The all-purpose polite political excuse for skipping a meeting or event.
It’s usually done because a political figure doesn’t want to share the spotlight with someone or something that is seen as an unwanted risk. When former President Bill Clinton returned to Little Rock in September 2013 to talk up the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”), a spokesman for Arkansas Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor cited a scheduling conflict. But The New York Times quoted an anonymous source with knowledge of Pryor’s plans as saying the senator didn’t want to be so closely associated with the then-highly unpopular law.
Earlier that year, Walmart’s executives brought out the excuse to decline an invitation to meet with Vice President Joe Biden to discuss ways to reduce gun violence – only to reverse themselves and attend the meeting. But they sat down not with the vice president but with Attorney General Eric Holder, prompting CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien to opine: “Scheduling conflicts, we know, is a euphemism for ‘This is not important.’ The vice president should have made time. Walmart is the leader in terms of retailers.”
In this highly contentious election season, President Obama’s plunge in the polls appears to have resurrected the phrase to some extent. In February, Democratic North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan – who’s in a fierce re-election battle that could determine control of the Senate -- used it as an explanation for why she missed an Obama event in her state.
And when Obama traveled to Colorado earlier this month, several of the state’s leading members of his party let it be known they had prior commitments. That led the state Republican Party to put out a gloating news release: “Embattled Colorado Democrats Flee From Obama.”