for him to win.

but over 120K it was over.  And yes, the votes could have been recounted, but realistically where would we find over 120K votes/ballots?

Still, he's making great points here.

Let's say you are right. Let's say Kerry dropped the ball at not fighting for a recount in Ohio.

Does that really trivialize what he's trying to accomplish in Nevada in 2008?

No, I don't think it does.

So, really, what it comes down to here, is that you're trying to channel your support for Edwards into a cheap shot at John Kerry for supporting Obama.

C'mon, Tom, we're better than that.

John Edwards had a huge fight with him to stand up for the voters.  He knew something was wrong in Ohio.  Turns out things were rotten.

John Kerry, who I liked very much until that night, thought not of the voters, not of America, but of himself and how he would look in a contested voting battle. Where Edwards thought of the voters and our country, Kerry gave up. Instead we got four more years of George Bush.  

He took 13 million dollars of money John Edwards helped to raise and instead of using it to investigate Ohio, he went away.  He agreed to share his donor contacts with John Edwards as part of their deal, just as Edwards had already turned over the email addresses of his own contacts.  But Kerry never held up his end of the bargain.

Instead, after deciding to sit this cycle out, he turns over Edwards' donor list to Barack Obama.  And Obama is hitting them up for money, along with John Kerry.

What a gem.

Blogged by JC on 08.22.05 @ 04:19 PM ET

Fighting for Every Voter

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

link

more

You've been a great Kerry supporter in the past.  I hope you get back to that after the primaries.  Edwards didn't want Kerry's endorsement -- they went their separate ways a long time ago; unfortunately, that sometimes happens with alliances -- they don't hold.  But that doesn't mean the CAUSE has gone away.  There's no need to start dissing Kerry when I know you didn't feel this way a year ago.

diary about voters' rights in Nevada.  Talk about shooting the messenger.  If you think that the at large caucus sites are unfair, let's hear it but attacking Kerry for 2004, let it go.

times starting on MLK day in 2005. He (and his wife) have spoken of the various ways the vote was suppressed , the problem with machines being hackable and has joined legislation to try to correct the problems. Edwards, who made many speeches in 2005, did not speak of either suppression or any election irregularities in that time frame. It was the Kerrys who did and they were ridiculed for it.

Read Kerry's endorsement of Obama. He goes out of his way to say all three are qualified and will lead the country in the right direction. Then, look at the given reason for preferring Obama. He speaks of someone who could succeed in healing the partisan rift. Edwards is saying that you can't negotiate with these people. In fact remember that Edwards spoke of how both he and Obama want change but they have different methods.Kerry clearly is for the method that Edwards explicitly rejects.

Now, I am not arguing who is right. I am saying that Kerry's position is consistent with his approach to all issues where people vehemently disagree. It is genuine and reflects his own record for decades. Obama is a better match to it.

Edwards in 2004 did not speak like this. If he had in the primaries, I doubt Kerry would have picked him - for the same reason as now.

As to any loyalty. If anything, you would think Edwards owes Kerry. Being on the ticket gave him visibility he would not otherwise have had. Yet, in the last 3 years, Edwards has taken pot shots at Kerry, who has said nothing in public agains Edwards.

Last, Shrum said that Edwards refused to take Kerry's calls. So, I assume that means he did not want either advise or an endorsement. Kinda hard to do if he can't even reach him by phone.

Hard to believe this bellyaching threadjack comment got 27 recommendations.  

Now speaking of 2008, where does Edwards stand on the right to caucus in Nevada?  (I'm asking because I honestly don't know; my attention's been elsewhere.  My guess and hope is that Edwards is voicing opposition to the meritless lawsuit.)

It's so much easier when you're not running yourself.

As unimaginably horrible as it must be to lose the election, the bright side is that he seems a whole lot freer. Instead of needing to calibrate every sentence to please an army of consultants and a host of vapid pundits, he can say and do what he wants now. He's free of the restrictions the candidacy placed on him.

It's one hell of a tough lesson to have to learn, but I'm glad that he's still out there fighting for the causes we care about. Despite all the criticism, the one truly impressive thing about Kerry is that he didn't slink away after losing (which would've been understandable). Instead, he remained a strong voice of leadership in the Senate.

more suited to act in a supporting role. This is not an insult to Kerry. He is an honorable man and a quintessential team player.

or better yet media bias stand in your way.

The media was clearly free advertising for the Bush campaign. I am suprised that people here did not see the media bias was and still is right in front of our eyes.