The Kerry Spot on National Review Online asks the question today…


And yes, that does seem the question. Thing is, all we have to go on is the conflicting reports of these two men, neither one of which we can trust. Consider this question from the public’s POV; we have Burkett, and Joe Lockhart, a Clinton misadministration alum.  It becomes a question tothe public of which is the bigger liar.

Certainly Lockhart, having worked for the most vile, lie-telling Mis-administration America has ever suffered with in it’s long history, has a professional edge to him in the field. Yet, Burkett has proven himself time and again to be no slouch, either. Both these men are highly motivated Democrats. Who were originally seeking to get John Kerry into the WHite House by shall we say, shady dealings.

The voting public doesn’t trust either one, nor should they.

I mean, I can’t imagine this would dispose swing voters to pull that lever for JohnJohn, do you?

The issue remains the involvement of SeeBS, and if that involvement rises to the level of criminality on the part of the DNC or SeeBS.

I suspect that the two person panel (Thornburgh/Bocardi), either way they rule, will only be a first step.

This is a lose/lose situation for the Democrats.

If the Duo that Sumner Redstone appointed, rule there was no issues with these documents and the handling of them within SeeBS, then the public will rightly see this as a whitewash, and as an attempt to sway the election back to the Democrats, and will vote against Democrats in anger. If, OTOH, they say there were serious issues with the way CBS and the DNC interacted on all of this, the Democrats also lose, by the same token.

Michelle has some notes on this, as well as a round-up of comments from some of her regulars. SlantPoint and Captain Ed weigh in, too.

Update: From a comment I posted at Ed’s, to add some clarity…>>>>>
Burkett’s aims have lowered slightly… from bringing down Mr. Bush, to saving his own ass from the fire that’s all set to consume him. Meanwhile, Lockhart has a professional interest in representing the interests of Mr. Kerryand his campaign. Clearly, Lockhart, in that sense would be aiming to let Burkett swing on his own, and that wold certainly be the easiest thing to do.

Meanwhile, what motivation, would Burkett have in dragging down the Kerry campaign… the only hope in hell Burkett has for getting to his goal of bringing down the Bush Presidency?

Whose mutterings are closer to the truth? It’s a near tossup, with the slight edge going to Burkett, in my view, on the basis of Lockhart’s professional position in the matter.