Both * and Kerry campaigns blew off Iraq vet Rieckhoff? WTF?

This Iraq vet Rieckhoff who appeared on The Colbert Report this week had his book "Chasing Ghosts" reviewed on the HuffPost. His book sounds interesting, and I thought he was excellent on Colbert. But then I read this:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-lappe/chasing-ghosts-th_b_20381.html

WHAT??!!?? Okay, who screwed up at the Kerry campaign? Because there is no way in hell Kerry would NOT be interested in what this veteran had to say!! He has GOT to get better people next time. People who understand what is important to him, like getting feedback from veterans, especially highly intelligent ones like Rieckhoff. It's not about agreeing on every tactical point. It's about a former Wall Street guy going to Iraq, and brilliantly capturing what's happening there, and being able to share his insights. This makes me REALLY mad, that this guy was blown off. This strikes me as a mistake made by the godawful "DC Consultant" atmosphere of our party, a culture Kerry did NOT overcome last time. Never again, please. Never again should someone like this guy be shown the door and not given access. My God -- maybe he would have ended up campaigning for Kerry if they had really hit it off. This guy is no lefty, but he is honest and calls things the way he sees it. He would have added credibility to Kerry.

This was a big mistake. Maybe there is more to the story -- I'm willing to listen. But on the face of it, this is bad, bad, bad.

when Kerry was the 'presumptive nominee' and was in that weird holding pattern after the major primary contests.

I agree, they need better organization. Much better organization and one that is loyal to them. I hope we begin to see signs of that.

...interview, and and also heard part of an interview he had yesterday with Terri Gross on NPR. He guy is very articulate and passionate. I do not know what put him off on the Democratic side, but he gave me the feeling that he cherishes his independent status, and does not want to be associated or made into a standard bearer for neither of the political parties. Which is, I think, perfectly fine. He may not consider himself a democrat and he may lash some criticism that way, but 90+% of his harsh words go the other way.

But, independents vote, and many endorsed Kerry in 2004. 5 minutes of face time with Kerry could have helped our cause. Plus, I was watching him on Colbert thinking Kerry would really like this guy -- he's completely different from Kerry in demeanor, but they have similar history (the guy was on Wall Street and LEFT to serve his country, and that was even before 9/11) and both felt a need to serve their country.

I really hope that Kerry can read his book and reach out to this guy. Even if they disagree on what is to be done in Iraq. It would still be worth it.

Kerry did speak about the body armor - he had even tied to get an amendment in (I think) 2003 to pay back families who bought it. I'm pretty sure he spoke of VA funding and he's always been a force for PTSD treatment. It may have been that the campaign wanted to control the message and that other parts of Rieckhoff's message (if there were any) were not the direction they wanted to go. It might have been even that the campaign rejected him to avoid a JK 1971 minnie me.

I agree that given his stated issues, I really can't see Kerry pushing him away. He did have the handsome, young MA soldier who spoke at Faneuil Hall in Vets for Kerry. (I would remember Hackett - it could be that Rieckhoff seemed, rightly or wrongly, to campaign people like someone who might backfire.)

all figured their had to be more to it than what was being suggested.

The oher stff in Source watch was great too - below the (most relevant ones you posted) they had none other than, Tony Snow with a very snarky commentary:

"Tony Snow wrote May 4, 2004, in the Jewish World Review: "While we’re talking about poseurs, what about 1st Lt. Paul Rieckhoff? Rieckhoff delivered last weekend’s Democratic response to the president’s radio address – an address quickly posted on the John Kerry website. If Rieckhoff doesn’t have Kerryesque political ambitions, I’ll be stunned. Upon returning home from a ten-month stint in Iraq, he quickly contacted his alma mater, Amherst College (where he was the 1998 student body president and where he delivered a speech last month), CBS (which featured him on 60 Minutes), and the Kerry campaign (which helped sign him up for the radio address.) I have no doubt the lieutenant has expressed frustrations of soldiers, who don’t like getting shorted on basic supplies. The problem with this radio address, which Rieckhoff says he wrote himself, is that it copies almost verbatim from the Kerry and Democratic-party scripts.

"He complains about the president’s May 1, 2003 speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, claiming falsely that the president had declared, 'Mission Accomplished!' While the president seemed naively confident about the future, he also noted, 'We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We’re bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous…. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done.' ... More to the point, he never used the words, 'Mission Accomplished.' That banner was hung on the Lincoln in tribute to the fact that its mission – which included having to stay several extra months in the Gulf region – had been accomplished.

"The lieutenant also repeats Kerry’s kvetch about the lack of bulletproof vests (due not to presidential negligence, but to the fact that manufacturers just can’t produce them quickly enough). At any rate, Rieckhoff is right about one thing: The mission isn’t accomplished yet. Let’s hope he supports its ultimate accomplishment." <18> (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/tony/snow050404.asp) "

Kerry, in giving Rieckhoff the radio broadcast, was giving him the closest thing available to the platform he had in the 1970s. This would be like Kerry claiming that Senator Fullbright ignored him in 1972.

Silly me believed something written at HuffPost -- what was I born yesterday? I'm just wondering whether this misinformation comes from the writer of the article or from Rieckhoff himself. Maybe when I go to the bookstore, I'll flip through his book and see if that is mentioned.

I copied your links, Prosense, and typed a comment at HuffPost that, of course, is not going to appear. Then I decided to be proactive and sent them an e-mail requesting trusted user status. It was a nice e-mail, and I'll let you guys know if it works, then more of us can do it and get our comments to appear immediately.

Now I feel REALLY bad for getting mad at Kerry. That poor guy is taking hits from outright lies even from a devoted supporter like me! Well, just in case he ever reads this forum, a sincere apology from Beachmom for jumping to conclusions.

These opinion pieces are the worst. I suspect these writers, to a greater extent than the media pundits, never bother to check the facts.

I'm not registered to post there, but let me know what you find out. Still, that place is populated by scavengers.

But apparently they let some comments in immediately (trusted people) and the rest of us get in hours (or the next day) laters. I just posted that Kerry let him do the radio broadcast - using some of your information. (I'm not trusted - so it may take a while - but no one is picking on Kerry yet. They are picking on Paul for going.

Lappe seems to be the author of a book, True Lies. Looking at his blog, he had nothing good to say about Kerry ever - other than he looked Presidential. He was enthusiatic about Cobb and Nader. Oddly, he really disliked Dean in Jan 04 - when he thought he was arrogant and angry, but he liked him (and Nader when they debated - but he thought Dean and Nader were on the same side against corporations, unlike Kerry. He said Kerry kept changing positions and even then couldn't frame them and that Kerry was moving to the right (and this was a problem because of his Patriot Act and IWR votes)

He seems a Lefty freeper - who appears to research more than really researches. (Clearly he filtered out anything about Kerry he should have liked. Unless Rieckhoff himself said something in his book this may be Lappe acting like a lefty freeper.

call for retraction, or whatever, since he apparently also writes for HuffPo.

I'd be really interested in what you find at the bookstore. The way it is written, it sounds like this is what Rieckhoff is saying himself.

It wouldn't be the first time an "independent" backstabbed and lied about one of our guys who did in fact do the right thing.

Edit to add: my reaction - strongly against Rieckhoff because it did seem to come from him - demonstrates why Rieckhoff needs to call for retraction if the author misstated his position. After seeing the facts posted above, it is Rieckhoff who comes off looking bad here.

My comments now NEVER show up. I wrote that comment at 3:30 PM yesterday; still nothing while others have theirs that appear. No response from my e-mail yet.

MH -- I really liked Rieckhoff on Colbert, so I'll be disappointed if he's this two-faced. But that already happened with Hackett. I'm probably going to the bookstore Monday, so I'll let you know what I find out.

So maybe I'm banned too. It might be that I (like you) challanged the accuracy of the reviewer on "how blown off" Paul was. If Paul himself is saying that, he really needs a wake up call that being given the opportunity to do the Saturday address is huge and they followed up with the press release on what he said. What more could he want?

In perspective, it was likely morethan Kerry got with his invitation to speak to the SFRC. The media Kerry got with that was because he absolutely blew everyone away - otherwise they would have covered the huge rally that Kerry organized, which was already news, and mentioned that Kerry spoke to the committee. In 1971, Kerry's goal was to get media attention to the issues and through his organization of the rally and his eloquence, he did.

The HuffPost author is definitely misleading equating the * and Kerry campaigns as equally "blowing off" Rickhoff. The * campaign REALLY blew him off -- he left messages, called Vets for *, and so on and they never got back to him. But his interactions with the Kerry campaign were more complex:

Relevant chapters are 23 and 24.

He's pretty negative about the Democrats and the Kerry campaign, but on p. 276-277, he meets Kerry for the first time, and they REALLY connect. Kerry listens to him, and Rieckhoff says "He'll never forget that". Then he talks about doing the radio address. (A funny aside was that there was a dingbat staffer he dealt with who apparently had just come from the Dean campaign). He is criticized by John McCain (who he HAD respected before), who said that there was a clear line between civilian and military in America, and that young men and women should NOT speak out during a presidential campaign (talk about intolerance for dissent).

However, by the summer of 2004, it all goes down hill. He met with Kerry one more time with a bunch of veterans including Max Cleland to discuss who should be VP. Someone brought up McCain, and Kerry said "that option was not on the table". Then, someone said Max Cleland, but that wasn't going to happen. Finally, Rieckhoff brought up Wes Clark, but came away very disappointed about the meeting, calling the choice of John Edwards as "politics as usual". Then he said this about Kerry: "He seemed like a good man, but over the decades in Washington he had morphed into a calculating and coached politician."

He and other Iraq war veterans were invited to the Convention, but it was a very bad experience. He said the Democratic leadership and the DNC forbade Iraq vets from speaking out on the war and were largely ignored at the convention. He said they should only talk about the Vietnam War, and that there was a secret pact among DNC higher-ups from various states not to talk about "the war", and that Rieckhoff and other Iraq vets were disinvited from engagements.

He also tells a story about a vet who contacted the Kerry campaign about the lack of armour used, and was completely rebuffed by staffers. The same vet showed up at a media event but Dem staffers forbade him from speaking out on the armour, or even to defend Kerry against the SBVT . Rieckhoff then says this: "The 2004 Kerry wouldn't have granted access to the 1971 Kerry".

He ends the chapter with how he KNEW Kerry would lose (he also attended the RNC convention, talking about the true believers in tears of joy after *'s speech -- gag!), because he showed he did not understand what was going on in Iraq, and failed to show leadership to speak out on it. "* showed he didn't understand the Iraqi people. Kerry showed he didn't understand the American people".

Now, once again, we don't necessarily have all of the facts here. But if you look at this biting critique, apart from the disagreement on the VP pick, a lot of this is about the Democratic party, not Kerry personally. Kerry was responsible for the campaign, for sure, and I am not going to underemphasize that, but there is NO way Kerry would have approved of the behavior of some these DNC/staffer types.

I don't think Rieckhoff is a hack -- Max Cleland wrote a nice blurb on the back of the book, complimenting it -- although he is an Independent. I think everyone should take a look at chapters 23 and 24, and see what you think. I bet the whole book would bring new insights on the war in Iraq. And, yes, Kerry needs to read this book, even if it does amount to a punch in the gut (I was so depressed after reading it, I had to buy a chocolate bar, because, you know, chocolate solves ALL problems).

What are everyone's thoughts?

Our comments now appear on HuffPost.

That writer should be called out for oversimplifying the two very different responses from the campaigns.

Still, if Rieckhoff is being candid, I am deeply disappointed with the Kerry campaign's lack of follow up with what would have been powerful statements by Iraq vets, especially at the Democratic convention and beyond.

I agree with you that the staffers really weren't very good. I suspect that many who were not Kerry people. There are a million stories of the Clinton people coming in and saying not to talk about the war but to speak about domestic issues. They were clearly wrong, but I understand how hard it had to be for Kerry to reject Clinton's advice.

I think the statement that Paul had about the 2004 Kerry not giving access to the 1971 is not fair - he gave him access - he had 2 meetings. 2 Meetings with the man who was the nominee is huge access. Access doesn't mean agreement. Look at the 1971 Kerry - The Senators all suggested alternatives to leaving immediately, Kerry rejected those alternatives, but he thanked the Senators for hearing him and did not condemn them for not agreeing with him.

The selection of the VP is a political calculation and supposedly both Kennedy and Clinton recommended Edwards. At that time, the media was really pushing Edwards as one of the few Democratic stars. That the vets even got answers from him on the VP selection surprises me - because I had heard that Kerry was refusing to say word one until the call was made. If you look at the choices they thought acceptable, they all had military service and their politics were not considered. Clark was the only reasonable choice listed. But Clark, in the brief time he ran in the primaries, made several beginner's errors. He could well have been an error prone VP nominee. Clark's repeating of the intern gossip had to annoy Kerry - he's human- and though Clark didn't start the rumor - repeating it around reporters which he supposedly did was not good.

Kerry had every right to ignore their choice for VP and he had to consider what he wanted the message of the convention to be. I think it was you who broke the voters into groups and showed Kerry's difficult task. He had to not lose the anti-war people while picking up some people who believed Kerry could fight the war better.

I have mixed feeling on whether the Iraq vets should have had a representative with a speech at the convention. First off, the cons, it couldn't be in prime time - they only had the 3 hours. They would have been accused of hiding it or of the speaker not being representive of all the soldiers and that it was a politic ploy. It was also political dynamite - even if they kept strictly to ways in which the war was fought badly - there would be Bush corrections explaining how the soldiers got it wrong. (just as there were from the radio address.)

I do agree with you that Kerry may need to see this - he knows what really happened between himself and the vets - and in reality - what he describes seems like Kerry was pretty accessible. The only negative is his conclusion - which I blame on his ego, not Kerry. What is NOT GOOD is the way his staffers operated. There it may be that they wanted to control the convention to make sure nothing happened that hurt Kerry. But it does seem that they might have been used at some Kerry with Iraq vets event away from the convention.

I'm not sure that Paul understood the American people any better than Kerry. I'm not sure what he wanted Kerry to do in the 1 hour he had to speak. The reviews were it was an excellent speech. He did speak about Iraq - maybe not in as much detail as Paul would want - but there was a huge amount Kerry had to do in that speech. Maybe Kerry should have had Paul or others at the NYU speech.

One thing that comes shining through in this is Rieckhoff's ego. With that much ego, conclusions are suspect.

Also I totally disagree with these people who want to re-write history and forget all about the actual zeitgeist of 2004 (and October 2002 when IWR passed, which is a similar and related phenomenon).

Who here can point me to polls that show the American people were strongly against the Iraq war in mid-2004?

He said that would be extremely cruel to the Iraqis. I think he was mad that Iraq wasn't THE issue of 2004. I would argue that by Sept., it really was. Remember "Wrong War at the Wrong Time in the Wrong Place", Paul? Also remember that part in the Newsweek Election 2004 book when Kerry said "That's it. These kids are f***ing dying, and it's time to go with the gut and speak out on Iraq".

What upset me was how these Iraq vets were treated at the convention, and even earlier by staffers. It sounds to me that Kerry was the great statesman we know him to be and focussed on what this guy was saying with complete interest and empathy. But it was the Democratic Party that really blew it.

You know, I come from an Independent background like Rieckhoff. He said in the book that his Dad told him (as my Dad told me), you don't vote for the party, you vote for the man. I lived that motto for the longest time. During the '90s and '00/'02, I was an "anti-Republican", but I didn't want to be a Democrat. It was only AFTER the 2004 election, and the bad guys won AGAIN that I started to see that it wasn't enough to just sit there whining about the Republicans. I needed to join the Democrats. But this story Paul tells is about a party that needs to get its act together. And I REALLY like a lot of the stuff John Kerry has been doing single handedly -- helping all of those candidates as well as Cameron Kerry working in Mass. on the governor's race. Because organization is a BIG DEAL, and mistakes like those listed in Paul's book cannot happen again.

but after hearing so many negative things about some of JK's campaign staff, I can see how Rieckhoff's involvement in the campaign might have been really mismanaged. OTOH, it doesn't seem like Rieckhoff's objective was ever actually to get JK elected - even if he did help or vote Democratic in '04, etc - so maybe they parted way when they needed to?

I wish Rieckhoff wouldn't link the behavior of certain staffers and the DNC leadership so closely to JK. But this is a common mistake. I know JK tries to take responsibility for what happened during the course of his campaign, but we also know how the Dem. leadership deals with JK.

Calling JK's choice of running mate "politics as usual" is his opinion. He's entitled to it, but that's one area where I really feel like it was JK's decision.

This is his opinion (one side of the story) and he is almost using JK and and the DNC leadership interchangeably. As Fedup points out, there are meetings characterized with no corroboration.

And this is a completely disingenuous statement:



Once JK gave him the platform, he cannot say JK blew him off. Kerry gave Capt. Powers the platform.

the 2006 Kerry has run out of patience with the kinds of people who led him to make those errors in 2004.

I don't remember any mention of any type of meeting like this. I think if there was such a meeting it would have been all over the media. I don't think it is right to bash Kerry just because he didn't choose his choice.

I agree, I think the DNC hurt Kerry by not letting him in on all the goings on that involved Kerry and people wanting to speak. I can't see JK not letting veterans speak out, especially about the armor.

I remember that Kerry made a point of refusing to say anything on the VP selection. I seriously doubt it happened as described. It may be that they gave Kerry their views - and he later made the Edwards choice.

As to politics as usual - what SHOULD be more political than a VP selection? The key was to get Kerry elected.

He found out LATER that the choice was Edwards, but didn't like the tone of the meeting. I think he was retroactively disappointed with the meeting. To be honest, I would be just HONORED that a presidential candidate would be willing to listen to my opinions on who his VP candidate should be. But also understanding if they don't necessarily take MY advice.

I think Karynnj made some good points about Wes Clark being a "beginner pol" at the time. Because I also would have preferred Clark as VP, just because the war in Iraq was more important than domestic issues, which was more Edwards' specialty. However, it might have been that Clark would have had difficulty avoiding gaffes? Still, I saw him on Bill Maher Friday night, and I thought he did a GREAT job, and do wonder if he would have been better suited to debate Dick Cheney.

Still, it's all coulda shoulda woulda speculation on a VP candidate . . .

I think that many have forgotten that Clark over and over again stated he did not want the VP position.

That's a pretty arrogant position for someone who never ran before. After all, Kerry seemed willing to run as Gore's VP. In which case, they really suggested no viable candidate to Kerry. Interesting that he ruled out McCain. I love Cleland, but I can't imagine him as VP - though he would have helped emphasize all the veteran issues.

become Dean's VP.

I dont remember him saying seriously he would have refused if he was seriously offered by somebody, and we will never know, as Kerry eventually ruled for the conventionnal wisdom, who was saying you needed somebody from the South.

Clark was considered a finalist in Kerry's vice presidential sweepstakes, but declined to discuss his role in Kerry's secret search for a running mate. Clark added that the possibility of him serving in Kerry's cabinet is also confidential.
But he has said he was not interested in the vice presidency and was returning to the private sector as a consultant in Little Rock.

http://www.couriernews.com/archivedstory.php?ID=5721

I remember this because at the time I was hoping that Kerry would choose Clark, Edwards was my second choice, there was much discussion about it on the Kerry blog.

If there were no mistakes made in '04 we would be talking about a President Kerry. There were mistakes made. There will be good people who come out and talk about those mistakes in an honest and open way. They should be listened to because they are not self-serving and do not serve any other agenda. They are real members of the 'accident reconstruction team' who can provide a real service by telling you what went wrong and why it went wrong.

I think Sen. Kerry knows this. Why else would he have given that speech at Faneuil Hall. Actually, to go back farther, why else would he have given that brilliant speech at NYU in Sept of '04 that he described as so freeing. He fully expressed the problems he was having with the Iraq War. This led up to the sterling performance he gave at the Presidential Debate in late Sept. That was a different approach than what was said at the Dem Conv.

In recent press availabilities, no less a person than Terry McAuliffe has pronounced the '04 Convention to be a 'disaster.' This is somewhat cruel as McAuliffe has also announced that he would be supporting Sen. Clinton going forward and a lot, if not most, of the advisers who arranged and scripted that Convention in Boston as now the ones advising Clinton. They have firmly gone on record as being against failure. (How utterly brave of them!) They have not gone on record as being in favor of anything in regards to the Iraq War and what Dems should say about it. Sen. Clinton's stand is a mushy desire for both a gradual withdrawal and the need for America to stand strong and do something. What did these people learn? They are criticizing Kerry, but they are not doing anything different from what they advised Kerry to do in '04. (Do I smell opportunism and hypocrisy? Yeah, I do.) They have taken a stand against not taking a stand. That's about it.

Rieckoff is correct. That Dem Conv in Boston should have used Sen. Kerry's Vietnam experience to highlight the current war. It should have married past and present. That we are still discussing this shows how far the Democrats still have to go. It is also interesting to see how Sen. Kerry and even VP Gore have responded, post loss, to the Rethugs. They have given up caution in favor of advocating first principles. (They are both more fully themselves, as that HuffPost article by James Boyce said.) They learned something. I wish I could say the rest of the Dem field could say the same.

Kerry has taken responsibility for his campaign and loss, but it is about time the higher ups do the same instead of putting all the blame on Kerry. They are still running on the 20th century mentality and they need to wake up to the 21st century, they don't get it. Hillary can have them.

What a WHORE! Was he NOT the DNC Chair in 2004? Cuz I sure as shit thought he was. Does he absolve himself from all the mistakes of '04? What a cowardly whore. I agree with FedUp. Hillary can HAVE these people. All they know how to do is lose anyway, she's welcome to their track record.

a dick?

His party infrastructure sucked, and he blames Kerry every chance he gets. My heart breaks when I think about how amazing the convention could have been if anyone in the party had, like, cared. At all.

Someone on that staff should have seen the ramifications of a 13 week vs 8 week general election period. This was the first time McCain/Feingold was in effect - someone should have carefully read it.

I agree with all of you on McCauliffe and the other Clinton people - they don't appear to have learned. That said I really don't think that convention was a disaster. Kerry did get a bounce from it. Smaller than previous years, but could that reflect 3 hours of coverage vs 9 hours?

What was good in the convention was that it did introduce Kerry. The comments of the AA on his crew, Cleland and his wonderful daughters really did show a good,decent, interesting man. His own speech was excellent - and there was a small attempt to meld the times - (when he said he would fight for the country as he did when he was a young man). It was also noteworthy that Kerry let all the former Democratic Presidents, VP Gore, and all his competitors speak.

If not for this attempt to define Kerry, the smears would have been even more costly. Fewer people would have been won back after the debates. The debates showed the same guy as the convention. The Humphrey convention, the GHWB convention, Carter's 1980 convention, and the McGovern convention were disasters. Kerry's was also better than Dukakis's convention where Clinton singlehandedly pulls down the score) Several I have no memory of. I would place Kerry's on a par with Gore's even though he had 3 times as much coverage. (the first conventions I really remember are 1968 - so if I can name 5 that are significantly worse - disaster is a bit over stated.)

Clinton's 1992 one was better. The main reason was the incredible feeling of hope. Partly from the man from Hope video. Kerry, who had a far more colorful, heroic and interesting life really could have used something like that - but about the only way to get people to see it would have been to cut Clinton to a half hour and tell him to speak about what Kerry accomplished when Clinton was President. That would have helped define Kerry's Senate work and would have cut down on the VN stuff from a person who really had no connection to Kerry then.

What's strange is that in terms of feeling, Kerry's had a similar feeling to Clinton's with a bit of militancy added.

I think the film, created by none other than the great Steven Spielberg, was indicative of the problems of what the DC consultants told Kerry. The film just completely distorted Kerry's life IMO by overemphasizing his courage under fire in Vietnam while underemphasizing his protest afterwards. They also deleted his first wife and his divorce, his being lt. gov. under Dukakis, a lot of his work in the Senate. SO MUCH was deleted, while Vietnam was turned into WWII, which it never was. It would have been better to show Going Upriver, edited down a little, for 1 of the 3 hours, I swear to God. THAT was a complete film, at least about the Vietnam era. But the film about JK at the convention was like an infomercial, and was ineffective. It came across as outdated in the wired world we live in.

Contrast that with *'s which was WAY better (you know, let Hollywood make their films, and political filmmakers make THEIRS). There were whole parts of his film that were about the heroes of 9/11, not showing * at all. They showed the firemen and policemen for several minutes and * served as a supporting actor only. That showed humbleness, and allowed me to sit there and watch the whole thing without completely gagging. Hey -- I'll compliment the GOP where they deserve it -- they really did put on one hell of a show at their convention. It was only during the debates that the reality of who * really was started to show.

Although * won the election, come to think of it, Kerry really did hurt * with the debates. People still remember that -- I'm sure it made a lot of people uneasy, even if they still voted for *. Something to consider, with *'s numbers continuing to go down, down, down since January '05.

Then the film at the convention should focus on our nation's veterans, with Kerry in a supporting role. We already know his story, so it doesn't need to be retold. That would be a truthful film about what is EXTREMELY important to Sen. Kerry.

As you describe - that stinks. The Kerry parts of the front line biography would hev been great. (Maybe Alexandra Kerry can oversee things in 2008 if he wins again.)

was missing -- like half his life. Damn DC consultants (I'm beginning to sound like Kos)!

I was also disappointed in Teresa's speech. The beginning was good, but then she started talking about policy and she lost me. It may be unfair, but I really think she should have added to the foundation laid out by Alexandra and Vanessa about what a wonderful human being John Kerry is. Because he was called "aloof" and the rest, an additional personal speech by his wife REALLY would have helped. I realize Teresa is a very intelligent and accomplished woman but she could have shown that at another time. She just needed to play "First Lady" that night, and the speech fell short for me. Now nobody get too mad at me -- I'm just telling you how I felt AT THAT TIME about the speech.


Just so that I don't come across too negative, there were AMAZING moments in that Convention that made me fully committed to the Democrats and John Kerry:

Barak Obama
Both the Kerry daughters
John Kerry's speech

I was so excited and hopeful I couldn't sleep after Kerry's speech!

I wasn't turned off by Teresa's speech as much as I wished it were more about JK. It's funny because on some of the interviews she was really good. I would if part of it wasn't shyness or feeling uncomfortable speaking about her private life.

Obama was great and I absolutely loved the speeches by both Kerry girls. Alexandra's choices of what to talk about were awesome. The hamster story was so Kerry, for lack of another word. The other story of talking to her dad when she was unhappy about some things was sweet and very significant in that she would want to speak to him about her life. It really showed a closeness.

Just after the Inauguration I met some guys who were at the Blue Ball and apparently McAuliffe was pretty drunk and openly criticizing JK. I think McAuliffe has a severe case of sore loserdom, my number one pet peeve. (Because yes you are right...the DNC infrastructure did not do its job)

Anyway, I don't know much about Reichoff....but it sounds like he does have an agenda, which is to promote his organization and it just makes better copy to say he approached both candidates but they wouldn't help him so he had to do it all on his own.

I also think he must think a lot about himself that he thought he was important enough to choose who was to be the next VP. IMO, he is a disappointed man who didn't get the opportunity to get things his way. Certainly, Senator Kerry should listen to him, but he should also consider the source. As for McAulliffe, and the other Clintonians who now conveniently blame Kerry for their sloppy handling of Kerry's campaign, I am going to put on my tin foil hat and suggest they never tried too hard to get Kerry elected in hopes they could run Bill, oops, I mean Senator Clinton in 2008. Giving Senator Kerry any accolades for the good his campaign achieved now, might offer encouragement to others to support him since he might just be a force against Clinton in a Primary. They certainly wouldn't want that. Better to bash him and tag him a loser and poor campaigner. Excuse me, but screw them, I for one can't wait until our party is rid of these people and their influence.

An anti-war movement and a presidential campaign are just not analogous in the way Rieckhoff wants them to be. So his thoughts on JK do add something to the debate, but not, I think, what they might want him to.

wasn't anti-war. Rieckhoff made it a point to state that he wasn't speaking out against the war, just for more/better armor. Addressing the nation during the radio address was a huge platform. Kerry certainly was speaking out against the war, which went well beyond what Rieckhoff was saying.

It does raise a lot of questions about his involvement, then.

The Democrats made the Vietanm War a huge part of the convention in 1972. In 1968, the VN war destroyed any semblence of order at the convention.

I think many of the DU people need to see some archived film of that convention. The coverage went from the convention to Grand Park to the streets of downtown Chicago, where kids yelled, "The whole world's watching". The protests helped Nixon.

There is a war within the Democratic Party for what to do about the Iraq War. This goes beyond just Kerry and Clinton. There is the contempt that DU holds Sen. Leibermann in for his views. There are the Nelsons and Lincolns and so forth who will not go on record as asking for a withdrawal and a firm timetable. (Clinton is probably right there with this group.)

Take Rieckoff's comments out of the context of just talking about John Kerry. What is he saying that is relevent to '06? What wisdom can be extracted about going forward? Who is learning this lesson and who is not really listening at all?

In a way, this book and these comments are already dated as regards John Kerry. He has moved on and demonstrably so as regards the Alito filibuster, the call for the US to get out of Iraq and so forth. I think it is fair to say that Kerry has decided to call them as he sees them and not be captive to advisers anymore. He is taking strong actions regardless of who likes them and who doesn't in the Dem Party. (Seriously, if Rieckoff wanted to offer advice, well, then it was taken.) But what does this say to the larger Dem Party? What does it say to Dems in say Virginia, which is a state we should start to concentrate on as it might be 'in play'?

Some of what Rieckoff said was true. There was a lot of caution and mistakes were made. But who has learned those lessons? Who hasn't?

blame Senator kerry for everthing that was and is wrong with our party right now. They blame Senator Kerry because Kerry had a different perspective on issues and chose a different path than the one they suggested in 2004.The party as a whole won't read anything more into Rieckoff criticisms other than they were directed at Kerry. Those who want to discredit Senator Kerry will seize upon this information and not view it constructively, but use it against him. This is what makes me angry.

Only some of what he says is true. His story loses nothing if he leaves out the questionable assertions and inaccurate mis-characterizations.

Who as usual, has put his own differentiation as a candidate (also known as MEDIA WHORENESS) above what is good for the party. The good thing about Biden's position is it's too difficult for typical Americans (including me) to understand so who would support it? We got ourselves into enough trouble in Iraq...I think his plan might make it even worse

I remember reading many posts and articles stating that Kerry shouldn't have harped on Vietnam (juxtaposing the SVBT smear with Kerry's campaign). Some criticized hime for giving it the little attention he did in his speech.

I agree he should have if it would have elicited the same response as the recent speech, but the current "he should haves" seem a tribute to hindsight and not what the mood was at the time.


I just came across this excellent post by Sandnsea:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1125605&mesg_id=1127082

It was kind of amazing to see the Convention with Kerry insisting on his service in VietNam, but basically ignoring all he did during the following 35 years. I never totally understood this. There are so many important things that he did during these years as Senators.

I think Rieckoff is honest. I remember having seen a couple interviews with him in late 04 where he did not seem that happy about the Democratic campaign and was already saying they were not really understanding the problem (certainly not confusing them with *, though). He was justly (for his perspective) unhappy by the cautious answers that the campaign was giving then.

I am happy to see that Kerry is speaking out and taking charge of his message now, and it is good to see that Gore and Kerry, who both have already gone once thru the hands of Democratic strategists, are more or less ignoring them these days: a relief and a breath of fresh air, I have to say.

Where are the polls showing that the American people - in 2004 - were strongly against Iraq and would have supported strong criticism from the left on it?

Hell, we had a media that wouldn't even shoot down the obvious lies of the Swift Liars. And I don't know what Rieckhoff is saying about not being allowed to say anything to defend Kerry against the Liars - maybe because the campaign thought he was a loose cannon who would get ripped to shreds himself by the media, thus doing more harm than good?

I'm not saying that mistakes weren't made - of course they were. But I think it's revisionist to suggest that the American public would have reacted favorably to strong critiques against the Iraq war at that time. Many on the left knew what a debacle it was - but the people who had to be enticed to the polls were those closer to the middle. I think Kerry was better off playing up the failure to capture bin Laden - which if I'm not mistaken, he did every chance he got. He also addressed specific failures in Iraq, such as Abu Ghraib and the failure to secure ammo dumps (which imo was the most crucial and idiotic failure of the * admin to date). Maybe he didn't mention all of these at the convention - I don't recall - but in any case I disagree that he should have compared Iraq 2004 to Vietnam 1971. Most people would not have agreed and would have thought he was just trying to dramatize his story, at the expense of American defense policy. IMO.

on who is talking about it at the moment. I like what James Boyce wrote in the Huff Post: that Kerry should have been allowed to talk his way. I think there was a consultants war within the advisers circle. I think a lot of the '92 and '96 veterans wanted to talk about the economy. I think the Dems nailed the domestic issues like health care and jobs and so forth.

However, I think Kerry started to cook in the fall when he started talking again about the war and the mistakes that were made. I don't think he lost because of the war. I still do think that the polls show that the American people were not ready to make the switch of CICs in wartime. (Almost, but not quite.)

I also think that there is a quality that John Kerry has when he talks about the moral implications of war that no other candidate can touch. There is an authenticity and a profound sense that this man knows what he is talking about on this subject. (Hell, I voted for the guy in his first Senate race for all the standard Dem reasons but also for that elusive and impossible to define 'something in his eyes' sense that so many other Mass voters got too. There was that sense of having seen things and brought back hard won wisdom in the process.) Kerry was on good footing in that debate because he spoke with authority on the war. I sensed the outrage that good men and women were being sent to die or be wounded for an ill-defined cause and without the full backing of the USA.

The recent speech I saw at Faneuil and that was mostly re-iterated at Grinnell was John Kerry reclaiming his moral authority to speak out, in all capacities. He spoke as the former warrior and with the knowledge of all he had seen in war, he spoke as the protester who had seen enough of lies and had to speak up and of the Senator who is intimately involved in decisions that mean life or death for American troops and the wisdom needed to speak to all that. All sides were integrated. I do wish I had seen more of that in '04. It is a very powerful and authentic voice that is his and his alone on the national stage. I don't know if it would have changed any minds. There are too many variables to say, but it would have been more authentically this complicated man and the country would have been better off for seeing all this.

he spoke on the war. At the end of the campaign when he was speaking of the unguarded ammo dumps and how those munitions were being thrown at "our Kids", there was something in his voice and eyes that was 100% authenticly outraged. He knew what these IEDs did and he KNEW we knew where this stuff was - we secured the records for the oil ministry, but not this. I also think that might have been the reason he would have won without the OBL tape - not the tape itself - but that it replaced that issue as the talk of the last week-end.

I also think that Joe Klein is out of his mind, that Kerry's not having spoken about Abu Ghraib in his acceptance speech or the debates meant that he was undefined. On those issues, I think Klein's statement that Kerry spoke against such things his entire adult life is its own answer - this is as much of who Kerry is as his being tall. I find it hard to believe that any anti-war or anti-torture person really thought they were the same on these issues. Kerry got the votes on the left - the third party totals were very low.

Where I do agree with them is:
-It would have been better if some of the VN stuff was dropped. Especially the parts of Clinton's speech praising Kerry for going etc. Clinton could have talked about Kerry's Senate work that benefited him. This would have 3 pluses, less VN, more Senate, and Clinton could be honest.

-Kerry could have stayed on the Foreign policy/national security/Iraq issues a little more.

-The Democratic party could have given far more support than they did.

But overall - it was not a bad convention and it wasn't a bad campaign and it had an excellent candidate.

I have with all recent conventions; they are all so scripted. My favorite moments of the Dem conv were the ones when the speakers got off the soap box and just spoke. I adored Jimmy Carter's speech. I replayed and replayed Rev. Sharpton's speech. ("We got this donkey and rode it as far as we could." LOL! I loved that.)

I felt that Sen. Edwards was underwhelming. His speech was not particularly moving or memorable, at least to me. I thought Kerry's speech was great, but I could not, for the life of me, figure out why it was so rushed. (Screw the networks. Give the friggin speech. If they cut you off then they cut you off. And besides, the talk of the next day was the idiotic conversation about the balloons and whether or not the CNN mikes picked up the balloon guy saying, 'fuck' or not. Oh, at least until the 'terra alert' that happened on Sat.) I really loved Karry's speech at the convention. I think the glentleman has a way with words anyway. (I adored the part where he pointed at the flag and said it belonged to everyone. I had tears in my eyes. Sigh!)

The Rethug Convention was a disgrace to this nation and to everyone who has ever served in the armed forces. My brother, who served in the Navy, was so angry about the purple heart thing that he vowed to never vote for another Rethug for the rest of his life. They are reprehensible pond scum. That convention was nothing more than a hate-fest. The way that Fox covered it showed they had been watching old Leni Riefenstahl movies. Those people massively suck. They really do.

Hate fest, yes! Also, propaganda fest and Reichstag come to mind. Reminiscent of Leni Riefenstahl movies, yes!

I can see why he wanted it all covered. Letting the applause lines get the applause they richly deserved would have made it better. But I am not so sure that at least some of the networks wouldn't have cut away. Also, at least from Faneuil, he seemed to love the applause but also seemed to signal to stop it pretty quickly - just because the speech was stopped about 39 times.

I'm surprised more veterans didn't react as your brother did. I was underwhelmed by Edwards, but thought it might have been the expectation were set really high. Out of the whole convention, the 2 best (non John Kerry) speeches for me were the ones by the AA guy on Kerry's swiftboat (because it said it all) and Alexandra's, she was absolutely perfect and the stories really showed how at different stages he was there for her.

and reduced our political process into a disrespectful, trashy cesspool of hate, angry and lies. Bush should have been ashamed to even be apart of it. The only one who recognized this I think, was Laura Bush. She seemed appalled by it all.

Upthread, I was talking about the film which I thought was better than the Kerry film. But obviously, the rest of it was just the worst. People act like the partisanship these days is the fault of "both parties". Sorry, one party was WAY worse than the other in total cruelty and meanspiritedness.

Yeah, on the speech, I sat there and watched both (hey, I was trying to "balanced"). *'s speech ran until 11:30 PM. It was totally long. His attitude was "screw you" who want to watch something else -- I'm King George and it's my TV. Kerry, OTOH, wanted to get the speech done by 11 PM sharp, but I don't recall him rushing through the speech. I also thought there was a "sweating" issue. That if he spoke too long, he would start dripping and not look good. That was from the pundits, so not sure to the validity of it.

I loved that part. think K was trying to get everything in before time was up, and who could blame him, the media cut him off so many times. For the media to show just 3 hours on ABC, CBS and NBC was totally disgusting.

My son lived in NYC when the Repubs invaded, New Yorkers hated that they had the gall to be there. They also were disgusted how they exploited 9/11. My son and his friends got on top of their roof when Bush flew out of and in unison gave him the finger salute.

I don't know about anyone here, but I loved the convention, I watched it all on good ole C-Span, from the moment Kerry arrived till the moment he left. I loved the speech Kerry's crewmate David Alston gave and Alana Wexler, for Kids for Kerry, Cheney needs a timeout.

ith all the smear and fear going on by the right, it was very refreshing to watch the convention.

I loved it and taped a lot of the speeches. Three of my young (7-12) nieces and nephews and my mom watched with us. The kids were so excited. The 12 year old was captivated.

pisses me off: the MSM, purple band-aids, and RNC and SBVT scum.









Kenneth Blackwell (Bush campaign state chair) and the lying bastard:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6662.html


Now the RNC is pretending it had nothing to do with any of lies, deception and fraud.