May 25, 2008 12:27 AM UTC

From Reeling to Realization

• 0 Comments
• by: JO

A day passes and events and words fit into place.

1. The political story of 2007 has been the steady rise of Barack Obama–not the fall of HRC. A visual representation of this is at http://www.pollster.com/08-US-… HRC tried many tactics to stop this unfolding picture–calling Obama a ‘black candidate’ who can’t win, calling him too young and experienced (“35 years experience” of which only 7 were in any office with official responsibilities; 3 a.m. phone calls, where Bill could answer the phone), too ambitious and eager (“kindgergarten essay”), none of which worked.

2. On 5/24/08, HRC tried to lay out a scenario, or scenarios, by which she could still win the nomination. She mentioned two, and only two, past events: the 1992 California primary, which wasn’t relevant to 2008 ince it has already happened; and the assassination of Robert Kennedy (not his victory in CA; she only mentioned the assassination), a candidate to whom Obama has often been compared and who stands between her and the nomination.

3. We know that HRC still wants the nomination; she often says so. The only scenario that she could think of on 5/24 to achieve the nomination was the assassination of her competitor. She said it, I didn’t.

The question thus arises: does she want the nomination badly enough to want Obama’s assassination? That would nomrally be an out-of-bounds, over-the-top question, except that we are confronted by the fact that when asked why she stays in the race, the only relevant answer she offered was the prospect of an assassination. Don’t take my word for it; watch her say it.

The nexus between thought and speech sometimes spins out of control of the superego. An example might be saying to your boss, “You’re an asshole and I hate this job.” Ooops. This is immediately followed by “Of course I didn’t mean it! I love you, I love working here, I love getting my paycheck.” But an underlying thought–whether conscious and secret or subconscious and so suppressed that even the speaker denies it could be true-is out there.

Something like this happened to George Allen a couple of years ago. He used the word “macaca.” He only used it once, but it immediately and irretrievably became his middle name in politics. He tried to deny that he meant anything by it, but his denials fell flat.

So too has “assassination” replaced Rodham in HRC, henceforth and forever known as HAC. Her devoted followers have already started the process of grieving, which starts with denial and goes to anger. Resignation and acceptance are yet to come, but they will.

Part of the denial phase (on her part too) will be to deny that she meant any such thing. But the indisputable fact, caught on video, is that she had had such a thought, made such an assessment, and gave voice to it. And it cannot be disputed that she still wants to be nominated. And she herself said in that interview that the only scenario she could come up with to get the nomination, to justify staying in the race, was … assassination.

Case closed. Career finished. For some. good riddance. For others, grieving. But our reactions have no bearing on what happened, or what is now fated to happen. How long it takes is TBD.