Reply #144: Wow, what a comment.

[ProSense]

"The Clintons and their people were hauled over the coals during the primary campaign, indeed all but repudiated, so that expecting them to go to bat for Kerry--who plainly had little regard for them--so that expecting them to go to bat for him after being harangued would have been a bit much."

Says it all. Which came first the chicken or the egg?

The Democratic pundit class sat out the 2004 election. They were lame and weak, and the reason is obvious now. They are sellouts and protectors of the status quo who will shill for special interests at the drop of a dime.

They were not going to lift a finger to guarantee Kerry's election, which say a lot more about them than Kerry. All you have to do is listen to the likes of Carville and Stephanopoulos to see how lame and traitorous they can be.

Kerry set the Democratic record for the most money raised, on and offline, and the most vote ever for a Democrat, records broken by Obama.

Kerry did it without the help of the lame-ass wing of the Democratic Party.

Kerry in turn, since the 2004 election, has demonstrated what it means to go to bat for Democrats, in terms of campaigning, fundraising and smacking down RW lies. He did it most effectively for Obama, even as a lot of so-called Democrats sat on their asses spinning bullshit about how Kerry's endorsement would result in Obama's downfall.

I have only two words for those kind of Democrats: screw you.