Does anyone remember how Bill Clinton became the "comeback kid" and defeated 1992 Democratic primary front-runner Paul Tsongas, a tough-nut US Senator from Massachusetts, thus clearing a path to a Clinton nomination?
Well it goes like this:
When asked why he didn't have a tax cut plan like the other candidates, Tsongas famously responded "I'm not Santa Claus." During the early weeks of 1992, things seemed to be going Tsongas' way when one of the potential major candidates, Bill Clinton, stumbled over issues involving marital infidelity and avoidance of the military draft during Vietnam. While Clinton was hurt by these issues, the damage seemed to bottom out several weeks before the New Hampshire primary.
While Tsongas was the actual winner in terms of votes received and delegates won, Clinton advisor James Carville tagged Clinton with the label "the Comeback Kid", and claimed that Clinton's campaign was back on track. While ostensibly the front-runner, Tsongas was already considered by many to be behind Clinton after just one primary.
Following the New Hampshire primary, Tsongas was unable to match Clinton's fundraising. Clinton later went to win most of the Super Tuesday primaries. Tsongas did go on to win delegate contests in Delaware, Maryland, Arizona, Washington, Utah, and Massachusetts, but his campaign never recovered from Clinton's comeback; Clinton won the primaries of most of the more populous and delegate-rich states.
On the day Tsongas bowed out - which came as a total surprise - I and a few others in the campaign were going to send a fax to his special personal fax number telling him how screwed up his campaign had become (he was out campaigning, rather than in the office, so he wouldn't have known). We had 18-year-olds wandering around planning foreign policy for Tsongas' second term, but the calls of potential contributers were not being answered.
and I second what you just said. The national press shop was in over its head, and Dennis Kaman, a wonderful guy who would have made a fine WH Chief of Staff, wasn't in the same league as Carville or Wilhelm when it came to political strategy and tactics.
12. Really? How many Dem presidents are HANDED 5 1/2 years of investigative work
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 04:39 PM by blm
that proves the previous administrations were involved with illegal operations that included the funding of global terrorist networks and nuclear proliferation? Instead of allowing further investigations of the outstanding matters and allowing ACCESS to documents long stonewalled, Clinton chose to PROTECT all involved with BushInc, including Jackson Stephens who brought BCCI into this country and who just happened to be the man who bankrolled Clintons political careers and underwrote Bill's primary race in 1992.
Bush1 expected to be impeached after the release of the Dec 1992 BCCI report - he ran the worst campaign in history with NO FEAR because Jackson Stephens' boy Clinton would be in the WH protecting him.
Had Clinton been an honest lawmaker or a loyal Democrat, he would have respected this nation's need for an accurate HISTORIC RECORD and for accountability for blatant government corruption.
There should never have BEEN a Bush2 possible, or a 9-11 event, or this Iraq war. Clinton's callous disregard for open government assured all three would happen.
THAT was the worst judgment a Dem president has EVER SHOWN.
9. How do you THINK Bush1's poll numbers were kept down so low BEFORE anyone heard the name Clinton?
Would really love to hear you give some credit to the HONEST Dems who persisted for Bush's entire term to investigate his illegal operations and laid the actual groundwork for ANY Dem nominee to win in 1992.
15. That's idiotic nonsense. There were NO INVESTIGATIONS Into Bush2 to drive his poll
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 04:57 PM by blm
numbers down in his first term.
There were CONSTANT investigations of Bush1.
Had Clinton done the right thing and allow those investigations to be handed over to the Justice Dept, there would have been NO Bush2 possible. Bill Clinton deep-sixing all those serious matters to protect GHWBush and Jackson Stephens ASSURED Bush2 could emerge stronger than ever because they were protected throughout the 90s.
And Bill spent his 3 week high profile book tour DEFENDING Bush on the biggest issues of the election while never mentioning Kerry's work at all as the top lawmaker in DC on the tracking of terror networks and their funding and never sided with Kerry's strategy on Iraq. http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq /
Do you understand the difference between Bush1 and Bush2?
Do you understand how SERIOUS The investigations into Bush1 were and how dangerous they were for those few honest Demorats working to unravel those illegal operations?
Do you not know that Bush2 NEVER received an investigation in his first term at all?
Sheesh. Try on some reality. Clinton didn't have the last Dem president getting on tv constantly and supporting and defending Bush1 in 1992 the way Kerry had Clinton CONSTANTLY defending and supporting Bush2 in 2004.
22. I believe the surface issue in both cases was integrity, however when I'm speaking of integrity
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 06:36 PM by Uncle Joe
only in the sense of this issue benefiting the mega rich or major corporations.
The corporate media used integrity against Bush the lesser to help Clinton, with the continuous replaying of his "read my lips no new taxes" pledge, even though some economists would later say this along with the expansion of the Internet helped lead the economy on a rebound in the 90's.
Clinton would repay them later by giving Bush the least and the corporate media the integrity issue on a silver platter, by the Clinton/Lewinsky affair and compounding that by directly lying to the American People while knowing the Republicans and the media had him under a microscope from the very beginning. Al Gore would've been far better off had Clinton either kept his mouth shut or told the truth up front, but Clinton didn't have to run for election after that so I don't believe he cared.
In short I believe the ongoing witch hunt by the corporate media against Clinton was in truth a back door strategy to keep Al Gore from coming to power. I believe the corporate media was motivated in large part because Al Gore empowered the American People by being the primary political champion for opening up the Internet for them and as the Internet grew in power and influence diverting attention away from television and allowing the American People to freely converse among them selves and analyze the news of the day for all the world to see without having to go through a corporate media filter first, the corporate media saw their power, influence, ability to brain wash the American People by shaping the message and money slowly slipping away. So they just transferred the sins of the President on to the Vice-President by slandering, trashing and libeling him within weeks after Clinton's impeachment beginning in March of 99 ie; Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet, etc. etc. etc. and whenever Al Gore started to pull away from Bush in the polls they came out with a brand new set of slander and libel.
I don't believe it was coincidence that Bush the least started illegally wiretapping the American People going around FISA shortly after coming to power and before 9/11, the corporate media knew Al Gore would do no such thing.
They also began promoting Hillary Clinton for President almost immediately after she won her first term as Senator. I believe the whole thing was a set up by the corporatists to stab Al Gore and by extension the American People in the back.
37. Bush1 ran the worst campaign in history because he expected to be impeached after BCCI report
was released in Dec 1992.
Clinton was set up by Jackson Stephens to be the Dem in the WH who would protect GHWBush and all those involved in IranContra and BCCI and CIA drugrunning operations throughout the 90s, so Bush2 could re-emerge in 2000.
thats what she is betting the farm on. She might think that as soon as she can get Obama out of the way she'll unite the Democrats behind her. I wouldn't bet on it if I were her. There was perhaps that window of opportunity a long time ago, but her campaign tactics have all but guaranteed that scenario a long shot at best. I don't care who one is, a Democrat is unelectable without a large Democratic turnout and some crossover votes. If she thinks turning 2/3rds of her base into couch taters on election day will do it, dream on!
And as for 2012 she further insults the intelligence of voters. Memories, especially the bad ones, last more than 48 months. Voters won't tire of McCain and flock to her. They'll tire of McCain and blame her. People are tired of the eerily similar Bush and Clinton dynastys.
The sooner the powers that control this Party see it, the better America will become.
A number of junior campaign staffers (myself among them) joined up with local volunteers in Connecticut and New York to run a completely unauthorized, unofficial, and seat of the pants campaign to win some tsongas delegates and maybe, just maybe, get Paul to reconsider his decision.
As it turned out, we did a hell of a lot better than we expected in Connecticut, beting Clinton and finishing not far behind Brown. Even in New York, where big media and labor organization are key, we managed to snag some delegates in suburban districts.
Paul Tsongas was one of the most decent and honorable men ever to serve in the US Senate, and he would have made America proud as president.
but in retrospect I am glad he didn't win. He lied, directly and devastatingly, about his health. Had he been elected he would have died at the end of his first term of a cancer he said he had beaten (and we later found out he hadn't and knew he hadn't). Also, Brown was still in the race after Tsongas left.
but that isn't the whole point. Tsongas directly lied about his health. That is very serious given just how bad his health ended up being. Plus, she couldn't have taken over when he was merely sick without a huge deal involving the cabinet or Tsongas willingly ceeding power.
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.