This support for Kerry came at a bad time
October 4, 2004
BY RICHARD ROEPER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Last Thursday's presidential debate was still in progress when the e-mails started trickling in from citizens around the country. At 8:28 p.m. CST, Catie Tierney of Douglas, Ga., wrote: "John Kerry did an AMAZING job tonight. His arguments were valid and very well-said. I sincerely hope he wins the election this fall. He will make a far better president than Bush."
Harvey Jones chimed in: "Have you noticed Bush's body language? He seems to be blinking an awful lot. I hear this is one of the usual signs of lying."
Next up, Anne Horton Wood of Knoxville, Tenn.: "John Kerry showed the voters why he should be president, while Bush looked and sounded like a whiny little boy who has grown old, but has never grown up."
At 9:31 p.m., the trickle of e-mails turned into a hurricane.
"I am an undecided voter in Florida," wrote Andrew Monaco, "and I wanted to let you know that I think John Kerry won the debate.... Kerry was more in command of the issues and looked more presidential. The president was flustered and distracted."
Joyce Mulazzi of Suwannee, Ga.: "John Kerry proved he is a LEADER by discussing his plans for our country and discrediting President Bush's claims. George Bush proved that he is a CHEER-LEADER by . . . stating over and over again about the hard work he's done. It's not hard work lying to us, alienating us from the rest of the world, ruining our environment, and making the rich richer."
Pam Gordon, Orchard Lake, Mich.: "Kerry was the clear winner. He was poised, knowledgeable and outlined his points clearly."
Kristine Serrano, Westminster, Co.: "I am a registered independent who has decided to vote for John Kerry. President Bush looked very unprepared for the debate. Sen. Kerry . . . possessed excellent command of every issue."
The flood of "Kerry won!" messages continued all Thursday night and well into Friday -- more than 500 in all.
And not one supported Bush.
You've got mail!
Even most Bushies concede the debate was not the president's finest moment -- but come on, 500 to 0? These e-mails seemed about as authentic as the missives I get from Congo dictator Mobuto Sese-Seko, asking my help in transferring his secret stash of millions.
News organizations throughout the country were inundated with the pro-Kerry e-mails. The Democratic National Committee acknowledges sending e-mails to supporters encouraging them to go online on debate night and write e-mails to "the editor of your local paper." On the DNC's Web site, there's even a sample letter to get you started. Dozens of pro-Kerry bloggers and Web sites also encouraged readers to flood the media. Many included lists of the e-addresses of reporters and columnists.
Bad idea. This was the wrong e-mail campaign directed at the wrong people at the wrong time.
source
It would appear the Kerry supporters are not only better organized in this regard, but more technologically savvy.
So not only did Kerry kick Bush's ass in the unscientific polls and viewership responses, he kicked Bush's ass in numerous scientific polls as well.
It looks like a convincing, well organized, well-oiled, clean sweep for John Kerry.
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ October 05, 2004 11:29 AM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">God help us all.Originally posted by reason:
It looks like a convincing, well organized, well-oiled, clean sweep for John Kerry.
<font color="#000002"><font size="1">[ October 05, 2004 11:29 AM: Message edited by: reason ]</font></font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The point of this article is that the letters were coming in well BEFORE the debate was even half over.Originally posted by reason:
It would appear the Kerry supporters are not only better organized in this regard, but more technologically savvy.
So not only did Kerry kick Bush's ass in the unscientific polls and viewership responses, he kicked Bush's ass in numerous scientific polls as well.
It looks like a convincing, well organized, well-oiled, clean sweep for John Kerry.
<font color="#000002"><font size="1">[ October 05, 2004 11:29 AM: Message edited by: reason ]</font></font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You mean they cheat and lie as good as their candidate.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The comments appear to be true, and the scientific polls would suggest the viewing public agrees.Originally posted by travelinman:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by reason:
It would appear the Kerry supporters are not only better organized in this regard, but more technologically savvy.
So not only did Kerry kick Bush's ass in the unscientific polls and viewership responses, he kicked Bush's ass in numerous scientific polls as well.
It looks like a convincing, well organized, well-oiled, clean sweep for John Kerry.
<font color="#000002"><font size="1">[ October 05, 2004 11:29 AM: Message edited by: reason ]</font></font>
That's as bad as CBS saying it doesn't matter that the memos were forged, they are true. I thought you had more integrity then that.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You mean they cheat and lie as good as their candidate.Originally posted by reason:
It would appear the Kerry supporters are not only better organized in this regard, but more technologically savvy.
So not only did Kerry kick Bush's ass in the unscientific polls and viewership responses, he kicked Bush's ass in numerous scientific polls as well.
It looks like a convincing, well organized, well-oiled, clean sweep for John Kerry.
<font color="#000002"><font size="1">[ October 05, 2004 11:29 AM: Message edited by: reason ]</font></font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wrong.Originally posted by travelinman:
That's as bad as CBS saying it doesn't matter that the memos were forged, they are true. I thought you had more integrity then that.
I think it was clear early on that something big was happening. 10 minutes into the first debate I was getting phone calls about Bush's performance - or lack thereof - which didn't improve from that point on.
Kerry smacked Bush around on Bush's home turf, and this was evident from the get go. That the nation immediately keyed in on the obvious should not be controversial.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wrong.Originally posted by reason:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by travelinman:
That's as bad as CBS saying it doesn't matter that the memos were forged, they are true. I thought you had more integrity then that.
I think it was clear early on that something big was happening. 10 minutes into the first debate I was getting phone calls about Bush's performance - or lack thereof - which didn't improve from that point on.
Kerry smacked Bush around on Bush's home turf, and this was evident from the get go. That the nation immediately keyed in on the obvious should not be controversial.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not when it was set up before hand.
[/quote]Not when it was set up before hand. [/quote]
Ok...you're talking about what your own post called a "trickle," ignoring the flood that came after the debate started.
You just can't get it into your thick head that every poll out their - scientific or otherwise - has Kerry as the winner of the debate.
One thing isn't up for debate of the first debate:
George Bush sucked. And sucked big.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks