I'm shocked, shocked that it was a crap story from Drudge

[WilliamPitt]

OK, folks, here's the skinny. I've given little to no actual weight to 'GD2004 Conventional Wisdom' for a while now, because it has proven itself to be wildly wrong on so many occasions. But I have had a lot of respect for the process here, for the most part.

The Kerry/Drudge thing, however, has proven to me that little, if anything, has been learned since 1992. The GOP Scum Chuckers will do what they've been doing since 1992, and too many people still fall for it.

I don't give a crap who you support for the nomination. I don't give a crap if you don't support anyone. But if you're fool enough to fall for every piece of garbage that gets dangled in front of you, then you are actually scary.

Learn from this. And yeah, I'll say it: I told you so.

===

A statement released Monday by Alexandra Polier, who has been the subject of rumors linking her to Sen. John Kerry:

"For the last several days I have seen Internet and tabloid rumors relating to me and Senator John Kerry. Because these stories were false, I assumed the media would ignore them. It seems that efforts to peddle these lies continue, so I feel compelled to address them. I have never had a relationship with Senator Kerry, and the rumors in the press are completely false. Whoever is spreading these rumors and allegations does not know me, but should know the pain they have caused me and my family. I am in Kenya with my fiance visiting his family, and we ask that the press respect our privacy and leave all of us alone."

A statement by Terry and Donna Polier, the parents of Alexandra Polier:

"We have spoken to our daughter and the allegations that have been made regarding her are completely false and unsubstantiated. We love and support her 100 percent and these unfounded rumors are hurtful to our entire family. We appreciate the way Senator Kerry has handled the situation, and intend on voting for him for president of the United States."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/02/16/politics1300EST0543.DTL

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Dookus]

22. to be fair

I did see a lot of threads locked for violating that rule. Unfortunately, it wasn't all of them.

[WiseMen]

37. The LOCKED threads were those that CRITICIZED the INFLAMATORY SLIME

[Dookus]

40. Nope... not all.

It may appear that way to people on one side of the issue, but I saw with my own eyes a number of threads locked for violating the rule against right-wing rumor-mongering. As I said, it wasn't all the threads, but a decent number of them.

[NNN0LHI]

35. Not to get off subject but are you a Gregory Isaacs fan too?

Or just a nurse who works at night?

Don

[eileen_d]

2. Thanks to Alexandra, Terry and Donna Polier

:yourock:

[Lisa0825]

3. I didn't do any tally of who believed it and who didn't....

personally, my feeling was "OH, Lord I hope it isn't true because the last thing I want is to replay the Clinton lynching all over again!"

I think some of us who are less experienced in taking the hits, because we haven't been politically active long, felt like we'd had the rug pulled out from under us, and we were looking around to make sure it was safe to stand up.

Can you really blame people for being skittish after the way the Rove machine has run over us before?

[Champion Jack]

8. I didn't keep a tally, but my ignore list swelled because of it.

[Newsman Matt Drudge]

4. Let me level with you Will, writer to writer

I generally just make this stuff up. In fact, my attorney and I are right now looking into whether or not I can put a little disclaimer on my site, which will inform users that I'm a fiction writer.

Um, but I really thought I snagged a good one here. Granted, I didn't check out the story, or do any research or anything like that, but I had a real gut feeling on it, you know? Ah well, when you are a modern day important newsman such as myself, sometimes you break a few eggs on the quest for the omelet that is the truth.

Warm Regards,
Matt

[xultar]

6. Yo! Matt, you look funny, kinda like a Freeper born with an Ass face...

IS that bad?
Did I say that out loud?

[Newsman Matt Drudge]

7. No, that's fair

I do have an ass face. My face does indeed look like an ass.

Best Wishes,
Matt

[eileen_d]

11. **** WORLD EXCLUSIVE ****

***** BREAKING *****

SOURCES TELL DRUDGE REPORT THAT MATT DRUDGE HAS ASS FACE... DRUDGE CONFIRMS.... NOW HOW ABOUT LEARNING TO USE THE FRIGGING CAPSLOCK KEY BUDDY?

***** BREAKING 2 - ELECTRIC BOOGALOO *****

[The Magistrate]

5. Indeed, Mr. Pitt: Who'd a' Thunk It?

Mob is mob, whether on the left or the right.

It is dangerous to want a thing too much; it leads to substituting the wish for the fact, and at the top of one's voice to boot.

People really ought to stop consulting the tricksters firm of Hope and Desire, LLC, for their political advice: those "gentlemen" will play you false every time.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[BruinAlum]

9. What scares me, is not so much that people fell for it, but that

some people exploited it, KNOWING it was unreliable RW smear, because they WANTED it to be true. They WANTED to see Kerry ruined, whether it was true or not.

I don't care who the candidate is. That's disgusting.

[Adelante]

12. Exactly right

That has been the worst and most damaging part of this entire episode.

[LynneSin]

27. YOu should see the comments on the Yahoo Boards

Now they claim that Kerry 'raped' the girl.

They harp between the 'rape' and the Hanoi Jane/Kerry connection.

You'd almost feel sorry for these folks but then you realize they'd believe any tripe you feed them.

[BruinAlum]

32. You gotta be kidding me?? Are these Repubs??

She denies the affair so now they claim she was raped? These people are psychotic.

[Kahuna]

69. Self deleted

[Dookus]

10. yes, truly shocking

Drudge? Wrong?! That's unpossible.

oh, if only we'd pointed out how baseless this story was. Oh wait... we did. Repeatedly. That didn't stop (or even slow down) the non-stop feeding frenzy that was seen here the past few days.

It was disgusting, and just shows how willing some people are to believe anything at all if they think it will somehow boost their candidate. They don't care if it hurts the party or the country, they're just happy to tear down the guy who beat their guy. As I said, disgusting.

[Catholic Sensation]

13. here's the thing will

and being a Kerry supporter, I found it totally reprehensible that people here on DU would believe Matt Drudge over members of their own party. However, I have seen this before.

Back in 1997, a stripper claimed two Dallas Cowboys raped her in their mansions. At the time I was living near Philadelphia. I am a Dallas Cowboys fan, so maybe I was skeptical out of bias, but the people accused of raping the woman were players with no history of any kind of act like that. However the local papers, being immense supporters of the Mediocre Eagles, ran with this story like the words of a stripper were more true than two football players with a history of charitiable works, simply because the football players were members of the enemy. It turned out the woman was full of shit, and the Philly papers looked real stupid afterwards. Moral of the story: the enemy of your enemy isn't your friend, just simply a dick. :)

[LynneSin]

14. Are you going to be ok Will, I know how highly you regard Drudge

:crazy:

[0rganism]

Alex Polier should freaking SUE Drudge and the Murdoch tabloids

She has a real case for defamation of character. She could bring these particular shitslingers down permanently.

[Eric J in MN]

19. Risky.

If Alex Polier sues Drudge, it might lead to the people who started the rumor being exposed.

On the other hand, it would keep a news-story about Kerry and an alleged affair in the news.

[0rganism]

33. It isn't just about this one story, or John Kerry's candidacy

Admittedly, it might be preferable from his point of view if the story disappeared altogether, never to be seen again. BUT, and this is very important, a suit would send a clear warning to the press NOT to run in headlong with allegations like this. Also, it could do financial damage to prime movers in the rumor mills.

Most of all, tho, Alex Polier has a legitimate grievance concerning defamation of character WORLDWIDE. She is entitled to reparations, and the brit tabloid at least carries the tort of libel.

[aldian159]

70. by the time it gets to court

the election will be over.

[mountainvue]

23. I dont' think she can sue Drudge

because she didn't name her. And aren't the British libel laws quite different from America's? That's probably why they used them in the first place. They'll print anything.

[Dookus]

26. Actually

it's the opposite. It's MUCH easier to get a libel judgment in England than in the US.

[0rganism]

31. Are you certain Drudge didn't use her name?

The Illinois statute, for instance, is quite clear that if he did at any point, in this context, he is liable.

The other poster is quite correct about Britain's libel laws, tho. Libel judgment is much easier to obtain, since there's no guaranteed "freedom of press" in Britain. That's why the tabloids had to pussyfoot around their accusations of Prince Charles' homosexuality.

[mountainvue]

75. I'm not sure if Drudge named her or not.

I don't read his page and only went there when the original story broke.

[Nicholas_J]

65. Not in Britain and Australia

Th laws in this area are far weaker than they are in the states. If she has ever asmuch as had a conversation witrh Kerry while in the employ of Associated Press that wold much weaken her case. It was smart of Murdoch to not touch it in the U.S.media where the right to privacy is constitutionally guaranteed. In Britain and Australia it isnt.

[LostInTheMaise]

15. It does raise more questions

Maybe that was the plan all along.

[Catholic Sensation]

20. questions with regard to...

what exactly?

like how is it that some amateur webmaster idiot (Drudge) can be taken more seriously than a Vietnam veteran who has served his country very well for 20+ years?

or how when said amateur webmaster asshole idiot (Drudge) is proven wrong, then Wesley Clark is to blame, even though Drudge said that any reporting done on the story has to credit the Drudge Report as being the source of the "story"?

or finally, how can supposed liberals be so willing to attack their own with the same hatred not seen since the Civil War?

[LostInTheMaise]

34. No, questions like...

Why did Clark suggest an "Intern scandal" long before drudge mentioned it.

Why does the family now "plan to vote for Kerry" when before they called Kerry a "sleaze-bag"?

Why is it now a Kerry "aid" that had the affair?

Too many questions...

[Catholic Sensation]

36. here are the answers

#1. Some anti-Gore woman on Fox News said the sources Drudge used said Clark never said anything like that

#2. It was a tabloid magazine that reported the comments. When did a source like the Globe, or the Sun, become a reliable source of information?

#3. Because the girl has denied being with John Kerry, therefore someone else close to Kerry has to be with her.

[The Magistrate]

39. Be Serious, Fellow

This grows tiresome....

You are still treating elements of the origional smear as if they were established fact, when they are, and never were, any such thing: there is only the word of the liar that any of these things were so. There is no evidence Gen. Clark or the young woman's parents ever said the things this smear attributed to them. There is no evidence, even, that she had any dalliance with the campaign figure now mentioned.

Your position boils down to this, fellow: a desire to see a smear against the leading Democratic Party candidate for President remain in circulation, for some purpose that seems good to you. Or, in the words of my friend Mr. Forkboy: "Must...Keep...Story...Alive...."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Kahuna]

71. The answers are clear to me...

<<Why did Clark suggest an "Intern scandal" long before drudge mentioned it.>>

Clark didn't suggest an intern scandal. Drudge and his wingnut cronies made it up to drive a wedge between Clark and Kerry. Just incase Kerry would consider naming Clark in his administration.

<<Why does the family now "plan to vote for Kerry" when before they called Kerry a "sleaze-bag"?>>

Obviously, the family never called Kerry a "sleaze-bag." Duh. Again, a rightwing lie.

<<Why is it now a Kerry "aid" that had the affair?>>

Oops! The wingnuts get caught and now have to change their story.

I guess Drudge was also telling the truth about the Clinton body count, Clinton's black lovechild with a hooker and his claim that Clark's congressional testimony (that he cut and pasted) actually urged an invasion of attack.

In short my friend. Consider the source the next time.

[eissa]

17. The only thing that shocked me

was the number of people on a progressive site that actually believed that crap. Not only believed it, but were willing to withold support (assuming they would have supported in the first place) of Kerry. If we know that this type of garbage will be flung at our nominee, why on earth are we so quick to (1) believe it, and (2) ready to drop our guy?

[Lisa0825]

18. I guess I'm the only one here who remembers the word *if* being used

an awful lot. Seems to me a lot of people panicked and speculated about "what ifs" but most didn't just buy it hook, line, and sinker.

[Dookus]

24. some didn't

a lot did.

I read repeated references to "this is why Kerry didn't pass Gore's vetting in 2000" and the like. A lot of people saying that even if the accusation isn't true, the issue makes him unelectable, etc. etc.

It was extremely disappointing. It was exactly like how the far right was willing to believe absolutely ANYTHING about Bill and Hillary, as long as it was negative. No story was too sensational, outlandish or nonsensical - if it portrayed them negatively, it was the god's honest truth. Skip over to freerepublic today and you'll see the same mindset.

It's wrong when they do it, it's wrong when we do it. Kneejerk reactions like this are just plain dumb.

[Lisa0825]

28. Yeah, but most of the posts in this topic

seem like we all took Drudge's word as gospel. I don't believe that is so. Yes, I think a lot of people panicked and did a lot of what-iffing, and some even seemed to HOPE it was true, which I find really offensive. But just don't lump us all together, those of us who didn't stand up and proclaim "never!" I'm cynical enough about politicians to think that most of them are cheaters (power is quite an aphrodisiac), and unfortunately, this kind of crap gets the RW really fired up, so I was dreading the possibility of it being good fuel for their campaign. That doesn't make me a horrible person, though this thread seems to be for the purpose of villifying anyone who flinched at the rumor.

[rucky]

30. Stop ruining such a great opportunity for self-righteousness

I wonder how many of the folks, who didn't entertain the possibility of the story being true, were secretly crapping their pants?

I wonder how many are pointing the finger now? We'll never know. Gotta save face.

Both the avid believers and avid deniers are guilty of not waiting for the facts. But don't try to tell me it wasn't worthy of discussion.

[Dookus]

38. Nonsense

the avid deniers WERE waiting for the facts. We never said "It's impossible for Kerry to have had an affair." We said there's NO EVIDENCE at all beyond a Drudge rumor, and therefore, it's ridiculous to act as if this is true.

We were right. The avid believers were wrong. The mere existence of an accusation doesn't give it a 50% chance of being true. We didn't win a coin toss here.

[rucky]

55. Bully for you.

How many bush lies never make it into the mainstream media? But we know they're true, because our LW sources - or our instincts - tell us.

FYI: I thought the Kerry story was bogus too - check my posts if you don't believe me. But I understand why people are unwilling to give a politician the benefit of the doubt (Hart, Clinton). There's a pattern of disrespect developing that's leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I don't care who started what. Sure there were plenty of irresponsible anti-Kerry posts recently, but threads like this only widen the resentment. These people didn't even have a chance to apologize before they were jumped on. The ones who did got jumped on anyways. There are people on both sides who don't want unity or compromise - they just want to dominate. I don't play that alpha-dog crap & I wouldn't ask anybody to submit to it.

[Dookus]

57. I neither need nor expect an apology from anybody...

on this issue. But I will use it as an opportunity to encourage people to take a minute and step outside their own prejudices once in awhile and actually LOOK at the substance of a story before accepting it as true.

I'm arguing right now in another thread about Gov. Rick Perry, wherein people are doing the same thing that was done to Kerry - blindly believing a story simply because it reinforces their own beliefs, regardless of any evidence (or lack thereof).

Part of being a rational, reasonable person is the ability to evaluate information honestly and clear-headedly, regardless of how much that information confirms or denies what we already believe.

[Kahuna]

72. You are right again, my friend.

:yourock:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

42. No secretly crapping my pants here with one exception

Clinton actually WON with womanizing claims abounding twice...since then, Democrats have jumped on the "peeking in people's pants" bandwagon.

[eissa]

45. No it wasn't

I realize that the rw has a formula that works among the shallow-minded and will use it no matter who our nominee is. As far as I'm concerned, even if Kerry screwed someone other than his wife, my retort will always be "better a woman than a country."

[library_max]

47. Waidaminute -

we now know the story was completely fictional, and we always knew that the only support for it was the word of known right-wing liars and scandal-rags. But it was "worthy of discussion"? Why?

[rucky]

56. um...the media

since when did facts matter?

I was openly crapping my pants at the possiblity that - true or not - this story would get picked up & played to death by the mainstream media.

[library_max]

62. Oh. I see.

People starting five or six dozen threads about it on DU prevented the mainstream media from picking it up. Well done, folks. And here I was, thinking that nonstop DU chatter on the subject could only make it more likely that the mainsteam media would pick it up, saying "Democrats are discussing the rumor . . . "

[BruinAlum]

52. No stains in my pants

Just a lot of disgust over watching Democrats exploit sleasy shit from known right wing liars like Drudge and Rupert Murdoch sources and quote it as Holy Scripture because they WANTED it to be true. I didn't see any of them interested in waiting for facts.

[diamondsoul]

25. Off Topic-

Have you had a look at this thread yet-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=341925

Powerful fodder for our Candidate there. And do you suppose we could exchange e-mail addresses so I can let you know about stuff like this? Check the Indiana page at the Campaign site- that info would be me.

On edit- I had David's address and rarely used it because I know how much you get. I did pass on a reporters request for input on NAFTA for a Union publication.

[Walt Starr]

29. OUTSTANDING!

Now it can be put to bed.

My respect for Senator Kerry has increased a hundred fold.

[The Magistrate]

43. Well Said, My Friend!

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[library_max]

49. What The Magistrate said. Good fer you. /nt

[genius]

41. Watch out Will. It's not safe to defend Democratic candidates here.

This is the forum where every like and phoney rumor imaginable about the candidates is posted. People who tell the truth or defend the candidates are often ridiculed and treated with contempt here.

Isn't it amazing that the phoney rumor about Ms. Polier got more coverage here than on the right-wing news, which pretty much dismissed it right away?

[NNN0LHI]

44. Don't blame me. I hit the alert until my fingers were bleeding n/t

[library_max]

46. Wow. 44 posts and not a single apology

from any of the DUers who ran with this story so gleefully and started so many threads declaring Kerry's candidacy dead because of it. Wonder where all those people are?

[diamond14]

59. some watched and did NOTHING to stop it...they are equally

responsible...some fueled it by writing nasty stuff and are also responsible...some came into this board and do NOT belong here, posting just nasty 'little' innuendos against Democratic candidates to keep us fighting amongst ourselves....

in order for bush* to lose....all DUer's should STAND UP to hate and lies...no matter whose candidate it is...

Whoever watches this garbage and DOES NOTHING TO STOP IT is equally responsible....

[genius]

60. Is it against DU rules to collect names of the posters and watch them?

It would be interesting to see what other posts these people make.

[Old and In the Way]

67. Hello? Anyone seen a lone voice in the wilderness?

Regarding your question, yes, I believe it is against the rules.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

74. In fairness there were plenty of 5 post Freeper Wonder Agitators

[Renew Deal]

48. This should be pinned to the top.

[ShaneGR]

50. The reason why I was taken by Drudge this time was..........

He broke the Lewinsky thing in 97-98.

It won't happen again though.

[library_max]

51. Congratulations for being the first to admit error.

:thumbsup:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. DRUDGE BROKE SHIT....

Newsweek was sitting on the story till it could verify it and Drudge ran with it....

Fuck Drudge...

[VOX]

53. What's troubling is that the manufactured stench could linger in the air..

Long enough for it to be picked as part of everyday, talking-head throwaway conversation, a la the Al Gore "I created the Internet" smear.

Back in 2000, the ass**** media, knowing the so-called Internet "claim" was absolutely fake and 100% manufactured, nevertheless used it frequently and casually , such as, "Well, what do you expect from the man who claimed to have invented the Internet?"

With Kerry, even if the story is denied by all parties, and proved utterly false, the media-bots could simply refer to "Democratic Party womanizing" or "Kerry's wandering ways," etc.

The media will do what it will do, but it is loathsome.

[legin]

58. Whether the story is true or false is irrelevant

The question is did it work ?

I think it has been a very successful launch of the 'Kerry is a serial philander' product. OK so it hasn't hit the u.s. mainstream media in a big way but the groundwork has been laid very nicely especially thanks to the help of Wormtongue Murdoch's 'The Sun' in britain. It gives Rove a firm base to build on when he launches 'Kerry Philander Story' 2.0 and 3.0 and 4.0.

It may not be true now but by the time Rove is on 4.0, as far as people's perceptions will be concerned it might as well be.

The media are going to love it. All those column inches being filled with nice juicy, newspaper selling stories, no effort required whatsoever to go and dig them up.

This politics game is a game without rules, bollocks to morality, better off looking at a book about marketing, especially launching a new product on the market place, and those are words that Rove uses.

[legin]

61. This is 'touchdown' Rove

I'm impressed.

1. In britain when the Conservative Party very recently changed their leader, the Conservative Party got a big lift in the polls, 5-6 %, so with Kerry almost about to get nominated leader, Rove has thrown a nice spannar in the works to stop Kerry building up any momentum.

2. But the story was planted when there was still a fight going on between Democratic candidates, even though Kerry is all but crowned, so that his rivals would pick the story up for their purposes and give it more exposure.

[legin]

66. Also

3. The fact that the story has been proved to be false should in no way be regarded as a cause for celebration or that the story has been put to bed. Rove has planted the seed, by the time we get to version 2.0 or 3.0, part of the newspaper stories that will be written will include a section " rumours have been circulating on the Internet now for many months about Kerry's infedelities" which will be a nice booster for the current story they will be writting at that time.

4. We are playing for big stakes here, basically leadership of the entire planet and at an exceedingly ugly moment in history. You only have to read a history book to see some of the stunts that were pulled in the past, and if you think now is going to be different because we all live in a 'democracy' you only have to look back over the last couple of years to see that it ain't.

[Nicholas_J]

63. As I noted

Drudge lies...Murdoch uses his papers overseas in an attempt to subtantiate the Drudges allegations, because the libel laws regarding public figures are much weaker in England and Australia. But Murdoch's U.S. media outlet wouldnt touch it because it was false.

I found it curious that though the family lived in the U.S., they only spoke to forieign media.

This is a clear indication of the terror in which a Kerry run is causing among conservatives.

[DoYouEverWonder]

64. Except this time Rove's dirty trick has back fired.

Kerry got Al Frankened. Remember when O'Reilly tried to slander Al and sued him. Then Al won and his book went to #1. I think the same thing is going to happen to Kerry.

Besides, I'm glad it happened now. Get it over and done with. Just more proof that Bu$h & Co lie about everything, anyway.

[diamondsoul]

68. William Pitt-

I've defended you a lot. I did this before and after your new position. Right now I'm worried, and I think of all people you owe it to me to relieve that.

Kucinich IS the man who stands for the best of humanity. That's why I support him. Right at the moment my faith in you is shaken. I'd feel a lot better if you answered it.

[WilliamPitt]

73. I will answer whatever you ask

once you actually ask a question. What troubles you?

[WilliamPitt]

76. Kick

[DemBones DemBones]

77. I just ignored the story, on the reasonable assumption

that one of two things would happen:

1) It would turn out to have a basis in fact, in which case I could learn about it then, without cluttering my mind with the early, probably inaccurate, rumours.

2) It would turn out to be another baseless smear aired by Drudge. Which it did.

We complain about the media but as far as I could tell, the media weren't playing this story, apparently having chosen the same 'wait and see' strategy that I did. I don't think they were doing this to protect John Kerry, but to protect themselves from looking like fools.

There are enough real issues in the world to keep us all busy in discussions at DU, and I hope that gossipy and unproven stories will be ignored here in the future. Everybody likes gossip, especially when sex is involved, but I hope that DUers will, in the coming weeks and months, refrain from posting gossip about our candidates. Gossip in the Lounge about movie stars but please don't spread rumours about any of the Dems in the race. Don't help the Mayberry Machiavellis!!!

[DannyRed]

78. sanctimonious smuggery

I would say that MOST of the posts discussing this rumor were of the "IF" variety...mine certainly were.

As for the not deigning to discuss RW smear machine claptrap...

I think you are wrong on that point.

I actually thing the furor over this on DU is a GOOD sign.

Why?

Because it shows that we, as a group, are watching the smear machine very closely and are worried about its implications, worried about its potential and prepared to run down as much information as we can when such rumors rear their ugly heads.

Drudge is a scumbag, and 99% of the shit he posts are lies...but that 1% that is accurate has the potential to be damaging to the Democrats and to the nation.

That, plus the Drudge --> AM Radio Hate-Screech ---> Foreign Tabloid ---> Mainstream funneling action makes it IMPORTANT to watch and discuss the ramifications of, and hunt down the sources and outlets of, and watch the evolution of these kinds of hit pieces.

The more we understand and observe, the better prepared we will be in the (near) future.

I, personally, posted several times saying that I did not think the rumor was accurate. BUT that if it was, Kerry should step down, AND if it was not, that we should prepare to, and the candidates and the activists, and the journalists should prepare to take down and eradicate that smear machine as much as possible.

I think that is happening.

Watching, discussing, strategizing, tactical understanding, and response are all predicated on observation and projection of results based on various contingencies.

If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril.

Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.

Sun Tzu said it thousands of years ago...and it is still correct today.

There WERE, to be sure, several unfortunate threads crowing about how Kerry was going to suffer from this, celebrating the potential for "their candidate" to benefit, and so on.

Those were, in my opinion, in the minority.

Paying attention, worrying, strategizing are DIFFERENT from celebrating, believing, or passing along.

'Kay?

[jonnyblitz]

79. I agree.

and besides all that you posted, scolding people a few days after the story has been determined supposedly bogus isnt right either. Who knew if it was true or not at first?!? How can one forget Clinton and his denials of a story that first broke on Drudge that ended up being true after all. :shrug: