Of course her now-famous reference to the assassination of Robert Kennedy as a reason to soldier on in her doomed cause is hardly the opening soliloquy of Shakespeare’s Duke Of Gloucester – who announces his intentions to disappear family members so he can achieve the throne and become Richard III.

But it does make one think that Hillary, an American royal in the House of Clinton, has the coldhearted conspiratorial instincts to have been at home with Richard’s House of York or as a key figure in Shakespeare’s historical plays. We always knew this. She’s just provided more evidence for the prosecution up there in Sioux Falls.

Here is Hillary in South Dakota:

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. I don’t understand it.

Here is Richard III in Shakespeare:

Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour’d upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visaged war hath smooth’d his wrinkled front;
And now, instead of mounting barded steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a lady’s chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp’d, and want love’s majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail’d of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinish’d, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity:
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams,
To set my brother Clarence and the king
In deadly hate the one against the other:
And if King Edward be as true and just
As I am subtle, false and treacherous,
This day should Clarence closely be mew’d up,
About a prophecy, which says that ‘G’
Of Edward’s heirs the murderer shall be.
Dive, thoughts, down to my soul

We can’t blame Clinton for having this assassination thought in the back of her mind, because for those of us who have covered presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, a U.S. senator from Illinois, it has a terrifying presence in our own as well.

But to put a voice to it? To indirectly (but very clearly) say the Democratic Party needs a strong No. 2 in case the No. 1 is felled is just too South American.

The prospect of an assassination is not spoken about often, sort of the way one doesn’t talk about car accidents while driving. In our plastic world the wood on which to knock is so very often out of reach.

This horror of one so gifted perhaps being snatched from us like King and the Kennedys is too much to bear. The New York Times dutifully reported before South Carolina and Iowa that some African-American women were considering voting against Obama out of a mother-protector instinct. In a November story for Iowa Independent, I asked Obama’s sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, about this Times article as well as the untimely passing of their mother and Obama’s father — and placed it at the bottom of the piece.

Soetoro-Ng said the early deaths of her mother and Obama’s father did not factor into his decision to enter the 2008 presidential race, that he doesn’t feel fated to die young like his parents – a possible motivation for hurrying with life goals or missions.

“The reason he chose to enter it now is because he just really didn’t see anyone out there in the arena who could do it better,” Soetoro-Ng said. “He just felt I think what a lot of people feel – that he’s the right man for these times and that he’s only one who’s going to make us heal.”

If elected, Obama would be the first African-American president. Some members of his own race have told The New York Times they will vote against Obama to protect him from what they believe would be racially based assassination attempts. The Times recently quoted African-American women in South Carolina making those observations.

“My thoughts are that he would never make a decision based on fear, and I’ve got to be brave, too,” Soetoro-Ng said. “I think that the focus has to be on the many people who have set aside their differences to embrace him.”

In Des Moines the other night, I watched as Obama’s security detail positioned itself atop various buildings in the East Village – just as it did on Feb. 10, 2007, when Obama announced his candidacy in Springfield, Ill.

It’s inspiring to see those massive American flags cascading down buildings in back of the stage. But our nation’s wicked, bloodstained history is also present at these events. Above this majestic flag on that historic announcement day was a law enforcement official with some binocular device, scoping the crowd for trouble.

To raise, even in a hint or a stretch the specter of assassination is disqualifying for Clinton — both for the presidency and vice presidency. Can you image the “vast right-wing conspiracy” — and other speculation — if, God forbid, something were to happen to Obama, allowing Hillary to ascend to either the nomination or presidency? It might create the biggest challenge ever to our democracy, as her legitimacy would no doubt be thrown into question — with many suspecting Richard III-like motives.

In the end, those unforgivable comments from Clinton may be a sign that the Iron Lady is exhausted — and like someone in the bar just before closing time, speaking without a governor motoring in her brain.

If she were clicking, getting from A to B to C, she would clearly see that a more appropriate morbid reference would be for Hillary herself. At the August Convention, Clinton’s week there could be filed under the heading of the 1995 Andy Garcia movie, “Things To Do in Denver When You’re Dead.”

Politically, dead, that is.

The unexpected statement came at the beginning of a “town hall” style event intended to focus on health care policy. Both of Iowa’s senators, Democrat Tom Harkin and Republican Chuck Grassley, have been heavily involved in farm bill negotiations for months. McCain called his statement “a little straight talk,” invoking a campaign slogan.

The Arizona senator who once compared ethanol tax credits to “highway robbery” has long been troubled by opposition in the corn belt. In both 2000 and 2008, he spent few resources competing in the Iowa Caucuses, opting to focus instead on New Hampshire.

In March, Iowa Independent’s Dien Judge spoke with officials from the Iowa Corn Growers Association who expressed concern about McCain’s positions on agricultural issues:

Corn growers in particular have reason to question McCain’s positions on agricultural issues. He didn’t do himself any favors by skipping important votes on the Farm Bill in December, and he didn’t score well on an in-depth study of the presidential candidates’ positions conducted last year by the Iowa Corn Growers Association.

“As corn growers, we know that (Sen. McCain’s) past record does not necessarily support our same position on many issues,” said ICGA director Don Elsbernd in an e-mail response to a question from Iowa Independent. “But we are confident that we will be able to work with each presidential candidate to make sure that agriculture and agriculture policy continue to be an important part of our democratic process.”

Through its Targeted Agricultural Education Project, the ICGA identified 12 of the issues most important to corn growers and compiled information on each of the Republican and Democratic candidates’ positions on those issues. The subjects involved ethanol, of course, as well as transportation, trade and Farm Bill issues.

McCain was in agreement with the ICGA on only three of the 12 issues, while Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., both were in agreement with the ICGA on 11 of the 12 issues.

Mindy Larsen Poldberg, ICGA’s director of government relations, told Iowa Independent that the project lasted for more than nine months as the ICGA studied all of the presidential candidates’ positions.

“We worked with every presidential candidate and their staffs in order to find out their views on agriculture,” said Poldberg. “We will not be endorsing any one candidate. But our job was to collect information on what we thought were the 12 most important issues for Iowa farmers this year, and determine what each candidate’s positions are, whether they were Republican or Democrat.”

The ICGA studied the candidate’s views on the 51-cent blender’s ethanol tax credit, a renewable fuels standard, ethanol import tariffs, trade promotion authority and the Farm Bill safety net. McCain scored well on Farm Bill subjects and trade issues but got a black “X” for his views on the ethanol tax credit.

The results of the project were mailed out shortly before the Iowa caucuses to the approximately 6,000 members of the ICGA. The results of the project are now posted on the National Corn Growers Association’s Web site and are available to NCGA members all over the country.

“The candidates’ past positions on our issues are absolutely important,” said Poldberg. “However, I would like to think that whoever is elected to be president of the United States would take a look at the energy and agriculture needs of this country and take a more national view toward those things.”

As Pettengill herself noted in a Des Moines Register article a month ago, “I don’t fit in either place, really.” At that time she indicated if she switched it would probably be to independent. If her voting record in the state legislature is any indication, she’s wrong about not fitting with the Democratic Party. Her record shows her squarely in the middle on many key issues as outlined in the party’s platform (and in direct opposition of many on the other side of the aisle).

In looking at Pettengill?s 2006 voting record on issues key to labor, she scores high. Seventy-five percent of the time she and the Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO took the same position. (Voting record comparison at end of post)

There were 49 Democratic members of the Iowa House of Representatives during the 81st General Assembly. Rep. Ray Zirkelbach was excused for active military duty which left 48 on the Democratic side of the aisle.

If the 48 representatives were lined up, those with the highest percentage of votes aligning with labor to the lowest, Pettengill would be tied for number 19. Fourteen other members of the Democratic caucus had lower percentages than Pettengill. In contrast, four Republicans tied for their caucus’s highest percentage of labor agreement with 25 percent.

Likewise, when looking at GLBT issues this session, Pettengill received a grade of B (Pro-Gay). She voted with this constituency on three out of five issues.

Again, in contrast, 33 members (72 percent) of the Republican Caucus received an F- as their grade.

Pettengill voted with the Iowa ACLU 50 percent of the time this session while the best a member of the Republican Caucus could muster was 30 percent. The votes were on such issues as the separation of church and state; employee rights; voting rights; and due process.

The Association of Business and Industry shows during this session Pettengill only agreed with business interests 25 percent of the time. Eleven other Democratic representatives scored higher than she did. The lowest any Republican scored was 83 percent.

If we backtrack to the previous session, she scores a bit better with 33 percent. Still 24 other Democratic representatives scored that or better. The lowest score grabbed by a member of the GOP? Sixty-six percent.

During the 81st General Assembly, Pettengill sponsored 66 pieces of legislation. They ranged from mandated coverage for mental health conditions to increasing the state minimum wage to restriction of the viewing and sale of sexual devices.

Her 44 pieces of sponsored legislation in the 82nd have included a minimum wage hike and Sudan divestment.

In addition, her web site lists several items she dubs “accomplishments.” In addition to her appointment to the Elder Affairs Commission in 2005, she lists being named as “2006 Legislator of the Year” by the Heritage Agency on Aging and her 2006 endorsements from AFSCME, AFL/CIO, ISEA, Hawkeye Labor Foundation, Iowa Farm Bureau, Agribusiness Association and Iowa PACE. We could locate no members of the GOP Caucus who touted endorsements from these major labor organizations.

It is unclear if Pettengill’s switch indicates these votes, or a portion of these votes, are out of sync with the wishes of her constituents back home. It is also unclear at this time how the Republican Caucus, which has not had a member of the same ilk as Pettengill, is going to react to her more liberal leanings. Attempts were made to reach Pettengill for comment on these discrepancies without success.

Pettengill Votes vs Labor Initiatives 2006

• HF 2045 (Social Security/Pension Tax Cut) ? would have eliminated state tax on social security and pension income and exempted incomes under $48,000 per year for persons over age 65 from income tax.
  • Pettengill voted yes
  • Labor was against
    • House vote was 81 to 18 in favor of the bill. It later died in Senate Committee
• SF 2408 (Senior Tax Cut) ? phased out state tax on social security over eight years and eliminated income tax for seniors over age 65 who made less than $24,000 (singles) or $32,000 (other), cut state revenues by $120 million when fully implemented.
  • Pettengill voted yes
  • Labor was against
    • House vote was 89 to 6, passing the bill
• SF 2409 (Tax Credit for Tuition Donations) ? allowed a tax credit for donations to mostly private school tuition organizations to fund scholarships or vouchers.
  • Pettengill voted yes
  • Labor was against
    • House vote was 75 to 19, passing the bill
• Amendment H 8128 to HF 2459 (Minimum Wage) ? Would have increased Iowa?s minimum wage by $1 per hour to $6.15.
  • Pettengill voted yes
  • Labor was in favor
    • House vote was 55 to 43 in favor of the bill. It later died in the House due to a procedural ruling
• HF 2770 (Wage Thresholds) ? Would have lowered Values Fund wage thresholds in rural counties by allowing new hire wages to be the determining factor in calculating wage requirements
  • Pettengill voted no
  • Labor was against
    • House vote was 54 to 43 in favor of the bill. It later died in Senate committee.
• Amendment H 8649 to HF 2459 (Funding for Workforce Centers) ? Provided $4 million in additional funding to keep rural workforce centers open.
  • Pettengill voted yes
  • Labor was in favor
    • House vote was 48 to 46, passing the bill
• HF 2597 (Voter ID) ? Would have required all voters to show a photo identification before casting a ballot, and required a photocopy of identification when casting an absentee ballot.
  • Pettengill voted no
  • Labor was against
    • House vote was 51 to 48 in favor of the bill. It later died in the Senate
• Amendment H 8347A to HF 2597 (Electronic Voting Machines) ? Would have required electronic voting machines to produce voter verified paper trails.
  • Pettengill voted yes
  • Labor was in favor
    • House vote was 48 to 51, killing the amendment
• HF 2648 (Drug Testing) ? Would have allowed employers to treat an inconclusive test as though it was a positive test.
  • Pettengill voted no
  • Labor was against
    • House vote was 58 to 41 in favor of the bill. It later died in Senate Committee
• Amendment H 8535 to HF 2790 (Health Insurance Pooling) ? Would have allowed certain business associations to pick those with lower risk, disrupting the small group insurance market and making health insurance even more costly for non-member small business.
  • Pettengill voted no
  • Labor was against
    • House vote was 44 to 55 and the measure failed
• Amendment H 8655 to SF 2410 (Whistleblower Protection) ? Would have prohibited retaliation against state workers for disclosing information regarding violation of professional standards or unsafe practices
  • Pettengill voted yes
  • Labor was in favor
    • House vote was 42 to 49, killing the amendment
• HF 729 (IPERS) ? Increased IPERS contribution rates for both employers and employees at the same 60/40 ratio.
  • Pettengill voted yes
  • Labor was in favor
    • House vote was 97 to 0, passing the measure