Not long ago, a couple of weeks, I guess, I had a premonition. I’m not given to this kind of thing and don’t recall a time that I have ever publicly talked about the very few premonitions I have had in my life. What I “saw” was disturbing, frightening to me and intense enough that I pulled my car over to the side of the road to collect myself and to offer immediate prayers on behalf of Hillary Clinton. When I got home, I lit candles for her, continued to think about her and pray for her and to honor her according to my own spiritual inclinations and traditions.
I told only one other person about this premonition until yesterday, when the pundits went wild with a comment Clinton made. The context was the way she is being pressured to drop out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. She said in an interview with the Argus Leader newspaper editorial board::
My husband (Bill Clinton) 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, I don’t understand it.”
She apologized for making this statement, which was twisted into a pretzel by pundits and made to be all about what I don’t believe it was ever about.
I understand why she might have said this. I think she was remembering that Robert F. Kennedy had been assassinated in June while he was campaigning for President, meaning although he was losing, he was still on the campaign trail and was not being besieged with demands that he drop out (as she has been). She was likely thinking about this in part because last week, Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with a brain tumor and will not live much more than a year, if that; the Kennedys, whom Clinton has known and worked alongside for decades by now, were on her mind in other words.
There’s another reason she might have had assassination attempts on her mind. In May 2007, a 19-year-old Louisiana State University student was arrested and held on $1 million bond for planning a “terrorist attack” on Clinton. At least one other person was involved. The plan was discovered when Clinton was in Baton Rouge campaigning. [Updated: This incident occurred a year ago, not this May as I originally thought. To me, that makes things much worse. This happened a year ago? And never made it out of local news? ]
I’d say it makes sense, therefore, that Clinton thinks about assassination attempts.
I don’t know why there has been so little in the news about this. I found local coverage of the plot and arrest this morning because I was looking for more information about the latest supposed offensive commentary. It’s possible that the Clinton campaign or Clinton herself did not want widespread coverage for very good reasons having to do with her own safety and well-being. It’s also possible many journalists are feeling reticent to talk about what happened, for the same reason. There are too many Americans who are violent.
But I think this is information that provides some important context for Clinton’s statement. I think what pundits are doing with what Clinton said is inexcusable, as so much media coverage and punditry in these campaigns have been inexcusable, despicable, so much so that I can barely bring myself to follow the campaigns especially recently.
It seems to me that there is so little perspective around the campaigns right now. Responses to every new incident or possibly-offensive statement or event are consistently over the top and out of control.
We are talking about good and decent people here who are running for the Democratic nomination: public servants, responsible citizens, beloved by friends and family and those in their intimate circles, dedicated. They deserve all of the support we can offer to them, all the good will we can provide to them, no matter who we will vote for to be the next President of the United States. I wish I got the idea far more often than I do that the people who are making the most noise about the candidates ever actually think about them in this way, as human beings, valuable, decent, and especially, so, so vulnerable, taking great risks for what they believe in, laying their lives on the line every day. This should matter and should factor in, always, to what is said about them publicly, whether by individual citizens, bloggers or journalists. It scares me that in general, it doesn’t seem to.
Comments severely moderated. If I don’t like what you write, I won’t approve it, even if I like you.
Heart, thank you for covering this about the campaign, Hillary and vulnerability. Your words speak volumes of compassion, even though it is so easy for words, typed and not spoken, without spiritual nuance of presence, to be misunderstood.
You and I had some off-blog correspondence that I hope did not put a rift between us as women who care passionately about ending oppression against women. In my disappointment over the misogyny, racism and war-mongering being highlighted by the presidential politics played in the mainstream arenas — and in sorrow over being one of so many women finding so seemingly little on which we can agree about ending our oppression — I have stayed away from reading blogs until today, when I felt called intuitively to immerse. It has also been a really busy time lately, keeping body, soul and finances together for myself and those to whom I have chosen responsibility.
Please know the huge gift you give to women who come to your blog for the news found few other places, and the hearty and heartfelt commentary you provide as author and moderator.
JB (aka Judy Best)
Knowing about the plot to murder her certainly puts an extremely different spin on her statement. Thanks for posting this, I had no idea.
Judy Best, it’s all good. I hear you and am glad to read you again! Thanks for those kind words.
Renee (and all), the article about the threat to Clinton is actually a May 4, 2007 article. I didn’t see that when I came across it on google the first time. But you know, that makes things even worse so far as I’m concerned. How is it that this was apparently not even news? It happened a year ago and never made it past local coverage?
Of course, it also doesn’t change anything about the premonition I had a couple of weeks ago or the fears I have for both candidates.
Note to haters attempting to comment: give it up. Your comments will never see the light of day. It’s unbelievable to me (well, not really) that some attempting to comment are trying dismiss this plot as though it was no big deal. Incredible.
I think so much of what is happening is generational. When I was in seventh grade in 1963, John F. Kennedy, my hero, an American hero, despite his feet of clay, was assassinated. Five years later, when I was a junior in high school, Martin Luther King was assassinated, also my hero and an American hero, and Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. I remember the moments I learned of their assassinations as though they were yesterday. These were turning points in my life and in the lives of so many Americans. It’s interesting– my memory of my childhood and teenage years is kind of here and there and spotty and it comes and goes, I’m 55 after all, but I remember these moments of hearing of the assassinations, again, as though they were yesterday. Hillary Clinton is a little older than me. I know she remembers these moments just as I do.
But young folks don’t remember, because they weren’t alive then. They learned of these assassinations, which were so traumatic to their folks and all of us who were progressive in those years, in school, in history textbooks. They don’t understand why Hillary Clinton would speak, in June, about the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. I understand. His assassination was the third of three horrifically meaningful assassinations.
I always had the feeling that there was a lot more going on with this than we’ll ever know.
I have clear memories of King and RFK, but have no memory of JFK’s assassination. I feel peculiarly distant from it, and grew up finding out worse and worse things about him.
Colin Powell did not run for president because his wife feared his assassination. It was a very real worry, because he said they had received a lot of death threats and hate mail. Scary, and he only mentioned all of this in passing many years ago in an interview. I was shocked.
So I imagine that threats are being made against Clinton and Obama, and that that makes this race all the scarier.
I’m actually glad the next generation has no memory of the 1963 and 1968 events. It’s really time to leave that era behind now.
I’ve heard (and said myself) that Obama, a man of color speaking about hope, was the most likely to be attacked. I think this flip in perspective is necessary and highly relevant. Thanks for sharing your premonition with us, Heart.
The student who was arrested in May 2007 was judged to not represent a threat to Senator Clinton. He was released to the custody of his parents on a $50,000 bond, and allowed to re-enroll at LSU. He’s been studying there without incident since.
Thanks, Angus Johnston, for that info. I don’t find it particularly comforting that this guy has been “studying [without incident] ever since.” It’s barely been a year since he was plotting arson.
But again, we’ve got this plot, this arrest, a guy apparently evaluated and released on $50K bond, after having been held on $1 million bond, it’s all happened over the last year, and who has ever even heard about it? In a time when news about the frontrunners cannot be avoided, down to every word they utter, every “sweetie,” every “bitter,” every “hardworking, white.” Somehow this flies under the radar?
Eerie and scary.
Also eerie and scary are the haters whose comments I’ve spammed. I’m going to save this stuff and after the President is in office, I’m going to write about it, though not for this blog, for paper publication. The hatred of Hillary Clinton is sick. It is ugly, it is toxic, it is misogynist, it is uncalled for, it is undeserved, and those of you lost in it are messed up people. You need help.
As to your premonition concerning Clinton: I had a dream about two weeks ago, the same thing. I was mighty happy to wake up.
Angus Johnston, looks like the guy was released on $100K bond, not $50K.
Link
Thursday’s Child, whoa.
I know what you mean– I was terrified and felt unnerved for a couple of days and honestly, have felt unnerved ever since.
I think the candidates will probably seek to keep a very low profile on threats even as bad as this one against Hillary, so that people will not twist and turn it into reasons why they cannot run, or should not run, for president. Can you imagine if a threat like this had been widely covered last YEAR, before they were really in the thick of things as they are now? That would have been really bad for Hillary’s campaign. I know that Obama too will not answer directly any questions deaing with threats. I can just hear FOX analysts and conservatives and moderate pundits en masse, –if threats were talked about more loudly–it would have totally set them off and running and scaring people that non male white presidents put us at danger. Whereas if an attempt or threat were made against a white male it would not be viewed the same, it wouldn’t be a great big smug (or cowardly) “see? It would be great if things were fair but they are not, and it’s just too dangerous to our nat’l security for the country to elect anyone who isn’t a white male. ”
It’s seen as weakness is the thing–to have the type threat Hillary received–sort of similar (sort of) to the way age has been used against some candidates (what if he dies in office, etc.) Basically you are supposed to be invincible to get elected.
There are so many excuses given as to why this country is not ready for any president who is not a white male– recently I’ve even heard that a male, white, *Northerner* who is a democrat is considered to be a gamble to put up for Pres., (the last Northerner who was a dem. who won was Kennedy and subsequent democrat prseidents have all been from the south, and their southerness has been seen as what factored in in allowing them to win) . And the last time a *majority* of white male voters voted for any democrat at all was for Johnson in ‘64. But for a white male repub., he can be from anywhere, and no matter.
Jeyoani: I can just hear FOX analysts and conservatives and moderate pundits en masse, –if threats were talked about more loudly–it would have totally set them off and running and scaring people that non male white presidents put us at danger. Whereas if an attempt or threat were made against a white male it would not be viewed the same, it wouldn’t be a great big smug (or cowardly) “see? It would be great if things were fair but they are not, and it’s just too dangerous to our nat’l security for the country to elect anyone who isn’t a white male. ”
So true, Jeyoani. It’s the abuser rap: “Well, you asked for it. If you/they hadn’t ____________, everything would be just fine.” To abusers, it’s never the perp/abuser’s fault that someone has been battered, bludgeoned, murdered, whatever, it’s always their targets’ fault. Ugly and sick and despicable.
Well, I posted the warrants in a new post. Nobody’s going to erase or dismiss this on my blog, although erasing and dismissing they are in other places, with a vengeance. So freaking messed up. This is what happened:
Link to Smoking Gun article
If you, were to do a data-base of All the women who especially have fought for human rights of Women, Children, the Poor, the Oppressed, WORLDWIDE who have been assassinated, tortured, arrested, threatened with arrest, raped, their families targeted, etc.,
it would be a list long enough to fit in a small book [maybe even a big book]…
in EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY,
just for the year of 2007– I’ve counted at least 10, in a five minute google search, from Women’s Rights journalists, advocates, artists, labor leaders, relief workers, etc., in South America, Russia, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Asia, Mexico,
from Ireland 16 Days 2007–Human Rights-Women report
Banúlacht Statement about Women Human Rights Defenders Day
What follows is a statement issued by Banúlacht in commemoration of November 29th, Women Human Rights Defenders Day.
“Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels.” Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ["The Declaration on human rights defenders"] (Article 1).
On the occasion of November 29th, Women Human Rights Defenders day, and as a part of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence Campaign, the Center for Women’s Global Leadership honors the hundreds of thousands of women activists around the world who persistently and courageously defend human rights, peace and social justice. Women from all parts of the globe engage in defense of human rights on a daily basis. Because of their advocacy, they face retribution and are sometimes punished-by government officials, religious authorities, police, and often by family and community members.
Whether they focus on women’s human rights or other rights issues, women defenders are subjected to arbitrary imprisonment, torture, forced disappearances, death threats, violations of privacy, sexual violence, name calling and other threats to their credibility, closures of their organizations and a host of other violations because of their activism and claims to exercise rights. Many women defenders have lost their lives because of their advocacy.
In 2007, women activists around the globe face continued restrictions on their advocacy and many forms of violations, such as:
In Pakistan, under the current state of emergency, many women activists and lawyers have been arrested:, prominent women’s rights activists such as UN Special Rapporteur Asma Jahangir were placed under house arrest or threatened with arrest, as was UN Special Representative on human rights defenders, Hina Jilani, who was abroad when the warrant was issued.
In Mexico, Lydia Cacho, a journalist and head of a women’s organization, faced an assassination attempt in May, after having endured a previous arrest and sustained persecution by government authorities because of her work exposing gender based violence.
In South Africa, a number of Black lesbians known to be feminist activists were killed in a spate of “hate crimes.”
In Iran, over 30 women demonstrating peacefully were arrested as they protested state pressure against women human rights defenders.
In the United States, sexual and reproductive rights advocates face physical assault and their organizations and continue to forfeit government financial support if they refuse to sign the federal “anti-prostitution pledge.”
In Poland, defenders working for sexual and reproductive rights, and especially the right to safe abortion, continue to face persistent threats, harassment and questioning from law enforcement officials.
And only last week in Nicaragua, nine prominent women activists were charged with fabricated crimes by the government in collusion with right wing groups in an effort to intimidate feminists who have advocated for women’s rights related to abortion and against incest and other forms of sexual violence.
CWGL stands in solidarity with these and other women defenders and with all activists who have defended women’s rights during 2007.
For more information about women human rights defenders and the International Campaign on Women Human Rights Defenders, or to download the WHRD guidebook, Claiming Rights, Claiming Justice, see http://defendingwomen-defendingrights.org/.
Banúlacht
20 Lower Dominick St
Dublin 1
Ireland
Tel: +353 (0)1 8723039
Web: http://www.banulacht.ie/
Heart, there are a few things about this I am not getting. Clinton obviously did not want to make a big deal out of this grandiose fantasy of this LSU student. I do not think it is at all unusual for presidential candidates to receive death threats. Some downplay the threats, others make a big deal out of it, such as Ross Perot. I can understand why finding out about this threat to Hillary Clinton would hit you hard; not a few death threats have been aimed at you. However, if she did not want to make a big story out of it, I do not know if you should be.
Another thing I do not get is what the assassination of Robert Kennedy has to do with her staying in this race. If something, heaven forbid, should incapacitate Obama, she will be the nominee regardless. Her example of her husband is not comparable; it was clear he would win by a landslide in March. The race in 1968, by contrast, was still wide open in June. Robert Kennedy entered the race late, but he had the momentum and a good chance to take the nomination in a brokered convention.
Another thing, this is not the first time Clinton has brought this up, and she is not the only one in her campaign dropping hints about it. Most of the Kennedys are unhappy with her about it. Regardless of what is on her mind, I do not think she should be repeatedly bringing it up, much less as a reason to stay in the race. She does not need to justify staying in the race; to give whoever wants to vote for her that opportunity is reason enough. She may be trying to make a dent in big campaign debts, or she may be angling for VP. It really is her decision to make, and Obama himself has taken pains to avoid pressuring her.
Yeah, Aletha, you could be right in all you’ve said. I’ve received many death threats and I know what that’s about and how that affects a woman and hangs like a shadow over her life. I’ve also survived a real attempt on my life. So, maybe I am over-empathizing, projecting, who knows. I also tend always to be all about the underdog.
Another thing I do not get is what the assassination of Robert Kennedy has to do with her staying in this race.
I do not think she should be repeatedly bringing it up, much less as a reason to stay in the race.
It has nothing to do with it and, as Heart said, this interpretation of Clinton’s words is twisting what she actually said. IOW, you’re lying or severly misinformed, even after reading Heart’s post. So I’d change that to wilfully misinformed.
Clinton is NOT bringing up RFK’s assassination as a reason to stay in the race, she NEVER has done that. What she has ACTUALLY SAID is that primaries often go into June, like in 1992 w/Bill and 1968, when Bobby was tragically killed. And that, therefore, all the calls to for HER to get out of the are absolutely without basis and incomprehensible.
I cannot believe this was not featured in ANY mainstream news source. I would’ve expected even the BBC to pick it up or even my country’s news, the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp.).
This is serious stuff. I wonder how many presidential hopefuls have gone through this kind of thing and had it completely swept under the carpet for the reasons that were mentioned earlier? (this person means ‘danger’ and ‘threatens’ us. Therefore, do not vote for this candidate.)
Also, in that same line of thinking, maybe the presidential hopefuls handle this quite often and play a part in making it go under the media radar per se.
Emma, I agree the RFK assassination had nothing to do with why Clinton stayed in the race. This is why it is so puzzling why she kept bringing it up, in the context of discussing the push for her to get out. I do see your point, I should not have used the phrase, a reason to stay in the race, but I still can see no reason for her to bring it up at all in that context. You and Heart have offered possible rationales. If this had been the only time, those might have made sense to me, but it is not the only time. The 1968 contest was so different than this one. This is the first time June had nothing but Puerto Rico and two sparsely populated states at stake, since California joined the mad rush to crowd the front of the calendar. California used to be the big prize at the end, the decider of close contests.
The only way I can make sense of Clinton repeatedly bringing up the 1968 assassination in this context is as another example of singularly bad judgment, or her penchant for creating drama. She is no dummy, and should have been aware of how that reference might be misconstrued. It had nothing to do with her point, so why choose that way of referring to that election? What is the relevance? The 1968 primary was still very much up for grabs in June, and was not decided until the convention. The 1992 primary was not, and neither was the current primary.