Here we come with the "anonymous top Democrats" crap again.

[Firespirit]

Read: Hillary or Reid hacks... assuming they aren't one and the same now.

From http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/31/kerry.mccain/index.html">CNN:

"He has already cost us one election. The guy just needs to keep his mouth shut until after the election," a top Democratic strategist said Tuesday.

Amazing. These "strategists" are the ones who have cost us every election since 1994... other than the Presidential election of 1996 (and, arguably, 2000 -- although they sure as hell weren't with Gore when he was fighting against the odds in Florida). They were so busy defending Clinton that they sold out the rest of the party in order to do it. Now they're doing the same for Hillary. We don't need them.

Not to mention that these idiots STILL don't get it. No matter WHAT Bush said, Republicans would always defend it -- and it paid off. What Democrat in their right mind would be OK with being quoted in national media in a narrative that allows the "divided party" meme to spread?

I'll tell you who. A hack for someone who considers Kerry an enemy.

These craven fools will sell out everything for their candidate of choice. They did it in the 1990s and they're going to do it now. The only good thing about it is that we know after that incredible conference today that there's at least ONE person who isn't interested in that type of politics.



:nuke:

:grr:

:mad:

OK. Just needed to rant.

[wisteria]

1. I heard that myself.

I was so angry, I e-mailed CNN and asked them to have John King come clean and report on what Democrat said such a thing.I an tired of this bullsh*t. As a democrat, I want to know who it was that makes the party look weak. It is disgusting.

[TayTay]

2. Hmmmm, DLC much?

more comments from the 'wait in the back till the fights over and the say that I won' group.

[blm]

3. Carville and Begala - there...I said it.

.

[TayTay]

4. talk about your opportunists

Say, besides the wonderful Max Cleland who really 'gets it,' any other Dems come forward to defend Sen. Kerry?

[karynnj]

7. Apparently Kennedy did

at least per the RW - but I guess that's not a surprise.

[whometense]

10. and Claudia Kennedy

General Claudia Kennedy Defends Veteran John Kerry Against GOP Attacks



Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy, the first woman to achieve the rank of three-star general in the United States Army, defended Senator John Kerry today in the wake of right-wing attacks.



Her statement is below:



“Senator John Kerry has served our country with great distinction, both in the military and in the United States Senate. The men and women of our armed forces know they have a friend and tireless advocate in John Kerry. When it comes to Iraq, he's right to stand up against baseless attacks, and right to keep fighting for a better course for our troops and our country.”



# # #

[Island Blue]

5. My guess would be Carville.

I really can't stomach that man.

[karynnj]

6. Surprisiningly Carville was very good

He described Kerry as a decorated war veteran with a 20+year record as a friend of Veterans. He gave Kerry's explanation - that he was speaking of Bush. He also said something like Kerry mangled a joke, well Bush mangled a war. (He then had one little snarky comment that Kerry mangling a sentence was something that sometimes happens.)

Good defense though.

[beachmom]

11. Just read this from Georgia10 on big dKos thread

That Carville said:

"I botched a joke, they botched a war". That was pretty good, I have to say.

[wisteria]

8. OMG, I would bet money on it being Begalia or Carville.

Remember, Kerry has that fund raiser with Casey tomorrow night. Begalia is a consultant to Casey and Carville has been putting in his two sense too. Casey has been laying low, waiting out the remainder of the campaign. He wouldn't even appear on CNN the other night when Santorium was on and he got criticized for it. I can't wait to see what happens with the event tomorrow.

[Firespirit]

9. These people make me see red in ways that even the GOP doesn't

And that's saying a lot.

I was never a huge Clinton fan when he was president. I was quite a fan of Gore, being a strong environmentalist, and had a lot of respect for Hillary. But I was never quite sold on Bill himself.

Now I realize why.

The Carville, Begala, Shrum, etc., types are the ones who put their priority as defending Bill Clinton rather than building a strong Democratic Party. Yes, it allowed him to be a popular president, but Bill's popularity was based more on the general state of the nation in the 1990s than on Bill himself. He had abysmally low personal approval ratings after the Monica thing, and that was just the icing on the whole rotten cake. If I recall correctly, he never had high "personal trust" ratings, and that finished him off in that department.

After 1994, these "party advisors" should have made it a priority to emphasize how utterly abominably the Congress was performing. What a disgraceful, corrupt bunch of fools it was. They didn't. Their focus was on defending Clinton rather than going on the attack. The historical revisionism now about how the Clintons were "fighters" is simply astounding. Because of this strategy of playing defense, the entire Clinton presidency was one incident after another in which the right-wing talking point won the day, and it is why the party has failed to regain either chamber of Congress thus far. (I don't count the brief time from 2001 to 2003, because we didn't win control. Jeffords gave it to us.) The Clinton presidency did give the right-wing a leg to stand on when they made their attacks of how the Democratic Party was evil, satanic, etc. All the media memes that allowed them to win on "moral values," or get close enough to steal the election, and get the Republican Party identified with so many voters as the one true party of American values.

The Clintons' advisors were successful in defending the Clintons. They were an abysmal failure at helping out the party itself. This is because Bill's "politician" personality and personal moral issues were obstacles to the party. John Kerry obviously is a better person than that, and far more representative of the Democratic Party. He is the side of the party that appeals to regular people, so supporting him and supporting the party would not have to be a juggling game as it would be, and WAS, with the Clintons.

Ironically, the Bush people have done the same thing. They've defended Bush so hard that they are now taking down the Republican Party with him. The party has become identified with its head, and the failings of the head are being tied to the party, as was the case with Clinton and the Democratic Party. You'd think that these "Democratic strategists" would have learned by now.