Good question

[politicasista]

Not a "ganging up" thread but interesting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3093443&mesg_id=3093443

[wisteria]

1. Well I commented. I was more than happy too. n/t

[PresidentObama]

2. Can someone explain to me....

...why the point of my post is being misread?

I'm a very open minded person. And I know the passion among some of you about the Clintons, so I'm attempting to present a meaningful debate about whether they did or didn't try and prevent Kerry from winning in 2004.

Instead people are saying I'm blaming Clinton, and not placing any blame on the Senator and his campaign.

I mean I'm trying to stay open minded here, because I made the post and am on the fence about this whole thing.

But some don't care about what I have to say, and aren't listening to the debate I'm trying to have.

:shrug:

[karynnj]

3. I don;t think it was misunderstood

I think the idea makes them very uncomfortable. Most of us, if we were old enough, supported Clinton through the long 8 years he was President. We accepted things he did that we knew were wrong, partially in reaction to a rabid unfair RW, but also possibly because he was on "our" team. For some like me, this meant standing up for him even when my kids, young teens or pre-teens were listening, which confused them because it was inconsistent with my own values.

Two things I recognized as I looked more and more into Kerry in 2004 were that the more I learned the more I respected the values he really lived his life by, making supporting him intensely rewarding and a sharp realization of what a difference it was defending Kerry and not Clinton. It is tough to admit that you made a mistake. Blindly supporting Clinton was a mistake.

Some people have not seen Clinton for who he is, others remember the 90s as a better time (because they were), others are still in the "team" mode - for them Clinton was the last superstar of our team - and no one is allowed to say otherwise.

The other reason is the lack of support was subtle. Clinton did give a speech at the convention and campaigned as he recovered from heart surgury. It was the actions of the Begalas, Carvilles, Lockharts, McAuliffes, who did less than they could have - and it is really tough to make that case as it is in shades of gray. They didn't actively work against Kerry, they just damned him with faint or no praise.