I am sick and tired of being sick and tired of people slamming Edwards and have no idea what they

[Ninga]

are talking about.

Case in point. Those who are slamming or about to slam Edwards for using those who slam him or Elizabeth to raise money.

History people! History! Do you know it!

I am so angry i could spit.

In Dec of 2003 and Jan of 2004 John Kerry and the DLC and other Democrats ran black and white grainy TV ad's against Howard Dean in Iowa, which included shots of Osama Bin Laden.

The hard core dirty tricks played by the DLC and other Dem's gave us a candidate who fell apart at being Swift-Boated.

And you are slamming Edwards for using what Coulter said to raise money??????? And some of you cowards out there, and you know who you are, are already suggesting Edwards is going to use the latest slam against Elizabeth to raise money.

And what would be wrong with that, pray tell???????


John Edwards has seen the light of reason and is a genuine candidate. He has lived a hard life and worked hard to get where he is. The White House is free game to anyone who has the guts and fortitude to fight for the right to lead us, and I will be damned if I stand by and let people slam him for using real life examples to raise money.

[yardwork]

1. Edwards has my vote in the primary at this time.

I hated what happened to Dean and I hate what is happening to Edwards. We need progressive candidates.

[JDPriestly]

2. How right you are, Ninja.

Edwards is turning the twisted strategy of personal attacks on those who perpetrate the attacks. More power to him. It is an excellent strategy. It turns swiftboating into a hazardous sport rather than just cheap thrills at the expense of the American people. Every attack should be played to the hilt.

Personal attacks are the conservatives' strong card. They use it to make their opponents look weak and speechless. Edwards is playing that very card against conservatives. More power to him.

[Crazy Dave]

3. I think Elizabeth is a very brave woman for what she is doing....

...and as far as investments go...even ordinary folks like me have someone or a company manage our investment and retirement accounts and I have no fucking idea what all the money goes into. I have one account with about 20 companies and funds in it and have no idea who owns what.

[Ninga]

4. And let's now forget the courage Edwards is displaying. Courage to say his war vote was

wrong.

I will not vote for a candidate who sticks their finger in the wind to take the temperature of the polls.

Hillary is smart, experienced and reluctant.. Not the combination we need this time around.

We need a President who has courage.

[AtomicKitten]

13. I think Edwards' change of heart is political expediency.

I have a really, really hard time putting my faith in someone who led the parade into Iraq as enthusiastically as John Edwards did regardless of how "courageous" his apology was.

IMO Edwards and Hillary PROVED their poor judgment. The IWR was more than a blank check, it was an abdication of Congress' war-declaring powers to an idiot.

I'd rather throw the dice on Obama who was against the Iraq War from the get-go and is now left to clean up the mess the poor judgment of others has wrought.

[Ninga]

26. Perhaps you are right. But if Edwards is able to rise above all of this and win, it

will be because he knows how to fight and boy oh boy......we will need a fighter in the WH to deal with Congress.

And Edwards sure has the fight in him.

[Ninga]

27. And what big decision did YOU MAKE in 2002, that you wouldn't make today?

Your arguement is a tired one, and at the end of the day, perhaps Edwards is stronger because of that decision.

We are not weak, becasue we fail, we are only weak if we do not recognize our failures.

[AtomicKitten]

28. My points are valid.

Disregard and discount history and grave matters of war at your own peril.

[BeyondGeography]

55. Yep. This whole Iraq war thing is really tiring

And millions of people knew it would be before it ever happened. What really undermines Edwards re. the war is he stuck by his vote and his support of the war until 2005 and failed to articulate a coherent critique of this whole disaster long after other pro-IWR voters such as Kerry and (yes) HRC had done so. I guess it's a tribute to his charm that so many of his supporters are willing to overlook this unhappy reality.

[karynnj]

59. Many of the things you seem to thing are swiftboating are not even close to that

1) Many are not lies - they are true, thus legitimate. It is up to Edwards to show that they are notimportant or that something outweighs them.

2) Many are based on SEVERAL, not just the IWR position, where his prior record does not match his rhetoric. Edwards needs to make the case for all these transformations.

3) Edwards is sometimes not telling the complete truth when he apologizes for things. There is a lot of rewriting history that happens. (ie exactly what he thought about WMDs at the moment he voted - he has said BOTH that he never believed it (2003) and that he voted because of it (2005). He has done the same thing with the $87 billion vote - in 2004, he followed Kerry in one debate and said his reasons were similar, in 2007, he said it was to cut funding. (though at the time of the vote, he was still in support of having gone to war. - these are all on tape.

[Clark2008]

62. I wouldn't have changed a thing.

I research and listen to people who know best before I make a decision. I don't ignore 4-star generals in deference to policy makers on matters of foreign policy. Sorry.

[2rth2pwr]

97. Patreus is a 4 star general. nt

[Rainbowreflect]

69. I like Edwards a lot, but I cannot vote for anyone in primary

that ever supported the war. We all know the arguments were carp back then. Why didn't he???

[Adelante]

18. "sticks their finger in the wind"

Like Edwards did in October 2002 when he co-sponsored the IWR and voted against every single mitigating alternative. Now he says he was "conflicted" at the time. Now he says he was "wrong" at the time. He could have been conflicted and RIGHT if he hadn't had his finger in the wind.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Adelante]

34. YOU stop attacking Democrats!!!!!!!!

Call me a Republican again and I will alert on you. It is against DU rules.

[Clark2008]

63. WesDem was NOT attacking... pointing out the truth is more accurate.

[Cameron27]

73. You're not making an honest approach in trying making a point,

whatever your point is. WesDem is a great DUer, and a strong Democrat, who doesn't resort to silly personal attacks...unlike you.

[CTyankee]

5. well, good luck. You're gonna get some flames your way!

I am a retired fund raising professional. I've written many a direct mail appeal for funding. NOTHING brings the money in like provoking righteous outrage. NOTHING.

I worked for Planned Parenthood of CT for 6 years and before that for an independent women's clinic in New Haven. I wrote about the real challenges of opening the clinic door when there were protestors with bull horns threatening and bullying frightened women who came for services, not all for abortions to be sure. Our supporters were so damn mad they sent their checks in right away. It was gratifying. I'd do it again in a heartbeat if it was for a cause dear to me.

To this day, I can see that grungy old guy with his bullhorn. I'm glad I could give a little payback in the way of support for women's right to choose right here in my community!

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[ccpup]

11. ok, so now I'm confused

if someone disagrees with what you say -- I'm ambivalent in this case, by the way -- and they do so in the forum we're currently in, they'd have to use a keyboard, right? But you seem to be poised to accuse them of being a coward who feels the need to hide behind their keyboard ... one they'll need in order to communicate with you as this is, after all, an internet forum dependent on typing and monitors and such. How can someone step out into the open and share what they believe are valid points you may disagree with via the internet -- necessitating the use of said keyboard -- if you'll accuse them of being a coward by using their keyboard?

Ouch, my head hurts. And now I'm exhausted! :-)

[IA_Seth]

20. LOL

Now, now, don't interrupt a perfectly good internet tirade.

From behind a keyboard, no less.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious though.

[CTyankee]

17. Uh, did I miss something here?

I was defending the practice of using actual experiences in direct mail fundraising. So I was defending what the Edwardses did. More power to them!

In fact, I am supporting John Edwards, so I was kinda sympathizing in advance with you, cuz I know how seriously people take their candidates here.

[Ninga]

15. Are we so few....those of us who understand the divison in our own party?

The DLC was dreampt up by those character's who draged the party to the center, and then triangulated, just for the sole purpose of winning elections.

And their policies have benefited who?????

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. Edwards was the original choice of the DLC in 2004.

Just so you know.

[Ninga]

22. If that was the case, he obviously wasn't DLC enough, and sure is not now.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. I don't think you know nearly enough about either Edwards OR the DLC. (nt)

[karynnj]

60. By what measure?

he had voted against some of the trade bills - which made sense for a NC Democrat - other than that he was pretty much DLC - far more than Kerry. Kerry's voting record was far more liberal, especially on envoronmantal issues.

[zulchzulu]

8. That's a lie that Kerry was involved in the ads you are referring to

Got proof?

There is none.

[Adelante]

14. This is the second thread

Kerry is maligned for that act with NO LINK TO ANYTHING proving it.

[Ninga]

21. Kerry directly benefited from those ads. And further more, they were produced by

by a 527 comprised ONLY OF DEMOCRATS.

And where the hell was Kerry when they were aired???

Did he take to the podium to disclaim them? Did he say they were wrong? Oh, please, enough already.


Your righteous indignation is misplaced.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Ninga]

29. Ok what is the lie? That Dem's produced a despicable ad, or that Kerry benefited?

Please enlighten me to which one the lie is....

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Ninga]

39. I will restate my case. Kerry although not directly involved, benefited. Dean was

the subject of lies perpetrated by his own party. Of course, Kerry would not be directly involved, others did the dirty work.


Read it here and note the players listed in "Affiliated Personnel"

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527events.asp?orgid=42


Return to the full list of Major Players

Americans for Jobs, Health Care & Progressive Values, 2004 Election Cycle
Web Site

Democratic group formed to promote the discussion of jobs and health care in the presidential race. The group ran an ad campaign targeting Howard Dean in key primary states. The campaign was controversial for showing an image of Asama Bin Laden while discussing Dean's lack of military and foreign policy experience. It was also revealed that the International Association of Machinists, who endorsed Dean's rival, Richard Gephardt, had contributed $50,000 to the group. The ads were pulled before the requirement kicked in for the group to reveal who paid for them.

Affiliated Personnel:

Edward F. Feighan, president (former Democratic representative from Ohio)
David Jones, executive director and treasurer (former fundraiser for House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt)
Robert Gibbs, spokesman (former spokesman for Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee)
Donors:

Transport Workers Union ($20K), Machinists Union ($50K), International Longshoreman's Assn., and Ironworkers Union, among others
Former Sen Robert G. Torricelli (D-NJ), $50K
Bernard Schwartz (chair & CEO, Loral Space & Communications), $15K
S. Daniel Abraham (founder, Slim Fast Foods), $100K
Budget:

The group reportedly collected $500,000 through Dec. 2003
527 Activity in 2004:
Total Receipts: $1,000,000
Total Expenditures: $994,137
Note: This data is based on records released by the Internal Revenue Service on Monday, May 14, 2007.

Events:

Event Type

Budget

Date

Candidate

Position

TV Ad

The group has raised $500,000 so far.

12/17/2003

Howard Dean (D)

Negative

An ad campaign targeting Howard Dean in key primary states. Shows an image of Osama Bin Laden while discussing Dean's lack of military and foreign policy experience. The pro-Democrat group claims that it is not supporting any one candidate, but say they are focusing on the issues important to members of their organization. The ads were pulled quickly because they angered many union financial contributors and members of the Democratic Party.



Figures are from media reports and the like, and may not reflect what 527 groups have reported to the Internal Revenue Service.

[karynnj]

65. So - you blame Kerry on the basis that

there was one person who formerly worked for him. That mkes very little sense.

What does make sense was that this was a pro-typical AB(Dean - in this case) primary effort to derail a front runner. It is clear that they did not want Dean. It is also clear that they were a mostly union group with a sleasy ex- Senator involved. Kerry got ONLY one primary union endorsement - the firefighters. They were not involved in this. Were any of Edwards' unions involved? Given the time frame - November/December 2003 - Kerry was not the obvious beneficiary. It may be they didn't even have an intended beneficiary.

Edwards himself benefited by Dean imploding. He would have gotten far less attention if Dean would have won Iowa.

[zulchzulu]

71. If Kerry benefited, by your logic, so did Edwards

Both were running in the same race, in case you don't remember....

As for the ad destroying the Dean campaign meme, there were a lot of others factors besides one stinkin' ad. Do you need more tinfoil for your hat?

On Edit:

Even if we are to assume that Kerry himself did the ad with iMovie on his iMac with his daughters on the Cape in the beach house porch on a Sunday morning, would just one ad like that be enough to destroy a candidate's chances?

:rofl:

[Dr. Strange]

80. I think the technical term for your response would be...

CHECKMATE!
Have a cigar! :smoke:

[sampsonblk]

68. You know how it works

If Kerry benefitted from the ads and didn't complain about them, then he is just as guilty as those who ran them.

Bush didn't have anything to do with the ads in NY against McCain in 2000. In fact, Bush didn't have anything to do with the Swift Boat ads either. But he's still a fucking scumbag.

[Mass]

75. Did Edwards complain? Because we have an Edwards supporter attacking Kerry on

this basis? I understand Ninga's complaint concerning people who complain that EE raises money the way she did, but what the heck does this have to do with the rest of his (her?) post? This seems a totally gratuitous attack IMHO.

[Cameron27]

77. ROFL

Finally: "but what the heck does this have to do with the rest of his (her?) post? This seems a totally gratuitous attack IMHO."

I've been asking myself the same question.

[sampsonblk]

79. Good point

[Adelante]

9. The Osama ad was the most horrible

I don't know that Kerry was involved, I thought it was Gephardt.

But John Edwards was no saint in 2003-2004 and carried on negative campaigning like the rest.

Is that slamming Edwards or is it the truth?

It would have been good if Edwards used some of his righteous anger against those swiftboating John Kerry when it mattered.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Adelante]

36. Why are you hiding your profile?

I should go away? I've been here five years. You go away with your ridiculous contortions of the truth. Edwards was a wimp on that ticket and would not stand up for Kerry against the Swiftboaters. The Edwards campaign peddled negative oppo throughout the primaries. Everybody who was actually here knows it.

Welcome to DU :hi:

[Ninga]

40. On the night of the election, Edwards said "we will fight" Kerry came out and said

"Nay"

Edwards was and is not a wimp.

Kerry is the wimp.

[karynnj]

67. Not true

Edwards came out, AS THE CAMPAIGN'S SPOKESMAN, on the evening of the election to say that they were not conceding then. The next morning it was clear that the numbers did not allow for a successful challange - then they conceded.

Kerry spoke many many times in the Senate and out about voter suppression, fraud and the need to fix this starting in January 2005 at a Boston MLK day event. Every time he did he was ridiculed. Neither Edwards said ANYTHING throughout 2005 - though John edwards spoke on many other things. When he first started saying anything in 2006, it was in the blogosphere where it would be cheered, not in the MSM. Then they ambiguously included it in Elizabeth's book - where it could be read in different ways.

Senator Kerry has fought many serious fights against long odds, far more often than other potential leaders. He is not now and never was a wimp. Edwards only just started fighting a few years ago - I hope he is strong, we need it, but - at this moment in time - you get a far longer, richer list of battles Kerry has fought over 4 decades, than you get with Edwards.

[Cameron27]

74. Go away?

Knock it off laureloak.

[last_texas_dem]

35. As part of the Kerry-Edwards team

would Edwards have really been permitted to step out and start attacking the smearboaters when they began their attacks if he had chosen to? He was Kerry's VP candidate, and thus part of the Kerry-Edwards campaign; wasn't he obligated to stick with the campaign's policy which, mistaken as it may have proved to be, was to (at least initially) not dignify the bastards with a response?

[Adelante]

37. The K-E campaign begged him

He wouldn't do it.

[last_texas_dem]

38. Link? nt

[Adelante]

41. Link

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/18/edwardss_tough_talk_claims_of_04_disputed/?page=full

[Ninga]

44. Oh, your link tells a more balanced story. Not quite the case you would like to make.

d to fight back the day it started," Edwards said. "The decision was made not to do it, and I did not agree with that decision."
In a new book, "What a Party!", Terry McAuliffe, former Democratic National Committee chairman, said Edwards made a similar statement to him.
"Terry, they wouldn't let me" attack Bush, McAuliffe quotes Edwards as saying in December 2004. "I wanted to go after the Swift Boat guys. I wanted to go after Bush. They wouldn't let me."
One Democratic donor said he's twice heard Edwards tell private audiences, including this year, that he wanted to be more aggressive but the Kerry camp "would not let him."
Kerry disputed the account by Edwards in McAuliffe's book, saying he was frustrated that Edwards was not tougher. He told McAuliffe that Edwards told him several times, "Watch the news tomorrow. I'm really going to go after Bush," but that Edwards did not deliver.
Kerry declined to comment for this report, though aides said he stands by his account to McAuliffe.
A spokeswoman for the Edwards presidential campaign, Kate Bedingfield, declined to comment on the 2004 campaign.
But Peter Scher, campaign manager for Edwards during his vice presidential run, insisted that the former North Carolina senator never shied away from attacking Bush or the Swift Boat veterans. Though the Edwards and Kerry camps sometimes disagreed over how to launch particular attacks, Edwards was consistently aggressive, he said.
"There was never a hesitation to go after Bush and Cheney," Scher said. "To the extent there were differences, there were differences about how best to do it and what made sense, but it was never a question of trying to go soft."

[Catchawave]

49. LOL...."sources say" huh?

From your article:

according to the former aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were describing internal campaign communications.

and Terry McAwful :rofl:

[last_texas_dem]

50. It seems as if there could be truth on both sides

Only someone who saw everything that went on behind the scenes during the campaign would know the whole truth, and everyone including Kerry, Edwards, and the various insiders, certainly has things they will readily admit and things they will choose to omit. Maybe it's true that Edwards wanted to respond to the swiftboaters faster than the Kerry team wanted to, but also that he didn't later attack the Repugs to the extent that the campaign desired? I don't see the article as slam-dunk proof that Edwards chose not to attack as hard as the Kerry team wanted him to, however; it's more "he said, he said" than anything else.

[Ninga]

57. I think we all know what happened the night of the election when Edwards said

"we are going to fight"

and to the shock of everyone.....Kerry conceeded.

That is not in dispute.

[karynnj]

90. That is not even the right timeline

Kerry did not concede on election night.

Edwards was speaking FOR the campaign - not on his own - the night of the campaign. The numbers did not work, they conceded the next day.

Kerry spoke of suppression and fraud in 2005, Edwards did not.

[Catchawave]

58. This is what bugs me about the MSM, in this case :

If you read it in the Globe, it must be true. Sounds like sour grapes by some disgruntled staffers who want to blame everyone but themselves.

[karynnj]

70. An easier question

Edwards went to West Virgina, at the time the RNC (yes the RNC, itself) had put out ads saying Kerry/Edwards would take their Bibles away. I watched for the coverage of Edwards' appearance then thinking it brilliant that the campaign sent the silver tongued trial lawyer, raised a Southern Baptist there at that time. This was a time where he could have really shown and blasted that theme to Hell. But, he gave the same stump speech he gave everywhere. I still think it was a wasted opportunity - and that he was the person who could have addressed it. As VP, he should have - and it would have been easy - He could even have used the story of Cleland giving Kerry a family Bible to take with him. Kerry actually was religious and some one who went to church on Sundays. He could have spoke of Kerry as a moral man with integrity. He could have spoken of his and Elizabeth's believes and said how hurtful that comment was.

(In hind sight, having heard Kerry's speech at Pepperdine College - I think Kerry could have humorously answered that smear with an ad saying that not only would he never take away Bibles, but he read his and if they insisted he would be willing to have an additional debate with Bush on the Bible as well!)

[Inspired]

120. Can you please remind us of that negative campaigning?

I don't recall seeing much negativity from the Edwards 2004 campaign here in Iowa.

[NoFederales]

10. Recommended!

NoFederales

[anniebelle]

12. Edwards is looking better all the time.

His response to the right-wing machine has been just right. I really think John and Elizabeth are the best choice for this country. They both have shown such courage in the face of such vicious attacks against them. It's our best chance to heal this country and stop this log-jam in the congress. I will support whoever our nominee is, but just hope our candidate is electable nationally. I'm in Tennessee, so I worry.

[Clark2008]

66. I'm in Tennessee, too, and if y'all give me Edwards, I'll vote

third party.

I don't trust him as far as I could throw him.

I'd actually hold my nose and vote for HRC, though. At least I know what she is.

[byronius]

16. Edwards is my guy.

[BrklynLib at work]

19. Ditto.

:thumbsup:

[monmouth]

25. I was confused with Edward's declaration that we should rid ourselves

of SUV's when an aerial view of his home indicates quite a few parked in his yard. Go ahead flame away, I'm just saying.... I realize they may not all be his but......

[ChiciB1]

30. I'm In For Edwards... And I For One Am Almost To The Point That I

am ashamed that we have become visceral and divided! It's SICK and it's one reason I take MORE breaks from DU than I used to!

I can't pull myself completely away because I know there are MANY here who DO support Edwards, but I have decided not to donate to DU anymore and have begun to check the other blog sites more than before. This used to be my very favorite place, it's not anymore!

And to those of you who will simply reply by saying "good riddance" go right ahead, because if that's how you think, then YOU are part of the problem I'm talking about!!

DEMOCRACY is DYING or it's ALREADY DEAD!!!

[BOSSHOG]

42. Great to see the Hillary bashers are getting an opportunity to catch a breath

[PresidentObama]

43. Whoa, fellow Edwards supporter here. Kerry did NOT run those ads.

That's a total lie. Did he benefit? Probably. But he wasn't involved with those advertisements, and your OP distorts reality. When you lie about other fine Democrats, it turns people off to your message.

[Ninga]

46. Please read my post #39. and you will see why Kerry directly benefited not "probably" benefited.

[PresidentObama]

47. That's not what you said in the OP. You said Kerry was responsible.

That's lying. Kerry wasn't responsible. Did he benefit? Probably. Doesn't mean he had a direct hand in those vicious and disgusting attacks.

[Ninga]

48. Yes, you are correct, I was wrong in writing what i did. I am so passionate about

the Dem's eating their own, that my memory was clouded until I read what i posted in #39.

[PresidentObama]

51. It's fine. And I'd appreciate it if you edit your OP.

It's fine to assume Senator Kerry benefited from those attacks, because he probably did. But it's a distortion to claim he was personally responsible. That kind of lie turns people off. Especially someone like me who passionately supported Senator Kerry in 2004, and is supporting Senator Edwards in 2008...it turns me off to see a fellow Edwards supporter distort the truth. I understand your OP though, and agree with most of the message.

[karynnj]

83. Even your 39 post - still implies Kerry was involved

saying that Kerry "was not directly" involved but had others do the dirt work (or some such wording) just says he did it but was sneaky.

You should remember that Kerry gave Edwards an enormous lift when he selected him as VP.

It also shows that you impassioned rant blinded you - you are saying that it is wrong for Democrats to attack Edwards - while you are attacking Kerry! Is there some unwritten double standard. The last time I looked, he still identifies himself as (Democrat, MA).

[karynnj]

81. Edwards personally benefited form Bush's tax cuts

as did many many people here, including me. Did that mean he was involved in getting them? He voted and spoke against them.

Here, you have absolutely NOTHING credible.

1) The ex-staffer left in the shake up of Kerry's campaign. Not a likely person to go off and work to help him.
2) Who paid for it - Mostly old, blue colared LABOR UNIONS - all endorsing Gephardt.

Here is a more plausible possibility from that data. It is more likely their real motive was to slow Dean, who had been pro-NAFTA though in 2003/2004 he said changes were needed. Kerry's position was the same - and as a Senator he had voted for it. When they started it, the CW was that Iowa would come down to Dean and Gephardt. Gore endorsed Dean in that period and the concern was that he would essentially "win" before a single vote was cast. From the perspective of late 2003, who would the likely beneficiaries of stopping Dean be - Gephardt in Iowa and likely Clark in NH.


In Nov/Dec the only media story you could find on Kerry were snarky stories questioning when he would drop out.

[Cameron27]

45. It's the primary,

and Edwards gets far less critcism than either Hillary or Obama on this board. Some of us can't reconcile his present rhetoric with his actions or voting record. His transformation from war hawk, IWR co-sponsor to an anti-war dove began in 2005 with a less than honest apology that contained some pretty disengenuous statements.

It's not bashing if legitimate facts are linked to the criticism, and it's not bashing to hold someone accountable for their senate votes. Since Elizabeth has taken on the role of political hitman, she's going to be called on what she's said. I didn't comment on the Coulter cash tactic, but I will say that when John Edwards called Coulter a she-devil, he sounded like an adolescent idiot IMO.

[frazzled]

52. You have to see it from the perspective of others ...

who may be equally sick and tired of endless hero-worshipping posts in defense of a candidate whose appeal they don't understand: little experience in pubic service, gap between what he says and what he's done, etc.

As someone says above: this is the primary ... people are going to defend their own candidates and denigrate the others. But you have to realize that people's objections to a candidate are not "slamming"--that would imply they are not sincere in their criticisms and are simply making shit up. Accept that there are differences of opinion on all the candidates. Some people like Hillary, some can't abide her; some think Obama is the next great promise; some think he's an empty suit; some think Edwards is the second-coming, others think he's a phony.

Accept all this ... but eventually we will have to come together around the eventual winner. Maybe we all need to do an exercise in advance of this:

List three things you like about a candidate, and three things you don't like. This includes the candidate you currently support. File away that list of pros and cons, and when the eventual nominee is chosen, take the list of pros and cons back out and read the three positive things you came up with about that person. Then go sign up to work the campaign.

[Ninga]

53. self delete

[karynnj]

54. Great job - smear Kerry to defend Edwards

Those ads were produced by a 527 group. There was never any proof that John Kerry (or his campaign) had any prior knowledge of them or were connected to them - which I think would have been illegal. I have seen the posts that make a very weak case - they mention (1) that one person who worked for the 527 had previously worked on the Kerry campaign and some had been associated with Gephardt and (2) that some of the people who funded it had given money to the 527 also gave money to Gephardt and Kerry.

As to 1) wouldn't it be more convincing if they found someone who went from the 527 to Kerry's campaign or if the person returned to Kerry's campaign. There were some people, like Lahayne, who Kerry's people kicked out because they did not like how they operated.

2) The main person who gave money to Kerry and the 527 campaign was NJ Senator Toricelli, who also gave money to Gephardt and several other Democrats. He had a huge campaign fund and no future political viability. Looking at the list back in 2004 or 2005, there were even some people who gave early money to Dean and then to the 527. Kerry could not possibly control or even know about other contributions raised by others. At any rate, other than Toricelli, there were very few donors in common for Kerry - when you look at donations before February 2004. There were far more for other candidates - which is not to say that those candidates had anything to do with it. That 527 was a classic Anbody But (Dean) group. Dean was the front runner. He was polling far behind Bush - but so was generic Democrat at that point.

Kerry DID run on having better national security/ foreign policy credentials than Dean - and Edwards for that matter. He uncontestibly did have better credentials. Just as Dean stressed that he had executive experience and Kerry didn't. (Kerry was wise enough not to counter this with the fact that he actually did have executive experience - in starting and running a cookie company (that he sold, but is still in business and still makes some of his cookies) :) Every candidate runs on things they thing make them better. Edwards grew up lower middle class, Kerry and Dean didn't.

The CW in 2004 was that Kerry and Edwards benefited by running positive campaigns.

[Ninga]

56. It is not quite as "clean" as you would like to believe. Toricelli was not the main contributior.

Please carefully, check out the names.



Affiliated Personnel:

Edward F. Feighan, president (former Democratic representative from Ohio)
David Jones, executive director and treasurer (former fundraiser for House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt)
Robert Gibbs, spokesman (former spokesman for Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee)
Donors:

Transport Workers Union ($20K), Machinists Union ($50K), International Longshoreman's Assn., and Ironworkers Union, among others
Former Sen Robert G. Torricelli (D-NJ), $50K
Bernard Schwartz (chair & CEO, Loral Space & Communications), $15K
S. Daniel Abraham (founder, Slim Fast Foods), $100K
Budget:

The group reportedly collected $500,000 through Dec. 2003
527 Activity in 2004:
Total Receipts: $1,000,000
Total Expenditures: $994,137
Note: This data is based on records released by the Internal Revenue Service on Monday, May 14, 2007.

Events:

Event Type

Budget

Date

Candidate

Position

TV Ad

The group has raised $500,000 so far.

12/17/2003

Howard Dean (D)

Negative

An ad campaign targeting Howard Dean in key primary states. Shows an image of Osama Bin Laden while discussing Dean's lack of military and foreign policy experience. The pro-Democrat group claims that it is not supporting any one candidate, but say they are focusing on the issues important to members of their organization. The ads were pulled quickly because they angered many union financial contributors and members of the Democratic Party.



Figures are from media reports and the like, and may not reflect what 527 groups have reported to the Internal Revenue Service.

[karynnj]

72. This refutes NOTHING I said

All you have is one EX- Kerry person. Kerry re-vamped him campaign earlier in the year - and fired some people. I do not know if Mr Gibbs was one of them. Is Edwards responsible for everything that David Axelrod or Shrum did - They after all once were Edwards' campaign manager once.

As to the donors - I GAVE you more information than you had. I told you Toricelli gave to both. None of those unions were for Kerry. The biggest listed donor Daniel Abraham did not give to Kerry - http://newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=FL&last=Abraham&first=Daniel I also told you that the Toricelli info came from an analyses (done by a Deaniac) that compared the lists - for the purpose of showing that they had the same donors. In Kerry's case, they didn't find that much overlap. There were many Gephardt people. (hint: labor groups are not friends of the DLC) Every one of the Labor Unions listed endorsed Gephardt.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/laborendorse04.html
Looking through labor union stuff to find this, it is possible they were anti Dean because he had been pro- NAFTA (though by 2003/2004 was saying it needed to be changed - Kerry was likely NOT there intended benificiary. He had voted for it and advocated for the AFL/CIO endorsed worker and environmental protections. (the AFL/CIO in 2005 endorsed his amendment doing this on CAFTA - that lost 10-10 in committee). Dean did get a lot of the new service unions that were not affected by NAFTA.


It was not legal to co-ordinate and there is not even good circumstancial proof that Kerry's campaign - much less Kerry did anything wrong.

[Mass]

76. Gibbs quit the campaign because Jordan was fired, as did Chris Lehanne.

I am sure that he wanted to help Kerry :sarcasm:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Gibbs

I am not sure why you have decided to attack Kerry on a perfectly gratuitous basis, but at least, check your sources!

[karynnj]

78. Thanks Mass

I'll have to save that link - it's cool.

[Adelante]

84. Have you seen this one, karynnj?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/

[Cameron27]

85. The link doesn't work for me WD.

[Adelante]

88. Part of it chopped off

I fixed it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/

I think this site is just starting out, but over time will be very useful.

[karynnj]

86. No - the link doesn't seem to work.

[Adelante]

87. Sorry - fixed now nt

[Ninga]

91. My post was meant to point out that there are plenty of Democrats who engage

in far worse activities than soliciting donors by using emotion.

Meanwhile in another post, Edwards was being slammed unmercifully by the prospect that he would immediately email for donations using the incident that Elizabeth had to field from the woman who criticized her.



It was nothing more than that.

[politicasista]

94. So why slam a decorated war hero just to boost your candidate?

Has Edwards said anything about election fraud since 2004? I know Kerry has more than once. Hillary, Obama, and I think Dodd have legislation about couting votes.


Attacking others does not help Edwards. Somehow I really get that this is more about Kerry than Edwards and the comments prove that.

[Ninga]

99. I didn't slam Kerry to boost Edwards. I am sorry I even mentioned his name! My whole point

was that there are people ready to jump on Edwards when in our past history, Democrats have gone after other Democrats in a way far worse than anything going on now.

[politicasista]

100. You called him a wimp

while you said that Edwards wasn't. I think that's very tacky. You also ignored karynnj's post about what Kerry HAS done, election night and beyond. I agree with her that Kerry has fought more battles than Edwards. And stuck his neck out on those battles more than most, in fact when other Democrats stood on the sidelines.

Too bad because I was looking at Edwards, but now I am only still looking.

[Ninga]

106. His 2004 bid for the White House was a wimpish campaign. Too intellectual too smart but

not smarter than Bush.

[karynnj]

110. You really can't stop digging - I think you've made it all the way to China

The problem was your original post - no matter what your intentions, you made an extremely nasty attack on John Kerry - based on hearsay, Yes, hearsay - I know this has been said by dissapointed Deaniacs for several years. The problem is that the facts are just not there. That ad is clearly backed by LABOR UNIONS, not the DLC and there was little reason for them to think when they put the ad out that the man then tied with Al Sharpton would be the benificiary. People informed you that the ex-staffer left Kerry's campaign in a shakeup before the ad was conceived - and he didn't return. This was in the interval when Kerry mortgaged his house to get funds.

You then transitioned to "but it benefited him", while still insinuating that though not directly involved, he had something to do with them. As a side show, you call a war hero, who then fought the MAFIA, Nixon and Reagan, a "wimp" You then make the controversial comment that Edwards would have foght the vote - in spite of the fact that Edwards was absolutely quiet for nearly 2 years. If he had a case, he should have made it - independent of Kerry.

Now you are saying Bush's campaign was smarter? He had the advantage of being a sitting president at a time of war with the media biased towards him - yet by your eyes he had to cheat to win.

Kerry ran an intelligent campaign that appealed to the best of America - He has been slimed constantly by the RW and the media and unfortunately some Democrats too blind to see that he is usually working harder for the country than anyone else - often quietly, yet he still continues to be who he is an intelligent man of great integrity, calmly explaining solutions, refusing to sink to the level of his critics.

You might want to read this account from 2004 from one of the caucuses - not for anything about Kerry or Edwards - it's not really about them. There is a lesson here - though lessons from one year may not be applicable the next. For Edwards, in particular, the comment that Dean was not being the man Vt saw as Governor, who might have won over more people had he better linked to who he was then. Edwards' pleasant smile and outward personality were his greatest strengths then - now he hasthrown them away. In away it is close to what you likely wanted to say - that the attacks were counterproductive. On that, I totally agree with you - but attacks from the Edwards and their supporters are also part of the problem. Using Kerry, who is not running in a way that attempts to destroy his reputation is disgusting.


http://www.slate.com/id/2094122/

[Adelante]

115. John Kerry not smarter than Bush

Now I've fucking heard it all.

[Ninga]

117. I stand by my words, Kerry did not run a smarter campagin than Bush. Did he? But you won't

answer will you.

[politicasista]

118. You're giving Bush and the media too much credit

:rofl:

Not surprising because attacking Kerry while promoting their candidates is an excuse for ignoring the truth and the facts.

You think that what happened to Kerry won't happen to your candidate. That the media will just be so super, nice to them and they won't be swiftboated. If you think so, then you are in for a rude awakening.

I will gladly take a hardworking senator that is working his ass off to help end the war, pushing for healthcare for children, focusing on the environment, Katrina and voting rights. I will take a war hero that has more integrity in his bare hand than the people that spout out childish insults at him behind the anonymity of their keyboard.

You can't come up with one statement about Edwards and where he stands on voting rights since election night 2004.

[Ninga]

119. I wrote 2 things about Kerry, one of which I was wrong about and apologized, and

the second thing I wrote about Kerry is that he ran a wimpy presidential campaign.

You are bringing up points I never made. Why? My discontent with Kerry revolves around the 2004 campaign, period.

When did i say what happend to Kerry won't happen to my candidate? (it may very well happen) Also, please point out to me where I disparaged his service or Sentate record?

You can't because I didn't.

What I can tell you about myself is that I am 63, a twice elected office holder (currently) and had my ass handed to me on a platter when I ran and lost badly for mayor. I serve on a preservation committee, the chamber of commerce, and belong to a business development group. I have volunteered for numerous political campagins, and worked very hard for Clinton, Gore in 2000 and in 2004 stood in the pouring rain working at the polls believing Kerry was the winner. I was a DeanforAmerica advocate, and belong to Move on. In 1968 I was arrested at a Vietman war protest, and for many years I wore a silver bracelett with the name of a soldier missing in action.

I have a perfect right to think that Kerry, who I have referred to as smart and with wisdom, ran a wimpy presidential campaign. It is not a childish insult, in some circles it plays as fact.

[Clark2008]

61. Can we slam him on his inconsistancies and voting record and

the fact that he seems to change his mind every other day?

[Connie_Corleone]

64. All of the top tier candidates get slammed with stupid stuff.

Edwards is no exception.

Posting an angry rant about it is not going to stop the insanity.

Either respond to the members who are posting nonsense or ignore them. Put the worst ones on Ignore if you have to, like I did.

[Clintonista2]

82. I have NO problem with Edwards

Or Obama for that matter. It's the rabid supporters that I can't stand.

[politicasista]

89. Calling a war hero a wimp just to boost your candidate

only makes Edwards look bad. You should walk a mile in Kerry's shoes before you question the courage of someone that has stared death and evil on the face on a regular basis.

[Ninga]

93. Are you happy with the way his presidental campaign was run? Shade and color

my comments any way you wish. Each and everyone of my comments on this post, was in reference to the 2004 campaign, and the 2004 campaign only.

The experience and wisdom he brought into the 2004 campaign should have served him better than it did.

And quite frankly, the manner in which he conducted himself during the 2004 campaign, was wimpish.

[politicasista]

102. And his party nor DNC Chariman DIDN'T back him up

And you still didn't answer the question about Edwards speaking out on the election fraud or voting rights since 2004. As I said this is more about Kerry than people slamming Edwards.

You would rather blame Kerry and expect him to do everything all by himself rather than the people that should have been doing the hard work.

This thread is only about attacking Kerry, not Edwards.

[Ninga]

104. Kerry was the master of his own destiny, strong leaders are. If you know Kerry wasn't supported

by the party elders, guess what, Kerry knew it too......and guess what.....had money left over he didn't spend, or are you going to blame that on someone else too.

[karynnj]

111. We coulds blame ELECTION LAW for the money

The money left over was from the primaries. After he accepted the nomination, 5 weeks before Bush (thank you McAuliffe), he could no longer spend it. He gave over $40 million to the DNC, and state organizations - more than was ever given before. He retained the rest because there are always outstanding expenses and costs that need to be paid it audits second guess anything. Meanwhile, he had to stretch the $75 million he and Bush each got, Kerry over 13 weeks; Bush over 8.

Kerry controlled his convention, his campaigning and his performance at the debates. He didn't control the fake terror warnings or an extremely biased media.

[karynnj]

113. I suggest you compare the PRIMARY attacks on Bush

by Senators Kerry and Edwards. Edwards was nowhere near as strong. In the last debate when it was Kerry, Edwards and Kuchinich - Edwards' weakness was obvious. You may believe that Edwards wanted to be an attack dog - but I saw absolutely no sign of it.

[Milo_Bloom]

92. I slam Edwards because I don't believe/trust him.

And I think having him as the nominee is dangerous in 2 ways. #1) I believe he is the easiest to beat of all the Dem candidates. #2) I believe he would be the worst president in history as all he has even shown me is a willinginess to give into whatever strategy will bring him power at the time.

I find him incredibly hypocritical, to say the least.

I am not even talking about the difference between Edwards 2003-2004 and Edwards 2006-2007. I am talking about Edwards today who throws out red meat just for the sake of it.

His recent attacks on "predatory lending", show either an idiotic and fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening in the mortgage market OR a carefully calculated lie told to rally troops to his cause.

Since I actually believe John Edwards is intelligent, I believe his current rhetoric is a carefully calculated lie. Just like in his floor speech in 2002 when he labeled Iraq a great threat to America (a position he continued to support in 2004, when even after the truth and lies had come out he stated he didn't regret voting for the war http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=apXyrHjc4RSs&refer=us).

His entire campaign is fraught with contradiction and a disconnect between his rhetoric and reality.

He claims not to want to compromise, but has a long history of compromising, including votes on the Energy Bill, Reducing legal liability of Nuclear Power Plants, Bankrupcy rules etc.. http://www.mentata.com/ds/retrieve/congress/person/John+Edwards

He talks about 2 Americas, but he is intelligent enough to know there are at least 5 Americas and he also is intelligent enough to know not only will there NEVER BE 1 America.. EVER.

John Edwards IS a capitulator. He does and says whatever he has to, whether he believes it or not and whether it makes sense or not. I see absolutely no evidence to the contrary and having someone like that in office under the title of Democratic President, will only do great harm to the long term viability of the Democratic party.

[Freddie Stubbs]

95. John Kerry and his campaign did not run any or those anti-Dean ads

History people! History! Do YOU know it?

[Ninga]

96. But Democrats DID RUN them, and that's the point. Kerry still lost. period.

[politicasista]

101. delete wrong spot n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

105. And Dean would have lost by an even larger margin

All they would have had to do was just that same kind of ad.

[Throd]

98. I wouldn't buy a used car from him.

[Ninga]

103. His bio doesn't say he sells used cars, but it does talk about a foundation thatq

benefits high school students. Yeah, what a flim flam used car salesman type that Edwards is......


In 1996, John and Elizabeth helped establish the Wade Edwards Foundation, and helped build a free computer lab—the Wade Edwards Learning Lab—for high school students in Raleigh. Recently, the foundation opened a similar computer lab in Goldsboro. Elizabeth volunteered at the lab in Raleigh nearly every day, until the family came to Washington following her husband's 1998 election to the U.S. Senate. The Wade Edwards Foundation also runs a statewide short fiction contest for North Carolina's high school juniors, awarding scholarships and grants to high school English students.

[Throd]

116. That is nice, I still don't trust him.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

107. I slam Edwards because he represents all that is bad with the Democratic Party--

namely he's a hypocrite, and doesn't care about what he professes to care about. His voting record makes that clear. So does the way he chooses to live his life.

[frazzled]

108. " has lived a hard life and worked hard to get where he is"

I just want to make sure this is not a criterion you are applying to judge a candidate's capabilities/sincerity/etc.

Because the exact same thing could be said about Alberto Gonzales: he had a hard life and worked hard to get where he was.

Having a "good life story" (which, in my opinion, Edwards does not particularly have, but that's beside the point) is a Bush-type reason for supporting people. Lots of people have had hard lives and worked hard to get where they are (it's America after all): it has jack squat to do with whether or not they would be good candidates or good presidents.

Just saying. For the record.

[windy252]

109. Boy, am I missing a lot these days.

What was the latest attack on Elizabeth?

[karynnj]

114. It was pretty feeble

One anonymous poster on the Good Morning Show blog, was tacky and stupid enough to say that EE was a bad mother because she took her kids on the campaign. EE responded to her and the poster retracted her statement. The same rudeness is likely seen by every candidate and spouse.

[DFW]

112. I haven't seen to many of these attacks

So I'm not too much in the loop.

One reason for that might be that attacks on Democratic candidates
get increasingly ignored by me as their shrillness increases.
I'm just not interested, and if the OP was in response in this
vein, then I can well understand. I was discussing this fervent
hostility on the DU with someone who is probably our (DU) favorite
Washington journalist last Sunday, and she was dismayed at it, too.

Any vicious attacks need to be directed toward the rightist nut cases
in the Republican Party (which means just about all of them these days).
Disagree with policies if you want, but leave spouses, haircuts, or
financial statements out of it. The enemy is not to be found in our
ranks. Some will disagree with that, but it's my take. Why this urge
to slit Democratic throats is to be found here is beyond me unless it
is the work of Freepers looking to stir what should have been a very united pot.