1968, NH on Mar 12 with only 15 total primaries

[sandnsea]

"In 1968, only the New Hampshire primary was held before the end of March; in April, there were three primaries; seven in May and four in June. In 1968, a total of 15 states held presidential primaries or caucuses."

http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2008/january/16/primaries/

We were still choosing nominees in smoky rooms in 1968. There is absolutely no reason to compare today's election to 1968, NONE.

We have to stop giving these politicians passes on these lies, distortions and manipulations. Every single time.

[Muttocracy]

1. And Bill Clinton was far ahead before California too. nt

[LakeSamish706]

3. Huh.... Bill Clinton was no where to be found and neither was Hillary... n/t

[thewiseguy]

9. That was mentioned on MSM lat night. Bill had it wrapped up before June.

[Debi]

12. April 7th - he defeated Brown in Wisconsin - Brown was hoping a win

in California would help him over-take Clinton, but it was not to be.

Maybe this race is like the 1992 cycle, except for Barack Obama is playing the Bill Clinton role and Hillary is in Jerry Brown's shoes.

[sandnsea]

14. No because there's no BIG primary in June

California was in February. There's no big pool of delegates available. It's always been goofy for her to compare this year to 1992, but especially to 1968.

[Debi]

16. How dare you dismiss Puerto Rico so casually.

What I meant was that it has been obvious for some time that Obama has the nomination in hand - the same way it was in 1992 with Clinton and Brown, although not so obvious to Brown.

[thewiseguy]

17. Did not Bill reach the magic number before June?

I think that is what they said on news last night. That he had the majority of delegates before June and the race was all but over.

[Debi]

19. Brown was hoping California would go his way and he could take it to the Convention n/t

[sandnsea]

18. Right, but it's even more so this time

because there isn't a big pot of delegates in California. I just don't know how her campaign gets away with these tall tales, day after day. It's just infuriating.

[gateley]

2. And it was pointed out that in Bill Clinton's case,

he'd pretty much wrapped up the nom in March. In fact, George Stephanopoulos issued a statement to that effect. All serious contenders had dropped out by then.

Totally different dynamic.

[Muttocracy]

4. by the way, Alter from Newsweek called her on it on KO (video in that forum). nt

[kid a]

5. The whole argument is senseless! Bill had his nomination all but sealed in late April

Why is she obsessed with 1968?

Watching her today, not so much the RFK gaffe, but the supposed "apology", made me think of the last time I had to turn away and gag: The night of the O'Rielly interview when Billo insisted, "what about this Wright guy?" And Hillary, without pause, said "I'll let the voters decide." Like the choice was between Hillary and Wright.

She always borders on the unsaid..."as far as I know"...

[Swamp Rat]

6. Maybe she is hoping for "something" to happen?

Hillary's campaign is kaput.

[sandnsea]

7. kick again, because

there is absolutely no reason to compare today's primaries to 1968 and the Clintons know it.

[VolcanoJen]

8. So if 2008 equals 1968....

... it's not May, it's August, right?

Thank you for the sanity, sandnsea!

[sandnsea]

25. Not too many truthseekers today

So I'll kick it up again I guess. *sigh*

[Major Hogwash]

10. That's right, LBJ didn't drop out until April that year.

And that was when Humphrey said he would run for prez.
Which caused RFK to run for prez because Humphrey was "the rubber-stamp Democratic party candidate" who intended to continue the Vietnam War.

[sundancekid]

22. b-i=n=g-o ... I wonder whose profile in courage we will

discover about how/when/why that seemingly non-front page video clip of her editorial board comments to the South Dakota Argus managed to surface???

Maybe somebody WAS listening. And they WERE outraged.

[K Gardner]

11. THANK YOU !

[Quixote1818]

13. Kick to end the spin from HRC. nt

[Bluerthanblue]

15. thank you- I tried to point this out, but didn't

say it very well I guess.

There is really no comparison to be made.

:hi:

peace~

[sandnsea]

24. Well don't feel bad

Because it doesn't appear that many people want to deal with the facts even with this thread. And yet DU always says how much smarter they are than the average citizen. Riiight.

[City Lights]

20. Absolutely right, sandnsea!

Recommended.

[Adelante]

21. Exactly right nt

:kick:

[WA98296]

23. No reason, except to remind us of ASSASSINATION! She's totally transparent.

[VolcanoJen]

26. Kick

:dem:

[BeyondGeography]

27. Humphrey didn't even contest the primaries

just lined up delegates in non-primary states and was leading RFK by a pretty wide margin in pledged delegates when he was assassinated. A lot of people think he would have won the nomination anyway even if RFK had lived. McCarthy, who was running a strong 3rd, hated the Kennedys and would have done nothing to help.

Hillary would have loved that system.