This is a continuation of my attempt to show how the media is DISTORTING the reference by Hillary Clinton to the assassiantion of Robert F. Kennedy. See the previous two entries--although the second one has to do with the leftist psyche, and how they seem to WANT barack Obama to suffer the martyrdom of previous Messiah, Jesus Christ. The quotes below are from the despicable AP, although some leftists are going even furtehr overboard:
"Responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race, she said: "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. You know I just, I don't understand it," she said, dismissing the idea of abandoning the race.
Clinton said she didn't understand why, given this history, some Democrats were calling for her to quit."
The second paragraph above, AND the false lead paragraph in the entire story (analyzed in my first entry), are NOT TRUE. I saw the clip of the einterview question and answer. Clinton's point was that there was NO REASON for her to get out. She was NOT "citing" "given this history" as a REASON for staying in the race (as earlier part of answer, NOT quoted, makes clear). She was merely expressing her puzzlement at this bizarre MODERN compulsion to try to force people to drop out of political races, when that was not true in the past--not true that people were FORCED out early. RFK (see the tape) merely came into Clinton's head--she was stuttering over thinking of furthe examples) as an example of a race still going on, with major developments, in June.
Let me see. Can I make this clearer? Clinton started off her answer to this question by expressing amazement and frustration that so many people were demanding she get out of the race BEFORE IT IS OVER (as it cannot be before the convention, although she did not say that, since the superdelegates do not vote until then). Clinton's ONLY "reason" for "not getting out" was that the race is NOT OVER. The comments abut the past, including about RFK, were clearly indtended as CRITICISM of people who don' seem to understand that history shows you do not get out of a race until it is OVER. That was the meaning of her last sentence: "I don't understand it". That immediately followed the RFK reference, but clearly had nouthing to do with it (as the reference clearly had nothing to do with Clinton's main point). Clinton was talking about "not understanding" why some politicians and media people seemed to think that they had a right to demand that she "get out" before the race is over.
That brings up a major point. Have you noticed that the media--ALL of them--start questioining whether a candidate should drop out the moment the candidate loses a primary (early on), or seeems to face an uphill battle. Clinton is RIGHT (just can't believe I am saying these things). This is an EVIL thing. the media should be reporting FACTS, and not lobbying for candidates to get out of the race--encouraging others to try to FORCE candidates out by media "reports" whch have the effect of cutting off a candidate's money.
This is a subset of the overall media problem, which is getting worse by the day. SPECULATON is NOT "news".
6 comments:
Let’s get real: If the situation were somehow reversed and Obama had made a similar comment about Frau. Clinton, you’d be on the guy like ugly on an ape - once you got your ‘marching orders’ from Rush, of course.
Actually, Hillary Clinton's comment was NOT about Barack Obama (see the tape), and was, at worst, a politically insensitive remark resulting from Clinton "searching" for an example. I would not "get on" Barack Obama for that kind of remark. "Political Correctness" in speech is not onw of my things. I "got on" (correctly) Hillary Clinton for her lie about being under "sniper fire" in Bosnia (Dan thought I was too hard on her, but I was not). It is the MEDIA that is shwoing BIAS here--being willing to =jump all over Clinton over nothing while excusing everything Obama says (much worse)--not ME.
Blondepennie, however,is almost like Dick Morris in her views on Hillary Clinton. She acsused me of "sleeping with" Hillary Clinton (I am sure she meant figuratively) The mere thoght gave me nightmares for weeks. Yes, I am assuming blondepennie is a woman. That is not only because of the screen name, but because it is almost always WOMEN who are capble of giving me nightmares that bad. As readers of ths blog know, I favor Hillary Clinton for President ONLY to SABOTAGE both the Democratic Party and feminism for the next hundred years--hardly making me a real fan of hers.
The Religious Right’s ‘jihads’ against individual liberty are every bit as destructive to freedom as the Left’s various social engineering, soak-the-rich schemes.
I’d prefer McCain or Obama over a palpably evil and duplicitous Clinton.
I emphatically do NOT agree about the "religious right" (even though I am an agnottic myself). As I have repeatedly illustrated in this blog, the LEFT (includnig the ACLU) is MORE INTOLERANT than the "religious right" ever thought of being--or ever had any chance of being), including intolerant of the "religious right".
Let us go back to the first 200 years of this country's history (history is something leftists ignore, except to distort it). Did this country have no "liberty" during that time? Yet, for almost ALL of that time, abortion was illegal (which I think has to do with INFANTICIDE rather than reiligion) Homosexuality was NOT APPROVED (although generally tolerated). In fact, it was regareded as a DISEASE until well into the 20th Century. For THOUSANDS of years of human history (all of it), marriage has been regarded as between a man and a woman. There was no question of EXCLUDING prayer in local schools until 1960. This idea that the "religious right" is trying to undermine our founding " values" by imposing a "theocracy" is another one of those leftist Big Lies.
OK ...let's go back 200 years ... freedom prevailed awright ...as long as you were white, male and a property owner. And, boy ... those ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS were a breath of fresh air.
The main problems over the first 200 yeas had NOTHING to do with us being a "theocracy". Did "religious freedom" suffer because of prayer in loccal schools? Not that I noticed, and I grew up taking "Bible classes" on school property (after hours) in Mt. Ida, Arkansas. Women suffragettes and activists were often very religous (seeing what "demon rum" did to men). ANTI-SLAVERY activists were extremely religious You might objectively conclude that RELIGION was the downfall of slaery, and one of the main forces behind the Civil War. Uniton Troops went into battle TO END SLAVEARY singing: "Mine eyes have seen the coming og the glory of the Lord.." I would, and have, argued that leftists have DESTROYED the black family, while undermining marriage with such crusades as the crusade for homosexual "marriage". This has done more damage to African-Americans than anything that has happened since the modern civil rights movement began to prevail with Brown v. Board of Education. Then there is the MASSIVE control the Federal Government now has over our lives. Leftists have a very selective view of "freedom", and a very strange idea of what a "theocracy" is (lwhere they should look at almost ANY country where Islam is the main religion).
Post a Comment