Ken Smukler, a senior political adviser to Ms. Margolies, said that Mr. Clinton had done exactly what the campaign had asked and that if he did any more, rivals would criticize her for relying too much on her family connection. “Critics will say they’re either doing too much for us or they’re not doing enough for us, and no matter what we say we can’t disabuse people of it,” Mr. Smukler said.

Chelsea Clinton and Mr. Mezvinsky have been supportive, he added, but are prohibited from a direct role in the campaign because she is a special correspondent for NBC News and he runs a hedge fund. And Hillary Clinton has mostly avoided political events as she contemplates another run for president. (If she helps the Margolies campaign, it will most likely be in the form of a fund-raiser.)

--------

Ms. Margolies’s opponents this year have sought to turn her relationship with the Clintons into a vulnerability. Mr. Leach has run a campaign advertisement in which his 10-year-old daughter says after footage of a Clinton news conference at the White House, “He seems like a great guy, but everything he’s talking about happened in the past, way before I was born.”

“While some cling to the past,” she continued, “we just can’t go backwards.”

The Clintons are being used against her. They probably have done what she has asked them to do.

and recognize there are reasonable reasons/strategies for doing/not doing what they're doing. I HOPE they've done what she's asked them to do.

It first struck me as typical of behavior I've seen on their part in the past, similarly self-serving, vis a vis a 'friend' of theirs. It bothered me then, and bothers me now. Fortunately I'm NOT a political strategist, just an 'armchair' observer.

The Clintons are evil, blah, blah, blah. Same tiresome crap the Right spews on a daily basis.

I said self-serving.

I find the constant sniping over everything related to the Clintons coming from the Left just as insidious as the vitriol that comes from the Right. Except that I'm apparently misguided in expecting better from the Left, 2008 should have educated me on that thought. Therefore, I'll continue to ignore both extremes.

The Freepers and DU are opposite sides of the same mirror when it comes to the Clintons.

It has long seemed that the Clintons have a a VERY strong value for loyalty -- to them. Not so much from them to others.

I know nothing of Patrick Murphy's primary opponent, but was very impressed by him as a young Iraqi veteran who was very well spoken on many issues. He could well have been a future Democratic star. From all I read, they endorsed his opponent because he endorsed Obama -- ie was disloyal to the Clintons. It always seemed more against him, than for her. I would love to hear that there were reasons to have endorsed her over him that were positives for her, but all I have heard is that it is retribution.

For example, who's the current ambassador to Japan? Caroline Kennedy. Why is she an ambassador at all? Because she endorsed Obama in 2008. That's how the game works. You support those who supported you.

As SOS, Hillary couldn't campaign for anyone who supported her run in 2008. Therefore, Bill had to step up and help those people. There's nothing wrong with it and it's how things are done.

but I think this was a case of NOT supporting someone who did not support you -- which is different. That is why - I think - the article mentioned this case rather than many -- ie the Co Senate race where one candidate supported HRC and one Obama.

I think the Clintons (and the Bushes) are among the politicians who are seen to not just reward those who help, but to write off or attack those who they see as disloyal. You mentioned Caroline Kennedy. In her case, it was Clinton allies who came after her full blast when she was first mentioned as the possible replacement Senator for NY. (Then note that she became an ambassador only when HRC was NOT Secretary of State.)

Incidentally, this "trait" might actually help this type of politician with the media. The media knows if they do win, that being seen as their "enemy" will mean less to no access.

I was personally appalled that Caroline had the gumption to expect Hillary's former Senate seat for endorsing Obama. If she wanted to go out and try to earn one the old fashioned way, no problem, but to expect to be appointed to the Senate after never having run for any elected office, rankled many within the NY Democratic leadership.

I'm glad that Gov. Paterson didn't bow to pressure from the WH and appointed a far more qualified candidate than Caroline.

I did note that Obama didn't appoint Caroline to that ambassadorship until Hillary left office. That's as it should have been handled. He had more respect for Hillary than to rub Caroline in her face.

Your comment on Caroline not being appointed until Hillary left is telling. Caroline was someone who has made a good ambassador -- and, in fact, just as you and others argued, on a different level that HRC's name recognition made her a stronger S o S than otherwise, such is the case with Caroline -- given the worldwide respect for her father.

Kennedy did NOTHING wrong in endorsing President Obama. There was absolutely no reason that her endorsement should have meant that she could not be appointed ambassador. In fact, many key Clinton aides were brought into the State Department when Clinton came in. Many worked for Clinton in the primary, should the PRESIDENT of the US and his supporters have objected? Not to mention, many ambassadors were big donors - as they always are for certain countries. If you look at who the ambassadors for desirable countries they were mostly for Obama - including the ones to London, Paris and Rome (Thorne was not a big donor or financial person, but Kerry's best friend, political adviser, and former brother in law, whose father was the head of the US Marshall Plan in Italy back in the 1950s.) The animus towards Kennedy was more because her support was consequential.

In fact, it might be that Kennedy did not want to deal with the flack she could have received from the Clinton supporters had she been nominated then -- or it could have just not been the right time.

Many in the Clinton camp (I don't mean the Clintons themselves) will not forget the way Teddy endorsed Obama and the day he chose to do so (the morning of Bush's last State of the Union). He had to know that all eyes would be on Hillary that night when she went to the SOTU. The Clintons had saved Kennedy's bacon when Romney ran against him in the 90s. Caroline and Chelsea were close enough for Chelsea to think of her as an older sister. Caroline had never before endorsed anyone, other than a family member, until after the nominee was decided. When she made her announcement, a reporter asked her if she had called Chelsea, she barely whispered that she hadn't done so. Those of us with long memories don't forget that.

We also don't forget that two or three weeks before Teddy had his first seizure, he had been asked if Hillary should be Obama's choice for VP. He responded no, that the VP needed to be someone with leadership abilities, someone who would ennoble America. This B.S. coming from a man who acted like a coward to protect his ass and let a girl drown. To his credit, he did apologize for his comment.

I should note that not all Kennedys endorsed Obama, Robert and several others supported Hillary.

They were both Democratic "royalty". Caroline Kennedy had been active in politics before that -- going back at least to a primary in 1972 when she and her brother worked to elect a very young John Kerry in 1972 - which is beyond endorsing him. It is far easier to argue that John Kerry was a personal friend of the Kennedys, but even that is an overstatement, except for Teddy, for whom he was a very good friend especially in the last years of his life and for Jackie's step sister, who Kerry dated and later served as an usher in her wedding.

Caroline Kennedy was 23 years older than Chelsea and was in no way "like an older sister". The biggest connection was they were both children of a President and the Clintons spoke of having asked Jackie how she protected her children from the media. Caroline is closer in age to Bill and Hillary than to Chelsea. Jackie Kennedy did join the Clintons on some (well publicized) boat rides when the Clintons visited Cape Cod or Martha's Vineyard and , but the connection was more that they all who were in the small group of people that were Democrats in the White House.

To suggest that this meant it was wrong of Teddy and Caroline to endorse Obama is ridiculous. Though I assume you think that ANY Democratic politician was wrong to do so because you can point out some time they were invited to something by the Clintons or helped by them. However, the fact is that most of these Democrats very likely did things to help the Clinton - possibly before he was the nominee.

I have stated in the past that I had no problem with Kerry endorsing Obama early on. He and the Clintons were not close friends.

As for the Kennedys, we can agree to disagree. I don't like the way that either one handled the situation. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

I have to say I think it's sad that you hold such spite for the Kennedy family over what happened 6 years ago. For christsakes let it go. You are essentially saying the same things about the Kennedy's as was said about Bill Richardson (I don't even need to say the word because we all know what he was called). The Kennedy family, Richardson, and whomever else didn't endorse Clinton made a decision. There is no reason to bash someone who has passed on.

No, I'm only commenting on two of its members. Teddy was no saint and how he handled the endorsement and his subsequent comments during the primaries are fair game. Caroline could have saved herself plenty of grief if she had not expected a Senate seat out of her endorsement. A seat that she neither earned nor deserved.

As for Richardson, he's a weasel who thought that he was going to get a plumb post in Obama's administration and chose to betray a personal friendship. The guy didn't even have the guts to call his friend Bill to mention his choice, he called Hillary.

I don't stab my friends in the back, do you?

So you really believe it is ok to continue to say rude things about him after his death?

As for Caroline, whether she expected to be appointed or not I have no idea. What you are essentially accusing her of is corruption. Do you really have the proof to back that up?

As for Richardson, I expected you'd say as much but it disappoints me to hear you repeat something that was said half a dozen years in a primary.

Each of the statements/accusations are mean and spiteful. It seems you still have a very big chip on your shoulder.

Someone who created an alibi and waited 5 hours to report an accident should not be a judge about what it takes to "ennoble America". That girl died a terrible death, she deserved better.

As for Caroline, yes there was pressure on Gov. Paterson to appoint Caroline to Hillary's former seat. He just wouldn't budge and chose to appoint Kirsten Gillibrand. She was a far better choice and is doing a great job.

Richardson has said more than once that Bill still won't talk to him. I don't blame Bill.

I'm not trying to be mean, but neither am I giving a pass to those who worked very hard to defeat the person who I still think was far more qualified for the job.

That hedge funds managers are not allowed to support candidates for federal office.

"Hate to say this, but I'm not surprised. In my not too broad experience, they'll drop a 'friend' in a heartbeat. " I don't think people hate to say negative things about Clinton. I don't think people hate to jump to negative conclusions about Clinton.

For some reason, everything about Clinton is twisted into a negative to justify continued vitriol against her--no matter what the story is.

Recently John Kerry used “apartheid” and “Israel” in the same sentence. And everyone here agreed with him. Not one criticism. Had Clinton made the same observation...there would be virtual rioting with pitchforks. For example, similarly, when Clinton mentioned, accurately, the historic similarities between what Putin was doing in Ukraine (creating turmoil in the country to justify invasion to save the Russians), and Hitler's justification for invasions, DU exploded. We only need to see what happened in Ukraine this week to know that her insight is spot on. Kerry: honored. Clinton: attacked.

Everything Clinton says or does, no matter how accurate, insightful, brilliant, the "liberals" on DU twist it. I think the years of the republican campaign against Clinton has taken its toll. Even liberals are not immune to the lies. She has been defined as evil, and so everything she says or does is seen by many through that lens. Even people who should know better.

Maybe if he would have voted differently on Iraq he would be - especially given his history on issues like the environment, BCCI, Iran/Contra, Vietnam, and that he was a strong early voice against big money in political campaigns.

With Hillary, you have the same vote without her speaking out as Kerry did in early 2003 on rushing to war. You also have the baggage of the Clinton years, where some see only the negatives (Nafta, repeal of Glass Steigall, welfare reform ...) instead of any of the positives.

Yet, most people here expect Hillary to be the nominee and have said they will vote for her. I know of no other (non incumbent President or his VP) who has ever had that kind of response.

The Israel example doesn't work as the most common DU response was that his Israel comment was too tame -- he should have said it IS apartheid now. That was NOT a controversial comment. Not to mention, Kerry's work on the two state solution was exceptional - even though it failed and his comment IN CONTEXT is identical to things said by many Israeli leaders and American Jewish leaders. In fact, the most referenced book on Israel now - by Ari Shavit - lists the possible alternatives to a two state solution in the exact same way. (In fact, J Street has put out several statements defending Kerry in the wake of this - and they represent a large percent of American Jews.)

The fact is that any strong anti- Russian comment by Kerry is met by the same outrage as Hillary's comments. There really is consistency on the part of most people here - the same people attack each one. Frankly, I don't get why there is so much respect for Putin.

That's why the "liberals on Du" can go suck an egg as far as I'm concerned. If Hillary does run, I'll just tune them out as if they were white noise. I don't know which side has a more visceral dislike of the Clintons, the Right or the Left. Both should form a support group, "Clinton Haters United".

and appear to continue to ignore, their 'good friend' Wes Clark, who has continued to support them/her. They appear to have done nothing to see to it that his vast expertise and wisdom be made use of in this current administration.

and statements, all on the public record, has resulted in this conclusion on my part.

General and Former Defense Official Urge Nonlethal Military Aid for Ukraine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/world/general-and-former-defense-official-urge-nonlethal-military-aid-for-ukraine.html?ref=world&_r=0

Inside the Ring: Critical Ukraine aid report

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/24/inside-the-ring-critical-ukraine-aid-report/

General Wesley Clark on Putin, Ukraine & the NSA

http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/the-takeaway-2014-01-22/?utm_source=local&utm_media=treatment&utm_campaign=daMost&utm_content=damostlistened

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark Talks About Precedents And Syria

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/27/216155784/retired-gen-wesley-clark-talks-about-precedents-and-syria

:Shrug:

Oh, btw:

Just last summer Clark endorse Clinton for President:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/wes-clark-ready-for-hillary-clinton-93194.html

Looks like everything is cool with them.

So sorry for the twisted point you're trying to make.

I wanted to post the news about MM, and I simply noted that, in my opinion, the Clinton's behavior hasn't been what I would consider suitable for good friends, while I acknowledge the political realities.

I KNOW that General Clark has endorsed Hillary for President. He is real friend.

If the Clintons are really so bad, why do you have to make stuff up?

Last edited Tue May 6, 2014, 05:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Her opponent in the primary, Dylan Leach (never met him in person, but have talked to him on the phone, and he is one of us. Howard really likes him, too), is a true progressive, and is probably far bluer than Marjorie can ever be.

When she gave Clinton her vote on health care in 1993*, a Republican on the other side of the aisle said, "bye bye Marjorie," and sure enough, she lost her seat in the next election. But she did do the right thing, and has never regretted it.

She likes the Clintons' support, but is savvy enough to know that it'll make her look weak if she gives the appearance of using it as her only crutch. She knows she will have to stand on her own merits or fall short. Bill and Chelsea can't win this for her. Hillary can't win this for her.

I am VERY glad I don't live in her district, because the last thing I want is having to decide between someone I adore personally and someone whose politics are probably closer to my own than Marjorie's, if only slightly.

My only consolation is that whoever wins the primary in that district, I can't lose--as long as they win in November!!

*it was either that or his tax increase, I forget which. Whichever vote it was, it provoked the smug "bye bye" incident.

And good to hear that seat will likely be recovered for us.

It's a pure coincidence that I know Majorie, and we usually see her son that is NOT married to Chelsea Clinton. In all the years I've known her, I have NEVER asked her how old she was (you NEVER ask a woman that, as you well know), and I was shocked to hear she is 71. She is one hell of a dynamic 71, I can tell you that. Of course, when I met her, she was under 60. I always considered her a contemporary, which would have put her nearly ten years younger than she really is. As long as either she or Dylan wins the seat, I'm cool with it.

If Marjorie gets the nomination, the Clintons will be involved in her election campaign. If Dylan wins the primary, Howard and Jim will amass a DFA ground team to help, and you will never hear about it until MAYBE in Dylan's victory speech. DFA was hugely involved in the ground game that kept the Virginia governor's seat out of the hands of Ken Koochicrazy. How many threads on DU (or anywhere else, for that matter) did you see about them? But they're out for results, not for glory.

I contribute directly to candidates, as Dem party doesn't do a good job of that, and will ratchet up my contributions to DFA.

And I honestly don't see why it should matter one way or the other. And Bill Clinton endorsed her and held a fundraiser for her. It is not as if she is being shunned by the Clintons. It would be one thing if she were the Democratic nominee and the Clintons were ignoring her. But taking sides in a primary race is not a given just because one happens to have a family connection. This is a bullshit story. "A lot of people are saying...." says someone who doesn't want to be quoted. What crap. One guy is saying and he doesn't want to be quoted.

I don't know the exact dates, but since all of them were regulars at Renaissance Weekend in South Carolina already in the 1990s, they have known each other for over 20 years. Marc and Chelsea met there as teenagers.