There is a lot of talk that Hillary Clinton's comments about Robert Kennedy's assassination are hinting that she is staying in the race just in case something happens to Obama.
I don't think that is true.
But I don't think the truth paints her in a very good light, either...
First let's look at what she said:
Q: You don't buy the party unity argument?
HRC: I don't. Because, again, I've been around long enough - you know, 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. You know, I just - I don't understand it, and, you know, there's a lot of speculation about why it is. But --
Her apology:
Earlier today I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June 1992 and 1968 and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That's a historic fact. The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that, whatsoever. My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to, and I'm honored to hold Senator Kennedy's seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family.
Let us take her at "her word." As much as we can.
I qualify it because says that she used that example because the "Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy..."
This maybe have been brought up before, but this really rings hollow because we have this interview, from March:
TIME: Can you envision a point at which--if the race stays this close--Democratic Party elders would step in and say, "This is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall"?
CLINTON: No, I really can't. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.
OK - this backs up her claim that it is just about the June timeline. But Holy Crap! That is the exact same line! (In reverse order) It is obviously a memorized talking point. So she lied about why she brought it up (because of Kennedy on her mind). But what else?
Well, her point is that historically, campaigns used to go until June. She used the example of her husband and Bobby Kennedy's race in 1968. Well...
March 20, 1992
Former Senator Paul E. Tsongas of Massachusetts withdrew from the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination today, a decision that many in his party said all but insured the selection of Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas.
Mr. Tsongas announced his departure at a news conference in Boston, where he said his campaign did not have enough money to continue. His move leaves only former Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. of California to compete with Mr. Clinton in the remaining primaries and caucuses in 21 states.
OK, so there we go. March. Some argue April, when he won New York. True he didn't get a majority of delegates until June, but I don't think that Jerry Brown was much of a threat. At the time that was written Clinton had 7X the delegates as Brown.
Not a really good example of a campaign going until June. How about 1968?
Well, according to
wiki...
At the moment of RFK's death, the delegate totals were:
Hubert Humphrey 561
Robert F. Kennedy 393
Eugene McCarthy 258
Primaries
Statewide contest by winner
Only 13 states held a primary at this time (California, Oregon, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Florida).
Well sure it was going strong in June but only 13 states had held contests. 13!!!!
So... needless to say, I think she is being a little manipulative here.
She is manupulating history and using an emotional example to manipulate people's emotions.
Sure she is genuine about bringing that up as a reference to campaigns going until June. It is just a little more than disingenuous. The campaign wasn't even half way over. It had just begun. Who knows how it would have ended.
On a side note, I can't help but note that Humphrey was leading the pledged delegate count but hadn't won a single state... And we think this year is screwed up!
She can't lie about history to justify staying in. It is long past time for her to leave the race.
I don't know if the direct references to the assassination were a subtle insinuation that she should stay in because something might happen to Obama, but it seems pretty clear that they were well thought out and memorized.
But aside from that it is a manipulation and a lie to say that those are comparable to the race in 2008. And I think that is what she should be hammered on.