It wasn't the JOKE - that part is a lie meant to protect the Dem leaders who

[blm]

had been working for many months to keep Kerry from running.

Think how they tried to engineer a way to get rid of Dean at the DNC. He had many of us willing to get his back to stop it.

This was a quiet coup from the bowels of the party elite that used the 'insult the troops' lie to become more vocal and persistent.

They never wanted him on stage with Hillary during the debates.

Kerry is an anti-corruption, open government Democrat. The power elite of both parties knew what would happen with a President Kerry.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[rodeodance]

1. there is probably lots of truth in what the article says.

[blm]

3. this story was leaked and the joke was blamed before Kerry was ready

to make his announcement of his decision. This was leaked INTENTIONALLY by those who wanted to distract blame from themselves and make the STORYLINE for the media to be that Kerry was weakened by that joke.

[AtomicKitten]

2. just imagine how silly you will feel

if Kerry ends up endorsing HRC. All your concerted efforts to post smear after smear of the Clintons will be for naught. Are skid marks discernible on the internetz? Oh, I'll bet you never thought it out that far.

[blm]

6. Bug off. I am well aware that Clintons will be better than GOPs on issues like abortion rights

and a few others. That doesn't make thenm INNOCENT of the years of Coverup they did for the Bushes, no matter how you wish it to be so.

Your problem is that YOU have no respect for open government and applaud secrecy and privilege and those Democrats who enable it. You are welcome to your gig - I wouldn't do it.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[AtomicKitten]

8. the specious piece you post repeatedly

has been debunked here at DU over and over and over again, and you know it.

I realize you and the other Kerry supporters are disappointed today, but turning your nastiness towards other candidates is maliciously spiteful.

[AtomicKitten]

14. I'd respond to you wisteria -- but you have blocked me

It is your prerogative to support whomever you want.

And I am sympathetic to the disappointment you and the rest are feeling today.

[iilana X]

35. Why don't I believe you are sympathetic?

Aren't you the one who had the dancing rat icon who always showed up in Kerry threads to say as much negative as you possibly could about him, even when it was totally off topic? Your style has changed but not your motive. Keep your sympathy just the same, thanks.

[AtomicKitten]

39. Doesn't really matter what YOU believe.

I made a sincere statement regardless of your interpretation. If you can't have a dialog with people without blaming and stirring up shit, that puts the blame for the fractious environment directly in your court.

[iilana X]

30. It isn't just Kerry supporters who ae disgusted with Hillary

She's got a squishy position on Iraq and a lot of democrats don't care for her politics.

[AtomicKitten]

33. that's perfectly fine

She has enough to answer for, but I do have a problem with the concerted effort to annihilate her with the repeated posting of the same propaganda over and over --- that's my point. She may end up being the nominee, so I don't think it's asking too much to keep the critique honest. Perhaps you disagree.

[blm]

68. Parry is not a specious reporter. The Coverup Democrats are the maliciously spiteful group

that care more about protecting secrecy and privilege than the TRUTH that would cleanse this nation of the Bush agenda.

Your malice and spite towards those who seek an open giovernment and urge vigilance against corruption is apparent.

[wisteria]

10. Won't look silly at all. I still won't vote for her. Still resent her and dislike her

for the same reasons I did before. And, if he endorses her it is nothing but politics. However, I wouldn't count on the endorsement.

[flpoljunkie]

16. He will endorse her if she is the nominee, because he is better than both she and Bill.

Remember what Bill Clinton said about Iraq during the 2004 campaign--that it was "better to be strong and wrong than weak and right." Now who do you think he was referring to when he said this? This calculated remark hurt not only Kerry, but all Democrats in 2004, and Bill Clinton should be held accountable.

[AtomicKitten]

19. he wasn't talking about Kerry ...

he was talking about national security

[flpoljunkie]

32. Bullsh*t! Of course, he was! And it hurt Kerry and all Democrats in 2004.

[AtomicKitten]

36. That's your opinion and I think you are wrong

and so do many of the analyses of that speech, but I won't waste my time posting them because you clearly have your mind made up.

I wonder if you realize what you are doing is hurting Democrats NOW.

[flpoljunkie]

50. Hurting Democrats? Hardly!

[iilana X]

49. Clinton's smart enough to make certain that the back stab was stated as a double entendre .

That way he's not held to account. I do agree with you on Clinton's motives though. There was too much jockeying over 2008 going on in 2004 and it hurt Kerry. Because we got Bush again, it hurt all of us.

[karynnj]

56. If anyone was jockeying for 2008 at the expense of

fighting behind Kerry in 2004, they were beyond immoral - they knew what Bush was. If they chose personal gain over Kerry winning , they have blood on their hands.

[iilana X]

58. We have an immoral administration with blood on their hands now.

And the way it's going, it looks like another one in 2008. God help us.

[Zhade]

18. Why are you defending the pro-war Clinton?

That seems odd, given your awesome anti-IWR voter post the other day.

[AtomicKitten]

20. I'm sorry you view it that way.

I am concerned that HRC will get the nod and I'm hedging my bets. Now I understand if some intend to vote third party if HRC gets the nod, but I won't. That is the concession I am making beyond my pledge to not support anyone that voted 'yes' on the IWR in the primary; preferably none of the knuckleheads that did so will be the nominee. However, if that is not to be, then I think it's appropriate to take a stand against some of the inaccurate, purposefully spiteful propaganda posted here, and Parry's piece is most definitely a speculative analysis fueled by a preconceived opinion. In other words, I have no intention of cutting off my nose to spite my face.

[Zhade]

26. I can respect that.

However, HRC will not get *my* vote, period - nom or not.

[AtomicKitten]

27. I can respect that.

:)

[blm]

21. Defending Clinton while employing the mask of antiwar

and curiously absent from most Gore threads while always found defending Clinton and attacking Kerry supporters and Robert Parry.

[AtomicKitten]

23. Your analysis of me is as inaccurate as your analysis of Parry's piece

But that's OK, blm. If nothing else, your posts are entertaining!

[blm]

25. Yours are a serious case of Clinton apologistitis. Coverup Democrats do NOT amuse me.

And they don't amuse many others here, either.

[NYCGirl]

28. Curiously absent? AK is ALWAYS on Gore threads.

:shrug:

[mtnsnake]

64. Clinton isn't pro-war. She's pro-troops. Wake up for chrise sakes. nt

[iilana X]

29. Kerry will endorse the nominee.

He won't endorse Hillary in the primary. I'm willing to lay odds that he won't endorse her. He may not endorse anyone in the primary.

[mtnsnake]

65. "He won't endorse Hillary in the primary"

I'll bet if Hillary reads this she'll drop right out of the race. lol

[wisteria]

4. See, I said this is what they would play up. Damn, I hate being right.

Now, he will be forever remembered as being brought down by the joke. Worse, Rove has won.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

73. mud sticks that's the trouble with politics

[rockymountaindem]

5. I agree

Especially since many on the right, even O'Reilly for goodness sakes, said the "botched joke" was made up out of nothing.

And since my post will probably appear right below Atomic Kitten's post, I just want to say that you've really got a pair to come in here, now, and post in a Kerry-related thread when you've already blocked all of us Kerry supporters from replying to you. And I'm willing to bet I won't be feeling silly when Kerry endorses Clinton in the primary. 'Cause he won't.

[AtomicKitten]

7. I haven't blocked all Kerry supporters.

and my response was re: the specious propaganda blm posts on the Clintons over and over and over and over and over again at DU.

Have a wonderful day. :)

[rockymountaindem]

9. Oh, well then

I looked at your list yesterday, and pretty much everyone on it I could recognize as someone who had at some point said something nice about Kerry, or is an active participant in the Kerry forum. I notice your blocked list today is about 1/3 as long as it was yesterday, which is odd because I thought it took a week to remove someone from one's list and the block feature hasn't even been around that long. As it is, you only have Kerry's most vocal supporters. I guess you went to all that trouble to add us yesterday and the day before, but now you've reconsidered. Why the change of heart?

This is nice, though. You've blocked us because you can't/won't talk to us, yet I can still demonstrably call you out on this. So yeah, I am having a pretty good day.

[AtomicKitten]

11. you're responding to me now

When time permits, I intend to remove ALL names from my list since it obviously isn't working.

Soon you will be able to post your nastiness and insults as a direct rather than indirect response to me.

You're welcome. :)

[PresidentObama]

12. Thanks for removing me from the list.

Since I've NEVER posted any "...nastiness and insults as a direct rather than indirect response" to you.

:)

[rockymountaindem]

15. I can't think of when I've ever posted any nastiness to AK either

until now, when she especially deserves it. I'd love to see if she's saved any of my posts which she thinks were offensive or something.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[iilana X]

38. Nastiness creates more nastiness

I've never responded to you directly or indirectly in the past: I've held my peace. But I must say, from what I've read on the boards here, you have gone out of your way to create the nastiness you now decry. I've read the posts and you have antagonized Kerry supporters at every juncture. How cold you possibly expect them to like you or even to be civil to you?

[AtomicKitten]

42. that is YOUR interpretation

some see things entirely differently ...

and clearly we can't count on you to change the dynamics here

[Cameron27]

75. Actually you've got it backwards.

AK expresses an opinion and then gets attacked personally, sometimes quite viciously. That's the pattern I've seen.

Having said that, I'm very sorry for Kerry's supporters right now (especially LittleClarkie, whose opinions I value, and usually agree with:)). I know I'll feel the same way if Clark choses not to run.

[glitch]

17. That pile-on was pretty despicable and sure made me look at them again.

I am looking on the bright side though - I hope Kerry is planning on investigating the corruption of the Bush administration so thoroughly that no one will ever consider allowing any part of them near our government and our treasury ever again.

Kerry may be in a better position to save our country from right where he is. We are going to need a lot of key players in different positions attacking from all sides, he is perfect for the position he is already in. That saves our resources. Think of how long it would take getting someone else up to speed in that role.

I could be wrong. My theory implies somebody somewhere knows what they are doing.
If we don't see some serious investigations I'll know I am wrong and that you are right, this decision is a result of power politics to protect the guilty. Even if that is true, Kerry could still do the investigations, still get it into the record so that when we do have an honorable government again we can punish the guilty.
I don't think there is a statute of limitation on treason.

[iilana X]

46. Wise words.

Kerry may be in a better position to save our country from right where he is.

You are probably right. Senator Kerry knows what he's doing and if there is the one thing I'm certain of: he's going to go all out to stop the slaughter in Iraq. He will also be in there fighting against the corruption that has infected our federal government. In this Congress, he'll have a damn good shot of getting some of the great legislation that he sponsored last year which was shot down by the Republican majority.

[glitch]

51. I sure hope so iilana. Thanks, and a belated welcome to DU! nt

[k_jerome]

22. so, in a nutshell, Kerry is scared?....

i'm sure he would beg you to stop speaking up for him. lol.

[blm]

24. Nope. Freed to concentrate on ending a war that the Clintons and Bushes WANTED.

.

[The Count]

34. If Clinton wanted a war, he would have started it when neocons asked him to

It's the reason Hillary to me is a smidgen less an iffy choice than anyone else who voted for th war - and considerably better than anyone who sponsored IWR.
Mind you, I still want someone who opposed war from the start.

[blm]

45. He cheerleaded it and he covered up for Bush1's crimes of office which

allowed a Bush2 to take over. Read his book. He had no interest in pursuing outstanding matters because he wanted Poppy to have a 'peaceful retirement' and he also must have decided that he needed to help Poppy with BCCI and CIA drugrunning matters that would have hurt, too - he doesn't mention BCCI even ONCE in his book.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[The Count]

52. A bit more roundabout than just voting for it. Kerry did vote for IWR.

Hillary did too - but the fact that Bill resisted the neocons, makes me fear her complacency less than others'.(a tiny bit less)

[blm]

53. He resisted because the allies wouldn't go along. If he had allies' support he would have.

Kerry voted for the iWR and when he did so he said he would hold Bush accountable for doing what it takes to AVOID war - so he protested when Bush made the decision and pointed to the fact that weapons inspections and diplomatic efforts WERE successfully pointing AWAY from the need for military force.

And once Bill covered up for Bush1, he was coopted by them, forever. Now he's stuck with the position of continually covering for them, because he's part of it, too, now. The way he handled BCCI and CIA drugrunning issues wiped his chance of ever coming clean about Poppy Bush's crimes of office. He sided with Poppy Bush's secrets and privilege over the biggest situation in the world reterrorism at that time (BCCI) and sided with Poppy over the interests of MANY black communities all over the country with the CIA Drugrunning matter that dropped tons of cheap cocaine in black communities as part of the flood of drugmoney backstory to IranContra.

[The Count]

63. Kerry supported the war right until election day

"had I known the truth about WMD, I'd still have voted for it"
That makes anything he says on war a joke.

[blm]

66. That's not what happened - and he spoke AGAINST invasion consistently

If Kerry had not had a lifeting record of working to prevent and end unjust wars, there would be reason to doubt him, but since he has been a consistent and leading voice against unjust wars for his entire public life, risking his political hide MANY times to do so, then he deserves to have all of his statements kept in context so they could be viewed in total.

[k_jerome]

31. where are all the outraged watchdogs for this baseless drivel?

thats what i thought.

[Tigress DEM]

41. Rosie told us to stop all this in-fighting.

I do have to say that I'm glad we have 8 worthy candidates.

Good/Better/Great/Best

The candidates themselves all have strengths and weaknesses. Which combination of strengths/weaknesses will net us the best candidate for the moment and going forward?

Kerry would make a great president, but his ability to weather the flaming shit storm has been tested and he failed. So no one wants to go down that road again because of what it would do to his supporters to see it happen again and how it would rip our country apart if the strongest candidate isn't chosen and we get 4 more years of rethuglican rule.

[blm]

48. Clinton would have fallen many times without support from most Dems.

They defended him publically no matter what.

Kerry had the last Dem president out publically supporting Bush's major policy decisions from 2001 -2005. That was helpful.

Kerry pounded away at Bush1 for years exposing his corruption, and made it easier for Clinton to win in 92. Nice Mr. Clinton then closed the books on all that investigation and Kerry's years of work to expose Poppy Bush's crimes of office.

Big difference in how each of these men contributed to each other's campaigns.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[oasis]

60. Dem loyalty was truly awesome during the years of the Clinton witchhunt. It's important

to note, however, that many sought to protect the office of the presidency itself.

[blm]

70. And how was that loyalty returned to the next Dem nominee? Were Americans

respected as citizens when so many outstanding matters of Bush1's crimes of office were left unpursued in and in some cases deliberately covered up?

Did they USE any cache to help the Dem party oppose Bush's reign throughout his first term or was that cache used to bolster Bush2's military decisions and rehabilitate Bush1's reputation as a president?

Bush's book never mentions the BCCI matters he inherited. His book praises McCain for leading Vietnam normalization when it was Kerry who led that entire mission and McCain's book even talks about it in detail. Clinton knew this, but he shunned Kerry's major role in spearheading it and falsely increased McCain's role - - Why?

It doesn't add up anymore, oasis. Not for me. Not since his book revealed more about Clinton's willingness to cover up for BushInc than than his concern for the citizens' right to know about their government.

[oasis]

71. We both know

Clinton had to play defense through most of his eight years in office. Couple that with having to deal with pressing issues on both domestic and foreign fronts, I'd say he had a pretty full plate.

That being said, blm, I salute you for the hard work you have done on behalf of John Kerry who is also a hero of mine. I have no doubt that if he had reached the WH in 2004, America would be all the better for it.

As a side note, I believe the bitterness between you and a few other posters on this board will pass and we will all work together again for the greater good. When that day comes, and I see it in your positive and insightful posts, I'll conjure up the campaign battle cry of our friend, John Kerry......

"Ready for duty":patriot:

peace to you, blm

[blm]

74. That would be nice - but 9-11 and this Irraq war was the result of those decisions.

Many find a way to look the other way on that and on Clinton's public show of more support for BushInc than for Dem party, the 2004 nominee, the American citizen and their constitution.

Maybe I could have forgiven the small betrayals within a space of time, but the largest betrayal of this country by covering up for BushInc without any attempt to explain why in his book, deserves NO FORGIVENESS until he comes clean and respoects us with the truth.

But the truth would hurt too much, wouldn't it? 9-11, Iraq war, Bush2 presidency all could have been prevented by simply respecting the people of this country as CITIZENS, instead of viewing them just voters to be manipulated.

[Blue_In_AK]

37. I'm over here to spread some peace

on a "Hillary-hater" thread per this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3075076#3075343

Can't we all just get along??? :crazy:

[k_jerome]

40. very sincere....

as i thought.

[Blue_In_AK]

43. Hey, you asked.

Give it up, k_. I doubt that anyone hates Hillary Clinton as much as you seem to hate everyone who supports anyone else. Just give it up.

Now, I promise, that IS my last word on this.

[k_jerome]

47. no, seriously. you are nothing but sincere in your criticism. nt.

[AtomicKitten]

44. If only.

but the problem is that what some consider truth-telling, others consider bashing ... and unfortunately nobody is going to come to terms with a precise definition of each

[carolinayellowdog]

54. All this "you" this "you" that criticism is demoralizing

Why don't blm and you and everyone else stick to "I" statements?

A bunch of falsely accusing "you" statements drove me away from the glbt forum forever last fall. If no one is going to come to terms with phraseology, can we at least adopt "I believe" (conclude, concur, whatever) statements rather than "you" (suck, lie, are mistaken, whatever) statements?

[AtomicKitten]

55. I think my post that you responded to

was an accurate assessment of what I feel is the problem with the conversation here at DU, and that is that one person's truth-telling is considered bashing by another, and vice versa. It is entirely point of view and perspective. I don't see how your comment exactly relates to this particular statement, but as a commentary separate from that, I see what you are saying.

[TankLV]

57. boy - I'm glad I'm just a spectator on this one...

some of us need to just lay off for awhile and experience something pleasant to get us all in the proper frame of mind to come together to fight the enemy - THE REPUKES and their not to cleaverly disguized boot lickers that come to visit now and then and the contests ahead...

[wisteria]

59. I agree with you BLM and it disgusts me that our party hasn't changed at all.

I was warned that this would happen, these tricks are as old as politics themselves. My family had a long history of involvement in politics in both the Republican and Democratic parties. Their involvement left me with a bitterness and a distrust for the whole political system. I thought Senator Kerry could prove me wrong and buck the system and I believed that some changes had come about in our party with the involvement of the grassroots. I thought Senator Kerry could overcome the resentment and the backstabbing. I was wrong and it discourages me from continuing to work and contributing money to the party. I see no changes on the horizon with the present party structure in place. I fear Dean will be next.
I do believe in Senator Kerry's noble cause and I will support him with all I have got. But, you are right, they never wanted him on the stage with Hillary. It has been preordained that she will be our nominee. The inside party structure has been working on this since at least 2004. It is a shame that the more things change the more they stay the same.
Right now, my attention is completely directed towards the Senator' goal of bringing our troops home. As for the party and its leadership right now- to hell with them. Nancy Pelosi is the only leader worth a damn. As for our candidate in 08, well I know one I will not help at all, as for one of the others, I may donate, but my efforts are still going to be centered around Kerry and holding our party accountable for making the right decisions. BLM, keep up the good work.

[BlueIris]

61. Thanks for trying, b.

Eventually, this might sink in for people. I just hope they don't have to learn how un-anti-corruption other name Democrats are the really hard way...like from President Billary (or worse).

:nuke:

[sendero]

62. I didn't want Kerry to run..

... but I want HRC to run even less. Our work is not done. :)

[The Count]

67. I don't want either of them - but Kerry still ows me the truth on the 2004 win.

So, I am more pissed with him.

[blm]

69. Terry McAuliffe owes you the truth. He was charged with securing the election process

in 2002 and 2004. He swore the election fraud that occurred in 2000 would never happen again. What was his Office of Voter Integrity doing all those years to counter the GOP tactics?

You wanted Kerry to be responsible for McAuliffe's failings.

McAuliffe didn't craft strong policy proposals and didn't win the debates, Kerry did. And Kerry didn't fail to secure the election process for four years, McAuliffe did.

[wisteria]

72. Makes you wonder if McAulliffe actual gave a damn if Kerry won in 2004. n/t

[The Count]

76. Him too! Not letting him off the hook - just McAuliffe wasn't asking me for

my votes. There's lots of responsibility to go around on this one - weasely Edwards included.