Posted on 07/21/2004 4:47:09 PM PDT by smonk
July 21, 2004 -- JUST as the Democratic Party in the later 1960s was dominated by the schism between President Lyndon B. Johnson and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, so the party in this decade is likely to be mired in a split between the Clintons on the one hand and Ted Kennedy and John Kerry on the other.
The Kerry campaign's recent effort to keep Hillary out of the convention's spotlight prime time, coupled with the selection of Sen. John Edwards as Kerry's running mate, are opening shots in this fight, which will likely escalate into a full-fledged feud.
When Kerry chose Edwards, a charismatic future contender for the presidency, he knew he was investing in an opponent for Hillary when she goes for the top job herself. If Kerry loses, Hillary will run in 2008; if he wins, she'll run in 2012. Either way, she'll have to beat Edwards, whom Kerry plucked from the ashes of defeat.
Hillary, of course, was entitled to a prime-time speech. Apart from her husband, she is the most popular Democrat in the nation and she has addressed both of the last two conventions. The fiction that the women Democratic senators caucused and decided to anoint Maryland's Barbara Mikulsky to speak for them fooled nobody. To suggest that Hillary should mutely stand behind Mikulsky nodding in agreement was a statement to the Clintons: This isn't your party anymore.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
FOX has reported that the Clintons knew about the Berger investigation. Apparently, no one told Kerry [Kerry denies knowledge]. Perhaps the Clinton gang leaked this.
Don't bet on it. They can't afford for Kerry to win and have 8 years to seize all party power from them and deliver it to Edwards in '12.
If leading 'Democrat's for Bush' becomes their best shot at keeping Kerry out, they will do it.
So9
Yesterday you posted this to me: "The Rat convention is really heating up to be a Kennedy (Kerry} vs. Clinton (Clinton) battle for the Rat party." Thought you'd thus find this article interesting...
It is very possible the clintons leaked the Berger stuff (which is not necessarily the same thing as saying they specifically put Berger up to it in the first place.)
Whoever Berger was working for, once he got caught, it was inevitable that the information would come out. Perhaps it was the clintons who made sure this came out when it did. It was leaked to AP, and AP went straight to dim sympathizers for quotes in the original release. If the Republicans had leaked it, they would have sent it to an outlet more likely to skewer Berger.
Either way, she'll have to beat Edwards, whom Kerry plucked from the ashes of defeat.Edwards or Clinton. Clinton or Edwards. What towers of virtue and resolve the Democrats offer us for candidates.
How does this stem get these gigs?
> They can't afford for Kerry to win and have 8 years
> to seize all party power from them and deliver it
> to Edwards in '12.
Excellent point.
Most of the pundits (myself included) have assumed that
the supposed desire of the Clintons to sabotage Kerry's
election had to do with Hillary's presidential timing.
And perhaps in part it does.
But if K&E are elected, the Clintons will have substantial
difficulty keeping control of the DNC. Kerry already
threatened once to fire McAwful (only to be forced into
a flipflop, presumably by the Clintons).
The President is the presumed supreme commander of his
political party, and if K&E are elected (and esp. if
they sense the Clinton sabotage and meddling), then
Kerry will take steps wrest control.
When you add the Hillary timing and the Clinton control,
the sum is that the Clintons MUST cause Kerry to lose
the election.
And the convention may yet contain some surprises.
If the Democrats had run a decent candidate and repudiated the Clintons, I might have given them another look. I was a (D) until Clinton came along, after all. But Kerry is just not a serious choice. He is so far from any reasonable position that he is poison to almost every thinking person. And the Democrats have still not repudiated Clinton. Until they do, they are The Party of Clinton, nothing more.
no wonder Drudge is reporting that Clinton is publicly laughing at the Berger buzz and saying that it is election year politicing and they should see who leaked the information. That would also explain Terry M's doing a freedom of information act on the Bush Administration on this leak. They are trying to cover their tracks. What a hoot!
Thanks for your ping. This is the type of scenario that I was hoping would unfold. A divided Rat party is a dead Rat party. If they hate each other enough, they will self destruct. Personally, I hope the Mass. Ass(es) win the power struggle. They are far too regional and liberal to appeal to the entire electorate. The Arkansas mafia wing of the party plays the "moderate" position too well for John Q Public to figure them out.
He could have a lot to say in this power struggle. He has already or will decide whether the Clintons hold enough power for him to truly fear them.
That Clinton is joking this off makes me think he is truly scared and not in control of the situation.
He knows more than anyone that guilt can often be better inferred from the demeanor of the accused than by the sum of the evidence. I think he's overacting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.