This may cause some minor flames

[politicasista]

but I really think that the Obama camp is doing (going on TV interviews and debunking this mess) what the handlers of the Kerry campaign should have done in 04, regards to the latest flap and other stuff.

Yes, I understand that O is his own man and no, I am not playing Monday Morning quarterback or jumping off the K bandwagon, but perception is everything and four years later, the senator is still being slammed for "not responding, sitting around and letting the smears/liars" go unanswered. At least the O campaign is learning not to take things for granted.

I am sorry but I still remain mad about the way the campaign handled the SB liars and allowed people to frame the good senator's perception as someone that allowed himself to be smeared "after it was too late."


Thank goodness spring break is here. :hide:































edit for word

[Inuca]

1. They learn from the mistakes

from the past, always a good thing. I am glad to see that Obama will be on all cable news channels tonight, and I hope he will be both careful and great. I obviously have no idea whether he got any advice from Kerry on this, but if he did I am sure the advice was along the lines of "don't let it fester".

[politicasista]

3. I am sure he did

Unfortunately, we are going to hear and read alot of comparing and contrasting to Obama's response to the smears to Kerry's response to the SB smears.

I am glad that Obama will be on all the media shows, which is a smart move. I guess I am just mad that the campaign didn't use this strategy four years ago. It would have almost quieted that "Kerry just sat there" responses. Not all, but would opened a few eyes. Instead that is the one of the few things that Kerry is remembered for from 04. Sigh.

[TayTay]

6. It's ok, this is what was learned from '04

And Sen Kerry WANTS him to contrast himself and show that he is mature enough to learn the lessons from the last Prez race. No problem. This is a good thing.

I know that a lot of people compare and contrast unfavorably. We can't help that. But, Sen Kerry is on the air saying that he made mistake in '04 and he hopes Sen. Obama learns from those mistakes.

No worries!

[politicasista]

8. Thank you

I know some will scream at me for this, but it's how I really feel.

[JI7]

2. there are some differences, this religious guy is associated with Obama

and a supporter of his.

the swift boat vets were just out there to attack Kerry. a better comparison is to that King guy and others who talk about terrorists dancing if Obama win.

[politicasista]

4. There are some differences,

although as I said above I think it is smart that Obama is doing the media blitz with all this happening. It's too bad that his so called "supporters" don't appreciate having a good surrogate to back him up, instead doing a compare and contrast of how each responded when attacked.

[wisteria]

5. Live and learn and the circumstances and issue are entirely different.

I have only seen him on the Keith Oberman show-very benign and favorable territory.

Now, as you say, this "may cause some minor flames", so I have to ask, why post it?
Your comments certainly do not make me more inclined to support Obama. Actually, the very nature of these latest, judgmental and unfair attacks against Obama remind me of how much more personal and damaging the attacks against Senator Kerry were.

[politicasista]

10. I am not attacking Kerry or trying to turn anyone off from supporting Obama

And I don't like what is happening to Obama the same way I didn't like what happened to Kerry. I am just displeased with the way the K campaign mishandled SBV and the fact that it is being used to bring up old wounds and promote Obama. And it is tiring to see the bashing of a good surrogate just to promote the candidate he and they happen to support.

[blm]

7. Why don't you THINK ABOUT IT? Obama has a team around him helping him

and one of his biggest advisors is Kerry.

Kerry is out there defending Obama all the time on the experience issue and other issues. Obama was INCAPABLE of acting the same for Kerry in 2003-4 because he truly had no ability to take on the role that Kerry is doing for him. No wellknown Democrats WOULD do for Kerry what Kerry is doing for Obama because they were ALL TOO SCARED of Bush, Rove and the RW media machine and cowered throughout 2004 which NONE OF THEM expected to win anyway so NONE of them would show up and battle it out.

This is exactly the crap I call you out on because HOW HARD IS IT to figure out that 2004 is NOT 2007-8?

Could Obama have won in 2004? Could Hillary have won in 2004?

Why don't YOU tell us how well Obama or Hillary would have done in 2004.

[politicasista]

9. Wow. Calling me out and attacking me like some outsider from GDP

that is sure helpful. Sheesh!


I am saying that I fault the campaign, not Kerry for underestimating the impact of the SB liars/smears and creating a myth and perception that Kerry "didn't" respond and "sat back and allowed himself to be smeared" garbage that people are believing and repeating four, yes four years later. No, I don't believe it, but I know some in my fam do. I personally think that is why Gore is popular right now, and Kerry isn't there yet (there are fences to mend).

I am NOT dissing Kerry for working with Obama. I appreciate it, it's too bad some of Obama's "supporters" don't or don't notice.


I don't know why you always single me out. All I do is post here, only to be met with constant ridicule. Calling my post "crap" and treating me like "crap." I doubt the senator would appreciate one of his supporters treating a fellow blogger like garbage, but hey do whatever suits your boat.

[blm]

11. Because TO ME you sound like someone who WANTS to stick a knife in and keep twisting

away thinking you can disguise those attacks in the form of a "Oh why is it like this..." Or "too bad people think this" "if only Kerry had done THAT' or whatever..... NO ONE can be that gawddam consistently sharpened against Kerry in their words for three years and NOT MEAN IT.

There IS NO MYSTERY to WHY it went down the way it did. You think Obama would be doing so well right now if this was 2004 and all the Clinton loyalists were undermining his campaign QUIETLY and behind the scenes, and with a popular Bill Clinton going on all the shows and supporting Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war?

There IS NO MYSTERY to WHY the corporate media did what they did. Dan Rather has spoken out a number of times about the media's need to protect Bush for the favorable rulings they expected in his next term.

But, no...... in your world you always have to come around to blaming the one person who has always acted nobly for us and for this country and for the world. As if HE were the lesser person.

And THAT is what pisses me off about YOUR POSTS!

[politicasista]

13. I am NOT blaming Kerry.

I am blaming his handlers. How many people blame the media for the "response" to the swifties? I don't know anyone beyond the blogsphere that has. I am saying that his campaign and handlers have allowed the line that he "did nothing" to stick and allowed people to repeat and believe it four years later. They still do in the blogsphere and in the real world. My DD, who is politically aware thinks the Swifites damaged Kerry badly.

I am blaming the campaign for that, not Kerry.


And you still are treating me like a nobody from GDP.

[blm]

14. His handlers is a myth word that people use when they can't say the GAWDDAM DEM PARTY and

almost every known figure who expected to lose 2004 anyway and wouldn't expend their energy or risk making themselves targets for Rove and his trained press whores.

Kerry was FUCKED OVER by a powerstructure that wanted NO CITIZEN to have an open and accessible government.

And YOU can't figure that out after so many years on these boards?

I'm telling YOU what YOU sound like to ME.

I will never again click on one of your posts. I don't believe you.

[politicasista]

16. Wow. That's mean.

I never thought I would be treated like garbage because someone disagrees with me.

[karynnj]

12. This happens because people want a reason that he lost

The truth always was that he had fought back - but using the method that always been the most effective when truth is 100% on your side. He fought back against smears with the truth - which was what would have ended it 4 years before - the media had over 100 pages of the official Navy report - that contradicted the the SBVT, tapes where Nixon people spoke of Kerry being a genuine hero that they couldn't find dirt on, the Brinkley book was the work of an historian that included positive comments on Kerry by people who 2 years later were SBVT, and they had the fact that everyone on Kerry's boat when he got the medals loved him and backed him 100%. The media had all of that - and they had it before the August attack. When they attacked the Kerry campaigned proved links to the Bush people and they identified 30 some pages of provable lies and contradictions. You don't do spin, whan you control 100% of the truth.

With all of this, the media never asked the SBVT, whose accounts contradicted the official record, for one shred of proof - and they offered NONE. This was a media sanctioned character assassination. That is the only way to understand why purple heart bandaids were treated as if they were funny novelty hats. I can't begin to imagine how that felt to Kerry and his guys - who faced weeks where every time they went into those canals, there was some real chance they could die or be seriously maimed - and they were in there late teens to middle twenties. There sacrifice was very real. Not to mention, it built up to that - so many people didn't experience any shock or disgust.

Now, tell me in any Bill Clinton flareup in 1992 where he ever gave the media a tenth of that - not to mention Clinton often went though at least 3 versions before settling on one.

As to Obama, he has had - among others - Kerry, Bradley and Daschle out there as surrogates. All three of these men are men of known integrity, gravitas and character. They are also - all three - know for their dignity and self control - they are not the people who blow up. More than anything else they have been out there on nearly every attack as the first line of defense. They all have the ability to call HRC on the tenor of the accusations. On the minister question - Obama has to address it - and he is going on the TVs to do so. In some ways, this is a fairer issue for Obama - he needs to answer it - and if the HP post is the approach he took - he did well.

Additionally, Kerry succeeded easily in the primaries countering both the intern garbage and the SBVT. In the general election, Kerry did say all that could be said before the Firefighters. A media, daily giving the SBVT airtime, didn't think kerry's response was news. Obama has the advantage of a better time frame and Kerry and his experience to help. But, it is way too early to say that he is running a much better campaign than Kerry. He has his advantages - a media fascinated with him and their designation that he has star power. But, Kerry would never have answered the question on why the Europe committee has held no Afghanistan hearings as poorly as Obama did. (I would picture one of those Kerry grins followed by his slowly saying Afghanistan is not in Europe and then an explanation of hearings held.)

The real truth is Kerry gets a bad rap on this, because people want the narrative to match the result. Had Kerry won, the few (and there were really only few) errors would have been airbrushed out. The story of the SBVT would have been that Kerry responded with dignity and truth - giving the media an enormous amount of information to support the official record and to show the links of these liars directly into the Bush campaign. They would have said it looked like they would hurt in August, but by November all fair minded people saw them as liars. They would then speak of debates and maybe his innovation alternative energy and environmental programs and the plan (in real life backed in 2006 by the ISG) to end our involvement in Iraq. There would be an entirely different narrative.

In addition to this being the normal way defeat is handled, in Kerry's case there were two groups with vested interested in distorting what was right about Senator Kerry and the 2004 race because they wanted to run in 2008. The more dominant were the Bill Clinton, who within weeks of the defeat, was trashing the way the campaign was run for HRC's sake. The Edwards both attempted to make JRE look better at Kerry's expense. This was particularly easy for them to do because both had people inside the campaign in the general election. With the exception of Shrum's book, all the accounts are from these people. No Kerry person (other than Shrum) has yet written what they saw.

This comes up constantly - and will continue to do so - but over time what I see is that Kerry is getting more respect - even if it is as an elder statesman or powerful person in the Senate. That will likely continue - though not smoothly - because he keeps doing good, important things. I also suspect that if HRC does not become President, one beneficiary will be Kerry - because the criticisms of his campaign by people like Carville and McAuliffe will be given the weight they deserve. One thing to remember is after the election Kerry spoke of still having his integrity and the respect of his family and friends - will HRC be able to say that after this?

[politicasista]

15. And what you have written is the....

truth, :) but I don't hear it repeated outside of the blogosphere. I have been reading Obama's camp blog and they have been saying the same thing that people like Roland Martin, Tom Joyner, and other radio talk show hosts have been saying. Obama needs to hit back hard (in a clean way) and not make the same mistake Kerry did. I just don't hear the Kerry respond to the SBL. It just sounds like they bought into the myth that he "didn't respond" or fight hard enough. :(

[karynnj]

17. My point though is that this will happen, this is the currently accepted narrative

It also does not hurt Kerry in his current roles - he is an outstanding surrogate (just as Big Eddie's substitute said), he is seen as having integrity, intelligence and class. Those are what he needs to be an influential Senator and statesman. If Obama wins - whether the Obama people realize it or not - Kerry will be seen by Obama as one of the people who helped. Being a senior adviser to a President is not bad - and may lead to him getting credit for Senate work. But, even if he doesn't, it is clear that he is energized in his current role - though I bet a part of him loved the interviewer today telling him that he had more excited crowds in Iowa in 2004 than Obama now - and she was there both years. That is completely not what people here want to believe - but Kerry did generate excitement in 2004.

There already is a small amount of movement in speaking better of the Kerry campaign. In the last two weeks:
1) There was the article on the Kerry precedent - where he released details of lobbying info going back to 1989. This adds to Kerry's reputation as clean and as the campaign did this on there own - it showed that they quickly acted to cut off the lobbyist question - which Dean raised.
2) The article on his meeting with Nader - where the author started by mentioning it was one of the many things Kerry did right.
3) DKos had a spontaneous thread started by an excellent smack don Kerry gave Contessa Brewster when she threw poll results at him. It simultaneously was honest, politely said - and left her with no comeback. There would have never been a recommended diary titled Thank you John Kerry - that stayed nearly all positive - that would not have happened a year ago.

Now, because he lost it will never - and can never be written as the joyous, inspiration intelligent campaign it was. I suspect that as Bush leaves office - no matter who wins, the story will change and will eventually be seen as a high minded campaign, fought against a group of people who were "the biggest group of crooks and liars" and that many parts of society went along with the crooks.

(Consider that the RNCC may have leaked money to a SBVT company. It looks that way to me - from the NYT article - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3007371&mesg_id=3007371

If this my conjecture is true - the SBVT not only share funders and a lawyer with Bush/Cheney, the their equivalent of the DCCC may have grossly violated FEC law and directly funded the SBVT themselves.

The main thing to remember is that though it hurts to hear Kerry criticized for this - they are responding to their hurt in the loss. Except for the few S&B idiots - they can still be pushed to see Kerry both as an intelligent, capable legislator and a genuinely good and nice person.