Edwards didn't want to concede

So says Mark Crispin Miller relaying a conversation of a friend of the Edwards family:

MARK HERTSGAARD: Yes. The case, just to sort of expand on that, on the part of the skeptics, say, look, it’s just unprecedented that the exit polls would be that wrong. You’ll recall, of course, that the exit polls projected Kerry to win by a comfortable 3% nationwide at the start of sort of the middle of the day on Election Day, and then, of course, he lost by about that same margin. And the statisticians who looked at this said they focused on 11, in particular, states, so-called battleground states, and in each case they said the exit polls were mistaken or contradicted, rather, by the actual results, and they said if you looked at that on a matter of pure chance, the odds of that happening are about 988,000 to one. Therefore, there must be some other explanation; therefore, there's strong evidence that the election was stolen, that the vote totals were somehow tampered with.

And my take on that is, yes, that’s entirely possible, but a theory is a very long way from fact, and in this area I disagree with my friend Mark Crispin Miller a bit, who -- I think it’s very possible that the conventional explanation of this is correct; that is to say, the so-called reluctant responders on the part of Bush voters who had just come out from voting, and you know how exit polling works is that basically someone accosts you after you’ve left the voting booth and says, ‘Would you tell me who you voted for?’ And let's remember, those exit pollsters are wearing the logos of the major news organizations – CNN, ABC, etc. – who pay for the polls. And the explanation given by the exit pollsters themselves for why they were wrong by about 1.9% was that they think that because the pro-Bush voters tend to be very hostile or at least skeptical of the supposedly -- although we all know that they are not -- supposedly liberal news media that they would be less inclined to give answers to them. I don't find that very hard to believe, myself. I gather from Mark's book that he finds that not very plausible.

But then, beyond that, there’s something very specific, which is in one of those eleven states, the State of New Hampshire, there actually was an actual recount paid for by Ralph Nader's Green Party campaign. That campaign picked the precincts that would be recounted, precincts that they thought were suspicious, and that hand recount confirmed the actual vote totals and showed that the exit polls were, in fact, wrong. And so, I think that, again, it’s possible that this is what happened, but we are far, far way from having it proven.

AMY GOODMAN: Mark Crispin Miller, your response.

MARK CRISPIN MILLER: Well, as Mark said, we are friends. When we first met we had lunch on James Madison's birthday and toasted that august moment in our history. So, you know, I think highly of him. It pains me, therefore, to see him engaging in this kind of – what strikes me as pedantic over-analysis of specific claims. I'm afraid that his evidence is partial in each case, and I can only suggest that people read the Free Press collection of documents, “Did George W. Bush Steal the Election in 2004?” It is voluminous, and it is highly credible on Ohio, as is the Conyers report.

I'm also not persuaded that the word of a Democrat, assuring us that there was no foul play in Warren County, for example, is authoritative. I mean, I agree with Mark. I think we should look at the facts. But what I think we should be emphasizing here is that this kind of, I think, hyper-vigilance in interrogating various details with a bias toward claiming that there is a conventional view, the conventional view is solid and the skeptics who question it are grasping at straws, they’re desperate to deny reality, this is itself a denial of reality. I want to repeat, Fooled Again deals with the entire country, not just with Ohio. I also want to emphasize that I'm not a Democrat, I'm an Independent. And I'm even less of a Democrat than I was before John Kerry conceded.

Speaking of John Kerry, I have some news for you. On Friday, this last Friday night, I arranged to meet Senator Kerry at a fundraiser to give him a copy of my book. He told me he now thinks the election was stolen. He said he doesn't believe that he is the person who can go out front on the issue, because of the sour grapes, you know, question. But he said he believes it was stolen. He says he argues about this with his Democratic colleagues on the Hill. He had just had a big fight with Christopher Dodd about it, because he said, you know, ‘There's this stuff about the voting machines; they’re really questionable.’ And Dodd was angry. ‘I don’t want to hear about it,’ you know, ‘I looked into it. There’s nothing there.’

Well, there's plenty there, and let me add one thing: This is not a criminal case, okay? We don't have to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is our election system, right? This is a system based on consent of the governed. If many, many millions of Americans are convinced that they got screwed on Election Day and couldn't vote, or if 3.4 million more Americans claim that they voted than the actual total of voters -- this is what the Census Bureau told us last May – this is grounds alone for serious investigation, and I think Mark would agree with me here. We have to have serious investigation.

AMY GOODMAN: Did Senator Kerry say, when he said on Friday night, according to you, that he does think the election was stolen, did he say why he raced out the next day after, for months, the Democratic candidates had assured the voters that they would make sure every vote was counted? I mean, Mark Hertsgaard says in his own piece in Mother Jones, “It didn't help that Kerry conceded immediately, despite questions about Ohio. The American press is less an independent truth seeker than a transmission belt for opinions of movers and shakers in Washington. If the Democratic candidate wasn’t going to cry foul, the press certainly wasn't going to do it for him.”

MARK CRISPIN MILLER: Well, that’s true. That was a real body blow to the democratic system, and it demoralized a lot of people when Kerry pulled out. It’s hard to forgive him for that. Why did he do it? Well, according to my evidence and I’ve got this in Fooled Again, Kerry was swayed by the brain trust around him. These are people like, you know, Bob Shrum, Mary Beth Cahill – they’re, you know, Democratic Party war horses. I don't think they have a stellar record of winning campaigns, and I don't really understand how it is that they were hired to do this, but they persuaded him up in Martha's Vineyard that he should pull out, otherwise, he told John Edwards in his call, Kerry said, “They say that if I don't pull out, they are going to call us sore losers,” as if there’s –

MARK HERTSGAARD: I think Mark Crispin Miller has given us a major news flash here and kind of buried the lead. If Kerry thinks that the election was stolen, that is big, big news. And I think that it is very unfortunate that it took him 12 months to come around to that conclusion, because, you know, I want to stress this. In my piece -- I'm an investigative journalist. I am going to deal with the facts, and I'm sorry, I am going to be kind of picky about the facts. That’s my business. But at the conclusion of the piece, I say repeatedly, it is smelly what happened in Ohio. It is entirely plausible that this election was stolen, and above all, that what we need is a real investigation both by the mainstream media and especially by people with subpoena power.

John Conyers, God bless him for pushing his own investigation, but he was stonewalled by Ken Blackwell, the Secretary of State of Ohio and other officials, including the Triad Computer Company, who basically refused to answer his questions. Had he or another agency with subpoena power should go back and get that, because I agree with Mark entirely. Look, this is the essence of our democracy. We deserve to have a persuasive answer to what happened in 2004. We probably would have gotten it if Kerry had shown the courage to say, on Election Day – on the day after Election Day a year ago what he apparently told Mark Crispin Miller the other night. If he had said then that “I suspect this election was stolen,” believe me, even the corporate media would have investigated this. It’s too juicy a story, but because Kerry dropped the ball there, you know, it’s now a year later, and it’s only the outsiders who are talking about it.

AMY GOODMAN: Are you saying, Mark Crispin Miller, that John Edwards didn't want to concede?

MARK CRISPIN MILLER: Absolutely not. I spoke to someone, a relative of his who was with him when the phone call came from Kerry. This is this in the book, Fooled Again. Kerry called him on the cell phone, and don't forget that Edwards himself, four hours before, had just been on national TV promising righteously to count every vote, got a big hand. Now he felt he was being made to look like a fool, and he argued with Kerry vehemently. He said, “It’s too soon, you know. Wait.” Kerry, you know, said this thing about how they will call us sore losers, as if that’s worse than the country, you know, going fascist, whatever. And Edwards said quite understandably, “So what?” You know, “So what if they call us sore losers?” I mean, they are going to call them names in any case. But it’s true, Mark is right, Kerry's caving in like that gave an enormous gift to the right wing. They could now claim, “Well, even their candidate doesn't think it was stolen.” And they left, you know, the American people hanging out to dry there.


http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/04/1532218#transcript


Am I to understand from the statements in bold, that Miller doesn't like the Democratic Party and believes the election was stolen, even though the campaign team couldn't win an election?


I tell you this is the kind of confusion I don't understand: he won, but I don't know how he did it.

there was stuff on here and other places that Edwards did not want to concede and it was Kerry pushing it.

Any links to this information?

on the wall. There wasn't enough evidence to fight the outcome that night. The vote margin wasn't close enough to even merit a second look at that point. Look what happened to Gore, and he actually was in a dead heat with Bush. Maybe, if Edwards really wanted to do this he should have or should come out now and say something. I haven't heard a word from him on this subject.

Do you have one direct Edwards quote saying this from any source. All I've seen are nth hand stories, all based on Edwards election day statement that they weren't conceding yet (which was then Kerry's position) and comments that Edwards disagreed with Kerry on conceding and that Kerry said it was not to look like sore losers.

This widely circulated story is either something said by Edwards or it was made up. (It makes no sense for it to come from Kerry) So, if this is a huge issue, I wish one of you would directly ask Edwards 2 questions.

1) Is it true and if not would he set the record straight?
2) Did he ever say anything that could reasonably have been distorted to imply this?

I honestly do not think that would be a reason Kerry would give when the more obvious reason (esp for a person who seemed to thing like a prosecutor before he even went to law school - read some of his anti-war things) would be the lack of any proof.

I know somebody who heard this from Bush's barber's fifth cousin's third wife.

I'll believe it when Edwards says it.

I know because I saw his face. I saw an extremely dignified proud man fighting off tears. I heard the words he spoke. He didn't want to concede - he had to concede because there was no proof that he won and the official result was that he lost.

Edwards never publicly said anything. I also doubt he was the source of that story. It seems more likely an urban myth of sorts. Does anyone even know the primary source. Maybe Dr Miller, who is an expert on communication and propaganda could research the source of this.

I remember hearing about Senator Edwards not wanting to concede previously. Edwards has got the fighting spirit, he's got the guts to fight the pig fuckers.

Kerry's not got the fighting spirit, and he proved it by throwing in the towel. Sure he fought in Vietnam and I respect him for that. But as a fighter of Bush Inc....nah, he's lily-livered.

Kerry wouldn't EVEN fight for himself and his reputation, he let the Swift Boat liars lie about him for THREE weeks and he REMAINED SILENT. The Swift Boaters were ALL over the media lying about KERRY and he just sat on his damn hands.

Kerry did win the election, we KNOW that DIEBOLD stole it in Ohio. Kerry should have stayed and FOUGHT that with that team of lawyers that he sent to OHIO. Kerry knew it himself, he knew he won and he knew it was stolen in Ohio...and also Mrs. Kerry she knew it too.

Kerry should NOT be given the opportunity to run in 2008...because even more so in 2008 we're going to need a junkyard dog type fighter and Kerry CERTAINLY ain't IT.

Edwards IS a junkyard dog fighter...in the South, known as Smilin' Assassins.

On Edit: I've said numerous times before...Bob Shrum is RADIOACTIVE, he needs to be BANNED from EVER involving himself in ANY Democratic Party campaign ever again. Ditto Mary Beth Cahill, she doesn't know how to run a campaign at national level either.

In 2008 I'll tell you who I think should run our Presidential Campaign:

Steve Jardine and Mudcat Saunders.

Both of them, they fight like junkyard dogs, they'll chew up the Repuke 2008 candidate and spit him out within two weeks of the campaign starting.

Kerry was always the FIRST to jump into the line of fire for others under attack. He did it for McCain, Cleland, Daschle, and Murtha.

He mistakenly expected that others were capable of doing the same for him.

They weren't. And the media wasn't interested in giving airtime to defense of Kerry's record.

All the yardage he accumulated had to come on his own the hard way and via the debates which he won decisively. He had to - media would jump to spin the debates for Bush if they could.

Kerry did it mostly on his own against ruthless liars who loathed him for his 35 year record of investigating and exposing their corruption of government, and doing it mostly on his own with little help from even his own party.

Especially against a media who started Bush at the 10 yd line.

Nor has he stated publicly (nor has Kerry to a national audience) that they believe the election was stolen. Now that we have the facts in, this would be an important fact for the American people to hear- loud and clear, once and for all. Otherwise, they will continue to do it again and again. Mark Crispin Miller's book is getting some but not nearly enough public attention. But an announcement by a major Democratic party person would make a huge impact and could help save our democracy.

if it didnt come out of edward's mouth it is just speculation.

so when and where did edwards state this for attribution?

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

..in the paper or salon.com or somewhere, right after I stopped crying sometime around Christmas last year. Kerry gave up way too quick. So they call him a sore loser. Whether they would cop to it or not, people knew that something was not right with the 2000 election. Dems would have backed Kerry to the hilt. He was just too wobbly-kneed to see it.

I believe Edwards didn't want to concede. He was a fighter and I saw him on television saying that they were going to keep on fighting and count every vote. He probably hasn't said anything because he doesn't want to start an internal war (which is the last thing the dems need) or maybe out of a sense of loyalty. Or maybe because as a vp candidate, he has no authority in the matter.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

didn't even back Kerry to the hilt before the election. I heard nothing but snark out of Begala, Carville, and Brazille. They were anti- Bush, but they made no effort to explain Kerry's positions. Bush had every RW radio talk host, every RW cable person and much of the media clarifing and repeating his message. Kerry had the Democrats critiquing his.

Clinton came out with critisism within days of the election - saying Kerry ignored his call to back all the anti-gay amendments. No, the Democratic party would likely have immediately called on Kerry to concede.

The interview says "but they persuaded him up in Martha's Vineyard that he should pull out." But Kerry spent Election Night (after Edwards promised to count every vote) in Boston before conceding on 11/3. So that little bit of logic doesn't work out. Especially since I can think of no reason for Kerry to have been in Martha's Vineyard. His Massachusetts homes are in Boston and on Nantucket, not Martha's Vineyard.

Of course, I may be wrong, but it's just what I believe I know. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

And am I the only one that gives a little less credence to what anyone says when their only sources for potentially huge information are..."a relative of his who was with him"?

that he thought it was a mistake. This isn't anything new...

And his concession speech sounded kind of angry, compared to Kerry's weepy one. He clearly wasn't happy with losing and probably conceding. But my issue with the Miller interview is his hugely ambiguous facts and sources. I haven't read the book. But it just doesn't make sense to me.

perhaps he was having second thoughts; as the whole scenario unfolded and it began to look more like there had been some funky doings, the two hacks (shrum and cahill) might have highgtailed it up there to make sure he stayed in bed.

they needn't have bothered. kerry has been my senator ever since he was first elected, and his post-nomination campaign was awful...from heading out to the Vineyard to windsurf after the convention to tripping over his tongue when the swift boat liars crapped on his record.

i'd always seen him as a strong finisher.
now, i just see him as finished.
i can believe he caved under pressure into conceding.
i can believe edwards didn't want to.
i can believe kerry, in the end, pulled his own plug.

i simply don't see him as viable as a presidential candidate in 2008.
or 2012.

or 2016...

me, these days, i'm looking at folks like clark, or a governor like warner. i really believe that senators don't make viable candidates for president anymore, because they are seen as part of the dc beltway
feeding trough porkers. maybe most aren't, but they are clearly out of touch.

whalerider

His house is on Nantucket.

Exactly the type of details that discredit Crispin's work. If he wants to be believed, he has to make his thesis tight, and there are so many loose ends that it looks like poor reporting.

the point is, he was pictured windsurfing immediately after the dem convention. as he was being creamed by the swifties.

one of the things dukakis said he'd do over again was that he wouldn't take the time off after the nomination, it gave the thugs trime to get some traction.

IMO Kerry coasted to the nomination at the end, so he shoudla been somewhat rested. he should have had his butt out there campaigning immediately after the convention like he wanted the job, instead of photo-opping himself asporting at an activity that wasn't likely to impress the landlocked states in play.

even after 2000, kerry was apparently unprepared to meet the likely possibility that the election was going to be florida-ized. i can remember seeing discussion here that his staff were keeping at an arms length all the "tin foil warriors" who were trying to alert him to what was happening in nevada and seattle, and eventually ohio. he was warned, everyone else knew what was happening, and he still allowed himself to get whupped. the sob won the elction, and didn't have the faith in the constitution to slog it out. in that regard, although i am over it, i've learned an important lesson about the ridiculousness of nominqating any candidate from "inside the beltway". they don't get it, they worry more about where they are in the pecking (pecker) order than what their responsibilities are to the people who nominated them or voted for them.

we can argue about whether the house is on the vineyard or nantucket, and whether that legtimizes crispy's contention or not. but i think that misses the important point of how could he know what was coming (a widely distributed quote by rove at the beginning of the republican convention was "by the time we get done with him, he won''t know which side he fought on in Viet Nam")and managed to get slapped silly by a felon-in-waiting.

because he is my senator, and because i follow that same sorry cast of characters thaty seem to hump the leg of any dem pres nominee, i have to believe that kerry didn't make all those dumb decisions by his lonesome; there had to be some high priced campaign types advocating the course he chose.


then again, we could always try to suss who the "he" was that rove was talking about.

again, and we can disagree- kerry has demonstrated courage as a senatorial investigator, and ha used the bully pulpit to promote a lot of important issues. but he has also demonstrated dunderheadedness and at times a timidity that makes me want to pull my hair out.

he doesn't flip flop. sometimes he makes the wrong decisions, ande rather that admit it was wrong and/or change course, he spends days, months, years chipping away, circumlocuting.

as a long time (since 1982) kerry observer, i have to say the kerry crispy decsribes sounds both plausible and familiar.

whalerider

... the point isn't whether or not Edwards or Kerry wanted to concede. The point is that Mark Crispin Miller is a hysterical wingnut who can't keep his rants straight, which reflects pretty piss-poorly on the accuracy of the conversation he *claimed* to have had with Kerry.

I know that half the people here at DU swear by him and the other half swear at him. But I don't know much about where he comes from and what his interests are. Since you called him a "hysterical wingnut" and I agree about the rants thing and the *claimed* conversations, I was wondering if you could fill me in. Thanks.

His first book, "The Bush Dyslexicon," was good because it was about his actual area of expertise - the media. Lately, though, he's become a self-styled election fraud expert even though it's extremely obvious he's out of his element. It's like he just read a bunch of far left blogs and decided that the best way to become the latest lefty hero was to jump on the election fraud bandwagon. His "supposed" conversation with Kerry coincided beautifully with the release of his new book, which apparently no one on DU found at all suspicious.

I think he's a craven opportunist who has found a niche in which he can make a marginal amount of fame and money by selling books telling people what they want to know, and this whole bullshit about Kerry was just a way for him to whip up a frenzied interest in him and his new book (and to get the lemmings here to buy it). Mark Crispin Miller's devotion isn't to the truth or democracy but to his own bottom line.

NOT in an effort to argue with you, as I'm sure that would be pointless. You so casually disparage "far left blogs" while posting on DU...so I'm sure you'd have no respect for my perspective.

My purpose is just to present another viewpoint. I have studied the election issues pretty extensively and worked in some local elections during the 90's. (Have also been exposed to the opinions of 3 computer security experts who I respect, on the subject of electronic voting).

Here's what I think about Mark Crispin Miller:

1. I think he IS in fact, saying what many people do NOT want to hear. From my experience Mark is not exaggerating the extent of the problem whatsoever.

2. From my knowledge of the facts surrounding all the myriad issues of election fraud and irregularities, Mark is dead-on accurate, and when he doesn't have a fact at his fingertips, he says so. His ability to convey the complexity of the election problems in readily understood terms is esp notable.

3. Mark is brave to wade in where others fear to tread. I admire his courage and his stamina in weathering the relentless attacks from all sides. There is HUGE resistance to accepting that our elections are so incredibly open to fraud, because basically it challenges our core beliefs about what it means to live in a Democracy.

4. I have ordered his book and if I find it to be what I'm hoping for, I will use it to further educate others. We who have been fighting to enlighten others on the issues have been in desperate need of a comprehensive but readable book on the subject.

5. I believe Mark Miller is a true patriot in every sense of the word. If he makes any money off this book, he deserves every penny.
And I hope that he continues to write and research on this ugly duckling topic. For the future of this country, we need people willing to speak out about this now...to prevent the travesty of yet another bogus election that costs billions to stage, but isn't worth a wooden nickle.

I have respect for your perspective because you presented it in a respectful manner.

I have not read Miller's book and do not intend to. I do not believe his account of his conversation with Kerry and believe he largely embellished what really happened in order to create a controversy surrounding his book. I think he knows who to market his book to and how to sell it to them, but that doesn't make him honest or principled.

This link sums up three different reviews of Miller's book, all of which say that it is high on accusations and low on actual evidence. http://www.citypaper.com/arts/review.asp?id=4945 He has been known to take facts and words and twist them out of context before: witness this altercation with Eric Alterman: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030714/exchange

I'm not trying to change your mind about Miller so much as explain that I do have a valid reason for distrusting him. I know you admire what he's trying to do, and we do need an honest proponent of election reform in this country. I do not believe Miller could ever be that person, though, because he is far too shoddy in his fact-checking and workmanship and because his style is immature and alienating, which was what I meant by my reference to "far left blogs" - very high on rhetoric and anger, but low on lucid, serious discussion. I like posting at DU, but I don't pretend that this place is a serious forum for intellectual exchange. It can be, but too often the hysterical wins out.

Thanks for your post.

being determined NOT to read a book based only on reviews, while at the same time criticizing the author's "fact-checking." On such a controversial subject, wouldn't you want to evaluate both sides?

In a world of easy distortions and immediate characterizations I plan to give Mark's book a fighting chance. I admire him for even attempting it--given the wall of denial surrounding the election issues. He is putting his head on the chopping block to even pry open the whole can of worms. Until I have digested and discussed the book with those who have been working close to the election issues I make no final judgment. But so far, from the interviews I watched and listened to, Mark is right in line with the facts as I know them from my experience with the election system. What you call an "immature" style I find refreshing. (Your characterization of Miller as a flaming radical is odd...from someone calling themselves "wildeyedliberal" (?!). We've been bludgeoned with stilted language and lofty stonewalling for so long that I appreciate someone who can handle themselves in fielding questions so well. I thought the interview on C-Span was really excellent. Have you seen it? If not, it's at C-Span.org.

At the very least I expect the book (even if imperfect) to be useful as an overview, as a tool in educating those who really have no idea of the extent of the problems. If there are facts that are suspect, I'm sure they will be aired in a "serious forum for intellectual exchange" (wherever that might be). It's way too premature to write this book off based on a couple of predictably hostile reviews. You know, when people fight so hard AGAINST such information coming to light, there's usually a subterranean reason.

If Mark is overboard in whipping up publicity I think that can be forgiven in light of the fact that the media has been so complicit in the cover-up of serious questions about the election this entire year. I would expect him to try to appeal to a certain audience of activists--the people who he knows will lead the fight. LIGHT NEEDS TO SHINE on the disastrous election of 2004, and I would expect that investigation to have some rough edges. I am incredibly grateful to those who are working so hard to pull the information together.

No matter what he said to Mark Miller recently, my thoughts are the same about Kerry. I don't think that Kerry was in a good position to lead the fight for fair elections after being brutally swiftboated and then Diebolded. It's not up to the candidates to fix election fraud anyway. Sure it would have been noble if he did do that, but unrealistic --as not many career politicians will volunteer for their personal crucifixion. (Edwards had less to lose in that regard). As a strategy to deal with the problems, Kerry contesting had a serious risk of backfiring, given the level of denial everywhere. I think Kerry was surprised at the extent of the corruption and has since clearly expressed dismay and concern. That's all we could ask in the aftermath. I hope that he can play a role in revolutionizing the election system in this country--realistically it will take a village to do that.

Kerry is involved on many pieces of legislation along with people like Obama, Boxer and H. Clinton. He has also spoken out about it at least 4 times. (MLK day in Boston and recently leading a 2.5 mile march with John Lewis in Boston that included speeches from both on voting rights. He also is trying to get people to work on the issue at the state and local levels (one of the goals of KAP). Kerry is slammed each and every time he does any of these things by the RW which has mocked the idea that there were problems with the election and have called him (and Teresa) everything from a traitor to delusional.


Edwards doesn't have a Senate seat - but voting is primarilly a state function. HE has not chosen to take this issue on.

I though I agree with your last paragraph, I think it gives Kerry too little credit for what he done and ignores that Edwards has done nothing.

To quote:
It's not up to the candidates to fix election fraud anyway.
Sure it would have been noble if he did do that, but unrealistic --as not many career politicians will volunteer for their personal crucifixion. (Edwards had less to lose in that regard)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry hasn't come up with a plan to fx election fraud - and as he's in the minority a bill with a perfect solution - if he could find people to help devise one - wouldn't be enacted. But he has repeatedly spoken out even though he knows some will mock him for it.

credit/discredit EITHER Edwards or Kerry on the way they have handled the election issues after 2004. I don't think it's productive to criticize them at this point or to pit them against each other. People are unrealistic to expect candidates reeling from a brutal campaign to throw themselves on the pyre for voting rights. It is a HUGE job to correct this dysfunctional system, and nobody knows that better that they who were the victims of it.

I am aware that Kerry has lent support to others working on the issues this year and I expect him to do more in future. It's smart of him to tread lightly, since the Right will go for the jugular everytime he raises the topic and the Left will continue to scapegoat him for his decision to concede. With even Democrats like Dodd poo-poohing our legitimate concerns about elections, well...direct action in congress is difficult at present. So I am appreciative of ANYTHING anybody is doing ANYWHERE to help our cause--it is basic to the survival of our concept of democracy. We need to keep working at state level and educating as many others as we possibly can-- as to what really happened in the 2004 election.

Maybe you could take your point up with those who think Kerry/Edwards should have/could have done more immediately after the (s)election. I'm not one of them.

I think we're still gonna have to agree to disagree about Miller, however - to me, anyone willing to pull a shady stunt like he did immediately casts his own credibility into question. Perhaps you're right about my judging his book before reading it, but at least the negative reviews are from liberal sources - one of which, the Salon review, was from a guy who has written extensively about the electoral problems in 2004. I don't KNOW that there was enough fraud to tip the election, but I have a pretty strong hunch that there was. I DO think we need someone to expose it, but I just think that Miller is too histrionic - too Michael Moore-esque, if you'll permit a bad comparison - to be taken seriously by anyone who does not already agree with him that there was election fraud. We need an activist who can convince everyone, not just preach to the choir. I agree 100% about your assessment of Kerry - this isn't his fight, though I do believe he will do what he can in the Senate. He's already sponsored a Count Every Vote Act meant to fix a lot of the issues that went on in Ohio. Of course we still need someone to uncover the full extent of what happened in 2004 and to discover how insidious Diebold really was in switching votes.

I hope you are right about Miller.

Edwards's brother-in-law (his wife's brother) teaches in the film school. Miller might know him.

:shrug:

than Kerry.

We know that Kerry did not want to concede until he was shown he did not have a leg to stand on. Edwards did the same thing. He just had the evidence later, so he took his decision later.

Edwards has never said publicly anything about how the election took place. Kerry has, and it is a lot more than Diebold machines that were in cause in this election. So may be I would be a little more ready to believe MCM if Edwards had actually said or done something, rather than letting some supporters leak some non-supported rumors.

win."

It seemed like an odd joke when he said it at, IIRC, Havard shortly after the election.

Perhaps it wasn't an odd joke and he was refering to her telling Kerry to concede.

Miller's comment is hearsay. That's the point of this thread. Hearsay cannot be held up as fact.

I liked him better than Kerry.

when he didn't have to actually make a decison about it. Had he been at the top of the ticket, he'd have done as Kerry did.

After all, if they couldn't (or perhaps wouldn't) make decisions like that TOGETHER as a team, maybe it's better that they didn't win. I know a lot of people say Edwards was on the ticket to look pretty but should I ever find out that Kerry made that decision completely by himself (i.e. without Edwards input)...he's completely finished in my book. I certainly don't think that Cheney would have let Dubya make a decision like that all by his little old self. Granted, of course, I'm not holding Cheney and Bush up as idols. I'm just saying that I would hope that the "team" (as they called themselves) would make decisions like that together. Otherwise, what would it be like if they had won?

JMHO