Remember how Kerry was not in the lead for much of the

[rainy]

lead up to primaries? Then all of a sudden there he is taking the lead. Do you think there is more to this? I was thinking on the level of a Dan Brown type scenario where the Yale Skull and Bones group could put both men up and it wouldn't matter who won. Then there is the prospect that Hillary, also a member, will win in 2008. I've heard it already was a given that she will win by rigged voting to promote the New World Order. Am I nuts or too gullible?

[meganmonkey]

1. Believe me, you are not the first to see that possibility

I think most people don't want to face the fact that such a scenario is plausible, because then they would have to deal with the fact that our deMOCKracy is a total sham.

:hide:

[Horse with no Name]

66. I agree

There was a reason that they didn't pull the curtain back during the first visit to the Wizard. They were still afraid that the Wizard had the power to harm them and were in tremendous awe of his power.
However, when they returned to the Wizard after doing what was asked of them and they were turned away anyway, they had nothing to lose but to look behind the curtain and face whatever was behind it.
The collective country isn't ready to look behind the curtain yet.
Just like they aren't ready to look behind the curtain regarding 911.

[wakeme2008]

2. IMHO Kerry had a lot of non-Dem help

getting to be the Dem candidate.

And I do not trust any DLCer from that point on.

[NewJeffCT]

6. didn't Dean get a lot of money from Republicans?

because Rove was published as chanting "we want Dean" or something like that?

[hedda_foil]

21. No, Dean didn't get any money at all from Republicans

In fact a former national-level repuke operative I know (who was so freaked by the *co after 911 that he became a solid Dean Dem) says that Rove knew that Dean was the Dem's best possible candidate and a huge threat to *, and he used reverse-psychology in the "we want Dean" maneuver.

[NewJeffCT]

22. I remember reading articles

having quotes from actual Republicans that gave money to Dean because they thought his anti-war stance would kill his chances in the general election... of course, this was well before the primaries when Dean was racking up the bucks.

[NYCGirl]

28. Where did you read those, Newsmax? Links, please. NT

[The Backlash Cometh]

26. He also used advisors from a bi-partisan law firm.

Ha! As if anything is bi-partisan these days.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

3. Given a choice between only those two

I'd prefer to think you're too gullible.

:shrug:

I thought S&B was still all male.

[papau]

20. LOL :-) You got to love DU! But at least we look for conspiracy and

occasionally find a real one - in contrast to the media that pretends there never is one!

:-)

[Eric J in MN]

4. Hillary Clinton isn't a member of Skull and Bones.

They didn't admit women when she was a student.

[wakeme2008]

5. But she and Kerry are both DLCers

right.

[skipos]

8. Don't forget Gore and Bill Clinton. nt

[wakeme2008]

17. This is just my opinion

but the DLC in Clinton's first term was not the RW group it is today.

[NYCGirl]

29. Gore has left the DLC — and it sure pissed them off when he endorsed

Dean in the primaries.
:7

[skipos]

34. Can you show me where Gore states he left the DLC?

I haven't seen that.

[blm]

41. You don't leave the DLC - DLC only includes members IN OFFICE - and

Dean was one of their stars, till he left the governorship and turned left for the primaries.

You aren't listed on their roll unless yoyu hold office or are one of the foundation officers like From, Reed, and Wittman.

[NYCGirl]

46. He endorsed Howard Dean in the primaries. BIG HINT. NT

[wyldwolf]

56. Gore was certain Dean would win and hoped it would give him...

... a ticket back to the national stage.

See? We can all draw conclusions.

Bad choice Gore made. His second one in a row on the national level.

[NYCGirl]

57. "a ticket back to the national stage"? Boy, you DLCers must really hate

Gore, even while you want to continue to claim him as one of your own.

[wyldwolf]

60. Let's cut the emotional rhetoric and recognize a few facts

Simply put, Gore endorsed a loser. Additionaly, Gore was wrong when he said, "He was the only major candidate who made the correct judgment about the Iraq war."

Further - Gore owed at least a phone call to Lieberman. He owed a least a phone call to Gephardt who had put his own ambitions on hold to endorse Gore in 2000 and who had carried the Clinton-Gore agenda for years in the House.

I supported Gore in 2000 but for him to endorse a primary contender before the first caucus was beyond the pale and a break with tradition.

[wyldwolf]

54. yes. So?

[FreedomAngel82]

64. Apparently from what I've read

from other Kerry supporters Kerry hasn't had affiliation with the DLC since 2003. He's still listed but I haven't heard of him going to meetings or anything like that (unless it's just not reported). With the DLC as a whole before I support someone from the group I look at their individual records. Records/actions speak louder than words. Kerry is very progressive while Clinton is more conservative.

[skipos]

7. So many Americans had ABB fever, that I don't think

many stopped to think who was the best candidate. Kerry won Iowa and most dems felt that was enough evidence for him to be the nominee. I think whoever won Iowa would have been our nominee.

[onehandle]

9. I saw Bigfoot once. nt

[JanMichael]

10. Read this...

http://www.oregonvrc.org/2006/01/2004_election_returns_don_t_add_up

[DistressedAmerican]

11. He Bought Iowa With His Own Cash. 5 Million Dollars Worth.

I think pumping that kind of personal money into a race should be illegal.

It places personal wealth over legitimate democracy.

He bought the nomination and woe is us for it.

[Yupster]

37. That's what I thought too

that he pumped a huge amount of money into the caucus kind of late and it worked for him.

[blm]

42. BS. He won Iowa because of his PERSONAL CAMPAIGNING. He did way more

personal meetings with voters and had the answers to their questions.

The FOCKING MEDIA already had him dead and gone in September to assure that his donation dollars would dry up.

Anyone who thinks the corporate media got behind Kerry is a BRAINDEAD DUMBASS who shouldn't be analyzing a pile of shit.

Corporate media was mostly pulled OFF the Kerry campaign after he lodged a Senate resolution in protest of the FCC's loosening of rules for media consolidation. Anyone who didn't know this SHOULD KNOW IT BY NOW if they were SINCERE ACTIVISTS.

When did Dean get his press plane from the corporate media? In focking JUNE 2003. And THAT was when media started dumping on Kerry or ignoring him completely.

SEE...there is PLENTY of evidence to prove exactly the opposite of the conspiracy theories with Kerry as the villain.

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. Get help

Seriously.

[KittyWampus]

13. not this stupid shit again

[Cooley Hurd]

14. The plan was hatched durning the stone owl sacrifice at Bohemian Grove...

:crazy:

[w13rd0]

15. As a volunteer...

...and participant in the primary process as a supporter of someone who didn't get the nomination, I'll state my opinion.

I don't think there were any nefarious dealings with secret societies or Republican power holders to sway the course of the primaries. I do think there was a lot of dirty pool being played, with the Gephardt "suicide attack" and the influx of personal cash gleaned from a home mortgage. There were also a couple 501c, or 503, or one of those numbers, organizations that we never really did find out that much about that played a role in the primaries.

Hillary wasn't in the Skull and Bones, and I don't think she's got a lock on the advancement of the "New World Order", although if she were to win, I can guarantee there'd be droves of fundies suddenly interested in Vote Reform, swearing to just that scenario.

Power in this nation, in this world, is indeed heavily concentrated in the hands of the few. But not THAT few. As long as more than two people sit at the top, there will be differences. That's why the "there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats" thing doesn't fly. There ARE differences, IMPORTANT differences. Maybe not enough, maybe not in all the areas one might like, but mass force can change that. But it happens slowly. Cultural changes trickle up from the bottom. And as hard as we're working to harness the changes in technology that facilitate and accelerate the process, they are working twice as hard to subvert the process and keep the "masses" ill-informed and docile.

[rainy]

16. Thanks for your thoughtful response, not like some others,

it is helpful to hear. Brings me back to earth. I'm a real person, not just a faceless poster on DU.

[truth2power]

18. Thank you,w13rd0, for at least attempting to answer the OPers question.

This board is a place where we should be able to get honest questions answered and to separate the wheat from the chaff, a truly Herculean task these days.

Yet often, when someone asks a question that isn't politically correct, all they get in response is ridicule.

I clicked on this thread because the OPer's question has been mine too. One night Kerry was an also-ran. I woke up the next day and he's the nominee. No, I don't think it was a Skull and Bones plot. But something happened, and your assessment makes as much sense as anything.

[alfredo]

19. Kerry's primary race was very good. He just overpowered everyone.

If it hadn't been for massive manipulation and voter fraud in Ohio and Florida, he would be president.

[FloridaPat]

23. The MSM decided who should run for the Democrats. Seems Dean

made a comment about how drugs should be cheaper and how to do it, and all of a sudden the MSM is against Dean. They got his "screaming moment" and pointed out how nutty he was. No one actually listened to the speeach. It was great. Apparently he was to "unpresidential" for the MSM. So they started chanted together the Democrats needed someone who could "beat Bush". And then they fixed their sites on Kerry. Neither the Democrats nor the people decided who would run.

[blm]

43. Bulloney. Corp media called Kerry dead in the water to PURPOSELY DRY UP

his donations, because Kerry submitted a Senate resolution condemning the FCC's new rulings allowing media consolidation. The corporate PRESS PLANE was given to Dean in June 2003. Kerry's press was in one van throughout the latter half of 2003. The reporters complained they couldn't get airtime, even when Kerry was endorsed by the firefighter's union.

I wonder why people aren't MAD that CORPORATE MEDIA was under-reporting Kerry's support on the ground while OVER-REPORTING Dean's support on the ground in Iowa.

Make you feel better to blame Kerry than the media?

Kerry won because he was REAL and concentrated on individual voters and honest, one on one retail campaigning.

The REVISIONISTS can go blow smoke somewhere else, because they sure as hell aren't offering accuracy or honest analysis.

[napi21]

67. The other thing Dean said was that he would break up the media

conglomerates. I don't recall exactly what month he said that, but THAT was what turned the media against him! I loved the idea, but someone should have told him you never say that stuff until AFTER you're elected! Every candidate NEEDS the media on their side!

[Crazy Guggenheim]

70. THAT 'S RIGHT !! You could almost set a watch to it!! That's when things

turned!!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

24. I had seen this discussed here quite a lot in the past, but it seems each

time the end consensus from the majority is that it is tin foil hat theory.

I personally think the notion absurd, as Kerry is one hell of a candidate and there is no reason to believe whatsoever that he didn't get the nod fairly. Course, lord knows there are things going on today (and in the past even) that I would've once considered to be absurd but now find to be true, but I don't see that being the case with this.

Kerry is one of the best that we have, and I see no reason to question his victory whatsoever.

[sandnsea]

25. Much revisionist history

I particularly like the one about the scream, seeing as how it happened AFTER Kerry beat the pants off Dean in Iowa. Dean had it in the bag and shot himself in the foot with his mouth. People just do not want their President making loaded statements like "Republicans are a bunch of white Christians who never worked a day in their lives." He's made way too many of these kinds of statements to ever be able to win in this country. That's the sort of thing that happened in the primary and that's all that happened.

[Orangepeel]

27. Dean himself has said that it wasn't the "scream" that hurt his candidacy

he'd just come in third in Iowa. It was already over when the media launched onto that clip

[NYCGirl]

30. But had the scream not been pushed by the news or if the primaries

had not been so horrifyingly front-loaded, he might have been able to make up some time in the race. Clinton was not a front-runner in his primaries, and had been given up for lost in the first few. But that was another time.

[Orangepeel]

32. But he came in third when he was supposed to win

He put a lot of money and a lot of effort into doing so. He had bus loads of volunteers. Instead of winning, he came in third.

There were a lot of reasons for it, but ... a candidate who is expected to do well in Iowa and comes in third isn't going to win the primary. (Clinton hadn't been given up for lost -- he did better than expected). In the primary, it is all about expectations.

I was a big Dean supporter and I think what the media did was disgraceful (par for the course, but disgraceful). But it wasn't the reason he lost the primary.

[NYCGirl]

33. I never said that the scream was why he lost the primary. The front-

loading of the primaries, though, made it so that the winner in Iowa and NH would go on to capture it all.

[Orangepeel]

36. that, I agree with completely (n/t)

[sandnsea]

35. They all had opportunities

Our primary wasn't until May. It was Kucinich and Kerry, that's it. Dennis went to every town in the state, he got plenty of media coverage. If Democrats were all that disappointed with Kerry, it would have shown in the Oregon primary, particularly Oregon with the very large number of Nader voters in 2000. He got 18%. The same 18% that voted for Dean in the states he ran in. That's the reality of the makeup of the Democratic Party. The country is not far left, the party is not far left. Kerry was as liberal as we could run and hope to win, and we may well have won. People should be deleriously happy that we did so well with such a great liberal. It ought to be a rallying point. Instead, the left goes back to its corner and the centrists go back to theirs, and we're a weak fractured powerless entity. And neither side can see it.

[Yupster]

39. The front loading of the primaries is a problem

in my opinion.

I don't think there's time for an unknown to catch on, and there's also not time to vet the candidate before he has it in the bag.

Luckily Kerry was a good candidate, but I don't think there was enough time spent looking at him before he had it done. If something bad had come up it would have been too late to change

[blm]

44. The scream was USED BY THE PRESS to cover for their own misdeeds leading

up to the primaries. They could play the scream repeatedly and blame Dean instead of explaining WHY they spent the last 6 months being so wrong.

For months they had been OVER-reporting Dean's support on the ground while UNDER-reporting Kerry's support which caused the drying up of Kerry's national donation dollars.

Media thought they had killed Kerry's campaign before they started in on Dean.

[dsc]

55. on the subject of revisionist history

Dean made that statement well after the primaries were over.

[sandnsea]

61. "that's the sort of"

That's what I meant by that, sorry if it wasn't clear. Otherwise I would have said, he was also saying stupid shit, remember "confederate pickup drivers"? And I wouldn't go here at all if it weren't for the stupid shit that other people insist on posting, over and over and over.

[NYCGirl]

58. How nice of you to string together wrongly two statements that

you misquoted in the first place! With friends like you, who needs the GOP?

[sandnsea]

71. Oh okay

Within the course of a week he said the most idiotic shit on two separate occasions, or at least two separate reports had separate quotes from various speaking events. That is SO much better.

"They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party."

Days after saying they:

"never made an honest living in their lives"

And then tried to clean it all up by saying he was talking about the leaders, when he said "We're more welcoming to different folks" which clearly isn't about the leadership at all.

It's a here and gone thing, no big deal. But people who pretend this stuff didn't matter and replace reality with some cockamamie conspiracy theory are most certainly not the kinds of friends Democrats need, not by a long shot.

[Old and In the Way]

31. Kerry almost ran the table in the primaries...it wasn't even close.

I've never seen such a united Party and a spirited campaign going into the GE and I've been voting since 72.
Second guessing our nominee is exactly what a good Republican operation would want us to do....

But tell me this....what Democrat or Independent sat out the 2004 election because Kerry was DLC? I'd challenge anyone to provide me proof that any other candidate could have garnered more GE votes than Kerry.

Personally, I think there was massive vote fraud in 2004. If we don't make our elections consistant and transparent, we'll never see another free election where we get to vote the dictator out of office. I also blame the corporate broadcast media who are the unindicted co-conspirators in allowing our Democracy to be flushed down the toilet. They provided the cover for this stolen election.

[helderheid]

38. There were a ton of new voters in 2004 (myself included) that were

not being polled. I think he had the lead much more of the time.

[FreedomAngel82]

72. Yes

I remember MTV.com had a poll that asked the people at the site who they wanted to win for president and Kerry won with 60% of the votes with Bush trailing behind him. At my college I saw way more Kerry stickers than I did Bush one's and I live on the conservative side of the state but my town can go either way in elections. Don't forget also what some group did with registration forms. They threw away anyone's who had the democratic party checked on their's and it was a lot of last minute registrations.

[Innocent Smith]

40. Dean

They played Dean's so-called "scream" like it was the #1 hit song over and over.

In general though, in non-incumbent races, candidates fortunes almost always vary through the presidental primaries as the voting moves through different areas of the country and other candidates drop out.

[second edition]

47. Dean had lost momentum even before the "scream" though. n/t

[helderheid]

62. true - had to have. Iowa Caucuses. Real people counting bodies as votes.

[Apollo11]

48. Kerry

I am not a huge Kerry fan, but I completely understand why he won the nomination in 2004. It's because he was the candidate that most voters could imagine as President of the USA. His military experience and Washington experience also helped reinforce the impression of Kerry as the smartest, most experienced, most knowledgeable candidate seeking the nomination.

A lot of people thought that Dean was not serious and "Presidential" enough.

Edwards also was seen as less serious than Kerry, partly because he looks so young!

But the theory is hogwash, because there was a conspiracy in 2004. The conspiracy to deliver Florida's and Ohio's electoral votes for Bush "by any means necessary". Do you imagine that Rove/Cheney/Diebold would have been equally happy with Kerry in the Whitehouse?

[second edition]

45. Kerry's abilities and appeal became more evident

once the media starting giving him a little attention. It often happens that the front runner leading up to the primaries does not become the party's candidate. There was no manipulation in Kerry's win.

Also, Kerry is not a true DLCer. He is more of a grassroots person. As someone else here at DU said " Kerry is the redheaded stepchild of the DLC."

[FreedomAngel82]

73. Yes

He's way more progressive than other DLCers. Even Warner is more moderate than a lot of them as well. Just because someone affiliates with a group doesn't mean I can't at least look at their individual record and what they have to say and make my own choice on who to support. Sometime if you can try to find the video documentary on the DNC primaries made by Nancy Pelosi's daughter. It's a great video and I love it. :) It shows the primaries from the beginning to the convention where Kerry is announced as the winner.

[second edition]

49. One comment! Why are we rehashing the past? Think 2006!!!!! n/t

[robbedvoter]

50. BFEE picks their designated loser and media executes the plan

Voters usually comply in the primaries - for lack of info. Saw it in 2004, then locally in NYC in 2005. Always works.
Once the media started polling only Kerry against W, my neighbor, a Clark supporter previously, looked amazed at my Clark button saying: "I thought it was Kerry now?" It sums it up for me.

[meisje]

51. We haven't had a whack job conspiracy theory here for at least a week!

I was getting used to it

[NYCGirl]

52. Well, you haven't been paying attention. There've been lots of them. NT

[wyldwolf]

53. bwahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahaha

ok. I'm done.

[Marleyb]

59. NOT JUST A THEORY- A PROVEN FACT!

When the majority of the American people were against the war before it began, and even more were against the war by the time the primaries came along...how exactly did we get stuck with Kerry who was for continuing the war and in fact sending 40,000 more?

Was Kerry the best speaker of the bunch?? At the convention 9/10 delegates were against the war in Iraq. Did he represent the Democratic Party? How did he 'win' the nomination?

And once he got the nomination....did he expose Bush and his lies? Bush is the worst president ever. He should have been so easy to beat. Did Kerry use Bush's failings to his advantage or did it seem like he went easy on him?

At the debates, Bush was an out of control madman. He charged toward Charlie Gibson at one point in a very threatening manner. He was definately on something. And he was clearly listening to an earpiece as was exposed in the first debate...who exactly did he say 'let me finish' to? Did Kerry bring this up? It was against the rules of the debate, not to mention would have exposed Bush to be the puppet he is. Even Charlie Gibson brought up the 'bulge' on Good morning American, and Bush made a joke about it. It is now a goofy joke, but at the time it could have swung the election to the point that it could not have been stolen. Kerry ended the debates patting Bush on the back, mentioning what a great dad he is....he seemed to genuinely like Bush. How could anyone feel that way after what Bush has done to our country, not to mention the Iraqis? How could he not feel the passion so many of us felt so deeply- that Bush needed to be removed from power because he is a danger to the world?!

If I weren't already suspicious, the 'election' sealed the deal.

Why did he ask for so much money to fight election problems and then give up so quickly in the face of overt fraud, votes hadn't even been counted and exit polls that showed him winning? There is no excuse. He threw the election to Bush.

[FreedomAngel82]

75. Correction

there is still a court date for the whole thing in August. Why than? Beats me. Go to the election forum and someone there will fill you in.

[FreedomAngel82]

63. No

Not everything is a plot. Some things just happen. At the Iowa Cacus dinner Kerry was a head with 60% with Dean trailing not too far along behind him.

[CornField]

65. Please remove the tin foil & let your scalp air

If you leave it on too long, your brain suffers from lack of oxygen and sunshine. :hi:

[DanCa]

68. This is what happened -the truth-

The media scared alot of people with the Dean Scream crapola and those that were shaken by it ran to Kerry. That's what happened. No more no less. If you want to look for a reason for Governor Dean not winning look to the republican slime machine campaign. It wasn't Kerry, Clark or anyone else. Place the blame were it belongs the media and the repukes. Let's please stop this infighting.

[FreedomAngel82]

76. I thought someone already said

that happened AFTER Kerry won Iowa?

[DanCa]

77. Probably but it's been so long ago.

I just miss the days of ABB. I hate all this division it isn't good.

[sandnsea]

78. Because that is not what happened

To not understand that Dean lost Iowa, and was bound to lose the rest of the country, with or without that scream, is to not understand the Democratic Party. About 20% of the party supported Dean. As I've said so many times, it's the same 20% that supported Kucinich when he went head to head with Kerry in Oregon. Most Democrats are pragmatic and center left. They worry about a full government health care system because they see how badly the VA works. They worry about striking the right balance between environment and economy. They worry about govt subsidies artifically inflating the cost of living. They worry about government assistance turning into a culture of mediocrity. So they tend to reject the left, that Howard Dean said he was when HE said "Democratic wing", and most Democrats certainly aren't anywhere near the Greens. About 25% of those Dean and/or Kucinich voters were Nader voters in 2000. So it had nothing to do with the scream, Dean's "you've got the power" at the JJ Dinner probably shook people up more than that scream did. The blame lies right square in Howard Dean's lap, he took his chances running from the left and lost.

[DanCa]

79. Interesting rebuttal thank you.

I am not sure if agree with it, no offense, but you didn't cheap shot anybody to get your point across. I will take my time digest what you said and get back to you. We both do agree that no other dem in the party contributed to Governor Dean's loss right? Thanks for the interesting rebuttal.

[sandnsea]

81. I don't know about that

But it wasn't the scream and it wasn't a Republican conspiracy. Media control? I'm not convinced there aren't aspects of the Democratic Party who have more control over the media than what we're seeing. I've seen full Democratic media blitzes in the last few years, very effective ones. It quite often seems to me that some aspect of the Democratic Party IS controlling our media message, just not the way most of us out here think it needs to be controlled. I'm just not sure. So I wouldn't want to say other Dems didn't contribute to Dean's loss, that's part of the primary process. It just was not the scream and not a Republican, or otherwise underhanded, conspiracy.

[liberalpragmatist]

82. Actually the VA has really improved

That's a minor point. I also think a large number of Dean voters weren't Kucinich-types but more partisan-minded moderates and independents. But, like you said, Dean's support never cracked 20% - he got support from a largely net-based activist group. Dean was and is a moderate, but the perception of him came to be that he was a far lefty. Part of that was his fault - he himself got carried away with his "movement" and never really made a broader appeal; his slogan in Iowa was "Join the Movement." At the same time, yes, the media played a big role as well in making him out to be "out of the mainstream." One could argue, however, that Dean's failure to shape the media perception of him was a failing of HIS, since media perception has ALWAYS been a key issue for any politician, and a pol who can't shape an image favorable to them is going to have a very hard time winning. Unfortunately, as much as I like the guy, Kerry had sort of the same problem.

But on the whole, I agree with your analysis about the nature of the Democratic Party.

[sandnsea]

83. I'd agree with that too

I know Dean's governing history and politics. I know he was and is just slightly left of center, but that isn't how he chose to run and that is his responsibility. His real mistake was claiming the win before a single vote had been cast and trying to grab the frontload for himself. That was just TOO arrogant. But if he'd pulled it off, then all these people bitching about frontloading would be saying it worked exactly how it was designed to work. That's people for ya.

[eridani]

84. Because they don't know fuckall about the VA system

It had a remake under Clinton and is a stellar system now. Four out of five people want health care guaranteed to everyone by the government (though some also are open to private insurance stll being around. The trouble really is people voting for what they think other people want instead of what they want.

[FreedomAngel82]

69. I also wanted to add

that one time I was listening to this radio show from a guy named Lionel passed in New York City. I don't get to listen to him often since he comes on the same time Malloy does, but one time Malloy was out and it was a rerun or something like that (before he got people to fill in for him) and a caller called in who made this claim. Now I didn't become a political junkie until around October/November of 2004 so I didn't follow anything closely and I can only say this from what I've heard on another radio show. So now that that's out of the way here's what the caller said: this guy claimed to work for his local democratic party headquarters wherever he lived (I don't remember since this was sometime late last year when the call happened). When it came time for the members of the group to vote (the leaders) on who to support everybody except for two people voted for Dean but the group as a whole came out and supported Kerry because some in the group had gotten a job with the Kerry campaign. I have no idea if this is true since I didn't follow politics then and it's only word of mouth on a radio program in which anybody can call in. So take that with what you will.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

74. Do you remember the word "electability"? That's all I have to say .......

[tritsofme]

80. I give this theory as much credence as all

the conspiracy theories surrounding 2004.