Reply #19: This is very well stated - and why I am sick at heart that she will likely be the candidate [View All]

I absolutely hate to think that I will be forced to vote for her knowing that her allies were at best very unenthusiastic supporters in 2004. Carville and Begala spent hours speaking of "anybody but Bush", a terminology I have ONLY heard in primaries. In general elections, it makes no sense. As it was then parroted by the far left, it likely hurt Kerry with those on the fence that the main Democrats (mostly Clinton people) on TV gave no reason to support him. This added to the fact that the media showed very little of Kerry's major speeches and rallies make it amazing that he did as well as he did - likely because of his excellent debate performances.

I have trouble particular trouble with this because I have many times been reminded by a college age daughter of how I defended Clinton through the 1990s - as he let us down on a personal and political level. He was my last or nearly last choice in 1992. It never occurred to me to claim I was "ABB".

Clinton is, of course, not responsible for my somewhat blind support after he became President. As a citizen, I should have done better. He, though as the last Democratic President, should have avoided the incredible lack of enthusiasm shown for the 2004 nominee in a book he insisted on publishing the month before Kerry's convention.

He should have respected the Kerry people's view that the timing was bad. Also, he knew that Kerry was the candidate in late February. Yet:

- He credits McCain on the Vietnam reconciliation and simply includes Kerry in the middle of a list of veterans whose backing was needed. Kerry was the key person here - he and Vallery(sp?) and his SFRC staffer drafted the treaty with its provision of repatriating the remains found in a focused effort to find them. He was the committee chair in what everyone thought was a sure loss assignment. Clinton completely wiped out Kerry's contribution.

- More mysteriously, Clinton has a page where he speaks of how much he really likes Weld and would welcome him to the Senate. He then almost reluctantly says he didn't want to lose Kerry because of his expertise on the environment and technology. Even if Kerry were NOT the nominee, what is the point of this. He also makes no similar comments on other races. It ignores Kerry's help on military issues (Bill's draft dodging and gays in the military) and Kerry's credentials on foreign policy and terrorism, the 2 big issues in 2004.

Leaving aside the fact that 1996 resulted in a 55 Republican majority in the Senate, support for a scandal free Senator going for his third term should have been a no-brainier.

This leaves out that there were 2 times Kerry, Weld and Clinton intersected.
1) Contra Drug running. By 1996, the CIA had said Kerry was correct on the drug running. Assuming the best case for Clinton - that he was oblivious that drugs were flown in to Arkansas while he was governor, should he prefer the man who stopped it to one who was willing for it to continue? Weld stonewalled Kerry's investigation.

2) Kerry and Kennedy had introduced a bill that was modeled on the MA children's insurance program that had just been passed - OVER Weld's veto. This became the root of S-CHIP, which the Clinton's are now apparently claiming that Hillary initiated. In fact, Hillary's main contribution was lobbying Bill to support it - though the fact that lobbying him was needed makes me think less of him.

I don't know how many Clinton supporters got that far in his boring book, but I bet a few found that page through the index. I would not expect Clinton to put undeserved praise for anyone (including Kerry) in his autobiography, but this was stunningly ungrateful and a very covert stab in the back.

This is still pre-primary, this is when we have the right and I think the responsibility to question and comment on the choices. Looking at the actions in the 1990s, the sneak attack from his book, which damns Kerry with faint praise, and the dishonest ongoing, persistent, mostly low level smear attacks on Kerry since 2004, I am not sure I can vote for his wife in 2008.

It is NOT that they were "mean to Kerry" - but my view is they want power at any price. They had to know Kerry was far better than Bush - look at the world! Consider that a President Kerry would not have selected Roberts and Alito, would have used diplomacy, we would address global warming and the other environmental issues and we would likely be out of Iraq. (Iraq, the justices and executive orders on environment are not dependent on Congress - global warming initiatives might have been stymied, but we would have a President lobbying for it for the first time.) These people preferred to put self interest first, knowing that if Kerry/Edwards won, they would likely never be back in the White House. I think the sad shocking thing is that they may be at their core be unprincipled and amoral. The only thing that makes them better than Republicans is that the things they see as good for their legacy are things we agree with.

However I vote, I know that I can not effectively work for Hillary in the general election - especially with people I know who are moderate Republicans. I share some of their concerns.