McAuliffe, Begala and Carville are proving that Hillary's team certainly has fears

of two people in particular - Howard Dean and John Kerry.

Why?

Dean proved that the Clinton-era policy of targetted states that was set in motion by the DNC leading up to the 2000 election, and entrenched during the 2002 and 2004 election was a strategy that was certain to lose, because state party infrastructures were too collapsed and too weak to do their TWO YEAR JOB between elections of countering the GOP tactics against their voters and securing the election process at every level - how, when and where the votes are cast and how the votes get counted in EVERY county and precinct. Targetted state stratgey left too many states with NO ORGANIZATION that was strong enough for any candidate to tap into once they become the nominee.

Dean's 50 state strategy in place last November is what pulled more Dems across the finish line in states where the old strategy would have allowed the votes to be lost at some levels.


Kerry proved that he is not just a courageous lawmaker with a great record against corruption, but he happened to take on Bush when he was at his PEAK in strength and decisively won every debate. Those crowds of 30000 - 120000 people were there because Kerry DID come off as a strong opponent for Bush no matter what the revisionists have been saying since. Clinton's team know darn well that if Kerry had any legal evidence in hand on Nov 3, 2004, he would have been able to successfully contest the vote and he'd be in office today.Bill admitted in a little acknowledged answer to alternative media that he now believes Kerry probably won Ohio because of RFK's article, but never mentioned it ever again in public or to any mainstream media.


These constant attacks on Dean and Kerry from the three most powerful voices around the Clinton team speak volumes about their actual mindset and who they really want out of the way of a Hillary Clinton run.

If Hillary was REALLY ready to be president, she wouldn't show so much fear of having to face Kerry during the campaign and the series of debates. And she wouldn't be so fearful of not having the complete control of the party machinery now being led by Dean.

Having her hitmen try and take out both of these Dem voices before her run shows Hillary's WEAKNESS and inner fears, and not boldness, confidence or strength that a presidential nominee SHOULD have.

It's like she wants to run the primary race GWBush ran in 2000 - have your hitmen take out your opponent in ADVANCE so you don't have to perform well yourself in comparison.

2004 was hardly Bush at peak strength.

His peak was 9/12/2001, and he's only gone downhill from there, as far as polling.

PUBLICALLY supporting him on every major military decision he was making from 2001 through 2005.

There is no denying that Bush had near total control of the broadcast media up until Katrina.

attacking him - especially with false charges.

Oh yeah - Hillary didn't see it as a botched joke - she agreed with McCain and Bush that it was an insult to the troops, didn't she?

Anyone with a functioning brain knew it was not intended to insult the troops. She certainly knew. Putting politics before truth-telling? Not a good sign.

:smoke:

after Murtha said that the war was lost, the troops have done all they could have done, and that it was time to bring the troops home.

With *THIS* Democrat and quite a few others I know.

Meanwhile, people who respect the truth will still be open to Kerry as a candidate. People who listen to Limpballs and Oreally on a regular basis weren't going to vote for any Democrat anyway.

I'm not the least interested in Hillary for Pres. Actually, I am COMPLETELY against it for MANY reasons.

Seems to me that the missing "us" from a statement that was obviously meant for Bush is a little less ridiculous that the two statements I mentioned and attributed to President Clinton. And they didn't doom Clinton now did they.
The botched joke crap is just that, crap, and means absolutely nothing in the seem of things.
I think this is wishful thinking on the part of heads up their a** Washington insiders and HRC supporters.

Senator Clinton has also been guilty of so whoppers. The stay at home baking cookies comment to her plantation remark.

The difference is that Kerry didn't back up lies against the Clintons while Hillary backed up lies against Kerry.

:shrug:

"botched joke".

He will continue his great work in the U.S. Senate.

The attacks on Dean really make me sick. The man's been a fine chairman of the DNC, and Begala whom I used to have so much respect for goes out of his way to call him the a**hole from Vermount. And same thing with Carville, only I always knew their was something about Carville. Especially for his conduct on Election Day in 2004 running to tell his wife what the Kerry campaign was preparing to do.

As far as the attacks on Kerry, I'm not too surprised. McAuliffe didn't deliever in 2002 or 2004, so why should we listen to him anyway?

I think Dean and Kerry will hold their ground, knowing the strong character and toughness of both. It's stupid we have to see Hillary hitmen going after campaign 'enemies'

Especially in their own party!

even when the media is used against them by the powerstructure elite.

Here is Hillary's greatest strength: the Democratic choices are awesome - so the vote in the primary will be split among so many.

Let's say that only Obama and Edwards face Hillary in the Primaries.

These two men represent a more hopeful, progressive version of the Democratic party - not much in line with the DLC.

SO even if the progressive side of the Demcoratic Party outnumbers the DLC side (Hillary) 60 to
40 per cent, Hillary would prevail, because if she holds 40 % to Edwrds and Obama each getting 30% - then she wins.

Hillary's afraid of Kerry? LMAO. Why would she be afraid of him when he's just about the least of her worries? If she fears anyone, it's Obama, and who knows if she even fears him.

The only people who fear Kerry are all the mainstream Democrats who fear what will come out of his mouth again that might embarrass Democrats all over...like that stupid joke of his that didn't go over too well with anyone in the country except for the 10 or 11 highly vocal Kerry supporters here on DU. The guy almost botched the election. Good thing they put a muzzle on him the last few days leading up to election day. yikes.

as if it was somehow worse than a lawmaker dropping his pants. No politician makes thousands of statements without dropping a word or two from their prepared remarks - what is unusual is that the person who makes the FEWEST mistakes in his speeches has somehow becomne the most overanalyzed and targeted by the media. The media that didn't want him overturning their gains with the FCC.

Hillary's team is TARGETTING Kerry.


Why?

The SERIES of debates. You know it - but you won't admit it. There is at least ONE person who knows that Hillary will be outclassed and outmatched during those debates if Kerry is on that stage with her - HILLARY, herself.

If Hillary didn't worry, she wouldn't have her team so deliberately targetting both Kerry and Dean.

the Murkkin people might have ferguv'im, but a PRONOUN! The Murkkin people'll never stand for a pronoun-dropper in the White House or anywheres!

Kerry's got Ollie Norths and J Howard Hunts dropping pronouns all OVER the place! Why only the other day, some villains employed by his team were caught trying to break into the George Dubya Bush Library, trying to steal as many pronouns as they could lay their thievin' hands on. Much to the delight of Hillary's supporters here on DU, who have definitively stated that it's now all over for Kerry. They say he's a remaindered item. Heck, even Amazon have renounced him and all his works over that 'under'pronoun*.

* According to the Republican Institute of Modern American English, the prefix "under" (as in the word, "undervote") is now synonymous with the word, "missing".

Seriously lame ya know!!!

Just said I could be sued for posting about Begala. I meant to tell him that all the couple of hundred people who recommended the Kos post must be included as well.

Shouldn't that by "You're" in a funky mood today, instead of "He's" in a funky mood?

Or did you accidentally reply to me when you meant to reply to blm?

hehe, I am in kind of a funk today, though. :patriot:

And you are really grouchy today. ;-)

and I know you were referring to me. That's why I'm trying to figure why you'd be telling me "He's" in a funky mood instead of "You're" in a funky mood.

Sincerely,
grouchy :evilgrin:

:evilgrin:

((and I love watching them deny it))

and it ain't gonna help Kerry one bit --- he's finished

I resent being called official, when I'm not.

Please don't do that anymore. Wait until we are declared officially.

:rofl:

not that we already didn't know it!!! --- all your hard work trashing Hillary ain't gonna help Kerry and or anybody else. They all will have to answer for voting 4 the war.

I really don't.

you have a lot of nerve talking about attacks ---- that's your M.O. here 24/7
pretty hypocritical calling others on attacks when you do it all the time

That is your right. I will do what I need to do.

oh, ya, it's that martyr thing again ....

and all the others that voted for the war

She doesn't need BLM and MadFloridian to do it for her.

posting crap from blogs, anything they can find to try to throw her under the bus for Kerry

and outmatches her opponents, instead of sending her hitmen out to try and stop other candidacies.

Seems to me that Hillary and her team are acting scared so people are REACTING to their obvious maneuverings.

If anyone is official here, my guess would be it is the person who might have taken it upon themself to monitor certain DU posters and attack them at every opportunity while pretending they are NOT a Hillary team member.

to even make him think he has a chance --- he won't make it to the debates. Besides your are discounting the many others who are great in debates. Kerry is a stuffed shirt that bores people to death. Well everbody but about 11 people here.

Me noticing you climbing over Hillary to try to help Kerry doesn't make me a Hillary supporter. Just pointing out what you do. She is no better than Edwards or Kerry cuz they all voted for the war. ACtually they are worse for being big phonies now. Yuck.

Kucinich & Gore & Obama are gonna do great.

Your kidding me right?

I like Dennis, but I think I laughed a little bit when I heard that.

Gore will do great if he runs, and Obama should do ok. But why are you advocating Obama, when he wasn't in the Senate when they voted on the IWR? How do you know he wouldn't have voted for it? You don't.

not the fake anti-war that Kerry and Edwards pretend to be after voting for the war

keep laughing --- Kucinich may not have a change of winning but his message is sincere

eggs.

suck

at the teat of dlc.

by what they're saying..do you have some insider knowledge that they do?

That's why I asked because you seemed pretty sure. I don't have any inside information. I just have google. And the information I have seen has overwhelmingly suggested to me that both Kerry and Edwards had their mouths pretty tightly clasped around the teat of the DLC in 2004, to use your words. From what I am gathering, the DLC financed them both and played a pretty major role in other ways too during their presidential campaign. I've even found information that says Kerry and Edwards were card carrying members of the DLC at least in 2004. That's from a google search.

I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter so I'm not here to trash the DLC's connections with Kerry or Edwards. I just always thought they were connected to the DLC and your post seemed pretty adament that they are not and the insinuation was that they are above those who have ties with the DLC. I just like to know what the facts are.

Here's a speech Kerry gave at the DLC National Convention in early 2004. The DLC's website doesn't have the best search engine so it's one of the few links I could find from their site.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=900056&contentid=252591

And this link shows Edwards and Kerry on the list as New Democrat Movement members.

http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987/

freakin' 2007.. A lot has changed since then. I don't like dlc and I'm not feeling that from them. If I did I wouldn't support them.

So basically the last time Kerry or Edwards ran for President they were DLC sponsored and DLC members. But since the last time that happened was a whole 2 years ago we should all just blow it off and use the DLC to go off on Clinton while making a point of how UN-DLC Kerry and Edwards are.

Sorry but I just don't think that's the best argument. It sounds like a big double-standard. But that shouldn't surprise me. Almost everything is a double-standard when it comes to Clinton.

make sure you keep those blinders on nice and tight.

I've found that it's the people who detest her who tend to have the blinders on and there's no limit to the utter ridiculousness they'll resort to in order to explain why they hate her so much. Any thread about Hillary is almost always absolutely infested with double standards, hypocracy, and outright lies being spewn about by people with no regard for keeping it real because they are blinded to the facts by their hate.

I support Kerry as well and I have defended him here too. I usually don't need to tho because Kerry has a pretty dedicated and loyal base here who have his back whether he is being mischaracterized or not.

Alerting on your attack on a Democratic Senator whose voice has been silenced or mocked by the corporate media.

As you may have, or may not have, noticed those posts that detail Kerry's statements and speeches consistently appear on the "Greatest" page here at DU. He speaks a powerful truth, especially after the 2004 debacle, when he could not have gotten worse advice from the DNC. I think they told him to "rise above" the gutter sniping. He did and gave away the landslide he could have experienced if he'd just fought back.

It looks like he's fighting back now. And,comments about "muzzling" him because of his "stupid" joke are out of place, here.

MKJ

Good gawd, if you think that was an unwarranted attack on Kerry, then you're gonna be busy poking your alert finger 24/7 around here.


hahaha, how could anyone NOT notice that? Post anything about Kerry and it automatically gets voted to the greatest page by the Kerry clique. Heck, you could start a thread how Kerry went for a walk in the park and it would get 27 votes.

a capital offence. D'you suppose that was the real reason they got Saddam Hussein? Kinda pronoun recklessness on his part? pronoun incontinence, even?

Ole Sadddam mighta said, "Goldurn it. I don't give a parsing syntax in a declension, ahm jist goina let rip and drop a pronoun right here, while I'm talking to that wee runt, Rumsfeld."

Aren't you the same person who it seems every post turns into a bashing of another candidate that isn't Hillary?

You shouldn't and probably aren't taken seriously.

I'm posting in a thread bashing Hillary's team of thugs.

And unlike you, I don't go around DU beating on any candidate not named Hillary.

Don't you have other threads to be picking a part fellow Democrats?

I literally see you do it everyday. And the truth is in your posts.

Could it be insecurities about your candidate and her chances, or lack there of?

Kerry is zero threat. but using the frontrunner to pump up your own lame candidate is an excellent tactic. Hillary is scared shitless of Kerry.

Don't you have other threads to be bashing candidates?

I'm not lying when I say I see you do it every day, and all the time.

It's pathetic, and shows your insecurities about your candidate. Facts remain that the Democratic base are moving away from her faster and faster by the second, and even the media hype she's been getting is getting snatched by Edwards and Obama.

If you think she's the candidate, your wrong. Polls and media hype may say so, but if I relied on those I would have supported Dean in 2004!

But I won't keep you here, I'm sure you have important DU business to attend too. Plenty of other fine candidates I'm sure you'd like to bash, you seem to do it a lot!

it helps ensure that my candidate is doing well.

although, i think/hope he will be smart enough to keep his hat out of our ring this time.

carry on. sorry to interrupt your anti-Hillary circle jerk.

But I will bash her team, like I did in this post.

I have family who loves Hillary.

Again k_jerome, your one of the most laughable posters in DU. You make post after post bashing any candidate that isn't Hillary which clearly shows your insecurities about her chances of winning.

I can't wait for Kerry, Obama, and Edwards to mop the floor with ol' Hillary.

i rarely bash Kerry...because he is irrelevant.

what does your bashing of Hillary show? your hypocrisy?

i'm glad you are laughing. it will help with the tears when Kerry screws up again.

Once again. I bashed her team.

Reading usually helps.

slamming on Hillary/her team. around here it is a good indicator she will be the winner.

Most of DU may be against Kerry. But I could say the same about Hillary.

And I slammed her team, not her.

like i said, Kerry is an also ran.

So is Gore, but Gore would mop the floor with Hillary.

And I would be willing to bet money on that.

Edwards is an also ran, and he seems to be giving your queen a run for her money. Not to mention the rookie Obama ;)

he's the guy that could have beaten Bush last go around, but for the weak nominee.

I am referring to the conventional wisdom around here that seems to back the losing nominee, not once, but repeatedly, until the real nominee is decided.

which will be HRC if she runs. Edwards or Obama if she does not. It will certainly not be Kerry.

But I also know people counted Kerry out in 2004, and it was Dean, Dean, Dean.

I am skeptical of Hillary, but I would support her if she won the nomination.

But I seriously doubt that with a field of Edwards, Kerry, Obama, and possibly even Gore.

it was Dean, then Clark, until the nominee was decided, Kerry.

Kerry, whom I will support if he gets the nomination. Although, I don't think he will. I will not go so far as to say I know he will not.

Clintons have been underestimated before...

Kerry was underestimated in 2004 as well.

If 2003 and 2004 shows us anything, it's don't predict the nominee until it's all said and done. I wouldn't count anyone out, including Kerry or Hillary. But I know my own personal views on the matter, and who has a chance and who doesn't.

I for one never thought Obama would change the pace of the race in one month, and watching the polls change that much in one month showed unpredictability is the key to 2008!

I'll support my candidate, you support Hillary. And when it's all said and done, beer anybody? :)

did he win so few primaries.

over the process and doesn't want to have to debate those she know will outmatch her on stage.

she has, she would WANT to prove that she's best suited to be president by facing down the last person who won the debates. But....she doesn't. And you know she doesn't. And that's why you're here to put up a faux bravado for her, just like McAuliffe, Begala and Carville do.

.

on that user name. Sometimes it turns up good stuff.

on how weak it makes her look.

Her team is saying they have to gain control of the DNC and the debate platform FOR her and they can't do either without trying to take down both Dean and Kerry.

getting into it with an also ran should finish her off, huh?

Kerry, Obama, and Edwards will.

the weakest link to two other strong candidates. even those two can't pull Kerry out of the depths of the polls.

Besides Obama and Edwards, is he not?

Shall I refer you to look at the polls? Becauses thats why I'm been seeing.

sticking his foot in his mouth. as Lewis Black said, he is the normal guy that couldn't win the special olympics.

God bless John Edwards and Barack Obama. Watch that frontrunner status burn before your very eyes.

time to back someone with at least some chance.

Kerry is just my personal favorite....

I don't pick one candidate, and bash all the rest like some people.

Cough.

if Hillary does not run. I bash other candidates in response to bashing I see of mine.

When Edwards got in questioning whether I should jump ship or not.

Gore is my second choice. But Edwards has a lot of potential.

I'll stick with Kerry though.

if Kerry is the nominee i will support him with everything i have.

Do you really think the American people are comfortable with the Bush/Clinton merry-go-round for another FOUR/EIGHT years? Think about it. Bill covers for Poppy...Junior covers for Bill...

BTW- Junior is well known for his vindictive behavior. He destroys anyone who is in political opposition. Why didn't he go after Bill when he had the chance? Especially considering Bill "robbed" his poppy of a second term. Think about it.

So, I guess I'll take your advice and support "someone with at least some chance"...
Not someone who has shared OUR White House with the BFEE for 20+ years. Seriously- how STUPID do they think we are?

that's for damn sure

I'd be happy if none of those that voted for the war win the primary.

But I don't count anyone else out.

I don't even count Hillary out, even though I'd rather not vote for her.

except for Kerry. :evilgrin:

Which Hillary supporters like this k_jerome hold so dearly to their heart as 'proof' Hillary will win.

I'm looking for something meaningful, but nothing so far.

Look, Hillary is a fine Senator. She'd be a good President. But she won't be the nominee for President.

Maybe Kerry won't either. I'll admit that, but I also know I don't pick one candidate and bash the rest. I like John Kerry, so what?

You like Hillary. I'm fine with that, but I get tired of seeing you fill DU full of Democrat bashing for candidates not named Clinton.

Isn't 2008 fun? k_jerome, would you like a beer?

:toast:

kinda off caucasian lingo. sorry for the confusion.

you can like John Kerry. please continue to do so. you are whining because i posted in a thread bashing HRC or her team as some so lamely contend. get over it and grow a thicker skin. if i responded to every anti Hillary thread, i would be typing non-stop. i do not see Hillary supporters whining and crying 1/10th as much as other candidates supporters.

and i don't fill DU with bashing. i selectively bash.

I've seen you bash Obama and Edwards. So you bash Hillary's toughest opponents according to the polls? Ok, I get it. And I see the writing on the wall.

And I will continue to like John Kerry, I hope you will too. Even with your opinion about his 2008 run. Both are fine Senators, Kerry and Clinton. We obviously just have different opinions about which one could run the country, and has more of a chance. None taken, this is politics. But I want to be on record saying I bashed Hillary's team NOT Hillary.

i have expressed serious doubt that white people will vote for him. i guess you can say i bashed white people. i expressed support for Edwards as my second choice.

i like Kerry. i just don't think he should run.

About people being sexist towards Hillary.

And I respect your views on Kerry, and I know many of good Democrats even in my family whom feel the same about Kerry.

I personally won't count him out until it's all said and done. Call me stubborn, but I feel a lot of loyalty to John.

i know that is a hurdle. she is my chosen candidate. Obama is not, so my goal it to see her win the nomination.

My views of Kerry may be overstated in my support of my own candidate. He is a good and honorable man, and I agree with most of the things he says. Again, he is not my chosen candidate. I will attempt to defend her when I can, i.e. when she is bashed. If you see that as bashing other candidates, it probably is. But, if you count the anti-Hillary threads vs the other candidates, there is a disparity.

She and THEY do not want Kerry on stage with her for the debates.

If she was confident as YOU wish to believe, then she would WELCOME the opportunity to face the winner of the last series of debates.

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

video games to say ANYthing pertinent or substantial. She never has to worry about making any waves unless she falls off that freakin' tightrope she's straddling.

and, with any luck, that'll never happen --- Obama's gonna take care of that which is why I like him

at all.

Just Democrats not named Hillary.

After October 31, 2006, I don't consider her much of a "Democrat".

Not one I'd vote for, anyway. Unless I was in NY voting for Senator, cuz there really is no other choice in that case.

.

Why would she "fear" the head of the DNC? He's going to strongly support anyone who's our nominee, whether it's Hillary or someone else. He has no dog in the fight until then. Plus, Bill Clinton is a supporter of the 50-state strategy. And, I'm sorry, but Kerry is the last Dem Hillary needs to be afraid of. Obama and Edwards have bypassed him as atrong 2008 candidates. I like Kerry, but his campaign in 2004 was very disappointing, particularly his failure to fight back against the Swift Boaters. If Kerry were Hillary's major competition in 2008, she'd have the nomination sown up in weeks. Edwards, Hillary and Obama are the future. Kerry had his chance.

ever attacked so pointedly the opponents they fear LEAST?

Enough!

If debates were a significant part of the campaign then Kerry would've won hands down; however, we all know that's not the case.

I'm not slamming Kerry but unfortunately he may not have the support he had in 2004. Only you, blm, and a few others. The Democrats I know are looking at others mainly Obama and Clark. Kerry? They felt he had his chance despite of the climate and, yes, the unsecured voting in Ohio.

of the debates to show she has what it takes to outclass and outposition an accomplished opponent.

But....she doesn't, does she? Her team certainly doesn't believe she can outmatch him on stage over the series of debates, do they?

Just because Kerry edged Bush in 2 out of 3 debates doesn't mean he'd stand a chance with Hillary. Heck, anyone could beat a moron like Bush, two out of three. Just to be fair, though, I think if Hillary and Kerry debated 10 times, Kerry would win once, maybe twice at the most. Hillary would take the rest decisively.

and she ran against a nutcase this time.

Kerry won all three debates - as even the media said at the time - he also beat Edwards and the others desively in 2004.

The most competitive debates he had were with Weld - and Kerry won all of them. There was a reason he was the star of Yale's debate team from at at least his Sophomore year. Brinkley noted in his book that they never lost.

And anyone who thinks Bush even won ONE debate is no political analyst I would listen to.

I'm unaffiliated with anyone so don't put me in the Hillary camp. Second, I know Kerry's history as a debator. While excellent, we have seen that debates don't decide who wins. If that was the case, we would be saying "President Kerry" but we're not. Issues are important, however, Kerry lacks the intangibles to win. Yes, I have no doubt on a one-to-one basis, Kerry may be charming and warm but it doesn't come across well (then again, Hillary doesn't have it either). It just doesn't.

Also, I know you'll bring up the big crowds Kerry drew at the end of his campaign; however, Mondale and Dukakis drew big crowds too, didn't help them out at all.

first debate the Swift Boat attacks were causing more backlash against Bush than helping him. Once Kerry showed that he was competent -- the Swift boat attacks rang hollow.

Kerry hurt himself in the third debate by mentioning Cheney's daughter---not that it was an invalid point---just the way it was played in the media

The well timed Orange Terror Alerts however trumped everything when the Dems got momentum.

Mondale was absolutely counted out before the first debate with Reagan. He got a boost from the debate but it wasn't sustained.

Dukakis did well in the debate with Bush but he doomed himself with the flat answer on the hypothetical murder of his wife.

Gore hurt himself in the debate---He did well on issues but (like with Kerry) two things happened. The debates were spun to Bushs favor in the media and Bush did better than reported expectations (also media spin).

Sharpton seriously wounded all the democratic candidates in the primary debates except Kerry. Like all of this you it is just speculation why, but I always got the impression Dean was done when Sharpton skewered him in a pre-caucus/primary debate. That started his downward momentum more than the scream.

I am relying on memory ---- so I don't discount alternative interpretations.

I hope your sadly mistaken, my dear.

The wrecking crew that is Team Hillary knows that the only way such a flawed candidate like her can win is by smearing and back stabbing her opponents, real and perceived.

Hillary may have the brains, but she lacks the charm of Big Dog, and the core values of Dennis Kucinich. She is a bucket full of polonium-210!

Hillary: do something about your hair! It always looks like crap! Why don't you use Nancy Pelosi's hairdresser. Now, that's a doo to be proud of!

I must say, I got a good laugh out of that. And I agree. Hehe.

I would really love to hear Hillary talk about Iraq more openly, and stop hiding. We need to know, and deserve to know.

Kerry and Edwards both said they regret their IWR vote. And Hillary is hiding.

And thats not bashing her, thats expecting her to stand up and state what she believes!

I'll bet you do your hair just like hers, don't ya.

Hillary's got the look, yeah, that most American ladies try to emulate...and that all men really go for...not that she doesn't turn women on, too, or anything. :smoke:

Hillary says that Bush mismanaged the war. This is like having Ahmadinejad complain that Hitler mismanaged the Holocaust.

The late Pope John Paul II warned Bush that if America went into Iraq, it would do so without G-d. Clearly this was a core issue, not a question of war management, not just to the Polish Pope but to millions of people across the world that demonstrated against the war.

....the kind of look that inspires. ooh la la

about her never supporting the war.

"Kerry had his chance"..like no gets another chance that has gone up against the mighty fascistmedia propoganda machine and got spit out.

I call bullshit.

"own" all the organizations in the Democratic party EXCEPT the DNC, and they were working on a parallel list to work around it. It's not a conspiracy theory. Dean does his own thing and isn't specifically on their team. They don't like that because it requires more work. They would have preferred to put one of their own in that position, but sadly for them, we did well in the '06 elections and Dean gets to keep his job.

The attack on Kerry probably goes back to Hillary's no doubt annoyance at being booed at the Take Back American conference while he was cheered. That got some media play and made her look bad. So in October she decided to side with Karl Rove over a fellow Dem who was under attack ONE WEEK before an important election, and she lost my vote that day. Now if she's the nominee I will only vote for her as ABR (Anybody but the Republican). And the Republican is going to have to be VERY bad.

It's not a conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton wants an easy primary run. Everyone wants that. But it is interesting that her people are going after Kerry first. You'd think they'd go after Edwards who's had a good couple of weeks. That's what's facinating.

I agree with BLM's post.

Kerry lost cuz he ran a crappy campaign and didn't fight for the vote like he promised --- blaming others is just pathetic.

This is from The Next Hurrah, one of the blogs I trust. Contrary to what some say about me, I am pretty careful what I post and my sources. I posted this earlier.

This is devastating stuff. I never knew this.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/680



I don't know the blogger personally, but the info seems reliable.

This goes to the fact that what Dean is doing is actually reviving literally "dead" state parties, not just unorganized ones.

The poster, Sara, wrote it right after Carville went after Dean and the Clintons said they did not "authorize" it.

McAuliffe had to know all about this stuff. Why don't we?

:rofl:

:rofl:

but first I have to figure out something to sue you for. Don't forget, though, no counterclaims allowed, and any rulings in court are to be paid in terms of coffee and doughnuts only. :donut:

This is from The Next Hurrah, one of the blogs I trust. Contrary to what some say about me, I am pretty careful what I post and my sources. I posted this earlier.

This is devastating stuff. I never knew this.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/680



I don't know the blogger personally, but the info seems reliable.

This goes to the fact that what Dean is doing is actually reviving literally "dead" state parties, not just unorganized ones.

The poster, Sara, wrote it right after Carville went after Dean and the Clintons said they did not "authorize" it.

McAuliffe had to know all about this stuff. Why don't we?

and this was in 2000 and 2002, not just 2004 which people want to use as a failure point. Kerry would have won with all his votes COUNTED if the party hadn't been so collapsed and nonexistent in so many states and crucial counties in red and swing states,

I think all these people know how STRONG these two men actually are and why they target them almost exclusively in their efforts to seize control for themselves and the Coverup wing of the Democratic Party.

Party Heirarchy....and those of us who found out how bad it was after getting involved after 2000 had and still are having problems. Which is exactly why Dean keeps getting trashed. I've posted about it on DU before...the experience we had in my state. I get tired of posting the details over and over, though.

in the back of Flower shops?

a Democratic Governor, Democratic House, Democratic Senate, and all but one or two statewide elected officials (called Council of State here) Democratic. Only on the federal level did we fall apart in NC and one guess who was responsible for that. Under Dean we went from a 6 - 7 division in Congress to a 7 - 6 division. We can within a few hundred votes of an 8 - 5 division.

is trying to claim now.

Ed Gillespie must be laughing his head off at McAuliffe's bullshit.

They had already written us off for Kerry's race even with Edwards on the ticket so the only door to door we did was for Bowles. I offered, repeatedly, to drive on election day provided they give me enough notice to get a substitute for work. My car held 9 people. I got no call. Oh, and my county was supposedly a targetted one. I hate to think what the non targetted ones were like. Our offices were off the beaten path but at least were decent, I will give them that.

In 2006 we were a back water, no Senate race, no competative House race (the two competative races were in Western NC) so it was sensible that we didn't do much.

instead of the BS campaign put forward by Kerry --- keep blaming everbody else for Kerry's shortcomings, it just makes you look out of touch with reality. There's no way in hell people would allow that to happen again. Ain't gonna happen. Keep dreamin'.

Biding his time.

He's the one man besides Kerry I really hope gets in.

If so, it's going to be a tough call for this Kerry supporter.

So if Kerry doesn't get in, I *really* hope Gore does.

If Kerry decides to opt out, Gore is my second choice.

Like he's hiding something.

I think he's waiting to see how this unfolds early on, and then *might* jump in.

If Kerry doesn't run, I'll definitely join the Gore camp.

;-)

Cautious ;)

I don't blame him. Running for any office is no picnic and running for president is exhausting.

I'm for Gore if he throws his hat in.

man, that's a really snake oil thing to say.

.

But to each his/her own :)

blm thanks for all you do posting on behalf of the Kerrycrat community :patriot:

You are one of the good and honest breeds, my friend!

Interestingly, Hillary has pissed me off to no end since 9/11, with the exception of her asking what Bush knew of the attacks. She's lurching so far to the right that soon Bill will look like a Marxist next to her.

Hillary's DLC minions have made me ill at the thought of a Hillary run - the behavior of Carville, Begala, and McAuliffe shows that the corporatist wing of the party would rather see Republican victories than a victory by the grassroots Democrats (ie, the people). There is absolutely no way in hell I will ever vote for her in the primary now, and if she's the nominee I'm going to get absolutely shitfaced on Election Day.

Kerry has impressed me more since his 2004 loss, but let's remember what it was - a loss. He probably won Ohio, and there was likely fraud on a widespread level, but if he had shown some of the spine he's been showing since then, we wouldn't only have a Democratic congress to gloat about.

I have mixed feelings about Kerry - He was perfectly nice when I met him and for the richest member of Congress cares a great deal about people less fortunate, however I see his electability as a problem.

As I'm a New Englander, Connecticut-born and Connecticut-bred, let me be one of the first to say that there is a definite negative stereotype about everything New England-related. Just about everyone I've met outside the Northeast, of all different stripes (including Rastas and self-proclaimed "liberals") have this view that everyone from New England is uptight, snooty, pretentious, disrespectful, greedy, and born into families with lots of money. Granted, most of them have never even set foot in New England, or even New York for that matter, but ignorance doesn't matter to them. It sucks, it's negatively impacted my ability to form relationships out here, and it's totally fucking stupid, but the stereotype exists, and any candidate we run from New England had better be charismatic enough to shatter people's preconceived notions about those six little states in the U.S.A's northeastern corner.

That being said, there is a huge mountain to climb for New England candidates, and while I still wouldn't mind terribly having Kerry as the nominee, I'm just not sure he has the charisma to reach the summit.

open government wing of the Democratic party.

He also brought in 10-15 million MORE votes than Dems got in 2000. That is why the revisionist s from the Coverup wing of the Dem party have been working overtime to blame him for everything since Nov 3, 2004. If Kerry was as bad as they claim, BushInc wouldn't have HAD to suppress and steal votes all over the country.

Kerry was good and THAT is why so many of the establishment Dems didn't lift a finger to help him in 2004 and work relentlessly to tear at him even today.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

"What Kerry is that few are is a top voice and member of the anti-corruption, open government wing of the Democratic party."

Granted - too bad he didn't have the testicular fortitude to shout that from the rooftops in 2004. A lot of DUers here are more vocal and passionate about supporting Kerry than he was about his own candidacy. Instead it was Vietnam this, Vietnam that, John Kerry reporting for duty with a whiffle ball bat. A lot of voters got sick of all the Vietnam crap during the campaign, particularly since many of the new voters (myself included) weren't even born yet during that time.

Keeping his mouth largely shut about his role in uncovering the Iran-Contra and BCCI scandals made it that much easier for the Swiftboat liars to score points. It also made it easier for the "What has John Kerry done in the Senate?" talking point to gain traction.

"He also brought in 10-15 million MORE votes than Dems got in 2000."

Oh, please. You say that like it was John Kerry himself who personally got all the new voters to turn out.

Newsflash: the U.S. gains population every year. In 2000 it was about 280 million. Now it's at about 300 million. That means more people are of voting age, more immigrants are registered, etc. Hence, more people vote. It wasn't all the magic of John Kerry.

The increase in Democratic voters happens almost every election year save for Mondale-style landslides, and is never solely attributed to the candidate. Your argument is absolutely silly.

"That is why the revisionist s from the Coverup wing of the Dem party have been working overtime to blame him for everything since Nov 3, 2004."

Look, I'm no DLC fan. I'm no Hillary fan. I think Dean deserves more credit than Rahm for our 2006 victory. I'm no fan of the "Coverup wing", whatever that is. From the posts and polls I've read here, my political ideology makes most DUers look like Rush Limbaugh (and that's saying a lot, on DU).

But Kerry had problems mastering the soundbite, which is the accepted medium in political discourse today. Statements such as the infamous "I voted for the war before I voted against the war", "I'm against gay marriage but the states should decide" and "I'm a little bit liberal, a little bit conservative, a little bit libertarian and a little bit Green" are NOT soundbite-friendly and were bad moves on his part. Yet the DUers who worship at the altar of John Kerry conveniently ignore or forget these blunders and act as if he ran a flawless campaign, which he clearly didn't. His slow response to the godawful Swiftboat ads, coupled with his ability to add extra nuances to every little thing he said, definitely hurt his campaign.

"If Kerry was as bad as they claim, BushInc wouldn't have HAD to suppress and steal votes all over the country."

If Kerry was as good as you claim, the 2004 election would've looked like a re-enactment of Ukraine's Orange Revolution.

"Kerry was good and THAT is why so many of the establishment Dems didn't lift a finger to help him in 2004 and work relentlessly to tear at him even today."

Yes, they do continue to trash him, that much is clear. Let me also be clear - given a Hillary vs. Kerry contest I'd pick Kerry without question. But he caused plenty of self-inflicted wounds and damaged his own candidacy on numerous occasions.

IMO, we can do better than either candidate. In fact, given the alarming weather, the war situation, and the admission that Exxon-Mobil pays millions of dollars to prop up bogus pro-pollution think tanks, the person in the best position right now is Al Gore.

However, all this is academic at the moment. Neither Gore, Clinton or Kerry have decided to run yet, and of the current group of declared candidates I prefer John Edwards - the man John Kerry trusted most with the job of the presidency besides himself.

Kennedy 34,220,984
Nixon 34,108,157
1960 68,832,482

Johnson 43,127,041........8,906,057 (more than Kennedy)
Goldwater 27,175,754
1964 70,639,284
1,806,802 more

Nixon 31,783,783..........-11,343,258 (less than Johnson)
Humphrey 31,271,839
1968 73,199,998
2,560,714 more

Nixon 47,169,911..........15,386,128 (more than last)
McGovern 29,170,383
1972 77,744,027
4,544,029 more

Carter 40,831,881.........-6,338,030 (less than Nixon)
Ford 39,148,634
1976 81,531,584
3,787,557 more

Reagan 43,903,230.........3,071,349 (more than Carter)
Carter 35,480,115
1980 86,509,678
4,978,094 more

Reagan 54,455,472........10,552,242 (more than last)
Mondale 37,577,352
1984 92,653,233
6,143,555 more

Bush 48,886,597...........-5,568,875 (less than Reagan)
Dukakis 41,809,476
1988 91,594,686
-1,058,547 less

Clinton 44,909,806.........-3,976,791 (less than Bush)
Bush 39,104,550
1992 104,423,923
12,829,237 more

Clinton 47,400,125.........2,490,319 (more than last)
Dole 39,198,755
1996 96,275,401
-8,148,522 less

Bush 50,460,110...........3,059,985 (more than Clinton)
Gore 51,003,926...........3,603,801 (more than Clinton)
2000 105,417,258
9,141,857 more

Bush 62,040,610..........11,580,500 (more than last)
Kerry 59,028,111...........8,024,185 (more than Gore)
................................11,627,986 (more than Clinton)
2004 122,293,332
16,876,074 more

It was ABB big time in 2004 --- Kerry was a huge disappointment as the nominee. How's the oxygen level in that bubble you live in? Might want to kick it up a notch.

.

waaaaaaaaasa

for your personal attacks that are un-needed and unwanted?

even though blm keeps babbling about-anticorruption, Kerry also has distinguished himself as being a terrible campainger. All three voted for the IWR.


Kucinich -- Gore -- Obama are the ones to look at.

Kerry that is. Not only that, but he's given real leadership on the issue and offered his plans and two cents. You can't ask for much more then that.

Obama wasn't in the Senate when they voted, so we'll never know how he would have voted. Kucinich, not a chance. And Gore, I can't say one bad word about the man.

The pressure needs to be placed on Hillary about her views on the IWR however.

There are plenty of others to consider seriously.

Then "my bad"

If I were a Senator at the beginning of the war, I would have voted for it too. Does that make me less of a Democrat? I now know the truth, and accept I was wrong.

I hardly think it's right to count out candidates because they fucked up on voting for the IWR, especially with someone like Kerry whose called for accountability from the beginning and has been a leading voice for a real direction in Iraq.

to just erase it like it's no big deal. Whatevah. Make all kinds of excuses, Kerry is just as guilty as Edwards and Hillary, and they all suck for doing what they did. Kerry and Edwrads are big phonies for all their backtracking. Big freakin phonies and it just makes me sick that people are so willing to lap it up. No way. Give me somebody that had nothing to do with this crazy shit.

And my friend, this whole war issue is touchy.

Kerry didn't make excuses. He admitted he was wrong. But even when he voted to give the President the permission to use force, he also called for a lot of things Bush didn't do. Like developing a plan for peace, etc.

And Kerry's held the Administration accountable since day one of the war. He was one of the most passionate people calling for Rumsfeld to resign. And he hasn't been a cheerleader for this war by any stretch of the imagination.

Kerry's a war hero, and better yet a Foreign Relations guru. I will not count him out for a mistake he's apologized for, and a war he's spoken out against since the beginning.

Doesn't matter if he copped to it -- of course he did, AFTER the election and when the polls made it safe. I don't understand why people are so blind to that phony timing. Whatevah.

He already showed he doesn't have good judgement to run this country --- neither does Hillary or Edwards or anybody else that showed bad judgement.

Funny how after the war became so unpopular in the polls how some of these IWR voters had a change of heart. "I voted aye but I shouldn't have. There, now I'm forgiven, damnit"

Then again, wasn't it Kerry who said 2 years after he voted that he would have voted for the IWR yet AGAIN even if he had known then that no weapons of mass destruction would be found?

man, I don't see how that doesn't bother some people here --- both he and Edwards --- makes me sick

Now please respect the rest of our opinions.

Kerry brought in 60-65 million votes in 2004. An increase of 10-15 million votes from the previous record set in 2000.

You don't increase numbers by that much unless you did what you needed to do. Too bad DNC never secured the election process in the four years they were charged with doing so.

you go right ahead and alert on me --- good luck with that. Wether you like it or not -- and you obvoiusly don't --- Kerry sucked as a candidate. He may have made a good president but he has proved he could never overcome the obstacle of an election to get there. People voted ABB in 2004. Dean would have kicked ass --- Kerry blew it.

Kerry ain't campaign material -- he proved that -- and please feel free to alert on me if you think that truth is an attack. Otherwise dont' even try to tell me or anbody else what to do.

As fine a senator as he is and as honorable a man as he is, John Kerry was just as pathetic as a campaigner. Nobody ever was stiffer. Mainstream democrats will make sure John Kerry never runs for President again. Maybe the Kerry loyalists on DU can have a mock election just for fun with him as their candidate though.

It was insulting to a good man who is being attacked from all sides.

Fair is fair. And the people in the party, both parties, with media access have decided to hurt him.

They did the same thing to some in 03 and 04.

I don't think it is funny, I think it is very sad.

I intend to keep pointing out when people are being unjustly treated. I hate to think the election is already decided in 08, but I do fear it is.

Wasn't trying to be rude.

Why isn't it rude, though, when it's Hillary taking the bashing...or her supporters?

Unfair bashing is different from constructive criticism. Which needs to be taught to a lot of posters here at DU with their own personal agendas to attack candidates that they aren't supporting. It seems be a growing trend.

Three very prominent people connected to her campaign, people who recently had dinner at her home, people who have great media access...two of whom are CNN consultatnts....are launching attacks.

McAuliffe appears to be after Kerry the most...though maybe after reading his book we will find more. Carville and Begala since Crossfire in 2003 have been attacks dogs against Dean, and even his wife. I was reading some of the transcripts from Crossfire 2003 today, and it was horrible. I would not post them.

Now not long before the election, Begala said that Dean was hiring people to stand around picking their noses in states like Utah and Nevada. Even before the election both of them accused Dean of wasting money, which has been proven not to be true. But they just keep on.
After the election Carville called for him to be fired. We have just won 29 or 30 seats and took the Senate.

Carville continued his attackes on CNN. Then this week Begala started.

They did not produce wins 2000, 2002, or 2004, and they seem to be placing blame.

They are all very close to the Clintons. Hillary has said all 3 will working with her campaign in some capacity.

Carville says they did not tell him to hush when he attacked Dean, and then he said "silence is golden." He said it wasn't hard to figure out.

It seems to be Kerry and Dean being hit the worst right now. Does Hillary have a hand, or Bill? If they don't, let them speak up.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/838

I don't know what's true, but indications are they know and are not speaking up. The GQ article is fascinating.

Would you mind showing me some proof of that? And please don't post Carville's hypothetical question about Harold Ford to make your case. Please provide me with a valid link that shows Carville called for Dean to be fired.

http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4031

"Best Come-Back Kid = Howard Dean. Back in 2004, his presidential campaign went down in flames with the infamous Iowa “scream.” But as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Dean relentlessly pursued a Fifty State Strategy to revive the party. Mainstream elites mocked him at first, but it paid huge dividends in the November election – making him one of this year’s biggest electoral winners. James Carville’s post-election demands for his ouster came off as absurd, earning Carville the title for “Worst Political Pundit.”

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9073.html

"Carville v. Dean
Posted 3:33 pm | Printer Friendly | Spotlight
Digg this • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

What on earth has gotten into James Carville?

Democratic strategist James Carville says his party should dump Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic Party because of incompetence."

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/11/15/carville_rumsfeldian/

"Carville: Dean's leadership "Rumsfeldian"
James Carville's plan to replace Howard Dean with failed Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr. as chairman of the Democratic National Committee may have failed, but that doesn't seem to have stopped the former Clinton strategist's campaign against Dean.

Today, Carville is off telling reporters that Dean's leadership is "Rumsfeldian in its incompetence," and that if Dean had just listened to the often-abrasive Southerner and spent $6 million the DNC had on hand then the Democrats could have picked up as many as 50 House seats, roughly 20 more than they've won to date. And yes, Carville still wants to see Dean replaced. "

That is only 3, there are pages and pages. The part about Ford was not as you say bogus...that was only in your own mind. Carville called for Dean to be dumped and replaced with Harold Ford.

:applause: I was looking for the links, but you beat me to it.

He said Dean should be held 'accountable' and compared Dean's reign as Rumsfeldian. And then suggest a what if scenario about Harold Ford.

If you don't take that as him saying he doesn't want Dean out, your crazy!

You and I both know that Carville asked a hypothetical question of what if Harold Ford was DNC chair. Any of his detractors are taking that question and running with it.

When you come up with that link showing where Carville called for Dean to be fired, let me know.

They were Carvilles actual comments. Whats your point about getting them from blogs?

This isn't about the Ford quote. Who gives a shit about that quote. He said Dean should be held accountable and compared him to Rumsfeld.

Thats the bigger issue. He wants Dean out, plain and simple. No way to spin it!

to do with opinion - there are plenty of opinions on this board about Kerry and I don't call those opinions attacks - you use derogatory language to describe madfloridian, me, and any Kerry supporter who replies to you - THAT is a personal attack. Attacks on Kerry are not personal attacks, so don't pretend that is the issue here.

You both post rumors from blogs and whatever other crap you can find in your non stop crusade to throw Hillary under the bus to try to lift up Kerry. You bash her and then complain that Kerry is being bashed. The only time I comment is when you bash others pimping for your candidate and then pretend to be innocent.

So in response to your accusation of being picked on: whatevah!! People aren't blind or stupid and I know that doesn't fit into your game plan. 2 bad. Keep trashing others 4 Kerry and youre' going to get called on it. Ha-ha-ha.

But I rarely ever bash the women.

And I'm for Kerry. Whats your point?

No supporter of any candidate is fully innocent of not bashing another candidate. But I think some posters at DU need to learn the difference between "smelling blood" bashing and constructive criticism.

I bashed Hillary's team, not her.

part of this nation's ACTUAL history - or are you going to keep pretending he had no power to pursue outstanding matters in IranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate and CIA drugrunning when he took office? I guess you aren't AWARE that CIA drugrunning story came out in 1996?

And I notice that you want people to believe that Robert Parry and the congressional records in the National Security Archives are just bogus internet sites. I suppose Gary Webb was some crackpot conspiracy theorist, too?

about Kerry's actual history are truth at the same time exaggerating Bill Clinton (hey -- werent' we talking about Hillary? Oh ya, that's right, any dig on any Clinton is OK by you) -- then you better quit yer bellyaching. A good start for you would be getting your "history" from actual history instead from blogs which are opinion that spew a skewed view of actual history.

Either way, none of the idiots that voted for the war deserve to be president. But if you want to continue to try to scream "unfair" when people say how they feel about Kerry at the same time pushing your skewed view of history and slamming other potential candidates unfairly, then you better be prepared for a LONG-ASS primary season. Your game is laid bare --- deal with it.

the many people at DU that Robert Parry and Gary Webb were/are fantasists and not investigative reporters, and that the National Security Archives containing the congressional records should be avoided as a resource for the historic record.

Heh....good luck with that. If you think you can sell DU that Parry, Webb, and National Security Archives are somehow bogus sources, then you will be one hell of a salesman.

you are a piece of work

...makes a lot of us "read but infrequently post" people sick. As a result, there is less participation here than should be. After all, who wants to be called a zillion names and be accused of false agendas just because they have an opinion? Who wants to be jeered at for having a conflicting opinion, as if all conflicting opinions are laughable?

Perhaps that is the purpose....bullying others to amplify their own voices. Regardless, posters who hurl personal attacks rightfully earn a lot of ignores. Frankly, I would like to see more tombstones for repeated and egregious behavior.

"Get a thick skin" does not contribute to the discourse and should not serve to excuse rude and otherwise bullying behavior.

And it looks twice as ugly coming from a "progressive".

The funny thing is...a few people who hurl personal attacks have thanked me for defending them against personal attacks from others in the past. You would think that they would learn.

I am sickened by the nonstop attack against Democrats here and always to boost a failed candidate. Knock THAT off and we'll be making some progress. Otherwise expect opposition.

Wait, isn't that EXACTLY what you've been doing?

Why yes, yes it is!

And buddy boy, you like Gore huh? He's a 'failed' candidate. I like Gore and Kerry. Neither are failed candidates. Both had the White House stolen from under their grip's.

& you and the rest of the Kerry cheerleaders can cheerlead til you blue in the face and it won't help --- we intend to rally hard against all of those that voted for the war by reminding people of that vote and to disregard all your double-talk trying to cover it up.

Gore didn't support the war, or Obama, or Kucinich. They are have our seal of approval. Don't even think of trying their names in with those that voted for the war.

I'm glad you and your group stand for something--GOOD!

This is America, support what you want and who you want! But please, please stop your disrespect of supporters of certain candidates.

and we will work toward that goal in spite of you trying to shove Kerry down DU's throat --- at least we have moral conviction guiding our efforts and aren't subject to cult of personality

Unlike some posters here I defend Kerry when I see fit, but I don't go out of my way to bash other candidates.

John Kerry has spoken openly and honestly since the beginning of the IWR. And when he voted to give the President the authorization to use force, he outlined a bunch of things Bush should do. Bush ignored Kerry. And Kerry has said he regrets voting to give the President that power, because the President didn't use that power in the way Kerry thought he would.

Senator Kerry knows the price of war, whether in the IWR or as an anti-war protestor and leader in the 70's, the man's a foreign policy guru and former war veteran. He may have had bad judgment in voting to give Bush that power, but he outlined to Bush what he had to do. And the Administration ignored Kerry, and the Democrats.

And we've since found out we were all mislead, and the war's obviously been a big pile of shit. And Kerry has been one of the top voices speaking against the direction of the war, and that's the lead issue he brought to the campaign in 2004.

Kerry voted the wrong way. As did Hillary and Edwards. Kerry and Edwards have admitted they were wrong in their vote, Hillary has not. And as far as Obama, he wasn't in the Senate at the time. We'll never know how he would have voted.

I'm not asking you to forgive, and forget. Soldier on, my friend. This is America, fight for whatever you believe. But don't jump on my case, and everyone else who supports the foreign policy guru and war hero, John Kerry!

Repeating this tired and debunked talking point you've come up with is going to make you look even sillier.

in 2004 was significantly more than at any other time.

Kerry was not a good candidate --- people just hated Bush

Dean, Edwards, Kerry, or Clark.

If they would have lost, people would have been bitching ABB.

Kerry had to bring something to the table to those against Bush, even if people voted lesser of two evils.

Kerry made mistakes on the campaign trail, he's not perfect. As did Gore in 2000.

However, Nancy Pelosi may prove to be such a great leader in the House we might have to draft her.