's something she's thought about before. It's a fact that she had tucked away to use when this question comes up.
It so happens that it's a bullshit argument, but that's not the point. The point is that the remark wasn't off the cuff, it wasn't a slip of the tongue.
But what was it? I have no idea. I don't really see the angle here for Clinton. The only thing I can think of is the possibility that she can use the predictable outrage over this remark to further polarize the race, giving her a stronger hand in negotiations with Obama. That indirect effect seems so much weaker than the direct effect of embarrassing her, though, that I don't really buy it.
[UPDATE: I forgot to add my "all attention is good attention" theory, which is weak but is somewhat strengthened by the fact that the New York Times is giving much more prominence to this story than to Obama's seemingly successful speech on Cuba in Miami.]
I guess it's more likely that Clinton had thought about this, but hadn't really thought about the way it would sound. All in all, though, it's very bizarre. People are going to make a big deal out of it, and it won't shed light on anything. At the end of the day, I guess I don't think she was pulling any tricks, but I also think it would be a pretty amusing way for her campaign to end: mired in the same bullshit they've been peddling for so long.
Here is the video (I use the TPM version because I think it gives the right amount of context):
And here is her apology:
Now, my first reaction on seeing the video was that Clinton had made an unfortunate mistake. I'm inclined to cut politicians slack when they make careless remarks, unless those remarks reveal something worse than carelessness.
The only problem is that this is something that Clinton has said before. That means that at the very least it's something she's thought about before. It's a fact that she had tucked away to use when this question comes up.
It so happens that it's a bullshit argument, but that's not the point. The point is that the remark wasn't off the cuff, it wasn't a slip of the tongue.
But what was it? I have no idea. I don't really see the angle here for Clinton. The only thing I can think of is the possibility that she can use the predictable outrage over this remark to further polarize the race, giving her a stronger hand in negotiations with Obama. That indirect effect seems so much weaker than the direct effect of embarrassing her, though, that I don't really buy it.
[UPDATE: I forgot to add my "all attention is good attention" theory, which is weak but is somewhat strengthened by the fact that the New York Times is giving much more prominence to this story than to Obama's seemingly successful speech on Cuba in Miami.]
I guess it's more likely that Clinton had thought about this, but hadn't really thought about the way it would sound. All in all, though, it's very bizarre. People are going to make a big deal out of it, and it won't shed light on anything. At the end of the day, I guess I don't think she was pulling any tricks, but I also think it would be a pretty amusing way for her campaign to end: mired in the same bullshit they've been peddling for so long.
posted by James | 5:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home