Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Need quote from Clinton book on how Dems countered draftdodger charge in 1992.

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 » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 01:19 PM
Original message
Need quote from Clinton book on how Dems countered draftdodger charge in 1992.
My book has been borrowed by a neighbor, and I won't have it for the next couple of weeks, and I need the explanation how the Democrats fought back against the 'draftdodger' attacks on him in 1992.

Thankyou.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. He Was Elected, Ma'am
Something effective must ahve been done....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yes - - and who did it? Can you specify? Because I am pretty certain it wasn't Bill who
Edited on Mon May-14-07 01:31 PM by blm
countered for himself, as I recall from the book.

I just need the exact quote. So, thankyou for your interest, but do you not have the book handy?

If you do, it would certainly be a good thing to get the exact facts out there so people don't make inaccurate assumptions about how and when the Democratic party fights back against personal attacks on their nominees, wouldn't you agree?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. The Matter Seems To Me Of Supreme Unimportance, Ma'am
People who were involved with the paper-work at the time made statements, documents from the time were produced and debated. It was not a clear-cut thing, and discussion of it was conducted before an electorate that knew perfectly well anybody who could get out of the draft did so, and saw nothing particularly wrong with a young man who opposed the war seeking to avoid fighting in it. The issue gained no traction outside the committed right, who would oppose any Democrat anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Well - in the post 1997 media climate we live in we need EFFECTIVE counters and if you
could give us the specifics of the EFFECTIVE counter used by Bill Clinton on this issue, then we can all make determinations more accurately, so..... won't you help?

The party can benefit from these exercises - and learn WHY all the documents and defense of Bill Clinton helped HIM against the draftdodging attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. If You Feel The Climate Has Changed Greatly, Ma'am
Edited on Mon May-14-07 02:44 PM by The Magistrate
Why would you suppose measures that were effective in the old environment would be efficacious in the new one? Napoleon was a brilliant artillerist in his day, but detailed study of his employment of that arm would be of little use now. You would seem to be suggesting the usual general's mistake of trying to fight the last war.

The real reason the attack on President Clinton as a 'draft dodger' failed to achieve much is that people did not care about draft evasion during Viet Nam, and were not startled into attention by the claim, since it was pretty much what they expected from someone who had been a war-protester, and he made no pretense to possessing or employing the martial virtues.

The attack on Sen. Kerry gained traction among the people because it was initially astonishing, being quite counter to the general perception of the man. Sen. Kerry's slow response, rooted in his supreme confidence in the truth that he was a decorated veteran of face to face and deadly combat, allowed the thing to establish itself in its early stages. The 'I won't dignify that with a response' strategy is often an effective one against baseless charges, but it is not always the best course, and sometimes it is best to accept the enemy's 'I just want to hear him deny it' gambit, and raise him one exclaimation of fury and threat to cave in his rib-cage for being a lying skunk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Great analysis, Magistrate.. and a forlorn dead -end to any more followups! nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Yes - I agree you raise them...and when he did, how was it handled by the rest
Edited on Mon May-14-07 02:21 PM by blm
of the party and the left media?

Effectively, the way members of the party effectively stood up for Bill Clinton on the draftdodger attacks?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Aug 19 was a key date that it seems even someone as bright as you must have forgotten.

If even you can forget and be inaccurate in your recounting, what hope is there for the average person?

And thus the reason why we ALL need to be ACCURATE more often, right Mag?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. The Speech To The Fire-Fighters, Ma'am, Was Hardly A Water-Shed
And was, as events proved, grossly insufficient to achieve the object of the aside on this topic buried in a much longer oration.

It is the leader who sets the tone for response to charges against him or her, and the responsibility of no one else to set and maintain that tone. Your efforts to portray this as the responsibility of anyone but Sen. Kerry are futile, and the transparency of your attempt to suggest his defeat is really the fault of President and Senator Clinton far too obvious to make any appeal to anyone who does not already share that view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. The media was far more fair and balanced in 1992 then in 2004 (and 2000) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Indeed, Ma'am
It is quite possible Sen. Kerry's strategy for repelling this attack would have worked well a decade earlier. But understanding the ground on which a battle is fought is essential for a leader, and those who do not manage such understanding, and produce strategies and employ tactics apt to the actual present conditions, will fail of success, and have no one to blame but themselves for their defficiencies in the event.

My own reaction at the start of this back in summer of '04 was that Sen. Kerry was doing the right thing, that he was laying groundwork for a devastating counter-attack over the next few days, but it became soon apparent that was not the case, and that a terrible miscalculation had been made.

A patrician manner can be an excellent asset, but it is worth remembering the old noblemen on whose mein it is modelled knew quite well when the time had come to go savage and cut the necessary throats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. But still the Democrats should have been on every network defending him
just like they did Bubba. How come no one is holding them accountable?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Watershed moments are created by ECHOCHAMBERS. No man is an island and SHOULDN'T be when
Edited on Mon May-14-07 03:57 PM by blm
there is a party system.

Seems to me, Mag, that you don't believe integrity-based reciprocation is called for in a campaign.

And ..... do NONE of you have access to Clinton's book where he, himself, describes how his campaign weathered those draftdodger attacks, or is that something no one particularly WANTS to be posted and will not share with us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. The Leader, Ma'am
Is responsible for his fate, and the fate of the body he leads. There is no getting away from it. Sen. Kerry did not, in the event, counter-attack effectively, and that is really all she wrote on the matter....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. See post #18
Edited on Mon May-14-07 04:57 PM by politicasista
Why didn't the Democrats back Kerry up when it mattered? They backed Bubba up 24-7, but they should have been on every network defending the candidate and rebutting the lies. The right leaning pundits won that battle.

This goes beyond Kerry, Gore, and Clinton. This is about Dems defending Dems.

I am asking why isn't anyone blaming the Dems that sat on their tails and did nothing why the candidate was attacked?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. The king is the most important piece on the chessboard but if not protected is helpless.
Winning campaigns for a party requires a team effort. The nominee should expect the full support of the team.

In the past 20 years, the MSM has acted like a WWF referee against baseless attacks against our leaders.

I think we all can agree on what should happen in such a case.

Team players in the party will rally to defend the nominee.

Some are damned with faint praise. Others are damned by silence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. The King In chess, Sir, Is Not The Leader, Only the Symbol
Transposed into strategy, the King stands really for such things as the civilian population, the industrial base, and aghricultural and raw materials base of a combatant side, items that, if under effective threat, the fight cannot be continued without. The real leader in chess is the Queen, which is quite capable of turning the tide on its own.

Political campaigns are contests of morale, in which what communicates to the mass is the fighting spirit of the candidate, and no one can do that for anyone else....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. The real leader in chess is the Queen? When did chess get new rules?
I have never played chess by those rules.

When the king in chess is not protected by the lesser pieces, he is quickly defeated, regardless of his fighting spirit.

Political campaigns are the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Never Wise, Sir, To Push A Metaphor Too Far
Could you please describe how the king 'leads' in chess? Does he transmit orders to subordinate pieces? Does he set policy and strategy? Is it the king who decides the opening style, who determines where the center of gravity for offense or defense is to be established?

What the King is in chess is the object to be attacked, and nothing more. Even pawns have more combat capability, as they can be lost without hazarding all, and may potentially come to gain greatly enhanced power as second queens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. It is never wise, Herr Magistrate, to parse your own language.
You ask me, "Could you please describe how the king 'leads' in chess?"

But I have made no such statement!
I wrote, "The king is the most important piece on the chessboard."

You responded, "The King In chess, Sir, Is Not The Leader, Only the Symbol...The real leader in chess is the Queen, which is quite capable of turning the tide on its own."

Perhaps you can answer your own question and tell us how the queen leads and turns the tide, etc., etc.?
I shall wait for you to regale me with your explanations to your own questions.

"What the King is in chess is the object to be attacked, and nothing more."
It is obvious that you are not a student of the game, or you would know his majesty is mighty warrior in his own right! You would know the effect of placing the kings in opposition on the board in the end game. Where one king must yield ground to the other, and it is in this manner that the opposing king is removed from the queening square, or boxed in a corner to be checkmated.

But his majesty never emerges in the endgame if not protected by the lesser pieces. For a cardinal rule of chess is that the king must be protected when attacked. The knights, bishops, and rooks are all expendable and must interpose to block the check, and indeed sacrifice themselves for the king if required. For any other move would be illegal!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Your First Reply, Sir
Keyed off from my comments that a leader was responsible for the fate of himself and the force he led by comparing the role of a leader in a political campaign to that of the king in chess.

The rest of this is pointless tangle and squid's ink as you try and back away from the inaptness of taking of the object of attack for something analagous to a leader in battle, or in a political campaign.

The actual item of focus in this, and the real subject under discussion here, is whether alibis are to be constructed for the failures of Sen. Kerry in his Presidential campaign, at the expense of leading Democrats in the race today, or whether he is to be held responsible for his own actions or inactions, and their consequences. My initial impulse was to begin this paragraph with 'The only item of importance in this...', but that would have been quite wrong, because the matter is of titanic un-importance, and of no consequence whatever. The only people pushing it are people hoping Sen. Kerry will run for President now, and achieve election in '08, but he is not running now, will not run, and will never be President, any more than Sen. Hart will be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well, the DEMOCRATS fought back
All of them, particularly the vets, from Bob Kerrey to John Kerry to Tom Harkin. That would be the key difference between 1992 and 2004, don't you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. Clinton himself appeared on ABC's Nightline in Feb of '92 to refute the claim
Edited on Mon May-14-07 01:44 PM by wyldwolf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Yes - and the attacks continued afterwards - then what was his effective counter
throughout the general election?

What does he say in his book?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I've heard accounts of people saying that appearance convinced them ...
..Clinton was no draft dodger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. What does Clinton say in his book about that - an exact quote would be helpful.
Edited on Mon May-14-07 02:09 PM by blm
As my book is loaned out at the moment.

And nothing against your recall, wyldwolf, but that draftdoger attack on Clinton lasted well beyond the primary Nightline appearance and was increased many fold by the GOP during the general election.

And its how the issue was fought during the general election that I am interested in. After all, the swifts were knocked down when they first came out in April2004, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoPasaran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. If it's keeping you up at nights
Why not drop by your library?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Because people here usually help each other and most have the book. Surprised you don't
know this by heart since you're such a devoted follower of the Clintons and can find pride in every move they make.

So.... how WAS this handled during the general election when the GOPs were pressing the issue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoPasaran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. I am by no means a "devoted follower" of the Clintons
Nor do I share your rabid hatred of them.

And I don't have the book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. My apologies - I mixed up posters. And my concern for
open government does not translate into rabid hatred of the Clintons.

There is a huge difference. You will never see ad hominem attacks on them or RW attacks reified by me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. ah, so close
...rabid hatred of the Clintons


Finally, some introspection and insight.


You will never see ad hominem attacks on them or RW attacks reified by me.


Gone in the next sentence.

bookmarked


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. The hundreds of namecalling attacks and reification of RW talking points by
Edited on Mon May-14-07 04:12 PM by blm
others here, and yet you all focus on little me - a nobody - and articles from Brinkley, Parry, Greider, TPM, Palast..............sheesh...you would think there is a concerted effort to try and stop those reputable sources from being used here at DU.....or something.

So - I should assume you don't have the exact quote from Clinton' s book, either?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. silly little reinder games
Stop playing games and post your quote so you can get on with your bitter blaming.

"Go and boil your bottoms, you sons of silly persons!" ... Monty Python

Feeling like a victim?

If you can't even read DU (paraphrased) without acting like you're somehow a victim, then do yourself a favor and don't walk outside. The world beyond your computer is far, far too harsh for you.

Here's a Kiwi bird.



That's right, a Kiwi bird. Do something about it.

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/answerman/2007-05-04
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Thankyou for AGAIN ignoring the request for a quote while you berate your target
as usual.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. But Your Request For Some Quote, Ma'am
Is simply the opening end of a wedge to once again trot out the legend of those horrible Clintons stabbing that nice Mr. Kerry in the back so Republicans would win in '04. Every regular disputant in this forum knows that is what is going here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElizabethDC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Haha, thanks Magistrate
I wasn't going to say anything . . . but you hit the nail on the head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #29
35. It is to point out that those who believe that Kerry was supposed to be a one man army are mistaken
Edited on Mon May-14-07 06:45 PM by blm
as it has never been the case for ANY of our nominees, and that INCLUDES Clinton who had other Dems doing the defending throughout the campaign and throughout his terms.

And I am quite certain that is not beyond your ken, Mag.

If those same people who post those complaints would take the TIME to see what Clinton, himself, has reported about his defense then, maybe they WOULDN'T waste time attacking Kerry with their false assumptions.

If I had my book available to me, I would post the quote myself. Not that quotes or links would ever deter those who wish to smear good Democrats FALSELY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. The Line You Hope To Open Up, Ma'am
Is not going to open up for you here no matter from which angle or by what sleights you try and approach it.

Sen. Kerry failed in his 2004 campaign, and Sen. Kerry is responsible for that failure. That is one of the burdens of leadership, the responsibility for the outcome of the endeavor you are leader of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. He isn't a "failed" senator
I am glad we still have some good Dems on our side. And Kerry is one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-15-07 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. He Is An Excellent Senator, Ma'am
A good man, and a damned good Democrat. He failed, however, as a Presidential candidate, decisively, and is never going to hold that office, however well he might have performed in it.
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 Tue Sep 16th 2014, 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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