I ran into Neal Dolan before Mass on Sunday at St. Peter’s, and it occurred to me that I hadn’t seen him since Martin Luther King Day. That was the day the Secret Service descended in force upon our building here at The State while Sen. Barack Obama was talking to the editorial board. Neal was the Secret Service agent in charge here in Columbia until his retirement recently. He’s now working with SLED.
Obama has had (for good reasons, apparently) the heaviest security detail of any candidate who’s ever come to see us. So it seemed a bit of coincidence that I would be reminded of that by running into Neal the very weekend that Hillary Clinton explained why hers is the Campaign That Won’t Leave as follows:
"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."
So, you know, anything could happen, so why quit now? She later explained that far from being coldbloodedly calculating, she was just in a particularly sensitive frame of mind regarding Kennedys in general, what with the terrible news about Teddy.
And now that we’ve all exclaimed, "That’s awful!" let’s think about this a minute. This is the most logical explanation for the Never-Ending Campaign I’ve heard yet. I’m not saying it’s a good explanation, but it has a certain morbid logic.
But it still doesn’t strike me as the sort of thing you hear from a presidential candidate. Hollywood would never have a presidential candidate say such a thing, unless the candidate were played by Robert DeNiro:
Not that I got nothin’ against this guy, you unnerstand… It’s just that somethin’ could happen to him — like he could get whacked or somethin’, God forbid (hands form prayer position). Nobody’d want nothin’ to happen to him or anyt’ing like that; I’m just sayin’…
Isn’t that, after all, what she said? It’s not that she’d WANT such a terrible thing to happen; she’s just saying…. Until now, who knew that when she spoke of getting that 3 a.m. phone call, she was thinking about before the election?
Related Posts
Don’t like that movie analogy? How about this one: John Cusack, as the hit man in "Grosse Pointe Blank," tells his shrink (played by Alan Arkin) that he’s not afraid to tell his secrets to the doc, because "I know where you live."
This sends Arkin’s character into an anxiety attack, causing Cusack to smile and say not to worry: "Come on, come on. I was just kidding, all right? The thought never crossed my mind."
To which Arkin’s character says, "You did think of it, Martin! You thought it, and then you said it…"
Hillary thought it, and then she said it.
Maybe this is why Hillary & Bill did that Sopranos inspired commercial in the diner at the beginning of the campaign. Just clearing the field with a warning. Speaking of “whack” Hillary does remind me of a little kid who let me play with her games/toys so long as I let her win. If I won, she threw a fit, “whacked” me over the head and said “You cheated, this is my game! I always win!” I haven’t thought about Sally for over 30 years . . . until now.
“Hillary thought it, and then she said it.”
And THAT! is what has endeared her to me. Really.
Brad,
What “has a certain morbid logic” to you just sounds like Hillary’s wishful thinking to me.
Yer prob’ly right about that 3 am phone call, tho. Bet she goes to bed with dreams of gettin’ the “Bat Phone call” dancin’ in her head.
It really wasn’t Hillary in that video. It was all manufactured by the liberal press as part of its “cover-up” to drive her out of the primary and finally get to crown Obama, who actually was promised the 2008 nomination back in 1989.
What’s so hard to believe about that Mike S?
Whoa! If this isn’t the smoking gun I don’t know what is. While the press and Brad continute to parse trivial comments by Clinton and Obama we have this blockbuster proving that Bush lied us into war. What an absolute disgrace this moran (Bush not Brad) is. Shame on all of you, and especially John McCain, who continue to support this lie. From the USA Today:
Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush “veered terribly off course,” was not “open and forthright on Iraq,” and took a “permanent campaign approach” to governing at the expense of candor and competence.
Among the most explosive revelations in the 341-page book, titled “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (Public Affairs, $27.95):
• McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.
• He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.
CORRECTION
The citation above should have been from the Politico, NOT the USA Today. Here’s the web address for the full article:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10649.html
Let’s frame the whole Iraq debacle the way it should be framed. This incursion began with a claim that Iraq was a threat to it’s neighbors and (through some convoluted logic that I never could follow) the U.S. This was based on claims that it had weapons of mass destruction, possibly even nuclear. That claim has long been disproved but the myth has persisted that the president believed they had the weapons. That myth has now been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to be false. The president clearly did not believe the Iraqis were the threat he was publicly claiming them to be.
So now after 5+ years of death, destruction and expense we still continue, albeit at a somewhat lower cost in human life. Should we continue in spite of the false premise for beginning the occupation in the first place? Of course not. The whole point of our invasion is invalid. With a decline in the overall carnage we can now say we’ve accomplished something over the last 15 months. It’s unlikely we’ll accomplish anything more. Iraq poses no threat to it’s neighbors and certainly not to us. So being the magnanimous person that I am, I’ll conceed that we’ve done wonderful stuff over the last 15 months but it’s now time to come home. We’ve won the war in Iraq and now we can celebrate V-I day.
No one who understands the English language really thinks that Hillary Clinton was insinuating that Barak Obama might be assassinated before the convention.
These same Democrats and press who pretend to hear a threat from Hillary are the same clowns who wanted to sweep Vince Foster’s killing under the rug, and ignored all Clinton bodyguards and advisors who ended up shot to death or died in a lot of small airplane crashes.
::: complete silence as he ponders Lee (sort of) coming to Hillary’s defense :::
Lee, you made an outstanding point in your first sentence. But then you started ranting about idiotic conspiracy theories. Just can’t leave well enough alone can you?
Conspiracy theories are, for the most part, just plain nonsense. They seem to permeate both liberals and conservatives alike.
For you conservatives out there listen carefully: VINCE FOSTER COMMITTED SUICIDE. End of story.
And for you liberals – THE WTC WAS DESTROYED BY TERRORISTS WHO HIJACKED 4 AIRLINERS. End of story.
And for everybody: JFK WAS ASSASINATED BY L.H. OSWALD ACTING ALONE. End of story.
Why is it people just can’t accept the simplest, most logical explanations for terrible events.
I think Hillary’s black, lacy Freudian slip is showing.
Brad:
Spot on, as usual, with your observations. Thanks for bloggin’ what gentile folks are thinkin’.
Methinks Hillary’s Id doth protest too much. A quick check on the Clinton Body Count would give any security detail (or rational thinker) pause.
As for Bush’s alleged prevarications, the means (and overall competence) might not pass the sniff test, but the fact that the Middle Eastern swamp needed draining to get to the alligators is indisputable.
bud,
I just stated the facts: lots of Clinton bodyguards and close associates ended up shot to death. I didn’t elaborate on any “conspiracy theories”, but someone killed all these people, some just before they were to testify against Bill. What’s your theory?
Personally, I’d rather deal with alligators than the Bush administration. Alligators have surely killed fewer people.
Every time Bill Clinton starts whining about how unfair and disrespectful the world and media is to Hillary I find myself yelling at the television “c’mon you pundits and analysts, HAVE SOME GUTS and comment on the Pink Elephant in the room”.
For the past 2 years, Bill Clinton wants us to think that his wife is the greatest thing since slice bread even though, according to allegations, he has spent the last 20 years publicly embarrassing and humiliating Hillary Clinton on a worldwide stage.
After Gennifer Flowers, Catherine Wiley, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky at what point did he decide his wife is the cat’s meow and just what America needs.
I envision the 3am call as this: Hillary reaches for the phone, but Bill has it and says “ look Gennifer, you can’t call me on this line anymore it belongs to Hillary now, but she is going out of town to the G-5 summit and I will have the place to myself baby”.
Bill Clinton is the most narcissistic and selfish person that I have ever seen. He made 109 million dollars, but yet, the man couldn’t turn down 800k from the government of Columbia to keep from embarrassing and compromising Hillary on her position of NAFTA.
Is that respect?
Hillary as President? She is on the front lawn saying one thing and Bill is at the back door selling the furniture out of the White House and renting out the Lincoln bedroom.
Bill Clinton if you want respect for your wife then maybe it should start with you!!!!!
So c’mon pundits, speak up and set the record straight.
Either GMb (Grandmaster bud) was reveling in his 15 minutes, in protective custody because the neo-cons on this site know what he looks like now, or he only appears when we blog on Bush.
Regardless, he is dead on. Brad gets into a lather over the RFK comments (he blogs on what he finds “interesting”) yet McClellan does a “shock and awe” on the Cheney-W administration and no thread.
Now word comes out about Phil Graham, McCain’s right hand man on economics, who was helping McCain craft policy to combat the housing crisis while Graham was also lobbying for UBS, a big housing lender. CONFLICT OF INTEREST but not interesting to Brad.
Randy, I’m alive and well. I’ve spent the past few days in seclusion with the VP. Not a pretty place to be.
You picked up on the same thing I did. Brad launches into an assault on Hillary even though she is pretty much out of the picture. In the meantime we have more lobbyist-staffers on the Double-Talk express jumping ship. The McCain preachers finally get a bit of attention. And of course McCain just threw the veterans under the bus. I hadn’t heard about Phil Graham, but since this is a story that reflects badly on McCain I suppose most people are just as ignorant as I. That’s not the type of thing the MSM will report on.
It’s time to play journalist Brad. Instead of cheerleading for Mr. Straight Talk let’s have some real reporting. There are at least 10 McCain stories that rank as much more important than the “phony Edwards” nonsense that ran for post after post while Edwards was still in the race. Yet The State Editorial Page Editor stands by in silence. What a pity.
Bud — the VP of what? Ostriches? Conspiracies happen.
BTW, the Hillary/Robert DeNiro scene was a hoot. She’s — guess what — HUMAN!!
All the people killed by the Bush administration DESERVED to die. And more deserve to die, but Bill Clinton didn’t have the will to stand up to Al Qaeda, Hillary doesn’t have the will, and Obama is cozy with terrorists.
“DESERVED to die”
Civilians ruled by oppressive regimes deserve to die? That seems a bit extreme.
“Bill Clinton didn’t have the will”
Bill Clinton had no political capitol left to get congress to go along with anything more than lobbing a few missiles.
Yesterday, I was talking to some J-school students over at USC. I happened to mention that a regular part of the job is having to deal with critics who want me to play the game that the inside-the-Beltway crowd plays of parroting one point of view or the opposite one on the partisan “talking point of the day.” I need to get Charles Bierbauer to show the kids this thread.
I also told them that, even though most of my time is spent dealing with issues that NO OTHER MEDIA SOURCE follows or will tell readers about — state and local politics and issues — I frequently have to throw the folks on my blog something from the over-covered, saturated-to-the-point-of-nausea field of national politics to keep them interested.
Again, perfect case in point. I say something about the RFK thing, and I get a nonsequitur about this McClellan guy — which, by the way, I only know anything about because I saw a tangential e-mail about it a few minutes ago…
OK, I’ve now looked at the story that bud brings to my attention, and I’ve got to ask — why would I have been interested in commenting upon this? It reads like a celebrity-news item — another tell-all book by a former aide.
I’ve never taken any interest whatsoever in what this guy said in the past (maybe I’m wrong, but the only ex-press secretary I can recall writing about is the former Clinton aide who name is escaping me at the moment, even though he came to visit me recently). Why would be I be interested now?
Near as I can tell, he is all of a sudden an oracle of truth to bud and Randy. I’m wondering — did they ever believe him in the past?
But since you guys are excited about it, I’ll be happy for you. Congratulations — Scott McClellan thinks as you do.
McCurry! It’s Mike McCurry I’m thinking of!
This is really embarrassing. I like Mike McCurry. I’ve met him and interviewed him on two occasions — once when I went to see him at his office; the other time when he came to see me at mine. He’s from South Carolina. He attends the same Methodist church in Kensington, Md., that some of my cousins go to (or at least he did). The White House press conference that I attended, during which he was grilled about Monica Lewinsky (I really felt for him on that one; Mike’s a decent kind of guy) is seared into my memory.
But I’ve always had trouble with his name. And just this morning — or was it yesterday morning — I was reading something in the WSJ about such "senior moments" as this: "Most common is the temporary inability to recall a name or a number or what you were about to do."
But why certain people? An why people whose faces I can call up with photographic clarity?
… from now on, I’ll picture him in a kilt, eating Indian food… that is, if I can stop thinking about Karen’s description of “Hillary’s black, lacy Freudian slip…”
“I’m wondering — did they ever believe him in the past?”
He had a reason for obfuscating the truth before (he wanted to keep his job and the pressure to justify to himself it was worth keeping).
I don’t see his motivation here. Don’t books by the Coulter-esque sell to the right just as well as books by the Franken-esque cell to the left. (He could have written a book bashing the liberal media if he thought they deserved it and still sold copies, couldn’t he?)
No, the 1,000,000 women and children killed by the UN Oil-For-Food program did not deserve to die. Clinton let that happen. Bush stopped it, saving at least 1,000,000 more Iranians from starvation at the hands of the bribed UN.
The thousands of civilians murdered by Al Qaeda and Saddamists did not deserve to die. Thanks to US troops, a lot fewer died.
US troops murdered by terrorists did not deserve to die.
The terrorists who have opposed US liberation forces did deserve to die.
Bill Clinton had enought political capital to get an almost unanimous approval from Congress to start this war in 1998 with a huge bombing campaign. His advisors, including Holbrooke, said he lacked the courage to take any risks in Africa or the Mideast.
“Just saying,” you must think “dog bites man” stories sell newspapers.
Think about it, dude — would an “I agree with Bush” book from his former paid mouthpiece have attracted a publisher.
Back to Mike McCurry — whose name I’m going to keep repeating until I can’t forget it — do you think a book from him sticking up for Bill Clinton would sell? If I were a publisher, I’d be far more interested if he were ripping the bark off the folks he worked for… Man bites dog, you know.
Not that I’m saying Mr. McClellan is prostituting himself. I’m perfectly willing to believe that he believes what he’s saying (and believed what he was saying then, too; the capacity of the human mind for Doublethink is underestimated by almost anyone other than Orwell). I’m just saying your reasoning was faulty…
See how easy it is to get into “I’m just saying” mode?
McCurry did write a book about poor me and Bill, under attack from the press… and it didn’t sell.
“Think about it, dude — would an “I agree with Bush” book from his former paid mouthpiece have attracted a publisher.”
Ann Coulter and Limbaugh found a market somehow… get one of them to write the introduction for it. I didn’t mean that sticking up for Bush would sell it… its attacking the people who attack Bush (that evil media and their liberal masters, or whatnot) that would sell it.
And hey, even though the woman biting the pit-bull in the beginning of April got lots of press… we all know that only four things sell newspapers: comics, the NYT editorials, the Wall Street Journal editorials, and those pretty color graphs in USA Today.
McClellan was great buddies with W. Having a kiss and tell book from a guy this close to the Decider is a BIG deal. Why would he suddenly sell out W for money when he clearly had opportunities to make a living with the biggest connection anyone could have? That’s what I’m saying.
He didn’t make up a bunch of lies. For example, he defended Libby and Turd Blossom (Rove) in the Plame affair but we learned that they were not honest which he explains in his book. Even if he is off in some of his accounts, some is true.
Why concern ourselves about going to war on faulty claims or with the fact that McCain’s economic guru is a lobbyist for a big foreign bank? Let’s blog about Hillary Clinton instead.
Smart people were more concerned about Joe Wilson lying in the NY Times when he claimed that Iraq was not trying to buy yellow cake uranium from Nigeria, when his official report said that Iran was doing just that.
Wilson outed his own wife.
Valerie Plame and her co-workers exposed their CIA front company of analysts when they made illegal campaign contributions to John Kerry, and Joe Wilson resubmitted his personal illegal contribution into a split from him and his wife.
Wilson and the NY Times ginned up this attack on Carl Rove as a smokescreen for their own misdoings.
I hope somebody is watching out for us while that little turncoat McClellan drags our whole country into a blizzard of confusion. What a reprobate.
McClellan is blackballed by the MSM unless he sells out his boss and co-workers.
It is already coming out that he had no access to or knowledge of some of the information he claims to cite in his book.
He should have known that working for Bush was the end of his career in the MSM – they have been on a smear campaign against Bush since Day 1, just as the Democrats have been working to sabotage the economy, the war on terrorism, energy research, oil exploration, etc.
This is great — Randy giving me a hard time for not making a big deal about this McClellan thing, and Lee complaining because we in the MSM give it too much play.
Beauty, eh? Welcome to my world, boys and girls.
Not that I’m complaining. I’m just saying…
Lee refers to our schools as “Marxist institutions” and thinks Obama was a successful suicide bomber (and you wrote that you “ignore” Lee).
Randy believes lobbyist crafting ecomonic policy for our possible future president while serving Big Bank is a bad idea (sounds Grown Up doesn’t it).
Brad, if you let yourself be caught in the middle of those two then you’ll find yourself somewhere to the right of Hitler (which Pastor Hagee would think is godly of you).
Randy, why do you have to diddle around in your fantasy world, instead of engaging in direct conversation?
Brad, you have a reading comprehension problem. Reread my post and try again. Take all day, if you need to. Whether what you think I said is right or wrong, your main problem is that you cannot respond to me, Randy or anyone else directly on point.
Obama’s approach to all issues involving Islamic terrorism is to side with the terrorists.
His advisors and role models include supporters of Hamas, Hezbollah, Quaddaffi, Saddam Hussein, and Syria.
Obama would be the most dangerous President in history. An impeachment would surely be filed.
Great article!