Hillary Clinton: Watch what you say

[freedom13]

Rev. Al Sharpton urges Hillary Clinton: Watch what you say

Rev. Al Sharpton urges Hillary Clinton: Watch what you say Cool it with the assassination talk, the Rev. Al Sharpton warned Saturday. Sharpton said he spoke to Hillary Clinton Saturday morning about her recent reference to the assassination of Robert Kennedy - "and she understands my feelings firmly." Her team did not immediately divulge the details of their chat. Clinton raised eyebrows - and drew a rebuke from rival Barack Obama's campaign - by recalling Kennedy's 1968 killing while defending her determination to keep running against Barack Obama. "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," she told South Dakota Argus Leader's editorial board Friday. "I don't understand it." Clinton later apologized for the remark, saying she meant no disrespect to the Kennedy family. Instead, she said, she was only pointing out that other presidential campaigns had run into the summer, so she should not be pressured to withdraw. Daily News readers erupted over her assassination comment on nydailynews. com. "How disgusting!!!!!!! Hillary has hit rock-bottom," wrote one. "[She] did Obama a favor, now he does not even have to consider her for the V.P. spot," another commented.

[Jack]

Am I alone is considering this a tempest in a teapot? Good grief, if we are expected to lose all respect for a politician who misspeaks or says something stupid now and then we should have never reelected Bush. I try to never allow a single statement made by anyone to color my perception of that person. That we are encouraged to do that in cases like this just speaks to the irrationality we're subjected to during political election time.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Jack Am I alone is considering this a tempest in a teapot? Good grief, if we are expected to lose all respect for a politician who misspeaks or says something stupid now and then we should have never reelected Bush. I try to never allow a single statement made by anyone to color my perception of that person. That we are encouraged to do that in cases like this just speaks to the irrationality we're subjected to during political election time.

She was making a point that when Kennedy was shot his campaign was still active and that was in June, back then the democratic party was not demanding their canidates must unite, like the news media is doing relative to Hillary Clinton.

And this is taking place just as the older Kennedy is in the hospital with brain cancer.

So what did she say wrong? Al Sharpton must have pointed out that people link the deaths of Martin King Jr and the deaths of Bobby and John Kennedy together. Some will recall the old poster of those three with the word "WHY?" written on it. A well known poster. Many think that those deaths were part of a conspiracy that those leaders were killed by agents of the Republican's hidden party that was created under Nixon. Or at least that those nut cases who pulled the trigger were pro-Republican and pro-Nixon.

The "watch what you say" remark was some wise advice, because some nut might want to copy-cat what happened to Bobby in order to gain fame in the media, and her remark might seed that idea in the minds of such nuts and they might attempt to shoot Obama come June. I do not even want to think about what would happen if Americans had to endur that kind of shock. I think Hillary Clinton quickly understood that when Al Sharpton pointed out her un-intended misstake.

The apology was not really for the Kennedy family, but to those who fear that history could repeat it's self and so "shut up and don't give anyone such an idea" was what is behind Al Sharpton's intervention.

We are in a very dangerious situation here and I hope to God that Obama has some top notch security protection, a lot of KKK nuts are still out there and the FBI had better keep a close watch on those kinds of groups as this election unfolds, all hell could break loose.

But I do not think that Hillary Clinton fully grasped this when she compared hers and Obama's campaign which has dragged out so long and perhaps into June.

If something happened to one of those canidates and some other person had to step in to replace them at the last moment then that could give McCain a big edge for getting elected as Democrats give up all hope.

We do not want Obama or Hillary to be added to that poster that asked "WHY?"

The paradox of all this is that Hillary was hoping for another goof by Obama to give her another needed boost, instead of that happening it was her that goofed when she put her own foot in her mouth.

Obama cannot use that remark agenst her and still agree with Al Sharpton to "hush up about that". So the remarks will fade soon (and I hope the media can also understand this) and new agendas will be talked about as the remaining states hold thier primary.

I even had 2nd thoughts about making this post, but I doubt if anything said on this webpage will have any big influence on happenings.

[Sonart]

.

Clinton was using two very clear, high profile examples to demonstrate that previous primary campaigns had gone well into June, so therefore there was no particularly urgent reason for Hillary to end her own campaign a month earlier. Example no.1 was her own husband, who, in June of 1992, was still fighting with Jerry Brown in the California primary. Example no.2 was even more high profile, since many Democrats remember the date by heart, June 4, when Bobby Kennedy had won a come-from-behind victory in the California primary that placed him in contention with Hubert Humphrey... only to be gunned down.

Quote by: Technosoul She was making a point that when Kennedy was shot his campaign was still active and that was in June, back then the democratic party was not demanding their canidates must unite, like the news media is doing relative to Hillary Clinton.

Exactly!

Clinton apologized for making the reference immediately following Ted Kennedy's announcement of a life threatening illness. That's probably entirely appropriate.

Other suggestions that Clinton was implying that Obama might get shot after the race was decided - if she pulled out too early - are ridiculously pessemistic. If there's any criticism, it's that Hillary conveniently forgets that unlike in 1968, when the primaries began in March, it began earlier than ever this campaign... in December of last year.

.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Sonart . Clinton was using two very clear, high profile examples to demonstrate that previous primary campaigns had gone well into June, so therefore there was no particularly urgent reason for Hillary to end her own campaign a month earlier. Example no.1 was her own husband, who, in June of 1992, was still fighting with Jerry Brown in the California primary. Example no.2 was even more high profile, since many Democrats remember the date by heart, June 4, when Bobby Kennedy had won a come-from-behind victory in the California primary that placed him in contention with Hubert Humphrey... only to be gunned down. Exactly! Clinton apologized for making the reference immediately following Ted Kennedy's announcement of a life threatening illness. That's probably entirely appropriate. Other suggestions that Clinton was implying that Obama might get shot after the race was decided - if she pulled out too early - are ridiculously pessemistic. If there's any criticism, it's that Hillary conveniently forgets that unlike in 1968, when the primaries began in March, it began earlier than ever this campaign... in December of last year. .

I would agree, and being they started in December of last year I do not see why the rule about a early primary violation should stick, as it all seems in keeping with the rush to start early attitudes of all the canadates..

I acturally was watching CNN when she made those remarks in a recorded live speech. In no way did I percieve that as being a bad remark about the Kennedy family or their past canidates. Ted Kennedy by the way had announced his support for Obama (not sure if he will make it to take part in the convention, due to treatments that will start soon) however.

However it is good that she took Al Sharpton's advice as this shows she is ready to listen to the African American leaders and to take action on their justified requests.

[LadiesMan217]

I don't see what the big deal is.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: LadiesMan I don't see what the big deal is.

Alas, politics has become the art of making big deals out of not all that much.


.

[Gods_Mercenary]

We are in a very dangerious situation here and I hope to God that Obama has some top notch security protection, a lot of KKK nuts are still out there and the FBI had better keep a close watch on those kinds of groups as this election unfolds, all hell could break loose.

The Secret Service aren't good enough?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary The Secret Service aren't good enough?

They provide security for people do they not? But it sort of depends on who is in charge of the Secret Police and relative to what if you are going to get into a conspiracy theory. At the moment I believe that would be Bush and his Homeland Security People. Not sure how motivated he would be in directing security for Obama or Clinton.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I don't think he has a choice, necessarily, they're mandated to protect VIP's to the best of they're ability, and I'd think they'd take it as a professional insult if they're job was interfered with. It's not like Bush makes all the daily decisions for them, having a person you're protecting being able to micro-manage your strategy's does not make for very good security.

[xyzer]

Agree with Jack, this whole issue was a tempest in a teapot. What I think it reveals is how Hillary has lost favor with the press. When she was riding high a year ago it would have slipped by. Today the press, and I, feel she has been around too long!

She is frantically scrambling to inject some levering issue or criticism into her failing campaign.
I think she is through and should quit wasting resources trying to turn around her campaign.
Perhaps as some say she is trying to gain enough notoriety to try again in 4 years? However, in this respect she shows a stubbornness and avoidance of reality that may demonstrate her likelihood of not taking any advice from her staff if she should become president!

Quite frankly I'n sick of both Clintons. They are crooks, opportunists and liars ever ready to foster their fortunes at the expense of others.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I don't think he has a choice, necessarily, they're mandated to protect VIP's to the best of they're ability, and I'd think they'd take it as a professional insult if they're job was interfered with. It's not like Bush makes all the daily decisions for them, having a person you're protecting being able to micro-manage your strategy's does not make for very good security.

Acturally the canadate must request that security coverage, it is not provided automatically. Anyway I was not talking just about the guys who stand near a canidate during public events.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: xyzer Agree with Jack, this whole issue was a tempest in a teapot. What I think it reveals is how Hillary has lost favor with the press. When she was riding high a year ago it would have slipped by. Today the press, and I, feel she has been around too long! She is frantically scrambling to inject some levering issue or criticism into her failing campaign. I think she is through and should quit wasting resources trying to turn around her campaign. Perhaps as some say she is trying to gain enough notoriety to try again in 4 years? However, in this respect she shows a stubbornness and avoidance of reality that may demonstrate her likelihood of not taking any advice from her staff if she should become president! Quite frankly I'n sick of both Clintons. They are crooks, opportunists and liars ever ready to foster their fortunes at the expense of others.

Your observtions about the Clintons are wrong, how is writting a few books or getting paid to make speechs "fostering a fortune at the expense of others"? It is a perfectly honest way to make money.

Why should she quit when she she is still winning states hands down and the people who support her still come out to attend her events and to vote for her? And when the super deligates might very well favor her in the end once they count the Fla voters. Why should someone quit under pressure or when the going gets a little tough? PS - her staff, who appear on CNN often enough, have not given her advice to quit.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Technosoul Acturally the canadate must request that security coverage, it is not provided automatically. Anyway I was not talking just about the guys who stand near a canidate during public events.

The Secret Service is responsible for all personal security, not just the guys who stand in front of the candidate. and I'd imagine Barack requested some.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary The Secret Service is responsible for all personal security, not just the guys who stand in front of the candidate. and I'd imagine Barack requested some.

Okay, but they can provide different levels of security depending on if they think the subject of the protection needs protection under some major threat or if the person needs only the standard protection offered.

And someone higher up is in charge of determining if a person needs full protection or just the nomal amount of standard protection.

Like beefing up the protection in a "red alert" situation form a "green alert" situation (to illustrate my point).

By the way McCain did not request it for a long time but now has done so. He agreed with his staff to request it after getting the boo during the Martin King Jr event that he attended, as he was going to tour some African American communities where he was unpopular.

I think Obama represents someone needing the full treatment, that is all I am saying. Too many KKK type nuts still out there who are violent in nature.

[xyzer]

Lets see now..

Your observtions about the Clintons are wrong, how is writting a few books or getting paid to make speechs "fostering a fortune at the expense of others"? It is a perfectly honest way to make money.

Lets begin at the begining with brother Bill...Lying under oath in a court deposition hearing.(perjury), illegallyattempting to influence witnesses in a civil case,(He lost his law license over that one) lying to the nation on TV about his relationship with an intern, accepting money(for his ?library) for padoning a wanted felon who still owes back taxes, pardoning several mrelatives, deliberatel ignoring the growing terrorist threat in the 1990,s ,bombing foreign countries without congressional approval, exposing his penis to a women Paula Jones) in a public place, molesting several others, even being accused of the rape of another?.

Then there is Hillary, who made some unusual money in an investment scheme in Arkansas, refused to respond to a subpoena about her 'whitwater' antics saying it couldn't be found(it was later found in her quarters) Her direct involvement in the travelgate and filegate scandals, who when Vince Foster died, removed Vince Fosters records from his office before they could be perused by investigators , who coined the phrase "vast rightwing conspiracy" when her husband was impeached. Who quickly establishe residence with other people money in New York State so she could run for the senate? Who, in violation of Senate ethics rule accepted a book contract. Who has for the first term and well into the second has done little but campaign Can you name any initiatives helping the people of New York she has participated in?

Is that enough for 8 years of so, or do you want some more? IMNSHO these two are the epitome of political and moral trash. Their entire political and personal lives have been marked by scandal. They have covered their tracks quite well with the aid of many..People in charge of Bimbo eruptions, apologists like Lanny Davis, saying that perjury is not an impeachable offense , and even prominent law professors saying that their personal lives(time they spent in the whitehouse) are no impeachable offenses? Clinton only escaped conviction becaus a bunch of sympathizing Democrat Senators rescued him. What a joke!

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary The Secret Service aren't good enough?

They're certainly not perfect, are they, since they couldn't keep John or Bobby Kennedy alive, couldn't keep Ronald Reagan from being shot or Gerald Ford from being an uncocked chamber away from being shot.

Quote by: Xyzer Is that enough for 8 years of so, or do you want some more?

Not even by a longshot, Xyzer. Regurgitating unproven bullsh!t doesn't mean diddly. The investigation into Whitewater - just to name one "Scandal" - in which the Clinton's lost money 10 years before being elected President, involved 2 Special Prosecutors, 4 Congressional investigations, a grand jury, 6 years, $80 million and an international press feeding frenzy, and came up with a grand total of jack sh!t on either Clinton. As did the subsequent unending list of baseless "Scandals" investigated by the Republican congress.

Given that the Clintons were probably the least wealthy inhabitants of the White House in its history, it speaks volumes that they were also probably the least corrupt.

As to Clinton's lying under oath... so did Reagan and so did George Bush pere and so did his nominee for the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas. So what? Only the VRWC decided they could make a crime out of it.

As I always like to point out, given our current idiot President, whose lies and criminal negligence are slowly destroying our country, it's reassuring to know that we only impeach our President's for really serious offenses... like lying under oath about a casual affair.
.

[Gods_Mercenary]

They're certainly not perfect, are they, since they couldn't keep John or Bobby Kennedy alive, couldn't keep Ronald Reagan from being shot or Gerald Ford from being an uncocked chamber away from being shot.

That's because protecting a person is a losing battle. The minute they appear in the open air, there are thousands of vantage points where any dude with a rifle could take a pot shot, and you can't thouroughly search every crowd the guy goes through. Added to that, they're protecting the four or five guys who are the most desirable targets for assassination in the world. The Secret Service is certainly the best if you want to be protected

[Sonart]

.



So then why are you asking, "The Secret Service aren't good enough?"



.

[Gods_Mercenary]

He implied that he thought Obama needed better protection.