Just this weekend you found out that RFK was still campaigning well into June although he was 148 pledged delegates behind Hubert Humphrey.....and nobody was pressuring him to drop out.

http://www.bartcop.com/141-bombshell-sample.m3u

YAWN!

delegates behind, now did she?

I thought she was supposed to KNOW shit like this.

The assassination date was all that was important to her.

Fail. As usual

Same cannot be said for HRC.

:rofl:

:)

He might not want to embarrass her.

:)

You want her barefoot and pregnant?

when you support a candidate that routinely interjected "I'm you girl", you Hill supporters and your hypocrisy continue to amaze me

The first started in March and the DNC rules were vastly different than they are in 2008.

The process 40 years ago resembles nothing that exist in 2008.

I may also add that your candidates advisors designed the current calendar to get a nominee by Super Tuesday. The did a heck of a job Brownie

:rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"MS. DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: Well, neither historical parallel that she offered were true, because Clinton had already sewed up the nomination by June, and in Bobby Kennedy's case, he'd only gotten into the race like six weeks prior to his assassination. I don't think she even needs to argue. She should acknowledge that party unity probably is hurt, but that this election is so unique that having more people vote and more people registered and more people excited is worth taking it to June. The problem is that the argument that the Clintons supporters have sometimes made is the superdelegates shouldn't even decide in June. They should wait until August, end of August, because who knows what might happen in the summer--a gaff, another pastor coming out of the woodwork, or, God forbid, what this thought suggested. And I think once it played into that, it became much more troubling."

I just thought you might like to know where your original mistake came from! :)

learn some respect for your juniors unless you want people to respond in kind.

Only thirteen states held primaries that year.

'kids'

classic.

And then not at all.

:)

The campaign schedule was completely different then.

But feel free to keep spinning.

HRC is appealing to fear, threats, and negativity.

All the time.

As if you're a worthy teacher to those less politically knowledgeable anyway. :rofl:

...do you?

You're just going to throw a turd against the wall, and see if it sticks, aren't you?

While I doubt that I can learn much from you... you see, I'm not a kid anymore... I do know that your comparison here... and I've seen it now about 137,687 times here on DU in the past few weeks... is simply not relevant. The campaign season was much different back then.

Wikipedia has a good article about the presidential election of 1968. Why don't you try reading it, before making stupid comments like this OP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1968

You might actually learn something!

not in 2008.

California was still out in 1968 - a big state with a lot of delegates. 2008 has only Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico - none of which are big enough to shift things like California in 1968.

It has been mathematically over for a long time.

First off, the first primary was not held until March 12th. RFK did not enter the race until March 16th. That was only 2 months into the primary cycle which consisted of a total of 13 states.

A little bit of math will tell you that the 1968 primary, until RFK died, was only three months old. If we use the three month metric, Hillary should have left her ten straight losses.

let this be the last post.

I'm fine with the Clinton supporters bringing her gaffe up over and over again. The more they try to explain, the less sense their explanations make. They were better off just whining that Obama was exploiting the gaffe, despite there being any good evidence of that, as that tactic diverts discussion away from the substance of the problem.

And the primaries/caucuses did not begin in January, but March. No valid comparison of '68 process/calendar to now.

then she didn't need to use the word "assassinated" at all, now did she?

primary elections had absolutely no impact in determining the nominee. Hubert Humphrey did not compete in any primary election that year, didn't jump into the race until April, was deemed LBJ's heir apparent and selected as the nominee at the convention. The days of back room deals determining the nominee, not the results of primaries and caucuses.

Looks like there was plenty of historical precedent for her just being chosen at the convention.

I was seven years old. All I remember is that he was killed that June.

But let me tell you something, 40 years later that fact is still painful. I am a member of Generation Jones - the largest voting age demographic. We remember RFK's June of 68 well enough to know that it's too soon to use it as a non-emotive, timeline talking point. Anybody with any damned social sense would know that.

When are you going to stop defending her and admit she's just wrong?

Although I would say it would never be appropriate to use it.

Nice try, by all means keep trying to spin her campaigns inevitable demise.

no use giving this person attention...

They can try spin out of this but all they are doing is accelerating the death spiral.

1) in '68 and '92 there was a huge primary in June, the California primary, that could actually change the outcome. There is no such huge primary this year. There are only small primaries left none of which, nor the sum of which, can alter the outcome. This attempt to salvage Clinton's gaffe fails as it does not explain her point. It does not explain why her campaign continues.

2) that's nice. Now what exactly did RFK's assassination have to do with anything?

If you would like to continue to bring up Clinton's gnawingly bizarre explanation for why she continues her failed campaign, go right ahead, but please do stop concurrently complaining that the Obama campaign is pushing this issue.

We didn't have to learn it. Some of us remember it. And we remember that the primaries started much later. The CA primary - always one of the biggest and most important - was in June that year. In fact, this is the year they were front-loaded - so as to produce a presumptive nominee early and therefore have time to concentrate on the GE. OK, that didn't work out very well. Can't be helped at this point.

Those of us who were around remember 1968 as a nightmare, for the most part. The hope we held for change and a better direction was buried with the two assassinated leaders. The convention produced a candidate who lost and we got Nixon. What lesson were we supposed to take from that?

:rofl:

it wouldn't be half as much fun if they hadn't righteously earned all that negative karma when they thought HIllary was the inevitable nominee.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

By the way, RFK has only been in the race for 8 weeks at the time.

don't you think it would've been a bit more tactful to say THAT instead of "Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June" which came out sounding like "Bobby Kennedy wasn't even assassinated until June...it could happen."

No rational person thinks she wishes this to happen to Obama, however, it was freakin' crass no matter what, but like everyone has said, let's move on. Stop trying to justify something that has no justification. Just admit it sounded bad and let it go. If you can't admit it sounded bad and probably not the best words she could've chosen, well, that's just silly.

By the way, a little thing I've learned in life, older does not always equal wiser. :)

And the Democrats lost in 1968.

And Bartcop is a bigger dumbass than Jim Robinson, Micelle Malkin, and Lucianne Goldberg combined.

You're beginning to sound, uh, well,
stupid.

then he was killed. just a little historical reminder.

.....permanently :evilfrown:

Competitive Democratic nomination contests took place in June in 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, and 1976 as well. 92 and 68 are not the only examples by a long long way.

:rofl: guess not! :spank:

by the way, when did Bobby Kennedy begin his race in 1968?

...they were engaging in their THIRTEENTH primary of the season in June... a primary season which had begun in MARCH.

Stop assuming we're idiots. It's insulting when Clinton does it, and it's insulting when you do it on her behalf.

Whatever it takes to rationalize hilliary continuing in a losing endeavor. She can't win. She has already lost.

Back in the dungeon with you. :hi: