<p>Kluge is WORSE than a klutz! Anyone who invokes the third rail of American politics (our nation’s despicable history of assassinating her leaders…) as did HRC is not fit to lead this country. Idiots like Kluge should be resoundingly rebuked for making light of it!</p>
<p>Shame on you!</p>
<p>Perhaps, Marite. </p>
<p>But if you would have mentioned that race to me, particularly as it was very competitive right to the end, the salient feature that would have leaped to the front of my mind would have been that it ended with the death of RFK. </p>
<p>It was clumsy…in as much as it was a real downer to bring it up. A very bad time; but one would have to have quite a martyr’s complex to believe it was in any way related to her opponent in this race. Does she want him dead? Is this evidence of racism? I can’t quite tie it in to Barack as a candidate, even if I can to the tragic hero in someone’s end-time fantasy.</p>
<p>Again, I believe it has more to do with the myths, symbols and feelings of some of Barack’s supporters, than Barack himself. I think Barack would agree. He’s deeper than all that; I am sure of at least this. He wants to be president, not the tragic-hero that embodies everyone’s hopes and feelings.</p>
<p>This kurfuffle does him no good at all. It makes him appear small and weak. He is not.</p>
<p>Woodwork. Hmmmmmmmm. Where to begin. First, HRC’s remark was more than just clumsy. It was outrageous. That it was not the FIRST time she has uttered such nonsense is clear to everyone.</p>
<p>Worse, to suggest that HRC’s major gaffe somehow makes Obama look weak (in light of the Obama campaign’s just decision to stay out of such quicksand) is just bizarre!</p>
<p>The context doesn’t justify the remark. The democrats lost the White House in 1968 because of party disunity – as exemplified by the shambles of the 1968 Chicago convention, with rioting in the streets, and the severe rancor between supporters of Gene McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey, as well as the perception that Humphrey had been nominated due to a process that favored party insiders at a time when only a handful of states held primaries. </p>
<p>So if anything 1968 stands as a shining example of why it is very bad for the party to have their nominee unresolved late in the process. Perhaps if RFK had lived the party could have united behind him, perhaps not – but the one thing those of us who remember that election know for sure is that it was not a good year for our party.</p>
<p>Thank you, Calmom, for unbridled clarity and context to the historical importance of 1968. You are a breath of fresh air amidst the stench of idiots!</p>
<p>Poetsheart, in answer to your question in post #40, I think that at the time of the California primary, there was a very close and hard fought contest for delegates between RFK and HHH. I think Humphrey had the lead in pledged delegates before the primary, but not a lock; and I think that it was a winner-take-all primary in those days, so it represented a huge victory for RFK, probably enough to propel him toward the nomination. I’m relying on memory (I was 14 years old at the time) … I’ll see if I can fact check & post an update if I am mistaken in any detail.</p>
<p>OK, it looks like I’ve got it about right – here is what Wikipedia says:
[Hubert</a> Humphrey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Humphrey]Hubert”>Hubert Humphrey - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>
Keith Olbermann should have stuck to what he knows best - Los Angeles sports.</p>
<p>Despite the facts around the comment, it makes you wonder what her line of thinking is. </p>
<p>Hillary just kissed any chance she’d get a veep invitation goodbye.</p>
<p>I understand that there are many that have a lot of themselves invested in the Campaign of Barack. That is one of the reasons why, I suppose, his original theme of “HOPE” so resonated with a swath of the American psyche. As did his book. But it is one thing to throw your coat over a mud puddle in front of him, but quite another to think that you need to carry him across.</p>
<p>It does him no good. </p>
<p>Once upon a time, throughout the character accusations raised against Barack by his opponents, everyone wanted to talk about the issues…unless they don’t.</p>
<p>Here, they don’t.
None the better for it.</p>
<p>UCBChemEGrad
I saw Olbermann and he was clear and cogent about HRC. You are correct that HRC has no shot at VEEP. Go Jim Webb!</p>
<p>Woodwork:</p>
<p>I am being very gentle toward HRC. It is well known that African-Americans have expressed fear that Obama might be the target of assassination attempts. RFK was not the only political figure to be assassinated. So was MLK. That he was not seeking the presidency is neither here nor there. The fears are known and not baseless. I take note that HRC apologized to the Kennedys but said nothing to or about Obama. It is inaccurate of her to say that RFK was on her mind because of Ted Kennedy’s recent news. She has made similar references to RFK and June before.</p>
<p>And I don’t see how HRC’s performance can be used as a pretext to criticize Obama. It has nothing to do with Obama (except that she did not see fit to apologize to him) and everything with her choice of words, timelines, and historical references.</p>
<p>What issues do you want CC posters to talk about? The delegate math? That’s what HCR had been going on and on about. Or the whopping $30 gas rebate? Hmm… I have not heard her on this topic for a while.</p>
<p>Marite, you are correct on every point EXCEPT in being gentle toward HRC. She has been desperate and pathetic for weeks and the media has fondled her with kit gloves because she’s a girl----not a good omen for women in the future aspiring to the presidency! HRC is brilliant and sadly blinded by her reckless ambition for power.</p>
<p>HRCs assassination comment wasn’t anywhere in the league of Mike Huckabee’s supposed “off-mic” remark.</p>
<p>I was being gentle in my original post, giving her the benefit of the doubt. But I’m being pushed into cataloging my reasons for not liking her.</p>
<p>Again, was it an unfortunate choice of words? Remember this is the so called smartest woman in politics? If she has come to realize finally she’s lost, how can she best set herself up for 2012 without expectations of full support to B.O. Secretly hoping he loses the general w/o blame for that lack of support he’ll need. Timing is everything and this gaffe could help her break away and leave B.O. to win it or lose it on his own?</p>
<p>I more or less agree, Marite. </p>
<p>Perhaps many of Barack’s supporters see him as a MLK-like figure. I do not. Barack could be president. MLK, great in his own way, never could.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, is someone suggesting that Hillary wants Obama dead by bringing up what appears to be the only other race amongst Democrats that would have any real parallel to the current race. Does it somehow follow that Obama should not get the nomination because people fear that there is a chance he could die before elected? I would understand if we were talking about McCain. :)</p>
<p>I think it was macabre for Hillary to put it this way (even thought the newspaper man she told it to saw nothing nefarious in her response), but clearly she sees herself in the RFK role, not Obama. So then, what is the sinister aspect?</p>
<p>I ask sincerely, as I seem to be too naive to get with the program.</p>
<p>I agree with Marite (post #50) and would also like to point out that Obama was given Secret Service protection early in the campaign - in May 2007 – precisely because of threats received and reported. Ordinarily, a candidate would not get Secret Service protection until much later in the process, although HRC already has the protection as the spouse of a former President. See:
[Obama</a> placed under Secret Service protection - CNN.com](<a href=“http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/03/obama.protection/index.html]Obama”>Obama placed under Secret Service protection - CNN.com)
[Obama</a> gets beefed-up protection - - Breaking News, Political News & National Security News - The Washington Times](<a href=“http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080107/NATION/415598644/1001]Obama”>http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080107/NATION/415598644/1001)
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/us/politics/25memo.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/us/politics/25memo.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin</a></p>
<p>TerpDad. HRC is finished in presidential politics. NY’s other senator (Schumer) has probably already DISCOURAGED her from running for governor any longer…How ironic that HRC has held the RFK seat and now may be a troubling footnote in American politics.</p>
<p>Woodwork:</p>
<p>I do not think that people are equating Obama with MLK. I certainly don’t. But I do think there is a real fear that “an uppity black male” would be the target of an assassination attempt. This is precisely why, as calmom reports, Obama got secret service protection early on during the campaign. HRC cannot possibly be unaware of this fear, and it was crass of her to stir it up.</p>
<p>I don’t see that HRC sees herself in the RFK role. The most benign interpretation of her words would be: “The electoral campaign was still going on in June; Remember RFK’s death? He’d just won the CA primary.” A less benign interpretation would be: “Anything can happen; and if it did, I’d be around to pick up the pieces.” Up until now, the “anything can happen” scenario involved Obama committing a major gaffe, having some major piece of dirt uncovered, and thus imploding. It looks, however, that it is HRC who is committing the gaffes. But I’ll stick by my original comment that, as gaffes go, this one is fairly minor. It does not deserve the tongue-lashing Olbermann administered.</p>
<p>Woodwork, think carefully about it: this is neither about Obama, nor his supporters. This is about an exhausted and brilliant presidential candidate choking on her own words AND demonstrating her crass thirst for absolute power in times of 100% sleep deprivation.</p>
<p>I will defer to the rest on this one. To my mind it seems overly conspiratorial and I can’t quite grasp Hillary’s angle, should there be one. It seems, to me, like more of a gaffe than a sinister attempt to steal away the nomination from Obama. </p>
<p>I tend to think people’s risky actions and comments are guided more by stupidity than conspiracy. </p>
<p>Sadly, mine are.</p>