An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Historical Inquiry: What About Clinton’s Apparent Point?

Something of a media firestorm has greeted Senator Hillary Clinton mentioning the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy following his June, 1968 victory in the California primary.

Senator Robert F. Kennedy acknowledges his victory in the California primary, June 5, 1968, moments before he was felled by an assassin's bullets.

I, for one, don’t believe that Clinton meant to draw an analogy between Senator Barrack Obama and Bobby Kennedy, insinuating that because the Illinois senator evokes the same sort of passion as Kennedy, he may be an assassin’s target, thereby presumably giving the New York senator reason for staying in the race for this year’s Democratic nomination. There was nothing to be gained by Clinton in making such a connection, especially among Democratic superdelegates, many of whom venerate Kennedy and his older brother, President John F. Kennedy, and, like most Americans, have just been saddened by the news that Senator Edward Kennedy is suffering from cancer. Clinton, in spite of what her many opponents may say, is not evil incarnate. She’s not stupid either.

Clinton’s apparent point was that suggestions that she depart early from the race were, as she put it, “unprecedented.” To buttress her case, she mentioned that her husband didn’t clinch the 1992 Democratic presidential nomination until mid-June.

She then noted that at the time of his death in early June, 1968, Robert Kennedy was still contesting–probably futilely, it should be added–for the Democratic nomination in the California primary. I believe Clinton meant to say that it isn’t outrageous for her to still be in the race in June, 2008.

That may be. But comparing, June, 1968 to June, 2008, is not so much comparing apples to oranges as it is apples to King Kong.

One big difference is that the entire primary season in ‘68 began with New Hampshire’s primary, not on January 3, the date for the campaign-opening Iowa caucuses this year, but on March 12. That’s fully two months and nine days deeper into the calendar than this year.

The California primary, the last of a grand total of thirteen primaries held in 1968, was held on June 5.

Kennedy didn’t even declare his candidacy for President until March 16, 1968, four days after President Lyndon Johnson narrowly defeated anti-Vietnam War senator, Eugene McCarthy, in New Hampshire.

Kennedy therefore, on the night of the California primary, was still a candidate for president little more than three months into his campaign and just three months after the first contest. By contrast, Senator Clinton announced her candidacy on January 22. 2007!

The date of the California primary in 1968 would, if put in an analogous position on ths year’s election calendar, fall on April 3, a date that’s already two-and-a-half months past.

By June 3, 2008, when the Montana and South Dakota primaries end the long round of primaries for this presidential election season, a full six months will have passed since the beginning of the process.

Six months after Robert Kennedy declared for the presidency was September 16, two weeks beyond the traditional Labor Day start of presidential general election campaigns.

Senator Clinton has every right to stay in the race, of course. But her continuing to contest for the nomination in June, 2008 is clearly not the same as Bobby Kennedy remaining in his race in 1968.

An interesting, if unanswerable question, is what Robert Kennedy would do if he were in Hillary Clinton’s position? No one can know. But, as he was fond of telling his presidential campaign handlers when they put too optimistic a spin on his delegate counts and nomination prospects, he had done their job once, back when he’d managed his brother’s 1960 campaign. He knew, he reminded them, how to count.

[Here's a link to my personal blog.]

  • I think what she meant is "anything can happen" even late in the contest. The example she chose was about the stupidest thing she has done, and could even incite some Clinton supporting whacko to attempt assassination.
  • vwcat
    I am no Hillary fan. However, I just do not believe she meant anything bad in her remark.
    She is a product of the 60s and the Kenndy thing was probably something that has stuck with her since 68. I would imagine it is something that crossed her mind but, this time she spoke it outloud.
    I just don't see her wishing anything of the sort or meaning harm in the remark.
    It was unfortunate and having it tied up with her and Bill's race baiting this campaign has made it much worse thing then, normally would have been seen.
    As a supporter of Obama, I just do not feel the overwhelming anger many seem to over this. I see it more as a foot in mouth thing more than anything.
  • kritt11
    I voted for Hillary in the primary, but that is about the stupidest remark she could have made. I thought the reaction to many of her previous gaffes (and her husband's) was overblown, but this time I think it is deserved.

    It's possible she wasn't referring to the assasination, but many will assume that she was. If by some miracle she did get the nomination, Obama supporters would stay home, or even cross party lines to vote for McCain out of spite.

    It was the remark of a political neophyte, which Clinton is definitely not. I'm wondering why she is getting such poor campaigning advice. Its akin to the terrible advice Bill got during the Lewinksi scandal.
  • I'm wondering why she is getting such poor campaigning advice.


    kritt,
    I, for one, don't think this had anything to do with advice from her campaign. Unless you mean it in the larger sense that her advisers should have forced her to quit by now.

    Mark,
    Thanks for the post. Her comment was as tone deaf as it was misleading.
  • StockBoySF
    I think she didn't mean anything by it and I think it was a comment that was totally off the cuff. I do think that she and her campaign had mentioned the Kennedy assassination when talking about the history of primaries. Though I don't believe anyone suggested that she actually utter what she did.
  • lurxst
    Its getting dull listening to Clinton scramble to reinvent reality. Bill Clinton cinched the nomination on June 2, 1992, not mid June.

    He was leading in delegates after the New York primary in April and had effectively crowded out all his opponents save for California. Although Brown was doing well in his California campaign he still didnt have the delegates to get the nomination or pose any sort of challenge to Clinton.

    By May of 92 Clinton had stopped effectively stopped campaigning against his Dem rivals and had turned his attention to refining his GE bid against Bush
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC