Hillary was 44 during by far most of 1992, when the photo at right was taken.  This was the "Hillary headband" era, of which Google Images coughs up not a single shot.

She was gorgeous.  Pretty, yes - and that hairband showed she had her funky style - but not even primarily due to that.  It was her very being, her gestalt.  She was smart, successful, witty, exhilirating.  Two other women in contemporary politics spring to mind as examples of her type: they are -- not coincidentally -- Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards.

If you liked smart women, strong women, kind and caring women, women who rejected cultural limitations, women who could compete with the men and be better than the men, then you looked at Hillary and thought that one reason to support Bill was that he had somehow been good enough to land the likes of her.

What Bill Clinton seemed to be to George H.W. Bush, she seemed to be to Barbara Bush.  The antithesis.  The negation.  The cure.

As I listened to the discussion on Hillary's comments about 1968, I kept thinking about the merits of her argument. I have to state up front that I see no reason for Hillary to stop now.  She kept in this long, she should make sure that Florida and Michigan are resolved fairly(In my view, halve Florida's delegates, and Michigan's delegates get split 50/50 since Obama wasn't on the ballot).  I did some digging on Primaries over the last 40 years(I would start after the McGovern Commission(1972) but I'll let in Hillary's example of 1968 because it fits the argument here but since she's arguing 1968 I'll let her use that as an example for my purposes.)  Let us consider 1968 and beyond then to be the era of the modern system of presidential selection.  After this point, the votes of the people for the most part secured nominations thanks to the McGovern Commission, not deals in smoke filled rooms or convention floor fights.  What did I find?  What I found was quite interesting indeed.  Here are all the examples of primary contests in this period that were still contested in June and see how they did in the general election:

Ah, those history books. They can be damning.  As noted by PoliticalWire, Bill Clinton claimed that his primary in 1992 was over in early April.  Scroll south for the quotes...

A message from Rodney King about this year's Democratic nomination process?

Bill Clinton still campaigning in the California primary in June of 1992 wasn't the only thing going on that year. The police were caught on camera brutally beating Rodney King. In his 15 minutes of fame, he uttered these words regarding the national anger that erupted over this event:

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people and the kids?...It's just not right. It's not right. It's not, it's not going to change anything. We'll, we'll get our justice....Please, we can get along here. We all can get along. I mean, we're all stuck here for a while. Let's try to work it out. Let's try to beat it. Let's try to beat it. Let's try to work it out."

By now, we now that Hillary Clinton will do or say anything in her mad pursuit of power. It's her only motivation at this point, trumping concerns about party unity, this fall's elections, and even her family's legacy. It's sad, no doubt.

But as much attention and outrage has been generated by the RFK references, I'm still ultimately more bothered by her willful and repeated distortions of truth. If one is so inclined, the RFK thing can be chalked up to her misspeaking. Whether you want to be that charitable to her or not and give her the benefit of the doubt, at least the possibility exists that she didn't mean to say what she said.

But her distortions on things like Obama's electability, her "only big states matter" b.s., her "small states don't matter" b.s., her "the only swing states are the ones I won primaries in" b.s., her "I'm winning the popular vote" b.s., her "I was for punishing Florida and Michigan and signed a letter to that effect, but now changed my mind because it's politically expedient" b.s., and her "Obama can't win states in the fall in which lost the primary" b.s. Her rank and willful dishonesty drives me up the wall, because while it may show that Clinton will do and say anything to win, it also shows that she'll use Karl Rove tactics to make it happen.

While everyone was rightfully focused on her assassination analogy, she was also lying about 1992.

What she said:

My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?

Reality:

1. The 1992 primaries ended on June 2, 1992, a day earlier than this year. Several states, including California, had primaries that day. It was not mid-June.

2. According to wikipedia: "Clinton effectively won the Democratic Party's nomination after winning the New York Primary in early April."

3. Clinton's chief rival was Paul Tsongas who dropped out of the race in mid-May, 1992.

4. According to polls, Clinton led in every remaining state except California where Jerry Brown was polling well (his home state). Brown was not going to catch Clinton for the nomination in any scenario.

5. From the May 11, 1992 New York Times: "Aides to Mr. Clinton say that in most of the remaining primaries he will ignore the former Governor of California, Edmund G. Brown Jr., and will try to give voters a clearer sense of his own personality and his positions on major issues, in preparation for a general election campaign against President Bush."

Add one more bullet item to this list -- in 1992, the first caucus, Iowa, took place February 10th, more than one month later than this year's January 3rd caucuses. Five weeks, in fact.

If Clinton wants to argue that she wants all the votes to be counted, that is a defensible position, but she's not  really interested in waiting for the votes to be counted. She's hoping that she can scare or blackmail delegates into overruling the will of the electorate in all 50 states, DC, and the territories. Since the math has proved for months that she had already lost, arguing for all the contests to take place wouldn't make sense. So, like she has done for most of the campaign, she has to create an alternate reality to fit her spin.

Hillary isn't stupid. She knows all this. But it doesn't matter. I don't know about you guys, but after eight years of Bush rule, I'm sick and tired of politically expedient alternate realities.

Hillary Clinton lost the nomination for President because she and her team are stuck in the past. She doesn't have a vision for the future because they can not see beyond their "glory days".
They have run their campaign as if it were 1992 all over again. They are using the same tactics that worked in the 90's and won Bill Clinton the White House. Those tactics will not work again in 2008, everyone knows that except "team Clinton".

Now why would Hillary say something so stupid? As Candy Crowley, ever dogged in her role on the Clinton News Network said tonight, she had nothing to gain from the comment.

Oh really?

So, we have this whole huge furor over Hillary's dredging up RFK's assassination in June as justification for her remaining in the race.  How virulently you react to the remark is merely a product of whether you're viewing the "assassination" part or the "June" part as her primary justification.

But what's getting lost in all of this is the underlying assertion Hillary was (poorly) trying to make: that there is historical precedent from both 1968 and 1992 for competitive nomination contests that lasted into June, and therefore, she has justification for staying in the race this late.

Problem is: her comparisons are wrong anyway.

More below.

One talking point that Hillary Clinton's supporters and surrogates have been trying to pound home over the last few weeks is that she, and not Obama, is winning the "important" states.  You see, according to their logic, to lose a state in the primary means a loss in November as well.  Not only is this an amazing bit of sophistry, but it also lacks any historical evidence.  

Whenever I talk about my largely negative feelings toward Bill Clinton, I usually point out that I haven't always felt that way. I point out that I defended Bill during the Monica fiasco. And if I do mention something negative about him from back then, it's usually how he handled (or didn't handle) the Rwanda genocide, or maybe his continuation of the sanctions on Iraq.

But I kept thinking, "I recall not feeling comfortable with Bill Clinton from the start. But why? I can't remember why that was, specifically." Sure part of it was the fact that he wasn't as liberal as I liked, but there was more.

I'm thoroughly ashamed to admit I had forgotten about this, but earlier today, Chris Matthews brought it all back.

Following Obama's long predicted loss in the Pennsylvania, the media has reacted with an utterly predictable outpouring of feigned shock, desperately chugging away in another attempt to resuscitate Hillary Clinton's ratings-grabbing but mathematically quixotic kamikaze dive for the Democratic nomination. Of course, as always, the praise the media has for any Democrat is always a double edged sword, and it's a testament to the fundamental negativity of the post-inevitability Clinton campaign that the junior Senator has embraced her recent media characterization as the mocking cancer on Obama's campaign, a dreary reflection of his (and, if we're to be honest about the racial undertones, rural America's) alleged failings. To the media's delight, the enduring appeal of the Clinton brand among Democratic loyalists and the profoundly personal support Clinton enjoys among a solid majority of white suburban women (the crucial demographic that propelled Clinton to decisive margins in eastern Pennsylvania) have been completely ignored in an effort to perpetuate a disingenuous myth about Obama's electoral prospects.

A real flash from the past, via observer2 at TPM.

The NYT article, published April 10, 1992, is a very ironic walk down memory lane.  Interestingly, the issue of short coattails was on the minds of Democratic representatives.  After 1996 mid-terms, it appears this was a valid concern:

"There's a real tug-of-war up here," said one House member. "Especially on this side, there are a lot of people who are terrified that all the character questions, all the negatives about Clinton that showed up in New York, make him so weak that a lot of people will lose their seats."

My family and friends all know that I am an Obamanite.  I live in Florida and I met him in October when he was here for a fundraiser in Jacksonville.  I have phonebanked from his website, I have donated to his campaign, I tell EVERYONE I know how great he is and his positions on the various issues, I spent a little over $50 bucks for a glitter Obama 2008 pin on annhand.com (and I wear it everywhere).  I have prayed for his success, and I consider myself one of his greatest defenders..........

Americans have short memories. Back when George Stephanopolous, James Carville and the Clintons had to withstand attacks from George Herbert Walker Bush about draft dodging, extra marital affairs, and post smnoking -- the famous Clinton "war room," had a one sentence motto that guided them: "It's the Economy, Stupid."

You want to talk about elitism? Well how about this: according to The New York Times, Bill Clinton, often called the "first black president", was a member of an all-white golf club in Arkansas, The Country Club of Little Rock. An excerpt from the March 23, 1992 NYT article:

"A guy asked me to play nine holes of golf," he [Bill Clinton] said on Friday. "It was the only place we had time to play. I should not have done it."

But he did not explain why he had played at the club for years despite its all-white membership. Today, Mike Gauldin, his spokesman in Arkansas, was asked that question; he said, "No one ever complained about it before."
Mr. Clinton's mea culpa has not defused the criticism. In New York today, his chief rival, Edmund G. Brown Jr. of California, said that "even George Bush wouldn't dare play golf at an all-white golf club."

Now here is where things get interesting. Clinton paid $20,000 in initiation fees and a $150 monthly fee for the dubious "privilege" of playing in a white-only club.The article further notes:

Are you worried about a divisive primary? I am.

Are you fearful about the opposition getting a head start when our guy/gal should be running away with this? I am.

Do you think we are in serious danger of losing what we should otherwise be winning? I am.

But before we hit the panic button and start cussing out our primary rivals (ahem..the Clinton campaign). Let's take a short trip (16 years to be exact) down memory lane courtsey of the NY times

POLL SHOWS PEROT GAINING STRENGTH TO RIVAL CLINTON'S

Highlihts from article below

This diary is somewhat Dickensian; the intro constitutes "the best of times" and the body denotes the "worst."

As always I begin with the preface that I am an Obama supporter. I strongly believe the longer Sen. Clinton stays in the race, the more she damages her standing within the party. She cannot win.

That said, Sen. Clinton has garnered roughly 13 million votes and raised more than a hundred million dollars. She has a legion of committed supporters that tirelessly work towards her election. I have been impressed by her tenacity and work ethic throughout her career.  She has earned the right to continue her campaign.  Calls for her to withdraw from the race are relatively foolish, and often, only serve to harden both the candidates’ and their supporters’ resolve to fight to the bitter end.

It was noted in an eloquent diary yesterday that, as Obama supporters, it is imperative to understand the disappointment and hard feelings of Sen. Clinton's supporters; address their concerns in a real way, and make an honest effort to win them over.  I have disagreed with many of Sen. Clinton's tactics during this campaign. However, that does not extend to her supporters, who have legitimate reasons for holding her in high regard.
 

This diary was meant to be a continuation of the diary I posted last night.

It is always with the best intentions that the worst work is done.

Oscar Wilde

It has come to this. After a grueling and frenetic 1992 election campaign, Bill Clinton assumed the presidency with a popular mandate to change Washington. He would work to eliminate corruption. He would fight for cheaper health care, better labor standards, and better jobs.

And he would build a new Democratic coalition that would re-establish the progressive movement in America. The stage was set; the eyes of the nation focused. But it all came crashing down. Alas, Clinton's presidency did not deliver on most of these promises. This is a cautionary tale - of both where we've come from, and where we could end up.