Hillary Invokes Assassination

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

I have already put up a couple of posts on the words Hillary uttered a few days ago from her interview in South Dakota. Since her non-apology apology, there has been a lot of spinning going on trying to explain away what she said, trying to paint it as people taking what she said out of context, getting hysterical over nothing, and distorting her meaning. I say hogwash. Her meaning was clear to anyone who watched and heard what she said. Speaking only for myself, I was stunned and did not need to read anyone else’s response to come to my own conclusion.

(Previous posts on TheZoo of Hillary’s interview and Olbermann’s Special Comment)

The media keeps referring to this as a ‘gaffe’. A gaffe to me implies misspeaking, a stumbling, or a mistake. What I didn’t know at the time was that it was not the first time she had said this. This was not misspeaking, nor was it a mistake. Perhaps a total ‘misjudgment’ or miscalculation, but certainly not misspeaking. (As her “Bosnia ‘sniper’ incident” was not ‘misspeaking). It was a total calculation.

She should not be let off the hook this time and allowed to have this incident be swept under the rug or merely brushed aside. This was serious, and it shows a tremendous flaw in her character that has to be taken seriously. So, even though I have already posted on this, I think it is important to keep talking about it. I will continue to post the thoughts of people whose opinions I respect.

So, onto the post by Marjorie Cohn.

Hillary Invokes Assassination

by Marjorie Cohn

For weeks, pundits have speculated about why Hillary Clinton insists on remaining in the primary race when Barack Obama has all but clinched the Democratic presidential nomination. On Friday, Clinton answered that question. It appears she’s waiting in the wings for something dreadful to befall Obama.

Continue reading


Say anything…

By Eugene Robinson, Truthout

This is the best explanation I’ve found for Hillary Clinton’s inexplicable behavior in this campaign — behavior that, if Barack Obama were doing something similar, would have Hillary howling with rage and indignation.

Commentators trying to discern Hillary Clinton’s endgame strategy have posited any number of wheels-within-wheels scenarios worthy of a spy novel. The simple truth has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with instinct: Keep moving forward until you drop.

It’s not that she’s making a calculated play for the vice presidency or trying to set herself up for another campaign in 2012 or 2016. To those who know her, it’s that she really wants to be president, and that she has come tantalizingly close, and that she’s going to keep moving toward that goal even if there’s no obvious way to reach it. At this point, her campaign is about getting to tomorrow, and then getting to the next day, and then getting to the day after that.

Long ago, the Clinton campaign took to heart the Talking Heads’ advice to “stop making sense.” Back in January, the campaign’s position was that amassing delegates was the only true measure of who was winning the nomination. But when Barack Obama surged ahead in the tally of pledged delegates, winning 11 primaries and caucuses in a row, the Clinton brain trust started making a case for “the popular vote” as the most reliable indicator of the party’s wishes.

Does an aggregate count of votes mean anything when some states held closed primaries in which only registered Democrats could participate, some states held open primaries where independents and/or Republicans could also vote, and some states held caucuses that basically involved a show of hands in gymnasiums and community centers?

It means nothing. But the Clinton campaign has found a way to claim that if for some reason you did this ridiculous exercise of lumping together apples, oranges and bowling balls, and finally came up with two numbers, hers would be greater than Obama’s. Since Obama now leads substantially in both pledged delegates and superdelegates – and since he has enormous leads in fundraising and the number of states won – the spurious “popular vote” metric is all that Clinton has. So she’s playing the hand she was dealt.

Keep reading →

What was she thinking?!

The Huffington Post:

Clinton Kennedy Assassination Reference: Raises Bobby’s Death To Explain Why She Stays In Race

Hillary Clinton’s argument for staying in the race took a disturbing turn today. While meeting with the editorial board of South Dakota’s Sioux Falls Argus-Leader, she raised the specter of assassination while discussing why she would stay in the race:

“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. I don’t understand it.

What was she thinking?? I am not even going to type out the first thing that popped into my head when I heard this. Its too terrible to even suggest out loud.

I can’t believe she did this. Nothing is ever said in these campaigns by accident, especially given that this was a taped interview.

I know she has apologized, but she got it out there first.


For responses to her comments, go here.

UPDATE: Here is Hillary clarifying her comments:

Last Minute Fact-Checker- May 20, Oregon, Kentucky

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

The end is near, but there is still voting to be done. It’s primary day again and for those of you who are still undecided, here is an update on our “Last-Minute-Fact-Checker”. The fight was a pretty nasty one and it looks like it seamlessly enters the the general election. So much for a break. I do not envy the Democratic candidate.

The fact checker is set up as a completely neutral and unbiased collection of links. We have the same information from the same sources for both candidates. This is purely for your information. If you are wondering about a voting record, about biographical data, campaign finances, you can have a quick look here, so you can make an informed choice today at the polls. Invest an hour on getting informed, it’s a good investment, you may have to live with your choice for four or more years.

All information is obtained at Project votesmart (Who is votesmart?Click here for more info.), I only did some of the browsing for you and arranged a couple of quick links. You find still more there, if you want to. Now, hit it!

Links update:


Links update II:


Barack Obama


Voting Record

Campaign Finances as a Senator, as a Presidential Candidate

Interest Groups Ratings

Political Courage Test

Hillary Rodham Clinton:


Voting Record: this is nicely categorized and you can choose individual topic, that your want the voting record for.

Campaign Finances as a Senator, as a Presidential Candidate: links to “opensecrets.org”

Interest Groups Ratings: sorted just the way the voting record is for easy comparability.

Political Courage Test

“Europeanview” wishes you all a happy day and successful voting!

Huge Obama rally in Portland

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

I was driving over the Marquam (I-5) Bridge about 3:30 this afternoon and saw an enormous crowd at Waterfront Park. “What the hell is that?” I muttered to myself. Not Cinco de Mayo, too late. Not the Rose Festival, too early. It was packed. WTF?

75,000 people turned out to hear Barack Obama speak, in the last days before the Oregon primary votes are counted. 75,000?!

Charlie Burr, over at BlueOregon, has the story along with a video.

Obama has a huge Problem? Codswallop – McCain has!

What utter nonsense! CNN and other media are going on about how Barack Obama is having a huge problem with white working class voters. When will they start to report on the massive problem John McCain has with Republican voters?

If you look at the Republican primaries there is one striking fact: Even after being the presumptive nominee, John McCain has never once won a primary without his opponents getting a sizeable amount of votes. He never once topped 79% and his opponents (except Ron Paul) have long since stopped campaigning and dropped out of the race three months ago. As recently as Tuesday when largely uncommented by the media West Virginia held Republican Primaries, too, Mike Huckabee received as much as 10% of the vote. In pennsylvania Huckabee got 11% and Ron Paul 16%!

McCain is far from undisputed by his base obviously.

Hillary Clinton’s strength with white blue collar voters does not translate into a weakness of Senator Obama on a 1:1 basis, because his opponent will not be Hillary Clinton. The General election is a new race. And Hillary Clinton owes it to the Democratic Party and their nominee to exert her influence on ‘her’ base when she campaigns for Barack Obama for the Presidency.

To spin a loss against a valid, still running candidate in one state with adverse demographics into a huge problem with Obama’s voter base, however, is bosh, bunkum, piffle, poppycock – you name it.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Appalachia for Clinton

On Monday, the Daily Kos published a fascinating piece by DHinMI on the distribution of precincts that voted heavily for Clinton, and their association with Appalachia. The maps provided can be enhanced now with the voting from West Virginia, which fits very neatly into the paradigm. Lots of comments there and at Washington Monthly.

It’s well worth reading, especially in conjunction with the maps provided.

First, let’s define how we’ll be using “Appalachia.” In the 1960’s, one out of three people in Appalachia lived poverty, per capita income was 23% lower than the national average, and the region was rapidly losing population. In 1963 the Appalachian Regional Commission was created by Congress and President Kennedy to address the problems in the area highlighted in the map. Since the 1960’s counties near Atlanta, Huntsville AL and Pittsburgh have become wealthier much more developed. But much of the region remains well below national standards in most measures of economic and social well-being.

The ethnic and cultural character of this part of the country has been more static since the 19th century than anyplace in America. Outside of some of the new growth areas north of Atlanta or Huntsville, or in some of the college towns, most of the people in Appalachia trace their heritage back to immigrants from the borderlands of Northern Britain who began settling the region over 200 years ago. Outside of the Northern part of Appalachia—Pennsylvania in particular—relatively few Eastern or Southern Europeans from the great waves of immigration that started in the 1880’s have moved in to the area. It’s the most homogeneous region in America. The region is home to few Catholics, and is heavily Baptist and Methodist.

In the 19th century, migrants from Appalachia moved west. People from Appalachia settled and put their stamp on the Ozark region of Missouri and Arkansas, on Okalahoma and the southern Plains, on North Texas, and eventually they were a big part of the initial growth of Southern California.