Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Go Back   Dallas-Mavs.com Forums > Everything Else > Political Arena

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-23-2004, 06:34 PM   #1
Evilmav2
Diamond Member
 
Evilmav2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 7,788
Evilmav2 has a reputation beyond reputeEvilmav2 has a reputation beyond reputeEvilmav2 has a reputation beyond reputeEvilmav2 has a reputation beyond reputeEvilmav2 has a reputation beyond reputeEvilmav2 has a reputation beyond reputeEvilmav2 has a reputation beyond reputeEvilmav2 has a reputation beyond reputeEvilmav2 has a reputation beyond reputeEvilmav2 has a reputation beyond reputeEvilmav2 has a reputation beyond repute
Default KENNEDY V. CLINTON: THE DEM DIVIDE


KENNEDY V. CLINTON: THE DEM DIVIDE

By DICK MORRIS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

The split began in the fall of 2003, when Kerry was floundering in the face of the Howard Dean surge. The Clintons had bet on Kerry and even sent Chris Lehane (who had played a key role in their Lewinsky-impeachment defense) to be the Massachusetts senator's chief campaign consultant. But as Kerry faltered, the Clintons bailed out on his candidacy and pushed Gen. Wesley Clark into the race as their candidate.

The former president was quoted in public as saying that his wife and Gen. Clark were the two most outstanding Democrats in the nation. Clinton loyalists like Bruce Lindsay and Harry Thomason took their cue and went to work for Clark (a fellow Arkansan). But the unkindest cut of all was when Lehane walked out of the Kerry campaign, attesting to the senator's lack of viability and joined up with Clark.

In rushed Ted Kennedy to save the day, sending Mary Beth Cahill of his Senate staff to steer the faltering Kerry campaign. Kennedy's pivotal role was evident from his up-front and public position by his Massachusetts colleague's side on the night Kerry won the New Hampshire primary. As Kerry was all but clinching the nomination, who introduced him to the victory rally? Ted Kennedy.



Throughout their administration, the Clintons cold-shouldered Kennedy — realizing that the average American voter saw him as radioactively liberal. In the 1996 campaign, we went into overdrive to be sure that Kennedy would have no prime-time speaking role, even though he had usually had the spotlight to himself at past Democratic conclaves.

As Bill Clinton veered to the center, he increasingly parted company with Ted Kennedy and became the senator's factional antagonist within the party. The gap was bridged somewhat in the impeachment fight, but has come back with a vengeance now that Kennedy is using Kerry as an alternative to the Clinton domination of the party.

Indeed, insiders in the Kerry operation were quoted anonymously as saying that Kennedy had warned against putting Hillary on the ticket.

The increasing tendency of the Kennedy-Kerry operatives to shut out the Clintons from the campaign highlights the Clinton conundrum: They desperately want Kerry to lose, but can't say so in public.

Bill Clinton's publication of his memoirs a few weeks before the Democratic convention was clearly a move to slow down Kerry's momentum. The book's timing forced Kerry to designate Edwards much earlier than is traditional, so as to stop the former president from hogging the spotlight. Kerry will probably pay for his premature selection in decreased viewership during his convention now that it is drained of any suspense.

The battle between Bill and Hillary in one corner and Kerry, Kennedy and Edwards in the other will become as bitter as the battle between Johnson and RFK. Cahill's bluntness in excluding Hillary from the speakers list — even though Kerry was forced to back off and let Hillary introduce Bill — is a signal that in this fight, no holds will be barred.




__________________
What has the sheep to bargain with the wolf?
Evilmav2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.