Hardball: 2 Dem campaigns endorsing Repuke spin on Clark/Moore/AWOL

Did anyone else just see this?

Matthews was interviewing their guy in the post-debate "spin room," and Tweety asked what dirt the campaigns were shoveling on each other in the wake of the debate.

Tweety's man in the field said that the campaigns of TWO (unnamed) Democratic candidates were pushing the same spin as the Faux whores, Chris Matthews, Pat Buchanan, et al: that Clark should have repudiated Moore's "deserter" statements.

Tweety's man refused to identify the two Dem campaigns.

Please tell me that someone else saw this!

apparently are unaware there was ever a controversy about Bush's National Guard Service. Unbelievable!

Seen it posted earlier, but I really hope Moore calls a press conference with all the evidence found by the Globe or whoever.

Either way it is a win/win for Dems, and definately lose/lose for Bush. Because it is true.

Let's keep this issue alive.

and said that the AWOL info was a google away, and they should do some research and reporting --

??

It's Kerry or Edwards.

I'll apologize if it isn't

hate to even speculate on the other.

and then i'm going to go on a limb as say my boy edwards.which would piss me off to no end.

The report happened at about 10:33 pm central (11:33 eastern). The reporter's name was David Shuster.

Tweety, like the rest of the whores, thought Clark's comments on the "deserter" issue were "devastating" to Clark, and he seemed pleased that the two unnamed Dem campaigns were piling on.

100%. He's so wrong, he even voted for bush.

that candidates are playing politics in this establishment!

on the repub side is starting to get nervous?

It was like they had no idea Bush was AWAL for a year! Like Mike Malloy says, I hate these people!

The same two Senators that are unconcerned about 9/11 cover-up.

Lieberman and either Kerry or Dean. Lieberman for his "hawk" base, Kerry - well, I don't know, maybe for his "veteran" base? I mean, Kucinich or Sharpton? No way. Dean? Payback for the "skiing" comment? Dunno.

claiming to keep the high road.

I have a very good friend of mine who is a retired Brig. Gen. He was also the Adjutant general for his state's National Guard for quite a while. AGs do personel stuff. He is unequivocal that Bush went AWOL, then deserted and had his personel packet scrubbed. His "Old Boy Network"(Every retired Gen. has one...) concurs completely and regards Chimpy with the greatest contempt and loathing.

These guys seem to have some inside stuff that they cannot/won't make public.

what could any of the Democrats gain by putting this in their campaigns?

we will know

I have no problem believing that the campaigns are pushing particular stories behind the scenes ... but I don't want to believe that TWO* campaigns actually want to use the (mythical) honor of the Deserter-in-Chief as a weapon, however weak, against another candidate.

*(As to ONE campaign in particular, I'd actually EXPECT it!)

besides, he is utterly without guile. I'd be looking elsewhere.

for weeks & weeks.

He never misses an opportunity to blast him.

And worst of all, he used Drudge & RNC lies to attack Clark.

He is definitly one of the culprits.

Lieberman is to be expected, oh and I guess Kerry is as well.

Those rich Yankees always know how to twist the blade when the lower classes get too big for their station.

Kerry plays the political game the old fashioned way: to win.

Wait till this weekend when Teddy comes barnstorming through here. It'll be a circus.

It's always possible that Tweety's man was lying through his teeth to sow discord in the race. The media whores were obviously looking to stir up some candidate-on-candidate "action" tonight, so I wouldn't put anything past 'em.

Regarding the instant pile-on in the Faux post-debate coverage, it seemed to me that the whores were reading from the exact same script on this issue. The RNC fax machines must be workin' overtime on this one.

Notably, the AP story on the debate doesn't mention the manufactured "deserter" issue at all:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040123/ap_on_el_pr/democrats&cid=694&ncid=716

eom

attempting to undermine them all.

which 2 Dem campaigns have remained unnamed? :grr:

If they are protecting the 2 campaigns...that story should never have been on....the names will come out soon. Can't wait.

Go, Wes!

... trash each other in the debate, as was widely expected, advertised, and predicted.

Hell, one of AP's headlines right now is Dems Rap Bush, but Not Each Other in N.H.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it turns out these are Republican-based smears, to try to get some kind of negative "story" going into the crucial NH weekend ahead.

Put nothing past them. Nothing.

don't believe this crap for a second

how will it go over in Dem circles?

and it made me sick.

I don't know who did it, but it stinks.

leaving Lieberman Kerry Dean and Edwards.
Lieberman is probably the first. And I think the other is probably Edwards, since I think Kerry has at least some respect for Clark and it would be too risky for Dean.

Dean would do this because he got a deferment and wouldn't want to go down that road again. It wasn't him.

That leaves Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman.

Lieberman doesn't care what people think about what he says, he would have said it on TV. Why stop now? Nope...not Lieberman.

It's Kerry and Edwards.

cowards also make open-ended attacks without qualification. I wonder if they'll come clean and debate it. Or is all this more manipulation of the democratic campaign from repub talking heads and the media whores?

...But I'd guess their initials are DLC.

since it's sure getting hard to tell who is on who's side in the political world anymore.

to be Kerry. Kerry has repeatedly brought up the fact that Bush didn't serve in combat, and he wants to use his own combat experience as an issue if he gets the nomination.

I think Lieberman is a given. This guy is shameless and was the first to claim Clark is a republican. Plus, Clark has taken many moderate voters that would have gone to Lieberman.

The other two possibilities are Dean and Edwards. Dean is possible in that he has no military record to speak of either and did try to get out of serving. It's evident he would not want military service to even come up as an issue during the GE were he to get the nomination...Edwards, also possiblity -- merely to "remain the nice guy", or "remain above the fray". Also he hasn't had any militry service either and likely wouldn't want that issue to come up. If it's Edwards I'd be extremely dissapointed. I've taken a greater liking to him recently.

...Junior calling someone an "evildoer"?

excerpts of articles on Bush's AWOL and calls Jennings out.

This could backfire on these two campaigns because once again, they are ignoring the truth....and the truth is out there, big time.

www.michaelmoore.com

Thursday, January 22nd 2004
George W. Bush, A.W.O.L

In tonight's presidential debate, Peter Jennings said that I made a reckless charge about Bush being a deserter. The facts are the facts. The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, The New Republic and numerous other publications have all called into question Bush's whereabouts when he was supposed to be serving our country. The only thing reckless is how people like Peter Jennings refuse to report the truth.

"The question is, where were you, Governor Bush?" said Senator Daniel Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii and a World War II veteran. "What would you do as commander-in-chief if someone in the National Guard did the same thing?"

(List of sources and excerpts follows)

Why shouldn't I be like everyone else on this thread?

Seriously, I trust nothing that comes out of Tweety's beak. And you shouldn't either.

Now it's like Bob Boudelang:

"Our Great President is not a deserter so stop saying that!" :evilgrin:

The more they deny it the more it creeps into the public discourse.

Clark should have asked Jennings:

"So if you're the reporter, don't YOU have the investigative resources to check this story out? Tell us what you find"