This week Senator Clinton argued that Democratic nominations have often gone into June. She cited her husband in 1992 and Bobby Kennedy in 1968. « We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. »

I must say when I first saw this comment it did not strike me as in any way inappropriate.  I just thought Mrs. Clinton was making the point that her staying in the race till June was not unusual.

However, to my surprise, a storm of protest broke out.  The politicians and the media excoriated her for mentioning political assassination as a reason for staying in the race.  Clearly the subtext here is an issue that is becoming more visible this election season.  The issue is concern now being voiced in many quarters that Obama is vulnerable to a crack-pot assassin.

« What is Clinton saying? » asked one commentator.  » That she should stay in the race so she’s ready to step in,  in case Obama  is assassinated? »   Mrs. Clinton quickly apologized for her reference to assassination while at the same time saying she only meant  that  Democratic primaries have sometimes gone into June.  Robert Kennedy Jr., who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, came to her defense: « It sounds like she was invoking a familiar historical circumstance in support of her argument for continuing the campaign. »

Concerns for Mr.  Obama’s safety led the Secret Service to give him protection last May, before it was offered to any other presidential candidate … Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle, voiced concerns about his safety before he was elected to the Senate, and some black voters have even said such fears weighed on their decision of whether to vote for him.

What do you think?

Do you have any concerns about Senator Obama’s safety?



  1. 1
    Paul Costopoulos Says:

    In trigger happy USA I’m worried about everybody’s safety including my wife’s and mine while we will be in Vegas in the first week of June. However, Obama faces a more immediate threat than we do for his colour and the symbol he is for all KKK and white supremacists, USAers or others including our own mavericks.

  2. 2
    Barbara Says:

    Certainly everyone is concerned. It is the elephant in the room and that is the reason Mrs. Clinton’s remarks were deemed inappropriate. I doubt she thought it through, although she made a similar remarks months earlier. I suspect she is imploding under the stress of the grueling schedule and the inevitability of her loss.
    While it may be true that presumptive candidates are not always clear before June, it is also true that the primary season never began as early as the first week or so of January.
    I am impressed by Obama’s bravery. You cannot select your candidate based on how popular they are with the lunatic fringe.

  3. 3
    Chimera Says:

    I’m no more concerned for him than I am for her. All politicians are vulnerable to the same threat of assassination by some lunatic, the same as all politicians are vulnerable to the threat of foot-in-mouth disease.

    C’mon, people — they’re Democrats! They’re supposed to be idealogically cannibalistic! It’s their tradition!

  4. 4
    jim Says:

    If the country lives by the sword, it dies by the sword.

  5. 5
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    I agree with Chimera. Of 43 White presidents, 4 have been murdered by bullets. That’s about a 10 to 1 ratio…a very, VERY high ratio.

    Running for the presidency ain’t the most healthy thing either (just ask George Wallace).

    Nuts with guns don’t discriminate on the basis of colour when it comes to presidents or presidential candidates.

    Nevertheless, we can’t give these guys (and gal) enough protection, as far as I’m concerned, so if being extra sensitive about Barack’s colour gets him more protection, great.

    As for the snarky comments about « trigger-happy USA » and « living and dying by the sword »: I would rather live in a country that allowed its citizens to protect themselves than one — Canada — that does everything it can NOT to allow them to.

    Yes, it’s true that gun crimes are, per capita, several times greater in the US than Canada. But if you compare ethnic demographics in the US and Canada vis a vis gun crimes — using Canada’s ethnic and racial make-up as the basis for comparison — then the US has a LOWER gun crime rate than Canada.

    As for non-gun crimes (and without resorting to ethnic demographic comparisons), Canada has, per capita, a HIGHER crime rate than the US in most areas.

RSS Feed for this entry

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:


Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )


Connexion à %s

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :