Arianna...

[ray of light]

still doesn't let sleeping dogs lie. No wonder she has always deleted pro-kerry posts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x263079

Regardless, shows how she doesn't know enough about our government proticals that she'd be willing to continue the smear.

[karynnj]

1. At least she got the issue correct

I am more frustrated by people who instead say he voted for the war before he voted against it. (One of the things I still will counter - politely. )

[TayTay]

2. Please do.

The war is an on going and vital discussion that this country needs to have. The 'for it before I was against it' smear was two things, one of which does need to be watched. The other, not so much. One discussion is about the war, how we were lied into it, how votes in the Congress were manipulated and constructed politically to hurt Democrats and aid Karl Rove and the President. Sen. Kerry had a perfectly legitimate reason to vote for the Resolution when it counted against the federal budget and was about 'on the books' money. He had a perfectly legitimate reason to vote against it when it wasn't 'on the books' money, but only added to the deficit.

What I am disinclined to argue is how this affected the campaign in 2004. This type of argument is constructed to say that Kerry is a man without core convictions who will vote whichever way is most likely to garner him votes. This is untrue. The argument posits that this 'flip-flop' ability cost him the election. This is also untrue. Democrats are, once again, blaming the victim for the attack. How many times does it have to be pointed out that the Repubs had a 24/7 watch on Kerry and on every public utterance he made after it became obvious that he would be the nominee in '04. Kerry must have made dozens of speeches in the 'in between' time before he officially accepted the nomination in July. The Repubs would have pounced on one phrase sooner or later anyway. The high-powered telecope they brought to bear on him would have yielded something. (They did this again with the 'global test' phrase from the first debate.)

What does this mean going forward? Should Sen. Obama be defined by his one mention on the campaign stump this week that American lives were 'wasted' in Iraq because the war was built on lies? Should John Edwards be defined because he had the problem with the bloggers? These are also potential pressure points that can be ruthlessly exploited by the Repubs. Did we learn anything from '04? So, in brief I would turn the argument about the past mistake into an argument about what we learned and how to defend against this going forward. Then, it isn't about John Kerry and making Kerry forever chained into that gaffe. (What did we learn? Are the Democrats any better equipped to fight this, or is it okay to blame everything on the last human being to undergo the trials?)