Deleted message

[Name removed]

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

[CWebster]

1. That is a DISGRACE

With all this illegitimate occupier of the Whitehouse should be held accountable for it comes down to a dick contest of militarism as strong on defense while our young die and Iraqis by the thousands have been killed by some idiots swinging their dicks.

[RichM]

24. Yay CWebster!

Thank you for saying in one sentence what it would have taken me a paragraph to say. (And I couldn't even have finished the paragraph, because I'd be too busy retching, thinking of the campaign being reduced to a mindless "dick contest of militarism.")

[vi5]

2. Since they've made the playing field about...

"patriotism" and "strong on defense" I think what you say is true. It's lamentable that they have been able to do that and to define the terms of debate. But if they elect to do that and it works to some degree on the public (which it seems to) then it becomes "O.K. if you have the stones to call the other side anti-american and question their patriotism then let's put what THEIR prominent members have done to serve their country and risk their life for it against what YOUR members have done to serve their country and risk their life for it."

[CWebster]

3. More triangulating

rather than promoting an alternative vision. They are still playing the game by Republican rules. Why should I, as a Democrat, endorse that with my vote?

[Michael Harrington]

7. Exactly.

I was thinking the same thing. We need to be careful not to fall too in line with this realpolitik routine. Being a whore is one thing. Falling in love with the John (literally, in this case) is quite another.

[Monte Carlo]

9. Can you hear us way up there?

'cause here it's down and dirty, and we know we can't change the rules by ignoring them.

[CWebster]

14. If he wants to play by their rules

he should represent their side.

We are in the middle of an illegal war--an unneccesary war, based on lies, and Kerry is trying to capitalize on the image of militarism as an asset? What is WRONG with this picture?

[Monte Carlo]

15. He is trying to take their issue away from them.

By adopting a bit of their rhetoric and positions, Kerry can re-define the war in Iraq and the war on terror in his terms. Shaming Bush and lecturing them from a distance is not going to change a damn thing.

[CWebster]

16. that is the exact definition triangulation

the Dick Morris strategy that cost us the farm. Kerry's reasons are for his own ego aggrandizement--that and it is all he has to put it to Bush. And that is exactly the kind of macho strutting that doesn't impress me--or the world either, for that matter. They are just about fed up with US arrogance and military aggression and ostentation passing as credible foreign policy or domestic security.

[Monte Carlo]

21. And it didn't originate with Clinton.

It's a political maneuver that has been done for years all around the world. It's also called capturing the center. We are all sick of Bush's craziness, but outright rejecting it at every turn is playing right into their hands for election day.

[displacedtexan]

4. Sadly, I agree. Same in 1960.

In 1960, Kennedy and Johnson (both served) had to compete with the positive image of the outgoing General Eisenhower. "PT 109" was an image every school child was familiar with.


My favorite statesman back then, Adlai Stevenson, never had a chance.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

5. Kerry

also strikes people as the opportunist. He voted IWR then criticized Bush. Having served in Vietnam should he have known better? I don't know, because I wasn't alive during most of Vietnam. Has he proven himself easily fooled by voting for Bush's Iraq debacle?

You are right, though. Military service is weighing heavily. Will Kerry play Bush as AWOL deserter? I personally don't think so. Clark might though. I think all of them ought to turn up the heat on *, and Dean already admitted to having essentially dodged the draft using his social status by getting all sorts of odd deferments. That was what made me a Dean supporter. When Dean admitted that on Hardball.

I agree with all your statements on Kerry's statesmanship though. I would be proud to vote for him as President (I just got my first ever voter-registration ID yesterday!)

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[SlavesandBulldozers]

13. "us"

you know, the royal "We" uh, the editorial. .

-The Big Lebowski

[Michael Harrington]

11. He's not easily fooled...

He just did the easy thing, voted for the war, and played Duck and Cover. Now, when the tide has turned on the war and it's justifications, he's suddenly one big giant conscience. Having watched him in the Senate for nearly 20 years, I hoped for and expected better.

[AP]

8. If people vote on military service in November, Bush is going to win.

He wouldn't win if the election is today. But if we nominate a candidate who makes people think of terror and war, I guarantee you someone will figure out a way to turn that mood in the Republican's favor.

This is why Clinton said it was the economy, stupid. He knew that the Republicans couldn't coopt that issue to their favor.

[IndianaGreen]

10. You want to make an issue of Vietnam? Good, let's talk about 'Nam...

Let's talk about America's sordid history in the Vietnam conflict going back to the Truman Administration and their betrayal of the Vietnamese people. Let's talk about how we replaced the French after the fall of Diem Bien Phu. Let's also discuss how America put a Catholic as the puppet President of mostly Buddhist South Vietnam, an artificial creation if there ever was one. Let us also discuss how the US nixed elections when it became clear that Ho Chi Minh was going to win.

I haven't even started to discuss the bloody side of the war: the hamlet program, the death squads, the torture, the free-fire zones, the carpet bombing, the chemical warfare, the burning of villages, the forcible transfer of entire populations, the lies, the killings, the cold blooded murders, the more lies and the more killings. I haven't even gotten to the Nixon Administration yet and their own tales of horrors, I am only mentioning what happened when the Democrats were running the show!

You cannot talk about Vietnam and the 58,000 dead Americans, without also talking about the Vietnamese side of the story and their 3 million dead.

Let Vietnam be! If you want to do something positive about Vietnam, go and visit Vietnam, and see how her people live today in peace and without fear.

[Dr Fate]

17. Let's dont and say we did.

No one is going to bring up any "Vietnamese side" of the story.

The point is that Repugs. are hypocrites when it comes to personal responsibility. DEMS served in Vietnam honorably, Bush & his handlers REFUSED to serve. Thats it- no one is going to bring up this other stuff except you.

[IndianaGreen]

20. You wanna bet?

I wouldn't be surprised if Kerry's coronation had to compete with antiwar demonstrations, and that Kerry will be demanding the same First Amendment Zones that Bush gets when we demonstrate against the GOP Convention.

[Dr Fate]

23. Oh, I thought you meant attacks from Bush/media, not your crowd.

What a wonderful strategy- attack Kerry where the Republicans never could!! That will teach us corporate, not radical enough, Democrat whores a lesson!

Even if there are anti-war demonstrations for Kerry, I doubt details about the "Vietnamese side" will be the main points.

[IndianaGreen]

25. Swift boats were used during special ops in Vietnam

The Vietnamese have a different collective memory of what American special ops did in Vietnam that does not jive with our more sanitized and heroic version of events.

Do not make Vietnam an election issue, you will lose! Everyone will lose! Both major parties have innocent blood on their hands.

[OKNancy]

12. I wouldn't go there

First I agree with the others even though my candidate has an outstanding military background. Secondly, Clark is a decorated Vietnam vet, except he went on to become even MORE decorated.

I hate this subject. My support of Clark is maybe 20% based on his military record, and only that much because it makes Bush look bad in comparison, and of course takes the "national security" argument off the table.

[MoonRiver]

18. That's exactly right. In many ways Clark is advancing DESPITE his career.

Pukes have made national security their #1 issue, so it doesn't hurt in the final analysis to have someone on our ticket who can turn that spin on its head.

[Southsideirish]

19. I have been thinking that, too -plus many Viet Nam vets have long

felt their service was never properly acknowledged and now they are middle aged and a Kerry victory would represent a victory for all of them, too.
In addition having the troops over there in harms way every day - to elect an actual ex-soldier who,also, has Washington experience - well,it looks like a no-brainer for Kerry.
I think Dean would have been what this country needs (a change in the way they do things in Washington and a kick in the teeth to the "too cozy" relationship the Dems have with corporate America among many other powerful items on his agenda) - the times we live in seem to be propelling Kerry forward, much to my personal dismay.

[boxster]

22. Unfortunately, many, many people are in denial about this fact.

To me, it seems incredibly obvious that Bush and the media will try to make this election about national security and the war on Iraq and elsewhere.

That being the case, Kerry and Clark are the best candidates to counter the false military bravado that Bush is going to attempt to capitalize on. And, I disagree with those who claim that Bush wins that fight. I think Bush loses that argument to Kerry or Clark by default. He cannot question their service or military experience.

Obviously, the military service is not their only qualification, though many people here act as though it is.

[krkaufman]

26. Beg to differ, just about across the board

Gotta differ with you on just about everything you said. Military service may play some part in people's choices, but the election will not "boil down to military service" as the litmus test. It hasn't in the past, and likely won't this year. However, I do feel that having national security credentials will be essential in deflecting Republican fear-mongering this Fall, which will be necessary in order to keep the debate focused on *ALL* of Bush's failures -- both foreign and domestic.

As for your opinions masquerading as facts regarding why Kerry seems to be getting a bigger "vet" boost than Wesley Clark...

1. Clark is known as the General...the Vietnam angle is less salient than the rank itself. Kerry is described as a 'decorated Vietnam vet'. The difference is subtle but crucial.

2. Clark lacks the intangible 'weight' that Kerry has, the sense of issue mastery and authority. Not to say that he doesn't have it internally (and he does), but Kerry's is more apparent.

All bunk; especially the second bullet. What a chortle.

The difference is simply that Kerry is much more willing to exploit his vet experience and contacts to get votes; while Clark usually just explains that his service afforded him executive leadership experience critical for hitting the ground running as President.

The two men had entirely different military records, careers and experiences; and each has a different take on how to reference their experience within the context of the campaign.

Kerry is ... a perfect Dem antidote to Bush's image as a strong leader.

Please, Kerry is anything *but* a "strong leader"; he's just play-acting using the lines he's stolen from Howard Dean, Wes Clark, John Edwards -- and George Bush.

Sorry to burst your bubble, here, but Kerry will be painted as a waffler-extraordinaire, and, oh yes, a communist sympathizer and collaborator for his anti-Vietnam stand. Granted, most in the Democratic Party would view the Vietnam protests favorably; but it will not play as well with swing voters in the swing states.

And ponder this... if Vietnam vet John Kerry was so torn up about all the needless deaths in Vietnam due to "decisions made in Washington to protect those in positions of power," how can he justify voting "yes" on the IWR authorizing Bush to go to war in Iraq?