I was wrrrr..... I was wrrrrr.... I was wrrrrr....
I've never wanted Hillary to be the Dem nominee - for dynasty reasons. And later for how she ran her campaign.
However, having listened to her original comment about the RFK assassination yesterday, I actually think it was a muddled comment. Hillary was trying to invoke a June primary that everyone could remember into without consulting a history book. Now, whenever Obama missteps ("bitter"), Hillary is all over it and aggressively so. And I viewed her in less esteem each time she did it as a result.
There are a couple of implications in the statement that are wrong, of course, which is typical of Hillary's spin:
a) CA used to be one of the last primaries. Normally the CA primaries haven't been that important (despite the number of delegates) because the nomination was already decided. But she is hoping you would forget that part.
b) In 1968, only 13 states had primary contests -- so not everyone was heard from.
c) RFK was not beloved by everyone at the time -- even on the left side of the party. Eugene McCarthy supporters were angered that RFK tried to hone in on the anti-war vote once McCarthy showed the way. (And, in fact, RFK was very much part of the administration that really opened up the Vietnam war and this was not lost on people back then either.) And, Humphrey supporters, of course, had a plurality of the delegates on their side. So while RFK grew substantially as a politician from 1965-68, he was still seen (correctly) as part of a dynastic hold on the White House. He was willing to split the party for his own political ambitions. Sound familiar?
So I wasn't particularly bent out of shape with her comment, it was just a muddle of talking about a late primary in a dumb way.
However, her "apology" is inexcusable. Mostly because it is of the old Clinton "deny, deny, deny" mode that we grew accustomed to in the 1990s. It's of the same timber as "as far as I know" and a variety of other linguistic twistings by the Clintons that would give Noam Chomsky a headache.
It is clear from this "apology" that Hillary Clinton is the elitist one -- she simply cannot humble herself on any score, be it a bad decision to vote for AUMF or a poorly worded comment.
Remember those old reruns of the HAPPY DAYS where the Fonz can't quite say "I was wrong"?
That is Hillary.
It was funny when the Fonz did it for television. Not so much when it's a person aspiring to be the POTUS.
Are their other Senators who are willing to sit in denial over things and stonewall forever?
Yes there are.
But they aren't asking to be elected to the President of the United States.
However, having listened to her original comment about the RFK assassination yesterday, I actually think it was a muddled comment. Hillary was trying to invoke a June primary that everyone could remember into without consulting a history book. Now, whenever Obama missteps ("bitter"), Hillary is all over it and aggressively so. And I viewed her in less esteem each time she did it as a result.
There are a couple of implications in the statement that are wrong, of course, which is typical of Hillary's spin:
a) CA used to be one of the last primaries. Normally the CA primaries haven't been that important (despite the number of delegates) because the nomination was already decided. But she is hoping you would forget that part.
b) In 1968, only 13 states had primary contests -- so not everyone was heard from.
c) RFK was not beloved by everyone at the time -- even on the left side of the party. Eugene McCarthy supporters were angered that RFK tried to hone in on the anti-war vote once McCarthy showed the way. (And, in fact, RFK was very much part of the administration that really opened up the Vietnam war and this was not lost on people back then either.) And, Humphrey supporters, of course, had a plurality of the delegates on their side. So while RFK grew substantially as a politician from 1965-68, he was still seen (correctly) as part of a dynastic hold on the White House. He was willing to split the party for his own political ambitions. Sound familiar?
So I wasn't particularly bent out of shape with her comment, it was just a muddle of talking about a late primary in a dumb way.
However, her "apology" is inexcusable. Mostly because it is of the old Clinton "deny, deny, deny" mode that we grew accustomed to in the 1990s. It's of the same timber as "as far as I know" and a variety of other linguistic twistings by the Clintons that would give Noam Chomsky a headache.
It is clear from this "apology" that Hillary Clinton is the elitist one -- she simply cannot humble herself on any score, be it a bad decision to vote for AUMF or a poorly worded comment.
Remember those old reruns of the HAPPY DAYS where the Fonz can't quite say "I was wrong"?
That is Hillary.
It was funny when the Fonz did it for television. Not so much when it's a person aspiring to be the POTUS.
Are their other Senators who are willing to sit in denial over things and stonewall forever?
Yes there are.
But they aren't asking to be elected to the President of the United States.
Advertisement
Obama on blue-collar whites clinging to guns and religion: "obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that."
You were so close to understanding and forgiveness. Hopefully this levels out the playing field.
May 24, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't see the difference between Obama's "cling" and "bitter" statements; and Hillary's, "Why am I still in this race? Because RFK was assassinated in June, so why should I get out?" then what can anyone say to you?
Using wording that might set some people off is not the same as responding to the question, "Why are you still in the race?" with -- because some people get assassinated in June.
Never mind. I guess you see both statements as equal. No hope. No hope.
May 24, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're so misinformed it's shocking.
May 25, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please be specific!
And this went to the wrong place:
Right back at you!
PS Have you READ what you've written? I didn't think so. It hurts people's brains.
May 25, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Desidero,
Why not bring up Rev. Wright too? Or did you think that would be too obvious. Admit it: Your candidate royally screwed up. She's got egg on her face, and this time the broken shells are in her own hands.
May 24, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Blue-collar whites"? Obama never said "whites" (or "blue-collar" for that matter) in his bitter gaff or in the subsequent apology. That racial division is coming from someplace else, Dez, and it's not nice for a Democrat.
May 25, 2008 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, too tired to Google anymore.
So who did he say were clinging to guns, religion and something else (I'm pretty sure there were 3).
May 25, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them.And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."
"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
May 25, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep! That is a truly incendiary statement; just the same as saying if I stick around long enough someone just might get popped, and there I'll be, holding my ears!
EXACTLY the same, huh? No? Why not? I just don't understand!
May 25, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, okay, those anonymous people in small towns in Pennsylvania. Can we get an ID or profile on these folks? Is it relevant, or are they the American anyman/anywoman? (Is everyone clinging, or only this demographic?)
May 25, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
So YOU are saying that PA voters from small towns are racist?
Please realize that is your own idea. Obama didn't say it and he didn't mean it. He said they are being manipulated by those who keep promising change and not delivering. I think we all fall into that category; just small-town people have fewer ways to rise above it. That is not racism; it is self-interest.
I would propose that the common good is also in self-interest. What is wrong with either of those concepts? Racism is in NO ONE'S self-interest. Wouldn't you agree with that, at least?
May 25, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because in Obama's case, it really WAS just a case of poor wording, while in Hillary's case it wasn't the wording but the potential sentiment behind the words.
Unless you want to begrudge Bill for essentially saying the same thing as Obama -- but with different words:
May 25, 2008 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
And so I'm assuming you did not make hay over Obama's 'bitter' line?
May 25, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you hit the nail on the head. It is also part of a larger problem.
1) Plantgate.
2) Bosnia Sniper Fire.
3) Her support of the War.
4) Hard Working White Americans
She lacks the ability to acknowledge her mistakes..
On the other hand we have
1) Sweetiegate
and saw a sincere apology.
May 24, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you for the most part but...When asked why she thinks she's being pressured to drop out and saying she doesn't believe the "unity argument" 1) she first states that Bill "wrapped up" the campaign in June 1992 after the CA primary then goes right into the "We all know Bobby Kennedy was assassinated IN JUNE in CA (she emphasizes those words)--to me she's saying that the 1968 campaign was wrapped up also IN JUNE due to the assassination and not due to his win in CA. 2) Then she creeped me out when she states her speculation on "why it is" meaning why some people want her to drop out, she does that irritating little cackle while she said, "I don't know. I find it curious. I don't want to attribute (cackle) motives or strategies to people because I don't really know. It is a historical curiosity to me."--I can't read her mind but what the hell is she really saying here?
May 24, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, there are a couple facts she leaves out of her argument:
a) Bill had a majority of delegates going into CA and people were trying to get Jerry Brown (his main rival) to drop. However, Jerry wanted to play the role of a spoiler (this is Hillary's true role at the moment, not a contender, but a spoiler) and they went to CA. Why was CA important? Because Jerry Brown was from CA -- and it was a severe test on how big he could play the role of spoiler. Once Jerry lost his home state, it was clear things were over.
The final primaries in 2008 do not have the same significance.
b) You are absolutely correct about RFK not winning anything in June. That's why his last words referred to the convention -- he was willing to split the party. I make brief mention to this in my original blog.
It's interesting that Hillary would bring up one of the biggest Dem nightmares of all time -- the contentious 1968 convention -- as a model of where we are.
As far as the laughing goes, many people giggle when lying. My guess is that the cackle is about her lying when she says she doesn't know why people want her to drop out. Even if you don't think they are correct, the arguments for her dropping out are well known!
May 24, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bobby Kennedy won California in June. He was assassinated the night of the California primary. There is absolutely no reason to think he was willing to split the democratic party, prior to 1972 all nominations were floor fights. Primaries/caucuses were events that demonstrated for the party bosses just how viable the candidate would be.
The reason why Eugene McCarthy was angry at Kennedy and especially the Kennedy supporters is that McCarthy felt that Kennedy had let him take the heat for challenging Johnson and then stepped in after Johnson was proven vulnerable. (And Johnson had won the N.H. primary 49 - 42) At the convention the Kennedy supporters threw their support to McGovern which in effect kept McCarthy from challenging Humphrey.
Both McCarthy and Kennedy had the popular vote lead, Humphrey didn't enter any primaries, he knew that he had the support of the party bosses and didn't want to jeopardize that support by showing any kind of vulnerability to Kennedy or McCarthy to the party bosses. The party hierarchy didn't want Kennedy to win the nomination, he was too closely aligned with the civil rights movement and they thought that after the 65 civil rights act had cost the democrats so dearly in the 66 elections, that Kennedy would have completely closed the door to picking up any southern states in the presidential election of 68. (Which proved to be the case, the southern states would have punished the democrats if they had run Jesus Christ.)
When Clinton mentioned the assassination of Kennedy in June, the reference wasn't to someone killing Obama, the reference was to the length of time it took for the season to play out. This claim that the candidate must be decided upon by the third or fourth primary is a tad disengenuous, considering the very people who are demanding that now - I remember when Kos, et.al, were writing articles complaining about the nomination being decided long before the convention and claiming that it was a coronation, not a nomination. It is ironic that these same people are now demanding an end to the process.
As to the 92 election, no, Clinton did not have that sewn up by June. The fact that Brown felt strong enough to challenge Clinton is indicative of the closeness of that primary season. Brown wanted to win, your claim that he wanted to act the part of a spoiler, is not correct in my opinion. Brown wanted to win and he would not have gone into it if he thought he had no chance. While some claim that Clinton had the numbers he needed in April, that was just the popular vote, there still could have been an upset because Clinton hadn't secured enough super delegates until June to stop any kind of floor fight or dark horse emerging at the last minute. Paul Tsongas might well have upset the apple cart at the convention - people forget that there were still some players at that convention, in fact, the 92 primary season was a fairly crowded field of candidates, especially at the beginning - far more crowded than any we've seen since.
No, Clinton is not claiming that the assassination wrapped up the 68 elections, she would know that it did not and anyone who bothered to do even a modicum of research would know that it did not. No nomination prior to 72, which itself was a hotly contested nomination process was "wound up" by June - the convention always decided the nominee, the primaries/caucuses were state run affairs that were not meant to "elect a nominee" that was never their purpose. Their major purpose was to get the state and local political machines geared up for the election and to see which potential nominee might be viable, as stated before. JFK didn't "need to win West Virginia" he needed to prove to the national machine that the catholic issue wasn't an issue afterall and he could win in the south.
May 24, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then why not say, "We all know that Bobby Kennedy was in the primary race in June, 1968 too." If that is the point you claim she is making, why not say it like that? Because her point was NOT that. Her point was that "shit happens." RFK got assassinated in June. We need someone ready to take over. Oh, come on. Are you claiming that she is so clueless that she didn't think of the first thing I said, and just stumbled into her own statement because she didn't know better?
Right.
May 24, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm claiming that people who think that are clueless.
May 24, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
people who think that are clueless.
Do you seriously contend that the subtext from Hilay was not:
"I'm still in this because, hey, shit happens..."
?
May 25, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who's Hilay?
May 25, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was Hillery's nickname from her cousin, who had attention deficit disorder, and as a side effect of her medication, she couldn't be bothered with all four syllables...
May 25, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
People who are afraid to respond to a good point often make fun of a typo. Just consider the source.
May 25, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least he came up with a funny (rather than a bitter) answer.
May 25, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's still waiting for your answer. BTW, I agree that his answer was witty. Yours was half-way there.
May 25, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question: Do you seriously contend that the subtext from Hilay was not: "I'm still in this because, hey, shit happens..."?
Answer: Yes, I seriously contend that!
Why? Because Hillary believes she could still win the nomination.
This is what you Obama people don't understand. You think she already lost. But she doesn't think that!
Why doesn't she think that she's already lost? Because she's been around the political block. She's been through campaigns before, she's been to conventions before. She believes in her argument.
You can call her all the names you want, but until she concedes, you can't count her out.
So, again, I don't believe there was any subtext for the simple reason that she thinks she will win the nomination. No subtext needed!
May 26, 2008 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I noted in Unity Pony, 3 of Clinton's 4 opponents refused to endorse him after the last primary in June. So much for unity, so much for wrapping it all up. If Brown had done better in California, it's likely Clinton would have been shut out despite his overwhelming lead in delegates.
May 25, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how many of the primary nominees in this race have endorced Hillary? Let's see...
May 25, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
OH! And how many have endorsed Obama? Well, there's Richardon, and now Edwards. Who's next? Do you think anyone will come out for Hillary at this point?
May 25, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the "split" was over the most important issue of the day: Vietnam. Of the two anti-war candidates, Kennedy was the stronger and had the better chance of taking the nomination from Humphrey, who was pro-war. In an era when there were few primaries and many more uncommitted delegates at that point in the pre-convention cycle, I do not see Bobby Kennedy's campaign as unnecessarily divisive, especially given what was at stake.
May 24, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did win something in June - the California primary.
May 24, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the South Dakota primary the same day.
May 25, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it weren't a contentious year, the contest wouldn't have lasted into June. Kind of a tautology, no?
May 25, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post Script to my original blog:
Hillary likes to invoke the "traditional Democrat values", especially the likes of HST.
You know, the guy who had "the buck stops here" on his desk.
Finally, historians tend to agree that JFK went from being a slight "playboy" politician in the public's eyes to one that had gravitas when he admitted the error over the Bay of Pigs as his and his alone.
I can't imagine Hillary in either of these molds given her past behavior.
May 24, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT, I think I read somewhere that Hillary worked for Eugene McCarthy.
May 24, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone know? In 1964 she was a "Goldwater Girl" and in 1972 she and Bill were working for McGovern. Who, if anyone, did she back in '68? Does anyone know?
Good list of results: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
May 25, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only reason I read this was to see clearthinker admit he was wrong about something! lol!
At least I can laugh at myself.
May 24, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I laugh at you sometimes too, but you're really not that funny. Sad, but not funny. Misquided, but not funny. Bull-headed, but not funny. But heck, if you can laugh at yourself, I'll go ahead and join in. hahahahahahahhahaha!
May 24, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't want to be talking to these people and miss the last call to go ashore.
May 24, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You and Des are my heroes. Thank you, Billy. I am listening for the call. I'm done now; I did what I had to do, and I got some writing out of it, which is always good.
May 25, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthinker -- good post and a good follow-up regarding the role of Jerry Brown and California. I think that what you present is probably the actual truth of the matter. She wasn't really invoking the possibility of Obama getting popped in a hotel kitchen ("If you can't stand the heat ..."). Was she? Hopefully not. I think that she really was using historical shorthand, as you imply, for a race that "went until mid June." But, just as you say -- only probably not tough enough for my liking -- to invoke RFK's assassination in June (rather than his winning in June) was absolutely, totally, campaign-ending fucked up. And, as you say, had Obama made a similar remark (rather than merely stating that economically hard-hit people get bitter when every four years they are promised better times, but none come) Hillary would not have said as Obama has that, in effect, "no harm was intended, nor taken, by the remark." Barack Obama has shown time and again that he does not play that game; whereas Hillary has shown time and again that she loves that game more than anything else.
May 24, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
clearthinker, after having been very angry I actually agree with you. When you look at her previous quotes on the issue, it's clear she is trying to invoke this shared cultural memory--RFK was campaigning in June, that primary was still going on. The...tastefulness of this is in question--there are other examples she could distort and misuse that don't call up a nation's trauma or the death of a person. But she was not saying what it sounded like she was saying. Nonetheless, it sounded like something quite else, and what it would require is a serious, sincere apology, replete with being horrified at what her poor choice of words said. But she can't do that, and to me that's just about as inexcusable as the misunderstood comment. If you say something that could easily be misconstrued as you're staying in the race in case someone gets killed, you need to express your horror at the words that came out of your mouth. (Ironic from a woman who called on Kerry to apologize for his "botched joke.")
Hillary is at her best when she is real, human, accessible. But she does not let herself be.
May 24, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't ever criticize the Fonz man.
With apologies to Otter:
May 24, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama on blue-collar whites clinging to guns and religion: "obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that."
No such statement was ever made by Obama. Obama knows how to speak grammatically correct English - unlike the joker who posted this inane 'quote'.
May 24, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And he sure never said "whites" in his bitter comment.
May 25, 2008 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't need to. It was understood when he called them racists.
May 25, 2008 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
He never called them racists. Do you have a link or quote?
May 25, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
See below.
May 25, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you please give a citation demonstrating that Obama referred to the PA voters as "racist" when he made the comment at the CA fundraiser?
--or in Hillary's discription: "The closed-door fundraiser. Never lets an opportunity go if she can pile on, does she?
May 25, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
See below.
May 25, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK. I read it. If you say Obama was calling those people RACIST when he didn't use the word, and I don't think he intended the implication of it, then how in the hell can you spin Hillary's comment about RFK's assassination in June (WHICH SHE DID SAY WORD FOR WORD) as an answer for why she is staying in the race, as NOT implying that Obama just might get offed and here I'll be ---- I'm all ears.
You are so two-faced!
May 25, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Blow, he just said they were clinging. But apples don't far from the tree.
May 25, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apples don't fall far from the tree? Do you know what that expression means? It means, "life father like son," or "like mother like daughter," or any likewise combination thereof.
What did you mean? That because Obama said they were "clinging" that was code for racist? To what the hell apple are you referring?
May 25, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I do have a citation. Here are Obama's exact words from the "bitter" quote, where he mentions "white working class" voters who "don't wanna vote for the black guy," "it's sort of a race thing," "when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man," "antipathy to people who aren’t like them," and "anti-immigrant sentiment":
Excuse me, but how many fucking dog whistles do you need? He called them racists.
May 25, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was understood
Ecce homo with a stolen left wing dog whistle translater.
This statement was made in San Francisco. I know something about the people it was made to.
When they think about the phrase "people who are not like them", they are the (unlike) people in question.
Here's a newsflash: It's not their race that sets them apart in this transaction. It's their insistance upon maintaing a sex positive attitude in a sex negative culture.
May 25, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama used racial terms specifically. Read the quote beginning to end.
May 25, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reference to "unlike" people came at the end, and, trust me, the way that white and black San Franciscans are unlike white pennsylvanians transcends race by a lifetime.
Ditto the referants which are brought to bear upon the deconstruction of the phrase at issue.
May 25, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't matter what came at the end, Obama set the parameters of his comment at the beginning by separating the races into "white" and "black." It's extremely clear what he did and what he meant.
May 25, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK I give. I get your message. You are a racist. Obama will never get your vote. Next point?
May 25, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a "racist," CVille Dem? You sure you want to call me that?
May 25, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you are certainly wrapped up in racism. Even the words, "white" and "black" set you off. You started this -- I think it's pretty obvious. You can't let it go. You are grabbing at nothing to prove that OTHERS are racists, or are using racist themes, when you are the one dragging it back in, like a nasty dead bird.
I didn't think you were racist. You kept it up until I thought that was what you wanted me to say. So you're not? OK, I'll take your word for it.
May 25, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you backtrack in the comment thread, you'll see that Rootman made a specific claim, And he sure never said "whites" in his bitter comment. I refuted that claim. When asked for a citation, I found Obama's "bitter" quote and highlighted the words "white" and "black" in it. I highlighted them so they would stand out, not because they upset me.
I'm not ever set off by the words "white" and "black."
In my view, Rootman started it. He and you both asked me for a citation, so I gave one.
I'm not trying to prove anyone is racist. I think that Obama was portraying the white working-class voters in PA as racist. In my view, when Obama uses "white," "black," "a race thing," "antipathy", and "anti-immigrant" in describing them, he means that the PA voters are racist.
Since Obama didn't literally call them racists, you are obviously free to disagree with my assessment. That's fine with me if you disagree.
Okay, thanks. I was trying to answer questions coming from several different people. I wasn't "keeping it up" for any other reason. Sorry if it seemed excessive.
May 26, 2008 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, now that I read the transcript of Obama's bitter quote, he did in fact use the term "white." See right here.
May 25, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Racist liar.
May 25, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
ReadytoBlow: Oh! My! God!
Obama used the term "white!" That proves that he and he alone is respnsible for Hillary's negative press for exploiting her using the word "assassination" as an excuse for staying in the primary race! Well...
Quit throwing around the term, "racist," since it applies to you rather than Obama.
I used the term "white" only today when my son asked me to pick some paint up for him at Michaels for a school project. We really should be more racially sensitive. Perhaps I should have said, "do you want some non-pigmented paint?" Just to be safe from the Hillary folks, of course. Any normal person would have said, "Yeah, I'll get you some paint. do you want white glossy or flat?" and never thought another thought about it.
What is WRONG with you?
May 25, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
i try not to post simply to agree, but damn, constantinople, that's funny!
May 25, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is Bushlike in her obstinance. I had the pleasure of explaining how we had a $1 trillion dollar debt in 1981 when Reagan took office and a $9 trillion debt now after 27 years of Republican economics to the 2 out of over 100 Democrats I met canvassing today who said they weren't sure they'd vote Dem if Hillary was not the nominee. There's not a dime's worth of difference between Obama and Clinton on the issues while McCain said in 2001 his conscience was offended by Bush's tax cuts. Now he wants to make them permanent.
They won't vote for McCain, they won't stay home, they won't leave that presidential circle blank. I know it because I look 'em in the eyes and I don't leave, I don't stop talking until I see them get it and acknowledge it. Nobody sits this one out, nobody puts their petty differences ahead of this nation's interests, the world's interests. Nobody. Not this time. There's too much at stake.
May 25, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
To add insult to injury, the forever-an-asshole Terry MacAuliffe, blamed the Obama camp today for blowing Hillary's slip-of-the-tongue out of proportion?!?! Hillary and MacAuliffe are pure gutter rats. Honestly, I don't believe Hillary would bat an eye, if God forbid, a tragedy like that occured. She is amoral.
May 25, 2008 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Terry MacAuliffe, blamed the Obama camp
I am given to understand that he was being interviewed on the topic by Jesse Jackson Jr., and he said that if his dad and Old Jesse could be tossing back a scotch and flaring up a rock together in heaven, they would be looking down right now and saying "cut the sistah some slack, jack..."
May 25, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of Humphrey's top aides says Hubert and RFK had an agreement to support the other if he won the nomination. The CA win for RFK was huge, NY his home state primary was next and those two wins could have very well propelled him to the nomination. It was a wide open race on that night RFK died.
Humphrey had no love for McCarthy because he never got a unity agreement from him.
May 25, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
But the "split" was over the most important issue of the day: Vietnam. Of the two anti-war candidates, Kennedy was the stronger and had the better chance of taking the nomination from Humphrey, who was pro-war.
Humphrey had to agree to follow LBJ's lead to get the regular party apparatus LBJ controlled behind him. If he hadn't there wouldn't have been a Humphrey candidacy, LBJ and the party honchos would have found someone else to carry their mantle.
As it was LBJ was working feverishly to end the war with an agreement at the Paris peace talks before November. In October they came to such an agreement with the North Vietnamese which Nixon's surrogates, Henry Kissinger and Madame Chang Kai Shek sabotaged. They convinced the South Vietnamese to reject the terms promising them a better deal if Nixon became president. Five years and thousands more dead GIs, hundreds of thousands if not millions more Vietnamese dead later Nixon and Kissinger signed a deal with essentially the same terms as LBJ's.
May 25, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
All she has to do is say that she should not have used the word "assassination" in recognition that it's so loaded for Democrats, seeing as the last three big political assassinations (MLK, RFK & JFK) were charismatic Democratic figures. I think she mis-spoke. Frankly, she'd look better, or at least less bad, if she ascribed her lapse in vocabulary to campaign exhaustion. The fact that it's the Obama campaign that came up with that excuse weakens her.
But this is just part of Hillary's pattern. She denies, then defends, then excuses, and after the uproar has almost dies down, she reignites it with a non-apology apology. As we know, the worst thing about the Wright mess was that Obama took too long to clearly distance himself from him. I for one don't think he should have had to, but he's running for the presidency in a country still scared to death of black rage. Obama's learned his lesson; Hillary hasn't.
May 25, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you really think she should have said "assassination" again so that could be in all the headlines?
Very curious.
May 25, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great comment. Great cat.
May 25, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
clearthinker, your title made me giggle.
May 25, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary was an early "triangulator"
She worked for:
Goldwater
Rockefeller
Melvin Laird
McGovern
and that was just in 1968
Always putting ambition and hedging bets against principle and moral courage
As we have now learned Hillary named the now infamous "WAR ROOM" maybe the Clinton strategy started with the Rodham brain?
And that is NOT a compliment
The major problem with Bill and Hillary is that they were ALWAYS the smartest people in the room
Until now that is
May 25, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
awb -- Fascinating!! Would love to see a cite, but it - oddly - makes a kind of sense.
Interesting that she would have skipped working for the evenual winner, Nixon. Have you ever noticed that if you have two friends who are mentally/emotionally "on the edge" in the same direction, they very often can't stand one another? I don't know precisely what the malady is, but whatever it's name, Nixon and Hillary Clinton both have it in full measure. And of the two, Nixon makes me less uneasy (and he made me VERY, VERY uneasy).
May 25, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try Wikipedia. I can sell you a copy if you don't own one.
May 25, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right back at you!
PS Have you READ what you've written? I didn't think so. It hurts people's brains.
May 25, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. Only a dope avoids the point of a post by locking onto a typo. Rlly I men it!
May 25, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink