How many time did us "off" candidate supporters hear you tell us this?

[Khephra]

Dean -- can't be elected because the GHP (Grand Hypocrisy Party) would use his views about war (present or past) against him

Clark -- can't be elected because the GHP would use his views about war (present or past) against him


I could go on, but I think those who can read know what I'm saying.


Those of us with a clue told you that it didn't fucking matter. Whoever got selected would be smeared my the Rove machine. Yet some of you thought Kerry would be immune.

NAIVE.

All of you who thought Kerry was untouchable.

HAH!

LIES rule the day.


REMEMBER THAT.

Stop playing to the Repuke game--they'll make shit up on Jesus if he was running against them.

If you pick candidates because you think they're "more electable" then you're playing into the GHP hands already. Moving to the right to "win" isn't worth a fuck, especially once it all comes together into a Zell Lieberman clusterfuck.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. You are wrong, Kerry will win, Bush will lose, lies will not rule the day

No Kerry supporter that I know of ever claimed he was 'untouchable'.

[Guaranteed]

4. But the only reason he's going to win is because he's

fighting it.

[Khephra]

6. Then I guess you weren't here in the primaries

Lots of posters claimed Dean was unelectable, but Kerry was because of his war background. Some of us tried saying that it was buying into their shit, because no matter how it would go the GHP would turn the war against us, pro or con. Some people actually claimed that Kerry would be immune from that shit. Some people like me said HA. Truth doesn't matter to them. No one listened to us. It was all "Kerry is untouchable because of his record" while we were saying "his record means shit. Lies rule the day."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. I was here. I remember saying if Bush attacked like that it would just

boomerang back on him and highlight his own failure to fulfil his duty. Which is exactly what is happening. I can even remember posting this graphic a few times way back then:

[JI7]

22. sorry, there were not many who said that

in fact i can't remember any who said that.

[AP]

44. That's not what people said. Personally, I said that Dean opened the door

to forcing the campaign into a discussion where only one issue was addressed -- Iraq -- and that wouldn't help Dems because the Republicans own the national security and terror issues.

You can see the last couple days that even though Kerry is turning the tide on the Vietnam issue, they know that it's hurting them to not keep people's eyes on Bush's BS tax code ideas and the overtime regs.

Dean would have been a nightmare because not only would he have kept the focus totally on Iraq, he would have been easy to cast as a national security threat. Clark didn't have that weakness, but Clark still stood only as a symbol of militarism, even if he was good on that issue.

Kerry was good because he had national security covered and, therefore, could turn the discussion to the things Dems are strong on.

[OSheaman]

2. So I don't get it

Is this a gloat? It doesn't seem to serve any purpose.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. We shall see

It's a bit early for post mortems.
Kerry was/is definitely our best shot. I am certainly not alone in that view.
I notice a Bush aide has already resigned due to Kerry's fighting back on these SBV lies. I'd say we're up a pawn here to Bush's none.
I look forward to more progress in this skirmish.
We shall definitely win.

[JI7]

5. it was Clark and Dean supporters who most said that about each other

not Kerry supporters. in fact there weren't even that many kerry supporters on here.

[Khephra]

9. Oh really?

I may not post as much as I did, but I don't think any of the oldtimeres will say that I don't know what's been going down here.

Let me just say this:

I'm voting Kerry. There's no way I won't. But that also means I can comment on everything Kerry.

[JI7]

12. yeah, REALLY , check the archives

[Khephra]

21. I don't need to check the archives...I AM the archives

Get back to me when you know what's actually been said here.

[JI7]

23. i know what was said here i was here during the primaries also

[WilliamPitt]

What?

So you're exempt from having to cough up a link to prove your point? Did I miss a memo or something?

[Khephra]

34. Nah. I wasn't calling you.

what point do you want me to backup? Please be specific as I'm going to have to go through a lot of posts and news articles.

[WilliamPitt]

38. "All of you who thought Kerry was untouchable"

Find me one.

[Cooley Hurd]

59. I don't believe Kef was implying that people said Kerry was...

..."untouchable" (although he used that word, his implication is clear) The catchphrase of the primaries was "electability." I believe Bill Schneider was the one who coined it (or at least perpetuated it on a daily basis, along with Candy Crowley) and the Kerry/Clark supporters ran with it and flogged us Dean supporters at every turn. I remember it like it was yesterday :(...

As far as searching archives and providing links, how does one search DU archives (especially from fluid forums such as GD: 2k4)?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

66. BULLSHIT

the media spin was 'electability'. It was also used as an avenue as attack against Kerry as if this media spin was all he had going for him.

Revisionist history sucks.

[IndianaGreen]

71. "Electability" was first used by the DLC's Al From

In one of his articles back in 2002 he railed against the antiwar Democrats insisting that to be "electable" the nominee had to be strong on national security, i.e., prowar and pro-militarism.

[bluestateguy]

7. I don't know how many people said Kerry would be "immune"

I was a Clark supporter, but he would have had problems too because his anti-war stance is as murky as Kerry's pro-war stance. The difference is that Kerry had the money to fight back. Clark would have been constrained by the matching funds and spending caps.

Polls show Kerry anywhere from ahead by 4 or 5 to behind by only 3. Bush's approval ratings range from 44%-49% and most people believe the nation is going in the wrong direction. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be in John Kerry's position right now rather than Baby Bush's. If all these numbers hold, Bush becomes a little less electable every day.

[JI7]

8. which Kerry supporter said he was "untouchable" it was Clark and Dean

people who most attacked each other and talked about how much each other could be attacked or not.

[Dr Fate]

10. You are right on many levels...

...they certainly would have attacked Dean or Clark just as hard as they are attacking Kerry...

...but I think Kerry will carry the day- if we stand behind him.

[Khephra]

16. I'm behind Kerry all the way

But it drove me crazy reading posts from people (who should have known better) that Kerry would somehow be above it all when it came to war (Iraq or Vietnam). Some people just seem to keep forgetting that IT IS NOT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD (caps not meant for you, Dr, you understand).

[zeemike]

11. I know I warned the same thing

And it would not have mattered who it was, they were ready for anyone.
What Democrats must come to grip with is that the repukes have a plan, and the democrats don''t think they need one or that the other side is capable of hatching a plan and caring it through.
Now the movement is to a close election, one where the repukes can steal it without being caught.
The only thing they have to fear is a large voter turn out, and by the time they are through too many will be disgusted to even care.

PS
There is no way I would vote for anyone but Kerry But Demos need to wake up to the repukes methods.

[Khephra]

14. "they were ready for anyone."

YOU GOT IT!

That's what I'm trying to address. Too many people today are thinking about "what the Repukes" will say instead of supporting the actuall candidates.

I Say FUCK THEM. We need to stop positioning ourselves to be moderate (so the RW can't call us Liberals). Guess what? Zell Millwe would be called a Liberal if that's what they needed to win. We are fucking playing into their game.

[blalock]

13. great post

however, Kerry was chosen by the party , not the people.

[Khephra]

15. True, and thanks!

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[WilliamPitt]

25. ...must...vote...kerry...then...eat...McAuliffe's...brains...again...

...must...rise...from...dead...

[bluestateguy]

32. What?

So all those millions of people that voted for Kerry in Iowa, New Hampshire, Missouri, California, Arizona, Tennessee, Georgia, Virginia, Michigan, Maine, New York, Texas, Mississippi, New Mexico, Ohio, Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Nevada, Delaware, Wisconsin, Florida and many other states are all just a bunch of elitist establismentarians?

John Kerry was chosen because ordinary Democrats in all but about 5 state primaries and caucuses voted for him.

The days of the smoke filled rooms are over. The party honchos can only do so much, and they were not even united behind a single candidate this year. Kerry, Clark, Dean, Edwards, Lieberman and Gephardt all had elements of the party establishment behind them during the primary season. The party establishment lined up to stop Jimmy Carter in 1976, but to no avail. Do your homework.

[Andromeda]

55. Not the people?

I would have sworn that Kerry actually got more votes than his competitors did and you do know, don't you, that people and not parties, vote.

[goodhue]

70. No, Kerry was chosen by caucus goers in Iowa and voters in New Hampshire

Afterwards the party got on board right quick.

[JI7]

18. oh, and those of us who supported Kerry from the start in the primary

most of us are not surprised by what is happening. many of these accusations turned up during the primary also. remember, we already had to put up with the skull and bones type crap. and that whole thing with kerry cheating on his wife.

most of knew this would happen, the issue was more on how to deal with it.

[WilliamPitt]

20. Find me a thread - one thread - where someone said Kerry would be immune

One.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

26. You've set the bar awfully low

there are a lot of kooks around here. I wouldn't be surprised if there were one example. But I really think the more common argument was that Kerry was best equipped to deal with the attacks, not that they wouldn't come or that he's invulnerable.

And I remember anti-Kerry threads that accused him of being a war criminal, and a freeper named dreissig or something like that who previewed the swift boat attacks for us, months ago, so this is definately not unexpected.

[WilliamPitt]

28. I'd just like to see one thread

If it was a 'kook,' then that undercuts the idea that people were strutting around here comparing Kerry to superman. I, also, can claim to be 'the archives,' and I remember a good deal of strutting on the part of Dean folks when the media anointed him the front-runner before a single vote was cast.

When your guy is up, you strut: That appears to have been the standard in GD2004 for a while, and supporters for almost every candidate played that game when their candidate was riding high.

The 'Gotcha!' tone of the original post is pretty bizarre, and smells like some seriously misplaced sour grapes. We all knew the Bush scumbags were going to go for the balls, no matter who the candidate was. Only goofballs would say one candidate or another was 'immune.' The seeming satisfaction Kef is taking in the attacks on Kerry, as if they prove something, is disconcerting.

[chimpymustgo]

57. Bingo. The sourest of grapes. Sadly, seeming satisfaction.

Some people really, truly need to get over themselves. We have a major war to fight. Kerry is leading it, and we damn well all need to be behind him fighting back.

Lick your wounds and quit crying/gloating - and you know who you are. This is disturbing.

[zeemike]

29. I don't remember anyone saying that

But I remember many that said it would not be an issue because Kerry had a war record and bush did not.
But look what a marvelous work they did. They are making Kerry seem worse than bushy with pure lies and distortions. Why didn't anyone in the Democratic party see that one coming? Are they just playing the game and they do not care if they louse?

[WilliamPitt]

31. They did see it coming, and they are dealing with it

I don't know if you've noticed, but Bush is being assailed on all sides with this. The newspaper headlines, 'Bush condemns Swift Boat Ads,' inaccurate as they may, help Kerry, because it seems to show Bush being forced to distance himself from them. The fact that he really didn't is why Kerry is going to drop a few cannonballs on him on Tuesday. This story is going to wind up damaging Bush far more than it has damaged Kerry...and yeah, the Kery people saw it coming.

[Khephra]

40. Ok...so what's the final point?

It seems it has changed over a few posts.

Well?

[WilliamPitt]

41. "All of you who thought Kerry was untouchable"

Find me one.

[WilliamPitt]

50. I guess it isn't that easy to find a link, huh.

I'm going to bed. I'll check in tomorrow.

[zeemike]

42. I don't think you understand

It is the same scenario as 2000. Gore was attacked (by things Even more trivial than this) and Gore defended himself. He was always behind the curve in a defensive posture.
Same thing now Kerry was taking the high ground by not attacking bush just waiting around for bush to attack him so he could defend himself.
Mohamed Ali could pull off a rope a dope but I don't think it is a good idea for Kerry. Kerry does not have the media with him, and they will just portray it as weakness.

[WilliamPitt]

43. You're right. We're doomed. I'm voting Bush.

[zeemike]

45. Instead of being doomed

Why not fight back. Convince the Kerry campaign to go on the offensive and let bush defend himself. That is what I am saying.

[WilliamPitt]

46. You're kidding, right?

Have you missed all of the people who have come out of the woodwork in the last week to tear these guys apart? Kerry's people called them. The FOIA request on the documentary evidence? Kerry's people did that. The FEC charges? Kerry's people again. The speech tomorrow? Kerry.

There's been a thread or two about this around here, I think.

[zeemike]

49. I have been watching very closely

I have seen all of that.
But see it from a non aligned position and you get a good dose of repeated lies every time you get a piece of the truth. For each truth you here 3 or 4 lies. That is how the game is played one for us 3 for them and pretty soon they win.
Now turn that around and imagine us attacking them and every time they defend themselves we repeat the charges 3 times. Guess who is winning.

[Larkspur]

69. I'm voting for Kerry and am waiting breathlessly for another

"Pre-emptive Excuse" thread from Kerry supporters on why Kerry will stab progressives in the back, should he win this November.

[AP]

37. Find me one where someone said, "I'm voting for Kerry but only because

I'm afraid that Dean and Clark are going to be smeared."

Find me evidence that people loved everything about Clark and Dean but didn't vote for them only because they thought they'd be smeared.

[WilliamPitt]

39. I'm sure there are a few of those

I'm sure there are a few like that about Kerry.

Which makes this an inexplicably pointless thread.

[JohnKleeb]

61. An irony I'd like to point out but that is a whole new thread

Many of those who supported those two guys supported them because they felt they were electable, but of course its wrong to support Kerry and Edwards in the primaries for the same reason, eh? I saw people say they would support Dean or Clark over say Kucinich because they felt they were more electable and would be less smeared. Its an irony of the primaries. I know for a fact that Kerry supporters knew this was coming, you don't have a campaign declared dead for nothing without becoming smart in matters like this for nothing.

[goodhue]

73. Thank you JohnKleeb!

As a Kucinich supporter in the primaries, I well remember a number of DU Dean and Clark supporters bashing DK for not being "electable." In contrast, a number of DU Kerry and Edwards supporters were quite respectful and open to the DK candidacy. So I'm with you on the irony.

[troublemaker]

27. But Kerry is ahead in the polls. What exactly is the problem?

[JI7]

30. maybe that's the problem

for some.

[AP]

48. amen.

[zeemike]

35. I would like to answer that

It is 3 or 4 points still too close to call as the media tells us.
Meanwhile Kerry is going after the 3 percent undecided that the media also tells us is out there, bu trying to be a centrist or bush lite.
Meanwhile there are 40% of the eligible voters that will by election day feel that it descent matter who wins or just have no faith or interest in the election.
Kerry is fighting to take bush people from him, and that is not going to happen, especially if the Swift Boat Liars Club can keep this going for a week or two more.

[EST]

33. Before we concede the victory to the Fascist party,

Think, please, about what's been happening. From the posting on another thread, there are a few things to consider. For three days (I think), John Edwards, who we should allow is a skilled lawyer, has been asking * to step up to the plate and do the honorable thing. This can't be as wimpy as it appears; John E knows there is no honor in that whole crappy bunch, so why is he asking? Maybe to let the electorate know, and no room for mistake, bushco has been warned and they've been given every chance. John K ain't any fool either--he had to know this was coming. Since he knew, he too has made it a very clear point for the past couple of weeks that the big thing he learned was to turn from the direction of his apparent flight and charge the ambushers, WITH all guns blazing. Again and again he's pointed all this out.

Now we get one of the ambushers falling off the wagon and admitting he really wasn't any sort of witness; he'd sworn to the story because the other guys were his war buddies and they said it , so it was ok by him. But he swore an affidavit to a lie and he's deputy prosecutor (?) in Oregon. Big stink happening there.

Bush has refused to stop the crap-predictably-and is guilty of lies, smears, cheating, buying his way out of trouble, all that trash his whole life. He didn't just suddenly become vain and vile in 1994--has to have a history that, no matter how much scrubbing Rove has done, and he's done a lot, there is no doubt some of the trail left. JFK/JE, one would think, are about ready to spring whatever trap they have set up, right before the RNC convention. My guess is this will be the first of two or three attacks with guns blazing that will absolutely devastate the opposition and then ride home to the wh on Nov2. Be prepared and keep eyes open.

[zeemike]

47. I hope you are right N/T

[AP]

36. You think THOSE are the reasons people voted for Kerry?

You think a majority of people had to be talked OUT of voting for Clark or Dean?

OK.

[JI7]

52. "he will get this done"

for those who supported kerry in the primary and followed his campaign we saw most of his appearances had to do with people asking him things concerning jobs, education, health care, etc. very few had to do with foreign policy. but the military background did help him in addressing concerns people might have about that.

notice who turned out to be Kerry's biggest competitor, and look at the issues he talked about. and people will see what really matters.even on kerry's veteran reach out in iowa which was ver successful, the focus was usually on veterans care issues rather than foreign policy. the veterans would ask him why aren't they getting this or that. why are they having such a hard time recieving certain care.

the reason for the attacks on kerry's service is because republicans can't run on issues so they always do things like run on "morals" or being "strong". but in this case it's the democrat who beats the republican on that issue with his military service. so they need to attack that. but even with all the attacks in the end it still comes down to kerry having served in combat in the military. and bush not having done so.

the good thing is that kerry picked someone like edwards as his vp so even with all the crap going on edwards can help by keeping some focus on the issues and talking to people who are too concerned about just getting by each day rather than whether kerry was in cambodia on christmas about 3 decades ago.

[Khephra]

51. What I find funny

is that people who used my research without question are now suddenly wondering about my current questioning. If I'm wrong now, maybe I was wrong then? Hmmmmm?

[seaglass]

58. Because people never change? What is with the accusations without

supporting evidence? If you want to appear credible then back up your assertions with links to threads as others have asked. I don't recall everyone thinking Kerry was immune but I could have missed a thread or two. So where's the threads?

[WilliamPitt]

63. What I find funny

is the man who could be relied on to back up his points with good research and links, now refuses to do so. Actually, that's not funny at all.

[AnnitaR]

53. Do we really need more flamebait now?

Trust me I understand the point you are trying to make. Kerry wasn't my guy either. Clark was my guy for a number of reasons and in no way thought Kerry would be immune. I always thought his anti-war stuff would be used against him.

But this kind of stuff doesn't help now.

[TreasonousBastard]

54. Actually...

I may have suggested at some point that Dean would not be elected because they would paint him as a nutcase from a tiny state with a significantly smaller population than Chicago. It appears that we didn't have to wait for the Republicans to come up with that one.

I thought Clark would be eminently electable, except that he might have a problem getting over the "inexperienced" smears.

Kerry, with a 92% rating from ADA, does not seem to be the sort of candidate one would come up with if sliding to the right was the objective. That he had the HIGHEST rating of all the candidates seems to have been lost in the whining about the DLC and rightward swings.

Also lost in that whining is the simple concept that a candidate has to appeal to voters, far too many of whom are afraid of the appearance of wild-eyed liberals that they might vote for otherwise. De-emphasizing Kerry's liberal past is probably not a bad idea, and the Viet Nam nonsense is probably a far better thing for Kerry to fight than accusations of being a dreaded "liberal."

I don't have much of a problem with this "electability" strategy. The point of an election is to win, after all, and picking a winner seems like a rational thing to do.

[oasis]

56. The Kerry surge began in Iowa. Other candidates fell by the wayside

one by one. During the primary process, Democrats slowly came to realize that Kerry is our best chance of beating Bush.

He still is.

[blm]

60. I'm glad that I supported Kerry because he knows his enemy and fights back

APPROPRIATELY and with great precision.

I don't recall anyone saying that any candidate was immune. Most of us are well aware of the extent of lying the GOP would engage in, and so did Kerry. He has fought these characters for decades longer than many here at DU.

Why anyone reduced Kerry to the word 'electable' without knowing and absorbing the true measure of the man and his grasp of the enemy is beyond me. The information was out there.

Kerry will be a great president.

[fujiyama]

62. I myself favored Clark

and then Edwards, but I always liked Kerry. I liked Dean as well, but I saw many problems with his campaign and I felt then that he would put off a lot of people in the general election. I think many democrats felt that way by the time of the primaries and decided not to go with him.

I knew that Dean's position on tax cuts would hurt. He wanted to repeal the entire thing. Some have already fallen for the spin and Kerry has already said he wouldn't repeal the middle class tax cuts.

Dean's other issues were mostly mainstream, but by the time the primaries had begun, Dean's supporters and the media had already defined him as a "far left" candidate. While his record proved otherwise that would have been very difficult to overcome this perception.

His lack of experience in foreign policy matters would have also not helped. Clinton himself admitted that in today's environment, it would have been much tougher for him to get elected.

That said, I didn't believe Kerry wouldn't have his faults. They were obvious back then. I had read an article which had chronichled his senate career and various controversial votes. I also knew about his protests during Vietnam. Plus, there was also a somewhat convoluted response to the Iraq War.

Edwards was always "too inexperienced". He didn't have enough foreign policy experience.

Clark's problem would have been that he was praising Bush several years ago, that he had no policy experience, that he "almost started WW III"...

I don't remember anyone claiming that any candidate was infallable in any way. Only a fool would have considered their candidate perfect and immune to attacks.

Leave this be. Kerry won the nomination fair and square. There was no conspiracy. It wasn't "the party" that elected him. It was democratic voters. And at this point, Kerry is doing as well as anyone could have (and a lot better than I ever expected). I've been a bit critical of his not responsding to the attacks quicker, but otherwise I have to say he's run a great campaign.

[union_maid]

64. Moving to the right?

Kerry is not to the right of any of the credible candidates. I was for Clark because I thought he had the most unimpeachable credentials. Well, just the posters here on DU did plenty of impeaching there, didn't they? Everyone has some area of vulnerability that can be exploited by ruthless opposition. Kerry is probably the best man to fight back and turn it around on them.

[Cheswick2.0]

65. Yup, the viet nam war was not an issue for 25 years of elections

Suddenly it is all we talk about. That is why Rove said he didn't know how to run against Dean. He knew exactly how to run against Kerry. The script was written 30 years ago.

[Armstead]

72. Script and the same characters

It's almost eerie how the early 70's seem like ages ago, but so many of the players are the same people -- Rumsfeld, Kerry, Buchanan, Bush, Dean, Cheney, etc.

It's like a bad sequal to a movie or one of those TV series reunion shows.

[goodhue]

67. Yes but must move on.

While I agree that the more electable line is a joke not based on reality, I don't find this post particularly helpful at this time.

[Cocoa]

68. everyone knew they would do this to Kerry

we knew it with certainty, since people were posting this same exact shit, and the skull and bones shit, here to DU and other dem websites. I knew all about O'Neill, from Rove's Internet smear campaign, before I even knew what Kerry looked like.

[Moderator]

74. OK

I'm locking this as flamebait.