Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Take a look at remarks made about Kerry at the Aspen Ideas Festival in 2005. What a contrast.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 02:08 PM
Original message
Take a look at remarks made about Kerry at the Aspen Ideas Festival in 2005. What a contrast.
Edited on Mon Jun-02-08 02:10 PM by beachmom
Bill Clinton

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20050709/NEWS/107090025

Dissecting John Kerry's loss to President Bush last year, Clinton blamed the Democratic candidate's soft stand on security and the party's inability to reach out to rural, white America.

According to Clinton, in the final days of campaigning on Kerry's behalf, it was clear even Kerry's supporters weren't clear on the candidate's position on national security.

"I think, in the end, he lost in a close race because of the security issue," he said.

But beyond that, the Democratic Party wasn't able to reach out to much of rural America even though it increased voter registration and participation among groups that had previously shied from the polls.

Kerry won Cleveland by a huge margin but lost Ohio, Clinton noted.

"My advice is, get on a bus and go to rural Ohio.

"You can't win an election in this country unless you talk to people who you think aren't for you," Clinton said. "A person who wants to be president has to be at home with issues and people when he knows he's on the losing side."

...

On the inevitable issue - the war in Iraq - Clinton advocated U.S. involvement for as long as it takes to help the fledging government there establish itself and until Iraqis can defend their country. Iraqis are dying in big numbers, but they turned out to vote in bigger numbers than Americans do, he noted.

"We are where we are," he said. "I wouldn't give it up yet. I think we ought to stick in there and make it work."



http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/columns/imperialcity/12266/index1.html

The great triangulator’s point was that Democrats can’t win the presidency if they don’t campaign earnestly among churchgoing Christians—he noted that he got 75 percent more Evangelical votes in 1996 than John Kerry did in 2004. He suggested that Roe v. Wade was the unfortunate beginning of the end of civility between left and right. He said the Democrats are wrong to deny that malpractice suits don’t drive up medical costs. And about the current war he said, “This is not Vietnam. I wouldn’t set a deadline . I agree with the president.” If anyone but him had said the same thing about Iraq, there would have been boos and hisses, as there had been the night Evan Thomas said he thought the administration had sincerely believed Saddam had WMD stockpiles.


Barack Obama

http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.1096989/k.C19/Senator_Barack_Obama_and_Walter_Isaacson.htm

John Kerry actually had — although not very many people paid attention to it — a smart idea with respect to costs that would have an impact on access, and that was taking out the issue of catastrophic care, dealing with that as part of the Medicare system, and allowing employers to offer a premium, a plan that provides basic prevention and care, but may not deal with catastrophic care, which is often the most expensive, the government picking up some of the tab on that. That would allow us to expand because the premiums would be lower, we’d potentially get more workers who currently don’t have health insurance at all having some health insurance.


If you notice the difference between the two it is stunning. Bill Clinton lends credence to every Karl Rove talking point about the Democrats, while Obama talks about how good the ideas of the 2004 candidate were. You can hear, also, how he looked at Kerry's ideas and thought they were really good, while bemoaning that not enough people get to hear about them. This was 2005, when Obama was not planning to run for POTUS, so I think there is less political calculation in his remarks than Bill Clinton's.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. I am posting this in terms of some disturbing things I have read the last 2 days:
Edited on Mon Jun-02-08 02:27 PM by beachmom
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/how_hillary_lives_with_herself.php

James Fallows' theory on the Clintons now, shared by many others:

The Clinton team doesn't worry about hurting Obama's prospects of winning in the fall, because they assess those prospects at zero. Always have. Obama might not win if he leads a bitterly divided party, but (in this view) he was never going to win. Not a chance. He would be smashed like an armadillo in the road* by the Republican campaign machine, and he would be just about as ready as the armadillo for what was coming.

When Clinton still had a plausible shot at the nomination, this assumption removed all guilt from beating up on Obama. As in: "I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." By whittling Obama down, the Clintons were saving the party from a suicidal mistake.

And now that Hillary Clinton no longer has a plausible chance, she (and Harold Ickes etc) don't need to wake up in the middle of the night and worry: Oh no! Maybe we're paving the way for George Bush's third term! They are sure that Obama's nomination means exactly that, no matter what they do. So by definition they can't be making things worse. It is like sticking pins into a corpse -- you're not really hurting it any more. And if these efforts in fact make Obama's victory less likely -- well, then, reality will conform to their preexisting view.


Combine that with this from a Vanity Fair expose on Bill Clinton's questionable associates:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807?currentPage=1

Clinton had no use for the string of pure and noble losers that had come to define the Democratic Party’s presidential prospects for so long. He wanted to win, and he knew how.


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put all of these quotes together and know that the Clintons only have had disdain for Kerry over the years. Bill hates Boy Scouts almost as much as he hates losing. It's also clear that he puts Obama in the "boy scout" category. If we dissect the Kerry haters over the years, they have fallen under two rough categories: lefty types who are mad at Kerry for voting for the IWR or compromising in ways they disapprove. The other group who are mad at Kerry are really just mad because he lost. The Clintonistas are firmly in this second group, but I think they never thought Kerry would win, and well, with their backstabbing, made sure that reality "conformed to their preexisting view". We are seeing in 2008 a repeat of 2004, except this time it is in full daylight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luftmensch067 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. This is really valuable to me
This weekend a friend, a strong Obama supporter (traveled to RI and PA to campaign!) told me that he thinks it essential always to try to understand the POV of someone you oppose. I agree with his point and tried really hard to understand where the Clintons, especially Hillary, might be coming from. WHY does she feel this entitlement, how can she threaten the presumptive nominee's chances, how, in the midst of math that clearly proves the contrary, can she insist that she is the more viable candidate? I still think she and her husband and their ilk are scorched earth psychotics (only my opinion!) and I will never forgive them for their part in not supporting JK in 2004 or for their behavior in this election, but at least this Fallows writeup gives me a glimpse of how they may justify it to themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-02-08 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. And the evidence keeps mounting of their disdain for what we call good Democrats:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Clinton_aides_rallying_donors_floating_convention_fight_August_and_no_earlier.html

A Clinton donor tells me that on a conference call today with major fundraisers this afternoon, Harold Ickes told them Clinton isn't planning to drop out. He pressed donors to stay unified, and reviewed tactical options, including challenging the Michigan delegation.


Then Ben of Politico includes a letter by the Illinois Finance Committee for Clinton. A major fundraising aide named Rafi Jafri is sending it everywhere. Downright chilling.

We, the Illinois Finance Committee, want to show our full commitment to and support for Senator Hillary Clinton, in the fight for her rightful appointment as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee at the convention this August.

We believe she is, by far, the best candidate of the three, and the candidate most able to turn the ailing economy around, solve the housing crisis, end the war in Iraq and defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan, bring universal healthcare to our citizens, and finally make our country energy independent.

We also know she is the Democratic candidate best able to beat John McCain in the fall. One thing we are certain of is that the Republicans are good at winning elections. We, as Democrats, allowed them to win the last two contests, and we cannot afford to let that happen again.

Senator Clinton is ahead in the popular vote, and neither candidate can secure the nomination with pledged delegates alone. The automatic delegates can change their mind up until their vote at the convention, and that is why this nominating process must be resolved in August, and no earlier.

We Democrats will be united after our nomination process is completed, but only if that process is completed justly and in fair representation of the opinions of the members of our party. We believe nominating Hillary Clinton is the only way our party can guarantee victory in November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 03:37 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC