Inside the Kerry Campaign - Deeply Troubling Videos

[Herman Munster]

Check out this videos in the link especially the "I want a pony" video, they are really really fucked up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-rosenbaum/is-hillary-going-to-be-ke_b_71075.html

Kerry would win because he was a Democrat, and after 4 years of George Bush the polls said that his unpopularity and the quagmire of the war in Iraq would sweep him out of office.

Democrats were enthusiastic about winning -- but lukewarm in their support of John Kerry.

And it wasn't just average folks.

I spent the better part of 2004 directing a documentary about the Kerry campaign that you haven't seen.

We had two camera crews on the airplane, on the press buses, and living inside what political insiders call 'The Bubble.'

What we saw, and videotaped, was deeply troubling.

And since then, I've kept most of that footage in a desk drawer. I was afraid that releasing it would somehow be unfair. Like kicking a guy when he's down. After all, 2004 was a close race. But then, I began to think about 2000, and 2008 - and it began to eat at me.

Now I've decided its unwise to keep what we saw and we we heard concealed.

Secretly, late at night - in hotel rooms and in campaign vans - the opratives at the highest level of the campaign didn't much like the candidate or the platform.

[MADem]

1. Oh boy, I'll bet this guy is the RNC's new best friend. Whatcha wanna bet he gets invited on FOX to

talk about this?

[Mme. Defarge]

3. Self-Delete

[Mme. Defarge]

4. Self-Delete

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. How exactly dies this help the RNC?

John Kerry is not going to be the Democratic nominee for President.

[karynnj]

49. Because it shows how poor a job the Democratic officials did

Their job was to support Kerry and to help him win. They needed to put their personal preferences aside and do their job - instead they undermined the campaign if only by bitching to the media incessantly during the campaign. The fact that they preferred a restoration of Clinton to Kerry was irrelevant - the choice was Kerry?Bush. The election was close enough that anything could have made the difference. That Kerry had to win support while people who should have been on his side were telling the press that he was not Bill Clinton - a fact that many of us saw and were very happy about, made it harder to get people in the middle.

You either have the impression that they stabbed the duly elected nominee in the back, giving us 4 more years of Bush, or they were so inept that people have reason to question if they were actually for him. Take your pick - neither reflects well on the party.

[MADem]

55. To quote MacEnroe: Surely you CAAAAAHN'T be SERIOUS??????

Did you read the full OP in CONTEXT? Or are you simply being deliberately obtuse, or "ironic" as the youngsters say? Of course, they usually say that to cover up for the fact that they haven't stepped back and looked at the larger picture....

This clown is "associating" Clinton with these "Democratic" mismanagements that occurred during the Kerry campaign. He's as much as suggesting it's part and parcel of the way we do business. If Clinton doesn't make the cut, he'll surely "associate" Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, whoever is our nominee with this bitter diatribe.

This guy is what they used to call a 'snake in the grass.'

It's a payday that keeps on paying for him. A gift that keeps on giving for the RNC. If Fox were sharp, they'd put him on monthly retainer until DEC 08.

[Mass]

2. Rosenbaum is back. That is really f*ed up.

The man published his videos a couple years ago, hoped he had the latest "War Room", got a total flop, and is bitter as hell.

Poor poor Rosenbaum, who did not even get as much publicity as Alexandra Pelosi.

[sandnsea]

15. What's with all the bashing lately?

I still can't figure out why any campaign thinks this is a good idea.

[Mme. Defarge]

5. This assumes that Kerry actually lost the election.

An argument that was made in a previous post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

"1. Congress no longer needs veto-proof support for bills. Squeaking by with a simple majority becomes just fine. And if we ever lose control of congress, we gain the power of the Veto.
2. Cabinet Secretaries & Appointments (DOD, DHS, Dept of State, etc.)
3. Judicial Branch Appointments, including SCOTUS and U.S. Judiciary. We know how important that is.
4. Regulatory Agency appointments (DEA, FCC, FEC, FEMA, FTC, FDA, SEC, etc)
5. Being in control of "Executive Privilege." Now, we get to wiretap them. (or, you know, stop breaking the law - either way, we win this one)
6. Set National Policy. We all know that its not just the President that sets policy. There is a lot of party politics that influences this.

And lets not forget the last one:
7. We stop Republicans from destroying our country and others.

You may not like the nominee we end up with, but to forego these solid advantages is simply foolish. My mom would call it "cutting off your nose to spite your face." Old people have such funny sayings."

********************************************************************

Here are my questions and comments:

These are very compelling reasons. They applied to the elections in '00 and '04 as well. I worked on both of those campaigns and attended an outdoor rally for John Kerry with 30,000 other Kerry supporters, while on the same day the president was in town holding an "invitation only", heavily guarded event behind closed doors in a suburban high school. Kerry, on that day, exhorted "Everything's at stake in this election!" And thirty thousand people cheered their hearts out. He also made the promise, "I've got your back." We all believed he was throwing us a lifeline.

Is there anyone hear who doubts that Al Gore and John Kerry, actually won their respective elections? Gore did fight for his win, while Kerry caved early the next day. Where the hell was the Democratic Party leadership in both of these instances? Why the hell has election reform been deferred to 2012? Why the hell are our Democratic congressmen/women caving on all of the issues they were put into office to fight for? Why the hell is impeachment off the table? And why the hell will they not even try to enforce subpoenas?!

Why do I have the overwhelming sense that Hillary is the anointed one; that her candidacy is a done deal and that if she does happen to win the general election the third time will be the charm? (And, of course, if she really and truly loses the election, well, that's ok too for the corporate powers that have successfully stacked the deck in their favor; for the rest of us, well, c'est la guerre, n'est pas?) Why should I have any faith that if a candidate like Gore or Kucinich should become the party's nominee, and win the election, that the Democratic leadership will go to bat for him when the inevitable election fraud occurs?

I ask you, in the name of all the people who have sacrificed their lives and their limbs to protect and defend our form of government -- the precious, shining, and oh so fragile gift that has been given to us and that we have given to the world -- IS THIS DEMOCRACY? IS THIS THE BEST WE CAN DO TO HONOR THOSE WHO HAVE SACRIFICED SO MUCH, AND GIVE ANY KIND OF A FUTURE TO GENERATIONS TO COME?

Admittedly, I am an idealist. I also recognize that pragmatism has its place. But there comes a time to take a stand. Like when laws have been broken and are being broken. Like when hundreds of thousands of people are being slaughtered and maimed because of an administration's lies. If our Democratic leaders in congress are not willing to uphold our laws, then don't we, in effect, have a one-party system? How can I endorse that?

Maybe the strategy of simply trying to buy time until a Democrat inevitably holds the office of president makes sense from a practical standpoint. After all, Bush's record and the Republican candidates are all so dismal how could a Republican possibly win in the next election? On the other hand, if the Democratic party does not stand up to this administration of lawbreakers, if, through passivity, it becomes complicit in the destruction of our government of laws, if it fails to at least express loud and unrelenting outrage over the abuses of the Bush regime, as opposed to censuring those among their ranks whose legitimate anger has reached the boiling point, and thus speak to the white-hot outrage of so many voters, how are Americans likely to vote if and when the "terror card" is played before the next election?

Unless the magnitude of the damage that this administration has done to our country and the rest of the world is addressed by Democrats in deeds, as well as words in a tone that reflects what is truly at stake in this election, I fear that folks will vote for the party that they think will protect them over the party that equivocates, and that goes along to get along.

[Peace Patriot]

16. Wow, Mme. Defarge, I feel ya--and I feel your knitting!

That is one grand and passionate outburst!

Let me tell you how I stay calm. The betrayal of we, the grass roots of the Democratic Party, and of the American people as a whole, by our Democratic Party leadership, occurred long before this Congress, and has a specific date, October 2002. That was the month in which the Anthrax Congress passed the Iraq War Resolution, and another, closely related bill, the so-called "Help America Vote Act." The IWR was high profile. Most people knew about that betrayal by many of our party leaders. But HAVA was kept very much under the radar of the American people, and for good reason, because this bill, HAVA--the electronic voting bill--WAS the fascist coup. The IWR guaranteed unjust war. HAVA provided the method for shoving the unjust war down the throats of the American people--and any other war that the war profiteers cared to pre-emptively undertake, and any fascist measure they deemed necessary to their grand scheme for looting us blind, and killing our democracy.

HAVA (engineered by Christopher Dodd, by the way, in cahoots with Tom Delay and Bob Ney) provided a $3.9 billion electronic voting boondoggle to fast-track voting systems all over the country, run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations. The bill contained no paper trail requirement, no audit/recount controls, and no lobbying controls, and proceeded to corrupt or bamboozle election officials from one end of the country to the other, who all rushed to purchase these crapass, insecure and extremely insider riggable voting systems, pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of the BUSH PARTISANS running these corporations.

You would think that rightwing Bushite corporations 'counting' all our votes with 'TRADE SECRET' code would be bad for Democrats, and that they would object to it, on principle. I mean, it's mind-boggling, really. Think about it. But not only did no one in the party leadership issue a warning to voters, or try to stop this fascist coup, most of them voted FOR it, and were utterly silent about its OBVIOUS, blatant dangers.

Once I learned these facts--soon after the 2004 (s)election--I became considerably calmer, and began focusing on practical, strategic analysis of our situation, and how to bring about desperately needed reform. Nothing that this so-called Democratic Congress does surprises me. I expected it. There is hardly a member of Congress who can prove that he or she was actually elected. Some of them--about a third--would probably have been elected anyway, rigged machines or no rigged machines. But I suspect that about two-thirds of the members of Congress are holding power illegitimately--were not really elected. This is partly due to money corruption, and to the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, but 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting is the 'coup de grace'--the ultimate means of balancing and shaping Congress, overall, so that it escalates and continues funding the war--in the teeth of 70% opposition in the country--and continues shredding the Constitution.

Strategic thinking requires that you evaluate the situation accurately, and set priorities. In my opinion, our first priority must be to restore transparent vote counting. Without it, desperately needed reform is completely blockaded. We've shown that we can overcome, or at least match, the fascists' political money machine. And hard campaign work and word-of-mouth CAN overcome the corporate news monopoly propaganda. But we cannot overcome 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting. Because it's SECRET. We can't see it. We, the people, are, BY LAW, barred from reviewing the secret code. Many states have no audit (automatic recount) of any kind, because there no ballot TO recount, and even the best of states have only a 1% audit (extremely inadequate with SECRETLY coded voting machines).

By way of comparison, Venezuela uses electronic voting, but it is an OPEN SOURCE CODE system--anyone may review the code by which the votes are tabulated--and they handcount a whopping 55% of the votes, as a check on machine fraud. That's why Venezuela has a good government--universal health care, free education through university, many other helps for the poor, such as grants and loans to small business and worker coops, great citizen participation in government and politics (encouraged by the government), and many other benefits of real democracy--and we have George Bush and the Dieobld II Congress, controlled by war profiteers and other global corporate predators.

Transparent vote counting is the whole ballgame. It IS democracy. Well, very near to it. It is the one thing that democracy cannot do without.

And it's gone. Gone, gone, gone. Our Democratic leaders GAVE it away to Bush fundraising "Pioneers" (Diebold) and supporters of far righting causes (ES&S).

So we've got to get it back. The best venue for that is local, state and county, election offices. That's where we can make a difference. We have to think long term--we have to think past the next election. We have to see to the FUNDAMENTALS of our democracy. And we are likely going to suffer through a lot more shit from the war profiteers and other corporate predators, before we get our country back. But be encouraged. The social justice and democracy movement, of which Venezuela is just one part, is sweeping South America, with leftist (majorityist) governments elected in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and Nicaragua--and possibly Paraguay this year (and maybe--just maybe--Guatemala, tonight--they just voted today).

If the South Americans can do it--after all they have suffered from fascist oppression--so can we.

They are showing us the way.

[Stevepol]

17. Great rant, PP!

[zeemike]

19. You said it all for me

But the hardest thing for many of us to swallow is that Kerry may have betrayed us.We have to get over this falling in love with the candidate and judge them by what they do and the results they have to show us.

[nashville_brook]

40. PP speaks for me!

[ChiciB1]

43. ME TOO!!! I Live In Florida & Haven't Seen A Fair Election In A Very

very long time!! I also happen to live in the District that sorta, kinda LOST 18,000 plus votes!

If a man named GORE, who seemingly got more votes "from the people" LOST an election, I don't see HOW anyone TRUSTS WHAT goes on here in America!

I think anyone should be able to SEE clearly what has happened, we tried to SEE what happened in the election here in my district, but had to stand BEHIND a rope and view papers they flashed at us and read from a distance! Very, very weird!!

[nashville_brook]

48. wow -- that is indeed weird. the nerve of these people...

speaks volumes.

[loudsue]

51. Peace Patriot nails it, yet again. Anyone noticed that what the PEOPLE

want is NOT anywhere close to what the congress is doing? Not the conservative masses (this doesn't include the loonie fundie base... I'm talking regular run of the mill conservatives, who ALSO don't believe in torture) , not the liberal masses, not one single citizen of this country is being represented. That aught to bring the well-divided masses together under common cause.

Tell me where over 51% of the people in America like watching our jobs outsourced to foreign countries. Tell me where over 51% of our citizens believe it's ok for American global corporations to get out of paying taxes. Tell me, for that matter, where over 51% of us believe that it's ok for the middle class to pay 35% in taxes, and for the uber rich to pay 15%? None of the citizens in this country have ANYWHERE NEAR agreed to what our government has done. If that hasn't gotten anyone's attention, I don't know what will.

The media has shown themselves to be the major part of the problem, as they have been successful in distracting everyone with propaganda, lies, divisiveness, and distractions, while NOTHING the citizens want is being done. A HUGE majority of Americans are frankly dizzy from all of the cognitive dissonance about what we're being "told" is going on, and what they see. It's like we've all been placed on some sort of dream-state drug, looking for answers to our confusion.

This country is in HUGE trouble, as we've been co-opted by a government NONE of us intended, and it's those pesky little computerized voting machines that have staged the cozy little coup that has taken place.

[Mme. Defarge]

64. Brilliant!

That does help. I think. Meanwhile, what about '08? It seems to me that voting for any presidential candidate under these circumstances is to rubber stamp another sham election and play the useful idiot.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

6. I heard some very inside stuff...

About Kerry getting all up in McAuliffe's grill over the lack of DNC response to the Swiftboat stuff. Something about McAuliffe sitting on millions, not spending any on a defense and how Kerry was gonna toss McAuliffe out of his job, on his ass, if he didn't start executing.

There were some strange agendas swirling around that campaign.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

27. Kerry was crazy for trusting the Clinton's campaign team.

We all knew Hillary was priming herself for a 2008 run. ...I've said it before and I'll say it again. IMO Hillary is part of BushCo. ...There is no way the people who stole the last two presidential elections will give up their power.

We should have won by a landslide in 2006, but oh no, we won by just enough to give us the majority, but not enough for us to be veto proof. We gained “blame for the war”. We gained subpoena power but BushCo can’t remember shit and our side rolls over.

We are so screwed.

[karynnj]

41. In 2004, he was criticized by the media for NOT giving the Clinton people

as much control as they wanted. He didn't hire Carville at all and Begala was more in a consultant role than actual power. Lockhardt and McCurry were given broader roles. To not use any people from the past Democratic Presidency would have been seen as not even unifying the party - and they would have still undercut Kerry from their links to most of the ever decreasing Democratic allied parts of the media.

As toi 2006, we won more than anyone could have expected. Only a third of the Senate was up for re-election. We won nearly every open seat and defeated several incumbents. Even 2 weeks before the election, the best any pundit predicted was that we would be down 1 or 2. Other than Ford, fighting a racist attack, who else could have won who lost? In the House, we defeated a very large number of incumbents. The districts are more gerrymandered than ever. Many are basically not winnable by the other party - unless by chance the incumbent is embarrassed by major scandal too close to the election to replace him and we miraculously have a very good candidate there to take advantage of it.

[Peace Patriot]

52. karynnj, I understand what you're saying about the Senate, but there are 40 or so

"Blue Dog" Democrats among the seats in the House that you say "we" won. We, the people, did not win these seats. "Blue Dogs" are traitor Democrats whose announced policy (I heard them on C-Span the day after the election) is to cut everything in the budget except war spending. This is called "fiscal responsibility." This is an extremely rightwing policy, which continues funding of the corporate resource war in Iraq, and puts the debt for it on the backs of the poor. They are borrowing against Social Security and government pensions funds, and cutting all services, to pay for stealing Iraqis' oil, and torturing, killing and oppressing them. Borrowing way into the future--trillions of dollars. "Fiscal responsibility" is not the answer! Stopping the war and cutting the military budget by 90%, down to a true defensive posture, and busting corporate monopolies and global corporate predators, is the answer.

These "Blue Dogs" were "elected" by a combination of tactics--the use of big money to drive true Democrats out of the running, before or during the primaries, corporate media monopoly manipulation of news and opinion, and 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY vote 'counting' owned and controlled by rightwing, Bushite corporations, in the primaries and general election.

How Congress was shaped for war is somewhat more complex than how Bush/Cheney retained power in 2004, but 'TRADE SECRET' vote 'counting' was a key factor in both cases. Tell me this: If you were a war profiteer, and a fascist, and you had engineered a coup like 'TRADE SECRET' vote 'counting, would you use it to gain and retain illegitimate power? And would you use it for and against both Democrats and Republicans to shape a Congress that will continue to pour billions of dollars into your pockets at the expense of generations of future Americans?

That's what has happened. I think it's true that the people outvoted the machines, in some cases. But, in many cases, they were voting--angrily, desperately--for change, pushing the "D" button, and getting more war and more fascism. Look at the overall shape of Congress, not just the D and R breakdown, and you will see what 'TRADE SECRET' vote 'counting' is worth to war profiteers.

[ChiciB1]

61. I ALSO Agree With Everything YOU Just Said Too! I've Heard More

than I would like to hear about the D.C. Elites and HOW they don't want "certain" people to get elected!! And THIS IS DEMOCRACY?? And I'm not just talking about Repukes, I'm talking about ALL of them!!

It would be nice if this election is different, I don't have much "hope" that it will be, but if by some miracle we have a different candidate than Clinton, then perhaps "some" of my faith will be restored. Until then, I don't think anything I do or say will make ANY DIFFERENCE AT ALL!

Believe me, I have been an activist for many many years, and NEVER have I seen things this "monopolized!" While we're out spreading DEMOCRACY "over there" we have NONE here!!!

[KittyWampus]

30. Proof was in the pudding. The Dem establishment and Clintonistas did little to nothing for Kerry

they wanted Hillary in 08 and were prepared to let Kerry sink.

[Capn Sunshine]

71. and those agendas haven't weakened

They are still there in all their flaming lory, fighting anything progressive within the party at every turn. Many of the strongest agendas belong to Hillary's top guys.
I hope people eventually see this before it's too late, but only Hillary's campaign organization has the experience necessary to lose this election.

[Tellurian]

7. Anyone wonder why no one was willing to go to Ohio for a vote recount?

Kerry's campaign was rife with incompetentce. In spite of it all, he Won. Too bad there wasn't a team in place that could have firmed up his final numbers and fought for his vote.

[KittyWampus]

31. and too bad the Democratic party infrastructure wasn't there to support Kerry

[karynnj]

44. If true - this says more about a corrupt party than about Kerry

Don't you think the party itself had at least as much responsibility in defending the rights of Democrats? They were the Democratic party not the Clinton Party. If this were true, it would mean that the party (read the Clinton people) were willing to give Bush Alito and Roberts (it was predictable that 2 judges were likely and definite that at least one would be) and more importantly that Bush would continue getting our soldiers killed. (Even ultra conservative former Senator Bob Smith endorsed Kerry because of this.)

I think they didn't push a recount as the numbers were too far apart to make it likely to change things. A recount can only count votes actually cast. After the provisional ballots were counted, Kerry was still down 59,000. I would prefer to believe that there was not a provable case - if you can prove that there was a case but Kerry did not have enough party support to make it - prove it here! However, it is not in your candidate's interest to do so.

[liberalpragmatist]

8. Old news

This was all released as part of a documentary called "Inside the Bubble" a few years ago. Truth be told, there wasn't much in it - it mostly followed a mid-level staffer around and his various high-jinks. It adds nothing to our knowledge of the campaign and was dull as dishwater.

[Atman]

9. How about some recs, people. This is what it's all about!

We're the one being fucked with now. We're buying the media bullshit that Hillary is unstoppable, when every one of us, deep in our hearts, know she is as stoppable as Wile E. Coyote running into a painted tunnel. The Hillary people can keep calling the rest of the world "bashers." But wait until you hear what they call YOU when this same shit is pulled on her and we lose in 2008.

.

[JDPriestly]

10. Support Edwards. He suffered through the Kerry campaign

and is fighting a real campaign against the machine that failed to prevail in 2004. Don't take my word for it. Check out the videos on Edwards' website. Listen to what he is saying and decide for yourselves. That is how I decided to back him. He is not backbiting and criticizing. He is just speaking out loud and clear about the problems with the D.C. culture that did Kerry in.

[karynnj]

21. His own campaign has yet to be as successful as Kerry's was

Kerry won the nomination. I don't here many of the people who were genuine Kerry people - the ones who helped him win the nomination praising Edwards. Their silence indicates something. Elizabeth Edwards used her book to attack THK.

There are reasons to support Edwards - using what happened to Kerry is not one of them.

[JDPriestly]

60. I believe that Edwards is doing better than Kerry was at this

stage of the campaign.

[MethuenProgressive]

24. Kerry/Clark would've won. We needed a strong VP candidate, all we had was Edwards.

Clark would never have stood by silent while the Swiftboaters attacked.

[Capn Sunshine]

72. I think being a General is overrated

and thinking that Wesley Clark is a tough guy is a huge mistake in judgment. he's articulate and worldly, but he's a million miles from a tough guy. His own campaign demonstrates what he would do. He just doesn't have any zazz.

[ecstatic]

46. Oh please. He went down in flames with Kerry

I used to love Edwards but now he is no better than Kerry in my eyes (worse actually, for trying to speak out now, 3 fcking years later!!! :puke: Give me a break!!)

[ChiciB1]

62. Problem Is... D.C. HATES HIM!! It HAS Been Said & Said Often On

National TV. I think it's one of the reasons he's been so aggressive this time out! If I had to bet, if he doesn't get the nod, I would think he knew he gave it his all and really tried to expose the slimey mess that goes on.

This guy is NO country-bumpkin, he's razor sharp even IF you don't like lawyers, he didn't get where he's at by picking his nose! And I also really and truly believe he DOES know about the Clintons and how their "machine" operates! How I wish Al Gore would EXPLAIN WHY he distanced himself from the Clintons!

Sometimes I feel campaigns are run like some sort of "high tea time" event, there are things you just DON'T do!! And should you dare do them, then you may as well get your ass downstairs with the servants for your obstinacy! And folks, THIS IS AMERICA!!!!

So... Edwards is just going for broke, come hell or high water! So to all of you who think he's some sort of desperate clown running around spouting garbage, so be it. All I can say is... beware of what you wish for!!

And the same thing goes for Kucinich... they beat up on him ALL THE TIME, and he just keeps talking!

Just one more thing... if any of you listen to Washington Journal on a regular basis, the name that comes up MOST often is RON PAUL!! Now, he's not my choice... but people of all stripes keep talking about him, and what kind of coverage is HE getting?? Personally, some of his views scare me because he seems to want "no government" but hey... PEOPLE ARE PISSED!! I see Independents flocking to him myself!

[Vektor]

11. Um, I watched all the videos...

And yes, I'm a Kerry supporter, and thought "I'll watch it and see if there's anything here I ought to know that I didn't before."

And the only thing they clearly demonstrate is that the blonde haired "pony guy" is a loudmouthed, screaming, demented asshole.

But I am not really sure how any of this illustrates that "the operatives at the highest level of the campaign didn't much like the candidate or the platform."

All I saw was one low lever staffer whom nobody has ever heard of acting like an immature dick and yelling at anyone and everyone for no good reason. There was nothing in these videos that indicated that there was any other cause for alarm regarding the campaign, or the rest of the staff.

Stating "It's hard to connect on an emotional level" like that one gentleman in the first video did is not exactly earth shattering. It IS hard - for anyone - but politicians have to try. In itself, the 15 second clip was hardly damning.

Seriously - what am I missing? All I saw was one stupid cocky jerk making an ass of himself. That's not Kerry's fault.

I'm not being disingenuous, or refusing to see an alternate viewpoint here, I really don't get the point or the relevance of these outtakes. (?)

[karynnj]

25. Same here - I did watch a longer piece of "Inside the Bubble"

that was on television in 2005 or 2006. Before it was on, there were all these inside the beltway comments that this film would put a stop to Kerry's 2008 run. In fact, the footage made Kerry look like a pretty nice guy, dealing calmly,patiently and with good humor with things that went wrong. The consensus after it was shown was that there was nothing there. (In fact, it was amazing that given the narrative he had then, not one second of the Kerry footage was embarrassing or showed him angry or out of control. A Kerry insider said he was always the camest man in the room - and this seemed to be true.

Now, he seems to be coming from a different angle - if I understand the op, which is that the party operatives didn't like the candidate or the platform. Now, every health care proposal in 2008 contains pieces of Kerry's and several are almost using Kerry's words on alternative energy/environment. I doubt anyone will be far from what he said on the war on terror. On Iraq, the ISG pretty much recommended Kerry's 2004 proposals. When Biden's amendment was voted recently, Kerry was a co-sponsor. After Kerry spoke, Biden spoke of how Kerry had been absolutely consistent even before the invasion. So, I don't get where they could have a problem with the platform.

The only thing I can think they were speaking of in not liking the platform was that there were many mostly Clinton linked people who were whining publicly to the media that Kerry was ignoring Clinton's advise to stick to domestic issues - as Iraq and terrorism were "Bush" issues. Kerry was right to deal with Iraq and terrorism, as people like his wife, brother, former brother-in-law and other Boston people had pushed for. It took some guts to go with this advise rather than Shrum's (a key Kennedy person) or the various Clinton peoples.

That the Clinton people did not particulary "get" Kerry is not surprising. Kerry and Clinton are very very different people. It sounds like the current charge of the "Inside the Bubble" people is that the Democratic professionals, who job was electing the Democratic nominee were very unprofessional and let their personal inside the beltway preferences keep them from doing a good job. Whether they liked it or not, their job was to support the man who won the nomination. This actually backs what people like BLM and others have posted. That McAuliffe and the DNC did a poor job, as did other high level Democrats in supporting Kerry. In fact, it is worse as it suggests that they did so not out of incompetence, but because they preferred 4 more years of Bush followed by a restoration of Clinton to Kerry winning. It is NOT Kerry this reflects badly on. (That he nearly won while being stabbed in the back by his own side shows what a strong candidate he really was.)

The caution though is that it could be that this guy just wants another try at 15 minutes of fame - and that this charge could be as unsupported as the weeks of public statements that the film would show Kerry in a bad light - when it actually became a favorite video for a while in the JK group.

[ginnyinWI]

73. well said, karynnj

I agree completely.

[merbex]

29. All I could think of when I watched it was: this is what a campaign

contribution to the Kerry campaign paid for? The salaries of those people?

These are the genius political consultants that every campaign need to hire in order to win?

Those people in that video are the reason why Democrats lost the House and Senate for years, the Presidency (without the aid of a 3rd party candidate0 we'd have lost

Are those people "Shrum" people?

[Vektor]

63. There were definitely some wonderful people working for Kerry.

That raving lunatic we all saw on the video was not one of them. I'm sure if we looked at any campaign, and watched the "behind the scenes" footage, we'd find stuff like this with at least a few of the people. There's an asshole in every group, right? Also, this footage surely did not reflect all campaign activities, all people employed by Kerry. I've had the pleasure of meeting many of Kerry's regular staff, and they are professional, capable, decent people.

But I do see your point regarding the "pony guy" - an embarrassment whom I would not want working for me either.

I didn't think anyone else featured in the videos was offensive, and I certainly would hesitate to damn them all because of the behavior of this jackass. I could tell in the video regarding the New York Times that Marvin was merely "tolerating" him - and barely at that. He was just sort of looking at him incredulously while he ranted like a freak.

Likely they all just "tolerated him" until he was no longer on staff.

But yeah, definitely not a cool guy. Though I don't think the public saw much of that nonsense until after the campaign was over - and still most of the gen pop still probably has no idea who that guy was. (I don't!) I wouldn't even give him credit for being the reason why "Democrats lost the House and Senate for years, the Presidency (without the aid of a 3rd party candidate)" - His influence is not that far reaching, I suspect. He was just a small time campaign aid who will likely never be hired again.

Our whole election process is fucked. Dirty tricks, e-voting fraud, disenfranchisement, Republican lies and smear campaigns. "Pony Boy" didn't "lose" the election, (and definitely not the house and Senate) there's a way bigger picture there.

[Rageneau]

12. This video shows that the Kerry campaign had something Hillary's doesn't...

complete incompetence.

[Vektor]

13. It shows that?

All I saw was one low-ranking obnoxious jerk - who is not "the whole campaign" at all. In fact, I think most people have no idea who the asshole "pony" guy even was.

The campaign lasted over a year. That was two minutes of some whiny putz yelling.

All the videos really showed was that that individual man was a jerk. And yeah, there's no denying that. But those few odd clips, though not entirely flattering to the yelling guy, do not really provide any measure of competency, or lack thereof, of the entire campaign.

[karynnj]

28. It did show that the Kerry campoaign had something Hillary's doesn't

a candidate, who was genuinely a nice person, who dealt with screwups without rancor or anger. We have not even come to the primaries yet and you are claiming that Hillary's campaign is more competent than Kerry's. With intense party and media support, Hillary is way out front. Kerry won Iowa when the media was still betting publicly on when he would get out. His win of the nomination was a stronger, more convincing win than Bill Clinton's was in 1992.

There have already been two major fundraising scandals - Hsu and NYC Chinatown - in the Clinton campaign. Kerry had no major fund raising scandals in his entire campaign. Penn has been linked to unscrupulous foreign campaigns, Blackwater, and union busting. Soltis was said to have accepted a Las Vegas vacation from Hsu. I don't remember key Kerry people - Cahill, Shrum, his brother or Thorne having these types of accusations.

It also seems that the Kerry PRIMARY team was outstanding - it was the expanded general election team that was a problem. Hillary is not yet in the general election. It also sounds like it was the Clinton people who wanted control who caused problems for Kerry.

[KittyWampus]

33. I'd wager a months salary you haven't even SEEN the video and are just accepting of the spin

the director puts on it to try and repackage it after it FAILED on its previous release.

[Inuca]

34. Exactly

the whole thing is pathetic and not really worth discussing.

[sandnsea]

14. Still not getting the purpose of the Kerry bashing

It's a campaign strategy for somebody, because we've been getting a new serving every couple of days lately.

:shrug:

This is so old, why did Arianna let this get printed again? Who's she been promoting?

[zeemike]

20. The answer is

So we don't get fooled again.
The truth is sometimes a bitter pill that is needed to cure the problem.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

32. We got fooled in 2000, and then again in 2004...

If someone like Hillary...a person who is HATED by more than half the country becomes our president next year ...and IF a person like Al Gore decides to sit out, we have to sit up and smell the roses, democracy is a thing of the past.

[karynnj]

39. Who did we get fooled by?

Kerry, who had a great platform, who in his convention and in the debates could be seen as a man with the intelligence, experience, and character to be a fine President or the elitist, self promoting, unelected professional Democrats running the party?

The Republicans likely would have loved to have a basically scandal free, war hero, accomplished Senator, who was eloquent and well informed, who had the calm temperment and excellent moral character of Kerry. That he was a pilot and had played 4 sports in college was extra. In addition, there was Teresa, who has hosted conferences on environmental toxins and women's onogology, who was a real leader in Green building - having hired McDonough, who had not worked on green building, but who is now a leader in that field, to create a green office. This led to many people following in Pittsburg and in the city building the first green convention center. (Far more results than Bill Clinton's forum). Additionally, she has led major work on the issue of women's pensions. Convert those to Republican issues and you would see a couple that the Republicans would not need Rove to push. (The Rassmann reunion alone would have been turned into myth. It was as emotional, moving and real as anything in any race in my lifetime. (Though it was so good, it fit a population that loved Kapra movies, better that the cynical country that admires amoral people like Rove because they win.))

The Democrats had a good candidate to sell - the problem was the media bias and a jaded party elite that prefers rhinestones to diamonds.

[MBS]

42. oh, this is exactly right

thanks!

[Inuca]

45. Rhinestones vs. diamonds - wonderfully put n/t

[zeemike]

53. You forgot his other elitist qualifications like Skull and Bones

Sure Him and Teresa were diamonds but then so is Bush in that his family is of and for the elite.
What we need is an agate or Sapphire that comes from the earth like a Harry Truman that actually likes average people and wants the best for them, not the best for the powerful and wealthy. But then not being one of the elite I would feel that way would I not?
But the bottom line is that less than 24 hours after the polls closed Kerry conceded, after promising not to. That is a betrayal of trust and is what being fooled is all about.

[karynnj]

59. John and teresa Heinz Kerry's qualifications do not stem from

their wealth or their elite social standing, but from their real integrity and the things that they have done in their purposeful lives. The S&B accusation is beyond stupid. You are speaking of the man who sttod up against Nixon on Vietnam, Reagan/Bush on the Contras and Bush on BCCI. If idiotic conspiracy theory was right why didn't S&B keep him from doing these three very courageous, dangerous things?

The Kerrys do care about average and poor people and their proposals reflect that. As to the election - there is still no case that has been made that could have changed the result and Kerry spoke far more often and in much more detail on voter suppression than Edwards, Obama or Clinton have done to date.

(The comparison was real deal to phony shiny imitations.)

[zeemike]

65. Talk is cheep

And in fact in all that you mentioned was there any justice?
They all skated with the possible exception of Nixon. And Ollie North was convicted and had it overturned on a technicality to be rewarded later by a well paying career at Fox News.
There has been no justice in this country sense JFK was shot and that is the facts.

[karynnj]

66. It was not Kerry's fault that the Iran/Contra committee that he was

left off of, even though it was his work that exposed the Contra piece really messed up the investigation. Kerry's work did some good it that it stopped the gun and drug running that it exposed. He also closed BCCI - that would have made OBL's job easier. We would likely know far less of these facts without Kerry.

This by the way was NOT talk. On the Contras and BCCI, it was very serious, detailed investigative work done under death threats. On Vietnam, he led a veterans movement.

[Stevepol]

18. Kerry is a fine man with a real desire to help people, but I think he lacks understanding.

He's eloquent and thougtful about those issues he keys in on, but for the real issues, and particularly the election fraud which lost the election for him, he is totally blind or maybe just not confident enough yet in his own judgment. Maybe over time he'll gain more confidence, I don't know.

I know he wasn't helped by the Dem Party overall. No man is an island and in politics that's even more true: you've got to be really supported by the party or you just don't have a chance. The grassroots was working super hard for Kerry, but I'm not sure the beltway tag-alongs and Dem hangers-on cared much. They certainly failed to see the voting machine elephant in the room and they still won't look at it even tho the elephant shit by now is chin high and stinking up the whole country.

[karynnj]

35. kerry has spoken more and pushed more in the Senate on voting issues than

anyone other than Wyden and Boxer. He is not on the committee that has jurisdiction over these issues - Dodd heads it. When they voted on the Rosa Parks Voting Rights extension, Kerry listed many of the problems that were seen in 2004. Kerry also was the author of the Clean Money, clean elections bill with Wellstone that Arizona and Maine used as a model. His words then showed he understood exactly what was at stake if money continued to corrupt the process. (Both of these Senate speech attached as replies)

The issues that Kerry keyed into - terrorism (where he was concerned and vocal starting in the early 1990s), foreign policy, healthcare, the environment (where Al Gore said Kerry had the best record in the Senate), lifting people up through small businesses, and Finance issues like tax fairness, social security and pensions - are all areas that he has worked on extensively and are reflected in his committee assignments. These are the issues a President would deal with and in Kerry, as Gore, we had a candidate who had worked diligently over decades to really know these issues. (I have attached the list of hearings Kerry has this week, stolen from a post by Tay Tay. He is working on many of the key issues of the day on the committees he is on. He is not on a committee that has oversight for voting - maybe questioning the Senators on that committee is more reasonable or ask what is our current front runner doing on this - she sponsored legislation, but never got it to the floor. Should we hold her to the impossible standard Kerry is held to.)

Your comment that you need to be supported by your party - can be turned the other way. Kerry was the overwhelming choice of the people in the Democratic Party when he won the nomination. The top party officials OWED him their support. That was their job and if they couldn't do it, they should have quietly resigned and been replaced in March 2004, when it was known that Kerry was the nomminnee. That they stayed on and dragged their feet is appalling - and it really hurts that now in 2008, they will be rewarded for doing so.

It reminds me of seeing in one union that my dad was a member of in the 1960s, where the union officials were an entrenched group of elitists, out for their own good rather than the good of the rank and file. It seems like unelected people like McAuliffe, From, and other professional Democrats have lost touch with the base of the party. It would seem that the party apparatus had only about 3 purposes - supporting the state parties, raising money, and protecting Democratic interests. McAuliffe & Co did well only at raising money. It is not fair to blame Kerry for not securing the election process. That was not something that could have been done starting in March 2004. It had to be a systematic state by state effort, going to court if needed, started by the party after the 2000 or the 2002 election.

The fact is Kerry was good enough to at least make the election close in an election that many had written off in 2003 - with weak support from the professional Democrats, This in spite of parts of the Catholic church, the abuse of terror codes by Bush, and a biased media. (Kerry's attempt to halt media consolidation was the right thing to do - but it has led to the media not supporting him.) You may find that BLM was right - Kerry won his matchups with Bush decisively, the DNC was way less competent than the RNC.

[karynnj]

36. Clean Elections

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak before you today about a critical challenge before this Senate--the challenge of reforming the way in which elections are conducted in the United States; the challenge of ending the ``moneyocracy'' that has turned our elections into auctions where public office is sold to the highest bidder. I want to implore the Congress to take meaningful steps this year to ban soft money, strengthen the Federal Election Commission, provide candidates the opportunity to pay for their campaigns with clean money, end the growing trend of dangerous sham issue ads, and meet the ultimate goal of restoring the rights of average Americans to have a stake in their democracy. Today I am proud to join with my colleague from Minnesota, PAUL WELLSTONE, to introduce the ``Clean Money'' bill which I believe will help all of us entrusted to shape public policy to arrive at a point where we can truly say we are rebuilding Americans' faith in our democracy.
For the last 10 years, I have stood before you to push for comprehensive campaign reform. We have made nips and tucks at the edges of the system, but we have always found excuses to hold us back from making the system work. It's long past time that we act--in a comprehensive way--to curtail the way in which soft money and the big special interest dollars are crowding ordinary citizens out of this political system.
Today the political system is being corrupted because there is too much unregulated, misused money circulating in an environment where candidates will do anything to get elected and where, too often, the special interests set the tone of debate more than the political leaders or the American people. Just consider the facts for a moment. The rising cost of seeking political office is outrageous. In 1996, House and Senate candidates spent more than $765 million, a 76% increase since 1990 and a six fold increase since 1976. Since 1976, the average cost for a winning Senate race went from $600,000 to $3.3 million, and in the arms race for campaign dollars in 1996 many of us were forced to spend significantly more than that. In constant dollars, we have seen an increase of over 100 percent in the money spent for Senatorial races from 1980 to 1994. Today Senators often spend more time on the phone ``dialing for dollars'' than on the Senate floor. The average Senator must raise $12,000 a week for six years to pay for his or her re-election campaign.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The use of soft money has exploded. In 1988, Democrats and Republicans raised a combined $45 million in soft money. In 1992 that number doubled to reach $90 million and in 1995-96 that number tripled to $262 million. This trend continues in this cycle. What's the impact of all that soft money? It means that the special interests are being heard. They're the ones with the influence. But ordinary citizens can't compete. Fewer than one third of one percent of eligible voters donated more than $250 in the electoral cycle of 1996. They're on the sidelines in what is becoming a coin-operated political system.
The American people want us to act today to forge a better system. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 77% of the public believes that campaign finance reform is needed ``because there is too much money being spent on political campaigns, which leads to excessive influence by special interests and wealthy individuals at the expense of average people.'' Last spring a New York Times found that an astonishing 91% of the public favor a fundamental transformation of this system.
Cynics say that the American people don't care about campaign finance. It's not true. Citizens just don't believe we'll have the courage to act--they're fed up with our defense of the status quo. They're disturbed by our fear of moving away from this status quo which is destroying our democracy. Soft money, political experts tell us, is good for incumbents, good for those of us within the system already. Well, nothing can be good for any elected official that hurts our democracy, that drives citizens out of the process, and which keeps politicians glued to the phone raising money when they ought to be doing the people's business. Let's put aside the status quo, and let's act today to restore our democracy, to make it once more all that the founders promised it could be.
Let us pass the Clean Mo ney Bill to restore faith in our government in this age when it has been so badly eroded.
Let us recognize that the faith in government and in our political process which leads Americans to go to town hall meetings, or to attend local caucuses, or even to vote--that faith which makes political expression worthwhile for ordinary working Americans--is being threatened by a political system that appears to reward the special interests that can play the game and the politicians who can game the system.
Each time we have debated campaign finance reform in this Senate, too many of our colleagues have safeguarded the status quo under the guise of protecting the political speech of the Fortune 500. But today we must pass campaign finance reform to protect the political voice of the 250 million ordinary, working Americans without a fortune. It is their dwindling faith in our political system that must be restored.
Twenty five years ago, I sat before the Foreign Relations Committee, a young veteran having returned from Vietnam. Behind me sat hundreds of veterans committed to ending the war the Vietnam War. Even then we questioned whether ordinary Americans, battle scarred veterans, could have a voice in a political system where the costs of campaigns, the price of elected office seemed prohibitive. Young men who had put their life on the front lines for their country were worried that the wall of special interests between the people and their government might have been too thick even then for our voices to be heard in the corridors of power in Washington, D.C.
But we had a reserve of faith left, some belief in the promise and the influence of political expression for all Americans. That sliver of faith saved lives. Ordinary citizens stopped a war that had taken 59,000 American lives.

Every time in the history of this republic when we have faced a moral challenge, there has been enough faith in our democracy to stir the passions of ordinary Americans to act--to write to their Members of Congress; to come to Washington and speak with us one on one; to walk door to door on behalf of issues and candidates; and to vote on election day for people they believe will fight for them in Washington.
It's the activism of citizens in our democracy that has made the American experiment a success. Ordinary citizens--at the most critical moments in our history--were filled with a sense of efficacy. They believed they had influence in their government.
Today those same citizens are turning away from our political system. They believe the only kind of influence left in American politics is the kind you wield with a checkbook. The senior citizen living on a social security check knows her influence is inconsequential compared to the interest group that can saturate a media market with a million dollars in ads that play fast and loose with the facts. The mother struggling to find decent health care for her children knows her influence is trivial compared to the special interests on K Street that can deliver contributions to incumbent politicians struggling to stay in office.
But I would remind you that whenever our country faces a challenge, it is not the special interests, but rather the average citizen, who holds the responsibility to protect our nation. The next time our nation faces a crisis and the people's voice needs to be heard to turn the tide of history, will the average American believe enough in the process to give words to the feelings beyond the beltway, the currents of public opinion that run beneath the surface of our political dialogue?
In times of real challenge for our country in the years to come, will the young people speak up once again? Not if we continue to hand over control of our political system to the special interests who can infuse the system with soft money and with phony television ads that make a mockery of the issues.
The children of the generation that fought to lower the voting age to 18 are abandoning the voting booth themselves. Polls reveal they believe it is more likely that they'll be abducted by aliens than it is that their vote will make a real difference. For America's young people the MTV Voter Participation Challenge ``Choose or Lose'' has become a cynical joke. In their minds, the choice has already been lost--lost to the special interests. That is a loss this Senate should take very seriously. That is tremendous damage done to our democracy, damage we have a responsibility in this Senate to repair. Mr. President, with this legislation we are introducing today, we can begin that effort--we can repair and revitalize our political process, and we can guarantee ``clean elections'' funded by ``clean money,'' elections wh ere our citizens are the ones who make the difference

[karynnj]

37. Rosa Parks Voting Rights Extention act

From Thomas, the on-line Senate record – given July 20th, 2006.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his discussion of an important way of having accountability in voting . I must say that I saw how that works out in Oregon. It works well. It works brilliantly, as a matter of fact. People have a lot of time to be able to vote. They don't have to struggle with work issues or being sick or other things. They have plenty of time to be able to have the kind of transparency and accountability that makes the system work. There are other States where you are allowed to start voting early--in New Mexico and elsewhere.
It is amazing that in the United States we have this patchwork of the way our citizens work in Federal elections. It is different almost everywhere. I had the privilege of giving the graduation address this year at Kenyan College in Ohio, and there the kids at Kenyan College wound up being the last people to vote in America in the Presidential race in 2004 in Gambier, at 4:30 in the morning. We had to go to court to get permission for them to keep the polls open so they could vote at 4:30 in the morning.

Why did it take until 4:30 in the morning for people to be able to vote? They didn't have enough voting machines in America. These people were lined up not just there but in all of Ohio and in other parts of the country. An honest appraisal requires one to point out that where there were Republican secretaries of state, the lines were invariably longer in Democratic precincts, sometimes with as many as one machine only in the Democratic precinct and several in the Republican precinct; so it would take 5 or 10 minutes for someone of the other party to be able to vote, and it would take literally hours for the people in the longer lines. If that is not a form of intimidation and suppression, I don't know what is.

So I thank the Senator from Oregon for talking about the larger issue here. He is absolutely correct. The example of his State is one that the rest of the country ought to take serious and think seriously about embracing.
This is part of a larger issue, obviously, Mr. President. All over the world, our country has always stood out as the great exporter of democratic values. In the years that I have been privileged to serve in the Senate, I have had some extraordinary opportunities to see that happen in a firsthand way.

Back in 1986, I was part of a delegation that went to the Philippines. We took part in the peaceful revolution that took place at the ballot box when the dictator, President Marcos, was kicked out and ``Cory'' Aquino became President. I will never forget flying in on a helicopter to the island of Mindanao and landing where some people have literally not seen a helicopter before, and 5,000 people would surround it as you swooped out of the sky, to go to a polling place where the entire community turned out waiting in the hot sun in long lines to have their thumbs stamped in ink and to walk out having exercised their right to vote.

I could not help but think how much more energy and commitment people were showing for the privilege of voting in this far-off place than a lot of Americans show on too many occasions. The fact is that in South Africa we fought for years--we did--through the boycotts and other efforts, in order to break the back of apartheid and empower all citizens to vote. Most recently, obviously, in Afghanistan and Iraq, notwithstanding the disagreement of many of us about the management of the war and the evidence and other issues that we have all debated here. This has never been debated about the desire for democracy and the thrill that everyone in the Senate felt in watching citizens be able to exercise those rights .

In the Ukraine, the world turned to the United States to monitor elections and ensure that the right to vote was protected. All of us have been proud of what President Carter has done in traveling the world to guarantee that fair elections take place. But the truth is, all of our attempts to spread freedom around the world will be hollow and lose impact over the years in the future if we don't deliver at home. The fact is that we are having this debate today in the Senate about the bedrock right to vote, with the understanding that this is not a right that was afforded to everyone in our country automatically or at the very beginning. For a long time, a century or more, women were not allowed to vote in America. We all know the record with respect to African Americans. The fact is that the right to vote in our country was earned in blood in many cases and in civic sweat in a whole bunch of cases. Courageous citizens literally risked their lives. I remember in the course of the campaign 2 years ago, traveling to Alabama--Montgomery--and visiting the Southern Poverty Law Center, the memorial to Martin Luther King, and the fountain. There is a round stone fountain with water spilling out over the sides. From the center of the fountain there is a compass rose coming back and it marks the full circle. At the end of every one of those lines is the name of an American with the description, ``killed trying to register to vote,'' or ``murdered trying to register.'' Time after time, that entire compass rose is filled with people who lost their lives in order to exercise a fundamental right in our country.

None of us will forget the courage of people who marched and faced Bull Connor's police dogs and faced the threat of lynchings, some being dragged out of their homes in the dark of night to be hung. The fact is that we are having this debate today because their work and that effort is not over yet. Too many Americans in too many parts of our country still face serious obstacles when they are trying to vote in our own country.
By reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, we are taking an important step, but, Mr. President, it is only a step. Nobody should pretend that reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act solves the problems of being able to vote in our own country. It doesn't. In recent elections, we have seen too many times how outcomes change when votes that have been cast are not counted or when voters themselves are prevented from voting or intimidated from even registering or when they register, as we found in a couple of States, their registration forms are put in the wastebasket instead of into the computers.

This has to end. Every eligible voter in the United States ought to be able to cast his or her ballot without fear, without intimidation, and with the knowledge that their voice will be heard. These are the foundations of our democracy, and we have to pay more attention to it.

For a lot of folks in the Congress, this is a very personal fight. Some of our colleagues in the House and Senate were here when this fight first took place or they took part in this fight out in the streets. Without the courage of someone such as Congressman JOHN LEWIS who almost lost his life marching across that bridge in Selma, whose actions are seared in our minds, who remembers what it was like to march to move a nation to a better place, who knows what it meant to put his life on the line for voting rights , this is personal.
For somebody like my colleague, Senator TED KENNEDY, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, who was here in the great fight on this Senate floor in 1965 when they broke the back of resistance, this is personal.
We wouldn't even have this landmark legislation today if it weren't for their efforts to try to make certain that it passed.

But despite the great strides we have taken since this bill was originally enacted, we have a lot of work to do.
Mr. President, I ask for an additional 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on this particular component of the bill, there is agreement. Republicans and Democrats can agree. I was really pleased that every attempt in the House of Representatives to weaken the Voting Rights Act was rejected.
We need to reauthorize these three critical components especially: The section 5 preclearance provisions that get the Justice Department to oversee an area that has a historical pattern of discrimination that they can't change how people vote without clearance. That seems reasonable.
There are bilingual assistance requirements. Why? Because people need it and it makes sense. They are American citizens, but they still may have difficulties in understanding the ballot, and we ought to provide that assistance so they have a fully informed vote. This is supposed to be an informed democracy, a democracy based on the real consent of the American people.
And finally, authorization for poll watching. Regrettably, we have seen in place after place in America why we need to have poll watching.
A simple question could be asked: Where would the citizens of Georgia be, particularly low-income and minority citizens, if they were required to produce a government-issued identification or pay $20 every 5 years in order to vote? That is what would have happened without section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Georgia would have successfully imposed what the judge in the case called ``a Jim Crow-era like poll tax.'' I don't think anybody here
wants to go back and flirt with the possibility of returning to a time when States charged people money to exercise their right to vote. That is not our America.
This morning, President Bush addressed the 97th Annual Convention of the NAACP after a 5-year absence. I am pleased that the President, as we all are, ended his boycott of the NAACP and announced his intention to sign the Voting Rights Act into law.

But we need to complete the job. There are too many stories all across this country of people who say they registered duly, they reported to vote, and they were made to stand in one line or another line and get an excuse why, when they get to the end of the line, they can't vote. So they take out a provisional ballot, and then there are fights over provisional ballots. There are ways for us to avoid that. Some States allow same-day registration. In some parts of America, you can just walk up the day of an election, register, and vote, as long as you can prove your residence.
We have this incredible patchwork of laws and rules, and in the process, it is even more confusing for Americans. We need to fully fund the Help America Vote Act so that we have the machines in place, so that people are informed, so that there is no one in America who waits an undue amount of time in order to be able to cast a vote.
We have to pass the Count Every Vote Act that Senator Clinton, Senator Boxer, and I have introduced which ensures exactly what the Senator from Oregon was talking about: that every voter in America has a verifiable paper trail for their vote.
How can we have a system where you can touch a screen and even after you touch the name of one candidate on the screen, the other candidate's name comes up, and if you are not attentive to what you have done and you just go in, touch the screen, push ``select,'' you voted for someone else and didn't intend to? How can we have a system like that?
How can we have a system where the voting machines are proprietary to a private business so that the public sector has no way of verifying what the computer code is and whether or not it is accountable and fair? Just accounting for it.

Congress has to ensure that every vote cast in America is counted, that every precinct in America has a fair distribution of voting machines, that voter suppression and intimidation are un-American and must cease.
We had examples in the last election of people who were sent notices--obviously fake, but they were sent them and they confused them enough. They were told that if you have an outstanding parking ticket, you can't vote. They were told: Democrats vote on Wednesday and Republicans vote on Tuesday and various different things.
It is important for us to guarantee that in the United States of America, this right that was fought for so hard through so much of the difficult history of our country, we finally make real the full measure of that right.
I yield the floor. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague for her forbearance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.

[karynnj]

38. Kerry hearings this week

Monday, Nov. 5, 2007

3 p.m.
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
To hold hearings to examine the twenty-first
century security in the Organization for Security
and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) region,
focusing on challenges among member states,
protracted and unresolved conflicts, shifting
political and military alliances, while still
confronting the threat of terrorism.
2212-RHOB

Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2007


2:30 p.m.
Finance
Social Security, Pensions and Family Policy
Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine the Government
Pension Offset (GPO), and the Windfall
Elimination Provision (WEP), focusing on policies
affecting pensions from work not covered by
Social Security.
SD-215
Senator Kerry Chairs this subcommittee



Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2007

9:30 a.m.
Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Business meeting to markup an original bill
entitled, “Small Business Contracting
Revitalization Act of 2007”.
SR-428A
Senator Kerry Chairs this committee


2:30 p.m.
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Science, Technology, and Innovation Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine carbon sequestration
technologies.
SR-253
Senator Kerry Chairs this subcommittee

Thursday, Nov. 8, 2007


10 a.m.
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
To hold hearings to examine localism, diversity,
and media ownership.
SR-253


2 p.m.
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
To hold hearings to examine outstanding issues
relating to the 1992-1995 conflict in Bosnia,
focusing on violent ethic cleansing, and how they
shape politics, society, and economic development
in Bosnia.
B-318-RHOB


2:30 p.m.
Foreign Relations
Near East and South and Central Asian Affairs
Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine Syria, focusing on
options and implications for Lebanon and the
surrounding region.
SD-419
Senator Kerry Chairs this Subcommittee

(Kerry held hearings on Pakistan in June and July that dealt with Pakistan being the most dangerous place on earth - they were scary and presaged much of what is happening there now.) Here is a link to an excellent summary on those hearings in Pakistan - http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/11/musharrafs_power_play.html#more Click on the highlighted "previous" "posts" to get the details of the two hearings and some video. As early as Rice's comfirmation as Secretary of State, Senator Kerry asked Rice one question on Pakistan 4 times - as she claimed that everything was adequately under control. His questioning, as she squirmed made it clear she was lying - and he even said in explaining his no vote that she had not been forthcoming.

Remember also that it was DC insiders who stonewalled Kerry's BCCI investigations. He spent 5 years untangling snakes to make a case that led to closing BCCI, the bank that funded Pakistan's bomb.

[MBS]

22. that Huff Post piece is deeply flawed

in its assumption that the Dems thought that 2004 was theirs to win.
2004 was an uphill battle for the Dems and everyone with any brains knew it. The fact that Kerry came as close as he did (and , in my opinion, actually won) was a testament to his competence , his valiant efforts and his grit.

Remember that HRC deemed 2004 unwinnable, so, despite her clear interest in running for president even then, she decided to stay out of the 2004 campaign.

The suggestion of someone upthread (#6) that Kerry was totally frustrated with McAuliffe rings true to me. If you want to see REAL incompetence, look to McAuliffe and crew.
In many ways, I consider them saboteurs of the Kerry's 2004 campaign, almost as destructive to Kerry in their own way as the Rovians were.

Just consider this: Kerry's primary campaign was amazing; just recently, it was dubbed "brilliant" by someone. (Without question, his Iowa campaign was a model for effective on-the-ground efforts, great one-on-one retail campaigning by JK ;I was an obsessive watcher of CSPAN at the time, so I can testify to his great ability to relate to people one-on-one; he's great at Q and A because he genuinely enjoys the conversation that those sessions bring. . ).

It was only in the general campaign that strategy could be debated. Sorry, but the dysfunctional Dem party, including self-interested sorts (McAUliffe, Carville) who were more interested in paving the way for HRC in 2008 than helping Kerry's campaign , shares the blame for this.

Above all, I object to your implication that all Democrats were lukewarm to Kerry.
Not me: I worked harder for him, and with more pure positive conviction that he was the Real Thing, than for any other candidate in my life; and I continue to grieve at what our country lost by the outcome of the 2004 election. For the only time in my adult life, we could have had a man of courage, integrity and depth for president, but we (the dysfunctional Democrats, the media, the indifferent and ignorant voters) blew it. And we're paying the price. In spades.

Frankly, I don't think any of the current 2008 candidates match Kerry in quality. I'll vote for one of them, but I cannot bring much enthusiasm to this demented, chaotic race, more driven by money, celebrity, and media hype than ever.

Also, 2008 is a cakewalk for the Dems compared to 2004. If the Dems lose this time, it will be FOR SURE due to the incompetence of the candidate, and the party.


Our country is such a mess.

[flpoljunkie]

23. He hopes his movie will help poll driven Hillary become a "real candidate." Not gonna happen!

People are desperate for a look inside the broken political process, and that outweighs the instinct to bury our head in the sand.

Then - hopefully - Hillary will become a real candidate. And the Republicans will put up a candidate who isn't a complete contradiction.

And voters will get to choose between campaigns with clear points of view and passionate perspectives, not pole driven fictions that aim to look presidential and say little.

We've had one of those elections before - and we know how that turns out.

[MADem]

57. No, that isn't what he is hoping at all. He wants to use the themes he developed from his last

shitty movie and toss that same crap on the Clinton campaign, and if/when that goes down in flames, he'll go after Obama, Edwards, and so on, and do the exact same thing.

His schtick is that we Democrats don't actually LIKE any of our candidates. He picks on 'em one at a time, but that is what his little GOP message is. In actual fact, those candidates are interchangeable as far as he is concerned--he'd use the same whining gripes no matter who the "frontrunner" is, and no matter who the nominee turns out to be. You watch--no matter who ends up standing at the end of it all, he'll STILL be carping on these themes--even if it's Biden or Richardson or Dodd.

He's painting all Democrats with the same "Whaaaa, whaaaa, we don't like our nominee!!" brush, BEFORE WE EVEN HAVE A NOMINEE.

What he's doing here is called voter suppression. Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here!!

It is pretty clumsy, too. But hey, he can't produce a compelling documentary, he can't be gracious when his efforts don't meet with the success he hoped for, so he may as well do the Tabloid Journalism route for as long as he can, and behave like a total media whore. His reputation is in the toilet, anyway, and it'll give him some money before he has to abandon his journalistic aspirations completely and take that job at Mattress Warehouse to make ends meet.

[zulchzulu]

47. McCurry is a fat slob turncoat

I'm glad he's working on the campaign that best suits him. Same with that rat-faced fuckshit Carville.

[BlueIris]

50. Why are RW hacks still promoting these smears? Gee, could they be

worried about something?

[cuke]

56. And why do DUer's carry their water?

[MADem]

58. Precisely. nt

[Adelante]

54. I watched the clips

I haven't seen the whole thing and it seems very few people have. I'd say it would be a very easy thing to find a few campaign malcontents and turn an extremely close negative focus their way. There are always gripes and coulda been better scenarios from campaign operatives, some of whom simply had less access or influence than they would have liked, many of whom are the scum of the earth to begin with, and most of whom have the loyalty of fleas. Bleh.

[Major Hogwash]

67. So Rosenbaum is bashing Kerry to promote Hillary?

Talk about a screwed up concept!!

Hillary is three reich marks to the right of Kerry.

Good luck with that.

LoL

[BlueIris]

74. Yeah, really.

And people say Shillary's people are such skilled campaigners.

[wisteria]

68. This is nothing more than remarketing a bad piece of work.

From a second rate video ham. The best thing to come out of it was this little video that shows a side of Senator Kerry the media and Bush didn't want you to see. Senator Kerry- relaxed, friendly and funny.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD5ZlRxCRyk

[Capn Sunshine]

69. All that being said

WHY do you support Hillary? The same people are running her campaign as well. Isn't that an issue with you?

[josh_edwards07]

70. Controversy w/ the Kerry camp

What's new?????