--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You may be right, but I think Hillary should have given more thought > to how her words might be interpreted.
1. Citing a couple past primary seasons going on till June to justify her staying in the race is baseless. Anyone familiar with politics knows the whole process has been changed and moved up to end earlier so the parties can focus early on the competition. Same with conventions which used to be quite dramatic events but are now carefully orchestrated marketing shows for the candidate already chosen months earlier. 92 was unique and the 60s a whole different world than today. 2. In the 2 primary races hillary referenced the race was still uncertain in early june, but this yrs IS NOT. It's over now. Hillary certainly has the right to continue on, but not because there's some sort of uncertainty. If you don't think so, you need to retake 3rd grade math. 3. Hillary continually comparing her self centered power grap to historical civil rights stuggles is getting really tired. Bringing up one of the most emotionally wrenching experiences in US campaign history - the assassination of RFK - and trying to relate it to her vain inability to admit defeat is so much hubris and just wrong. For me that night in 68 is tragically sacred and I abhor the clintons for debasing. 4. That she's made this same point before about RFK assasination shows it wasn't some kind of speaking gaffe. She may not be hoping or planning for obama's assassination consciously, but the clinton's never do or say anything that isn't strategically planned - they want that possibility in the minds of the superdelegates. She could just say that the 68 race went all the way to the convention as everyone remembers, but instead she keeps bringing up RFK's assassination. Fortunately this will just speed up the inevitable by a week or two and it will soon be over. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > Statement from Robert Kennedy, Jr., RFK's son: > > > > "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." > > > > Statement from the executive editor of the Argus > > Leader, Randell Beck, who led the interview in which > > she made the remark about RFK: > > > > "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." > > > > Anybody who hears a statement that can be interpreted > > two ways, one perfectly straightforward, reasonable, > > and unexceptionable, and the other as the statement > > of an inhuman monster, and chooses the second > > interpretation, needs to ask themselves whether that > > choice says more about them than about the person who > > made the statement. > > > > Again, as with so many of the deranged interpretations > > of Hillary's statements, plain common sense should tell > > you why the "monster" interpretation is a symptom of > > your inner state, and not hers: > > > > --If Hillary withdrew and Obama were to be assassinated, > > God forbid, she would still end up as the Democratic > > candidate, so it's not a reason for her not to withdraw. > > > > --She has made this same statement, in exactly the same > > context, back in March, and nobody blinked an eye. > > > > --If she *were* waiting around for Obama to be > > assassinated, what are the odds that she would say so > > to a roomful of newspaper editors and reporters? > > >
