Donkey Rising in Defense of John Kerry

[kerrygoddess]

Donkey Rising in Defense of John Kerry
November 21st, 2005

Donkey Rising defends John Kerrry from the typical blog attacks on his campaign. They find that only one Democrat might have done better, except he was unable to run–Bill Clinton.

In Defense of John Kerry

By David Gopoian

As George W Bush’s approval ratings sink deeply in late 2005, Democrats can conveniently dismiss what we never fully accepted in 2004 – that Bush was as popular an incumbent among Republican followers in the last campaign as Ronald Reagan was at his zenith in 1984.

One consequence of this oversight is the now fashionable assumption among Democratic elites, bloggers and web-deprived alike, that any Democrat other than John Kerry could have defeated Bush handily in 2004. I am taking this occasion to dissent from that perspective.

There are any number of simple empirical arguments that may be made in defense of the presidential candidacy of John Kerry. Among them are these:

• He took a Party totally demoralized by 9-11 and Bush’s foreign policy dominance and came within one state of dethroning the incumbent war-time president.

• In that state of Ohio – with a Democratic Party organization in name only - he ran the best Democratic campaign in four election cycles, since Clinton carried the state in 1996. No Democratic candidate since 1996 got as much as the 48.7% Kerry gathered. The last statewide Ohio Democrat who carried the state was John Glenn in 1992.

MORE LINKS - - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1220

[bananas]

1. "The last statewide Ohio Democrat who carried the state was John Glenn"

We need an astronaut to run!

[BL611]

2. I hear ET

supports stem cell research and amnesty for aliens, maybe he would be willing to run in '08???

[emulatorloo]

3. cool, cuz I am tired of dumbass governors and muscled celebrities

Astronaut or Fireperson could be fun!

[Call me Deacon Blues]

4. I don't necessarily think that another candidate could have beaten Bush

But I do think that everything Kerry's said or done since has been primarily of a "me too" nature; every time something like Murtha's speech happens, I wait for the ubiquitous e-mail from Kerry. Me, I've taken my inspiration from sources as disparate as grieving war mom, a comedian's nightly take on political news, an Irish newscaster's refusal to kow-tow to a scripted interview, a Chicago prosecutor's zeal for the truth, and a 72 year old ex-Marine congressional hawk. Leadership means being ahead of things -- that's how you lead. I haven't seen it from Kerry, nor anyone else that might be running for president next time, be it Senator Clinton, Rep. Feingold, General Clark, Governor Warner, or anyone else. The only person who's stood up to Bush and Cheney has been Al Gore, and I don't think he's going to run again. I want a candidate who only cares about the American People, not how the next speech affects his or her poll numbers.

[ginnyinWI]

7. sorry you missed all that Sen. Kerry has done this year

He's called * and the Repubs out numerous times on the Senate floor and elsewhere. You have to be avoiding Kerry threads here at DU to not know this.

[Call me Deacon Blues]

8. Maybe you're right, maybe I have

I'm certainly willing to admit that. I voted for him last time.

[blm]

11. Kerry submitted a withdrawal plan 3 weeks before Murtha yet scheduled his

appearances on tv to discuss the plan on the day that Murtha ended up speaking out about his own plan.

Knowing Murtha and Kerry's alliances in the past, especially on Iraq, I would say they likely coordinated their efforts so Kerry would be in place on the news shows to counter the attacks against Murtha yet keep the debate of withdrawal as the issue.

Here's two major points to factor in:

One is Kerry's actual plan, and the other is how Murtha and Kerry have been longtime allies in the trenches and on Iraq:

Kerry Introduces Strategy for Success in Iraq Act in United States Senate

Plan Would Bring Home 20,000 Troops After Iraq Elections, Demands Benchmarks for Success

Washington, D.C. -- This afternoon, Senator John Kerry introduced in the Senate his plan to succeed in Iraq and bring the vast majority of our combat troops home in a reasonable timeframe tied to specific, responsible benchmarks to transfer responsibility to Iraqis – beginning with the draw down of 20,000 U.S. troops after successful Iraqi elections in December. These additional troops are in Iraq only for the purpose of providing security for the upcoming elections. If they remain in Iraq after that benchmark is achieved, it only exacerbates the sense of American occupation.

"We are entering a make-or-break six month period in Iraq. We need to be taking action now if we are ever going to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that's not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict," Kerry said. “We cannot pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay ‘as long as it takes. There is a way forward that gives us the best chance both to salvage a difficult situation in Iraq, and to save American and Iraqi lives.”

Kerry's legislation, the Strategy for Success in Iraq Act, lays out a comprehensive new strategy to complete the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home. Its goal is to undermine the insurgency by simultaneously pursing both a political settlement and the draw down of American forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. If followed, the process will be completed in 12-15 months.

Kerry’s plan calls for:

• The U.S. to begin a phased draw down of American troops as a series of military and political benchmarks is met, starting with a reduction of 20,000 troops over the holidays as the first benchmark –the successful completion of the December elections – is met.

• The U.S. to immediately make clear that we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq, or a large combat force on Iraqi soil indefinitely.

• The Administration to immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn -- ideally by the end of next year.

• The Bush administration to prod the new Iraqi government to ask for a multinational force to help protect Iraq’s borders until a capable national army is formed. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India and would be a critical step in stemming the tide of insurgents and money into Iraq, especially from Syria.

• The Pentagon to alter the deployment of American troops, keeping Special Operations forces pursuing specific intelligence leads and putting the vast majority of U.S. troops in rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup. We do not need to send young Americans on search and destroy missions that invite alienation and deepen the risks they face.

• The President to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them.

• The Bush administration to accept long standing offers by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more training.

• The administration to immediately call a conference of Iraq’s neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia to implement a strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise that includes mutual security guarantees among Iraqis.

• Iraq’s Sunni neighbors to set up a reconstruction fund specifically for the majority Sunni areas to show them the benefits of participating in the political process. • The President to appoint a special envoy to bolster America’s diplomatic efforts.

• The U.S. to commit to a new regional security structure that includes improved security assistance programs and joint exercises.

• The U.S. to jumpstart our lagging reconstruction efforts by providing the necessary civilian personnel to do the job, standing up civil-military reconstruction teams throughout the country, streamlining the disbursement of funds to the provinces, expanding job creation programs for Iraqis, and strengthening the capacity of government ministries.

“We must send this critical signal to the Iraqi people - that we do not desire permanent occupation - and that Iraqis themselves must fight for Iraq. History shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency,” Kerry added.

Senior American commanders and officials have said the large U.S. military presence in Iraq feeds the insurgency. General George Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” and “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.” Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, recently wrote, ''Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency."

# # #


The two of them are longtime allies and have worked closely on Iraq.


Murtha offers a 6mo withdrawal plan on the morning Kerry is finally getting airtime for his 13-18 mo withdrawal plan submitted 3 weeks ago?

Couldn't be that Murtha offered it as bait to PULL Republicans into compromise towards the 13-18mo senate plan?

What can history add to this story?


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0918-21.htm

Kerry Says President Plans Huge Call-Up
by Patrick Healy

ALBUQUERQUE -- Senator John F. Kerry accused the Bush administration yesterday of secretly planning to call up a substantial number of military reservists and National Guard units after Election Day to go to Iraq, opening a new front in the Democrat's ongoing attack that the president is concealing postwar instability in Iraq from American voters.

"He won't tell us what congressional leaders are now saying -- that this administration is planning yet another substantial call-up of reservists and Guard units immediately after the election," Kerry told 300 people at a community center here.

"Hide it from people through the election, then make the move -- that's not the way we do business in the United States of America, my friends. We deserve a president who tells the American people the truth, and when it comes to Iraq, George W. Bush simply won't own up to the truth. He hasn't all along. In fact, he'll do anything he can to cover up the truth."

The allegations came after the Kerry campaign this week asked Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a congressional ally and Pentagon specialist, to provide evidence of the reservist plan in order for Kerry to escalate his questioning of Bush's handling of Iraq, aides to Murtha said yesterday. The aides said a relatively small number of new reservists would be involved, probably 2,000 to 2,500, but the idea that such a plan would be kept quiet until after the election spurred Kerry to focus on Bush's honesty as commander in chief.

[MH1]

14. Kerry was also first in the Senate to mention the DSM, although

many "news" outlets and blogs tried to rewrite the history.

My own posts, providing some history (and lots o' links):

http://freedomsfire.blogspot.com/2005/06/wheres-kerry-on-dsm-he-got-there-first.html

http://freedomsfire.blogspot.com/2005/06/glowing-embers.html

http://freedomsfire.blogspot.com/2005/06/potential-r-response-to-kerry-on-dsm.html

http://freedomsfire.blogspot.com/2005/06/more-dems-speak-out-on-downing-street.html

http://freedomsfire.blogspot.com/2005/06/dem-senators-sign-kerrys-letter.html

It wasn't Kerry who played "me too" on the DSM, although plenty of liberal and quasi-liberal blogs would have had you believe that, as soon as Kennedy's statement came out. But I would be perfectly happy if EVERY Dem had me-tooed on DSM! It just pisses me off when Kerry gets accused of it, when he was the first Senator to even mention it.

And damned few Dems signed the letter Kerry submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee requesting investigation of DSM.

[karynnj]

25. Kerry's plan was at least 3 weeks before Murtha's

His email is a call for every one to protest the WH attacking Murtha.

[rockymountaindem]

37. Kerry started unveiling his Iraq plan weeks before Murtha

I'll refer you to Kerry's Georgetown speech.

[Dr Ron]

52. That's not an accurate characterication

Among other things, Kerry was the first Senator to raise the Downing Street Memos.

It is Kerry who has been campaigining for affordable health care.

Kerry has also had a number of other legislative proposals, and he certainly has been standing up to Bush and Cheney.

[Tom Joad]

5. I just wish he would call for *unconditional withdrawal* from Iraq.

Then he would have more respect from me. He voted for Bush's war. He refuses to back Murtha's plan (saying Murtha is a nice guy is not the same thing).

[Mass]

9. I think it is because both are looking at the issue from two completly

different angles:

- Murtha has mainly a military background and sees this thru the eyes of the military. Diplomacy comes only later.

- Kerry has mainly a foreign policy background and puts diplomacy first, even if he cares about the troops.

My feeling is that the solution has probably part of both plans, and it would be a good thing if democrats ready to offer a solution (and republicans too if they are ready to speak seriously) sit together to find a solution that works.

[Tom Joad]

10. We need to look at it from an international law angle too....

Neither one of these gentlemen have called the war for what it is, and remains: An act of military aggresion by the United States. As such, it is not about how best to get *success* but about how to lessen the crime. I do think Murtha's plan is better (I do not agree about station US troops on the horizon, however... unless he means in North Carolina). We need no *benchmarks for success*.

We need planes carrying the troops the fuck out of Iraq.

[kerrygoddess]

24. Even Randi Rhodes gets what many don't

We can't leave Iraq as a failures - like it or not - there has to be steps and safeguards.

[Tom Joad]

29. This is about stopping a war of aggression.

Not personal preferences.

Randi has no right decide other peoples' future, any more than W.

Iraq needs reparations from the US and its allies. First order of business is to get its imperial claws out of Iraq, and the troops removed without delay.

What we should be saying is that the US has been defeated by the power of the people of Iraq (that is, it is a wonderful victory... for the people of Iraq against domination), and that the Iraqi people may now reclaim what is theirs... namely their destiny and forming a government of their choosing, without foreign intervention.

The only way we are going to leave Iraq is as a failure, but we can chose to do that in a few months, or another decade. We left Vietnam as a failure. We could have left Vietnam a decade earlier and failed just as well. Nixon wanted "peace with honor", and got a million more Vietnamese dead, and thousands of more dead GI's.

Kerry talks about *success* and we this will only lead to thousands and thousands of more dead Iraqis.

[TayTay]

31. Kerry, Murtha and everyone else

are actually talking over the heads of this Administration and are, in a way, taking their case to the American people. The latest polls show extreme unease with the war in Iraq, but only 20% of the people supporting an immediate withdrawal. The only way that this Admin is going to take action is if they are pushed or if the fear of a total electoral debacle in the mid-terms is staring them in the face with no possible means of escape.

Taking the case to the people is the one way to force the people who actually have the power to affect troop movement to get them to act.

How else would you force this action on the Bush Admin? You may believe that the war is illegal and that we morally have to get out now. They disagree and they have the power. How do you move the levers of power to get this admit to release it's death grip on Iraq? Murtha, Kerry, Feingold and everyone else is in the minority party. They can talk about this, but they can do direct action. They have to take their case to the people in an effort to affect change.

What else can be done to get the Bushies to move? It is their call.

[MH1]

15. Well, it looks like DNC Chairman Dean is supporting an even slower plan

than Kerry's. That's how I read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5422214

[Dr Ron]

16. He did not vote for Bush's war

He voted for the authority to use force in order to get the UN inspectos back in. Bush then misused this authority despite Kerry's arguments that there was no evidence that we were threatened by WMD to justify going ot war.

[Tom Joad]

18. We were *shocked*... *shocked* to think Bush would misuse that

authority.
Who would have known? :sarcasm:

OK, maybe the millions who took to the streets in protest in the run of the war. Maybe the thousands who are out there today demanding an unconditional withdrawal. As far as I am concerned, Kerry is part of the problem.

[Mass]

19. So why is Murtha not ready to say that Bush misled us.

Just asking!!

[Tom Joad]

26. Because Murtha was also taken in by that foolishness

Murtha has a terrible record of supporting military adventures abroad.

However, this is not about personalities. So to defend Kerry's foolishness by pointing to others is of no use.

this is about ending a war crime. I'm just saying we need to call everyone into account.

[TayTay]

27. We do indeed.

Is it possible that part of the conflict in this plan is the idea that one is focusing on our needs and the harm being done to our military, while the other also acknowledges the harm that can be done to our future relations with this region of the world.

The last thing we want is impetus to have to do this type of thing again in the years ahead. If the diplomacy angle is properly handled than we don't have to repeat the mistakes of the past. I want the troops out as soon as possible. I also don't want to give the Rethugs ammunition to claim that we 'cut and run' and use that to endlessly beat the 'doves' around the head as a cudgel.

I want as near to a complete solution as I can get. We need the diplomatic and the military wings of the Dem Party to work together and emphasize their strengths. These plans are not in opposition to each other, in fact they can work together to the extreme detriment of the Rethugs and their very shaky justifications for why we are there. We have to do this right, not just for the IRaqis sake, but for our own. (The Bush Doctrine has to be fully and completely discredited.)

[Mass]

33. Not defending Kerry - I just dont see the point

criticizing him on points I disagree. Too many people are already doing that, which makes it meaningless.

So for the record, I am for an immediate withdrawal without troups staying behind (except for UN or truly international peace forces) , which makes me in respectful disagreement both with senator Kerry and Rep Murtha on this issue.

I am currently looking for information concerning the proposition of Rep Blumenauer (OR).

[Dr Ron]

48. That's why Kerry including warnings

Kerry both voted yes on the IWR to give Bush specific authority and in his Senate floor statement warned Bush he would oppose him if he misused the authority.

"As far as I am concerned, Kerry is part of the problem."

No, it is people like you who are the problem. It is people with this attitude who are interfereing with the development of an effective opposition to the war.

You enable people like Bush when you argue out of such ignorance, when you fail to check the facts, when you ditto these lines without exercising judgement.

You enable people like Bush when you base your views on false litmus tests that obfuscate the only division that matters--those who supported the war and those who opposed it--and John Kerry was a major opponent of this war.

[LittleClarkie]

21. Silly man, we'd rather agree with the Republicans

that it's the Democrats fault for letting them do it. Nevermind the lies.

There was a guy on talk radio today, a caller who repeated just that. You could tell he was just regurgitating the talking point. The Dems voted for this war, so why are they crying now.

Why help the Republicans make a case for why Dems can't now talk about peace?

[Tom Joad]

30. It would help if those who support Dems were honest about those

who supported the war.

Many Dems and other progressives opposed this war from the beginning (by that i mean from Bush One through the continuing of deadly sanctions by Clinton, through the prepartion of war by Bush Two.

That some Dem leaders (like Murtha and Kerry) supported it was wrong. We do welcome people who change and work to end this madness.

We are not a cult. We should be honest about the shortcomings of those that lead the party. Honesty is never a Republican talking point.

[LittleClarkie]

35. But now that both are suggesting withdrawl, would it be time to stop

beating our tits about their vote now?

And why do some seem to give a pass to those they like vs. those they don't. You hardly hear about Reid's vote for IWR or that Dean verbally supported a version of the resolution.

Even now I see people asking why Kerry isn't supporting Murtha's plan. But Dean supports a different person's plan as well, and few are asking why.

Sometimes it just looks like selective vision and a popularity contest. We're not even uniform in our condemnation. You know?

[Tom Joad]

45. I did not mention dean because this is not a thread about dean. eom

[LittleClarkie]

46. No, but your post was about "Democrats"

Hence Dean, being a Dem and all...

[karynnj]

38. It is not black and white

Kerry explained his vote before he made it - he now says he was wrong to trust Bush.

But between the Oct vote and the March invasion there were 6 months - during that time the UN was engaged and the inspectors were doing there work. They destroyed missiles and found nothing.

When Bush started speaking war, Kerry (Georgetown University) spoke out against going to war. If you put his statements on a timeline with many non- Congress people you call "anti-war" he was at least as adament that there was a better way. It was in the interest of a certain primary opponent to try to re-write history, but looking at his op-eds, speeches and Senate votes, it's clear that Pro-war is not a reasonable label.

[Dr Ron]

51. Yes, he spoke out against going to war at Georgetown

He made many other statements opposed to going to war prior to the war, and at the onset of the war he called for regime change in the United States in protest.

[PaganPreacher]

32. W didn't "misuse" the authority Congress gave him....

He used it, just as it was written.

Holding your hands over your ears and screaming "MISused! MISused!" doesn't change the fact that John Kerry voted for this:

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 45/HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 114

(snip)

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.


John Kerry (and a lot of other Senators and Representatives) voted to give W the authority to use military force, and the sole discretion to decide how and when to do it.

Maybe John Kerry should have spoken out against such concentration of power in the executive branch when it counted, before the vote... and maybe he should have voted against it when he had the chance.

Now we all get to live with the consequences.


The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[Mass]

34. According to what you posted, he misused the resolution

1/ There was no proven threat posed by Iraq
2/ The UN resolutions concerning Iraq were in play.

So. as much as I would have preferred than nobody voted for this resolution, I still believe that Bush misused the resolution by lying to the public and the UN.

[PaganPreacher]

36. As much as you may believe that, it doesn't matter.

Since the plain language of IWR gave one man- Bush- the authority and discretion to act as he determined to be necessary and appropriate, and since he complied with Section (b) immediately following: (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001......Bush followed the resolution to the letter.

The Iraq War Resolution put the decision making authority and the power in W's hands. Of course he used them. That's what presidents do.

From a Democratic perspective, the big mistake was giving it to him in the first place... and you can thank John Kerry for his part of that.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[kerrygoddess]

39. Yes I've heard this interpretation before

from republican talking points.

[Dr Ron]

49. I'm sure Bush thanks you for your assistance

Spreading this fiction just helps Bush justify his war.

Fortunately many others are disputing this. For example, from a recent column by Thomas Oliphant:

In his speech, Bush took aim at Senator John Kerry, and in a statement, his White House went after Kennedy, who days before had spoken out on the Chalabi visit. It was intriguing how desperately Bush clung to the fiction that Kerry had once been a soul brother.

Quoting him as saying before the war resolution vote in 2002 that his authorization assumed a ''deadly arsenal" glides past Kerry's criticism of the ''rush to war" before the invasion and his later assertion that he would not have voted ''yes" if the full truth were known.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/11/15/bushs_magnificent_deception/

[ginnyinWI]

6. kick

[robbedvoter]

12. WE WUZ ROBBED! This "we're #2" BS is more demoralizing than

anything I can think of. To think if kerry would have fought for his victory, whatever the outcome of his fight, Donkey Raising and the rest would have known that "that one state" (and a number of others) were stolen.
This way, we keep comforting ourselves with lies while California is becomeing the next Ohio. Thanks John Kerry!

[LittleClarkie]

17. Yeah, thanks John Kerry for stealing the election.

Oh wait. That was Bush.

Kerry was just the pretty girl in the red dress. "I bought her dinner and everything. She was supposed to put out."

[robbedvoter]

22. Bush stole it - Kerry made it easy to conceal the fact

And the consequence is that we are now happy "we came close" instead of dealing with Diebold. Not a rhetorical objection.

[LittleClarkie]

28. He had control of the media? Damn, he's pretty powerful for a Senator.

I reckon it was the media that made it pretty easy by going along with the blackout right after the election. Olbermann, that was almost it.

And I still say blaming the victim is bullshit.

[robbedvoter]

57. When he says/does anything that helps BFEE - media spreads it

around. And usually, a concession is a very powerful statement in itself.

[MsUnderstood]

13. This has to be the BEST topic I've ever seen on DU

Oh wait--this subject matter doesn't match at all!

Where are the mules and scantily clad women?

nevermind

[corbett]

20. Agreed - I Stand By My Prediction That 2008 Ticket Will Be Kerry/Clinton

Two popular senators from neighboring states with oodles of campaign experience will be a one-two, knock-out punch!

On a related note, check out the website of the week:

http://www.republicansforhumility.com

[BlueIris]

44. HEEEY! That's MY prediction.

I kid, obviously we're not the only ones to have figured it out.

[AX10]

23. This part is true:

"He took a Party totally demoralized by 9-11 and Bush’s foreign policy dominance and came within one state of dethroning the incumbent war-time president.?

[LittleClarkie]

56. Indeed, the party needs work. And the first part of rebuilding it is

admitting it needs work. But the party won't do that if they can just say that it was the candidate's fault and not the Party's. The Party's disarray was at least part of the problem.

That's why I'm glad Dean is on the job.

[smv12]

40. Brief endorsement

How many times will LaTourette fall in line with Bush's leadership at
the expense of Ohio? Check out www.katzforcongress.com. We need
someone new.

[wisteria]

41. Excellent points, it certainly is good to see some good and

correct information come out in favor of Kerry. I get bored with all the distortions and lies.

[radio4progressives]

42. However one wants to read the political landscape of 2004...

If the primaries were held tomorrow, Kerry will not win. A different Democratic candidate would win. Kerry is an intellectual giant, but he doesn't know how to do straight talk.

A few days ago, Kerry was being interviewed, I'll be damned if he didn't pull out the ole "I've got a Plan" - i cannot overstate how quickly that single phrase would just make me want to turn off the tube - I cannot handle hearing that one more single time. It's always followed with the most convoluted bullet point on whatever policy he's trying to talk about.

He just doesn't understand that's NOT what people want to hear from a presidential candidate on the stump.

and it must be pointed out yet again, that AGAIN Kerry is unable to simply state in stratight talk about his vote on that resolution, what he thought about the WMD's and what needs to be done now.

His positions are fine, it's just that he is unable to communicate what he *stands* for in straight talking simple terms.

That's why he makes a great Senator but a lousy presidential candidate.

He just doesn't have the gift.

[Mass]

43. That is your opinion and as an opinion, it is fine.

Given all I have seen including these results, Kerry was arguably the best nominee since Carter. This is my opinion. Contrarely to you, I will not try to make that a fact.

[karynnj]

47. The reason he was there was to focus attention on his plan

This is serious - he was not campaigning - oddly he wants to try to help end this war.

I also disagree that he can't speak straight when he is heard - unfiltered - he is a great speaker. His Senate speeches have "plans" in them - because they were for the purpose of pushing legislation, but listen to his RFK speech or the Rosa Parks's eulogy. He is an inspiring, thoughtful, wonderful speaker.

The following DU post has the link to the RFK event - Kerry follows Teddy, John Lewis, Kuchinish, and Hillsry among others - I think about 50 minutes in. (the entire event is wonderfull)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x53490#53910

[Dr Ron]

50. That's why he won the nomination in 2004?

People who say Kerry can't communicate tend to be those who never actually listen to him, but instead listen to the ditto heads of the left who have been bashing him from the beginning.

Before the 2004 primaries the same people said these things about Kerry and that he could not win. The actual voters in Iowa and New Hampshire actually listened to Kerry and had a different opinion, which they expressed with their votes.

[politicasista]

53. Seems like the people in Iowa and New Hampshire listened

And liked what they saw. The Average Americans speak for a change. Not the blogesphere and/or pundits.

[AmericanDream]

55. I think you've nailed his weakness just right. n/t

[kerrygoddess]

59. Beg to disagree. N/T

[TheDonkey]

54. I don't think Bush was sinkable in '04. The right wing zealots were in

full force. Americans didn't care about facts or reasoning.

It's only now that the election is over that republicans and the media are daring to defy their deity. The Katrina effect also blew the lid open of the incompetence that makes up administration which had been masked by "folksy charm".

in '04 we had a few good candidates. Clark and Edwards would have done well but I don't think there is any sign they could have topped bush back in '04. people forget just how looney and desperate the other side was.

[robbedvoter]

58. Sure dear. We're not worthy. They is gods. Maybe next time

if we only have our kerry better... Oh, the lameness!