Unlike Dick Cheney’s event last month, Bill Clinton’s visit to Boston was open to the press, and lots of them were there (including our pals Kim Atkins, Jon Keller, Adam Reilly, and Lisa Wangsness, along with a bunch of other folks I should recognize but don’t). And fortunately (if inexplicably — shhh! don’t tell!), the state party still thinks riff-raff like me qualify as “press,” so I was able to attend the Clinton event this afternoon. There was a large and very enthusiastic crowd on hand for the festivities — materials distributed at the event said that they expected nearly 1,400 guests, and they expected the event to raise about $2 million (!). Not bad. The campaign says it has raised $3.5 million (!!) since primary day (it’s not clear from the release whether that includes today’s $2 million, or whether it’s in addition to it — I think it’s in addition, but I’m not sure). So you’re looking at a well-funded operation heading into the homestretch.
Anyway, to the event itself. Tim Murray started things off with some good remarks, and he then introduced Senators Kennedy and Kerry.
Kerry spoke first. For perhaps a tad longer than was absolutely necessary, but whatever.
Next, of course, Ted Kennedy. His voice sounded quite hoarse (maybe he’s got the wretched cold that seems to be going around and that kept me away from Project B.A.R.), but nonetheless, that guy can still deliver a rousing speech with the best of them.
Kennedy introduced Bill Clinton, who came onstage with Deval Patrick. Patrick spoke first. Much of what he said would sound very familiar to anyone who attended the rally on Boston Common yesterday — the hard-hitting attacks on Healey’s record are clearly part of the new stump speech. Good.
The last speaker, of course, was Bill Clinton.
He got in a few good laugh lines.
And to the surprise of exactly no one, the event ran long, and Clinton’s speech ran later than expected (this was not really Clinton’s fault — the event started late, and Kerry probably talked longer than he needed to). So poor Jon Keller and Janet Wu had to do their stories for the 6:00 news while the event was still going on. Probably not exactly what they had in mind. Audience members near the back (and therefore closer to the press area than to the speakers) kept shooting them dirty looks and wishing they would shut up.
I had to leave before Clinton was done to make it to NECN in time for another Braude-fest. So I didn’t get to hear how Clinton wrapped things up. But it was nice to be there. Braude asked whether having Clinton come to town was going to move any voters from Healey to Patrick. Maybe not, but that’s not the point. Seems to me events like this are about rallying the faithful, and about raising a lot of money. On those counts, the event was without question a success.
Can you tell us if C-Span was present? Or should I look elsewhere for video?
There were lots of TV cameras, but I don’t know where they were all from.
Can’t wait until Bill comes to Worcester, a city that embraced him when the going got rough. We’re going to have a party!
I hope the campaign puts up a highlight reel on DPTV.
<
p>
but you did bring it up! đŸ™‚
<
p>
What IS it with this dude’s ego?
<
p>
I wonder if he is embarrassed that Deval has shown him up so badly in the responding to Rovean tactics department?
<
p>
And I could not comment on Kerry without linking to Ellen Goodman’s wonderful column from April that Kerry seems to have ignored.
then I would be working for the other party, running Swift Boat Veteran-type ads.
<
p>
I don’t like to be negative about him. As someone downthread said, I’ll get off his case when he gets off the stage. He cannot seriously think he deserves “a second chance” and “maybe even more so.”
with his piece about whether Kerry should run for president or for re-election? I’m kidding. It’s not Lehigh’s fault that Kerry is grabbing so much face time when he should just be talking about Deval Patrick and any other worthwhile Democrats.
<
p>
There are a lot more “ranters” over at boston.com, too.
Go bash Kerry in places that are related to Kerry. We need to elect a governor in MA.
It hurts my ears. This thread is about what it is about.
Jeeze, this is the typical loser democrat’s response.
<
p>
See Dukakis
<
p>
That guy has done more good things in his life than you will ever know. You don’t have to vote for him, but derision is the last thing he deserves, especially from a Democrat.
…when he gets off the stage.
<
p>
<
p>
The one thing that guy didn’t do was beat an eminently vulnerable incumbent president. He played dirty pool against Democratic rivals, then rolled over for Bush.
<
p>
And the fact that he’s talking about running again in 2008 is proof enough that he deserves as much derision as we can muster.
What is MORE IMPORTANT TO YOU: that Patrick wins or that you bash Kerry?
<
p>
We need unity, not fighting about your perception of what Kerry is or is not.
<
p>
Can we move on.
Do we have to choose? :>)
Are bad and evil and have a moral obligation to step aside from running again while giving full support to other candidates.
<
p>
Unless you personally like them a lot and supported them in the first place, in which case there’s a completely different standard whereby they’re wonderful and glorious and have no obligation to do anything except be heaped with roses. Negative primary and general campaigns are, except when they’re good when they’re directed against a Democrat you don’t like, but then again they’re bad when they’re directed against a Democrat you do actually like, and it’s all down to your personal voting preferences. Well, nobody can say those guidelines aren’t clear.
Okay, I get it — you like John Kerry. Fine. Doesn’t mean you have to throw the word ‘evil’ around like Bush on a bad day. If you don’t want to read points of view with which you disagree, you really came to the wrong place.
<
p>
Kerry has every right to run again. And I have every right to point out that he stunk it up the first time. I have every right to point out that we have a talented bench with Richardson, Clark, Edwards, Clinton, Bayh, and many others. I have every right to imagine that Kerry had his shot, blew it, and should walk away gracefully, rather than go through the kind of humiliation 2004’s yesterday-candidate, Joe Lieberman, went through.
<
p>
The Ellen Goodman column you link to is mere tripe. For example, she says John Kerry “was every democrats second choice.” Based on what? The fact that her guy did not get the nomination?
<
p>
Kerry was a great candidate for President and he should run again. He came very close to unseating an incumbant President with an incredible disinformation campaign apparatus. (Remember all those terrorist warnings?) It was an almost impossible feat to begin with.
<
p>
Unfortunately, during the general campaign a lot of Democrats, unlike the Republicans, could not get over the fact that their candidate (Howard Dean) did not win the nomination. Yow do not support a candidate by saying, “Anybody but Bush” and expect to win. That is just sheer stupidity.
<
p>
I blame Kerry’s loss on the people who joined the campaign after he got the Party’s nomination. How do we Democrats expect our candidate to win a Presidential election when, for example, a group of the party leaders/presidential hopefuls decide to publically criticize his campaign in the New York Times just a few months before the election? (I cannot find a link- sorry.) And don’t get me started on the “consultants” who joined the campaign after the primary.
<
p>
Yes, Kerry should have hit back hard after the Swift Boat ad. He has admitted his regret over not doing that, but that was not the reason why he lost, as some people have maintained and as your post implies. The Republicans won because they all got behind their candidate one hundred percent, even if they disagreed with him on certain issues; we lost because we did not. (And we do it all the time.)
<
p>
By the way, Kerry got the party’s nomination by an incredible GOTV effort by a lot of dedicate people who knew he was a great candidate and our best hope for beating George Bush. I know because I was in Iowa during the caucuses and in New Hampshire during the N.H. primary. Right before the Iowa caucuses, he was not expected to win or even to come in second. Sound familiar?
Puhleeze don’t compare John Kerry with Deval Patrick. For my money John Kerry has more in common with Tom Reilly (a good “party” man who did his time, looked the part, and was deemed “electable”) than he does with Deval Patrick.
<
p>
Although I am generally distressed with the state of political discourse in this country, in particular political campaigns, one benefit of the increased scrutiny and “pressure cooker” nature of modern campaigning is the opportunity to assess the character of the candidate at difficult times.
<
p>
Difficult times exposed John Kerry for who he was, just like it did for Tom Reilly. I’m not talking about slander slung from across the aisle, but instead how you run your campaign, how you connect with people, your supporters and the general public. John Kerry was flawed from the git-go. I’ve heard numerous tales from earlier in his political career about the kind of guy he was, and they weren’t that flattering.
<
p>
ps Do you think characterizations like “tripe” and “stupidity” add to the quality of discourse?
Nuff said
You’re right, John Kerry is nothing like Deval Patrick. John Kerry spent a lifetime in public service before running for President. Patrick before running for Governor? Not so much. John Kerry served his country in the armed forces. Patrick? Not exactly. Kerry (and Reilly) spent their legal carrers fighting on behalf of the victims of crimes, not the perpetrators of crimes.
<
p>
I’d love to hear some sources and specifics on these “Tales” you’ve heard.
“Kerry (and Reilly) spent their legal carrers (sic) fighting on behalf of the victims of crimes, not the perpetrators of crimes.”
<
p>
Do you really believe that? And, I assume, by implication you mean that our next governor spent his legal career fighting on behalf of criminal perpetrators? Why am I honoring this post with a response? On second thought, don’t answer that.
Flawed from the git-go? Tales from earlier in his political career? So I guess those of us who volunteered numerous hours for him and the millions who voted for him were duped? God, we must be so stupid, so blind, so unknowing. Of course you are the one who does not seem to have any specifics upon which to base your conclusions.
Up to this point I haven’t thought of you as stupid, blind or unknowing. I just don’t like John Kerry that much, and I don’t think he was the best choice as our presidential nominee. That’s ok, isn’t it? I voted for him.
<
p>
As for the “tales”, I have had three different people (two lawyers and a politician) tell me, at different times, and regarding different events, about how John Kerry forgot their earlier hard work on his behalf in what each felt was a rude or insensitive fashion. The thrust of this anecdotal evidence was that John Kerry didn’t really care about your past support, and that he was solicitous of people only when he had to be. Many commentators or analysts of that presidential race have concluded that Kerry’s perceived aloofness was a serious drawback. I’m not making this up.
<
p>
I guess we have differing opinions. No big deal.
I am sorry the three people you mentioned felt slighted somehow by John Kerry. I actually saw John Kerry act exactly the opposite. He repeatedly thanked people who had volunteered for him and made it a point to recognize them whenever he could. In fact, a guy I knew told me a story about his young daughter or his daughter’s friend (I forget which it was)and Kerry which blew that whole aloofness thing out of the water for me. The girl was on an airplane with Kerry, way before he ran for President, and she told him she needed to bring in something that began with a K to her school. Kerry ended up going as her K item.
<
p>
I think the aloofness thing depends so much in the eye of the beholder and is way over blown as being somehow important when we are picking a President. But if that is the worst you, or the self-appointed analysts, can say about John Kerry…
<
p>
Everyone seems to be ignoring something important here: it is comendable to respond to defeat by picking yourself back up and fighting again. It defines the American spirit. It is something that clearly Al Gore does not have, but John Kerry does, and I just don’t see why people are so down on it. If you don’t like him don’t vote for him. But “Doesn’t deserve” to run for president of a country that he’s served virtually his entire life. Puh-leeze!!
I’ll post a diary tomorrow perhaps, but it was a great event and the AP article on Boston.com was great even highlighting the Pelletier/Healey silliness in Salem. Clinton was great and I thoroughly enjoyed his sage perspective. After just downloading my pics from the evening this one’s my absolute fave from a slew of good shots. Must sleep. Enjoy.
sorry ’bout that. Here’s the link. I’ll try not to use the word ‘great’ again. đŸ˜€
and when I saw them on Sunday they were just like walking out of the rally, hand in hand like kids. They stopped to talk to many of us in the crowd, but I just loved that they came to see Patrick like the rest of us.
thanks. Riff-raff? Nah, citizen journalism. Go with that meme. The blogs level the playing field and they need to. The media is broken and hopefully the media will figure out that they need to do much better reporting to do their job.
<
p>
Thanks again.
more on point, I think the new stump speech is stunning. I loved the “check back in” stump, but the new one is even better.
the Obama visit on Friday? Is someone from BMG planning to attend? I’d love to read an account of that event too.