Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (68177)	5/24/2008 9:45:12 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543314

Not that it "makes me sick"- but I think her explanation for why she said what she said makes sense. It was a stupid thing to say though. However, with Ted in the news so much, it's reasonable to see why she might think of other Kennedys- but it's unwise to talk about assassination in the midst of a race, especially when you're justifying why you are staying in, and your words can be taken to mean you are implying the other guy just might be killed. Try to imagine the opposite Mary. Try to imagine someone in the Obama camp saying something similar about Hillary. I suspect you'd be telling us it made you SICK that someone would say she should get out because she might be assassinated... Mary- all politicians makes mistakes, but part of what we "grade" candidates on is the kinds of mistakes they make while they are running. What if Hillary said something equally thoughtless about the leader of another country? Heck- I don't know how big a deal this is, and it isn't one to me, but it's another nail in her coffin in terms of her ability to speak without wiggling her toes in her mouth. AGAIN- if she's the dem nominee I'll still vote for her, but Mary, this WAS a mistake on her part.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (68177)	5/24/2008 11:41:23 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543314

That was all that Hillary wanted to contrast. The substance of that argument, the primaries were not over even in June, is mistaken because the primaries started so much later in 68. I've read June was only 3 months into the primary season. So the substantive argument she makes is a stretch. Not unlike the argument she makes about popular vote, big states, swing states, etc. She's clearly free to make such stretches but those who see them as stretches are free to point that out.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (68177)	5/24/2008 3:56:42 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543314

>>Robert F. Kennedy had just won the California primaries when he was assassinted on June 6, 1968. At the time of his assassination in June, he was still far behind Senator Humbert Humphrey's in delegate votes. There was no hint that he was going to gave the nomination to Humphrey's. That was all that Hillary wanted to contrast.<< Mary - I would say that far more people remember RFK's assassination than would remember what was going on in the presidential race when it happened. If she had said what you just did, it would have been fine. Then it would have been clear that she saw herself as being in RFKs position. (Of course, there's a big difference right now, since there are no big upcoming primaries, and she has no hope of overtaking Obama's lead in delegates.) There are plenty of other precedents to primary campaigns going on into June, and even all the way to the convention. She could have used one of those. The way she put it, it was wide open to a lot of negative interpretations, and the innocuous interpretation you put on it takes a lot of work to get to. Whatever she meant, what she said was still a huge gaffe. - Allen