signs of love

there seems to be something energizing, if masochistic, about staying up past one's bedtime. i set these for myself every night, convincing myself that i'll wake up as intended, that my sleep-deprived logic - no matter how cajoling or sincere - won't win. but that rarely happens. my alarm goes off (these days, its sound might as well herald a tornado) and i ignore it. i become pissed off that it finds a way into my dreams, invades my private thoughts and passes muster as something original and creative. and because i want to remain in that pure world, free of responsibility and realism, i wake up even later than my most generous allowance.

i know myself well enough to suppose that i won't wake up as intended (at 6:40am), that i won't fall asleep for a while, and that i won't miss the sleep tomorrow. i'm lying, and that's okay; i have a reason to prolong my night.

there have been whispers about hillary clinton's macabre tendencies for a while. maureen dowd has not-so-privately hinted at senator clinton's desire to tarnish a promising political talent (barack obama), no matter the cost and no matter the collateral damage. she's running because she's selfish; she's still in the race because "anything can happen." the undertones of that rationale - that "anything can happen" - have always been negative. someone might kill our greatest hope, for instance. and hillary will be there when it happens, carrying the casket and offering her services for a fee.

so it isn't surprising that the press - fueled by the internets - would jump on a story i find hardly worth mentioning. now infamously, and by turns alarmingly and cunningly and stupidly and desperately, senator clinton remarked that robert f. kennedy was assassinated in june of 1968. here's the quote that's been causing such outrage:

“My husband 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.”

the sentence that everyone's been focusing on - especially maureen dowd - is the latter. hillary mentions "assassination," and therefore must be implying that barack obama might be a little bit vulnerable to it. nevermind that senator clinton herself, among the most passionately hated politicians in the United States, is subject to the danger too. instead, as ms. dowd so nicely puts it,

"In politics, there are many unpredictable and unsavory twists and turns. That’s why she’s hanging around, and that’s why she and Bill want to force Barack Obama to take her as his vice president, even if he doesn’t want her, even if Michelle can’t stand her, even if she has to stir the sexist pot, and even if she tarnishes his silvery change message."

of course, i don't condone the idea of senator obama's assassination - far from it. but neither do i condone the vilification of an effective senator and committed public servant. the vitriol that so many obama supporters (and non-aligned democrats) are spewing at senator clinton stem from a basis established by her most prominent detractors in the republican party: hillary clinton - cold, calculating, shrill, bitchy, probate-court attending ex-wife hillary clinton - is horrid enough to actually wish for a man's assassination. despite her years of working for universal health care, education improvement, poverty reduction, civil rights, reproductive rights, social justice, and equal opportunity, hillary clinton - cold, calcualting, shrill, bitchy, murderous hillary clinton - is ambitious and selfish enough to actually wish for a man's assassination.

please.

while the comment was more than unfortunate, the new york times - which has been more and more in favor of hope recently - actually contextualized of her quote and its implications:

"It was in the context of discussions about her political future that Mrs. Clinton made the remarks on Friday to the editorial board of The Sioux Falls Argus Leader. She had said that some people whom she did not name were trying to push her out of the race, but she noted that historically many races had gone on longer than hers. “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?” she said. “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

oh. well that does a lot to clear up the matter, doesn't it? still, she could have said, "and bobby kennedy ran until june of 1968." that probably would have been more tasteful. but at the same time, why shroud an extraordinarily well-known historical fact in an exclusive euphemism? if the world knows that bobby kennedy was assassinated - and it does, to judge by emilio estevez's recent film - why not explicitly reference it? we don't say that the titanic stopped sailing in 1912; we say that it sunk.

once again, people are allowing their pre-conceived notions to define a candidate's actions. when hillary teared-up (she didn't cry) in new hampshire on the eve of the primary, it was intentional. then, she needed to fake humanity. and now, on the eve of the last democratic primaries, she references an assassination - proving that she was, indeed, never graced with the humanity we never thought she had.

and this little tete-a-tete, however non-confrontational (to his credit, senator obama's hardly referenced it), illustrates the degree to which we need to conscientiously rebuild the democratic party. both campaigns have gone negative, and both have supporters who passionately hate the other. some men will never vote for a woman, and some caucasians will never vote for an african-american. fortunately, these proclivities - however hostile - are largely subdued. unfortunately, a party fractured enough to vilify one of its most successful and most committed members is a party doomed to fail. we must remember, no matter whom we support, that unity is more important than ourselves and our candidates.