--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote: > > > > You may be right, but I think Hillary should have given more > > thought to how her words might be interpreted. > > Obviously, given the subsequent uproar. But, you know, > she's said it before to no such reaction, so why should > she think it was going to be interpreted so differently > this time around?
There was no uproar in march because the race was still very much uncertain then and it looked like maybe it could still be uncertain in june. But the race is no longer uncertain and to point to RFK's assassination as a reason for her to stay in at this pt is to bring to mind the possibility that something similar could happen to obama. Plus it's just weird and morbid to keep referencing this tragic event. > > > --- 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? > > > > > >
