Kerry/Edwards Staffers

[electionhistorian]

I published a similar posting here a week or two ago, but please don't flame me - this is a legitimate research request.

I'm writing an article on the 2008 presidential election, focusing on the Democrats' strategy of 'triangulation' going back to Clinton. I want to get an insiders' perspective, so I'm interested in speaking with Kerry/Edwards campaign staffers. Did you see the Kerry/Edwards campaign continue the triangulation strategy by moving to the right? For example, did Kerry/Edwards take the "peace" vote for granted by supporting the war in Iraq? If so, did this strategy and the related effort to sideline Nader backfire? In other words, do you think the Kerry/Edwards campaign should have focused more on staking out a clear alternative to the GOP, and less on denying the Left an alternative choice?

If you are willing to discuss these issues for a published article, please contact me at [e-mail]. You may remain anonymous. Thank you.

[Peace Patriot]

1. You would do well to consult Diebold and ES&S, the two rightwing

Bushite corporations who counted 80% of the nation's votes using 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls, in the new election theft system designed by the two biggest crooks in Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney, in their $4 billion "Help America Vote Act" electronic voting boondoggle.

Campaign staffers are largely irrelevant. Only private personnel at Diebold and ES&S know what the vote count really was--because they, and only they, know what the "trade secret" vote tabulation formulas were.

Non-transparent elections are not elections. They are tyranny. Does it matter what campaign staffers believe, or what positions the opposition candidates take, in a tyranny? Maybe somewhat, but not much. As Josef Stalin said: It's not who votes that matters; it's who counts the votes.

Ask Diebold and ES&S. Only they know if the voters accepted or didn't accept Bush's war or Kerry's compromises. Only they know if Kerry could have overcome the fraud by taking positions closer to those of the American people on the war and other issues.

[emulatorloo]

2. National media promoted Bush's strawman Kerry, and hid K/E true positions

Your basic assumptions are, IMHO, incorrect.

Go back and review national news broadcasts, especially that of cable news, and you will find:

Bush best sound bites are shown, his gaffes and mistakes left on the cutting room floor.
Kerry's worst sound bites are shown, his best material left on the cutting room floor.

Bush speaks about "my opponent" with one of his BS strawman arguments totally misconstruing Kerry/Edwards position
Footage of Kerry shown while newsperson 'summarizes' what Kerry said, usually inaccurately

The only time Bush and Kerry are presented without this filter is during debates, and Bush does not fare well.

This has nothing to do with "triangulation" - but a concerted effort (conscious or otherwise) to misrepresent Kerry/Edwards and thier positions

[Divernan]

3. Kerry/Edwards still active. You could be bogus for all DU knows.

You are a new and unknown poster to us. (I worked on Kerry's campaign - not in a policy capacity, but door-to-door in my community & monitoring election returns.) If I were one of the staffers from whom you seek info, I would clear it with Kerry or Edwards first, and have someone check out your bona fides to make sure you're capable, responsible, legit, etc., and not some GOP dirty tricks staffer trolling for info you can distort to disparage Kerry or Edwards. You've disabled your profile. Why don't you go public here, with name and references, curriculum vita, etc.?

And by the way, as someone who did academic research (3 year research fellow for NIMH), IMO, any info you get from "anonymous sources" isn't worth squat.

[electionhistorian]

6. I understand your concern.

I am new to DU, and I understand why you are suspicious. Of course, I'm happy to disclose to anyone I interview.

I'm not interested in speaking with anyone who wants to feed me talking points that have been cleared by the campaign, though. But if you are interested to speak for yourself on these issues, as so many people do here at DU, then please contact me at [e-mail].

Thanks

[displacedtexan]

4. I worked on that campaign (DC HQ).

Are you not familiar with non-disclosure contracts? Even envelope stuffers and
sandwich gophers signed them... after being thoroughly vetted.

Anyone who talks to you about the campaign's inner workings is either lying or
glossing.

[BlueIris]

5. Jesus, hire a research assistant.

There are only ten thousand more appropriate ways to try to get this information. You might want to have someone explain to you what they are.

[Lexingtonian]

7. What's the point?

That's not going be relevant stuff in '08. The swing vote is moving from conservative leaning to either true neutral or liberal lean. And why you assign particular importance to the Left...the classical Left, the Dean movement, was problematic and the reason swing voters thought Democrats the less able party to govern, not Kerry.