Obama campaign: Senator John Kerry just sent out this email...

I'd like to kick Kerry's polite ass for 2004. Thank GOODNESS he wised up.

Obama should have serogates begin responding instead of getting in the fray himself.

It's a great strategy.

Anybody ever find out what happened to those 20,000 lawyers he had watching to polls???

but too bad he never read any of the ones we sent with links to the voting irregularities.

Sorry, I just can't take the guy seriously anymore. He won the presidency, just refused to collect his prize (and ours.)

there were no votes to count. These studies all relate to Optical Scan voting systems, and the ease with which one can alter an election without leaving any evidence of tampering. I can only imagine what the studies on DRE's show.


And If you care about your vote counting in November, you can contact your Representatives and ask that they co-sponsor Rush Holt's bill. A letter to the editor couldn't hurt either.

when push came to shove in Kerry's campaign, 10,000 went skiing and 10,000 went sailboarding.

...even though I think experience suggests otherwise.

of the entire nation about Bill Clinton campaigning fro Hillary.."He's troubled!" waawaa... Oparah...Michelle..John Kerry...What a f*cking wimp..

(including her husband)... But Obama can't have people working on correcting the record - so that he can focus on getting his message out, and the issues?

lies and the Clintons are careful parsers. Don't like the facts? Bellow about the tone. Don't like the tone? Demand literal accuracy.

You think the opposition in the general is going to place nice? Grow up!

Whining and lying is Bill's forte.

to swell w/emotion. It was a powerful performance, in a sincere sense a demonstration of her character. Your reaction says volumes about you, but facts are facts.

Bravo. And it might say something about you that you bought it hook, line, and sinker. You say it was sincere, many did not think so.

.

Because Hillary hasn't had anyone prominent doing her fighting for her... :eyes:

Things might have ended better.

I'm hoping for a better fighter this time.

Too bad she's a regular Monica around neocons.

:-)

Oh yeah, none. :hi:

:-)

Yeah she's a real fighter -- against fellow Dems.

Did you think you had a point?

That's why a disgusting bottom feeder like the candidate you're supporting isn't worth the dust the wind blows in Kerry's face.

of politics.

Go back and lick your wounds.

But then I have a conscience.

The Clintons have used some very ugly tactics in this race. You yourself have accused Kerry of not fighting - by which you seem to mean not sinking to this type of in the gutter behavior.

that both that bill and the Biden bill needed substantially more work and the vote would not be in the near future. The votes were then brought the next day, when Obama was already in NH, where there was a debate that evening. He did immediately release that he would vote "no" if he were there. The vote was not close. I think there were over 70 votes for it. Flying back, if there were time, would have been a political act - but one he possibly should have done.

can't give him credit for not voting for IWR - because he never had the opportunity to vote - so we'll never know - but given most of his actions since entering the Senate I'm willing to bet he would have voted for IWR too just like so many of the dumb ass Dems who listened to their advisers - you know John Kerry, who was a leader in the anti Viet Nam War effort - yeah that made sense for him to vote for IWR - oh that's right he was going to run for President - Hillary Clinton - no business voting for it - oh but she was eying the White House too - oh and John Edwards no business voting for it - hmmm but he was running for President too oh my - on and on and on I could go with all of them.

And by the way how did Barack Obama vote on that Kyl LIEberman Iran thing oh - that's right HE DIDN'T because he didn't have the balls to vote one way or the other. Coward....

Kerry spoke out against invading in early 2003, HRC didn't.

Not to mention it was Kerry/Feingold not Clinton/Feingold. She called it "cut and run" publicly, and privately fought it's introduction because the Clintons preferred the Democrats not push for change in Iraq for fear it could hurt politically. Kerry was FAR more a critic of Bush than HRC. Kerry was even one of the 4 co-sponsors of Feingold's resolution to hold Bush in contempt - HRC wasn't. Who led the attempt to filibuster Alito and who fought behind the scenes against doing it. The fact is I bet if you could magically swap all HRC's votes, actions, and Senate speeches in 2005 - now with Kerry's, you would do it.

other than Cleland, Dean, Clark and a few others he did not have the support needed.

And I remember the day the DNC called for another donation and I had to tell the nice woman on the phone that I couldn't give another dollar until I saw Kerry start to fight back.

If John Kerry couldn't build more support, that was the fault of is leadership.

I plugged my nose and voted for him, but I'm not going to pretend it was fun.

He was on the right side, but what a stinker of a campaign.

because I heard several radio interviews with Kerry in the summer of 04 which began with swiftboat crap, and he kicked it down the stairs in about ten words each.

And all of us.

John fucking Kerry - the man who couldn't even beat George Bush, even after the Iraq War was clearly a loser.

Or maybe Hilly's personal fluffer George Stephanopolous?

Now tell me how unfair the system is. (Because, of course, yes, it is. But you have to win with the system you've got, not some Candyland fantasy.)

It sure wasn't Kerry, but don't bother getting up off the couch.

and reference that rather than some whiny fantasy.

Jesus, he couldn't even beat George Fucking Bush.

A strong majority of people, even those against the invasion, bought that the US had to restore stability in Iraq. Many people thought Kerry was TOO STRONG in his criticisms of Bush - especially those who came of age in WWII times. Bush was very near 50% in approval ratings - and some of the disapproval came from the Buchanan sorts - who were not winnable by any Democrat. Bush 1 was below 40% in 1992, ending at 33% in Nov.

The Clintons saw the race in 2004 as unwinable. The amazing thing is that with the media, the government (terror ratings etc)and parts of the Catholic church against him, state parties that had been allowed to decay, and weak support from the Clinton wing, he made it close enough that the Republicans had to suppress the vote. This against a sitting President in time of war.

When you are completely innocent of a charge, as Kerry was, the way you fight always was to get the truth to the media. This is what had worked successfully in every election in modern times. It is the mature, grown up thing to do, anything else looks like spin or coverup. THe swiftboats had come and been repelled twice in the spring by Kerry's excellent primary campaign.

When it surfaced in August, the media already had:
- Kerry's naval record, available to everyone on his web site. All the fitness reports were there. From the dates, it was clear they spanned the entire interval - and they were glowing.
- Doug Brinkley's book was there. He is an academic historian of sufficient reputation that he edited the Reagan diaries. He interviewed more than 100 people and looked at records of the swiftboat operations (above and beyond JK's) His accounts back JK 100%. It is interesting that, interviewed a few years before 2004, many SBVT spoke positively of Kerry - as they had in 1968 and 1969.
- The Nixon tapes show he was investigated then - 2 years after the fact - and though they were ordered "to destroy him", they did not challenge the simple fact that he was a war hero.
- All the still living men on his boats when he received any medal backed him 100%

Given that the official record backed Kerry 100%, what proof did the media ask of the SBVT? If their stories were trus, wouldn't there be some documentary evidence from that time? What was their excuse for having lied on Kerry's fitness reports? (Connections could possibly get them to not give a privileged kid the equivalent of an "F", but they certainly wouldn't give him an "A+" - look at Bush's record.) The information listed above had been enough in spring to repel them. When that didn't work immediately in August, the Kerry team gave the media a 30 plus page list of provable lies and contradiction in the SBVT's stories. The media played it as he said, they said - in some cases giving weight to the number of "them". Given the time spent on the SBVT, you would think that Kerry's addressing the issue publicly before the Firefighters Union would merit significant coverage. Yet many here had never seen it.

Compare this to any of the responses of the 1992 Clinton campaign, that is used as a gold standard for responding. Any ONE of the items the media had before 2004 was far more of a counter to the allegations than Clinton provided on ANY of his problems. In many cases, Clinton had a series of semi true defenses, until the full truth was out.

This was a media condoned character assignation. Look at how the purple heart bandaids were treated as campaign novelties. Look at how there was no outrage when the despicable Bob Dole said Kerry didn't bleed - though he still has shrapnel in his leg. You say Kerry did not fight back, but find me a campaign where the Presidential nominee got LESS support fighting charges. With Clinton, we all defended the indefensible in some cases - here people had everything they needed to fight back with - look at my (incomplete list). Where was the DNC in August when Kerry could not easily spend money? McAuliffe was off attacking Bush's TANG record - though polls showed people did not care.

how to fight.

Kerry in 2005 was not dealt the same cards as Clinton in 1992. Bill Clinton had a media more for him, than against him. He also had a President whose approval rating in mid 1992 was below 40%.

Not to mention it is sometimes someone who fought and nearly won. No one other than Kerry has fought in this environment. As I pointed out he did MORE not less than Clinton. Not to mention the attacks were on a part of his life he had every fight to be proud of and there was NO merit to the attacks. The draft story and the Genefer Flowers story were not Clinton's best moments - when they happened or in 1992 when his first impulses were to lie and scapegoat.

Why not address Kerry's message - that swiftboating needs to be fought as the despicable thing it is and he gives some ideas. We do not have the Republican echo chamber. Frankly, I prefer Kerry's ideas here to becoming swiftboaters ourself - an idea that Wolfson has entertained that I hope the Clintons reject.

Whining and lying is Bill's forte.

because if you did it is laughable beyond belief.

WE GOT YOUR BACK, SENATOR KERRY!

:patriot: :yourock: :patriot:

Check.

:thumbsup:

Right context: spreading lies for political gain. It applies to the issue raised in Kerry's email, and not only.

...the idea that Kerry thinks Obama is being swiftboated, by his own party, is a very strong message.

I am also happy to have read this post because I found a new person to add to my ignore list!

missed this.

Not suprising another nice positive Kerry-Obama thread turning into a flamewar. Go figure.


:kick:

Yeay! But wait! Was Obama a veteran?
Wasn't he caught lying on The Today Show without help from anyone?