Letters to the Editor

• @GeorgeM2

  [Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  You make some good points. However "She was asked the reason why she should stay in the race. She said one of the reasons was that RFK was assassinated" is not a fair characterization of what she actually said -- though you wouldn't know that by hearing all the media hub-bub.

  She didn't say or even imply that "RFK was assassinated" was a reason to stay in the race. It's a stretch to say that her using those words is shorthand for "the race could go on if someone is assassinated." One, she's talking about well-known history, not the present, coming up close on a major anniversary, no less. More importantly, she's not saying the assassination is what makes the race long, but that the race was STILL going on in June when RFK was assassinated (which happened in June, and last I checked, it's still May).

  Her point (that she made repeatedly in that interview and repeatedly elsewhere) is that she's staying in the race because the nomination isn't decided and that this year, even though the race has been closer than ever, for some reason, everyone wants her to get out before June. In the specific quote in question, she cites two examples where the race was obviously still going strong in June, her husband's race in '92 and the infamous '68 race. Yes, it's unfortunate that she uses RFK's assassination as the immediate mnemonic for that year. But her point is valid and "she said what she said" is lost in the hysteria about the one reference that, though entirely accurate, is cause for people to be upset.

  Personally, I think a lot of people WANT to be upset. And, yes, given the political traumas visited on us '68, I'm sure some people are genuinely upset. But what's amazing is that her central point that it's "curious" why there's such a drumbeat for her to get out of the race is actually underlined by the visceral and immediate need for many to pile on and push her out. (And I'm not saying you were, btw.)

  Another point that people have made is that she "lied" about her husband's race still going on in 1992. I think that's an unfair characterization at best. Yes, it's true that Bill Clinton was the very likely nominee by June of 1992 -- and it's fair for people to point that out. But the point that she made (again, repeatedly) is that people want her to drop out now and she was asked why she's still in it.

  In 92, Jerry Brown was still in the race in June. And yes, there were probably lots of people wanting him to get out then as well. But it was hardly the clamor that there is now for Hillary to get out. You can disagree with her reasoning but she made a completely fair comparison between '92 and '08, albeit in short hand. For those not in the know, Jerry Brown was the ex-governor of California and the California primary was in June. So he was, in some ways, a threat in that he could wound the likely nominee by doing well in California and causing a lot of money to be spent in the primary. Bill Clinton had every reason for wanting Jerry Brown out... and Jerry Brown had every reason, and every right, to want to stay in. Is it exactly parallel? No but that doesn't mean it's not a legitimate point for her to make.

  Much of politics is the art of persuasion. Too many of us seem to get upset when a politician fails to persuade us. We decide that they're lying when, in fact, they are just using what they legitimately have in their arsenals.

  Enough said.

  Permalink Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:24 PM