Another Myth Goes By the Wayside
Count me among those who doubt very much that Hillary Clinton is harboring any secret desire that harm befall Barack Obama. That said, her statement today can only be described as astoundingly tone deaf. And what it proves, I think, is not that she is bad person, but that she is not nearly as well "vetted" as she claims to be.
Throughout the primary race, Clinton and her surrogates have suggested that Barack Obama is an untested novice who will be eaten alive by the media and by the Republican attack machine in the Fall. She, on the other hand, is the skilled veteran who knows how the game is played and is not going to fumble the ball on her way to the endzone.
I think that particular argument can be put to rest now. This was a MAJOR gaffe, and it's not the first one to come from Clinton's mouth during this campaign. The reality is that she's really not all that seasoned a politician. She's won two political races in her career, both against very weak competition in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. And throughout her public career, including her time as First Lady and prospective First Lady, she's said things that were politically ill-advised (remember her comment about baking cookies?).
I say this not to disparage Clinton's political skills. She's certainly a capable politician. But she's hardly the zen master of politics, and I see no reason whatsoever to believe she'd be any less likely to stumble or commit a major gaffe in the general election than Obama would. The notion that a Clinton campaign would be free of unforced errors has always been a fantasy.
Hillary is very smart and has pretty good political instincts. She'd no doubt run a competent general election campaign. But I think Obama has demonstrated during this grueling one and half year primary campaign that he is every bit her equal when it comes to raw political skill, and his campaign has out-smarted and out-maneuvered hers at every step. When you combine that with Obama's far superior rhetorical gifts and fundraising potential, it's hard to see why people still think Clinton would be the more formidable general election candidate.
Throughout the primary race, Clinton and her surrogates have suggested that Barack Obama is an untested novice who will be eaten alive by the media and by the Republican attack machine in the Fall. She, on the other hand, is the skilled veteran who knows how the game is played and is not going to fumble the ball on her way to the endzone.
I think that particular argument can be put to rest now. This was a MAJOR gaffe, and it's not the first one to come from Clinton's mouth during this campaign. The reality is that she's really not all that seasoned a politician. She's won two political races in her career, both against very weak competition in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. And throughout her public career, including her time as First Lady and prospective First Lady, she's said things that were politically ill-advised (remember her comment about baking cookies?).
I say this not to disparage Clinton's political skills. She's certainly a capable politician. But she's hardly the zen master of politics, and I see no reason whatsoever to believe she'd be any less likely to stumble or commit a major gaffe in the general election than Obama would. The notion that a Clinton campaign would be free of unforced errors has always been a fantasy.
Hillary is very smart and has pretty good political instincts. She'd no doubt run a competent general election campaign. But I think Obama has demonstrated during this grueling one and half year primary campaign that he is every bit her equal when it comes to raw political skill, and his campaign has out-smarted and out-maneuvered hers at every step. When you combine that with Obama's far superior rhetorical gifts and fundraising potential, it's hard to see why people still think Clinton would be the more formidable general election candidate.
posted by A.L. at 10:14 PM
14 Comments:
And what it proves, I think, is not that she is bad person, but that she is not nearly as well "vetted" as she claims to be.
Some politicians hire individuals to do their "opposition research." Ken Starr spent 80 million dollars and utilized several FBI agents and prosecutors "vetting" Bill and Hillary to find everything they possibly could dig up on them.
And, I'm sorry .... you said something about Hillary not being "as well 'vetted' as she claims to be"?
Just how much more "vetted" do you want her to be? How many more millions and how many more baseless conspiracy theories do you think they should create before Hillary is "vetted"? Huh?
Well, her "gaffe" was anything but. She got away with the identical comment in Time mag in March.
And this is her 2nd poor campaign in a row. She took a fair bit of heat for blowing a ton of money on her re-election bid with only tepid results.
Let's consider what she said. She said, in essence, that the primary shouldn't end yet because Senator Obama might get shot, like Bobby Kennedy did.
Classifying this as a "gaffe" substantially misses the mark, imo. It's not a gaffe. It's a revelation of what craven thoughts Clinton is indulging in. And it's a deal-breaker, as far as I'm concerned.
Only someone with an incredible prejudice against Hillary Clinton or ulterior motives could interpret her comment as Casual Observer has. She said vigorous campaigns last into June. That is fact as those of us with a memory of the Kennedy murder have seared into our minds. I campaigned for Robert Kennedy in 1968. Like Hillary, I'll never forget the excitement of the Kennedy camp that night and then the horrible grief a few minutes later. Campaigns sometime last into June. She is right. That is ALL she was saying. Those on the Democratic side who engage in petty politics (like some in the Obama campaign have over this) are falling far short of the new politics Obama has championed and are, in fact, McCain's best friends right now.
I support Obama, but I would also be thrilled to support Hillary if she were the nominee.
Turn your attention to McCain. There is nothing good for the Democratic Party in castigating Hillary Clinton -- especially when every single Clinton admirer knows the charge is bogus. Barack Obama should step in now to end this silly controversy and shut up the stupid/overzealous/counter-productive Clinton-bashers among his supporters.
I'd love to know what the death of Robert Kennedy had to do with the importance of continuing her otherwise-doomed campaign, beyond suggesting the possibility that a similar event might justify her persistence. Without that link, how could "campaigns sometimes take a long time" and "RFK died in June" have any relation to each other? And with that link, why discuss the possibility, unless she believes Obama has a statistically significant chance of being murdered in the next few weeks?
Even assuming that Clinton's comments are completely benign, her point is wrong. In 1968, the first primary was New Hampshire's on March 12. As far as I can tell, New York had the last primary on June 18, giving a primary season of just over 3 months.
The current primary season started on January 8, so it has already lasted more than a month longer than 1968.
Fine Hank, make that argument, it is a legitimate one.
To anonymous above: Please listen to the clip from the interview again. The whole conversation was about the extension of campaigns into June. The famous Kennedy victory in California in June is seared in our memories because of that horrible murder the same night. I think the uproar requires an VERY poor opinion of Clinton to start with -- or ignorance.
I support Obama, but his campaign and some youngsters and sensationalists in the press are very wrong to make a mountain of this molehill.
When Billy Shaheen wondered whether the young Obama had sold drugs, we knew the depths to which the Clinton campaign was willing to sink. I'm going to forgive "youngsters and sensationalists in the press" for their skepticism. After all, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina too.
Anonymous, so -- because Clinton;'s campaign has sunk to "depths" (in your opinion) it is OK for Obama's campaign to forsake the new politics we have proclaimed and scrutinize every utterance of Clinton for some sinister intent?
As I said, focus on McCain.
I'd be thrilled with a Clinton nomination, but it's not going to happen. Barack Obama will be our nominee. John McCain is the Republican standard bearer. We need the votes of all the folks who preferred Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, etc. in the beginning. Lay off Clinton. Get busy on McCain.
We cannot afford another right-wing Supreme Court justice.
We cannot afford another four years of snubbing the world.
We cannot afford another four years of disdain for the Bill of Rights.
We cannot afford another four years of neglect of the environment.
We cannot afford a third term in a row of Republican cowboy diplomacy.
Get your priorities straight.
Terrell,
Can you point to some instance where the Obama campaign hasn't taken the high road? It wasn't the Obama campaign that scrutinized her comments, it's been the media. The Obama campaign has down played this comment as best they can. I agree with you that McCain needs to be our focus. But having said that, it's hard to focus on McCain when we are still focusing on the nomination. There have been several reports of the low fund-raising at the congressional and other levels due to the fact that the nomination process is about to enter it's SIXTH month. The party needs to coalesce around our nominee and start to focus on McCain and then entire GOP slate this fall. Hillary is in a great position to do that, by stepping down now and *aggressively* campaigning for Democrats around the country.
Trey, one of the reasons that I so enthusiastically support Barack Obama is that he has so consistently taken the "high road".
But Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement Friday: "Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign."
Hogwash.
Senator Obama's own response later characterized it as a misstep by saying: "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."
Better, but still not enough.
My contention is that this was not a misstep, it was a completely innocuous statement that only those who are trying hard to "assassinate" Hillary Clinton's reputation could interpret as sinister.
This is an opportunity for Barack Obama to win better rapport with some of the Clinton voters who have seen her reviled since the early nineties. They know, by and large, that she will not be the nominee. He should come actively to her defense. I want Brarack Obama to say: "I listened to that interview. Senator Clinton is correct that the Kennedy campaign lasted into June as other campaigns have. I know that I will have her strong support when I secure the nomination, as she would have mine if she were to win the nomination. Let me make myself clear: This is a controversy that should end. There were no sinister implications in Senator Clinton's remarks."
Terrell,
Taking the assasination out of the comment, I think it's fundamentally wrong to say that it's normal for a campaign to last this long. We started in January! Not late Feb/early March like in the examples that she used. I just don't buy her reason and the "unfortunate" use of words didn't help.
And after hearing about the "kitchen sink" and about hearing how they were going to make the "bitter" comment central to their campaign in PA, I still say that the Clinton campaign has not acted with the level of civility expected between members of the same party. That Obama now has to come to her rescue, her defense, to try to woo her supporters just rubs me the wrong way. In addition, I expect that he will probably end up helping her pay off her HUGE debt. I'm all for respect and civility between the candidates to try to unify the party, but the statements and actions coming from the Clinton campaign doesn't make it seem like she's acting in good faith. Give me a good example of her extending the olive branch, and I'll re-consider.
Shorter terrel: Obama hasn't kissed Hillary's ass enough for implying that he may be about to get shot.
Anonymous: It is immature folks (or Republican moles more likely) like you who may cost us this election. Ass-kissing?! Give me a break. What childishness. Barack Obama is no shoe-in. We need every vote. Hillary Clinton has a long, distinguished, and honorable record. Hotheads and sensationalists want to read tyranny, racism, and now, as ridiculous as it is on the face of it, assassination into her informal words.
Once again. Listen to her words. She was talking about the campaign that that horrible assassination reminds us of. I lived through that time. I campaigned for Robert Kennedy. I have marched for equal rights. I never doubted what she meant. To suggest that she was raising the specter of Barack Obama being assassinated belies nothing but your extremism in our cause. (Unless you are, indeed, a mole.)
We do not need extremists. We need cool heads who will follow Barack Obama's lead in uniting our party. If we don't, we lose. It is as simple as that.
I watched it happen in 1968. The result: Nixon.
I watched it happen in 1980. The result: Reagan.
Trey: Yes you have a good argument about the length of the campaign. That is part of the reason I decided to end my support of Hillary Clinton and support Barack Obama. But I will not sit idly by while extremists and sensationalists try to tear our party apart. The issues are too important. And there is no important difference between Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, or Richardson on the issues. We need all their supporters and more to win. To me BTW it is obvious that Clinton has toned down her rhetoric in regard to Obama in the last few weeks.
One more time: Hillary Clinton had NO sinister intent in her comments last week. If you believe she did, you do not know her and you are too wrapped up in an Obama nomination, and not enough dedicated to a Democratic victory in November. A nomination is not a victory.
Keep your eyes on the prize.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home