[Alberta's Child]

In all due respect to these pundits and party leaders, this same strategy assured Bill Clinton's victory in 1992. Party pundits knew of Bill Clinton's checkered past in 1991 but waited for a "more appropriate time" to make these facts known to the American Public, and when these facts came to light, Clinton was ready to tackle them head on.

With all due respect to the author of this article, he's full of crap. In 1992, Bill Clinton received support from the 30% of the U.S. voters who would have voted for him no matter what they knew about him, even if he turned out to be Osama bin Laden in disguise -- we'll call these people the "Blue Dress Democrats." He then received support from the 13% of U.S. voters who may have been well-meaning in their hearts, but who were dumb as a bag of rocks and were completely taken in by a smooth-talking @sshole from Arkansas who could cry out of one eye, bite his lip, and "feel their pain."

The GOP lost in 1992 because 43% is a miserable showing in most years, but will beat 37% in a three-way race every time.

[laconic]

With all due respect, a lot of this seems apocryphal and undercuts the truth about Kerry. The documented book on Kerry is bad enough: read Mackubbin Owen's article today in National Review on how Kerry testified before Congress in 1971 about "atrocities" (and thereby made his career) citing "first person" accounts from phony veterans: impostors who had never served, several of whom had stolen dead veterans' names and several who had been in the service but never seen even the coast of Vietnam. Kerry's testimony was written by Adam Walinsky, a former RF Kennedy staffer. Interesting that the Kennedy brothers planned the real atrocity of the Vietnam War: the assassination of the Diem brothers which ensured there would never be another stable government in Saigon.