TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
19.04.2008
Clintons v. Kerry

Tomorrow's Times has an interesting story about Clinton loyalists (of varying degrees) who've defected to Obama--and the hard feelings this has inspired in Hillaryland. My favorite story is the always-fascinating subplot between the Clintons and John Kerry:

This tension was neatly distilled in a heated conversation in January between a prominent Clinton supporter and Cameron Kerry, the younger brother of Senator John Kerry, who had just endorsed Mr. Obama.

In the telling of two Democrats familiar with the discussion, one from each camp, the Clinton supporter, a Democratic fund-raiser with close ties to both Mrs. Clinton and John Kerry, noted that Mr. Clinton campaigned for Mr. Kerry in 2004, even though the former president had just undergone bypass surgery.

To which Cameron Kerry parried that his brother had agreed to fly with Mr. Clinton on Air Force One after the impeachment vote “when no one wanted to be seen with him.” ...

Mr. Kerry had been cool to Mrs. Clinton after he believed she had “piled on” in criticizing him after his “botched joke” before the 2006 midterm elections in which he seemed to demean American soldiers in Iraq. But Mrs. Clinton visited Mr. Kerry at his home in Nantucket last September, checked in regularly and, for a time, seemed close to winning him over.

Mr. Kerry, however, endorsed Mr. Obama shortly after the New Hampshire primary. To this day, the Clinton and Kerry camps disagree over whether Mr. Kerry had made promises to intermediaries not to take sides.

He then publicly criticized Mr. Clinton’s conduct before the South Carolina primary. “And he was dead to us,” said one prominent Clinton supporter who is, in his words, “not authorized to trash Kerry on the record.”

The only key data-point the story omits is the famous hospital bed strategy-session between Bill and Kerry. I mentioned it in this piece:

After he clinched the nomination, Kerry was keen to enlist the former president's help. (He believed Al Gore had made a mistake by distancing himself from Clinton in 2000.) But the decision created headaches. "There was never a sense that [the Clintons] were less than one hundred percent committed to winning," says one longtime Kerry friend. "But there was a sense that, at key moments, their legacy or their role in the party was paramount." Not long after the GOP convention, for example, Kerry talked strategy with a bedridden Clinton. Kerry aides fumed when, a day and a half later, the ostensibly private conversation made the front page of The New York Times, bestowing a Yoda-like glow on Clinton while painting Kerry as a cipher.

I also had a bit more on the "botched joke" episode:

For many in Kerry's orbit, the final straw came in 2006, after the senator mangled a joke about lousy students getting "stuck in Iraq." (Kerry had intended to needle Bush for "getting us stuck in a war in Iraq.") The fallout helped dash Kerry's hopes of another White House run. In the minds of his supporters, that's precisely what Hillary Clinton intended when she piled on two days later, calling the comment "inappropriate." "A lot of us were rip-shit pissed off at Hillary for putting her boot on his neck," says one dedicated fund-raiser. Once Kerry officially bowed out, several of his most loyal money men decamped for team Obama.

People close to Kerry told me they were livid over both of these things. (Though Kerry himself apparently took them better than his inner circle did.)

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Saturday, April 19, 2008 8:07 PM with 29 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

elen said:

Senator Kerry as I understand, was also advised by Bill to ignore the Swift Boaters.   This was a decision that ultimately cost him the White House and gave us Bush.  

Loyalty is a two way street and the Clintons' unyielding pursuit of whatever their wants or needs happen to be at a given time, regardless of the cost to others or to the party doesn't allow for loyalty to anyone but themselves.

April 19, 2008 8:47 PM

nturner said:

I find it rather funny, and altogether illuminating, to think about the kind of people each of these Democratic candidates attracts.  

In the Obama camp, you have all manner of loons, imbeciles, and bafoons:  Rev.-G.D.-America-Wright, Louis-antisemitic-Farrakhan, William-I-wish-we-had-done-more-Ayeres, John-windsurfing-Kerry, Jimmy-Hamas-loving-Carter, Claire-my-daughter-made-me-endorse-McCaskill.  Alas, the list goes on and on.  If you're a public figure, it's almost as if you have to be either a radical or a nitwit to announce your support for Mr. Obama.  

By contrast, Hillary endorsers tend to to be level-headed pragmatists.  She's fortunate to have the likes of Evan Bayh, Wesley Clark, Tom Vilsack, Ed Rendell, and Gov. Strickland in her camp.  And her list goes on and on as well.  I'm sure there are a few outliers among her endorsers, but the trend tends toward sensible, reasonable (and overwhelmingly intelligent) personalities.  

I feel confident that Obama supporters will argue that his candidacy shouldn't be defined by a few rogue endorsers, and I might agree with this sentiment in the abstract.  But at the end of the day, there's something about Mr. Obama's academic leftism, his dripping sanctimony, and his revolutionary rhetoric that attracts these characters.  That something is notably absent from the wonkish, hard-working, and practical Hillary Clinton.

At the popular level, I will always have this lingering vision of the classic Hillary-supporting Democrat.  He or she is a farmer in rural Ohio or a factory worker in Pennsylvania.  She's old enough to have seen the best and worst of both Democrats and Republicans, so she's wary of flashy rhetoric and pop-star appeal.  Perhaps she just wants real solutions for complex, nuanced problems -- not pretty words thrown up on teleprompters.

I'll take this supporter over the fainting, star-struck mobs any day of the week!  

April 20, 2008 12:04 AM

roidubouloi said:

My god.  Could it really be true that Bill was the origin of the disastrous decision to ignore the Swift Boat attacks?  And, if so, could it possibly have been for any reason other than Clinton's desire to see Kerry fail so that there would not be a Democrat in the White House in four  years?  Ugh.  I used to admire Bill Clinton. His behavior during this race as certainly changed my opinion of him for the worse.  (I have never hard much regard for Hillary; she has merely lived down to my worst expectations.)  But this is really too much.

April 20, 2008 12:06 AM

huntlib said:

"I will always have this lingering vision of the classic Hillary-supporting Democrat.  He or she is a farmer in rural Ohio or a factory worker in Pennsylvania.  She's old enough to have seen the best and worst of both Democrats and Republicans, so she's wary of flashy rhetoric and pop-star appeal."

And black people. Seen enough of 'em to know that they make trouble. Not that she's racist or anything.

And muslims too. They give us 9/11, and we reward 'em with the presidency? Not on her watch.

April 20, 2008 12:57 AM

BHLnyc said:

nturner writes:

"If you're a public figure, it's almost as if you have to be either a radical or a nitwit to announce your support for Mr. Obama."

Really? Which would these people be?

• Jay Rockefeller, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee

• Lee Hamilton, former Senator and co-chair of the 9/11 Commission

• Sam Nunn, Former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman

• David Boren, former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman

• Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary

• Ted Kennedy, Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

• Gary Hart, former Senator and consultant on national security issues

Good luck with that Tom Vilsack endorsement!

April 20, 2008 1:24 AM

psantillana said:

Yeah, BHL, and I think that's actually Ted-who-everyone-knows-was-really-responsible-for-SCHiP-Kennedy, to use his full title.

At this point I'm not beyond believing that the Clintons didn't want a dem to win in 04, that they were perfectly happy to let the country go corkscrewing another 4 years into the ground in order to improve H's chances. Why not - she's a fighter and it's all about winning and that's just ducky, right?

April 20, 2008 2:01 AM

psantillana said:

I just saw something that made me glad the primary has lasted this long:

gu.barackobama.com/.../guhome

"This time around, Guam counts."

April 20, 2008 4:38 AM

lymon1 said:

I'm sure the Clintons did want Kerry to lose in view of 2008, but please, they did nothing to sabotage Kerry's campaign.  Here's a dirty secret, many incumbant Dems wanted Bush to win so they'd keep their boogeyman alive and their districts safe.  The only time congressfolk get swept out of office is when one party controls the entire federal government: 1980, 1994, 2006.  

April 20, 2008 8:46 AM

roidubouloi said:

lymon,

I know a couple of Democratic Congressmen in NY.  One, a member of my brother-in-law's family, is in a safe district in Queens.  The other, from my own district, is anything but safe.  And I had a chance to talk to Schumer at some length in the run-up to 2006.  I'm also friendly with Judith Hope, formerly the state party chair and now head of the Eleanor Roosevelt Legacy fund that supports Democratic women candidates.  NO ONE in the Democratic party, except maybe the Clintons, has every wanted Bush or any Republican to win anything.  It is an intensely frustrating experience, every day, all day, to be a Democratic member of Congress with a Republican president and a Republican minority in the Senate that filibusters everything.  Indeed, I think the "nuclear option" in the Senate is going to happen if there is not a filibuster-proof majority and the Republicans again adopt their obstruct everything tactics.  As an abstraction, your cynical view makes some sense, but the reality of life in Congress is such that you are just wrong.  It drives them all crazy to be frustrated at every turn.

April 20, 2008 11:17 AM

nturner said:

You mean Ted-who-everyone-knows-was-responsible-for-No-Child-Left-Behind-Kennedy?

Yeah, Hillary defended his piece of shit legislation for years...  And then Teddy got drunk and drove off the Obama cliff.  How loyal!

April 20, 2008 12:25 PM

newdex said:

Do you all want to know why its so easy for the Republicans to smear Democrats?  Its not because of the way the "right-wing noise machine" frames issues and its not because the "mainstream" media swallows that framework whole - its because Democrats help them.  

A poster says that "as she understands" Bill Clinton advised Kerry to ignore the Swiftboat ads and thats good enough for all of you to prove that the Clintons wanted Kerry to lose.  I guess Kerry's advisors must have wanted him to lose, too - and Kerry himself must have wanted to lose, for that matter.  

April 20, 2008 12:34 PM

BHLnyc said:

Gee, nturner,

Why so -- what's the word? -- bitter?

April 20, 2008 2:08 PM

blackton said:

“And he was dead to us,”  wow, that is just totally wrong. I hope that was just some lameass staffer venting because how the hell can Hillary hope to govern effectively if she treats everyone who hasn't endorsed her as being dead?

One thing Newdex, why wasn't Hillary's then 31 years of public service not enough in 2004? Why didn't she run then? It is obvious it was because she didn't think she could win. She always takes the path of least resistance. She runs for Senate in one of the most liberal states and not her own in Arkansas, a reverse carpetbagger. She runs in 2008 after Bush ripped everything apart, realizing that was her only chance to overcome her sky high negatives in the general.

April 20, 2008 2:15 PM

stgla said:

memo to nturner: Louis Farrakhan is not "in the Obama camp" any more than David Duke is in the McCain camp.  It's sleazy and dishonest for you play these guilt by distant association games.  Aren't we above that here?

April 20, 2008 2:48 PM

virginiacentrist said:

In defense of Hillary Clinton here...that Kerry gaffe was pretty stupid. It was RIGHT before the 2006 midterms. It almost cost us those midterms. That's probably why Kerry (himself) understood that people had to distance themselves from him, even if his loyalists didn't get it.

April 20, 2008 3:55 PM

newdex said:

Blackton:

"Why didn't she run then? It is obvious it was because she didn't think she could win."

You're right - what a cynical bitch! Not running at a time when she didn't think she could win! The nerve! The hubris!  

Come on, Blackton, I know you don't like her, but really . . .

April 20, 2008 6:24 PM

psantillana said:

I'm not saying she should have run and lost in 04. But wanting Kerry to lose to Bush - at the cost of lives and billions of dollars and who knows what else to the country - is indefensible.

April 20, 2008 10:50 PM

jkolic said:

I fully expect to be called naive on this one, but why is the fact that Bill recommended Kerry to ignore the swiftboaters interpreted as a proof of his desire to see the nominee of his own party fail? Could it not be that he honestly considered such a course of action beneficial for Kerry? And have not Dems traditionally been the ones to refuse to respond to venomous attacks from the right and to attempt to keep themselves above the fray? Kerry, as far as I can tell, took the path typically traveled by members of his own party. Why interpret the advice that must have been seconded by many as sheer malevolence?

April 20, 2008 11:08 PM

citizenghost said:

Jkolic,

That's hardly naive - it's a good point.   There's a tendency now to portray the Clintons as so perfectly  powerful and Machievellian, that  is assumed that every political result can only have been ordained by them.  Now THAT is naive.

People also forget how close the election was in 2004.  Had Kerry won, people would be talking about the "brilliant" decision to ignore the Swiftboaters.  

April 21, 2008 7:33 AM

blackton said:

thanks newdex, my point exactly, she is one. I just don't want to say it lest I be labeled sexist. Hah. The scary fact is that she might have been ableto win in 2004 had she run but misjudged the direction of the war thinking Bush was unbeatable, yet Kerry (Mr. Tightass himself) had a genuine chance to win. She had her chance but her cynicism ruined it. Now, instead of a lameass like Kerry she has to go up against Obama, and she is losing.

April 21, 2008 11:02 AM

blackton said:

and newdex, had it been Hillary against Bush, you can be damn sure I would have voted for Hillary. Her cynicism is her downfall, whereas if she had acted in the best interests of the country and run, she could have served both her own interests and that of the country. And had she won, then we would all be working for her re-election, and Obama would be that up and coming Illinois Senator primed for a run in 2012.

April 21, 2008 11:26 AM

newdex said:

Blackton, its obvious that you're determined to turn everything into an example of HIllary's bad character no matter how much stretching is involved.  THere's absolutely no reason to suppose that Hillary genuinely did not think she could win the general election in 2004 and that Kerry could.  No reason other than your base assumption that everything she does is cynical and selfish, that is.    

April 21, 2008 11:29 AM

blackton said:

newdex, listen, I am not saying that her cynicism makes her evil or bad, just that ironically it has come to be her fatal flaw in the trajectory of her life. What, I can't make observations? I am not sure I understand your second point either. If she thought she could have won, then why the hell didn't she? It makes no sense to say, hey I know I can win now, but I will wait 4 more years (maybe 8 if Kerry wins) because....I can't even answer the because. Can you?

Back in 2003 I am fairly certain she looked at the conditions and said no Democrat can win, hell I thought the same thing then too. It made sense for her not to run then, but that sense has been proven to be utterly wrong.

April 21, 2008 12:09 PM

newdex said:

blackton, you misunderstand what I said.  

You are assuming that HIllary thought she was the best candidate to run in 2004 but, since she thought the Democrats had no chance, she didn't bother.  That's a very large assumption, based on your a priori belief that everything Hillary does is cynical and selfish.  

I'm saying Hillary likely didn't run in 2004 because she didn't think SHE could win in 2004, which is not the same as thinking NO Democrat could win in 2004.  Maybe that was your assumption, but that doesn't make it a known fact.  The election was pretty close, remember?  It was never a sure thing for Bush.  What reason do you have to assume that Hillary didn't actually believe that she was NOT the best candidate to put forward in 2004?  Aside from your assumptions of her character, that is.  

April 21, 2008 12:57 PM

blackton said:

"I'm saying Hillary likely didn't run in 2004 because she didn't think SHE could win in 2004, which is not the same as thinking NO Democrat could win in 2004." So you are saying that other Democrats were more worthy to win, or able? In either case, why is what was true in 2004 not true for 2008, that is there are other Democrats more worthy to win, or able? If the only difference in these 4 years is a cynical assumption based on probabilities, then am I so bad as to point this out?

My point is that it seemed in 2003 to be a sure thing for Bush, but was proven not to be by his utter mishandling of the war, a mishandling not apparent in 2003 when real decisions were made.

Do you think had Hillary run that she could have won? If your answer is yes, then of course it is a mistake for her not to have run. If your answer is no, that she could not have won, then the question is why couldn't she have? What makes her better now then then? If it is only in her chances of winning, then it can certainly be argued she had a better chance to win then, then she does now.

My assumptions are not about her character, but about her decision making. In 2004 she would have had my support, in 2008 no. I say this simply because in 2004 anybody was a better alternative than Bush, but now, in 2008 she misjudged the will and desire of America to put all of history behind us, both Bush and Clinton.

And you seem to think I regard Hillary as an evil succubus. I don't. I think she is a great Senator, but has proven to be a lousy candidate for President.

April 21, 2008 1:41 PM

blackton said:

granted, newdex, hind sight is a cruel mistress with which to judge people. Still in all, not becoming President is not the cruelest fate to befall a politician. She has had an extraordinary life by any measure, former first lady and chief adviser to a President, sitting Senator, multi-millionaire. Pardon me if I don't weep for her fate.

April 21, 2008 1:46 PM

newdex said:

Blackton, I'm saying Hillary would be - or would have been - a worthy and capable president during any 4 year term, but her prospects for winning the general election may not have been as good in 2004 as in 2008.  I think any serious contender for president should weigh thier actual prospects for winning the general before deciding whether to run or not.  As for worthiness, I'm sure there are always more worthy candidates in every election than the candidates chosen.  I'm  sure there are more worthy candidates than either Hillary or Obama right now - but worthiness is only part of the equation.  Likelihood of winning being the other.  

Why would her chances be better now than in 2004?  Perhaps because it was still only 4 years since her husband was president, perhaps because the automatic right-wing hatred of her was still stronger then, perhaps because it was more of a "wartime" election and being both female and without military experience may have been more of a handicap (remember that was a big reason why Kerry won).  Perhaps it has to do with purely logistical, organization type issues.  I don't really know, honestly, but I'm sure there are plenty of perfectly plausible reasons.  

I'll take your word for it that you don't regard Hillary as an evil succubus, but you do seem to base a lot of  your arguments about her on unsupported assumptions of evil intent.  Of course you're hardly alone in that.  

Finally, I don't feel sorry for her either - and there's really no reason to assume that she's feeling sorry for herself - or driven by some irrational need to be "the center of attention" like certain posters insist (not you, I think).

April 21, 2008 5:01 PM

newdex said:

one other possibility, Blackton - which I'm sure would bring derisive laughter from most cynical political junkies - maybe Hillary didn't run in 2004 because she hadn't decided to run for president at all yet.  I know the conventional wisdom is that she's been "planning" to run forever and her decision to become a Senator was just a part of that plan, but that's all speculation built on - again - assumptions about her motivations.  If you start with the assumption that she's actually a normal human being, then its entirely possible her attitude in 2000 was: "I'm going to become a senator and do the best job I can and - who knows? - MAYBE someday I'll even run for president."  I think most politicians at least have dreams of becoming president.  The ones who actually make the effort are the ones who find themselves in the circumstance that it might actually be possible.  So of course, when she ran for the senate I'm sure she was conscious of the fact that it was a possibility - and she certainly didn't do anything to discount the possibility - but that doesn't mean she had made the firm decision to go for it.  By 2006, there was a chorus of voices asking her to run, and every indication that she had a good shot at it.  THAT's how that kind of decision is made.  Its not a matter of "oh what the heck, lets go for it."  (unless you're Kucinich or some such)

April 21, 2008 5:44 PM

blackton said:

you start with the assumption that she's actually a normal human being, Of course she is not a normal human being, no normal human being runs for President. Same with Obama.

I think it is obvious from her voting record that she had running in mind from the beginning, how else to explain the vote on flag burning? Was she afraid of alienating New Yorkers and losing her seat, of course not, it was pandering to a national audience, pure and simple. Or a host of other issues which are not consistent with what we would have imagined to come from her. I am not even saying I disagree with her record either, (except the flag burning issue). It is centrist and reasonable, but is it really in tune with Liberal New York?

I also do think there is an irrational need for attention, but I think it is true for all politicians. Is it especially true with her? I have no idea, I do think if she had lost New Hampshire though (and by double digits) she would have withdrawn, same with Ohio, what has been terrible for her is to be within reach, but have it always slightly beyond her grasp. It is like the Democratic party is toying with her, throwing her a lifeline when it looks like she was done. She has also run a terrible campaign, and has to know it, so she probably feels if she finds something that works it will push her over the top.

One thing, I am not sure why you are labeling everything as being cynical. I think she was a realist for not running in 2004, and was a realist for running in New York for Senate. But being a realist doesn't make you a hero. Running in 2004, against what would have looked to be impossible (or close to it) odds would have been heroic (or stupid).

A black guy with the name of Barack Hussein Obama, a scant 6 years removed from 9/11 in the midst of a war to remove another Hussein, with only 3 years in the Senate running for the White House is heroic. You have to admit, it took a leap of faith on his part to think he could connect with Iowa and New Hampshire voters. He could have very well bombed out before South Carolina, in which case he would have withdrawn so as to not look like a Jesse Jackson type candidate. That risk of Hillary bombing out was never there, hence her dazed look after Iowa.

April 21, 2008 6:16 PM