« Coalition of the Willing to Be Paid
Phoenix closing in on Mars »



Historical Inquiry: What About Clinton’s Apparent Point?

May 23rd, 2008
By MARK DANIELS

Print Print

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.]



This entry was posted on Friday, May 23rd, 2008 at 10:06 pm and is filed under Democratic Party, Newsweek Blogitics, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, 2008 Elections, Democrats, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 6 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Coalition of the Willing to Be Paid
Phoenix closing in on Mars »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.