--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote: > > > > > > I think that's exactly what she was suggesting. Olbermann > > > got it right. She was saying that she was sticking around > > > because Obama might get shot, just like RFK was shot in > > > 1968. > > > > You're deranged. There's no other way to put it. > > > > > Can't see any other reason for this weird reference to > > > RFK. > > > > The "other reason" is obvious. She was citing two past > > primaries that continued into June, as many others > > have. She mentioned Bill Clinton's primary in 1992 > > and RFK's primary in 1968 *because those are the ones > > folks are most likely to remember*--1992 because it > > wasn't that long ago, and 1968 because we can never > > forget it. > > > [I'm personally tired of and turned off by this whole Dem > nomination scene. I've felt uncomfortable about Hillary all > along but now have come to dislike her and how she presents > herself and can't imagine her in the presidency, or even as > VP with Bill hanging around and bumping into Barack.
I don't think there's the slightest chance she'd accept the VP spot even if it were to be offered. She's been treated too badly by Obama's campaign and supporters. I don't know how she'll be able to crank it up to campaign for him, but she'll find the strength to do it somehow, just as she's had the strength to hold on through all the smears and sexism and false accusations of racism, because she cares about the country too much to let the election go to McCain without giving her all to prevent it. That's what she's doing now, because she doesn't think Obama can beat McCain. But she'll do whatever she can to help him win if he's the nominee. <snip> > > From Open Left: > > Below Matt blogged about Hillary Clinton's comments about the > RFK assassination in June of 1968 which she made to point out > that presidential primaries sometimes last into June. This is > the part of what she said that will be getting all the attention > and rightly so (whether she was thinking "hey, Obama could die" > is just speculation however). Deranged speculation. > But the other part of what she said should also be scrutinized. > She said her husband didn't secure the nomination in 1992 until > mid-June when he won the California primary. This is wrong. Here > are the facts: > > 1. The 1992 primaries ended on June 2, 1992, a day earlier than > this year. Several states, including California, had primaries > that day. It was not mid-June. They're quibbling over two weeks?? > 2. According to wikipedia: "Clinton effectively won the > Democratic Party's nomination after winning the New York > Primary in early April." But he didn't *secure the nomination* until June 2, when he won the California primary. People have been saying Clinton should get out of the race since *right after the Iowa primary*, for pete's sake. They weren't saying that about Tsongas. And they weren't saying it about Jerry Brown either. There's no perfect parallel to this primary, of course; each one is different in some respects, but there are similarities in other respects. The point here is that it's *unprecedented* to try to push out the candidate who appears to be losing before the convention, especially when the race is this close.
