When I'm right, I'm right... When I'm wrong,

[Totally Committed]

I admit it, and try to put things right. So, here goes:

Over this last weekend, all hell sort of broke loose over a website, HeyJohn.org. Seems this site was set up to ask John Kerry why he was still sitting on a load of cash when so many close races could use an influx of $$$ right about now. No, they're not floundering races... They are races that are actually quite close, and could go either way. At any rate, this is the thread (now locked) that started it all:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2893836

Here is the reaction thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2894618

And, here are my pertinent replies within that thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2894618#2895234
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2894618#2895672
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2894618#2897692
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2894618#2897721

In another thread (also locked), Kerry supporters were addressed directly about this subject. Since this is against the rules of DU, I am assuming that's why the thread was locked, but before it was, mloutre wrote a very logical and well-thought-out reply to the author of the OP. I reference it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2895079#2895155

That is the background for what I am about to write.

This morning, I was PM-ed the following information and accompanying links. Real life being what it is, this info had escaped me in the last couple of days. To be honest, the tenor of this argument, and others raging here of late, has sent my attention elsewhere, on to the more mundane, in search of a bit of peace of mind. But, that's not an excuse, it's just the facts. I did some checking before weighing in on the subject initially, and the info I found seemed to point to this information about Senator Kerry being wrong, but, nonetheless, here is the information in the PM I received this morning (The emphasis is not mine, but that used in the PM):


Monday, October 23, 2006

Dems asked Kerry to share his millions to help Dem candidates, Kerry said no
by John in DC - 10/22/2006 11:02:00 AM
http://americablog.blogspot.com /

excerpt from Boston Globe article 10/21/06:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/21/kerry_is_pressured_to_share_campaign_wealth/?page=1

Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, has given less than $15,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee since the beginning of 2005. Though he has helped candidates in a variety of other ways, his last major financial contribution to the DSCC came a month after he lost the 2004 presidential election, when he used $1 million in leftover campaign funds to help the committee retire its debt....

Last month, when DSCC officials asked all Democratic senators for last-call financial contributions before Election Day, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts was among three lawmakers who donated $1 million each. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York signed a check for $2 million.

Kerry, however, kept his checkbook shut. The senator's aides said he has no plans to give again.

Jerry Lundergan, chairman of the Kentucky Democratic Party, said he contacted Kerry's advisers on Thursday, urging them to tell the senator how much the congressional campaigns need his money.

"I have made my wishes known," said Lundergan, whose state features two close House races in which Democrats have a good chance to oust incumbent Republicans. "It's his money to do with what he wants to. But I only hope that he shares some of it with those states, such as Kentucky, which contributed very extensively to his campaign."

****

Those are the facts, as stated in the PM.

I hope this puts things right with the author of that PM, but it is not the end of the story for me.

As anyone who pays attention to anything I write knows, I have become pretty disenchanted with many circumstances and people within the Democratic Party. I've actually made it my business to say loudly and clearly whenever the chance presents itself, as a matter of fact, that I dislike everything about the DLC and the politicos who are its members. But, that's not what this is about, so that's only an example of the things thaht have gotten under my skin about this Party. Another fact about me is that I am no fan of Senator Kerry, and haven't been for a while. That is a more important thing to remember as you read this, so I hope you will.

Whether or not you support Senator Kerry and his future run for office, and no matter what you think of his performance up to this date, one thing about him is true, and always will be: He has served his country at home and abroad in a distinguished way. His last camapign may have left a sour taste in your mouth, or you may think he's the greatest thing since sliced white bread, but no matter, you must agree he has been a force in this country's history since the 70's, for better or worse.

That brings me to HeyJohn.org: even if the above information is true; even if those who agree with the site's contents feel it is "respectful" of Senator Kerry; even if those who run the site turn out to be genuinely disgruntled Democrats... even if any or all those things are true, the methods employed by that site do not cut it with me. Anonymity is sometimes necessary (my first name isn't really "Totally", but for the purposes of writing here, it is), and there many perfect times and places for it. But, if you are going to use a site to call out a major member of your Party, the weight of your message would be greatly enhanced by not remaining anonymous. Also, it would be greatly more fair to the candidate and his or her supporters, to come out with your identity. I know that's a scary proposition when the person you are calling out is as powerful as Senator Kerry, who, as we all know, is blessed with an amazingly vocal and committed following here and elsewhere. But, I disagree with the anonymity. I disagree, even though, after the last election, I was quite vocal about the exact thing this site takes Kerry to task for, I said what I said as myself and took responsibility for it. I made it my business to watch what he did with that $$$, and spoke about it when I agreed or disgreed with how it was used. One way I noticed it was used was that he did give to other campaigns. I am not up on all the amounts, and as I said, if the facts of the PM are true, what I read about that has been misleading. So, I reiterate: I disagree with the aspect of anonymity in this case.

I also disgree with singling out Senator Kerry. From all I've read, Senator Clinton and Senator Bayh both have enormous war chests. Have they given to any of these close campaigns? If they haven't, where's HeyHillary.org or HeyEvan.org? Why single out one Senator only? Smacks of campaign dirty tricks, it does. "Swiftboating" is what it's called now, and I have to say, it's dangerously close to that in my mind. It's unfair. It's wrong. While I feel that all candidates with flush finances should be helping out at the moment, and those who don't are selfish (cheap, in fact), there is nothing that says this is required. So, the expectation and implication that even if he hasn't given 'til it hurts, may just be troubling, but it isn't illegal. And, a website set up to embarrass just him into contributing without the same pressure brought to bear on others who have behaved exactly as iti s said he is, is wrong. It is unfair. And, it's exactly that I can't support.

At any rate, this is a lot for us to think about. It is a modus operendi that equivocates us (in my mind, at least) with the filth of the other side. Granted it is on a much smaller scale, but it's dirty, and unbecoming to us as a Party, nonetheless. I am willing to get down and dirty with any candidate Republican or Democrat I feel is hurting this Party or this country, but I always have as many facts as I can find at my disposal first, and I always do it here and other places, where the "TC" is a known quantity. I never post anonymously.

An anonymous site, erected against a fellow Democrat -- not good. We are better than this. If you believe Kerry should give more, call or fax his offices. Bury him in letters. "DU it"! By all means, go for it. But, go after him anonymously, and you've lost me. It takes focus off the coming elections by giving the other side something else to crow about, and it's un-"Democratic", too. We Democrats should be able to arguably win the coming elections on issues and values alone, but if we get "dirty" (and sometimes, we must), shouldn't it be against the other side? Just saying.

TC




Edited because I can spell, but can't type the word "campaign".

[blm]

1. I'm curious why, in early 2005, Kerry gave 1 MILLION dollars to Senate Dems

to retire their 2004 debt, that somehow doesn't count. Would it have been better if he waited a couple more months, and the DSCC was paying interest on its debt?

And weren't MOST of us angry at DSCC and giving DIRECTLY to Senate candidates, the way Kerry has been?

Schumer wasn't too cool about the Alito filibuster and angry at Kerry and Kennedy for that backlash on DSCC - the same with the withdrawal plan. OUR actions backlashing on DSCC caused Schumer to wrongly target Kerry.

I suppose WE should all give to DSCC and say we were wrong to give DIRECTLY to Senate candidates?

I appreciate your closing thoughts and overall thoughts, but, still there are aspects of the whole money issue that haven't been fairly presented - and that is how WE effected the DSCC's blaming Kerry unfairly.

[Totally Committed]

3. That's also the information I came upon when I did research

before posting about it over the weekend.

I have posted this to put things right, and add what the MSM is contributing to the story.

I also feel, true or untrue, we all need to decide how far we will go to smear one of our own. Do we do it with facts we can substantiate? Do we do it under our own names? Do we state the reason we are making the clain and substantiate that as well? If we do those things, to me it is not a smear. Done the way it was sone, it was a smear, and I am against that. Especially now, w/ elections almost upon us.

TC

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Well said. I applaud your courage in saying this. KR (nt)

[Totally Committed]

4. Thank you.

I appreciate that.

TC

[Marie26]

5. So is it true?

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand exactly what the status is of this story. Is it true or isn't it? Is Kerry refusing to contribute to the DSCC this year? If it isn't true, someone needs to email CNN, because they had a story on the Kerry DSCC donations yesterday.

[Totally Committed]

6. There is contradictory proof, so I am leaving it for all to read

about it and decide for themselves.

My issue is with the methodology of bringing all the facts to light, and applying pressure in a public way ANONYMOUSLY.

What did CNN have to say about his donations? I do not watch cable news, and the BBC World News didn't cover it at all.

Thanks!

TC

[blm]

7. It's not contradictory, it's spinning an early 05 million $$ donation as if it

didn't matter to the 2005-2006 cycle. If Kerry wanted to play politics, he would have left the DSCC to its debt and made the million dollar donation a month or two later.

Instead, he donated EARLY in 2005 so DSCC could pay off its debt.

THAT allowed the SPINNERS to pretend one had nothing to do with the other, when anyone with a credit card bill knows that life doesn't work like that - but in politics, some will pretend it does.

[Totally Committed]

8. Yes, that's what I found, too.

What do we do about the "spin", then? How do we stop what I see, whether or not Kerry ever gave anyone anything, these anonymous attacks against our own? How do we get to the bottom of who's doing this, and more importantly WHY? And, WHY NOW? We have such a short time to our elections. This is the time to focus on the elections -- issues, candidates, close races. It's all important. What Kerry gave when and to whom is an unnecessary, unfair, and smelly DISTRACTION.

When I see HeyHillary.org, and HeyEvan.org asking the same of those two behemoth fundraisers, we'll talk. Otherwise this is wrong. Period.

TC

[AtomicKitten]

10. I read the article in the Boston Globe.

It's a well-written investigative piece that is not spin. The fact is JK has not donated money for THIS ELECTION CYCLE*** That's the point. It seems painfully obvious people became frustrated asking and the internet plea was pretty much a drastic measure in drastic times. There are seats now in play that could tilt blue with some influx of $$$$. It seems pretty clear to me that that is the reason for this - two more years of BushCo unchecked or accountability in government and hopefully reversal of some of the most egregious measures. The focus on the anonymous site has been rendered moot by this article. Impugn the original website for its anonymity, but the real topic here is the money and whether or not you think it's acceptable for politicians to sit on money, particularly money from the last election that wasn't used when it might have made a difference, to pony up. It could make a real difference now.

*** from the Boston Globe: "... his last major financial contribution to the DSCC came a month after he lost the 2004 presidential election, when he used $1 million in leftover campaign funds to help the committee retire its debt." THAT is the point that is undergoing equivocation, i.e., spin.

Flame away or ignore this; doesn't matter to me either way. Call me a Kerry-basher or Kerry-hater or RW or Karl Rove or any other of the epithets your hurl at people that dare to say anything that doesn't shine a glowing light on JK. But this issue is BIGGER than JK. This is about winning the upcoming midterms which is not a distraction but as relevant as oxygen.

[blm]

12. Kerry donating DIRECTLY to candidates is what many DUers did after Alito

filibuster and DSM investigation were not given priority status by the senate. The same after the June withdrwal plan.

Many on DU and other sites were furious the way the Dem senate powers downplayed those matters, and swore off contributing to DSCC in favor of giving money directly to candidates.

Kerry is bearing the brunt of the senate anger towards that backlash against their senate organizations.

[TayTay]

13. You refuse to acknowledge any facts but the ones you like

This is unfortunate. The truth is that no one has given more money this cycle than Sen. Kerry. The same Globe article that you selectively quote from also says this:

Including the $1 million he gave to the DSCC in December 2004, Kerry has doled out $2.8 million to party campaign committees, state parties, and individual candidates since the 2004 election. He has also helped bring in some $7 million for candidates through fund-raisers and his political action committee, including $1.7 million that has gone to Democratic Senate candidates.

"He gave often, he gave early, and now he's on the trail giving hell to the Republicans," said David Wade, a Kerry spokesman. "Democrats out in the country, party leaders, and real net-roots activists know how hard John Kerry has fought to win these elections."

Unlike the House campaign committee, the Senate Democratic campaign organization doesn't set dues for senators. The House committee sets dues for its members based on their leadership positions, committee assignments, and seniority.

Many prominent Democrats, including DCCC chairman Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois Democrat, have praised Kerry for spending his time and money helping candidates. Hassan Nemazee, the DSCC's national finance chairman, said criticism of Kerry is misguided.

"People have notoriously short memories in this business," Nemazee said. "Cumulatively, John Kerry has done as much if not more than any other individual senator."

Ahm, Dec 2004 was after the 2004 cycle. Kerry gave $1 million dollars to the DSCC in this cycle. That is a fact, albeit an inconvenient one for you AK.

This is a gutless campaign to smear Kerry. People engaged in it should be ashamed of themselves. You should also be ashamed of yourself for fudging the truth in your pulling of quotes from the Boston Globe story. It was deliberately misleading and wrong.

[AtomicKitten]

14. the contradiction is as follows

The contradiction is between JK's figures and the DSCC's, and the Boston Globe's investigation backs up the latter. I understand you prefer to see it the way you want, and that is your prerogative. But I'm going with the less emotional analysis if you don't mind; that is my prerogative.

It isn't necessary to punctuate your POV with personal attacks.

[WildEyedLiberal]

15. Now you are just playing games and creating your own facts

December 2004 is this election cycle. It was not the 2004 election cycle, which ended on November 2nd. There has not been a national election since then, so it is by default the 2005-2006 cycle. Therefore, to assert that Kerry has donated anything less than $1 million to the DSCC for THIS election cycle is simply false and misleading.

Why you insist on repeating this smear despite being debunked thoroughly time and again is a mystery to me.

[TayTay]

16. The piece I quoted was from the Boston Globe

and is based on their investigation.

There is no need for you to ignore these truths just because you find they lessen your argument. I am just stating the truth here, using the exact same source you cited.

I presume that you cited that source because you thought it trustworthy. Funny, so did I. And it printed what I wrote, based on it's own investigation.

John Kerry has been the most generous Senator with his money, time and appearances in the country. That is a fact. Not only has he been appearing in support of Dems in close races and raising unprecedented amounts of money through his e-mail fundraising appeals, but he has also come out in support of other groups, like votevets.org and The Patriot Project that fund efforts to defend veterans from the types of smears that Kerry suffering through in '04.

His record stands on it's own, no matter how much unsubstantiated mud is thrown at it and no matter the agenda of the people doing the mudslinging. Truth is funny that way, it has a way of breaking through the slime.

[AtomicKitten]

18. You draw from the response

from the Kerry camp; that is their spin on the questions raised as clearly stated in the article. Now I realize you consider that gospel and all else slime but, again, I read the entire article, and the conclusions from the Boston Globe are as follows:

Critics in his own party excoriated Kerry for leaving $16 million in the bank after his 2004 presidential campaign. Though federal spending limits kept him from using it all on his own campaign, he could have given away what the law said he couldn't spend; that year, Democrats lost seats in both the House and the Senate.

Kerry aides said the senator saved the cash to cover leftover presidential campaign bills and to pay for lawyers in case he had to challenge voting irregularities in some states or if his race against President Bush had to be settled in court.

Though he quickly kicked in $1 million to the DSCC, gave $500,000 to the DCCC, and $1 million to the Democratic National Committee, Kerry has held on to the bulk of his campaign money as he prepares for a possible second run at the White House in 2008.

Last month, when DSCC officials asked all Democratic senators for last-call financial contributions before Election Day, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts was among three lawmakers who donated $1 million each. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York signed a check for $2 million.

Kerry, however, kept his checkbook shut. The senator's aides said he has no plans to give again.

Jerry Lundergan, chairman of the Kentucky Democratic Party, said he contacted Kerry's advisers on Thursday, urging them to tell the senator how much the congressional campaigns need his money.

"I have made my wishes known," said Lundergan, whose state features two close House races in which Democrats have a good chance to oust incumbent Republicans. "It's his money to do with what he wants to. But I only hope that he shares some of it with those states, such as Kentucky, which contributed very extensively to his campaign. "

[WildEyedLiberal]

19. What exactly is your problem?

From the excerpt you just quoted: "Though he quickly kicked in $1 million to the DSCC, gave $500,000 to the DCCC, and $1 million to the Democratic National Committee, Kerry has held on to the bulk of his campaign money as he prepares for a possible second run at the White House in 2008."

$2.5 million not even counting donations and fundraising since the beginning of 2005. That is very obviously more than $15,000 or whatever paltry sum heyjohn.org and its apologists keep posting.

Are you pissed because he hasn't donated his ENTIRE warchest to the DSCC? If so, it seems rather disingenuous to focus on Kerry when Hillary Clinton - who has a $40+ million warchest - is mysteriously being let off the hook. The fact remains that Kerry has donated a larger net PERCENTAGE of his money to the party than have other Dems - so again, I ask, what's the problem here? And why is ONLY Kerry the recipient of this faux outrage? Why NOT Hillary? Why NOT *WARNER* - who dropped out of the race?

Gee, who could possibly want Kerry to have no funds on hand for a potential 2008 presidential primary, while all the other candidates enter with their warchests intact? Who could possibly benefit from that?

[karynnj]

23. You ignore what Kerry is doing indepenndently

The DSCC spends a lot of its money sending direct mail pieces on letters asking for solicitations by various party heavy eights.

Kerry is likely more efficeint because his requests are better because they allow you to contribute to a specific candidate. A side benefit is that they actually have well written reasons for why they deserve support. (Acting to get votes at the same time.) The sad thing is that this politically motivated attack could decrease the response to the email sent out today. Whoever is behind this is creating division before the election and possibly hurting the effectiveness of a man working to help people in 2006.

Seriously, if the intent was to punish Kerry - they could have waited 2 weeks.

Do you think he has helped 2006 more or less than Hillary?

Did Hillary raise only the highest amount needed for the Senate or was she looking to move a lot into 2008 - draining 2006 money? (Is this a pre-emptive move to make Kerry the villian?)

[TayTay]

28. Ahm, yes, that's because I can read and process news stories

You mean you are actually putting out here that the smear about Kerry and the fundraising is 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?'

Just who are you trying to spin here AK? You know as well as I do that this is subjective information to the core. It is very, very easy to verify what Sen. Kerry has done to donate to other candidates. That information is public knowledge at the www.fec.gov site. He has raised and donated more money than any other Democrat this cycle.

I understand that you find the truth to be inconvenient. I understand that. Perhaps this is because you either don't like Sen. Kerry or don't like his supporters on DU, but that doesn't change the fact that the amount of money Kerry has raised for others since the '04 election is the most that any Democrat has raised.

It is all there, in the files, on the public record and searchable. Now, I would like to know who is spinning this lie that he hasn't done enough and who it benefits. Any clues who might think they could benefit by putting up anonymous sites that spew lies?

Hahahahaha! That's a good one. You are the truthteller. Hahahahaha! Please, your selective use of quotes and willingness to quote the talking points of others that totally disregard verifiable facts is just sad. Like I said, this is a matter of public record dear, you could look it up.

[karynnj]

22. The Boston Globe backs Kerry there

He did give $1 million in Dec 2004 - which is in this election cycle. That is fact.

Do you contest that Dec 2004 is part of this election cycle?

Do you question that he really gave $1 million?

Do you realize that he also spent a lot of money fund raising for others?

[karynnj]

21. That is contradictory

The election cycle is Nov 2004 to Nov 2006. This ISSUE is a distraction attacking one of the Democrats fighting hardest for 2006 in the last 2 weeks.

The fact also is that he has generated $11 plus million this year and $5.5 in 2005. To do this he used HIS MONEY. It takes a lot of money to solicit money. In fact, in a NYT article, on another candidate the fundraising costs took up over 40% of the money raised - and it was noted that this was normal.

The fact is that someone wants Kerry out and sees that the amount he raised is a reason to fear him. Glad you're happy that someone working to help is getting smeared again.

[Marie26]

24. CNN story

I didn't see all of it, but CNN did a short segment on Kerry's campaign "war chest", and how he was refusing to contribute money to the DSCC or other candidates. I believe the story mentioned the "HeyJohn" website specifically, so it seems like the reporter was basically repeating what they'd read online. I guess it shows the power of the blogs, for good or bad.

[Cameron27]

25. There's no question that

this story is making the rounds. I didn't see the CNN segment, but I read the Boston Globe and now apparently KOS is talking about it.

This story is in the news and there's nothing at all wrong with discussing it here. I didn't see the CNN segment, nor the "HeyJohn" thing, but the Boston Globe certainly isn't a freeper rag and they're quoting a pretty disgruntled chairman of the Kentucky Democratic Party.

I look forward to all the facts and opinions expressed regarding this story.

[WildEyedLiberal]

9. Well, Americablog has long been hostile to Kerry

I recall Americablog actively ridiculing the filibuster effort against Alito, and specifically Kerry's charge in leading it. The Globe, also, certainly revels in showing their "balance" by being as snarky about Kerry as often as they can.

That said, I really appreciate your sentiments here - this IS Swiftboating and it is absolutely being done in order to benefit some other candidate (many of whom, as you noted, have as big or bigger warchests) at the expense of Kerry. It's dirty Rovian political hardball and it's shameful that anyone presuming to call themselves a (D) would stoop to this level.

Now, to address the actual substance of the PM you received - you will note that the figure of $15,000 is inaccurate, as blm notes. Kerry DID donate a cool $1 million to the DSCC - but, in order for the weasel authors of that piece to not get caught in a lie, they restrict the time frame for his generosity to "since the beginning of 2005" - so they can conveniently ignore his million dollar contribution. That's just biased, slanted, media spin at its finest, and you can bet there's an agenda behind it.

Furthermore, and I liked how you referenced mloutre's comment because he/she summed up my sentiments quite well, I *didn't* donate to Kerry because I wanted him to give all his money to Reid and Schumer. I gave it to KERRY. And since when did DU become cheerleaders for the DSCC anyway? I seem to recall plenty of rage at Reid and Schumer when they pressured Hackett to pull out, among other things. Kerry HAS donated millions of dollars to individual campaigns, which he chooses to do rather than give through the DSCC. That seems to me to be like something DU would APPROVE of. He is giving straight to the candidates involved. For a group that seems to be so ardently in favor of "grassroots" and against the party-boss style power politics displayed by the "leadership," there seems to be an awfully suspicious amount of cheerleading for Reid and Schumer, who, Schumer in particular, are typically scorned at DU. To put it mildly, everything about this situation stinks, and let's just say that the newfound DSCC/Chuck Schumer advocates don't pass the smell test for me.

So here are the main points as I see them:

1) The website is cowardly - selectively smearing ONE Democrat behind craven anonymity is Swiftboating.

2) The website is deliberately being dishonest - Kerry HAS donated over $1 million to the DSCC, but because of the clever weasel words used by the anti-Kerry sources cited on the website, they have perpetrated a spin job that Kerry has only donated $15,000. This is deliberately obscuring the truth in order to support and anonymous an shadowy agenda.

3) Chuck Schumer, a DLC poster boy and power player in insider beltway Democratic politics, is hardly a progressive hero, and it is ... strange ... that "progressives" are clamoring for Kerry to forfeit all his money to give to the DSCC, when usually the DSCC receives contempt here and elsewhere in the liberal netroots.

4) Who could stand to benefit by Kerry - and Kerry alone - giving away all his money to the DSCC? Reid, Schumer, and their allies - and I will let the more speculative among us figure out who those allies are.

Thanks for your clear-headed post on this, TC - hopefully your reasoned OP will be the final word on this disgraceful matter. So help me God - whatever agents in the party are behind this Swiftboating - if they even are from our party - have lost my support forever. If, theoretically, this smear job is being done to benefit a potential rival of Kerry's vying for power within the party, that person will never, ever get my vote. Period.

[Totally Committed]

11. I hope we are done with this now...

Thanks to you and to all who participated in this thread.

Hopefully, the dialogue was helpful to more than it was confusing to. I really did try to keep it even and balanced, so to those who were disappointed with or confused by my position, sorry, but in the end, all we have is our personal integrity, and mine matters to me.

What happened here was wrong. Maybe next time it should be "HeyElectedDemsWithHugeWarchests_PonyUpNow.org", with an unblocked site ownership -- That would be a lot fairer and I'd definitely get behind that, but as this stands, it was unfair to single Kerry out this way.

Thanks to all of you!

TC

[KoKo]

26. There's probably an Underground DLC effort to go against Kerrry & Dean

and any Democrat who doesn't tow their line. I do feel there's an orchestrated campaign against fellow Dems and the sides aren't always as clear to see. Maybe it isn't DLC but other forces within the Party.

Politics is a very dirty business. One even see's here on DU how dirty it can get.

It's hard to sort it all out with the powerplays going on for who will run and has real hopes of winning in '08. Chances are we folks in the Grassroots will be routed or shoved aside once again, though.

But....we will just continue working and supporting those who don't try to throw the "grassroots activists for change from within" under the Bus. The Repugs sure did well catering to their craven,evil base.

Would seem that our Dem Party in the wilderness for so long would finally see that without a "clear base...since they've lost the African-American vote which has stayed home or defected to Repug...that they might start looking boyond whatever new "flavor of the times" to building back the coalition of belief in values&integrity in Government and the belief in workers rights and sound environmental policies that extend to all aspects of our life on this earth.

[Cameron27]

29. I don't know,

it could be that, but at this point just before the 06 elections, it just doesn't to make any sense for anyone to orchestrate a campaign against JK or any other dem. Who would do that, and what possible purpose would they be aiming at? If there was an effort to block Kerry from running in 08, this is just too soon to start.

It just sounds as if there's a question about the 2004 contributions, and at least the Kentucky Democratic Chairman is ticked off about it.

:shrug:

edited/spelling

[talk hard]

32. Kentucky chair is pised off

I dont know why nobody talks about it

[Totally Committed]

17. Please take a look:

Web activists have a plan: Safe incumbent Democrats urged to share cash
by DeepModem Mom

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2578040

TC

[karynnj]

20. Thanks for the summary

I had seen most of those attacks. It seems that you are right in using the word "swiftboating". Clearly there is a very coordinated attack going on. It would seem that some one or some group want Kerry to decide not to run.

In some ways, it is very similar to swiftbosting in that they took a Kerry strength and have distorted and lied to make it a liability. If you look at the MSNBC site, they have a decision 2008 summary under politics. On Kerry's page, one positive is the money and effort he has put into 2006. In reality, he has done a huge amount and raised more money than anyone else. (This is not to criticize Clark, Edwards etc who have also been everywhere.)

The attack is limited to Kerry, with a mention of Bayh. Clinton is mentioned favorably for giving $2 million to the DSCC. Kerry gave less to the DSCC, but gave more money to the total of DCCC, DSCC, and the DNC. That he gave it earlier made it more valuable not less. He also has incurred the cost of all the fund raising efforts for others, while giving 100% of the money raised to the candidates. This is NOT inexpensive - especially as he raised $5.5 million in 2005 and $11 million (2006) plus in direct contributions.

The sad thing is that this will likey NEGATIVELY impact his last fund raising effort sentout today. The fact is that the Democrats raised more money in September than the Republicans and many Senators and Congressmen are sitting on a lot of money. The liklihood is that when the numbers are in after the election - Kerry will likely have spent a higher percent of his money than Hillary, Bayh, Shumer and many others.

His schedule has him working every day (or almost every day) in this entire recess - and Teresa is out helping as well. There is NO reason that he should be treated like this by Democrats - especially as he will likely have to divert time away from 2006 to defend himself.

I hope they learn the identity of the people behind this site.

[MH1]

27. Thanks for this - K & R

You know, one of the good sides to this whole unnecessary thing with the hey john site, is that I've been able to see that there are an awful lot of people who are normally very critical of Kerry, that have come forward and called this bullshit for what it is.

I really appreciate that. Makes me feel a little better about the online community. Kos notwithstanding, sigh.

[pacalo]

30. Excellent, TC! Well said.

[JNelson6563]

31. Thanks for taking the time TC

My respect for you only seems to increase with the posts I read from you. Rock on sister.

Julie