« Notice a trend? | Main | So much for "transformational" politics and "re-making the map" »

May 29, 2008



I like coming to this site not only for the thoughts on scripture but also because I need to remind myself at times during this primary season that I’m not really crazy. My reactions and thoughts are so at odds with a lot of the people I used to read and listen to that sometimes I think maybe they’re right and I do support a ruthless race baiting virago who has a subconscious (well, perhaps not even subconscious) desire to see her rival dead and will destroy the Democratic Party to get what she wants. So I really appreciate posts like this. Maddow is indeed a smart woman, but it’s Clinton Derangement Syndrome, lefty style.

John Petty

We're soul-mates on this one. I hope that when the election is over I can go back to liking Maddow again.

I will admit that she's one of the more creative at spinning the Obama talking points. She doesn't use the same language, like so many others, but she always winds up at the same place.


I agree, what was I thinking. One good thing about all this, I don't watch tv, no radio and I don't read all the bloviators. So, I have more time and I found voices like yours. Hooray.

John Petty

Thanks, Stellaa. I appreciate the kind word from you and hypatia. Also, I appreciate your bringing attention to this humble blog at talkleft, my current favorite blog next to mine. Also, you should post more frequently on your own blog!


Perhaps you haven't watched/listened to her comments: I found it by Googling "hillary clinton assassination comments"

Please explain to me how, with good conscience, Senator Clinton can mention RFK's assassination 4 times over the span the span of two and a half months in the same speech while referencing Obama. This is not about fatigue, or about "letting the process take its course". I honestly have no idea what she is trying to get across; but it is at best not communicating well (please, not another 4 years of creative spinning), or at worst a sociopath who will say anything to win or protect one's numbers. There is no excuse for what HC is saying, none! Her husband did not clinch the nomination in June, as she claims; he was well ahead of Hart and Tsongas by March, and the following primaries were pro forma exercises, finishing the process. I would welcome a dispassionate explanation of what HC was trying to communicate, particularly in light of her perhaps creative interpretation of campaigns past. But her prior comment in March in which she directly said "assassination" or the other two near references in which she brought up RFK's death have no redeemable purpose that I can fathom. I welcome your explanation. But I also invite you to examine any instance in which, in your personal life, you could innocently reference the death of another person in any positive frame. I can't personally imagine it.
And John, your use of this site as your pro-Clinton website is getting a little stretched. I've almost stopped visiting because *you* will defend any action or statement by HC no matter how outlandish, and criticize BO and his supporters for slights real or imagined. At least be a little balanced or objective, something of which you are quick to accuse pro-BO visitors. BTW, I am an uncommitted Dem, so please don't unpack any "you're just a biased Obama supporter." I desperately wanted Edwards to carry the torch, believing his motivations over both HC and BO.

John Petty

Sure, I've seen it. Her point was that it's not even June yet, and lots of times the campaigns have gone into June. I don't see what's so difficult about that.

Incidentally, she could have made the argument that, in RFK"s case, the campaign had finished the primary phase, and now, the RFK campaign was trying to "flip" the establishment delegates who supported Humphrey. In an important sense, the campaign was only beginning.

I've asked several people what they thought about this, and they all-every one--said that they thought Hillary's point was as I've described above. Yet the Obama campaign did everything they could to get the press all over her back saying she really wanted Obama assassinated. That was truly disgusting.

Keep dropping by. This campaign will be over some day. Keep in mind, I've stuck up for Obama a few times too.


Uh, Obama himself spoke quickly that we should accept Sen. Clinton's explanation, and without the equivocating that HC exhibited when asked about BO's religious background. Both candidates use their campaigns in the background to attack the other candidate, and neither can control their "surrogates" (think Ferraro and Sharpton) who speak out of multiple orifices simultaneously.

It just seems that she could use your language about Humphrey and RFK rather than repeated references regarding the latter's assassination. Her wording just raises so many concerns for those of us who, while appreciating the Clintons, also can't bring ourselves to totally trust them. I would still point out that some of her "historical" references are flawed, much like her "fuzzy math" regarding total votes (which only works if she completely ignores all caucus votes, counts her votes in MI and FL, and disregards that BO should get a proportion of the "uncommitted" vote in the former). It just lends credence to my skepticism about her character and that she would do/say anything to get elected.

I guess I still need an explanation about her purpose in repeatedly and pointedly mentioning "assassination" in her conversations when other avenues, such as your explanation, is available. You also sidestepped her quite inaccurate reference to her husband's campaign: he was far ahead of his cash-drained opponents by March, and the remaining primaries, including and especially California, were exercises in Clinton promotion rather than real contests. "Technically" he needed the totals in later primaries to get the needed number (again thanks to the superdelegate numbers) but all his opponents had withdrawn much earlier.

John Petty

The fact remains, though, that Bill didn't have it wrapped up until June. Sure, he was way ahead, but Jerry Brown was continuing his campaign, as Ted Kennedy did in '80.

Secondly, you might try looking at this campaign through the eyes of a Clinton supporter. Obama took 48 hours to issue his statement, and, in the meantime, the campaign itself was doing everything it could to fan the flames.

As to Obama's religion, Hillary was unequivocal the THREE times Steve Croft asked her about it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Lectionary Posts