This wasn't supposed to happen

[dsc]

All during the primary season people supporting Kerry assured us that there was no way the Bush team would dare attack Kerry's VietNam record and that if they were dumb enough to do so Kerry would fight back effectively. This helped give Kerry his veneer of electability that he used to defeat Dean and Edwards.

Now here we are in August and all anyone is talking about is Kerry and VietNam and if he deserved his medals. By any sane measure the Kerry campaign has totally botched this. He has had a series of ineffectual surrogates debating O'Neil and they have made no apparent effort to inform their friends in the media of the facts (both Matthews and Carlson have been passionate but uniformed in defending Kerry).

This attack was not out of left field. The book upon which it was based was published in May. There is no excuse, none, for the lack of preparedness that too many surrogates had on this issue. Some, like Cleland, were brilliant. Others, like Pedesta, were not. Where is Rassman? Where is the guy from the Tribune (who wrote a page one op ed supporting Kerry's version last Sunday)? Both of these people were there. Both of them know the facts. Yet neither one seems to be anywhere. If you can't send the people who were there at least make sure you prepare the ones you do send. Pedesta should have had a list of every single partisan contribution made by O'Neil. Pedesta should of had a list of every person on Kerry's boat.

I literally can't believe that Kerry's campaign let this happen. Especially after seeing the ridiculous treatment of Dean's Iowa speech. Any thought the Kerry campaign had that the press wouldn't put trivial slander ahead of issues should have been disabused on that day. I really hope that we recover from this. But we still appear to have more charges to come. We deserved a better campaign than this. We were promised this couldn't happen. We were promised that if they tried it, they would pay. We were promised a different style than Dukakis. We were promised a war room style candidate. So far, we haven't got him.

Every day the Swift Boat liars are the story of the day is a lost opportunity for Kerry. Everyday that the Swift Boat liars are the story of the day is a day that Kerry isn't talking about the economy, health care, or anything else. This needs to turn around and fast. We were promised this wouldn't happen.

[DaveinMD]

1. Kerry

has fought back effectively. He's won the last week. The counteroffensive has been brutal.

[wndycty]

98. Yes but Kerry is NO HOWARD DEAN. . .

. . .and we know HoDo would have a 25 point lead by now. <sarcasm>

[dsc]

128. Please point out where I say that

yes I want a quote of me saying that.

[Malikshah]

135. The Usual Suspects (i.e. don't hold your breath)

We're going down the same path as in January and February.

THe treatment of Dean is now bordering on the "blame Clinton" in it tenor and ferocity.

Politics are indeed ugly-- as for me-- I'm happy with Kerry, Dean, and the whole lot-- (barring Joementum Joe)

As a Dean supporter, I'm ready for the election and look forward to what comes with the fall of the chimp

[bearfartinthewoods]

139. hello....remember me????

i was begging....freakin begging people to lose the hero strategy.
a lot of this stuff that is coming out now was on the web a year ago.
i know it was because i posted the links myself and got my ass handed to me for it. it isn't that no one was warning what was going to happen.....

[dsc]

141. I do remember that

and I think it can't be said that we are friends here either.

[dsc]

142. I do remember that

and I think it can't be said that we are friends here either.

[Spiffarino]

2. "Poll: More Believe Bush Behind Attack Ads "

Poll: More Believe Bush Behind Attack Ads

41 minutes ago

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - Americans increasingly believe President Bush's re-election campaign is behind the ads attacking Democrat John Kerry's Vietnam experience, a poll found.

--------

The public's belief that Kerry did not earn his medals grew to 30 percent when the attack ads got widespread publicity on cable news networks. But that number has dropped to 24 percent now.

Sorry, but I ain't buying any of it. Don't think for a minute Kerry didn't expect Bush to attack his Vietnam service. How stupid do you think he is? He has had this same bulls*it thrown at him in most of his campaigns. He was ready and now he's doing a great job on the counterattack.

On edit: Dumb spelling errors...next time, spellcheck!

[Massacure]

3. Bush has been getting hammered, and Kerry is ahead in the polls.

[Cheswick2.0]

14. Kerry is not ahead in the polls anymore

[bigtree]

91. Almost all of these 'polls' that show Bush in the lead are well within the

margin of error. The ABC poll that shows Bush 2 points up has a margin of 4%. Some lead.

[JohnKleeb]

93. and we know for a fact that Kerry doesnt start best but closes best

hes off to a pretty good start. God, he's doing a lot better than Gore was at this point and you know what Gore still won.

[mzmolly]

4. I was thinking the exact same thing.

:(

[serryjw]

5. I'm glad someone had the nerve to say this.

When this started Kerry should have said

I was drafted. I volunteered for Vietnam. I got wounded several times in the MOST dangerous place in Vietnam. I served my country honorably. Mr Bush where were you when I was in the swamps of Vietnam in 120 degree temperature?

[Spiffarino]

6. Tut-tut

Such Nervous Nellies!

:eyes:

[Tarheel_Dem]

7. i'm sorry.....

but do you actually think that any other dem candidate would somehow have magically escaped the right wing's smear machine? these "sky is falling" threads have become quite tiresome, and i suspect are geared to create apathy, because some people haven't gotten over the primaries.

[whirlygigspin]

20. bring it on

I can understand and share DSC's concern here.

I think we're looking for the Kerry camp to enlist/create a Dean type rapid response style and of guetting off the defensive and going on the offensive.

[Spiffarino]

127. News flash

Dean lost. Big time. His rapid response style didn't help him anywhere but in the early opinion polls. When it mattered, he lost.

Howard is a great guy and the heart and soul of the party. I love him for helping us find our collective balls. But the fact remains that he was unable to close the deal.

Kerry is a seasoned campaigner. He knows how to tailor his message for a large audience. We may not like it because it sounds like he's being all things to all people, but that's how you win the big ones.

[Tarheel_Dem]

150. you tell 'em gtrump..........

n/t

[dsc]

23. No

but I do think several other candidates would have done a better job of fighting back than Kerry has done. And, to my knowledge, none of the others campaigned on the idea that Bush wouldn't be able to do this to them.

[Tarheel_Dem]

60. well i think john kerry knows a thing or two about winning....

elective office, as evidenced by his 20+ years in the senate. i understand that there are those of us who couldn't wait until kerry took a hit like this so they could say, 'i told you so, my candidate was the better choice'. to these people, let me just ask; where's your candidate now? kerry won the primaries, by a huge margin; and all the handwringing in the world won't change that.

i'm just sick of people who want to hear their words coming out of kerry's mouth. the only remedy for that, as i see it, is to run for office yourself.

[dsc]

117. Please point out where I ask for Kerry to say anyting

much less specific words. Go ahead, search on here and find that post. I would love to read it.

I am not asking for specific words from his surrogates either. I am merely asking that they know what the Hell they are talking about when they defend Kerry.

[susanna]

66. No kidding, Tarheel.

I'm a Clarkie of the highest order. Love him. But once he didn't get the nom, I moved on.

The Not-so-Swift-Liars-for-Bush would have attacked my General Clark as a "perfumed prince." As being less than he was/is. It would have made me exceedingly angry, not throwing up my hands as if it's over and done.

Everyone KNEW what Kerry was heading into. This is bound to be the most disgusting, brutal, ugly campaign I've ever seen. We should all get used to it, and fight accordingly. So says me...

[Tarheel_Dem]

95. how right you are susanna.........

:toast:

[HootieMcBoob]

114. exactly

and that's precisely why Kerry needs a much much better rapid response team. this is just constructive criticism folks. don't get your panties in a wad because people are pissed off about this. if you think sitting back and letting this continue without aggressively confronting it is the right path than your very naive. The fact that this is going to be brutal and disgusting and ugly is why Kerry's team needs to work much much harder to destroy it. I haven't seen it and as of right now I'm disappointed in the job they're doing.

[resist]

8. amen.

[Cheswick2.0]

9. I agree and the swift liars adds HAVE done damage

This attack was not out of left field. The book upon which it was based was published in May. There is no excuse, none, for the lack of preparedness that too many surrogates had on this issue. Some, like Cleland, were brilliant. Others, like Pedesta, were not. Where is Rassman? Where is the guy from the Tribune (who wrote a page one op ed supporting Kerry's version last Sunday)? Both of these people were there. Both of them know the facts. Yet neither one seems to be anywhere. If you can't send the people who were there at least make sure you prepare the ones you do send. Pedesta should have had a list of every single partisan contribution made by O'Neil. Pedesta should of had a list of every person on Kerry's boat.
************************************************************

This is the point I think is most important. There was NO reason for the Kerry camp to be unprepared for these attacks and they are doing a very poor job of getting the truth out to the media. At the very least the surogates should all be versed in the "talking points".

[Old and In the Way]

15. "doing a very poor job of getting the truth out to the media"

If the media chooses to ignore the Democratic candidate and build up Bush, there's really not a whole lot we can do about that, is it? What makes you think the Kerry campaign is not busting their collective butts to get the truth out?

[Cheswick2.0]

27. because it is not done

I don't care how hard they are trying if they can't get it done. There are several people in the media now who are simpathetic. At least these few media types should have all the facts but they do not.

[Old and In the Way]

64. Can you explain that?

"these few media types should have all the facts but they do not."

How could any knowledgable media person who is covering the campaigns, not have all the facts? IMHO, it is not about the availability of information (I suspect, with minimal effort, an enterprising reporter could type "http://johnkerry.com" and find Kerry's very detailed positions on every issue of import), but about the active filtering of the facts that keep most people in the dark with respect to Kerry's rebuttals and positions.

It's all about media oxygen....and Kerry's is extremely rationed.

[Cheswick2.0]

103. excuses excuses

I am sure that Tweety has gone to Kerry's web site and read his positions. That has NOTHING to do with what I am talking about. When I say talking points I am refering to those daily "memes" (yes I hate that word too) which all surogates should be versed in. They are unprepared to take advantage of the media opportunities they DO have.
I sit here and yell at the TV all the things the surogates should say which they do not.
Get the job done, don't make weak ass excuses for why you are not. Don't wait two weeks until the damage is done.
I am not a huge fan of Carvilles, however he knows how to make a point and make it stick in peoples minds. He is a bulldog and that is what Kerry needs..... for goodness sake, at the very least, alll of the people appearing in the media should be in agreement about what todays message is.

[dsc]

116. Matthews is lazy

but that is by no means a newsflash. The fact is the GOP doesn't rely on reporters to read their website. They fax, every single day, a memo of what the message of the day is. That is one reason they are so much more effective than we are at getting media oxygen.

[AngryAmish]

104. Guy from Tribune won't talk

Sees himself as non-partisan.

[Old and In the Way]

10. And Dean would be rolling into the election untouched, right?

Please, you don't really think that any Democrat would be doing any better than Kerry is right now, do you?

[WI_DEM]

87. why are you turning this into a Dean vs. Kerry thing

Of course Dean and any other candidate who would have been nominated would have been attacked by the regime but instead of festering this until it became a major issue for an entire month--Kerry should have responded immediately. If Dean had been the nominee and didn't respond to lies and induendo about him I would be just as livid. We are fighting the most evil and unscrupulous bunch in politics and we must fight fire with fire.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. I don't remember anyone telling you that and frankly we knew the Bushes

had dirty tricks planned for any and every candidate no matter.

I really don't see that Kerry has sustained any real longterm damage as the election is STILL a dead heat consistent with the current division of the electorate. My feelings are further confirmed by Digby's excellent analysis which breaks down the effect of the smear.

Frankly, I think Kerry handled it well. He was withstood every body blow that the dirty Bushes have thrown at him and is still making Bush WORK even in states they THOUGHT they had locked up.

I really don't know what people expected...that Kerry should spend the limited 75 million he has defending himself from a smear and have nothing left following the Repub convention? Is that what you all wanted?

His campaign has effectively IMPUGNED the credibility of the Swift Boat Liars, implicated the Bush campaign and FORCED Bush to blink and he is still standing and NOT in bad shape...it's not as though Bush leads him beyond the margin of error.


Digby's analysis here:
...there was never any realistic possibility that Kerry would hold onto the support of many of these voters even after his quite effective performance at the Democratic convention. All the Bush campaign needed to do was to make sure that these voters were made aware of Kerry's significant role in the anti-war movement of the early 1970's.

This is what the LA Times poll essentially found. In July, 32% agreed that "By protesting the war in Vietnam, John Kerry demonstrated a judgment and belief that is inappropriate in a president". By late August, this had risen to 37%. Similarly, 26% of the sample (and 31% of the men) agreed that Kerry's anti-war protests made them less likely to vote for him. The voters among whom the LA Times survey found Kerry loosing ground in August were married, less educated, self-described conservatives, owning a gun and living in a rural area -- a demographic profile that also describes the cultural environment of many U.S. veterans.

Had the Bush campaign been satisfied with simply harvesting these sympathetic voters, they probably could have done so with even a relatively honest and low-key series of commercials. Instead, however, they hoped that, with the help of their surrogates, they could achieve an even more ambitious goal - to impugn Kerry's valor, honesty and character through attacks on his wartime record of bravery and heroism.

The essence of this strategy was not only to directly damage Kerry's image and reputation, but to trap him into choosing between "taking the high road" and not responding to the attacks (which could then be spun to make him look weak and indecisive) or to provoke him into an ill-tempered, aggressive response (for which he could then be criticized as negative, partisan, bitter and shrill).

But the Bush campaign made a profound miscalculation. In the L.A. Times survey, only 18% of the voters had been convinced that "Kerry misrepresented his war record and does not deserve his war medals" while 58% said Kerry "fought honorably and does deserve" them. Independent voters sided with Kerry 5 to 1. Even men and self-described conservatives - groups that are normally quite pro-Bush - strongly supported Kerry, by 59 to 19 for men and 42 to 29 for conservatives. Other polls, such as the Fox/Opinion Dynamics and Annenberg Center for Public Policy survey found similar attitudes. In the Fox poll, even most veterans held, by 50% to 21% that Kerry deserved his purple hearts.

Moreover, Americans did not buy Bush's transparent attempts to pretend his campaign was not involved with the smear. The Gallup poll showed that more Americans think Bush is responsible for the commercials (50%) then do not (44%) and 56% think he should specifically denounce them while only 32% think he should not. An August 26 Annenberg Center survey found very similar attitudes.


http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

[dsc]

31. How much would it have cost?

to send people who were there to these news shows to defend Kerry? Was Padesta cheaper than Rassman? If so, why?

to send talking points to Matthews and Olberman both of whom clearly are on his side on this issue? Has fax paper gone up again?

Please point out one word of my post suggest ads of any sort. And yes I want it quoted from my original post here.

Clinton didn't run ads about Jennifer Flowers or his draft status (or at least I don't recall them) and I am not suggesting Kerry run ads about the Swift Boat liars. But Clinton's surrogates knew their facts and many of Kerry's have been caught flat footed. That has nothing at all to do with money.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

34. *cough*

Please point out one word of my post suggest ads of any sort. And yes I want it quoted from my original post here.

I simply asked what you would do. No need to get snippy unless it pleases you.

[dsc]

35. Here are your own words in the post I responed to

I really don't know what people expected...that Kerry should spend the limited 75 million he has defending himself from a smear and have nothing left following the Repub convention? Is that what you all wanted?

Now please tell me just who got snippy first. Hint: it wasn't me. And note that you, not I, brought up money first. You didn't, as you just claimed, simply ask me what I would have done. You were snippy.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

39. You're right. We should all whine that Dean didn't win..that works

anda gain, I don't recall anyone promising you the Bushes would not do what they did. Dean ran a shitty campaing..he lost becausse he ran a shitty campaign...all you can do is slam Kerry because Dean ran a shitty campaign...that's effectual.

[dsc]

41. nice apology

very typical of your apologies though. You were caught red handed here and in typical form it is all my fault.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

43. I don't OWE you an apology..I am not sorry that you posted as though

someone made you a personal promise that Kerry would not be attacked by the Bushes....Your entire opening post implies that you were promised that Kerry would NOT be attacked..I might further note that I posted LOADS of substance in my original post demonstrating that Kerry actually was EFFECTIVE in the face of this attack which you ignored. Your opening post framed this thread with histrionics.

[dsc]

48. Yes you do

You falsely accused me of being snippy with you, when in fact you started it. When people dishonestly quote you, they owe you an apology. That is exactly, and precisely what you did and I caught you doing. It isn't my fault you either didn't read my post and thus were ignorant of its contents or chose to ignore what it said when you falsely quoted me. Incidently, you just did it again. The promise what that it would be effectively faught if it happened not just that it wouldn't happen.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

49. And I demonstrated via my post and the figures in my post that it WAS

effectively fought. No apology..I'm not sorry. And the generic term was "people"..I don't know what "people" expected...I am not responsible for what you choose to personalize.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

56. Stand up to me?

What misquote? I SAID (for the reading impaired who choose to personalize and be victimized by facts) I DON'T KNOW WHAT PEOPLE EXPECTED. Nowhere in my post did I say, "I don't know what YOU expected" or "I don't know what DSC expected."

No...your little buddy posted a personal attack....he's responsible for his OWN deletions.

[dsc]

62. Again your own words

I really don't know what people expected...that Kerry should spend the limited 75 million he has defending himself from a smear and have nothing left following the Repub convention? Is that what you all wanted?

Note the word in bold. Last I checked the use of the word you, even in you all, means that you are including the person to whom you are responding in what you said. So yes, you misquoted my post, but since you can't even quote yourself correctly it is hardly a surprise.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

73. Note the word following indicating COLLECTIVE not PERSONAL

you ALL

[dsc]

74. No matter how many others are in a group

if you put me in the group you are ascribing the beliefs of the group to me. Thus you were ascribing, from that post, that I wanted Kerry to buy ads. That is what you means even with the word all following. BTW here is an example of a thread where Kerry's VietNam experience was touted as a tailsman against attacks (in this case national security)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=32628

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

81. I could stay up triangulating but it's Saturday night...good TV

This conversation is non-productive, is being taken into the briar patch and I've already addressed all the major points of contention you had in the original post with my first post. I made my points...off to watch my house plants grow .

You might want to notice you used a thread of a tombstoned poster to prove your point:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=135441

[dsc]

107. That poster wasn't the only one in that thread

and unless they were tombstoned for overzealousness in defense of Kerry the tombstoning is irrelevent.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

47. Only the ones that frame threads with histrionic posts that imply they

were promised anything. As a matter of fact, many of Dean's supporters are friends of mine...especially those that accept that he lost miserably...I find it humorous that Kerry is running neck and neck with Bush and some Dean supporters consider this defeat compared to their candidate who only took his own small state in the primaries...if that ain't irony.

[madfloridian]

67. I never got to vote for the guy. Neither did NY, CA, or the rest of FL.

How will we ever know, really, what would have happened if we all had a voice?

I don't really care so much, I am just damned tired of being insulted when everyone knows it was not all sweetness and light there in Iowa.

Treat us like human beings, please.

[HootieMcBoob]

118. what the fuck are you talking about?

this has nothing to do with Dean! It's about Kerry's campaign team for crying out loud! This is about winning! It's stupid to defend Kerry's people just because he's our candidate. Don't be blind people. The fact that as you say we all knew what the Bush people would do is precisely why this is so fucking irritating right now. This should never have gotten to the point that it's reached. Weeks have been blown by this.

[Zomby Woof]

51. the analysis is simple

All the bitter bullshit and whiny crap seeking to undercut Kerry is coming from the Dean crowd.

If Dean were the nominee (thank gawdandbabyjeezus he is not), he would be getting pummelled far worse, and unable to deal with it. A joke candidate with embittered joke supporters spreading their vile shit all over this forum has just about reached its limitof credibility and longevity.

I am not going to endure their crap lying down.

[HootieMcBoob]

120. God you people are unbelievable

OK it's great that Kerry is neck and neck with bush. He's our candidate and we will not offer up constructive criticism of his campaign. If it's still neck and neck come November 1st he's still our candidate and his team is doing everything they should be doing. Just let Rove run all up and down over him it just make Rove and Bush look worse. Never mind what seeds are planted in the minds of voters. Don't get a first class rapid response team together that just makes us look desperate. The American voting public is very intelligent and able to see through Bush and Rove and his handlers. And any day now all of the scandals will bring down Bush's house of cards right on top of him. Never mind that every branch of government is controlled by Republicans. We don't need to fight back it will upset the swing voters.

[Gryffindor_Bookworm]

148. Yeah, really!

Brilliant. Post.

:yourock:

[Cheswick2.0]

154. bravo

and you are exactly right.

[Cheswick2.0]

153. That is bullshit Zomby

Kerry is the nominee, you can't expect people not to criticize him just because at one time we supported Dean. Other people have plenty to say about Kerry, but you are determined to fucking Dean vrs Kerry primary all over again.
If you think I am going to shut up for the next 10 weeks about the candidate who is running for MY party, because I was a Dean supporter please hold your breath and see what happens.

[EST]

57. Excellent analysis!

Do, please also point out the thousands and thousands of volunteers across the spectrum and most especially right here at DU, who have spent their time and money with emails, phone calls, literally hundreds of thousands of contacts with the cable media, and on, and on. This is the last weekend that some can view our prospects as dismal. Things are picking up enormously, and the house-of-cards that was the opposition is imploding!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

61. Don't try to post facts in this thread...sycophony is the order of the day

:nuke:

but thanks ;-)

[EST]

75. Got it!

Yeah, I unnerstan'. Can't clear up muddy water by adding clear. Thanks!

[qwlauren35]

126. I have to agree...

And maybe that's part of what happened. Kerry was prepared for the "you were an ANTI-WAR veteran", and not a besmirching of his Purple Hearts.

At any rate, I am THRILLED that Kerry hasn't had to spend too much money fighting the smears. And I am ESPECIALLY thrilled that going after his Purple Hearts INSTEAD of his Anti-War activities is going to turn around and bite Bush in the butt.

In the end, I think this will work out well.

[Walt Starr]

12. Woulda shoulda coulda

We should not dwell on the might have beens. We are here now. Kerry is the nominee now. We must unite and fight.

That's all any of us can do.

[sub.theory]

21. Walt's right - we gotta look ahead!

Look, imo, there's just no point in this debate anymore. We are stuck with the hand we've got and we just have to do the best we can. We can argue this after the election. I fully agree that something has to be done about the media, but now isn't the time.

(Please don't anyone take this personally)

[DemBones DemBones]

26. Yes! For better or worse, Kerry IS the nominee and the might have beens

aren't. I think that Kerry should have fought back sooner but the people claiming that he has a strategy may be right. I'm hoping they ARE right.

[AndyTiedye]

13. WHAT Friends in the Media? The Guy on the Daily Show?

> By any sane measure the Kerry campaign has totally botched this. He
> has had a series of ineffectual surrogates debating O'Neil and they
> have made no apparent effort to inform their friends in the media of
> the facts (both Matthews and Carlson have been passionate but
> uniformed in defending Kerry).

This is when we learned the terrible truth that outside the Comedy Channel (!)
we have NO friends in the mass media. The fact that Kerry's
only national TV appearance since the convention has been on
"The Daily Show" says it all.

> I really hope that we recover from this. But we still appear to have
> more charges to come.

Did anybody think their imaginations would not be up to the task?
They are just getting started.

[Tamyrlin79]

16. Awwwww...

Wake up and smell the coffee. You honestly bought into the "electability" veneer? Puh-leeze. The most electable one WAS Dean, as Karl Rove himself now attests to by his glee that Kerry, not Dean, is the nominee. It is a shame that people bought into it, especially after the scream. But, the truth is that these people will smear ANYBODY: Howard Dean, Wes Clark, John Kerry, so the choice was never "who will be most invulnerable to smear" (ie, "electable") because they all would be smeared in some form or fashion. The choice was supposed to be "Who is best for the country?" During the primaries, I believed that Dean was the only chance to win, and win even in my state (Miss). Dean would have won for the same reasons that Barack Obama has a chance. Whether Kerry can prove my assessment wrong is still yet to be seen. I hope he can, but he's got to do better than he's doing now.

[LisaL]

24. If Dean couldn't win the primary

how do you expect him to win the election?
You gotta remember, it doesn't really matter what our candidate did or didn't do in his life. If you were an angel, they would find a way to smear you.

[Gryffindor_Bookworm]

149. What percentage of Democrats got the chance to vote for Dean?

Out of 50 states, how many voted before the nomination was clinched? Way less than half.

So, the accurate question would be:

If Dean couldn't win the first two or three state primaries, how do you expect him to win the election?

Not so simple anymore. Sadly. :-(

[Tarheel_Dem]

151. the better question is....what percentage wanted to?

there was certainly every opportunity after iowa & new hampshire for primary voters to make an informed choice, and as far as i'm concerned; they did!

[Gryffindor_Bookworm]

158. We'll never know who wanted to because we didn't all get the chance.

Dean wasn't on my ballot. Dean wasn't on the ballots of a MAJORITY of Democrats.

[Tarheel_Dem]

161. could that be because by the time your primary came around....

dean had been totally and utterly vanquished by the competition, and didn't stand a gnat's chance in hell of being the nominee?

[Gryffindor_Bookworm]

162. Right. The whole Democratic party (at least those that matter) live in IA

and NH. I understand now. :eyes:

[Old and In the Way]

54. Yes, Rove was scared shitless about Dean.

Riiiiight.

[Cheswick2.0]

155. his words in reference to Dean

"I have no idea how to run against that guy".

Please get the hell past your hatred of Dean and his supporters. It is ridiculous to continue this fight just because you don't think some of us have a right to an opinion. I am not the fucking field hand now. I am a member of the democratic party and I will speak up about MY CANDIDATE John Kerry, on this board when I think he and his staff are screwing up.

[Craig Roberts]

17. I think you make a good point

The key to Kerry's "electability" was his unassailable war record. This is why it was "smart" to choose him rather than some of the others.

But maybe Kerry and his supporters didn't have the imagination to realize how surreal things could get and how pathetic the American voter could prove himself to be. What isn't supposed to happen is people falling for this crap. Anybody who has followed the story and has half a brain knows the SBVTs are lying. Let's just hope it is some sort of collective cognitive lag and the backlash is truly building. There has been a lot to sort through, I suppose.

[rumguy]

18. I don't think the Kerry camp was wrong to let it simmer for a bit

You have to let your enemy commit to their position.

But I'm still waiting for a strong counter-attack. The Kerry camp doesn't even have to lead the way - but other Dems need to start going on the offensive and getting the contradictions, their past statements, etc... out there - and they need to do it in a coordinated and effective way....

WTF does the DNC do with itself? They should be sending out people to talk about this and they should brief them before they go out so the message is simple and devasting. It wouldn't be hard to do....

[Julien Sorel]

19. Sigh. If only Dean had been the candidate.

He'd be out there fighting back! Just like he did against Gephardt in Iowa.

[cheshire]

25. Didn't Deans anger get him in trouble, Kerry is level headed.

[Joylaughter]

28. Sorry...Dean never had it

Kerry has risen above the shark infested waters. He is winning. The media are crooks. Where is the Plame story? The only way to win is through the web. On the underground. Come together, people or Flat Top will groove up all over us. Say it. Kerry wins in November. Kerry wins in November. Kerry wins in November.

[dsc]

32. Gephardt didn't win either

and in point of fact Dean did beat him, so his attacks against Gephardt did, indeed, work. And since this race, unlike the primary, is a two person race, attacks against Bush would work to Kerry's benefit.

[Julien Sorel]

36. Dean barely attacked Gephardt.

He whined to Terry Mcauliffe about the attacks, and then got his ass whipped in Iowa. That was the extent of his "fighting back."

And of course, there's always some qualifier with the deluded. "Yeah, Dean showed he was all talk but no action in Iowa, but that was because.... In a two man race it would be different!"
Bullshit. Dean and his supporters talked big, and when push came to shove, he went down like a pussy, whining all the way. You people whined about Gephardt. You whined about the Club For Growth (remember them?). You whined about the Iowa scream (notice how sedate Dean became after his misadventure in Iowa. What happened to the candidate who "wouldn't change to conform to the media?" What a fucking joke.) You whined about the media. I saw no fighting, only whining, and then Dean got his short ass kicked.

Enough of the Dean fantasy. He was a weak candidate who was given every chance in the world to demonstrate he had what it takes, and he failed. He had the most money, the most media attention, a lead in the polls, the biggest talking supporters and he failed. Not only did he fail, but he was beaten by Kerry. So if you insist on mentally masturbating while fantasizing about a Dean campaign, please have the social graces to do so in private.

[dsc]

40. that is flat out false

Dean ran two attack ads against Gephardt. Both mentioned him by name (one was about the war and the other about dirty campaigning). And no less than Gephardt himself blamed those ads and his own ads attacking Dean, with costing him Iowa.

Oh, and please quote from anytime in the last month, where I mention Dean at all. And yes I want a direct quote by me on this forum that mentions Dean to justify this personal attack:

So if you insist on mentally masturbating while fantasizing about a Dean campaign, please have the social graces to do so in private.

I want one, just one, post from between July 29th and today where I type one single, solitary word about Dean. Just one. You have a star. The search function searches by name. So I want that post.

[Julien Sorel]

46. It's implied in your original post.

Now you can whine to the net nanny about a "personal attack." I suppose that's another example of how good Dean and his supporters are at "fighting back."

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[Julien Sorel]

53. Right.

"Dishonest personal attack." I suppose that's another example of "fighting back." Maybe you should share that one with Kerry. Or maybe you should have shared it with Dean.

[dsc]

59. actually we have rules here

and unlike you, I actually try to follow them. But if you had read my post you would note that I did suggest what Kerry should do he should send INFORMED surrogates out to defend him and he should send talking points to friendly journalists like Matthews and Carlson.

[Julien Sorel]

70. Speaking of dishonesty,

I just did a search for Dean's ads. As far as I can tell, he ran two ads in Iowa that mentioned Gephardt, one in November (before Gephardt began attacking him), and one in January, which attacked all his Iowa opponents. I've found no ad that, as you claim, attacks Gephardt for negative campaigning. So the extent of Dean's "fighting back" was 1) Complain to Terry McAuliffe (oooooooh!) and 2) run a single ad attacking all his opponents for the Iraqi war vote. What a sterling example of combativeness.

And neither have I seen Gephardt say, as you again claim, that Dean's attack ads were the reason he lost. I have seen Gephardt say that he feels his own attacks against Dean hurt him as much as they hurt Dean.

[Julien Sorel]

72. And while I'm at it.

Where is Rassman? Where is the guy from the Tribune (who wrote a page one op ed supporting Kerry's version last Sunday)? Both of these people were there. Both of them know the facts. Yet neither one seems to be anywhere. If you can't send the people who were there at least make sure you prepare the ones you do send. Pedesta should have had a list of every single partisan contribution made by O'Neil. Pedesta should of had a list of every person on Kerry's boat.

What kind of nonsense is this? Rassman has been out campaigning for Kerry nonstop. He appeared with him today in, I think, Oregon. The DNC ran commercials with him in them. The guy who wrote the piece in the Tribune's name is William Rood, and he specifically stated that the piece was the extent of his involvement in the issue, that he wouldn't say another word about it. Yet Kerry is somehow at fault for not having this man out campaigning for him? Ridiculous.

But most ridiculous of all is this winner:

Pedesta should of had a list of every person on Kerry's boat.

Who do you think the "Band of Brothers" are? Yes indeedy -- they are the people who served with Kerry in his boats. They have all gone on record supporting Kerry.


So you fault Kerry for not doing things he has, and not doing things that cannot be done. Brilliant.

[dsc]

76. Rassman should be on tv against O'Neil

not campaigning in Oregon or Washington or wherever it is. And yes, Kerry has control over that.

[Julien Sorel]

79. O'Neil has refused to go on TV with competent opponents in the past.

And who says Rassman wants to go on TV against O'Neil? He isn't a robot, there to do Kerry's bidding. And the media also have a say in it.

The more I look at your original post and your follow ups, the more bizarre the whole thing seems. You have clearly spouted off on topics on which you are, at best, half educated, demanding the impossible in some cases, and the already done in others. You've talked about TV ads and statements that were never made. And yet you have people in this thread jumping on your broken bandwagon. The standards for bashing Kerry's campaign are low indeed in these parts.

[madfloridian]

82. I always step in when Dean and supporters are being bashed.

You said dsc had "people jumping on your broken bandwagon."

I was protecting myself again from the unkind words used against us and the things being said here about Dean that were without base.

I will continue to do that when people can not accept how the primaries turned out. I have. I like what Dean is doing now. He is freer to speak out and change the damn party from being so warlike.

Clark had his "soldiers" and "troops." Kerry has his swift boat buddies, his "band of brothers." It is all so doggone militaristic. It should not have to be that way.

I do not start threads against anyone, but I will defend myself and other Dean supporters against the ugly things that are still said.

I hope he takes no post, I hope he not offered one. I hope he continues to say what needs to be said. And shame on our party for having to be so warlike.

And shame on the people here who are so bitter they can't let go.

[dsc]

106. Wouldn't that be a good thing

if O'Neil refused to go on TV? Most shows give the Kerry campaign their choice of surrogate which means they can choose Rassman. And if the Presidential nominee asks you to do something, you do it.

[madfloridian]

68. Wow!

Wow!

[Cheswick2.0]

152. the hell it is

No such thing is implied in his original post. You are projecting that for God only knows what reason.
This has nothing to do with Dean. Kerry wanted the freaking job, let him do it right. If you think he is, fine. But we all want the same thing so stop making this a pissing match about Dean vbs Kerry.
Some of you are way to touchy obout any criticism directed at Kerry.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[cheshire]

22. Bush's attacks only work If you let them, you sound like a fence sitter

You can't stand by Kerry thru the next 2+ months? Do you not think he has done Better than McCaine and Max did when they slimed them? I think Kerry has plenty of time and if 20% of us are defeatist then they win so buck up. Kerry did scare the crap out of Nixon at 24yrs old so he's in way better shape now.

[dsc]

30. I am no fence sitter

but I am a realist. We are one day before the Republican convention and Kerry is now behind in most polls (admittedly within the margin of error though). Presumedly the Republicans will get some bounce out of the convention. Thus Bush will likely be ahead by a statistically significant margin on Labor Day. From about a week after our convention to the start of the Republican one, we have had wall to wall Swift Boat liars and an intermittent quaility surrogate response. We will have a week of Republicans are great coverage. If next week we have more Swift Boat liar nonsense, Kerry is in deep doo doo. And I fail to see why we won't have more Swift Boat liar nonsense.

[Gryffindor_Bookworm]

29. I agree with you.

I am 100% likely to vote for Kerry and talk everyone else I possibly can into doing the same, but I do believe the campaign has botched this terribly.

[kentuck]

33. Rassman was in Washington state today with John Kerry.

??? Or his identical twin...

[dsc]

37. that is even worse

If it were a case of the man having to work or something that would be understandable. But if he can campaign with Kerry then he can go on This Week and other shows.

[seaglass]

102. Why do you think that Rassman is skilled enough to

perform effectively on one of these shows? Did you ever consider that he may feel comfortable making statements on Kerry's behalf but does not want to be grilled by people trying to twist his words or catch him saying something he doesn't mean?

It is a skill to be able to think fast on your feet to respond to these questioners and not everyone has that skill. Rassman is not a political operative, unlike John O'Neill.

There may be very good reasons why the Kerry campaign does not want to expose his Band of Brothers to this bullshit.

Tad Devine has been doing an excellent job for Kerry as has Michael Meehan. I didn't see Podesta.

It is extremely frustrating when I see that I know more of the facts about the Swift Boaters lies than some of the people that defend Kerry do...but I would be horrible on these talk shows.

[dsc]

108. That may be a valid point

though I have seen Rassman on interview shows in the past. But he wasn't the only vet there who supports Kerry. I find it beyond hard to believe that none of them are able to do an interview show. I admit to not having seen Devine.

[sampsonblk]

38. I agree 80%, but we have to keep up our own efforts

We still have to get out and talk to people, volunteer, etc. The Kerry campaign, IMHO is at least as lame as Gore's campaign and seems remarkably similar in terms of execution. But we still have work hard to get Bush out of there. Even if Kerry and his "expert" strategists are not our best allies in the effort.

At least Kerry is fighting back now - finally.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. Personally, I think that the democrats should run tasetless smear ads

Obviously we'd prefer campaigns that talk about the issues, but since the GOP has refused to do this, we might as well make the playing field level.

[LisaL]

45. It's a proven fact

That negative adds work.
And we wouldn't have to lie.

[dsc]

55. Move On should

maybe dig up the Flint abortion story.

[OHswingvoter]

58. but negative ads depress turnout

that is a known fact. It is also a known fact that we want as large a turnout as possible. We don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot. We have to attack, but not get so negative that we turn off the voters from even showing up. It is a difficult problem and that is why experts are running the campaign. Lets see what they can do.

I do have to say that in this area Dean was the most popular, followed by Kerry, then Kucinich. I was not a huge Dean fan, but I would have prefered him to Kerry. Would prefer a sack of rocks to a Bushie though so it really is water under the bridge. I think people thought Kerry was more "electiable" because of the war stuff. But it is not turning out to be a big bonus after all. Well we will learn from our mistakes.

[dsc]

63. I don't suggest ads

but I also don't agree that negative ads depress turnout. 1992 was a pretty negative campaign and it was our best turnout election in many years.

[OHswingvoter]

69. I think some of that was

the Perot factor. I knew people who had never voted in their lives who registered and voted for Perot. I also knew people who had once been voters, but hadn't bothered to vote in decades who voted for Perot. He managed to excite some people who had felt alienated from the process. There were lots of people who had felt that they did not have a voice, and they felt as if Perot gave them a voice.

The question is how can we do like Perot and attract lots of new people (the people who have not been participating) and not only get them registered but get them enthusiastic and get them to turn out? I think it was because Perot had some interesting and novel ideas (even though I disagreed with a lot of them) and he did not talk down to the American people. I had never had the debt explained to me before, but when Perot pulled out the charts and graphs he explained it. And people sat there for a whole half hour at a time to listen. We need to take a page out of his play book. Treat people like they are intelligent, explain the meaty issues instead of just giving them sound bites. Offer real and practical solutions. I think doing this is even better than going negative.

[dsc]

78. Perot certainly helped

but Clinton also drove turnout. I wish we had the money Perot had to do what Perot did. I think that would help immensly. But we don't have that kind of money.

[LisaL]

71. I think

that voters will turn out because they don't like Bush.
So, negative is not going to suppress voter turn out.

[agincourt]

77. There may be other factors in play,

Kerry's IWR answer wasn't the best, the media has literally kissed swift boat ass, also shrub and chenney have been trying very hard to hide their fangs and tentacles and look human before the convention.
Swiftboat may not be the only reason for the poll drop, if it exists.

[madfloridian]

80. His IWR answer hurt a lot of Democrats and others seeking...solace?

I don't know a better word. I have made it clear I don't bash Kerry, and I don't. However, I know people who are praying for an end to this war, and they took his answer, that he would vote for it again, to mean that he was basically approving. In fact, I sort of did as well..I know, I know, he meant the resolution for authority.

Many people feel that congress should have this authority, and it should not be in the hands of just one man who is not exactly known for good sense.

We donated to Kerry and we will vote for him, but that hurt deep inside, very deeply....that he would do it all over again. I understand, but I don't.

[agincourt]

83. If I remember Kerry also,

was down on Chavez of Venezuela. Granted not as much a shrub, but he didn't sound very supportive. Guess who won his recall vote? I think the world of Kerry but I wish he wouldn't try to chase the votes of the those who listen to Tim Russert and O'Reilly.

[Nordic]

84. jesus, what's with the whining?

and why are you blaming this crap on Kerry?

It's the media that's doing this, not Kerry.

[wndycty]

100. Kerry is not Howard Dean and some people want to pout

:kick:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

115. "Kerrry Is Not Howard Dean"

Thank God...

[dsc]

109. It isn't his fault the liars are on TV

It is his fault that he has chosen ill informed surrogates to defend him. He, and only he, chose Podesta as one of his chief defenders. Podesta has been dismal. You can't blame the media when Kerry's surrogates suck.

[NightOwwl]

85. Good God.

No wonder Democrats have a reputation for being a bunch of whiny crybabies.

[Tarheel_Dem]

94. you said it nightowl...........

and don't think these threads don't wind up in freeperland & other places as well. what shocks me most is the number of DU'ers who so easily & willingly jump aboard the kerry bashing bandwagon. hmmmmmm.....go figure.

[WI_DEM]

86. I agree 100% with what you wrote

That Kerry waited over two weeks to begin a counter offensive was bad politics. Didn't he learn anything from Dukakis' '88 campaign? If the big lie gets enough exposure enough people will believe it. He should have taken a leaf from Clinton's '92 campaign and responded immediately and turned the attention back to Bush being so desperate that the only way he can win is by forwarding lies.

[QC]

88. I don't recall anyone saying that Kerry

was immune to any and all attacks. And I suspect that most of us here have had enough experience with Bushes to know that they always, and I mean always, campaign by slandering their opponents. Some families are in banking, some families are in law, and the Bushes are in slander.

What we have here is just another "I told you so" from someone still sore because his candidate didn't win. Well, that's life. I can point to a whole string of candidates I have supported who washed out, going all the way back to Gary Hart and Paul Simon. It happens to all of us.

[NV1962]

89. OMFG - WE'RE GONA DIE! DIE!! DIE!!!

Let's see... Desertion, coke and booze, abortion, and that's the old stuff; recently, we have panicked incompetence, treasonous outing of national security assets, rogue ideologues running amok with the nation's security to the point of taking us into a needless war with a neutralized country at a time where terrorists are on the agenda...

And that's the quick grab into Bush's knapsack of "accomplishments."

Can Kerry quell the SBVT BS in the only way that is effective, i.e. by playing the et tu quoque card? Of course not.

That's what we're supposed to do: dig up the goodies and hurl them into the biggest spinning fans we can find.

Walt Starr did a wonderful job, helped by others; Josh Marshall is now panning out the Pentagon / WH disaster that was semi-buried under 'Plamegate' and with a bit of resourceful co-operation among all of us, I'm sure that the three older issues I mentioned at the beginning of this post can be hung out to stink in Bush's face, too.

What's up with looking at Kerry?

You want regime change? Buckle up, get in gear and saddle up to do your part.

If the elections on Nov 2 and by extension politics in general are so g*ddamn important, there's no point in contemplating the g*damn obvious: the extremists have begun taking over the GOP 20 years ago, the "middle of the road" Democrats have been way too happy to accomodate their rise to power, and yes, they're copiously quoting from Tricky Dick's cookbook. What's new?

It's our turn - without us, Kerry won't make it.

Suck it up, soldier - this is the war we've been waiting for.

Enough of that damn fingerpointing and handwringing already!!!

[MirrorAshes]

90. Can you imagine what they'd have done to Dean by now?

Seriously. Kerry at least is still very, very much in the fight and still has a very, very good chance to win.

Dean, or anyone else for that matter, would be down by 15 points right now.

[dsc]

113. Oh really

Take Dean out of this for a moment. Would Edwards be down by 15? Gephardt? Clark? Do you have an iota of a speck of evidence for this?

[Old and In the Way]

129. No more evidence than you used to make your observations.

The soft attacks on Kerry here seem to be that his surrogates aren't tough enough, but where is your data to back that assertion? That is a rather subjective observation on which to build your attack I think. Or is that based on the learned consensus on the Posting Board That Cannot Be Named?

In case you haven't figured it out, the RNC wurlitzer is extremely good at character assassination. Who knows what the attacks would have been for each potential nominee? All I know is that they'd be just as vicious and equally effective.

I don't agree with your assessment of the Kerry/Edwards campaign to date. He is drawing record breaking crowds and making his case directly to the people. He's talking about the issues and the facts about the SBVT is pretty well dead in the war.

But keep questioning Kerry and second guessing his campaign....that will help get him elected.

[dsc]

132. actually my problem is with their lack of knowledge

and among other places go to www.dailyhowler.com to back that up. And no, Sommersby didn't support Dean. Now can I have my evidence?

[MirrorAshes]

145. Exactly.

You saw what the media did to Dean over the "scream", so basically Rove already had a nice head start on labeling him "crazy". God only knows what else they'd have done since then, but I have a sneaking suspicion whatever it would be it'd be more damaging than anything they've done to Kerry.

Kerry has taken one of the most vicious and dirty attacks ever concieved and weathered it quite well. Dean would have been marginalized before he ever really even got a chance to get in the game.

Sorry, dsc, but its true. I love Dean, I was very supportive of him at first, though admittedly I was a Wes Clark guy for a long time. I give Dean full credit for putting the spine back in the Democratic Party, and I thank him for that.

But you know what? I firmly believe that Kerry is the right choice. I've seen them all speak, I've watched them all very closely. Kerry has earned my respect and my support. I believe very strongly that he is going to win and that he has the potential to completely destroy Bush on november second. Its all about the debates.

[bigtree]

92. How do you think an early attack could have fended off

what has been a steady trickle of liars, all of them ultimately disproven. Their discrediting has not stopped them from finding forums to repeat their lies. Nothing in an early response could have stopped the complicit media from elevating the accusations. All have been disproved by the Kerry camp and others. No fool save a republican fool can hang their vote on the word of these swiftliars. I think the effect has been overblown. Those who buy into the compromised media's conventional wisdom that these attacks damaged Kerry are grousing over a two week period which, in retrospect, would not have stopped these liars from their errand.

Also, I fail to see how Kerry could have responded with the force that some here suggest and stay on message as some of the same critics are now complaining about. Respond forcefully, stay on message. Make up your mind!

Those who dislike Kerry have had their moment of criticism. That time has passed, but their epic pout has not satisfied their distain for our candidate. The Kerry campaign is in full gear. I don't expect his critics to recognize this. (They haven't bothered to follow the Kerry campaign's activities more than they cling to every republican attack) Folks need to get some backbone and get fully behind this winning campaign. Bother to keep themselves informed on the actual efforts of the Kerry campaign. Get their heads out of the republican smear campaign and pay attention to our candidate.

[dsc]

110. He could have done the following

Send people who were there to defend him (so that new lies could be immediately confronted). Failing that, send people who knew what the heck the book actually said. Send talking points to the few friendly voices in the media he had on this. Chris Matthews, to site one example, has been very obvious in his defense of Kerry on this. He also, like he always is, is uninformed. One of the chief reasons they have been able to get away with this lie of the day strategy is that very few of Kerry's surrogates appear to have read the book or know what happened. Incidently I did say this in my post.

[Leilani]

96. Mark Halperin, political writer at ABC,

was on C-Span this morning, & he said the Kerry Camp did not expect this Swift Boat thing.

They were not prepared, he said, because Kerry did not believe anyone would believe this.

If true, this is amazing. Halperin has been around for a long time.

Lastly, he compared the Kerry campaign to Dukakis...if not reality, it is at least a perception problem.

[dsc]

111. I guess he is an embittered Dean supporter too

[Cha]

121. All I have to say about this is that ...

"Mark Halperin, political writer at ABC,"


When I see "abc"..a red flag goes way up. abc=disney=corporatewhores.

That's abc's slime opinion. Of course, Kerry expected this swiftboat thing.

The thing I don't like is when people like podesta get on tv without all the facts. It makes them seem like the c team because they are.

We need the A team at all times!

[dsc]

124. thank you

that is my point.

[KoKo]

157. Only thing is that Halperin was on last Feb. on C-span saying

believe it or not "...Democrats don't have a candidate in this pack who can defeat Bush because none of them could connect with Christians the way Bill Clinton could." He was on a "Press Panel discussion" on C-Span and he was so negative to our whole candidate slate, that I stopped reading ABC's "The Note." I think he's a PNAC supporter.

I've noticed that the new Repug "talking points" are to send folks onto the pundit shows and compare Kerry to Dukakis...so I wouldn't believe anything out of Halperin's mouth.

I agree with much of what poster DSC says, though. Kerry's campaign managers should have been prepared for this. We lost in the Mid-terms because we didn't fight back and we didn't fight back when they lied about what Gore said every time he opened his mouth.

Some of us who have watched this since 2000 Selection thought Kerry would do better, surround himself with folks who could handle the attack dogs. But, apparently this is the way he wants to run his campaign, so there's nothing we can do about it. :shrug:

[KoKo]

160. To answer your question, probably because he's using the

old Democratic Machine to run his campaign. And, they've said not to offend anyone by attacking back, because we might pick up some extra votes by letting Bush implode on his own.

Given what we are up against, "imploding on his own" is pretty slim...so maybe they know something we don't that's going to bring the "whole evil empire down," but I doubt it.

[rullery]

97. Relax! None of the mud is sticking to Kerry.

He is a genuine war hero, "the real thing". He doesn't have to worry about some deep secret being exposed, as some pretenders do. The more the attackers rant, the more attention is focused on the fact that Kerry is a hero, and that Bush is not. Indeed there are a lot of questions being raised about Bush's service in the National Guard.

Moreover, the talking heads are finally realizing this too. After several weeks of wallowing in the mud, they are discovering that the Swift Boat Vets are Liars, not Truth Tellers. Moreover links to the Bush campaign have been exposed, and more and more mud is clinging to Bush. Allegations that Bush went AWOL, wore ribbons to which he was not entitled, etc. are gaining more attention from the press.

Kerry has not allowed himself to be drawn into some fruitless debate over these allegations, knowing that the truth would come out in the end. Instead he is focusing on the real debate, the state of the economy, loss of good jobs, lack of health care for millions of Americans, etc. These are the real issues that are going to decide this election. Fear not fellow DUers, we are in good shape!

[Cheswick2.0]

105. It is sticking that is the whole point

his polls numbers are going down and the liars for Bush are exactly what is causing the decline.

[dsc]

112. I never said Kerry should have directly debated them

but he has sent surrogates to do so. Once someone chooses to do that, they should send informed surrogates.

[0rganism]

99. ALWAYS remember this about Rassman: he was a REPUBLICAN

You ask, "Where is Rassman?"

He's out there busting ass for the political career of a man who saved his life, even if he disagrees with 90% of what John Kerry has done in his career. You want him to go on TV talk shows, confronting his old buddies? Give me a fucking break. We're lucky he didn't turn on John Kerry like the other Swift Boat Ratfuckers for Bush, and make up some shit about Kerry panicking and knocking him into the water.

Jim Rassman is a conservative, a retired sheriff from LA, living in rural Oregon who volunteered to help a man who saved his life. It's enough for me that this guy is stumping with John Kerry and writing editorial articles to counter the ratfucking. If he wants to go on TV, I'm sure the Kerry campaign would let him, but I'd bet money that they aren't going to pressure him to do a damn thing.

He's not a puppet or a surrogate or a career politician. His presence is a rare gift and a tremendous asset to Kerry's campaign. If Dean had won the nom, Rassman would probably be marking the bubble for bush this year.

And the "guy from the Tribune"? Robert Lambert, I think, was his name. He, too, is an Oregon republican who WILL be voting for bush this year. Do you REALLY want to ask him onto a talk show to be another McCain figure? You gotta rethink this, dsc.

When you look at who these guys are and the extent of what they're willing or capable of doing, maybe Pedesta is a pretty good choice for a TV spokeswonk.

[JohnKleeb]

101. Wasnt Rassman in Crawford with Cleland recently?

and just because we dont see it on the news doesnt mean it dont it happen. Del Sandusky is a conservative democrat, and I am not sure about the political affilation of the others. Rassman didnt have to do this but he was felt it was the right thing to do, I am in agreement with you 0rganism on this about Kerry and Rassman.

[Cha]

123. You have really good points and info about

Rassman and Lambert but that doesn't make Podesta the best spokesman for our team.

Like I said in another post ..we need the A team out there on tv.

I'm sure there are Dems who are articulate and well versed on Kerry who would be much better than Podesta.

[Old and In the Way]

131. I haven't seen Podesta on TV, but his newsletter is a must read.

I can understand why the Kerry campaign would put this guy out on the TV circuit, given the depth and breadth of the research that his group has developed. Perhaps he's not good at getting the info out in this medium.

Here's what we are up against. On MS-NBC, 2 examples in the last 5 minutes:

(1) The camera shows a street corner in NYC. The newsreader says, "it looks like the estimates of the protest were way off." The reporter had to correct him that he was only seeing a small part of the entire picture...people are massing over 16 blocks.

(2) They just ran a 5 minute interview with a man who was a lifelong Democrat who lost his son in 9/11. He's voting for Bush. Do you think they had any lifelong Republicans who lost family members on 9/11 who are voting for Kerry? Of course not.

[dsc]

133. so let me get this straight

You haven't seen the main guy I complained about but upthread you call my charges baseless and bitter. And I am the one lacking evidence?

[Old and In the Way]

144. Yes...

Pisser, isn't it? :-)

[dsc]

125. then give Podesta a briefing book

They are getting away with this lie of the day strategy because Podesta and other defenders have no earthly idea what happened back then.

[against all enemies]

119. Should Kerry personally demand an apology from Bush during debate?

Kerry could really make Bush look like a total asshole by comparing his Vietnam record with scrubs. Kerry could ask "Why didn't you volunteer for Vietnam service? Then ask why he allows others to attack his service. Bush would stand there like the little puke he is waiting for one of daddy's friends to bail him out of a tough situation.

[dsc]

122. Glenn did a similar thing to Dewine

in his last race for the Senate. Dewine was stuck looking sheepish as war hero, test pilot, astronaut Glenn looked like a stateman. That might be a good idea.

[Neshanic]

130. No, the apology shit shoud stop. Kerry needs to say he KNOWS..

no apolgy will be forthcoming now or ever, so he will run his campaign under the assumption that Bush and his staff will use anyone and any issue to divert attention from the issues...

Insert Kerry....war, jobs, social security, deficit....

If the media and the Chimp kmow no apologies or requests for apolgies are or will ever be made, there goes half of Karl's strategy.

[AntiCoup2K4]

138. He should, but that's exactly why no REAL debate will ever happen

Look, there's no way in Hell that in a logical world with a fair media that we would even have this situation. A spoiled rich fuck's daddy pulled some strings and got him into the National Guard. From there, he was too coked up to pass a physical, so he was grounded. Then he deserted, during wartime, which is considered a death penalty offense under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), article 85.

George Bush Jr. has no right to question anybody's military record, yet he has successfully slimed two Vietnam veterans already, John McCain and Al Gore, and is now sliming a third in Kerry. As I said, this is a fucking joke and should be seen as a fucking joke, but with the media whores' spin on the whole thing, even some veterans (not just the Swift Boat Liars) are buying this crap.

Obviously Kerry needs to step up and bury the issue. Because it ain't going away as long as these fascist fucks are getting mileage out of it.

Someone in Texas or Alabama's gotta have the dirt on Junior's so called "service". Find that person (or persons) and nail the fucking coward with it. It's that simple.

[Tatiana]

134. Kerry is being cautious. Perhaps, TOO cautious.

However, he's hit back hard in this past week and I'm proud of him. These Republicans are evil MONSTERS and despite knowing they were going to go after Kerry, I think most of us Democrats are always astounded by the sheer ungentlemanliness and deceitfulness these people exhibit.

It took Kerry a moment to get his bearings, but he's gotten together a coordinated attack and he's responded well at this point. Why do you think Rood from the Chi Tribune came out with his story when he had vowed not to ever speak on that topic? Kerry called him and eventually the man did the right thing.

At least this measured response shows that the Kerry camp is taking this election EXTREMELY SERIOUS, as opposed to 2000, when Gore basically tried to cruise and did not take the Republican attack machine serious enough.

[saccheradi]

140. MONSTERS

True. They are. And the only way to defeat them is to do it skillfully. If anyone here doesn't realize the sheer mental capacity that rests behind Kerry's campaign, know it now...

By waiting to respond, by letting something set in and then showing it for what it is... In the long term it was a perfect strategy and it is working.

Kerry waited for the word to get out, for the stink to hit and THEN, when idiots began to believe it, the truthsayers have their say, and the Shrub is exposed and has to offer support or be seen as the DOG he is... AND RIGHT BEFORE THE RNC!

Kerry has forced the Gimp himself to say that he earned his medals, that he was a hero...

This is skillful politics at it's best!

[blm]

136. Just like some here to always turn a media onslaught into sour grapes.

Y'know, there were some of us Kerry ssupporters who didn't join in on the Dean scream bashing because we knew it was just a media creation.

Whether you realize it or not, the SBV issue will turn against Bush.

[dsc]

143. Did the media choose Podesta?

did they? Did the media choose to remain silent while the Swift Boat liars ran amok? The press has a lot of blame here but so does Kerry. And to some extent Dean had some blame with the scream in that he should have given New Hampshire voters a tape of the unaltered sound level of that scream.

[Cheswick2.0]

156. the primary is over blm

Do you really want to go there again? Cause I could list all the reasons why I think Kerry was the worst choice. Do we really have to hash that all out again?

[Leilani]

137. The Repugs have a conference call every A.M.

& decide on Talking Points for the Day...

then the marching orders go out...

to surrogates, FOX, Rush, Hannity, RW Talk Radio, Drudge, Washington Times, Town Hall, etc etc.

And they repeat & repeat the message.

The Dems should have this sort of organization.

[TheDonkey]

146. The repukes would have slimed whoever was the nominee, period

There is no reason to bitch and moan about or nominee now.

[madfloridian]

147. Four and a half hours of protestors.

And not a single anti-war candidate. This thread was not about Howard Dean, yet it has turned into one of the ugliest threads about him I have ever seen.

Would someone share with me why this is? Why did this thread get turned into an anti-Dean thread. Dsc did not start it that way.

Let's see, Howard Dean has almost single-handedly has been responsible for the lack of the color-coded warnings on TV lately. He has called Bush's action with the Swift boat guys illegal, and today he said Wolf Blitzer was acting like a Republican. He said it to his face, and Blitzer stammered and almost apologized.

Now, tell me again why this thread was turned into an anti-Dean thread?

I watched the protestors, and I wanted to scream out for my Democrats to express their outrage at this war. But I don't hear a sound yet.

This post was not about Dean, but to be fair....it is now.

[KoKo]

159. Because some folks "here" seem to feel others of us are the Enemy

They don't want to hear any criticism of how Kerry's campaign is being run. They don't want to offer reasons for how they feel Kerry is in their minds effectively answering criticism to those of us who can't understand why SBV weren't "pre-empted" and why the folks Kerry sends out are so weak (with a very few exceptions). Some folks here just feel that attacking those who question is the same as going after the Pugs.

It's just the way it is. Perhaps there just isn't a way to defend the weakness of Kerry's Campaign Managers so they "attack the messenger" rather than the "message or query." :shrug: