Reply #10: Oh, then he should know tons about Kerry [View All]

and his involvement in Iran/Contra.

It may be well-written, but it is also quite wrong.

I emailed them with this response:

"Four things I would like to point out.

1. Kerry will be in Iraq for the first two weeks of January. He will therefore not be in Congress on Jan. 6th, nor is it fair to expect him to be when he's not even in town. Hardly makes him a coward, being in Iraq. I'm proud of him for going there. I just hope he doesn't get "Wellstoned."

2. It was not a crime that he conceeded on Nov. 3rd. There was nothing concrete that he could have hung on to, no hard evidence to point to at that point. He didn't even have the popular vote (near as we could tell right then, anyway.) The very last thing we needed in this process was another "Sore Loserman" or the media circus that would have gone with it. The Republicans would have been on high alert and fighting tooth and nail. As it is, I've been happy to see Kerry sticking his nose in the recount in Washington, the runoff elections in Louisiana, and in keeping the lawsuits going in Ohio. Quietly, mind you. But he is indeed there. So he is involved in the investigation of voter irregularities. He's just not grandstanding. Smart, I say.

3. It really, really needs to be someone other than Kerry or Edwards who stands up at this point. It needs to be "We the people" not the candidate himself.

4. Many Democrats are shouting about fraud, but many are not. I would dare say most are not, at least none by me. While I want to see election reform, I have no delusions about getting a President Kerry at this point. What I do have is a Senator Kerry, one who has promised to fight for children's health care, election reform and against the Bush agenda. I don't need a "Gore-d" toothless Senator laughingstock. I need someone who is still viable on his home turf, the Senate.

Sincerely
One of those intensely loyal Kerry supporters you may have read about in Newsweek
Erica ________"