Is Kerry Making Move to Take Dem Party Power Away from Clinton??

On Super Tuesday after it became known that Edwards would drop out and leave Kerry the presumptive nominee, there was a piece on one of the news networks that was only said once and I've heard no reference to it again. Perhaps one of you know more about this.

The political analyst (reading from notes obviously prepared for just such event)said that Kerry's next move was going to be to try to take over the power structure of the Dem Party/DNC-----now, this in itself is no sinister thing since the party leader does try to take full command of the party; but then there were references to Terry McAuliff.

The piece said that Kerry is furious with McAuliff because of his mouth--most particularly because of his bringing up the Bush AWOL business. From what I've gleaned elsewhere I think Kerry wanted to bring this in later in his battle with Bush; but because McAuliff brought it up, it basically has now gone the press cyle and is a dead story. If Kerry brings it up later, Bush can brush it off as "old stuff" and "Kerry just running out of issues", etc. The piece said that there is even talk of Kerry stationing someone at the DNC to keep McAuliff on a leash, review everything being done and keeping McAuliff off TV. As I listened, I couldn't help but think of the Clintons.

Everyone knows McAuliff is Clinton's boy. If Kerry is going after the 'party power', he's going after the Clinton's power. I'm sure they are not going to give it up easily because they have their own plans for '08. Anyway, it's all making me a bit nervous. Kerry needs the Clinton power structure/connections to get money; without it, we're toast. However, I can see Kerry (and any of our candidates would have felt the same way in Kerry's position)being concerned that, perhaps, McAuliff isn't 100% trying to get him elected in '04. I am concerned about the Clintons---I guess that's the only way I can put it. I think it's time for a change since that power structure has done a lot to fail us over the last 3 1/2 years. But, I hope that internal power fights don't end up flushing the effort to get rid of Bush.

...and that Hillary and Bill are secretly pulling the strings. Or they'll claim the Clenis is behind it all.

Cross my heart and hope to die.

Glad to have you onboard!! :yourock: :grouphug: :toast:

}(

eom

It's HIS money at stake..his career..Things should be HIS choice now..

"Why do you say Fair UND Balanced?" they asked.

"Because it sounds better in the original German," I replied.

the President of the United States serves as the head of his party so the answer would be "of course".

This Terry McAuliffe thing is a way for the Repuglies to show Kerry as a conniving, power hungry, whatever in order to drive down Democratic turnout.

Turnout will decide this election...

I believe it was on NPR. Juan Williams I think aboutt a week ago said...
McCaliffe is a Clinton person. Kerry doesn't like him and many other Demos don;t either. Said that McA was planning to leave the position this summer. Said McA is a fantastic fund raiser and they need him for that right now but there is no love lost between Kerry and McA/

Hope my memory is right on that

..was on CNN or MSNBC on election night. We've all known for years that McAuliff is, of course, the appointee and close friend, etc. of Clintons. That's no secret. I wasn't aware, until that report, that there was annomisity in the Kerry camp with him. But, like I said, I can understand why that may be. I just don't want '04 to turn into another "Clinton" thing. It just can't. Not now.

the AWOL stuff. It was Peter Jennings asking Clark during a debate to disavow Michael Moore's comment about AWOL that got the whole thing started. McAuliffe was just defending a Dem candidate, as he should have done.

Not to say Kerry might not be displeased with McAuliffe...but I've gotta wonder where this "analysis" is coming from.

same boss, same interests, same crowd.
Clinton = Kerry.

>...now, this in itself is no sinister thing since the party leader does try to take full command of the party

You mean like Gore being the presidential nominee in 2000 took it away from Clinton?? That didn't happen either.

>If Kerry is going after the 'party power', he's going after the Clinton's power. I'm sure they are not going to give it up easily because they have their own plans for '08.

Right-o!! You said a mouthful, and touched on something I've noted that many people here are unwilling to accept. Clinton pulls the strings for the Democratic Party. There's no conspiracy theory there. That's just fact.

Kerry taking on Clinton?? Better hope that's not the case. Better hope they're on the same page and wanting the same things. Something tells me they aren't. If bets are being taken, the good money is on Clinton winning that war.

You hit it on the head. First to back up to your first point---how much of Gore's campaign (which should have blown Bush away) was because he, in essence, never had the power. Then to you last point. I, too, fear that Clinton will prevail. I already pick up bits and pieces like "Clinton is telling Kerry and other candidates not to criticize the war", blah, blah. That sounds just like the roll over and die mentality of this party for the past 3 years. We've now reawakened and I'm scared of Clinton telling us to roll over and die again---and then come back roaring for Hil in '08!! Kerry and Clinton may be dancing to a lot of the same interests; but we have to get Clinton's self-centered, sticky hands off of this thing.

LOOOOVE That Sigline! Barnum WAS right...and the Imperial Subjects of Amerika demonstrate that not much has changed.

... L.A.S.S. is my beautiful wife's initials.

But, if your intrepretation works for you, go to it.