And then some!
Wrong.
Here is the NYTimes count of delegates as of May 7, 1992.
Brown 349
Clinton 1,665
Tsongas 526
Uncommitted 627
Total Delegates 4,288
Needed to nominate 2,145
This put Clinton at 77% of the delgates needed to clinch the nomination.
Clinton clinched the nomination by winning California on June 2.
So, you’re just wrong on that point.
Mods, I take it back.
There’s more to say, apparently.
Apparently, Sen Obama is determined to be gracious about this.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080525/pl_nm/usa_politics_dc
**Obama empathizes with Clinton over Kennedy comment **
I think this is the entirely correct approach. Politicly astute, most especially. However much one may dislike Hilary, a whole bunch of people like her, and are going to be disappointed not to vote for her. They vote. We need them. Any questions?
And if I have to eat some shit to keep John McCain from being CinC…here’s my spoon, here’s my grin.
Obama’s proven himself to be a smart campaigner. He doesn’t need to tear Clinton down and he’s not doing it gratuitously.
See? Obama agrees with me. 
You’re right.
I think I’m going to barf.
Just have to add my two cents. I’m a conservative and have almost nothing good to say about Hillary. You could look it up.
She did nothing wrong here. If we’ve reached a point where we can’t even mention that RFK was assassinated that is really bad for the country. And BTW what is the basis for the belief that Obama will be assasinated? Other than MLK when was the last time a black leader was killed? And the last three attempts on the lives of POTUS took place with a Rep POTUS.
Relax, conservatives don’t go around killing people. If we lose, we lose. Lighten up.
Interestingly, people here seem more concerned about Democrat-on-Democrat assassinations.
Can you really speak for such a large group of people?
Besides, Democratic figures - JFK, MLK, RFK - have been assassinated. To unnaturally proscribe the circle to black leaders is wrong. And you excluded Malcolm X.
At least apply your time frame consistently.
Perhaps someone will be kind enough to read this to you:
Main Entry:
amen Listen to the pronunciation of amen Listen to the pronunciation of amen
Pronunciation:
(ˈ)ä-ˈmen, (ˈ)ā-; ˈä- when sung\
Function:
interjection
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin, from Greek amēn, from Hebrew āmēn
Date:
before 12th century
—used to express solemn ratification (as of an expression of faith) or hearty approval (as of an assertion)
A list of Presidential assassination attempts.
The crazies seem to both cross political divides and even be apolitical.
First outside of that list is Siran Siran, who killed Bobby Kennedy. A Christian Palestinian it is unclear if he was upset over Kennedy’s support for Israel or just a nut job looking for a reason.
In the Presidential list - Oswald seemed to have Communist leanings. Those who tried to kill Truman were Puerto Rican indepence advocates. Bremer, who tried to get a shot a Nixon and paralyzed George Wallace, was trying prove his manhood. Sam Byck, who also planned on killing Nixon, was upset that the SBA turned him down for a loan. What were the politics that “Squeaky” Fromme followed as part of the Manson cult when she attempted to kill Ford? Sara Jane Moore was a wannabe radical leftist. John Hinkley Jr. had stalked Carter before settling on trying to kill Reagan as his means to prove himself to Jodie Foster. Francisco Martin Duran was allegedly incited to action by the rantings a conservative shock jock before he fired at who he believed to be Bill Clinton. No Chuck Baker didn’t explicitly call for someone to go out and kill Clinton. But when you call out for armed revolution and cleansing of the government you do hold some culpability.
Be real. A historic “first” - be it female candidate or Kennedyesque (maybe even Lincolnesque?) Black one - is an attractive target for a nutjob wanting a fast track into the margins of history. I may believe that the radical racists are now marginalized and outnumbered in our society today, but their numbers are non-zero. All it takes is one who has decided that he or she will not let some uppity n***r steal this election from the White woman who deserves it, to hear an implied request in Hillary’s statement. You don’t go out and say things that could easily be taken that way. Not even if the statement makes some valid historical point.
Oswald “seemed to have communist leanings”? The guy defected to the USSR.
Yeah, but he came back, very disappointed in what he saw there.
Maybe his attempt was politically motivated, but it seems less than certain to me at least.
What hath Hillary Wrought?
The craziness is just beginning.
Who was that woman in the YouTube thing?
Liz Trotta.
What the hell?
There’s not enough nails in the world to keep that coffin shut. The Clintons are political Zombies. We’ll have to fill the grave with concrete, and even then we’ll have to keep an eye on it.
Obama is, as always, a class guy and handled it with some restraint. Restraint is a good trait when you are going to have more power than anyone else on Earth. How did Hillary handle the “bitter” comment again?
I didn’t think much of it until I saw Olbermann mention how many times she had made this point. She’s invoking Bobby Kennedy for one reason only. There are simply far too many other examples that she could cite. She didn’t need to mention him to make the point she was making. The strong connection of the name RFK and assassination crowds out any kind of other point you’re trying to make when you invoke his campaign. You don’t use it because of that.
The fact that she made this point once in March, was rebuked, and then later used it again means something to me. I don’t know exactly what she wants us to think but I do know that it was tasteless and insensitive to the entire Kennedy and Obama families.
Just sit down and think about it for a second. Try to formulate an argument yourself along her lines. You try to cite examples where it is unusual for a candidate to not drop out by June. Would you want to invoke RFK’s campaign? Of course not. It simply could potentially backfire with no real benefit. It’s like making a joke about 9/11 or some other great tragedy. Sure, maybe it’d be funny, but the potential backlash is simply too great to be worth the risk.
So no, I don’t think this was an accident. I think it is simply a way for her to simply use our perception of the bad things about America as a justification for her staying in the race. That’s what all of this coded racist bullshit has been about. She wants to get out there and say, “Too large of a percent of Americans won’t vote for a black man” It’s insulting, and while there is a certain percentage of Americans who won’t vote for a black guy, it’s not an idea we should support by allowing it to exist in our discourse. She wants us to look at ourselves and say, “You know what… it’s too soon for a black President. The bad part of America (which I’m not a part of) won’t support him” She’s polluting the discourse with these negative perceptions of who we are as a people. For her to win, she needs the discourse to be the discourse of the 90’s when it was probably too soon for a black man, but soon enough for a woman.
The mention of RFK was really just more of the same.
“We live in a country where people want to kill a black President. I don’t like it any more than you do, but those are the facts, so I’m staying in.”
You’re picking California arbitrarily. Alabama, New Jersey, New Mexico, Montana and Ohio also voted that day. Tsongas had already dropped out. Clinton was ahead of Brown by half an order of magnitude. He began to ignore Brown and campaign as the nominee in early May. Brown was a tinfoil hat wearing weirdo just like Hillary, but there’s not really anything else back then that was similar to what is happening today.