Browse By

Hillary’s behavior has left me speechless

Hillary raises RFK assasination as a defense for extended race. When I said this woman could kiss my ass? I was being too polite. It’s ugly enough that she said this shit, but to say it the week Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with a brain tumor? Is that how we’re doing things now? And her “apology”was only extended to the Kennedy family. No mention of the implications for Obama or McCain. I will not be able to bring myself to vote for her in November. I just can’t do it. Since I seem to be without the words to truly address this I’m going to suggest you imagine me screaming and bashing decorative objects with a hammer. Because right now that’s all I can do.

Karnythia is a writer, a historian, and occasionally a loud mouth. In between raising hell and raising kids she usually manages to find time to contemplate the meaning of life as a black woman in America. Her posts on any topic can be found at her Livejournal.

59 thoughts on “Hillary’s behavior has left me speechless”

  1. Sarah J says:

    I am with you 100% of the way. I was all ready to go to sleep and then a friend sent me that link.

  2. A. says:

    As I said in another post, Hillary Clinton is a sick and depraved individual now. She has to try to use assassination and fucking 1968 as an example of how an election can go into June.

    Fucking 1968. The year of RFK’s assassination and the DNC riots.

    Seriously, Hill.

    You’ve got idiots talking about “How this isn’t that bad, and was just using it as an example of how it’s just a simple example of things going into june.” That’s bull. Comparing anything political to 1968 just makes me say “WTF.”

    There isn’t much to defend anymore, and Keith Olbermann just said it abso-fucking-lutely right. Americans have given her the benefit of the doubt and forgiven her too many times. Now, she’s crossed that line to where the DNC oughta shut her ass down.

  3. Ceci says:

    Believe me, I was thinking of the same things ever since I first heard this story. I thought I was upset the last time over her “white working class” comments.

    I am very upset now. Hillary knows better–especially when the anniversary of RFK’s death (along with Sen. Kennedy’s diagnosis) was coming up. What is especially horrible is the slight that she gave Mr. Obama. I believe that she doesn’t have any empathy or conscience if she had to go that below the belt to stay in the race.

    I’ve dealt with the Hillary supporters and their constant pleas on-line and off that she is not a racist or mean individual. But after today, I beg to differ.

    It’s time that she gets read the riot act and hauled out of the DNC for good. She is doing the Democratic Party–or the country (by extension)–no good.

    Take care,


  4. BLackamazon says:

    I literallya m speechless. I am disgusted and you knwo what i am frightened.

    Becuase unlike senator clinton . I have a deep connection to teh idea of leaders of my people DYING in blood.

    Because unlike senator clinton I don’t think vain and ugly hoping on THE DEATH of others isn’t okay

    because unlike many I don’t seem to think this is okay

    that this is something we ” think about a proper response to”

    THAT this is something we wait on

    That WITH THIS

    there is still ANY discussion if this woman is fit to leabd

    that FOR FUCKS SAKE between the race bating and EVIL she HERSELF has sown and her campaign has encouraged against POC and WOC that this is a debate we can have if her obtuseness and navel gazing self aggrandization

    the problem is not that she is staying in


    to the point of treating ASSASINATION history as a fucking wistful memory of why you need to ” tough it out”


    while you are racing against a man with teh earliest secret service detail in HISTORY

    WHILE THAT SECRET SERVICE IS ON TRIAL for circulating jokes about teh ASSASINATION of teh EVRY MAN YOU COMPARED his candidacy too








  5. A. says:

    Yeah, she pretty much gave people the *wink wink* with that comment.

    She just emboldened a lot of crazy assholes.

  6. Paulette says:

    It was like a coded message to assassins. If anything happens to Obama ii WILL be Hillary’s fault. What a freakin’ *itch! Check out and read ‘WTF! War Declared!’ and ‘Hillary staying in race; June Assassination.’

    It’s time the 60+ superdelegates Obama needs to shut her up, step up and end this shyt!

  7. rahimeh says:

    I’m with all of you on this. What she said has me between speechlessness and wanting to yell and scream. She’s an absolute disgrace.

  8. Laeticia says:

    I never really cared for her and she has made some comments that made me go ‘WTF”…but that was pretty much the last straw.

    That was a disgusting wink, there’s no way she didn’t add the “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California” part without back thoughts about Obama. She could have use any other example and if she wanted to take her husband’s example why mention the assasination?

    What is she waiting for?

  9. nepthys_12 says:

    I can’t say anymore except that I am in complete agreement with everyone here.

  10. london says:

    seen nothing about this over here in the uk in the news…
    there seems to be an embargo on reporting anything bad about clinton over here…
    if obama had said it they would have been all over it… believe..
    i am so disgusted by her comments..
    am off to see what news if any there is in the british press..

  11. richard says:




    i didn’t hear about this until checking this blog.

    i to read parts of the article a couple times, because my brain refused to believe what she was trying to say.

    what a revolting individual she is. nothing more i can say that hasn’t been said already.

  12. Bug Girl says:

    Totally. Messed. Up.

    Right now, I would completely believe a plot by the Clintons to have him assassinated.
    And I am so not a conspiracy person.

  13. Bob Simpson says:

    In a country awash in guns and race hate, to say such a thing in a public forum is an invitation to assassinate. And this came after after a political campaign based on the vicious Southern Strategy pioneered by George Wallace and honed to perfection by the Republican Party.

    It’s time for Clinton to gather up what’s left of her marbles and go away…far..far.. away.

  14. Radfem says:

    Maybe it’s been a long campaign but I was like, what else is new and I’m still just reading up on this. I mean, she’s been doing this all along anyway. If someone is trying to do anything to go against the majority vote to get the nomination and insisting that she’s the only one who can beat McCain.

    Well, maybe if some White feminists follow through with their claims that if Obama is the nominee, they’ll vote for McCain but if that’s their plans, why the hell should everyone be concerned about how bad they say McCain is and that we must nominate Clinton b/c she’s the only one who can beat him?

    It’s not that I’m not offended, I am but it’s like a cumulative thing I guess because it’s a pattern. And I’m not surprised. She’s been doing this the whole time. Next week, it will be something else. And the denial I’ve seen from those who along with Clinton deny racism in her campaign is unbelievable.

    But I think that what black amazon said is very important, because of the fears of Obama being assassinated are strong and as this latest story sinks in, it reminds me of conversations I’ve had going back to the beginning about candidate safety particularly for a Black candidate.

    I was born in the hospital where RFK died. A classmate of mine’s father managed the hotel where he was shot. And there were leaders mostly Black but two were White (and I’m thinking of bfp’s awesome post on MLK, jr. and RFK), these are not times to be flippant about and she should know that.

  15. Kim says:

    What infuriates me even further about this is not just that she said it, but that she said it right on the heels of both the brain tumor thing and Huckabee’s sick remarks about Obama dodging gunfire. The fact that 90% of the people in this race are still seen as politically credible terrifies me.

  16. Radfem says:

    Well, at first I thought she was comparing herself to RFK, because her husband believes he’s JFK, but after reading more and more about it, on one hand it’s like, WTF, on the other it’s like, well it’s not like she’s not laid the groundwork for this latest thing throughout the campaign. It’s insensitive to the family because of what’s going on with Ted Kennedy right now, but hey, there’s an election to be won (and not a nomination because apparently she believes it’s hers already).

    And I guess I believed that there were some places left she wouldn’t go, foolishly. She’s desperate.

    The worst thing is that she should definitely know better. But then the excuse by some supporters to her denial of racism in her campaign (it’s wrong but we’ll deal with it when it actually happens), was that she was this great civil rights activist, human rights and women’s rights and not just great but far greater than any of her critics. Which means she’s given a pass for anything she says.

    But when it comes to safety and the racism associated with the lack of safety (and where I work, we just had something bad happen this week as a reminder), if her supporters can come up with a reason to excuse her and I’m sure they will, it will be interesting to see what that is.

    I was initially excited to see a woman run and make it further as I’ve been excited to see others run. And I’m excited about another woman running for president, But Clinton just had a way of taking that promise and desecrating it with her behavior in my opinion. I’m ashamed to be a White woman when I see what she does and says and what her supporters say in her defense.

    And at the polls, I’m not voting for either, because I’ve been voting third party and Cynthia McKinney will probably be getting my vote. I was reading her legislative record and a lot of the bills she championed were great for women and men. Doing things like trying to shut down the SOA for good would be great for many women given how many have been raped, tortured and killed by men trained there on our tax dollars.

  17. hara says:

    I don’t care which one gets the nom.
    I am more concerned that we beat McCain.
    Focus, Focus dear liberals of any color, ethnic background, gender and sex-

    Stop reacting to her every breath and instead realize McCain is blatantly going against every belief you live for and gaining momentum while we in -fight.

  18. Radfem says:

    What do you have to say about White women who have said that if Clinton doesn’t get the nomination, they plan to vote for McCain? They can afford to do so because at least he’s of the same race if not the same gender.

    One of them will get it and one of them won’t. For me, personally, I’ll vote for some one else because for “liberals”, the Democratic Party is floating away to the right, in part because of the Clinton legacy. Because the issues that impact the people I work with are issues that the two parties are in agreement upon and the scary thing is that more and more that’s what is happening. And that impacts the lives of many women and men.

    After all, which of the three isn’t for turning the southern border of the United States into a fortified fence with surveillance equipment, an action which will guarantee that women, girls, men and young boys will die trying to circumvent the more reinforced parts of the border (i.e. near Southern California) and try to cross through the more porous sections, which lead straight into the deserts of Arizona and into Texas where many have already died from Operation Gatekeeper. The only interest by the Democratic Party as well as its Republican sibling is in shoring the rights of the companies to access a source of cheap labor.

    A Democrat president might help a little bit with making tools like the EEOC and the DOJCR a little bit more formidable than either would be under McCain for example, but not much.

    The most frustrating thing about this election isn’t so much the nomination process (although that’s bad), it’s that there’s more of an illusion of choice than a real one. And ironically, that’s very apparent on issues that impact the lives of women.

  19. Foxessa says:

    Olberman was as furious about this as he was about the CIC’s address to the Knesset.

    Long ago I gave up trying to figure out how at least a significant portion of her supporters haven’t given any weight to the concatenation of this long list of mean, nasty and cruel actions and words that have come from her and her campaign. Instead they insist she’s been unfairly treated because she’s a woman. Like I’ve been thinking before, she’s nailing the coffin closed on feminism for white women for a long time.

    I’m sorry too, that this was yesterday, which took the press away from the speech Obama gave in Miami earlier. For once a politican addressed Latin American and the Caribbean and specifically Cuba, with some substance, without retreating into the same old irrelevant platitudes meant to placate that rabid white Cuban right wing (Clinton’s supporters on the Dem side). I didn’t agree with much of what he said, and I think he contradicted himself on at least one important point — but there was some substance. And, Huzzas! he made it clear that we here in the U.S. will be able to travel to Cuba again if he’s president.

    Love, C.

  20. rahimeh says:

    With all due respect, hara, at this point, Hillary Clinton has lost any claim to being a “liberal.” Have you forgotten her vote for the invasion of Iraq and for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment; her frighteningly bombastic declaration that she would “totally obliterate Iran”; her relentless race-baiting over the last few months; etc.? No, she ain’t all that much better than McCain. And, in any case, it’s all moot, since, by any and all legitimate standards, Obama has already *won* the nomination.

  21. rahimeh says:

    Radfem, I totally understand what you mean by the illusion of democratic choice. The U.S. has been suffering from its (supposed) two-party system for too long. If anything positive can be imagined coming from this year’s election, it is this:

    All the self-proclaimed progressives who are voting for Obama and becoming energized politically might hold him accountable for his decisions should he become President. I realize, though, that this is a very optimistic idea, maybe just too optimistic.

  22. Radfem says:

    rahimeh, I think that’s what it ultimately comes down to, is holding our electeds accountable whether it’s local, state or national after they get elected. And often that’s not done though the higher up the political ladder, the harder that can be. We just have to do the best you can. It’s hard enough locally when you have elected leaders who act like children when you try.

    Some critical issues including those that impact women and men of different races fall in the cracks, because I think often women are taken for granted until it’s an election time. And with welfare “reform”, NAFTA and a lot of issues that are blogged about by many great women bloggers, it doesn’t seem like the Democrats are looking out for women, even lives and families.

    It’s always if you vote against the Big, Bad Republican (and I’m not saying that their candidates have been anything but bad), just be patient and we’ll deal with your issues. But then that doesn’t happen.

  23. Timothy Chase says:

    Not arguing how Clinton’s “assassination” remark should be interpretted at this point, but this guy has class:

    “I have learned that when you’re campaigning for as many months as myself and Sen. Clinton have been campaigning that, you know, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make. And I think that’s what happened here,” Obama told the Puerto Rico radio station ISLA Saturday.

    “Sen. Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it, and I would take her at her word on that.”

    Barack Obama Responds to Hillary Clinton’s RFK Remark
    May 24, 2008 5:42 PM

  24. Paulette says:

    It seems to me that the Clintons were ‘fronting’ for years — now we know how they really feel about black folks. Have you seen the picture of Michelle Obama being lynched by the KKK? Go to
    It is effing CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  25. Saladin says:

    Radfem –

    Thank you for the timely reminder about Mckinney’s candidacy.

    Cynthia McKinney, a Black woman with nearly as much legislative experience as Obama and Hillary combined, is the only candidate that will be on the ballot (in some states) who is an ACTUAL progressive
    –She hasn’t sold her soul so thoroughly to corporations that she is incapable of refuting them
    –She has managed to think past the good cop (Obama)/ bad cop (Hillary) formula of “America leading the world” that is code-talk for alternating bombing and starvation
    –Unlike the Dems, she isn’t bending over backwards at every chance to show how much she supports aparteid*
    –She is for GENUINELY addressing our ecological crisis (not pretending that somehow corporations will do it if we ‘work with them’)
    –She’s worked for a woman’s right to choose, against the trafficking of women and girls, for reparations, against police brutality, for national healthcare, against the criminalization of immigrants, for REAL education money, against astronomical pentagon budgets
    –She’s run an utterly civil, racism and sexism free campaign. And she isn’t so desperate to be in charge that she’d respond to a Fox News character assassination of her preacher by selling him out on national TV!

    Is a vote for McKinney symbolic? Yes, of course.

    But in November, if you live in NY, NJ, Mass, Cali, etc, guess what? Your vote for Obama (or, God forbid, Hillary) will also be symbolic. Strictly. It means NOTHING if you live in a ‘blue’ state because there is NO chance of McCain getting elected in these states.

    “But, but…the popular vote!” The popular vote doesn’t matter. OUR PRESIDENT IS NOT ELECTED BY POPULAR VOTE.

    “But, but…we’ll have right on our side at least, if we win the popular vote!” Yeah, that mattered a whole lot when Bush stole the 2000 election. It kept him form getting re-elected, right? Oh, wait….

    *Tutu, Mandela, and Carter’s term for Israel’s institutional racism

  26. A. says:

    hara, you have clearly lost your mind.

    Don’t dodge the point here. Seriously. Obfuscation does no one here any good.

  27. Radfem says:

    Thanks Saladin.

    I wish they’d let third-party and independents debate with the Dems and Repubs. Part of the problem is that it’s really hard for other candidates to get their platforms out. Not just to win votes, but to create more options for dialogues on these issues.

    And she has guts. She’s been put through the ringer but she keeps fighting for the issues.

  28. says:

    Hello there,



    She needs to start packing and plan to make her exit in Washington because after what she has shown of her poor character in this presidential race, she has NO FUTURE LEFT politically.

    I agree with so many of the sentiments expressed here!

    Thanks for letting me blow my trumpet!

    You are invited to visit my house:
    ~AThe Roundtable For Sistas Who Are Unapologetically And Intentionally Black~

  29. Saladin says:

    Yeah. I suspect McKinney will get put through the ringer again if Obama (or Clinton, if that’s even still possible) ‘loses’ more than five votes to her. All of the people who were so pissed off about Hillary’s ‘step out of the white lady’s way, little Black man!’ attitude will have no problem being like ‘step out of the bougie Black guy’s way, little Black woman’.

    But then, it somehow magically won’t be about race or gender anymore. It’ll suddenly just be ‘realistic politics’. Even though getting hyped up about November votes that don’t matter (as is the case in overwhelmingly red or blue states) is not realism, but a kind of desperate symbolism.
    Of course, try telling that to people who still believe that Nader (ugly Lebanese American guy) ‘lost’ the election for Gore (big strapping cracker).

    I’m considering violating my longstanding personal ban on presidential elections to vote for McKinney. Part of the reason for me is something related to the OP:

    McCain and Hillary are belligerently Islamophobic. But Obama, to use Malcolm X’s old formulation, is a fox

  30. Saladin says:

    [last paragraphs should have read as follows]

    “McCain and Hillary are belligerently Islamophobic wolves. But Obama, to use Malcolm X’s old formulation, is a fox. He’s kowtowed to the worst kind of anti-Muslim bigotry with his ‘I’m not a Hussein!’ shit and his slavish (yes, I said it) regurgitation of all the same HillaCain lies about 1/4 of the world’s people (‘they’ teach hate, ‘they’ need to join the modern world, ‘they’ are the primary cause of violence in the middle east, ‘they’ are the biggest threat to America’s security).

    Oh, my scary, scary people, and the crisis we pose! Fuck that. As long as people are rabidly supporting (as opposed to reluctantly, pragmatically voting for) a campaign like Obama’s, I have trouble taking seriously their beefs with Hillary’s (very real) racism.

  31. rahimeh says:


    I heart Cynthia McKinney and I’m glad that you detailed her platform here. She and Nader don’t get nearly the publicity they deserve – a publicity that would certainly produce more support for them. As Radfem pointed out, they don’t even have access to the presidential “debates” run by the two parties and the corporate media. Some kind of democracy!

    But I think you’re being a little unfair to both Obama and his supporters. I don’t think he’s “slavishly” buckling to the right-wing anti-Muslim smears, as you suggest. Believe it or not, he has huge support amongst American Muslims who are, with good reason, genuinely frightened of the alternatives. (He’s also respected, if not beloved, by Muslims outside of the U.S.) He’s no McKinney. He’s no Nader. But he’s a pretty good mainstream choice for President.

    And please don’t repeat the right-wing/Clintonite meme about his “rabid” (i.e. unthinking) supporters here. It’s just not true. If anything, his supporters are more aware and more concerned than those of the other major-party candidates about the problems that need to be addressed thoughtfully in the U.S. as well as in the country’s relationship to the rest of the world.

  32. Saladin says:

    Obama having huge support among American muslims is news to me. What exactly are you basing this claim on? And the ‘respected around the Muslim world’ thing is a bit of an exaggeration by American reporters that don’t read or speak Arabic or Urdu or Farsi. I would say Obama’s viewed — in part because he’s brown and because he has ‘Hussein’ in his name — as being a likely improvement upon Bush. That ain’t saying much, though.

    In fact Obama does not have ‘huge’ support with anyone. None of the candidates do. Most Americans — Muslim, Jewish, white, Black, male, female — don’t vote, donate, blog, or volunteer for campaigns. Liberals like to tell us that this is because people don’t understand their own interests, and there’s truth to that, but it’s also b/c most people have an instinctive sense of the truth: that US presidential politics is a brutal, crooked circus that will inevitably put a brutal, crooked person in power. So unless ‘support’ means ‘vaguely hoping they win without doing anything about it’, NONE of the candidates have anything like a ‘huge’ support base.

    Specifically on the Islamaphobe tip:

    a)Obama’s campaign repeatedly chosen to say “He’s not Muslim! He’s not Muslim!” rather than “He’s Christian, but ‘Muslim’ is not a slur, by the way.” Sure it’s a pragmatic realpolit(r)ik choice, but so is Hillary’s ‘white people like me’ nonsense. No one I respect is giving her leeway for that bullshit, so why should I give Obama leeway for his ‘pragmatic’ bigotry?

    b)His website, which has “O” buttons in Hebrew, “O” buttons with a rainbow flag (even though he’s against gay marriage!). “Women for Obama” buttons, etc. does not have one in Arabic. Arab-American activists have tried to get the Obama people to offer Arabic buttons, one friend of mine even offering to do the translation and design for free. They’ve been ignored.

    c)In fact, the only time Muslims or Arabs come up on his website is in an “I’m not a Muslim!” snippet from CNN and in the course of his explaining how pro-Israeli aparteid he is.

    c)More importantly than any of that symbolic stuff, though, is the fact that he has ABSOLUTELY buckled to anti-Muslim bigotry in his foreign policy stances. Again and again he has painted the Muslim world as backward, and ‘radical Islam’ as a major threat to America and the biggest cause of the middle east carnage — all straight up-and-down lies.

    So when, in order to advance his career, one brown person regurgitates old white man slanders which have paved the way for the bombing, occupation, mass disease, dehydration and starvation of other brown people, yeah, that’s slavish behavior.

    Is Obama the least brutal? The least crooked? The least Islamophobic? Yes, yes, yes. But so what? Hillary has done less racist shit than McCain (he of the “gooks” remarks and the anti-MLK holiday movement), but people are still very rightly dogging her for her racism. I agree that Obama’s “a pretty good mainstream choice for President.” I can totally get behind a strategic choice to vote for him in the primaries and, in battleground states, in November.

    Bu the fact is ‘mainstream’ in American prez. politics is shorthand for “catastrophic for everyone in the known universe except middle class and rich americans”. And as long as Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge this — and the very real human costs of his pro-corporate, ‘soft’ imperialism platform — I don’t have a problem using the word ‘rabid’ to describe many of them.

  33. rahimeh says:

    Saladin, I meant “huge support” in relative terms, i.e. compared to the support for Clinton and McCain. By the way, Obama is respected amongst Muslims outside of the U.S. more than the other candidates. (Also, voting in this election cycle is reaching record-breaking levels, so your self-assured claim that most people are tuned out is not completely true.)

    I’m Iranian, so please understand that, if it comes down to choosing between Obama and McCain, I vastly prefer Obama. No question about that. And, yes, I’ll go out on a limb and say that most Iranians would too. Excuse me for presuming to speak for an entire people, but I stand by my presumption.

    Everything you say about corporate-owned, hegemonic American politics and Obama’s complicity within them is something with which I don’t disagree. But your hectoring tone is off-putting.

  34. Saladin says:

    rahimeh —

    I don’t mean to be ‘hectoring’. But if I sound fed up and pissed off at mainstream-to-‘liberal’ Dem voters it’s b/c I AM. As a Muslim man I’m frankly also tired of worrying whether my tone on these issues is “off-putting” to them.

    Also, saying ‘most people’ (or most Americans or most Iranians) prefer Obama to Clinton and McCain is, again, not saying much. *I* prefer Obama about 10 times to Clinton and 100 times to McCain. That’s different, though, then acting like he’s an amazing leader with a truly new platform — which, I’m sorry, IS the tone that a lot of Obama boosters have been adopting. All I’m saying is “least of 3 evils”, or even “least evil in a generation”, is a far cry from ‘hero’.

  35. rahimeh says:

    Fine, Saladin. No one here has been engaging in hero-worship, so your criticism is best targeted elsewhere.

    This site is amazing for its thought-provoking blogging and a lot of nuanced and intelligent commentary. That’s what I’ve seen since I discovered this blog recently and that’s what brings me back. I don’t think you should assume that contributors here are “mainstream-to-‘liberal’ Dem voters.” One reason this blog is wonderful and a safe space (especially for women of colour) is that people don’t make assumptions about each other and they don’t label each other.

  36. rahimeh says:

    One last thing: I’m not American, so my interest in the U.S. elections is not as a voter, much less a “mainstream liberal” one! Okay, that’s it. I’ve taken up too much space here already :)

  37. Saladin says:

    “This site is amazing for its thought-provoking blogging and a lot of nuanced and intelligent commentary”

    I agree! That’s why I ‘hang out’ here. I’m not accusing anyone on this blog of hero-worship, just describing the GENEAL dem. discourse around Obama. And raising questions (in response to the OPs imporant point about Hillary’s sleazy campaign and hard choices come November) that haven’t come up much here.

  38. Saladin says:

    Umm….”general”, not “geneal”

    and for what it’s worth, rahimeh, I *am* an American citizen but I think as long as the US runs the world the way it does, everyone else should get to vote for our prez, too :)

    Ok, now I’ll stop…

  39. Ashleigh says:

    She has basically given some wacko the go-ahead to go after Obama. I wonder if she is good at hopping on one foot because the other one is always stuck in her mouth.

  40. SjP says:

    HRC always knows exactly what she’s doing and saying. And the bad thing about it is that she always seems to get a pass from most of the pundits. Except of course Keith Olbermann. Have no doubt, she is playing on the ignorance of her supporters and the political terrorism she’s threatening the DNC with. She’s way too smart to be considered one who often suffers from the “slip of the tongue”.

    On another note, let us never forget the brave men and women who paid the ultimate price for the freedom we enjoy today!

    I invite you to read my Memorial Day Tribute entitled, The Price of Freedom


  41. sethandray says:

    Pretty bad. What’s next Senator Clinton?

  42. Dianne says:

    I will not be able to bring myself to vote for her in November. I just can’t do it.

    I don’t think it will be an issue. Obama is really close to winning the nomination. However, what would you do in the case of an Obama/Clinton ticket? I assume not vote for McCain, but would you go for McKinney or stay home instead of voting for Obama?

  43. Dianne says:

    Saladin: Interesting that you should bring this up. Early on in this campaign, I liked Obama best of the major candidates, but had two issues with him. One, he struck me as less interested in health care reform than Clinton. This worries me still: not that he’d do the wrong thing, but that he’d let it drop because he’s not that interested. Not that I’m sure Clinton would follow through either, of course, but she seems genuinely interested in getting something done, for her “legacy” if not in the interest of doing the right thing. Two, his statements about Iran. He has stated publically that he’d be in favor of bombing and possibly invading Iran, depending on the circumstances. Of course, none of the candidates are willing to rule out force, so he’s no worse there, but I don’t see him as the great peacemaker. The best of the three major party candidates, definitely. But he’ll probably be a disappointment if and when he actually gets into office.

  44. Holly says:

    Hillary’s word vomit sadly did not surprise me. She seems to just be constantly grasping at straws for something semi-intelligent to say anymore and it’s incredibly sad and quite unprofessional on her part, which has been her story for quite some time now. I will not vote for her under any circumstances whatsoever.

  45. hara says:

    “she is not all the much better than McCain”
    Bull Shit,
    No she is not an extreme left liberal. You can take away her liberal card (by your standards). According to too many Americans, she is liberal by their standards.
    She has done more for gay rights, abortion choice, etc. than McCain ever could.
    She is not as much like McCain as you are suggesting, not from the perspective of folks who are not identifying as “Liberal”.
    Have you taken your self into the mainstream lately? Have you spent any time in small towns in Arkansas, Fla, Louisiana?
    A Politician wont agree with you 100% and disagree with the majority in this country and win. The masses are not radical fem.

    I’ll vote for her because of how much my family and country suffered under post Nixon Republican rule. I just can’t stand another run of it.

    Your choice may be to vote 3rd party, and like those who voted for Nader, or Green or etc. in the past, it’s your choice and more power to you.

  46. rahimeh says:


    If you read my comments, you’d know that I can’t vote in the elections. I think, at the minimum, if you’re going to respond so vociferously to other commenters, you might want to give their words some attention.

    I maintain what I said. Clinton has shown barely any difference from McCain in her record as an imperialist war-monger.

    And, what exactly has she done for gay rights and reproductive rights in the U.S.? I’ve never known her to be much of a champion for either movement.

    Finally, Obama has won, so I honestly don’t understand why you keep saying that you’ll “vote for [Clinton].” If the Democratic Party wants to hold on to any semblance of legitimacy, Obama will be your candidate.

  47. Radfem says:

    She did say she’d vote for DOMA. Her supporters said that was because she favored “states rihgts”. Okay, fine but how is that going to play out when she has to nominate supreme court justices? Is she going to pick those who say they favor “states rights”?

    Not very good for preserving the right to an abortion for all women. And if you’re going her election as being necessary to preserve the right to an abortion, it might be something to think about a little bit.

  48. A Voice From the Battlefield says:

    It’s been said that she will stop at nothing to win. To put a subliminal message out there like that is a new all time low. She is definitely planting seeds into the mind of the sick. God help us all.

  49. Greg Jones says:

    From Blacks4Barack:
    Black Political
    Supporters Should Speak Out
    Against Hillary’s Assassination Insinuation
    Or Be VOTED OUT !

    The day before Hillary’s horrifically diobolical assassination insinuation, I was in the midst of writing a piece regarding how we, particularly blacks, should treat black politicians who had sided with Hillary. Folks like Charley Rangel, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Stephanie Tubbs Jones (my Congresswoman) and the like. Here’s a bit of what I had written, “…Let’s rally behind them in support of their future political careers. Let’s keep voting for them (as long as they keep doing a good job). Let’s not go against them….in fact, let’s show them some love. I know, some of you think I must be crazy but……”

    Then, the very next day as you all know, Hillary made the most incredible insinuation (or hope) that anyone could make. To justify staying in the race because anything could happen….even assassination, was a true shock heard ’round the country. And, although many in the media are trying to downplay her sentiment as a misspeak or gaffe as they call it, we as blacks know the real deal. Hillary was either trying to send a subliminal message to some nut….or deeply hopes harm on Obama. WHATEVER the reason, it is a total abomination that should be addressed accordingly.

    Blacks and whites nationwide have bombarded forums and blogs stating their outrage for her incredibly dangerous remark. But one group has been totally silent. Where are all of the black politicians who have supported Hillary up until now? They know, as all blacks know, that from the very first day Obama declared his candidacy, the first question that arose in the minds of all blacks was ‘will he get snipered’? We all know that right out of the gate, Obama had to hire 24 hour Secret Service Protection….Why ? Because of the true threat of some nut wanting to harm him or his family.

    And now, for Hillary herself to be the one sending out the little code….is just a true disgrace to herself, to her supporters and to all Americans. Every black political supporter should be demanded to speak out against Hillary’s destructive mentality and rhetoric. They must each denounce her statement publicly and let it be known that they find her comments to be absolutely improper, sinister and out of line with the progress being made by so many in our country.

    If they do not, they will be showing us that they have become so politicized that even the thought of the assassination of a fellow human being, let alone a brother, is a tolerable occurance in their book, which is certainly not in-line with the views and concerns of their constituents. Therefore, they MUST BE VOTED OUT ! I feel confident that this is not the case. But, we shall see. So Charley, Sheila, Maxine, Steph and the gang….please don’t let us down. We’re counting on you !

    As the late, great Johnny Cochran may have put it…
    Demand that they denounce…or they must get the Bounce !

    Greg Jones
    Visit: OFFICIAL SITE !

    Luv what you do ABW…..Keep Goin’ Strong !

  50. Saladin says:

    “If they do not, they will be showing us that they have become so politicized that even the thought of the assassination of a fellow human being, let alone a brother, is a tolerable occurance in their book”

    Not necessarily. Of course Hillary’s comments were vicious and slimy. But in this instance, realistically, to condemn Hillary publicly would be tantamount to supporting Obama. And while I too am disgusted by the Former First Mass Murderer’s Lady and her camp, there are lots of reasons people — yes, even Black people — might not want to lend vocal support to Obama…take for instance the Black Agenda Report’s recent editorial “Barack Obama versus Black Self-Determination”:

    “Barack Obama, whose disdain for what he calls the ‘excesses of the 1960s and 1970s’ is palpable, seeks to eradicate all vestiges of Black self-determination, root and branch. The Senator has never made a secret of his intentions, dating from his 2004 Democratic National Convention declaration that ‘there is no Black America,’ to his categorical rejection of the Black counter-narrative of American history, as preached by Rev. Jeremiah Wright and understood by most African Americans….Obama has revealed himself as a rabid nationalist of the standard, white America variety. ‘I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country,’ says Obama – which pretty much says it all. ”


  51. hara says:

    Dear radfem,
    I was not only commenting to you. I think it’s interesting that someone who can’t vote has so much say about our vote, but, that is beside the point.
    I haven’t read the news yet today, are the primaries over?
    (rhetorical question, not meant ot start a war with you or any oter commenter on ABW blog).

    I vote Democratic in the U.S. presidential elections (so far), regardless of candidate.

  52. rahimeh says:


    I think you were trying to address me. You had quoted me in your last comment and I responded to that.

    You don’t think I should have “so much say about [your] vote” because *I” can’t vote? I beg your pardon, but I and every other living being on this planet has every right to participate in the discussion of your elections since we’re all affected by them – for some it’s even a matter of life and death. And that, hara, is the tragedy of it.

  53. rahimeh says:


    I think you were trying to address me, not Radfem. You had quoted me in your last comment and I responded to that.

    You don’t think I should have “so much say about [your] vote” because *I* can’t vote? I beg your pardon, but I and every other human being on this planet have a right to participate in the discussion of your elections, since we’re all affected by them. (Please don’t forget that your government’s actions around the world often mean the devastation of many people’s lives and communities.) And that, hara, is the tragedy of your nation’s power.

    (To ABW or Karnythia: I first submitted this comment, accidentally using another email address. It’s awaiting moderation, so please feel free to delete it.)

  54. Radfem says:

    Hara, I stopped reading about the primaries a while ago. I’m not a voting Democrat, so it’s up to those folks to determine who will be their nominee. I’m voting for McKinney.

    The ugliness by some who deny that there’s racism in Hillary Clinton’s campaign is truly something to behold. In some cases I don’t know where the loyalty to Clinton begins and the thinly veiled hatred or resentment of Black women in particular begins. In other cases, it’s more clear. But it’s ruined any ounce of pride at having a female candidate make it this far. That’s for sure.

  55. Susie says:

    I think it’s interesting that someone who can’t vote has so much say about our vote, but, that is beside the point.

    I think it’s tragic that our elections effect so many people who have no say in them, and that so many of us seem to care so little about that.

  56. hara says:

    I didn’t say anyone should not have something to say.
    I said it is interesting. And it is. I know our nation affects others.

    A few here are painting a picture of me based on how your interpreting the comments. You’re not even close folks.

    I hope you’ll be careful not to put words that aren’t there into your perception of someone else. It doesn’t serve your purpose.

    The fact that I’ll vote dem, whether it’s Clinton or Obama does not automatically make me one or another type of person. The prejudice here is almost surprising.

    Hopefully, you’re not so quick to judge people when it comes to issues you’re less passionate about. I’ll leave with that and wishing you all the best.
    peace out.

  57. Radfem says:

    I think it’s interesting that someone who can’t vote has so much say about our vote, but, that is beside the point.

    I think it’s tragic that our elections effect so many people who have no say in them, and that so many of us seem to care so little about that.

    I agree.

  58. Susie says:

    A few here are painting a picture of me based on how your interpreting the comments.

    The only person who’s painting a picture of you is you, by your use of words. The rest of us are trying to understand what you mean by what you’re saying, and to respond appropriately — agreeing or disagreeing, as the case may be. If you can’t handle being disagreed with fairly politely, and see this as an attempt to victimize you in some fashion, I’m not sure what to say.

    The prejudice here is almost surprising.

    I don’t understand what prejudice we’re supposed to be under — I personally didn’t know the first thing about you until I just now clicked on your link to your blog. Actually, having looked, I’m still not sure exactly what your racial/ethnic background is. Which is just as well, as that shouldn’t really matter to the discussion, should it? So there’s no pre-judgment for me to be operating from, I’m just looking at what you’re saying and responding to what you seem to mean.

    If you say something that several different people interpret in the same way, a way which is actually not what you meant, it might be time to wonder whether you’re expressing yourself well, rather than whether others are colluding against you. If I’ve misunderstood you, I’m sorry, but I promise you I have no agenda in doing so.

  59. Denise says:

    I, too, am disgusted but must say. There are not implications in her speech to McCain. The Republican process will go on as it was before. Unless Hillary had dreams of changing parties if McCain dies, the implications are entirely to Barack Obama.

    It is precisely this hateful type of comment that had the Republicans hoping they’d be opposing her in November. She’s help to assure a strong Republican turn out because no self-respecting Republican feels neutral about Hillary Clinton. They hate her.

    While I doubt I’d vote for McCain in November, if somehow Hillary is the Democrat nominee, I know I cannot in good conscience vote for Hillary. So, once again, I would be left out of the process.

Comments are closed.