She is Disgusting

WillYourVoteBCounted

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-25-08 06:39 PM
Original message

She is Disgusting

There was no need for her to bring up 1968
The example was historically inaccurate.

What more do the Super Delegates need in order to stop further damage to the Democratic party?

Marty Peretz The New Republic May 25

Maybe Hillary Clinton doesn't remember.
But there were three candidates in the 1968 race for the Democratic nomination
for president. One of them was Hubert Humphrey, the then-serving vice president
and the ultimate designee. Another was Eugene McCarthy, who the week before the California
primary won the Oregon contest quite handsomely and was still a real
contender. And, of course, there was Robert F. Kennedy, a charismatic leader who was assassinated --
dare I remind you? --by a Palestinian
nationalist, Sirhan Sirhan. (Just look at any of the thousands of entries
on Google for Sirhan's own explanation for the killing. RFK was, to
tell the truth, the first victim of Palestinian terrorism.)

In any case, the candidate with the most delegates, even after Bobby
narrowly won the California race, was Humphrey, and the fact is that
McCarthy was still very much a contender. But given the murky realities of
the contest, the one and only reason for Hillary to allude Kennedy's death
was to raise the specter of Obama's death. Like reminding us that her
support came from hard-working white Americans. And his from shiftless and
lazy black Americans, no doubt.

My she is disgusting.

Remember when Rachel Maddow said we better start believing that Hillary means
what she says? And Eugene Robinson said it too. So what IS Hillary's point?

The Fallacy of Clinton's 1968 Analogy

May 24, 2008 Jake Tapper ABC

...the timeline doesn't square because the first real contest in 1992 was the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 18. (No one competed in Iowa because Harkin was so favored.) This year's contests began on Jan. 3, 2008. Meaning this race started earlier than ever. Bill Clinton competing in June then is more like her competing in April today.

And that makes the 1968 analogy all the more inapt. Because the first contest that year, the New Hampshire primary, was on March 12, 1964.

Meaning, the fact that it was still going on in June then would be like this year's race still going on in March.

But that doesn't even really begin to explain how the 1968 comparison is ludicrous.

...Clinton went on in that same editorial board meeting with the Argus Leader to say "I have, perhaps, a long enough memory that many people who finished a rather distant second behind nominees go all the way to the convention. I remember very well 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, where some who had contested in the primaries, you know, were determined to carry their case to the convention."

Let's review: 1980 -- Republican wins; 1984 -- Republican wins; 1988 -- Republican wins; 1992 -- Democrat wins; but doesn't reach 50 percent of the vote and is only victorious, in all likelihood, because of the third-party candidacy of H. Ross Perot.*

...more at the link

She is Disgusting

There was no need for her to bring up 1968The example was historically inaccurate.