you let the MSM off the hook for what was in reality a media condoned character assassination of Senator Kerry. There was then a second swiftboating after the narrow election loss by people with vested interests, either because they did not live up to their journalistic standards or they supported someone else in 2008.

You say that Senator Kerry refused to say a single word on the SBVT. In fact, the immediate reaction was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof. They also proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out.

That was done within ONE DAY of the book's emergence in August. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it.

But, even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand.

It should also be mentioned that it was not Kerry's accounts they disputed, it was the NAVY's official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O'Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

Saying Kerry did not fight back simply swiftboats him again - compare this list of proof to Carville & Co response on Clinton's Flowers or draft problems - this is far more comprehensive and completely refutes the charges. The Clinton responses in these two instances did not completely refute the charges - in fact, after changing his story a few times in each case - conceding that earlier statements were not completely true - parts of the charges were conceded. The difference was that in 1992 - even in the primary - Clinton was given breaks by a media that wanted him to win. The fact is that we KNEW in those two cases that he was willing to dissemble and scapegoat others when he was called on his actions - two things that later hurt his Presidency.

In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step. It is only when there is no open and shut case (as there is here) that the candidate would try anything different.When this didn't work, Kerry did speak to the issue - and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here - all political junkies didn't here this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn't think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was - I think less than 5 minutes long - so there is no excuse.
http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/08/jk_the_...
click on little photo of the Senator.)

Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverand Wright? Many people on the Obama team came from Kerry's team and Kerry himself has been a top adviser on this.

In addition to it being obnoxious to blame Kerry for attacks against him, there is also concern that it makes us over confident. Kerry, after all, did a brilliant job fighting the SBVT and the intern affair lie in the primaries. Obama is not yet in the general election. Obviously, his own campaign is less willing to write the 2004 swiftboating off as having been successful because of failings of Senator Kerry - that was their stated reason to go outside campaign financing. With the media working for Bush, Kerry needed money to get a counter message out - and it was money that he would have had to take from what would be needed in the fall. (As it will be mentioned - the $15 million left over was from the primaries and could not legally be used after the convention),

Obama with the money to respond and a country where over 80% now say we are on the wrong tract will likely have a FAR easier election with a media likely to be somewhat more balanced.

First of all, Kerry spoke of Vietnam in 1971 and 1972 to force an end to war and to try to get help for vets. He did this on NATIONAL TV before the Senate and on Dick Cavett. This was as soon as he was out of the Navy - it was not legal until then and specifically why his last Admiral assigned him to the inactive reserves, noting he wanted to run as for Congress against the war.

Two, Kerry responded immediately in terms of giving the media 36 pages documenting lies in the SBVT stuff and establishing their link to Bush. In addition, until 2004, the norm until then when addressing lies was to give the media enough information to see that the weight of the evidence is on your side. After the batted away attacks in the spring, the media had more than enough to reject as lies the attacks on Kerry's service.

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean. That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The Then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

The media had all of this in April. The SBVT were NEVER asked for any proof and they had none - not even a cable sent saying Kerry was a problem, a photo, nothing. In addition, the Kerry people within a week or so of the August attack gave the media 36 pages documenting inconsistencies and provable lies in the SBVT book. How many lies did they have to prove before it was ruled out. (The Rather story was rejected when documents couldn't be authenticated, though their content could)

Saying Kerry did not fight back simply swiftboats him again - compare this list of proof to Carville & Co response on Clinton's Flowers or draft problems - this is far more comprehensive and completely refutes the charges. The Clinton responses just gave the media content for "on the other hand, Clinton says ......" In both of those cases early Clinton responses were lies, replaced by more lies until partially admitting the truth.

Third - Kerry had many surrogates, including his crew and Cleland disputing it.

Fouth - Kerry himself countered it before the Firefighter's. His comments before the firefighters was a clean, clear, concise statement that the truth was what the NAVY SAID 3o years before. While the media took Clinton's half truths and didn't call him on them, they opted not to give coverage to Kerry's response.

Fifth - remember that the earlier Republican smear was that Kerry ran only on his Vietnam record and spoke of it continuously. The fact is that as many people said, most soldiers do not speak of their medals and wartime experience - and this was true of Kerry - in terms of bragging of what he accomplished. It is not true that he did not speak of Vietnam - I could find hundreds of examples where he used his view of what soldiers experience, but I will limit myself to three.

- He used his experience in being given assignments to take soldiers into Cambodia, a neutral country - when he spoke against covert actions in Central America.

- He mentioned his experience in his convention speech - not as a hero - but as what he was a soldier ordered into battle.

- He used his experience to move America on the issue of the US doing the policing and search & destroy in Iraq. Kerry's comments spoke of Iraq - and the fear of soldiers at each door and the terrified reaction of teh Iraqis, with intruders who knew neither the language or the customs.

This is another attempt to label Kerry the problem when the problems were an unscrupulous attack and a media that gave it undeserved credence. This is akin to what Rove did to McCain - who obliged him by imploding. The fact is that Kerry, in spite of the pain these attacks likely gave him and his men, never flinched and never turned from trying to get out his message. Through all this his actions were Presidential. he deserves the reputation of having one of the coolest tempers in DC.

Kerry is well positioned in the Senate - and was said to be the 12th most powerful person there recently. As McCain, Obama and Clinton were all placed higher, he will likely be in the top 10 after the election. (If McCain wins, both Obama and Clinton, who do not have the seniority that Kerry has will likely be below him as this scale counted both positions in the Senate and influence in the media etc. As Presidential candidates, they both are buoyed because they are running for President. If Clinton wins, she leaves the list and Obama likely moves lower than Kerry. If Obama wins, the same thing likely happens plus Kerry will be seen as having the ear of the President.

But, that is more a measure of how important they appear. The fact is that that there will likely be four big issues facing a Democratic President. Kerry is in reality the key person on two of them, even if his name is not on them. Kerry has support - not because he twists arms or threatens not to speak to people, but because he has solid expertize and he does speak to everyone. He really is a great Senator.

1) Iraq - Most people concede that the ISG recommendations were close to what Kerry had called for in 2004 and 2005 - Kerry clearly influenced the bipartisan commission. Though there is a tendency of Senators to lavish false praise on the Senate floor and that Biden would have loved Kerry's endorsement, Biden's comments after Kerry signed as a co-sponsor to Biden's Iraq bill were specific and rang true. It also seemed lost on the media that Kerry did not sign on and Biden did not get a majority of support until he did what Kerry spoke of the year before. That change - charging the Iraqis to draw the lines on the map and define the functions of the states vs the national government were very important - without them, the proposal had echoes of the British actions of unilaterally defining country and government for the colonies. It was also interesting that Senator Warner, on the cusp of Biden's victory on this, took to the floor after Kerry spoke to point out that there already was a Kerry written sense of the Senate resolution for a regional conference.
(links - the Democratic plan was like Kerry's - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu... , here's the corrected link to that Senate news conference - http://democrats.senate.gov/multimedia/051... Kerry comments on Biden plan with Blitzer, about 4 and a half mintues in and his comments on Rumsfeld memo etc - well worth watching remembering that this was where Kerry was in November 2006 - and this was the Kerry the Clintons wanted to remove from the 2008 race.
links to Biden and Warner and Kerry speaking of the revised Biden plan - http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/09/biden_g... )

2) Global warming: Kerry was the Congressional delegation to Bali. Though the media gave little attention to this - Kerry was praised in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by the Bush administration for the work he did there. The President’s chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, James Connaughton, spoke before the SFRC hearing chaired by Senator Menendez. Mr. Connaughton was part of the President’s delegation who attended the second week of the Bali Conference. Because of the Senate schedule, Senator Kerry flew 40 hours round trip to spend 36 hours as the sole US Congressional representative to the conference. At a SFRC hearing earlier this year, Mr. Connaughton, who represented President Bush said:
“I would particularly also want to call out thanks to Senator Kerry for coming to Bali. I would note that the remarks he gave in Bali were very constructive in helping to educate the international community on the needs, what it would take for America to move forward together in a bi-partisan way. I thought those remarks were very well received. Senator Kerry, thank you for that.”
Listening to the hearing, the Senator is praised for his leadership on this issue by both Republicans and Democrats.
http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/hearings/20...

Here was even stronger praise from an earth day SFRC hearing: Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat (around 4 minutes in) said:

"The fact that we had a treaty was significantly due to the fact that Senator Kerry was there. He was a virtual part of our negotiating team, without his day and night support and lobbying of the EU. we would not have gotten a treaty.

"http://www.kerryvision.net/2008/04/in_defe... . (I was surprised to see this on Kerryvision because I had heard nothing on this and it was the same day Kerry did an amazing job on the Future of the Internet hearing.

On another issue - healthcare, the Clinton used Kerry's and Kennedy's efforts on S-CHIP and its precursor bill. Given Kerry's position on the Finance committee and his expertize - he will play a role. The fouth issue is the economy - and there no one has had a better view of what to do than Kerry outlined in his Faneuil Hall speech on economy. Compare Kerry's comments on the controversial issue of trade agreements to the jingoist isolationism of some Democrats or the blatant self interest of a former President, who consults with Columbia's Uribe. Kerry sees trade agreements potentially being used to fight for international workers - and sees it as the only way to help US workers. Kerry is one of the few people speaking about this honestly and intelligently.

"And, just as important, we have to promote workers’ rights abroad — because it’s right — and because it’s the only way to create a level playing field for U.S. exports.
American labor leaders understand this. Andy Stern, head of SEIU, has been to China six times in five years. As President, George Bush has only been there once — and I’m sure he didn’t once mention worker’s rights. James Hoffa, of the Teamsters union, sees China as a new frontline for the labor movement. He understands that, at its worst, the global economy is a race to the bottom that pulls the rug out from under American workers.
So we have to make it a race for the top — because globalization isn’t going to go away. We need to put our stamp on it and create a fair playing field — because empowering America’s workers means stepping up to bat for workers everywhere."

http://www.johnkerry.com/2007/10/1/faneuil...

Kennedy won 58% to 41%. Reading the summary in the "Almanac of American Politics 1996" the credit given to the Clintons was that President Clinton hosted a very successful fundraiser. They also mention that Kennedy had a 60% approval rating in MA in April 1994. The concern was that 62% said it was time for a change. This was an open ended question that is inherently unfair as there is no common cause that all these people would agree on. We are seeing the same things now in NJ with Lautenberg. It combines all Democrats who would prefer anyone else and all the Republicans. Clinton doing a fundraiser in MA helped Clinton as much as it helped Kennedy.

What they do cite as the issues is that Kennedy brought up the anti-black views of the Mormon church and the anti-labor practices of Bain capital. He also got Romney in the debate when Romney could not say what his healthcare plan did. No mention at all of HRC or WJC as savior of the campaign.That book leans more to the right than I like and looking through the years we have is not friendly to Kennedy, who they position as too far to the left.

As to campaigning for Kerry - Clinton was, as he was for Gore, an asset who was tricky to use. I bet that it was WJC who called the campaign rather than the campaign begging WJC to help. He has always wanted to be in the public eye. In addition, he campaigned about 5 or 6 weeks after his surgery. In PA, it involved walking a very short distance and giving 5 minutes of comments. A person I know very very well was walking 4 miles routinely within three weeks of open heart surgery - it was part of his rehabilitation program from a top hospital.

In fact, given the way it was handled, Kerry appearing ALONE might have been more useful. The cable stations switched away after Clinton's speech - not catching that Kerry got a tremendous reaction as well - that was seen by us CSPAN viewers. Kerry was getting huge crowds all over the swing states - breaking Clinton records. The Clintonophile media ignored that or discounted it by crediting the crowds to Clinton, Caroline Kennedy or Springstein. It's true the crowd may have been somewhat smaller without WJC, it would still have been huge and the candidate would have been the story.

Also, Clinton's speech was a very routine "Democratic party elder speaking of the Democratic nominee" - he did NOTHING that went beyond boiler plate - Kerry's name could have been replaced by any name. WJC did not even mention Kerry's long involvement with Youthbuild that was likely what WJC did vaguely speak of in his book as Kerry working for underprivileged youth, which WJC then described as something that there were no votes in. In front of intercity Philadelphia bringing this up and speaking of Kerry's extremely strong advocacy since the 1980s would have made some people see Kerry for who he was. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu... ) Every Clinton speech for someone ends up about 60% plus about Clinton - except his extremely strong speech for Leiberman in the 2006 primary where he actually spoke about Leiberman.

The fact is that Kerry DID get the innercity vote everywhere and likely would have done every bit as good without that short Clinton event. Where Clinton could have helped was to have delayed his idiotic book say 6 months to let Kerry have more a chance to get airtime in July 2004. Or, he could have given Kerry credit for his many real accomplishments when WJC opted to write a 2 page discussion of whether he wanted Weld, who he clearly liked personally vs Kerry, who he credited as expert on the environment and technology. Very meager praise - that he likely looked at when Kerry was the defacto candidate. Here is a broader expansion of what WJC did and did not do: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/...

But,debts go both ways - Kerry defended Clinton in the primaries when Clinton's patriotism was challenged. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...
Kerry was far closer to Tsongus and to Kerrey - that defense came from Kerry's heart and gut and he willingly defended Clinton on this issue when he was the candidate. This was done risking his own credibility. In the 2004 primaries, Bill Clinton said that only Wes Clark and HRC were Democratic stars - so if you want to question repayment of favors - the Clintons did not return the help Kerry gave them.

Maybe if the lameass governor of Arkansas had not SUPPORTED arming the rightwing thugs in Central America, he might have risked his career - as Kerry did his - to stand up against the Reagan administration using Mena, Arkansas to bring cocaine to the US and guns to Central America. Kerry investigated it and that investigation led to the Contra part of Iran/Contra. Kerry, a first term Senator, was then not included on the committee - he did help interrogate some of the people he had interrogated earlier in closed sessions- it was lies to Kerry that led to the perjury counts. Here is part of what he did:
"John Kerry had the chance, at that point, for the first time in a secret session -- and declassified since -- to ask administration officials questions. One of the people he asked questions of was Elliot Abrams, who was the person who was in charge of the Contra policy. Through that hearing -- I read the transcript many months later -- John asked Elliot question after question after question. Very specific questions, one leading to the next, about what he knew and didn't know, about that airplane that went down in Nicaragua, that was moving weapons to the Contras.

It was a long hearing. John asked most of the questions. When that hearing got out, no one said very much to the press. The hearing was in a secret hearing room of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. …

I remember David Durenberger turning to John as they were just getting out of that room, and as I was waiting for him. Durenberger at the time was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He was a Republican from Minnesota. He said, "They're not telling the truth. These guys are not telling the truth. Keep going. Don't stop. Stay with it, John. Stay with it, John."

Here's the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a Republican, telling a junior Democrat, who doesn't have any committee, or any particular jurisdictional rights here, "Keep going." And it was John's questions that caused Eliot Abrams to wind up getting indicted for not telling the truth to Congress. John's a prosecutor. John follows the facts. The facts matter."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh... Incidentally, Durenberger endorsed Kerry in 2004. I think that MSNBC's Abrams is suppose to be a cousin of Elliot Abrams.)

On BCCI, Kerry pursued it until his committee was ended, he then took it to the justice department and when that didn't work - he took it to NYC DA Morgenthau, who had juristiction because one of the USA connected banks was in Manhattan. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...

In the wake of the work on BCCI, Kerry wrote legislation that provided tools to deal with international money laundering - because they provide a resource to weaken internation criminals including non-state terrorists, but they were never passed until they were included in the Patriot Act. Now who was President until January 2001. (Here's a Finance Committee hearing on international money laundering now - The first time Kerry speaks he does mention some of that background - but the more significant questioning is the second time near the end. Kerry clearly things not enough is being done in the Near East now. (Click on the word "FINANCE" http://www.kerryvision.net/2008/04/kerryvi... )

As to bringing these up in 2004 - bringing up Iran/Contra months after Reagan's death would have had downsides. He did bring up BCCI in speaking of knowing how to deal with terrorist money networks - doing more would raise the question why more was not done from 1992 when the final report was written and 2001 - Gee who was President? Kerry's number one issue dealt with A.Q Khan and Pakistan.

If you had daughters or granddaughter they very likely did too.

There was no way that the feminist movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s would have had the success that they did without piggybacking on the hard won achievements of the civil rights movement. It was the affirmative action legislation written because of the civil rights movement that was expanded to require large companies doing business - in any way - with the government to hire women in positions that they were never given before.

In my case the timing was perfect. In high school, a teacher leading a class on future careers, told me I couldn't take the folder on mathematician, but if I really liked math, I should take the "secondary education folder" because that was a job girls could get. I also refused to take typing (something I do regret) because the guidance counselor recommended it for the girls, but not the boys, on the college prep tract - saying that we would need to start as secretaries. I couldn't accept that boys that I routinely outperformed would start out ahead of me. Five years later, when I graduated college, there were great opportunities for women with degrees in Math, science, engineering, and economics. I got a job that my teacher would have called a "boy" job.

The other thing I have from my life experiences is knowing how irritating it was on one assignment to interact with people who thought and said that I got that assignment because I was a woman. Both HRC and Obama are far more that the "black" or the "woman". It demeans either to see them as generic representations of the demographic group they are in. If HRC was a black male with all of HRC's other characteristics (personality, history and positions) and Obama was a white woman with Obama's characteristics - I would still be for Obama. (In fact, I have often identified Kerry as the politician I most admire and would have supported had he run. I do not think he is perfect, but if you use him as the template for what I think is good - Obama, with his emphasis on bringing people together, diplomacy, honesty, and his activist roots is a closer match than HRC.)

Everyone is needed to move to a fairer society. As can be seen from the 1960s and 1970s, movement in one area causes movement in the others. Voting for LBJ, rather than Goldwater, was good - but it was the vibrant, powerful civil rights movement and the ground work done by people like Roger Wilkins within teh JFK administration that made it possible for LBJ to push the Civil Rights Bill.

It sounds as though you feel that you are being blamed for the inequities of the past. Of course you shouldn't be. In fact, you likely took bigger risks in speaking out, than I a generation later ever did because your generation were the "adults" when much of this happened. You are my mom's age and I remember her anger and words when a neighbor came to our house with a petition against a black couple (both doctors) to pesuade them against moving into our lower middle class town. She was so angry that she did not correct my about 8 year old sister who responded to the woman's argument that when they had kids, the kids would lower the level of their classes by saying saying that the woman's son in her class currently did that and no one was asking him to leave. (We were brought up to be much politer than that.) That was the early 1960s Northwestern Indiana.

One of the worst things of this primary is that people who have been supportive of both minorities and woman are being accused of being either anti-woman and sexist on one side or racist on the other. In fact they are simply for one of them more than the other or at worst dislike one of the candidates for who she or he is - just as if the choice were Kerry, Dean or Edwards etc in 2004.)

It was February, 1992. His challenger, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran was calling him out as a draft dodger. This had the potential of again ripping the country apart over Vietnam. Another Senator,also a highly decorated veteran, who was friend of Clinton's challenger took to the floor of the Senate to make a plea against inserting the rifts from the Vietnam War into the primary.

I wish that Bill Clinton would have had the grace to say that all three of this year's candidates love this country. Here are the words said on the Senate floor in 1992:


Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I also rise today--and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity--to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.

I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.

What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.

What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.

What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.

What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a Presidential primary.

The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam , not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our Nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.

We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we

now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam ?

Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.

But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.

I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the Presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.

We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country. "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are somethings that should never be injected into an election - race, faith, patriotism ...
I wish that Bill Clinton, having been given the honor given to a=only 43 people in our history of being President, would have had the grace that Senator Kerry showed in 1992 when he made this obviously personal plea against an earlier version of politics of distruction.

You make the issue campaigning in fall 2004. The lack of support that I and many others have spoken of - with no Kerry quotes to back us up - are based on our observations of negative things he and his allied did - not anything not done. Some are:

1) Releasing his autobiography in July 2004. Bill Clinton is reputed to be the sharpest politician of our generation - any high school kid could see why this is a bad idea in the run up to the election. As it was, June was a month when Kerry could get little coverage - as it was solid Reagan coverage for at least 3 weeks. Then Bill Clinton took a fair part of July - and all of us were treated to learning that the reason for Monica was "because I could". Now, frankly I could have happily lived my whole life not knowing that. This was a repeat of Bill Clinton having a confessional interview about getting his family back after Monica in the week before Gore's convention. You need to either challenge his political acumen or accept in both cases he had some need to fight off Gore or Kerry becoming the head of the party and President.

2) In the book, he has 2 strange pages where he writes of the 1996 MA Senate race. Kerry was the nominee almost 2 months before he finished editing his book - so you know that he reviewed this knowing Kerry was our candidate. The overall impression was that he liked Kerry's competitor more but wanted Kerry to win because of his knowledge on the environment and technology. He also mentioned Kerry's long term work with disadvantaged youth, noting there were no votes in it. Now, none of these 3 were big 2004 issues. Not mentioned were most of Kerry's strongest issues - foreign policy, terrorism (BCCI was already shut down), and healthcare, where Kerry had just written,with Kennedy, the precursor bill to S-CHIP based on the plan that had just passed in MA over Weld's veto! In the sections on Vietnam reconciliation, Clinton extends a huge amount of praise to McCain, nearly ignoring that our nominee was the chair of the committee and, per all accounts of those on the committee, did an incredible job and was the one person most responsible for its success. Now, I think most people, unlike me, looked up "Lewinsky" not "Kerry" in the index - but for people who read that nearly 1,000 page book those pages played into the Republican theme that he didn't accomplish much in the Senate.

3) There were Clinton and Clinton ally generated stories all through the period he was convalescing that Kerry's campaign was poorly run and that he was not listening to Clinton's advice. In fact, Kerry numbers went up when he concentrated on Iraq and the War on terror, rather than the economy as Clinton advised. These stories hurt.

4) In the wake of defeat, is when Clinton was the worst. That he praised Rove on the campaign he ran and made a point of saying he liked both Kerry and Bush within a week or two of the election hurt. Then there was the whisper campaign generated by Clinton allies that Kerry was not taking a place as just 1 of the 100 Senators and implying that he was at odds with Reid. The fact is that Kerry, by virtue of being the nominee, was a party leader - not the party leader, but a party leader - a status that the Clinton allies were denying. Clinton also had a conflict of interest as the last former President and the husband of HRC - this showed most when in 2005, he spoke of Kerry, a Democrat with far more national security credentials than almost any other Democrat, as weak on defense - rather than embracing Kerry's position on the war on terror. With the specter of Kerry running, he likely didn't want to hand that to Kerry. However, had the Democrats continued to keep that as their policy, the reaction of people like George Will that Kerry was right would have positioned us best on national security. The fact is that contrary to the list in BC's book, there was no Senator who understood more than the guy who wrote "The New War". The constant belittling Kerry and blaming Kerry for the SBVT by all the Clinton people was painful - and that did color my picture of the Clintons for the worse.

As to the campaigning, the question I would ask is who called whom. I seriously doubt the Kerry campaign begged him to campaign. By the time Clinton campaigned, Kerry alone had already had huge rallies - that broke all previous records. Of course Bill Clinton was a draw - but I seriously doubt the attendance had it just been Kerry would have been much less. I saw the entire thing on CSPAN and it was emotional - as the first time Clinton was out and he was good - but Kerry's speech was equally well received - judging from the applause. The media reports all spoke mostly of Clinton, because his being out was the news. In fact, either CNN or MSNBC cut away as soon as Clinton ended. So, newswise - I would guess it helped Kerry less than the local coverage of a just Kerry rally would have. Now, I've seen people post that Kerry would not have won PA without that rally. This is extremely unlikely - this was downtown Philadelphia - an area that ALWAYS is very Democratic. The African American turn out across the country was record breaking - even where Bill Clinton didn't go. There is no reason to think Philadelpia would be different. In Pittsburgh, it wasn't Clinton but THK who made a difference. I suspect that was the case in the affluent Philadelphia suburbs - as there were likely many independents that remembered her as their Senator's wife and as one ex-PA Republican in my area accepted Kerry as good because otherwise she wouldn't have married him.

This was likely a premeditated attempt to get attention and disrupt the Kerry event. The problem is that many here and elsewhere took the Miami Herald article and Meyer's own video as the complete truth. The first video available Monday night was on their site in their very biased story. The video was on Meyer's web site. Meyer was taken to jail, so how did someone edit the video - eliminating the earlier provocations, leaving only an agitated kid asking a question (actually his third question) and put it up on Meyer's website? Then get a major paper, the Herald, to link to it with an article sympathetic to him - down to quotes from a grandmother saying he had never been in trouble.

This was planned. Lefties, who speak of free speech, ignore that he spoke and did not let Senator Kerry answer the question. They say they want these questions asked - and they have been - but you would think they would also liked them answered. It is not clear that Meyer did. Someone posted that they thought he hoped to get an unflattering Kerry response. Kerry did listen to the question - said he had read the book he mentioned and when the first question was done - started to answer, but Meyer screamed over him and proceeded to throw in two more question. The head of the organization then turned off his mike - and he continued to scream out his rant.

It was not Kerry who did not listen - he asked the police to let him ask a question before he did and again when they moved to eject him. It was Meyer who would not be quiet to listen to the answers. How long should the organizer have let him control the event as he insulted the guest speaker. Do you think that was what the other 699 people wanted? You could hear applause when the police started to move him out.

Look at their motivations:
Kerry came there, gave what was reported to be an inspiring thoughtful speech. He then started answering questions - and would have answered Meyers. He started to - but Meyers was still ranting. Kerry was there to speak to and interact with the kids. He has answered those questions before and they do not phase him.

Meyer acted strangely, annoyed the press and the people running the event - and made sure it was captured it all on tape. This was apparently consistent with things he did before. He is a senior in journalism, I learned in a high school journalism class that it is a pretty good idea to be quiet and listen to the answer after you ask a question.

The police - they had a prominent politician who they were providing security for as representatives of the University. Their goal was to get him out as he became a disturbance. They were not out to create a scene.

As to Kerry, the words routinely used to describe him then were polite and well mannered. No, he NEVER was even close to as rude as Meyer. Had he been, he would never have been as important to the anti-war effort as he was. Nor, would he have been able to do things for VVA in 1972, like meeting with Nixon people on problems in the VA hospitals - which he did. Also, in a protest in Lexington, MA, the vets did not have permission to sleep in the park. Kerry and all the vets and many townspeople who joined them all peacefully went with the police when arrested. Kerry advised everyone to be polite and give the police their real names. There are NO pictures from any time of Kerry's life of him resisting arrest.

Don't you get that the media distorted someone who was always described as interesting, even by people who didn't like him. This is a war hero, a genuine activist, a person who at 27 was able to speak to the nation and move where they were on the war, a person willing to fight the mafia as a prosecutor, a person who was willing to fight Reagan's support of RW thugs in Central Americs and the entire terrorist/criminal cabal that was BCCI. While at the same time, being the elegant, eloquent lawyer or Senator.

This is a person, who was a debate champ AND played 4 sports. A person, who started a literary club in high school and who is an accomplished pilot. A person who was in a rock band and gave a speech on foreign policy at his Yale graduation that Madeleine Allbright quoted because it's ideas are relevent today. This is a man who wind surfs, ski boards and who plays classical quitar. This is a guy who is shown in the Butler photo book creating active games to keep all the kids engaged when friends vacationed together as young families on Cape Cod. This is a guy who in nearly every fitness report (that were all on his web site) was praised for the unusual loyalty of his crew - during both tours. This is a person who wrote many friends when in he was in Vietnam and everyone saved the thoughtful interesting letters.

Kerry's problem may be that he couldn't be categorized, because he is a person with many contrasting interests and characteristics. He also is an extremely clasy person, who has acted for the public good for nearly his entire adult life. He is a very serious person who made the effort to formulate his own foreign policy point of view and to be a very informed leader on environmental issues and on the needs of small businesses. This is a person who is willing to listen to the needs of all the players and suggest pragmatic solutions - whether it is to keep non-local baseball games on cable or to enable the UN and Cambodia to accept a format for the tribunal for the Pol Pot era leaders. This is a person, who having been criticized in 2004 for not having his name on much legislation, took his name off a bill he authored, while it was being voted on, because Republicans were threatening to withhold their votes otherwise - and he placed getting help to small business ahead of getting personal credit. Giving serious, complex answers to serious complex problems is not "dullness".

If you saw is Colbert appearance, you woud see that he is very quick witted and able to make fun of himself. Do you honestly think that Teresa Heinz Kerry would give a bland, dull guy a second look? In my opinion, he is one of the most interesting, multi dimensional people who has run for the Presidency in my life time. My experience has always been that the closer I look at most politicians, the more the covered flaws become apparent. With Kerry, what surprises me is that while he has his negative points, the more I've read or seen, the more impressed I've been. He is the rare politician whose substance is better than his image.

As to Ohio - there STILL is no legal case. Gore was down 537 votes, Kerry 60,000. Gore had ballots that could be recounted with some chance of finding more votes - as there were far more ballots that were rejected in Democratic strongholds that could be examined for clear intent. Not only was 2000 close enough to challange and 2004 not close enough - in 2004, we were at war. No one in the Democratic leadership would have backed a challange.

Not agressive - Kerry was hitting Bush with harder attacks than anyone else did - including Dean. THe difference was that he was not red faced and shouting. Remember it was Kerry who spoke of Tora Bora, Kerry who spoke of "our kids" being hit with ied made from ammo from known dumps not secured.

He was discussing Romney's lies about being a hunter. I'm not sure who he was speaking to - but the man - then said something to the affaect of Kerry having said he was a hunter too, what is it with MA? Then he said Romney has a "Kerry problem" like the $87 billion being for it than against it. Olberman said not one word in defense.

In anger, I send this ranting (likely over reacting) email -
In your segment covering Mitt Romney's lie about being a hunter, your guest rather than call Romney a liar and speak of the fact that he has clearly changed positions on several major issues decided to attack Senator Kerry. He first implied that Kerry like Romney was not a hunter. In fact, Kerry has hunted since he was young . Then he said that Romney has a "Kerry" problem of changing his positions, referring to the famous $87 billion quote. You remained silent allowing Kerry to be slandered by the same RW talking points that were not true in 2004. Here, it was worse. Romney LIED, Kerry is an unusually honest politician.

The $87 billion NEVER was a flip flop. Kerry explained many many times that he had just explained in detail that he had voted for a version of the bill that rolled back the tax cuts on the top 1% and had oversight to how the money was spent and against the bill without these two features.

Kerry is actually one of the most consistent politicians in his philosophy and his positions:.
- There are no flip flops on environmental issues (where he had a 96 average from the League of conservation voters - note Gore was in the 60s).

- He's always been the same on economic issues like social security, and on providing help to minorities and women running small business.

- There were no flip flops on any civil rights, women's rights, gay right's issues.

- Kerry authored the Clean elections, clean money act that he and Paul Wellstone sponsored. Kerry's floor speech on this from 1997 could be given tomorrow (updating the statistics only) and it would sound like what I heard him say in 2003 in NH (on CSPAN).

- Madeline Albright quoted positively a 1966 Yale speech on foreign policy where Kerry spoke of the importance of respecting the cultures of others and negotiating. His views are more sophisticated now, but there is enough of a thread of consistency there that if he added it to a speech today, it would not stand out as not belonging..

- On the War on Terror, Kerry was one of the first to see the problem. In his book, "The New War" he outlined the problem of the globalization of crime, including terrorism. He proposed legislation in the 1990s to track them and stop them through following the money. His views in the 1990s, were similar to the views he expressed in September 2004 (at the University of Pennsylvania). on how the war on terror would be occasionally military, but mostly law enforcement and intelligence. George Will, among others said after London stopped the plane attacks that Kerry had been right.

- On Iraq, the media repeated that he changed his positions - in fact he was far more consistent than Bush. From op-ed's before the vote, his speech when he voted, and in a Georgetown University speech ion Jan23, 2003 (before the war), he was consistent in saying that you should only go to war as a last resort, after you exhaust all diplomatic options, with a real international coalition, and in a way that plans for the aftermath. He repeated this list in every speech I saw on CSPAN. He got in trouble for calling for regime change here after Bush invaded. Every Kerry plan for Iraq since 2004 called for a diplomatic summit and no permanent bases.

Every time Kerry spoke on Iraq - the Republicans said that was what Bush was doing and the media repeated it - though it was clearly NOT what he was doing. They also claimed Kerry had changed his position.

Senator Kerry is not running for President. It seems beyond unfair that you, one of the few non-Republican voices on cable, allow Kerry's 3 decades long Reputation for honesty to be smeared. (As to flip flopping, as an exercise - go look at Edwards' 2004 positions vs his 2008 positions or Hillary's positions in 2008 vs her positions in 2000 - then look at the Faneuil Hall speeches and Kerry 's 2004 speeches. - the one who is BY FAR the most consistent is Senator Kerry.) It's rather sad that the legacy of making a principled run for the white house that might have succeeded if there were an adequate number of voting machines in Ohio is that his Senate career, his war record, and his character have all been unfairly smeared. This should really make people of character want to run for President.

Sincerely disappointed in you,
Karennj's real name



"

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean. That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The Then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

The media had all of this in April. The SBVT were NEVER asked for any proof and they had none - not a cable sent saying Kerry was a problem, a photo, nothing. In addition, the Kerry people within a week or so of the August attack gave the media 30 some pages documenting inconsistencies and provable lies in the SBVT book. How many lies did they have to prove before it was ruled out. (The Rather story was rejected when documents couldn't be authenticated, though their content could)

Saying Kerry did not fight back simply swiftboats him again - compare this list of proof to Carville & Co response on Clinton's Flowers or draft problems - this is far more comprehensive and completely refutes the charges.

They also proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out.

Kerry gave the press the information - over 100 pages of naval records - to counter it in April and they were all up on his web site. (In fact, they were useful to people on the Kerry blog to end the argument on the color of his eyes - hazel) Clinton's aim in 1992 was to counter in the news cycle any claim with something. Here the Media had proof that they were lying - this goes BEYOND Clinton's having a "response". The media did not do the job they would have done even 4 years before.

When this became evident, Kerry and his team did try to counter it. It was an unprecedented attack - a book with hundreds of charges all in contradiction of the official records and no proof - and the media asked for none. Then as lies were proven to be lies, the media did not make the assumption that it discredited the source - they went to the next lie. Clearly, neither the official records or identifying a very significant number of charges to be lies worked. So, what could be done. I really think the only thing that would have worked required the Democratic party to stand behind the man who was their standard bearer - just as they had with every previous candidate. They pure and simple failed to do this. They could have picked their battles. The purple heart band aids would have been one of the best - as it really did step over the line. It could have HONESTLY hit a Republican strength, the perception that they supported the military.

Imagine if people from Jimmy Carter to every Democratic spokesman anywhere - tv, radio, print had all called on Bush to expel anyone diminishing a solemn medal awarded when a soldier/sailor/airman is wounded from their convention unless they take off their band aids and ask him as CIC to apologize to the military that reports to him for his party's insensitivity to the suffering of the troops. They then could have said the military awards these medals, that they were driven by doctor's reports - not applied for by soldiers. Then speak of the two more impressive awards.

Kerry could and should not have to have lead this. He put his body on the line and suffered in a war that he did not even support. If he were the only one who complained it would have been worse than the lack of complaints. The silence likely fostered the belief that somehow Kerry deserved this lack of defense.

What is infuriating is that Kerry as a 25 year old, who was extremely athletic and fit, suffered these wounds, well aware that but for luck the angle could have been worse, his hearing was damaged and he has had nightmares years later. Yet these bastards implied he was barely in battle. Where were McAuliffe and the rest of the Democrats?

Kerry had every reason to be proud for having been tested and shown to be willing to risk his own life rather than not help a man who almost certainly would have died. For his other medal, he used his intelligence and solicited information from anyone in previous ambushes, worked out and sold to 2 of his peers a way to avoid these ambushes that the swiftboats were exposed to, then had the guts to implement it and came out of an ambush with no one in any of the 3 boats killed. This was what these people couldn't defend?

They had the Navy records and a tape where they could hear that Nixon investigated him 2 years later (when events were recent) - and found he was a war hero. Those two things alone should have been more than enough. What's weird is the RW still won't believe it. What I suspect is that among the high level of the party elite you have as many chicken hawks (or chicken doves) as the Republicans do and the vast majority of them were too cool to honor someone who consistently did the right thing and had a nobility of character they lacked.

Consider what they had to defend in 1992. The entire party had to defend Clinton on evading the draft. A certain war hero gave him a lot of cover, I think by pointing out that by 1968, it was known that the war was not winnable. The problem, which was smoothed over was that Clinton - after getting help by a ROTC leader, wrote an incredibly mean-spirited letter to him when after the lottery he was no longer endangered by the draft. Reneging on his promise to join was understandable in that time frame (though 2 years earlier, the extremely well connected Kerry didn't consider it when told he couldn't delay enlisting), but the bigger problem was the letter where Clinton spoke of "loathing the military" which a disgusting way to treat a man who helped him.

The party also said that the womanizing was in the past. Ignored was the fact that when the rumor surfaced he told the woman to lie to reporters. When she didn't, he denied it and attacked her credibility and character - and continued to do so when she produced a tape of him telling her to lie. (The tape proved 2 things to me then - he had an affair and was lying and she KNEW he would lie and attack her.)

Terry McAuliffe, Carville, Begala et al had no problem defending Clinton on these tawdry issues and now pride themself that they did it so well. Yet when Kerry was the nominee, they failed to defend him on something where there was never any reasonable doubt that he not only had nothing to apologize for or explain, but he had acted in an exemplary fashion. In fact, their lack of support likely raised questions of whether the Democratic leaders were concerned the charges were true. Kerry deserved better.

It might be that the goal was to make Kerry's hero status questionable to open questions into his integrity and character. This is why the party should have been proud to defend something that was very easily defended rather than explaining why Clinton's infidelities didn't matter. (Kerry provided the proof - so this charge of not fighting back should be aimed at the party as much as at Kerry.)

does not make a virtue of inexperience. What we need is a person with a vision leading in the right direction with the experience to understand and find solutions to problems.

In Kerry's case, his experience is coupled with his vision, his beliefs and his goals. Kerry has fought against corruption and against imperialism for 3 decades. In his speech before the Senate in 1971, he ends on an idealistic note that America could turn and the Vietnam vets could be among those who help America turn.

One of the reason neo-cons, like Martin Peretz, hate Kerry more than any other politician is that he has articulated an alternative view of US foreign policy. That was why TNR had someone "endorse" nearly every other candidate - but not Kerry. That also explains much of the negative or lack luster coverage in the NYT and the WP.

I was surprised to hear you very emotionally reference John Kerry's famous question from his 1971 Senate testimony. For many people, the truth that Vietnam in 1971 was as hopeless (though less dangerous to the world as a whole) as Iraq was distorted by a resurgence of the idea that Vietnam could have been won. This view that America could have won if popular support had remained behind the Vietnam War has been used against Senator Kerry for decades.

Senator Kerry's perfectly formulated 1971 question which takes war to its very heart - the individual soldier who might die - was in stark contrast to all other political speech I have heard. Kerry went on to say that every day someone had to lose his life because politicians were unwilling to admit what the whole world already knew. In recent years, Robert MacNamara in "Fog of War" admits that he knew the war couldn't be won as early as 1968. Senator Kerry has said in speeches in and out of the Senate that half the men whose names are on the Vietnam War Wall died after that time.

It seems that at this point you and many other commentators have reached the point Senator Kerry reached in April of this year, when he spoke out against allowing soldiers to die rather than admitting the policy in Iraq was wrong. You might want to see a video of a speech he gave in Boston on April 22, 2006 - the 35th anniversary of his Senate testimony. It is on his web site, johnkerry.com, under multimedia - the speech is called "Dissent".

Last summer, it was Senator Kerry and a few others who placed the lives of soldiers over the political calendar unlike the centrist triangulators. The Republicans were following Bush in a lock step formation on Iraq. The Centrists in the Democratic party clearly did not want Iraq debated in the Senate. I am fully convinced having been at the Boston speech on April 22, 2006, that Senator Kerry in proposing his Kerry/Feingold amendment was one of the few politicians motivated by the seriousness of the situation and the lives of the soldiers rather than politics. He knew the result of speaking the truth in 1971. He knew that Americans prefer to follow those who deceive them saying that we can win rather than honor those who admit that we can't. Those 2 views, 35 years apart, are the real story of supporting the troops. No fumbled joke, though it hurts politically, can take that away.

A few weeks ago, you among others spent a huge amount of time making a mountain out of a mole hill when you treated Senator Kerry's botched joke as an important event. The man left out a pronoun "us" in a joke written for him. For political points, you gave this more weight than you have all of Senator Kerry's serious proposals on Iraq (notably Kerry/Feingold and "the path forward" explained at Georgetown University in October 2005) and all his work in support of veterans rights and benefits. As a former Congressman, I assume you can look things up in the Congressional Record better than I can. An uncharacteristically soft spoken Senator Kerry I saw on CSPAN begging Republican Senators to accept a provision that would allow widows to remain in military housing for a longer time after the death of their spouse because it would make a traumatic time more manageable characterizes to me someone who genuinely cares for the troops as people. Not all the people, of either party, who use the troops as props. Senator Kerry was and is a far better person than most of those who have disparged him for decades. He is the rare politician who is honest and not corrupt.

Sincerely,
(ME)