He is clearly a man who values his integrity, character and his reputation - and has lived a very good life that he is, and should be, proud of. His friends have taken on the task of researching and gathering as much imformation as exists to disprove each and every charge. One of them, speaking to the NYT, said they would do this even if he were leaving public life - because it is that important to them and to him.
In 2004, Kerry fought back in a way that would have worked even 4 years before. Kerry gave the press the information - over 100 pages of naval records - to counter it in April and they were all up on his web site. (In fact, they were useful to people on the Kerry blog to end the argument on the color of his eyes - hazel) Clinton's aim in 1992 was to counter in the news cycle any claim with "something". Here the Media had proof that the SBVT were lying - this goes BEYOND Clinton's having a "response". The media did not do the job they would have done even 4 years before.
When this became evident, Kerry and his team did try to counter it. It was an unprecedented attack - a book with hundreds of charges all in contradiction of the official records and no proof - and the media asked for none. Then as lies were proven to be lies, the media did not make the assumption that it discredited the source - they went to the next lie. Clearly, neither the official records or identifying a very significant number of charges to be lies worked. So, what could be done. I really think the only thing that would have worked required the Democratic party to stand behind the man who was their standard bearer - just as they had with every previous candidate. They pure and simple failed to do this. They could have picked their battles. The purple heart band aids would have been one of the best - as it really did step over the line and it
was the Republican party itself. It could have HONESTLY hit a Republican strength, the perception that they supported the military.
Imagine if people from Jimmy Carter to every Democratic spokesman anywhere - tv, radio, print had all called on Bush to expel anyone diminishing a solemn medal awarded when a soldier/sailor/airman is wounded from their convention unless they take off their band aids and to ask him as CIC to apologize to the military that reports to him for his party's insensitivity to the suffering of the troops. They then could have said the military awards these medals, that they were driven by doctor's reports - not applied for by soldiers. Then speak of the two more impressive awards.
Kerry could and should not have to have lead this. He did have to provide the truth - which he did. He put his body on the line and suffered in a war that he did not even support. If he were the only one who complained it would have been worse than the lack of complaints. The silence likely fostered the belief that somehow Kerry deserved this lack of defense.
What is infuriating is that Kerry as a 25 year old, who was extremely athletic and fit, suffered these wounds, well aware that but for luck the angle could have been worse, his hearing was damaged and he has had nightmares years later. Yet these bastards implied he was barely in battle. Where were McAuliffe and the rest of the Democrats?
Kerry had every reason to be proud for having been tested and shown to be willing to risk his own life rather than not help a man who almost certainly would have died. For his other medal, he used his intelligence and solicited information from anyone in previous ambushes, worked out and sold to 2 of his peers a way to avoid these ambushes that the swiftboats were exposed to, then had the guts to implement it and came out of an ambush with no one in any of the 3 boats killed. This was what these people couldn't defend?
They had the Navy records and a tape where they could hear that Nixon investigated him 2 years later (when events were recent) - and found he was a war hero. Those two things alone should have been more than enough. What's weird is the RW still won't believe it. What I suspect is that among the high level of the party elite you have as many chicken hawks (or chicken doves) as the Republicans do and the vast majority of them were too cool to honor someone who consistently did the right thing and had a nobility of character they lacked.
Consider what they had to defend in 1992. The entire party had to defend Clinton on evading the draft. A certain war hero gave him a lot of cover, I think by pointing out that by 1968, it was known that the war was not winnable. The problem, which was smoothed over was that Clinton - after getting help by a ROTC leader, wrote an incredibly mean-spirited letter to him when after the lottery he was no longer endangered by the draft. Reneging on his promise to join was understandable in that time frame (though 2 years earlier, the extremely well connected Kerry didn't consider it when told he couldn't delay enlisting), but the bigger problem was the letter where Clinton spoke of "loathing the military" which a disgusting way to treat a man who helped him.
The party also said that the womanizing was in the past. Ignored was the fact that when the rumor surfaced he told the woman to lie to reporters. When she didn't, he denied it and attacked her credibility and character - and continued to do so when she produced a tape of him telling her to lie. (The tape proved 2 things to me then - he had an affair and was lying and she KNEW he would lie and attack her.)
Terry McAuliffe, Carville, Begala et al had no problem defending Clinton on these tawdry issues and now pride themself that they did it so well. Yet when Kerry was the nominee, they failed to defend him on something where there was never any reasonable doubt that he not only had nothing to apologize for or explain, but he had acted in an exemplary fashion. In fact, their lack of support likely raised questions of whether the Democratic leaders were concerned the charges were true. Kerry deserved better.
It might be that the goal was to make Kerry's hero status questionable to open questions into his integrity and character. This is why the party should have been proud to defend something that was very easily defended rather than explaining why Clinton's infidelities didn't matter. (Kerry provided the proof - so this charge of not fighting back should be aimed at the party as much as at Kerry.)
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments) | Remove from Journal | Add/Edit Intro
The fact that experience does not alone suffice,.
Posted by karynnj in General Discussion: Politics
Thu Dec 28th 2006, 11:49 AM
does not make a virtue of inexperience. What we need is a person with a vision leading in the right direction with the experience to understand and find solutions to problems.
In Kerry's case, his experience is coupled with his vision, his beliefs and his goals. Kerry has fought against corruption and against imperialism for 3 decades. In his speech before the Senate in 1971, he ends on an idealistic note that America could turn and the Vietnam vets could be among those who help America turn.
One of the reason neo-cons, like Martin Peretz, hate Kerry more than any other politician is that he has articulated an alternative view of US foreign policy. That was why TNR had someone "endorse" nearly every other candidate - but not Kerry. That also explains much of the negative or lack luster coverage in the NYT and the WP.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments) | Remove from Journal | Add/Edit Intro
Here's what I emailed
Posted by karynnj in John Kerry Group
Tue Nov 28th 2006, 10:55 AM
I was surprised to hear you very emotionally reference John Kerry's famous question from his 1971 Senate testimony. For many people, the truth that Vietnam in 1971 was as hopeless (though less dangerous to the world as a whole) as Iraq was distorted by a resurgence of the idea that Vietnam could have been won. This view that America could have won if popular support had remained behind the Vietnam War has been used against Senator Kerry for decades.
Senator Kerry's perfectly formulated 1971 question which takes war to its very heart - the individual soldier who might die - was in stark contrast to all other political speech I have heard. Kerry went on to say that every day someone had to lose his life because politicians were unwilling to admit what the whole world already knew. In recent years, Robert MacNamara in "Fog of War" admits that he knew the war couldn't be won as early as 1968. Senator Kerry has said in speeches in and out of the Senate that half the men whose names are on the Vietnam War Wall died after that time.
It seems that at this point you and many other commentators have reached the point Senator Kerry reached in April of this year, when he spoke out against allowing soldiers to die rather than admitting the policy in Iraq was wrong. You might want to see a video of a speech he gave in Boston on April 22, 2006 - the 35th anniversary of his Senate testimony. It is on his web site, johnkerry.com, under multimedia - the speech is called "Dissent".
Last summer, it was Senator Kerry and a few others who placed the lives of soldiers over the political calendar unlike the centrist triangulators. The Republicans were following Bush in a lock step formation on Iraq. The Centrists in the Democratic party clearly did not want Iraq debated in the Senate. I am fully convinced having been at the Boston speech on April 22, 2006, that Senator Kerry in proposing his Kerry/Feingold amendment was one of the few politicians motivated by the seriousness of the situation and the lives of the soldiers rather than politics. He knew the result of speaking the truth in 1971. He knew that Americans prefer to follow those who deceive them saying that we can win rather than honor those who admit that we can't. Those 2 views, 35 years apart, are the real story of supporting the troops. No fumbled joke, though it hurts politically, can take that away.
A few weeks ago, you among others spent a huge amount of time making a mountain out of a mole hill when you treated Senator Kerry's botched joke as an important event. The man left out a pronoun "us" in a joke written for him. For political points, you gave this more weight than you have all of Senator Kerry's serious proposals on Iraq (notably Kerry/Feingold and "the path forward" explained at Georgetown University in October 2005) and all his work in support of veterans rights and benefits. As a former Congressman, I assume you can look things up in the Congressional Record better than I can. An uncharacteristically soft spoken Senator Kerry I saw on CSPAN begging Republican Senators to accept a provision that would allow widows to remain in military housing for a longer time after the death of their spouse because it would make a traumatic time more manageable characterizes to me someone who genuinely cares for the troops as people. Not all the people, of either party, who use the troops as props. Senator Kerry was and is a far better person than most of those who have disparged him for decades. He is the rare politician who is honest and not corrupt.
Sincerely,
(ME)
Read entry | Discuss (3 comments) | Remove from Journal | Add/Edit Intro
BCCI
Posted by karynnj in General Discussion
Wed Nov 22nd 2006, 02:08 PM
Kerry was investigating drug money laundering and found that BCCI was involved up to its neck in totally corrupt activities laundering drug money and facilitating terrorists and global criminals. This bank bought off both Democratic and Republican politicians and money men. This absolutely endangered our democracy that people like this had any influence over our government.
Kerry was asked by both Jackie Kennedy and Jimmy Carter to stop - and he refused. Yet if you look at his list of issues that needed further investigation after his subcommittee was shut down - the number one issue was BCCI's funding of Pakistan's bomb. Imagine a Congress that was willing to cut off corrupt members of their own party. Could a thorough investigation have prevented A Q Khan from helping other rogue countries? More investigation of fugitive Marc Rich was there too.
Many people in power likely were concerned that Kerry would NOT tolerate a corrupt status quo that they enjoy privileges and support from. Kerry did the right thing, but some politicians see it as he hurt their friends. What I see is that it shows Kerry is incorruptible. He likely could have traded stopping this BCCI investigation for either money (this was pre- Teresa and he was not rich) or power, he didn't. To me this says he is really incorruptible - a very good trait for a possible President - and why I will support him as long as he is running and hopefully through his Presidency. He is unique.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments) | Remove from Journal | Add/Edit Intro
It's actually predictable
Posted by karynnj in John Kerry Group
Fri Nov 10th 2006, 09:37 AM
every person who favors someone else - which is probably as many as 85-90% of all Democrats see this as a way to eliminate one more threat. They would like to firmly establish this characterization.
I don't think he should list all the blunders of others - and they exist. It has never been his style - he's classier than that and it doesn't win anyway. It reminds me of times where I was calling one of my kids on bad behavior - and they would point to the equally bad behaviour of others. It didn't make them less bad. (Kerry's supporters finding gaffes of others is fair though.) (Remember many of us thought that EE's comments could backfire as they squandered the Edwards' reputation as "nice", this is similar though it would squander something rarer. Who else is conceded by almost everyone on our side as classy?)
We all know that Kerry is not particularly error prone. In fact, the DUers all point to this and to 2 (two - just 2) errors in 2004. One of those wasn't a gaffe - the $87 billion - he had just explained it in detail. Kerry's votes in retrospect were both right - but how do you explain something complicated to a media willing to write thousands of words on the life of Jessica Simpson, but only 25 words or less on an important vote of a Presidential candidate?
Hillary once made a gaffe with a joke that had someone asking of Ghandi if he the man who ran a gas station down the street. Compare that joke to Kerry's. Her was delivered as written and it is offensive. Kerry's -even as given- should NOT have been offensive, as it is not untrue - as intended - the worst you can say was that it was not respectful of the President. The Republicans also tried to spin Hillary's plantation comment.
I assume that Kerry's main response will be to continue what he's been doing all along. He, more than any other politician, has spoken of the war partially from the POV of the soldier. He did this, at great risk, when he spoke about the reality of the two sided sword that the Search and Destroy missions were. They put the soldiers at huge risk and put them into a state where they have to be in fear of what lies behind each door they knock on.
He also explained the perspective of the Iraqis answering that knock. It is easy to see how that leads to anti-American feelings. Only someone who has seen this before and is the sensitive, thoghtful, moral person Kerry is could see BOTH sides so clearly. Of those, few would have the natural eloquence Kerry has to explain this in a way that people can feel it as well as intellectually understand it.
To me, any politician who said they had to consider the political calendar before they could change the direction of the war is genuinely quilty of disrespecting the troops - and that includes many on both sides, but not John Kerry. The best thing that the Senator could do - is what I honestly think is what he is hard wired to do - continue thinking about the troops. This likely means working with others to push any plan that gets us out and re-introducing legislation for veterans.
As to the joke itself, he needs to make a denigate his ability to tell jokes, admit it didn't work - while pointing out that the RW tried to distort it, but that didn't work. Then immediately transition into something real on the soldiers (either the war itself or the fact that the VA budget needs to be fixed.)
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments) | Remove from Journal | Add/Edit Intro
Desertstormvet
Posted by karynnj in Latest Breaking News
Wed Nov 08th 2006, 11:03 PM
Looking over your posts, I'm not sure what you want. It would seem to me to be a good idea to wait to see what Obama proposes before dismissing it out of hand. On most issues, Senators would work with people who have knowledge and expertise on an issuein preparing their plans. I would assume that this is what Obama has done.
It is legitimate to disagree with any policy including that which puts the country at war. In fact, if in good faith, you feel the policy is wrong it is more patriotic to work through the system to try to get the government to change the policy than to blindly support it. However, we must never confuse the war with the warrior. The soldier fighting for us deserves respect even from those of us that disagreed on the war from the start.
I stole the bolded phrase in the last sentence because I could not say it better and because the man who said it made me, a person who was a college student in the early 70s, more aware of the contributions and nobility of the people who actually fight when our country is taken to war. That person was John Kerry. It is clear that you are referring to the RW distortion that he was criticizing the troops. Even the Republicans who repeated that idea knew they were lying.
This link goes to a story from a man whose twin brother was killed in Afghanistan and tells more about the type of person Senator Kerry really is -
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/31/1... . Senator Kerry introduced legislation for his plan for Iraq last summer. The comments on the Senate floor by Senator Warner were interesting. Senator Warner recognized that it was a serious plan with many parts he found thoughtful and interesting - though he thought it was not timely. Warner also went to great lengths to note that like himself, Senator Kerry cares for the troops, goes to funerals and hospitals. These are all things Senator Kerry never speaks of - he just does.
If you find the transcript of Kerry's full Senate testimony from 1971, you would find that he was as concerned that the returning veterans be given what they need - which wasn't happening - as he was for lobbying to end a war. Kerry acted as an advocate for veterans needing medical assistance. He advocated for the military to look into PTSD. In 1971, a few months after testifying before the Senate, he left VVAW and was a co-founder of the more moderate VVA. In 1971, his concern was not for himself - he was healthy and well connected enough that he himself did not need assistance.
You also need to consider that John Kerry was asked to speak to the Senate committee on the Winter Soldier hearings. What he did was to do that as succinctly as possible and to spend more time on a pleas to end the war and for the government to keep its implicit promises to the men that served. He did this eloquently and well - which is why the Nixon administration targeted him. Kerry's truths made his a threat to them.
If you go to Johnkerry.com and look in the video section, you can see a speech called Dissent. That speech, to some degree shows where he was coming form in both 1971 and now. Whether you agree with his assessment of the military policy or not, what is apparent is his deep respect for the soldiers as people.
In the aftermath of Vietnam, Robert McNamara wrote in "Fog of War" that the architechs of the Vietnam War knew it could not be won as early as 1968. The terms of peace in 1973 were identical to those available in 1968. In that interval over 25,000 people lost their lives - all because leaders were afraid of how it would look if they "lost" a war. Consider that that was the time Senator Kerry served and when at least 5 close friends died.
About a month ago, several Republicans said that a major policy change was needed and that it would be addressed after the election. The only person I heard on all the talk shows I watched question the morality of waiting over a month to change a failed policy was Senator Kerry. If I had a child in the military, I would want my political leaders to put that effort and my child's life about the timing of an election.
I assume I am likely wasting my time saying these things. The RW is now into its fourth decade smearing John Kerry. I challange you to look into what he has actually said and done over his life for veterans. You will find that his record of actually doing things for veterans is in contrast to those who trash him, while allowing a huge deficit in the funding of the VA. He has had a great record on supporting veterans in the Senate. (See his Senate web site Kerry.senate.gov or JohnKerry.com.)
I saw in other posts that you think that Pelosi is "too shrill" and that Lieberman would be a better leader. Here too, Pelosi has been in the position of leader of the opposition, at a time when the Republican pundits, like Norquist, argued that Democrats were irrelevent and not to even be consulted. It might be better to give Pelosi some slack until you see how she will act as Speaker of the House. She has been demonized by the right, but she may surprise you.
While the media has had many articles referring to Lieberman as nice or genial, that is not the impression I get hearing him speak of how he will bear grudges against Democrats who backed the DEMOCRATIC candidate over him. (See Imus transcript on November 8 on MSNBC.com) That takes a lot of chutpah. Maybe Lieberman needs to define what HIS Iraq plan is - he was so eager that we invade and so adament we now stay - that he should be held to the same standard as those wanting an alternative - WHERE IS HIS PLAN?
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments) | Remove from Journal | Add/Edit Intro
It's hard to get good numbers
Posted by karynnj in General Discussion: Politics
Thu Oct 26th 2006, 10:42 AM
I suspect this entire uproar was ignited either by Rove or by an incredibly stupid Democratic partisan. (Bowers' effort to get idle money used was NOT targeted at these people, but at House people with money in their accounts running unopposed.) This is my best attempt to make some sense of this and to point out that NONE of these people deserve to be demonized on what they have done.
Fund raising is the bane of running for political office. I assume Senators Kerry, Clinton and Bayh would love it if something like Kerry/Wellstone Clean Elections were the law rather than McCain/Feingold. You are right that it is hard for someone contemplating running for President to freely give up money - whether they are Hillary, Kerry or Bayh. The reason anyone is questioning Senator Clinton or Bayh is because an anonymous web site targeted Senator Kerry on this. It was predictable that it would then raise the question about all Democratic 2008 candidates - and turn them on each other. Who benefits?
My best attempt to understand the numbers is:
Kerry seems to have $8 million left. Per the OP article he has directly contributed over $3 million to the committees including the new contribution. He has also contributed hundreds of thousands in direct contributions to individual campaigns. He has also used his money to raise over $11 million for other people.
Bayh has $12 million left in his account and it seems he has not contributed much to others. He is working - via fundraisers and campaigning, to help elect people in Indiana.
I have seen numbers that are all over the place on Hillary. The NYT several months ago had a gushing article on the fact that she had raised over $45 million, incurring about $20 million of fund raising costs. I have since received both Bill and Hillary solicitations - so she was still raising money for herself. I assume the NYT was correct. I have seen numbers here that she has in the neighborhood of $20 million left in her accounts from the federal PAC database. I assume that there are outstanding costs for her 2006 campaign. (even with a pathetic opponent, she has to have some kind of campaign and that costs money.)
All 3 of these people have been at fundraisers where the money goes to others.
My summary of this is:
Kerry has LESS in his accounts than either Bayh or Hillary. Depending on whether Hillary is still raising money and on the costs of the 2006 campaign, Bayh may end up as the person with the most money on hand at the end of 2006.
Kerry has contributed MORE via direct contributions to committees than either.
Kerry has raised $11 million for 2006 candidates (and $5 million in 2005) via an independent fund raising effort for others that is unique. (All $ raised go to the candidates, all the costs are borne by Kerry's PAC. His cost per dollar raised may be lower than Clinton's, which were described as not atypical, but they were likely considerable.) Kerry opted for an independent effort because he wanted to help the type of candidates he felt were needed - not those picked by the DSCC or the DCCC. He has worked, at least with Emanuel, in coming up with some candidates to support with events, so his is a parallel effort.
All three of these people have made substantive contributions to 2006. Each were in different positions coming into 2006. Bayh does not have Clinton's or Kerry's name recognition. He has raised his money over time and needs lots of money to even think of competing, which it appears he wants to do. What he has done is the ONLY way someone with lower name recognition could do. Kerry is doing what he is doing - as a party leader, which is a status he earned by being the former nominee, but which some elements in the party have tried to deny. I have seen him speak with frustration about the dysfunctional Republican Congress enough that I believe his commitment to changing things in 2006 is sincere and that he would be doing this even had he decided to remain a Senator. Hillary comes in as the designated party and media favorite for 2008 - her presence and her husband's at fundraisers does raise considerable money. Unlike Kerry, she is allied with the DSCC (Schumer) - so her contributions are entirely directed through them.
In reality, I assume that less than two weeks out, VOLUNTEERS are more valuable than money. From past campaigns, the committees will spend at this time even if it means that they end the cycle in debt. It is also interesting that Hey John spoke only of the DSCC - not the DCCC or the DNC - without mentioning that the man heading the fund raising for the DSCC - Schumer, per FEC listing on another thread, has $10 million in his own account and he is not up for election until 2010. This is MORE than Senator Kerry has.
I hope that this nonsense hasn't diverted attention away from 2006.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments) | Remove from Journal | Add/Edit Intro
I take Clinton's comments more as they need to
Posted by karynnj in General Discussion: Politics
Fri Oct 06th 2006, 09:21 AM
devise ways to counter the new media. What he is acknowledging is that the media enviromental has radically changed from what we knew in the past. I think it is great that Clinton is bringing up this issue because, as you said countering it is essential to winning.
I'm not sure the answer is to have our own "Rove" is the answer. Rove had the infastructure to work with. I don't know when RW talk radio started - I know it was there before Clinton was elected, bacause it was a story that Limbaugh and others were enranged when Clinton won. I also remember an excellent Clinton speech after the Oklahoma bombing where he blasted hate radio, but the number of these ranters have metastesized.
Another difference is that they have gained acceptability. In the early 90s, I think they were on a par with the tabloids. Now, they have taken over many slots on cable tv. How did we get to a point that people like G Gordon Liddy and Oliver North, who were convicted of major crimes, are on tv or radio in a position to cast judgement on people who always obeyed the law? Cable TV has essentially become talk radio. Even the networks have moved to compete with these outlets away from thoughtful, serious analysis to flashy stories. Bill Clinton is entirely right that this is not the media of his young adulthood.
A Democratic "Rove" doesn't have the talk radio and cable news. There is the blogosphere - that we know has both a left and a right. The problem is that the right has their blogosphere with the hideous Drudge to pull together all the filth in one place, that bubbles up to talk radio, to cable Tv - where we seem to be able to trust only Olberman. They then have a group of right wing publishers that produce hateful books. From all these sources, by April 2008, when our candidate and theirs are known, people will face one thing after another that re-inforces the idea that the likey Democratic, no matter who she or he is, is among the most evil people on earth while the Republican one nearly walks on water.
Clinton's definition of the problem is what many of us have said. Until 2000, having truth on your side enough to get respected journalist - including TV anchorman to blast people pushing lies AND to have that message swamp the lies. It's not clear how you regain some sort of respect for accuracy or truth. I'm not sure that Clinton has the answer yet or that John Kerry who since 2004 has also wrestled with how to deal with this does.
The answer is NOT as simple as going on Fox News and giving them Hell. Clinton, as an ex-President, has the leverage to do this. A candidate doing the same thing will be labelled as unstable, angry, or out of control. From the article, I don't think Clinton does either.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments) | Remove from Journal | Add/Edit Intro
I think Clinton needs to consider that elections are
Posted by karynnj in General Discussion: Politics
Fri Oct 06th 2006, 03:40 AM
different. This is not like a duplicate bridge game where he and John Kerry, for instance, were dealt the same cards and he just played them better. 2004 was far more difficult than 1992.
In addition to the new media- that Clinton is right to speak of, but doesn't really specify how we counter, there were other factors that hampered Kerry in 2004, that would likely have been a problem for any Democrat.
- the Media that didn't cover designated major speeches, much less standard campaigning. If the huge, enthusiastic Kerry rallies at the end of the campaign were covered in the way Clinton's were, some momentum would have built up. Instead you saw reporters blandly say where Kerry appeared and some tight shots of him speaking a line or two. Editing is everything.
If this happens in 2008, how do we distribute our own video - the internet, podcast, Youtube are all more available than they were in 2004.
- the administration that politically raised the terror levels whenever the candidate gained momentum and the media covered the supposed terror threat rather than the candidate's issues.
This may still be a problem - but people are more wary.
- The old media corrects immediately all flubs of the W and plays the very few Kerry errors (it's hard to list 5- in months of speaking for 16 hours a day.) (You do remember the jokes in 2004, where the media pundit would ask Bush to spell "cat" and would give him credit for "kat" as close, then ask Kerry a difficult physics question and complain his answer was two complicated.)
?? If the old media has also developed a RW bias, this is a problem.
- the cable and the old media gives free time even after they know better to an attack group spreading malicious lies. Many of the attacks on Kerry were completely bogus and were aimed at his genuinely good character.
Kerry, himself, has said they should have spent more money to get the truth out - to counter the lies. It sounds like Clinton agrees and sees that the media that both of them and many of us grew up with that acted as a "judge" is gone.
- state officials in at least 2 states willing to run corrupt elections to prevent your win.
Point is this was not a fair fight. In a fair fight, the winner would have been Kerry by a landslide.
Here Boxer, Dodd, Kerry, Clinton and Feingold have put together some legistation they want passed to correct the problems.
We also need better Democratic advocates on TV. Can we clone Olberman? Begala and Carville are prime examples of what we don't need. As 2 of the few media Democrats, they mostly criticized Kerry for not being Clinton. As Kerry, not Clinton was running - this was not useful. Carville, in the Woodward book, is said to have given Mary Matalin information from the Kerry camp (that he was NOT in) on Ohio on election night. Mary, of course, immediately gave it to the Republicans.
Against all this Senator Kerry nearly won - and very likely would have run if there were no voter suppression in Ohio.
Dealing with the new reality is an important issue to bring up because the Democrats have to figure out a way to counter it. Clinton is extremely smart and he is likely have good ideas. It would be good if he worked with Gore and kerry on this. They saw the attacks from the inside and they are both savvy men as well. Gore, for instance, has already worked on creating an alternative media. Kerry has used his email list as a means to communicate and to create support for legislative action. He has also had some very good uses of liberal blogs. (The WP, part of old media itself. may not have even seen these changes.)
No matter who the 2008 candidate is, they will need to figure this out - and they will need ideas and support from all the Democrats to fight this.
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments) | Remove from Journal | Add/Edit Intro
Actually it's not
Posted by karynnj in General Discussion
Tue Sep 19th 2006, 03:01 PM
Clinton attacks both Kerry and Gore as losers in this - forgetting that his inability to behave in an acceptable manner made Gore's election close enough to steal. How could Bush, with his history, run to "bring back honor" to the White House, if it weren't for Clinton.
Also, clinton shares a certain amount of responsibility for allowing the consolidation of the media.
In a different contest, the following analysis of 1992 was posted as part of a letter on Salon:
"". we always refer back to clinton when we want to talk about democrats who know how to win, but this sort of thinking seems to overlook the fact that clinton won his first election due to a series of enormously fortuitous circumstances: george h.w. bush's failure to honor his 'read my lips' promise; the entry of h. ross perot; the reluctance of popular democratic leaders like dick gephardt to enter the race against an imcumbent president coming off of a victorious 'war'; the fact that clinton's 'pussy problems' came out long before the primaries, when he wasn't even a contender, so they were essentially forgotten about before the real campaign got started; the ineptitude of his opponents in the primaries; george h. w. bush's obvious exhaustion and reluctance to campaign (checking his watch during debates; throwing up under the table in japan, etc.), and so forth.
bottom line: without ross perot, bill clinton never would have won.
The DU research forum thread on the K/E thread has been posted repeatedly. Kerry did respond. He had all the Navy documentation on his side, there was a Nixon tape where they bemoan that he was clean and a war hero, the people there mostly back Kerry 100%, The VN era SON Republican Senator Warner said he personally reviewed the Silver Star documentation and Senator Kerry deserved it. All that was known in the first few days after they appeared.
Clinton vaunted war room was a reaction because his past kept creeping in. There goal was to respond as positively as possible (or at least throw up flack) so the media would never have just the other side. In Kerry's case - the Naval records, alone - which the media had in the spring, was equivilent to what the Clinton people produced.
The difference was that the media willing played with the SBVT long after they were proved to have been liars. Note that the media still goes to O'Neil for quotes.
Kerry faced an environment far tougher than the one the self- satisfied egotist (Clinton)did.
- In previous elections, a group known to be associated with one candidate which levelled outrageous charges against the other would have backfired. All the Navy records back Kerry, a historian’s book backed Kerry and Kerry’s people disproved a huge number of lies. Instead of taking the campaign sponsoring this to task the media played with it.
- The media failed to cover his rallies or his major speeches - other than the convention - to the degree that was normal in past elections. Clinton's rallies were shown and there was a sense of momentum building up. Kerry's were hidden - showing the reporter as much as Kerry and a very narrow crowd shot.
- The government used terror warnings as political devises.
Stick with your fantansy of BIG DOG. I'll remember that in 2004
-Bill Clinton selfishly refused to delay the publishing of his book until after the election. Effectively stealing a couple of weeks right before Kerry's convention. (this and the death of Reagan "took" the oxygen away for at least 4-5 weeks in summer 2004.) Not to mention - what was the discussion when the book came out - the achievements of the Clinton years? No! Predictably, the first think I heard were the Monica Lewinsky parts. This is as clever as Jim McGreevey being on the cover of New York magazine and on every talk show in the run up to 2006. They should both be ashamed of themselves.
- I'll also remember that he advised Kerry to speak on the domestic issues, ignoring national security - because that's the Bush strength. Then he passed the fact that he did to every reporter he knew. So, Begala and Carville and others whined every time Kerry spoke on Iraq and National Security - which drove his numbers up. They also repeated the ABB nonsense. I have NEVER heard that used in a general election - the normal use is in primaries to block a front runner who is outside the mainstream. In any general election, there are a large number of people who never vote the other party - here they were designated ABB. (Well retroactively - I am ABB too - in 1992 - Clinton wasn't my primary favorite!)
- I'll also remember his idiotic recommendation that Kerry, with an outstanding career long record on civil rights for gays endorse all the gay bashing amendments. Kerry was not sufficiently caught in the headlights to do something that would be politically assinine, morally wrong and something that would compromise Kerry's very real integrity. The latter something Clinton might not understand.
Clinton is a two term president but Kerry is a far better man than Clinton could ever be.
-
, LLC
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
