Reply #4: I agree - especially as in 1996 - there were 55 Republicans to 45 Democrats [View All]

[karynnj]

Though it does not seem that different, 54 to 46 is better especially as there were more moderate Republicans then. That was one reason I found Bill Clinton's thoughts on Weld/Kerry odd in that he even had them. (That he didn't have the grace to keep the fact that there was any thought at all on who to support when one was the man already the de facto nominee, whose people were not happy about the selfish timing as it was is stunning. Could anyone imagine Kerry putting out a book on the 2004 race or Contra drug running in July 2008 if HRC was the nominee? Even then he wouldn't get the press that Bill did.

As to that article, I had seen a David Brooks editorial on it that showed the same side. HRC people blasted him and - following the example of their leader - assassinated his character. But in the Senate the people were people like Bradley, whose liberal credentials are firmer than HRC's. I had been surprised at Kerry's comment because he had not endorsed at that point and he goes out of his way to never to gratuitously insult anyone. (Here's a link to Beachmom's thread with link - it was Oct 2007, which shows the HRC people were crazy to think that he would stay neutral. Those comments are the opposite of the reason he gave for Obama. She could not get people together. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=273&topic_id=140483 The link to the conference has wiped out the 2007 conference, but the wonderful Kerryvision.net still has it! http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/10/cerner_health_conference_2007.html#comments)