Hillary Clinton's comments on Friday -- invoking Bobby Kennedy's assassination after the California primary in 1968 to shore up her argument that Democratic primaries are often unresolved in June -- were bone-headed on two scores.
First, the obvious. The analogy was in such poor taste that it, predictably, caused a furor that rolled through the long weekend, and obscured anything else Clinton might have said or done while campaigning in Puerto Rico -- even a bit of You Tube-worthy dancing. How did it happen? I get that she was almost certainly tired. I get that editorial boards can seem a little informal, and candidates are sometimes more expansive then in set "interviews." And I get that she'd said it before, and no one -- absolutely no one -- seemed to notice, let alone take exception or offense. But I still don't get it. During my years as a press secretary (including to Hillary's husband, both on the 1992 campaign and in the White House), I developed a powerful internal filter, which worked to strip all things "off message" from my thoughts before they came out of my mouth. It didn't always work, of course, and I said more than a few things I regretted. But "assassination" and "Bobby Kennedy" in the same sentence when discussing her reasons for staying in the race? That's a total head-scratcher. And for the moment anyway, it seems to have altered the dynamics of her finale. I'm pretty sure this isn't the kind of game-changer she had in mind.
But in addition to all that, Clinton's argument is wrong, historically and politically. Democratic presidential primaries never really last this long. True, Bill Clinton didn't have enough delegates to "go over the top" until June of 1992. But as soon as Paul Tsongas, the last serious candidate, dropped out on March 20, Bill Clinton became the presumptive nominee. Similarly, when Bobby Kennedy was shot on his way out of the a victory celebration in Los Angeles on June 5, 1968, and died the next day, the campaign was not quite three months old, and only 13 states had held primaries. In other words, that race was far from over.
So if Clinton wants to keep on keeping on, as she clearly does, she should argue that this race is unprecedented, that at no time in history have two candidates been in a virtual tie after 48 states have held primaries or caucuses, and some 35 million people have weighed in. Since it's come this far, she might say, she should be allowed to see it through, until "every vote is counted," including those in Florida and Michigan. It is, after all, historic.
Instead, she's arguing precedent. And the most analogous race is not 1992 or 1968, but 1984. In that race, the establishment candidate and presumptive nominee got surprised in the early contests by a virtual unknown promising new ideas and a new generation of leadership. The frontrunner's lead evaporated, and he had to battle the challenger through a long primary season which didn't end until the last contests in early June. When the dust had settled, the two had an almost equal number of pledged delegates and votes. But a series of gaffes by the less experienced candidate -- as well as the establishment candidate's support among superdelegates -- allowed the latter to claim the nomination.
And after Walter Mondale beat Gary Hart, he went on to lose 49 states in November.
This post was originally published at vanityfair.com, where Myers writes regularly.
She could have handled all of this so differently. She could have offered an honest assessment of her campaign's failings, complimented her opponent's campaign, vowed to do better. But she's not that kind of person. She's the kind of person who sees enemies everywhere, people out to get her, a press that wants to deny her the throne. Someone in these pages compared her to Richard Nixon. It was incredibly apt.
We're at the point now where I don't trust a single word that comes out of her mouth. I just want her gone. Every time she says, "We're winning the popular vote," or "Onward to the White House," I cringe. If the superdelegates and the DNC don't put us out of our misery soon, then the Democratic Party will have failed us every bit as seriously as the Republican Party has failed this country in the last eight years.
I see you too have been manipulated and strongarmed by the media. Is there no such thing as friendship and loyalty anymore? She made a dumb remark. I agree. But the over the top reaction from the Obama camp and the memos sent from Obama to the media to blow this up, was just uncalled for.
All candidates have made dumb mistakes and gaffes. Only Hillarys mistakes are exploited and taken over the top . Sad, just sad to see the level of hate. The Obama people hate Hillary, not because they know her well, but because their chosen candidate has made it acceptable to hate her ("You're likable enough, Hillary"). Because they are too young to really know all the good the Clintons did. Because they only heard the hate coming from the GOP side and from the Obama camp. They believe everything they hear. It is sad to see soo many people these days that can't judge and think on their own. They have to take cues from others. Not to mention the media that can't stand the Clintons because the Clintons never would kiss the media's biased butts.
Grow up people. Get an independent mind. Don't let others tell you what to think. Own your own mind.
God, you Clinton supporters go ON AND ON about how CONDESCENDING we Obama supporters are when you consistently demean us as ignorant boors who flock to a celebrity candidate simply because of his rhetorical ability.
You suggest that we Obama supporters are a cult-like cabal of personality worshippers who unqualifiedly lap up every word he says with a deluded zeal befitting only the most ostracized in modern society.
But you say all of this only to temper in your mind the growing cognitive dissonance between Clintons' failings as a candidate and Obama's ability to reach people with his message of change. We all have thought with our own minds. Perhaps our logic processes are different than yours? Perhaps we are willing to hedge our bets on the change agent rather than the proven commodity? Perhaps the majority of the nation is not as stupid as you would like to purport?
I urge you not demean us. We are active thinking adults and we do not appreciate your condescension. If we have a difference of opinion, fine. But don't try to chalk up your candidate's failures to other people's incompetence. When you fail you should first look inwards, then outwards, and Hillary Clinton forgot that first step.
And that's the word.
But at the same time as I defend her right to take it to the end, I am horrified by some of the tactics and gaffes that have emerged from the Clinton camp. I think she made a serious strategic error in choosing to run her campaign "like a man". I think she bought into the belief that women need to prove they are as tough as men, and she's run a cutthroat campaign that has offended millions of people. She could have been the candidate of change. It's truly a shame. I hope the next woman to run learns from her mistakes because I would love to see a woman president. Thankfully, I'm young enough to feel like there is plenty of time for that.
She's the strongest liar.
She's the strongest rule changer.
She's the strongest criminal. (current lawsuit for campaign finance fraud, just one example)
She's the strongest un-vetted candidate. (the repubs haven't touched her in any way, yet)
She's the strongest holder of a horribly managed campaign.
She's the strongest complainer.
She's the strongest Appalachia white working class uneducated voter con-girl.
She's the strongest Republican Karl Rovian tactics player.
She's the strongest big money holding claimer of being non-elite.
She's the strongest fighter of do until I and the party die.
She's the strongest divisiveness-polarization candidate.
She's the strongest surrogate idiocy holder.
She's the strongest losing former super-delegates support holder.
She's the strongest long-time supporters defected holder.
She's the strongest proclaimed fighter of lobbyists and special interests whilst being in bed with lobbyists and special interests.
The list could go on and on...
Wouldn't it be quite a fiasco to have her get the nomination, and then see what the repub's do to her? Obama and the repubs have given her a free ride. Obama has stayed away from the negative campaigning, whilst he's been given the task of taking on negative attacks from both Hillary and the Republicans throughout the entire campaign.
Black Americans, and many of all races are EXTREMELY disturbed by Hillary's insinuation of a possible assassination of Barack Obama. To imply that her reason for staying in the race is because anything can happen, then nonchalantly say that even Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June, meaning therefore she should stay in, is not only pitifully diobolical but incredibly dangerous.
As I read some of the comments, I sense that some do not understand the true impact of her deadly insinuation. Keep in mind, when it was first announced that Obama was running for President, the initial concern in Black America was his safety. "Would some nut sniper him"? Obama had to hire secret service security right out of the gate.....why? Because of the true possibilty of some nut doing harm to him or his family.
Also, during the last 50 years, the people who have been assassinated have ALL been leaders who were working toward equality for ALL. John F., Robert and of course Dr. King. So just the WORD assassination brings to us not only an extreme fear but is a reminder of the incredibly sad loss to America, particularly Blacks, at the hands of the sick and wicked. For Hillary Clinton, a so-called leader, to insinuate, for WHATEVER reason assassination....is beyond disgusting. It subliminally sparks the hatred, bigotry and destruction that most Americans have worked so hard to overcome.
Greg Jones
www.Blacks4Barack.org
You read a lot better than you sound on TV. You are totally correct and maybe HRC needed you on her staff. Had her staff taken everyone seeking the nomination seriously like they teach you in the military and in sports, she may have won this already!
Dee Dee recognizes "a poor analogy" that would create a "predictable", rather than *understandable* furor. This left me scratching my own head a bit. I wasn't quite sure where she came down emotionally in this situation. But then I realized that was the point: keep emotions, real and imagined, valid or invalid out of potentially explosive situations and just see the facts as they are and state them. Doing so doesn't validate or invalidate the emotions it just simply relegates them to their proper role. Our emotions tell us how we feel. Our principles tell us how we should conduct ourselves in response to those feelings.
Having found my way into and out of the furor, and knowing I will probably find my way back into it again because I still feel the wound of it, I am keeping Meyer's article close at hand to make sure that I am stay reminded of the importance of a cool and level head.
Thanks Dee Dee for your honesty and clear headedness.
Obama/Sebelius '08
Further, Hillary Clinton has no case based upon "gender bias" to take to any court of law.
And, Hillary Clinton has no case based upon "disenfranchised voter" to take to any court of law.
And, Hillary Clinton has no case based upon "nomination process/rules" to take to any court of law.
I think we have seen ample evidence of the true character of Hillary Clinton over the last 4 months in the first two categories...
Now, i am very impressed with your piece because it is exactly what it is and Clinton trying to walk away from that by a media assault won't cut it.
It was clear a long time ago that she kept running with the expectation that something might happen to Barack Obama. As a proof, "Boby got assassinated in June" and the nomination was given to somebody else, hence that is why she stays in the corner waiting.
History will judge her harshly.