To me, that's part of why Kerry lost. If he couldn't even defend himself against the Swift-boaters, how was he going to be able to defend our country?

As bad as the Repugs are, the Dems aren't much better in terms of candidate selection: Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry ...

The problem is when the dems go with northeast liberals we lose. When we go with a southernor with the exception of Gore who don't count because he really won, the democrats win.

Hey rssrai - you do know that Senator Clinton is from Chicago; not Northeast, but not Southern either. Anyway, the way the GOP has bled the children of the South I doubt they can depend on anti yankee sentiment.

So? John Edwards. Some of us think he's the best candidate without regard to his southerness.

Kerry was up against a war time president who had the power to increase the threat level at will. The war wasn't too unpopular in '04 and most of the biggest Bush scandals were kept secret even though the media was aware of them so Bush was still able to maintain approval better than 50%.

Despite all that, Kerry nearly won. To say he was a weak candidate misses the real dynamic. He did run a poor campaign and may have won if he did better with in that area. No dem will repeat the poor campaign job of Kerry-Edwards '04 this time.

Newt is my Republican hero. He is a brave man.

Now, in 2007, he comes forward, couldn't do it in 2004 )for technical reasons).

If Newt wants to distinguish himself from all the other GOP-candidates he succeeds. He succeeds because he does not want to be reminded of all the cheap and nasty attacks he launched against political opponents.

What is Newt up to?

Actually, her laugh may be the thing I hate most about her. In the recent debate, there was a moment where Mike Gravel made a perfect and impassioned comment about forcing cloture every day and voting to end the war, instead of condemning MoveOn and giving Bush the power to attack the "terrorist" Iranian Revolutionary Guard. When Tim Russert asked Clinton to respond, she started in with her laugh. People loved it, so she AMPED HER LAUGH UP, playing to the crowd. And that was, essentially, her response to Gravel. She said nothing about the substance of his remarks. She just laughed him away.

Why is this considered a good characteristic for our democratic nominee to have?

Kerry couldn't even protect a kid from being tazed by fascist pigs for daring to ask a question.

Kerry is a wussy and so are most of the Democrats. Their recent votes prove this.

We need more Russ Feingolds and Dennis Kucinichs and fewer Hillarys.

This is just Gingrich's open salvo in why his opponents should not launch in-kind attacks against him -- much as in 2000, the Republicans said that the time for nastiness was over and now everyone should make nice during the election. Double standards all 'round. Ask what the boys in the back room will have!

allsburg wrote on September 28, 2007 5:12 PM:

Actually, her laugh may be the thing I hate most about her. In the recent debate, there was a moment where Mike Gravel made a perfect and impassioned comment about forcing cloture every day and voting to end the war, instead of condemning MoveOn and giving Bush the power to attack the "terrorist" Iranian Revolutionary Guard. When Tim Russert asked Clinton to respond, she started in with her laugh. People loved it, so she AMPED HER LAUGH UP, playing to the crowd. And that was, essentially, her response to Gravel. She said nothing about the substance of his remarks. She just laughed him away.

Why is this considered a good characteristic for our democratic nominee to have?

Did you have something of substance to criticize about Senator HRC other than her laughter...like, maybe her recently unveiled Heath Care Plan?

Well, from just the excerpt here, Newt's characterization of the campaign against Kerry as "cheap and nasty" does not indicate disapproval of that canpaign--just that he does not believe it would work against Hillary. And how could he disapprove? Cheap and nasty would be an accurate and pithy (if understated and kind) description of Newt's political career.

BTW, I pray every night that Newt runs. Despite all the generic polling showing a Democratic advantage in '08, I don't but it. IMO, any of the top tier Republicans would probably defeat any Democratic candidate for one simple reason: the MSM playing field will be distinctly tilted in their favor. (That absurd tilt is the only reason that the campaign of world class buffoon, two bit Mussolini, and all around creep Rudy as not imploded long ago.) Despite the ridiculous paens paid to Newt by the likes of Broder recently, i think there is enough visceral dislike of Newt left in the MSM (and a public memory of the mid and late '90s, when Newt was perceived quite negatively) to correct that tilt somewhat.

One my consider quite a few investigations, etc. under his helm that were "cheap and nasty", even by today's standards.

comment generator hiding myspace [url=http://beach.iega.info/sm.html#502926105]comment generator hiding myspace[/url] http://beach.iega.info/sm.html 1387516111

Where was Newt when commercials were being broadcasted over the news? He was on FOX Hannity & Colmes saying the complete opposite.

You want another liar in the White House -vote Newt.

Newt the wolf is back and he's in sheep's clothing again.

>>The problem is when the dems go with northeast liberals we lose.

No, the problem is that when the Dems go with Midwestern liberals we lose:

Adlai Stevenson, 1952
Adlai Stevenson, 1956
Hubert Humphrey, 1968
George McGovern, 1972
Walter Mondale, 1984

Shall we try again with Obama in 2008?

I wrote plenty of complaint letters regarding the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry.

He made a tactical choice to try and remain above the fray and that choice was wrong. His campaign should have come out swinging. The rank-and-file didn't have the money to air media responses to the Swift Boat ads; Kerry's campaign did. One set of ads exposing the Swift Boat ads as completely bogus and another set of ads viciously attacking (the lack of) Bush's war record would have gone a long way towards damage control; done right it could have turned the situation in his favor.

I think he's also recognized that he made an error in handling that situation, which is why he reacted so strongly to the criticism of his "botched joke". If he'd taken a similar stand with the Swift Boat incident he might be president right now.

Kerry doesnt have the required PR skills , I would say. He doesnt know how to steal the limelight. He should be in the news often in order for people to know him. See him in tasergate, recent moveon, he did not come to the podium and speak up against people who are pouncing on move on. i wouldnt judge Kerry by his restrain to attack the swiftboaters. But he is not the best candidate in my opinion. but this dem field is very strong. I thought edwards was a much better than Kerry. But deano was the best.

Yeah, but when Newt was in office he would have done the same thing. It's the "conservative" way.

Kerry was a war hero, Bush was a war no show. So how do you counter such an advantage? If you're an honest person, you stress one of your redeeming features. If you're a republican, you slime your opponent and no holds are barred.

I just wonder if the Liberals are ever going to catch on.

The liberal leadership right should be getting the best political and strategic minds together to devise an anti-slime strategy to make the republicans tactics backfire.

A bulleted list of all the bad shit that has happened under the conservatives rule and how it effects the USA and its citizens here and abroad would be a good place to start.

No more Mr. Nice Guy!

I want to comment on whether it was Kerry's 'fault' that the swift boat liars congealed on him so quickly...

I disagree. Liars and those who will take money from others to lie ought to be called out for what they are.

Instead, the media played the lie, and eventually whatever defense Kerry tried, claiming they were being fair to give both sides... since when does the media not have a duty to point out lies? Since when is any American soldier's contribution made little of? Where are the people today who dared wear purple bandaids to some political rally for GW?
Why didn't he chastise and shame them?

.........cause he AGREED WITH THEIR MOTIVE!

Nope- everyone - all the networks, most the important papers and mags have been derelect in giving the truth to the citizens who need to be informed when they vote.

Witness how CBS poked around in their own navel doing everything they could to trash Dan Rather, and failing to even deal with the truth of Rather's reports: George Bush dodged the draft and went AWOL when it got a juicy assignment in TANG. At the very time when he was asking Americans to go off and die in a war...what a two faced, hypocrite he and all his kind are. NONE of them ever served.

That is why most people now get their information first hand from blogs and witnesses, and not organized media.

Newpspapers are dying, and so are network newscasts... but they did it to themselves. A victim of active lies on one side, and derelection of duty on another is not to be blamed for their success.

TomTom,

I count Hillary's time as first lady as experience. I am not a Hillary supporter though I would vote for her in the general election if she wins.

I just pray hard that she will end the war and bring them home. I pray she'll get us UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE. And I hope that she'll bring honesty and ethics back to the leadership of our government that's been sorely missing for the last six years if not more.

Hillary is smart. She's compassionate in a true sense, not in the 'conservative compassionate' sense. The only thing I'm not sure enough is that I really don't understand if she will actually do what she says or if she will do anything despite what she doesn't say!

Re: Clinton: $5,000 for every U.S. baby

Socialism / Communism At It’s Best..

Pies in the sky pandering to voters who Hilary believes are stupid and / or extremely naïve. She doesn’t care if she becomes the leader of the dumbest people in US history; all that matters to her is that she gets elected. This is a sad commentary on the moral and intellectual decline of American society. For a politician to play this card and play on the dumbness of the constituency is one of the saddest epochs in US history. The scariest part of this is that she may indeed get elected!

A hedonistic society based on narcissistic tendency is the prime target for the Socialist / Communist agenda. The lack of critical thinking and reasoning is the harbinger of our downfall as a free society. Like lambs to the slaughter they follow the, ‘if it sounds good and feels good - do it’ mentality without assessing the consequences of their folly. Sounds bites that sell are all that matters these days it seems. Joseph Goebbels would be proud!

My question.. Who in the hell is going to pay for her grandiose ideology?

$5000 for EVERY child (including illegal aliens I presume) born in the US.. Do the math.. Are you willing to pick up your share of the $20,000,000,000 a year price tab? Why in the hell should the Federal Government, in a free society, subsidies everyone’s existence? Almost sounds like Communism to me.

If Clinton or the likes of her gets in you’d better hold on to your wallet. We will be facing the biggest tax increase in US history, which will be used to consolidate power, while funding the bureaucracy as well as their special interest groups; This in conjunction with the loss of personal freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, which will be construed as a sacrifice for the greater good of the world society.

They are already talking about increasing the gasoline tax by $0.50 / gal. to unilaterally clean up the worlds environment. While we’re paying the increased gasoline taxes and subsidizing a bigger bureaucracy the third world and developing countries will just continue to pollute and pick up the pace of it.

Hillary is "formidable" says Newt. W says she's the "presumptive nominee". Murdoch tosses her a fund raiser and tacit endorsement. Larry Kudlow says Hillary would be "good for business."

Isn't there something unsettling about all this opponent support? It seems that the R's want Hillary as the candidate. BADLY.

WHY?

Well, for starters Hill is the only candidate who will give the now-fractured R base a reason to come out. The R brain trust realizes they lost in '06 because their fragile coalition of RW conservatives , neoconservatives and religious theocrats stayed at home. They were weary and felt used and abused. None of the red meat issues they were brought out to vote for(against)- gay marriage, flag burning, abortion, illegal aliens has resolved to their liking, even after 6 years of W and nearly 15 of R control of congress.

They won't be lied to and exploited again. Unless....
HILLARY!! The most reviled and evil Democrat except possibly hubby Bill in history! THAT will bring them back out ! They think she's a menace in the combined way that all the other issues were.

Newt is shrewd. Karl is pulling strings And as a bonus, the same advisors that brought you the unresponsive and reticent Kerry and Gore ( and as a bonus, the 94 congressional ) campaigns are running Hillary's show as well!

So look for what should be a sweeping victory to become the closest race in history with the usual shrinking violet legal team from the Dems who are afraid of looking like sore losers and won't challenge any of thefaud and chicanery already in place.

No wonder Murdoch likes this show.

"mike wrote on September 28, 2007 4:23 PM:

"To me, that's part of why Kerry lost. If he couldn't even defend himself against the Swift-boaters, how was he going to be able to defend our country?

"As bad as the Repugs are, the Dems aren't much better in terms of candidate selection: Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry ..."

Why are you blaming Kerry for the consequences of the actions of (such as) the Swift Boat Liars Against Truth? How is Kerry responsible for their despicable conduct? Because he refused to stoop to that level?

You're either a Republican't, or a Republican't who doesn't know he's a Republican't.

Be good. Or be Republican -- and don't get caught.