Al Gore lied about Internets. John Kerry betrayed troops. Obama not a citizen.

[grasswire]

Anyone see a pattern here?

This shit starts a year before each presidential campaign. It's a circus intended to control the national conversation and put the media in a dither.

It's debatable whether addressing it early is useful. Many Dems were angry at Kerry for not shutting down the swiftboaters on a dime.

I hope this makes Trump the front runner for the GOP.

[Keith Bee]

1. The bleat goes on...

[boppers]

37. Nicely put. eom

[Buzz Clik]

2. Well, now, DU was all hot and bothered the GW Bush was a deserter.

There's a pattern, but it's bipartisan.

[BobbyBoring]

6. Big Difference

Bush WAS a deserter~

[Buzz Clik]

26. The parallel is undeniable.

[grasswire]

22. BOGUS

Go read up.

[Buzz Clik]

25. Bogus? DU didn't go insane over Bush's possible desertion?

I guess you weren't here.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

28. In Bush's case,

the legitimacy of the issue was verified by his records from Alabama. In contrast, the stuff on Gore, Kerry and Obama was pure BS. You really don't see the difference?

[grasswire]

35. apparently I was "here" about a year before you, sonny.

But the Bush AWOL war didn't occur AFTER Bush was selected.

I was a member of a research group on salon.com that did everything we possibly could to force the media to carry the AWOL story in the year prior to the 2000 election.

An Iowa farmer in this group used FOIA to obtain the National Guard records of George W. Bush. Untold hours were spent examining those records and other sources. Many hundreds of contacts were made via FAX, email, personal contact, phone calls, web sites -- all trying to break the story that he had deserted his post of duty in wartime and there was evidence to prove it despite the fact that his advance team had scrubbed the physical evidence in Texas.

On the Friday before the election, Senator Bob Kerrey finally snapped to the story and called a press conference to ask Bush to explain his military record.

That was the day that a FOX affiliate broke the old story about the DUI. Rove at his best -- the AWOL story was blown off the headlines by the old DUI.

How would the election of 2000 have turned out if the AWOL story had been headlines that Friday? I suspect it would have been at least too close to steal.

Bush WAS AWOL. We had the proof in 1999.

[karynnj]

43. Incredibly impressive -

You would never have known how much grief you had saved the nation had this story gained traction and knocked enough other states to Gore (all it would have taken was NH).

[grasswire]

44. I knew from the moment I saw Bush on the national stage that he was a potential despot.

I wrote somewhere: "He cannot govern; he can only rule."

You see, I was the survivor of a marriage to a pathological narcissist. I knew immediately that George was one. Worse, his becoming the most powerful man in the world was the stuff of Greek tragedies. Oedipal issues, rejection issues, strong father, cold mother, stronger brother. All of it signaled worse times for the globe.

[karynnj]

45. Amazingly perceptive

I admit to being one of the people, who while thinking the Bush campaign behavior deplorable, was slightly happy that he beat McCain, who really did seem to be someone, at that time, who could beat Gore. His media - as a maverick - was so good, that I knew usually well informed liberals who thought he was the type of special case where they would cross to vote for him.

I could not believe that the country would vote for someone with Bush's past - especially if they were dismayed at Clinton's behavior. To me, it seemed that what they would look for is a man, of sterling character - and there was NO ONE whose long public life fit that better than Al Gore )and no he did not need Leiberman to do that - his own record was more than enough.

[PatSeg]

58. You summed him up

quite nicely and succinctly too. It always amazed me that people couldn't just look at him and see who he was. He certainly didn't hide it very well. Go into any tavern in the U.S. and you'll find a GW. You might buy him a drink to shut him up, but you'd never imagine him as President of the United States.

[Ter]

54. After Bill Clinton, no one cared

He made it ok for all future presidents to avoid the military, not to mention smoke pot. Whatever Bush did, while he was certainly no hero, going in the National Guard and using Daddy to get him out of combat was still better tin the public's eye than all-out dodging the draft, like Clinton.

[Avant Guardian]

55. Clinton was a draft dodger?

Bush not bothering to show up for guard duty was better? Everything Bush got away with was Clinton's fault? You are joking, surely.

[Ter]

56. Sure he was

Are you denying he dodged the draft? He did it in a very, very skilled (some would say "Slick") way as to avoid any penalties. In the people's eyes, yes it was better, or the same at best. The average Joe will say "Well at least he went in for something." Clinton never wore the uniform at all. Some people cared in 1992, but after that it was all cool. Clinton made it possible for all future avoiders (and pot smokers) to get elected without question.

I find zero "fault" in this, and would never blame Clinton. I think it's a non-issue. Face it, no one cares anymore. Look at all the war heroes who lost recently to non-military men. Dole, Kerry, and McCain. All three did not just put on the uniform, but all three saw heavy action in wars, and all three lost (two by huge margins). All I'm saying is the public no longer cares about this issue. Good thing, or we'd have President Dole in 1996.

[Avant Guardian]

57. Yes, I am denying it

You are repeating a RW talking point from the 90s.

[karynnj]

27. One HUGE difference - DU was not then or now the mass media

The fact is that there are questions on whether Bush actually served the full length of time that he was committed to serve in the TANG and it is true that DU pursued all those stories - and likely some went too far.

That said two things are NOT parallel here:
1) Kerry's records were complete and intact - and the Navy gave him purple hearts and two prestigious medals because of heroism shown. That is pure and simple the official Navy record. No matter what the RW wanted to believe, there was NO ambiguity here. Yet even yesterday in a Wall Street journal column on Corsi's new book a rightwinger wrote that Corsi's book questioned Kerry's stories of Vietnam and pretty much said that Kerry exaggerated . The fact is it was the Navy that said Kerry was a hero and while there are many times where Kerry has spoken of serving or lessons learned, I can find just two where he spoke of his medals (over than whether he threw them) - one when asked by a Senator in 1971, where he just said yes in confirming the list the Senator read and in his statement on the SBVT spoken before the Firefighters, where he merely listed the medals and said the Navy gave them to him.

2) You say that DU, which I did not yet read, made it an issue. The parallel would be FR making Kerry's service an issue. Instead, you had all the cable news shows and talk radio giving millions of free hours of airtime to the SBVT.

The unbalance led to people responding in late 2004 with slightly more questioning Kerry's UNIMPEACHABLE record than questioning Bush's highly questionable record.

[DrDan]

3. not only presidential campaigns - remember what they did to Max Cleland - disgraceful

[MadMaddie]

59. That was horrible and Limpballs was in the middle of it

They destroyed a real hero and they showed no shame.

[politicasista]

4. Doesn't stop some (not all) Obama supporters from disrespecting Kerry

Guess if the media lies about Obama, it's false, but when the lie about Kerry, Gore, it must be true!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4829159#4829301

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. I was thinking about that this morning.

In order to bash Kerry's purple heart, they swiftboated him and everyone who was ever given a purple heart. Remember all those idiotic purple band aids they wore? They were using ridicule to tear Kerry down. Horrible, nasty unAmerican people.

In order to beef up George Bush's military reserve record, they conscripted all the reservist into Iraq to fight Bush's war. Cowardly pricks.

And now Obama. The same stupid shit that their ignorant minions eat up.

[politicasista]

8. +1 n/t

[blm]

7. Kerry did respond quickly, but, corpmedia refused to air his speech attacking Swifts and Bush

and his challenge to Bush to stop hiding behind the Swifts and come out publicly to debate their services. Aug.19, 2004 - a speech to the Firefighters Convention.

News networks were supposed to broadcast that speech - they refused when they became aware of the content. Few even reported that the speech happened, and NONE would add the report into the heavy rotation of their daily news reports.

[Gregorian]

9. Dukakis looked funny in an army tank.

Dean raised his voice.

We're fucked as a nation.

edit- :)

[Canuckistanian]

40. Yup. Doesn't take much, does it?

Nixon didn't shave. Kucinich once talked about UFO's in jest. Edmund Muskie once showed some tears while getting emotional about his wife.

Americans voters are shallow. ANY perceived weakness is pounced upon - but only when it's somehow deemed a weakness by...... somebody.

And the media falls in line. Any other interpretation is denounced as craziness.

[Dawson Leery]

10. K/R

[teabaghater]

11. What about

Clinton? These mf'er's went after him for 8 years!! I can't express my hatred for republicans.

[ZombieHorde]

12. Yes, I see a patern. They will do it over and over again because they can't win on policy.

Religion, lies, and fear is all they have.

[cascadiance]

13. A case can be made that Pacific Bell ads when Gore ran lied more about "inventing the internet"

If anyone has some old recordings from that time in California and can find one of the many Pac Bell ads that ran then that bragged how they "invented" the internet, that would be a perfect youtube to reference back to show who the true liars are about what they've done...

[karynnj]

14. Kerry had already given the media more than was needed to shut down the

SBVT months before their book came out. They had his FULL service record in April 2004. Had they read it, it would have done more than answered any SBVT lies. In addition, the fitness records described an exceptional impressive young man 22 - 25 years old, who was able to build intense loyalty and teamwork in all the groups under his command - whether on a nuclear ship or on the swiftboats. He also impressed his first commander by his sensitivity to others and he was asked to work with some sailors, who did not report to him, having problems informally. The commander, reading the first story of what had happened in the past in an area that they were traveling for that Kerry had researched and written to inform and interest his subordinates had him read them to the ship.

What they describe is someone = a lot like the calm, professional, incredibly capable Senator, who spent hours on the Senate floor never losing his patience with the Republicans on START - and often using humor to defuse some tension. Whether people would agree with his politics or not, what the fitness reports showed was that even under unbelievable pressure, he remained exceptionally calm, and very supportive and caring towards the men reporting to him. The fact is that more than a fun guy to have a beer with he was a man that others trusted with their lives. That was really why they needed to try to destroy Kerry's reputation. For people on the fence, those comments - written when he was at most 25 when their was no political agenda - describe a trusted leader. I heard one of these men speak last December at an event honoring Kerry's 45 years of service. His devotion and love for the Senator was obvious and real - and his hatred for the SBVT showed how much those lies hurt him in 2004.

The SBVT lies were condoned and given huge lift by the media. The SBVT challenged the OFFICIAL NAYY record - there was no "Kerry" version. The media never asked them for one scintilla of proof - and ignored that they were proven to have lied on one thing after another.

Kerry did fight back:

The campaign's immediate reaction to the August attack was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. That was done within ONE DAY of the book's emergence in August.(In 2008, the first reaction of the Obama team was to put out 41 pages on lies in Corsi's book.)

This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof. They also later proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it. (Like Kerry, Obama used surrogates against Corsi rather than respond himself)

That was far more proof countering the liars than the Clinton machine ever put out on anything in 1992. The problem was that it went to the media and they refused to play the role of evaluating who was telling the truth - the Washington Post's editor even saying they wouldn't. The broadcast media was worse. Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverend Wright?

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

Backing the NAVY account against that of the SBVT, Kerry had the following:

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

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

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

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

The then secretary of the Navy (Republican Senator John Warner) said in 2004 that he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

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

In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step. It is only when there is no open and shut case (as there is here) that the candidate would try anything different.

When this didn't work, Kerry did speak to the issue - and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here - all political junkies didn't here this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn't think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was - I think less than 2 minutes long - so there is no excuse.

[politicasista]

15. He did all that, yet people here, liberals and Democrats alike berate him for it

while applauding Obama and letting the media off the hook.


Nice fact-based post, people will always blame Kerry, yet praise Obama for taking the high road.

[politicasista]

24. Kick for facts n/t

[craigmatic]

16. You left out one- the Clntons killed Vince Foster. The right just keeps pulling this out of their

asses. Maybe Hillary was right. Maybe there is a vast right wing conspiracy against democrats to de-legitimize them when in power or scandalize them while trying to seek power.

[karynnj]

18. The biggest difference is that when Clinton ran in 1992, we had far better media

If anything, the media was biased in favor of Bill Clinton. In 2008, the media was pretty close to balanced - with Fox on the republican side and the rest of the media somewhat favoring Obama.

2000 and especially 2004 were far more unfair. Just consider this. At least since I was following it - around the time of LBJ and Goldwater - the networks each did a puff biography where the basic theme was how each major party's nominees life led to the point that they could be President. It was likely not easy, but they did this for W, where the theme was essentially the Prodigal Son. IN 2004, NONE of the networks did one for Kerry. MSNBC did a documentary, but just on his protesting the war. The best was PBS which did a dual biography. The fact is that the war hero turned eloquent protester testifying to Senate, seeming far older than his 27 years, who became a prosecutor going after the MAFIA, a lt Governor who helped push the NE Governors' conference to use a cap and trade for acid rain - something he learned about because he visited Europe to see what they were doing, then a Senator, who led on Iran/Contra as a freshman and who in his first year was independent enough to vote for Gramm/Rudman to rein in the budget, this followed by BCCI, where his work helped close OBL's bank. If anything, there is too much there.

Also, in 2004, Kerry broke Clinton's rally records all over the country - yet, where the media showed the increasingly enthusiastic crowds in 1992 building momentum - in 2004, we saw Candi Crowley in the parking lot. They went out of their way to hide Kerry's speeches - on major issues. They intentionally distorted many of his positions. I would bet that if the media allowed people to see Kerry's campaign and hear him, he would have won so big, they couldn't suppress the vote enough to give Bush a second win.

The reason - likely not anything to really do with Kerry - just that at least one conservative SCJ would be replaced by the winner. Kerry winning would likely have meant a leftward shift - and very likely no Citizens United. (I suspect that this is why the Catholic Church pushed so hard in some places against a man that Father Drinan, who knew him since Kerry was in his 20s, said was a very good person and a good Catholic. )

[craigmatic]

19. Yeah I can see that. Also in 04 bush had his rallies closed off to include only repubs

Kerry's rallies had eveyone present yet the media didn't mention it at all.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

29. I have no objections to your points about Kerry.

I agree with that.

But in 1992, that was the first cycle when the SCMSM took sides against us. I recommend "The Hunting of the President," by Gene Lyons and Joe Conason. That was the cycle when the double standard for Dems and the GOP began.

[karynnj]

32. I did read Conason's book - I also followed politics in 1992

You can't really say that the media that had a field day with GHWB's vomiting in Japan was pushing for Bush. The fact is that the media actually was very easy on Clinton over some of the little bumps in the road. Not to mention, the mainstream media did nothing for Dole in 1996. Nor would there have been reporting of GHWB gaffes.

You also ignore that the media completely gave negative press to the GWHB convention. The ugliness of both Pat Buchanan and Marilyn Quayle's speeches were condemned. The convention was called mean spirited and compared unfairly to Clinton's optimistic one. (Contrast to 2004, where the Republican convention was far uglier, with purple heart band aids. Yet the media spun it as a convention strongly behind a leader - and they bashed Kerry for not having had a positive convention.)

Look at either the draft issue or the Gennefer Flowers issue. When the accusations were first raised, they were denied and called unfair and untrue. In both cases, Clinton had to change his position multiple times and ended up admitting parts of the claims. The initial position and many intermediate positions were pure and simple not true. Now, imagine if Gore or Kerry would have had been caught in a real lie. Just thinking about it tells you that Clinton - in the mainstream media - did not face the same degree of bias. Clinton, in both cases, was pretty much given a pass and the issue died.


Not to mention, the quantity of Clinton coverage on the regular networks far exceeded the coverage given to Kerry.

What is true is the rise of the right wing. That might be the point where they took over virtually all talk radio. However, at that point, they were considered to be extremists and far fewer people had any regard for them. It is also true that the RW created a bushel full of bogus attacks on the Clintons. Oddly, I actually think that the ridiculousness of many of those attacks actually might have - in 1996 - caused people to ignore the small number of legitimate issues.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

33. I'm afraid we'll have to disagree.

As to Poppy puking on the Japanese PM, the video was too compelling to ignore in the cable age, but it wasn't really a political issue.

I agree that that the red meat at the GOP convention got negative coverage. It was justified by the horror experienced by the Bush campaign centrists (relatively speaking). The press wasn't actually in the tank for the Repubs in 1992, as they were in 2000, it's just that they completely lost their heads and any sense of ethics regarding investigating the Clintons, as exhaustively documented in the referenced book.

I agree that the shameless band aid issue was given a pass by the press. This was, to me, an indication of how far the double standard had progressed in the first cycle after 9-11.

The denial of Flowers' allegations was not a straight forward issue, since Flowers herself doctored tape to bolster her semi-truths. Yet it was left to the Clinton campaign rather than the press to expose the mendacity.

The "draft dodger" story was in bounds as to subject matter, but like every other "scandal" of the Clinton campaign was handled with no journalistic integrity whatsoever, as meticulously documented by Bob Somerby at DailyHowler.com.

Certainly Clinton's personal life fueled their mania, but that doesn't alter that "respected" reporters were working hand in glove with the "Elves" and other right wing operatives in an ethical vacuum, talking to any state trooper or female acquaintance willing to fabricate something in order to get a book deal.

I disagree that Clinton was given a pass on his peccadillos. Bill Clinton is the only candidate or president whom I have ever heard accused of drug dealing and murder on TV. Chris Matthews, at least, aired bizarre characters for crazy talk many times.

Also, with Kerry I don't recall reporters fabricating important stories, (their reprehensible credulity on Swift Boaters notwithstanding), whereas the Whitewater story, from its inception at the NYT, was a pure fabrication and malicious hatchet job with respect to the Clintons, who had no culpability whatsoever. Yet that fabrication was indelibly linked with Clinton as a real scandal by the election.

It's true that Clinton Gore got good convention coverage. They were bright, energetic and photogenic in stark contrast to the Bush campaign. But as Perot dropped out they became front runners with high polling numbers which trumps reporter bias under the current practices. Even Gore in 2000, in the most biased coverage since the invention of television, got good coverage after his convention.

As to 1996, Dole was a Letterman punchline out of the gate, and reporters are loathe to swim against a polling current. Dole was clearly the nerd in that cycle and Clinton's polling ascendancy sheltered him in a way not enjoyed in the relatively close election of 1992.

As I see it, beginning in 1992 the press corps bias has been determined in a fashion very similar to junior high sociology regarding popularity. I mean this quite literally. They reinforce who the cool kids are while drinking after hours in bars in Iowa and New Hampshire. It is usually decided beforehand by journalistic culture. For example in 1999, Don Imus, at the heighth of power, lobbied for McCain as a cool kid and Al Gore as a nerd. See dailyhowler.com for details. Margaret Carlson and others would go on Imus and mock Gore and talk about how cool McCain was. Tim Russert and others would try to be more subtle on air but to the same purpose and effect.

Back to 1992, they truly hated Clinton, throughout his presidency. Some of them are on record. It showed in the misinformation, spin and sometimes outright fabrication. I didn't see them do that to Kerry, reprehensible though their behavior was. I think it was less personal. Kerry simply wasn't the cool kid. Bush was. He was also sacrosanct in the wake of 9-11. Witness the relative pass he got on the National Guard story in 2004.

As in everything else, Al Gore outshone his erstwhile boss in press bias. Some even admitted they enjoyed mocking him.

Kerry, although he was assigned the role of nerd in 2004 and regularly roasted in that role, to the best of my knowledge did not suffer fabricated stories invented by the press, while both Gore and Clinton had that misfortune. In Gore's case it would be hard to count the number of fabricated stories, albeit many of them minor. But the cumulative impact of the incessant lies by the press was evident in the exit polling regarding Gore's veracity in 2000. (Stan Greenberg data)So I guess we'll have to disagree. Hopefully this exercise might be helpful to some of our newer compatriots.

I don't mean to minimize Kerry's raw deal. It was abominable, journalistic malpractice. But the Gore coverage was historically unprecedented and Clinton, I believe also exceeded the mistreatment Kerry was meted both in terms of hostility and journalistic fabrication.

Anyway, nice to exchange with you.

[Drunken Irishman]

38. You've also got to remember how much the media had changed in 12 years...

In 1992, cable news wasn't as dominant as it is today. CNN was the lone cable news outlet devoting its time entirely to news (MSNBC and FOX News would come along in 1996).

The internet also was in its infancy. Not many people had a computer, let alone one with an internet connection.

In 2004, cable news had changed dramatically. It was more opinion-based and competitive, with MSNBC and FOX News now on the market.

The internet was also far more advanced, leading to easier access to conspiracy theories. In the 90s, it as solely talk radio and newsletters that often didn't reach over 1,000 people.

Now, a loon can post something on the internet and within a day it goes mainstream.

That's how the Rev. Wright tapes came to light. The files were on the internet. In 1992, I doubt we ever hear about those tapes.

In 1992, it would have been harder to advance the lies the Swift Boaters pushed in '04.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

47. Good points. n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

49. Plus, fair or not, Kerry's personality didn't help...

Clinton and Obama were very good at deflecting their problems because they are two very charismatic people and well-liked among average Americans. That helps. It helps when Americans like you.

I never got the sense Americans liked John Kerry. It's unfortunate, and unjustified, but when someone who isn't as charismatic or personable is stuck on a controversy, they have more difficulty getting the American people to side with them.

It's why Reagan and Clinton were able to deflect so well and guys like Carter and Bush struggled.

[karynnj]

51. The American people mostly never met John Kerry

The fact of the matter is that he is extremely charismatic - and that was obvious in 1971. The fact is that, both Obama and Clinton, were championed by large parts of the left side of the media. This allowed Bill Clinton to survive what was one of the very worst key note speeches ever.

It is also true that Obama and Clinton are both extroverts.

The fact is that Kerry won Iowa, because people saw him as liked him - same with NH. He also won the LT Governor and first Senate nomination against people the media wanted to win. He won because he people do like him when they see him.

Recently,in Deval Patrick's book, while he criticized the 2004 campaign, he also said that Kerry was an uncommonly decent man and spoke of how America never got to know him. The fact of the matter is that the mass media did not allow much real coverage of Kerry in 2004 - even though he was the Democratic nominee.

I strongly believe that if Kerry would have received the same amount of coverage as Bill Clinton got in 1992, he would be President.

[politicasista]

53. +1 for good post

One day people like my parents and uncle will understand. One day. But then again, some Democrats still buy into the GOP media about him, so go figure.

[karynnj]

42. I disagree mostly because the bulk of the bizarre attacks on the Clinton

started with his election. I absolutely agree with you that the right wing when crazy. However, the saving grace may have been that the mainstream media in general was fascinated by Clinton and really did not like Bush.

There were plenty of fabricated stories about Kerry - starting with the hundreds that came from the SBVTs. Then there was the whole Kerry had an affair with an intern - who turned out not to be an intern and not to have had an affair with the Senator.From the woman's account, the entire story started when an officemate was surprised that Kerry answered her call.

In addition, there were stories that circulated that depicted the extremely well manned Kerry as rude and overbearing to people below him. In addition, there were accusations because of Kerry's work on exposing Iran/Contra - where the CIA actually confirmed that everything the cautious former prosecutor wrote in the Kerry report was true. (This actually had a small connection to the Clinton drug running nonsense. The CIA used an Arkansas base some gun running and drug running. This is true, but there was never any proof that Clinton knew of it -though there is proof that GHWB very likely was a key player in allowing it to happen to fund the Contras. No authority, including Kerry, ever said that Clinton had anything to do with it. The worst that could be true is that The CIA told him that this was there base for arming the Contras - and Clinton, who supported the Contras, likely looked the other way.The CIA when Clinton was President agreed to the Kerry report to avoid further investigation.)

There were also many stories that were completely false on Teresa's foundation's grants. Not to mention that she was smeared more than any previous wife - including Hillary.

I actually said that the bias was strongest in 2000 and especially 2004. There is no way that you can use the polling data to say that Gore was smeared more than Kerry - there is no question that would actually be useful to measure that. As to Gore being seen as more a "nerd" than Kerry, the truth is he very likely was. In addition to Kerry's wonkiness, he played 4 sports in college, and he is still an athlete at 66 with two hip replacements - biking 110 miles for charity - and beating the arrogant Scott Brown's time, as the Boston Globe reported, not the modest Senator. He also was interested in anything from poetry, starting a poetry club in high school to playing a bas guitar in a high school band. The fact is that Kerry really is a pretty all around guy.

Not to mention a very serious distortion. They came up with a new measure of "writing legislation" on which almost anyone wouldbe seen to be useless. They looked to see only those bills that passed where your name was listed first. This was used for NO ONE but Kerry. So, all the McCain/Kerry legislation for vets, that McCain in his book said Kerry, the lawyer, wrote- doesn't count. Kerry's extensive work on international money laundering - finally included in the Patriot Act - that has successfully allowed following the money on terrorist - and people avoiding taxes, in some cases - not there, because he is not even a sponsor of the full bill, that he had problems with. Kerry wrote large parts of environmental law - not there. Even most of the Small Business legislation he wrote was not there - as much of it is Snowe/Kerry. On other bills, there was no roll call - so they don't count. In addition, many bills are sent to committee and end up as a segment of a bigger bill - again, not there. In addition, some times the ideas and even the words of a predecessor bill form a large part of a later bill. The most important one for Kerry was SCHIP. In 2004, Kennedy spoke of how Kerry/Kennedy was watered down to be more acceptable to some key republicans to pass as Kennedy/Hatch. (Consider how much credit Hillary Clinton got for the same bill that she lobbied Bill to include in his budget. The entire funding part was from Kerry/Kennedy!) This may seem trivial, but it was used to take a very hard working man and say he was an empty suit.

One think you have completely wrong in responding to me - I did say the media was very biased towards Gore. I agree with everything you say - except that the implication that they disliked him more than Kerry. I do agree that for BOTH Kerry and Gore, the media really did not like them as people. (In Kerry's case, I almost suspect jealousy. He was a hero - and most of them didn't come close. Then he got fame and incredible respect as 27 year old. He won the lt Governor and the first Senate run against someone else favored for the Democratic nomination - because of his eloquence and also because of his charisma. He NEVER pandered to the media - and he won the Presidential nomination over several people, who did have some media support. I suspect that the breaking point where he went from not a media favorite to disliked - was when the two things he did not have - a successful marriage and wealth, were his with a vengeance when the beautiful, brilliant, charming Teresa Heinz and he fell in love and married.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

48. I think we're converging.

After your long and nuanced post, I think we may simply have some different emphases based on the heart more than the head. Your love of Kerry is well-founded. He is a man of unquestioned (at least by any functionally sentient being) physical courage. He signed up for the most dangerous detail in Viet Nam: riverine naval patrol, wherein he saved many lives under fire. Not only is he brilliant, cool and fascinating, he is one of the greatest environmentalists in the history of the Senate.

I like to think my man-crush is also well founded: Gore is another stellar environmentalist. Another who volunteered for a war in which he did not believe. Gore is now generally acknowledged as being very cool, but in 2000 the Washington press corps conveniently forgot that at Harvard he was a brilliant motorcycle-riding, dope-smoking athlete (freshman basketball team) with a bright, voluptuous and vivacious girlfriend. Ironically, as a Harvard senior he wrote a paper on the effect of TV on presidential elections. The travesty in which he was elected but not inaugurated was the last presidential cycle in which the Net did not serve as a significant counterweight to the power of television.

Anyway, with respect to Bubba, your point about the hostility being amplified during his presidency is well taken. Early in his first term, he considered having the press corps moved out of the White House for briefings, to a nearby location. Many in the press corps were outraged and never forgave him.

As to fabrications on Kerry, my point was that most were traditional, i.e. invented by the GOP and its orcs, as opposed to "mainstream journalists". Of course we agree that the volume of fabrications was huge.

As to the overall smears leveled at Kerry, I would agree there were more against Kerry than Gore, although the volume against both was vast.

My point about the exit poll data was that the 18 month meme on which the SCMSM and the GOP had collaborated (i.e. Gore dissembles"), was very effectively reinforced to a mass audience in interpreting the second Gore-Bush debate. The largest voter concern about Gore several weeks later, according to the Greenberg exit poll data, was his truthfulness, e.g. Gore said he "invented the internet (sic)." Unlike Kerry, Gore did not have a robust liberal blogosphere to counteract the polyanna acceptance and mimicry by journalists of GOP spinmeisters. In 2000 Bob Somerby, the godfather of the liberal blogosphere, was a lone voice crying in the wilderness.

Your point about the press hostility toward Kerry is well taken. They disliked them both. One interesting footnote, however, is that I think Gore is the only candidate in modern US history to be booed by the press, certainly once and perhaps twice. Suffice it to say they both experienced levels of unprofessionally exhibited press hostility unworthy of a free republic.

Anyway, I've enjoyed the repartee and learned some cool things about Kerry in the process. Hope to see you around the site.

[karynnj]

50. I would say at this point that we have converged

There is little or nothing I can disagree with in what you posted here.

I would add, in agreement, that the more subtle negative themes used on Gore were devastating maybe precisely because they were subtle and set up an image that was unattractive. The very subtlety likely made it harder to respond to as it was a series, of in themselves, nearly innocuous slants on things rather than big charges. I also think the MSM in 2000 also engaged in completely white washing George Bush's life and creating a completely false genial facade for him. Where they really, put their GIANT thumbs on the scale was the debates. I watched the first debate - and thought it was a solid Gore win - Bush did not even answer a few questions. Then, I watched the coverage afterward - by the next day, NONE of the answers were spoken of - just that Gore sighed. Then they complained because he acted differently in the second debate and too aggressive in the third. There was no way he could have won this game - whatever he would have done would have been wrong. (Yet look at the three very change W performances in 2004 - where the media said nothing of his strange behavior - or possible wire.)

You are correct that most came from the MSM, not the Republicans. There was some of that with Kerry, but the bigger, worst things were clearly the rightwing. Diminishing his accomplishments was the media - including Factcheck.org on his Senate career. In addition, the media since 1971 has always pushed an image that he is eltist and aloof. Having seen him at various events, especially smaller ones, he is not aloof, but a warm, engaging person - but he is more reserved and less a backslapper, than a Bill Clinton or John Edwards. (I suspect, without first hand knowledge,that the same is true for Gore.) As to elitist. I suspect the image comes from Kerry's impeccable manners, demeanor, and bearing. The same with Gore. Both were raised that way and are gentlemen - and this should not be a negative. But, if either were really an elitist, they both could have done what others did, which was to use their strings to avoid Vietnam. (The fact is that it would have been easier for either to do this than it was for Cheney and Clinton.)

The fact is that on these issues, the media used the same attack on both. (Maureen Dowd was particularly obnoxious - in 2000, there were tens of columns all boiling down to her not liking Gore. In 2004, she made up a quote that she attributed to Kerry - "who among us is not a NASCAR fan", that even her paper used against Kerry. But, in 2004, Maureen Dowd was not the worst on Kerry. Jori Wilgoren, who labeled him a social loner was. When called on that, she spoke of having come to that conclusion after speaking to 20 life time friends of his - apparently not getting that a social loner would not have 20 life time fiends. ) Yet, if people actually met the various nominees, they clearly would find having a beer (or a cup of coffee) with either Gore or Kerry more interesting than with Bush. To show how well that theme worked in 2004, I read then that there was a poll of who you thought more likely to stop and help if you were stranded on the highway. It still amazes me that Bush won that poll.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

34. Hillary didn't go far enough.

She couldn't mention that the SCMSM has gotten in bed with the right wing in a very subtle way. That's why the first question from Tim Russert in her first national debate as a senatorial candidate was an invitation to apologize for that remark.

Anyway, Russert, may he rot in the ninth circle of hell, got his comeuppance in the Bill Moyers documentary.

[treestar]

17. Nothing offends me more than their treatment of Kerry

Not even birtherism.

The Republicans, the ones saying we should always be 100% behind the President in time of war. How dare they question a war hero's record? What made me even sicker was the country rewarding those bastards with a victory.

[Nancy Waterman]

20. "It's a circus intended to control the national conversation"

That is the key point. Distraction, distraction, distraction. They always get us talking about things that don't matter while they go about doing what they want under the radar.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

30. *Thank you, sister.*

This Trumped-up sideshow is very convenient for union busting, people needlessly dying in Afghanistan, reverse Robin Hood legislation, etc.

[Samantha]

21. They always stoke the sensational topics when they are

planning some damaging moves in the still of the night.

Sam

[grasswire]

23. or they just take down an airliner

It's all about grabbing the message of the day; coming out on top.

[bertman]

31. Rec. Yes, it's a pattern. And the stupid Amerikan TeeVee-viewing public eats it up. nt

[Arugula Latte]

36. Meanwhile, stolen presidential elections and wars started for profit are covered up.

[Canuckistanian]

39. And the media falls for it each time

They make it a "controversy", giving EQUAL WEIGHT to "both sides".

What the media needs is more Lawrence O'Donnells.

[vaberella]

41. I see a correlation to attack Dems. Bu the Obama situation is particular.

There could have been an attack on him being a socialist. They didn't do that to Gore or Kerry. But the amount of attacks and the birth certificate is something particular. Running on him being a socialist or liberal could have been enough damage. This is an attack on the very fabric of the mean. It is not an easy correlation between Kerry/Gore and Obama.

[MadMaddie]

60. Vaberella I have thought about this and

the U.S history of slavery, Jim Crow, church bombings, death threats against the First Family have really brought this country full circle to face it's horrific beginnings. Asking a black man for his papers raises ugly memories that occurred in this countries past.

Think about this, having a black president destroys the racist in more ways than one. All doors are open now for any and all Americans to achieve whatever greatness they want.

[Supersedeas]

46. a pattern of widespread national media coverage of lies--modern 'journalism' is the pattern

[MasonJar]

52. The Republican Party could NOT win an election honestly if it tried. It will never try.