Originally Posted By: the G-man
 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
...But as it stands, she makes a valid point.


No. The use of RFK undercuts the valid point. If, as she claims, her point was that a candidate can, by dint of hard work and increased public support, make a comeback late in the game, then the use of the Kennedy metaphor has no place in her list of examples. Eventual '68 nominee Hubert Humphrey didn't "come back" because of politics. He was nominated because the clear frontrunner-a young, popular, orator-was killed.

The only way that the Kennedy example makes sense was in the way that everyone took it: sometimes the young guy gets murdered in cold blood and the older, less popular, candidate has to step in.

At best it was a clumsy freudian slip and demonstrates what most of us have known for years: she really is a hateful bitch.



I don't see it that way. I think she wanted to make a sympathetic reference to Ted Kennedy, and to the larger Kennedy legacy that has overshadowed the Democrat party for more than 4 decades (just as reference to Reagan always scores points with Republican voters) and the words just came out in a way that can be interpreted badly.

But her point is clear regardless: that any front runner can fall behind, and another candidate can rise to the nomination. And Hillary is only a hair's breadth behind Obama anyway. It's not like she was the equivalent of Dennis Kucinich in popularity.

Those slightly behind, or even far behind, can make an inspiring comeback.
Just ask John McCain.