This was the ad that cost Kerry the election

[Herman Munster]

The "attacks" so far in the primary have been nothing compared to what the republicans have in store for any of our candidates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phqOuEhg9yE

[aquart]

1. How sweet. You believe Americans voted en masse for Bush.

It wasn't an ad that cost Kerry the election. It was crooked vote counting. Unless you get that, you don't get anything that's happened in the past decade.

I'll bet you think Bill Clinton was impeached because he LIED. (Funny how lying no longer annoys the Congress.)

[AndyTiedye]

2. Kerry Would Have Won by a Landslide Without all the Swiftboating by the rePigLickin' Media

[sniffa]

18. i think that's actually overblown

as is the meme that the "exit-polls" were wrong.

[AndyTiedye]

23. The Exit Polls Were Probably Accurate

But without the Swift Boat Liars' slime being endlessly amplified (for free) by the Repiglickin' media, Kerry would have won by double digits.

[Herman Munster]

3. I'm not going to debate you what happened in Ohio

It didn't have to be that close where one state held his future in the balance. Fact is he ran an inept campaign and allowed the swiftboaters to frame him as a traitor and he lost the election because of that.

If there were voter irregularities, he could have challenged them. He and his lawyers made the decision that they didn't have a case and chose not to fight. He and all of us had to live with that decision.

[blm]

22. The ENTIRE election process in many states was rigged, not just Ohio. Kerry won by 5%

and that securing of the election process didn't happen because certain Dems made certain the DNC didn't lift a finger after 2000's theft to secure that process. Siegelman and other Dems like Cleland and Barnes had their elections stolen and McAuliffe didn't stand with them at all - rehearsal for the massive theft the RNC would perform in 2004.

And why was the LAST Dem president spending his FOCKING BOOK TOUR defending Bush's decisions on Iraq and publicly supporting those decisions anyway?

THIS is what happened to Kerry's 5% lead - maybe it would have been 10% if TeamClinton and the DNC had been working FOR Kerry instead of against him.

Observations from historian Douglas Brinkley:
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Bill's timely defende of Bush on Iraq summer/2004 book tour:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

The Carville family on election night:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

[karynnj]

24. Kerry did respond to the SBVT, the media was complicit

and repeated things they knew were lies. They GAVE the ads far more coverage than the time bought and more importantly gave them credibility - as the media would not repeat it if it were not true. How in a modern world do you counteract the media being against you.

He responded in the way that would have worked best as recently as 2000. He had truth and proof on his side. Producing it in a timely manner - which he did - should have caused the Bush connected SBVT to backfire. That was always the most respectable, and reasonable way to refute lies. Only if the charges were true would anyone do otherwise.

Before the August attacks, the media already had an incredible amount of information on Kerry's Vietnam service. They had: - about 140 pages of naval records, containing fitness reports that could be seen to completely cover the 3 1/2 years he was in the Navy. They were all glowing - even those written by future SBVT. (They also included one showing that Kerry was approved for a higher security clearance needed for the Brooklyn job - some SBVT very likely signed off on Kerry's character.)
- The Nixon tapes showed they looked looked into Kerry in 1971, 2 years after he served when people's memories would be fresh. They found he was a hero. - The Brinkley book was the work of an academic historian, who interviewed over 100 people and researched the available documentation Kerry had no editorial control. Brinkley backs Kerry. - All the men actually on Kerry's boats when he got any medals back him 100%.

After the lies came out, the Kerry campaign gave the media 30 some pages disproving charges. With multiple lies identified, it was unconscionable that the media simply went to the next set of lies. They also proved they had links into the Bush campaign. Would you have believed even 4 years ago that people at a convention could mock purple hearts and have the media show purple heart bandaids, with no negative comments, as a novelty of the campaign. This signaled a lot to the country.

Remember the WAR ROOM, that the Clintons speak of - their goal was to have SOMETHING out to counter any charge in the same news cycle. Kerry beats this by a country mile. Any one of the above points is more substantive than anything the Clintons put out in the changing draft or Flowers stories.

In addition, Kerry's team gave the media 36 pages of obvious contradictions and things that can be proven to be lies. People claimed to witness things on dates when they were not even in Vietnam.

How much proof backing Kerry do you need? How many lies do you need to defeat in real time. (Not easy, as they had to find witnesses willing to speak. Consider that BC had it easier - he knew that both the mentioned stories could happen.)

Kerry has already provided more than amble proof - why do you think that Guilliani and Bill Clinton have called negative attacks on their (or their wife's) campaign swiftboating - the reason is that the word implies despicable lying for political reason.

As John Kerry did NOT wait a month to counter the SBVT - the media had the proof needed BEFORE the August attacks. He went on to prove that the liars were connected to Bush.

After the election, it was Clinton aligned people, more than anyone else, who started the new smear - saying that Kerry did not fight back as a Clinton would. They were true in a way, Kerry fought back with truth and rational comments.

[niceypoo]

4. Kerry didnt react to their smear

That is where the damage was done.

[LoZoccolo]

7. I'm not sure about that.

It's too late at night for me to go digging it up, but someone back in like 2004 did some analysis of the poll numbers and found that Kerry's big drop coincided with the terrorist attack on school children that happened in one of the former Soviet republics (can't remember which one but you probably remember it too). I don't remember all of the details of the analysis but there was something about the timing of the Swift Boat ads that made it seem less probably that it was them that brought Kerry's numbers down.

I was at a meeting for Kerry volunteers and someone asked a staffer why he wasn't fighting back and he explained that acknowledging it starts making it an important and defining issue. I think it's debatable whether or not the Swift Boats made it one despite Kerry ignoring it, but then again, Kerry's campaign manager later regretted that strategy. So it's a messy thing to try to explain.

[bluestateguy]

11. You may be right

There was also an ad, aired only in Ohio, showing Bush comforting some Ohio teenage girl (about as All American Girl looking as you can get) who lost her father on 9/11. This was discussed in the documentary "So Goes the Nation".

[karynnj]

25. Breslan likely did really hurt

This was not in a major city and it was children who died. This coupled with the constant terror level changes scared people to death. The OBL tape hurt because it brought all this back to mind right before the election - Kerry was likely winning before that per many of the cable pundits - most of whom weren't for Kerry.

As to not responding the media had the information to reject the SBVT before the August attacks. They contradicted the official record and offered no proof. They should have been told to come back when they had some. Between the Nixon tapes and the official record, Brinkley's book, and Kerry's crew, they had FAR more information that BC EVER provided on anything. Kerry was facing lies and the facts were all on his side. He gave the media the truth isn't that the gold standard of responses.

[bluestateguy]

5. Oh, I guess the My Lai massacre never happened!

In any event, Kerry is at fault for dithering around for three precious weeks, while this ad went from the Green Bay media market and upwards through the Right Wing Noise Machine and through the MSM.

[Chulanowa]

12. Of course it did. They just don't want to hear about it

See, that's the thing. You won't find anyone refuting these events - even this ad doesn't try to refute them. It just says "we;d rather not hear about it"

[Hieronymus]

19. Yes, Kerry dithered .. a lousy candidate.

[Lucinda]

6. Well...

If that's the swift boat ad (dialup - cant load vids) I don't think it was the ad that hurt Kerry as much the lack of immediate, sharp response. And anyone who doesn't expect that tactic to be used in the general is a fool.

[karynnj]

26. How more immediate can you get - than giving the proof to refute it BEFORE the attack

Kerry responded in the way that would have worked best as recently as 2000. He had truth and proof on his side. Producing it in a timely manner - which he did - should have caused the Bush connected SBVT to backfire. That was always the most respectable, and reasonable way to refute lies. Only if the charges were true would anyone do otherwise.

Before the August attacks, the media already had an incredible amount of information on Kerry's Vietnam service. They had: - about 140 pages of naval records, containing fitness reports that could be seen to completely cover the 3 1/2 years he was in the Navy. They were all glowing - even those written by future SBVT. (They also included one showing that Kerry was approved for a higher security clearance needed for the Brooklyn job - some SBVT very likely signed off on Kerry's character.)
- The Nixon tapes showed they looked looked into Kerry in 1971, 2 years after he served when people's memories would be fresh. They found he was a hero. - The Brinkley book was the work of an academic historian, who interviewed over 100 people and researched the available documentation Kerry had no editorial control. Brinkley backs Kerry. - All the men actually on Kerry's boats when he got any medals back him 100%.

After the lies came out, the Kerry campaign gave the media 30 some pages disproving charges. With multiple lies identified, it was unconscionable that the media simply went to the next set of lies. They also proved they had links into the Bush campaign. Would you have believed even 4 years ago that people at a convention could mock purple hearts and have the media show purple heart bandaids, with no negative comments, as a novelty of the campaign. This signaled a lot to the country.

Remember the WAR ROOM, that the Clintons speak of - their goal was to have SOMETHING out to counter any charge in the same news cycle. Kerry beats this by a country mile. Any one of the above points is more substantive than anything the Clintons put out in the changing draft or Flowers stories.

In addition, Kerry's team gave the media 36 pages of obvious contradictions and things that can be proven to be lies. People claimed to witness things on dates when they were not even in Vietnam.

How much proof backing Kerry do you need? How many lies do you need to defeat in real time. (Not easy, as they had to find witnesses willing to speak. Consider that BC had it easier - he knew that both the mentioned stories could happen.)

Kerry has already provided more than amble proof - why do you think that Guilliani and Bill Clinton have called negative attacks on their (or their wife's) campaign swiftboating - the reason is that the word implies despicable lying for political reason.

As John Kerry did NOT wait a month to counter the SBVT - the media had the proof needed BEFORE the August attacks. He went on to prove that the liars were connected to Bush.

After the election, it was Clinton aligned people, more than anyone else, who started the new smear - saying that Kerry did not fight back as a Clinton would. They were true in a way, Kerry fought back with truth and rational comments.

[gateley]

8. You bring up something we all need to remember - the Repubs will stop at

nothing to cast doubt on our nominee. They're vile human beings.

[Ken Burch]

9. What made Kerry vulnerable to having Ohio stolen from him wasn't this ad

It was his absolutely brainless choice to listen to the advisors who told him NOT TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE SLURS!!!

Why Kerry even had DUKAKIS people in his campaign is a bonafide mystery of Christ.

[bluestateguy]

10. Mary Beth Cahill and Bob Shrum

Those two jokers should never be allowed near another campaign again.

[Ken Burch]

13. ...well, we could let 'em run the REPUBLICAN campaign...

That way, we'd be a lock!

[karynnj]

27. They did a fantastic job in the primaries - a near flawless job

I think people blaming Kerry and his campaign might want to wait until after the 2008 election. So far, none of the pre-primary campaigns have resulted in their candidates coming out anywhere near as well as Kerry did in the primaries.

Bill Clinton and Guilliani have both whined of being swiftboated for attacks that did not come close. The other difference was that it wasn't the ads - it was the media's coverage and approval of them. Did you hear ONE talking head take offense at the purple heart bandaids? That they would treat JK's risking his life for his country as a joke, you know that there was something very strange going on.

[Eagle_Eye]

14. The Bush Administration is making sure these acquisitions against the military do not happen again!

That is why they contracted with BlackWater

[Ken Burch]

15. "acquisitions" or "accusations"?

OR is the really objective, in the end, to have Blackwater and Haliburton ACQUIRE the Defense Department?

[Eagle_Eye]

21. By George!, I think you are on to something

If Halliburton owns the Department of Defense (or just owns the politicians that control DoD) there would be no more questions about no bid contracts. Everything would be 'in house'.

As for investigations, they would just investigate themselves and of course find nothing wrong.

As for whistle blowers like former Naval Officers and Senators, they would just have their reputations trashed and the election stolen by the Supreme Court (which has also been acquired by Halliburton.

__-- OH WAIT A SECOND! we already live here --__

[forsberg]

16. It wasn't any single ad

Rather it was a consistant drumbeat of smears that persisted for months. That and fear mongering.

[blm]

17. Terry McAuliffe's REFUSAL to secure election process in 2002 and 2004 cost Dems

the election - including Kerry.

The RNC stole that election and worked for four years to do it - and the DNC let them do it.

[last_texas_dem]

20. Ugh... watching that shit pisses me off all over again

So much garbage... and the media did a piss-poor job of refuting it, treating it like some kind of "he said/he said"... "questions still remain to be answered about Kerry's service record", etc. And I remember "Pickles" Bush having the gall to equivocate the Swift Liars ads with the negative things being said about Shrubbie.

It was a hit job, plain and simple.

[FlyingSquirrel]

28. ACTUALLY, what killed Kerry was one specific debate answer.

When the woman got up and emotionally asked him his opinion on federal funding of Abortion, and he gave a rambling answer that concluded by saying that anyone who could not afford one on their own should be able to get assistance from the government.

Abortion is still the main thing that Repugs can hit on that drives their base to the polls, even more than gay marriage and gun control. Until Democrats can at least lower their rhetoric to the point of agreeing that federal funds will not be used for Abortion, elections will continue to be close.

[Ken Burch]

29. Or, until Democrats can at least be convincingly and unapologetically pro-choice

And stop accepting the RW smear that any woman who seeks an abortion should at least be stigmatized.

The only way to be pro-choice is to be straightforward and not sound like you are trying to hide something.

And, let me remind everybody, the pro-choice position still has solid majority support, so there isn't even any NEED to try to fudge on that one.

Face, we're not gonna win over the fetus fetishists(the kind of people Barney Frank so aptly nailed as believing "life begins at conception and ends at birth") anyway. Those who oppose abortion but are progressive on other issues can be appealed to on other issues.