It's not about Kerry v Miller - To pit them on "credibility" is wrong

in my opinion. The either or thinking with regards to this issue misses the mark. I don't think it is right to set up a situation where one has to be chosen over the other; or where one is right and the other is wrong, or one has "credibility" and the other doesn't.

They are both credible. That is not the issue.

Once again, you're the voice of reason.

NGU, my friend.

before telling the story.

Get the discussion on MSM let people start thinking.

I am deeply disturbed with the cavalier way in which Mark Crispin Miller let this slip. Surely he could have gathered a stronger case to represent this incredible outing. Why did he not have witnesses and more reliable proof that Kerry would let this slip. It is too important of a happening to have let slip this easily. The whole affair makes little sense to me, both it actually happening and letting it slip this way to us. I mean, my God, if this was handled better and provable beyond a he said-he said situation, can you believe the way in which we all could have applied more pressure?

Miller didn't lie - he likely overdramatized what was said to make for a more compelling story in the retelling.

Kerry's spokesperson didn't lie - she was underplaying what was said out of a necessity to serve a political purpose, and she did so BADLY.

To play this as either or completely skips over the reality of human nature.

SOON!

politics as well. Its naive in the extreme to think that a politician's privately held beleifs expressed candidly, are 100% the same as what that politician is willing to say on record.

In what sense? Do you hold that politician's privately held beleifs
match their public statements 100%?

general phrase "reality of politics"?

a realistic view of politics which includes concepts like tactically planning when to speak out on issues, how to frame the debate, coalition building, all the important tactical decisions that politicians make when conducting the business of getting elected, passing legislation, and even dealing with meaningful electoral reform.

So maybe Mark Crispin Miller exaggerated a statement that Kerry off the cuff, and off the record. "reality of politics" to quote myself, :-) means that one can speak casually to people when you don't think they are going to publish your conversation, and have a more precise message when speaking publicly.

Are you telling me that everything you tell your spouse is on the record to tell your mother and father, or sisters and brothers???

Everybody has private beliefs that they don't want broadcast all over the place.

apples and oranges.

I know the difference between what people say at a party and on the record and I'm not even a journalist.

I do know the difference between party talk and on the record talk. People, all people, have to be able to let down their hair once in a while. If you want to take that statement as a personal insult, then I guess that's up to you.

who apparently has forgotten, again, that there are appropriate and inappropriate venues for his remarks.

I knew the second I heard it Kerry didn't say it because he wouldn't. And guess what, he didn't. What Miller said...

"Senator, you wuz robbed."

Kerry...

"I know"

Humorous response, humoring the tin-foil hatter, I don't know which. But I would never in a million years report this as "Kerry Says Election Stolen".

Some people thrive on hyperbole and scandal and the politics of poison. DU is full of them. Is how it is.

He doesn't have a record of misrepresenting fact while Mr. Kerry does have a record of useless back pedaling.

This doesn't make me happy in any way, fyi. I have no stake in demonizing Kerry. I'm a Green, and prefer to build coalitions to slinging mud.

The thing is, Kerry's spokesperson reacted instead of responding. Which seems to be par for the course.

/clarity

Yes? He hyperbolized the exchange.

I haven't seen Greens do anything but bash Kerry on this board, and Dems in general, for that matter. I wish Greens would build a coalition around a platform for change. All I've heard for the last year is a platform of attack and destroy. I'd never support the Greens after what I've seen at DU.

quietly and patiently persists in Ohio.

Attack and destroy? LOL! You must be thinking of some OTHER color.

I walked a precinct for the good Senator. And voted for Gore.

And you seem not to be very aware of how much of the heavy lifting the Green party does. It doesn't matter. The work needs to be done. :shrug:

The more I look, the more I see the Green Party behind the divisiveness in the Democratic Party. I've said 100 times that I wish the Greens would focus on a specific platform and advocate the platform. But do it in a way that allows the rest of the country to see the specific difference between Democrats and Greens so that people can actually hear left ideas, and also know that there is a difference between the two. Instead, Greens want Democrats to become Green and that's not going to happen. If Democrats wanted to be Green, they would.

Yes, I do know how much heavy lifting the Greens have done. They seem to be hell bent on destroying all of that by trashing the people who can take that work and turn it into law.

to the CBC during the 2000 election.

And in all this time, I've yet to see a Green try to undermine the Dems in any way. Sorry. We have real work to do and resources are limited.

And I heartily agree, there is a significant difference between the Greens and the Dems.

And I notice that instead of staying on the issue at hand, you've decided to attack the Green Party. The Green Party, that had the balls to challenge Ohio when the DLC didn't. Not the Dems, but the DLC.

If attacking the Green Party makes you feel better about Kerry's stupid handlers, be my guest.

I disagreed. And said all I'd seen is Greens trashing Dems, which you're doing right now. And changing the subject AGAIN, by dragging the DLC into it.

At least I have a better perspective of where the hate is coming from, I do appreciate that.

And you introduced "hate" into the discussion.

If you see hate anywhere in our discourse, well, you've made my case for me.

Thanks.

/typin'

I disagreed with your "coalition building" Greens and you said I was attacking. You put that into this discussion. All of it.

And now you accuse me of hate.

Wow. Stunning. Amazing denial.

Thanks indeed.

I trust you can do without my help.

That's not the issue.

I still say "You wuz robbed" and "I know", was a joke that Miller decided to turn into "stolen election". Maybe he's the one who should be called to explain himself, ya think?

And Jenny Backus because her statement was just rude.

She handled all the Miller inquiries. Spokespeople sometimes say things the candidate wouldn't have said. I don't know whether that's the case, but until I know otherwise, I would say she made a mistake with the harshness of her statement.

one is outright calling the other a liar? I mean, how do you do what you're proposing while retaining some contact with reality?

Right now it seems like Miller is the only one who appears to be accusing anyone of lying -- Kerry's statement (through his spokesperson) leaves plenty of room for the possibility that Miller read too much into Kerry's casual comments. I guess we assume that Mr. Miller is a little too wound up and hope he chills out eventually.

Thank you. You hit the nail on the head.

It takes no insight, skill, or strength to find fault. It takes all three to find the positive route. You have done just that.

I agree that it takes no skill to sling mud but, as Razzle points out, the issue is credibility.

Among the many reasons I trust Mark Crispin Miller is that were I starting a book campaign and were I to need an endorsement, I would not go to John Kerry. I would go to Mr. Conyers or to Boxer or Tubbs Jones who are more clearly and consistently outspoken about 2004.

In addition, Mr. Kerry has not been fortunate in his handlers and he has a pattern of being forced into the position he is now regarding this incident.

While I get tex credit (and thanks!) for trying to get us back on track, I can't get there by avoiding the issue.

Having said that, we could move on by taking this flap and looking for our common ground. Let's support Mark's book tour -- it will get voters thinking about elections. Let's encourage Kerry to continue to work on election reform. As MH1 points out, there is an election on Tuesday.