Kerry '08: This cartoon puts it well

[survivor999]

[Mass]

1. True. He wont blow it. He will win.

[babylonsister]

2. From your lips...! nt

[survivor999]

3. "Win" or "Whine"?

:)

[Mass]

5. McCain seems the whiner these days.

:-)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2891492&mesg_id=2891492

[Warren DeMontague]

205. So will Al Gore.

But I think Gore is the far better choice, personally.

[Mass]

217. I like Gore - He is my second choice.

[ginnyinWI]

4. Much better than what the GOP candidate will say:

Something along the lines of "I Am God".


Listen: if 70% of Dems think the election wasn't counted fairly, that kind of says that he didn't really lose, mistakes or no mistakes. The perception that he did really win is all he'll need to recapture the nomination. And he's got my vote already!

[MrCoffee]

6. tehehe.

[blm]

7. How about a DNC that does its job and SECURES the election process for ALL

Democratic voters and candidates.


Or do we all want Gore and Kerry blamed for the WEAK ASS Dem party infrastructure that refused to do their job and COUNTER the RNC tactics of vote suppression, purged voter rolls and rigged machines?

A weak ass Dem party infrastructure that was collapsed in every red and swing state since 1997?


Gore and Kerry won.Blaming them for the collapsed Dem party infrastructure overseen by others, kinda lets the GUILTY PARTY off the hook, doesn't it?

[nam78_two]

9. !

:thumbsup:

[Dr Fate]

12. I agree- but lets be honest & share the blame.

Kerry, frankly, did not go on TV and issue pointed, tough challenges concerning election fraud either.

The DNC could do better- but our canidiates who DO indeed have media access can do MUCH better with their fighting and talking points too.

[survivor999]

14. Look, Kerry at this stage of his life/career

will never do anything controversial and stick with it.

[Dr Fate]

19. We are both speculating- you may be right, I may be right.

His many of his recent actions and statements show a trend going towards what I would like to see, as opposed to him keeping his failed '04 mind-set.

You dont have to convince me that just about all DEMs, not just Kerry, have had a problem in the past with being agressive & creative when fighting the GOP/media.

[survivor999]

26. OK, but you can only rely on the past

to predict how people will behave in the future. And the older people get and the less they can change.
When I look at the past I see people like Dean on one side, and people like Kerry on the other. I will not put my trust in Kerry again. He has a long pattern, and that's the best predictor. He had many chances of showing what he's made of BEFORE anything he does could be interpreted simply as gaining points to look "presidential".

[WildEyedLiberal]

31. What's that long pattern, survivor? Tell us

The IWR? One vote is a "long pattern"? Really?

It's convenient that you ignore the entire past two years which do not support your dishonest "theory." Not to mention Kerry's record as a champion of the environment, constantly being ranked as one of the 10 most liberal senators in the Senate during most of his tenure. Nice try. BTW, Dean never had to vote on anything in the Senate, but he was a centrist governor. So yes, Dean and Kerry are ideologically different, but not in the way you think they are.

[Dr Fate]

45. His pattern before and after he succumbed to idiot advisors is excellent.

And perhaps you have an argument that he should have never succumbed to the advice of those God-awful Donna Brazille/Mary Beth Cahill types- we would agree.

But his "long record"- before that brief period and after it is not what you are suggesting it is.

His working record is that of an EXCELLENT Democratic legislator but that of a mediocre campaigner. One can be fixed, the other does not need fixing.

[WildEyedLiberal]

21. The Alito filibuster wasn't controversial?

The Kerry-Feingold withdrawal plan wasn't controversial?

You have a funny definition of the word "controversial" - both of those stances angered the Dem Congressional leadership against him.

[Dr Fate]

23. Yup. They were. And Kerry stood up and stuck with it. n/t

n/t

[survivor999]

29. Nah. Those are stupid games, sorry...

The way things would go were obvious in both cases. There was no real danger of anything controversial being done in the end.

[Mass]

30. SO, who is controversial in your mind. Who took a risk that succeeded?

as apparently your notion of controversial is to do something everybody agrees to.

[WildEyedLiberal]

36. ...which, by definition, would make it not controversial

:crazy:

[survivor999]

62. Well, how ABOUT take the lead

And convince those who are not convinced that something controversial is worthy of support, thus making it non-controversial? One would expect to see one such instance at least once over the course of decades... Sure, not many poiticians are that good, creative and charismatic... But that's the point...

[Dr Fate]

65. He DID take the lead on the Filibuster- while others quaked in their boots

Kerry DID take the lead on the Filibuster- keeping a promise from 2 years prior that he would do so.

[survivor999]

74. I don't remember it that way...

But I'm willing to go back and read various records.

[Dr Fate]

77. Yes, Kerry led the filibuster. Who did you think led it?

He proceeded to lead the Filibuster while the other DEMS hemmed and hawed over what Rove might have Sean Hannity might say about them.

[WildEyedLiberal]

68. Yeah, it would be nice if liberals could wave a magic wand

And make all the mushy-middle centrists and conservatives magically see their point of view. However, that is silly and unrealistic.

It takes conviction to stand up for what you know is right even if it is a political loser or if it will make you powerful enemies - as both of Kerry's actions did. But he did it because it was the right thing to do. How anyone can argue with doing the right thing just makes my head spin.

[WildEyedLiberal]

35. So what is controversial, then?

Feingold's censure - similarly doomed to failure?

I'll tell you what was controversial - ONE lawmaker had the guts to take on the Reagan/Bush enterprise in the 1980s, exposing Iran-Contra and the drug-running, terrorist-funding bank BCCI. That action earned him enemies from both parties - and that lawmaker was John Kerry.

In fact, I'd bet you can't name ONE lawmaker who has taken more risks - especially as YOU define "risks" - than John Kerry.

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blm]

38. WRONG - the historic record was PRESERVED - OBJECTIONS to ALito went into

the record.

Some people understand the importance of the HISTORIC RECORD for future generations, and others play little games out of disrespect for the record and the citizenry.

[Dr Fate]

39. We can blame the meek, non fighting DEMS for that, not Kerry.

It's obvious at this point that we could show you hundreds of examples of ways Kerry fights and has learned his lesson, and you will just claim he did it for show and that it was meaningless. But it's good for us kerry supporters to know what perceptions he is up against, so thanks.

I complain about DEMs who dont fight too- and I have been critical of Kerry numerous times- but kicking them even when they do fight is counter-productive.

[Mass]

16. Agree - He should go on TV and say what he already said in various

venues.

[Dr Fate]

22. Yup- but dammit, it has to ON TV this time. In their faces.

If he cant find himself on TV, by hook or crook, then we can make all the excuses in the world about bias- he will still lose.

[Mass]

24. We agree.\nt

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JNelson6563]

214. By then Dean will have made much progress

on this task which has been literally ignored for ages. Not to mention we'll have party struture in more than 17 states for the next national election, thank you Dr. Dean!

Julie

[Mass]

216. Absolutely, he is doing a great job.

[Ellis Wyatt]

8. I don't see it

How often does someone who had their shot, but lost, get the nomination again? I think he and Gore are out.

[Dr Fate]

15. Not often, but it has happened. And after this Bush nightmare...

...an "I told you so" type of candidate may just resonate with voters who feel had, as well as the voters who liked Kerry to begin with.

[Ellis Wyatt]

20. Dangerous

The "I told you so" message is similar to the "If you vote republican you must be an imbecile" implication that was so prevalent in the 2004 election (and is still around) that I think was a major impetus to energizing the republican base and possibly turning away swing voters who don't like to be treated like idiots.

I just think a new person would be much more likely to win than either Kerry or Gore.

[Dr Fate]

32. That was not the message- that was what the GOP/media SAID it was.

And you are wrong- Clinton's "Are you better off now than you were before" talking point did indeed work. A variation of that could resonate- if repeated in a frank, agressive manner.

Perhaps we will agree that Kerry & the DEM strategists did a poor job in that they allowed the GOP/media to tell everyone that our message was "we hate Bush- you are idiots" as opposed to exposing that spin and stating what our postions really were.

It will all depend on not only how we frame things, but how agressive we are in pointing out factual errors in the way the GOP/media tries to re-frame our message.

Who is your pic, BTW?

[Ellis Wyatt]

50. I an idea world

me. I'd be president. Then everything would be fixed.

The message of "Bush and his supporters are gullible idiots and/or evil" was not Kerry's message, was not the DNC's message, but let's not kid each other, it was the opinion and demeanor of a lot of Kerry supporters / Bush detractors. It was open, it was derisive, and it was dismissive of Bush supporters. I'm not talking about getting this opinion from O'Reilly or Rush or whoever, but from every day conversations directly. Friends at bars, comments online, sites like this, supporters talking to each other. It was everywhere.

And regardless of how true it may have been / is, I still think it is not only not productive, but wildly counter productive.

Defeat the right wing with all facts. No name calling, no little barbs, not being dismissive of their beliefs or who they like - all facts all the time, no color commentary.

[Dr Fate]

60. I agree 100% with your "all facts all the time" position.

But considering how close and debatable the election results were, and considering how the GOP wins elections by using Newt Gingriches strategy-(painting any one who would support DEMs as "immoral" "pathetic" or "lazy"), I'm not so sure the rest of what you say had the impact you say it had.

[Marnieworld]

49. Actually I recall

A strong Democratic turnout and record registrations of voters who were previous undecided. Swing voters weren't turned away but were inspired. I have no recollection of republican=imbecile campaigning either.

You don't get why Kerry or Gore should deserve a second chance? Their "losses" are highly debatable first of all. If someone is a good candidate and wants to do the job, has a lifetime of service behind them, why not a second shot or third shot? It is certainly not without precedent including presidential elections. Are you familiar with them? Their issues and statements? All that Kerry has done in the Senate in the past 2 years? All of the speeches, brave articulate speeches that Gore has made since he ran? Since you just created your account today perhaps you would be better off learning and reading and then you would actually "get it."

[Ellis Wyatt]

57. My comment

Wasn't about their ability to govern or be great presidents.

My comment was that once you lose an election, I think you are branded as a "loser" in the eyes of much of the electorate, and you have a steep uphill battle because of that fact. Whether either of them *really* won either election, I don't think will carry much weight in future elections. I would perceive it as kind of juvenile to use that as a meaningful campaign tactic.

I think in most people's eyes, you get one chance. If you lose, step aside and give someone else the chance.

[Marnieworld]

75. Well I'm glad you don't make the rules

There is this whole primary process where candidates make their case thank goodness. In some cases voters say "go home loser" and other times voters say, "try again." By any person's description of their elections, they were damn close (too close to call ring a bell?). It's illogical that 2 years ago someone would say Kerry should be President and then 2 years from now they should say that he shouldn't for no other reason than the passage of time? These aren't actors who had hit movies and then a big flop who have a harder time getting people in the seats. These are leaders and it is more than just a competition. A total newcomer has a much steeper hill to climb just for name recognition let alone having the disadvantage of lack of experience.

[blm]

54. Kerry brought in 60-65 million votes - he EASILY WON all 3 debates.

If he was as bad as you claim, why did the RNC have to spend 4 years working to suppress votes, purge voter rolls, and rig machines all over the country to keep Bush in power?

[Ellis Wyatt]

61. Where

did I say Kerry was bad in any way shape or form?

[blm]

66. Point is that it's absurd to throw away anyone able to get 60-65 mil votes

especially under the disadvantaged circumstances for any Democrat post 9-11 with a corpmedia acting as Bush's frontline of defense and offense.

Secure the election process so we can get a Democrat in the WH - blaming Kerry DIVERTS ATTENTION AWAY from the actual culprit - the infrastructure that couldn't get the votes he earned counted.

[survivor999]

69. Kerry has a good niche, obviously

It's just the Presidential niche at this point, IMO.

[DemonFighterLives]

175. Welcome to DU!

I think Gore would have a shot if he took it. Kerry not so much, though he probably won, but didn't claim it.

I think Edwards still has a chance.

The Dems. kept chasing the elusive middle ground which I wish they would stick to their base and work it.
On dubby's count, I was thinking of starting a thread about mr Uniter who is never seen with Kerry or Kennedy or any dem crossing the isle. The little puke is nothing but a divider and the world is worse off because of his AWOL fortunate son ass.
:dem:

[NewJeffCT]

178. Nixon & Adlai Stevenson

Both lost & then were renominated...

[Dr Fate]

10. I believe he should, in essense admit his mistakes- he mostly has.

If I were a Kerry advisor- I would have him say things like:

"I underestimated how much the media and the Republicans would lie and distort the facts- I wont make the mistake of thinking the Republicans & media people who repeat lies as fact can be "fair & balanced..."

"I made a mistake when I took the word of a Republican administration concerning the threat from Iraq and when I trusted them other issues as well. I promise never to make that mistake again- I will cautiously assume they are being dishonest first, then learn the REAL facts as they come..."

"The next time the a media news show lies about my record, I am going to publicaly demand to have equal time on that show, and then demand, on camera, that they retract the lie. If they dont allow me on the show, I will repeatedly make that fact known on a show that will allow me on.."

Etc,etc.

In any event, Kerry needs to come out with both barrels blazing if he wants to re-gain the trust of the base.

Will he do these things or something similar? I hope so, b/c I like the guy and I want to see him win.

[WildEyedLiberal]

17. Did you see these recent blog posts by Kerry?

http://blog.johnkerry.com/2006/10/will_you_fight_with_them.html

Anyone who comes to Huffington Post has seen that the bloggers here have been the first to stand up and defend veterans from Admiral Sestak to Tammy Duckworth when they've been slandered. It should be a source of pride and testimony to how the blogosphere can get the truth out and deny lies a sliver of daylight.

....

When I got off the phone with Patrick Murphy after the chickenshit attacks on his military record, something felt awfully familiar and it got me pissed off. I care about these men and women. They've got guts and they've got brains and they've got heart and I'm telling you they will change the character of this pathetic Congress, and I'm boiling mad watching people who didn't serve attack those who did because they can't win a debate on the merits.

....

Nitpick the campaign I ran all you want, question the tactics, I can take it -- but above all the small criticisms, I know that I lost to two lies backed up by big money: a lie about Iraq and a lie about my military record. Pundits can feast on the little details, I'm busy this year making sure that no veteran loses to a lie in 2006.

Also, on the subject of Iraq, there was this one:

http://blog.johnkerry.com/2006/10/mistakes_and_responsibilities_1.html

Four years ago today, the United States Senate voted to give President Bush the authority to use force in Iraq. There’s nothing – nothing – in my life in public service I regret more, nothing even close. We should all be willing to say: I was wrong, I should not have voted for the Iraq War Resolution. It’s not enough to talk about the incompetence and immorality of this Administration in the conduct of this war. It is not enough to point out that we were grossly misled.

But it is also not enough just to look backwards. The question today is whether leaders will take responsibility for fixing a Katrina foreign policy that kills and maims our soldiers and weakens America in the fight against terror. We must change course in Iraq.

That’s why I have proposed a deadline for Iraq and a comprehensive plan to end the civil war. That’s why Russ Feingold and I forced a vote on it in the Senate. That’s why I keep on making the case wherever I go -- today in Nevada.

I think you'd probably like those recent statements.

I think Democrats would be supremely foolish not to give this man another good look. He's hands-down outperformed every other Democrat on every issue since his loss in 2004, and to not give him another chance because of sour grapes is just an example of cutting off our nose to spite our face. At the least, Democrats owe it to themselves, and to the country, to give him a serious look, even if they ultimately decide to support another candidate. Rejecting him outright because "he had his chance" is not wise, given the perilous state of the world today.

BTW, I love your posts in those certain conspiracy mongering threads, Dr Fate - always bring a smile to my face. :D

[Dr Fate]

81. I need him to say it to Wolf Blitzer's face- then we got something.

My swing-voter aunts & uncles dont read politics on obscure Liberal blogs- they watch TV and read their local paper, which repeats things said on TV, not things said on Liberal blogs.

This is not my complaint with just Kerry- this is my complaint with the entire DEM party- you cant point to websites that are aimed at the donor base/choir and say "See- we really are fighting!!!" It needs o be said on TV, where swing-voters will hear it and where papers will pick it up.

What it might indicate (I hope so) is that Kerry does have the fire to take this to a larger audience.

[WildEyedLiberal]

82. I hope to see him on TV more after the elections

Unfortunately he can't say "chickenshit" on TV - too bad!

But right now, he is focused on 2006, so hopefully in a month or so we'll see Kerry on the TV shows pounding away.

[WildEyedLiberal]

11. I prefer Kerry 08: I told you so

How many times has he been proved RIGHT since 2004? He was right about Iraq, right about Tora Bora, and right about North Korea.

[survivor999]

13. Right... He's always right... But then he votes the other way...

So, in the future he can always say: Sure, I said X, but I voted NOT X; or, sure, I voted X, but that was for technical reasons; I really believed NOT X, and said so at the time.

[AtomicKitten]

18. constantly feeding the flip-flop accusation

no thanks

[blm]

25. I think you must not know how the senate works or you do and expect

you can fool those who don't, just like Republicans do.

[WildEyedLiberal]

27. Can you point out any recent examples?

What recent vote besides IWR do you take issue with? Any specific examples, or are these just vague rightwing Rove talking points?

BTW, it's a stretch to call IWR recent - it was four years ago.

Who sponsored the Iraq withdrawal plan in the Senate this year? Who led the filibuster of Alito? Who voted against Condi, Gonzalez, Roberts, Bolton, Alito, the bankruptcy bill, the tort reform bill, CAFTA, the torture bill, and pretty much every other nasty piece of legislation promoted by the Republican Congress?

Kerry voted NO on every single one. Nice try, play again.

[MessiahRp]

28. Hmmm...dredging up the RW Talking Points about his Iraq Vote

He doesn't waver or flip flop on other choices. That's a Republican smear. In Congress you see multiple variations of different bills so when he says he voted for the $87 Billion before he voted against it, it was true. Republicans just decided to amend and add a shitload of pork to the second version.

That's not flip flopping, that's voting based on the bill in front of you and what it contains.

The IWR was not a vote to go to war, it was a vote to authorize force ONLY after UN Inspectors completed their work and after the UN had taken a vote (it never got that far) in favor of military intervention.

Kerry has been right on everything and the only thing he should do differently is get more aggressive advisors to fight back against Swift Boaters and RW smears. If the DNC can hold up their end and protect the election with their 50 state strategy, he could easily win by being the John Kerry he is now... rather than the one the DLC and former Clinton people wanted him to be.

Rp

[survivor999]

34. The question is why he voted FOR (not against it).

[WildEyedLiberal]

40. That's been explained 10,000,000 times over the past 4 years

Are you seriously pretending to have never heard him address the vote at all?

Scroll up in your own thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2424826&mesg_id=2425008

Also, see MessiahRp's comment: it was NOT a "vote for war." If it was, it would have been a formal declaration of war. Which it was not. Therefore, it was not a "vote for war." Pretty simple.

[Mass]

41. You cant hear if you dont listen!

[blm]

44. Only GOP morons believed that talking point. People who understand the

senate and congress know EVERY senator and congressperson votes FOR one version of a bill they prefer before they vote AGAINST the other version they don't like.

So Kerry was for 87 bil for Iraq war budget IF it was audited properly and paid for by cancelling 97 bil in taxbreaks for the wealthiest.

Kerry voted against the 87 billion dollar budget bill that had NO OVERSIGHT and added 87 bil to our debt.

So - how would YOU have voted?

[WildEyedLiberal]

42. Speaking of fighting back against smears...

... check out these blog posts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2424826&mesg_id=2425008

(Sorry to link to my own post, it's easier that way, haha.)

[nam78_two]

37. This is such an inaccurate and boring talking point

He has expressed his regret for the Iraq vote many many times :eyes:.

I would rather have someone who changes their mind, than someone who "believes the same thing on Tuesday and on Thursday, no matter what happened on Wednesday", a la our beloved cowboy king errr president...

[blm]

33. It's cute for stupid people. Or Dems easily manipulated by corpmedia into

believing that a candidate DOMINATED all three debates, wrote better policy positions, and ran a better campaign, and who brought in 60-65 million votes is somehow a loser.

While the real loser is actually the guy who LOST all the debates, had to keep protestors at bay, and needed his RNC henchmen to work for FOUR YEARS suppressing the vote, purging voter rolls and rigging machines all over the country to stay in power.

[survivor999]

43. Sure, Chimpy is a loser, no question about it.

But Kerry lost because he is perceived as not being able to stick to a position. That's his personality, whether he's doing it for political reason or whether he's just somebody who thinks a lot about the various possibilities.

[blm]

47. Baloney - Bush had to have RNC subvert 5 million votes to stay in power.

Kerry won. DNC couldn't counter the RNC tactics that subverted 5 million votes.


If Kerry ran such a bad campaign, RNC wuldn't have had to work so hard making up for BUSH'S FAILED CAMPAIGN, would they?

[WildEyedLiberal]

48. Tell me: WHY are you on DU repeating Karl Rove's exact talking points?

They exist for every candidate, you know.

Kerry "flip flops."

Gore is a "wooden liar."

Dean is "crazy and unstable."

Hillary is... well, good luck finding some slur the rightwing HASN'T used against Hillary.

The right-wing has a nasty character assassination pre-made for EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRATIC LEADER. They will have one for the 2008 nominee WHOEVER HE OR SHE MAY BE. So the real question is, why are you helping them do their job by perpetuating Rove's lies on a liberal messageboard?

[Mass]

51. So, did you vote for Weld in 96?

OK, I see you are too young for that. May be you should try to see the tape of the debates. This could change your opinion.

[survivor999]

55. I was not 18 in '96...

Sorry... I was barely a teenager...

[Marnieworld]

79. Oh divine oracle where did you get this pearl of wisdom from?

In case you couldn't tell- :sarcasm: It's spin, a talking point endlessly regurgitated. Is that you Candy Crowley? Nora? Do you still have a purple band-aid? Don't you remember the official "explanation" for the sudden change in results from the exit polls was that people were motivated by hating gays. "perceived as not being able to stick to a position"? Try manufactured perception and doubtful it even caught on.

[Mass]

46. In fact, it is the balance for the editorial yesterday who was positive

about Kerry.

The Globe thinks that this makes them look balanced.

(just as they wrote a edito this morning attacking both Kerry Healey and Patrick Deval as disingenuous on taxes ).

[survivor999]

53. Yeah, I read that...

[Marnieworld]

78. I hear ya!

Damn straight! :applause:

[high density]

104. That's fine until you remember the month of August

That's when Kerry actually lost the election. The Swift Boaters were out there propagating bullshit and Kerry and friends didn't respond for a month. It was very painful.

[blm]

161. Research Forum proves you're wrong. Kerry's speech to Firefighters

Convention (who endorsed Kerry) on August 19, 2004 was an all out attack on the swifts and pointed at the WH's complicity. NO NEWS NETWORK SHOWED UP - undoubtedly that was a deliberate move by their corporate heads to A) not cover Kerry's defense against swifts , and B) Not show American people how strongly Firefighters were supporting Kerry instead of Bush.

I also think many forget that McGreevey scandal and resignation took up alot of the Dem oxygen at around that same timeframe.

Check out Research Forum here at DU for the exact data on what was done and when.

[high density]

191. Well see there's the problem...

The speech was pretty useless if Bob Shrum and Mary Beth Cahill couldn't get TV cameras to show up. You can't blame this TOTALLY on the whore media. There was a high level of incompetence in Kerry's team that lead to the horrible month that was August 2004. At times I have to believe that they figured the nation was a bunch of political junkies who sat around watching C-SPAN all day long.

[blm]

194. Right - it wasn't network bosses doing BushInc a favor - it was Shrum and

Cahill just couldn't get news crews to show up and do their job on the campaign trail.

And right after the election what favors were bestowed on corporate media again by BushInc in reciprocation?

My, you seem to think the media was acting innocently.

[survivor999]

52. So what? I'm a young voter.

Who talks to other middle-class young voters here in MA. Nobody on campus I talk to is impressed with Kerry and would support him in 2008. I'm sure that major reesources have gone into building a nice rationalization of anything Kerry or almost any politicians have done in their life. So, who cares? No way to know the truth. My criterion is that, if they fucked up in the past, at a time when it was reasonable for them to try, then they don't get a second chance. I'd give a second change to somebody who was very young and tried and failed, for instance.

[politicasista]

56. Who are they impressed with?

And why?

[survivor999]

64. Various politicians.

Generally, the people I talk to are still impressed with Howard Dean. If you're talking about MA, they're much more impreessed with Kennedy than with Kerry. They are very impreessed with Bonifaz.

[blm]

59. Then you are no history major. You likely also prefer authoritarian govt.

over open government.

[survivor999]

71. On the contrary.

I'm in computer science and hate authoritarian ideologies. It has NOTHING to do with whether I think Kerry is a good presidential candidate or not. Look, I voted for him in my first election.

[WildEyedLiberal]

63. As am I

Many people on my campus think Kerry is a great man and would make a great president. So, my anecdote cancels yours out!

The point being, you cannot claim to authoritatively speak for young voters.

[survivor999]

67. Sure, but I build my convictions

based on peole I talk to, my friends and colleagues. Obviously there are pockets of like-minded people. We'll see how it all plays out in 2008.

[blm]

73. Why do you think young people are not impressed with someone who has

investigated and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history?

Why would young people be unimpressed with the one candidate who advocates for public financing of campaigns to get corporate money OUT of elections?


Why would young people prefer authoritarian candidates over the candidate who advocates OPEN GOVERNMENT?

[WildEyedLiberal]

76. You shouldn't let other people tell you what to think

I'll be honest, I got a lot of crap from Deaniacs and Kucinich supporters in 04 because I supported Kerry. But I ultimately became such a strong supporter of Kerry's because I went through old articles about him, read up about what he'd done over his entire career, read biographies about him, and came to the conclusion that he is a uniquely honorable politician who is not corrupt in any way and who has strong convictions. Does that mean I agree with every vote or action he's ever done? No. But it means I trust him to lead the country because implicitly, I know he has the nation's best interests at heart.

Don't form your opinion solely based on what your peer group is saying or doing. When you let other people tell you what to think, you can almost guarantee that you're getting at best a filtered version of the truth. Do your own research and soul searching and come up with your own convictions. Hell, don't take MY word on Kerry - read objective sources about him like I did. (Which means, don't ask your Deaniac friends.)

[Marnieworld]

84. Goin' Up River

I was so very impressed with Kerry after I saw this. What an amazing young man he was and even more impressive he has lived his life, and his work, I believe has lived up to that young guy. He's not perfect, none of us is. If he wants to give it another go I will listen to his case with an open mind. You can criticize actions as a Senator or candidate but I don't see how anyone can walk away from this film without respect for him as a person.

:patriot:

[WildEyedLiberal]

89. Tour of Duty did it for me

I liked Kerry in 2004 based on the MSM coverage I'd seen of him, but when I read Tour of Duty, I was BLOWN AWAY. I knew then and there that he was the man we needed so desperately to lead our country, and I haven't looked back. Of course, Going Upriver just cemented it for me.

[nam78_two]

99. Reading many reports on Iran-Contra and BCCI did it for me

Old newspaper articles, senate hearings and few books.

[nam78_two]

86. I am on a college campus too

and the groupthink among my peers depresses me.
They all parrot the same talking points they pick up by osmosis from others. (I am double majoring in Physics and Engineering and its a little better in Physics than in Engineering and its better among grads than undergrads).

I keep recommending books by Bob Parry to the strongly anti-Kerry people. But I think it takes too much effort to read and actually form your own opinions ;-).
I wonder if people majoring in the social sciences have a better sense of history generally :shrug:

[WildEyedLiberal]

87. I think so.

I'm in social sciences/liberal arts, and all my (liberal) history major friends like Kerry a LOT. They understand the historical significance of his life and respect that. The political science kids are a different story - they're all like mini Tim Russerts and Maureen Dowds, veritable factories of mainstream media conventional wisdom talking points. Ugh.

OTOH, I go to a big engineering school and the engineering kids are the ones most likely to spout shrill media talking points and become hostile if you disagree. They tend to be very, very intelligent at math/analytical thinking, which I sometimes think is what gives them their rigid, almost arrogant black and white worldview - they are used to being one of the highest IQs in the room, so they react very condescendingly if confronted on anything they say. No offense to engineers, of course - I am friends with plenty and they are by no means all that way. But, let's just say I dated a computer engineer and we broke up because of politics, and leave it at that. ;)

[nam78_two]

95. As an engineer I totally agree with you

Of course its a generalization but its one I don't feel too uncomfortable making. Certain professions do encourage certain types of thinking and behaviour.
Engineers can be very obnoxious- as a female engineer surrounded by alpha-male engineers and physicists, I can really relate to what you say. I am surrounded by them :banghead:!

As for the high IQ thing-I don't know, I think a large part of what is missing in education today is the lack of emphasis on being well-rounded. You can be very good at Math and I still think, your critical thinking skills are going to be very skewed if you have no sense of history, civics etc. and rely on what you hear from others to form your opinions.
You can be good at writing code and building electronics, but thats doesn't translate into skills that help in making sense of the world around you.

However, FWIW I don't agree with the OP that young liberals don't like Kerry. I personally like Kerry and Gore and most of the young liberals I know do too. Most engineers I know are either apolitical or Repugs, so what they think about Dem candidates doesn't really matter....

[WildEyedLiberal]

101. The only liberal friends I had who *didn't* like Kerry were engineers

FWIW, oddly enough. Heh.

You pretty much confirmed my experience with engineers. Most of my engineer friends are very social and have a well-rounded set of interests - but, funnily enough, the engineers I know who *are* narrow minded and dogmatic are also the ones who have the least social skills. It's definitely the whole left-brain analytical intelligence at the expense of other mental development. It must be tough for you as a girl in that atmosphere - I know a few other girls in engineering, math, and science and they NEVER date a guy from their academic background. Heh.

Of course, I have to deal with the emo liberal arts kids, so you takes what you can gets, I guess. :P Or you're a perpetual singleton like me. :D

[nam78_two]

109. Awwww

Bad engineers! However, believe it or not, I know a few engineers who are die-hard Nader supporters!!! And in 2004 they were actually more annoying than the Repigs (I generally never ever get close enough to any Repigs to actually be annoyed by them personally)
And they spouted the same annoying talking points.."he says one thing and does another" blah blah blah...."same as Bush" :eyes:...Yeah sure he is exactly the same as Bush!


>>Of course, I have to deal with the emo liberal arts kids, so you takes what you can gets, >>I guess. Or you're a perpetual singleton like me.
Hee hee yeah dating isn't easy when surrounded by libertarian ding-dongs...Yeah I have difficulty having stable lasting rel.s and typically drift in and out of them.
And the break-ups are always over politics!

:hi:

[dailykoff]

58. Let's review what Kerry "blew" last time around:

*He won all but three state caucuses and primaries, most by margins of 200%- 300% above the second-place runners up;

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/campaign2004primaries1.html

*He won all three presidential debates hands down, despite every conceivable rule/ question/ moderator advantage handed to Team Bubble Boy by sycophantic media, including an obvious earpiece;

*He won the general election by a margin of 3-7 million votes by all objective calculations, the DNC's bullshit report notwithstanding;

*He pulled through the whole stinking ambush without once losing his cool or bringing so much as a whisper of discredit to himself or any member of his party, including primary opponents;

*Tell me again what he blew? :shrug:

[Dr Fate]

72. In fairness, he handled the SBV thing improperly. He did indeed blow that.

He also blew it over the "flip-flopper" label- his response should have been something like:

"My original position was based Bush's lies and distoritons- I should not have trusted him like I did- I promise never to make the mistake of trusting these liars again. Yes- I changed my mind once I knew the facts- I promise that if elected, I may change my mind from time to time, but I will never lie you into war.."- something like that.

I am not arguing in favor of the OP, BTW, we just need to be clear on exactly what we got right and what we got wrong.

[dailykoff]

85. That's the perception, sure

driven home by countless hours of paid and unpaid TV propaganda.

Yeah, Kerry was outgunned that August because of a technicality and didn't have the cash for a big-bucks counteroffensive. But he did what could: he dug up one more brother (the Chicago Trib guy) to go on record saying 'I was there and this is bullshit,' he gave several interviews that I heard, he counted on the Dem noise machine do its thing-- and it didn't.

[WildEyedLiberal]

92. THANK YOU

"He counted on the Dem noise machine to do its thing - and it didn't."

Kerry was not heard in the media because he had virtually NO surrogates willing to stand up and defend him. The resident media "Democratic" voices, Carville and Begala, spent as much time snarking about Kerry as the Bush pundits and subtly playing in to the RW's memes of him through their lackluster "support." Wes Clark, Howard Dean, Max Cleland and of course the Band of Brothers were there for Kerry, but when those are the only people you can consistently count on to back you up against a $20 million dollar media blitz aided and abetted by the pro-Bush pundits - that is fucking sad. And I will never forgive the "liberal" magazines like The Nation and The Progressive for continuing to bitch about him well into 2004 and offering a mediocre, lukewarm endorsement at best. They failed America.

[Dr Fate]

102. I agree. He should have known that he had to say it himself...

I was aware that no one was being a good surrogate for him- and the few who did were ignored by the media. But they could NOT have ignored Kerry himself going on a show and saying:

"Bush, who we know is directly responsible for these lies, needs to call off his paid liars- and you media people-unless you are biased- need to stop repeating these lies as fact..."

Something in your face, direct. Make the story about whether Kerry is being lied about as opposed to making it about whether Kerry lied b/c he is silent on the issue.

[dailykoff]

198. I think that would have been a big mistake

for several reasons:

1) A direct attack would have been spun to infinity as whining, desperation, poor sportsmanship, thin skin, negative campaigning, smearing, trying to change the subject, etc.

2) It didn't work for Dukakis or Poppy, and Junior doesn't do it (he lets his painted ladies do it), and whatever he said said would have been spun as a lie and used against him ad infinitum in future campaigns;

3) It's not Kerry's style, and would have sounded false, like when Edwards mentioned Cheney's lesbian daughter in his debate, which was a good tactic but seemed out of character IMHO.

So it probably would have done more harm than good, although it would been satisfying for us to hear him say it.

[Dr Fate]

100. No, he could have gone on any TV show and said what I just said.

Or something similar.

And he could have gone on any TV interview show and said "Bush needs stop LYING about my military record like he lies about WMDs and everything else..Dont tell me Bush is not directly responsible for these disgusting lies- I was not born yesterday..."

Stuff like that. It is not my "perception" that he did not do these things. He simply did not do them.

The point is we should all know better now.

[paulk]

70. Wednesday is bash Hillary day

Thursday is Kerry.


didn't you get the memo?

[survivor999]

80. I've got to take off. Thanks for the great debate.

And don't get mad at me, I'm still just a naive girl in computer science trying to understand the world. :)

[Dr Fate]

83. Yes- you got your hits in-run along now before we ask for even more proof.

n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

88. These kinds of cartoons make me sick.

He didn't blow it the first time. He wuz robbed.

[BootinUp]

90. Brewtal.lol. n/t

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blm]

94. No - it was stolen in the FOUR YEARS between the elections where the RNC

suppressed votes, purged voter rolls and gained control of the input and output of the electronic voting machines, thereby subverting about 5 million votes that Kerry earned.

And THAT job of countering the RNC tactics for four years and securing the election process for ALL Democratic voters and candidates was the duty of Terry McAuliffe and Donna Brazille.

No cartoon changes the fact that THEY failed at their job.

[BootinUp]

96. Path to Kerry 2008 coming to a theater near you.

produced by the Kerry for 2008 campaign and friends.

[ProSense]

98. What do you suppose this thread is about?

The ad is pretty lame, but you're jumping up and down with excitement: Brutal.lol!

Clinton pardoned members of the Bush cabal, and his overt gestures of bipartisanship blew up in the Democratic Party's face.

Campaign 2008 -- Path to Truth!

[BootinUp]

105. Oh yeah Ive been round and round with blm on that too

Clinton should have investigated this and that and this and that. Where the F was Kerry on that? What interviews did he give to the public making these ridiculous cases: Closed investigations that lasted 6 years should be reopened? GIVEMEFUCKINGBREAK. Poppy Bush took the hit and pardoned the fuckers, it was a done deal.

[ProSense]

155. You have no idea what you're talking about!

They were pardoned by the president, Clinton. He had the power to advance the investigations and chose not to!

GIVEMEFUCKINGBREAK with the where was Kerry when others dropped the ball!

[BootinUp]

165. Really?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2862881#2864970

If you could site the pardons it would shorten this game considerably.

[ProSense]

181. Iran Contra was

a sinister crime. The evidence was mounting and the investigation could have prevented much of the massive corruption now gripping American politics. Clinton had the power to follow through, but decided to let Bush retire in peace as he put it.

[BootinUp]

187. Clinton did not have the power to follow through

The Independent Counsel himself determined that he could not pursue the case!!! Read the report. There was nowhere to go after the pardons.

[blm]

190. There were still matters to pursue, and especially on BCCI and Iraqgate -

and Clinton ignored the outstanding questions left on BCCI and never even MENTIONED them in his book, and CIA drugrunning was DOWNPLAYED in 1995 when it came out - You want to believe Clinton was powerless in 1995, too?

[BootinUp]

193. We've been through this before.

The outstanding questions leftover from BCCI were intelligence matters and are not something that you can follow like a Senate investigation. There was no justification for an open investigation since the foreign sources had not cooperated with or could not provide the information the Senate requested. BCCI was shutdown. It was a matter for the CIA to take it from there with regard to terrorism financing.

I don't see the relevance to this conversation with regard to the drug running story. In other words, I don't know if you got something or not, why don't you make your case.


Iraqgate was investigated for 3 years by Clintons Justice Dept, and a report was issued in '95 clearing the prior administration from involvement with the Italian bank that loaned money to Sadaam.

[blm]

195. Of COURSE they cleared the prior administration. It's called COVERING UP.

CIA drugrunning was the Gary Webb report for which he received a Pulitzer and then was dragged through the mud by the those in power who wanted him discredited. That was 1995 - you do the math. You can certainly find the story with any search tool.

[BootinUp]

197. I think I figured out your equation

If its a bill clinton investigation and it is ended that equals a coverup.

If its a Kerry investigation that is ended, he is a hero and Bill is at fault for not finishing Kerry's job.


Brilliant, once again I must hand it to you.

I have heard of that CIA scandal. But I am not clear how you think that is relevant to Kerry losing in 2004. (I'm sort of afraid to ask)

[blm]

206. It's relevant to 2000 - there would be NO Bush2 if Clinton had allowed the

pursuit of the outstanding matters.

Why you pretend otherwise must suit a purpose. And you already read that Kerry REQUESTED the continuation of the BCCI investigation and the funding necessary to complete it. At some point the new president and the Senate Majority leader decided to say No.

You choose to look the other way. I am so over thinking you might have at least a part of you who who would accept that not everything can be explained as just coincidental.

[BootinUp]

207. I'll leave it to folks to read the responses here

I have answered the questions and charges and you just keep restating them without offering much to support them. You imagine that Clinton could have spent his presidency investigating a former administration and taking a ridiculous amount of political heat for reopening a 6 year long closed investigation. Preposterous. Executive branches don't particularly want to set bad precedent, and they do require some cooperation form the other party. Bottom line, it WAS NOT JUSTIFIED NOT DEMANDED BY THE PUBLIC.

But regardless of that...the matters you bring up were investigated you just didn't like the outcomes. So you make up these rosy scenarios that lead to happy ending for Kerry in 04. Suppose somehow Bush was taken out in a highly improbable Executive branch takes on previous Executive branch investigation, what makes you think another Republican wouldn't have kicked Kerry's butt too?

[blm]

106. In your view it's OK for the DNC to neglect party structure in between

elections because it's just so COOL to blame the head of the ticket as if that would erase 4 years of the RNC working against Democratic voters.

Yeah - Kerry was just lousy winning 60-65 million votes.

Wow - you must have been really impressed with the EXCELLENT campaign run by Bush who made no mistakes and won all three debates, because Kerry was just a lousy candidate. In fact, I'll bet darn Kerry tried to steal the vote away from that excellent campaigner Bush.

[BootinUp]

108. What evidence do you have of any of your conspiracy theories blm?

I really can't accept what you say without evidence since it is all outa left field and designed to spin him clear from a clear loss that he acknowledges himself and again today in fact.

[blm]

111. Because leaders always accept ultimate blame. YOU Think McAuliffe did his

job - well RFK wrote an 11 page heavily researched article that PROVES MCAULIFFE DID NOT DO HIS JOB.

[BootinUp]

114. That article amounts to squat.

And lowered RFKs credibility a huge amount.


When did Kerry come out and talk about that article and how damning it was? HUH? I guess I missed it.

[blm]

116. Kerry did talk about that article - and Clinton said it was convincing,

but that was in front of an alternative media gathering. He never repeated his remarks in front of any mainstream press.

So...why would Clinton say ONE thing to aALTERNATIVE PRESS that RFK's article that Kerry won Ohio was convincing and everyone should read it - and then NEVER say it again in public?

[BootinUp]

118. Quote? Got one?

Why would Clinton do that...? I guess because on further examination it was a turd.

[blm]

152. That's not what Clinton said.

The article was in Election Reform forum last July. A few threads on it, in fact.

Clinton said it was persuasive, and then he hemmed and hawed - and tried to go AROUND the subject, realizing, no doubt, that the last thing he wants is for people to know that Kerry WON.



By Michael Collins
“Scoop” Independent News
Washington, DC
Co-Published at
www.electionfraudnews.com
July 3, 2006
Former President Clinton spoke to the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies on June 17, 2006. He gave the keynote address which covered a number of topics. He even provided his answer to “the fundamental nature of the 21st century” – “interdependence.”

During the question and answer portion of the speech, an audience member made an inquiry about election fraud. Clinton’s response might have gained front page status or at least editorial page controversy if the United States had a function media. It does not.

Audience member to Clinton: Talking about elections, Robert Kennedy Jr. just wrote an article in Rolling Stone claiming the Bush Administration stole the last election. Do you think it was, and how can we guard against something like that going on in the future?
President Clinton: I must say I read Robert Kennedy’s article in Rolling Stone and I think all of you should if you haven’t. And before I read it, I was convinced that President Bush had won Ohio… I… I …thought it would have been ironic if he had lost the election in the Electoral College and won the popular vote, that is if he went out the same way he came in. But… but I think that… I think that -- two things, I think there is no question that Al Gore would have won Florida if all the votes had been counted and the people who intended to vote for him had their votes counted.

ADVERTISEMENT

This answer is remarkable on several levels. First, he tells the audience to read the article making the case for a stolen election in 2004. Second, he states that Gore’s loss of Florida was due to the most obvious form of election fraud, a failure to count all the votes. Finally, Clinton goes right up to the edge of saying, “…And before I read it, I was convinced that President Bush had won Ohio… I…” This is what is known as a pregnant pause, a moment of simultaneous reflection and silence, in this case, causing him to stop just short of saying “…I…now think he didn’t.” He pauses again when he seems to come back to the first part of the question, was it stolen: “But… but I think that… I think that…” He then continues with what is perhaps a revealing statement about Gore winning had all the votes been counted.

This is my speculation but the pauses reinforce the interpretation. Just a moment later, he addresses the specific question asked, “Do you think it was (stolen)…”

“In this case, I think… You know, I don’t have an opinion, but I thought Robert Kennedy made a very persuasive case and what was clear is that the Secretary of State (of Ohio), now their candidate for governor, was a world class expert in voter suppression and that he was doing everything he could to keep voters that he thought were Democrats from voting, in every way that he could.”
Once again, we have a pause, a presumed reflection and a switch from “I think” to “I don’t have an opinion” paired with a compliment to Robert F. Kennedy’s article, “a very persuasive case.” It appears that the usually fluid speaker’s pauses allowed him to regain his scales-of-justice like balance and pull back from throwing the country into an uproar. Clinton would have set off a fire storm by endorsing the argument that 2004 was stolen and the obvious conclusion, that the Bush presidency is illegitimate.

Regardless of what was not said, Clinton said enough to cause a major controversy. He strongly endorsed the “persuasive” arguments Kennedy made and told the audience that it was worth their time to read the article. This speech was in public at a major convention in Little Rock, Arkansas. Clinton’s endorsement of the RFK Jr. article as persuasive and a must read would have caused a major stir just two weeks after the article’s publication.

It did not. This is just another example of the total lack of a functional main stream media in the United States. There was no reporting on the Clinton endorsement on or after the 17th of June. When the transcript of the article became available on June 30th, it was immediately published in Notes from the Underground, the blog of author and voting rights advocate Professor Mark Crispin Miller of New York University.

>>>>>

[BootinUp]

177. You think he (Clinton) is backing

RFK report up there? noooo not by a long shot, he obviously does not believe Kerry lost due to vote fraud as represented in the RFK article, the best he could do was say "he makes a persuasive case" after dancing around the subject. He specifically avoided giving his opinion other than to say the vote was suppressed by Blackwell.

Secondly you owe me a statement from Kerry.

[tigereye]

97. as much as I admire Kerry and his intelligence and honor

I am betting there won't be a Dem from Mass elected president again in my lifetime. I think we need a Southern populist. I think that's just the way it is. And the people who pay for and write the ads need to fire back at nasty ads IMMEDIATELY and have some guts.

[WildEyedLiberal]

103. I hope you're wrong

No more southern candidates, please - I can't take any more of this yee haw good ol boy nonsense.

[tigereye]

137. I don't like it

but that's how it looks to me, based on the last 30 years since I've been voting.

I really think the population shift to the Southwest and the more individualized voting styles (despite red states and voting blocs) make this likely. Also we haven't elected a Senator in quite a while, have we? Only governors....

(well, except for Bush 1)

[nam78_two]

140. eh..nothing like 4 years of an unproductive war

rising unemployment (screw the Dow, unemployment rose this month), eco-disasters etc. may force people to look beyond smarmy talk and someone's hairstyle, accent and looks.

But then again I could be wrong...

[tigereye]

144. it's odd

Clinton could talk, think and campaign effectively. Incredibly intelligent. But he didn't come across like a patrician. I really think that's part of the "populist" issue with some class component - Clinton went to Yale and Edwards is a self-made millionaire, but we seem lately to want our presidents to talk like "bubba." It's almost like the electorate wants to elect the elite that sound more like them. I really think it's a deconstructed "class" issue.

[blm]

119. It was Terry McAuliffe's stewardship of DNC that neglected to secure the

election process.

That Mass liberal WON 60-65 million votes.

That's 10 million more than Gore. About 15 million more than Clinton.

It was a southerner who LOST the south and WEAKENED and collapsed the Dem party infrastructure in so many states that they couldn't even secure the election process for Dem voters and candidates in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

[BootinUp]

170. Maybe you could warn people

like putting a (Humor) in the subject line...

so they don't spit what they are drinking all over their monitors and keyboards. I mean this shit is funny. :rofl:

[politicasista]

172. Why is it funny if it's a fact? n/t

[Tellurian]

182. Are you saying blm and the Kerryites (cute)

are going to be repeating the same three talking points for another 2 yrs?

I guess they've gone through just about all the prolific posters here on du.
And I got my wings today after going up and down the pillowcase with blm until
she got cranky and needed an afternoon nap.

The drill consists of the occasional new poster drops in and the Kerryites
mission is to inoculate them against thinking about supporting any other Democratic
candidate for the Presidential nomination.. I believe at this point in time,
Hillary is the strongest candidate that will survive whatever the neocons throw at her..

I don't want to risk another failure with Kerry.. I worked hard for him last trip.
Count me out for a rerun if he does run!

blm has to learn the rules of engagement.You don't win friends (or votes) by hitting
people over the head a million times, attempting to beat them senseless until they
cry uncle, and she escorts you to the voting booth by locking your left arm behind
your back whispering in your ear: "Now VOTE-- Dammit, like I said, for Kerry!"

Kerry made another mistake by hiring these yahoo's.. another indication...(zzzzzzzzzzzz)

[BootinUp]

186. Yeah, thats the way it appears to me

I am not sure if I can handle it. But thats not true. Once the primaries really get crankin, you get into a groove, cause you feel like you are doing what needs to be done. So it'll be a long 2 yrs, but the last 6 months will fly.


cheers
:toast:

[Tellurian]

200. Thanks, for the 60 sec summary..

:toast:

[Mass]

192. You should learn them too, because you do exactly the same thing.

You and a couple of other people. (actually it was more aimed at Jim4Wes, but whatever).

You wont win friends or votes by attacking systematically other candidate(s) as you do. This is totally useless. If you cant stand Kerry's threads, stay out or stop complaining.

You and blm are just the same at this level.

As for who you are going to vote, I do not think she is stupid enough to think she can change your vote. That would be silly.

[BootinUp]

201. Thats ok everyone has an opinion.

Shall we talk facts though? Rarely have I initiated a discussion on Kerry, rarely have I offered an opinion on Kerry unless it was in response to what I saw as an unreasonable statement attacking another Dem. THis thread is the first time in over a month as a matter of fact. Feel free to get back to me if you find that to be an inaccurate statement.

[Tellurian]

202. Moi?

I think you take yourselves a little too seriously.

we're at the midterm stage and no other Dem candidate
has wanted to distract from the upcoming election
because of the significance of recapturing at least
6 new Senate seats. Have you given any thought to
the fact you may be harming Kerry's chances of a rerun?

I admire your zeal and enthusiasm but we need to concentrate
on the present not trashing Dems, especially the Clintons,
who have elevated the Party to a position of serious contention.

[Mass]

215. You mean I should love Clinton?

Because, for the rest, I plead non guilty.

I never initiate diaries on Kerry anywhere else than in the Kerry group and I rarely intervene in these diary except when somebody trash him.

This said, yes, I have issues with the Clintons and some of the things they have done in the past and do? Should I silence that? May be, but I am barely the worse offender here?

[Tellurian]

218. Well, then..

Good on ya!

:)

[Demobrat]

107. Too many people who held their noses and voted ABB regret it.

And next time he won't even have that to run on. He can't position himself as a fighter cause election 2004 proved otherwise. Soooo - what's he going to run on? His initials?

[WildEyedLiberal]

112. It must suck, holding your nose to vote for such a liberal

Whoever could meet your impossibly pure standards?

:nopity: Vote for the Ultra Mega Super Duper More Progressive Than You Party in 2008, and vote for a Repuke. But at least you'll be true to your ideals!!!!!!!!1111111111

[Demobrat]

122. I can think of a few.

Dean, Kucinich, Feingold, heck I'd rather Pelosi got the nom. Mr. I was against it before I was for it, or was that for it before I was against it, disappointed way too many people way too much.

[nam78_two]

127. There is more to people than the campaign ads their OPPOSITION

puts together :eyes:

[Demobrat]

130. Well considering the average voter doesn't read DU

Maybe spending some of the money he decided to salt away instead fighting back against the swift-boaters would have been a good idea.

[WildEyedLiberal]

142. Another total untruth

The Swift Boat ads came out in August - AFTER he had accepted the nomination. Once you accept the nomination, you CANNOT use funds raised prior to that date - you can ONLY use party or federal funds. It's campaign finance law.

Why are all your criticisms of Kerry based on false premises and Karl Rove talking points?

[WildEyedLiberal]

141. Why are you playing into Rove's soundbites?

The 87 billion comment was CORRECT - he DID vote for the first version of the bill - which failed - and voted against the second version, which contained billions of dollars worth of writeoffs to Halliburton. That's how the Senate works.

But people like you helped Rove perpetuate the myth that he was a "flip flopper." Thanks - next time, stay home if that's the only level of support you can manage to eke out.

[Demobrat]

145. Will do, sir.

At least I will if Kerry's the candidate, God forbid.

[WildEyedLiberal]

146. Please - I'd rather you stay home than pretend to support him

False "support" is worse than open hostility - at least if you're openly voting for the Ultra Super Duper I'm More Progressive Than You party, no one can mistake you for a Democrat.

[Demobrat]

148. And since it's all about YOU

I'll keep that in mind!

[WildEyedLiberal]

151. Nope, it's all about electing a DEMOCRAT

If you can't be bothered, don't show up.

[Demobrat]

154. Oh, so ....

better to NOT vote for a Democrat, than to do so unwillingly. Heck, I wish I would have known that before I wasted a barf bag.

[WildEyedLiberal]

156. I don't care and will never know who you vote for

I am, however, tired to death of the people who whine about how long and hard they worked for Kerry in 2004 despite hating him. Cheezus, do you really think the people you called/canvassed/interacted with couldn't smell your utter contempt from 10 miles away? Crap like that no doubt convinced some undecided voters that Kerry wasn't worth voting for, so hell, why not Bush - at least his supporters LIKE him.

But no, it's all about YOU so I don't expect you to see the damage you did. YOU want a candidate who meets YOUR impossible standards and if YOU don't get one YOU will take YOUR marbles and go home. Well, I certainly am not going to beg you not to! If someone isn't honest enough to look at John Kerry's life and record and say "damn, he'd make a good president," then I am not going to waste my time and energy begging and pleading for you to stay - even though I know that's what all the "I'll take my toys and go home" Greens secretly want.

[Demobrat]

162. Well I'm not a Green, but

since you know what I secretly want, what should I have for dinner?

[WildEyedLiberal]

168. Some cheese

To go along with that nice glass of whine!

C'mon, you opened yourself up for that one...

[nam78_two]

166. Yeah

I am sure the 655,000 Iraqi civilians and the 3000 American soldiers who are dead are better off because the Greens stuck to their standards :sarcasm:

Agree completely with your post!

[WildEyedLiberal]

167. Yep - at least they didn't SELL OUT by voting for Gore!

Because their "integrity" is worth more than half a million lives.

[Demobrat]

189. Well considering Kerry wanted to send 40,000 MORE troops to Iraq

to die for a lie, maybe we're all better off.

[Name removed]

209. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Demobrat]

220. Why should I care if you do or not?

This discussion is moot, anyway. Kerry will never be president.

[stepnw1f]

113. What People Really Regret is Bush Being in Office

and that the election was stolen as it was in 2000 by people who have no respect for Democracy itself. Stop blaming the victim.... you are doing the right wing a favor.

[Demobrat]

123. He could have stood up for himself.

He didn't. That makes him an enabler, not a victim.

[politicasista]

124. Your blame should be at the Dems and DNC that didn't back him up

Where were those heavily lionized Democrats that sat back on the sideline when the Smear Boat liars made their rounds?

If you think any candidate WON'T be subject to the corporate media spin, you are going to be very disappointed.


Good luck finding your perfect candidate.

[Demobrat]

126. They sure will.

Which is why we need a fighter this time.

[politicasista]

133. What "fighter" are you talking about?

I see a "fighter" that has exposed more government corruption than any other lawmaker in history.

I see a "fighter" that has stuck his neck out more than any Democratic senator.

I see a "fighter" that has thrown more crumbs to the liberal base than most of our elected representatives.

I see a "fighter" that has consistently stayed on Bush's ass since day one.

I see a "fighter" that cares about election reform and the country at large while others DC Dems are busy positioning themselves for 08.

I see a "fighter" that is campaigning his ass off for Democrats across the country and raising money for candidates so that WE the people can have a Democratic controlled Congress.




I stand by my original comments. Sorry that's not good enough for you.

[nam78_two]

136. You tell 'em

:applause: :applause:

Not all fighters look like Superman and they don't all wear their underwear over their pants!

(And he is also a "fighter" who worked harder on nomalizing relations with Vietnam than any other in the Senate-well I suppose McWhoreCain did his bit but it doesn't matter anymore after the degree of his blatant support for *)

[Demobrat]

135. So in other words Kerry bears no responsibility

for not fighting back - it's everybody else's fault.

[AtomicKitten]

138. now you're catching on

eom

[survivor999]

139. Cute purple mousey.

:)

[Mass]

147. Nope, he has his share. Does not mean that others do not.

Some people here and elsewhere would prefer to ignore the responsibility others have (sometimes for obvious reasons) and make sure Kerry is the only one responsible. The response you see here is just the counter reaction.

[blm]

117. Did you hear about the fight Reid put up over real estate lie being spread

about him?


Well....he did put out the facts..... but media is only playing the lie over and over again, with no reference to Reid's counter.

Funny thing how that always works out for Dems like that.

Kerry couldn't get swifts taken off the air after his letter to networks. Clinton couldn't get PT9-11 off the air with his legal maneuvers, either. I guess corpmedia must be complicit, since NO DEM who sticks their neck out gets their counterattacks heard.

[Dr Fate]

120. Did he go on TV and say "Wolf, why are you repeating lies as fact again?"

Now THAT would be fighting.

Pointing to text on the internet and saying "See- we are fighting" aint gonna cut it no more.

Talk about sticking out necks- I have yet see Harry or any elected DEM on TV calling this "propaganda" or "more lies- just like always" or anything even close to that.

[Dr Fate]

121. The "hold your nose" people share as much blame as anyone.

We could have used more passionate advocates than nose-holders- who at the most crtitical moments seemed to trash him and "support" him in the same breath.

Swing-voters took note of that attitude as much as anything that they percieved about Kerry himself.

[Demobrat]

125. Oh, I get it now.

He would have won, if not for the people who voted for him! Thanks for explaining that!

[Dr Fate]

128. No need to put words in my mouth- I'm talking about "nose holders"

I'm not talking about the passionate advocates who FULLY supported and voted for him-but people who went around saying "I'll hold my nose and vote for him, I guess." You cant tell me that attitude was not seized upon by the media and shown to swing-voters. It fueled the "they just hate Bush, Kerry stands for nothing" crap...

[Demobrat]

134. Actually it was the ABB positioning he chose to run on

that fed the whole "they just hate Bush, Kerry stands for nothing" crap. Too bad it was all he had, having voted for the war, and all.

[Dr Fate]

149. So said the "liberal media", the GOP, Greens/nose-holders.

Nice triple team those guys had going there. It is a wonder we even did as good as we did, having to fight on 3 fronts like that.

He did not run on an ABB platform- the whole ABB mindset was started by Democrats or liberals who's man lost the primary.

To suggest that Kerry ran w/o standing for something is to agree with Rove & media perceptions as opposed to his actual platform.

[blm]

158. So you didn't care for restoring tax on top 1% , extend healthcare, Kyoto,

fully funding alternative fuel research, bring NATO and UN into help w/Iraq and call for summit between region's leaders and religious leaders, make war on terror a LAW ENFORCEMENT issue, not a military one, etc....

Sounds like you CHIOSE to be ignorant of his actual policies - that's DELIBERATE - ignoring an anti-corruption, open government Democrat just so you can claim he stood for nothing - how awful - not even sad - just awful.

[Dr Fate]

160. Easier to ape GOP, media & Green talking points than to focus on facts.

n/t

[blm]

129. Not the point - Alot of people were uninformed and didn't talk about

Kerry in positive ways that should have come easy - the man who investigated and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history. The longtime advocate for public financing of campaigns. The guy who warned about growing terrorism and its financial networks in 1997. The man with the most liberal overall voting record of any candidate of the last 50 years. The man who believes in OPEN GOVERNMENT, not authoritarian and secret government - he's an open the books type of guy.

Strong, positive stuff. But, too many whined their way through 2004, when they could have EDUCATED others, instead. That's Dr. Fate's point.

[Dr Fate]

131. You have crystalized my thoughts once again!!! n/t

n/t

[nam78_two]

132. I agree

And if they got their opinion of him from something other BUSH's campaign ads, they might have better reasons than "he was for it before he was against it" :eyes:.
Great snark material but not much substance there.

The "purest" candidates out there seem to be the ones who have never actually been to Washington or at least not been in the senate. A quiet, dogged fight from within the system, to fix so much that is wrong with it, is imo much more impressive than slick speeches when you are never actually called upon to take a stand or actually try to reform or change an inherently corrupt power structure.

My God the obstacles that were flung in his path for Contragate. Its amazing that he managed to do what he did.

[saltpoint]

115. A good journalist should interview Bill Weld and ask him if

he thinks Kerry should be written off or underestimated.

I believe Bill Weld would clarify several points on Kerry's tenacity.

[bigtree]

143. as if it was Kerry himself placing and counting the votes

where's the unified wall of support republicans give their nominee?

[WildEyedLiberal]

150. Nonexistent

All but a handful of Dems gave Kerry lukewarm support in 2004 then blamed him for not singlehandedly doing the DNC's, media's, lawyers', and press secretaries' jobs - in addition to his own job of being a candidate and going on the trail to campaign and win.

[bigtree]

153. thumbs up

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[leftchick]

157. It was actually the Aftermath he Blew

conceding in a nano second.

[politicasista]

159. His concession was not a "nano second"

Kerry's concession was around noon the next day - the second slowest concession in modern times. Gore was behind 535 votes in Florida. Kerry was behind around 118,000. There were nowhere near enough provisional ballots to win.

[leftchick]

164. okay

I feel so much better. :eyes:

[WildEyedLiberal]

169. Would you have contested 100,000 votes with no proof of any "missing"?

You'll say yes, I'm sure, but in reality, there was no proof that Kerry won. The proof that exists TODAY - two years later, kinda late for a recount - is legally dubious at BEST.

You could at least acknowledge that your post was factually untrue.

[leftchick]

171. um

when dealing with DREs you need more than a few hours. You obviously will defend the defenseless forever. I give up.

[WildEyedLiberal]

173. So how would you have overturned the election in a court of law?

What legal proof do you have that the election results are bogus? Do you think a lawsuit pressed right after the election would have had any other result than being laughed out of court?

You seem to have no real grasp that fighting election theft requires a burden of proof. Sadly, it would take a lot more than a bunch of bloggers screaming WE WUZ ROBBED to make a case in court - a case that, according to legal standards, could not be made satsifactorily to this day.

[leftchick]

174. hey

I am blinded by your sig line I can't think straight! :crazy:

[survivor999]

176. hi leftchick!

Fan of yours! :)

[leftchick]

213. hi ya survivor999

I didn't know I had a fan! :hi:

:blush:

[survivor999]

224. You sure do!

:)

[Tellurian]

184. Question...LC

I posed this question upstream..but it may get lost in the thread maze..:)


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2424826&mesg_id=2428016

whatdayathink?

[leftchick]

212. lol!

I think you hit the nail on the head Tellurian!

:)

[Tellurian]

219. Ok, then..

yesterday she accused "me" of being a Clinton
operative..In my experience, when people start making
outrageous claims, they are the ones guilty of same..

...good to know we're on the same page..:)

[blm]

225. That's very kind of you, leftchick. I see no one is bothered by repeated

lies, but feel agitated by those who repeatedly correct those lies. When are people SUPPOSED to fight back smears and correct lies? Only when it matters to you, personally?

[leftchick]

226. perhaps it boils down to one's perception of a lie

And when one is lied to. I know when I am lied to and I have no problem calling the liar on it.

[blm]

227. And when so many posts contain KNOWN lies against Kerry, there is

every reason to make those corrections.


Did it ever occur to some here at DU that if there were fewer posts that contained deliberate lies, there would be fewer posts countering those lies?

There is a cure for the PERCEIVED disease. When anyone lies call them on it. When the lies go away, the COUNTERS to those lies will step away and discuss the other matters of importance.

[WildEyedLiberal]

211. Obviously not!

:eyes:

[nam78_two]

179. Its much easier to just make snarky remarks

And vague stuff like "he isn't a fighter", "he has no backbone" etc. I understood why they conceded when they did.

In the first few months after the election, they had only just started compiling evidence of fraud and theft. It was in no way like Gore's case. I was certain they had stolen it-but the evidence wasn't as striking as it is now-not even close...


The next time around, Rove can borrow talking points against the Dem candidate right here from DU :eyes:....

[BootinUp]

188. Hell...Duers use his material

whats the diff?

[zulchzulu]

204. That crazy moonbat John Conyers disagrees with your premise...

Oh, in case you didn't know...a concession speech is not legally binding... but back to what Conyers said about Kerry:

"Fighting for Every Voter"

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me. As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes...

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth.

That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

- John Conyers

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000213.htm

[nam78_two]

223. Just another supporter of conspiracy "theorys"

referenced in post #22...

That nut Conyers! I guess BCCI and Iran-Contra were also just conspiracy "theorys" :eyes:.

[bigwillq]

163. LOL! That's great!

:rofl:

[upi402]

183. cheered me up

thanks for posting
:toast:

[benny05]

185. When is Kerry going to have a full blown searchable blog again?

Haven't heard much about his web site or blog if he was going to do one again or not. Generally Americablog or something similar, or here seems to be where most folks blog about him.

[Sensitivity]

199. When he decides to run and recruits staff to run it, I guess.

[WildEyedLiberal]

210. Blog's up now

Check www.johnkerry.com - I don't have a direct link, sorry.

[wisteria]

196. Cute! n/t

[zulchzulu]

203. I guess the cartoonist hasn't a clue about what happened in Ohio...

"...blow it this time..." My ass.

He should do a cartoon about what happened in Ohio or how a Diebold voting machine operates.

Wasserman of the Boston Globe has been on Kerry's case for a while now... I do like this one though...

http://graphics.boston.com:80/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_Graphic/2006/10/02/1159847726_4216.gif

[BootinUp]

208. I guess you should talk to Kerry

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2424826&mesg_id=2426226

[Tellurian]

221. Point of Interest..

Just so you know..

Here is where the Clinton tabloid Journalism is coming from..

repetitive unproven hearsay represented as authentic talking points (gospel)

aka..conspiracy theorys

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/clinton6.html

[BootinUp]

222. Thanks

actually I did run into that via google whilst refuting some of these attacks. Its now bookmarked for future ref. :)