The official **KERRY IS TOAST** thread.

[Ronnie Raygun]

Damn! That didn't take long.

You can thank the Clintons.....I guess Hillary felt threatened.

[phnompehn]

Your confidence is like a tiny rodent, struggling to escape from a gay man's sphincter. It inspires me.

[Ronnie Raygun]

Good.

[sspadowsky]

Yep. Lord knows those sex scandals really took ol' Bill "Two-term" Clinton out of action.

[Ronnie Raygun]

It didn't happen til' after Clinton's 2nd election.....

Kerry isn't elected yet either.....

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattjk5.htm

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU FEB 12, 2004 20:01:49 ET XXXXX

OUT OF AFRICA: KERRY PREPARES RESPONSE TO MEDIA PROBE OF RELATIONSHIP

**Exclusive**

Democratic presidential frontrunner John Kerry is planning a response to a DRUDGE REPORT exclusive which first revealed the frantic behind-the-scenes drama surrounding a woman who recently fled the country, reportedly at the prodding of Kerry!

The nature and details of a claimed two-year relationship, beginning in the Spring of 2001, between a young woman and Kerry is at the center of serious investigations at several media outlets.

After being approached by a top news producer, the woman fled to Africa, where she remains, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

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 challange to reporters investigating the claims.

"There is no lawsuit testimony this time [like Clinton with Paula Jones]," a top source said Thursday night. "It is hard to prove."

A close friend of the woman first approached a reporter late last year claiming fantastic stories -- stories that now threaten to turn the race for the presidency on its head.

Kerry is scheduled to appear on IMUS IN THE MORNING on Friday. Later he is scheduled to join General Wesley Clark, who, in an off-the-record conversation with a dozen reporters earlier this week, plainly stated: "Kerry will implode over an intern issue."

Reporters who witnessed Clark making the stunning comments marvel at the General's reluctance to later confirm they were spoken -- only to later endorse Kerry for the nomination!

Developing...

[KevinTheOmnivore]

People like Chris Lehane are the reason people hate politics.

[phnompehn]

People like Ronnie Raygun are the reason people hate politics.

[sspadowsky]

It didn't happen til' after Clinton's 2nd election.....

Horseshit, Ronnie. Clinton was plagued by sex scandals while he was on the campaign trail back in '92 with Gennifer Flowers, then there was Paula Jones, I think at least one other chick somewhere in there, and then Monicagate. Aaaaaallllll the way through his journey.

[AChimp]

Who cares, really? I bet Bush masturbates.

[Ronnie Raygun]

Spad, those early allegations were not solid like this is......Kerry will probably go public with this tomorrow and admit to it.

Clinton never admitted to anythinguntil after his 2nd prez. election.

It's a completely different world now.

LOOK! I'm not being an asshole about this.

I just think dems should admit this is shitty on Kerry's behalf...

[Ronnie Raygun]

Here is more information.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/13/wus13.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/02/13/ixportaltop.html

Kerry faces big test in internet storm about mystery woman
By Alec Russell and David Rennie in Washington
(Filed: 13/02/2004)


The campaign of Senator John Kerry, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, faced its first media storm last night after a Right-wing website alleged that he had asked a woman to leave the country for personal reasons.

Mr Kerry's campaign did not respond to the allegation on the Drudge Report, a news tipster, most famous for disclosing that Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern. When contacted, the Kerry campaign had no immediate comment.


Waiting in the wings: Democratic hopeful, John Kerry
But Democratic sources blamed the allegation on Republican "dirty tricks". They said it marked the long-expected start of a campaign from the Right to smear the frontrunner and damage his chances of fighting a strong campaign against President George W Bush.

The report caused anguish among grassroots party activists just a day after it seemed that Mr Kerry, a decorated Vietnam war veteran, had been virtually crowned as the nominee after a remarkably swift and benign campaign.

The report also alleged that General Wesley Clark, who bowed out of the race on Wednesday, told reporters: "Kerry will implode over an intern issue."

Bill Buck, the national press secretary for the Clark campaign, said: "We do not respond to Right-wing internet postings in any way, shape or form."

Two hours after the report first appeared on the internet, Gen Clark's campaign rushed to his aid, indicating that the retired general would endorse Mr Kerry today.

Drudge claimed that several prominent news organisations in Washington have been investigating the rumours. But some of those named denied this.

The Drudge Report said the allegation explained why Howard Dean, the former frontrunner, was now vowing to fight on, having earlier pledged to bow out if he lost the next big contest on Tuesday.

Diehard Dean supporters exulted on internet forums at the news that the man who usurped their hero's position as favourite was at the centre of his own media storm.

Deaniacs remain bitter at what they perceive as the media's destruction of their candidate, who only a month ago led the polls. Last night Mr Kerry's campaign internet forum for activists was seething with accusations of Republican dirty tricks.

Mr Kerry took the lead in the race for the nomination three weeks ago when he won the first contest, the Iowa caucuses, since when he has won 11 out of the following 13 contests.

Following his victories in the south on Tuesday, in contests in Virginia and Tennessee, he was deemed to have proved his national credentials and to have all but eliminated his remaining rivals' hopes.

But he has always acknowledged that he will have to wait until March 2, when many of the big states vote, to secure a majority of the delegates who are allocated by each victory, to ensure he is chosen as the nominee at the party's convention in July.

The allegation on the Drudge Report provided the first test of the Kerry campaign under fire. While he has rampaged from victory to victory, it has been widely acknowledged that Mr Kerry has been spared the scrutiny normally devoted to frontrunners.

He has benefited from this year's accelerated timetable of the primaries and the overwhelming desire of Democrats of all stripes to unite and find the candidate who is best able to beat President George W Bush.

Mr Kerry was in Washington yesterday for strategy meetings and was expected to fly to Wisconsin today ahead of Tuesday's primary.

[Abcdxxxx]

Hillary's ironing her dark horse superhero cape as we speak.

[El Blanco]

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 challange to reporters investigating the claims.

I really believed thise sentence was going to end with "and this chick is actually hot".

[theapportioner]

Haha just like his idol John F. Kennedy. Maybe he has several debilitating illnesses too.

[mburbank]

Huh. See, I thought all those Republicans frothing at the mouth during the impeachment process were only enraged because Clinton lied under oath, and this it has nothing to do with his sexual missconduct. Sexual missconduct the public would never have had to read the explicit details of which until that dol gon did the unthinkable and lied under oath, commiting perjury, which is an actual crime.

I guess that was all load of hypocritical shit. What surprise. Otherwise it might justifiably bother people the Ginrich had multiple affairs, used the same oral sex isn't actual sex argument, asked his wife for a divorce while she was in a hospital bed; W. senior had a lengthy affair with a secretary, W jr. has a WDI under his belt and is an alchoholic and a deserter, Neil Bush gets free women in return for access to his family, etc. etc. etc.

Now before you quibble with any of these charges, since in the case of Kerry and Scott Ritter you've already shown tht the American principle of Innocent Before guilty is of no interest to you I'd like to go on record as saying it is a well known fact that the Gipper had lap dance from a transvestite in the Oval Office. Actually it isn't, but if I were Matt Drudge I'd have a larger audience for that claim.

[theapportioner]

Yeah it's all very interesting that the mainstream media hasn't jumped onto this story. Not that it isn't true - wouldn't surprise me if it is. But it hasn't been verified yet. And that says a lot about those who are now attacking Kerry -- as we saw in the war, evidence seems to be wholly unimportant.

[mburbank]

Karl Rove is an old style dirty trickster and learned at the cloven hoof of the late Lee Atwater.

I say wait and see.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I don't think this is coming from Rove. Apparently, Chris Lehane, a veteran Democratic Party muckraker, was shopping this story out to reporters weeks ago while he was campaigning for (I think) Dick Gephardt.

If this story is true, it may end up being an internal smear job. :/

[mburbank]

Well wherever it came from, Drudge and company would do well to recall that pornographer Larry Flynt did quite a bit of investigation into what politicans have done what with whom.

I think an open season on adulterers would be a very bad idea.

[AChimp]

You know, if it turns out that the US isn't happy with Kerry and doesn't want him... you know... Canada will take him. :(

[KevinTheOmnivore]

From politics1.com:

"DREDGING DRUDGE. It is always amusing to see the irony each time Internet scoopster Matt Drudge takes aim at the private life of political figure. Why ironic? Because Drudge seems to go to great lengths to deny he's gay and protect his own privacy, even though he's been repeatedly outed as gay. Author David Brock, MSNBC reporter Jeannette Walls and other reported on this. Actually, Brock tells how Drudge repeatedly hit on him for two of them to have sex. Drudge even does his writing these days from his home in South Beach, a heavily gay enclave in the Miami Beach area. As for Brock's claimed "Exclusive!" on Kerry's sex life this week, there appear to be a few problems. First, it wasn't even an exclusive as another web site reported the sketchy details a week ago (but no one noticed because the other political blog site has a small audience). Second, Drudge kept rewriting his "Exclusive!" throughout the day and his details kept shifting. The dates changed, the settings changed, etc. Is the Kerry story another one like his Sidney Blumenthal story that turned out to be total fiction ... or is it one of those he got more-or-less right? Then again, Drudge himself once flippantly told CNN that his stories are only "80% accurate." As for the Senator's response to the infidelity story, Kerry said Friday morning on the Imus radio show that "There's nothing to report, nothing to talk about.""

[theapportioner]

*EDIT: Sorry, that wasn't her photo!

[theapportioner]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004071162,00.html

Name: Alex Polier
No evidence for an affair, apparently.

[The One and Only...]

Who really cares is Drudge is gay? And you guys claim the right-wing is full of bigots.

[AChimp]

Who really cares if Kerry had an affair?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Yeah, OAO missed the point (again).

I don't give a fuck what Matt Drudge does, but as a fan and frequent reader of his webpage (like 1/4 of everyone else on the internet), I see what he tries to do to people. He considers himself an "objective journalist," and constantly brings the "liberal media," into question, yet rarely puts that microscope on himself.

He's a tabloid, dirty journalist with credibility. Where does that credibility come from? See OAO's sequel to economic blathering blabber poopie poop.

[The_Rorschach]

I've always seen Drudge as a shrieking gorgon -Not to be confused with the band Dredge, which has a shrieking gorgon on vox yet still manages to make excellent music.

[Ronnie Raygun]

More information........it looks as if Wes Clark has no faith in him either.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/15/wus15.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/02/15/ixportaltop.html

'This won't go away. What happened is much nastier than is being reported'
By Adrian Blomfeld in Nairobi and Andrew Alderson
(Filed: 15/02/2004)


Alex Polier, the twenty-four year old journalist who could end Senator John Kerry's hopes of becoming the next president of the United States is alleged to have had a two-year affair with the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. Last night the rumours were in danger of becoming a full-blown scandal.


Alex Polier, 24, is alleged to have had an affair with John Kerry
"This is not going to go away," one American friend of Miss Polier said yesterday. "What actually happened is much nastier than is being reported."

The allegations come at a crucial time for the senator. Polls showed him leading Mr Bush by 52 per cent to 42 per cent, and aides will be anxious to see if the apparent scandal affects his standing among voters.

Miss Polier, a former intern who also spent some time in 1998 doing work experience at the Houses of Parliament in London, is in Kenya staying with Yaron Schwartzman, her fiance and a member of the country's fashionable young set. The couple have refused to make any comment on her alleged links with Senator Kerry, who is married to Teresa Heinz Kerry, an heiress to the food empire.

Senator Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran dubbed the new JFK, has vehemently denied any relationship with Miss Polier, and shrugged off allegations that he had a two-year affair with her from 2001. "I just deny it categorically. It's rumour. It's untrue. Period," he said.

Mr Kerry, 60, has won 12 out of the 14 Democratic primaries and has looked all but certain to seal the nomination to take on President George W. Bush in November's elections.

His aides have blamed a dirty tricks campaign for bringing the allegations about Miss Polier into the public eye; they first surfaced last week on a Right-wing internet site, the Drudge Report, which famously first broke the news of Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Miss Polier's parents, Terry and Donna, from Malvern, Pennsylvania, added fuel to the fire by claiming that Mr Kerry did pursue their daughter.

"I think he's a sleazeball. I did wonder if she didn't get that feeling herself," said Mr Polier. "He's not the sort of guy I'd choose to be with my daughter.

"John Kerry called my daughter and invited her to be on his re-election committee. She talked to him and decided against it."

The Drudge website also quoted retired Gen Wesley Clark, one of Mr Kerry's rivals for the nomination, as having told journalists off the record: "Kerry will implode over an intern issue."

Mr Clark later dropped out of the race and endorsed Mr Kerry.

Miss Polier, a journalist who once worked for Associated Press, is a graduate of Columbia University, New York. She apparently met the senator as she was beginning her media career. Miss Polier and her fiance were believed to be hiding yesterday at the Nairobi home of Mr Schwartzman's parents, who moved to Kenya from Israel.

She appears to have few friends of her own in Kenya: she has never lived in the country and makes only occasional visits. "She seemed perfectly nice, although she was a little cool," said a Schwartzman family friend.

"She didn't seem to be very willing to open up but whether it was because she was aloof or just shy, I couldn't work out."
Related reports

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2004. Terms & Conditions of reading.
Commercial information. Privacy Policy.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

And once again, coming from the highly questionable Telegraph, via the highly questionable Matt Drudge.

[Ronnie Raygun]

....and still more....

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/164376p-144049c.htmlStray? It ain't so: Kerry


By HELEN KENNEDY and MAGGIE HABERMAN
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS


John Kerry with wife Teresa

Sen. John Kerry flatly denied swirling rumors about an extramarital affair yesterday, assuring backers that his campaign was not vulnerable to a sudden sex scandal.
"I just deny it categorically. It's rumor. It's untrue. Period," Kerry told reporters in Wisconsin. "It's not true."

After denying the report, Kerry added, "And that's the last time I intend to."

Earlier, on the Don Imus radio show, Kerry was asked whether Democratic supporters should worry that his front-running campaign could be derailed by a Clinton-style scandal.

"The answer is no," Kerry said. "I've been pretty well vetted and examined from one side to the other."

Kerry told Imus he wasn't concerned about the unconfirmed report sweeping the Internet that he'd had an affair with a 24-year-old woman. The report was first published online by conservative muckraker Matt Drudge.

"There's nothing to report. There's nothing to talk about. I'm not worried about it," Kerry said.

The 60-year-old Massachusetts senator, who married ketchup heiress Teresa Heinz in 1995, said he expected a tough and dirty election battle against President Bush.

"These guys will want to try to do everything to change the subject," Kerry said on Imus. "But I think they're in for a surprise. I'm a fighter, and I'm ready to fight back."

Despite his outward unconcern, Kerry's campaign was rattled by the rumor, which first appeared Thursday and was widely discussed on conservative talk radio.

Campaign operatives worked hard over the past two days to silence the whispers, strenuously reminding reporters that no one was making any clear allegations.

Nevertheless, news stories naming a young woman - and speculating that the Democratic front-runner could soon be toast - were printed in British, Irish, Australian and Indian newspapers.

The woman's parents were quoted in the London Sun saying their daughter had met Kerry and that he had asked her to work on his Senate campaign a few years ago. She declined, they said.

The father denied they had an affair, but called the senator a "sleazeball" without explanation to the Sun.

"He's not the sort of guy I would choose to be with my daughter," the London paper quoted the father as saying.

The Daily News tried unsuccessfully to contact the woman and her family. The News is withholding her identity because there is no clear evidence of any relationship between her and Kerry.

With Democrats fixated on beating Bush, the thought of nominating someone who could be cut down by scandal sent shivers through party ranks over the last 48 hours.

Endorsing Kerry yesterday, ex-rival retired Gen. Wesley Clark assured Democrats, "He'll stand up to the Republican attack dogs and send them home licking their wounds."

Drudge, who made his name by revealing that Newsweek was working on a story linking President Clinton to a White House intern, included in his first report the claim that some news organizations were looking into a possible affair between Kerry and a woman.

Kerry, who was married once before, was something of a playboy after his divorce, dating starlets Morgan Fairchild and Catherine Oxenberg.

Heinz, who has been a fixture on the campaign trail, is no shrinking violet. She once told a writer for Elle magazine that she would jokingly warn her first husband that if he ever strayed, "I'll maim you. Not kill you, just maim you."

Originally published on February 13, 2004

[AChimp]

More information........it looks as if Wes Clark has no faith in him either.


The Drudge website also quoted retired Gen Wesley Clark, one of Mr Kerry's rivals for the nomination, as having told journalists off the record: "Kerry will implode over an intern issue."

Mr Clark later dropped out of the race and endorsed Mr Kerry.

Another Ronnie Moment. :themoreyouknow

[Ronnie Raygun]

Thanks, Chimp....

Check this out.....

http://slate.msn.com//id/2095311/Kerried Away
The myth and math of Kerry's electability.
By William Saletan
Posted Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2004, at 9:41 PM PT


By media consensus, the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is over. Why? Because John Kerry has won 12 of the 14 primaries and caucuses held so far. And why has Kerry won these contests? Not because voters agree with him on the issues. The reason, according to exit polls, is that voters think he's the candidate most likely to beat President Bush. There's just one problem: The same polls suggest this may not be true.

Two weeks ago, Kerry beat Howard Dean by 12 percentage points in the New Hampshire primary, convincing Democrats around the country that Kerry was their most electable candidate. How did Kerry win? By racking up a 4-to-1 advantage over Dean among voters who chose their candidate because "he can defeat George W. Bush in November." Among voters who chose their candidate because "he agrees with you on the major issues," Dean and Kerry were tied.

Let me say that again: Among voters who picked the candidate they wanted based on the issues, not the candidate they thought somebody else wanted, Kerry did not win the New Hampshire primary.



OK, maybe Dean wasn't the most electable guy. But in the states that followed, voters applied the same theory to other candidates, padding Kerry's delegate count and aura of inevitability. They figured the guy who had won Iowa and New Hampshire was a winner. So, they voted for him, proving themselves right. The biggest delegate prize on Feb. 3 was Missouri, where Kerry beat John Edwards 2 to 1, filling the airwaves with talk of a juggernaut. How did Kerry thrash Edwards so badly? He won "agrees with you" voters by 10 points—a healthy but not awesome margin, largely attributable to the fact that Kerry was the candidate the media were talking about, since he had just won New Hampshire. No, the people who gave Kerry his enormous vote tally in Missouri—and nearly two-thirds of the state's delegates—were the "can defeat Bush" voters, who went for Kerry over Edwards by a ratio of more than 3 to 1.

Everywhere you look, Kerry collected big wins and delegates for this reason. In Arizona, he squeaked past Wes Clark by just two percentage points among "agrees with you" voters. But he crushed Clark among "can defeat Bush" voters, netting a 16-point victory. In Delaware, Kerry did twice as well among "can defeat Bush" voters as among "agrees with you" voters. In Oklahoma, both Clark and Edwards beat Kerry by 13 points among "agrees with you" voters, but Kerry got away with a competitive finish by thumping them among "can defeat Bush" voters. In South Carolina, Kerry lost "agrees with you" voters to Edwards by a 2-to-1 margin but escaped with a respectable second thanks to "can defeat Bush" voters.

Last weekend, the press wrote Dean out of the race after Kerry beat him 3 to 1 in the Michigan caucuses. A poll of Michigan absentee voters taken by the CBS News Elections and Survey Unit showed Kerry crushing Dean by 29 points among "can beat Bush" voters. But in the same survey, "agrees with you" voters chose Dean over Kerry by four points. To be fair, the poll showed Dean doing 19 points better, relative to Kerry, in the absentee sample than in the final returns. But the logical explanation for that gap is that many absentee ballots were cast before the race turned upside down. And the logical implication of that explanation is that while the poll understated Kerry's share of "can defeat Bush" voters, it was less likely to understate his share of "agrees with you" voters.

Tuesday, the electability factor wasn't just big; it was decisive. The networks anointed Kerry the nominee based on his sweep of Virginia and Tennessee. But Kerry wasn't the first choice of Tennesseans who selected their candidate based on the issues. Edwards was. The "can defeat Bush" voters were the ones who reversed the outcome and put Kerry on top.

All of which raises the $200 million question: Are these "can defeat Bush" voters correct? Is Kerry the most electable Democrat?

It's a hard question to answer, because most of the evidence is circular. If people support Kerry because they think he's electable, he goes up in the polls, which makes him look more electable. The best way to filter out this distortion is to focus on the voters least likely to make their decisions in November based on electability. These happen to be the same voters who hold the balance of power in most elections: independents, conservative Democrats, and moderate Republicans. They aren't principally trying to figure out which Democratic candidate can beat Bush, because they don't necessarily want the Democratic nominee to beat Bush. They're trying to decide which Democratic candidate, if any, would be a better president than Bush.

How well has Kerry done among these voters? In absolute terms, well enough. But in relative terms, the numbers show a disconcerting pattern. By and large, the closer you move to the center and center-right of the electorate, where the presidential race will probably be decided, the worse Kerry does. The opposite is true of Edwards.

In Missouri, Kerry's vote share was 19 points lower among independents than among Democrats, and another seven points lower among Republicans than among independents. Edwards' trend moved in the other direction: He scored five points higher among independents than among Democrats, and another nine points higher among Republicans than among independents. Kerry performed about as well among moderates as he did among liberals, evidently because Dean took a solid chunk of the liberal vote. But Kerry's share of the conservative vote was 10 points lower than his share of liberals or moderates. Edwards, meanwhile, came in four points higher among moderates than among liberals, and another two points higher among conservatives than among moderates.

In Oklahoma, Kerry's vote share was 11 points lower among independents than among Democrats, and another 11 points lower among Republicans than among independents. (Republicans were self-identified, not registered.) Clark followed the same pattern, scoring five points lower among independents than among Democrats, and another 14 points lower among Republicans than among independents. Edwards, on the other hand, scored six points higher among independents, and two points higher among Republicans, than among Democrats. Kerry came in seven points lower among moderates than among liberals, and another eight points lower among conservatives than among moderates. Clark's trend was similar: His vote share was one point lower among moderates than among liberals, and another eight points lower among conservatives than among moderates. But Edwards' trend went the other way: He scored seven points higher among moderates than among liberals, and another three points higher among conservatives than among moderates.

In South Carolina, Kerry's vote share was 11 points lower among independents than among Democrats, and another six points lower among conservatives than among moderates. Again, Edwards reversed the curve: He scored five points higher among independents than among Democrats, and another six points higher among Republicans than among independents. Kerry came in two points lower among moderates and conservatives than among liberals, while Edwards scored seven points higher among moderates, and four points higher among conservatives, than he did among liberals.

In Arizona, Delaware, and New Hampshire, the pattern was a bit different. Joe Lieberman campaigned hard in these states, taking a significant number of the moderate and conservative voters who, in other states uncontested by Lieberman, went to Edwards or Clark. Moreover, in New Hampshire and Delaware, Dean took a sizeable chunk of the liberal vote from Kerry. Still, Kerry performed slightly worse among conservatives than among moderates and liberals. In New Hampshire, he came in four points lower among independents than among Democrats, and another eight points lower among Republicans than among independents. In Arizona, he came in 11 points lower among independents than among Democrats. He did five points worse among moderates than among liberals, and six points worse among conservatives than among moderates. In Delaware, he came in 10 points lower among independents than among Democrats. Clark, Edwards, and Lieberman went the other way, scoring higher among independents than among Democrats. (Self-identified Republicans were too few to cross-tabulate in Arizona and Delaware, because both states closed their primaries to registered Republicans.)

The Michigan exit poll was somewhat unique, since the event was a caucus and the sample was confined to absentee voters. Nevertheless, Kerry's numbers ran in the same direction, putting him 11 points lower among independents than among Democrats. There were too few Republicans to cross-tabulate. Kerry performed somewhat better among moderates than among liberals, as did Clark and Edwards, evidently because Dean took much of the liberal vote.

Tuesday, the pattern was particularly stark. In Tennessee, Kerry's vote share fell from 48 percent of liberals to 39 percent of moderates to 32 percent of conservatives. Edwards went the other way, attracting 26 percent of liberals, 32 percent of moderates, and 35 percent of conservatives. In Virginia, Kerry's trend was less clear—he did slightly better among moderates than among liberals before plummeting among conservatives—but Edwards' trend was the same, ascending two points from liberals to moderates and another 11 points from moderates to conservatives. While Kerry fell from 59 percent of Democrats to 41 percent of independents to 13 percent of Republicans, Edwards rose from 21 percent of Democrats to 31 percent of independents to 45 percent of Republicans.

If I were a Kerry believer, I'd make three arguments against this analysis. The first is that Kerry's higher score among liberals shows strength on the left rather than weakness in the center. But unless you think liberals wouldn't vote for Edwards against Bush, it's logical to assume that Edwards, as the nominee, would end up matching Kerry's strength on the left. Building support in the center is a lot harder.

The second objection is that in addition to the issues-versus-electability question, the exit polls asked voters a question that included other factors, such as "has the right experience" and "cares about people like me." On "has the right experience," Kerry routinely whipped the field, and deservedly so, given his military service and his expertise in national security and foreign policy. But on "cares about people like me," Edwards did, on average, slightly better than Kerry.

The third objection is that the simplest way to measure electability is a national head-to-head poll, and by this standard, Kerry does a bit better than Edwards. The problem with this method is that most voters haven't seen the candidates in their states and haven't been obliged to focus on the election. Only those in early primary states have. So, while Kerry, having received favorable nationwide press coverage for his primary victories, scores well on the "if the election were held today" question, the underlying data are often less auspicious. A week ago, for example, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that Kerry would beat Bush by seven points, while Edwards would beat Bush by just one. (A follow-up poll this week shows Bush beating Kerry by one point and beating Edwards by four.) But among Republicans and Republican leaners, Kerry's image was on balance unfavorable, while Edwards' image was on balance favorable.

Could I be wrong about all this? Sure. We pundits have been wrong before. Punditry is a dangerous game. But according to the exit polls, that's exactly the game Democratic voters have played in nominating Kerry. And if they're as shaky at it as we are, the price isn't just embarrassment. It's defeat.


William Saletan is Slate's chief political correspondent.

.

[AChimp]

It should be Kerry as president, with Edwards as VP. Then they could make Clark the secretary of state. It would be a big ball of love.

[The One and Only...]

Kevin and Chimp: Isn't having an affair worse than being gay?

Drudge isn't running for office, either.

[Ronnie Raygun]

Yes...yes.

Liberals bashing someone for being gay....

[KevinTheOmnivore]

OAO, 1. the affair is alleged, not confirmed. Only Matt Drudge and the UK tabloids have seriously jumped all over this.

2. Matt Drudge is a proponent of his own privacy. As am I. He should grant Senator Kerry the same bebefit of the doubt, because despite the personal flaws of President Clinton, American voters showed that they were sophisticated enough to laugh at him and still vote for him.

3. Having affairs is wrong. Sleeping with interns is wrong. Neither have been proven yet, nor are they uncommon in DC culture. Young women get hit on, seduced, and sexually harassed by men who are miles away from their families all the time. The sophisticated question you should be asking is does this have any bearing on how good a president John Kerry could be, or is this simply a smear campaign, coming from politicians who have undoubtedly either A. cheated on their own wives, or B. turned a blind eye on numerous occassions when someone else did it....?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Yes...yes.

Liberals bashing someone for being gay....

You are an idiot. It had nothing to do with Drudge's moral choices, nor was it a condemnation of homosexuality, and you damn well know it. You should be fucking ashamed of yourself.

[The One and Only...]

I'm not saying Kerry did have an affair. In fact, it really doesn't bother me much if he did or not.

But it does matter to a lot of people, and giving politicians the benefit of the doubt is never a good idea. It's an extreme comparison, I know, but that's what went wrong in Iraq.

Besides... I have a feeling that any champion of privacy would exclude public figures, especially government officials.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"Having affairs is wrong. Sleeping with interns is wrong. Neither have been proven yet,........."

Then someone should get to the bottom of it.....and they will before the election. You can bet on that.

[The One and Only...]

Of course. If this does actually check out, the Reps won't spill the beans until Kerry wins the nomination. Otherwise, someone else might go up against Bush, which means that all the mud which was slung would be washed down the drain.

[Ronnie Raygun]

I really don't care about that. I'm not really worried about the other Mondale's....

I just think the media should be fair and get to the bottom of these accusations.......If this was Bush, it would be the only thing on T.V.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Then someone should get to the bottom of it.....and they will before the election. You can bet on that.

Says the party against "social engineering."

This is pathetic and sad on your part, Ronnie. Let's see some consistency, shall we? I think, if this is truly an issue of extreme pertinence, that Congress should perhaps set up an independent, maybe bi-bartisan committee that will investigate the sexual scandals and infidelities of our incumbent and prospective office holders. Good idea, right?

OAO-- Most people don't give a fuck about who Kerry might be screwing, b/c unlike Matt Drudge, UK tabloids, and opportunistic Republicans, Americans have shown a great degree of sophistication in separating a man's public from his personal life.

Conservatives still scream up and down that the real violation in the Clinton scandal was NOT his infidelity, rather, it was his lying under oath. Now they are proving that to be all a ton of horse shit, and they're simply using this as a chance to go after Kerry.

Attack him on his voting record, attack him on his flip flopping on issues (the latest George Will OpEd is a GREAT critique of Kerry's stance on issues), but don't dig up dirt on the man's sexual behavior, unless he has violated the law.

You can use feel good cliches all you like, such as "this says something about the man's character," but that's a lense of judgement that belongs on MANY elected officials, NOT merely John Kerry.

[mburbank]

Geez, Nald was worried you might actually be developing a stable, consistent political viewpoint that I'd disagree with but have to respect. It's clear your still listening to the wind howling back and forth through your ears. While I'm pleased you actually read slate (if you did as opposed to cutting and pasting after some other pundit linked to it), you still believe whatever seems to support your gut reaction without examination.

Do you believe in innocence until guilt is proven? Do you believe it for Rush and Kerry?

I'm pleased to know you think adulltery is worse than homsexuality. Which does your version of God say is the more serious sin?

[AChimp]

Having an affair has no bearing on your ability to run a government and do your job effectively. If Kerry did indeed have an affair, and as of right now there is absolutely no proof for this, it should remain a private matter between him and his wife.

[theapportioner]

The woman's come forward and flatly denied the rumors. She also said she never worked for Kerry. Drudge is reporting that she dated Kerry's finance director for a while, and that she was a flirt, which fanned the rumors.

Oh well, so much for the "scandal", at least for now.

Back to the regularly scheduled programming - Haliburton, Valerie Plame, Cheney/Scalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, intelligence, 9/11...

[Ronnie Raygun]

Not quite....

You have this....

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004071162,00.html

...and then you have this...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/02/16/politics1300EST0543.DTL&type=printable

Does anything look funny to you?

Why the sudden switch? Something just seems weird about this......

Why can't the media just treat this situation like they did this....

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattht.htm

Now you can say all you want about Drudge but this did happen because I remember it. I think Max even said something about it.....

So why is the media treating it differently.....

....because there is an obvious liberal bias...that's why.

"Geez, Nald was worried you might actually be developing a stable, consistent political viewpoint that I'd disagree with but have to respect." - Max

Max, I like you as a person but I don't give a shit if you "respect" my political viewpoint.

[AChimp]

A liberal bias as opposed to what? A right-wing "OMG LOOK AT WHAT THE FUCK HE DID WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN" bias? The centrist approach is to just not care one way or the other because the accusations are A) baseless and B) meaningless with regard to his ability to run a government.

Only in a country like the U.S. would someone's private life and become such a big deal. Ironically, I always hear stuff about privacy rights in the American media.

Have you ever touched your penis, Ronnie? You know what I mean. Maybe you shook it more than what was absolutely necessary the last time you were at the urinal. I hope you never serve in public office, you pervert. >:

[Ronnie Raygun]

Whatever.....say what you want.

I just want balanced media coverage and nothing more.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

So you support me then on a bipartisan committee to investigate the personal lives of every member of Congress, the president, and the supreme court....?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Whatever.....say what you want.

I just want balanced media coverage and nothing more.

That's bullshit. The title you gave this thread was "The official KERRY IS TOAST thread". This wasn't a question of the media to you, it was a question of Kerry's character and electability.

Now that the whole thing has turned out to be little or nothing, you (much like Matt Drudge) are back-peddling and making excuses.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"That's bullshit. The title you gave this thread was "The official KERRY IS TOAST thread". This wasn't a question of the media to you, it was a question of Kerry's character and electability."


Ohhhh! How dare I question a presidential candidate's character and electability!!! Of course I was.....just as you have been questioning Bush's.

"Now that the whole thing has turned out to be little or nothing, you (much like Matt Drudge) are back-peddling and making excuses."

It hasn't turned out at all because the media refuses to take on this issue.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The media was relentless with Clinton and his sex scandals. There is no liberal bias.

You are a lost cause.

[thebiggameover]

I just think the media should be fair and get to the bottom of these accusations.......If this was Bush, it would be the only thing on T.V.

Who the hell would fuck bush?


:puke

[Emu]

Your sig is the coolest thing evar.

[theapportioner]

I had a dream where I was on this radio show with a DJ and a girlfriend and we were AIM'ing Alex Polier. We booted the DJ cos he was being an ass (don't ask why the convo was an IM one), and after we did that, she told us she had an affair with Kerry. :confused

[Ronnie Raygun]

"The media was relentless with Clinton and his sex scandals. There is no liberal bias.

You are a lost cause."

They had no choice, he was impeached by Congress.

Just compare this to when Bush Sr. was running for president back in 88'. Then you'll see the liberal bias.

[mburbank]

You lost me. If we compare the fact that the press which knew who and for how long Bush senior had been comitting adultery and never refered to it to their coverage of Paula Jones, Jennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinski, we see liberal bias?

Suppose we concider the barely extant coverage of Ginrich's multiple adulteries.

The press follows all sorts of things. Power, favors, laziness, momentum, excitement, smut. But with the exception of publications which are speciffically about their political slant, of which there are more than few on both sides, I see no bias. Just baseness.

In adition, I think The Nation, The Progressive and Mother Jones wear their hearst on their sleeves. Newsmax pretends to be news and Fox says they're fair and balanced. The NYT rolled on their bellies for the adminstration during the Iraq war and haven't even retracted stories where they got used like old tissues by the administration.

I think it takes a budding paranoiac to see a bias in the media as a whole, liberal or conservative. We have a vast blanket of laziness punctuated about once a decade by someone who actually cares about investigative journalism. The only people who worry about a political bias in the press are folks who want to see themselves as victims, of which there are plenty. Do what a historian does. Read widely and where disparate sides agree it's probably a fact. You know, like the way everyone thinks Michael Powell at the FCC is a corrupt sack of crap, from the NRA to the League of Women Voters. Anyone who simply believes what they read is a sheep. Sheep have a tendency to get slaughtered.

[The One and Only...]

I heard that a study has been conducted which shows that nearly all reporters are socially liberal, but most tend more toward the conservative side when it comes to economics.

And, be honest... does that really suprise you?

[mburbank]

Good lord, the school bus pulls up outside your house and 'i heard' and 'a study' comes out of you before you've even gone potty and had mom make you a snack.

'I heard' 'a study' that shows you are aone note weiner. But is anyone surprised?

[Anonymous]

I heard in the news that a study has been conducted which shows that nearly all reporters can store cell phones, microphones, and extra stationary in a gullet just between their head and left shoulder blade.

[The One and Only...]

But you see, I heard about this study on the news.

[mburbank]

I'll do the jokes.

[Anonymous]

Whoops. There, I fixed it.

[The One and Only...]

I'll do the jokes.

You should have said I heard it on Fox.

[mburbank]

Why should I have said that when I meant you should leave telling jokes to me because I'm good at it and you're bad at it?

[Ronnie Raygun]

I think democrats as well as the American as a whole are have doubts about John

Kerry.....http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

It could have something to do with this.......

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004080465,00.html

...or maybe not.

[teh_mastar!]

How 'bout these apples?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/16/opinion/polls/main600505.shtml

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4049942

[theapportioner]

Yeah here's the smackdown:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-02-18-poll_x.htm

12 point Kerry lead.

[Ronnie Raygun]

Or maybe this is why Kerry seems to be slipping.....

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040216-110253-8030r.htmKerry seeks to position self as union man


By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES



WAUSAU, Wis. — Presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry, who has been a firm supporter of free-trade agreements during 20 years in Congress, is campaigning as a champion of labor and workers as he prepares to receive the AFL-CIO's endorsement Thursday.
Mr. Kerry, who is expected to handily win Wisconsin's Democratic primary today, began a four-day "dialogue with American workers" yesterday, calling job security, pensions and workers' rights "the central issue of this campaign."
"If your whole plan is just to give wealthy people a tax cut, and not to invest in the kinds of things I just described, we don't have a prayer of changing things," the senator from Massachusetts said after touring a technical college in Wausau.
Polls show Mr. Kerry is headed for a strong showing today. A Zogby/MSNBC/Reuters poll showed him with 47 percent support among likely Wisconsin voters, followed by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean at 23 percent and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina at 20 percent.
Both Mr. Dean and Mr. Edwards have said they will continue their campaigns even if they don't win here, but Mr. Dean's campaign continues to suffer.
Mr. Dean yesterday told reporters that Steve Grossman is no longer his campaign chairman. Mr. Grossman, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told several news outlets over the weekend that he was going to throw his support behind Mr. Kerry if Mr. Dean didn't win in Wisconsin.
In his own appearance in Wausau, Mr. Dean was asked why his campaign seemed lackluster.
"What happened to the tone?" one man asked during a question-and-answer period. "You're almost overmoderated. You don't wear that ugly gray suit anymore."
Mr. Dean's answer focused on the future.
"We're going to change this country one way or the other. If I win the presidency, it'll be a lot quicker," he said.
He also returned to his campaign roots, attacking the Democratic Party itself, though his attack was harsher, including comments such as "the Democratic Party needed a spine transplant."
Mr. Kerry continued to ignore his Democratic rivals, never referring to them in his hourlong town hall meeting.
Instead, he renewed his attack on President Bush, this time blasting him for traveling to Florida over the weekend for NASCAR's Daytona 500 race.
"We don't need a president who just says, 'Gentlemen, start your engines.' We need a president who says, 'America, let's start our economy and put people back to work,' " Mr. Kerry said.
"In the three hours it took to complete that race yesterday, we lost 350 manufacturing jobs. We added $178 million to the deficit of our nation, and 700 people lost their health insurance in the United States," Mr. Kerry said. "This is not a time for photo opportunities."
Mr. Kerry is proposing a review of all U.S. trade agreements in the first months of a Kerry administration, incentives to keep U.S. companies from going overseas, and a major jobs training initiative to help people who can't find work.
Mr. Edwards, who with his South Carolina primary victory has won one of the 16 Democratic contests so far, appears to be the best situated to continue to the Super Tuesday primaries March 2.
He has begun to criticize Mr. Kerry, who captured 14 of the 16 nominating contests, for his past support of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
"I was against NAFTA," Mr. Edwards told supporters in Appleton yesterday. "Governor Dean and Senator Kerry were for it. There are differences."
He also promised to take the primary process "well into March" in order to point out those differences.
During his Senate tenure, Mr. Kerry supported NAFTA, permanent normal trade relations with China, granting the president fast-track trade negotiation authority and creation of the World Trade Organization.
But the Massachusetts Democrat began to sound a different tone earlier in the campaign, and with his campaign saying the AFL-CIO endorsement is looming, Mr. Kerry is making a major push to redefine himself.
In Sunday's debate and again yesterday, he blamed Mr. Bush for the job losses from trade agreements. He reiterated yesterday his opposition to two other free-trade treaties being negotiated — one with Central American nations and one as part of the entire Western Hemisphere.

[The One and Only...]

Guys... Kerry's lead is not unexpected considering all the campaigning he's done.

Bush is only beginning to tap into the massive funds he's retrieved.

It will all come out in the wash.

[Ronnie Raygun]

It's funny watching these people getting so excited.

Just look at the voter turnout in these primaries.......it's at about 10%....how impressive!

[mburbank]

Let me be the first Democrat on the block to say that Kerry is a politician, given to the vices and foibles of politicians.

But seriously, Bush is going to attack him on that? W, the man who's raised the most special interest money in political campaigning history twice in a row? Mr. Enron, Mr Halliburton, Mr outsourceing jobs is good? Sure W's only washington experience is being President, but he's chest deep in people who don't know theirs anyplace outside the beltway.

They're both rich, inbred, skull and bones old boy insiders insiders. All the things I dislike about Kerry are qualities he and Bush have in common.

Anyone who says they think they know how this election is going to play out are full of shit. Anyone who takes todays polls or tomorrows or the next days should recall that polls said democrats were going to vote for Dean. Anyone who thinks W is invulnerable ought to remember his Dadies invulnerability.

And anyone who claims to know what America thinks right now is living in a paralell universe. I think this is going to be the most bizarre bare knuckle election I've lived through. Election day is a long way off. Time for revelations, scandals, dropping shoes, lies, crimes, subpeonas and a heart attack or two.

[Pee Wee Herman]

You forgot Ronald Reagan dying and everyone, even the Democrats, praising the Gipper.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"But seriously, Bush is going to attack him on that? W, the man who's raised the most special interest money in political campaigning history twice in a row?" - Max

The Bush team is just trying to highlight that Kerry has acceptedmore special interest money than any other senator in the last 15 years.....which is certainly more than Bush.....because Kerry is campaigning against special interests.....exposing Kerry as a hypocrite.

"They're both rich, inbred, skull and bones old boy insiders insiders. All the things I dislike about Kerry are qualities he and Bush have in common." - Max

Maybe it'sbecause of this....

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4286105/

Bush vs. Kerry? They’re distant cousins
Genealogy buffs claim political rivals are linked

A family tree analysis indicates that President Bush, at left, and his front-running Democratic challenger, John Kerry, are 16th cousins, three times removed. Such links aren't all that unusual, genealogy buffs say.

By Matt Sedensky

The Associated Press

Updated: 1:29 p.m. ET Feb. 17, 2004HONOLULU - Democratic presidential candidates are constantly being compared to the current commander in chief. Now, two genealogy buffs say they have proof President Bush and the current Democratic front-runner share similarities thicker than water.

Bruce and Kristine Harrison, Hawaii-based publishers of historical databases, traced back the family histories of Bush and Democratic Sen. John Kerry.

The result? They're cousins.

Well, 16th cousins, three times removed, to be exact. But cousins, nonetheless.

Truth be told, one might find such distant family ties between Bush and any of the four other major Democratic candidates.

The link between the president and the Rev. Al Sharpton might date back a bit further, Bruce Harrison said, but tracing ancestries helps illuminate a greater message on human interconnectedness.

"I believe everybody on the planet is related if you go back far enough," said Harrison, 51, whose Millisecond Publishing in Kamuela puts out a line of ancestral history CDs. He and his wife have spent the last eight years compiling information from hundreds of genealogical books and periodicals. "We're setting the stage for others to explore their curiosity," he said.

Other big-name ancestors
Harrison says the search through family trees also turned up other big-name ancestors of Kerry and Bush. Playboy founder Hugh Hefner is the president's ninth cousin, twice removed, while Kerry can count Johnny Appleseed as his sixth cousin, six times removed. Both the president and the Massachusetts senator can claim ties to figures ranging from Charlemagne to Walt Disney to Marilyn Monroe, Harrison said.

For an average user of the Family Forest software, it could be more difficult to find such well-known links, but Harrison says he believes everyone can find some ancestral information in the database.

As for the political adversaries' kinship, the only reunion in store seems to be a debate, should Kerry win his party's nomination. A Bush campaign spokeswoman said she had no comment on the issue. A message left with Kerry's spokesman was not returned.

'Just bragging rights'
The Honolulu County Genealogical Society's Mary Ann Bolton said she wasn't too impressed with those who troll family trees looking for star-studded connections.

"I don't really put too much into that," she said. "That's just bragging rights."

Harrison said his motivation in finding the link wasn't political, nor was it purely curiosity. Since publicizing the Bush-Kerry relation, the number of daily visits to his Web site has more than tripled.

© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
-------------------------------

"Anyone who says they think they know how this election is going to play out are full of shit. Anyone who takes todays polls or tomorrows or the next days should recall that polls said democrats were going to vote for Dean." - Max

I agree.

"Anyone who thinks W is invulnerable ought to remember his Dadies invulnerability."- Max

I don't think Ross Perot is running this time.....

"And anyone who claims to know what America thinks right now is living in a paralell universe. I think this is going to be the most bizarre bare knuckle election I've lived through. Election day is a long way off. Time for revelations, scandals, dropping shoes, lies, crimes, subpeonas and a heart attack or two."- Max

I agree. .....of course we still all have our opinions as to how this thing will turn out.

[mburbank]

"I don't think Ross Perot is running this time..... "

Well, Nader might, but he sure won't draw anywhere near the number of votes he did last time.

Or had you forgotten Nader ran last time and drew away a whole lot of votes kind of sort of exactly the way Perot did? Perhaps not as many, but them margin in Bush V. Gore was way smaller. Way, way, smaller. n fact, Gore had more votes. Whereas Clinton beat Bush by a comfortable, clear, undeniable margin in both the popular vote and the elctoral college.

[Ronnie Raygun]

Perot got 17% of the vote.....What did Nadar get?....7%

The 92' election was more "clear" because Perot took more of the vote from republicans than Nadar did from Democrats.

[mburbank]

I actually can't recall Clintons margin of victory,or how it went state by state. If you took every Perot vote and gave it to Bush, I can't even guess if he have beaten Clinton, though I suppose it's possible. I think you'd have to stretch to say that 100% Perot voters were lapsed republicans.

On the other hand, I'm fairly sure if all of Naders votes had gone to Gore, he'd have won in Florida and taken the lectoral college as ell as the popular vote. I think it's safe to say there were no lapsed republicans voting for Nader.

Ecah election had a spolier, and in each case that spolier had an impact. Between those two spoilers there was a spoiler free election, which Clinton one over Dole with a large margin.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"If you took every Perot vote and gave it to Bush, I can't even guess if he have beaten Clinton, though I suppose it's possible. I think you'd have to stretch to say that 100% Perot voters were lapsed republicans." - Max

Perot had a very conservative political stance....I think everyone can agree on that.

Here are the popular results.....

Clinton 43.3%

Bush 37.7%

Perot 19.0%

If you give Clinton 1/3 of Perot's vote, which I think is extremely generous, Bush still wins the popular vote by almost a percentage point......about the same as Gore.

I think the 92' election and the 00' election are almost identical.

Still, without Perot, Bush wins....

[The One and Only...]

I don't think Clinton would have gotten any of Perot's vote. It would be more appropriate to say that 1/3 would have just stayed home.

[Ronnie Raygun]

I'm sure SOME of Perot's vote would have gone to Clinton......just not much.