John Edwards for VP? There Should Be No Sequel This Time.

[David Zephyr]

I hope that this time it won't be deja vu all over again when it comes to who Senator Barack Obama picks to be his running mate. I am referring to the recent floating of John Edwards' name once again to be the Vice Presidential nominee. Nothing could be worse.

If Al Gore and John Kerry could somehow hop into Professor Peabody's "Way Back Machine" and re-visit their campaigns in 2000 and 2004, you can be sure that they would both have changed who they chose to be their running mates. The top of the tickets were sterling in both campaigns, but the bottom of those tickets -- Lieberman and Edwards --- were boat anchors.

Just a few reminders:

John Edwards did not just vote for the Iraqi War Resolution, he was one of only 16 co-sponsors of Joe Lieberman's Senate Iraqi War Resolution. Who were the other 15? Here's a few of the guilty:

John McCain, Pete Domenici, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Wayne Allard, Mitch McConnell, John Warner, Tim Hutchinson, Zel Miller, Louisiana's petroleum puppets John Breaux and Mary Landrieu, and, of course, Joe Lieberman. Great company for John Edwards, huh?

John Edwards could not even deliver his home state of North Carolina to John Kerry's finally tally in 2004 and did not deliver one single southern state to Kerry either. So much for his "pull" with conservative southern white men. If there's still any logic left at all (I don't think there is) to pandering to southern white conservative men, then at the very least, the product choice of John Edwards has already been field tested and did not market well there. In fact, he bombed. Factoid: John Edwards did not even deliver his own hometown in North Carolina in 2004. How weak is that?

John Edwards showed himself not to be the "team player" that he promised to be before signing on as Kerry's running mate in 2000. Indeed, Edwards fought with the Kerry campaign and the campaign ended with bad blood between Kerry and Edwards.

No one would know this better than Obama's current chief strategist, David Axelrod...because Axelrod worked for Edwards in 2004. The New York Times wrote that Axelrod pointed to Edwards as one of the reasons the Kerry campaign failed: "I have a whole lot of respect for John, but at some point the candidate has to close the deal and — I can’t tell you why — that never happened with John.”

If winning in 2008 is important to Democrats, then we can not entertain any notion of repeating past errors. There should be no sequel with John Edwards on the marquee alongside the name of Barack Obama in November.

[Ian David]

1. As a former Edwards supporter, I sadly concede your points. n/t

[Cleita]

2. The Kerry campaign failed because John Kerry wouldn't or couldn't

come out and smash down the swiftboat smear against him and he refused to challenge Ohio, which time has proved would have won him the election had he done so. To blame it on Edwards is like Gore blaming it on Lieberman. Gore lost because the Bush campaign cheated. But fear not, Obama will not pick Edwards as his VP. He's a politician and will pick someone not as well known but with a good resume.

[Inuca]

7. What did time prove about Ohio?!?!?

Time may heal wounds, it does not prove anything.

[ray of light]

12. The only thing proved in Ohio occurred in 2006, more than 2 years AFTER, when Strickland ordered

down the corrupt Republicans" in Ohio.

[Cleita]

27. Read this:

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/17/harvey_wasserman_on_new_ohio_voting

[David Zephyr]

8. Axelrod pointed that Edwards was one of the reason according to the New York Times

Naturally, there are many reasons for the result in 2004 (I did not write that Edwards was the sole reason) including the "swift boat" episode along with Diebold voting machines and outright fraud in Ohio.

Nonetheless, the glaring fact is that John Edwards did not bring one additional electoral vote to Kerry's final tally. He just doesn't deliver. And, while I'm telling the truth, his 2004 primary campaign was a complete disaster.

I am concerned that there is a recent resurgence in the notion that Edwards would be a good pick and that John Edwards himself has recently put his own name back into play.

[politicasista]

10. Nah, it's easy to blame only Kerry (sarcasm warning)

because he was DNC Chairman, he went around Europe defending Bush and not speaking out against the war, because he controlled a broadcast media that heavilly protected Bush, he was supposed to be in charge of the securing the vote and protecting voting machines. He was supposed to choke each SOS in the battleground states, mainly Blackwell. And he was supposed to have a Democratic Party working with him, but they went M.I.A. So, he was supposed to do all that all by himself.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[David Zephyr]

15. As I wrote, Kerry was a "sterling" candidate. I agree with your sarcasm, by the way.

We had a great headliner at the top of our ticket. It's too bad that he didn't have a fighter there alongside him.

This is off track a bit, but I am one that hopes that Obama, at least, considers Kerry as VP. Kerry would be in my top five choices.

[politicasista]

18. I was being sarcastic. I agree with your post

I was hoping that Clark was VP because he was a very good surrogate for Kerry and would have been the attack dog that Kerry needed from the Swifties. Plus, he wouldn't have allowed Darth Cheney to get off so easy, he would have tied him in knots in that debate.

I would like to see Kerry as VP, but Kerry is running for Senate (under MA law, he can't run for both), but Obama has some good choices (see my post below). And I agree that Edwards should be out of the running. He added nothing to the ticket in 04.


:hi:

[David Zephyr]

21. LOL!

I loved your sarcasm. And Wes Clark is still in my narrowed down top five for VP. :hi:

In alphabetical order:

BIden, Clark, Clinton, Kerry and Richardson.

[politicasista]

25. Nice list! n/t

[Inspired]

43. You must be joking, David.

If we have Kerry on the ticket we are doomed. You just don't understand how unpopular Kerry was in 2004, and still is, in red and purple states. He would bring nothing to the table except a heck of a lot of ridicule.

[karynnj]

47. Then stop pushing Edwards - Kerry was more popular than Edwards in the

red and purple states. Edwards beat him in just three - and one was after Kerry secured the nomination. (SC, NC, and OK (where Kerry was only three points behind.)

Kerry will not be vp, he's running for Senate. He brings a lot more to the Democratic party than ridicule. Kerry is one of the smartest, best informed people in the party, with an incredible Senate record, and a history of being a hero who stood against Nixon - when Edwards likely voted for him.

Even on Edwards main issue - poverty - Kerry has done more. The current Affordable Housing Fund passed by the Senate as part of the Banking committee's bill was sponsored by Kerry and Snowe (he first proposed it in 2000.) and Kerry wrote the precursor bill to S-CHIP. Edwards own actions in that area are in contrast to voting for the bankruptcy bill. As to ridicule - had Edwards gone further - he would have been ridiculed on his signature issue - it is not believable that he did 2 or 3 days work a month for a hedge fund to learn about poverty.

[Inspired]

49. I'm not pushing Edwards for VP. I'm as surprised as anyone to see him being considered.

Did I say that Edwards has done more than Kerry? I'm just saying that Kerry wouldn't be the best pick for VP. (I'm not sure Edwards would either except he has great chemistry with Obama.)

I happen to think that John Kerry would have made an excellent president. I also think that he would have a hard time ever getting elected and would do nothing to benefit an Obama ticket.

[karynnj]

53. Kerry nearly won in 2004 - a year when Bush beat "generic Democrat"

by a significant margin when tested in early 2004. This year nearly 80% of the country thinks the country is going in the wrong direction.

As to chemistry, where do you get that Edwards and Obama have great chemistry. Edwards trashed Obama, calling him bought be the corporations and called him "too weak"

As to no benefit, Kerry would bring national security, foreign policy, environmental, healthcare, and housing experience - and he was a war hero every bit as much as McCain was one.

What does Edwards bring?

[Inspired]

58. Let me repeat...I'm not pushing Edwards for VP.

Kerry has great credentials. That doesn't mean he would be a benefit to Obama's ticket.

[politicasista]

70. Good question n/t

[wisteria]

55. You are right, and Kerry would be a true attack dog- defending Obama

with the facts and the truth.

[wisteria]

56. Frankly, IMO, John Edwards doesn't have it in him to be a VP. He can't fight for someone else.

Only himself. He was going for the brass ring in 2004 and in 2008. He reluctantly settled in 2004, I don't see him settling this time. I think he can make a huge name for himself continuing his anti-poverty program.

[Hawkowl]

86. Sterling?!?!

Kerry? WTF over. Kerry was the most inept campaigner since Dukakis with his "I'm above the fray" campaign style. If Obama picked Kerry he would lose. Game over. Black man with a MA liberal loser. Blaming Edwards for Kerry losing is absurd. Absolutely ridiculous.

Aside from that, I would hope Obama would choose a candidate on their most RECENT accomplishments and positions. Not carefully look over who was good 4 or 8 years ago. Because if he follows that logic, he should (gag!) pick Clinton.

Kerry would be excellent if Obama needs a passive crash dummy, or a sawdust filled punching bag.

[beachmom]

9. The post is about Edwards who REFUSED to help Kerry during that difficult time:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/18/edwardss_tough_talk_claims_of_04_disputed/

Edwards, who first made the statement in interviews after the 2004 race, has repeated it recently in private meetings with party donors as he seeks to contrast his "backbone" with Democratic rivals whom he portrays as unwilling to confront Bush over the Iraq war.

But Kerry and more than a half-dozen former high-ranking Kerry-Edwards campaign officials dispute the idea that Edwards favored a tougher strategy in 2004, and maintain that Edwards often refused their requests to make sharper attacks against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

The former campaign aides said Kerry made a personal appeal to Edwards in a face-to-face meeting in Ohio in early September 2004, and Edwards vowed to turn up the heat on their Republican opponents.

But the vice presidential nominee, who had presented himself as a campaigner with a positive message, continued to shy away from aggressive attacks, according to the former aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were describing internal campaign communications.

Indeed, Edwards responded to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth political advertisements only after Kerry delivered the first blow.

...

One Democratic donor said he's twice heard Edwards tell private audiences, including this year, that he wanted to be more aggressive but the Kerry camp "would not let him."

Kerry disputed the account by Edwards in McAuliffe's book, saying he was frustrated that Edwards was not tougher. He told McAuliffe that Edwards told him several times, "Watch the news tomorrow. I'm really going to go after Bush," but that Edwards did not deliver.

...

Former Kerry aides acknowledge that they did not want the campaign to respond to the ads at first, but say Edwards did not push them to reconsider. Then, with polls suggesting that the ads were having a major impact, the Kerry campaign decided to fight back.

Their first choice, according to the former aides, was to have Edwards and Kerry leading a double-barreled attack, with Edwards focusing on the fact that both Bush and Cheney managed to avoid serving in Vietnam.

But Edwards responded that while it was important to respond forcefully, Kerry should lead the effort, according to former Kerry staff members.

On Aug. 19, at the John B. Hynes Veterans Memorial Convention Center in Boston, Kerry delivered a blistering attack, calling the Swift Boat group "a front for the Bush campaign" and issuing a blunt challenge to the president.

"If he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on!" Kerry said.

Edwards didn't weigh in until Aug. 21, with a more measured response demanding that Bush call for the ads to be taken off the air, deeming it "a moment of truth for George W. Bush."

After the SBVT attacks, check out this scene:

On the last night of the Republican National Convention -- where Kerry was bashed relentlessly -- Kerry huddled with Edwards before a rally in Springfield, Ohio, in a meeting that aides said was set up so Kerry could personally implore Edwards to go on the attack.

Edwards promised to get more aggressive, according to former aides who were briefed on the Sept. 2 conversation.

But Kerry and his top advisers never saw that vow turned into action. In the campaign's final weeks, Kerry's top communications aides would talk with staff members traveling with Edwards every morning, sending them attack lines they wanted Edwards to use.

Edwards often pushed back, insisting on softer language and delaying the attacks for hours, one former Kerry-Edwards communications aide said. Toward the end of the campaign, former campaign aides said, they turned to surrogates -- including Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and a retired Army general, Wesley K. Clark -- to deliver the broadsides.

We all watched the campaign in '04. The end result matches exactly with this story in the Globe. OTHER Democrats played the attack dog, not John Edwards.

[MBS]

11. thanks, beachmom.

People really need to be reminded of how it really happened.

[David Zephyr]

62. Thanks for the links.

:)

[ray of light]

14. Two years AFTER the election there was evidence of something...however

it's bullshit to think that JK or JRE could have 'fought and uncovered the truth" in 2004. T

No investigation into what happened in 2004 would have shown anything. You're not quite understanding that the CORRUPT INFRASTRUCTURE was IN PLACE and the evidence was sitting IN ANOTHER STATE. You're very naive if you think two months of JRE and JK parking their asses on tv would have revealed anything more than what happened.

Under the Republican governor and under Blackwell, these facts were intentionally hidden for years. The Republican governor and Blackwell obstructed these investigations for two years and it would have remained secret even longer had Strickland not won.

However, it's really silly for anyone to believe that a concession speech prevented the counting of the votes or that the actual facts would have come forth in 2 short months before the inaugeration. Clearly, it took TWO YEARS PLUS it took replacing the criminal Republican infrastructure in Ohio with an infrastructure that provided FAIR ELECTIONS.

There's not one damn thing that would have happened in 2004 that would have changed anything.

Also, I firmly believe when Bush is OUT for good, there will be a few talking people who will suddenly feel SAFE to come forward. Then we will know even more. But as anyone knows...when you have a solid core of corruption within the infrastructure of government (or any organization) it takes a whole NEW TEAM to break it down and get to the truth.

Also, to that poster above you...Howard Dean, Donna Brazille, and the DNC put out a whole b.s. packet saying that "Nothing illegal happened in Ohio."

And there was NO INFRASTRUCTURE around Kerry or Edwards to make sure they could wage 'a battle that would break

[ray of light]

22. The Kerry campaigned faild because of a complicit media. And the same media is trying to tank Obama

[politicasista]

28. It's always amazing that Gore was a victim of cheating, but Kerry isn't

so he just "lost" because he was either a lousy candidate or ran a terrible campaign. Too much apples and oranges.

[wisteria]

54. Edwards had a responsibility to be an attack dog and challenge the SBV.

I saw other surrogates for Kerry do that, but not Edwards.

Oh, and Kerry fought the SBV smears as best he could with his hands tied behind his back.
This is a long story that has been repeated often hear, but some people refuse to read the truth.

[mtnsnake]

66. In a nutshell, you summarized it nicely. n/t

[beachmom]

3. Well said, David. Add to that that JRE refused to be an attack dog.

Kerry met with him in person and begged him to attack the Swifts, but John wouldn't do it. Kerry did it himself, and only when he fired the first shot did Edwards do so as well. Add insult to injury? Edwards then campaigned in '08 that HE would fight swiftboating, and that he wanted to attack the SBVT. Not a team player is an understatement.

[democrat2thecore]

4. Actually pretty hard to argue with any of that -nt

[MBS]

5. nice analysis. thanks n/t

[politicasista]

6. Obama needs someone

like Biden, Dodd, or Sebilius (maybe Kaine).

[asdjrocky]

13. I've always liked what you have written David-

And agree with you most of the time. I do, however, find that blaming VP choices for losses in 2000 and 2004 a bit out of the realm of reality. I remember Ohio, and I also remember a stacked Supreme Cort. I believe Kerry ran a terrible campaign in 04, even though he had my whole hearted support.

While it may make a good deal of sense to blame Cheeny for much of the mess we're in right now, it makes no sense to factor the choice of VP as being the overwhelming reason for the lose for Gore and Kerry.

And for the record, politically smart or not, John Edwards is still the only one speaking for the poor and homeless in this country. When was the last time Obama, Clinton, or any of the others for that matter, said a thing about the poor?

[David Zephyr]

16. Thanks.

I like John Edwards. And I like the John Edwards of 2007 and 2008 even more.

I just don't want him on the ticket as VP again for the reasons I gave.

[asdjrocky]

26. Look at us here,

We're disagreeing on something, but still having a civil dialog. Wasn't sure it could be done any longer here at DU. For me it goes beyond a political choice. Obama can lock this up no matter who he chooses and I'd like to see that be someone who speaks for social and economic justice, and not just another "good for the ticket" guy or gal.

One of Gores mistakes in 2000 was running away from Clinton, and that was one of the biggest reasons for picking Liarman. The best political decision isn't always the right one.

By the way, I think your a great Dem. You keep writing, I'll keep reading.

[David Zephyr]

30. John Edwards had the second best healthcare proposal after Kucinich.

Hillary pretty much copied Edwards' good plan which was OK with me because it was a good plan.

And although I was a big Obama supporter in the primaries, I hope that he will move toward the plan that Edwards and Hillary had that covered everyone by mandate.

John would make a good A.G. although he's my second choice to Henry Waxman. But John as AG? America wins.

[asdjrocky]

31. We agree on that for sure.

And I do think he has a far better shot at AG than VP. I'm not sure if he can do good for the people as AG though, however, he could sure go after corporate whores in the roll of AG.

[Snotcicles]

32. Do you guys remember this? he had them soiling their looms.

http://www.vagazette.com/la-na-chamber8jan08,0,3124611.story

[eridani]

64. If we start out insisting on HR 676--

--we might wind up with something like the Edwards plan as a compromise. Start out with the the Edwards plan, and it will most likely be compromised down to something like the MA debacle.

If you'll accept a kitten, ask for a pony. If you want $3000 for your used car ask for $5000. If you want 75% of your legislative agenda accomplished, ask for 150% of it.

[PurityOfEssence]

33. Some more points

You've blown hot and cold on Mr. Edwards, and generally rather cold. True to form, however, there's little mid-range in your opinions, as there is here, and that's just the way you are: passion is good at times and frustrating at others, but at least you actually do give a damn. Yes, generally dismissive though this assessment of yours here is, it ranks as moderate in your overall spectrum; usually it's either ecstatic enthusiam for something or ringing condemnation.

Having said all that, the guy's to be congratulated for many accomplishments in his Senatorial term and he's hardly the conniving back-bencher so many tar him as being. He was the one who spearheaded the attempt to block Ashcroft, and that's where he first turned up on my radar. Ask Russ Feingold about how instrumental he was on McCain/Feingold, too.

Enough of that, however. Kerry ran a HORRIBLE campaign. He sucked up to the right, reported for duty and stood there like a cigar-store indian while they threw every swift lie that they could. Imagine Bill Clinton taking hits like that: there'd be responses within the hour. (Remember too: as you know, I'm hardly a Clinton fan.) In Kerry's silly need to contradict George Bush on everything, he even came out against radically reducing our military presence in Germany, something that's undeniably sensible and long overdue. Kerry was a nightmare of a candidate, and many of us saw it well before it happened, so blaming Edwards for the '04 disaster is sort of like blaming popsicle stick makers for nationwide obesity.

There are many reasons why Edwards shouldn't be on the ticket, and I hope he isn't. I hope he isn't even asked, because he might consider it his duty if he is. To run with Obama would be to do an about face on some core principles, and the last thing we need is another bright light of the party tarnishing him/herself by an extreme compromise on morality. The issue of predatory lending is a major one for Edwards, and they're at odds about this, much as Obama has taken to using the term of late.

Edwards is popularly perceived as being too inexperienced and facile, and this is not healthy: Obama has the same rap. Quite frankly, I think it would be unnecessarily risky, and this is cold-blooded calculation on my part: I don't think Obama's chances are very good, and especially after the turns he's taken of late; for Edwards to be second banana on another losing ticket would be the end of him, and I think he's far too valuable a leader to waste.

That last part is something virtually unspeakable around these parts, regardless of the polls and indications that it might be the case.

Bear in mind: I want Obama to win, and I'm choking back EXTREME distaste for the overt use of religion, which is the third rail for me. For all his ultramoderate maneuvering, he's obviously a better choice than any Republican, and the spiritual uplift of having a non-white president would bring forth a feeling of newness and change that is just what this country needs in perilous economic times, but I'm not blind or deaf, and his tactics dismay me to no end. He plays old politics of the antideluvian type: ward-heeling of the grand old Chicago tradition.

Take care, and I'm sorry if Edwards' record resonates so dismally for you; he's a good guy and a truly gifted communicator and leader in the prime sense of the word. I think he's behaved himself quite well after dropping out, and I hope we don't waste him.

[ray of light]

19. Kerry ran a great campaign. Let me tell you why I disagree with that statement.

1. The media wasn't going to let anything he said come forward without their spin. Period! In 2003 he was going to break up the media. So they KNEW they'd have to sabatage him and so they did. All you have to do is read Dan Rather's account of how the media stacked up against Kerry to know there is nothing JK could have done that would have overpowered the complicit media.

2. The media didn't talk about torture; Kerry did. The media didn't talk about Iraq; John Kerry did. The media didn't talk about healthcare and college education for Americans;John Kerry did. The media didn't talk about the illegal spying and the treason (Plame) or the obstruction of justice of MOST of the investigations. John Kerry spoke about what was available at the time. Many PEOPLE admit that had the media told them that, they would not have voted for BUsh in 2004.

3. John Kerry knew he had to go AROUND the media. So he did. He travelled the country and spoke to people face to face! While the media made up petty little bullshit controversies about him.

4. John Kerry knew that the media was complicit so he started the first INTERACTIVE Presidential blog and forum. THAT BLOG was INSTRUMENTAL in getting out facts about his plans and getting the international news to the American people.

5. A friend of mine documented how many hours they spent on Bush and how many they gave Kerry (and this was on cspan which is less biased then the other corporate media) and they gave Bush more than 3x the air time than they gave Kerry. Also, look at the way they cheated the DNC out of convention coverage but they gave the extra night to Bush and the RNC. Hmmmm.... now they want to do that to Obama.


Did he do everything right? Of course not. But that's because there is no such thing as a perfect campaign.

And could he have done better without a complicit media? Could he have done better with a TRUTHFUL media--one that didn't present spin and inaccuracy as facts? You betcha. COuld he have done better if they had allowed him EQUAL TIME to present his message? Of course.

[politicasista]

24. And he got more votes than any other presidential candidate in history

Obama will top that for sure.

[asdjrocky]

29. You made several good points here.

I agree with the complicity of the MSM in may of the campaigns failings, but I still hold Kerry accountable for not going after the swift boaters. I feel that was the biggest mistake. And I also agree that no one runs a perfect campaign. With Kerry, I just think it was pretty far from perfect. Hunting? Give me a break.

[ray of light]

36. hunting? I don't get that reference. Kerry is a hunter. (was) whatever verb tense.

My own hubby hunted when in his twentys and growning up. However, even though he doesn't hunt now, he still is able to hunt. He never 'Cheney'd' anyone. (Whatever the proper vernacular is.)

Anyways, I can try to scrounge up a timeline on the swifty thing. But it's sort of a bad day for me. If you don't mind waiting a little, I'll try to gather the links I have to a timeline. But just a basic thing from my memory is that during the primary they tried to use the swifties against him and Jk swatted that down successfully. Then in August, after the convention and before the Republican convention there was a big add buy already taken out--and the campaign was unable to fundraise more money but yet unable to go through the money that needed to be saved for later.

So from my memory, feeble as it is (wink), JK was on the train travelling from corner to corner of the country. And he was trusting the campaign and the DNC to handle things until he could be off the train. I know the rumor was that Shrum or someone advised him that he didn't need to respond and that responding would make it worse. But within a short time, he had gotten to work contacting ALL his fellow swift boaters--people who were actually ON THE BOAT WITH HIM--and they immediately responded to the complicit media. AND furthermore, there was a journalist in Chicago who NEVER SPOKE of Vietnam--EVER--yet John Kerry contacted him and was able to convince him to come forward with the truth. All of this occurred in August--at the same time the swifties made the attack.

But let's go back to that complicit media again. These swiftboat liars WERE smacked down and PROVEN to be LIARS in August, yet even into October, the complicit media was giving FREE AIRTIME TO EVERY SINGLE SWIFTBOAT COMMERCIAL THEY MADE! EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!

Why did the media still give that free air time to a proven group of liars? We know the answer to that. Why did the media lie about the people involved in the swiftboat liars? Why didn't the media refuse to show the swiftboat ads DURING THEIR SHOWS even if they accepted the money for commercials?

You know the answer to this.

They gave free airtime because it was an easy way to help Bush out without being considered a campaign donation.


If you want links, I'll gather them. But it will take me some time.

[politicasista]

38. Will this link help ray?

This includes a timeline and other things. (Hope you feel better. :hi:)

April 14, 2004 - The website for SBVT was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, the information technology manager for Gannon International, a St. Louis company that has diversified interests, including in Vietnam. (1) (note - Gannon International does not appear to have any relationship to Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the fake reporter.)

May 3, 2004 - "Kerry campaign announced a major advertising push to introduce 'John Kerry's lifetime of service and strength to the American people.' Kerry's four month Vietnam experience figures prominently in the ads." (2)

May 4, 2004 - The Swift Liars, beginning their lies by calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", went public at a news conference organized by Merrie Spaeth at the National Press Club. (1)

May 4, 2004 - "The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event...The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.' " (3)


May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).

Jul. 26, 2004 - Jul. 29, 2004 - Democratic National Convention held in Boston. John Kerry's military experience is highlighted.

Aug. 5, 2004 - The Swift Liars' first television ad began airing a one-minute television spot in three states. (7)

Aug. 5, 2004 - "the General Counsels to the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign faxed a letter to station managers at the relevant stations stating that the ad is 'an inflammatory, outrageous lie" and requesting that they "act immediately to prevent broadcast of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. " ' " (4)

Aug. 10, 2004 - Democracy 21, The Campaign Legal Center and The Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that the Swift Liars were illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections. (4)

Aug. 17, 2004 - the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges. (4)

Aug. 19, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced its own ad "Rassmann." (4)

Aug. 20, 2004 - The Swift Liars' second television ad began airing. This ad selectively excerpted Kerry's statements to the SFRC on 4/22/1971. (7)

Aug. 22, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced another ad "Issues" which addressed the Swift Boat group's attacks.

Aug. 25, 2004 - The Kerry-Edwards campaign ... dispatched former Sen. Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann, to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to deliver to the President a letter signed by Democratic Senators who are veterans. (The letter was not accepted.) (4)

Aug. 26, 2004 - The Swift Liars' third television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia in 1968. (7)

August 26, 2004 - Mary Beth Cahill sends letter to Ken Mehlman detailing the "Web of Connections" between the Swift Liars and the Bush Administration, and demanding that Bush denounce the smear campaign. (5)

August 26, 2004 - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submits FOIA request "with the White House asking it to detail its contacts with individuals connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT)." (6)

Aug. 27, 2004 - The DNC ran a full page ad in the Aug. 27, 2004 New York Times terming the Swift Boat campaign a smear. (4)

Aug. 31, 2004 - - The Swift Liars' fourth television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's participation in the medal-throwing protest on 4/23/1971. (7)

References:
* (1) SourceWatch article on SBVT

* (2) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman

* (3) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Kerry Campaign Response

* (4) (Sept. 8, 2004) Eric M. Appleman (apparently) Some Responses to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" Ad

* (5) August 26, 2004 letter from Mary Beth Cahill to Ken Mehlman

* (6) Press Release (US Newswire): CREW FOIAs White House Contacts with Swift Boat Veterans Group

* (7) Wikipedia entry, Swift Vets and POWs for Truth

There is more at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

[ray of light]

40. I caught something on your list...It said

"Aug. 5, 2004 - The Swift Liars' first television ad began airing a one-minute television spot in three states."

Ok. That means on August 5 or around that time, the NATIONAL NETWORKS BEGAN PLAYING those ads for FREE.

ALso, thanks for the assist! You're awesome!

[politicasista]

42. You're welcome. Thanks!

Trying to focus on the positive that came out of 04 but it's hard sometimes. :)

[ray of light]

39. Oh..by the way...I forgot to say that in October the polls were all showing Kerry widening his lead

and then less than a week before the election, a suntanned and healthy looking Osama appeared. Remember?

What impact did that video have?

Also, I want to add that I remember a few additional things about the 04 election.

1. We NEVER EVER heard how the military voted even though they allegedly allowed them to vote early. I say allegedly because I remember reading a soldier's blog who reported that the captains reminded people to vote (in their unit) however that reminder was a WEEK too late for them to get their vote in in time. How many places did this happen? It's pretty much common knowledge that the privates were more pro-kerry but the higher ranking ones leaned Bush.


2. We never heard the military vote. And I know I said that but I remember that the foreign Nationals (the American's living abroad) were NOT ALLOWED to vote via the computer or register--not sure exactly which it was--but they were NOT ALLOWED TO because they were "RESERVING THE NETWORK FOR OUR SOLDIERS". Except...how did the military vote again?

3. We also know for a fact that the machines in North Carolina ERASED a bunch of days of voting. Remember, they voted early? The newspapers in NC were reporting that the OVERWHELMING amount of people were voting for kerry. YET, thousands of votes were deleted because "the machine couldn't hold that many votes." AND..NC ended up turning red--Bush.

Interesting amount of information about our failed election, computer glitches, and things that were outside of any response the Kerry campaign made with regards to the swifties.

[karynnj]

61. Not only "sun tanned" but wearing a completely immaculate,

flawlessly pressed robe standing in front of a cloth covered table. And this was when he was on the run in a remote area. (That always bothered me)

[ray of light]

65. On the blog, we joked that Bush/CHeney pulled him out of the W.H. dungeon.

[ray of light]

45. Another thing he did right...(need to add this to my list above)

He arranged to have a STRONG GOTV effort with Nationals Abroad. In fact, his sister who lived overseas was in charge of that effort.

That's why I remember reading about the way they were not letting the foreign nationals vote online. I'll look for a link later.

[karynnj]

59. Kerry responded by providing the media with the truth - which in any

earlier year would have been enough. Kerry gave Democrats more than enough ammunition to use for people to defend him - and it was in Democrats vested interest to do so. I think that there was a sense everywhere that this was so unbelievable that nothing needed to be done. The Navy awarded those medals - he didn't steal them or make them up. The Edwards view that Kerry should lead on fighting back ignores that others can say things that you can't. Edwards could have led the other Democrats saying that there was NO "Kerry" story - it was the Navy's story and the fact is that even Nixon did not sink to the depths that Rove/Bush/Cheney did. Kerry saying "I really was the hero my Navy record says is awkward. The Democratic party which defended the indefensible actions of Clinton for at least 4 years let Kerry down when he was the nominee.

The MSM also did not do its job. In reality the media condoned character assassination of Senator Kerry. Then there was a second swiftboating after the narrow election loss by people with vested interests, either because they did not live up to their journalistic standards or they supported someone else in 2008. The problem was that Kerry could not get his response out through the mass media - his message was heavily filtered.

The campaign's immediate reaction to the August attack was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof. They also later proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out. That was done within ONE DAY of the book's emergence in August. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it.

That was far more proof countering the liars than the Clinton machine ever put out on anything. The problem was that it went to the media and they refused to play the role of evaluating who was telling the truth - the Washington Post's editor even saying they wouldn't. The broadcast media was worse. Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverand Wright? We need to be prepared to help Obama, if the media turn back to 2004 mode now that we are in the general election.

It wasn't that we had no ammunition to use. There was an abundance of proof - far more than would be typically available as they hit against a well documented official record. Even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand.

It should also be mentioned that it was not Kerry's accounts they disputed, it was the NAVY's official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O'Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

Saying Kerry did not fight back simply swiftboats him again - compare this list of proof to Carville & Co response on Clinton's Flowers or draft problems - this is far more comprehensive and completely refutes the charges. The Clinton responses in these two instances did not completely refute the charges - in fact, after changing his story a few times in each case - conceding that earlier statements were not completely true - parts of the charges were conceded. The difference was that in 1992 - even in the primary - Clinton was given breaks by a media that wanted him to win. The fact is that we KNEW in those two cases that he was willing to dissemble and scapegoat others when he was called on his actions - two things that later hurt his Presidency.

In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step. It is only when there is no open and shut case (as there is here) that the candidate would try anything different.When this didn't work, Kerry did speak to the issue - and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here - all political junkies didn't here this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn't think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was - I think less than 5 minutes long - so there is no excuse. http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/08/jk_the_...

click on little photo of the Senator.)

In 2004, there were no You tubes - if there were, getting this out could have been done. I hope the media will play fairer - but if they don't, we need to help Obama.

Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverand Wright? Many people on the Obama team came from Kerry's team and Kerry himself has been a top adviser on this.

[ginnyinWI]

84. One more opinion here that it was the media.

I, too watched as Chris Matthews ridiculed and trashed Kerry day by day, while each of his daily panelists tried to outdo each other in witty criticisms of Kerry.

I watched as CNN carried live Bruce Springsteen's opening numbers at the big rally in Madison, Wisconsin and then cut away and talked over Kerry's actual speech.

The only place you could actually hear Kerry deliver a complete speech in 2004 was on C-span--and how many people troubled themselves to watch that channel? It was far easier to believe the sound bites and ads running during their local TV news programs. Those of us who looked for Kerry on C-span were already convinced he'd make a great President and desperately wanted Bush out of office.

Any ordinary Dem running in 2004 against all these odds, against a "war-time President" with the media also running against him or her would have lost in a landslide. Not so John Kerry. He almost won--and if election fraud had been prevented, would, I'm certain, have eked out a narrow win. But in today's corrupt electoral process, you have to win by a lot to actually win if you are a Democrat.

Also remember: as appalling as this sounds, Bush in 2004 was not seen as bad enough yet. Rove and the others in the cabal had tight lids on most of the garbage. Katrina was the first event big enough to be undeniable and unspinnable. They and the GOP Congress still had plauseable deniability in 2003 and 2004. And people were still feeling the effects of 9/11--the fear and insecurity.

Even today the media doesn't report on half of it. But enough has seeped out now to make its stench apparent to most. It has gotten so very horrible that everyone knows--even if they won't admit it. And it's now hitting home in a personal way: gas prices, home foreclosures, job loss, and skyrocketing healthcare costs. As Shakespeare wrote: "The truth will out."

[karynnj]

48. Edwards is speaking about the poor - but there is nothing in his record

that really makes him their advocate. He voted for the bankruptcy bill. If you want someone talking of the poor - think KENNEDY - who has done just that for 44 years! Edwards can't compete on that with Kerry either.

Kerry incidentally was the Senate sponsor for youthbuild for 2 dozen years - this helps underprivileged kids learn a trade that leads to a job while they complete high school. Kerry was involved in it before he was a Senator in MA.

Kerry wrote the precursor bill to S-CHIP, which he introduced with Kennedy

Kerry wrote and sponsored with Snowe the Affordable Housing Fund bill.

Name ONE thing Edwards did in the Senate.

[politicasista]

69. I would like to hear that answer also

So far it sounds like crickets. :)

[musicblind]

17. I strongly disagree. I think John Edwards would make a fine VP

and would help here in North Carolina.

[ray of light]

23. I prefer Edwards in the cabinet. I want him and Elizabeth getting us singlepayer healthcare!

[Divine Discontent]

51. I concur with you musicblind

I believe he learned TONS from '04, as did the honorable Sen. Kerry. I believe Edwards, 4 years later, is now an amazing politically gifted man, who was blazing in the debates when it was just the 3 of them left, and he was so astute to the issues that people really have concerns about. I believe though, when you keep shoving images of "Obama Clinton" down everyone's eyeballs, the 3rd wheel gets bumped. Edwards would certainly connect with blue-collar voters of all races, as he did this election cycle. Clinton took his thunder mostly, when he dropped out, and that's why the campaign went on and on, because she started to win rustbelt states.

You don't have to be negative in campaigning to win, and Edwards did what he felt was right in '04, and there were MANY issues hurting Kerry's chances - from the SBVT, to the MSM shielding B*sh's horrible performances at the debates as being anything but an incredible embarrassment, and the work of crooked election officials all across this country (esp. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Sec. of State of Ohio/Ohio for Bush '04 campaign chairman).

[Snotcicles]

20. I think Edwards would be an excellent choice for V.P. Just my opinion. nt

[book_worm]

34. I agree with you--No to Edwards as VP this time--but as for Kerry's great campaign...

First, no to Edwards--Obama should make (and will) a fresh choice. Edwards would be a fine AG.

But while it's true that Edwards brought little to the ticket in '04, he was also Kerry's first mistake of the campaign. Bottom line is that Kerry selected him. It was also Kerry's decision to ignore for nearly a month the attacks by swift-boaters. Finally all thru election day including on election eve in Cleveland he repeatedly said "You got my back" to voters re: GOP attempts to steal the election and on the day after the election despite wide spread claims of irregularity in Ohio he caved (the story goes that Edwards, of all people, actually was against this).

Kerry for VP? No, Obama needs a fresh choice. Kerry for Sec of State--Yes!

[ray of light]

37. Fresh choice? Doubt it. Around here, I see more Kerry stickers than I see anyones.

All the Bush stickers are off--probably because those people who had them are tired of seeing the middle finger.

And all the Hillary and Obama stickers still couldn't add up to the amount of Kerry stickers still on cars.

That says quite a lot!

[Alexander]

35. Edwards was a down-ticket disaster, but I could live with him in a Cabinet position.

[JustAnotherGen]

41. This is the DU I love

Honest discussion without nitpicky attacks! :pals: My thoughts -

I agree with David but that's because I want Edwards for AG. My support for John Edwards for this round goes back to early 2007. I think he's a brilliant person and he struck something in me re: Poverty in the US. No - I don't 'live there' - but he brought to the table the last, the least and the lost in this country. I was proud to be a member of One Corps. And I do believe we can each reach out and help another American. He also (on the negative side) brought out <hides head in paperbag> a deep sense of 'Nationalism' in me which has made me myopic in seeing poverty - or caring about it- outside of the U.S.

I think if/when they try/do steal this election - I want that trial lawyer out of the loop. And I would hope the Obama campaign would say, "John - your country needs you." I think he will rise to the occasion and win IT. Every dime he has earned has come from that tenacious fighting instinct. Then WHEN he secures Obama and his (Insert Name of Choice) VP's position - quite easily move over to A.G. I could see him uncovering things and being the bad cop to Obama's good cop . . . and relishing every minute of it. This is a man whose life has been "When a Corporation is Bad (Bush Co.) - they ought to be punished."

Could be an interesting few years. <Insert evil laugh and rubbing hands in delightful plotting glee.>

As for who Obama picks? I don't care as long as it's not Hagel or a Republican. I have my personal preferences . . . but if he picks a Republican - say buh-bye to me at D.U. I will not vote for him if he crosses that line. There is an alphabetized list ;-) above that looks pretty good to me and not a single one has that ugly old R after their name.

[ray of light]

44. I doubt he'd pick a Republican. Right now, it'd be too hard to find one who hasn't voted w/ bush

less than 85% of the time.

[David Zephyr]

63. I imagine that John Edwards will wind up as A.G.

:)

[Zomby Woof]

46. It was Kerry's failure

Your transparent southern-bashing aside, it was Kerry rolling over with the Swift Boaters and other smears that had a more detrimental effect on his campaign than Edwards ever did. Southerners were correct in their suspicion of an effete Yankee like Kerry. He proved it by bending over for the Fox News/Republican Party attack machine. Southerners smell weakness, and like agood fight (Edwards wanted to contest Ohio, Kerry bent over without the Crisco). Besides, no matter who was the running mate, southerners know it's the top of the ticket which matters. There was no way in hell they were going to vote for Kerry.

It's southerners at the TOP of the ticket who win the White House for the Democrats. Every Democratic victory since 1964 was with a southerner in the top slot, including Gore's 2000 winning popular vote/stolen electoral vote results. Carter's 1980 loss and the unfortunate 2000 Gore theft were the only exceptions.

Now, I hope this year is an exception in reverse. Due to the last half-century southern voting pattern, it does our party no good to denigrate the much-needed southern vote, white or black, male or female. We need as many votes as we can get. You can call it pandering, I call it good strategy.

That being said, I don't favor Edwards getting the second slot again, but not for any of the reasons you cited. No one should be relegated to continuous second banana status. I say make him AG or some other influential and visible post. But enough with the bigoted south-bashing.

[ray of light]

50. Already refuted upstream. Kerry didn't roll over. As someone posted the timeline.

Go check it out.

Then while you're up there, why not check out how the media sabatoged ALL responses Kerry and his representatives made.

Sorry charlie, but your 'defence' of Edwards to attack kerry is really bull shit.

Both candidates were in the election in 2004.

Kerry was on a train traveling around the country shaking hands.

Edwards and the DNC were left in charge of the media. Of course, this is not to bash Edwards, as you can tell by my comments upthread that I didn't. But it's to point out that the people runnning for office are a TEAM. And the people in charge of the TEAM were the DNC. And the DNC was where again?

The DNC was awol.

[politicasista]

68. **crickets** n/t

[David Zephyr]

57. LOL!

Let me turn down Neil Young's "Southern Man" so I can respond. LOL.

I only wrote: "So much for his 'pull' with conservative southern white men. If there's still any logic left at all (I don't think there is) to pandering to southern white conservative men, then at the very least, the product choice of John Edwards has already been field tested and did not market well there. In fact, he bombed. Factoid: John Edwards did not even deliver his own hometown in North Carolina in 2004. How weak is that?"

You wrote: "Your transparent southern-bashing aside..." and "But enough with the bigoted south-bashing."

And yet you also wrote "Southerners were correct in their suspicion of an effete Yankee like Kerry." Effete Yankee?! Yikes. Maybe you'd best turn down "Sweet Home Alabama". LOL.

FYI, I am a native Texan with family living in each of the old confederate states. Spent over 10 years living of and on in the South. The rest in South America, Asia, Europe and here in Southern California. My dad was a petroleum executive so, as the Beach Boys crooned, we got around.

Seriously, the Rust Belt and the West is now the Democrat's key to electoral victory as David Axelrod and Barack Obama know. Democrats will probably pick up Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and possibly Montana this November. All of these states are trending Democrat. Wes Clark could deliver Arkansas and possibly Missouri, but that's about all I can see at this time.

By the way, I like your photo of Frank. Absolutely free.

[Divine Discontent]

52. Clark was my 04 choice, but Edwards has learned a lot and was rather impressive

in 07-08, and I know you respect him, I've read your posts, but I feel he would draw more support and be more on the attack this time around. People cannot understand what it's like unless they run, so we have to understand that someone who's been through it really knows what not to do the 2nd time. I agree with your negative reasons as to why he shouldn't but something says, that won't come into play when Obama decides between he, Biden, and Hagel. Just my guess... Very nice OP, David.

[TexasObserver]

60. John Edwards would be a great choice for VP.

And polls appear to confirm he'd be the best VP for helping Obama win votes and states.

[Awsi Dooger]

67. A triumph of nonsense

Math is never a strong point on DU. This thread takes it to new level.

Is a VP supposed to deliver his home state, when that state is roughly 13 points more right leaning than the nation as whole? LOL. Congrats on maiming yourself, without even knowing it.

It's amazing how often I see that tired claim on this site. It's like the states are thrown into a hat and shuffled, all considered the same. Maybe if McCain picks Giuliani for VP we can ridicule Giuliani for not delivering the state of New York. Disregard that New York plays about 20 points more left leaning than the country as a whole.

A VP's influence is wildly overstated. He's worth maybe 3-3.5 point in his home state. Basically zilch everywhere else. Edwards delivered as expected, what anyone with a real world perspective expected, and exactly as I predicted on this site and elsewhere, cutting the partisan index (state relationship to national percentage) by 3.5 points in North Carolina, compared to '96 and '00. In 2004 that meant nothing, since Bush won nationally by 2.5 points. An Edwards at VP in '08 probably would be worth less than 3.5 points to Obama in North Carolina, due to ho hum attitude at being represented on the ticket again, but since the national climate has changed dramatically, North Carolina could be close with Edwards on the ticket. Still, likely a narrow defeat.

Kerry ran in an awful cycle, completely unfavorable. An incumbent with his party in power only one term is in a dominant position, now 9 wins in the last 10 tries (Carter '80). You basically need a sub 40% approval rating to knock out that incumbent.

Kerry is bland but it didn't really matter what type of campaign he ran, nor anything Edwards did at VP. Unless Bush was stuck in post-Katrina type disapproval, our chances were always less than DUers wanted to believe. This time it's the opposite, more margin for error than many of the pessimistic posters are asserting.

Regardless, the VP slot earns ridiculous scrutiny. It almost approaches co-equal status with presidential nominee on sites like this, due to the sequential aspect. The VP pick obviously comes last, long after the nominee is known. So it's the first major decision of the nominee, and the last thing we remember in the long ticket selection process. That elevates it to hilariously greater focus than it's worth in November.

Home town, now that's a new one. :rofl:

[ncliberal]

71. Plus, there were voting irregularities here as well.

The problems in Ohio always overshadow that fact.

[ray of light]

75. HI

I posted about some of your NC issues in this post. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6494748#6494896

But also, I know a friend who had NO ACTIVE Democratic headquarters in which to work from. At first they were--get this--open once a week. They had no data base. They had one computer. They had nothing! And she literally took a phone book and called from home. SHe made her kids and her friends kids start calling people. And she created her own data bank and her own headquarters.

This is they type of infrastructure that Terry McAulliffe left for whoever the 2004 nominee would have been. Sadly for Kerry, he inherited the crappy infrastructure.

At anyrate, this person gave us (on the blog) all the articles about the pre-election day polls and their early voting. And that's why it's really possible that all the early votes were DUMPED because Bush was getting his a$$ kicked in the early voting. I have no idea why there was no further outcry. They should have split NC 50-50 given how the machines crapped out. They claimed there was no way to know what the early voting totals were before the machines dumped them. But I don't buy that. I work with computers. It's beyond reason to think that they wouldn't have made BACK UP COPIES/OFF SITE AND ONSITE! It's the first rule of computers that we teach. So why wouldn't there have been that type of setup OFFICIALLY. My suspicion is that there was backup and totals, and they knew that Bush was losing by a big margin. So they dumped the voting totals and hoped that it would be less pro-Kerry from there on out. (ROVE probably egged the churches on more to get out his 'base'.)

[karynnj]

73. I agree with most of what you say, though there is one major contradiction

First you say:
"Kerry ran in an awful cycle, completely unfavorable. An incumbent with his party in power only one term is in a dominant position, now 9 wins in the last 10 tries (Carter '80). You basically need a sub 40% approval rating to knock out that incumbent."

Bush was very near 50% - which should have been more than enough to insure as easy win. In addition some of the people who were on the disapprove side were Buchabab type Republicans - they were not voting for any Democrat. In addition, we have never had such a biased media - consider there was no outcry, except from kerry/Edwards on the dishonorable purple heart bandaids. Early on when they still polled "generic Democrat and Kerry separately vs Bush - Kerry did far better.

But then you say,
"Kerry is bland but it didn't really matter what type of campaign he ran, nor anything Edwards did at VP. Unless Bush was stuck in post-Katrina type disapproval, our chances were always less than DUers wanted to believe. This time it's the opposite, more margin for error than many of the pessimistic posters are asserting."

I agree with everything but the first 3 words. Kerry is definitely not bland - nor is Teresa. Kerry was an imaginative, creative, eloquent person from his youth. Kerry's life has almost too much in it - he was a genuine war hero and both his important medals are classic hero stories - he saved a man's life risking his and through his creativity, intelligence and leadership skills, he got his peers to use a novel method to successfully fight back against an ambush avoiding any US casualties. He then eloquently spoke before the Senate to end the war and to treat the veterans as they deserved. He also organized that "encampment" and led a peaceful effective protest. He prosecuted the MAFIA and won. He fought Reagan on illegally arming the Contras - even as that administration tried to destroy him. He fought to shut down BCCI.

In high school and college, he was in a rock band, played 4 sports, dated Jackie Kennedy's step sister, and was the top college debater. He learned to fly a plane. He still rides 100 plus bike races and wind surfs. He is easily among the most interesting people in the Senate.

Had Kerry been more conservative and less principled and done similar things, the media would have loved. him.

[ray of light]

76. Given that story of Kerry's life...if he had an "R" after his name, it would have been glorified.

For God's sake. Look at Reagan and how he's like the 'King" for what he did.

Kerry's worst trait is that he has a "Democrat" after his name instead of "Republican" in an age when corporate media catapults the propaganda for Republicans.

[ShadowLiberal]

72. Thank you for saying this, those 5% boosts with Edwards as VP are all name recognition, nothing more

I've been wondering for a few months why some people here are so convinced that polls showing Obama gaining 5 to 15 percent of the vote in all sorts of states with Edwards as VP are reliable. I mean seriously, does ANYONE think it's even possible for Obama to win states like Iowa by over 15%? It's not just Iowa and Edwards home state that Edwards suppossibly gave Obama huge unnaturally high boosts like that, it was also states that made no sense once so ever, like Ohio.

Worse yet about some of these "Edwards is the best VP we could can have" posts I've seen is that those unreliable polls also paired up Obama with other people who had much less name recognition, like Kathleen Siberus, Wesley Clark, etc, and showed almost no boost once so ever, which should say something considering they aren't well known people nationally compared to Edwards.

I mean it would be like saying who would you rather have as VP, Al Gore, or some unknown democrat governor from some small state that's rarely in the news.

[David Zephyr]

78. You sound like a Democrat that wants to win in November.

Thanks.

[Zavulon]

74. Edwards' Christopher Reeve remark in the debates is enough all by itself to keep Edwards from the VP

slot again. Repugs laughed their asses off at him, and I couldn't blame them. Edwards had the right idea, but he chose to deliver it in the goofiest way possible and took the stem cell issue away from Kerry's next debate.

Imagine the daily reminders from the media about this.

[Danascot]

77. Predictions:

Obama will pick someone to the center or center-right to balance his perceived liberal-left image (We at DU will be outraged!)

Someone smart and capable because Obama likes smart people and isn't threatened by people with talent (unlike the current resident)

Likely someone from the south or west to balance his being from the north

Likely to be white and male because it's going to be tough enough for a minority at the top of the ticket to win as it is

Possibly not even a Democrat because of Obama's theme to overcome party divisions

Possibly someone who is emblematic of a specific hot issue such as the war, the economy or healthcare

These are the obvious criteria. What other criteria should be added? And who comes to mind who meets them?

[ray of light]

79. That's some crystal ball you've got! n/t

[ToeBot]

80. Yeah, 'cause it would just suck if Obama did something that might make me WANT to vote for him.

[RiverStone]

81. Agreed. Edwards like Kerry already had a chance and lost. No to VP, but YES to AG!

John would be a great AG.

[PresidentObama]

82. In response to your Edwards hit piece:

2OO4 wasn't Edwards fault. I love John Kerry, he's my idol. But it was HIS campaign, not John Edwards. John Edwards merely was supposed to tow the campaign line, and push the ticket to the American people. He wasn't the leader of the campaign, he was the follower. Senator Kerry was the leader of the campaign, and he's taken responsibility for those mistakes. And learned the lessons from them, and is a better politician because of it.

As far as the south, show me where the Kerry campaign aggressively sought the south?

No offense to Kerry, because again I respect the hell out of him, they wrote off the south. And they didn't run advertisements in North Carolina. Which by the way, didn't Gore lose his home state in 2000? And he won the Presidency, despite the Supreme Court handing it to King George.

As far as IWR, he admitted he made a mistake. And he passionately pushed for the war to end as a candidate, and came out to support Obama who has committed to ending the war and has been against it from the beginning.

[PresidentObama]

83. And I'm asking all Kerry supporters who keep blaming Edwards for 2004 to stop.

I respect and admire Kerry. He was my pick in 2004, and I wanted him to run in 2008. He's my idol, and I have a lot of loyalty for him.

But he was the leader of the campaign in 2004, not John Edwards.

You point fingers at him. At the Clintons. At McAuliffe (which it was only partly his fault)

But not Kerry. Kerry made mistakes. A LOT of them.

He's admitted it. He doesn't point fingers.

Why must you?

Stop the lies, and the attacks on the Edwards.

[karynnj]

85. Speaking for myself,

you ignore that we do concede Kerry made mistakes - though LOTS of them is a bit of an overstatement. HRC made more in the primary than he did in the primary and the general election.

But, in everything, it is rarely just one person who was solely to blame - nor did Kerry have control over the actions of any of the people listed. Your statement here, says that Kerry is to blame for any failings of anyone else involved in the campaign, even though he had no control of them.

As to lies about Edwards, I made none. I quoted Edwards' comments. From those comments, it is clear that he refused to take direction from Kerry. That is not a lie. I stated the reason for my belief - argue that it didn't mean that if you want, but it does not make my comment a lie. Part of it is fact - and I had a link. The inference was clearly opinion stemming from the fact. If you disagree with the inference - fine, but it was my opinion. As to his record, it is what it is and it is inconsistent with his 2008 words. That statement is again "opinion" and my posts gave facts from his Senate record. As to his 2004 platform being one of the most conservative - far to the right of Kerry's it was. There are 2 versions of whether JRE wanted to attack more in 2004 - his 2008 statements vs the Kerry aides and JRE's 2004 statements.

Now, the reason we responded is the Edwards people stated their version, where he was an almost radical populist who was held back by Kerry in 2004. The Edwards people were also the ones attacking Kerry on various threads - and I didn't ever see you, in spite of your user name, ever write this same message to them. If, I missed something (and I don't read everything), give me a link. Instead, I've seen you go after many of us, when we reject your pollyanna view of Bill Clinton or John Edwards.

Some of this comes from things Edwards said in 2008. There were many times where they re-wrote history. EE speaking of how, even before she had cancer, she and John were committed to healthcare insurance for everyone, so that's what JRE put in his plan. Now, this is not true because he covered only kids in 2004 and argued that Kerry's more ambitious plan was "too expensive". They could have simply listed people who said their 2008 plan was the best - why say things that are not true.

As to McAuliffe - the state parties were in a shambles and this was an area he had oversight of and did a lousy job. He picked the date and didn't bother to consider Kerry's prescient idea of agreeing to accept rather than accepting the nomination in Boston. McAuliffe could have led the effort to explain the need was due to an unintended flaw in McCain/Feingold. McAuliffe also did not attack the Republican convention's dishonoring of the purple heart, K/E did but was ignored. He also attacked Bush's record, when Kerry didn't want that done. (Kerry was right - people polled did not care (and many assumed he was bad) and it led to both parties looking the same.

As to the Bill Clinton - there were things done in a passive/aggressive manner that hurt, while he was supportive on the surface. Here's what I said of that. Note every fact is a genuine fact. Opinion is clearly opinion - again easily identified.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5184462&mesg_id=5189357