For the record

[kerrygoddess]

It is my opinion that we all have a right to make our choices on who to back. I've made mine, FYI and I get that no one here will understand it - http://thedemocraticdaily.com/2008/01/17/yes-she-can/

I will say however, that I shared my decision with a certain of member of JK's staff who knows me very well and made it clear that I STILL support JK in the Senate and for re-election. The response I got was gracious and confirmed my feeling that JK would understand. I'm sharing it here because I think it's something you should take heed of:

That's very nice of you to let me and Sen. Kerry know that. I suspected that's where you were heading reading The Democratic Daily lately.

My take is, I think everyone has a right to make a choice on this -- you know, I've been struck that many of the people displeased with Sen. Kerry's decision don't seem to get that he's a person like anyone else who has earned the right to make an endorsement and have an opinion, and hey so do you!

Your lasting and enduring loyalty to JK is really special and kind and means a lot to me and The Boss -- even if we're not on the same side of this nomination fight, we're on the same side of a much bigger fight-

Also I will share here that I let the certain staff member know that yesterday when I was at the HRC event Brad Sherman dissed JK in what I felt was uncalled for. Here's what I said in my email to JK's staffer:

Brad Sherman spoke at the HRC I attended yesterday. He called JK a glass jaw. I spoke with HRC after the rally and told her as Kerry supporter I felt it was offensive. I told her that IF she wins the nomination she will need the JK supporters who feel alienated by the dissing of JK by her surrogates. She thanked me for telling her and I was surprised that she asked me to tell Sherman what I told her. Sherman was not so gracious.

The bottomline here is this - we will all need to come together at some point and I was impressed with the fact that HRC actually cared enough when I told her I was offended by Sherman's remarks to ask me to tell him. He was right behind her at the rope line. I caught his attention and spoke with him. Think what you will about HRC, if she didn't care she never would have asked me to say something to Sherman. She respected the fact that I am a longtime Kerry supporter and I had made a difficult choice in supporting her, one that I didn't want to affect my relationship with JK or his staff.

[Noisy Democrat]

1. I think most Kerry supporters

tend to be reasonable people, and so can accept that not everyone will jump on the Obama train just because of the endorsement. One of my closest friends is a committed Kerrycrat and an Edwards supporter. If all Kerry supporters automatically agreed with John Kerry on everything -- well, we wouldn't be much of Kerry supporters, now would we? I mean, part of what he's all about is taking responsibility and participating, and that means researching and thinking for ourselves, too. (Though in my case, my reaction to all 3 of the top candidates was "Eh, OK, whatever," so the fact that JK has put his stamp of approval on one is enough to get me on board, though not to make me a rabid fan. If I'd already selected one of the other two, it wouldn't have been enough.)

The beef I and many others have with Taylor Marsh is that she's gone far, far over the line into Kerry-bashing. I'm frankly puzzled as to why she feels it's appropriate or necessary.

[beachmom]

2. Thanks for sharing those stories. I am glad that you told HRC

that you were upset about the Kerry bashing. He is just stating an opinion, and was clear that any of the candidates would move the country forward; he only thought that Obama was the best. The vitriol levelled at him is beyond ridiculous, and I wish it would stop. I haven't said one unkind word about Wes Clark, so I don't understand why Kerry has been treated so badly.

You are not the only Kerry supporter on the blogs supporting HRC. I know of one other. But you have to understand that many of us are still smarting from past Clinton betrayals (not just The Joke), and think her campaign has been a practice in mud slinging. That is where the strong feelings come from.

Not everyone here is going to vote for the nominee if it is her because of that past. I think they have every right to feel that way. If Hillary gets the nomination, I will need some time to get over what she has done in this primary campaign, but given the GOP field, I will probably have licked my wounds enough to pull the lever for her. I obviously hope that it is Obama who is our standard bearer but that goes without saying.

There is no ill will if you support Hillary; I just think it's important that the battle over the nomination sticks to the facts.

See you on the other side of the nomination process.

[kerrygoddess]

4. I think in many ways

now that I have met her myself, HRC is vastly different than portrayed in the media. When I told her how I felt about what Sherman said she was grateful I shared my opinion. When we were finished talking she leaned towards me and whispered "please tell the Congressman what you told me."

I also told her about being an only parent, raising my daughter alone for nearly 18 years, running a business, blogging, no HC insurance for years, she started to get choked up and it was real.

I don't think there are hard feelings on her part or her supporters about JK's choice. Part of what is happening is propping up each candidate to say they will run a better campaign and win this one. It's part of the process. JK knows that. Even Obama has said as much, as we have all discussed here.

I walked away with a vastly different impression of her, as I did with JK when I first met him.

[karynnj]

6. Nice to hear, but as you said the Congressman was there,

I would have been more impressed had she turned to the Congressman and said something like, "for my sake, please listen to what this woman has to say - I agree" or something to that affect.

Some of the people here met her at Take Back America and said that she was nice when they met her. I doubt any politician or spouse can succeed if they can't be nice when they meet people. I don't think she's an ogre. But just as you say that Taylor Marsh made her decision for good reasons - many of us here have reasons every bit as valid. I am more concerned about the Clinton's willingness to play dirty and to take corrupt money.

[kerrygoddess]

13. There were people all around her

Just like any campaign event and she was moving on to talk to the person next to me. I spent enough time around JK during '04 and since to know I was lucky to get the face time I did with her considering I knew no one on her staff at the event and I started my conversation with her saying I was a Kerry blogger. She could have just moved along... Yep, they all have to be nice. Met a few now, and they're all very pleasent and nice - except Brad Sherman.

I really didn't need to come here and share all of this. I did because JK matters to me.

As for playing dirty, etc, I can only say you might want to listen to her, I mean really listen, because I spent a lot of time listening before I made this choice. I get that she's not what people make her out to be.

[karynnj]

51. KG, I have read and followed HRC

since the NYT magazine had a cover story on the Clintons in 1990. I do like some things that she has been for, which is not surprising the same could be said for any Democrat running. My reasons for not wanting her as the nominee are likely as well thought out, as logical and as valid as yours for wanting her.

I have come to see that in the 1990s, I defended both Clintons on things, where my conscience knew I shouldn't. This goes beyond Bill Clinton's affairs that HRC is obviously not responsible for. Additionally, I did follow the way HRC handled health care in the 1990s. Her inclination was for a closed secret process. Congress had to force her to say who she spoke to. She did not work with key Senators and ended up with a plan the entire Finance committee was against. Bill Clinton opted not to bring it to the floor. (I suspect that it was more that than the ad blitz that defeated it.) I know the media has had many stories of how she works well with everyone in the Senate, but I don't believe it because that doesn't match what I've seen in watching some of the Armed Service Committee hearings. (Yes I know it takes chutzpah on my part to say I don't believe the beltway media.)

I see Obama as the one more likely to LISTEN to experts and Senators in creating legislation. People, not even Edwards, feel change radically at age 60. HRC is smart, well meaning, but I think she will alienate the Congress.

[TayTay]

7. No hard feelings on JK's choice?

I beg your pardon? This reads as if Team Clinton thinks an endorsement was owed them and was not forthcoming.

No one is owed an endorsement. It is earned. While Senator Kerry has pledged that he will support the nominee of the Democratic Party, he is free to endorse whomever he wants in the primaries.

Don't you find that even slightly insulting? No hard feelings? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

[kerrygoddess]

18. Don't read anything into it that you shouldn't.

.

[YvonneCa]

3. KG...

...thank you for sharing your story here. One of the things I like most about this group is the honesty (even with differing opinions and choices) and respect that DUJK members grant one another. This is a difficult time. I'm still ambivalent (one day I think I'll choose Obama, the next it's Hillary or Edwards...that's REAL confusion for you :7 ) but for me it's because 1) none measure up to JK, and 2) all are vastly superior to the other side.

I really liked this sentiment, from the JK staff person you quoted:

"Your lasting and enduring loyalty to JK is really special and kind and means a lot to me and The Boss -- even if we're not on the same side of this nomination fight, we're on the same side of a much bigger fight- "

...THAT'S what counts. :patriot:

[MarjorieG]

5. She's substantial and charming, not the she-devil, but the best?

Hillary has an appeal for a lot of single women. Maybe it's her struggles with her man, who is increasingly about the past we didn't like or, for some, just seeing now without the filters.

I've always said she is more and less than how people think of her.

I will vote for her, of course, but I don't like who comes with her, her circle, and I have a hard time feeling we had to lose Kerry, and have happen all these past few years, just because they wanted to run again. Bill has always been the most selfish and self-indulgent public figure, and more than anything, I don't want him back. He is no longer the man of Hope, but the guy Tom Joyner said may no longer be the first black president, given his recent shenanigans

I do think Obama has a lot more skill, policy smarts, people smarts, than is understood now, and I want the symbol of something new, an internationalist, and, frankly, someone non-white, as the face of this country. We have a lot of symbolism we need to show the world.

New Yorkers are for Hillary, maybe Edwards, so who knows? She has the establishment who may be reconsidering or staying firm. She has super delegates, but they are making this race something we don't want to continue. Not in the same way.

Happy New Year to you, and my best, always. Nothing personal.

[kerrygoddess]

8. Personally

As a mother, I admire the fact that she was a working mother at a time when it wasn't as prevelent. She was among those women who made it okay. She's done a lot for children and I feel she gets how hard it is for women like me struggling to make a living and raise a child. Other single mother's I've talked have similar feelings about her. Nothing at all to do with her struggles with her man. When I heard her speak yesterday it wasn't about "them" it was to her about "us - we the people." You know she taps into something that women want to hear, as I said in my post.

Anyway, I didn't post my decision here to try and sell anyone and I respect that others here support Obama.

Happy New Year to you too.

[ray of light]

9. KG the next time you have Hillary's ear...

please tell her that she shouldn't offer immunity to GWB and anyone associated with the White House. Please tell her that we expect that she will show more courage than her husband did by making sure there are criminal investigations and indictments against Bush and Cheney and all who were involved or are currently involved in the lies, torture, illegal spying, and the resulting coverups.

Bill let one Bushie off the hook. Please tell Hillary that she shouldn't let the other Bushie off the hook.

[kerrygoddess]

10. Will do!

I will pass that along to someone actually, because who knows if I will ever get a chance to speak with her again. Honestly I didn't think I would yesterday. After all there was no Marvin there to make sure - I had a press pass but knew no one on her staff at the event.

[ray of light]

11. Oh. and you should tell her to bring a fight on to those medical lobbys

we want universal healthcare now. Not incremental required healthcare.

Her HillaryCare is so much better than the approach she's dangling out there now. So please tell her.

I would also say the same thing to all the candidates if I could.

[kerrygoddess]

16. Her current plan

compares very closely with JK's '06 plan actually. Sad but true.

[ray of light]

48. Not true, KG.

Her plan is not similar to JK-06's plan. His 04 plan--maybe but not 06. I'm sure that was just a typo on your part.

Regardless the fact that Hillary's plan is only comparable to an 04 plan indicates that Hillary hasn't recognised how drastically the times have changed since 04!

# of jobs lost--HIGHER
# of Home foreclosures--HIGHER
# of people willing to vote for a progressive agenda has increased compared to four years ago.
Markets are down their highest number in pretty much 94 years. In 04, they weren't as good as Bill Clinton's markets were. This means peoples' 401k's are down at almost 1/3 to 1/2 of what they were in 04.
Gas prices are regularly over 3 dollars/gallon.
Food prices are up.
The leading cause of bankcruptcy is healthcare and divorse. Yet, her plan doesn't account for those new laws.

In 04, weren't we the ownership society? Well, in 08, we're the foreclosure society.

The time is now for some solid progressive legislation!

Frankly, I think it's rather disingenuous to try to compare it to JK and to make it a 06 plan when the plan put out in 04 was appropriate at the time for what the people would have allowed. Back in 04, JK's plan covered all children and was gearing towards bringing in adults asap. But our economy is worse, no matter how they play with the numbers, and we have a national shame on our hands with a recession coming on as well.

I repeat..Hillary and all the candidates need to get Congress to bring Universal Single-Payer Healthcare for all--including children and adults. Hillary understood this in 92-94. Why doesn't she understand it now? In 92, the slogan was, 'It's the economy stupid.' In 94, Hillary's reputation was that she would INSIST that it had to COVER 100% and that the government would provide it. She was ahead of the time in 94. But after getting kicked around by the Republicans and the insurance corps, the lesson she took from that is that it should be 'incremental' and that the corps shouldn't get touched.

A lesson appropriate in 94 isn't appropriate 14 years later.

Well, in 08, we have the same slogan. But unless Hillary is willing to bring back "HillaryCare" and single payer universal health care for 100% without allowing the insurance companies to dictate the terms, just as she did in 94, then her plan is never going to pass an 'acceptable' threshold, in my book and many others too. She fought for it in 94, but in 08, she's letting the insurance companies dictate the rules.

It doesn't matter much to me that she was a 'working mom when working mom's weren't cool.' What matters to me is that the average person making minimum wage and working full time (or a combination of 2-3 jobs to equal full time) is still earning 5,000 LESS than the Federal poverty line. More than 60% of those full-time minimum wage employees are single parents (usually single mothers.) What matters to me is that saying healthcare is required, doesn't help those 60% of working mothers, making minimum wage, pay for the gas, food, healthcare insurance (required under Hillary's plan), and that doesn't even include the cost of clothing a child or buying school supplies which the schools do not provide!

So as I said...please share that information with her the next time you see her or her staffers. If she's truly representing working moms and working families, then she needs to instigate universal single payer healthcare.

[Dr Ron]

82. Clinton's Health Plan Differs Substantially From Kerry's

Clinton's plan is quite different from Kerry's in many areas.

In terms of the current political race the most significant difference is over mandates. While Clinton has been attacking Obama over not including a mandate, in 2003 Kerry specifically decided against including a mandate.

For whatever it is worth, Biden came the closest to Kerry's 2003-4 plan, but he was never really a factor in the race. After Biden, Obama's plan is the most similar.

[kerrygoddess]

89. I said Kerry's '06 plan and he did call for mandates in '06

But you ignore that I said '06. In July '06 Kerry outlined a revised plan that called for mandates:

"Experts agree Kerry’s plan will cover all Americans. A mandate will go into effect in 2012 to cover any remaining uninsured."

A copy of the Kerry fact sheet is here - http://www.thedemocraticdaily.com/07-31-06-Kerry-Health-Care-fact-sheet.doc

Kerry's July '06 (also included in his '04) plan:

"Gives every American access to the same type of health care plan that Members of Congress get today and providing tax credits to make it affordable for the middle class, small businesses, near retirees, and people between jobs."

Clinton's plan:

"The Same Choice of Health Plan Options that Members of Congress Receive: Americans can keep their existing coverage or access the same menu of quality private insurance options that their Members of Congress receive through a new Health Choices Menu, established without any new bureaucracy as part of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). In addition to the broad array of private options that Americans can choose from, they will be offered the choice of a public plan option similar to Medicare." - http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx

When Clinton's plan was released I enquired as to who the plan closest to Kerry's '06 plan and was told it was Clinton.

[TayTay]

12. So, you will ask other bloggers to stop Swiftboating Democrats?

On the blogs. That would be a courageous act that would win you back supporters here and prove that you mean what you say.

Perhaps a post or two on your blog that calls other bloggers out for what they have said about a person that you claim to admire deeply. Perhaps a post that calls the shameless lies and "swiftboating" of that person for what it is: garbage.

It is one thing to claim something that is essentially unprovable. It is another to publicly take on actions that you deem wrong. Smearing other Dems with RW lies is always wrong. Don't you agree we should fight this? No matter where it appears?

Some things are above politics. Like smearing someone's service record and using lies to justify that action. If you believe this, then perhaps you should tell your friends about it as well.

[kerrygoddess]

14. I'm really glad that at least

some members of JK's staff aren't taking my decision personally.

[TayTay]

17. Swiftboating is personal to some of JK's staff

It was a smear against a honorable service record. It is a despicable thing to do and should never be tolerated. IF I knew someone engaged in it, I would call them out on it. That is the moral and right thing to do.

Funny that the request for a statement of support strikes you as something done against you and as personal against your choice. That choice was not mentioned in the post, btw.

So, as a long-time friend and supporter of JK, can he count on you to publicly defend him and all Democrats against smears and lies? That was the question, after all.

Swiftboating is always wrong. Democrats should not be doing it or be defending those who do. Maybe that simple statement is too much for you to make at this time. But it would be a courageous thing to do and show real intent to back up Democrats and Sen. Kerry.

BTW, that's not personal, it's the truth.

[fedupinBushcountry]

20. Agree 100%

This shouldn't even have to be explained.

[beachmom]

19. You know, John Kerry is a very tough guy with a strong character.

He can take a lot. But I can imagine it would be shocking if he personally knew that a liberal blogger said this about him, and his "first blogger supporter" refused to condemn it, and in fact, allied with the said liberal blogger:

This is the same guy who sat on his privileged posterior while Swift Boat Veterans for Truth took him to the cleaners in the press, creating free media across the landscape of the United States, right after the Democratic convention that was a love fest of nauseating proportions without one iota of contrast drawn between Democrats and Republicans, because somebody had the bright idea that going negative would be a no-no. So right after he accepted the nomination, what happened? The swiftboaters went straight into Kerry's bona fide war hero status, while he sat back and... ... ... and... ... ... did absolutely nothing because he actually believed the American people would never buy their bull because after all he was John Kerry Democratic Nominee For President, while the rest of us twisted in the wind waiting for this guy to do something.

Instead, Kerry let weeks and weeks go by until the narrative was sewn into the fabric of the traditional media, while people like me, before I went to blogging, busted my butt in abject obscurity but with the passion of a well paid pol, putting out the real story of his amazing heroism, of which to this day I stand in awe, which is why this latest event from Mr. Oh God What Will He Say Next has me in such a fury.

And now John Kerry wants to teach another Democratic presidential nominee how to fight?

Watch out if he asks you to go wind surfing.


When are you going to condemn Taylor Marsh and what she said about John Kerry? When are you going to say that that is unacceptable and will not be tolerated? And publicly on The Dem Daily.

[kerrygoddess]

22. Read my original post again

Read my original post again and understand I didn't come here to fight with you all. I am very disheartened but not surprised that you and others here couldn't follow suit with the gracious response I got today when I sent that email so JK would know my decision.

[beachmom]

26. Look, I don't think you totally get what is happening here, as I read

through the thread (and really the previous thread). Your collusion with Taylor Marsh is frankly unacceptable. Is it her or is it JK? As far as I'm concerned that's the argument here. Not supporting Hillary. That's an "agree to disagree" decision. Not the stuff with Taylor Marsh. That is a dealbreaker. Is it all now becoming clearer?

[kerrygoddess]

28. Au contraire

I do get what is happening here. And as I said I knew when I posted my OP that people here would not appreciate. So again I will say I didn't have to let you all know. I thought it was the right thing to do however, as I let JK's staff know. As for the rest of your insinuations, let me make myself clear. Taylor knows my relationship with JK and my deep support for him. I suggested in the other thread you should go back and read some of her stuff from a few years ago, because some how people here got the impression that she was always nice to JK. I'm not in collusion with her, I also don't work for anyone or take my marching orders from you or anyone in this forum. Never have and never will.

[beachmom]

33. That calls into question your credibility as a JK supporter

You not only refuse to condemn posts by Taylor Marsh that every single JK supporter would condemn (and even an Edwards supporter came in here to give us the link to let us know), you actively link to that blog to this day in a positive manner. And it is well established fact that you put out false rumors on your blog which Taylor Marsh linked to; that is the collusion I speak of.

You need to come to terms with the choices you have made.

[kerrygoddess]

34. FYI

I link to a lot of blogs and a lot of blogs link to me. You need to come to terms with your nasty attitude about my endorsement choice and understand that I will still continue to support JK on my blog in the manner that works for me and of my own volition. Not because you -- I'm sorry who are you - demand that I do what you want me to. Get thee over thyself and grow up.

[beachmom]

53. The post I am talking about:

http://thedemocraticdaily.com/2008/01/16/nevada-caucus-concerns/

[ray of light]

49. Let me ask you something

Are you condoning Taylor Marsh's lies and swiftboating against John Kerry?

[karynnj]

55. How sanctimonious!

I doubt any of us care the least bit that you support HRC. That is your decision. But, in this thread, you have implied or said many unfair things. I have no problem that you support HRC because you see her as a role model for women, the most experienced or even if you picked her for the zodiac sign she was born under. That is completely your right.

But you have said or implied:
- that those of us for Obama picked him because (Edwards and HRC were mean to Kerry). Though those actions did cause me to lose some degree of respect for them as people, the reason I ended up with Obama are no less valid than yours for picking HRC. Are you implying the Senator endorsed Obama because the others hurt his feelings? I think that statement would be out of line in this group.

- that our outrage over Taylor Marsh's ridiculous very person attack on JK is anything but the reaction that you would suspect here is incredible. By the way, you, of all people, know the convention was very well regarded when it was happening. This is an exaggeration on the Clinton linked criticism that happened after the Republican hate fest and amplified after the election. Kerry did project a positive, real alternative at that convention. Morphing into Michael Moore would have delighted the left, but lost the people who he needed to see him as Presidential and likable. I know Republicans and Independents who moved to him at that point.

Ask Taylor Marsh to look at 1992. Bill Clinton had a positive convention and the Republicans had a hatefest. Just like 2004. The difference, Bill Clinton had 9 hours compared to 3 for Kerry AND the media condemned the hatefest and praised Clinton for his positive hopeful convention. Needless to say if HRC is the candidate, I bet you that her convention will more likely be a positive one like Kerry's than one where she attacks the Republican candidate.

Even then, look at the tone, "sitting on his privileged posterior". You were there in 2004, is that how YOU would describe what happened? And, what brought this nasty gem about? She was in a snit because JK endorsed Obama.

- Taylor Marsh put out a serious charge that was wrong, without checking it out. This is something to criticize.

[Inuca]

46. This is the first time I saw

this quote from Marsh. DISGUSTING does not begin to describe it. That's all.

[beachmom]

54. I have reprinted all of what Taylor Marsh said about John Kerry here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=145249&mesg_id=145275

[fedupinBushcountry]

21. What Tay is talking about

has nothing to do with your decision on who you support. It has to do with you going along with someone who repeatedly dissed JK and outright swiftboated him. You dodged the question, that is very troublesome to me, it should have been so easy to answer.

[kerrygoddess]

23. Don't worry yourself.

JK and his staff know who has had his back when no one else did and who still had his back.

[beachmom]

24. Fine, then continue to have his back and condemn TM's posts about JK.

That they were meanspirited and nasty, and pertuated lies that he didn't fight back against the SBVT when he did.

The Kerryverse is waiting ......

[fedupinBushcountry]

25. Is that all you have to say?

You have never been the only one to have JK's back, and that is very low of you to say. His staff also know a lot more people then just *you* have his back and we still DO.

[kerrygoddess]

27. I was referring to the fact

that for a very long time my blog (and actually LUTD prior to) was about the only blog that had his back or covered him after '04. Top that off with the fact that I the primary source for JK news in this forum at that time because being on the press list wasn't an option for the entire group as it is now. Yes, his staff has lots of people to cover his back now and I'm frankly glad that they do.

[fedupinBushcountry]

29. Oh please

Enough of your self praising, the matter is the swiftboating of JK. Do you have his back or not? If you do, you will call out Taylor Marsh on her lies. If not, then what does that say about you?

[kerrygoddess]

30. The matter is a choice I made

I didn't bring up Taylor Marsh at all in my post. That you and others here are turning this into my not having JK's back is exactly what I expected, so thank you. Because in fact you've shown me what you are really about.

[fedupinBushcountry]

31. Ok

You have now proven that you will no longer defend JK in order to protect someone who happens to support your candidate in this race. I see where you are coming from and where you are going, it's all about where you fit in the process. Have fun, don't let the door hit you on the way out. EOM

[kerrygoddess]

32. WTF?

Your insinuations are so far from the truth they are ridiculous. I'm not trying to fit in process. That's what you all don't understand. I am my own person. JK respects that. His staff respects that.

[karynnj]

56. You need to be honest with yourself

You DID have Kerry's back for a very long time - but you have a blind spot where Taylor Marsh is concerned. Reread that post and pretend it was by a blogger that you did not like. How fast would you condemn it?

[ray of light]

15. This is swiftboating by an

alleged 'loyal dem'.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x145249#145274

It's one thing I very much admire about JK. He's not out there swiftboating anyone. Instead he has a 'all hands on deck' mentality towards winning back some seats with progressives so that we can get some really needed progressive legislation through.

So it's really sick to see TM swiftboating a progressive.

Also, it's been posted across the web that TM made up the information. But then again...that is what swiftboating is.

I believe TM needs to apologize.

[Dr Ron]

81. Democratic Daily is Part of the Problem

Democratic Party is part of the problem so don't get your hopes up Pamela helping with the solution.

Other bloggers like Taylor Marsh are certainly worse, but much of the problem comes directly from the Clinton campaign. The campaign has increasingly been using a series of smears and distortions against Obama since he became a threat.

I'm sure Pamela receives all the same emails and invitations to conference calls regarding the smear of the day from the Clinton campaign as I receive.

The difference is that I have sometimes responded to the email with a comment to Peter chastising him for spreading such distortions, noting that this type of campaigning ultimately demonstrates why we need someone like Obama instead of Clinton. Plus it gives me a heads up as to which smears to prepare to comment on at Liberal Values. In contrast, Pamela repeats the same smears which the Clinton campaign spreads, blindly repeating their talking points as fact.

[karynnj]

83. wow - Thanks for this perspective

It really is sad that the smears are coming directly from the campaign. I had suspected they were, but thought that they would at least have tried to create "deniability". Not that it would make the action any less despicable, but it would at least mean they saw it as being wrong.

They had, of course, signalled that their lesson from 2004 was that smears work - and that they should therefore engage in them. In addition to the fact that supporting a Democratic campaign that does this will hurt people with integrity, it could well happen that they will be seen doing this when the public has finally soured on it. (which 2006 seems to show with the Kerry supported vet candidates.)

You have my respect for being one of the good guys.

[Dr Ron]

86. Whatever it takes it won is the philosophy

In politics most are willing to do whatever it takes to win. Smears started well before 2004, and Clinton is certainly not above this.

Hopefully Obama is able to stay above this. No campaign is 100% honest, but at least the cases where I've seen both Kerry and Obama stretch the truth in their campaigns have been much milder than anything done to them. There have been things out of the Kerry 2004 campaign and Obama 2008 campaign which deal with ambiguities and which leave organizations such as Factcheck.org room to criticize them, but they haven't out right lied or resorted to the types of smears as used by Bush and now Clinton.

[ray of light]

87. Thank you for having integrity, Dr Ron.

Thanks for the info.

I'm sure it's another case when the saying, "Follow the money" will present clarity to this whole situation.

Like I said before...it shows a lot about a person when they're not willing to swiftboat others like TM did but also it shows a lot when they refuse to take a simple pledge to tell the truth and not swiftboat other dems.

[kerrygoddess]

96. "Follow the Money"????

Bloggers declare when they are getting paid by candidates. Good luck if you think TM is getting paid by HRC and not declaring. Same goes for me. I am getting paid by no one.

[ray of light]

101. Bloggers don't always declare it though they should! Example 1:

Kos was paid by Dean but didn't declare it.

The media reported on it and then he was forced to declare it.

Now, who knows if TM was paid to swiftboat a Dem. If she lacks the credibility to check out facts and to post lies, then there's no reason why she wouldn't be taking payola and not reporting it either.

[kerrygoddess]

105. Example 1 is old news

And now it is a matter of course that all bloggers declare they are paid by a campaign or PAC. Particularly because bloggers learned in '04 that people will search the FEC databases to see who is getting paid.

[ray of light]

108. Yes. But by time the FEC papers are filed the damage is already done.

[kerrygoddess]

110. No it's not

Because bloggers do call other bloggers on it and so does the media.

[ray of light]

114. When are the FEC papers filed? Because there is a window of opportunity

for those who are willing to use it for that purpose.

I'm sure you aren't taking payola. But as of right now, there's lots of people who aren't trusting Taylor Marsh anymore. And I am one of them.

Also, you stated, 'Because bloggers do call other bloggers on it and so does the media."

Well, KG, that's what these comments on this whole thread have been about! Asking YOU to CALL OUT Taylor Marsh on the swift-boating and ask that she rescind and apologize for her erroneous post. You are a blogger. You run a Democratic media site.

If you're not willing to call her out on it and hold her acocuntable, then why would we trust the other bloggers or media to do the right thing either?

[kerrygoddess]

116. NO it isn't what this thread is about

You all changed the subject. I am NOT the blog police. I pick my own battles. Did you tell off a Congressman for dissing JK? That's far more powerful then this. And don't you post on KerryVision - call her out yourself. Call her out on DKos. Call her out in GDP.

[ray of light]

117. See this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=145282&mesg_id=145463

[kerrygoddess]

120. I read it

Show me please where I mentioned TM in my OP.

[ray of light]

104. And you're still now vowing to not swiftboat a Dem.

[kerrygoddess]

112. Let me repeat what I said below:

One would think that the fact that I asked Senator Clinton to be cognicent of her surrogates speaking badly about JK and also spoke up to the Congressman who said some nasty things about JK would have been enough for this group.

I don't know when the last time was anyone here actually said they told a candidate in this race they were offended by what was said about the former nominee in a surrogate speech or when the last when anyone here told off a Congressman who dissed JK?

That I spoke up to HRC and Rep. Brad Sherman should have been enough and instead of thanking me suddenly I'm supposed to run around the blogosphere demanding that other bloggers retract things. There are not enough hours in the day for me to do everything for everyone and I pick my battles. Clearly speaking up to HRC and Sherman was a much larger battle.

Finally, one last note on the day I went to the HRC event. I also met Patrick Healy of the NY Times. I told him I was a blogger for JK in '04 and still worked with his press office and that he really ought to tone down his outright attacks on JK, HRC and other Dems that he hits on in the NY Times. I told him he had been incredibly unfair to JK and as he knew most liberal bloggers don't like him because of his BS reporting.

[Dr Ron]

99. Not exactly following the money

There's no money involved, except in the sense that Hillary was smart to hire Peter and get the advantages of his connections in the blogosphere. The Clinton campaign has done the best job of getting their message out to bloggers, which is probably a major reason for the change in perception of her by many bloggers. Some bloggers believe the information spread by the Clinton campaign, and some of us don't.

[Dr Ron]

100. Ad money

In retrospect I should revise my last comment saying there is no money involved. Some have raised the question of whether Clinton's purchase of blog ads has had an impact on her coverage by some bloggers. There is no way to know for sure, but I doubt this is a major factor.

[ray of light]

102. Of course ad money makes a difference. The same way that

in traditional media ad money pays for what's on the air.

There's a reason the GOP's media keeps the GOP's message out.

Even if there's no direct payola, the ads contribute to the blogsite owners income. The more hits it gets, the more advertisers are willing to pay.

[kerrygoddess]

106. Well I suggest

you not come here anymore if you finds ads so offensive and think blogsite owners shouldn't accept them.

Have you heard of entrepreneurship. I am quite sure that JK would defend the right for bloggers to make money from ads, in fact he has been very generous with supporting bloggers make money by advertising on the blogs.

[Dr Ron]

107. Difference in spreading Clinton smears?

The question is whether Clinton's ads have contributed to blogs spreading the anti-Obama smears.

There is no way to know for sure what has motiviated each blogger, but my suspicion is that contact from the campaign has had much more influence in convincing some bloggers of their positions than the ad money has. It is certainly possible that some are spreading Clinton's talking points in the hopes that they will receive more ads from her, but I'm not convinced that this has been a major factor.

[kerrygoddess]

109. If you are not convinced it is a major factor

than you should be careful about spreading the meme. My biggest advertiser last year was "Draft John Kerry" FYI.

[Dr Ron]

111. I'm not spreading the meme

I was simply trying to correct a minor error in my comment. I had stated that there was no money involved in a comment, but after posting realized that this was not totally correct as there is ad money.

[kerrygoddess]

113. thank you for sharing.

[kerrygoddess]

103. Ad money

At some point nearly all of candidates have done full ad buys in Liberal Blog ads. Obama also advertises via Google adsense, so does McCain. Of course JK also has advertised heavily via Liberal Blogs ads too.

[kerrygoddess]

90. And I also receive the "smear of the day" tips from team Obama

All the campaigns send out oppo, have conference calls, and spread their own version of the truth and talking points. I've noticed in fact that you are blindly repeating Obama talking points in fact. Part and parcel of supporting a candidate, isn't it.

[Dr Ron]

98. Nonsense

First of all I don't receive anything from the Obama campaign, so I couldn't be blindly repeating any talking points.

Secondly, the smears have all been quite one sided in this campaign.

This is not part and parcel of supporting a candidate at all. Some candidates have integrity. Some, like the Clintons, do not.

[Dr Ron]

125. I've debunked smears against all candidates

To my previous comment I should also add that I have consistently opposed all Swift Boating and the practice of distortions by all candidates, regardless of whether I personally support them.

I have defended Obama, Clinton, and Edwards at various times. I've also defended Republicans when I've felt attacks on them weren't justified.

It is possible to both support the principle of sticking to issues and avoiding unfair attacks as while still supporting a candidate.

[kerrygoddess]

128. I am aware of that

I think most every progressive blogger has debunked various distortions in this cycle. Now bloggers are starting to support the candidate of their choice and things are getting dicey. I would tend to think you've been recently harsh with HRC given you are clearly supporting Obama, and likewise I would assume you think I have been harsh with Obama. I would not venture to call Obama "biased" or a "cheater" though both of which are not proven criticisms about HRC.

I do applaude that you have given some fair play to may on your blog Ron. As always you are putting out well written opinions as most all bloggers do. Just as the media doesn't always agree, so to for bloggers.

[Dr Ron]

131. I've defended Clinton while supporting Obama

In the last couple of weeks I've both supported Obama and simultaneously defended Clinton, so it is not a matter of defending all and then choosing and defending one.

I have been harder on Clinton recently since her campaign has been more dishonest recently. I assume this is because they felt more threatened after Obama won in Iowa, and are now willing to resort to anything to win.

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have outright lied about what Obama has said recently in their attacks, as I have documented. If they would have stuck to the issues rather than resorting to smears then I wouldn't have been as harsh on her recently. At this point I think that the dishonesty shown by the Clinton campaign is an issue in itself and a major reason to oppose her.

How can we trust someone who lies this freely during a campaign not to lie like this once in office?

[kerrygoddess]

134. I've seen harsh rhetoric from each candidate

Many progressive bloggers have documented it from each candidate. I applaud your support of Obama and I applaud the support of others here of Obama. As I quoted from the email in OP we're not all on the same team for the nomination fight but will be once the nominee is chosen.

[Dr Ron]

139. Harsh and Dishonest are two different things

I have seen many examples of dishonesty from Clinton. I haven't seen anything comparable from Obama.

[kerrygoddess]

141. It's a matter of your opinion vs other opinions

we've been down this road before.

[Dr Ron]

142. No, it is a matter of fact

I have documented many several cases of dishonesty on the part of the Clinton campaign.

You claim that Obama has done the same. Can you present any evidence of this?

I am dealing purely with matters of fact, not opinion.

[Vektor]

35. Hi, KG. Several of us from the DU JK group...

Myself, Tay, KarenDC, Global Village, MH1, Island Blue, Beachmom and others met Senator Clinton in the Russell Building in the summer of 2006. (Correct me if I'm wrong, folks, I *think * I am remembering mostly correctly who was there.) :shrug:

It was quite by accident - we literally ran into her in the hallway. Karen said hello to her, and she excused herself from the gentleman whom she was about to board the elevator with, and came over to say hello and chat with us for a few minutes. She shook all our hands, and asked our names, and was very warm and gracious. I thought she seemed pretty genuine.

I have altogether managed to stay above the fray this primary season. I'm mainly interested in electing a Democrat above all else, and while we all know who my first choice WOULD have been as a presidential contender...:-)

...I don't feel I have enough of a "dog in this fight" to duke it out with any of the candidates' supporters. I am passionate about a sea change happening in Washington and in the White House in 2008, but not "on fire" for any particular candidate.

Thanks for posting this. I think everyone here in this group can respect one another's common humanity first and foremost, and respect each others' individual choices, as well as the collective choice we have all made to support the Democratic party.

:hi: How are you and your daughter doing these days?

[kerrygoddess]

36. Thank you.

I thought she seemed pretty genuine too. It was a tough choice and like you I want to see a Dem in the White House.

My first choice WOULD have been the same as yours. Still is - maybe we should do write ins?

Doing well thanks and you? If I am not mistaken my daughter is up your way now - in her first year at UCSC. She loves it up there. Aren't you sort of near there? I'll be coming up that way next month if you are - would love to meet you.

[Vektor]

37. I'm in the Bay Area now -

About 90 min. north of Santa Cruz. Not too far at all, in the grand scheme.

Send me a PM when you know your plans. How long will you be in SC?

[kerrygoddess]

40. I will let you know when I start making plans

I do know I have to be there on Feb 16 for Parent Day. Would like to take my daughter up to the Bay area after that event even if it is for just one night and the next day.

[Vektor]

42. Sounds good!

Just let me know. Lots do do and see here.

As well as plenty of good eats! :-)

[MarjorieG]

38. We were there, and thought she was warm and gracious.

Attractive in her apricot suit, she seemed relieved that some TBA attendees were complimentary. Karen felt she should speak that way more often, use of voice, that is.

My concern is that many don't want a return of the Clintons, above all else, and reminded lately why. An article that MBS sent around some weeks ago talked of concern that a Clitnon return would deflate some of the gains, the enthusiasm and further split the Democratic party, much less failing to unify the country. Which has nothing to do with the reality of Hillary.

I know that your relationship with TM goes back a couple of years, KG, but really, her nastiness is beyond opinion and advocacy for Hillary. I don't think sharing your opinion that she's over the top, not factual, done appropriately, would be overstepping the bounds. (typo)

[Vektor]

39. Yes, you and Violet were there...it was a good sized group...

and I am having a senior moment after working so many nights at the hospital - my memory is shot.

(My GOD, that was not even two years ago, and I'm having trouble with my recall. Yeesh!)

I remember Otter and others as well...many whom I had just met that week.

I also liked her apricot suit.

I understand and hear your point about the Clintons, Marjorie.

Like I told KG - I obviously, like many of us here, supported a "different candidate" for a 2008 run. One who chose not to run, and we all know who that is, *wink wink*. :-) The fact that he's not running took a lot of the fight out of me, and I've stayed relatively quiet this primary cycle. I have my opinions about the various candidates, and on all the issues, but I just haven't been very fired up, or jumping into the fray this time around. I've kind of been just reading, and listening and absorbing.

I also have a lot going on that has kept me really busy and preoccupied. I have seen and heard the arguments on all sides of the fence, though, and I hear you all.

I'm just sort of hanging back.

[MarjorieG]

41. Understand about your hanging back.

I am all about voting, all the time, but drawn in interest, lately, with Kerry's fine performance and advocacy for Obama, taking the high road, as usual. Just really tired of Bill.

Take care. Will probably go to TBA this year for the voting issue, and hope to see some of DU there, as well.

[Vektor]

43. Oh, I definitely always vote.

I voted already, absentee in CA, but I haven't really gotten into the fracas too much.

[globalvillage]

44. Now, you know I have a picture of that.

Not a great pic, but still. She was very gracious, and that suit was lovely on her.
That was a fun trip, wasn't it?

[Vektor]

85. It was a fun trip.

And yes, in person, I actually thought she was quite pretty. Not at all fat, or haggard like the Repukes try to make her out to be. She had a very smooth complexion, and was actually really petite and cute.

[MH1]

45. Thank you for letting us know.

Yes, I am disappointed in your decision, but it is your choice to make.

I think you are mistaken when you say something like, "if she didn't care she never would have asked me to say something to Sherman". The only thing that shows her caring about is winning your support, which all politicians try to do. If they even remember the exchange after the event, they are just as likely to be having a good laugh about it as actually thinking about changing their rhetoric. In other words, don't go all starry-eyed on us... I think a healthy skepticism is a good tool to keep handy and use often.

Also on the same topic, you say, "she will need the JK supporters who feel alienated by the dissing of JK by her surrogates" - well what about the dissing of JK by HER? Of course the problem there isn't something that can be solved with an apology (which to my knowledge she has never offered), but goes much deeper, because for some of us, that she would do that says more about her character than any words spoken directly to us on a rope line ever possibly could.

Anyway, good luck in your business and other non-political endeavors.

[Noisy Democrat]

50. You said it, MH

Hillary's sticking a knife in JK's back in November '06 isn't something that could be fixed with an apology. It was a test of character, and she failed.

[Mass]

47. Thank you for letting us know.

As I said the other day to another Kerry supporters, I doubt he would want anybody to change their support JUST because he chose a different person. He is way too much respectful of people for that.

As for the question of TM, I just stopped reading her. She is obviously entitled for her opinions and everybody else is able to disagree and tell so. As for most blog and column, it is only the opinion of one person. The only sad thing is that some bloggers seem to think they are so superior. Sorry, my English may not be as good as her, but that does not make her opinion more valuable than hers and that is all that count.

[kerrygoddess]

57. Thank you for your understanding.

Sadly there were few blogs whose opinion of JK's endorsement were not very pleasant (understatement).

I do not blog as much as I used to, mostly due to time and economic constraints. I no longer have anyone working for my business as the economy is so bad. That said, I don't have the time to fight every battle I would like to. TM knows full well how I and other longtime Kerry supporters feel about him and that she offended Kerry supporters.

[rox63]

52. We all have the right to support the candidate of our choice

I had been leaning towards Obama for quite a while before JK made his endorsement. So it wasn't much of a leap for me to fully jump onto his bandwagon. I had even attended an Obama event prior to the NH primary. There are other Kerrycrats here who are supporting Edwards and HRC, and I respect their choices, just as I respect yours. I do think that Taylor Marsh has gone over the line in her rhetoric, and I wish she'd tone down the bashing of other Dems. But I have no control over that, and I suspect you don't either.

I wasn't on DU during the primary wars in 2004, but I heard it was extremely nasty. I suspect this one is at least as nasty as '04. Before the nominee is decided, a lot of people will end up saying things they will later wish they could take back. I'm going to try not to be among that crowd.

Good luck to you and your candidate. But I still hope my candidate wins. ;)

[kerrygoddess]

58. Thank you Rox63

As I told Mass above, there's only so much time for me these days to blog and TM knows what I and others here think.

[kerrygoddess]

59. Everyone here who has attacked me should

Go back and read my original post and the quote from the gracious email I received from a member of JK's staff, particularly this line - "Your lasting and enduring loyalty to JK is really special and kind and means a lot to me and The Boss -- even if we're not on the same side of this nomination fight, we're on the same side of a much bigger fight-"

That I have been intimidated here in this thread by a member of JK's campaign staff and other members of this group does not speak well for this group in my opinion. Likewise the veiled attempt to attack me in another thread by the same member of JK's staff and includes a chime in from another member of JK's staff is also offensive.

No one here has the right to tell another member of this group what they should do or say. I did not have to stand up to Congressman Sherman (or HRC) and defend JK and that in itself speaks far louder than a blog war with TM. And furthermore, none of you know what I may or may not have said to TM privately and to question my loyalty to JK over this is ludicrous.

I have seen many vile and ugly things in this group about HRC over the months, plenty of repeats of right wing smears about her. It goes both ways people, as JK knows full well. We will all need to come together once the nominee is chosen if we are to win this election.

Those of you who claim they will not vote for the nominee if it is HRC, do your support of JK an injustice as well, for we all know full well he will be on the frontlines defending her if the need be.

You all need to a take a deep breath. JK knows full well I have his back, threatening me and condemning me here does no one any good. Especially not JK.

I deeply regret that I came here with openess to let you all know my decision.

I've watched others speak up in this group about the offensive treatment they have received here in the name of defending JK. Those of you here who bully have pushed those members of the group away. Now you face the choice of alienating a blogger who has every intention of continuing to write about the good works of JK on their blog. None of this needed to happen. Take an example from JK and his gracious staff member.

[whometense]

60. I've kept out of this till now,

but see no evidence of anyone here trying to intimidate you. That is a baseless accusation, and can't go unchallenged.

[kerrygoddess]

61. It's not a baseless accusation

And the mere fact that you will "challenge" it backs up what I am saying.

Again everyone needs to take a deep breath. I'm not the enemy.

[ray of light]

62. Taylor Marsh lied in a PUBLIC FORUM. From what I saw you made excuses

for her lies.

This isn't about Hillary.

This is about making sure that all democratic blog site owners make sure that their peers do not cross the line into swiftboating another Democratic candidate.

Therefore, it doesn't matter what you told TM privately. Until she publically apologizes for her smear and makes reparations, then she has participated in one of the worse, disgusting journalistic endeavors that is worthy of Fox News.

It sounded to me like you supported her. I read it on each of your other posts and it has nothing to do with if you're supporting Hillary or what a staffer said to you.

This has to do with the fact that Taylor Marsh claims to be a Democratic (progressive) journalist and an investigative reporter. She reported a false email and has yet to rescind it and apologize (like you would expect a person with integrity would do when they realized their mistake.) You claim you spoke to her privately, and you very well may have. However, that does not make up for the public lies she told and the public support you gave her here in the jk-du forum.

People were wronged by her actions. It's time for her to make a public apology.

[kerrygoddess]

63. You should let her know how you feel.

Again I will reiterate... I will continue to support JK in the manner that I have for a very longtime now.

[ray of light]

64. KG, the point is that you should let her know how you as another democratic

blog owner have been affected by her lies.

She has harmed you. She has harmed America. She has harmed Hillary. and She's harmed Democratic blog owners everywhere because now they'll get painted in the press by the same brush.

[kerrygoddess]

65. I'm done with this

I have said here as politely as possible I do not have the time to fight every battle and get into every blog war. I have a business to run, a kid in college to support. I've worked my tail off for JK for years in the blogopshere and watched my business go down the tubes because of spending more time fighting battles in the blogosphere instead of taking care of my business. I'm not doing that any more -- I'm spending more time on my business now and less time blogging. Senator Kerry and his staff understand that and they know my support for him will continue.

Enough said.

[ray of light]

66. KG,

I'm sorry that you see yourself as the victim in this. In fact, I can't speak for anyone else, I can only speak for myself.

I'm sure you're quite loyal to JK and now to HRC. And I don't intend to interfer in your relationship with either.

However, my comments are directed to you as a blog owner who represents Democratic causes. Afterall, what Taylor Marsh did effects your credibility too. Unless you're completely serious about not posting anymore and not being active on cyberspace or on your own blog, so that you can take care of life off cyberspace.

But as the owner of the Democratic Daily, and if you intend to continue functioning at the Dem Daily, you should ask her publically for a retraction! Because Taylor Marsh's actions will make your posts at the DD less credible. As it is, Taylor Marsh's actions have already negatively effected her own 'good name' and have lowered her 'stock value' as a 'go to place' for information. She's also negatively effected the Hillary campaign when they believe Hillary will get bloggers to participate in swifboating.

I'm fairly certain you wouldn't want anyone to believe that you, as the blog owner of Democratic Daily, support Democratic swiftboating.

[kerrygoddess]

68. Good gracious

Are you aware of of how much untrue stuff gets published in the blogosphere daily? Attacks on JK, Obama, Edwards, HRC, the list goes on and on and on. Just look at today's GDP thread or Kos for examples.

I'm not the blog police. I long ago surrendered my spending hours fighting every battle for JK because I simply don't have the time and my business is hurting. JK's staff understands that. They are grateful for what I have done and what I still do when I can. I don't see anyone here speaking up when HRC is attacked. It was okay for amember of this group to call EE a "vile woman" but I see nothing of this in TayTay's stand against swiftboating thread, that attacks on HRC or EE or JE are equally unfair.

You simply don't understand the dynamics of the blogosphere if you think that TM will lose stock or the DD is now less credible. I respect everyone in this group, far more than it seems I am respected. I made a choice and it was all of you who dragged this mess into what should have been a simple alert to you all that regardless of my choice I will still do what I can when I can to support JK. Again enough said.

[ray of light]

69. Lies get posted by 'posters' but the blogowners represent themselves

and more.

Now places like DU is represented by Skinner. I've never seen Skinner post a lie. DailyKos is represented by Kos and his 'headliners' and he is accountable when he or his frontpagers have posted lies. And smaller blogs like yours and Taylor Marsh's do depend upon the good will of its readers to keep coming there in order for those blogs to get enough hits to get advertisers.

Nothing against you mind you. But I do understand the dynamics of the blogosphere. And it seems to me that your statement, "I made a choice" indicates that you intend to support blog site owners who swift boat Democratic candidates.

I'm sorry that you don't want to hold Taylor Marsh accountable for her lies.

[kerrygoddess]

71. Stop assuming - "I made a choice"

Stop assuming - "I made a choice" on the candidate I am backing in the primary. Nothing more.

[ray of light]

73. KG

"I condemn all swiftboating of Democratic candidates". The choice you've made is clear. You've yet to take the pledge--and that is choice that indicates a lot about you and how you intend to run your site.

Who you support is irrelevant.

Please go take the pledge. And afterwords, please publically ask Taylor Marsh for a retraction.

I'm sure when you were raising your daughter, you did not let her get away with lies. I'm sure you had consequences for your daughter when she did cross the line and lie.

So why would you allow your friend to publically lie and ask for no accountability from it? The best of newspapers are often asked by their readers and supporters to retract and apologize when they've published incorrect information. They simply admit a wrong, apologize, and then move on being a more consciencious paper. That's all that anyone is asking of you, because you are a blog owner who represents Democrats as is she.

Sometimes, KG, teaching right from wrong isn't just what we say as a parent, it's what we do.

[kerrygoddess]

76. WTF? Now you want to discuss my parenting over a pledge?

I'm quite sure that JK's staff is capable of asking TM for a retraction.

I said below - I'm leaving this forum. I will not be back.

Feel heartened that you folks have driven away yet another Kerry supporter.

[ray of light]

77. It's a simple pledge. Just asks for all Democratic bloggers to be truthful.

[karynnj]

84. There is a difference between calling EE "vile" and swiftboating.

The EE comment was clearly OPINION, that people could agree with or disagree with or they could think it was above the top. BUT, it contains no lies about actions taken by EE. There were some in the same thread, including references to the DOCUMENTED reports that EE said that she would not have been able to get health insurance under Ovbama's plan because of pre-existing conditions. This is simply not true. Either she was willing to make a controversial, emotional comment IN PREPARED comments without chacking it out or this was close to swiftboating.
Even if the comment was stronger than warranted, it was a comment which everyone could evaluate and agree or disagree.

The TM thing involved making a very serious accusation that something occurred without including any exculpatory information or saying that it warranted more information. She also did not back down when the specific incident appeared untrue. I am sickened that Bill Clinton added on at the caucus itself.

[louloulou]

67. After taking a breath, this is what I want to say

Pamela, with all due respect, you are not the only person who is a single mom and has sacrificed for John Kerry and the Democratic Party and frankly I'm sick and tired of your constant high-horse attempt to portray your efforts as heroic. I've been fighting side by side with several people on this board all over the internet in defense of John Kerry recently, and a big part of the reason that is necessary is because people like your 'personal' pal Taylor Marsh have been trying to once again character assassinate this good man. No one else shows up constantly tooting their own horn and crying about all the important stuff in their own lives that takes a back seat when they spend time defending John Kerry.

You're not the lone Kerry ranger Pamela, and to get that you don't have to look any further than this incredible group of people who meet up here to fight like tigers for their country.

No one faults you for supporting HRC - but don't expect some sort of entitlement when you work with someone like Taylor Marsh to perfect the tactics of Karl Rove.

Enough said, indeed.

[kerrygoddess]

70. FYI

She's not my 'personal' pal and I never said I was the only single mom who has sacrificed. I did my time as the lone ranger in the blogosphere however, and that is something that JK's staff acknowledges that this group forgets.

Maybe folks in this group including yourself, don't get what it is to be an only parent, not a single mom. HUGE DIFFERENCE. Couple that with running a business, and a blog and making sure your kid manages to get into a top state university. None of that is easy in itself. I am one woman acting as both parents and running two businesses, in effect. To you it may not be a big deal, but JK recognizes that it is, and his staff recognizes that is.

I'm not expecting any friggin entitlements LouLouLou. I think you all are by demanding I should jump when you all say so.

[louloulou]

72. FYI

Pamela, you don't know anything about the struggles I face in my life and I doubt you know what others here have to face. I give you all the respect in the world for raising your daughter, but you hold it over people's heads like it is some sort of free pass or gold star. We ALL have our own fights in our personal lives. I get that JK and his staff respect you, and yes you have been there for a long time and have earned some of that respect. But Jk and his staff also appreciate the other people here (and I'm not even including myself in that group) so I think it is time to stop competing and get down to the business at hand - Taylor Marsh is swiftboating other dems and is willfully going after John Kerry in order to do her dirty work and some of us have not one second's tolerance for that kind of behavior.

[kerrygoddess]

74. I'm not competing with anyone here

I long ago welcomed the fact that others here are supporting JK, started their own blogs, and have stepped in to do the work. That in itself made it easier for me to start putting my life and my business back together. I came here with open heart to let everyone know and I was truly relieved by the email I shared here, that my supporting HRC was received graciously by a long time contact on JK's staff.

Some where in the midst of this thread which should have elicted responses like, thanks for letting us know, I respectly disagree with your choice, etc, demands starting being made. I've done my best to remain civil, but quite frankly, I don't think any of you have the right to tell me what I should or should not do in the name of my support for John Kerry. And I do not think, that it is appropriate for a, two actually member of his staff to be part of the fracas.

My business at hand is my business. You take care of your business - I will take care of mine.

I won't comment on this again.

I won't come to this forum again.

I will continue to support JK in the best way I can and hope that his staff still sees value in what I do. And, if they don't then it will be clear that the petty insinuations that I don't support JK because you all think I should do what you all tell me to, have worked.

[ray of light]

75. omg..you want to talk about struggles

Ok. Well you really don't. And neither do I.

But you're spot-on when you talk about everyone here working their butts off for JK before they were fortunate enough to get on the press release list. But many people went to Iowa and NH before there was even a JK nominee. And many fought just as hard on cyberspace. There was never a 'loan ranger.' There were simply a lot of people working individually and trying to get a good man elected.

Now, Taylor Marsh is basically acting like a swifty, spreading lies, spreading misinformation, and there's lots of people who understand what is behind her actions.

[kerrygoddess]

78. I went to NH.

[ray of light]

79. Great. I went to the ghetto. & my sister went to Iowa. n/t

[YvonneCa]

80. KG...

...:cry: This is so sad. PM me.

Yvonne

[Fabio]

88. Good for you.

and I for one think you have been treated unfairly on this thread.

[kerrygoddess]

91. Thank you.

[YvonneCa]

92. I agree...

...Fabio. Thank you for saying that.

[TayTay]

93. There are 2 things going on here

One is the idea that people are free to choose who they want for President based on their own personal goals and beliefs. I started a thread a while ago, before Iowa, that asked people to discuss what they liked about their candidates and why. There have also been threads here about the tactics being employed in this current campaign and how awful they are. There are a lot of women in this group who found the weekend before the NH primary very difficult to take because it seemed as if Sen. Clinton was taking a lot of unfair hits.

One of the things that has unified this group and kept it active since '04 is the belief that the tactics employed in the '04 race to smear Sen. Kerry were awful and cannot be tolerated. There are a lot of people on this group who have spent considerable amounts of time making sure that they are there to 'get Sen. Kerry's back' on these nasty threads. These people have gone out of their way to make sure they are there when needed to defend what is seen by many as a core principle. They were there all through '05 and '06 and did double duty on the difficult days when it seemed like all there were out there were nasty attacks. That kind of commitment doesn't just go away. It is, on some levels, an emotional commitment from people who aren't political pros, but do care about politics and specific people they have grown to trust. You can't just turn that off and on at will. It has to be respected as well.

There are DU groups for all the candidates who were involved in this '08 race. Most of the people who want to post about specific candidates have moved on to those groups because the advocacy has been very controversial in here. It has been controversial everywhere, so it's no surprise it's controversial in here as well.

[kerrygoddess]

95. There may be 2 things going on here - but it was intially only about 1 thing

Until you and others piled on and started making demands on how I should show my loyalty to JK.

Fact is, as you and others here know, I too spent a considerable amount of time on my blog, here and DKos (and a few other blogs), getting 'Sen. Kerry's back'.

One would think that the fact that I asked Senator Clinton to be cognicent of her surrogates speaking badly about JK and also spoke up to the Congressman who said some nasty things about JK would have been enough for this group.

I don't know when the last time was anyone here actually said they told a candidate in this race they were offended by what was said about the former nominee in a surrogate speech or when the last when anyone here told off a Congressman who dissed JK?

That I spoke up to HRC and Rep. Brad Sherman should have been enough and instead of thanking me suddenly I'm supposed to run around the blogosphere demanding that other bloggers retract things. There are not enough hours in the day for me to do everything for everyone and I pick my battles. Clearly speaking up to HRC and Sherman was a much larger battle.

Finally, one last note on the day I went to the HRC event. I also met Patrick Healy of the NY Times. I told him I was a blogger for JK in '04 and still worked with his press office and that he really ought to tone down his outright attacks on JK, HRC and other Dems that he hits on in the NY Times. I told him he had been incredibly unfair to JK and as he knew most liberal bloggers don't like him because of his BS reporting.

This thread should have simply been a thread letting you all know my decision and my intent to still support JK in the manner I could when I could. You and others here changed the subject.

I have the utmost respect for what all of you do for JK, but that respect obviously does not go both ways.

[YvonneCa]

97. Reposting this, since it seems this is where...

...the action is. :7


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..

I agree with most of what you say here with one clarification: When you said "People who spread the swiftboating lies are wrong and should be called on it. Don't you agree?", I think you need to define what you mean by 'spread the swiftboating lies.'

Newspapers, authors and other journalists who report news often cite or reference their sources for stories. Citing a reference is not meant to say that a reporter/journalist agrees with everything that person ever published or wrote...it is just to allow the reader to research and find further information and/or check validity. For example, a newspaper like the NY Times is often cited as a reference (or link, if online)...but the NYT contains MANY articles...some of which one may agree with or disagree with. The responsibility for truth, however, lies with the New York Times. If they are consistently wrong, or inappropriate, they lose credibility and an audience.
Another example: Many people, like Al Gore or John Kerry, write books. They may cite a reference to another book or article that is from the far right (because they are providing research information). We know this does not mean that they share this opinion, or that they are spreading lies...they just want their readers to be able to fact-check, and it gives credibility to their writing.

Online journalism is relatively new. The ways in which online journalists and bloggers operate sometimes follows the same pattern...and sometimes not. Many online journalists cite (provide a link) to support their research and allow the reader to follow up. The fact that they do this is just good journalism. It doesn't necessarily mean that they agree with or support everything found at that link. And I think we get into trouble if we assume ANY motivation to it...good or bad.

Online journalists are just like everyone else...some just want a name, a career, and to make money (just like Fox News, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and others). They will write whatever helps them to do that. If they write lies and smears...I totally agree with you that we should NEVER let them get away with that...never again.

But there are also online journalists that are trying to make a difference (on both sides). They try to follow journalistic practices, be credible, factual and fair...and sometimes provide opinion. They may sometimes err, or say something we disagree with, but they try to do a job...an important one. We SHOULD be able to agree or disagree with them...but they aren't the enemy. Many are on our same team.

The only way to tell the motivation of any journalist is by what they do. It appears to me that Taylor Marsh (to cite a current example ) has now shown her motivation...sadly. She is 'swiftboating'. But she alone is responsible for what she writes. I agree with everyone here that she has crossed the line, and should be in the 'swiftboating' category.

But merely linking to her is another matter. That's just common journalism practice...citing a reference. I think that's different. And it would really sadden me to think that people in this forum don't see the difference.

I know the primaries are tough and divisive. But just the way in which the 'race' issue was spun by the media started to hurt all Democrats...dividing us against ourselves and the real 'enemy' in this fight... this 'smear' issue can hurt this group. No one in the DUJK group is the enemy. And we can't allow that to become the case. After the nomination, we're on the same team...at least I hope we are.

[dwahzon]

115. KG

First, I don't think anyone has any difficulty whatsoever with you choosing to support the presidential candidate you feel best meets your standards. That's what we all did in 2003 and 2004 with Senator Kerry.

Second, your OP was about your support for Senator Clinton, that you still supported Sen. Kerry and did so in interaction with Clinton staff and surrogates, and that you let Kerry staffers know that you did that. Your support of Sen. Kerry to the Clinton staff and surrogates is terrific news and laudable. Thank you for doing so. Really... my sincere thanks to you.

Third, I think most everyone in this group has no question about your credentials as a Kerry supporter and your valuable contributions in the past. We're certainly reminded of them quite often. I would like to point out that many in this group have credentials that are every bit as strong as yours though they have not sought out attention for their contributions in quite the same manner as you have.

Fourth, just about everyone on this list has spent the last 5+ years defending Senator Kerry in the blogs and with letters to the editor and with other actions, and for the most part, have done so without acknowledgment.

Fifth, what was left unsaid in your OP was how you regarded a fellow blogger's swiftboating of Senator Kerry. It became of particular importance because that blogger linked to The Democratic Daily as part of that swiftboating riposte. Thus, this omission left an opening for the ensuing heated discussion and it is the omission to which everyone is responding, not the content of the original OP.

I think I see the following points made in response to the omission.

1 - Establishment of the fact that Taylor Marsh wrote http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=145249&mesg_id=145275">posts that went over the edge and into swiftboating territory with regard to Senator Kerry.

2 - Many on this thread believe that those posts should be repudiated and that 'swiftboating' by supposedly progressive or Democratic bloggers is out of line and just plain wrong, particularly when leveled against other progressives and Democrats such as Sen. Kerry.

3 - Given your past strong support of Senator Kerry, particularly through out the swiftboating period in 2004, many do not understand why you do not publicly reject Taylor Marsh's recent swiftboating of Senator Kerry. I don't believe that any here intend a personal attack on you. I do think there is frustration that you in your position as the owner of the blog, The Democratic Daily, which does has some significant level of influence, is unwilling to acknowledge and repudiate Taylor Marsh's swiftboating of Sen. Kerry. It is particularly puzzling given your past support of Sen. Kerry.

4 - Bringing elements of the demands of your personal life into the thread in an attempt to defend the reason for not repudiating Taylor Marsh's swiftboating was your decision. To the extent that others have commented on that, it is merely to point out that your story may not be any more extraordinary than others who choose not to publicize the demands of their personal and work lives. That does not constitute a personal attack.

I don't believe that any here wish you ill or are personally attacking you. I do think that there are those who are sincerely puzzled and frustrated over this situation. They do not understand why a premier Kerry supporter such as yourself would not choose to denounce a blog post which specifically attacks and swiftboats Sen. Kerry. To them, it's pretty black & white.

Falling back to re-iteration of past credentials and pleading the excuse of current work and family life demands appears to them as an attempt to sidestep answering the question of why no repudiation of the swiftboating.

I suspect you could have prevented the discussion with the inclusion of one of two statements in your OP:

I respect Taylor Marsh's work as a blogger but I cannot agree with or support her recent posts about Senator Kerry with respect to his endorsement of Sen. Obama.

or

I respect Taylor Marsh's work as a blogger and I will not comment further on her recent posts concerning Senator Kerry.

There is of course a third response though I think it highly unlike that you would choose it.

I respect Taylor Marsh's work as a blogger and support her right to post whatever she likes about Senator Kerry.

In the end, I think that everyone here has invested a tremendous amount of their time, their thoughts, their creativity and their emotions in supporting and defending Senator Kerry over the last 5+ years whether recognized officially by the Kerry staffers or not. No one that I know in this community would deliberately attack another with malicious intent.

To the extent that harsh words are spoken at times, it's because everyone cares so much. I think what we need is for everyone to recognize the intent of this forum is to support Sen. Kerry and that there will be tense moments and that we all won't agree on everything. If you find yourself very upset, I suggest you do as I try to do -- take a deep breath, walk away from the discussion and come back when I've regained some perspective.

Finally, to all of you, hurrah for you. You're engaged in our democracy, in our governing of ourselves and that is a great, good thing. Yes, even when it gets messy. Take a step back and look at what you've learned and at what you've built together as a group. You should be proud of yourselves and what you've all accomplished together.

-----

Sorry - meant to post this as a reply to KerryGoddess.

[kerrygoddess]

119. I've already stated here

that I have let her know people are upset. As Rox said here it's doubtful my saying anything would change things.

I brought up circumstances of time and money because the insinuation that I should jump and do something implies that my time is free to do whatever whenever and it is not.

People can construe and have here whatever they like about this but the fact is, as I stated, the story I shared here is far more powerful than calling out a fellow blogger.

I don't think anyone here who has a blog would appreciate my stepping in and telling them what they should post on their blogs and then be subject to a pile on of repeated insistence by others and to be told that if they didn't post something that they were not a Kerry supporter in so many words.

My original post included nothing about Taylor Marsh. I didn't start the discussion on that and as far as I am concerned it is off the topic of OP. TalkLeft also linked to the post on the DD that Taylor Marsh linked to, FYI. Joan Walsh (editor of Salon) has since written about the union intimidatation issue and has backed up Taylor. Bloggers link to each other for various reasons, in agreement or disagreement.

I would never question anyone's loyalty here to JK. And honestly it has been incredibly hurtful that mine has been questioned. No one here should be telling anyone else here what they should or should not do in terms of supporting JK. And I believe that JK himself would defend that.

[beachmom]

121. Not going to get away with that spin here

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/19/143426/409

And the fact is that even the Salon reporter could not find anything to support Marsh's assertion.

From Salon:

Still, despite Huerta's claim of widespread voter intimidation by the CWU, I haven't found another documented story like Antuna's. Matt DeFalco says at Paris, the union is only helping Obama supporters register to vote and get time off work. He says he distributed Clinton leaflets in the Paris cafeteria after the Antuna incident "and people were like, 'are you seriously passing those out here right now?' People are being intimidated into voting for Obama." But Mishak says he's investigated every voter intimidation claim "the Clinton campaign has been pushing" and that nothing, except perhaps Antuna's, deserves the term "intimidation." He adds: "It's surprising to me that people would be surprised a union would be saying to its members, 'You have to endorse our candidate. We need to win.'"

Well, damn the reporters for actually doing some reporting instead of taking the word of the ever-lying Marsh or the Clinton campaign.

As I wrote in my dairy yesterday:

Note her (Marsh's) use of plural "members" in her post title and throughout her post. Nowhere does she present evidence of any such intimidation. She posts a radio interview with one of the Clinton-backing complaintants, Matt DeFalco, and infers that the alleged practice is widespread.

She writes:

After you listen to the tape, think about this. How do the union members get out for the caucus? It's during working hours so they have to get permission to be let out of their shift. So they have to sign cards, as the woman on the tape said. But according to her, if you don't sign the pledge card specifically for Obama you can't go to the caucus. That's because the company won't have a record of your intention to caucus. It's the very definition of coercion.

And here, Marsh runs into the same, old problem: She's not telling the truth. She's creating lies to fit her narrative.

That statement still holds.

And, as my post yesterday notes, Marsh has lied repeatedly. during this campaign season.

So, yes, Taylor Marsh is still a lying hack.

[kerrygoddess]

122. Again I am not

the blog police and do not assume you have the right to tell me what to do.

Beachmom - I am calling what I see this election as I see it. As every other blogger is. If you've lost sleep it is of your own accord, because you stepped off topic here and made demands on me you had no right to, and have since perpetuated those demands.

[beachmom]

123. So, we now know that you will never, ever, ever condemn TM's hateful

posts on JK. Are you answering that in the affirmative?

[kerrygoddess]

124. I said here I

contacted her. You missed that. Again - no one tells me what to post on my blog. You want to write a post condemning her - you have a blog right?

Now I will state here that YOU have alienated me and offended me repeatedly here. I have lost all all respect for you over the fact that you have not let this go. I am in no way beholding to you or any member of this group. You have questioned my support for JK repeatedly and that is unacceptable to me.

[ray of light]

129. she contacted her privately even though the smear was publicly made AND

picked up by other sites and linked to by hers.

So I think you got your answer.

[kerrygoddess]

132. This is nuts

In the post that TM wrote that linked to my post all she said about JK was this: "Meanwhile, you've got big shots like John Kerry talking about "let the people vote" doing so within a stacked system titled towards the Culinary union, with many of their members who'd much rather vote for someone other than Obama being intimidated and forced to sign pledge cards."

He is a big shot (powerful Dem leader) - that's not a smear. And it has been shown thatmany CW workers indeed voted for HRC.

The other issue of what TM has said about JK is not related to her linking to me on this issue. I have contacted her privately. I have defended JK repeatedly over the years. Let it go - Please - because you have no right to tell me what to post on my blog. Admit that and move on.

[ray of light]

133. It's not about

anyone telling you to post on your blog. It's that you chose to allow her to swiftboat a Dem. It's that you have refused to pledge to not swiftboat a Dem. And it's that harm was done as a result of her lies and she should be held accountable.


You yourself posted that bloggers would hold other bloggers accountable.

BTW...have you seen her retraction yet?

If not, then it looks like your private conversation did nothing.

[kerrygoddess]

135. I am not chosing to allow

her to swiftboat. I am also not chosing to post something on my blog because members of this group tell me to. So it is about you telling me what I should post and you have no right to do so. Did you ask her for a retraction? I've asked you this before. Did you ask her for a retraction? Did TayTay ask her, did Beachmom ask her? Even bigger question did JK's staff ask her?

[ray of light]

140. She has an email link. I have sent to it. I've posted in Kos.

I've posted elsewhere.

You know..I almost feel sorry for you. Because you seem to think it's about people here telling you to do something and you aren't going to do what's told.

Well, I can't speak for anyone here but myself. But the reason I supported JK through out these years is because I always understood that he functioned with integrity. I understood that he followed the motto, "Do onto others as you would have done unto yourself." And I have continued to support him because rather than joining the Rovian tactics, he's chosen to refute them! He's chosen to fight back through things like helping candidates who are being swiftboated--standing with them, coming to their defence in the media when someone is swiftboating them, and by sending the support their way. He's even supported HRC when she was being swiftboated. Blogs are media. Kerry has gone on blogs defending others against swiftboating.

I can see that he's invested a lot of time and efforts into protecting other people from getting swiftboated. Furthermore, I understand how being the reciprient of the swifty lies hurt him in 04. I can see how the lack of support and community protecting him and standing beside him and helping him force the swifties down has hurt him in 2004 and will remain with him to this day.

Protecting others from swiftboat-like attacks is his mission now, as well as legislating progressive agendas.

So as you sit here and pretend that it's about people telling you what to do, the fact is KG, that we shouldn't have to ask you to write on your blog asking Taylor Marsh to rescind and apologize. We shouldn't have to ask you to repudiate swiftboating. We shouldn't have had to spend any time at all on this subject.

It's a matter of right and wrong, it's a matter of supporting JK's anti-swiftboating agenda, and it's also a matter of standing up to all swiftboaters even if they're a friend of ours.

Jk will not let any Democratic candidate be swiftboated, so why does anyone in this forum have to ask, beg, or cajole you into supporting him on this heartfelt and important mission?

[karynnj]

143. The fact that HRC did so well among the Culinary Workers

shows that like most endorsements, the Culinary workers union could advise their workers, but could not "deliver them". This is good for democracy itself. Obviously many of those workers weighed the endorsement with everything else they factored in - and in a large percentage of times, they chose HRC, not Obama.

Kerry did NOT address the never proven issue of intimidation, he addressed an effort to change where you could caucus less than a week before the caucus. The DNC made the same points. To argue that he defended a system tilted towards a union intimidating its voters to go for Obama is simply not true and insulting.

The other problem is that she is speaking of rampant intimidation - that was not seen by anyone else. I suspect that this was a typical Rovian attempt to accuse others of what your side did. These comments imply that the union intended to benefit Obama by supressing the vote of people wanting to vote for others. The articles Beachmom links to show little evidence of this and the results seem to bear this out. What did happen and is provable is that Clinton allies did try to use the courts to change the rules in the last week.

[wisteria]

94. Getting past the matter of whom supports whom in the 08 race.

I have one comment. Since the DD printed something, assuming the source was OK and TM picked it up and ran with it to smear another candidate, and it has been suggested that this goes on all over the blogs, It appears as though the blogs are no better than the MSM in verifying facts, reporting and bias.
I am becoming disillusioned. I thought the blogesphere was suppose to be better than and the answer to the corporate media. What a shame if we have lowered our standards this much.
I apologize if I hurt anyones feelings, but as I see this, what good is the blogesphere if we are nothing more than an extension of the main stream media and employee the same slash and smear tactics?

I know I said I was not going to post here for a while, but I felt compelled to do so regarding this matter.

[louloulou]

118. Final point

First, I have total respect for anyone's choice of candidate and I don't think choosing someone besides Obama means a person is one bit less loyal to JK.

A while ago, I started supporting Edwards because I felt he was the one bringing the populist message to the table, but I still adored Obama. Then I realized I was really more co-supporting Obama and Edwards and after JK's endorsement, I am on board with Obama. But none of that had anything to do with JK, so I didn't come here to rub salt into any wounds that were starting to get opened up by the primary process.

Hillary is ruled out for me because of her treatment of JK, but I absolutely don't disrespect Pamela or anyone else for making a different call.

But one thing we all have in common - I thought - was that we would never allow another democratic candidate to be swiftboated. Not for the Clintons or anyone else.

And yes, if the blogs start working with the MSM to swiftboat as opposed to working against them, then we have lost the small bit of voice we had to speak truth to power with.

Taylor Marsh has a post up praising John McCain and calling him a brave veteran. This after the pro-Clinton blogs tried to take Obama's head off for citing historical facts about Reagan. And this after she has been so incredibly vicious to John Kerry. I don't get how anyone has any personal regard for that woman after all of this. But then I also don't get how Bill Clinton says he has a personal fondness for George Bush.

To bring all this back to the point, we can certainly all support different candidates and be respectful of each other.

But we cannot - must not - waiver when it comes to showing solidarity in the face of lies and winning at all cost.

[Dr Ron]

127. Can't lump the whole blogosphere together

Bloggers differ even more than the MSM in terms of quality and integrity.

Some bloggers spread the smears of the campaigns. Some of us don't.

What good is the blogosphere? If you read the blogs you will sometimes find the exact same smears as in the MSM. You will also find other blogs with the facts to debunk them, as well as more facts on the candidates than is easily found in the MSM due to its concentration on the horse race.

Bloggers are not journalists and many have no concept of journalistic standards. We are also far more like opinion writers than journalists, so you have to take that into account. However if you read a variety of blogs, and check the links which bloggers use to back up their arguments, you can find out more than you can on the candidates from just the MSM.

[YvonneCa]

137. But both bloggers and journalists share...

...common practices:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=145282&mesg_id=145443

[kerrygoddess]

126. Day 2

In which certain members of this group feel they are entitled to tell me what to do and judge my loyalty to JK. I returned here to respond to a false claim that JK did not call for mandates in healthcare. He did so in July '06.

I made the mistake of responding to other comments here.

Here are the facts from my standpoint:

I will continue to support JK as I see fit, when time permits.

I will not be intimidated by members of this group and those who have attempted to do so should think long and hard about the fact that others have been driven from this group by the same pile mentality that has been used on me.

This insistence that I should do as others here see fit does not reflect well on this group and it is sad statement.

[Mass]

130. May be it is time to close the issue? KG has said clearly what her position was on this.

Each of us can think what he/she wants on that, but I do not see how this will help anybody or advance anything to dwell on this issue?

[rox63]

136. Perhaps we should keep our posts about our '08 prez candidates out of DUJK

For the sake of our unity as Kerrycrats. I've been posting my Obama-related items either in GDP or the DU Barack Obama forum. Although we all share an interest in JK, we don't necessarily agree on other stuff. So unless it concerns JK (like JK campaign trail appearances), maybe we should keep our candidate-specific posts outta here until the nominee is chosen. Just my $.02.
:hide:

[kerrygoddess]

138. Agreed

Honestly - I've had enough of here to last me for a longtime. I had really hoped I could give everyone a polite headsup on my decision and the Brad Sherman bit and leave it at that. Clearly I was wrong to think that and I am realy sorry that I ever said anything.

[louloulou]

144. Yes

I support the idea of keeping primary stuff out of this forum. It'll be over soon enough, anyway.

Also, I totally support Pamela's decision not to post here if she feels intimidated.

[cadmium]

145. I understand your preference for Hillary. I am ok with

her myself--although I prefer Obama. She has been pretty impressive. I will address my opinion re Taylor Marsh in the other thread.