« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Robert Kennedy, Jr. Responds About Hillary
In June, 1968, Robert Kennedy was the Senator from NY state, running for the Democratic nomination. He stayed in the race even though his odds were long. This is what Hillary was referencing. His unfortunate assassination is what stopped his campaign, and Hubert Humphrey became the nominee.
If Hillary was really suggesting that any assassination take place by using this example, it would have been her own. She was merely stating that others before her have continued on with their quest for the Presidency, well into June.
Robert Kennedy Jr., who endorsed Hillary Clinton months ago, issued the following statement yesterday:
Kennedy also said in an interview that “his support of Mrs. Clinton has not wavered.”“It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June. I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband’s 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June. I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense.”
Comments (13)
This idea that primary seasons used to take a lot longer is pretty much bull. Most people agree that Bill was the presumed frontrunner in 1992 by March when his last serious opponent dropped out. He did wrap it up in June by reaching the magic number. As to RFK, the primary season began in March so, this primary season has already taken twice as long as that of 1968. But most people have taken offense at the fact that she's using RFK's assassination as an example that anything could happen in a primary and that's why she's still in after it's been established that she cannot win because she's too far behind in pledged delegates. There are only three primaries left, she could win all three by blowout numbers and she still couldn't make it, most people would have dropped out a long time ago. But it's totally her prerogative to stay in, many people accept that but she should have referenced another campaign, one that didn't end in assassination. In fact, she could have referenced Ted Kennedy's run in 1980. He was trailing behind rather badly, he won the last few primaries and he took it all the way to the convention. So, it's nice that RFK Jr., understands what she was getting at but many people feel that she should've included Obama in her apology because his assassination is a specter that many people live with, especially his wife, it was an incredibly insensitive point to reference as a justification for staying in the race.
May 24, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was not about assassinations and "anything could happen" scenarios, and you know it, and the rest of Obamaland knows it as well. Use it as a weapon if you like, but don't fabricate evil unless you're staring at yourself in the mirror.
Clinton is just as likely to be assassinated as Obama. But of course, only His Holy BO matters here, right? Utter arrogance. Sheesh!
May 24, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Presumed front runner". Yes, Obama has been presumed front runner since February or March as well. And hasn't closed the deal.
Look a little closer at 1992 before talking it up too much:
=============================================
Clinton swept nearly all of the Super Tuesday primaries, making him the solid front runner. Jerry Brown, however, began to run a surprising insurgent campaign, particularly through use of a 1-800 number to receive grassroots funding. Brown scored surprising wins in Connecticut and Colorado and seemed poised to overtake Clinton.
On March 17, Brown forced Tsongas from the race when he received a strong third-place showing in the Illinois primary and then defeated the senator for second place in the Michigan primary by a wide margin. Exactly one week later, he cemented his position as a major threat to Clinton when he eked out a narrow win in the bitterly-fought Connecticut primary. As the press now focused on the primaries in New York and Wisconsin, which were both to be held on the same day, Brown, who had taken the lead in polls in both states, made a serious gaffe: he announced to an audience of various leaders of New York City's Jewish community that, if nominated, he would consider the Reverend Jesse Jackson as a vice-presidential candidate. Jackson, who had made a pair of anti-Semitic comments about Jews in general and New York City's Jews in particular while running for president in 1984, was still a widely hated figure in that community and Brown's polling numbers suffered. On April 7, he lost narrowly to Bill Clinton in Wisconsin (37-34), and dramatically in New York (41-26).
Although Brown continued to campaign in a number of states, he won no further primaries. Despite this, he still had a sizable number of delegates, and a big win in his home state of California would deprive Clinton of sufficient support to win the nomination, which Brown apparently thought would revert to him by default. After nearly a month of intense campaigning and multiple debates between the two candidates, Clinton managed to defeat Brown in this final primary by a margin of 48% to 41%
May 24, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your post. I expect all the outrage over Hillary's RFK gaff to continue for quite a while, however, because it serves the purposes of those who don't want to see Hillary on the ticket with Obama. It is really unfortunate because if she is not I believe it will cost us the election in November. And when it does, those same folks will blame Hillary rather than take responsibility for their mistake.
May 24, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, unfortunate is right. Clinton could easily win without Obama, but Obama will not win without Hillary, and he knows it. Otherwise he would have pounced on her over this as well. But he's playing it cool and letting his goons attack her. If I were Hillary, and I didn't get selected as the nominee, I'd either turn Independent or go back to the Senate and continue doing good works from there for another four years.
I'm a lifelong progressive Democrat, but I am fed up with the wimps in the Democratic leadership right now. I won't vote Republican under any circumstances, and up until now had planned to support Obama the same way I've supported Hillary...with phoning, canvassing and more money than I want to think about. But at this point, after this last attack on her, I will only write in Hillary Clinton. It would be the only honest vote for me now. I suspect many others will do the same.
May 24, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. You're a life-long Progressive Democrat.
2. You're fed up with Democratic "wimps."
3. You believe that Obama can't win without Hillary.
ergo...
If Obama is the nominee and she isn't on his ticket, you will write in Hillary's name, even though you know Obama, who is a Progressive Democrat needs your vote.
but but but...
If Hillary is on the ticket, the Democrats you think of as wimps will still be wimps.
so...
If Hillary doesn't get rewarded with a place on the ticket, you want McCain to win so he can continue the war, stack the Supreme Court, and make everybody get Health Savings Accounts (which will not pay for their heath care).
I submit that #1 above is simply not true.
May 24, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Believe me, I've thought long and hard about all this. I realize it may just be a vote for McCain anyway.
I've also noted that in the last 8 years of a lunatic republican and his administration, gays (just as one example) have obtained the right to marry/civilly unionize/domestically partner in several states and countries. All that hatred against them and their cause and their families still prevailed quite a bit during that time. It makes me wonder how much power any administration and party really has when the people they govern disagree with them.
Plus, looking back at McCain's career, the man is really more liberal than he appears today. Which is why many members of his own party don't trust him. He's had to remake himself to get the Republican nomination, but my guess is that he will work better with Democrats than expected, and, I'd almost bet my bank account that he'll have us out of the war just as Clinton and Obama have promised.
I hope I'm right, because Obama will lose against McCain, with or without Clinton, though he might have a chance with her. None without her.
The Supreme Court is screwed for a generation even if we are able to replace the two outgoing Liberals with two more. It won't matter because the court is already stacked for years to come with conservative judges. So, having a Dem in the White House may not make much difference to that.
In any case, Obama is not experienced or savvy enough to run the Presidency. He may be a great liberal church minister, but that's a whole 'nuther ball of wax.
May 24, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that she intended nothing malicious by the comment. She opened up a deep dark hole that will be exploited by the media & surrogates of her opponents. Obama's official response was god & right & not at all inflammatory. This may be the final nail in her coffin, we'll see.
It really would be nice to be able to truly address the issues without all the reactionary BS that's bound to come in a grueling nomination fight but alas that's not to be seen...
I'm an Obama supporter, but don't hate Hillary or for that matter even Bush or McCain. I think they're probably all very nice decent People, but I hate what's happening to our Country under their watch. The media manipulation of the candidates is disgusting & everybody's just so ready to pounce at the slightest statement that could be interpreted in a way that was never meant. It's happened to all 3 of them & it should stop. Peace.
May 24, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Source?
May 24, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The New York Times saw Brown's threat to Clinton as being practically nonexistent as of the end of April: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE5D9143AF93BA15757C0A964958260
May 24, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Desidero's history of Clinton's tenuous-until-June run for the 1992 Democratic nomination is belied by people writing at the time. Again: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0DB103DF93AA35757C0A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
May 24, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary, obviously, has a "right" to stay in the race. But what she's trying to accomplish is the question. She can't secure the nomination without a floor fight, and history suggests that every time there has been a contentious nomination fight (at least during the past 45 years or so) the Democrats have lost in November. So, yeah, go to it Hill - thanks loads!
May 24, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Misspeaking once is a gaffe, making the same remark two or three times is calculated! And it is hard to see what value Hillary could add to the Obama ticket; many Obama supporters, including me, hate her and everything she stands for, and haven't at least a third of Hillary's die-hard supporters vowed not to vote for him under any circumstances? A black man and the most hated woman in America sounds like a recipe for disaster!
May 24, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment