It's the whole June thing to me

[Condem]

There's no comparison between 1968 & 2008's primary calendar. 1992 is not even close, either. Everything has been drawn up for a quick ending. Didn't happen. For Clinton to make the Kennedy reference is inane, yes. But I think her argument for going into June is more so.

[Avalux]

1. Bill Clinton had the nomination sewn up way before June.

She was looking for a way to explain why she should stay in until June, so she stretched the truth about her husband and brought up Kennedy. Whether it was intentional or not, she really screwed up.

[Condem]

3. no doubt, sparosnare

Back in 68 in California, that primary was HUGE. Like Super Tuesday, today. Kennedy changed the momentum that day. Alas.

[keep_it_real]

2. But what you fail to see is that she did not have to say,

"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

In the context of what she was saying she could have said,

"We all remember Bobby Kennedy won the California primary in June."

But she deliberately injected the statement about assassination to inspire that in some crazy fanatic.

[Condem]

7. keep

I realize how inane her statement is (in my post), however, I'm questioning her whole point for still being in the race. This led to her ill-timed comment. Todays race is nothing like 68. My point.

[sandnsea]

13. There's no reason, zero

Except the pundit rumors that she's been telling the supers "something might happen" with Obama's campaign.

[JerseygirlCT]

4. Yeah, but believable (that she would try to make it, that is)

She's been making strange arguments, using all sorts of strange math and rules changes, all the way along. Whatever she thinks will make her chances look better, they come out with it as the new and only way to look at things.

So I can totally see her disregarding the very real differences between say 1992 and today.

Why in the world would she bring assasination into it though? That part totally boggles the mind.

[Condem]

14. Not a smart thing, Jersey

To see her try to explain it, she knew she fucked up.

[Window]

5. See the following thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6100274

[Condem]

9. Nail, window!

[patrice]

6. And that odd reference to CA: Bill's nom in June > CA > RFK ?????????? WTF???????

CA has already had their primary.

The logic is like soft clay; she's very tired.

[Condem]

10. Patrice

That's the point. It's a different deal now. To bring up 1968 is a mistake in itself, let alone RFK.

[patrice]

17. I held out hope for her for a while. All she needed to do for me was talk straight about the IWR.

But the Bosnia stories really made me worry. Now this utter disregard for any problem with references to assasination and apparently it wasn't the first time.

She WANTS out, that's what that kind of carelessness means. She knows it's over and she wants out. It's a very dangerous situation for the Party to have someone that powerful and that mixed-up going around saying such schizoid stuff.

[Condem]

20. Patrice

It is a tough deal. Most politicians lie ( I'm hoping Obama is the exception). I truly think that she thought she had this wrapped up last October. What has happened since- she never visioned.

[patrice]

22. It IS sad how she let those bastards take her, probably thought she could play their game better

than they can. Problem is that her advisors and strategists never really engaged with Hillary the person, so whatever she thought she was working with WASN'T what she was working with = one f-d up campaign.

I don't expect Obama to be perfect. I figure the People are at least 50% of whatever happens now and that's what I'm in it for - local Grassroots.

[Condem]

25. A fuckin ton of bad advice, patrice

Starting in Iowa, which is where I is. She is a tremendous force led astray. SAD!

[patrice]

29. They SHOULD have let her talk to us STRAIGHT about that vote on the IWR.

There were lots of explanations, some of them reasonable, but it is hard to get beyond the distinct possibility that she supported something like a 50:50 chance of the worst things on Earth happening, because she planned to run for pResident and THAT vote was the dues to the candidate club. She wouldn't come clean about it and that was a rejection of a whole big bunch of people who Obama then scooped up.

Yes, what he did was a calculation too (you can't get into a position to do anything about some things if you ruin your chances too soon.) That was the same type of calculation as hers, but while hers was a bid for Neo-Cons and their Slaves, Obama's was a bid for a different constituency = US.

[Rene]

23. obama is NOT the exception. read articles in www.attacktimeline.com

to see the rotten campaign obama has run from more than a year ago. very snaky like Lee Atwater or karl rove....very nssty back stabbing. obama's a coward and an empty suit...waifer thin resume and has hidden under his desk if he ever appears for his current job. 120 PRESENT votes where he can't or won't decide YES/NO

[Condem]

27. I take it you're not voting for him , Rene?

[patrice]

30. The Present Vote is a technical maneuver used to keep from killing a bill

you might support if certain aspects of it were re-worked. A Present vote is like a "Maybe". It tells other legislators that you don't like a bill but are willing to work on it if it fails and goes back to committee. If you vote Present and a bill passes, you and your technical problems with the bill are out of luck, so depending upon how much a legislator supports a given bill, or does not want to see it succeed, use of the Present vote requires a thorough understanding of where the bill is in the regards to who else is for or against it in the voting body.

I know none of that matters to some people, who really just want to go around telling lies rather than actually trying to understand something like being neutral or voting maybe on a bill.

[Bucky]

15. Sure, it seems random. But have you ever looked at a transcript of your own words?

The words that come out don't always precisely convey the complex thinking and random associations that go into forming them. Clinton must certainly have been thinking through to the major nomination fights that have shaped her life up till now. RFK was murdered in the fullness of his promise (so tragic that we all forget the fact that Humphrey pretty much had the nomination numerically sewn up by June). Her husband, to a large extent, was a fulfillment of that same promise. Democrats have, in so many ways, been waiting for the return of Bobby ever since that scarring year of 1968. Clinton, no doubt, sees herself as a continuation of Bobby's promise and tradition. You could tell RFK's endorsement meant so much to her.

The Clinton tragedy just gets sadder and sadder, if not quite so painful as the tragic arc that the Kennedy family has gone through. I was pulling for her opponent, but I could never ever really take solice in the defeat of Hillary Clinton. She's given her life and her soul to this country. She's a decent woman who simply lost perspective in the last six months. I wish her out of the race, but I also wish her well.

[Condem]

16. One argument, Bucky

Kennedy's win in California changed the whole landscape of that race. It was His to win!

[Imagevision]

8. What the hell are these so called super-delegaters waiting for?!

[Condem]

21. Jun 4th, Image

[sandnsea]

11. That's right, no reason to bring up June at all

except to try to find a reason to toss in that little "anything can happen" scenario.

[Condem]

18. Today's media, sandnsea

It's probably easy to talk to some small editorial board in SD and think nothing of it. Then......

[cali]

12. Me too. It's the constant lying and misrepresentation

Kennedy's first primary that year was in May. He was killed less than two months after that. It was not a long campaign season. And you're right about 1992 as well.

[Condem]

19. Thanks, Cali

I kinda LOVE the Kennedys

[patrice]

31. me too. real sad about Ted.

[suston96]

24. How convenient to ignore the June primary in Puerto Rico where Hillary may add .....

...a few more hundred thousands to her popular total. And a good portion of the delegates.

[Condem]

26. Let me ask you somethin, suston

How does fuckin Puerto Rico have more delegates at stake than 18 of our own states???????

[suston96]

28. How does Puerto Rico what? Don't ask me. Ask the DNC. They make all the rules. LMAO!

Sorry, i didn't mean it. Couldn't resist. You know, the DNC rules? FL and MI? Couldn't resist.

But seriously. there is a huge population on that little island and many, many Democrats.