Political Punch

Perot never helped Clinton at all in either election. Not only do the 1992 exit polls have Clinton and Bush both getting 38 percent of Perot's vote each without him in the race, it doesn't automatically mean that "Perot helping" was why Clinton wanted him in the debate, if thats even true. If that were true, it was likely to try to undercut perot, and win over his voter so he could win a bigger landslide than he already got.

Ag, you wrote: "(Sen. McCain) will honor the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy instead of easing the taxes of the middle class..."

You might want to do your homework instead of blindly believing the Liberal talking points. The 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts have actually eased the tax burden of the middle class. Not only were the bottom two tax rates of the federal income tax, 15% and 28%, lowered to 10% and 15%, respectively, but the per-child tax credit was doubled to $1,000.

And here is further proof. In 2000 the top 1% of the nations's wage earners accounted for 37% of the total income tax revenue; and the top 5% of the nation's wage earners accounted for 56% of the total income tax revenue. Yet by 2005 -- after the so called "tax cuts for the wealthy" -- the top 1% of the nation's wage earners accounted for 39% of the total income tax revenue; and the top 5% of the nation's wage earners accounted for 60% of the total income tax revenue. That is a 2% and 4% INCREASE, respectively, in their share of the total income tax revenue for those two groups. Incidentally also in 2005, the top 50% of the nation's wage earners accounted for 97% of the total income tax revenue. The lower 50% of the nation's wage earners were "burdened" with just 3% of the total income tax revenue.

It was already covered pretty extensivley in the Butler Report online.

I've never posted on a blog before in my life, but after the comments I've seen here I felt compelled to write. I'll put my bias out front: I am an Obama supporter. More than that, though, I am a Democrat who believes that we must do better.

Part of doing better means understanding the truth. There seem to be three misconceptions among the posters, two minor and one major.

1) Obama and the media are not one, nor are they always united. It was the media that whipped up this RFK frenzy; the Obama camp explicitly said that they, like many of his supporters, assumed the sinister reading of Hillary's remarks were unintended and forgave her. Also, we seem to have forgotten that it was just a few weeks ago that Obama was being skewered by this very same media for Reverend Wright and his "bitter" comments. I didn't notice many Hillary supporters complaining.

2) This bit about Obama "buying" the primary. Yes, Obama outspends Hillary, and yes, this gives him an advantage. However, the money he is spending is not money from lobbyists nor is it money from his own bank account (which is a good deal smaller than either Hillary's or McCain's). Obama's "money-making machine" is nothing more than people who believe in his message. Which brings us to the major misconception.

3) Hillary and McCain are not similar. Hillary and Obama are. Hillary and Obama both believe in ending the war in Iraq, fixing the health care and education systems, and improving the lives of the middle class. Unlike the Democratic candidates, John McCain will leave our troops in Iraq, will do nothing to fix our health care crisis, will honor the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy instead of easing the taxes of the middle class, and will probably appoint conservative Supreme Court judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade. Your call.

HRC is a sore looser and the GOP are a bunch of idiots with no voice. Just vote Libertarian.

It seems someone doesn't LIKE what I have to say considering my "contributions" are being deleted with regularity. (lol)

The fact is "Ed" isn't a Democrat at all. You can tell by the way he posts. He is clearly a professional blogger because ONLY THEY equate being taken to task for saying 2+2=5 with persecution. Well...at least SELLING the idea that it does.

All of these middle aged women need to get a life. I agree with one of the other comments about the judges. Do you want Rev. Hagee to be a part of the decision making process in selecting the next two judges? Quoting Obama, "None of us support abortion". Yet, if you chose McCain, that will set back women's rights about 50 years. So, think twice about taking out your sore loser attitude on a candidate who beat Hillary by taking the high road and following the rules. Bill and Hillary like to question all of the those people who want Hillary to get out. "No one asked Ted Kennedy to get out of the race in June ...", they like to say. Well Bill and Hillary, Ted didn't conduct a scorched earth political campaign to tear down the other democratic candidate (angling for a possible run in 2012). How does that bad hair band song from the 80's go, "[Hillary] Don't go away mad, just go away."?

HRC is a pathological liar - like her husband before her. She committed the ultimate Freudian slip and no amount of backtracking, vitriol, or media spin can change it.

Clinton lost the nomination because she ran a poorly organized campaign, was out-strategized, and out-funded.

It's time for people to stop making excuses for her deplorable behavior and Orwellian campaign tactics.

After reading the idiocy and the hatred directed at Hillary Clinton for pointing out the obvious, that Bill Clinton didn't wrap up his nomination until mid-June and that Bobby Kennedy was campaigning in June when he was assassinated, it is no wonder that so many people fell for George W Bush and his "uniter" garbage, or Ronald Reagans baloney that he could cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget by 1984.

I would love to think that it is just a bunch of otherwise sane folks getting a big head start on Memorial Day drinking, and that come Tuesday we will see folks sobering up and returning to the planet.

We can only hope.

The only way Clinton can win the popular vote is to count Florida and Michigan, two states where she had a brand name, no one campaigned in either state and Obama didn't even have his name on the ballot in Michigan. Believe me they won't count those votes, the delegates will be divided in parts and Obama will still have the deciding delgates. The bottom line is Clinton ran a bad campaign, Obama ran a good campaign, simple as that. The Clinton machine just wasn't what it was hyped to be, period.

Imagine picture: convention floor... vote for nominee... after Hillary won popular vote. Now, what all people who chanted in 2000 "every vote count" and "stolen election" could do? Vote Obama and get free pair of flip-flops (compliment of RNC)? Or is Barack angling for VP slot? You know, as a nominee he could loose GE. And after spending budget of small country to get nomination, he would end up as laughing stock. Or he just cannot work as hard as Hillary to get nominated?

What can I say about the Clintons in general, they are a decitful pair or politicians with no regard to class of ethics. All of you blogging on this site saying that you would never vote for Obama probably would not vote for Obama anyway, you are waisting good space. Of the women or men out there that are democrates I would give a little thought to a McCain presidency over Obama by one measure. One possibly two Supreme Court Justices will be picked by the next president. Do you really want more conservative justices on the court to overturn Roe vs Wade or many of the other long faught democratic issues. Think about that possibility before casting your vote.

You weren't there in '68 and you're wrong.

What I've truly found strange about this whole and continuing election process is the total disregard of what happened back in January, February, and March when the majority of states had their contests and Obama built his lead. Now the race after a see-saw April and May is at pretty much the same place it was two months ago with and here is the big point 3 and only 3 contests remaining. 51 of the 53 (just guessing) contests are done, tallied, and in the books. While the Clinton campaign wants to tell the American people something to the effect of "don't count your chickens before the eggs have hatched," isn't about time that we look and wonder what they possibly expect to happen when there are only three remaining unhatched eggs. I'm not looking to the future or the distant past I'm only looking at this year and thats where the nomination was won and lost.

Correct thing?? If you believe in your campaign and supporters its the only thing to do, Why dont we ask Kennedy about taking it to the convention in 1980, when he tryed to unseat the incumbent democratic president, i mean no offense to him as he is having health issues, but he tryed to rip apart the democratic party then and is doing so again by backing Obama early in this race... Ego tripping.. fits right in with Obama..

Hillary is having a tantrum and her idea
of how a Presidential candidate behaves
is very sad. I have heard people lie before but she takes the cake maybe the
whole bakery. She just can't face the
fact that people don't like her.
Her husband doesn't like her. If he did
he would not use her as a door mat.
She might make a good door mat but not
an adequate President not even close.
Get out and find a corner somewhere and
whine and whine and whine and take that bum with you.

Hillary Clinton will do and say anything to get elected. Just yesterday she promised Puerto Rico to amend the US constitution to allow them to vote in US Elections.

She's a phony through and through. She's not a New Yorker. She's not even a democrat.

I cannot wait until she loses her seat in the senate in 2012.

Bottom line - Kennedy and Clinton were still in the race in June '92 and '68, a race that had not been decided, and the general elections were in Nov.

So what is the real story here? More whiney pretend journalists trying to incite pressure for Hillary to drop out.

I wonder what these pseudo reporters will be saying after Puerto Rico when Hillary has won the popular vote of all the primarys, even when FL and MI are excluded from the totals.

The headlines will read "Hillary Wins Popular Vote Yet Still Won't Drop Out".

It's absolutely incredible to me how many people have said the same thing, over and over, for the last, oh, about three or four months now. There are slight variations on the theme, but almost to the letter it's some version of "Face it, Hillary. It's over."

There is no reason to get so incensed about the fact that Clinton is staying in the race unless you oppose her and are concerned that she will actually win. To hold her singlehandedly responsible for party division is ridiculous.

I believe that people sensing Obama's weakness want to have a fall guy (in this case, a fall gal) to blame when he loses the general. Then the shrill cries of blame will be that Hillary weakened him and showed the Republicans how to attack him.... Like the Republicans wouldn't have figured that out on their own. And the blamers, as usual, are our friends, the tolerant, inclusive liberals.

Stop blaming Hillary for everything and get on with your lives.

Hmm, De Troyes, are you saying Obama is now "inevitable"?

Has anyone else noticed that, after her Kentucky win, the media was starting to revive talk about Hillary possibly being on the ticket with Obama? And then when she made her RFK comments, that talk suddenly evaporated?

With a few ill-chosen words, I think Hillary has just shut the door on any possibility of a VP nomination. At the very least, her comments demonstrated a decided lack of common sense, not what Obama needs to win in November.

Face it, Clintonistas: It's Over. The "inevitable" candidate has lost, and no amount of anger and wrigning of hands will change that. Its time to start rallying around the candidate who has won the nomination, instead of wishing for your own personal "might have been".

The ONLY reason HC is staying in is to guarantee Obama's defeat and thereby increase her chances in 2012. Anything else the Clintons say is absurd.

As a lifelong Democrat, I for one will not forget...

Jake Tapper's point about Perot is based on an incorrect assumption. Third party candidates help incumbents as elections are a referendum on them. If there are two strong challengers, the anti-incumbent vote is split. Therefore, in 1992 it is likely that Perot would split the anti-Bush votes. In 1996 Clinton would welcome Perot on the ballot because his presence would split the anti-Clinton vote. Thus, the fact that Clinton was pleased that Perot was running in 1996 is not evidence that Perot helped him in 1992.

The problem is that there is no end to the logic of continuing the candidacy. HRC says she is a fighter and not a quitter and that she owes it to her supporters and women everywhere to continue her candidacy.

By this logic, she cannot give up in June after the primaries. She must continue to fight until the convention afterall superdelegates can change their minds.

And even after the convention, she must continue to fight. Why should she quit just because Obama is the nominee? It is her right to run as an independent third party candidate. 1992 proves this.

And if she loses the General Election? No. She must not quit! She must continue to fight. She must take her supporters into the hills of Appalachia and fight on (they have the guns already) until the White House is won. She surely owes her supporters that much. West Virginia and Kentucky have the right to secede under the Constitution.

As we know, even sitting Presidents can be assassinated. She needs to ready to step in and save the nation.

Inept is 20 times more appropriate than Inapt.

I agree that Perot helped Bush lose. It's not exactly exact, though, and using exit polls to determine how someone would have alternatively voted on Election day is a little inept: the true test is determining how voters would have voted in a 2 party race had Perot not run (twice) in 1992, and had he not paid millions to rail against Bush and the failed economic engine... had he helped Clinton make the case that Bush was a failure.

Without Perot's help, Bush might well have surpassed Clinton.

In any case, rounding to nearest fifth, two fingers voted for Clinton, two fingers voted for Bush, and one thumb voted for Perot. Two fingers might spell victory for Clinton, but it was no mandate, and you are quite right to call Clinton's two wins only Plurality wins.

Obama's nomination? Also a plurality win.

D'92

For those of you who think that the June date makes sense for Hillary not dropping out, let me ask you this: If there are not enough delegates left for her to come out ahead, then exactly what is she hoping happens between now and later? It cannot be the electoral process that makes her the nominee, nor can it be a hope that the superdelegates go her way, as it is obvious that ain't gonna happen. So her entire strategy depends upon something bad happening to Obama. That's what most of us find so disgusting about what she said.

She's bending the truth, putting forth a dishonest statement about why she's staying in the race. When 60% of the electorate thinks you're a liar, telling mroe lies will not win them over!

Hillary to self: Please shut me up
before I commit political suicide!

For the most able, most vetted, most
experienced candidate she sure is
a putz, sex notwithstanding.

There are several problems with the argument in this post. Far more than I have the time to fully address here. But here are some of the highlights:

1. It falsely claims that Bill Clinton's major competitors had dropped out by April; but it leaves out Jerry Borwn who finished second and actually contested California in June of 1992. It is amazing that Jerry Brown could finish second in the race ahead of all the "serious competition" without being serious competition himself. Clinton in fact debated Brown several times leading up to the Calfornia primary. How nice of Bill to be willing to debate someone who was not serious competition.

2.Suggesting that the nomination process is different today than in 1968 is irrelevant to the point Clinton was making which was that it is not atypical for a candidate to not have more than a few months to wage a general election campaign. The issue in 1968 was that there were deep ideological divisons within the Democratic Party so to claim the lenght of the primary is what hurt the party is ridiculous. Even if the nominaion had been decided early the party would still have had serious divisons. That is not the case this year. Furthermore, both Gore and Kerry wrapped up the nomination quickly in 2000 and 2004 and lost due to the time the Repubican attack machine had to work on them. Deciding a nomination early is not promise of November success. The biggest threat to the party is the disrespect that the Obama camp and the media has paid to the Clintons. This story is but one example of that.

Jim:

It's statements like yours that make my blood run cold. You are quite willing to kill women or destroy their ability to have further children because you are handing them over to back-alley abortionists. You don't care about women. You don't care that women spend their lives gravid with ten or twelve kids. You don't care for rape or incest victims. You only care about your power over them, a power that you expect judges to ratify. No way, Jim. I would not wish McCain on this country and not just for the sake of my sisters' uteri. You don't give a whit about born children, about their health care, about their education. You don't care if they are herded off to a war that they should not have to deal with -- a war that was started to prove that Bush was more potent than his father and had a bigger organ to show for it.

McCain is a disaster trying to happen and I am going to do everything I can to prevent it.

One of the great characteristics of a GOOD leader is to learn by one's mistakes, and do not make them again. In Hillary's case, we have the LBJ vs MLK Jr mess in New Hampshire; the snipper firing issue; and now the RFK pronouncement. Do not think that she has learned anything, and has a tendency to say or do anything that will perpetuate her position. Hillary is sinking both her, and her husband's legacy with demonstrated stupid moves.

Right on, Brook.

Obama's smear campaign? As someone who appreciated both Clinton and Obama until Clinton went negative, if Obama is running a smear campaign it is being very cleverly hidden. Please give specific examples of his "smear" campaign.

In basketball (go Lakers!) we call this a ticky-tack foul. Not worth your time or mine and definitely had nothing to do with assassinating Barack. (Party leaders got behind Barack in April as well, so for me the point was well chosen, poorly executed. Again a ticky-tack foul, so enough already).

I am more interested in Jim Webb's comments (VP candidate). Webb it seems said; the reason Barack cannot expand his coalition beyond African Americans, for whom he does truly represent hope, and the elite, who just like that he speaks elite, is Affirmative Action.

Now wouldn't you rather have Hillary running with Barack than his choosing someone like Webb who he thinks, in true old school fashion, will appeal to the people who are now flocking to Clinton? Give her credit for widening her support among people who also have felt underrepresented for a long time.

I am hoping that Barack's people figure this out soon and stop manufacturing ticky tack non-issues to dominate the media just because they can. It’s this practice that divides the party. Hope looks like running an inspiring African American and a brilliant woman and winning in November.

Still hoping for the best. And I might say, Clinton's ability to once again stand-up to the worse and come out fighting is making me feel like we'll get it.

as a white ron paul supporter, i find it revealing that ardent clinton supporters will cross party lines to vote Bush-lite. I am a Republican considering voting Obama against 100-more-years-in-Iraq McCain. If race is not the reason Clinton supporters are defecting to McCain, what is? Certainly not the issues. "Democratic hypocrisy exposed" should be the headlines of some of these blogs. I guess the racists aren't exclusive to my party after all.

What's most puzzling about Clinton's decision to bring up 1968 is why she simply didn't say Humphrey didn't secure the nomination until the convention. As Tapper points out, back then the primary season didn't start until March. If her basic contention is that she is the most electible Democrat then what does Bobby Kennedy being assassinated have to do with that?

RFK referenece that she made was at 3PM NY time. It seems she has no experience nor judgement either at 3AM or 3PM - good bye hillary, have place in history by quiting now !

To be fair, this issue is not just how long the primary campaign is, but when it ends relative to when the election will be. In that regard, it doesn't really matter that the '68 and '92 campaigns began later -- only that they didn't end until June, five months before the election.

It's also irrelevant that only 13 states had primaries in 1968. It's only relevant that the nomination battle was still going on in June, regardless of the means by which delegates were won.

I'm no Hillary fan, but there are plenty of legitimate arguments against her. Relying on bad arguments and trivial issues makes it look like your grasping at straws. Spend your time more productively.

Clinton is reeling from disbelief that she is not going to capture the Democratic nomination. Her calculations were based on absoluted false assumptions. The primary season has become so surreal that it makes me worried the Republicans might have a chance to succeed. Well, not to worried, though, because it will take them until spring 2009 to realize they had needed to separate the Siamese twins Bush/McCan't for anything close to a prayer. That said, hold tight everyone. Clinton is going down, by her own hand and her family's (thank you, Bill). Let's have "hope" transcend hubris this election cycle.

Notably, RFK winning the California Primary on June 4, 1968 changed the race...the dynamic had changed. RFK had beat out Senator Eugene McCarthy and now was considered running in front, which spelled big trouble for Hubert Humphrey... for a few hours until his assassination.

Also regarding Bill Clinton... the media were in wait for another "bimbo" eruption ... and getting those delegates in the California June primary was a major benchmark that helped seal his bid for the presidency. Before that, anyone could have jumped back in (if they could find the money) and gave him a battle in California.

Only people NOT cognizant of the real political history would think that Hillary's comment about June was irrelevant.

And as for the technicality of convention votes... the rules may differ among the years, but the convention still has the final say.

As a practicing astrologer, I can attest that that comment may be truer than you realize and not quite inapt. Of course Hillary doesn't realize it, but what she said was a psychic slip of the tongue. All along I've believed that her birthtime is 8:10 am. That puts Uranus in her 8th house with Pisces on its cusp, signs of psychic ability. She is very intuitive. She is
subconsciously pulling from the Akashic records. She is rather innocent
actually. However a look at Obama's chart has transiting Uranus moving to oppose his natal Mars. Interpretations are subtle with this but he very well could be in the proverbial and actual crosshairs. Both upcoming eclipses activate his chart, and he will be in danger for a year or more. Hillary's comments were obvious to any reasoning person, a reference to a timeline. However the Obama thugees like this article's author strive to make it an issue. A warning. It is the intransigence and vitriol coming from Obama's supporters that is adding karmic weight to the scales. All that continued negativity spewed on his behalf will be more responsible for the blood to be spilled than some misconstrued comment by her. Sad.

hillary is the britney spears of politics

I am voting for McCain, as I've intended all along. It does my heart good to know that all the baby-killers out there (like Obama and less so Clinton) are making it so easy for my candidate to win in November.

Please, please, all you Hillary supporters, stay true to your word and vote for McCain. We can finally appoint the Supreme Court Justices to end Roe vs. Wade, and stop nedlessly killing the unborn.

Well, Mr. Tapper, since 1968 wasn't a good example, and you are quite right, the question then becomes why she chose it. And it's clear as day the reason was to make a case for staying in because "stuff happens", assassination included. For anyone who lived through those tragic times it is a cynicism that is just too abject to contemplate.

The Clintons are master politicians. Everything they say/do has is calculated and serves a ulterior/political purpose. The 'white voters' comment was made for a specific reason...The reason/results of/for the racial comment were evident in WV & KY results. The Kennedy remark was intentional, and the Clintons hope, enabling. The Clintons are red-neck trash. They've used black people at every turn. He would not have been elected, nor would he have survived in office after Monica, without black people. What the Clinton refuse to accept is that a BLACK MAN beat 'em down. They are in denial, desparate, and it shows. It is what it is; They are who they are! Now we know. Let's move on.

Smart? Answer this SAT question:

Which of the following best describes what the author meant to convey by referring to RFK's June death.

a. Democratic primaries can last through June.
b. Our thoughts are with the Kennedy family, with the upcoming anniversary of that tragic event, as well as the news about Ted.
c. We'd better get Florida and Michigan right, or we'll have a convention like 1968.
d. None of the above.

If this was the first and only reference to assassination it may have been a mistake. It wasn't. Also, RFK hadn't even JOINED the race until 6 months before that June. It's not like he'd been campaigning for a year, like Hillary.

The RFK/Bill example of staying in the race are both examples of Hillary's ruthlessness and well, deception.
Bill had it tied up in April of ,92 and the RFK comment clearly was to point out oh so innocently..."you just never know what's going to happen...so I need to stay in just in case." For me, this reference to RFK's assassination is evil and I do not understand how anyone can have respect for her let alone, defend her after such outrageous remarks and blatant untruths.

So (Tavis),.. let me get this straight,.. as an African
American, who wore a uniform for four years in defense of my country, and fought in a foreign war,
you are telling me that, we have so many (RACIST), in
America, that we could never elect an African American.

As a result we should really consider who would be the best candidate to defeat a white man, (John Mccain) , the only person left standing, a white
woman, (Hillary Clinton). Thanks Tavis for letting me know how it works in America. I'll remember that the next time I'm in a fox hole, in defense of my country . By the way (Tavis ), have you ever been in a fox hole in defense of our great country?

Whether or not the comment is historically correct or whether or not she was covertly hoping for the unthinkable (which I do not believe)is both actualy pretty irrelevant.

What is more relevant to me is the fact that she made such a huge mistake. The question is if her judgement is so bad that she actually is saying these things and not expecting the obvious backlash. I think that any candidate is briefed before interviews (I should hope so for the sake of professionalism) to be able to answer the questions they can expect. It is only logical that this topic would come up, either by candidates choice or by question. She should have been prepared to give a better answer.

The latest news is that Obama gave her a pass on this one and that now her campaign people are trying to attack Obama for inflaming the whole thing! This is a sure way to lose all credibility. Either Clinton has no control over her campaign or she has really a very bad idea of how to run her PR.

Either way she is not projecting the image of a leader in control, and that does not bode well should she by some miracle manage to get the nomination.

Stella | May 25, 2008 3:10:02 PM:

Obama doen't have to say anything negative about his competitors; he uses his underdogs... like you... to get the word out.

That's how he got his title "Teflon Man"; all of his dirt slides off of him.

...but just below the surface, that smell is building up intil like oil, it will bubble up through the soil and climb his skinny form until it gains purchase on a chink in his armor and
VOILA! you will see him for the untrustworthy. ethcailly questionable politician he truly is.

BE CAREFUL WHO YOU WISH FOR.

BE VERY VERY CAREFUL.

Ms Ryals from Colorado | May 25, 2008 10:52:44 :

To which misquotes from Rick from Pa
are you referring?

Everything HE referenced was "vetted"; nothing YOU wrote was!

It's time to put away the blinders.

GIVE 'EM HELL, HILLARY!!!

Senator Clinton should know that as a member of white privilege she has no right to make any statements that might directly, indirectly, or tangentially make the Sensitive Obama vulnerable on any historical, racial, ethical, or metaphorical fronts.

The Clintons are looking more pathetic as each day passes by. As one lawmaker put it, it is very hard for her to put one foot in front of the other. She is not makeing her case for women, or makeing them look good, but merly remind us on why the divorce rate in this country is at a all time high.

Clinton didn't need Perot to win in 1992, because Perot took voters from both Clinton and Bush. In 1996, however, Clinton wanted Perot to run because that year, the dynamics were different and Perot mostly took votes away from Dole.

RFK was a senator from NY who was trailing in the primaries. Sounds more like Clinton than Obama.

"As far as the Democratic Party rules go, Clinton has every right to stay in the race as long as she wants."

At least 50% of Democrats party believe this to be a true statement.

There need not be any more over-analysis on the minutiae of Hillary's comment. In fact, to do so is absurd. Clinton was not contemplating some new law of physics here that requires us to delve so freakin' deeply into how the proof works. It was simply one of many examples of a long lasting primary contest. The press is wrong yet again.

Who cares about historical accuracy? If the storyline fits your agenda, Hillary, run with it.

To anyone on this Blog who posted that Senator Obama has said Ms. Clinton should leave this race: Please cite one specific time he actually said that. I expect there will not be one post that can do that. Hillary's assertion in that fated interview,that her opponent, meaning Senator Obama, wanted her to drop out, jumped out as false just as much as her following remarks. He never has stated that. At any time. I am sure his graciousness towards her in this matter has infuriated her to invent this scenario. End of story. Well, I'm sure it's not the end of her story........it is a never-ending-story of why she lost, or is losing, or whatever, Hill.

Wow.

The ice under ABC News is getting thinner and thinner.

Look at George S.'s question track to Rove on This Week. Attack!

Look at The Note's treatment of the Hillary/RFK disaster. Ignore!

Look at how Political Radar quickly deletes blog comments (like this one) critical of their Clinton bias. Non-stop!

C'mon, ABC News, you come from a proud tradition of journalism stretching back to the early 1950s. Let truth guide you, not political "product placement" of the Clintons or anyone else.

And stop deleting your critics so that others can at least provide contrary points-of-view.

The Caucus Blog from the New York Times has just posted the VIDEO of the interview of Hillary Clinton by the Argusleader.
Her statements that come at the end of the interview as originally recorded are totally put out of context.
Not a second it's aimed at BO. Nor the emphasis put on the assassination element. It says what it says : Bob Kennedy went into June campaigning until he was assassinated. The whole matter was about her not understanding why she has been pushed out, and what are the strategies.
The whole discussion about her evil intention through out the media and quick negative response, shows once more that real detractors are people own bias.
Maybe one has to start doing the brain cleansing before being able to think and see clearly, only then one can talk about choosing a candidate.
Bias, bias , alas, alas, and don't ask why.

anon | May 25, 2008 1:16:32 PM

How did you get that bs out of what she said?

Let us stop beating around the
bush. What Ms. Clinton said is
this: She wants to dance the
Dance of Death over the dead
body of her opponent and claim
the nomination which she has
deluded herself into believing
is her birthright.

As a former Hillary's supporters, I can't believe the ignorant comments I read on this blog. First of all, I am so glad I change to Barack Obama in time to vote for him in the primary. When he spoke to the reporters, he told them that he took Hillary at her word because they had been on the campaign trail for more than 15 months. He also said that he doesn't believe Hillary meant anything by her comments.

Hillary wouldn't have given him the same courtesy if he had made those same comments. She would have buried him by saying he wanted her killed along with many other off the wall rhetoric. How I know she would have done that because when he made the bitter comments, Hillary was the first one to do a commercial about his comments and ridicule him in all her stump speeches. Hillary wants everybody to take her at her words she misspeak but when Barack misspoke she didn't take at his word but she tried to use it against him. Barack doesn't do to her what she does to him. That is a man who has leadership skills and she is a woman with none. I know the supporters who still want to believe that she is the next best thing since wonder bread, can see that Hillary is not presidential material but yet they don't care because they have such hatred toward a man who has never done anything to them. It is said that we have those type of people in our society. Even though I don't support Hillary anymore, I still don't hate her. I just don't like the way she has behaved in this race.

As a former Hillary's supporters, I can't believe the ignorant comments I read on this blog. First of all, I am so glad I change to Barack Obama in time to vote for him in the primary. When he spoke to the reporters, he told them that he took Hillary at her word because they had been on the campaign trail for more than 15 months. He also said that he doesn't believe Hillary meant anything by her comments.

Hillary wouldn't have given him the same courtesy if he had made those same comments. She would have buried him by saying he wanted her killed along with many other off the wall rhetoric. How I know she would have done that because when he made the bitter comments, Hillary was the first one to do a commercial about his comments and ridicule him in all her stump speeches. Hillary wants everybody to take her at her words she misspeak but when Barack misspoke she didn't take at his word but she tried to use it against him. Barack doesn't do to her what she does to him. That is a man who has leadership skills and she is a woman with none. I know the supporters who still want to believe that she is the next best thing since wonder bread, can see that Hillary is not presidential material but yet they don't care because they have such hatred toward a man who has never done anything to them. It is said that we have those type of people in our society. Even though I don't support Hillary anymore, I still don't hate her. I just don't like the way she has behaved in this race.

Coleen, I cannot see BO putting her on the ticket. The egos would be too great to bear. We would have 3 presidents - BO knows he would have to contend with Bill too. Won't happen.

We are all like sheep led to the slaughter - We read a "headline" and immediately jump on that obvious biases it espouses, as LONG as it espouses for our candidate or against the other one. I have been reading and blogging on the CBS board since this election started. And one thing is glaringly clear: the democratic party will rip itself apart with their own hatred. They won't have to worry about hating Bush anymore - they hate each other and that's sad.

I just have a difficult time understanding why she invoked that summer and that situation now that the timeline has been proven that it was truly an inept analogy? Was it to try and use the Kennedy name? Ted Kennedy already came out against her. I simply cannot understand unless the woman is just so exhausted. What a poor analogy to use and one that hardly stands as a good example

And I dare Obama to put her on the ticket as VP. The way we republicans hate her, she will be the force behind our get-out-the-vote efforts. We won't even have to raise any money or advertise. Hillary on any ticket with her 40% disapproval rating means she's an automatic loser. She can never get that number to go any lower, only higher.

The funny thing is that so much of the Clinton campaign can be summed up in sentences that all contain the word Fallacy.
Why is that?
I thought she was supposed to be the presumptive nominee after Super Tuesday. Everything after that has shown how poorly she has planned for this race. The fallacy is that she will become the first woman president of the united states. That is never going to happen. I am a republican and I must admit I have posted here before as one of those Clinton supporters who would "never vote for Obama" or hopes to see Clinton split the party so badly that McCain waltzes into the white house. I've also suggested she run as an independent. With McCain running as an extension of George Bush, our only hope is that the Democrats continue to fight themselves. Thank you.