Clinton’s new plan

May 25th, 2008 at 1:28 pm by David Farrar

It seems has a new plan for winning the nomination. Just keep the race going as long as possible, and wait for Obama to be assassinated as Robert Kennedy was!

Well how else does one interpret her remarks:

“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. I don’t understand it,” she said, dismissing calls to drop out

So the race isn’t over until the first shit shot is fired!

UPDATE: And maybe her Plan B ties into Bill pushing her to be the VP candidate for Obama. Wait long enough and she might still get to be the first female President!

Tags: , ,

33 Responses to “Clinton’s new plan”

  1. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    “So the race isn’t over until the first shit is fired!”

    For goodness sake, DPF, will you get over your obsession with Winston Peters!?!

    sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (13,774 comments) says:

    Ah, what the smell of political power can do to aspiring middle-aged females.

    It sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Grant Michael McKenna (1,160 comments) says:

    There is a bumper sticker that both Clintonites and Obamaphiles have:

    “RUN HILARY RUN”

    Clinton supporters put it on the rear bumper.
    Obama’s supporters put it on the front bumper.

    “Are you familiar with the Hillary Clinton 3 a.m. phone call commercial that she’s been running? Well, she’s got another one of those, and the phone rings at 3 a.m., Hillary answers the phone, she picks it up, and she says “Stop bothering me, President Obama!” –David Letterman

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Ross Nixon (559 comments) says:

    I assume that you meant “until the first shot” is fired, David. I don’t see how Hillary or Obama could be fired, although they both deserve it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Barnsley Bill (983 comments) says:

    The thought of Hilary “sniper” fire Clinton running hte states is terrifying.
    Constantly banging on about her experience is laughable, with her theory the white house pastry chef could do the job as well as her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. radar (319 comments) says:

    She was making the point that the Democratic primary, which RFK was competing in, was still going in June. This is May. People are saying she should withdraw now. She was making the point that the Democratic primary was still going in June in 1960whateveritwas. I think only a simpleton would interpret her comments as having anything to do with Obama being assassinated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Lindsay Addie (1,514 comments) says:

    Hillary’s RFK comment is nothing more than a rather poor choice of words.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. David Farrar (1,895 comments) says:

    Only a simpleton such as the Obama’s campaign and the entire press corp. Plus add on the fact RFK’s brother is dying of a brain tumour and it is a huge blunder.

    She can refer to the fact RFK was still running in June in a way not open to interpretation. Only a simpleton would not do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Only a simpleton such as the Obama’s campaign and the entire press corp. Plus add on the fact RFK’s brother is dying of a brain tumour and it is a huge blunder.

    Come on, DPF. If the people it was said about and the people it was said to, can understand it and get over it, I’d have thought you could…

    Friday night, Kennedy’s son, Robert Kennedy, Jr., released a statement that said he understands the point Clinton was making and said it would be a mistake to be offended.

    “I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband’s 1992 race, both of which were hard-fought through June,” he said. “I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense.”

    Also Friday, the Clinton campaign released a statement from Randell Beck, the newspaper’s executive editor, saying Clinton was answering a question about whether her continued campaigning threatens party unity so close to the Democratic convention.

    “Her reference to Mr. Kennedy’s assassination appeared to focus on the timeline of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself,” Beck said in the statement.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/23/clinton.comments/index.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. tim barclay (886 comments) says:

    She apologised to the Kennedys but not to Obama. To say the race was running in June misses the point. In June there was a big fat winner takes all primary in California. Of course the race was running until then. By just why did she mention that Kennedy was assasinated in June. What she should have said that in June the primary races were still being decided in June 1968. The only way for that bag to get the nomination is for Obama to be assassinated, she has thought about the possibility why else would she mention it. And the bag will accept the VP slot using the same chilling logic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. NeilM (370 comments) says:

    “Only a simpleton such as the Obama’s campaign and the entire press corp.”

    you’ve got a point about the entire press corp.

    Her intended message was quite clear – she’s asking why she’s being bullied to get out of the race when other male candidates have in the past kept going.

    Have you been taking lessons from arch misogynist and ex Bush arse licker Andrew Sullivan?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. greenjacket (465 comments) says:

    What amazes me is how manifestly unsuitable she is to be considered as US President – from the staggering ineptitude of her campaign, her attempt to overturn the DNC rules (which she herself helped estalish) regarding Florida and Michigan, her dog-whistle racist appeal to “white Americans”, her claims of dodging sniper-fire at Tuzla, her equating her campaign to the civil rights and suffrage campaign, and now this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. JSF2008 (422 comments) says:

    jokes aside , Obama is great ,Clinton is great , but i feel the bulk of the yanks(usa) would vote mickey mouse in,rather than have a (african american ) with a arab sounding name with strange religious baggage ( his minister) Obama will win the nomination but i doubt he will be the president. why?YOU GO GIRL hillary, a good old redneck with a hunting rifle could come to her aid.(maybe the smoking man,X FILES) :) :) sorry Mr Farrar the states dont give a shit about NZ why worry about the democratic nomination.I worry more about the DEAD TWINS (WHO KILLED THEM) and wheres the JUSTICE. a bit more important than us politics, i feel :( Mr plod stuffed up AGAIN

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. NeilM (370 comments) says:

    “from the staggering ineptitude of her campaign”

    – she’s made some strategic mistakes and which will cost her the nomination.

    “her attempt to overturn the DNC rules (which she herself helped estalish) regarding Florida and Michigan’

    – she’s done nothing of the sort, you don’t understand the process.

    “her dog-whistle racist appeal to “white Americans”, ”

    – complete BS. She emphasised workers at a time when Obama was making a case that he didn’t need them.

    “her claims of dodging sniper-fire at Tuzla”

    – on the same level as Obama’s embellishment of the Kennedy family’s involvement in his family getting to the US. Big deal.

    “her equating her campaign to the civil rights and suffrage campaign”

    – no idea what you’re talking about. Many women have supported Hillary because she’s a woman, because of the symbolism. Can’t see the problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Once she gets eliminated, I expect to see Hilary Clinton appearing on that WWF wrestling programme. She’s a natural for it. I bet she’d whup most of ‘em too.

    The Clintons really do take the lust for power to new heights (or is it depths?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. JSF2008 (422 comments) says:

    Dont we discuss the unimportant?is it important????
    Sorry Mr Farrar a Sunday moral WORRY ,ie THE murdered twins in NEW ZEALAND , Democratic??millionairs in the states(do they know theres a NZ), WHATS MORE IMPORTANT,obama or the twins ,make a decision (demerites is worth it,) i hate our justice system, death of twins CLOSED, (twins killed by aliens) but check out mother, real baggage there

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. peterquixote (231 comments) says:

    everyone knows that the republicans are reviles,
    and that Barrack will be next president,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Ed Snack (1,872 comments) says:

    The whole subject of Obama being assassinated has been a staple of a certain portion of Obama’s supporters for many months. Some seemed fixated on the idea, maybe on the basis that it would be a “great career move” ?

    I, too, think that far too much is being read into this, but in typical fashion the Obamarites will distort any statement by anybody in pursuit of their claim. The NYT is not a non-partisan source either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. radvad (765 comments) says:

    It was Michelle (only now proud of USA) Obama who raised the possibility of her husband being shot. She claimed her husband could be shot “going to the gas station” because, wait for it, he is black.
    The implication, of course, is the perpetrator would be a white racist. My impression is however that blacks are more vulnerable to black on black crime.
    What an airhead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Fairfacts Media (372 comments) says:

    RadVad, you just bet me too it.
    LGF covered this yesteray

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30069_Media_Hyperventilating_Over_Hillary_Ignored_Mrs._Obama

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Fairfacts Media (372 comments) says:

    Just one other thing.
    If you want to debate the Kahui twins, go to http://www.nominister.blogspot.com
    I think Macsyna did it.

    And we had the UK by-election result on Friday afternoon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. greenjacket (465 comments) says:

    “her attempt to overturn the DNC rules (which she herself helped estalish) regarding Florida and Michigan’
    NeilM – she’s done nothing of the sort, you don’t understand the process.
    + The decision not to seat Florida and Michigan delegates was taken by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee in August 2007 – 13 of the committee were Clinton supporters. Clinton herself is on record opposing seating the delegations, and signed a pledge to honour the DNC’s decision. Since February 2008 Hillary Clinton has argued that the DNC decision should be overturned and have Florida and Michigan seated at the convention.

    “her dog-whistle racist appeal to “white Americans”, ”
    NeilM – complete BS. She emphasised workers at a time when Obama was making a case that he didn’t need them.
    + Hillary Clinton on 10 May 2008 stated that her supporters were “white Americans”. Obama has never made a case that he “didn’t need” workers.

    “her claims of dodging sniper-fire at Tuzla”
    NeilM – on the same level as Obama’s embellishment of the Kennedy family’s involvement in his family getting to the US. Big deal.
    + Clinton’s Bosnia lies were not a small deal. They were a critical part of Clinton’s claim to being “experienced”.

    “her equating her campaign to the civil rights and suffrage campaign”
    NeilM – no idea what you’re talking about. Many women have supported Hillary because she’s a woman, because of the symbolism. Can’t see the problem.
    + Hillary Clinton made the claims on 21 May 2008. Hillary Clinton comparing seating the Florida delegation in order to gain her extra votes with the civil rights campaign of the 1960s and to the thuggery and rigged election in Zimbabwe is absurd.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. NeilM (370 comments) says:

    “Since February 2008 Hillary Clinton has argued that the DNC decision should be overturned and have Florida and Michigan seated at the convention.”

    As Clinton and the voters of Florida and Michigan have every right to do. That is not breaking the rules – the rules explicitly allow for this to be put before the Rules Committee. The DNC can change its mind and voters can lobby for it to do so. That this gets called “breaking the rules” is silly. But if you take exception to this then maybe you could take a look at home Obama first got elected to the Illinois senate – legalistic challenges to knock his Dem opponents off the ballot. And he particularly went for an older more experienced black woman. Things haven’t changed much.

    “Hillary Clinton on 10 May 2008 stated that her supporters were “white Americans”. Obama has never made a case that he “didn’t need” workers.”

    Oh yes he has. Axelrod explicitly stated this – I don’t have a problem with them trying that one on, it’s just politics but it’s completely absurd for Hillary to be accused of racism when she’s arguing that to win in Nov the Dems do need the working class vote. You can read more about the issue here – http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/25/154246/238

    “Clinton’s Bosnia lies were not a small deal.”

    Then I suppose Obama’s “lies” were no small deal either. I’m a little more generous to both – I think “lies” far too harsh.

    “Hillary Clinton comparing seating the Florida delegation in order to gain her extra votes with the civil rights campaign of the 1960s and to the thuggery and rigged election in Zimbabwe is absurd.”

    Yeah a bit over heated – but then people can also judge Obama by his not wanting those votes counted unless it suites him. Does that not warrant a little bit of outrage?

    It’s completely understandable that conservatives want to demonise Hillary but why liberals should want to is a complete mystery. If the objective is for the Dems to win in Nov then Clinton has to be taken seriously. She consistently does better against McCain than Obama in the Gallup tracking poll – http://www.gallup.com/poll/107488/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Maintains-Lead-Over-McCain.aspx

    And if you look at an analysis of Obama’s voting base the degree of surety that he’s the one to beat McCain is a bit misplaced –

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/05/a_review_of_obamas_voting_coal.html

    (An interesting point to note is that Obama gets more pledged delegates per voter – he does better in the less well attended primaries. In short, this contest is a tie. But if you think Obama is winning then he’s winning by the slimmest of margins. Obama’s supporters demonise Hillary and her supporters at their peril).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. NeilM (370 comments) says:

    “Since February 2008 Hillary Clinton has argued that the DNC decision should be overturned and have Florida and Michigan seated at the convention.”

    As Clinton and the voters of Florida and Michigan have every right to do. That is not breaking the rules – the rules explicitly allow for this to be put before the Rules Committee. The DNC can change its mind and voters can lobby for it to do so. That this gets called “breaking the rules” is silly. But if you take exception to this then maybe you could take a look at home Obama first got elected to the Illinois senate – legalistic challenges to knock his Dem opponents off the ballot. And he particularly went for an older more experienced black woman. Things haven’t changed much.

    “Hillary Clinton on 10 May 2008 stated that her supporters were “white Americans”. Obama has never made a case that he “didn’t need” workers.”

    Oh yes he has. Axelrod explicitly stated this – I don’t have a problem with them trying that one on, it’s just politics but it’s completely absurd for Hillary to be accused of racism when she is arguing that to win in Nov the Dems do need the working class vote. You can read more about the issue here – http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/25/154246/238

    “Clinton’s Bosnia lies were not a small deal.”

    Then I suppose Obama’s “lies” were no small deal either. I’m a little more generous to both – I think “lies” far too harsh.

    “Hillary Clinton comparing seating the Florida delegation in order to gain her extra votes with the civil rights campaign of the 1960s and to the thuggery and rigged election in Zimbabwe is absurd.”

    Yeah a bit over heated – but then people can also judge Obama by his not wanting those votes counted unless it suites him. Does that not warrant a little bit of outrage?

    It’s completely understandable that conservatives want to demonise Hillary but why liberals should want to is a complete mystery. If the objective is for the Dems to win in Nov then Clinton has to be taken seriously. She consistently does better against McCain than Obama in the Gallup tracking poll – http://www.gallup.com/poll/107488/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Maintains-Lead-Over-McCain.aspx

    And if you look at an analysis of Obama’s voting base the degree of surety that he’s the one to beat McCain is a bit misplaced –

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/05/a_review_of_obamas_voting_coal.html

    (An interesting point to note is that Obama gets more pledged delegates per voter – he does better in the less well attended primaries. In short, this contest is a tie. But if you think Obama is winning then he’s winning by the slimmest of margins. Obama’s supporters demonise Hillary and her supporters at their peril).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. NeilM (370 comments) says:

    damn, couldn’t get rid of the double post

    the link for the delegates per voter point is –

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/25/5473/21652

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. NeilM (370 comments) says:

    “he does better in the less well attended primaries. ”

    should be – he does better in the less well attended causcases.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    Meh… What I find endlessly amusing is that Clinton is running on her supposed ‘experience’ and ‘judgement’, then comes up with a sulphurous brain-fart like this. Perhaps it was another one of those “mis-speakings” we hear so much about, but rather tacky when Teddy Kennedy went public with his terminal diagnosis.

    On a human level, I can understand why Clinton doesn’t want to quit — but I just wish she’d bow out with a little dignity and good grace. The self-justifications are growing more absurd and desperate by the day, and if nothing else you’ve got to wonder whether she’s doing her chances of winning a senior leadership role or plum committee assignments in the next Senate no good at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. NeilM (370 comments) says:

    “The self-justifications are growing more absurd and desperate by the day”

    wot, like being more likely to beat McCain come Nov?

    You don’t like her Craig, but facts are facts, she’s got 1/2 the Dem party behind her. Her support base remains strong and very loyal, she’s still wining primaries by big margins. She’s doing worse in the pledeged delegate count than she should be because the Dems have a fucked selection process. She could possibly come out with more of the popular vote than Obama.

    Why should she drop out?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. NeilM (370 comments) says:

    And guess who blasted this non-story into the media spotlight – The Drudge Report. Who would have thought – a nasty right wing site that has lied about Hillary and placed bogus anti-Hillary stories.

    Drudge took a few words from a 20 minute interview, took them competely out of context – and the media feeding frenzy then ensued. What’s not surprising is that right wing arseholes like Sullivan have jumped on this but that liberal pundits have as well. The jerk circle of the male pundocracy.

    It reminds me of the non-story of Michelle Obama and her “proud of the US” comments. The Right jumped on her for that. That really is where the level of political analysis is at.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    Barack “Gaffe-man” Obama’s wife already talked about the possibility of him being assassinated last year. Talking of which, have you seem how many verbal bloopers this guy makes? 57 States in the Union was my favourite. Bush got hammered for slips of the tongue by the left wing media but Obama gets yet another pass.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    BEEEEEB

    Multiple post overload!!!!

    didn’t.read.one.word

    I don’t know how you feel about wasting your own time Niel but you’re also wasting ours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    Oh, What’s not surprising is that right wing arseholes like Sullivan have jumped on this but that liberal pundits have as well. The jerk circle of the male pundocracy.

    NeilM:

    Bitter, much? I keep forgetting that Saint Hillary bears no accountability for her own words (which in this case I found more weird and tone-deaf than sinister), let alone anything that happens in her own campaign. And might I add, Neil, that you might not approve of the Democratic primary rules but they’re the ones Clinton agreed to live by when she entered the race. I just find it farcical the way she’s tried to wrap herself in the moral authority of the civil rights and suffrage movements — which to me is self-evidently absurd. She and her proxies are comparing the 2008 Florida primary to the outcome of the 2000 election, and I’ve challenged you elsewhere to explain how any sane equivalence can be drawn and you’ve failed to do so. The popular vote didn’t matter when she was ahead in the delegate count. Caucuses were undemocratic, until she started winning a few. The sanctions imposed on Florida and Michigan were A-OK by the Clinton camp, until they became politically inconvenient and on and on and on…

    I’ve always said it’s healthy for any political party when senior leadership roles aren’t filled by coronations, and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight the Clinton camp shouldn’t have brought into the whole ‘inevitability’ meme the media was peddling. But please keep bleating about the misogynistic right-wing punditocracy. I guess you’ve drunk the Clinton Kool-Aid that goalposts are made to be shifted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. NeilM (370 comments) says:

    “that you might not approve of the Democratic primary rules”

    Well I’m not the only one that thinks the process needs a bit of an overhaul. What you sort of miss is that it is precisely in a contest as close as this that the idiosyncrasies of the process can cause such havoc. Florida would not be an issue if the party had a central power structure that could exert power of the States. But that’s not how it works at the moment.

    “The sanctions imposed on Florida and Michigan were A-OK by the Clinton camp, until they became politically inconvenient and on and on and on…”

    Yes, just as it doesn’t suit Obama to have them counted – for the time being. Either way its pretty much politics as usual from both sides

    “But please keep bleating about the misogynistic right-wing punditocracy.”

    It will be my pleasure although I’m more disappointed that liberals are doing this.

    “I guess you’ve drunk the Clinton Kool-Aid that goalposts are made to be shifted.”

    It’s a close race, the rules are a bit crazy, people can argue over the goal posts. I don’t see a problem with that.

    If Obama wins, as he’s most likely to, he’ll have been the most favoured by the idiosyncrasies of the process, and I don’t have a problem with that. But despite all the hype, he is winning by the slimmest of margins and may very well have less of the popular vote than Hillary in the end. He is also the weaker candidate against McCain. That’s the reality. For all of the Great Uniter rhetoric – he’s just squeaking through.

    So I don’t know where the quite extraordinary animosity towards Clinton comes from. It’s certainly not justified on the basis of policy differences – they are relatively small.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote