Kerry has just disappointed me - Big Time! (Walt Starr was right!)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=20875

Dammit, Dammit, Dammit!!!

I know it's still early; I really liked Kerry, but this last thing is the last straw. I am very disappointed, right now.

Walt, if you are here... you were right, my friend. It's one thing to say we need to move beyond last election(although I understand the anger for the way he said it, i.e. "get over it"). But this latest line is a real slap in the face. A double whammy against Gore, and against those who know who won the election. And especially to use the whole "internet invention" thing, which has been so thorougly debunked the only ones repeating it are FReepers.

Screw John Kerry, this takes the cake. Looks like it's down to Dean or Clark(if and when) for me.

Flame away. I'm Pissed.

and doubt he will back Joe. So who?

I don't think Gore will come out specifically for anyone.
If he does I think it will be Edwards.(I'm sure someone will say Dean.) As a matter of fact, Gore's going to Figure Eight Island next week, in NC, where both he and Edwards have houses. Wonder if they'll talk.

But honestly, he won't say anything until the nomination is in the bag, IMO.

You may be taking this too seriously.

What you should be pissed about (as I am) is Kerry repeating the lie on C-SPAN last week about the inspectors being "kicked out" of Iraq in 1998.

Why he continues to say this mystifies me. I'm starting to think if Clark enters the fray, I could flip to his campaign...

Goof line or not...

Completely inappropriate! Utterly stupid. Think about it, who's his base? Is he trying to get Bush votes?

I support the guy, sue me.

But, like I said previously, he's been disappointing me like he has you...

I was a Kerry fan for him to lose, and he has done it. With his "move on" comment, his voting, and now this! it's not one issue, the man can't seem to stop kicking his base constituency square in the nuts. One too many was a long time ago, this isn't just about one statement, his actions over the prior 8 months before this statement have been more than enough to alienate me:)

But it shows that he is out of touch with the Democratic rank and file.

till it kicks bush* out of the WH!!!!!

Kucinich/Sharpton! I like that alot. The only two voices in this debate, so far, to consistantly speak the truth and not dodge questions! You may say that Dennis has the ideas but lacks the charisma, or you might say Al has the charisma, but lacks the ideas (either statement IMO is untrue), but together they make one hell of a team. I like it a lot!

ex-kerry supporter turned dean convert, thank you DU for the info:)

So I change my vote in that Dean supporters' second choice poll last week to Edwards.

Stupid, Mr. Kerry. Damned stupid.

...

I have the video of him saying "Get Over it" re the election...I get steamed everytime I see it.

that look less like gaffes than bad judgment leaking out at spectacularly bad times, not set up but from his own gut reactions.

I know WE would like to rewire certain pols with better priorities, common sense and high road unity but if this is how it is we have to bluntly ask(in terms at least of brutal campaigning) which of their characteristics are fatal to electoral chances and which can be overcome.

You can write off various weakness various ways and should not expect inhuman pure progressives with godlike charisma for winning, but I think we here will be less surprised how the people will get this in the ACTUAL primary vote.

I dread making predictions when Karl Rove is ready to blow away the end results(after the Dems bleed themselves). And if Clark ever signs on from his long soul-searching in the Cuomo Wilderness. I just think Kerry and Dean may manage to knock themselves out in spectacular fashion. It shouldn't happen, but I remember deciding smart people would end the unwinnable Vietnam War.

Does the Devil make us do it?

I felt similar when Kucinich named a congressman on Hardball. I think they're all vulnerable to making dumb statements once in a while.

It'll pass. What blows my mind is the notion that that should be enough to turn people off supporting him/them. Come ON already! Does a stupid joke or statement change the platform? No. Does it mean they're suddenly horrible people? No. Get past it for pity's sake! I bad judgement call, so EH! We're all guilty of that!

Doesn't it seem awfully minor to you? I don't like it either, but it doesn't affect what I think of Kerry, it's not like he does this all the time. In fact, Kerry has mostly been talking about his own policies, as have all the other Dems.

though he won't show it outwardly, kerry is freaking out, he's getting desparate, he's gonna pull out all punches... it will get worse...

his being the nominal frontrunner is already forgotten history and he knows it... and he has dean to thank for that...

Do any of you think that Kerry was saying that Gore claimed he invented the Internet?

"to which Kerry responded with a smirk: "Well, the last person I heard who claimed he had invented the Internet didn't do so well."

Does anyone believe that Kerry believes the myth?

refuting it gives it more validity in the eyes of the sheeple. Either way you look at it, it was completely irresponsible and foolish.

He might have *'s disease, not thinking before he speaks. Any denigration of Al Gore does not sit well with dems who supported him once and still would if he was running.

Why can't candidate supporters just say hey, that was a dumb thing to say?

Of COURSE he was saying Gore claimed to have invented the internet!
That's the whole 'joke' of the joke.

Even though neither Dean, nor Gore, claimed anything of the sort.
Not to mention Gore's "not doing so well".

He was making a joke, but it was ill stated and he should have said something else. It's irritating.

when he said we need to "get over" the election. That's why I am letting Walt Starr know he was right all along. Cause What you are saying now is what I said the last time.

How many passes should the guy get?

He got from me. He is done...stick a fork in him.

Cruel, lie-perpetuating, and unfunny.

Do we want more of that kind of humor?

it was a jab at gore that "he didn't do so well." meaning he lost the election (sounds awfully familiar to his "get over it" comment)... like kerry or not, this was NOT a nice, funny OR politically smart thing to do.

That Bush was appointed by SCOTUS.

I'm new here, but have followed things on this site for quite some time.

I too am a Dean supporter and wonder why people are surprised with either democratic candidates take pot shots at him.

The republicans are scared of him, democrats like Leiberman, Kerry and Gephardt are scared of him as well because he has the best chance as of right now.

To think that Bush & Co., haven't been trying their best to dig up some dirt on Dean is crazy... and what's crazier is that people in the Democratic party are doing the same... sad, very sad.

Democratics need to unite... time is already running out. If we don't make a front soon, (ie. prior to the end of the year) you might as well kiss the donkey goodbye.

Everybody out there is doing thier best to keep us fragmented, and they are actually winning.

People need to stop thier bickering and find common ground and take this country back!

And extremely motivated as well.

Excellent 1st post!

Kerry lost my support when he voted for the war. I will, however, support him if he is the Democratic nominee. But I hope Dean gets the nomination! I like the way Dean is not afraid to take bush on, unlike the bush-lite dems!

I can't wait to see Dean in person in Falls Church, VA, on 23 Aug!!!

based on this. I can support a man I don't respect. It is just annoying. So damned annoying that our own people help perpetuate lies that they should have been helping to stop the first time around.

Kerry isn't alone in this kind of behavior, I don't think anyone is exempt from foot-in-mouth disease. He's still my #2. But instead of wanting to shake his hand and listen to him talk about his war experience, I want to shake his hand and tsk, tsk him instead.

is off my dance card.

Kerry projects the attitude of someone who feels that he's the heir-apparent to the throne...and Dean just doesn't do "It" for me.

If we can do that, then I'm supporting Thomas Jeffersons and screw these other weasals.

I'm up for the real GDubya, George Washington that is:)

Kerry has some logic problems to boot.

I've been down on Kerry since the Iraq war vote.

As others have pointed out, it was a joke. Mabye not standup material, but hardly malicious.

Lighten up, Francis.

Calling me a crying baby helped me see the error of my ways.

Back on board the Kerry boat now, too. Thanks.

Props.

Time to stop whining and support our obvious nominee - Kerry.

I was being sarcastic.

SHHHH!!! Don't tell anyone.

BTW, which part of you has the biscuit?

John does not approve of sarcasm and will not accept any votes from sarcastic people.

1. I told you not to tell anyone, and you go and tell Kerry. As for what Kery thinks, I could give a damn at this point.
2. Kerry is a better joke teller than you. Which isn't saying much. You both need to keep your day jobs.
3. Calling me a whining baby, is kinda like having John Kerry call Al Gore a liar. No offense, but you can both go screw.
4. You never answered my question.

Have a nice day!:)

Looks like the repukes have convinced Kerry that Al actually said that. Not smart, Mr. Kerry. It's bad enough we have to hear that crap from the right....sheesh!

at that other military fella who's fixing to announce.

Clark, myself. He is a true outsider, unlike Dean.

Pretty god damn pathetic, but par for the course with you.

The DU has been disappointing me for years.
:)

I still hear bright, educated people joke about Al
and the intenet.

Hypersensitivity over 2000 gets us nowhere. Let's face
it Gore made a statement that was easily exploited by
the political opposition and like all pols they used it
to their advantage. We do this on this board with Bush's
dumb statements every day. If Bush had said it the Dems
would have had a field day.

And I know all the usual responses :

That's a Republican talking-point!(and who gave it to the Pubbies?)

Read the Daily Howler !(I'm sure those swing-voters read the Howler
all the time).

You must be getting paid by Karl Rove !!(Karl's check is late this
month - he must be in Crawford).


The fault for the internet gaffe lies with Gore, not Kerry, not
the Pubbies, not late night comedians. Tragically this along
with some other dumb mistakes cost just enough votes to put that
dipshit in the White House.

Why don't you try READING the daily howler link.

Anyone with HALF of a QUARTER of a brain, knows that Gore's comment was completely taken out of context.

Even the guys who are credited with developing the TCP/IP protocol stack gave Gore props for his active role in the promoting the whole thing.

Unless of course you believe the idea of Al sitting around with a few wires and bolts in an MIT basement.

No matter what amount of truth may have been
contained or intended it was still a big mistake
because it was easily converted in damning sound bites.
That's a unforced error and a better politician wouldn't
have made it.

The fact that it's still joked about today shows just how
big a mistake it was. In politics perception is 100
times more important than reality.

A politician who needs the Howler to give tortured explanations
of his statements is a poor politician.

So basically what you're saying is that it's Al's fault that he was taken out of context because he did not spell out something specifically, which is actually quite complicated from both a technological and legislative standpoint. Because people and reporters/pundits who are not technologically or legislatively literate attacked him, it's his fault. He should have been a lot smarter in that interview, and stated "I take credit for introducing legislation that allowed the development of the Internet as we know it today. I was not sitting in a basement with Vint Cerf, working out binary representations of the TCP/Ip Protocol stack and how it relates to the OSI model. But since so many of you are unfamiliar with this technology, I need to explain this so that IF at some point I were to say that I 'invented' the Internet, people will understand that I did not mean it literally."

So it's his fault for not saying this? And even if it is, how does Kerry's comment help us beat Bush? And why would Kerry even want to degrade another Democrat, who isn't even running?

Oh yeah, and how come our press doesn't respnd the same way to Bush's innumerable gaffes and misstatements? And wouldn't it be more important for Kerry to make jokes about them?

because the statement he made is so easy to portray
as a claim that he invented the internet. Remember
that politics is a game of sound bites and he who has the
best bites usually wins. Al gave the Pubbies a great sound bite
that did not benefit him at all.

Should have gone into a long drawn out explanation of his
role in the 'net?

No!

He should have kept his mouth shut.

Never give your opponents the ammunition to beat you.

Al didn't understand that and that's why that war mongering
asshole is in the WH.

He was taking credit for helping to promote, and legislatively enabling what has become a great achievement.

We wouldn't be having this debate if it were not for that achievement. There is nothing wrong with him taking credit, and no he should NOT have kept his mouth shut.

Funny, you're saying Gore should have kept his mouth shut because his quote could be taken out of context. Does that apply to Kerry as well?

we wouldn't be having this debate.

There would be an internet today if there were no
Al Gore. The statement as worded was a mother-lode
for the other side. Even if you can spend a half hour
and justify it the average swing-voter (and they're the
ones that matter) has tuned out after 2 minutes.

If you were Al Gore and had the opportunity to go back in
time and not make this statement wouldn't you do so?

I'm sure Al would erase this if he could but unfortunately
the damage is long since done.

Politics is about perceptions.

If you were Al Gore and had the opportunity to go back in
time and not make this statement wouldn't you do so?

No friggin way.

If you were a partisan media whore hack whose job it was to turn the achievements of hard-working, capable and intelligent policy makers into lies so that an unelected, illegitimate , lying and moronic fraud and you had the opportunity to take back words that tainted the integrity of a decent man, and abetted the rape of our Democracy, would you?

I agree with you here:
Politics does flow from perceptions. That is why it important to have an objective and credible press.

It doesn't matter if an unspeakably stupid statement
has some truth to it. In politics it going to be used against
you. The solution is not to change all the rules of
politics and the entire US communication structure.


The solution is not to make stupid statements. It's
Politics 101. Al should know that but then he should
have known that before his Love Story statement or the
tenent in the dump or Naomi Wolf fiascos. All can be
explained away (maybe, probably) but the people who matter
in the electorate look at things superficially. Showing
up at three debates with three different personalities
makes one look bizarre.

Al knew or should have known the US political game. It's
quite obvious that he didn't. He should have won by 5 million
votes.

You are beating a dead horse. The idea that one should alter one's discourse in a Democracy - FOR ANY F'ING REASON - is so beyond the pale that I am simply not going to keep this charade of a conversation up anymore.

I can see why, following your logic, you would say I "don't get it". Have it your way.

Some of us still believe in a representative Democracy.

for the opposition to use. This is and has always
been the case. And the other guys are not going to
slant things your way. Both sides do this and all
candidates have to be aware of this.

The rules aren't going to change. Next years candidate
is going to face the same thing. Let's hope he knows how
to work the rules to his advantage.

Whining about the way politics is played is for losers.
Clinton was a disappointment in a lot of ways but he
knew how to play politics.

Al didn't.

it is especially prevelent in folks that have left abusive relationships and/or religious cults. It is called enabling.

See, Kerry has once again repeated an oft repeated and untrue reich-wing mantra. A Kerry supporter with who-knows-what goin' on in their world rushes to his defense......It's like an abused woman who doesn't blame the hubby for this last beating, nope, it was the kids bein' loud that woke him up!!

Silly!

Julie

As anyone who's been paying attention knows, the pukes have dozens of hatchet guys on the payroll whose job is to twist anything said by any Dem politician that can make the Dems look bad, ugly, dishonest or dumb - or anything else negative. They'll find something to twist - no matter actually is said or meant.

When it's the Dem presidential candidate they will examine every syllable to twist it out of its original meaning and then use their well-documented shouting whores on the AM radio and phony cable pundits to blast it all over where it will be picked up as news by the mainstream media.

But when they suceed at this dishonest practice you feel it's somehow OK to condemn Gore for "giving them the opportunity".

How silly - no how disingenuous. You're just using Gore's misfortune of being caught in their trap to further your own agenda - just like Kerry was.

Try reading Gore's Scientific American article from Sept of '91 and look into the background of what he really did in congress - which was considerable to get key legislation passed that made the internet possible. Then read his actual statement with that in mind - or is that too much trouble now that you've already thrown your poision dart.

Well said.

If you make a stupid statement that gives
your opponents enormous ammunition it's the
oppositions fault for using it ??????

<the pukes have dozens of hatchet guys on the payroll whose job is to twist anything said by any Dem politician that can make the Dems look bad, ugly, dishonest or dumb >

There's a name for this. It's called politics. It's the way the game is played. Some people can play it and some people can't.
Whining about the rules of the game is not the way to win. Al
Gore has been calling himself a politician long enough to
know that a pols statements are going to be parsed.

That's politics.

If I were a candidate and I said the sky was blue, it would be my fault if political opponents called me a liar, because technically the sky has no real color, rather it is the projection of the sun's photons through the Earth's atmosphere that makes it appear blue?

Per your logic, no one would be able to say anything. That's progress!

Here's a clue, since you seem to need one, perhaps candidates SHOULD take more definitive stands on where they stand, SHOULD figth back strongly against those who twist their words against them, SHOULD start standing up for us, the PEOPLE. Maybe then our precious 4th estate would get a backbone and start doing it's job instead of shilling for those who will produce more profits for them.

Wake up.

Do you really think that if Gore had not said that - the pukes would have sat back and said - "Gee, what can we do, that Al Gore is such a good straight talkin guy, we can't catch him on anything."?

Of course not, they certainly had a dozen or more statements ready that they could turn into a faux gaffe (wow, I'm speakin French) at a moments notice.

They picked that one (and a couple of others) only because they tested well. And they poured their resources into publicising them.

And no - that's not politics. That's crap. If we have to win by turning politics into a WWF smack down where only the most scummy lies and dirty tricks win the day - then you can have it.

If the pukes want to continue running in the slime - I'm hoping the middle of the road Americans will eventually see how they've been gamed and reject it. But if that doesn't happen - I'm ready for Canada. But I will not become like them in order to win - and I won't vote for any Dem politician who uses those lieing decietful tactics.

I'm sorry I've forgotten. What was the name of the guy
who made those statements ?

"the democratic candidate for president".

One who understands that words have implications
and can and will be used against you.

. . to blame Gore.

You will see that whichever Dem candidate rises to the top of the heap - the same dirty tactics will be used against them. The deck is stacked. There is no way they can conduct a campaign without saying enough that will not give them the ammunition they need to do it.

What makes it work is the talk radio jerk offs and the RW pundits echoing the talking points (lies) relentlessly.

Our only hope is that enough mainstream media types will feel guilty enough by this now well-known strategy not to participate this time and slam home the twisted lies for the RNC.

Of course, that assumes their jobs will still be intact if they don't.

If you try hard to explain yourself so you are understood - you use more words that would be needed in a vacuous sound bite.

And those words become ammunition that your opponent can take out of context and use aginst you - especially if they only want to win and are not concerned with the actaul meaning of a candidate's statements and positions.

But you are a smart person and already know that don't you?

The rules were the same when he ran. But he knew
how to use his carefully and to his advantage. That's
why we have Roves and Carvilles - to make sure the image
is what you want the public to see.

They NEVER used Clinton's words against him. Too funny.

Remember that little two letter word?

Damn, you must not get around much, cause they're still using his words against him and the Democrats, and the guy's been out of office for 3 years now.

Quit while you're behind.

Al wasn't.

And wouldn't Dems have had fun with a Pubbie talking about
the meaning of "is" ? Of course they would. It's a part of
the game. Clinton could play it and win. Gore couldn't.

You really don't get it. It's the nature of politics.

He never was able to deflect the criticism. The majority of people just didn't give a crap about a private affair.

You should try and visit Freeperland. It may give you some new insight into their perspective on Clinton AND Gore.

It's the way we feel about Bush.

Clinton won twice and his wife is now a contender despite
having publications and books dedicated just to bashing
him and his wife.


He suffered the slings and arrows and came out on top.
The affair itself would have destroyed a lesser politician.

He could play the political game. Al couldn't.

I think they discovered the true power of word-twisting in '99 or thereabouts. They put their "talking points publication syndicate" together during the impeachment and used it for less sophisticated smear tactics to paint Clinton as a sexual predator. That's where all their energy was focussed.

They had that whole organization intact and ready to kill Gore with it - and time to figure out the most potent tactics for using it. They realized that using his own words against him (suitably twisted to match the image they wanted the voters to see) was far better and more effective than just saying untrue things about him like they did with Clinton. Rove?

It's much harder to refute or explain your own words than the opponents. It worked so well I'm sure they're getting it ready for the dem front-runner - whoever that may be. Just wait.

(Edited spelling)

It's politics - go back and look at the history
of Presidential (and other) elections. Go back
to 1964 and look at the way the Barry Goldwaters statements
were used against him (by Democrats). The parsing of statements
has become more intense since the advent of mass media and
the fact that all quotes are recorded. You'd better be careful
of what you say and how you say it. And that applies to both sides.


"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice". They put a sheet
on Goldwater for that quote. What happened in 2000 is nothing new.

Another Goldwater sound bite slogan was "In your heart, you know he's right".

Me and my friends came up with "In your heart, you know he's a fart".

I don't disagree that word twisting has not always been some part of politics. But the pukes have refined this to a new level entirely - with the use of focus groups and their syndicated talking heads.

They will try to use it to great effect.

I just think we should be focussed on the dirty way they are doing this - and letting the media and the sheeple know that it's wrong and not good for democracy.

I'd hate to see us doing the same thing. We can win on the issues. We need to shame the media into revealing the true issues to the voters.

And we at DU should be ready to deluge any journalists with thousands of angry well written e-mails when we see any of them going slong with the pukes on their word-twisting campaign.

Don't you think that would be more effective than wallowing in the same slime pit with them to see who can lie the best about what the other one said?

Complaining about "dirty" tactics is a sure way to get beat.

Learn the rules and be better at it than the opposition.

I know this sounds Machiavellian but winning is the only
thing.

. wouldn't you be happier as a freeper?

That's a rhetorical question. I know you would not be happier as a freeper.

Ask yourself why.

Does anybody remember today that Kennedy won the
White House by talking about a missile gap that didn't
exist. That he berated Nixon in the debates for having
no plan to do anything about Cuba when both Kennedy and
Nixon knew that an invasion was on the board (which turned
out to be the Bay of Pigs). Nixon couldn't mention the invasion
because it would have betrayed a security secret and JFK beat up on him anyway. Dirty Pool ? Absolutely. But he won didn't he and
he's enshrined as a great martyred hero and Nixon is a disgraced
crook.

The point is that politics has always been dishonest and dirty
amd it won't get one bit better. Crying about dishonest tactics will
only get you beat.

It's ugly and it's dishonest. But it's not going to get any better.

We disagree but I respect your position. Time may change one of us or the other. Until then, let's work together to kick the Bushistas out.

:toast:

- there are RNC teams right now assigned to each possible Dem candidate - compiling every word that they have ever said.

They are deciding how they want to paint that candidate based on focus group data that they've already compiled and continue to gather with greater intensity as one Dem candidate or another seems to be gaining.

And they are seeing which statements from that candidate's past are best suited to twist to their own purposes - and are focus grouping several different ways to do it - for whichever have the most sound bite and sticking power.

Added on edit: And Hannity and Rush and Matthews and Coulter and their buddies all have their FAX machines warmed up and ready.

What do think GW is raising that $200 million for?

If you're pitching for a major league team
there's going to be some evil guy who probably
works for Richard Mellon Scaife who's going to
(gasp) come to the plate and attempt to hit your
pitch out of the park (da noive!!!). You can either
use your skill to throw the ball by him or whine about
the fact that he has a big stick and wants to hit your
pitch.

. . I have no problem with our team going up against a big hitter. We've got the best team by far.

But we are up against corked bats, umps that are in on the fix and sports announcers that are on their teams payroll.

I say call bullshit on 'em and get 'em kicked out of league. I believe most Americans still believe in fair play. Like I said, if I'm wrong, Canada is only a few miles from my house and I've got lots of great friends there.

Maybe I'm old fashioned but I'd rather lose playing fair than win by cheating.

Gore had more to do with us geting the internet as we know it than _any_ other politician.

N/T

:thumbsup:

Newt and Al were two of the few members of Congress back then who actively promoted the benefits of the Internet and providing support for its development.

Can't take a joke? I mean really is this the most important thing to look at when choosing our President?

The fact is the whole "internet invention" thing DID hurt Gore politically, and Kerry made a joke that pointed out Dean would probably be better off not trying to claim that internet campaigning is his exclusive province.

It's like something fuckin' bush would say.

"Dean staffers had stirred up the questions in advance of Kerry's event with union members at a Des Moines AFSCME office."

Does this bother anyone else? Dean staffers causing trouble- Seems as divisive as the rest of his campaign does. Definitely NOT what we need. Extremely counterproductive and downright petty.

I don't like what Kerry said, either, and I actually support Edwards.

But, sheesh Dean staffers, grow the f*ck up.

The Kerry/Dean thing is getting ridiculous at this point, and I'm exceedingly glad that my candidate has said "any one of the candidates would be better than the pResident we have now."

Glad he takes the high road, and I'm hoping he stays there as long as he can.

Would have been better had he said "Unlike Al Gore, they must really think they did invent the internet". Probably what he meant but just didn't take the time to formulate the thought.

I still think Kerry is taking it easy on Dean, I think that will change near January.

to do with being able to take a joke, or the political correctness of the base of the joke. This has to do with Kerry taking a cheap shot at Dean and it landing on Gore. Was the joke funny? Maybe, if it had been said in the context of a couple of friends at a party. But to somehow denigrate Al Gore - to perpetuate making him a laughing-stock, is poor Democratic tactics.

What has happened is that the tried and true (read DLC) methods and talking points of the Democratic "mainstream" candidates have evaporated - 'poof' - and now they are left without much to say. They all lined up and voted like good Republicans on every vote Frome told them they should. Now, all that is coming back to bite them in the ass and they (i.e. Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, etc.) don't know what to do. It's easy, fellas, drop out and support one of the candidates that have the ear of the people. You will not win, if you have just rescently returned from the land of the dead (Roveville)

has kept himself out of the fray?

Someone on here once commented that by not declaring Clark wasn't being fair to the other candidates! Chee-rist. Kerry attacks Dean and strategically makes a pre-emptive attack on Gore should he even consider running. Kerry makes the attack on Dean reportedly because Dean staffers had already whipped up a frenzy against Kerry.

Yep, Clark owes everyone he may or may not run against the chance to start slinging mud early and often....
:eyes:

The damn dem candidates are like a bunch of bickering old ladies in a dysfunctional sewing circle...

I just which everyone would stop bickering at each other's candidates.

for the nomination. If he wants to make snarky, mocking comments about other political figures, he can save them for W.

That said, if he manages to win the nomination I will of course vote for him in the general election.

posted this stupid - idiotic thread! Kerry and Gore are friends for crissakes!

Surely your beloved John Boy doesn't already have a history of saying stupid things that piss of certain Dems.

Get a fucking clue.

I am not a "Dean machine member".

I have been a Kerry supporter up until now. I have links to my posts to back it up as well. I have even knocked the Skull N Bones posters around a bit.

This thread is not idiotic. The statement was. This thread was about that statement.

jeesuz!

like this.

But hey, keep on spinnin.

I gave him a pass on the War vote.
I gave him a pass on the "get over it".

3 strikes, you're out.

Next batter.

I'm betting "YES".

He's already said he won't run as a third party candidate if he doesn't get the nomination. Thank God he will win it.

other reasons! you should read a_random_joel's posts about it... they're interesting!

Your incredulous tone in your posts echoes my incredulous feelings about what a pitiful and stupid thing Mr. Kerry has done. My dissapointment and anger in him would not be as strong as it is, were not my previous support for him so strong. I feel betrayed.

Methinks you should focus your incredulity elsewhere.

I respect anyone who chooses not to support Dean's decision, and would never think of employing some snuffy, incredulous tone, as if they were fools for not recognizing the inherent superiority of my candidate, and that anyone who doesn't fall at his feet in worship of him is a traitor and an idiot who will damn us to another four years of Bush.

The slightest disagreement and it's "Well, who needs you!"

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

as far as kerry he misses as bad as holy joe sometimes

I've haven't been particularly pleased since Kerry and Biden when asked why they didn't stand up for the CBC during the Electoral College said ... 'no one asked them' ... sorry, but I was hoping ~ especially at the time when the coup was happening before our very eyes ~ for leadership ... true, others didn't either ... but, not everyone was queried, and not everyone in the Senate is running for president ...

just as figured ... Al Gore was left to fend for himself ... the DLC waltzed away, and so-called 'colleagues' began their own campaigns for 2004 - ta ta

reference: josh marshall alludes to this in his talking points

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/jan0102.html
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/jan0101.html#010601922pm

MSNBC scrubbed an article linked by josh

some things I never forget - and, this is one of them -- I was shocked as I was hoping, as most of us were, for some leader to stand up during this civil war battle

regardless of what the outcome might have been - standing up would have been the patriotic thing to do - our country was being stolen -the line in the sand should have been drawn on January 6, 2001, especially considering what the treasonous and Felonious 5 did to our Constitution and country on December 12, 2000

not to mention all the other crimes in between and far and beyond

But now he is down in the dregs just one above Kucinich, and Lieberman is the only one below that.

lost my vote!!!!

He could care less if 100,000 votes were lost!

Your F&*#ing vote means "nada"!

Kerry is a Skull & Boner through and through, this means he will
support Bush 150% without hesitation!

A Putz!

And I'd hardly say that he's been giving Bush a free pass.

There ARE rivalries within Skull and Bones. But part of the ACT that Kerry plays so well is the fakery of being the opposition. In order, under the Machiavellian rules of governmental deception and power maintenance, to keep up appearances your secret allies must appear to be your opponents. THAT is the name of the game.

Kerry, Bush are part of the same deck of skull cards.

But Kerry, to play the game right, must appear to be opposed to Bush.

I know too little about Lapham to judge --- but there are also elements within skull and the other secret socieities at Yale, Harvard anf Prtinceton - to name a few - who rebel. USUALLY, though, they keep within their permitted parameters and boundaries even when pretending to function as a voice of the opposition to the rethugs.


Kerry's joke was scripted and probably thunk up on Skull's St. Lawrence River Island retreat where the skullboys congregate to see how they can get their skulls elected to power positions.


I cannot stand Kerry. Pitt's support of Kerry is unconscionable.

I like all 3 of the big names--Dean, Kerry, and Clark. Not equally, mind you, and I especially hope Clark enters.

But I don't think you should make your decision based on this.

Maybe if Kerry was "gored" like the luckless eponymn during his Democratic candidacy, then I'll start laughing, but until then that comment is beyond good taste for a Dem supporter still bitter about 2000.