The OTHER Big Problem With Hillary's Notorious Remarks

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. I don't understand it."

What a remarkably wrong-headed paragraph. The formerly inevitable Clinton got into obvious trouble for her assassination comment. (And is now trying desperately to spin her way out. Lotsa luck.) But the sentence before it is totally wrong as well, as I can tell you that the Clintons knew that they would have no trouble in the 1992 California primary.

In May 1992, I passed on a message to Bill Clinton's national campaign chairman, Los Angeles attorney Mickey Kantor, who later held two Cabinet posts in the Clinton Administration. The message? That Jerry Brown, the former California governor who emerged as Clinton's most persistent opponent, would run no TV ads in the California primary and would pull back from the sharp attacks he'd been leveling on the frontrunner.

The primary was not "in the middle of June," as Hillary said in the first part of her gross misstatement about it. It was on the first Tuesday in June, as it had been for decades to that point, on June 2nd. Clinton was way ahead in the race. There was no suspense about him getting the nomination. And Brown's decision not to run TV ads in California -- he had plenty of money for that -- and to refrain from the harsh attacks that had marked his campaign to that point made it very clear that the fight was over.

Brown had made plenty of trouble for Clinton, coming out of the pack to end up as the rather distant runner-up for the Democratic presidential nomination. Running against political corruption, the former two-term governor of California won several big primary and caucus victories over Clinton. Accepting no contribution over $100, in this pre-Internet campaign Brown used an earlier form of interactive technology and funded his run with an 800 number, mentioning the number so often that then NBC anchor Tom Brokaw, a family friend, tried to cut him off during a TV appearance.

Brown's surge against Clinton halted after a fake drug scandal broke on ABC. There was nothing actually there -- one key source who appeared on Nightline later admitted that the Brown fundraiser he dramatically said he'd attended where drug-taking took place was a big Eagles concert in the 1970s where some fans smoked marijuana -- but the information provided to the network was packaged cleverly enough to produce a lot of short-term smoke. As it were. Funny how such things happen not infrequently around Bill and Hill's campaigns.

With Brown deciding to run no TV ads, and pulling back from his sharp attacks on Clinton, the way was made absolutely clear for Bill Clinton to finish first in the California primary and begin consolidating his role as the nominee of the Democratic Party.

The night of the California primary, I stayed at the Hollywood Hills home of Brown's sister, Kathleen Brown, then the California state treasurer, and her husband, former CBS News president Van Gordon Sauter. Jerry Brown stayed there, too.

Distressingly early on the morning after the California primary, there was a knock on my door. Jerry Brown rushed into the room, reporting that somebody had called for me. He was much more interested, naturally, in talking about his campaign than in delivering a phone message. I'm not sure I ever found out who had called.

He was in very good spirits. Primary day had gone as he planned, as he piled up more delegates to make a showing at the convention in New York. And Clinton allies like then Democratic national chairman Ron Brown could no longer accuse him of trying to embarrass Clinton as the primary season concluded.

I told Brown that Warren Beatty had called asking for his number. Beatty wanted to play an intermediary role in working out more of a peace agreement between the Clinton and Brown camps.

That never did get worked out, as the Clintons deeply resented Brown for being the first political figure to attack them on what later became known as Whitewater. And his gibes about Clinton golfing with fat cats -- in particular, Hillary's law partner, Webster Hubbell -- as preparations were made for the Clinton-approved execution of a brain-damaged black man during a bad patch in his presidential campaign particularly stung the future first lady.

Now Brown is the very popular attorney general of California, using his office to aggressively pursue remedies to climate change.

And Hillary Clinton? As her campaign winds down, reduced to making bizarre references to political assassination and pretending that she doesn't know any of what you have just read.

Jerry Brown, incidentally, who won a 19-point landslide election as California attorney general in 2006 -- he ran many millions of dollars worth of TV ads in that race -- met with Bill and Hillary Clinton and with Barack Obama early in this campaign cycle. Pondering a return to the governorship in 2010, he is uncommitted in the race.

Comments

[BubbaC33]

Bradley continues to say if the caucus results are include Ms. CLinton will not have the majority of the popular vote. Real Clear POlitics figures do not agree.
17,596,239- Obama
17,650,671- Clinton. These figures include the caucus states. So, Bar, it seems your thinking is a bit wrong.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

You know, you really don't get to distort things here. That does not include all the caucus states.

In a few weeks, if you are a Democrat, you won't be trying to spread misinformation.

[BubbaC33]

You have done enough distortion in your replies to me for a hundred pundits. Which makes it Rovian for you to attack me for something you have done, but I have not done.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Oh, incidentally, the OTHER part of your disinformation is that the figure you cite includes contests all candidates, including Clinton at the time, agreed were not legitimate. And it does not include all the contests that all candidates said are legitimate, i.e., the caucus states.

In a few weeks, if you are not a Republican, you won't waste time like this.

[BubbaC33]

Again, you are incorrect. The caucus states are, in fact, included in this figure. Yes, the vote totals from Mich and Fla are included, but should be included. Especially Florida. Consider this, in 2012 35 states have GOP-controlled state legislatures and a GOP governor. Each moves their primary outside the DNC parameters. Following your thinking each of the 35 would be disallowed, thus making the selection in 2012 a task completed by only 15 states. Would that make sense or be fair or wise? Not at all.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Wrong, again.

[BubbaC33]

Given your desire to see presidential candidates held to account for the words they use why have you given Obama a free pass? He claimed his grandfather was in the army responsible for the liberation of Auschwitz, which seems quite unlikely. The Soviet army liberated Auschwitz, was Obama's grandfather a Russian? And where is your outrage over Obama's exploitation of the Holocaust? I imagine your outrage against Obama will not be forthcoming.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Obama confused Auschwitz with Buchenwald.

[BubbaC33]

I know. And I misstated, it was his great uncle. He said it was an uncle and Auschwitz, not Buchenwald. If Ms. Clinton is to be taken to task for a historically accurate statement about the length of primary campaigns why have you failed to take Obama to task for a comment that is far worse? Could it be your anti-Clinton bias is so prevalent you cannot say anything honest about your candidate?

[jdkjdk]

Jerry Brown for VP!

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Actually, I believe Jerry Brown intends to be Governor of California. Again. The state's term limits law does not apply to him. So, if elected as expected, he would be the second person, after Earl Warren, to win a third term as governor, and the first to serve out that term -- Warren having departed to take up Ike's appointment as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.

[lthuedk 1]

Are DLC'ers still Democrats or have they morphed into supporters of militant globalism with or without knowing it? Their blind loyalty to the Corporate Candidate is stunningly Republicanesque; their herding instinct seems at least as strong as any hard core Freeper Republican's. What ever happened to the facile, independent thinking Democrat? Are they past the point of no return? Do their pupils even dilate?

It does not matter which ideologue(s) one picks, McCain or Two Heads. Corporate and it's military would continue to be the boss, as it has been under Bush. It sounds harsh, but the Clintons are part of enabling such a beast.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/Freedom_of_Choice.html

DLC supporters thinking Clinton will substantially alter the globalism that is killing our quality of life, may have been asleep, or deluded, in deep denial, or latent Republicans. Do Clinton supporters truly believe the 14 megabase insurgent magnets located throughout Iraq or the justification for occupation will ever be abandoned? Do they think Clinton is not a corporate mole intent on keeping us in there? Do they even want the bleeding to stop? Can they possibly comprehend that it's not at all about the women's movement-which I ardently support-but about character?.

Finally, do supporters actually believe Two Heads will not pardon Junior, or Cheney, or the Neo Con subversives? Think again.

[lthuedk 1]

http://www.light-to-dark.com/Freedom_of_Choice.html

The DLC ( Democrats Loving Corporate ), is not good for the Party or America. We've already got one dandy of a Republican Party desecrating the country and will of the people. Much too much national socialist coddling for a country needing to find it's way back to a true democracy founded by and for the people.

I hope Clinton loyalists use the time before Nov. to get acquainted with their search engines and discover the true identity of their candidate(s). Got inquisitiveness, intellect, courage, and common sense? All Liberal values for sure. Now show us the real Democrat hiding inside.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/Baby_Billary.html

Then respectfully, would they please pull their heads out of the sand? The farthest right supports Hillary. Why is that?

[CaptainObvious]

This is precisely the reason she shouldn't be on the ticket, and precisely the reason that John Edwards should be. We don't want a VP candidate who is secretly hoping that our next president gets assassinated, so that she can assume the role. We want to choose a candidate for VP that represents the same values as Obama does, and one that the corporate fascists actually want LESS than Obama.

This is the exact situation that Bush/Cheney has placed the left in for the past 7 1/2 years: who wants to assassinate bush, when we'll just end up with cheney? That's like jumping from the frying pan and into the fire.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

No one should want to assassinate anybody.

[BubbaC33]

Ms. Clinton did not say anything about harm coming to Obama, that is the misinterpretation of Obama supporters. And it shows the hypocrisy of Obama and the MSM. Not much was said when David Axelrod, Obama's political guru, blamed Ms. Clinton for the assassination of Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto. Obama and his supporters are hypocrites.

[MelArawak]

Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton think we have short memory. When she loses she tears up like a girl and talks about the glass ceiling (and fails to mention the advantages of being rich, white, and the wife of a former President). When she wins she dons the boxing gloves, acts like a hybrid Sylvester Stallone (Rocky) and Annie Oakley, tosses back a shot of (Canadian) whiskey and struts her stuff. When Senator Obama team pointed out inequities was it not Hillary Clinton who ran an ad: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". If Senator Obama runs such an ad he would be called sexist. If Senator Obama walked around with gloves saying he would knockout a white woman - he would be classified as the typical black male stereotype. He has proven himself smarter, more disciplined, and had had the good sense to stay above the fray. Of course he has won when it matters: the most pledged delegates, superdelegates, states (33), and has been better at fundraising and registering new voters. This is what a winning strategy looks like and Senator Clinton needs to rise to the ocassion and acknowledge that she came close but, in the end, Senator Obama has won. Yes, he has, fair and square.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

I think the Clintons are quite disbelieving about what has happened to them.

[Bluebloodsbastardson]

"Karma's a bitch!!" Vince Foster

[BubbaC33]

I read your profile and it does not mention you are a shrink, so you cannot know what the Clintons believe or disbelieve.

[TheKnownTruth]

She LIED again. She did NOT apologize. It is this behavior we do not need in a President..

[BubbaC33]

She did apologize. Granted, you would not know that from reading HuffPo. Perhaps you opwe it to yourself to read a newspaper. Maybe the Jerusalem Post.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

You've made about 30 comments on this post on my blog. All pushing a consistently false line of attack.

[CrankyCurmudgeon]

Timing is everything. Is it conceivable Rove learned his ruthless tactics from the Clintons?

[Daisy1111]

What do the Democrats gain by crucifying Hillary for this remark?

Tell me.

How does the crucifixion of Hillary serve Obama this late in the game.

Is that a wise General Election strategy?

[BOBZILLA]

1) Crucifixion? Really?
Why does everything with Hillary have to be so dramatic? From dodging sniper bullets to being the primary target in a vast misogynist conspiracy- Hillary and supporters like you apparently feel obligated to make everything a soap opera.

2) Democrats don't "gain" anything. Hillary loses.

3) No, it's not a general election strategy. Either is watching Hillary as she proves she's nothing but a sanctimonious, condescending, hypocritical , manipulative, narcissistic liar.

[TheKnownTruth]

Think .....Did you ask the same questions when Obama was under attack during Bittergate and Rev Wright ????? How about the 3 AM ad ??? How about the "I am and McCain is ready for CIC, but I don't know about Obama?

The memory short life of in this campaign is astounding. Both of these candidates have "goofed", "Gaffed", or whatever you want to call it.

Bottomline: Each have handled it very differently. The issue here is not just the event but also how it is handled/managed. The heat returned is porportional to how graceful the mistake is handled. Ms. Clinton has REFUSED to recognized the broad impact of what she said. That behavior is BS, CRAP, and INSENSITIVE.

Think about it....

[funwithwarcrimes]

It's not a matter of attacking her.. it's a powerfully packed statement that reveals some pretty dark thoughts. She could have used any number of different words to make her point and she didn't. She chose those exact words. I feel very sorry for her, and it was her choice. I don't think it was personal towards Obama, but it was still a very, very odd choice.

[MadelineL]

Should we erase and ignore all the parts of history that are ugly? No. I didn't think so.

[bigbingtheory]

What do Democrats gain from allowing a presidential candidate to make insensitive remarks? Why, as Democrats, should we allow one of our on to act like the worst kind of Republican? And why on earth do some conttinue to defend the indefensable? This is no crucifixion. This is having principles and standards we want our representatives to uphold. We wouldn't accept John McCain making remarks like this and we won't allow one of our own to either. She said. She failed to apologize. She is not living up to our standards.

[CTtransplant]

There's another side to this whole comment issue that is being overlooked - a very calculated play, in my opinion, to become VP...it makes sense with some of the reports I'm reading that indicate Bill and Hillary are trying to force their way onto an Obama ticket. By using the terminology Clinton used ( and, knowing the Clinton's long background in politics, this was no accident in my opinion), I believe she was well aware that she would be stirring up the supporters on both sides - which would create further dissention between the two groups...justifying her being put on the ticket because 'her supporters' would not support him unless she's on the ticket. My opinion is that Clinton has played us ALL for her own political gain.

[nomobull]

nonsense

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

I've heard repeatedly that Hillary wants on the ticket.

But these remarks are not conducive to that.

[ATFIllinois]

William, nice article, but if Hillary is on the ticket, we all lose this November!! After assassinate remarks amongst the many other remarks, Hillary and crew has made in recent months, she has so poisoned her name with the electorate that it is now definitely impossible for her to be on the ticket. That would be wrong on so many different levels.

[ToddG]

Another difference between today and 1992 is the fact that June in 2008 is more like August in 1992. since the primary calendar has moved up considerably. We are at the end of the primary season and rather than support the Democratic party against McCain, Hill/Bill is doing everything they can to ensure that if Hillary isn't the nominee, then the Democrats will lose so she can run again in 2012. Unfortunately, by that point in time, McCain will have already replaced a few more Supreme Court justices and my daughters, as well as Chelsea Clinton will be living in a world where there rights as women to chose whether or not to have an abortion will have been taken away.

Let's face it, if the shoe were on the other foot, and Obama were behind Hillary by the same margin at this point, Hillary would be personally calling for Obama to exit the race for the sake of party unity and to ensure a Democratic win. She can't win, it is time to step asside and let a new generation of politicians take over. . Stop blaming the media for your failure Hillary, you blew it on Super Tuesday and just post Super Tuesday... that was your own fault and now you need to be magnanimous and for the sake of those of us with daughters.... bow out now while you have a tiny shred of dignity left.

[DevilAdvocate]

exactly.. and if Obama would have said that "A" word, he would have been called a trailer....to the Amercian people... Obermann was spot on!

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

In 1992, the Clintons actually started calling on Jerry Brown to drop out in early April.

[batguano]

Great post and history lesson, William. It seems clear to me at least, that Hillary Harpy has, like Capt Queeg, lost her marbles. If she can't win, then she will burn all down around her.....and take her marbles home. Her madness is evident for all with an open mind to see, as her thoughtless, hateful or deceitful words show clearly. Why would she destroy any shred of whatever "legacy" is left to her after this slash and burn, scorched earth campaign? Is it only bloated ego and ambition or something more........darker. The Clintons have cast their lots and been shown devoid of integrity, vision, truth or a sense of the potential enormity of the last days of the Bush/Neocon Regime, just when we need the unity and strength of a united front. What plans Bush&Co still have up their sleeves to further destroy our Nations Honor and yet another "pre-emptive" attack while they still have time and control......and a cowardly Congress just coughs up more billions to fund the nightmare and claims "victory".......what a hollow joke.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks, I appreciate it. I think the Clintons have given mixed signals. Look at my report on how smoothly the California delegation stuff went. And she's stopped attacking Obama, at least overtly. I suspect this is a messy denouement for them, for both emotional and political reasons.

[BubbaC33]

Again, are you a licensed shrink? No, you are not. So, stick to political commentary and try to make it at least somewhat honest. It will be good for your soul.

[illinoisan]

Mr. Bradley, maybe you can tell me where to go to get my $100.00 back from Jerry Brown.

[BarryChamplain]

You need only scroll an inch before finding someone who cannot believe the abhorrent subtext of what Hillary is doing is even so. The thing to look at here is that it appears to be working.

As reprehensible as you may find the coded racism, the coded eliminationism, etc.... it's all working. So, to the Clintons, end of story. That's all that matters.

Obama, unbelievably, seems stuck on the lean end of a statistical tie with a candidate like McCain, who has far too many issues to be this strong, and you can't convince me it's not due to the damage the "Democratic" Clinton campaign is inflicting on him by small cuts. Exactly the opposite of what Brown, in the above tale, sought to avoid happening to her own husband, when it looked like he was the presumptive nominee.

If you think it's all just an average political campaign and the Obama "bots" are overreacting to the "gaffes" (sorry, but a "gaffe" is an "error"), just remember: HILLARY'S BEEN THERE. She knows the importance of not damaging the probable nominee. She knows what she's doing.

[Superfelo]

There was a commercial during the tail-end of the sixties. It went like this: "Well, the time has come to tell you, what the young already know; things are not really what they seem, even if they tell you so."
Do you believe those polls? It would be interesting to find out who are they polling?
If those polls are genuine, the people polled, must have been in a stupor for the last seven years.
And they must not read a newspaper to save their lives. Everyone knows McCain's deficiencies, and that he wants to run for George Bush's third term. I suspect it is those "Hillary voters" being polled. The pollsters want to keep interest alive so they must manipulate them to make it what they want to portray. McCain is as interesting as a slug. He reminds me of Bob Dole, another soul-less conservative. There is a book titled: "Lies, Damn lies, and statistics". To me that is what those polls are because I can't believe they are so close since it is obvious to everyone the Republicans need to go; and go far, far, like long distance runners on a never ending race. Enough said.

[Peace15Progress]

Regarding the "statistical tie," I beg to differ. The Pres. race, thanks to the fratricide within the Democratic party is essentially a three way race. The fact that either Dem candidate polls even with McCain means that when the dust with the Dem party settles, the Dem vs. McCain percentages will likely be somewhere near 40-60 for the dem. That being the average of 50-50 and 33-66 (in a three way race). If you have any doubts, look at the amount of money, voter turn out, party identification, and special election outcomes. This is a year for the people to take back the power from the corporatists. About time.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

The McCain campaign, with which I talk regularly, as will be apparent in future pieces, expects to be way behind Obama once the dust settles. Then they hope to come back.

[PennyLeonard]

Hillary has been around the Block many many many times and she definately KNOWS how to MISPEAK and throw out the gender card, the assinassination card, the victim card, the race card. She is "OLD SCHOOL" and if Clintonites would REALLY read about Whitewater and all the bagage that came with JUST that problem SHE had, not Bill, HILLARY, they would run from her...Read Clinton Body count on google.....She is really Old School and very "Practiced".

[Daisy1111]

Check the most recent polls on Rv. Wright's effect on voters.

Jeremiah did him the most damage.

[benman]

Wright would have been Hillary's running-mate, I think.

[NJ13]

What are you talking about? What polls? I think you need to go tot he following link and reassess your statement.

www.realclearpolitics.com

[CaptainObvious]

Actually his polling numbers improved after that whole incident. The Rev Wright "controversy" is just the most frequently cited excuse given by bitter HRC voters who for whatever reason would not vote for a black man.

[bigbingtheory]

..and Hillary still has higher negatives. We haven't seent he right wing machine attack her yet either. Every scandal, real or imagined, from the 90's will be re-hashed with the same vitriol. The charges of being a political opportunist and carpetbagger will be a major theme. What Clinton supporters fail to comprehend, that the Republican Party has been preparing to run against her for a decade, will doom our chances in November if she is the nominee. And she is currently poisoning th eminds of her supporters and turning them away from Barack Obama. This is exactly what we said 2 months ago when we began calling for her to drop out. (Who's the "we" I refer to? Those of us who saw the math and knew the political reality, many of us supporters of another candidate intitially. In my case Edwards)

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Actually, Obama is ahead of McCain in most national polls, no worse than tied, and is doing better and better in swing states.

[BubbaC33]

The 5/28 Gallup poll does not agree with your analysis.
McCain 46/ Obama 45
HClinton 48/ McCain 44.