Re: Obama leads Clinton by only 8 pledged delegates when unfair caucuses are excluded!
Geo. W. Bush
reference WAS AN INTENTIONALLY PLANTED, CODED INVITATION FOR SOME
SLAVERING, RACIST, ANTI-OBAMA, WEST VIRGINIA-BRAINED DUMB UN' TO TAKE
A SHOT AT BARACK.
In fact, it has "BY BILL CLINTON" written all over it!
And she's ALWAYS "apologizing" for something, isn't she?
"I'm sorry ... "
Somebody ought to investigate ...
--------------------------
"Clinton Sorry For Remark About RFK Assassination"
"Comment Was Made in Reference to Primaries"
By Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 24, 2008; A01
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday invoked the 1968 assassination
of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy in explaining her decision to remain in the
race for the Democratic presidential nomination, comments that drew
criticism from aides to Sen. Barack Obama and cooled speculation that
the two may form a joint ticket for the general election.
Clinton was asked during a meeting with the editorial board of the
Argus Leader newspaper in Sioux Falls, S.D., about continuing to run
despite long odds of winning the nomination. She said that while the
media and Obama's campaign have urged her to withdraw, "historically,
that makes no sense."
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the
California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?" she
continued. "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in
California."
Her advisers quickly explained that Clinton merely intended to note
that this was not the first primary campaign to stretch into the
summer, not to suggest that Obama might be assassinated. Clinton later
apologized to the Kennedy family while speaking to reporters, saying
she did not mean to offend anyone.
But in a campaign where Obama's safety has been a subtext and in which
critics have blamed Clinton for exacerbating racial tensions, her
words added a new element of tension to the Democratic contest. Obama
began receiving Secret Service protection about 18 months before the
general election because homeland security officials were concerned
about potential threats against him.
Obama campaign officials quickly called the comments out of bounds.
"Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board
was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign," spokesman Bill
Burton said. Clinton's comments came just days after Sen. Edward M.
Kennedy (D-Mass.), the only survivor of four brothers, found out he
has a malignant brain tumor.
Robert Kennedy's son, Robert Jr., has endorsed Clinton, and in a
statement through her campaign, he said: "It is clear from the context
that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order
to support her decision to stay in the race through June. . . . I
understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a
mistake for people to take offense."
The incident served to further undercut rumors that the two campaigns
are engaged in private talks about forming a joint ticket. Advisers on
both sides said that any such discussions probably would come as part
of a longer process after the final primaries, on June 3. Howard
Wolfson, a top Clinton strategist, described the reports of talks as
"totally false," a sentiment Obama strategist Dan Pfeiffer echoed.
"Entirely not true," he said.
A report in Time magazine said that former president Bill Clinton is
driving the effort to secure a slot for his wife on the ticket, and
Clinton campaign aides said it would not be the first time that he has
ventured out on his own.
Hillary Clinton's reference to the shooting of Robert Kennedy on June
6, 1968, after he had just won the California primary, hardened
feelings in the Obama campaign once more, following a brief thaw as it
appeared that Clinton would seek to unite the party in the final weeks
of the campaign. Her allusion came on the heels of two other comments
over the past few days that the Obama campaign described as off-
putting: her reference to the Michigan and Florida delegations as
similar to the fraudulent elections in Zimbabwe, and her comparison of
that dispute to the ballot recount in the 2000 presidential election.
The Clinton campaign sent out a full transcript of her conversation
with the South Dakota paper, and its executive editor, Randell Beck,
also issued a statement saying that "the context of the question and
answer with Sen. Clinton was whether her continued candidacy
jeopardized party unity this close to the Democratic convention. Her
reference to Mr. Kennedy's assassination appeared to focus on the
timeline of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself."
But even her advisers did not try to defend the reference, and by 5
p.m. she had apologized.
"Earlier today I was discussing the Democratic primary history, and in
the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my
husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June 1992 and 1968
and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had
nomination primary contests that go into June," Clinton said.
"That's a historic fact. The Kennedys have been much on my mind the
last days because of Senator [Edward] Kennedy and I regret that if my
referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and
particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I
certainly had no intention of that, whatsoever. My view is that we
have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and
give us a lot to live up to, and I'm honored to hold Senator [Robert]
Kennedy's seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York
and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/23/AR2008052303158.html
V. Foster
And I should know ...
One parting thought ... fear the blue collar workers! They're too
much into religion and guns to be trusted. Kind of like HILLARY!
---------------------------------
"Hillary Clinton Raises the Specter of the Unspeakable"
By Libby Copeland
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 24, 2008; C01
Smart candidates don't invoke the possibility of their opponents being
killed. This seems so obvious it shouldn't need to be said, but
apparently, it needs to be said.
"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in
California," Hillary Clinton said yesterday, referencing the fact that
past nomination contests have stretched into June to explain why she
hasn't heeded calls to exit the Democratic race. She was in an
editorial board meeting with a South Dakota newspaper, and she didn't
even seem to notice she'd just uttered the unutterable.
The nation's political science students, our future strategists and
campaign managers, would do well to pay attention to this moment.
There are taboos in presidential politics, and this is one of the
biggest. To raise the specter of a rival's assassination, even
unintentionally, is to make a truly terrible thing real. It sounds
like one might be waiting for a terrible thing to happen, even if one
isn't. It sounds almost like wishful thinking.
If there were any doubt about the taboo nature of discussing such a
thing, witness the reaction Barack Obama's campaign put out, which
carefully avoided any repetition of what Clinton had actually said. To
repeat it would be to repeat the possibility of the terrible thing.
"Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board
was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign," spokesman Bill
Burton e-mailed. (A reporter checking his BlackBerry after an overlong
smoke break would have no inkling of what was so unfortunate.)
Clinton issued a statement apologizing "if" she'd been in "any way
offensive," and a spokesman tried to clarify what she meant.
"She was talking about the length of the race and using the '68
election as an example of how long the races in the past have gone,"
Howard Wolfson said, missing the point. What she meant was: We can
wait a little longer to know who the Democratic nominee is. What she
said was: assassinated.
In fact, she had used similar, more carefully phrased language back in
March, in a Time magazine interview: "Primary contests used to last a
lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being
assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination
in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is
nothing particularly unusual."
The fear of a president or a presidential candidate being shot or
assassinated is horrifying precisely because recent history teaches us
that it can happen. We don't need anybody to remind us, and we
certainly don't need anybody to remind whatever suggestible wackos
might be lurking in the shadows.
In the context of Obama, Clinton's words broke a double taboo, because
since the beginning of his candidacy, some of Obama's supporters have
feared that his race made him more of a target than other presidential
hopefuls. Obama was placed under Secret Service protection early, a
full year ago. To be unaware that one's words tap into a monumental
fear that exists in a portion of the electorate -- a fear that Obama's
race could get him killed -- is an unusual mistake for a serious and
highly disciplined presidential candidate.
It's surprising, too, because something very similar just happened
last week, when Mike Huckabee made a joke at an NRA convention about
somebody aiming a gun at Obama. He later apologized and called his
remarks "offensive." He also could have called them "instructive" for
any politician paying attention.
If they didn't already know.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/23/AR2008052302789.html
minerva
they used to be a national, international news organization with people
in charge who could set limits on being overtly out of tune. Now, they
are a provincial city paper catering to the opinions and views of those
who live within the small confines of the district of columbia. What
makes them much less of an authoritative paper than they used to be is
their one-sided bias apparent in their headlines and front page stories
which are slanted. They write front page headlines to pick out on what
they want readers to think is the important point, rather than what
really is, and their choice of analyses over news that they place on
their front page. They run front page articles as though they are news
when there are opinions written into the story that mars its
objectivity. Don't throw these types of nonsensical articles at us when
they is so biased, it is sickening. The overt intent in the WP article
below sent in by a poster is to criticize Hillary's reminding us about
Robert Kennedy assasination, but it really is another attempt to crucify
Hillary for daring to keep on her campaign, and to smear any one else
who dares to say any thing that can be taken in anyway as being against
Obama. We all know what she meant, don't try to make it into a major
case against her, when it is a nonstory.