Yes!! Kerry gets McCain to back down on his improper use of Petraeus photo in fundraising e-mail!

This is once again an excellent task for Kerry to do for the Obama campaign given his military cred. And at least in this case, Kerry got McCain to back down, and admit he had done something wrong.

:)

After november McCain will only be remembered as that old guy who said "my friends" a lot.

It scares my cat.

:kick:

Remember: 'West Point Grads Against the War'? This will piss you off!
Jack Tapper at ABCNews points out today that McCain Uses Image of Gen. Petraeus in Fundraising Solicitation

Which reminded me of the above image of a billboard seen on I-75 here in Ohio. Note that the ad was paid for "West Point Grads For McCain".

It seems just two years ago West Point sued another group also calling themselves "West Point Grads" who were in fact anti-war, claiming trademark violation over use of the name West Point.

West Point Sues Anti-War Grads
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Military Academy, a/k/a, the United States Government, a/k/a the citizens of the United States are suing a group of West Point graduates who have organized against the Iraq War to prevent their use of the “West Point” name.

The Army warned an anti-war group of former U.S. Military Academy cadets to stop using the words “West Point” in its name, saying they are trademarked. A co-founder of West Point Graduates Against the War countered Friday that his organization is simply following the cadets’ code. “At West Point, we were taught that cadets do not lie, cheat or steal — and to oppose those who do,” said William Cross, a 1962 West Point graduate. “We are a positive organization. We are not anti-West Point or anti-military. We are just trying to uphold what we were taught.”

West Point spokesman Lt. Col. Kent Cassella said the academy sent the April 12 warning letter because the group failed to go through a licensing process to get permission to use the term “West Point.” The group’s anti-war stance is irrelevant, he said. “This is not a political issue. They did not ask for permission. We are doing what any college or university would do to enforce its trademarks,” Cassella said.

The Army registered the words “West Point” — as well as “United States Military Academy,” “USMA,” and “U.S. Army” — as trademarks in 2000 to control their use on educational material and commercial goods.

An attorney hired by Cross and his colleagues said the warning raises questions of First Amendment speech protection and selective enforcement. Joseph Heath said he noted the concerns in a response sent to the Army on Monday; he has not yet received a reply, he said.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, if you're a Republican group, who supports a Republican candidate, the U.S. Military will allow you to use the name "West Point", in a way that is clearly political, but if you're a group with the same qualifications as graduates of West Point who used the name in a non-political manner the military will sue you?


I posted this here but it didn't get many hits:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3366380&mesg_id=3366380

Really worth listening to:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/obama_camp_mccains_petraeus_at.php

his silence on the '04 trail.

"George Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan when he went into Iraq" was quite clear, and is now used by Barack Obama this year.

The thing is, I hope that in time you understand that the same dirty campaign Clinton waged against Obama was waged against Kerry from the moment he conceded. The "he didn't fight back" meme, which is not true. He did fight back, and it is documented here in the Research Forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

I am not saying the Kerry campaign did not makes mistakes; they did. I am not saying that they didn't punt for some time on the SBVT (although fighting behind the scenes by feeding the media all the facts); they did. But there is a mythology about his campaign that is not true. He did fight back, and he demolished Bush in the debates. He also came damned close, but alas, 2004 was not our cycle. If it was, then Hillary would have run then.

Unfortunately, presidential candidate Kerry did not have effective surrogates like Senator Kerry. I think he has been a superb surrogate for Obama, and really made a huge difference for the Obama campaign by endorsing him right after NH.

It's too bad that fellow Obama supporters do not appreciate the hardwork Kerry is doing on Obama's behalf. It's amazing that people couldn't see that the media bias was in place in 04.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

It's also been noted many times since 2005 that he did respond, but the media refused to air his response. The big difference this time around is that the media is showing Obama's responses/speeches, and he has big name support from Dems like Kerry. Something Kerry didn't have in 04.

And it's something that this Obama supporter appreciates also.

and using them as evidence of his worthiness. Seriously though, why do they suddenly care about whether a candidate has served? That didn't seem to matter when they were campaigning against Kerry in 2004 did it?