Sen. Kerry still weighing ’08 White House bid

[IDemo]

Democrat from Massachusetts says he’ll decide near beginning of year

Reuters - Updated: 10 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry said Sunday he is still considering a second run for the White House in 2008, despite public criticism of what he has has called a “botched joke” about the Iraq war.

In an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Kerry was asked he had given up on a presidential run after the flap over his comment to students that they could “get stuck in Iraq” if they did not study hard enough.

“Not in the least. I am looking at it in the same way. The people that I have talked to across the country, my team’s confident and strong. I don’t know what I’ll do.

“I’ve apologized and we have to move on to the real issues that face this country.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11442714/

[Drum]

1. ...

:eyes:

[natrat]

13. skip it buddy-maybe if you hadnt rolled over so ez last time

[beachmom]

24. Highly disagree with that. There was nothing else he could do

but concede. I saw that movie "Hacking Democracy" and remain unmoved. Like that tabulator hacking -- what a joke. Since poll watchers from both parties get the numbers from the poll and call it into the campaign, it would have been OBVIOUS had that number not jived. And the usual suppression stuff cannot be measured, and unfortunately a lot of it is legal. Sorry, I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

Gee, nobody seemed to complain when George Allen conceded in Virginia without a recount which he could have asked for, only 9,000 votes down, yet Kerry "caved" when he conceded 120,000 votes down.

Very tired criticism of John Kerry. You'll have to think of something else.

[JNelson6563]

77. For appearances

he could've at least waited till they were done counting the fucking votes. You know, for those of us who worked our guts out for the guy even though he wasn't anywhere near the candidate of choice for us.

But no. He was apparently in a hurry. Fuck the little people and their efforts.

Julie

[brentspeak]

106. I was one of those who "worked his guts out for the guy"

and I wasn't offended that he conceded before all the votes were tallied. It wasn't close enough enough for him to simply wait for the inevitable, and it's normal in elections for the losing candidate to concede before all the I's are dotted and the T's crossed.

[Mass]

2. Anybody who saw the interview would know why.

Chris Wallace spent his time trying to stay on the joke and Kerry relentlessly came back to what matters: Iraq, security, and jobs.

Chris really looked like a jackass on this interview, and this without Kerry having to get angry for that.

[beachmom]

23. You got that right, Mass. He was great in this interview which

was extremely tough. Chris Wallace was relentless trying to make everything about that stupid joke. Thing is, Kerry said the original joke (which he botched) was a bad joke, and he never should have said it. So after Chris kept bringing it up over and over again, he started to seem pathetic, like give it a rest, dimwit.

Nobody else in the '08 race talks about Iraq the way Kerry does. The only one comparable was Feingold, and he's now decided against running. We need that voice in the primaries so that all voices will be heard about this war.

[The Count]

3. "I apologized?" Therein lies his problem....

Going on Fox to generate these kind of sound bite - another bad idea.

[Mass]

4. Read the interview rather than repeating the stupidities of AP.

Or better, watch it. I hope a lot of people watched it, because Wallace really sounded like a jackass.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230589,00.html

[Tellurian]

20. The thing is...Wallace isn't considering a presidential bid..

Kerry should have declined the interview, if he was asked.

[beachmom]

25. Wrong. In case you haven't noticed, any time Kerry is mentioned

in the media, it's about that stupid joke -- Time magazine, Jon Stewart, and so on. They keep bringing it up. It was time to nip this thing in the bud, and Fox was the perfect place because they're a right wing hack organization -- no other interview would have been tougher.

Kerry did fantastic. And don't forget, with Feingold out, Kerry is the only contender who is for a timetable for withdrawal to get our troops out. Even the "anti-war" possible candidates Obama and Gore, however praiseworthy their initial stance against the Iraq War was, will not sign on to getting our troops out. Kerry is the only one who has. So even if you don't like him, his voice will move the primaries in a certain direction, which is vital, since most rank and file Democrats want our troops the hell out of there.

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. He's the class of the field, but....

.... it's much less feasible now than it was before the "joke about Bush that the media insists on pretending was about Iraqi troops" fiasco.

I don't see it happening.

[Inuca]

11. The joke was "big news" because...

1. it was used as an excuse to attack him, and through him the democratic positions, and 2. because it happened when it happened. With the elections over (HUGE WIN!!!!) and the focus shifting to changes in the Iraq policy and of course early and mostly meaningless speculations about 08, I doubt that that the famous botched joke will have much long term impact.

[beachmom]

26. Also, because some Vichy Democrats decided to throw one

of their own under the bus for personal gain. I will always remember who those traitors are.

[hezekkia]

38. give me a break

Kerry is not the "class" of the crowd. I'd take Gore, Obama-- even HRC over Kerry. He had his chance and blew it to pieces. The economy was bad, the war was becoming unpopular, Bush's approval was <50%.

If he couldn't win then, he certainly won't win in '08.

I cannot fathom why so many people here still love Kerry after he let Bush cakewalk back to the White House.

[JNelson6563]

78. Don't be fooled

there aren't as many Kerry zealots as it might appear. Heavy swarm action can make a small number seem like a larger number. Really. Look at the zealously defensive responses in this thread, not many posters but lots of posts.

An old trick we saw a lot of during the 04 primaries.

Julie

[MethuenProgressive]

6. Don't let FOX News decide who our Dem leaders are

I saw his "interview" on FOX this morning - bravo, John Kerry!

[doc03]

7. I saw it this morning too, I was waiting for

Kerry to smack down that ass Wallace like Clinton did, but nothing. I thought maybe he would bring up the statement Rumsfeld made blaming the military for the fiasco in Iraq or Bush's little joke about searching for the WMDs.

[karynnj]

10. My take -

If Kerry brought up the Rumsfeld comment it would sound to many of us - at least many mothers - as "but Donny did ... which was worse" What Kerry did was accept blame for what was real - it was a bad joke and it was poorly done, it happens. Then put it in perspective.

Doing what you said would:
- Have made Kerry look arrogant and unlikable. (People REALLY know Clinton well, and are not likely to change their opinion all that much.)

- Because he DID make the flubbed joke - it would leave some people thinking it was at the expense of the troops - which it wasn't. It would also make it impossible for him to speack of his real very good record on veterans.

- It would give up a real Kerry asset - he is classy. (Note he refused to take the bait as Wallace repeatedly referred to Democrats not liking it - no comment that they knew better, that they were acting politicly etc. That is true class.

[beachmom]

28. We're not like the scumbag GOPers who decided to vilify

Cindy Sheehan for her grief and her political take on the war that came from her loss. Especially poignant in the interview, was when Wallace brought up a mother, who probably like Sheehan, was already of a certain political POV, had lost her son that week and demanded an apology from Kerry. There was this slight pause (not awkward, but with effect), and Kerry said again that he apologized and then took the attack on the POLICY of the Iraq War. He is a decent and honorable person, and he's not going to act like an ass to score a few points, when this mother had lost her son.

Personally, I didn't care for the entire Clinton interview with Wallace. As Jon Stewart described it, there was "Angry Bill" and "Informational Bill". I liked the latter Bill better, and didn't think he needed to get as angry as he did.

[Patchuli]

117. I think both Bill and John Kerry had good reason

to be angry with Chris Wallace. He is about a slimey little weasel. It's so obvious he just wants to play attack dog on Dems, it's pathetic really.

[YvonneCa]

8. Kerry was FANTASTIC...

...in this interview. And I've only read the transcript so far. My letter to FOX:



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Chris Wallace,

Senator Kerry must have 'knocked one out of the park' in his interview with you this morning! I won't know that for sure until 3:00 p.m. this afternoon (Pacific Time...6:00 p.m. your time) because that is when the interview will air here in Murrieta, California. Why do I assume that Senator Kerry gave a great interview ? First, because he is very intelligent and articulate and he usually does well in an interview setting (remember the Presidential Debates?). And secondly, because of the 'pre-emptive strike' on his interview that I just watched on the 7 - 8:00 a.m. show on Fox News.

I rarely watch your network (I have issues with the 'fair and balanced' thing), but this morning, I turned it on at 5:00 a.m. so that I would be SURE not to miss Senator Kerry's interview. The first mention of Senator Kerry came in shortly after 7:00 a.m....a 'tease'. There were several of these and, I must say, I DID notice considerable improvement in the quality of the video you chose of the Senator. Your network showed Kerry relating well to all sorts of people...crowds of adoring adults, groups of children...you even showed him making a Senate Floor speech. That really was an improvement over the Election 2004 days.

Then came the 'pre-emptive strike'. No interview yet. But your network brought on two pundits (one Democratic consultant and one Republican consultant), showed a WRITTEN part of Senator Kerry's response to a question about the 'botched joke' and then proceeded to analyze it... VERY unfairly, and not balanced at all. And the analysis was all framed as ...this was not a botched joke, Kerry had really disrespected the troops. Well, I attended that rally at Pasadena City College, and the Senator never disrespected the troops. What's more important, because he is a veteran, he never WOULD do that.

So I KNOW Senator Kerry did a great job in your interview. I can't wait to see it...the whole thing. It is truly a disgrace that a powerful television network, like Fox or any other, feels the need to spin something so insignificant as a joke in order to try to discredit Senator Kerry. Are you all really that afraid of him? He DID raise a lot of money for 2006 candidates ($1 million in 24 hours, I think.) He would be a STRONG Presidential candidate in 2008, if he decides to run. Maybe that strikes fear into the hearts of some people. But for many of us, it gives us great hope.

Sincerely,
YvonneCa


P.S. Below is a letter I sent to the New York Times on this subject:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Editor, New Your Times,

I wish John Kerry were President. The country really could use an intelligent, truthful, experienced and articulate leader right now. That's who John Kerry is, and anyone who has paid attention to his patriotic efforts in support of our country AND our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan since the 2004 presidential election knows that...including President Bush. Like many Americans, I'm really getting tired of the 'spin' that keeps being applied to... even ordinary events...during an election season, with the goal of winning an election. I believe that is what is happening now, with Senator Kerry's remarks on Monday in Pasadena.

I attended the rally for Phil Angelides in Pasadena, California where Senator Kerry spoke. I would like to provide an 'eye-witness' account of the event that may be missing for readers of your article, "Kerry and GOP Spar Over Iraq Remarks", dated October 31, 2006. It is my hope that providing some context to your readers may allow for a more fair judgement of the remarks made by Senator Kerry.

I attended this rally because of my great respect for both Senator John Kerry and Senator Barbara Boxer (both in attendance that day). I looked forward to hearing what they would have to say about the serious issues facing our nation, and about their hopes for my Democratic Party. I know that Senator Kerry has been relentless in his efforts to support Democratic candidates across the nation for the past two years...and I have watched in amazement as he has given money and traveled from state to state campaigning in recent months. He has spoken out consistently and strongly against Bush Administration policies in Iraq. He has spoken out consistently and strongly in support of health care, the environment, the middle class and our troops. His words have been supported by his actions in the Senate, and his leadership has given hope of a better direction for our country to many Americans, like me.

What I saw on Monday in Pasadena was a hardworking, patriotic Senator Kerry...standing up for Phil Angelides, standing up for my state of California, standing up for the students at Pasadena City College, and ... as always...standing up for our troops around the world. He may have been a little tired from working so hard to turn this country around by standing up for Democratic candidates. After all, how many cities has he visited in the past week? How many in the past month? Plenty. He may have been tired enough that he botched a line he has delivered correctly a hundred times at other rallies. But his passion for and dedication to our troops both during and after the battle came through loud and clear.

I have been angered and dismayed at what I have read today about this incident. Republicans are magnifying and using an insignificant error to attack John Kerry again...Swiftboat II. Why? I think it's because they are desperate to win on November 7th. They know John Kerry is leading the charge for the Democrats, and he has truth on his side. So they took a simple verbal gaffe...from a good man who is as articulate as they come...and decided to repeat their despicable 'swiftboating' technique against Senator Kerry AGAIN. How pathetic that this is all they know how to offer.

This time will be different, though. The American people are awake and they know the truth. And this time, I'm confident that John Kerry will WIN.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Then I read the transcript of the interview...FANTASTIC. The Senator doesn't need MY help. WOW ! !





:patriot:

[zann725]

74. TWO good letters! Congrats for speaking out, Yvonne! I agree JK CAN win WHEN he runs.

On Bill Maher recently, JK said many candidates over the years have lost elections at first, then went on to win future elections. Others have mis-spoken or made campaign mistakes, JK also said...and still got elected.

All those JK-bashing here...why can't we leave THAT to the 'Pugs?

JK STILL has a lot to offer. Even more than in '04 (in politial AND "life experience") and "a lot on the BCCI gang" (incl. most of the current Admin, including most of the old timers' Chimpy recently re-hired from Poppy's past).

JK'll do fine WHEN he chooses to Run. The media needs to quit focusing on JUST Hilary and Obama, and needs to begin SERIOUSLY considering all potential candidates for '08. Whoever can BEST lead our country out of this huge mess. Like Yvonne, I'm putting my bets on JK, WITHOUT hestitation.

"Integrity, Integrity, Integrity..."

[Strathos]

9. He should put his support behind someone that can actually win

having him in the race will divide votes and we need a strong front runner. I'll never vote for John Kerry again.

[Inuca]

15. You will not vote for him

others will. The issue is not winning one vote, not even 100,000 or 1,000,000 votes, it is simply WINNING. Your argument about dividing votes applies to anyone. Should we give up on primaries? Should presidential candidates be decided by secret vote by Washington insiders? Or by polling the left-wing blogs? Apologies to everyone if I sound too argumentative, it is just that I find uninformed comments like this rather depressing.

[Strathos]

48. Uninformed?

Am I "uninformed" because I don't agree with you? I will not vote for John Kerry because I feel he is too close to GWB, he is in politics to have something to do and when he had the chance the last time, he didn't fight, he didn't contest, he did nothing but shake hands and go back to what he was doing before.

If you feel I'm uninformed maybe you should look in the mirror, since you're supporting someone everyone else thinks is a laughing stock.

[Inuca]

52. No, not because you do not agree with me

Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. My uninformed comment referred to you statement that having Kerry run would divide the votes. As long as more than one person is running, you will have "divided votes". Unless you were not referring to the primaries, as your comments above may suggest, but to the general election, and then divided votes refers to...I am not really sure what. And one more thing, regardless of how you may feel about Kerry, claiming that he is "too close to GWB" IS supremely uniformed.

[Strathos]

83. Is it?

claiming that he is "too close to GWB" IS supremely uniformed.

I don't think so. I think they are very close, in many ways.

[beachmom]

29. Name which candidate is for a timetable for withdrawal out of Iraq.

I'll give you a hint. It ain't Hillary, Clark, Obama, Gore, Richardson, or Vilsak. There is no other one except Kerry (Feingold was our only other contender that gave voice to the truth about Iraq). So, your focus on the horse race must mean you have given up on getting our troops out of Iraq. Even the intial anti-war crowd -- Gore and Obama -- who may enter the race, are against a timetable for withdrawal.

Sorry you're not pleased, but I'm not going to give up on the soul of the Democratic Party because of shallow things like a botched joke.

[hezekkia]

41. why is the "timetable" your litmus test?

just because someone doesn't support a timetable doesn't mean they are bad leaders. The generals have said they don't want a timetable, so maybe it ISN'T the way to go.

I'm willing to listen to any Democrat who supports withdrawal-- even without a set-in-stone timetable.

[Strathos]

50. A-men

some of the democrats on there are making the same mistakes over and over and over again.

The presidential election can not be won on one issue. Some of you people need to open you eyes and stop being so "republican", believing what you're told and not thinking out of the box.

John Kerry, IMHO, is a career politician who plays the games, loves the game, but in the meantime, people are dying, people are starving, people that don't have billions of dollars are struggling to just get by.

Give me a man or a woman who thinks about people first and issues second and that's someone I'll support.

[Strathos]

49. It's way more than the recent joke

It's more to do with his "honorable" politics and willingness to step aside instead of fighting for the last election or really fighting for anything. Kerry the soldier and Kerry the politician are two different people.

[Joe Chi Minh]

12. It seems to me that seldom has a people needed a leader such

as John Kerry, as much as the people of all classes in the US do today. And with John Edwards, President-in-waiting, as his Deputy, the term "Dream Ticket" was never more apt.

[BlueIris]

47. This presumes Kerry and Edwards can or will kiss and make up.

That still sounds like a tough sell to me.

[cadmium]

60. You really believe they have that much to make up over? Maybe but

I will not believe a lot of gossip about this until I see them in debates.

The pundis make more money and fame over conflict and controversy than the truth.

The Boston Globe was pushing stories that there is tension betw the new Mass Governor-elect and Kerry. It turned out to be nothing more than the Globe trying to stir up a story that wasnt there.

[BlueIris]

66. Um, if I hadn't seen fundamental ideological and strategical

differences between them, which peaked on November 3rd, 2004, I might believe that a (political) reconcilliation was possible. I think each man just did what he had to do, and each man knows and grudgingly respects that about the other and in that way, the rift between them isn't personal. But it's there. I really can't imagine that they could "get over it," or are interested in doing so. (Also, and, nothing against him for representing his own interests and future campaign, but--Edwards continues to snipe rather harshly at Kerry from time to time in the media, and no, I don't think that's Edwards just "spinning"; I don't think they'll be running together again.)

[cadmium]

68. that's too bad if true. I hope not.

[Joe Chi Minh]

87. Heck, I didn't realise they'd fallen out. That's too bad.

Now you mention it, I do recall reading that John E was contemplating standing for the Presidential nomination.

[BlueIris]

104. Well, it's not like I've personally met either man, but...

um...I don't think they'll be running together again.

[LTR]

14. I doubt he'll run

Keep in mind that he will have to make a choice in '08, since his Senate seat is up.

Unless he pulls a Lieberman and runs for both.

[beachmom]

30. Not allowed in Mass. He would have to give up his Senate seat

probably by Sept. '07 (just what would be expected in Mass.), so that the others could start making preparations. By then, he would be able to determine if he were in the running. With a Democratic governor, this is not a problem, as a Democrat would be appointed. (he did a lot in his own state to help get Patrick Duval elected -- he would NEVER do what Lieberman did in Conn., which was to risk a Democratic seat, since the governor was Republican)

[L A Woman]

16. Oh Boy! Another rich, white man...

and one who has already failed to beat the worst president who ever lived.

If the Democratic Party is that fucking stupid, God help us all!

[Mass]

17. This is why there are primaries. No need to call people stupid.

[wisteria]

114. Wow, maybe you should run you think it is so easy .

Oh, and by the way most people didn't think of Bush as the "worst president ever" back in 04. I suppose only you had it all figured out becasue you are so smart in your own mind.

[Haole Girl]

18. delete

:eyes:

[bambo53]

19. Mary Beth Cahill, Bob Shrum, Donna Braizle, Nuff Said

He likes to hear himself talk, and boy, does he talk. The problem is nobody understands anything he says, because he doesn't actually say anything. That way no one can criticize him for saying something, because he hasn't actually said anything.

After this "botched joke" debacle, one can only assume his "non-position" statements will only get worse.

[Tellurian]

21. wait..

I'll be back after I windex my screen..

:rofl:

[Mass]

22. LOL. You nearly got me. I thought you were serious.

It is true: Kerry does not take any position, which is probably why he is one of a handful of senators asking for US troops to withdraw from Iraq in a given time, co-sponsoring a resolution with Feingold to do just this. Also why he is one of the few co-sponsors of Feingold's censure bill, and quite of few other things.

It is good to see that you have a sense of humour and can still joke about that.

[beachmom]

31. "This war is immoral" How is that hard to understand? n/t

[wisteria]

115. Your comments express your true ignorance.

Nothing else to say. You obviously know nothing at all about the man you criticize. And the one comment which refers to a current event is based on nothing more than media hype.

[ckramer]

27. I support John Kerry to run

He's telling the truth when he said if you are doing badly in school, you ended up stuck in Iraq.

Although there are exceptions to that, but largely what he said is true -- poor people ended up in Iraq battle field much more than the wealthy and the well-connected.

Kerry is the best candidate so far from what I can see out there.

Go Kerry!

[beachmom]

32. That's great that you are supporting Kerry, but I have to interject

that this simply is not true. There are TONS of well educated people in the military, because I know them. He was talking about Bush, and dropped the word "us". This wasn't a misstatement that revealed truth -- he has said a million times before that we have the best military in the world, the best troops in the world. And the majority of them are quite intelligent.

[Alexander]

33. Can you say "William Jennings Bryan"?

I think Kerry would've made a decent president, but he disappointed me with the 2004 election. He failed to bring up the most important things he did in the Senate - Iran-Contra and BCCI - and thus, instead of portraying himself as the anti-corruption candidate, he was able to get swiftboated.

Now, I am of the school of thought that some shady dealings went down in Ohio to suppress Democratic turnout in anticipation of a close presidential race. There seem to be two schools of thought on this:

1) Kerry lost the race, fair and square. This would mean he's a terrible campaigner, as he took his sweet time fighting back the swiftboat BS.

2) 2004 was stolen, in which case Kerry's day-after concession was too soon, and he should've fought like hell for the votes.

In either case, it doesn't portray a flattering picture of Kerry's campaign skills.

I have made no secret of my choice for 2008, if he runs - Al Gore. While I'd vote for Kerry if he won the nomination (again...), I hope it doesn't come to that. I took some shit from DUers for supporting Gore, as some seem to think he's got the same "loser" vibe, can't beat Bush, and so forth. I'd like to remind those people of the following:

1) Gore got over 500,000 more votes nationwide than Bush did - something Kerry just couldn't manage.

2) Gore fought for all of Florida's votes until there were no legal avenues available - something Kerry never did either. When media organizations viewed the ballots, it was determined that under any statewide recount scenario, Gore won Florida.

3) Gore has been the main advocate for two incredibly important issues now facing the world - global warming and the Internet.

4) Since shaking off the DLC and his terrible advisers, Gore has improved his speaking style, adopted some socially liberal positions and ability to mingle with crowds dramatically - if you see AIT, he even manages to be funny. His populist message which he tried to adopt during the 2000 race resonated with voters and caused him to jump ahead of Bush in the polls.

So I root for the guy who already won an election, saw it was stolen and fought like hell against a rigged game to ensure that all the votes were counted. And he seems to have already learned his lessons from 2000 - loosen up, be witty, and tell the DLC to go to hell.

[Ignacio Upton]

39. Or Adlai Stevenson

n/t.

[hezekkia]

42. exactly

Kerry is a great party elder, and a good Senator.

He will not, however, be a President of the United States. The sooner he realizes this, the better.

[wisteria]

71. Stevenson is a poor example. He ran the second time against a popular

president and his campaign focused on Eisenhower previous heart attack. Stevenson was also divorced- a no no in 56.
Using Stevenson or anyone else who ran and lost as an example is just wrong, It ignores those who did win after losing and it assumes every race has the same variables which would guarantee the same results.
if we continue to view everything in our lives as a one time shot, that would eliminate trying for the same job more than once, a football team trying for the Super Bowl even though they lost the year before, trying to win the Indy 500 even though the driver came in second or third.
In other words, life is about wanting something so much you keep on trying, it is about circumstances, a circumstance in which you may lose and come back stronger to win next time, and it is about chances, the chance to try and try again.

[Alexander]

95. But Kerry is still the same, after the 2004 election. He hasn't changed.

He still hasn't mastered the soundbite.

He still changes his mind on standing up to the administration - the "I won't apologize", and then the apology afterwards, IMO, was worse than the joke he botched. It's certainly more telling.

He still doesn't have the excitement Dems are looking for.

Gore, Jackson, Cleveland, et al. all learned a valuable lesson because of their loss. I'm a huge Patriots fan. They won in 2001 but lost in 2002, only to come back in 2003. Are you trying to say they won that second Super Bowl without changing a single thing about their strategy or playing?

That's what I'm getting at - Kerry, if nominated in 2008, will lose, for the exact same reasons he lost in 2004 - and his unwillingness to learn from his mistakes.

In contrast, look at Gore pre-2001, and Gore post-2001. There's a world of difference.

[wisteria]

112. You wouldn't say that if you had actually been following him.

Kerry had to apologize because it was right at that time to do so. The attention would of been on him and not the elections. kerry certainly has learned from 04. His speeches are powerful and to the point. He speaks from his heart and he demonstrates his leadership in the plans he lays out. He has reached out to the people and has kept in touch by letter and e-mails. He of course is the same in some ways- that's Kerry, but he has changed in other ways. He is his own man.
I will not knock Gore, however, he has not been in the leadership position Kerry has been in for six years.he risks nothing when he speaks out. He disappeared for about three years then came back and let Bush have it. he has discussed no plans for Iraq, has not mentioned any ideas for health care,the minimum wage, security issues or the economy and budget. I commend him for his work on global warming, but to say he has changed that much is wrong. He is still the Gore I remember in interviews.

[Alexander]

118. Gore was speaking out against Bush as early as 2002.

Bush was still the "popular wartime president" and Gore risked tremendous ridicule for daring to take him on. What's more, he did so before the 2002 elections, and no other Democrat was doing so.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

So your argument that he "disappeared for about three years" is utterly false.

I voted for Kerry, I worked for Kerry, I met Kerry, and I wanted Kerry to win in 2004. However, Kerry is long-winded. His stances and ideas and speeches cannot be easily condensed into a soundbite.

While I despise soundbites and wish that our entire political discourse was above that sort of thing, it isn't. Therefore, politicians - particularly national-office ones - must learn how to live in the soundbite era.

Kerry, to date, has not demonstrated he can do this. His non-apology/apology response over the joke was also deeply flawed and gave the press and right-wing more ammunition. If he was going to apologize, he should've done so immediately. If he wasn't going to, he should've stuck to his guns and not apologized.

The media furor over the joke was bullshit, but Kerry did himself no favors in his response.

And if you read my whole post, you'd learn I was also disappointed with Kerry's silence on BCCI and Iran-Contra. He had a direct role in bringing these scandals to the public, and it would've been easy soundbite material. Something like:

"I brought Iran-Contra to the attention of all Americans."

Or:

"I'll fight corruption, just like I did in the 80s."

Kerry has much to brag about, yet in 2004 he kept silent on most of his bragging rights. Therefore I think he's a hell of a senator but a lackluster presidential candidate.

That being said, if he wins the 2008 nomination, I'll support him, work for him, and vote for him again. But I've been following his career for a while and see no sign of an epiphany. If he changes, great! I'll be more enthusiastic about a Kerry run. But I'm not seeing it yet.

[wisteria]

70. Your focus is in the wrong direction. Lincoln lost two senate races and

then won the Presidency. Reagan, Nixon, Cleveland, Jackson- all lost a race or two or three and came back to win the presidency. It can be done. Why just mention the ones that lost? I realize you support Gore, but why resent anyone else trying again. Let the primaries play out, let the best man win.

[Alexander]

73. My point is, Kerry's wounds were mostly self-inflicted.

Had he not said and done stupid shit that the right-wing and the MSM could easily spin, we'd have President Kerry returning to Vietnam right now.

His most famous example, of course, was "I voted for the war before I voted against it."

Then it was his incredibly nuanced answers to everything, like "I think marriage is between a man and a woman, but I would let the states decide." Sorry John, that doesn't fit into a 5-second soundbite.

Then it was his incredibly slow response to the Swift Boat attacks. Clinton would've answered that shit immediately. Kerry should've done more to tie the attacks to Bush and should've responded sooner.

Kerry also never - I repeat, never brought up Iran-Contra and BCCI, his two greatest accomplishments in the Senate. To this day, I get blank stares and questions of "Really?" whenever I tell people about his role in the 1980s. If he's not willing to brag a little about his accomplishments, how does he expect people to know about them?

Then it was him promising to have an army of lawyers ready to count every vote - and his day-after concession.

If he had taken off his jacket during the debates, Bush's wire would've also been exposed, or he would've been clearly uncomfortable with his jacket on. Hell, even Edwards said Kerry should "pat him down" before the debate. Cheating during a presidential debate is a big no-no.

I mentioned William Jennings Bryan because there the Democrats had a great statesman and a sharp mind - unfortunately, he wasn't the best presidential candidate, and his first race (1896) was his best showing. In 1900 and 1908 he didn't do nearly as well, and eventually became Wilson's SOS.

I think Kerry, if nominated again, would do even worse than in 2004, making questions of vote stealing irrelevant by a Mondale-style defeat. His botched joke, and even more botched response afterward, seem to indicate to me that he hasn't learned his lesson from the 2004 campaign, whereas Gore and all the other candidates you mentioned did learn their lessons.

Again, I'd vote for him if he's the nominee, just as I did in 2004. But like 2004, where I chose Dean in the primaries, I think we have better choices than Kerry, and none of the Kerry fans here on DU are going to convince me otherwise. Only Kerry can do that, and his actions since then haven't been convincing.

[wisteria]

113. I can recall many misstatements other candidates have made,

I can recall only two kerry has made. Both times he was targeted. The first one was explained in a round about way, the second one was an out and out lie. The Republicans and the media could do this to just about anyone if they wanted to. No politician is immune from lies.
How about the Gore lock box spin? Take the money and place it in a Lock box.
How about how they portrayed his as smug because he said he invented the internet?

Hillary Clinton's famous comment while hubby was running for office- "I am not the type of wife who stays home and bakes cookies".
How about her "joke" referring to how Bush runs the White House- like a plantation- then adds you know what I mean don't you? To a gathering of African Americans.

[Joe Chi Minh]

88. Unfortunately, for tens of millions of Americans, if not hundreds,

worrying about global warming and the Internet would be a luxury - being subject to the more urgent pressures of survival in good health, with a roof over their heads, without having to work all the hours God made. Short-sighted in one sense, but required to avoid an even shorter life-span.

[Alexander]

94. And Gore didn't concentrate on those issues?

I'm saying, even in the 70s and 80s, well before such things were very popular, Gore was discussing global warming and the Internet.

Of course, he's always been quite the populist, economically speaking. I think that goes without saying.

[Zorro]

34. Sorry

Kerry had his shot in 2004, and couldn't bring it to closure and electoral victory.

This isn't to say Kerry is not a worthy person, but it's time to move on to someone else for 2008. He's perfectly suited to remain a force in the Senate.

My 2 cents.

[oasis]

35. Kerry must run. We Dems can't afford to have corporate media swiftboater

pick off our leaders one-by-one.

[beachmom]

36. Good point, oasis. To those who have another favorite candidate

don't think they won't escape the wrath of the corporate media. If it's substance, that's fine, but stuff like this is just ridiculous (like the Walmart attack on Edwards). I want to see a lively primary and general election about IDEAS and ISSUES for a change.

[hezekkia]

43. bring out the tinfoil!

:tinfoilhat:

How did we just manage to take back the House AND Senate then?! Sorry, Democrats can win on the merits, even if you don't think so.

And people can complain all they want about Ohio-- Kerry lost by 3 MILLION votes in the popular vote (unlike Gore, might I add).

Kerry supporters tend to omit the fact that he lost 51-48% nationwide.

[Alexander]

102. It's not that the media will play nice with the other candidates...

It's that the other candidates are better at handling a hostile media.

This is the age of soundbites, and while I respect and like the job Kerry is doing, the idea that thoughts can be condensed into a 5-second phrase seems to elude him.

[cadmium]

59. That's what I think too-you must be a fellow contrarian

I really like John Kerry and I will support him. He worked so under the rose bushes without glory in the Iran - contra/ BCCI days--damaging up several layers of international corruption. Many Washington politicians and meia cocktail party people hate him and I think more of him for it.

I had my ambivalence about him running again until today when I read a hit peice against him from *Joan Vennochi insisting that he sis finished. Now I will be seriously disappointed if he doesn't run. I also want him to continue to speak up.

*an abrasive Boston Globe columnist and suck-up to state politician who despises Kerry.

[natrat]

37. dont trust him and he is preety far to the right -i prefer a populist

[fedupinBushcountry]

51. "pretty far to the right"

ROFLMAO :rofl:

Prefer whomever the fuck you want, but please cut out the stupid fact less rhetoric.

[natrat]

86. come on-as far as democrats go he is no lefty

[Joe Chi Minh]

89. What have you got against another New Deal for the working man?

But this time, including health care?

[Ignacio Upton]

40. NO to Kerry!

Also, he's up for re-election in 2008. If he chooses to run again, he should give up his Senate seat so we can retain it.

[wisteria]

44. Good for him! No one is going to define him and dictate the outco me of anything.

He is his own man.
I am happy, let the people decide.

[stepnw1f]

45. Why Not?

Anyone want to tell me why somebody shouldn't run for President? Personal opinions of the man are irrelevant excuses.... just because he runs doesn't mean he will win, so why are people against him running?

[BlueIris]

46. Good. He was making me a little nervous there.

And Senator Kerry? You know I love you and have pledged to support you no matter what, but Sir? Take it nice and easy for a while, would you? I'd like to see you walk a straight, unsmeared line to '09 from here on out.

[elocs]

53. Am I allowed to say that I do not prefer Kerry as the Democratic candidate?

Is it ok for me to say that if he is on the primary ballot here in Wisconsin that I will not vote for him? I-I do still have that choice, don't I?

[Mass]

56. Sure, you are. The point many here seem to make is that they do not want him to run.

He should run if he wants. Then it is up to everybody to decide whether they support him or prefer somebody else.

I do not see why people are so in arms at the idea Kerry would run. Vote against him if you do not like him. This is still a democracy, and any US-born citizen above 35 is allowed to run.

[elocs]

61. As a college grad I kind of knew this.

I don't care if Kerry runs, but I don't see him having even close to the success he had 4 years ago. I don't intend to vote against Kerry, but I do intend to vote for the candidate of my choice. It's odd that a vote for somebody other than Kerry would be considered as being a vote against Kerry. I hadn't realized that Kerry had reached such a noble and untouchable status where you can only vote for him or against him.

[Mass]

64. So, if this is not about Kerry, why exactly did you post in a thread that was ABOUT Kerry?

[elocs]

69. Because some have an attitude of "how dare you not support Kerry".

I choose not to support Kerry. I did not criticize him or say he should not run, but only said I did not think he would do as well as 2004. In my primary I will not be voting against Kerry, but for the candidate of my choice. I will not be voting for Hillery either, but I will not be voting against her. Is this a difficult concept?

[AnOhioan]

54. No way John

You had your chance...and you conceded too soon. No re-do's.

[Mass]

55. The point is not if you and others will support him. It is that he is going to run.

Dont support him if you do not want to, but this is totally irrelevant to the fact he will run or not, and then the primaries will decide, not you or me alone.

[Joe Bacon]

57. Don't waste my time again, John!

You let Bush off the hook in 2004. You laid down and died when the Swift Boaters came out of their closet, then you lied when you promised that every vote would be counted, instead you surrendered after Ohio was given to Bush by the Main$tream Media.

No thanks, John, just serve your term out and leave the Senate.

[Mass]

58. Can you at least let people from MA decide who they will have as a senator.

or do you decide of who our governement is?

Last time I checked, MA voters decided from that, but of course, you may have decided that you are so much better than we are.

As for the race for president, if he is still in the primaries when they come to CA, do not vote for him. It is as simple as that.

[The Count]

62. Sooo...will he come clean about the stolen 2004 electioms in the next 2 years?

[Tellurian]

99. haaa! Count, you always make me laugh!

My post under/above yours in the "Will Bill Clinton Come Clean?" thread..
for some unknown reason, no response from blm to simple statements..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2759953&mesg_id=2764840

[NightOwwl]

63. Oh that's just dandy.

In case no one has noticed :eyes: he always ends up spending more time explaining himself than actually talking about the issues. Two years ago it was his convoluted statement about the war resolution. Today it's a botched joke. I guarantee he'll have the same problem in 2008.

He may be an effective senator, but an effective presidential candidate he is not

[Inuca]

80. He may not be the most effective....

... presidential candidate, I do not know enough to judge, but he would be a great & effective president, that I am sure of. Unfortunately the system is such that perceived form way too often wins over substance. But maybe there is a glimmer of hope... Webb anyone? From the little I saw/heard of him, his appeal os very far from the "who do you want to have a beer with" stereotype. The guy seems barely able to smile! But he has substance, experience, conviction, and brains. So maybe Kerry is NOT such a hopelessly ineffective candidate afterall....

[dailykoff]

65. No objections here.

Swiftboaters and their gotchas aside, I don't see any better on the horizon.

[Octafish]

67. Good!

And if Gore runs, Good!

And if Bradley runs, Good!

And if Clark runs, Good!

Etc.

[wisteria]

72. Senator Kerry has the right to run again if he wants too. I am glad he hasn't given up.

He has a vision and the desire to make this country great again and take us further than we have been in a long time.

[Skittles]

75. no thanks

and please, you people up north, DO NOT FOIST HIM ON US AGAIN

[Polesitter]

76. Yeah - no thanks - we got enough who want to do for us in 08 what they did in 04! n/t

[Imperialism Inc.]

79. I'd vote for him again.

If he wins the primary I still think he is "good enough". Far from my first choice though and I really hope he doesn't win the primary.

[Vinca]

81. I couldn't support him in the primary this time.

Everyone has "their time" and his was 2004. Personally, I'm convinced he won, but he folded like a cheap tent before all the votes were counted and left money in the bank besides.

[Renew Deal]

82. Please God No!

That's all

[MUSTANG_2004]

84. Don't worry, he won't win

It will be Gore or Hillary. My hope is Gore.

[Megahurtz]

92. Who said Gore is even running?

:shrug: Does he have plans to run? Is he even talking about it? I have heard nothing.

Where do people even pull this shit out of?:wtf:

No offense but, my guess is that the guy gets a good chuckle everytime he hears
someone talk about him running in '08.

Until I actually hear him seriously talk about running, I won't believe otherwise.

[Alexander]

97. Very few politicians with sense announce a run this early in advance.

Bill Clinton didn't announce until late in 1991. Not only that, in 1990 he announced he would not run in 1992. We saw what happened there. :eyes:

Nobody said "Gore is running". However, there are many who think he should run, and would win both the primary and the general elections if he did. He's also a much stronger candidate than Kerry, something the Kerrybots can't really dispute.

Are you that unfamiliar with politics, that someone repeatedly saying "I haven't ruled it out" does not necessarily mean no?

[Megahurtz]

107. Unfamiliar with Politics?

:rofl:

[Alexander]

110. Nice counter-argument.

Oh wait, you never had one. :eyes:

[MUSTANG_2004]

119. Not me

But I think he will, since he's now saying he hasn't ruled it out. And the way he was barnstorming for his movie makes me think he's thinking about getting back into public life.

Either way, I think it will be Hillary or Gore in 2008. Kerry, IMHO, doesn't have a chance against either one of them.

[missTheBigDog]

85. Agree...

I agree completely with Alexander. I am all for Gore running in '08 and hope to God that he does. He is the best chance the Democratic party has right now and I think he would make a great President.

[treestar]

90. How much does it weigh?

Is it heavy?

[lateo]

91. No thanks Kerry...stay at home.

Been down that road with ya once and was completely left hanging.

Fool me once...

[Megahurtz]

93. Why Not?

I think he has a good chance of winning because I'm sure at this point
there are people that are sorry that they didn't vote for him before.

Besides, do we have anyone better right now? What? Obama or Hillary?
Neither of them are electable in my opinion.
Possibly Hillary, because she has more experience than Obama,
but she hasn't committed to running anyway.

I think that Kerry would make a great President,
and until someone better steps forward, he's got my vote.

[Alexander]

98. Kerry has already proven he's unelectable.

Losing to Bush by 3 million votes nationwide? You think this means he has "a good chance of winning"?

Besides, in 2004 many people were not as pro-Kerry as they were anti-Bush. Kerry didn't easily give people reasons to get excited about him, other than "Well, at least he's not Bush". That "lesser of two evils" approach never works.

If the Republicans manage to find a somehow exciting and appealing candidate to nominate, Kerry doesn't have a chance.

Why didn't he bring up BCCI and Iran-Contra, over and over? Why did he dwell on his Vietnam stint over 30 years ago, something the Swift Boaters could use to smear him?

And why does Kerry continue to be so Kerrylike, to a fault? He's for the war, then he's against it. He won't apologize for the joke, then he does.

American voters are interested in soundbite candidates. It sucks, but it's true. Clinton was a master of the soundbite and the quick counter-attack, which is largely why he won. Gore wasn't great at it but it appears that he's learned. Kerry never has, and still does not, appreciate the 5-second soundbite, and how condensing your opinion into such time can either work for you or against you. He also took an excruciatingly long time to answer the Swift Boat attacks.

But I guess these facts are lost on the die-hard Kerry supporters.

[Tellurian]

100. They call themselves Kerryites...

Most of them are more like Kerrybytes..

Mass seems to be a good guy, though..
at least we know he is rational...

[Megahurtz]

108. I guess you forgot about Diebold

since you believe that Kerry lost "to Bush by 3 million votes nationwide":eyes:

So do you have a better Candidate in mind, since no one else
has expressed serious interest of stepping up to the plate?

If someone better steps up, then and only then will I change my mind.

[Alexander]

111. Show me evidence Kerry didn't lose to Bush by 3 million votes.

Oh wait, you don't have any. :eyes:

Before you go apeshit on me, keep in mind I think 2004 was likely stolen.

But I'm weighing the likelihood that Ohio was stolen through dirty tricks against the likelihood that the entire popular vote was tampered with to the tune of 3 million votes.

The first has plenty of evidence to support it, the second has hardly any. 3 million votes were stolen from Kerry? Then why, pray tell, did the Democrats win 2006? Did Diebold "let" it happen?

And why on earth didn't Kerry fight for these stolen votes?

The best candidates rarely announce or even publicly consider running this early in election season - part of the reason they are the best candidates.

And sometimes, wouldn't you know, candidates don't run unless they see a lot of grassroots support for their candidacy - Senator-elect Jim Webb is an excellent example of this. Adlai Stevenson did this too.

I'll ask you a reasonable question, and hope I get a reasonable answer. If Gore decides to run for president, would you still support Kerry in the primaries?

[Ilsa]

96. I wouldn't be happy with this.

I'm ready for someone else to win and not with the "Well, he's better than the alternative Rethuglican," enthusiasm. I know too many Dems here in the South and west the begrudgingly held their noses to vote for Kerry, and his wife wasn't all that popular here, either.

I want a candidate the masses can get excited about.

[Imagevision]

101. Kerry has been great - however this time he's carrying too much baggage...

[against all enemies]

103. If Kerry is our next Presidential candidate - we deserve to lose again.

[brentspeak]

105. John, I like you, I respect you -- but, you gotta face the facts on this one.

You had your chance, and it just didn't work out.

[Tiggeroshii]

109. Sorry bud.

You're nice and all, but it just isn't going to work out...

[wisteria]

116. Well, I wouldn't be so sure about that.

kerry is called the come back kid. I believe he isn't done yet.

[David Zephyr]

120. Why shouldn't he consider it?

He's a great American. He is brighter than most in the field. He's a hero.

I hope he gets in the field. Kerry will articulate the issues that some of the others might choose to ignore.