Score another one for Kerry. ZINGER. Ridicules McCain.

[nomorewhopper]

He said he was going to interrupt his campaign to come down and save the negotiations. Most people believe what he did was interrupt the negotiations to save his campaign.

- John Forbes Kerry, September 28, 2008 speaking about John McCain on Fox News Sunday

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=aH5R1s5_w5E

And have you seen this quote from Clinton? It's not the most flattering thing he said about McCain in that interview....

Most people would have been broken by what he went through. His greatness is that he keeps trying to come back to service without ever asking people to cut him any slack or feel sorry for him because he was a POW

- William Jefferson Clinton, September 28, 2008 speaking about John McCain on Meet the Press

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=cN4to3u-wSQ

[dchill]

1. That quote is so funny, and yet knife-sharp true!

And never mind what Clinton said. He's playing a different game.

[Cha]

4. And what game would that be?

The game of "Let's see how many times I can build john mccain up before the stupid people catch on?"

Clinton is way past his mark.

[dchill]

11. No, I think he's playing the...

"I think the world of John McCain, a hero and a good man, but I think Obama is even better" game, not that I think it's a great idea for a game, but I do think that's the game.

[Chan790]

16. I didn't get it at first...

until today. One of my cranky crotchety late-middle-age conservative "I got mine, fuck you!" regulars told me he's decided that he can't vote for McCain. Why?

Economy: No.
Palin: No.
Bad Conservative: Not directly...though I'm sure that factored in.
Close to Bush: No.
...
The moron isn't voting for McCain because Bill Clinton likes him...and if Bill Clinton likes him then he knows that he's bad for America and "real" (meaning rich, white assholes like himself and his personal hero Sean Hannity) Americans.

Apparently being liked by Bill Clinton is a poison pill in the view of conservatives. :shrug:

[On the Road]

23. Actually, I Think the Effect is

that since McCain's character wasn't under attack, they didn't have to rise to his defense.

Think what happens if you read a comment on a neutral board that begins with a slur on Obama. Even if you continue reading, you're already immunized against anything the poster says.

Obama and Clinton realize this. A lot of folks here don't.

[ProSense]

35. That's completely

false

[Chan790]

37. You're talking pundits...

I'm talking rank-and-file.

Most of the rank and file conservatives I interact with have not and will not ever read the Weekly Standard (They prefer hardcore smut magazines for reading material between shifts at the Pratt and Whitney plant making jet engines for military aircraft and after church on Sunday) and they still think Bill's the anti-Christ, well...those who don't think Hillary's the anti-Christ.

Point is, Bill's support isn't helping McCain. It doesn't matter what the RW echo-chamber publications say, especially when the RW mass-media (Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.) still have nothing nice to say about a Clinton.

[ProSense]

46. Not all of them are not pundits n/t

[Raineyb]

44. Wouldn't he have to say that Obama is even better?

When does he plan to say that part?

Just wondering

Regards

[dchill]

55. I'm still waiting for him...

to flesh out that part of the plan. ;)

[BlooInBloo]

2. LEAVE CLINTON ALONE!!!!

:rofl:

[seabeyond]

6. that face....

lol loll lol

please... please leave him alone

[Arugula Latte]

50. Why won't the Clinton haters stop all their hateful hating!

Oh, how I hate the hate! And I hate the haters! And there's so much hate, because anything less than glowing praise of Bill is HATE, dontcha know! *wrings hands*

[Cha]

3. Ooooooouuuu..please tell us more about

fucking john mccain's greatness..Bill Clinton.

Good on Kerry..a real supporter of Obama.

[TheKentuckian]

5. Clinton undecut McHoover there

everytime he dons the POW shield, he'll look like he sold out his principles. At least to those that hang on Bubba's every word.

[NC_Nurse]

7. Is Clinton being snarky? All McLame's DONE is ask for people to cut him slack

because he was a POW. Remember - "He can't use a computer because of his POW injuries." or
"For 51/2 years, I didn't have a table or a kitchen. I lived in a box...yada, yada, yada...."

Has Clinton been under a rock? Or is he being *ironic*. :crazy:

[truthisfreedom]

15. Bill is taking a huge jab at McCain by taking away all of the power of his POW status in a single

swing.

[Lilith Velkor]

54. Yes he is, unless you buy into the fantasy that he's pulling for McLame

In that case, you are supposed to think he doesn't really mean it when he says he's for Obama, and you can tell by the fact that he's not jumping up and down on some talk show host's couch or something.

[globalvillage]

8. K&R for JK

I have no idea what Bill's trying to do.

[karynnj]

9. I think that zinger was tied with the one seconds earlier

when he pointed out that it took McCain 22 hours to make a trip between NYC and DC, a one hour flight.

That whole segment was perfect. Of the three men there, Wallace looked unhappy, Graham looked like he had had a very bad week and he had just gotten an eye infection and Kerry looked like he was having fun - and this was on FOX News.

Great Job - and even Clinton supporters should credit Kerry with being far more able to control Wallace.

[JI7]

12. that one says it all, can you image Obama saying it to McCain's face

i think McCain would just lose it.

[nomorewhopper]

13. IMO Kerry just NAILED it

[Cha]

14. I'm so happy that Kerry is having fun!

He's so important to us.

[YvonneCa]

31. Kerry was great. I finally saw the...

...interview. All I could do was watch Lindsey's eye...after this morning. :7

[Starry Messenger]

10. k&r

I hope someone collects all of Kerry's zingers into a book someday.

[ProSense]

17. Loved it, and this

He suspended his campaign, and it took him 22 hours to get from New York to Washington, a one-hour flight...

:rofl:

[nomorewhopper]

21. LOL!

[TTUBatfan2008]

18. Speaking of Kerry...

Anyone else think we would have won in 2004 with Barack as Kerry's VP? Granted, I know that election was determined mostly on ignorance and swiftboat politics, so maybe Barack would have been screwed to be running at that time. But still, he's a far stronger campaigner than Edwards. There is no doubt of that. In fact, he's a stronger campaigner than Kerry.

[MarjorieG]

22. Knowing the forensics as I do, vote switching, etc. had more to do with it. Though he had to concede

[YvonneCa]

30. Yes. n/t

[nomorewhopper]

26. another interesting question is how dean would have fared

i think dean was too "quirky" (if that has any meaning) to have beaten george bush. for whatever reason he was perceived as some wacko liberal from some hut in vermont with a ton of kids going crazy for him.

kerry got robbed. plain and simple. the swiftboat thing was ridiculous.

i hope that all of you here on this board realize the depths of hypocrisy of the republicans who destroyed John Kerry for his service and yet lavish praise (and slam obama) for his service.

[karynnj]

39. I think Dean would have fared far worse

The problem was that the country had too many people far too scared to make a change. Dean did inspire the left wing of teh Democratic base, but that was not enough. In December 2003, he was losing by more than "generic Democrat" to Bush and generic Democrat lost by double digits. (Kerry was not polled then). In early February, Kerry polled far ahead of generic Democrat and either beat Bush or was competitive.

Dean, led by Trippi, ran much more liberal than he had governed in Vt. He would have been much easier to beat as he was far less cautious than Kerry and sometimes seemed to not filter what he said. He also was very easily characterized as angry (though he is serene compared to McCain.) I think he actually is far happier and better suited to doing what he is doing - revitalizing the DNC.

The biggest problem with the SBVT was that the cable media gave them credibility by giving them time and treating them with a respect they denied Kerry, even though he was the one with the honorable, glowing, official record. They did it to save Bush. The reason was those early polls which showed people willing to trust that Kerry could save the country. It was very possible that a major reason for that had to do with the Rassman reunion. The truth was that Kerry risked his life to save him. More than McCain's POW story, that is as classic an American hero story as you can get. In a time of fear, what could be more reassuring. That was why the Republicans politically had to raise questions about the truth of the story. The lies should have backfired. Kerry deserved more defense from the party and from leaders in the media. They had the proof needed to debunk it.

[riqster]

38. Kerry was too effing naive in 2004

...assumed that the count was honest and conceded on Election Night. Had he waited a few weeks, he may well have assumed the office that he won. Sounds like he gets it now, at least.

It is crucial that we all understand this, and learn from our mistakes: THE REPUBLICANS ARE NO LONGER A PARTY, BUT RATHER HAVE BECOME A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE. They do NOT respect the rule of law, and anybody who concedes an election to a Reep before a full and complete count of each and every ballot betrays themselves and their constituency.

We do see heartening signs during the campaign, and the Swiftboating that has occurred has been dealt with more effectively. Hopefully, the Dems will not fuck up on Election night this time.

[Inuca]

41. 4 years later

and there is still no generally accepted proof, and you expected Kerry to wait several weeks? Wait for what? More unprovable speculations? He would have been a fool to do that, and he is no fool (not is he naive).

[karynnj]

43. There was no way that waitin a few weeks would have led to a win

Consider what the environment was in Ohio. There was a Republican Secretary of State, a Republican Governor and a Republican controlled legislature. All of the regular votes were counted and from the number of provisional ballots outstanding, there was no way to get enough more votes to get close. (Not all provisional ballots would be for Kerry and not all would be from valid voters.) When Kerry conceded he said that those provisional ballots would be counted - and they were - and Kerry was still about 59,000 short. Had enough votes been good Kerry votes - he would have taken back the concession - as Gore did in 2000. (If it was close enough, they would have then pushed for a recount themselves - a recount will not find 59,000 votes)

What case would they have been able to make that they really won to an Ohio court? All the Democratic lawyers who toold Gore to challenge told Kerry not to. Both Kerry and his brother are excellent lawyers who knew the right questions to ask. If there was any overt cheating, they were unable to find a whistle blower. (Yes, I know Edwards said he wanted to fight it, but he actually said nothing in all of 2005, only claimed he wanted to fight it on the blogs, never in the mainstream media, never said how he would make a case. I frankly do not believe him.)

This was not even like 2000 where there were punch cards that when closely examined led to more Gore votes. The other difference was that Gore needed to make up only about 526 votes. Here the suppression was done by making it physically difficult and for some impossible to vote by not putting enough voting machines in Democratic areas.

Even the RFKjr article does not state there were more VALID VOTES for Kerry. They estimate potential votes that were lost to the various voter suppression. John and Teresa Kerry then became among the most outspoken calling for the need to clean up the voting system.

[riqster]

45. After pledging to "count every vote", he didn't even wait for the final count

Apologize for him all you want, use hindsight (which he did not have when he caved on Election Night), but in the end, he made a promise and then didn't keep it.

[karynnj]

48. I am not "apologizing" for him because I have no right to do so and because

he has nothing to apologize for. In his concession speech, which was the next afternoon - not election night - he said that all those votes would be counted - but that there were not going to be enough of them.

This is the NORMAL thing to do. We learned in FL that some votes are not even in until over a week after the election. Yet every Presidential election in modern times, there was a concession on election day or in the early morning of the next. As I pointed out Gore conceded, then revoked it when there was cause to. Kerry's concession was the second slowest after Gore's second concession.

ALL of the votes cast were counted. Kerry did everything he could. There is NO candidate who would have done otherwise, because there was no case to be made and it would destroy the Democratic party, which would NOT have supported a challenge.

[riqster]

49. No, all of the Ohio votes were NOT counted

..provisionals were not counted. Blackwell locked 'em up. At least one Red county locked observers out of counting sessions. This is all a matter of public record.
We had election workers go to prison for gaming recounts, and Dems think it was all good??????

NO ONE KNOWS WHO WON. Why do people find that acceptable? In 2000, thanks to Gore's initiative, we eventually DID find out that he had in fact won, even though it was too late to do any good. Had the same effort been made in 2004, we would at least know where we stood.

Many people were disenfranchised in 2004. Nothing has been done for them. No one fought for those voters whose votes were ignored or miscounted. If it was all about the candidates, then perhaps "it wouldn't have changed anything" would be an acceptable attitude, but it's not. Elections are about the electorate.

Every vote counts, and every vote must be counted.

[karynnj]

52. No matter how many caps, bolded or not used,

the provisional votes were counted - which is why the totals changed to a narrower victory for Bush.

There were people who were disenfranchised, but it was for the most part, due to making it difficult or impossible for them to vote. Kerry was the one who spoke out on this - in addition to people like Boxer and Conyers. But, you can't count votes never cast.

Gore was 527 votes short - when Kerry conceded it was over 120,000. The same lawyers who told Gore to challenge, told Kerry there was no case. In addition, there were votes to be found hand examining the punch cards. It was within the range of possible that, given where the punch cards were used, that they could get enough votes to cover it. That was NOT true with the numbers that Kerry was presented with - you don't get tens of thousands of extra votes in a recount.

The officials went to jail for how they did the recount. Because there was a recount that the Greens pushed - and it resulted in almost no change to the numbers.

You are completely mischaracterizing the meaning of what I was saying when I said that it wouldn't have changed anything. The fact is that Kerry might well be President had the Democratic party in Ohio fought to have a clean election before it happened. It didn't because the state party was in really bad shape. That is not the fault of the Presidential candidate. I saw no one asking at the beginning of this year what HRC, Obama or Edwards was already doing to secure the election process in every state. Kerry could not have both run for President and revitalized every local party. In 2008, if the election is better run it will be because of state level action pushed by the DNC and the state parties. Kerry (and Gore) were the victims of incompetent party officials.

[politicasista]

56. **crickets**

Excellent post! Amazing people still blame only Kerry, but still let Democrats (i.e. McAuliffe, Carville, etc) that should have done the harder work off the hook.

[Bensthename]

19. Kerry still gets my vote any day.. I love that guy..

[politicasista]

20. K & R!

:kick: :patriot:

[progressiveforever]

24. Kerry is kicking ass- I wish he had so agressive in 2004

I have been very proud of John Kerry this entire election season.

[politicasista]

28. We wish there were Democratic surrogates that were aggressive in 04

Had they been, it might have been different. Kerry is doing for Obama what Dems failed to do for him in 04.

Instead of getting his message and attacks on Bush out, too many were afraid, sat on the sidelines, or sided with Bush. Now that Bush, Rove, and the media is 75% McBush (compared to 90% for Bush in 04), the media is airing Obama's responses and the real Kerry.












edit for spelling

[obiden]

32. John kerry's the best

still can't believe people didnt see through the swift boat skanks in 04, but atleast now we have O

[politicasista]

33. Yep. Obama has learned the lessons of the past

This time, he has Democrats standing with him, and we as the media, with YouTube and Dean's 50 state strategy and the grassroots. :)

[blm]

51. So you mean Kerry needed a Dem surrogate as strong as he is? Yes, woulda been nice if a wellknown

Dem had the guts to do for our nominee in 2004 what Kerry so VIGOROUSLY does for our nominee in 2008.

[crazy_vanilla]

25. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

:rofl:

[Myrina]

27. .. and even last night McLame was still lying re: suspended campaign ...

... when there's the Letterman proof, the other news appearances, dinner w/ Lieberman at a glitzy DC bistro, and Eskimo Barbie popping up all over Philly.


'Concentrating on the solution' my ass. :spank:

[karynnj]

40. I didn't know that he had dinner with Leiberman

Leiberman is not on the banking or Finance committee, so this was political - or Leiberman is the last friend he has left.

[wisteria]

29. Clever take on McCain's stunt from Senator Kerry. n/t

[Jennicut]

34. Kerry, always one of Barack's best supporters.

I salute you, John Kerry. I love him, he is really giving it to his "old friend".

[nomorewhopper]

53. kerry is doing everything possible to help barack

[Manifestor_of_Light]

36. Didn't Shakespeare go into this???

"Brutus is an honorable man."

lather, rinse, repeat.

I think Will Shakespeare called it damning with faint praise, elsewhere.

[ginnyinWI]

42. that could well be what Bill's up to here.

Kerry is doing a broadside attack-not a bad thing, understand.

Clinton is doing it differently. He has more credibility when he praises McCain (maybe people feel he resents Obama secretly, etc.) so he gets a meme like "broken" into the discussion in association with McCain's mind. Not a bad way to do it--and I'm no particular fan of Clinton's.

Each man is playing to their own strength.


For what it's worth, my old conservative dad looks favorably on Clinton (now) and would be likely to listen to him. He sees the two sides of the "Democrat Party", and bemoans the fact that we "always" nominate candidates from the "Liberal wing" and that's why they don't win (Kerry, Obama). He'd far rather see someone from the DLC side, so by comparison sees the Clintons as better and said he would even vote for Hillary over McCain.

He's wrong about winning. Kerry did win, and so will Obama.

[ProSense]

47. Bill Clinton as Shakespeare?

I doubt it. Voters trying to choose a candidate aren't scrutinizing psychological games for hidden meaning.

Most people don't think like that, they're looking for justification, and some of these comments are providing it.

*** Bill is back … back again … Bill is back … tell a friend: The 42nd president did it again: He's put into doubt how much he really supports Obama. His non-response about whether Obama -- like McCain -- was a "great man" made some wonder if Meet The Press was running the Darrell Hammond SNL parody yesterday rather than the actual Bill Clinton. Seriously, watch Hammond and Clinton side-by-side on the issue of Obama, you can't make it up.