The grassroots helps swiftboat Kerry - again

[sandnsea]

Just like in 2004. He answered then, just like he answered now. And then, like now, the grassroots stood back and let the media slaughter him. Pat Buchanan is the first to admit Kerry was swiftboated - twice. Yes, Pat Buchanan - not one of our own Dems. Matthews said it repeatedly on his show, so many faxes were flying in that you'd have thought it was an APB. And you guys buy right into the 'gaffe' prone bullshit - despite the fact that worst things have been said since then and slid right off the radar.

The Bushies do not want a strong voice against the war. The Clinton team does not want a strong voice to end the war.

They don't want an anti-corporate President. They don't want legislation like Wellstone-Kerry Clean Campaign reform. They don't want the anti-pork McCain-Kerry legislation. They don't want environmental and labor rights in our trade agreements, like Kerry always fights for. They don't want to pay for environmental clean-up. They don't want health care plans like SCHIP or the HIV/AIDS, TB and MALARIA ACT. They don't want a National Housing Trust.

They want to pile another load of corporate shit down your throat and they don't care if it's Giuliani, McCain or Clinton.

If you think your 'hot' candidate, like Edwards or Obama or Clark, is going to escape this kind of swiftboating - then ask yourself whether it's because they won't stand up to the status quo or they just aren't perceived as a threat yet.

[blm]

1. Media WANTS Kerry shot down WITHIN his own party because he will chair net neutrality

committee and the one that can get FCC ruling benefitting big media overturned.

The grassroots Dems that don't care what happens to Kerry are foolish to want to see Kerry's voice and credibility shot down right along the corpmedia that manipulates them.

If there was an internet during IranContra and BCCI they would have turned grassroots against Kerry then, too.

[derby378]

3. Honestly, I think any Dem candidate for 2008 who opposes Net Neutrality is unelectable

We're wide awake now, and we've grow less and less tolerant of NCTA's anti-Internet shenanigans.

[blm]

11. Not the point - net neutrality is an issue he will be leading on in January - not as an

election issue. But the media needs his voice marginalized now and they are doing it within the party almost exactly the same way they did during IranContra and BCCI when he was originally marginalized in DC circles as a "conspiracy theorist" by those who didn't want his voice heard by wider audiences.

[beachmom]

15. You may be on to something, BLM.

The MSM is being directly challenged by the internet -- net neutrality is something they do not want. They want to monopolize the internet just like their conglomerations have already dominated the traditional print and TV news.

Man -- he really IS a threat. Okay this is helping me understand this. Netroots take note -- support Kerry for the issues you care about. He's CHAIRMAN of that committee. Not '08, '07.

[ProSense]

18. Agree! The threat is evident:

Former President Bush Blames ‘Bloggers’ for ‘Ugly’ Political Climate

[INdemo]

19. I hope we have this net neutrality issue settled before 2008

This issue is on Nancy Pelosi's web site as a top issue so it will be settled before 2008

[blm]

23. And makes sense why corpmedia is AGAIN tearing Kerry down NOW

to marginalize his voice. He has always been the threat to power so they exercise their access to tear at him and spineless Democrats are easily manipulated into being afraid to join the battle. Just like the media manipulated them into staying silent about Iraq being in civil war by making Murtha, Kerry and Feingold sound like radical leftists.

[benny05]

25. Agree but it's not on the radar of most Americans

Netrooters have to keep it out there.

[Eurobabe]

4. BS, I just don't want to HAVE to vote for him in 2008

for President. Once was enough. Why is my opinion swiftboating??

[beachmom]

8. Because you're letting your feelings about Kerry color what is so

obviously extreme media bias. Why this nonstop vilification of John Kerry, especially if they're saying he's not a viable candidate? The question needs to be asked -- why so much vitriol?

[ginnyinWI]

47. agreed!

They are obviously going out of their way, lately, to bash Kerry and discredit him. Like they are doing to no other possible contender for 2008. Indeed, they are giving some other candidates an absolute love-fest, like Matthews did on his Sunday show the other week. Gush, gush, gush!

[blm]

9. Constant piling on whenever corpmedia does it WORKS to drive down numbers

on Kerry for more than just presidential consideration. They are trying to destroy his credibility and minimize his effectiveness in the public arena right before he takes on these matters.

Are people SO insecure in their own candidates that they don't want Kerry on stage with them addressing the issues from his pov? Let them ALL have their say and enrich the debate.

Is net neutrality and FCC rulings and Iraq withdrawal so petty that they can be dismissed as issues because Kerry is the leading Dem voice on them now?

[ClassWarrior]

36. So you'd allow Dems to be trashed just to narrow...

...the primary field for your own personal convenience?

Spite your face much?

NGU.

[LittleClarkie]

41. Your opinion isn't the problem. Your opinion isn't swiftboating him.

But do you think he meant to slander the troops?

Did you think it was okay what the media did to him because he fucked up a joke?

Were you happy because of it since it might mean he'd lose in the primaries.

The point is that people hopefully don't support the dirty tricks of the other side if they take out a candidate they don't want to vote for.

If we don't support our Dem leaders, then the next person who is swiftboated might be someone you DID want to vote for. You see?

No attacks for flubbed jokes, screams or anything else the Republicans and the media seek to distort. We need to stand up for each other. I'll do it for yours if you do it for mine. Unity.

[karynnj]

71. it isn't - if you say

what you did that you don't want to vote for him

Or

List a million reasons (or less) on the positives of another candidate

or

almost anything - only spreding lies - which I don't think most people here do - is swiftboating.

[politicasista]

73. You have a right to your opinion, but

I think the General would be really disappointed if he read your post.

General Clark is a good man who went out of his way to defend Kerry in 04 when the Smear Boat fools made their rounds. He and Cleland were both excellent surrogates for Kerry while other Democrats sat on their behinds and did and said nothing.

I like and respect the General, I would never sit back and allow him or any Democratic candidate to be swiftboated. It is unacceptable period. This is not just about Kerry, this is about any Democrat that dares to tell the truth about what's really going on and get swiftboated by the media (and fellow Democrats) for doing so.

What can the grassroots do to improve next time, so that it won't happen to the candidate running. The fact that you don't see the big picture (that this will happen to anyone) shows that you care more about your agenda rather than the truth.

[Eurobabe]

124. Don't even go there about swiftboating

I saw how the media marginalized MY candidate in 2003. His own miscalculation for jumping in so late.

I never said what the media did to Kerry was right, but Kerry contributed to alot of his own issues with his unclear explanations. Clark made some gaffs too, on the trail. Did they deserve to be swiftboated? No. Clark was out after SC, before alot of the ugly stuff came about. Do I respect Kerry for his service to the country? Yes. I just don't want him as our candidate in '08. I don't understand why Kerry supporters on DU get so goddamn huffy and try to change my opinion? Let me be. This isn't FREE REPUBLIC here. I'll support who I want when the time is right. FWIW. I don't care much for Hillary either, but if I had to I'ld hold my nose and vote for her.

I hope someone new comes to the fore, because I really don't want to have 2008 be a rehashing of 2000 or 2004. We need some fresh blood, and so far, no one really excites me, except Obama and Clark - but Clark better have a plan this time. His campaign in 2004 was a disaster, I lived it firsthand at the grassroots level.

Take some chill pills people, it's VERY EARLY in the game. If you start hyperventilating now, you'll be out of oxygen before the primaries even begin!

[Joe for Clark]

2. The main problem with Kerry is he didn't "answer then" -

You know?? To the attacks of those damn swiftboaters.

He is a bave man. Why didn't he fight back against them then??. He might have won if he did.

The problem with Kerry, is he lost his appeal as a fighter - cause he didn't fight in 2004.

Not that I don't think highly of him - I just don't trust him to fight back.

Joe

[sandnsea]

6. It's been posted 100 times

if it's been posted once. Yes he DID answer then. But then, just like now, people chose to gang up on him instead of fight beside him. I don't know why. I do know people are making a HUGE mistake allowing themselves to be duped into believing there is anything at all wrong with John Kerry. There STILL isn't anybody better qualified to lead the country on all fronts.

[Joe for Clark]

12. If it has been posted 100 times, you may want to consider

the possibility there is some truth in it.

He really did not answer when those cowards came after him. To this day it is bizzare to me anyone could atack a man with a silver star like they did - absolutely bizzare.

He needed to hit back and he didn't - people make judgements of others based on their actions.

His judgement was wrong on this - I would vote for Gore in a second, so I think there are indeed better qualified people out there to lead our country.

Joe

[sandnsea]

14. You're wrong

He DID respond. It HAS been posted, time after time after time. He had people who had NEVER spoken about Vietnam come out and call the swiftboaters liars. Pat Buchanan admits he was swiftboated. It doesn't matter to people like you. You tell me why you repeat this lie. Because I don't get it.

[Joe for Clark]

20. Sandnsea -

I do not dislike Kerry- in fact I think he would be a fine president. But he would never be elected.

That he was "swiftboated" - he WAS. He sure didn't attack the critics, though - he DID NOT.

That is my problem with Kerry, that he was not strong enough to attack those people. He NEEDED to.

You say - "people like you" - what does that mean? You don't know me - and I do not know about the 100 times this may have been posted before - but I believe it - I wouldn't discount it, anyway.

A leader will attack when attacked. Kerry is a good man, but he is not a president.

Joe

[sandnsea]

29. So let me ask you this

Why do you think the 'joke' was blown all out of proportion???

On a similar note - why do you think Pelosi is being beaten up? First Murtha-Hoyer. Then the story was supposed to be she appointed ethically challenged Hastings over Harmon because of a cat fight. Now that Hastings didn't get the appointment, the story is that he was passed over because of his ethics. No matter what Pelosi does, the media is clearly going to beat her up.

Do you seriously not see that the media picks people out to beat up on? Do you not ask yourself what the connections are and why??

One more time - Kerry DID respond to the swiftboaters, immediately and repeatedly. Why do you belive the media spin instead of facts???

[Joe for Clark]

38. I'll say - blown out of proportion is an understatement.

It was very clear what he was saying - Why do you think they picked on him - made good "headlines" didn't it???

I think your observation is good about Ms Pelosi - remember this, the press is only interested in selling newspapers - they don't report the news any more - they are just a profit segment - that is all.

To the extent Kerry did respond to the cowards - in was very ineffective, to be kind -

I have not believed in the media for a long time - I know what was happening up north in Iraq - and I equally know how it was NOT reported.

I will never trust CNN again. Been years since I did now.

You think I believe any spin at this point?? You really don't know me at all.

Joe

[sandnsea]

40. It's not selling newspapers and 'headlines'

You won't get it until you get that.

[Joe for Clark]

45. It did for a few days.

Apparently that is all that matters for the "fourth estate" - news sales for a few days.

They don't have to be right - they just have to sell.

They sure sold a lot, more than just Mr Kerry.

Joe

[sandnsea]

53. Hope you got paid

Because every time you repeat this kind of shit, you make it easier for them to do it the next time. Carter - McGovern - Dukakis - Clinton - Gore - Kerry - how many freakin' times do they get away with lying about our party and candidates before it sinks into your head that it's orchestrated by the corporate powers??

Clinton starts playing kissy-face with Bush, let's loose a crazed rant on Fox - and yet the media suddenly doesn't go on and on for days and weeks. If Dean or Gore or Kerry had done that - totally different outcome. Why is that???

It's NOT money and headlines. It's intentional. The joke attack came straight out of the White House. Do you at least get that??

[Joe for Clark]

55. That is uinfair.

It is money - all of it - why do you think differently????

Joe

[sandnsea]

56. Because it's obvious it's not

Why do you avoid all the questions I ask that indicate it is a whole lot more than money??

[Joe for Clark]

59. It is just money.

To point to the obvious - they fail to sell that time, they have no news outlet.

There is no political objective, just monetary. It is that simple, sometimes.

What leads you to believe there is more to it??

Joe

[sandnsea]

63. See #62 n/t

[sandnsea]

62. How many examples do you need?

You say you know the media intentionally swiftboated Kerry - intentionally put liars on and repeated their lies. You think they did that just to get viewers?? You don't think people who had been silent on Vietnam for 40 years, and came out to support their friend, is an equally compelling story?? Why'd the media choose to push the swiftboaters instead??

Why'd they repeat the White House faxes - you think there weren't any other sensational stories the last few weeks?

Why did they push the supposedly ethically challenged Murtha while completely skipping Hoyers connections to lobbyist money?

It's a pure propaganda machine - as bad as anything they ever had in the USSR.

Why do they keep saying the Dems have no plan on Iraq and continually avoid mentioning Kerry-Feingold?

Wake Up.

[Joe for Clark]

65. It would never come up up if they didn't make money on it.

Guess that is what sells newspapers.

Joe

[sandnsea]

70. *sigh*

Why we keep getting people who believe Bush is a Christian and vote for his lies. If Democrats don't even understand the media is stacked, then I don't know how we expect the rest of the people to ever get it.

[Joe for Clark]

78. Who are the rest of the people exactly??

I never said anything like what you have in your post - I have no idea if or not B*sh is a good or real christian. Neither do you - and that is not the point.

But you understand - the media - they just sell things - time or space - they only care about the profit, not the truth. That is their job.

I live in LA, went to college here and everything. But I was born and grew up on the Ohio river. And I have come to believe, the people there are "us". They speak the greatest truth.

We are a middle class country. That government of the United States has a special obligation to us - that they protect the right of the middle class. That we have a right to expect our middle class high school graduate to expect a middle class life doing middle class work in middle class neighborhoods, regardless of race - and if they fail to do that, they need to be removed.

So right now, I am a western Pennsylvanian answering you - and the truth is I don't want anyone from Harvard running this - I want people that understand that "virtue". It is a great virtue.

Kerry may be a good man, but he is not a president for us.

Joe

[sandnsea]

94. Which has exactly what to do with media attacks??

Zippedy-do-da-squat. That's what. The point is that the reason people believe Bush is a good Christian and believe his war lies is because they continue to deny the basic fact that the media is bold-faced lying to them. Intentionally - with malice aforethought - to advance a corporate political agenda. Because in the end, THAT is where their money really comes from.

And by the way - the "I want someone like me" mentality is what got us George Bush.

[Joe for Clark]

97. It has a lot to do with it.

It was the center that threw this last election democratic.

DO you really understand what malice with forthought means??

And by the the way, I am a catholic - and myself and many like me voted heavily in this election to make sure these B*sh policies were thrown out.

Anyway, this is sure not about you - or me - it is in some measure about the middle class upbringing we thought we had - now I measure this with the people I lived along side, as I grew up with, on that river. I really do.

They are us, so to speak.

Someone with a very LA education,

Joe

[sandnsea]

99. Which has what to do with believing media lies?

The media didn't lie about the war and Bush in 2006, so people finally voted sensibly??? That's really what happened, you know that, right? If the media had spent the entire year of 2004 telling the truth of John Kerry and showing all the people who DID connect with him - then that's what you'd believe to be true. If they'd repeated the responses to the swiftboaters, everybody would believe it was shameful to attack a decorated war veteran. If they'd repeated the outrage at the White House wasting valuable time attacking a joke instead of focusing on our problems, we'd have won by an even wider margin. The media lies and the gullible center believes them. That's the problem.

[Joe for Clark]

105. Honey, they lie - they lie all the time.

Do you really want to why we won??

A few thousand people, like me, sat on the internet and watched carefully those last days. Money was being injected at key places that ended up determining the balance of power - that is the fact.

Tester thinks I live in Montanta - It is somewhat funny to me.

No one did the money thing without a reason, I make no mistake - none the less, there is now a balance of power.

Joe

[sandnsea]

106. Oh no, there's that honey again

That's the second time you've done that to me.

I honestly don't know what your problem is. If the media had been kissing Bush's butt and burying all the scandals like they did in 2004, we wouldn't have won. There isn't enough money in the world to overcome a complicit media.

[Joe for Clark]

109. Sorry - it is meant as an affectionate term, I suppose.

[LittleClarkie]

118. In one sense, "honeychild" as used by a Southerner

an affectionate term.

Said with a certain tone in the voice it can seem condescending. It's not easy to convey tone in writing.

[Joe for Clark]

120. About right, but with a west PA twist I suppose.

Guess it has start with Youns -

Good post post little clarkie - right idea.

Joe

[BeFree]

72. Gawd, sandnsea

I hope you woke him up.

People, the news is slanted. It is slanted to furthering the agenda of the rich people. War is money, peace is hard to make a buck on. Kerry would have cost the rich people buckoo bucks. Dean, Edwards, Gore, all would have scraped the cream of the richy top and put it in the little people's coffee.

The media is always messing with us -- lying, twisting and fabricating stories about our heroes. Just look at what they could do with the idiot son to see that in no way shape or form are they reporting the truth.

Wake the hell up, people!

[beachmom]

16. Here are the facts on his response to the SBL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

April 14, 2004 - The website for SBVT was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, the information technology manager for Gannon International, a St. Louis company that has diversified interests, including in Vietnam. (1) (note - Gannon International does not appear to have any relationship to Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the fake reporter.)

May 3, 2004 - "Kerry campaign announced a major advertising push to introduce 'John Kerry's lifetime of service and strength to the American people.' Kerry's four month Vietnam experience figures prominently in the ads." (2)

May 4, 2004 - The Swift Liars, beginning their lies by calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", went public at a news conference organized by Merrie Spaeth at the National Press Club. (1)

May 4, 2004 - "The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event...The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.' " (3)


May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).

Jul. 26, 2004 - Jul. 29, 2004 - Democratic National Convention held in Boston. John Kerry's military experience is highlighted.

Aug. 5, 2004 - The Swift Liars' first television ad began airing a one-minute television spot in three states. (7)

Aug. 5, 2004 - "the General Counsels to the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign faxed a letter to station managers at the relevant stations stating that the ad is 'an inflammatory, outrageous lie" and requesting that they "act immediately to prevent broadcast of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. " ' " (4)

Aug. 10, 2004 - Democracy 21, The Campaign Legal Center and The Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that the Swift Liars were illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections. (4)

Aug. 17, 2004 - the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges. (4)

Aug. 19, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced its own ad "Rassmann." (4)

Aug. 20, 2004 - The Swift Liars' second television ad began airing. This ad selectively excerpted Kerry's statements to the SFRC on 4/22/1971. (7)

Aug. 22, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced another ad "Issues" which addressed the Swift Boat group's attacks.

Aug. 25, 2004 - The Kerry-Edwards campaign ... dispatched former Sen. Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann, to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to deliver to the President a letter signed by Democratic Senators who are veterans. (The letter was not accepted.) (4)

Aug. 26, 2004 - The Swift Liars' third television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia in 1968. (7)

August 26, 2004 - Mary Beth Cahill sends letter to Ken Mehlman detailing the "Web of Connections" between the Swift Liars and the Bush Administration, and demanding that Bush denounce the smear campaign. (5)

August 26, 2004 - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submits FOIA request "with the White House asking it to detail its contacts with individuals connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT)." (6)

Aug. 27, 2004 - The DNC ran a full page ad in the Aug. 27, 2004 New York Times terming the Swift Boat campaign a smear. (4)

Aug. 31, 2004 - - The Swift Liars' fourth television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's participation in the medal-throwing protest on 4/23/1971. (7)

References:
* (1) SourceWatch article on SBVT

* (2) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman

* (3) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Kerry Campaign Response

* (4) (Sept. 8, 2004) Eric M. Appleman (apparently) Some Responses to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" Ad

* (5) August 26, 2004 letter from Mary Beth Cahill to Ken Mehlman

* (6) Press Release (US Newswire): CREW FOIAs White House Contacts with Swift Boat Veterans Group

* (7) Wikipedia entry, Swift Vets and POWs for Truth





MH1 - This topic is to create a timeline of the response of the K/E04 campaign to the Swift Liars' smears. There is an RW-encouraged myth that K/E04 "didn't respond." As the timeline, once completed, will show, that is not true. Effectiveness of the response may be debated - that is subjective - the purpose of this thread is to collect the facts of the events.





On Aug. 19, 2004 Kerry himself responded directly in a speech to the International Association of Firefighters' Convention in Boston. (from prepared remarks)
...And more than thirty years ago, I learned an important lesson—when you're under attack, the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attacker. That's what I intend to do today.

Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn’t interested in the truth – and they're not telling the truth. They didn't even exist until I won the nomination for president.

But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won't denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know—he wants them to do his dirty work.

Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.

As firefighters you risk your lives everyday. You know what it’s like to see the truth in the moment. You're proud of what you’ve done—and so am I.

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...





Go to the link for more

[napingo]

17. Maybe he was afraid the GOP knows something about his wealth that

he wouldn't want revealed. Rich as he is, he surely could afford to have the best PR firm in the country (probably Hill & Knowlton) working to promote a positive image of him, but he doesn't, and that makes me think he might have something "to hide".

[beachmom]

24. Welcome to DU, napingo

First, "he" can't hire a PR firm; the campaign had to do that. Also, in August 2004 he was limited to how much he could spend because it was then using public money (he had a 5 week longer fall campaign than Bush which was a BIG disadvantage).

I think he's doing fine money wise -- the Congress offers a great pension plan, you know. Although he is married to a very wealthy woman, her kids will inherit that wealth, so that's less a factor then people think. And I think he may have inherited money from his folks once they passed away. I feel a little funny talking about somebody else's money issues, but the estimate in U.S. News said he probably had between $500K and a $1 million. Not bad, but in 2006, not filthy rich either. If money was all that he loved, he would have picked a more lucrative and decidedly less viscious career than politics.

[karynnj]

75. If money was what he valued, he could very easily have gotten it

Many of his Senate peers have far greater assests than when they entered the Senate. They made investments - not available to you or me. Kerry fought the President, former President Jimmy Carter and the entire Senate because they wanted to protet high level party people that BCCI bought in both parties. He pushed that effort even outside the Senate - but I assume he had offers. I seriously doubt their is anything fishy in John or Teresa Heinz Kerry's finances. If there were, we would have heard it.

Kerry at that time was a single guy actually having some trouble financially paying for his kids' elite education and the cost of commuting each week to be back in Boston with his kids.

[Joe for Clark]

31. I don't know -

Something was going on.

Kerry did win a silver star, a bronze star and purple hearts. Those are VERY serious awards.

I have never in my life seen anyone belittle the fact. Those "swiftboaters" sure did - WHY??

It was most probably a political miscalutlation - cause there really is no doubt Kerry is a very brave man. But the fact he let them says a lot about the fight in him.

Oh, he has nothing to hide - how does one hide behind a silver star?? But he didn't fight them very well, either.

The people that did this - "swiftboaters" - in every sense of the word were abject cowards.

And the sick thing is they got away with it so far. Doesn't make it any less true that they are scum. Only true that Kerry didn't put up a very good fight.

Joe

[Brazenly Liberal]

64. Nah, he's just been in the Senate too long

The Senate isn't the kind of rowdy, no holds barred come-one-come-all the House is. Senate members pride themselves on conducting the country's business in a more "genteel" fashion. Getting into a brawl is regarded as unseemly - even for Democrats. All those years playing by Senate rules didn't prepare "Gentleman John" for dealing with the swift boat assholes.

[Joe for Clark]

69. You are right of course.

The truth is - I have never in my life seen a vet group attack a fellow like that. I understand Kerry for being taken aback - I do.

I always thought there were those unspoken words - vets do not ever brag about what they did - and fellows do not ever attack fellow vets - I thought they were unbreakable rules.

SO, I understand Kerry backing off in a way. But equally, the people that did this, the "swiftboaters" - they are in unchartered waters too. And swimming against a strong current.

There is a truth about Karma - and I think those "swiftboaters" may be finding that out real soon.

Joe

[karynnj]

79. He responded with truth and expected the media

would act as it would have even 5 or so years before. Did you notice NOT one talking head called the people who wore purple heart band aids on the fact that they were disgusting? Did you see Bob Dole say Kerry never bled? Kerry himself has said they suceeded in getting the print media to cover the facts - the problem was the cable Tv and the radio - where people proven to have lied were brought back on the next day to state a new lie.

Kerry had hundreds of pages of naval records - all filled with praise - on his web site. The same information went to the press. Republican Senator Warner (the 60s/70s) secretary of the Navy SAID he checked Kerry's silver star and he earned it. The Navy records all backed Kerry. You also had the Nixon people on tape saying that he was squeaky clean and they checked out his record - at a time when information would still be available. (instead they argued he was a phony because he used a Georgetown mansion to make calls to coordinate the event. )

The media HAD the facts - what could Kerry DO? McCain simply blew up and completely imploded his campaign. Face it - Kerry was attacked and attacked by powerful forces. Between getting the facts out, keeping his dignity and doing a spectacular job in the debates - he came within 60,000 votes in Ohio - which he would have won if everyone had an equally easy time to vote. Then the story would have been the contrast between Kerry's dignity and McCain's temper - and the moral being that Kerry's adult behavior allowed him to win. Most people likely to vote for Kerry knew the SBVT people were lying per polls near the end.

[blm]

32. Kerry never had much money of his own till his mother passed away in 2002 and that

didn't even go to him till a few years later.

The BFEE has NOTHING on Kerry - they tried to take him down in the Nixon WH and the Reagan and Bush WHs - they hadn't made a dent till they gained control of most broadcast media and their newsrooms - and that is why they depend on making shit up and getting the media to overplay it.

[sandnsea]

33. PR firms are hired in order to hide things

People who don't use them - don't need them. He's been picked clean by the right wing vultures, there isn't anything left for them to use against him - that's why they have to concoct stupid stories about jokes. It's amazing Americans STILL don't see the bullshit for what it is. Very scary me. We're all the butt of Bush's 'fool me again' joke - we just have it stamped on our foreheads.

[ProSense]

35. Hill and Knowlton

as in BCCI'S PR agency Hill and Knowlton? I don't think so. Kerry's wealth belongs to his wife, and the Repubs already pressed to have her release all her financial information. She released it and they found nothing. Kerry, squeaky clean!

[INdemo]

22. The Republicans do not want to see Kerry as the Democratic nominee

Because they know they can't steal an election from him twice in a row..They want Hillary..They have the file on Hillary all ready for the MSM to help them "Swiftboat" her....Everything from Whitewater to the failed healthcare plan and many more serious issues that will insure a
Republican victory..Right now I would bet that Kerry is the nominee for 2008.He's got the money (and the potential to raise millions more) and he is the best campaigner of all the prospective candidates.

[mtnsnake]

44. And just like so much other spin, it's been wrong 100 times.

[blm]

13. Bush had his surrogates fighting the daily TV battles - Kerry used Clark and Cleland

are you saying that Clark and Cleland didn't do a great job steppeing up and answering Bush's surrogates?

Bush never attacked Kerry on the swifts but Kerry DID attack Bush for hiding behind the swifts and challenged him to debate their experiences during Vietnam - but corpmedia never shared that with you, did they?

[Joe for Clark]

49. You are not seriously suggesting that B*sh had nothing to do

do with the Kerry swiftboating, are you?

Who benefited?? It is the first question anyone asks in such a situation.

I'll say this - the people behind the "swiftboating" need to be brought into the daylight now.

It is time. They managed to screw a fellow vet - silver star winner - by their own hand. This has a serious consequence attached for them, I believe.

Joe

[blm]

51. I didn't say that - reread my post. Bush never attacked Kerry with the swifts

message, but Kerry attacked Bush anyway, KNOWING Bush was hiding behind the swifts - but corpmedia CHOSE TO NOT REPORT IT OR BROADCAST Kerry's challenge to Bush.

Alot more went on than corpmedia showed - and it certainly wasn't Bush doing any of the fighting.

And Clark and Cleland did a great job, but the airtime was never distributed fairly and they were drowned out.

[Joe for Clark]

58. I read your post correctly - I say he did -

He didn't have to take credit for the Kerry attacks to do that - Doesn't mean he didn't approve either. Sure he did.

The General and Cleland did the best job possible - but it wasn't enough. The consequence of course is hundreds of more dead kids in the middle of no where Iraq.

I make no bones about it - Keryy really was a legitimate war hero - attacked by people who never went to war and fronted by some who did, with an agenda. All true.

It just doesn't change where we are though.

Joe

[blm]

60. Of course Bush and Rove were behind it, but not to the media or in any way

that media would acknowledge.

And Kerry attacked Bush for it anyway, and media STILL wouldn't give his challenge an airing.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

34. Actually, Kerry responded forcefully and quickly

The MSM did not treat his responses as they should have. They played the lies like they were facts, despite the lack of evidence. They ignored the fact that Kerry's version of everything was backed up by his service records.

In the end, the MSM treated every known lie told by Swiftboat liars as if it was a she said/he said situation, even when the US Navy records backed up Kerry and Swiftliars had no evidence at all. MSM also gave the testimony of Kerry's enemies, who weren't on his boat, as much or more air time as Kerry's cred, despite his crew being on his boat with him during the firefights.

It was a matter of who controlled the echo chamber. The right wing was and still is in control of the echo chamber. Somebody can tell a completely ridiculous lie about a democrat and Rush, Hannity, Fox News, the Savage Weiner and the rest will talk it up for days after.

The lie eventually gets debunked by the Washington Post or NYT a week later, but it is printed on page 5 and most 'Murcans don't notice that. They just heard the lie repeated, over and over on hate radio and by cable news liars and accept the lie as fact.

It's called propaganda. It's why net neutrality is a must and legislation to break up media monopolies is a must.

The corporations control too much of what most people see and hear. Until we get some kind of objective, professional journalism back on TV and the radio, it's tough sledding for anyone opposed to the corpocracy.

[Joe for Clark]

43. No he didn't.

That is maybe why we are here today talking about it.

Those bastards that made those charges should be on the hot seat right now - why aren't they??

Joe

[jgraz]

66. whoops

[BeFree]

76. Jeeezus Joe

What is your problem? You have been wrong so many times on just this thread alone, my head is starting to spin. It seems you have a one track mind.

The media allowed the swiftboaters the whole damn sea in which to sink Kerry, and they bashed Kerry relentlesly the whole time! Them's the facts, and you've been respectfully informed of those facts time and again here by other posters.

You may think you are pretty wise tearing Kerry down to build up Clark, but it is nothing but idiocy and you are playing right into the hands of the lying media, and frankly have disgraced Clark's name here.

[Joe for Clark]

81. Then I guess I am wrong -

But I did not tear down Kerry - I just don't think he is a winner. What did I say about Clark here - nothing at all?? Right??

The idea of 2004 sure does raise heckles though. For a lot of reasons.

Joe

[BeFree]

83. You guess?

Hell, son, either ya are or ya aren't! From where I sit you tore Kerry down... made him seem less than he really is, same way the media works. I've seen it too many times to not recognize it. Maybe you didn't mean too? Don't matter, you did.

BTW: Kerry won the 2004 election. He is a winner; we are the losers.

[Joe for Clark]

85. I was being sarcastic.

And I do not tear Kerry down - he is just not a winner in american presidential politics.

I guess I am more reality based.

Joe

[BeFree]

86. You've been raped by the media

and you like it. You roll over and take it again, and again.

By your words, I am not tearing you down, so shut up and take it. Or cry for relief, but you'll get no quarter from me. Anyone playing moutpiece for the media deserves scorn, especially if they won't listen up, and see that the media is the enemy.

[Joe for Clark]

88. You can please shove it - you have NO IDEA how much

I despise them.

"Mouthpeice for the media" - you have no idea what you are talking about.

Joe

[BeFree]

90. My ideas come from

reading what you have written here. And you read like a rewrite of the media BS we've had to live through. That's what you look like to me, if that ain't what you are ya got a lot of explaining to do.

And yes, as long as you keep dishing it out, I will shove it: right back in your face.

[Joe for Clark]

92. I have a lot of explaining to do??

I read "like a rewrite of the media"...

I would laugh except it hurts so much to me.

What are you, 12 years old???

Joe

[BeFree]

95. So you think it's funny?

Why am I not surprised? You carry on and on about how bad Kerry is, but when someone does the same to you you start whining. Sickening.

You don't even try to defend yourself, you just whine and try to divert the discussion. Well, I'm shoving it, just like you asked.

[Joe for Clark]

101. Why aren't you surprised??

I can guess.

No, I feel no need at all to defend myself. But maybe I am a little older than you. Maybe a little wiser.

About some things, anyway.

I shouldn't have said shove it - I am sorry I said that. But you do not know me, you have no idea what I go thru, am going thru over this this dumb war.

I do apologize for saying shove it - I truly do.

Joe

[BeFree]

103. All I know about you

...is what I read here, and let me tell you, it is very disappointing. You run on and on like a broken record attacking Kerry, tearing him down, all the while excusing the media for it's atrocious behavior. Its what I see, and I see you have Clark's name attached to your media mouth-piecing and I think... that's not good, not good for Clark, not good for anyone but the republicans. That's just how I see it.

[Joe for Clark]

108. If you really wanted to look,

you could look beyond this posting. I have a thousand other posts - there is a lot to look it, I guess.

You think this is about republican and democrat - well, I guess you have a lot to learn.

DO you really believe Kerry is anything more that a pawn in all of this, to me??

Get real.

I know too many of the kids out there now in Iraq. My kid is out there. I don't think you are old enough to have kids - so I don't think this whole post means so much to you.

Let me make this plain to you - kids will die because of the failure in 2004, it is a fact.
And they will die badly - very much so.

For me - my parents were both officers in WWII. My uncles were were pretty serious officers then. My brothers grunts in VN and my kid is 3/2 in this stupid war. I know war, or the pieces of people that come back - more like it. It is very serious to me.

Joe

[BeFree]

112. So...

You blame Kerry for the war? Is that what this is all about? All your bashing of Kerry because bush lied and took us into Iraq?

Hey, I feel for you. But I do what I can... totally against this war from day one, hell from years before it even started. It is not Kerry's fault.

Sorry, but what I read tonight from you, Joe for Clark, leaves me with a real bad taste.... maybe you are just stressed out, whatever, I have plenty of stress myself, but I know who my friends are and Kerry is as good of a friend as any in Congress, so I take umbrage at attacks on him.

I suggest you go back and read all your posts and all replies to you in this thread and see what it is that I see. Peace.

[Joe for Clark]

116. I don't believe anyone could read this so far apart from

truth as you did. What are you smoking??

I hope a different night finds you in a more favorable frame of mind, not necessarily from me - probably not from me, actually.

I do wish you the best - truly.

Joe

[beachmom]

46. Country radio stations, too. Also religious stations.

They cast a WIDE net.

[Joe Bacon]

37. He gave up while Ohio was still being counted.

John Kerry promised that he would make sure that every vote was counted in 2004.

He did not do that. He gave up.

That's why I won't support John Kerry ever again.

[demnan]

5. I agree with you on one point

Whoever we run for President is going to be under huge scrutiny and attack. Whoever that person is, first and foremost they must be able to fight against the tremendous and unreasonable attacks that will be fomented against them. They must be able to answer immediately. I like how Senator-elect Jim Webb did that. When there was criticism of his essay on women in the military, he acted immediately and met with some high powered women like Hillary and defused and answered the criticism. He didn't wait or assume people would be too smart to listen to attacks. Allen attacked his books and he said, "I'm proud of my literary achievements." That's the kind of person we need for the Presidency. When they make an attack our person should be on the Evening News saying, no that is not true. And they need to say it every day of the entire campaign until the very end.

[beachmom]

7. With the way the media STILL keeps harping on Kerry, I'm going to

have to agree with you, Sandynsea. There is just an unusual zeal against Kerry that I just am finding so odd. When it happened it was really bad, but the fact that they're still beating a dead horse (aka the joke) shows there is an extreme bias there. And it's coming from the GOP and the DLC wing of the Democratic party. Problem is, everyone has their own favorite candidate so they don't realize that ANYONE with more progressive leanings is going to be attacked here. Kerry is the only one potentially running in '08 who has a timetable for withdrawal to get our troops the hell OUT of Iraq. When Feingold dropped out, it came down to Kerry. And now he is being non-stop vilified by the media WAY out of proportion to what he said. In short, guys, the media reaction is NOT proportional, and everybody should take notice of that.

[CTyankee]

39. I watched all this from an interesting perspective as my

son in law worked for Kerry's campaign in Boston.

I believe that you are right that the press just can't stop beating up John Kerry, but now I think it is because he is now the poster boy of Northeast liberals (or so they think). He looks and speaks in patrician tones. He windsurfs in Nantucket. His wife has more money than God. He's Yale and a Bonesman. He speaks fluent French.

You know the drill: yadda, yadda, yadda.

[zulchzulu]

10. Name any candidate. I can tell you the "crippling swiftboat issue"

The MSM will drill it into the lazy public that dares not look at what the real issues are. Yeah, we always say that people are tired of negative politics, but unfortunately, it works.

It's actually a myth that Kerry didn't respond to the Swiftboaters. He responded in EVERY speech I saw him speak (dozens), he had a legion of people that spoke out against the Swiftboaters and he is actually very ready to squash them this time around if he decides to run.

People are quite naive if they think their candidate will not have a speech or comment taken out of context and drilled back ad nauseum and made the "central issue" for the Royal Punditry to mimic, puppet and chirp about over and over again.

Take heed, all ye that feel your precious candidate is a perfect angel. And especially take heed if your candidate is the declared "frontrunner" so early in the race. It's like having a big target of your face saying "Character assassinate me!"

[MBS]

30. you're absolutely right about all of this

thanks for raising these much-needed points, especially those last two paragraphs.

[Leilani]

21. One of Kerry's problems was that he didn't have an effective

attack dog, as most candidates do . He chose "Mr. Sunshine" who was concerned about his own image, rather than Kerry's.

Cheney was fierce & effective for Bush. That allowed Bush to rise above the fray, & avoid being negative.

Wes Clark & Max Cleland were all over the place defending Kerry, & I admired them for their effort. But if Edwards had come out swinging, it would have been more effective, because he would have gotten more attention & airtime, as Veep candidate.

I find it ironic that Kerry always gets the blame: for the Iraq vote, for the campaign, etc., & Edwards is completely exonerated of any mistakes.

[rockymountaindem]

27. That's an interesting thought n/t

[benny05]

26. I'd point to one channel at this point

Faux News.

[blm]

28. MSNBC is targetting Kerry, too - but then they're tight with Carville and Carville doesn't

like nutroots much, either. Also Abrams is Elliott Abrams cousin and Kerry's IranContra investigation got him indicted.

[mtnsnake]

42. Kerry got swiftboated a 2nd time because he didn't answer back the 1st time

You can stand here and dish out your usual spin that he answered back "then", but you won't convince anyone who saw that election for just what it was...a battering by the right wing that never got answered by Kerry. Even Kerry himself has admitted he never answered back "then" when he got swiftboated the first time...and how he regretted taking the high road.

If you think your 'hot' candidate, like Edwards or Obama or Clark, is going to escape this kind of swiftboating - then ask yourself whether it's because they won't stand up to the status quo or they just aren't perceived as a threat yet.

I doubt if any of those three would ever succomb to the swiftboating that Kerry succombed to in 2004, but time will tell.

[beachmom]

48. Only if the media LETS them not get swiftboated

As it is, Edwards was already skewered by Walmart for a non-story. There was a nasty op-ed in my newspaper about that. A totally bogus story. So, no, this isn't just about Kerry.

[sandnsea]

54. Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore...

But somehow or other Edwards, Obama or Clark won't get swiftboated - yeah right. :eyes:

[crazyblueracer]

50. Swiftboated?

I think it is sad to hold on....

He was not swiftboated!! The media especially KNN.... err... I mean CNN was on Kerry's side. Almost every network boasted Kerry. They said he had it wrapped up. Don't know where you guys are coming from. Sound like really sad loosers looking for someone to blame stuff on. Kid stuff...

[Cameron27]

52. Not exactly sure what you mean

but Kerry most definately was swiftboated & it was nasty.

[karynnj]

82. Did you lose your way?

You have to be crazy if you think that ANY of the cable networks had a liberal or Democratic bias. You could simply count the pundits on each side - all the cable networks favored BUSH.

Seeing that you obviously learned very little about Kerry - take a look at johkerry.com. Listen to a few of his speeches - I recommend Real Security or Dissent (they are listed on the muti-media page) Then you will see more than the cardboard outine that CNN pretended was Kerry in 2004.

Seeing that you are new hear and made a charge usually only said on RW radio - I am assuming you may be someone disheartened with their nonsense - if so really check out the Democrats. Clark and Edwards have nice web sites too. Stay awhile and you may actually be impressed.

Oh, by the way our 2004 candidate in addition to being an examplary public servant was a war hero - with real medals and all. (He also doesn't seem to hold a grudge against all Republicans - even though they've been against him since the 70s - he saved one of their lives in teh Seante when he was chocking - and they became life long friends. Pretty amazing.

[beachmom]

84. Welcome to DU, crazyblueracer

Um . . . not sure where you're coming from. My right wing neighbor is all anti-CNN, too, claiming they cost us the Iraq War for, I guess, reporting the news. But for those of us on the Left, we watched CNN give free airtime to the Swift Boat Liars in August 2004. These guys had NOTHING to back up their claims, yet they were given air time on all 3 cable channels night after night after night. How do you disprove a lie? All the records backed up Kerry's earning his medals.

The only negativity against Bush in the MSM is in a non-personal way. It's always about "chaos in Iraq" or a decline in meritocracy or rise in unemployment or "a few bad apples" at Abu Ghraib. They never pinned it on Bush personally in 2004. I highly disagree with your assertion that CNN or any other MSM network was favorable about Kerry on a personal level. I mean who came up with "aloof"?

[Robeson]

91. Looks like you disrupted poorly.

[madfloridian]

57. It's heartbreaking.

The grassroots did a job on others as well a couple of years ago. The media defines the issues, and people come here and go along with it.

Been there done that seen it before.

But the way this is being done is more heinous to me because all of us should have our eyes open by now.

They are building Obama up like crazy, yet the right wing bloggers are digging in on him.

08 is going to be a very hard time here because people are already being so ugly and not realizing what's gong on.

[politicasista]

61. Exactly

People are going to be in for a rude awakening if they think this won't happen to anyone else.

[geek tragedy]

67. Oh boo hoo.

Kerry didn't fight back when he should have, and he then fought back when he shouldn't have.

A fine man, but he has absolutely no idea how to play national politics.

I mean, why did it take him to 2005 to say that he wouldn't vote for the IWR all over again? Tin ear.

He's the junior Senator from Massachusetts. That's it.

Next.

[blm]

87. And the only person in DC with the sense and COURAGE to uncover IranContra, BCCI

illegal wars in Central America and CIA drugrunning.

YOU wouldn't know half the truth about the Bushes that you know if there was no Sen. Kerry. You would know what the fascist agenda looked like by 1994, though.

Your heros may be those who smile cool while covering up for BushInc but some of us admire the anti-corruption Democrats over the coverup Democrats that Bushes regularly call upon to service the fascists.

[geek tragedy]

107. He has served admirably in the Senate.

But, he is not an effective messenger for the national party.

[jgraz]

68. You people do know that Kerry WON in 2004?!?

Yes -- he's sitting in the White House right now, doing great things for our country. His campaign in 2004 was brilliant, not at all lameass and moronic. To believe anything else is to be duped by the vicious, Kerry-hating media.

Kerry went right after Bush's supposed strength -- 9/11 -- calling him out on his months of inaction before the attack and demanding that he explain those 7 minutes when he read My Pet Goat instead of doing his job. Why wouldn't he? Ignoring Bush's failure and ceding the terrorism issue to him would have been amazingly weak and stupid. Candidate Kerry would never do that. To believe anything else is to be duped by the vicious, Kerry-hating media.

Kerry went right after Bush in the Democratic Convention, and he encouraged other people to do so as well. After all, this was the worst president in US history; if you can't say negative things about him, you should just give up as a candidate. As we all know, Kerry rose to the occasion brilliantly, thereby avoiding what would surely have been the lowest post-convention bump in history. To believe anything else is to be duped by the vicious, Kerry-hating media.

Kerry responded quickly and forcefully to the SwiftBoat attacks. In doing so, he placed responsibility for the ads squarely on the Bush campaign, calling the President a draft-dodger and a deserter, and telling him to stop attacking people who were actually brave enough to serve in the war rather than run to Daddy for a rescue. This strong rebuttal completely defused the lying attacks before they had a chance to get off the ground. To believe anything else is to be duped by the vicious, Kerry-hating media.

On election day, when the vote counts starting trending towards Bush, Kerry immediately cried foul. After all, he was just on a conference call where he made it clear that he strongly suspected shenanigans in New Mexico, Florida and Ohio. On Wednesday, he came out strong for an investigation, refused to concede and promised all the people who had worked so hard and contributed so much to his campaign that he would not rest until an honest count of the election was held. To believe anything else is to be duped by the vicious, Kerry-hating media.

Yes, President John F. Kerry. It's only two years into his first term, but he's already become our Greatest President Ever. To believe anything else is to be duped by the vicious, Kerry-hating media.

[Sensitivity]

74. Recommend Ellul's "The Political Illusion" re the quaqmire of ineffectiveness Dems are in

regarding party leadership.

I don't think it can be denied that there is a major effort by Corporate and Political bureaucracies to manufacture certain public assumptions regarding
what the options are and ought to be. The "framing" of John Kerry is clearly a case in point.

Kerry is one politician who has maintained inflexible policy positions that are unpopular with major interest and is quite threatening because he is not very vulnerable to manipulation -- somewhat like the JFK and Bobby and we know what happened to them.

[LittleClarkie]

77. Too much of a boy scout?

I get the feeling that more than just the Republicans wanted this guy to NOT be prez in 2004. Any pro-corporate Dems, for instance.

[Imagevision]

80. Kerry & Gore too late... need new blood! (Obama!)

[sandnsea]

96. So we can sit back and watch him get slaughtered??

Until people understand that it will happen to ANYBODY, this 'new blood' mantra amounts to nothing more than offering up another sacrificial lamb.

[Cha]

102. Please Tell me..why should

Barack Obama be president in 2008?

[smoogatz]

89. Trouble is, Kerry just showed the whole country he hasn't learned

a goddamned thing about handling the media and managing public perception. He stinks at it, and so do the people who work for him. He could learn a lot from a guy like Jim Webb, who was attacked relentlessly by Allen's media thugs, and quickly figured out how to counterpunch effectively (while minimizing his own mistakes). Finally, it was Allen's series of gaffes that probably decided the election. Was Allen "swiftboated"? Of course not--if you make a mistake in public, and your opponent uses it against you, that's just plain-old hard-ball politics. Kerry's supporters should stop crying to the referees (there ain't any), because frankly it just makes you (and Kerry) look like a bunch of whiners. You'd be better served by learning how and when to hit first, how to counter when attacked, and for chrissakes, how to minimize Kerry's tendency to insert tassel-loafer at the worst possible moment (note to Kerry Krew: Bush used the dyslexia excuse--maybe you could try something like that).

[BeFree]

93. Bullshit

The media swiftboated Kerry. How do you attack the media? Well, you do it here by attacking the posters who are mouthpieces for the media, like you, here.

"...because frankly it just makes you (and Kerry) look like a bunch of whiners."

See how it works? You attack me by calling me a whiner, so I counter you by rightfully calling you a media mouthpiece. It's just like you mouthpieces to overlook all the gaffes bush has made and overlooked by the media. If the media had one fair bone in their body they would have made soup out of the bush administration.

But what do you carry on about? Kerry looking like a whiner. You do see how stupid you look, right?

[smoogatz]

98. So now you're claiming that nobody on DU talks about Bush's gaffes?

How hilarious is that? Or should we talk about them in Kerry threads, too, because not to do so would somehow be unfair to Kerry (never mind what it says about you if you only look your best in comparison to a buffoon like Bush). And you're trying to claim that everyone here who thinks Kerry poses a rehtorical danger to himself and others is a "media mouthpiece"? Which medium would that be, exactly? Face it, BeFree--you guys ARE whiners. Kerry makes mistakes, you blame the media for reporting them. That response reflects badly on you, AND him.

On edit: did you kind of just admit that you work for Kerry? I think you did.

[BeFree]

100. DU sure

But the media doesn't. Not a bit. They let him get away with it, totally. You do agree, right?

So why are you laughing? The media has bent you over and had their way with you and what do you do? You raise their baby. I don't laugh at you, I have pity.

So, smoogatz, your reputation has just been sealed. You attack Kerry, but let the media off the hook. Hey, it's a free country, but don't expect me not to call you on your mouthing the media line.

[smoogatz]

104. You're a loon.

I swear to God. If the "media" was spamming DU with all kinds of meaningless self-promoting crap, I'd be snarking at them, too. And in fact I'm probably at least as aware of, and active in trying to counteract, the larger problem of rightwing/corporate media bias than you are--which goes far beyond Kerry's inability to manage his own image. You can "call me" on anything you want--I've grown to enjoy the complete frothing fits you guys have whenever anyone says that Kerry may, in fact, be less than perfect out in public. What I wish for is some kind of substantive response to that critique; maybe one that wasn't entirely dependant on your fantasy that everyone who dislikes Kerry has simply been brainwashed by a hostile media. Who'm I gonna believe, you or my lyin' eyes?

On edit: typing too fast. Fixed now.

[BeFree]

113. You see

There you go down the same path the media has obviously ridden you.

Why attack one of our best members and continue to allow the media to get away with it? I really suspect your motives at this point.

And yes, you typed beyond your thinking curve, try again tommorrow.

[Joe for Clark]

115. Do not attack people for speaking their mind again.

That is plain wrong.

The day you are willing to fight in uniform you let me know - until that day you let people speak freely.

[BeFree]

117. Take two aspirin

And call me in the morning.

I feel all filthy having hung around you people tonight, with your speaking freely trashing a fine American Patriot like Kerry. Absolutely filthy.

I'm outta here, trash freely!

[Joe for Clark]

119. There is probably a remedial english class at a jr college near

you.

You really feel "filthy" - who the hell are you??


Joe

[smoogatz]

121. You're completely delusional.

You're trying to construct this ridiculous cult of personality around Kerry, of all people. Here's your argument: Kerry's such a big deal, and the corporate media are so scared of him, they're unfairly reporting things he actually says. The junior Senator from Massachusetts, failed presidential candidate, and soon-to-be chairman of the Senate small business committee, is the scourge of corporate media, who are now out to get him, personally. Give me a fucking break.

[ruggerson]

110. BINGO - BEST POST OF THE THREAD n/t

[mtnsnake]

111. I'll second that, although #104 is pretty good, too, lol

[sendero]

114. Kerry and Kerry alone..

... could counter the swiftboat mess. And HE DIDN'T, and no amount of long, stupid press clippings from papers that nobody reads or transcripts of Firehouse (of all place, what were there, 500 people there?) speeches will prove otherwise.

Anyone with the political instincts of a guppy would have known how to handle it but Kerry and his team didn't. If he doesn't know how, or know how to hire people who know how, he is NOT PRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL.

[Joe for Clark]

122. You drew out real thoughts sandnsea - you made a good post.

Joe

[wisteria]

123. Great post loaded with great points. n/t