Tuesday, May 31, 2016

When Hillary Clinton Suggested the RFK Assassination Could Happen to Obama As Reason to Stay in the Race.

Back in 2008 when she ran against Obama for the Democratic nomination,Clinton enraged, disgusted, and angered almost everybody when, in a Q&A with newspaper editors at the end of May before the last spate of 2008 primaries and still hoping to close a delegate gap between herself and Obama, Clinton was asked why she was staying in the race when it was clear Obama would finish with more delegates and Nancy Pelosi was publicly lobbying (or was it lobbing) the idea that even if neither finished with enough delegates for the nomination the one who had the most should win.

Hillary Clinton's answer was to remind them that Robert Kennedy had been assassinated in June,suggesting that,you know, anything can happen.Even an assassination. In other words,for Hillary Clinton in 2008, Robert Kennedy's June 1968 assassination was, like the slogan in the ads for the New York State lottery,an example of "hey you never know" suggesting the same could happen to Obama.

It goes without saying her answer both astonished and offended a lot of people.

It also goes without saying that  the negative fallout was almost immediate. And as soon as Clinton started feeling the heat from her assassination comment she  issued a familiar statement: she was sorry and "regretted it" something that has become a broken record in 2016. And if you want to believe this, Clinton said it was because Teddy Kennedy's cancer had been on her mind.Which goes right into the same folder as her private email server having been approved.

Invoking the RFK assassination to partly justify continuing her candidacy was not only politically incredulous on its own terms but obnoxious on human terms.To think of an assassination in self serving political terms is not only reprehensible it also underscores the tunnel vision of Clinton's blind ambition, her sense of entitlement and willingness to do or say anything to serve her personal political ambition and then try and justify it or apologize for it later. And, as we have seen in 2016 with her constant lying and obvious colluding to rig the nominating process against Sanders,when it comes to her ambition, nothing else matters.

Normal people dont think things like that. And given that she was running against the first legitimate African American presidential candidate and there was an undercurrent of unspoken concerns about some racist lunatic deciding to do a James Earl Ray,it  made her comment twice as obnoxious.

Some of her supporters over the last few weeks had floated the idea that Bernie Sanders should drop out though unlike Clinton in 2008 they didnt raise the spectre of assassination. Or considered the possiblity of assassination as an opportunity. 

They didn't count on Sanders winning 20 states and tying in 4 more out of 44 primaries so far making him more than just a major thorn in Clinton's side.But unlike 2008 Clinton hasnt suggested an assassination to get rid of him the way it obviously crossed her mind in 2008 with Obama. In fact what made Clinton's 2008 comments even more obnoxious and even worse, revealing of her character, is that given her ambitions she sounded like she almost keeping her fingers crossed. 

For Sanders, based on the obvious rigging that has been going on with both the DNC and news media supporting her, Clinton and her cronies seem to think they have other ways of taking care of Sanders.They are so brazen about the process being rigged they practically admit it with Clinton as well as campaign manager Robby Mook and Debby Wasserman-Schultz guaranteeing Clinton  will be the nominee.

Congressman Adam Schiff patronizingly suggested recently that its okay for Sanders to stay in, (big of you Adam) but that he should direct his fire at Trump not Hillary Clinton.

Unfortunately for Schiff, Clinton, and her supporters the Office of  Inspector General at the State Department didnt get the memo and issued a report so scathing on Hillary Clinton that even the usually docile, sheep-like establishment pandering news media were attacking her.

On MSNBC Mika Breszeinski could not contain her disgust for Clinton virtually calling her a liar,along with the usually timid Andrea Mitchell saying she wouldnt go so far as to call Clinton a liar but that what Clinton said  about her private email server being approved was not true. Even CNN's timid, pandering and ingratiating game show host Wolf Blitzer challenged Clinton in an interview on her previous statements about her server being approved as untrue.

The irony is that the "hey you never know" gambit Clinton was hoping for in 2008 when it came to an assassination may come to pass against Clinton. Based on the OIG report Clinton broke at least one law multiple times, the Federal Records Act ( "Act" means law not a rule)  but there is evidence in the report suggesting she may have violated many more laws including the unauthorized destruction of government records, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice with a senior staff member,obstructing a government agency in the official administration of its duties, a myriad of national security violations and more.

All of which indicates Clinton could be headed for serious legal problems.

The further irony is that Eric Holder said in a recent interview that what Snowden did was a public service but still illegal and because he broke a law he must still do prison time. Since nothing Clinton did in breaking the law and violating national security regulations was a public service, one has to assume the legal standards that apply to anyone else have to apply to her.

There is every reason to believe the FBI, knowing full well she is a candidate for president, hasnt interviewed  her yet because of that decision they must make, which is, if they have made a finding that Clinton violated one more laws, they must, by law, notify her before any interview that she is now a target of the investigation.

 Though still to many journalists shilling for Clinton that laughably, still might not be enough. Lisa Lerer of the AP wrote in an article after the Inspector General report came out that" if Clinton is indicted it could (my italics) damage her campaign". Really?

That Clinton is the one who might be on the wrong end of an unexpected event, though not the assassination of Obama she suggested in 2008 would be a Shakespearean irony.

Clinton and unprincipled Democrats in and out of congress supporting her, once counted on a rigged convention to hand her the nomination and which Clinton, characteristically still believes is the case
("Im going to be the nominee, that is for certain" she said only a couple of days ago, sounding very much like someone who believes the fix is in).

Bernie Sanders is finally talking publicly about the Democrats rigging the convention and nominating process which its clear they did and have been doing, and that doesnt bode well for Democrats or Clinton getting any Sanders voters most of whom actually despise Clinton and the DNC to begin with  for the ways they have rigged the process and cheated democracy. Which is exactly what an assassination does.

With Clinton presently  having a 270 delegate lead with 913 to be won, with California now 50-50 in the polls which usually means a Sanders victory, winning California and four other states might be something even corrupt super delegates cant overcome.  They might even secretly hope for a Clinton indictment to get them off the hook politically as a reason to flip to Sanders.Because no one in their right minds thinks Clinton is a stronger candidate than Sanders. Or that she has a better chance to beat Trump than Sanders.Clinton's nomination if it were to happen is all dirty back room politics and corporate money. And would probably take down the Democratic Party anyway.

With the irony of Clinton now facing the kind of " hey you never know" event she was gambling on in 2008 when she invoked the RFK assassination, any kind of surprise could end Clinton's chances. Chuck Todd  recently said Clinton couldnt even get confirmed as Attorney General.

Cheating democracy is exactly what an assassination does.It eliminates a candidate or leader and deprives people of the person they want to govern or deprives them of their choice. Sometimes character assassination can do that. The irony is that the candidate, Hillary Clinton, who brought up assassination in 2008 as a reason to stay in the race against Obama opening the door for her in 2008 is, with the help of the DNC, trying to carry out a different kind of assassination to accomplish the same thing by rigging the entire election and primary process against Bernie Sanders which in its own way does what assassinations do --cheats democracy, cheats the American people and cheats the democratic process by eliminating the opposition for that moment in time.


Anonymous said...

tdraicer: I see you've completely lost your mind. Meanwhile, the next President, who has already defeated Sanders (only his over-inflated ego keeps him in the race) just ate Trump for lunch today.

Alessandro Machi said...

What everyone conveniently avoids about that situation four years ago was, Hillary Clinton was only 59 pledged delegates behind, the question should have never been asked and was the culmination of six months of media assaults against Hillary Clinton.

And not only has the blog author lost his mind, it's likely he was a fraud 8 years ago when he ran the Denver Group.
But hey, there's no conspiracy groups out there against the Clintons.