What Strategy Would've Countered Swiftboaters? Say You're Kerry's Adviser-

What specifically would you have done to neutralize AND turn the Swiftboat Liars into a positive for Kerry?

Keeping in mind that the Media will refuse to give you and your proponents airtime equal to that of the Liars. And also considering the amount of money the Liars had behind them.

Many DU'ers have faulted Kerry (perhaps rightly) for not forcefully and effectively taking the Liars on. But real, specific suggestions on how he or FUTURE DEMOCRATS can deal with such Liars is scarce.

1. You establish the paper trail linking the Swiftboaters to Karl Rove.
2. You throw Rove's unsavory political history on the front page. Git 'er done.
3. You hammer on Rove's alleged ties to the Valerie Plame investigation, which the Kerry campaign allowed to be buried during the 2004 election season.

Then sit back and watch some of those red states turn blue...

1. Defeat the Fairness Doctrine in court then, when Congress moves to codify in law this FCC regulation, have an arch Republithug President, GHWB, veto it.

2. Stack the FCC commission with right wing idealogues and soften the anti-monopoly provisions of the Rule of Sevens, eventually changing the multi-voice effect of limiting media ownership to 7 radio stations/7 television stations/7 newspapers to, now, allowing any one capitalist entity to own as many of the aforementioned as it desires up to an audience reach of 45%.

3. Encourage media consolidation so that the 29,000+ major media outlets once owned by 10,000 firms are now owned by 6 mega-transnational companies, many with a deep interest in maintaining a market for expensive, high-tech military ware.

4. Spend a couple of decades bribing the top 1% with the promise of deep tax cuts and unregulated "free markets" into contributing to faux-intellectual organizations like the American Enterprise Institute, the CATO Institute, PNAC, etc., thereby giving the patina of academic legimitacy to the legions of talking heads they unleash on the media (that "freedom", btw, it's the freedom of the masters to exploit the worker).

5. Fire up the Lipmann-Bernays-Goebbels-Segretti-Rovian Wurlitzer of talking heads and compliant media to spin any old lie, drowning out the steady quiet voice of truth, giving the lie an air of plausibility (knowing that, in politics, mud sticks).

6. Lie. Over and over again, from deep within the bowels of the "vast rightwing conspiracy", lie.

To my recall, Kerry did quickly and forcefully respond to the Swift Boat liers, his voice was just drowned out by the spin from the monopolized media, a media with an agenda quite contrary to democracy.

I think his advisers told him that his record would stand on its own. The media probably would not have helped him much anyway. By then they had crowned him "Flip-flop King", so it's pretty easy to figure out how little they would have helped him even if he had responded sooner. The fix was in from day one..Bush was going to be re-elected..no matter what.

airings of the SBV. A MONTH, NO WAY!!! The even dealt with this group in April and depleted their funds. The SBV then went to Rove's friend and low and behold, he gave them what they needed to keep the lies alive and the media obliged-then the rest is history.

You go on national TV, and say "They're lying. It's a politically motivated lie, that diminishes the military, since they believe the military is so incompetent that they pass out medals to people who didn't deserve them! I challenge them to prove a single word of what they say! If they can't prove it, they should shut up!" But, he absolutely needed to call them liars. The word needed to be used.

The situation would have been defused in minutes, not hours.
The Professor

before truth even gets it's boots on.
The truth was all that was needed. Not the truth parsed for primetime idiots, just the plain ole' unvarnished truth.

That's a "he said, she said" proposition. Just telling them "prove it", knowing they can't defuses it.
The Professor

he should have called them out with the TRUTH! he had money for ads. he shot back with a bunch of warm fuzzy mush. he should have come at them head on, with the truth about his service, and the truth about where they got their money.

inadvertently keeping the subject in the news and backhandedly validating the bogus claims?

tried to fight fire with fluff. but, specifically, he should have followed the money, and put it in an ad. called them liars, and said who sent them.

Then put together the mother of all AWOL ads.

I'd been saying at the time that Kerry's nuclear option was to go ahead and put the Pet Goat classroom video in a widely distributed commercial. It's not something he needed to do until he'd determined that the Bush campaign had launched their nukes.

The Shit Floaters were their nukes. He needed to hit back with a nuke of his own (along with, as you suggest, a very forceful smackdown of the Shit Floaters themselves, specifically the sleazeball O'Neill.) The Pet Goat along with a timeline of what was happening as he sat there, along with a reminder about the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike" PDB that would've established that Bush damn well knew what was going on, or should've known, would've crushed Bush.

How do I know this? OK, I don't, but the point is that Kerry gave Bush a free pass on his 9/11 behavior, and after being Shit Floated I have no idea why he did.

If I ever do meet JFK, that will be the first question I'll ask.

down. It worked. Kerry's problem was not what he did but what the other dems did NOT do. We need for the Dems to unite against this sort of hate speech. If Dems had stood up for Kerry and for Max Clelland, it would not have worked.

WHERE WERE THE OTHER DEMOCRATIC SENATORS? WHY WASN'T EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM OUT THERE SHOUTING UGLY, LYING SOB'S? WHY DIDN'T EVERY ONE OF THEM ACCUSE THE REPUGS OF BEING COWARDS? WHY DIDN'T EVERY ONE OF THEM QUESTION THE PATRIOTISM OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO WERE CRITICIZING A VET?

Let's stop blaming Kerry and force out elected representatives to grow some balls. Next time this happens, and it WILL happen again, Dems have to come out swinging!!!!!!!!!!!!!

no one wins

but to not answer very louding and often lets it become "maybe it is true" in the population that was not with the GOP to begin with.

He should have laid it all on the table and stated the obvious.

I heard the ads about his service. It wouldn't have mattered how the material was presented, the problem was that Democrats became intimidated and didn't stand behind him. Democrats, of all walks of life, lined up solidly behind Murtha. That's what stopped the attacks on him, not anything he did. That's all WE had to do to stop them on Kerry, just line up and say NO. We didn't do that.

the ads about his service were warm fuzzy fluffballs. he should have been throwing fireballs. murtha is not running for "leader of the free world", kerry was.

That WE should have stood behind Kerry instead of standing on the sidelines, throwing rocks at everything he did. This thread is what happened last year, the exact same thing. Everybody bitching about this or that, instead of knowing the information that was already out there and just lining up and supporting our candidate.

He could only use the same amount of money as the Bush campaign over a 3-month period, versus Bush's 2-month period.

In my opinion, that's exactly what the swiftboaters were doing.

it is beautiful in it's simplicity and steals the GOP thunder entirely.

And Kerry would've had a perfect opportunity when the GOP Conventioneers wore those PurpleHeart Bandaids.

Damn, you're good.

John Kerry's testimony is the reason vets were spit on. In fact, that's the bulk of their bitch against him. It's HIS testimony that has caused Vietnam Vets to be portrayed as crazy baby killers all these years. That's how they see it.

guy who informed on torture in Iraq or the woman FBI agent.

Remember the numbers of people who still considered the torture nothing to get riled up about, a few bad apples, no big deal really. The people who are outraged that the left is trying to portray the entire military as brutal thugs. That printing those pictures and telling those stories are giving Iraqis the wrong impression of the military and hurting our efforts to "win" in Iraq. They just would have said he was doing the same thing to our current vets that he did to the Vietnam Vets.

What a massive diversion from what we really needed to be talking about and that was how to get out of Iraq and start focusing on Bin Laden again. Which is what happened in the campaign, eventually. Just not alot of good options.

What Kerry might could have done is talked about the purpose of his 1971 testimony, to force our leaders to tell the American people the truth and provide real leadership in ending the war. That's what he was doing then, that's what he's doing now. That might have been understood alot better.

It is a fact that babies were killed and war crimes were rampant. Those were the facts. If some GIs didn't like hearing it so what? I am sure those same people feel the same way about the person who released the torture pictures.

placed his entire service record in public view and challenged Bush and the Bush military supporters to match it.

There are so many phony veterans.

Put up or shut up.

180

the remaining few papers.

Crazy, but true.

Why the fuck he waited, we'll never know.

Kerry has not made his records public,
what he did do was allow the records to be viewed by
one person {or a small group of people}
at the Boston Globe newspaper,
this person{s} then writes a story, to the effect that
Kerry is telling the truth, then everybody quotes
that story as if it were a fact.

said that the papers they got included the 140 pages THAT WERE ON KERRY'S WEBSITE, plus one aadditional page - that they said recommended Kerry for accelerated promotion and gave him the top rating and Kerry's Yale grades.

The Boston Globe has never protected Kerry. Their reputation was that they have gone out of their way, at various times to dig up dirt on him - with little success. Two of their stories were:

- That Kerry (who said in the early 80s on a Sunday talk show that the Kerrys were from Austria) was NOT Irish and that his grandparents, who were Jewish, changed their name when they left Austria.

- They berated Kerry for not telling their reporter that he had been diagnosed with cancer in late December when he was accosted getting into a car by their reporter who asked Kerry " What's the matter with you, you look like shit" in late February. Kerry held a press conference with his doctor 2 weeks later to explain his diagnosis, his treatment and his prognosis. The first words the reporter asked, were how he could be trusted because he didn't tell them when asked that he was ill. (Kerry wanted the doctor there, the course of treatment decided on, more tests done, and wanted to personally tell his large family and his friends.) The paper admonished him to not keep secrets.

So, given this treatment of a man who had a squeaky clean record through a very long public life, I think you can assume if the records held anything they would print them. As it was they printed a front page story on his mediocre college grades to embarrass him and put the story that his war record was exceptional on about page 6.

So, if you want to think that they favor him fine - but it doesn't seem likely. List one other person, public or not wo has made their full records available to a newspaper with no review or control. List anyone who's records are available to the world - Kerry's were for at least half a year on his web site.
So, if

And Bush was challenged on many occasions to put out his record. Don't you remember how Bush documents kept turning up that hadn't been previously released? All records related to Kerry's military service were posted on his web site since 2003. It didn't matter.

When it became an issue out of curiousity I looked at them - there were excellent fitness reports, some signed by the SBVT, that spanned his entire service.

In addition, Tour of Duty, was written by a historian, Douglas Brinkley, who spoke to at least 100 people who took part in the swiftboat part of the war. Many people he spoke to were SBVT. What they told Brinkley a few years before Kerry ran did not match later statements. Brinkley, clearly came away absolutley impressed with Kerry on many levels, but he went into this as a historian. Because he was so positive (as many people who have gotten to know Kerry are), the media used him as a "Kerry" proponent, rather than a person who had prior to this becoming political spoken to most of the cast of characters.

When Kerry did sign the 180 form, per the Boston Globe, there was only one page that had not been on the web site. The page from his last in Vietnam fitness report, which Kerry said they didn't have, recommended Kerry for accelerated promotion and gave him the highest possible rating.

Kerry had an unprecedented amount of personal records available to the public. They spanned the entire time with no unexplainable holes.
There was tape of the Nixon people saying they investigated him (2 years after Vietnam when things were fresh) and found he was a war hero as claimed and that he was sqeaky clean. Senator Warner, who was the Secretary of the Navy, admitted that he had reviewed Kerry's records for Nixon and that they were clean. Kerry was among the most highly decorated Vietnam Vets - he saved at least one marine and for his other award, he took very bold, successful action when faced with what likely could have been a devastating ambush.

Compare this to TANG and Bush, which after Rather, was considered off limits by the press. He had gaps in his record, they never found anyone (in a 25 man unit) who remembered the outgoing W being in Alabama, he clearly lost his qualification to fly. There was much to question in Bush's record and very little to praise.

There is no way an unbiased person could look at the way these records and not see that the media aided and abetted the SBVT, while covering for Bush.

and interviewed village people about events alluded to by the SBVs. They all remembered the events just as Kerry described, not even knowing who Kerry is. It was barely reported on in the media.

& handed out all my records....why did he wait till AFTER the election.

I would have called out all the chicken hawks in the Bush Admin & named names, & counted up deferments.

I would have had my shipmates with me, & called on the press to ask any questions they wanted, & called on them to report the truth.

Funny, the Republicans backed off the attacks on John Murtha, because he fought back.

Dan Quayle did that when he had his draft scandal.

He flew to his hometown and had a press conference at the town square. He answered questions for hours until the locals started booing the press for asking the same question for the tenth time. That pretty much ended the scandal.

I think the same thing would have worked here, and especially for Clinton and the Monica mess.

I do think it hurt Kerry badly when it turned out that he wasn't in Cambodia over Christmas as he said he was for all those years. Many people were paying little attention to the controversy not knowing which side was right and then Kerry admitted that was a mistake, and to the casual observer, that showed that Kerry was wrong and the Swiftboaters were right. I think that gave them much of their credibility.

Kerry needed to publicly and openly set all the records straight, come what may as quickly as he could get the records opened and distributed.

Kerry had to go on the attack...he had to show the press & public that he was mad.

That would have been the natural thing to do when you are being smeared. Instead, he hesitated & by hesitating, looked weak.

Kerry was near the border on Christmas 1968. A reported incidence placed him about 3 miles away - as he returning to the base from the Cambodian direction. Given the speed of the boats and the directions, it is likely that he was in Cambodia. There is no doubt, per Douglas Brinkley, that he was in Cambodia in January and February 1969.

What Kerry corrected was simpler and refected no lies or any intentional deception. What he corrected as INCORRECT was a statement that was part of a Senate speech. In the late 80s, the issue of covert forces invading neutral countries was an issue in what we were doing in Central America. As part of a speech, Kerry added comments about how he felt as a soldier in Vietnam, being ordered to cross the Cambodian border which violated international law and meant that if captured he would not have POW status. In this speech, he mentioned Christmas eve (obviously referring to the incident in Tour of Duty), 1968. He incorrectly said Nixon when Johnson was President.

These comments were 15 - 20 YEARS after the event. The important details - his feeling as a officer being put at additional risk and being forced to violate international law and the fact that the US did do this and Kerry almost certainly did as it was done by people where he was when he was there - are accurate and totally support the point he was making. That Kerry said Nixon rather than Johnson, is very easy to understand as it would not even be part of his memory of the time in Vietnam. (To show how innocent - imagine if any Senator or reporter had questioned Kerry on Nixon being President in Dec 68 - he would have simply corrected the name of the President on the spot. The point itself would be totally unaffected.)

What is interesting is that it does show how the SBVT likely scoured Kerry's Senate records.

was to sign a form to have the Navy give the forms directly to 3 newspapers. The concern was that in the middle of the election, the Bush Secretary of the Navy could put something misleading out.

Murtha didn't fight back - Kerry and many other Democrats loudly defended him. Kerry had his shipmates defending him - except Gardner who credited listening to Rush with making him finally "understand". His comments were obvious lies, as they placed him on actions where Navy records show he wasn't. (his comment that Kerry was no braver than anyone else, so why should he be a Senator or have a rich wife show a lack of basic common sense.)

Call bunkerboy AWOL to his face - he says there's no records - just happens to be only his, not the rest of his group or any others, so unless he can prove otherwise, all records indicate he was AWOL. Don't back down, don't give up.

More contrast with Kerry's PROOF of service record with bunkerboy's that all lead to AWOL.

Very simple.

Didn't have to do it personally, either - get the plenty of willing surrogates to do the job and remain above it all.

long before they hit the "big-time". Many DUers knew about them before the general public did. His advisers didn't take it seriously. Remember when DemStrategist posted to DU, and how out of the loop the person seemed? I think the blindness was pervasive.

As far as specifics, he could have done some corny bio pieces, and also sent out his hit-men at the first sign of trouble. He waited much too long.

Point out the fact that they're lying cowards that were paid by the Bushies to spread these lies. Keep repeating this in the press until they lose it and do something real stupid. There goes their credibility.

instantly! As soon as the first spot aired, he should have called a press conference, called them liars and invited them to a face to face, on air confrontation.

The second thing he should have done was to authorize complete release of all his military records immediately too. I know he posted most of them on his web site, but there were still far too many people who didn't know that, didn't look there, or were falling for the BS the Pubs kept saying, that he hadn't done so.

There really is something to the belief that an accusation that goes unanswered for more than 24 hours is assumed to be true!

I happened to believe the swift boat group was a group of cowards, and couldn't have handled an immediate confrontation with facts!

"You have a draft dodger calling a purple heart winner a bad soldier. What is wrong with this picture?

strategists appreciate the capacity for forums to generate good ideas.

TV ads could make the statement, followed by images of Bush (in Texas) and Kerry (in Vietnam) to help the meaning sink in.

... to take the fight directly to G.W. Bush: "Anytime the president wants to discuss our respective military service, one on one, I'd be happy to debate the issue. But I see that Mr. Bush, as always, has to have others do his fighting, and his dirty work, for him."

And every time the topic was thrown at Kerry by a reporter, he should have reiterated that thought: "If Bush wants to come out from behind his PR thugs and face me like a man, I'd be happy to discuss our respective military service IN DETAIL."

if Bush didn't take it up, he'd look like a chickenshit.

if Bush did take it up, he'd never be able to answer specifics about his service and non-service.

Bush would have been caught in the cross-hairs of the very weapons he'd put in the hands of the Swiftboaters.

Memo to next Dem Presidential Nominee: Check out DU for campaign advice. There is more solid, well thought out strategy happening in DU discussion threads than was ever evident in Gore's or Kerry's campaigns.

just by saying that he wasn't the one making the accusations. And also saying that he wanted to debate real issues, not past history. I think that would have made Kerry look silly - only because so many more people were pro-Bush at the time.

Kerry should have known by then what a chickenshit chimp is & has always been. Cindy Sheehan took it to dubya's doorstep, and the whole world could see the chimp went down in flames.

:kick::kick::kick:

to the smear and lies directed at Kerry on behalf of all other smeared vets.

The "Swiftboat Scum" always used that one guy to smear Kerry, but apparently, as I understand it, the majority of the sailors who served on that boat with Kerry supported him.

Why weren't these guys seen more? Why weren't they on the talk shows, giving more interviews to media, writing their own articles and books? Again and again and again.

I think the sheer preponderence of evidence that Kerry was a respected coammnder and a real hero would have squashed the Switboat slimers in their tracks.

Guys who had never said a peep since Vietnam came out and wrote op-eds on behalf of Kerry's service. Others did appear on television and travel around the country. The reason you didn't hear about any of it is because the media didn't repeat any of it 1,001 times a day. And neither did the blogs or the "grassroots". The campaign did not fail on this, WE did.

The campeign needed to send out talking points to Kerry surrogates and to sympathetic media types citing these articles.

I certainly remember these being all over DU and Kos and the rest of the liberal blogosphere but for some reason the Democrats, with a few exceptions, did not use them effectively.

Their immediate response was 700 letters, emails, etc to all those people you just mentioned. They connected Bush to the ads and called on him to put a stop to them, even McCain denounced the ads. They sent out Rassmann and others. It goes on and on.

What you saw on DU and Kos last year was the exact same shit you see in this thread. Kerry should do this, Kerry should do that, bla bla bullfucking bla. And no matter how many times real Kerry supporters posted the information that the blogosphere could use to fight, every goddamned body thought they knew better or just ignored reality and kept repeating the bullshit. Just like the liberal blogsphere does over and over again.

Another example. Did you see the Kos attack on Kerry over the Reed presser? That Kerry was hogging the limelight??? Turns out Kerry is the one who had booked a press conference first and agreed to combine it with Reed, not the other way around the way Kos "reported" it. The truth doesn't matter, people will repeat the lie over and over because Kos said it.

Yes, it's true that Kerry supporters denounced the ads and that John McCain called upon Bush to shut down the swiftboaters. Yes, it's true that the media gave the Swiftboaters free rein to spew their venom and yes.

What I heard from people who were not fans of Bush but unsure about Kerry was that they saw a guy back down in the face of a vicious attack on his military service. That was a blood libel and and, as one Vietnam vet said to me, "If anyone said I didn't win my purple heart fairly I would shove my fist down his throat." While I know that my friend eventually did vote for Kerry--in part because he hated Bush--and also in part because I was able to point him toward articles that proved Kerry right.

Still in the end the impression that Kerry, was in my friend's words "no ball of fire" hurt him in an election where people were looking for someone to protect them.

In my opinion, Kerry needed to slap down the swiftboaters and he needed to do it personally. He needed to slap down George W. Bush and do it personally and he needed to have a clear consistent message.

I like Kerry--he was my first choice in the primaries although I also came to like Dean a great deal and am not sure how I would have voted if I lived in a state where my primary vote counted. I worked for and donated to the campeign.

That doesn't mean I should never criticize the man.

YOU RESPOND AND DEFEND YOURSELF!!!

Kerry did fucking nothing. By not responding he made the ignoramuses of this country think there was something to the swift boater's allegations. By not responding, he let us all down. There shouldn't be anything hard about responding to liars with the truth. If you can't/don't do that, then people are going to wonder.

exactly should Kerry have said, where should he have said it and how.

Not so easy to come up with a rebuttal that nips the whole thing in the bud AND turns it into a POSITIVE for your side.

could only come from his mind once he decided to say SOMETHING, but he and his pathetic handlers decided to take the high road and say nothing. Wow, did that ever backfire for all the reasons already mentioned.

You want "specifici" advise? Just respond to their lies with the truth. How much more specific can one get than by telling the truth about the accounts that the swiftboaters were referring to??

Also, check out what mazzarro said in post #32. He has a specific plan of action that I agree with. Kerry should've gone head to head with the swift boaters, either by himself, through another organization, or at the very least through a Kerry spokesman. He made no attempt to put the fire out and it cost him. The lack of response to the swift boaters is just one sad example of a mistake-filled campaign. Never again should we experience a pathetically run campaign such as that one.

In addition, Kerry should have used the "John Kerry's band of brothers" more effectively and much louder than he did. He should have set up a political organization around them separate from his campaign and allowed the organization to go head-to-head with the swift-boating-crappers.

He had the band of brothers and he had a couple nice ads with them. He also had Douglas Brinkley who clearly identified the SBVT as liars.

When SWVT was hounding and advertising non-stop against him, he was really foolish not to have created/allowed a seperate group of his own supporters to go after the SWVT idiots - IMHO!

An ad with Kerry calmly and forcefully responding to the despicable attacks. Keep it simple- three main points. Make those points hard hitting, brief, and undeniably true.

1. Dishonest attacks are designed to go after one of Kerry's strengths- this is a pr oven Rove tactic.

2. The dishonest attacks are designed to take attention away from "The President's" disgraceful military record.

3. ? Perhaps a direct challenge to Bush to have a one-on-one televised talk about the attacks? Deny with all the indignation and sincerity he could muster? ???

He ran as the Republican candidate for Texas Governor against Ann Richards back in 1990. He told reporters that he would "head and hoof" Richards and "drag her through the dirt."

As Tuco once said in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, "If you're gonna shoot, shoot; don't talk."

That's the tack we should have used on the Bush regime instead of letting Kerry transform the whole thing into a muddled "sweetness 'n light" affair.

is that others didn't rise to his defense more vocally and forcefully on ALL sides of the arena- Max Clealand did well, but far too many who could have spoken up, and spoken up with righteous indignation at the smearing of a mans heroic service stayed silent, or spoke so quietly that they couldn't be heard- and I firmly believe they'll have it come back to haunt them- in the end-

Shame on them- and shame on the 'swift-boaters' who have sold their souls to the machine that has become the evil empire called the bush administration.

Kerry shouldn't have had to 'defend' himself against his own fellow soldiers- the fact that he not only had the courage to fight, but the courage to then come home and voice what others believed, yet were afraid to say- made them feel like cowards, when they needed to feel like heros- and indeed they were- both.
The true test of a mans bravery is sometimes not evident in life and death war moments, but rather speaking up, when it is unpopular, and uncomfortable to be heard, and then living out your life in the wake of that. When it came down to standing up for what is important, many 'war heros' stood in the cowards role when it came to swiftboating Kerry- But they'll have to sleep with themselves, and listen to their words, or lack of words for the rest of their lives.

but they helped shape the percpetions necessary for stealing an election and having a valid rationale for why Kerry "lost".

And I agree, too many public voices that could have roared out against the lies did not.

Dems had no problem smacking down Jean Schmidt, in their defense of Jack Murtha.

:shrug:

WE shouldn't have allowed this to happen and every single person who points the finger at Kerry needs to remember there are three pointing in the other direction.

Show the smiling Republican Assholes wearing them at their Convention. Get the records on how many Purple Hearts were actually awarded during the Viet Nam War. Say, do you want the bravery of all of these Americans cast into doubt also? Kerry's bravery was already officially investigated and reaffirmed. When will you start investigations on the rest of the XX thousand Viet Nam Veterans who also were awarded Purple Hearts?

There was sooo much that could have been done differently, it is hard to know where to start.

Let's keep in mind that the Democratic Party at the time, from top to bottom, was trying to keep Kerry silent on the issue. Kerry, we later learned, was the one champing at the bit imposed by DemStrategist, Shrum, DLC, and all the folks in the blogosphere who agreed with them that he should "focus on the issues". They did NOT want to tell the truth about Kerry's Vietnam experience as that would make him look like too much of the anti-war whistleblower who saw what war was like and came home to speak about it. They wanted to use his war record as a positive, human-interest story that made people comfortable he would wage war in Iraq, not as a hard-hitting bullet point that would make people think he would end war in Iraq and cast uncomfortable comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam that almost NO Dems were (at the time) willing to make. Just look even today at Hillary and the DLC (who had strong influences on the conduct of the convention.)

actually disrespect and care very little for the men who do the fighting. That was the most despicable things I had ever witnessed especially since they always talk about honoring vets.

1 -- Kerry already had the active support of 9 of 10 of those who served with him; he needed to remind people of that fact (I made up those numbers but it's about right -- Kerry would not have to make the numbers up obviously)

2 -- Kerry should have let people know WHO the SBVT hooligans really were

3 -- Kerry should have challenged Bush to a discussion / debate concerning their respective service during Vietnam, one on one -- no wires, no handlers. One condition of such discussion would be that both men produce all of their military records before the discussion / debate.

4 -- Kerry should have pointed out in no uncertain terms that what the SBVT attacks really were doing, was denigrating every decorated veteran in every war -- i.e., they were saying that the military does not know what it's doing when it gives out medals. He should have questioned any "decorated veteran" who spoke out against him -- asked them for details on their military records, and details about the incidents for which they were decorated -- thereby driving the point home.

5 -- Last but not least, he should have released all of his military records immediately, not waited, and then challenged Bush to do the same

...and the partiotism of those who gave them their money. How dare they question a true war hero. This was best done through surrogates and all that, but still had to be done.

Kerry should have also gone on the attack about Bush and Cheney's lackluster military records (or lack thereof)

n/t

I would like to add:
Kerry should have been had some sort of PRE-EMPTIVE attack on SBVT.
Arnold did an ok job of it when he announced his candidacy on Leno "I know they're going to throw everything at me and say I have no experience and I'm a womanizer and I'm a terrible guy." (By the way I am NOT on Arnold's side, I am just saying we took his accusers head on and it did take some of the steam out of their cause).

If Kerry striked first, that would have put the SBVT on the defensive.

1. Immediately and loudly denounce them as liars who are dishonoring a man who fought bravely in a war in which he did not believe. Call on him to denounce the Swiftboaters. When he does not do so Call Bush a coward for hiding behind slanderers. Keep calling him a coward.

2. Call a press conference and release all military and medical records. Sign the damn form before the right wing talking heads could pound it home. Answer any and all questions. Last but not least, Loudly call on Bush to do the same. If he fails to do so call him a coward.

3. Get the rest of the crew--who supported Kerry--out on TV to set the record straight.

5. Supply talking points to Democratic talking heads and sympathetic media types regarding the truth about his service. Make sure everyone is on the same page.

5. Publicize SBV ties to GOP and Bush campeign. Call Bush a coward for hiding behind the slime machine. Offer to debate their respective Vietnam records mano a mano. When he fails to do so call him a coward.

6. Don't rely on the media to get the message out but when they do use it. NYT and WP did some excellent reporting on this. These could have been used as the basis for hard hitting ads denouncing the SBVT and the campeign that is using them.

Some of these things were done but done in such a wimpy way that even those of us who supported Kerry wondered if maybe he did have something to hide.

Just look at the source.

He set himself up by emphasizing his efforts in Vietnam at the Convention. Not "putting all his eggs in that basket" would have been preferable...especially since we were (and still are) at war NOW. The decision by Kerry to re-fight Vietnam was awfully dumb.

Any student of political science should know that campaigns 101 teaches you to control the agenda. If you don't get the media covering the campaign from your point of view, you lose. The opposition party historically gets first strike since their convention is held first. Kerry failed miserably at controlling the agenda. If you remember, he told the speakers to pull their punches. He pulled his own punches. They should have blistered the Bush Regime...my god they had enough targets to choose from.

It was obvious to me that they were going to re-run 1988. * worked hard on that campaign. He loved Atwater's evil tactics. They were running against a Mass. liberal. Substitute Willie Horton for Gay Marriage and there you go.

Now, supposing that I were advising Kerry after the Swiftboat smear had started, counteracting their BS would have been easy.

1. Tie them to the Bush campaign directly. Don't rely on the news media to run with certain leaked information...which is what they did with Rather and it bit them in the ass. Also, pushing for a public renunciation of all 527 ads from Bush was stupid. It looks hypocritical when Kerry's campaign relied on them heavily, not to mention that it distracted the public from the rebuttal.

2. Add some zest to a public rally by attacking the scum directly and fiercely. "John O'Neill would be nothing without me. He's made a 30 year career out of smearing me, going back to when he was Nixon's hitman and posterboy for the 'everything is fine in Vietnam' crowd in the early 70's. For Bush to trot this guy out again shows that he has no idea what he is doing and is playing the role of Nixon to a T. Maybe if he played the more diginified role that his father played as president he'd know better than to stoop to that level." You think that wouldn't send Bush into a hissy fit?

3. Paint the other Swifties as serving those who avoided service at all costs (Bush and Cheney especially). His inactivity when the smear started led people to believe it since it went unchallenged.

4. When the idiots started going on the cable news shows, the Kerry camp should have sent on their own people to do rebuttal. Everytime one of the idiots went on TV, Kerry people should have been there. Each TV rep should have the same talking points to ensure that the message resonates in the mind of the viewer.

5. After about two or three weeks of this, and forcing the Bush camp into a tit for tat over the whole mess, this plan would succeed in painting Bush as being the one behind the whole deal. It would put the focus on Bush to rebut playing the role of Nixon. Nobody wants another Vietnam, so he'd be forced to defend his stupid Iraq plan from the starting point "I promise it isn't another Vietnam" and proceed from there (which is a winner for Kerry).

On to the last part: what to do in the future? Easy. Don't nominate someone from the same secret society as the enemy. Nominate an electable fighter. You don't win against bullies by running scared and hiding when they say bad stuff about you. You win by standing up to them and their cronies.

professional, even.

And you touched on a weakness of Democrats running for office- a reluctance to confront their opponent with damaging facts.

Why Bustamante/Gray Davis never painted Arnold with Enron is beyond me.

but I am fairly certain that there were about twenty other ways for Kerry to handle the whole mess with a lot of success (including post 45 in this thread). And although I would like to lead you into thinking I am a highly paid professional consultant, I am merely a recent college graduate with way too much time on my hands...which should make you wonder why the highly paid elites couldn't come up with anything worth a damn when it mattered most.

As for the "fear" Dems have of standing up to the enemy, I suspect this actually comes from a presumption that the American people are too stupid to understand or follow complex arguments. While this may be true of many, IMO it is by no means true of the majority of voters. I would also venture a guess and say that the average non-voter could be turned into a voter if a politician were to appeal to them in a meaningful and serious way.

This lie about the ignorant voter permeates the academic side of politics. It starts with the Walter Lippmann BS and runs through every "successful" political campaign that uses the worst propaganda and demogoguery. Of course this line of thinking doesn't exert much effort explaining in detail why so few choose to exercise their vote, which I think is where the most potential for real progressive change lies. Instead, those folks "do not count" and should be ignored/marginalised.

As for your Schwarzenegger comment, who knows what the hell the opposition was thinking in that deal. I think marginalising the Terminator would have been easy even without bringing Enron into it (Mr. Schwarzenegger, please explain how taking steroids, lifting weights and sexually harrassing hundredes of women prepared you for the Governorship of the tenth largest economy in the world).

Limbaugh is the new threat in all of this.

Has anyone listened to how he worked the Swiftboat thing...
or more importantly...how he's formed a subliminal argument for Americans to swallow now that the entire Vietnam debacle was a liberal inspired mess and how this is iconic of American weakness and how it can never happen again?

Do you get it?

It doesn't matter whether Kerry really got the metals fairly....it is his insistence to be ANTI WAR that Limbaugh, the Neocons, and Bushco are working. Liberals are being identified...quite wrongly and illogically....with being so weak that they could never stand up to threats in the future.

The swiftboat thing is over...forget about it.
What is necessary now is to see how to deal with this in the future.

The specific counters to Limbaugh-like arguments could go like this:

1. Education about Vietnam. Why did we fail? We failed politically. We trained Vietnamese to fight but we couldn't win the war politically. The same situation is true in Iraq. We can train all the Iraqi troops and police we want, but it won't prevent the Shia from coming to power and the formation of a terrorist pro-Iran state.

Moral of the story....you can't effect REGIME CHANGE and hope to win....unless of course there is really a logical stake in the matter and you're willing to be there for 30 years.

2. Dismantle Limbaugh et al and the sleezy arguments of how liberals relate to weakness. Clark is on the money with this approach. We have to be proud to be liberals and correctly profess our stance of security and concern for the homeland.

3. Most of the front runners now are concentrating on how we can somehow work the Iraqi situation. It is a hopeless cause...and this should be realized as soon as possible. We need front runners and congressional support that embellishes arguments similar to what Clark made. They must say front and center that there is a strong possibility for civil war...due to the long standing clash between the Sunni and Shia. No amount of trained Iraqi police or military will prevent this....short of a police state.

To summarize...get off the Iraqi solutions...don't go down this road...don't try and look like we have a better solution for Iraq than the Repukes because there really ISN'T ANY!!!!!!

The issues have to be liberal strength and homeland security...brought to a level of sincerity and belief that Americans can fully digest it.....

CLARK!

at happen. Everyone knew from about mid-Aprilish 2004 that it was coming, they said they were going after him. He had the money. He had potential surrogates. He had the spirit he showed against Weld. He seems not have used the first two and 100% did not use the latter. And so he let that happen.

Buck up, because that may be what has to be done if McCain is the nominee.

You accuse THEM of faking their medals. You accuse THEM of massacring civilians. You accuse THEM of putting their fellow soldiers lives in danger.

Ugly, nasty stuff. Some people won't like it, but campaigns are for grownups.

Walt Starr made the papers with his allegations about * faking his medals. Then he backed down and canceled his interviews or whatnot after new evidence came out throwing his theory in doubt. Total back down on the issue. Said we should only be interested in the truth.

Politics is not a court of law. If the blogosphere can't be counted on to get down and dirty with people that clearly deserve it, who can? They opened up Pandora's Box with the Sqwift Veets, but nothing came out.

Kerry wasted time getting into a fact by fact battle with the Swifties. Kerry's conduct during the war wasn't going to change any votes. It was his conduct AFTER the war that inflamed passions. The uproars was all about Kerry's 1971 testimony to Congress about our troops committing atrocities in Vietnam.

What did Kerry do in response? He tried to weasel his way out. He could have apologized. He could have defended his testimony. Instead, he tried to duck it by saying what he did was right but he did it the wrong way. It was another example of his gutlessness. Kerry's gutlessness, far more than anything that had to do with Vietnam, was why the middle wouldn't vote for him.

The underlying issue of Kerry's 1971 testimony has been the biggest issue of this decade. Should we, as Americans, blindly support calls to war and war itself because not doing so might encourage enemies or discourage our troops? What the Swifties were really saying was that speaking out is traitorous. Kerry should have fought that idea.

Kerry could have tied his side of the debate to the selling of the war in Iraq. Kerry should have pointed out that Bush lied about the WMD and everything else. The people who spoke out were called traitors. Blind obedience was abused. That's why its more important that doubters are allowed to speak than it is to keep the morale of our troops up and the morale of our enemies down. Democracy comes first. We cannot let the fear of what our enemies might do cause us to give up on Democracy.

We were lied to about Vietnam. Kerry went to Vietnam as a soldier and saw the truth for himself. He came back and did his patriotic duty to tell the nation what the truth was.

The same thing was happening in Iraq. The nation was told that we'd be greeted with flowers. Kerry should have said that he was still doing in 2004 what he did in 1971, bringing our nation the truth about what was happening. He did a soldiers duty for America then and now.

Kerry should have also challenged Bush to answer whether the people who doubted the WMD or the promises of easy victory were traitors. Were the people who called the questioners traitors right? I would love to have seen Bush put on the spot about this issue, especially after the abused that very loyalty. Bush should have been asked if we had taken a step down the road to fascism.

If Kerry had stood up on this issue, the uproar and excitement would have swallowed up all the little details about who shot who in Vietnam 30 years earlier. It would have shown Kerry's courage. Bush would be the one trying to duck the issue. That would have shown Bush's cowardice. Kerry would have won the election.

"I told the truth then about Vietnam. Now we are in a different war. Iraq is not Vietnam. And I promise you that I will tell you the truth about Iraq as President just like Nixon and his stooge, John O'Niell and Don Rumsfeld, didn't tell you the truth about the last major war we were in. It's all about truth telling. The people telling you we should shut up and not question the commander in chief in wartime, they are the ones who lost the war in Vietnam and if I'm not elected, I guarantee you they will lose untold American lives in Iraq because they think it's possible to compound national security, however good intentioned, to butress an objective with secrecy and lies. My mother always told me you can't ever win with a lie. It will always eventually come out and bite you in the butt. That's what's happening with Bush's Swift Vets and I'm sure they want him to do the same things in Iraq that I spoke out against in 1971."

Too many still believed Bush

That would've been a great response IMHO. Sunshine is the best disinfectant response. Should've let his lawyers show in court what liars and slime they really were. I just can't figure out why JK listened to people that told him to hold back. Very frustrating. I wish he'd sue them even now.

There is a vastly different standard for libel for politicians than for private citizens. The standard for a libel case against a POTUS candidate is so high that it can't be reached, therefore it is open season on POTUS candidates.

And it should be. I don't want some judge deciding what can and can't be said in a POTUS campaign. Let everybody say anything they want and let the public sort it out.

on the swiftliars. Even if the case had no chance, no civillian wants to be dragged through legal wrangling.

It would have have played to the swifties own audience, true, but it would have shown the rest of the nation that Kerry was fighting back against libel and slander.

File a law suit, send subpeona's for records, tax returns, everything to bug them, get depostions, those tools cool the jets of loud mouth flaks.

candidate, they were slandering and lying about his service as a soldier 30 years ago. It was reprehensible and it should not have been allowed to go unchallenged. A court case or even the threat of one would've made the little roaches run for cover and it would have made clear that Kerry wouldn't tolerate such smears against his service. The Republican convention, where there were slimeballs wearing purple hearts as bandaids was disgraceful. The person whose bright idea it was to hand out those things and tell people to wear them on camera should've been sued as well by every veteran or their family who had earned a real purple heart in service to their country. Hell, sometimes a lawsuit is the only thing the sleeping public is able to understand. I just don't agree that it would've been a bad move for Kerry.

It is always open season on a POTUS or a POTUS candidate. A libel suit in that situation is worthless.

I don't agree that a libel suit would've been worthless.
So I guess we just get to disagree.

was certain that claims about Sen. Kerry's conduct in Nam and the veracity of his medals were lies. You said the bar is too high for liber with public figures, I sau send a message and try.

When you subpoena records you are getting info. for discovery to show bias, inconcsitencies in past interviews and commentary. military records, and tax records to see who paid what to whom. Someone was financing these guys.

And I don't want the courts any more involved than they already are in elections. We saw what happened in 2000.

I have provided two concepts, or tactics, as part of an over all strategy.

In my post to you I spoke of legal action.

In a post just further down, I spoke of the use of surrogates.

These are in addition to the many great ideas, noteably Sir Jeffery's, that have already been proposed.

As far as the courts go, legal action has it's place in politics.
First, a candidate for POTUS has no less rights than any other citizen. Malicious lies merit legal action, but it is tough to prove malice. Never the less, when any Tom Cruise sues for defamation, and sometimes wins, regular folk could wonder why Kerry never threatened to sue the bums, it might be seen that he was afraid of the truth.

The Southern Poverty law center adopted a legal strategy to put hate groups out of business- litigation, it worked. They bankrupted those who hide their hate mongering behind free speech rights.

http://www.splcenter.org/legal/legal.jsp

he's the one that wrote the book, not O'Neill. The virulent racism, homophobia, and misogyny of Corsi's web writings and his lunatic fringe associations combined with his direct dealings with the Bush/Cheney CREEP would have torpedoed that attack.
But Corsi was nowhere to be found during the election. Can anyone here recall seeing his face on CNN, FN, or MSNBC during the stretch run? I can't, and I think it's because the GOP knew that having such a bigot leading their main attack would backfire if the country could only see him.

It may not have helped but it would make me feel better.

investigate the opposition look for irregularities in funding, history, motives.

The use of surrogates:

Shrub never got his mits dirty. Every one else shoveled the shit for him. He had plenty of pundits out there flooding the air waves. He remained above it, Presidential in appearance.

I saw Pat Pukeanon more than I saw my own toes. There were so many RW hacks veritably fighting for air time to stand in line and show loyaty to the chimperor.

Surely, there must be many articulate, photogenic, quick thinking dems out there, not just 3 or 4, I mean flood every network, cable talk show, the radio.

Then, get a coherent message and stay on it. Whenever a repig hack tried to change the subject bring it right back to our talking point.

At least the repigs had message discipline. And, they seemed to be the most aggressive in bringing the debate back to their point of view. I watched in pain and horror as they would double team dem guests on TV and talk circles around them. To some extnd this still happens now.

Poor Donna Brazil, the DNC chair and Hilary Rosen were out there facing a screaming Pukeanon et al, who BTW, is a master of the dramatic farce. Screaming and turning red, but when someone stands up to his Count Pukeula fat head he shuts up.

You know we let them do this to us, maybe we are too nice.

They entrapped Big Dog and had us on the ropes for three years.

They attacked a man who freaking volunteered for combat in Nam and then attacked his three Purple Hearts while representing a party boy who left his unit to campaign for poppy in the dangerous terrain of Alabama Country Clubs and dinner parties. Geesh!

.......

I emailed this to the Kerry campaign back when the liars launched their spampaign.

=======================================================================

"It is very sad that these men, who themselves served in uniform, would suggest that the military awards medals to undeserving soldiers. That is an insult to every man and woman that has ever received such an honor. It is also obvious that these men blame Senator Kerry for bravely testifying before congress as to the atrocities by Americans that occured during the Vietnam war. They are blatently lying to the public in a pathetic effort to smear his good name out of spite. These men are pitiful disgraces to the brave men and women that serve our country in uniform, and specifically who served in Vietnam. They deserve nothing but our scorn and contempt for their completely un-American behavior."

Yours is great but, with 20/20 hind sight, I would have gone into a more aggressive response. Which, for today's exercise, is my point.If we learned anything from 2004 it's that playing by gentlemanly rules won't work in an alley brawl.

........

It is a sad day for America when men who themselves served in uniform attack a fellow veteran of war. The swift boat veterans insult every man or woman who has proudly served in the United States military and, who like Sen. Kerry, have earned a purple heart.

They seem so distraught by their own lies, smears, and innuendo. Yet, they have had thirty years to settle this matter with the US military but never bothered to mention this until now.

The swift boat veterans for truth are not telling the truth.

They appear on TV in well paid ads to smear the good name of Senator John Kerry as he seeks to continue to serve our nation. The so-called swift boat veterans have come forward during this campaign to support Senator Kerry’s opponent, a man who never saw action over seas, a man who never set one foot in combat, a man with out one purple heart to his name.

The men appearing in the well paid, Republican funded, political campaign ads against Senator Kerry are a disgrace to our brave men and women in uniform today and those who served in Vietnam. Purple hearts are earned in the military and Senator Kerry has earned his. Senator Kerry put his life on the line, volunteered for Viet Nam, saw action, and earned the right to come home and tell the truth as did many young veterans at the time.

The fact that Mr. Bush never spoke out against that war is understandable, sometimes you have to go to war to in order to understand war.

Young men and women who go to war, then and now, enjoy the right of every American to come home and speak their mind. A young John Kerry spoke out as did thousands of other young men who had served in Viet Nam. Mr. Bush never spoke out about the war because he never saw the war.

Senator Kerry has continuously served his country for the last 30 years as a prosecuting attorney, tough on crime, and as a United States Senator who supports the military, is strong on defense, and thoughtful about spending your money on good systems that help our soldiers and sailors. He has voted against bloated, expensive, Republican boon-doggles, you would expect nothing less from a tough, plain spoken, war hero.

Senator Kerry would be happy to debate and compare his purple heart medals with Mr. Bush, but that would be so unfair, Mr. Kerry’s opponent has never earned a single one.

That could be the start of a campaign ad. Then show in livid color how the Rove/Bush/Cheney cabal slimed McCain during the primary leading up to 2000. Give examples: there are plenty of them.

Of course, the same puke spin machine has slimed many a democratic veteran: Max Cleland, Al Gore, John Kerry.

But to get the attention of the sometimes-republican voters, you would need to show that the Rove/Bush/Cheney cabal hates THEIR republican guy, McCain, too.

Some will say this would've been just getting down in the dirt with them. I say, good. Might as well get down in the dirt. This is a fight to the finish.

for those who served, even while they did not.

They even slimed their own repug guy McCain in S. Carolina in 2000- it was a very ugly smear campaign.

You are right this is a fight to the finish, they have taught us it is a street brawl not a country club tea dance.

The reason I say they fear them is, they know darn well how THEIR (2000 and 2004) candidate's record would stand up to any honest veteran's record.

And it makes them feel guilty. And anger and hate are good internal defenses against a feeling of guilt.

just like he had back in the Vietnam era. call him out & destroy him.

accused him of links to Rove. when he denies, provide them. on TV.

that fat scum bucket. he cleaned his clock on the Dick Cavett show decades ago.

Now, Kerry is a Senator, and the pudge boy is a mouth piece in Texas shilling for the repugs. Kerry should never set foot on the same stage as that loser, he is so much better than that Tricky Trixon flack.

how about: call it a lie & challenge GWB to call for an end to the swift boat campaign? he needed to be bold, and escalate the situation - make it costly for bush to be associated with it.

If the American people shrugged it off and watched Urkel instead the subject would have lasted about 2 seconds.

Kerry never fought back against the SB liars. My strategy would be to expose the SB liars and demand a retraction or TAKE THEM TO COURT for libel & slander. I would make a federal case out of the band-aid purple hearts and the fact that unlike Kerry, Bush NEVER went to Vietnam nor did he try to.

Easy stuff if you have the MSM on your side.

during that period and filming a Lot of it. We got Michael Moore backing Wes Clark in a school Gym in New Hampshire (or some little burg near there, forget the lil town), afterwards I even got to part the crowd when he was signing posters and autographs literally with both hands..

It was a magical moment, everyone that was clamoring and mobbing him simply parted for me and I walked right up to him and said, "Michael, I was one of the 14 finalists in the MoveOn 'Bush in 30 Seconds' contest a few days ago, and you were the one on stage in NYC to call out the names of my site (Takebackthemedia.com) and our media team that put together an ad which is now running, thanks to our millionaire buddy 3000 times on Cable television during the primaries.. ours was ARMY OF ONE, and I'd like to have a meet with you, even a short phoner type if you'd give me a few minutes at some point so that I could tell you some of my ideas for these campaigns.."

The crowd was actually silent (and I'm talking a Major "Kodak" moment in my life here, magical..) and Mr Moore looked me in the eye and very passionately said, "YOU'RE THE GUY!" (I still don't know what he meant by that - there's a funny story about when we met up again at the Democratic Convention later and I asked him what he'd meant by that as he literally SHUFFLED out the door of the Convention center surrounded by Tribbles/Muppet fur microphones surrounding his head and cameras from ALL the major Networks - I cut right into the mess explained the Gym situation and asked him what he'd meant by that -- he looked at me and said, "I dunno.. I must have been on drugs.." I then realized that I may have just given ABC, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, etc the PERFECT SOUNDBITE to DESTROY HIM! "I dunno, I must have been on drugs.." trumpeted all over the major media like the Dean Scream.. I was laughing but worried at the same time, as I peeled off from the herd of roving minicams that wouldn't even let him take a full step -- but I digress) --

So at the GYM he said, "YOU'RE THE GUY!.. Got a card where I can reach you?" I proudly pushed my Takebackthemedia.com card into his hand, he looked at it, slid it in his pocket, and said, "SO this is how I can reach you?" - I said, "Sure, please give me a call, even if it's only for a few minutes.."

He winked and patted the card in his front pocket as I backed out of the crowd who moved back in, the moment sort of RESUMED from being sort of FROZEN.. felt really good.. but he never called..

Anyway, we also attended a Kerry Chili feed in a Gym later and Kerry was very inspirational, and in the end he REFUSED to LEAVE until every person's questions for him had been asked, and that included the Janitor - it got down to about 9 people in the room, and 4 of those were his staffers..

My wife had a camera thrust so far up his nose, getting every word and expression and it was so intrusive that he actually stopped and said, "Excuse me, WHO are you and WHY do you have that camera in my FACE?" Friendly but quizzical..

A bit earlier when a crowd of 20 or so were all asking him questions I noticed someone, a sweet lady right behind Kerry the whole time, and she had her hands all over him so being ignorant of who she was I asked her, on camera, if she was with his staff and what SHE did..

She said, "Well, I keep him happy and sometimes I like to play 'horsey' with his belt.." whereupon she gave his belt a tug, jerking him around in good fun. I started joking with her about how stupid Bush was and how he couldn't read, that his wife was a Prozac Queen, etc.. The nice lady said, "Oh, Laura's not such a bad person.."

I said, "Well, SOMEONE has to READ to Bush so she might as well be the one.." the answer was, "Well she IS a Librarian and all.."

We were having a great chat (while my wife caught all of Kerry's nose hairs to his consternation) and pretty soon I realised I was goofing around with Theresa Heinz.. OOPS! But she was such a REAL and Sincerely Nice person that I was refreshed by it, especially after seeing all the LYING even by OUR good guys trying to win the Primary...

So with about 6 people left Theresa and I moved over to the couch in the room where she invited my wife (and film crew) to go with THEM to the Carol King concert happening within hours.. and I mean WITH THEM, RIDING with them.. we'd really hit it off..

I hated to do it, but since we'd been travelling in one of the coldest winters on record and had come from Hawaii to do it we were ALL suffering from exhaustion and the beginnings of a Flu.. I didn't want to infect the Kerrys with any Flu bug, and we were exhausted so I took her hand and graciously asked for a 'rain check', maybe we could do something in the future when we ran into each other again..

When you're doing the primaries it's SO low key that you feel like you'll just run into these FAMOUS people any time, in a restaurant, another gig, whatever.. surrounded by hay bales anything seems possible..

Theresa was very down to earth and HONEST, and sincere, I loved her immediately - she understood that we were beat, and honestly I don't know how these people keep up that kind of energy for so long, it's amazing if you've seen the kind of schedules they run with..

I'd met their closest bodyguard "Marvelous Marvin" (it's how Kerry and Theresa introduced him with loving respect, and "MM" and I hit it right off, he's a VERY cool cat..

SO we begged off and left reluctantly.

Later when Kerry had won the Primary it was a madhouse, HUGE cameras lined one whole wall, we didn't have a chance to even get IN the room where the speech was made until afer.. Kerry was doing little quickie Speeches for the cameras to be used for television sound bites, and then Theresa came out to shake a lot of hands behind a gold rope (like in theatres) with some SCARY guys surrounding her.. I got close but one Scary probably SS guy was giving me the "I can rip your trachia OUT of your neck with one swift move" look as Theresa moved along the line towards me and I leaned over the golden rope so she might see me..

I didn't really expect to get close enough or to be recognized again, BUT SHE SAW ME, and immediately broke into a huge sunny smile and walked right past a whole bunch of people to grab my waiting hands and beam into my face..

Another Kodak moment, and "Marvelous Marvin" was right behind her, the exact opposite of the SS guy with the spagetti spiral behind one ear and soul less dark glasses..

I congratulated her and told her to please pass it along to Kerry, and then I pulled out one of my cards and handed it to her, quickly explaining the whole "we were one of 14 entries chosen out of 1500 for the MoveOn event in NYC" and then suggested to her that our ARMY OF ONE would be the PERFECT answer to any attacks by the right wing on Kerry's heroism in the military, and that we'd GIVE the ad to their campaign, that it was already vetted for Cable TV, running 3000 times in that area, and it was THEIRS if they wanted it, FREE..

She said, "Oh, that's a wonderful thought, I'll have to have a look at it.. Marvin? Will you save Micheal's card for me?" Marvelous Marvin winked and stuck my card into his interior suitcoat pocket and patted at it to let me know it was safe with him..

Later I caught him off to the side and he Promised he'd make sure that the Kerry campaign watchd the ad, and then they'd of course make the final choice..

It was never used, got no calls, but I am convinced to this day that it would have made a HUGE difference, as it HAMMERED Bush on the Veteran's issues, no combat pay, no benefits for the family, an actual reduction in pay, no medical benefits at all for the National Guard members, etc, etc.. really hard hitting..

Too bad, at least I TRIED to make a difference and who knows, even SHE and Kerry might have liked it, but their campaign managers in my opinion left something to be desired, very terse and dismissive, a bit arrogant to boot..too bad, we COULD have jumped the gun on the Swift Boat asses and beat them to the punch with the ARMY OF ONE ad we created..

So there's the story, a little long winded, but I'm proud to say it's all true, and I TRIED, Goddamit, I TRIED :)

Right now I've got the COMPLETE Chronology of the Plame Outing I created after a Year of research and it's a 2 DVD set of a film I've named "Rove's War" - you can see the 12 minute Preview at http://www.takebackthemedia.com if you are interested - it's ALL there, and I'm trying to get a copy to EVERY Congressman or woman that wants it - I believe it could be a GREAT asset to them as a TOOL to KNOW the WHO, WHAT, WHEN and WHERE of the Entire PlameGate affair..

Even offering it FREE to Congress folks, some here have even donated to have a copy sent to a specific Congressman/woman or Representative and they donated for me to send it to that Congress folk, so that helps a bit..

I'd love to see MoveOn grab this film and promote it for House Parties so that EVERYONE can know the REAL story behind this SPIN addled and convoluted tale which has already ensnared Libby and I'm POSITIVE WILL result in the Indictment of ROVE..

Have a look and tell me what you think, for those of you who have a copy already, post a review for me, love to hear from you - H20Man watched it THREE TIMES and said it's the perfect antidote for the SPIN that is continuing to this day, even with a New Grand Jury..

Okay, off the soapbox now, there's just ONE story where Takebackthemedia.com had a dog in the fight and was doing the Right THING..

Good thread, thanks for starting it!
Later when Kerry

which is what Kerry did, cowered and did nothing. Rolled over for his Bones brother. I wish we could ban Kerry posts, He makes me ill....