I know I soundlike a flip-flopper but Jesse was right on this:

I agree with Jesse that Kerry conceded way too soon. If he had out back, why didn't he wait and stand by his promise to make sure every vote is counted fairly, not just Ohio, but everywhere else.

I think the biggest mistake he and his campaign made was not the SBV adds, or hitting Bush hard enough, but COMPLETELY writing off the South. I live in a Red state and supported Kerry, but why choose a southerner in Edwards as a VP candidate and not campaign in the South? Nothing against Ohio, Florida, or New Mexico, but Kerry had lots of support from us African-Americans down here. It is a slap in the face to those who waited in long lines, rain or shine because we supported him, but he didn't want to support us, so he conceded. I guess that's why a lot of us wanted to re-elect Clinton again because he was a fighter and has a strong bond with the AA community. Plus, he doesn't come across as desparate at the last minute by "showing up at black churches and black magazines/radio in September and October." Has he been to any since he conceded? That sends a message that like all the other Dems, he has taken us for granted.

You could argue that some of us played right into Bush's hands with the Kerry doesn't connect with us talk, but as I said, campaigning in the South and reaching out to the church going crowd could have made a huge difference.

I am just ranting, but I will be fine.

Kerry and Edwards had finite resources. They had to focus on the key battleground states. Bush would have loved it if Kerry had tried to spread himself all over the South. It's just the mathematics of the election.

I was in California, which has one person out of 10 in the US. Neither candidate paid much attention to California, and no political ads were run there, except on some nationwide cable channels.

Well, I think there may have been some benefits of the early concession.... I think it may have actually helped take the Republican eyes of the cover-up ball for a little. Had Kerry been adamant about the recount, I doubt we'd have found any statistical anomalies in FL and OH. After Kerry conceded, I am sure they stopped fixing the numbers and left it, hoping no one would bother checking them.

Consider:

Scenerio A. Kerry concedes on 12/3. Steps out of the limelight. His staff of 17,000 attorneys and groups like Blackbox hold hearings and do research. The Green and Libertarian Parties, and Ralph Nader, do recounts and file lawsuits. When the sh*t starts hitting the fan, Kerry recants the concession and re-emerges into the limelight. Focus is on the facts.

Scenerio B. Kerry does not concede. Limelight stays on him, Rove's spinmeisters and the "usual suspects" pin him as a whiny loser. Research as above. Kerry has the stigma of a loser, the focus away from the facts and is on him.

Which do you prefer now?

I prefer A, but he could at least re-visit those churches to thanks those who voted and supported him and let them know that he is still fighting for us on the side, rather than take us for granted like his collegues have done.

A is definitely the better option. If he stays below the radar until it is time to get back into the ring, then we are better off. He should focus on regaining grassroot support before he steps up to challenge the election.

Who says he is taking people for granted? Who says he is not fighting? He has thanked all of us, he did so in his concession speech, he did so in letters and e-mails that he has sent. He has work to do and he is doing it right now.

Being critical of Kerry is not going to help us, will not help the democratic party, and will keep us disjointed and out of focus. If we do not unite as a community we will never see a Dem. president in the White House again.

I have to admit, from time to time I have been frustrated with Kerry's silence, but I do agree that he may have picked the best option in light of the circumstances. The silence has been strange to say the least, but we all know the challenges John Kerry has had in the past, and we all know he will stay in the fight until the end. I have faith in John Kerry. When the time is right, I have faith he will step out of the shadows and publicly fight this battle with us.

The frustration is born from not being 100% certain of his intentions. It is hard to fight a battle when you are not sure the person you are fighting for is willing to win the war. I have 98% certainty, even though from time to time, that 2% doubt creeps into my conscious. Let's remember his words, "Don't forget, I still have your back"

Now on the other hand, the leadership of the DNC, has lost 98% of my respect. It appears we need to overhaul our party. If our suspicions are correct, we were stabbed in the back twice, once from the ones who committed the fraud, and once from our own party leadership. Yes, there is still 2% of my thoughts that wonder if they are just playing roles right now to take the heat off of the fraud issue until more is known, but it remains to be seen. When they come out 1 day after the "results" and make comments putting Kerry down, instead of comments like, what happened, our numbers showed Kerry had enough votes to have won this...........I, for one, lose trust in them.

you forgot to add another scenario:

scenario c: kerry concedes on 12/3. independent groups launch an investigation. kerry sits by the sidelines. cobb and badnarik run into opposition in ohio and the recount never takes place or is stopped.

actually, i would have preferred scenario b. i think scenario a will never happen. c is the most likely version.

sorry to burst your bubble.

I don't know.... I think that if he had kept fighting early on, none of this information that we have now would have come to light. Sometimes, discretion is the more important part of valor. Besides, no use speculating now, all we can do is sit back and watch the show now. Those of us who have done our part can do no more until the Ohio certifies its results.

True, but he could at least holla at this forum and DU.

by the way: another observation about scenarios a and b (the suggestion that kerry conceded not to be called a whiny loser): in psychology we call that strategy IDENTIFICATION WITH THE AGGRESSOR. that means, that you do not engage in a certain action because you imagine what the reaction of the perceived 'aggressor' might be. in this case: i'm not going to say anything cause i'm afraid i might be called a whiny loser.

i'm not saying that's what kerry did. i'm just saying that people who invoke this position as a strategy are, whether they know it or not, resorting to the "identification with the aggressor" mechanism.

Let's not elevate Senator Kerry to sainthood. The bottom line is, he conceded too soon. There's no two ways about it. All throughout this election he endured the "flip flopper" label. If he happens to have enough votes in this election to be declared the winner after all - and I truly believe this is something that could happen - what would the Republican smear machine have to work with in 2008? They would focus on the fact that he threw in the towel immediately and was only installed as POTUS because his supporters refused to give up and the Green and LIbertarian parties fought his battles. I hope we win, but the Republicans got another gift by the weak resolve displayed in the immediate aftermath of this election.

i'm starting to believe that kerry has found peace with being the 'noble loser.'

however, if scenario a were to happen, i will be the first to eat my kerry hat (just like charlie chaplin ate his shoes in gold rush).

No where did I say anything about Saint Kerry! I do believe that if he is declared the winner he will come out with good reasons as to why he has done things as he has.

Can Jesse convince Kerry to unconcede? He is pretty mad at him for his early concession.

If John Kerry conceded because he didn't want to be called names he would have to have done a 180 degree turn from who's he's been his whole life. His 71 testimony, he knew it could cost him his political career. He knew it was the right thing to do and he did it anyway. Iran Contra and BCCi stepped on some big toes. Members of his own party tried to stop him. Again he knew it was the right thing to do and he did it anyway no matter what it cost him. Volenteering for Vietnam could have cost him his life. Again he chose to do what he felt was the right thing. His whole life he has put his country before his own well being. I don't know why he made the decision he did. One thing I do feel it was a honorable decision. There's no doubt in my mind his country came first. I don't know what John Kerry knows that I don't, but I trust he has done and will do what he believes is right.

It certainly doesn't seem at all in character that Kerry would all of a sudden let us all down. I think that when he says "I don't think the recount will change the results of the election but I want to see that every vote is counted", I think he knows darn well that if the fraud on the machines is proven true to put him over the edge, he will unconcede.

we always get back to the same bottom line: for anyone to be able to prove that the allegations are true, there first needs to be an investigation. no recount ---> no investigation ---> no proof, within the legal time limits of the recount. it's as simple as that.

kerry has the right and the authority to ask for a recount; cobb and badnarik have the right, but lack the 'authority.' so all of the wishful thinking i am reading in this thread about kerry unconceding when there's proof is just that: nothing but wishful thinking.

But, if there is fraud involved, a recount won't actually help. It would just recount fraudently tabulated votes. That's why I think Kerry is still lying low. Fraud will be much more difficult to prove, and may not be provable in the time span we would like. Of course, at that point, we have a constitutional crisis. What happens, when a year from now, fraud is proven? Not only would Bush be tainted and impeachable, but Cheney, too, as well as other Republican races. What do we do about that for the next four years?

not true, evelyn.

sorry to have to say this but several lawyers have pointed out that it is impossible to check the voting machines without legal action and an official recount to determine whether the allegations are true or not. please get informed about this.

there's already too much hopeful speculation floating around.

not true, evelyn.

sorry to have to say this but several lawyers have pointed out that it is impossible to check the voting machines without legal action and an official recount to determine whether the allegations are true or not. please get informed about this.

there's already too much wishful speculation floating around.

But, if you recheck a cooked machine, I'm assuming the votes would still be cooked. Surely, if they stole the vote electronically, it is going to take a DIFFERENT kind of proof to make the case. I'm sure their programmers were too good to leave much of a trail. BUT, the programmers themselves, someone privy to the scheme, the Watergate kind of evidence is most likely how fraud will be proven. I really do think that's why Kerry has not been insistent on a hand recount. This isn't hanging chads, for the most part, it's electronic tampering and disenfranchisement of voters, both requiring human types of proof, as in confessions or "tattling".

evelyn, for electronic tampering to be proven the machines, tabulators and such all need to be checked/impounded, and, to repeat, as several lawyers have pointed out, this is virtually impossible if there is no legal action and no recount.

there are several threads about this. pls check them out.

I still think the timing had a lot to do with Bush's decision to go ahead and declare himself the winner that moring with or without a concession speech, (can you say playing chicken?) I also think Bush or Rove sent the message loud & clear that our troops would be dying in Fallejuh in a few days, and he shouldn't be putting the country through the vote turmoil during wartime. It would have made Kerry look very bad to drag it out with the war escalating so much that week.

i guess i presented my perspective on things so i'm signing off.

i wish i could engage in all the wishful thinking in this thread but i really cannot.

What if we confiscate the voting machines and see how they work? If there is a significant difference between the votes counted from those cast in a test run, then that would be enough to declare the election invalid.

Cliff Arnebeck said on C-Span on 12-2-2004 and reiterated on Sat. 12-4, that there was fraud in Ohio and they can PROVE it. They will be filing the lawsuit today in Columbus. So I think there is still a lot of hope this will be overturned.