The Politics of Assassination
Even a few days after the fact, I really don’t want to be thinking about this, but I prefaced myself on Sunday, and I’m ready to jump at it…
- Assassination
noun
1. an attack intended to ruin someone’s reputation
2. murder of a public figure by surprise attack
Source: Dictionary.com
On May 23, 2008, Hillary Clinton was in a meeting with the Argus Editorial Board and when asked about staying in the race, she replied: “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.” And then after those two sentences? The shit hit the fan and the pundits went wild.
That’s where we need to stop and look at everything rationally and see why this was such a big deal and an erroneous statement that was made. Or even if it WAS something to make a big deal about it.
1992 - Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign. I was attempting to find the information online about this, however the only source that I can find is Wikipedia. And I honestly hate using it for final sourcing, until I found this neat little site that someone compiled. As you can see, the situation at hand was a sweep by Clinton in the majority of the primaries after what’s called “Super Tuesday” when the majority of states vote. The thing to note is that the first “Super Tuesday” of 1992 was on March 10th. In our current primary cycle? February 5th. A whole month worth of difference. That calendar shows an earlier clinch by Clinton, which him primarily campaigning to keep himself running. And also, with a primary cycle that started later than the current one, to be “going into June” meant a something a bit different.
1968 - Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. There’s no mistaking the fact. But with a completely different primary schedule and calendar, its hardly a comparable race. Add to that the fact that when RFK was assassinated, the person who was running in second behind him was the one who got the nomination. Just because the front runner was no longer in the race, the party wasn’t thrown into complete shambles or disarray. Of course, you could say that they were, seeing 1968’s DNC established the current system of superdelegates and 50-state primary/caucus system for selecting the candidate.
And finally, the politics of assassination aren’t to be taken lightly. Gandhi, JFK, MLK, Lincoln, and Lennon to name a few, are names that when you hear them, you think of the brutal violence associated with them. You think of the movements they stood for and the way they’re idolized for their beliefs. You think of how in the prime of their speech as they stood tall in the face of all oppression, they didn’t falter, they didn’t waver.
Here we stand in 2008 with Barack Obama–representing a living breathing ideal of hope and change–and Hillary Clinton–representing women’s rights, empowerment, and strength. If either of these candidates were to fall, if either of them were to be assassinated, it would be the same tragedy as RFK, who stood for the youth and a return to the politics of his brother. And if either of these candidates were to fall, the other one would undoubtedly take their place as the Democratic nominee, carrying the banner of the other along with their own.
Hillary Clinton’s remarks were off color and uncalled for in those three regards with different measures to be used, and for the pundits and press to jump on her for a recall of her comments?
It was justifiable.
When you’re going to make any sort of historical reference in anything you do, you need to have citations for it: be it a paper or speaking. You need to know what the basic implications behind your words and what will be interpreted from what you say and the words that are said. You need to be careful what you’re inciting, whether you mean it or not.
We live in a world where anything we say can and could be used against us in a court of law. We can be held liable for these words, and we need to ensure that what we say is understood in the way we mean for it to be understood, and we do so by watching our words, understanding what we say, how we say it, and how it might be understood.
And that is why Senator Clinton shouldn’t have said what she said. I’m not going to harangue her any more than that because its not my place to say it. Its just plain and simple: when you’re under the spotlight and a microscope of scrutiny? You need to watch what you say because its under that same spotlight and microscope of scrutiny. Its as simple as that.
Just like when you were growing up and your mother told you to think about what you were going to say instead of just running your mouth…
