SwiftVets.com

[Big Kahuna]

My personal observation is that Kerry's man clearly outdebated the Swift Boat's man.

Too many American people are too fickle, and judge the truth of events on the effectiness of the debator telling of them -- rather than the actual facts. That's how Klinton was elected. He had more Carisma than Bush Sr. Wild Bill was a lying *******, but Bush Sr. and Dole were ineffective with showing that -- while William the Impeached was effective with getting his story (lies that they were) out.

Kerry will get elected too -- if his mouth-pieces have more Carisma than those who debate them.

I hope the Swift Boat leaders saw this and are better prepared for the next 60+ days. There is an important story to tell -- but the American people are not hearing it as well as they should.

And why will no one bring up the Kerry meeting with the enemy in France? Why do you never see the recordings of his lies during his many 1971 interviews, debates, and testimonies?

Finally, when Swift Boat is always asked why Dubya won't ask them to stop or denounce the ads -- why is no one answering by asking why Kerry would not do the same with McCaluff (I know that's spelt wrong), Whoopie, Michael Moore, and the other lying scum?
_________________
Top 10 Weasels.com is where Kerry is Weasel #1

[kmmpatriot]

While I generally agree with your thoughts, I would not state that this morning's exchange was a loss for the SBVT story. Wallace seemed to me to be "hard" on both sides, but O'Dell did not back down, stutter or use rhetoric to get his points across. IMHO, the same can't be said for Hurley. Several times, he tap danced around Wallace's questions.

Now, as to whether or not the average "less-savvy" consumer of such information will be able to discriminate between the two, I am afraid you may be right on.

side note: I thought it "rich" that Hurley took time to mention that this is a smear - citing the fact that O'Neill never met Kerry in VietNam as evidence of such...pot. kettle. black.

We have to have some faith that the truth will eventually win.

[kate]

I thought Van O'Dell did just fine, credible. Wallace hammered him a bit about 'not having documents', no real harm done.

But Hurley is the one who goes home with a very large foot in hs mouth. Chris was relentless in nailing Hurley re: does Kerry stand by his 1971 atrocities testimony. Hurley squirmed and squirmed ...he did no good for Kerry on that one. Even though he tried to couch it with Kerry was repeating the words of others --as a spokesman for Kerry, he ended up affirming that Kerry stood by that testimony.
_________________
.
one of..... We The People

[Big Kahuna]

Please don't get me wrong, Van O'Dell should be commended for doing what he did (too many people are apathetic with something as important as giving the keys to the country to a coward and traitor) -- but to me it appeared he was out debated, at least this time.

Some people are better at debate than others. I for one should never be sent out to take on a "Professional" like what Kerry hires to be his mouth-piece. I watched O'Neil a couple of times take on some pretty tough "hired guns" -- and he does very well. He is a natural.

Maybe Van O'Dell had an off moment this morning, or maybe I got the wrong impression -- but this is important stuff. You know Kerry is spending Ter-ray-sa's money making sure his mouth-pieces are well rehersed with the talking points. That should always be assumed by the people that go up against them.
_________________
Top 10 Weasels.com is where Kerry is Weasel #1

[Lily]

John Hurley is basically the same on every show spouting the same talking points over and over again.The difference is he gets demolished whenever he's on a show with John O'Neill. Van O'Dell is not the debater that John O'Neill is but I thought he held his own against John Hurley.

[You GottaBeKidding]

Looks like this may be rerunning today at 4 p.m. eastern. Wallace is on now talking about it.

The talking head described the interview as being with two of the Swift boat veterans. Bet Hurley will be apoplectic about that

[Jack Mclaughlin]

Van O`Dell was at a clear disadvantage by having to defend Lonsdale and Elliott for the 1996 statements praising Kerry. Our people made a terrible tactical mistake for including them in the commercial. He should have known this was coming and been better prepared. The explanation I have heard was that they were not aware of all Kerry`s lies and distortions at that time and when later evidence was presented to them they changed their minds about Kerry. If this is true, then our spokesmen need to have that information in their arsenal. Also John Hurley should not be in the debates since he was no part of the swiftee family.

[jataylor11]

I thought Juan Williams was almost in tears and about to loose total control during the panel discussion. Bret Hume was very calm and just suggested that Juan read the Wash Post articel.

[Slednfool]

I thought O'Dell did a great job. It didnt seem to be a debate, more like two seperate interviews.

[Beatrice1000]

[tvaughan]

O'Neil was devastating on This Week w/ George S.

It was the most one-sided spanking I've see so far. It is amazing what happens when they actually let O'Neil talk.

The facts count. The facts count. The facts count.
_________________
Talking point #1: Sign 180
Talking point #2: Sign 180
Talking point #3: Sign 180

[drjohn]

O'Dell was THERE.

Hurley was NOT.

O'Dell should be believed.

Hurley is a member of the VVAW, a group founded on lies.

[Beatrice1000]

[jwb7605]

Wallace: "what evidence do you have of that"?
Hurley(?) "John Kerry's word"
Hume: "Juan, you're not even on the same planet"
Cece Connely's point: "he-said, she-said"
Hume implies it's about 5-1 against Kerry, by that logic.
Juan Williams "rebuttals" typify the reason I was all that confused about things after I got out. All over the map. (and off the planet)

I think the interview, followed by the panel, ensure, as Drudge is fond of printing, that the issue is still developing ...

[jwb7605]