Clinton Loyalists Ready to Throw 2008?

• Share
• Print View
• Comments

So, I found myself standing at Copley Square Plaza in Boston.

Four years later - i'm still angry. I remember that night as if it was yesterday. It was a cold night in November - and as the night wore on it began to rain. A cold nasty drizzle of a rain. The Black Eyed Peas tried to keep the crowd up beat. I remember believing that John Kerry would be elected President that night. I remember talking with the senior staff of the Kerry Campaign as they gloated about exit polls, and popped bottles of champaign, and began to measure the drapes for the oval office.

So standing in front of the Copley Square Plaza Hotel (it was Kerry's headquarters on election night) and remembering that year - as we followed the Kerry campaign with two camera crews and chronicled his ill fated run, I can't help but be sobered by the state of the Democrats today. I remember back then, as my friends who were die hard Hillary Clinton loyalists stayed on the sidelines - suggesting that Kerry was the wrong candidate - and planning a Hillary run four years later. I didn't pay much attention at the time, I figured that they would go behind the curtain and vote Kerry and he'd win. And frankly, looking back at the footage we have behind the scenes, I do see why they didn't think he was the right candidate. But he was the party's choice. And the Hillary clan stayed on the sidelines.

So today in Boston, I'm thinking about the knock down, drag out battle that Hillary and Barack are having - and the polling data that seems to show that its having an impact on the overall Democratic Party and its strength going into the 2008 election. And while I can't really imagine another night like that horrible night in Boston - at the same time - I do have a sense that the Clinton loyalists are going to either win the Whitehouse, or make sure that no other Democrat does. That may seem harsh - but when you look at the maneuverings around michigan and florida, Bill's race baiting in North Carolina, and the endless maneuvering around the Super delegates, it does seem like a we could be aiming in that direction. I'm not saying that Hillary loyalists staying on the sidelines lost Kerry the election. I'm not saying Kerry would have been a great President. But i'd just ask this - for the folks that decided to sit out '04 and wait for Hillary '08, how can you believe that the last four years wouldn't have been better with John Kerry in the Whitehouse? Just think about the families who've lost sons and daughters, mothers and fathers in Iraq and you can't help but know that things couldn't be any worse. Let's not repeat election night 2004 this November.

Comments

[overclocker1980]

This doesn't shock me at all. It's been obvious they feel entitled to it.

I will vote McCain over Clinton. Hell if the Democratic party is silly enough to nominate Clinton then I will vote against my party (Democrat) in every possible election and encourage others to do the same until the party removes it's head from it's ass and realizes she's even worse then Bush/Cheney in many ways.

Just as big of a liar, more manipulative, another political dynasty, hates the press, more prone to secrecy, more power hungry... all the things I really didn't like about Bush/Cheney I find Hillary to be far worse in.

I wanted Biden, could have been happy with Richardson, but Obama is fine by me. However I must oppose a party that nominates Clinton, especially after complaining about the lies/power grabs our current administration makes when all the evidence shows Clinton to be far worse. It would make the party utter hypocrites of the highest level.

[vincealy]

The Clintons have never been concerned about the party. John Kerry winning would have been unexceptable. Hillary would have had to wait. The Clinton's now have two goals either steal the nomination or make Obama un electable. Why ? Then she could run against McCain in 2012. Obama I believe has the abilty to rank with the grat Presidents Jefferson , Jackson, FDR .

[Trace8089]

Kerry lost for several reasons. First, Kerry was a terrible candidate. He allowed chicken hawks to define him as a coward. By not fighting back Kerry was perceived as unreliable. It would have been easy for Kerry to defend himself. Kerry could have simply told the truth. Bush and Cheney are true cowards. Men that supported the Vietnam War but didn't have the courage to fight in it.

A second reason was gay marriage initiatives in strategically important states. In Ohio, Bush received 3 times the black vote expected. Why, Homophobia.

Third reason Kerry did not connect with working class whites. The republicans portrayed Kerry as a wealthy snob elitist.

I think Obama has a chance to win. McCain is very capable of self destructing. But, if Obama loses it is because working class whites decide not to vote for him. Not because anything Clinton has done. If, you look at the demographics Obama is not getting elderly whites, whites without college educations, whites with income under 50,000 a year. Obama has the same voting demo as Kerry, Dukakis and Bradley. Without working class whites a candidate can not win a general election. Obama has to connect with lower income whites or we'll be dreaming of what could have been for four more long years.

[azcamp]

This is nonsense. Democrats will come together to support our nominated candidate no matter how flawed the process so long as it represents the will of Democrats who voted in primaries and caucuses. If the elected delegate and popular vote counts by the end of the primary season, matter, then the contest will be deemed fair. Super delegates will not determine the outcome without taking the primary voters seriously. Let the contests continue until the remaining 10 contest are decided by the voters. Then the nominee can face McCain with the support of all Democrats who choose to end the war, recapture our image overseas and change the direction of the company. We know what the politics of loyalty has done over the past eight years so we will not be so stupid as to vote for the status quo if our candidate loses in a fair primary contest.

[wilhelmR]

John Kerry would have been a much better President than many of us could imagine. There were many "hidden" or subtle statements that I took notice to reassure me his many great ideas such as his new view of "Faith Based Initiatives." Mental Hospitals and State Nursing Homes are much better in Europe than in the USA because the "volunteers" are nuns and they do so not for money but for love. Kerry knew this and said so in a subtle way. Here you have an example of how a very bad use of funds by Bush (political funds) would have been used greatly by Kerry. As for Hillary and her supporters people should stop saying "I don"t understand." Power is not money, power is just power and that comes through years and with the person"s characteristics. Bill feels compelled to "payback" Hillary for her "loyalty," and Hillary loves power for power"s sake. Both will do anything, against anybody, destroying anything and anybody to get her in the White House.

[robbie]

This discussion has been going on for more than a month in some circles.

[TXfemmom]

What a load of crap. In a recent poll, 28% of the golden boy's supporters said THAT THEY WOULD VOTE FOR MCCAIN, if Obama isn't the nominee.

Stop depicting Hillary and her supporters in the bad light. Twenty eight percent of his supporters voting for McCain could well throw the election to him, and then you write this crap? Shut up.

[FogCityJohn]

Actually, I believe that the poll showed that 28% of CLINTON'S supporters would vote for McCain if Clinton were not the Democratic nominee. A significantly smaller percentage of Obama supporters said they'd vote for McCain if Obama were not the nominee. Which makes sense, since Clinton is the more conservative of the two Democratic candidates. It's far easier to imagine DLC Democrats voting for McCain than it is Obama supporters.

[Herrington]

I'm an Obama delegate in Washington state, and I have to say this is a cheap shot. Perhaps some Clinton insiders knew of Hillary's intentions to run in 2008, but who of the rank and file in their right mind would have sacrificed additional thousands of lives and let the country be driven into bankruptcy and recession just for the sake of hopes that were four years away?

Clinton supporters may be passionate, as are Obama supporters, but there can be no justification for letting the Republicans off the hook for what will be 8 years of earthly horror or at least 4 more years of the same or worse. Clinton is an incrementalist and perhaps not as populist as she seems. Obama may be too much the dreamer and not the doer. And I contrast both in the popular memes of the opposing camp. But, the alternative to either is so much worse.

[myskylark]

This is the sickest article I've seen in a long time. What will you accuse the Clinton's of next - the Lincoln assassination?

Contrary to Kerry's whining, when he asked Clinton to help him in the campaign, Clinton came out after his heart by-pass to give a speech for that miserable, opportunistic ingrate.

The Clinton's are not doing to Barck Obama what the Kennedy's did to Hubert Humphrey.

You're attacking the wrong "dynasty."

[kira181]

Your friends didn't vote in 2004 because they were waiting for Hilary to run 4 years later? And that's why Kerry didn't win? And now you fear that the evil hand of Hilary will ruin everything again? Is this your story?

Are there any standards here at all? Because I'd like to blog about how I was going to win an Oscar one year but then along came that pushy Meryl Streep who cheated me out of it and she has blonde hair and so does Hillary so I hope those Clintons don't do me wrong again.

And my story sounds more plausible.

[SonofLiberty1]

I too voted for Kerry in 2004 and I thought he was flawed because as a Catholic I couldn't see why he couldn't have the courage of his personal convictions...
Then again, I really couldn't see another JFK because he was not!

I'm probably NOT going to volunteer for Hillary because I really don't want to volunteer for anyone else anymore. Personally, I'm tired of giving my time, heart and soul and money to other candidates....I've done my part now it's time for others to do theirs.

I WILL vote for Hillary on Aprill 22nd but if she loses the nomination I will NOT vote in November for any office because I cannot in good conscience give my vote to someone I just DO NOT BELIEVE IN!

Now, you can say whatever you want about my decision and the decision of others NOT to vote.
But it's OUR DECISION not yours! Again, I've voted in every presidential election since I turned 18 and now I'm 51 and if it comes to staying home because my fellow democrats make a wrong choice well, so be it.

You have to remember something:

The voters have the right to choose to vote or not to...

The Candidates win on lose on their ability to CONVINCE their fellow Americans to vote not the other way around!

[lynnn]

So you hate Roe v. Wade thanks.

[ChicagoBob]

!

You sound like the guy who took his ball and went home when he did not get his way.

You pathetic looser! There is too much at stake for you or any Democrat to do anything that might allow the "cons" to continue in office or control.

Vote and the choice is yours. Don't vote and the choice is theirs.

I will be damned if I will give away my choice and damn you if you give away yours.

!

[CountryOver]

No, he is burnt out, as am I. I agree with him completely. I'm tired of volunteering. I'm tired of participating.
Kerry was a superior choice to monkey boy. Anyone who had two brain cells to rub together knew this. Yet American Idiots (tm) re-elected the monkey and added seats to the House and Senate as if he had coattails. Now Democrats snipe at Kerry as if it was his fault-- as if he didn't win those debates decidely and distinguish himself from Chimp. Well, I'm goddamn tired of it. I'm out.
No one should forget the depth of idiocy of this nation.
People such as this guy and myself now leave the future to the American idiots as a matter of self-preservation.

[thegaygardener]

Dude! you are so right on!
The Clinton supporters & the candidate herself are absolutely ready to "throw 2008"
Not only did Hillary & Co. stay on the sidelines for Kerry.
They basically killed AL GORE too. Oh I know the popular theory is to blame Gore for not using the (impeached & indicted!!) Bill Clinton more. But the truth is that the Clinton's siphoned off money & talent & energy to run & be distracted by Hillary's campaign for the New York Senate. It is always ALL ABOUT the CLINTONS! She'll wreck the party & screw the nominee (OBAMA!) just to have another shot in 2012. Who can forget her interview with KATIE COURIC: "It WILL be me!" "It WILL be me!"

Obama '08 AND '12 !!!!!!!!!!!!

[BubbaC33]

This is ludicrous, Al Gore's defeat was due to the main stream media's constant attacks on Gore while giving a pass to George W. Bush. The idea that Gore was a liar, that he invented his resume, looking for every mistake he had made in his entire life. Sound a bit familiar? And never, ever asking Bush any tough questions. And now it is Ms. Clinton under attack by the MSM, which has a history of hate for the Clintons, while Obama has been given a pass.
This posting and this blog are wrong, just another attempt by Obama supporters to attack Ms. Clinton. Anything Ms. Clinton says will hurt the Party. But Obama can engage in any sort of attack and nothing is said about the harm he might be doing.

[cleveyucks]

Actually, Al Gore (who wasn't defeated) ran the worst campaign of my lifetime up until Hillary. If you want an example of just how bad his judgement was, if he had made it to the white house, we would be choosing between John McCain and Joe Lieberman this election!

[BrittonDale]

Please, this is such a load. Am I incorrect or do we award the electoral college in a winner take all format? In which case any of your Clinton loyalists there in Massachusetts made zero difference since Kerry took Massachusetts.

I'm sorry but to assume people who support Hillary would have stayed home four years ago in a race she wasn't even in, in hopes that she'd have a shot in 2008 and were willing to put up with four more years of Bush to get it is RIDICULOUS. Maybe you just have REALLY stupid friends. I'm as Clinton as they come and would have never given up the idea of ousting Bush to see her run in 2008. In fact, I do not recall even thinking about her during all of that election.

The continuing mudslinging over the Clinton legacy is far more likely to get me to stay home and not vote for Obama than the idea she'll run again in four years.

[Tejano1]

yet another "clinton supporter" ready to take their ball and go home and let another rethuglican screw this nation for another four years. disgusting.

[YellerDawg]

I am a Clinton loyalist, and I dutifully voted for Kerry. Kerry got more votes than any other Democratic candidate ever, so no real Democrats, Clintonista or otherwise, sat that election out. Are you that desperate to criticize the Clintons that you have to fabricate information? Maybe you should choose better friends.

[BillZBubb]

Man, those Clintons must have some real power! Kerry only got more votes than any Democrat in history. You Obama supporters really are grasping.

I supported Kerry in 2004, although I feared he was a flawed candidate. Events proved me correct. I voted for Hillary Clinton in this year's primary although she is a flawed candidate. I will vote for Obama if he is the nominee, but I am very certain he will lose to McCain for a number of reasons. So, if Obama loses, don't start blaming the Clinton's or her voters. He'll win or lose on his own merits--or rather how successfully the right wing negatively defines him.