Posted on 05/23/2008 12:30:59 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Hillary Clinton is still in the presidential race, she said today, because "historically, it makes no sense" to quit, and added that, "Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June," making an odd comparison between the dead candidate and Barack Obama.
"People have been trying to push me out since Iowa," she said to the Argus Leader's editorial board.
Watch a live stream of the board meeting here:
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Absoultely NOT. That is why she said what she said. She floats it out there, and no one will be able to put the blame on her precisely BECAUSE she voiced it.
Then the spinners will be out there pontificating about how sadly ironic and prophetic her words were. She wants this presidency more than anyone knows, and somehow I have always suspected that she WILL get what she wants. And that does not include a judicial appointment or the VP slot. Her statement and then her apology were well considered I think.
I feel bad for the NSA and the Secret Service. This is going to create a brazillion hits for keyword combinations like assassinate and Obama that they will have to wade through.
Okay. Add the word "viable" black candidate and see what happens to your list ;-)
Yes, and now Bobarian may be on the “hmmmmmm?” list for writing those two dirty words in one sentence. And I’ll be on it for answering this post, thus associating with you. See you in interegation, I’ll be in the next room over.
“I suppose you are discounting the possibility of a Freudian slip on her part. Could be unwise. Remember that she does have a history of being involved in, at the very least, a cover up of a murder - the rubout of her erstwhile law partner and reputed past paramour, Vince Foster!!!”
Look, I’d LOVE to believe it that way, but, reading the full quote, it’s just not the big deal many are making of it. I’m also not saying she isn’t capable of harboring the worst feelings and designs, just that she is too shrewd to make them that obvious.
Agreed.
...she is too shrewd to make it that obvious.
It isn't all that obvious. That's exactly why we have over 500 posts on this lengthy thread. What she really meant is subject to the interpretation of the listener.
As for her shrewdness, even with her, it can diminish in cases of fatigue, exhaustion, sleep deprivation, etc., which a lengthy presidentional campaign can produce. Hence, the possibility of a Freudian slip.
You omitted Al Sharpton from your black presidential candidate list list, as well as a handful of others who didn’t fare quite so well in their primaries.
Agreed. Finally a post that makes some sense.
I hear you....
Why is Hillary not under arrest?
Legally speaking, there is no statute of limitations on homicide. Vince Foster's death was beyond doubt a homicide. Because of her relationship to the victim and her very suspicious activities in the time frame surrounding Foster's death, she remains a hot suspect in that case. However, as we all know, the case has been covered up by official Washington as a "suicide."
So the question remains: on what grounds can she be arrested at the present time?
How true! Thanks to the media, not too many know that the Democratic Party has been the primary political home of organized crime for a century. And that organized crime played a significant role in the rise of the Clintons in particular. So this business is hardly an historical aberration.
She should be arrested for intimidation and threats for bodily harm to one Barack Obama! Yes, I know, it was not a direct threat from her to him. But it was a clear statement of indication of the possibility that Obama might have happen to him what happned to RFK Jr!
Given Hillary and her thugs’ history of murderous actions against those they have found to be either “in their way” to power or “in their way” to keeping that power.....seems to me she could be arrested for threatening Mr. Obama’s life.
There is no way that any prosecutor can win a criminal case against her - especially her - on that charge. The defense would argue that there is "reasonable doubt" as to what she was saying, that she was merely talking about a historical fact. So it would be a waste of time and government money to arrest her and charge her on that.
The Vincent Foster homicide? That's a different story. Remember again that there is no statute of limitations on capital offenses.
wow... just wow..
ping for later read
Here’s the paper’s apology for the cover and commentary on removal thereof: http://www.beaconcast.com/categories/20080521
From article & apology, seems they really did intend a different meaning from what too many people read into it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.