Since RFK Assassination Threads are Still Showing Up Here, Someone Please Explain

Why, if the Obama campaign has been so concerned about security from day one, did the police in the city of Dallas go public with their concerns that his campaign was lax in security in their effort to crowd as many people as possible into public appearances in Dallas back in February?

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/mr_obama_you_cant_say_that_dallas_does_l



The same thing happened at another Obama event

http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/second-obama-event-security-lapse.html



These two instances suggests that the Obama campaign requested that the seats be filled. Had the first incident not met with their approval, presumably they would have demanded that Secret Service heighten security due to the high level of publicity that the Dallas security lapse got. This report from Secret Service seems to confirm that the lax screening met with the Obama campaign's approval.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Sports/2008/02/22/secret_service_says_obama_rally_was_secure/8554/

And why did Obama campaign representatives not contact Sen. Clinton in private and request that she refrain from making such comparison which might increase the threat of violence to Senator Obama, if indeed words such as "assassination" can trigger the act? Why did Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton choose to send emails to the press in order to put the story on the front page and on prime time national television instead, so that every gun toting American could see and hear the dreaded word? Was he thinking responsibly? Did he have his candidate's best interest at heart? Did he consult the Secret Service? Was protecting Sen. Obama his primary concern or did he put Sen. Obama at risk in order to make him seem more heroic? Similar comments by Clinton in the past had not been picked up by the press---or by psychotic killers--when the Obama campaign did not draw attention to them.

Since the RFK comment has been widely discussed, Obama has been praised for his great "courage" in running for president. While this adds to his character, I would prefer that he add to his security by doing full firearms screenings on everyone who attends his rallies. The Democrats do not need a someone who is good at dodging bullets like Reagan. They need a nominee.

which really doesn't hold true in the state of organizational fluidity and confusion that characterizes a campaign and the role of police.

After all, clearly the Obama campaign would want the seats filled. Why were the police going so slowly that security being applied would be too slow to fill the seats? The question, silly as it indeed is under the circumstances, is a lot like the questions posed by the OP.

Why should Obama's campaign maintain strict privacy in response to something totally public and intrinsically striking and being discussed everywhere in the media even before they have touched it?

to fuel them. Go back to the original reports that were first making the rounds and there was a comment from the Obama camp saying how upset they were at the awful thing that Clinton said.

Without that Obama comment, there was no story. Or to put it another way, the story was not what Clinton said, which was open to interpretation. The story was how the Obama camp interpreted it.

It's the other way around. The determination to relax security HAD to have been a Secret Service directive. The Secret Service wouldn't allow his campaign to make a decision regarding his safety that would prohibit them from doing their job.

had wanted to beef it up, to be extra cautious, because of the concerns of their supporters, like members of the Dallas Police Department, many of whom would be Obama supporters, I am sure that the Secret Service would have complied. The campaign and the SS must have come to a decision that some kind of relaxed security would be allowed in certain cases in order to fill campaign stops.

Being Barack Obama, this would probably be safe. His people love him.

Hillary Clinton, with her high negatives, might want to think twice about letting just anyone in. She and Bill were the first president and first lady that the RW put in the cross hairs on T-shirts.

to apologize? ... and why did she never even apologize to him publicly? These are much more relevant questions IMHO.

There is nothing that will stop him from upstaging Hillary Clinton!!1!!1

:eyes:

And that comment of yours just about sums up the completely squirrely OP.

How dare the media report on what hillary said in a media interview... how dare Obama not keep hillary's mega-gaff on the DL?

LOL!!!


Rather like if I punched you in the face, then blamed you for hurting my hand.

chastisement of voters(simple-minded), let me add my assertion of how ignorant(being nice) the msm, and Clinton haters are.

From a bartcop reader.
"I remember so well RFK standing at the Podium after winning the California primary.
He made a speech and then said "....Now it's on to Chicago and let's win there!"

"Clearly he had won the California primary but he had not won enough delegates
to win the nomination outright. He was going to Chicago the city where the convention
was being held to convince the delegates that he was the best candidate for the presidency.

Sound familiar? Remember he was trying to usurp a sitting Vice President
who had received the imprimatur of the President such as it was."

From Wikipedia:
Kennedy finally won the Indiana and Nebraska Democratic primaries, but
lost the Oregon primary. If he could defeat McCarthy in the California primary,
the leadership of the campaign thought, he would knock him out of the race and
set up a one-on-one against Hubert Humphrey (whom he bested in the primary
held on the same day as the California primary in Humphrey's birth state,
South Dakota) at the Chicago national convention in August.

The closest anyone can come to inferring an assassination of a candidate, would be that HRC alluded to her own demise. HRC's campaign is in virtually the same postition Kennedy was in during his campaign. Obama cannot even be referred to in this analogy. While it's clear what HRC was saying, what the msm, and Clinton haters(Obamaniacs) have done is the same thing they have done with the race card. They have taken a statement of fact, that sometimes primaries run past June and on, and they have, as usual, come up with their own interpretation of the facts, which turns them into fantasies for the haters. Compared to Obama supporters, the bushbots of 2004 looked like saints, and I'm beginning to think they were smarter as well. They attacked the Democrats with lies, spin, and hatred. Obama fans are attacking their own with the same tactics, but I doubt the outcome will be as successful. How dumb is that? Rabid Obamaniacs(majority?), and the msm are some sick puppies. Thanks.
quickesst

The Secret Service is more careful about people in the front of the crowd than the back, because there is less danger. Therefore, for a large event, they can screen the first few thousand, and let the people in the back (often behind a gate) in without screening.

There reportedly has been many death threats. That is why Obama never announces his public events more than 30 hours in advance - so them evildoers don't have time to plan.

You could have focused on being concerned about Obama's lax security because you were concerned for his safety. Instead, you made it a matter of apparent hypocrisy.

So, you've chosen to rekindle the discussion and remind me how much it pissed me off the Clinton made such a callous and calculated remark.