Hillary's shill on dKos put up an attack Kerry diary

[beachmom]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/14/21505/690

Remember that name -- francislholland -- he's 24/7 Hillary cheerleader. I just commented.

[Mass]

1. But Kerry is not a serious candidate.

:sarcasm:

Most of the Kerry bashers are Hillary and Edwards's shills, I noticed.

[blm]

2. HORSESHIT! The SAME RW MACHINE IMPEACHED CLINTON!

Clinton couldn't stop impeachment.

The impeachment machine GREW and STRENGTHENED.

Gore was IMPEACHMENTED.

Dan Rather was IMPEACHMENTED.

Kerry was IMPEACHMENTED.

Dumbass Clinton got IMPEACHMENTED again by being blamed for 9-11 for FIVE YEARS before he spoke up for himself.

And it wasn't Kerry who lost - Kerry won - the DNC was allowed to collapse since 1997 and never secured the election process in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

Let them try and refute THAT!

Clinton DID NOTHING To take that RW message machine out of business when he was in power and had the bully pulpit - but instead, he and McAuliffe made sure that the Dem party infrastructure was collapsed for the next ten years.

[MH1]

3. Great comment here

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/10/14/21505/690/46#c46

I will say that, as one who lived through the Vietnam years, I appreciated Kerry's non-response to the swiftboat campaign. By staying quiet he created a space where we could see the nastiness for what it was, and begin to debate and reflect on how unresolved feelings about that war have been used to effect our politics since. He stood back and let those folks expose themselves so many of us could begin to see them for what they are. I think he and Edwards accomplished the beginnings of something similar when the made their simple comments about Mary Cheney, too.

Much of my adult life has been spent watching reactionaries try to destroy thoughtful, reasoned political debate. I think Kerry and Edwards showed great poise and respect for voters throughout their campaign, and in the end helped create an opening through which we have begun to engage in politics as thinking citizens again. Personally, with all the dishonest and corrupt forces martialed against them and us, I call that a win.

by ponderer on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 11:51:26 PM EDT

Except that the "non-response" thing is technically wrong, ponderer gets it. Nice to see for a change.

The "non-response" perception was because the response wasn't shrill enough or marketed well enough to cut through the right wing control of the media and be heard. Thoughtful, reasoned responses just didn't cut it in 2004, sigh.

[ProSense]

5. Exactly!

By the time the Swift Boat story had played out, CNN, chasing after ratings leader Fox News, found time to mention the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth–hereafter, Swifties–in nearly 300 separate news segments, while more than one hundred New York Times articles and columns made mention of the Swifties. And during one overheated 12-day span in late August, the Washington Post mentioned the Swifties in page-one stories on Aug. 19, 20, 21 (two separate articles), 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. It was a media monsoon that washed away Kerry’s momentum coming out of the Democratic convention.

How much money does it take to fight the media? Kerry needed an organized effort behind him. People forget that the Swift Liars was designed not only as a character assassination, but also a distraction. Imagine if Kerry had focused significant attention on the Swift Liars, today the cries would have been he stopped campaigning and got sidetracked. Even if he had gone after the Liars with more money, the media whores would have simply turned up the volume. What they did was loud enough to drown out any response, especially since the media didn't give equal time to Kerry's responses. They wanted Bush period.

Also, think about the Clinton vs. Wallace, how everyone jumped into action over one incident. That hasn't stopped the media, and there has been nothing more from Clinton, not even a response about his North Korea policy.

In the 2004 climate, except for a small group of Democrats and some MoveOn ads, there was no such organized rebuttal. Kerry kept responding, but again, look at the media's contribution to the Liar's effort!

[blm]

6. Why not put up the research forum post on the swift response? And add

that Kerry responded appropriately but the Dem PARTY and its bigname lawmakers did not step up and pound back with the truth Kerry gave them.

[blm]

4. And Clinton won in 92 because KERRY worked 24/7 exposing Bush1 on

IranContra and BCCI which pummeled Bush with bad headlines throughout his 4 yr. term.

Kerry had Clinton publically SUPPORTING BUsh2 policies throughout the 4 yr term.

Kerry won anyway, but the COLLAPSED Dem party infrastructure overseen by CLINTON LOYALISTS never secured the election process as they PROMISED after the 2000 election fraud hearings.

[ProSense]

7. Here is a bizarre story:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2885131&mesg_id=2885131