« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
What really happened in 1992 (Hint: Not what Billary claims)
Hillary claims that her husband didn't clinch the nomination until June 1992; Bill claims that he's "never seen anything like it," referring to calls for Hillary to exit the race or, at the very least, stop the scorched earth tactics. "It is just frantic the way they are trying to push
and pressure and bully all these superdelegates to come out," Bill complains.
In reality, he has not only seen, but participated in, very much the same sort of pressure against a losing rival -- back in 1992, as the Jed Report makes clear. What's more, Democratic leaders, including the then-Democratic Party chairman, participated in the pressuring of the candidate whose nomination had become, as Hillary's now is, mathematically impossible.
A sampling of quotes from March-April 1992 (long before Hillary claimed, in her now-famous quote that Bill wrapped up the nomination), is below. For more detail, follow the link, above.
"Things I see happening in the Brown campaign lead me to
believe something destructive is happening. I'd say it's time for
Democrats to link arms, dig in our heels, set our sights and work
together to put Bill Clinton in the White House in 1992."
-- Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin (NYT, 3/27/92)"In an interview, Ronald H. Brown, the party chairman,
said he wanted to maintain his neutrality but was compelled to speak
out against what he described as the former California Governor's
'scorched-earth policy' of verbal assault on Mr. Clinton's record and
character. "
-- NYT, 3/27/92"It's mathematically impossible for Brown to get the nomination."
-- Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos on Clinton's last foe (NYT, 4/8/92)"In the future, people will look back upon this week and
this campaign as a turning point, not for Bill Clinton, but for the
Democratic Party and for America."
-- Bill Clinton, after winning New York's primary (NYT, 4/8/92)"People are starting to rally around the flag."
-- Dee Dee Myers, Clinton Press Sec'y (NYT, 4/10/92)"It's time to close ranks. We cannot wait until July
when we already know who has earned the right to be our nominee and who
will be our nominee."
-- West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller (NYT, 4/11/92)"Indeed, reports circulating on Capitol Hill said the
Clinton campaign was mounting a strong campaign to swing uncommitted
senators behind the Arkansas Governor, and that Ronald H. Brown, the
party chairman, was taking part in them."
-- NYT, 4/29/92"I cannot imagine a set of circumstances that would keep
Bill Clinton from having a majority of the delegates by the end of the
primary season."
-- Democratic Party Chairman Ronald H. Brown (NYT, 4/29/92)"Mr. Brown added that he had long hoped for an early nominee 'so we can focus our time and attention on George Bush.'"
-- NYT, 4/29/92
Comments (26)
Jerry Brown was hoping to play the role of the spoiler. The reason why the CA Primary was important was that it was home turf for Brown. Although it wouldn't have stopped Bill's nomination (probably), Brown thought it would provide some clout at the convention -- probably much like Hillary is hoping to do at the end of the campaign.
When Clinton did decisively win CA over the favorite son, that effectively ended any notion of power sharing Bill Clinton was going to have to do. It was in that very narrow sense that Bill "wrapped things up in CA" as Hillary claims.
So, this year Hillary is playing the Jerry Brown role.
May 27, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brown wasn't playing the part of a spoiler, Brown was in that race to win. You are misinterpreting events. Brown thought he could pick up the independents and the Tsongas delegates at the convention.
May 28, 2008 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brown was certainly entitled to his delusions but it hardly changes the facts. Clinton won 3000 to 600.
What's strange is that Sen. Clinton does not need any historical precedent to make her case, especially not one that is amenable to a factual verification that makes her look silly. This is the closest primary in history. mathematically she still has a chance and she can make the case that she owes it to the voters to continue. That's all she ever had to say.
The problem is that she has taken a rather destructive path to a demise that was apparent even before Pennsylvania when the kitchen sink attacks started. Add the hard working white Americans, and Florida/Zimbabwe stuff and she's the one making the strongest case for her to just stop.
Taking a fairly strong argument and turning it into an incredibly weak one is quite a feat.
May 28, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bev, spoiler and "in it to win" are the same thing. All it means was the race wasn't over until Brown lost California, and even that was a longshot.
May 28, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, this lil' video shows it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlpiDW2RB54
May 27, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Clearthinker.
May 28, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton still had active opposition in Jerry Brown through the CA primary in 1992. Obama still has active opposition to his candidacy this year. Anita...could you and the rest of the Obama supporters quit crying about that? You're behaving as if you're all children. Children won't win in November.
May 28, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but a screeching, tantrum-throwing, serial-lying, tearing, misspeaking, bi-polar type would, I see.
May 28, 2008 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indiex, I'm not sure why you interpret a statement of fact that shows the Clintons' deceptions as "crying about that." The Clintons again attempted to convince -- and DID convince -- large swathes of people that:
- Bill Clinton didn't have the nomination sewed up until June 1992;
- Primaries used to last longer;
- No one has ever tried to pressure a losing candidate to concede.
The facts that have come out since prove none of what they're claiming in this instance is true.
As one of the members here signs his name: facts are good. Most of us don't want to be fed deceptions. Deception by the current administration has led us repeatedly in a direction contrary to our nation's interests. This is one reason most of us are fed up with Bush and his Bushies. It's also induced Clinton fatigue in many.
And, as a personal matter, I find it insulting to have politicians lie to me about issues that can be proven otherwise. It shows that the politician at fault has no respect for the intelligence or knowledge of those he/she is attempting to deceive.
While I understand that insults are easy to fling, especially on an anonymous board, I'm encouraged to see that this doesn't discourage people from sharing facts. Which, like I said, are good.
May 28, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton had a large lead in delegates, but Jerry Brown was trying to use his wins to show that Clinton was vulnerable outside the south. If Brown hadn't lost New York it could've been much different (his support of Jesse Jackson blew it there). Wikipedia makes it sound like if he had won California in June Brown still could have held off a Clinton nomination on the first round, even though from the final numbers Clinton had over 2000 more delegates than everyone else. That may have been a larger number of superdelegates to persuade, I don't know. If you have the facts, share them. As it was, even after California, 3 of Clinton's 4 opponents refused to endorse him. Life imitates art.
May 28, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
It'd be interesting to know if supporters of his opponents were making the same claims that we've just given the election to GHW Bush.
Things like, "Hey, don't blame us when Bill Clinton loses to Bush in November, we told you he wasn't electable!"
May 28, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they were - "Clinton can't win outside of the South", "He's a redneck!", "He'll have another bimbo eruptus!!!". There's nothing new under the sun.
In 1988, Jackson claimed he should be VP because he had put in a good performance and won a rather hefty number of delegates - a good deal more than Brown did 4 years later. Unfortunately, Brown mentioning his name cost him New York, which gives a good idea that maybe after his "Himeytown" comment Jackson really was poison.
May 28, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I sent you, Desidero, some NYT clips in reply to you several days ago. I don't know how to find posts that old, but it was clear from the articles that everyone knew Bill Clinton would win in April.
May 28, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I acknowledged that he was the *presumed* nominee, but Jerry Brown's insurgence was based on being able to steal/persuade the nomination at the convention by showing Clinton was weak outside of the south. Had Brown not messed up with suggesting he liked Jackson before New York, he could have quite possibly won New York and California too. Giving him a very good argument that he would be stronger in important large swing states. He would have still made the argument if he won California in June. Even after Brown lost New York and California, 3 of Clinton's 4 opponents refused to endorse him. (Also in the NY Times archive in June 1992). What do you think that was about? Like some doubt about the actual nomination at the convention maybe?
May 28, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE2D7103CF935A25755C0A964958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/E/Endorsements
The reason three of Bill Clinton's rivals didn't endorse him is because they wanted concessions in the party platform, not because they thought anyone else could be the nominee.
May 28, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, good catch. (
This doesn't concede the situation *before* the California primary until we understand the numbers there and whether Brown had a chance to prevent Clinton from getting the nomination on the first round. Spefically, I don't know how many superdelegates there were to be persuaded to switch).
Interesting line near the end: "But with Mr. Clinton running third in the polls, behind both Mr. Bush and Ross Perot, the presumed independent candidate, there is a powerful motive for unity and a strong incentive to avoid the kind of public squabbling that has come to typify the Democrats in recent decades. So it may be that some of the Tsongas delegates, for example, will conclude that a televised platform fight is not in their best interest." In the end, the Democrats did put on a very smooth & successful convention, and Perot withdrew though re-entered later.
May 28, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smooth and successful, maybe, but the Democrats would have lost but for Perot.
May 28, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The simplest question in this situation is: does the example of 1992 provide a stronger case for Sen. Clinton continuing than does the the objective facts of her current campaign.
1992 was not a close race, despite your wondering about what if. 2008 is the closest race in the history of the primary era.
Jerry Brown was mathematically eliminated much earlier, Mrs. Clinton, to this moment would need over 75% of the SDs but technically she is still in this.
Jerry Brown was running as a gadfly and as an irritant to the status quo. He was making himself into a pain in the ass against a candidate who was simply not that well known by the public. Mrs. Clinton is holding herself out not as an indictment of the status quo in Democratic politics but as it's standard bearer.
Mentioning 1992 is just dumb. It makes her case weaker not stronger, because we can all look up the facts. Mentioning 1968 was much stupider, not the least because it wasn't even possible to decide that race by primaries.
Most important, the fact that races are decided late is irrelevant. If Mrs. campaign on her own merits no one would really care. the problem is that since the lead-up to PA she has tried everything she could to take Obama down, and has intentionally or not worked to create division just when unity is needed (hard working white folks, etc...). Coupled with the math, makes that a problem.
May 28, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"has intentionally or not worked to create division just when unity is needed" - who the fuck are you? Go back to Greece, land of fighting city states. Unity will come when and if it's needed. I don't recall anyone telling Sparta that they shouldn't fight.
May 28, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you want him to stop defeating you with logic?
May 28, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
He would have been laughed out of junior high logic in Athens.
May 29, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting collection of quotes. Recommended.
May 28, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm shocked!,shocked I tell you to learn the clintons are playing fast and loose with the facts.
May 28, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, it was 51/49 in 1992. jerryroo didnt win NY/NJ/MA/OHIO/PA/WV/KY/MI/FL......its a little closer this time.
May 28, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was Hillary who made that comparison. And the quotes still make sense here as much as 1992.
May 28, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jerry Brown wasn't a threat to any candidate in 1992. He was regularly derided on the late night talk shows. He had no money because he refused to take more than $100 donations in a time when that was political suicide. The race essentially ended March 17, a week after Super Tuesday when Bill took Illinois proving he could win northern major industrial states. He won Illinois 56% to 28% for Tsongas and 16% for Brown.
May 28, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment