"Political Mugging in America" 2004. Ad for Bush. Group led by Robert Gibbs.

[madfloridian]

Political Mugging In America

Anatomy of an "Independent" Smear Campaign



The Video:

Gibbs and group vs Dean

""March 4, 2004 — As Mark Twain once put it, "A truth is not hard to kill and a lie told well is immortal."

..."On November 7, 2003, a strange new group no one had ever heard of called "Americans for Jobs & Healthcare" was quietly formed and soon thereafter began running a million dollar operation including political ads against then-frontrunner Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean. The commercials ripped Dean over his positions or past record on gun rights, trade and Medicare growth. But the most inflammatory ad used the visual image of Osama bin Laden as a way to raise questions about Dean's foreign policy credibility. While the spots ran, Americans for Jobs—through its then-spokesman, Robert Gibbs, a former Kerry campaign employee—refused to disclose its donors.

..."The Dean campaign cried foul, but no one, including the news media, could figure out exactly who was behind "Americans for Jobs." The disturbing mystery was partly solved by Jim VandeHei of the Washington Post on February 11, after reviewing public Internal Revenue Service records filed under Section 527 of federal tax law. Unfortunately for voters and the general public, that legal disclosure information was filed January 30, 2004, nine days after the Iowa caucuses in which Massachusetts Senator John Kerry upset former Vermont governor Howard Dean. Those contribution records were updated again with another $337,000 in donations on March 4, 2004, for a total of exactly $1 million that the group raised.

...."Americans for Jobs was a street rumble after dark, in which donors or fundraisers for the major Democratic presidential candidates then overshadowed by Dean—Kerry, Rep. Richard Gephardt, and retired General Wesley Clark—all piled on. Labor unions that had publicly endorsed Gephardt accounted for a fifth of the money—the International Longshoremen's Association ($50,000), the Laborers' International Union of North America ($50,000), the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers ($100,000), the International Association of Ironworkers ($25,000) and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers ($5,000). A former Dean donor, former Slim-Fast Foods businessman S. Daniel Abraham, gave $200,000. Past Kerry donor Bernard Schwartz, chairman of Loral Space and Communications—the tenth leading donor to the Democratic Party, giving $5.3 million over the years—chipped in $15,000. A top money chaser for Wesley Clark, Alan Patricof, also donated to this shadowy group."

And when the spokesperson for Dean tried to defend him against this ad...it did no good.

The ad slowly moved in on a Time Magazine cover featuring bin Laden, zooming in on a close-up of Osama's eyes, while saying that Howard Dean was an unqualified Democratic candidate because of his lack of military or foreign experience.

Tricia Enright, who was the spokeswoman for Howard Dean at the time, summed the ad up best, saying: "Whoever is behind this should crawl out from underneath their rock and have the courage to say who they are." But Robert Gibbs, who was the spokesman for the group, embraced the slime ad against Dean, and refused to say who had funded the ad. Now sure, you can say that Gibbs was just doing his job. But Gibbs wasn't just aligned with the group, he was in the leadership. The group took seed money from crooked former Senator Robert Torricelli to get off the ground, and then went out and raised over a million to run the ad. Gibbs was one of three people that made that ad happen.

The ad went on to infer that Dean could not measure up to Bush on foreign policy.

It was an outrage.

[joeybee12]

1. Gibbs has a history of slamming fellow Dems...but slamming Repukes?

Well, that makes no sense in his bizarro world.

[katandmoon]

2. I didn't realize Gibbs was such a POS. The picture is becoming lots clearer. k&r.

[EFerrari]

8. I didn't either. I bought his Middle America act

hook, line and sinker. I defended him when in GDP when people didn't like his pauses and "ums". Man, I'm easy.

[Kurovski]

56. I wasn't here at DU then,

but I thought him evasive. Very similar to Scott what's-his-face, who later snitched on BushCo.

So, If I had been here we would'a been dukin' it out! :D

Stop trusting ANYONE right fucking now!!!

[sasquuatch55]

98. What White House Press Secretary/ Liar, hasn't been a POS?

nt

[niyad]

192. bill moyers?

[Enthusiast]

122. Gibbs=POS. Yup. nt

[Starry Messenger]

3. You're a gem, mad. Good find.

At this point I can't even be shocked, but confirmation is golden.

[Demeter]

24. So That's Where "Drug Test" Gibbs Came From!

the slimeball.

[glitch]

38. +infinity. nt

[eleny]

4. They never gave Dean his due - to acknowledge his success for the Dem Party

[philly_bob]

5. I didn't know this. Anyone care to deny that Gibbs led this group? (nt)

[Subdivisions]

14. Crickets from the acceptable lefties. n/t

[madfloridian]

15. Can't deny it....too well documented by Lewis.

:hi:

[bluethruandthru]

31. But, Obama picked him so he must be perfect...right? n/t

[Forkboy]

64. That wouldn't be practical.

[blm]

145. I only dispute the conclusions being drawn to target Kerry, when it's been longknown that this ad

was condemned by Kerry when it first came out, and the conclusions that this ad even caused Dean's drop in the polls. It didn't. Dean's numbers in Iowa were dropping by November/Dec because of his poor debate performances and his failure to connect with voters on the ground in Iowa. The media fanned the expectation that Dean was certain to win, but the on the ground numbers in Iowa did not support that image. If any one was being dismissed by the media INTENTIONALLY it was Kerry.

In fact, the corpmedia hyped the Dean scream to cover their own sorry reporting in the months before the caucus. They also used it to ignore stories how Kerry actually did connect with voters and how consistently well he did in the debates. By hyping the Dean scream corpmedia changed the storyline to make it appear that Dean imploded on his own, and not that they had been misleading the public about the political landscape in Iowa since Nov2003.

[karynnj]

152. I doubt as spokesperson, he led the group - but there is no doubt that he was part of it nt

[derby378]

6. WOW.

Excellent find. You just convinced me that the White House needs to find a new spokesman.

[Stoic]

7. I was in Iowa for Dean and wondered who was running the dirty tricks campaign.

Good to know. Gibbs, you suck and your suckitude is rubbing off on the President.

[asdjrocky]

9. This is who Gibbs and Gang are. nt

[BrklynLiberal]

10. wow. sure clarifies why Dean was not offered ANYTHING in this administration..

and makes me wonder about Gibbs....

[Raineyb]

11. Indeed. Gibbs is now on my personal go fuck yourself list. n/t

[Lost4words]

113. they cant delete me for agreeing with you!! So I Agree! Wholeheartedly!

:hi: I salute you

[Ignis]

12. K&R.

What a winner! I'm so glad our (D) President chose this man as his mouthpiece, over many other qualified candidates.

:argh:

[tnlefty]

13. I was furious when this type of vile crap was done to Max Cleland, but

expect republicans to be vile, hateful bastards. This shit from Gibbs is just worse. :mad:

[daleanime]

130. Oh, you had to bring up Max....

still makes my blood pressure spike to think what those @$% wipes did to him. And this shit does smell just as bad.:argh:

[Tsiyu]

219. They are still demonizing him in Georgia

in campaign ads.

It's sick.







"Support the Troops!"










"Shit on the Veterans!"








Sorry to go all OT. :blush:

[daleanime]

220. Your joking!

Still!:nuke:




No problem, feel free to vent anytime you need to! :toast: Believe me, I understand.

[Eyerish]

16. K&R

Rep. Ellison is right...Gibbs needs to go.

[suffragette]

17. This really provides more perspective

on Gibb's history of these acts.

Fro Dec 2009:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/fire-robert-gibbsor-at-le_b_396339.html

Either Presidential Press Secretary Robert Gibbs went off the reservation and was not speaking for President Obama when he attacked Howard Dean's character and sanity for daring to criticize the Senate health "reform" bill which Obama wants passed; or more frighteningly, Gibbs was speaking for President Obama.

If Gibbs wasn't speaking for Obama, Gibbs should be fired, or at least called on the carpet by Obama and ordered to apologize publicly to Gov. Dean -- Gibbs went a long way towards alienating millions of people in the Democratic base who helped elect President Obama and who agree with Gov. Dean that a mandate to buy private insurance without, at a minimum, competition from a robust public option is bad policy and bad politics.

If however, Gibbs was speaking for President Obama, it appears that the White House has concluded it doesn't care about Obama's own base. In that case Obama's campaign promises for meaningful change are increasingly a pipe dream and Democratic prospects in the 2010 Congressional elections, and even in Obama's 2012 reelection campaign, are even more worrisome than it has seemed.

~~~

When asked about criticism of the Senate health care bill, Gibbs could easily have said that President Obama respects Gov. Dean and is grateful for his efforts to build the Democratic Party and his work for health care reform, but respectfully disagrees with Gov. Dean on the Senate bill. Instead, Gibbs chose to attack Dean's mental stability, character, and knowledge of the issue, suggesting that Dean was irrational and didn't understand the bill. "I don't think any rational person would say killing the bill makes a whole lot of sense," said Gibbs, both questioning Dean's sanity, as well as mischaracterizing Deans position, which is not to kill the bill but to use reconciliation to pass the good parts of the bill instead of caving into Joe Lieberman--whom the White House has never publicly criticized.

Increasingly, the Obama administration seems to think it can throw the concerns of its base supporters overboard and rely on Rahm Emanuel's version of Karl Rove's "K Street strategy" to buy elections with hefty campaign contributions from insurance companies, drug companies, and Wall Street. That's a prescription for failure.

[ibegurpard]

41. OP-worthy

if it hasn't already been one

[suffragette]

67. It was posted at the time it came out

but thanks for suggesting that.

[Kalyke]

18. Except that Wes Clark did outraise Dean in the first

month of 2004, so some of this is inaccurate: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Wesley_Clark

Clark also beat Dean (and Edwards, btw) in primaries until Clark dropped out after Tennessee in February.

Look, I'm not happy about what Gibbs said and I was one of the first people in December 2003 who thought Dean should give up running for the nomination and become the DNC chairman (which, of course, he did), but Clark wasn't "over-shadowed" by Dean. Clark was overshadowed by the media (Judy Woodruff went a record 14 days without mentioning Clark on her POLITICAL show during the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES in DECEMBER 2003!), but not by Dean by the time voting began.

Correct: Judy Woof-woof's first name. :)

[madfloridian]

23. Charles Lewis, found of Center for Public Integrity wrote that.

I simply posted his research.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/about/our_people/founder/

"Charles Lewis founded the Center for Public Integrity in 1989 and served as its executive director until January 2005. He is the founding president of the Fund for Independence in Journalism, a support organization for the Center for Public Integrity. And he is a professor and the founding executive editor of the new Investigative Reporting Workshop at the American University School of Communication, in Washington, D.C. Lewis left a successful career as an investigative reporter for ABC News and as a producer of the CBS News program 60 Minutes and began the Center. Under his leadership, it published roughly 300 investigative reports, including 14 books, from 1989 through 2004, its work honored more than 30 times by national journalism organizations. For example, in 2003, in February the Center posted secret draft “Patriot II” legislation and in October posted all of the known U.S. contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Windfalls of War first identified that Halliburton had received the most money from those contracts, and it won the George Polk Award. A co-author of five books, including national bestseller The Buying of the President 2004, Lewis was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship in 1998 and received the PEN USA First Amendment award in 2004.

A national investigative journalist for roughly 30 years, Lewis has been writing a new book for HarperCollins since 2005. Some of that research was published by the Center for Public Integrity in January, 2008. Iraq: The War Card, a 380,000-word chronology and analysis of the pre-war public rhetoric by leading members of the Bush administration, identified 935 “false statements” about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Lewis has written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Christian Science Monitor, Columbia Journalism Review, The Nation, and many other publications. He serves on the board of the Fund for Independence in Journalism, the Fund for Investigative Journalism, and is a longtime member of Investigative Reporters and Editors, the Society of Professional Journalists, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and the National Press Club. He began his first job in journalism at the age of seventeen, working nights in the sports department of the Wilmington (Delaware) News-Journal"

Not refighting the Dean/Clark wars. They happened. There was a reason. Neither won. They stopped Dean, and that was the mission.

[defendandprotect]

76. Love Charles Lewis ... but it's been a long time since I've seen him on C-span....

presume he has been on -- and just didn't catch him --

Dean, IMO, was the leading candidate until the contrived "scream" --

I've read details on that somewhere on how they rigged the mikes somehow to

amplify what he was saying -- at least with the TV audience?

Think that's how it went -- but it was something rigged --

Iow, it was something planned to bring Dean down --

[karynnj]

100. Dean was NOT the leading candidate until the scream - he was the leading candidate until Kerry had

more than twice the number of caucusers. Kerry got 38% to Dean's 18%. Kerry's numbers had already started to climb in NH before Iowa - as Dean lost support to Clark and then Clark imploded. He was within single digits and the exuberant coverage of his win in Iowa gave him momentum there - just as a win always does for anyone.

Dean's voice was isolated from background noise, but the fact is that as soon as the results were announced, Kerry was the leading candidate. Had there been no scream, there would have been a montage of every Dean low moment in the lead up to the caucus. The three big stories would have been - Kerry's win, Gephardt dropping up, and how Dean's support was more virtual than real.

After Kerry won both NH and Iowa, Dean opted not to really contest the 7 state contests on the first multistate day. He had spent most of his money - thank you Trppi (and he raised $40 million in the last quarter of 2003) and had not really set up anything in those states - few of which were good for New Englanders. His gamvble was obviously that Kerry would do poorly and there would be a split between Edwards and Clark. He could then win the next few sets which were better for him. When Kerry won MO, DE, AZ, NM, and ND - and Edwards won SC and Clark won OK, where both he and Edwards got 30% and Kerry a not shabby 27% considering how red the state was - it was clear that unless Kerry imploded he was going to get the nomination.

Tell me what difference the scream really made to the race. It was used to discredit Dean, but it was very likely that Kerry would win NH as soon as he won big in Iowa. Even without the scream, the money would have rolled in to the winner, not to Dean and I really don't see that he would have made a different decision on the 7 races he skipped.

[RaleighNCDUer]

129. The scream was the excuse to dismiss Dean -

the dirty tricks had already been played, undermining him (as related in this thread) and the 'scream' was simply used to prove to the public that Dean was 'unstable'. He was already dead - the scream was just the nail in the coffin.

[karynnj]

135. There were NO dirty tricks - I see NONE described

The closest you have is an obnoxious ad that got little airplay. The ad was tacky - but it certainly was not a dirty trick. The reasons he lost are many:

1) The negative exchanges between Dean and Gephardt. Dean was no innocent here who Gephardt just decided to mug. Gephardt is as close as we have had in recent times to a union/blue collar supporting politician. He was the initial leader in Iowa. Dean distorted Gephardt's support of Medicare/Medicaid. Things like that were the core of who Gephardt was. That fight was open and both suffered from the blows themselves and the perceived meanness. (Consider you were a wavering Gephardt voter, after the attacks if you were uncomfortable with Gephardt, where would you go?

2) The Des Moines Registrar had a tracking poll. Although it used a 3 day average to smooth the curve, you could see a very steady increase For (especially) Kerry and Edwards - and a decline for Gephardt and Dean. This started as early as November. The national media ignored that and to a real degree so did the net. From just DU and Daily Kos, you also would have thought Edwards was a very likely winner in 2008 prior to anyone voting. In 2004, the netroots were new and the focus of a huge amount of attention. That and the media giving Dean a huge amount of attention in the summer led to the perception that he was a sure thing before a single vote was cast. BUT, it did not translate to the retail politics needed to win Iowa. Kerry simply did a far better job winning people face to face - all stereotypes not withstanding.

3) The debates - Dean really hurt himself when he became hyper defensive in the later pre Iowa debates.

4) You might want to look at the fact that Trippi, who I think should get a massive amount of the blame, in his book actually really blames how Dean acted in those last few months before the Iowa caucus.

[defendandprotect]

146. Agree -- and they had to resort to GOP/Nixon type "dirty tricks" .....

and how many might we still know nothing about?

[defendandprotect]

144. Kerry began at a bottom of the barrel .03% -- no one was interested ....

Howard Dean was the leading candidate -- and if you notice from the comments here --

still the leader in DU hearts!

[karynnj]

151. It depends when you start - go back far enough and Kerry was high and Dean at the bottom

The fact is that what I was countering was not the BEGINNING - but your comment that Dean was the frontrunner until the scream. In fact, the scream was shortly AFTER Kerry got 38% of the vote to Dean's 18%, At that point - before the scream - Kerry became the frontrunner. Yes, I know they are close in time - within hours - but it is an important difference. Your view completely denies Kerry what was an incredibly hard earned victory - when he had little party or media support and so little money he loaned money to himself. That win came through his actions in Iowa.

The fact is that in 2004, Dean had a huge majority of DU - far more than he had in the entire country. He still has a lot of respect for who he is and his work as DNC head - and I am one who respects him for that. I really don't know who is the "leader in DU hearts" now - but I assume it changes over time. Several months ago, it might have been Grayson - at other times Franken, at one point Obama, at another John Edwards, and another Al Gore was the favorite. Unlike 2004, I don't think there is any one person who is a favorite for the majority of people on DU.

[defendandprotect]

158. From the beginning .... Kerry was .03% . . . no one interested --

[blm]

164. 'no one interested'...hahaha...some of us who actually understand HISTORY were waiting for decades

to vote for Kerry and the reasons why were exactly the same reasons why the DC powerbrokers of both parties would NEVER let Kerry get the powers of the WH.

And his involvement in ending the war in Vietnam is the LEAST of those reasons.

[karynnj]

195. The beginning??

Are you referring to late December 2000? The fact is that Dean was not any higher then - it was thought Gore would run again. Kerry was at a later point - after Gore said he was not running - considered one of the frontrunners - when Dean was around number 10 in polling. Dean gained traction in spring of 2003 and peaked in about November 2003. He lost some support then to Clark. In 2003, Dean's poll numbers were partly a function of the huge amount of positive media coverage he got - especially in the summer when he appeared on 3 major covers at the same time. (Kerry got almost no coverage then) In fall 2003, Clark got a ton of intensely positive coverage. In addition, Dean got many important endorsements.

There was NO time in 2002 or 2003 when Senator Kerry was at .03%. (You do realize that is less than 1%)

The fact is that Kerry started to gain traction in Iowa as he campaigned face to face with people. Even though he was still recovering from cancer treatments after surgery in February 2003, he worked extremely hard in Iowa and when he won people to his side - they stayed with him. By late January 2004, he was polling the best in Iowa - something the rest of the media blindly ignored. Adam Nagourney even reported 2 weeks before the caucus that even Kerry's biggest backers did not think he could win Iowa. The press still mainly spoke of Kerry in terms of whether he would drop out after Iowa - or wait until after NH.

To some extent, it was the poor reporting of most of the mainstream media that was responsible for both Deaniacs like you and Dean himself being surprised by Dean's loss. Had they reported the Des Moines register's tracking poll - that did an outstanding job in 2004 and 2008, the results would not have come as a shot out of the blue. Dean was so surprised that he supposedly had not written a concession speech.

(In fact, if you did not have a dog in the race, you might have liked that someone with far less money to spend (Dean blew most of $46 million on Iowa and NH), far fewer big endorsements, and little media hype beat the guys who had that because he personally won more people to his side. )


Looking for something else - I found this essay written by a Dean worker in February 2004. It has some interesting insights as do some of the comments. (I am not saying I agree with all of his conclusions, but it is a candid internal view and far less egocentric than Trippi's, which really blames the failure squarely on Dean.)

[blm]

156. Care to explain what you really believe caused Dean to lose Iowa? Poor debate showings?

His being caught supporting Biden-Lugar version of IWR in 2002 while his campaign attacked anyone who supported IWR as prowar?

I support Dean very much the last 6 years...I didn't support him in the primary because his actual record of governance was too centrist for my politics. I also understood that some of what both his and Kerry's camps were saying to differentiate themselves was exaggeration - absurd but expected primary dueling.

[defendandprotect]

159. Agree that given how much politics has been distorted and moved to right ... Dean is centrist --

And, I think anytime that computers are involved, we don't really know what happened --

I'd take that all the way back to Nixon/Humphrey because the large computers used by MSM

and the voting computers began coming in during mid-late-1960's . . .

Coincidentally, just about the time we were passing The Voting Rights Act --

[blm]

161. Except....Iowa is a CAUCUS. The body has to be present and counted in a caucus.

The corpmedia was LYING about Dean's certainty. The numbers were moving away from Dean since November.

[defendandprotect]

163. No manipulation there, either . . . . ? Florida caucus re Hillary . . . ?

You want me to explain this?

[blm]

166. Get real. Did you witness the last few debates before Iowa?

Did you 'get' that Dean totally fumbled the last debate before Iowa? Do you remember WHY he fumbled so badly?

Did you really trust the corpmedia was telling you the truth during the primary season?

Did you never question why the corpmedia gave Dean a press plane as early as June, shortly after Kerry submitted a senate resolution on June 3 protesting protesting FCC's move to allow expansion of media ownership? At the same time they reduced Kerry to only enough reporters to fit into a small van?

You really missed most of what was going on, apparently. It wasn't even Dean's fault....the corpmedia had their own needs and Dean's campaign was just useful to them...when they thought they no longer needed to keep him aloft by December they turned on him.

[defendandprotect]

169. No --

I don't watch "debates," generally --

It wasn't a question of "fumbling" -- it was a question of his being a more favored

candidate than Kerry -- from the beginning to the end.

And -- no -- I don't watch corporate press, either --

However, what we are discussing is the DLC's "own needs to bury Dean" as evidenced by

Gibbs' video. It is the DLC which is the cancer on the party.

[blm]

172. he WASN'T more favored by mid November - corpmedia was TELLING you he was.

and they were telling you he was right up to that day of the caucus.

And Dean BADLY FUMBLED during his last debate before Iowa - if you saw it you wouldn't be relying on these absurd postings. Many of Dean's supporters with integrity here at DU acknowledge he didn't perform well in the last debates before Iowa. Many understand the corpmedia had targets on ANY Dem they feared, and that it was usually Kerry...then Dean....and when Kerry became the nominee, the corpmedia focused all their attention to taking Kerry down and protecting Bush.

[defendandprotect]

174. No matter how badly Dean may have "fumbled" in Iowa -- he was still

the preferred candidate over Kerry --

TPB got the candidate they wanted -- Kerry --

and I further agree that Ohio was stolen -- and there was no fight against it --

though I won't blame Kerry for that, as others of "integrity" do -- because evidently

the word was it was a very powerful steal.

[blm]

176. PTB? You have no clue why there isn't a more hated person by the PTB than John Kerry, do you?

And that is by the powerbrokers of BOTH parties. Sheesh...what the eff were you doing in the 80s and 90s?

[defendandprotect]

178. I'm not anti-Kerry . . . as with most of us here I'm more PRO-Dean . . . .

but, again, TPB usually get their man -- i.e., OBAMA --

And, that's what we need to get undone this time around --

We need a truly liberal/progressive Democratic candidate --

[blm]

181. Not the point...your thinking is so offtrack here you THINK the PTB supported Kerry - only proving

how little you really know.

[defendandprotect]

185. Here's the point of this thread . . .

"Political Mugging in America" 2004. Ad for Bush. Group led by Robert Gibbs.


And our conversation is at an end -- bye!

[blm]

188. Because you seriously LOST.

.

[wisteria]

208. This DU never had intentions of voting for Dean, I always liked Kerry

and intended to vote for him even if Dean was in the lead.

[blm]

32. The numbers on the ground in Iowa were shifting already by end of November, yet media kept

reporting it as a certain win for Dean. Why?

And though Dem party ops were in EVERY campaign, including Dean's, no one used that power to direct money towards Kerry's campaign and THAT is why he had to mortgage his house in Dec. He knew his groundwork in Iowa was changing the numbers, yet no media would discuss those shifting numbers in a way that would draw donors.

And, btw, Kerry immediately spoke out in condemnation of that ad run against Dean. That fact gets left out of these postings, unfortunately.

[wisteria]

87. Yes, I remember the media saying Dean had it just days before the election.

There was never any talk of Senator Kerry. The media attention was all on Dean.

[blm]

97. Corpmedia's intentions were to take out both Kerry and Dean. That was fine with Dem powerplayers

who did all they could in 2003-4 to undermine the nominee as they had their sights set on 2008.

[defendandprotect]

160. The two populists were the first targeted -- Kucinich and Edwards --

Edwards was a bit harder to put down, but they finally did it --

Dean was then the next biggest concern --

Kerry was the option --

[blm]

162. You don't know history. And you don't seem to understand calendars much, either.

You are welcome to show differently, but, I haven't see it yet.

[defendandprotect]

165. You're right ... I think I've just confused two elections --- !!!

Obviously, Kucinich and Edwards were targeted this last go around --

Ralph Nader was even barred from watching the "debate" in the TV room!! Fear - ? Rampant!

And, previously, Kerry was Swiftboated -- with too little response from him.

A parallel to what his campaign did to Dean?

Question is, was there always going to be some way to sabotage Edwards?

Were temptations being put in his way whether as VP candidate or Presidential candidate?

I've just woken up -- but have to say it does all become a blur after a while --

The constants are TPB -- they give us the candidates we get to vote for.

And this time around, Obama was their man --

And, computers have the final say, of course!


and what if Obama didn't play ball their way?

Would a new version of his birth certificate appear?

[blm]

173. You didn't watch the debates so obviously you weren't interested in how Dean or any candidate

performed.

You really should catch up on some history....your reliance on revisionism is sickening...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8921417&mesg_id=8923390

[defendandprotect]

175. As far as I can see the "debates" are rigged and nonsense . . . .

we have two private political parties running the debates by agreement --

with a PRIVATE CORPORATION in charge of the debates!!

No, thanks --

Yes -- I do watch a few minutes of them to see if anything honest and/or spontaneous

is going to happen -- but usually not -- and I tune out.

But, I do generally try to read TEXT of the debates --

The debates are purposefully limited in scope so as to turn off the viewer --

An excellent way to judge that is to watch when third party candidates are included in

the debates -- they are always far more interesting in subject and scope.

[blm]

179. So when Dean performed miserably in the last debate before Iowa it wasn't his fault or the

problem he faced when confronted on his support in 2002 for the Biden-Lugar version of the IWR? A resolution that would still allow the decision be made by Bush to invade Iraq? Let me guess....you never knew that because you never really paid attention, did you?

[defendandprotect]

182. Did Kerry vote against the invasion of Iraq? If so, I think I did miss that . . .

Any member of Congress who has ever bought the myth of 9/11 is to be questioned --

especially any involvement by Iraq --

And let me remind you that since '06 election, the Democrats have been refinancing

Bush's wars -- both of them. Only now are we getting some restlessness from in USHR

from Dems.

And, again, the subject here is the Kerry attack on Dean via Gibbs -- and the pride

they took in it!!

[blm]

186. Can you try READING - Gibbs left Kerry campaign after Kerry fired his boss, Jim Jordan.

There were exDean supporters on that list, too, does that mean Dean helped set up that ad?

And Kerry was the first to immediately condemn that ad.

You have a LOT confused. But you are so invested in arguing revisionism as fact that your posts are increasingly more absurd.

[defendandprotect]

202. You're trying to deny Gibbs' involvement in this ad??????

OK -- you're being disingenuous and one step to being on "ignore."

[blm]

205. Gibbs was involved - some time after his boss was FIRED from Kerry's campaign.

.

[defendandprotect]

207. Thanks for making that clear that "Gibbs was involved" ...... !

[blm]

210. I never said he wasn't. You assumed he did it for Kerry and never acknowledged he was let go

after his boss was FIRED by Kerry.

[defendandprotect]

203. Did Kerry vote against war in Iraq ------------????????????

[blm]

209. Kerry voted yes on IWR, preferring Biden-Lugar version which was a better written resolution

Kerry also warned that if was not shown that national security was threatened then he would speak out against invasion...which he did...before, during and ater the invasion.

Dean was for the Biden-Lugar version of the bill, too, in 2002. However it didn't come to a vote. Had it come to a vote, it would have passed and then would Dean have been considered prowar? BY MANY, YES....For comprehensive people...No. He would've been in the exact same position as Kerry - For a resolution that would allow the decision for war under threat to our national security, but, once weapon inspectors were reporting the facts on the ground and that no military force was needed,then use full voice to speak against any decision to invade.

So...what part of that did you not know?

[karynnj]

105. That fact and the fact that Gibbs left the Kerry campaign when Jordan was fired

It is noteworthy that Kerry did not hire him even in the general election when many people who worked for other campaigns or for Clinton were added. Not mentioning either is a way that this article and others tried to tie Kerry, who was winning to the ads. The other way was to say that Gephardt and Kerry supporters paid for it. Here, the problem is that first of all almost all of the people gave to Gephardt and some even had contributed to Dean!

[mod mom]

19. Just one more reason this election season I'm volunteering at my kids

schools and $ going to environmental causes. What a scumbag! I'm passing this around to my other progressive ACTIVIST friends. Maybe those DLC types will have do a little more this election like GOTV.

[glitch]

40. Don't make Congress pay for DLC actions, the DLC may actually want a puke Congress.

They're certainly acting like it.

[defendandprotect]

77. This is quite true and something many of us are thinking about . . .. .

that's why DLC and right wing Democrats have to be targetted and

liberal/progressive Democrats financed and worked for -- has to be selective --

but I never knew that Obama was identifying himself as a "New Democrat" -- had I known

I would never have voted for him.

And that's why I would not vote for Hillary Clinton -- DLC leadership!

Why would anyone here support a right wing DLC/New Dem candidate?

.... unless they actually support attacks on public education and Social Security/Medicare?

[laughingliberal]

20. I never knew Gibbs was behind that smear. Many things are more clear, now. K&R. nt

[Octafish]

21. Thank you for the heads-up, madfloridian.

Mr. Gibbs' voice now has a certain, eh, familiar ring to it.

[madfloridian]

28. Indeed, Octafish

It does.

[Chimichurri]

22. Gibbs is a stooge dutifully doing his job and you better believe

his words directly reflect Obama's contempt for his base. He McCain'd us, yet again.

Throw red meat out to score political points, then apologize immediately after. The apology is done so quickly, it misses the news cycle and all that loops for hours on TV is the insult.

What makes this tactic work is, yeah, I said it. so whatya gonna do about it? where are you's gonna go?

And in all reality, where are we gonna go? Unless we fight for better democratic ideals, we're stuck with these punks.

[madfloridian]

25. More: David Jones bragged about it on C-Span in Dec. 2004

I can't find the video at C-Span now, wish someone could. But I still have the notes I took that day when we were commenting at the DFA blog about the conference on C-Span. Here are the words.

C-Span video of the shadowy 527 group formed to "bring Dean down."

You can hear David Jones of Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values at C-Span discuss how he put those 527 ads against Howard Dean
together.

David Jones', short, pithy bit on
what he did in Dec 2003 is about 2:57 into the program. (2 hours 57 minutes in)

Enjoy. This guy wrote, funded and produced the ads. This is what happened. Also, there is a Q&A question for Jones at about 3 hrs 20 minutes in, listen to that as
well.


12/06/04
C-span2 LIVE
Campaign Advertising by "527" Groups

David Jones is saying --
"Our main objective was taking down Howard Dean... he was so far ahead... our concern was that maybe we couldn't fulfill our goal, but could take him down a notch... Gore, Carter all seemed to think he was the winner, so it looked like a cake walk for Dean - but we decided Xmas would be too over the top - but when he was taking a dive even before the scream, it seemed too dangerous to disclose the donors..."

....." Posted by _____ at December 6, 2004 01:06 PM

There objective was to take Dean down.

[Jamastiene]

71. Is this it?

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/184694-1

There is a transcript there.

[madfloridian]

72. That's it. Thanks. I posted it below.

At the 3 hr mark and the 3 hr 24 minute mark there is much telling stuff from David Jones.

Thanks for finding it.

[Jamastiene]

75. I just came back to tell the time where he starts talking.

You have a great memory! :)

[defendandprotect]

78. Howard Dean was the leading candidate ... and the SCREAM attack pre-arranged ....

Evidently, they contrived some way with backstage mikes to amplify Dean's speech

and scream -- projecting it even more loudly into TV/living rooms.

Obviously, this had to be preplanned --

And who are the "527" group -- ? Did we ever find out who the contributors were?

[karynnj]

106. Have you ever been to a rally where the speakers voice is NOT amplified

more than the others? In an enthusiastic rally, the speaker would not be able to get his message out otherwise.Go back and listen to any Obama, Kerry, Clinton etc rally - their voices are amphlified while the crowd noice isn't.

[defendandprotect]

143. You need to re-read the post . . . ONLY THE TV AUDIENCE GOT THE AMPLIFIED....

edition -- mikes backstage were turned way up to do this --

The people in the audience heard the valid version --

the TV audience got an overdose --

[karynnj]

148. The TV audience and the people in the room got the amplified feed

Dean was speaking into a microphone. The difference was that in the crowd, they heard the others standing next to them better than the TV audience did. This is because the audience was not amphlified at all -

It seems that the TV got a directfeed from Dean's mike. (This would have been set up by the Dean people and it makes sense as they would want what Dean said to be sent to any remote speakers in the room.) But, there was some crowd noise when he was speaking - as it too was picked up by Dean's mike. So, that was an accurate account of what was heard if you were standing where the mike was - ie where Dean was. Now, I did read long ago accounts like this - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/26/politics/main596021.shtml - that made the point that if you were in the crowd, you heard the people around you far more than Dean did.

But, I assume what the media did is what they always do - because the point is to catch what the speaker says (or for that matter consider that when Paul McCartney gets everyone to sing - you still, thank God, hear mainly him. In fact, compare the relative speaker/crowd noise in the dean scream (one of many links - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc ) to the speaker to crowd noise on this tape of from Kerry in 2008 - I was there and I could tell you the crowd was incredibly excited as it became clear that Obama had won. But, the audio here has a similar speaker to crowd ratio - http://www.johnkerry.com/multimedia/entry/entire_election_night_remarks/ I can tell you, standing there, I heard far more crowd noise and it was harder to hear Kerry (though he was still audible)

What I think was a problem was that it was played thousands of times. You might want to think of who this constant playing of Dean's line took news time away from. Remember 2008? The discussion was all the surprise of Obama winning. Kerry's win was actually more of a surprise to most of those following the media as he had largely been ignored.

[defendandprotect]

171. The feed was manipulated from back stage mikes -- ONLY to the TV audience and then MSM

that amplified version was replayed by MSM over and again --

Weird how people understand we have a "corporate-press" and distrust it -- but show

them video and they believe it!!

[blm]

183. YOU trust the media when it told you Dean would be the nominee. So you distrusted Kerry's legitimate

win based on his hard work on the ground in Iowa.

YOU trust corpmedia's revisionism of swifts and Kerry's response, when the fact is that Kerry responded harder on the swifts than anyone ever did in a campaign, however not one news network would carry his speech attacking them and Bush for hiding behind them, they refused to broadcast the speech after receiving the copy of his prepared remarks.

You really don't pay attention and then you spout what you think you know from CORPORATE MEDIA.

[karynnj]

184. Read the article

That article was extremely sympathetic to Dean. I completely agree that the feeling in the room would differ from what you see in the video - that is what I said and pointed out that the Kerry 2008 video has a different feel than being there.

As to "back stage mikes" - what are you speaking about? The relevant mike is the one that Dean is holding. The input from that was the input the TV used. This was broadcast in real time. You can hear the crowd - just as you can in the Kerry video, but the amphlified voice of Dean is the dominant voice. The reason it picks up so little of the crowd noise is that it was a unidirectional mic, which did filter out most, but not all, of the crowd noise

Not to mention, played ONCE, it really is not all that strange - just Dean trying to fire up the crowd. Adding any amount of enthusiastic crowd noise would not change the basic content. Playing it a million times in the Republican echo chamber made it worse.

[sabrina 1]

92. Wow! I had no idea. Back then I was frantic, like everyone

else to stop Bush at all costs. I liked both Dean and Clark. I ended up supporting Clark as I was posting on a rightwing dominated board at the time (you can imagine what that was like) and I admit, I knew they were worried about a Dem who was actually a General. They were worried about Dean too, but a General, that blew all their pre-conceived ideas about Democrats and so I settled on Clark with Dean next on my list.

Back then dirty tricks such as these, I could not have imagined Democrats being involved in. That is pure Rovian! If I had had any idea, I would have been shattered. I thought Dems were united in working on getting rid of Bush. I had hoped for a a Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean ticket when it was all over. Kerry didn't even rate in those days and anyone who had voted for the war was not on my list.

But this is despicable. It shows for certain that they never had the country's best interest at heart. And now I look back and think how angry I used to get at those rightwingers when they would tell me that Dems were mean. I could not imagine it, I thought, naively I know now, that they were the good guys.

This stinks and should get the ultimate amount of attention until Gibbs can no longer show his face in public. We don't need this kind of dishonorable garbage in the Democratic Party. They do not belong in this party. Let the DLC form their own party if they want to, but they don't belong in a party that claims to be for the people.

[madfloridian]

121. The worst was to go on C-Span and brag about it.

I never forgot that conference on C-Span. We were taking notes at the DFA blog about it, and the anger grew.

[Enthusiast]

126. Right on.

We don't need a slimy Rove-like character in our party. Well, maybe we do but not as Press Secretary.

[hootinholler]

26. Has anyone sent this to Keith and Racheal?

:shrug:

-Hoot

[madfloridian]

27. I think Keith covered that ad when it happened. Correct me if wrong.

But I think so.

[jannyk]

29. Thanks. k&r

[sabrina 1]

30. Thanks, I never liked Gibbs, mainly because he

seems so ineffective as a WH press secretary. But until recently I had no idea he was behind the smearing of Howard Dean.

It makes sense, the Rahm wing of the Party has always feared and loathed Dean and I believe that Gibbs' and Rahm's comment are referring to Dean and those who respect him whenever they slam the 'left'.

No wonder the House Dems are worried that they will suffer the fallout from the WH's continued slamming of good democrats.

Tricia Enright, who was the spokeswoman for Howard Dean at the time, summed the ad up best, saying: "Whoever is behind this should crawl out from underneath their rock and have the courage to say who they are." But Robert Gibbs, who was the spokesman for the group, embraced the slime ad against Dean, and refused to say who had funded the ad.

What a slimeball. Dean epitomizes what the Democratic Party ought to be. These people, Gibbs et al are infiltrators who are destroying the party from within. That's my opinion after observing them for a couple of years now. I cannot come to any other conclusion.

Obama needs to distance himself from these people starting with replacing Gibbs. But I won't hold my breath.

[Autumn]

52. Don't hold your breath, those are his people

and Obama is not a stupid man.

[defendandprotect]

79. +1000% . . . but, of course, Obama picked these people -- including Gibbs!!

I know it's hard to look at and recognize --

but they should all go -- Obama/Rahma/Gibbs -- and the whole DLC corporate

cancer INSIDE the Democratic Party!!

I'm quite sure Obama isn't going to distance himself from anything corporate -- ever!!

[sabrina 1]

91. Yes, I'm afraid you're right. We waited and worked eight, long

awful years for this ... so disappointing.

[defendandprotect]

141. I'd really dislike to see this break ALL trust in the Democratic Party . . ..

liberals and progressives within the party have the responsibility now to

remove this cancer --

and voters have the responsibility of asking themselves whether there is anything

left of the Democratic Party worth saving -- let's hope there is, but I'm not sure now!


We have to separate out the DLC from the party and see what's left --

[sabrina 1]

222. It will be hard to prevent the lack of trust, a cynicism from

developing, but I do think that what Grayson and Ellison have done is what real Democrats in Congress need to do now.

They need to separate themselves from the DLC wing of the party and we need to support progressive candidates who are always blocked by the DLC leadership.

I'm hoping that some of the liberal groups, like Moveon et al who basically sold out and went along with being silenced by Rahm eg, will now strike out on their own and realize that the only way to get things done is to stay OUTSIDE the system.

John Aravosis basically revealed how these liberal bloggers had caved to the WH and 'done their dirty work' for them. I believe by that he meant banning anyone who spoke out against this administration, which was happening everywhere in so-called 'liberal communities'. Not that we didn't know waht was going on, but now that they have slapped people like Aravosis in the face anyhow, he seems to be very angry about it.

It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last. I do not trust the 'netroots' as they too are swayed by wanting access and for some, careers in politics.

But there are some groups who have not sold out, who stuck to principles and I hope they start stepping forward and we start supporting them in pushing progressive candidates and shoving this DLC wing out of the party, instead of the other way around as has been happening.

[amborin]

33. K&R

[Lost4words]

34. the true character of this admin shines through the face paint. nt

[mother earth]

35. Well, we are getting transparency, not by gov't, but by people like

you, madfloridian. K & R! Nothing can shock any more, there is no democracy, there is only corporate power and interest. Good men like Dean don't stand a chance, I have long believed he should have won that primary all those years ago, but his early losses were set up, just like the election fraud later that year and four years after once again! The Dean scream was just media hype. They set up who will be the candidates, based on who they want in even as early as the primary, and it's done piece by piece.
Is it any wonder we still don't have the sanctity of the vote? There will be no campaign finance reform, there will be no election reform, the ATM's will continue to be more secure then the voting booth. Health care reform was for the corporate overlords to increase customer numbers, the war machine is perpetual. What a game of illusion.

[madfloridian]

36. I am surprised more did not know about this.

Hubby and I were so furious about it. It took a whole gang of them to "bring him down"....as David Jones stated was their goal. They were proud of it. Wish I could find that video at C-Span...maybe some day.

[spoony]

61. First time I heard of it. Thank you for shining a light on it. nt

[defendandprotect]

80. Wasn't aware cause I don't watch TV -- I saw a bit of the nonsense

they were showing --

Late read that there had been a rigging of back stage mikes -- whatever --

in order to amplify Dean speech and "scream" -- as it was projected onto home Tvs/

living rooms!

Who is David Jones -- he's a Dem, I presume?

Gibbs is obviously a snake -- not someone who should have been selected by Obama --

but what's new? Obama's entire team is corporate/Wall Street and DLC --

Presume also that Gibbs did this on Kerry's behalf --

Thanks, Mad for keeping our heads screwed on straight!!

[JHB]

180. Dean's Scream: Not What It Seemed

CBS report, Jan. 26, 2004:

Before Dean came out onstage, communications director Tricia Enright worked the press in the back of the hall. "He's going to be fiery," she told reporters. She said Dean would walk out on stage, take off his jacket, hand it to Sen. Tom Harkin and roll up his sleeves. Dean, she said, was fired up.

The rest, by now, you know.

What you might not know, because it doesn't play 30 times a day on the cable news channels, is what was happening in the rest of the room. You don't see the visual and you don't hear the audio. The television crews recording the event plug into an audio source picking up Dean's microphone, not the sound of the room. The cameras focus in to a tight shot of the candidate, not the rest of the room.

What you are not hearing is a room with thousands of people screaming and cheering.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/26/politics/main596021.shtml

[blm]

189. Gibbs left Kerry campaign after his boss Jim Jordan, was fired by Kerry. Why would you assume

this was done for Kerry, especially when Kerry immediately condemned the ad, and anyone with a clue to our history knows that the PTB, including in our own party have long hated Kerry? Oh...that's right....you don't have a cl....

[ibegurpard]

37. k&r

fuckers

[Poboy]

39. K&R!

[KoKo]

42. I was willing to give Gibbs a Break even after what he did to Dean...but his latest "incident" prove

he's no friend to Democrats. He's a Triangulator out for himself and himself, alone.

Your Post is more evidence. If Gibbs had gotten a job with Goldman-Sachs out of College he'd be a Hedge Fund Trader now. Instead he's tearing apart the Dem Party for GAIN when Obama throws him out.

[depakid]

43. That was right after being fired from the floundering Kerry campaign...

Once he and other left, the campaign took off.

How about that.

[defendandprotect]

74. Vaguely recall that . . . makes you question what Gibbs is really trying to do?

[karynnj]

110. Cahill is never given the credit she deserves for working with Kerry

on what from then was an exceptionally good primary campaign. Also likely deserving credit were the people closest to Kerry including Teresa, his brother and David Thorne, who had had major differences with Jordan. Many things that they were arguing for that Jordan was against were things that helped when Jordan and Gibbs were out.

Kerry also fired Chris LeHayne - who went to work for Clark.

[blm]

114. Gibbs became untrustworthy...I think Gibbs had no intention of any nominee in 2004 gaining the WH as

the establishment powers had their sights set on 2008. Notice that NONE of these characters did any heavy lifting for 2002, 2004 or 2006.

[LooseWilly]

44. Well I guess that clarifies whether Gibbs meant the initial insults, or the walkback.

Obviously: the insults.

It may be time to go back to a Green registration...

[tritsofme]

45. This was legitimate politicking in the context of the 2004 primaries.

But thanks for the bio info on Gibbs.

[keepCAblue]

46. -1

[madfloridian]

50. Of course it was. Anything goes in politics.

[defendandprotect]

82. Right -- if WE don't use Nixon "dirty tricks" . . . someone else will . . .

if we didn't drop the atomic bomb someone else would have --

if we don't fight them over there we'll have to fight them here --

We have to burn the village to save it!!


Thanks, Mad!

[karynnj]

115. This was not a dirty trick - it was an obnoxious ad

It does not spread lies or distort a record. The only content is asking the question of whether Dean could be CIC - the answer is of course anyone elected President can and will.

The fact is that this ad was given almost no air play and claims - by those who created it - that it had an impact are never backed up. Many things happened in that interval that likely had far greater impact. I would imagine that for voters on the fence between Kerry and Dean - more were shifted by the news of one day a few days before the caucus.

Kerry had an event for Youthbuild, an organization that he has been a Senate sponsor for for decades. His staff received a call from their office in OR that the man Kerry saved in Vietnam wanted to volunteer for Kerry. They quickly got him on a plane and he came to that already scheduled event. What followed looked more like 1940s Kapra movie than 2004 political coverage. Both Kerry and Rassmann were clearly incredibly moved to see each other again. Kerry's obvious emotion showing through his natural reserve, saying that anyone would have saved him. Contrast: that was the day Dean told a 70 something heckler to sit down. On the cable stations these stories ran in series for the rest of the day.

In addition, there was Dean kind of losing it in the debate saying that he did not want to be a pin cushion when what he faced is what any front runner does. Then there was the Dean comment, caught on tape, dissing the caucuses. Add to that a huge blast of negative ads in the Dean/Gephardt war. (Gephardt had every right to be furious that Dean had distorted his record on Medicare or Medicaid and he returned the "favor" speaking of Dean as governor cutting Medicaid - not saying he was required to balance the budget.)

All of these together added up to a big negative for Dean. The same for Gephardt. This made the positive Kerry and Edwards campaigns look relatively more attractive.

Now, back to the ad - if had any real affect against Dean, wouldn't the same affect apply to the younger, less expercienced, less solid Edwards? In that time frame, his polling went up.

[defendandprotect]

140. It was an ad intended to mislead . . . and it did -- a Nixon/Rovian "dirty trick" --

And here's the opinioon of another poster on that -

Back then dirty tricks such as these, I could not have imagined Democrats being involved in. That is pure Rovian! If I had had any idea, I would have been shattered. I thought Dems were united in working on getting rid of Bush. I had hoped for a a Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean ticket when it was all over. Kerry didn't even rate in those days and anyone who had voted for the war was not on my list.

But this is despicable. It shows for certain that they never had the country's best interest at heart. And now I look back and think how angry I used to get at those rightwingers when they would tell me that Dems were mean. I could not imagine it, I thought, naively I know now, that they were the good guys.

This stinks and should get the ultimate amount of attention until Gibbs can no longer show his face in public. We don't need this kind of dishonorable garbage in the Democratic Party. They do not belong in this party. Let the DLC form their own party if they want to, but they don't belong in a party that claims to be for the people.

See Reply #25 --

[karynnj]

147. It was not an ad intending to mislead on any facts -

It expressed an OPINION that someone (like Dean) with no foreign policy experience could not do a good job. The counter - was Dean giving his foreign policy positions and saying they stand on their own merit - which Dean did and Obama did in 2008.

The other poster calls it a dirty trick too - but that doesn't make it so. It is in NO WAY like the Nixon dirty tricks. It is a nasty - and pretty ineffective ad because it uses Bin Laden's picture. As to the charge - every politician uses their differences, Aside from BL, this is no different than Dean saying of all the others that they had no executive experience.

You really need to read about what the Nixon dirty tricks were - they were not ads that a person could accept or reject. (The Boston harbor ad was more of a dirty trick against Dukakis as the mess was not filmed in Boston - Boston shots were mixed in with Texas footage.

Now, as I said in several posts, the ad was disgusting, I will say that Gibbs should be ashamed of it. But, it diminishes how bad Nixon and the SBVT were to put this

[blm]

118. yeah...like calling Kerry Bush-lite when he had the most left record of any candidate

in that primary or any other. THAT was an unfair smear used by some strategists, too. Primary races are full of them.

I love ya, mad, but, it's not fair to let those new to the story only see one aspect of what went on knowing full well they conclude it was Kerry, or being done by establishment Dems FOR Kerry when you know that was certainly NOT the case.

Next time you do this, please give a more complete overview. DLC wanted Dean supporters to target Kerry....that put Kerry's face on their deceits instead of the Dem powerbrokers and Clinton machine who worked throughout those two years and even afterwards to take out both men and minimize their influence.

[liberation]

62. Of course it was...

Imagine if Dean had gotten any traction how screwed Bush could have been... right?

[karynnj]

116. Not really - Dean did not poll that well against Bush

Kerry polled far better.

[Forkboy]

65. Nice post, Triteofme.

[defendandprotect]

81. The Dean speech and "scream" were amplified backstage . . .

had to have been somewhat pre-planned --

it's a Nixon dirty trick -- not something we should expect from Dems --

Evidently they rigged some mikes to AMPLIFY everything being sent back to TVs/living rooms --

the sound was much louder than what was actually happening on site.

[no limit]

99. I suppose you think questioning Obama's birthplace is legitimate too?

[karynnj]

153. No - because it is a matter of fact

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

103. As is exposure of it.

[keepCAblue]

47. No better than the Swiftboaters. Shame on Kerry for Swiftboating one of his own. Ditto for Gibbs. n/

[karynnj]

109. Kerry had NOTHING to do with it and condemned it when it came out

Gibbs worked for Jordan, who Kerry fired in 2003. Gibbs left with him. You might have also noticed that even in the general election, Kerry did not rehire Gibbs - nor has he worked for him at any time later.

As to swiftboating, this is not even close to swiftboating which lied about Kerry's service. This is an ad - bad as it is - that simply gives an opinion that Dean does not have the foreign policy expertise to stand up to Bin Laden. It actually was in reality completely unsucessful.

If you supported Dean, it would not make you change - it would anger you and cause you to make the case for why that is not true. If you were undecided, it provides no facts and reason to believe it was true. (Except for BL, it was no different than Dean saying he alone had executive experience. Dean himself had ads that distorted Kerry's position on the war - that went beyond the true statement that he voted for the IWR.)

[SlingBlade]

48. K & R

Paybacks a Beeyotch !

[madfloridian]

49. I found the 2004 C-Span video when they bragged about this.

The whole thing is over 3 hours long. It is the most unnerving thing I have ever watched politically.


http://c-spanvideo.org/program/184694-1

Here are some notes I and others took while watching it on Dec. 6, 2004.

"C-Span video of the shadowy 527 group formed to "bring Dean down."

You can hear David Jones of Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values at C-Span discuss how he put those 527 ads against Howard Dean
together.

David Jones', short, pithy bit on
what he did in Dec 2003 is about 2:57 into the program. (2 hours 57 minutes in) (Correction: David Jones starts at exactly 3 hours in.)

Enjoy. This guy wrote, funded and produced the ads. This is what happened. Also, there is a Q&A question for Jones at about 3 hrs 24 minutes in, listen to that as
well.


12/06/04
C-span2 LIVE
Campaign Advertising by "527" Groups

David Jones is saying --
"Our main objective was taking down Howard Dean... he was so far ahead... our concern was that maybe we couldn't fulfill our goal, but could take him down a notch... Gore, Carter all seemed to think he was the winner, so it looked like a cake walk for Dean - but we decided Xmas would be too over the top - but when he was taking a dive even before the scream, it seemed too dangerous to disclose the donors..."

Mentions over and over that looked like Dean was inevitable. Amazing revolutionary run...our goal was to knock out Gov Dean out of the Dem primaries. Never used advocacy in the advocacy. Never used the words.

Their polling found weaknesses and exploited them. He just keeps on about Dean...how he really was a moderate. Not surprising, so were most of his supporters.

They admit to bringing him down in Iowa.

He is so clear it is shocking.

....." Posted by _____ at December 6, 2004 01:06 PM

[Catherina]

51. Makes it all even worse. Thanks MF, rec'd. n/t

[sendero]

53. Dean's out... right wing smear monger is in..

.. kinda says a lot about Obama.

[liberation]

63. I can't wait to see which 3D chess move this one is supposed to be...

[Autumn]

54. Gibbs can brush his teeth and kiss

my liberal ass.

[midnight]

55. K&R

[NBachers]

57. Fire Robert Gibbs

Fire Robert Gibbs

[ChiciB1]

108. Do You Think Gibbs Is Saying This WITHOUT The Administration's

"go ahead?" I DOUBT IT!! The Administration is WHO Gibbs speaks for!!

[defendandprotect]

142. Wondering if Obama has acknowledged what happened -- or made a comment today on it???

Maybe he thinks best to ignore it!!

[Kurovski]

58. Kick. (nt)

[Frisbee]

59. If you had left out Gibb's name...

I would have though KKKarl Rove might have been behind it.

edited for spelling

[Kurovski]

60. Kick. (nt)

[Forkboy]

66. I'm stunned by this whole develoment,.

Who would have seen this coming?

[defendandprotect]

83. What . . . this is the third time crap like this has come floating out of White House?

Pelosi has complained to them twice in meetings at White House for their

attacks on Congressional Dems --

And, she was asking same question -- are you trying to guarantee a Dem loss?

[Dinger]

68. Wow, Good Catch

K & R madfloridian! What the hell is going on here??? Wait, it's obvious.

[Blue_Tires]

69. interesting...

thanks for connecting this dot...

[Jamastiene]

70. K&R

I'm not surprised. Gibbs really seems to have a history of hating on the left, doesn't he?

[defendandprotect]

73. DLC is a cancer INSIDE the Democratic Party . . .

working to move the party to the right -- all the way to the GOP right --

[ProSense]

84. This is a rumor. It's been around

for a long time, and there is no proof that Gibbs had anything to do with it.

In fact, Dean loyalists use it to try to justify why he lost, but that isn't reality.

[madfloridian]

85. Are you in total denial? Yes, he did.

He was head of the group. That is just wistful thinking on your part.

It must get tiring.

[Shining Jack]

90. Yep.

Deep in denial like a crocodile.

[Lost4words]

112. or a slug in the mud

[moksha]

150. LOL!

You love to bury that pretty little head of yours.:rofl:

[wisteria]

86. It wasn't illegal and I really do not think this was responsible for Dean's primary loss.

It was a primary and primary opponents take each other on-even indirectly. I don't care for these types of ads with unfamiliar group names sponsoring them, and I discourage people from taking them seriously. But, unfortunately, people do.

Personally, I think the Swift Boat Ads run against Senator Kerry gained more attention and did more damage than this ad against Governor Dean.

[madfloridian]

88. Not my point. I did not use the word illegal. Not about his losing.

It's about a group of Democrat banding together and bringing down a fellow Democrat and then bragging about it on C-Span.

Video

http://c-spanvideo.org/program/184694-1

"12/06/04
C-span2 LIVE
Campaign Advertising by "527" Groups

David Jones is saying --
"Our main objective was taking down Howard Dean... he was so far ahead... our concern was that maybe we couldn't fulfill our goal, but could take him down a notch... Gore, Carter all seemed to think he was the winner, so it looked like a cake walk for Dean - but we decided Xmas would be too over the top - but when he was taking a dive even before the scream, it seemed too dangerous to disclose the donors..."

Mentions over and over that looked like Dean was inevitable. Amazing revolutionary run...our goal was to knock out Gov Dean out of the Dem primaries."

I am tired of rationalizing everything away.

[wisteria]

89. I get your point, but it was primary season and these kinds of things always go on.

The fact that Dean was the target really doesn't seem unfair, he was the supposed front runner and they didn't like him. But, they didn't have to rub it in on C-Span-that served no good purpose at all.

[madfloridian]

221. Dem political operatives formed 527 to take down a candidate.

It's getting worse now with billionaires buying the election in Florida.

[fogonthelake]

93. Whow. Thanks for the post.

[Senator]

94. K&+R

[disillusioned73]

95. I had no clue about this...

it sure puts things in perspective.

Gibbs needs to be resigned ASAP :mad:

[w4rma]

96. At least Obama has put most of the DLCers in politics all under one roof, where they can be

identified and eventually removed from politics forever.

[Frisbee]

101. Thanks for digging this up madfloridian,

you're a gem! DU is very fortunate to have you and people like you. Keep up the good work!

[MissDeeds]

102. K&R

Obama sure surrounds himself with some quality people, doesn't he? What does that say about him? I think the answer is becoming clearer every day.

[Enrique]

104. now THAT is professional

Gibbs makes the "professional left" look like amateurs.

[ChiciB1]

107. Oh, We HAVE BEEN So Raked Over The Coals & Now The Democratic Party

that so many of us knew and loved seems to be GONE!! It's really quite sickening, but even more it's almost FATAL!

This country will PAY for this and it won't be the ones in power who will get hurt! It's going to be those of us, "we the people" who worked so hard and did what we always do for the Democratic Party! But IMO, this Administration doesn't represent the Democratic Party I've ever known!

A friend of mine passed away a couple of days ago and we mourned because we loved him so much! Now I wonder if he isn't really in a better place! And that's saying a MOUTH FULL!! NEVER, NEVER would I have thought it could have gotten this bad!! But BAD IT IS and for people to defend this here at DU is almost too much for me to comprehend!

But then, I can SEE and HEAR what is going on so IT MUST BE TRUE!!

[MissDeeds]

132. + 1000

You speak for me too, ChiciB1. It's beyond disgusting. I received the 2010 Presidential Survey in the mail yesterday. With all the comments I wrote, I doubt I'll be hearing from them again. They will be hearing from me, though.

[ChiciB1]

154. I Haven't Received A Survey Yet... But Then I Probably WON'T! I Have

written to DSCC, DCCC and other organizations that keep asking me for money and told them that THEY DON'T need my money because they have BIGGER FISH to get it from. Basically told them to "kiss off" because I was so P/O'ed myself.

I AM seeing that some people changing their minds about Obama a little. Not so starry-eyed as before, but some who still are drinking the Kool-Aid!

I'm afraid I'm NOT seeing what THEY'RE seeing from our "anointed ones" these days! I'm either on a higher perch, or on the lower rung! Not sure where I fit in as I've stated so often these days!

[MissDeeds]

170. The survey took some time to complete

As a life long Dem who has serious concerns, there was much I wanted to say. I did let them know that I take considerable exception to comments by Rahm and Gibbs, and would not contribute time or money to an administration that had such callous disregard for a significant portion of its voters. Don't know if they'll read it, but at least I got to state some of my many concerns.

BTW - I love your sig line!!! You owe me a new keyboard.:rofl:

[Lost4words]

111. To do this to Dean is beyond comprehension

its like Reagan negotiating with Iran to keep the hostages until after the election between Ronnie and Jimmy Carter.

its trully shameful

[karynnj]

117. No it isn't - it's a terrible ad

but it is nothing like illegal covert negotiations with a foreign country.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

119. Yep this is who they are

Fuck them all and whoever defends this kind of behavior.

[mike r]

120. Nah, that was just an inartful little ad

Inartful: Awkwardly expressed but not necessarily untrue; ill-phrased; etc.
:sarcasm:

[VMI Dem]

123. Was not aware of this. Thank you for posting this. Recommend.

[G_j]

124. K&R

:wow:

[texastoast]

125. I am such a babe in the woods

The depths of slime continue to amaze me. Kick

[BrklynLiberal]

127. One more kick..what the hell..

[iamthebandfanman]

128. k&r n/t

[pgodbold]

131. Gibbs, don't let the screen door hit your fat ass on the way out.

[pleah]

133. K&R

[JustAnotherGen]

134. This is a very interesting read

And I thank all who have contributed to this thread. This evening I will come back to this because I want to listen to the C-Span recording. I was sooooo focused on Clark - I missed the rest I'm sad to say. My focus was on the man my dad calls Crazy Wes (they served together as peers in the military) because Crazy Wes went balls-to-the-walls in the field.

[CLANG]

136. This just makes me ill. Fuck You Gibbie!

[Poboy]

137. .

[Greyhound]

138. You got a mention on Thom Hartmann today.

People are reading you.

Keep it up and another good job.

[madfloridian]

149. I did not know that.

Thanks for letting me know.

[Phlem]

139. Didn't Mr. President do the same thing

on Fox news trying to get the health care bill passed?

I don't think Mr. President is void of influence in his cabinet and this might be a reflection of the whole administration from the top down.

-p

[ibegurpard]

155. you got it

[madfloridian]

157. CBS Dec. 2203...Dean campaign used the ad to raise $459,541

Secretive '527' Group Uses Bin Laden Image To Attack Howard Dean

If the harsh criticism of Dean were not enough to make the ad of interest, a controversy over AJHPV's funding has drawn further attention. AJHPV has refused to disclose its financial backers and the IRS does not require 527s to file until January 31, after the first two make-or-break primaries. At the moment, it appears that the group has more than a passing connection with one of Dean's opponents, Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt. The group's new president, former Rep. Ed Feighan, has contributed $2,000 to the Gephardt presidential campaign, and former Gephardt fund-raiser David Jones is the group's treasurer. The Washington Post reported that the Gephardt-endorsing Machinists Union has made a "substantial contribution" to AJHPV. Leo Hindery, Gephardt's national finance co-chair, is also a "backer of AJHPV."

Gephardt campaign press secretary Erik Smith tells CBS News that the campaign "has no involvement at all" with AJHPV, although they have pointed reporters to the group's Web site. On a conference call today, Gephardt told reporters, "I haven't seen the ads and I have no knowledge of who is doing this and why they're doing it. For my part, I wish they would reveal who is doing this through the organization. I led the fight for campaign finance reform and, as part of that, we put additional requirements on reporting from 527 organizations. If I wanted to run ads of this kind, I would run them."

AJHPV's new spokesman is former John Kerry press secretary Robert Gibbs, who left the Massachusetts senator's campaign when his boss, Jim Jordan, was fired.

Here's the best part of the Dean campaign. We managed to raise lots of money from such as that ad. I remember this very well, and we did our share of donating.

Making lemonade out of lemons, the Dean campaign is using the anti-Dean ad to raise money. Dean for America put up a fundraising "bat" on its Web site designed to turn his supporters' ire at the attacks into cold, hard cash. The Web site features a full rundown of the ad and its surrounding controversy, explaining that "Democrats are better than this" and urging supporters to contribute to "show that we're going to keep fighting." So far the ad has brought in $459,541 for Dean.

[blm]

168. and.............????

why are people on this thread thinking Kerry did this and why are they thinking Kerry was any way part of the establishment powerbrokers out to sabotage the entire vote? Could it be that some important factors have been left out?

[madfloridian]

177. I don't know, blm. I never made that part of my post.

[blm]

190. well, it appears those paying little attention at the time will now be pushing the idea Kerry was

behind this - they know so little that stuff likes this becomes all they see and their conclusions are predictably absurd.

[madfloridian]

191. That is not my problem.

My post is directed at Gibbs and his disrespect of those on the left.

[Sebastian Doyle]

193. Ummm....

You're the one who keeps bringing Kerry into this thread.

[blm]

194. I'm correcting the BS that's being thrown in his direction because parts of the story were left out

and the lazyminded who only read excerpts without delving into the whole story are assuming Kerry was behind the ad.

So...would you prefer the misconceptions NOT be corrected?

[Sebastian Doyle]

196. This thread is about what a fucking complete piece of treasonous shit Gibbs is

It wasn't about Kerry until you brought him into it.
Did Gibbs work for Kerry at one point? Yes.
Did Kerry benefit from this slanderous shit ad? Obviously.
Do I blame Kerry for it? No. I blame Lee Karl Atwater Rove Gibbs.

[blm]

200. wwrong....I responded to those who assumed Kerry was behind it not knowing Gibbs followed Jordan out

the door when Kerry FIRED him.

Kerry didn't benefit the way its assumed. His ground numbers had been rising since Nov. from his constant engaging of voters on the ground, the CONSISTENT strength of his debate performances, and his muscular presence in so many communities, esp through vet groups and firefighters. The media wouldn't talk about it so it was assumed Kerry was dead in the water and the national media treated him like it, even hectoring him to drop out. Unfortunately, Dean supporters believed the media portrayal of the primary then because it was what they wanted to see. So...it was also easy for media to add to their disappointment by turning it into anger that included Kerry, himself, as their target.

Why? Kerry was enemy #1 to the fascists who controlled most broadcast media. It was nothing for them to find ways to direct anger from Dean supporters towards Kerry.
Corpmedia had to do whatever they could to protect Bush for a second term. BTW....when did newscorporations make the call to give Dean campaign a press plane? Do you remember the exact time period?


Press Room: Press Releases

June 2, 2003
Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"

Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules. Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said: "Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

[ibegurpard]

198. jesus blm

do you have an alarm hooked up somewhere to alert you whenever anything even remotely CONSTRUED negatively about Kerry is said on the internet?
This isn't really about Kerry
Having said that, though, he was a lousy candidate.
But I think he would've been a decent president.

[blm]

204. I'm correcting those who assumed Kerry was part of this or that Dem establishment did it for him,

and especially since it has been clear for some time that establishment Dems would do anything to throw Kerry to the curb, just as they have done for over twenty years. You may not be bothered that even Dems have been dumbed down, but, I can't STAND that level of ignorance and have every right to correct lies and false assumptions.

[wisteria]

199. I with you BLM, this "story" could have been told without naming

other primary candidates-if in fact it was just suppose to be about Gibbs.

[madfloridian]

206. No, it could not. The ones in the 527 were from Dem candidates...

And the story could not have been told without mentioning that.

They were the political operatives, many of them the same ones populating Obama's cabinet.

Like Gibbs.

[wisteria]

211. If this was about a dirty political trick that Gibbs was behind, then there was no need to drag

any of the other candidates into this.

[blm]

212. and some of them had been Dean supporters, too, but didn't make Dean culpable

did it? The point is that YOU know the fuller story, and as the OP you could have corrected those jumping to a conclusion tarring Kerry that you KNEW to be false. Ignorance is dangerous ALWAYS, and shouldn't be fostered or allowed to steep.

It's a matter of integrity, mf. You HAVE integrity...I know that. Truth matters....ALL the time.

[madfloridian]

213. I could only post snips due to copyright. Just leave it be.

I could not post it all. I assume people read links which clarified things.

[blm]

214. I wish...but they didn't. Even those who call themselves Dem activists can be lazyminded when they

WANT to be.

[Sebastian Doyle]

197. Sometimes I really miss The Bat!

[IndianaGreen]

167. K&R

Thank you for telling us about Gibbs' sordid past. He's a piece of work!

:kick:

[Electric Monk]

187. I wish I'd known this sooner. k&r

[havocmom]

201. he is toast or we conclude Obama is OK with this crap

Kick

[UpInArms]

215. gee, Gibbs and Ari Flyshitter are starting to look an awful lot alike.

:puke:

[ozone_man]

216. Kick for exposing Gibbs as a slimeball.

That attack Ad was atrocious.

[Snazzy]

217. MEANWHILE--Obama holds his first military tribunal at Gitmo

Some key points I've noted:

--For a child (when captured)
--Testimony extracted under torture admisable
--It is now a war crime to attack a USA uniformed soldier in a war zone

And simultaneously at Gitmo, a secret Fed plea deal where the sentence for Osama's former cook is a state secret. This is something completely new in American jurisprudence, the secret sentence.

------------

So, what is the professional left busy with? Calling Gibbs an asshole.

I think, as top shelf flack, he can handle that just fine. (So shed no tears fan-boys.)

Remarkably, what we aren't talking about is torture and Gitmo. You know, actual evil shit done in our names. Would suck to have an actual national dialog about that.

Oh, who'd bring it up? Who would actually talk about Gitmo, tribunals, our wars, torture, etc.?

That's right kids, the professional left, whoever that is (I doubt Gibbs really knows exactly who he means either). I mean, NOW we know who the "professional left" is: the professional left is anyone incensed by the term "professional left."

I think Gibbs hit it out of the park in a spectacular feat of misdirection and political calculation.

I mean, if I were say Tylenol Inc., and I had a big stack of poisoned pills I just had to sell, well, he'd win a spot right the fuck at the top of the short list.

Was it news that Obama burned the left? No, it wasn't, not to the left. But it sure is now. The limited attention span is amazing, owning the news cycle is amazing!

And, as always, don't think there's just one level to this stinky onion. But I think you'd be hard pressed to find issues so contrary to Obama the candidate positions as what is happening, today, at Gitmo.

[Safetykitten]

218. Well a gentlemen has to earn a living. A meal ticket is a meal ticket. Can't be choosey.