What's up with KOS and KERRY?

[liberalpragmatist]

I've never quite understood Kos' vendetta against Kerry. I don't agree with Kerry on everything and YES, I think his statement about the Mass. DP gay marriage plank was asinine.

But really, does Kos have to make TWO huge Kerry-bashing threads in one day while giving Bush just one? He's consistently snippy and snarky towards him and acts as though he's the worst thing to come out of the Democratic Party since Strom Thurmond.

Anybody else notice this?

[KingOfLostSouls]

1. Holding our leader's accountable

yeah its bad but lets be honest, running to the right isn't going to solve anything.

the DLC democrats have been far more successful at portraying democrats as disorganized and with no message as anyone else, they do hannity's job for him.

[BeFree]

6. Accountable?

Hah... it's more like cannibalism. Eating our own, after a good cooking.

Is Kerry perfect? No, but he's about as good as we've ever had. Anyone who subscribes to the ideas that he's pro-war or anti-gay must be some kind of purist who is oblivious to politics, or, is just anti-democratic.

Why supposedly freedom minded individuals like Kos would try to build themselves up by tearing down the leaders like Kerry is beyond me. But then, I'm a pretty simple guy. Not all wise and knowing like these internet warrior cannibals.

Look, if the election had NOT been stolen, don't you think the Iraqi war would have already taken on a different meaning, and rights legislation would be moving through congress?

[LeftCoast]

8. I love it how when people attack Kerry it's "eating your own" but

when people were attacking Dean it was "being moderate". What I find truly amazing is that it seems to be somehow almost sin with some people if you don't like Kerry.

[BeFree]

9. So,

....what do you call attacking Kerry? Kosher? Liberal? What?

I haven't a clue about your Dean attack comments, except that everybody was fair game in the primaries.

As to "...sin...don't like Kerry" that isn't the point, really. Its a matter of maturity, and unification, mixed with a liberal dose of a factual understanding of modern politics.

[LeftCoast]

12. Then if one doesn't like Kerry

one is immature and has no factual understanding of modern politics?

Interesting...

[BeFree]

13. Well, yes, you nailed it.

Or they just wish to disrupt. You decide.

It isn't a matter of "Liking" Kerry. It is a matter of understanding who is own your side whether you totally agree with them or not, and not eating away at every disagreement.

Modern politics is such that no one can please everybody. But what we saw in 2004 was that Kerry pleased the majority of Dems and his position is worthy of respect. Some anti-Kerry comments do seem childish, eh?

[LeftCoast]

28. No, what we saw was progressives buy the argument

that we should give up our principals so we could win. Turns out we still didn't win. Feel free to be a Kerry fan - I'm know the man isn't all bad but he's not getting my vote again.

[BeFree]

39. What gives you the right...

...to speak for all progressives? That's fairly presumptuous of you.

Lets say you are right.... what would be so fucking awful with Kerry in the White House? EH?

[dissent1977]

34. I think comparing disliking Kerry's policies to canibalism is childish

EOM

[BeFree]

37. It's not about "Like"

It's about respect. It's about not eating our own. It's about being cognizant of the fact that he was the single most available person who could have delivered us from the fucking evil we endure. You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. But all I request is that folks show some respect for the majority's well founded admiration for the man who really won the god damned election.

[dissent1977]

46. Dissent is necessary, even when it is against the lesser of two evils

I voted for Kerry, although I felt as if I had to plug my nose in doing so. To say he was a much better candidate than Bush would be a massive understatement, but then again saying my dog would be a much better candidate than Bush would also be a massive understatement.

I don't think the majority really admires Kerry, most the people who I know that voted for him voted for him mainly because he wasn't Bush. You are certainly entitled to admire the man, but don't expect everyone else to follow him without question.

In the corrupt two party system that controls America I can understand why unity is important, but it is also important to not just blindly accept what is handed to us. It is still three years until 2008, and there is no reason we need to accept John Kerry as the candidate this soon. We can not pretend like the Democratic Party leadership is without flaws. The Democratic Party may be less corrupt than the Republican Party, but it is still corrupt. I am not going to just sit back blindly while the DLC works to undermine progressive values in America.

[wisteria]

23. Dean attacked? When was that? I've never seen it.

Perhaps, if it did occur it was done with respect for his opinions and with some truth behind it. Kerry isn't given the respect he deserves for being our presidential candidate let alone the benefit of the doubt for his opinions and actions.Kerry is presently one of the best Representative we have in government working on our behalf. IMO, some people would turn out to attack him just for expressing his opinion about the weather. These people need to get over it. Maybe if they look beyond their resentment they will see that John Kerry is actually a good man.

[rndmprsn]

44. Amen NT

[dissent1977]

2. Maybe it is because Kerry is a DLC corporate sellout

When Kerry votes for the Iraq war resolution, votes for the Patriot Act, opposes gay marriage, refuses to put any significant effort into uncovering voter fraud, and supports corporate trade agreements such as NAFTA I think it is fair to criticize him. I think Kos attacks Bush far more frequently than he does Kerry, despite the two threads he posted today. Kerry is certainly nowhere near as bad as Strom Thurmond, Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, or many others. But lets be honest here, Kerry was a terrible candidate and he is trying to position himself for 2008 it is perfectly fair to let him know we don't want him as President.

[BeFree]

7. "....lets be honest..."?

Maybe you are honest. I dunno. But from where I sit, with 37 years of political watching under my skin, Kerry has been dishonetly represented in your post.

If you are being honest, and you prevail, I hope you enjoy the 12 more years of Republican rule.

[sendero]

16. I didn't see anything...

... dishonest in his post. Why don't you tell us what it was?

This IS the primaries and I DON'T WANT TO WASTE ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL BID ON SOMEONE WHO FOLDS LIKE A PAPER NAPKIN WHEN THE SHIT HITS THE FAN.

Capiche?

[BeFree]

20. The gist

"Kerry was a terrible candidate and he is trying to position himself for 2008 it is perfectly fair to let him know we don't want him as President.

Rebuttal: Kerry was a candidate who, had he mis-spoken, would have been tarred and feathered by the press and was not covered by that same press with any fairness.

By virtue of that, many of his positions were, and have been mis-understood and twisted. Hell, I've met folks who claimed Kerry was all for gay marriage, and anti-war.

It's all in one's presentation, I took the post to be as dishonest as the press' presentation.

[dissent1977]

21. How is it dishonest to state my opinion?

I think Kerry was a terrible candidate, what am I supposed to pretend that I love him so that you can be happy? How is that honest? I did not misunderstand Kerry's position when he voted for the war in Iraq, and I did not misunderstand his position when he voted for the Patriot act. I disagree with his positions. If anything it is your post that is dishonest because you are accusing me of dishonesty when you can't even point out a single thing in my post which is not true. You can only point out an opinion you disagree with, I can hold different opinions than you and still be honest.

I agree with you that the press did not treat Kerry fairly, but that doesn't mean I have to like him.

[BeFree]

36. I did not accuse you...

... of being dishonest. I said your post dishonestly represented him, in my opinion, the same way the press did. Is that clear?

As to whether you really understood his position on IWR, that is unclear, but not unusally so. See, battles were waged here on DU between those who took the face value of his IWR vote, and those who had a far better grasp of the political consequences of voting either way.

It would be like me saying that since you eat hamburgers, or drive an SUV, you are anti-progressive.

I have some disagreemnets with Kerry - Surprise! But I think it disrespective of a fine public servant, who, had the election not been stolen, would be making a lot of us very happy these days.

Ya know, all this "I won't vote for Kerry in 2008" isn't much more than foolish chest pounding. It smacks of disruption, is regressive in nature and speaks ill of much needed party unity. IMO.

[sendero]

33. Yeah..

.... and guess what Kerry would have the same problem in 2008, that's why we need someone else.

[wisteria]

26. Old news, and not based in fact.

Tell me what was John Kerry suppose to hold out and fight for? The votes weren't there election night nor the next morning. So he was to continue to fight for what and on what grounds that would have been acceptable in court.

[dissent1977]

29. Here are a few links to start you on your reading, there are many more

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1118-30.htm
http://blackboxvoting.org/

[wisteria]

41. I've followed all of these. I even donated to the Green Party for

recounts. None of this -all though very compelling, detailed and truthful- would have made a bit of difference on election night nor the next morning. Gore had more to go on and he couldn't win. Kerry had Gore's experience to consider as well as a larger margin of Bush votes to contend with. If only it could have been. I was devastated when he lost, but I understood why he had to conceded. I'm not saying your wrong for having the opinion you do, but consider the magnitude of the decision Kerry had to make. Decisions like this can not only be made with heart and sole, but must also contain irrefutable evidence and common sense.

[wisteria]

24. Maybe you don't, but many of us would welcome another run!

Let me know whom you support and I'll portray him unfairly and subject him to a battering also.

[dissent1977]

27. It is too early to tell you who I support but...

When I know you are welcome to criticize the person all you want if you don't like their stances on the issues. But tell me why exactly it is unfair to point out that Kerry voted for the war, he voted for the Patriot Act, he opposes equal marriage rights, and he has been a supporter of corporate trade deals. You may disagree with my view that he was a terrible candidate, but that is my opinion. If you feel that way about my candidate when I decide who that is then I am not going to stop you from expressing that opinion, I just hope you will be able to tell us why you feel that way.

[mandyky]

3. Criticism and bashing are 2 different things

Kery _HAS_ been on this anti-gay issue for about a week now. I did not see Kos' remarks as snarky, just saying how he felt about comments Kerry made....

[karynnj]

14. To my knowledge, Kerry answered a few Boston Globe questions,

DU and KOS have been on this for a week.

These are the main things, I've read Kerry has done in the last week:
Kerry talked about healthcare and other issues in Minn and LA.
Hosted a fund raiser for HRC
Went with HRC to a NY/ Boston Youthcore event (an org that helps under privileged youth get a GED while learning job skills)

His answer to the questions were exactly his positions of last year and he said he would not campaign against the Democratic plank - they are only talking about a plank in the party's platform.

[Pithy Cherub]

4. Wouldn't call it a vendetta. Kos has been REAL clear

about what he thinks. Kos had a sharp but really interesting go with Feingold a couple of weeks ago - that was highly informative about regs for the blogoshpere.

[second edition]

5. KOS IS WRONG ABOUT KERRY!

IMO Kos has it in for Kerry. It goes well beyond constructive criticism. I think Kos tries to sabotage everything Kerry does.Kos jumps on him without fully understanding Kerry's positions and then takes it to the extreme. I think he enjoys getting the Anti- Kerry's worked up. It is obvious, Kos doesn't want to see him run again and is trying to sabotage Kerry's chances. He attacks no other democrat like he does Kerry. Surely, Kerry can't be wrong on all issues. He has spent over 20 years in various public service.How much time has Kos spent serving the public?

[Demit]

15. well, see now, that's the thing.

You start off saying Kos is wrong about Kerry, and that's fine. Maybe he is, and that's what political debates are all about, having different views on things. But then you zero in on Kos's motives, saying in all sincerity that one motive is obviously sabotage, and then you gratuitously compare Kos to Kerry in terms of public service. You don't offer a counterpoint to why Kos would be wrong, you just make an ad hominem speech about Kos. That isn't constructive--it doesn't tell me anything. Except that I am supposed to understand that any criticism of Kerry is always wrong, and I should never question that premise.

[wisteria]

35. I agree with the other poster and I'll answer your question.

But you must explain to me why Kos is bent out of shape over Kerry telling an audience they should be prepared to fight for what they want and believe in. I think it is the messenger.

Now, if you will recall, there was a bit of gossip floating around concerning a closed door argument between Reid and Kerry. First, this was just gossip and really should not even have been reported on. Second, it pertained to Social Security and the need for or against a plan to counter the republicans. Kerry's position was a plan was going to be necessary at some point and one should be worked on. Reid's position was basically, don't tell me what to do and I don't think we need a plan. Oh course,nothing more than differing opinions.
However, Kos had to flame the issue by accusing Kerry of trying to run the senate, applauded Reid for putting Kerry in his place, so to speak, and then jumps all over Kerry for having the audacity to suggest the need for a plan. Now,in fairness, we have managed so far without a "plan",but how many times have you heard, the democrats don't have a plan, they are just the party of obstruction and old ideas. I for one felt, and still do we should have a plan "B" just in case. Now, tell me what was gained and what satisfactions were had by Kos, for passing along hearsay and promoting a negative image of John Kerry?

[Demit]

49. "You must explain to me why Kos is bent out of shape"--

Huh? No I don't "must". If there's something you need explained, go to the source, the man himself.

That's my point. You are skipping past WHAT Kos said and going right to impugning him for WHY he said it, creating motives for him. He must be a bad man, the end. It could never be that he observed events and was giving you his take on it. No, he is "promoting a negative image" of Kerry and is getting satisfaction from that. It couldn't be that he is sincere in his thought processes, and getting satisfaction from formulating a logical argument. No, the conclusions he draws are different from yours, therefore he must be discredited.

You want him to think exactly like you do or, if he doesn't, to shut up for the sake of presenting a united front. That is what the Republican Party and the Bush administration do. They see dissent as disloyal, and disloyalty as betrayal. So they purge the CIA, and force out cabinet members who disagree, and generals who speak the truth--until there is no one left who has a different point of view from the leader, who then thinks he can do no wrong because there is no one who dissents from him.

If Kerry is the leader we so want him to be--and not the abomination currently residing in the White House--he can stand up to dissent & criticism. It's certainly the kind of leader we so desperately need.

[sendero]

18. Guess what?

A a DEMOCRAT it is an important responsibility to try to steer the "right" candidate (one that I think can win, who has positions on the issues I mostly agree with) to get the nomination.

I don't think Kerry would be a wise choice, nor do I think Hillary would.

Those are my opinions, and there is no need for me to explain them here, but trust me they are based on observations of both the candidates and the country and I believe in my position strongly. So strongly that reading literally hundreds of posts taking the opposite position hasn't so much as sown doubt.

Kos has every fucking right no, an obligation to try to see his party pick a winner.

If you don't like it, start your own blog and tout Kerry 24/7. It's a free country, but not for long if we don't start winning races.

[wisteria]

38. Yes, you are entitled to your opinions!

However, I question, Kos's "obligation" and credentials in as much as they pertain to picking a presidential contender and winner. Am I to understand if a candidate doesn't measure up to the Kos Standard of Excellence he is to be thrown to the lions to be devoured?

[sandnsea]

10. get used to it

I've noticed that mentality spreading from online to offline. If you're not with certain people, you're against them and cut out of the loop. I hope they're prepared to carry the entire load from here on out, because that's the situation they're setting up.

[politicasista]

11. Hey sandnsea, check you pm.

:hi:

[redsoxliberal]

17. Kerry has done things that really, really annoy me

such as supporting the war, not supporting gay marriage, trying to force Dean out of the DNC chairman role...
Yes, I DESPERATELY wanted him to be president... but it was not because I liked him very much... and if he has a democratic challenger for senate in 08, I probably wont vote for Kerry.

[KittyWampus]

30. Trying To Force Dean Out Of DNC Chair? Where'd You Pick Up That Loading

of steaming crap.

supporting the war?

he supported the war about as much as Dean.

[dissent1977]

31. He voted for the war

When Bush was pushing his lies about Iraq, Kerry listened and obeyed. There were many more sane voices urging him to vote no on the war yet Kerry ignored all these far more credible voices and instead chose to trust Bush.

That is enough that it should disqualify him from getting our vote.

[redsoxliberal]

32. biggest load of bollocks I've ever heard

Kerry voted for the war and then later said he did not regret it knowing what he knew then.

As far as Kerry "stopping" Dean:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=244&topic_id=109&mesg_id=109

this was widely reported elsewhere... but this is the only link I could find in a minute.

[PresidentObama]

19. Whoa...

Call me crazy, but I don't think John Kerry tried to FORCE Dean out of the DNC chairmanship. Didn't Kerry endorse Dean before he made it as DNC chairman? And Kerry gave a million dollars to the DNC after Dean was elected chairman, and got his supporters to raise a quarter of a million.

I understand why you don't like how Kerry supported the war, and doesn't support gay marriage. Totally understandable. Because I like Dean, but I disagree with him on occasion. But, your comment about Kerry trying to force Dean out of the DNC puzzled me.

[wisteria]

42. You are correct!

I even received an e-mail from John Kerry asking me to support and donate to the DNC to welcome Dean. By the way, I did donate.

[geek tragedy]

22. Kerry thinks he's the best person for the Dem nomination in 2008. Many

of us *strongly* disagree.

He's a bad candidate, as is just about any liberal Northeast Senator. Outspoken criticism of gay rights initiatives and this new phony Joe Populist routine aren't going to impress his skeptics.

[wisteria]

43. You are reading to much into both of his actions.

He has been an outspoken critic of this administration and I personally like what he is doing. His "Joe Populist" routine as you call it is actually an imitative he is promoting called "Kid First". He has impressed me with all he has done since he has returned to the senate. Kerry has never said he is the best candidate in 2008. He hasn't even announced he is running. It is way to early to do that. He is concentrating on helping the democrats win more seats in 2006. And last but not least, I THINK HE WAS A GOOD CANDIDATE. Maybe not to your liking, but to others he has come to personify what a president should be and I including myself in that group.

[Beelzebud]

25. Maybe it's because Kerry lost to the worst president ever...

[sendero]

40. I know...

... you'd have to practice to fail that spectacularly :)

[wisteria]

45. You and I may have thought Bush was the worst candidate ever.

However, many people were and still are supportive of him. It's unfair to come down so hard on John Kerry for losing when he had to contend with people's fears, the Iraq war and Bin Laden and also one of the worst smear campaigns I have ever witnessed. I doubt any other candidate could have achieved the near win Kerry almost pulled off with so much stacked against him.

[sendero]

47. I've said this..

... several times but what is once more.

I admire and respect John Kerry. I think he is an excellent senator.

But his ability to run a presidential campaign has been found severely wanting. Yes, lots of people do support Bush**. Isn't it simply puzzling that Bush**'s poll numbers have sunk like a stone starting weeks after the election?

Bush** was beatable but he wasn't beaten. He wasn't beaten for many reasons, mostly those totally under Kerry's control - such as how he handled the war issue, how he responded to unfair attacks, what he chose to talk about and what he did not.

Hindsight is 20/20. I strongly suspect that Mr. Kerry is well aware of where he went wrong. But that really is not enough for me. Not when there are candidates who I'm certain would not have made all of these glaring mistakes. IMHO, Kerry was complacent. And if there is one thing we have a surplus of in this party, it's complacency.

[GumboYaYa]

48. Only a few months after the election Bush has approval ratings

that are below 45%. Obviously there has been a simmering dissatisfaction with Bush for some time. Kerry and his team could not take advantage of that sentiment. He had his chance and blew it. I hope we don't have to keep seeing him on the national stage. All he does is remind me of an abysmal loss and a weak-kneed campaign team. There are many better spokespeople for our cause than Kerry.

No one knows how another candidate would have done, but I sure wish I could have had the chance to go down fighting with someone who stood firmly for their principles and not someone who changes positions on a dime to meet the current political climate (or to win a primary).