Elizabeth Edwards on John Edwards Wanting to Fight Ohio Vote Count

[RamboLiberal]

"I listened to John in the other room, arguing into a speakerphone that we could not concede until the votes were counted. 'We promised,' he said. 'We told these people that if they stood in line and fought for their right to vote, we would fight to have them counted. We promised.' "

-- on her husband arguing with unidentified individuals that Kerry should not concede.

Excerpt from her book coming out near end of September. I'm definitely getting this one. I hope that Elizabeth has beaten the cancer back for good. Nice article on her battle and her book in Charlotte News & Observer.

http://www.newsobserver.com/643/story/463236.html

[Lerkfish]

1. Precisely as I suspected.

I felt that vibe from edwards when Kerry capitulated. He was not thrilled to do so, but was trying to put on a good face.

[DanCa]

3. Something happened in the wee hours of the morning

That much is sure. I would just like to know what Senator Kerry's reason as to why he conceeded, and how come the Democratic party didn't demand in investigation. I am not saying anything bad about Senator Kerry - mind you. I just wish that we had a valid explation of his reasoning

[Master Mahon]

5. He probably

found a horses head in his bed and knew he had an offer he couldn't refuse!

[DanCa]

16. Maybe it had something to do with the excummunication threats he recieved?

That's my tin foil hat theory anyway. I felt he conceeded because he didn't want the rc church to excummunicate him..

[sallyseven]

37. He is not afraid of the rc church any more than I am.

And I am not scared at all,.

[leesa]

88. Maybe he's afraid of his other club, Skull and Bones

[God Almighty]

139. Called Edwards's office that day and they were in shock over concession

They all thought Kerry was crazy and had broken his promise. They were in total disbelief and they said that Edwards had been taken by surprise and didn't understand why Kerry broke his promise.

[blm]

145. Baloney - Edwards knew as much as Kerry - the Dem election legal team

said there was no legal evidence to continue, especially when the math was against them. The same legal minds who told Gore he HAD the math to continue, told Kerry-Edwards that there was no legal evidence to continue in court and the math wasn't with them for anything more than the systematic recount which was entirely controlled by Blackwell.


Trying to act like there was any mystery or confoundment is just that - an act.

[blm]

13. The exact same team that told Gore he had the evidence to continue were

telling Kerry he had no legal evidence to continue. The Dem's election team. The ones who didn't believe in machine fraud.

I would be interested to hear what LEGAL evidence Edwards would use to continue - is it mentioned?

[bvar22]

53. self-delete

(too condescending, even for me.)

[PATRICK]

66. Fighting the last war

and doing that rather badly in regards to vote suppression and the location of possible contests. Florida was probably stolen easier than last time and was impossible to even go through the old battles. Blackwell was sitting firm on Ohio's count no matter what the story was there. In fact, according tot he math of votes that could be forced to recount, there was no chance and seemingly- by the crooked margin- less "justifiable". Alaska is STILL refusing after court orders to release its ballots. I know many still believe Bush "won". The point is that supressed voting alone denies that truth, but those votes do not "count". Nor can the counted e-votes be proved. Nor did the winner want to validate his mandate but gives every evidence of evasion, lockdown and fraud to avoid the subject. That IS the point, same as with Gore who caught the GOP with their fraud down and no one held them to account- at all- with any honest statement.

To an outsider who knows how poorly the campaign understood the perils of e-voting and how badly it got snookered in media and vote suppression, it looks like someone boldly driving down a dead end street with the majority of the American population. Then the lights go out and you hear "everyone"(the media, the WH and the peanut gallery) cheering at the White House. All the brilliance, energy and winning popularity of the challenger became so beside the point that he is puzzled still why no one gives him credit for the marvels he did do- short of knowing anything about how to "win" the predictable, improved, rigged game.

I would like to know how Edwards planned on storming through this disheartened debacle to achieve anymore than the Greens or Nader's poorly planned afterthought challenge. The neophyte lawyers would have to storm well planned home ground of the ruthless and lawless GOP. The media would still be singing "it"s all over" and more inclined to carp than listen to or sympathize with anything a "spoilsport" had to say.

As usual, the party establishment was ready- again- to role out its fake middle road mea culpas, its only practiced script of critiquing its issues and then meanly blaming this or that(but never the real failure) of the candidate. The people too would be runb through the ringer of false trends and feelings they didn't know they had because they didn't until the talking points informed them. They too would have resented someone halting their tragic chorus and embarrassing them with a different script and a scary challenge- with reality. Well prepared to relive 2000 and the Reagan years and all that. The GOP didn't even have to bother much with credible talking points- and they didn't really. There was more falseness than just the vote tally. The whole talk of the establishment everywhere reeked of the lie swallowed like candy poison and force fed to the sheeple.

It is too small a thing to just blame Kerry or even those pathetic advisers and party leaders we are still plagued with. The votes were not there and/or not accessible. Most of the evidence was rendered invisible, most of the opportunities and responses well past the point of some return. The law would have been continued to be broken just to drag out hope into the desert.

Gore had made all the points and every one was ignored, resentfully. It took SCOTUS to deliver the coup de grace because he was the winner who would not accept the cheat. The first slate of Flordia electors was all set for the House to deliver that messy blow anyway. This time, all the defeat was solidified, all the fraud, new and old, institutionalized and daring to get the convenient magic "margin". Neat, ritualized once more. The death of democracy sung to false and second rate tunes.

The Kerry team mainly concentrated on one thing, getting the people to elect him president. They did and Bush had to cheat horribly to not relive the nailbiter of 2000. And then what? And then what? The Dems had to come out and lie and say they lost and help bury whatever evidence there existed of their embarrassing victory without follow-through. It made one almost forget Gore's gaveling to silence the Black caucus trying to protest Coup 2000. And the chorus of guilt and humility of the otherwise rational Democratic and liberal establishment could jazz it up mournfully and meaningfully, casting pebbles and pontificating like asses in some very very bad musical rendition of the Twilight of FDR.

And then the people started dying, on schedule, for the mandate of the chimperor.

[Protagoras]

67. Yep it's that moment when you realize that your own party

isn't going to support you. I believe Kerry does work for the people, but he's been in DC so long that he only believes things can really get done with the backing of the big money machine. The consequence is that when they call and tell him they aren't going to help he feels like it's over.

That's what I think happened that night. What I really want to know though is who gave HIM that call. Because that's the real traitor in our ranks.

We can't survive any more old style, comfort seeking timidity.

[blm]

71. Kerry doesn't believe in the big money machine - he WROTE the Clean Money,

Clean Elections bill that he and Wellstone submitted in 1997 and has been a 21 yr advocate for public financing. In all of his senate races he never took corporate pac money.

I think people confuse the wider scope of the presidential campaign taking in money with Kerry's personal views.

[karynnj]

83. Kerry's comments on re-introducing his Clean Election bill

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak before you today about a critical challenge before this Senate--the challenge of reforming the way in which elections are conducted in the United States; the challenge of ending the ``moneyocracy'' that has turned our elections into auctions where public office is sold to the highest bidder. I want to implore the Congress to take meaningful steps this year to ban soft money, strengthen the Federal Election Commission, provide candidates the opportunity to pay for their campaigns with clean money, end the growing trend of dangerous sham issue ads, and meet the ultimate goal of restoring the rights of average Americans to have a stake in their democracy. Today I am proud to join with my colleague from Minnesota, PAUL WELLSTONE, to introduce the ``Clean Money'' bill which I believe will help all of us entrusted to shape public policy to arrive at a point where we can truly say we are rebuilding Americans' faith in our democracy.
For the last 10 years, I have stood before you to push for comprehensive campaign reform. We have made nips and tucks at the edges of the system, but we have always found excuses to hold us back from making the system work. It's long past time that we act--in a comprehensive way--to curtail the way in which soft money and the big special interest dollars are crowding ordinary citizens out of this political system.
Today the political system is being corrupted because there is too much unregulated, misused money circulating in an environment where candidates will do anything to get elected and where, too often, the special interests set the tone of debate more than the political leaders or the American people. Just consider the facts for a moment. The rising cost of seeking political office is outrageous. In 1996, House and Senate candidates spent more than $765 million, a 76% increase since 1990 and a six fold increase since 1976. Since 1976, the average cost for a winning Senate race went from $600,000 to $3.3 million, and in the arms race for campaign dollars in 1996 many of us were forced to spend significantly more than that. In constant dollars, we have seen an increase of over 100 percent in the money spent for Senatorial races from 1980 to 1994. Today Senators often spend more time on the phone ``dialing for dollars'' than on the Senate floor. The average Senator must raise $12,000 a week for six years to pay for his or her re-election campaign.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The use of soft money has exploded. In 1988, Democrats and Republicans raised a combined $45 million in soft money. In 1992 that number doubled to reach $90 million and in 1995-96 that number tripled to $262 million. This trend continues in this cycle. What's the impact of all that soft money? It means that the special interests are being heard. They're the ones with the influence. But ordinary citizens can't compete. Fewer than one third of one percent of eligible voters donated more than $250 in the electoral cycle of 1996. They're on the sidelines in what is becoming a coin-operated political system.
The American people want us to act today to forge a better system. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 77% of the public believes that campaign finance reform is needed ``because there is too much money being spent on political campaigns, which leads to excessive influence by special interests and wealthy individuals at the expense of average people.'' Last spring a New York Times found that an astonishing 91% of the public favor a fundamental transformation of this system.
Cynics say that the American people don't care about campaign finance. It's not true. Citizens just don't believe we'll have the courage to act--they're fed up with our defense of the status quo. They're disturbed by our fear of moving away from this status quo which is destroying our democracy. Soft money, political experts tell us, is good for incumbents, good for those of us within the system already. Well, nothing can be good for any elected official that hurts our democracy, that drives citizens out of the process, and which keeps politicians glued to the phone raising money when they ought to be doing the people's business. Let's put aside the status quo, and let's act today to restore our democracy, to make it once more all that the founders promised it could be.
Let us pass the Clean Mo ney Bill to restore faith in our government in this age when it has been so badly eroded.
Let us recognize that the faith in government and in our political process which leads Americans to go to town hall meetings, or to attend local caucuses, or even to vote--that faith which makes political expression worthwhile for ordinary working Americans--is being threatened by a political system that appears to reward the special interests that can play the game and the politicians who can game the system.
Each time we have debated campaign finance reform in this Senate, too many of our colleagues have safeguarded the status quo under the guise of protecting the political speech of the Fortune 500. But today we must pass campaign finance reform to protect the political voice of the 250 million ordinary, working Americans without a fortune. It is their dwindling faith in our political system that must be restored.
Twenty five years ago, I sat before the Foreign Relations Committee, a young veteran having returned from Vietnam. Behind me sat hundreds of veterans committed to ending the war the Vietnam War. Even then we questioned whether ordinary Americans, battle scarred veterans, could have a voice in a political system where the costs of campaigns, the price of elected office seemed prohibitive. Young men who had put their life on the front lines for their country were worried that the wall of special interests between the people and their government might have been too thick even then for our voices to be heard in the corridors of power in Washington, D.C.
But we had a reserve of faith left, some belief in the promise and the influence of political expression for all Americans. That sliver of faith saved lives. Ordinary citizens stopped a war that had taken 59,000 American lives.
GPO's PDF
Every time in the history of this republic when we have faced a moral challenge, there has been enough faith in our democracy to stir the passions of ordinary Americans to act--to write to their Members of Congress; to come to Washington and speak with us one on one; to walk door to door on behalf of issues and candidates; and to vote on election day for people they believe will fight for them in Washington.
It's the activism of citizens in our democracy that has made the American experiment a success. Ordinary citizens--at the most critical moments in our history--were filled with a sense of efficacy. They believed they had influence in their government.
Today those same citizens are turning away from our political system. They believe the only kind of influence left in American politics is the kind you wield with a checkbook. The senior citizen living on a social security check knows her influence is inconsequential compared to the interest group that can saturate a media market with a million dollars in ads that play fast and loose with the facts. The mother struggling to find decent health care for her children knows her influence is trivial compared to the special interests on K Street that can deliver contributions to incumbent politicians struggling to stay in office.
But I would remind you that whenever our country faces a challenge, it is not the special interests, but rather the average citizen, who holds the responsibility to protect our nation. The next time our nation faces a crisis and the people's voice needs to be heard to turn the tide of history, will the average American believe enough in the process to give words to the feelings beyond the beltway, the currents of public opinion that run beneath the surface of our political dialogue?
In times of real challenge for our country in the years to come, will the young people speak up once again? Not if we continue to hand over control of our political system to the special interests who can infuse the system with soft money and with phony television ads that make a mockery of the issues.
The children of the generation that fought to lower the voting age to 18 are abandoning the voting booth themselves. Polls reveal they believe it is more likely that they'll be abducted by aliens than it is that their vote will make a real difference. For America's young people the MTV Voter Participation Challenge ``Choose or Lose'' has become a cynical joke. In their minds, the choice has already been lost--lost to the special interests. That is a loss this Senate should take very seriously. That is tremendous damage done to our democracy, damage we have a responsibility in this Senate to repair. Mr. President, with this legislation we are introducing today, we can begin that effort--we can repair and revitalize our political process, and we can guarantee ``clean el ections'' fu nded by ``clean mo ney,'' elections wh ere our citizens are the ones who make the difference

[DoYouEverWonder]

79. I had thought David Boies was on our side

but after finding out that he's good buddies with Ted Olsen who hosted his book signing, that's a little too close for comfort for me.



Ted Olson, Margaret Carlson and George and Trish Vradenburg hosted a book signing and reception at the Phillips Collection on November 30 for their friend David Boies in honor of his tremendously successful best seller, “Courting Justice.”


Pics from the party:






http://www.washingtonlife.com/issues/2005-02/david_bookparty/index.php

[robinlynne]

80. don't need any. The candidate can just call for a recount. It is standard

procedure, and happens all the time. The money was there and ready. only a life threat can explain what kerry did.

[abbiehoff]

90. There was a recount in Ohio.

It was run by the same crook that ran the election in the first place. He violated every rule, and the courts let him get away with it.

[bobbolink]

33. Until we know all those facts, we cannot blindly support.

Something went on behind the scenes.

That does not lead to good government.

Without knowing what happened, I don't see that supporting more of that is good for this country.

Full disclosure, Kerry!

I'm so proud of Elizabeth for putting this out in the open. We, the people, deserve to know. :thumbsup:

[Mass]

40. She does not put anything out in the open. We do not know who he was

talking to. All we know is that Edwards has been silent on these issues since election day.

I respect enormously EE, but you are putting words in her mouth here.

[bobbolink]

41. are you responding to the right post?

I put NO words in anyone's "mouth"

[Mass]

42. Sure, you do. Put what in the open? She says that Edwards, talking to

somebody (who? we do not know that) vaguely argued about not conceding. What was said after? How long did Edwards argue? Was he sincere? We do not know, so she does not put ANYTHING in the open nor does she pretend to.

[bobbolink]

70. Yanno, we're on the same side.

Obviously, you're looking for a fight.

I said no such thing, so ....

Have a nice day.

:hi:

[L. Coyote]

47. Sometimes, strategy has a decades long view. Bush will implode.

And the net result of all ths may be a Republican implosion that will endure for decades, if not prove to be the death knell of Lincoln's party.

[Vadem]

56. i agree with you! It was too damn fishy that Kerry conceded so....

soon, especially after 2000 and all of our emails to him about counting every vote! I was in shock--shock, I tell you, when he conceded after one(?)or two days! I was just about to give up on the party of my birth, the Democratic party!

I know in my heart that he was threatened in some way, because he promised us that he would count every vote, and he did not, he conceded too soon.

[gasperc]

65. we can no longer concede, shit happened in CA-50

all this sore loser stuff is bullshit, we have to fight these things as if they are the last elections of our life. How has Kerry's concession helped him for 2008? Where is he in the polls 2-5%? He should have fought tooth and nail like Gore did, if if Lieberman wasn't such a wet noodle with his military vote comments would would have caught the Republicans red-handed with their Thanksgiving stuffing bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Laurab]

95. The vote in Florida was far closer than the vote in Ohio

at least officially. There was reason for a recount. Aside from speculation, suspicion, and a few voters complaining, there was no reason for Ohio to be recounted. Almost two years later, and it's just NOW getting out to the mainstream that there was something fishy about Ohio. As far as I can tell, there is still no proof that would hold up in a court of law, so Kerry really had nothing to fight with.

It will be interesting to see what RFK Jr's whistleblowers have to say, but they weren't around back then. Kerry's concession IMO kept him in the fight for another day, and he's done quite a bit of good for the party since then. I think, if he had refused to concede, with no evidence, the RW spin machine would have made mincemeat out of him. I, for one, am glad he is still out there working for us.

I know there are people who are NEVER going to agree with me, but Kerry really had no choice but to do what he did. One does need proof to question an election, and there simply wasn't any.

[The Backlash Cometh]

74. Too much backroom activity, I suspect.

Probably pressure from the DLC camp.

[ray of light]

78. she seems to like JK that the original poster left out:

"John Kerry can be a great cheerleader, arm around your shoulder, flattering you and urging you on, and that is what he was that day, a sincere and compassionate cheerleader," she writes. "We won't ever forget it."

AND furthermore, all this wasted effort when the one of the biggest things that brings ALL of us together, this poster left out too!

"It was unintelligible. John was a senator, a presidential candidate, and a vice presidential candidate; we were both lawyers -- for decades --<strong> and we still had no idea of what most of the insurance company notices meant."

-- on insurance company notices involving her treatment. </strong>

What a waste of time this whole thread has been. Here you have this wonderful story of pain, suffering, and hope, and you guys use it to make one sentence into a smear against Kerry. SHE did not SAY THAT KERRY CONCEDED! SOMEONE on the speaker phone conceded--NOT KERRY--or she would have said "Kerry was on the speaker phone" made both of them concede.

Read it folks...it's plain as a bell right there. John Kerry and John Edwards know who was on that phone and so does the other person...a DNC chair you think? Shrum maybe?

(duh!)

[blm]

84. Terry McAuliffe saying DNC wouldn't stand with them with the math against

them.

[RamboLiberal]

4. I already admired John Edwards - with this it has gone up

quite a few notches. And to think he still wanted to fight while having to deal with the trauma of Elizabeth's cancer. I think Edwards is the candidate to watch in '08. Both he and Elizabeth have a lot I think will connect with voters in '08.

Interesting comment by Elizabeth on the complexities of health insurance. "It was unintelligible. John was a senator, a presidential candidate, and a vice presidential candidate; we were both lawyers -- for decades -- and we still had no idea of what most of the insurance company notices meant."

[karynnj]

28. Note that he has never made a public statement

after November 3, 2004. Unlike Kerry, Edwards has not spoken about election fraud, nor made it an issue to fix this.

I don't get it - Gore was cheated, fought what could be fought, then conceded and did not choose to stay with this issue. Kerry was cheated, found he didn't have a case, he was 120,000 votes down, and he has spoken out on voting suppression, machine problems, registration problems and other dirty tricks. Edwards was cheated and didn't want to concede - but it's not clear what reason he wanted Kerry to give in not conceding when the numbers weren't there and the country was at war. At any rate, he has, to my knowledge, not spoken about the problams that need to be fixed. So, as Kerry is doing more in terms of demanding the problem be fixed, why is he trashed and the other two commended?

This sounds like it was Wednesday morning and that it was Edwards first reaction. There was a group of very savvy people there who were getting reports from Ohio. I assume that Teresa might have heard John say the same thing - I assume conceding is really tough for anyone. But Edwards, like Kerry, is a good lawyer, what case could he have made?

The fact is that 1 1/2 years later, there still is not legal proof that Kerry/Edwards had more legally cast votes in Ohio. They had no choice but to concede.

[eridani]

58. That does not follow. Have you ever heard of probable cause?

That's the reason for an INVESTIGATION, so that we can find out one way or another who had the most votes.

[karynnj]

82. There is no way to have

a major investigation and a trial and appeals in 2 1/2 months.

Even now - 1 1/2 years later, it hasn't been PROVED to the level a court would require, that Kerry had more votes in Ohio. The RFKjr article includes estimates of VOTES NEVER CAST and their likely choice. This means (if you believe it - which I do, it's compelling) that in a fair election Kerry would have won. The problem is that somethings like inadeguate machines are not illegal (and the bipartisan committee got the numbers ahead of time and NO Democrat caught it.)

what this says is close to what Kerry said in Ohio when he went to Strickland rallies and Kenyon College - that many ways used to suppress the vote were legal and they shouldn't be.

A newspaper that did a FULL FL recount found Gore won. It didn't matter - the Constitution dictates how the President is chosen and once the electors are cast on January 6th, they are cast. Not fair, but that's the constitution. If you proved the President cheated the recourse is to impeach him period.

Also, the penalties, unfortunately aren't that Bush is replaced by Gore or Kerry. In NH, several Republicans were arrested for phone jamming - even if you could prove this cost Sheheen the Senate seat. No one is throwing Sununu out.

[eridani]

106. That's no excuse for abandoning the fight

Even if it doesn't change the election results, the wrongdoing can be punished, and the thugs can be put on pernament notice that we aren't going to passively suffer it. It's like this Busby-Bilbray thing in CA-50. We should be screaming holy hell about voting machine "sleepovers". It matters not the slightest that it's possible there was no hankypanky that would have changed the election outcome. We need to stop tolerating it RIGHT NOW, because there are certain to be elections in the future where such nonsense WILL affect the outcome

[1932]

150. ...and Obrador down in Mexico should be an inspiration to progressives

He's not conceding. He wants every vote counted and every stone turned over. Why? Because he feels he owes his supporters as much and because he believes that he has the solutions to the problems confronting Mexico.

[blm]

159. The DNC wasn't going to back up a case without evidence in hand.

.

[Mass]

20. He was not thrilled because after that, he was going with his wife to the

hospital to have the cancer diagnosis confirmed. I dont think anything else was worse than that.

Happy to see that EE is fine. This is BY FAR the most important in this article.

[karynnj]

36. I agree - I'm amazed that the Edwards looked as

in control as they were with this huge personal problem at the same time as the election loss. Edwards could well have seen it as not only losing a political/career goal, but possibly losing the woman he loved.

I don't remember Edwards' speech all that much - maybe because Kerry's was so intense and emotional - from a somewhat private man. I do remember Kerry's word of thanks to Edwards and even more to Elizabeth. In retrospect, his concern for her and her appreciation of what she brought to the campaign was obvious.

[OhioBlue]

45. I just got goosebumps

remembering Kerry's speech. I had stayed up most of the night watching the election results. I had done GOTV calling during the day, took the next day off - I watched Senator Kerry's speech and bawled.... OMG.... it was so emotional.... I actually cried for days when anyone brought up the election.... After Kerry's speech, I called my friend, I called my cousin, we all vented.... HOW, HOW, HOW, could people have voted for *... we all traded stories of people we thought were sure to vote for Kerry ended up voting for the shrub..... we had talked until we were blue in the face for months... we were all so mad, disappointed, heart broken, hopeless.... We all cried at Kerry's speech... we all thought it was also the best connection he ever made over TV - when he said he wished he could extend his arms and give all of his supporters a hug... I sobbed... loudly....

[GreenArrow]

62. he also was not thrilled because he had just lost

and the defeat was hard to swallow. This is all Edwards PR crap to make him look good for another run. Feh.

[ray of light]

76. baseless suspicion on your part assuming "kerry capitulated"

It wasn't kerry. It was however other Democratic leadership who did. They just let Kerry get scapegoated.

And so you're basing your facts on someone listening through the door...not even hearing WHO was in there, who was on the phone, or even the rest of the conversation that couldn't be heard.

If I eavesdrop on my spouce I have the same type of tidbits of nothingness. Like just the other day, I heard about someone who was involved in a fight. So I have my spouce's responses...but since I wasn't there, I can't say that the caller wasn't the problem or that the other person wasn't the problem.

The same is true here. Elizabeth wasn't there. And who is she more likely to 'defend' or even specifically listen to? If it were me, I'd be listening more for my spouce's voice so that I could support him later.

[ultraist]

112. I noticed that too

Now we have solid confirmation, Edwards wanted to fight for every vote!

[ultraist]

113. Sorry, dupe

[Cha]

2. Poor things to have the

whole big machine against and wanting to count the votes as promised.

Glad to see they are living to come back and fight again.

[Catchawave]

6. Of course you read the whole article ?

:shrug:

[RamboLiberal]

7. What are you saying?

eom

[Catchawave]

9. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=257x448

[RamboLiberal]

10. Thanks - but what I wanted to post here was the fact that

Edwards argued with the Kerry people to fight the count in Ohio. Elizabeth verifies it in the snippet I posted.

[blm]

14. The Dem team of election lawyers telling Gore to continue told Kerry there

was no legal evidence to continue.

Does Elizabeth mention what legal evidence Edwards would have used in court to continue?

[RamboLiberal]

15. No there was only that snippet from the book

Guess we have to wait till September for her to be interviewed and the book to come out.

[blm]

30. Why don't you ADD this to your original post, so people won't be confused

by the vagueness of the "unidentified" voices.


COUNTING EVERY VOTE
Boston Globe, THIRD, Sec. Op-Ed, p A11 01-06-2005
By CAMERON F. KERRY

SO NOW THE VOTES IN OHIO HAVE BEEN RECOUNTED, AND IT'S TIME FOR CONGRESS TO TALLY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. BUT WHILE THE ELECTION IS OVER, A FIGHT GOES ON TO PROTECT EVERYONE'S RIGHT TO VOTE AND MAKE SURE EVERY VOTE IS COUNTED.
I wish it weren't so, but the final facts look like the picture on the morning of Nov. 3 when my brother, John Kerry, ended his campaign for president. As campaign leaders sat in a Boston war room overlooking a dwindling Election Night rally in the plaza below, on the phone was a team of smart, tough veterans who know how to count votes and how votes get counted. All were veterans of Florida in 2000 who would have jumped at a rematch with Karl Rove and James Baker III.

In the room was Deval Patrick, former assistant attorney general for civil rights. In Washington was Michael Whouley, the never-say-die loyalist who stopped Al Gore from conceding; Jack Corrigan, who helped fight Bush v. Gore in the courts and the precincts; and Robert Bauer and Marc Elias, leading election lawyers and Kerry campaign counsel.

On the phone from Ohio was the chief of the legal team there, David Sullivan, longtime election counsel for the Massachusetts secretary of state, who himself was a plaintiff more than 30 years ago in a lawsuit to register college students and - with me - a defendant in unsuccessful lawsuit brought against us for properly challenging vote fraud.

They were backed by 3,300 lawyers on Ohio's election protection team, part of more than 17,000 Kerry-Edwards lawyers nationwide. They were joined by 8,000 lawyers with the nonpartisan Election Protection Coalition of the NAACP, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, People for the American Way, and other organizations and thousands more lay volunteers and observers.

>>>>>>

[RamboLiberal]

43. I said it was an excerpt in OP and posted link to the story

Some of you are nitpicking this to death. It was just an interesting little snippet and this is just a forum. Geez!

[blm]

49. You want to say there is no intended implication? OK. But be glad

there are more facts coming in for a more accurate picture - I know I am.

[OzarkDem]

108. Well...okay....

We take ourselves to seriously sometimes. Hard not to do when watching our democracy circling the drain.:argh: :)

[disndat]

86. Hard to believe.

Don't these "experts" believe in exit polls? RFKjr says exit polls are accurate, and all the exit polls up to early evening said Kerry was the winner.

[blm]

87. That's why the DNC needs NEW EXPERTS who work to COUNTER the GOP bag

of tricks and they need to train every Dem election board member in every county in the country.

[eridani]

59. Of course there wasn't evidence

Whythefuck else would it be necessary to have a fucking INVESTIGATION?!?!?!

[GreenArrow]

63. no evidence needed

because he never intended to fight anything. He was (a very ornamnetal) second on the ticket; decisions were not his to make. He could say anything he wanted, but wouldn't have to actually do anything. He was simply trying to get a leg up, and looking after John Edwards.

At any rate, the Green Party took on the public fight, I suspect with at least some aid and consultation from the Kerry team behind the scenes.

[OzarkDem]

102. I disagree

Edwards is a principled person, he's proven that many times by pursuing an agenda that opportunistic politicians would never adopt - ending poverty in the US. Everyone knows poor people don't donate much to political campaigns...

He's consistently stayed with that issue for years; someone with that kind of conviction would naturally be strongly committed to ensuring all the votes were counted and living up to his word to make sure it happened.

[GreenArrow]

107. I'm a bit more cynical than you are

regarding Edwards' principles; I see his focus on poverty as largely self-promotion, and a deflector from his lack of foreign policy savvy and overall political experience. His seems a very superficial approach to the issue. He is not the only candidate who talks about/acts on poverty issues, but he made be the loudest; the focus is on John Edwards as much or more as it is on poverty. But, no major harm is likely to come of it, and maybe even some good. I'd just prefer that he work on the poverty issue outside of Washington. I will not vote for him for national office.

I don't know whether Edwards wanted to contest the election or not, (though if he did, I suspect it had less to do with broken "promises" than with him wanting to be Vice President). I do know that the decision was not his to make. I'd further assume that Kerry was equally committed to getting the votes counted, but perhaps more circumspect in the approach. We don't even know who Edwards was talking to; maybe he was speaking on Kerry's behalf, as a sort of proxy? The only reason this is being brought out now is to add lustre to Edwards image.

[OzarkDem]

111. Ok, that's just strange

but you're entitled to your opinion. I hear Ralph Nader is looking for campaign workers.

[fedupinBushcountry]

19. Last time I knew

it was the Kerry/Edwards campaign. They used the same group of lawyers that fought for Gore in 2000.

I wish it weren't so, but the final facts look like the picture on the morning of Nov. 3 when my brother, John Kerry, ended his campaign for president. As campaign leaders sat in a Boston war room overlooking a dwindling Election Night rally in the plaza below, on the phone was a team of smart, tough veterans who know how to count votes and how votes get counted. All were veterans of Florida in 2000 who would have jumped at a rematch with Karl Rove and James Baker III.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2005/01/06/counting_every_vote?mode=PF

[Mass]

24. Except we do not know whom he was arguing with.

[karynnj]

34. That is actually not true

Read the sentence - It says he wanted to wait till all the votes were counted. There were still provisional (and maybe overseas?) votes not counted yet - the total number though was such that mathematically it couldn't change the outcome. This does not say he wanted to challange the result.

Kerry did insist that all the votes be counted - and they were. As expected they left K/E over 100,000 votes behind. He did concede before all the votes were counted - as has every opponent in all elections (except possibly Gore). Every state has some absentee, military or overseas votes that are counted after election day - I never knew till 2000 that the military vote had a period of time after the election even to arrive in one state.

The fact was on Nov 3, as now, Kerry didn't have enough votes - because of various Republican shennanigans, which Kerry has spoken out against and wants fixed so it won't happen in the future. At a point where the outstanding number of uncounted votes couldn't change the outcome, it would have been unAmerican not to concede.

[Mass]

23. I was really happy to read this. This was a great news.

[karynnj]

31. Thanks for the link - Elizabeth is incredible

I had only seen some excepts before. This is a very nice article. It is wonderful that she is over the cancer.

[Stevepol]

8. K&R!!

[Totally Committed]

11. Well, it's good hear at least ONE of them

remembered that promise, and wanted to fight.

I don't think I'll ever forget that concession for as long as I live.

TC

[wiley]

57. Good for her.

It really sounds like he was trying to maintain his image for a future run or something from the OP.

[WildEyedLiberal]

72. I'm a little disappointed you'd fall for this shallow bait

I have a feeling you're a Deval Patrick suppporter. Did you know that he was among the team of lawyers in the war room on election night - the ones who, TOGETHER, decided that the vote deficit was too large to overcome?

You seem to think this was a one-man decision. It was not. And I might remind you that the votes did come in, and Kerry still lost the official tally. So what, pray, does this change? It changes nothing. Not conceding for another week would have changed NOTHING, that is the entire point and the one that no DUers seem to be able to understand. It's not like the absentee votes all came in the following week and oops, Kerry actually won, but he conceded so it didn't count. If anyone thinks that's really what happened, then they are as factually-challenged as our enemies on the right.

Concession doesn't stop vote-counting nor is it legally binding. If all these magic Kerry absentee ballots had come in the next week and put him over the edge, he'd be president right now. That didn't happen because all those magic Kerry absentee ballots DON'T EXIST. This is the biggest moot point of the entire election 2004 debate and the biggest fuss over NOTHING I've ever seen intelligent people fall for.

[fooj]

12. He is right. They DID promise.

[Mass]

17. How do we know that Edwards was not talking to HIS advisers and that they

were not telling him that it would be better for him not to contest the election.

I dont know. We have a sentence without ANY context and people jump.

[RamboLiberal]

18. We don't - but gee at least he wanted to fight

which is more than Kerry did! Look the snippet was interesting - that's why I posted it!

[Mass]

21. No, I read the same snippets for Kerry. I dont consider that makes him a

heros.

[fedupinBushcountry]

25. You don't know that

so don't assume. I know for a fact that Kerry was looking for a whistleblower after that day, it was the only way to fight it legally. He would of gotten right back in if he had the PROOF. You know to this day we are still waiting for the proof of fraud.

Many things done in Ohio thanks to Blackwell were within the law and you do know it was him who made the law. Until we do something about partisans controlling elections, we will never know if all the votes are counted.

[blm]

27. We KNOW who was arguing, and so does Edwards - Michael Whouley

and every other Dem election lawyer on that team. The exact same Dem team of election lawyers who said Gore had a case to continue were saying that there was no legal case for Kerry to continue.

COUNTING EVERY VOTE
Boston Globe, THIRD, Sec. Op-Ed, p A11 01-06-2005
BY CAMERON F. KERRY

SO NOW THE VOTES IN OHIO HAVE BEEN RECOUNTED, AND IT'S TIME FOR CONGRESS TO TALLY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. BUT WHILE THE ELECTION IS OVER, A FIGHT GOES ON TO PROTECT EVERYONE'S RIGHT TO VOTE AND MAKE SURE EVERY VOTE IS COUNTED.
I wish it weren't so, but the final facts look like the picture on the morning of Nov. 3 when my brother, John Kerry, ended his campaign for president. As campaign leaders sat in a Boston war room overlooking a dwindling Election Night rally in the plaza below, on the phone was a team of smart, tough veterans who know how to count votes and how votes get counted. All were veterans of Florida in 2000 who would have jumped at a rematch with Karl Rove and James Baker III.

In the room was Deval Patrick, former assistant attorney general for civil rights. In Washington was Michael Whouley, the never-say-die loyalist who stopped Al Gore from conceding; Jack Corrigan, who helped fight Bush v. Gore in the courts and the precincts; and Robert Bauer and Marc Elias, leading election lawyers and Kerry campaign counsel.

On the phone from Ohio was the chief of the legal team there, David Sullivan, longtime election counsel for the Massachusetts secretary of state, who himself was a plaintiff more than 30 years ago in a lawsuit to register college students and - with me - a defendant in unsuccessful lawsuit brought against us for properly challenging vote fraud.

They were backed by 3,300 lawyers on Ohio's election protection team, part of more than 17,000 Kerry-Edwards lawyers nationwide. They were joined by 8,000 lawyers with the nonpartisan Election Protection Coalition of the NAACP, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, People for the American Way, and other organizations and thousands more lay volunteers and observers.
>>>>

[Mass]

29. We do not know who was arguing in the particular phone call the

article is describing because the article does not say so. The OP is making assumptions that he cannot prove. It is possible that EE says so in her book, but we cannot say, and it is the reason why this thread is disingenuous. There is nothing extraordinary here. I guess Kerry said the same thing at some point and came to the same conclusion than Edwards.

And guess who is fighting to have the laws changed. Kerry, not Edwards. I am still waiting to see anything concerning voting rights since the election.

[Totally Committed]

35. blm -- Who is Michael Whouley?

I was not into the finer points of that campaign. Who was he and why would he be telling Edwards anything like that?

Thanks.

TC

[blm]

39. Michael Whouley is the top vote expert in the Dem party.

It's said he knows where every vote can be squeezed out county by county. You should be able to google for his bio - he's highly respected by the party. He was with Gore every step of the way. Most of these guys were. If they thought there was any legal chance they would have gone for it.

Neither Kerry or Edwards wanted to concede - there was alot of arguing that night, but it all came down to what evidence was at hand. They were hoping for a whistleblower.

The only reason RFK Jr is now able to even file a case is because he has a couple whistleblowers NOW who will testify about the vulnerability of the machines and that the company knows they're vulnerable. There is still NO whistleblower who will come forward to talk about the rigged machines of 2004. Without that there is no case.

[Totally Committed]

46. Thanks... I'll Google him for more info.

I appreciate that!

TC

[blm]

96. That's NOT WHAT IS BEING SAID - You ASSUME Kerry argued with Edwards

when the FACT is that it was the legal team of election experts - the same ones who told Gore to continue - that there was no legal ground for Kerry/Edwards to continue. Their names are listed in above posts.

You JUMP to your own storyline that Edwards argued with Kerry or his people, which is just plain old SPIN that you WANT others to believe and care little that the truth be clear.

[OzarkDem]

103. I'm sure we'll find out

and if you think you're going to start calling Elizabeth Edwards a liar, my guess is you'll get a whole shitload of opposition here.

[ultraist]

114. Edwards told Kerry to fight for the votes

In fact, Kerry had said, "they'll call us sore losers" and Edwards said, "so what!"

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/04/1532222


AMY GOODMAN: Are you saying, Mark Crispin Miller, that John Edwards didn't want to concede?

MARK CRISPIN MILLER: Absolutely not. I spoke to someone, a relative of his who was with him when the phone call came from Kerry. This is this in the book, Fooled Again . Kerry called him on the cell phone, and don't forget that Edwards himself, four hours before, had just been on national TV promising righteously to count every vote, got a big hand. Now he felt he was being made to look like a fool, and he argued with Kerry vehemently. He said, “It’s too soon, you know. Wait.” Kerry, you know, said this thing about how they will call us sore losers, as if that’s worse than the country, you know, going fascist, whatever. And Edwards said quite understandably, “So what?” You know, “So what if they call us sore losers?” I mean, they are going to call them names in any case. But it’s true, Mark is right, Kerry's caving in like that gave an enormous gift to the right wing. They could now claim, “Well, even their candidate doesn't think it was stolen.” And they left, you know, the American people hanging out to dry there.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Election night, 2004. Famous Clown contacts Kerry HQ at 2.30 AM

A volunteer answers the distraught clown's phone call. The clown says to the volunteer, minutes after the clown had watched a visibly shaken Dan Rather call Ohio for Boosh, if they intended to fight. The clown was angry and upset. The clown said that he wanted to make sure the man who won the election for president was going to stand up for the clown's vote and for the votes of millions of others.

The clown received assurances they would fight.

They did not.

The clown has grown sanguine. But clowns, like elephants, have long memories.

[Sadie5]

26. I liked Edwards wanting to fight

And I hope he will be in the 08 prez race.

[benny05]

44. I'm lost on your allegory

Who is the clown? :shrug:

[Stinky The Clown]

48. Geez, Benny .......

Look down there ..... down below this type. See the sig line?

That clown.

[benny05]

50. "Am I supposed to know what that means...?"

Quote from John Edwards when asked by someone at Gnomedex on 6/30/2006..who said he (the questioner) was a "red diaper baby", and also said he wanted some politicians from the Dem Party to "grow some balls and take the Republicans to the mat" on certain issues, one of them on Net Neutrality.

JRE to Questioner: "Now don't hold back" (especially as JRE was told/advised not to discuss politics, but this guy opened the door)

And I think Democrats need to show some backbone, not just some meely-mouth pol who says healthcare could be more affordable instead of Universal Healthcare for all of us.

Will be back with link related to the last paragraph...stay tuned.

[WI_DEM]

32. Elizabeth would be a great first lady and a real asset in '08 on the

campaign trail. She is a strong person but doesn't come across as abrasive or pushy. She has grace and true courage.

[benny05]

51. Yep...

Elizabeth is US...united states and "we the people", object of a predicate, or US (or pronoun).

[Vinca]

38. I knew Edwards wanted to fight. Damn.

I'm so happy Elizabeth is well - can't wait to get her book. I really, really, really like John Edwards. I'm looking forward to meeting him during the primary season next time around.

[AzDar]

52. I've always suspected Edwards did not want to concede..maybe it was

the look on his face; but with the news regarding his wife and all,it's hard to tell which caused him to grimace so during the concession.
I hope it's true; he's a good man.

[GreenArrow]

61. I've always suspected that Edwards would do whatever

Kerry said and then paint things later in a light favorable to himself. The grimace on his face was likely a result of having just lost a national election.

[LittleClarkie]

54. I find it interesting that the unidentified individuals are not Kerry

himself.

And Edwards sentiments in this regard didn't seem to spill out onto what he thought of Kerry. His goodbye speech to the Senate made it clear he greatly admired him.

But I suspect that those unidentified people weren't exactly on the side of either Kerry or Edwards and feed them bad info.

[TayTay]

55. This is who else was arguing about that concession

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2005/01/06/counting_every_vote?mode=PF

CAMERON F. KERRY
Counting every vote
By Cameron F. Kerry | January 6, 2005

SO NOW the votes in Ohio have been recounted, and it's time for Congress to tally the Electoral College. But while the election is over, a fight goes on to protect everyone's right to vote and make sure every vote is counted.

I wish it weren't so, but the final facts look like the picture on the morning of Nov. 3 when my brother, John Kerry, ended his campaign for president. As campaign leaders sat in a Boston war room overlooking a dwindling Election Night rally in the plaza below, on the phone was a team of smart, tough veterans who know how to count votes and how votes get counted. All were veterans of Florida in 2000 who would have jumped at a rematch with Karl Rove and James Baker III.

In the room was Deval Patrick, former assistant attorney general for civil rights. In Washington was Michael Whouley, the never-say-die loyalist who stopped Al Gore from conceding; Jack Corrigan, who helped fight Bush v. Gore in the courts and the precincts; and Robert Bauer and Marc Elias, leading election lawyers and Kerry campaign counsel. On the phone from Ohio was the chief of the legal team there, David Sullivan, longtime election counsel for the Massachusetts secretary of state, who himself was a plaintiff more than 30 years ago in a lawsuit to register college students and -- with me -- a defendant in unsuccessful lawsuit brought against us for properly challenging vote fraud.

They were backed by 3,300 lawyers on Ohio's election protection team, part of more than 17,000 Kerry-Edwards lawyers nationwide. They were joined by 8,000 lawyers with the nonpartisan Election Protection Coalition of the NAACP, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, People for the American Way, and other organizations and thousands more lay volunteers and observers.

**************

Deval Patrick is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for Governor of Massachusetts in 2006.

[BlueIris]

60. To Mrs. and Mr. Edwards, if either of you still read DU:

I know the real reason you won't ever give up your quest to make this country the best it can be, and are still deeply hurt by what happened on November 2nd, 2004, as it created such an impediment to this mission. I won't post anything more about it, of course, but I want you to know that while I feel there was nothing more that could have been done by our side about Ohio in 2004, I admire and respect your feelings about the decisions made on that election night, as well as your passionate and inexorable commitment to change. Continued best to you and yours.

[Matilda]

64. I discussed this issue with an American friend just last week.

He's a Democrat, and when I asked him how he felt about Kerry not
fighting for a recount in Ohio, his opinion was that it would have
left the country without a president for maybe a month or more, and
the Republicans would have thrown heaps of dirt at Kerry and Edwards.
And if, in the end, nothing could be proven, they'd be finished
politically, particularly as most Americans would only know what they
read and hear in the mainstream media, and are today still ignorant
of what happened in Ohio.

What he said did make sense, although I have a hard time figuring out
why more senior Democrats aren't fighting for a paper trail.

[Dinger]

68. My Suspicions Confirmed

Were they (* / Kerry) ever asked about Skull & Bones? Laugh, call me a tin-foiler all you want, but I think that was a part of Kerry's squeamishness on fighting the vote count, and let me say, as a Wisconsin Clarkie, that Edwards would probably win here in a primary. I have talked to people in state & local politics, and Edwards has made an impact here.

[WildEyedLiberal]

73. That's absolutely ridiculous

I've had respect for you in the past but there is NO reason to bring out lies and smears. None.

Gee, a lot of DUers feel for the flamebait because it suits their agenda. Why am I not surprised?

Meanwhile, go back through the whole thread and read who was in that room the night of the election, proceed to call all those people Skull and Bones cowards, and then get back to me. Unbelievable.

[Dinger]

91. You've Lost Respect For Me?????

Whatever. deal with it. It's just my opinion. You wanna get nasty?? Well, I can too, but I won't.

[WildEyedLiberal]

100. There is no excuse to trot out the Skull and Bones crap.

None. It's an intellectually bereft last-resort of conspiracy nuts.

Maybe you're just having an extreme emotional reaction to this post, in which case you seriously need to rethink what you're saying and look at the entire story, not just the misleading spin the OP - who has an obvious agenda - is putting on it.

[Dinger]

105. Why Did You Single Me Out? Just Because I Spoke The Forbidden Word?

Are you telling me Skull & Bones is off limits? I'll be labeled a nut or whatever? Sorry, but I'll bring up Skull & Bones any time I want. To put it simply, I take offense at your post.

[WildEyedLiberal]

123. Should I start bringing up the School of Americas crap against Clark?

Even though it would be a really scummy thing to do and amounts to using smears and innuendo to spread distrust about him?

Or is that "off limits"?

[arcane1]

77. Kerry was asked about S&B

and said it was secret and that he could not talk about it

[NCarolinawoman]

149. Dinger, the Scull and Bones thing is meaningless.

I, for one, and tired of hearing about it. It got old then ('04) and it's sounds really old now.

[blm]

162. I guess you skipped over all those years where Kerry was pretty much alone

in working to investigate and expose BushInc.

What were all your favorite non S&B lawmakers doing throughout that time? Did they lift a finger on the biggest criimes being committed by BushInc?

Nope. That was John Kerry - the man who has investigated and exposed more government corruption than ANY LAWMAKER in modern history. But, I guess you wouldn't know that if you don't bother to read the congressional record or the National Security Archives.

[elocs]

69. A reply from an average Democrat in 2004.

At that time I was just your average Democrat who voted for John Kerry. We knew the Republicans were going to pick out pockets because they had all but told us they were going to do that. John Kerry made us a promise that they would count every vote and make every vote count. A promise was made to those who supported Kerry and by the next morning after the election he conceded without counting every vote and make every vote count. Myself and millions of other Democrats felt absolutely betrayed. Why wouldn't we? We had a promise. What part of a promise is difficult to understand? I don't care what threat was made. Could it possibly be worse than the rape this country and the world has endured for the last 6 years? Parse the words of the promise anyway you like and tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining. We got hosed by our own fireman.

[disndat]

81. I agree.

After all the talk and conjectures, by the fact that Kerry announced his concession so early in the morning makes him suspect. Even if he had waited until later in the day of evening, it would not have raised so much suspicion and questions. There were plenty of evidence and reports of voting irregularities and people in largely in minority precincts who waited for hours in the rain to cast their votes. Kerry had 17,000 lawyers(pay by his campaign and volunteers) ready to spring into action. It would have taken only a few days to come up with all the voting frauds that happened all over Ohio, yet, as RFKjr reported in the "Rolling Stone", Kerry ordered his team of lawyers to "stand down." Incidentally, I heard once, from somewhere, Rudolph Guiliani was the one who asked, early in the morning, Kerry to concede

[karynnj]

163. It was AFTERNOON

Are you in Hawaii! Early in the morning. Guilliani may well have been on TV but was not likely to be in contact with Kerry.

[txb]

85. "...hosed by our own fireman..."

COULDN'T AGREE MORE!

history will judge the moment Kerry decided to concede defeat in a fraudulent, stolen election as a truly catastrophic moment for humanity.

we will never get the full story regarding the day that our democracy died.

[Stardust]

89. JK didn't even have the courtesy of attending the Conyers' hearing

on vote fraud held just over a month later. He's lost my respect for good.

[ray of light]

93. he was in Iraq with the troops.

What a 'insightful' comment you made. < / complete snark for a comment that deserves nothing better than snark >

So have you gone to Iraq to see what the troops need? Have you gone to Iraq to see what the truth is so that you can better help them?

Gee...I met Conyers and you know what? Conyers was just fine handling the Election investigation. After all, HE IS THE RANKING DEMOCRAT on the Judiciary Committee. And guess what else...Conyers was just fine with Kerry helping the troops while he handled the investigation.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011105W.shtml

There are a lot of people who don't understand why Senator Kerry chose not to be in the Senate for the Thursday challenge. A lot of people believe he should have been the one to stand up and be the challenger. There are a lot of political implications here, and I am wondering if you might explain the thinking on this.

I have talked to a number of the Congressional members involved. Many of them feel that it was better without John involved, that it put the focus on the issue and not on him. It took away the Republican argument that this was just about sour grapes. Had John led the protest, we would have heard that a hundred times.

You believe it would have torpedoed the boat before it ever got out of the dock?

I think that's absolutely right. I think this was a moving event that was focused on the issue, and at the end of it, it was forward-looking.

Will Senator Kerry be speaking on these matters anytime soon?

I'm sure that he will be. I don't recall his timetable to get a proposal out there for election reform, but he is going to do that soon.

Your brother has been traveling around a little bit lately. Can you give me a recap on what he has been up to?

He spent part of last week in Iraq, not only in Baghdad but also in Fallujah and Mosul.

So, don't let the facts get in the way of your 'opionion'.

[ray of light]

92. hey elocs...They're still fighting this next month in Ohio court of law.

So it looks like you need to do more research.

Here's one from a Green volunteer in OHIO:

I worked as a Green volunteer . . . (12+ / 0-)
...
on the recount here in Ohio and you're right, Kerry's team was here all the way. In one of the counties I witnessed in, his witnesses worked late into the night with our coordinator and uncovered false numbers that led to the revelation that every ballot in the county had been recounted w/o witnesses between the certified vote and the official recount itself.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/4/23/115230/700/26#c26

You weren't there like the Green volunteer was, were you?

I was there. I can speak out with knowledge about what his lawyers did November 2, 2004 and what Blackwell did in Ohio. Were you there? What did you do to 'fix' the situation?

Source two:

Kerry and Edwards to Stay in Recount Case!!! Trial to Start in August 2006 Don McTigue, attorney for John Kerry and John Edwards, appeared in federal court in Toledo, before Judge Carr, on August 30th, and told the Court that Kerry and Edwards intend to remain in the case. Judge Carr set an August 22, 2006 trial date. Additionally he consolidated the two recount cases, Rios v. Blackwell and Yost v. Cobb & Badnarik. He gave the plaintiffs until September 15th to file amended pleadings (plaintiff's counsel had requested an opportunity to streamline their claims). Judge Carr set a discovery cut-off of May 1, 2006, and ruled that any summary judgment motions must be made by May 15, 2006

http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2005/08/kerry-and-edwards-to-stay-in-recount.html

So what have you done other than whine?

[elocs]

104. "So what have you done other than whine?"

That's the kind of reply I would expect from a Republican. So unless somebody was actually in Ohio, they are not allowed to speak what they believe? There were millions of us who voted for Kerry who were not in Ohio and have not been there. Does that mean we do not deserve to have an opinion on what happened or did not happen in the state by John Kerry? My point of view is exactly the same as millions of everyday Democrats based upon how quickly Kerry conceded the election without saying anything about counting every vote because I was listening and waiting.

As a possible presidential candidate I believe (I am still allowed to have an opinion and not considered to be "whining") Kerry is finished because millions of Democrats will not vote for him in a primary because they can't depend on him to keep his word. Please post something, anything that Kerry said immediately following the election to let his supporters know that HE was going to fight to make every vote count, that he thought there was voter fraud in Ohio. I would love to see the quote that made the national headlines that I missed.

[fedupinBushcountry]

119. Your point of view

is yours not millions, please show your proof of millions. Also the proof is all over the internet do some research.

Oh and your republican remark is lame. I for one will back Ray of Light 100%, she was in Ohio and she like many others were working through the Kerry campaign getting as much info as we could to him, days and weeks later. Are you a lawyer or better yet a prosecutor do you know what Republicans did to block votes legally in Ohio?


Do you even know what you need to prove FRAUD ?? We are just now getting closer to the proof almost 2 years later. I guess what Kerry said in his concession speech and legislation and court battles that he is continuing that fight is not proof enough for you.

LOL national media, glad you trust them.

[blm]

97. Because the Dem TEAM of election lawyers SAID THEY WERE ON TOP OF IT.

Terry McAuliffe and this team of election lawyers were not believers in machine fraud.

Kerry's fault and the fault of EVERY Dem candidate running in 2004 was to believe that Terry McAuliffe and the DNC had been working for four years to counter the GOPs efforts to suppress Dem votes, purge voter rolls and rig machines all over the country.

You think GOPs only started to steal the election after the Dem convention? THAT'S the problem with this party - people are so dense they don't realize how the GOPs are working EVERY DAY FOR FOUR YEARS to steal elections now. No.....Dems are so effing brilliant they just KNOW the problem is always just one person.

[orleans]

75. i remember reading something similar to this--

only it was edwards talking to kerry backstage before the concession speech; he was saying something like this to kerry.

[ray of light]

94. hahahaha, yeh right. you were hidden there, huh?

[orleans]

99. i said i read it, hahahaha, i didn't write/hear it

[FighttheFuture]

110. I also heard something to that effect,, that Edwards was ...

against conceding. I am not sure where, but I did read it.

[wisteria]

98. The book is not out in print yet and "excerpts" have not been corrected'.

To me, this indicates that this conversation may or may not have happened as it is now being reported. And, even if the conversation did take place verbatim it seems to me that Edwards was not ready to admit they could not avoid a concession and continue to fight with the evidence available at that time. It seems he hadn't faced facts yet. He so much wanted to win.

[karynnj]

109. That would be my take to

and it is extremely normal and human - and I'm sure Kerry went through the same thing.

They both were fighting to win every minute they were awake for weeks leading up to Nov 2. On Nov 2, I've seen the Kerry tv coverage, pictures and written accounts. There was enormous hope and excitement that it seemed possible that they were winning.

I know that after the euphoria of thinking that Kerry would be President and cheering that in the near by down where our Democratic Headquarters was, the lost was harder to believe and accept. I can imagine that both the euphoria of Nov 2 (in Edwards' case probably tempered by Elizabeth's health) and the disbelief and dissapointment must have been hundreds of times greater for them. It has to take strength for any politician to have to make a concession speech especially in a close race.

[benny05]

101. Read my Post about Seeing Elizabeth Edwards in Iowa

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2745444&mesg_id=2745444

[Donald Ian Rankin]

115. This reduces my respect for Edwards.

If you join a political campaign, you are agreeing to support its decisions and to defend them, and to take responsibility for them, even if you personally don't agree with them. Turning round and saying afterwards "don't blame me, I was against it" of an unpopular decision is not something I approve of.

[earth mom]

118. Huh? Edwards was misled by Kerry and now he's calling him on it.

It is brave and I support Edwards more right now, this minute, because of it!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

120. No, it's cowardly.

It's betraying someone he undertook to back so as to gain personal support.

It's not even to help displace the republicans, because the only elections this will influence are interdemocrat ones.

The decision not to fight a clearly-unwinnable battle in Ohio that would prejudice democrats electoral chances in the future, at the cost of making Kerry extremely unpopular among the less-rational wing of his supporters? Now *that* was brave.

[earth mom]

122. I'm sick of the political bullshit. Kerry blew it-big time.

Kerry played the political game with the thugs so they wouldn't tear him apart in the media. It was ALL about saving his own ass and looking good. Brave? Now that's a laugh! :rofl:


If Kerry had followed through every one of his so called less rational supporters would still be with him. Now he has an uphill battle which will never get him back all those lost votes. Meanwhile Edwards looks good to a LOT of people because he didn't sell his soul to the devil. Integrity means something to most people in this country, which something most sell out politicians like Kerry have forgotten.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

130. That doesn't make sense.

John Kerry's refusal to contest Ohio once it was clear he couldn't win cost him personally - a lot of Democrats held it against him and will support other Democrats instead in future primaries - but benefitted the Democrats as a party - the number of voters who won't vote Democrat or will vote Republican because they didn't contest Ohio is negligable, the number who wouldn't have if they had so and had been seen as "bad losers" and "tearing the country apart" might well not have been. And yet you call it "saving his own ass"? Sacrificing, not saving.

I agree completely that Kerry has lost support as a result of that decision, and that John Edwards stands to gain by attacking it.

Calling Kerry a "sell out politician" and attacking his integrity is just ludicrous.

Integrity does mean a lot to me, which is why I am disapointed in John Edwards for not displaying it in this particular instance (although I still have a reasonable amount of respect for him).

[wisteria]

137. You seem to think you have it all figured out. What are your

credentials and why do you think you know more than many experts? Edward's would have come out looking bad also if they had attempted to not concede with the numbers and lack of legal proof before them. I am sure too, that Kerry's didn't give a damn what the press would have to say about anything if he felt his was right and could prove it. He has never been a media darling, so there was no relationship there to preserve.

[citizen snips]

126. I would not call it betrayal

since when has disagreement been equated with betrayal?:crazy:

[earth mom]

128. Self delete

[Donald Ian Rankin]

129. It hasn't; it's not the disagreement I'm objecting to.

What I object to is the fact that he's trying to use that disagreement to disassociate himself from the decision.

One of my friends is a primary school teacher. She's recently had to put up with being yelled at by parents over an unpopular decision of her headteachers, and she stuck up for him and it, despite the fact that she personally disagreed with it.

I've recently run an event with a friend. I disagreed with several of his decisions, but I didn't let any of the players know that, even when they complained about the results.

When you take part in a collective enterprise, you're agreeing to take responsibility for and publically defend the decisions reached collectively, even if you personally disagree with them.

Not doing so is what I regard as betrayal.

[citizen snips]

131. There are still some points you need to keep in mind

this book was written by Elizabeth Edwards and it is about HER feelings about the campaign and it's about her living with cancer. However John Edwards has not been going around and publicly criticizing the way Karry ran his campaign.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

133. That's true enough.

On the other hand, I don't imagine that there is anything in the book which won't have been discussed and agreed with John.

[blm]

148. Exactly - and why people are CHOOSING to spin this excerpt as if there was

some showdown between Kerry and Edwards that night, it's just horrific, considering that Elizabeth is saying no such thing.

There was debate amongst all the people involved, and it came down to the election experts and the vote counting pros in the Dem parrty - not Kerry and not Edwards. It appears that way in the media because at that point everything has Kerry/Edwards' name on it. But the party really is compartmentalized.

[madmunchie]

121. Isn't it convenient that Edwards is NOW ,2 years before another

Presidential election, talking about how he wanted to fight for the votes being counted in Ohio? NOW, after he has been actively campaigning in Iowa and probably has "experts" telling him that people don't want him as POTUS because he didn't even fight for the Democrats in 04'?

Pretty convenient timing, as far as I am concerned. Besides, we have so many problems to deal with. Our WORLD is at a tipping point (maybe it is already to late), we may be headed for or already in WWIII. Edwards does not have anywhere near the experience to handle the complexities of all of the problems that we are now facing. Let him be the AG. We need somebody with a great deal of experience, brilliance, and integrity (somebody that isn't in "the club". Then we will need LUCK!

Stupidity would put Edwards in office, plain and simple stupidity.

[katinmn]

125. If you were paying attention, you'd know Edwards' stand on this

I knew he did not want to concede way back in December 04.

Why is this news to anyone?

[madmunchie]

141. Yes, the "activists" may have "known" that they did not want to concede

WAY BACK in 04'. The problem. THEY DID CONCEDE IN LIGHTENING QUICK FASHION. Before any of the dust even had a chance to settle, they conceded, with their tail between their legs. Since then I have heard little about rectifying voting from either of those 2. I have heard more about them running their current campaigns then changing the real problems, and that is FIXED ELECTIONS. They are "politicking" not leading. They should have insisted that every vote be counted BEFORE they FORCIBLY(?) conceded.

Gee, with people like that FIGHTING for us (ha ha), how could we lose?

[earth mom]

127. I hardly see what Edwards as doing as calculated,

but rather finally speaking the truth-his truth. Now, what Kerry did was cold and calculated and only served to keep himself from being subjected to the firestorm he would have had to go through from the reich wing controlled media. The presidency wasn't worth it enough to him, nor was the good of the country and that sealed his fate. Kerry is so very DONE. Edwards has a bit of chance because he didn't sell out and we all knew it from day one. There is nothing wrong with Edwards speaking the truth. He should actually, so there is no confusion in anyones mind that he agreed with Kerry. Most people would do the same thing to clear their good name.

I will agree with you that what this country needs is someone with integrity to lead this country. A person who DO THE RIGHT THING EVERY TIME. The people will support that person unconditionally. Edwards might be that man. Though my first choices are Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or John Conyers..

[Donald Ian Rankin]

132. That's silly.

I've seen to much on DU to say that you can't seriously believe that John Kerry wouldn't have gladly taken any and all flack the media could throw at him if he thought he could win the presidency in spite of it, but if you *do* seriously think that then you don't deserve to be taken seriously.

The only possible motivation John Kerry can have had for not contesting Ohio is that he thought (as everyone but the most rose-spectacled agrees) that he couldn't have won it, and that he would harm the Democratic party and America by contesting it when it was clear he had no chance of winning.

To suggest that he would stand as president, go through an entire bruising presidential campaign, fight on through SVBfT launching some of the nastiest and most personal adds of recent times, and then decide at the last minute that a viable chance at the presidency wasn't worth taking *because the media would say nasty things about him* is, I think, not sensible.

[earth mom]

152. Take off your blinders.

Kerry was a total wuss the entire campaign! But everybody gave him the benefit of the doubt, saying crap like "Oh he doesn't want to sink to their-Bush & Co-level", "Oh there's some sort of strategy going on that we don't know about" etc. etc. etc. Did he stand up to the swift boaters? Hell no!

The truth of the matter was that Kerry wasn't willing to get down and dirty and fight. He was on the defensive the entire campaign when he should have been on the offensive and as a result he handed Bush the presidency on a silver platter. All because Kerry wanted to protect his own ass and reputation. Politicians do it ALL the time. Which you should know if you follow any of them in DC. They ALWAYS do what's gonna make them look good and win them votes-either this time or the next time around. And that's what he did: Kerry cut his losses while looking 4 years to the future.

If Kerry really wanted to be president in '04 with every fiber of his being, he would have moved mountains to prove that the presidency was his because we all know that the proof of it being stolen was obvious! But Kerry choose to ignore it. Which was a complete miscalculation on his part because now people are on to his b.s. and don't trust him anymore- that's why he is DONE.

Now who's the SILLY FOOL?!

[blm]

160. I'd say you attribute alot of credit to Bush and none to the RNC and alot

of blame to Kerry and none to the DNC.

Was it Bush who fought and clawed and spoke out every day or was it the RNC spokespeople and party luminaries?

Where were the bigname Dems showing up on TV everyday to counter Giuliani, McCain and Dole who were showing up almost every day on some program?

Kerry won every match up he had against Bush.

How did the DNC and their Dem spokespeople do?

[wisteria]

136. What are you talking about? Kerry didn't mislead Edward's.

How do we even know what was exactly said to all the concerned parties. How do we even know for sure who and what Edward's is actually responding to? Why assume Kerry was incorrect and Edward's correct.
My take on this is Edward's felt bad about the outcome and was upset because promise were made that logistically and legally couldn't be fulfilled at that time.

[blm]

146. Edwards misled by Kerry? How about ANY Dem nominee was HOSED by DNC

who didn't spend their four years COUNTERING The vote suppression, voter roll purges and the control of the voting machines by the GOP.

The GOP spends four focking years attacking Dem votes every which, legal and illegal, and the Dem party gets away with doing NOTHING because they know the kneejerks will just blame the candidate at the top of the ticket - the one Democrat who wasn't in charge of the election system.

[katinmn]

124. I respect him even more! I knew about this since about December 04

I'm glad they are sharing the truth.

The candidates should have done the right thing which is count every vote. We would be much better off. The whole world would be much better off if we had stood for our rights as they did in Ukraine and Mexico. But when the candidate concedes, there is no stand to take.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

134. No, we'd be worse off.

George W. Bush would still be president, and the Democrats would stand to win fewer votes in November than they do currently.

The correct response to it being totally clear that your opponent has got more votes than you, as was the case in Ohio, is to concede. Politics isn't like a football match, where if you try hard enough there's always a chance of winning; sometimes (exactly half the time, in fact, not counting multiple-option votes) there is nothing you can do except concede.

[katinmn]

140. No, if we had fought Bush would NOT be president. The fight was

just postponed. We will have to fight in November because the electorial process has been corrupted through e-voting until we reject it.

[ClassWarrior]

144. "Totally clear that your opponent has got more votes than you??..."

"...as was the case in Ohio!??"

:rofl:

You need to do some readin', Son. RFK Jr's Rolling Stone article, "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?," is a great place to start. John Conyers' "What Happened in Ohio?" is good too.

NGU.

[karynnj]

164. YOU are the one that needs to re-read the article

RFKjr has a very nice graphic showing the causes of the "lost votes". Over half of them come from the estimated Kerry votes lost due to long lines - THESE WERE VOTES NEVER CAST. As Kerry said last May in Ohio, a lot of the ways they cheated were legal. These lost votes and those in many other categories can't be claimed via a recount. (John Conyers also was listing and detailing voter suppresion and irregularities.)

Just as Kerry said in January, 2005 - There was voter supression and it is contrary to our ideals.

[Omaha Steve]

116. That is a good part of why not to back Kerry in 08

Edwards-Gore, or Gore-Edwards is OK with me.

[wisteria]

138. You comments make no sense, just make up accusations where none

exist and blame Kerry.

Hey, Kerry/? in 08.

[earth mom]

117. Edwards was blindsided by Kerry's decision.

We ALL knew it, and now we see that it's true. The question is why did Kerry do it? Skull and Bones, or did he just not really want to be president? :grr:

[wisteria]

135. Nonsense. Your suggestion is unfounded and not proven at all by what

Mrs. Edward's says. Edward's just wasn't ready to accept the situation before him. The numbers indicated a Bush win and not enough tangible proof existed at that time to not concede with both Edward's and Kerry's credibility in tack.
I think you will see that this unpublished and uncorrected remark from Mrs. Edward's will be changed and clarified when it does reach print.

[earth mom]

153. Have you ever read the election forum here on DU?

Because if you have, you would know that there is PLENTY of evidence that the election was stolen on election night, hours and hours before Kerry conceded.

p.s. what's with the tag team posts?

[blm]

147. Edwards would have had the same team of Dem election lawyers if he was

the top of the ticket.

Some of you people need to stop spinning - most of us at DU understand how elections work.

[earth mom]

154. Have you ever read the election forum here on DU?

Because if you have, you would know that there is PLENTY of evidence that the election was stolen on election night, hours and hours before Kerry conceded.

p.s. what's with the tag team posts?

[blm]

155. There was no legal evidence in hand to continue in court - if Edwards HAD

the evidence then I am sure he would have shared it.

If you ever READ the election forum, you would know that every expert says the same thing - the machines need securing BEFORE the vote, because after is too late. No one in the Dem stable of election lawyers had any experience and knowledge about machine fraud in 2004.

Talk to the DNC and tell them to do their jobs and COUNTER the GOP's tricks BEFORE the election.

[earth mom]

157. I spent alot of time on that forum, so I KNOW what I'm talking about.

Who's side are you on anyway? :eyes:

[blm]

158. Focus on what NEEDED to be done - You blame Kerry when Kerry was only

our nominee for the last 6 months. If you think only the nominee is to blame, then that suits BushInc and Clinton and Terry McAuliffe just fine.

The party's electoral INFRASTRUCTURE is what carries a candidate over the finish line in crucial states. Florida had a weak infrastructure in 2000 and Ohio's was left to total collapse long before 2004.

The Repubs spend their four years actively working against Dem voters and the Dems were doing NOTHING to counter those efforts from 1997 thru 2004.

[roseBudd]

142. I think it was fear of Sore Loserman, there was an SNL skit where parents

nixed names for their child based on what that name could be turned into on a schoolyard taunt. Gore Lieberman was a gimme and I imagine the speed at which the signs appeared it was preplanned.

[Lochloosa]

143. Kick for the discussion

[josh nelson]

151. This is refreshing

I was under the impression that Bob Fitrakis and the green party were the only ones who wanted to fight.

[ChiciB1]

156. Just Saw This... & Love It!

Was "searching" another topic and came across this.

This is one of the ONLY Democrats I think I'm truly comfortable with right now. There are several others, but for the most part... they have TURNED ME OFF!

Schumer, Hillary, Lieberman and so many others... I'm just sick at heart!!!

[politicasista]

161. Mrs. Edwards would be very sad if she read this thread

She is a smart, classy lady and the fact that many people are choosing to rehash the 2004 election instead of focusing on her recovery and forthcoming book is insulting to her.

Not to mention, she had some very kind words for Kerry. The fact that many are using this thread to attack and dump on the 04 presidential nominee to promote her husband or other candidates is pathetic.

Were mistakes made during the campaign? Definitely. It's possible she could be writing this as a call to action, not pinning Kerry/Edwards against each other.

Like her husband, she is probably focused on the 06 elections. She also understands that without a Democratic congress, election reform will not go anywhere.

Those who continue to complain about who hid who during the campaign are only playing right into the hands of Rove and the GOP. Hindsight is 20-20 and Mrs. Edwards would want us to focus on the future, not spend quality time rehashing the past.

We should be grateful that there are some Dems that care about the election problems in this country.





My two cents.