Also, while he lived, Urban League director Vernon Jordan took a bullet in 1980.
Doesn’t that presume that there are lots of other nominating situations that fill her needs for her argument? If there were fifty or sixty perfectly applicable historical examples to fit her argument, you’d have a more solid point. But if there are a paucity of such examples, well, that’s very different, no?
Testament: I, E. Lucidator, being of sounder mind than you might think, hereby solemnly swear: I watched that clip at least six times and I don’t see any of this stuff so many of you are dead sure is there. No aspersions cast, and with all due respect, I don’t see anything remotely like that. So help me, Eugene V. Debs.
The question was why she wouldn’t drop out.
She answered (without the numbers):
- My husband didn’t clinch the nom “until…mid June, right.?” and
- And Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June.
You don’t see that she’s saying - rather clearly in my estimation: “I might get the nomination if Obama is murdered!”? And it isn’t as if she blurted this shit out, spur of the moment. She’s done so 3 times previously, twice without "assassinated"once with.
Evil woman extraordinaire.
Nope, don’t see it. I agree with luc.
Reaching, as was the New York Post reporter who broke the story, as was Drudge.
It wouldn’t look so planned if she hadn’t already said the same thing (essentially) three times already. What people are saying is, “If this thing wasn’t some verbal slip-up, what is that exactly supposed to mean?”
The clip alone may seem innocuous, but the disturbing fact is that she’s used this line before.
Finally, the mere fact that this is a big deal is yet another good reason as to why she shouldn’t be President. You don’t throw around this kind of language without any kind of tact. It’s very big stuff she’s talking about here. If she weren’t running for a position of supreme power, then maybe we wouldn’t care, but for a lot of us, it just raises more questions about what kind of person she truly is.
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080524/NEWS/805240308/1001/news
There is nothing in the verbiage to indicate other than its simple intent: it is not unusual, it is not destructive to party unity for a nominating process to continue into June. And we are offered two examples of nominating processes proceeding into June.
Now, if this is so blatantly obvious, how come the follow up questions from the interviewing body (the editorial board of the Argus Leader) didn’t notice what you find to be so starkly clear? If you or I were sitting there, and that’s the signal we picked up…you betcha sweet patoot we’d would jump on that, no? Like skank on a Coulter, we’d be on that!
Are we not then forced to the conclusion that it is not that apparent? Or what, the editorial board of the* Leader * is in on it?
Hillarys tactics and stubborness have built a huge resevoir of gruntle, deserved or no. The overinflated balloon brushed against the cactus, there was no sniper fire.
I think Obama is playing this exactly right, as I’ve said. But I further conjecture he’s doing it because he sees it like I do: a hysterical reaction to an innocuous remark.
Well, then, let me parse it out better.
William Jefferson Clinton, who was running for the Democratic nomination for President in 1992, did not have enough pledged delegates, until June 2, to substantiate any claim he had to be the Democratic nominee. Until that date in June, he did not, in any way, have a majority of the delegates.
Okay. I see two possibilities:
You and Luc
- actually believe what you’re sayng about not seeing the connection I mentioned, or
- the two of you are in a collaborative whoosh.
Hey, I’m a rocker, I don’t hang with mods…
But where do you see this? Is it somewhere within the words themselves? Tapping Morse code with her fingernail? What? There must be some evidence, no?
And again…why didn’t the interviewers pick up on it? Newsmen crave news, in their heart of hearts they sat down hoping she’d drop some big ass bomb, they were listening for such nuances, we can be pretty sure.
So…how come they didn’t see what is so entirely obvious to you? It doesn’t seem that they reported it as such, seemed rather bland, no? They heard the same words you did, straight from the horses…ah, mouth. How come they didn’t have the same reaction?
(Aside question, non-argumentative: since the *Leader’*s editorial board didn’t report this as a suggestion of assassination, who did? Who was first with this interpretation? Bloggers? Wingers? Dirty fucking hippies? Who first?..)
Lots of things have happened in June. June 1919 the Women’s Suffrage Amendment was passed by the Senate. June 1778 the British occupation of Philadelphia ended. Citing something like that would have been a lot less alarming then talking about a recent event where someone clearly analogous to her opponent was assassinated. I don’t want a President who shoots off her mouth like that. It’s tactless and alarming, even if she intended to just use it as an example of something that happened in June.
Bill Clinton was running for the nomination, in June. Bobby Kennedy was running for the nomination, in June. The British were buggering off in June. Which of these things is not like the others?
Bill Clinton. He didn’t get shot at.
Well, you did ask.
So let me get this straignt… Hillary brought up the assassination of Robert Kennedy as a defense for her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama. This was sick beyond words… She’s basically saying she’s waiting for some racist good old boy to assassinate the good Senator so she’ll be the frontrunner. I cannot even believe how anyone could not see through her blind ambition and ruthlessness. I completely lost any respect for her supporters who apparently are so blinded by the Clinton machine that they have no clue how devious they are…
Did anyone catch Jon Stewart this past week and his story on West Virginian voters??? Unfreakingbelieveable that people like that actually exist… Yeah, that’s hillary’s voting base.
I just added that to my sig.
I think it’s clear to a lot of people that it was about Obama… And the thing is, as much as I want this campaign to be above the race issue, I realize there are some real disturbed good ole boys out there who have a real problem with race. These are the same white uneducated blue collar voters who support hillary. And she knows it. Its like she’s invoking something by bringing this up.
And I wouldn’t make such a big deal out of this but I know some people (specifically a moderator from another msg board), who although he supports Obama, has been saying he doesn’t think the country is ready for a Black President. And every time he said this, I saw red because I wanted the country to be above race problems … then we have a US Senator from NY referencing the assassination of a former senator as her rationaliziation for staying in the race. This is too over the top to take. To think there is nothing to this is completely naive or people are in denial.
If you say so. I really don’t believe Clinton was trying to get Obama killed, saying she hopes he gets killed, saying she is staying in the race in case he gets killed, or doing any of the things people are suggesting here.
Meanwhile the New York Times ran a very interesting article about the way this story unspooled. It answers elucidator’s question about how it all broke:
As good as you say. I didn’t think so at first, but it gets hilarious.
Just click on the link, folks. You won’t be disappointed.
This is only technically correct in the same sense that Bush never said Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, or that Bill Clinton never said Obama won SC just because he’s black. If you say something that allows people to infer your true intent, that’s as good as saying it while still keeping the fig leaf of plausible deniability.
And now Hillary’s blaming Obama for the outrage over her remarks.
I’ve now achieve Hillary numbness. I’m no longer surprised by anything she does.
Well, then, I’ll ask you: if this inference is so perfectly clear, how come the people in the room with her didn’t see it, but you do? Are they dunderheads, and cannot see the obvious? Are they in on it? What?