Hillary's Bone-headed Argument

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.

Comments

[Janskats]

The comment she made in an early March edition of Time affected me the way many are now reacting. Her wording was almost identical..RFK's assassination was first, then Bill's campaign came next. I was shocked. Then, on May 11, Terry McAuliffe was interviewed by Russert (MTP). In response to Russert's point that Clinton could not overtake Obama, Mcauliffe admits "Very..highly unlikely". Russert states, "Impossible." McAuliffe answers, "Nothing's impossible. Look, tomorrow..something new could happen. Nothing's impossible. You are talking to Terry McAuliffe. I don't believe anything is impossible." (R) "But you would need an act of God or for something catastrophic to happen to the Obama campaign." (M) "Sure, something big would have to happen, I will give you that, absolutely". Now, Clinton says this, within about a week of dependably obnoxious Gomer Pyle Huckabee's comment (to the NRA) that a loud noise offstage was Obama diving under a chair to avoid someone's gun! Hillary COULD have said RFK was still "campaigning" in June, but chose instead to reference his assassinat­ion..twice­! That negates any notion that she was just "tired". She knew full well that the campaigns started much later then..California's in June..and that it was the earlier part of the campaign. Putting aside (if possible) the crass tastelessness of her comments, we conclude that, around the Clinton campfire, this subject has become a talking point, if not a "theme"! Finally, turning it back on Obama, "stirring" things up..even more disingenuous.

[kellygrrrl]

that she remains completely incapable of acknowledging and sincerely apologizing, is horrifying.

The Clintons have insisted that they "will be fine"
and further, they will support the Dem nominee, whoever it is.

this remains to be seen.

If President Clinton cannot put His Country ahead of his ego this summer, he has far deeper issues than i am qualified to discuss.

[Jezreel]

Kellygirl you wrote: “If President Clinton cannot put His Country ahead of his ego this summer, he has far deeper issues than i am qualified to discuss.”

I hope that Bill Clinton will rise to the task. But so far he has failed in this regard. During his presidency, Democrats lost more congressional and senatorial seats than they gained because of the scandals surrounding his election. And when Al Gore lost the 2000 presidential bid Bill Clinton's tepid support was a major contributing factor.

While it's true that HRC was also campaigning for the NY senate at the time, Clinton did almost nothing to help Al Gore win the WH. Instead, he said unflattering things about Gore to the press. He also did interviews for leading magazines and TV appearances wherein he criticized Gore's campaign strategies. Clinton also questioned Gore's electability.

Bill and Hillary Clinton treated Al Gore so badly during the 2000 presidential campaign that Gore and Tipper refused to speak to the Clintons for a couple of years after the election. That's why Gore has not endorsed HRC during this primary season.

I hope that Bill will do better job this time. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[KarenKaren]

There you go. It's the closest match. The media has been mum on this (to Clinton's benefit). Clinton's gonna have some splainin' to do. Glad to see Dee Dee Myers state the obvious. What is there some ban on talking about this or asking Clinton directly about this?

Note to media: in your next round of questions to Clinton, ask her how this race compares to Hart/Mondale. I'll bet she doesn't do any more interviews.

[apoyo]

Hillary wasn't tired and misspoke. You can't be brilliant one minute and obtuse the next.
She was speaking to her audience, to her voters. The ones who don't have college degrees, the women over 60 who want a female president in their lifetime, the ones who make less than 50K as the media describes them. They will believe her excuses. That's why Bill is going around complaining about how badly she is being treated, that "they" are trying to push her out of the race. Her voters will buy that argument also.
Has there really been a primary that for all intents and purposes has lasted a year and a half? So she tries the simplistic argument. That other primaries have gone into June. She doesn't mention when those primaries began, of course. That would derail her argument. That would be like adding 2 + 2 and actually getting 4. She probably surprised herself, using that analogy one time too many, until someone actually noticed. Doubtful that this was a Freudian slip or a gaffe because those fall under the category of an accidental event. When you've made the same statement several times then you are just trying to get your message across by reinforcing it.

[Yohomegirl]

SHe just forgot to throw in a twelve pack of Bush Ice. West Virginia would be vacant right now if she had!

[KingwoodMom]

Dee-Dee Myers:
I hope that once you finish your book tour you will go help the democratic nominee win this election. You are one of the rare political pundits that I look forward to hearing opinions from.

[bobbym]

Thank you. Even when I haven't agreed with your opinions, I've always appreciated the way you presented them.

[marthlois]

Ms. Myers,
This probably was not an easy article for you to write.
Having said that, I simply want to thank you for a very
astute and unslanted piece of journalism.
i wish you much luck with your new book!

[southsideirish]

Here. Here. Speaking as a man married to a very strong, independent woman, women like you, Ms. Meyers, should indeed, rule the world. You have my thorough respect.

[southsideirish]

And yet again, I misspell something. I guess I won't get that gig at "Randum Hoose." I'm just waaaay off this decade. I'm sorry Ms. Myers.

[clevelandchick]

Thank you so much Dee Dee for publicly relaying the facts, it seems the Clintons are much like the Bushes at this point - they believe they can create some alternative reality.

I have been saying that if you put that awful "assasinated" remark aside and just look at the facts surrounding her rationaliz­ation...it­'s unadulterated bull! Her husband's campaign and the campaign of 1968 are not by any stretch of the imagination remotely close to this race. There is no parallel!

Hillary is supposed to be so intelligent and brilliant. And I believe she is; so I it stands to reason she knew what she was saying was b.s. Then what else could she have meant by bringing RFK into the conversation? I can't give her a pass on this as 'being tired', she's floated this idea a total of 4 times. It was blatantly intentional.

Then you throw in the fact that now her camp is blaming Obama for the flack over her stupid remark? What is wrong with these people? You worked for them Dee Dee, give us a clue.

[XME]

Dee Dee,

I thought this was good insight, with one exception. It's never the gaffe that brings down a candidate...it's the aftermath and how they HANDLE it. That's why Senator Obama has weathered through Wright and bitter comments.

If Senator Clinton had come out and given an honest apology this issue would have quickly died down. I support Senator Obama, and even I don't believe she's staying in the race in the hopes that something horrible will happen to him (perhaps she's hoping something ABOUT him will come out, but not that he will be harmed). Had she come out and said that, regardless of the point she was trying to make, it was inappropriate and thoughtless to bring up assassination and she should have used a different example, and that she apologized to both the Kennedy's AND THE OBAMAS, if they were offended, this would not still an issue.

Instead, her campaign went on the attack, blaming the media AND Obama for "inflating" it and she acted offended that anyone would think she wants harm to come to him. Sadly, that wasn't the point and she didn't get it. I honestly believe that Senator Clinton would have gotten much farther in this race if she were able to exibit some humility and sincerity in regret, but time after time, she's opted to go for blaming others and attacking. THAT, in th end, will be what brought her down, not the words of her "gaffe".

[editrix66]

I agree. I get that Clinton made a mistake and doesn't wish Obama any harm, but she still needs to take responsibility for the remark. Of course, people took offense. Come on. but if she had acknowledged that her words were hurtful to many people, she could have stopped the momentum of the bad press. Instead, she make a fake apology and then blamed the Obama campaign for the escalation. Instead, she tried make herself out to be the victim. It was a ridiculous performance.

[jupitor]

This is what I get---------every time she misspeaks they excuse it by calling it fatique! If she is fatiqued all the time like this and it cause's her to make seriouse, and dangerouse errors----­----------­It only stands to reason she does not have the mental stamina or physical stamina for the Possition of Presidsent of the United States When the job takes a person who must be on their toes all the time and function under stress. She seems to function poorly under stress and trying times because of the amount of ongoing misspoken statements. I'm sorry, I really believe some of these misspoken sentence's are often lie's. I do not think she was wishing Obama harm, but I think she had it in her mind all along, and that some one had spoken to her about it, and it just stuck there for this all to come out in this manner! If she was the brilliant , intelligent woman that every one says she is than she never would have said this unless it was something she thought she could get tracktion out of Or it was indeed yet another weak fatique moment of seriouse dangerouse mispoken errors she is makeing very often. You choose! To me either way makes her a poor choice for our Commander and Chief.

[111]

I am glad to hear you say that her choosing those two races was bone headed.

Her answer made no sense on any level and I do not accept the excuse that she was tired because she repeated these examples several times over a period of months.

Instead of making a full apology she apologized only to the Kennedy's who had not expressed concern over the remark. She did not acknowledge the concerns over Obama's safety because she did not mention his name and doesn't owe him an apology. This is akin to her answer, "not my knowledge" when asked if Obama is a Muslim. Then she had the nerve to blame Obama for the outrage that was expressed which was ludicrous when you look at the statements issued by his office. There is nothing that comes out of her mouth that has not been examined for the effect it will have on her campaign.

And you can tell Bill that Ralph Nader has been verbally abused and threatened "just for running" but Bill is so insensitive he can't see this type of treatment as wrong when it isn't happening to him or Hillary. Bill didn't care when Hillary and Edwards tried to exclude other candidates from debates because Hillary was a front runner at the time and she was the one trying to rig the race.

They have made it clear, they are vile, callous people who care only for themselves.

[TheRealMacDaddy]

Did anyone else watch Hardball tonight?

I found it extremely odd that the Clinton talking heads (Joan Walsh) were saying that Hillary never said RFK's assasination was a reason for her to stay in the race.

Now for anyone interested, please watch as the words "People have been trying to push me out of this race since Iowa (which is total bullshit! She was the presumptive nominee prior Feb 5 especially with MI and FL tipping her way). When asked Why? Why? She said "I don't know, I find it curious" [Then she breaks into her reasoning for staying in] "...I don't buy the unity argument, I've been in politics too long. My husband did not wrap up the nomination until won the California Primary the middle of June (another Clinton untruth) and we all remember Bobby Kennedy was assasinated in June..." Don't believe me? Watch it yourself! Hillary can say all she wants that she was just stating historical facts, but one was a LIE and the other was a morbid yearning that she needed to be ready to step in 'just in case'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vyFqmp4wzI

[hawkseye]

Yes, I watched H'ball and saw Joan Walsh blather enabling trash.

Walsh doesn't have any crap detectors.

[Ndw]

I do! And my crap detector had me canceling my subscription to Salon, in protest, if not in cash-back.

[BubbaC33]

Ms. Meyers is certainly welcome to her opinion, but the fact is Ms. Clinton said other candidates have campaigned into June. No matter Ms. Meyer's interpretation, what Ms. Clinton said was accurate and historically correct. And anyone who has taken offense at her words was certainly lookig for a reason to be offended, the words were not offensive.

[tea in the harbor]

The apparent fact that you were not offended does not give you the right to proclaim that nobody else has the right to be. You are yet another example of the absolute arrogance many of us find offensive in Clintonland. You have a right to your opinion, and a right to voice it, but to tell others that if they do not agree, ditto-head style, that the words were not offensive, they must have been "looking for a reason" is to assume yourself an unassailable authority. If you can prove that to be accurate, I'll sacrifice a chicken to your image tomorrow!

[jupitor]

I truely think maybe those in there 50 and 60's may be even more offended! That age lived through MLB, JFK and Bobby kennedy's assasination! The pain , sorrow and heart break of America was almost unbearable! Hillary Clinton is old enough to remember, Bobbys son who supports Hillary was not old enough to remember, and may remember nothing but what he heard matter of fact! While I hear some Kennedys could not believe she would be that irsponsable, insensitive and cruel to them and to the people who still is angered over that killing! The only reason to link this "A" word with the month of june, and the reason for her to stay in this election , is because it had to be on her mind that Obama may come to some harm, clearing her path to the nomenation! Therefore, in my mind those spoken words were harmful,hurtful, and dangerouse to Obama and his family and she owe's them a apology in the worse way! This is just my opinion, but it did bring me to the conclusion that I could never in all conciouse ever vote for this Lady.

[JimR]

How strange. I notice you were able to make the point about campaigning into June without using the word "assassination." Even Hillary Clinton can't do that!

RFK had just entered the race a few months before in 1968, and only 13 primaries had been held. Bill Clinton took a commanding lead in delegates in April of 1992 (you know like Obama has now). It's a dumb analogy.

Offense? I can't imagine how suggesting (whether she meant to or not) that a candidate might be SHOT DEAD next month could possibly be offensive...

[peorgietirebiter]

come on bubba - no one is arguing that RFK wasn't a candidate or that he didn't really die in june - we're saying it wasn't relevant to anything and at best a tasteless reference to an american tragedy. and while you say she's welcome to her opinion - you might want to ponder the fact that some opinions are more informed, i.e better than others. if you don't think ms. myers' opinion on the matter demands your serious consideration, you are simply not interested in honest inquiry. think george bush, he makes it easy for his fan, no thinking required,

[SeriousBlack]

BubbaC33: "the fact is Ms. Clinton said other candidates have campaigned into June"

Hillary Clinton: "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

Now, excuse me Bubba, but if Clinton had said:

"Bobby Kennedy campaigned into June"

then your statement might be accurate. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

But wait, you say! Your statement is still accurate IF you (you, yourself, Bubba) IN-TER-PRET Clinton's statement:

"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

to MEAN:

"other candidates have campaigned into June"

Oh, OK. So to recap. For your statement to be accurate it requires an INTERPRETATION of Clinton's remarks. (In a way that is positive to Clinton, of course.)

And yet, anyone who chooses to see any DIFFERENT interpretation of her remarks, that is NOT positive to Clinton, well... then that person is misguided.

OR, even to assert that though it may not have been intentional on Clinton's part, that her remarks could POSSIBLY be regarded as offensive by ANYone. Even the black candidate in the race that in fact shares many characteristics with Bobby Kennedy (young, charismatic, challenging the existing power structure); the black candidate whose safety has been in the back of a vast number of Americans' minds since he announced he was running for president.

Okey dokey Bubba.

[KarenKaren]

The whole assassination thing is moot.

The new issue is the Hart/Mondale comparison, which Clinton has known of all along.

Since Clinton can't win Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado, the question is how she is going to engage her voters to vote the Democrat's ticket even if she's not on it. The majority of her supporters, not all, will vote Obama. How does she figure into the picture now? What's her legacy going to be? How's she going to return to the Senate and go to bat for the policies she believes in?

[SURRYMARK]

Imagine that you are an on-the-ground diplomat, or the Secretary of State, or even the press secretary under a Hillary Clinton administration. My guess is that you'll be in constant fear of seeing all your work go down the toilet when the president makes some boneheaded remark. She talks of obliterating Iran or some other country. She concocts some embarrassing tale about being in mortal danger in some country she visits. She says that agreements she signed don't count now, and she demands a bewildering and changing new set of rules that other countries have to follow. This woman of great experience will be a nightmare to work with, and proof to the world that no matter what the flavor, American foreign policy is a joke.

[cog1000]

Just saw Joan Walsh on Chris Matthews' show going off on demonizing of Sen. Clinton and how it's "going to backfire."

What I want to know Joan Walsh is WHAT EXACTLY CAN Sen. Clinton say or do that you will NOT apologize for and defend????

No one claims she meant to say she was waiting on A. It was just crassness of the remark and it's undeniable underlying references that we are attacking. ALL she needs to do is apologize for making a mistake. But no, it's demonizing Sen. Clinton to expect an apology????

[JimR]

"I made a mistake in my choice of words and I am sorry for any offense it caused."

What is so hard about that? A child could do it.

[hawkseye]

How about "...and I am sorry." Period.

[peorgietirebiter]

i think we ought to start demanding apologies from politicians that actually acknowledge the act and those it offended without the all too common qualifiers like "any" or "if" the little words thy use to place the offense somewhere outside their responsibility.

I apologize to all the people I offended by nit picking here. I sincerely regret that mistakes were made....

[apoyo]

Joan wasn't just defending Clinton. She was fuming. She could barely get the words out she was so irate over anyone picking on Hillary. She shouldn't do commentary if she can't be objective.

[LittleBrother]

Clueless Joan may be well-meaning, but she's a lightweight who's about as deep as an oil slick.

She's Salon.com's version of Katie Couric.

[4wehttam]

We all know Hillary isn't a stupid person, SHE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT SHE WAS SAYING, she ALWAYS knows exactly what she says before it comes out of her lying mouth.

The anything goes way didn't work for the republicans in 2006 and it won't work for the Clinton's in 2008.

NO MORE DRAMA, VOTE FOR OBAMA!!!!!

[billsmile]

Supposing "she knew exactly what she was saying"....her two bad anolgies were presented for a reason aka political gain.

The '92 Bill Clinton anology was presumably to show that Clintons can win in June (and then on to victory in the general election). That might carry some subliminal weight to help Hillary.

Then comes the '68 Bobby Kennedy anology which doesn't have the same happy ending as the Bubba anology. Perhaps she was pointing to herself as yet another New York Senator representing change. Perhaps. But if so, it is unlikely she'd bring up the "assasination" part of the equation.