In order to change our debate a little, and if possible away from Hoa Van Tran, I bring up Hillary Clinton’s remarks to the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board this week. What makes this whole thing disturbing is that it is pretty clear that Hillary wil not withdraw from the Presidential Primary until after the June 3rd contests. It is also clear that she will not have enough delegates to get the nomination and that Barack Obama already has the majority of pledged delegates. Most realists have concluded that it is highly likely that Barack Obama will be the Democratic Party nominee for President this year.
I have no problem with the argument that we should let all of the states (and territories) have their voices heard. What I do not understand why she went where she did with her comments.
From MSNBC.com:
Responding to a question about calls for her to drop out of the race, she said: “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. You know I just, I don’t understand it,” she said, dismissing the idea of abandoning the race.
Clinton said she didn’t understand why, given this history, some Democrats were calling for her to quit. Within a couple hours of the South Dakota remarks drawing attention, Clinton decided to make a personal apology. “I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns of both my husband and Senator (Robert) Kennedy waged in California in June in 1992 and 1968 and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That’s a historic fact,” she said. “The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy,” she added, referring to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s recent diagnosis of a brain tumor. “I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever.Since I can’t comment better than what I have read from Kos at DailyKos, I will quote directly from his commentary today.While everyone was rightfully focused on her assassination analogy, she was also lying about 1992.What she said:
My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?
Reality:
- The 1992 primaries ended on June 2, 1992, a day earlier than this year. Several states, including California, had primaries that day. It was not mid-June.
- According to wikipedia: “Clinton effectively won the Democratic Party’s nomination after winning the New York Primary in early April.”
- Clinton’s chief rival was Paul Tsongas who dropped out of the race in mid-May, 1992.
- According to polls, Clinton led in every remaining state except California where Jerry Brown was polling well (his home state). Brown was not going to catch Clinton for the nomination in any scenario.
- From the May 11, 1992 New York Times: “Aides to Mr. Clinton say that in most of the remaining primaries he will ignore the former Governor of California, Edmund G. Brown Jr., and will try to give voters a clearer sense of his own personality and his positions on major issues, in preparation for a general election campaign against President Bush.”
Add one more bullet item to this list — in 1992, the first caucus, Iowa, took place February 10th, more than one month later than this year’s January 3rd caucuses. Five weeks, in fact.
If Clinton wants to argue that she wants all the votes to be counted, that is a defensible position, but she’s not  really interested in waiting for the votes to be counted. She’s hoping that she can scare or blackmail delegates into overruling the will of the electorate in all 50 states, DC, and the territories. Since the math has proved for months that she had already lost, arguing for all the contests to take place wouldn’t make sense. So, like she has done for most of the campaign, she has to create an alternate reality to fit her spin.
Hillary isn’t stupid. She knows all this. But it doesn’t matter. I don’t know about you guys, but after eight years of Bush rule, I’m sick and tired of politically expedient alternate realities.ÂÂ
Sometimes, this politics thing just doesn’t make much sense.
I really don’t think she meant to say that she’s staying in it just “in case”. I think she was relating that fact that the same night RFK won the California Primary, which was in the beginning of June, he was also shot. And those two primaries were just bad examples since they started later in the year than 2008 did.
Personally, I think it’s just Clinton fatigue by all the non-supporters and they were just waiting to jump on a gaffe.
I just can’t help but give her the benefit of the doubt.
Okay, but I can’t resist quoting a certain famous blogger today:
“It looks like many of Hillary Clinton’s apologists and several political pundits claim that her assassination remarks can be explained because of fatigue.
“Perhaps. In fact, it’s likely.
“But won’t she be fatigued at 3 in the morning?”
Vern, I meant as, we’re tired of her not that she’s tired!
Chris, I don’t know what happened to my comment but I sent it and it didn’t register. So I’ll try again. After first looking at your shot across the bow post I was inclined to comment about the shortcomings of your current favorite presidential candidate Senator Obama and why many people are encouraging Senator Clinton not to concede because we believe she is the strongest candidate.
But then I read Heathers comment and her response was so rational that it took the sword right out of my fingers. Instead, consider these points:
1) Haven’t you gotten the negative personal attacks out of your system being part of what Vern described as the Jacobins of the DPOC? Haven’t you let go enough depth charges from the USS Janny onto the hapless Lucas and the clueless Hoa that you’ve gotten the negative attack bug out of you?
2) The story is lame and really no more than an excuse by Kos and you to beat up on Hillary. You’ve relied on a terribly biased source who will twist whatever is said into an anti-Clintonian rant. Its been taken out of context. But don’t take my word for it. take Heathers. Or Al Sharptons. Or RFK Jr. Or the editor of the South Dakota newspaper Argus Leader who conducted the interview and said ” The context of the question and answer with Senator Clinton was whether her continued candidacy jeopardized party unity this close to the Democratic convention. Her reference to Mr. Kennedy’s assasination appeared to focus on the timeline of his primary candidacy and not the assasination itself.”
2) You claim that you “Have no problem with the argument that we should let all the states(and territories)have their voices heard.” But earlier you state “What makes this whole thing disturbing is that Hillary will not withdraw from the Presidential primary until after the June 3 contests.” The reality is that you, Kos and some fellow travelers have no interest in having peoples voices heard. You’ve made that clear earlier in supporting disenfranchisment of the 2.3 million voters in Michigan and Florida and now your desire to leave the final two states and Puerto Rico with a one candidate election. Its not too surprising you want Hillary out given your guy has lost 6 of the last 9 primary elections but that’s democracy. The race isn’t over when you keep losing elections. In any event I would rather listen to the voice of the people than the voice from Mount Kos.
3) The worst part is calling Clinton a liar and relying on Kos. And what is the primary source Kos uses to base his claim that Clinton was :lying”?
WIKIPEDIA!!!!! The only thing worse than relying on Wikipedia for your research is relying on the the Land of Kos. And you have to look no further than the other source Kos sited in his anti-Clintonian rant, the May 11, 1992 New York Times. Comrade Kos convieniently neglected to mention a fact in the same article that as of May 11 Clinton was 480 delegates from clinching the nomination!!! He did not clinch it until after the California primary. Its 20-20 hindsight to say he had it in the bag, that no one could catch him especially given the possibility of a bimbo popping out of a cake that year with another story. Much of the press and many Obama supporters have been saying the race this year has been over since Iowa. But it hasn’t. it isnt wrapped up until you have the votes. What she said was true. She was not lying. You owe her an apology.
4) Finally, I’ve tried to temper my remarks about Senator Obama of late and I’ve never initiated any attacks on him on this or any other blog. I’ve only responded to your scud posts or some posts or comments from others. You as a blogger have every right to post these divisive and politically stupid rants. But you’re now an Obama delegate and have a responsibility to be responsible and avoid doing anything that will make it tougher on your candidate should he as you expect get the Democratic nomination.
You’re an Obama delegate. Start acting like it.
NCS,
You are correct. Where I stated “What makes this whole thing disturbing is that…” that was supposed to be part of the second sentence of the second paragraph. I screwed it up in moving things around when I was writing my post.
I must have been tired from the long primary season.
And you’re right, I probably should lay off of Hillary. No point in it really.
I’m tired of the long primary season too but in the name of unity, we need to lay off of Clinton and see the big picture here. We need her supporters to win in November and demonizing Clinton will not help and beating up on her at every turn does not help the party one bit.
I’m just tired of it all and I say this as a hardcore Obama supporter. I don’t want to see her destroyed because she’s been playing hardball, it’s the nomination for the presidency, I think she feels she has to be ten times stronger to be taken seriously.