If you have "no place to go," come here!

Argus, endorsing Hillary, proves that the whole RFK "scandal' is a typical Obama crock

[For those who came in late, the baseless, defamatory, and grotesque charges propagated by the NY Post and the Obama campaign, that Hillary wishes for Obama's death, just like RFK's, began with an interview Hillary gave to the Argus editorial board.]

What's wrong with the Argus editorial board? Don't they realize, like anybody who is anybody, that Hillary wants to kill Obama? All the Serious people are saying so! The A list is saying so! Keith Olbermann said so! Why, I heard important Villagers at parties saying so! And yet, shamefully, these people have endorsed her! Have they been affected by Clintonian Mind Control Rays™ beamed from Mount Evil? [Avarosis, fondling orchids: Hmmm.....] Are they, too, insane, to endorse this horrible person? Are they bitter? Do they cling to? Are they consumed by hate for the Unity Pony? [Axelrod makes note to self: Is there any way to suppress SD's votes?] What's wrong with them?

Oh, yeah, the Argus Leader endorsement:

Clinton is the strongest Democratic candidate for South Dakota.

Her mastery of complex policy detail is broad and deep, and her experience as a senator and former first lady matches that.

Her truly universal health care plan would be welcomed by thousands of South Dakotans. Even on reservations, where health care is nominally universal already, such a plan would be welcome. The federal government would never be allowed to subject everyday Americans to the kind of care Native Americans living on reservations routinely receive.

Obama is justifiably credited as a powerful speaker, but Clinton holds her own easily. As those who have attended her South Dakota rallies can attest, she is quick on her feet and energetic. She frames her ideas clearly in speeches and answers questions with genuine directness.

Her resilience and determination never should be questioned. She has met or overcome every challenge or roadblock in her way, and there have been many. Her determination to carry the nomination process through to its real conclusion has perhaps earned her a grudging respect from those who would never support her.


Je repete:

The Argus editorial board was in the same room with Hillary when she made her statement on RFK that the Post smeared her with, the Obama campaign pushed, and (many) Obama supporters, the OFB, and our famously free press greedily and vociferously propagated. They're all saying Hillary wants Obama dead. But the people who were in the same room with her, listening her and seeing her, just endorsed her. There was nothing there. There wasn't even anything to apologize for. The whole fake controversy is a Big Lie.

That makes everybody who propagated the RFK smear officially FITH. Let's make a list. Until the retractions happen, until we hear the open admission that Obama's RFK smear is false:

1. Obama is FITH.

2. Obama's operatives are FITH.

3. Most of our famously free press, and especially Keith Olbermann, are FITH.

4. Much of the A list, our tribunes of the people in the blogosphere, are FITH.

5. The OFB is, of course, FITH.

6. Any otherwise rational Obama supporter who supported this Big Lie is FITH.

NOTE * Please don't tell me about Obama's "gracious retraction" that came 24 hours after his own campaign spread the smear all over the country. That's Obama's pattern: First the smear, then the "I didn't really mean it."

No votes yet


BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

It's not, especially when it comes to anyone whose last name is Clinton. On that, we've agreed to be unified. Reagan brought Morning to America, Bill Clinton was an awful person who did nothing good for this country. And he's a racist. The media has said so and now we've all agreed it's true. Because apparently that's good for Democrats. Or something.

Yes, I woke up cranky and angry this morning. I suspect it's going to be a chronic condition.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

it' back in fashion.

wait, what am i saying.

we've just had seven years of big lies.

amended: it's back in fashion with the democratic party.

i was so glad to see the "argus" news story.

they've a lot better focus on what matters than their big-money, big-city counterparts.

thanks for covering this so vigorously.

dupager's picture
Submitted by dupager on

"Her resilience and determination never should be questioned."

To me this is the essense of Hillary Clinton and why I support her.

Come hell or high water, the woman is a leader! She's taking the blows and coming back swinging. She gets knocked down, she pulls herself back up and goes on. That's the kind of president I want and the kind I admire. My reading of history is that the "best" most excellent of our presidents and leaders have had this ability.

Her literary equivalent is Mother Courage.


orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on


many of you have probably seen the transcript of cnn reporter jessica yellin discussing pressure on her when she was reporting for nbc on the iraq invasion.

that was an extremely important glimpse inside the world of corporate news making/manipulation.

better still is glen greenwald's entire post from yesterday (thursday) discussing not only yellin's inside tales

but those of several others reporters as well.

please go to glenn's weblog ("unclaimed territory") at salon and read that post.

it will confirm everything you always suspected and feared about media corp executives controlling news flow. (first noticed at the daily howler).


do you have any trouble imagining that this same thing has been happening with the corporate media coverage of senator clinton?

i don't.

a lot of the negative reporting is, i am confident, the result of decisions by corporate media executives.

it's not just misogyny.

it's money.


the nibelungen @ operation conspiracy hypothesis

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Is on fire today, even by his high standards.

He does a particularly excellent job of setting out why Big Lies matter:

Did Hillary Clinton say, in that statement, that Robert Kennedy was his party’s “presumptive nominee?” Actually no—she didn’t. Novak can print this notion in 300 newspapers; but if interpretive standards exist at all, his impression just isn’t accurate. If people can’t agree on something as simple as that, then people can’t agree on anything. After that, it’s nothing but novels, all the way down. Everyone gets to invent their own facts. Everyone gets to mind-read—to decide what a pol “really” said. We all get to tell ourselves (and our friends) what a pol “really” was thinking.

These are very dangerous impulses—unless you don’t care if your culture proceeds. And yet, this is clearly the way the press corps now works—and these impulses tend to run wild among the American people.

Because there’s something else Clinton didn’t say last Friday. As Matthews noted on Tuesday’s Today show, she didn’t say that she’s staying in the race in case Barack Obama gets killed. You can imagine she said that if you want to, of course; but that is what you are doing. You’re imagining—playing with dolls. Of course, this type of script-driven imagination has driven much of our political discourse over the course of the past dozen years; in 1999 and 2000, the press corps imagined many statements by Gore, and Bush ended up in the White House. Their interpretive conduct was utterly banal—and it had evil ends.

The dead of Iraq stare up from the ground at many “imagined” Gore statements.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

"The dead of Iraq stare up from the ground at many “imagined” Gore statements."


BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

And it's why I believe what happened over the weekend was truly evil. It's not about Clinton or the nomination or even who controls the Democratic Party, this kind of media coverage is destroying our country. It infects and affects everything. It takes something which should be sacred - the search for truth - and turns it into a game. A bad one.

Submitted by lambert on

... encountered the evil, they folded like deck chairs.

Or cheerfully joined in.

Ill means, ill ends. How can anybody support Obama after this?

Why we need a Progressive Blogosphere 2.0....

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

As they decry Hillary's Iraq vote, they embrace the same media and its same techniques that led to the run up of the war. Because, you know, this time it's being put to forward a good cause.

I can't help asking myself, if Obama is so fantastic why does he need this kind of media coverage to win? Is he hiding the fact that he has no weapons of mass destruction to use against McCain?

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

what was wrong with Hillary's comments to the Argus- all I had to do was listen to them. I believe that she got herself into this minefield by working too hard to make her case. And whatever you think about what has been made of her remarks if you can't admit it was a bad idea to bring up RFK's assassination in the context of this race, then I can't respect your views on how unfairly she has been pilloried over them.

It is nothing less than intellectual dishonesty to suggest that these remarks were simply neutral in effect, regardless of her intent ( and I don't believe her intent was to suggest Obama's assassination ) But to anyone outside of the pro-Hillary camp these words were immediately alarming. It doesn't take a conspiracy to spread that- it just takes concern over the safety of your candidate.

And if your response is to tell me to spread my poison elsewhere, all I can say is that the polarizing nature of this contest has warped perceptions on both sides of it to the point where people who should be on the same side can't even understand each other.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

until someone else told them they were.

In March, no one was immediately alarmed.

No one hyperventilated in April when MLK's assassination was widely discussed, including speeches by Hillary and McCain.

Give it up Jack, you make Alberto Gonzales look credible by comparison.

“Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are.”
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Submitted by lambert on

But smear is what it is. First AP report: Nothing there. RFK: Nothing there. Argus editorial board: Nothing there.

Then the NY Post launches the smear, the Obama campaign runs with it, and then there's a 24 hour wankfest.

Incidentally, I already banned you under another name for chatter. Guess I'll have to do it again -- setting up multiple accounts is classic trollsign. Bye.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

has been put in by the intense hatred and continual accusations of evil intent? Do you know that many in and out of the public eye (like Olbermann) have already called for her death and for violence to be done to her?

And do you also recognize that for her to seriously have meant that she was staying in just in case he was killed would'nt at all make any sense? That no one at Argus or months ago at Time said, "well, you could suspend your campaign (like Edwards and others), and god forbid if something happened, you'd still be available?"--that it never even occurred to them, and they never ever ever thought of it the way you and Obama's campaign and supporters are trying to make sure the rest of us do?

And do you recognize that for Obama's death to so readily come to mind as a result of this, and for Obama to make a big deal out of it interpreting it this way, actually does make it more likely--instead of the harm you want attached to her statement to a local paper that the country would never have known about? That even if you want to see her statement that way, screaming about it far and wide attaches expected death to him permanently and hurts his election chances?

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

would be spoken of only in private- I totally agree that focusing on it amplifies its potential. When the Secret Service suspended bag checks at Obama's rally in Dallas an hour and a half before his speech I became SERIOUSLY concerned at what that might have meant. I experienced the assassinations of the 60's through the eyes of a kid and I see nothing that suggests to me that this could not happen again...

So when one of her inner circle suggests that something could happen between now and the convention I just cringe- maybe it's just me. I know a LOT of hate has been directed at Hillary- the volume of it has been just incredible, perhaps just as incredible as it was when it was directed at Bill. Maybe I have arrived at a sort of fatigue for Clinton hate where I just expect that will come with one of their candidacies... the sexism on the part of the punditry has been jaw dropping.

But in a race where either a black man or a woman will ascend to the White House ( and I'm convinced that despite the hand wringing. even a convention fight will not deny the Dems the White House this year ) I would expect EXACTLY this sort of craziness to attend this moment.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

being overly protective of one--and calling and thinking of the other as evil and deserving of violence or wishing for it--is insane both ways.

They both have SS--and stirring up this shit as Obama's campaign did is nasty on multiple levels, and no non-Republican deserves an accusation like this--you damage the whole country when you paint Hillary this way--and you damage all Democrats too.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

you don't know jack about intellectual dishonesty,

or intellectual honesty, for that matter.

if you did,

you'd have acknowledged to yourself the simple-minded, prejudicial nature of your post and not inflicted that warped mind-dump on the world.

jack, who, from his comments,

evidently doesn't know jack about intellectual activity,


"what was wrong with Hillary’s comments to the Argus- all I had to do was listen to them."

yes, jack-who-doesn't-know-jack,

all you had to do was "listen" to "them"


and what?

interpret them in whatever way you chose that fit your prejudices;

rather than in the way senator clinton spoke them and clearly intended them?

jack-who-doesn't-know jack,

there is a phrase for the way you have approached senator clinton's comments in south dakota.

can you guess what it is?

no, "stupidity" is NOT the answer.

no, "lack of self-awareness" is not the answer, though it would be a reasonable answer.

no, twisting another's words to use against them is not the answer, though it would be a reasonable answer.

guess again,

jack-who-doesn't-know-jack about intellectual dishonesty.

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

by way of his assassination doesn't strike you as off, then I believe you are hearing what you want to hear.

My preferred interpretation is that she was working too hard to make her case and ventured into the weeds. A less charitable take is that, in using RFK to make her point, she thought it best to first sound a note of compassion for his tragedy...

My first reaction was "where in the hell is she going with this?" It felt like deep down she knew it was iffy.

It was forgivable, but a mistake.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Bringing up the subject of his campaign, she was bringing up his California primary win, a win that is permanently linked in her mind to his assassination.

See, she wasn't a small child who can be scarred by such events, especially if they attach too much emotional importance to them(like seeing an assassination threat around every corner). RFK's campaign was the first where she was politically active, the two events are indelibly linked in her memory.

As Avedon said, if you can't figure out why the 1992 and 1968 primary campaigns are particularly important to Clinton, and why they are foremost in her memory, there is no help for you. But continue to use your mind reading skillz, I'm sure they'll come in handy the next WORM.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!