Kerry: "we didn't have that evidence" of voter suppression to justify contesting the 2004 election

[Freddie Stubbs]

A man who later identified himself as Andrew Meyer resists arrest in the University Auditorium at the University of Florida on Monday afternoon, after trying to ask U.S. Sen. John Kerry a question during a town hall forum. The audience member was preliminarily identified by UF officials as Andrew Meyer, a UF student in the College of Journalism and Communications.

Toward the conclusion of Kerry's UF forum, Meyer approached an open microphone at the University Auditorium and demanded Kerry answer his questions. The student claimed that University Police Department officers had already threatened to arrest him, and then proceeded to question Kerry about why he didn't contest the 2004 presidential election and why there had been no moves to impeach President Bush.


<snip>

Throughout the incident, Kerry urged the audience to "cool down" and acknowledged that Meyer had raised an important question. As officers escorted Meyer from the auditorium into the lobby, Kerry went on to explain that he did not think there was sufficient evidence of voter suppression to justify contesting the 2004 election.

"We just couldn't do it in good conscience because we didn't have that evidence," he said.

more: http://www.gainesvillesun.com/article/20070917/NEWS/70917016/1002/NEWS

[jgraz]

1. Which is why he conceded before all the votes were even counted

Tell me, John, where did you expect to get this evidence only 15 hours after the polls closed??

Lamest. Excuse. Ever. :banghead:

[AtomicKitten]

17. It was anticlimactic.

to say the least

[karynnj]

18. Had Kerry found solid evidence in the next less than 2 months he could have dropped the concession

Other than Gore, he conceded later than anyone in the last half century. You realize that they STILL do not have proof that could be used in court - as RFK jr said. His analysis included votes not cast due to voter suppression.

[jgraz]

23. And he looked for that evidence how?

I thought so...

[karynnj]

25. Exactly how would you go about it?

They sought a whistle blower - there was none. Many votes were lost for known reasons - such as not enough voting machines - the problem is you can't get votes not cast. The problems with the machines - he spoke of on the Senate floor - but there is no way he can quantify how many votes that was.

I am sure it hurts and angers him just as much as it does you. He spent 2 years working night and day to win - and has worked tirelessly since then. He deserves respect for the efforts he has made. Why not blame the quilty.

[jgraz]

29. He didn't want to see the evidence -- it was there in the exit polls from day one

Kerry said specifically that he was worried about being seen as a sore loser. He wasn't a strong enough leader to challenge the results, so he reneged on his promise to count every vote.

[karynnj]

43. I don't think Kerry ever said that - people said that Kerry wouldn't do it for that reason

it is different.

The exit polls are designed to explain the underlying dynamics in the election - not to validate the results. To my knowledge, they have never been used in a US race to overturn the tabulated count.

I worked doing sampling theory for about 8 years (not opinion polls or exit polls). I am suspicious and do not believe the shy Bush voter theory because it never happened before and because, with the church, media and state against Kerry - it is not believable that it would be the Bush voters who were afraid to say they voted that way.

The obvious reason for that theory was that they found no design flaws that could explain it. (I had expected that they would find something that messed up the sample design.) They didn't. So, They are left with the tabulated result and the predicted result. The only things they could say were that the implementation of the sampling was flawed or the tabulated result was wrong. They blamed it on the implementation beacuse they ASSUMED the tabulated result was correct and were trying to say why the exit poll was right.

I agree with you that there was likely cheating - but I can not PROVE that there alternative is right. The exit polls citainly give cause to investigate whether there was cheating, but it really comes down to proving that there was cheating. People have posted an elaborate analysis of Cleveland and it looks like Kerry lost a lost of votes because the ballots were somehow tabulated as being form a different precinct. The order was different in different precincts - even if they were co-located. It is not clear how this happened but there are large numbers of votes for a third party candidate in the position where Kerry was in the co-located precinct's ballot.

The frustration here is that like Florida, when you know the elderly Jews did not intend to vote for Buchanan - the innercity people in Cleveland likely did not intend to vote for the Constitution party. But, voting is not a statistical study where you clean up the data - in instances like this. It seems odd that in FL it was called a butterfly ballot, in Ohio a catterpillar one. In 2000, I was frustrated that you couldn't just take a recount in Palm Beach precincts where a huge number of votes were invalidated by having everone who voted the first time revote on new machines. the problem in both cases is that there is no legal way to correct this.

In Ohio - what they needed was a whistle blower who could say how the ballots got mixed up. The same with NM where it appears that it may have been Democrats wanting to lower the votes in one area to weaken a state Democrat that led to a massive under reporting of native American votes - likely costing kerry that state.

What is clear is that the process needs to be fixed. I don't see enough work being done at state or federal level. I do think the Gore and Kerry were victims - not villians in this.

[riqster]

64. There were whistle blowers

We could not get anyone to listen. Not the Ohio Dem party (emasculated losers that they are), not Kerry, not the media. No one returned calls.


Fuck it. America has the government it deserves.

[Carolina]

76. Exactly

When our side let them steal 2000 and then played nice with the squatter, subsequent elections were thefts waiting to happen.

There were articles, there were investigative journalists' reports, there were whistle blowers, there were personal accounts of intimidation, faulty machines and spurious disenfranchisement...

AND DEMS did nothing about in 2000, 2002, 2004! Frankly, I was surprised by 2006 though now I wonder what difference it really made.

Anyway, the record turnout alone in 2004 was not pro-status quo. People were pissed. Yet we lost and not just the presidency ...

So Kerry is concerned about himself and perceptions of him. Be a sore loser, they call/called him names and swift-boated him anyway, so he should have stood up for a verifiable vote count regardless

VAPOR BALLOTS = GOP victory

[beachmom]

19. Voter suppression means votes not cast. How can you

prove an election was rigged with votes not cast? If people here on DU only heard of the real world where nobody has even heard of the Stolen Election 2004.

Funny stuff went down in Ohio. But the idea that the election could be contested and the case WON is preposterous.

[jgraz]

24. Fighting a rigged election is a poltical act, not a legal one

Look at what the Brooks Bros rebellion did in Florida. That was so illegal it may have involved several felonies.

The fact is that Kerry didn't fight the 2004 election because he didn't have the stomach for it. He wanted to run again and was concerned with how people would see him and how he would be portrayed in the media. It was a stone cold betrayal of trust.

[karynnj]

26. That makes little sense

If there were a reasonable chance of winning a legal battle that would be far more likely than expecting to win again - especially when he knew Hillary would.

He could not prove it was rigged and I doubt you could either.

[jgraz]

28. See Ukraine: Orange Revolution

The evidence was there from day 1 in the exit polls. This, coupled with massive anecdotal evidence of fraud would have been enough with a real leader who was more concerned for his country than he was for his career. But we didn't have that.

[karynnj]

30. The US backed the candidate being defrauded in Ukraine

Kerry didn't even have the DNC behind him and Bush had initiated the battle of Fallujah. Kerry had no evidence as he said. The designers of the exit polls themselves offered an alternative explanation.

Look at Kerry's life - he has several times risked his career for his country.

[jgraz]

33. We are never going to agree on this

No matter how great Kerry has been before or since, his career will forever be tainted by the fact that he let down his country when we needed him the most. It was a shameful decision to concede, and he'll have that with him for the rest of his life.

[karynnj]

44. You are correct that we will never agree

I have heard speeches and answers to questions where Kerry has said that if there were a way to challange it he would have. Here answer here is consistent with those comments.

At the risk of misstating this because I read it a long time ago- Gore said in a Rolling Stone article when asked of his election that the alternative to conceding and leaving was a constitutional crisis. Kerry had it worse - Gore was down 537 votes and he could point to many places he lost votes cast for him, Clinton was in office and we were at peace. Kerry faced a country where the media spoke of a BIG Bush win (3 million votes) and 120,000 down in Ohio (this became 60,000 after the provisional ballots were counted as Kerry promised they would be.). The country was at war and the media had been against Kerry even as he ran. He also clearly did not have the backing of key Democrats - Bill Clinton 2 weeks later was babling about having liked both Bush and Kerry at the opening of his Presidential library. The Democratic party itself would have likely condemned Kerry, no court in Ohio (in Republican hands) would even have heard a Kerry case before December when teh legislature designated the electors.

WHat would that have done for the Democratic party in 2006?

[MH1]

58. Where were you on May 19 2001?

there were all of about 3000 people protesting the stolen election of 2000 - which was OBVIOUSLY friggin stolen, beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt, unlike 2004.

Where were you? Where were millions of other Americans?

There isn't going to be any "orange revolution" in this America. Or will there be? Are you a real leader, who will show us the way?

[The Count]

94. Guess what? I was out with signs - both times. In 2000 - lots of people. 2004-

just a bunch of us, in Time Square. Why? because the candidate threw in the towel, so people had no idea. Everyone thought Bush won, we lost. And for this part of the deception, Kerry and Edwards are to blame.

[The Count]

100. Romanian election - same month: contested, recounted, different winner

No US involvement to excuse the success. Just a candidate who cared about the votes he got

[CTyankee]

83. You have to remember that Kerry was a prosecutor. So he's a guy

who knows when there's evidence and when there isn't. He'd had enough prosecutorial experience with the courts to figure out where his case would go...

[sendero]

95. If he didn't have evidence..

... it's because he is not enough of a leader to put people in place to get it. Everyone knew they were going to steal it, if he didn't, then he is not fit to be president.

I'm just sick of the excuses. There is no excuse for how 2004 went down, and the buck stops at Kerry. At least he had the good sense to sit this one out.

[CTyankee]

97. Well, I'm not a prosecutor so I can't look at it from that point of view.

Are you? If so, how would you have gone about it differently to successfully challenge the election? What steps would YOU have taken if you were in his place?

Also, as I remember during the 04 campaign the Dem Party was planning on sending 10,000 volunteer attorneys to every polling place in the country. The idea was to prevent voters from being disinfranchised the way they were in Florida in 2000. Hacking the machines was not an issue until after the 04 election experience.

[The Count]

101. Greg Palast had evidence before Election Day - he listed the states to be stolen

on Air America - and why. The fact that it all came true was enough cause to start an investigation (contest the results)

[Freddie Stubbs]

67. People who were not allowed to vote would have to come forward

[The Count]

102. And most of them were aching to do so. kerry robbed them of the chance to have

their grievances redressed. All because "they'd call us crybabies" - or how Kerry put it more officially - he couldn't do this "at time of war"

[DrDan]

50. I agree - lamest ever

I regret the day I supported his campaign financially - what a waste of money

[Carrieyazel]

106. I never thought Kerry was going to take office

You always had the doubts from the beginning. Could he overcome all the odds and take them out? It was never going to happen.

[blm]

53. Ohio recount OCCURRED - unfortunately by OHIO RULES as the OHIO Dem Party

agreed and allowed for the YEARS before election day.

You all PRETEND the votes weren't recounted, but they were - BY OHIO RULES.

If you would all STOP Blaming Kerry and blamed and pressured the Dem PARTY for not securing the election process in the four years since 2000's fraud, MAYBE something would be done by now.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

59. Best answer yet

What are our leaders doing NOW?

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

[blm]

65. Except by 2004 it was the THIRD time elections were stolen. Dem PARTY's failure

was in not countering the RNC's tactics discovered during 2000's hearings.

The rEAL culprits who were grossly negligent in their four year stewardship of the DEm party got off scot-free because they poured all blame unto Kerry and used the left to help.

And so because the BLAME was misdirected, the real problems have never been properly assessed and answered.

[The Count]

103. Kerry decided to concede. The party was deaf to people's complaints for years

and they share a good part of the blame for the theft. But this doesn't exonerate Kerry who threw in the towel. Florida was a mess too - and a few other states as well.

[BobRossi]

2. Chickenshit skull and bones lackey.

Never did trust the idiot.

[LittleClarkie]

12. I'm sure Coast to Coast would be quite interested in that theory

You might try calling them. They could fit you in between the Bigfoot hunter and the UFO spotters.

[karynnj]

31. How is this appropriate -

This is an inappropriate comment that would not be allowed for any other Democrat. There is no Democrat that I trust more.

[jgraz]

35. Are you kidding. Have you seen what people have been saying about Hillary lately?

Who me? No, I'd never say anything bad about Hillary. O8)

[karynnj]

39. I have alerted on anti-Hillary things - like VF and the list of people

the Clintons supposedly killed - they are trash and don't belong anywhere - nor should nonsense that says Kerry threw the election. The guy was out campaigning weeks after cancer surgery. Not to mention if this was a deal I would assume that Kerry's family, wife, children, career and service would not have been slimed as they were. This has never made sense - he could more easily not run.

[blm]

54. Yeah - because he only has the BEST RECORD in DC of uncovering corruption

of the Bush cabal and their cronies - so then who would you trust in DC?

[Carolina]

77. I assume you're referring

to Kerry's stellar investigative work on Iran-Contra.

And since that's the case, it makes his IWR vote (his ceding so much power to the dimwit criminal spawn) cowardly, calculating and immoral!

[blm]

86. Not just IranContra - BCCI and CIA drugrunning and illegal wars in Central America

which makes Kerry's IWR vote SINCERE as he also promised that if Bush didn't do the right thing by inspections first that he would speak out - which he did BEFORE the invasion, during and after.

The IWR didn't send this country to war - it wasn't even a factor - the DSM proves that and so did Bush's signing statement at the time.

[Carolina]

105. IWR aided and abetted

and gave * cover. With votes from such Dems as Kerry and HRC, * could point to bipartisan support. Kerry's act of ceding such authority to * just before the 2002 midterms despite the NO votes and cautionary words 23 Dem Senators and the objections of his MA constituents, was pure political calculation and moral cowardice.

Sure * would have done as he pleased, as we have certainly seen. But Kerry would not have had to dance around with I was for it before I was against accusations!

[blm]

107. That was RW spin - and you should point out the inaccuracy of the spin not use it yourself.

But using shorthand spin for everything is so much easier than sticking with truth and facts.

The IWR wasn't even a factor in this war - despite the spin that made it so.

If those of you who used your energy to claim it was had used your time and energy to attack Bush for VIOLATING the IWR and make the invasion all HIS - it would have been ACCURATE and meaningful and a helluva lot more effective.

[Carolina]

109. RW spin

SURE! Listen to/read Robert Byrd's speech and other Dems who dissented, who voted NO ...

Kerry's vote was pure calculation that backfired. The vote gave * cover and in that sense was used to promote the war. Yes, * was going to do whatever the hell he wanted but our Dems didn't have to make it easier for him. Those who voted 'YEA' are culpable no matter how they -- and you -- twist it.

It was a 2002 midterm election ploy. Remember the repuke famous words: you don't reveal a new model (i.e. new strategy, etc.) before Labor Day ...?

We should just agree to disagree since Kerry can do no wrong in your eyes. Plus I don't need YOU to tell me what to do with MY energy.

[The Count]

104. Oh, he was a dissenter himself too once. But that time has passed.

Now he watches, microphone in hand as police removes people who ask uncomfortable questions.

[blm]

110. Kerry was answering his question - he didn't control Meyers erratic behavior that

prompted the police removal.

Kerry acted appropriately and invited Meyers to ask his question in ORDER to stop the aggressive confrontation with the police.

But you all want to pretend that somehow the entire incident was Kerry's fault.

BTW - Kerry has encouraged and protected dissent his entire life.

Uncovering and investigating and exposing IranContra, illegal wars in Central America, BCCI and CIA drugrunning was all about DISSENTING against his government's corruption.

Advocating publicly for gays to serve openly in the military was all about dissenting against his government's rules.

If you want to applaud Meyers actions dissenting while pretending that Kerry's dissent never happened - then that is YOUR GAME.

[MissWaverly]

3. He didn't not stick up for US when when we needed him

he failed us, he knew what America went thru with 4 years of Bush and he just folded, I am sorry I have no respect for him
at all. The Dems according to Karl Rove raised 157 million more than the Republicans with the pacs and we still lost.
That alone should tell us something.

[karynnj]

20. Kerry had $75 million to spend over 13 weeks, Bush $75 million over 8 weeks

The Rove numbers likely count ALL the primary money - spent by ALL the Democrats versus all the money spent just to push Bush in an uncontested primary. It likely also includes all the money spent by the PACs, like moveon etc that could not explicitly push for Kerry.

He did not have the votes.

[jgraz]

32. And what happened to the rest of Kerry's war chest?

Remind me again how much Kerry had left over at the end of the campaign... $14 million? $16 million?

[karynnj]

40. That was money from the primaries

Some of it was immediately donated to the DNC, DCCC, and the DSC to cover their debts and to give them money to work for 2006. Some was retained until the audits for 2004 were complete - as the law requires.

Then in 2006, he donated more directly to the candidates and used several million dollars to raise $14 million dollars for various 2006 candidates - all this came out when the "Hey John" letter came out - that tried to steal the credit he deserved for fund raising in 2006. (Dean was also attacked because he was not giving enough to the DCCC.)

Kerry still has around $8 million left - from what I read at the end of 2006.

[blm]

72. 14 million he couldn't spend LEGALLY as per the LAW - surely you must know that by now.

as money recieved during the primaries cannot be spent during election. Too much money came in that final week before the general money kicked in.

Want to bet that Terry McAuliffe set up the early convention knowing this would occur?

[jgraz]

74. Yes yes yes. It was all Terry McAuliffe's fault

God forbid the guy at the top of the ticket should accept any responsibility. :eyes:

[blm]

75. Accept responsibility for not being LEGALLY ALLOWED to spend primary money in the general?

Please stick to your own assertion.

[MissWaverly]

85. well, I think he did have the votes and we'll find out

after January 2009, when it's too late, of course, and I am sure that many people will be very sorry, not that they
would want someone to actually be held accountable but sorry enough for a tearful interview on Fox,
yeah, that ought to make up for 8 years of lying, cheating, stealing, an exclusive mea culpa interview
with Brit Hume to last no longer than 60 minutes.

[Middle finga]

4. That was his once in a life time chance at being President,

Exit polls had him as the winner, the votes were still being counted and he threw in the towel without a fight what so ever. Why are dems so scared to fight?

[Skittles]

45. fighting would have at least drawn attention to the vote shenanigans

yup

[zeemike]

5. Notice that he said he did not have the evidence

Not that the evidence did not exist because that would be a lie.
He conceded before anyone could give him the evidence.
But what the hell he got a book deal worth I guess 5 mill.

[LittleClarkie]

13. What does the book have to do with anything to do with the election

it was about the environment, for fuck's sake.

[zeemike]

52. Because book deals are how the RW pays off the faithful servant

They give multi million dollar advances...Newt Gingrich 5 million for a book that sold only a few and the list goes on and on.
So my question would be how much of an advance did Kerry receive for his book that will not get more than a first printing?

[karynnj]

21. If you are referring to his and Teresa's book

the profits went to various environmental groups profiled in the book. He wanted to win and worked like hell to get it. We still do not have proof that could be taken to court/

[IamyourTVandIownyou]

6. Escorted and tasered him...

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message.php?messageid=438824&mpage=1&showdate=9/17/07&forum=1

Unbelievable. Police state 2007.

[YvonneCa]

7. I'd give most anything...

...if John Kerry were President today. I feel sorry for the tasered student, but he was behaving like an attention-seeking sixth grade child. Choices have consequences. The Florida student made a very loud, public choice...and he's intelligent enough to predict the police reaction.

Sorry for that result at your speech, Senator. I've attended a few of your public events, and you handle every one with dignity and integrity.

[ellenfl]

8. the police did not need to keep tasering him.

he obviously got the message after the first tasering, from the clip i saw.

ellen fl

[LittleClarkie]

16. I think that most people agree on that, regardless of how they felt about the guy's rant

The taser was over the top.

[ellenfl]

as a gator, i am especially mortified that my school condones

this type of police state behavior. this country is getting more scary every day.

ellen fl

[Carolina]

78. The police reaction was way over the top

Whatever happened to free speech, speaking truth to power

[Peregrine Took]

9. Makes me want to puke everytime I see his mug. And to think I rang door-

bells to try to get his ass elected. The great "electable" one. So much for establishment candidates - never again.

[LittleClarkie]

15. Not me. I give every time I get a fundraising call

Sometimes I still think about 2004. It impeded me a bit in 2006, because it brought up so many memories. I phone banked on my birthday. I took the last 5 days of the election off so I could GOTV.

He's a good man.

[InvisibleTouch]

10. Interesting how he phrased it, though.

He didn't have the evidence - not that it never existed in the first place (but was hidden/destroyed), and not that the vote wasn't tampered with - only that he couldn't prove it. Imagine how frustrating it must have been: he knew very well that he was robbed, but couldn't prove it - and by saying so, he'd only make himself and his whole party look foolish. So he had to keep silent in public. Horrific, really.

[LittleClarkie]

11. I'm sure it sucked swamp water through a straw

He is a decent man. Heart-breaking that at one point they thought he'd won.

I'm sure it haunts both him and Gore. What might have been...

[karynnj]

22. I think you are right on that

I think that has to be incredibly tough on both Gore and Kerry. Kerry has always been very cautious about language - I would say that at minimum he is implying that he can't rule theft out. That has to be tough especially as it is clear in many interviews that the inability to do what he could have done to make a better world is what causes him the sharpest grief. (It also had to hurt that elements of his own party immediately started a whisper campaign saying both he was not a party leader and before the 109th Congress even began that he was not following the Senate leadership. I never saw a nominee treated worse - including Gore, who left the country - but was initially considered the rightful President. )

[jgraz]

38. Yeah, the complete lack of poltical courage didn't help either.

[Carolina]

79. exactly

like his 'yea' vote on IWR

[LittleClarkie]

14. Did he come to question, or did he come to rant?

If he came to rant, how long should they have been expected to allow him to rant during a question period when there were likely people who wanted to ask questions too.

That said, it seems the concensus is that the taser was unnecessary.

[antiimperialist]

27. Kerry added: "There was no evidence of fraud. Moveon was wrong, and I apologize for my joke"

What a leader.

[redqueen]

81. Yup... that about sums it up. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

34. A very disappointing opinion by Kerry, and a very ignorant one at that.

Are people in the Beltway that much out of touch with reality?

I question whether they have what it takes to prevent another stolen election.

[jgraz]

37. It's not ignorant at all. It's a flat-out lie

He told Mark Crispin-Miller during an interview that he knew there was fraud in the 2004 election, but he chose not to fight to preserve his chances in 08. Then, when Miller published the quote, Kerry denied it and called him a liar.

Edwards also knows that Kerry screwed the pooch. He'll hint at it if you ask him, but he won't come right out and say it.

[karynnj]

41. Not true

Mark Crispin-Miller said that at a party, when he said to Kerry "you were robbed", Kerry agreed. That was per what Crispin-Miller said. He then reported that Kerry said the election was stolen. There is actually a huge difference there. First off it is chit chat - and it would be true even if he was referring to the "unlucky" appearance of the OBL tape in the last week.

If I could ask MCM one thing, it would be why, in his version, he didn't ask a follow up question. Here, he thinks Kerry has said something to him that he has never said before. Yet, he asks nothing. Was he afraid that if he said, "You mean it was stolen", Kerry would explain that he meant something less dramatic.

As to Edwards - he said NOTHING on voting irregularities, machine problems, fraud etc for well over a tyear after the election. He spoke on many other things. Then in 2006, Edwards dropped some ambiguous comments in the blogosphere and Elizabeth Edwards gave an account that can be read both ways in her autobiography. There was nothing stopping Edwards from speaking out if he had proof or even a coherent case for the election being stolen. If he is saying anything like that now, he should be ashamed of himself.


Kerry spoke of voter supression and fraud starting at a MLK day event in Boston. There were at least 5 occasions where he spoke out on this in 2005 alone. Each time, the media and the RW ridiculed him. He also gave a speech in the Senate that spoke of specifics like the touch screens that changed to Bush. Kerry has also been involved with legislation including a bill with Feingold last fall that demanded that paper ballots be available that would count as regular ballots{/i] if there were non-functioning machines or queues that were too long. They knew it couldn't pass - but they explained it could be used as a model for state bills.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

89. For me, this is the wound that never heals

There was TONS of evidence of improprieties that deserved investigation and not just in Ohio.

It would have been fine to delay concession and just let all the incidents in so many places bubble out. We would all be better off for it. John Kerry did not have the PASSION to fight for the seat he won.

[1932]

36. I like Kerry, but it has been a 11 years since I watched a Democrat run like he really wanted to win

Is it too much to ask them to at least appear to the American public as if it matters to them that they win.

Look at Bush. He lost. But he didn't give up. He used every weapon in his arsenal to win.

Democrats have just as effective (legal & constitutional) weapons in their arsenal. I'd love to see a Democrat try to use them in a pinch.

[karynnj]

42. I think both Gore and Kerry ran elections that were as good as Clinton's

The difference is that they are colored by the results. The losses (though the thesis here is both really won) highlight every little error. In Clinton's caes the victory airbrushes every flaw.

The fact is Clinton had a much easier race. Bush was below 40% for most of 1992 and at 33% before the election. Clinton's debates were not as compelling as Kerry's - except for the town meeting one which was as good. Clinton got 9 hours of network time for his convention, Kerry got three - an hour each for himself, Edwrads and Bill Clinton.

[democrat2thecore]

46. No way. Kerry was a robot and had no connection with the people

Stage managed and mushy on domestic issues, confusing on Iraq....Kerry was a disaster as a candidate.

[karynnj]

47. That's your opinion

It's not what I saw. I have seen 5 Kerry events and he connected extremely well to people in all of them. Kerry had an excellent health plan with an innovative plan to reinsure catastophic costs. He was the first to make alterntive fuels a campaign issue. His view that alternative energy and being more efficient connects with better jobs (selling that technology and products made from it), cleaner air, cleaner water, better health and less dependence on a unstable middle east in addition to slowing global warming was inspiring.

His Iraq plan ws quite clear - and the media recognized that the plan the ISG recommended was pretty much Kerry's 2004 or 2005 (adjusted because circumstances changed) plans. Read the NYU speech - which he simplitied to simple points that he counted off on the Letterman show the same day. Maybe you missed the first debate as well.

Remember that in December 2003, Bush polled 12 points higher than generic Democrat and 20 points higher than Dean (the only specific person polled). Why do you think Hillary didn't run.

[MadHound]

48. The trouble is that both Gore and Kerry failed to exhibit any sort of spine

When it was obvious that the vote was being tampered with. In '00 Greg Palast handed Gore the entire Votescam scandal on a silver platter, names, numbers, dates, etc. etc. He gave the Gore campaign this information only a few days after election day. So think about it, you've just been handed all of the information not only to win the election, but to banish your opponent to the political wilderness forever. What would you do? As we saw, Gore just sat on this information, thus consigning all of us to eight years of Bushco.

Likewise with Kerry. There was plenty of evidence of voter fraud in Ohio, yet who were the ones jumping in and raising a fuss? Oh, yeah, the Green. Kerry kinda sorta voiced a protest, kinda, sorta made some sort of feeble gesture. But frankly it was too little, too late.

Pathetic exhibitions of cowardice, both of them.

[Apollo11]

49. You certainly are a mad hound

if you think that Gore did not explore and exhaust every option that was open to him under the law that would have helped to change the result of the 2000 election.

If I remember right - Gore fought for 54 days to get all the votes counted in Florida.

He did not stop fighting for as long as there was the slightest chance of changing the outcome.

Some here have said that Gore should have kept on fighting this battle after the SCOTUS ruling.

I respect Al Gore's wish to put the interests of the country before his own interests.

As much as it still hurts me to think about it - I think he did the right thing.

It's up to all of us to make sure that we get clean elections in this country.

We can't expect Al Gore to fight all our battles for us.

[jgraz]

56. "explore and exhaust every option that was open to him under the law"

Exactly the point. Gore worked within the law while the Rethugs attacked politically and committed federal felonies in order to stop the count.

Another example of the Dems bringing a knife to a gunfight.

[MadHound]

57. LOL, that's right, shoot the messenger

Don't believe what I say, go read Greg Palast's book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" Then try and tell me I'm wrong.

Sorry to burst you precious bubble about Gore and the '00 election, but hey, the truth hurts. If you want to keep yourself insulated and uninformed, that's your problem. I prefer to know the unvarnished truth.

[Carolina]

82. No, sadly

Gore had poor political instincts:

1) He should never have listened to the GOP/MSM meme about Clinton fatigue or allowed his own ego (fear of being upstaged) to keep Clinton away, out of the campaign. Clinton WAS still very popular and could have helped Gore carry Arkansas and maybe even Gore's home state of Tennessee. Then Florida would have been a moot point.

2) He should never have selected Liebermann as his running mate, and I say that not from the perspective of hindsight but rather based on how I felt then: that large segments of this nation would never vote for a Jew (or Black or woman) to occupy such a powerful national office. I doubt that glass ceiling will not be broken in my lifetime.

3) The minute Florida irregularities appeared, he should have requested a recount of the entire state not just the Democratic counties (who didn't know that repukes would shut that down ... whereas shutting down an entire state recount from the get-go would have been more difficult because it was patently fair to both candidates)

4) Should have kept fighting after the SCOTUS decision by:
a) pointing out the travesty of that decision since UNLIKE other SCOTUS opinions Bush versus Gore was a one-time only ruling rather than precedent setting and it was so aberrant, the SCOTUS cowards didn't have the moral courage to sign their decision.
b) pointing out he won the national popular vote by over 1/2 million votes, and both he and the voters had a right to know the truth about the electoral count which only a full investigation could reveal.

Had the shoe been on the other foot, had Bush had such a popular vote lead, does anyone think for one minute that repukes would have accepted defeat?!

[karynnj]

84. There was not plenty of evidence in Ohio

especially when it would have to be proven in the Republican controlled Ohio courts in less than 2 months. Then, if we prove only that it was questionable - the legislature could well have opted to vote for the delegates themselves - yep, they are majority Republican. the fact is there is a flaw in the system. The delegates are picked some time in December and the Congress approves it in the first week of January. Once Congress does this it is DONE. (I remember my then 10 year estatic when on Sept 10, 2001 a study was discussed on the car radio that said Gore definitely won. She thought Bush would be packing soon.) In that time, you can do standard recounts - which rarely change much. But how would you deal with a court case like one based on Votescam, or if they found it was intentional teh butterfly or catarpillar ballots or the mysterious revert to Bush touch screens. Would it even be remotely possible to prove in less than 2 months - including all teh appeals?

Consider the NH stuff where Republican opperatives when to jail - but Sununu who benefited is Senator.

Gore hinted about what he would have had to after the SC settled it - and I think it was close to revolt - which would tear the country apart.

[MadHound]

87. So you toss justice out the window just because it is difficult?

Wow, no wonder Bushboy managed to stay in office, again, an utter lack of spine on the part of the Dems.

People in this country desperately want justice, and are willing to do many thing, put up with much in order to achieve it. I seriously doubt that having Gore or Kerry pursue said justice would have torn this country apart.

[Carolina]

80. "confusing on Iraq"

exactly!!! Voted 'yea' on IWR, then said the squatter went about the war in the wrong way, then said as late as August '04 that knowing what he knew, he vote the same way again ... SHEESH

The war was lie and ceding * so much power to Bush with that IWR vote was morally wrong and showed political cowardice.

You're also right on stage managed, and I would add infected with Senatitis speak -- long, convoluted, pedantic answers akin to Senate chamber speechifying.

Motto should be: Say what you mean; mean what you say and keep it simple!

[The Count]

93. Both Gore and Kerry got more votes than Clinton too. It was MSM that got

more ferocious as Rove was the new player.
Also, Gore fought, Kerry capitulated.

[Totally Committed]

51. He should have stood his ground until we found some "evidence" then!

He pledged to do that, and then he didn't.

TC

[zulchzulu]

70. So the MSM would have let Kerry wait for months until solid evidence was found?

:rofl:

Pass that bong, bubba!

[PATRICK]

55. Not prepared

seems the better explanation. The phalanxes of lawyers were not trained in the chameleon slipperiness of local election practices. I hope it is better under Dean than just being a call center for victims of the GOP to tie up good intentioned legal assistance in knots.

The Dem campaign under Kerry looked somewhat better prepared to face a repeat of what happened to Gore, without acknowledging the full extent of the fraud, without dealing with the gritty gaming of the state legal system and SOS, and expecting something better somehow that was never clear to anyone. The bluff of "they wouldn't dare" rang a little hollow after the successful swiftboating attack. People coming to Kerry in alarm about voting machines seem to have been brushed off. Huge numbers of absentee ballots and early voters had already been publicly cheated and Palast's election eve warning that the festivities were beginning with a vote suppression handicap of millions.

After the concession, Kerry's campaign visited the efforts of other zealots in Florida, in the Nader challenge, in the Green party challenge looking for something they could use. of course they found nothing, that is the straight arrow effort to find ballots that could be made to count up to victory and provide proof for the obvious. But the obvious dilemma was that most of the problems were invisible or missing or hyped up numbers. So everything they were prepared to do, limited, stolidly following Gore's tragic effort while the GOP had hardened Ohio into a more formidable stone wall and Florida as lost a cause as Diebold Georgia, was kind of pathetic. And through it all they would rather pretend that this swindle never took place because the rube who had just lost his money again couldn't find that gosh durned pea under them shells. Most of the fraud was televised. Most of the efforts of small challengers were public, with some success but little significance. The usual Dem suspects revisted the publicly televised Ohio crime scene like bourgeois committees studying the slums. The goal: to file a report and wax indignant, but not too indignant as to ever breathe a suspicion that Kerry might have been the just winner.

Then to add insult to the idea that the Dem caampaign was either doltish of dastardly conspiratorial(rational people, for the sake of shame, prefer some version of the latter) the Ukraine was forced to change its election based on exit polling and challenges against fraud- NOT recounts. Viewing the absolute disconnect between all the people who bent the knee to Bush's "victory" on this issue alone sealed the blind dolt, the ass, as the fitting symbol of it all.

The singular reality is that as long as the fraud maintain their coup of 2000 there will be no fair elections, no peace, no rational policy of any sort, no power to the Congress, no justice or any other government service, is the wellspring of all avoidance and impotence. And impotence of the brain foremost. You have all seen those movies where the innocent, indignant, outraged upright person scolds the bad guy. "you wouldn't dare. You won't get away with this." At that stage in the plot the villain well may laugh and the idiots should have shut up or concentrated on action instead. maybe eventually the words will ring prophetic. Prophecy and belief in fairness doesn't win elections against crooks. The law does. The public pressure does. The truth does. Fighting the crime with strength and smarts does. At that stage there was little law to grant review, challenges, accountability and in truth the numbers kerry needed for that big picture were not there. Nitpicking to death the small stuff would have been more pathetic than Gore's agonizing progress toward proof that he won(without ever a chance in hell of becoming president).

Not Kerry alone, but a big chunk of the election process challenged party don't even allow themselves to stoop to recognize the full picture and implications of fraud. In that one area alone we needed someone to be at the forefront- where the ENTIRE party should have been before any thought of any other policy or issue. It was just lame and much of the professional political corps still is vacuously crippled, prone to trusting lobbyists, cutting one-sided deals with the GOP cheats, joyously lunging for voter registration advantages that disappear into the bowels of the DOJ, with less passion and power for change than a lone war protester muffled in a free speech zone.

No, the problem is more alarming and huge and dumber than any deficiency or "betrayal" on the part of Kerry. This is the one area of a reform they should have tackled with a vengeance after 2000 revealed all. Still blind, still pissing around, still complicit with the most daring and glaring of multiple theft tactics. Trying to narrow it simply onto Kerry's back when the only disappointment he gave cause for was the manner of fighting he promised and we hoped for- without any details about what they knew about the coming fraud and what they would do about it. They were only prepared to challenge countable ballots in gamed quiltwork accountability systems not to challenge the crime itself. Like the pass given to Bush's miserable debate performance and apparent audio aids, signals were given in true DLC spirit that we would not mess with the myths that prop up RW Republicanism. Better that FDR had never lived than we should lose our cool with the fakes.

Mexico went down under the same fraud with more fight, more focus. They "lost" with honor. The top Dems and many top liberals just airily lost their touch with Bush reality and shrugged off the truth they were never prepared to entertain and had no means, in fact less than the activism of Mexicans, to take a stand. But they could make absolute fools of themselves backing up a Ukrainian thug(ours) and cheering on our state interference in another nation's system.

[Milo_Bloom]

60. Umm, wouldn't the reason you contest be to GATHER the evidence?

There was tons of evidence of PROBLEMS, from long lines to faulty machines, to polls being opened, closed. We all knew about and talked about them that day.

Isn't that why you contest? To see what the problems really were? He conceeded before any meaningful investigation could be done.

[flashl]

61. There was evidence of fraud across the country

Verified voting organizations and other activists presented detailed evidence of election fraud.

Why no one chose to act on this information is the question.

[mod mom]

62. By November 15, I, as a concerned citizen had acquired the documentation from

someone at the Franklin County BOE to prove that the machine allocation was was unfairly distributed in Franklin County Ohio-where the outrageous long lines were. I had NO insider contacts-like members of the Democratic Party would have, and I had been to 2 public hearing by this time hearing hundreds of victims who were willing to file affidavits.

sorry but Kerry's mistake was to supply the traitor, Carville with insider info:

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio




On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


\

BTW I have saved the original correspondences to prove a time frame, contacts and information.

[budibudinski]

63. WELL.....WE Had IT Here On DU-------------------------

Maybe Kerry should have just fucking ASKED US !!!

[ralbertson]

66. Statement from John Kerry regarding yesterday's UF incident:

"In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way. I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption, but again I do not know what warnings or other exchanges transpired between the young man and the police prior to his barging to the front of the line and their intervention. I asked the police to allow me to answer the question and was in the process of answering him when he was taken into custody. I was not aware that a taser was used until after I left the building. I hope that neither the student nor any of the police were injured. I regret enormously that a good healthy discussion was interrupted."

[zulchzulu]

68. Welcome to DU

Thanks for a little sanity in this room of blathering buffoonery...

[The Count]

99. Translation: "I wasn't a clueless lump unable to control a Q&A. Trust me!"

I can't believe - he was in a friendly crowd, had a legitimate questioner - whatever you may say about his behavior, most of the questions - election, impeachment are yours too. he had the microphone - even after the kid didn't have his...and he did nothing. he just stood there. He heard the "I am being tasered" and "help" screams. he just stood there. And yet, according to DU's first page - he is awesome...
You are doing here the same rehashing of the truth they did to W and 9.11 - he heroically read the pet goat "because he didn't want to upset the kids" (one version) and also "he immediately leapt into action (NY Post) - or in your case "he told the police he wanted to answer the question"
How about telling the police: "STOP! I'll handle this myself"
I saw politicians and entertainers do it. William Shatner used to get his heckler on the stage and go into a mano a mano to the delight of the audience. teachers do it every day in their classroom. What part of lack of leadership don't you understand?
Ironically, this incident takes some of the sting from the 2004 theft - not that I'm not still angry about it.

[zulchzulu]

69. John Conyers on Kerry's 2004 post-election efforts

"Fighting for Every Voter"

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me. As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes...

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

- John Conyers

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000213.htm

[The Count]

90. But Kerry thought the whole thing was between him and God (God was trying him)

It was all about Kerry - and his name not being attacked as Gore's has been in 2000. The hell with every voter!
meanwhile - the whole world thinks * won - and I even have to see the stupid website: "We're sorry" (for electing Bush)

[zulchzulu]

71. Here are the people you should be targeting your anger towards...

Carville Le Turncoat has never responded to what he did on Election Night with his wife regarding contacting the Ohio absentee ballots and how many magically disappeared.

On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

[The Count]

91. Thanks for the target, but they weren't the decision makers.

While it may or may not be true that they exchanged information between the two camps, it was kerry who decided that "they'd call us crybabies" and call his vaunted lawyers from the tarmac on the way to Ohio. It's what Mike Papantonio - one of the lawyers blurted on air America - days after it happened.

So, you'll excuse me if I chose my own targets for my anger.
I am angry at the thieves.
I am angry at the victims who played into their hands or else they'd be called cry babies.

[ProSense]

73. What the hell is going on? This is so friggin confusing!

I spend a hell of a lot of time batting down the "Kerry ran a lousy campaign" meme, now people are claiming he won. WTF?

[The Count]

92. You were battling the wrong meme - one that was bought from the MSM

I for one was battling it too - because of the implication that he lost. It just shows you were clueless more than once.

[ProSense]

96. You know what the OP shows:

Kerry answering the question: "we didn't have that evidence" of voter suppression to justify contesting the 2004 election"

Game over!

Seems to me the clueless (denier) are the ones still asking for an answer.

[The Count]

98. if lack of evidence would be the end, science,the criminal justice system, would not exist

Fortunately, other human beings - when they suspect an outcome, they INVESTIGATE. Instead of throwing the towel.
I am also surprised by your post as you have another thread "How many of you think Kerry won?" with mostly "Me" answers. Do YOU believe he won? Do you think he should have pursued this - at least for truth and democracy's sake?

[The Count]

88. They left out "(Un)fortunately he won't come up and swear me in as president"

"He didn't wait for the answers" - the operatives have been clamoring all day.
Why should he? Whenever did Kerry give a straight answer to anything?
"We didn't have the proof". Guess what, John - that's why investigations are for - to gather proof. SUSPICION is usually enough to start an investigation. I know you suspected it was stolen. Why did you chose to NOT look for proof? Why should this be acceptable?

[MetalCanuck]

108. This is sick

Nobody should be arrested of threatened for asking GOOD
questions.