Paul Reickhoff going after Kerry with hit piece on Clark site

[beachmom]

There was a positive diary on DailyKos yesterday about Clark, and then some poster mentioned that they still liked Kerry. So one of the Clarkies posted this in the comments section -- the WORST part of Reickhoff's book on Kerry which I had previewed in the book store (completely omitting his first meeting with Kerry who gave him unprecedented attention and the Dem radio address). Reading this for the second time, it comes across as more whiny and bogus than the first time. Basically, there were logistical screw ups, and he blows it WAY out of proportion.

I tried to defend Kerry but was ignored (I think I may have been rude to dKos poster VelvetyDays on another day so that may be why). Then I checked her link, and it was on Wes Clark's site!! This really upsets me -- I guess Clark recommended the book (which does have some interesting parts), so Reickhoff was online chatting, and throws that in. He's actually part Independent - both parties suck (except Clark, I guess) and part lefty freeper (can't trust ANYONE in the Dem Establishment, etc.). This is going to come up, guys, over and over again. The meme will be "Kerry blows off, disrespects, and ignores Iraq veterans", and it's coming from the Clark people. I have no problem with Wes Clark or people supporting him for president (and I have vowed to myself NOT to go negative on any of the other candidates at this time), but when a hit piece like this comes from the Clark camp, they need to be called on it. And now with the way this guy is all goo goo gaa gaa on Clark, it calls into question what precisely happened in 2004. This needs to be dealt with and squashed guys, or it will come and bite us all in the a** come primary season.

Links:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/8216

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/9/6/18340/74906/138#c138

As an aside, that Liberty Squirrel ugly poster said this in the thread:

I'm all for moving on, but I hope we remember who
decided to rush to betray his pledge to us that all our votes would be counted.

I will not speculate on his motivation here.
I don't buy groupthink as an excuse.
Anyone who isn't responsible for his actions isn't worthy of a nomination for president.

I'm not saying Kerry should be thrown in jail.
I am saying he should not be considered for the
dem presidential ticket.

Anyone who suggests otherwise should have to address his his rush to concede directly.

Call me picky. Fine. Our country would be better off if we were all more picky.

Thank God we Do have a great candidate like Wes Clark

Peace!

by LibertySquirrel on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 08:00:38 PM PDT

Parent | Reply to This |Recommend Troll

I should have troll rated, but I figured ignoring was the best strategy.

[TayTay]

1. I will make no such pledge

Being nice only gets you so far. There are people out there who are willing to lie and distort to make a point. This may be one case of it. It has happened before.

[beachmom]

2. Oh -- I mean for the time being, and what I specifically mean is

going into a positive Clark thread (for which Kerry is NOT bashed), and saying something like "Clark sucks, he was terrible in '04, he'll be terrible now". I just don't think that's appropriate or productive. But . . . as you can see here, I had a duty to go into that thread and set the record straight, and . . . duly note where people are pledging their allegiance, and what some candidates are allowing to happen on their websites . . .

[TayTay]

3. No, I won't do that either.

But there will be a time to attack other Dems over their public views. I will do that easily.

[ProSense]

9. Amen! n/t

[karynnj]

7. I tried to back you up

It takes a lot of chutzpah to say the 1971 Kerry wouldn't get into see the current Kerry. This after he DID speak to him, DID say kerry listened, Kerry used him as an example on body armor AND he gave him the Radio Address. This is comparable to what Fullbright did - but young Kerry was FAR FAR better and more charismatic in 1971 (not all hearings made the news and other than dramatic bits of the McCarthy hearings EVER got nearly 5 minutes of coverage on network TV - that happened because of how Kerry was and the brilliance of that speech.)

The covention/campaign stuff likley had a second (unheard side). The conventions ARE always ultrascripted - and they are not protest vehicles (that was tested in 1968.) Dictating choices on the VP is beyond belief.

I agree completely that it would be counterproductive to attack Clark - especially as thereis there no reason to. They seem more eager to go after Edwards.

[blm]

4. They can't handle logic - if Clark knew the machines were rigged, why does

he not make a campaign out of exposing the machines?

See? Dean, Kucinich, Clark, Edwards - they ALL have chosen to not lead on a public battle exposing the GOP contol of the machines - Dean as head of the DNC is now forced to deal with the reality of the vote count. But he wasn't leading any exposure of the problems BEFORE the election to make people aware, and neither did anyone else - because Terry McAuliffe's DNC was in charge of the Dem infrastructure then and none of them believed in machine fraud.

Why some believe that everything would have been different had their guy been the 2004 nominee, just proves how little they actually know.

They ALL would have had the exact same weak-ass Dem infrastructure in crucial states.

[beachmom]

5. Hey guys -- this diary is STILL on the Rec List over at Kos

So fire away your comments if you are inclined (thanks Karynnj for your excellent comments). The pertinent subthread is in my original post, but this is the whole diary:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/6/18340/74906

[beachmom]

6. Now THIS is below the belt against Edwards

From our illustrious VelvetDays:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/9/6/18340/74906/321#c321

She says the Republicans backed and propped up Edwards as VP candidate. WTF? An Edwards posters opines she's a freeper. Hmmm . . . very interesting.

[karynnj]

8. All based on your comments here

and your review earlier this year on the book. (I didn't read the book - so feel a little quilty - like I only read Schaum's outline, not the book itself.)

The entire thread is interesting. It's funny because I read the stuff from DU 3 years ago and the Clarkies sound the same.