has been posted on the front page of Slate for several months, yet I've never heard one complaint about the pairing of those two words., which I've always thought extremely bad form ,likewise where are the complaints about picture of H.C with a bruised and blackened eye on the front page of a a newspaper,or Olbermans remark that she should be taken into a locked room by someone, but only he should come out ,or the other comment by a pundit that she should be taken behind a shed and taught a lesson. These were not veiled remarks of violence they were quite quite pointed but never a peep from anyone.

Does anyone miss the double standard here?

Their candidacies really stank, cuz I never even heard they were running for President of the United States.

As for a double standard, double bull shit. A more fitting phrase is "as ye have sown, so shall ye reap." Remember Obama's "bitter" comments? Obviously, the press and others gave him a pass on that one, didn't they.

I will give you for sure tho, that it seems to me Keith Olbermann has let himself go to his own head. He's becoming "our" Rush Limbaugh, and that is not good for anyone.

The death watch is like cartoon violence. If someone tells a coworker that he's going to lock him in a rocket and send him to pluto, that's going to be taken as a joke. However, if he mentions to the coworker that the same thing might happen to him that happened to the murdered guy currently in the news, that's creepy.

I don't consider Clinton's comments to be a big deal. They'll blow over fairly quickly. However, there's a good reason nobody complained about the Death Watch. It's more obviously meant as a joke.

They've had "death watches" in the past -- Alberto Gonazales is the one that sticks in my mind. (Essentially it means it's their editorial opinion that Clinton has no shot at winning the nomination.)

No-one would ever have tied it to the idea of her being assassinated before now if she hadn't made that RFK comment -- you're grasping at straws. I didn't even get what you meant at first.

As for my opinion, I think she was talking about the fact that the contest was still ongoing in June, not that Obama might get assassinated! I think it was just a little insensitive, no big deal. Just like "Death Watch" is no big deal, at least if you agree she can't get the nomination.

Of course the 1968 primary campaign had only been running 3 months at that point, so it's a dumb example.

You can't say nobody ever thought Hilary's death watch was bad form just because you didn't . How do you think it would have struck her family ? I find the pairing of death watch and a living person's name macarbre and if it's supposed to be comedic totally tasteless .Your pairing up of it with Alberto Gonzales only proves how much wishful thinking it truly is.

It wasn't me who paired Clinton's chances of leaving the nomination process with Gonzales' chances of resigning; it was the Slate editorial team.

I'm sure her family would have found it insulting, but I doubt they would have thought it had anything to do with literally saying she was going to die -- like I don't think Clinton had Obama's violent death in mind in her recent RFK comment. "Death watch" has a non-literal meaning -- or it wouldn't hardly ever be used at all.

If you think it's partisan, I'm sure you're not the only one. If you think it's tasteless, you're probably not the only one there, either, though the numbers would be fewer. If you think it has anything to do with literally wishing death on Hillary, you may not be the only one, but that shouldn't be a comfort.

grout4cake-

You may be generalizing. Obama supporters are not unhumane just because we support an alternative candidate. As a woman, it's offensive to me, too, to hear or read tasteless or violent remarks aimed at Hillary. Barack, with his ethnicity, has had his share, too. Remarks of violence against any candidate is unfortunate, and really the tit-for-tat doesn't achieve anything except breed animosity and make the Republicans salivate.

Here is what I wrote back in April after another person posted an objection to the "Deathwatch" title:

Re: Deathwatch, in general
by ChristineATL
04/10/2008, 4:08 PM I'm an Obama supporter, but that won't change my opinion that the column title is in bad taste. I don't even find it "cute." Re: Deathwatch, in general
by ChristineATL
04/11/2008, 8:59 PM It is unfortunate and unprogressive. It also fuels unecessary animosity towards Obama himself and those of us who support him as a candidate.

The difference is that Slate produced "Death Watch", not Senator Obama.

Where as the words came directly from Hillary Rodham Clinton's mouth, when she slipped and revealed her true reasoning for staying in the race. You know, just in case,

John Wilkes Booth - Lee Harvey Oswald - Hillary Rodham Clinton

Why is it that all these nut jobs always go by three names?

tjcerveza, are you going to repeat that inane joke in every thread? Just wondering.

Inane? I thought it was kind of funny. At least as funny as watching HRC holding a beer and doing a mock salsa from the neck up in PR today. A rich condecending white woman with no rythym. HILLarious.