Barack Obama Elected President!

[DevotedToAMC]

Good god get over the whole RFK comments. She apologized, he and RJK Jr. said they know she did not mean any harm, and it is done.

[Roman]

The very last time I checked, I thought I had freedom of speech.

Are you saying I don't?

[DevotedToAMC]

That has nothing to do with anything. All I am saying is that it is done and said...she apologized and I am sure 80% of America is now beyond it and has moved on to something else now. RFK Jr. and Obama himself were not offended over it. Why should you? Just get over it and move on to what is more important and that is strategizing to beat McCain. Stop hanging on to any comments either has said that make them look negative...they are bound to say something during campaigns that is off beat. She is human and made a mistake.

[Roman]

If people want to talk about it, it's their right.

You now want people to stop talking about something because you don't like it?

Oh well. This is a free thread. As long as people remain passionate yet respectful, if they want to bring up her RFK remarks, that is their right.

If you don't like it........I guess you'll have to ignore it. But no one is going to not talk about something just because it ticks you off.

[DevotedToAMC]

You are reading something into my post that is not there and that is this anti free speech vibe. Why ruminate on something that is already done and over with right now? She apologized, Obama and RFK Jr. defended her, and it is done. End of story. Why beat around the bush?

If you want to talk about it, fine, but don't forget the real issues of fighting McCain for November. Instead of worrying over one comment, worry over the possibility of him continuing four years of the Bush agenda.

[Roman]

Clinton Ends Her Chances of Becoming V.P.

by Paul Hogarth‚ May. 27‚ 2008

With Barack Obama having secured a majority of pledged delegates, I was hoping to finally focus on the general election race against John McCain. But Hillary Clinton can’t help still making news, and her May 23rd comments that referenced RFK in South Dakota have now sabotaged any chance that she had to be Obama’s running mate. Clinton did not mean to imply that Obama would be assassinated, but her explanation that “the Kennedys have been much on my mind” was insincere – given that she made the very same reference months ago. Even if we take Clinton at her word that she was merely commenting on the length of primary seasons, her comparison with 1968 was not apt – and her characterization of 1992 was patently false. Now that she has put herself out of the running for the Vice Presidency, the super-delegates must ask what purpose her divisive campaign against Obama continues to serve.

After having criticized Hillary Clinton’s campaign tactics in a race where her chances of winning the nomination were slim to none, I finally gave her credit last week for having “toned down the negativity” – a necessary first step for Democrats to come together in the fall and defeat John McCain. But Clinton’s respite was short-lived, as she resumed her slash-and-burn tactics against Obama last Friday.

At a meeting with the editorial board of a Sioux Falls newspaper in South Dakota, Clinton resisted calls to have her drop out of the race with the following statement: “You know, 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.” In other words, said Clinton, anything can still happen in the nomination fight that justifies me staying in the race.

Within hours, Clinton’s statement was condemned in both the mainstream media and the blogs for suggesting that Obama might get shot. Critics said that it was beyond the pale, given that many Obama supporters (especially in the African-American community) have expressed a fear that the Illinois Senator may suffer a similar fate to inspiring leaders like Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King or Harvey Milk. It’s why Obama was given Secret Service protection in May 2007 – much earlier than other presidential candidates.

Of course, that’s not what Clinton really meant; her focus was clearly on the length of the primary season and not the assassination, and her campaign has stressed that point. But Clinton then hurt her credibility by issuing an “apology” after the fury – in which she explained her unfortunate choice of words because the Kennedy family has been “much on my mind” lately due to Senator Edward Kennedy’s recent brain tumor.

But Clinton made an almost identical statement two months earlier – long before Ted Kennedy’s brain tumor – where she defended her right to stay in the race because “we all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A.” I’m willing to believe that Clinton meant no ill will towards Obama’s life or health, but to explain it away on this basis is simply untrue. Not to mention that her subsequent “apology” only expressed regret to the Kennedy family – not to Obama or his safety.

Moreover, Clinton’s comparison with the 1992 election – where she said her husband did not wrap up the nomination until “the middle of June” was factually incorrect. First, the last primary that year was in early June (to be precise, June 2nd) – when California and a few other states voted. Second, Bill Clinton effectively sewed up the nomination in early April with the New York primary. Third, comparing this year’s schedule with 1992 (or 1968) is not apt – because the primary season has never started so early.

In other words, Hillary Clinton is grasping at straws to justify her staying in the race – and made a horrific statement that (intentionally or not) brought out the worst fears in this year’s presidential contest. It only justified the perception that she will do anything to get elected, and has inflamed divisions at a time when Obama and Clinton supporters need to come together to win the presidency in November.

At a time when even Clinton’s staunchest supporters have concluded that she will not be the nominee, some have endeavored to bring the party together by pushing a joint ticket. Senator Dianne Feinstein, for example, has openly said that Obama should offer Clinton the vice presidency. But after Clinton’s comments in South Dakota, who could possibly blame Obama for refusing to entertain that option? Knowing now that we will not see an Obama-Clinton ticket, what purpose does her presidential campaign continue to serve?

There used to be a time when Clinton would win primary contests for the right reasons. Her New Hampshire victory in January was a triumph for women’s rights – after voters rebelled against the media’s sexist attacks. But then Clinton started winning for the wrong reasons. She won the popular vote in Ohio and Texas because of irrational fears of terrorism – and lies about NAFTA. She won Pennsylvania in part because Jeremiah Wright dominated the race, and she won Kentucky and West Virginia because of racism.

Now we’re left in this race with hypothetical discussions about whether Obama could be assassinated, and historical comparisons with Bobby Kennedy in 1968. Enough of these distractions – it’s time to move on to the general election where Obama will face John McCain.

And Devoted.....

I also don't need you to tell me what to worry about.

[DevotedToAMC]

Fine then hold a grudge against her. I don't play that game...and I will do what I can to get a Democrat in The White House in January. But I won't let negative remarks from either candidate dominate my thoughts on the race

[Wales2004]

The VP talk won't necessarily be dead since the media gets off on the prospect of being able to throw every negative thing she said about Obama back in her face if they were on the same ticket. I just think all it will be is talk.

She needed better strategists and pr people. I think taking responsibility for something would go a long way. Painting herself as the victim and having all these supporters chime in is not really doing anything for her.

[DevotedToAMC]

And they can respond to what the media throws at them...they are good at responding to media attacks and are an unbeatable ticket

[Roman]

True. That is why I also feel she would never make a good VP candidate.

No telling what she would say to torpedo his run this summer and fall. That's too big a risk to take. There are plenty of much better running mates who don't have nearly the baggage that she has.

[DevotedToAMC]

And Obama has said things that don't go well with people, same with McCain. It is a wash

[Roman]

So, he would do well to just stay away from her.

She did it to herself.

Have you also noticed this.........RFK Jr. was the only one to speak pout on her remarks.

I wonder what Teddy and Caroline had to say?

[DevotedToAMC]

He would do well to choose someone who attracts the right groups and who won't have many supporters going to the opposite side.

The comments affected RFK Jr. and Obama the most. Neither were offended. Case closed as far as I am concerned

[Roman]

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Supporters of Barack Obama’s presidential bid are planning to demonstrate outside the Saturday meeting in Washington where Democratic officials are slated to debate the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations at the party’s summer convention.

The move comes days after backers of Hillary Clinton’s White House run announced plans to converge on the Washington, D.C. hotel where members of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee are meeting.

“Hillary Clinton's supporters are going to be bussing in protestors for the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting, so it's critical that we show up for the counter-protest,” wrote on organizer in a post on the Daily Kos Web site Tuesday morning.

Last week, the pro-Clinton Committee to Count Every Vote said it was organizing a day-long May 31 rally outside the RBC meeting.

“Our purpose is not to divide the party or attack the DNC or Senator Obama. Michigan and Florida, however, in addition to Hillary's strong support nationwide, cannot and must not be dismissed in DNC efforts to unify the party.”

The group said it was organizing buses to carry protestors to the meeting site, and could offer some overnight housing for those who could not afford to pay for accommodations.

Earlier this month, Clinton told a group of bloggers who support her candidacy that she encouraged efforts to lobby the committee.

“I thank you for zeroing in on the May 31 meeting. There will be a lot of activity around that meeting,” she said on a conference call, adding that it was “important your voices are heard” by DNC members.

A limited number of seats inside Saturday’s meeting were scheduled to be made available by the DNC at 10 a.m. ET Tuesday – but as of 10 minutes after the hour, all those seats had been claimed. Limited same-day registration will be available as space permits, according to the party’s Web site.

Those who make it inside will have to abide by strict guidelines banning “banners, posters, signs, handouts, and noisemakers of any kind” – and they won’t have a chance to weigh in, since there is no allowance for public comment.

Clinton’s campaign has pushed for both the Florida and Michigan delegations to be seated in full in accordance with the results of their January primaries, which were not sanctioned by the DNC because they were scheduled early in defiance of party instructions. Clinton was the only major candidate to appear on the ballot in Michigan, and won both contests.

The DNC, state Democratic parties and both presidential campaigns have said that they are eager for a compromise that would allow both Florida and Michigan to send delegations to the party’s nominating convention in Denver – but all sides stress that the solution would have to be acceptable to both campaigns.

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod signaled in an interview last week that the Illinois senator might be willing to consider a compromise that would give a slight advantage to Clinton.

Question, Devoted.

How can you say that those comments affected RFK Jr. the most?

Are you now saying his brother shouldn't have been affected by them?

[Wales2004]

I don't think it's an issue of what she might say so much as it is an issue of what Bill Clinton might say.

But that's jumping far ahead because I don't think Obama can trust her and I don't think he needs to like her but he does need to be able to have a degree of trust which I doubt is there or can be built.

I don't care if they are able to respond to media attacks regarding being on the same ticket, the problem is doing all of that sideshow business will take away from his ability to focus on McCain and other issues that he will need to focus on. He needs a running mate that doesn't come with all the baggage she's bringing. And he needs someone with which his supporters will feel comfortable enough and she's certainly not that.