Obama: “If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun”

[TeamJordan23]

Obama Pool Report From Philadelphia Fundraiser

POOL REPORT
Amy Chozick

No hard news. Rendell made some characteristically colorful comments and Obama took a few jabs at John McCain.

Sen. Barack Obama attended a fundraiser at the Sheraton Hotel in downtown Philadelphia. Roughly 400 people piled into a ballroom and snacked on appetizers waiting for Obama. Co-hosts for the event had to raise $10,000 and guests were asked for a maximum donation of $2,300 and a minimum of $1,000.

Mayor Michael Nutter gave a quick introduction for Sen. Bob Casey. He used the same line he repeated endlessly during the primaries when he was campaigning for Hillary Clinton. “Everyone knows the road to Pennsylvania Avenue goes right through Pennsylvnia,” Nutter said, this time referring to Barack Obama, of course.

Casey had 30 seconds to introduce Gov. Ed Rendell, another top Clinton supporter during the primaries. The introducers were so pressed for time that the three took turns, each saying a word. “We. Are. All. For. Barack. Obama.”

Rendell told the crowd that some Obama supporters brought him a big carton of Kool-Aid and told him to “drink up” when Obama became the nominee.“I gave Sen. Clinton $1,500 in the primary so I thought just for old-time sake I’d give Sen. Obama $1,499,” Rendell said, sparking scattered boos from the crowd. The governor calmed them by saying “that was before I drank the Kool-Aide.” He said that he has a check for $2,300 to give the Obama campaign.

“We’re going to make sure this doesn’t bounce,” Obama said as he took the podium.

Obama thanked Casey first and said he was “one of the finest men in politics” who “stood with me when it was really a tough time to stand with me.”

He then said it was a “relief” to have Ed Rendell (”a man who has no shortage for words”) on his side. “How many cable shows can you be on at one time?” Obama asked Rendell, adding that he is “one of the finest governors in the country.”

Obama praised Clinton, aware that he was flanked by some of her most diehard political supporters. He said that when he met with Clinton last week he said to her: “You’re the only one who knows what I’ve gone through and I’m the only one who knows what you’ve gone through.”

He said that Philadelphia needs change. “We don’t have a choice but to win.”

Obama retold the story of an unemployed man who offered to buy Obama and Casey a beer during one of their stops on the Pennsylvania bus tour. “Bob and I were at a sports bar trying to catch a little bit of the game. A guy offered to buy us a beer. We already had a beer we drank but he offered to buy us one,” Obama said. The man could not afford gas to drive around looking for a new job.

Obama took several jabs at John McCain. He gave his standard line that he proposes “300 billion in tax cuts, not paid for.”

“Not only does he have no plan for education, not an idea, not even a bad idea,” Obama said.

He told the crowd that he was in Wisconsin yesterday and asked how many people make $2.8 million. “I was going to say to them ‘You should leave now because John McCain is the candidate for you.”

At that point a wealthy female donor yelled out “Hey, that’s not fair!”

“Every once in a while what he really means slips out like yesterday on the Today Show,” Obama said of McCain’s comment about leaving troops in Iraq.

He warned that the general election campaign could get ugly. “They’re going to try to scare people. They’re going to try to say that ‘that Obama is a scary guy,’” he said. A donor yelled out a deep accented “Don’t give in!”

“I won’t but that sounded pretty scary. You’re a tough guy,” Obama said.

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

After the fundraiser a supporter named Jack Goldenberg gave Lindy Douglass a “Time for Change” Obama wrist watch that says “Love your momma, vote Obama.” The man later told Linda that he invented cabbage patch kids and Pee Wee Herman toys and was “integral” in the invention of the Happy Meal. The watches sell for $50 at www.obamawatches.com.

Your pooler got a question in to Rendell about how it feels to now be supporting Obama. “It’s good he’s a good man.” Rendell said he spoke to Clinton on Thursday and Saturday after her concession speech. “She was in good spirits,” he said.

http://thepage.time.com/obama-pool-report-from-philadelphia-fundraiser/

[BlooInBloo]

1. Nice!

[sufrommich]

2. "“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” "

I predict a vast improvement from the 2004 campaign from that quote alone.:party:

[blm]

4. Big difference is that Obama has Dems backing him while Kerry had Bill Clinton on TV defending Bush

for the entire month of Bill's booktour.

Some of you folks forget what 2004 REALLY looked like. Most Dems who were known to the public sided with Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war at the very time Kerry was directing his attacks on Bush and trying to push forward his own strategy to secure Iraq faster so we could get the troops out sooner. Bill and many big named Dems supported Bush's war agenda and goals.

Dems then were squeamish to be seen publicly attacking Bush while he and Rove were at their strongest. THAT is the reality of the Dem party and punditry that Kerry was STUCK WITH in 2004.

[sufrommich]

7. Oh bullshit. Bill Clinton campaigned for Kerry and

it was Kerry's duty to set the tone of his own campaign. Bill Clinton's book tour was a blip on the screen to most voters.I expect a much stronger campaign from Obama,who is setting the tone and demanding Dems toe the line.Obama is already campaigning like the leader of the Democratic party,Kerry was tepid at best.

[blm]

10. BALONEY - Bill's booktour took up June and half of July with HIGHPROFILE interviews

and if you think that was a blip you weren't paying attention. Those interviews would generate headlines good for Bush in their wake.

The last DEM PRESIDENT siding with Bush and PUBLICLY DEFENDING the very decisions Kerry was targeting him for attack.

You also never factored in the FACT that Bush and Rove were at their strongest point in 2004 with a media dug in to protect him and few Dem lawmakers would take to the news shows on a daily basis to provide back up. Many of the Sunday regulars like Lieberman and Biden were also supporting Bush on the military decisions. Dan Rather's lawsuit made it clear the corpmedia was protecting Bush for favorable rulings they expected in a Bush second term and McClellan's book validates the corpmedia's complicity and subservience to the WH narrative.

Further - it's a helluva lot easier to with a DNC that's been working for ALL Democrats, and not the McAuliffe led DNC who was operating the party infrastructure only as it suited the Clintons' needs. Dean is in it to win it for all Dems and our nominee. McAuliffe sat on his hands while party infrastructure was collapsed in a growing number of states, including crucial electoral states like Florida and Ohio.

[sufrommich]

17. I remember the Kerry campaign well..

I remember wincing through most of it. You want to blame Bill Clinton for Kerry's shortcomings as a presidential candidate? Have at it.

[blm]

19. You want to pretend you were OK with Bill's monthlong PUBLIC DEFENSE OF BUSH booktour

have at it.


Some of us BOTHERED to pay attention to what was really going on.

Noted in April2004:
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

June2004:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

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


You can believe what you want - read the National Security Archives and you may end up with a different belief system than you enjoy now.

[sendero]

77. What you just don't get..

... didn't then and don't now, is that the genteel nuanced rhetoric of those like Kerry does not play in politics any more.

Kerry's a fine man, but a candidate with the right rhetorical chops would have beaten an already weakened Bush in 2004, a Bush that in mere weeks after the campaign was over was polling negative.

Obama has already impressed my greatly with his ability to frame the issue and spew the biting one liner that works. Kerry sucked at it, and even HRC was not very good at it.

I believe that in a heads up debate, Obama will chew McCain up and spit him out. McCain will not know whether he is coming or going when Barack gets a hold of him.

Kerry did a good job on the first debate with Bush, but by the third not so good. Everything Bush said and says is RIPE for framing and making to look foolish, but only a handful of politicians seem to have what it takes to do so. I think Obama does.

[Heather MC]

160. Sounds like Bill was trying to keep the door Open for Hillary in 2008

Well look how well that turned out!
but enough the Clinton's

STOP THE DRAMA
VOTE OBAMA!!!!
"FOR YO' MAMA"!

[beachmom]

30. Bill Clinton complimented Bush's handling of the war on terror and the war in Iraq.

That is a fact. He said so in the spring of 2004. When he did campaign for Kerry, he only talked about domestic issues. In an election on national security. Sorry, that is the truth, regardless of what you think of Kerry.

[Cha]

61. Good because

that's part of what made them lose. Sorry, but I was so pissed off at that pandering for the War ON IRaq when they didn't have to go over and fight in it. They chose the wrong horse to back.

[Beacool]

21. Stop blaming Bill!!!

Kerry lost because as a candidate he was a LOSER!!! Just as Mondale and Dukakis were too. Decent people, but terrible candidates.

[blm]

24. Bill's monthlong DEFENSE OF BUSH booktour got your Dem stamp of approval, eh?

YOU don't know what Bill has done - you never read a government report in your life, right?

[Beacool]

28. Oh please............

:eyes:

[blm]

31. Try reading the DU threads from back then. Most of DU was pissed at Bill's public defense of Bush

some didn't think he meant anything harmful by it.

Except now we know that Hillary2008 was on deck and it only happened by keeping Bush protected in 2004.

Historian Douglas Brinkley remarked on the backstabbing by the Clintons and their loyalists in April2004:

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Bill's defense of Bush during his booktour was calculated - Bill's not that naive.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

Carville was working for WHO when he sabotaged Ohio Dem voters on election night?
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Clintons can always be counted on to side with Bush against a Dem they consider to be in their way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[Major Hogwash]

71. It's sad that you have to remind some of these people about what the 2004 campaign was like.

Some of them don't even think Bubba is a racist.

Time will tell.

[genna]

88. Wow!

:wow:

:yoiks:


:scared:



I really love being a :dem:

[politicasista]

146. It is sad that people feel the need to tear down Kerry to promote Obama

Never mind he is one of Obama's best surrogates and has done more than most to help him win. Constant Kerry bashing is the thanks he gets. Sheesh.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

127. Kerry won the popular vote

remember?

[senseandsensibility]

25. I went to a private fundraiser on Bill Clinton's book tour

It cost 2,000 dollars for me and the hubby to attend, and those were the "cheap" tickets. While he appeared for free at a Barnes and Noble nearby just before this event, my husband and I decided to attend this event because it was a fundraiser for the DNC. Nancy Pelosi was there, too. I got to meet Bill and get his book signed. He didn't say anything pro-chimp that I can recall. And believe me, I would recall it. If he did say anything like that, it must have been at the free appearances in the bookstores? I don't think the paying crowds would put up with that. I do, however, remember him not being tough enough in his comments for my taste.

[blm]

29. Private Dem events he carefully played his Dem face. With TV cameras he supported Bush

PUBLICLY.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

[Danger Mouse]

69. Don't blame Clinton or the Dems for Kerry's weak cantidacy.

[blm]

126. Kerry won every matchup he had with Bush. Did DNC beat RNC? Did left media dominate RW machine?

Did you approve of Bill Clinton using his monthlong booktour to publicly support Bush's decision to go to war and defended his handling of Iraq?

Did you approve of McAuliffe's four year long tagerted state strategy that allowed state party infrastructures to collapse in states like Florida and Ohio?

Did you approve of Carville sabotaging Ohio Dem voters on election night?

Did you think Kerry should have HAD to fight BushInc on his own while Clintons and their loyalists were undermining him?

Would you approve of Bill going on a monthlong book tour RIGHT NOW and supporting McCain's military strategies in every interview?

Sure - - - if it was OK that Bill did that in June/July2004, then you wouldn't see any harm in him doing it again, eh?

[Lerkfish]

5. yeah, back then it was "if they bring a knife, we'll bring knife wounds".

:)

[blm]

13. Back then it was corpmedia dug in to protect Bush and no broadcasting of Kerry's counterattacks

against the swifts and Bush. How would it look if media refused to air Obama's speech in response to months of videoclips of Wright?

The research forum has working links on these excerpts for those interested in spreading the TRUTH instead of the media driven perception.



April 14, 2004 - The website for SBVT was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, the information technology manager for Gannon International, a St. Louis company that has diversified interests, including in Vietnam. (1) (note - Gannon International does not appear to have any relationship to Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the fake reporter.)

May 3, 2004 - "Kerry campaign announced a major advertising push to introduce 'John Kerry's lifetime of service and strength to the American people.' Kerry's four month Vietnam experience figures prominently in the ads." (2)

May 4, 2004 - The Swift Liars, beginning their lies by calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", went public at a news conference organized by Merrie Spaeth at the National Press Club. (1)

May 4, 2004 - "The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event...The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.' " (3)


May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).

Jul. 26, 2004 - Jul. 29, 2004 - Democratic National Convention held in Boston. John Kerry's military experience is highlighted.

Aug. 5, 2004 - The Swift Liars' first television ad began airing a one-minute television spot in three states. (7)

Aug. 5, 2004 - "the General Counsels to the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign faxed a letter to station managers at the relevant stations stating that the ad is 'an inflammatory, outrageous lie" and requesting that they "act immediately to prevent broadcast of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. " ' " (4)

Aug. 10, 2004 - Democracy 21, The Campaign Legal Center and The Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that the Swift Liars were illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections. (4)

Aug. 17, 2004 - the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges. (4)

Aug. 19, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced its own ad "Rassmann." (4)

Aug. 20, 2004 - The Swift Liars' second television ad began airing. This ad selectively excerpted Kerry's statements to the SFRC on 4/22/1971. (7)

Aug. 22, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced another ad "Issues" which addressed the Swift Boat group's attacks.

Aug. 25, 2004 - The Kerry-Edwards campaign ... dispatched former Sen. Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann, to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to deliver to the President a letter signed by Democratic Senators who are veterans. (The letter was not accepted.) (4)

Aug. 26, 2004 - The Swift Liars' third television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia in 1968. (7)

August 26, 2004 - Mary Beth Cahill sends letter to Ken Mehlman detailing the "Web of Connections" between the Swift Liars and the Bush Administration, and demanding that Bush denounce the smear campaign. (5)

August 26, 2004 - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submits FOIA request "with the White House asking it to detail its contacts with individuals connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT)." (6)

Aug. 27, 2004 - The DNC ran a full page ad in the Aug. 27, 2004 New York Times terming the Swift Boat campaign a smear. (4)

Aug. 31, 2004 - - The Swift Liars' fourth television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's participation in the medal-throwing protest on 4/23/1971. (7)

References:
* (1) SourceWatch article on SBVT

* (2) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman

* (3) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Kerry Campaign Response

* (4) (Sept. 8, 2004) Eric M. Appleman (apparently) Some Responses to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" Ad

* (5) August 26, 2004 letter from Mary Beth Cahill to Ken Mehlman

* (6) Press Release (US Newswire): CREW FOIAs White House Contacts with Swift Boat Veterans Group

* (7) Wikipedia entry, Swift Vets and POWs for Truth



MH1 - This topic is to create a timeline of the response of the K/E04 campaign to the Swift Liars' smears. There is an RW-encouraged myth that K/E04 "didn't respond." As the timeline, once completed, will show, that is not true. Effectiveness of the response may be debated - that is subjective - the purpose of this thread is to collect the facts of the events.




On Aug. 19, 2004 Kerry himself responded directly in a speech to the International Association of Firefighters' Convention in Boston. (from prepared remarks)
...And more than thirty years ago, I learned an important lesson—when you're under attack, the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attacker. That's what I intend to do today.

Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn’t interested in the truth – and they're not telling the truth. They didn't even exist until I won the nomination for president.

But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won't denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know—he wants them to do his dirty work.

Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.

As firefighters you risk your lives everyday. You know what it’s like to see the truth in the moment. You're proud of what you’ve done—and so am I.

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...



Kerry defends war record
Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc...



May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Spaeth Communications, which hosted the event, "is a Republican headed firm from Texas which has contributed to Bush's campaign and has very close ties to the Bush Administration." Lead organizer John O'Neill, a Republican from Texas, "was a pawn of the Nixon White House in 1971." Further some of the people now speaking against Kerry had praised him in their evaluation reports in Vietnam.

John Dibble, who served on a swift boat in 1970, after Kerry had left, was one of the veterans at the Kerry event. He said of Kerry's anti-war activities that at the time, "I didn't like what he was doing." In retrospect, however, Dibble said, "I probably should have been doing the same thing...probably more of us should have been doing that." He said that might have meant fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial and that Kerry's anti-war activities were "a very gutsy thing to do."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/swift050404c....



Kerry campaign's quick response to Swift boat vets
By Marie Horrigan
UPI Deputy Americas Editor
Washington, DC, Aug. 5 (UPI) -- The campaign for Democratic Party presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts issued an exhaustively researched and extensively sourced 36-page refutation Thursday of allegations Kerry lied about events during his service in Vietnam, including how and why he received medals, and had fled the scene of a battle.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040805-012143...



Kerry: Bush lets attack ads do 'dirty work'
McClellan points out criticism by anti-Bush group
Friday, August 20, 2004 Posted: 2:37 PM EDT (1837 GMT)
BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry accused President Bush on Thursday of letting front groups "do his dirty work" in questioning his military service during the Vietnam War.

"The president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that," Kerry told a firefighters' union conference in his hometown of Boston.

"Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/19/kerry.attacka... /


http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/oldtricks.php




August 5, 2004

VIA FACSIMILE

Re: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

Dear Station Manager:

We are counsel to the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry, respectively. It has been brought to our attention that a group calling itself "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" has bought time, or may seek to buy time, on your station to air an advertisement that attacks Senator Kerry. The advertisement contains statements by men who purport to have served on Senator Kerry's SWIFT Boat in Vietnam, and one statement by a man pretending to be the doctor who treated Senator Kerry for one of his injuries. In fact, not a single one of the men who pretend to have served with Senator Kerry was actually a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and the man pretending to be his doctor was not. The entire advertisement, therefore is an inflammatory, outrageous lie.

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" styles itself as a group of individuals who personally served with John Kerry in the United States Navy in the Vietnam War. In truth the group is a sham organization spearheaded by a Texas corporate media consultant. It has been financed largely with funds from a Houston homebuilder. See Slater, Dallas Morning News, July 23, 2004.

In this group's advertisement, twelve men appear to make statements about Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. Not a single one of these men served on either of Senator Kerry's two SWIFT Boats (PCF 44 & PCF94).

Further, the "doctor" who appears in the ad, Louis Letson, was not a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and was not the doctor who actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. In fact, another physician actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. Letson is not listed on any document as having treated Senator Kerry after the December 2, 1968 firefight. Moreover, according to news accounts, Letson did not record his "memories" of that incident until after Senator Kerry became a candidate for President in 2003. (National Review Online, May 4, 2004).

The statements made by the phony "crewmates" and "doctor" who appear in the advertisement are also totally, demonstrably and unequivocally false, and libelous. In parrticular, the advertisement charges that Senator Kerry "lied to get his Bronze Star." Just as falsely, it states that "he lied before the Senate." These are serious allegations of actual crimes -- specifically, of lying to the United States Government in the conduct of its official business. The events for which the Senator was awarded the Bronze Star have been documented repeatedly and in detail and are set out in the official citation signed by the Secretary of the Navy and the Commander of U.S. Forces in Vietnam. And yet these reckless charges of criminal conduct are offered without support or authentication, by fake "witnesses" speaking on behalf of a phony organization.

Your station is not obligated to accept this advertisement for broadcast nor is it required to account in any way for its decision to reject such an advertisement. Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973), You Can't Afford Dodd Committee, 81 FCC2d 579 (1980). The so-called "Swift Boat Veterans" organization is not a federal candidate or candidate committee. Repeated efforts by organizations that are not candidate committees to obtain a private right of access have been consistently rejected by the FCC. See e.g., National Conservative Political Action Committee, 89 FCC2d 626 (1982).

Thus, your station my freely refuse this advertisement. Because your station has this freedom, and because it is not a "use" of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor.

Moreover, as a licensee, you have an overriding duty "to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising." Licensee Responsibility With Respect to the Broadcast of False, Misleading or Deceptive Advertising, 74 F.C.D.2d 623 (1961). Your station normally must take "reasonable steps" to satisfy itself "as to the reliability and reputation of every prospective advertiser." In re Complaint by Consumers Assocation of District of Columbia, 32 F.C.C.2d 400, 405 (1971).

Under these circumstances, your station may not responsibly air this advertisement. We request that your station act immmediately to prevent broadcasts of this advertisement and deny andy future sale of time. Knowing that the advertisement is false, and possessing the legal authority to refuse to run it, your station should exercise that authority in the public interest.


Please contact us promptly at either of the phone numbers below to advise us regarding the status of this advertisement.

Sincerely yours,
Marc Elias
Perkins Coie
607 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005


General Counsel
Kerry-Edwards 2004 Joseph Sandler
Sandler, Reiff & Young
50 E Street, S.E. #300
Washington, D.C. 20003


General Counsel
Democratic National Committee


http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/dem080504ltrswift...




From the transcript of the Aug. 5, 2004 White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan:

Q Do you -- does the President repudiate this 527 ad that calls Kerry a liar on Vietnam?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President deplores all the unregulated soft money activity. We have been very clear in stating that, you know, we will not -- and we have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. I think that this is another example of the problem with the unregulated soft money activity that is going on. The President thought he put an end -- or the President thought he got rid of this kind of unregulated soft money when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law. And, you know, the President has been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative attacks from shadowy groups.

* * *

In the days after the release of the ad a host of major newspapers published editorials condemning it including the Arizona Republic ("Campaign Non-Starter," August 6), Los Angeles Times ("It's Not All Fair Game," August 6), Plain Dealer ("Ad Says Kerry Lied; Record Says Otherwise," August 8), St. Petersburg Times ("An Ugly Attack," August 9), Las Vegas Sun ("Ad's Smear Should Be Condemned," August 9), Oregonian ("Now It Gets Nasty," August 11), and Washington Post ("Swift Boat Smears," August 12).

* * *

On Aug. 10, 2004 Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and the Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections.

* * *

From the transcript of Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance on CNN'S Larry King Live:


KING: In view of that, do you think that it's fair, for the record, John Kerry's service record, to be an issue at all? I know that Senator McCain...
G. BUSH: You know, I think it is an issue, because he views it as honorable service, and so do I. I mean...
KING: Oh, so it is. But, I mean, Senator McCain has asked to be condemned, the attack on his service. What do you say to that?
G. BUSH: Well, I say they ought to get rid of all those 527s, independent expenditures that have flooded the airwaves.
There have been millions of dollars spent up until this point in time. I signed a law that I thought would get rid of
those, and I called on the senator to -- let's just get anybody who feels like they got to run to not do so.
KING: Do you condemn the statements made about his...
G. BUSH: Well, I haven't seen the ad, but what I do condemn is these unregulated, soft-money expenditures by very wealthy people, and they've said some bad things about me. I guess they're saying bad things about him. And what I think we ought to do is not have them on the air. I think there ought to be full disclosure. The campaign funding law I signed I thought was going to get rid of that. But evidently the Federal Election Commission had a different view...

Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton's response to Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance:
"Tonight President Bush called Kerry's service in Vietnam 'noble.' But in the same breath refused to heed Senator McCain's call to condemn the dirty work being done by the 'Swift Boat Vets for Bush.' Once again, the President side-stepped responsibility and refused to do the right thing. His credibility is running out as fast as his time in the White House."

* * *

On Aug. 17, 2004 the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges.

* * *

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued a statement on Aug. 18, 2004:

"By saying nothing at all George W. Bush is a complicit contributor to the slanderous, lie-filled attack ads that have been launched on John Kerry on Bush's behalf. Instead of stepping up and taking the high road, George Bush's response has been evasion, avoidance, everything but disavowal.

"Larry King asked George Bush to 'condemn' it. He refused. Reporters asked the President's Press Secretary if he'd 'repudiate' it. He ducked. They can try to blame it on the rules or whoever else they want, but the blame belongs squarely on the Republicans. They wrote it. They produced it. They placed it. They paid for it. And now it is time for George W. Bush to stand up and say, 'enough.'

"This is not debate, Mr. President, and this unfounded attack on Senator Kerry has crossed the line of decency. I call on you today to condemn this ad, the men who put their lies behind it, and the donors who paid for it. It's time."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/swiftadresponse.h...




(August 19, 2004 -- 01:26 PM EDT)

WELL, IT SEEMS there wasn't something in the air.

I didn't know the Kerry campaign was finally going to return fire today over this Swift Boat nonsense. But this morning, in a speech to the International Association of Fire Fighters in Boston, he responded squarely to the attacks. You can see complete text of the speech and the new response-ad they're running. But the key point is that he aimed his remarks at precisely the right target ...

Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn?t interested in the truth ? and they?re not telling the truth. They didn?t even exist until I won the nomination for president.
<...>


This is a good thing -- and not simply because Kerry has to respond to the president's surrogates who are trying (and, to an extent, succeeding) in damaging his candidacy with scurrilous and discredited attacks.

There is a meta-debate going on here, one that I'm not sure even the practitioners fully articulate to themselves and one that I'm painfully aware the victims don't fully understand.

Let's call it the Republicans' Bitch-Slap theory of electoral politics.

It goes something like this.

On one level, of course, the aim behind these attacks is to cast suspicion upon Kerry's military service record and label him a liar. But that's only part of what's going on.

Consider for a moment what the big game is here. This is a battle between two candidates to demonstrate toughness on national security. Toughness is a unitary quality, really -- a personal, characterological quality rather than one rooted in policy or divisible in any real way. So both sides are trying to prove to undecided voters either that they're tougher than the other guy or at least tough enough for the job.

<…>

This meta-message behind the president's attacks on Kerry's war record is more consequential than many believe. So hitting back hard was critical on many levels.

more



Altercation Book Club: Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert
Relatively early on in the August coverage of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story, ABC's Nightline devoted an entire episode to the allegations and reported, "The Kerry campaign calls the charges wrong, offensive and politically motivated. And points to Naval records that seemingly contradict the charges." (Emphasis added.) Seemingly? A more accurate phrasing would have been that Navy records "completely" or "thoroughly" contradicted the Swifty. In late August, CNN's scrawl across the bottom of the screen read, "Several Vietnam veterans are backing Kerry's version of events." Again, a more factual phrasing would have been "Crewmembers have always backed Kerry's version of events." But that would have meant not only having to stand up a well-funded Republican campaign attack machine, but also casting doubt on television news' hottest political story of the summer.

When the discussion did occasionally turn to the facts behind the Swift Boat allegations, reporters and pundits seemed too spooked to address the obvious—that the charges made no sense and there was little credible evidence to support them.. Substituting as host of "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell on Aug. 15 pressed Boston Globe reporter Anne Kornblut about the facts surrounding Kerry's combat service: "Well, Anne, you've covered him for many years, John Kerry. What is the truth of his record?" Instead of mentioning some of the glaring inconsistencies in the Swifties' allegation, such as George Elliott and Adrian Lonsdale 's embarrassing flip-flops, Kornblut ducked the question, suggesting the truth was "subjective": "The truth of his record, the criticism that's coming from the Swift Boat ads, is that he betrayed his fellow veterans. Well, that's a subjective question, that he came back from the war and then protested it. So, I mean, that is truly something that's subjective." Ten days later Kornblut scored a sit-down interview with O'Neill. In her 1,200-word story she politely declined to press O'Neill about a single factual inconsistency surrounding the Swifties' allegations, thereby keeping her Globe readers in the dark about the Swift Boat farce. (It was not until Bush was safely re-elected that that Kornblut, appearing on MSNBC, conceded the Swift Boast ads were clearly inaccurate.)

Hosting an Aug. 28 discussion on CNBC with Newsweek's Jon Meacham and Time's Jay Carney, NBC's Tim Russert finally, after weeks of overheated Swifty coverage, got around to asking the pertinent question: "Based on everything you have heard, seen, reported, in terms of the actual charges, the content of the book, is there any validity to any of it?" Carney conceded the charges did not have any validity, but did it oh, so gently: "I think it's hard to say that any one of them is by any standard that we measure these things has been substantiated." Apparently Carney forgot to pass the word along to editors at Time magazine, which is read by significantly more news consumers than Russert's weekly cable chat show on CNBC. Because it wasn't until its Sept. 20 2004 issue, well after the Swift Boat controversy had peaked, that the Time news team managed enough courage to tentatively announce the charges levied against Kerry and his combat service were "reckless and unfair." (Better late than never; Time's competitor Newsweek waited until after the election to report the Swift Boat charges were "misleading," but "very effective.") But even then, Time didn't hold the Swifties responsible for their "reckless and unfair" charges. Instead, Time celebrated them. Typing up an election postscript in November, Time toasted the Swift Boat's O'Neill as one of the campaign's "Winners," while remaining dutifully silent about the group's fraudulent charges.

That kind of Beltway media group self-censorship was evident throughout the Swift Boat story, as the perimeters of acceptable reporting were quickly established. Witness the MSM reaction to Wayne Langhofer, Jim Russell and Robert Lambert. All three men served with Kerry in Vietnam and all three men were witnesses to the disputed March 13, 1969 event in which Kerry rescued Green Beret Jim Rassmann, winning a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart. The Swifties, after 35 years of silence, insisted Kerry did nothing special that day, and that he certainly did not come under enemy fire when he plucked Rassmann out of the drink. Therefore, Kerry did not deserve his honors.

It's true every person on Kerry's boat, along with the thankful Rassmann, insisted they were under fire, and so did the official Navy citation for Kerry's Bronze Star. Still, Swifties held to their unlikely story, and the press pretended to be confused about the stand-off. Then during the last week in August three more eyewitnesses, all backing the Navy's version of events that there had been hostile gun fire, stepped forward. They were Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

Russell wrote an indignant letter to his local Telluride Daily Planet to dispute the Swifties' claim: "Forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago John Kerry bending over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."

The number of times Russell was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 1. On Fox News: 1. MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1. On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Like Russell, Langhofer also remembered strong enemy gunfire that day. An Aug. 22 article in the Washington Post laid out the details: "Until now, eyewitness evidence supporting Kerry's version had come only from his own crewmen. But yesterday, The Post independently contacted a participant who has not spoken out so far in favor of either camp who remembers coming under enemy fire. “There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river,” said Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat that was directly behind Kerry’s. Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the “clack, clack, clack” of enemy AK-47s, as well as muzzle flashes from the riverbanks." (For some strange reason the Post buried its Langhofer scoop in the 50th paragraph of the story.)

The number of times Langhofer was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 0. On Fox News: 0. On MSNBC: 0. On ABC: 0. CBS: 0. NBC: 0.

As for Lambert, The Nation magazine uncovered the official citation for the Bronze Medal he won that same day and it too reported the flotilla of five U.S. boats "came under small-arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks."

The number of times Lambert was mentioned on. On Fox News: 1. On CNN: 0. On MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1 On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Additionally, the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs, who served as the paper's point person on the Swifty scandal, was asked during an Aug. 30, 2004, online chat with readers why the paper hadn't reported more aggressively on the public statements of Langhofer, Russell and Lambert. Dobbs insisted, "I hope to return to this subject at some point to update readers." But he never did. Post readers, who were deluged with Swifty reporting, received just the sketchiest of facts about Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

If that doesn't represent a concerted effort by the press to look the other way, than what does?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12799378/#060518



Please use this information as a guideline for 2006 and 2008 campaigns. What the media edits out of our campaigns is CRUCIAL to public perception.

Even many Democrats are unaware of the real fight that occurred in 2004 and are buying wholesale the corporate media spin which conveniently protects the corporate media who failed to give honest coverage of Kerry's defense against the lies of the swift vets and their Republican handlers.

Not recognizing the extent of the corporate media's duplicity is a danger for all Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008.

This can and WILL happen to any Democratic candidate.

This CAN and WILL happen to ANY Democratic candidate. FIGHT THE MYTHS. Stay tough KNOWING the media is aligned with these liars.

[Lerkfish]

18. quiet a verbose answer to a flippant remark

you make, of course, very valid points, and not points that I was refuting.
I'm speaking of the general milleu of the election, which obviously includes the media.
If I"m not clear, I'm sorry.

[blm]

20. I just prefer to promote accuracy and clarity instead of letting media perception prevail.

.

[senseandsensibility]

27. Thanks for putting all this together

I do remember the corporate media not covering Kerry's response. I always felt that the only way Kerry could have counter attacked was if the entire Dem party came together as one and defended him. They would have had to have brought it up on their own whenever they appeared on TV, and been aggressive about it.

[blm]

33. exactly - the nominee should attack TO A POINT while the rest of party furthers the attacks

and does so relentlessly - the way Kerry and Biden are doing now for Obama. The nominee has to strike a balance re presidential bearing and civility and toughness.

People forget that Bush didn't even have to lift a finger to attack - he had the RNC, GOP lawmakers, and a RW media machine all functioning in attack mode FOR him. These same folks seem to think 2004 was a one man show that the DNC, Dem lawmakers, and left media had no responsibility of their own.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

129. And for you

who I agree with. WTF is a post like this for?

I hereby award you with the "I will post the encyclopedia and then they will believe me! Post of the month winner."

But if you notice - the people who are arguing with you have always defended anything Clinton no matter what kind of manure was dumped off the truck. So why bother?

:shrug:

[HardWorkingDem]

42. Funny line...

kind of like the fabled Democratic circular firing squad....

[MidwestTransplant]

8. I think that's what Sean Connery's charcter said to Elliot Ness in Untouchables re dealing with

Capone.

[northernsoul]

22. "That's the Chicago way... and that's how we bring down Capone!"

:evilgrin:

[AnnieBW]

149. One of my favorite quotes

And so appropriate for someone who is from Chicago.

[MilesColtrane]

152. It's the only way to deal with gangsters.

Obama knows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g0RLyxP13o&feature=related

[HardWorkingDem]

41. I just want people to remember this, because if McCain had said this same thing...

whether people will admit it or not, Obama supporters would be going crazy and claiming McCain was talking about something else, i.e., HRC and her idiotic statement about June and primaries.

[blogslut]

43. Have you ever seen the film The Untouchables?

If you haven't, it's quite wonderful. It's not necessarily historically accurate but regardless, the film is almost perfect. See it. And remind yourself that Barack Obama was trained in Chicago politics. This is a reference to a great line in a great film, nothing more.

[HardWorkingDem]

48. Seen it and don't care...if another candidate had said it...

people here would have been livid.

[blogslut]

50. Whatever

Believe what you want

[Cha]

62. Well, tough shit..our candidate said it and

he's from Chicago so deal with it.

[genna]

106. I don't know. You could be right. When I thought about this clip, I was kind of sickened...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73EPp81C97M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3sAjI7V0HY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67P0zAzQw_4&feature=related

But Obama is quoting Sean Connery not Robert DeNiro's Al Capone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g0RLyxP13o&feature=related

[Danger Mouse]

70. Your concern is duly noted.

[4themind]

112. I think that

people can have have different sensitivities and sensibilities on the subject. I.e. those who also look at it as a reference to self-defense/deterrent-threat, or dissuading an already present threat (the If they...we then..business), which can be interpreted as somewhat different than assassinations (and personally that wasn't the first thing that I automatically assumed that from hillary's RFK's comments as an obama supporter)

[Danger Mouse]

134. i found hillary's rfk comment to not be about assassination...

but to be poorly chosen.

[HardWorkingDem]

154. Same here, but look at how many people took it...

the other way....

[Cha]

60. I like the Seven Samurai

reference:)

[JimGinPA]

3. I'm Glad McSAme Thinks PA Is In Play...

That'll give me more opportunities to see Obama in person. B-)

[Cha]

63. You luck!...I hope he has

time to come to New YorkB-)

[Iceburg]

6. Very presidential! .... NOT /nt

[Shakespeare]

12. Really? Explain, please.

I'm just dying to hear your reasons for saying that.

[GoneOffShore]

16. Crickets?

[blondeatlast]

15. Care to explain? nt

[RichardRay]

38. Yep, crickets. n/t

[highplainsdem]

39. No, it isn't, and we'd be ridiculing this if W or McCain had said it. Obama doesn't need to talk

like this, and it really doesn't suit his image or the campaign's image. He's more intelligent than this.

Do any of you really believe that we wouldn't ridicule W or McCain for the very same words?

[Shakespeare]

40. His point is that he'll be tougher than his opponent.

It's a reference from The Untouchables. Chill out.

[Cha]

64. I didn't know the Untouchable reference but

I thought of The Magnificent Seven when we saw James Coburn shoot the bad guy who brought "the knife"..everyone cheered! Good won over Evil. Good was smarter.

[BlackVelvet04]

91. I don't care if it was a direct quote from

Shakespeare...it was irresponsible.

[Shakespeare]

96. That's your OPINION. I'm sticking to mine, thanks. n/t

[Danger Mouse]

108. Fuck that. It's nice to see a Dem talk tough for once.

[BlackVelvet04]

139. Maybe next he can stand up and say 'BRING IT ON"....

seems like some of you have become what you hated.

[Danger Mouse]

143. That was Bush inviting Iraqi insurgents to attack our troops.

This is Obama saying he's going to fight hard against the Repigs.
After the milquetoast campaign that Kerry ran, it's good to see some guts.

[highplainsdem]

153. I suppose Jesse Ventura would be your ideal candidate, then. I expect more from our nominee.

You can sound strong without fake-macho "tough talk." Again, we'd be ridiculing the words Obama used if W or McCain had said them.

God, what's next? Obama supporters who think this tough talk is wonderful printing up Jesse-Ventura-style bumper stickers, like the "My governor can beat up your governor" one? "My presidential nominee can beat up your presidential nominee." Yeah, that would go REALLY well with a message of hope and change and new politics. About as well as, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."

You know, I was much more impressed by Obama's strength when he allowed himself to be photographed in that bike helmet. And I hope to God he didn't think he needed to make some fake-macho statement to show he was tough despite that picture.

[Binka]

53. Oh Somebody Has Their Feelings Hurt

Buck up Iceberg. Oops I mean Iceburg.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

131. You will

go straight to Hell for that lady! :rofl:

[blondeatlast]

9. Obama's sounding like he can't wait to really battle this out. I'm loving this;

he just is itching to get in the ring, so to speak.

YES!

[Nay]

11. If they put one of our guys in the hospital, we put one of theirs in the morgue."

[Rosemary2205]

14. Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkLXdLgOybE

[blogslut]

37. hee hee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g0RLyxP13o

[JNelson6563]

23. They send one of ours to the hospital

we send one of theirs to the morgue. Chicago style.

[That Is Quite Enough]

26. Do I sense another "-gate" ready to be manufactured by Fox Noise?

I think I do.

[ghostsofgiants]

65. Metaphorgate? Figure of speechgate? Movie referencegate?

[AllentownJake]

32. Awesome Shout out to Eagles Fans

We in the Philadelphia area and exburbs are tough as hell. Chicago politics don't have anything on Philly politics.

[4themind]

36. Yup, FBI bugs in mayor offices...

"SHut 'em down" Treasurers, you name it, heheh

[shadowknows69]

34. He really said this?

Fucking A. GObama!!! That's the Chicago way (insert shitty Sean Connery impression here)

[Jakes Progress]

35. Okay, the Hooters and NFL crowd

is appeased. I'm glad he is now willing to fight. I was put off by all the "cooperate with our republican friends" stuff from early in the campaign. I'm not a big fan of WWF so this tough talk still seems a little contrived to me.

Tough action. That would be good. I would like to see Obama go to the Senate floor and demand that Pelosi and the gutless Democrats not back down on FISA. As our leader, he could do that. What I would really like is to see all of our candidates do this. Let's have a news conference with Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, etc. All backing Obama's speech on the Senate floor. That's being tough - not acting tough. That's a leader I can really get behind and support.

[PretzelWarrior]

44. kicked and recommended.

[4_Legs_Good]

45. That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone... Uh McCain

GOBAMA!

David

[barack the house]

46. I'd prefer he said more amory. The "g" word is one I don't even wanna hear till past November

[ghostsofgiants]

66. The reference/metaphor would have been way less effective that way.

[barack the house]

47. Great to see us all moving as a unit now it's how we take this thing all the way.

[gregolson]

49. Given the # of police officers killed in the line of duty Phil. this year, Obama's comment is gauche

and has no place in this campaign. Better choice of words, Barack; VERY indelicate.

[RamboLiberal]

51. Get over it - it's just a line from a movie set in the 30's n/t

Obama seems to be a fan of the Godfather movies and mobster films like The Untouchables.

[gregolson]

55. Yes, invoking gangs is such a good idea given his surroundings. Like I said, crass.

I'm sure he would agree.

[Cha]

67. It's a movie reference..your concern

is noted.

[Shakespeare]

72. But he didn't invoke gangs. He invoked good guys who got tough, and won.

BIG difference.

[gregolson]

73. RamboLiberal brought up gangs. You're replying to a response from that exchange.

You must right yourself.

Obama conjuring up guns and knife fights was unseemly and I'm sure Mayor Nutter cringed.

[Shakespeare]

74. I must "right myself?"

Get over yourself.

His reference was good, and tough. It was a metaphor, and there was nothing unseemly about it.

[BlackVelvet04]

93. No, his reference was thuggish and irresponsible. n/t

[Shakespeare]

98. Difference of opinion.

The majority of opinions on this thread seem to be just fine with it.

[Danger Mouse]

100. 'thuggish'...looks like you want to join your pals Ozarz, 2rth, and mac2, and Metheun...

[BlackVelvet04]

141. Is that the best you've got? Some juvenile "threat"?

here's a movie quote for you: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!"

[Danger Mouse]

144. edit

i felt bad about posting that. nevermind.

[gregolson]

109. Says you.

nt

[Shakespeare]

111. Yes, I do.

And you'd do well to ratchet down the authoritarian streak. It won't serve you well here.

[gregolson]

119. The lady doth protest too much

[Danger Mouse]

133. The troll doth feast on granite soon, methinks.

[gregolson]

137. So giving constructive criticism is now "being a troll"? You leave me the hell alone.

Got that, sparky?

[Danger Mouse]

145. Hahaha, bye bye troll

[blondeatlast]

158. He brought a knife to the fight. The lack of a sense of humor is a big clue! nt

[Danger Mouse]

107. He was invoking crimefighters, the Untouchables.

[anonymous171]

52. You will last long. Remember to spell your words correctly.

That's in the guide after all.

[Binka]

54. Oh Please. Your Concern Is Duly Noted.

Your semi-colon on the other hand is farking out of place.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Norwood]

57. Sounds like he's not gonna take any shit off the pukes and I love it!

[Ishoutandscream2]

58. Good on Obama. I'm digging him more and more

Repigs only understand force. And Obama is sending out the message that his campaign won't take any shit. Excellent!!!!

[Cha]

59. Obama was in good spirits too!

“We’re going to make sure this doesn’t bounce,” Obama said as he took the podium."

LOVE YOUR MOMMA VOTE OBAMA is as American as apple pie:)

[jesus_of_suburbia]

68. This is why we will win in November.

[blues90]

75. Some of you people make me sick .

It's all about the big talk isn't it? All about still bashing the hell out of Clinton. I recall that not many were bashing Bill Clinton when he was president but now it's all fair game.

This is how you only prove you will do anything to rush to the winning side no matter what the tactic used.

There are plenty of things Obama has said that don't sit well with me.

Everyone one thought Pelosi was the best thing since sliced bread and look how well that turned out. There was the ex boxer bull dog Reid too and look how he turned.

Yeah Obama is better than McCain but certainly not the best person for the job.

I doubt people should be coined racist if they don't like Obama , that is a cop out. I am certain there are many who do feel this way but it does not reflect the truth. You could easily say white people are out to prove they are not racist by voting for Obama as well .

The main problem I have with all politicians is they promise things they know the people want to hear and use this as a ploy , the proof is in their actions when they are president.

People can take their polls and cram them clear up their ass , it's the questions asked in polls and at exit polls that is where people will lie to save face.

Politics are dirty and all politicians play this game and this will never change. Obama is not going to change this.

I hope I'm wrong about Obama but this in no way will stop me from being skeptical about any politcian, not after all these years of empty promises.

If you can't critisize and question any politician then what have you got, blind faith.

Hope is a state of mind and change is when something actually changes.

We thought in the 60's there would be change and fought hard to acheive it but look at where we are now.

What this country and this world is all about is power and money and the race to get there first.

The Bush admin has made things so very bad and dangerous and they are still not done. We are not going to get the jobs back and the big powerful energy companies are not going to allow competiton at any cost.

The peoples votes never seem to matter , it's who is in control and who has the power that get their way.

I can't think of one president that was not a puppet with the powers that be pulling the strings.

If oil is the power as it is then we will have to over come this as a people and I don't see this happening anytime soon.

Winning a campaign is one thing but changing the world is quite another.

How would anyone truely define a democrat today?

[Shakespeare]

76. What in bloody hell does your rant have to do with the OP? And why do we make you sick?

Are you lost?

[Danger Mouse]

78. Wow, one of my idiots on ignore still lurks here?

Which one was it this time?

[Shakespeare]

79. One who thinks Obama isn't good enough to be president.

Nasty, nasty rant. Be glad you missed it.

[Danger Mouse]

80. Can you pm me? I'd like to know who and what was there.

:) :hi:

[blues90]

85. Just where exactly did I say he was not good enough?

Quote where I said that and then stop putting words in my comments that do not exist.

[Shakespeare]

87. "certainly not the best person for the job"

Careful, there.

[Danger Mouse]

89. i wonder what sort of toppings 'ignored' likes on his pizza...

:evilgrin:

[blues90]

92. That does not mean he is not fit to be president

Do you understand english or is it more in your favor to read in between lines? It means I feel there were better candidates. Careful there , give me a break.

[Shakespeare]

99. I understand YOU just fine. n/t

[blues90]

84. No I am hardly lost , I have my eye's wide open as well as my mind

It's not the OP , it's the responses after it. Just because I still have an opinion does not make me a freeper.

Just because I am not fully in support of Obama and question things he has said does not make me un-american , I can remain critical of any candidate , that is my right since who ever becomes president will effect me just as much as anyone else.

What makes me sick is how any Obama supporter is far to ready and willing to attack anyone who does not see things entirely their way.

The attacks are so damn lame and worn thin that they have become a predictable old joke everyone has heard a thousand times before. I'm on someones ignore list ,how lame and freakish is that. Get over yourselves.

There is far much more at stake here than the elections and I look at the entire picture and listen to what all candidates have said. I listen to what they say the first time , not what they attempt to spin it into the second or third time.

These forcefull tactics are what devides people, no one likes to have anything forced on then and then they are told to shut up . Since when is it that only those who fully support Obama the only ones with opinions that matter? What is it, because you gang up and say so?

As long as I live in this country I have the right to voice my opinions and as long as I post them here you have the right to your attacks which personally only shows me how close minded people can be.

Did I come out here and attack Obama , no , I voiced my concerns.

[Shakespeare]

86. MANY people have legitimate reasons to criticize the Clintons about 2004.

If that makes you sick, so be it.

As for fully supporting Obama on DU: I suggest you review the DU rules for what's allowed on this site during the election. Legitimate criticism on SPECIFIC issues is one thing, but to spout off that he's not the best for the job is WAY out of line.

Thanks for your "concern."

[blues90]

97. I suppose the rules also say it's ok to alter someones language

I did not spout off , I made a simple statement. You can try to twist it into anything you want but you know damn well what i said and if not than you are reading between the lines or can't read and keep it in context.

[Shakespeare]

101. I didn't alter ANYTHING. n/t

[blues90]

102. Right , there is more there than the two things you picked out.

[Shakespeare]

103. So? Nothing I commented on was taken out of context. n/t

[blues90]

104. Then you can't read.

[Shakespeare]

105. LOL. Oh, yes I can.

You just don't like it when somebody calls you on an absurd statement.

Why don't you tell us all why he's not the best person for the job? I'd really love to know.

[blues90]

117. I could care less what people think of me personally

It's not about me and this is what you want to make it into. My statement was not absurd and you did not call me out on anything.

I expressed my doubts about a few issues but these you leave out in every reply you have made. You only focus on one thing which is what I said about Obama which was only to say there were in my opinion better candidats out there and that some obama supporter statements make me sick . Also I was talking about Clinton when he was president not in 2004 when he was not.

When you want me to "tell us all why he is not the best person for the job " just who is us all? Is this your own group or us meaning the other Obama supporters who gang up on anyone who does not entirely agree with you?

You don't seem to dissagree when I said the jobs won't come back or anything else I said. What you do is a cheap shot focusing only on what I said about Obama and you now want me to tell you who I feel would be better as if you give a damn?

[Shakespeare]

118. You said Obama isn't the best person for the job. I asked you why.

I don't care if you don't like that I asked you why. Either you answer it, or you don't. Up to you.

[blues90]

120. I already said , you don't give a damn what I think

Does that answer your question, is that clear enough for you? You made this personal and now you want me to answer your questions. Give me one good reason why I would even care to with an attitude such as yours. You have made your position clear and it is that you don't really give a damn what I think.

Perhaps from the start if you would have asked that question things would be much different but this is not the approach you chose to take , what you chose was to go on the defense.

[Shakespeare]

123. Yes, I do give a damn what you think. You're presuming.

How on earth would you know what I want? And I did NOT make it personal. I asked WAY upthread why you think Obama isn't the best person for the job. If you're going to make such a statement, surely you must have some reason for believing that?

I'm asking one more time. I'm not on the defense, but you certainly are. Now why's that?

[blues90]

124. are you refering to this one perhaps?

" One who thinks Obama isn't good enough to be president.
Nasty, nasty rant. Be glad you missed it."

Is this what you consider open minded asking a question or not making it personal? This was your very first comment on my so called nasty rant. Do you think I don't read the comments? I don't have a one second memory.

I voiced my personal opinion and that's all I did. This was your first response to it and I am on the defense.

You may get away with this sort of spin with other people but I am far from stupid.

[Shakespeare]

125. No, it was my second comment, and not to you.

Somebody who has you on ignore (hey, there's your first clue you might have a problem here) asked what you posted. I answered. Don't like my take on it? Too bad.

But I'd still like to know why you think Obama isn't the best person for the job. I'm not spinning anything--but refusing to answer a very simple question.

[blues90]

128. Nice try . I know it was your second response , here is the 1st

"What in bloody hell does your rant have to do with the OP? And why do we make you sick?
Are you lost?"

Tell me where you asked why I felt Obama was not the best person for the job. I don't need clues, i am well aware how the Obama supporters took over the forum and now they have it. But this is not even enough is it?

You did not ask until you posted several of your remarks , well after you went on the attack. The second post was also a response of yours directed at my nasty rant. And to add to it it is your response to a poster who has not the guts to look at anything anyone has to say that may not be in full agreement with them so they have their toy ignore list.

I answered your questions in your first reply.

Like I said , you are about as interested in my view as I am in bush's. If I believed for one second you were then I would answer , but what I got was the typical response I expected.

[Shakespeare]

130. No, you have NOT answered it.

And I didn't SAY I asked you in my very first response. I said I asked you upthread, and I did.

I'm truly interested in why you think Obama is not the best candidate for the job.

[blues90]

142. Not that I feel I should trust you and I do feel you over reacted

I don't at all like the idea that one person here asked you to PM them with what I said. It feels like a team of people sitting in the side lines waiting to pounce.

I don't see anything about my post that implies anything you have said about it.

I say this to give some idea of what it's like to be put on the other side when I am not. No one here from the start who supported anyone else was given a fair chance to even explain their position without being dragged through the mud for it.

To begin with I spent most of my life in Chicago as did all of my family and I have a good idea of Chicago politics. I know all about Mayor Daley and his son.

As far as Obama is concerned he has not been in the hard core political world long enough to know the in's and outs and the games. There is little to be found about him other than what is in his own books and his own website. I don't like the fact that Lieberman took Obama under his wing or how there are ties with Lieberman winning his seat once again .

He does not have global experience , yes i know , no one is experienced as president before they are president but I don't feel now is the time to find this a training ground for anyone.

I don't like the Reagan comments in Nevada which were his words which were made into something entirely different. I was not alone in this , I can sight Guy James and Mike Malloy and a host of other people who were not pleased about the remarks. I question his stance on the use of the military and the OP he wrote in 2007 , I need time to find it and reference it but it's there if you need to look . He takes many of the same positions as Hillary did yet he got a free ride away from them , I want the answers from anyone running for president.

The point where he stood for his church and then when it got hot after his speech on racism he drops the church.

He said he was against the war yet he was not under the same pressure as the ones who voted for the war and even they got away with it other than Hillary. He voted for the energy bill .

There are things he has done that all the media left alone even when they were against it in the beginning other the Wright which was the cable media and the right wing media.

I don't feel he was taken to task enough and when he was he backed away.

For me speeches are not enough which are what got him where he is and mostly by the people who pushed this.

I know both candidates played their campaign dirty tricks but find me the ones Obama's people did , I can find all of the ones others were said to have done.

By what I have said here you might think I was a Hillary supporter , you would be wrong. I also know that I am going to be bashed to hell and back for my views but you asked so you have some , not all of them. I do not see a JFK or RFK in Obama and I am not moved as amny are by his speeches. I suspect any candidate that gets the boost he has after being in the senate for such a short time, to me is does not imply a clean slate.

I felt Kucinich gave very powerful speeches yet because he does not fit the looks profile he is over looked , this truely troubles me and does say a lot about how people in this country still relate yet they claim to over look race and sexism. I am having trouble buying that.

I am not going to come back here and defend myself for what I just voiced or am I going to look at anyone who comes back at me with slights or name calling of anything else other than to look at them as I always have as idiots with nothing to say.

I am going to be blunt and honest here, I still don't trust your motives and have absolutely no reason I can think of why I should, so if you are going to come back at me for giving you the benefit of the doubt then I say to you , look at yourself well before judge me again.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[Danger Mouse]

83. That's just pathetic.

Honestly, I have no use for people who are voting McCain because 'Hillary weren't treated nice.' The Republicans can have them.

[Arugula Latte]

81. He gets it.

And that is one reason among many I'm proud to support him.

[BlackVelvet04]

90. “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said

What a completely irresponsible comment to make. Wow...let's resort to and praise guns and violence now.

[JoePhilly]

94. Having grown up in Philly .... its a fair statement.

[Danger Mouse]

95. It's a friggin movie quote from a movie that has deep ties to his Chicago background.

Geez.

[BlackVelvet04]

140. "Bring it on" was a movie quote, too.

As was "go ahead, make my day" but I didn't applaud those when bush and Reagan used them.

[gregolson]

110. Thank you. It was very distasteful.

[Cha]

113. No it wasn't. "distasteful"..

not at all..but, then we want to beat mccain and Obama is our candidate and we're not here to whine.

[gregolson]

121. What a lot of paranoia to go around, just because you feel your point of view challenged?

Such insecurity is surprising to me.

[Cha]

136. Your whiny hipocrisy isn't surprising.

Any your paranoia isn't surprising, either.

[gregolson]

138. Well, you can't spell it

So let's have you define it.

What exactly is hypocritical about saying it was a poor choice of words?

[cornermouse]

114. I agree.

It was highly irresponsible. Not something someone in his position should be saying.

[gregolson]

122. Agreed.

[Cha]

135. Spare me your freaking hypocricy, cornermouse..

you had no problem with hilary's lies.

Your concern rings hollow. The primaries are OVER.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

156. How'd you like Hillary's "obliterate" comment?

Remember, Obama was speaking metaphorically -- Hillary was speaking literally.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

155. He should have threatened to "obliterate" them.

Oh, wait...

[TwilightGardener]

157. It's from "The Untouchables". Sean Connery? Jesus, it's a movie reference.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

159. Oh, absolutely.

This is the worst thing anybody's said since Teddy Roosevelt encouraged are nation's children to brain each other with big sticks!

:eyes:

[4themind]

115. 'If they bring a knife

you bring something that will absolutely dissuade them from attacking you', that's a way I think this can be interpreted. Which is to say that it can be interpreted in a "self-defense"/threat-to-deter-potential-harm Even in real life I have relatively little problem with a person pulling out a gun to defend/stave off a person who brings a knife to meet them under some certain circumstance (ie seeing an abusive boyfriend carrying a knife upstairs after an argument and you rush to get a gun to protect yourself. Politically speaking I think the statement can perhaps be interpreted as saying that "lies/attacks" will be countered by the truth, and it will be pushed with even greater intensity (and criticism of the typpe of politics that spawn it) as the original lie itself

[Shakespeare]

116. Thank you, Captain Obvious!

:rofl:

I don't mean to pick on you; your post just made me chuckle.

[Raine]

132. Good for Obama, he's not going to be bullied

by the reTHUGS.

[jakem]

147. also in the new indiana jones- pretty common reference-

[AnnieBW]

148. Eagles fans

The only fans to throw snowballs at Santa Claus.

[hokies4ever]

150. Satan has a V.I.P. section reserved for Eagles fans

:rofl:

[AnnieBW]

151. Good idea

Keep them away from polite society.

(So sayeth the Pittsburgh Steelers fan...)

[reflection]

161. Hear hear! n/t