Elizabeth Edwards Says Kerry Conceded Race Too Early

[kpete]

Elizabeth Edwards Says Kerry Conceded Race Too Early
Elizabeth Edwards "had some harsh words today for her husband's 2004 running mate," the Washington Times reports.

Edwards, married to former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), said she was "very disappointed" Sen. John Kerry conceded the last presidential race so quickly.

Said Mrs. Edwards: "I was very disappointed, not just because we did not count the votes, but because we promised people that if they stood in line and fought for the right to vote, that we would fight with them."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/10/05/elizabeth_edwards_says_kerry_conceded_race_too_early.html

[Bluebear]

1. Well, I can't *wait* for this thread to play out :)

[BeFree]

98. We failed Kerry

We being the democratic party. He had no support from the party. Heck even now there is feeble support to make sure our votes are counted as cast.

If the party really saw it as the problem it is they'd change the law... but the law that allowed the vote stealing is still on the books. We have failed and we will get what we deserve. Heck, we done got what we deserve, eh?.

[MBS]

113. yup, I agree. Some of the self-serving Dem politicians and operatives

have a lot to answer for. We had a chance to elect a truly first-rate president in 2004, but we (NOT Kerry) blew it

[BrklynLib at work]

2. Weren't we all disappointed? Didn't we all feel that way? I did. I was angry as hell he conceded.

I thought Al Franken was going to cry during his reporting of it.


Is this being reported by that paper as news....or as an attempt to create divisiveness?

[tekisui]

41. I think she said it to imply that they *WILL NOT* concede

if they feel funny business goes on in the 2008 GE.
She's not throwing anyone under the bus, or being divisive. She is distinguishing JE as the candidate that will not give in to stolen elections. I hope all the Dem candidates stand up and say similar things!

Go Elizabeth!

[BrklynLib at work]

44. I was saying that The Washington Times was trying to create divisiveness.

I am all for EE. I think she is right..and I agree now, and agreed back then.

[tekisui]

46. I get ya, now.

:toast:

[AmBlue]

118. I remember all kinds of rants right here

All over DU after Kerry conceded. I myself was pissed because I succumbed to Kerry's last chance plea for money for the SPECIFIC REASON of having enough money to make sure EVERY SINGLE VOTE was counted. It was a betrayal of trust of the highest order.

There's not a doubt in my mind that Kerry was calling the shots on this. If John Kerry was the Democratic Presidential nominee, can there be any doubt that conceding was his call?? Let's get real, folks.

[Lost4words]

3. Its true!

[ecstatic]

4. OMG. Edwards throws Kerry under the bus

In an attempt to appeal to anti-Kerryites!

[Lost4words]

5. Kerry Jumped under the Bus! He did nothing!!

[Mass]

9. Did Edwards do or say anything?

As usual, getting late to the party and playing "holier than god".

[Lost4words]

12. It wasnt his position to do so as the VP candidate if JK didnt want to.

8643

[Mass]

15. For two years?

Please. You like that guy, fine. But thankfully, many people are not blind.

[Lost4words]

36. You mean you like Kerry the quitter????

How vocal was Kerry in 2000?

Did he defend himself from the swift boat crowd???

I really dont like most democrats right now to well you the truth.

[karynnj]

68. Kerry was one of the few Democrats on the talk shows,

who strongly backed Gore's right to challange the election. Neither he nor any other Senator challenged the election. Gore himself has said that challenging it after the SC would not have worked.

Yes he defended himself against the SBVT - he gave the media MORE than enough to reject the SBVT in April. They had seen Kerry's records, they had spoken to every living man on his boat for every medal he got, they had NIXON on tape having investigated Kerry and having found he was a cleancut war hero.

That compares to things the vaunted war room did - like responding that Genefer Flowers edited her tapes, which still did not explain what Bill said. Face it The mass media did not play fair. Give me one other case where something is 100% against the official record, replete with contradictions and proven lies presented with no proof - not one diary entry, comment in an official record, photograph, has been given that level of credibility and coverage by the media.

[MelissaB]

39. This news isn't new.

[karynnj]

64. He was no longer the VP candidate as soon as the election

was over. Also, he could have done what JK did - speak about the problems. He didn't.

[jgraz]

17. There are many reports of Edwards arguing with Kerry in private

Which is all that was left to him once the nominee had decided to conced.

[havocmom]

26. Yep, he stood with egg on his face after Kerry threw in the towel

and threw the egg on Edwards, who had vowed to keep fighting.

[KittyWampus]

27. No, Edwards didn't say anything here. His WIFE did. Again. Elizabeth is now a liability.

By using her once too often.

Edit- and any reasonable person would realise that IF Elizabeth said this recently, it's calculated. To help the campaign.

[Inspired]

103. Elizabeth has been saying this for awhile now. n/t

[peace13]

14. Kerry jumped under the bus with our money

that he was supposed to fight the good fight with. Go figure.

[karynnj]

62. He and Teresa did a hell of a lot more than the Edwards did

Both in the Senate: ( In 2006, when they were debating the Rosa Parks Voting Rights Extension act)

His is what Kerry said on the floor of the Senate:

"Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for 10 minutes and, following me, Senator Boxer be permitted to proceed for 15 minutes, and following her, Senator Schumer for 5 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his discussion of an important way of having accountability in voting . I must say that I saw how that works out in Oregon. It works well. It works brilliantly, as a matter of fact. People have a lot of time to be able to vote. They don't have to struggle with work issues or being sick or other things. They have plenty of time to be able to have the kind of transparency and accountability that makes the system work. There are other States where you are allowed to start voting early--in New Mexico and elsewhere.

It is amazing that in the United States we have this patchwork of the way our citizens work in Federal elections. It is different almost everywhere. I had the privilege of giving the graduation address this year at Kenyan College in Ohio, and there the kids at Kenyan College wound up being the last people to vote in America in the Presidential race in 2004 in Gambier, at 4:30 in the morning. We had to go to court to get permission for them to keep the polls open so they could vote at 4:30 in the morning.

Why did it take until 4:30 in the morning for people to be able to vote? They didn't have enough voting machines in America. These people were lined up not just there but in all of Ohio and in other parts of the country. An honest appraisal requires one to point out that where there were Republican secretaries of state, the lines were invariably longer in Democratic precincts, sometimes with as many as one machine only in the Democratic precinct and several in the Republican precinct; so it would take 5 or 10 minutes for someone of the other party to be able to vote, and it would take literally hours for the people in the longer lines. If that is not a form of intimidation and suppression, I don't know what is.

So I thank the Senator from Oregon for talking about the larger issue here. He is absolutely correct. The example of his State is one that the rest of the country ought to take serious and think seriously about embracing.

This is part of a larger issue, obviously, Mr. President. All over the world, our country has always stood out as the great exporter of democratic values. In the years that I have been privileged to serve in the Senate, I have had some extraordinary opportunities to see that happen in a firsthand way.

Back in 1986, I was part of a delegation that went to the Philippines. We took part in the peaceful revolution that took place at the ballot box when the dictator, President Marcos, was kicked out and ``Cory'' Aquino became President. I will never forget flying in on a helicopter to the island of Mindanao and landing where some people have literally not seen a helicopter before, and 5,000 people would surround it as you swooped out of the sky, to go to a polling place where the entire community turned out waiting in the hot sun in long lines to have their thumbs stamped in ink and to walk out having exercised their right to vote.

I could not help but think how much more energy and commitment people were showing for the privilege of voting in this far-off place than a lot of Americans show on too many occasions. The fact is that in South Africa we fought for years--we did--through the boycotts and other efforts, in order to break the back of apartheid and empower all citizens to vote. Most recently, obviously, in Afghanistan and Iraq, notwithstanding the disagreement of many of us about the management of the war and the evidence and other issues that we have all debated here. This has never been debated about the desire for democracy and the thrill that everyone in the Senate felt in watching citizens be able to exercise those rights .

In the Ukraine, the world turned to the United States to monitor elections and ensure that the right to vote was protected. All of us have been proud of what President Carter has done in traveling the world to guarantee that fair elections take place. But the truth is, all of our attempts to spread freedom around the world will be hollow and lose impact over the years in the future if we don't deliver at home.

The fact is that we are having this debate today in the Senate about the bedrock right to vote, with the understanding that this is not a right that was afforded to everyone in our country automatically or at the very beginning. For a long time, a century or more, women were not allowed to vote in America. We all know the record with respect to African Americans. The fact is that the right to vote in our country was earned in blood in many cases and in civic sweat in a whole bunch of cases. Courageous citizens literally risked their lives. I remember in the course of the campaign 2 years ago, traveling to Alabama--Montgomery--and visiting the Southern Poverty Law Center, the memorial to Martin Luther King, and the fountain. There is a round stone fountain with water spilling out over the sides. From the center of the fountain there is a compass rose coming back and it marks the full circle. At the end of every one of those lines is the name of an American with the description, ``killed trying to register to vote,'' or ``murdered trying to register.'' Time after time, that entire compass rose is filled with people who lost their lives in order to exercise a fundamental right in our country.

None of us will forget the courage of people who marched and faced Bull Connor's police dogs and faced the threat of lynchings, some being dragged out of their homes in the dark of night to be hung. The fact is that we are having this debate today because their work and that effort is not over yet. Too many Americans in too many parts of our country still face serious obstacles when they are trying to vote in our own country.

By reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, we are taking an important step, but, Mr. President, it is only a step. Nobody should pretend that reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act solves the problems of being able to vote in our own country. It doesn't. In recent elections, we have seen too many times how outcomes change when votes that have been cast are not counted or when voters themselves are prevented from voting or intimidated from even registering or when they register, as we found in a couple of States, their registration forms are put in the wastebasket instead of into the computers.

This has to end. Every eligible voter in the United States ought to be able to cast his or her ballot without fear, without intimidation, and with the knowledge that their voice will be heard. These are the foundations of our democracy, and we have to pay more attention to it.

For a lot of folks in the Congress, this is a very personal fight. Some of our colleagues in the House and Senate were here when this fight first took place or they took part in this fight out in the streets. Without the courage of someone such as Congressman JOHN LEWIS who almost lost his life marching across that bridge in Selma, whose actions are seared in our minds, who remembers what it was like to march to move a nation to a better place, who knows what it meant to put his life on the line for voting rights , this is personal.

For somebody like my colleague, Senator TED KENNEDY, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, who was here in the great fight on this Senate floor in 1965 when they broke the back of resistance, this is personal.

We wouldn't even have this landmark legislation today if it weren't for their efforts to try to make certain that it passed.

But despite the great strides we have taken since this bill was originally enacted, we have a lot of work to do.

Mr. President, I ask for an additional 5 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on this particular component of the bill, there is agreement. Republicans and Democrats can agree. I was really pleased that every attempt in the House of Representatives to weaken the Voting Rights Act was rejected.

We need to reauthorize these three critical components especially: The section 5 preclearance provisions that get the Justice Department to oversee an area that has a historical pattern of discrimination that they can't change how people vote without clearance. That seems reasonable.

There are bilingual assistance requirements. Why? Because people need it and it makes sense. They are American citizens, but they still may have difficulties in understanding the ballot, and we ought to provide that assistance so they have a fully informed vote. This is supposed to be an informed democracy, a democracy based on the real consent of the American people.

And finally, authorization for poll watching. Regrettably, we have seen in place after place in America why we need to have poll watching.

A simple question could be asked: Where would the citizens of Georgia be, particularly low-income and minority citizens, if they were required to produce a government-issued identification or pay $20 every 5 years in order to vote? That is what would have happened without section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Georgia would have successfully imposed what the judge in the case called ``a Jim Crow-era like poll tax.'' I don't think anybody here wants to go back and flirt with the possibility of returning to a time when States charged people money to exercise their right to vote. That is not our America.

This morning, President Bush addressed the 97th Annual Convention of the NAACP after a 5-year absence. I am pleased that the President, as we all are, ended his boycott of the NAACP and announced his intention to sign the Voting Rights Act into law.

But we need to complete the job. There are too many stories all across this country of people who say they registered duly, they reported to vote, and they were made to stand in one line or another line and get an excuse why, when they get to the end of the line, they can't vote. So they take out a provisional ballot, and then there are fights over provisional ballots.

There are ways for us to avoid that. Some States allow same-day registration. In some parts of America, you can just walk up the day of an election, register, and vote, as long as you can prove your residence.

We have this incredible patchwork of laws and rules, and in the process, it is even more confusing for Americans. We need to fully fund the Help America Vote Act so that we have the machines in place, so that people are informed, so that there is no one in America who waits an undue amount of time in order to be able to cast a vote.

We have to pass the Count Every Vote Act that Senator Clinton, Senator Boxer, and I have introduced which ensures exactly what the Senator from Oregon was talking about: that every voter in America has a verifiable paper trail for their vote. How can we have a system where you can touch a screen and even after you touch the name of one candidate on the screen, the other candidate's name comes up, and if you are not attentive to what you have done and you just go in, touch the screen, push ``select,'' you voted for someone else and didn't intend to? How can we have a system like that?

How can we have a system where the voting machines are proprietary to a private business so that the public sector has no way of verifying what the computer code is and whether or not it is accountable and fair? Just accounting for it.

Congress has to ensure that every vote cast in America is counted, that every precinct in America has a fair distribution of voting machines, that voter suppression and intimidation are un-American and must cease.

We had examples in the last election of people who were sent notices--obviously fake, but they were sent them and they confused them enough. They were told that if you have an outstanding parking ticket, you can't vote. They were told: Democrats vote on Wednesday and Republicans vote on Tuesday and various different things.

It is important for us to guarantee that in the United States of America, this right that was fought for so hard through so much of the difficult history of our country, we finally make real the full measure of that right.

I yield the floor. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague for her forbearance.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before Senator Kerry leaves the floor, I want to thank him. The issues he raised absolutely have to be a part of this debate. I will address them after he leaves. The reason I stood up and objected to the Ohio count is because I knew firsthand from the people of Ohio who came and talked with me through STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES that they were waiting in lines for 6, 7 hours. That is not the right to vote. I think Senator Kerry's remarks and the remarks of the Senator from Oregon are very important.

So let a message go out from this Senate floor today that we are not stopping our efforts to make sure people can vote with the very important passage of this very important legislation. I am very pleased to follow him in this debate. "


and out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1981217&mesg_id=1981559

There are many, many more Kerry comments on voting problems - I'm sure the Edwards will come out with them now, but they were quiet as church mice when it was a sure way to be attacked as "delusional". (Edwards DID give many speeches on other topics - so there is no reason he couldn't speak on this.

[bobbolink]

124. Kerry threw himself under the bus wheels!

:hi:

[jgraz]

10. Quite the ironic handle for you, isn't it?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

32. Bull. With reports of all of the voting irregularities and disenfranchised voters in Ohio,

Kerry threw himself under that frigging bus. He had millions of dollars to contest and a vast team of lawyers ready to go in, and DID NOTHING until he was shamed into it later on by the Greens and Libertarians. Shame on him.

[JerseygirlCT]

150. I can't really warm up to Edwards (Elizabeth, I like) and

I had been a Kerry supporter since the primaries started last time around.

But I think she's right about that. It was a sore disappointment, on many levels, to feel him giving up so quickly and quietly.

I'm firmly convinced there was widespread, and somewhat diffuse, election fraud both in 2000 and 2004. To just give up like he did - it was very disappointing, that's all I can say.

And frankly, having Elizabeth say that doesn't really tell me much more about her husband. I don't see any benefits accruing to him because of what she said.

[Mass]

6. Ok, Elizabeth, a challenge. Go on the MSM and say the election was stolen,

rather than preaching to the choir. Then get your husband to propose something about fair election.

This would be a little more useful than a belated whining about what could have happened.

[ecstatic]

30. Agreed.... I'm definitely no Kerry fan, but this is more desperate

whining from Elizabeth. Not cool. The 2004 fiasco left a bad taste, and Edwards will have a hard time distancing himself without doing something meaningful first.

[blondeatlast]

38. Have to agree with you. This is a very bad approach and I'm somewhat favoring JE.

I don't need to be reminded of that day by one of our own, not at all.

[yardwork]

69. She did say this at the time. She was fighting breast cancer, and she still spoke out.

Edwards is no longer an elected official - there is a limit to what he can propose now.

[Mass]

73. Really? When? And. as far as I know, he is running for president.

So, he certainly has a platform to propose something...

[yardwork]

116. If you google news items, you'll find examples of her speaking out about this in the past.

This is not new. Elizabeth Edwards has talked about this a lot in the past. I think that she discussed it in her book, for one thing.

I agree with you that Edwards himself needs to be talking about securing the vote. I thought you meant that he should be legislating change.

[JerseygirlCT]

151. Actual action would be much more impressive, that's for

sure.

[jgraz]

7. Elizabeth speaks another hard truth

That concession was one of the most disgraceful acts in modern history. Think about where we'd be right now if Kerry had fought that stolen election.

[karynnj]

74. We were likely be in a worse place than we are

There is no way without solid proof of REAL votes that Ohio would have been awarded to Kerry - they did not exist. The party itself would not have backed Kerry in challenge. It would have made the Democrats look awful - fighting an election when the media spoke of Kerry losing by 3 million votes - while the country was at war.

That would likely have precluded our gains in 2006. Not only that, Kerry is one of the people who are most responsible for moving most Democrats away from not fighting Bush on Iraq.

As to a case based on suppression - look at NH - where we had proof - only in 2006 did the people who blocked the GOTV lines go to trial. They were found guilty. Quick, look at who is still Senator.

Unlike Edwards, Kerry has spoken about KNOWN, provable problems in the Senate and out.

[peace13]

8. My response to Elizabeth....

No shit Sherlock. Old news in this camp.

[jgraz]

13. It's interesting that they're finally coming out and saying it

I asked Edwards about this when he spoke at Berkeley in 2005. It was clear he was pretty unhappy with Kerry's actions, but he shied away from any criticism at that point.

[peace13]

20. In fairness to the Edwards

the look on their faces at 'the concession press conference' told the story. You could see that the jig was up from their expressions. It was apparent that they were not happy about it.

[Mass]

22. You mean they were not sad because Elizabeth was just diagnosed with cancer.

I do not think a lot of John Edwards, but at least, I would hope he cares about his wife.

[peace13]

37. OK n/t

[Puglover]

60. Wow REALLY????

"I do not think a lot of John Edwards"

I'm shocked. How about another 26 posts to make that completely clear. :eyes:

[karynnj]

75. You mean that look

couldn't have been:
- that they lost an election they thought the day before was going their way
- that they were going to the hospital after that event.

There was a photo of John Kerry's two daughters - they looked far more distraught. Kerry looked very near tears when speaking of things they would be unable to do.

[KittyWampus]

31. "THEY" aren't saying it. Once again, Elizabeth throws the bombs.

[Botany]

11. I loves me some Elizabeth Edwards

"I was very disappointed, not just because we did not count the votes, but because we
promised people that if they stood in line and fought for the right to vote, that we would
fight with them."

I remember on Oct 28th standing on the Ohio State campus listening to Bruce Springsteen
playing "No Retreat, No Surrender" and having tears run down my face thinking, "this time
we will fight 'em and win." Fast forward to Nov 3rd and watch how fast Kerry quit.

[bigtree]

16. opportunistic

not a word until now.

politics. ugh.

[L. Coyote]

21. How about saying, "We will fight today." If not, they still don't get it.

It does not matter the late hour, take up the issue right NOW! It is useless to say, too bad about then. Go to Cleveland and start working on the issue of what really happened in 2004. Go to Florida and work a 2000 illegal purging investigation. Maybe there is a lawyer in the family that could do such things!

[Mojorabbit]

132. That would be nice in my fantasy world

but if I were running I wouldn't sidetrack my message esp in the middle of my campaign and have the press have a field day with the distraction from the issues I am campaigning on.

[EST]

18. This is certainly unexpected.

Trust Elizabeth to tell the unvarnished truth.
Given my own disappointment, I can only imagine the bitter disappointment to the Edwardses at the perfidy displayed by our erstwhile democratic candidate.

I find myself wondering if John Kerry really understood that his breaking of a solemn promise forever excluded him from pursuing a higher office. He will never be president, which is unfortunate because, except for his inability to keep the most important promise of his career, he would have been the best president since Carter, or better.

[karynnj]

81. Even RFK jr, in his analysis, does NOT show a way that JK could have fought this

About half the "lost" votes come from an estimate of people who went to vote but abandoned the effort because the lines were too long. Those were not "votes" that Kerry could demand Ohio count - even if that study would have been done 2 years earlier.

Kerry has spoken out in the Senate and elsewhere - as I posted up thread. So, has Teresa Heinz Kerry.

People mention that the Edwardses look unhappy - Kerry was near tears, which from the coverage shocked the Boston press. His daughters looked absolutely devastated, as did Teresa. There is also, even now, times where there is genuine pain in Kerry's voice - when he speaks of things that he would have done differently had he been President.

Kerry has said that, if they could have found evidence, he would have acted on it -

The fact is there is still not the type of evidence that would have made an Ohio court declare him the winner. That was what was needed by Jan 6 2005 at the latest. Once Congress certified it, it was too late.

Look at NH - there are Republicans convicted of blocking the GOTV lines in 2002. There they HAD proof. Still it was 2006 before it went to trial and Sununu's status as Senator was not even mentioned after the conviction.

I agree with you that Kerry would have been the best President - though I think it would have been since JFK or even FDR. Here is what he was doing while Elizabeth Edwards made this cheap comment.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1978272
Please watch the first video It confirms that he would have been an amazing President. This demonstrates the international diplomacy that he spoke of in 2004. His attention to culture and his genuine morality and conscience show in what he does.

Watch his comments on the West bank:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXd66eae9K8

Or hear him on Iraq (and Biden's comments on Kerry)
http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/09/biden_gives_props_to_senator_k.html

Kerry knew that a second run was unlikely. Only Stevenson has ever done this for the Democrats - and that was in a year that was assumed to be a lost case - against Eisenhower, who beat him 4 years before. From everything any of the Kerrys said, he wanted to be President to try to make things right again - there is no way that he would have given up a fight - if it were possible to make it. Not, because he would lose a chance to be President, but because of the people who were really hurt by his loss. Here is what Kerry said about that this Monday:

"In the last decades, we’ve worked hard to live up to that heritage even if sometimes we’ve fallen short of it — or of victory. I began my presidential campaign here — and three years ago next month, I ended it here, and yes, the loss still exacts its price.

And I’m not talking about me. I’m talking about all the hard working families whose lives would’ve been better, all the young American soldiers whose lives were and are on the line, and all those — here and across the world — who yearn to see America move in a new direction.

So on that hard November afternoon, I had no doubt of one thing: my resolve, as I said then, “that what we started in this campaign will not end here.” I pledged that, rather than walk away, “in the years ahead” in whatever was ahead for me, I would “fight on for the people and for the principles that I’ve learned and lived with here in Massachusetts.” And that’s exactly what, together, we are doing."
http://www.johnkerry.com/2007/10/1/faneuil-hall-speech-plan-for-a-21st-century-economic-strategy

[JNelson6563]

111. Regardless

We little people out in the hinterlands busted our asses for Kerry even though there were plenty (like me) who considered him far from !st choice.

We neglected family, home, work what-have-you to work on that election. We could do little about the lousy handling of the swiftboating (I would hope even a Kerry devotee like you is willing to admit that couldn've been done far more aggressively) but we at least had election day, right?

So many of put in countless hours weekly and then there are those who donated more than they could possibly afford--all for the cause of getting Kerry in the WH.

Pardon me (and sooooooo many others) for thinking that he could have at least waited till they FUCKING FINISHED COUNTING THE VOTES before the big concession! WTF?!?!?! (As a side note I always laughed at the whole "skull & bones" nonsense....until that day of the can't-do-it-fast-enough concession.)

Many of us feel sold out and for good reason! We weren't so madly in love with the guy we thought he walked on water like some of you and we worked for him as though we were. The least you die-hard true believers could do is show a little fucking honesty in regard to your hero and the way his campaign went in 2004.

Julie--shaking her head in amazement at the incredibly obtuse mindset occassionally displayed at DU

[EST]

119. Thank you for sharing this kind of closeness with

the candidates and the aftermath of the election. I am quite sure my outrage sometimes leads me to some excesses when I consign people to hell and all those other imaginary eternal punishments, but I am at least somewhat justified.
Particularly justified because of the apparent lack of interest in really getting to the bottom of the obvious fraud extant. The mere fact that virtually all the investigation and subsequent discovery--with the exception of the Greens and a disappearing few other groups--was all done by a crowd of virtual amateurs, all of whom performed magnificently, gratis, cries out for some really fierce attacks by affected interests who still are in a position to bring about change.

The single greatest act that John could have done in his remaining career of thankless service was to jump on the republican election fraud like a hungry lion and give it the kick in the ass that would have deflated the 2006 elections like nothing else.

Thanks again.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

19. She's right, but...

But of course, the media will spin this into Elizabeth Edwards saying John Kerry eats the heads off of live puppies.

Nothing like a good "dem fight" to the media, even when there's not one. I'm still amazed that so much ado is made over the supposed Clinton-Obama "rivalry" when really it's no different than most primary contests where one candidate is simply trying to get rhetorical upper hand over the other.

[paulk]

29. the source of this story is the Washington Times

that should tell you something right there.

[karynnj]

82. It was on Air America - another thread has the audio link

The thread speaks of her commenting on Limbaugh

[paulk]

88. my point has more to do with certain media

being interested in causing divisions among Democrats rather than the veracity of this.

Air America included.

[karynnj]

93. Point taken

The WT has no little credibility, I wouldn't have believed it if it were only there.

[blondeatlast]

40. True that. It's a mere comment, perhaps misguided, but it's going

to be spun all hell out of recognizance.

[book_worm]

23. there were enough reports out of Ohio to suggest irregularity

that Kerry should have waited and investigated more.

[zulchzulu]

48. ..and the MSM would have waited nicely for the evidence to become available...

:rofl:

Wow! Yeah! The MSM would have said that Kerry just wanted to check out to see if voting irregularities happened in Ohio! Yeah! The same MSM that refuses to accept that something horrible happened in Ohio! Oh yeah!

Not...

[WinkyDink]

24. I agree with EE, but it's old news. And old news doesn't play well in America.

Not to mention: Let's focus on the COMMON ENEMY, Elizabeth.

[dailykoff]

25. I don't agree but I'm glad she's speaking up on this.

The election was stolen, of that there's no doubt, and if EE wants to lead the charge, great. Everybody else including her husband is afraid of pissing off the WalMart power couple.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

28. Edwards said all the votes would be counted and believed that the fight would begin,

then shocked when Kerry cried uncle... This was one of the biggest political disappointments in my life.

[Zandor]

33. A right wing source

with good reason.

This article does the Democrats no favors. It makes Kerry look weak and the Democrats a party looking backward.

[tekisui]

43. It's a comment about 2008, more than 2004

She is saying they will not roll over.

[The Backlash Cometh]

34. Those are harsh words?

I'd be disappointed if she wasn't at least disappointed.

[dailykoff]

35. The DNC investigated a few months later and said Kerry lost Ohio.

They were wrong, but what could Kerry have known on election night that the DNC team couldn't find out after looking for several months?

[BrklynLib at work]

42. Everyone watching TV that night knew that there were MASSIVE problems...

It was all out there to be confirmed, if the will had been there to do so.

[dailykoff]

45. Yes absolutely

but so far nobody's been able to find the vapor votes. It was a well-planned heist.

[Inuca]

66. Massive problems, like votes NOT being cast

You cannot count those. But you can try to do something to make it less likely to happen in the future. IMHO it verges on irresponsible at this point to claim that the votes (those that were cast, and those that it was till possible to recount) would have come out differently, painful as it is to acknowledge it, not to mention remember it. Not to accept a result that could not be disproved in a LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME would have also been irresponsible, and Kerry is most definitely not an irresponsible guy. I am really sorry that the Edwards are stooping to this.

[Fly by night]

49. Oh yes, the famous "Brazile" report which did not bother ...

... to interview the scores of disenfranchised voters who had already come forward; which did not interview Richard Hays Phillips, Bob Fitrakis and others who were already amassing volumes of evidece for a stolen election; which did not interview anyone who witnessed the illegalities and irregularities in the faux "recount". Oh yes, that report.

With friends like Donna Brazile (who counts Karl Rove as a friend of hers), who needs flying moneky minion enemies? Not my party. Not this country.

[dailykoff]

123. It was definitely a figleaf

reaching a foregone conclusion. Why, I can only speculate. What it shows is that Kerry was not going to get backing from the party on an election challenge, and he must have realized that.

[marions ghost]

53. Right--

:eyes:
After the election there was little reliable information from Ohio and a complete media blackout on the subject. Remember, no exit polls even...a dark time.

Kerry had to make a difficult decision. There was NO way that fighting on at that point was going to cure what is a systemic, entrenched disease. But I do also agree with Elizabeth that caving to pressure so quickly was NOT good either. Even had they lost the fight, more information would have come to light about the deficiencies of the system. Supporters who were shocked and angry would not feel so let down if the campaign had at least TRIED to fight like they promised. There would have been some place for people who had pulled so hard for him --to take that justifiable anger. It was a mistake to turn away from it. But an honest decision. Kerry felt it was hopeless and I think it essentially was, at that point. Most election reform activists tend to agree. They KNOW what a tough road it is to bring changes to this byzantine so-called "system."

If he'd fought Kerry would have still been beat up with "Sore Loserman" just like Gore. After the brutal swiftboating experience, I can imagine that he just didn't want to take it on. Sure it would have been better if he could have hung in there. But looking at it in hindsight, he wasn't going to "win." We don't have the mechanisms for overturning a presidential race. We all saw how much our votes are really worth in an instant that night. They who count the votes will win. I've seen high school raffles with more integrity.

I don't think the Kerry campaign realized just how dysfunctional and pathetic our election system is until that very night. There was so much denial about it.

But I hope Elizabeth keeps talking about election reform. She does have a unique perspective on it, and now, finally, she will get some support for discussing what happened with honesty for a change. I'm sure she was rightfully pissed off. Keep talking, Elizabeth. We need the truth-tellers. She is one of them.

So yes, I let Kerry off the hook to a certain extent while also understanding why Elizabeth would feel that only now can she say this and be taken seriously. A lot of work has gone on in the meantime.

[dailykoff]

59. Could a little political theater have helped?

I used to think so, but now I'm not even sure about that. What if Kerry had said, "Something stinks! I'm not giving up!" and then, after a show of defiance, conceded the NEXT day? Or the next week? Wouldn't we still be hearing about how he gave up, sold out, cut a deal, never meant to fight, etc? And in that case, they'd be at least partly right.

[marions ghost]

77. that's what it would have amounted to...

"political theater." Making a stab at fighting would have delayed concession and made the Dems in general look better...at least like they really cared about election integrity. Certainly we supporters would have all felt better. But would we really have been any better off? Doubtful.

Elizabeth's and John's instincts to fight (even tho they likely knew it was futile) are admirable, and I think at LEAST it would have planted the idea that "something is wrong" --which would have been helpful in light of the media assuring us that nothing was wrong.

OTOH maybe we needed to face the hard truth about the system and understand that it needs a total overhaul. There isn't a "legal" solution that provides correction in place at this time. The system is obviously way too vulnerable. Kerry's act clearly said that the election system really wasn't worth fighting for at that point. He couldn't do it alone. I'm sure he knew he'd get trashed either way. Look at the brutal treatment of presidential candidates in this country. He'd had enough.

I blame the Dems high and low for ever expecting that the candidate should bear the burden of fighting for a fair election after the fact. There were signs this could happen (certainly after Gore) but where were the Dems ??--like everyone else they ignored some very inconvenient truths. Kerry didn't have the support he needed from the Dem insiders. He would have been thrown under the bus. He chose to live to fight another day in the Senate. I give him points for maintaining his sanity somehow.

I get tired of people trashing Kerry. Sure it would be reassuring to isolate the blame. But it's more complicated than that.

[karynnj]

91. I think Kerry did think it was worth fighting for

Even in his concession speech he spoke of the need to keep fighting - and was passionate about the reasons for doing it to make it stand out as unusual in a concession speech. Then within weeks, all of us on either a snail mail or email list got a unigue thank you letter that made a very personal appeal to stay involved and not give in.

The way they opted to make the problems better known was that Boxer joined the black caucus in disputing Ohio. This put all the information in the Senate record and got the point out that there WERE problems. About 2 weeks later Kerry spoke at a Boston MLK day event where he repeated some of the ways the vote was suppressed. Kerry was widely attacked for this - but he continued to speak listing things that are 100% known and provable. (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2005/01/18/kerry_alleges_voters_were_suppressed?pg=full )

In the meanwhile, there was not a peep out of the Edwards until the climate changed - and here she (not he) is speaking on AA (not the MSM). Meanwhile, Kerry was working to push the Bush administration on Burma.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1978272

[marions ghost]

97. OK

agreed. I don't mean to be taken so literally.

Saying it another way--Kerry's WORDS may have said "fight on," but his ACTIONS clearly said to me--"the system is dysfunctional & corrupt. We can't win." And the quickness of his concession said to me that this was a majority of the Dem party's decision. Kerry knew that he didn't have the backing so he decided not to put his head on the chopping block. I do think that he thought the election was likely stolen, but also knew that contesting it really wasn't going to be able to fix the system in a hurry. I think the Dems and Kerry both underestimated the lengths the opponents would go to steal it, and perhaps also underestimated the vulnerability of the system, like so many Americans who refused to believe it is so flawed. The general public would not have supported Kerry's contesting under those circumstances.

Yes when Kerry recovered from the blow of losing--which when it's been stolen, feels more like being victimized--he began to speak out about it and he has done what he could. But he has only been supported when hardworking election reform activists began to turn the tide. He avoided the Sore Loserman thing altogether. But that's been replaced by "he didn't fight"--which has been used well by his detractors who don't really know what he has or has not done. Like I said, he was facing a "catch-22."

Well, I don't know what to make of the Elizabeth Edwards statement, and if it's only been reported in the Washington Times, I'd say the whole truth may not be out there yet. If she really is speaking out now, then I'd say the Edwards' were smart not to peep until the climate changed.... Also I think it's a fair point that as a candidate, John Edwards WOULD have every right to bring it up before the 2008 election.

The big question is--are the Dems ready this time? Are any of the candidates? I think we know what John would do. So that's interesting info to me. I'd like to know how John (or Elizabeth) thinks it could go should it happen again.

[terisan]

65. Too many Democrats, including Kerry, did not take the election gaming seriously enough to prevent it

from happening again after 2000.

Their seeming naivete was extremely troubling.

[marions ghost]

80. PRECISELY !

Bingo and all that. "Democrats ... did not take the election gaming seriously enough to prevent it..."

You said it more concisely than I did. :applause:

And so are the Dems going to be ready to face these issues in 2008 even?!? WWHD? (What would Hillary Do? for example. I think we know what John would do).

Agreed, it was a combination of naivete and wishful thinking of the type that goes "we just have to get enough votes to override the corruption...." OOPS. Unfathomable to be so cavalier after 2000. That's what they don't want the public to notice. That's why the big silence. They let us down in a BIG way.

You can't expect candidates who "lose" to fight your battles...it's just dumb and naive to do that. Elizabeth's statements now (whatever you may think about their political expediency), are a timely reminder...what's been done to address the issues and could it happen again? Clearly she thinks so. And they want to make it clear that this time, they'd fight. Fair enough.

[karynnj]

105. Kerry was running for the nomination

which he won in early March, 2004.

The effort needed was at the state level and it had to be done via the state government. Making the needed changes can not be done in months. This is NOT the job of the Presidential nominee. It is the job of the party. Read some of the things the Dean people have posted about the state of the local parties when he came in. They were in shambles. Kerry could not both remake the Democratic party and run at the same time.

It is also telling. No one blames Gore - because it was the "first" time it was stolen. In fact, the urban areas have likely always had more votes "spoiled". No one is saying it is 2007, what is Hillary's plan, Obama's plan ... to insure that the election runs smoothly everywhere. Just Kerry.

In Kerry, we had a candidate with a remarkable history, enormous accomplishments and who has been a public servant for decades with no hint of corruption. We had a person who risked his life to save another's - yet some Democrats weren't sure they could defend him - though they had defended others for fairly tawdry actions. The party owes Kerry an apology, not the other way around.

[terisan]

106. I think Kerry is a fine individual & a hero-but he did not raise the issue of vote tampering & sup-

pression. There was tremendous evidence, and to have left it up to the state or the party and not sound the alarm is, I believe, one reason he lost.

Strong statement made in advance, even if not backed by actions or changes, give warning--they may prevent some tampering and change the nature of the discussion when it happens again. To his credit Edwards wanted to put up a fuss. I commended him for it, it would have made the issue more visible today.

If you haven't sounded the alarm in advance, it is harder to make the case later. I believe the candidate needs to do it, and I believe Kerry and Edwards should have done it in 2004 well before November.

No one was more angry than I on election night 2004, watching the so-called Ragin'-Cajun on the tube just shrugging his shoulders and saying that we lost Ohio so it was all over.

No one knows beter than I about the shambles of the Democratic party under McAuliffe, and I let them know about it and my displeasure about his big corporate pay day stock options millionaire-hood long ago.

McAuliffe and James Carville are 2 big reasons I am not excited about the Clinton candidacy. If Obama or Edwards or anyone else is the candidate they need to shout about voter fixes in advance and raise the issues of Florida and Ohio.

We ere fooled in 2000 and in 2004--twice is at least one time too many.

[karynnj]

109. What I was saying was not what to do on Nov 3

but in advance of the election. They had raised the alarm on voter suppression and fraud - and had caught them red handed - destroying registrations. They stopped a rule requiring voter registrations to be a certain paper weight in Ohio. The problem was that there were things that were stolen in different ways - possibly mostly low tech.

No one has ever said just what Edwards wanted to do. This was already the second slowest concession in over 50 years. The fact is the concession would not have been binding had they miraculously found more votes in Ohio. No one has yet found them or found a whistle blower who could point to vote stealing.

As to Carville - he passed info to Bush/Cheney. the real question I have is how frequently he did that. Carville was not really on our side.

[MBS]

115. YES. I agree completely

THanks also for all your other superb, factual posts on this thread

[Senator]

78. Wrong -- In so many ways

Sorry, but first it was not an "honest" decision. Honesty requires telling the truth. Your entire post is speculation specifically because Kerry has not been honest about his decision. In fact, when he later accidentally "committed truth" it resulted in him calling Mark Crispin Miller a liar for simply reporting what he said. A tangled web we're all still struggling in -- as you admit ("honesty for a change").

"There was NO way that fighting on at that point was going to cure what is a systemic, entrenched disease."

I can't imagine anything else that would have helped the election reform movement as much. His refusal to concede would have created a "Second Stolen Election" in the public mind. Had that happened, instead of a ragtag bunch of independent reformers making miraculous progress against a headwind from "official politicians," we could well be sitting here today with full confidence in the system that would be in place for 2008.

"We don't have the mechanisms for overturning a presidential race."

We certainly do have the mechanisms for achieving the correct result -- even in the face of Stalinist election counters. Even a "non-legalistically-proved" challenge in Ohio could have led to a general public impression that the election was stolen and members of the Electoral College could have been prevailed upon to install the moral, rightful winner. That's what they're there for (and why eliminating them would be a bad idea).

Beyond that, electors can be disallowed by Congress. And this is where both Kerry and Edwards failed us on Jan. 6th, 2001. And where Kerry failed us on Jan. 7th -- telling Russert that "Nobody asked us" when thousands demanded it and Justice Breyer instructed it be done in his dissent to BushvGore (as if there's a need to "ask" that a Senator do his duty).

"I don't think the Kerry campaign realized just how dysfunctional and pathetic our election system is until that very night."

If that were true after Florida, then I suppose they don't deserve anger but rather pity (and treatment).

The bottom line is that it's not about "winning." And what's "good for the politician" shouldn't enter into the decision process. If they're afraid of being called names or of having to travel a "tough road" then they shouldn't be asking to lead in the first place. And they certainly shouldn't be surprised, or take umbrage, when people object to their decision to retreat.

It's not "their election" to concede.

---

[marions ghost]

90. Of course my post is speculation...

as is yours.

I admire both John Kerry and Mark Crispin Miller. No either/or there for me. OK they may not agree on certain key points. But I think that Kerry did not quite realize the depths of the disaster awaiting him. He's smarter politically than that. He didn't come out of it well. He didn't imagine losing. Afterwards it was pretty clear he was going to be destroyed either way.

"We could be sitting here today with full confidence in the system"...ROFL That's far-fetched! However I DO agree on the point that it would have helped to create a "second stolen election" in the mind of the public. Yes that would have helped, but I said "cure the disease..."--that it wouldn't have done. We would still be about where we are now. With much much more to be done. I DID say it would have "helped" --and not made it such hard going for us at the time of the complete media blackout after the election.

I disagree that we have effective mechanisms in place for overturning a presidential election (or any election for that matter). I don't think we do. Until we have a real system of auditing in place, and some other reforms, legal challenges won't work. Like I said, you can't expect your "loser" candidates to fight your battles for you after the fact. That's unrealistic. Unless you want the candidates to be puppets like our current Resident, you have to allow some individual decisions in light of circumstances. But you can be sure that after that huge failure and embarrassment of the apparent loss, the Dem insiders also urged Kerry to concede. He was not encouraged to fight it. They were already "movin on." Also key that the media immediately began to justify Bush's win and withhold the exit polls. If we needed a sign about how BAD things were, it was the magic vanishing exit polls --rather than Kerry's concession--that told the story.

People are looking for saviors to lead them out of the wilderness. Having worked in elections for years, I'm glad this came out the way it has, with many thanks to Mark Crispin Miller and others. I just don't have the urge to blame John Kerry --any more than I blame the Dem party (or our expedient generally corrupt society) as a whole. I don't seek to isolate the blame. Doesn't do anything for me. You obviously think everything is working if we just all follow the rules. I say we are operating in an area way outside that now. We need to reinvent the system from the bottom up. It's broke. Fix it.

[Senator]

99. But with honesty, it wouldn't be

And therein lies the core of what's so wrong with our political society. Self-serving dishonesty only breeds more dishonesty. Until an entire class of people exist in a bubble of pretense. When confronted with true or false, a pretense at some in-between is constructed out of euphemism. The result; detachment from reality.

For example, there are no "certain key points" involved. Kerry spoke -- Miller reported -- Kerry denied. But such an "either/or" can't be recognized.

When "mechanisms" are described after a denial of their existence, the response moves to "effective mechanisms" (the euphemized safety of qualification) -- notwithstanding the fact that the mechanisms are perfectly effective when operated by the people duty-bound to do so.

Until it becomes "unrealistic" to expect your standard bearer to actually bear your standard. The sovereign American People need to be taken out of the loop, to "allow some individual decisions in light of circumstances." Uh, huh.

I'm sorry that the honest recounting of history -- including assignment of responsibility for failure when warranted -- doesn't "do anything" for you. But it really is the only way to stop the repetition.

---

[marions ghost]

102. Honesty.

A nice ideal but not often found in business, politics, media, law--or any of those areas where one can "work the system" these days. It still does exist in some of the less powerful service-oriented professions, such as research, teaching, medicine-- where it is harder to bend rules.

To change this situation would mean some kind of huge societal revolution. I can hardly imagine it. Our country is based on images, spin, ruthless "control by any means." We have degenerated to a dog-eat-dog society. It's hard to imagine going back to some pure state of general honesty. People would have to be less afraid, less greedy, more secure. And all this administration has done is increase feelings of INsecurity exponentially. Can you trust anybody-- after the dark night of the Bushites?

"Mechanisms vs "effective mechanisms"....are you a lawyer?

I think it's unrealistic to put your faith in "standard bearers" who are controlled by a political party. Do you expect them to stick their heads out to be chopped off? Do you expect 'loser' candidates to fix a broken system?

Who said anything about 'sovereign American people being taken out of the loop.' We already have been, and it wasn't the likes of me doing that.

I think you're looking for honesty in the wrong places. How about starting by addressing my arguments instead of throwing out all these straw men?

[Senator]

133. I see. Everybody's does it, so it's ok.

And all problems are too big to think about. Fair enough, but there is no argument there to address. It's just rationalizing.

But yes, I do expect standard bearers to "stick their heads out." That's the deal. They are the ones asking for my support, not the other way around. And they would be risking far, far less than the average soldier in Iraq.

And perhaps a call for simple honesty and democracy "would mean some kind of huge societal revolution," but it's one that's long overdue. I'll let you know how it turns out.

--

[marions ghost]

147. No. Don't twist it.

"Everybody does it, and that's NOT OK." is my opinion.

To change the pervasive attitude -- it's everyone out for themselves --would not be easy. Things are pretty far gone in this society esp after the Bushites. You're considered a fool if you DO operate honestly and don't "work the system." This degree of corruption can be overwhelming and that's why people who still think things operate on higher principles --don't want to think about it. I DO consciously think about it, but I'm not in the majority.

It's unrealistic to expect "standard bearers" to stick out their heads to be chopped off. Kerry could go with the Dem party wishes and stay in the Senate or retire and revamp a la Al Gore. Kerry's choice was to stay in the Senate where he can still be effective in the way he knows best. Let somebody else take up the standard for election reform. The problem was, he made a campaign promise he shouldn't have made. I'm not sure he really knew the risks of that. I'd like to think he didn't. People make mistakes. He did what he could in the post-election snake-pit.

In an oblique way, I think Elizabeth is trying to reassure us that 'it won't happen again.' Of course a stolen election could happen again, but it will be less easy this time thanks to the work of election reformers all over the country. Some progress has been made. Edwards is not as beholden to the Dem party if he loses so he could choose to fight without the same pressures.

[Senator]

158. Sorry. But I don't see much twist...

... between saying a problem is too big to fix -- that one "can hardly imagine" doing anything about it -- and saying that it's something we just have to tolerate (it's ok).

But it's still incorrect to say it's "unrealistic to expect 'standard bearers' to stick out their heads to be chopped off" because that's exactly what we got from Gore in 2000, albeit only temporarily. And Gore's example make it quite clear that Kerry did not "do what he could." As did Senator Boxer's belated application of Justice Breyer's BushvGore dissent instructions.

You may well be correct about Elizabeth's intent. But I don't feel particularly reassured. Not with the platoon of thug US Attys currently working overtime, on the taxpayers' dime, to plot the theft -- while the DC Dems do nothing but bloviate about them.

In our current circumstances, only a call for impeachment from Edwards would pass for something more than calculated blather.

===

[karynnj]

120. Wait a minute

You say Kerry spoke, Miller reported, Kerry denied.

In that very sentence you are speaking of a disputed conversation. Saying this in a non - biased way, you would say - Miller says Kerry said; Kerry said he didn't. It takes a lot of chutzpah to give Miller 100% credibility and Kerry 0%, especially when Miller happened to have a book coming out and this would be excellent buzz for it. You believe him because he confirms your point of view. You don't believe Kerry, who has NO record of dishonesty, because you want to believe Miller.

Not to mention - the reported conversation made little sense as a serious discussion.

From what I remember. Miller met Kerry at a party saying "you were robbed" and Kerry agreed. End of conversation. Miller asked NOTHING. Yet, he clearly saw this as a red banner comment. Why would there be no follow up? My explanation is that this is like saying to a sports fan of his team, "you were robbed" when they just played a game when the other team got all the breaks. Had he asked Kerry if he would say (on the record or not) whether or not the election was stolen, rather than the informal - you was robbed - he would have given a serious answer - as he has many many times.

Look at the speech given when the Rosa Parks voting rights extension was debated. There Kerry listed many many ways that the system failed. Or Teresa's comments that IF the machines can be hacked it is a problem. They are stying with what can be proven and what is true - defining what needs to be fixed. Maybe history will say if the election was stolen, even better would be if they found out how and people went to jail. But, even more important is fixing it for the future. Miller attempting to push Kerry where he clearly does not want to go accomplishes nothing. Kerry saying he nelieves it, but can't prove it, does nothing for anyone - but could hurt the Senator.

The answers I have heard all speak of voter suppression and irregularities that should not happen in this country. Go look at all Al Gore's comments. Kerry can not and will not likely go beyond what is known 100%, because doing so would destroy his credibility on this and other issues. I have not exhaustively looked, but I do not recall any where he has said point blank the election was stolen. That election is far easier to prove. The reason neither do is Bush is the sitting President. It is far better for others to say it. As Kerry did say about Gore. (in his Faneuil Hall speech on the environment in 2006.

Miller was in fact dishonest in purposely taking something and making it what he knew it wasn't. His motive was likely he felt this issue needed more visibility and putting out that Kerry believed it would get that attention. If he believed Kerry meant it, wouldn't he ask what have you learned that makes you see that?

[Senator]

135. Kerry did not deny the conversation...

...just the content - so he did admit speaking. But the point of the example was not to claim that one was right and the other wrong (either opinion is defensible). But rather to show just one of the results of Kerry's failure to be candid with those he was representing in real time and to voice their objection to the objectionable. (And then in context, to illustrate euphemized evasion.)

Another result is the conversation we are having, and the countless similar ones that have been had for years now.

It is a terrible hidden cost to our common cause. Exacted when euphemized concerns about what "could hurt the Senator" and "destroy his credibility" are placed ahead of simple honesty with the public/electorate. It is the reason so many opt out of participation in the political process or seek only to twist it to their advantage.

Far from doing nothing, "Kerry saying he believes it, but can't prove it" would have been a laudable show of respect for the public. A welcome change from treating us all like children to be manipulated with the guidance of strategery consultants.

If this is what represents "the reality-based community," it's small wonder that our public discourse exists in a schizophrenic haze where stolen elections never happened and there are no war criminals in the WH worth impeaching.

--

[karynnj]

139. We will have to disagree

It is not lack of being candid. Kerry is sticking to what is 100% provable. He has, from the beginning, made three points:

- There was voter suppression and various irregularities that cost him numerous votes
- Ohio was extremely close - 59,000 votes
- Those type of problems hurt our democracy

You can put the first two together to see that he may either believe it was stolen or accept the possibility that it might have been stolen. A point blank statement that the election was stolen especially by either Gore (who has not said this) or Kerry challenges the legitimacy of the government. The problem is that you want Kerry to say what you view is the truth and reality. If Kerry had PROOF he would speak of it as he did all the known provable problems. Going beyond that is not truth, but speculation.

It also is not "consultants". Kerry was know a cautious, well prepared prosecutor in MA. In his Senate investigations on Contra dru running and BCCI, he pushed the investigations well beyond what other Senators would have done, but his reports contains ONLY what was within his ability to prove. This is why those controversial investigations were vindicated in the end. There were others who have tried to go further on the Contra drug running, who by making even one misstatement saw there work entirely discredited.

I also think that you can get general agreement on the need to make changes starting with those three points. That a close election {i]could be awarded to the loser, due to problems in how we register and how we vote demands we clean up both processes. Going the other way, you simply get to a war of words - where neither side is completely on the high ground.

[Senator]

157. Well, I can partially agree...

...that it's not simply a lack of being candid. And I'd also agree that an honest objection from Gore or Kerry would "challenge the legitimacy of the government." Not that there's anything wrong with that.

But since you've gone beyond that limited context in defending Kerry, I must point out that the defense is just a further indictment of the damaging arrogance he and the other DC Dems display. You state "his case" quite well, but without any recognition that it is corrupt to the core.

It is another example of what I described in my earlier post: A self-serving pretense constructed out of euphemism.

The nation witnesses live on TV 15-hour poll-tax-lines for poor, brown (Dem) Americans and none for rich, white (Rep) voters. In a "third world" country int'l observers would have declared the result invalid on the spot. But what is the Kerry/DCDem/Euphemedia response?

- To say yes, there were "various irregularities." There may even have been some "glitches" too. And we've even had reports of some valid registrations getting "misdirected." Well, that doesn't sound so bad -- does it?

- To state almost as a mantra that it was an "extremely close" election. Setting aside the accuracy of that statement, what is the purpose of saying it was close?

- To conclude that we are entirely helpless to do anything unless it is "100% provable" that we'll be able to "change the result" (another mantra).

- To give assurances that we will "clean up" this mess sometime in the future. Which is nothing more than a rationalization for doing abolutely nothing now about the current problem.

Sorry, but this manipulative treatment of the voters is not part of the solution.

As a matter of fact, IT IS the problem.

--

[OnTheOtherHand]

159. "int'l observers would have declared the result invalid on the spot."

Demonstrably untrue.

http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2004/11/3779_en.pdf

"The 2 November elections in the United States mostly met the commitments agreed to by the 55 OSCE participating States in the Copenhagen Document of 1990 – see Annex I. They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long democratic tradition, including institutions governed by rule of law, free and professional media and civil society involved in all aspects of the election process."

There were plenty of criticisms, too -- go ahead and read it all.

[Senator]

160. Yes, they would have...

...in a "third world" country, as I said. But in a vaunted "Western Democracy" (genuflect) such a thing just isn't done.

On the other hand, maybe it is. Since the phrase "mostly met" actually means failed. Does it not?

But when Colin Powell is your demonstrator I suppose you've always got the truth on your side.

BTW, when are the mushroom clouds coming?

--

[OnTheOtherHand]

161. well, you're entitled to your faith statements n/t

[karynnj]

87. Kerry conceded - but he continued to speak of the problems

as did Teresa. The whole point of Boxer voting as she did was to get this on the Congressional record. the Kerrys have both made very substative comments on the problems - while EE and JRE were silent. Even here there is no substance to EE's comment - what would be the basis of JRE's case?

If there were a case to be made, I seriously doubt Kerry would have let name calling stop him. He was called many names by the both the Nixon people and the far left of the 70s, he was called a "randy conspiracy nut" because he persisted in investigating the Contras, he was attacked by everyone on BCCI. In fact, blowing away the over 35 years of Republican smears would be accomplished by being teh President he was capable of being.

Kerry has said that neither he or the Democratic lawyers could make a case the way the numbers were. None of the lawyers have countered that.

[marions ghost]

94. good points

all true as I understand it. Right, it's not like Kerry just walked away. He kept addressing the election issues in other ways and behind the scenes.

I agree that Kerry realized that the legal case would not be convincing. I didn't mean to imply that he was not "up to the job" of fighting it. But that's how hopeless it was. I think it would have made us all feel better momentarily if he'd made a stab, but in a corrupt system it's very hard to get "the evidence" needed for challenges. If there had been support from the Dems I think he could have weathered the storm. Either way, it's been politically hurtful for him. Unfairly I think.

Thanks for the additional background. Yeah most people don't have any idea what Kerry has done about it. All they focus on is that he "didn't fight." Mostly people who have a naive view of the legal system and the election system IMO.

[zulchzulu]

47. She and others should read this from Conyers

"Fighting for Every Voter"

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me. As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes...

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

- John Conyers

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000213.htm

[Senator]

51. Not really relevant

Conyers was talking about their mainly-moral support for his noble attempt to document the theft, after the fact.

Had Kerry not conceded, the entire nation would have been riveted on "What Happened In Ohio?" when there was still time/evidence to achieve a democratic, non-Stalinist result.

----

[zulchzulu]

54. The mainstream media sure would have been willing to allow an investigation...

...the same mainstream media that called having the election stolen as a "conspiracy theory"...

Yeah, right.

[Highway61]

50. For me, I remember it all too well

I found it odd that Georgie went to bed election night at his usual 9 p.m. Why? He KNEW he had won and it was business as usual.

[Grandrose]

52. Thanks Elizabeth!

Especially for saying this!

Said Mrs. Edwards: "I was very disappointed, not just because we did not count the votes, but because we promised people that if they stood in line and fought for the right to vote, that we would fight with them."
:applause:

[karynnj]

55. What a cheap oportunist attack

The Edwards were silent through at least the middle of 2006. They were not among the people speaking out when the MSM was treating people who did as if they were out of their minds.

If Edwards thought there was a case, wasn't he, as a citizen, responsible for at minimum putting the information out there.

The fact is the Edwards said nothing for a year and a half - and have STILL not said anything substantial.

There STILL is no proof that could have been taken into an Ohio court that would have changed the numbers to Kerry winning. Remember that by sometime in December the Republican dominated Ohio legislature, by the Constitution had to designate the delegates to the electoral college. Even if the impossible were done and we had a whistle blower, there is a good chance that at most it would have thrown the election into dispute. The December time frame allows enough time for recounts, but not a trial to prove that there was fraud. There is no provision for a new election. In 2000, there was talk (from John Roberts) that the legislature should say the election was in dispute and vote the delegates directly.

Look at New Hampshire, where the Republicans were caught red handed blocking the GOTV lines in the 2002 race between Sununu and Sheehan. There are people who were indicted and convicted, but not till last year, 2006 - four years into Sununu's term. Not to mention that even though that race was close and it is probable that this illegal action suppressed Sheehan's votes, no one has tried to change the result of the election - Sununu is the Senator. Sheehan is running against him again in 2008 and is miles ahead.

That was a situation where we had proof of what was done and by whom - and it took 4 years to go through the courts. In Ohio, we may, at some point, now that there is an excellent Democrat in the job of Secretary of State, get that needed proof of anything illegal that was done. As in NH, the result would be that people could go to jail and the history books would show that the Republicans stole 2 elections in a row.

Barabara Boxer joined the black caucus in 2005 to get the types of abuses that occurred into the Congressional record and before the public. The MSM downplayed them, which was why they needed to be on record. Look at the coverage of this issue in late 2004 and early 2005, there were very few mainstream Democrats who touched the issue, and John Edwards was not among them, Kerry was. Bill Clinton, less than 2 weeks later, was babbling at the opening of his library of liking both Bush and Kerry and within a month bad mouthing Kerry. In 2000, the entire nation knew the election was in debate. In 2004, the media was immediately speaking of a big Bush victory - focusing on the 3 million (which did decrease when all the ballots were counted in states like CA, well before the absentee, military and ex-pat votes were counted).

Teresa Heinz Kerry was ridiculed and attacked for saying in Seattle in 2005, when asked about the election, that it was a problem IF the machines could be manipulated and that this needed to be fixed.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/214744_joel07.html?source=rss

Kerry spoke as early as January 19, 2005 on voter suppression. Looking for a link, I found this as well - which shows some of the milder flack Kerry got. (do a google and you can find RW accounts that go as far as calling him delusional or worse.)

http://www.votelaw.com/blog/archives/002929.html (Note that Kenyon College had kids voting after 11 hour waits. The machines were not distributed proportionately - here, Kerry said ONLY what was absolutely 100% provable, as would be expected from someone known for his meticulous work both in Senate investigations and as a prosecutor. Note the comments in the AP article - those are the ones that went into nation-wide articles.

Here's how it was reported in Boston:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2005/01/18/kerry_alleges_voters_were_suppressed?pg=full

I did not hear the Edwardses making this an issue at all, until the climate changed in 2006.

[Luftmensch067]

72. Thank you for posting some actual, rational facts

I am not proud of Mrs. Edwards for this remark. Not proud at all.

The fact is that Kerry knows more about how the system works than a lot of people who post here because he has years and years of experience as well as wisdom. He was looking at the big picture, which most of us (including me!) were not able to focus on that horrible morning when the world went wrong.

I called his campaign office that morning and BEGGED them to ask him not to concede. I skipped work and went down to Faneuil Hall and stood outside in the cold and wept. I saw the homemeade signs begging them to count every vote.

And then I spent two months obsessing on all the Black Box and election fraud info, watching the videos of people waiting for hours in the rain in Ohio in the black neighborhoods, refusing to leave until they voted, being refused the vote and cried my eyes out for the death of our democracy. I went to Faneuil Hall again, this time for an election fraud rally and pondered the shame the Founders in the portraits there would feel over what we were witnessing.

I watched, with the rest of you, how the MSM (except for blessed Keith Olbermann!) called us all nutcases and refused to mention the story at all.

I felt and feel the pain of that defeat, and I know how deeply John Kerry feels it, too.

But the fact is, he *didn't* make his decision out of weakness or lack of forethought. He, and his advisors, who stayed up all night weighing their options, realized that there was simply NOT ENOUGH. Not enough evidence of fraud, too many votes that weren't even cast (intimidation, lack of machines) so that they couldn't be counted, too much rigging in the Republican-run Ohio state government, no proof, no smoking gun.

He didn't concede because he couldn't see what we saw. He conceded because he could see what we couldn't. And karynnj is quite right -- even WITH proof, this stuff takes years and years to prosecute. Rather than threaten our political stability in a time of war, he chose to concede. And, believe me, the pain of that concession was the greater not because of his own ambition, but because he knew just what another four years of Bush would mean.

People here should recognize what John Kerry accomplished in that campaign and realize that the disappointment and loss they feel is magnified a billion times for him. Admire his courage and attack not him, but the system that allowed our election to be stolen. For his sake, as well as our own, fight for election integrity. Never again!!!

[Inuca]

142. Thank you so much for this n/t

[Lerkfish]

56. well, she has a valid point.

[blondeatlast]

57. Original Source: The WASHINGTON TIMES

I'm just sayin'.

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/bellantoni/2007/10/eliazbeth_edwards_disappointed_1.html

[Bitwit1234]

58. Even if he had waited a year, it wouldn't have mattered

rove had the votes tied up and no matter of investigation would have changed the out come. The machine were programmed for bush and that was that.

[dailykoff]

61. Yes

and I think that was probably clear to him at the time.

[MH1]

63. Hey!! No fair using facts or logic!! This is DU, you know.

Either way, at this rate I might have a harder time voting for Edwrads than for Hillary - and that's saying a lot. Not to worry though - if he keeps alienating folks like me, he won't have a chance anyway.

[Divine Discontent]

70. b/c she says Kerry told Bush that morning he won against so much topical evidence

that needed to be looked into, and b/c of the promise to the voters to COUNT EVERY VOTE, you feel he "keeps alienating" you?

I love both of them. But I don't believe her speaking something that needs told to the voters is something that should be withheld. There are MILLIONS of under 24 voters who have a very very very very bad taste in their mouth about the capitulation of the great Senator Kerry and his defeat to the dumbest man to hold the office.

Thanks.

[quiet.american]

71. In that case, we might as well all go home now and not bother voting in '08.

:shrug: Why fight it?

[yardwork]

67. I agreed with her at the time and I still do.

The vote in Ohio was full of illegal shenanigans. Kerry should have fought it.

[ProSense]

76. Why didn't John Edwards fight? Don't say Kerry told him not to.

What kind of leader blames someone for not standing up and then uses the excuse that someone told him not to?

If Edwards believes he won, why didn't he fight tooth and nail for his win?

Also, what has he done with regard to voting rights?



edited typo

[Senator]

79. And where was he on January 6th, 2001??

Perhaps Elizabeth can explain that to us.

True, he wasn't as ridiculous as Kerry (and Biden) to tell Russert that "Nobody asked us" to object to the unlawful Florida electors, but he still sat on his hands with the rest of them.

Maybe he'll come clean about that, as Senator Boxer did when she stood up four years later to do the right thing.

--

[smokey nj]

84. Self delete, I misread your post

[smokey nj]

86. I'm really batting a thousand today.

:dunce:

[smokey nj]

83. Here's a link to to the audio of the comments.

http://airamerica.com/clout/

Scroll down and click on Segment 5.

[AzDar]

85. Finally!

Go, Johnny, Go!!

[Javaman]

89. No duh. nt

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

95. As I've said time after time. He MEANT to walk away.

He was a distraction. He was a ringer.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[bdamomma]

100. As much I like Kerry, thanks Elizabeth for the all one two punch.

[ProSense]

101. A challenge to Elizabeth Edwards

here.

[David Zephyr]

104. How does her saying this help anything?

Joe Biden said pretty much the same thing the other day playing Monday morning quarterback about Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 and how he'd done it differently.

This statement doesn't help.

[terisan]

107. It helps me. I want a candidate who is a street fighter. I don't want another demoralizing election

night. In 2000 we weren't organized to fight for Gore in the recount. In 2004 neither Kerry nor we were prepared to prevent or deal with Ohio---even thought we already got screwed in 2000.

Sounding the alarm ahead of time prevents some crap from happening and puts us in a better position to deal when it does occur.

I'm so cynical I think McAuliffe and Carville worked against Kerry to get themselves back in power in 2008.

[Bluerthanblue]

108. the best response to this foolish statement in my opinion.- I admire

Elizabeth Edwards, and like her as well, but this comment is just more of the tiresome breast-beating "coulda" "woulda" "shoulda" crap.

Hell, I'm still frustrated that Al Gore didn't pursue 2000 further (the votes still were not counted, even the absentee/foreign votes)- And that he refused to allow Bill Clinton to campaign on his behalf, but it's not helpful to focus on the past, and claim that "they should have______________." It only makes the speaker seem desperate.

We have enough trouble- stabbing each other in the back, doesn't serve anyone- except the opposition.


:hi:

[1932]

130. If Biden's wife were the VP in '04, and Biden told you that he was disappointed with

the choice to conced after his wife promissed that she'd fight with all those people in Ohio and Florida who didn't get to vote, do you think that woudl be irrelevant?

[in_cog_ni_to]

110. She's not alone! I couldn't get Kerry's Bumper Sticker off my bumper fast enough that day!

You don't make promises to MILLIONS of people that you will stand and fight against election fraud just to get their money and support and then renege. That's just plain old SHITTY.

[peace13]

112. You don't collect money from your supporters to fight

and then lay down before the job is done. Peace, Kim

[Generator]

114. Well Duh

Doesn't every smart Democrat think this? I believe so did Teresa Kerry. The only one seems to be Kerry himself who didn't want to do the one thing that damn song promised-"no retreat and no surrender." The fight would have meant everything to some of us, but instead he said the country "needed to be healed". I tell you that is my moment of least liking the guy, for me I understand his IWR vote and many never forgave that-but forgiving letting the election go with a whimper-well it never goes away. Never.

But I like Edwards more than Kerry, and though Edwards is very flawed-I saw my first Edwards 08 bumpersticker today and it was the first time I've felt anything good about politics since November 1st, 2004.

[marions ghost]

145. So you really think

that Kerry is that simple-minded? And that he differed with Teresa? And Kerry didn't want to do the "right thing" --the best thing? He didn't want to fight? You really believe that?

Kerry got caught in a political catch-22. And we don't have all the answers as to why. Get involved with elections and how they are run. You'll see how much goes on behind the scenes. The candidates understand the game & the risks but sometimes they get caught between a rock and a hard place. Kerry got sacrificed. And so did the voters. For awhile. But we're fighting back....follow the election forum --that's the effort that's really working for us. Those are the superheroes.

[huskerlaw]

117. It's not new

Elizabeth and John have said this MANY times since 2004. They're not "throwing Kerry under the bus" or trying to use it for political gain.

They have ALWAYS said this. It's just that people are asking them about it again, so they're answering.

Really not a story.

[wisteria]

121. Well maybe if her husband had done what the VP candidate was suppose to do and strike back at the

SBV and defend Sen. Kerry and if Edward's would have won NC, there would of been no need for a concession at all. Just saying.

Her whole accusation against Sen. Kerry is unfounded.

[yurbud]

122. thank you. at least John will fight if there's any funny business.

[Lorien]

125. Where is Elizabeth Edwards? She used to post on DU

maybe someone can PM her and she can weigh in herself. :shrug:

[file83]

126. That kid who got TASERED a few weeks ago was asking Kerry about this...

...just before he got tasered.

These Edwards folk are very interesting.

[mod mom]

127. Thanks to Clinton Ally-James Carville, Kerry did concede too early:

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)
By M.J. Rosenberg | bio

?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.

The rest is history.

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

HMMH...NOW WHO BENEFITTED FROM THIS TREASONOUS ACT? bu$h AND NOW HILLARY. HOW CONVENIENT-HEY JAMES-YOU POS!

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

128. That's Why This Country Is So FUCKED!

I cannot bring myself to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Sorry, I feel so set up, and taken advantage of, I will not be responsible for electing someone like her.

I feel as if I'll have to consider leaving the country, unless Al Gore enters the race and is chosen as the nominee. I feel like he and Edwards are the only ones sincere and genuine and capable of winning the '08 election.

[mod mom]

129. I hear you-I hope Al Gore does also!

[Diane R]

131. You absolutely nailed it. Carville and the Clintons enabled bush to steal that election.

[Imagevision]

137. Call me what you will but I firmly believe there is a wee-bit more to being Skull&Bones members

they do vow to NEVER cross one another...

[Vidar]

134. Bravo Elizabeth!

[travelingtypist]

136. Oh no. Elizabeth attacks saint war hero kerry.

Whatever shall we do?
/:sarcasm:

I have been just disgusted with JK ever since he rolled over
and played dead in 2004. I'm glad somebody meaningful had the
guts to say so out loud.

[seabeyond]

138. three years after election and STILL NO PROOF of election fraud

and nothing done about it. kerry not conceding when he did really would have changed things.

[marions ghost]

141. Nope--Kerry couldn't have made much difference then

he didn't have the legal mechanisms to win an election challenge & he did all that was possible at the time. There was no way enough evidence could have been gathered in a corrupted system. If he went further he would have been accused of grandstanding for effect. OK so the public might have been lulled into thinking that the system works for awhile (is that good?) Or, maybe people WOULD have suspected that it was indeed a second stolen election, which might have helped the cause of election reform, but would not have looked good for the Dem party. The revelation of a stolen election (again!) would have depended on heavy media coverage and the media was sweeping it all under the rug as fast as possible.

Blaming Kerry is all about hero worship, not about fixing the system. The bottom line is the Dem party was not prepared to support Kerry in an election challenge. You can't expect the loser candidate to fix the system without support & functional mechanisms (exit polls, audits, recounts etc). The system is hopelessly flawed and vulnerable.

Talk to people in the Election Reform forum. They will tell you why "proof" of election fraud is so difficult to obtain. Investigations were stifled, evidence was destroyed, officials lied, etc etc.
People inside of the Election Reform movement don't feel that Kerry could have made a definitive difference at the time of the election. To his credit he did speak out strongly later on and now the issue is being talked about freely. Kerry may have made the mistake of underestimating the extent of the problem, like many high level Dems. Maybe they got caught in the old saw, "you just have to get enough votes to counter the corruption." (backfired) Maybe they didn't understand the way that e-voting was going to be a huge factor.

At least blame them all--and the system--not just Kerry. It's much more complicated than that.

[seabeyond]

152. brilliant. insightful. further, those yelling at kerry is part of the PROBLEM

and will continue to allow an environment where this cannot be addressed. they are equal in creating this mess to the people turning a blind eye to the theft. people who would ignore all the points you make in order to point the finger at kerry for personal reasons, or expect one man to FIX the massive problem ignore the need for the country as a whole to address the problem. we are ALL responsible for this and is the only way it can be fixed. one man cannot do it and to reduce it to this is to perpetuate the problem.

[marions ghost]

155. right....

it's much easier to blame an individual candidate who made an error in judgment than to address the situation as a whole and come to terms with the incredible magnitude of the problem. It's a kind of willful myopia, yes.

It is WE who must push for election reforms from now on...it's not going to be automatically done by any campaign, although I think Elizabeth and John are more sensitive to the situation than some.

:thumbsup: thanks for the support, seabeyond. We're on the same page....

[WritersBlock]

140. Elizabeth's right. I have never felt so betrayed at any time in my life

when Kerry conceded without a fight.

"I've got your back," indeed.

[marions ghost]

144. yes that's where they got caught...

the Dems made too many promises about fighting based on weak assumptions. They promised to fight (perhaps just to get people to the polls believing they would win & that it all would be moot) but then after the fact they realized that the fight would not go well because the support was just not there. Political expediency.

So they made a mistake in promising. But Kerry was going to lose anyway and it was better not to drag it out, making the Dems look even worse that they played into R hands a second time, especially underestimating the e-voting issues. Meanwhile the media sold "election is fine, no problem" while jerking the exit polls out from public scrutiny.

The whole election system is a lie, not just Kerry's campaign promise. That's how we are betrayed. And people finally know it. Time to move on and not isolate the problem to one candidate.

Edit to add: As for Elizabeth's statements about it, the timing of them etc. I can't fully analyze that comment with so little info about it. I like Elizabeth and think she talks turkey most of the time. I suspect that she is not thinking back so much as ahead. It enhances John's candidacy to argue that he wanted to fight (which I think is the truth) but I rather doubt that fighting at that time would have really changed the big picture. Too many forces against them. Still they had promised, and John likes to keep promises--that's good. So I think if she said this, it does help people "feel better" about elections (like there's something that CAN be done if people cheat). However I feel more confident because of the work of thousands that has gone on BECAUSE of the fact of TWO STOLEN presidential elections. So I think that Elizabeth is capitalizing on this and once again, making an implied "promise"--but on stronger ground than in 04.

The big question is obviously "can it happen again?" If Elizabeth gets people talking about that, FINE with me.

[lonestarnot]

143. Damn it! Too late to recommend!

[undeterred]

146. The past is a bucket of ashes.

Elizabeth had been recently diagnosed with breast cancer. I'm sure that was weighing on Kerry as well as a million other things. He did the best he could based on what he knew at that moment.

In hindsight, it was a mistake.

John Kerry is human. He hasn't made one millionth of the mistakes that George W. Bush has in his life. He's been a wonderful public servant and a fine senator.

Let's forgive him.

[Totally Committed]

148. She's right.

said so then, and say so now.

TC

[JerseygirlCT]

149. She's right about that. nt

[ProSense]

153. So which one of the Edwardses told a lie: Elizabeth or

John.

[cooolandrew]

154. It's the main point really Kerry broke a pledge even before potentailly entering office.

[NotGivingUp]

156. She's totally right. Kerry really pissed me off when he did that.

it was very shortly after that i got off of kerry's mailing list and basically told him to fuck off.