I didn't realize that Bill Clinton adviced Kerry to not go after the swifties in 04.

[ray of light]

I guess it's hard to not find hidden intent in that. Maybe that was the 'common wisdom' of that day?

[beachmom]

1. Saw your diary. I actually posted that quote from Kerry, and frankly

I was astounded. I did not know Bill was giving him advice in August since he was having his bypass surgery. That makes all the things he has said since much more hypocritical. It was also very bad advice.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/29/115139/570

Kerry told the crowd he did not think Obama would be victimized by GOP attacks the way he was in 2004 by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Kerry took responsibility for not fighting the Swift Boat assaults more effectively, but he said advisors, including Bill Clinton, suggested he not defend himself aggressively.

IF reports are correct about Bill Clinton recently (and really, we don't know for sure), then I really don't think I know who Bill Clinton is at all, nor did I ever.

[ginnyinWI]

4. Vanity Fair has a big article on Bill this month

that tries to figure him out, too. It's not a very flattering picture of him, either. Makes me feel like we really dodged a bullet by not nominating his wife--because of his tangle of nefarious associations, and more.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807

[ray of light]

5. Look at this response. ..."Too bad John Kerry didn't have a John Kerry in 2004."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3538728&mesg_id=3539709

Wow!!!

[sandnsea]

2. I remember the Clintons said to drop Vietnam

quit talking about it, it wasn't relevant. I always took it to mean that he should try to avoid engaging the swiftboaters, or anything else to do with Vietnam. I also thought it was incredibly stupid because Vietnam is why people like McCain won't leave Iraq. It's not behind us, much as Obama thinks it ought to be. I hope he understands he needs to correct some myths along the way.

[ginnyinWI]

3. there was an article in the Milw. Journal-Sentinel today on '04

Kerry's and Bush's campaigns contrasted with Obama's and McCain's. Interesting.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=767134

[beachmom]

6. This is a fantastic article. It just throws the myths out the window:

Control the message. In 2004, Bush enjoyed far more control over the Republican campaign message than Kerry did over the Democratic message. That’s because the Kerry campaign had less money to spend than the Bush campaign and because much of the advertising on Kerry’s side was done by independent liberal groups. Those groups helped fill the breach when Kerry was short on funds but had strategic differences with Kerry, were outside of his control and were ill-equipped to defend him from conservative attacks. In the end, Kerry was defined as much or more by his opponents as by himself.

...

Message control. Consider these two points about the ’04 ad wars. There were more ads aired on the Democratic side than the Republican side when you combine the candidates, the parties and the outside groups. But the Republican message was much more consistent. The Bush campaign had creative control over almost 90% of the ads aired on his behalf, according to data compiled by the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project. Kerry controlled only about half the ads aired on his behalf. The rest were aired independently by the Democratic Party and liberal groups; by law, they couldn’t be coordinated with Kerry.

Why did this matter? Because candidates and their allies don’t always agree on message or strategy. And outside groups perform some missions better than others. For practical and legal reasons, they are more suited to attacking than defending. Only Kerry could effectively defend himself from the personal attacks that he sustained in the Swift Boat ads of August 2004, but he was off the air at the time, saving his limited ad budget for September and October. From start to finish, Kerry and his liberal allies ran very different ad campaigns, with Kerry’s ads devoted largely to promoting Kerry and the liberal groups devoted almost wholly to attacking Bush.

Kerry concluded afterward that he made a big mistake by accepting public financing (and the spending limits that go with it) because it limited his ability to define himself for voters and defend himself from attacks. Kerry advised Obama to reject public financing in this race, which Obama did earlier this month in a well-publicized reversal on the issue.

[ginnyinWI]

7. yes and this is where Kerry's experience really helps Obama

He urged him not to accept the public funds because he'd been there. I just know he's going to do everything in his power to get Obama elected because there's not an envious bone in his body and he always puts the party ahead of ego. :)

(This guy-- who wrote the article-- writes most of the political reporting for the Journal-Sentinel.)

[wisteria]

8. It is a very good informative and straight foward article.

I am saving it because it explains how much Senator Kerry was limited in what he could do to fight off the SBV.