Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

karynnj

(60,586 posts)
45. There were many articles in 2006 that made it clear that the Clintons thought
Fri Mar 30, 2018, 12:17 PM
Mar 2018

no one should speak about Iraq because it could hurt in the midterms. Finding links from 2006 is difficult. What I will point to is the way Kerry and Feingold were treated when their amendment was brought up by the Republicans for debate. You can find it in the Senate record -- where Reid actually gave DEMOCRATIC time in prime time to Joe Lieberman who trashed Kerry and Feingold personally in addition to stating his position.

Here is a link that explains the split - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13456702/ns/politics/t/democratic-fissures-senates-iraq-debate/#.Wr5SkojwY54 Here is a Daily Kos diary that described how Kerry was attacked. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2007/8/31/378899/-

June 2006 was yet another defense appropriation battle in the Senate. The Republicans ran the chamber with a healthy majority, and there was no doubt that the funding would pass. However, the anti-war sentiment out in the country found a voice in two Democratic Senators -- John Kerry and Russ Feingold -- who had put together an amendment that would set a timetable for withdrawal. It was a radical plan at the time, and the Democratic leadership was very angry that Kerry and Feingold insisted that their amendment be debated and voted upon. Many Democrats went to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other publications, and said that John Kerry was a "big embarrassment", that his plan went too far, and that it could cost them in the midterm elections. Not only that, Harry Reid made sure that the Kerry/Feingold amendment would be debated after the evening news, safely late in the night, where no one would notice the plan. In 2007, this is all water under the bridge, seeing that the Kerry/Feingold amendment is now the Reid Resolution which at last count received 54 votes in July. It was an idea which needed time to gain support, as it only garnered 13 votes that June.



There was a NYT magazine article that described in detail the behind the scenes, but I can not find a current link - it is 13 years ago!

Before that, when Kerry returned to the Senate, there was a whisper campaign -- that spread to both DU and Daily Kos - suggesting that Harry Reid was angry that Kerry continued to speak as a Democratic leader. (Note A Democratic leader, not THE Democratic leader.) Search Daily Kos for 2005 or 2006. Kos himself made several posts that blasted Kerry whenever he accepted a chance to speak - claiming that he was not Reid's choice to do so.

My guess is you were possibly less interested in the post 2004 election or you agreed with the overwhelming sentiment on DU concerning Kerry. The fact is that both powerful Democrats and people on message boards were as willing to tell him to go away as they are now with Clinton.

As to hitting them when a statement they made was seen as potentially harmful, Hillary herself stabbed Kerry in the back calling his misreading of a joke (leaving out "us&quot "inappropriate". I will always hold it against her that she did this. It would have been fair game had she simply attacked him as having made a gaffe and that it was unhelpful. Calling it inappropriate backed the Republicans who said he criticized the troops in Iraq, which he absolutely didn't and wouldn't do. Inappropriate is a very strong word with moral implications. I don't think any of the Democrats have called her words inappropriate.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Why? duforsure Mar 2018 #1
Hell no, Butterflylady Mar 2018 #2
I can't imagine Trump PatSeg Mar 2018 #4
Except, strangely, about Stormy Daniels PJMcK Mar 2018 #9
I know PatSeg Mar 2018 #31
Because she is a woman. LiberalBrooke Mar 2018 #36
Welcome to DU, LiberalBrooke! calimary Apr 2018 #69
In fact, the plan was the opposite caraher Mar 2018 #40
He literally failed all the way to the top. Nailzberg Mar 2018 #64
Groan... lunatica Mar 2018 #67
I'd like to see her become more vocal and less circumspect in her statements than ever before. Squinch Mar 2018 #3
Yes PatSeg Mar 2018 #32
+ a million or so! BlueMTexpat Mar 2018 #66
Why should she not speak out? Trumpie is still running against her, rather than actual governance. mackdaddy Mar 2018 #5
+1 dalton99a Mar 2018 #34
Lets face it--many Democrats have said or indicated for her to be quiet. Yes they have... riversedge Mar 2018 #51
She won the popular vote by 3 million votes Nonhlanhla Mar 2018 #6
Don't forget about the secret involvement of Russia Farmer-Rick Mar 2018 #27
Damn right! edhopper Mar 2018 #28
Also, Nonhlanhla, the russian collusion Cha Mar 2018 #60
Did running for president remove her 1st admendment rights? nt Ferrets are Cool Mar 2018 #7
+2,000 Angry Dragon Mar 2018 #10
No. Her uterus did. EffieBlack Mar 2018 #13
Boom! This! NurseJackie Mar 2018 #22
I hate to disagree with you but that is not correct... Ferrets are Cool Mar 2018 #49
You've got a point there EffieBlack Mar 2018 #50
There ya go. Now we agree 100%. Ferrets are Cool Mar 2018 #52
Hillary and Obama should both speak up more FakeNoose Mar 2018 #8
They should if they want to EffieBlack Mar 2018 #14
It is wrong for people to say she should not speak, however karynnj Mar 2018 #11
"The Clinton wing of the party pushed Kerry to stop talking ... as he introduced Kerry/Feingold" EffieBlack Mar 2018 #16
Its an empty phrase used to malign Clinton. NCTraveler Mar 2018 #21
There were many articles in 2006 that made it clear that the Clintons thought karynnj Mar 2018 #45
Considering neither article you linked to even mentions Clinton EffieBlack Mar 2018 #46
Your arguments RARELY have any proof attached -- karynnj Mar 2018 #47
When was the last time a sitting president(fake) attacked their opponent Angry Dragon Mar 2018 #12
Reagan attacked Carter during the 1984 campaign. bluescribbler Mar 2018 #41
But did Raygun attack after he was elected?? Angry Dragon Mar 2018 #44
He did. bluescribbler Apr 2018 #70
It's like the song "Every Breath You Take" betsuni Mar 2018 #15
"..and idiots were right there saying she was pandering to spice-eaters." Cha Mar 2018 #61
Well, she pretty well nailed it because it is true & she provided the facts of the matter. DylanUSC Mar 2018 #17
The problem is, facts don't matter in Trumpland. vsrazdem Mar 2018 #19
Only "alternative facts." 3catwoman3 Mar 2018 #29
Understand but for those you are speaking of that seems it will always be the case. DylanUSC Mar 2018 #43
Not to mention DownriverDem Mar 2018 #25
I think she should speak as much as she wants, BUT I don't like her answer. thesquanderer Mar 2018 #18
Romney, Gore weren't constantly and viciously attacked by the new president, his base and a network EffieBlack Mar 2018 #23
It is good politics for them BeyondGeography Mar 2018 #30
Yes. Your answer is better than Hillary's. thesquanderer Mar 2018 #33
There is more than one answer EffieBlack Mar 2018 #35
I agree that she'd be attacked either way. thesquanderer Mar 2018 #37
Obama and Democrats were not attacking Romney after the election JI7 Mar 2018 #53
These critics of Clinton are often the same ones who say gratuitous Mar 2018 #20
The lame protest against her Rutgers speech (organized on Our Revolution) comes to mind... NurseJackie Mar 2018 #24
Oh yes.. the "our revolution" protest that decided Cha Mar 2018 #62
I encourage the GOP to continue to run against her bronxiteforever Mar 2018 #26
also she was elected barbtries Mar 2018 #38
God bless Hillary! left-of-center2012 Mar 2018 #39
Actually... that's nonsense. They say it to almost EVERY man who was not elected FBaggins Mar 2018 #42
Specific examples with links? EffieBlack Mar 2018 #48
Here's a few... hughee99 Mar 2018 #54
Thanks for taking the time to find an post these links. EffieBlack Mar 2018 #55
I know this isn't something that we're really supposed to say, but there were a lot of people hughee99 Mar 2018 #56
I didn't say it was "totally" based on her gender. In fact, I explicitly said it was not totally EffieBlack Mar 2018 #57
Sorry, I misread your comment hughee99 Mar 2018 #58
No problem - we all do it EffieBlack Mar 2018 #59
True dat. Susan Calvin Mar 2018 #63
Damn straight! BobTheSubgenius Mar 2018 #65
John MCCain was on every network years after losing to Obama malaise Mar 2018 #68
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Hillary Clinton responds ...»Reply #45