Home > Politics > Political Punch

Political Punch

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Clinton's Context

May 23, 2008 8:09 PM

"I don't think she's hoping for some tragic catastrophic event to intervene," Obama senior strategist David Axelrod told MSNBC's "Hardball" this afternoon, when discussing Sen. Hillary Clinton's controversial invocation of Robert Kennedy's assassination during a general discussion about whether  her staying in the race puts party unity at risk.

Some in the Clinton campaign are saying that the media is misrepresenting the context of her remarks. She was not discussing why she's staying in the race, they say. She was saying that she doesn't think the length of the race was hurting the party.

The way it played out, Clinton pushed back strongly when the Argus Leader editorial board asked about reports that her campaign was pushing for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., to take Clinton as his running mate, or that she was making plans to drop out of the race.

Flatly untrue, she said.

"Neither of us has the number of delegates needed to be the nominee, and every time they declare it doesn't make it so. Neither of us do," Clinton said, according to a transcript assembled by the ABC News political unit's Talal Alkhatib. "And I've never seen anything like this. I have, perhaps, a long enough memory that many people who finished a rather distant second behind nominees go all the way to the convention. I remember very well 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, where some who had contested in the primaries, you know, were determined to carry their case to the convention. I'm ahead in the popular vote. Less than 200 delegates separate us out of 4,400. Michigan and Florida are not resolved. No one has the nomination, so I would look to the camp of my opponent for the source of those stories."

She said, "People have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa. ... 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."

"You don't buy the 'party unity' argument?" she was asked.

"I don't," Clinton said. "And again, I've been around long enough. You know, my husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary sometime 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 lots of speculation about why it is, but uh..."

She was asked: "What's your speculation?"

"You know, I don't know," she said. "I find it curious, and I don't want to attribute motives or strategies to people that I don't really know. But it is-- It's a historical curiosity to me."

The debate seems to be whether Clinton was merely suggesting that previous Democratic races have gone on a long time, through June, and, "Hey, remember that horrible moment in 1968 with Bobby Kennedy's assassination was in June?" -- or whether she was saying, "Hey, anything could happen. Obama might get assassinated. No reason for me to drop out yet."

The Argus Leader editorial board issued a statement saying, "The context of the question and answer with Sen. Clinton was whether her continued candidacy jeopardized party unity this close to the Democratic convention. Her reference to Mr. Kennedy's assassination appeared to focus on the timeline of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself."

Judge it for yourself. The Argus Leader has posted the video HERE.

-- jpt

May 23, 2008 in Clinton, Hillary | Permalink | Share | User Comments (231)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

But this is America and a democracy. I have been watching everything and it seems the news and the candidates have counted Hilary out. The News does not report on Hilary to much anymore unless they can make a negative. (So Bias). What happen to report the news and not your personal opinions? The news is supposed to be bias and not persuade people’s opinions. Let the Primary's run its course! Every American that voted has the right for their vote count! Also the delegates should vote the voice of the people, not their opinion. Isn't that is why we have them? To vote the voice of the people.
If they don't count the 2 states, they should still consider the voice of the people. All the news channels need to stop taking what candidates say and twisting it to make controversy. This is American and I am proud to be here!
Let our system work the way it is suppose to .

Posted by: An American who believes | May 28, 2008 9:11:59 PM

Why is this even open for debate? It seems the majority of White women and Republicans don't have a problem with it. (lol) Do they ever? (lol)

Posted by: Dems | May 25, 2008 11:24:18 PM

Rezko verdict is on the horizon. I wonder how obama will spin that.

Posted by: Really | May 25, 2008 9:04:09 PM

Here is Barack Obama's response (reported May 25th) to Hillary Clinton's "assassination" statement:

“I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Senator Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make and I think that is what happened here. Senator Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it and I will take her at her word on that”
_________________________________

I think Barack Obama is more gracious and thoughtful in his response than I would have been. He is more willing to give the benefit of the doubt than I am, or than most people I have ever seen.

Even after all of Hillary's mean-spirited and untrue statements and statements that could be taken as threats, and her "Sniper-Gate" lies, Barack Obama is still willing to take her at her word, accept her "apology," and move on, even though she didn't even apologize to him.

You have to recognize that, at the very least, Barack Obama is showing a high-level of respect towards his opponent.

Posted by: Daniel | May 25, 2008 5:48:58 PM

Senator Clinton's "apology" is no apology at all. It's just another exercise in blame-shifting. She would have us believe it's OUR fault for being shocked and upset by what she said. The fact is, this remark resonates because it really gives us insight into how Clinton's mind works. She cannot defeat Senator Obama by either fair means or foul. So there's a dark part of her mind that thinks about what it would be like if something removed her adversary from the stage.

Memo to Senator Obama: Do NOT select Hillary Clinton as a vice presidential candidate. If you do, you will have to spend the next four years watching your back every second!

Posted by: Tom in California | May 25, 2008 5:21:36 PM

rd said:

"You're out of your mind if you think anyone but a latte liberal or radical is going to vote for him [Obama]."
_____________________________________

My Response: Are you saying that all of the 16,685,941 Americans who have voted for Barack Obama are either "latte liberals" or "radicals"? (Wow, there must be an awful lot of those in the USA then!)

How exactly do you define "radical" or "latte liberal" anyway? And why do you feel the need to resort to the logical fallacy of "ad hominem" or "name-calling" and using generalizations?

Are you saying that none of those 16,685,941 Americans are hard-working white Democrats?

Mack said:

"I can see that some of Obama's supporters love him dearly, although it is irrational to believe that Hillary is capable of wishing for any harm to come to him."
____________________________________

My Response: How is "irrational" to believe that Hillary is capable of wishing harm to come to Obama. How do you know what goes on in Hillary's mind. How do any of us know?

After all, some of her own friends or acquaintances have been quoted in the media saying that she is "capable" and "willing" to do ANYTHING to get elected.

Posted by: Daniel | May 25, 2008 5:17:20 PM

The context seems clear here.
Her main statement is about her staying in the race this late, going into the month of june as normal, it already happened. She mentioned her husband whom she holds in high consideration which is only normal and Bob Kennedy who she surely holds in high consideration, giving his fight and as the outcome of it is his assassination.
She said " I just don't understand it... there is a lot of speculation about why it is, but uh..." .She mentions the words like "speculation", that she "don't know and don't want to attribute motives or strategies to people". She also talks about "historical curiosity".
She has been more bruised than BO during this primary season and her words speak more about her inability to understand what people strategies are.
The inexplicable nature of motives and strategies, and history with unexplained things is a curiosity.
I would think she is to that point more connected to her own situation, and that is a way to say a lot things happen in this world and she cannot explain motives and strategies.
That BO and his campaign jump on one statement, and quickly put pressure on her and pull all attention upon him, shows he is the polarizing figure.
Do you people want to live in a world where you don't have any space for freedom of thoughts and expressions, everything would be blamed on you if you don't follow the mainstream thinking?
Good luck America!

Posted by: jane | May 25, 2008 12:31:24 PM

Thanks Alice, To my knowledge, noone at this point has the 2210 delegates to win the Democratic party nomination at this point including MI and FL. I do not see how either major candidate can complete this task before the convention in August. It is quite a presumption to assume the undecided delegates will go with the winner of the caucus delegates (Obama) over the winner of the elected delegates (Clinton) and the nationwide popular vote (Clinton). I believe the electoral college case for winning will be made in the coming weeks as I have done in a recent post. The polls will change I am sure, but it does not make any sense to nominate Obama if he is expected to lose the electoral college, while Clinton is expected to win it over McCain. It goes without saying that serious Democrats will support the nominee. What is important is to win in November. If Obama and Clinton were both well ahead of McCain in the electoral college, then sure why not Obama. The issue is, he is behind, and she is ahead. This is a serious issue, that Democrats need to turn our focus on during the coming weeks.

Posted by: sherry | May 24, 2008 11:43:44 PM

In 2004, Kerry received 251 electoral votes and lost because 270 are needed to win. I went to the RCP website and looked at all the polls for May of battleground states. Compared to 2004. Obama picks up IA, NM and CO, but loses MI, for a net gain of 4, giving him 255 electoral votes . So Obama is a GE loser at this point. Clinton picks up OH, FL, NV and NM, and ties in MO and MI. Winning all those, she gets 308 electoral votes and is a GE winner at this point. Winning OH, FL, NV and NM, but losing MO and MI, she gets 280 electoral votes and is still the winner. Personnaly, I think McCaskill is a good veep for her to carry MO, since Romney could garner MI for McCain, and we have to pick our veep before they pick theirs. May the best person win.

Posted by: sherry | May 24, 2008 11:29:47 PM

Sherry makes a good point about remembering what our ultimate goal is and uniting around the eventual winner. Only one point, the nominee is selectd based on the number of delegates won, so we'll be sure to unite around Senator Obama when the time comes, right?

Posted by: Alice | May 24, 2008 9:05:22 PM


Clinton's comment yesterday about the primary season historically extending into June was a good one. I do not see why some of the Obama supporters think this intelligent and highly moral woman would wish anyone, including Obama, any harm...There is no logic to it, since she did not refer to Obama in her comment, and she cited a second instance of a campaign extending into June, other than RFK's..

Posted by: sherry | May 24, 2008 7:21:16 PM

Lies...
Wrong,She was repeated this about Kennedy - the third time.
She could become the president! A real nightmare.

Posted by: Lyn | May 24, 2008 6:41:06 PM

DNC changes the rule, not Hillary. Remember Howard Dean went on TV interview in April and said that he expected the delegates from FL amd MI to be seated. So, he changed the rule. The problem is: how can the delegates be seated if you don't count the votes from the primaries. You can't ratify half of the process, seating delegates, and not counting the votes? HRC just goes further and demand the votes to be counted.

Posted by: ssf | May 24, 2008 5:49:35 PM

Anders Cooper you said:

"I guess it's only a distraction if Obama says so."

When did Obama say so?

Is it just me or do make it a habit of making stuff up to justify your Obamaphobia?

Posted by: Gemma | May 24, 2008 4:18:08 PM

These are reason I don't vote.
But if I decide to it's

HILLARY.

Posted by: Lecreata | May 24, 2008 2:24:51 PM

Clinton's poor judgement in mentioning Bobby Kennedy's assassination at this time disqualifies her do be president. The worst thing she said was at the end of her statement, "I just don't understand." You got that right Hillary. We have had 8 years of a president who does not understand things, we do not need you.

Posted by: robby10001 | May 24, 2008 1:56:54 PM

I don't buy the logic. In both the 1968 primaries and the 1992 primaries California cast its vote in June. Last I checked, the vote is already in.

Posted by: Sara B | May 24, 2008 1:36:14 PM

I am so tired on this Kennedy thing ... sounded like anyone that he endorsed is going to be jinxed ...one way or the other

Posted by: csquan | May 24, 2008 12:58:06 PM

Clinton,
Killing some one or hoping that someone gets killed for you to become the president of the entire world is not worth it. Life has no price. If someone took away Bill Clinton's life or had such plans to take his life, then you will not be campaigning today for president. You have dug you own grave, you can peacefully get inside you grave and bury yourself.

Posted by: Sam | May 24, 2008 11:53:09 AM

No want has stop people from voting and no one should kill the other to get the nomination.
Its dissapointing. Its a disgrace to the Clintons.

Posted by: Sam | May 24, 2008 11:45:39 AM

Next Comments »

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS