My God, Kerry looked good

and is SO smart


we were royally FUCKED in 04

He looked and sounded fantastic, as if he shoulda been our Preznit. :(

Please tell me!

interviewed him

He looked younger more youthful and happy

looking on with other senators.

It made me tear up.

for that matter, would be today if first of all, Gore had been president in 2000 or at least Kerry in 2004. Twice we were screwed. Twice. We won't let it happen a third time. No way no how.......No McCain.

but people are being wiped off the registration lists, trying to stop the people from voting what kind of crap is that. All the more reason why we all have to get out there and vote.

It's hard not to be wistful. But the good Senator seems very happy fighting for Obama.

Kerry is so obviously and genuinely thrilled by Obama's candidacy.

and his hair was longer


he looked younger?

.

John, himself. I'm sure he rues that decision to concede so quickly.

He is so well-spoken and thoughtful that it hurts to know how close he came to displacing the village idiot.

It was fraud plain and simple

Guess what: It's still impossible to count votes that no one can find or those that were not cast.

He let MEEEE down, so I am blaming only him. :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

and New Mexico. I will not concede this election until I am certain that the results are accurate."

Had Kerry done that, national attention would have been drawn ONCE AGAIN to the fact that the Repukes had engineered the vote. Even if that approach had not swung the election his way, it would have gone a long way to motivating Americans, and Congress in particular, to fix our broken elections system. By saying nothing, Kerry gave his approval to the process and the outcome. And here we are again, staring that monster straight in the face.

It is widely known that John Edwards argued strenuously with Kerry to fight on until they were certain the vote count was accurate, but Kerry chose to listen to his advisors (DLC, of course) and "keep himself viable for a run in '08."

I love John Kerry. He is a hell of a Senator and a hell of a Democrat. But his failure to address the Swiftboat Liars was a HUGE tactical blunder, not to mention a failure to stand up for his personal honor (I'm also a Vietnam vet who honors his service, his medals, and admire what he did in speaking before the Senate about our war crimes in Vietnam).

His decision not to fight Bush's elections victory on behalf of ALL AMERICANS was absolutely incomprehensible to me. There was so much to be gained and so little to be lost.

There was that little incident when New Mexico and Ohio denying access to the machines.

Here: facts.

It matters not whether he filed legal challenges on Nov. 3rd. What matters is that he CONCEDED the victory for the Presidency to Bush when the vote count was still not validated. The minute he CONCEDED the election was won by Bush.

Kerry's first public intimation of any election problems/voter suppression did not come until Jan 18, 2005.

You can show all the "facts" you want, but John Kerry CONCEDED to George Bush on Nov. 3, 2004 before the recounts had been done in Ohio. The Secretary of State Ken Blackwell had said it would take 11 days to recount. In that 11 days a lot of other revelations could have been investigated and presented. But THEY WERE NOT because of the CONCESSION.

Is this really so hard to comprehend?

if the legal challenges, recounts and other efforts had turned up more votes and tangible evidence of fraud.

A concession is a nicety, it's not a legally bind act. The election was certified in Jan.

The fact is that John Edwards said NOTHING in 2005 or at least the first half of 2006 about voter suppression or election fraud - while both Kerrys did and were ridiculed for it. (that the Kerrys did eliminates any claim that the Edwards were no speaking out of deference to the Kerrys.) The fact of the matter is that there was a substantial amount of rewriting history by John Edwards. You might also note that even as he and Elizabeth raised the issue in the pre-primaries - it was ONLY in the blogosphere - never in interviews with the MSM. (Edwards also lied about wanting to fight back on the SBVT - he reused to aggressively do so.)

More importantly, Edwards never said on what basis he would contest the election. Even 2 years later, RFKjr used an estimate of votes not cast due to the extraordinary long lines. Those were votes, that could not be used to contest the election. He also used estimates of votes intended for Kerry that went to others because of the "caterpillar" ballot - but like the 2000 butterfly ballot, they could not legally get those. Others speak of the discrepancy between exit polls and the vote - the problem is the ballot problems explain part of this and there is no US precedent to give more credibility to the sampled estimate.

As to the SBVT, Kerry had repelled them in April 2003 by putting his records on his web site and having his men speak out. He thought the same thing would work in August. Remember that Clinton's goal in 1992 was simply to have a response within the news cycle - that does not mean conclusive proof backing him. Kerry actually did more in 2004.

Other Democrats should have tried to help Kerry get the truth out - especially if they thought he was not doing enough. What he had done was already provided more than enough ammunition to use for people to defend him - and it was in Democrats vested interest to do so. The Navy awarded those medals - he didn't steal them or make them up.

The MSM did not do his its job. In reality the media condoned a character assassination of Senator Kerry. Then there was a second swiftboating after the narrow election loss by people with vested interests, either because they did not live up to their journalistic standards or they supported someone else in 2008. The problem was that Kerry could not get his response out through the mass media - his message was heavily filtered.

The campaign's immediate reaction to the August attack was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book, just as Obama put out 41 pages on the Corsi book. This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof. They also later proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out. That was done within ONE DAY of the book's emergence in August. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it.

That was far more proof countering the liars than the Clinton machine ever put out on anything. The problem was that it went to the media and they refused to play the role of evaluating who was telling the truth - the Washington Post's editor even saying they wouldn't. The broadcast media was worse. Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverand Wright? We need to be prepared to help Obama, if the media turn back to 2004 mode now that we are in the general election.

It wasn't that we had no ammunition to use. There was an abundance of proof - far more than would be typically available as they hit against a well documented official record. Even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand.

It should also be mentioned that it was not Kerry's accounts they disputed, it was the NAVY's official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O'Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

Saying Kerry did not fight back simply swiftboats him again - compare this list of proof to Carville & Co response on Clinton's Flowers or draft problems - this is far more comprehensive and completely refutes the SBVT charges. The Clinton responses in these two instances did not completely refute the charges - in fact, after changing his story a few times in each case - conceding that earlier statements were not completely true - parts of the charges were conceded. The difference was that in 1992 - even in the primary - Clinton was given breaks by a media that wanted him to win. The fact is that we KNEW in those two cases that he was willing to dissemble and scapegoat others when he was called on his actions - two things that later hurt his Presidency.

In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step. It is only when there is no open and shut case (as there is here) that the candidate would try anything different.When this didn't work, Kerry did speak to the issue - and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here - all political junkies didn't here this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn't think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was - I think less than 5 minutes long - so there is no excuse.
http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/08/jk_the_fire_fighters.html
click on little photo of the Senator.)

In yesterday's interview, Kerry addressed this when he spoke of the fact that some people see just the ads and we need to work hard to get the truth out. This year, Obama did not take federal funds - in 2004, Kerry was limited to $75 million that he had to stretch over 13 weeks, while Bush used his over 8. It has been Kerry who has worked the hardest in 2006 and now to find ways to stop lies - the Obama campaign has the advantage of Kerry's experience and advise.

and worked for his election. No one in this country wanted him to win the election more than I did. So screw you for saying I swiftboated him again. You are full of shit.

The one thing that Kerry DID NOT DO is say straight to the American people in a televised debate between him and George Bush "I served my nation in Vietnam. I earned the medals I was awarded. Those who say I did not are lying. Anyone who doubts this should go directly to the men with whom I served." But for whatever reason he chose not to do that.

Those words would have meant more than 10,000 pages of newsprint, 50 hours of TV ads, rebuttals from 100 surrogates, or even a written confession from the Swiftboat Liars.

You can find more in the DU Research Forum.

this. Thanks.

P.S. You may be right that Kerry's concession did not LEGALLY give Bush the victory, but in the eyes of America, including EVERY DEMOCRAT I know, he gave up the Presidency when he conceded.

but it would not have fit neatly in any question. To use it as his closing statement, would have cost him a chance of getting his message out. Polls actually showed that people likely to ever vote for Kerry did not believe the smears by October. It would though have made it clearer how really angry he was about it. Kerry himself has said he thought the facts were out there.

I did not mean you in that comment - rather the people who like Bill Clinton, advised him not to speak about it then turned and said that Kerry didn't fight this - when he actually did. My point is that he did as much as others have done when attacked.

hot and lashed out. I guess I'm a bit sensitive and thought you were addressing me.

Here's where we disagree: I think Kerry had no choice but to address it directly in the only nationally-televised forum that was available--the debate(s). You're right. It may not have fit nicely into the answer to a question but every candidate in the last 30 years worth of debates seems to go off on a tangent and talk about what he/she wants to talk about regardless of the question that was asked anyway. So, I don't see how it would have hurt him or been out of line.

Also, you're correct that many of the people who believed the smears were probably reich-wingers or fence-sitters, but those fence-sitters in a tight election are a critical segment of the population. Also, I'd like to point out that I, along with a number of my veteran friends and other Kerry supporters, were very upset that WE NEVER SAW KERRY DIRECTLY REFUTE THE LIES. I capitalized that because I'm getting all of these posts saying that he did in some venue or format or another. But, I think the important point as relates to that, is that it did not reach the national voter audience for some reason and thus left many of his supporters shaking their heads in wonder. I and many of my friends were very attuned to the whole runup to the '04 election, so it's amazing to me that we all somehow missed Kerry dealing with that issue.

Peace.

Also, I am happy to say that I like the way Obama is dealing with McCain's lies so far, but I hope he jams it to Lyin' John tonight.

This really is the reason:
"Also, I'd like to point out that I, along with a number of my veteran friends and other Kerry supporters, were very upset that WE NEVER SAW KERRY DIRECTLY REFUTE THE LIES." It also shows why polls showing most people didn't believe it weren't sufficient. You and your friends - if you would have been polled - would have been among those who said no, yet you were clearly hurt.

The debates were the only time he had an unfiltered opportunity to speak to the country after the convention. (Maybe he could have used part of the time on one of those idiotic questions - like Scheiffer's "I've got 2 daughters, Bush has 2 daughters, you have 2 daughters waste of time - he could have used the concept of values as the transition. That was also near the end of the last debate.)

I can't imagine any group that is more important to Senator Kerry than you and the other veterans. My list, while honest and accurate, is not what people saw - and that is what Kerry also said - speaking of this year on Rachel's show. So, he did learn - but too late for himself. My guess is that had he, inside the bubble, didn't know how meager the coverage was when he directly refuted the lies, . (His statement before the Firefighter's got almost no coverage - which is the media's fault. It really should have been covered - and Kerry's people should have known that it wasn't.)

Reading your comment, I remembered a Daily Kos thread, that was written by a Vietnam Vet, angry at the SBVT lies and to some degree at Kerry, though he very clearly liked him. Using their "search" I found it. He mostly addressed the main story, but he did speak a little of the SBVT. (At any rate, I thought you might like to see it)

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/9/15/161210/959/201#c201

vets felt then and now.

I really liked his comment about how it was painful to see how his beloved swiftboats had gotten such a negative connotation. Those guys were really good at what they did. We only worked with them once and were very impressed with them.

while they sat on their hands and let them do it, even after 2000s theft apparent theft. McAuliffe and Carville made SURE there would be no legal evidence for Kerry to make a case in court.

:shrug:

Kerry will be one of the members on this Council.

Fuck you Supremes!

:kick:

I think Obama's campaign has been so quick to respond because of Kerry. He knows exactly what to do, now that he's lived through it; and he knows how to make damn sure that what happened to him can't happen to anyone else.

*melts*

:loveya: swoon.

HE SHOULD BE RUNNING FOR REELECTION DAMMIT

I have liked Kerry since Vietnam protest days.

He did good Senate work re: BCCI and Iran-Contra that should have been completed to conclusion but it was not his choice.

We would be so much better off today had BCCI/Iran-Contra been properly addressed and Kerry have taken office in 2005. Alas.

the curb after he worked to get Clinton in office with the full knowledge that Bush1 would be impeached and further expose them all if he was re-elected in 92. Bush ran the worst campaign of any sitting president.

However, if Clinton hadn't deep-sixed all the outstanding matters in BCCI and IranContra for Poppy Bush, Stephens, and the Dubai and Saudi royals, there would've been NO turnover of congress in Jan1995, no Bush could've run for office in Texas or Florida, healthcare would've been dealt with by the mid90s, the growing global terror networks would have been exposed as tools for the fascists who funded them for decades and exposed their fascist agenda, no Bush presidency, no 9-11, no invasion of Iraq.

Siding with the people instead of with the secrecy and privilege of Poppy Bush and his powerful cronies, would've changed history and given Clinton the opportunity to truly become one of the greatest presidents.

The lesson Dems should have learned: TRUTH MATTERS! Only elect Open Government Lawmakers.

You can't run ads on TV showing soldiers proudly marching through the jungle when you threw your medals away and called that same war a mistake. He was trying to appeal to the nationalist vote and it didn't work, because they want the real deal. And at the same time he alienated people on the left that potentially belonged to his base. He should have never made his military time a campaign issue.

he spoke of both his Vietnam experience and his protesting - giving each a line. He used it as part of his biography because it was a very major factor that made him who he is. What he did in both Vietnam and before the Senate showed character.

I doubt anyone with Kerry's record would not mention it while running in a time of war. The fact is that the SBVT book started before Kerry's convention and before he put ads out. Had Kerry not mentioned the war, they still would have used it - AND they would have said that Kerry didn't mention it because it was a period of his life he preferred hidden. As it was when the SBVT came out, many people had already heard Rassman and others praise Kerry for his heroism, character and the caring he showed to them. Remember how little coverage Kerry's short comments disputing the SBVT got - even though he labeled it his official response to the SBVT who the media gave tons of free time to? Did you see this on TV in 2004? http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/08/jk_the_fire_fighters.html If Kerry's people had not been at the convention, what forum did Kerry have after the convention to get that out.

beginning of his acceptance speech at the 2006 convention made me CRINGE. I am a vet and saw that pandering CRAP for what it was.

John Kerry on Rachel's show last night. What a great man!

posted here.