Subscribe!Given Hillary's Clinton's recent comments concerning the assasination of Robert Kennedy in 1968, it's become obvious she is not fit for the presidency. Here is what she said:
"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."
First of all, these comments are insensitive, not only for hinting, whether intentional or not, at the prospect of the assasination of a political opponent but also given the recent diagnosis of Robert Kennedy's brother Ted with brain cancer. There is no excuse for such a comment. However, even giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt here, taking her at her word that she was only invoking historical references, is difficult. She is being intellectually dishonest.
In 1968, only 13 states held primaries. California, being one of the obvious "big states", held their primary on June 5. New York held it's primary after California, demonstrating that the primary election calendar extended beyond this year's end date. In 1992, again the primary calendar was extended beyond this year's end date, with "big states" such as Ohio and California, holding primaries in late May or June. Thus, if it's the "big states" that really matter to her, they're already finished this year, as she should be.
On a side note, Clinton continues to talk about seating the delegations of Florida and Michigan because she wants their votes to be counted, claiming that not counting those votes disenfranchises millions of people. On the other hand, she has claimed that if the primary were winner-take-all she would already be the nominee. But, doesn't electing delegates in a winner-take-all fashion disenfranchise those who voted for the losing candidate? Isn't it more fair to allocate delegates based on the number of votes, so that the votes of everyone counts for something at the nominating convention?
I would think that for someone as smart as Mrs. Clinton that it's not to hard to understand. The reason the nominating battles went so late in previous years is because a large percentage of people had not yet voted and delegates had not yet been awarded when the calendar turned to June. The two examples that Clinton cites for long primary battles, nevermind the historical problems that polictical parties have had reuniting after a protracted nomination battle, are misleading at best and dishonest at worst. It's time for Clinton to end her campaign, or if she won't do it gracefully, for the superdelegates to align behind Obama and end this campaign for her.