The NY Times' Paul Krugman can always be counted to fight for Hillary's corner. Week after week, he finds new ways to laud one Clinton or another, and backhanded ways to denigrate Obama. Krugman was at it again today, turning Hillary's chronicle of a loss foretold into a reason for Obama to give in on counting Florida. Krugman almost sounds Clintonian in his determination to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
I do agree with him though that Hillary has been unfairly attacked for her comments on RFK's assassination in June of 1968. I think she was making a genuine historical comment when underlining that it's not over till the fat lady sings, however inappropriate her example may have been. The trouble now is that too many people think she will just say anything to get a few more votes, they are convinced that she will stop at nothing to get elected. Then again, maybe she won't. What if she wins with such a margin in Puerto Rico that she can actually claim the majority of the popular vote if Florida and Michigan are counted? The democratic convention would be the most anticipated event of the year...
I loved Hillary. I loved Bill.
Past tense.
Early, early, long time ago, back in the day, the campaign between B & H was just getting underway.
Barack Hussein Obama gave a filmed interview to a newspaper where he acknowledged the change of tone Ronald Reagan ushered in. People felt like it was "morning in America" again.
The next day, both Hillary and Bill were shown seperately telling their supporters that "Obama says that the Republicans have better ideas than the Democrats."
Uhhhh. No. He. Didn't.
Any native speaker of English could understand what Obama said.
I thought "Either the Clintons are unable to listen and process information OR they are deliberately lying and mischaracterizing Obama's remarks."
Whatever it was, I didn't want to see this on DAY ONE.
Politics of change.
Posted by: james | June 04, 2008 at 05:43 PM