p>I thought that was just as good; it’s only that less people saw it.
<
p>Bob Herbert:
<
p>
Saturday was the 35th anniversary of John Kerry’s appearance as a young Vietnam veteran before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. During his testimony, Mr. Kerry called for an end to the war in Vietnam and famously inquired: “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”
He marked the occasion Saturday with an important and moving speech before an audience crammed into historic Faneuil Hall. The speech took on even more poignancy as it became known over the weekend that at least eight more American G.I.’s had been killed in Iraq.
…
“I believed then,” he said, “just as I believe now, that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice and disserves our people and our principles.”
He repeated his call for a complete withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq by the end of this year, and offered an uncompromising defense of the right of all Americans – including retired generals – to engage in “untrammeled debate and open dissent” on the war.
“I come here today,” he said, “to affirm that it is both a right and an obligation for Americans to disagree with a president who is wrong, a policy that is wrong and a war in Iraq that weakens the nation.”
<
p>Considering how MSNBC yammered and went to commercial when Kerry was giving the speech, and CNN didn’t cut in until halfway in (thank God for c-span and PBS that carried the entire speech), I just think a lot of people never got to see him, either in 2004 or any time afterwards.
progressivemansays
…it is not uncommon that you can do a better job on behalf of a friend than you can on behalf of yourself. Kerry hit a homer for Senator Obama and the Democratic Party. It was a smart, funny and to the point speech that drew the stark distinctions in this election. Thanks to the Senator for doing it so well.
tbladesays
Marriage equality stance not withstanding.
<
p>Something changed when he gave that “botched joke” speech. I loved the fire and attack of that speech, but only the “joke” got play.
<
p>I really like John Kerry. I acknowledge that the Senator is flawed and that some democrats are rightly frustrated with him. And I’m not saying that what Kerry has shown over the last two years “atones” for anything, but I do think his actions over the last two years are exactly what I want to see more of and I think he will be an asset to the country, however imperfect.
<
p>I have no good way of knowing this, but I think Barack Obama will be a more effective president then John Kerry would have been. Just a guess. If Kerry had won in 2004, we may (or may not) be better off today and saved from the malfeasance of Bush/Cheney , but we would have not seen the current historic Dem election cycle and Barack Obama may not have ever won the party’s nomination. Also, we may or may not not have seen the heavy Democratic shifting of the of the legislative branch in 2006 and 2008. Only history will tell, but we may come to the end of an Obama presidency and find that Kerry losing in 2004 was a blessing in disguise**.
<
p>I want the John Kerry of this video as a part of my government into the foreseeable future.
<
p>———–
**Or we could be even more bitter about the loss if we must endure a John McCain presidency.
mplosays
I watched a small part of Kerry’s speech here on the video, and, while there were some good points that he made, he, like many, if not most of the other politicians, seems to have forgotten that the United States lost the respect of the rest of the world more than half a century ago, and has not only not regained any of it back, but has made our standing with the rest of the world for the past 8 years, with the two stolen elections that got G. W. Bush and his cronies into the White House….twice!
stomvsays
Summer 2000 to fall 2001. The respect for tUSA was high until the election, dipped, and then solidarity was at 100% on 9/11/01.
<
p>I left Ireland to return home soon thereafter, but have been back a number of times since. Every time I go back, the Irish are more and more disillusioned with tUSA.
<
p>In short: w.r.t. Ireland [and perhaps Western Europe in general], I disagree that the USA lost the respect of the world more than 50 years ago. I think we were quite respected on an international stage right up to the invasion of Iraq. Sure it ebbed and flowed over the past 50 years, but I think you’re wrong in claiming that we had lost the respect of Europe 50 years ago and haven’t had it since. I think quite the opposite is true, and I hope that as a side effect of electing Barack Obama that the USA will regain the respect of that part of the world soon.
mplosays
I’d love to share yours and everybody else’s optomism here on BMG and other blogs, online and off-line alike, but I don’t feel that I can. The United States has spent too much money on our military budget and has much too long a history of invading sovereign countries and overthrowing governments that our government doesn’t consider a measure-up to our interests, and our invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Grenada are extensions of that long history. The United States has a long, long history of this kind of interference with other countries’ affairs, and it has had a terrible affect on us, as well as the countries we’ve dominated. We’ve done it in Viet Nam, Korea, Iran, Latin America, the Philippines, and a whole host of other places throughout the world, and, if this history is any indication, the past 8 years, where stolen “elections” have resulted in the “elections” of politicians who’ve made things even worse, was a long, long time coming.
<
p>Regarding the possible election of Obama, I sincerely have my doubts that there’ll be any discernible change, because he, too has failed to question our military budget, he folded, fell into line behind most members of Congress, capitulated to and voted for the FISA Bill, which provides the President and Congress to expand the scope of unwarranted wiretapping and interception of phone calls, email, etc, and other forms of spying on ordinary, everyday American citizens. Considering what Obama claims to stand for, this was extremely hypocritical of him. This involves our Constitution, and, imho, and anybody who’d throw our Constitution (or any part of it) under the bus just to save their own hide doesn’t deserve to get elected dog-catcher, much less the President of the United States.
<
p>All of the above having been said, whether we get a McCain or an Obama Presidency, we. are. screwed furthur.
johnksays
Kerry is a great debater, but was never been known for his public speaking ability. That’s not what did him in in 2004, it was the response to the swift boat ads. It was not an issue specifically with Kerry, it was with Democratic candidates in general. What was gained from 2004 was how to respond. This campaign is doing a better job in counter-attack and attacking themselves, it wouldn’t of happened without 2004.
zsays
Lessons of how to respond was learned much earlier than 2004.
<
p>Haven’t you seen the War Room?
kbuschsays
after the Bush-Dukakis debacle in 1988. The Clinton campaign of 1992 was very good at responding strongly to attacks.
karencsays
The “War Room” both movie and book were written by the people who ran the 1992 campaign. Many not so good events were air brushed out. GHWB was at below 40% for most of 1992, falling to 33% on election eve. W was around 50%. But let’s compare Kerry’s response to the response of the WAR ROOM.
<
p>The immediate reaction to the SBVT emerging in August with a book and an attack ad was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. This is the same thing and same timing as Obama’s response to Corsi’s 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. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it.
<
p>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.
<
p>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:
<
p>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.
<
p>He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.
<
p>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.
<
p>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.
<
p>The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.
<
p>Compare that response 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.
<
p>In any previous election, what Kerry did, which was 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 (like Clinton’s where there was some there there) 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/200…
click on little photo of the Senator.)
<
p>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 Reverend Wright? Many people on the Obama team came from Kerry’s team and Kerry himself has been a top adviser on this.
<
p>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 just starting the general election. Obviously, his own campaign is less willing to write the 2004 swiftboating off as having been successful just 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)
johnksays
he pushed the story in the traditional media. It’s partly the late response but more significantly how he responded. He hurt himself more by how hard he pushed it nationally. Obama’s campaign has not pushed back nationally, they keep it away from the media and use ads in swing states or states that McCain is running his ads. The last thing you need is the media to get a hold of a negative story and run it 24/7. That was the impact of Kerry’s response.
cadmiumsays
candidate Kerry, or his surrogates in 2004. It was bigger than Gore in 2000. The Bush Republicans excel at grassroots politics. The dem party did not have an answer for the preachers in conservative churches and cable networks in every nook and cranny of the country. They did not have an established attack phone bank system for radio shows blaring and echoing anti Gore and anti Kerry messages.
cadmiumsays
candidate Kerry, or his surrogates in 2004. It was bigger than Gore in 2000. The Bush Republicans excel at grassroots politics. The dem party did not have an answer for the preachers in conservative churches and cable networks in every nook and cranny of the country. They did not have an established attack phone bank system for radio shows blaring and echoing anti Gore and anti Kerry messages.
The high altitude/thin air is having its effect.
http://select.nytimes.com/2006…
<
p>I thought that was just as good; it’s only that less people saw it.
<
p>Bob Herbert:
<
p>
<
p>Considering how MSNBC yammered and went to commercial when Kerry was giving the speech, and CNN didn’t cut in until halfway in (thank God for c-span and PBS that carried the entire speech), I just think a lot of people never got to see him, either in 2004 or any time afterwards.
…it is not uncommon that you can do a better job on behalf of a friend than you can on behalf of yourself. Kerry hit a homer for Senator Obama and the Democratic Party. It was a smart, funny and to the point speech that drew the stark distinctions in this election. Thanks to the Senator for doing it so well.
Marriage equality stance not withstanding.
<
p>Something changed when he gave that “botched joke” speech. I loved the fire and attack of that speech, but only the “joke” got play.
<
p>I really like John Kerry. I acknowledge that the Senator is flawed and that some democrats are rightly frustrated with him. And I’m not saying that what Kerry has shown over the last two years “atones” for anything, but I do think his actions over the last two years are exactly what I want to see more of and I think he will be an asset to the country, however imperfect.
<
p>I have no good way of knowing this, but I think Barack Obama will be a more effective president then John Kerry would have been. Just a guess. If Kerry had won in 2004, we may (or may not) be better off today and saved from the malfeasance of Bush/Cheney , but we would have not seen the current historic Dem election cycle and Barack Obama may not have ever won the party’s nomination. Also, we may or may not not have seen the heavy Democratic shifting of the of the legislative branch in 2006 and 2008. Only history will tell, but we may come to the end of an Obama presidency and find that Kerry losing in 2004 was a blessing in disguise**.
<
p>I want the John Kerry of this video as a part of my government into the foreseeable future.
<
p>———–
**Or we could be even more bitter about the loss if we must endure a John McCain presidency.
I watched a small part of Kerry’s speech here on the video, and, while there were some good points that he made, he, like many, if not most of the other politicians, seems to have forgotten that the United States lost the respect of the rest of the world more than half a century ago, and has not only not regained any of it back, but has made our standing with the rest of the world for the past 8 years, with the two stolen elections that got G. W. Bush and his cronies into the White House….twice!
Summer 2000 to fall 2001. The respect for tUSA was high until the election, dipped, and then solidarity was at 100% on 9/11/01.
<
p>I left Ireland to return home soon thereafter, but have been back a number of times since. Every time I go back, the Irish are more and more disillusioned with tUSA.
<
p>In short: w.r.t. Ireland [and perhaps Western Europe in general], I disagree that the USA lost the respect of the world more than 50 years ago. I think we were quite respected on an international stage right up to the invasion of Iraq. Sure it ebbed and flowed over the past 50 years, but I think you’re wrong in claiming that we had lost the respect of Europe 50 years ago and haven’t had it since. I think quite the opposite is true, and I hope that as a side effect of electing Barack Obama that the USA will regain the respect of that part of the world soon.
I’d love to share yours and everybody else’s optomism here on BMG and other blogs, online and off-line alike, but I don’t feel that I can. The United States has spent too much money on our military budget and has much too long a history of invading sovereign countries and overthrowing governments that our government doesn’t consider a measure-up to our interests, and our invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Grenada are extensions of that long history. The United States has a long, long history of this kind of interference with other countries’ affairs, and it has had a terrible affect on us, as well as the countries we’ve dominated. We’ve done it in Viet Nam, Korea, Iran, Latin America, the Philippines, and a whole host of other places throughout the world, and, if this history is any indication, the past 8 years, where stolen “elections” have resulted in the “elections” of politicians who’ve made things even worse, was a long, long time coming.
<
p>Regarding the possible election of Obama, I sincerely have my doubts that there’ll be any discernible change, because he, too has failed to question our military budget, he folded, fell into line behind most members of Congress, capitulated to and voted for the FISA Bill, which provides the President and Congress to expand the scope of unwarranted wiretapping and interception of phone calls, email, etc, and other forms of spying on ordinary, everyday American citizens. Considering what Obama claims to stand for, this was extremely hypocritical of him. This involves our Constitution, and, imho, and anybody who’d throw our Constitution (or any part of it) under the bus just to save their own hide doesn’t deserve to get elected dog-catcher, much less the President of the United States.
<
p>All of the above having been said, whether we get a McCain or an Obama Presidency, we. are. screwed furthur.
Kerry is a great debater, but was never been known for his public speaking ability. That’s not what did him in in 2004, it was the response to the swift boat ads. It was not an issue specifically with Kerry, it was with Democratic candidates in general. What was gained from 2004 was how to respond. This campaign is doing a better job in counter-attack and attacking themselves, it wouldn’t of happened without 2004.
Lessons of how to respond was learned much earlier than 2004.
<
p>Haven’t you seen the War Room?
after the Bush-Dukakis debacle in 1988. The Clinton campaign of 1992 was very good at responding strongly to attacks.
The “War Room” both movie and book were written by the people who ran the 1992 campaign. Many not so good events were air brushed out. GHWB was at below 40% for most of 1992, falling to 33% on election eve. W was around 50%. But let’s compare Kerry’s response to the response of the WAR ROOM.
<
p>The immediate reaction to the SBVT emerging in August with a book and an attack ad was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. This is the same thing and same timing as Obama’s response to Corsi’s 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. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it.
<
p>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.
<
p>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:
<
p>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.
<
p>He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.
<
p>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.
<
p>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.
<
p>The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.
<
p>Compare that response 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.
<
p>In any previous election, what Kerry did, which was 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 (like Clinton’s where there was some there there) 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/200…
click on little photo of the Senator.)
<
p>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 Reverend Wright? Many people on the Obama team came from Kerry’s team and Kerry himself has been a top adviser on this.
<
p>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 just starting the general election. Obviously, his own campaign is less willing to write the 2004 swiftboating off as having been successful just 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)
he pushed the story in the traditional media. It’s partly the late response but more significantly how he responded. He hurt himself more by how hard he pushed it nationally. Obama’s campaign has not pushed back nationally, they keep it away from the media and use ads in swing states or states that McCain is running his ads. The last thing you need is the media to get a hold of a negative story and run it 24/7. That was the impact of Kerry’s response.
candidate Kerry, or his surrogates in 2004. It was bigger than Gore in 2000. The Bush Republicans excel at grassroots politics. The dem party did not have an answer for the preachers in conservative churches and cable networks in every nook and cranny of the country. They did not have an established attack phone bank system for radio shows blaring and echoing anti Gore and anti Kerry messages.
candidate Kerry, or his surrogates in 2004. It was bigger than Gore in 2000. The Bush Republicans excel at grassroots politics. The dem party did not have an answer for the preachers in conservative churches and cable networks in every nook and cranny of the country. They did not have an established attack phone bank system for radio shows blaring and echoing anti Gore and anti Kerry messages.