Make sure nobody reads the article that far for a rebuttal.
Clinton shouldn't have apologized. Period.
_____
Matt Drudge is telling a falsehood here, not surprisingly:
Hillary says purpose was historical instances of candidates staying in race until late in primaries... In 1968: Dem Race was only 3 months along...
New Hampshire, first in nation, wasn't until March 12. Kennedy didn't even get into running until March 16. By June 4, 1968, date of California primary, there had only been 13 primaries... Kennedy was killed on June 5...
Uh, the Democratic presidential campaign nominee wasn't decided until the convention in August, more than five months after the primaries began. Hubert Humphrey was the choice, and he hadn't run in a single primary. However, he controlled enough delegates to win the nomination.
From Wikipedia:
The selection of a Presidential nominee was particularly difficult for the Democrats that year because of the split in the party over the Vietnam War, President Lyndon B. Johnson's decision not to seek re-election (announced March 31), and Robert Kennedy's assassination (June 6). On one side, Eugene McCarthy, ran a decidedly anti-war campaign, calling for immediate withdrawal from the region. On the other side, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, from Minnesota, who did not participate in any primaries but controlled enough delegates to secure the nomination, called for a policy more in line with President Johnson's, which focused on making any reduction of force contingent on concessions extracted in the Paris Peace Talks.
The Democrats eventually nominated Humphrey, who went on to lose the election to Richard M. Nixon. The confusion of the convention, and the unhappiness of many liberals with the outcome, led the Democrats to begin reforms of their nominating process, increasing the role of primaries and decreasing the power of party delegates in the selection process.
A comparison between this campaign to 1968 can hardly be considered a "poor analogy." The nomination, as in 1968, could very well be resolved at the convention floor, and the Denver convention could be every bit as divisive as the Chicago convention 1968 sans perhaps the rioting. If Obama prevails, the 1972 analogy would be more apt.
Once again the media lies about a historic event.
_____
No comments:
Post a Comment