Someone PLEASE get the hook
I'm wide open. Someone, anyone, please please please explain to me ANY logic that can be used with a straight face to explain why Hillary Clinton is still tilting at windmills and chasing ghosts?
Can anyone venture an opinion as to how, by any stretch of the imagination, it still makes sense for Hillary to continue this doomed race?
Her thinking out loud and revealing that she's seriously thought of the prospect of Barack Obama being assassinated as her big break shows me that she's just... not right.
What the hell is going on? Doesn't she have to drop out or risk becoming an utter disgrace?
This is a transcript of Clinton's remarks to the editorial board of the Argus-Leader of Sioux Falls, S.D.
This is the most important job in the world. It’s the toughest job in the world. You should be willing to campaign for every vote. You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere. I think it’s an interesting juxtaposition where we find ourselves and you know, I have been willing to do all of that during the entire process and people have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa and I find it...
EB: Why? Why?
I don’t know I don’t know I find it curious because it is unprecedented in history. I don’t understand it and between my opponent and his camp and some in the media, there has been this urgency to end this and you know historically that makes no sense, so I find it a bit of a mystery.
EB: You don’t buy the party unity argument?
I don’t, because again, I’ve been around long enough. You know my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere around the middle of June
EB: June
We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. Um you know I just I don’t understand it. There’s lots of speculation about why it is.
Listen, it's going to be terribly sad when Hillary has to bow out.
Won't someone please stop her from making it tragic as well?
posted by The Inside Dope @ 5/23/2008
5 comments
5 Comments:
Hillary is taken way, way out of context on this. All Hillary was saying is that in the past.. on many occasions, we didn't have a nominee until at least June. End of story.
She mentioned Bill Clinton and Bobby Kennedy (who came into the race late I might add) and Kennedy really clenched the nomination the night of California primary in JUNE, the night he was shot.
I guess Hillary could have made references to other Democratic candidates like Alton Parker or Horace Greeley, but it probably would not "resonate" with the interviewers as much.
Nico,
I couldn't go as far as to think that Clinton would ever be that crazy, or that dark to ever be directly suggesting that an assasination might shake up this race and therefore justify her staying in far past the point where there's any rational reason for doing so.
But there's something decidedly creepy about anyone even mentioning that in the context she did.
Considering that she's said similar sort of things in the past, it all adds up to the view that she's truly losing it, as in her perspective, and her grip on reality.
It's just too obviously a little peek, a glimpse, into Hillary's mind these days, and it shows that she truly is grasping at straws so desperately that Kennedy's assissination is even on the list of things she considers when trying to offer a rationale for her continuing campaign.
I truly don't see how she can continue this doomed campaign much further.
No wonder Samantha Powers (?)called her " a monster" in her interview with press in Scotland.
She *had* to know the RFK comment would be taken the way it was taken. To suggest otherwise I think is insulting to her intelligence. Why make it?
I think it'd be more appropriate here for her to mention that Gary Hart in 84 and *Ted* Kennedy in 80 were still in the race in June.
The way she's calculating her "popular vote lead" is far more offensive to me. If we manage to drop this and she runs in 2012, I hope Iowa (and Maine, Nevada, Washington State, etc) "not counting" gets thrown back in her face. We seemed to have counted for quite a bit (at least with respect to her time) until she finished 3rd here.
Obama's giving her so much freaking room to end this gracefully and she's doing anything but.
It's gotten past the point where she could even tell it straight and make even the smallest argument that she was still in it. So she's resorted to flatly stating things which require about a page of "if's" to make so.
She's got more of the popular vote. Yep, if you count FL and give her every vote that was cast there even though she signed a pledge not to campaign there, and MI, where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot. But wait, she still loses even then. So what are we supposed to swallow now? Why that the caucus states don't count.
I truly think that the entire Clinton justification for all of this is that they simply blew it in the early campaign and they expect a "do-over" or for the super delegates to realize that they'd be winning IF they hadn't screwed up so badly in the early running.
They blew it by not planning past Super Tuesday and blowing off the caucus states.
Obama's campaign followed a 50 state strategy for the most part and simply hacked out a small lead and have held on to it.
The Clinton campaign simply can't deal with that reality, so they want to change it.
I heard her spokesman Wolfson actually say, in response to people pointing out how Clinton was losing in every conceivable way, that they'd actually "won more states, more delegates, and more popular votes in the last 4 months", as if that entitled her to the nomination.
No, you can't screw up completely in the first months of a campaign, go on an 11 state losing streak, then get things back on track and argue that the part where you were losing simply shouldn't count.
But yet that's what they appear to be doing.
But that was yesterday. They have a different rationale every day. We'll have to see what it is tomorrowo, that is IF some people don't finally stage an intervention and force her off the stage before she wrecks her career entirely.
Post a Comment
<< Home