Kerry/Edwards 2004

“Sure, it's not official, but this is the ticket. And, really, it's pretty darn good.

Here's the hope: Clark and Dean get out. Edwards keeps getting 30 to 40% in the polls and we have a nice long stretch of friendly debates between Kerry and Edwards.

BTW, I'll bet Bush dumps Cheney for Giuliani in the fall.”

“Bush isn't going dump Cheyney. He is the wizard.”

“or the puppet master”

“Think about this...

Bush wants to focus attention on the - cue deep Oz voice "War on Terrorism." Who better than the walking billboard for 9/11?

Also, Cheney doesn't help Bush win any states. Giuliani has the potential to place New York in play.

Giuliani just spent several weeks in primary states campaigning for Bush. He's definitely running for VP.

The one problem, of course, is the Republican base. Giuliani is no favorite there. And given that Bush has been alienating conservatives for some time, he might lose them all with Giuliani.

But, geez, imagine Bush and Giuliani visiting Ground Zero together at the Republican Convention?”

“Very interesting notion regarding Uncle Dick rl. Hmmmm?!

GO Kerry/Edwards!!!!!!

Where's that annoying little prick UpUrs?”

“How’s this for a campaign slogan?

Time to renovate the White House and install a couple of Johns.”

“The Dems' worse nightmare would be Kerry as the candidate.”

“Pre 9-11, Rudy wasn't exactly popular in NYC. He would be a liability around here.”

“"The Dems' worse nightmare would be Kerry as the candidate......"



I couldn't agree more. What a shame it would be if we had to put up with Bush yet again because the Dems couldn't get the right person to represent them. Top it off wth Edwards and you gots a rip pickin's!”

“I'm getting involved. I'm gonna take the day off and get potential democratic voters to the polls. I will carry them on my back if I have to. Bush is not going to win this election if I have anything to say about it.”

“way to go nashville!!”

“Nash - go get'em, tiger! Your country needs people like you on both sides of the aisle!”

“I'd rather see Edwards as pres and Kerry as the lacky. I just can't trust a man who feels he has to get botox injections in his face in order to convience people to vote for him.”

“Kerry seems like he is ready, willing, and able to take the campaign to GW. He will have to have a rapid response team, because GW is going to run the typical smear campaign, and have the most money in history to facilitate those smears.
My bet is on Kerry/Edwards.”

“Stickman....what's the problem with Kerry? I hope it's not more of that North crap. Please explain.

Nigal...who cares about botox? How's your Buttocks?”

“Kerry's life experience consists of living off other men's money by
marrying their wives and daughters. For over 30 years, Kerry's
primary occupation has been stalking lonely heiresses. Now to get
back to his combat experience; Kerry sees a room full of wealthy
widows as "a target-rich environment."

This is a guy whose experience dealing with tax problems is based on
spending his entire adult life being supported by rich women. What
does a kept man know about taxes? In 1970, Kerry married into the
family of Julia Thorne -- a family estimated to be worth about $300
million. She got depressed, so he promptly left her and was soon seen
catting around with Hollywood starlets, mostly while the cad was still
married.

(Apparently, JFK really was his mentor.) Thorne is well-bred enough to
say nothing ill of her Lothario ex-husband. He is, after all, the
father of her children -- a fact that never seemed to constrain him.
When Kerry was about to become the latest Heinz family charity, he
sought to have his marriage to Thorne annulled, despite the fact that
it had produced two children. It seems his second meal ticket, Teresa
Heinz, wanted the first marriage annulled -- and Heinz is worth more
than $700 million.

Kerry claims he will stand up to powerful interests, but he can't even
stand up to his wife.

Heinz made Kerry sign a prenuptial agreement, presumably aware of how
careless he is with other people's property, such as other people's
Vietnam War medals, which Kerry threw on the ground during a 1971
anti-war demonstration. He didn't throw his medals away; they are
hanging on his office wall.

It pains to make Kerry sound like a normal American, his campaign has
described how Kerry risked everything, mortgaging his home in Boston
to help pay for his presidential campaign. Technically, Kerry took
out a $6 million mortgage for "his share" of "the family's home" --
which was bought with the Heinz family fortune. (Why should he spend
his own money? He didn't throw away his own medals.) I'm sure the
average working stiff in Massachusetts can relate to a guy who borrows
$6 million against his house to pay for TV ads.

Kerry's campaign has stoutly insisted that he will pay off the
mortgage himself, with no help from his rich wife. Let's see:
According to tax returns released by his campaign, in 2002, Kerry's
income was $144,091.

But as The Washington Post recently reported, even a $5 million
mortgage paid back over 30 years at favorable interest rates would
cost $30,389 a month--or $364,668 a year.

The Democrats' joy at nominating Kerry is perplexing. To be sure,
liberals take a peculiar, wrathful pleasure in supporting pacifist
military types.

And Kerry's life story is not without a certain savage aggression.
But if we re going to determine fitness for office based on life
experience, Kerry clearly has no experience dealing with problems of
typical Americans since he is a cad and a gigolo living in the lap of
other men's money. And his experience in Foreign policy is nil.

Kerry is like some character in a Balzac novel, an adventurer twirling
the end of his mustache and preying on rich women. This low-born
rogue with his threadbare pseudo-Brahmin family bought a political
career with one rich woman's money, dumped her, and made off with
another heiress to enable him to run for president. If Democrats want
to talk about middle-class tax cuts, couldn't they nominate someone
who hasn't been a poodle to rich women for past 33 years?”

“Just as I suspected. Ann Coulter is really a Nice Guy.

_{PS - The adam's apple gave you away.}”

“"...because GW is going to run the typical smear campaign..."

And just what has Kerry (and the rest of the Dems) been running agains President Bush for months?”

“Too bad Jim is Canadian. Otherwise it could be Kerry/Carey 2004. Now, there's a ticket.”

“"Nigal...who cares about botox? How's your Buttocks?"

I prefer to vote for someone based on what they stand for and what they say they will do (I know Bush failed there for the most part). Hell, if I'll vote for a goofy looking guy like Dubya I'll vote for someone with wrinkles. But I can't vote for someone who shows vanity for his looks.

I have the A-Typical flat white man's azz. If I wasn't packing extra pounds I'd have no butt at all.”

“The Republicans were praying their butts off for a Dean nomination... (were they sending money, too?)


Sorry, Kids.”

“I think it will be Kerry/Gebhardt.

As for Bush dumping Cheney, that depends omn what comes of this Haliburton bribe dealie in Nigeria. If the french issue a warrant for
Cheyney, then the press (which has given Bush and Cheney a free pass so far) picks up on that AND the past charges against Haliburton when Cheney was ther AND THEN let the deal with Bush and the bankrupt oil company/stock dump (sound like the Martha Stewart deal?). Maybe the American people will finally understand that George Bush was a liar long before he got to the White House.”

“Looks like Kerry pretty much has it locked. Edwards is a worthless person - don't care if he is gettin a fair amount of votes. He screwed NC and used them as a stepping stone - thus lacks character. He's a windbag with no real convictions other than power.”

“XXXX DRUDGE RETORT XXXX 12:49:18 UTC FEB 12 2004 XXXX

Rumor leads America deep into John Kerry's pants!

Media observers and political junkies are waiting to see how quickly and deeply the mainstream press follows serious newsman Matt Drudge into John Kerry's pants.

This morning, Drudge pulled out the flashing siren with a giddy claim that Time Magazine and other media organizations are looking for a young woman who privately caucused last year with the Democratic presidential front-runner.

Reported Drudge: "Intrigue surrounds a woman who recently fled the country, reportedly at the prodding of Kerry, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned."

That wouldn't be the only prodding she received from Kerry, according to the completely unsourced story, which is reportedly being chased by Time, ABC News, the Washington Post, The Hill, and the Associated Press.

The tail tale first appeared in WatchBlog, a non-partisan political weblog that offers space to liberal, conservative, and moderate authors.

A Feb. 6 item in WatchBlog claimed that Time Magazine was looking for a "bimbo eruption" in John Kerry's past and would be going to press with it this week:

"Rumor has it that John Kerry (D) is going to be outed by Time Magazine next week for having an affair with a 20 year old woman who remains unknown. The affair supposedly took place intermittently right up to Kerry's Fall 2002 announcement of candidacy. At present, this is nothing more than a rumor ..."

The journalism industry publication Editor & Publisher pondered how long it would take the mainstream press to follow Drudge's lead. [Our guess: Four or five hours tops.]

As Editor & Publisher reported, "The Drudge site also declared that General Wesley Clark, in an off-the-record chat with reporters earlier this week, predicted that the Kerry campaign would soon implode due to an 'intern.' It would seem strange, however, if he really believed that, that he would drop out of the race, as he did yesterday."

Spoilsport.


© DRUDGE RETORT 2004”

“A guy I know who works at the RNC has never backed off saying that they desperate to run against Kerry, I guess now we know why. Rove must be pissed, I would assume he wanted this to break after Kerry got the nomination.”

“Ohmygosh! A completely unsourced rumor? He's going down in flames!”

“Yes so far, but Drudge doesn't usually put up the big banner and the flashing light unless it's pretty solid.”

“It smells like this is going to be a big one.

Let's see what happens.”

“And of course we should remember that all that's actually being reported now is that there are news outlets investigating that there is the possibility that it happened.”

“Do I have to get my phuckin bottons outta retirement?

Drudge has been wrong before. We'll see what happens. Ya can't believe everything you read on da net ;)”

“I expect that Drudge has been wrong in the past. Haven't we all (well except you and Violin, perhaps), but his track record is extremely good. You of course are right, we should wait this out and see how the evidence goes.

On the other hand, we should treat any rumor concerning the Bush administration as fact until it's proven wrong. Aw hell, let's still consider it true. We don't need no facts.”

“This may turn out to be true but Drudge gets as many wrong as he gets right.

This little item makes me slightly skeptical about the claim that Clark talked of a bimbo explosion last week: Wesley Clark to endorse Democratic front-runner John Kerry _{(note that is an AP story, not World Weekly News, National Enquirer or Drudge)}”

“Interesting isn't it?”

“I've got it now. Clark really was Clinton's poison pill. By starting this rumor, then dropping out of the race and endorsing Kerry, he has cleared the way for Hillary.

That woman is brilliant!”

“Vast left-wing conspiracy.”

“Oh OK! So the botox injections are for picking up chicks and not votes! Well that's totally different.”

“FOR ONCE PHAGDRUS YOU SOUND INTELLIGENT!!!!

This is a left-wing conspiracy... because, if Hillary Clinton, #25 on the Toughest Man's list, if she wants to be president at all...in 08 or 12, a democrat CANNOT win this election... PERIOD!!! So the Clinton's begin to derail them, discredited Dean, pushed Clark out, and let out the dirt on Kerry, knowing Edwards will be a good runer, but doesn't stand a chance against Bush.

----------------------------
"Vast left-wing conspiracy."
Phaedrus
02:40:19 PM
02/12/04
ignore this user”

“LOL!”

“RUSSERT: When allegations were made about John McCain or Wesley Clark on their military records, they opened up their entire files. Would you agree to do that?

BUSH: Yes.

in next room

ROVE: Get Drudge on the line.”

“I'd expect he was waiting for Kerry to lock up the nomination to dish this... Best to sock it to them right after the convention.”

“"I expect that Drudge has been wrong in the past. Haven't we all (well except you and Violin, perhaps),........"

Wrong again. I backed the President at the begining and BOY WAS I WRONG!!

Wasn't the first, won't be the last.”

“http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9948

Truth And Consequences


Richard Blow is the former executive editor of George Magazine. He is author of American Son: A Portrait of John F. Kennedy, Jr., and is writing a book about Harvard University.


On Tuesday, Feb. 10, the White House did, by the standards of this information-hostile administration, a remarkable thing: In an attempt to show that President Bush had completed his required National Guard duty, the administration released the president's military pay records. But for a White House that has been masterful at manipulating the press, this was a badly botched job.

The records didn't prove what the White House suggested they did, and only fuel the perception that the president has something to hide.

The controversy surrounding Bush's military service is a rare bird—a campaign issue that surfaces in one election, fails to catch on, and then resurfaces with greater impact four years later. It began in 2000 when The Boston Globe ran a series of articles investigating Bush's time in the National Guard. The Globe strongly suggested that Bush had skipped a year's worth of service, from May 1972 through April 1973, while in Alabama. (He'd asked to be transferred there from Texas to work for a Republican senate campaign.) But Al Gore wouldn't pursue the issue, and it died.

It returned this year because of a political odd couple, Michael Moore and Wesley Clark. Moore, a Clark backer, repeatedly introduced the general at rallies by saying he'd like see a debate between Clark and Bush—"the general and the deserter."

But even that dramatic line would have faded into obscurity if Peter Jennings hadn't introduced it into broader discourse at a New Hampshire Democratic debate in late January. Jennings asked Clark about Moore's accusation, saying, "Now, that's a reckless charge, not supported by the facts, and I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him."

Jennings was wrong. It was a hyperbolic charge, because "deserter" has a specific legal definition in the military. But it wasn't reckless. And with the political environment different than it was in 2000—when the president has led the country into a dubious war, his own record suddenly seems fairer game—Democrats realized that maybe the accusation was smart politics. Democratic National Committee chair Terry McAuliffe publicly and pointedly declared that Bush had been "AWOL." The press began to pick up on the issue, with Salon, The New Republic and Slate publishing smart pieces arguing that the issue was worth revisiting.

Finally Tim Russert asked Bush about the controversy on his "Meet the Press" interview last Sunday, and Bush gave a thoroughly unconvincing non-denial denial. Next came the unsuccessful record release.

In Iraq, Bush has scored points by framing the debate as a matter of proving a negative: Prove that Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs. But on this issue, Bush has to prove an affirmative—that he did show up for National Guard duty from May 1972 through April 1973. If John Kerry or his surrogates want to keep this issue alive, they should put the burden of proof on the president with lines like, "I call on President Bush to prove that he did not shirk his National Guard duty." If Bush could, he would have done so by now.

In his "Meet the Press" interview, Bush tried to fend off the attacks on his record by suggesting that they were really attacks on the National Guard. May I suggest a response? "The president says criticisms of his year-long absence from duty are a criticism of the National Guard. But the president skipped a year of service. And after that he dropped out eight months early to go to Harvard. So who's really insulting the National Guard?"

There may be only one thing the White House can do to nip this problem in the bud, and that's change the subject—dramatically. On Thursday morning, Feb. 12, the Drudge Report bannered a high-profile accusation that news organizations were investigating a rumor that John Kerry had had an affair with, apparently, a campaign intern. (Drudge's wording was ambiguous.)

A friend who used to work in Democratic politics e-mailed me that "this has Chris Lehane's fingerprints all over it," referring to the Democratic hatchet man who worked for Kerry, then Wes Clark. Since Clark just ended his campaign, I'm not so sure. I wonder if the White House didn't just change the subject.”

“Drudge took the story down and later added this part:



Lending less credence to the story: Clark is going to endorse Kerry this weekend in Wisconsin, according to AP.

The unsourced rumor about Kerry is remarkably similar to a false accusation in 1992 linking Bill Clinton to a wire service reporter, as described by political reporter Walter Mears on C-SPAN:

C-SPAN HOST BRIAN LAMB: Former Congressman Guy Vanderjack (ph) did something you thought was a slanderous lie.

MEARS: In the final -- absolute final phase of the 1992 campaign when Bush was going down the tubes, he with -- with, I think some push from some of the people around the Bush operation, he was at the time -- he'd been defeated in his primary but he was still the chairman of the House Campaign Committee in him name, and using a statement that he put out at a press conference that he had. They accused Clinton of having an affair with a woman wire service reporter covering his campaign, which was not so. There was only one woman wire service reporter covering his campaign, a very hard working and very attractive and talented reporter. And I thought it was just slanderous.

LAMB: And working for AP?

MEARS: An AP reporter, and so I would have thought it was slanderous if she worked for UPI, but because I knew a good bit about this woman and her work, I thought demeaning her journalism that way just was totally unfair. And I seldom got angry at politicians, but I remember being very angry that time.





I see the GOP slime machine is just getting warmed up.”

“By Joe Conason



Feb. 13, 2004 | Is American politics suddenly returning to the bad old days, when Washington journalism became frenzied with sheet sniffing and keyhole peeping? That seems to be the default program of the right-wing media machine whenever Republican poll numbers sink into the red zone.

Late Thursday morning -- with George W. Bush's credibility damaged on several fronts as reporters demanded answers to questions about his National Guard service that should have been asked years ago -- the Drudge Report defamed his leading Democratic challenger with a "world exclusive" smudge of personal dirt.


Vague and unsourced but hyped to the maximum by Drudge, the brief item sounded disturbingly familiar. The Internet gossip accused John Kerry of "recent alleged infidelity" with "a woman who recently fled the country," adding that a "close friend of the woman recently approached a reporter with fantastic stories." The same item ran an "off the record" comment attributed to retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who was quoted as saying, "Kerry will implode over an intern issue." Major news organizations from ABC News to the Associated Press, warned Drudge, were all over the story.

By evening, however, no major news organization had run with it, though many were chasing it. Perhaps frustrated, Drudge put up an additional item eight hours later, with a few more details about the alleged relationship. "Unlike the Monica Lewinsky drama, which first played out publicly in this space, with audio tapes, cigar and a dress, the Kerry situation has posed a challenge to reporters investigating the claims," his later item explained. Drudge also quoted a "top source" as saying: "There is no lawsuit testimony this time [like Clinton with Paula Jones]. It is hard to prove."












But the kind of proof usually required by national news organizations isn't what Drudge needs in order to put innuendo into circulation.

Somewhat conveniently, Drudge had earlier posted an item that blamed the sudden smudging on a disgruntled Democratic consultant named Chris Lehane, who had been fired by Kerry before going to work as a communications aide to Clark. That second item was later taken down without explanation. By then, of course, this Drudge-drama was already "rocking" Democrats -- and delighting Republicans -- across the nation, at least according to Drudge.

The template was pure Monica: Intern has affair with married politician, is betrayed by a "close friend," and finally exposed by the pliant Drudge.

So far, however, the mainstream media has yet to touch the Drudge item, despite heavy promotion by Rush Limbaugh and the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal Web site. Whoever lit this match must have been disappointed when the story that smoldered in newsrooms during the afternoon failed to blaze into a firestorm by early evening. The only exception, so far, is a daily newspaper in Scotland.

Over the years, Kerry's private life has generated its share of gossip. He was a divorced, socially active single man for several years before he remarried. No woman has so far stepped forward to embarrass him in any way -- and the only published report even remotely hinting at marital infidelity is a 6-year-old unfounded clipping from the Boston Herald. Sources in the Kerry camp insist that the Drudge story has no foundation, although they have been predicting since Bush's numbers began to drop that the White House would soon dump its opposition research on their candidate. It may also be worth noting that the Massachusetts senator underwent surgery and radiation treatment last year for prostate cancer.

Was the Drudge item a late hit by an angry Democrat seeking revenge, or a plant by desperate Republicans hoping to distract attention from the president's problems? Lacking proof, the most pertinent questions are the standards of forensic inquiry: Cui bono (who benefits)? And who had the motive, method and opportunity?

Drudge's allegations set off a chain of speculation. Certainly some Democrats wondered if the evidence-free item came from Lehane, who declined public comment this afternoon. Lehane has a reputation as an often rough operator, and that may provide a pretext for Drudge to smear him, too. Following Lehane's dismissal from the Kerry campaign some months ago, the tone of his remarks about his former employer occasionally sounded vengeful. If Clark actually uttered the nasty remark as quoted by Drudge, the general might have heard such rumors from his sharp-edged consultant. But then if Clark believed Kerry was about to "implode," he might not have dropped out of the primary race -- or decided to endorse the Massachusetts senator, as he is expected to do on Friday.

A source close to Lehane vehemently denied to me that Lehane had peddled any rumors about Kerry -- and turned attention back toward the White House as Drudge's likely source. "My assessment is that this is not merely a serendipitous event," he said.

The Drudge item blaming Lehane quoted Craig Crawford, a former Democratic operative who now works as a consultant and columnist for MSNBC. Within 10 minutes after Drudge posted the Kerry intern item, Crawford sent a memo to his superiors that said the story was "something Chris Lehane (clark press secy) has shopped around for a long time." According to Crawford, someone at MSNBC promptly leaked his memo to Drudge. But when Lehane called Crawford with a loudly indignant denial, the MSNBC columnist quickly issued a public retraction. He said:

"The comments attributed to me are from a private email to television news associates based on conversations with Democratic campaign operatives. I did not consider any of it confirmed enough to report or publish. I can only verify that Chris Lehane's rivals in other Democratic campaigns made these claims and I have found no independent source to confirm it. Which is why we did not go with the story. But then someone sent my email to others, which is the only reason it got into the public domain." In other words, there is no proof that Lehane circulated the rumor, let alone that the rumor has any basis in reality.

Once again, Drudge has raised questions -- but they may not be the ones he seeks to raise. The first is about journalistic standards. The second is the identity of his anonymous sources.

Journalists must ask themselves why the rumor of a private peccadillo deserves their attention and resources in the 2004 campaign. The press faces a more important issue: learning from its own failure to report the false rationale and abused intelligence that drove the nation to war.”

“Can't wait for the presidential debates.”

“From timesonline

<snip>
The web site claimed that General Wesley Clark, one of Mr Kerry's Democrat rivals, had set the ball rolling by telling a dozen reporters that Mr Kerry had an "intern issue" which threatened to "implode" his campaign.

General Clark's campaign yesterday called the report "utter rubbish", and let it be known that he was expected to endorse Mr Kerry's campaign today, having dropped out of the race himself.

<snip>
Drudge claimed that half a dozen news outlets were investigating the allegations against Mr Kerry, but most of them denied doing so last night.

Leonard Downie, executive editor of The Washington Post, mentioned by Drudge, said: "This is the first we've heard that we're working on a story that we're not working on."

A reporter with Time magazine, also cited by Drudge, said that the weekly magazine was as puzzled by the story as the rest of the world.

<snip>”

“Kerry's toast!”

“I believe it's going to be Kerry and the other Clinton.”

“HEY.... Isn't that Bryce Schroer-Shepord?”