Hillary's Big Mouth

[Dr. Shane]

HILL'S 'ASSASSIN' TALK A SHOCKER

Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday brought up the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama - drawing a furious reaction from the front-runner's camp...

Any comments about assassination and the primary contest are especially sensitive because Obama is the first African-American to advance so far in the race for the White House and he has faced threats, congressional sources have said.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, who has already expressed anger toward Clinton during the race, planned to spend his rally today at his Harlem-based National Action Network addressing "a sense of outrage and dismay at statements made by" the New York senator, according to his office.

Secret Service protection was given to Obama earlier than it had ever been authorized for a presidential candidate, and he always travels with a heavy security detail.

[text taken from link]

[Amelia]

Well that's just sad.

[Jeannieb43]

This article has taken Hillary's comment totally out of context. And besides, she apologized for it immediately after saying it.

When you hear it in context, it's obvious that she was explaining that most presidential primary races run through June; even RFK was still campaigning in June. That's all her comment meant.

People seem to want to jump all over Hillary for every little thing.

[Dr. Shane]

Actually she also made the comment to Time Magazine also. If it was a slip of the tongue, why did she repeat it? The Primary season in 1968 did not start until March and California didn't vote until June. (California voted Feb. 5 this year) Hillary is trying to SPIN the story and most Americans are not buying it. Obama's campaign was right in calling her on it.

[Dr. Shane]

Doesn't look like many people are going to give her a pass on this one.

KENNEDYS FEEL BOBBY-SOCKED

Quote:

Members of the Kennedy family are incensed over Hillary Rodham Clinton's invoking the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy to explain why she's staying in the race - and they think it could be the death knell of an increasingly desperate and sloppy campaign.

"That comment may be the last nail in her campaign's coffin," a Kennedy relative told The Post. "How can Hillary even use the experience argument when she repeatedly pushes the wrong buttons in her comments?"

I know she has been staying in the race hoping that Obama would some how implode but it looks like she is the one imploding.

Quote:

One cited "a perceived insensitivity" in her comment, made Friday before a South Dakota newspaper's editorial board, especially with the 40th anniversary of RFK's death two weeks away and Sen. Ted Kennedy battling a brain tumor.

"We were all sort of dumbfounded that she would say such a thing," the insider said.

There was also anger outside the family. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), a Hillary supporter, told Bloomberg News that she said "the dumbest thing you could have possibly said." And the Rev. Al Sharpton ripped the comment as dangerous.

Quote:

Clinton was explaining why she was still in the race against Sen. Barack Obama when she said: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June. Right?"

Then she added: "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

Really???

Quote:

It was also just plain inaccurate, say historians, noting that Clinton's drawn-out battle with Obama in a seemingly endless primary season is nothing like the 1968 and 1992 Democratic campaigns.

Bobby Kennedy was not in the midst of a long-fought primary battle when he was assassinated. He entered the race on March 16, 1968, less than three months before the June 5 shooting.

As for Bill Clinton, despite his wife's perceptions, he'd won the nomination long before mid-June 1992. The race was essentially over by March 20, when Paul Tsongas dropped out and Clinton became the front-runner with a 7-to-1 delegate lead over Jerry Brown.

Can we all say it together? "It is over Hillary."

Quote:

One presidential historian thinks Clinton's loose-lipped reference to assassination raises the danger of someone's targeting Obama.

"Everybody, in the back of their minds, has been thinking of this, that Senator Obama could be in danger," said Rick Shenkman, a professor at George Mason University in Virginia.

"Now it's out there. It only takes one psycho."

[lazarus]

A lot of Freudian stuff going on here first Huckababy and now Hillary.

Don't forget Obama received Secret Service protection very early on after death threats.

[Dr. Shane]

The thing is what she claims she was trying to say makes no sense. She claims she was trying to point out that her husband didn't get the nomination until June 1992 (which isn't true) and Humphrey didn't get the nomination until June in 1968 but that was, of course, because the California primary wasn't until June. So if she was actually trying to say what she claims she was trying to say, she obviously isn't as smart as she wants people to believe she is.

[Woody]

Quote:

Don't forget Obama received Secret Service protection very early on after death threats.

As did McCain. If my memory is correct ... I believe that McCain got the first threat. OK ... Big deal.

[lazarus]

Mc Bush doesn't have secret service protection!

[Dr. Shane]

Is the Democrats only hope of winning in the Fall tying McCain to Bush? I hope they have a back-up plan.

[John317]

I agree, because the American people are smart enough to see through that false connection. Especially after the pending McCain-Obama debates, which will reveal just exactly how far apart Obama and McCain are on the issues. No one will be able say that these two candidates are very similar. The American voters will be faced with one of the clearest choices they've had since Reagan/Carter.

I see Obama as another Carter. In '76 I voted for Carter.

[Woody]

Mc Bush doesn't have secret service protection!

I would invite Mr. Obama to refuse it as has McCain. They have both received a similar amount of threats. McCain just doen't want to be isolated from the public.

[Bravus]

Given the war and the economy, I'd say it's the Dems' to lose... but they're so *good* at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

(mind you, on foreign policy, which is the area of most importance to me, McCain is close enough to Bush to seriously scare me)

[Bravus]

Meh - the final primaries are next week, and that's when Hillary said she'd be staying in the race until. It'll all be over, one way or another, then, I would imagine - can't see her hanging on until the convention without a miracle.

[Dr. Shane]

I agree that this is the Democrat's to lose. I don't see McCain as being a very strong candidate. However he is not a G.W. Bush. They are not even in the same "wing" of the GOP. McCain would have sent a lot more troops into Iraq from the beginning. He was pushing for the surge long before the present administration favored the idea. He has been quite open and critical of his administration through-out the administration.

The only people that will fall for the McCain=Bush argument are those that see the world as black and white. This is this and that is that. All Republicans are the same, all Democrats are the same. Moderates and independents don't view politics that way. They vote for the man (or woman) and not the party. The only votes Obama will get by trying to paint McCain as being Bush Jr. are the liberal Democrat votes that he will get any way.

I think this election belongs to the Democrats because the liberal Democrat voters are going to come out in full force. Many conservatives are going to stay home and not vote. In order for McCain to win he must win big with the moderates and independents. In order for that to happen, Obama really has to mess things up bad - like Kerry did.

[lazarus]

The only people that will fall for the McCain=Bush argument are those that see the world as black and white. This is this and

I think political campaigns use a number of themes/narratives to tag a candidate. I certainly don't believe the "McBush" thing will be the only angle. Politics is more sophisticated than that.

Its also a fun way of reinforcing an impression of something that is already there. It's the cherry on cake.

You'll have to admit that's a great photo.

In the UK this photo would be the center piece of a major advertising campaign. I'm not sure if Obama would use it. Perhaps a 527.

[Amelia]

It reminds me of a revival preacher laying on the hands.

[lazarus]

It reminds me of a revival preacher laying on the hands.

Yeah....lol

I can see Bush saying,

"Is there one more? just one more for Jesus, He sees you, He loves you, give Him your heart today, is there another?

[Dr. Shane]

Well I hope the worst thing my enemies can say about me is that I call people to Jesus.

Bush is helping McCain raise money. Everyone knows that. The reason McCain is embracing Bush is because of all the millions of $$$ Bush is bringing in for him. That is in the daily news. McCain, who was broke when he won the nomination, now has more money than Obama. While Obama has been spending money in the race against Clinton, Bush has been helping McCain raise money. The Bush-McCain tie is all about campaign funds. It is not about policy. That is what is being reported. Independents and moderates watch the news. The only ones that are going to ride the Bush=McCain train are those that were going to vote for Obama anyway.

In all honesty, a much better case can be made for Reverend Wright=Obama than Bush=McCain. We have years of footage and Senate records of McCain opposing Bush. Obama didn't oppose Reverend Wright until recently and after much negative press coverage resulted from the relationship. I am not willing to place the Reverend Wright label on Obama. I see Obama as his own man. I think many independents and moderates agree with me on that. However the same logic that labels McCain as being the same as Bush will also label Obama as being the same as Reverend Wright if the person applying such logic is intellectually honest.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: Amelia

It reminds me of a revival preacher laying on the hands.

Yeah....lol

I can see Bush saying,

"Is there one more? just one more for Jesus, He sees you, He loves you, give Him your heart today, is there another?

:)

[jasd]

>>The only votes Obama will get by trying to paint McCain as being Bush Jr.<<

The ‘skinny’ out there is that the éminence gris behind ‘bama is the twofer Rockefeller/Brezinski – the notorious CFR duo who gave us ‘Sweet Georgia Jim Carter’. That being so, we may likely be hearing from various 527s – a comparison made between the likes of Carter and well...,Obama:

bama bama mobama O Carter

banana fana O bama mo’ Carter

fee fi fo ‘bama O Carter!

banana fana fofama

McCain’s abstemious weirdness notwithstanding...

>>I think this election belongs to the Democrats because the liberal Democrat voters are going to come out in full force.<<

Yeah, if the chain’s gonna be yanked in the loo – you’re probably right – this election belongs to the Dem’crats.

>>In order for McCain to win he must win big with the moderates and independents.<<

Oy! moderate and/or independent, eh? the this and that; the pushme-pullme; the “wha-happened?” crowd; ...

good on top us. Mercy, you’re probably right.

The election belongs to the Dem’crats because – Dubya’s Congress moved across the aisle creating the tipping point.

>>In order for that to happen, Obama really has to mess things up bad - like Kerry did.<<

Given the combined numbers of Moderates, Independents, RINOs, Dem’crats, etc – and their seeming inability to process granularly, – welll, I don’t think there’s anywayz for ‘bama to “mess things up” so bad as to crank the ‘pause button’ of those aforementioned.

‘bama just has tah be a shoo-in.

Mor’s Pity! cried Raven Caw. --Pogo

[jasd]

"...as a black man, Barack can get shot just goin' to the gas station." –Michelle Obama, 60 Minutes

Death by Gun – at any gas station, USA? Seems Michelle Obama had already placed the subject on the table (who would have thought it?); if so,

it’s in play.

Anyway, Bobby Kennedy is both cover and feature in this month’s Vanity Fair. One expects Vanity Fair to be reading material within Clinton’s entourage; y’know, cognoscenti and all... That said, yes, one agrees,

it seems to have been a [guileless] Freudian moment.

What surprises (not!) is,

the, again, attempt to ‘construct’ out of whole cloth – the constant whine.

Addendum: watching 'bama Q and A re Pfleger, his church, himself, and his family. He is doing so exceptionaly well. This is the most favorably he has appeared by my critique. That said,

like, lose the politikal nonsense, already - and mebbe, I could generate conflation with the man.