Are Kerry defenders saying we have no right to question...

[CTLawGuy]

why Kerry waited so long to talk about the voting irregularities?

I for one give him his due credit for actually coming out with a statement,

that being said, I can't help but wonder, if he really cared about this issue, why didn't he say something when congress was having a debate on this issue, when the leadership might have been recognized.

Why didn't he say anything about it right after the election, when the media was covering him 24/7.

I don't expect him to say "Bush cheated", but I did expect him to

1. fight to count every vote, which he said he would do
2. use his newfound leadership status to push this fundamental issue when it was RIPE for media attention, not after the fact.


The biggest response I will get from Kerry defenders is:
"Kerry shouldn't say anything because the Republicans will paint him as a sore loser and it will cloud the issue."

I disagree with that statement. Yes, the Repugs will try to do that. But SO WHAT? We can't live in fear of the Repug PR machine. It is designed to create a world where the Repugs dominate. Trying to tip-toe around it is playing right into its hands. In fact, Kerry's silence was used against those trying to bring this issue to light in Congress. We muse fight the Repug PR machine head on, with a loud, clear message of our own, from our leader, about this issue.

At the VERY worst, at least the idea would have gotten out into the media and the public consciousness, had Kerry said something at an opportune time.

While I am glad he said at least something at some point, at THIS point, the media fascination with the election is over, and they will ignore Kerry's statement.

I believe we, as a free and open party, have a right to question why our leader did not lead on this issue, which he has finally come out and said he cares about, when it would have made optimal or close to optimal impact.

[Darkhawk32]

1. Honestly, this subject has been done to death.

There are other existing threads that you can kick that say the exact same thing.

[CTLawGuy]

2. I wanted to least make it clear

that I credit Kerry for making a statement, but wonder why he didn't do it earlier.

I feel that might get lost in one of the other threads.

[robbedvoter]

30. Yeah, democracy is so pasee....

[Darkhawk32]

39. Sigh, you missed the point... thanks for playing... n/t

[robbedvoter]

47. Not a game to me, dear. It's life / death to me. You & your hero play

I DON"T.

[Darkhawk32]

73. And who is my hero?

[skypilot]

3. "sore loser"

That is the response that I tend to get as well. Also--and I commented on this last week--some people will say that Kerry will be accused of "sour grapes" if he raises any voting issues. This is a misuse of the phrase sour grapes. Sour grapes entails giving up on something and then rationalizing your decision to give up. Sour grapes does not entail raising any kind of protest. I wish people would stop saying this.

[JoseRizal]

5. Kerry just lost plain in simple

Wether you accept it or not is up to you. YOu want proof you say? ok Ill give it to you who is in the white house is it not Pres.Bush not John Forbes Kerry.

[skypilot]

7. plain in simple???

Please learn to spell, capitalize, puntuacte and form a cogent sentence and then get back to us.

Next time, just say "Bush won. Get over it". That'll be much easier on you. And that's what all his fans say.

[Dr.Phool]

9. I love good grammar.

[Benhurst]

13. The only Grammar I don't like is

Kelsey. He's a right-wing turd.

[wtmusic]

10. Yep, "plain in simple"

No voting irregularities in Ohio. Kenny Blackwell has thrown open the books for everyone to see. Plenty of time for all black people to vote.

Whether you want to keep drinking the CNN koolaid is up to you, but you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[tngledwebb]

20. How the heck did you come up with that crazy ideer Jose?

Hope you can stick around long enough to answer the question. Or not.

[robbedvoter]

50. That's the thief's "proof" - you got my car - i didn't "lose it" - you

stole it. That you are above the law doesn't make it any better. Might doesn't make right.

[wtmusic]

8. Well, more not being able to accomplish something

then acting as if you didn't want it anyway.

The origin of 'sour grapes' is from Aesop's fable of a fox trying to get some grapes from a tree. After several attempts, the fox walks away saying, "They are probably sour, anyway!"

In either case it's not applicable to Kerry raising objections.

[skypilot]

11. not applicable to Kerry...

I know. I'm familiar with the fable. It's just been bothering me because I've been hearing too many DEMOCRATS saying this. It's bugging the hell out of me.

[pocoloco]

4. When you say "voting irregularities"

are you talking about "flip flopping"?

[CTLawGuy]

6. no

but that's a good catch.


Just for the hell of it...

Im talking about irregularities that voters in state like Ohio with Diebold machines felt, when the machines "malfunctioned", or when voters in Dem precints were short machines and they had to wait in line for hours to vote. Things like that.

[Selteri]

16. I waited in line for 2 almost 3 hours in a Democratic Precint

We had 1 machine for our Precinct and there was a republican hellfire who was trying to go after voters.

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. He didn't want to sound like a sore loser and hurt his chances in 2008

[AntiCoup2K4]

14. He has no chances in 2008

His vow to NOT roll over like Gore supposedly did, and then rolling over before the votes in Ohio were even counted, will be seen as his ultimate "flip flop", deservedly or not, and in this case I would say he DOES deserve it.

[rodeodance]

34. I agree, he does not have a chance in 2008--just look at the DU comments

[Freddie Stubbs]

37. How representative of the Democratic Party is DU?

:shrug:

[WilliamPitt]

15. Answer

from an interview I did last week:

Q: There are a lot of people who don't understand why Senator Kerry chose not to be in the Senate for the Thursday challenge. A lot of people believe he should have been the one to stand up and be the challenger. There are a lot of political implications here, and I am wondering if you might explain the thinking on this.

A: I have talked to a number of the Congressional members involved. Many of them feel that it was better without John involved, that it put the focus on the issue and not on him. It took away the Republican argument that this was just about sour grapes. Had John led the protest, we would have heard that a hundred times.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011105W.shtml

In other words, had Kerry led the charge, it would have been about him and not election reform. Yes, those are two separate things.

[CTLawGuy]

18. but Will

who else is there with the same level of gravitas who could have championed this issue?

and why should we let fear of what the Republicans might say stop us from doing what is right? What if Bill clinton had cared what Newt Gingrich's opinion was in the 1995 government shutdown, and caved in? What if he didn't try to pin the blame for the shutdown on Gingrich? Do you think he would have been reelected?

[WilliamPitt]

21. There's a big difference

Clinton was playing from a position of strength. Kerry just 'lost' an election, and had no such strength. Gingrich was already a running joke in the press, and also threw that tantrum on the plane. Kerry had no such single foolish foe.

I can appreciate the desire for someone to do a kamikazi run on the issue, but that's the problem: It would have been a kamikazi run. It would have a) Done irreparable harm to the cause of election reform and b) Destroyed the career of a Senator who is going to make this issue a priority.

[CTLawGuy]

22. I don't understand WHY it would have killed Kerry.

The Republicans will say it's Democratic "sour grapes" no matter what. They will say anything to stop this cause.

At least with kerry,back when the election was relevant, we would have had someone the media would have paid attention to.

Why should we be afraid to stand up to the Republicans?

Isn't that why we keep losing?

[FubarFly]

23. So he was afraid of confrontation?

The fight wasn't worth the blackeye he would inevitably take?

He should've let them try to make it about him. That would've resulted in creating an atmosphere that would have allowed us to get the real message out. But instead: another opportunity wasted.

Kerry played a very cautious political game against an opponent that could only be bowed by direct confrontation. The reason we are the minority party is that we act like we should be the minority party. But at least Kerry will live to fight another day. We the people are the ones who get to suffer.

[WilliamPitt]

24. Question

Is the misunderstanding you display willful, or accidental? I do not ask to pick a fight, but am genuinely curious.

The interview snippet I quoted above clearly states that the decision for Kerry not to show up for that vote came after direct consultation with the House members involved, who felt strongly that Kerry's involvement would have torpedoed the effort and changed the subject to an intolerable and untimately destructive degree. Fear didn't enter into it.

[FubarFly]

31. I disagree with the "torpedoed" sentiment.

Wholeheartedly. I believe when you are playing cards against a crooked opponent you need every "ace" you can get. Kerry's involvement would've started a debate which would have gotten mainstream attention. If we played it correctly, we could've made people aware of the irregularities, while forcefully pointing out that this is a problem regardless of who won. I believe more good would have come from this approach than harm. The "sore loser" charge could be easily deflected.

As it stands now, I fully expect this issue to be swept under the rug. I have little confidence left in our elected representatives.

[skypilot]

53. What up, D!!!

:toast: :beer:

[Q]

49. "it would have been about him and not election reform"

Jesus. The Republicans didn't even have to come up with an argument. There was a couple hours of 'debate' and the media moved on to the next subject.

This is another reason that Kerry won't be getting my vote again. He's real good at coming up with excuses for why he didn't fight for the people. He didn't want to be the focus of attention. He was somewhere else. He was having a bad hair day.

In other words...this was all about Kerry. He was so f**king worried that the RWing pundits would call him a 'soreloserman' and give him negative press for 2008 that he ran away.

Perhaps you haven't noticed...but election reform hasn't been taken seriously by either party and there are no plans to do anything about it.

Millions of Democrats would have supported Kerry if he stood up and fought...telling those who accused him of making it about him to go to hell. Instead he choose to play it safe and allow others to do the dirty work for him.

He can run again in 2008 if he so desires...but he shouldn't expect the votes or support of those he let down in 2004. He played it safe once too often.

[robbedvoter]

51. Secret service didn't allow W to return to DC on 911....lame, lame, lame

What was his job and did he owe anything to us the voters?

[blm]

17. He came out four times about it and each time some say "Finally" or

"Too little, too late" or "Shut up Kerry"...surely, these posts can't all be legitimate since they say the same thing each time he speaks out.

And why DO some here think it's productive to be so nasty against Kerry? Does it make them feel more righteous?

Does it strengthen the party to diminsh anyone who bears our standard and is then perceived to have failed?

Why do Republicans glorify ALL their leaders unwaveringly, no matter what? Because they know it STRENGTHENS their party. Too many on the left are too short-sighted to see the longterm harm they cause.

I'm still waiting for just ONE of the Kerry detractors to describe how they worked harder than Kerry did for this country over the last 40 years and how THEY earned the right to tell Kerry he is no longer needed and he should shut up.

[CTLawGuy]

19. we are not saying he should shut up

I give him credit for making the statement, I just wonder why he shouldn't have done it earlier.

and I don't think fear of what the Repugs might say is an acceptable answer.

[blm]

25. He spoke up about it at least 4 times in the past 8 weeks.

If some people are only hearing this last statement, then they have not been paying attention.


Kerry will work towards transparency in the voting system. I have no doubt about it. It took him a full year before he finally coerced the Congress into investigating IranContra. I trust him and I trust his motivation.

I only wish Democrats had dealt with the media and voting machines before the election. Sadly, too many are still unaware.

[sadiesworld]

28. Well, why didn't KERRY bring up the media and voting machines

prior to the elections?

[blm]

29. Kerry was doing EVERYTHING else. He won three debates and had to answer

every world issue that came up througjhout that time.

His plate was pretty full. He was not wellseved by those Democrats who KNEW about the voting machines and chose not to make it a bigger issue before the election. It should have been highlighted RELENTLESSLY by all Dems who were familiar with the problem.

Kerry only expected typical rethug tactics like vote suppression. He never had a clue on BBV. And those Dems who claim to understand the problem did not exactly carry that torch in any way that would draw his attention to it.

During the general election it was ALL our duties to cover any area where Kerry was weak or without definitive knowledge. He certainly carried quite a load on his end.

[sadiesworld]

35. "[Kerry] never had a clue about BBV"???!!!

I'm sorry, but that defies logic. A primary component of Kerry's job for the past 30 years has been winning elections. He somehow MISSED the whole debate about paperless voting and repug control of the machines?! It is beyond comprehension that Kerry could be that naive or uninformed.

[blm]

38. Can you name ONE DEmocrat who understood and made it an issue

and pressed the other Democrats to understand it?

I didn't see anyone act relentlessly on this issue, so I assume that none of them saw it as a priority action. Who schooled Kerry on this issue? Who understood it well enough to do that?

To believe that only Kerry should know everything and deal with it on his own is absurd. NO nominee has dealt with every issue. They get help from other Dems who excel in the areas where they are weakest.

[sadiesworld]

40. No, I can't name one dem who made BBV an issue...

and I find that extremely troubling. This isn't just one of many issues, this is THE issue that allows the pols to keep their jobs.

A few weeks prior to the election, Jimmy Carter was interviewed on NPR. The host asked why the dems hadn't made an issue about BBV. Carter gave two reasons:
1. A "cowboy-type" mentality that refuses to acknowledge a need for a back-up paper trail. (I'm paraphrasing here).
2. INCUMBENCY. (I'm NOT paraphrasing here). Carter as much as admitted complicity. Needless to say, the host moved on pretty quickly.

I can't help but feel that I am watching theatre these days.

[blm]

44. I remember that. They obviously never really "got" the BBV issue.

None of them. Or else they would have been in the streets about it and made certain Kerry understood it.

The one man who gets crap for it is the one guy who had the most on his plate 24/7 and likely never even saw any reports on BBV.

[NYCGirl]

41. What about all those big-shot consultants with the campaign?

Weren't they amply paid to "school" Kerry on things?

[blm]

43. They were clueless when it came to BBV. Where was ANY Dem who

claimed to understand BBV?

[NYCGirl]

45. Well, if they were clueless on a matter that potentially impacted

his election, they didn't deserve to be consultants.

[FubarFly]

46. I guess they didn't read our letters.

There were thousands of them.

:shrug:

[JoseRizal]

27. Thnx for the correction guys!!

I appreciate the correction with regards to the post I made. I still stand by from what I posted.As other have pointed out, I should have made my point concise and direct. "Get over it,Bush Won Kerry Lost".
Instead,focus on what is coming not on what has already transpired.

[cidliz2004]

36. I agree with you 100%

Leadership is defined best when it is most needed and used wisely. Wisely being the Democrats standing up and DEFINING the discussion. John Kerry appeared weak at best when he went to the back round immediately following the election. What we needed was a strong voice calling out the voting irregularities and the obvious fraud. The American people were most tuned into the election in November, the media was most tuned into the election in November - now messages about problems with our voting system are barely covered and acknowledged.


When we needed a leader to stand up for the Americans the most, we had a leader who sat back and tried to play it smart and not to appear to be a sore loser. That is the lamest excuse for not fighting for our voting process that I could have ever heard. There will always be 100 excuses why it is better not to fight, the only reason that is credible is that Kerry is protecting his political future. Kerry doesn't have a political future on the National level. He had many people voting for him that basically held their noses and voted for the best of two bad choices (not my words). Those people will not hold their noses and vote for him again. Many of the rest of us are hugely disappointed and will not vote for
Kerry and unless the Democratic Party wants to continue losing elections, they will not present Kerry as their choice for a Democratic Presidential Nominee.

Yes, he was presented when the VAST majority of states never even cast their votes when Kerry was proclaimed the winner.

[robbedvoter]

52. Could it be we feel betrayed and sad for lost democracy?

Could it be kerry gave up the last chance to set things straight by peaceful means? (and probably in our life times)? Could it be there are in this life things BIGGER than Kerry?

[KittyWampus]

56. Could It Be That You Are Incapable Of Seeing The Big Picture?

I'd say yes.

[KoKo]

58. Could it Be....that some are so tired of rolling that big boulder uphill?

And...just expect so much now that "We the People" have become involved after Clinton Impeachment and Selections 2000 and 2002 and 2004?

Could it be that some of us really did think that our Senate and Congress and Government was accountable to "WE THE PEOPLE?"


Could it be? :shrug:

[AntiCoup2K4]

65. Why do Republicans glorify ALL their leaders unwaveringly, no matter what

Because they ACT like Republicans. If a Republican acted like a Democrat, chances are they would lose some popular support on the right.

Democrats who act like Democrats get the same support from Democrats.

Geezus, why the fuck is that so complicated?

[CTLawGuy]

71. Repugs glorify their party leaders

because those leaders respect the values and ideals of the base, rather than run to the "center".

They realize the value of the base in terms of money, vol. hours, and grassroots organization.

Sometimes I think the dems do not at times.

[zulchzulu]

26. You are an uninformed Kerry basher

The laughable fact is seeing people that are asleep at the wheel and have their head up their butts when they think that the recent statement Kerry made in Boston was the first statement he has made about post-election fraud and election reform. Wake up!

Here are some links to stories that date back to immediately after the election results were in:

Kerry legal team announce efforts on Nov 9 2004
http://rsa.cwrl.utexas.edu/archives/2004/11/from_cam_kerry.html

Kerry campaign recount efforts
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21election.htm

Recount efforts by Kerry in Ohio
http://www.voxpopuli-ne.com/2004_12/page49.html

Kerry pushes for election reform
http://ifk-johnkerry.blogspot.com/2005/01/kerry-pushes-for-federal-election.html

Recount efforts intensify
http://www.northcountynews.com/view.asp?s=11-17-04/news5.htm

The Perfect Election Day Crime
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the_perfect_election_day_crime.php

To say Kerry has done nothing is to be about as informed as a drunken monkey for the Chimp.

Read the stories...then tell me Kerry hasn't been doing anything... if you want to bash Kerry because you still haven't gotten over the loss of your candidate in the primaries, then I only pity you.

[CTLawGuy]

33. Where did I say

Kerry did nothing?

Go ahead, show my exact quote....


What I am saying, is why didn't kerry speak about it publicly and prominiently when it might have been effective?

Your second article confirms that Kerry chose not to advocate publicly against voting irregularities.

I'm glad his legal teams were working in Ohio. But legal teams working behind the scenes and e-mails to party activists will not push this issue to the forefront.

But why should he be scared to come out publicly and make Joe Sixpack aware of the problem? That is the crux of my question.

A word of advice on argument, work on reading carefully before responding.

[zulchzulu]

57. Dude, check out your first sentence

"why Kerry waited so long to talk about the voting irregularities?"

I'm assuming you meant his statement a day ago...as if that was the first time he mentioned the issue...read the statements he made a few days after the election...get it?

Kerry, being a seasoned lawyer and prosecutor, is not one prone to blowing his stack like some kind of idiot and destroying his case...maybe you never heard of that...maybe you wanted a Dean blowup. I guess you can see what happens when you do that and what the media paints you as.

Don't get me wrong. This whole thing sucks, but two things bug me about Kerry bashers. First, they assume that Kerry said or did nothing after the election and think that a concession speech is legally binding. Neither are true. Secondly, the pathetic childish tantrums about how Kerry should have been screaming at the top of his lungs after the election would have solved NOTHING. Investigations had to be made before proof is taken to court as well as you can't count air.

Let's all get past this and work as hard as we can on election reform for 2006. That would be more productive.

[CTLawGuy]

66. i don't want him to "blow up"

its amusing you seem to be obsessed with hating Howard Dean...

In NONE of those articles you cited did kerry actually publicly talk about voting irregularities with the media.

One article explicitly said that Kerry was NOT going public with his actions..

another said a letter of his was "curiously not distributed to the press."

Another was an email sent to party activists (not the media)that encouraged them to contact Republicans on this issue...

The key word in my first sentence is "talk". Kerry needed to use his gravitas to put the issue out in the public consciousness through prominient media statements.

I appreciate his behind the scenes work, I just wish he would have used his bully pulpit as well.

You can speak out about something while also being reasonable.

[sampsonblk]

42. Kerry has done nothing

This stuff is weak and half-hearted, like his campaign.

[zulchzulu]

55. Check up on your reading skills

Who did you back in the primaries? I detect a bad case of the old tired sour grapes syndrome.

[sampsonblk]

72. You're pulling your own leg

Everyone who disagrees with you is just bitter about the primaries?

[no name no slogan]

32. I can understand Kerry not taking the lead-- but WHERE WAS THE DNC????

I can understand why Kerry didn't take the lead in the counting efforts-- it would have looked like "sore loser-ism", and probably wouldn't have done much good for him or us.

But during all of this, WHERE WAS THE DNC???? Were they deliberately hiding from the controversy?

Why was the GREEN PARTY the one to lead the charge in Ohio? Why did THEY put forth a very public effort to make sure "every vote counted", but McAuliffe and the boys at the DNC Klubhouse were nowhere to be seen?

IMHO, the beginning of the end was when Kerry conceded Ohio. So what if he added "but every vote should be counted" at the end of it, he STILL said that Dubya won Ohio. He set a poor example for the rest of the party, which in an instant became damn near irrelevant to the vote fraud issue.

It's a pretty damn sad day when Democrats have to rely on the Green Party to do their dirty work, because our "leaders" are too afraid to do it.

[ClarkUSA]

48. Kerry is de facto leader of the Democratic Party, that's why...

god help us all.

They got their cues from him.

[Withywindle]

54. Nobody's saying that

You have a "right" to say whatever the hell you want. And I think the header of your post is disingenuous in that I have seen this particular argumentative "strategery" way too many times:


Post 1: Hyperbolic, melodramatic vicious rant, with heady dose of Oedipal abandonment issues combined with dash of Rethug talking point (add dumbass sci-fi college-frat conspiracy theory to taste).

Post 2 (Kerry supporter): That's ridiculous. There are reasons why he did what he did, and here's what they are.

Post 3: (original poster responding): What, am I not allowed to QUESTION??!?? Cultist! Kool-Aid! Censorship!! DLC plant!!


I'm not saying that's what you're doing. I'm only saying there is a VERY IMPORTANT difference between questioning and SBV-worthy hack and slash ranting, and you know that perfectly well.

[CTLawGuy]

67. the reason I write this is to

clarify that I appreciate what he did, but I thought he could have done more.


However, to SOME people here, that is "Kerry bashing". That's funny considering these same people whine that when they criticize Dean or Kucinich, they are not necessarily "bashing", and those who attack them for their criticism think Dean/Kucinich are some kind of demi-god.

That's called hypocrisy.

[Withywindle]

69. Nobody is above criticism...

but you can't deny that there are those who take it completely over the top. Unfortunately, it starts to all blur together in people's minds along with the more sane questioning and constructive criticism, because the ridiculous, insulting stuff is so pervasive and repetitive--and that's the same no matter who the guy you support and want to defend is.

[CTLawGuy]

70. yes, I understand that it happens

We need to understand that you cannot get better if you cannot be criticized.

Imagine if you're an English teacher and you are forbidden from correcting mistakes on a student's paper.

How will the student know how to use proper grammar if the teacher cannot point out the student's grammar is wrong?

if the teacher DOES criticize a student's writing, then does he/she think the student is a horrible writer? Is he/she "bashing" the student? Does he/she have destructive intentions?

the reason people criticize the Dems is because we want the party to get better.

I admit, some take it too far, but a lot of people feel very betrayed, and political activists are loud and argumentative in the first place.

[KoKo]

59. It goes down to the "State Party Level." No "clue" about voting machine

problems. Some of us are shocked by this after "Selection 2000" but most of the Dem/Repug Beaurocrats thought it was "Punch Card Machines" that were the problem.

It wasn't until Bev Harris and others pointed out the "Touch Screen/OptiScan" that many of us realized there were other problems...deep problems.

And, when GA went to all "Touch Screens" it took the "BBV" issue to a higher level and priority with those of us on the Intenet who were interested.

BUT...Senate/House...and States have to be "educated" about all of this. These folks have many focuses and getting them to understand "high tech and even basic computer problems" takes up too much of their time.

They are human...and not into the "techie stuff" which BBVoting is. And most are relying on their "Aides and Lobbyists" to keep them "up to speed."

I think that's much of the problem...but it's also why many of us here are angry with them. We can't understand why they support Bush for his 21st Century Initiatives where he wants "out with the old and in with the new" and yet our Government from National to State can't understand that our voting system is under attack.

They just don't get it....and educating them takes a long time unless we had Millions to Lobby them to Educate them. :shrug:

[NVMojo]

60. you follow the repug agenda when you attack Kerry, one of your own, that's

what they want. They attacked him and now you attack him and wonder why so many Americans have fallen for the Rove marketing agenda. Good job little monkeys.

[liberalpragmatist]

61. No, I'm not - here's why I think the way I do

I understand there's a lot of anger and resentment over the election. And I can't totally dismiss the idea that maybe waiting some time to concede could have been better. And it's fine to question - my quarrel is with those who just relentlessly Bash Kerry as though he were Bush, and do it just to provoke and get attention.

But I'm willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt. He spent the last 2 years of his life campaigning for the office he has wanted since he was a child. This was his lifelong dream.

I also think it's pretty clear that while there were certainly irregularities and major problems that need to be tackled, there simply isn't hard proof of widespread fraud. Sad as it may seem to some on DU, all the evidence points to a Bush win. And when you lose, it's customary to concede. Hence the concession.

As for the argument that Kerry not conceding couldn't have worked, I just can't agree. Had Kerry refused to concede not only would the media have completely roasted him, the country as a whole would have roasted him as well. 2/3 of Democrats accepted the results. Had Kerry refused to concede he - and not just him, the Democratic Party as a whole - would have been painted as a bunch of sore losers and conspiracy theorists. It would have dramatically hurt the left and pushed Bush's approval ratings up. What would the point of that have been?

And had he been the one to challenge the results, he would have made all the attention focus on "rerunning the presidential race." That's how it would've been spun and all talk of voting irregularities would have been pushed off the pages.

[LittleClarkie]

62. No, at least that's not what I'm saying

Reasoned criticism is always welcome. Snarky, bitchy, childish, kneejerk, drive-by shooting type comments -- not so much.

You fall into category one. Greetings and welcome.

As for the standard response from your average Kerry supporter, which am I, is our opinion. There's nothing built into "Kerry shouldn't say anything because the Republicans will paint him as a sore loser and it will cloud the issue" that says "and the other side should just shut up now."

You have your opinion, we have ours. Does that mean we're saying you shouldn't feel as you do. No. Are you saying we shouldn't feel as we do? I hope not.

[CTLawGuy]

68. thanks for your post

you are of course welcome to your opinion that it would have been counter-productive for Kerry to criticize voting irregularities publicly.

I just don't agree with it on the merits, but I respect your right to have it.

[Still_Loves_John]

63. Speaking as a Kerry defender

I think the reason most of us are so defensive is that there is so much illegimate criticism of Kerry floating around here. It seems like some people want to attack him for anything he does, and that causes others, in turn, to try and defend him even when someone offers legitimate criticism of him. The substantial things get lost in all the tripe.

[noamnety]

64. I just want to say

I don't think we have near enough threads like this.

I appreciate the efforts of those that dart into a thread everytime Kerry's name is mentioned, no matter the subject, to remind us that they don't like him, but that's really not enough, and I think we all know it.

What I'm thinking is we ought to have threads like this perhaps twice a day. In several forums. Sometimes the other bashing gets lost, buried way inside another thread.

And not everyone reads DU, so I'd also like to suggest forehead tattoos, to make sure people we interact with in day to day life don't accidentally get away without noting our deep seated anger and disappointment.