Reply #53: That sounds like a piece of conventional wisdom best forgotten.

[Raksha]

>>Another argument against responding is that typically when a candidate responds to untrue charges, voters are more likely to remember the charges than the rebuttals.<<

Especially when there IS no rebuttal! You can hardly expect voters to remember a rebuttal that either doesn't exist or happens too late, after the damage has been done. This was an well-organized smear campaign, and the Swift Boat scum had about two weeks to parade their lies in front of the public before there was any response from the Kerry campaign.

>>Responding often back fires.<<

I don't know if that's true. The one example that comes to mind is the Clinton campaign. They made a point of answering EVERY charge, no matter how bogus, and doing it right away. I don't recall any instance where it hurt them, and most people seem to think it was a good tactic.

Maybe I shouldn't have said Kerry was a lousy candidate, but in retrospect I guess he was too aristocratic, too honorable and basically not enough of a street fighter for the kind of thugs he was dealing with. But then you'd think he would have known better than anyone what he was dealing with. <sigh>

Just for the record--I believe John Kerry won the election, so he couldn't have been THAT lousy! When I first started lurking on DU in November, it was because of my belief that the election was stolen. I was looking for people who shared that belief and for any evidence of fraud they might uncover. For the first few months, I almost never looked at any forum except "2004 Election Results & Discussion." I have to admit that my enthusiasm fell off somewhat after the coron--I mean inauguration, and lately I've been spending more time on GD.

I'm still on John Kerry's e-mail list and even made a pledge on his children's health care bill. Would I support him again in 2008? That's still very much up for grabs.