Hillary dismissal of ’92 Illinois primary a bigger lie than her comparison to RFK

When Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary R. Clinton recently managed to offend people with her apparent comparison between Barack Obama and Robert F. Kennedy (who was killed in mid-campaign in 1968), it wasn’t the most outrageous thing a political person ever said.

It wasn’t the most ridiculous statement to ever come from Hillary’s own mouth (remember her recollection of her 1996 trip to Bosnia?). For that matter, it wasn’t even the biggest lie from Clinton that very day.

I ACTUALLY TAKE greater offense at the other part of that same statement she made Friday during an interview in South Dakota (where the primary season wraps up June 3), when she tried to re-write history and claim that there is nothing unusual about a losing political campaign that continues to fight into the summer months.

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?,” is what came out of her mouth when she spoke with the editorial board of the Argus Leader newspaper of Sioux Falls, S.D. “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

Actually, Bill Clinton wrapped up that nomination for the right to challenge incumbent President George H.W. Bush by mid-March. I remember that because it was his primary victory in Illinois that supposedly ensured Clinton would be the nominee – rather than Tom Harkin, Paul Tsongas, Jerry Brown or any of the other Democratic dreamers from that year.

That was the year that Harkin gained early momentum by winning the caucuses in his home state of Iowa, but then found out the rest of the nation had no interest in his candidacy. Tsongas took New Hampshire, but then Clinton started coming on strong in the following primaries.

BY ILLINOIS’ PRIMARY election, most of the other Democrats had dropped out of the race or were so financially strapped that they were unable to do any more serious campaigning.

For Hillary to say that Bill Clinton didn’t get the nomination until the California primary is a case of using a fact to tell a lie. The nomination was his long before that particular primary in June.

In fact, most presidential primaries wrap up after about a month of serious campaigning because the losing candidates don’t have the money to justify continued activity. We usually know by early April at the latest who is going to be the nominee for the two major political parties.

That is what makes the 2008 Democratic primary so unique – because it didn’t get wrapped up early like it always did in Hillary’s political fantasies. This was a case where two candidates each have a significant chunk of the electorate that seriously believes in their abilities and wants to see them in the White House.

I DON’T DOUBT the sincerity of those people who back Hillary Clinton and would like to see her as president.

But for Clinton to come out with comments implying that there’s anything typical about this campaign cycle is just a lie.

If she wants to remain in the running because she thinks there’s a serious chance that a technicality will enable her to get the nomination for president, she ought to just come right out and admit it.

A slight majority of Democrats appear to want Obama to be their political party’s nominee in the Nov. 4 elections for president. But Clinton is willing to accept the nomination under any circumstances – even under ones that might stir up resentment from the masses of Obama people who in the past have shown little interest in the Democratic Party – or electoral politics in general.

IN FACT, THAT is why I was not offended by the second part of Clinton’s comments in South Dakota – the part that referred to Bobby Kennedy.

Some take it as evidence that she would like to see someone take a shot at Obama, thereby clearing the way for her to get the nomination similar to how Kennedy’s presidential bid was leading the field of primary candidates up to the point of his death in Los Angeles on June 5.

It is an unfortunate remark for Hillary to make, because the sad reality is that the possibility of someone trying to attack Obama is a very real possibility in today’s political and social climate. Security around Obama is very aware of the threat and is trying to take what few measures are possible to prevent such an incident from occurring.

But there are no guarantees.

SHE SHOULD HAVE known better than to say anything that could imply the threat of physical harm, although I will take her at her word that she didn’t mean she really hopes for an attack on Obama sometime soon.

But this is a case of a political person coming out and saying what is really on their mind. Hillary Clinton gave us an insight into her inner thought process and confirmed the worst suspicions of many political people.

What Clinton wants is for something – anything, a scandal of sort – to come along that would be so devastating that political people would feel compelled to shift their previously pledged support from Obama to Clinton.

She wants something to happen that will ensure Obama cannot be a political force, now or in the future. She wants him to be damaged goods of such a high degree that he would be unable to run for re-election to his U.S. Senate seat from Illinois.

IN HILLARY CLINTON’S world of political fantasies, Obama would have to seriously contemplate resigning immediately from the Senate, and would never be able to run for elective office again.

She may not want him literally dead, but she wants him deceased politically.

That’s the problem with candidates who become movements – people follow them so closely and put their interests ahead of political party. As long as people see that Obama is a viable alternative, they would be inspired to ignore much of anything Clinton wants.

That is why it never made sense politically that Obama would be a vice presidential choice under Clinton Some might literally figure it is worth doing nothing now so that a “President Obama” could act in the future and get credit for the achievements.

THAT DIFFERENCE IN viewpoints is what has created the current split among Democrats that party officials ought to be making a priority of trying to close. It is not a bad thing that two Democratic candidates created such intense interest in the presidential elections that the number of people who bothered to vote is at all-time highs.

But it is bad if the split creates lasting hostility.

And it is this hostility that has built up between the two camps that will prevent either from working too closely with the other in the near future. The best we can likely hope for is a cool co-existence.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Hillary Clinton is still drawing grief for her comments in South Dakota (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/25/AR2008052502685.html?hpid=topnews) that reminded people of the fate of Robert F. Kennedy. For his part, Barack Obama is trying to rise (http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2430844920080525) above the moment.

The Argus-Leader (I love their name) gets its moment of national attention for its attempt to (http://www.argusleader.com/assets/doc/DF109229524.DOC) draw out Clinton to say something honest. They succeeded.

It was interesting to remember that Bill Clinton wasn’t always seen as the candidate (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE2DB103AF93AA25750C0A964958260) of choice for the African-American vote, as noted in this recollection of the 1992 presidential primary in Illinois.

Adlai 'successor' may be Hillary, not Obama

It has become a stock column for political pundits to grind out if they are in a pinch for some copy – Barack Obama is too intellectual to be president and is a modern-day equivalent of Adlai E. Stevenson II.

But after observing the Democratic presidential primaries to date, I’m starting to wonder if Hillary R. Clinton is the politico who ultimately will fill the Stevenson niche.

It’s not a perfect match of stories. After all, Stevenson twice won the Democratic nomination to run for president – losing both general elections to Dwight Eisenhower.

By comparison, Hillary may fail to even get her political party’s presidential nomination, as Obama is turning out to be a much more competitive campaigner than she originally anticipated.

Both Clinton and Stevenson are lawyers who come from political families. Hillary is a former first lady of both the United States and of Arkansas, and some people say she was the intellectual support system for her husband, Bill, when he held those elective posts. Stevenson is the grandson of the original Adlai E. Stevenson – who served as vice president during the second presidential term of Grover Cleveland.

Not enough people were willing to reject the ideals of Herbert Hoover to take a chance on Adlai E. Stevenson II as president.

Hillary is using her husband’s knowledge and experience in the ways of campaigning to boost her campaign, and much of the support she gets is from people who are hoping that a second Clinton as president will help rehabilitate the way history remembers the first Clinton.

Adlai II also had help in getting ahead politically, although he didn’t use just his grandfather’s knowledge. Living in what was then the rural community of Libertyville (it’s now ridiculously suburban in character), Stevenson was a product of the regular Democratic organization in Cook County (the dreaded “Chicago Machine” that plays a significant role in the nightmares of many a Republican).

Back in the 1940s, Stevenson was a Chicago attorney with political aspirations who ultimately got ahead in local politics because, despite his liberal convictions on many social issues, he was willing to go along with the Chicago Democratic politicos.

Machine pols supported Stevenson when he ran for Illinois governor in 1948 because his liberal talk on the electoral ticket made them look good. His credentials made it appear as though the organization cared about social issues and the welfare of the public, but he wasn’t so obnoxious as to push too hard to achieve liberal goals.

As an example, it’s not like Stevenson was willing to pressure Southern Democrats to end “Jim Crow” practices against African-American people. He took the line of many Northern Democrats (including Franklin D. Roosevelt) in accepting segregation as “the way things are” in the South.

Similar things can be said about Hillary, who talks liberal at times but is trying to downplay the liberal ties of her youth while portraying herself as the candidate of organized labor and rural Democrats who might not care much about the social issues.

Stevenson was a man with a liberal aura who was never able to translate it into electoral votes. He couldn’t win the vote majority in his home state of Illinois in either of his presidential campaigns.

Hillary is the woman who wants to be the first female president. But the liberal elements who would normally eat up such a storyline can’t get enthused about her campaign (largely because many of them are too busy chanting “Oh-bah-mah”).

Stevenson was the original politico for whom the phrase, “you’ll always be the future of the Democratic party,” was used. Hillary will be the latest.

I find it ironic that Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg (Who can believe such a lovely woman can inspire such a vapid Neil Diamond pop song?) says Obama is the candidate who gives her a sense of inspiration in the same way an older generation has told her that her father, John F. Kennedy, inspired them in the early 1960s.

It was Caroline who swayed the Kennedy family (including all-powerful family head Uncle Teddy) to give the Obama campaign their support and a sense of historic aura that ’08 Obama may be the follow-up to ’60 Kennedy.

If Obama beats Clinton in the Democratic primaries, it will put to rest her dreams of being president – unless she becomes some sort of renegade candidate of the future who runs outspoken, token campaigns for the sake of slashing at front-runners.

It was also Kennedy with his inspiring aura that killed off once-and-for-all any dreams Stevenson had of someday becoming president of the United States.

In early 1960, Stevenson hedged his bets and did not actively campaign. However, he eventually changed his mind and for a time considered going to the Democratic convention in Los Angeles with hopes of swaying enough people to give him a third crack at running for president.

By then, the original Mayor Daley had given his support to fellow Irish-American Kennedy. Richard J. Daley let Stevenson know he would not get another presidential run, even though Daley was influential at getting Adlai a second crack at running for president in 1956 (Daley’s predecessors in the Chicago “machine” got Adlai his first nomination in 1952).

Should Obama manage to defeat Clinton, then go on to win the November general election, it would be wise for him to take a lesson from history and find a significant role for Hillary Clinton in his administration. I realize she will not be Obama’s nominee for vice president. But someone of her knowledge, skills and experience should be put to use.

Kennedy had enough sense to look past any previous confrontations between the two, and he made Stevenson his choice for U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

It was in that role that the one-time Illinois governor had his greatest moment in public service, when he stood his ground with the Soviets and Cubans when the former tried in 1962 to install missiles on the Caribbean island nation just 120 miles from Miami and within reach of many U.S. cities.

It was because of Stevenson’s tough talk and determination that the United States gained the moral high ground among the nations of the world in what most of us now remember as the Cuban Missile Crisis – the closest our civilization to date has ever come to nuclear annihilation.

I can’t help but wonder if Hillary is destined for comparable greatness in some role of negotiating peace out of the bungled mess in the Middle East that has been exacerbated by the presidency of George Bush the younger.

There may even be one more parallel, although it will be years before we learn for sure whether there is a similarity.

Stevenson’s son, Adlai E. III, also went into politics, ultimately serving three six-year terms as a United States senator from Illinois, and coming incredibly close in 1982 to following in his father’s footsteps as governor.

Chelsea Clinton is still a bit young (she’s not yet 28) to be running for office. But she has always had a more serious demeanor that most people her age, even those who are related to political people. Can anyone seriously envision Chelsea doing anything comparable to Ron Reagan Jr. when he danced in his underwear on national television as a parody of Tom Cruise in “Risky Business?”

Chelsea in Congress some day could very well complete the political comparisons between Hillary and Adlai.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Here is just one of the 58,500 entries that turn up on Google (http://www.slate.com/id/2178075) when one searches for the phrase, “Barack Obama Adlai Stevenson.”

Obama is not opposed to citing the memory of his home state’s former (1949-52) governor (http://obama.senate.gov/speech/050411-opening_statement_of_senator_b/) when it serves his purposes.

Stevenson’s son, himself a former U.S. senator from Illinois, reminisces (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E7DD143BF934A35751C0A9659C8B63) about his father’s accomplishments.