There is more to the story of Kennedy's betrayal of the Clinton's and it pissed off many in Mass

[Herman Munster]

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/02/06/a_loss_for_kennedy/

Back in 1994, Kennedy was suddenly and shockingly vulnerable to a challenge from a rich, smart Republican named Mitt Romney. On the defense in his first real political fight in decades, Kennedy wrapped himself "in President Clinton's mantle," the Globe reported in June 1994. "I am honored to stand with him, day after day, week after week, month after month, in our fight for jobs, economic justice, and progress on the great issues like health reform," Kennedy told delegates to that year's Democratic state convention.

Both Clintons rushed to Kennedy's aid.

"There is not a single, solitary member of the US Senate more interested in new ideas than he is. In the most partisan atmosphere in modern history, he is absolutely the ablest member of the Congress at getting Republicans to vote with him and work with him to make this country a better place," President Clinton told Massachusetts voters.

Hillary Clinton also campaigned for Kennedy: "Do not let the political climate of the moment undermine the record of one of the greatest senators who has ever served in the US Senate," she said at a September 1994 event.

In 2008, Kennedy didn't return the favor. Kennedy Country took on Clinton Country.

Now, that's personal. Clinton backers vowed to battle for a state that Bill and Hillary Clinton vacationed in, raised millions in, and nurtured for years. Clinton headquarters buzzed with volunteers the day before the primary vote.

"We'll do everything we can to deliver Massachusetts. Bill and Hillary Clinton never forgot this state," said Boston City Council President Maureen E. Feeney. Added House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi: "There are show horses and workhorses. We're the workhorses."

The workhorses beat the show horses. Clinton won.

[JI7]

1. why do Clinton people view supporting other Dems against Republicans

as something special ?

and Ted Kennedy defended Clinton against the pukes during their years in the white house. as did most dems.

what we know is Bill Clinton was considering supporting Republican Weld against Kerry.

[rodeodance]

35. and in the here and now: MASS WIN WAS SO SO SWEET!!

[Clintonista2]

2. After such a humiliating defeat, let's hope Teddy thinks twice about stabbing someone in the back

next time.

[Maven]

3. Don't forget how much his support was supposed to help Obama in CA, too.

Heh.

[robbedvoter]

16. That would be - Ca's first Lady - Maria Shriver - Hubby endorsed McCain

which is why she saod in her speech : "Let's give a round of applause to ALL candidates"

[ProSense]

5. Here:

defeat.

[Clintonista2]

6. Oh good

You guys finally admitting it's a cult?

[ProSense]

7. "You guys finally admitting it's a cult?" Whatever "it" is, it's disrupting Hillary's coronation n/t

[Clintonista2]

39. "It" = the fairy tale

[cali]

10. pathetic, bitlir

even for you. it's politics. Kennedy endorsed Obama instead of your beloved St. Hilly. Suck it up. And I doubt Teddy sees this as a humiliating defeat as Obama did quite well on Tuesday and he clearly played a part in it. I thank Teddy for that. And I thank Pat Leahy for endorsing Obama too. Of course Vermont WILL strongly repudiate St. Hilly. That'll be fun. Can't wait.

[rodeodance]

34. oh come now--even you have to admit the gala hupla fed up by pundits went a bit far?

[karynnj]

20. It wasn't a humiliating defeat

Obama did far better than anyone would have forecast in the aftermath of NH. In retrospect, if the MA Senators had stayed out, this might have already been over. The Obama campaign timed Kerry's announcement to regain some momentum when HRC's close win in NH was being spun as an upset - though she had been prohibitively ahead for a year before Iowa. That likely helped make NV competitive and led to us seeing all the seediness there. Ted and Caroline's endorsement helped Obama reduce an almost 20 point national gap in half. Had they gone into Super Tuesday as they were before those endorsements, it wouldn't have been the near tie it was.

In Massachuchetts, HRC was 37 points ahead - and it was cut to 15%. That reflects that the Senators had enough strength to make people relook at Obama, and he was good enough that there was a shift in his favor. That is the most an endorser can do and the most you would want them to do. Even in the JK group here on DU, there are people, who still would have voted for him in a flick of an eyelash if he magically rejoined the race, who did not follow him to Obama, though more of us already had picked Obama as the best of the three before that endorsement. I know I had considered what I would do if he endorsed HRC, which would have been a strategic thing for him to do. I would not have followed, though I would have read and considered his reasons.

[roguevalley]

40. free will.

[dailykoff]

4. Ahem, 1994 is the year the Clintons lost Congress to the GOP.

That's why Teddy was in a tight race, and I very much doubt that he was helped by any self-serving endorsements from the Clintons.

[joshcryer]

8. GOP got pissed over, yaknow, universial health care and all.

They don't like that sort of socialist shit.

[robbedvoter]

15. And the economic stimulus package - which turned the economy around

Bad, bad Clinton! :spank:

[Leopolds Ghost]

31. So the Clintons lost Congress because of "socialist shit" from Kennedy?

Or maybe it was corporate paternalism of Hillary Clinton's plan to force every American into an HMO, a recently legalized and previously unethical health-care concept?

[SaveOurDemocracy]

9. Ahem ... 'The Clintons' didn't lose Congress to the GOP...

Bill Clinton won HIS election. Many Dems in Congress had gotten arrogant and lazy and left the door open for old Newt and his pals.

[CarbonDate]

11. "Bill Clinton won HIS election."

"I got mine." That, in a nutshell, is why so many Dems are rejecting the Clinton cult of personality.

[zabet]

12. No more of a nutshell than

Michelle Obama saying 'we won't
be back if we don't win" = vote for
'us' or 'we' will be sore losers.

[Sadie4629]

14. Bill Clinton wasn't up for re-election in 1994

and if he had been, there is a very good chance he would have lost. His approval numbers were in the toilet, and he only won re-election by making a VERY sharp right turn. Welfare reform, DOMA, etc.

[karynnj]

26. Kennedy won his 58% to 41%

Not surprising as he had a 60% approval rating in April 1994. (The Almanac of American Politics 1996, page 633)

[gaspee]

38. Don't forget corrupt (nt)

[karynnj]

23. Though Romney initially had enough support to make it look like it could be tight,

Kennedy won 58% to 41%. Reading the summary in the "Almanac of American Politics 1996" the credit given to the Clintons was that President Clinton hosted a very successful fundraiser. They also mention that Kennedy had a 60% approval rating in MA in April 1994. The concern was that 62% said it was time for a change. (aside: these questions are inherently unfair as their is no common cause in all these people. We are seeing the same things now in NJ with Lautenberg. It is in essence a push poll - Lautenberg is 80+ years old, do you think he is too old?)

What they do site as the issues is that Kennedy brought up the anti-black views of the Mormon church and the anti-labor practices of Bain capital. He also got Romney in the debate when Romney could not say what his healthcare plan did. No mention at all of HRC as savior of the campaign.

That book leans more to the right than I like and looking through the years we have is not friendly to Kennedy, who they position as too far to the left.

[Leopolds Ghost]

33. Stop confusing the issue at hand... with facts

[denem]

13. Hermie you're back. How are those checks cashing?

True believers donate their savings. Can we exprect Proub2BAtRoll anytime soon?

[karynnj]

17. Does the idea that endorsements are favors traded bother anyone but me?

I am amazed at people who apparently want this to be an old boys network, where favor is traded and power is kept in the group.

Ever since Kerry and then Kennedy endorsed, there have been offended posts arguing that for some reason, they owed someone else their endorsement. Isn't there something bigger? This also doesn't mention if Kennedy ever helped Clinton - I would guess that he did in 1992, when the entire party helped Clinton. They ALL stood behind him and voted against impeachment.

Given that Clinton was President for 8 years, you would think that he campaigned for nearly EVERY major political figure. Is the logic here that everyone of them OWES it him to endorse his wife? There is a huge difference between supporting the Democratic Senate nominee against a Republican and endorsing the person you feel could lead the country in a better direction. Given that the Senate already had a Republican majority, it was in Clinton's interest and his role as head of the Democratic party to support a Democratic Senator. The way the endorsee should repay the endorser is to do such a good job in the position that it warranted all the praise given. Kennedy did that.

I would say that that Democratic Senator more than returned the favor by being an outstanding Senator in that term. He did after all sponsor legislation with Kerry on children's healthcare, that he then worked with Hatch on to make acceptable to enough Republicans to pass as S-CHIP. That alone repays HRC for campaigning as this is something that, because she then pushed Bill Clinton to include in the budget, she uses as the successful healthcare plan she was involved with. As to Bill Clinton, he was repaid. Had he not campaigned for the Senator and he would have lost - a cause and effect I have doubts on, I think we all know what Senator Romney's vote would have been on impeachment in 1998.

Also, remember 1994. That election and the party shifts that followed it led to the Republicans controlling 55 seats in the Senate and they won the House for the first time since FDR. That was a partially a result of the way the Clintons led in 1993 and 1994. That was after the healthcare fiasco. The Clintons needed everybody they could get in Congress. I also think that he won, not because of some campaign appearances, but because of his own accomplishments and history in MA.

In 2003, there were comments that Gore owed Leiberman, who ostentatiously had said he would not run if Gore did, a heads-up, they did not say he owed him an endorsement. No one mentioned that Gore also passed over John Kerry, who had (with Kennedy) endorsed him and campaigned with him in NH in 2000 - even though he was ideologically closer to Bradley. NH 2000 was close and that helped. I have also seen no articles on how unfair it is that she had nearly the entire Democratic power elite in NJ and NY.

[kurth]

18. Kennedy stabbed every teacher in the back with his No Child Left Behind crap

[K Gardner]

19. I think Hill had a little something to do with that too, didn't she?

[kurth]

21. Kennedy actually partnered with the chimp and authored the bill

Big difference.

[K Gardner]

22. So Hillary had absolutely nothing to do with NCLB? Sure about that?

[karynnj]

28. She was on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee

So, she clearly was there in marking up the bill. As this is a key area that she has expertise in as she did create a plan in Arkansas that was spoken of as a major accomplishment in 1992 in that it raises teacher's pay and had a system that evaluated how well students were improving. Any Arkansas teachers or parents here?

[TacticalPeek]

24. Thank you, workhorses of Massachusetts.

Those were the sweetest results of Tuesday night.

:kick:

[bigtree]

25. great article. I like Kennedy, but this rings so true in my memory

[Recursion]

27. "Betrayal"? she's owed support now?

This entitlement feeling is weird to me.

[themaguffin]

29. Kennedy helped Obama get more delegates in the state where Bill won by the biggest margin

[BenDavid]

30. All of what you posted is true. Watching the whore media

respond to Kerry's endorsement and then having a big event and coverage of the Kennedy endorsement was unbelieveable. All the positive spin coming from reporters was enough to make me :puke: . Then on the evening of Tuesday those same mediawhores when it became evident HRC was going to beat their darling obama in Mass. not hardly a mention, but in passing.

What amazes me is the idea that somehow it is historic all the new people coming out to vote for obama but failing to fully appreciate that folks come out and vote for hrc. If hrc is so polarizing as you obama folks like to keep reminding us, does it not seem strange that obama could be polarizing as well since nearly as many folks that vote for obama vote for hrc.

[rodeodance]

32. I am not surprized there was some backlash as I do think the hupla went a bit too far.

[jillan]

36. I love how Hillary walked right up to him at the SOTU to shake his hand

on the same day Kennedy was all over the press for endorsing Obama.

You go girl!

[Blue-Jay]

37. How is an endorsement "stabbing in the back"?

Uncle Teddy is free to support who he thinks is the best candidate, is he not? Are Hillary endorsements stabs in the back of Obama? If I send money to one campaign, am I stabbing the other in the back?

Nonsense.