fanatics. Open the envelope . . . name three things that can be just exactly what they are.

My growing legion of fans, albeit, primarily consisting of mocking Obama supporters, have pleaded with me to comment on the following bit of nonsense:

From the AP:

"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," she said, dismissing the idea of dropping out.”

“Nice. Why don't you just threaten to do it yourself.” This last line was from a typical Obama hysteric.

Let’s see now . . . Bill was campaigning in California in June. Bobby Kennedy was campaigning in California in June. Hillary will be . . .

You know, hysterics, it could just mean that come hell, high water, win, lose, or draw, Hillary also intends to be campaigning in June. Sometimes a cigar and a blue dress and legions of Obama fanatics are nothing more than they seem.

So she is being forced by a biased press and Obama’s campaign, once again, to apologize for telling a simple truth. People, famous people, continue to campaign in June. What a shocker!

She associated her name with two famous democratic champions of the people because she wants to include herself among their ranks in the minds of her supporters. What a terrible and evil thing for a politician to do. Stupid people either interpret [or cynical people deliberately misinterpret] her meaning to imply that she is threatening Barack Obama with assassination or . . . for some reason you the Obama fanatics are howling because she placed herself and Bill in the same sentence with RFK. Would they [would YOU] also howl if Obama placed himself in the same sentence with MLK,Jr? No, I think not.

Do you Obamacrats have a grasp on the nuances of sane thought or vaguely grasp the realities of politics? One political candidate is going to threaten to have another political candidate assassinated or one political candidate cannot point out a date in time similarity between different campaigns? So are you insane or merely cynically manipulating a sound bite to imply that Hillary is suggesting Obama be assassinated or do you believe that this uppity bitch has no right to mention the name RFK?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, a blue dress is just a blue dress, and Obama fanatics are just Obama fanatics. Oh, and let’s not forget that a blatantly biased press is, indeed, a blatantly biased press that is campaigning hard for Obama.

There does that satisfy my growing legion of ankle-biting Obamacrat, fan-posters of these Fray boards? I thank you for your devotion.

We "worship" you for the same reason I worshipped the porcelain god during college....for all the wrong reasons.

thinking in college. It would have served you better, and perhaps your nation, in the long run.

true-I could have taken Slurs101: How To Pretend You Are Smarter Than Everyone Else

to take a class nor even to pass the course. You need to think about the material and place it in comparison to what you already 'think' you know and then . . . ah, but you have already learned all you ever needed to know in kindergarten and it shows.

So, never mind.

you the Obama fanatics are howling because she placed herself and Bill in the same sentence with RFK. Would they [would YOU] also howl if Obama placed himself in the same sentence with MLK,Jr? No, I think not.

Nice try. HRC is often protrayed as desperate to win at any costs. How true that protrayal is. Now, we have HRC wishing not only misfortune, but the death of her opponent, so she can win the nomination. Its called a fruedian slip -- an inadvertent mistake in speech or writing that is thought to reveal a person's unconscious motives, wishes, or attitudes.

HRC is truly the vulture candidate, waiting to pick through the dead bones of Obama to her political advantage. Its disgusting, and once again, it displays HRC's unsuitablity to the office of the Presidency.

(!!) So you are the infamous Gatewood we hear so much about?

So Gatewood, if your logic and reasoning is as impeccable as you claim you will agree with me about this then.

When Obama was in San Francisco and someone asked him why he was having trouble making his case for "hope" and "change" in Pennsylvania he stated - that in his opinion it seemed that when things were tough people held fast to the things in their lives that have served them well. When things were bad many people did not trust change.

In making this comment - using other words of course - but in making this comment Obama was exhibiting some very good and deep understanding of how many AMericans respond when the chips are down. Hunker down, do what you know and depend on things that have served you well. He was acknowledging his message may not speak to them.

But then others took those words and twisted them, manipulating sound bytes, implying things that he did not mean and attributing a gross out-of-touch sensibility that still "clings" to him.

Possible way to look at it? POSSIBLE?

If you can see the possibility here, then I will endeavor to rethink Hillary. But to be fair - if it is a sound byte war, and that alone then she lost ... big time!

If it is truly logic and thinking and sense and depth you are speaking of - then I await your response.

So glad you didn't let us down, G!

Disagree with your analysis though. I think you mistakenly say up there that at least pert of the offense is "putting herself and Billo (my o) in the same sentence with RFK"-thereby implying that the offense is somewhat likened to Bill showing a picture of himself shaking JFK's hand, where he was assuming the kennedy mantle in some people's opinion unbidden and uninvitedly. (whereas Obama has been given the kennedy imprimateur by the only surviving political brother of the kennedy triad).

No, I think that either you are being a bit disingenuous about that analysis or have missed the point. the point of the offense here was that she "ghoulishly" (to use Maddow's term) referred to the possibility of her opponent being shot a la RFK. therefore she is not associating herself and bill inappropriately with Bobby, but rather is tragically associating Obama with a fate like RFK's. I don't think she meant it in any way as a "threat" or even a wish, as some of the crazy people around would cast aspersions on HRC in that way. I do think she is craven as a pol, but not in any way would i think she is a murderer or even someone who would wish an unfortunate accident or outcome on her opponent. But i do think it is sick to justify or rationalize her staying in to the detriment of her party and on the ghoulish (my word now, because this is fu%$#ng sick) possibility that the first black guy potentially nominated to be POTUS, who has had death threats since day one of his campaign, (and earlier and more often than any candidate in history as far as they have kept track), and you know what this country does to inspiring leaders who dare run for POTUS (a la RFK).

I think this cigar is unfortunately a cigar. and the cigar is a really bad one, one that says HRC is on some level willing to wait for a possible assasination. not wish for it, and even campaign for the guy while waiting. but on some level at least, just being indecent.

and i have heard people saying things to defend this such as "well, the Obamas have raised the possibility and acknowledged reality, right?" (not Gatewood as far as I know); that is just a seriously flawed argument. it is one thing to acknowledge reality and understand BHO is taking a big risk, but being willing to stand in the face of that. it is something wholly different for his opponent to raise the possibility to justify her staying in past june 3rd.

Gatewood- I humbly await your thoughts.

James

Gatewood, still waiting for your proof of yours that this election was "rigged"....

tell from reading my top-post one wonders why the typical non-thinking Obamacrat fanatic is so terrified of my posting presence on these Fray boards.

All they have to do is learn how to think and then they too could become posting giants replete with deep insights into human nature and political realities and historical precedents. Now is this so very difficult to accomplish, I ask you?

if I'm so afraid of your intellect how come you have not addressed the thought-experiment I posed about words taken out of context between the two candidates?

You've posted all over the boards today but avoided that? How come?

G-

I just think you are dandy. just dandy.

deep insights. human nature, political realities.

you are too cute!

-JP

PS: ever thus to deadbeats!

n - soul of what it means to be a fanatical and hysterical Obamacrat. I thank you, even if your marginally wiser fellow Obamacrats wish that you would shut the hell up, considering that you prove my points true every time you post.

I, however, treasure your contributions.

I thank you, even if your marginally wiser fellow Obamacrats wish that you would shut the hell up, considering that you prove my points true every time you post.

I think that you betray your instincts when you argue in an o'reilly-esque fashion.

this, coupled with the conspiracy stuff that doesn't even make sense, is the reason people think you are a hidden GOPmeister.

prove us wrong, G! I beseech you, if you are a democrat, stop making arguments a la faux nieux.

I think you have made a few points here and there- i'll give it to you that the concern you raised a week or so ago about my desre to allow for the complexities of human nature in reference to obama (and hillary, for that matter)- you said, to paraphrase, that it wasn't that important if we (at least I am one) democrats are able to see complexity if enough republicans and voters in general aren't... that's a valid concern. but you undermine that argument by all of your own statements that we need to allow for complexity in hillary, and then not only do you not do it for barack, but you even write posts as if he is a muslim conspiracy sleeper agent and dirty, to boot. are you simply putting out the attack that will occur from the other side in the fall, or do you believe that crap?

JP