Clinton Still In Race Because Obama Might Be Assassinated
May 24th, 2008As you know, I make an attempt to block out “news” related to the meaningless Selection. However, there was no avoiding this one. Many of my feeds were polluted with this story, as well as my inbox. Sorry to inflict it upon you again, as I’m sure you’ve already seen it a thousand times over already, but this one was remarkably nuts. A rare moment of clarity from that creature.
Via: AP:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton quickly apologized Friday after citing the June 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as a reason to remain in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination despite increasingly long odds.
“I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever,” the former first lady said.
The episode occurred as Clinton campaigned in advance of the June 3 South Dakota primary.
Responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race, she said: “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don’t understand it,” she said, dismissing the idea of abandoning the race.
Clinton said she didn’t understand why, given this history, some Democrats were calling for her to quit.
Her remark about an assassination during a primary campaign drew a quick response from aides to Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama.
“Senator Clinton’s statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.
Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said the senator was only referring to her husband and Kennedy “as historical examples of the nominating process going well into the summer and any reading into it beyond that would be inaccurate and outrageous.”
Even so, Clinton decided within a couple of hours to make a personal apology.
Okay, so Hilary is staying in the race because that “guy Obama is going to be assassinated anyways.” Nice. Not.
But it was said and so, it does reveal the mindset of Hilary.
Twisted (and I would have written twisted sister but Clinton doesn’t even deserve the recognition of sisterhood from me so I just write twisted).
But I wonder, is Clinton really twisted, or just knows that political assassinations are part of the “game?”
I think she knows they are part of the game and can’t believe she opened her mouth about it.
Nonetheless, I’ve heard some really bizarre stories of women ranting against the drive for Hilary calling it quits.
All kinds of nutso fruitcake statements that I can’t believe find the airtime.
I really don’t think it matters who wins the Presidency – whoever does is going to inherit not only 8 years of Bush but 16 years of Clinton and Reagan.
The U.S. is bankrupt. So charge forth candidates.
If you want to preside over the unraveling I say be my guest.
As for Hilary. I think she is meaner than a cold frost on a spring morning that wilts and kills young seedlings.
You know how raging hormones effect a young teenager, well, with women (and I only say this because I am learning this VERY well about myself) as women get older we experience raging hormone withdrawal. I’m 53 and wished I had known what I know now 10 years ago. Hormone withdrawal and imbalance deluxe. Raging hormone withdrawal effects everything from thyroid, to adrenal, etc.
It affects bones, blood pressure, thyroid, adrenal, mental status. Men go through this as well but not as extensively as women. Ah, I think men get the better rush early on.
In any case, I for one would not want a woman in the White House who did not go to a holistic healer to have her hormones checked and replaced with bioidentical hormones. Otherwise her mind would be influenced by Lack Of.
Hilary I think is out of balance, things said more often than not require apology. Not thinking right. Obama might be too. I think they are all nuts for wanting to be President.
But this statement from Hilary sounds to me like she needs some REAL HELP. Healing. She is obviously sick. Goddess bless her with healing.
“I really don’t think it matters who wins the Presidency – whoever does is going to inherit not only 8 years of Bush but 16 years of Clinton and Reagan. The U.S. is bankrupt. So charge forth candidates.If you want to preside over the unraveling I say be my guest.”
That is a good point, Eileen. Whoever becomes the next president is going to be inheriting onehelluva shitstorm. What idiot would want the job?
hi kevin,
as i was clicking on my link to visit here i was just betting you were reluctantly running this RFK thing. i’m glad you did and i’m equally glad -and unsurprised -you qualified it as you did.
i’m 53 myself, but i’ll let that and hormones go.
here’s my take on it: i’m not surprised. she needs to keep pulling excuses for staying in out of *somewhere*. needs to because -well, i went out on a limb some time ago saying (on the agonist) she had it ‘in the bag’. done deal. that she had the “ok” from the proverbial backroom powers that be. not as a shortcut to thinking either. there’d been tons of smart pontificating on this horse race, but it seemed like microscopic analysis to me, tunnel vision. here’s my thing; betting i’m wrong. see, it seems like the system ain’t none at all; a totally rigged deck as far as voting goes. but the facade matters. so it seems like whomever can convince TPTB they’ll best The Purpose gets the coveted ‘OK’. hey, it could change. but it seems like that’s what it’s all about; from Obama’s dissing the net roots to clinton’s ‘we could obliterate iran’ and then this -and absolutely everything mccain says. none of any of what these candidates say or do is aimed at *any* voter but some higher powers. and their talk is less cloaked each day. -it just simply appears this way. to me. and each day seeming more so. i hope i’m wrong but unsure why; like bill moyers says we are indeed at the point where all bets are off. time to quit patching the motor with duct tape and do an overhaul from the crank on up. in my humble opinion. i also wish i didn’t feel this way because yeah, i’d love to be a smart and clever pontificater too!
(but i am one of those tin foil hat folks. i’ll admit it. i’m expecting unmarked choppers to be running out tags and whatnot any day now. i’m even considering visiting some of alex jones sites sites at this point.)
ya wanna know who would want the job of prez? i submit a total power junkie would. that is to say, a ton of professional pols… what i wonder is why kucinich ran, because i don’t know that he necessarily fits that description. (not that it matters as far as this race goes, but liking him, i’m still keeping my eye on him.)
okey, going much further offtopic here, forgive me:
this whole thing of power addiction, and the concentrated power of the job, and our lost involvement has led me to spewing a lot about about telegovernance as much and as dumb as i’d been going on about hillary. i even wrote kevin kelly asking what he thought (because total selfgovernance is sooo wishful thinking and farfetched) and he asserted affirmatively with a simple yes (as if he’d say no?) and so on -but, it’s now appearing slowly like others are thinking roughly on the same lines -as if for one thing there is only a narrow of time to consider it before the internets tubes go down… ralph nader of all people, talking about Google of all companies:
Can the Company Break the Political Gridlock?
A Trip Inside Google
By RALPH NADER
Clearly technology and information by themselves do not produce beneficial change. That depends on how decentralized political, economic and social power is exercised in a corporate society where the few decide for the many.
I left Google hoping for a more extensive follow-up conversation, grounded in Marcus Cicero’s assertion, over 2000 years ago, that “Freedom is participation in power.” That is what connects knowledge to beneficial action, if people have that freedom.
I hope my discussions with the Google staff produced some food for thought that percolates up the organization to Google’s leaders.
More
Quixotic.
That is my own summation of my interest in telegovernance. ‘Seemingly quixotic’ is how I might qualify it.
A recent article (The Uphill Battle Submitted by davidswanson) by Cindy Sheehan carried this quote: “A man may fulfill the object of his existence by asking a question he cannot answer, and attempting a task he cannot achieve.” -Oliver Wendell Holmes
If that doesn’t epitomize the quixotic spirit, I don’t know what does.
Freedom and self-governance too may well embody it, but no matter; Life itself may as well. Like ‘life itself’, the prize is worth the challenge.
Then we come now to Google and Ralph Nader. Mr. Nader raises a good point. Say what we may about either he or Google, his point is salient, and soundly pertinent. Certainly this article dovetails in with the topic of telegovernance, mayhap even slightly begins to coalesce some cogency to it. But Google?
This whole topic of ‘telegovernance’, so barely there to begin with, just might here now have the slimmest foothold of a beginning to being reasonably mulled over for a nanosecond. A morsel of food for continued thought.
***
and so on. thank you for yours and everyone else’s forebearance with my bluesky stuff. it may be as dopey as hillary’s stuff but it’s positive. and an idea of some sort. god knows we need ideas floated. i know, i know, there’s all sorts of things that float…
john
You’re being very humane towards that women, Eileen.
Sadly, she was always a nasty piece of work – we can see that from her early 90s persona.
She’s always reminded me somewhat of Margaret Thatcher – another vicious icemaiden. Incidentally, Maggie became quite unhinged towards her final months in office – famously announcing, at the birth of her grandchild “WE are a grandmother” – appropriating the Royal “We” to herself.
The thing I resented about Thatcher and her tory toyboys wasn’t their policies per se (which caused much suffering) but the fact that they clearly enjoyed implementing them. The destruction of the economy of Northern England was just a bit of a laugh to those creatures.
And soon, it seems, they’ll return to power in England – their mission: make Tony Blair look good.
Yes Kevin, let’s try to tune it out. Not easy though.
B
Oops; sorry, hit “RETURN”. Crap. One more thing:
This is the second time that Hilary made this comment – she said it previously, on March 6th, making a lie of her statement that “Ted Kennedy was on my mind”.
What is it with these people and lying?
Yes H. Clinton was always a nasty piece of work. And I’d agree with Zuma above, that she’s still hanging around because she’s the “agreed candidate” for the powers that be, and yes, the facade still does matter.
She’s the candidate for the Israeli/Zionist/Neo Con lobby, call them what you will. They also have their money on the other side with McCain so figure they can’t lose. I could see Lieberman being drafted in as VP for either.
Much as Obama might try to kiss Israeli ass, (the prime directive for an American politician), they’ll never trust him. His middle name is Hussein, and he was seen wearing a turban once. That’s only window dressing though, he’s outside the Pale.
Anyway, a political assassination would be small change to these folk, they were capable of much bigger charades in New York a few years ago with some planes. Maybe they could tie some of their loose ends together and blame it all on Iran or Syria.
What’s Dov Zakheim up to these days?
Also, Dermot, this is indeed the second time Clinton had made reference to Robert Kennedy and assassination, but if you count members of her team’s comments, then it’d the third reference to a Kennedy assassination. On January 8th, someone introducing her at a speech, compared Obama to JFK.
Here’s the link from The Houston Chronicle, and I’ll paste a small bit in below
http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=desperado&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3AdesperadoPost%3A74fbb4da-744e-4c98-b0b4-cd4ed26229bc
“If you look back, some people have been comparing one of the other candidates to JFK, and he was a wonderful leader. He gave us a lot of hope,” the retired teacher said. “But he was assassinated, and Lyndon Baines Johnson actually did all of his work and got both the Republicans and Democrats to pass those measures.”
How do those of you who claim Hillary was just making a historical reference explain that away? Saying that “people have been comparing one of the other candidates to JFK”? How can that be construed to be anything other than a direct correlation to Barack Obama?
The day after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries Hillary made this comment:
“Sometimes you gotta calm people down a little bit. But if you look at successful presidential campaigns, my husband did not get the nomination until June of 1992,” she said. “I remember tragically when Senator Kennedy won California near the end of that process.”
That is almost word for word what she said yesterday. However she did have the good sense not to include the word “assassination” on that occasion. Still, the inference is clear.
Then yesterday Hillary repeated virtually the same thing she said then without omitting the A-word:
“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”
Following the uproar over her remarks yesterday Hillary issued a lame excuse as an apology that really wasn’t an apology:
“I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever.”
I don’t read the words “I’m sorry” in there anywhere. In my opinion, her intentions were crystal clear, to say that she needs to stay in the race in case some tragedy befalls Barack Obama.