Search
She said what?
Hillary Clinton:
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.
Okay, deep breaths.
Hillary Clinton is an extraordinary human being and, as the first viable female candidate for the Presidency, has already stepped into history. If she had run a campaign distinguished by the competency she can obviously lay claim to in other areas, she would have had the Democratic nomination locked up months ago. However, she did not, and got blindsided by the biggest political phenomenon to hit American politics since Ronald Reagan. Not very many people understood just what it was that Barack Obama was building even a few short months ago; I certainly did not.
Now, this campaign is in the last stages, and Senator Clinton's arguments are evaporating before her eyes. "Obama can't win" went the way of the dodo with polls showing him comfortably carrying Pennsylvania, Ohio, and now, New Hampshire. "My policies are better" flamed out with the ridiculous pander on the gas tax. "Electing a woman would be historic" has never had all that much saliency in my mind, not when applied against the candidacy of the first realistic African-American candidate.
Her last real argument, that the Illinois Senator is in some ways an unknown, has imploded with her Kennedy remarks. They make startlingly clear that Senator Clinton's rationale for staying in the race is a simple hope on her part that outside events might perhaps derail his candidacy. By raising the bloody specter of pools of blood, even inadvertently, even in a rhetorical aside, she's stirred ghosts that were better off sleeping. Most crucially, this tawdry episode can be read as acknowledging the obvious: any such campaign-derailing moments are not in Clinton's power to create.
It's time to bring this to an end. This is a low point from which discourse is unlikely to recover in the primary. Assassinations are not the stuff of political argument.
You saw the phenomenon
Of course you saw the phenomenon -- from the inside. You're a part of it. It first showed up in a major way over five years ago when Howard Dean began gaining traction for his presidential run (see my Feb. 14 column, "The Shoulders of Giants"). It has been building ever since.
This is the phenomenon that swept Democrats to victory in the 2006 midterm congressional elections. It is the phenomenon that gave us Democratic governors in five of nine western states and five of nine House seats from Indiana. It is the wave of change, demanding that our government stop "business as usual," which involves lies, secrecy and militarism. It is the latest (minor) American revolution.
Thomas Jefferson believed that each generation needed to earn their liberty. He wrote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Although Jefferson was a little too fond of war (fought by other people), his concept is soundly based on the idea that anything we receive too cheaply we value too little. Freedom is too valuable to be handed to us; we must constantly earn it.
In the 70s, we had a reform movement, born of 50s and 60s gunboat diplomacy, bred in Vietnam, and matured at the Watergate hotel. This movement was born on December 11, 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court effectively declared George W. Bush the next President. It was bred out of our invasion and occupation of Iraq. It is maturing, symbolically, with the rise of Barack Obama.
The key is to follow the mantra that Howard Dean popularized: Think globally, act locally. This is where you and I and everyone on this blog can make a real, lasting difference, and sow the seeds for even larger change. That is why we discuss state and city races, local issues and legislation, and neighborhood problems.
We are the phenomenon.
There's something else there, though.
I can see that because Obama was my third choice for president, not my first. I was there five years ago too, but this feels different to me. Dean rocked my world, but Obama seems to do that for many more people.
I recognize that he's very smart, a gifted natural politician, and he's run an absolutely brilliant campaign. I expect him to do no less in general; indeed, he must, if he is to succeed with the Clintons now apparently openly committed to sabotaging him. Intellectually, I'm happy about all that. But in no way do I feel the emotional connection that so many others do (and that I did with Dean).
I totally disagree..
....but Rock, if anything is more vehement than either Michael or Liza
Here’s our Point/Counterpoint:
http://www.r8ny.com/blog/rock_hackshaw/hillary_bill_and_barack_the_colum...
http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/lamour_viole_its_a_cinematic_referenc...
When reading my piece, it may help if everytime you read the word “Rock”, you substitute "Bouldin" instead.
With respect
I'm on the "Wolf Pack" side of this. Not because I think HRC has been sitting around fantasizing about Barack Obama getting assassinated. But because lots of other people (and not just black folks, Rock) sit around worrying that he might be, and just voicing it is enough to make us nervous. And because every single point she brought up in that interview to support her continuing to run is specious.
Point one: the 1992 primary was over months before Clinton's California victory, after Tsongas dropped out on March 17 and after Clinton defeated Brown in Wisconsin and New York on April 7, and everyone knew it except Jerry Brown. This might not be such a good example for her to use under the present circumstances, when everyone seems to know this is over except her.
Point two: the 1968 New Hampshire primary was held on the second Tuesday in March, almost two full months later than this year's. That would make Bobby Kennedy's come-from-behind victory in California roughly the chronological equivalent of Clinton's win in Pennsylvania. And that's being generous: I had to choose Pennsylvania, which was actually two more weeks after this year's New Hampshire primary, because there were six weeks with no contests at all.
In both of these cases, the de facto nominating contest was at least two months shorter than the Long March we are currently engaged in. And that's not even counting the 10 months they spent campaigning before a vote had been cast. Now we have reached a point where it is mathematically impossible for her to win even a majority of the pledged delegates, so why is she doing this?
Point three: the possibility of unforeseen future circumstances is not a reason for her to stay in the race. If Obama's candidacy were to self-destruct in some way after she had suspended her campaign, why would she be any less likely to be chosen to replace him? This has happened in the past: Thomas Eagleton was the actual Vice Presidential nominee when he was forced to step aside. Did the Democratic Party wring their hands and say, "What will we do now? There's no one left who's still running!" They did not. They simply chose another nominee. And that's what would happen in this case. In fact, if Clinton weren't doing such a good job of destroying her own political viability, she'd be the obvious first choice.
To give you a bit of background, I was neither a Clinton nor an Obama supporter at the beginning of this, and had a very hard time choosing between them, when it came down to that. Not so much anymore, though.
Well thank you for responding Sid
I'd prefer it if you put it on the Room 8 thread as well, since as Mole has pointed out, we don't have an excess of intelligence on our thread. I'm also flattered that you found the points worth engaging, because elsewhere Boudlin has deemed them "spam".
I never said Senator Clinton's examples were valid. In fact I called stated that her use of the example of 1968 was inapt, in fact, I believe I said it was "anachronistic". So, I would say we agree on that point.
My guess, is that she keeps citing 68 because it was the first race she ever worked (unless you count her 14 year old phase as a Goldwater Girl), and it stuck---it's the first thing she thinks of because it is the first thing she thinks of. And, she does not bring up the somewhat more apt example of 72, because that might remind people she worked for McGovern.And, I must add, once you've referenced June 68 in a political context, a mention of RFK is practically unavoidable.
For the reasons I stated in the article, I see no purposeful connection in bringing up assasination--if that were actually her thought, she would never state it aloud--it would be unmentionable, like McGovern. And, as you and I have both noted, staying in for that reason would make no sense,-if, G-d forbid, it actually happened, her having dropped out of the race would not preclude her being the nominee--if anything, it would probably be helpful.
But, as I've noted, the reason she stays in the race is not because "anything can happen"--she's never said that. She satays in the race, because she's under the delusion that she can and will win.
As I said, she should dropped out, but that's no excuse for the wolf-pack pulling a train, as they've done in this case.
Wish I could agree
but I don't think her staying in is delusional, and I don't think her choice of 68 is her pining for her political youth. She 's very tired, it's true, but she's also very smart. Not as smart as I thought she was a year ago, though - she's run a shockingly dumb campaign.
I hate to say it, but I think she knows she's not going to win the nomination. And I don't think she wants to be his running mate or his anything else, for that matter. She's going to try to sink Obama's boat, if she can figure out a way to do it subtly enough for it not to backfire on her. I fear she will succeed in sabotaging the general election; there's no way she can do it without getting caught, though.
By the way, I think the reason Michael asked you not to spam is because you posted the same comment on two different diary posts, not because he thought your comments were unintelligent. And it's easy for me to be civil to you - I'm not the one you were needling.
Truth hurts
Hillary Clinton is at least honest about her campaign. She has not lied or hidden any facts about herself. How much do we really know about Obama?
The real truth
Hillary lied about her husband's campaign not being sewn up until June of 1992. While Jerry Brown could have denied Clinton a majority of delegates by winning the California primary on June 2 (as well as some of the other primaries held that day), Clinton's lead was so large that there was no question of who the nominee would be.
Hillary lied about her role (nonexistent, that is) in fashioning the 1998 Belfast Agreement.
Hillary lied about her reason for giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq.
Hillary lied about being under fire in Bosnia -- several times.
The truth only hurts when you lie.