Hillary and the Blogs: Gaining Traction

[beachmom]

Hillary has people who are working the blogs, and doing a very good job I must say. Yesterday, amidst this disasterous bill, I visited Sully's blog on the Time magazine website, and what I beheld was praise for Hillary from what I thought was a big McCain supporter.

Here is the link:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/09/a_great_speech.html

After quoting her speech, he says this:

Readers know my long-standing suspicion of all things Hillary. But her speech today is a speech that rings with the sound of an opposition finally - finally - finding its voice. It is a speech a future president might make. Maybe it just was.

(I got a copy from a source. I cannot find a link yet online. If you find one, please let me know. Photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty.)

Later on, he links to a Youtube clip of her speech:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/09/hillarys_breakt.html

He captions it with this:

Hillary's Break-Through Speech

28 Sep 2006 06:20 pm

Someone finally says no to torture.

A few points here:

Now, first of all, many of you may think who cares what a conservative has to say about Hillary. Well, Andrew is one of many pundits who are quite independent in how they vote. And, if he ends up finding McCain too compromised to support, then his opinion in addition to all of the other DC pundits is vital for her to win. Why else do you think that I engage with him so much? I think it would be extremely difficult for Kerry to win the nomination, let alone the general, without at least some support from these influential pundits.

If you couple his praise today with the nonstop fawning about Bill's "smackdown" of Fox News from the lefty blogs, you have to admit this has been a very good two weeks for her '08 campaign. I am very curious as to who is Andrew's "source". Perhaps Peter Dauo?

The thing is I try to influence him, but in the end, I am not a professional, nor do I have the caliber of writing that paid people do. In short, I'm an amateur to hardhitters who work for Hillary. Nevertheless, I'm going to keep trying to influence, but have figured out that it's better to wait and come up with a well written, compact argument for why I think John Kerry has a much bigger capacity for upholding our moral values than Hillary. Sully is an intellectual who only publishes high quality e-mails, so it is pointless to dash out a "how could you say that?" e-mail which will be deleted immediately. So he is a big challenge, but I like a good challenge.

Perhaps, we're going to need to adopt a strategy of "Adopt a Pundit". Each of us picks a pundit we like to read, and will read all of their work. Then we can occasionally e-mail that pundit with what JK says on an issue important to the pundit, as well as issue corrections when the pundit doesn't get the facts straight. It needs to be an ongoing relationship, though. Because if we're going to compete against Hillary and Bill, we're going to have to start advocating on a regular basis just like her team is doing.

Finally, watch Hillary's speech. I'm not going to criticize her here, because it was very, very good. She was on the side of light and goodness yesterday, and for that, I do thank her and her eloquent speech.

[TayTay]

1. Good, read this post and bookmark it

We should ask what all possibles think of this action taken by a Dem President in 1995 and about others who have a lifetime of speaking out against actions like this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2254988

[beachmom]

2. I bookmarked it, but I'm definitely NOT sending that to Sully

It'll become part of the RW propaganda. Damn, that's explosive. This is the problem with primaries -- Hillary could very well be the nomination. THEN what do we do? Where do we draw the line? Or is this a nice hit from the Left and can't be used in the general?

I have no experience in campaigns, and I'm uncertain as to how far to take it. What do you think?

[TayTay]

3. Find that article.

Save it. Remember it when the subject of toughness and civil rights come up. Review it and learn from it. Remember who is consistent and who may possibly, upon further investigation, be saying one thing in public and another thing in private.

This is what primaries are for: a complete airing of the issues and a clarification of what was done in the past. That is the whole point of primaries, to explore and sharpen the differences between candidates.

[beachmom]

4. Since it's Wikipedia (and can be altered), I'm going to paste it here

Extraordinary Rendition in the 1990s

The procedure was developed by Central Intelligence Agency officials in the mid-1990s who were trying to track down and dismantle militant Islamic organizations in the Middle East, particularly Al Qaeda. At the time, the agency was reluctant to grant suspected terrorists due process under American law, as it could potentially jeopardize its intelligence sources and methods. The solution the agency came up with, with the approval of the Clinton administration and a presidential directive (PDD 39), was to send suspects to Egypt, where they were turned over to the Egyptian mukhabarat, which has a reputation for brutality. This arrangement suited the Egyptians, as they had been trying to crack down on Islamic extremists in that country and a number of the senior members of Al Qaeda were Egyptian. The arrangement suited the US because torture is banned under both US and international law.

The argument for rendition made by defenders of the practice is that culturally-informed and native-language interrogations are more successful in gaining information from suspects. For instance, interrogators of one terrorist suspect prayed to Mecca five times per day in the presence of the suspect until he became willing to talk <15>. Nevertheless, there have been many reports of the use of torture by these governments on suspects rendered to them.

The first individual to be subjected to rendition was Talaat Fouad Qassem, one of Egypt's most wanted terrorists, who was arrested with the help of US intelligence by Croatian police in Zagreb in September 1995. He was interrogated by US agents on a ship in the Adriatic Sea and was then sent back to Egypt. He disappeared while in custody, and is suspected by human rights activists of having been executed without a trial.

In the summer of 1998, a similar operation was mounted in Tirana, Albania. Wiretaps showed that five Egyptians had been in contact with Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy. During the course of several months, Shawki Salama Attiya and four militants were captured by Albanian security forces collaborating with US agents. The men were flown to Cairo for interrogation. Attiya later alleged that he had electric shocks applied to his genitals, was hung from his limbs, and was kept in a cell with dirty water up to his knees.


Examples

"'Snatches', or more properly 'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government ... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'"<16>

Michael Scheuer said, "In 1995, American agents proposed the rendition program to Egypt, making clear that it had the resources to track, capture, and transport terrorist suspects globally—including access to a small fleet of aircraft. Egypt embraced the idea. "What was clever was that some of the senior people in Al Qaeda were Egyptian," Scheuer said. "It served American purposes to get these people arrested, and Egyptian purposes to get these people back, where they could be interrogated." Technically, U.S. law requires the CIA to seek "assurances" from foreign governments that rendered suspects won’t be tortured. Scheuer told me that this was done, but he was "not sure" if any documents confirming the arrangement were signed."<17>



This makes Gore look bad, too. He comes across as downright evil. I'm checking the links, and they're pretty sound. There are so many sources, I don't have the time to go through each one to find which one attributed Gore's comments, because I find that just unbelieveable. I hope it's not true.

A few links for us:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6

New Yorker definitely says rendition started in 1995.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

[blm]

10. Isn't this the matter that Kerry was angry about towards Clinton then?

I seem to recall a speech where Clinton said something and Kerry was pissed at something Clinton said because it was presuming power he didn't have by law, or something like that - and I think it was in 1006 or 97 - maybe a SOTU speech?

This is something I'm vaguely remembering and wonder if it jars any other memories here.

[Blaukraut]

21. well, isn't that special?

Senator Clinton must be aware of this, I would think.

[whometense]

5. Maybe so...

Not to sound like a broken record, but do be sure you remember to distinguish between the blogosphere and real life.

When one is spending a lot of time online it's easy to overinflate the importance of what one is reading. I speak from experience here. During the 2004 election I was a real political rookie, and it was a huge shock to discover how fast bog world moves, and by comparison how glacially slow movement is in the voting public - like turning an ocean liner.

Which is not to say the blogs are unimportant - I think they are important, and their influence on the public and, more importantly, the media will only continue to grow.

But the daily high highs and low lows of the blog world don't register in the real world. So one decent speech from HRC won't radically change her trajectory in the voting public one way or the other. Though I wish the public would pay more attention and move faster, I think on balance it's a good thing the public is not as hairtrigger as the blogosphere.

On a personal note, yesterday I congratulated all the dems who made strong speeches against the bill, and that includes HRC. I'm not going to watch her speech, though. One good speech will do nothing to convince me that she is guided by inner angels the way JK is. She is all about the political calculation, and I dislike her for it.

[beachmom]

6. Well, one speech is not going to make me throw my support

her way (nor will 1,000, unless she wins the nomination!). But it was well delivered and made coherent sense.

I kind of thought we're supposed to be working the blogs, even if it's not completely reflected in the real world. My opinions are wearing the "Blog Hat" which is only one small piece of a huge swath of different issues and outlets. I assume somebody else will do the other pieces.

Look, 2006 has been a better year for Kerry blogwise, but the Clintons are trying to play catch up, and having some initial success. Obviously, Iraq is a big problem for Mrs. Clinton, and we'll have to highlight that. And, now, it looks like torture, too, given her husband's record, when the time is right.

What do you think of trying to influence major pundits/bloggers on an individual basis? Do you think that's a good idea, or not worth the effort?

[TayTay]

7. It is a double-edged sword

There are some very touchy people in the world and unless you stroke their egos every week (and in some cases every day) the best you can hope for from them is benevolent ambiguity.

One of the real powers of the blogs that is consistently overlooked is it's power to get people off their butts and into a campaignas helpers. That is immense. We tend not to notice that because the numbers are not as huge as '3 million people a week read Kos.' However, if you can move 100 people to come out and work for you, that is amazing. If you can move 100 people who have never worked on a campaign before, that is truly amazing. (So is the ability to target money to specific races.)

This is very new territory. It brings up a lot of stuff, including the issue of targetd advertising, micro-targeting issues and so forth. This is a very exciting time to be on the blogs, and not just for the surfacey stuff. That is nice and the ability to discuss issues with like-minded people is very nice, but unless it translates into action, it is meaningless.

Why do you think the disrupters on the boards are so intent on making Democrats depressed and unexcited about voting this fall? They fear that the blogs will move people all up and down the political activism scale.

[whometense]

9. It's a good question.

I think it depends on a lot of different factors. Some are more approachable than others. I've had some good luck by emailing items to the Carpetbagger, but I try hard not to overdo it, and only point out things I think he's missed that are pretty major. But he's a very reasonable guy, and not very partisan.

In any case, you have a very nice approach - fact-based and fairly cool, which I think plays well. Not that there's anything wrong with a good rant now and then - but rants are more effective if they're unexpected. ;-) So I'd keep it up. It's just like any other relationship - if you cultivate it long term the person will be more likely to listen.

I didn't mean at all to say that we should let this go. Kerry's done great this year with the blogs. It's a HUGE change from a year ago, when only us Kerrybots would jump in to defend him. And this is something those of us who have know Kerry for a long time have known - personally and politically, he wears well over the long haul. A lot of people who first view him with suspicion (too good to be true?) come to appreciate his consistency and his principles. And once you're in his camp - forget it - there is no one else who comes close. As a non-wonk, I feel my role is to remind people of who he really is as a person when they get swayed by some hit piece. People tend to react well to the words of someone with a long history. But I think every one of us needs to find his/her own voice for Kerry - we all have our own strengths and he needs all of them.

As for HRC - who knows? I was seriously turned off last week by her pissy little "defense of Bill" speech. I think it's unbecoming of a long time feminist (though she may wish to disavow that history now) to use her husband as a marketing ploy for herself. Just YUCK. I think she has a ton of makeup work to do with the blogs because of her history - blogworld has a MUCH longer memory than the general public - and because she comes off as cold.

[karynnj]

22. You said it all - both on Kerry and on the HRC defense

On Kerry, he does well very very well. It becomes clearer that he is the person he said he was in 2004. I admit that it takes time to suspend disbelieve because he really seems to be like the heroes in 1940s/1950s movies, that we know don't really exist. I just saw the distanse learning show - Kerry's last answer on why he went into politics and why he would try again. I doubt anyone could write a more public spirited, sincere, patriotic statement.

On HRC, one channel a few days ago showed this in conjuction with the 2 most famous of her previous Bill defenses. Though consistantly shrill, they were intersting in that they showed 3 different "faces". In the first, (the 60 minutes one) she had a very strong Southern accent and she seemed to be almost playing down her education background and who she was. In the second, (speaking of the vast RW conspiracy) she sounded sarcastic. On the newest one, she has dropped the sarcastic tone. In contrast, Kerry's inflections in the 1971 speech, his phrasing and the tone which appeals to the listener to be better than he is is not all that different. (he no longer says Can't as "Khant" )

(Note: I am NOT equating Southern accent to lack of education - I'm speaking of the her essentially sounding almost like she was quoting a country western song, which is likely not the HRC yu would hear in real life.)

[wisteria]

14. I think it is a good idea to keep Senator Kerry fresh in their minds.

I am will to defend and present the senators view points and votes to pundits.

One note on Senator Clinton, her gains on the blogs are calculated and come with a price tag after hiring some good people. Kerry's popularity and gains are genuine.

[whometense]

18. good points. n/t

[karynnj]

16. I think the idea is fantastic

The pundits really are just people. Getting correspondance like yours that comments intelligently on what he said and offering substanitive information has to be at perceived as positive. An advantage of advocating for Kerry is that he genuinely has been the real deal. At minimum, a pundit will know that Kerry has at least some enthusiastic support. At best, substanitive information will change perception.

[blm]

19. Her speech was good, her delivery blew chunks.

.

[whometense]

20. what

did you really think of it??

:rofl:

[TayTay]

23. In all honesty, I did not find this to be a barn-burner of a speech

it did read well. Maybe it was the hectic nature of the day or the stress, but it was a bit flat. I have heard better from her.

[beachmom]

25. Yeah -- Patrick Leahy really wins the gold medal for oratory

yesterday. He was excellent and passionate. Kerry came in second, Feingold third. But the latter two had only 5 minues, as did Hillary.

[MBS]

27. Dodd was also very good

Link to Dodd's speech is at
http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3610

Leahy's is at
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092806.html

[Mass]

46. I am listening to her right now. It is painful to listen to her.

What she says is important, but she comes out as shrill.

[blm]

47. It grated on my ears listening yesterday - and I was even pulling for WHAT

she was saying - so I separated the words - which were GREAT, from the vocals - which were GRATE.

[Mass]

8. I agree.

Also, talking about the speech, I listened to it and I thought that, while it was a good speech and she had obviously the right position, it was far from being as good as Leahy's or Kerry's speech. She avoided stating the two elephants in the room:
- that you cannot trust Bush,
- that the bill allows torture,

and the speech was fairly impersonal. She delivered it well, I agree, but it let me cold. Leahy's speech was the one that touched me the most, followed by Kerry (but to be fair, Kerry had a lot less time to make his point and did a tremendous job in such a short time).

[whometense]

11. Leahy's speech was wonderful.

Kerry's, though, made me the happiest because of what he said about not being able to trust Bush. It was what I was waiting to hear from someone, anyone, and the fact that it was Kerry who said it made me very happy. And proud.

[wisteria]

12. I agree. Much of what goes on on the blogs doesn't register in the public

and my opinion of Senator Clinton is similar to yours and I dislike her for it.

[karynnj]

13. Tay's linked article is explosive

I had hoped that the use of 1997 in the torture bill was to make it less clear that things got fundamently worse since 2001. I agree that sending this would be counterproductive. There are three levels on which this hits me.

- Although it is wrong to think that Democrats and Republicans are the same, it is true that Democrats haven't always lived up to what I think our ideals are. On issues like this, whether a President would approve things like this, covert activities that are covert because the American people would not approve them, or dishonesty, the difference might be who the President is as much as which party he is part of. As a person, (to steal language from the High holiday's prayer book) I can not accept from Democrats what I would condemn in Republicans.

- The fact that this is out there, it will beused in the General Election - especially if it is McCain vs Clinton. Just as Hillary gets credit for Bill, she will also get the negative side as well. That this could be spun as McCain bravely standing up against torture while the Clinton's credentials are less sterling. That this is not true is not important.

- That Andrew is not as honest as you imply. What the hell does he mean by someone "finally says "no" to torture. He had the input, from you, that showed Kerry has unambiguously said that all month! I do think your correspondance is fantastic, so the criticism is of him - and it re-inforces the same feeling from when he originally claimed Kerry didn't speak on torture, then months after somewhat conceding Kerry did, he repeated the claim. I do think it makes sense that you send him Kerry's speech - which was if anything stronger. I like your idea of adopting pundits.

[beachmom]

15. Well, of course, he's full of s*** that she's the only one

That's why I need to rebut his claim. And Kerry wasn't the only one either. There were 34 people in the Senate who said not to torture, and all but one were Democrats. The LIBERAL faction of Democrats, with a few centrists.

My point was that SOMEBODY is out there influencing him, and that just got me thinking about everything in my OP.

Andrew is not honest -- no way. But we all know that. The point is to give him a reason to see our way of thinking, and consider putting it on his blog (and same with many pundits/major bloggers).

[karynnj]

26. I agree -

Kennedy and Leahy were very impressive. Kennedy got down to what torture really is - and that we put other people in jail for 10 years for waterboarding.

I get your point - that Hillary's staff has people assigned to this.

As to your point - I think you are 100% right. (Not all will even be reachable)

[TayTay]

17. There is an argument on this that makes me uneasy

even if it does give you pause to think. The idea is that torture should always be illegal and carry severe penalties. It will, in rare instances, go on. You keep it illegal so that the interrogator who has to make the decision to torture has to understand that these are unsupported actions and could land him/her in prison. It is supposed to make sure that this action is only undertaken with desperation and with knowledge aforethought that this means a possible prison term.

These are, as Sen. Kerry said, very difficult topics to think about.

[beachmom]

24. That's what the Israelis do. I'm not an expert on Israel or its human

rights record, so I'm not sure how well that works.

You guys may think I'm wrong, but I do think that a Pres. Kerry would consider torture in an extremely extraordinary circumstance. Never is a long time, and that option must be left on the table. But I assume he is more in favor of psychologocal techniques which actually try to get the person to be "on your side". If you can convert them, then they may give you GOOD INFO as opposed to coerced info that may be no good; however, it requires a lot of time. The point is that he would never try to change the law to make torture ROUTINE. And if he felt strongly about it, he would be willing to be impeached (accept the consequences) for such a solemn decision. That's what Lincoln said during the Civil War -- he made some decisions that may have been deemed unconstitutional and said so. But then he said he was willing to accept the consequences. Bush is not. Bush has now gotten a "get out of jail free card". Even more troubling, this law may force people into thinking they HAVE to torture, lest they be blamed for not "doing enough".

[ProSense]

48. I absolutely don't agree!

Torture is not an option to be left on the table. It is a war crime, at least until Bush came along!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2854114&mesg_id=2854114

[beachmom]

49. Yeah, you're probably right

In this interview, he said there is no appropriate torture period.

Well here it is:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14733559/


I guess what I'm saying, is that IF it was an extreme situation, he wouldn't try to skirt the law. He wouldn't lie about it, and if it meant impeachment, then so be it. Bush doesn't think he's done anything wrong.

I'm just musing here, and wondering if there was a time when he would authorize it. Never is a long time.

But you're probably right.

[beachmom]

50. Okay, it looks like the Israelis don't outlaw torture

I thought they outlawed torture, but will sometimes break their own laws.

[karynnj]

52. I agree with you - no torture

I can't imagine the extraordinary circumstance that would necessitate it. The example given, which is very hard to imagine ever being met is someone who you knew with 100% certainty knew where, when wnd how a major event would happen that you knew would happen in an hour. In those circumstances, I can't believe torture would produce the answer.

[ProSense]

54. Ugh!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2854889&mesg_id=2854889

[ProSense]

55. This is the most

pathetic thing I've ever heard!

[beachmom]

56. Oh, good God that's just . . .

I'm just speechless.

Arianna Huffington is right about smelling fear in so many Democrats. If you act afraid then you will get slaughtered. We need REAL leaders, not people who will run away from a fight.

[ProSense]

41. I agree!

We are where we are, just as is the case with Iraq, because of the BS wait and see approach of a lot of Democrats. Andrew Sullivan, like the rest, in no less guilty of spin, and sometimes he's full of shit. The selective way in which some Democrats speak up, if they do any at all before the situation becomes critical, is really sickening. Consistency would go a lot further to keep the pressure on than random attacks. Speaking of torture, Kerry was one of the first to condemn Abu Ghraib and demand that Rumfeld be fired. It was Kerry who pushed for accountability on secret prisons with his amendment (which passed 82 to 9) demanding answers when Bush kept insisting there was no such thing!

[kerrygoddess]

28. Thanks for posting this

Bottomline here is in my opinion, Peter is doing what Peter does well. And we need to develop a strategy of a better presence in the blogosphere.

[beachmom]

29. One thing that pops in my head is YouTube

You seem more technical, as well as a few others here. But we should be able to capture Kerry's speeches on YouTube (especially short excerpts), and be able to include that with info. YouTube is the next generation of advocacy. But I'll be honest, I don't know how to use it.

Like, for example, any way to take snippets from Kerry at Hopkins or that Student Forum and be able to put it up on YouTube and spread like a virus everywhere?

[kerrygoddess]

34. You tube is great

I don't have much video knowledge unfortunately and had havn't had much time to figure out how exactly to start posting stuff on You Tube. But we definately need to lokk at utilizing it and also just being more viral in general.

We need to start viral blogging JK's speeches etc, to all the pro-JK sites amongst us and link back to each other more to build more traffic for all and get the pro-JK blogs noticed more. There's tricks to doing this and part of the reason some of the A List blogs are so successful is for their viral linking.

[karynnj]

45. The last question on the Distance Learning thing is idealism and service

personified. It would be great if there were a place that had a list of all the speeches anywhere on the web - giving the link. There would always be non- working links as things are taken down put it would be cool.

Youtube is cool especially with realively short ones- because people have to invest so little time.

[MBS]

30. Truthout?

Have Kerry's Johns Hopkins speech and his student forum video been mentioned or posted on Truthout yet? or his Faneuil Hall speeches? I used to see links to his speeches and editorials there fairly regularly, but haven't noticed much lately (however, I haven't checked it as closely as I used to, so maybe I missed recent links)

Would be good to get the attention of and other newsy-type internet sites (Huff Post, information clearing house, Raw Story, editor and publisher, real clear politics. . ), and contribute to their blog commentary (which often is infuriating). I know that JK posted on Huff Post recently, and Arianna has written some complimentary pieces there. .

[beachmom]

32. Because of Jason Leopold, do you really think Truthout

is a place we want Kerry stuff? That whole "Karl Rove Indicted" bogus story has soured me to that site. What remedies have they undertaken since that scandal?

[MBS]

35. good point but

I was mostly thinking of thoughtful essayists like William Rivers Pitt (whose current piece, "In Case I Disappear", is a must-read). FYI, I think that Jason Leopold was onto something, though we probably won't hear the real truth until W is gone and/or things get so bad that Bushies start to squeal on each other.
The "Adopt a Pundit" idea is a great one!

[kerrygoddess]

36. Yesterday

Atrios, C&L and Raw all linked to this post :John Kerry: ‘This Bill Permits Torture’ - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4314 and it was on Memeorandum most of the day, at one point on the top of the page. It's still getting a lot of traffic and has links to the video of the speech.

Real Clear Politics frequently links to my JK posts and Pajamas has been as well.

Basically we need a marketing plan amongst the group and more reach out.

[MBS]

38. good! n/t

[karynnj]

43. Videos of many of the speeches are on JohnKerry.com

They have the videos for the following. (From the front page - look for link that says Videos on the upper left hand corner)

1) Real Security for All Americans
As Democrats, we have to do more than oppose what has failed. We have to actively propose a new course that can clean up the disaster in Iraq, and defeat jihadist terrorism once and for all. This speech, delivered today in Boston's Faneuil Hall, outlines my ideas for how we can do just that.



2) America's broken health care system
Senator Kerry discusses his plans for addressing our greatest economic problem: America's broken health care system at Boston's historic Faneuil Hall.



3) Our Energy Challenge
John Kerry introduced a bold new plan to achieve energy independence and combat global climate change at Boston's historic Faneuil Hall.


4) Real Patriotism
John Kerry remarks at American University, Washington, DC, May 11, 2006

"Dissent from this unacceptable status quo because you know the job of leadership is to prepare for your future - not ignore it. "



5) Patriotism Means Telling the Truth, Making America Stronger
John Kerry remarks at Grinnell College, Iowa, May 6, 2006

"Thirty-five years ago this spring, I testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, and called for an end to the war I had returned from fighting not long before."


6) Dissent
John Kerry spoke in Boston's historic Faneuil Hall on Saturday, April 22 about patriotism and dissent at a time of war and the assault on free speech in America today.

For this one, you can:
watch the highlights
watch the extended highlights
watch the full speech


7) Give Voice To Our Values (Very early 2005 - I think)
Kerry speaks to the JohnKerry.com community about his concerns and about important debates in the days ahead.


8) John Kerry on Meet The Press
John Kerry appeared on Meet The Press with Tim Russert. In these clips, he discusses the Iraqi elections, Social Security, the nation's economy, and what he learned while running for president.

[sandnsea]

31. Adopt a Pundit

Is that like adopting a puppy - they yap all the time and wet all over the floor?

I've been meaning to pay some attention to Gloria Steinem's Green Stone media, so I'll start there. We do need to start getting ready to switch gears by the end of the year.

http://greenstoneradio.com/listenertest/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=231

[Democrafty]

33. Ooooh.

That looks really cool. I'll have to check out those blogs.

[kerrygoddess]

37. Great idea!

Adopt a pundit is good. Adopt a blogger too.

[MBS]

39. I second this!

It takes a family to resurrect a democracy (and elect a president)

[kerrygoddess]

40. Exactly!

I'm wondering about trying to get us all together on a conference call sometime soon to hash out ideas. Anyone up for that?

[beachmom]

44. Yes. That , and ideally, a meetup with as many people as possible

I look at all of this work, and it does feel like somebody professional needs to be hired. Am I wrong about that? It's just overwhelming, and we all have jobs of our own. I still don't believe in paid bloggers. I just mean someone who gets how it all works and can coordinate and reach out to bloggers.

Perhaps my notion of not going with paid bloggers is naive. After all, Webb has one, but I still think the disadvantages are worse than the advantages. If we're all volunteer, then Kerry's opponents can't go after us the way Swiftboat Wadham went after Lowell (of Raising Kaine), calling him an anti-semite, making the front page of the paper. I may add, it was a ridiculously preposterous charge since Lowell is Jewish!

Just thought of something -- a volunteer blogger (Republican) is now in hot water. So, maybe I'm wrong that only paid bloggers will get in trouble. Read it here:

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=111831&ran=245190

btw -- this is my district, and it's neck and neck. I sure hope Phil Kellam's past won't mean Thelma Drake wins.

[kerrygoddess]

53. It is overwhelming

but I think there's ways we can coordinate better and a phone conference might be of help, especially since we're all over the country. Or a chat maybe, that we can print a transript of. The othe rthing would be to start using the Dem Daily Kerry forum again.

Paid or unpaid, the right wing bloggers will make it personal sometimes. It comes with the territory.

[Democrafty]

51. Absolutely. n/t

[beachmom]

42. Here's the e-mail I sent (thank you to KG for easy links)

I held my fire on the Clinton charges, especially since Kerry praises Clinton (Bill) in his floor speech.

Dear Andrew,

John Kerry has been saying a lot of interesting things lately about the torture bill and our nation's foreign policy. Take a look:

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4314

Let me be clear about something—something that it seems few people are willing to say. This bill permits torture. It gives the President the discretion to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions. No matter how much well-intended United States Senators would like to believe otherwise, it gives an Administration that lobbied for torture just what it wanted.

The only guarantee we have that these provisions really will prohibit torture is the word of the President. But we have seen in Iraq the consequences of simply accepting the word of this Administration. No, we cannot just accept the word of this Administration that they will not engage in torture given that everything they’ve already done and said on this most basic question has already put our troops at greater risk and undermined the very moral authority needed to win the war on terror.”

“It leaves our moral authority in tatters if the president who seems to have been for torture before he was against it is given a blank check by a Congress that would rather duck the issue and dodge the debate. It is time for the United States Senate to make clear what presidents from Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton knew for certain but this Administration prefers to muddy: on the issue of torture, there is no compromise. America will not weaken the values that make us strong.

“We need to restore America’s moral authority in the world, and we do that by leading according to our best values. That’s how we need to define America, and that’s how we need to define our foreign policy.”

Entire floor speech submitted:

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4315

Article on Sen. Kerry's appearance at Johns Hopkins Univ.:

http://www.transatlanticmagazine.org/thinking_archives/09282006.html

Senator John Kerry: “Let America be America Again”

“We need to make America be America again,” said Senator John Kerry in a breakfast speech today at the launching of the new Center on Politics and Foreign Relations at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C.

In a vigorous denunciation of many of the Bush Administration’s policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terror, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee lashed out at the “failed policies” of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Speaking to an audience of 300 students, diplomats and reporters this morning, the Vietnam veteran reiterated that America “must restore our moral authority and global leadership by deploying the full arsenal of our national power with smarter diplomacy, stronger alliances, more effective international institutions - and fidelity to the values we have always stood for as a nation.”

Following up on this idea in an interview after his speech the Massachusetts senator harked back to the days of John F. Kennedy when he said America was respected around the world. “President Kennedy’s picture was in every house in Latin America. America was respected around the world for our moral values,” the senator stated.

“We aren’t respected today in the world because of Iraq and Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib,” Kerry commented. When asked if this could change with a different administration in the United States he forcefully responded, “It could be changed overnight in 2008 with a new administration.”

Please read the whole article.

That's great that you've gone from quoting John McCain to quoting Hillary Clinton, but NO ONE in the running for '08 has fought harder to get our government to uphold the Geneva Conventions or the rule of law than John Kerry. From his eloquent speech in 1971 to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to his work in the Senate of exposing Iran/Contra, BCCI, and CIA drugrunning, a nice little speech by Mrs. Clinton on the Senate floor isn't going to make up for a LIFETIME of service to the greatest ideals America has.

Beachmom