A writing exercise: help me write out what Hillary Clinton MEANT to say.

[Bicoastal]

Late last night, I decided that Clinton merely misspoke. She was going into political historian mode, talking about different Democratic nominations that continued well into the summer--and I THINK the point she was trying to make was that BEFORE the assassination, the nomination was far from sewn up. Of course, merely mentioning the assassination was a disaster, because as a nation, we mainly remember the chaos that followed RFK's death, not the fact that there was plenty of disorder before it happened.

It's an unique situation--I think I understand EXACTLY what she meant, but I too am finding it difficult to put it into words without sounding as morbid and callous as she evidently did to the rest of the nation. As a writer, I feel that the big mistake she made was referring to herself and her husband, right before speaking about RFK. It's difficult to tiptoe around an election-changing assassination without inserting yourself into the sidelines of history.

Here's my go at it. If she had had the benefit of a scriptwriter in her ear, maybe it would have gone something like this:

(NOTE: I'm ignoring historical accuracy here and just concentrating on a revised version of the candidate's own point.)

"People find it so unusual that this race would continue into the summer. If you're having trouble imagining a primary extending into June, remember that in 1992, Bill Clinton cinched the nomination in that month. Going back a few turbulent years ago, in June of 1968, the nomination was really anyone's to win. Long before Robert F. Kennedy was cruelly and tragically killed during that same month, Democratic leaders knew that the race would continue for some time into the future. Why we're so reluctant to have an extended primary today, in a similar era of war and division, is anyone's guess."

That's my best shot at it--don't specifically bring up the assassination, don't talk about the aftermath, and ESPECIALLY don't talk about yourself. Speak about it all as history, and for God's sakes STOP before you get to the California Primary. That's the way she should have talked about this delicate situation--although most likely, she shouldn't have brought it up at all.

[southerncrone]

1. That was HER job to do BEFORE she said anything of the sort!

Bringing up a subject as dicey as that REQUIRES serious thought & planning about how to "delicately" phrase it, so as not to come across as callous & indifferent to a generation (or 2) of people who still suffer when reflecting on those times.

She nailed her coffin shut & exposed her hand IMHO.

[anigbrowl]

2. That's an honest assessment.

At bottom it's not about 'why June'. The question is 'why keep pushing when everyone agrees you've lost'. Of course she doesn't want to acknowledge that she's far behind and Obama is close to the finish line. But nor did she want to seem aggressive by threatening a floor fight at the convention.

So the political safe middle ground was to say she was just running to complete the course - and that is a valid point. After all, if you're running in a marathon, you don't quit and leave as soon as you hear that someone else has crossed the finish line while you're still a mile away from it.

I don't have a problem with her continuing to run as such. I had hoped that once Obama passed the majority of pledged delegates she'd alter her approach a bit - something like 'Senator Obama and I have the same goals but different ideas about how to achieve them, so I want voters to weigh in on what they think is the best course for a Democratic administration in 2009.' I've been disappointed that she's instead comparing the Florida and Michigan situations with the struggle for equal rights and elections in Zimbabwe, but that's a whole other can of worms.

Getting back to the main point, if her intention was just to argue that having a race drag on until June has many historical precedents, You could have pointed to 1976, 1980, 1984, or 1988. In all these races the winner became clear earlier than in this one, but challenger candidates stayed in to argue issues or represent constituencies they felt were important. Brining up 1968 as an example seems almost wilfully perverse.

My guess about why she chose this as an example is not that she wanted to threaten, intimidate or even point to a dark cloud haning over Obama (although anyone with half a brain could have told her that it would be interpreted exactly this way), but to try to reclaim a little bit of the 'spirit of 68' for herself. In what follows, I'm going to take the bird's-eye view of American political culture so the forest doesn't get hidden by the trees.

Obama has quite deliberately wrapped himself in the idealism of the 60s. Because he was a boy in that decade, he was literally too young to have been involved in the culture wars - he didn't go on protests, have a draft card to burn, take up LSD as a hobby or any of that. But he did see a lot of inspiring Americans, both black and white, who moved millions with their words but were then taken down by gunfire. So Obama's political narrative has been structured around reviving the idealism and aspirations of the 60s, rather than the confrontational and rebellious aspects of it.

This must be intolerable to Hillary Clinton. Not only is she older, but a young adult responds to world-shaking events in a very different manner from someone who is a child. Bill and Hillary personified lefty boomers made good. Bill skipped the draft, but in order to study rather than to go bomb people, Hillary's early career included helping to unseat Nixon and so on - a great political narrative for people of their generation and the generation that came after.

Gore ran in Clinton's shadow in 2000 and had not found his own voice compared to today. Kerry ran on his record of service, aiming to bridge the post-60s cultural divide; Bush cleverly made the campaign superficially about 'right now' while letting his saboteurs wreck Kerry's military service record and make Kerry look like a war tourist instead of a brave soldier.

So now Hillary runs with a two-pronged argument: she'll bring back the good times of the 90s, and she's a New Woman who can epitomize the freedom that the 60s brought, and which has been a staple of the Democratic political style for so long. How can she lose? John Edwards has that 'son of a mill worker' thing going on, which would probably have worked great in the 1950s but he doesn't have the sharp political instincts necessary for this post modern world. Other competitors range from Dennis Kucinich, a man who looks like a marijuana advert, to Bill Richardson who looks like a cuddly toy, to a variety of Boring White Guys with white hair who look like your grandparents' political furniture - solid, worthy, but not exciting.

And then there's Obama. He's poopular with those younger voters, ad he sure talks a good speech, but he's really a freshman, isn't he? So idealistic and charming, and once he's got a bit of gray in his temples he'll have that Morgan Freeman thing going on. Yes, definitely someone we want on board. But...wait...why does he keep making these big speeches like he's the captain of the ship? Who does he think he is, Columbus sailing off to discover America?

We haven't even groomed him properly yet, and here he is giving us - US! - a history lesson! Didn't he read 'Living History'?! Doesn't he know that Hillary Clinton is the Historic Candidate? I'll give you a history lesson!