Kerry is so full of shit

[blues90]

He has the nerve to bash Hillary yet he voted for the attack too and has been in the senate alot longer than Hillary .

Not that I support Hillary or Obama , the point is Kerry speaks out against what he did too . He is just as guilty .

I don't find there is any excuse to say now you are sorry for the vote or not , they voted for a war stating the people wanted it . Are they not there to be in the know and keep informed and inform the people . If they felt the war was wrong then why vote for it instead of telling the people this is a big mistake .

This I will never get . There were many people against attacking Iraq so I guess they don't count .

I voted for Kerry now I feel that vote was thrown in my face , wish I hadn't voted at all .

[jlake]

1. I agree. I respect Kerry's years of service, but he conveniently forgets to hold

himself accountable.

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

3. Kerry lost a winnable election for a reason.

Gore got robbed, Kerry lost.

I truly think an awful lot of these endorsements from the Ma area are pertially because the Kennedy and Gore types are jealous of the Clintons.

Clintons have won the big prize....What did Ted or Kerry do?


BOMED OUT!

[Hydra]

16. Kerry did win

But for whatever reason didn't fight it.

I would rather Dean have been the nominee for many reasons(IWR being a big one), but to date, the repubs haven't won an election since 1988...assuming they didn't steal that one too.

[BlackVelvet04]

33. Maybe he was intended to be the throwaway candidate who

would push Obama to the front for this election? I think it was Kerry who picked Obama for the keynote address.

[mutant80]

107. Kerry is bitter and jealous. He really wanted to run again.

[cd3dem]

18. my disappointment was him giving up... Kerry quit with money in the bank...

he allowed the swift-boating for two weeks before he spoke up...

and after he said he would not concede until all the votes were counted... he conceded before all the votes were counted...

and now we dems attack the Clintons for being too tough!

makes me ashamed to be a damn liberal!!!

[blm]

27. Bullspit - McAuliffe never secured election process - some say incompetently

some say deliberately to keep Hillary2008 safe.

You didn't see Clinton's machine show up to defend any Democrat being attacked the last 7 years including Kerry. Though Kerry had always showed up to defend Clinton in 92 when he needed it.

[David Zephyr]

38. Three reasons not to vote for The Clintons: Mark Penn, Terry McAuliffe & James Carville.

I put all of the blame for our loss in 2004 to Terry McAuliffe.

[cd3dem]

42. It was Kerry's race to win or lose... and don't forget the crap in Ohio...

was that the fault of the Clinton's ?

who is crying now?

[VolcanoJen]

76. Please, DU, don't ever forget Ohio 2004.

I won't. The election was stolen in my own back yard.

[blues90]

75. I haven't seen the Clintons stand up but I can't find info on this

There is so much crap flying around out there that it's very difficult to find the truth about anything .

I know what I've seen and i see Feingold left hanging in the wind when he wanted to censor Bush jr and Boxer was the only one to stand by him . I know Kuncinich has tried for years to stop this madness but very few will support him in his efforts .

I have seen Kerry fight for issues but somehow he says the wrong thing or is accused of this and it ends without a peep for reasons unknown to me .

How in the hell can anyone find the truth when it's so well hidden in the DC bubble and spun over and over by the media . I even hear liberal radio hosts give different takes on Kerry and others .

The entire structure of the government seems to be a mission to keep the public in the dark on many issues .

I never listen to the TV media but I do watch the congress and senate and know who says what , it becomes a fog after a while unless you can tape all the congress and senate debated issues and keep going back years to even come close to figuring it out .

I was never for going into Afghanistan or Iraq and looked for those who were on the same side .

[Straight Shooter]

43. What has Kerry done with all that money? Does anyone know?

I received a Kerry campaign e-mail the night of the election asking for funds to help him fight the results. I sent a paltry $50, but it was all I could afford at the time. I thought democracy was more important than extra groceries.

By the next morning, he had capitulated. Lock, stock, and barrel. What happened to my money?

If he would give it back, I'd like to donate it to Hillary. :)

[blm]

59. Hillary's thugs MADE SURE the election process was never secured after 2000s theft.

You would be rewarding McAuliffe, Carville and every thug who undermined a Dem nominee in 2004 and screwed over every voter who thought the DNC had worked to secure the election process after the RNC stole it in 2000.

[Straight Shooter]

65. I still want to donate it to Hillary.

But I appreciate your dedication to Kerry. You were always one of his staunchest supporters.

[blm]

71. Truth does that to a patriot. Bushloving saboteurs can go to hell.

Reward for Rove - prove that Rove deserves respect like Clinton says he does because that is all that's happening. Turning our country over to the Rove's and Penn's of this world because you RESPECT their levels of deceit.

[stillcool]

86. You must have missed the memo...

No one cares about counting votes anymore. Anyone who doubts results that are tabulated by machines that are rife with vulnerabilities is not cool. I understand that it is still Kerry's fault that Ohio did not count the votes that couldn't be counted according to some Democrats. What kind of voting system do you use?

[IsItJustMe]

99. I don't get it and I guess I never will. It seemed to me at the time that Kerry was sabotaging

himself.

[karynnj]

37. Clinton may be a former president but he doesn't have a fraction of the integrity that

Gore and Kerry did.

[DiamondJay]

51. what are you talking about?

Clinton had a lot of integrity. Other than sex, what did Clinton lie about that was important? If its because he was moderate on welfare and crime, its because he had to be for a democrat to even be elected. If it weren't for him erasing our rep as "soft on crime", we'd be more fucked than we are now. And if ur gonna try to bring NAFTA in, Gore basically got it passed by debating Perot on Larry King Live, and Kerry voted for it in the senate. And his pardons were for people hunted in Whitewater, not actual criminals besides Marc Rich. Reagan and Bush pardoned people who sold weapons to Iran for hostages, used the money to sell cocaine and fund the nicaraguan sadinista war, Ford pardoned Nixon, LBJ bullshitted Tonkin Gulf. Clinton is Mr. Integrity when it comes to recent presidents. Do I believe Kerry and Gore had integrity on par with Bill? Absolutely yes, they just came off as more sincere because no one could call Gore "Slick Al" or Kerry "Slick Kerry". Bill clinton was a man of integrity. Stop bashing such a great president.

[karynnj]

35. Absolutely not true

He has taken responsibility more than anyone else. As to what his position was - he was always against the invasion and has been consistent since 2002 - per your avatar:

http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/09/biden_gives_props_to_senator_k.html

Click on the video of Biden to hear what he had to say last year.

[LittleClarkie]

47. I appreciate your civilly stated position

Thank you.

[sam sarrha]

2. nobody voted to go to "War".. it was a resolution for the UN, not to go to war, everybody was duped.

[blues90]

13. That's true , however it has been turned into something else

Now . The facts don't seem to matter now . everyone forgets facts .

But here we have this BS where it has become Obama didn't vote for the attack and Hillary did sort of crap . And they willingly play this game .

No one will ever know how Obama would have voted since he was not under the same pressure .

I question the way many Dems have voted in the last 12 years , especially the last year .

All I want is the truth but I fear it will never happen .

[Hydra]

17. They very much did vote to do to war

over many of our "less informed" objections.

Our reps were afraid of looking "weak on terror" and opted to look weak on oversight and weak on controlling Bushco.

Anyone in Congress who sincerely thought Bush would use the IWR for anything other than he did needs their head examined.

[Carolina]

61. exactly

IWR was Iraq War Resolution. PERIOD

Bush meant war. We knew it, many House members knew it and 23 Senators knew it. Some, notably Robert Byrd, warned his colleagues.

This continued BUSHIT and BULLSHIT that it wasn't a vote for war is CRAP

[krkaufman]

19. Why the channeling of Condoleeza Rice?

(irt her dodging the title of the August PDB... "bin Laden determined to strike inside the US")

The Iraq resolution was titled "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." Quibbling over the fact that the resolution was not strictly a "declaration of war" is moot, as the resolution abdicated the final decision for use of force against a foreign nation to the President, who was transparent in his intent to take the country to war with Iraq.

Putting that aside, how is being "duped" an admirable quality? Whether duped by the case for war (which could have been refuted had one bothered to read the full, 92-page classified Iraq NIE) or duped by Bush administration pledges of diplomacy (pledges contrary to Bush's demonstrated unilateralism), the duped have demonstrated a lack of judgment, on the facts and of character.

[karynnj]

41. Kerry did not say that - the poster said that

The OP is upset because Kerry is NOT defending the vote - but saying it was wrong - as he has said at leat 100 times since 2005.

[krkaufman]

56. My response was directed at the poster's message, not Kerry's. n/t

[karynnj]

73. Sorry - I was in overreaction mode

[krkaufman]

78. np nt

[cali]

21. Tell it Leahy, Byrd, Kennedy etc

They know a fuck of a lot more than the likes of you and they ALL say it was a blank check and worse.

[PassingFair]

32. Not everybody was duped, 126 Congresspeople Voted NO

23 other Senators voted NO.

MOST DEMOCRATS were NOT DUPED.

Only SOME of them were.

Jeez, quit spreading this lie.

[jillan]

4. Oh this outta be good.

:popcorn:

[AX10]

5. It was not a resolution to go directly to war.

But yes, (Windsurfer)Kerry is a hypocrite for saying this. He is in the same boat as Clinton and 75 other US Senators.

Kerry is just jealous that he lost a winnable election.

[krkaufman]

22. No, it was an abdication of the decision to go to war to the President ...

... which most people knew was effectively a vote to take us to war, given Bush's transparent intent to do so. (more)

edit: p.s. Kerry *is* full of crap, if he's trying to convince us that the Iraq resolution vote was not a vote to go to war. The only way Kerry would not be f-o-c would be if he were to admit his Iraq vote mistake (shouldn't have voted for it), his genuine reason for voting how he did (triangulation and political cowardice), and that his having voted for the Iraq war was a definite vulnerability in his 2004 Presidential campaign (see: "he voted for the war, before he voted against it").

[Little Star]

6. Ditto. He will never get my vote in MA again. In fact if there

is a dem running against him I will work for that Dem. Kerry needs to STFU. imho

[MADem]

7. Write in Hillary Clinton for his seat--that'll frost his flakes!!!! NT

[LittleClarkie]

8. Link to what you're talking about please

what speech?

[blues90]

14. He was on Hartmann today

He brought this up .

[The_Casual_Observer]

9. Kerry had his chance at it & lost. Why should his advice be of any value?

[blm]

10. He's doing what an HONEST lawmaker does - ADMITS when he made a mistake.

And maybe you SHOULD be more concerned that the last Dem PRESIDENT ADVISED Dem senators and congresspeople to support Bush on his Iraq war decisions.

A president has access to MORE information than a senator will have EVER.

Besides -

Kerry opposed Bush's DECISION to go to war before, during and after BECAUSE Bush made the decision when the weapon inspections were PROVING the war was not necessary. Just as he promised he would do if Bush used the IWR to rush to war.

Hillary and most others SUPPORTED the DECISION to invade - Kerry never did and spoke up and said so. Bill took to the talk show for his book tour and SUPPPORTED BUSH SOLIDLY in every appearance for THREE WEEKS the summer of 2004.


I think you are REACHING to smear Kerry when you sound like you never bothered with any of the DETAILS or differences of the last 5 years.


Kerry also crafted an Iraq withdrawal plan by the end of 2005 because Iraq was about to descend into Civil War. In June 2006 when Civil War was already a reality Kerry-Feingold withdrawal plan got 13 votes. Hillary spoke AGAINST any timetable on the senate floor and accepted Bush's cut and run attack against those who wanted a withdrawal timetable.

Please don't even try and PRETEND they were anywhere close to being the same.

[blues90]

20. i know all of that .

I Kerry was not wrong then why bother to apologise at all . He pissed me off just by saying "all votes will be counted " and then walked away . Just that alone was enough for me . He plays what ever side feels safe to him . He also let bush take the lead during their debates rather than standing up for his core beliefs .

[blm]

25. Baloney - Kerry beat Bush DECISIVELY in the debates. Even corpmedia couldn't spin those

for Bush.

Kerry told us what DNC told him that they were on top of the vote problems.

Except that wasn't true at all was it?

Terry McAuliffe sat on his hands for four fucking years after 2000s theft and NEVER secured the election process while the RNC gained control of every aspect of the election process where the votes are allowed, cast and counted.

Gee - ever think about THAT? That the DNC didn't give a fock about securing elections in 2002 and 2004 and then the head of DNC starts Hillary2008 immediately?

The RNC stole that election in the four years before while McAuliffe sat on his hands at the DNC and let it happen.

Kerry has become EVERYONE's scapegoat when he was the ONLY one who dominated his matchups. DNC and left media didn't, did they?

[blues90]

30. So what , it's all after the fact

Kerry knew this and still he never stood there and told the people this . No one knew the black box machines were fixed at the time either because of the media . There was alot of suspician in 2002 in Georgia but the people didn't know .

All of this is after the fact and yet we still have these machines and it's 2008 .

I will never agree with what Kerry did not do . He valued his seat more than the people .

If he would have fought as he said he would just maybe bush would not have had 4 more years . To do this he would have had to take a huge risk but it would have been worth it . Edwards was willing and gave up his seat , Kerry kept his seat telling the people after the fact that he would fight for us .

I gave Kerry all the support even after the fact but he keeps staying in the back ground and continues to defend himself and this is when he lost me .

[karynnj]

50. In 2004, did you miss the following:

Throughout the primaries, Kerry said thousands of times that Bush misled us into war, failing to build a real coalition, before the diplomacy was exhausted, before the inspectors finished, without a plan to secure the peace and not as a war of last resort.

In the general election he went further - saying "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time". He also pointed said that it meant something to him when you say "war of last resort". (That means it is not a just war to many - including Kerry.)

I may have missed some - but they were the conditions he listed in the top one were what Bush promised to get their votes. Bush then broke the promises. It was a year later when Kerry acknowledged that trusting Bush with his vote was wrong.

EDwards gave up his seat because he figured it was impossible to run a race in NC and for President. Kerry seat was NOT up in 2004 - there was nothing he had to do to keep it.

Kerry has spoken out far more than Edwards on voter suppression and the election problems. He is not on the committee that has jurisdiction over the HAVA - Dodd is and he refused to do anything by many accounts. The problem is that elections are run at the state level and on the federal level Kerry had no support from others to make any changes. Why do you expect miracles from Kerry and NOTHING from Edwards or Clinton.

[politicasista]

55. Exactly. The double standard here is tiresome n/t

[blues90]

62. i know , I watched the debates

And when Kerry stood up to bush I was as proud and proud can be . Then he seemed to fall into a hole when he suddenly switched from attacking bush to the hunting film and taking about Killing the Killers . I was a bit taken back by that . I remember the words to this day and sat there wondering what happened . Maybe it was his advisors , who knows but Kerry said these things .

My point is not what position he held or what committee was on , he still had a voice and could have used it to expose what happened .

Do you not think at all that we may not have had 4 more years of bush if he had taken a risk or is it just me that is an idiot and idealistic , this is not to say anyone here is an idiot , you tell me , I am serious .

[karynnj]

72. As to killing the killers, he was answering the question

of whether he would go after non-state terrorists. Those were the people he said he would have special forces kill. It was part of the answer with the fact that he saw the effort mostly international intelligence sharing and law enforcement, but occasionally needing special forces, preferably co-ordinating with the countries they were in. The hunting was a photo opt which was trying to use the fact that Kerry was not stereotype of the cultured aloof intellectual - but also a hunter, pilot, athlete.

On Iraq, Kerry did likely go to the edge - he did speak of diverting attention from Iraq, about Abu Ghraib, about the looting, about the lack of diplomacy. Kerry had the antiwar people - there were 9 million more votes than Gore got, so there could not have been a significant number of people who ordinarily vote who stayed home and there were few third party votes.

The people Kerry needed to win were in the middle. A group I belong to - liberal women mostly between 40 and 60 - discussed F911. The entire group thought that it contained cheap shots - mostly in the connect the dots section - likely cheered by DU people. I explained some I could defend - but if that type of position is what you are talking about, it could have lost some in this group - who were all for Kerry. Now, I come from a more conservative area - Northern Indiana. This last Christmas, I got enough courage to ask why an older relative clearly hated Kerry - who from all her values, she should really like. The reason was that she thought once a country went to war, questioning whether we should have was wrong - as was listing what was done wrong. She was a teen in WWII and the country rallied around the flag. People like her were simply unwinnable.

The job he had was to shake enough people who still respected Bush into thinking he could do a significantly better job stabilizing Iraq and getting out.

As to elections, here is what he did say in the Senate:

From Thomas, the on-line Senate record – given July 20th, 2006.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his discussion of an important way of having accountability in voting . I must say that I saw how that works out in Oregon. It works well. It works brilliantly, as a matter of fact. People have a lot of time to be able to vote. They don't have to struggle with work issues or being sick or other things. They have plenty of time to be able to have the kind of transparency and accountability that makes the system work. There are other States where you are allowed to start voting early--in New Mexico and elsewhere.
It is amazing that in the United States we have this patchwork of the way our citizens work in Federal elections. It is different almost everywhere. I had the privilege of giving the graduation address this year at Kenyan College in Ohio, and there the kids at Kenyan College wound up being the last people to vote in America in the Presidential race in 2004 in Gambier, at 4:30 in the morning. We had to go to court to get permission for them to keep the polls open so they could vote at 4:30 in the morning.

Why did it take until 4:30 in the morning for people to be able to vote? They didn't have enough voting machines in America. These people were lined up not just there but in all of Ohio and in other parts of the country. An honest appraisal requires one to point out that where there were Republican secretaries of state, the lines were invariably longer in Democratic precincts, sometimes with as many as one machine only in the Democratic precinct and several in the Republican precinct; so it would take 5 or 10 minutes for someone of the other party to be able to vote, and it would take literally hours for the people in the longer lines. If that is not a form of intimidation and suppression, I don't know what is.

So I thank the Senator from Oregon for talking about the larger issue here. He is absolutely correct. The example of his State is one that the rest of the country ought to take serious and think seriously about embracing.
This is part of a larger issue, obviously, Mr. President. All over the world, our country has always stood out as the great exporter of democratic values. In the years that I have been privileged to serve in the Senate, I have had some extraordinary opportunities to see that happen in a firsthand way.

Back in 1986, I was part of a delegation that went to the Philippines. We took part in the peaceful revolution that took place at the ballot box when the dictator, President Marcos, was kicked out and ``Cory'' Aquino became President. I will never forget flying in on a helicopter to the island of Mindanao and landing where some people have literally not seen a helicopter before, and 5,000 people would surround it as you swooped out of the sky, to go to a polling place where the entire community turned out waiting in the hot sun in long lines to have their thumbs stamped in ink and to walk out having exercised their right to vote.

I could not help but think how much more energy and commitment people were showing for the privilege of voting in this far-off place than a lot of Americans show on too many occasions. The fact is that in South Africa we fought for years--we did--through the boycotts and other efforts, in order to break the back of apartheid and empower all citizens to vote. Most recently, obviously, in Afghanistan and Iraq, notwithstanding the disagreement of many of us about the management of the war and the evidence and other issues that we have all debated here. This has never been debated about the desire for democracy and the thrill that everyone in the Senate felt in watching citizens be able to exercise those rights .

In the Ukraine, the world turned to the United States to monitor elections and ensure that the right to vote was protected. All of us have been proud of what President Carter has done in traveling the world to guarantee that fair elections take place. But the truth is, all of our attempts to spread freedom around the world will be hollow and lose impact over the years in the future if we don't deliver at home. The fact is that we are having this debate today in the Senate about the bedrock right to vote, with the understanding that this is not a right that was afforded to everyone in our country automatically or at the very beginning. For a long time, a century or more, women were not allowed to vote in America. We all know the record with respect to African Americans. The fact is that the right to vote in our country was earned in blood in many cases and in civic sweat in a whole bunch of cases. Courageous citizens literally risked their lives. I remember in the course of the campaign 2 years ago, traveling to Alabama--Montgomery--and visiting the Southern Poverty Law Center, the memorial to Martin Luther King, and the fountain. There is a round stone fountain with water spilling out over the sides. From the center of the fountain there is a compass rose coming back and it marks the full circle. At the end of every one of those lines is the name of an American with the description, ``killed trying to register to vote,'' or ``murdered trying to register.'' Time after time, that entire compass rose is filled with people who lost their lives in order to exercise a fundamental right in our country.

None of us will forget the courage of people who marched and faced Bull Connor's police dogs and faced the threat of lynchings, some being dragged out of their homes in the dark of night to be hung. The fact is that we are having this debate today because their work and that effort is not over yet. Too many Americans in too many parts of our country still face serious obstacles when they are trying to vote in our own country.
By reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, we are taking an important step, but, Mr. President, it is only a step. Nobody should pretend that reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act solves the problems of being able to vote in our own country. It doesn't. In recent elections, we have seen too many times how outcomes change when votes that have been cast are not counted or when voters themselves are prevented from voting or intimidated from even registering or when they register, as we found in a couple of States, their registration forms are put in the wastebasket instead of into the computers.

This has to end. Every eligible voter in the United States ought to be able to cast his or her ballot without fear, without intimidation, and with the knowledge that their voice will be heard. These are the foundations of our democracy, and we have to pay more attention to it.

For a lot of folks in the Congress, this is a very personal fight. Some of our colleagues in the House and Senate were here when this fight first took place or they took part in this fight out in the streets. Without the courage of someone such as Congressman JOHN LEWIS who almost lost his life marching across that bridge in Selma, whose actions are seared in our minds, who remembers what it was like to march to move a nation to a better place, who knows what it meant to put his life on the line for voting rights , this is personal.
For somebody like my colleague, Senator TED KENNEDY, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, who was here in the great fight on this Senate floor in 1965 when they broke the back of resistance, this is personal.
We wouldn't even have this landmark legislation today if it weren't for their efforts to try to make certain that it passed.

But despite the great strides we have taken since this bill was originally enacted, we have a lot of work to do.
Mr. President, I ask for an additional 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on this particular component of the bill, there is agreement. Republicans and Democrats can agree. I was really pleased that every attempt in the House of Representatives to weaken the Voting Rights Act was rejected.
We need to reauthorize these three critical components especially: The section 5 preclearance provisions that get the Justice Department to oversee an area that has a historical pattern of discrimination that they can't change how people vote without clearance. That seems reasonable.
There are bilingual assistance requirements. Why? Because people need it and it makes sense. They are American citizens, but they still may have difficulties in understanding the ballot, and we ought to provide that assistance so they have a fully informed vote. This is supposed to be an informed democracy, a democracy based on the real consent of the American people.
And finally, authorization for poll watching. Regrettably, we have seen in place after place in America why we need to have poll watching.
A simple question could be asked: Where would the citizens of Georgia be, particularly low-income and minority citizens, if they were required to produce a government-issued identification or pay $20 every 5 years in order to vote? That is what would have happened without section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Georgia would have successfully imposed what the judge in the case called ``a Jim Crow-era like poll tax.'' I don't think anybody here
wants to go back and flirt with the possibility of returning to a time when States charged people money to exercise their right to vote. That is not our America.
This morning, President Bush addressed the 97th Annual Convention of the NAACP after a 5-year absence. I am pleased that the President, as we all are, ended his boycott of the NAACP and announced his intention to sign the Voting Rights Act into law.

But we need to complete the job. There are too many stories all across this country of people who say they registered duly, they reported to vote, and they were made to stand in one line or another line and get an excuse why, when they get to the end of the line, they can't vote. So they take out a provisional ballot, and then there are fights over provisional ballots. There are ways for us to avoid that. Some States allow same-day registration. In some parts of America, you can just walk up the day of an election, register, and vote, as long as you can prove your residence.
We have this incredible patchwork of laws and rules, and in the process, it is even more confusing for Americans. We need to fully fund the Help America Vote Act so that we have the machines in place, so that people are informed, so that there is no one in America who waits an undue amount of time in order to be able to cast a vote.
We have to pass the Count Every Vote Act that Senator Clinton, Senator Boxer, and I have introduced which ensures exactly what the Senator from Oregon was talking about: that every voter in America has a verifiable paper trail for their vote.
How can we have a system where you can touch a screen and even after you touch the name of one candidate on the screen, the other candidate's name comes up, and if you are not attentive to what you have done and you just go in, touch the screen, push ``select,'' you voted for someone else and didn't intend to? How can we have a system like that?
How can we have a system where the voting machines are proprietary to a private business so that the public sector has no way of verifying what the computer code is and whether or not it is accountable and fair? Just accounting for it.

Congress has to ensure that every vote cast in America is counted, that every precinct in America has a fair distribution of voting machines, that voter suppression and intimidation are un-American and must cease.
We had examples in the last election of people who were sent notices--obviously fake, but they were sent them and they confused them enough. They were told that if you have an outstanding parking ticket, you can't vote. They were told: Democrats vote on Wednesday and Republicans vote on Tuesday and various different things.
It is important for us to guarantee that in the United States of America, this right that was fought for so hard through so much of the difficult history of our country, we finally make real the full measure of that right.
I yield the floor. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague for her forbearance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.

[blues90]

80. Thanks for the insight

I have to say I was against the war in Afghanistan and Iraq from the second it was decided to go into to them . So I had a problem right off when Kerry used the words kill or Killer .

I heard Kerry talk about the problems people had voting and also watched all of this while it went on . Both in 2000 in Florida and in 2004 in Florida again and in Ohio and other states as well .

I was burning because of the 2000 elections and again in 2004 and even with the polite talk nothing changed at all and now it's 2008 and still the only people out there are for the most part groups involved and not politicians . I have a problem with this .

Yes Kerry tried and I don't recall Clinton even interested or many others . Hillary has tried to fight for the people in NY who were effected by 9/11 .

The main thing about Kerry is he appears as a jump in and back out sort of approach . I don't know where he stands . I ahd a big problem and only brought this up because of what he did say which was not long on Hartmanns show this morning , that's what set me off again .

[karynnj]

81. Kerry really does not jump in and back out

He stayed with the Contra investigation for over 2 years, where he was threatened and called a nutcase - he was the only Senator willing to risk his career doing it.

He stayed with BCCI for 5 years, even with former President Carter and Jackie Onassis asking him to stop as Democrats were complicit. He went to the Justice Department when his committee was taken away, when that didn't work he took the information to DA Morgenthau in NYC, which also had some jurisdiction and Morgenthau took them to court and they ended up closing it down.

He has worked on the environment since 1970 when as an activist he worked on earth day, he got the first cap and trade system for sulfur emissions that cause acid rain. In the Senate he's worked on various issues since being on the committee Gore led that had the first Senate hearings on global warming. This year he flew 40 hours of commercial flights to be at the Bali conference for 1 1/2 days.

On Iraq, he has been consistent in his exit plans since 2004 and has, more than anyone else, led in pushing the Democrats to agree to getting out.

He has fought with similar consistency on many issues.

[blm]

60. TERRY McAULIFEE is the one who LIED To us and claimed DNC was on top of it

but they NEVER DID.

What dumbasses blame the ONE person who did his job and won his matchups on HIS LEVEL decisively while at every other level EVERYONE ELSE blew it either deliberately or incompetently?


Did the DNC do ITS job as it claimed to all Dem voters and candidates in 2002 and 2004? FUCK NO!

Did the left media counter the RW machine in its matchups or was it OVERWHELMED by that machine? FUCK NO!

Did Kerry win his matchups against Bush decisively? YES!

But DNC and left media turned it all around and blamed the only one who did his job.

[stillcool]

89. How do you count votes...

that aren't there to count?
http://w2.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/infosheets2006/AccuVoteOS.pdf
http://www.votetrustusa.org/pdfs/California_Folder/DieboldReport.pdf
http://www.votetrustusa.org/pdfs/Diebold%20Folder/uconn-report-os.pdf

[YvonneCa]

28. Okay blues90...

...now I'm ticked.

1. I have tried to be supportive and helpful every time you post here about your problems...and how hopeless and depressed you are about our country's situation.

2. If you did any research at all about John Kerry, you would know the real story of the Senate vote, and you would not repeat Republican talking points here.

3. 2004 was sad for many of us, but Kerry NEVER just walked away from it. What the heck do you think his efforts to retake the House and Senate in 2006 were about? Why did he just campaign in several states in one weekend for Obama?? He fought to help his party regain control of the government to continue the fight started in 2004.

4. Kerry WON the 2004 debates.

5. If you go to C-Span and listen online to his Fanuiel Hall speeches in Boston about Iraq and dissent, you'll begin to get some idea of what you are talking about...right now you have NO CLUE!

6. Kerry is an advocate for Obama, but he doesn't 'bash' people...especially not Hillary. If she is nominated, he will campaign for her and be one of her best defenders,

[blues90]

52. It is a bit more personal for some

I rode into work with Kerry stickers and this was a place who had an owner who was a carbon copy of bush in many ways . I was constantly bashed for supporting Kerry and it the end , a week before the elections in 2004 when the people at work felt Kerry might win I was fired . Not for performance but for being on the wrong side .

When I watched Kerry debate Bush I was a bit concerned when Kerry had to show his shooting skills and use words like KILL the terrorists . I was on Kerry's email list and always filled in the comments box saying stick to your beliefs don't fall for the bush trap on talking points . Not that I ever expected an answer .

When I woke the next morning knowing like many Kerry won and the first thing I heard was he conceded I was mind blown as many were .

I am far from the only one who finds it difficult to accept and try and process what Kerry may or may not have done . All I knew was he won and yet was so quick to concede when the day before we were told by Kerry he would count all votes .

Now perhaps I'm wrong but I do not recall Kerry ever standing there saying the elections were stolen . Maybe I was in such a fog I missed this . What I do know in my own mind is whatever the personal cost to me i would have fought to expose the stolen elections . I still cannot understand why he decided to concede the next day . Edwards was against this . I was against this and many other voters felt the same way .

As for your number 3 paragraph , this was 2004 when the elections went to bush , you refer to 2006 and now 2008 for Obama . I have done research on Kerry trying to understand all of this , perhaps I am not as bright as you and others here and this is not a sarcastic remark .

You could have left out the part about how you supported me with my personal ill's and done this in a PM . Thanks for that , it really helps , attacking me in such a personal way . This is something I would never do to anyone no matter how ticked I was .

[YvonneCa]

93. I AM sorry...

...about the personal part. I was really ticked, but you are right. Please forgive my insensitivity.

I see John Kerry as one of the good guys. I, too, was very upset by his concession, but traditionally concessions ARE made by the next day...unless you have a path to contest the election. Kerry saw no path. However, he could have just faded away and enjoyed his very good life...instead, he chose to work hard a get this country back on track. (That's what I meant by 2006 and 2008). I respect him a lot for that. He worked hard in support of retaking Congress in 2005-6. He was successful. He is working hard to put a progressive Democrat in the White House. I think he will be successful there, too.

Then the election system can be improved. Then people will have a voice to tell about Ohio, and make sure it never happens again. That has to come from the people. I think John Kerry knows this.

Again, I apologize for the personal remarks. I, too, was devastated by 2004. I just reacted to the attack on a person who, I believe, deserves MUCH better from his fellow Democrats. Peace.

[blues90]

109. All is fine and well , thank you .

What does still bother me is the fact that Kerry did voice to the people , all who are Dems , that he would count all votes and we could count on that . I'm I wrong ? I do remember him standing there on the TV next to Edwards stating this . I remember it well and felt great , this time they will not get away with the theft .

He offered no reason for his not counting all votes , I can't find anything on-line that relates to him explaining why he did not count the votes .

On top of this , Edwards was running and got ignored by this wonderful sick twisted fake media we have climbing on the TV and radio and what does Kerry do , add insult to injury and tosses his endorsement to Obama . Even if i were an Obama supporter this would still bother me .

Now what have we got , the way i see it and I know well many will slam me for this , we have this wedge driven between the Dem party . It's a wedge created by the Dems on both sides and now we have the chosen two where again the real fighters were ruled out by the media who control this entire thing .

Yesterday my wife taped the today show or good morning america , I know it's a show of empty crap but here M Obama was asked if she would support Hillary if Hillary won , now paraphrasing because i don't have the link at hand . She said she had to think about this and then brought up a few dislikes about Hillary and then decides she would not support Hillary . Now what the hell was that ? So you see it's now compounded into a swill of crap , who knows what the hell the truth is here but the words are there , I did not make this up .

It's the same thing how Reagan was brought out of his grave by Obama and yet even though the words do mean one thing they are spun into something else then vanish like a fart in the tornado . It's all smoke and mirrors .

Why cannot these people who want to be the president just tell the truth and if they screw up then admit it right away , not two years later or four years later when it comes back but now . This is the problem I have trusting any politician .

I had my hopes up in 2006 and look how grand this turned out . Here again promises made and all is well and all is forgotten . Well maybe don't make the promise and lead people into a trap and just maybe we could be aware and have reality handed to us even if it were a bucket of ice water in the face , better than a flame thrower to the rear end .

It's just like the people at my job , ok they don't like me talking about Kerry and bashing bush , fine , tell me if i continue and I will be fired , let me decide based on the reality of the situation at hand but don't not say anything and just toss me to the street like so much dirt . It's the same thing in principal to me , it really is .

I would never lie to someone to benefit myself and I have had plenty of opportunity to do this and passed . I worked for 33 years in the cut throat auto repair field and made my money based on commission of work i sold and not once sold a customer one tiny thing I knew they did not need . I am not religious but I do believe in do unto others as you would have them do unto you .

[YvonneCa]

112. Af few more...

...thoughts:

What happened at your job is awful, and terribly wrong. I am experiencing something similar and the unfairness of it all is hard to take. It sounds like you are a good person, as I also try to be, and it hurts that it made no difference. Sometimes you just have to accept things...but it's not easy.

Second, the media is awful. They divide us against ourselves for ratings. This is not the politicians' fault. They drive the wedge...and people like Karl Rove are expert at manipulating division in their favor. We Democrats can't allow that...we MUST call them on it every time it happens. By the way, John Kerry learned that in 2004 and plans to lead that fight in 2008. :)


Third, 2006 turned out well. Amazingly, we have a majority in the House. It was not expected that we could also get a majority (very slim) in the Senate, but we did. But to pass anything we need 67 out of 100 votes, or Bush will veto it...and we don't have a big enough majority. Kerry led the charge in 2006, and he's leading again in 2008. If we get that veto-proof majority, changes will happen BIG TIME. And a Democratic president will sign, not veto, what Congress passes. I know many people are mad that it seems to take so long...but we were completely out of power after 2004.

Fourth, Kerry did promise to count all the votes in 2004. I heard him, too. Even though he conceded, he DID go to court to try to force a recount. Technology prevented that. Here in California, we're voting on paper ballots today because they CAN be recounted. Progress has been made, but we're not done...and neither is John Kerry.

It's not the way I wanted it to be...and I still worry about 2008. What makes me feel better is that people in power (Kerry, Kennedy, Clintons,Gore, Carter) are all pushing the changes needed to fix this. It's hard to trust after 2004. If it goes badly in 2008, it will be even harder. But I think the hope is there...we just have to hang on a little longer. Good luck to you.



:patriot:

[karynnj]

44. He won the debates hands down

[Didereaux]

11. Kerry is an invertabrate, its why he is not president. Taught Reid all he knows about leadership

[ElsewheresDaughter]

12. .....

[karynnj]

15. Kerry has repeatedly said that his vote was wrong and taken responsibility for it

The last time I saw was on This week 2 or 3 Sundays ago. He has said that when you look at how it was abused, they were wrong to trust George Bush. He did not say it was a vote for war. Nor, did he say HRC voted for war, what he has said and applied to ALL votes for the IWR was that, in hindsight it was a bad vote.

What Kerry did not do was to point out that he spoke out against invading throughout the fall of 2002 and early 2003. Throughout 2004, Kerry explained why he voted as he did - it is that reason nearly verbatim that HRC is using. But Kerry ended his IWR speech with a list of things Bush publicly had promised to do and promised he would speak out, if Bush did not do these. When Bush didn't, Kerry spoke out. HRC didn't.

In 2005, before Edwards, Kerry in a painful paragraph when giving a speech on what we should do going forward in Iraq admitted that he should not have trusted Bush with his vote to follow the course he said he would. He also spoke of accepting his share of responsibility. Since then he has said at least 100 times that his vote was wrong, he has said he profoundly regrets it, and it is clear that if he could go back in time and change it he would. He has work as hard as anyone on devising exit strategies - and was attacked by the Clintons for doing so.

Notice that in 2004, Kerry spoke of Bush misleading us to war. He then did not speak of the WMD lies - as we didn't KNOW they were lies then, just that they were inaccurate. What he spoke of was that Bush promised to do various things that added together would mean that he would go to war only as a last resort. In fact, the war was going to happen with any resolution or no resolution at all. That was the lie Kerry referred to in 2004 and in 2005. (On WMD, HRC didn't sign Kerry's letter to the Intelligence committee demanding part 2 and asking it consider the Downing Street Memos.)

Kerry is saying that being against the IWR was the right thing to do. From his comments before and after the vote, Kerry likely listened to his head rather than his heart and trusted Bush not to lie on war and peace. It is sad because he has an incredible record in fighting overt and covert wars that many can't see because of that vote.

But, he is holding himself to the same standard as he is holding HRC - and saying they were both wrong.

[Tellurian]

23. Kerry is a loser. Everyone will work to get him the hell out of MA.

Kerry is another Romney..

[ProSense]

24. You're just jealous that he won Iowa and she didn't. n/t

[mtnsnake]

31. Kerry, the guy who had to get photo-opped shooting geese in order to impress the gun people

I guess even the gun people aren't as dumb as Kerry thought because no one bought it.

Did he do ANYTHING right in that campaign of his?

[Recursion]

92. Yeah, he stood there with his finger on the trigger

Hell, forget hunting; a combat veteran should know not to do that.

And anyways only 15% of gun-owners hunt; most of us were pissed at him for being such a strong proponent of the stop-no-crimes-but-piss-off-everyone Assault Weapons Ban.

[Inuca]

74. You are beyond belief n/t

[ProSense]

26. Kerry, unlike Hillary, spoke out against Bush several times before Bush invaded

Kerry, unlike Hillary, spoke out against Bush several times before Bush invaded

[mtnsnake]

29. Hillary, unlike Kerry, isn't a plank of wood pretending to be a politician.

[ProSense]

36. She still lost Iowa, and got crushed in SC. n/t

[mtnsnake]

40. Kerry lost most of the states and got crushed by an imbecile. n/t

[ProSense]

46. The election was stolen by Bill Clinton's friend Rove. n/t

[Tellurian]

48. Kerry could have fought for our vote no matter who stole it..

and it wasn't Clintons fault. Blame whoever you want..

Kerry is a wuss and the Kiss of Death to Obama's Campaign.

[ProSense]

54. Clinton could have stood up for Americans instead of congratulating him for stealing it. n/t

[mtnsnake]

57. Kerry lost to an imbecile. Get used to it. Thanks to Kerry we got 4 more years of Bush

Congratulations, Senator Kerry for running the worst campaign in history. Only YOU could have lost so someone like George W Bush after Bush had already proven to be the worst president in history.

[Neshanic]

88. He will tell Obama not to use that "HUG" photo. Too nasty.

[fedupinBushcountry]

103. No she isn't pretending

that's all she is. Her tears are for herself. Take that, I'm sick of the bashing of John Kerry from people who don't know jack shit about him. You sound like a broken record.

You don't get it , Hillary is in it to win it, for who? HERSELF, not the people , not the country but for herself and Bill to keep the power. I am so glad Kerry spoke and endorsed Barack Obama and helped me see what an Obama presidency would not only do for the country and the world but also for the Democratic party. It's time for CHANGE, REAL CHANGE.

[Raine]

34. At least he admits it was a mistake

we're all human and make mistakes. Admitting it was a mistake is a step in the right direction. If you can't or won't admit a mistake what is the chance you will ever correct it.

[mtnsnake]

45. Yeah, only because the winds of change told him it was politically safe to do so.

Admitting he made a mistake, only after the polls told him it was politically safe for him to do so, won't bring back the lives of those soldiers who lost them in Iraq.

It wasn't any mistake. Each and every one of them who voted for the IWR knew what they were doing, and that includes Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, Biden,
Dodd, and right down the line. They're all over 18.

The ones who continue to vote to fund the stinking war are just as bad.

[Raine]

49. Good point

I hadn't thought of it that way. If the public hadn't turned against it's unlikely a mistake would've been admitted.

[Carolina]

79. thank you

"It wasn't any mistake. Each and every one of them who voted for the IWR knew what they were doing, and that includes Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Dodd and right down the line."

Everyone knew what the Iraq War Resolutuion meant that's why Robert Byrd gave such a powerful speech condemning it and warning his colleagues about the administration's hubris, the lack of evidence against Iraq, the abrogation of Congressional responsibility, the rush to vote and yes, the rush to war. 23 other Senators and scores in the House got it right.

IRAQ was not an imminent threat! Bombed to bits in 1991 and then kept under sanctions for so many years... how could anyone in a leadership position believe such an obvious lie.

Then there are those damned facts: Osama is Saudi. 15/19 hijackers (terrorists) on 9/11 were Saudi, the others were from Yemen, Egypt and UAE. Not an Iraqi among them. Why Iraq, why then... it was a lie!

The war and the resolution that preceded it were LIES! PERIOD. So many citizens recognized the Bushit, but Kerry, HRC and some others (notice they all ran or are running for POTUS)were hedging their bets for their future political gain. Their 'aye' votes were calculating political moves of moral cowardice and poor judgment.

And all the spin and speechifying then and now cannot defend, explain or excuse what they did. Votes have consequences!

[Freida5]

39. Kerry lost my trust in this campaign. I regret campaigning for him.

[politicasista]

53. Thanks for bringing the Kerry bashers/haters out in force

Just another good day at Trash Democrats Underground.

[blues90]

67. It was not really the intent , but this seems to be the result

All I can say is listen to what Kerry said on Hartmann today . That's what got me going . Not that Kerry endorsed Obama or what the Clintons did or did not do .

[politicasista]

68. You could have chosen a better title for the OP

People in this thread have posted the facts over and over but you seem to ignore them.

[blues90]

70. I am not ignoring anyone

Just because I have not answered every reply does not mean i have not read them or thought about what they had to offer . Yes , I could have chosen different words for the topic however any words that refered to my problem with Kerry would have most likely set people off . I cannot predict these things . This is not to say I was right or that my desire was to set people off .

I am sorry I ever brought it up now , but it's too late for that . I'll accept the beating and leave it at that .

It is just my opinion and my reaction to what Kerry said today on Hartmanns show , I don't have a podcast to share since I am not a subscriber to AAR .

I have gone over and over Kerry's voting record ,many times in the last few years trying to sort it all out , today was another shot he made that brought me to this rage . You can spend months looking through all Kerry has said and done since 2004 alone .

I was supporting Kerry when in 2006 he made the joke that was taken the wrong way about the troops , you know the one . I didn't feel he should apologise if people took it the wrong way even though it was a factual statement on reality .

[robbedvoter]

58. If you knew then what you know now - vote for IWR? kerry: Yes. Hillary: No

At the very same time they asked Kerry.

[mtnsnake]

63. Ouch!

[BootinUp]

66. That was classic Kerry. nt

[ProSense]

69. Your spin is bogus! Hillary still has trouble explaining her position on Iraq:

Hillary, Jan. 2007:

The senator described her philosophy about military power as one rooted in pragmatism. Regardless of the pressure from some liberals and antiwar Democrats, Mrs. Clinton said she was skeptical about embracing hard timetables and cutting off financing in Iraq, for instance, because they were not practically feasible.

“I am not for imposing a date — certain withdrawal date,” she said. “But don’t be mistaken, I am for ending this war as soon as possible.”

link

Hillary, Mar. 2007:

A vote on the Democratic-sponsored Iraq resolution expected to hit the Senate floor next week will mark the first time Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has embraced a legislative deadline for withdrawing from the war-torn nation, a step she has consistently resisted to this point.

<...>

But the stakes are higher for some senators than for others. Clinton, the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, has carefully laid out her Iraq views in a series of formal plans and speeches and has repeatedly rejected setting a deadline for withdrawal. Yet when and if she casts her vote, those pronouncements will be somewhat eclipsed by the Senate's binding action. That fact touched off an unusual scramble in which even Senate leadership aides are attempting to characterize Clinton's position as consistent with her previous views.

link

Hillary Dec. 2007:

Following up on what Ambassador Richard Holbrooke told us earlier this week regarding Hillary Clinton's vote to authorize the use of military force against Iraq, we asked Sen. Clinton today if it was correct that Colin Powell had persuaded her that the resolution could be a vote to avoid war rather than a vote for war.

She replied: "No, it wasn't Colin Powell. it was Condi Rice. Condi Rice told me specifically when I was still weighing all of the evidence, and I had been to the White House one last time – I think, if I'm not mistaken, it was Oct. 8 -- and I'd had the whole presentation by the CIA and others and I hadn't asked any questions, I had listened. And I went back to my office, and Condi Rice called me and said, You didn't ask any questions, do you have any questions? I said I only have one: Will you use this authorization to put inspectors back in, so that we can find out whether any of this is true, how much WMD he still has or has reconstituted? She said, Yes, that's what it's intended to do. I think Dick might have gotten confused."

link

[question everything]

64. Four years too late (nt)

[Tom Rinaldo]

77. "In Hindsight, Kerry Says He'd Still Vote for War"

In Hindsight, Kerry Says He'd Still Vote for War
Challenged by President, Democrat Spells Out Stance

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 10, 2004; Page A01

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz., Aug. 9 -- Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction.

At the same time, the Democratic presidential nominee said that his goal as president would be to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq during his first six months in office through diplomacy and foreign assistance...

... Since last month's Democratic National Convention, the senator from Massachusetts has been under mounting pressure to provide a clearer explanation of his views on the war, including why he voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the invasion yet opposed funding for it. On Friday, Bush challenged Kerry to answer whether he would support the war "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction that U.S. and British officials were certain were there.

In response, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html

[Cameron27]

82. Interesting,

thanks Tom, I don't remember him saying that.

[eridani]

83. Kerry apologized. Edwards apologized. Still waiting on Clinton n/t

[Major Hogwash]

84. Don't hold your breath. It's a character flaw that Hillary and George have in common.

Neither one of them can admit they were wrong or apologize for being wrong.

[tabasco]

85. amazing how many liberal institutions are being sacrificed on the altar of Hillary.

Hillbots would crucify Jesus all over again if he was for Obama.

[Neshanic]

87. So what is Kerry going to be in an Obama WH? He must know.

[norskeamer]

90. Yes, and admitting a mistake, does not negate the fact the offender

made the mistake to begin with. If they truly believe it was a 'mistake' vs being 'misled'.

Which, in my opinion, is a much more accurate accounting of what happened.

Why are Dems so 'eager to eat their young' and give GW Bush a pass?

[blues90]

91. In my defense on this Kerry deal

I heard Hartmann today talking to a caller who brought up being caged in calif .

Hartmann who I do feel has his history far more researched than mine or most here said the reason Kerry and Edwards are not talking today is because Kerry rolled over on the stolen votes and Edwards wanted to fight it . Hartmann said Gore took over a month and took it to the courts when after that he could do nothing .

So you people who came long and bashed the hell out of me email Hartmann and bash the hell out of him as well .

My memory is not fogged nore filled with insane right wing talking points as I have been accused of here . I am in no way a right wing talking point re-cycler . Hell I have never listened to right wing crap I fought them .

[beachmom]

94. And I am sick and tired of these irrational arguments that insist

that Kerry should have fought something he never would have won. He lost the popular vote, for crying out loud!!! He was down 120,000 votes in Ohio. Kerry is a prosecutor and knows when a case could be won. This one could not.

I guess I'll have to bang my head against the wall for the next 20 years dealing with people who don't accept that overturning an election needs to be done in a court of law, not through the use of a statistics report. I thought we all believed in the rule of law. I guess, when it comes to Kerry, many don't believe in that after all.

[blues90]

102. The 2004 elections were stolen , what are you talking about ?

There has been countless articals and efforts by Brad Blog to expose this as well as RFK jr and Pap and many others .

It has been proven the the machines can be flipped very easy and still can . What true count was ever done in Ohio ?

I'll tell you what , Kerry did come out on the TV and swear all votes will be counted , now many voters who voted for Kerry which were many of the same voters who got cheated in 2000 took this as a promise . Not that each and every voted should be expected to search endlessly through voting records to find out what Kerry did in the past , no they lime me took Kerry at his word .

The simple basic root of the entire thing is IF Kerry knew this was a wash out and lost cause then why even come out and make such a promise ?

Apparently Edwards did not feel the same way about this and he is also a Lawyer .

Kerry did not lose the damn 2004 election and Gore did not lose the 2000 election , no the peoples votes were tossed and many were caged , many had machines that did not work or there were not enough machines , all this and it was all done by intent .

Now we are hearing about caging in los angeles and NY already this time around .

I still feel strongly that Kerry may have fought this and just maybe the truth would have been forced out of this dark hole finally . That's all , real simple just fight for the truth .

[beachmom]

110. Prove it in court or you have NO ARGUMENT. And Edwards

NEVER told Kerry personally not to concede that morning.

[blues90]

111. That was the entire reason Edwards and Kerry don't talk

anymore . do you have some link that bares this out because I have found nothing that says Edwards did not tell Kerry not to concede . Edwards wanted to fight this stolen vote and he was not going it alone and needed Kerry to agree .

[YvonneCa]

95. I believe you...

...blues90, about which side you are on. :)

I assure you Kerry did NOT roll over. There is legislation in the Senate (Hillary Clinton's, I believe) to repair the Presidential Election process. When we have a veto-proof majority in the Senate (because now Bush would veto it, even if the Senate passed it) this legislation will be done. Because of democratic elections, because of Iraq, because of torture, because of so much that is wrong, Senator Kerry has worked hard since 2004 to get that majority...and he STILL IS. He needs our support...not attacks from his own party. PLEEEase stay on his side. :)

[demo dutch]

96. Kerry is weak! Mystery to me why he keeps getting re-elected!

[ProSense]

97. Who is your "strong" Senator? n/t

[demo dutch]

100. I wish I had one! Bill Nelson ... Yuk!

[Bake]

98. Kerry ran the WORST campaign in recent history.

"I was for it ... before I was against it."

Wind-surfing.

Hey, I gotta go to Switzerland for a few days ...

Utter failure to respond to the Swift-Liars.

And oh yeah ... GIVING UP. With money in the bank.

That's a real valuable endorsement, right there.

Bake

[ProSense]

104. Kerry won Iowa (Hillary didn't) and the nomination! n/t

[Bake]

105. True enough.

And the Dems were dumb enough to nominate Kerry ... and Dukakis ... and I'm afriad we're going to do it again this time. Hand the White House right back to the Pukes.

Bake

[Clintonista2]

101. Kerry lost to Bush. Enough said.

[demokatgurrl]

106. And only 4 years ago Bill Clinton campaigned hard for him

I guess in politics it's the same as anything else... what have you done for me lately?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

108. POT MEET KETTLE