Bill Clinton will never be half the man John Kerry is

[ProSense]

Sen. John Kerry's closed-door impeachment statement Released into Congressional Record, February 12, 1999

Wednesday, February 10, 1999


Mr. Chief Justice. My colleagues.

I want to thank the Chief Justice for his important stewardship of these proceedings. And I thank Senator Lott and Senator Daschle for their patient leadership in helping to bridge the divide of partisan votes so that these are not partisan deliberations.

There is a special spirit in this chamber. No matter all the easy criticisms directed our way, this is a great institution and in our own way we are witnessing -- living out -- the remarkable judgment of the founding fathers.

Let me turn to the question of removing President William Jefferson Clinton.

Many times the House Managers argued to us that if you find the facts as they argue them, you must vote to convict and thereby remove. But of course that, like a number of things they said, is not true. You can, of course, find the facts and still acquit because you don't want to remove -- on a Constitutional basis, or any other balance that a Senator makes in the interests of the Nation.

Now, I agree that Perjury and Obstruction of Justice can be grounds for removal. The question is, are they in this case?

In answering that question, I will not dissect the facts any further, because I don't have the time, but also because I believe there are issues of greater significance than the easy to understand facts of this case. So let us assume you take the facts as the House Managers want you to. I would like to talk about some of the things in the arena outside of the mere recitation of facts -- critical considerations that should be part of any Senator's judgment in this matter.

I have listened with care and with respect to all the arguments for removal. I must say that even as I understand what many have said, there seems to be a gap between the words and the reality of what is happening in this country.

Some have said it sets a double standard for impeachment of judges, despite the vast majority of scholars saying there is a difference between judges and the President -- despite a difference clearly spelled out in the Constitution, and despite all the distinguishing facts of each of those cases involving judges.

Some have said this will have a negative impact on kids, on the military, and on the fabric of our country, and while I agree with you this is absolutely not about polls or popularity, some are making a judgment that clearly the country itself does not agree with. The country does not believe the fiber of our nation is unraveling over the President's egregious behavior, because most people have a sense of proportion about this case that seems totally lacking in the House managers' presentation.

No parent or school in America is teaching kids that lying or abusing the justice system is now okay. And I say the President's predicament does not make it harder to do so. That's just not happening. If anything there may now be a greater appreciation for the trouble you can get in to for certain behavior. More parents are teaching their children about embarrassment, about lying, about humiliation, about family hurt, and about public responsibility, than before we heard the name Monica Lewinsky.

The clear answer to children writing letters about the President is that, since being discovered, he has been in a lot of trouble -- may even be criminally liable -- has suffered public humiliation, and all of history will not erase the fact of impeachment, this trial or the lessons of this case.

But the bottom line for us is our Constitutional duty -- based on common sense and sense of honor.

There is a simple question -- but a question of enormous consequence. Do we really want to remove a President of the United States because he tried to avoid discovery in a civil case, of a private, consensual affair, with a woman who was subsequently determined to be irrelevant to the case which itself was thrown out as wholly without merit under the law?

Let me be clear about the President's behavior. I am as deeply disturbed by it, as we all are. But I'm not sure we need additional moralizing about something the whole nation has already condemned and digested. The President lied to his countrymen -- to family, friends, all of us. And if one is not enormously concerned by gifts not surrendered, conversations which can't refresh recollection, and jobs produced with uncommon referral and speed, certainly one must be unsettled by the mere lack of easy compliance with judicial inquiry by a President. That is of grave concern to all. It deserves our censure.

But let me say, as directly as I can, no amount of inflated rhetoric, or ideological or moral hyper-extension, can lift the personal, venial aspects of the President's actions to the kind of threat to fabric of country contemplated by the Founding Fathers. I must say that I am somewhat surprised to see so many strict constructionists of the Constitution, giving such new and free interpretation to the clear intent of the framers.

And I have, frankly, been stunned by the over-reach, the moral righteousness, even the zealotry of the arguments presented us by the House Managers.

No matter the words about not hating Bill Clinton -- no matter the disclaimers about partisanship, I sensed at times not just a scorn, but snarling, trembling venom that told us the President is a criminal, and that "we need to know who our President is."

Well, the President is certainly a sinner. We all are. And he may even have committed a crime. But just plain and simply measured against the test of history so eloquently articulated by the Senator from New York this morning, and by the Senator from Delaware yesterday, this is not in any measure on the order of high crime and misdemeanor so clearly contemplated by the Founding Fathers.

Unlike President Nixon's impeachment case, no government power or agency was unleashed or abused for a goal directly affecting public policy -- no election was interfered with; no FBI or IRS power was wrongfully employed.

At worst this President lied about his private, consensual affair and tried -- wrongfully, but on a human level, understandable to most Americans, at least as to the Paula Jones case -- to cover it up. I think, in fact, that most Americans in this country understood there was in that inquiry a violation of a zone of privacy that is as precious to Americans as the Constitution itself.

The fact that the House dropped the Paula Jones deposition count underscores the underlying weakness on which all of this is based. So I would ask my colleagues, are we really incapable of at least measuring the real human dimensions of what took place here, and contrasting it properly with the constitutional standards we are presented by precedent and history?

We have heard some discussion of proportionality. It's an important principle within our justice system -- and in life itself. The consequences of a crime should not be out of proportion to the crime itself. As the dictionary tells us, "it should correspond in size, degree or intensity."

I must say that no one yet who will vote to remove has fully addressed that proportionality issue.

If you want to find perjury because you believe Monica about where the President touched her, and you believe that by adopting the definition given him by a judge and by Paula Jones' own lawyers, and you can reach into the President's mind to determine his intent -- then that is your right. But, having done that, if you think a President of the United States should be removed -- an election reversed, because of such a thin evidentiary thread, I think you give new meaning to the concept of proportionality. If you do that, you turn away from the central fact that the President opened his Grand Jury testimony by acknowledging "inappropriate intimate contact with Monica Lewinsky."

Enough said, you would think -- but no, not enough for this independent prosecutor. While not one more question really needed to be asked, a torrent of questions followed. Every question thereafter calculated to either elicit an admission of a lie in a case found to be without merit, or to create a new lie which could bring us here.

With the President's acknowledgment of intimate contact, everyone in this chamber here understood what had happened. Every American understood.

For what reason did we need eighty percent of the questions asked about sexual relations? For the simple reason that the Presidential jugular instinct of the so-called independent counsel was primed by what all of us have come to know -- he had colluded with Paula Jones' attorneys and Linda Tripp to set the Monica trap in the January deposition, and now he was going to set the Perjury trap in the Grand Jury.

Mr. Bennett's own comments in the deposition underscore this:

"I mean, this is not what a deposition is for, Your Honor. He can ask the President, what did you do? He can ask him specifically in certain instances what he did, and isn't that what this deposition is for? It's not to sort of lay a trap for him."

I wonder if there is no former district attorney, now Senator; no former attorney general, now Senator; no former U.S. Attorney, now Senator; no former officer of the court, who is not deeply disturbed by an independent counsel grilling a sitting President of the United States about his personal sex life, based on information from illegal phone recordings?

Is there no one finding a countervailing proportionality in this case, when confronted by our own Congressionally created Javert -- not just pursuing a crime, but at the center of creating the crime which we are deliberating on now?

Think about it: when Mr. Starr was appointed, when we authorized an independent counsel, when the Grand Jury was convened, the crime on trial before us had not even been committed, let alone contemplated.

I wonder also if there is no one even concerned about Linda Tripp -- who gives new definition to the meaning of friendship -- working with Paula Jones' attorneys, even as she was in the guidance and control of Mr. Starr as a Federal witness.

Some of you may want to turn away from these facts -- and certainly the House Managers never acknowledged them in their presentations. I raise them, my colleagues, not for ideological or political purposes, but fundamental fairness demands that we balance all the forces at play in this case.

Now, much has also been made in this trial of the rights of Paula Jones and her civil rights case --- that we must protect Paula Jones against the President of the United States. My fellow colleagues, please let us have the decency to call this case what it was. This was no ordinary civil rights case. It was an assault on the Presidency and on the President personally. And the average American's understanding of that is one of the principal reasons why our fellow citizens figured this case out a long time ago.

But there is more to it than that:

Mr. Starr became involved in the Paula Jones suit before he became independent counsel.

He had contacts with Paula Jones' attorneys before his jurisdiction was expanded.

He wired Linda Tripp before his jurisdiction was expanded.

Many sources documented that without any expansion of jurisdiction, in 1997, he had FBI agents interrogating Arkansas state troopers, asking about Governor Clinton's private life -- especially inquiring into Paula Jones;


After Paula Jones filed her suit in 1994, announcing it at a conservative political convention, and with new counsel affiliated with the Rutherford Institute, her spokesperson said "I will never deny that when I first heard about this case, I said 'Okay, good. We're gonna get that little slime ball.'"

She later said: "Unless Clinton wants to be terribly embarrassed, he'd better cough up what Paula needs. Anybody that comes out and testifies against Paula better have the past of a Mother Teresa, because our investigators will investigate their morality."

Even Steve Jones, Paula Jones' husband, was part of an operation to poison the President's public reputation by divulging the secrets of his personal life -- threatening even to employ subpoena power to depose, under oath, every state trooper in Arkansas who may have worked for the Governor. Steve Jones pledged that: "We're going to get names; we're going to get dates; we're going to do the job that the press wouldn't do. We're going to go after Clinton's medical records, the raw documents, not just opinions from doctors,....we're going to find out everything."

Into all of this came Ken Starr, and the police power of our nation.

This was not a civil rights suit in the context most of us would recognize. Indeed, there existed an extended and secret Jones legal team of outside lawyers -- including George Conway and Jerome Marcus, experts on sexual harassment and presidential immunity, who ghostwrote almost every substantive argument leveled by Paula Jones' lawyers; Ken Starr's friend Theodore Olson, and Robert Bork, the former Supreme Court nominee, who together advised the Jones team; Richard Porter, a law partner of Ken Starr and former Bush-Quayle opposition research guru, who also wrote briefs for the Jones team; and the conservative pundit and longtime Clinton opponent Ann Coulter, who worked on Paula Jones' response to President Clinton's motion for a dismissal. The connections between this crack -- and covert -- legal team, and Ken Starr's staff and his witnesses -- including Paul Rosenzweig, Jackie Bennett, and Linda Tripp -- as well as familiar figures including Lucianne Goldberg, add up to something far more than a twisted and disturbing game of six degrees of separation.

I do not suggest that this was the right wing conspiracy bandied about on the talk shows. But I ask you -- are we not able to acknowledge that this was a legal and political war of personal destruction -- not just a civil rights case?

And we cannot simply dismiss the fact that all of this turmoil -- these entire proceedings -- arise out of this deeply conflicted, highly partisan, ideologically driven, political civil rights case with incredible tentacles into and out of the office of the independent counsel.

Moreover, I remind my colleagues, Mr. Starr is supposed to be independent counsel -- not independent prosecutor. He was and is supposed to represent all of the Congress and nowhere do I remember voting for him to make a referral of impeachment -- a report of facts, yes -- a referral of impeachment, no.

Now there is a rejoinder to all of this. Nothing wipes away what the President did or failed to do.

So, some of you may say -- so what? -- the President lied. The President obstructed justice. No one made him behave as he did. And yes -- You're right. The President behaved without common sense, without courage, and without honor -- but we are required to measure the totality of this case. We must measure how political this may have been; whether process was abused; whether the totality of what the President did meets the constitutional threshold set by the Founding Fathers.

We must decide whether the removal of the President is proportional to the offense, and we must remember that proportionality, fairness, Rule of Law -- they must be applied not just to convict, but also to defend -- to balance the equities.

I was here during Iran-Contra and I remember the extraordinary care Senator Rudman, Senator Inouye, and Senator Sarbanes exerted to avoid partisanship and maintain proportionality. I wish I did not conclude that their example frankly is in stark contrast to the experience we are now living.

The House Managers often spoke to us of principle and duty. And equally frequently we were challenged to stand up for the Rule of Law.


Well, we all believe in Rule of Law. But we also believe in the law being applied fairly, evenly -- that the Rule of Law is not something to cite when it serves your purposes, only to be shunted aside when it encumbers.

But where was the managers' duty to their colleagues in the House -- in the committee -- on the floor; where was the same self-conscious sense of pain for what they were going through, when they denied a bi-partisan process for impeachment; where was their commitment to rule of law in denying the President's attorneys access to the exculpatory evidence which due process affords any citizen?

Rule of law is process in a democratic institution, and there is a duty to honor process.

I believe the Senate has distinguished itself in that effort, and I want to express my deep respect for the strongly held views of all my colleagues. Reasonable people can differ, and we do, but we can still come together in our affirmation of the strength of our Constitution.

Chairman Hyde says "Let right be done." I hope it will be. Right requires we be proportional as to all aspects of this case. I hope that what we do here will apply the law in a way that gives confidence to all our citizens, that everyone can look at the final result of our deliberations and say justice was done. And we have called an end to the process by which we savage each other, and are beginning to heal our country.

Kerry is a war hero and a man of integrity!

Kudos to him for standing up to Bill Clinton on Barack Obama's behalf.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

1. You can't give a Massachusetts democrat credit for voting against impeachment but he is a war hero

nt

[lapfog_1]

17. I guess you are getting some band-aids made with that avatar?

And are going to proudly wear it on your chin at the Democratic National Convention?

Not to mention that if Hillary should win both the nomination and the election, we have 4 years of rehash and cigar jokes to look forward too. Just like the OP here. Four years of Dems posting their defense of the impeachment, four years of Repukes using everything Clinton like a Pinata.

Let's at least give the late night shows some new material to work with.

[Bitwit1234]

36. Gee the crapola about the Clintons is really pulling the bottom of

the other candidates pool...slime slime slime slime...but nothing is ever said about THAT.............................you can slime the Clinton's all you want but not the other candidate.

[lapfog_1]

52. Are you saying that the impeachment of Bill Clinton

and the subsequent Senate trial are NOT going to be rehashed if Hillary wins?

It's not "slime" to state an opinion that it will be. And I think my opinion that it will be is grounded in some pretty solid evidence.

I thought the impeachment was wrong, horribly wrong. I also thought that Bill should have never taken the bait (the tortured definition of sex provided by the judge and prosecutor in the Paula Jones trial). Did you ever read that piece of lawyer crap? They already knew (and had the DNA evidence to prove it) what went on between Bill and Monica. They gave Bill an "out" because, according to THEIR definition of sex, he did NOT have sexual relations with that woman. Unfortunately, that was a lawyers trick, getting Bill to testify that he didn't have sex... and yet, for the vast majority of Americans, oral sex is sex. So they got him to "lie" about it. And then tried to string him up for the "lie" he told.

And Bill WAS shading the truth... trying to get out of admitting that anything had happened. He should have stuck to his guns and said that it was no one's business. It was a private personal matter between him and Hillary. Or he should have just said "She did X to me and I did Y to her... she was of age and it was consensual. And what the hell does this have to do with Paula Jones?"

But he didn't.

And for that we had wall to wall 24x7 coverage of the impeachment of a man who didn't deserve it. For over a year.

And I, for one, don't want to go back 10 years and relive it all over again.

And if you think the repukes won't bother about this... or the late night comedians... think again.

Oh sure, if Edwards or Obama get in, I'm sure the repukes will have something to carp about with them too. But it won't be handed to them on a silver platter. And, with a democratic congress, they might actually get a few things done before the "nattering nabobs of negativism" drag them down too.

And the point of my post was the really offensive avatar of the poster that I was responding to. Clinton supporters and Edwards supporter can have "Give 'em Hill" or "Go Edwards" or whatever in their avatars and sigs... promote your candidate all you want. I do mine as well. But I will refuse to make an avatar that bashes Hillary (and uses a false claim to do it). It makes Hillary supporters look really nasty and mean (and, yes, Karl Rove like) to do it. It reminds me of the "purple heart band-aids" used against Kerry. Same philosophical mindset creates both that avatar and the band-aids.

[jasmine621]

85. People, including John Kerry seem to forget election 2004

"Kerry Enlisting Clinton Aides in Effort to Refocus Campaign
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and DAVID M. HALBFINGER

Published: September 6, 2004


ormer President Bill Clinton, in a 90-minute telephone conversation from his hospital room, offered John Kerry detailed advice on Saturday night on how to reinvigorate his candidacy, as Mr. Kerry enlisted more Clinton advisers to help shape his strategy and message for the remainder of the campaign.

In an expansive conversation, Mr. Clinton, who is awaiting heart surgery, told Mr. Kerry that he should move away from talking about Vietnam, which had been the central theme of his candidacy, and focus instead on drawing contrasts with President Bush on job creation and health care policies, officials with knowledge of the conversation said.

The conversation and the recruitment of old Clinton hands came amid rising concern among Democrats about the state of Mr. Kerry's campaign and criticism that he had been too slow to respond to attacks on his military record or to engage Mr. Bush on domestic policy. Among the better-known former Clinton aides who are expected to play an increasingly prominent role are James Carville, Paul Begala and Stanley Greenberg, campaign aides said.

Mr. Kerry's aides emphasized that this was an expansion of the staff for the fall campaign and did not represent another upheaval of the Kerry campaign. Still, several Democrats outside the campaign said the influence of Mr. Clinton and his advisers could be seen over the past few days in Mr. Kerry's attacks on Mr. Bush's domestic policies. They said the Clinton team had been pressing Mr. Kerry to turn up the intensity of his attacks on those policies after a month spent largely avoiding engaging the president."

Maybe Kerry hates the fact that Bill was right then and his advice should have been heeded.

[Tellurian]

155. All that Bill Clinton did for Kerry is discounted and forgotten..

Kerry sought advise from Clinton in a fit of desperation, "I need your advise, Bill. Please help me repair and advance my campaign!"

Why we shouldn't be surprised about anything Kerry does that isn't "good" for Kerry? By the same token. Why should we be surprised at the viciousness of Kerry towards a rival candidate, when he threw his own VP running mate overboard to support someone else?

It is beneath good taste for a Senator to attack a former 2 term President with the shameful invective such, that is coming out of the mouth of John Kerry. One would ask, why didn't Kerry use his disrespectful wise guy attitude and apply it to the head of The Ohio Election Board and put a Restraining Order on the ballots and commence an investigation until a determination could be made, if indeed, there was vote tampering involved in the Ohio elections? Too much to ask for what was at stake?

[karynnj]

123. That is not sliming the Clintons

Clinton's actions were as Kerry said, "So, some of you may say -- so what? -- the President lied. The President obstructed justice. No one made him behave as he did. And yes -- You're right. The President behaved without common sense, without courage, and without honor."

Kerry makes the case that impeachment was political. Most if not all of us think he shouldn't have been impeached - but that was BAD BEHAVIOR.

[Catherine Vincent]

51. LOL @ your avatar.

:)

[lapfog_1]

55. I guess it's OK to have "I voted... present" avatars with you...

how nice.

If you have looked into the issue at all, you would have found that NARAL asked Obama to vote "present" not "no".

But you probably haven't looked.

Using that as a avatar is the same thing as the purple heart band-aids used by Rove and company.

And this doesn't bother you?

I'm not as bothered by the supporters of Hillary here as much as I'm bothered about the way she campaigns.

I thought we were better than the worst of Republicans... but I've been told that we HAVE to run campaigns like the repukes run, we have to fight dirty, because winning is more important than principles. And this is why Hillary should be our choice, because she has proven that she can fight dirty. I should have a thicker skin. etc etc. Bullshit.

If that is the collective judgment on DU, then I will find other people to associate with, other places to put my time and money.

[Catherine Vincent]

59. Chill out!

It's funny!

[MADem]

64. What? He only did it ONCE? On one issue??? Is that what you are trying to shop?

Or did he do it on a variety of hotbutton issues, where he was trying to present a triangulated impression to competing interest groups?

[Nedsdag]

84. Your signature is disgraceful.

Why don't you put a black X over his face while you're at it?

[Catherine Vincent]

94. Why would I want to do that? nt

[MADem]

2. Clinton-Two Presidential Terms. Kerry- Zero.

Yep, Clinton certainly isn't half the man Kerry is, is he?

[Blarch]

3. Bill praises Rove.

and you have no problem with that ?

Fuck Karl Rove and his followers ...the Clintons

[MADem]

33. Oh fachrissake, Obama praises Reagan, and everyone had a cow if anyone dared say anything about it.

Or did you FORGET that part of this little adventure?

[MH1]

113. Obama never "praised" Reagan.

That's been demonstrated over and over again....but people still fall for the mediaClinton spin if that's what they want to believe.

[MADem]

140. Whatever. nt

[MADem]

141. Whatever. nt

[ProSense]

5. Bush - Two Presidential Terms. Kerry - War hero and man of integrity

Clinton never went to Vietnam, didn't inhale and "never ha sexual relations...."


Point?

[GalleryGod]

11. Nice. Thanks.

and then...

[MADem]

25. You know, I wore that uniform too.

But I don't think that being a warrior is a "requirement" for the Presidency. If it were, your pal Obama would be out of luck, now, wouldn't he?

And I don't wave my career around to make points. or subtly infer that people who served are "better" than those who didn't--especially in a shitty, fucked up meatgrinder like Vietnam. That's actually the sort of shit that McCAIN likes to shop around.

I do remember my service reasonably fondly on the first of the month, when my country reminds me of my service by adding to my bank account.

[ProSense]

32. "I don't wave my career around to make points." You prefer to wave around the presidency as a lie.

We love Bill, he has high ratings! We don't care if he is secretive (against full public disclosure) and lies frequently.

[MADem]

38. You guys keep running against Bill Clinton, now!!!

Pile on smartly--get all rabid and pissed off, too! The more drama, the merrier!

Never mind that he ain't running!

I'll take those horrible Clinton Years that you're whining about any day of the week. Those were good days.

[Bluerthanblue]

61. I agree- Thank you for the pictures.

He hasn't taken the easy way- He has the courage of his convictions.

He should be our president now.

We are the lesser because he is not.


peace~

[MH1]

13. ..

:applause:

[MADem]

27. I certainly take YOURS--you're saying that people who smoked pot and didn't serve

shouldn't be President.

Obama is outta luck then, isn't he?

[ProSense]

90. Kick! n/t

[Inuca]

8. As somebody else PERFECTLY put it in another thread

Which phrase will each of them be best remembered for? In case you need a reminder: "what the meaning of is is" vs. "how do you ask someone to be the last to die for a mistake". Need attributions?

Winning, the presidency or anything else for that matter does not take the measure of a human being. Shame on you if you think otherwise.

[GalleryGod]

14. Another Thanks, from this Vet !

Saddle-Up ! Lock 'N Load !

[MADem]

15. I am well aware of the quotes. I also know that Clinton said something about

building a bridge to the Twenty First Century, and Kerry made an unnecessary endorsement that fucked his former running mate--but it did put HIM front and center for a few days.


Winning the Presidency DOES mean something. It means that most of the country agrees with your ideas. Losing, or coming close because you can't win by a decisive margin, means you are having trouble selling your ideas, because your ideas are either poorly articulated, or you have trouble with that "vision" thing.

So shame on YOU for selling bullshit and calling it candy.

[karynnj]

129. Kerry owed Edwards nothing

Kerry making him VPhelped him - and Edwards refused to even use the campaign slogan. Did you notice all the times the Edwardses attacked Kerry. Was that ok?

Edwards cut off communication with Kerry.

Also read what Kerry said was his reason. Edwards 2008 with all his comments on change by confrontation is the opposite of what Kerry is speaking of.

[MADem]

143. My opinion plainly varies from yours.

JE was a loyal running mate. He did what he was told, when he was told, even when he didn't like it. His wife kept going with CANCER for the ticket.

JK can do what he wants, certainly. But actions have consequences. I'm not the only one who votes here in MA who is profoundly disappointed by his unnecessary, meanspirited action. It just makes us think less of him.

[lapfog_1]

24. No to mention that if serving two terms is a measure of success

well then... this guy is right up there with the heroes of America!




:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[BringEmOn]

77. Didn't Kerry vote for the IWR? And aren't troops still dying in Iraq?

Who's going to be the last to die for Kerry's mistake?

[Inuca]

78. Yes and yes

I did not say he is perfect, just contrasting him with Clinton. And incidentaly, Kerry acknowledged his mistake (worthy men and women do that), and has been at the forefront of the fight for ending the war for the last several years.

[MADem]

144. But.... but.... but....

Don't you go harshing that mellow, now!!! Let the crowd enjoy the sight of that knife in poor John's back. They're digging it...

And you want to ruin their JOY with pesky facts that call into question the 'sincerity' of the endorsement?

:shrug:

[politicasista]

145. Wow letting Bush off the hook for HIS war

and blaming Democrats. I guess the Kerry/Feingold amendment is not good enough for some people.


This site is turning more into Trash Democrats Underground everday. Shame. :(

[BringEmOn]

146. Where the hell in #8 did the poster mention Bush?

Many Dems gave Bush cover and many have since backtracked, but over 4000 U.S. soldiers and over a million Iraqis are still just as dead.

[mod mom]

19. Kerry elected but Clinton crony Carville helped UNDERMINE it:

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.

-snip

"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.'

-snip

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

[MADem]

53. Two points. First., it's WOODWARD. If you don't know what that means, look him up.

Second, how did that information "force" Kerry to give up? Hmmmm? Once he challenged those ballots, it wouldn't have been a big secret, now, would it have?

Unless the Kerry campaign planned on stealing all the WH newspapers, and cutting the cable to the WH and the homes of all the staffers who worked there... :rofl:

You are not explaining, nor is anyone else, how that knowledge caused Kerry not to challenge. It was up to Kerry to either challenge, or not. NO ONE STOPPED HIM, except HIMSELF.

:rofl:

Fucking lame "excuse" if you ask me!

[mod mom]

104. and your excuse on Clinton's silence about disenfranchisement? and what about

Clinton's votes on IWR and Kyl Lieberman? and what about Clintons support of legislation (NAFTA that ships middle class jobs overseas? and what about Clinton's support of Telecom Act of '96 that helped precipitate the current media mess? and what about the Clinton "team of unionbuster Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and others who undermine the base voters of the Democratic Party to appease the fatcat lobbyists? and what about the notorious pardoning of Marc Rich? and why where Chinese nationals of dubious connections allowed access to the president (look up Wang Jun, besides others)? Why did the Clintons back off from there promises to not allow a WTI Toxic Waste Incinerator in a floodplain near an elementary school in East Liverpool OH? Was it because of their ties to Jackson Stephens (Bush financier, Walmart, Tyson, BCCI and WTI)? Sorry, but if you do research on the Clintons you will understand why so many will not ever support them. Obama is 100% correct-he will get Clinton supporters but they will not necessarily get his or Edwards.


The former president has been demonstrated to take liberties with the truth, can you show me where Woodward has done the same? has carville denied this EVER? Please, provide me a link of his lying.

[MADem]

112. Any time anyone brings up Kyl Lieberman, it makes me realize that they don't know

what the hell they are complaining about. Kyl Lieberman is NOT what people think it was. It was a deballed Sense of the Senate resolution. It has NO force of law. If you read it you will be surprised at what the FINAL draft does NOT say. Clinton has said she regrets her IWR vote and if she knew then what she knows now. It's easy to scold when one doesn't have to vote themselves.

If you don't think that others are in bed with special interests and/or fatcat lobbyists, I have a bridge for sale. And if you think HRC is the only one with an aggressive campaign team, I have TWO bridges--special price, just for YOU!!!

The "former president" is not running, either.

If you don't know Woodward's sleazy backstory, I suggest you do a little research. Read his fawning books about BushCo...the guy wrote two fairy tales, that helped Bush get 'reselected' in 04, and made him look like a hero. Then, to ice the cake after the guy was in, he wrote a third one slamming him that sold like hotcakes.

Woodward is a craven opportunist. He's been up to his EYEBALLS in shit. And he LIES. You go do a little homework on the bullshit Woodward shopped about VALERIE PLAME, and then come back and tell me he's anyone to consider when making up your mind. Let me get you started...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501857.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111601286_pf.html

Yeah, Bob's a great guy...and I have THREE bridges for sale, big discount, you buy???

[mod mom]

114. I suppose Hillary knows better than SEN JIM WEBB, right? Sen Webb has insight

that few in the Senate have because of his service and in that his son is currently serving. I based my view on the strong words issued on the senate floor by Sen Webb. Here is a link to his speech:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/webb-kyl-lieb-iran/

Unless of course you are happy dishing out Clinton talking points without investigating on your own.

[MADem]

115. You do know Jim used to work for....Ronald Reagan?

As a ..... REPUBLICAN? You do know that before he "grew" as a person, he used to be the biggest fucking sexist in DOD? Female officers wanted his discriminating head on a pike. He was REVILED.

Jim Webb has opinions. Fine. He's also, in case you haven't noticed, NOT running for President.

Why you desperately inject HIM into this discussion to "prove a point" (a point that is completely irrelevant and apropos of absolutely nothing) is beyond me.

FWIW, I supported Jim Webb in his candidacy. But that doesn't mean that I have to follow the man blindly, OR be a one-issue voter.

Who's dishing out "Clinton talking points?" You asked a couple of specific and WHINEY questions, and I gave you answers. You don't like my answers, so you label them.

Whatever.

[mod mom]

117. Ah HRC worked for Barry Goldwater. I brought him into the discussion because he has expertise

I stand by my argument that Sen Webb's speech on the senate floor makes the case that HILLARY's KYL LIEBERMAN VOTE AIDED BUSH!

[MADem]

139. Jim Webb wasn't a teenager trying to please his daddy. He was an

adult SAO (senior administration official) two heartbeats away from SECDEF, and he also served as Reagan's SECNAV.


Also, teen Clinton didn't get a paycheck from Goldwater.

Nice work there, though, trying to "equate" the two.

:eyes:

[Leopolds Ghost]

157. So why did Hillary vote for it then if it had no force of law?

[Leopolds Ghost]

156. Your reply disgustingly excuses the Dem insider for complicity in election theft.

The whole point of the Carville allegation is that Kerry could ONLY
challenge up to 250,000 outstanding ballots.

Carville told Matalin to get in touch with Bush camp and FIND the
missing ballots to prevent a Kerry challenge.

The NEXT MORNING, Ken Blackwell (the guy in charge of ballot fraud)
produces EXACTLY enough provisional ballots -- for Bush -- to
LEGALLY FORESTALL a challenge under Kerry's lawyers' own math.

(which they had mistakenly revealed to party insider Carville,
who did not directly assist Kerry in 2004 because his allegiance
was to the Clintons, or, as you and other Hillary supporters
might put it, "he was a loser anyway".)

Ask any lawyer, this is a mole in the Clinton camp (who did not want
Kerry elected and was quite blunt about it -- everyone remembers how
the Clinton-affiliated DLC hobbled the antiwar movement at the
Convention and Bill Clinton did as little campaigning for Kerry as possible.)

And he was passing on secrets of the prosecutor's legal strategy --
under what circumstances do you prosecute -- to the criminal gang,
while the criminal gang was still manufacturing evidence to avoid
prosecution.

[KittyWampus]

28. Kerry had to the good sense to put someone like Dean in the DNC as opposed to McCauliffe

Further, Kerry was all about exposing corruption in the GOP & Government whereas Clinton was all to eager to look the other way.

[MADem]

47. Kerry put Dean in the DNC? That's news! Bwahahahaha....

He got the gig IN SPITE OF KERRY, not because of him.

I love the way people make shit up to make it fit their agenda...who told you that hooting, cracking outrageous, shit-stink of a lie? Go back and slap them for making you the fool: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0217-21.htm

If Kerry had won, he would have picked the chairman and it wouldn't have been Howard," says Mike Tate, a former DNC member who worked for Dean's presidential campaign. "What happened in November opened up a debate about the party's future that Dean could be a part of. In fact, he'll be leading it."

Historically, the DNC has rubber-stamped as chairman the choice of whatever establishment figure was calling the shots-a President, former President, Congressional leader or big contributor. But with Kerry defeated, Bill Clinton retired and Democratic Congressional leaders struggling to remain afloat in the GOP tide, the way was clear for something Democrats hadn't seen in years: a genuine contest. The competition suited Dean and the activists, but it horrified Beltway Democrats. Much of the griping about Dean by the party's Washington elites and their amen corner in that city's punditocracy was rooted in their faith that the DNC chairman was supposed to be someone like them: a DC veteran who knew more about where to grab lunch near K Street than about the best diner in Keokuk, Iowa. Thus, they cheered as House minority leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate minority leader Harry Reid (as well as Kerry) all moved to block Dean's return to the fray. They never quite figured out that Dean was going to win because he'd been to that diner in Keokuk, and he'd met there with beleaguered grassroots Democrats who appreciated his saying, "We need to be proud to be Democrats"-and appreciated even more his suggestion that the way to express that pride is as a genuine opposition party.

[Mojorabbit]

60. Just because he was President

doesn't make him a better man than Kerry. I haven't picked a candidate yet but I am not happy at what this primary is turning into.

[MADem]

63. Doesn't make him WORSE, either. But you sure would think many clueless souls here

slept through that era of peace and prosperity.

Go back and look at the Dean-Kerry fights. Bloodbaths.

Tis the season....

[karynnj]

125. Or you can look at the words they will be most remembered by

I don't need to quote them, everyone knows - Kerry 1971; Clinton 1997 (I think)

What you measure is just how successful they were in getting elected President.

[MADem]

147. Words don't run a world class economy. Words don't sign legislation.

The Dunce said "Is our children learning." More people, unfortunately, will remember that than any quote of the other two.

Americxans don't pay the bills with quotes. They don't keep you warm in winter, either.

But keep comparing the two if it makes you happy. Like I said, one was President, the other was not. A hundred years from now, Kerry will be a footnote, Clinton a chapter.

[ProSense]

148. Words, Bill's, evidently lose elections. Kerry may not have been president, but he has

his own chapters.

[MADem]

149. Yeah, you keep believing that idiotic shit. It'll keep you warm at night! NT

[ProSense]

150. "idiotic shit"? What: that voters were turned off by Bill's lies? n/t

[MADem]

151. No, there 'non'--that the long lens of history will put your hero center-stage. It won't.

He's a footnote. That's my point. You keep throwing crap, but the point remains.

[ProSense]

154. "He's a footnote. That's my point." Cool, at least he's noted, and

his integrity among people of integrity will forever remain intact.

[Leopolds Ghost]

159. Okay, so Bill is to be credited for a "World Class Economy" of outsourcing & corporate corruption

Wal-mart jobs and what Hillary refers to as the inevitable loss of US manufacturing base (because her friends on Wall Street and anyone else who wants to will be able to move to the new Ownership Economy, where public housing residents "have a chance to own their own home" by being evicted, and a chance to be "retrained" to work in call centers manufacturing nothing for the benefit of offshore money, and the chance to "invest" in offshore money controlled by wall st, once all the jobs have left Main St.

[wyldwolf]

4. but he'll always be 100% more president than John Kerry because he knew how to fight

[Blarch]

6. yep.

He fights like Rove, and the Hillary campaign vows to campaign like Rove would.

This makes both of them hacks....and makes everybody supporting them hacks..by default.

[wyldwolf]

12. nope

He fights like Rove, and the Hillary campaign vows to campaign like Rove would.

Nope, he fights like Clinton, and there is no source beyond your imagination that says Hillary has vowed to campaign like Rove.

That makes YOU a hack.

[Blarch]

26. You are killing the messenger.

I am only pointing out the path Hillary has taken.

Do you have a problem with them embracing Karl Rove ? ...fucking answer for once..take a fucking position.

[wyldwolf]

29. you are being dishonest. Do you have a problem facing the truth?

[Blarch]

57. Here is the link you wanted.

Clinton's campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, seems to agree with that assessment, having effectively vowed to run her operation much as Rove did his two successful national campaigns. "She expresses admiration for the way George W. Bush's campaign team controlled its message, and, given her druthers, would run this race no differently," Michelle Cottle writes this month in New York magazine. " 'We are a very disciplined group, and I am very proud of it,' she says with a defiant edge." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401722.html

Now waht ? ...tell me who is the hack now ?

Hillary supporters are embracing Karl Rove ...I think that is disgusting, considering they were accuising him of treason not to long ago.

Go ahead and do what the other Hillbots do...turn the other way and pretend you never read the words you just read.

[wyldwolf]

72. so where in the link does it say what you've asserted?

[ProSense]

7. I'd rather have integrity! n/t

[Jai4WKC08]

62. I'd rather get elected

Enough namby-pamby "can't we all just get along" politics. If it takes Rovian tactics to get a Democrat in the White House, then that's what I want!

[Inuca]

79. This is so SAD

you will get a Rovian president then. And you and all the others who think like that will deserve her/him. As for the rest of us... :cry:

[Jai4WKC08]

121. You'll get a Rovian president regardless

As long as the voters fall for that kind of tactics, they are what it takes to win.

I believe it makes a difference whether the president has a (D) or an (R) behind his/her name. Every Democrat we elect moves us just a little bit farther down the road to the kind of society we want. Some move us farther than others. But the ones who don't get elected don't move us anywhere, and in fact move us backwards by letting another Repub into office.

[Leopolds Ghost]

160. Not true, Bill Clinton moverd us backwards -- eliminating industrial policy, New Deal regulation,

welfare, and public housing -- which the urban DLC backed by
Clintons is STILL trying to kill -- RIGHT NOW in New Orleans.

No Republican could have ever achieved so much without a huge fight.

But you support all that, I imagine.

[magatte]

9. Bill Clinton had Ross Perot... nuff said.

He would have lost otherwise. Nothing to do with his "fight".

[wyldwolf]

10. who was no factor (ha ha!) 'nuff said!

[Unbowed]

118. Exactly. n/t

[DemCam]

18. Yeppers...bout says it

[THUNDER HANDS]

30. Kerry = more votes + greater percentage of overall vote total.

[wyldwolf]

40. without a third party candidate pulling 8.4%

[THUNDER HANDS]

41. a third-party REPUBLICANISH candidate

reblicanish is a term I'm inventing right here, of course. :)

[wyldwolf]

43. nope, one that had appeal to Democrats, too.

[THUNDER HANDS]

45. which means that bill clinton didn't

at least, to those who voted for perot.

[wyldwolf]

50. which means his vote total would have increased w/o Perot

[karynnj]

131. More importantly a President below 40% for most of 1992

sinking to 33% in November

[Inuca]

42. Stacking on popcorn

in case we get another third player now.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

35. Didn't Kerry get more Democratic votes than Al Gore in 2000?

Apart from the allegations of voter fraud in Ohio and elsewhere, I think the big factor in 2004 was the fact that the Republicans just outworked the Democrats in getting out their base. A little self-criticism of our own party here I think is in order (unless one is of the type who can never criticize themselves or their own party). I think the Repukes turned over every rock to find Bush worshippers in 2004.

[Leopolds Ghost]

161. Or electronically increased their raw numbers in rural states -- look at the insane bar charts

Where Republicans had outrageous vote totals in red, rural areas that normally voted maybe 60% Republican, were going 75% - 80% Republican AND the turnout was doubled, yet NO crowding was reported. Then look at the fact that Al Gore WON the election on the strength of overlooked and quashed Democratic Ballots in RURAL, RED AREAS that NOBODY wanted re-counted -- Bush offered to recount rural precincts, and Gore refused because he thought it would detract from his totals. The result?

Newspapers declared in splash headlines that their exhaustive hand count
"Gore would have lost anyway!" and buried the lead that Bush won ONLY when
rural, RED areas were NOT re-counted. Gore WON under EVERY standard when
EVERY precinct, including rural red areas, was recounted to correct the
effects of election fraud in RURAL RED AREAS! Gore refused to challenge
except in 5 heavily Dem areas. Why do Dems think election fraud happens
to Dem voters in Dem run Blue precincts? Republicans WANT those urban areas
to be as Democratic as possible, so they can campaign against them and
disenfranchise votes of poor, rural and black voters in red areas, away
from the sight of the media.

In Ohio they decided to go massive. Florida was a mistake where they
simply tried to counter Gore's lead one for one by disappearing
Democratic ballots in the red precincts, to create an exact tie
because they figured a tie goes to Bush thanks to Jeb. In Ohio,
the RURAL vote totals were screwed up to match the lines in Dem
precincts. There are no first hand accounts of polls mobbed by pro-Bush
anti-Kerry voters in red areas where the turnout supposedly doubled.

[Bluerthanblue]

68. no, he didn't know how to fight- he knew how to keep going and

get what he wanted.

And that isn't exactly the "best" quality in a person.

Don't take this to mean that I wish he had buckled under during the Lewinsky shit- I DON'T!- I think that the whole thing was a load of hypocritical crap, and I'm GLAD he didn't leave office.

I also can't deny that Bill was a good president all things being equal.

But those who try and denigrate John Kerry because they are disappointed that he is NOT our president right now, or because he is much more an intellectual than they are comfortable with, really piss me off. The immaturity and ugly attitudes that are so common on DU these days don't do any of us any good.

John could have avoided Vietnam, but he didn't- He could have taken a less dangerous role, but he DIDN'T- He could have come home and tried to get on with life- HE DIDN'T- and I will always respect him for this. He has taken a lot of crap about his service,- from those who think he was a 'traitor' for his work to end the war, to those who be-littled his very honorable valor.

My biggest mis-giving about the Swift boat issue, wasn't that JK didn't "fight back" hard enough, or vigorously enough, but that the Democratic people didn't rise up, as one powerful voice and denounce the absurd, un-true, and shameful behaviour that was allowed to go on. I was ashamed for us all, NOT for JK, or Max Cleeland, but for the many, who said little- did little, and those even here who shamelessly and cowardly piled on the swift-boat. He didn't DO anything to need to apologize for, or lie about- WE should have had HIS back.


peace~

[citizen snips]

97. agreed

and great sig line

[stravu9]

16. I Must Disagree

I never liked Kerry.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

20. I think they're both outstanding men

Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar and probably the most brilliant American politician of the last century. Kerry was a war hero and, in my opinion, one of the greatest public speakers and debaters the Democratic party has had in years.

That said, I was never a big Bill Clinton fan because I think he's more of a political manipulator who talks a good game and poses as a populist but who governs in the center or even to the right of center. I disagreed with a great number of things that Clinton did in office. But I still think he should be recognized as an outstanding man with enormous capabilities, whether you agree with everything he did or not.

[Inuca]

39. Fair assessment

Unusual these days around here :-).

[BeyondGeography]

21. Kerry will never be half the politician, Clinton will never be one iota of the man

and the world needs more Kerrys, not more Clintons.

[GalleryGod]

44. Yup. You cannot "talk" your troops out of a "Hot LZ". I'd prefer John.

Anytime. Any place.

[LittleClarkie]

95. That's a good way of putting it, both of you

Thanks for that.

Meanwhile, I can't believe a Democrat questioned Kerry's medals because Kerry questioned Clinton. That made the top of my head come off. Seriously. I'm still looking for it.

[fujiyama]

111. You got it

Who'd you want in a foxhole with you? Who would you trust?

LOL, the idea of even trusting Clinton is funny.

[TheDonkey]

158. Agreed

[CatWoman]

22. ummm,

yummy

[Inuca]

23. What a fascinating read!

Thanks ProSense for digging this.

[Clinton Crusader]

31. Oh you mean the John Kerry that quit the very second he could?? PLEASE!

[ProSense]

34. For you:

We love Bill, he has high ratings! We don't care if he is secretive (against full public disclosure) and lies frequently.

[GalleryGod]

46. Yeah, the one who had his PBR, under intense Rocket and 50 caliber machine gun fire

"come back around" to save one of his boys in the River. That's the guy,Crusader.

[Leopolds Ghost]

162. The Clinton camp PRESSURED Kerry to concede and fed info to the Bush camp to prevent a challenge

Bill Clinton campaigned only reluctantly for Kerry.

Bill and Hill were Gephardt supporters (remember Rose Garden Gephardt, the
man who let NAFTA and the Iraq War happen?) who resented how Kerry had
benefited from the Dean-Gephardt flameout that was designed to promote
an "establishment" (hawkish, DLC) candidate to the fore. Gephardt and
Mark Penn are their idea of policy men who are "serious" and don't buy
into the liberal nostrums Kerry peddled on the campaign trail. The
Clintons ripped into both Gore and Kerry for moving left in the general.

[surfermaw]

37. Why beat up on two democrats, one president for two terms, and one nominated for President.

[GalleryGod]

48. Gettin' Kind of Sporty 'round here,Surfermaw.

SEE SIG LINE BELOW.

:patriot:

[TeamJordan23]

49. Kerry was real war hero. While Clinton was a hero...

to Monica.

[jillan]

54. Oh - stuff it! Why are you tearing down one Democratic leader to build up another one?

Threads like these make me feel like I am in freeperland.

[ProSense]

56. You stuff it! Kerry has a right to his opinion, despite your infatuation with a liar! n/t

[jillan]

70. You are so full of hatred for the Clintons - what are you going to do if Hillary wins? Move?

[Bluebear]

80. One can always hope.

[Inuca]

81. Me

I will cry. I am so sorry Pirhana, I truly am :hug:.

[jillan]

82. I won't cry - I guess I just don't hate the Clintons as much as some do.

Infact, all this hatred really turns my stomach.

I am like a ping-pong ball between Obama and Hillary.
To me they are both second best.

[IndianaGreen]

58. Kerry is a war hero while Bill is a draft dodger

who joined the antiwar movement solely because sex was easy to get.

[protect our future]

65. I cannot think of a finer American than John Kerry. n/t

[LiberalHeart]

66. John Kerry? The guy who shot down John Edwards in '04 when he wanted to count Ohio's votes?

[ProSense]

69. Yeah,

I know.

[McCamy Taylor]

67. Is this a joke? Kerry did not stand up for OUR VOTE in Ohio. Clinton fought back every

time the right wing attacked. Kerry may know how to fight battles, but he knows nothing about how to fight politics. Good intentions do not mean squat if they get us four more years of Iraq.

[jackson_dem]

71. Clinton won twice and gave us 8 good years. Kerry gave us four more years of Bush

[ProSense]

73. " Clinton won twice and gave us 8 good years." So he earned the right to continue lying? n/t

[jackson_dem]

74. Kerry will never be half the great Democrat Clinton is

[ProSense]

76. We love Bill, he has high ratings! We don't care if he is...

secretive (against full public disclosure) and lies frequently.

[jackson_dem]

86. We love Bill's record

[jackson_dem]

87. Clinton got a BJ while doing his job

:thumbsup: to Bill

[ProSense]

91. Such integrity! n/t

[mtnsnake]

75. The only way Kerry will get to see the the WH is if he holds the door open for Hillary to walk thru

No wonder John Edwards can't stand him. That had to be tough to run with such a terrible campaigner like him.

[jackson_dem]

89. So terrible he wanted to put a rethug on the ticket! Kerry-McCain 08'. Could you imagine?

[mtnsnake]

93. Thank god McCain shunned Kerry's advances to have him for VP. How embarrassing that would have been

[Amanita]

83. Half the man= concession in only 7 hours? I should hope not!

:rofl:

[citizen snips]

88. who cares?

Freepers love brooding over Bill Clinton's personal life.

[ProSense]

92. Hillary does

obviously

[citizen snips]

96. so why do you care?

posting shit about bill clinton is counter productive.

[ProSense]

99. Bill Clinton is lying! n/t

[citizen snips]

100. Bill Clinton was found not guilty

[ProSense]

101. Bill lied, and

he admitted it.

[11 Bravo]

116. Even though she is my third choice, I will smile if Hillary gets the nomination.

That will mean that you and the rest of the shit-flingers will no longer be allowed to post your swill. You will support the Democratic nominee on this board, or you will be told not to let the door hit you in the ass as you take your unlamented departure.

[karynnj]

133. He was not found "not guilty"

The Senate vote was to remove or not remove - and as such was political. As Kerry said - as one who voted not to impeach. Bill Clinton was guilty of some charges.

[AJH032]

98. Agree!

I'd say twice the man (or at least, twice the politician, no?).

[dailykoff]

102. Neither will Hilly

and she's more of a man than Bill.

[politicasista]

103. I see people in this thread care more about winning at all costs rather than overall integrity

Go figure.

[incapsulated]

132. They would throw MLK, Ghandi and Big Bird under a bus

If any of them supported someone other than their candidate.

And if two of those came back from the dead and stuff.

[mondo joe]

105. I said it in 04, I'll say it again: Kerry is a fucking wimp.

Whatever he achieved in his glory days, he's a damn wimp now who couldn't even defeat George W Fucking Bush.

[ShortnFiery]

107. No, "the people" of the Democratic Party are WIMPS if we continue to let the small clutch of DLCers

select our Democratic Nominee before The Primaries even begin.

Damn The Clintonian DLC always running rough shod over our entire party and truly serving only the "investor class" and people who happen to have the last name "Clinton." :grr:

[mondo joe]

108. What a pathetic elitist slam against the people of the Democratic Party.

:puke:

[KennedyGuy]

106. yeah..a twice elected pres VS a windsurfing loser..hard to compare..

[ProSense]

110. Versus a lying, cheating, unethical

beggar?

[Leopolds Ghost]

164. "windsurfing loser" ??

Care to explain the reference for those of us who don't parrot the MSM
on what to believe on all things, social and economic?

[Unbowed]

109. I'm inclined to agree. Good man, John Kerry.

Perhaps the country will one day be adult enough to elect someone who actually has a smidgen of integrity. Nah. Never happen.

[ProSense]

119. Here is a

good video

[angie_love]

120. How is Bill revered and Kerry laughed at?

Right on. Its beyond me. Bill is a sleaze, Kerry fought for this country and had guts and courage. Bill only cares about himself.

[MBS]

163. yup, "adult" and "integrity"

That's Sen. Kerry through and through. It saddens me that so many people still don't understand how rare he is, and how lucky we were to have a man of this caliber running for president of the United States.

[AntiFascist]

122. Kerry barely scratched the surface on the farce of the Starr Commission...

if he had only pointed out the connections to Iran/Contra then the Republicans would not only have immediately stopped impeachment proceedings, but they would likely then be in a position of defending the Clintons.

[ProSense]

130. You mean the people who the

got a free free pass from Bill Clinton after Kerry's investigation? Clinton made his bed and gotten bitten by the bed bugs he befriended.

[AntiFascist]

135. First thread you linked makes some great points...

the second link gives me a link error, what happened to it?

[ProSense]

136. Sorry, fixed. n/t

[AntiFascist]

137. Post #2 of the second link seems particularly important...

in that it mentions the BCCI/Stephens/Clinton connections.

[rodeodance]

124. No need to pit two fine men against each other.

[tritsofme]

126. Kerry couldn't hold the Big Dog's jock strap.

I'm just thankful I will never have to pull a lever for that man, or his crony Edwards, again.

[cgrindley]

127. Let's get this straight... with regards to Vietnam: there are no war heroes

the Vietnam war was a criminal act replete with an amazing assortment disgusting crimes and illegal acts. No one who served in it has anything to be proud of. No one. The only honorable approaches to Vietnam was to go to jail, Canada or University. Clinton's lack of service... hell... even Chimpy's lack of service or Cheney's lack of service was 100% more honorable and just then going over to Vietnam and fighting in what is one of the 20th century's most vile conflicts.

[Leopolds Ghost]

165. So you're saying Kerry is to be commended for setting up Winter Soldier, right?

Of course, since you idolize people for merely being privileged enough to afford a deferral, or worse, call it "honorable" when they support the war thru active political involvement but refuse to serve (and praise Bush and Cheney for doing so.) surely you are familiar with Winter Soldier.

[PresidentObama]

128. Guess ProSense is only your name, it doesn't make sense to call out the JK haters for more flaming.

[ProSense]

134. Are you that blind and naive? Do you think they need an excuse? n/t

[PresidentObama]

138. How many times do you have to call out the Clintons and push Kerry's name forward?

It's really great to see more flaming of John Kerry because people like you feel the need to bash Bill Clinton, and push John Kerry's name out there as if he's opposed to the Clintons and not just for Barack Obama.

[ProSense]

142. "people like you feel the need to bash Bill Clinton" Bill Clinton lies.

I will point that out whenever he does and as long as the Clintons believe they have a license to lie. Don't concern yourself with what I choose to do.

OK?

[Meshuga]

152. Kudos to Kerry!

:toast:

[mdmc]

153. The bigdog was much better at selling out working people and

getting elected to nationwide office.