Before you vote, please, please, please read this:

[katieforeman]

*****Important disclaimer: I like John Kerry and will support him in every way I can if he is the nominee. This post is about the serious problems he may have on defense issues in the general election*******

Republicans will use his voting record on defense and foreign policy to attack him for being weak on defense and to portray him as a flip-flopper who can't be trusted to make the tough decisions necessary to lead us in difficult times.

If John Kerry is the nominee watch for up to $200 million dollars worth of ads like these:

John Kerry, "He's been wrong for 32 years. He's wrong now."
(from Washington Post 2-20-04 on plans by Bush's advertising team.)

-1970 Kerry said that US troops should be deployed, "only at the directive of the United Nations." (Washington Post 2-20-04)

-1997 on the Senate floor, Kerry asked why the nation's "vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow even as government resources for essential priorities fall short."(NYTimes 1-28-04)

-After Sept. 11th on Face the Nation, "The tragedy is, at the moment, that the single most important weapon for the United States of America is intelligence, and we are weakest, frankly, in that particular area." (NYTimes 1-28-04)

-1980's Kerry was against death penalty for terrorists. Now he's for it.

-1991 Kerry said he voted against the first Gulf War resolution because he feared that if he voted to authorize the use of force Bush 1 would fail to pursue all other alternatives first.

-2003 Kerry voted for the Iraq War Resolution and then complained that Bush 2 rushed to war without exhausting all other options.

Zell Miller told Newsweek that, "Kerry's voting record is terrible on defense." The Republicans are going to list all of the weapons systems he voted against which have since been used to save American lives in the Iraq wars. They are going to cite all of his votes to cut intelligence and defense.

"John Kerry is a hypocrite" (from same Washington Post article cited above.)
This line will be followed by examples of Kerry's 19 years in the Senate taking special interest money. Republicans will use this to nuetralize one of Bush's main liabilities. Voters will think both Kerry and Bush are the same when it comes to special interests, only Kerry is a hypocrite about it. Just the other day the Washington Post published an article about Kerry accepting contributions from the CEOs of companies Kerry had called Benedict Arnolds.

Everything they did to Dukakis, they will do to Kerry. Remember Kerry was Lt. Governor during Dukakis' infamous parole program. They will paint Kerry as an out-of-touch elitist with a voting record more liberal than Ted Keneddy's and filled with votes for tax increases.

Bottom line: Kerry's experience is a huge liability. Republicans will paint him as a career politician who changes positions to go with the political tide.

What do they have on Edwards?

-He was a trial lawyer? But that didn't work in NC and it is impossible to attack him on that without attacking his very sympathetic clients.

-He is inexperienced? John Edwards has more foreign policy experience than Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush 2 when they were elected President. Edwards is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and was one of the first Senetars to travel to Afghanistan after the war. He has actually met with Musharif and other leaders from the region. Bush couldn't even name the leader of Pakistan in the 2000 campaign. Furthermore, it's difficult to maintain that Bush did a good job despite his initial inexperience while at the same time maintaining that Edwards is too inexperienced.

Bush 1 found that the "Clinton is too inexperienced argument was a looser." And Bush 2 will find the same thing.

Some people think that Kerry's heroic Vietnam service when contrasted with Bush's AWOL record with the National Guard will help Kerry in November. However, a recent Gallup poll showed that 80% of Americans said this will not be relevant to their voting decision. The 15% who did care were mostly Democrats who would never vote for Bush anyway. Besides do we really want this election to be centered around a divisive issue of the past like Vietnam? We have already milked this issue for about as much as it is worth, and are at risk of a backlash if we push it too much further.

A John Edwards campaign would be focused on the future and what type of America we want to live in. This is a debate the Democrats will win.

The first step in beating George Bush is selecting the right nominee.Please get out and vote for Edwards on Tues. Bring your friends and family with you. If we give John Edwards the nomination, he'll give us the White House.

[_Jumper_]

1. Good post

Too bad one state picked the nominee this time and we didn't have a real campaign for the nomination.

[katieforeman]

4. I still have hope that Edwards will win.

but you're absolutely right about this process. The candidates spend a year in NH and Iowa talkng to the same voters over and over. All of a sudden Iowa votes. Kerry is ordained front-runner and the candidates are lucky to even have a week to devote whole-heartedly to any other single state.

[Skwmom]

17. Edwards is getting votes from people that know very

little about him. The corporate media is pushing for Edwards. Why?

Looming on the horizon, another “Hey Mabel” moment?

“In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl.”

"She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=1390885200&en=4fb97ac07a96f186&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

The media and Rove will use this to destroy Edwards in the general election . They will argue that either:

1) Edwards is another Democratic nut (as they readily point to Howard Dean who even a fellow Democrat called a nut)

OR

2) Edwards is another Democratic fraud and liar who lied to a jury during his closing arguments (he didn’t feel her inside him, talking to you ). They will ask, “Doesn’t this remind you of the other Democratic fraud and liar who was so lacking in integrity that he lied to a federal grand jury?”

They will go on to say whether Edwards is a nut or just another fraud and liar, someone who channels an unborn child (for whatever reasons) is not presidential and is unfit to ascend to the highest office in this land. Can “Hey Mabel ,“come listen to the pundits discuss Edward’s channeling of an unborn child” be far behind (just don’t expect to hear it until the general election)?

Furthermore, they will argue that if Edwards is just a convincing fraud and liar (and not just another Democratic kook) he must be lying about more than just channeling an unborn child. They will point out that Edwards has tried to paint himself as a man dedicated to uplifting the poor and downtrodden. However, they will inform the voting public, the truth is that “Edwards is just another snake oil salesmen, another Bill Clinton.” Will it be a challenge for the Republican party to define Edwards as a phony, as a smarmy personal injury attorney who only cares about lifting himself up to office of the presidency? In addition to the “channeling of an unborn child” consider, for example

“Over time, Mr. Edwards became quite selective about cases. Liability had to be clear, his competitors and opponents say, and the potential award had to be large. "He took only those cases that were catastrophic, that would really capture a jury's imagination," Mr. Wells, a defense lawyer, said. "He paints himself as a person who was serving the interests of the downtrodden, the widows and the little children. Actually, he was after the cases with the highest verdict potential. John would probably admit that on cross-examination." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=1390885200&en=4fb97ac07a96f186&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

…."For the one or two who got a substantial jury verdict," said George W. Miller Jr., a former state representative in North Carolina who practices law in Durham, "there were 99 that did not get anything, either because they were not able to finance litigation or their claim was questionable." Mr. Edwards ……. opposed state legislation that would have helped all families with brain-damaged children and not just those few who win big malpractice awards.” http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=1390885200&en=4fb97ac07a96f186&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
“ Edwards, who comes from a state where banking is big business, played a critical role in brokering legislation to allow banks to sell mutual funds and insurance, and to engage in other speculative ventures. This law, worth hundreds of billions to the banks, blasted a gigantic hole in the Glass-Steagal banking law’s firewall of protections designed to prevent the kinds of bank collapses that marked the Great Depression of the ’30s — meaning that it put the money of Joe Six-Pack depositors at risk.” (A Populist Make-Over Meet John Edwards, the Corporate Man, http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Ireland0129.htm

Some of you might think the Republicans wouldn’t dare attack John Edwards for supporting pro-corporate legislation (oh contraire, therein lies the beauty of separately funded groups and the funding of ads for third party candidates).

The media is now pushing Edwards hard and attacking Kerry. The media defends their actions by arguing that they “love a horserace.” Hmmm, I think what they love is the thought of four more years of George Bush (so he can continue to dole out the corporate goodies and push for further media consolidation) which is what the “channeling an unborn child” candidate will guarantee.

Even if John Edwards can’t overtake Kerry, the pundits argue he should be on the ticket (the same pundits who will later on insist that due to Kerry’s health concerns, a thorough scrutiny of VP Edward’s suitability to serve as president is certainly warranted).

If John Edwards is the nominee (or anywhere on the Democratic ticket) the republicans and the corporate controlled media will repeatedly ask: Is a candidate, who claims to have channeled an unborn child, fit to ascend to the highest office in the land? I think voters in the general election would answer a resounding NO. In addition, how many Democrats fighting to retain or win a congressional seat will want to be accompanied on the stump by the “channeling an unborn child” candidate?

[katieforeman]

19. As Dr. Phil says, That Dog won't Hunt.

[flpoljunkie]

29. Cherry picking Kerry's defense votes won't hide Bush's failed leadership

at home and abroad. Bush has lost credibility; it will be hard for him to get it back. He lied to take us to an unnecessary war and is destroying our economic future with his tax cuts for the wealthy and the war in Iraq.

Bush is desperately trying to change the subject from his failed presidency--hence his talk about a Constitutional amendment to forbid gay marriage--which is, thankfully, going nowhere in the Congress.

John Kerry will stand up to these unelected, incompetent crony capitalists. He backs away from no one. We have had no presidential candidate in modern times who shares our progressives values to the degree that John Kerry does.

Once it is clear he is going to be the nominee, we should rejoice and unite behind his candidacy to defeat Bush in November. We have the opportunity to replace the most reactionary, corrupt, and incompetent administration in our lifetimes with one of the most progressive. Will we be up to the task?

[katieforeman]

37. Kerry will have to spend a lot of time defending his own

record so he won't be able to spend as much time attacking Bush's. Edwards would be able to spend more time on offense and less time on defense.

[citizen snips]

2. I like Kerry.

But the repukes will tear him apart with his record.

[katieforeman]

7. You're right Republicans are just dying for us to pick Kerry so they

can really let their hounds loose on him.

[still_one]

8. The republicans have no idea

what is in store for them. Kerry can more than defend himself, especially on the half-truths that the republicans are spreading. They will have trouble enough defending their record

[citizen snips]

16. I hope so.

n/t

[disenfranchised]

25. It's up to the media.

Kerry can only defend himself if the media has his back.

[Cuban_Liberal]

3. Excellent post!

:hi:

[katieforeman]

5. Thanks, I hope some Super Tuesday voters read it.

[still_one]

6. You forgot the most important point

BUSH WILL HAVE TO DEFEND HIS RECORD:

1. He will nominate Supreme Court Justices to BAN ABORTION
2. He will eliminate the seperation between church and state
3. He LIED about the weapons of mass destruction in IRAQ
4. He is slowing eliminating constitutional rights
5. Stem cell research will be banned
6. His Attorney General/administration is trying to obtain medical
records from planned parenthood with the patients permission
7. He forbids the press to photograph the dead and wounded coming
home
8. He will remove environmental protections


I could go on, but this is a start

[slinkerwink]

9. not if Kerry's on the defensive from Bush's attacks

[still_one]

10. The Democrats have already taken the offensive

In addition, bush is actually doing things to help the Democrats, such as visiting Kings grave on his birthday, and the next day going around Congress, and appointing a racist judge.

Refusing to testify in front of the whole 9/11 commission, and then only allowing one hour, not under oath, while Clinton and Gore have no problem

[katieforeman]

13. I know but...

Edwards may be in a better position to make these points because Republicans would not be able to damage Edwards' credibility as much as they can damage Kerry's credibility.

[katieforeman]

11. True but,

Bush would have to defend his record against Edwards too. Because Edwards would not need to spend as much time on defense as Kerry, Edwards would be able to spend a lot more time on offense.

[still_one]

12. Edwards is a long shot

but if he wins the nomination I will support him without question, but in reality it looks like Kerry will win the nomination.

If Kerry does win the nomination, I do hope he chooses Edwards as the VP

All the current polls indicate that they would be a formidable team together, but not as powerful alone

[katieforeman]

14. Edwards would definitley be an asset on the ticket if Kerry wins.

But I'm not ready to give up hope for the top spot just yet.

[still_one]

15. It is not over till its over

and even then the fight will continue

[sallyseven]

18. Don't worry ABOUT Kerry

He is a big boy and can take care of himself. I am sure they have the book on bush and can beat him very handily. The will not be idle and the money will start coming in as soon as the nomination is in the bag. I think that some people should stop the nonsense about him failing to get elected. Mr. Edwards would get bowled over by the repuks He wouldn't stand a chance. Kerry/Edwards. He could beat cheney because cheney is hated by the American people.

[still_one]

20. In addition

with a Kerry/Edwards ticket you will have a two pronged offensive, that is, good cop/bad cop.

[katieforeman]

22. It's always better to have your good cop at the top of the ticket.

The nominee should focus on a positive optimistic message and let others do the attacks.

Look at Reagan and Clinton, they were both famous optimists and they both won twice. The nominee has to focus on what he will do for the country. That's how Clinton won against Dole. Dole was the bad cop who went on the attack and he lost.

Edwards knows how to be tough without looking mean. That's how he won his cases and that's why he would beat Bush.

[disenfranchised]

21. Great post.

Here is my take.

Edwards is everything Bush pretends to be--from the south, self made, someone who can relate to the struggles of ordinary Americans and compassionate.

If you put Edwards on a stage with Bush, everyone will see Bush for what he truly is--a fraud. Forget kicking Bush back to Crawford, TX. Edwards will kick Bush back to New Haven, Connecticut. Edwards will knock the big belt buckle and fake drawl right off Bush's posing ass.

Put Kerry on a stage with Bush and we'll see two men born with silver spoons in their mouths competing to see who can appear to be the most average.

[katieforeman]

23. I like the way you said that.

Do you mind if I e-mail it to some other Democrats I know?

Thanks,

Katie

[disenfranchised]

24. Go for it.

I'm going to add some more to it and e-mail it to all my friends and family in New York and California.

[NightNurse]

26. 'Nite, Katie!

:boring:
Good luck finding reality.:tinfoilhat:

[katieforeman]

36. Politics is based on reality?

No it's based on perception and the perception of Kerry is that he can't be trusted.

[MurikanDemocrat]

27. The are going to attack like pit-bulls no matter who the candidate is

And you can count on the Bush/Rove team to play dirty.

Kerry has a FAR, FAR, FAR better record than Bush on every count they care to bring up. Bush is the WORST President this country has EVER had the misfortune of having shoved up our collective butts by the USSC.

I happen to believe Kerry is the best man for the job.

[katieforeman]

42. Bush is the worst President in my lifetime.

But I think Kerry will have to spend much more time playing defense. Edwards will be able to spend more time on offense.

What Republicans have learned to do is play dirty, by unleashing their attack dogs to do the dirty work and letting George Bush be the face of hope and optimism. Unfortunately, Kerry is all too willing to engage in the dirty work himself. He recently described Bush's policy team as "almost stupid" and "completely inept." That let's Bush off the hook for his terrible policies and allows Republicans to dismiss Kerry's charges as politics as usual.

We need to focus our campaign on what we will do for the country. that's how Clinton beat back Dole's and Bush 1's attacks.

[bowens43]

28. I think Kerry is the right nominee.

I also think that other then his IWR and Patriot act votes his voting record is stellar.

[zulchzulu]

30. The son of a mill manager/part-owner...

Sorry, but Edwards has a lot more liabilities against him than Kerry.

Articles like this would knock Edwards out of the water:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Ireland0129.htm

Kerry can defend his voting record and has plenty of issues he can point out about Bush that will defeat him.

I wish Edwards fans all the luck in the next weeks. They'll need it.

[DjTj]

43. Your one slime article is no match for the truth.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-03-01-cover-edwards_x.htm

Edwards life is real and the fact that his detractors have but one article to keep re-posting is great evidence to that fact.

[Cronus Protagonist]

31. Youi're right. No track record is a MAJOR benefit in today's politics

Bringing in a "dark horse" worked for the Republicans when the Dems "Borked" Bork, they brought in Clarence Thomas and they got themselves a rubber stamp out of the fact that no one quite knew what Thomas would do. If we had known then what we know now, he would never have been approved.

Since it's a proven method that works, I totally agree with you. I'd go further, though, at this point, between Edwards and Kerry, Edwards looks like a shiny new button and Kerry looks like an old, dirty dishrag.

The GOP will pull the eventual candidate through the wringer and I suspect that Kerry will make a lot more dirty water for the press to tar him with, than Edwards would.

That does tip the scales towards Edwards being the candidate who would more likely win against Bush. Oh, and he's cute, which always seems to be a benefit in today's televised political climate.


"FUCK BUSH" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[katieforeman]

38. exactly

It's no accident that Bush is trying to appoint right wing extremists without many published opinions or articles. Republicans know how this game works. Why are so many Democrats still so cluesless?

[jsw_81]

32. Kerry isn't perfect

But no freshman senator is ever going to defeat an incumbent president. Period.

[katieforeman]

45. How many Senators that have been in the Senate 19 years

have defeated an incumbent president in the past 100 years?

I honestly can't think of any Senators that beat an incumbent President this century, although I may be wrong.

George McGovern was in the Senate a long time and he lost to an incumbent President.

I like Kerry but I really don't think people in the general election vote based on experience. Gore was infinitely more qualified then Bush. He beat Bush hands down during the debates in terms of actual substance. However, because Gore sighed when Bush was speaking the media perceived Gore as arrogant and all of the coverage was about Gore's demeanor and Bush was let off the hook for his lack of knowledge. i'm afraid the same thing mught happen with Kerry. Edwards learned from his day as an attorney to be very polite to the defendents and let them hang themselves with their own arrogance. bush has plenty of rope for that.

[molly]

33. Kerry has the experience - Edwards is a 1 time senator

and that is that. I really like Edwards and would like to see him either as VP (next to Clark) - in the cabinet - and/or running in 2012.

[katieforeman]

40. Edwards has more foreign policy experience than

four of the last five Presidents when they were elected.

He is a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. He was one of the first Senators to visit Afghanistan.He met with General Musharif and other leaders of that very dangerous region of the world. Remember Bush couldn't name the leader of Pakistan in the 2000 election.

Furthermore, Has Bush gotten better with experience? Bush's problem has never been inexperience. His problem is his arrogance, lack of integrity, intellectual laziness, and poor judgement. Edwards is the polar opposite of Bush and has the characterisitics necessary to be a good leader.

[AgadorSparticus]

34. Kerry's 3 words to shrub: bait and switch!

bush has more than been consistent in his approach to the american people. Kerry won't have any problems getting down in the dirt if need be. Bush has every reason to be afraid--it's just not broadcasted on TV. But rest assured, they're scared...

We must be doing something right. Because they keep throwing out the buzzword: $200 million! It's a scare tactic. Because they know ultimately, the same math that applies with Dean's internet phenomenon applies to Kerry's war chest. People cast votes. Not dollars.

[trogdor]

35. The GOP smear machine will do this REGARDLESS

of who our nominee is. Rather than worry about something that's going to happen anyway, how about figuring out what you're going to do about it.

I would say at this point, if your mind isn't made up, go find out which candidate you like best and support him tomorrow. If your mind is made up, ignore all this negative bullshit and support the guy you've endorsed. There are no spoilers in this primary election. There should be no strategic voting. If the nominee has to be determined at the convention, then so be it. That'll just make the convention more interesting, and so far that's proven to be a positive thing for the party, mainly because we're all paying so much more attention than we usually do.

Our guy will win because he's survived the most intense public vetting process in US history. Their guy will lose because we already know what he's about, he's bad news, and nobody in his party is challenging him.

[katieforeman]

39. I agree that this primary process is good for the eventual

nominee. I just think Edwards will be much better at handling the Republican smears and his record doesn't give them as much to work with.

For example, Kerry has called on Bush to debate their Vietnam records? Does any American want to hear that debate? We don't win by getting mired in the past. We win by presenting a plan for moving this country forward.

[Richardo]

41. Nice post, katie...

...I'm thinking it over.

[katieforeman]

44. Thanks, Here are some positive reasons to vote for Edwards.

1.)John Edwards can do for Democrats what Reagan did for Republicans- articulate a coherent philosophy of government and define a vision that inspires a generation. Remember Reagan had his shining city on a hill. John Edwards has the dream of One America. Kerry and Edwards both have some very good policy ideas, but John Edwards is the only one who puts all of these policies within the context of a unified vision. A generation later we are still dealing with the Reagan true believers. John Edwards will create a generation of true believers in Progressive causes.

2.)John Edwards has all of the hallmarks of a very popular President. His coattails will likely be longer. Because he is so articulate and likeable, John Edwards is the candidate best able to make effective use of the bully pulpit. Furthermore, a popular President has much more leverage with Congress and is more effective at pushing his agenda. Remember how cowed Democrats were when Bush was riding high.

3.)John Edwards is the best candidate to help improve the tone of political debate in this country. He has a future-oriented, positive vision. An Edwards victory would demonstrate that it is possible to win without engaging in the politics of personal destruction.

If John Edwards is the nominee, the Progressive vision will be at the center of the debate. If Kerry is the nominee, the debate will be framed around divisive issues of the past like Kerry's voting record and Vietnam.

Finally, Edwards generally finishes much better than the polls indicate. Edwards usually has a stronger intensity of support, and this is not usually picked up in the polls. In SC, the last poll showed a statistical deadheat with Kerry. However, Edwards won by a significant margin. In Wisconsin, Edwards was way behind in the last poll, but he almost pulled off an upset.