Please, Please no Kerry in 2008!

[Ava]

The sticky posted above reminded me of something that has been bothering me for quite some time. I am a democrat and I am a liberal. By no means do I consider myself a "centrist" on a political level. However, please for the love of God do not elect Kerry, or Hillary for that matter, to be our candidate in 2008. Why? Because I live in the South and I know "centrists." Someone like Kerry or Hillary is not going to win over their votes. Haven't we learned anything from the Bill Clinton campaign? He was a Southern charmer who wasn't considered a "radical." He managed to carry over voters from the other side and we need another candidate that will do that.

Don't get me wrong. I like both Kerry and Hillary, but I just honestly don't think they can win over voters.

now please don't hate me for saying that! :hide:

[Warpy]

1. I've lived in the south and I generally agree, but remember

that Clinton ran as an economic populist. Oh, he didn't govern as one, but that's how he ran: "It's the economy, stupid."

No candidate who is perceived as a yuppie elitist is going to win the south, ever, although the whole region goes more to the blue violet every day. Plus, H. Clinton has added baggage that will hurt her in all areas of the country.

If Gore runs as his own man, he will take the south. There are other potential candidates out there who will, also.

I'd dearly love to see Kerry as Attorney General, though.

[sendero]

86. Kerry..

.... would make an exceptional Attorney General.

[Imagevision]

115. Please, Please no Gore either in 2008! Feingold, the man with the plan...

[NYCGirl]

120. Feingold might be a hard sell in the parts of the South at the

top of the ticket...he's Jewish and twice divorced.

(I'm Jewish and divorced myself, but then I'm not running for anything.)

[Imagevision]

154. NYCGirl> well, here's hoping on Hillary then, she's brighter then Gore

[NYCGirl]

156. You got their IQ tests or something? I don't even know any Northerners

who care for Hillary.

[Cha]

179. YEah, Gore is

BRIGHTER than hillary.

[Imagevision]

292. IQ Tests? no, I smply heard the two give interviews speeches etc...

the rest clearly spoke for itself - plus I wasn't imp

[Clark2008]

200. My Jewish husband agrees

and we live in the South.

Clark/Feingold would have much more of a chance, in our opinion.

[babylonsister]

2. So are the Southern centrists so stuck on stupid that they can't or

won't vote in their best interests, or are they just elated with what they have now? Just askin'...

[Dora]

4. Wow, that's rude. What a way to encourage the next generation, eh?

"so stuck on stupid" :eyes:

I'm also not a fan of the idea of Kerry for President. I think he's marked from the '04 election, and I think that he'd have to leave politics in order to shake it off and perhaps re-enter the race someday. He's doing good work in the Senate, and I'd be happy if he stayed there and thrived and fought the good fight.

[babylonsister]

12. Well, if the OP's premise is correct, what else could be the reason?

I'm sorry if I hurt your sensibilities, but I have no patience when hearing about people who will vote against their best interests, or are wallowing in denial, or won't vote for someone because of where they came from, or their gender. It's not logical to me, this is a discussion board, I'm discussing.

[Ava]

20. it's not logical to me either

but the fact is that if you want to win an election you have to confront those people. :shrug:

[babylonsister]

30. Ava, I hope you just have to give them a little more credit that

they recognize the mess we are now in and will vote for the best candidate to try to clean up the mess.

[MissWaverly]

227. I Know I will get flamed for this but I don't think Hiliary will appeal

I saw her at Coretta King's funeral, she did not relate to the crowd at all, she came across as
stiff and clumsy, I think that image is part of the appeal for a presidential election. Unfortunate but true. I think Al Gore appeals and I also think that John Edwards has appeal but
I don't think he has enough experience yet. George Stephanopoulos on ABC This Week said that the Dems have to nominate Hiliary and have her lose. Please, let's not do social obligations, let's consider what is the best for the common good, isn't that what the party is supposed to do. The Clintons had 8 years in the Whitehouse, that's enough.

[_dynamicdems]

322. I agree. Hillary is a smart woman but I don't agree with her stances on a

lot of issues and she's been trying too hard to be middle of the road. That's not genuine and it turns me off and probably a lot of other people too.

She will have a lot of support from the African American community if my AA friends are any indication. They loved Bill Clinton and enjoyed a much better quality of life when he was President. Bush has hurt a lot of people at the lower end of the economic scale and a lot of African Americans are in that category, sad to say. My friends have told me they will vote for Hillary because it will be like getting Bill back.

She also has the support of the Democratic power brokers. She will have the insider position should she decide to run.

Edwards is a great person,his heart is in the right place and he has some good ideas on domestic policy but we need someone with more foreign policy experience.

[MissWaverly]

416. Thanks, I wish to power brokers would listen to the netroots

and to Dr. Dean, also I do not want to another campaign where the focus is on the past,
i.e. Monica Lewinsky, I say give US a clean slate in '08

[_dynamicdems]

319. Confronting people isn't the same as catering to their prejudices.

I'm from the north and I lived in a southern state as a kid. Even the teachers were brutal.

Prejudice is ugly and should be confronted. If you put somone on a ticket to cater to those who don't like northerners, that only divides the country more. No, you have to speak to common issues not to regional prejudices.

[Clark2008]

201. It's not logical, but you have to also remember that

many Southern and mid-Western centrists have been brainwashed by the lousy media we have around here.

For example, there is no AAR in my area unless I purchase satellite radio - most people don't, as you know.

Many people in the South and mid-West commute in their cars from rural areas to the city for work - the only thing they have to listen to besides music is Reich-wing radio. Faux News is on in every barber shop, bar and mechanic's office.

They really don't KNOW they're voting against their own interests. All they know - the best information they have EASILY available - leans so far to the right that they think Reagan was a centrist.

[blm]

208. Then Katrina hit - and competence becomes a desired trait in a president

once again.

[Clark2008]

257. I can agree with that, but Bush isn't running again.

Therefore, the Reich-wing media can keep harping up on that IDIOT (and I do mean MORON... or MORAN) George Allen because he's not Bush, either, and they can once again force middle-of-the-road Southerners and mid-Westerners to vote Republican, once again.

We really do have lousy media around here (and I used to work for some of it - reporter for 12 years).

[blm]

260. Allen made alot of supportive statements on almost everything Bush did.

The ads should write themselves.

These dummies staked their futures to Amening Bush for 6 years.

[Clark2008]

263. He has, but you really MUST listen to Reich-wing radio sometime.

I do.

I listen to even though I nearly break my teeth gritting them.

InSannity's on during my ride home, Limpballs is on when I go out for lunch: they're both PUSHING Allen, hard. And they're spinning him to be Bush without the mistakes.

And, it's all that's on the radio in my city. The closest thing we get to liberal radio is the Lionel Show and it's on at 6 p.m., after primetime drive time - and usually fades out at about 6:30 p.m. once they start taking the signal lower at dusk (they still do that on AM stations here).

[_dynamicdems]

325. I agree on that! People are starting to wake up all over the country.

And you know, the south isn't really the issue. The midwest and west voted red too. They don't care if someone is a southerner or a northerner. They just want someone who is looking out for them. People are going to be listening to what the candidates say this time around.

[blm]

13. And then there's those of us who want Kerry because we know he's the only

one we can be certain will open the books on BushInc that SHOULD have been opened in 1993 so we wouldn't have even known the horrors of another Bush in the WH, 9-11 or an Iraq war.

We are the Anti-corruption, Open government wing of the Demopcratic Party and our numbers are GROWING.

[_dynamicdems]

369. You are so right! That's what I'm waiting for. Kerry isn't one to let go

when he gets the scent of corruption. He's like a pit bull. He's the consummate prosecutor. If you think Fitzgerald is dogged, just read up about JK and Iran/Contra. He's still got that burr under his saddle and he will eventually tie it all up in a nice neat package. Being President would give him more power to do it and if that happens we will have to make new jails for all the Repugs that will end up behind bars.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this.

[blm]

393. Imagine Pres. Kerry with Fitzgerald as Attorney General - DC would be

cleaned up in the first term.

[saltpoint]

395. That would be a very potent combination, blm. What a reassuring

picture.

I'm in on that one -- sign me up!

[_dynamicdems]

414. I'd go for that in a heartbeat! Wow!

[sendero]

87. The former..

.... since you asked.

[pitohui]

318. people waited 9 hrs to vote for john kerry at xavier in new orleans

9 freakin hours the people waited in line to vote

that in one small city, in a state you would think they wouldn't bother to steal, there was a shortage of machines in the democratic districts and a pitifully obvious attempt made to keep the democrat voters away

i don't think picking apart john kerry or picking apart the southern man is to the point

the point is that the elections are boldly stolen w. a variety of methods that obstruct "certain" people from voting

until we have fair and free elections, instead of cheats, it is a waste of time to theorize abt how stupid the people are, for the people are not the ones deciding this

9 hours!

in my white republican district i waited 30 minutes

that is the difference, that is what we're up against

the fix is in on every level

we have got to figure out how to counter this and stop worrying abt personalities

kerry is fine, clinton is fine, gore is fine, these are all perfectly good candidates, it isn't about them, it's abt the system

i would PREFER a southern leader, as who would not prefer a leader from their own area, but that doesn't mean that everyone in the south folded their hands and said, "feck, kerry, some massachusetts yankee, well i'll show him, i'll just go out there...and vote for the connecticut yankee instead," yeah that's logic for ya



in my humble view anyways

[saltpoint]

327. It hurts to read your post, pitohui, and I mean that in a very good way.

Waiting nine hours to vote in those Democratic precincts for a New England Democrat with a record of public service instead of a vacuous little snipe fake-cowboy incumbent who couldn't DEFINE the term "public service" if his life depended on it.

Well, as the people who stood in that long line for that many hours believed deeply enough in the system to INSIST that their individual votes be included in that system, my hat is off to them swiftly and I bow low.

Thank you for this post. Beautiful.

[pitohui]

347. don't thank me thank them

believe me i cried too

you always think you are cynical and nothing surprises you, but when the times-picayune (new orleans newspaper) came back w. the story that day of people waiting in line for so many hours in these precincts it just killed me

still does really

[saltpoint]

351. 'feel the same way. Yes, I do thank them, no question.

But salute you, too. You were the bearer of vital news that our democracy is still very much of the essence.

Much appreciated.:thumbsup: :dem:

[_dynamicdems]

329. Very logical. We are all part of the same country and sure it's nice if

someone from your area runs, but even though I'm from New Hampshire, I'd vote for someone from the south. I voted for both Clinton and Gore.

[blm]

415. THAT is the bottom line - If Kerry or ANY Dem was as bad as reported, then

why did the GOP have to go to the lengths they did to manipulate the votes in EVERY AREA, red and blue?

The GOP knew they were in trouble BECAUSE Kerry was a strong candidate and worked in overdrive to implement every trick and tool they could - both legal and illegal.

It's the Democratic Party INFRASTRUCTURES in all those states that were in no shape and not prepared for all those tricks.

Southern activists need to work IN THEIR OWN STATES to strengthen any weaknesses there, from alerting the public on voting machines to watchdogging registration fraud.

[blm]

3. I think southerners have grown sick of being charmed and want COMPETENCE

as much as any other region. Does KATRINA ring a bell for you?

I'm in NC, and southerners want COMPETENCE - don't fall for mediaspin and "conventional wisdom" from insiders - they are notorious LIARS who spin to protect their paychecks.

BTW, Ava - Kerry got 10 MILLION MORE votes than Gore, and 13 MILLION MORE votes than Clinton. BushInc had to work overtime to purge voters, suppress votes and rig machines all over the country to stay in power.

Stick to FACTS - stick to truth - TRUTH MATTERS. People are long past spin, now, Ava - they want TRUTH.

[Ava]

18. blm, i'm from the south, borne here, raised here.

i KNOW what the people down here are thinking and that is "george w. bush is a man of god."

people here just don't like kerry or hillary (heck, i know some democrats that don't even like them) and that's just that. :shrug:

i was a edwards, dean, and clark fan in 2004. i also knew a lot of conservatives who really liked clark.

[blm]

31. So? How does any of that change the TRUTH, Ava? 10 million more votes mean

nothing to you?

Some people YOU hang out with don't like Kerry. Many people I know do. And fundies aren't our voting base, anyway.

I say STUDY ACTUAL HISTORY more, Ava. Study the congressional record.

Did you ever share with your friends who don't like Kerry that there isn't a lawmaker alive who has investigated and exposed more government corruption in modern history than John Kerry? Is that a record to dislike? No SANE person could find that fact unlikeable, unless they're Republican loyalists who wanted the truth covered up.

Do YOUR job as an informed citizen - get the facts and tell the truth - truth matters in the long run if you care for it and use it.

[Ava]

34. good god

i am an "informed citizen."

i'll go back to the lounge now and quit posting in GD. I should have known better. :eyes:

[blm]

45. Ava, I'm talking to you straight, not combative... it's about how

YOU deal with those who don't know - do YOU give them the correct information they need? Because informed people respect Kerry and admire the incredible battles he has taken on in his career.

Help spread the truth. Don't give in to spin. I say that ENCOURAGINGLY, not negatively.

[Ava]

50. Trust me, I try to spread "truth" down here but you have no idea how hard

that is unless you actually live down here, and to a certain point though I don't "flame" people and disrespect their opinions. I try to talk to them politely and bring them through that way. Then again, I'm from the South and everyone does say that we have manners.

[blm]

56. I'm in NC. I spent 5 years in SC, and my husband's family is one of the

oldest in the South. Their ancestor is one of the South's best known historic writers. One of the oldest colleges in the south bears the name of another.

And another was commander of Shaw Air Force base in Sumter.

Tell people the truth and stick up for the facts and people will eventually listen.

[Ava]

61. nc and sc are the south

but that's not exactly the south i'm talking about. :shrug:

[blm]

69. Louisiana and Mississippi are the south, and I'd bet post-Katrina, they

would place more faith in a Democrat - especially one who has been writing most of the Katrina legislation to help their families and the small business owners.

I really believe that postKatrina, there are enough people in the south who DO want competence and that Dems will be a more comfortable fit.

[Ava]

70. they do want competence

but i'm afraid they'll look for it in other repubs.

[blm]

75. Which repubs? The ones who stood square with Bush on every issue?

Some may, but plenty won't.

[blm]

96. Also - the Repubs are neck-deep in corruption. This is the cycle for a

REAL anti-corruption lawmaker to lead the country. Who has the record that even comes close to Kerry on that?

[Alamom]

238. I believe you are correct. I've been voting in Alabama for 35

years...you can't get much more southern than that and I'm hearing & seeing very conservative people come over the great divide everyday.


One woman who literally worshipped Bush a few months ago, told me last week she would vote for Hillary Clinton today...she even ask me if Hillary was running.

I've had several X-conservatives ask me "Who" are we looking at running...they're ready for a change.


The climate is changing quickly here and it's changing the right way.


I'm sure there are still pockets of Bush supporters in many areas and the OP may live in a bad place, but Bush nor Republican support is nothing compared to a year ago or 5 for that matter.

[blm]

246. I believe COMPETENCE and ANTI-CORRUPTION will be the factors for 2008

and I think that is ESPECIALLY true for southern voters after Katrina.

[Bjorn Against]

294. Many here are with you Ava...

Please don't go away because a few posters give you trouble. I agree with you that Hillary or Kerry would be bad candidates, and while it is very likely we disagree on several issues disagreement is necessary for a healthy democracy. So please come out of the lounge sometimes and speak your mind.

[Ava]

388. thanks MN Against Bush

:hi:

[_dynamicdems]

332. Don't go away! Your post wasn't a bashing...you were posing a legit topic

for discussion. We might not all agree, but there are valid points you bring up. They should be discussed. To be sure any northerners who are considering running are considering these points and working on how to reach out to southern voters.

It sounds like you are surrounded by conservatives and that can make it difficult to get a handle on how the rest of the country feels. I know because I'm surrounded by conservative republicans, but I do live in the north (NH)and Mass is a neighbor. And there are pockets of blue in NH too, just not in my particular town.

[HeeBGBz]

118. Nobody I know likes Kerry

They may hate Bush, but they won't vote Kerry. They would probably not vote at all.

I would vote for anyone that isn't Republican, but that's just me.

[saltpoint]

122. There's one or two of us on DU who do.

[HeeBGBz]

126. I'm not talking about DU

I'm talking about people on the street, not online.

[saltpoint]

136. On your street? There's lots of streets out there. People who lived

on those streets in the tens of millions voted for Kerry in 04.

That was a pretty scientific sampling.

[HeeBGBz]

141. Nope, my area in Midwest and South

Just reporting what I've overheard from people, customers, average localities.

Nothing scientific about it, just word of mouth in the areas most people ignore.

[saltpoint]

144. One or another Democrat is going to be the party's nominee in 08.

HClinton, Kerry, and Evan Bayh have the most money right now.

No one believed John Kerry was going to win the Iowa caucus in 04. He did.

He might not even run in 08. If he does, he might not get the nomination. Or me may get it after all.

[blm]

124. They hate him based on what they KNOW, or how much they DON'T know?

Because I don't see how any CITIZEN of this country could HATE the man who has investigated and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history.

Unless, they were rooting for the bad guys to get away with it. THEN, I could understand them hating Kerry.

[HeeBGBz]

Mostly what they don't know

Didn't say they hated him. They probably won't like him enough to vote for him.

[blm]

140. But if they KNEW MORE about his ACTUAL RECORD, they probably would.

So, maybe good citizens should share ACTUAL facts about Democrats with our neighbors.

[karynnj]

148. When exactly was the last time Mississippi went for the Democrats?

Do any of these people know that Trent Lott thanked Kerry pretty emotionally on the Senate floor because John and Teresa were among the first to call after Katrina offering to send a plane load of supplies to personally help. This was done with absolutely not one word to the press by the Kerrys as a humanitarian gesture. Maybe these people should rethink who they like. I doubt any actually bothered to learn anything about Kerry.

[_dynamicdems]

334. I'm getting all kinds of positive responses to the Kerry buttons and pins

that I still wear. I didn't get any before but now people are starting to come up to me and say they like my Kerry bumper sticker or my "Kerry is my President" button. I'm in a Repug town too.

I told a Republican friend about how I got to meet John Kerry last December she said, "It may be difficult to stop you from floating on air after your wonderful time with John Kerry, heck I'd vote for somebody as down to earth as that. Anybody that drinks beer with my favorite democrat has to be all right, and he paid too, wow and double wow. You could'nt get a glass of water from Bush."

This friend also says she's telling people, "I used to be Republican," and lately more and more people reply back, "Me too."

In work, I had a Kerry "shrine" in my cube. One of the guys at work commented on the photo I had taken with the Senator asking where it was taken. He said, "I was thinking of going to that. I heard him on Meet the Press and he kicked ass. Let me know if he's coming back this way again." That shocked me, because I just assume most people in my area are Repugs and I only put up my Kerry stuff to needle them.

One woman, who had previously had a Bush sign in her cube, said she liked my "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry poster." And I noticed her Bush sign was gone but I was too polite to mention it.

I'm happy to find all this unsolicited Kerry support. It really makes my day when it happens...and it is happening a lot lately.

[Clark2008]

204. The truth also is that Kerry didn't flip one damn red state

It doesn't matter if a gazillion more people in the blue states voted for him or not - just because he had more PEOPLE voting for him isn't what wins presidencies.

It has to be more PEOPLE in each individual STATE voting for the Democrat in order to take the Electoral College and, to win that, we have to flip a couple of red states.

Those are the facts, blm.

[blm]

206. And the FACT is a postKatrina US is a changed world with more opened eyes

and more opened ears.

[Clark2008]

259. But, not to Kerry and, I fear, Gore.

I love, love, love Al Gore. He was my first political crush, but I just think he and Kerry both are seen as tainted goods, nationwide, because they "lost."

And Kerry has the double-whammy of seeming as though he were a "elitist, out-of-touch with the needs of the average joe" New Englander who could never know what it's like to live in the "Heartland."

Face it, blm, Southerners didn't really adore Kerry. I voted for him - and I liked him tons better than his running mate (who is a Southerner, btw), whom I didn't like much at all. I liked Kerry fine - would have voted for him in the primary, even though I knew he probably wouldn't have won, had Clark not gotten in the race. But did I think Kerry/Edwards could win? Not much. And certainly not if it came down to Florida or Ohio, which it did. Edwards didn't help Kerry in the South because he's, let's face it, not a Southern man's Southern man.

[blm]

271. Ever see the vote totals state by state? And the elitist stuff is bogus as

Clark being called the Perfumed Prince. A better media strategy that factors in the GOP control of most media and a solid team of spokespeople groomed for TODAY'S battles, not Clinton scandals, will dispel the lie further. I'd expect the Clark camp is gearing up for the same sort of lies against him. I know I will always knock down the lies against Clark and certainly wouldn't spread them or accept them.

People like Kerry very much when they get to know him more. That's why Iowa people voted for him, and MOST of his vote came from RURAL Iowans who felt he WAS talking their language.

[saltpoint]

222. Despite efforts* by Mehlman, Barbour and many local Rethugs,

Kerry-Edwards flipped New Hampshire from red to blue.

And despite a lack of hard evidence, the circumstantial evidence suggests that Ohio also was a blue state in 2004.

This sub-site of the New Hampshire state government, offers specific totals for recent elections:

http://www.sos.nh.gov/election%20information.htm

Gore-Lieberman lost to Bush-Cheney in 200 by 9,274 votes. Kerry-Edwards defeated Bush-Cheney by 11,211 votes.

Vote totals nationally also were far greater with Kerry-Edwards than any other Democratic ticket in U.S. history.
___
*alleged efforts, to make it purely legal

[Clark2008]

261. Sorry - I was concentrating my "red" state comment to

the South and the mid-West.

Kerry could appeal to New Hampshire citizens, but he had little appeal to Southerners and mid-Westerners.

But I didn't really know that New Hampshire was red in 2000. Thanks for pointing that out. From now on, I'll make that caveat.

[saltpoint]

266. On New Hampshire in 04, this phone jam scam is starting to pick up

steam.

It wouldn't bother me one bit to see Ken Mehlman's and Haley Barbour's hindends caught in the snare.

It might also lead to some revelations about other states' GOP operatives. Ken Blackwell, for example.

I'm wishful thinking here, yes, but O would that be a good thing.

I had to put an ( * ) iin my heading because the case has not been tried and decided, but it's fair to say my suspicions are running high that the Republicans knew they were being threatened in NH and decided to cheat to win.

[_dynamicdems]

340. Thank you! Everyone forgets about my state.

We are little but we are tough. First in the nation. Live free or die.

We got a blue governor partly in thanks to JK. And his approval is around 90%...it goes up and down but always in the high 80's.

That's not bad for a traditionally repug state.

[saltpoint]

346. I have always admired the way New Hampshire Dems soldier on,

even in the elections of past years when the Manchester UNION-LEADER was braying like a jackass about Reagan, etc.

I wish Jean Shaheen had triumphed over Sununu, but Kerry-Edwards flipped y'all blue, and that was cause for celebration.

Democrats are surging up there! And a lot of us out here are noticing it and likin' it a lot.

:toast:
:thumbsup:
:hi:
:dem:

[_dynamicdems]

356. Thank you, we try!

Jean Shaheen would have been a good Senator. Instead we have another Sununu. :crazy: God these Republican legacies are too much.

Things are improving though. Everybody loves Governor Lynch. And it looks like Charlie Bass's days are numbered, so we might get one Democratic Congressman this year. People in NH don't like the spying crap and they don't like the corruption. NH Republicans are tough Yankee stock and they don't go in for any of that Tomfoolery. I think that might turn us a deeper shade of blue going forward.

:hi:

:toast:

[saltpoint]

358. Ah, that is great news! And we'll be pulling for ya!

[_dynamicdems]

335. He flipped my state. NH. We went blue and got a blue governor who

has like an 89% approval rate. That's pretty damn good for NH! Thank you John Kerry!

[alfredo]

411. Clark is a southerner, he can speak their language.

I think one should read Kevin Phillips' book "American Theocracy." It spells out the struggle that is going on between the theocratic south and the secular north. The south has never gotten over the civil war, and in some respects is still fighting it. They will not accept anyone not from their region, or anyone that does not conform to their theocratic agenda.

[_dynamicdems]

331. I agree. I also think there is a huge difference between southern Dems and

southern Repugs.

[zulchzulu]

5. See you in 2008...online and in the streets....

Go for your candidate. I'll work for mine...John Kerry. We'll see who wins.

[_dynamicdems]

345. Me too! JK is my man. I'd vote for him any time any place any office! n/t

[napi21]

6. I don't know that you NEED a southerner, but you DO NEED a

CHARMER! Absolutely, issues matter, but to the mass voter, CHARM matters more!

Think about the Presidents most of us can actually remember. The most popular ones in either party were the charmers; Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and yes...even "W".

Many voters can't even tell you WHY they like one particular candidate over another, they just respond "I like him!"

It's sad, but very very true.

[blm]

8. Corporate media SPUN Bush into a charmer - he isn't and he never was.

.

[saltpoint]

114. You said it. George W. Bush had the charm of a jackal.

The media preferred him to Al Gore because they played on the anti-intellectual strain in American life.

They fell for the fake cowboy thing -- the ranch, the brush-clearing, the no 'g's on verbs -- all of it.

Same with Kerry. His brains threatened a lot of people and they stuck with their callous, shallow fake cowboy.

Worst president in U.S. history.

[saltpoint]

396. On edit, after much overnight contemplation, make that

a MANGY RABID jackal, and not just an ordinary run-of-the-mill jackal.

Thank you.

[Ava]

9. yeah, i wasn't trying to say they had to be from the south

but they need to seem like an "ordinary" person. they need to be charming.

[sallyseven]

52. I don't want an ordinary person

I want an intellegent, progressive person to run. Kerry is that person. He is my Senator and I think he is great.

[Ava]

55. let me make this clean I LIKE KERRY!

I was just simply stating that conservatives and moderates down here don't. :shrug:


i want an intellegent person to run too, but that person needs to be charming so that they win! Like i said, just look at Bill Clinton.

[karynnj]

153. I found Kerry far more charming than Clinton

I would listen to Clinton and he was very charismatic but I never had the same sense that I trusted him to do what was right - which I was shocked to find (the 60s mad us cynical) I have with Kerry. I think Clinton may be more immediately charming, but Kerry wears a lot better. If he ran again, he would have the advantage of meeting more people and winning more over.

[blm]

184. Bill Clinton had a HUGE advantage in 92. People were able to get to know

more about him. Corporate media wasn't controlling the news departments in 1992 the way they have since 1997.

The networks gave Clinton 9 hours of primetime to introduce himself to the American people. They gave Kerry 3 hours, 1 which went to Edwards and the other to CLINTON.

The other HUGE advantage for Clinton is that the constant drumbeat of Bush1's corruption from IranContra, to BCCI, to Iraqgate, made the public uneasy with his leadership. Clinton actually has Kerry to thank for two of those investigations.

Kerry, otoh, had a Bush that the media protected 24/7 and turned into a heroic figure after 9-11, and who actively buried all negative reports about his incompetence, his criminal negligence, and his abuse of power.

Put it all in context and you have a clearer picture.

[_dynamicdems]

349. It is the highest office in the land. Let's hope America is over its

romance with idiots and ready to elect someone who is acutally qualified@

[babylonsister]

35. I think we're way past charm at this point. People are frightened, and

with good reason. Competence is what should matter. Gawd knows we haven't seen any for years.

[sendero]

93. I agree..

... the political types here on DU actually seem to believe that candidates are elected on the issues. I don't believe that for a second.

Candidates are elected for a host of reasons relating to communication, trust, image, voice, the issues are in there but they are by no means the most important since politicians change their stances or talk up issues and then drop them after elected, rendering their importance minimal (within reason).

[New Earth]

7. Kerry already did win over voters

[Ava]

11. yeah, but the fact that he conceded so soon will hurt him if he runs again

:shrug:

[Lars39]

21. Given what's come to light since then re: wiretapping,

and how much people are hurting, I don't believe that is going to stop many from voting for Kerry.

[blm]

23. Why? Most of the US has NO IDEA about voting fraud. Their lasting

impression of Kerry is that he is the guy who won the debates and more of them now probably wish they had trusted their instincts when they watched the debates, instead of believing the media.

This is a Post-Katrina, Post-Fitzgerald indictments world we live in now. Truth matters.

[New Earth]

111. election fraud

election fraud, not voting/vote/voter fraud.

haven't i taught you anything? :shrug: :hi:

[blm]

145. yes, ma'am, may I have another?

;)

[ebayfool]

224. The ONLY people I've seen saying he conceded too fast are mostly DUers.

Offline? Not once.

I think many expect him to slay dragons w/out weapons.

Gets old ... real quick.

It also gets old when other Dems expect the party to 'dumb down' to make happy with:

(fill in w/choice)

southerners
fundies
conservative pubs
anti-abortionists
anti-gay righters
anti-females
etc
etc
etc

We have an 'ordinary guy' at the top right now - I want the brightest, most UNordinary candidate we can get to fix his fuckups. And letting 'southern' or 'ordinary' or 'charming' is NOT going to be the criteria that gets that candidate!

[Clark2008]

275. Well, my favorite candidate is both Southern AND

extremely intelligent and bright.

But, he can relate his intelligence better to the proles.

Duh.

[ebayfool]

285. Aye, he is all that. But I'm sure that his being a southerner is not a ...

prerequisite for you to support him, is it? I would think your guy is intelligent and bright enough that he would convey his message to the 'proles' just fine even if he wasn't southern. By the by, the other states have their own 'proles' that need some caressing too.

That's the point of contention I have w/the opener - I want a candidate that's able to relate to all the states. I don't like seeing the repub southerners dictating who gets the nod - nor the dem southerners. I think there's talent to be had north & south of the M/D Line. As long as the axiom @ southern electability is allowed to limit the 'gene pool' I feel we limit ourselves un-necessarily. Just as do the arguments that to win the party must appeal/pander to the conservatives, the anti-choicers, etc.

On your 'guy' - I happen to agree w/you @ his intelligence & potential. I like Kerry & Gore, but I've actually paid close attention to your posts when you discuss his ideas & points, & they have made me give him a closer look. But I don't eyeball the man because of his origins, I keep looking at him because of his intelligence. I've been on his email list for some time now to be able to stay abreast of what he's doing, just I do w/the all the other 'likely' candidates. I still don't agree that a southerner is to be required to run ... but I won't hold it against him, either. Deal?



btw:
Am I supposed to say 'Duh' now too, or am I getting my point across w/out resorting to that?

[wiley]

328. Mine Too!

The fact that he is tearing up the turf on behalf of 06 candidates makes me respect him even more.

[Joe Chi Minh]

26. The effect will be absolutely negligible. Provided the conditions

of the next election have been regularised and people can be confident the next election won't, couldn't be stolen.

At the moment, what seems to be happening is that, rather than a head-on confrontation with the people who hold all the levers of power, the laws of the land are being properly used to bring to book the innumerable, criminal miscreants in the Republican leadership. The attrition will overwhelm them, as it should. It's what the laws are made for, to extirpate criminality. And nowhere is it more important than that this should take place in relation to a robbers' den at the very top.

[karynnj]

158. Nonsense, the numbers weren't there and there was no proof

It was the second SLOWEST concession.

[sandnsea]

245. 90% of Americans know that's normal

Presidential candidates who lose, concede. This isn't an issue except with a handful of people who are either too young to have ever participated in normal elections or are just looking for a reason to pick on Kerry specifically, and Democrats in general. Any Democrat would have conceded the loss in 2004, it's just the way our system works. I really wish some people would grow the hell up.

[_dynamicdems]

353. That all depends on what happens between now and them...he is the

consummate investigator and I'd like to see if anyone gets indicted over the next year or so due to election fraud. These things take a while to unravel. Just look at the NH phone jamming case and how long is has taken us to get some justice in that. Know why? Local officials charged with enforcing the law were dragging their feet and ties to republicans have been illuminated. This kind of corruption at the local levels keeps justice from being swift.

If this happened in NH over a Senatorial election, you can imagine the levels of corruption in 2004 Ohio, for example. I don't think JK has given up on justice. He had to concede though. His legal team was probably the largest assemblage of lawyers in US history and they called the legal situation as they saw it. In other words: they were screwed and no amount of contesting was going to change things. However, just as in the NH phone jamming case, investigation is ongoing. And I personally want to see Blackwell and all the others behind bars.

IF we take back Congress, this can proceed. And much of 2008 depends on that.

[Nashyra]

29. I like Kerry

and worked my butt off for him when Clark opted out. I don't know if Kerry would accept a VP position but he would be a good choice for a dynamic and appealing southern Presidential candidate. Gore has redeemed himself, Clark has been stealth and Warner is already on the campaign trail. I live in a predominately Republican county, Clark by far is the most popular candidate, followed by Gore because we live in an environmentally aware area (Lake Tahoe) as far as Dems go. Clark has the cross over appeal. Warner and Richardson are candidates who moderates will listen to, be Gov's coming from Red states.

Right now we must concentrate on 2006. Pick a candidate and get out there and walk for them. Most importantly join a field organization. Walking for any candidate is the key to success. If you don't like knocking on doors volunteer to leave literature. House Parties in more remote areas where the candidate can not always get to. Multi county events, bumper stickers, t-shirts. I have 3 favorite candidates and I always have one of their t-shirts on. Join your local Democrat club. There is so much you cand do. Once involved you catch the bug and will find yourself busy(I hope)

[Scoody Boo]

10. The same qualities that kept Kerry from being elected in 2004...

are still there and will still be there in 2008. John Kerry has no appeal in the South and short of marrying his sister, will not gain any appeal with the Southerners. The South is as lost to him now as it was in 2004.

[blm]

17. Post-Katrina, the south wants COMPETENCE, SERIOUS COMPETENCE.

They want it because they NEED IT, and now know what happens when you don't have a COMPETENT leader.

[Ava]

22. but the south isn't going to elect kerry or hillary to get that competence

they just won't :shrug:

[blm]

40. Baloney - that's just kneejerk baloney from the conventional wisdom set

who lie for a living. They have permeated the landscape with their droppings.

Bush would lose Louisiana and Missippi to ANY Dem right now - and Kerry is the one who has been writing most of the Katrina legislation in the senate since it happened.

Use facts. COMBAT the lies and promote the truth. Be a citizen truth teller.

[Ava]

well Bush isn't running again now is he?

People down here LOVE McCain, and I'm sure they'd like many of Republicans.

The Dems this year aren't running against Bush, they will be running against a new crew of Repub candidates.

[blm]

51. All of them stood with Bush on everything he did.

And I hope it IS McCain. Ever read his book? He states how if it wasn't for Kerry he would have broken down many times during the effort to normalize relations with Vietnam. He said it couldn't have happened without Kerry's steadfast leadership.

Ever hear of Books on Tape. McCain's chapter on Kerry's leadership whch kept him calmed down and got him through that whole process will make a great campaign ad.

[Ava]

60. ummm, McCain endorsed Bush in 2004

and no one cared about that then, why would they care about it now. McCain also wrote about John Edwards on the back of his book "four trials" but i don't think that would make a difference either. :shrug:

[blm]

73. Some people weren't ready to listen then. Still, 10 million more voted for

Kerry in 2004. THEN came Schiavo, THEN came Katrina, THEN came Fitzgerald indictments. Events the media couldn't find a way to spin for Bush.

I think a good number of those people whos did vote for Bush would change their vote.

And let's not forget that Kerry did so well that BushInc had to work overtime purging the voter rolls, suppressing votes, and rigging machines all over the country to stay in power. If Kerry was really a poor candidate, they wouldn't have had to bother.

[Ava]

74. yeah, but they aren't choosing between bush and a dem

the are choosing between a dem and a new repub. :shrug:

[blm]

76. The new Repub who supported and stood with Bush's policies.

They don't exactly have great records to stand on.

[karynnj]

168. Her point is that vs McCain

one entire chapter in McCain's book shows how they both dealt with a very tricky political issue (complicated both domesticly and with the Vietnamese government) with a committee with some of the primma donnas in the Senate (Bob Smith, Bob Kerrey and McCain). McCain's account shows Kerry as principled, calm, organized and the real reason this succeeded. Kerry did a superb job on the diplomacy in Vietnam - getting incredible concessions for the committee to enable th ecommittee to look wherever they chose without informing the government first.

Reading this, Kerry is seen as very intelligent, intensely hard working, and having a temperment well suited to bringing people together. McCain was important as his approval (and Bob Smith's) gave Clinton coverage, but McCain needed Kerry to keep him from exploding. (Kerry was by far the more compassionate person.)

If they both ran, BLM's point is that McCain's account of the 2 of them would be much easier to spotlight - it would be a natural. In fact, I would buy copies to lend to people to read that chapter because it really does show the two men's personalities and abilities - and Kerry is the Presidential one.

[blm]

186. Exactly - sorry I didn't make it clear in my post. Thought it was a given

.

[Scoody Boo]

89. Bush was losing to ANY Dem in 2004.

When you put a name to ANY Dem, the numbers plummet. Kerry is seen as a big liberal here in Texas and the South. Bush's numbers are falling because Conservatives think he IS NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH. Don't confuse Bush's low poll numbers with a Republican shift to the left.

[blm]

113. Which is why the GOPs bought control of the broadcast media and worked

overtime to purge voter rolls, suppress votes, and rig machines all over the country.

Kerry clocked Bush in all 3 debates and the GOPs stepped up their vote fraud plans.

[_dynamicdems]

362. In all honesty, they don't have to. Ohio isn't in the south. n/t

[Lars39]

24. Nice slur there.

:eyes:

[Scoody Boo]

27. Come on...

It is just a joke. I live down here. It is a joke among the folks down also.:) If you took me serious and were offended, I am sorry.

[Lars39]

32. It's a stereotype that amuses those who must feel superior over somebody.

That's what's called a non-apology, btw.

[Scoody Boo]

36. Okay, here is a real one...

I was a complete asshole for saying that. Really I was. And I am truly sorry for putting something like out there. It was wrong in every way. Again, regardless if you took offense or not. I am truly sorry and will not put forth anything like that out there again.

It is hard to convey with just words typed on a screen how sorry I am, you will just have to take my word that I am not being facetious or making this post in any sarcastic way. I am truly sorry.

[Lars39]

38. Apology accepted.

Southern bashing has at times been high sport here. It gets old verrrry fast. :hi:

[saltpoint]

33. I'm certain you're right. If Kerry were to marry his sister, I'm

absolutely convinced Southerners would turn out in droves to support him with gap-toothed whoops.

_______

Jan Schneider is a Southerner. Max Cleland is a Southerner. I believe they are likely to support the Democratic ticket in 2008 no matter who comprises it.

There are a lot of non-stereotypical, progressive, blue votes south of the Mason-Dixon line.

[karynnj]

169. Cleland's already said he's for Kerry again if he runs

[saltpoint]

173. Yay, Max! I love that guy. I love him all the more because too

many Georgians didn't re-elect him to the senate.

Or maybe they did, and Ralph Reed smeared him.

Max rules.

[CottonBear]

399. Current Sen. Saxby "Sack o' Shit" Chambliss (R-GA) smeared Cleland.

He ran one of the dirtiest political ads ever created which showed Bin Laden and Hussein ans Cleland and compared Max to a murderous dictator and a terrorist.

I'll never, ever forgive Chambliss and the GA GOP for that. Never.

[saltpoint]

405. Saxby certainly was involved, but don't forget lil' Ralphie's longtime

contributions to debasing and smearing.

He was sent in to Julia Carson's district (D-IN) to undermine her incumbency in favor of the Republican candidate.

Despite Ralph's most secret and strident efforts, Julia Carson prevailed.

But Max Cleland fell victim to Chambliss/Reed/Rove. I'm pretty sure if Fitzgerald indicts Rove, he'll be indicting someone who was VERY involved with Cleland's downfall and of course the Swiftboat liars.

I couldn't agree more with you on Chambliss.

[CottonBear]

408. I am ashamed to say that Reed graduated form my Alma Mater, UGA,

and that he now lives in the same town as one of my relatives. :( (The very same town, in fact, where the runaway bride and the Atlanta courethouse hostage used to live.) Reed was kicked off of the student paper for plagiarism. He was scum then and he's scum now. Everything bad and wrong in GA can be linked ot him in some way.

I detest him and Chambliss. :grr:

edit: links for you! The Stop Ralph Reed site is chock full o' dirt on Ralphie:
http://www.stopralphreed.com/srr_background.html
http://www.ralphsgreatesthits.com/

Plagiarism incident
On April 14, 1983, Reed wrote a column for The Red and Black student newspaper attacking the late Mohandas K. Gandhi of India. Entitled "Gandhi: Ninny of the 20th Century," Reed denounced the 1983 motion picture Gandhi for its favorable treatment of the life of the pacifist leader of the Indian independence movement. A graduate student complained to the editor of The Red and Black that Reed had plagiarized a Commentary article by film reviewer Richard Grenier. After an investigation, Reed was fired from the paper. Reed wrote a final column acknowledging his failure to cite sources but accusing the graduate student who complained of "the most shocking, profane form of personal attack I can imagine." (Nina J. Easton, Gang of Five: Leaders at the Center of the Conservative Crusade, page 130-31)
http://www.stopralphreed.com/srr_background.html

[saltpoint]

409. CottonBear, it is by no means your fault about Reed's alma mater.

I completely hear you on Ralph Reed & say thanks for providing those links. They're keepers. Especially with the little monster running for Lt. Governor! My god in heaven. I hope against hope itself that Georgians turn down that bid and go for the Democrat.

Anyway, I had no idea about his plagiarism. And it sure would be interesting to know what exctly Ralph Reed did for Enron during those years in Texas while Lay and Skilling were gutting their employees' futures.

[CottonBear]

410. Rudy Guiliani recently campaigned in GA for Reed.

I suppose that Reed's fundy, wingnut supporters' heads would explode if they knew that Rudy has dressed up in drag and used to have gay roommates not to mention cheating on his wife while in office.

:(

I love our current Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor (D) (The Big Guy as we call him here in GA.) I've met both him and Cathy Cox, who is the current Democratic SoS and the one responsible for making GA the first %100 Diebold state in the nation. :( They are both running for Governor. Cox is ahead in the Democratic polls. I would rather that Taylor win the primary. I'll hold my nose and vote for Cox in the general election if forced to do so. I can not tell you how much I hate what Sonny Perdue, who I've met twice now, and the GOP have done to Georgia. Perdue cut over 1.5 billions dollars from the education budget when Georgia ranks 50th in education. :(

[saltpoint]

412. Yes. I saw Giuliani and Ralphie had teamed up there. That was a

very strange thing to see. Reed helped by hanging out with tough-guy Rudy the anti-Terror Champion, and Rudy given credence in the South hanging out with ultra-conservative Reed.

What a mess.

Didn't know much about Cox and Diebold, so it sounds like the big guy is the one for me, too. I'll be rooting for Taylor in that primary.

[_dynamicdems]

365. I LOVE Max Cleland!

:loveya:

[Alamom]

242. Thank you. nt

[saltpoint]

244. Hey, Alamom, you are the one fighting the good fight in a real red

state, so you should accept OUR thanks.

That's a damned tough job.

Don't give up!

[Shell Beau]

46. We ARE NOT lost! Thank you very much!

[HeeBGBz]

129. How fucking rude

Stereotype much?

[Clark2008]

205. I mostly agree, but take great offense to you

characterizing all Southerners as "sibling-marrying" people.

We have laws against that down here, too.

Geesch.

[_dynamicdems]

360. He's helped out with Katrina a lot. Most of it isn't even publicized, but

he's generated a lot of goodwill with his kindness and compassion in the area. A group of us from DU got to meet Senator Kerry last year and one of the group was from an area affected by Katrina. She traveled up to Boston to meet the senator just to thank him for what he was doing for Katrina victims in her state because her senators were doing squat.

That's how he's getting support in the south, by caring about the people.

[Joe Chi Minh]

14. Kerry IS considered a radical, and indeed he IS one.

And that is why the corporatist right are pushing so hard for Hillary. The last thing they want is an updated Roosevelt-type New Deal, as planned by Kerry.

And as for people not voting for him... well, do you believe he didn't win the last election in style? When there is evidence such evidence of voters coming out to vote for Kerry in record numbers, i.e. including many who never normally vote, and disaffected, economically-savaged Republicans. The New Deal would make the US more prosperous than it's ever been.

Where have you been. How did you form such strange opinions.

[Ava]

28. gosh, why is everyone attacking me for simply stating the facts here

i'm in the south and i talk to these people. i know what they think about kerry and hillary.

i don't know if he won in 2004 or not (i haven't looked into it that much) but the fact is he conceded so soon that it will really hurt him in 2008 because people will think he doesn't have backbone.

btw, FDR is my favorite President.

I've been here stuck in the South with a bunch of fundies. I have a grip on reality when it comes to knowing what issues matter to them in 2008 and who they will vote for.

[Joe Chi Minh]

64. Who's attacking you! You shouldn't feel threatened by

statements of the truth.

I'm puzzled though why don't think the New Deal was radical. Particularly since Roosevelt is your favourite President.

[Ava]

67. did i say that I thought Kerry was a radical... NO

I said people down here do! :eyes:

I don't feel threatend by your attacks, but they are rude. Calling someone's opinions "strange" is not best when trying to carry on a civil conversation.

[Joe Chi Minh]

81. Pardon me. I thought you were saying he wasn't radical enough.

But, when you seem to be pushing Republican talking points - myths at that - so determinedly, I think "strange" is a very kind description.

When told major facts and figures, rebutting your contention that Kerry is a loser, all you can say is, well the people here don't know it, and you seem to imply that the Democrats need to match their ignorance to please them. I think you have been grossly insulting the Southern people, who showed in the 2000 election a character and an awareness that you have not yet been showing on this thread.

[Snivi Yllom]

142. don't sweat it, when you stick your toe into the primary pool

The blood thirsty piranhas will attack you if you don't support their favorite fish.

Politics is very personal to the majority here.

[Ava]

150. yeah, it's pretty personal here in the south too

although i must say i didn't expect it to be this bad because i agree with most people here. i think some of these people are just as bad as some of the conservatives i try to talk with.

[blm]

160. It's not bad to share facts - facts should be the basis of our opinions

and I don't think many fundies feel the same.

When I was a student, I was always interested in the FACTS first. My fundie mother hated facts and books, so I kept my nose stuck in encyclopedias. ;))

[blm]

157. How does it hurt with 99% of voters who don't KNOW about election fraud

and so know nothing about why YOU feel he shouldn't have conceded?

And, just so we keep the facts straight, Kerry is still in 2 court cases in Ohio. Cases where they had evidence in hand. He had no way of proving machine fraud in 2004, because rigged machines are set up for ONETIME use and then leave no trace.

Machines need securing BEFORE the vote, because AFTER is too late, and that means the Dem PARTY needs to secure the machines for ALL the candidates on the ballot.

[SacredCow]

183. I feel for you, Ava...

I really love knocking ideas around on DU, but it seems like there are many issues where an alternate viewpoint is absolutely NOT tolerated.

[Clark2008]

215. I'm not attacking you!

I'm wholeheartedly agreeing with you!

I think blm is either in the blue section of North Carolina or hasn't spent her whole life down here.

I have - I've watched the South go from blue to red (and I'm only 36) - and I know why. The Republicans made being a "redneck" cool (along with their cohorts in the news media and the country music industry).

We have to combat this opinion held by far too many of our brethern that 'smart ain't cool.'

But, to do that, we have to earn their trust - and putting down Southerners (as many on this board are apt to do) just isn't going to open that door.

Southerners felt Kerry looked down upon them. He RARELY even visited the South when he was campaigning - only a handful of times.

It's hard to vote for someone when they won't come talk with you...

[survivor999]

15. I agree with you...

:)

[Sterling]

16. So far no one that will likely run will get me to the polls.

Hillary, Kerry? Yawn.

[saltpoint]

19. The 3 Dems with the most cash on the barrel right now are the 2 you

name plus Evan Bayh.

It's by no means the only factor that propels a potential candidate into the nomination circle, but can't be ignored either.

The decisions of caucus and primary voters in all regions and states will make this decision. Rather than trying to dissuade others fom voting for this or that candidate, why not consider a post in which you praise the one you like best?

People can find common ground when praise is flung because they can participate in it by degree.

[Peace Patriot]

25. Well, I agree with you except for one circumstance: Gore/Kerry '08.

The RESTORATION TICKET!

Restore democracy. Restore the will of the American people. Restore justice. Restore our right to vote. Restore the people whom we elected to their rightful office as the heads of our government. Restore ORDER!

Both were elected President. Gore, provably so. Kerry, by overwhelming inference of the available evidence, in highly non-transparent conditions. I have arguments with both of them, Gore on NAFTA, Kerry on the war. But they were ELECTED! This goes beyond normal politics and is a matter of justice and rightness.

Can you imagine the enthusiasm if these two pair up? Can you imagine the joy? I think the whole country would stand up and cheer--and the whole world!

Gore was elected first and has eight years of experience in the White House. He's also become a fabulous speaker. Kerry was elected second, and has many years in the Senate but none in the White House. So Gore/Kerry is the rightful order of the ticket. And Kerry has the potential to blossom as v-p. Gore will use him well--he has that kind of generosity and wisdom. And the two of them make an incredible combination of intelligence, experience and service.

Kerry alone, no. I agree. But Gore/Kerry--that's whole different story. It has a magical quality. It is 'poetic justice.' And I think a Gore/Kerry TICKET would win by the biggest landslide we've ever seen, and would blow the Bushite-controlled election theft machines right into 'Boston Harbor.'

:patriot: :bounce: :patriot:

[Peace Patriot]

37. ...or a Louisiana levee, as the case may be! n/t

[Midlodemocrat]

39. That is a fantastic idea!

The Restoration Ticket!! I LOVE THAT!!

Restore our country to its former greatness. PP, you are my new hero!

:patriot:

:bounce:

[bunny planet]

305. Totally agree Peace Patriot

this is the ticket I'd like to see more than any other. It would definitely be magic.

[PublicRadioVet]

41. I absolutely agree!

Kerry's problem, other than that he relied too much on outside sources for all his positions and opinions, was that he spooked the centrist. As a self-defined classical liberal, I sometimes feel like I need to remind other liberals that the Middle is not going to be thrilled by any Democratic candidate who can be too closely linked to efforts or organizations they consider "un-American" or "anti-American". Had John Kerry never been involved in the Vietnam Vets against the war movement, nor testified before congres, there probably would have been no swiftboating, nor any sort of cringe on the part of the centrist. Alas, Kerry, or many older centrists, became the Jane Fonda of 2004, and this is one of the reasons why they either stayed out of the fight, or actually sent their votes to the Bush camp.

Democrats need to forget the Usual Faces. Dean, Kerry, Hillary Rodham, trotting out one of these stable nags in 2008 is a guarantee of failure. Especially if the Republicans post a dynamic, relatively new face, like Mitt Romney. Mitt has all the earmarks of a man who can appeal to the centrist, especially when it comes to having a proven track record of fiscal responsibility. His only lead shoe is going to be his Mormonism, which will spook hard-core Righties and Lefties. But the vital center... That's where elections are decided, and that's why Clinton was hot property in 1996.

What are the Democrats doing to win the center? And please, don't tell me the center can go fuck itself. That kind of hard-Left attitude is part of the reason why the Democrats are the minority party right now, in spite of all the Republican bullshit going on.

[Lars39]

49. Lots of RW talking points you've got there for a "self-defined classical

liberal.

[PublicRadioVet]

54. Know your enemy, I say.

Democrats need to be doing the same. To counter the Republican candidate, we need to be considering how that candidate is going to appeal to the centrist; and then do him one better with a candidate of our own who will appeal to the centrist.

Kerry, Dean, HRC, et al, are too well known and, frankly, too tired; where the middle is concerned.

The Reps are already ramping up. WTF are we doing about it?

This is part of why the DNC drives me batty. They're too busy fighting lost battles, when they need to be gearing up to win the next war.

[Lars39]

59. The Democratic Party has been edged enough to the right

trying to cater to the mythical centrists.

[_dynamicdems]

366. AMEN! You got that right! Or left! ;) n/t

[PublicRadioVet]

384. Centrists are "mythical"?

This would explain then why the Democratic leadership is doing little to find a candidate who can draw the centrist vote.

Ignore the middle at our peril, I say.

The Democratic leadership does not need to pull a Goldwater in 2008. But if the Democratic leadership thinks the center can go fuck itself, or does not exist, then Goldwater Redux it will be. Only this time for the Democratic Party.

Would we rather have a true Leftist run, and lose?

Or a hybrid left-center man, who has a shot at winning?

I take the latter. All that matters is getting the White House back, and hopefully congress too. If it takes peddling a "middle" man to do it, fine. I'm not much for cutting off my nose to spite my face.

[Joe Chi Minh]

66. You got it, Lars! who do they think they're kidding?

[blm]

65. Who were those 10 million more votes that Kerry got in 2004?

And 13 million more votes than Clinton got when he ran?

Why did BushInc have to work overtime to purge voter rolls, suppress votes, and rig machines all over the country, if Kerry - the guy who DECISIVELY WON ALL 3 DEBATES - did as badly as you claimed?

[huskerlaw]

42. Except that Kerry did win...

I'm not trying to flame you or say that you're wrong...but Kerry already won, so why couldn't he do it again? :shrug:

[Ava]

47. because this time he won't be running againg Bush

[huskerlaw]

174. Fair point

but I don't think the Republicans have anyone who's all that charismatic or "average Joe" either.

Besides, if Bush has his way, Kerry would be running against Jeb! <<shoots self in head just thinking about it>>

[wisteria]

43. I disagree and I still would vote for Kerry again. I think he is charming

I don't think our major votes will be coming out of the South for a long time, no matter who we run, even someone as you put it "a Southern charmer". We should be looking to the mid-west. There are more votes to be had in that area. By all means, we need to campaign in the South, but we shouldn't expect that another "southern charmer" or a governor from the South will win the centrists over. I lived both in North Carolina and South Carolina and I honestly believe it will be a long time before inroads are made in these Southern areas.
We had North Carolina charmer Senator Edwards running for President in the primaries and as VP in the general election. He wasn't able to make any inroads himself and his voting record was fairly conservative. Nope, I don't buy into the theory of only southerners win. Each election is different and one easy answer to why democrats aren't elected President can't be summed up neatly with the assumption that we need to only look to elect as our candidates Southerners.

I voted for Kerry in 2004 and I would vote for him again.

[Ava]

44. well of course you would

you're a dem. i'm talking about moderates here.

[saltpoint]

62. There are all kinds of Democrats who live in all kinds of voting districts

Ava.

Elected Democrats in Nevada and Indiana and Kentucky and Utah tend to be more moderate while Elected Democrats in Massachusetts and New York tend to be more liberal. This reflects their constituencies.

When then-Senator Birch Bayh asserted progressive values in the U.S. Senate, his much more moderate constituent voters showed him the door. Dems lost his seat in 1980 to a Congressman named Dan Quayle.

Even in a sea of red votes in several states, the Kerry-Edwards ticket drew more Democratic votes than any Democratic ticket in the history of the United States.

Including moderates.

[_dynamicdems]

367. That's a very telling statement there. Now we see where you are really

coming from. You don't consider yourself a Dem. So a moderate what? Republican? Independent?

[mike_c]

48. California liberal here and *I* wouldn't vote for either of them...

...so it's not just the southern centrists! :hi:

[nini]

53. Let's educate the south- not find a half-assed candidate to pacify them

They vote against their best interests down there. It doesn't matter who we put up since they are brainwashed into believing Rush and his ilk that any Democrat is evil.

We need a major effort to work the south and educate those who don't get it why they'll be better off voting for a Dem.

If you want to say Hillary or Kerry won't fly.. then you should just say all Dems won't fly because it doesn't matter who the Dem is if they're brainwashed into believing the crap they do.

[PublicRadioVet]

58. Good luck with that!

Might as well start filling in the Atlantic Ocean while we're at it. One spoonfull at a time.

Sorry, that was rude. I apologize.

[nini]

105. I didn't think you were rude

It's certainly not an easy thing to do, but not impossible.

Look at what the civil rights folks did down there. There will be some folks that won't listen no matter what, but there will be some that will - those are the ones that need it spelled out to them why they're being used as pawns by the right.


btw: welcome to DU. :hi:

[_dynamicdems]

368. Well put! n/t

[Snivi Yllom]

57. I would take Gore in a heartbeat over Kerry or Hillary

Even with his problems. Out of the three Gore has the best chance to win.

[Ava]

63. agreed!

[Joe Chi Minh]

68. Now there's a centrist for you!

[Ava]

72. I'm not. i just wouldn't vote for them because

(i'm talking about primaries here) i would want to put my vote with someone who i thought could win in the final election. :shrug:

if it comes down to hillary or kerry over a repub, heck yeah i'd vote for hillarry or kerry!

[blm]

80. People seem to have trouble with math - Kerry got 10 MILLION more votes

in 2004 than were cast for Gore in 2000. And that doesn't even include the votes that machines transferred to Bush.

[Ava]

82. you do realise we're talking about 2008 and not 2004 right?

:eyes:

[blm]

116. Yes - and those 10 mil PLUS all those who are disenchanted with the GOP

corruption = 2008 win.

[_dynamicdems]

370. Well his mailing list has nearly doubled since the election and an

appearance at a school in Iowa recently netted 1000K cheering fans whereas the last time he was there ~prior to the election~ only 400 folks showed up. I'd say his star is on the rise. People didn't know him in 2004 but they are getting to know him now and by the numbers it appears they like what they are seeing!

[Joe Chi Minh]

84. Kerry won a lot more handily that Gore. You need to be more

reality-based.

[Snivi Yllom]

127. Kerry won? Excuse me?

Gore did in fact get more popular votes (half a million more votes) than his opponent, and in all likelihood did win Florida, thus the election.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2000&off=0
Presidential
Candidate Vice Presidential
Candidate Political
Party Popular Vote Electoral Vote
George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 50,460,110 47.87% 271 50.37%
Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 51,003,926 48.38% 266 49.44%


Kerry lost by 3 million votes.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&off=0

By my math Gore did a lot better than Kerry did. Also, I believe Gore did win Florida in 2000. I do not believe Kerry won Ohio.

[Joe Chi Minh]

203. "By my math Gore did a lot better than Kerry did. Also, I believe

Gore did win Florida in 2000. I do not believe Kerry won Ohio."

Pass!!!!!

[wisteria]

303. And you Gore would do better in the South? I highly doubt it.

Gore didn't do well in 2000 down South. He even lost his home state.

[Warren DeMontague]

315. I think the REASON Gore would do better is twofold:

One, he won't pull any punches. Southerners will respect that.

Two, he hasn't equivocated and he won't equivocate on things like Iraq. Right or wrong, Kerry was cornered by the "flip flop" "I voted for it before I voted against it" meme. Hillary will be even worse - a disaster - because the Right Wing loathes her and the "Centrists" she thinks she's gonna win over with her neo-con, flag burning pandering will see it for exactly that---

pandering.

Nope. Gotta be Gore. He's a helluva lot stronger, and fired up, now than he was in 2000.

[saltpoint]

317. Gore's renaissance of late is well-deserved -- I don't think you are

going to get too much argument there. The April 2006 AMERICAN PROSPECT did a fine cover story on Gore -- let me know if you didn't see if and I will try to round it up for you. It echoes some of the points made in Gore's favor on various DU threads.

But the nominating process is an unpredictable patchwork. "The devil fools with the best-laid plans." We could just ask ol' Dick Gephardt about frontrunner status. Or John Connelly about a fat bank account.

I've talked to people who believe Evan Bayh is going to be the best-funded and most keenly focused Democratic candidate going into the Iowa caucus. I say to myself, Yikes, Evan Bayh isn't in my first-tier group. What do I do then?

Well, I lump it and vote for my party's ticket over whatever right-wing cretin the GOP throws at us. And as far as cretins go, the GOP is hard to top.

[Warren DeMontague]

320. Absolutely.

That's what I always do.

But in 2004, with the 20-20 of hindsight, I should have went with my heart and supported Dean from the get-go. I felt Kerry was the more "practical" choice, (don't get me wrong. I liked JK and I still do) but in retrospect, I honestly think we would have done BETTER with Dean. I think the American people are not only more liberal than the MSM wants to let on, they are hungering for someone who is honest, forthright, and not perceived to be playing politician games.

(Phew, Dick Gephardt was putting me to sleep back in 1988. I could have told anyone who asked, even then, that he'd never make it.)

[saltpoint]

323. Dick Gephardt, much to his credit, would have made an

absolutely magnificent junior high school principal.

I am not trying to dismiss his many years of public service; I'm grateful for those also, but feel that his real calling was as an educator, someone who could intervene with a steady, clear acceptance and guidance to make the world more comprehensible to young people.

He probably would have made a decent prez too, and I'm not discounting that possibility.

But I think he would have been a titan as an educator.

And on Dean, I heard him interviewed one morning on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show and was extremely impressed with him. Still am. Right now I get a sense (I have zero proof) that some candidates want him out as party Chair. I want him in as party Chair, and the longer he's there the better. His unpredicatibility is refreshing, I think. And while we're at it, shame on the media for the character slam they pulled on Dean after the Iowa caucus in 2004. They owe the man an apology on behalf of his supporters and volunteers.

[Warren DeMontague]

341. The harder the cheap character slam from the media

the more genuine the threat the candidate poses, I'd wager.

They'll pull it again with Al Gore if they think there's a real danger of him running and taking the nomination, I'm certain. I just hope the American people aren't in the mood for those kinds of games again.

[saltpoint]

348. Yep. The Republican Party didn't used to be like this. John Chafee,

Lowell Weicker, John Danforth, etc. -- those guys were civil and given to finding compromise and solutions.

These days the GOP Senate tends to be Santorum, Sessions, Cornyn, Coburn, etc. -- ravenous cretins and zealots.

The swiftboating of Kerry and for that matter any Democrat by Republican operatives is a gauge of how seriously bankrupt the GOP has become. In the short-term, it wounds some of our people, but it's not a sustainable political strategy, and I think this November the Republican majority in the U.S. House flips blue.

[HeeBGBz]

137. Me too

Gore could win it, if he ran.

[NightOwwl]

71. I don't want Kerry or Hillary to run either....

but not for the reasons you give.

Neither one has the guts to say what they believe in ...they are too busy sticking their fingers out in the wind to see which way it blows. Now, if it came down to a choice between the two I would have to choose Kerry, but here's hoping I won't have to make that choice.

[Southsideirish]

78. But DO they "believe" in anything? That's my question - I think they

are just a couple of wealthy opportunists who want to glorify their almighty egos.

[saltpoint]

102. Your take on Kerry and HClinton seems a bit harsh.

John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, elected by their constituents in their respective states as representatives in the United States Senate, nevertheless are:

a. ego-driven monsters
b. insubstantial nobodies
c. gutless swine

Do you not believe a case could be made for either that they are not only Constitutionally qualified for the top job, but that they've earned their keep as Senators? I'm not asking that you agree with their positions. I'm saying they both have a lot to offer. Is ego involved in politics? Of course it is. But I don't see megalomania in either of these two folks.

You do? Really?

[_dynamicdems]

371. Do you really have any idea what Kerry has said throughout the years?

That just isn't true about Kerry. He's always been for the same things. You will never see him kissing up to the right the way Hillary Clinton has. He's always stood up for what he believes and he's always told the truth and nothing but the truth.

If you want to hear a little of it, here are just a few highlights of what he's said and BEEN saying for years and years:

http://www.dynamicdems.com/kerry_quotations.htm

[mopinko]

77. people want fighting dems

although i think that a lot of this "fighting dems" campaign is smoke and mirrors, people seem to be gobbling them up, so far. i think both in the middle, and on the ends, the democratic party wants someone who is going to stand up and fight. i do not think there are many in office now who could honestly wear that label. certainly, many of us grassroots progressives will never forgive kerry for not fighting for his victory.

[_dynamicdems]

372. You know...they have people who can help you...get over it, that is. n/t

[mopinko]

383. they could help you, too

real dynamic dems do more than flog a has been presidential candidate. unless, of course, there is something in it for them. besides coffee cup sales and ad clicks, that is. phony.

[_dynamicdems]

413. Don't I hear your mother calling...or was that Carl Rove?

[saltpoint]

79. It's possible that both major parties will nominate someone who is not

from the South in 2008.

Possibly Kerry, possibly Senator Clinton (born in Illinois, Senator from NY), Evan Bayh, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden... all potential candidates and none from the South.

McCain's from Arizona, Romney's from Massachusetts, Hagel's from Nebraska, plus Giuliani, Pataki, and so forth.

Those moderates in the South you mention are going to have to vote for SOMEBODY, aren't they? Apart from staying home and pouting, they're going to have to choose between candidates who aren't from their neck of the woods.

Progressives from other regions have had to do the same thing often. Bill Clinton wasn't EVERYBODY's first choice in 1992. Paul Tsongas, Mario Cuomo, and Tom Harkin all had their fans, and none of those guys was from the South. This is a cyber age. Twenty-four-hour news cycles, constant flow of information. Regional biases still hold, true, but they are becoming less and less a factor.

[Ava]

85. you forgot Edwards

and he is from the south.

but, i wasn't saying we need to run someone from the south. i'm saying we need to run someone who is charming.

[saltpoint]

91. I didn't forget John Edwards. He's a native South Carolinian.

My point was that both major parties' nominees might not be FROM the south in 08.

Edwards is from the South.

The others I mentioned are not.

How would you account for the fact that some people define "charm" differently? I find Kerry quite charming. He's polished, he's smart, he's substantive, and enjoys his baseball.

I don't want "charm" if we mean Libby Dole.

The quiet New Englander has his charm, too.

[babylonsister]

95. Get over the charming adjective already! Why not try to convince

your neighbors they need to vote for someone who's competent? Charming is the last thing I care about at this point! Ole dimson was supposedly the charming guy you could have a beer with; didn't turn out so well, did it? :banghead:

[Beelzebud]

83. Agreed. Want to lose in 08? Run Kerry or Hillary.

That is the cold hard truth.

We need to find someone NEW.

[Time for change]

88. I don't think that the Democratic candidate has to do well in the South

Kerry actually beat Bush in 04, assuming that he rightfully won Ohio, without carrying a single southern state.

[blue cat]

90. I disagree

I know that Kerry would be great. He did win in 2004.

[Old and In the Way]

92. How about we let Democrats decide?

IIRC, Kerry swept just about every primary he competed in, including the Southern States. Whose your favorite? I want to start a thread that contains no facts or reasoned thought that insults the person you'd like to see nominated. Get a clue.

[Ava]

97. please point out how i insulted the candidate you like

did i not say that i like kerry and hillary?

[Old and In the Way]

Poor choice of words.

Should have said "an opinion with no factual content". Bet you'll get a high post count on this hit piece, though. I like how you speak for an entire region, too.

[Ava]

125. an opinion isn't about having factual content

:shrug:

regardless.. i don't throw insults, unlike others on this thread.

[Old and In the Way]

133. Right...OK, not much to debate on this thread. I'm out.

[Old and In the Way]

130. Have to apologize.

Didn't know you were 15. Sorry for the snark, but I've been a big fan of John Kerry for 31 years.

[Ava]

138. it's fine. i'd rather you treat me the way you would anyone else!

:hi:


btw, i'm a kerry fan. i love the guy. i was just simply stating that people around here don't. :shrug:

[blm]

202. Educating them about Kerry gives you the chance to talk about REAL HISTORY

Imagine how they would feel to know that had IranContra and BCCI documents been fully aired, it would have pinpointed the growing terrorist organizations and their leaders by the early 90s and cut off alot of their funding from the international financiers who were making deals with them - armsdealing, drugrunning and moneylaundering, all in support of terror networks.

Bush1 blocked that investigation at every turn and Kerry had to keep taking them to court to get the documents from them.

Wouldn't these people you know see the value in Kerry's work then to expose the growing terror network? He wrote about it in his book The New War that came out in 1997 - too bad the rest of DC wasn't interested in the problem.

A 9-11 wouldn't have happened had BCCI been fully revealed. Kerry fought that fight. Poppy Bush fought against Kerry in protection of the terror networks.

Here's a good quick read: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html

Follow the Money

How John Kerry busted the terrorists' favorite bank.
By David Sirota and Jonathan Baskin

Two decades ago, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a highly respected financial titan. In 1987, when its subsidiary helped finance a deal involving Texas oilman George W. Bush, the bank appeared to be a reputable institution, with attractive branch offices, a traveler's check business, and a solid reputation for financing international trade. It had high-powered allies in Washington and boasted relationships with respected figures around the world.
All that changed in early 1988, when John Kerry, then a young senator from Massachusetts, decided to probe the finances of Latin American drug cartels. Over the next three years, Kerry fought against intense opposition from vested interests at home and abroad, from senior members of his own party; and from the Reagan and Bush administrations, none of whom were eager to see him succeed.

By the end, Kerry had helped dismantle a massive criminal enterprise and exposed the infrastructure of BCCI and its affiliated institutions, a web that law enforcement officials today acknowledge would become a model for international terrorist financing. As Kerry's investigation revealed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, BCCI was interested in more than just enriching its clients--it had a fundamentally anti-Western mission. Among the stated goals of its Pakistani founder were to "fight the evil influence of the West," and finance Muslim terrorist organizations. In retrospect, Kerry's investigation had uncovered an institution at the fulcrum of America's first great post-Cold War security challenge.

>>>>>>>

[_dynamicdems]

373. I've been a big fan of John Kerry for over 30 years too.

It is tough to take when people don't understand what he's really about.

It makes me want to :banghead:

[brentspeak]

101. "Get a clue?"

???????????

[LaurenG]

103. Do you treat everyone with such disrespect

or just 15 year old activists with opinions different from yours? Get a clue?!:eyes:

[Old and In the Way]

123. oh, didn't realize it was a 15YO....

that explains a lot.

[Ava]

128. and the fact that you are in maine explains a lot

[Old and In the Way]

132. True, but I don't claim to speak for all New Englanders.

[_dynamicdems]

374. Now that was uncalled for. There is no reason to malign Maine. n/t

[Beelzebud]

134. ... You didn't realize "it" was a 15 year old? wtf...

What age does an "it" become a "person"?

[LaurenG]

94. I agree with you Ava

On both counts. Although I truly like Kerry my gut says it won't happen. Hillary is definitely NOT a candidate I can back. If she is the best we can do we are in big trouble, starting with many Democrats.

[BurtWorm]

98. How, do you think, would Southerners like Gore?

Out of curiosity...

[Ava]

99. i'm not so sure about that one

i haven't heard anyone down here talking about him :shrug:

[BurtWorm]

107. How are they talking about Bush these days?

I can't imagine they're feeling as kindly toward him as they were six years ago.

[Ava]

108. this election isn't about bush

he's not the repub candidate in 2008.

[Lars39]

117. It *is* about Bush.

It's his policies that the Repub candidate would keep in place or further.

[saltpoint]

147. But his failures as leader cast a long shadow over the midterms in 06

and on into the 08 primary season.

Folks have begun to realize that he's a little puke with absolutely no one else's best interests at heart, and are rejecting Republican "issues" accordingly.

Bush is not literally on the ballot in 06 and 08, but he is right now in the process of making history as the most clueless liar and incompetent executive in U.S. presidential history.

[BurtWorm]

149. No, but I'm still curious what they're saying about him.

I can't believe Republicans in general are getting good word of mouth anywhere.

(Which doesn't mean Dems don't have to worry and work hard to win the next couple of elections.)

[kentuck]

100. Ava, I appreciate your perspective...

I think you are closer to reality than most of the responders. However, we are molded and shaped by our environment as much as anything. With you being from Alabama and myself, a Kentuckian, we have the perspective of our enviroment. My reality is closer to yours. I have loved Kerry since the days he came back from Vietnam. However, I do not think he will be the candidate in 2008. I do not think he will win. And it's not really a matter of him not being from the South or anything to do with geography. Southerners, in my experience, are very passionate about their politics. I think, and it's just my opinion, they are more passionate than other parts of the country. They look for passion and the art of language in their politicians, not whether they have an accent. I think many in the South see Kerry as now lacking in passion and not able to speak in a way that gets to the truth immediately. That may be a flaw of Southerners, but that is the way I see them.

[karynnj]

209. Have you listened to any recent Kerry speeches?

The American University, Grinnell College and Faneuil Hall speeches have had more passion in them than any other speeches I've ever heard. They're not overtly angry like Gore's, but I don't thing that's a problem - I think Kerry's tone is far better.

These speeches are on JohnKerry.com - The American University one is the most recent of the three - the video of it at the link is great.

PS I've seen Chicago politics and NJ politics and recently some MA politics - believe me they have passion. Of the 3, MA rules!

[kentuck]

223. Yes. He has shown more passion of late.

I agree.

What does he say when the Swiftboaters attack again? Does he say? "Look at the source. Little weasly John O'Neill. We are all familiar with that picture of him conniving in the Oval Office with Rich Milhouse Nixon, the known crook. We know where he's coming from. He's been pulling these dirty tricks for many decades now. If he would like to discuss it with me one on one, I'll be glad to meet him anywhere."

[karynnj]

296. In an NECN interview from this Monday

he said that the Bush victory was based on lies, Big lies about Iraq and lies about (himself). Short concise sentence - using the words lie.

Did you see the post on the Patriot group - formed by Kerry friends? Their goal is fending off these attacks. In 2004, Kerry did say the SBVT were lying and provided pages and pages of proof. The media was complicit. Kerry (and Gore) were victims.

For a link to NECN
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=87938&mesg_id=87938

[dr.strangelove]

104. Great Post Ava

Glad you have the courage to speak your mind. As I already told you in the other forum, I agree with you about Clinton and Kerry, but for different reasons.
Anyway, I'm going to sit back and enjoy the show,
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[ananda]

106. Go Gore!

Gore forever.

[mvd]

135. If not Kucinich, Feingold or Gore IMO

unless someone else gets in the running..

[El Fuego]

109. I think only a southern male democratic candidate will pull it off

That is what it will take to win Florida, and with Florida the election is won. Kerry or Hillary, or any other candidate perceived as too "northern," will never get the "good ole boy" Florida vote. Clark can do it. Gore can do it.

It's all about "strategerizing"!!!

[Ava]

112. i love clark!

:loveya:

[El Fuego]

119. Me too!!! I am a total Clarkie!!!

*sigh*
:loveya:

[Ava]

121. another photo for us to sigh about

http://img.webring.com/r/w/wesleyclarkwebri/logo

:loveya:

[Orrex]

110. An opinion at odds with the orthodoxy? What are you, a muslem terrorist?!?

Putting Kerry or Clinton on the 08 ticket is the absolute best way I can imagine to send a Republican to the Whitehouse.

[TayTay]

131. It is, as you said, your opinion.

I will consider it as your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. Should I feel that this is the best person to handle the problems in the United States, should I feel that they bring unusual talents and perspectives to the solving of those problems and to building programs and visions that this country needs, then I will completely disregard your advice.

I would do so in the best interests of my country, not because someone on a board said they didn't think the guy was liked in the South. (Too bad.)

[madokie]

139. I think you are right on on your assessment of the situation.

I like the thought of maybe an Al Gore Russ Feingold ticket. As an old Gentleman said to me when I was just a kid. Son you got to believe in something before you can be anything. I keep that in mind.

[blm]

159. Then it would be interesting to list the battles each chose to lead during

their many years in office. Or which battles they chose to stand with other Dems involved.

I'd love to see that list of both men and compare it with the battles chosen by others.

[madokie]

164. on merits only for me to use to choose

I know there is no one who I will agree with all the time and if there was I wouldn't trust him/her as far as I could throw 'em. We gotta get the best two and then take the ball and run with it. ask no questions, give no quarters and take no prisoners, its as serious as it is ever going to get.

[blm]

170. That's why seeing the battles they chose to lead would be a good indicator

Did a person find their voice and take the lead on CRUCIAL issues? Do they stand up and fight WITH Dems across the board? Do they cherry-pick issues and pipe up when it is needed or when it serves personal interests?

Only a study of the actual record can answer those questions.

[madokie]

177. I agree whole heartedly

carefully scrutinize then pick the best two

[Mass]

143. You're entitled to your opinion.\nt

[karynnj]

146. Kerry VERY nearly won in 2004 -

In fact, if all the people who went out to vote in Ohio in 2004 could have voted with the ease that I did in a Republican NJ suburban county, he might have won enough votes to be President. This is spite of the most intense smear campaign I've ever seen and I first voted in 1972. The smear campaign was also given credibility by a huge number of hours of MSM coverage.

Clinton had a unified party behind him. Kerry had the Clinton pals, Carville and Begala, making snarky Bush comments and whining that Kerry was not Clinton. Clinton had Perot attacking Bush 1 and then pulling out making comments that made people quastion his stability. Before he left, there was a point when "southern charmer Clinton" was 3 of 3. When Perot pulled out, he became the top and stayed there. The media helped by showing the rallies at the end of his campaign in all their hope and promise. In 2004, Kerry's LARGER end of campaign rallies were largely not shown. (The Clinton/Kerry rally was shown - but it was Clinton's speech that was covered. I saw the CSPAN coverage and even at this event, Kerry's speech got at least as good a reaction - though the response to Clinton was more intense than otherwise as it was his first appearance since heart surjury.)

A second run by Kerry - starting by whacking the SBVT, who are pretty discredited - would allow Kerry to further introduce himself. I would have had no problem with a NE liberal - what surprised me when I read about Kerry was how unique he really is. He is not an ideologue. In a way, his image as a very competent prosecutor tells more about him than either the fact that he was a genuine war hero or that he had the courage and the integrity to speak out against the war that he knew was losing lives for nothing.

The elements in common of Kerry as a sailor, protestor, proscecutor, Lt Governor, and Senator are that he is:
- courageous and has the integrity to try to do the right thing
- he uses his intelligence and seeks out the opinions of others - including those at lower levels than himself to devise a position or solution
- he delves very deeply into the issues he has worked on - his book "The New War" is incredible in that it was published in the mid 1990s and is still ahead of where most other politicians are in terms of understanding global crime and terrorism.
- he has an innate sense of fairness
- he genuinely believes in public service and striving to make the world better

[ileus]

151. we could run saddam and win right now...

[Ava]

155. welcome to DU

[HeeBGBz]

163. Where did YOU come from?

Get lost?

[blm]

166. Why would Democrats run Bush family friend, Saddam?

.

[HeeBGBz]

171. Exactly, blm

Saddam is GOP all the way

[IronLionZion]

214. palaces? republican guard?, torture?, he's GOP all the way

here's a better forum for you: www.freerepublic.com

[Mass]

152. We will never win Alabama anyway. Why should we bother?

In 2008, Dean's strategy will not have born its fruit and there is no chance to win AL with a candidate that I could support. So this is irrelevant.

There are states however in the SouthWest and the Midwest that could be won (remember, with 60,000 people voting Kerry in OH, or a few more votes in NM and NV, for example, we would have won).

Why are we so desperate to win states we CANNOT win at this point (largely because of the DNC policies before Dean).

[karynnj]

176. A voice of sanity!

Most of the deep south states will never vote for a Democrat. Southerns already have a bigger say in the nominee than the large coastal reliably blue states. In 2004, people forget that after Iowa and NH, there was a multi-state day where OK, MO, SC, NM, AZ, DE, and ND voted. If the Southern candidates were as strong as their supporters claim they were, 2004 would have followed the pattern of 1992. Clinton lost Iowa and NH, then swept a super-Tuesday of Southern and border states becoming the front runner.

The media even seemed prepared for that shift, as that was when many magazines profiled Edwards - very positively. After Kerry won 5, Clark 1, and Edwards 1, CNN still called it a big victory for Kerry and a smaller victory for Edwards. In fact, these were states the Southern candidates needed to stop Kerry - they were a tough set of states for a NE liberal. This was a HUGE Kerry win.

I agree with you that just adding Ohio meant Kerry would win. In addition to NM, and NV, other possibilities are CO and IA.

Do the Republicans sit around trying to find the best candidate to win Massachusetts? Saying, we can't run X, because no one in Massachusetts likes him?

[leftstreet]

187. Yes. The Dems need to look WEST

Mid, South, and Coastal

Republicans have been running unopposed in a large percentage of races since the 60s.

[Fabio]

253. Fully agree

Ohio, Pennsylvania and the intermountain west.

[Ava]

389. well California is a Democratic state

yet Republican still target it because there is a chance that it will vote Republican. So why should Democrats at least try to target voters in the South?

Think about Florida, which is one of the swing states.

[TayTay]

161. How about this?

Please, Please no Southerners in 2008!

The sticky posted above reminded me of something that has been bothering me for quite some time. I am a democrat and I am a liberal. By no means do I consider myself a "centrist" on a political level. However, please for the love of God do not elect Warner, or Bayh for that matter, to be our candidate in 2008. Why? Because I live in the North and I know "liberals." Someone like Warner or Bayh is not going to win over their votes. Haven't we learned anything from the Bill Clinton campaign? He was a Southern charmer who wasn't considered a "radical." He managed to destroy a great deal of the trust of the Democratic Party and made it harder for me to convince people to vote Democratic. I find that having Southerners on the ticket makes it harder to convince 'normal' people to vote for them.

Don't get me wrong. I like both Warner and Bayh, but I just honestly don't think they can win over voters.

now please don't hate me for saying that! I know Southerners and even have some as friends. But we shouldn't be nominating them for President.

************

Ava: This is your argument. It's insulting.

[Laurab]

162. Isn't it 2006?

Why a Kerry bashing thread in May of 2006? I understand that you like Kerry, and your point wasn't really to bash him. I understand that you don't think he can win over the south, but really, so many things can change in 2 years, I think threads like this serve no useful purpose.

The bashers come out full force, as do the Kerry fans (of which I am one, but I'm a fan of a LOT of people). I like Clark, Gore is ok, I love Feingold, I don't think Hillary should run, mainly because she'd be a "get out the vote" candidate for the repukes, but I wouldn't expect to accomplish anything by saying "Please no Hillary in 2008" because #1, it serves no useful purpose, and is mainly just flamebait, and #2, that's what primaries are for.

I think John Kerry would do just fine if he didn't listen to his advisors so much, and was just himself. I'm also open to another candidate - mainly I want someone who can WIN, and I'm pretty sure Kerry did, and can do so again. If there is someone who has a better chance, and would do as good a job, I'm all for that, too. Mainly I think it's just way too early to count anyone out. Except for Hillary, because I don't think she can overcome the fact that the repukes hate her as much as we hate *, which is unfortunate, but true.

It's possible that if Kerry got the press he should have gotten, he would have been seen in a different light - perhaps the media won't be owned lock, stock & barrel by the repukes next time.

It's really just way too early. I think we should take back the House or the Senate, or both, before we start debating 2008.

[hyphenate]

165. Everyone is entitled to their opinion

which makes us different than the other side. When the primaries were going on, there were lots of fights around here regarding candidates, and everyone had their favorites. We will probably see something like that again for the 2008 election as well, though, simply because we are the "big tent" party of inclusion and there are many diverse opinions among those here, as well as throughout the party.

While I understand your viewpoint, I am having a great deal of trouble with those who insist that we need to have someone from the "South" in order to win the election. I'm sick of trying to placate those in those states, because sometimes we sacrifice some aspect of our goals and our principles in order to get this group to vote our way. This says more about the people in the South than it does of the Democratic party, I think, and I for one am no longer willing to mollify these people for ANY reason anymore.

In 2004, we tried to do it, and the Souhtern states voted for the asshole Bush anyhow. Why should we give up our best candidate if that is who the majority of the Democratic party wants to see win? Why should we compromise our party's best hopes even if the ultimate candidate is someone from the Northeast or even the Southwest? Let's face it: some states will never vote blue, regardless of what the Democrats do to try.

What is more important in 2008? The most important thing for 2008 is to be an intermediary--a president who is going to have to try and bridge the gap of what a shithole our country has become under the illegal regime in power right now, and what we really need to see in order to bring us out of that shithole. And regardless of who is chosen, their job is not going to be an easy one by any means. We are obliged to take things one step at a time, and try to quell the thoughts that things will get back to normal faster than it will probably be.

I don't think a lot of people understand that negativity, especially that cited here, is one of the reasons the GOP laughs at us--they are, above all, single-minded in many ways, and they find our lack of cohesion in such matters extremely amusing. It's the old saying of us not being able "to get our act together" that they laugh at--we often are like the Keystone Cops in our own way, with very little to bind us together as a whole. We pride ourselves for being able to deal with diversity, but we fail to look at what we consider our strength as being a deterrent at the same time.

If the state of Ohio had not been under Wally O'Dell and Blackwell, and if the election results had not been manipulated and hacked, Kerry would have carried the state, and he would be sitting in the White House right now. And that was with ALL the Southern states STILL going the chimp's way. Why should we fucking care anymore about the Southern states and their votes since time and time again has been for the right wing? If they continue to allow their judgement to be clouded by the right winged propaganda, too fucking bad for them. I would just as soon see them vote for the GOP and have a Democrat elected so that they can be shown very quickly that they mean very little to the ultimate fate of the country. If this happens, perhaps they will gain some humility and a conscience to realize that voting for a presidential candidate is more than a single issue vote--it's a vote to decide what group is most likely to bring some semblance of humanity to our country. And we know damned well it ain't the GOP.

[_dynamicdems]

375. Awesome post! Glad somebody is clearly thinking or thinking clearly!

:yourock: :thumbsup:

[hyphenate]

385. Thanks--

I try. But often I'm in a minority, which I guess comes with the territory.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

167. Out of the mouth of babes... (((((((((((((Ava)))))))))! I agree!

You are so darned wise for your years.

[Radical Activist]

172. There are liberals who can appeal to centrist voters.

Kerry and Hillary are not two of them.

[blm]

213. Who were those 10 million more voters who voted for Kerry?

Many were Independents _ I can only assume that a good number of those 10 million more voters were centrists. Centrists who watched the debates.

[Mass]

175. What is it with 2008? We need to fight for 2006.

[saltpoint]

178. Here is an interesting analysis of the 2004 Iowa caucus results

by county.

Iowa is the first test case in the caucus/primary system, unless another state tries to trump it for 08, it likely will be again.

The site:

http://www.style.org/iowacaucus/

_ _ _ _

Southerner Edwards finished an impressive second in Iowa. But second to New Englander John Kerry. Voters had a slate of candidates, including Dick Gephardt from Missouri, a neighbor of Iowa and Gephardt himself well-liked, labor-supported, and a previous winner of an Iowa caucus.

Iowa voters, even in the small, rural towns of the state, went with John Kerry.

They were the first people to vote for Kerry and many of them, perhaps most of them, are not known for requiring "charm" in candidates. They seem to like direct talk and persuasive positions on issues concerning them and their children.

Pro-ethanol helps in Iowa, too.

Kerry earned those votes. Those votes were cast by involved, aware citizens, even in more conservative rural counties of Iowa. To dismiss another campaign by Kerry for 08 suggests that these souls were misguided yahoos. That's not my impression of Iowa voters. Their votes went to someone who deserved the votes.

[Ilsa]

180. I understand you Ava, and I tend to agree. I'll wait and see, though. eo

[Downtown Hound]

181. I couldn't agree more

Sorry you're catching so much flak for saying this, but the simple truth is that a lot of people just don't like that upper middle class liberal that Kerry and Clinton represent. I don't view Clinton as much of a liberal, but they do, and that's all that matters. I think you are absolutely correct, but these kinds of posts naturally bring out the jackal in people. I think you're right about Clark. My dream ticket in '08 is Gore/Clark. Gore because he's a true progressive and incredibly smart. Clark because he's just the type of guy that will appeal to the type of folks you're talking about. That's a ticket that will win in my book.

[saltpoint]

182. "Upper middle class liberals" versus what -- George Bush and his

oil-soaked millions? The Bushes are multi-millionaires.

How could he have been "elected" twice if people didn't like upper-income folks?

How many modern presidents have been poor? Or even working class?

None.

[Downtown Hound]

188. Oh for cryin' out loud

Don't you think that I know that? Don't you think that I know that Bush is an elitist, cowardly, draft-dodging billionaire whore? Don't you think that I know that Kerry, despite all of his millions and his wealthy background is a man of true courage and more integrity than Bush could ever hope to have?

The point of my post and of the original poster is that there are deep-rooted prejudices out there in many regions of the country that millions of people hold. Now if you want to go down to all of these people and try and talk to each and every one of them and try and change their minds, be my guest and God love you. But somehow I don't think you're going to have much success. Or we could just try running some different candidates that share our values that don't struggle against these prejudices. Like it or not, these people really see George Bush as a humble Christian gentleman, and Kerry as elitist snob. The fact that this has no basis in reality doesn't matter. You're going up against hundreds of years of entrenched thinking. Now if you want to say that that's on them for being stupid, I couldn't agree more. But where does that put us? That puts us in a position where we can simply insult millions of potential voters and never have any chance of winning them back, or present them with a candidate that they would be more agreeable to that doesn't sacrifice our principals. Hence why I suggested Gore/Clark. Clark has appeal with these people, and Gore is definitely a true progressive.

Now you might also say that we'll never be able to win these regions even if we did run some different people. Maybe not, but even gains in vote totals would be a good thing. A gain of votes in a deeply red state would likely transfer to a gain of even more votes in the swing states. The translation: Democrats win the presidency. And that's what I want to see happen.

[saltpoint]

189. DH, the Rethugs could nominate Mitt Romney and we could nominate

Russ Feingold.

I don't believe I'd list them as favorites right now, and they face fairly long odds in their respective parties' nominating process, but they are arguably within reach and could wind up as ticket-toppers.

In that event, the southern voters referenced throughout this thread would have to choose between two folks north of the Mason-Dixon Line.

Those regional entrenched forever-with-us biases would be a moot point. They could stay home and play with themselves or go vote.

And if they show up to vote, and want to vote one of the two major parties, they have no regional good-ol-boy or good-ol-girl to pick from.

And it wouldn't have to be Romney and Feingold for that scenario to play out.

It could also just as easily by John Kerry, and Kerry brings quite a bit of governing promise to the table, and people speaking up for him in that regard in this thread have known that for some time.

[Downtown Hound]

190. It won't be Mitt Romney

It will be John McCain. There was a time when I thought that Maybe Johhny was too anti-special interest for the GOP establishment to allow it, but no longer. Johnny now does what he is told. The only other Repug that has any chance is maybe Guiliani, but somehow I don't think so. And both of these two hold far more sway with these people than Kerry or Feingold. Hey, I don't like the situation any more than you do, but it is what it is. McCain will wipe the floor with Feingold, Kerry, or Clinton, especially with Diebold's help. Our only chance is to pick a ticket that maintains a significant lead over McCain in the polls until election day so Diebold won't be able to steal it.

[saltpoint]

191. It won't be John McCain if his skin cancer advances and he has to drop

out.

Or if he gets his sell-out butt booted in Iowa by Chuck Hagel.

I'm calling Hagel for the Republicans. McCain has left himself too vulnerable. I grant you every point on his frontrunner status right now, but this is a year and a half when Hagel makes his move and commands the neighbor-state of Iowa and the Yankee independent Republicans of New Hampshire the week after.

Hagel for the GOP.

We have a more crowded field so far, but in many posts for a long time on DU I've felt that Senator Clinton will finish way back of the pack in Iowa and New Hampshire. Possibly 4th, 5th, or 6th.

If Gore jumps in, make that 7th.

If Hagel is nominated by the Republicans, Sam Brownback (or someone equally unstable and psychotic) will form a rush third party and try to run to the right of Hagel. The GOP vote would split and our ticket wins.

[Downtown Hound]

194. If that's true, it would be a blessing

I guess we'll have to wait and see. Believe it or not, I hope you're right. Hagel would be an easy victory for our side. But we won't know until '08 comes around.

[saltpoint]

195. Ja. It will be interesting to watch the various candidates on both

sides campaigning in 06 for congressional candidates, too.

[bvar22]

185. Ava, you are wise beyond your years.

Your observations as a Southerner living in the South are 100% correct.

The Democratic Party would do well to avoid nominating ANY Senator (or Congressman).
A charismatic outsider in needed.


I've seen some of your work, and you have already done MORE for the Democratic Party and Liberalism than your attackers upthread. GDP has a small handful of VERY LOUD camp followers who try to dominate discussions and smother opinions. Please don't let this minority discourage you from posting here!
:hi:

[blm]

207. That is not fair. Disagreeing in honest exchanges is what ANY thread

should be about. There are more than a few southerners on the thread who felt differently.

Is it wise to suggest young people ignore that exchange or imply that there is no value to the posters who had honest disagreements and provided sound reasoning?

There are more than a few posts that seek intelligent exchange, not controversy or insults.

[dr.strangelove]

210. I object to the notion that any thread should be about DISagreement

This is the problem I find often here. People seem to disagree and think that is what DU is all about. I am all for open discussions, but what a great deal of this thread has been is blind criticism and attacks. First off, anyone who would question Ava's progressivism is way off base. As for her views on southern political strategy, strategy should be debated, have at it. But debate over strategy is not what was raised in the thread you responded to.

[blm]

211. I didn't mean every thread - but every thread that makes a statement

that GUARANTEES disagreement. I would be disappointed with DU if every post after the original agreed with it. It would show an utter lack of ability to factor in context - the numbers, the record, the timing, the media, the facts.

The dogma that certain types can't win in the south because southerners will only vote for one type is actually centrist strategy spin and it is moldy by now - and here in the postKatrina south, it deserves countering.

[dr.strangelove]

236. Sure - but its the manner of countering

I am all for debate. Whether or not a NE liberal can win in the south is indeed something to debate. Debate can be a great deal more civil than it often is.

[blm]

250. That's why it works best to read posts with a straight filter - save the

negativity for REAL battles.

I'm down with tough, but believe being tough also requires being fair. Tough without fair is really just being an asshole, imo. ;)

[Ava]

212. thanks bvar22!

:pals:

[Fabio]

252. F*&@ the south

I dont want southern politics dictating who I vote for. Former Dixicrats (ie those Currently Poor Southern White Republicans/Evangelicals) arent my favorite people and I dont think you need to win the south to win the presidency. concentrate on ohio, pennsylvania and the intermountain west and we'll be fine.

[saltpoint]

382. Or we could re-frame the South. If it became the land of Faulkner

and Flannery O'Conner and Rosa Parks instead of a Reconstruction still life, our electoral chances might change.

The Democratic Party could re-claim the South -- retake it from Nixon's cynical strategizing -- as higher ground and ask for the support of an electorate united around themes of common good and genuine need.

That helps address the "up-north liberal" problem and the "You look down our noses at us" problem.

Let Democratic candidates, no matter which Democratic candidates, stop unfurling American flags during campaign appearances in the South and instead, or in addition to, unfurl huge banners of the South's literary and civic greatness.

Claim association with the spirit of its best writers and civil rights icons, invoke them verbally and visually "in reframing the South as high ground, and asking for the support of an electorate united around themes of common good and genuine need," and use that as a starting point.

[LittleClarkie]

192. So pick somebody else. As for me, I'm voting for him.

Catch us if you can.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

193. they can write off the South and still win w/ Ohio, Florida, or Colorado

or other possible combinations, if someone's checking the machines

[lies and propaganda]

196. Im with you, but for more reason than him not being Southern

It was mostly the sham promise of counting every vote.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

197. In my not-so-humble

opinion, I do not believe either of them are electable and I think nominating either one at this juncture would destroy us.

[redqueen]

198. No hate here... I agree with you COMPLETELY!

:applause:

:loveya:

:hi:

[lumberingbear]

199. You rock AVA !!!

:yourock:

[ourbluenation]

216. Love the Kerry and the HIl but I wanna WIN in 08. Gore/Clark

there you go...that's a winning ticket

[stepnw1f]

217. Ava... If I Was 15 I'd Be Asking you to Marry Me

but.... I like Kerry. He's my Senator and a very good man to boot. I do however understand what your concern is, I just think everybody that can, should run, and let the people decide the rest.

[Ava]

229. haha, lol. well i like kerry too

i was just trying to express my concern about him running again. :shrug:

i'm also tired of democrats ignoring the south. it CAN be won if we just play our cards right. :hi:

[politicasista]

241. That's what Dr. Dean is for

I don't like Dems ignoring the south either. That's why I support the 50 state strategy. It can be done if Democrats use it and learn to stay on message.

[blm]

254. That's why we need to build a strong party INFRASTRUCTURE in all states.

The infrastructure of many states were left to deteriorate aftet 1996. Dean is just starting to rebuild them. THAT is how elections are won in tough states.

[stepnw1f]

262. Your Concerns are Good Ones

We will win Ava... with you around, I can't see how we can lose.

Your Humble Friend from the North,
stepnw1f

[IronLionZion]

218. So who do you have in mind?

and what's your strategy? Because we can win without a single southern state. All we need is the blue states + Ohio.

It would be nice to win some Southern states, but unfortunately Bill Clinton is term limited.In fact, I think we can win with our platform as long as we keep guns, god, and gays under control until after the election.

[Mass]

219. No hate - but you are young . Kerry has proven he can win over

voters. He got the most votes any Democrats ever had.

[Ava]

231. yes, but his record was severely damaged when he conceded so soon

he threw in the towel without a fight. :shrug:

[Mass]

234. He did not, except in your dreams But thanks to confirm this was

a Kerry bashing thread.

It was the second longest concession in a very long time, and he did not have a way to do otherwise.

[blm]

419. Out of curiosity, who was his record severely damaged with? Not even 1%

of this country even knows about machine fraud, so that makes 99% who believe that the concession was exactly what every candidate does - it is not an act of weakness. Not ONE of the primary candidates who conceded to Kerry looked weak. It's what's been going on since the beginning of elections and they are EXPECTED.

There was no fight to be had with rigged machines. The machines need to be secured BEFORE the vote by the Dem party and its representatives in each county. After is too late because rigged machines are set up for onetime use and then leave no trace.

The DNC in 2004 did not BELIEVE in machine fraud.

The cases Kerry COULD contest in Ohio, he did, and is still in two of them.

[Liberal Dose]

220. There is only one Bill Clinton, and unfortunately he can't run again.

Now is the time for the true Patriots to come forward. You must also remember that Jesus Christ himself would lose against the most corrupt Republican with our current voting system.
:hi:

[politicasista]

221. Sooner or later we are going to have to realize....

that there can never be another Bill Clinton. Bill had a gift for being charming, charismatic and sympathetic (i.e. "I feel your pain"). It's time for Democrats and the Democratic Party to stop seeing candidates/nominees through the Bill Clinton prism.

I am a southerner also, but it's time for the Democrats to rally around Dean's 50 state strategy, build a clear, strong, unified message, raise awareness of an unfair and unbalanced media, emphasize fair elections, and most importantly, competence, which will be needed in the long run as this mess continues to pile up day by day, month by month, minute by minute and hour by hour.

[aaronbees]

321. Absolutely...

I'm a newcomer to the South (well, four years here), and I can sense there's a chance to really reach out to voters here but they need to see a clear alternative to BushCo policies. And they need to start seeing it now and know how those alternatives will make their lives better. Otherwise, the majority will vote for status quo conservatives next time around ... even if they're disatisfied with the miserable mess Bush has wrought.

The Democratic Party message has to resonate all across the country and clearly ... in the West, Midwest, Northeast ... AND the South. For Dems to write off vast areas of the country is just cowardly, IMO. Dean's strategy is the way to go.

Bill Clinton's charm, I think, was a boost for Dems but also difficult to get past.

And I think Ava's point is generally spot on in its broader ideas if not specifics, though who the candidate should be ... I have no idea yet (as much as I like Gore and, indeed, Kerry).

Right now, I'm feelin' the Gore/Clark ticket. But there's still a lot of time left for the candidate.

What's most important now for Dems is organizing and the message.

[SPKrazy]

225. I Agree, Kerry Is Toast

I like Kerry, and I voted for him, and I'd surely vote for him again if he got the nomination

but I think he's toasted and won't get the nomination

I don't think Hillary will either personally

I think that Gore, Feingold, Clark, are 3 that have some universal appeal

although Gore has some rehab to do, without the help of Naomi Wolfe, he just needs to be Al.

I've seen some previews from his movie, and it seems that he has maybe found himself.

Mr. Gore is animated!

[zulchzulu]

256. Yeah, I remember people saying that about Kerry in early January 2004

Lookie what happened....

Actually, Kerry did win if you take into account the election fraud that happened...but that's another topic...

[SPKrazy]

279. If He Did "Win"

he didn't have the kahunas to stand up and fight for it!

lost respect for him either way

[zulchzulu]

333. Ah yes...not doing your homework again...from the words of John Conyers...

"Fighting for Every Voter"

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me. As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes...

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters."

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000213.htm

Wow...thanks John!

[saltpoint]

339. zulchzulu, not surprisingly, you have ably invoked Conyers' words in

support of your broader claim, and properly and deftly so.

Conyers is a gleaming jewel of a public servant.

The Republicans are shaking in their boots at the possibility of John Conyers as Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, as well they should. He represents integrity of purpose, and that would be just too much for most Republicans.

My guess is that Kerry-Edwards people are very appreciative of Conyers' efforts, and that the respect has resonance. The vote machine availability problems in Ohio tended to be in districts with larger black populations. It was an effort to cheat U.S. citizens of their rightful and lawful participation in the democratic process.

[zulchzulu]

402. I couldn't agree more...Conyers is the gold standard...

Yes, the GOP certainly fears him...why, he might actually do what is constitutionally responsible! Imagine that...

[saltpoint]

404. LOL! Doing the responsible thing... just outrageous!

I think the man will give a much-needed clarity and conscience to that spot, and it's worth it for all of us to work in our respective districts to put enough Democrats in the House to put John Conyers in that chair.

[SPKrazy]

417. Homework Schmomework!

I saw, I read DU and everything I could find after the 2004 elections

I believe that they were probably stolen

What did Kerry do?

He conceded instead of fighting

I see lack of Kahunas myself

Don't know what you see

[mdmc]

226. Ava, do you think that the south would ever vote for a Yankee?

I personally do not think that a Yankee could win the south. I know that the north will vote for a southerner.

[Mass]

228. So, no yankee can be president? Do we need to quit the union?

[mdmc]

230. Rudy Guliani, Pataki, Mit Romney... sure

but dems.... maybe Hillary...:shrug:

This is not my philososphy, but I have often heard it debated up here in the north.

I think that RFK jr. could win the south. I think he is the only one (bill and hillary could triangulate their way into the white house against Condi or Jeb.

[Mass]

232. Thanks to confirm it is a soft Kerry-bashing thread.

Romney is NOT a yankee, for a start, neither is Hillary (dont know for Guliani).

[Ava]

237. this is not a "Kerry-bashing thread"

that was not why i started this thread. :shrug:

[Mass]

239. Read the answers. Sorry darling, but I hope that Kerry will run.

I am tired of the South being the only thing that matters for some. What about an Union of 50 states.

[Ava]

243. now that i just find funny

i haven't seen anyone else on DU that has posted about candidates that could win in the south.

maybe i'm just not seeing those threads. :eyes:

regardless, you can have your opinion and I can have mine. i could turn it around and say you are bashing the south, but you aren't. you are just expressing your opinion about it just as I am expressing mine about Kerry.

this is no "kerry bashing thread."

[karynnj]

289. I have seen MANY threads

I have in fact been told I am not realistic when I point out that simply winning Ohio - which was close and which had Democratic voter suppression would win.

I have been told - even as I said I voted for Carter and Clinton - that the reason we can't have a northerner win the south is because the southerns THINK we look down on them - so in compensation for having to live with their own misperception, they should get all the Democratic nominations. No one born in the North who parents didn't move to the South should be President.

Sorry, I don't buy this discrimination - and my numbers are correct.

[mdmc]

312. Liberal intellectuals in the northeast

look down on NASCAR and the red states. I wish that we did not, but we do. I don't think that this is a Southern misconception.

I think that there is a "The South Will Rise Again" mentality. Until it does, the dems won't elect a Yank. Keep in mind that 41 and 43 are Yankees, but they bailed on the north, and went to play cowboy.

I am a liberal and I voted for Kerry after voting for Nader in 96 and 2000. Kerry was and is great. If he is our best bet, then he should run.

An interesting question is if Zell Miller has the best chance of winning, would us liberal support him? I say sure, whatever.

peace and God bless

[Mass]

344. Nope. I would not vote for Miller. He is NOT a Democrat.

In a Hagel-Miller race, I vote Hagel anyday.

[mdmc]

386. I'll vote for whatever lame as triangulator gets the dem nom

It takes courage to say that you would vote for a puke or a green over the endorsed dem candidiate. :patriot:

I, for one, would much rather lose with Ted Kennedy (or John Kerry) then win with Zell Miller.

[politicasista]

240. No, you have a right to your opinion

It's just that the name "Kerry" brings out the haters and trolls alike. Pro and Anti-Kerry threads usually go over 200+ posts. Usually it's whenever he gets good press.

[mdmc]

264. Romney was MA gov. Clinton is NY senator

dem's YANKS (or, if I care about regionalism, they are reverse carpetbaggers Yankees...far worse.)!

I wasn't bashing Kerry in the least. He is a fine Catholic / Jew liberal from Mass. The fact that he could never carry a southern state is not bashing. I, for one, would rather that he could win a southern state.

My question, could any dem carry the south? I think that they can (Clinton and Carter did). This is the price that the Union pays for winning the War Between the States.

[karynnj]

290. Kerry has only one religion - Catholic

WE DON'T NEED THE DEEP SOUTH. The Republicans aren't looking for the candidate who can take MA, NY, RI, and VT are they?

[mdmc]

313. lol some kool aiders were talkin like NY was in play

Just crazy.

We need somewhere.

And as far as Kerry semitism goes, he is as jewish as Hitler was (did you know that Hitler was 1/8th or 1/16th jewish?). The Nazis would have thrown him in the ovens, all things considered.

[Mass]

342. OK, you lost me now. I was wondering, but the reference to Hitler is

totally overboard (in addition of being totally bogus - This is an urban legend).

Kerry, on the other hand, is ethnically half jewish. But, except if you think people from the South are bigots, it is totally irrelevant.

[mdmc]

387. I thought that the Hitler thing was pretty much proven

but I don't have the genealogy data to prove it.

This really sucks, but a white Christian anglo saxon from Tennessee has a better chance at winning national office then a equally qualified Massachusetts half jew. I wish that it weren't the case.

You don't have any data on the hitler thing do you? I'm curious that my info might be wrong.

[Ava]

235. i'm not sure mdmc

obviously i wrote my original post wrong, because i wasn't trying to say the person HAS to be from the south, but they do need to be charming. for example, wes clark isn't from the south, yet he is like and respected down here.

[mdmc]

265. isn't he from Arkansas?

Ava, it is a well discussed topic in political circles up north. It is presented like this - The north will vote for a southerner, but the south won't vote for a Yankee. There are many regions in the USA, but New England and the North east will not be running a victorious Yankee liberal nationwide for a long time.

I think that the right person (RFK jr.) could carry all 50 states with the right political landscape and message.

[Ava]

267. i think he's from Arizona

if I'm not mistaken.

[mdmc]

278. I think a west coaster could win the south

Perhaps Jerry Brown...

peace ava

[incapsulated]

420. He's from Arkansas, Ava..

:)

[SammyWinstonJack]

233. When will Americans grow up and realize their votes have consequences

that involve more than just themselves? It isn't just about "you". I don't want some poseur who fools the self serving, I want a candidate for all the people. I think either Kerry or Hillary fits that bill.

[Conan_The_Barbarian]

247. Fine, I'll call him up and tell him not to run

he won't be happy about it but I'll tell him you said so.

[SammyWinstonJack]

248. !

:evilgrin:

[saltpoint]

249. Conan, please accept a tardy but sincere welcome to DU,

and if you DO phone up John Kerry, would you please thank him for me for his principled pro-environmental stands over his many years in public service?

It was among the first things that drew me to his public life way back when.

[SammyWinstonJack]

251. !

:applause: :yourock:

[fedupinBushcountry]

255. There is a

North, East, South and West, the last time I looked. There is another two thirds of the country to think about. Why is it that only southerners think they know who will be the best. Sorry I don't care for division, and this is exactly what this post is.

Also I think you will find that Kerry with 10 million more votes then Clinton, carried over quite a few more votes. In fact Clinton did not even get 50% of the vote, it seems most of those Republicans crossed over to Perot, Also here in Virginia Kerry got almost 400,000 more votes then Clinton, and 200,000 more then Gore. He also got 300,000 more votes then the Republican Dole. He also got more votes then Bush did in 2000 here in Virginia.

[zulchzulu]

258. As you noted...

Kerry getting a lot more votes in the South than either Southerners Clinton or Gore blows the whole theory that Southerners only for Southerners as a stereotypical, unschooled, pedestrian analysis.

The South is a lot more diverse than most people think. Living in a cartoon world may be fun, but it's always miscalculated and wrong. And with the events that have happened in the South (like Katrina, etc.) under Repug hands, there is certainly a lot of people in that region that will NOT vote for a Repug in 2008, especially with the possible idiots the Repugs will serve up.

[Clarkie1]

268. Kerry is not going to be the nominee or a major contender.

I see no chance of Kerry winning Iowa, or doing well in NH and the primaries that follow. Hillary will be strong, and I believe Clark will as well. Feingold will also be popular.

All of this of course is just my humble opinion, so I really don't want to engage anyone regarding my opinion. Just putting my two cents out there.

I agree that Hillary or Kerry could not win the south, and we need a national strategy. We should not be running Northeast establishment senators if we want to win.

[saltpoint]

269. Say Giuliani were to win the GOP nomination and HClinton or Kerry

were to win ours.

Very likely one or the other of them would be the next president, and none of them is from the South.

Is Giuliani more compatible with conservative voters in the South than Kerry? I don't see a case there.

2008, for all any of us knows tonight, could be a match-up of people from just about anyplace in the country EXCEPT the South.

I think we could risk asking Southern voters to vote on the issues, no matter who held them.

[_dynamicdems]

377. WRONG about NH. I've attended two functions where Kerry was

fundraising for candidates here in NH in the past few months. He nearly brought down the house. He's got a HUGE following in NH. I'm in a republican town but more and more people are coming up to me and saying they like my Kerry bumper sticker or commenting positively on my Kerry button.

You can have as humble an opinion as you like but it can still be wrong. I live in NH and many of us believe he is partly responsible for helping to elect our Democratic governor. And our governor has like a 90% favorability rating. I think John Kerry will do exactly what he did last time in NH.

As for Iowa, I only know that when he spoke at Grinnell recently, he drew a cheering crowd of 1000 people. The last time he was there was prior to the election. He only had a crowd of 400 then. That tells me that he has some support in Iowa.

Time will tell. This is still 2006 and this is the election year we should be concentrating about despite people who feel compelled to start threads like this.

[leftchick]

270. the fact they are DLC is not helpful either

in fact it makes them more repuke than Dem. I agree Ava.

No flames here!

:hi:

[blm]

272. Please share name of candidate with a lifetime lib rating left of Kerry

and please name the Democratic lawmaker who has countered the corruption of the GOPs more than John Kerry has.

And then explain how John Kerry is more of a Republican than whoever you prefer.

[saltpoint]

274. These ratings are useful, and you're right about the liberal rating for

John Kerry.

Also to the Senator's credit is his sterling ZERO percent from the Christian Coalition.

That's an outstanding gauge of a Congressional member's positions on issues. If the Christian Coalition doesn't like anything you do, you must be doing everything right.

[ProSense]

273. Analysis at 271 posts (by 79 individual posters) and the winner is

24 Supporting Kerry
28 Agree with OP
8 Disagree OP
8 Dissing the South
1 Saddam
1 Responding to Saddam response
5 Gore
1 Gore/Kerry
1 Gore/Clark
1 Clark
1 Kucinich, Feingold, Gore



Go Kerry!

[ny_liberal]

276. I don't see how Hillary can turn red states

[sheelz]

277. Ava 2028!

:thumbsup: :)

[Ava]

280. haha!

LOL! :rofl:

maybe! :P ;)

[emulatorloo]

282. Yes but do you have CHARM?

:)

[Ava]

283. probably not!

:P

[sheelz]

302. You're on the correct path

the (liberal path) :) Just a little tip, focus on what you want. It's your future.

[Nicole]

310. Please, Please no Ava in 2028!

:P

[Ava]

311. haha! lol

:P

[TayTay]

281. Ava: answer this

You are advocating disregarding a candidate because you don't like the region of the country that they come from. You believe this automatically means they can't garner Southern voters.

This is called prejudice. It is wrong. Morally wrong. You can dislike a candidate for the positions they take or because you don't trust them for some reason.

To write someone off because they come from a region of the country you don't like is prejudice, pure and simple. You would not write off a candidate because they were African-American or Catholic or Left-handed, but you think it's perfectly all right because they are from a region of the country you don't like. Again, this is wrong and immoral.

You justified your dislike of Sens. Clinton and Kerry because you, as a Southerner thought they couldn't win in the South. Perhaps I should write off any candidate from the South because I don't think tnhey can win in the North. Would it be fair if I just blanket wrote them off or would it be prejudice? Justify your positions please.

[Ava]

284. I don't think they can win

and that has NOTHING to do with them being from the north. Roy Moore is from the south, and he can't even win over southerners.

Obviously i misworded myself in the OP.

[TayTay]

291. So, is that the fault of the candidate

of the fault of on-the-ground operations. Gore lost Tennessee, his native state. Can any Democrat win over any of the Southern states. What is the ground operation like there?

Kerry got a higher number of African-Americans voters in the South than either Clinton or Gore. Is this an anomaly or the makings of a movement that can help the Dems in the South. What about the burgeoning population of Latino voters? There is a higher percentage of voters who are Hispanic in the South than in the North. Are they registering as Dems or Repubs?

There are a lot of reasons why candidates win or lose. Some of them have to do with the individual states. The Dems had no credible working statewide Party in Ohio last time and they suffered for it. There was no statewide support of the kind that really could have made a difference. (The Ohio Dem Party in '04 was very ineffective.) Is it like that in the South?

There are reasonable arguments to be made over differentiations in candidates. They don't have to be prejudicial based on origin.

[Blaukraut]

286. like Bush, you mean?

He is such a down-to-earth, good-old-boy charmer, he won over a lot of Dem voters, too. And look what that got us! Clinton, for all his charm and appeal still managed to be demonized by the republicans. If we continue to cater to those voters who care more about appearance and 'charm', we make a mockery of our democracy. At that point we might as well call the election American Idol, Presidential Edition and have call-in votes via 800 numbers.

[bvar22]

287. The BEST possible candidate to carry 50 states....

...would be a charismatic unknown from a Western State who looks like the Marlboro Man and can ride a horse.
He would speak in slow, simple, direct, short sentences (Jimmy Stewart, Gary Cooper).
His platform, record, and stand on the issues don't matter.
When challenged about any proposal or on ANY issue, the response would be a simple..."Because its the right thing to do". (In fact, that would be his campaign slogan.)

A FACT OF LIFE IN AMERICA:
The great American masses do NOT vote for a candidate based on his record, debate skills, character, honesty, intelligence, or soundness of his platform.

The AMERICAN People vote for the best looking TV Spokesperson!!!!

They have since the 70's (The Repubs realized this and ran an empty suit with Alzheimer's)
LBJ and Dick Nixon are the LAST unattractive TV Spokespersons this doomed nation will elect.

If the Democrats want a winner, they had better start holding auditions and screentests.

I don't like it, but that is REALITY in 21st Century America.

If I could pick the next president, it would be John Conyers, Maxine Waters, or Dennis Kucinich, but they will never pass the screentest.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Mass]

288. Or we can vote Republican, as nothing you list has to do with

what the candidate stands for. So, what difference does it make who is elected?

Anyway, Bush had nothing to do with the character you are describing (except may be in the eyes of the corporate media).best looking TV Spokesperson! :banghead: This is absolutely stupid.

What we need to do is exactly the opposite. We need to find a way to have real and fair media.

[bvar22]

295. The FACT that 50% of Americans....

voted for bush*PROVES my point.
The fact that 50% of Americans think Reagan was one of the greatest Presidents EVER proves my point.

You should get out more often.

[blm]

298. It proves that 33% of the people are complete morons and corporate media

can convince another 17% to do the wrong thing by election day.

[sandnsea]

299. That's John Kitzhaber

And he's a great progressive too. Unfortunately, he's pretty adament about not wanting anything to do with Washington DC.

[saltpoint]

309. But praise for your three favorites there takes us as a party much farther

than criticism, doesn't it?

I hear you on U.S. voting superficialities, but the trend toward empty personna doesn't excuse its banality.

There remains the possibility that Chuck Hagel and Mark Warner might be the two major parties' nominees in 08. I'm not issuing a hardcore prediction, only stating a possibility.

If they are the nominees, neither is Hollywood-shallow and both are thoughtful people. One way to fight the trend (which you accurately cite) is to gather a force of volunteers and make the nomination of thoughtful men and women inevitable.

[frustrated_lefty]

293. Wow, what a wake up call.

I honestly have a hard time understanding anyone considering Kerry for '08. Some of us expressed reticence in '04, but, hey, he got the nod. Ok, we tried it your way, we tried selling Lurch to America. Yes, he got votes. It was a stupid strategy, it was a moronic campaign, and it defied democratic ideals from the very outset. If you're willing to sell off huge segments of society just to score points, fuck you.

You think Kerry is a shoo in now? I'd laugh if it weren't so fucking sad. Kerry ain't up to snuff. Before he can address diddly at a national level, let him address the swiftboat nonsense. If he can't do that, he should get the hell out of the way.

[blm]

297. "Defied democratic ideals from the outset" - please fill in the details

that led to your conclusion?

[sandnsea]

300. August 2004 - what did you do?

I want to know what your response to people questioning the swift boat shit was in 2004. Because if you didn't do you part, you won't do it no matter who they smear next, and the results will always be the same.

[derby378]

301. A lot of Dems share your frustration here

John Kerry, Vietnam veteran and point man on the Hill, was cowed into submission by the Swift Boat Liars. This should have never been allowed to happen. Momentum is key to any campaign.

[_dynamicdems]

379. That is just plain ignorant. Insulting one our Democrats with RW name

calling simply isn't appropriate for a Democratic message board.

[Warren DeMontague]

304. No matter how you slice and dice it, I think AL GORE is our best bet.

I just hope he runs.

[Imagevision]

306. Gore and Kerry had their shot at the title and blew it - election Fraud?

noooooooooooooo....as kerry stated on MSNBC that; "I believe the Bin Laden tape is what did me in" - that's Kerry verbatim!!

[Warren DeMontague]

316. Mmm Hmmm. So, clearly a First Term Senator from New York is automatically

entitled to the Nomination, mostly because her last name gets a few party pooh-bahs excited?

I don't think so.

[wisteria]

307. Kerry offers so much and would bring passion intelligence, knowledge

and leadership to the Presidency and you dismiss him because he isn't from the South and might not appeal to moderate Southerners? Actually, Kerry did fairly well in the South when you consider he didn't campaign enough in Southern areas.

[Imagevision]

308. Kerry said your votes will be counted this time while we clearly

are aware that this simply never ended up being the case as Kerry boasted of "40,000 lawyers" waiting with gasssed up private jets.. Kerry had his cahnce and felt he could schmooze us over after getting screwed - correction -- allowing the screw to happen!

[alittlelark]

337. My feelings exactly.... I flew to NM for 'election protection'

Stayed up long enough to watch the online CNN polls suddenly reverse - got blotto drunk w/ Dad insisting that 'we will fight them'. The next morning my sister woke me up saying that Kerry had conceeded.


It was likely the biggest 'let down' of my life.


Al Gore, Russ Feingold, Wesley Clark (my fav. in '04).... They are fighters. This is a war against the Fascist takeover of our country. We need FIGHTERS.


If Kerry is nominated I will fight for him (but he did not fight for me)...... BUT DAMN - I DO NOT want him to be nominated (Hillary either).

[_dynamicdems]

314. Well they impeached the southern charmer....and Hillary is the wife

of that southern charmer, so your logic is flawed either way you look at it.

And John Edwards was a southern charmer too but he couldn't even carry his home state.

[MDiaz]

324. What is wrong with Kerry?

I read your post, but this is silly. This man had the cojones to speak truth to power on the Senate floor back in the early 70s. I know someone here must have the transcript, but it is stuff that will leave a lasting impression.

Manuel

[saltpoint]

330. A warm welcome to you, MDiaz. Nice to have you aboard.

Also very nice to hear from a person with praise for Senator Kerry.

In his eulogy for William Butler Yeats, W. H. Auden wrote:

"In the prison of his days
Teach the free man how to praise..."

The more outrageously immoral the Bush administration behaves, the more I feel that praise among fellow-Democrats is key.

Again, a warm welcome to you.

[_dynamicdems]

380. Welcome! I agree!

You can probably tell by my sig that I agree with you about John Kerry!

His speech on the 35th anniversary of that speech in Boston's Faneuil Hall was pretty impressive too. He's still got it! A true American hero and patriot. Some of the complaints made against him are, frankly, juvenile.


:patriot:

[WildEyedLiberal]

326. What a fucking inane thread.

Jesus, do you get kicks out of starting idiotic flame wars on DU or something? And don't tell me you "had no idea" that a thread titled "Please, no Kerry in 2008!!1" is flamebait - give me a fucking break.

Congratulations. Pat yourself on the back. You've started another circle-jerking Kerry bashfest. Hope you enjoyed the show.

[zulchzulu]

336. Gee, do you think that was her intention?

:crazy:
DUer wonders what to post on board....hmmmm...

:think:
Oh! Yes! A Kerry-bashing thread! Yay! I'll get a lot of attention....

:eyes:
DUer is too lazy to look at facts about the 2004 election, so this can be easy...

:freak:
DUer assumes everyone is as clueless about the 2004 election as she is...

:scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared:
Other DUers join in the circle jerk of pedestrian assumptions and Fox News talking points...

:nuke::grr::thumbsdown:
Flamebait accomplished!!!! Woo hoo!

[Ava]

391. i didn't start a "kerry-bashing" thread

i started the thread to point out something that has been bothering me. i admit i don't know all the facts about the 2004 election. do i think kerry won? most likely. that's not what this thread it about though. it's about 2008 and how we need something new.

[zulchzulu]

401. Yeah...but....

Your assumptions were wrong and debunked.

You think we need "something new". Go for it!

I'll be backing who I think is the best candidate by far (so far), John Kerry.

The key thing is get your facts straight and go for the candidate you find best...and work for them somehow. Oh, and keep an open mind.

[Mass]

338. Anyway, the pretext is wrong, Kerry IS charming.

I am sure you agree with that, WEL.

Most of his supporters do not consider that it is the most important issue (we want a president that IS competent,and I am surprised to see so many of Gore's supporters who dont seem to think it is more important than the charming issue, same thing goes for Clark's supporters. Do you really think your guy has nothing better to offer than being charming).

He is also competent, but he is definitively charming. (Help here: who has the article with the clips from 2000 who said that Gore did not choose him as VP because he was TOO charismatic).

[saltpoint]

343. Hi, Mass. Yes -- I know I can't change what's already happened, but

if I had a Time Machine...

...I'd have Gore choose Kerry instead of Lieberman.

But drat the luck, I must have missed the phone call that evening, and he wound up choosing Lieberman! :)

Among other advantages to having Kerry on the ticket with Gore in 2000, the outcome and timbre and tone and temperament of the vice presidential debate would have been far different.

[WildEyedLiberal]

350. Precisely. This thread reeks of shallow MSM talking points

Seriously, "Kerry isn't charismatic and can't win the south" sounds like something Tim Russert or one of his onanistic talking-head pundit whore buddies would say. It completely and totally ignores any basis in reality and relies on the carefully crafted GOP/MSM trash-talking points used to discredit ALL our Dems.

If you believe Kerry has no charm because the whores on teevee told you he didn't, then you must also believe that Al Gore is wooden and a liar and that Howard Dean is a raving lunatic, because that's what the whores on teevee said about them, too. :crazy:

The whole premise of this thread is BS, as is the assumption that we need fucking ALABAMA to win the election. I feel for the OP having to live there, but let's face it, the Dems have as realistic a chance to win Alabama as the Repukes do of winning Rhode Island. So can we not pander to the OTHER PARTY'S base, please?

[politicasista]

352. Here you go Mass

Snip:

The best person for Gore to pick for veep is Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.

Kerry is a similar sort of figure. He is difficult to pigeonhole on either the right or the left of the Democratic Party, but his mix of policy positions works as a unified whole. He's got good liberal credentials, and he's also got good (actually, increasingly good) ties to the New Democrat wing of the party.

Second: temperament. Kerry is intelligent, knowledgeable on policy, attractive and articulate -- like Gore. Also like Gore, he's no glad-hander, or emotion-gusher like Bill Clinton. He's not stiff and wooden exactly, but more cool and perhaps a touch distant. But for Gore's No. 2, that's a good thing. Kerry is a deceptively good campaigner, as he demonstrated when fending off challenger William Weld, then the most popular pol in Massachusetts, in 1996. Like Gore at his best, Kerry oozes experience and seriousness of purpose. And maybe a little unlike Gore, he's got flair.

The No. 1 qualification for a modern veep is whether they're really presidential material. Not because the president might die, but because that's what voters really want to see in a veep. And that's why John Kerry's the man for Gore.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/07/20/kerry/print.html

[saltpoint]

357. Thanks for bringing this around, politicasista. Very interesting to

see -- this is my first time reading it.

And I see the Kerry v. Weld race is mentioned. A lot of Kerry supporters nationwide thought Weld was extremely formidable and we were worried about the outcome of that race.

And then Kerry whupped his fanny good!

I was at a gathering of party Dems, watching the returns, and when the race was called for Kerry, you never heard a torrent of happy whoops like we gave out that night.

[politicasista]

359. No problem OC!

:hi:

[_dynamicdems]

378. Maybe we should ease up a bit......

:eyes:

[Ava]

390. i started a DISCUSSION THREAD

it's people like you who have turned this into a flame war. if you can't talk about the subject without throwing personal attacks, then just step aside and leave those of us who can to continue the thread.

[saltpoint]

394. In defense of WildEyedLiberal's posts on DU, I've read a great

many of them and find them to be straight and true.

If you go into the archived posts and read her DU entries, I bet you will agree that they are the product of an insightful, bright, and dedicated Democrat.

I am not really clear on why you would invoke God to disallow a Kerry or HClinton nomination in your OP and then object to another DUer calling that "inane."

Doesn't seem fair.

[Ava]

398. what doesn't seem fair is that

i obviously (according to some of the responders) can't post my opinion if it's different from their's at all without trying to start a "flame war."

i thought this was a discussion thead where people discuss, not attack. i was looking for a civil discussion, not a flame war.

[blm]

400. It can be a good discussion, too. There are many posts where the replies

really want an exchange that honors reason and the facts.

Maybe it would help to concentrate on those and leave anything untoward unanswered.

[saltpoint]

403. You've handpicked the posts you wish to respond to in the

thread, Ava. Several which offer a discussion on a variety of viewpoints you've skipped altogether.

WildEyedLiberal and many of the rest of us feel your OP was off-base.

And as an aside, who -- really -- is "new" to government among potential Democratic candidates?

Federal, state, local districts, etc. -- aren't all these people Democrats & playing for the same team, despite significant differences?

If you consider politics from that point of view, those of us who prefer Kerry-Edwards in 04 may have to settle for Bayh-Richardson, but we will vote blue.

Those who like General Clark may have to accept Chris Dodd instead.

Kucinich voters -- and I hang out with a lot of them -- may have to cast votes for Senator Clinton.

No one's flaming you for sport. Your post is being questioned because it appears to subtract from the very public record of a genuine public servant, one who plays on our team.

[ProSense]

397. This was not a good premise for discussion.

"please for the love of God do not elect Kerry, or Hillary for that matter, to be our candidate in 2008. Why? Because I live in the South and I know "centrists." Someone like Kerry or Hillary is not going to win over their votes."

Your statement is loaded with stereotypes! It's no different from a RW talking point: "please for the love of God do not elect...Someone like Kerry..."

[Kenergy]

354. Ava, I'm in NC

And I agree with you. Kerry and Hillary don't stand a chance in '08.

[saltpoint]

355. Kenergy, what if the Republicans nominate Dr. Rice as their

presidential ticket-topper. Her odds are fairly long in most scenarios, but very plausible in another: Fitz puts the heat on Uncle Dick, Dick resigns, Dubya appoints Condi as Vice President of the United States, all before Labor Day 06.

Not issuing hard predictions here, just sayin' it's a possibility.

Then say the Dems nominate Kerry or HClinton.

You tellin' me that a Kerry v. Rice or a HClinton v. Rice match-up would not be competitive in North Carolina?

I think it would.

[Kenergy]

361. I agree with you there

If the pugs run Rice, spongebob squarepants would beat her.

Also note so there's no misconception, I like Kerry...he's smart and would be a fine pres.
I voted for him in '04

[saltpoint]

363. LOL! If a gay cartoon character defeats Secretary Rice, the best

thing about it is that Jim Dobson will blow his brains out!

[Kenergy]

364. LOL ! n/t

[Giant Robot]

376. Wow very brave for someone so young! n/t

[tomp]

381. kerry won!

we need honest vote counting.

i myself am not crazy about kerry and i hate hillary but both gore and kerry actually won the vote. it's disheartening that people need to be reminded of this.

[mtnsnake]

418. Yeah, that's why he's sitting in the White House, eh

[madokie]

392. I don't know If I have seen a post go this far.

peace

[RadiDem]

406. The Confederacy pines for LaRouche in 08! Go Lyndon -nt-

har de har har

[saltpoint]

407. As a reference source for evaluating Senator Kerry, this page

is pretty useful:

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm

Readable, informative, quick navigating.

You could see how closely Kerry's votes in the Senate align with your own views. Also note that his years of service are considerable and in the context of U.S. citizenship, extraordinary.

My own take is that had Kerry been a weak candidate, no Swiftboat Liars would ever had to have been gathered to smear him.