Hillary's Fuzzy Memory About 1992

[Douglas Carpenter]

link: http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=desperado&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3adesperadoPost%3ab28942cf-cb33-4ef7-8a40-d41fa8d1c8cb

"Hillary's Fuzzy Memory About 1992

Posted 5/25/2008 7:06 AM CDT

In the days since Hillary Clinton’s monumental gaffe in South Dakota in which she referenced the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, many have defended her statement, saying she was merely citing historical perspective as a reason to stay in the race. Since in the same remarks she made a point of Bill’s 1992 run for the presidency as an example of a contest that was not decided until June, I thought it might be a good idea to look back at the 1992 Democratic Primary and see what actually happened.

As usual with the Clintons, you have to parse every word to get to the meaning of what they say. Hillary said that Bill didn’t win the nomination until the June primary in California. Technically that’s true, but it all depends on what the definition of "win" is.

In 1992, there were 3 major contenders for the nomination–Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas, former Senator from Massachusetts, and Jerry Brown, former Governor of California. Tsongas won in New Hampshire with Clinton finishing second. Bill Clinton won nearly all the Super Tuesday primaries, making him the front-runner for the nomination. Jerry Brown then upset Clinton in Connecticut and Colorado.

On March 17, Tsongas dropped out after finishing a distant third behind Clinton and Brown in Michigan. On April 7, Brown lost to Clinton in Wisconsin and New York and was never a serious contender after that. Clinton defeated Brown in California in June to clinch the nomination, which by that time was a foregone conclusion.

To get a further perspective on the race that was really a no-contest after Super Tuesday, the final delegate count was Clinton 3372, Jerry Brown 596, Paul Tsongas 289. Clinton won primaries in 39 states compared to 6 for Tsongas and 3 for Brown. Hardly the nail-biter that Hillary would have us believe. But much like the sniper fire incident in Bosnia, Hillary’s memory gets a little fuzzy when it comes to historical facts.

If she wanted to cite a primary race that was decided late she could have used 1976, when Carter didn’t clinch the nomination until after he won Ohio on June 8, or 1984 when Mondale’s victory in New Jersey on June 5 gave him the victory in his primary battle with Gary Hart. Both of these are more recent examples than Bobby Kennedy in 1968.

What does all this mean? It tells me that Hillary Clinton is nearly as bad a student of history as she is a presidential candidate. "


link: http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=desperado&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3adesperadoPost%3ab28942cf-cb33-4ef7-8a40-d41fa8d1c8cb

[rucky]

1. I didn't remember that one being too close.

I was a volunteer for the Brown campagin, and I remember it being pretty much a wash by the time it reached Texas. Then I started questioning my own recollection. Should've known.

[Douglas Carpenter]

3. yes, that was my memory too. Technically speaking he might not have

gained a majority of total delegates by June 1992. But that was completely irrelevant to the point.

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. Her 1968 Analogy was also false and disingenuous

Lost in the uproar over Sen. Hillary Clinton's invoking of the assassination of Robert Kennedy when explaining why her staying in the race won't hurt party unity is an actual examination of her comparison of the 2008 Democratic primary season to the one from 1968.

Clinton yesterday before the Argus Leader editorial board also invoked her husband's race in 1992. We've already twice now looked at how her reference to how her husband was still campaigning in June 1992 is a disingenuous claim.

All serious competition to Bill Clinton had dropped out in March 1992, and party leaders began rallying around him in April.

Yes, he literally did not secure the nomination until June 1992, but by then it was a foregone conclusion that he would be the nominee. Serious competitors -- Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, then-Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., the late Sen. Paul Tsongas, D-Mass -- had done the math and dropped out.

Moreover, the timeline doesn't square because the first real contest in 1992 was the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 18. (No one competed in Iowa because Harkin was so favored.) This year's contests began on Jan. 3, 2008. Meaning this race started earlier than ever. Bill Clinton competing in June then is more like her competing in April today.

And that makes the 1968 analogy all the more inapt. Because the first contest that year, the New Hampshire primary, was on March 12, 1968.

Meaning, the fact that it was still going on in June then would be like this year's race still going on in March.

But that doesn't even really begin to explain how the 1968 comparison is ludicrous.

*****

Back then, only 13 states even held primaries -- the party bosses in most states controlled the delegates.

That's why it was possible for the 1968 Democratic presidential nominee -- then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey -- to have secured the nomination after having won exactly ZERO primaries.

To recap, then-President Lyndon Johnson won the New Hampshire primary in 1968 with 49 percent of the vote, with then-Sen. Eugene McCarthy, D-Minn, having secured a strong second place finish with 42 percent of the vote.

Then-Sen. Robert Kennedy, D-N.Y., announced his candidacy on March 16. On March 31, Johnson gave his famous address to the nation, announcing, "I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president."

But delegates allocated by primary victory were not as important back then.

McCarthy won Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Kennedy won Indiana, Nebraska and South Dakota, and was assassinated on June 5, right after winning the California contest over McCarthy, 46 percent to 42 percent.

Meanwhile, Vice President Humphrey was focused on winning the delegates in states where they were in the pocket of party bosses (which was most of them). Though McCarthy won the Pennsylvania primary, for instance with 72 percent, the man who ran the Democratic Party at the time, Mayor James Tate of Philadelphia, made sure Humphrey – who was not even on the ballot -- got most of the delegates.>>>>snip

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/the-fal...

[rock]

4. Technically true?

But not that other kind of true?

[samsingh]

5. she'll have to be dragged out kicking and screaming

[slinkerwink]

6. thanks for this post