Countdown: Special Comment on Hillary's RFK Reference

Hillary Clinton today:

My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary, somewhere in the middle of June, right?  We all remember, Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California, I don't understand it.

Hillary Clinton to Time Magazine, March 6:

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, also in California...  We will see how it unfolds as we go forward over the next three to four months.

Hillary Clinton at a fundraiser, May 7:

Sometimes you gotta calm people down a little bit.  But if you look at successful presidential campaigns, my husband did not get the nomination until June of 1992.  I remember tragically when Senator Kennedy won California near the end of that process.

Hillary Clinton in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, May 7:

You know, I remember very well what happened in the California primary in 1968 as, you know, Senator Kennedy won that primary.

Olbermann's response to Clinton's "non-apology" today:

Not a word about the inappropriateness of referencing assassination.

Not a word about the inappropriateness of implying -- whether it was intended or not -- that she was hanging around waiting for somebody to try something terrible.

Not a word about Senator Obama.

Not a word about Senator McCain.

Not "I'm sorry."

Not "I apologize."

Not "I blew it."

Not "Please forgive me."

God knows, Senator, in this campaign, this nation has had to forgive you, early and often.  And despite your now traditional position of the offended victim, the nation has forgiven you.

We have forgiven you your insistence that there have been widespread calls for you to end your campaign, when such calls had been few.

We have forgiven you your misspeaking about Martin Luther King's relative importance to the Civil Rights movement.

We have forgiven you your misspeaking about your under-fire landing in Bosnia.

We have forgiven you insisting Michigan's vote wouldn't count and then claiming those who would not count it were undemocratic.

We have forgiven you pledging to not campaign in Florida and thus disenfranchise voters there, and then claim those who stuck to those rules were as wrong as those who defended slavery or denied women the vote.

We have forgiven you the photos of Osama Bin Laden in an anti-Obama ad.

We have forgiven you fawning over the fairness of Fox News while they were still calling you a murderer.

We have forgiven you accepting Richard Mellon Scaife's endorsement and then laughing as you described his "deathbed conversion."

We have forgiven you quoting the electoral predictions of Boss Karl Rove.

We have forgiven you the 3 AM Phone Call commercial.

We have forgiven you President Clinton's disparaging comparison of the Obama candidacy to Jesse Jackson's.

We have forgiven you Geraldine Ferraro's national radio interview suggesting Obama would not still be in the race had he been a white man.

We have forgiven you the dozen changing metrics and the endless self-contradictions of your insistence that your nomination is mathematically probable rather than a statistical impossibility.

We have forgiven you your declaration of some primary states as counting and some as not.

We have forgiven you exploiting Jeremiah Wright in front of the editorial board of the lunatic-fringe Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

We have forgiven you exploiting William Ayers in the debate on ABC.

We have forgiven you for boasting of your "support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans."

We have even forgiven you repeatedly praising Senator McCain at Senator Obama's expense, and your own expense, and the Democratic ticket's expense.

But Senator, we cannot forgive you this.

You got that right, friend.



Display:


Get THIS right too (1.00 / 6)

The one and only Rev. Wright is scheduled to speak next Wed. 28th, Thurs 29th, and Sun. June 1.

Enjoy your trash fest while you can, because old Jeremiah is about to go on tour again ;)


by phoenixdreamz on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:28:13 AM EST

how is the trolling today? fruitful? (2.00 / 3)


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:30:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You tell me (none / 0)

The blogs are literally crawling with them today, no?


by phoenixdreamz on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:32:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yup....I am responding to one right NOW (none / 0)


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:40:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yup....I am responding to one right NOW (2.00 / 1)

"-- be excellent to each other"

'kindthoughts'

It never ceases to amaze me how people who toot their own horn never live up to the hype. Like guys who make a point of telling me what 'nice guys' they are. It never turns out to be the case.

Look, I've seen a deluge of diaries of this type today, and it finally got to me so I caved. Sorry. Now about those kind thoughts and be excellent admonitions, why don't you just remove those and try setting the example instead. That way you won't have to advertise because everyone will see it for themselves. Have a lovely weekend.


by phoenixdreamz on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:18:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yup....I am responding to one right NOW (1.00 / 2)

And here you go projecting your own faults onto others yet again.  You are really something.  

Do you ever take personal responsibility for your own rotton behavior?


"Not only do I want an elite president, I want someone who's embarrassingly superior to me." -- Jon Stewart, 4/15/08
by JulieinVT on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:23:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Julie (none / 0)

Have a lovely weekend yourself dear ;)


by phoenixdreamz on Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:31:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Julie (2.00 / 1)

Why thank you!  I will!


"Not only do I want an elite president, I want someone who's embarrassingly superior to me." -- Jon Stewart, 4/15/08
by JulieinVT on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:12:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

By the way (2.00 / 1)

Robert Kennedy Jr. issued the following statement this evening:

"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 have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband's 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June.  I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."


by phoenixdreamz on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:31:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not the Kennedys that should take offense. (2.00 / 5)

Hillary should apologize to Michelle and the kids.  It's THEIR father whose fate was played with.  The question she was asked was not about the Kennedys, but about why she doesn't concede a hopeless situation.  POinting out a historical assassination that took place in June and using that as a justification for continuing the race has a rather chilling and obvious implication that must have been disturbing to the other members of the Obama family.


by Dumbo on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:35:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Michelle should apologize (none / 0)

No Clinton apology is necessary and...

Lost in the excitement of Barack Obama's coronation this week was an inconvenient fact of Tuesday's results: Hillary Clinton netted approximately 150,000 votes and is now poised to finish the primary season as the popular-vote leader.

However, if Michelle would like to apologize for refusing to endorse Hillary Clinton when she was directly asked, that would go a long way to facilitate the healing process within our party.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:40:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Charles Rangel on the other hand... (2.00 / 1)

Says...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2 0601087&sid=asSj6SCb1oto&refer=h ome

One of her leading supporters, Representative Charles Rangel of New York, assailed her for that comment, calling it ``the dumbest thing you could have possibly said.'' Clinton acknowledged it was a poor choice of words.


by kraant on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:08:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

By now (none / 0)

he understands the damage he's done.  Unless he actually wanted to destroy Obama's candidacy, the easiest explanation is that he had no idea how to behave in the national spotlight, so reverted to his flamboyant-preacher mode.  Expect him to be much more reserved in future.


by semiquaver on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:35:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By now (none / 0)

Doubthful... he wants revenge against Obama and will do everything in his power to get it...


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:44:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By now (none / 0)

You're right, he probably was very hurt, but he's a very intelligent man.  I think he'd rather be good friends with the first black president than responsible for his downfall.


by semiquaver on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:50:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Update (2.00 / 3)

Barack Obama's former pastor has withdrawn from two scheduled appearances at churches in Philadelphia.

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, was scheduled to lead a revival May 28th and 29th at St. Thomas African Episcopal Church. He also was scheduled to preach June 1st at the 100th anniversary celebration of Canaan Baptist Church.

But both Philadelphia churches say he has withdrawn from next week's events.

The rector of St. Thomas says he was asked to reschedule the appearance because Wright "has been exhausted by all the media attention and desired some time for refreshment and refueling."

http://www.wmgt.com/index.php?option=com _content&task=view&id=880&It emid=113


by johnnygunn on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:38:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

interesting (none / 0)

thank you


by phoenixdreamz on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:40:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get THIS right too (none / 0)

Sad much the pastor has been quiet of late?


McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.
by catilinus on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:05:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get THIS right too (none / 0)

Oh my, looks like your comment wasn't well received - you going to tattle on these folks too for troll rating your nastiness?

I've totally got your number.


"Not only do I want an elite president, I want someone who's embarrassingly superior to me." -- Jon Stewart, 4/15/08
by JulieinVT on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:22:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Countdown: Special Comment on Hillary's RFK Re (2.00 / 3)

The statement from Argus Leader, the South Dakota Newspaper where Hillary Clinton made those remarks:

"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 time line of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself"


by NY Writer on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:29:02 AM EST

The timeline is such (none / 0)

that he (RFK) would have become president if he hadn't been killed by Sirhan Sirhan in the lobby of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, California, on the night that he won the California primary.

So, yeah, anything can happen in June!  Why would you quit before Obama gets assasinated?


by Dumbo on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:38:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iffy History (none / 0)

Primaries were only a small fraction of the convention delegates back in 1968.  Actually, Humphrey had the nomination sewn up before the police ever starting beating up protesters in the streets of Chicago.

After California the delegate count was:

   * Hubert Humphrey 561
    * Robert F. Kennedy 393
    * Eugene McCarthy 258

Not to mention that Humphrey had "favorite son" delegates and party boss delegates.


by johnnygunn on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:45:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The McCarthy delegates were all (none / 0)

anti-war protest votes against the Johnson administration.  There was no way McCarthy delegates were going to go to Humphrey over Kennedy.

Kennedy was at a disadvantage at that time (I don't recall the actual numbers, so I'm taking your word for it) in part because he entered the contest late, but he had picked up enormous momentum, especially with California and his other victories that night.  Also, as I recall, Johnson won Texas the same night, so to be fair, we might consider those Humphrey delegates.

Anyway, that wasn't the point of my statement, but it's a nice digression and I don't mind being corrected when I'm wrong on facts.

Hillary: Still awful.


by Dumbo on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:53:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Clinton standard (none / 0)

Whatever your opponent says is subject to the worst possible interpretation.

Hillary is entitled to no more deference in the interpretation of her Kennedy assassination remark than Obama was in his "bitterness" remark.  


We shall overcome. Yes we can.
by Sam Wise Gingy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:29:47 AM EST

Re: The Clinton standard (1.60 / 5)

Obama literally said that bitter people in small towns cling  to guys and religion. Clinton noted a historical event. The two are not the same thing.

But go ahead - all you're doing is moving more and more Clinton supporters farther and farther away from ever supporting Obama should he become the nominee.


by glitterannebegay on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:32:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Guys? (2.00 / 1)

Honey, I'd like to cling to guys, too.
I just can't seem to be able to find me any.

;-)  ;-)


by johnnygunn on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:34:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton standard (1.00 / 2)

glitterannebegay is a troll.

(can you believe the handle?)

Check out ragekage's diary for a convincing argument.


Mooseburgers? Careful Sarah. Moose bite back!
by spacemanspiff on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:01:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton standard (none / 0)

Glitter And Be Gay is a song from Leonard Bernstein's opera of Candide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcmAdS8vk DA

calling people trolls because they don't see things the way you do is a bit o' blog fascism. Grow up.


by glitterannebegay on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:12:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I am an Obama supporter but I totally (2.00 / 3)

think Olbermann is a tool.

I mean all she flipping meant is that people have stayed in the primaries for a while.

On the other hand I hope the people who sat around yelling at Obama for misspeaking before about this or that, are getting a bit of perspective now.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:29:57 AM EST

Re: I am an Obama supporter but I totally (none / 0)

I'm guessing you didn't actually read what he said?

It doesn't matter what she meant. She should not be casually tossing around the subject of assassination as if it were just one other political thing to reference. It would be one thing if the question actually had been about death threats received by Obama or herself, but she's making an argument about how she could -still win-, and in that argument, bringing up assassination is 100% out of bounds.


by 2501 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:08:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am an Obama supporter but I totally (none / 0)

She wasn't making an argument about how she could still win. You havne't watched the tape, have you? Fucking disgraceful. She's very clearly talking about how campaigns are still going in June.


by glitterannebegay on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:14:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am an Obama supporter but I totally (none / 0)

yes I did watch the whole tape and she's clearly saying she "doesn't understand" why people are saying the race is over, and then giving her reasons for still being in the race.

but the thing is, if you are right in saying "she wasn't making an argument about how she could still win," then what she said is worse. because then she's saying the only reason she's staying in is because something might happen to Obama.

the thing is, while a great many people in the media and elsewhere are saying the race is over, hardly anyone in the media is calling for her to quit. her staying in is keeping their ratings up. so every time she brings up this, "everyone is calling for me to drop out, but I'm going to keep fighting," line, it's a straw man argument. it's like you're down by 65 pins with two frames left in a bowling match. just because people point out there's no way to catch up, doesn't mean they're telling you not to bowl the last two frames and get your official score.


by 2501 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:31:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0)

It's disturbing when so many progressives (espicially at Dailykos) think they have a friend in the guy. He has become nothing but a political hack.


by rjarnold on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:18:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree (none / 0)

Progressives don't "espicially" think he's a hack.


McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.
by catilinus on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:14:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am an Obama supporter but I totally (none / 0)

KT:  I find your comment really sad.

If KO is a tool I guess the GOP deserves their media chokehold back.


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:46:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am an Obama supporter but I totally (none / 0)

Olbermann is a tool compared to what other nightly TV newscaster/commentator?

He's the best out there with his own show. When he goes far worse will follow.


McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.
by catilinus on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:08:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Countdown: Special Comment on Hillary's RFK Re (1.00 / 2)

What a friggin' pompous asshat.
I'm not sure who pontificates more -
Olbermann or the pontiff himself.
And I especially like how he is the ultimate dispenser of forgiveness.
Now, THAT man truly has power.

PS - There's not a little gender analysis going on here, is there?


by johnnygunn on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:30:28 AM EST

Yep (2.00 / 2)

This so-called Edward R. Murrow of the Obama Hour is such a goddamned hack. And BORING as shit.


by observer5 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:38:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep (none / 0)

Dislike your use of foul language. Dislike your characterization of a far better newscaster than than his competition. Feel pity for your sense of what is "BORING" in entertainment.


McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.
by catilinus on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:11:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep (none / 0)

Olberman is no newscaster, he is the liberal equivalent of Bill O'Reilly, and it doesn't make him a newscaster.


by devil on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:57:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Countdown: Special Comment on Hillary's RFK Re (2.00 / 1)

This is the second Special Commentary that KO has delivered criticizing Sen. Clinton's campaign. It is clear that on both occasions, he has done so with a heavy heart and not a hint of glee.

He is an admitted longtime Clinton(s) admirer, and like many Democrats, myself included, I think he's disappointed that Sen. Clinton has run such a disastrous campaign.

It's heartbreaking, and I'm not surprised that she's gone down such a low road.


by BenderRodriguez on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:27:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Countdown: Special Comment on Hillary's RFK Re (none / 0)

KO's critics mostly miss the note of pain in his expression when he has to be critical of Hillary.


McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.
by catilinus on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:39:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why should Hillary apologize to BO (1.75 / 4)

Her mention of a historical timeline had nothing to do with Obama. The world doesn't revolve around BO, or the asshole KO.


by observer5 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:30:35 AM EST

she doesn't need to apologize (none / 0)

but of course the comment was about BHO.  Do you honestly think that she's not paying any attention to the person who has a 99% chance of getting the job she wants?  You sound exactly like Dana Perino after Bush's 'appeasement' comments.  


by semiquaver on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:40:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: she doesn't need to apologize (2.00 / 1)

No, it wasn't about Obama. I 'm starting to think that none of you have actually watched the tape. She's being asked about the demands that she concede and she's talking about how long other primaries have gone on. Her comment is about primaries still being contested in June - that's all. She's addressing the fact that RFK didn't clinch the nomination until June - that's it.

Obama has absolutely nothing to do with the subject she is discussing. It's about why she is remaing in the race and the answer is, because primaries traditionally have gone on until June.


by glitterannebegay on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:17:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: she doesn't need to apologize (2.00 / 2)

I've watched the tape several times.  I agree that her primary thesis was that primary battles have often gone on until June, but you're fooling yourself if you don't recognize that she was also making the point that "anything can happen."

Anyway, I was responding to observer5, who said this has nothing to do with Obama, which is just silly since she made explicit reference to him:

HRC: I don't know, I don't know.  I find it curious, because it is unheard of in history.  I don't understand it.  And you know, between my opponent and his camp and some in the media, there has been this urgency to end this.  And, you know, historically that makes no sense.  So, I find it a bit of a mystery.

Q: You don't buy the party unity argument?

HRC: I don't.  Because, again, I've been around long enough - you know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June.  Right?  We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.


by semiquaver on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:37:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: she doesn't need to apologize (2.00 / 1)

For some vague reason, I'm thinking of the Bush apologists claiming his remarks on appeasement had nothing to do with Obama.


McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.
by catilinus on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:16:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Bingo (none / 0)


by semiquaver on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Loonie Toons (2.00 / 3)

Olberman has turned into a total loon. I'm expecting him to rip off his clothes and start spraying people with the fire extinguisher any time now.

Hillary said nothing inappropriate. She's referencing June and using a historical event to do so. She owes no one an apology.

Half of the Democratic party moved much farther away from ever voting for Obama in a primary. And remember, he needs Clinton supporters in blue states more than Clinton needs Obama supporters in red states.


by glitterannebegay on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:30:58 AM EST

Re: Loonie Toons (2.00 / 1)

She could have referenced 1984 and 1980, but she chose this one... why?  Well, something very specific happened at this one... one that hits very close to home, since many  equate Obama with RFK... considering how careful and meticulous the Hillary campaign is, I am amazed that they would allow something so potentially inflammatory to come out of her campaign.  They should have known better!

It's like South Carolina.  The stuff she said there didn't seem very offensive to me, a white guy, but, considering their many years working for the African American community... she should have KNOWN that it would have been offensive for African Americans!  How could they not have known this?

Her campaign has not been run well at all... it's been very shortsighted and has alienated a significant part of the party and the country.  It's a shame that it ended up this way... she could have done so much better....


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:50:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Loonie Toons (2.00 / 1)

She's done plenty well for half of the Democratic party.

I don't care if you find it inflammatory - it isn't inflammatory any more than bill saying obama's stand against the war was a fairy tale was racist.

You want to be offended, that's your problem. She said nothing wrong and she owes no one an apology.

This is just a whole lot of drama because Obama and his supporters are scared to death that she's going to beat them in August. and if this crap up, she definitely will.


by glitterannebegay on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:08:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Loonie Toons (2.00 / 1)

just so we can finally lay to rest whose supporters are smarter, let's make a bet.

If Hillary wins in August, I'll shut up. If a bunch of superdelegates come out and endorse Obama next week because they were offended by Hillary's remark, you shut up.

How's that?


by 2501 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:11:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Loonie Toons (none / 0)

I'm not offended... Hillary has left me very jaded with her campaign... you may not know this, but I was once a Hillary supporter...  but ever since she didn't "win" on Super Tuesday, it's been nothing but spin and division from her side...

Anyways, it's poetic justice for her pushing the Wright story and "bittergate" as much as she could... now, the shoe is on the other foot.


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:38:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What a disgusting display (2.00 / 1)

The guy just can't forgive her for being a powerful first lady. Now traditional position of the offended victim? So he has to resort to twisting her words and exploiting RFK's assassination. A pathetic, weak man.


by souvarine on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:49:34 AM EST

Re: What a disgusting display (none / 0)

Yes!  'Cos Hillary has never, ever played the victim!  Ever!

Geez, I don't understand why he would be so upset.. after all, he's only the guy MOST LIKELY to be assassinate at this point...  Implying that the same thing would happen to him this year as it did in 1968... geez... why would that be upsetting?


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:46:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What a disgusting display (none / 0)

Who is this mysterious "he" you refer to?

"he has to resort to twisting her words"

Certainly not Obama, he hasn't broached the subject yet.


McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.
by catilinus on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:18:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What a disgusting display (none / 0)

Not Obama, but it was one Bill Burton from Obama's team.


by devil on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:03:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The visceral reaction of Hillary's fans (2.00 / 3)

shows that they know she put her foot in the biggest mess of anyone yet in this campaign, at the worst possible time for her.

Interpret her words how you will, but the remaining SDs who will decide matters must surely be cringing at the word "assassination" being splashed all over the news and her shell shocked countenence as she delivered her non-apology.

It was already a forgone conclusion that the nomination has slipped from her grasp, but now it looks like the VP spot has as well. She will be in no position to demand anything from the SDs who might have still seconded her in that capacity.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:51:21 AM EST

the worst possible time (none / 0)

would have been back when she had a prayer at getting the nomination.  Now all she's done is make sure she won't be getting the veep, which was already unlikely.


by semiquaver on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:41:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I really need (none / 0)

to read comments more carefully before I respond.  I essentially repeated what you said.  Sorry!


by semiquaver on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:43:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I really need (none / 0)

Perhaps you said it better.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:23:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Old Kieth/New Kieth (2.00 / 2)

I remember back in January Obama's fans were accusing Olbermann of favoring Hillary. The reasons he obviously doesn't now were cited in his commentary last night, as quoted in this diary. And pretty good reasons they are.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:57:28 AM EST

Re: Countdown: Special Comment on Hillary's RFK Re (2.00 / 1)

The Clintons have an excellent track record of making "historical references".

Jesse Jackson winning in 1984 was just a historical reference.

LBJ passing the Civil Rights Act was just a historical reference.

RFK's assassination is just a historical reference.

Wow, you people apologizing for this are rubes.


by Deadalus on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:21:23 AM EST

Re: Countdown: Special Comment on Hillary's RFK Re (none / 0)

Maybe it all depends on what the meaning of "assassination" is.

It's so damn heartbreaking seeing people I once admired go down such ugly roads.

And kudos to David Axelrod for trying to forgive her reprehensible remarks.


by BenderRodriguez on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:34:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In defense of an American hero (none / 0)


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:47:23 AM EST

Special Comment on Hillary's RFK Reference (none / 0)

Keith Olbermann was SPOT ON as usual.  I'm amused at the critiques being thrown out in this thread - these same folks have probably lavished high praise (pre-Hillary fanaticism) on KO when he's turned his guns on Limberger or Bush.  

Thank you Keith Olbermann for succinctly summarizing how abhorrent Hillary Clinton's campaign tactics have been.

Never have I been more ashamed of another woman.  


"Not only do I want an elite president, I want someone who's embarrassingly superior to me." -- Jon Stewart, 4/15/08
by JulieinVT on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:32:09 AM EST

Keith = Hannity (none / 0)

each one a paid shill for hate


by nikkid on Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:19:02 AM EST

Re: Keith = Hannity (none / 0)

You couldn't be more blind to reality if you gouged your own eyes out.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:25:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keith = Hannity (none / 0)

Thank you for your violent explanation.


by nikkid on Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:54:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keith = Hannity (none / 0)

Likening Olbermann to Hannity is its own form of violence.

Olbermann was the first prime time news person with the courage to take on Bush when others (including Hillary) were still fawning to his twisted agenda.

If you can't take seeing him now call Hillary out, don't watch him. But don't compare one of the few patriots in journalism to a shill for the Neocons in Hannity -- who also works for the same right wing crowd that now endorses and praises Hillary.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:20:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.