Category: The Dish

The Coolness Of The Obama Campaign

A reader notes:

I think the Obama campaign has chosen wisely the past week or so, to let Senator Clinton "implode" on her own. And it’s obviously beginning to happen. Senator Obama and his campaign have been very hands-off lately with the Clinton campaign, instead focusing their energy on McCain and not letting him or his campaign get away with baseless attacks. So far, he has responded with force, dignity, intelligence, and calmness, and turned from defense to offense admirably and fairly. He is looking more and more presidential every day, and Senator Clinton is looking less so each day. I think the Obama campaign statement today was perfect: it didn’t use Wolfson-like venom, but simply used the words "unfortunate" and "has no place in this campaign". Laser-like precision!

Over?

A reader hopes:

I’m a Democrat, an Obama supporter who would gladly have pulled the lever for Clinton if she had won the nomination (which she did not).  And until this afternoon, I even would have accepted her as Obama’s veep.  But after that idiotic statement about Bobby Kennedy, no more.  I say that not because the statement is offensive (which it is), but because it is so monumentally tone deaf. 

If she was trying to bolster her own case, she failed miserably.  If she was trying to live up to every negative image that you or other Hilary-adversaries could gin up in your most hallucinatory fever dreams, well, mission accomplished.  And I for one am tired of Dem presidential candidates who seem most skilled at rhetorically shooting themselves in the foot.  Hopefully this gaffe will continue the rolling of superdelegates away from her camp, and end this parade of ignominy.

For the record, I think she meant it as a reference that people would remember about a June primary. She’s not crazy enough to air wishes about Obama’s early demise. But her actual point is nonetheless fallacious because a) that 1968 primary campaign did not last six months as this one has; b) Johnson’s withdrawal scrambled the race in ways not applicable today. And 1992 doesn’t help her case either. In short: wrong, dumb and unintentionally offensive, especially to already alienated African-Americans and to a Kennedy family still reeling from Ted’s illness.

Wrong About 1992 As Well

From the New York Times in March of that year:

Mr. Clinton is already close to the halfway mark in the number of delegates needed to win the nomination and has a 7-to-1 edge over Mr. Brown, who is running a maverick, anti-establishment campaign. Many Democrats said that barring an unexpected collapse by Mr. Clinton’s campaign, it is difficult to see how Mr. Brown can overtake the Governor.

"It certainly brings it much closer to a conclusion," said Ronald H. Brown, the Democratic national chairman. "You could argue that it’s theoretically possible for Jerry Brown to mount a come-from-behind challenge, but the math and the reality of Bill Clinton’s momentum certainly work against him."

Yes, the Clintons once used the math argument against an opponent – as early as March 20, only a couple of weeks after New Hampshire. Brown could have rallied in his home state of California, but it was effectively over long before then. The Clintons will say anything, deny anything, refute themselves, contradict themselves – as long as it helps them gain power. They have no other point of reference.

Not The First Time

Here’s Clinton on March 6, again remembering the assassination of RFK:

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.

Weird.

RFK-HRC Reax

Powerline excuses:

For those of us who remember RFK’s assassination, it’s easy to understand why, speaking off-the-cuff, Clinton would refer to the event that made the 1968 California primary memorable. In short, there’s nothing here, and the New York Post’s headline that "Clinton Raises Assassination Issue" is grossly misleading.

PJM:

This is the gaffe of gaffes, the Mother of all campaign faux pas. There’s no taking it back at this point. The statement is out there, hanging like a rapidly decomposing side of beef in the hot sun. To suggest that you should hang around and stay in the campaign “just in case” the unthinkable occurs is beyond anything yet seen in this campaign. And considering all the race and gender cards that have been flying around, the assassination card tops them all.

Taylor Marsh:

Clinton’s statement today reveals our collective fatigue and was unbelievably unfortunate. Looking at her make her statement of regret you can see her pain and that she is devastated by what she said, which is clear in the statement below from the Clinton camp.

But anyone believing Clinton was suggesting that an assassination could vault   her into… never mind, I can’t even finish the statement. It’s just too ludicrous. But that’s where we are today.

Ambers:

For those who contend that Clinton was referring to competitive contests or example, why didn’t she bring up Ted Kennedy in 1980? Or Gary Hart in 1984? I think she was pointing to primary races where the eventual nominee was unknown at this point in the cycle…. But 1984 would apply more, her husband was the de-facto nominee at this point, and the compressed calender really renders such comparisons null and void.

This may finally kill talk of a fusion ticket. God forbid anything happen to Obama now.