Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

1992: Tsongas exit clears way for Clinton

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
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:34 PM
Original message
1992: Tsongas exit clears way for Clinton
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.


link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tsongas

And all the MSM proclaimed in unison:

On March 20, front-page headlines in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, USA Today, and the Washington Post read respectively:

TSONGAS DROPPED OUT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE CLEARING CLINTON'S PATH

TSONGAS ABANDONS CAMPAIGN LEAVING CLINTON CLEAR PATH TOWARD SHOWDOWN WITH BUSH

TSONGAS CLEARS WAY FOR CLINTON

TSONGAS EXIT CLEARS WAY FOR CLINTON


link: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/ciadisinfoinaction28mar0...

So let's see, the guy who refuses to cut taxes gets taken out by Clinton in a scandal, and the papers dance in orchestrated glee. Hmmmm....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. Sounds like politics. Same old, same old. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yes it does.
I think in that case, Clinton led in the charisma department, as the Time cover shows, and that probably helped carry him. This time Obama wins on charm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
3. As It Happens, I Worked At Tsongas National HQ
Tsongas' problems were mostly due to jaw-dropping incompetency of campaign management, along with embezzling by the head of fundraising.

However, based on his mendacious attacks, it was clear to us that Clinton was - as Bob Kerrey stated - "an unusually good liar. Unusually good."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Interesting.
It sounds like Tsongas might have had trouble defeating Bush if he'd won the primary anyway. Thanks for that perspective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
23. Oh, It Was A Trainwreck
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.

Ugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
31. I was on the field staff
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. Kaman Sat In His Office All Of The Time
Had no contact with the rest of the office. There was no adult supervision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas Hill Country Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
4. Jeez... in almost 30 years there has been one guy that won... Clinton... Give him some damn credit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Yes he gets credit for winning elections.
It's what he did in office that gives me pause, and I'm not talking about his affairs. It seems like he stopped fighting for the ideals he campaigned on after about a month.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Thank you. Was he all that he could be? No. But he did great with what he had to work with. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Yeah that was just one of their capitulations.
The question is did they cut a deal while they were still running or did they wait until they got into the White House?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. Congress wasn't able to do so much as pass a minimum wage increase how would this have gotten done?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. There would have BEEN NO turnover of congress in Jan 2005, if BushInc had been
fully exposed and held to account in 93 and 94.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. I meant 1995, of course.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas Hill Country Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Then why didnt we win in 2000 or 2004? I would love an explaination other than ballot fixing...
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 04:21 PM by Texas Hill Country
it should never have been close enough to be able to fix ballots.


Cant loose elections? Since him, we have lost 2... and could be on the way to the 3rd... interesting huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #14
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 Clintons reciprocated by backstabbing theexpected nominee.
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

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 /

TeamClinton pops up for the endgame sabotage of Ohio Dem voters:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did...



Clintons have been protecting Bushes for decades, and they will continue to do so if they are anywhere NEAR the WH.
http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thoughtcrime1984 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Fantastic help Kerry got from the Clintons in 2004
They helped to ensure Hill a shot in 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Clinton had quad bypass surgery and 6 weeks afterwards was on the stump for Kerry......
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 06:14 PM by ElsewheresDaughter
I hope you don't choke to death on your Clinton hatred






Former President Bill Clinton spoke on behalf of Senator John Kerry on Sunday night in Little Rock, Ark.



http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SwAdA10XrYNOn2uiogk!mhTm... *kyzSueHBj44TmacnWFeV14SBIJlJg/Clinton2.JPG?dc=4675494737155786849



.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. Kerry was already winning at that point - but what did Clintons do BEFORE THAT
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 10:51 PM by blm
and what you KNOW they did, but DENY, DENY, DENY to yourself?

They were BACKSTABBING - as noted by historian Douglas Brinkley:
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Defending and supporting Bush for THREE WEEKS STRAIGHT on the BIGGEST issues of the election.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq /

Sabotaging Ohio Dem voters on election night.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did...

They DIDN'T WANT Kerry in office any more than Bush did - and YOU DON'T CARE that they forced us to live under another Bush regime because they needed Bush to stay in power so Hillary could take over.

Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is what YOU support.
http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #14
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. Hillary's 2003 book was timed to keep Dems from learning about the candidates and
Bill's 2004 book was timed to keep Dems from knowing better their nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
haymakeragain Donating Member (841 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. Clinton "won" because of Perot. without Perot, who knows
what. Clinton got 42% in '92, Gore got 50% in '00, but still lost, and in no small part because of the Clinton Factor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elixir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
24. Nice point THC. It appears he's the last person to really win a presidential election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #24
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pompano Donating Member (506 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
8. I think ....
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.

But, thats just my opinion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Also, Bill had the teflon in that race.
Basically he was easy to like and many people did. I saw him on a 1992 whistle stop and he was a persuasive and inspiring candidate, very easy to vote for. Hillary has no such luck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adenoid_Hynkel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
11. Tsongas also re-entered the race to split the anti-Clinton vote
When Jerry Brown began winning primaries against the supposedly unfeatable Bill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #11
34. No he didn't
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
16. Don't forget Mario Cuomo - there have been rumors since 1992 that
Bill CLinton blackmailed him with information connecting a Cuomo family member to the Mafia to keep Mario Cuomo out of the New Hampshire primary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #16
30. Nah. Cuomo doesn't like to travel
well known factoid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
28. How about March 20, 2008: CLINTON CLEARS WAY FOR OBAMA
Sounds fine to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
29. I was a Tsongas supporter
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Vice President Richards would have done just fine
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. I am sure he would have picked a decent VP
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:23 PM
Response to Original message
35. Guess who had the most delegates when Tsongas dropped out?
Clinton.
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 Thu Nov 27th 2014, 12:40 AM
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