Reply #30: You are talking apples and oranges here [View All]

[karynnj]

You are speaking this year about how Obama answered a question. You thought that he did not go negative enough. I agree the answer could have been a little sharper, but NOTHING like you suggested. (With considerably more time to think, he could have kept the first part that it was her job to show she was fit, and then said "but McCain and she are wrong on the issues" as a bridge to the issues part. Now, he did in several parts of the interview give long lists of where they are wrong.)

In Kerry's case, he was tough speaking about what Bush had done wrong in Iraq on other issues. He essentially called him out as negligent by making the true case that they did not guard the KNOWN ammo dumps for months. He then went on to say that that ammo was going into the ieds that were wounding and killing "our kids". That is a more stark, awful accusation than any other politician in my life has used VALIDLY. (Cheney's terrorists are gonna get you is stronger, but unfair.)

The SBVT were independent of the Bush campaign and Kerry did respond. In fact, the immediate reaction was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. just as the Obama people did with Corsi's book though theirs was 41 pages.. This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof.
That was done within ONE DAY of the book's emergence in August. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it. They also proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out.


But, even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand.

It should also be mentioned that it was not Kerry's accounts they disputed, it was the NAVY's official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O'Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

Saying Kerry did not fight back simply swiftboats him again - compare this list of proof to Carville & Co response on Clinton's Flowers or draft problems - this is far more comprehensive and completely refutes the charges. The Clinton responses in these two instances did not completely refute the charges - in fact, after changing his story a few times in each case - conceding that earlier statements were not completely true - parts of the charges were conceded. The difference was that in 1992 - even in the primary - Clinton was given breaks by a media that wanted him to win. The fact is that we KNEW in those two cases that he was willing to dissemble and scapegoat others when he was called on his actions - two things that later hurt his Presidency.

In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step. It is only when there is no open and shut case (as there is here) that the candidate would try anything different.When this didn't work, Kerry did speak to the issue - and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here - all political junkies didn't here this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn't think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was - I think less than 5 minutes long - so there is no excuse.
http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/08/jk_the_fire_fighters.html
click on little photo of the Senator.)

Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverand Wright? Many people on the Obama team came from Kerry's team and Kerry himself has been a top adviser on this.

In addition to it being obnoxious to blame Kerry for attacks against him, there is also concern that it makes us over confident. Kerry, after all, did a brilliant job fighting the SBVT and the intern affair lie in the primaries. Obama is not yet in the general election. Obviously, his own campaign is less willing to write the 2004 swiftboating off as having been successful because of failings of Senator Kerry - that was their stated reason to go outside campaign financing. With the media working for Bush, Kerry needed money to get a counter message out - and it was money that he would have had to take from what would be needed in the fall. (As it will be mentioned - the $15 million left over was from the primaries and could not legally be used after the convention),