Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

There was a time when Bill Clinton's patriotism was challenged

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 04:14 PM
Original message
There was a time when Bill Clinton's patriotism was challenged
Edited on Fri Mar-21-08 04:54 PM by karynnj
It was February, 1992. His challenger, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran was calling him out as a draft dodger. This had the potential of again ripping the country apart over Vietnam. Another Senator,also a highly decorated veteran, who was friend of Clinton's challenger took to the floor of the Senate to make a plea against inserting the rifts from the Vietnam War into the primary.

I wish that Bill Clinton would have had the grace to say that all three of this year's candidates love this country. Here are the words said on the Senate floor in 1992:


Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I also rise today--and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity--to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.

I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.

What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.

What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.

What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.


What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a Presidential primary.

The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam , not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our Nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.

We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we

now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam ?

Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.

But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.

I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the Presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.

We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country. "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are somethings that should never be injected into an election - race, faith, patriotism ...
I wish that Bill Clinton, having been given the honor given to a=only 43 people in our history of being President, would have had the grace that Senator Kerry showed in 1992 when he made this obviously personal plea against an earlier version of politics of distruction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. Wow K, great post
See you still hold a torch for Senator Kerry :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrafty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Nothing wrong with that!
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
15. I still think he would have made the most incredible President,
though I think he made the right decision. I'm sure he will continue to contribute as he becomes one of the more powerful Senators as he and your Senator start their 5th terms - hopefully under President Obama.

I had seen this speech a long time ago - when I saw the Clinton comment, this was so clearly the opposite that I just had to post it. I hope that someone on Clinton's team realizes that this is the position they have to take - labeling even one Democrat "unpatriotic" has a way of spreading. I can't believe that he is so oblivious to his own history. A history that the Right could likely dig up in a second.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 04:18 PM
Original message
What a contrast; thank you for finding that! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
12. Indeed. I wish we had Sen. John Kerry running in 92 - this country would've been a far different
Edited on Fri Mar-21-08 06:40 PM by blm
nation with most of BushInc in jail for treason in the 90s instead of protected and planning their comeback.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. In one interview, he joked that there was no need for him to run
that year - there was already a Kerr(e)y and a Massachusetts Senator. Both of whom were friends of his. More significantly, if he were running, he might not have gone to Rio - which eventually led to something that made his life better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. True - but BushInc would have been in jail. And Teresa would've married a President
right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Not just any President
Has any President gotten married in office? A fairy tale romance, very discretely out of the public eye, and a new gorgeous First Lady for the bachelor President in the first term would likely have made re-election easy. So, maybe you're right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luftmensch067 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Excellent post!
I'd never read/heard this speech, though I knew he'd defended WJC. It's definitely from Kerry's heart -- I love how clearly he can speak from that deep core of patriotism and compassion.

And yet this was my favorite comment in the thread. LOL! What a great scenario that would have been!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #17
25. What a romantic you are :-)! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. Wonderful post, Karynnj.
(If you can still edit: correct the word "challenge")

Glad you posted it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Thanks - my spelling is nearly as bad as my typing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. It's more that we bloggers don't have the luxury of an editor so
we have to rely on each other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Thanks, again
:)

I've been putting links to your comment including the link to the full Kerry interview all over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. Thank you for pointing out it should start a thread rather than just be a comment
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. Sen. Kerry used his cache to DEFEND Bill Clinton in 1992 for HIS race. Bill reciprocated by using
his 3 week HIGH PROFILE book tour in the summer of 2004 to repeatedly DEFEND Bush's Iraq decision from 'criticisms of the left' when it was the Dem nominee leading those criticisms.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

Not to mention Clinton capo Carville sabotaging Ohio Dem voters on election night.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
7. he has supported and defended them for years as did other Democrats
it's incredible some Clinton people think Kerry owes them for some token appearances in the GENERAL ELECTION. i know he had heart surgery, but he was also doing other things such as promoting his book. people act as if he was bed sick all the time and only came out to appear for Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. They conveniently forget the 3 week book tour repeatedly defending Bush on Iraq when
Kerry was the nominee and criticizing Bush's Iraq decisions.

When did that ever happen before?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fedupinBushcountry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
11. Thanks for posting

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
14. Thanks for posting this. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
19. Thanks for posting this
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
20. I wish Bill Clinton was a man of honor, but alas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. I know what you mean -
It took me until 2004 to really see that there were major flaws in Clinton that I ignored because he was a Democrat. When we get a Democrat, I hope that I will hold him/her to same standards I want the Republicans held to. But, even with that feeling - I am shocked at their actions this year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
22. Great post, karynnj. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 05:46 AM
Response to Original message
24. beautiful, heartfelt,classy speech
And the contrast with the Clinton statements, to use a favorite word of one of my heroes :-), is stunning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #24
29. It is stunning -
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 07:17 AM
Response to Original message
26. It;s uncanny
once you put Vietnam aside, how many of these words apply perfectly to what is happening today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
27. It's because of Bill Clinton's experience in having his patriotism attacked that he wished...
...yesterday for a general election in which the two major party candidates don't have their patriotism attacked.

He didn't name individuals because the Democratic Party doesn't have a nominee yet.

If Obama is the nominee, Bill Clinton will continue giving a stump speech with this theme, as he's been doing for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. I wish I could believe that Clintons are as altruistic in their speech as you do... but
I've seen how they treated any Dem who they see in their way for 2008.
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

The timing of their 'remarks' during a heated election that made good headlines for 3 weeks straight ONLY for Bush.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

Carville wasn't freelancing for himself on election night, was he?
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Hillary validated Bush's smear against Kerry knowing full well he would NEVER insult the troops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Bill Clinton campaigned with John Kerry in 2004.
I don't know what the Clintons did which is supposed to be illustrated in the first link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. An event appearance is not campaigning. Bill released a book and made statements supporting Bush
Edited on Sat Mar-22-08 12:59 PM by ProSense
in the middle of Kerry's campaign:

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

more


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. At the end as he would've done with any Dem, but how did he use his 3wk book tour
in summer of 2004? Defending Bush against Kerry's criticisms.

Brinkley didn't elaborate about the details of the backstabbing, but it was obviously a number of times as he said it occurred throughout 2003-4 when he made that remark in April2004.

And Carville was a lonewolf on election night?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. He overtly campaigned for him, but he hurt Kerry in other ways
As to 2004:
You make the issue campaigning in fall 2004. The lack of support that I and many others have spoken of - with no Kerry quotes to back us up, because there are none - are based on our observations of negative things he and his allied did - not anything not done. Some are:

1) Releasing his autobiography in July 2004. Bill Clinton is reputed to be the sharpest politician of our generation - any high school kid could see why this is a bad idea in the run up to the election. As it was, June was a month when Kerry could get little coverage - as it was solid Reagan coverage for at least 3 weeks. Then Bill Clinton took a fair part of July - and all of us were treated to learning that the reason for Monica was "because I could". Now, frankly I could have happily lived my whole life not knowing that. This was a repeat of Bill Clinton having a confessional interview about getting his family back after Monica in the week before Gore's convention. You need to either challenge his political acumen or accept in both cases he had some need to fight off Gore or Kerry becoming the head of the party and President.

2) In the book, he has 2 strange pages where he writes of the 1996 MA Senate race. Kerry was the nominee almost 2 months before he finished editing his book - so you know that he reviewed this knowing Kerry was our candidate. The overall impression was that he liked Kerry's competitor more but wanted Kerry to win because of his knowledge on the environment and technology. He also mentioned Kerry's long term work with disadvantaged youth, noting there were no votes in it. Now, none of these 3 were big 2004 issues. Not mentioned were most of Kerry's strongest issues - foreign policy, terrorism (BCCI was already shut down), and healthcare, where Kerry had just written,with Kennedy, the precursor bill to S-CHIP based on the plan that had just passed in MA over Weld's veto! In the sections on Vietnam reconciliation, Clinton extends a huge amount of praise to McCain, nearly ignoring that our nominee was the chair of the committee and, per all accounts of those on the committee, did an incredible job and was the one person most responsible for its success. Now, I think most people, unlike me, looked up "Lewinsky" not "Kerry" in the index - but for people who read that nearly 1,000 page book those pages played into the Republican theme that he didn't accomplish much in the Senate.

3) There were Clinton and Clinton ally generated stories all through the period he was convalescing that Kerry's campaign was poorly run and that he was not listening to Clinton's advice. In fact, Kerry numbers went up when he concentrated on Iraq and the War on terror, rather than the economy as Clinton advised. These stories hurt.

4) In the wake of defeat, is when Clinton was the worst. That he praised Rove on the campaign he ran and made a point of saying he liked both Kerry and Bush within a week or two of the election hurt. Then there was the whisper campaign generated by Clinton allies that Kerry was not taking a place as just 1 of the 100 Senators and implying that he was at odds with Reid. The fact is that Kerry, by virtue of being the nominee, was a party leader - not the party leader, but a party leader - a status that the Clinton allies were denying. Clinton also had a conflict of interest as the last former President and the husband of HRC - this showed most when in 2005, he spoke of Kerry, a Democrat with far more national security credentials than almost any other Democrat, as weak on defense - rather than embracing Kerry's position on the war on terror. With the specter of Kerry running, he likely didn't want to hand that to Kerry. However, had the Democrats continued to keep that as their policy, the reaction of people like George Will that Kerry was right would have positioned us best on national security. The fact is that contrary to the list in BC's book, there was no Senator who understood more than the guy who wrote "The New War". The constant belittling Kerry and blaming Kerry for the SBVT by all the Clinton people was painful - and that did color my picture of the Clintons for the worse.

As to the campaigning, the question I would ask is who called whom. I seriously doubt the Kerry campaign begged him to campaign. By the time Clinton campaigned, Kerry alone had already had huge rallies - that broke all previous records. Of course Bill Clinton was a draw - but I seriously doubt the attendance had it just been Kerry would have been much less. I saw the entire thing on CSPAN and it was emotional - as the first time Clinton was out and he was good - but Kerry's speech was equally well received - judging from the applause. The media reports all spoke mostly of Clinton, because his being out was the news. In fact, either CNN or MSNBC cut away as soon as Clinton ended. So, newswise - I would guess it helped Kerry less than the local coverage of a just Kerry rally would have. Now, I've seen people post that Kerry would not have won PA without that rally. This is extremely unlikely - this was downtown Philadelphia - an area that ALWAYS is very Democratic. The African American turn out across the country was record breaking - even where Bill Clinton didn't go. There is no reason to think Philadelpia would be different. In Pittsburgh, it wasn't Clinton but THK who made a difference. I suspect that was the case in the affluent Philadelphia suburbs - as there were likely many independents that remembered her as their Senator's wife and as one ex-PA Republican in my area accepted Kerry as good because otherwise she wouldn't have married him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-25-08 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. What sticks out to me is Bill's book is written like he KNEW Kerry would NEVER BE PRESIDENT.
Because he downplays everything Kerry did that helped his presidency and protected this country, while PRAISING pointedly those like Weld and McCain, with Weld actually being a key figure in the obstruction of BCCI matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
28. McCain doesn't love his country...
...or he'd stop trying to destroy it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
34. sometimes history shouldn't repeat itself
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC