The Political Chase

Wolfson: Hillary Innocent — Obama Victimized Clinton and Is Responsible for Inflaming Assassination Remarks

(Update I and Update II below)

As usual, Sen. Clinton did nothing wrong when she made her remarks about the assassination of Robert Kennedy last week – it’s all Barack Obama’s and the media’s fault. That’s what Hillary campaign Communications Director Howard Wolfson said on CBS’s "Face the Nation" this morning.

Moreover, according to Bob Schieffer, moderator of "Face the Nation," Terry McAuliffe said on "Fox News Sunday" today that Obama "inflamed the situation" and does not deserve an apology nor would he receive one. Wolfson firmly agreed with McAuliffe’s purported remarks.

I have not yet found a transcript or video of McAuliffe’s remarks on Fox, but Bob Schieffer confirmed McAuliffe’s remarks as well as Wolfson.

Here’s a transcript of Schieffer interviewing Wolfson. The emphases are supplied to reflect Schieffer’s emphasis in tone. He was obviously shocked and implied disbelief at some of Wolfson’s remarks.

Video to follow soon.

Update I 6:23 PM ET:  Here’s the video. Also, I have made minor corrections in the post and the transcript (including addition of Clinton’s remarks in the video clip), and moved the transcript to after the jump.

Update II 7:10 PM ET: More minor corrections to the transcript.

More. . .

Transcript:

SCHIEFFER: I think we need to start with this controversy over what Hilary Clinton said about bringing up Robert Kennedy’s assassination as one of the reasons that’s she’s going to stay in the race. So, let’s just start by playing an excerpt of what it was she did say.

VIDEO CLIP:  [Hillary Clinton in interview with Argus Leader editorial board: "You know my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary -- uh, somewhere in the middle of June. Right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."]

SCHIEFFER: What did she mean?

WOLFSON: Well, I appreciate you playing the entire remarks, because what she clearly said, and what she clearly meant, uh, was that in previous elections cycles — and first she referenced her husband’s in 1992, and then 1968 — we’ve had campaigns that have gone into June, and actually beyond. And so her reference to Sen. Kennedy was a historical reference. The people in the room in South Dakota where she said this, at the newspaper, found nothing peculiar about it. She has said this before. There was no commentary or discussion about it when she had said it before. And I think, unfortunately, her remarks have been blown out of proportion. Uh, she very quickly made clear what she meant. If she caused anyone discomfort or pain — because it is obviously a very sensitive topic — she apologized. Uh, but, she was talking about it a historical context.

SCHIEFFER: I take your point, but she sort of apologized. She said if I have offended anyone…she didn’t just say, you know, I made a mistake here. And today, Mr. Wolfson, in the New York Daily News, she offers yet another explanation for this. Let me just read you, uh, a couple of the quotes from that. She says, uh:

SHIEFFER QUOTES GRAPHIC: “[Almost immediately,] some took my comments entirely out of context and interpreted them to mean something completely different — and completely unthinkable.”

SCHIEFFER: Well, ok…

WOLFSON: That’s not a different explanation. That’s a fact.

SCHIEFFER: But, that’s sort of saying it’s somebody else’s fault. And then she says, I realize, uh…let’s see, I’ve got it here. She says:

SHIEFFER QUOTES GRAPHIC: “[But] I was deeply dismayed and disturbed that my comment would be construed in a way that flies in the face of of everything I stand for — and everything I am fighting for [in] this election.”

SCHIEFFER: That sounds like somebody who’s suggesting that maybe she didn’t do anything wrong. That it was the fault of others.

WOLFSON: She understood that this topic is a very difficult one for our nation — certainly for the Kennedy family. And she said that. On the other hand, to, uh, claim that she was making any kind of other reference, in her comment, is, uh, wrong and a misreading of what she said. And I think some in the news media did over hype this. And I thinks that unfortunate.

She has said these comments before. Nobody remarked upon them. She said them on that day. Nobody in the room — a group of journalist — remarked upon them. Bobby Kennedy himself, Bobby Kennedy Jr., has said there was nothing wrong with what she said. So, let’s get to the facts of what she was saying rather than what some in the media have interpreted that she was saying.

SCHIEFFER: Well, over on Fox this morning, Terry McAuliffe, who I guess is her chief fund raiser and one of her main allies said, “She hasn’t apologized to Obama nor should she.”

WOLFSON: Well, her remarks were not about Sen. Obama. They had nothing to do with Sen. Obama, and so, you know, there would be no reason for her to apologize to Sen. Obama. The remarks were not about him.

SCHIEFFER: Don’t you see how he might have taken offense to this though?

WOLFSON: You know, if I think there were a misunderstanding, uh, let’s get beyond the misunderstanding. David Axelrod, uh, from the Obama campaign, was on one of the other shows this morning. . .

SCHIEFFER: On ABC. . .

WOLFSON: Said that this matter, is…we’re going to put this matter behind us. I think that’s the right thing to do. Let’s put this in some context. Both candidates now have two goals. They’re trying to win the nomination and they’re trying to unify the party at the conclusion of this process. Let’s make sure that everything we do is geared towards those twin goals: of winning and unifying. That’s what Sen. Clinton is trying to do.

SCHIEFFER: Well, Mr. Axelrod said that — while he was saying that, Terry McAuliffe was accusing Sen. Obama of inflaming the situation, and those were his words, not mine. “By waiting for three days to say he just thought she misspoke.” I mean, how could he be accused of inflaming the situation?

WOLFSON: Well, the Obama campaign did put out a statement almost immediately condemning the remarks. I think that those, that statement from Sen. Obama’s campaign was unfortunate. It’s not consistent with what we’ve seen today from David Axelrod, who was speaking for the campaign Sunday morning.

SCHIEFFER: Well. . .

WOLFSON: I’m going to…I’m going to take Senator. . . I’m going to take David Axelrod’s comments at face value. He’s a friend of mine. He said that we’re going to put this matter behind us. And I think for the Democratic Party, for the unity that we are all looking towards after we have a nominee — we still believe that nominee will be Sen. Clinton — we need to do that. We need to keep the twin goals in mind of victory and unity.

SCHIEFFER: Well, what are you going to take Terry McAuliffe’s words as? He’s a member of your campaign. . .

WOLFSON: Of course, uh. . .

SCHIEFFER: Do you think perhaps he should have kind of held his fire?

WOLFSON: No! Absolutely not! I don’t.

I think what the Obama campaign did on Friday was unfortunate. I think it was unfortunate to attack Sen. Clinton’s remarks without knowing fully what she had said.

Uh, that’s not what Sen. Obama’s campaign is doing today. We have a different set of remarks from David Axelrod this morning on Sunday, than we saw from the Obama campaign on Friday. I think that’s where we are today. That’s a good place to be. I think both campaigns are going to move forward with the twin goals of victory and unity in mind.

But, there’s no question that it was unfortunate, and unnecessary, uh, and in my opinion, inflammatory for the Obama campaign to attack Sen. Clinton on Friday for these remarks, without obviously knowing the full facts or context.

SCHIEFFER: But you will not in any way criticize Terry McAuliffe for what he said this morning?

WOLFSON: I think Terry McAuliffe was absolutely right.

SCHIEFFER: Really?

WOLFSON: Absolutely.

SCHIEFFER: You think he was absolutely right?

WOLFSON: Yes.

SCHIEFFER: (Cynical chuckle) Alright. Well, I’ve think we’ve probably gone as far as. . .

WOLFSON: Humph.

SCHIEFFER: As you’re gonna go this morning on this, so let’s talk about something else.