Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Clinton apologizes for Kennedy Assassination remark
Share:
by politisite | May 24, 2008 at 09:59 am
566 views | 35 Recommendations | 20 comments
Photos
Clinton apologizes for Bobby Kennedy remark; Read a transcript of the discussion
Clinton issued a statement about her comments.
“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.”
During an interview with the Argus Leader's Editorial Board today, Sen.
Hillary Clinton mentioned the assassination of Sen. Bobby Kennedy. Her
remarks triggered a storm of attention nationwide.
Here is a transcript of the relevant portion of the interview:
This is the most important job in the world. It’s the toughest job in the world. You should be willing to campaign for every vote. You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere. I think it’s an interesting juxtaposition where we find ourselves and you know, I have been willing to do all of that during the entire process and people have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa and I find it¬¬-
EB: Why? Why?
I don’t know I don’t know I find it curious because it is unprecedented in history. I don’t understand it and between my opponent and his camp and some in the media, there has been this urgency to end this and you know historically that makes no sense, so I find it a bit of a mystery.
EB: You don’t buy the party unity argument?
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 around the middle of June
EB: June
We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. Um you know I just I don’t understand it. There’s lots of speculation about why it is.
The Reaction
Clinton Remark on Kennedy’s Killing Stirs Uproar
Privately, aides to Mr. Obama were furious about the remark.
Concerns about Mr. Obama’s safety led the Secret Service to give him protection last May, before it was afforded to any other presidential candidate, although Mrs. Clinton had protection, too, in her capacity as a former first lady. Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle, voiced concerns about his safety before he was elected to the Senate, and some black voters have even said such fears weighed on their decision of whether to vote for him.
It was against that backdrop that Mrs. Clinton’s mentioning the Kennedy assassination in the same breath as her own political fate struck some as going too far. Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, an uncommitted superdelegate, said through a spokeswoman that the comments were “beyond the pale.”
Did Gov Clinton really have a contender all the way through June of 1992? The answer No. His closest competetor dropped out of the race in March. Clinton had over 900 delegates and there was no one even close.
Why does Clinton say that his campaign didn't end until June? Technically he didn't have the delegates until June. Politifact, a Fact checking group in St Pete Florida, give Hillary's statements a "Barley True"
The late March primaries left him with 942 delegates, a commanding lead with more than twice the number of his closest opponent, Tsongas, who suspended his campaign that week.
Hillary Clinton is technically right that it wasn’t until the June 2 primaries in Ohio, New Jersey, Alabama, California, Montana and New Mexico that Bill Clinton clinched the nomination. Before the night was out, he had surpassed the 2,145 delegates needed. But after March, there was little doubt that he would become the nominee.
Its all political spin. Then Governor Clinton had a commanding lead in March of 1992 and could not be overcome. For all practical purposes the race was over in March not June of 1992. Unless, of course, someone shot him.
Clinton is trying to argue that past primary races have been competitive for as long as this one. But more recent elections have had clear early leaders. Sen. John Kerry secured the Democratic nomination by early March 2004. In 2000, both George W. Bush and Al Gore had wrapped up their parties’ nominations by mid March.
So while Clinton is right that her husband’s nomination process stretched until June, she doesn’t account for his insurmountable lead long before then and the vast difference in election schedules when she makes her comparison.
We rule her statement Barely True.
Other Related NowPublic Stoires
Now Where will the Finish Line Be Moved?
Bad Things Happen to Men Who Annoy Hillary
Clinton invokes RFK assassination in summer 1968 ...
Clinton Remark on Robert Kennedy’s Killing Stir...
Hillary Staying in Because Obama Could Get Assass...
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
politisite
Columbia, South Carolina, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (20)
at 10:22 on May 24th, 2008
politisite, I like this story. It's good stuff.
at 11:04 on May 24th, 2008
Good Stuff! (One day I'll find that "good stuff" button!)
I agree that efforts to get Senator Clinton to concede (where began at the first of this year!) were premature and very presumptuous. I believe she only said that about Sen. Kennedy being in California in June to further illustrate plainly her point that she is certainly NOT the first Democrat candidate to remain in a race for the presidency against a fellow Democrat, and not because of any malice or negative intent on her part toward Sen. Obama or anyone else. When people are looking for ways to malign every word someone utters, it is easy for them to deliberately misinterpret whatever is said. Ugly!
Mary
at 11:16 on May 24th, 2008
Here is the deal. The ones who were in the race passed June, had a chance of winning. She can't win the pledged delegates, she does not have the popular vote. (unless you use Hillary Math, which is, MI+FL-Caucus Votes) for a woman who is running around saying let EVERY vote count and then uses a formula that doesn't count caucus voters... well it is dishonest at best. Oh an by the way. If you add MI to you popular vote count, maybe the uncommitted votes should go to Obama. These people were saying, "I don't want to vote for Hillary, but my candidate wasn't on the ballot", If those people wanted to vote for obama and couldn't and you count tose votes for Obama, she is NOT ahead in the popular vote. Oh and the Super delegates, Obama leads them as well. So if Math means anything, she can't win, unless someting bad happens to the front runner Obama... So in the past, one had a chance to win and that is why they stated in the race. Now if Obama gets shot (God Forbid) she has a chance. Freud said it best, a slip
at 11:27 on May 24th, 2008
When did so she lose so many delegate pledges that it was determined that she ought to concede? Was it four months ago? Because that is when I first read so many commentaries that Sen. Clinton should just concede. I would appreciate clarification regarding exactly when she crossed the line of no way to win.
Mary
at 11:33 on May 24th, 2008
Mary, The insurmountable date was last tuesday.
at 11:31 on May 24th, 2008
I'm still waiting on the math. When did Sen. Clinton's bid for presidency reach the point where there was absolutely no way for her to get the amount of delegates needed to be elected as the Democrat contender this fall? Math, please.
Mary
at 11:35 on May 24th, 2008
Mary,
You have been caught in the Clinton Washing Machine. The spin cycle, to steal from Ira Basen, to be exact
at 11:52 on May 24th, 2008
politisite, I like this story. It's good stuff as always! Mary, how on earth can you say Senator Clinton's words were deliberately misinterpreted? How should people interpret bringing up the assassination of a presidential candidate in terms of why she is staying in the race?
I think any reasonable person can read between the lines of what Hillary said. And, it's not the first time she said it either. It is further proof of the lengths she will go to clinch the nomination. She actually suggested she should stay in the race in case someone assassinates her opponent!
And to say it during the same week that Ted Kennedy was diagnosed
with inoperable brain cancer, is extremely low class, par for the
course from her campaign. Furthermore, in her comparison to her husband back in 1992 she neglected to mention that Bill was leading in delegates. She isn't.
Maybe she wants a repeat of the 1968 Democratic convention that turned off the electorate (especially young people) from the democrats for the better part of 40 years. I will say that she has every right to stay in the race but she should drop out if she had any sense of what it takes to win against the Republicans.
at 12:07 on May 24th, 2008
politisite, I like this story. It's good stuff.
at 12:25 on May 24th, 2008
Please understand that I am not being merely argumentative. I would really like to know if you are saying that with the amount of delegate and superdelegate votes still available, there is no way whatsoever for Sen. Clinton to win, and that there is therefore no justification for her to remain in the race for presidency, and that the date of this absolute victory of the Democrat nomination by Sen. Obama occurred last Tuesday? Is that what you affirm - that there remains nothing for Sen. Clinton to contend for because there are not remaining enough delegate votes for her to possibly win? Please clarify.
Mary
at 12:29 on May 24th, 2008
Politisite, I like this story. It's good stuff.
at 15:18 on May 24th, 2008
Hi, Mary. I wrote about many of the issues Politisite raised here.
As of May 21, after winning the Oregon primary, Senator Obama gained the lead in pledged delegates, the delegates that are awarded after votes are counted from each district, precinct, whatever that state uses.
The remaining delegates to be won in the final three states, even if Senator Clinton were to get all of the delgates, would not surpass his lead in pledged delegates.
The process is now in the hands of the Super delegates. If the Super delegates ignore the pledged delegate count Senator Obama has, delegates that were awarded by the voters' votes, they would be ignoring the fact, according to the Democratic Party rules, that he won the majority vote and the pledged delegates that came with that vote.
The math thing that Politisite raises is very important and goes a long way toward understanding the positions Senator Clinton has been using to justify her campaign's actions.
at 15:25 on May 24th, 2008
Karen, I will add your stoy in the related stories section. I did a quick search and missed yours
at 16:04 on May 24th, 2008
Thank you, Al. I have included a link to this story at my article.
at 15:01 on May 24th, 2008
It's a tad late, when Hillary already put the Bug in peoples ear already, she is starting to do a lot of Bug planting lately.
at 18:55 on May 24th, 2008
Thanks for your explanation, Karen. I have been reading posts for at least four months saying Clinton should concede, and it surprises me that it was not this week, May 21, that Obama had the most pledged delegates! What is something like this called -- Manifest Destiny? Or maybe like the Evangelican Christians -- Name it and Claim it? Anyone would have thought all the delegates and Super delegates had voted months ago from the opposition's rhetoric calling for this candidate to get out of the race early. I really admire her more than ever. I'm a fight-to-the-finish kind of girl myself.
Folks thought I was through a couple of times in our contest, but I was only resting and organizing.
Mary Neal
Assistance to the Incarcerated Mentally Ill
Website: http://wrongfuldeathoflarryneal.com
P.O. Box 7222, Atlanta, GA 30357
at 09:39 on May 25th, 2008
You're welcome, Mary. Understanding the process has been made more complicated by the math that Politisite has been discussing.
As coverage first began, all of the analysis reported on the primary races as if was a given that Senator Clinton would win, since she was expected to get the 'big ticket' states with the large delegate counts.
As time progressed, the 'big picture down the road' scenario, viewed through the lens of the Democratic Party's rules of selection for a Democratic nominee for President, predicted certain outcomes.
Any and all votes count in an election, especially when the system is structured to send delegate representation into government. The battle of words and deeds has resulted in factors, outside of the rules of the Democratic Party, being artificially injected as a means of selecting a nominee.
at 17:02 on May 25th, 2008
Were voters in the Democrat primaries all Democrats?
at 08:12 on May 26th, 2008
No they were not. Depending on the state, there are voter laws governing how a person may vote. Some states have, "open primaries" where voters can get a Democratic or Republican Ballot. Some have "Closed Primaries" where you get a ballot based on your part affiliation. The states were Republicans can vote in a democratic pimary are, Alabama, Arkansas , Georgia , Idaho , Indiana , Michigan , Minnesota , Mississippi , Missouri , North Dakota , South Carolina , Tennessee , Texas , Vermont , Virginia , Washington , Wisconsin.
These states is the target of Rush Limbagh's, "Operation Chaos" where he asked voters to vote for Hillary Clinton once the Republican Nominee was determined. One state where Operation Chaos may have changed the outcome of the vote was Indiana. Exit polling determined that 10% of voters crossed over to vote for Clinton. If this stands as correct. Obama would have won the state by more than 40 thousand votes. Clinton won Indiand by 15 thousand votes,
at 12:57 on May 26th, 2008
This does not seem fair. Folks ought to be made to stay on one side of the fence or the other. If they vote in the Democrat primary, then they should be disallowed to vote other than Democrat in the actual election. Don't you agree? If the voters know this, perhaps they would not meddle in another's political choice for party nominee.