Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Matthews: Kerry Has 'Hanoi Jane' Problem

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
rodbarnett Donating Member (577 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:08 AM
Original message
Matthews: Kerry Has 'Hanoi Jane' Problem


MSNBC "Hardball" host and longtime Democrat Chris Matthews said Tuesday that a photo showing Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry protesting the Vietnam war with "Hanoi" Jane Fonda is a real problem for his party's top candidate.

While offering sharp criticism of President Bush for not serving in Vietnam, Matthews told radio host Don Imus Tuesday morning, "You've got the Jane Fonda problem on the other side. The thing with her is, she was on the other side - she was on Hanoi's side during that war.

"And I'll tell you," Matthews continued, "everybody I knew, including me, who was against the war - I wouldn't have anything to do with a person who supported Hanoi."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
1. tweety is a DINO at best n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
2. Hmmm...who was talking about this just recently on DU?
Oh, yeah. Me.

Here it comes, folks. Get ready for a hard ride that we really didn't have to take.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Or rather EJECT - EJECT - EJECT
That might be the better strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deminflorida Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #2
48. I was talking about it too.....It's going to kill us with some Vets...
Edited on Tue Feb-10-04 11:47 AM by deminflorida
And will probably be the single reason John Kerry won't get the endorsements of the VFW or American Legion in this campaign. They'll side with the AWOL candidate rather than someone who stood beside Jane Fonda. That's sad, but it's true.

I will support John Kerry however if he's the nominee, but it's not going to be easy swinging some of the older folks, period, Especially in the South, so you all had better help us out a hell of alot with Florida, if you want Bush out of the White House. Especially here on the Panhandle.

Hell I'll host people to stay in my house if they'll come down and work but it's going to take that kind of effort.

This one issue takes the South OFF the table, they hate Jane Fonda down here, I remember people boycoting the Atlanta World Series just because she was dating Ted Turner. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HoosierClarkie Donating Member (504 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
61. Tweety isn't the only one getting started on this...
Edited on Tue Feb-10-04 12:03 PM by sarah4clark04
Every channel has said something about it lately. They have built John Kerry up recently hoping to get everyone too far behind to catch him. They are waiting for the right time to shred him. What gives me hope is that they are still holding back. Why? because there is still a chance for Clark.

Go Clark!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exgeneral Donating Member (511 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
118. I totally agree
A ride we should not have to take. There ARE other choices beside John Kerry who IMO is the WORST possible candidate to put up against a vulnerable weak idiot boy president.

What sport the media will have with this candidate. They have NO idea the shitstorm that is coming.

After it's all over and Kerry's hopes and dreams lie broken in the dust they will go back to moaning for another four years about how the party needs to be more "centrist"

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
3. "Everyone knew the Guard was for rich kids to get out of Vietnam"
He said something to that effect on his TV show last night. I was just flipping around and I was shocked to hear him be so critical of W.

Mathews was in the PEace corp, he basically hinted that that was his out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. How about rich kids that enlisted?
In all honesty, how can Kerry claim to make a case against anyone who avoided Nam when he protested it and then later protested those who would "insert" the issue as some kind of litmus test for presidential candidates?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KC21304 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #6
49. I don't think Kerry's problem has ever been
with anyone who avoided Viet Nam by legal means because he was against the war as Clinton did. His problem is with Bush, who was gung ho for war and then did not fullfill his commitment. There is big difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shindig Donating Member (187 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #49
95. I don't have a problem with it,
you don't have a problem with it, and the vets who vote in the democratic primaries don't seem to have a problem with it. BUT it's the VETS WHO LEAN REPUBLICAN, who WE WILL NEED in order to win the general election by SWAYING THEM TO OUR SIDE who might have a BIG PROBLEM with it.

Did you see Bush start his election campaign this week? He gave that speech down south. The backdrop was a United States Coast Guard ship. He is running on protect America. He protected, he is protecting, and he will continue to protect America, is his whole campaign. And sadly, to date 1/2 of America still believes it. That message is what won for the republicans in 2002, and they are banking on it to win again this time. We can still win this, however!That is, if we neutralize their message by exposing Bush, by showing that he is NOT protecting us, by showing that his presidency is a fraud. We may still lose, but without neutralizing Bush's message, we can't win.

Debates about Hanoi Jane and Kerry having thrown his medals away, which is what the media will focus on, once Kerry is locked in as the democratic nomination, will not be helpful to our cause. Our only chance is going on offense against Bush. Who better than General Clark to do this?

Remember the media loves the Iraq war and they are hyping how great the eoncomy is. Hanoi Jane and throwing medals away will seem worse to average Joe voter who leans right than confusing debates about whether Bush went AWOL, yet received honorable discharge. Just as that issue disappeared when Bush ran for Governor and again in the 2000 elections, it will most likely go away again. He's got everything hidden away. And the media is on Bush's side, bottom line.

I watch a lot of the media coverage. He is protecting us from terrorism is always their underlying message. Just a moment ago, the commentator on MSNBC, reported the AWOL story, but then was sure to finish the story by saying, remember this is an election year, you know! I was so mad. I said to myself, yes it's an election year, but maybe the AWOL inquiry REALLY IS about whether Our Great Leader is a fraud, not just because it's an election year. But the media doesn't report it that way. They imply the Democrats are only making a fuss about this because it is an election year. Hell, they don't even imply it. They actually come out and state it. This is what we are up against, people.

Even if Kery wins the debate about Hanoi Jane and throwing his medals away, by showing that he was indeed honorable in his actions actions, we still lose. Having this debate itself impedes our ability to go on offense.

The Republicans want Kerry badly. They remain petrified of General Clark. They have nothing to go on about General. They know this. I wish our party did. If Sadaam was caught ahead of time, why do u think that information came out on the same weekend General Clark testified in the Hague at the Milosivich trial? Answer: To drown out any coverage Clark might have received. Or do you think it was just a conincidence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
4. Hey Tweety....
why dont you get off your fat ass and look into Bush's ties with Saudi Arabia....Saudi Arabia is not exactly on our side lately...911, Dr. Kahn's Lab funded by Saudi Arabia, etc....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shindig Donating Member (187 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
96. he's not going to
He never does! What makes u think he will now or any time before November 2nd?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJCher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
7. tweety says Kerry has a "Hanoi Jane" problem
which means Tweety wishes Kerry had a "Hanoi Jane" problem.

Nobody cares, Tweety. All this pales next to a "president" who would get 500+ American soldiers killed over oil


Cher
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoosier Democrat Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
8. This could be a BIG Problem for us...
Well, we've now given the BFEE the 2004 model of Willie Horton: Hanoi Jane! I can see the ads running now! Also, look for this to be the excuse the Pukes use to get John McCain out on the stump ripping Kerry directly.

As I've said repeatedly, I am no Kerry fan. This only lowers my opinion. Yes, I know it was 30 years ago. But I have always found Hanoi Jane to be as reprehensible as Tokyo Rose or Axis Sally.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoosier Democrat Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. To reply to my own post...
Of course, I would like to know why a red-blooded, patriotic American like Chris matthews spent the Vietnam War in Swaziland. I don't remember a strong VietCong push to take Swaziland, or did I miss that day in history class?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ficus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #12
23. The Peace Corps
I think is quite a valuable thing our country is involved in. Just another form of service to your country...I think Matthews said something along those lines last night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoosier Democrat Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #23
69. I was not bashing the Peace Corps...
I just find it amusing that Matthews wants to skewer people on what they did/did not do during Vietnam.

Traitor Jane aside, I think that Kerry's opposition to the war AFTER seeing combat gives him more credibility than Matthews wartime resume.

Still, I say the Rove Sleaze machine cranks this UP! OK, so it turns out that the picture was taken BEFORE Jane became a national disgrace. But since when have inconvenient facts like a timeline mattered to BushCo?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ficus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #69
78. timelines? What timelines?
like they care a lot. Apparently because Hussein used chemicals against Iran they "use WMD against their neighbors" (though we we pretty ok with that at the time)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #23
116. That's just Tweety covering his own well-used ass
Edited on Tue Feb-10-04 06:01 PM by mitchum
he's a dirtbag
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #8
19. Re:Wille Horton
Wasn't Kerry the Lt.Governor or AG when that happened. I don't know if the Repubs want to bring that back up again but nothing would surprise me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shindig Donating Member (187 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #19
98. That's right!
They will DO ANYTING! That's what they do! The questions are, how do we beat them? And do we really want to beat them or not? They know, the media knows, General Clark knows, General Clark's supporters know, and I know, that it will take A BIG BAD GENERAL armed with some support from the citizens of this country to remove these mafiosos out of our White House before it is too late. Two or three Bush judges on the Supreme Court, and that's it, it will take a century to recover from that! If Bush wins this election, then he has the mandate it takes for Rehnquist and O'Connor to retire. Justice Stevens is ready to retire too, I believe. It will not be pretty if Bush gets to nominate Supreme Court Justices. Then all the close calls are sure to go his way. I'm talking about issues of privacy, about civil rights here!

Right now, the republicans are still laughing. They know things aren't going exactly according to plan, they wanted a calmer Iraq, I think. I'm not even sure they don't like the chaos, acutally. And they are not too happy with the AWOL thing springing up again.

But still they feel pretty damn good. With regards to our choice of candidate, they are laughing, thrilled that General Clark is on the verge of being defeated. The fact that their big bad ambush at the debate before New Hampshire failed to take him right out serves only to make them even more scared of him. But he is losing, I will conceed that. I would have hoped that he would have caught on with our party by now. And the mafios in the white house breathe a sigh of relief.

When Novak says Clark is a jerk, when Carlson says he's a loose a cannon, that's fear talking, fear of the end of Bush. They know it. The fact that we will let them have their way in not having to go toe-to-toe against General Wesley Clark is the first indication that we're not ready to beat them in November. That we are still in conceed mode.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
agingdem Donating Member (893 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
9. Tweety is...
full of crap. I remember the Hanoi Jane thing and Fonda did what Sean Penn is doing now. Matthews is firing the Rove machine opening salvo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoosier Democrat Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #9
17. Hanoi Jane and Sean Penn are different..
Penn wen to Iraq on a "Fact Finding" mission (though an actor doing it did kinda look ridiculous) while Hanoi Jane went over there, partied it up with the Vietcong (in front of all the news crews) and lectured American POWs about how wrong they were.

What Jane did would be akin to Betty Grable going over to celebrate Oktoberfest with Hitler during the war.

Again, I opposed this war, too. I would not have gone over to Iraq to pose for pics with Saddam and say what a great job his thugs were doing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #9
40. What Fonda did was much more serious than Penn making a
trip to Iraq and speaking out against Bush's war. The references to it are too numerous to even attempt to list but feel free to rummage through Google or any other search engine. Fonda went to North Viet Nam during the war and even posed on an anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down American airplanes. Some considered it a true mark of courage. Many others considered it treason.

I was all for bringing my friends home from the war BUT if there was any sort of line, Fonda went way past it. There are still pictures of her featured in VFW urinals all over this country.

Bringing up Kerry's association with her during that period when he was an anti-war activist is not really fair, but what has that to do with winning an election?

I have been saying this on DU for weeks now, ever since Iowa. I could not believe it possible that the party would embrace someone with such an obvious weak point that even a retired construction worker could see it coming. But there you have it folks. The media has chosen a candidate for us that comes with his own built-in Willie Horton.

If Kerry is our nominee we get to fight Viet Nam all over again and if that fabled photo of Kerry standing on a truck with his arm around Fonda ever materializes you'll see more of it than Janet Jackson's tit.

And all that it would have taken to avoid it would have been to have an honest discussion of what this might mean somewhere down the line.
Well, a discussion will be taking place now but its probably already too late.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
agingdem Donating Member (893 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #40
51. You're right but...
Kerry served and served hard...he had every right to oppose the war. I hated Vietnam (many of my friends served and many died) and I hate this war. The question I keep asking myself is this: do we never learn from our mistakes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shindig Donating Member (187 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #9
99. correct!
Now what are we going to do about it? Who are you voting for and why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
10. Who cares what happened (or didn't) 30 years ago
when there are major problems today? If we are going to start dredging up this BS, let's ask: What was W doing at that time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #10
24. Are you kidding me?
Who cares? Do you know anyone over the age of 45?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #24
57. You mean, besides myself? Yes, a few (hundred). I consider the
Vietnam stuff of the tiniest relevance to this year's election, and that anything Kerry did pales in comparison to W's behavior during the same time. I believe the average voter could not care LESS about this information relative to the many pressing issues of today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gobblemy Donating Member (26 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #10
91. I wish they would get off the Bush military record
You know that proof will come up that he made up some weekend and the press will eat every spoon that the administration feeds them.

However the Repubs will uses all this vietnam crap that Kerry did in all their ads for the GE.

They will use that pic that limbaugh put on his website to show that Jane and Kerry were one in the same.

Hannity is already saying that Kerry said in 1992 that military service didn't matter when talking about President Clinton.

This issue smells bad and I think it has opened a can of worms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shindig Donating Member (187 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #10
102. the people who are mesmorized by the right wing media
will be made to think they care about it, even though it is 30 years ago. And this is in the same fashion as they are made to care about Janet Jackson's nipple and Bill Clinton's penis. The question is what do we do about it? What is our strategy? What is our plan of attack to defeat the republicans in 2004? Who best to devise stratetic attack plans than General Wesley Clark?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
11. Who did Matthews stand beside when he protested the Vietnam war?

Did he protest?

Did he know the personal views on the war in Vietnam of everyone that he stood beside?

The smear in this is perpetuated by someone who should know better. Assigning guilt by tangential associations is slimy politics and it should be denounced by this influential hack, not hysterically repeated and anguished over.

"And I'll tell you," Matthews continued, "everybody I knew, including me, who was against the war . . ."

Just how did he protest that war? Did he protest?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #11
32. Tweety went into the Peace Corps so he wouldn't get drafted
That must have been how he protested?

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #32
42. I am sick of this
There is NOTHING DISHONORABLE about the Peace corps. Tweety should stop acting like it was something to be guilty about. It was a fine and noble choice. As well as all the COs who slaved for free or were thrown in prison rather than kill in another American war of imperialism. Those were the REAL heros!!!! Since when has this nauseating testosterone poisoning affected the reasoning of those who claim to value human rights and decency in US relations to the world? This arrogance of militarism is why the world hates us!

And you wondwer why some of us are willing to withold our support?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #42
80. See a doctor and quit putting words in my mouth
I never said there was anything dishonorable about the Peace Corps. And if you want to think the real hero's sent someone off to die in their place while doing nothing to stop it, that is just fine with me. I personally think the real hero's are the ones who did everything they could do to stop the senseless killing in Vietnam. But thats just me.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. And that would be those who enlisted?
Or those who were consciensious objectors?

You don't seem to understand, Kerry's stand doesn't work on the Left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
13. If you're running on middle class opportunity, hope and optimism, there's
Edited on Tue Feb-10-04 11:20 AM by AP
NO picture that could hurt you.

Why do we want to run on military service against Republicans?

Someone please remind me.

Why aren't we talking about the core of what they do, and the core of what we do, which is all about which direction economic, cultural and political power flows in this country?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shindig Donating Member (187 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #13
105. because the media is for Bush
The media will let Bush frame the debate in any way he wants. Since Bush thinks he wins on the military/terror stuff, the media continues to talk about it. That will stop when we neutralize it. When the media become aware that Bush loses the military service/terror/protection of our country debate, then they will switch to something else, in the hope that Bush can win that debate instead. Then anything can happen. Then we can win, because as we speak, there is nothing else he can win on. Get it? The media will not switch to something else, until they are convinced that Bush loses the military/terror/protecting our country/who's really a patriot debate! I'm with a you! I want to switch to economic, cultural and political power as well. That's why I support General Clark. General Clark neutralizes what Bush wants to talk about. The good news is General Clark is good on the other stuff we all want to talk about as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edge Donating Member (728 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
14. I don't understand what "Hanoi Jane" is...
could someone please explain it to me? I'm a little young to know this term...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim_in_HK Donating Member (544 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #14
20. Hanoi Jane
Edited on Tue Feb-10-04 11:32 AM by Tim_in_HK
is Jane Fonda. She made trip over to N. Vietnam during the war, spoke out against the South and for the North.

Was a bogeyman of many people in the US at the time.

on edit: clarification
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #14
25. Jane Fonda
As an act of opposition to the war Jane Fonda went to Vietnam and was photographed on a bulldozer (amongst other places) with vietcong troops. That is a rallying cry of the Republicans ever since and as big a fund raiser as mentioning the name Ted Kennedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #25
29. Pictures






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edge Donating Member (728 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #29
35. Ah...thanks for the info, Tim and underpants.
I appreciate it. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mobuto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #14
30. The actress Jane Fonda
travelled to North Vietnam during the course of the Vietnam war and made an ass of herself by appearing to support the North Vietnamese army against the US. You don't do that. There's an enormous difference between opposing a war and supporting the folks we're fighting, and she crossed that line rather forcefully. Kerry did not. He simply opposed the war, because it made no sense, not because he had any admiration for Ho Chi Minh. But the anti-war movement was a great hodgepodge of different interests, and so you necessarily had legitimate war heros protesting the killing of their comrades-in-arms, like Kerry, juxtapositioned with North-Vietnamese-flag-waiving idiots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edge Donating Member (728 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #30
39. Thanks for the info.
I appreciate it. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgorth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
15. hanoi Jane
might be worse than a ski trip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shindig Donating Member (187 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #15
110. same old debate
Is this really what we want to debate? Hanoi Jane and throwing away medals vs. AWOL? Are we going to win a debate like that? Maybe so, maybe not. Isn't Clark a better candidate? If we put in Clark, then maybe we let go of using AWOL against them, but the good news is that this leaves NOTHING FOR THEM TO TALK ABOUT against us. Maybe, just maybe, we will get the chance to talk about what WE want to talk about, if we go with Clark instead of Kerry. The media might just have to let us frame a new style debate this time. This is what Clinton was able to do in 1992.

I mean they can't have dead air. If we force them to change the pre-planned script already in use to frame a debate between Kerry and Bush, they will have to scramble to come up with something new. They will be in dire need for new and credible material.

They don't want to do this! Everyone can be lazy. But they are the laziest. That's why they hate Clark so much. Clark forces them to rewrite the script. And they are not sure how they will write one that will make Bush look better than Clark. And at the same time, they can't have dead air either.

But if we're right there to provide them with some new, credible and fresh material, I think they will just have to go with the way we want events to be framed. We'll be there before Rove has time to come up with something that has not already planned out.

If we are able to frame the debate, it will be the first time in years. We can provide information about a debate between Bush and Clark, just in time for the media who will not know what to do. The current script, the one that includes the Kerry-Bush debate is already written. We can win a fair debate, one that has not already been scripted by the media (and Karl Rove.) One that does not already contain a Bush victory as the conclusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
16. This and his supposed connection to Angela Davis,
the medals throwing...all of this stuff will come up should Kerry win the nomination.

The right wing's going to go crazy with all of this stuff. Why don't more people realize that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Because Dean is too angry to be electible
As if we didn't have something to be angry about-it is supposedly the entire incentive behind ABB.
It is too ludicrous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #16
28. the right wing is going to go crazy
the right wing. The people who are going to crazy with this crap aren't going to vote for any Democrat. Most voters are going to make their decisions on what is going on now in Iraq, with the economy, the environment, education, healthcare, etc. What happened thirty five years ago is only going to matter with the lunatic fringe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #28
36. That is rather naive thinking.
If Kerry is running on his record of service in the armed forces, they'll use this stuff and take him down in the blink of an eye. Many people who remember the horror that was the Vietnam war--and there are many--will recoil at this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #36
63. it's time to stop worrying about what the Republicans will do
Bush is the worst president we've ever had, he is vulnerable on every front. We need to focus on Bush, and how he can be attacked.

Does Hanoi Jane bother you? Will you vote for Bush because of it?

The people I know are pissed at Bush. They're worried about their jobs, health care, being lied to about a war. They don't care about what happened thirty five years ago.

Kerry isn't just running on his military record - he's running on 30 years of liberal, progressive government service.

Bush is the one who needs to worry.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #28
50. No, it's a problem
The public is dazzled by black/white morality plays. Just ask Mike Dukakis.

Maybe we can try to press Bush into publicly repudiating his grandfather. They say "Hanoi Jane", we say Bush Family fortunes were seized under the Trading With the Enemy Act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gobblemy Donating Member (26 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #28
92. Then why was there an hour long press confrence today?
The administration puts out some documents with torn edges and the press eat it up. You know all the documents will be found somewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shindig Donating Member (187 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #28
111. who put Arnold Schwarzenegger in as governor of California?
People who were making decisions based Iraq, the economy, the environment, education, healthcare, etc? Or was it The Karl Rove spinning mean machine? If u underestimate these people, if you do not realize what we are up against here, we are sure to lose, as we have been losing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. apples and oranges
I do realize what we are up against, but running scared from the Republicans will not win us any elections either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #16
38. Let them go crazy with it. I don't give a shit.
No matter who wins the democratic nomination, the repugnants will go crazy with whatever they can dig up on that person. He can be a damn boy scout but the repugnants can get the media on their side and spin and demonize that person to the ninth degree. Look at what they did to Gore?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #38
47. It's not just the far right that will be repulsed by this.
Independent voters, the ones that really matter in the general election, will tend to be turned off by it (unless they lean left).

There's no getting around this. It's like Kerry's voting for the IWR but saying he is against the war, or like voting for No Child Left Behind and complaining that it wasn't funded.

The right will rip him apart, and they're hoping he gets nominated in order to do so.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why more people don't see this. The only thing I can think of is that they haven't learned about a lot of it yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #16
44. Why all the hand-wringing? Fight Back!
republicans, oooo!
:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
21. I think that the point should be made (defending any Dem candidate
for Pres)

That the fact is, Kerry is a candidate who has seen the effects of war firsthand, not just what was mentioned over a barstool in the National Guard (when he was there).

Having seen the effects of war first hand (which, if I recall, the Republicans were trashing the Vietnam war a few years ago when Robert McNamara published his doubts), he knows how tragic a war can be and how it can and does turn the people we're "protecting" against the "protectors". Something that really didn't happen much in the aftermath of Bosnia, I believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #21
27. Didn't seem to effect his decision to give Smirk a blank check
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #27
43. Wasn't there a caveat to that "blank check" - that said something to
the effect of

"After exhausting all diplomatic avenues . . ."

Hmm??

Right now, I'm supporting any dem who can get rid of W in November.

If that means that Al Sharpton wins the nod, then so be it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. Yeah, and I can hand my five year kid the Walther ppk and
tell him to be careful with it.

Oh, and here's where I store the clip and bullets...

The Senate is supposed to be the place where decisions are made on the basis of thoughtful examinations of facts. Or am I still dreaming?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
22. If the repugnants want to drag the Jane Fonda drama
into the 2004 elections, then they can BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
26. hanoi jane
is no problem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. to you and me maybe
Who listens to us? ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vision Donating Member (818 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
33. I am not a Kerry supported
frankly I don't really trust him but if http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020904/cont...

is the worst picture that the rightwing can come up with than I doubt that picture will do them much good. Kerry appears to be two to three rows behind Jane Fonda, hardly beside her.

If the rightwing don't use this picture and just state that Fonda and Kerry protested the war together than it could hurt him but of course that is not telling the whole story. Surely the rightwing would not tell half-truths :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edzontar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #33
65. Does anyone else notice how DAMN CUTE Jane is in that photo?
Look, I know there are lost of people who want to wring their hands over this, but frankly, Jane had the right to travel there since the US and Vietnam were not technically at war (not declared)..

That said, the pukes will try to use this against JFK, and this is ONE case where I will defend him.

Hell, he isn;t even close to her in the picture, and the date is earlier than the Hanoi trip (which came toward the end of the war), and besides, the anti-war movement included any number of nuts much dumber than Jane--remember the Weathermen?--and lots of respectable people like my mother as well, so who gives a shit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #65
89. to most people Jane Fonda is an Oscar winner who did
a lot of aerobics tapes and now is a born again Christian who regrets her actions in her impulsive youth.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edzontar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #89
100. To me, thirty years ago, in my late adolescence..she was hot stuff
I love that short Klute era hairdcut.

Sorry for not keeping it serios--but I have no real stake in this one, except to defend Kerry THEN as much as I cannot stand him today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #100
103. What about Barbarella?
That was simply fantastic, though considering her age and the age of her director (IIRC) it could almost constitute child abuse.

Jane was just a dumb chick that grew up in a contrived environment and later on figured out what she was about for herself.

Just like a lot of other guys and gals from that era.

But we get to see her nekkid on the big screen for all of time!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edzontar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #103
113. She was "age of consent" by then, though.....so its OK
Edited on Tue Feb-10-04 05:02 PM by edzontar
She had been in films since the early-mid 60s, and Barbarella is 1968,

If you want to a see a really weird one, rent "Spirits of the Dead" an omnibus film that features her playing love scenes with brother Peter--oh my!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
34. fuck Matthews...he's in love with Bush and Reagan
he needs a lobotomy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #34
37. That may or may not be true--but he's right about this. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #37
56. maybe...but there's dirt on everybody
it doesn't matter who the nominee is...there will be dirt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shindig Donating Member (187 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #56
114. there is very litte dirt on Clark
at least dirt that is capable of sticking. The republicans know this very well. And the little dirt that exists, which has hurt Clark among democrats, is even less likely to stick in the general election. The republicans really, really know that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #37
58. Does it matter to you
That the picture with Kerry was taken two years BEFORE she made her trip to VietNam. Was Kerry supposed to be a mindreader ? Should he have been able to divine somehow that Jane Fond was going to be that stupid ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #58
60. Kerry has far more baggage or perceived baggage
than any other candidate who has run in this primary race. That is what matters to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #60
77. He's the only one with any real creds, also
Dean was skiing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. That seems to be all that people can come up with about Dean.
Wait until you see what people come up with against Kerry. It'll blow your mind, and I cannot believe that people have not considered this.

Kerry is NOT the best candidate to put up against the Chimpy machine. He is by far the worst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
41. You gotta be kidding
The only people that picture is gonna stir up are people who weren't gonna vote for Kerry anyway. Jeez he is like four rows back and out of focus. It's not like he is kissin her on the mouth or something. Puhleeze...if this is the best they can come up with they are in trouble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
45. Picture taken BEFORE Fonda made her trip to Hanoi
Edited on Tue Feb-10-04 11:44 AM by SaveElmer
That picture with John Kerry was in Sep of 1970. Jane Fonda didn't go to Vietnam until 1972. NON ISSUE!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monte Carlo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #45
52. Is that true?
If so, it's a big deal. Could you point me to a source if you can?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #52
54. Here is what I find
First site...you might gag...

http://www.henrymarkholzer.com/hanoijane.net /

Second site...you might gag here also

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020904/cont...

Looks to me like these were two years apart...am I wrong ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monte Carlo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #54
74. You seem to be absolutely right.
A little wading in the muck is okay... yes, the two events are two years apart. I'd say that exonerates Kerry from all this Hanoi Jane crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
53. Kerry's photo with Jane was in 1970. She went to Vietnam in 1972
I say to this a big, fat "SO WHAT!" If she chose to visit Asia 2 years after the photo where they were at the same rally together, it seems to be easy to shred the accusation. Time for the bloggers to get busy laying out the details.

I still want to know where Georgie Porgie was when he was supposed to be in the guard back then. Kissing the girls and making them cry, no doubt. Hrumph.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
55. GOOD FOR KERRY. He was willing to stand for his beliefs. F** the pigs
Edited on Tue Feb-10-04 11:56 AM by Raya
at the trough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
absyntheNsugar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
59. He's one of the few who could fight this charge
All he has to do is remind the public of his red badge and the accusations will drop.

Kind of a Nixon in China thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #59
108. I want you to think about this and NOT decide I am taking this
position myself, okay? Lots of people around here seem to misunderstand simple truths because they are blinded by their partisan positions.

All I am doing is showing you ONE refutation of your remark, okay?

That is all I am doing.

You wrote: "All he has to do is remind the public of his red badge and the accusations will drop."

And the refutation is: "Benedict Arnold had a lot of medals too."

Got it? I do not hold to that belief. I am only pointing out how easy it is to slander someone, if that is your intent.

Does anyone doubt that is BushCo's intent?

Does anyone doubt it will be effective?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
62. Rush and Matthews
Edited on Tue Feb-10-04 12:06 PM by SOS
think this is a problem for Democrats? The picture in question is meaningless, taken years before Fonda went to Hanoi and brought up now only to deflect the AWOL issue. The photo below is important. Taken in Vietnam in 1969.
Note that Bush is NOT in this photo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
64. Did Matthews point out the date on the picture
If not we should inundate him with emails to encourage him to tell the truth for a change
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. Just did it
He needs to be deluged with demands for him to tell the whole truth - if he can remember how.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HootieMcBoob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
66. Big F'ing Deal!
That's what they have? An out of focus picture of Kerry sitting rows behind Fonda at a war protest 2 years before she went to Hanoi? LOL!!! You have got to be freaking kidding me? This is what has people upset? What about that picture of Rumsfeld with freaking Saddam Hu "freaking" sein???!!! Oh for Christs sake!!!

Can you tell I'm listening to an archive of yesterday's Mike Malloy show? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
68. You Dean supporters are the ones hoping the repugnants
bring Jane Fonda into this election. You guys are just sour grapes because Dean, more than likely, won't be the nominee and taking your frustrations out on Kerry.

Shame on you people!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. I'd be careful about casting aspersions like that without evidence
You can think ill of us Dean supporters if you want, but the energy you give to the universe will come back to you three-fold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #70
87. Back atcha!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #68
75. Their bringing this up is inevitable. As a matter of fact,
it's already happening. But it's going to get a lot crazier if Kerry is the nominee.

That's what we're trying to point out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoosier Democrat Donating Member (386 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #68
76. From a Dean Supporter....
CatGirl, GROW UP!!!

it's not the Dean supporters who brought this up, it was MSNBC. Yes, I know Dean will not be the nominee. I don't like it, but I accept it. I've worked on Presidential campaigns since 1988 and I've been on both the winning and losing sides.

But for you to accuse Dean people of bringing this up as sour grapes is ridiculous! By your logic, we should not criticize the Sainted John Kerry ?? Here's a news flash: KARL ROVE. The criticisms from Dean folks here are a Sunday school picnic compared to what will be unleashed as soon as Kerry cinches the nomination. I faced off for Dukakis against the Bush Family Sleaze machine in 1988. Trust me, it ain't pretty!!

Too many Kerry supporters on this Board have a certain smug arrogance about their candidate. Just remember, Kerry needs the Dean folks more than we need Kerry. We don't want to be kow-towed too, we just don't need "Kerry Beat Dean, so shut up!" smeared in our faces constantly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #76
88. I'm talking about Dean supporters here on DU.
They seem to have a certain "glee" of this Kerry/Fonda connection brought on from the right wingers.

And I am not a Kerry supporter. I'm ABB.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edzontar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #88
101. I will defend Kerry on this one...and yes I support Dean
And do NOT partake of ABB pledges on moral grounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shindig Donating Member (187 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #88
115. there is very little glee
Glee is saved for when George Bush is out of our white house.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #68
82. I've been supporting Clark because I'm ABB but I want the best
possible candidate sitting in the Oval Office in January.

I have brought this issue of Kerry's antiwar actions up several times because nobody around here seems to understand how bad it is. Sure, Bush is vulnerable--his economic guy (probably from the Acme School of Economics) just said outsourcing jobs to foriegn countries is good for America!!--but that doesn't make our guy Superman.

Just like the comic book character there are varied forms of Ker-ryptonite. Hanoi Jane is one kind. IWR is another. Waffling (remember that one) on the Gay Marriage Amendment is another. Money from the telecom and media interests is another. Torricelli backing the Osama ads against Dean is another.

Now, every candidate has weaknesses. What is wrong with the current picture is that Kerry's weaknesses are right out in the open and most people seemed determined not to deal with them in hopes that they won't prove too damaging in the GE.

Doesn't anyone around here pay attention? I could set up a campaign that would bring Kerry down like a shot-gunned pheasant and this isn't even my line of work. The pros are going to eat him up like sharks eating an elephant seal.

The only hope, I come to see, is to fight out this primary in hopes that the powers-that-be in the party will finally begin to pay attention and maybe throw their support behind someone with a better chance of beating Bush.

Or not. I'll vote for the Dem no matter who it is. I just want us to have a really good chance of winning, not just one that depends on Bush being allowed to keep shooting himself in his foot. His interview with Russert is probably the last time he'll ever be seen in an unscripted, uncontrolled venue. Don't count on any debates.

After the rioting in NYC this September it will just be too dangerous for him to take time to debate at all. He is a war president, after all.

I'm tearing my hair out over all of this. I hope you people are happy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gobblemy Donating Member (26 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #68
93. It wasn't the Dean people who brought this up
The media is doing this and the Repubs will take this to the GE. I can see the ads now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sly Kal Donating Member (248 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #68
94. Shame on me?
I was in Viet Nam and I support Howard Dean. I came home and eventually realized the war was wrong. But I do not support John Kerry. Kerry is a 49 state disaster waiting to happen and this issue is only one of hundreds they will get him on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
71. Do you have the email address n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
72. If he wins TN by a good margin
Will that mean this is a non starter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #72
83. No. It is just beginning. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
73. Many Democrats such as myself thought Fonda's actions were
Edited on Tue Feb-10-04 12:20 PM by nothingshocksmeanymo
stupid. However, the MOST rabid in the group hating Fonda are people that are NOT going to vote for the Democratic nominee anyway.

The picture clearly shows him several rows behind Fonda and for the Republicans to even RAISE Viet Nam when we are creating a Viet Nam abroad is risky business for them as well.

I know it plays poorly, but with EVERY candidate they have the ability to smear.

Kerry has MANY ways to counter this that would be just as bad for them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #73
86. You're correct
even though I disagree that Jane's actions were stupid. The media twisted it that she was supporting Hanoi...she wasn't...she was standing up against an unjust war just like the protesters today against the invasion of Iraq.

Though I was just a kiddo at the time I remembering believing that what she did was right (I so clearly remember the casuality reports on the evening news every night)even though my parents thought she was a Commie...like so many in the media wanted people to think.
Because of what Jane did I found the courage to protest at the inaugural...her activism helped make me what I am today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #73
90. I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phillybri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
84. Kerry earned the right to say whatever he wanted about that war...
And correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Vietnam Vets Against the War RIGHT????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #84
106. Whatever Kerry said or did, it didn't seem to hurt him in Massachusetts
Now you'll get to see how it plays out in the big wide open.

Since people compare him to Lincoln I'd remind you of what the original said. Something along the lines of you can fool some of the people, some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Kerry fit right in among the other grey eminences in the Senate, and in the liberal hotbox of Kennedy's home state. He even appeals to a lot of the minority of voters who show up for Democratic primaries.

He's the favorite of a minority of a minority of voters nationwide.

Then he has to go out and confront an incumbent President who has all the wealth and power of his office, and the bonus points of having to fight a war. Sounds a lot like Bob Dole to me.

Bush could still blow it but if he manages to stumble through even a mediocre campaign, John Kerry will be toast.

Pity more people can't see that now. More of a pity that I'll have to listen to years of people explaining how if they'd only known...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
85. Who cares what Chris Matthews says! Nobody's listening!
Yeah, I'm sure that all two dozen of the people who regularly watch Hardball plus the four dozen or so who regularly listen to Imus in the BORING might take notice, but the majority of the people in America weren't listening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #85
107. In one of Mahler's Symphonies it's really hard to distinguish the
third violin, or the guy playing sixth coronet.

Its the total effect that makes the impression of great music.

Chris Matthews may be playing the triangle but he's part of a much larger orchestra.

Listen and learn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
littlejoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
97. Certainly somewhere there has to be photos of Bush
slobbering drunk at a frat party, leaning over a table to do a line of coke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phrenzy Donating Member (941 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
104. A Bomb Easily Diffused
At first reading this thread I was a little concerned. But, Oh my god - as soon as I saw the picture and then read that the pic was taken a full TWO YEARS before she made her trip to Hanoi - I said WTF?

How can any of you believe this will be a 'scandal'

If anything, I would LOVE the Republicans to try to make hay out of this screaming about Hanoi Jane and John Kerry - Let them put all their eggs in that basket - wait until the time is right - have Kerry come out and forcefully explain the situation (2 year difference) - and say that he was thought her actions in Hanoi were wrong - and that's it - Situation OVER.

Also, while there may be problems and 'inconsistencies' with some of Kerry's positions over the years (who doesn't have those?) - They pale in comparison to the outright lies that Bush told. And if he can articulate what those lies are and why they are important - he will do more damage to Bush than they ever could do to him.

The presidency is his (and the rest of us Dems) to lose. Are we going to just wring our hands over every imperfection of our candidate - or are we going to gear up our defense while mounting our own 'shock and awe' offense.

Always remember DU and FR are NOT America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemNoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
109. This a huge misrepresentation of what happened on Imus
Matthews was laughing at the idea of connecting Kerry to Jane Fonda based on that picture. This is taken way out of context.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piperay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
117. That's not good but
you can't help who joins your side. Kerry isn't responsible for every single person who was anti-war or what other stuff they supported or didn't support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WarNoMore Donating Member (530 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
119. I have ambivalent feelings about Kerry,
but I sometimes wonder if, with this focus on Viet Nam, that maybe the scab can be picked off and we can start the delayed process of healing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Nov 27th 2014, 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC