Joan Walsh defended Hillary's Robert Kennedy remark.

I was watching Hardball and I saw Joan Walsh defend Hillary. She made good points that I agree with. She made the point that Hillary was just providing examples of June campaigns.

Invoking "assassination" particularly in this race is unforgivable.

That Miz Walsh didn't forget to warn (or threaten) that the Clinton supporters would stay home on election day if the assassination comment stays front and center in the public arena.sigh.....

probably as close to a threatening posture as she can muster, not realizing of course that people have had just about enough of the Clintons and the best thing is for them to just go away and hush - and we will think of them no more.

A shame, really. But entirely self-inflicted, so the threats and attempted guilt trip are pointless.

Now tell me FARAFIELD where can I git one of those? I need a good house pet.

Oops.

Just showing how loaded words can sneak into discourse.

it was another wink to the supers: "don't waste your vote on a risky phenom like RFK"

campaign has been touting in their defense to stay in the primary. They've been talking about the "anything" for weeks now.

of where she stands politically...she sounded like Gerry Ferraro..ya know only SOBER

that made her supporters want to stay home! Sounded like she was headed that way to me!

Oh, I guess she forgot that little fact. The fact that makes Clinton's explanation for why she remains in the race bullshit. Plus of course it still does not explain the assassination comment.

Most peeps here are alergic to it!


K&R!

Assassination.

Is that a word you just toss into an historical statistic to make a point about past primaries?

Assassination.

That's a hell of a word. A powerful word, especially in world of instant, repetitive media.

Would you just throw that word around as if it was nothing?

There are plenty of recent examples of long-running primaries, and his example wasn't even a correct analogy.

Hillary LIED when she said she only mentioned him because she had Ted's illness on her mind. No one knew Ted was ill when she's mentioned RFK before.

They can say what they want, but there's only one reason to keep mentioning the name of a young, popular senator whose Democratic nomination bid was cut short - and that's to keep it fresh on people's minds.

And there aren't too many reasons to do that.

And yes the same things has happened on the Hillary side also.

forward because of Hillary's remark, including those made by some of Hillary's supporters.

June. I just don't understasnd.

It just seems like there were better comparisons that would have been more historically accurate to support the argument.

Dee Dee Myers had a good take on the argument on Morning Joe this morning (I was certain that I had seen her described as a Clinton supporter on previous shows, but other posters told me that she is officially neutral. I may have just assumed since she is a former Clinton staffer and makes good arguments for Hillary that sound much more genuine and believable than the things that come out of Howard and Lanny's mouth. I said this in another thread, but I think that she would have been a good asset to the Hillary Clinton campaign. Here is a op ed she did for the Huffington Post (don't get distracted by the article's title . She says that Hillary should have instead argued that the race is so unprecedented. I don't agree with some of the things she says, but it's so refreshing compared to some of the spin I hear from other Hillary surrogates).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dee-dee-myers/hillarys-bone-headed-argu_b_103759.html


"So if Clinton wants to keep on keeping on, as she clearly does, she should argue that this race is unprecedented, that at no time in history have two candidates been in a virtual tie after 48 states have held primaries or caucuses, and some 35 million people have weighed in. Since it's come this far, she might say, she should be allowed to see it through, until "every vote is counted," including those in Florida and Michigan. It is, after all, historic.

Instead, she's arguing precedent. And the most analogous race is not 1992 or 1968, but 1984. In that race, the establishment candidate and presumptive nominee got surprised in the early contests by a virtual unknown promising new ideas and a new generation of leadership. The frontrunner's lead evaporated, and he had to battle the challenger through a long primary season which didn't end until the last contests in early June. When the dust had settled, the two had an almost equal number of pledged delegates and votes. But a series of gaffes by the less experienced candidate -- as well as the establishment candidate's support among superdelegates -- allowed the latter to claim the nomination.

And after Walter Mondale beat Gary Hart, he went on to lose 49 states in November."

today's calendar and it would have been mid April when the 1968 primary was wound up.

She also LIED when she said that Bill didn't win his nomination until June. So said what she meant, meant what she said and anyone with a working brain gets it.

that's what I read posted on here. You know, one of those number screwups, sorta like America having 57 states.

I hadn't watched him for quite a while because of Buchanan and Tucker.

I just turned it on to see what you guys were talking about
and noticed that now he has Buchanan and Tucker talking about the republicans
in one segment.

and then he has another group, with those two nuts excluded, talking about the democrats.

I still haven't seen the segment you are talking about, but he program is better organized
than it used to be.

but Joan has blinders on and ear plugs too, apparently..

this isn't about the comments for Joan. Her anger is seething because she feels that Obama has stolen something from Hillary. It's very apparent. Wonder how "fair" she will be when it comes to commentary about an Obama GE candidacy. Not very I bet.

She said that at NO TIME was Obama referenced.

The other journalist SHOULD have said this...

She was talking about THIS PRIMARY SEASON

There are two candidates in this Primary Season.

She was NOT referring to herself.

She WAS referring to some calamity befalling Obama.

She did it in a way that she can profess innocence... but notice this...

She did not apologize to ANY OF THE PEOPLE that are offended or could be injured by this "assassination" reference.

Joan Walsh claimed that all the people that are offended, and expressing their indignation are FAKING OUTRAGE... exaggerating... DELIBERATELY MISCONSTRUING Clinton's statements. She further stated that WE will cost the election... that people will stay home because of our further "demonizing Hillary and Bill."

Charles... we are NOT doing that. What she said

WAS DEMONIC

I'm not exaggerating or lying or faking outrage or trying to hurt your feelings.

I know and respect how much loyalty and affection you have for Hillary Clinton.

But listen... when one person tells you you're a horse... you can blow that off. If two people tell you you're a horse... well maybe you should think about it.

WHEN MILLIONS of people tell you that you're a horse?

Put a saddle on and giddyup Hillary.

quality and intellect.

or voters will stay home in droves because Hillary & Bill have been treated so badly.

You're all on notice...STFU or Obama loses

Hill & Bill will dance and say we told you so!

lose all respect for her in this campaign. She wasn't my first choice, but she was my second choice for awhile. Now, I wouldn't vote for her for ANY position.

in the beginning. I was so proud of our choices - NOW, one scares me - her win-at-all-cost creepy campaign is dividing the voters. I was so hoping after 8 years of Bush we'd all be happy with our new democratic president. That's not going to happen now because of The Clinton's inability to accept defeat.

Walsh really pissed me off with her threat - she has a column in salon today, with interesting comments.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/05/27/clinton_bashing/