It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that perhaps, after avoiding your "calls" for almost a day she might have decided that the only way to deal with your obsession was to humor you.

It also doesn't seem to have occurred to you that by saying, "Even were he to be cut down in action today...," you are making direct reference to the possibility of his assassination, which goes beyond the worst possible misinterpretation of what Hillary did.

Thanks, BSerious. You've explained to me why I find the admiration for Hillary's "grit and determination" so meaningless. Hillary has little to lose but face -- hardly in the same league as what Barack and Michelle have on the line. Yet it is she who whines while they exemplify that classic definition of what real courage is: "facing fear and doing what is required anyway" -- (I can't remember the attribution for that; sorry.)

I appreciate your post, BSerious.

Now, this part is directed to Desidero's comments:

I honestly don't want to believe that the a-word comment was a calculation on Hillary's part.

But her counter-accusation against her harshest critics, coupled with her lukewarm, tone deaf apology made me start to wonder about Clinton and her defenders (though BSerious is right--there aren't too many defenders speaking out in public), including you and OttoF.

I mean, what if the situation were reversed? Imagine Senator Clinton moving to the brink of clinching the nomination, and Obama, having no obvious path to winning it, suddenly referring to RFK's assassination during a conversation about his rationale for staying in the nomination race. Would Clinton's supporters be frightened and creeped out? Would they be willing to accept an explanation that he was just using a specific event--RFK's assassination, which happened in June as he was running for the nomination but had no other obvious similarity to the current situation--to make a generic point about primary timelines? Is it really so hard for Clinton and her defenders to understand why so many folks are freaked out?

OttoF is being ridiculous by saying that the comment BSerious made ("...if he were to be cut down in action today...") can be compared to Senator Clinton's remarks and judged to be worse. The two contexts and speakers involved are not comparable. Do you really think that comments on a blog have as much power as public remarks made by Senator Clinton, in an interview about her run for President? Seriously? Why are you defending OttoF?

There's so much to dislike and be horrified by in what Clinton said, but let me highlight something I haven't read too much about. And that's the fact that one thing she was doing, IMO, was trying to inject uncertainty into the perception of the outcome of the race and, in so doing, bully the superdelegates. "See? There's a chance of something bad happening, so voters should be worried about that. Maybe vote for someone safer. And supers? If the voters are worried, you should be worried too. Pick the safe nominee. Why be anxious when you can pick me and feel safe?"

And, a related thing that gets me, is that both Hillary and Bill want to be able to set that kind of thing in motion and then disavow that they had anything to do with it. Bill was just "stating facts" when he mentioned Jesse Jackson's wins after South Carolina. Hillary was just quoting an AP poll when she talked about "hard working voters, white voters." And she was just "stating facts" when she brought up RFK. They can't be held responsible if "just stating facts" sets off various lines of thinking in the minds of other people.

So dishonest. They're just so dishonest, the two of them.

I then asked her if she was aware of the many threats on Obama's life resulting in his receiving Secret Service protection a year earlier than most candidates.

Why lie to your Mom after all of these years?

But a Department of Homeland Security official said there is no known viable threat against the senator "at this time." The FBI confirmed that there was no specific threat against Obama.

Besides which Clinton was already receiving SS protection. Why bullshit your Mom?

After posting, it took me back to the top and I saw this...

...she was prepared to accept the Clinton campaign's weak defense on the basis of historical fact.

She was prepared to accept historical fact? What's wrong with that woman? Doesn't she know that Barry transcends historical fact?

Indiex, You are gonna have a constipated 8 years ! You are BLOCKED, Shit it out !!!

With Honors .......

Assassination, Sweetie, Obliterate, etc. After all, according to Hillary, they're "just words."

Barack Obama received secret service protection a year earlier than most candidates because he asked for it in May 2007. There were no known threats, according to reports, but his campaign staff made the request.

Now, there isn't one candidate running for that office that doesn't get secret service protection during the campaign and if he asks for it, he will certainly get it. There isn't one candidate either that isn't threatened with violence, no matter what his colour, sex or political ideology is.

http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/Barack.Obama.president.2.336824.html

Excerpt:

But Thursday night, Sen. Dick Durbin said Obama has received specific, racist threats, which may have contributed to the increased security.

"It is the sad reality this day and age that Mr. Obama's African American heritage is a cause for very violent and hated reactions from some people," Durbin said.