Shrum on Bill Clinton's "Sister Souljah" advice to John Kerry on federal ban on gay marriage in '04

[flpoljunkie]

May 29, 2007

Clinton's Advice

Bob Shrum's book has already caused its share of trouble for John Edwards, in part from Shrum's recollection that Edwards wasn't comfortable with gay people in 1998.

But the book is really sort of a pile of unexploded ordnance, and the person who comes off as most indifferent to questions of gay rights isn't Edwards, but Bill Clinton.

A version of this story is already in print. In 2004, Newsweek* reported, without a named source, that Bill Clinton had suggested Kerry "to back local bans on gay marriage."

Shrum has more, and different, detail:

"Clinton, Kerry reported at the time, did suggest blunting Bush's appeal to cultural conservatives with a reprise of Clinton's Sister Souljah moment in 1992 when he'd denounced her call for violence against whites — and done it as conspicuously as possible in front of Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition.

"Kerry, Clinton ventured, should consider defying Democratic interest groups by endorsing the Bush proposal for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage."

Shrum reports that "this was a flip-flop too far for Kerry."

It's also worse in Shrum's version — the federal amendment, versus state amendments -- than in Newsweek's telling. And Bill Clinton does, reportedly, continue to play a small role in Hillary's campaign.

posted by Ben Smith

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0507/Clintons_Advice.html

* In an earlier phone call, Clinton—ever the political triangulator, looking for ways to pick up swing voters by reaching into the so-called Red States—had urged Kerry to back local bans on gay marriage. Kerry respectfully listened, then told his aides, "I'm not going to ever do that."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6421299/site/newsweek/

[wyldwolf]

1. I have a few things to say about this...

Bob Shrum is a failed Democratic strategist who is now selling a book... Shrum is shit stirring, that will now be his legacy... He has reduced himself to the status and insignificance of Dick Morris... and Pat Caddell... Since the DLC will want free copies, who will actually buy it?... Bullshit, I wouldn't trust or believe much of what Shrum has to say.. Robert Shrum is a giant douchebag... Shrum IS A Shit-Head!!!... Gee ... he's selling a book?... Shrum sucks and he's a loser, for real... a liar and a backstabber. But Republicans would call him an honest businessman...

(from various threads on DU last week in regards to Shrum and John Edwards.)

[flpoljunkie]

2. Hit a nerve, did we? Refute this, if you can. The accusation comes from Newsweek, as well.

[Tellurian]

6. Nevermind..the politico comments say it all..Old news, no big whoop!

Kerry: "a flip-flop gone too far!" even too far for Kerry..

[flpoljunkie]

8. Can you refute this accusation? Feel free to "cut and paste" for your rebuttal.

[wyldwolf]

9. I refuted the accusation the same way the one about Edwards was refuted

We either believe Shrum or we do not. And an unnamed source in Newsweeks is not a credible source. For all we know, that unnamed source was Shrum.

[flpoljunkie]

11. Not believing Shrum is not a refutation of Shrums' accusation.

[wyldwolf]

13. I used unnamed sources like newsweek did (except mine are from DU) to show Shrum is a liar

[AtomicKitten]

34. Kerry supported his own state's ban on gay marriage

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/02/26/kerry_backs_state_ban_on_gay_marriage/

Unless some are suggesting he was Clinton's personal hand-puppet, Kerry clearly had that proclivity. Shrum or no Shrum.

[beachmom]

43. Well, I don't agree with him there, but his position in Mass per your article is this:

In his most explicit remarks on the subject yet, Kerry told the Globe that he would support a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit gay marrriage so long as, while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive.

"If the Massachusetts Legislature crafts an appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection," the senator said yesterday, stressing that he was referring only to the state, and not the federal, Constitution. He has said he would oppose any amendment that did not include a provision for civil unions. "I think that you need to have civil union. That's my position," he said Tuesday.

The federal ban on gay marriage would NOT allow for civil unions. Nor would any of those state amendments in 2004. I think those amendments were very cruel and over the top, even for those who honestly opposed gay marriage. Here in Virginia, we had a marriage amendment (which I would call a hate amendment) that banned gay marriage AND civil unions. The language was so unclear it may also ban rights for heterosexual couples not married. Another words, it was a very extreme bill. It was during a Democratic mid term sweep in 2006, where Webb won. It garnered nearly 57% of the vote, and passed easily.

I am for gay marriage myself, but I can understand if a national candidate, given the political reality in our country overwhelmingly against gay marriage, has to distance himself from the word "gay marriage" in a state where gay marriage was in fact ALLOWED, while giving all of the rights to gays that they receive in Vermont and (now) Connecticut. That is a pretty progressive position, but as far as Kerry could take it. What Clinton was suggesting was for Kerry to tack HARD RIGHT and hold the same exact position as Bush. That is both morally wrong and politically suicidal.

[flpoljunkie]

10. Sorry. It is news if Bill Clinton was suggesting Kerry support Bush's federal ban on gay marriage.

And good for John Kerry for not taking Bill's despicable advice!

[wyldwolf]

14. Sorry. It WAS news in 2004 that an UNNAMED source suggested this.

Now we know who that unnamed source was.

[flpoljunkie]

15. Perhaps you need to reread the original post. Shrum's accusation is quite different from Newsweek's.

Rather than denouncing gay marriage on a local level, Shrum says Clinton suggested Kerry support Bush's federal marriage ban.

[wyldwolf]

16. Shrum is to be believed on everything unless we have a source to refute it? This should be good!

Can't wait to read the book now.

[karynnj]

26. Excellent point

This is sort of like the way the media treated the undocumented no proof SBVT - demanding the far more credible Kerry refute every allegation.

Shrum has said a number of things where he seems to:

- take something he heard/saw/
- ascribe motive and other details that may not follow to them.

Here, I am suspicious because Bill Clinton is too good a politician to do this. Kerry has a 20 plus year record on gay rights. In reality, Kerry was consistent on most issues. Where he appeared to move can generally be explained via his Senate speeches - he is not an ideologue .

Doing what Clinton supposedly said, would anger the base, destroy his(Kerry's) own reputation on this issue, and make him look like a phony. On the other side, it would gain him nothing. Bush had moved his position to Kerry's on gay marriage - but the RW attacked Kerry. Had Kerry done this, he would have sacrificed his integrity which means an enormous amount to him and lost by a far greater amount.

[karynnj]

23. But not for Bill Clinton, apparently

The bigger question is whether either Clinton or Kerry have ever verified it.

As it was, it was more than a "Flip Flop" problem, it was against Kerry's values. The fact is that Kerry is a pretty consistent politician.

[wyldwolf]

7. yeah. It comes from an UNNAMED SOURCE on Newsweek, LOL!

Refuted.

[Hippo_Tron]

12. I agree with you Wyldwolf, Clinton had the good sense never to let Shrum run his campaign strategy

And Shrum was never particularly happy about that. If Kerry had done the same, he might be in the White House right now. Shrum is good at speech writing and debate prep, but he could never cut it as a strategist and he's bitter about it.

[politicasista]

27. So you rather believe Shrum and think Kerry was stupid?

No, had the ENTIRE party had backed him up when the Smear Boat fools made their rounds, that would have made a difference. Instead they and the corporate media failed him.

If people think the media is going to be nice to anyone BUT Kerry then people are in for a rude awakening.

I am sorry, but I am not for dumping on Kerry or anyone just to promote or praise Clinton. That makes Dems look bad. And I am not a Shrum fan either.


JMHO

[Hippo_Tron]

28. I'm not dumping on Kerry to praise Clinton...

I'm pointing out that Clinton had the good sense not to hire Shrum and Kerry made a mistake by not doing the same.

[politicasista]

30. People make mistakes

No candidate is perfect, but I still disagree that that wasn't the only reason that Kerry "lost." Clinton had party and media support. Kerry had NO media support and very few dems on his side.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. I'm not saying it's the only reason Kerry lost...

I'm saying that he might have won had he not let Shrum run his strategy. Secondly, it was not just a mistake it was an incredibly stupid mistake considering Shrum had worked on 8 presidential campaigns and not a single one of them was successful.

Yea Clinton may have had a more favorable media climate. That doesn't change the fact that Kerry shouldn't have hired Bob Shrum.

[karynnj]

32. Carville would have been a disaster

Carville and Clinton were a good match. Kerry should have gambled and had his brother and best friend run the campaign. This would have been widely criticzed because they had not worked on a national campaign, though they had run Kerry campaigns. What they did have though was a total commitment to Kerry and an intuitive understanding of who he is and what he stands for. They would have done a much better job protecting him.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. I agree that Carville would not have worked well with Kerry

And probably half of his staff would've resigned because they wouldn't have been able to stand Carville's arrogance. However, there are more people to run campaigns than Carville and Shrum. Kerry brought John Sasso and Joe Lockhardt on after getting rid of Shrum and Cahill and they did a pretty good job for the last few months of the campaign. Perhaps Kerry should have brought them on in the first place.

[karynnj]

38. I don't think he got rid of Cahill and Shrum

when he brought Lockhart in. Lockhardt very nearly got Kerry in the midst of the National Guard story and reportedly spent most of his time on the phone on non-Kerry stuff.

I think Kerry did better in the last 2 months because he followed the advice of his brother, Thorne, and the other Boston people and gave the 2 great speeches on Iraq and on terrorism. He also had the debates. There are very few Democrats who have run national campaigns and all have flaws.

The Clinton team is the only one that won since 1976, when Carter one. In 1992, you had a President below 40% approval for at least the 6 months before the election - going down to 33%. That would be like running against W now, not in 2004. The war room air brushes any errors they made and created a myth that they were great.

The Gore team led by Brazille did Gore no favors - you had Gore, with all his accomplishments running against a man with few things good to point at. This campaign did win though.

The Dukakis campaign was run by Estrich - who was awful.

In fact, the people who might be the best prepared to run a campaign in 2008 are the Boston people who helped Kerry. The world changed in the last decade and they are likely the ones who would have learned form their mistakes.

I also don't agree that the Kerry campaign was that badly run.

[Hippo_Tron]

40. Shrum and Cahill got demoted to basically insignificance

And I agree that Kerry did better by listening to his brother, something he should've done in the first place. But again, why in god's name would you let Bob Shrum run your strategy when he had worked on 8 losing presidential campaigns and not a single winning one? I'm not suggesting that Kerry should've picked a certain person over Bob Shrum, I'm saying that there's at least a dozen people that Kerry could've picked that would've been better than Bob Shrum.

I've never read the reports about Lockhardt spending most of his time on non-Kerry stuff but I do know that the campaign was far more focused and on message after Lockhardt and Sasso took over.

[Adelante]

89. Tell me something about Kerry and Shrum

I haven't read the book or even all of the threads on it. Granted Shrum may have given Kerry some poor advice along with some good advice, but throughout 2004 and since, I didn't have the idea that Shrum was anything but loyal to Kerry at any time. Have I been under a misperception? Has there been fallout that altered their relationship? Or was the relationship never as solid as it seemed? Just curious about your take on it. Thanks.

[Mass]

117. He tried - They refused.

There were numerous reports that Kerry tried to get them on board after he secured the nomination and that they did not want to. The reasons they refused are not clear to me, the official reason being they earned more in the private sector.

[blm]

45. Kerry had the bad sense to expose IranContra and BCCI. Clinton had the good sense to

run WITH the big boys instead of challenging their corruption.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html

[Hippo_Tron]

47. Changing the subject doesn't change the fact...

That Kerry let a guy who had worked on 8 losing presidential campaigns and not a single winning one run his strategy. I'm not saying that Clinton didn't have more favorable circumstances than Kerry, he most certainly did. I'm saying that Kerry should have had the good sense to stay away from a loser like Bob Shrum.

[blm]

49. Shrum DID WIN in 2000 - Gore won and I will NOT reify RW talking points by pretending

along with the corpmedia and DC Dems that Gore lost because of his campaign - Had the election process been SECURED by an attentive party organization in 2000, then THAT race wouldn't have been stolen, either.

[flpoljunkie]

50. Thanks for pointing that out, blm.

[Hippo_Tron]

52. Fine, but Shrum's role on the Gore campaign was debate prep...

Shrum still has never been successful at doing strategy on a presidential campaign. Kerry promised that he was only going to use Shrum for speech writing and debate prep, not strategy. He went back on that promise and suffered the consequences.

[blm]

57. Had Terry McAuliffe done the job HE PROMISED to in 2001 to assure the vote count

by countering the GOP tactics used against Dem voters in the years before, during and after voting day, then Kerry would be in the WH today.

McAuliffe didn't do THAT part of the job and THAT is where Ohio and likely several other states like Iowa, NM, Florida and NC were actually lost.

[Hippo_Tron]

82. Kerry's lead diminished into him trailing by 10 points on Shrum's watch

RFK Jr's article presents very convincing evidence of voter fraud. That still isn't the entire story of the Kerry campaign.

[blm]

87. Add context and looks even WORSE for Dem betrayal afoot. Post#44

.

[BootinUp]

29. lol. n/t

[yurbud]

55. I don't know about LIAR, but all the rest rings true

[soleft]

3. anyone know what he said about Edwards

and has Edwards had any response?

[MessiahRp]

5. He basically said that Edwards didn't want to be around gays

And that gay people made him uncomfortable.

Rp

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. Which has been refuted by someone who was there at the time of the alleged comment nt

[wyldwolf]

41. really? Who?

[Cameron27]

42. I think it was refuted by someone on his

campaign committee, but I could be wrong.

/edited to say, not anyone there at the time of the actual meeting.

[wyldwolf]

53. oh, someone who was there but wasn't there at the actual meeting... but is still nameless

[Adelante]

88. It was Elizabeth Edwards, I believe, who denied Shrum's story

Following an early Boston Globe article about the Shrum book - maybe a month ago, maybe two.

I have to say, in agreement with your first post, how absurd it is we're expected to believe Shrum on either Clinton, but not believe Shrum when it comes to Edwards :crazy:

It's a campaign memoir, nothing more; it's silly to believe or not believe anything absolutely, when it's just one person's viewpoint.

Edit: rinsd's post reminded me to say I'm referring to advice on the IWR vote specifically. I haven't seen any denial of the quote in Shrum's book about the statement on gays, although the campaign said it was out of context.

[rinsd]

18. Well Shrum said a few things about Edwards, none of them particulary good.

He said that Edwards stated he was uncomfortable around gay people.

He also stated that he and other advisors pushed Edwards into voting for the IWR even though he had reservations.

More info here - http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070521&s=crowley052307

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. Geez. You'd think Bill was trying to HURT Kerry's campaign

not that I can think of a reason he'd actaully want to do that of course....

[wisteria]

17. Senator Kerry has to much integrity to pander to the right in order to get votes.

That wasn't and still isn't what Senator Kerry is about. I remember hearing about Clinton suggesting this and Kerry being shocked at him for suggesting it.

[flpoljunkie]

19. Indeed! We do remember the Newsweek allegation. Shrum confirms and expands on original accusation.

[LittleClarkie]

22. I remember that, and I was proud of Kerry for saying it was something he'd never do.

That's my guy!

[karynnj]

20. Have either Senator Kerry or President Clinton commented on this

There have been many things from that Newsweek issue that have been debunked. This story shows Kerry in a positive light - but think that these behind the scenes stories need to verified by at least one of the principals.

Everyone speaking then and Shrum are essentially violating confidences. The problem is they all likely had some agenda.

[flpoljunkie]

24. Not that I'm aware of.

[LittleClarkie]

21. We had a man running the campaign in 2004 who didn't believe in Kerry

That's all this tells me. "A flip flop too far"?

Shrum, you're an ass.

[flpoljunkie]

25. A rather crude way for Shrum to put it--even if if Kerry had taken Bill's advice, which he did not!

[madfloridian]

33. Anyone believe me now when I quote this?

Perhaps this was a pattern? I have nearly been run off the board if I shared this, Dean was called a liar...now who knows.

"It remains to be seen, too, just how much my support for the civil unions
bill will hurt my chances to reshape Democratic politics. Some pretty
important Democrats have shown they think it might. When former president
Clinton was trying to drum up support for Wes Clark, just prior to Clark's
entry into the presidential race a year ago, he called a friend in a large
city and said "I need you to be for Wes Clark." The friend demurred. Clinton
said, "Look, I'm from Arkansas, and Wes is from Arkansas, we need to be for
Wes. "

The friend told Clinton he was Dean supporter. "Howard Dean", Clinton said
"forfeited his right to run for president when he signed the civil unions
bill. He can't win."

It was a rare mistake for the president. The supporter was gay and called us
to tip us off.

Page 113 You Have the Power by Howard Dean, 2004.

[illinoisprogressive]

35. I believe in what Dean says. he is a good person and honest.

this may have something to do with the attempted coup against him by the clinton camp last November.

[Cameron27]

61. Dean spoke with less than honesty

about both Clark and Kerry in 2004. I'm not sure if this made it into his book:

“Howard Dean hurled one of the worst insults he could think of at Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts on Saturday. He suggested that Mr. Kerry was a Republican.

That prompted Mr. Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, to call for an apology and to threaten to release several pages of criticism of Dr. Dean.

snip: ''Turns out we've got more than one Republican in the Democratic race,'' Dr. Dean told reporters on his campaign bus. ''I've always said I thought Wes Clark was a Republican. Now apparently John Kerry has the same financing habits.

''You've heard me rail against George Bush's Medicare bill for giving most of the money to the pharmaceutical companies and the H.M.O.s,'' Dr. Dean added. ''You've heard me talk about his energy bill. John Kerry appears to be no different on this particular issue than George Bush.''

At a rally in Oklahoma City on Saturday, Mr. Kerry responded by saying, ''I'll take a second seat to nobody in this race with respect to my lifetime fight'' against special interests.

Asked about Dr. Dean's characterization of him as a Republican, Mr. Kerry said his rival had made statements about other candidates for which he eventually had to apologize. ''This may be one more,'' he said.

His campaign also noted that Dr. Dean had sealed 145 boxes of files from his days as governor of Vermont and suggested that he was hiding secret meetings with lobbyists.


http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F50F14F7345C0C728CDDAB0894DC404482

In 2004 things got pretty contentious on all sides.

[madfloridian]

62. Well, would you like to go back to the primaries? Research? I got it.

You know when Howard Dean had the nerve to say we were no safer with Saddam captured?

Oops.

I mean it could go on forever.

[Cameron27]

64. Do what you have to do mad.

I'm just pointing out that Howard Dean was not a sterling candidate himself in 2004. You're the one pointing to his book as if it was the source of the only truth about that campaign.

[madfloridian]

65. Clinton undermined him on civil unions.

If you want to go back on a personal level, I am ready for that as well.

I just get tired of being called a liar on that statement.

[Cameron27]

66. I never called you a liar,

and I never phrased anything on a personal level in that post. I simply don't hold Howard Dean as the font of all truth when it comes to the 2004 campaign. The fact that he called his two DEMOCRATIC running mates, Republicans was disgusting IMO, so I have to weigh all his recollections about that time with that in mind.

Since I wasn't privy to the behind the scenes discussions, I don't know what Clinton did or didn't advise regarding civil unions.

[madfloridian]

67. Do you want me post more? I'd rather not.

The others did their share as well.

I think it would be best to stop it here. But I will no longer be told that statement is not true.

[Cameron27]

68. I don't really care what you do

or what your opinions are. That's your business. If you think that statement is true, fine, you believe it's true. Please respect my opinions even if they're not the same as yours.

I wasn't there, and neither were you, so it's only a matter of our personal choices when it comes to what we believe.

[madfloridian]

63. AND the number of boxes sealed was later found to be very few.

Fewer than those before him.

And gee, you want to get into lobbyists?

[flpoljunkie]

37. One thing for Bill to say he can't win,but forfeited his right to run for signing civil unions bill?

Despicable!

[Adelante]

54. Since Clark supported civil unions

You may have a problem.

[wyldwolf]

56. not only that...

But the fact is (the fact denied by Dean's more passionate supporters) is Dean only signed that civil unions bill when the state legislation gave him an ultimatum to either sign a gay marriage bill or a civil unions bill.

Dean has had his own issues with "those people," from mistakenly claiming the Dem party platform from 2004 states "marriage is between a man and a woman" to firing the Democratic Party's gay outreach adviser Donald Hitchcock for criticizing Dean's lack of leadership on gay rights issues.

Before he signed the civil unions bill, Dean said gay marriage "makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086952

[madfloridian]

59. Well, don't you worry your pretty head about it. Hitchcock is suing.

Are you jumping up and down all over the place there now?

I just bet you are.

Hitchcock never thought about suing the RNC for 6 years of hate and scapegoating.

So wyldwolf, be happy, Relax. Sit back.

And let Bill Clinton off the hook for putting down a good man who did what he needed to do.

[madfloridian]

60. And watch what you accuse Dean of doing via Hitchcock.

There is a lawsuit coming up but I guess you knew that. There are several sides to the story.

[wyldwolf]

69. ROFL! "There are several sides to the story." OH, the IRONY!

[madfloridian]

70. Glad you think the lawsuit is so funny.

I think it very odd that after the GOP has used that group to scapegoat for 6 years...that there is such a big deal being made of the lawsuit against the DNC.

No, that is what I said. He is not suing the RNC or the GOP....he is suing the DNC.

I am glad you are hysterically laughing.

I think it is going to turn a lot of people against some who need real understanding after being battered for 6 years.

Hey when the GOP beats up on you, sue the DNC. That's the answer. And I think you know that is not the whole story.

[wyldwolf]

71. What I find funny is as soon as someone pulls out some damning info on Dean... you claim...

... "several sides to every story," where before you were hanging Clinton out to dry.

[madfloridian]

72. Clinton undermined him on civil unions.

If you see two sides to telling someone that a candidate forfeited the right to be president because of a civil unions bill....then that is just sad.

[wyldwolf]

74. but... but... there a "several sides to every story!" Dean said ...

... gay marriage "makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else."

[madfloridian]

75. Clinton undermined him on civil unions.

And he gets sued by some in that community.

I am starting to feel very uncomfortable myself. A lot of people are going to find this lawsuit hard to justify. That's not good.

It's nice to be caught in the middle of a former president who trashes you for supporting civil unions....and the community Dean has worked with.

Nice to be caught in the middle.

They should have filed a lawsuit against the RNC and the GOP.

Glad to see you happy WW. Sure shows character to laugh at a good man caught in the middle.

[wyldwolf]

76. Dean said ...gay marriage "makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else."

[madfloridian]

77. And Clinton said Dean forfeited right to be president by signing the bill

And Clinton gets NO ZERO criticism for that. Why not?

So Dean who has really tried to be fair on these issues get blasted here while Clinton does not. Why is that?

Is that called a double standard?

[wyldwolf]

78. Dean said ...gay marriage "makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else."

And Dean gets NO ZERO criticism for that. Why not?

So Dean who has really tried to be fair on these issues get blasted here while Clinton does not. Why is that?

Dean is getting blasted here and Clinton isn't??? :crazy:

[madfloridian]

90. Perhaps you are not aware of the criticism

He has been condemned greatly by that community because he like many were bothered by the word marriage. After all, the Republicans and the religious right had been using them as scapegoats for a long time.

There is no love for Howard Dean among that community. He did not speak out loudly enough for them. Now he is being sued. And the very ones he encouraged the party to be more inclusive about are the ones who will take him to court.

NOT the GOP who have insulted them for years. They are not suing the GOP...they are suing our own chairman.

And you think it is funny. I think it is rotten.

I am alarmed sometimes at the pure pleasure you take in other's discomfort here. You don't bother me anymore, you have already reached a point with me where you can no longer reach me. Nothing you say gets inside me anymore.

But I see you hurt a lot of people here. And you appear to be enjoying it while you do it.

So continue on, have fun, and peace.

[wyldwolf]

95. you said Dean gets blasted "here." You didn't say "in that community."

I am alarmed sometimes at the pure pleasure you take in other's discomfort here.

LOL! Right. The funny thing is how you react when someone hits back.

[madfloridian]

97. You do take pleasure in others' discomfort.

I do not do that. I never have. Some people just seem to have no other avenue than making people feel bad.

That's too bad.

[wyldwolf]

100. I enjoy the irony of people complaining that they've been wounded when they stabbed the knife first.

[madfloridian]

101. What knife, WW. I posted an important statement.

It showed that one of the major people in our party who really cared about that issue was caught in between the former president and the gay community, a member of which is now suing him.

It sometimes seems useless to really care about things in this party anymore.

We allow talking heads like Carville and Shrum to dominate the airwaves and get credit for things.

And our own party is afraid to take stances. Are they being blackmailed? Maybe. But the ones who do speak out are soon hushed.

You win the game of oneupmanship,ww. Because all you do is spout stuff with no meaning.

At least I have cared about issues and people and things that matter.

Not that it matters at all.

[wyldwolf]

102. the one you were twisting into Clinton until I posted the facts on Dean.

[madfloridian]

103. Clinton undermined a presidential candidate, said he forfeited right to be president.

Because he signed a civil union bill If you think that is ok, and no one else seems to give a damn....fine with me.

Clinton's wife is running now. And I think something like insulting a governor of a state for signing a civil unions bill was a horrible thing to do.

I don't expect anyone else to speak up. They never do. So you just go ahead and be your cute little self. People do notice.

[wyldwolf]

104. Clinton did not "undermine" anyone. That charge is ludicrous.

One thing Dean supporters still can't accept is criticism.

[madfloridian]

106. Clinton said he forfeited the right to be president by signing civil unions bill.

This was just before Iowa.

Are you saying it was ok for Bill Clinton to do this?

I am truly shocked. Each time I think I won't be surprised again, I am.

Bill Clinton has been wrong on a lot of things, in fact Bill Clinton's supporters can't accept criticism with out calling names.

He undermined our party chances by his oval office behavior, he supported the Iraq War, and he insulted Dean and the gay community.

Among other things.

[wyldwolf]

108. According to Dean. And how did that undermine Dean???

[madfloridian]

109. You just go into denial over criticism of Clinton.

Gee, you need to toughen up a little. Take criticism better.

What Clinton did was inexcusable, and in very poor form for a former president.

It was not classy.

[wyldwolf]

110. Just can't answer it, can you. how did that undermine Dean???

[madfloridian]

111. Clinton insulted the gay community and Dean. You are locked in on a word

Clinton showed his true colors.

You are showing you support a former president insulting a whole community along with a presidential candidate.

But you can be happy now. Someone in that very community is going after Dean and the DNC in a lawsuit. Happy?

[wyldwolf]

114. Dean has insulted the gay community numerous times and insulted Kerry and Clark... wait!

DEAN undermined TWO presidential campaigns!

You are showing you support a failed presidential candidate insulting a whole community along with TWO presidential candidates.

[dsc]

83. That is a total falsehood

There is a whole book on this subject, called civil wars, by the guy who won a pulitzer for his coverage. Not only did the legislators not give Dean anything like the ultimatum that you claim they had to be browbeaten into passing even a civil unions bill. The Supreme Court did give the legislature an ultimatum but the Constitution could have been changed in a time consuming but frankly fairly easy process. Bottom line you are flat out wrong.

[wyldwolf]

84. I quoted a source... but we'll take your word for it. Not.

[dsc]

94. No you didn't

I want to see the source that says the LEGISLATURE, that would be the people who passed laws, gave him any such ultimatum. That is totally, baldly and completely false. By the way I did sight a source, it is called a book. They are in these buildings called libraries.

[wyldwolf]

96. Yes I did. Post #56

"Reality check: Dean had no choice but to accept such a bill. In December 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that Vermont was "constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law." The court instructed the legislature to grant gays "inclusion within the marriage laws themselves or a parallel 'domestic partnership' or some equivalent statutory alternative."

Given that choice, Dean took the more conservative option. According to the Associated Press, Vermont's lieutenant governor and House speaker supported gay marriage, but Dean didn't. Gay marriage "makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else," Dean said at the time. He did encourage the legislature to pass a civil unions bill. But the alternative he averted was legalizing gay marriage, not preventing gay domestic partnerships."

Oh, you cited a book. OK, quote the passage in the book with footnotes. I'm not going to do your work for you.

[dsc]

98. No where does your source say the legislature would pass a marriage bill

that is flat out false. Even the sole gay man in the legislature, a man who was appointed by Dean incidently, stated publicly for the record on dozens of occassions that he knew such a bill would never pass.

Incidently here is an old thread where you also claimed I didn't site a source, and again you were wrong on this very same issue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=932280#932472

[wyldwolf]

99. it doesn't and I didn't say it did. Shall I quoted myself AND the source??

I said: Dean only signed that civil unions bill when the state legislation gave him an ultimatum to either sign a gay marriage bill or a civil unions bill.

MSNBC said: In December 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that Vermont was "constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law." The court instructed the legislature to grant gays "inclusion within the marriage laws themselves or a parallel 'domestic partnership' or some equivalent statutory alternative."

Given that choice, Dean took the more conservative option. According to the Associated Press, Vermont's lieutenant governor and House speaker supported gay marriage, but Dean didn't.

"inclusion within the marriage laws" would have been legalization of gay marriage. "A parallel 'domestic partnership' or some equivalent statutory alternative." Is a civil union.

Dean HAD TO PICK one. He took the more conservative option because, as he said, "Gay marriage "makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else."

And you still have not cited a source. Where are the quotes?? We should take your word that a book with an agenda disputes MSNBC and the AP?? Your long rambling post from your link in no way disputes any of this.

[dsc]

105. You keep saying the LEGISLATURE gave Dean an ultimatum

and you are still flat out wrong and now I have no choice but to believe it is on purpose. The simple face is that the Constitution could have been amended as it was in not one but two other states, including one of the most liberal Democratic ones in the nation. The Court ordered the legislature, not Dean to pass a law. Dean then signed it. I am not going to quote the book here since I told you where it is and have quoted it, in response to your posts, when it first came out. I don't have access to the book without looking in a messy closet and since you don't read posts anyway I fail to see why I should spend a half hour or so looking for a book just so you can't read it. I have told you the title, Civil Wars, and the author David Moats of the book. I have even told you of one possible location to find the book, a library. If you can't, or won't go to a library do a search of my name and posts from when the book came out in 2004. But unless and until you actually read my posts, and notice that the word legislature repeatedly appears in them and answer that I fail to see why I should search for my copy of the book.

[wyldwolf]

107. and they did! What part of the MSNBC story don't you understand??

What part of the MSNBC story don't you understand?? The court instructed the legislature to grant gays "inclusion within the marriage laws themselves or a parallel 'domestic partnership' or some equivalent statutory alternative." The legislation had to do one or the other. They asked Dean, "We're gonna do one of them, which one do ya want, Howie?"

I fail to see why I should spend a half hour or so looking for a book just so you can't read it.

I fail to see why you would expect anyone to believe the passages in the book exists, or rather, why we should believe your spin on them.

[madfloridian]

112. You are truly amazing today, ww.

You just keep on pushing people who are telling the truth, and you make it sound like they are not being honest.

It is just an amazing thing. And few stand up to you at all.

[wyldwolf]

115. I have the quotes. What do you have?

And it just gets worse for Dean on gay rights... new revelations I'd never even heard...

http://www.washblade.com/2004/1-23/news/national/dean.cfm

[dsc]

113. The words you just quoted say the COURT not the LEGISLATURE

but the COURT ordered the LEGISLATURE, not DEAN, to pass a law. The LEGISLATURE can't order anyone to pass laws since that is their job. A COURT is made up of judges.

[wyldwolf]

116. The legislature gave Dean the choice of which one ... it's in the words I quoted

[madfloridian]

58. Not my problem at all. It is just who you think is telling the truth.

I always wondered why Clinton would say this, considering Clark was for civil unions.

But then who really knows, and who really cares.

My belief is that the Clintons were behind Clark's entry in to the race.

My belief is that Bill Clinton meddles a lot in other people's business.

[Adelante]

86. Clark also opposed the DOMA

I think Dean is telling the truth as he viewed it. But I think this whole business about the Clintons' effect on Clark's entry is overplayed. Part of it, yes, but certainly not all of it. Clark was drafted by citizens. I know because I was one of them. Many public figures aside from Clinton encouraged Clark to run including Jimmy Carter and Mario Cuomo and Michael Moore. So it's not so simple as the Clintons being behind it. Clark is an extremely independent thinker and he would have taken any support for the idea of a race into account and then made his own decision.

[madfloridian]

91. There is a lot more about the Carter stuff.

But it does no good to rehash. He waited until September to announce in 03. Had a whole complete thorough very long set of issues, like nothing we have ever seen. No other candidate had such a long complete website of stances.

Peace. What happened happened, Hillary will be the nominee, and that is that.

[blm]

44. Clinton didn't REALLY think that would work - he wanted it to work against Kerry

in 2004, imo, and further damage a possible primary run for 2008.

Put Clinton's "advice" to Kerry in context with other things we now know from then.


This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."
>>>>>
And also remember that Terry McAuliffe never secured the election process in the 4years he promised to do so when he became head of the DNC in 2001.


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg |

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.
On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[Tellurian]

73. Whoever said Kerry was a fighter...he's a wimp!

Just think, had he fought for the Ohio vote we would have GWBush now, and Iraq would be a distant memory!

Too bad Kerry is a behind the scenes hypocrite!

[karynnj]

80. So, did you provide Senator Kerry with

about 60,000 uncounted votes in Ohio that he could make a case on? Senator Kerry was an exceptionally good prosecutor even before he got out of law school and became a top prosecutor soon after he graduated and passed the bar.

[politicasista]

81. Yawn. Love to see you call him that to his face

Personal attacks are getting old just to promote Hillary, ya think? :boring:

[JI7]

93. Clinton's are fighters with their third way politics such as signing DOMA

defense of Marriage act. and their sista souljah moments to win over bigoted white voters.

[dsc]

46. I have a very hard time believing Shrum

but if this is true I will have a huge problem voting for Hillary in the primaries. Bill Clinton has zero, less than zero, right to tell me I can or can't get married. He is totally unqualified to give marrital advice in any context at any time.

[Robbins]

48. CLinton

It Is very possable he persured Gore not to run,and I think it Is very possable he did not want Kerry to win.But the advising Kerry to support Bush's move for bigety towards Gays and Lesbians
really doesn't sit well with me.I am 100 percent hetro but when I see those ranting about protecting
the Instuation of Marrage I consider them Bigets.I am on the fence on Gay Marrage but at times I
think noone should be allowed to married.Perhapes the answer Is simply all under civil unions.
However I think one day Gay Marrage will be legal since polls suggest 70 percent of young people
support It,and the Older generation which opposes It won't be around forever.

[flpoljunkie]

51. Enjoyed reading your thoughts on gay marriage, civil unions, etc.

Bill's advice doesn't sit well with a lot of us.

[AtomicKitten]

79. I'm wondering at what point burying the hatchet

(and not in anybody's back) might seem like a good idea to people here.

The giving and taking of advice in any political endeavor is completely subjective and I don't subscribe to the notion that any Democrat gave another bum advice purposely. I realize believing that is the lifeblood of the wars waged at DU but it is such a messed up way of looking at things. It perpetuates the seething resentment that is woven out of such wispy tenets as speculation, suspicion, assumption, and an sometimes just having an ax to grind.

It is disconcerting to see a handful of people drag the same themes out over and over again particularly in light of the daunting task ahead and that is winning the White House back in 2008 and winning a comfortable veto-proof margin in Congress required to move this country forward and to repair the catastrophic damage inflicted by this administration.

I implore those so willing to continue to dog-paddle in the muck of this stuff to turn on their TV and behold the evil, lying, hateful GOP. We really need to put on our game face because the real war over snatching the reins of control of this country is just warming up.

I have no expectation that what I have said will be given even a moment of consideration and fully expect to be either ignored or trashed but, what the hell, I thought I'd give it a shot.

[beachmom]

85. I will support the Democratic nominee whoever that is.

You're right about the GOP. The prospect of Guiliani, McCain, or Romney occupying the WH is beyond frightening. But the primaries are an important vetting process, so for better or for worse, these kinds of fights are going to continue to happen. I'm actually taking a peripheral role in it, because I think it's important to focus on Congress and ending our occupation of Iraq (or at least laying the groundwork for that for the next president), and the let the chips fall as they may in the primaries.

Full disclosure: I am beginning to lean toward Obama, but I know ALL the Dems are better than the Republicans.

[AtomicKitten]

92. thanks beachmom

My loathing for the opposition often causes me to throw something at the TV over the most nasty insidious crap that ensues from the mouths of Republicans or when the MSM frames issues with prejudicial snark aimed at the Democrats. Really elevates my blood pressure.

It is my most fervent hope that Gore runs because he bridges the Grand Canyon size divide here at DU - no easy task - in addition to having the intelligence, gravitas, and experience required to set the SS Titanic formerly known as the United States afloat and back on course. I am also big on the karmic factor and this would put right what went so horribly wrong in 2000 when the Supreme Court delivered what was nothing short of a coup d'etat.

Of the current crop I too tend to lean towards Obama, and a Gore/Obama ticket would be sublime IMHO.

Have a great weekend.