Reaction to Clinton Remarks and Apology

This is not the way Hillary Clinton wanted to go into the holiday weekend. The reaction to her remarks and apology has been swift and damning, even from those that otherwise support her:

The New York Times:

"Mrs. Clinton tried to excuse her inexcusable outburst by saying she was distracted by the shock of the news of Senator Edward Kennedy's malignant brain tumor. But there was something familiar about what she said, and thanks to Ben Smith of Politico, we remembere what it was. Mrs. Clinton said basically the same thing in an interview with Time on March 6:

'I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. WE all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A..'

What's next? 'Mistakes were made'?"


The Washington Post:

"Smart candidates don't invoke the possibility of their opponents being killed. This seems so obvious it shouldn't need to be said, but apparently, it needs to be said."


Mike Litwin in The Rocky Mountain News:

"I knew the ending would get ugly, as it does in any close contest. But I wasn't counting on this ugly, or, for that matter, this embarrassing before Clinton could figure a way to leave the filed of combat with, as we say, dignity."


Time magazine:

"Her excuse now is that the Kennedys have been 'much on my mind these days' with the illness of Senator Edward Kennedy, but that doesn't explain what brought it to mind more than two months ago.

NY Daily News:

"Clinton's embarrassing comment was the worst gaffe of a campaign universally considered doomed.

It was certain to complicate--and perhaps destroy--her chances of wresting the nomination from Obama or of becoming his running mate, an idea some of her operatives and supporters have floated."


Andrew Sullivan:

"As for her argument that June primaries are nothing new, she is correct. But in no previous primary election did the voting start just after New Years' Day. The New Hampshire primary in 1968 was on March 12, two months later than this year...

...She's been waiting for Obama to implode. Instead, she just has."


Joe Klein:

I may be among the few journalists who actually likes Clinton. She's a fine person, who takes her job--and the public good--seriously. I certainly value her service as my Senator. And I haven't joined the chorus of those who want her to quit--that's up to her. But it is extremely sad to watch this. It's sad to see her desperate and making mistakes that may haunt her in the future. I hope, in the wake of this, she takes a deep breath--and a day off--and thinks carefully about how she wants to play out the rest of this campaign.

Pajamas Media:

"This is the gaffe of gaffes, the Mother of all campaign faux pas. There's no taking it back at this point."


Josh Orton at MyDD:

"...we cannot divorce her comments from her public stature, her intelligence, her responsibility as a leader, or our history. So even with the most charitable interpretation, I think her negligence is disqualifying."


And Jonathan Singer, also at MyDD:

"...if this is the type of language that Clinton will be using for the duration of this primary process, I have a real problem with her continuing her campaign."


Taylor Marsh:

"Is this thing over yet? That's what many are feeling today, as everyone is as close to the breaking point with fatigue as it comes. We need a long weekend."


Sadly, No!:

"OK, I've defended Hillary against sexism. I can't defend her against charges of being completely tasteless... ...I got nothin' to add to this. Wow."


Blue Oregon:

"It is time for Oregon superdelegates to end this. I am looking at you Ron Wyden and Bill Bradbury and you Frank Dixon and you Wayne Kinney and you Gail Rasmussen and you Meredith Woods-Smith.

Do you condone Hillary Clinton using the specter of the assassination of Barack Obama as her rationale for staying in this race?"