Posted on 05/24/2008 8:46:34 AM PDT by Krankor
Either Drudge didn't do his homework, or he has it in for Hillary. There were only 13 primaries in 1968. After June 4, 1968, there weren't going to be any more. The 1968 Dem Convention started on 8/26 and the 2008 convention starts 8/25. So, Hillary's historical instance explanation is feasible.
Drudge should be asking what Obama’s life will be worth if he names Hillary his running mate.
Remember -- the Clintons were the ones who actually blamed "right-wing hate radio" for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.
'Eff all of them.
His headline layout today looks to me like Drudge wants this latest Hillary hoof-in-mouth to be the final nail in her campaign’s coffin.
Oddly, the BETTER historical explanation would have been Reagan in ‘76. He stayed in until the convention. What no one seems to mention is that Reagan had considerably more of the popular vote than Ford, despite the fact that he wasn’t on the ballot in much of NY and PA, and was skunked for the first month or so until winning the North Carolina primary.
Of course, he didn’t get the nod in ‘76, but he sure flexed his political muscle at the convention.
Hey Barak! Remember Vince Foster!
Yes, next question.
Get a clue.
I’m of the mind that HRC knew this would happen, and said it on purpose, because it is better for her to get negative press than dismissive press.
Drudge has the hots for Barry O.
BUMP what you said. I agree completely.
Now everybody KNOWS she’s still in the race. Screw the Democrat “mainstream” newsrooms.
If Drudge does have it in for Hillary, HURRAH for him! He is one of the few people who remember how horrible the Clintons were in the 90’s.
It sickens me to see how lovingly some supposed conservatives speak glowingly of Hillary. I am afraid they would vote for her over McCain. I am glad she is getting her clocked cleaned. The republicans will have a chance at the WH over Obama.
Rush, Pat Buchanan, Laura Ingram, Joe Scarborough and Bill Kristol might as well wear Democrat DONKEY pins they way they are cheerleading for her.
Thankfully we still have Bill Bennett, Sean Hannity, Brian Kilmeade and Dennis Miller who still criticize her and they actually want to see conservatives win in November. These men are heros to me.
Drudge, whether you like him or hate him, is first and foremost a sensationalist. He chooses his stories based on what will draw the most attention. Hillary’s missteps and history are fertile ground for a guy like Drudge.
Obama’s life has a lot of very disturbing facts, but they aren’t nearly as sound bite friendly, and he has generally done a much better job of avoiding completely over-the-top moronic statements, and those he does make, again, aren’t as prone to sensationalism as Hillary’s.
Matt will always go ever whomever will get him the most attention, and the Clinton clan is going after low hanging fruit.
Her explanation isn’t credible to me. In May ‘68, CA was waiting to deliver a huge windfall of delegates. In 2008, CA is now already done. Thus, this is not really the same point in the primaries. Hillary cannot win a significant number of delegates from any more states or all states remaining. There can be no sudden change of her fortunes in that manner, there is no big electoral prize up ahead.
The only reversal of fortune she could anticipate is the tragic one for Obama.
Dittos.
Make it a double.
Cheers!
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.