Kerry: "Teddy was in favor of a public plan and...would've fought for a public plan on the floor..."

[ProSense]

KERRY: Let me just finish. Let me finish. He would fight for it, and he would do everything in his power to get it, just like he did for the minimum wage or like he did for children's health care, et cetera. But if he didn't see the ability to be able to get it done, he would not throw the baby out with the bathwater. He would not say no to anything because we have to reduce the cost. We have to make these changes. And he would find the best way forward.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So he wouldn't agree with those like Howard Dean who say it's not worth doing if you don't have the public health insurance option?

KERRY: I think there is an enormous amount, George -- oh, here is what Teddy would do. He would say, I'm going to fight the fight, and if and when we get to the point that we can't get there, we'll see whether or not we can do enough to make good happen out of this.

And you can't make that measurement today. We have to go down that road.

more

"Teddy was in favor of a public plan and Teddy would've fought for a public plan on the floor of the Senate," Kerry bristles. "Teddy would've probably found a way to have a vote, and if he'd lost the vote, he'd have moved on. That's how you legislate. You don't block. You don't stop anybody from expressing their point of view. You've got to move on and then you live with the vote, I mean, that's what Teddy would do. And if there were absolutely no way of getting it done, Teddy would find a road. If it meant changing it or working it through, he'd do that."

more

Bottom line, Kennedy would have fought his heart out for a public option.

[polichick]

1. True - any REAL DEM would fight his/her heart out for a public option. nt

[blm]

7. It's disgusting the way corpmedia is trying to change what was clearly stated - their agenda

was set to distort from the moment the cameras went on.

[ObamaKerryDem]

141. Exactly.

So much for the "librul media"..

K&R!

[Avalux]

2. Thank you. +1

This is how Kerry's comments should be presented. :hi:

[Iwillnevergiveup]

3. I would truly love to see

Bill and Hillary Clinton each summon Stupidopoulos and give him a royal bitch slap on each cheek. They MADE him, and riding in on their coattails, he's completely squandered his former position and reputation. He's turned into Wonder Putz.

[blm]

27. he co-opted triangulation to play both sides no matter how dishonest one side is...

apparently.

[Teaser]

4. kicked

.

[grassfed]

5. "if and when we get to the point that we can't get there -"

The message from the Obama administration via Kerry is that there will be no public option.

[ProSense]

8. Absolutely ridiculous conclusion, given

the rest of the statement:

"...we'll see whether or not we can do enough to make good happen out of this. And you can't make that measurement today. We have to go down that road.

[blm]

10. "And you CAN'T MAKE THAT MEASUREMENT TODAY." Corpmedia wants to twist perfectly clear statements.

.

[grassfed]

33. Kerry said we should "make good out of this..."

...as in not throwing the baby out with the bath water, implying that Democrats should accept the reforms possible, ie no denial of coverage for prior illness, donut hole revisions, etc., even if it means no Public Option. Obama stressed these other reforms when he made his "Public Option only a sliver of the package" statement. Unless Obama comes out of Kennedy's funeral a changed man there will be no public option but there will be some significant reforms. I agree with Bill Moyers and others who have advised standing firm on Medicare For All, or minimally a strong Public Option, and losing the battle instead of settling for a compromised bill.

[ProSense]

34. There was no "even if it means no Public Option" in Kerry's statement

There is a lot of room to negotiate a health care bill, and Democrats are holding all the cards

The majority of Democrats, 47, are going to vote for the the HELP bill with its public option. In finalizing the bill, they can:

• negotiate a tax on insurance companies;
  
  
• negotiate a tax on the top one percent;
  
  
• include co-ops in the mix; or
  
  
• negotiate a bill allowing all Americans -- regardless of age -- to purchase their health insurance from Medicare instead of being legally mandated to purchase insurance in the private sector.

The media is trying to sell the notion that compromise means capitulating to the Republicans by removing the public option, but there are any number of options, some undefined, that could be involved in compromise, and, as Kerry said, we are not there yet. He said nothing about dropping the public option

There are also 10 more Senators in the Democratic caucus than required to pass any health care bill. The reality is that there is no reason for negotiations to reach the point where the public option has to be dropped. None, and definitely not in compromise with Republicans.

[Mass]

35. First, this is not what Kerry said. Second, Bill Moyers can pay for his healthcare.

Many people cannot.

While I agree with Kerry (and Kennedy) that we should fight for a public option, I also agree that, if it is blocked (after long discussion), it is better to try to get a good bill that makes progress than nothing at all.

This is why Kennedy made SCHIP, for example. It made progress even if it did not get everything he wanted. It is how any progress is reached.

First you fight, then you see what is achievable. We are not yet at the compromise part, but it will be a moment when we will be.

[grassfed]

43. moyers

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=361598&mesg_id=361598

[Mass]

44. I have no problem with what he says except that he says no other bill is acceptable.

If and when the Dems have fought for the bill and seen there is no way and that another bill could pass and improve people's life, it should be considered, because, contrarily to Moyers, many people cannot pay for their healthcare NOW.

The two questions right now are that:

1/ There is nobody to negotiate with, (which is one of the things Kerry says in the interview, even if too briefly,

2/ Because of this, Democrats are making concessions without counterpart.

So, I have no problems with what Kerry says.

Read Wellstone's line in my sig. This is a principle I agree wholeheartedly.

[grassfed]

46. I've been accused on this thread of being a "corpmedia troll"

when it appears that my accusers will accept no public option, "co-ops" an other corpmedia deceptions.

[Jakes Progress]

87. Have you ever applied for SCHIP?

Here in Texas I work with a group that helps with that. You apply with a form that has many pages requiring tons of information that most people don't keep. The primary targets for this are the poor and the poorly educated. It takes several weeks to get a reply. Must be handled by mail. No one returns calls. Then you have to start over again after three months.

This is what you get when you compromise. You get to feel good about doing "something" while the masses have to deal with the crap.

[Mass]

91. My kids have healthcare BECAUSE of SCHIP.

They both have a preexisting condition and we would never get healthcare for them otherwise (even if I could pay for it). Now, sorry, may be SCHIP should be better, but if people had decided not to compromise and stand on their golden pedestal, my kids would be dead at this point. Clear enough?

Now, the problem is not SCHIP or our senators (both strong supporters of it). The problem is your ridiculous state that made sure it would be difficult to get. Start working for solving it!!

Would I prefer single payer: YES. Am I happy that senator Kennedy and others compromised to get something done: HELL YES!!!!

[Jakes Progress]

104. I'm glad your kids are alive.

Across the country thousands are not because of the compromise.

I can see why you are happy though. Congratulations.

[Mass]

109. So, you think Kennedy and others should have refused SCHIP .

It is true SCHIP is imperfect and that people need to continue to fight to improve it.

This said, every law on the country is imperfect (See Medicare). Was it better to pass them, bringing progress, and then continue to fight to improve them, or was it better to vote against them and forego the progress they brought. The mantra of any good congressperson should be get the best you can get now and then continue to fight. It is about improving people's life, after all.

Sorry, but the implication of your post is that it would be better not to have them. This is heartless and ridiculous.

[Mass]

Just to make it clear, here is my position.

- Every single bill in the house and senate is IMHO pretty tame,
- I would hate see them become even tamer, particularly without seeing people fighting for them (which seems to be the case, unfortunately).

but

I cannot see any responsible person say that, once this battle is fought and a bill is reached that is making real progress without being perfect, it should not be voted in because it does not include a feature or another. I cannot. It seems heartless. No bill will ever be perfect. So, if the bill allows to make progress, I would expect my Senator and congressman to vote for it and continue to fight.

[Jakes Progress]

112. I can't disagree with most of your position.

I'm glad for every scrap we get. I'm also angry that very rich people control congress to deny their privileges to others.

My problem is that so many Dems are used to caving. They spent years giving away 90% of what they wanted to get 10%.

In the case of health reform, I don't see the need for compromise. The compromises that are being suggested are worse than nothing. They give more and more money to corporate insurance and pharma. These companies have already worked out how they will circumvent any perceived benefit for the people.

The country voted in a Democratic majority because they wanted what the Democrats have always said they would fight for. Public Option is already a compromise. That is what we offered. We get absolutely nothing in return. We promise Pharma that their profits are guaranteed by the full faith and majesty of the Federal government for the next 10 years. We promise corporate insurance that their predatory behavior will not only be protected from competition, but we will governmentally back more profit by mandating that every one use them. These are not compromises. These are conditions worse than we had before we won control of the government.

A full and robust public option to private health insurance is the very least Democrats can do for the people who put them in office. We already know we won't get a single republican vote for any form of health care reform that will aid people. They don't want Democrats to be able to claim success. If the craven blue dogs and corporocrats gut the public option, our president must do what he promised he would do, what he swore he would do when to took the oath of office. He must veto the bill, roll up his sleeves, and weigh in to battle for the people. If it means firing his advisers that support corporate interests over the people, so be it. If it means backing and supporting true Democrats against DINOs, so be it. He must use the exceptional oratory skills he has to tell the public who is lying to them, naming names, and show exactly why he vetoed the biggest corporate assistance bill in a decade. He will have to fight the MSM. He will have to fight lying devils. He will have to risk having a republican say bad things about him. And he will have to fight ignorance.

But it is better to end legislation that not only continues but expands corporate control of America's health care. There is no progress in health care without the public option. Public option is the compromise we make to come back and work for full universal health care. Without it. We have not only lost, we have given away the little we already have.

[GreenArrow]

36. That's pretty much the way I read it too.

Kennedy would push for a public option, and if he got to the point where it was clear that wasn't possible, he'd try to make lemonade. It's a moot point anyway, since Kennedy will not be there to push for a public option.

[karynnj]

55. None of what you are saying is in what Kerry said

nor did he say the public option is dead. You are also distorting Obama's comment. The fact is that while the public option is very important for the long term fiscal health of this, those other things you list are incredibly important, significant things. (In addition the new subsidies to people whose income is less than 4 times the poverty level and the ability of individuals and small businesses to get "large group" rates is major.

Kerry is still arguing for the public option and he said the truth needs to be heard. The question you have focused on was a hypothetical question and it was assuming that the public option could not be passed. It was NOT saying how much effort should be made on it. Now, in that case, you yourself speak of "significant reform". Would you ask the people who lives or health may depend on that reform to not get it because a much better bill (that could not pass) existed? I can't. That does not mean that I want the public option less.

[grassfed]

57. Kerry's arguing for it to save face, Rahm made a deal with Pharma

[ProSense]

58. Now, you're not making any sense.

"Kerry's arguing for it to save face"? What: the public option? You claimed Kerry's statement meant the pubic option was dead. Now, you're claiming he's arguing for it to save face? And what the hell does Kerry have to do with Rahm?

[grassfed]

61. Kerry asserts that there are acceptable alternatives to the Public Option

which there aren't. We're being set up to accept the corporate deal Rahm struck with Pharma instead of comprehensive Health Care Reform. Brace yourself..

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/the-phrma-deal-the-plot-thickens.html

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&num=100&resnum=0&q=rahm%20emanuel%20pharma&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

[ProSense]

64. Point to where Kerry's statement said there are "acceptable alternatives to the Public Option"

"Brace yourself."

Don't assume other people are as delusional.

[grassfed]

65. acceptable outcomes - lemonade with no PO

[ProSense]

66. You still haven't pointed to where he said "acceptable outcomes to the public option"? Where? n/t

[grassfed]

67. Interpret as you like

KeERRY: But if he didn't see the ability to be able to get it done, he would not throw the baby out with the bathwater. He would not say no to anything because we have to reduce the cost. We have to make these changes. And he would find the best way forward.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So he wouldn't agree with those like Howard Dean who say it's not worth doing if you don't have the public health insurance option?

KERRY: I think there is an enormous amount, George -- oh, here is what Teddy would do. He would say, I'm going to fight the fight, and if and when we get to the point that we can't get there, we'll see whether or not we can do enough to make good happen out of this.

...
Done deal - corporate designed coops, no PO, no govt drug price negotiation, etc...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/no-rahm-your-compromise-o_b_254475.html

[ProSense]

69. Where does it say "acceptable outcomes to the public option"? Where?

You can't produce anything except your nonsensical distortion.

[grassfed]

73. tavolo da cucina

[paulk]

75. +1

LOL!

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Inuca]

29. Can you read?

Not to mention that I don't think that Kerry is an administration "messenger" on health care.

[karynnj]

51. You take HALF a sentence and make it mean what it doesn't???

The second half of that sentence is "we'll see whether or not we can do enough to make good happen out of this. "

First of all, the response starts with an "IF". That word has meaning. Gregory's question was asking Kerry to attribute a Howard Dean's stated opinion to Kennedy. Now, given Dean's record in VT, I suspect that he in fact would actually "see whether or not we can do enough to make good happen out of this." rather than reject the bill. To put that comment in perspective, consider SCHIP.

In 1996, the precursor bill to SCHIP, "healthy Families" or Kerry/Kennedy was introduced, but in 1997, with only 45 Democrats there was no way that it could have passed as written. Kennedy found a compromise with Hatch to get it done. The biggest changes were that each state could design their own plan and that it would not be an entitlement. Looking at what was changed to get SCHIP which passed, I think Kerry/Kennedy - which could not be passed in a Senate with 45 Democrats - would have been better - especially in red states, like Texas where then Governor Bush dragged his feet, even though it meant losing federal money. But the bill was still the biggest increase in government assistance on health insurance, providing insurance for millions of kids who otherwise would not get it.

Now, would you have recommended that Kennedy, refuse to accept a bill that did not have a sound national plan? Or a bill that did not make it an entitlement? Or, do you think that in that case, he found that it met the criteria of doing "enough to make good happen out of this?" I do millions of kids got insurance who wouldn't have gotten it. Would Kerry/Kennedy have been better - of course, if it could have passed.

What is interesting here is that Hatch brought up SCHIP. They also seemed to miss a significant thing in Hatch's comments. At least twice, he used the example of SCHIP as where Kennedy compromised. This example has promise because it really was Teddy working to find what Hatch needed to get him on board. Hatch's comment that S-CHIP is "center-right" is interesting and nonsensical. If it was center right why did about 6 or so Republicans and all the Democrats vote for it? What is clear is that Hatch now thinks of that compromise as a victory for him. The Senators need to find what things could make our conservative Democrats and maybe some Republican "think" they won a victory, while passing a bill that still does what Kennedy (Obama etc) want.

[grassfed]

54. thanks for agreeing with me

that Kerry suggests we accept a watered down Health Care bill that won't upset Sarah Palin.

[karynnj]

93. I don't agree with you that Kerry suggests anything of the sort

He never said that. You have major reading comprehension problems if you interpreted it that way.

Was it wrong to pass SCHIP? Should Kennedy have refused to change Kerry/Kennedy and done nothing until we had enough Democrats (which would have meant as much as a decade with kids not having health insurance)

[Dinger]

6. K & R!

:patriot:

[Jakes Progress]

9. Agreed. Kerry should know better.

Any Democratic office holder who won't do so is a disgrace. Kennedy stood for what makes the Democratic party better than the republican party. If you don't do that, you aren't a Democrat.

The problem is that we have Democrats who will not fight. They will compromise and give up without even trying. What Kerry should do is keep his mouth shut about compromise before the fighting begins. Why in the pluperfect hell would you tell your opponent that you are ready to give in before you start negotiating.

My belief is that a compromised bill will end up like NCLB. That was a good Kennedy bill that got compromised into a big wet kiss for corporate education. We've gotten so used to giving in that we do it before we start.

[TayTay]

13. This makes no sense

John Kerry invented political negotiation and the idea of a final compromise in the making of laws? OMG, I did not know that. You mean Republicans had never thought about health care or what the Democrats might do before? Heavens!

When are we going to stop worrying about what "they" will say about us. Why does fear rule so much around here. John Kerry told the truth about this process and about how you get things done in Washington. He said what Teddy would have said, which is what he was asked.

When are we going to stop worrying about being the 98 pound weakling on the beach getting sand kicked in his or her face? Why does fear have to rule all these conversations? So and so should stop talking, lest "they" misuse what is said. "So and so" should shut up because some one might take them the wrong way. Then we lament the fact that no one seems to be speaking up? Gee, I wonder why?

John Kerry did a great job this morning. He spoke truthfully about what will happen. Good for him. Good for us.

[Inuca]

30. Perfectly put, thank you n/t

[Jakes Progress]

38. Perfectly naive, that is. nt

[Jakes Progress]

37. Then I would like to sell you some real estate.

In your version of reality, there is no reason to ever negotiate because everyone knows what everyone is thinking and doing. But you are the one who doesn't get how Washington works.

Yes. Everyone knows that there is a negotiation. It is not done in the back rooms. It is done on the airwaves and over microphones. It is made up of posturing and defensive stands. If one of the leading lights of your party says that both he and the lion of the party are willing to give up public option, they aren't telling that to the other party. They are telling that to their own party. We are being told that, according to Kerry and the party elite, the public option is not a big deal. The true progressives of the party could have tried to negotiate if our own leaders weren't using the airwaves to tell the republicans to go ahead and stonewall the progressives, that he would invoke Kennedy's name to back a compromise.

I don't understand your post. What great job did Kerry do? Is it good that he is willing to tell the public and the republicans that they can go ahead and have their way with health care?

[Inuca]

39. Do you think

that republicans (in Congress or otherwise) needed Kerry or any other dem to tell them that if they manage to block the public option there will be negotiations?

[Jakes Progress]

40. Do you think

telling the public that Kennedy "wanted" to compromise, was helpful to those negotiations?

I campaigned for and voted for Kerry. He is wrong here.

[Inuca]

45. He did not say Kennedy WANTED to compromise

he said that he would have fought like the lion he was, but if the moment came when he realized that he cannot win, then he would have looked for a compromise in order not to throw the baby, etc. I am not parsing words, it is a BIG difference.

[Jakes Progress]

47. It's the same thing. It sounds

like he's praising Kennedy while sending the message that Kennedy would not be upset to have public option given away for a deal. It is not a big difference.

[MH1]

53. "would not be upset to have public option given away"? How do you read it that way?

That is not at all what Kerry's words mean. You can be upset as hell that you don't get what you want, but still take getting SOMETHING instead of sitting in the corner bawling your eyes out and getting nothing.

[grassfed]

56. lemonade from lemons, corporate friendly co-opts from medicare for all

such a deal.

[Jakes Progress]

108. Sounds like all these guys

have great insurance and nice incomes. They see this as a game. Give a lot, get a little. Pat yourself on the back. Go have a drink with the other side and banter.

This is a war and the are aiding the enemy.

[karynnj]

155. No - you are the one who thinks it's a game

You are pretty cavalier turning turning down something "good enough" because it isn't what you want. Remember Elizabeth Edwards speaking of how women in her situation can't get insurance? What if the bill takes care of pre-existing conditions?

The fact is Kerry's answer was NOT Kennedy would compromise - it was - in the case it absolutely can't be done - which he did not say was the case, THEN Kennedy would look at what was proposed and IF IT DID ENOUGH GOOD, he would have supported it.

That is a conditional maybe.

A "No" is simply dishonest if Kerry believes that Kennedy would vote for a bill if it did good, even if he was very disappointed. I think Kerry, Kennedy's colleague of 25 years, has more insight than you do.

[Jakes Progress]

107. What I want? What I want?

What do you want? Do you want universal health care? Do you want everyone to have the same health care options that the people we elect have?

Me? I've got great health insurance. Me? I'm too old to go to war. Me? I'm comfortable enough.

Some of us are in this for more than just ourselves. I spend several hours a week helping the homeless and the indigent try to claw some form of health care and assistance from the compromise and concession clogged rules that that capitulation and politics as usual have created.

Just pass universal health care. How can that be a bad thing?

[karynnj]

154. no it doesn't

It doesn't say he wouldn't be upset - it says that he would look at what was left and would MAYBE find what remained good enough to support.

A far MORE mature response, than NO, if not this no matter how many people it helps I'm voting NO.

[karynnj]

63. That's not what he said

The question was a hypothetical - What if a bill with the public option can't be passed? That says NOTHING about working for it. In addition, Kerry's answer was not "Yes, sure" but that he would look to see if it did enough good.

That does not suggest "want" to me, but rather an answer 100% consistent with Kennedy's record - which is NOT one of refusing to do good because it was less good than he wanted.

How would you have had Kerry answer the question about the man he spent most of 25 years working with in the Senate? Should he have said "No" or "I don't know" - neither of which would be honest.

[Jakes Progress]

74. What he said

was more than was needed if all he wanted to do was praise Kennedy. The statement is like seeming to praise a warrior by saying that he fought hard and only groveled before the enemy when it was absolutely necessary. Sure there are times when caving might save some portion of what you want to do. But that is not the part of someone's career that you celebrate. Just say he fought hard for what he believed in. You don't have to stand by a fallen comrade and explain how good he was when it come to losing.

The statement served a more political purpose. It associated the upcoming capitulation by corporatists with our lost hero. As in. See. Kennedy fought hard but, just like us, he made deals when it was necessary. The more I read the statement the madder I get. I knew the republicans were waiting for him to die so that they could press their advantage. Now it seems some our own have decided to use Kennedy as an excuse for caving when the public doesn't want them to.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jakes Progress]

82. Still can't answer a simple question.

Still insulting rather than arguing. Name calling instead of making a cogent point. Missing every nuance and remaining purposefully ignorant.

You never fail to amuse. You are constant as the stars and as slippery as an eel. There is no excuse for your person.

Oh yeah. Do you believe that the public option is a vital part of claiming victory in health care reform?

See. I'm an optimist too. I actually think you might one day commit yourself to a position in such a way as to have to admit error. Silly me.

[karynnj]

97. Missing every nuance and remaining purposefully ignorant. - this sounds more like you

At least read the transcript before attacking someone on our side. As to insulting - this post insults whomever you are attacking.

[grassfed]

90. thank you...

well put

[karynnj]

96. Did you bother to read the question he was asked?

He was asked specifically whether if a bill with a public option could not pass, would Kennedy compromise. That is not "caving in" - it is doing what can be done to help people. This is not a game.

The fact is you did not take the time to read the transcript or to watch the show. That you have the chutzpah to suggest that Kerry is using Kennedy in such a way is sickening. You are beyond help if you could not see that Kerry has been near tears as he has spoken of Kennedy this week. With you it is all polemics - Kennedy was a friend, mentor and ally to Kerry for 25 years. Kerry was, I think, the only Senator invited to visit him and Vicki recently (though I would guess that Dodd would have had he not been ill.)

[Jakes Progress]

106. Kerry has been in politics for many years.

Why did he feel the need to bring up compromise at this juncture? Was he indicating something to come or was he just bumbling? You can't have it both ways.

[karynnj]

128. Neither - he gave a rational, honest answer to the question

He did not "bring up" compromise, the question expressly asked about it - and you ignore that the answer limited the situations in which he would - to be only when there is no chance of a bill (something he in other sentences is not conceding) and when the compromise still holds enough good.

I have NEVER seen you use the word "bumbling" for others - not Edwards, nor Clinton - when there have been clear cases where their responses were not good. Kerry's responses here were anything but bumbling.

[politicasista]

135. **crickets** n/t

[politicasista]

136. The poster is very complementary of both

Clinton and Edwards. The name Kerry must really scare some TPTB people and some DUers.

[karynnj]

137. Exactly

It mystifies me why he wants to attack one of the strongest people, who is pretty consistently on our side. He also uses themes that were spread mostly starting in late 2004 - mostly to diminish Kerry to eliminate a possible rival To Hillary Clinton. That is when the themes - like bumbling, inarticulate, and not willing to fight back all were pushed -often in books written by people like Carville, Begala, McAuliffe.

You might remember that Carville and Begala were 2 of the few Democrats on cable - and they did NOTHING to help Kerry get his message out. In 2008, Carville spoke often of SCHIP crediting HRC, whose role was getting Bill to put it in the budget. HRC listed this as her most important achievement. In 2004, Carvelle ignored Kennedy speaking of how that bill started as a bill that he sponsored with Kerry. Given that a RW attack was that Kerry did nothing in the Senate, writing major parts of SCHIP is a very good counter example. Kerry also wrote the successful international money laundering legislation that passed after 911 - years after Kerry wrote it and argued for it as needed to fight international crime rings, including terrorists. I suspect the real reason that legislation and his work investigating BCCI was played down was that it shows Kerry was more prescient on this than President Clinton, who was better than Bush.

Now, Kerry was excellent in the 2003/2004 primary debates and in the debates with Bush. He then became the most articulate person speaking against Bush's policy on Iraq, while the Clintons remained silent. If he were either inarticulate or bumbling, there is no way that Obama's team would have used him as often as they did on talk shows, including the final MTP to make Obama's case before the primaries.

It is sad that the RW smears, that did not stop after November 2004 were combined with smears from the Democrats. The impressive thing is that Kerry continues on doing what he thinks is right. It is incredibly short sighted for factions on the left to attack Kerry. They might consider why the AP distorted Kerry's message.

Here is my guess. Both the RW and other factions of the party would like to eliminate or cripple Kerry as an important voice of the party because each sees it in their vested interest to do so. The left should seriously consider this. In the Senate, Kerry is a very strong foreign policy voice and he has succeeded in getting all the kneejerk amendments on Iran, North Korea, the Palestinians defeated - something others in the past could not do. Kerry is to the left here compared to Obama who is to the left of Clinton. If Kerry becomes less important speaking to the public, who are the people who might emerge as strong voices? Schumer? (that shouldn't make the people screaming against corporate control happy) McCaskill or Webb? (good on somethings, but very conservative on others.) (They might consider that Dodd, who was another strong liberal and Kennedy ally has been weakened by purported scandal and negative labeling. They have nothing real on Kerry.)

The things Kerry said - that it was far to early to concede they can't get a bill with a public option, that there were NOT Republicans (plural - I suspect Snowe might be the reason he explicitly emphasized plural) negotiating in good faith, that he thought they could get a bill - were ignored. They distorted the response to "would Kennedy compromise IF a bill with the public option became impossible" His answer was not yes - which the AP article suggests, but really "maybe" - and the maybe depended on if there was enough good in the bill.

Stop and think what a "NO" would mean. Do you really think that if a bill that did "enough" good were up for votes, that Senator Kennedy would have voted NO, because it was less good than he wanted? That is contrary to Kennedy's entire history. Yet that -in essence- is the answer this poster wanted.

He says that he wouldn't want Kerry negotiating for him, now Kerry,and the others, has far more important things to do, but I would FAR prefer Kerry to the poster. He is naive if he thinks the Clintons, who pioneered the current use of the word triangulating and thought it was a positive, or Edwards, who voted for the bankruptcy bill, would be better.

[politicasista]

153. Excellent post

You and ProSense (and beachmom) have point. This is one of the main reasons people still go after Kerry, Obama to some extent, and others who aren't the status quo.

IMO, Uncle Ted laid this all out for Ms. Vicki, Obama, Kerry, etc on how he wanted people to proceed with the health care bill. Just a hunch.

[ProSense]

41. You can't sell spin, who would buy real estate from you? "I don't understand your post." What Kerry

knows, and evidently you don't: There is a lot of room to negotiate a health care bill, and Democrats are holding all the cards.

The majority of Democrats, 47, are going to vote for the the HELP bill with its public option. In finalizing the bill, they can:

• negotiate a tax on insurance companies;
  
  
• negotiate a tax on the top one percent;
  
  
• include co-ops in the mix; or
  
  
• negotiate a bill allowing all Americans -- regardless of age -- to purchase their health insurance from Medicare instead of being legally mandated to purchase insurance in the private sector.

Just like you, the media is trying to sell the notion that fight and negotiate only when it becomes absolutely necessry equal capitulating to the Republicans by removing the public option, but there are any number of options, some undefined, that could be involved in compromise, and, as Kerry said, we are not there yet.

There are also 10 more Senators in the Democratic caucus than required to pass any health care bill. The reality is that there is no reason for negotiations to reach the point where the public option has to be dropped. None, and definitely not in compromise with Republicans.

[Jakes Progress]

48. Look.

You got one idea about how the deal should go. I have another.

None of the things you list are things that we can "give" to the republicans to get the deal for public option except for co-ops, which I don't like. So I don't see how we can "negotiate" with the items you list. The republicans don't want them. If you mean that we can "negotiate" so that we get these instead of a real public option, that is called giving away the compromise on the compromise. What Kerry knows that you evidently don't is that the dlc is ready to give in already so it doesn't matter what he said.

If you recall, the post was about how Kennedy would fight for what he wanted and only give in when he couldn't get it. So If you say that there isn't a chance of the public option being lost, what is the point of his "tribute". So I ask again if you think it is okay to trade away the public option portion of the health care bill? I don't. And indicating that you are open to that is just lousy negotiating. i think Kerry is smarter than that.

You didn't answer my questions from the other posts. You rarely do. But that's okay. I think the answers are implied.

[ProSense]

50. Do you just talk to yourself?

"So I ask again if you think it is okay to trade away the public option portion of the health care bill? And indicating that you are open to that is just lousy negotiating. i think Kerry is smarter than that."

Where the hell did you get that? Seriously, do you only listen to yourself?

"i think Kerry is smarter than that."

Evidently you don't even listen to yourself.

[Jakes Progress]

70. I will, if necessary, connect the dots for you.

I think that Kerry is smart enough to know that his statement would assure the republicans that public option was up for grabs. He knows that. His statement was a way of okaying the move by saying it was what Kennedy would do. It is lousy negotiating and I think that Kerry is smarter than to try to negotiate that way. He is making the statement as cover for the party caving.

I voted for Kerry. I campaigned for Kerry. But in this instance he is wrong. He should not use Kennedy and try to speak for Kennedy to indicate that public option is available for trade. If he were only paying tribute to Kennedy, he could have said how much Kennedy was a fighter and/or how much he wanted the public option. But he carried it past that, indicating that Kennedy would go along with a capitulation on public option. He gets to do this while appearing to laud his colleague. I can tell that you didn't catch that, but there it is. Sorry if I thought you could follow politic-speak.

Now. That is where the hell I got that. How did you not? See. I answered your question. You read posts and try, emphasis on try, to pick out little nits to pick while ignoring the gist and purpose of the post. When questioned, you jump to another post and find more nits, always avoiding making any definitive statements about your own by answering the questions.

We just don't seem to be able to get along. I don't trust politicians as much as you do. Maybe I've been at it too long. Maybe you know these people personally. Whatever.

So again. Do you believe that the strong public option is important to calling our health care efforts successful?

[ProSense]

72. "I voted for Kerry. I campaigned for Kerry." Who cares?

"His statement was a way of okaying the move by saying it was what Kennedy would do."

Beyond dumb.

[Jakes Progress]

85. Again. So short. so.....without any merit of thought at all.

Just because your naivety precludes your understanding of how politics works, you still shouldn't avoid every single question ever put to you.

Your replies are the dumb ones. As in mute. Without speech. Lacking in answer. You continue to dodge the issue with name calling and a shortage of wit.

Go on. Give it a try. Taking a stand shouldn't scare you so much.

[karynnj]

98. Get over yourself - Prosense has had some of the best threads on this board - you, not so much

Maybe if you bothered to actually read the transcript, you would see that your knee jerk reaction was wrong - and Kerry's comments are far from your description.

[Jakes Progress]

105. Mine wasn't the kneejerk reaction

That came from the people who simply saw the names Kennedy and Kerry and genuflected. I admired and supported both men, but even good men are wrong sometimes. If you work with the result of compromise legislation, in education and in agencies trying to get health care for the poor you will read things like this more deeply. Kind words and good intentions don't get it done. If you have followed the history of what happens with compromised legislation, have been working the progressive cause for forty years, you will see that shaking hands with the devil is not a thing to celebrate. Pharma is the devil. Corporate health insurance is the devil. Orrin Hatch is the devil. Chuck Grassley is the devil. Doing a make nice dance with these ghouls so that you can pat yourself on the back isn't something to be proud of.

Yep. Sometimes you have to eat shit and make a deal. When that happens, you lost. Sometimes you have to bend your knee so that a tiny scrap of good can be done. When you do that, you lost. We didn't lose this time. The country elected to go toward the things the Democratic party once stood for. The public went to the polls and voted because they thought Democrats would establish universal health care, because they thought Democrats would bring our soldiers home and stop spending billions on ordinance, and because they thought Democrats would work to protect the people from the rich corporations. They did not elect them to make deals and make nice with the people that have been stealing and torturing.

If the definition of best thread is all-praise, all-the-time. They you are right. Happy. Happy. Happy. It's a Sadie Hawkins kind of day. You get to pick your partner. You wanna give old Orrin a whirl, that's your business.

[karynnj]

127. Should Kennedy have compromised Kerry/Kennedy in 1997?

S-CHIP was not an entitlement and rather than a well designed federal program, each state designed its version - and some did a shoddy job. Were these two features less sacrosanct than the public option? I think that was a good compromise - and it gave millions of kids insurance. (It was well thought of enough that HRC, who you supported, claimed it as her accomplishment in the primaries, because she pushed Bill to include funding in the budget for it after it passed - but it was clearly a compromise. )

Here, Kerry did NOT say they should compromise now - he specifically said the opposite. ONLY in response to the question that said IF A BILL WITH IT COULD NOT PASS, did he then CONDITIONALLY say that Kennedy MIGHT compromise. (The condition being IF there was still enough good in the bill).

[wisteria]

84. Absolutely. Our government is all about compromise and moving forward with postive change. n/t

[ProSense]

18. Agreed? Obviously, you're confused.

Kerry made perfect sense. Your comment, not so much.

Fight means fight. Kennedy isn't here to defend his legacy. Kerry made it perfectly clear that Kennedy would fight. He said nothing about giving in as you claim in your nonsensical response. You seem to want to add to the media distortion and give credence to their spin. Your comment bears no relation to what Kerry said.

FAIL!

[Jakes Progress]

49. Sorry you don't see it.

Check your post. Why did Kerry add the material about finally compromising when it was necessary? What was the point?

What Kerry should have said was that Kennedy wanted the public option. Period. Why go into making deals? What purpose does it serve?

Was the point of the OP to say that Kennedy wanted the public option or that the wanted the public option but would compromise if needed? If the latter - why? What point? It does not serve either Kennedy's memory or our fight in the Senate.

And if I write cryptic little words from the internets in big old capital letters about you, does that make them more truthy?

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulk]

76. I read it that way, too, especially in light of what Reid said

the other day -

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/does-harry-reid-want-co-ops-over-the-public-option.php

It looks an awful lot like the party leaders are laying the groundwork for capitulation on the public option.

[karynnj]

60. Did you read the OP, which included what Kerry said - or did you just see Kerry's name.

Kerry said NOTHING about giving in. He said we weren't there yet. In addition, Kerry (and Dodd) were as close as any Democrat to Kennedy on both what they want and how they need to work to get it. (The NCLB example s pretty poor - as Kennedy himself pushed for the legislation - many of the problems were in the implementation and in the lack of funding. Maybe you need to look at SCHIP instead - it was a compromise from Kerry/Kennedy, which had no chance of passing. Those compromises were not small, but without them there would have been no passed bill and millions of kids would not have had health insurance.

[jenmito]

11. K&R to fight the distortion of his words

[blm]

12. Corpmedia has a few minions on DU furthering blatant lies against Dems even though

the transcripts PROVE the clarity of Kerry's words.

[jenmito]

14. I wonder why they're allowed to keep posting here...

all they do is post misleading threads.

[AuntPatsy]

17. I honestly wonder the same thing

[Teaser]

20. It's time for some concerted action about this

we need some better rules on this kind of stuff.

[blm]

21. Once a transcript PROVES the error in a post or article, it should be taken down.

Period.

[AuntPatsy]

22. I agree they seemingly no longer care to remain behind false words...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

111. You and me both.

The problem is that they're not Corporate Media, nor are they even Republicans. They're socialist and green party members that couldn't give a shit less about Democrats or their agenda. They want to see Democratic liberlism fail so they themselves can take up the reins in the name of purity and an 18% voter share.

And a good many of those people are mods.

[AuntPatsy]

19. k so this stays above the other one (sigh)

[AuntPatsy]

23. Sen Kennedys' desire was to have the letter to the pope read..health care was his goal for all..

anything less is unacceptable since he vowed to fight until the end..

[Inuca]

31. He fought BEYOND the end

the letter, the quotes and homily at the service yesterday :cry:

[TayTay]

24. And the sun comes up in the morning, the sky is blue and fire is hot

I have no idea why these remarks are in any dispute whatsoever. This is how legislation is done. You fight like hell for what you want in a descending list of what emerges. Sen. Kerry is merely stating the truth here.

[MH1]

26. probably only posted because a twisted version was posted earlier

Which is also like "the sun comes up in the morning ..."

[blm]

28. The transcripts prove the distortions in that post, so it's time for it to sink or be pulled.

.

[grassfed]

62. right, go on tv and say you'll fight for something but will accept less, real smart strategy.

Kerry is paving the way for a compromised bill with no Public Option which Howard Dean says would be meaningless.

[blm]

139. that's not what was actually said - that's what YOU said.

.

[MH1]

25. "whether or not we can do enough to make good happen out of this"

That is exactly what politicians need to do when they can't get everything they want : see if they can get SOMETHING that is worth the price. OF COURSE Teddy would take that attitude: he was a GREAT politician. But he only would have gone there if it was absolutely impossible to get the public option (or better).

[Mass]

32. It's always amazing how people can make waves by stating the obvious.

I heard him and was certain that some people would use his statement of how Senate works in order to blast Kerry. These people would probably have blasted Roosevelt because he did not go far enough with Social Security or Johnson because Medicare was too little.

[Jennicut]

103. They throw anyone under the bus who is not "pure" enough

Frankly, it disgusts me that Kerry is now being thrown under the bus by some people here. Real nice.
We turning on ourselves, I see.

[saltpoint]

42. Very strongly recommended.

You go, ProSense.

[TayTay]

77. I agree.

This is very strongly recommended. It is all too easy to smear someone with fake talking points. It's nice to see people fighting for the truth and to set the record straight.

[flpoljunkie]

59. Leadership needs to get tough with our 'Conservadems' and make sure they vote for cloture--or else.

They are the key to getting health reform done. Put Rahm's persuasive talents to use for the good of the American people--as well as our health care bottom line. Do what it takes to cover everyone and bend the goddam cost curve!

Thanks for the post, ProSense.

[jenmito]

68. kick

[jenmito]

78. kick again

[politicasista]

83. ProSense deserves a raise!

Fight distortion. Kick for truth. :kick:

[TayTay]

86. I agree

She is fighting with truth against a sea of deception.

[politicasista]

88. Yep she is

:hi: :grouphug:

[karynnj]

100. I agree too

[Mass]

94. I agree.

I may not agree all the time with her, but some of the answers are so stupid that you can wonder how many of them are GOPers in disguise (in particular, those who object to what people supporting the public option say, but stay silent when Landrieu says we should ditch it).

[politicasista]

95. Bingo

:hi: :grouphug:

[burning rain]

89. "Fight"? Where did John Kerry pick that word up?

(Now that's not nice!)

[Mass]

92. Not sure. Before you were born is my guess.

but I imagine you already know that.

[karynnj]

99. Kerry has fought for his country as a soldier, then as an activist,

and finally as a public servant for his entire public life. There are few that come close to his record there.

[Forkboy]

102. From brave internet warriors like yourself, surely.

[burning rain]

114. I'm much too modest to suggest he got that word from me.

More likely he picked it up from Bush and Rove and the Swiftboat vermin back in 2004. Pity it was a bit late.

[Forkboy]

117. You're much too something.

Quite a few things spring to mind.

[politicasista]

131. Some on DU always talk a good game on how to fight

the GOP and media.

But when it comes to the playing the game, you hear crickets and read freeper-like insults behind the anonymity of their keyboards on an internet message board, every single time they are confronted with the facts.

[blm]

110. That was YOU uncovering IranContra, Iraqgate, S&L crimes, CIA drugrunning, BCCI and fighting for

accountability and open government all these years?

Wow....so honored that you are here at DU and teaching us about real fighting that matters.

[burning rain]

115. Don't forget the many achievements of his presidency...

after he unseated George W. Bush in a great, fighting campaign--kicked off by a rock-'em-sock-'em national convention that left the Republicans yelling and crying.

[blm]

116. That DNC never secured vote process in 4yrs after 2000 theft means you can pretend Kerry's senate

record of UNEQUALED advocacy for open and accountable government that exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history somehow didn't happen?

Name ONE other lawmaker in DC who uncovered and exposed more government corruption than Kerry.

[burning rain]

119. If Obama had campaigned the way Kerry did in 2004,...

and had the 2008 DNC been like the 2004 "let's not criticize the Bush adminstration" convention, we'd have President McCain right now. That's what I mean. I think John Kerry's a damn good man, and I was well pleased to vote for him in 2004 (though he wasn't my first choice), even though I knew from the time he sewed up the nomination, he wouldn't win. How did I know that? Because he, though a good man, is gray, stolid, lacking verve and charisma, like Dukakis and Mondale--and other New England senators like Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse and old Claiborne Pell--I like these dry liberal patricians just fine but if they're your presidential candidate or champion in a vocal, controversial national public debate, you're in a world of hurt, because there you need verve and charisma, not just intellect and honor and integrity. There's a reason why Obama and Bill Clinton, with their "Fight the Smears" website and "War Room" respectively, won, and those nice guy Massachusetts Democrats Kerry and Dukakis lost.

[blm]

124. Pure revisionism. Clinton didn't fight half as hard as Kerry did. He didn't have to - Bush needed to

lose in 92 because he expected to be impeached after the Dec1992 release of the BCCI report.

And, are you seriously claiming that 2004 and 2008 are interchangeable? That Obama would have won in 2004, and Kerry would have lost in 2008? That's absurd. You really believe opposing Bushies at their most powerful post 9-11 was anything similar to opposing Bush post Katrina? Everyone knew by fall of 2006 that the Dem nominee would win in 2008, no matter who it was.

And...newsflash....Kerry fighting to uncover and expose IranContra, S&Ls, CIA drugrunning, Iraqgate and BCCI is the REASON Clinton became president as Bush1 WILLINGLY rolled over for Clinton - Clinton didn't HAVE to fight for it as Poppy Bush ran the worst campaign in history for any sitting president. Clinton didn't have to fight a media that was completely in bed with the Bush regime in 1992 the way they were with Bush2 in 2004, either.

[burning rain]

126. You need to go back & look at the 1992 DNC.

It was a fighting convention, where the Republicans were thoroughly trashed (ironically, Zell Miller, still a loyal Democrat at the time had a rollicking anti-Reagan-and-Bush, speech there unlike the 2004 "let's be nice to W" softheadness). Unfortunately for your argument also, Kerry had an early lead in 2004, which he blew.

[blm]

133. Baloney - In 92 Dems were unified against Bush. In 2004 the best known Dems were siding WITH Bush2

publicly and Clinton used his summer2004 book tour to defend Bush VIGOROUSLY against the very criticisms being leveled at him by Kerry.

For the four years before Clinton's race in 92 Kerry and a few other Dems kept fighting BushInc and working to expose his illegal operations. For the four years before 04 race, Kerry had Clinton and other best known Dems siding with Bush2 and defending his decisions. Clintons, Lieberman and Biden were the TV Dems of choice and each one of them sided with Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq and against Kerry's position.

YOU look back at history. You can't possibly make an argument that equates 1992 with 2004 or 2004 with 2008.

And it was Clinton who tapped McAuliffe to run the DNC for the four years before and he did NOTHING to secure the election process so the Dem nominee could get their votes allowed, cast and counted without obstruction.

[burning rain]

138. I notice you don't choose to address the point...

that Kerry, like Dukakis, managed to blow a sizable lead. Or to address the "see no evil; speak no evil of Bush/Cheney" 2004 DNC, which tellingly yielded an unusually paltry convention bounce to the Kerry ticket. Even Dukakis had a more fighting convention--with the great "the fish rots form the head down" rhetoric blasting Reagan and Bush for Iran-Contra and corruption. It was later that he let Republicans and the media manipulate him into going all nice and positive--a fatal mistake.

[blm]

140. YOU don't address the point - 04 was Bush at strongest point thanks to Clinton Dems supporting Bush

and defending his decisions publicly, while 1992 and 2008 had both Bushes at their WEAKEST point.

Why avoid that simple truth?

BTW - Kerry didn't blow any lead - he had a Dem machine that chose to never secure the election process for the four years after 2000s theft and refused to rebuild party infrastructure in states that had been left to collapse. McAuliffe's DNC took a pass on 2002 and 2004. Every gain made by Kerry was done without help from establishment Dems.

[burning rain]

142. The Clintonites-backstabbed-Kerry bit isn't a good line.

Firstly, like the "A war-time president just couldn't be beat in 2004" bit, it makes Kerry look like a passive victim, and I have too much respect for him to do that. I'm sure he has the self-respect to own his defeat in 2004, as Mike Dukakis has his in 1988. The fact remains that Kerry had a solid lead before the national conventions, and that it disappeared. As for the Clintons, I very much disliked their long support for the Iraq War and was not exactly thrilled with their corporatism and other non-liberal positions, but their distance from Kerry works both ways. The Clintons and their people were hauled over the coals during the primary campaign, indeed all but repudiated, so that expecting them to go to bat for Kerry--who plainly had little regard for them--so that expecting them to go to bat for him after being harangued would have been a bit much. But, if you can cite any Clintonites who endorsed Bush for re-election, or refused to endorse Kerry, please do.

[blm]

143. Clinton's entire BOOKTOUR was spent vigorously DEFENDING Bush on his terrorism and Iraq decisions

and you have no concept of what 1992 was about do you?

Kerry is the one responsible for Bush1 needing to lose that election, as he expected certain impeachment after the release of the BCCI report in Dec1992.

So, Clinton had Kerry fighting Bush for entire four years before 1992 election, while Kerry had Clinton supporting and defending Bush2 for the entire four years before 2004 election.

And Kerry would be president today if McAuliffe's DNC had bothered to strengthen party infrastructure and secure election process for the four years he was charged with that duty.


Why are you pretending that the best known Dems were not supporting Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war? They didn't HAVE to endorse Bush formally as they already spent his first term publicly supporting him on the biggest issues of the 2004 election. Both Clintons, Lieberman, Biden, Schumer, Bayh - the go to Dems for corporate media - all on TV siding with Bush's strategy on terrorism and Iraq war and at the very same time that Kerry was attacking those decisions.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/


You never noticed? Did any nominee in history have the last Dem president on air for three weeks defending the opponent as much as Clinton did? What makes YOU believe that there was no difference between 1992 and 2004, and 2004 and 2008, anyway? You had a Bush in 1992 who NEEDED to lose or face certain impeachment. In 2004 you had a Bush who needed to keep open government Kerry out of the WH - and so did Clinton (who protected Poppy on BCCI matters in the 90s. By 2006 you had a Bush WH who was failing miserably in ways the corpmedia could no longer cover up, and the 2008 election of a Dem was already a certainty.

What part of BushInc at its STRONGEST in 2004 and BushInc at its WEAKEST in 2008 rings untrue to you?

And further - I am not the only one who noticed the backstabbing Clintons and their minions were doing in 2003-4.



This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:


http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

>>>>
Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."
>>>>



http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward



Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg |

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.

section break

On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>


Clinton closed the books on Poppy Bush's illegal operations throughout the 90s, protecting secrecy and privilege of the powerful on many outstanding matters in IranContra, Iraqgate and BCCI - he needed Kerry to stay out of the WH as much as Bush did.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html


Keep adding - Did McAuliffe not bother securing the election process for 2002 and 2004 because he was focused on 2008 along with the rest of the Clinton team?

Hillary in 2006 - the backstabbing never let up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[burning rain]

145. BCCI did not hurt George H. W. Bush during the 1992 race to any significant extent.

Any more than Iran-Contra cost him in 1988. In 88 he had a better campaign than Dukakis; In 92 he had a worse one than Clinton. The idea he'd have been impeached over it is fanciful, and your suggestion he threw the 92 race in an earlier post, is bizarre. He fought for re-election like a bastard in his clumsy way. Nothing was too underhanded, even rifling Clinton's FBI and passport files. Dukakis was a weak candidate whom Iran/Contra could not put over the top; Clinton was a strong candidate who didn't need BCCI. Bush the Elder was not seen as a corrupt bastard any more in 92 than 88. The issue was the economy, and Clinton and his War Room beat back countless attempts to divert attention: whether to "bimbo eruptions," allegations of youthful radicalism, draftdodging, etc. As for the 2004 election in Ohio, Kerry was short 136,000 votes with ca. 250,000 provisional ballots to count, and concluded that it was just to steep a hill to climb. I think they were right.

[blm]

166. The BCCI report was coming OUT in Dec1992 AFTER the election, time-genius.

Then would come more hearings and greater scrutiny of the outstanding matters. CERTAIN IMPEACHMENT.

Bush knew he would face impeachment and and so did Jackson Stephens who had his boy in Arkansas ready to go and help continue the coverup.

You really have NO CLUE what was going on in 1992.

[ProSense]

144. Wow, what a comment.

"The Clintons and their people were hauled over the coals during the primary campaign, indeed all but repudiated, so that expecting them to go to bat for Kerry--who plainly had little regard for them--so that expecting them to go to bat for him after being harangued would have been a bit much."

Says it all. Which came first the chicken or the egg?

The Democratic pundit class sat out the 2004 election. They were lame and weak, and the reason is obvious now. They are sellouts and protectors of the status quo who will shill for special interests at the drop of a dime.

They were not going to lift a finger to guarantee Kerry's election, which say a lot more about them than Kerry. All you have to do is listen to the likes of Carville and Stephanopoulos to see how lame and traitorous they can be.

Kerry set the Democratic record for the most money raised, on and offline, and the most vote ever for a Democrat, records broken by Obama.

Kerry did it without the help of the lame-ass wing of the Democratic Party.

Kerry in turn, since the 2004 election, has demonstrated what it means to go to bat for Democrats, in terms of campaigning, fundraising and smacking down RW lies. He did it most effectively for Obama, even as a lot of so-called Democrats sat on their asses spinning bullshit about how Kerry's endorsement would result in Obama's downfall.

I have only two words for those kind of Democrats: screw you.

[burning rain]

146. I agree with what you wrote.

I'm glad that, as rough as the 2008 primaries were, they didn't involve a repudiation of Clintonism and the Clinton presidency, as the 2004 primaries did. That made it possible to give the Clintons a major role at the DNC in 08, with major speeches by Bill and Hill. It made it possible to build an Obama-Clinton campaign team, and that team ended up performing well together (for a while it seemed like Hillary lived in Ohio and Pennsylvania). The lefty in me warms to some Clinton criticism, but the Democrat in me know that you don't lambaste a popular Democratic former president and his people in the primaries, if you're going to need their help in the general. As for the Clintonite pundits, Snuffleupagus and Lanny Davis always seemed like turds to me, Carville a hack, Erskine Bowles someone I'm glad not to hear from, though Paul Begala was on the case in 08 with a hot anti-McCain book, Third Term, and showing up everywhere on the magical moving picture box--for my money, he and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz were the top two cable teevee gladiators of the season.

I never heard that barb about how Kerry's endorsement might sink Obama. That's pretty nasty. I was glad to see Obama get his and Ted's endorsements, especially since major endorsements were hard to come by early on. I mean, granted, Kerry's not Mr. Charisma or Mr. Campaign Trail Dynamism, but he's a fine senator and a good man and anyone would be fortunate to have his support.

[ProSense]

148. See, I take issue with this characterization:

"I mean, granted, Kerry's not Mr. Charisma or Mr. Campaign Trail Dynamism"


Whether it was working the caucuses in Nevada or Texas, Kerry knows how to campaign and work a crowd.

And from 2004:

They roared for actor Ben Affleck and a host of local, state and national Democrats, including Gov. Ed Rendell. They cheered for Mr. Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, and for Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of vice-presidential nominee, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

But the most raucous applause came when Mr. Kerry took the stage, visibly amazed at the size of the crowd on such a wilting afternoon.

"No wonder they call Scranton 'The Electric City,'" Mr. Kerry said, bringing a roar that would be repeated again and again as he highlighted his plans for what he termed, "taking back America."

After his speech, Mr. Kerry joined Mr. Edwards in shaking hands and signing autographs at the edge of the crowd. Both signed banners for Kathleen Bressi, a Kerry volunteer and kindergarten teacher from Old Forge. It was the pinnacle of what she said was a long, hot day.

"It was absolutely worth it," she said. "I think these guys are going to make it. We need our industry to come home, we need our troops to come home, we need better education. That's why need them."

Kerry is one of the best campaigners around.

[burning rain]

149. With Kerry you have to be satisfied with a dry, stiff, distant cerebral guy.

I am, but not enough Americans are for it to be a good bet in a national election. You need that common touch, that ability to connect on an emotional level. I don't mean that Kerry doesn't work it on the campaign trail--just that he doesn't connect with people quite the way Obama or Bubba do or have that easy charm. Humor doesn't really seem to be Kerry's strong suit, either. It's damn frustrating that such silly stuff helps swing elections, but it is what it is. Also with Kerry, it's obvious he's patrician, with patrician manners, and much as I dislike it, lots of folks with a bit of an anti-intellectual bent dislike that, wanting someone who demonstrates he's "a regular Joe," as contrived as it may be. I think it's also clear more women find Obama or Bubba sexy, than Kerry--another facet of charisma. A dopey reason to vote, but it's a factor for a number of folks--look at Sarah Palin's heavily male following on the Republican side, and the "hormone vote" (especially of some white suburban housewives who mooned over him) was cited as a part of Reagan's support as early as 1966.

[ProSense]

150. Again, that's just RW noise.

Kerry was much more effective on the campaign trail for Obama than Clinton was for Hillary. That's just a fact.

[burning rain]

151. Certainly, Bill Clinton lost it a lot in the primaries.

Let his temper get the better of him, gaffed here and there, notably in South Carolina, lost his composure. But I think that's a different issue.

[ProSense]

152. Actually that is the issue.

There is a difference between the persona the media creates and the person people actually meet face to face.

Doesn't matter though, I could present case after case to prove my point, as I have, and you would find a way to dismiss each one.

[burning rain]

156. Most people don't meet most politicians face-to-face.

I've heard Al Gore is an engaging guy in person, friendly and very much at ease--I don't doubt it. But it doesn't come across to most folks on teevee.

[ProSense]

157. We're talking about campaigning and the reality of who a person is.

A lot of people have been swayed by the media's intentional distortion. You continually describe Kerry using the same talking points the media used in 2004. None of that is real, and those who have met him on the campaign trail can attest to that. The accounts and the videos of him speaking and interacting with people throughout the years refute these characterization. In fact, most people no longer believe the spin yet you continue to use it.

[burning rain]

163. I've seen any number of his speeches and appearances.

Obviously our perceptions are quite different. If you find the time, perhaps some time you you might refer me to a video of one of his speeches or appearances where he shows an engaging, amiable side.

[blm]

168. Did you like how Clinton showed up in 2003-4 to support and defend Bush during that campaign?

Bush was so lucky to have the last Dem president siding with his decisions so publicly, even as the Dem nominee was attacking Bush on those decisions.

[karynnj]

161. Have you ever seen Kerry in person?

Or even seen full coverage of a rally (like on CSPAN?) The only one of the 4 adjectives that fit him is cerebral - and that didn't always show.

How do you think he won 2 key elections in MA when he was not the party or media favorite? How did he win the nomination when he was not the media or party favorite?

The fact is Kerry is charismatic. If the media had covered Kerry's campaigns as they covered Clinton's showing the ever increasing excited crowds, Kerry would have easily been seen as equal to Clinton - and he would have worn better over time - especially with women. He is a charming guy.

[karynnj]

160. The 2008 primaries were a rejection of the Clintons

the 2004 primaries were not. Can you back up this bizarre assertion with any comments by Kerry in 2003 or 2004 against Clinton. I watched the debates - there were none. Clinton was not an issue - none of the 2004 candidates ran as his heir or as against him.

In 2008, there were PLENTY of negative comments on the Clinton era. Why because, in effect, HRC was running on it. Obama and his surrogates had to question the less good parts of that era. That happened in 2008, not 2004.

The fact is that Kerry may not have raised the issue that in the late 1990s he wrote legislation to control international money laundering by criminal gangs, including terrorists - because t could have reflected badly on Bill Clinton as he did not help push it. Kerry, not Clinton, was prescient on the issue. The legislation became law only after 911.

[politicasista]

176. **crickets**

They chirp after the facts are pointed out. Case in point, this thread.

[blm]

167. CLINTONS FUCKED OVER all of us in 2003-4 by DEFENDING BUSH VIGOROUSLY or did you forget that?

Funny how you manage to ignore that Clinton USED his entire summer2004 book tour to support and defend Bush's decisions on the two biggest issues of the day - his handling of terrorism and the Iraq war.

[karynnj]

159. The Clintons were not hauled over the coals in the 2003/2004 primaries

Kerry did nothing that showed little regard for them. What are you talking about - 2008?? When they did end up going to bat for Obama.

Kerry actually defended Bill Clinton on all his finagling to get out of Vietnam - ignoring the ridiculous "some people hate the military" letter. Kerry in the 2004 primaries focused his attacks on George Bush.

[karynnj]

158. Elections are not duplicate bridge

The two elections in the last few decades that the Democrat was VERY highly favored to win were 2008 and 1992.

Clinton's campaign was so bad that there was a time that he was 3 of 3, in spite of having a major party's nomination. Perot looked crazy after erratically junping out than back in and Bush was at 33% with a media that hated him.

Obama ran when the 80% plus thought the country was going in the wrong direction.

Kerry nearly won at a point where it would have been a VERY major upset. He did this in spite of a media that poorly covered his rallies. You might be interested to know that it was ex-Kerry people who created the Fight the Smears site and Kerry who advised Obama on that.

With regards to the war room - here is a comparison with what Kerry really did to counter the lies vs what Clinton did to spin the issues racing him:

The Kerry campaign's immediate reaction to the August attack was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. That was done within ONE DAY of the book's emergence in August.(In 2008, the first reaction of the Obama team was to put out 41 pages on lies in Corsi's book.) This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof. They also later proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it. (Like Kerry, Obama used surrogates against Corsi rather than respond himself)

That was far more proof countering the liars than the Clinton machine ever put out on anything. The problem was that it went to the media and they refused to play the role of evaluating who was telling the truth - the Washington Post's editor even saying they wouldn't. The broadcast media was worse. Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverand Wright?

Many Democrats, including Edwards who was asked to, did little. It wasn't that they had no ammunition to use. There was an abundance of proof - far more than would be typically available as they hit against a well documented official record. Even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand.

It should also be mentioned that it was not Kerry's accounts they disputed, it was the NAVY's official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O'Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

Compare this list of proof to Carville & Co response on Clinton's Flowers or draft problems - this is far more comprehensive and completely refutes the charges. The Clinton responses in these two instances did not completely refute the charges - in fact, after changing his story a few times in each case - he conceded that earlier statements were not completely true - parts of the charges were conceded. The difference was that in 1992 - even in the primary - Clinton was given breaks by a media that wanted him to win. The fact is that we KNEW in those two cases that he was willing to dissemble and scapegoat others when he was called on his actions - two things that later hurt his Presidency.

In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step. It is only when there is no open and shut case (Kerry had an open and shut case) that the candidate would try anything different.When this didn't work, Kerry did speak to the issue - and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here - all political junkies didn't hear this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn't think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was - I think less than 2 minutes long - so there is no excuse.

[politicasista]

101. A goodnight kick

for the DU Volunteer Fire Department in this thread and other threads. :kick: :yourock:

[jenmito]

113. kick to counter misinformation

[mvd]

118. No one will be Ted, but I think Kerry can carry his mantle

Thanks for posting.

[Jakes Progress]

120. I like Conason's version better.

" We know that he could shout as well as whisper — and that he could be partisan as well as bipartisan. He believed that the time for incremental changes had passed. He was ready to fight. The tragedy of his death is not only that he didn't see the triumph he had dreamed, but that he fell before he could lead the nation to that final victory. Now that victory will have to be won in his name."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/08/28/kennedy/index.html

[ProSense]

121. Conason:

Kennedy's Republican friends should not make that disingenuous argument in his lamented absence. Lest there be any doubt about what he truly wanted, his bill includes a robust public option along with all the insurance reforms and cost controls that the president has endorsed since this process began.

Yeah, Conason is right.

Kerry's statement in the OP is a truth testament to the Kennedy he knew. There is no doubt that Kerry is prepared to honor and uphold Kennedy's legacy.

Now, as then, we need fundamental change— not bite sized ideas that are poll tested, sound-bite ready and destined to be mere footnotes to the times we live in. It’s time we end the era of incrementalism and begin a bold new age in progressive politics. There are students today in Goshen, Massachusetts who park their cars outside the library when it’s closed at night because that’s the only place in town that’s accessible to high-speed broadband internet. It’s time to give these kids the kind of future they deserve.

link

Senator Kerry is built that way. It's the reason he and Senator Kennedy endorsed Obama.

[Jakes Progress]

122. Yep. Kerry is a good man.

I thought so when I voted for him and knocked on doors for him. I guess he just failed to handle the press trap set for him.

[blm]

125. he answered the question honestly about how Kennedy would proceed...YOU would answer differently

based on what facts you know about Kennedy and how he would proceed? OK. Tell us YOUR answer to the actual question. Base it in reality.

[Jakes Progress]

129. New to politics?

The question was a common trap. See if you can get the politician to say something that he doesn't want to.

His answer should have been: "We're not concerned about the public option not passing. We are going to pass this in Ted Kennedy's name. There is no need for compromise. This was the compromise. The public demands that this country join the rest of the western world in offering health care as a right. That is what my good friend fought for and was fighting for to his last breath. We will finish this for him."

Now that is the reality of politics, using the media instead of letting it use you. Like I said. He's a good man. He just messed up.

[grassfed]

132. unconscionable

to signal that the Democrats would compromise JUST LIKE TED WOULD HAVE, gilding the watered down results with Ted's blessing the day after he was buried.

[blm]

134. New to media? Steph replies that YOU didn't answer the question...HOW would Kennedy proceed once

the vote count comes up short? Senator Jake, you're evading my question. I will ask it again....HOW would Kennedy proceed once it is certain there would not be the votes for the bill he wanted?

Now that is the reality of the corporate news media.

[karynnj]

162. exactly - evading a question as Jake did just gets it repeated

and it can be repeated nore than once making the Senator look very bad.

[Jakes Progress]

165. He did look bad.

All politicians get used sometime. This time it was kerry. He should have used the question to put out the message that the public option was not going to fail. If he didn't do that, at least he should have just repeated how much Kennedy wanted the public option and not given the reporter the quote he needed to back up a story he had already written.

Check the republican line that had already started about how Kennedy was the only senator who could get the progressives to negotiate the deal (republican speak for give in). This reporter had that republican talking point ant was looking for a prominent Democrat to give it some legs. I bet that a dozen senators got asked that same question that day. It was just a bad day for Kerry. I'm sure he was upset about Kennedy's passing and was off guard. Not letting the press use you this way is Politics 101.

This is just a little forum for political junkies to debate the number of angels on the head of a pin. It's okay to be naive and dogged about things that you don't really know about. But in Washington and the real world, this kind of question is never answered by someone who knows what they are doing.

Learn this stuff before you try going real world with your politics.

[blm]

170. Looked bad only to those inclined to feed into the distortion and exaggerate it.

Funny how Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow and Schultz all somehow missed this 'damage' that some of you claim.

[Jakes Progress]

174. Oh well. If you need MSM doesn't explain it to you

then I can see why you missed it.

[karynnj]

171. Still diagree - and am not naive about politics

An honest answer was what was needed and what was given. People who saw the clip would not get the impression that you did. Here, the key population numbers 99. None of them will be influenced by media distortion. You might notice that this is just an AP article. Kerry did NOT give them a clip that could be used. There is a world of difference in that in today's world. No one who saw even that response would reach the conclusion you did.

The fact is that the AP article is a distortion of what Kerry said. The ONLY thing that could not have been distorted was for Kerry to say the opposite of what he did. That Kennedy would reject anything without the public option - even answering "no" to the follow up question that would have come - of but what if it included provisions protecting people who have pre-existing conditions, the largest new subsidies for insurance since SCHIP or even the 1960s, and provisions that let individuals or small businesses to get "big group" rates. How would YOU have answered that follow up question? Kennedy is not alive to answer, but his actions on SCHIP and other things suggest that Kennedy would have answered as Kerry said he would.

Now doing that would have pleased you, but it would have looked asinine to most people - it would be to use Kerry's words, "throwing out the baby with the bath water."

As to naive about politics, I never fell for John Edwards' lies. I knew he had a solid record as one of the most conservative Democrats and that he worked for a Hedge fund that had one of the worst subprime mortgage companies which foreclosed on people in New Orleans.

[Jakes Progress]

173. Still disagree. And yes naive is the best word. nt

[Jakes Progress]

164. What about media don't you get? Why would you answer that question?

Why would you want to get played by the press? Why would you want to answer that question? What do you think was the point of that question? Why did the reporter ask it? Do you think the reporter wanted a lesson in politics?

The question was a set up. The way to respond to a set up question is to not answer it with the text that the reporter has loaded. When a reporter asks that kind of question, they already have the answer written and are just looking to use you to give validity to their twist on the story. So why be the chump? Why give them your name to tag to their propaganda.

We work regularly with new politicians to help them learn to avoid these traps and how to turn the story back to what you really want to say. It is a matter of thinking on your feet. Kerry just got used that day. It was a bullshit question. Answering it the way he did instead of the way I just did in the above post only served to start a shit storm. I'm sure that back in Kerry's office, the people who help him with stuff like this just groaned.

Now you and your sort, with all the worldly experience want to say that Kerry was being a wise solon of the hill and helped to educate the world about how politics work. Are you that naive?

In the real world of Washington and in the real world of politics, either Kerry flubbed a trick question by the media or he was trying to cover a planned capitulation by saying that Kennedy would do the same. That's what everyone who has ever dealt with politics and the press knows. I prefer to think it was the former. I prefer to think that he had a bad day at the microphone and got punked by the reporter.

You can pedal you lack of experience and naivete elsewhere.

[blm]

169. Senator Jake you are repeatedly dodging the question. Don't you get it yet that Democrats are NOT

going to be allowed that luxury?

Had Kerry dodged the way you claim you would then he would have that dodge replayed over and over again by all the networks.

Somehow you think media treats dodges from GOPs and Dems the same.

[Jakes Progress]

172. Don't watch much politics, go you?

My answer is exactly what office holders do. What luxury.

Try an analogy. Suppose I asked you what you would do if Senator Kerry turned out to be a communist spy? Suppose I asked you if you have stopped beating your wife?

You don't answer questions with the very words that the reporter is waiting to hear. If you can't think on your feet, don't get into politics.

[blm]

177. You're going to an extreme when the question asked was a fair and timely question.

The luxury a Dem doesn't have is to evade and dodge a fair question because that is when they are made to look worse by a dozen corporate newsroom editing rooms.

Funny how none of the left's media folks picked up on the damage you allege was done last Sunday. Seems to me they, and especially Ed Schultz, have been very tuned in to the issue.

[Jakes Progress]

178. So you trust msm and I don't.

We could argue all day. You can't know what was in the mind of the reporter anymore than I can. But I do know that all the added mumbling after "Ted wanted the Public Option" was just stupid. Grow up. Politicians screw up.

My argument is that there was no reason for Kerry to have tossed out the idea that Kennedy would be open to compromise on public option. None. It serves no purpose that will help get a good health care plan nor does it further Ted's goal of having universal health care. It was just silly. You are really stretching when you worry that Dems will be pilloried for dodging a question. Especially that question. There are number of rhetorical tricks that could have diffused or glossed the question.

Your lack of experience in these matters is really evident when you keep insisting that Dems must answer all questions and be completely open about all policy and negotiation plans with the press.

So it's really very simple. Kerry either choked or he was doing something quite disturbing. I'll go for choked.

[blm]

179. That ONE question was fair - your breathless concern for an honest answer is absurd and childish.

And it's cowardly - there is no reason to dodge a fair question when the answer is clear and nothing to be ashamed of, no matter how hard you twist it to PRETEND it is. You're just dug in on your naively fearful response to a truthful answer. That's cowardly.

[bigwillq]

123. Every DEM should be fighting their heart out for a public plan.

and our president better do all he can to make sure we get a public plan and nothing less.

[dflprincess]

147. We should be fighting our hearts out for a plan that gives everyone access to healthcare

the bills that are getting the most attention and have so called public "options" (that won't be options for most of us for years) are mainly about forced purchase of health insurance. HR3200 has a plan that includes large out of pocket expenses (depending on income) - there are no guarantees that people will be able to access health care with these bills.

Kennedy wanted a single payer system and every mention at his funeral and grave side service refered to access to health care, not mandated insurance.

[politicasista]

130. A Monday night kick against the spin n/t

[politicasista]

175. Hump day evening kick n/t