explain this please...

[nolies32fouettes]

Did I do something wrong here? Start at that comment and read up...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=440199&mesg_id=443184

[TayTay]

1. You were resonable and sane

Some people want to blame Kerry for everything that went wrong. That is foolish and ignores the truth. Kerry didn't 'throw the election.' Blackwell, Ney, NOe and others conspired to commit fraud against the voters. That is the truth.

Some people find it easier to say that Kerry stopped fighting and it's his fault than to face the daunting task of figuring out how to fight the actual fraud and the actual criminals who perpetrated it. Sigh!

Welcome to DU, sigh!

[FreedomAngel82]

9. And you can just tell them Hackett did the same thing

In Ohio people urged him to have a recount in his Congressional campaign but he just went on vacation with his family. He didn't fight for that at all even people urged him to do so (someone posted about this in GDPolitics).

[ProSense]

2. For what it's worth

I must say that I am very proud of the way you handled that.

[karynnj]

3. You did absolutely nothing wrong

That poster and others do this continually and they are extremely immature. Your arguments were excellent. They are sure that 2004 was stolen and that by doing <something> John Kerry could have gotten the election overturned, declared invalid or re-done. The reality is that as you list many many things the Republicans did to cheat - but you can't claim votes never cast.

As you said Kerry was a victim. He worked incredibly hard to win people's votes and quite possibly succeeded in convincing enough people. As the candidate, Kerry was not in charge of every state's election process. The Democratic party in each state should have been competent and on top of anything the state was doing with regards to the election, calling the Kerry campaign if they needed assistance. The Ohio Democratic party, by most accounts, was a mess. Reportedly, Blackwell sent reports with number of voting machines by location to each of the bi-partisan election committees. Urban areas had fewer machines in some cases than they had in the primaries - but no one caught this. That the election was run by bi-partisan county commissions made it harder to blame the Republicans.

Kerry informally became the candidate in March, 2004. The local and state parties had deteriorated throughout the 90s and this century. Kerry's job was to be the Presidential nominee and to articulate reasons that people should replace Bush with him. It was not his job to simultaneously re-organize and strengthen the local parties. The issue with machine fraud is even clearer - it could NOT be fixed starting in March, 2004. So, if Kerry should have been working on this in 2002 and 2003, then so should Gov Dean, Edwards, Clark etc. None of them were, so had they won the nomination they would have been in the same place.

Kerry actually had the misfortune of running against a President who used government resources for political gain, used the terror codes, and approved a vicious slime campaign. In addition, the media drastically reduced coverage (hurting the challenger) and was extremely biased. Add to that the fact that the local parties were in a shambles and it's a wonder he almost won. (On his side there was a pretty well motivated party and more money than Democrats usually have.)

Ironically, a likely beneficiary of Dean and Kerry's attempts to re-vitalize the local parties will be the couple who allowed the decline while they were in power for 8 years and in the 4 years afterward. Note that these people blame Kerry who has worked hard since his lost, but give Gore a pass for disappearing for 18 months.

[ray of light]

4. They didn't give him a pass at first. It took 5 years

before they forgave him for not protesting the selection in 2000.

And in retrospect HE should have used his own vote to protest the election. But that's what REAL integrity is! Frankly, I like Gore more now than I did then. I still like Kerry and Edwards. But these people were victims and it pisses me off to see people slam the victims.

I didn't slam Gore in 2000. Unless I walk in his shoes, then who am I to question the decisions. As long as they're able to stand up to the morality test then I can. (That's why I can judge Republicans and Bush because they don't stand up to the truth-test!)

[karynnj]

5. Sorry I didn't mean that the way it sounded

I meant that Kerry has gone beyond what I would think he had to do. The point was that they blame Kerry more than others who were in close to the same position.

I wasn't here in 2001, but in the outside world for the next 2 years there were comments that Gore sould get the nomination because he really won 2000. (My guess, in cynical retrospect, is that in this time period beating Bush was real unlikely - so people were willing to give him a unless nomination.) I've never heard anyone say that with regards to Kerry.

[ray of light]

6. Oh, I didn't mean to sound so harsh either.

I wasn't here in 01 either. (When did du come into existance?) But I think you're right in a way. In 01 -02 -03 the blogs weren't as high-profile as they are now. So I think whatever happened in the real world didn't get influenced by the blogs. Now, I think they do.

And the bloggers are screaming "fraud" and the DLC DCC whoever...are not cooperating with us!

[karynnj]

7. You weren't harsh - I reread what I wrote and realized

that the comparison written to say why the bad JK treatment, could be read to say Gore should have been treated less well, so I was just correcting.

[WildEyedLiberal]

8. You are very articulate

Though I have the immature idiot you're arguing with on ignore, and obviously for very good reason!