Why is Senator Clinton invoking assassination as a reason to continue in the primary?

[Poll_Blind]

  I want to keep this as short as I can and I would like anyone and everyone to give me an answer they think is most correct for the question.
  

Class, can anyone tell us reasons why a political candidate would invoke assassination as a reason to continue running in a race which there is no mathematical way of winning possible?

PB

[Muttocracy]

1. exactly - she can't win by the current rules, can't win with FL & MI,

at the very least she has to race-bait or scare people or wait for a scandal or wait around like a vulture for something awful to happen.

And people say Joe Biden has no filter on his mouth.

[billybob537]

2. Becouse she is a carion eating despicable

Vulture, She'll use any excuse to avoid facing the truth. It's over she lost.

[Nickster]

3. Sound to me like someone got turned down for the VP spot

[w13rd0]

4. When was the last time a Republican candidate for the nomination...

...cited fears that the frontrunner would be assassinated? Dropping dead of old age or stupidity I can see...but assassination? Wow, when you thought new lows couldn't be reached...

[Writer]

5. Because she's not.

I'm sorry, put me on ignore if you like, but she wasn't referring to that.

She was remarking on the day that RFK won the Cal primary and essentially the Dem nomination - that happened to be in June. The same month that her husband won his in 1992.

[IndependentDem]

6. then why even mention the assassination?

i understand the primary references but the point could have been made without mentioning the assassination.

[Poll_Blind]

9. I, too, am admittedly stuck on her intentional inclusion of that point. n/t

PB

[Writer]

13. How can you refer to that night without referring to his assasination?

[Poll_Blind]

15. Actually, she has brought this up previously and judiciously avoided the...

...mention of the assassination. It caused a stir, choice of examples and all, but her intentional inclusion of that point has many (including myself) offended and very sour, considering her vocal courting of the “working, hard working, White American” and the grim realities of racism in Kentucky as depicted by interviews there.

PB

[Writer]

18. Look, your narrative is your narrative.

You have chosen the plot points that have affected you the most in order to construct this narrative.

I do not, as someone who views the world through a different set of goggles, read your narrative the same way. I find this insinuation to be irrational and somewhat hysterical. To imply that Clinton suggested that someone should kill Obama so that she can have the nomination is simply off the wall. If that's the case, I assume that she was implying that her husband should have been assassinated in 1992, as well.

We don't agree. We will not agree. And I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to leave it there.

[Poll_Blind]

21. We agree on that lat point. I thank you for the discourse, such as it was, because it...

..is still valuable in some context.

PB

[IndependentDem]

26. how has she done it in the past?

this isn't the first time she has made this argument. Why did she include the assassination this time and not the others? I am not accusing Clinton of suggesting that someone should kill Obama... i just don't understand why she added it to her argument this time.

[bunnies]

7. Wrong. Read the transcript

This is the most important job in the world. It’s the toughest job in the world. You should be willing to campaign for every vote. You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere. I think it’s an interesting juxtaposition where we find ourselves and you know, I have been willing to do all of that during the entire process and people have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa and I find it¬¬-

EB: Why? Why?

I don’t know I don’t know I find it curious because it is unprecedented in history. I don’t understand it and 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.

EB: You don’t buy the party unity argument?

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 around the middle of June

EB: June

We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. Um you know I just I don’t understand it. There’s lots of speculation about why it is.

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080523/UPDATES/80523037/1001/NEWS

[Poll_Blind]

8. I'm not going to put you on Ignore for that. At least you have an angle.

  Now I ask you, Writer, do you genuinely believe that her brining this example up twice instead of any other...any other...shows good judgment?

  Even from your point of view, do you believe it shows good judgment? If so, would you care to elaborate why you feel it shows good judgement?

PB

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. It is the only way she can win the nomination at this point n/t

[Poll_Blind]

22. .

:scared:

PB

[Bucky]

11. The real reason is *not* assassination; it's that a greenhorn like Obama might say something stupid.

Someone that inexperienced may not be able to handle the fatigue of a grueling campaign and then may, in his desperation, say or do something rash that could cost us dearly or even become painfully divisive among the party faithful.

[bunnies]

12. Say something stupid like Hillary just did?

Oh the irony.

[Poll_Blind]

14. That just seems like far too much of a reach to be convincing. n/t

PB

[Growler]

16. Most bizarre rationalization I've read today

Goodbye!

[Bucky]

17. You don't get sarcasm, do you?

[Poll_Blind]

19. In a time such as this one when her supporters are LIKELY to make...

...statements like yours, I might ask you consider the inclusion of the sarcasm icon. If wit is 9/10ths good timing then sarcasm is 9/10ths context. And in this context, in the context of this place, your comment it likely to be read by many as a serious one.

PB

[Bucky]

20. I'll take that as a "no"

[kenny blankenship]

23. As long as she stays in someone COULD assassinate Obama, making her the nominee-presumptive

Can't win if you don't play. Can't benefit from an assassination if you aren't there to catch the body.

There's also the angle in which this plays as intimidation of the superdelegates: the longer this drags out with insane legal challenges etc. the higher tensions rise and the MORE UNSTABLE the game becomes. This is to remind SDs that as Hillary Clinton presses her psychotic claim to the nomination on the basis that she'll blow up the party if she doesn't get it, ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN. A deranged supporter might decide to remove Senator Obama from her path. Easily frightened SDs may want to avoid the spiraling levels of conflict they now foresee, and the possible eruption of full scale madness at the Convention and perhaps even the assassination scenario, by just knuckling under to Hillary now rather than later. Hillary supporters would be very happy to label that as the Super Delegates "voting their conscience." I think the SDs would be very unwise to appease blackmailers in this way, but they may be persuaded that a little cowardice now will buy them peace and save them frayed nerves later. That is a rough inventory of the emaciated and diseased "hope" that Hillary has left.

[Poll_Blind]

24. Great analysis! This is, again, an example of the kind of politics she plays.

  All politics, I suppose, is abhorrent in some moral vacuum. But this kind of politics is beneath her as a person, as a Democratic politician, and as a Democrat.

PB

[invictus]

25. The Clintons are slime! n/t