"I've seen him walk into a room, and the opposition candidate will literally start mumbling,"

[wyldwolf]

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has turned to Averell "Ace" Smith -- who earned his stripes as one of the nation's most feared political opposition researchers -- to steer her campaign in California.

Smith, 48, is genteel, soft-spoken and bespectacled -- but also is the epitome of a take-no-prisoners political operative who has built a reputation as a dogged researcher and, more recently, a winning California campaign manager, political allies and opponents agree.

"I've seen him walk into a room, and the opposition candidate will literally start mumbling," said former Democratic strategist Clint Reilly, who has run campaigns for U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein and former Democratic state Treasurer Kathleen Brown and has worked with Smith. "They're just totally terrified with his presence."

Smith, 48, surprised California political veterans by jumping from the role of top political researcher to the role of campaign manager during Antonio Villaraigosa's successful 2005 run for mayor of Los Angeles against then-incumbent James Hahn.

Villaraigosa credits Smith with making the "biggest difference" in the campaign's message in what became a landslide victory.

"He's single-minded in his focus, intensely disciplined and loyal," Villaraigosa said of Smith, who remains a trusted adviser. "He loves politics and thrives in the heat of battle ... (and) has an incredible intensity level. He comes to play the game, and he works from the first minute to the last."

More at link:


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/12/MNGIMPQ12L1.DTL&type=politics

---------------------------------
EDIT: COPYRIGHT. PLEASE POST ONLY
4 OR 5 PARAGRAPHS FROM THE
COPYRIGHTED NEWS SOURCE PER
DU RULES.

[MethuenProgressive]

1. "the boiler-room attack mentality of the Hillary crowd. The strategy there is rip your lungs out."

They'll need that running against Rudy McRomney and the Hillary Haters. Kerry, in hindsight, should've adopted such a policy.

[karynnj]

4. I don't think it would have worked in 2004

Bush was a sitting President, who many people to a very real degree had boned to in the wake of 911 when they saw him as a leader because they so badly need one.

Kerry had to both make people comfortable with him and to make the case that Bush was leading us in the wrong direction - he nearly did it. Kerry did in the last month hit very very hard on the incompetence in running the war (not securing the ammo dumps and that ammo is in the ieds being thrown at "our kids" and Tora Bora) and also in going to war in Iraq when it was not a war of last resort.

What was likely more needed was some way to get out more on who Kerry was. Those of us in the Kerry group are still often surprised to find significant things Kerry did that never came out in 2004. (An example was that in an article on a long time SFRC staffer who retired after 20 years, she spoke of work that she did with Kerry (whose staffer she was). They were drafted the agreement with Vietnam that led to recognizing Vietnam which led to the focused effort to repatriate the remains of Americans - including Dean's brother. They also wrote the legislation that provided the first funding for combatting AIDS in Africa.

In the recent 100 most influencial people in the world, Kerry wrote the essay on a Cambodian who has headed the effort to get the facts on Pol Pot's atrocities. Time in its lead in mentioned that the UN tribunal that should start later this year was brokered by Senator Kerry.

Most politicians exaggerate their role in everything. That Kerry didn't probably hurt, but once he was the candidate, other Democrats should have pushed to get everything out.

[MethuenProgressive]

6. Good response, thanks - but I think '04 needed more 'fight back' from Kerry/Edwards

[blm]

19. They fought back appropriately and WON - that's why BushInc had to steal it.

And they won WITHOUT any of the bigname Dems spreading out over the broadcast programs and helping them the last two months, as Bush had Giuliani, McCain and Dole popping up almost every day for him.

Hey - remember 1992 and the Clinton is a 'draftdodger' attacks? Guess what war hero came out and defended Bill Clinton throughout that time - John Kerry.

What did you think of the reciprocation?

I know what I think about it, but I am not quite allowed to say.


This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."
>>>>>


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.
On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>>

[Egnever]

22. He may have eked out a win

but it wasn't enough of a win to keep them from stealing it. Bush is the worst pres this country has ever had and kerry couldn't beat him convincingly.

He MAY have actually won but he should have trounced him.

[blm]

25. Bush was the most PROTECTED president this country ever had. Protected by

congress, the corpmedia, and the support of the last Dem president and bigname Dems for his military policies.

When did ANY Dem nominee run against that?

[smoogatz]

39. All the more reason to get down and dirty, early and often.

Nobody ever won an election by crying "no fair," which was pretty much the Kerry strategy from the get-go.

[blm]

41. Really? You mean I just imagined that he challenged Bush to debate their service

records?

I must have. Because NO Dem lawmakers or left media and bloggers took up the repetition of that challnge the way the RW media and blogs backed up Bush on everything.

Did they? The day and day after Kerry made that challenge on Aug 19, 2004, I looked up the archives of various Dem and media sites and couldn't find any mention of it. Yet, I did find links from RWers attacking Kerry for going overboard on his attacks on the swifts and Bush for that matter.


Hmmm....interesting how that RW will always be there trumpeting and backing up BushInc while the left has so little that a nominee can depend on.

[smoogatz]

52. Proves my point.

Kerry "challenged" Bush to "debate" their service records. He did NOT hire opposition researchers to dig up (more, better) dirt on Bush and everyone associated with him and create a bogus front group to run ads attacking Bush et al before they attacked him. He counter-punched, weakly and too late. You can't do that and win an election against a Rove or an Atwater. We KNOW that, already--so why do Democrats continue to defend failed campaigns of the past? We should dissect them, figure out WHY they failed, and try not to keep making the same stupid mistakes again and again. Denying the Kerry team's tragic incompetence won't teach us anything.

[blm]

60. Look what the press did to Rather. You want to believe they would ALLOW a Dem

the exact same leeway to push a truth about Bush as they would give the GOP to lie about a Dem?

Since when?

Were Clinton's counter attacks against the impeachment pushers given the same leeway? Nope. You barely heard a peep about Newt, Livingston, Hyde, Burton and others in the corporate media.

[smoogatz]

62. Rather did it to his own damn, dumb self, with considerable help

from Rove. It was a set-up all the way, obviously, and meant to act as an object lesson for the rest of the corpmedia millionaires' club. Do I think the right kind and quantity of dirt would've stuck to Bush? If it was done right, sure. All you need is the media to report "the controversy." But first you have to create one, with charges so outrageous, and supported by a couple of hundred witnesses, that they can't be ignored. You take out a few full page ads, run a TV spot or two, and the media does the rest. Does it really work both ways? Beats me--as far as I can tell, it's never been tried. George Allen's "macaca" moment was thoroughly reported, and he was supposed to be the new GOP golden boy.

[Forkboy]

77. Your very first line is contradictory

Rather did it to his own damn, dumb self, with considerable help from Rove

[smoogatz]

78. It is? Are you saying a man can't hang himself if another man hands

him the rope?

[Forkboy]

79. Yup..it is.

Either he did it "his own damn,dumb self" or he had help.If he had help then he didn't do it his own self,did he? :shrug:

[smoogatz]

80. Okay, it was a team effort.

Rove handed him the rope, and Rather climbed up on a chair, tied the rope to the ceiling fixture, then tied it around his neck and jumped off the chair.

[Forkboy]

85. LOL

:thumbsup:

I can live with that.

[karynnj]

29. He is the worst President, but at least half the country

did not think so in 2004. In December 2004, Bush had an approval rating of 60%! Kerry and the other Democrats pulled that down in the primaries. Kerry suceeded in defining himself as a CIC. The Republicans suceeded, not in getting most people to believe the SBVT, but in challanging Kerry's image as an honest, strong, brave leader. Protecting that asset -which was genuine - was key and they thought they did enough - the problem was that they didn't expect the media to be as complicit as it was.

Bush hovered around 50%, slightly lower than 50% more often than slightly above. I worried when pundits created a "rule" that an incumbent was in trouble below 50%. It sounds logical - but there was no one in the mid or high 40%s in recent history. The fact is some who said they disaproved of Bush were on the conservative (Pat Buchanan) side.

In 1992, Bush was never above 40% in the last 6 months before the election. He was at 33% before the election.

[smoogatz]

40. I think Kerry made a huge mistake by overplaying his military cred.

Obviously Rove had an attack strategy ready to go, for which the Kerry people had no answer. If they'd studied Rove's history in past elections, they should have been able to predict that he'd attack Kerry on whatever Kerry presented as his greatest strength. I cringed when I saw the whole "reporting for duty" schtick during the convention--not just because it was slightly ridiculous, and seemed to represent an incoherent view of the Iraq war issue, but because I knew that Rove would be going after Kerry's military record in short order--which he did. Kerry ran too much on the past, which is always murky viewed forty years later, and not enough on Bush's despicable record of failure and corruption--which was clear to anyone who cared to look, even in 2004.

[Joe Chi Minh]

54. There was nothing murky in Kerry's past. It's all in your imagination.

If you don't think the American voters saw the imbecilic, cowardly garbage of the Neocon noise-machine for what it was, you must have a very low opinion of your fellow-countrymen.

Why do you base your judgement on the garbage put out by their noise-machine? Who do you think anyone with a half-functioning heart and an IQ in excess of 70 would respect more? A gaggle of raving chicken-hawks or an accredited war hero? It's not rocket-science.

You need to understand that the Republicans never stood a hope in hell of getting elected honestly. And John Kerry could have done hand-springs or tap-danced on the stage, and he'd still have been elected - comfortably. People kind of concentrate somewhat on their physical survival you know, not propaganda that is so plainly, totally at odds with even half-truths.

[smoogatz]

56. For Christ's sake. THE past is murky, I said--

meaning the past is murky by virtue of not being, you know, the present. I wasn't talking about Kerry's past in particular. Why is it that Kerry supporters continue to insist that his crappy campaign performance a) had nothing to do with the fact that he LOST and b) was everyone's fault but his. Yes, Bush/Rove stole the election in Ohio this time around--they went about it very publicly over a period of months and everyone who was paying attention knew exactly what was going on. Yes, they played all sorts of nasty dirty tricks. But Kerry himself, and his candidacy, were also part of the problem. Do you think the Republicans somehow stopped cheating, lying and stealing in '06? Or did the Democrats maybe, just maybe, do a better job of motivating the electorate last time around? You're never going to learn anything if you keep denying the obvious fact that Kerry ran a spectacularly crap-tastic campaign, beginning to end. He looked weak because he WAS weak.

[Joe Chi Minh]

58. Tee Hee. You're still peddling the line that he lost! That says it all.

No need to read any more.

[smoogatz]

61. Kerry won? Why the fuck are we still at war?

Why is the country still so completely fucked up, if Kerry won? If Kerry won, why is George fucking W Bush farting into the Oval Office desk chair at this very moment? What fantasy world are you living in, my friend, in which Kerry won? Winning means you get to be president, no? Or is there some other, happier standard that I'm unaware of? Here, let me write it out for you in big, fat capital letters, so you can't miss it: KERRY DIDN'T WIN. In fact, BUSH IS STILL PRESIDENT, at the least to the extent that he ever was. More to the point, KERRY LOST, UNLESS YOU'RE DELUSIONAL. Does that clear things up for you?

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[karynnj]

83. Katrina happened, which demonstrated the Republicans

complete lack of caring and responsibility, the war got worse, people learned that Bush really did "mislead us into war". They learned that Bush did "outsource the capture of OBL to the Afghan warlords. People saw that in the 2 years after Nov 2004, there were no more terror alerts. Corruption charges, Foley.

Also, Dean rebuilt the state parties. Kerry helped as well - I've met many people who became involved at the local level in answer to his request to do so - I'm one. Kerry's friends set up the Patriot group which defended meny vets from swiftboat type charges. Kerry, himself went defended Patrick Murphy, Joe Sestak and others - a rare instance of the former standard bearer acting as the attack dog for people hoping to be freshman congressmen.

Also, there was Kerry/Feingold which forced the Democrats to spoeak of Iraq. If Kerry were so weak why did he easily steam roll his way to the nomination?

[karynnj]

72. That is mostly RW justification

Kerry did not run on Vietnam. He spent about 3 lines in his convention speech on Vietnam. In fact, Bill Clinton spent far more of HIS time speaking of Kerry going to Vietnam. Given that we all knew that was not sincere, it would have been far better for Clinton to have spoken of things Kerry did when he was President - and there were some impressive stuff - Kerry was the one who drafted the agreement with Vietnam that among other things made an unprecedented effort to recover American remains (such as those of Dean's brother), Kerry and Kennedy authored the children's health insurance bill that was modified to become the Kennedy/Hatch S-CHIP, Kerry authoired much of the COPS program, Kerry wrote the legislation that got funding to combat AIDS and other diseases in Africa.) Between the debates and the convention speech, Kerry spent more time speaking of being a prosecutor.

The problem Kerry had was he had 3 hours of Network time for his convention vs 9 in 2000. Only his speech, Clinton's and Edwards' were covered by the networks. The networks themselves usually had puff biographies of both major party candidates. They even had it for Bush in 2000. In 2004, Frontline had a dual biography of Kerry and Bush. CNN had a "balanced" biography insetad of a typical "and then he was nominated" biogaphy. MSNBC dealt only with the VVAW. (Kerry's friend made "Going Up River" to explain that part of his life - likely because that was the only controversial part of his life.)

Go back and read Kerry's convention speech it both indicted Bush for things he had done and layed out an alternative. Read Kerry's Iraq speech given at NYU in Sept 2004 - that was labeled as the major Iraq speech. The Republicans said it was no different than what Bush was doing - so the media reported that Kerry had no plan and was similar to Bush. Kerry repeated the main points of that speech in every September, October and November speech - he even summarized it on Letterman and the Daily Show. oddly, the ISG pretty much came out with recommendations that were similar to that Kerry plan and the updated Oct 2005 one. Kerry brought up the same points in the debates - Diplomatic summit, nor permanent bases, training the Iraqis quickly, etc. If you loistened to Kerry, it was not murky, but you had to go top CSPAN.

You also couldn't trust the NYT. The NYT had a big front page article that was titled something like Kerry's shifting views on Iraq. The lead paragraph reads as the title, then there were excepts of a Sept 6 2002 NYT editorial, Kerry's pre vote speech, the speech at Georgetown before the war and couple of excepts from 2004 speeches. I read them mystified. They were very consistent. Then their was the author's concluding paragraph that mentioned that they seemed more consistent than they were because Kerry emphasized different things at different times. In reality, the news media - not Kerry - did.

In retrospect, they likely should have made and aired a lot of "Meet the candidate" ads between winning the nomination and the convention. Imagine How an ad explaining all Teresa's work on Green Building, health etc, Kerry's work on acid rain and being part of Gore's committee doing the first hearings on Climate Change, and how it led to their meeting (again) at RIO and how that led to both being part of an effort to help teachers teach sustainability. It would have made it harder for them to trash Teresa and would have countered brilliantly many of the personal attacks. While showing Kerry worked on environmental issues since 1970. Or an ad that traced things he did for veterans, starting with volunteering and advocacy at the VA hospitals since 1970, being one of the co-founders of Vietnam Veterans of America, working to get PTSD recognized etc

In any earlier campaign these things would come out in the media - in 2004, they didn't.

[smoogatz]

81. It's the symbolism. Nobody listens to--or remembers--the speeches.

Kerry comes out on stage and salutes. The "band of brothers" come out and gather around him, as they have all through the primaries. Then he says "Lieutenant Kerry reporting for duty," or whatever. First thing. That's the image I took away from the convention, and the message it sends is pretty unsubtle: Kerry served heroically, Bush didn't, Kerry's better qualified to be CinC--as though the issue was a matter of competence, or degree. Kerry's whole take on the war at the time was just flat wrong: he would've invaded even knowing there were no WMD, but he would have done a better job. Not a particularly compelling or even coherent message. What idiot would invade anyway, knowing there were no WMD? For what purpose, if not to steal the oil? The only idiots I can think of who would do that are the current president and his sidekick, Smirky the ventriloquist's dummy. And yet there was Kerry, frantically cobbling together a position on the war that wouldn't seem too contradictory in light of his pro-war and anti-supplemental votes. Kerry was weak on the war, and everybody knew it--so he chose to downplay the most important issue of the day and offer up his heroic past as a substitute. Big mistake, is all I'm saying. Better to confront Bush directly and aggressively. Better not to have voted for the damn war in the first place, as Kerry has now conceded.

[karynnj]

82. He didn't say "Lieutenant Kerry"

Kerry would NOT have invaded. He was NEVER NEVER NEVER for that. He spoke against the war before it started. He called for regime change here. Don't you remember him saying "wrong war" or that "It was not a war of last resort" Do you know what that means? - Kerry was saying that, per Christian theology, it was not a just war.

What you remember is the Grand Canyon comment where Kerry obviously did not heard the beginning of the question - and he answered the IWR question as he had a million times. It was incoinsistent with millions of other completely consistent comments. It is amazing that people bring up the ONE outlier and ignore all the comments about getting the inspectors in, diplomacy etc.

Obviously, you were not listening to Kerry - so you have no idea what his postion was. Kerry said in several speeches that he would not have invaded. The comments on running the war better had to do with the reality of the fact that we were at war - and his was a plan to GET US OUT leaving some stability. The ISG people understood it a lot better than you. The supplemental vote was not against fundding the war - as was also explained often - he voted for paying for it and having oversight, then against the version that took these two provisions out.

Kerry was consistent in 2004:

- He said he voted to give Bush the leverage he needed to get the inspectors in. Bush promised openly that he would exhaust the diplomacy and go to war only as a last resort
- He said it was the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time", He said Bush mislead us to war" He did confront Bush directly - especially in the debates.
- He also laid out a plan. The Republicans said it was Bush's plan and the media reported that. The plan involved a large summit of the neighbors, diplomacy, helping each segment feel they had a stake in the future Iraq, no permanent bases, rapidly using other country's help to train Iraqis quickly. Does that sound like Bush's plan?

YOU were obviously partt of the problem. You were probably a Deaniac, who never realized that Kerry was as much against the war as Dean or that had Dean won he would have had to say what he would do with Iraq and it would not have been out now. (Look at where they were in 2005 and 2006, Kerry has through that whole interval pushed a more rapid end to the war.)

The media lied, but for politically active Democrats, there was Kerry's web site - which did bot say that Kerry was pro-war and there were Kerry's speeches and literature.

[smoogatz]

84. The usual Kerry-bot talking points.

If he wouldn't have invaded, why did he vote to give Bush the authority to do exactly that? Why enable the slaughter? There's no defending Kerry's "yea" on the IWR--it was obviously an error, and Kerry himself has said so (yet his supporters continue to claim that he was right, somehow, to vote for the IWR, and also right to admit he was wrong). He claims he was misled, yet 23 Senators (including Lincoln fucking Chafee, for God's sake) were somehow prescient enough to see through the Bushco lies and vote the right way. What does it say about Kerry's judgment that he ranked, at best, in the 77th percentile in the Senate on the IWR--a solid "C"? And frankly I don't buy that bullshit line about Kerry not hearing the first part of the "if you knew now" question--it just sounds like more excuse-making from the same excuse-makers who tried to explain away the rest of Kerry's gaffes (all of which are everyone's fault but Kerry's, of course).

As for me being part of the problem, I've got one word for you: bullshit. Yes, I liked and respected Dean, and supported him in the primaries--he was right on Iraq and right on healthcare and was aggressive in going after Bushco, which I admired--but once Kerry won the nomination, I held my tongue (and my nose) and donated both time and money in considerable amounts to his campaign--more than many of his supporters on DU, I'll wager. Did I wish for a better candidate at times? Hell yes--I think most Democrats did. Did I do what I could to help out, nonetheless? You're damned right I did.

My point in all of this is that it continues to amaze me that Kerry supporters are so unwilling to face up to the obvious--Kerry could have run a much stronger campaign, even given his evident shortcomings as a candidate. We ought to be able to talk about what went wrong, and how to keep it from going wrong the next time out. Hillary seems to me to be taking an important step in the right direction, which includes the effective use of opposition research and the willingness to be the aggressor in every campaign, rather than be forced to counter-punch your way out of trouble again and again. That seems a valuable lesson to me, one of the more obvious in the aftermath of the failed Kerry campaign.

[karynnj]

86. You continue to conflate the vote with going to war

Kerry has said that his vote was wrong many many times. Not because it was pro-war, but because he realizes that it was wrong to trust that Bush would use it as he did. I did NOT say his vote was right - but sasid why he said he voted as he did - and he said the same thing when he voted, in Jan 2003 before the war when he spoke of not rushing to war, and all through 2004. When he said his vote was wrong - he still did not change his reason for doing so then - he just said that it was wrong to have trusted Bush. The IWR did not cause the war - it is truely interesting that you apparently don't hold the vote against Hillary, who did NOT speak out against the war before it started.

Dean's position on Iraq was never at any time that differest than Kerry's. They both prefered Biden/Lugar - whish was not what they had to vote on. If anything, Kerry's September comments - as in a September op-ed where he said that America should never go to war because it wants to only as a last resort. Dean, like Kerry, became far more against the war once the inspectors were in and found nothing. Kerry's health proposal was chosen by most healthcare consumer groups as the best - better than Dena's.

As to what I said - how could you have effectively influenced people to vote for Kerry when you didn't bother to learn his positions? As to Kerry's short comings, he was a far better candidate than Dean was. In January 2004, Dean vs Bush was polled and Dean lost by 20 points. It wasn't until Kerry had the Rasmann union and started winning primaries that the Democrats polled as competive. What you don't see is that 2004 was a very difficult year to win.

[smoogatz]

87. Dean was much better positioned to argue against the war

and Bush's conduct of it, since he (unlike Kerry) didn't vote to give Bush the authority to invade. Kerry's position on the war (whatever it was--he'd do it better, or something) was compromised from the get-go. That seems obvious to me. As for Kerry being wrong to have trusted Bush--well, duh. As for Hillary's position on the war, why is that relevant to Kerry? I hadn't said anything about her position on the war, which was/is clearly idiotic. I had only praised her for being smart enough to hire a tough campaign manager who isn't afraid to do some down-and-dirty opposition research.

2004 may have been a difficult year, but a strong Dem candidate would have had a fighting chance. Even Kerry, who fumbled and stumbled his way through much of the campaign, almost pulled it off. Had he been more aggressive in attacking Bush, better at keeping Bush on the defensive, and a bit more awake to Rove's entirely predictable tactics against him, he might very well be sitting in the White House right now.

[karynnj]

91. I doubt Dean would have won

Kerry was not strong enough for you, but Dean vs Bush was a Bush landslide when polls were done.

Kerry did win the anti war people (even if some like you didn't like him). In 2004, that was not enough. He also had to win a significant number of people who thought the war was needed - but that Kerry could do a better job.

Look at the Iowa primary results - the Democrats in the primary were pretty liberal, but Kerry got 38% to Dean's 18. To do this, he got more of the anti-war vote.

[truedelphi]

42. Why are you reveling in the idea that our last Democratic candidate was slimed

Had the election stolen out from under him, and got very little positive media coverage on the mainstream media.

On the other hand, Kerry conceded! Wish to this moment leaves me with the thud of an oppressive boot in my gut.

[truedelphi]

65. BLackwell had already done his dirty work

I think that this whole report is BS.

A black flag report so to speak.

The Blackwell and major dirty trick had come down the night before when the switch occurred.

Something (the switch) that many DU people have commented on - they looked at their TV screen at a given moment (I won't give a time because this is a nation that has several different time zones) and notice happily that Kerry is winning and then an hour later, and the vote has flipped.

So that in the wee hours of the morning, Andy Card can announce that Blackwell has called and announced that the President has enough votes to carry Ohio.

I think inthe wee hours the cards were already laid out as to what to have happen, including Carville getting Kerry to seethat he "had" toresign.

And don't forget, Senator Clinton called John Edwards the day after the election and told him to quit grandstanding when he said that the Party would hang tough and count every vote.

[karynnj]

24. I agree - but not from Kerry

If you think back to the sounds of 2004 - Kerry was very passionate and outspoken on how the soldiers were dying because of the ieds etc. He also was very strong on the repeated "mislead us into war"

These are every bit as strong as anything Dean said. Kerry's well mannered, diplomatic demeanor allowed him to fight back harder than anyone else AS THE PRESIDENTIAL nominee.

I do think that he needed a far stronger defense by others of who he was. The Democrats had an accomplished candidate whose entire life was an open book. There were accomplishments throughout it with no scandals. I think Kerry has always good things without seeking publicity - this is an admirable trait in a person, but not a plus politically. The party should have compensated by getting the many stories out once he was the nominee. (There have been candidates with worse flaws!)

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Immunity is Easy - Just Do the Right Thing

Remember how far their thuggish attack on Dean went last fall? It was pathetic.

[MethuenProgressive]

7. Doing the right thing doesn't count if the public is manipulated into believing lies.

All most people know about John Kerry is what was filtered through the Republican filter of '04.

[karynnj]

30. It was pathetic and sick - but much of the media followed

them - praising Schumer and Emanuel for the 2006 results - though how they would have won some of the seats that they wouldn't have supported a challanger in is beyond me.

[Czolgosz]

68. You don't have to remember all the way back to last fall to recall "thuggish attacks" - just check

the locked threads here in General Discussion: Politics.

[blm]

20. Why didn't this attack team oppose Bush and the GOP from 2001 thru 2006

especially on matters like Roberts and Alito and the Plame outing and the Downing Street Memos and other major issues for Democrats?

If they were the top dogs, then why didn't they oppose George W Bush and Rove when it mattered?

[wyldwolf]

23. If John Kerry had only fought back in 2004...

[AtomicKitten]

53. if only

The irony of that choice is his 'yeah war' 2004 platform and then failing to fight back against the onslaught of the Swift Boat Liars, scrubbing the 2004 Democratic Convention speeches to include only happy talk and no Bush-bashing, and being furious with McAullife for telling the truth and calling Bush AWOL.

It was a bag of mixed messages that fell flat.

I want a candidate that takes the election seriously enough to fight.

[Morgana LaFey]

37. You're missing something very important --

that all-important middle step. The one where they eviscerate all their DEMOCRATIC competition. It's too early for someone like that for the general election; this is for the primary, and in California which has the most delegates.

As I was reading the OP, I thought to myself: how ironic that there are DUers, Hillary supporters among them, who literally can't stand it when a critical word is said about ANY Democrtic candidate. And along comes Saint Hillary and look -- she'll be first in line to bash her Democratic opponents. Highly ironic. I'm going to bookmark this thread for future nose rubbing purposes.

[windy252]

49. Hmm.

This could be interesting. I've been wanting a good candidate, but someone who's also not afraid to have an attack dog. Edited for spelling.

[Adelante]

2. Worth its weight in gold

When the heat comes down, good oppo is what carries.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. The Rest Of The Candidates Have A Fella Named 'Carl Bernstein'

He's pretty good at what he does.

Good track record of taking out Republicans.

[wyldwolf]

8. ... only the rightwing will buy his regurgitated rumors.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Have You Read His Book? n/t

[wyldwolf]

10. No, just the tantilizing teasers (regurgitated same old same old) he's released

Oh, well. Maybe it will sell better than his last two bombs, uh, books.

[PDittie]

11. Our Karl Rove

Good thing or bad thing?

[wyldwolf]

13. Let's ask...

John "phony war hero" Kerry.
Al "too stiff" Gore.
Michael "card carrying member of the ACLU" Dukakis

I'm sure they would have benefited from someone who could respond to the smears in kind.

[PDittie]

15. We can also ask Hillary

since she hired him.

You think he'll get an office in the White House after she's elected?

[blm]

26. Even before that - remember the "Clintons trashed the WH' lie that was never countered?

The Clintons AND their WH staff were smeared with that lie, and no attack dogs emerged to fight it - - - why?

Do these 'attack' dogs only emerge every seven years or something?

[wyldwolf]

27. No "attack dogs" have emerged now. One has been hired. Imagine if Kerry had hired one.

[blm]

28. No Dem ever hired them from 2001 thru 2006 to oppose Bush policies like Alito?

Interesting.

I wonder what THIS means? You think maybe guys like this will only work for establishment types and not goo-goos? Maybe it's the establishment they work for and not individuals.

What do YOU think? Are ALL strategists available to all Dems or do they weed out the goo-goos, like Rahm Emmanuel spoke of last week?

It's HARD being a goo-goo. We get so little support from the establishment.

This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."
>>>>>>


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg
I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.

On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>>

[wyldwolf]

31. No Dem (Kerry) ever hired them in 2004 to oppose the swift boat attacks?

[The Magistrate]

43. Twice In One Thread, Ma'am, Seems A Tad Excessive

Especially for something you have been putting up almost daily for months already. Even the sharpest routine grows stale with such repetition, and ceases to be able to command the attention of an applauding audience....

[blm]

45. Oh, you know me, dear Magistrate - I've never been one looking for applause, just honesty.

And I hope that counts for something with those who dislike what I post.

[The Magistrate]

46. Never Under-rate, Ma'am, the Value Of Amusing the Audience....

And remember it is always a mistake to over-rate the value of a few tit-bits atomized out of any context, in service of a pre-conceived view, as a tool for changing the minds of others....

[blm]

47. The view was never pre-conceived. It developed AFTER the evidence mounted.

And you of all people should know that after all these years.

[wyldwolf]

48. well, my mind has been changed based on her posts...

... but not to the state she'd hoped.

[Tellurian]

32. Kerry's attack dog was a Garden Club member, if I recall:

Mary Beth Cahill.

[karynnj]

35. I think she doesn't get the credit she deserved - maybe because she is a woman

She ran a nearly flawless primary campaign. The general election campaign which was much larger - as the general election requires - had more problems. Part of the problem was that some people who were not in the primary campoaign thought they should be running things and whenever their path was not chosen they went whining to the press - an action that hurt the campaign.

[blm]

38. If the campaign was so bad, why did BushInc have to steal it to remain in office?

And if 2004 was EVER going to be easy, more of the Dems running today would have run in 2004. But how many WANTED to run against Busha nd Rove in 2004?

Not many.

[Tellurian]

50. Watch the dvd "So Goes the Nation"..

Here is a trailer..You should rent it and learn what Cahill has to say at the end..

http://www.sogoesthenationmovie.com/

[karynnj]

67. It is conventional, that history is rewritten

Bill Clinton won in 1992, therefore the "War room" glorified what was a trouble prone campaign. They had an extremely smart charming candidate running against a President who fell below 40%. They also had Perot bashing the President very successfully than appearing to be unstable.

What is Cahill suppose to say? I ran a brilliant campaign. Should she blame the candidate? The media? Especially when it was that close, every little decision will be second guessed. Not just by her, but I assume Kerry likely has done that with himself. What I can see is that winning was an uphill race. All you need to do is look at thge fact that the mainstream media STILL refers to the SBVT questioning Kerry's record (or that they questioned that he exaggerated it - even though what they question is the NAVY's record), but they refer to Rather investiogation of Bush using far more negative terms. If there were a time warp, Cliton 1992 would have been buried in a landslide in 2004.

[fooj]

69. I've got a video YOU might be interested in...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7850559484065398098&pl=true

I don't know why I'm amazed to hear the venom spewed on these Rah Rah Hillary threads daily. Not just the venom, but the EXACT same DUers over and over and over and over again spewing it. Shit. It's disgusting. Do you really think that THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR positively promotes a candidate? Do you people get up in the morning geared to rip the hearts out of anyone who DARES challenge a position? It's absolutely incredible.

Nevermind. It's all about Hillary. By your OWN post, you claim one candidate to be a "bore"...
This isn't an exclusive website for Hillary alone. You obviously don't play well with others. I find it COMPLETELY offensive that any other DEMOCRATIC (yes, democratic) candidate gets their jugular vein slit any time a Hillary supporter is involved. Oh. That's right. You refer to her as "Her Majesty"...

BTW- those are YOUR words. Pretty wild terminology for a democracy. Wild or innapropriate. Take your pick.

[madrchsod]

12. cool... we have the anti-rove weapon!

he`s our ruthless son of a bitch who will stop at nothing to achieve our victory over the enemies of the democratic party. we have become them....

[Tellurian]

14. Yep, if you haven't been in a war and know what it takes to best your opponent..

then you wind up like Kerry!

[blm]

21. Obvious question: Why didn't he oppose Rove/Bush from 2001 thru 2006?

Didn't 2002 election fraud matter? Didn't Iraq lies matter at that point? Didn't Rove's election fraud matter? Didn't Alito matter? Didn't Downing Street Memos matter?

When are these 'specialists' supposed to come out to fight for the Democratic party and its issues?

[rinsd]

51. Maybe he was spending his time blaming other Democrats for Republican-caused problems?

Or he was a oppo research specialist based in CA that has recently come to the attention of big wigs in the party.

He helped Villaraigosa win the LA mayorship and Jerry Brown get elected state AG.

[illinoisprogressive]

16. Yawn

[wyldwolf]

17. say, isn't that what people were doing during Obama's speech last week?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6Z2MuFWm84

[Tellurian]

18. yep, I've noticed he draws the crowd..

then loses them to boredom..

[ronnykmarshall]

55. SNAP!

:spray:

[Grandrose]

33. Do not need him....

from what I see on the DU posts, the Hillary supporters are involved in snide remarks about Sen. Obama. Since I am a uncommitted Democrat, it is upsetting this early in the process, for the petty attacks!
I suggest keeping the campaigning to facts and positions! :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

34. For the reason you give, I don't believe you are "a uncommitted Democrat"

If you haven't noticed that the snide remarks about Hillary far surpass those of Obama, then you're either an Obama supporter or you're not really paying attention.

[Grandrose]

66. You just proved my point!

I guess we know who you support and maybe I should add condescending too?
I really do not care if you believe that I am uncommitted, Obama supporter or lack attention!!!:eyes:
Btw I was uncommitted between Hillary and Obama, thanks to your insight into my thought process, I will now....definitely support Obama! :)

[papau]

70. LOL - pointing out anyone's lack of "facts and positions" gets called sliming - esp if Obama 's

lack of positions (he does have most of the facts) is noted, or that the ideas he has like the $75 B fix (over 10 years I believe) to a 2 trillion a year health cost are "small steps" -

Or even noting that the New Yorker has noted that Obama told them that he is not into big changes can get you put downs.

The Hillary crowd points to her Senate web page issues list - but then I point to the lack of info on single payer and ending the wage cap for Soc Security tax. But the Hillary folks then say wait - coming soon.

Indeed that is a line the Obama folks recently adopted.

I am hoping we will soon have "facts and positions" for every candidate with which to compare and chose our candidate.

[Diane R]

36. This is very depressing. Replace bush and Rove with Hillary and another Rove? I hope not.

[The Magistrate]

44. He Sounds Like A First Rate Fellow, Mr. Wolf

A punch-out artist is useful to have at your side.

[Cameron27]

57. Good, we need a tough street fighter,

you can't fight the repigs by being nice.

[AtomicKitten]

59. ditto

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[zulchzulu]

64. Wow... so does this dude have the "opposition research" on Senator Clinton?

What a pathetic thread.

So the press release basically points out that the campaign hired some bad ass negative campaign expert who apparently thrives on opening up cans of worms, exploits them and does it with a vengence.

The title should be:

Clinton Campaign Hires Dirty Politics Expert To Trash California Political Landscape

I can see the ads now...

[Tellurian]

71. only pathetic to those who are foolish enough to bring a knife to a gunfight!

And here is a second researcher- sorry if it affects your sensibilities. But the Repigs are devoid of ethics and morals and never entertain the notion of a fair fight..

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/

[ProudDad]

75. Uh, she hired this prick

to trash the other Dems.

[Tellurian]

76. the other dems

are doing a good job on their own..

nope, they are for the republicans..she can handle the local action.

[ProudDad]

73. Ah

more form over substance.

Gotta love the U.S. version of an elec...uh, horse race...

[flyarm]

74. well where was this smith guy when arnuldddd took governorship from a duly elected dem governor??

seriously so where was this god of campaign gurus??

where was he for a dem running for governor then??

this is bs.........propaganda!!

fly