|
Edited on Sun Apr-13-08 01:29 PM by karynnj
I was one of the people who was called out personally - which more than anything else stunned me, because I never saw myself as someone who would engender attacks. In reality, the reason we did have those attacks was that we were responding with facts that they did not want to hear that challenged very comforting myths about the Clintons. The Clintons and their allies spread as truisms two myths; that the Clintons did an exceptional job in fighting the RW and that the Clintons were completely vetted and had no baggage. This was comforting as it offered an easy solution - back HRC and we would have an easy ride to the WH again.
We were saying in 2005, what most of DU sees as true now. We challenged with facts - linked to reputable sources - both of these myths. The Clintons actually did NOT do a great job defeating the lies of the right wing. Arguably Kerry did a better job and he was very honestly saying that clearly he did not do enough. He, not the Clintons, was analyzing what had to be done in the media of 2004, 2006 and 2008. (Kerry was a major factor in the 2006 vet races where they beat the RW.) He is now helping Obama defuse RW (and Clinton) bombs before they build up. The fact is that the Clintons, with the WH in their hands, did no better in eliminating the lies (such as Vince Foster) than Kerry did with the SBVT by November 2004.
In addition to the myth that the Clintons always beat the RW, there was a myth about John Kerry that was needed. They needed to believe that Kerry was an awful candidate. No one wanted to hear what Kerry did - they wanted to stick their fingers in their ears and believe that the problem was not the toxic environment, which would still be there in 2008, but that we had the "wrong candidate". The reason here is that Kerry not HRC fit the criteria better as the person who really was completely vetted and as clean as a politician will likely ever be and as the person who really had ideas on how to fight back. This is why even posts that we thought of as innocent and not controversial - just showing Kerry for the statesman, man of integrity and capable politician he was and is, bothered them. If a person could be as good as we said Kerry was could lose - it meant that 2008 was not a sure thing. The intensity of the attacks to that likely was because the attackers knew what we were saying was true. (Read Beachmom's thread that contained an August 2004 Dkos thread) Some reverted to attacks by Dean especially in February 2004 where he attacked Kerry - every bit as harmfully and as dishonestly as the Clintons attacked Obama - returning to the IWR litmus test.
The second Clinton myth was where there were fireworks. The RW did lie about the Clintons and Ken Starr went over the top. But, the idea that the Clintons had no baggage was laughable. When we simply countered that claim, we were called "Republican", "RW" and were said to be lying. Our response was to link to reputable sources showing that, as someone wittier than I said, they not only had no baggage, they were the Samonsite factory of political couples. The excesses of Ken Starr and people like Schaif in some ways immunized the Clintons on the left - but the fact is that many of the charges were true and would surface in the general election.
I think AK's statement was very honest and gracious - and does match what she said then. On Kerry, even then, she admired him for what he did in 1971. That and his actions in the 1980s and the 1990s likely made his the hardest to accept IWR vote for her and some others who saw Kerry as different from other politicians. Dean and Trippi made the IWR into a litmus test, ignoring that Kerry spoke out against going to war and spelled out the disastrous consequences far more than many who voted against it. I never saw her as hating Kerry as other posters with Hillaryis44 signatures do. I think she did hate us - but I think it was because we were willing - on a Democratic board to say that the only successful Democratic President in the last 45 years was not the hero they needed him to be and that he had no magic answer to the uneven playing field.
Tay Tay mentioned a friend having a signature saying that ships were safest in the harbor, but that's not what ships are for. She then pointed out that that was a good analogy for Senator Kerry. He could have stuck to safety - and likely would have been President - without going to Vietnam and without protesting, without fighting the Contras, and BCCI, but he wouldn't have been John Kerry. We, in much less dangerous, anonymous, quieter ways followed the Senator's lead. We questioned the clear desire of most of the powers in the Democratic party, who clearly wanted a coronation of HRC and a return in triumph of the Clintons to the White House. Though I, for one, never saw myself as challenging anyone - all of us were standing together and naively questioning the powers that be in the Democratic party - even when some of us never saw ourselves as doing that.
It took Obama, helped by people like Kerry and Kennedy, to get people to open their eyes. Here, AK is being incredibly honest and generous in saying that we were right in saying those things years ago. We are on the same side now and to not accept AK's comment as graciously as she extended it is pathetic and counter productive if our goal is to help the Senator. Some people have said that part of why Kerry did not run is because in 2007 was that there was still too much anger (or at least the inability to trust him to win) from the 2004 loss. Here is one case of someone who seems to have moved from that reaction. Senator Kerry is better off, even if he never runs for President again, having more people move this way. It would help him in the role he seems to be taking now as elder statesman.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
