A request for Elizabeth Edwards

[beachmom]

In light of Elizabeth Edwards' comments that she was very disappointed that John Kerry conceded "so quickly", I think it only fair that she provide the following information to back up her claim:

1. Please post all evidence that the Democratic election legal team had on November 3, 2004 to hold off on a concession.

2. Please state unequivocally that John Edwards argued at the time that this was enough legal evidence to make the legal case to continue in court, and please tell us who he argued this to.

3. Be specific. Generalities really don't work with such an explosive sweeping statement (for which I believe there was a variance of in her book).

Cameron Kerry already answered these questions:

COUNTING EVERY VOTE
Boston Globe, THIRD, Sec. Op-Ed, p A11 01-06-2005
By BY CAMERON F. KERRY

SO NOW THE VOTES IN OHIO HAVE BEEN RECOUNTED, AND IT'S TIME FOR CONGRESS TO TALLY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. BUT WHILE THE ELECTION IS OVER, A FIGHT GOES ON TO PROTECT EVERYONE'S RIGHT TO VOTE AND MAKE SURE EVERY VOTE IS COUNTED.

I wish it weren't so, but the final facts look like the picture on the morning of Nov. 3 when my brother, John Kerry, ended his campaign for president. As campaign leaders sat in a Boston war room overlooking a dwindling Election Night rally in the plaza below, on the phone was a team of smart, tough veterans who know how to count votes and how votes get counted. All were veterans of Florida in 2000 who would have jumped at a rematch with Karl Rove and James Baker III.

In the room was Deval Patrick, former assistant attorney general for civil rights. In Washington was Michael Whouley, the never-say-die loyalist who stopped Al Gore from conceding; Jack Corrigan, who helped fight Bush v. Gore in the courts and the precincts; and Robert Bauer and Marc Elias, leading election lawyers and Kerry campaign counsel.

On the phone from Ohio was the chief of the legal team there, David Sullivan, longtime election counsel for the Massachusetts secretary of state, who himself was a plaintiff more than 30 years ago in a lawsuit to register college students and - with me - a defendant in unsuccessful lawsuit brought against us for properly challenging vote fraud.

They were backed by 3,300 lawyers on Ohio's election protection team, part of more than 17,000 Kerry-Edwards lawyers nationwide. They were joined by 8,000 lawyers with the nonpartisan Election Protection Coalition of the NAACP, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, People for the American Way, and other organizations and thousands more lay volunteers and observers.

Did the Edwards speak to this legal team? Did they tell them their grievances? Enquiring minds would like to know.

If Elizabeth Edwards is unable or unwilling to elaborate on her comment with specifics, then I think it best that she refrain from saying things she cannot back up.

Note: Deval Patrick is now governor of Massachusetts.

[Lerkfish]

1. I think she has a right to bring up a very valid point about something that she was

directly involved with.

apparently, you disagree.

[LittleClarkie]

Where does she say that Edwards didn't have the right.?

And the OP has the right to ask for elaboration, and to disagree in return, and bring up her own perfectly valid points.

[Lerkfish]

85. you may have a valid point overall: I was reacting to this section:

If Elizabeth Edwards is unable or unwilling to elaborate on her comment with specifics, then I think it best that she refrain from saying things she cannot back up.


I thought the idea that someone who actually was there when it happened, being treated like she's lying or has to corroborate her own observations or else refrain from commenting, struck me as very odd.

Would Elizabeth Edwards herself be a prime source for the information she's talking about?

[Hieronymus]

90. Absolutely, she has a every right .. except of course, to people who

dislike John Edwards.

[Deep13]

2. You want her to prove that she was disappointed?

:shrug:
Ones emotional state does not require objective justification.

[beachmom]

3. Put up or shut up, actually. You're telling me that the VP candidate

had nothing to do with the concession? That is a stretch. It's not like the Edwards were just regular citizens watching TV like us. I would like to know what role they played on Nov. 2nd/3rd. Did they lobby directly to not concede? If not, then why bring it up after it is too late?

[Henryman]

4. Making things up...

It looks to me that you (beachmom) are making things up in the absolute in order to argue against them. Who told you that "the VP candidate had nothing to do with the concession"? It's like saying 1) All witches have six toes. 2) You have never proven to me that you don't have six toes. Therefore 3) You are a witch. I wonder if you are supporting Kerry or just disrespecting Edwards, or something else.

[babylonsister]

5. Sounds to me like beachmom was trying to find out how the Edwards

fought this. :shrug: I'd like to know, too, given the current comments from Mrs. Edwards.

[MH1]

18. They have done NOTHING.

It is sufficient to them, apparently, to merely complain about what someone else didn't do.

[MH1]

10. If someone wants to gripe, then I want to know what THEY DID.

From where I sit, I don't see that the Edwards have exactly been balls of fire at correcting election problems in this country.

Kerry's concession speech was legally non-binding. WTF is so hard to understand about that? Here is the word from an activist on the ground about what really happened after Nov 2 2004:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/4/23/115230/700/26#c26

I worked as a Green volunteer . . . (12+ / 0-)
...
on the recount here in Ohio and you're right, Kerry's team was here all the way. In one of the counties I witnessed in, his witnesses worked late into the night with our coordinator and uncovered false numbers that led to the revelation that every ballot in the county had been recounted w/o witnesses between the certified vote and the official recount itself.

I think Kerry felt he couldn't get bogged down in protesting the vote here, that the larger strategy of waking the American people to the true intentions of the Bush administration and its perfidy demanded that he kept moving. But that doesn't mean his campaign hasn't been involved in the recount or the lawsuits that have grown out of from it.

The wide range of candidates in the Dem presidential primary broke through the Wurlitzer din, Kerry made himself a lightning rod for Swiftboaters and Republican Gay-bashing hypocricy to expose more of how the BushCo right really operates and what it's about. After the election the battle on SS exposed even more, while all the while in the background the lies and the war continued to play out.

I think if we step back far enough we see a strategy that respects citizens and is working. Democrats drawing media attention to various issues that are ultimately connected -- corruption, congressional toadies, investigative whitewashes, legislative pandering, etc. -- planting the seeds of questioning that challenge the propaganda narrative in place.

I truly admire Kerry and the many Democrats like Murtha, Feingold, Kennedy, Reid, Boxer, etc., who working from different angles to awaken the broader electorate to the real crisis we face . . .

Don't ask me nothin' 'bout nothin'; I just might tell you the truth -- Bob Dylan

by ponderer on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 01:14:12 PM EST

Now, meanwhile 2004 is PAST HISTORY. We have FUTURE ELECTIONS to protect. What, pray tell, have the Edwards actually done on that front? What efforts have they undertaken to support a voter-verified paper trail, or outlaw electronic voting? I don't even have to agree with their exact position - just show me that they've done something.

If they just went away and did nothing themselves, and now want to gripe and moan, then they don't have a leg to stand on. Talk is cheap, and that's all they seem to have.

[Botany]

6. John Kerry's top attorney in Ohio was told of the highly irregualr vote ...

... in Cayahoga County (Cleveland). I don't know the exact date when Kerry's
lawyer was told of the data but Kerry was very much aware of many problems.

Ask me how I know this?????? The attorney in charge of the recount in Ohio
told me that her personaly showed Kerry's attorney the data. His name is
Cliff Arnebeck.

Kerry was also aware of the Warren County lock down of the vote count because
of a bogus terror warning.

Kerry's operation was also aware of phone hacks and computerhacks to his HQ in
Ohio before the election. I know this because I was doing volunteer work there.

Kerry also said, "Every vote counts and we will make sure every vote is counted."

I live in Ohio and he did not do that.

[spooky3]

9. did I ever tell you you are my favorite truth-teller?

[Clark2008]

23. Oh - we know Kerry didn't do anything.

I think the OP is trying to find out what, exactly, John Edwards did (which probably was little).

:hi: Bot!

[LittleClarkie]

57. I think the timing is interesting as well

Old news, and in time to distance Edwards from the anger some still feel toward Kerry. Doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose otherwise, as we have heard this before, that Edwards wasn't terribly happy with the concession. Just picking at an old wound.

[Cameron27]

66. Why open old wounds...

exactly right. John Edwards owes a little something to Kerry for being picked for the VP spot, and his campaign wasn't being hurt by this at all, so why the slap?

[beachmom]

24. If you read my OP, you will see I said "legal evidence that could be tried in court"

It would need to be enough votes to overturn the election that could be PROVEN in a court of law.

[jgraz]

29. That's a red herring and you know it

Kerry was so quick to concede, so quick to preserve his viability for another run, that he never had time to find the evidence. That kind of fight is a political fight, even more than a legal one. Check out the Orange Revolution if you're still confused about how patriots fight against election theft.

[beachmom]

32. Well, gee, where were the Edwards lodging their protest on national TV, then?

Why didn't they walk out in protest? Why wait and then spread rumors across the internet?

[jgraz]

38. They did the same thing we all did

When your candidate collapses like a wet paper towel, you really have nothing left. We were all ready to fight for John Kerry, but we could do very little if he wasn't ready to fight for us.

[benny05]

55. I wasn't going to get into this pie fight

But that comment just crossed the line. I know there are still some bitter feelings on both sides, and fine if you are pissed about her comments. However, may I remind you that Elizabeth's life was in danger as it was because of that huge lump in her breast? She put the campaign first even though she knew she should have been in the hospital. She was wisked away to Mass General right after the concession speech.

You can complain all you want about what she said, and I have no issue with it. This same pie fight happened a year ago. But to suggest they walk out in protest the same day and spread rumors on the Internet? That is an intellectually bankrupt comment.

[LittleClarkie]

58. She is in the political arena making bold statements. As such, she is open to rebuttal and criticism

I feel bad for her and her cancer. But that is a separate thing from reacting and commenting to what she has to say.

It's a cop out to say that rebuttal and criticism is out of line because the woman has cancer. Cancer has not coated her with teflon.

[benny05]

61. That is not what was said

The quote was "why didn't walk out in protest and spread rumors on the Internet" the day of the concession. The poster has a right to take issue with Mrs. Edwards, but a life threatening health problem in which Mrs. Edwards had to be hospitalized is a damned good reason "for not walking out in protest and spread rumors on the Internet." If it isn't to you, then you have zero compassion for anyone. Complaints about Mrs. Edwards's comments I have no quibble with.

[LittleClarkie]

67. Sorry, I misread. I see what you're saying now.

What was she supposed to do, wheel herself out with an IV in her arm? I forgot how quickly that news came after the election ended.

[beachmom]

64. Cancer? Why are you talking about cancer? That is not relevant to this conversation.

EE has been clear that she does not want to be thought of as the cancer lady. I am honestly asking why she makes a big deal about the concession speech after the fact while staying mum at the time. So now you are saying that she can say whatever she wants and not be held accountable for it, because she is sick?? And are you arguing with me that the rumors on the internet weren't that different from what went into her book? Please.

[Beaverhausen]

68. She was first diagnosed with breast cancer 2 days after the election

I think it was two days, it may have been the next day. You asked what she did AT THE TIME. Well, she was a little busy with chemo.

[beachmom]

71. Then why say Kerry conceded too early? Especially if she was preoccupied with something else. n/t

[Beaverhausen]

76. Many of us do think he conceded too early-preoccupied or not.

I'm really trying to figure out why it's so terrible for her to be "disappointed" that he conceded. Millions of us are similarly disappointed. Doesn't mean I think less of Kerry or anything, it just means I'm disappointed.

You don't seriously think Bush really won in 2004, do you?

[karynnj]

65. They said nothing for at least a year and a half

and John had many many speeches in that time.

[Botany]

53. They had more then enough stuff not to concede and to demand a real

look into what happened.

Lucas County .... Principal locks machines in his office and does not show up for
work the next day election day.

Phone Hacks .... I tried calling the Kerry Senate office and tried to get'em to listen
to a block on an election fraud hot line .... I got the # 2 man in Ohio to listen to it
and he did nothing. Same w/ the Ohio Dem Party.

Lock Down of the vote count in Warren County

The loss of over 300,000 Provisional Ballots from early AM on 11/3/04 to about noon
on 11/3/04

Exit polls well beyond any margin of error.

Thousands of first person accounts of election day problems.

trust me I was here in Ohio when it happened.

[Blaukraut]

48. being aware is one thing, how much they could do about it

is another thing altogether. Let's remember who Ohio's SOS was at the time: Blackwell, friend of Bush, the same one who promised to deliver the election to his buddy.

So we have to start with that premise.
Was Ohio therefore counted and recounted by the rules in place in Ohio at the time, and was the Ohio Dem infrastructure strong enough to assure that all the votes were cast and counted that COULD be cast and counted?

Or was this all up to Kerry? Was he supposed to have worked on all those problems in the 6 months he was the nominee?

[Botany]

52. Trust me the Ohio Dem Party rolled over and played dead too.

However once the top of the ticket quit trying then it left a lot of us out to dry.

on 11/15/04 I gave testimony about what I saw and heard and the room was packed ....
hundreds of people gave testimony about votes being flipped, machines that were
shorted, voter registrations that were no longer valid enough though the person had
lived in the same house for 20 years, and all kind of other stuff.

The Ohio Dem party had people there, Kerry was supposed to {I could not find 'em},
and tons of media .... the hearing got zero play in the media except for the Columbus
Dispatch, which buried the story on pg. 7 of the metro section with one little line @ the
bottom ....
"Some people reported that their votes for Kerry showed up as voting for Bush."

[Mass]

7. To be honest, I am even more interested to know what they intend to do for fair elections.

Sure, she is now claiming that her husband did not want to concede, but they have been silent for nearly 2 years about that, and, to my knowledge, have done and said very little to make this a central point in the election.

So, may be she was disappointed, but what do they intend to do?

[Cameron27]

8. I think your questions are valid.

K&R

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. You wanted her to do all that after Kerry conceded and she was on

a hospital bed?

[MH1]

12. Now that she is healthy enough to campaign and lob pot shots

She damned sure ought to back it up.

If she wants to campaign this way, then hiding behind her illness just won't work.

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. She is taking the battle up, now that she's healthy.

But for you to insist she should have done something back then, when Kerry, who was the President candidate, conceded, is irrational on your part.

Frankly, even if she had been healthy, it was Kerry's campaign. It was Kerry's decision. It wasn't Edward's place to fight it back then. That would have looked worse.

[MH1]

16. WHAT is she doing to protect the vote?

Other than whining about 2004?

[The Backlash Cometh]

35. Speaking up, is a good start. Never let them forget that we know those

elections were stolen.

[Mass]

45. You're right - It WOULD BE a good start.

Now, I have not heard the full interview, so she may have gone after the GOP and their cheating machine, but, from the only excerpt I have read, I do not see that. I see a conventional criticism of Kerry and nothing against the GOP election machine or even whatever happened in Ohio.

Even if I were to take her claim that Edwards was ready to fight at face value, why is she stopping at criticizing Kerry?

[The Backlash Cometh]

47. You know what amazes me?

Her criticism of Kerry amounted to saying she was very disappointed. Am I wrong? Was there more? That's it?

No wonder Democrats are so squeamish about taking on George Bush. If saying that you're disappointed in someone, can drum up this much shock and awe within the Democratic ranks, no wonder they don't have the stomach to do something that will make George Bush cry.

[Lucinda]

108. Actually, she's not particularly healthy

Her cancer has returned, in what I've heard referred to as an incurable form, yet she's working her bum off for what she believes in.
Amazing lady.
And I think she's right to say what she did, and I love Kerry. I just think he folded too soon.

[The Backlash Cometh]

109. I didn't know that about Elizabeth. I'm sorry to hear tthat, however,

as long as she is strong and willing to fight, I'll be here to support her.

And, yes, I love Kerry too. Of all the candidates out there, I find some way to give to his campaign anytime they call. I've been consistent that way. He appears to have learned from his mistake, and he's become one hell of a fighter.

[Lucinda]

118. Yep. I found John through my respect for Elizabeth.

I think Edwards and Kerry both learned a lot, and are putting that knowledge to work.

[LSK]

25. so if Mark Crispin Miller makes the SAME CLAIMS, is he taking pot shots

Or legitimate concerns?

[beachmom]

28. MCM was not the vice presidential candidate with direct access

to all the major legal players on November 3rd. Many of you don't seem to understand I am focusing on the Edwardses here. What did they DO to stop the concession? What did they say, and who did they tell? If they did nothing when it matter most when they actually had power and influence, then this is a whole lot of hot air and needs to stop immediately.

[Beaverhausen]

54. But the OP asked what she did at the time

IIRC, she was diagnosed with breast cancer 2 days after the election. I'm sorry, but that might have been a little more important to them at the time.

[DURHAM D]

13. On a political note -

It has been asked why Kerry has not endorsed John Edwards. These kind of comments from Elizabeth, as well as snarky comments she made about Teresa in her book, could be the reason.

[MH1]

20. That does seem likely.

The more EE snipes, the more good will she loses from potential supporters. Even if JK endorses Edwards now, it will be hard for me to support him.

[zulchzulu]

30. It could also be...

...that Edwards wanted Kerry's endorsement and he got a dial tone at that moment the request was made...

Why the Edwards campaign would attack Kerry by proxy is only going to hurt them and they wonder why the campaign is flagging...

[jsamuel]

14. Guys... this is not the first time they have said this.

It's just the first time you paid attention to it.

[MH1]

17. No it's not.

What have they DONE to protect elections since they first started whining?

One comment a while ago wouldn't have been that big a deal to me, and that's why I probably stayed out of the discussions then. But I am tired of the all talk no walk that I am seeing from these guys. Show me how they have done some actual work on the issue, other than just whining.

[beachmom]

19. In my OP I note that it was in her book. You're right that this is not the first time.

I tried to ignore it, but then she brings it up again. You know, last time I saw a poll with Kerry's name in it, he had 8% of the primary vote in early '07 after extraordinarily bad publicity. That's not nothing. Instead of alienating a whole group of voters, who wanted Kerry to run again, perhaps the Edwards can refrain from bashing Kerry and start wooing his supporters. You don't do that by attacking JK.

[karynnj]

102. I've complained for about a year

every time it came up. As Mass has pointed out, they, at least then, never brought this up in MSM, just in blogosphere interviews where it would be welcome. In Elizabeth Edwards' book, it can almost be read both ways. If you think she is speaking of outright challanging the election - you read it that way. If not, it can be read as disappoint with the way the numbers played out and a bit of normal denial.

John Edwards did not chose at any point to speak of known election problems and the need to fix them. Kerry actually did and has laid out verified things that did happen in both the Senate and the MSM. He is not going to claim anything he has less than solid proof on. This is why he was such a successful investigator as a Senator and a prosecutor.

The Edwrads are both lawyers, I assume they know the level of proof needed. Neither were in any field close to election law. Why would they think that they know better than the best lawyers in the party - and Senator Kerry, for that matter.

[LSK]

21. are you kidding me??? most of DU was in outrage that Kerry conceded at the time

And why should Kerry have not conceded??? EXIT POLLS. In fact the exit polls on election day afternoon showed a Kerry landslide. Also do you forget the massive lines in Cleveland late on election night???


:wtf:

[jgraz]

33. Exactly. The hard evidence was there after the early returns

Kerry simply did not have to courage to act on it. Plain and simple.

[jgraz]

34. dup -- Bush is an ass-carrot

[ProSense]

50. Why didn't John Edwards fight? Don't say Kerry told him not to.

What kind of leader blames someone for not standing up and then uses the excuse that someone told him not to?

If Edwards believes he won, why didn't he fight tooth and nail for his win?

Also, what has he done with regard to voting rights?

[surfermaw]

22. Maybe you should pull up some Media reports at the time, she is right on

You are the one behind in the news, I remember reports that John Edwards, want to fight, however he had a very sick wife, and didn't push the matter, and the news media soon let it drop. What could Kerry have gotten done, after all if it went to the S.C. we all knew Bush had enought right wingers there for his son to win, wasn't that what heppened to Gore... I think so. Do your home work!

[beachmom]

27. Ha, ha. Those were rumors, never coming from the Edwards on the record.

I have done my homework. I want real evidence of the Edwards actively fighting the concession, not rumors being spread after the fact, and then ending up in Mrs. Edwards' book.

[LSK]

31. so Elizabeth listened to rumors instead of asking her husband to write her book?

Why is this even important? Just another pathetic attack on the Edwards maybe?

:shrug:

[beachmom]

36. This is not a pathetic attack on the Edwards. EE lodged a pathetic attack on Kerry.

You expect Kerry supporters to sit on our hands when she bashes him, while providing no evidence that her husband lifted a finger to stop the concession nor actively worked on having cleaner elections next time around?

Tell your candidate's wife to stop bashing Kerry, and you will find I disappear from writing posts on the Edwards.

[LSK]

46. no she lodged a legitimate concern that has been jusitified over time

Or do you think Kerry really lost?

[GreenArrow]

51. rumours, no doubt, coming from Edwards himself

As soon as he saw that the election was lost, he began positioning himself for the next one. Pure opportunism.

[sandnsea]

26. Names and Precincts

I want the names of the conspirators and the specific precincts where they oversaw the theft.

I want precincts where over 10,000 ballots were tampered with or switched.

[jgraz]

37. Exit polls. Good enough to overturn the election in Ukraine

But our war hero candidate needs names and dates and documents before he'll sitck his neck out.

[beachmom]

39. The bloody popular vote wasn't good enough to overturn the 2000 election!

You can't use EXIT POLLS to overturn an election! Not in this country. As Al Gore said, there is no medium point between The Rule of Law and bloody revolution. We are not the Ukraine; in order to win such a fight, you would need to have incontrovertible evidence to present in a court of law. Real votes. Not a survey of a random sample of people that day.

[jgraz]

41. Are you now saying you don't understand the electoral college?

2000 and 2004 were very different elections. 2004 was massive theft on a scale never before seen in a modern democracy. You really should educate yourself on how exit polls work, and on statistics in general. The chances that the exits polls would be that far off have been shown to be trillions to one. You saw the data posted over and over again on this site.

We knew this beforehand. Everyone was saying "watch the exit polls" in case they try to steal it. Any candidate worth a dime would have been doing the same thing and would have known what it meant before polls had closed in the West. Kerry HAD to know the election was stolen when he gave his concession. There's just no way around that.



And, btw, just because Al Gore didn't have the courage to fight in 2000, that doesn't remove the shame of Kerry's capitulation.

[beachmom]

70. Popular vote/Exit polls goes to the political capital to contest an election.

Gore had everything going for him to contest the election, and it STILL didn't go his way. Meanwhile, Kerry was down in the larger popular vote and 120,000 votes down in Ohio. He didn't have the proof to contest the election in court at that time. I still think he wouldn't have the proof now. And Exit Polls would not be grounds to contest an election. Did you even SEE what was in the media at the time? There was NO WAY he could have contested. Until there are real talking heads on TV (and a LOT of them) talking about how the exit polls PROVE Kerry won, nothing will change.

[karynnj]

72. How much statistical sampling have you done?

The fact is that you can not prove that your assumption that the exit polling was accurate is better than their assumption that the imprecise methodology used to select the voters in the selected precincts created a bias.

I personally believe the exit polls were right and that things like the caterpillar ballot in Ohio caused votes to be tabulated incorrectly. The problem is that just as Gore could not ask them to "correct" the data in Palm Beach, where elderly Jews did NOT intend to vote for Buchanan, Kerry could not claim the votes inner city Cleveland for the Constitution party or the Libertarian party.

Also consider in 2000, the Fl exit polls favored Gore - no one even mentions that. You need to identify votes.

I don't think that any US election has ever been invalidated by the exit polls.

[jgraz]

73. Quite a bit, actually

The former Gore voters is the killer datapoint in the 2004 exit polls. It completely destroys any BS claims about bias. The more you look at it, the more it becomes obvious that the election was stolen.

The basis of this claim was known election night, and known by Kerry. After that, it's a question of political will, something that Kerry was sorely lacking.

[OnTheOtherHand]

77. wrong again

Go ahead, state the argument, I don't mind refuting it again.

[jgraz]

80. ignoring is not the same as refuting

Until you learn that, I'm really not interested in playing your game.

[OnTheOtherHand]

82. ignoring what?

You made an unsubstantiated claim that something about Gore voters proves your other unsubstantiated claims about the election having been stolen.

This is not a game, but if you need to think of it in those terms, then consider that your bluff has been called.

[jgraz]

83. One thing I learned having this debate in 04, 05 and 06

is that election deniers are immune to facts. You believe what you believe, and I'm not about to spend my Friday afternoon dredging up the same statistics that you've obviously ignored dozens of times before.

So do your little touchdown dance, pretend you won the argument. I'm just too bored with the whole thing to participate any longer.

[OnTheOtherHand]

84. OK, to review

When asked to substantiate your claims, first you toss around epithets like "enablers" and "election theft deniers," and then you claim to be "bored with the whole thing." Maybe next time your boredom will set in before you make the unwarranted claims. It's something I can hope for, on (as you put it) "a supposedly progressive board."

[OnTheOtherHand]

74. not so much

You really should educate yourself on how exit polls work, and on statistics in general. The chances that the exits polls would be that far off have been shown to be trillions to one.

You're apparently assuming that the exit poll results were unbiased, which no public opinion researcher would do.

You know that statement where political scientists cited the exit polls as proof that the election was stolen? No? There is no such statement? There are actually statements to the contrary? Hmm. Do you suppose maybe some of those folks know things you don't?

[jgraz]

79. What I suppose is that there are people who will bend over backwards to excuse the enablers

It's sad to see so many on a supposedly progressive board. If you are determined to avoid the truth, to be an election theft denier, then there's nothing that I can do or say to wake you up.

For anyone else who's still paying attention, I will point out that the study you cite -- done just 6 weeks after the election -- has been pretty much discredited (which, of course, you knew). Try this for one of the many more up-to-date (and damning) interpretations: http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/OH/Ohio-Exit-Polls-2004.pdf


Again, the studies show more and more that the first, election night indications of theft were true. All it would have taken was a candidate with a little fight in him.

[OnTheOtherHand]

81. nonsense

I don't think that gang ever got a single political scientist to sign any of their reports. I have some perspective on this, because Kathy Dopp tried damn hard to get me to.

Don't hide behind her, and don't smear me. You post arguments, I'll respond. Let's see what you actually know.

[karynnj]

69. In the Ukaine it helped that the US sided with the losers

You honestly think that he should have refused to concede admitting that he can't prove it!

[Beaverhausen]

56. try here

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

[sandnsea]

60. Those aren't specific

Give me the specific answers to the questions asked, or you've got nothing. Just like RFK Jr had nothing. He didn't do his research.

[Beaverhausen]

62. Jesus christ on a fucking trailer hitch

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10463875/was_the_2004_election_stolen_sources_and_commentary

http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gallery/10467024/was_the_2004_election_stolen/photo/2/large


http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gallery/10467024/was_the_2004_election_stolen/photo/3/large

[sandnsea]

63. I Read The Article

I did the research. They've got routine errors mixed up with exit polling mixed up with long lines mixed up with registration errors. That's a mess, not evidence. Get me what I asked for, specifically. You can't because it doesn't exist.

[jgraz]

75. Friendly advice: notice when you're being jerked around

The pro-Kerry camp has no interest in your data. If they haven't pulled their heads out of the sand by now, they never will. Best to leave them to their Senator McDreamy fantasies and move on. :banghead:

[WildEyedLiberal]

40. Oh, no, you're asking for facts

That'll disappoint some of the "BUT BUT BUT HE LET US DOOOOOOWN" screamers who have no actual hard court-ready PROOF that the election was stolen. They just "know." And their "knowledge" apparently would be enough for Kerry to have waltzed into the White House unopposed by anyone if he'd just said "hey, nevermind, I actually won." I think honestly that's how some of them think it works.

[jenmito]

42. It seems like the Edwardses are always "late to the party"

On knowing the war was wrong, on thinking opting out of public funding is immoral, on conceding the election, etc.

[venable]

43. I know this:

In the early morning hours the night after the election, Kerry asked Edwards to go out and speak to the crowd that was still standing in the rain in Boston. He said to tell them that we would count all the votes.

The next morning at 8 am Kerry called Edwards and said they were going to concede.

Kerry made the decision over Edwards protests.

Edwards has been quiet about this out of respect for Kerry, which is deserved in very many ways, and Elizabeth, when asked, told the truth that it was a disappointment, and that the Edwards camp had wished it otherwise. This is a simple truth, and it is appropriate, I think, when asked, to tell the truth. She did not attack Kerry, she said what happened.

I will say no more on the subject.

[MH1]

44. What votes weren't counted?

The votes that weren't cast?

A concession speech is NON-BINDING. Meanwhile, as I and others have posted links to numerous times, Kerry's lawyers were involved in the recount. If the recount had actually turned up something sufficient to change the outcome (under the laws in effect at the time), then Kerry's concession speech would not have mattered.

[ProSense]

49. Awesome post! Yeah

Elizabeth, tell us more. What else do you know, and what did you do? You and John are both lawyers.

[Bluebear]

59. Yeah, Elizabeth, PROVE YOU WERE DISAPPOINTED!

:crazy:

[janx]

78. This thread is unnecessary. Why do you want to go back there?

Besides, Elizabeth is (or at least was) a member of DU and made some posts here, if I remember correctly. Maybe she will answer you.

She was asked if she was disappointed and she said yes, she was. So were a lot of people. But the evidence wasn't there, and there was nothing to be done. :shrug:

[beachmom]

86. I don't want to go back there. SHE chose to go back there. SHE chose to attack Kerry.

Her statement was more than just being disappointed:

Edwards, married to former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), said she was "very disappointed" Sen. John Kerry conceded the last presidential race so quickly.

Said Mrs. Edwards: "I was very disappointed, not just because we did not count the votes, but because we promised people that if they stood in line and fought for the right to vote, that we would fight with them."

Sorry, this is trashing Senator Kerry plain and simple. And nothing good will come of it re: election problems. It is to fire up certain sections of the base, and she does it by cutting down Kerry. She could have chosen to answer differently, and still gotten in points about election issues. Instead she chose to throw Kerry under the bus, just like half the Democratic party enjoys to do. I'll get over it, like everything else, but my post is to point out the fact that she chose to do something easy -- trash Kerry -- instead of something harder, and that is to lay out a case precisely how the GOP interfered with the vote in Ohio, why it could or couldn't be proven, and what she and her husband did about it.

[Catchawave]

87. It's not trashing Sen. Kerry, as much as it's reassuring to know

the Edwardses will fight for us. The GOP is 2 for 2 in "stolen elections", can we afford to rollover again?

[karynnj]

104. Saying the "votes weren't counted" is a very cheap shot

What votes is she speaking of?

[chimpymustgo]

88. Sorry, but Elizabeth is telling the TRUTH. And everybody KNOWS it.

I have been loathe to criticize Kerry, but I won't sit back as his sycophants MAKE SHIT UP. We all know how we felt that night - WHY THE HELL WAS KERRY CONCEDING SO EARLY?? After all the big bad promises to COUNT ALL THE VOTES?? Some even speculated that his life, his children's lives were threatened.

Okay here's the deal - from someone in the room that night (a friend). I have posted this before, sparingly: KERRY DECIDED TO CONCEDE THAT NIGHT. EDWARDS DID NOT WANT TO THROW IN THE TOWEL. He wanted to at least wait till the morning to further assess the situation. KERRY - THE MAN AT THE TOP OF THE TICKET - SAID NO. HE FELT THEY HAD TO CONCEDE. Rather than wait a few hours, ask a few questions, at least establish some DOUBT ABOUT THE OUTCOME. No, John Kerry threw in the towel.

Edwards had no choice but to go along with Kerry's decision - and he and Elizabeth were staring at a life-threatening situation.

To all for whom John Kerry is a hero, this is tough to swallow. But John Kerry did not choose to fight - even raise a question - on that critical night in our nation's history.

[beachmom]

89. What the hell? He didn't concede until THE NEXT DAY!!!!

And I resent the use of the word "syncophant". Thanks for the insult. So you disagree with my post -- you have one hell of a nerve attacking my character like I'm somehow a brain dead robot. He waited until THE NEXT DAY, and there is NO WAY he could have contested that election and WON.

So let me get this straight -- Edwards supposedly didn't want to concede until .. when????? When was the perfect time to concede? Wednesday evening? Thursday? It was never a question of if, for the Edwards, but when. They are using it to engage fractions of the base (like you obviously) who hold Kerry responsible for GOP dirty tricks. Not the Dem Party responsible for securing the election, mind you, but Kerry, and Kerry alone.

Oh, and in case you get out in the REAL WORLD any time soon, most people are not worried about a stolen election in Ohio. In fact, nobody outside of Dem base circles, has heard of it. THAT is due to our media situation. But hey -- let's blame Kerry for that, too.

[GreenArrow]

91. "Edwards supposedly didn't want to concede until"

he knew Kerry was going to concede. At that point, Edwards stuck a knife in Kerry's back and began positioning himself for the 2008 contest.

[karynnj]

105. Elizabeth is lying - the votes were counted - all of them

There were not enough. Kerry conceded because he and the lawyers could not find sufficient justification to not concede. If they found boxes of uncounted ballots - all for Kerry the next week, he would have joyfully retracted the concession - as Gore did on election evening. Kerry said it would be unconscionable to contest without proof.

[OnTheOtherHand]

113. whoa, no evidence that "Elizabeth is lying"

Can we agree that some people think all the votes were counted in Ohio, and some people don't?

I think probably Elizabeth Edwards said more or less what she thought. (By the way, as far as I know, we don't know everything she said, just the part that the Washington Times chose to pass along.)

[janx]

100. Consider the source. You are extrapolating all of this (ultimately) from

the Washington Times, for mercy's sake!

[karynnj]

103. I hope she does see these threads

She might possibly get it that many people will not think better of her and her husband if she attacks other Democrats. Her comments on Teresa Heinz Kerry were obnoxious. It is to THK's credit that she never commented, instead only said very kind things when EE's cancer returned.

[wisteria]

92. Seriously, I would like to see some proof to back up her claims. n/t

[ruggerson]

93. I'm sure she'll take commands from you

n/t

[laureloak]

94. Ahem. I don't think she answers to you.

[laureloak]

95. It's hilarious to see the campaign workers on these threads!

All in a frenzy carrying on the same conversations thread after thread after thread.
Exaggerating, maniuplating.

[karynnj]

106. Campaign workers?

Which campaign do you think we are on? The people I see are mostly people who respect Senator Kerry and are sick and tired of the attacks he gets from both the left wing and the right wing - not to mention the Hillary Clinton people in the middle. Yet he has proven to be one of the people trying to lead in the right direction, refusing to let the nasty comments of others stop him from supporting them when needed.

Why have you been going through the threads accusing us of being Hillary fans?

[beachmom]

96. Good point. I'm just a voter. What was I thinking? n/t

[1932]

97. A voter who doesn't care for people who want your vote counted?

[beachmom]

98. Wow, that's one hell of a leap. Now I don't care if votes are counted

because I think EE was out of line for her criticism about something she and her husband have done little on. Okay. I guess we'll just call that an ad hominem attack and leave it at that.

Once again, upthread I was told that my questions were beneath the esteemed Elizabeth Edwards from answering. Well, she is the one who threw the bomb. Why not explain it more fully.

[1932]

101. You are challenging the sincerity of a concern for voters having their votes counted

The day after the election there were reports that Edwards was upset that Kerry conceded without a fight after Edwards gave a speech on election night that their campaign team wouldn't quit untiil every vote was counted.

It's a fact that Edwards gave that speech, and it's a fact that Kerry conceded without a fight, and it makes sense that Edwards would have felt that the actions of the campaign were inconsistent with the promise that he made in his speech.

There have been reports from multiple sources that Edwards was upset with the concession.

So, what you're doing is challenging the sincerity and credibility of someone for whom I believe there is ample direct, anecdotal and corroborating indirect evidence leading a reasonable person to conclude that she is sincere and credible.

So, I assume that there is somethign deeper to yor challenge -- which I suspect has something to do with you either having a personal dislike of Edwards, or that you like another candidate a lot more, or both.

Regardless of the tone of the post to which you responded, your "I'm a voter so she should reply to me" statement -- which, I grant, is a powerful argument -- is still ironic in the sense that you're statement that your vote is so powerful that it entitles you to being heard (which I think is very true) is coming out of a conversation where you also seem to have some peculiarly-motivated antipathy toward a person who is making an argument for counting that very vote which gives you all your power in a democracy (and your OP suggests that you don't believe that very many people were denied the opportunity to vote).

If one were to believe that the argument you make in your OP is powerful, that the message it sends to future candidates is: "Don't come to me with your count every vote crap unless you are 100% certain that votes weren't counted." I don't know about you, but I want my Democratic candidates to have a lower threshold. I'd like them to be passionate about counting my vote if there's a reasonable doubt that it wasn't counted. And that would be the case especially if I were a person who went around telling politicians they should listen to me because I am a voter.

[beachmom]

110. Honestly, I don't think there is much of a difference between the Edwards and Kerrys

as to counting votes and conceding. That's the thing that just makes me so angry about this.

Edwards sided with not conceding that night. Kerry came down on the same side as Edwards and waited till the next day.

Edwards was never against conceding, he only wanted to wait to the next day and Kerry agreed with him and others who said wait.

So why on earth would Elizabeth continue to make her implications as if Edwards was fighting Kerry to not concede at all? Her deliberate vagueness is meant to be deceptive, because telling the exact truth isn't as divisive and self-glorifying - Edwards was against conceding that night - Kerry sided with Edwards and waited till the next day. END OF STORY.

[1932]

115. I don't think your characterization is supported by the evidence.

[beachmom]

116. Oh, I think it is. There was no statement by JRE at the time that he was

opposed to the concession. In fact, the internet rumor listed above only states that JRE was opposed to conceding THAT NIGHT. Kerry agreed, and did not concede until THE NEXT MORNING. I have come across NO EVIDENCE of the Edwardses being opposed to the concession, other than their rumblings in their 2008 bid about Kerry conceding "too early". Extremely vague, and really a cheap shot. If you look at the internet rumors and the account in the Edwards' book, the arguing was done AT NIGHT. Not in the morning. And since Kerry waited until the morning, there is no dispute. Except, of course, when a new presidential campaign was launched, and an angle for political purposes was needed to separate themselves from the Kerry/Edwards campaign. Very sad, indeed.

[ProSense]

117. What Edwards said on Nov. 3, 2004

One of the Edwardses lied, either Elizabeth or John.

[1932]

119. On Tuesday night they promissed to keep fighting.

On Wednesday when Kerry conceded that meant the outcome wouldn't change.

How are those quotes inconsistent with what Elizabeth is saying today?

[1932]

120. This is not new information. Search the DU archives. Edwards wasn't happy with the concession.

This has come up before and people who don't like Edwards have tried to spin it a lot of different ways. But the direct evidence and the indirect evidence is consistent with what Elizabeth is saying today.

Hate Edwards all you want, but, really, these are not compelling arguments against John and Elizabeth Edwards that are being made in this thread by the people who don't like them.

[Catchawave]

99. Shhhhhhh....

We'll all be fine :evilgrin:

[calteacherguy]

107. This kind of behavior is why Edwards has moved absolutely nowhere in the polls in the last year. nt

[PATRICK]

111. The Kerry team

seemed magnificently prepped to fight the 2000 election. the last war. With flintlocks and muskets for insurrection should it come to that. Maybe that preparation was so impressive it obscured the gigantic clue that the GOP had moved forward and beyond their last close shave and that Ohio was sown shut in front of their eyes long before election day festivities with minor setbacks and all the revelations needed to begin directly challenging the election's very legitimacy.

The main point of the posting is well taken. What could such a fatally prepared team actually do? Switch gears and go after the fraud issue? Go after the blockaded ballot boxes and ephemeral digital records anyway? Lots of questions begin after anyone says they were determined to fight on. In fact team Kerry soldiered on after the concession, combing the ruins still for what was left of the stolen ballots, an approach even less likely to succeed and with the independent efforts of Green Party and Nader challenges reminiscent of the futilities of 2000. Meanwhile the tragic choice to refight 2000 while the GOP put nails in their gloves had brought down other campaigns as well and supported other status quo quagmires like the war. Only the Bush team had the will and power to "progress". Whatever the alternatives, the GOP retained the initiative and the status quo advantages...both. Truth and "fighting" were simply conceded on the center stage.

No one seemed to have an idea how to deal with the determined theft and relentless methods and the new counting/voting invisibility. The smart, experienced and tough campaigners led us to electoral shearing pens. How anyone at all on election night was suddenly going to change that picture is indeed a good question. They had no answers, if any were engaged, how to deal with a determined theft. They just hoped enough real ballots would be there to "win". It could never be about about ensuring one man/one vote. That was long conceded before the actual election and the rest was almost relying on the GOP setting voluntary limits to their criminality.

The next question, besides critiquing Edwards, is how anyone up there, including his campaign, is prepared to confront the coming fraud, determined by the whim and need of the Bush dynasty. If we are still trying to apply Kerry's strategy, just more forcefully with more lawyers, and expecting different results from MSM savaged candidates, just what should we expect from not having the ballot proof again on election night? And BTW, is the DOJ cleaned up yet? Is the new or old vote suppression checked? Are the net number of electronic cheating options reduced or increased for all the efforts of reformers state by state? Is the nation rallied against election fraud even as much as the GOP is rallied against the fake voter fraud issue as a means to suppress balloting? For all the talk of fighting and the marshalling of resources, is anyone prepared to put forth the truth about our elections, any election? Period.

[beachmom]

112. Wow. Thanks for that comment. You take it to the next level.

The thing is I think it is pointless for the Edwardses to further a meme of divisiveness with the Kerrys. I don't really think it exists, actually, on the concession. Instead of turning a difficult night and morning into a fight, why not transform it into a real conversation of what you speak of -- the darker, more difficult questions. This is about our democracy after all; not one primary, but our fundamental rights as Americans to have our votes count.

I hope that everyone can agree, no matter which side we fall in this dispute, that much, much more needs to be done.

[PATRICK]

114. Electability is everyone's

problem and a problem still too conceded and unconfronted at every level except for the heroic activists on the ground. Saying someone is going to put on the best post-defeat protest strategy will get more and more absurd and regressive. The dilemma that is accepted is that we won't do what other countries have done by this stage. Boycott, confront, strike. At worst trade "concessions" for real reform in tough bargaining, like when the GOP stole the election a century ago. We expect instead to keep jamming our bodies toward the machinery to get soemhow, enough, not all the votes counted, the false myths centrally intact.