Is John Kerry finished for a future presidential run?

[tinfoilinfor2005]

Put away the popcorn...I'm not doing an anti Kerry thread here.

Last night on Real Time, Maher and his guests all agreed that Kerry didn't hurt the elections, but that this latest incident ended any future presidential run for him.

Just curious, now that the smoke has cleared, how you all feel about that?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. It's Time For A Fresh Face With New Ideas

eom

[Auggie]

4. Agree.

[Tellurian]

19. I don't know that he's done himself..

irreparable harm stemming from his botched joke.

The HBO Special "Hacking Democracy" is what will sink him.

The Kerry groups try to pretend people won't or don't notice
what he did so soon when the election results were hardly in..

CONCEDE....After he solemnly promised he would FIGHT!for us!

I supported Kerry, physically, financially and emotionally..
The let down was huge..a combination of disbelief and disappointment.
A gaping wound in my heart barely beginning to heal, then this revelation
comes to light again..

I'm sick of fighting and the blame game excuses with the Kerryites and
their impersonal deification of Kerry. His good points I don't dispute.
His failure resounds like a smoking gun...

when I thought he was at our backs no matter what...He said, sorry folks!
He did a 180 and tip toed off into the night.

I'm not going all the way with the next election to lose without a GD good fight.
And if we lose, at least I know, I gave it my all and can get over it someday with no regrets.

Kerry never gave us a chance...thats what bothers me most of all.

[AtomicKitten]

68. I agree and well said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2923914&mesg_id=2924168

[SouthernBelle82]

163. Without any proof right?

Oh yes let him walk right in and convince a judge and jury of a stolen election with no proof. LOL! I still have a hard time proving it to people when the evidence is straight in their faces.

[rman]

44. why?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. Kerry Had His Bite At The Apple.

eom

[Mass]

104. I guess the primaries will decide.

[rman]

115. That doesn't tell me anything

For such a serious matter i'd like to hear more solid arguments.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

154. How About He Lost To Dimson By 3,000,000 Popular Votes

How about the fact that no sitting senator has been elected president in forty eight years...


How about the fact that no northeasterner has been elected president since 1944...


How about the fact that every successful Democratic candidate with two exceptions in the past one hundred or so years has come from the south or mid west...

[Leopolds Ghost]

315. Kerry can't win with Dems, can he? I thought people hated him cause he won

And refused to go on national TV and claim (without proof) those votes were STOLEN!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

348. I'll Vote For Him If He Gets The Nomination Because He Has A (D) After His Name

But i can't see a scenario where he can win...

[YvonneCa]

159. No...

...our country is in a bad place...we need EXPERIENCE.

[SouthernBelle82]

162. You mean like

Al Gore right? Oh yeah now that's fresh. If Kerry is a loser and done with so is Al Gore.

[Tigress DEM]

224. I don't know. A man who was ready to lead in 2004 with 4 years more..

I mean Kerry really has reasons to prove himself and work hard to restore the country and he's a guy who went back time and time again under fire to rescue his fellow soldiers.

I am certain he could do the job and help heal the country from all that has been going on behind our backs and because of his history his resolve I think could be stronger than any other.

I'm not on the whole Obama thing because he is too slick and too many of his votes were the wrong answer at times we needed solidarity. He makes me think of Condi or Hillary... smart, capable but not someone I trust to speak the truth or really be on the side of DEMs.

[LittleClarkie]

368. What's so magical about a new face?

It seems typically American that we're always looking for something for something different than what we already have. New isn't necessarily better. What about even some of the old faces from the last election? Clark's not a new face. Should we replace Dean with a new face if new faces are so much better?

Meanwhile, even if Kerry doesn't run for prez, I think he will be around for a long time in other capacities. That's fine with me. I will support him regardless.

[OzarkDem]

2. No

He's done nothing wrong. He's simply been the victim of attempts by the GOP and news media to choose our next presidential candidate.

Kerry just has to refine his communications skills and be a little more disciplined when speaking in public.

[Sugarcoated]

76. If he doesn't know how to speak

by now, I'm sorry, he's not a just not a good candidate. He's a good hardworking Senator but his political instincts aren't sharp enough and I don't think they'll ever be for a Presidential run.

[cobalt1999]

91. exactly.

This gaff by itself is meaningless, but Kerry, while a good senator, is a doomed presidential nominee. Too many have a poor perception of him. No more NE senators, they don't win.

[Tellurian]

93. Exactly correct and on point!

Jesus, Mary and Joseph..

He could have turned the latest faux pas into a real zinger
when Bush demanded the apology..All he had to say in clear
concise words were:

"NO, MR.PRESIDENT, IT IS YOU THAT OWE THE TROOPS AN APOLOGY;
YOU SENT OUR TROOPS TO IRAQ ON THE WINGS OF A LIE!"

He could have read it off a paper to make sure of avoiding
another flub...BUT NO, he listens to these ding bat advisers
he surrounds himself with...and comesup with:

"I'm not apologizing to any stuffed shirt"..yada, yada, yada..
BS response...when he had the chance to nail Bush with a memorable
ZINGER, he BLOWS the SECOND chance as well!

[blm]

117. He very RARELY drops a pronoun. He speaks beautifully most of the time.

Especially if you love SERIOUS POLICY and SOLUTIONS.

I'm sure curious as to who the mystery Dem is who will never misspeak or be lied about for misspeaking.

[Tellurian]

133. The Truly talented politician can turn a misspeak into a deadly arrow

aimed at his opponent. Nobody's perfect. But the talent lies in
turning a faux pas into a zinger. Thinking quickly on your feet.
Kennedy had the talent, so does Clinton.
Decisiveness is not a Kerry trait.

[blm]

149. Guess it depends on what the meaning of is is. And when the reporter asked

Clinton what he'd say to Monica's parents, Clinton was struck speechless.

And when BushInc lied about Clintons trashing the White House there was no effective comeback for months.

Boy, people have short memories here. I think you just forget what it was like when another ONE particular Dem becomes the sole focus of the RW machine's line of fire.

[Sugarcoated]

192. I don't think Clinton is a valid comparison.

He was hunted like an animal for 9 years. As good as he is, he wasn't able to deflect all the dirt flung at him.

[blm]

195. And Kerry has been their prime target for over 3 years. He flubs less than

99% of all lawmakers.

He dropped a PRONOUN not his pants. How the FOCK does one get smeared for dropping a PRONOUN? And what insane Democrat would side with the liars?

All the room we gave Clinton for being a target, somehow doesn't apply to Kerry? THAT'S the aspect that pisses me off. Clinton could never have been elected without Kerry working since 1985 to expose BushInc. Yet Kerry gets WHAT in return? His remark was "inappropriate" when he only dropped a pronoun?

[Sugarcoated]

210. You can't compare them

Not even close. The attacks on Clinton were 24/7, it was to the absurd. For all Cliton's faults and mistakes he could out-snow them. He knew what to say, how to say it and when. Clinton could make up for so much with his charm, he had the X factor. Some people just do. Some don't. It's not fair, but that's life.

But it was how Kerry handled it afterward. He makes simple things complicated.

When he was being attacked in '04 he didn't defend himself quickly enough, and when he finally did it just wasn't effective. And in the recent flap, if he had the skill, he wouldn've known it wasn't a time to make up for '04, it wasn't ABOUT HIM. It was about not pulling the party off message a week before one of the most important elections in our nation's history. He has two left feet sometimes, but he just doesn't have it. I'm sorry, I know you like him, but he's just not a good candidate.

[blm]

213. The big difference is that Clinton had entire party defending him. Kerry had Clinton out there

supporting Bush publically on very serious issues and protecting him on others. Biden and other Dems promised Bush they wouldn't make Iraq a campaign issue before the election.

THAT was the Dem party mindset in 2004.

You think if the entire party had defended Kerry's dropped pronoun the way they defended Clinton's dropped pants, that ...gee...it could have made a difference?

[karynnj]

229. Fair is fair

Let's compare these 3 cases, 2 Clinton 1 Kerry:

Bill Clinton was accused of having sex with an intern. In February, he says "I did NOT have sex with that woman" in August, he admitted an inappropriate relationship. Think of the ramifications for Democrats if he had simply apologized a day later like Kerry did for the offense of misreading a joke and leaving out a pronoun because he was exhausted from appearing all over the country to help Democrats, complicated by the "HeyJohn" friendly fire the week before.

Also, lets stop being hypocrites. In truth, Kerry did nothing that he should be ashamed of here. He then within hours of the RW attack got the documents to the media and gave a response attacking the distortion. The next day he apologized because he knew some vets believed the lie and he wanted to both reassure them and apologize for his part - which was only botching a joke.

Clinton should NEVER have been asked those questions, but the fact is had he told the truth immediately and apologized, there would have been no impeachment. The 6 month wait, while he lied to everyone including Hillary and his cabinet - who were all out defending Clinton. Then he lied under oath - which shows disrespect for the justice process. I have 3 daughters, who ranged from 8 to 13 at that time. So, I care that this story was unavoidable for at least a year.

The fact is that a few months ago, all the Clinton fans were delighting in his fight against the evil monster, Chris Wallace. A person, with the status of ex-President was able to rage at a Fox newscaster. Hillary was out saying how this showed that Democrats were able to fight back. Hundreds of Democrats, including Kerry backed Clinton. I heard no official Democrat comment that his anger was understandable but he looked like a bully.

Kerry faced a Drudge/blogs/cableshows/Snow/President Bush attack (running that gamut in less than half a day) smear. The smear was on an issue that went to the heart of who he is. He has worked for veterans since the early 1970s. The MSM repeated it. He responded that day with the TRUTH, got the transcripts out and in explaining the joke got in a powerful attack on Bush's mishandling of Iraq. Hillary then came out and ... attacked Kerry. stunning, I guess you can only fight back if you are a Clinton or in defense of one. Kerry then apologized - just to the vets and servicemen hurt by it.

[YvonneCa]

161. Have you listened to any of his speeches...

...on johnkerry.com ? If so, you could never say that.

[SouthernBelle82]

167. Wow how you haven't been paying attention!

I suggest you visit johnkerry.com and listen to all of his recent speeches.

[LittleClarkie]

369. He drops a pronoun ONCE, the Republicans jump on it like they

were on a hair trigger, staring at him waiting for a gaff, and suddenly he can't speak.

What if the next time you dropped a pronoun it made the national news?

[Alacrat]

3. Yes

[SammyWinstonJack]

14. No.

[blm]

22. Another NO. Name Dems who CAN'T be lied about. Or who will dominate the

series of debates and prove more knowledgeable and prepared to speak the truth as Kerry. Or who received more votes than any Dem in HISTORY.

Clintons trashed the White House. ANYONE can be lied about.

[blue sky at night]

5. Now there is some good thinking.....

hope they didn't hurt themselves. Look at what is happening all across this country now with the truth gone from most every venue, and they sit there saying a man who blew a joke is finished. Why isn't the whole freaking system finished? Why must this garbage be floated constantly here in DU, can't we discuss something real? Can we please stop talking about what John Kerry said Five days ago??

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. I Agree 100%

I'm tired of all the Kerry threads... May he finish his career as the junior or senior senator from Massachussetts...

[blm]

38. Some Dems will prefer COVER UP Dem presidencies where BushInc is protected

yet again.

Establishment Dems don't want Kerry in the WH opening the books on BushInc.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

52. Again with this canard.

The rumored outing of the BFEE by Kerry is fantasy.

Now.
In the future.
On his deathbed.
Fantasy.

[blm]

57. The BushInc cover up presidency of Bill Clinton is REALITY.

And you know if you had to name one Dem presidential candidate who is more likely than any other to open documents to the public once they had the power to do so, that person is Kerry.

But that truth doesn't fit your preferred storyline.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

61. I don't have a "storyline."

"Kerry will expose the BFEE if you elect him President!"

That's your storyline. Kerry has never claimed he'll do it, either. It's all yours.

And I respectfully call Bullshit.


"If Kerry isn't elected President we'll never publically know the extent of BFEE!"

Horsepucky.

Kerry is a good Senator, not a knight in shining armor.

[blm]

70. And at this time he's still the only potential candidate with a PROVEN record of

working diligently to get MORE documents opened to the American people.

And THAT is a fact that is indisputable. The documents that he wanted in the hands of the American people were of the most serious matters of the day.

I doubt he has changed his feelings about this. I am already aware that anti-corruption is going to be a major aspect of his campaign SHOULD he decide to run again.

I hope that if that is the case, you will reconsider your opposition.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

88. I'm all for anti-corruption.

Are you suggesting that a Feingold, Gore or Kucininch wouldn't likely respect FOIA as much as Kerry?
They've all talked about it as well.

Most Dems would tend towards less secretiveness. That doesn't make it an "Exposure of BFEE!"
Most Dems would tend towards less corruption. That doesn't make it an "Exposure of BFEE!"
Most Dems would tend towards more oversight. That doesn't make it an "Exposure of BFEE!"



"Boss! Zee BFEE exposure! Zee BFEE exposure!"

:D

[blm]

94. Neither Gore or Feingold have PROVEN they would SEEK to release documents

because they believed the people should know. Gore participated with Clinton in the downplaying of the CIA drugrunning story - Gary Webb's exposure of that story was backed up by only ONE senator at the time - John Kerry. Russ WAS in office then and never spoke up in support, so what should I presume from that?

FOIA is one thing, sure more Democrats would respect it, that's a given, but, SEEKING the release of documents as a matter of your own dedication to open government is not as common in a leader.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

97. Kerry is in office NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Crickets.

[blm]

102. And? He's been shut down at every request as a minority member.

Just as every other Dem seeking to get more documents has been. You do remember all the brave Dem senators who signed the letter of inquiry on the Downing Street Memos, don't you? All TEN of them.

Are you really asserting that Kerry would NOT use the power of the presidency to bring MORE documents to the public because he isn't doing so right now as a minority member of the senate?

That's a hooey implication and you know it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

105. Great. Then if Dems take the Senate Tuesday...

We can expect a flurry of subpoenas flowing from Kerry's office, re: The BFEE, come next January.

That's fantastic! (He doesn't even have to be Prez to make it happen) :party:

We'll discuss it again then. :(

I'm betting you won't like the tenor of that discussion when rubber meets the road. If I'm wrong, I win anyways. :)

[blm]

112. Who do you think can call for hearings on Corporate media in his efforts

to overturn the FCC rulings that allowed their expansion? Sometimes people get so caught up with dissing Kerry for MEDIA DRIVEN idiocy that they forget about who he really is and what drives him.



Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"

Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval

Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.
Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

114. I wasn't dissing Kerry.

I was (politely) dissing your notions about Kerry.

See you in January if Tuesday is happy. :hi:



Bookmarking.

[SouthernBelle82]

180. Oh and also don't forget

that when the Downing Street Minutes memo's came out guess who was the only Senator to take them seriously? John Kerry. Feingold to this day hasn't signed onto the letter Kerry sent around to his colleagues looking to investigate. It was just a very small handful of democrats who signed onto that letter calling for an investigation. Gee I wonder why Feingold or anyone else hasn't signed onto it who claims to be so anti-war.... And yes you're right only John Kerry didn't write off Gary Webb and he believed him. Everyone else said Webb was a crazy guy but he was proven right.

[SouthernBelle82]

171. Wow you really don't know Kerry do you?

This is talking about the man who closed down BCCI, CIA drug smuggling in the 80's and Iran/Contra affair that President Clinton closed. If he didn't know that and let Kerry finish his work on that perhaps all these people would be in jail now instead of working in our House. Kerry has been 100% CORRECT ON EVERYTHING! since 2004 and that election. Remember when he talked about Tora Bora and everyone said he was nuts and that would backfire? HE WAS RIGHT! Remember when he told that the Bush's would try to get rid of Social Security in January of 2005 and everyone again said he was nuts and was wrong? HE WAS RIGHT! Remember when Kerry said you can't defeat terrorism except through the law and again guess who was 100% correct? JOHN KERRY. He knows this issue better than ANYBODY! out there.

[Tellurian]

83. Stop spouting Repuke talking points..

ALL THEORETICAL Crapola...same as them..

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOeeewwwwwwwwwww! The Boogie Man's gonna getya!

Please! We gave Kerry all the latitude in the World to do the right thing..

I'm not backing a Dead Horse for President...AGAIN!

[blm]

96. Show me the GOP talking points that Clinton covered up for Bush1.

That should keep you busy for like.....many years.

[dailykoff]

113. This thread is all about a Repuke talking point

Hadn't you noticed?

[Tellurian]

132. Kerry's biggest detriment is he's surrounded himself with BAD advisers! nm

[SouthernBelle82]

182. So once again

you expect him to walk into a court room and convince people that the election was stolen when I can't even prove it to people who claim to hate Bush and his policy's when the evidence is in their faces? LOL! Now that's funny.

[Coyote_Bandit]

6. I think

that happened in 2004. And I still have my Kerry dogtag and his bumpersticker is still on my car.

I would not say the same of Gore. The difference is not so much in their appeal to voters as it is in their response to defeat. Personally, I think Gore has moved beyond political aspirations and I would be surprised to see him as a candidate. But I think he would win if he ran.

[Burma Jones]

7. I hope so

He won't be able to raise much cash now.

[w4rma]

118. I hope so too. I like him, but Dems have *lots* of great choices.

But, I will say this. I would vote, in a hearbeat, for Sen. John Kerry over Hillary. I trust Kerry. I do not trust Hillary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. We Want To Win A Presidential Election For A Change. Don't We

eom

[blm]

26. Then name every Dem who goes into 2008 with at least 60 million votes.

Or who now understands how the machines steal votes. Name the Dems who will dominate the series of debates.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Borat Could Have Beat Dimson In A Series Of Debates

eom

[blm]

32. I'm talking about the Democratic debates - that's where Kerry won the primary

and it seems many of you have forgotten that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. I Don't Want To Looooooooooooooooooooseeeeeee Again...

Maybe there's a reason a sitting senator hasn't been elected president since 1960 and only one northeasterner has been elected president in sixty four years...

As a prudent man I would prefer to play the odds rather then challenge them...

[blm]

40. So name the Dem who goes in to 2008 with a 60-65 million vote advantage.

And the one who now KNOWS that machines get rigged BEFORE and DURING the election.

Seems that would be the advantage.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. Any Dem Who Doesn't Drool Can Carry The Eighteen Or So States Kerry And Gore Carried...

The challenge is to go beyond that...

Maybe carry Ohio, Florida, or some of the southwest states.

[blm]

53. Kerry won. Machines were rigged, voter rolls purged. Dean is no McAuliffe

and is working to secure the election process.

And you still won't name any Dem with advantages over Kerry's. Who is the mystery Dem who can't have a lie created about them? Clintons trashed the White House - I know because the RW machine and the entire mainstream media told me so for MONTHS on end.

[Tigress DEM]

228. The DEM who is smart enough to pick John Conyers for VP will get my vote.

John Conyers has been in their fighting for US since day one.

I only say VP rather than Prez because I want him in charge of the Senate kicking some tailfeathers of all those chicken hawks.

[fedupinBushcountry]

262. Boy oh boy

you are living in lalaland. Gore could not even win his own state in 2000, if he had done that he would be President.

[demwing]

166. Al Gore

[SouthernBelle82]

178. But according to some

of the logic here in this thread Gore is finished too. We need "Fresh new talent" and Gore is an old candidate. He had his chance too. Sorry. Same rules should apply.

[wisteria]

304. We lose because of the flimflam image Clinton left us with.

We lose because we do not unite and support our candidates 100%. We whine and gripe instead.
we lose because we do not offer ourselves as much as packaged goods that the Washington insiders tell us will sell in the southern states.
We lose because our own pundits are to quick to agree with repub talking points and promote our candidates with little enthusiasm.
We lose because we don't stand up and lead.

Our candidates aren't bad. Gore and Kerry offered much more qualification and intelligent wise. they just needed that extra exposure offered by positive press and knowledgeable and loyal pundits.

Kerry could do it again. I would vote for him. There is something about him that is refreshing and different, than most other politicians.

[ecstatic]

39. do you really think that many people will vote for him again after

what he did?

He basically said to those who stood in line for hours and hours, "oh well, I'll try again in 2008. I'll let my buddy finish his term out."

What destroyed Kerry's image in the eyes of many was his quick concession. Many people (especially those who were disenfranchised) will NEVER forgive him for that.

[blm]

59. Second slowest concession - it's inaccurate to say it was quick.

And he didn't have any legal evidence to take to court to continue.

The same Dem party election experts who told Gore he had a case to continue, told Kerry it was impossible without legal evidence.

[NYCGirl]

95. The difference between the first slowest concession and the second was

approximately SIX WEEKS!

[blm]

123. The same election lawyers who told Gore he had a case told Kerry there was no case

and the circumstances were COMPLETELY different.

Would you assert that if Kerry was in the same circumstance as Gore and had the case AND the math with him to continue, that he would still have conceded?

Would you assert that if Gore was the same circumstance as Kerry and had no legal evidence or the math to continue, that he would have NOT conceded?

As you recall, Gore conceded to Bush when he thought the math was against him in Florida - he UNCONCEDED when the math provided him with the opening to do so.

So apples are apples and oranges are oranges.

[NYCGirl]

124. Well, then the "second slowest concession" line doesn't hold up, does it?

Edited because I said "second longest concession" instead of "second slowest concession", like you did.

[blm]

126. I don't get what you're saying. Kerry's concession was 2nd most delayed

after Gore's. Why dispute that point? And where is theer any evidence that their circumstances were the same?

I guess i don't understand the thrust of your argument here or why comparing Gore and Kerry on concession matters?

[NYCGirl]

128. Yeah, but you post it like it's some badge of courage, like it's some kind

of yardstick by which we measure a candidate.

[blm]

145. I was correcting a poster who said it was quick. That is all.

I guess I don't get why correcting something with the facts warrants a disagreement. I just found that to be unexpected.

[YvonneCa]

165. Forgiveness is good for the soul...

..check out Kerry's Take Back America speech.

[SouthernBelle82]

183. Even though you're wrong

He has called for paper ballots in polling places for people who want them and has signed onto legislation with Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer. Oopsie. Don't let that get ya now. He has actually done more for election fraud than anyone else out there who is an elected official. Remember when he talked about the whole Ohio affair at an MLK Jr event and he got blasted for talking about that even though that was something MLK fought for and died for?

[madville]

75. I don't see it that way at all

The majority of those votes weren't votes for Kerry, they were votes against GWB and the GOP. Just like in 2008 if Clinton is the nominee, people won't be coming out of the woodwork to vote for whatever idiot the GOP puts up, the majority will be flocking to the polls to vote against Clinton, doesn't even matter who the Republican is.

[blm]

89. To an extent, because most media never exposed Kerry's very REAL record

as they were still in full protection of Bushboy mode.

You think more Democrats wouldn't be MORE enthusiastic about Kerry if they understood that it was Kerry who uncovered IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning? That it was Kerry who wrote the book tracking terror networls and their funding back in 1997? That Kerry's efforts were blocked at every turn by the DC powerstructure, yet he pursued them and put them into the congressional record?

I think more Dems will realize alot more about Kerry when there are more in the media UNWILLING To promote the lies of the swifts as a constant news presence. I think few will participate in that type of liefest against Kerry's Vietnam service ever again.

Clinton wass introduced to the American people during his convention with NNE HOURS of primetime BLANKET coverage. Kerry was given THREE hours, with one going to Edwards and the other to Clinton. That was the network's choice.

The mountain of crap is going to descend on any Democrat - with Kerry they have to CREATE lies because he has been the most followed and investigated lawmaker of the last 35 years by the DC powerstructure and they have never come up with anything, from Nixon, Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2. So Bush2 made up lies.

What would be done with any Democrat, especially if some of the charges get based on some truths or even half truths?

[w4rma]

119. Only Al Gore and John Edwards meet both qualifications. (nt)

[Clark2008]

137. John Edwards?

What foreign policy does he know?

NONE.

Come on.

I'll give you Gore, in a heartbeat, but Edwards is pure FLUFF.

[wisteria]

308. No, his appeal wears thin after a while. n/t

[SouthernBelle82]

185. Even though according

to the logic some here in this thread have they're losers too and they are not fresh new talent either. They've also had their chances.

[karynnj]

232. John Edwards absolutely did not dominate the 2004 debates

Kerry dominated most of them, Dean dominated one of the early ones

[cornermouse]

10. No politician of either party will ever be too "finished" to at least

consider a run for the presidency. I doubt that Kerry can realistically consider a run in '08, but there's always '12.

[liberal N proud]

11. I believe so

I was awake early this morning and surfing for something that wasn't an infomercial.
Blomberg TV was on, I stopped there for a while, They had Novak and some Democrat strategist on. Novak couldn't let the Kerry thing die surprise, surprise.
But the Democrat, I didn't recognize her said that he was pretty much finished.

[misternormal]

12. I think American Voters...

... are getting fed up with the tired excuse of "What I meant to say was....."

One would think that these senators, congressmen and candidates, all of whom speak before crowds of people would have the experience, and at least the forethought to say what it is that they mean.

All politicians stretch the truth to the extreme, but to botch a simple sentence to the point that they must use the aforementioned excuse is laughable.

Kerry is, in my humble opinion, done. He would be lucky to retain his seat in the senate after this.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Anybody With A (D) After Their Name Can Win A Senate Seat In Massachusetts

eom

[NavyDavy]

18. ok, I think you are off your rocker, if you think Sen Kerry will lose

his seat because of this.....most people with half of brain knew he was talking about bush!! and he is very popular in Mass.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Two Small Points...

That poster got carried away....


As for "people with half of brain" I'll defer to Adlai Stevenson... Someone told him "all the smart people are voting for you" and he has been rumored to have answered "that's not enough to win."

[tinfoilinfor2005]

31. Ha, ha! Great line!

Thanks...I hadn't heard that one before. :)

[A Simple Game]

106. Good point.

The fact that a botched joke got so much attention shows that it may have been the straw that broke the camels back.

If it wasn't the straw that broke the camels back, it was close enough to tell anyone that they should not consider running for President again.

[karynnj]

This says the RW can destroy any candidate.

Even as said, Kerry's comment was not a problem.

What was a problem was an interpretation that can not logically come from what he said. Then it was talked up forever. Take anyone speaking on Iraq - no matter how knowlegable - I have heard RW talkshow people take what they said and distort it. A common one is it's easy to take the very true statement that our soldiers cannot win when in Iraq because they are in the midst of a Civil war. I would bet the Republicans would have done this anyway with that type of quote - having a botched joke made it more embarassing for the Senator, but the effect would have been the same.

[karynnj]

233. This says the RW can destroy any candidate.

Even as said, Kerry's comment was not a problem.

What was a problem was an interpretation that can not logically come from what he said. Then it was talked up forever. Take anyone speaking on Iraq - no matter how knowlegable - I have heard RW talkshow people take what they said and distort it. A common one is it's easy to take the very true statement that our soldiers cannot win when in Iraq because they are in the midst of a Civil war. I would bet the Republicans would have done this anyway with that type of quote - having a botched joke made it more embarassing for the Senator, but the effect would have been the same.

[blm]

242. Clintons trashed the White House - that lie held for months....didn't it?

A goldenthroated President couldn't even tamp that lie down, could he?

[onehandle]

13. Whichever Democrat gets the nomination in '08 gets my vote...

Especially since a "President McCain" would make Bush look like representative of the ACLU.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

15. I think McCain has hurt himself a great deal in the past two years.

He used to have quite a bit of moderate dem and independent backing, but I think that is all gone now.

[Catchawave]

17. It's going to be much more competitive in '08

and remember, it's going to be a weary country looking to be lifted up with hope, inspiration and a vision.

I think the smoke will clear on Nov 8, which will prove one way or another if Kerry made a difference, or not.

[meisje]

20. He was finished when he conceded '04

[greatauntoftriplets]

25. Agreed.

His weak response to the election and early concession finished Kerry for me. He should not have conceded until after ALL the votes had been counted.

[blm]

29. That has NEVER been a standard. Military and overseas votes are still being

counted weeks after election day. Change the laws that govern vote count, change the Dem party's team of election experts and lawyers, but it is blatantly unjust to have an impossible standard for just ONE person.

[NRaleighLiberal]

21. I think Kerry is a good man and a smart man, but realistically,

he cannot get people sufficiently fired up (enough of them, anyway) - so I am for a fresh face.

[YvonneCa]

169. This is about POLICY...

...not just politics. We don't need a fresh face, we need foreign policy EXPERIENCE. Kerry has it. Fresh faces usually don't.

[NRaleighLiberal]

207. Absolutely agree - but realistically, can he win! That is MOST

important - we need to run someone that the majority of the voters see as electable!

[YvonneCa]

244. Of course he can win...

..if 'we the people' care enough to make it happen.

[etherealtruth]

23. You can never know ...

He's probably "out" for '08.

Look at Al Gore, he really couldn't/shouldn't have run in 04. In '08 I'd be excited if he ran.

Time heals many wounds and alters memories.

[karynnj]

234. He was the favorite until he pulled himself out

There was a very strong feeling that he had won and deserved to run again.

[Longhorn]

27. He may be, but not because of the flubbed joke. nt

[H2O Man]

30. I think that Kerry

can do the most good for the country by concentrating on his duties as a US Senator. While I do believe that the democratic party is strengthened by having many candidates enter primaries, it may be that Kerry lacks that extra "something" that would get enough people to invest in his run. I do not think the joke would be a significant factor. Rather, I think it is more because Kerry has a Hamlet-like inner conflict about deciding when it is better to take up arms to defend himself from the republican/swift boat attacks. People my age tend to see him as the Adlai Stevenson of this generation.

[blm]

34. He already won once with more votes than any Dem in history - machines will

be exposed more fully before 2008.

If you want another Dem administration that COVERS UP for BushInc, then by all means, DON'T support Kerry.

BTW...no one is yet to answer WHO that mystery Dem is who can't be lied about.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. He Lost To Dimson By 3,000,000 Popular Votes...

Even if Ohio was fixed he still lost the pop vote to Dimson by 3,000,000 votes...

At least Gore was more (popular)than Dimson...

[blm]

45. Untrue - the popular vote was just as rigged as Ohio - read RFKs article.

And you all seem to believe that Bush's utter failures were wellknown to Americans in 2004. Bush was the most PROTECED president by the media - way more protected than Reagan ever was. Way more protected by the Congress than ANY president in history.

Kerry won. 60-65 million votes and NOW he knows about rigged machines. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Name the Dem who goes in to 2008 with better debate chops, and is already capable of getting 60-65 million votes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. How Did They Steal 3,000,000 Votes?

I don't have a dog in this fight but as I said before any Dem who is sentient can carry the states Gore and Kerry carried in 00 and 04...

The challenge is to expand the playing field not narrow it...


And as I said it's been forty eight years since a sitting senator made it to the White House.

[blm]

60. History was out the window the moment GOP gained control of most media.

Was ANY president ever impeached for having sex with a woman who wasn't his wife before?

I am frankly amazed that any DUer at this point still hasn't read RFKs article that makes a VERY COMPELLING case about how the votes are stolen, and all the ways it was done throughout the country.

[Tigress DEM]

230. Have you read, "What Happened in Ohio"?

I am not saying that Kerry is the ONLY candidate, but including Kerry in the playing field and not immediately discarding him IS making it more expansive.

He did win as far as I'm concerned simply due to the fact that the last state counting the votes had to go to enormous lengths to conceal their counts. *ush cheated so therefore Kerry won.

One thing I would demand is that even though his handlers will tell him to be careful of fighting the last fight and respond appropriately....

If we should have him as a candidate and the election is obviously rigged or stolen, I want him to get up and beat the theives to a pulp in the media. No bones about it and we should also be prepared to go into the streets and scream outrage if we don't get a fair election.

[windbreeze]

246. I just have to ask this

is there any other democrat you could stand behind, or is it just Kerry for you and no one else?...I truly would like to know, because I see you defending Kerry all the time, and I think you would be a good person to have on someone's side...
windbreeze

[blm]

256. I started in high school for Kucinich - I'm an anti-corruption Dem who

favors anti-corruption, open government lawmakers. Kucinich battling corruption in Cleveland was where I started battling.

Of course, Kerry, with his uncomparable record as an anti-corruption lawamker would be a focus. I want the books opened on BushInc and he is the best bet in DC to make it happen. I would also bet you that every REAL investigative journalist would agree with that assertion.

I adored Henry Gonzalez who doggedly pursued Iraqgate - another book closed by Clinton. grrrr....

Henry Waxman, Maxine Waters, and John Conyers are two other heroes.

If Kerry decides not to run then my devotion will be to the Democrat who PLEDGES to pursue BushInc crimes when they take office. I have hoped that person would be Clark or Gore, but, so far, neither has indicated they are interested in opening the books.

Thanks for asking. I appreciate the curiosity.

[H2O Man]

49. "If you want another ..."

First, I would agree that Kerry beat Bush in '04. But in my opinion, one reason he didn't "win" the election is because he simply didn't confront some of the Bush positions that he might have. It would be difficult to make the case that he was as aggressive in confronting the administration as he was, for example, in his attempt to uncover the crimes in the Iran-Contra scandals.

Second, it is foolish to take the position that only Kerry is capable of leading an administration that would not cover up for the Bush folks. That said, it isn't necessary for people to view the options in a silly black and white manner defined by your "then by all means, DON'T support Kerry."

Finally, the "BTW" is nonsense.

[blm]

62. Kerry won't be blocked by the Clinton loyalists who wouldn't back him on issues

of corruption in the campaign. The DNC was very much Clinton's baby at that time.

I don't say that Kerry is the only person who would, I'd bet a Waxman or Conyers would, but out of the known potential candidates he IS the only one with a solid, PROVEN record of seeking to open MORE documents to the public.

And sure the BTW was nonsense - because the whole idea that somehow just Kerry is susceptible to having words twisted to create a lie IS NONSENSE, and that is driving this current debate.

[Sugarcoated]

90. They're all going to be smeared

One of the things I'm looking for in a potential candidate is how that person handles the mud. Kerry's political instincts don't seem to come natural. It's not just the clunky way he said what he said, but how he handled it afterward. He's just not sharp enough, a good senator, but not presidential level.

[Mass]

125. Sugarcoated, how would you have wanted him to react.

The text of the speech was " pre-released". They sent it to anybody who was asking.

On Tuesday morning (Eastern time), they reacted by saying it was a smear job by the administration.
On Tuesday 2pm EST (9pm PST where Kerry was), they called a press conference where he explained what happened, said he was not attacking the troops but Bush and attacked Bush on Iraq (probably what the Dems did not like).

After this, the world collapsed. Democrats could not be fast enough to turn against him. Some behaved as if they thought he had actually smeared the military. The leadership clearly ask him to apologize and disappear, which he did.

The real issue here is to know what we want from Democrats:

- somebody who answers strongly and does not fold (as he did, and also did people like Durbin, Dean, ...).
- somebody who is afraid of his own shadow (as are the Democrats who helped Bush with his smear job and are the same who criticized Dean and Durbin and forced them to apologize when they had a few harsh words for this administration.

At this level, it is not about Kerry. It is about the Democratic Party we want.

[Mass]

129. delete

[blm]

127. He handled it BEAUTIFULLY< just as many DUers have been wanting to hear

a Democrat speak against the lies of his attackers.

[Pithy Cherub]

136. blm, all who voted for Kerry

did so because he was the only logical choice, not because he was gifted or even beloved as a political figure. I only voted for Kerry because Wes Clark asked me to, not because Kerry inspired a deep devotion. The classic ABB scenario. With that disclaimer out of the way, Kerry has done some laudable and magnificent things in his political career. He is a wonderful MA senator and has, upon occasion, shown the courage of his convictions. It is admirable that your defense of him is valiant, inspired and ever present. The media is truly complicit, but not the sole cause of Kerry's shrinking political fortunes. Kerry has made equal contributions in that regard. Peace to you on getting more Kerry supporters, but please understand that because a vote is given it does not mean it will be ever again.

[sandnsea]

142. All??

That's a pretty bold statement, dont ya think? Especially when put up against ol blinky and his infamous Maaaarrry!!!. :eyes:

[Pithy Cherub]

176. all could be replaced by many or most in

a botched Kerry way.:rofl:

[sandnsea]

187. In a Bush Bullshit way

you mean.

[Pithy Cherub]

206. nope, you got my meaning loud and clear. n/t

[sandnsea]

208. All and many mean the same thing?

In your world and Bushit world.

[windbreeze]

258. better read that again...it made perfect sense

"All who voted for Kerry did so because he was the only logical choice"..if you were a Democrat, he WAS the only logical choice....I too voted for him because of Wes Clark..
windbreeze

ps: wow, talk about bitter...!! that was rude and uncalled for...if you don't like Clark, that's fine...but a lot of good people worked for, donated to, and voted for Kerry because of Clark...like that or not, it's the truth...

[blm]

150. He has shown more courage of his convictions than any lawmaker of the last 30 years and paid

for it every step of the way.

People didn't KNOW John Kerry. They didn't KNOW his record or WHY they should view him as an asset. They KNOW he demolished Bush in the debates, but media even downplayed that.

With half a chance from the media more people can LEARN.

[YvonneCa]

170. Yes they can...

...and they will if Democrats take the House.

[Pithy Cherub]

181. Yes, people do know Kerry.

Just not as you see him. That's what makes the political caricatures so deadly. It's sad that his botched comment is the most people have seen of him rather than his Good Works. The media is an easy scapegaoat for the lack of knowledge about Kerry, but Kerry himself had to relearn how to fight and listen to his heart rather than be led by percieved public or inside DC consultant opinion. Part of his lessons learned. The mainstream media reports people who say things in an interesting way... Kerry has learned some things, but still has a long journey ahead to gain even within hailing distance to a majority of people who believe he is the next president. Groundswells make candidates as well, not solely the media.

[blm]

200. I would bet you that half the Democrats don't even know Kerry's record.

And ANY record can get dragged through the dirt. Clark was labeled a perfumed prince of the army, but there isn't any one of us who believes that . People still assert that Clark was a bad candidate for the minor miscues he made. We know it's not true and would never write him off, because we BOTHERED to get to know more about him.

Well, I'm expecting more people will have the OPPORTUNITY to know Kerry's REAL record of service. And why any Democrat would want to deny a man of his service and integrity the right to be known for the TRUTH is just a sad state of affairs.

[Pithy Cherub]

204. No one wants Kerry not to be known.

He has many great qualities. The issue is around translation. Do qualities translate to the next level. What worked at one level does not translate to a higher level. The constituencies shift when a promotion occurs. Happens all the time in a work place. In the Senate, everyone has an opportunity to contribute. Kerry has been mighty good in that. Do his senatorial accomplishments translate to a larger level - that will be for the public to decide. The media's translator is broken. Same issue for the media, their past skills have not translated to the next level which includes the Blogosphere. You have two entities, media & Kerry, trying to translate past accomplishments into a new political and cultural dynamic. The candidate that can best amplify their skills and talents into the new atmosphere will get the lion's share of media attention. The corporate media are late adopters (the status of their business demonstrates it) and pols have to be early adopters at the presidential level. Kerry learned a lot, but did he learn enough? Are there enough Kerry grassroots/netroots supporters to translate in the new world to make the late adopting corporate media pay attention? The primary process is about making people believe the translation - when they are soft believers they can be swayed by the media's relentless old translations.

[blm]

211. The corporate media is probably one of his first targets as Chair of

the committee that can call hearings on them. In fact, it's Kerry's past battle with the corporate media that has led to their piling on.

Big difference, though from ranking member to Chair. It's called subpoena power.


Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"

Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval

Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.
Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

[Pithy Cherub]

218. That actually illustrates the point.

If Kerry wants to be president, then as Chair of a Committee he has to use the power of position to get legislation passed that benefits the Common Good. If Kerry elects to legislate, then getting to the bottom of media malfeasance is perfect and provides the infrastructure to reform the dinosaur media. In one year what will he accomplish that will burnish his skills and talents for the presidency because he needs to have a reason for a renewal of interest in him. That's the part about thinking hard on how he wants the translation from senator to president to be shaped. Kerry worked very hard to get Democrats elected this cycle! Who will be on his team to help him craft legislation that passes? That's part of what Kerry has to think long and hard about - his own peers have their own ambitions. The media plays in the aftermath of his decision about his choice legislation or politicking, not in Kerry's decision about how he best uses this tiny window of opportunity.

Truly admire your endless support of him and the indepth information you know about Kerry. You do him proud! :toast:

[Tellurian]

238. The subpoena power blm's talking about..

Is not to pass legislation but for endless investigations concerning the Bush WH.
This is what she is fixated on. In the same breath, they diss the Clintons
both of them, accusing them of covering up for the Bushes.

Better to read the previous posts. And you will see a stilted view of their aspirations
of prosecuting Bush and his ilk to the fullest extent of the law. In my opinion, there are
too many other things of more importance to the working man, than focusing on prosecutions
at this point in time. Not that it wouldn't be a future intention at a later date.

As you pointed out, Kerry needs to work on getting legislation passed supporting the
common good. The public good is not a priority at this time for the Kerry campaign.

[Pithy Cherub]

243. Hillary fares no better

than Kerry in my book. Both have enabled the Bush's with wrongheaded votes especially IWR, and only one had the courage to speak up on the war and take responsibility of the two - Kerry. Not giving a full measure of support to Ned Lamont won't be easily forgotten either. Both Clintons were speed bumps in Dean's implementation of a 50 state strategy and so my view is not to hold Kerry in any less esteem than Team Clinton, but hold him a bit above. Bill Clinton as president was a joy to behold and I love him, but even his words ring hollow when there are Democrats like Lieberman allowed to subvert the will of the people and eviscerate the Common Good.

As to investigations, I disagree. For those with a commitment to Good Government there should be full investigations because the Common Good is based on ascertaining the truth and alignment of resources to facilitate good governance. The record must be clear and strong not only for present day purposes but for posterity to hold off other craven attempts from bush clones to repeat this governing malfeasance. It should also ward off lazy democrats who kept their powder dry during Bush's Reign of Terror. The full measure of what has happened is owed to the American public. As much as the Founding Fathers hated investigations into their own governing, they set up the system to provide checks and balances which must be fully used. Too many gave a full measure of devotion, not to Honor their sacrifice without a finding of fact.

[Tellurian]

253. I can agree with most everything you've written, however..

Our constitution has been broken, broken literally. It is not the functioning document it once was and may never be put right again in our life time.

Link here as to the dynamic of this so far irrevocable breach:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/sep/29/the_star_chamber

You can read here to understand why Bush and ilk cannot be prosecuted at this point and time.

Perhaps it would do blm some good to have a read and maybe persude her to step off the bandwagon,
look around and understand things are not as she perceives them to be.

[blm]

341. Have never before heard one person at DU ever advocate to close the books on BushInc.

Did you have an account at BCCI or something? Geez - Truth Matters. If you are against truth being told and records examined, you are NOT for protecting the Constitution or for good government.

You're either FOR open government or AGAINST it. Your choice.

[blm]

241. Barack Obama has already joined Kerry on media consolidation problems.

I look forward to PROGRESS for a change. The media has been the Dems biggest enemy for over ten years. Clinton couldn't have been impeached without the media's complicity, and elections couldn't be stolen without the protection given BushInc at every turn.

[Name removed]

247. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blm]

252. Why would you post something that most DUers know is absolutely false?

I was working for Gore even through a high risk pregnancy, and continued nonstop after a Csection.

I brought the electronic vote fraud issue to DU before the 2002 election.

Most DUers know certainly where I stand, even when they don't agree with me.

Any longtime DUer knows my heart pretty much inside and out by now.

[Tellurian]

254. So, are you saying you never supported Nader and the Greens?nm

[Tellurian]

279. Avoiding answering the above question? Were you a Nader supporter? Y/N?

[blm]

336. I already answered - you didn't reply to what I wrote.

And I would have to guess that you are so obsessed with ME, that you have lost the ability to comprehend simply constructed sentences.

[Tellurian]

367. Is that why you requested my previous post be deleted?

because I recognized you as a Nader supporter obsessed with
prosecuting Bush when Nader was running? And you've just
changed horses to Kerry as your "new" Cabal prosecutor?

[blm]

379. I request you read what I wrote above that you never acknowledged.

I worked my ass off for Gore even when confined to bed during a high risk pregnancy, and still after a Csection. I worked PHONES and GOTV and harrassed newsrooms from my BED for GORE.

Why you have problems with simply constructed sentences and answers is the mystery. What part of worked for Gore throughout a high risk pregnancy confuses you?

And a poster just can't "request" that a post be taken down. The mods judge whether it violates DU rules or not. Your attack on me trying to warn the forum that I was a Green and Naderite who worked against Gore in 2000 was its own indictment of your post.

[Tellurian]

380. I suggest it is you who are confused..

What does a high risk pregnancy/Cesarean (which incidentally, I have had 4 of )
have anything to do with what I've succinctly spelled out to you.

Do you think you can hide your tone, substance, wording and sentence construction
by simply changing pseuds? They are in some cases as telling as fingerprints or
voice imprinting..You're the same nutjob, obsessed, Naderite Green you were some
years ago. Who fought tooth and nail as Nader's chief proponent against Gore in
the 00' election. Your pseud then was Recycla/Meredith!

As I've said, you've simply changed horses to Kerry with the same insistence of
prosecuting the Bush Cabal, including the Clintons..Gore wasn't good enough for
you at that time...Nader was the object of your obsession then.

[blm]

381. HAHAHAH.... sorry, but that's some crazy shit you're throwing out there.

people here have known me for years, and I doubt any Green on this board would agree with your brilliant analysis.

I didn't see Clinton's role in covering up for BushInc until I read HIS BOOK which came out in the summer of 2004. I had expected he would explain the reasons why he downplayed Bush's crimes, and he didn't offer any - THAT is when I realized he had been protecting Bush1.

Funny, you missed my history of posting in defense of Clinton for the four years prior to reading his book. Why don't you check the archives and calm down?

[Tellurian]

382. Nice Try...we're talking about Gore/Nader

You have included Clinton in your latest prosecutorial rant
using Kerry as the heavy to champion your delusional notions.

This poor child you gave birth to..you post here 24/7- How much
time do you give it? Mothering between posts is quite a feat.

[blm]

383. I also make phonecalls for GOTV for NC. I post the way most mothers post.

In between all the housework, the cooking and the reading and the playing. And her computer desk is right here next to mine.

[Tellurian]

384. Run out of gas have ya..

another day..dinner and so forth tonight..

Try to keep the wacky stuff to a minimum.
Because Kerry just isn't going to make it..

If you care to support Gore, I'm all for it.

[blm]

385. Projection....I usually associate that with Republican politicians.

But this has been really interesting.....really....no kidding. May I also suggest that you get some rest.

[Tellurian]

390. Same low brow responses..

yep, it's you alright!

another fave..."off your meds are ya?"

toodles!

[Tellurian]

294. Well, BLM, I have to assume you were a Nader supporter

since you refuse to answer one way or another.
The giveaway is--you used the same tactic stating Nader
was going to take Bushco to task if he were elected president.
You're fixated with prosecuting political corruption to the point
of obsession. You must maintain folders on all you have a finger
on, ready to pounce with proof---links and all.

And you're old MO is when you cannot answer a question, you
post text from an article for the poster communicating with
you to view instead of posting in your own words.

busted!

[karynnj]

235. That is understood

All of us have done the same. I think there are about 4 times when my favorite won the nomination - and I've voted sinse 1972. (and one of those times was an unopposed sitting President).

[Nedsdag]

372. I agree

He should run for re-election in Massachusetts in 2008 and forget about another Presidential run.

It's not the joke that hurt him, it's his lack of political instincts. He's politically tone deaf. You can't have a tin ear in politics anymore and be a successful national politician. The Adlai Stevenson comparison is appropo.

[seabeyond]

33. no. makes me want him to run more n/t

[ecstatic]

35. Trying my best to stay nice until Tuesday!

but HELL YES, Kerry is finished and HELL NO to a future presidential run!

[FedUpWithIt All]

36. If we want someone who is an entertainer ...yes.

if we want someone who really does want what is right and just...no.

Personally i want a presidential president. I have had more than enough of candidates who say all the correct things to our faces and DO all the wrong things behind our backs. I no longer want "politicians". I want a real human who cares and works for what is right. Even if it is not always the easiest sell. Kerry goes to funerals, offers aid to those suffering, fights corruption (behind the scenes and not for political gain)says what he intends to do and does it, makes mistakes and learns from them. And probably most importantly, he speaks out even when that places him directly into the line of fire. He took a bullet, too many others in this party dance to avoid.

We have had years of a man who does make people chuckle, ignores the suffering of those he places in harms way, speaks against corruption while he quietly partakes of the same, never EVER learns from his mistakes. I do not want the same type no matter what party title he (or she) carries.

The fact that many of Kerry's fellow Dem's stood ON his wounded form for their own political gain has only strengthened my regard and respect for him. He took it. He worked his way back onto his feet and will live to fight another day. THIS is they type of man i want to be my president.

[karynnj]

58. Truely beautiful post

I agree 100%. Senator Kerry is one of the few politicians I trust will do what he thinks is right. He is human and it will sometimes be wrong - but he is someone who will admit when he is wrong and change and he is always acting in good faith.

[FedUpWithIt All]

72. Thank you

I agree with you that Kerry is legitimate. At a time when our nation is in grave danger what can be more important.

[YvonneCa]

172. Beautiful post...

...I totally agree.:patriot:

[PATRICK]

43. Not compared to Hillary's

weak critique falling to the GOP line. Th correct rational judgment doesn't always rule but the media prognosticating has a record so bad no sport network would hire them as handicappers. All of their fair faired candidates have failed. All their subsequent propped up ham sandwiches have disgraced their loyalty. Decent candidates have put eggs on MSM face so much that the omelet would cover the state of Kansas. Their voices are meaningless blather and ready to be flushed at any moment a viewer wises up.

Talk of 2008 will begin after the polls close. Their lies will be conditioned and chosen according to the results. And will change daily as the incompetent loons in the WH direct them.

What will REALLY confuse them is if the GOP fractures away from their tyrannical lame duck. Then WHERE will the unified RW direction come from? The house of cards can collapse like the Berlin Wall if that happens and the corporate media will descend to empty white noise.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. The GOPU Was Masacred In The 1974 Midterms

The GOPU was massacred in the 1974 mid terms and came withing 3,000 votes of capturing the White House in 1976 with Nixon's Ghost hanging over them...

I don't take anything for granted...

[karynnj]

67. Another weird dynamic is that

in addition to political jockeying, the real work after the election is what to do on Iraq.

I predict that Senator Kerry will focus on pushing the issue in Iraq - this goes to the heart of who he is and it was clear that he meant his remark that it was immoral for others to wait until after an election to fix a broken policy. This is in contrast, not just to the Republicans who said that in September but to the Democrats who were furious that he and others brought up legislation on it this summer.

I predict Clinton will be more focused on solidifying her position to win the nomination. In fact, BC's strong primary backing of Lieberman may have strengthened him at a critical point and may allow Lieberman to hamper Democratic efforts on Iraq.

This is why I prefer Kerry.

[BlueManDude]

46. Gore 2008

[NoPasaran]

48. Yup.

His 2008 bid ended with that botched joke.

It sucks, but so did the Dean Scream

[madame defarge]

50. I wish he'd run for...

Senate Leader instead. He's a great voice in the Senate & can do better by helping to be a strong voice for the Dems...as long as he remembers to KISS (keep it simple, stupid) & doesn't try to be a comedian.

[Tellurian]

110. Yes, Kerry would be perfect for the job..

and I think he would feel comfortable in that position..

[karynnj]

55. Remember the general consensus was that

Clinton was dead after the badly reviewed 1988 keynote speech. This clearly doesn't help Kerry - but sometime after the election Kerry needs to convince people that this was a RW attempt to hurt the Dems 06, to remove him as one of the very strongest leaders on Iraq, and as a candidate in 2008.

I suspect that had Kerry NOT botched the joke (in a pretty minor way - the crowd in context got it), they would have taken some sentence of Iraq criticism and done the same. The biggest problem is that Kerry is not selfish enough to defend himself now - so a less honorable future opponent has helped solidify the belief that he did really say something wrong.

[TheCowsCameHome]

56. Yes. All done.

[bigtree]

63. We could use a fresh candidate

But it takes a huge ego to run for that office. Kerry certainly is in control of that, much like Clinton was. I suspect he could talk himself into a run. The primaries just might produce a matchup that favors him and allows him to advance.

[AtomicKitten]

64. Yes, but not because of this.

eom

[NYCGirl]

65. For those of you who didn't see the Maher show, what they said about Kerry

was that he was finished for a 2008 run NOT mainly because of the "botched joke", because he seems to have poor national political instincts. They pointed out that he let the charges from the right about the joke fester too long (some 15 hours, which is two news cycles).

Instead of simply saying, "I'm sorry I blew the punch line and I didn't mean to offend anyone. I've told that joke many times. This is how it should go...", which would effectively end the "speculation" and faux concern, he went all around it, apologized a number of times, etc.

That's what the discussion was about.

[oneinok]

66. I will not vote for him again

He got my last vote 2 years ago.

[blm]

74. Media fed perception that could TARGET any Dem - but Hacking Democracy

was going to be airing, so BushInc had to use their media dominance and gin up a storyline against Kerry. Kerry did quickly say it was a botched joke - most media ran with Bush's storyline COMPLICITLY.

Clintons trashed the White House because the media said so for months, and all their explanations fell by the wayside.

[NYCGirl]

82. Did he say it fast or forcefully enough to cut through the media babble?

That's the question.

If, as you say, the media is dominated and run so completely by the right wing, we might as well give up then, since nothing will get through.

[blm]

116. Except that come January, who can call for hearings on corporate media?

Look - we all know that Clark is a better campaigner than media claims - they always refer to him as bad campaigner who slips up under questioning. The difference is that many of us don't believe it and don't go around spreading it as a talking point. We KNOW the media lies and is lying about Clark every time the pundit class pushes that "perception" of him. You don't see 20 threads pop up repeating the slam against Clark because we DON'T BELIEVE Their lies so we don't spread them.



Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"

Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval

Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.
Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

[tinfoilinfor2005]

84. Yes, thanks.

And I did agree with their analysis.

I cringed at Kerry's timing when he again brought up the gay daughter subject at the debates in 2004. Not that he wasn't correct, not that the Cheney's didn't deserve to be "outed" once again for their hypocrisy, but only because I thought it sounded calculated and frankly weird. It made him look small and it was a good example of poor political instinct, especially when there was a whole arsenal of ammunition against the criminal cabal available to him.

And I traveled miles campaigning for the guy. Oh well...water under the bridge.

[ProSense]

109. Maher was great!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=2919&mesg_id=2919

[sandnsea]

144. 10/31 3:12 PM

"This pathetic attempt to distort a botched joke about President Bush is a shameful effort to distract from a botched war."

Tony Snow launched his attack at the press conference at 10:43 AM, 10/31. That's the timeline. 'He let it fester too long' is the newest talking point because it's clear that most people know Hillary was playing politics with it as much as Bush was.

[karynnj]

236. Their calculation of time is wrong

The issue didn't hit until Tuesday morning. He got the prepared speech out that morning and spoke at 9 Seattle time (where he was). The speech was given the previous evening - and there was no obvious problem. The mistake was not even that noticable. So, they reacted very quickly. I have no idea where 15 hours comes from - but its wrong. He also didn't appologize a number of times - this is misinformation.

[Warren Stupidity]

69. No.

I guess I missed tha part where the Bullshit Media System's lies and distortions are fatal to a candidacy. In fact Howard Dean ought to reconsider.

[leftchick]

71. he is radioactive as a candidate

he needs to stay in the Senate where he does us a lot of good. Time for some fresh ideas and faces.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. Truth Crushed To Earth Will Rise Again..

Some truths...


This board was split in half over whether Kerry should apologize or not.


Those that said Kerry shouldn't apologize attacked with epithets those that said he should


Three days later Kerry apologizes anyway.

[Tellurian]

120. Because Kerry is still surrounded by many of the same people

who surrounded him in 04'

They keep his ego pumped up with things he likes to hear.

Like the babbling brook expose of the BFEE.

The noble, theoretical memes spouted by his campaigning entourages
go on endlessly, when the ordinary working man is fighting for his job
and/or a minimum pay raise or health care coverage. People aren't voting
for a prosecutor, they want a President who cares about THEM.

Kerry is being seriously misled by the teams he has working for him.
Their view of the presidency and what people are looking for in a
presidential hopeful are as different as day and night.

Theres no way for him to change his image at this point.
Because they're in denial about LISTENING to what people are actually
telling them what they want and need.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

155. I Don't Dislike Him But He Can't Win...

Somebody up thread made a virtue out of the fact he never drops a pronoun. That would be a virtue if he was running for president of Yale.

[Tellurian]

225. haha! even more interesting, it was used as a response to my post..

that is a prime example of the people that surround him.
They've encapsulated him in a bubble of their own perceptions,
and you wonder why his focus is so fractured.

I can just imagine that excuse given to him when he asks for an opinion.

How should I react to Bushes apology demand...and she pipes up, saying,..

"well, gee, John, whats the big whoop, you hardly ever drop a pronoun."

they have they're collective giggle as he basks in the warm, golden glow of
his "dropped pro-noun record", perhaps even meditating on a plaque of some sort
for the office. All the while the office staff voice their opines...
"nah, who do these people think they're talking to...Look at your War Record, John..
you're a hero".

Meanwhile, hours tick off into days...then a light bulb goes off in Kerry's head-
Hey, this thing isn't going away..Puts his coat on, goes out the door and makes an apology.

How anyone surrounded by apoplectic thinkers believes he can succeed, is beyond me.

[karynnj]

237. 3 Days -

It was Tuesday to wednesday. 1 Day!

[originalpckelly]

77. God I hope so, that man makes Frankenstein look flexible.

He has the worst body language of any politician in history (even worse than Al Gore) and he sounds like some uppity rich person (which he is.)

No one is going to vote for the man, they'll vote for the party, but not for him.

[Mass]

101. I will and proudly.

[Rosemary2205]

78. If he fires his strategy people - NO. He keeps them? YES

Kerry is a serious, thoughtful man at a time when we desperately need someone who will roll his sleeves up and get to work on some pretty bigass problems. If he runs on that (thoughtful solutions) instead of "hey I'm a wild a crazy charismatic guy", I think he can connect with enough voters to get elected.

[ruggerson]

79. He's not a scrappy street fighter.

He doesn't have good political instincts. He's not a good political strategist.

He's also brilliant, compassionate, intellectually curious and right on most issues.

But that won't get you elected president.

[AtomicKitten]

85. well said

:)

[ProSense]

92. Sounds like something

Joe Lockhart would say:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2925015&mesg_id=2925015

[ProSense]

80. No, here's why:

He has integrity and is not afraid to fight

His massive list of supporters have not gone away.

This incident put Kerry in the spotlight, and even more people saw a man who the RW fear enough to continually attack, and a man who isn't afraid to fight back!

From the Kerry Blog:

Thanks to friends, both known and unknown, Republicans and Democrats, who’ve been stepping up for John Kerry and fighting back against the Republican efforts to question Kerry’s support of our troops.

A lot more people saw Kerry stand up to a weakened and desperate GOP when others were afraid to!

[BooScout]

81. He was finished last time......

But many around here seem to have held out hope that he was our saviour.

[LWolf]

86. One can hope.

I quit having any interest in John Kerry the moment he gave his concession speech two years ago.

I would love to have a refreshing primary filled with people who haven't been dissected, poked, attacked, defended, quoted ad nauseam, and, for me, irretrievably tainted by party propaganda from both sides since '04.

[cadmium]

87. There is no way to know until after 11/7/06

He is laying low until after the midterms so as not to hurt dem chances.

If he did decide to run a lot would ride on debates.

I think he is a realist and he would assess his chances first

[CorpGovActivist]

98. Also-Ran: Ronald W. Reagan: Or, Why I Would Still Support Kerry in '08

First, what is it with this "one shot only" mentality? Whatever happened to the wise words of Benjamin Franklin, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again!"?

Second, I stand by this journal entry, which recounts how Kerry put the national good ahead of partisan considerations: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/CorpGovActivist/4

The result of his patriotic choice could well be the end of the BushCo. Crime Syndicate, once and for all.

How ungrateful would the party faithful be to repay his courage and sacrifice with a message of, "Get lost in '08. Make yourself scarce."?

- Dave

[shanine]

147. afuckingmen n/t

[City Lights]

99. I sure hope so.

I wasn't crazy about him in 2004, but supported him because he won the nomination. I like him even less now and will have a hard time voting for him should he win the nomination in 2008.

[Mass]

100. It will be a non story after tuesday- The cowardness of some major democrats

will be the story to watch though.

[dailykoff]

111. Good call. n/t

[Mass]

103. So, those who did not want Kerry to run Monday still do not.

This thread proves nothing has changed.

[Mass]

107. How does repeating the same talking points that people have repeated on this board

for the last two years help win 06.

This discussion is largely redundant and will not change anything.

Those who did not want Kerry to run last week still do not. Nobody else has changed his mind.

The DC insiders are still telling us what they think. Whether they are in sync with the rest of the country or not will be seen in 07 and early 08, when the people will decide.

[dailykoff]

108. No. But any Dem who twisted the knife, yes.

nt

[npincus]

121. yes.

I think so.

[Beelzebud]

122. He was finished when he lost to the worst president ever, and didn't respond to swiftboat vets.

[Mass]

130. Anybody who has actually changed their mind on this issue since last week?

I am asking because it seems to me that the people who are ranting are the same who were before. So, who has actually CHANGED his mind?

[Tellurian]

139. No, what has become more obvious though

the Kerry proponents are simply delusional in their strategy
and talking points. This is the second week of rallys and volleys
with them. What it has accomplished though is fully illustrating
how out of touch they are between delusional theories and reality.

If this is the best and brightest he has out on the campaign trail
acquiring data for a sense of public perception, well they've done
a piss poor job. If anything, they've solidified my resolve he is
not a candidate suitable for the presidential nomination.

[jobycom]

131. No--no one will remember this nonsense Wednesday morning. nt

[Cameron27]

Yes

I do agree with Maher & guests and will say no more until after the congressional election.

[Cameron27]

134. delete

dupe

[Vinca]

135. Yes. He had his chance.

He's a good man, but 2004 was the year of the "flip flop" and 2008 would turn into the year of the botched joke. I think he will be more effective in the Senate.

[citizen snips]

138. I think he is testing the waters

for another presidential run but we need a fresh face.

[YvonneCa]

158. No we don't...

...we need experience.

[Chomp]

140. Easy: Yes, he's done. nt

[ProSense]

141. The RW cheap shot bolstered support for Kerry and knocked out Rumsfeld

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2926828&mesg_id=2926828


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2926965&mesg_id=2926965

[rosesaylavee]

143. The botched joke won't be remembered in

two years... unless DEMs keep talking about it.

Kerry has spent much of his time this last year raising money for key races, sponsoring bills that cat-killer won't discuss, attending funerals of our fallen soldiers, and probably a dozen other activities that he is too noble to brag about.

As he is a solid and very dedicated Democratic leader, if he chooses to run again, he will be one of the top contenders. I agree with blm - name the politician who hasn't mis-spoken.

[Blue_In_AK]

146. Premature

2008 is a long way off.

[kestrel91316]

148. Lol, NO.

[burythehatchet]

151. He is an enlightened technocrat

They do not make great leaders in my book.

[aikoaiko]

152. As is, kerry is finished, but there's time rehab his image

I'm skeptical that he can, but it can happen especially if the political context changes

[fedupinBushcountry]

271. Rehab what image

that he speaks the truth. He is the type of politician that has been missing for years. No one has inspired me so much since RFK and JFK, no one.

He flubbed a fucking joke at the pResident.

Funny everyone was admiring him on Tuesday for speaking out, and now all of a sudden he has to rehab his image.

[mac56]

153. Not just "no", but "hell, no!"

He's not finished by a long shot.

[YvonneCa]

156. NO WAY...

...is he finished. Nor should he be finished. This country needs him as president. He's a fighter and we need a fighter. What he will fight for is to unite our country once again and restore it to a role of moral leadership in the world. He's the only potential candidate with the experience (and we need experience), foreign policy knowledge, and moral courage to do so.:patriot:


These were my thoughts about what happened this week:



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

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


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


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

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

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



:patriot:

[YvonneCa]

157. And here's another thought...

...while we're at it. I have heard a few 'media types' say that this affected Kerry like 'macaca' affected George Allen. Bull. Allen's remark demonstrated a racially prejudice streak in his character. That should be fatal for a future presidential hopeful. We don't need racists in the White House.

Kerry's remark was a flubbed line. That can be verified by checking his prepared remarks or by listening to previously recorded speeches/rallies where he has similarly ripped President Bush (YAAAY). Further evidence that he would never disrespect troops is his Senate career voting record and remarks in support of our military in about every speech he has ever given (and there are A LOT). Even Bush knows that. If Kerry's flubbed line says anything 'negative' about his character, it's that he overworks for things he believes in. He is a fighter. I think that's GOOD.

John Kerry and George Allen are as different as night and day.:patriot:

[StoryTeller]

164. Excellent points--both posts! (nt)

[YvonneCa]

173. Thanks, Storyteller. n/t

[SouthernBelle82]

160. I don't think so

I think by 2007 everyone would have said "so what?" with the whole affair. Everyone on the corporate side would love that fact but Kerry is as of now the best candidate in my opinion. He's not finished.

[YvonneCa]

174. Agreed. n/t

[demwing]

168. Two Words : Al Gore

^^^^^^ See above ^^^^^^^^

[StoryTeller]

175. We desperately need a president with INTEGRITY...

People keep talking about whether Kerry can win, whether or not he "had his chance," and whether or not they "like" him. As if he's a contestant on a friggin' reality show!

This is why we get leaders who CAN'T LEAD! Or who lead us ridiculous, horrible places. Or cause America international embarrassment.

Americans tend to act as if the most important thing about choosing a president is whether or not he's "fresh" or "likeable" or exciting enough to win.

When will we start taking this seriously? We aren't choosing a Top-40 rock star. This isn't political Survivor.

I want a president with dignity. Someone who commands respect not just here in America, but around the globe. I want someone who is extremely intelligent, who listens with compassion and insight to people, who is humble enough to admit to and learn from mistakes, but whose convictions and beliefs run deep.

I want someone with integrity. Someone who is honest. Someone CLEAN and uncorrupted. A person who sees political leadership as an opportunity to serve the American people, who won't become drunk on his or her own power.

John Kerry is one of the few politicians around who fits this profile perfectly. So, hell NO--I hope he's not finished! We need someone exactly like him to be a real leader in our country. He's not perfect, but he is honest, smart, and has excellent ideas and a great vision for what our country can become.

And if people don't think that's "win-able" then I think it's up to us to redefine what "win-able" is. We deserve a higher quality of president than what we've had. But it's up to us as citizens to demand it from our leaders and to promote it among our spheres of influence.

[YvonneCa]

188. Agreed. Let's re-define what WIN-ABLE is...

...what a great post, Storyteller:


" And if people don't think that's "win-able" then I think it's up to us to redefine what "win-able" is. We deserve a higher quality of president than what we've had. But it's up to us as citizens to demand it from our leaders and to promote it among our spheres of influence "



WOW !!!! :patriot:

[StoryTeller]

194. Thanks! (nt)

[Withywindle]

189. Thank you!

I was thinking the same thing, and you said it so eloquently.

I'll be casting my vote in the primary for the person I think will be the best PRESIDENT, not the one who's the best glad-hander and joke-teller and baby-kisser and money-raiser. Whoever it is will have the mother of all messes to start trying to clean up, after all. My first requirement is that it be someone who's actually up to the job, in terms of intelligence and experience and dedication and understanding of the issues.

I think the emphasis on "personality," defined in very strict and TV-centric and downright petty ways is shameful and it's something we should be trying to change, not pander to. Abraham Lincoln couldn't get elected today--he was dorky and stiff and awkward too.

It's too soon for me to commit to anyone fully and I actually think we have a pretty deep talent pool, nothing to be ashamed of, but Kerry looks even better to me now than he did two years ago.

[StoryTeller]

197. Great point, Withywindle.

Whoever it is will have the mother of all messes to start trying to clean up, after all. My first requirement is that it be someone who's actually up to the job, in terms of intelligence and experience and dedication and understanding of the issues.

You're exactly right. It will be even more important than ever that our next president is someone especially capable and mature. He or she will have an incredible amount of crap to clean up and a lot of reconciliation to do with the rest of the world. This is a point none of us can afford to forget or ignore.

[blm]

277. And THAT is what drives me. Corruption and open government are major

issues to me, and it FLOORS me to hear DEMOCRATS claim that they prefer someone who is affable and glib but will continue the coverups for BushInc instead of someone who speaks seriously about policies and solutions and would OPEN THE BOOKS on BushInc.

[StoryTeller]

282. I really appreciate that about you, BLM...

...THANK YOU for beating this drum so consistently. We need to hear it. I don't know nearly as much as I should about the corruption that's been covered up in our government. I greatly appreciate you keeping it in front of us like this.

We can't have an America that we can be truly proud of until we open up these dark closets and reveal and clean out the skeletons hidden inside. It's bound to be a painful, messy process, but it's the only way to really effect an honest change in our government.

And from all you've told us and your tireless research, it definitely sounds as if John Kerry is one of the only ones with both the experience AND commitment for exposing this corruption.

So again, thank you. I'm sure you don't hear it often enough, but what you are doing is really important, and I hope that others are listening and following your lead in demanding that we have an open, uncorrupted government.

[blm]

285. Here's one of the most important pieces written post 9-11.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html

Hey, Democrats, the Truth Matters!
By Robert Parry
May 11, 2006

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

“I told that the New Republic hadn’t brought them enough votes to win a single precinct,” the senior Democrat said. “But they kept saying that they owed this to the editors of the New Republic.”

During his tenure at the CIA, Woolsey did next to nothing to address the CIA’s “politicization” issue, intelligence analysts said. Woolsey also never gained Clinton’s confidence and – after several CIA scandals – was out of the job by January 1995.

At the time of that White House chat with Stuart Sender, Clinton thought that his see-no-evil approach toward the Reagan-Bush era would give him an edge in fulfilling his campaign promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the economy.

He was taking on other major domestic challenges, too, like cutting the federal deficit and pushing a national health insurance plan developed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

>>>>>>>

[StoryTeller]

289. WOW!

If you haven't posted this in a thread of its own already, it definitely deserves one.

It makes me angry at the lost opportunity to clear things up and get things back on the right track. I hope that if we get control of either house, that Democrats won't be so lax or accommodating this time around.

I wish our leaders would stop equating wishy-washy apathy with "moderation." Being moderate should simply mean not being irrationally fanatical about something. It should not mean refusal to take a firm stance on anything, or trying to sit on the fence. Or pleasing everybody.

I think people want leaders who are decisive and have definite thoughts and plans. As disgusting as I find Bush to be, I know a lot of people really liked him because "at least you know where he stands." And "he's decisive." Ugh.

I wish the Democratic party would stop worrying so much about trying to build bridges with the other party. At this point, that bridge (what there is of it) is going only one direction--RIGHT. There's no point in trying to work with the other party if all they're trying to do is take advantage of it and amass more power for themselves. That's "enabling" and it's nothing to be proud of.

Of course, one can't accuse Kerry of that. Even my rather conservative dad says, "That Kerry--he's the most liberal of the whole bunch." Bless his heart--he means it as NO compliment, but it makes me smile every time. :D

[FedUpWithIt All]

318. ...

:toast:

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Cha]

177. And who were his guests?

That would matter a lot.

No way is he finished..that's just silly.

And I say this as someone who doesn't have a candidate picked out for the Democratic Primary, yet.

I'm sooooooooo glad they all decided it wouldn't affect the fucking election. :crazy:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

179. As Much As I Love John, I'm Pretty Sure '08 Ain't Gonna Happen.

If it did, I'm fairly convinced he'd have no chance of winning. I love Kerry and he's one of my favorite Senators. I think he'd be an amazing President, but getting elected would be one hell of a challenge for him. If it's one thing that this week taught me, it's that people/media have a field day ganging up on Kerry and I don't see any reason for that to change come '08. I don't think that's fair whatsoever, but that's life. I don't think he'll ever get a fair enough shake to truly have the power to win handily any more. I think it's quite sad to realize that, as I think he'd be one of the best Presidents we've ever had, but Lord knows the public ain't always the most logical things, ya know?

I'm pretty sure that he is in fact done for 08.

[StoryTeller]

186. I can't see the future, of course...

But if you believe in his abilities and think he'd make a great president, then why not see if you can be part of helping him overcome some of these challenges? (if he runs, that is)

Personally, for me it's not a matter of whether or not I think he can win. I'm supporting him regardless because I truly, deeply believe that a Kerry presidency would be a terrific thing for America. I know there's a lot we don't have control over--like the media, etc. But if every single person who believes he'd do a great job would pull together and let all that enthusiasm bubble over, one person at a time, I think we could do it, despite the challenges.

Maybe that's my idealism showing. But I'd rather throw my support behind someone I believe in strongly instead of support someone just to say I picked a winner.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

190. He's Not The Only One That Would Make A Good President, Ya Know.

Now I do support him 100%. But from every rational and objective logic I can use right now it appears he will have no chance winning the parties nomination in 08. We also need not only someone who'd make a good president, but also someone who can win. We will have other candidates that would also make great presidents, but would also have the ability to win. We'll have to see what happens.

As far as working hard to help him overcome these challenges, I just don't think it's going to happen. Kerry is now a GOP and Media whipping boy. I don't think that's going to change no matter what we do. If he ran, they'd have a field day with him. I think he'd handle it better than he did in 04, but I still think the end result would be a lot of fence sitters just not being able to come over to his side. That's just my objective outlook on the situation.

I love John, and have no doubt he'd be an incredible president. But there are others who could be great too, but without the baggage. I'm pretty sure John's done for '08, not matter how much we might wish otherwise.

[StoryTeller]

193. I disagree with you...

...on some of your points. I'm not saying that Kerry is the only one in America who would make a good president. I do think, however, that this idea of trying to find someone without "baggage" is a bit misguided. All candidates will have baggage. Every single one. And if they don't, and they are running on a Democratic ticket, you can bet that the media or GOP or both will purchase some good, sturdy baggage for them and chain it around their necks.

The only other possible contender other than Kerry that already has experience with handling this type of campaign is Al Gore. And if I recall correctly, Al Gore was subjected to very similar media scorn.

I can't speak regarding Gore on this because I haven't been following him as closely. But I do know that Kerry's baggage has already been purchased for him and explored on a national level. The only thing they have left is to buy more baggage and try to chain him to it. And as he proved last week, he has learned a WHOLE bunch about how to handle those sort of attempts.

So I would actually feel more comfortable with Kerry as a candidate because he's already been so vetted and so discussed. As long as he is careful (which EVERY candidate will have to be) in public appearances, there's nothing else they can do to him.

Whereas, with other candidates who have not run on a national level or undergone that sort of scrutiny, they could end up on the defensive the entire campaign, and that will make it hard to win.

[blm]

217. Think again - Guess who calls hearings on Corporate Media come January?

Plus, alot of journalists have been saying ENOUGH of the lies about John Kerry, and I expect some of them really mean it.



Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"

Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval

Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.
Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

[StoryTeller]

226. Thank you for posting this information!

I was about ready to ask you for it. I think it's really important information. It helps explain perhaps why the media is so ready to help smear him. It also reveals a lot about his personal integrity and character.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

263. Think Whatever You Want. I Personally Think His '08 Chances Are Dead In The Water.

I do hope I'm wrong though, as there's nothing more I'd like to see than for John to someday be behind that podium. I just simply don't see right now that it is going to have a legitimate chance of occurring, at least in '08 anyway. Maybe years down the road, when some time has passed, the country will be ready to accept him. Whether in 2 years or 20, I'd still love to see him there though.

[StoryTeller]

269. I guess I don't really care what people think the "chances" are.

I think we've done our electoral system a huge disservice by turning it into a horserace. If you would like nothing more than to see John be behind that podium, then I'd invite you to set aside the fears of whether or not he has a chance. If he runs, just go with your heart. See what we all can do when we believe in someone.

And if we end up being wrong and he doesn't win, at least we know in our hearts that we all did our best and that we followed our convictions and supported the candidate we think will be best. I'd rather take that risk and be proud of whatever we do accomplish than settle for a candidate I think is second-best at most.

And really, I'd give that advice to ANY person--not just potential Kerry supporters. The media wants to turn our elections into entertainment. It's all about ratings with them. But choosing leaders for our nation should be about something bigger and better than just a matter of our candidate winning or putting on a good show.

So when the time comes--and it will be here before we know it--to decide who to support, I hope that we all find a candidate who inspires us to be better people than we were before, a candidate that we can wholeheartedly support because of their character and ideals, someone we can trust completely, whose ideas and vision for the nation speaks to the very best that America can offer both to its citizens and in how we treat the rest of the world.

Don't settle for who you think can win. Demand better from yourself. Go with your heart.

[blm]

274. Well - we'll see during the series of Dem debates - if someone is far better

then it will become obvious there, wouldn't you expect?

[politicasista]

313. It's too early to tell

We need to stop doing Rove's homework and focus on one election at at time. Tuesday is the big prize right now. 08 will take care of itself.

[YvonneCa]

196. Exactly...

...our focus as a country has been on picking the perfect 'candidate.' We ought to be more concerned about picking the perfect 'President'. The qualifications for the job of candidate are not the same as the qualifications for the job of President of the United States. It's true that the person the country chooses needs strengths in both areas...but in our country's recent history, we have only looked at qualifications for a candidate who can win. As a country, we have ignored those qualified to be the best President. I believe the current election process, led by the media (wittingly or unwittingly) have been complicit in this.

Most worrisome to me is that we are now at such a critical place in our history because of this. We are in an illegal war. Our troops are in danger because of it. Our Constitution is in jeopardy. Our position of leadership around the world is failing. Our democracy is in danger of being undermined...and most of the American voting public are still unaware of the danger.

A 'fresh face' will not have the skills, experience, or foreign policy knowledge or network of support that our country needs in a new President. I worried in 2000 that we could not afford George Bush's 'learning curve'. It appears I was right. I wish I had been wrong. But for sure, we cannot afford another president-elect's learning curve, even if he or she is a Democrat. We need a Democratic Presidential candidate with the experience to HIT THE GROUNG RUNNING the minute they are elected. In my opinion...the only potential candidate who can do that is John Kerry.:patriot:

[StoryTeller]

198. Sobering thoughts--but you're absolutely correct. (nt)

[gulliver]

184. He was already done.

Not enough political ability. I canvassed for him in 2004. I rallied behind him. He would have made a much better president than the little feller currently in office. But he lost.

The guy just does not know how to take command of perceptions. This last incident proves it. Bush showed himself as scum right out in the open, and Kerry could not get people to pick up on it.

[StoryTeller]

191. Then we have to help

One of Kerry's biggest strengths is that he is a just, honest person with integrity. He fights hard to defend other people, and he is learning to be more agressive about defending himself. But people who aren't in politics for the sake of having power also aren't ruthless and shrewd. This is a good thing. By 2008, we'll have had 8 years at least of ruthless and shrewd, and it's destroying our nation.

But people like Kerry care more about other people than they do themselves. This is a tremendous virtue, but it also means that they need strong supporters to help defend him during campaigns against ruthless, shrewd people.

Campaigning is not leading. We need a strong, wise leader. Not a professional campaigner. And if that means that we have to do extra work to get through the campaign part of it, so be it. But I'd rather go for the substance, instead of the show.

[gulliver]

199. Substance and show are not mutually exclusive.

They are both required. Putting down the very communication skill necessary to achieve leadership as mere "campaigning" is counter-productive. A leader leads. There is show involved.

Kerry can't depend on supporters to defend him against personal attacks. He did that before with the Swift Boat liars. He tried to rescue himself from Bush's unbelievably scummy low blow, but couldn't.

[ProSense]

201. Actually it's not about defending Kerry, it's about leadership and courage:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2925015&mesg_id=2925015

Kerry responded quickly with with an extremely strong statement with plenty of information that the Democrats could have used to push back (leadership), but instead of repeating his words, the other so-called party leaders chose to repeat the RW meme. Did these Democrats really believe Kerry insulted the troops before, even before his statement? As Olbermann pointed out, Kerry insulted Bush, but Bush was too stupid to get it! Yet Democrats were referring to it as a "blunder," a "ridiculously stupid thing to say" or some other pile-on statement.

Timidity by some Democrats allowed the weakened and desperate GOP a moment to gloat over a ridiculous smear, which could have been easily debunked. The good thing to note is that not every Democrat piled on!

[gulliver]

203. I think the key question is "Did Kerry hand out his prepared text?"

From what I understand, the answer is no. As I recall it, Kerry came out slamming Bush/Rove as people who hadn't worn the uniform attacking people who did. That's the first response of his that I was aware of. He also said that Bush/Rove "knew full well" that the attack was bogus, but that means nothing without hard evidence.

What Kerry should have done, of course, is say, "This is my prepared text. It proves that I was joking about Bush and simply said the joke wrong. It is a joke I have told many times."

Then I would have expected all Dems to rise to Kerry's defense. But Kerry took a different tack, asking people to accept his military bona fides as sufficient answer. And those were widely undermined by the Swift Boat Liars. Kerry doesn't understand how he is perceived. If he did, he could have changed it all, IMO.

That doesn't mean I am not disappointed in Hillary Clinton and a few others.

As has been noted today, this issue is ripe for backlash against Bush. He showed his true character. Even after Kerry made his apology, an apology for an insult that was demonstrably the result of a misinterpretation, little Bush's White House still came out and called the apology "late." Bush needs his ass kicked on this, and I think it's still in range.

[StoryTeller]

209. I understood that he did.

But I may be wrong on that.

I don't know what all went into the decision to respond the way he did. However, I don't think anyone but hard-core freepers doubt his commitment to the troops.

I share your disappointment, though, in the lack of support from other Democrats. That was inexcusable on their parts. No matter who the person was, they should have demonstrated their own integrity and good will by supporting a fellow leader from their own party. That's the sort of lapse that, to me, points to a deeper character issue. Kerry is quick to defend other Democrats when he feels they've been unjustly treated, regardless of whether they are potential rivals or not. That speaks highly of his character.

I don't want to vote for someone who stabs other teammates in the back. Everyone has bad days and says things they shouldn't have or neglects to say things they should. A good leader looks out for others on their team and encourages a culture where the teammates defend each other. If leaders or potential leaders run from each other or betray each other when one of them is under attack, that person is showing a lack of good character. And in my opinion, that makes them less worthy to lead.

[ProSense]

212. That has nothing to do with it!

Everyone who heard the speech (the video was posted showing the chain of jokes) the day he gave it, understood he was talking about Bush! There was no question! None! This was not Kerry's doing it was a RW smear relying on creating a lot of noise. For some Democratic leaders to claim otherwise is disingenuous.

[karynnj]

239. They showed it on CNN BEFORE he spoke

Also the Taylor Marsh blog had the story.

[StoryTeller]

205. True...

...they're not mutually exclusive. But they don't very often show up in equally strong proportions in the same person. And if I have to pick, I'll pick the person with real substance every time.

And as far as defending himself against personal attacks, Kerry DID provide pretty decent defense in 2004. And he did a brilliant job last week. He is learning and improving, and doing quite well considering the bias against him.

We assume that the media is going to give another Democratic candidate a fairer shake. I think that's being a bit naive, don't you? They are going to be out for blood, no matter who runs. And when news channels won't even break away from their bashing long enough to present a press conference (MSNBC comes to mind), we shouldn't think they're going to go easier on anybody else just because they have more "showmanship." We're not going to have a smear free campaign. A Democratic candidate at this point is not going to charm the media into loving them. Especially not if that candidate is an anti-corruption, open government candidate who is a champion of people and not corporations.

We have to stop measuring a candidate's viability by how the media treats him or her. When I talk about supporters defending a candidate, that's what I'm talking about. We have to be willing to get the word out there for the person we support and not rely on complimentary media coverage to do the job for us. They won't. And that goes for whoever runs. We have to do the work ourselves if we want to elect good people.

[YvonneCa]

251. Excellent...

...once again, Storyteller. :)

[StoryTeller]

261. Thanks! :-) (nt)

[marlakay]

202. He needs to let someone else run

I like him alot, think he's a great guy but he just doesn't know how to talk well in public any more and its sad. Alot of politics is perception and he unfortunately is perceived as weak and indecisive.

We need him in the senate and he should stay there. I just hope we can find someone else. I don't like Hillary because she is becoming just like McCain...someone who will do anything to win.

[ProSense]

216. He is really an excellent speaker, watch this

http://video.johnkerry.com/video/flash/102906_livestrong.html

[StoryTeller]

221. Hah, you beat me to it! That's one of my favorites! (eom)

[StoryTeller]

219. You should check out the following links:

These are two Kerry speeches that I've bookmarked because not only are they inspiring to me, but I've learned a lot about public speaking from them, too. Watching Kerry speeches the past year or so has actually helped me understand how a good speech is put together and delivered. Kerry is actually a very GOOD public speaker.

Why else would the media refuse to show anymore than that 10-second clip of his "flub"? Did we get to see the entire speech? How about all the many speeches he's been giving across the country the last few months? Could that be because those speeches actually show exactly how well the Senator speaks?

The media and the GOP and--perhaps--even a few from his own party would like to present him as a poor public speaker, would like to present him as weak and indecisive. But the opposite is true. What more can he do than what he is already doing? He can't FORCE the media to portray him accurately. His appearances on talk shows have been delightful. His speeches are full of fire and deep conviction. And truth. And substance.

That's why I'm saying we who believe in him need to work one on one with people--rather like I'm trying to do now--to help counteract the false perceptions of the media and those who would like to take him out.

Oh, and here's the links:

http://www.pepperdine.edu/pr/releases/2006/september/kerry.htm

http://www.johnkerry.com/multimedia/ --Pick ANY of these, but I absolutely LOVE the Livestrong speech.

[YvonneCa]

255. Storyteller...

...I also attended the Pepperdine speech on Faith and Politics. You are right...it is EXCELLENT. John Kerry is such a good public speaker. That's what makes this so unjust...and obviously a Karl Rove move. Rove AGAIN took two of John Kerry's strengths (years of military support and service, and his ability to articulately set out policy in a speech) and turned those strengths against him.


P.S. I also love those 2 speeches...my next favorites are : Georgetown, October 28, 2005 on Iraq Policy, the Take Back America Speech, and the Dissent Speech from Fanuiel Hall last April.

[StoryTeller]

260. Lucky you for getting to be there in person!

I had to content myself with the video. I hope sometime to be able to hear him speak in person. :)

[YvonneCa]

268. My thanks...

...to KG, who gave me a ticket. :)

[Swamp Rat]

214. No. n/t

[casus belli]

215. IMO, I like John Kerry. I do not feel he's presidential material. n/t

[StoryTeller]

223. That's fair. I respect it.

But if he decides to run, can I respectfully ask for an opportunity to change your mind? ;) Depending, of course, on what you define as presidential material.

[casus belli]

240. Absolutely. I'm always willing to approach with an open mind.

I don't feel he isn't presidential material because of his own failings. I feel more that the successful character assassination by his opponents and his lack of an early response to those charges has painted him as a wishy-washy candidate in the public view. I think he has successfully become a campaign tool for the opposition, and as much as I'd like to think he would make a fantastic candidate, and is well qualified to do so, I don't believe we could win running him.

If, however, he winds up winning the support he needs to be successful in the primaries, I will most certainly stand proudly behind his candidacy.

[StoryTeller]

265. I see where you're coming from.

My hope is that if he chooses to run, between his own ability and determination and the enthusiasm of people who support him, we can "unpaint" some of those charicatures. I think we can.

One of the best tools is all the "Kerry was right" moments we've had the past two years and will continue, I'm sure, to have. :)

[Tigress DEM]

220. Not at all.

Even the pundits are admitting that most people realized that Kerry would not disrespect the troops and that the pulling it out of purportion was what made it disrespectful.

I think a lot of people wonder in the back of their mind how much different would our country be today if either Gore or Kerry had won thru?

Kerry mis-speaks at a fund raiser or got blind sided by the swiftboat ads. All this stuff is beside the point. America is beginning to realize that we need to elect someone who can do the job and who really care about the people.

Kerry as well as other suitable candidates shouldn't be ruled out. If Kerry picks John Conyers as VP, he's my man.

[StoryTeller]

222. Well said, Tigress DEM! :-) (nt)

[Neshanic]

227. Absolutely, positively yes.

[Hippo_Tron]

231. I'll give you an answer on November 8th

Right now I'm much more concerned about whether Harry Reid is going to be Senate Majority Leader.

[Red Right and BLUE]

245. No. I still love him but would prefer Gore or Clark. nt

[Quixote1818]

248. I am 100% sure he is done. nt

[WI_DEM]

249. I think so, but the voters will be the ultimate deciders if he does run

I just don't think his image is that great with the electorate. I also think we need somebody fresh and exciting in 2008. Who? I don't know.

[Retired AF Dem]

250. A person running for president should have personality

Kerry has the personality of a robot. I have nothing against him but he needs to find some personality.

[StoryTeller]

266. Oh, he's got plenty of personality.

Ask any of the Kerry supporters who have seen him in person. Check out the videos on his website from various speeches--especially the LiveStrong speech from a week or so ago--and his interviews on various talk shows.

From the reports of people who have attended rallies where he's spoken even this fall, he draws huge crowds, and people treat him like a rock star. The young people especially.

The pics I've seen of him with children are precious. Unlike Bush with kids, Kerry looks like a loving, caring dad. And the children respond usually with smiles or a sense of peaceful trust.

You have to remember that the media deliberately portrayed him in one way--they exaggerated his natural dignity and turned it into "aloofness." But I would hope that there's nobody left on DU who actually trusts the media. As for the perceptions of other people? If we can't get any justice from the media, we'll just have to go around the media.

Things like YouTube will help a LOT. There wasn't that video sharing ability last time around.

But despite all this--I really must point out that personality alone does NOT make a great president. Good character, wise choices, integrity--these are all FAR more vital in choosing a good leader. Personality is important as far as needing a person who can relate well to others, but that can encompass a wide variety of personalities. There's no one "perfect" presidential personality.

[Noisy Democrat]

283. check out this vid and see if you still think that

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyYmWgXhnRI

(disclaimer: I made the vid)

[ChiciB1]

257. I Waited Years For Him To Run In the First Place & I Still Totally

respect him, but "THEY" will NEVER get their hooks out of him. Because of so much stupidity on the other side, and because Kerry is truly DECENT, I'm afraid his aspirations have been quashed!!

A real shame and I blame the MORANS for most of it, but I also blame OUR Democratic leaders too! I have been mulling over the thought of Hillary being the nominee this week-end and I DO realize it's TWO (2) years out, but my feelings about her right now make me feel that I will "opt out" of '08 if she's the nominee.

And yes, I do understand what I'm saying, but when I was much younger, not yet able to vote... I would NEVER have voted for Lyndon Johnson either! Hillary has a LOT to answer for, MUCH more than Kerry ever will!!

I think Kerry is a deeply honorable man and I do respect him, but it would be extremely difficult for him to ever get nominated again. And it really hurts my heart.

[karynnj]

264. I so agree with you on your description of Kerry

as a very decent person. I have also been driving my husband crazy by saying very similar things about Hillary - in words I've never used before.

I think the reason was that it would have taken so little to either say nothing, mention that Kerry has always worked for veterans or defended him in some way. I have heard Kerry defend her husband all the time - a few weeks ago he actually defended him better on NK than Bill defended himself. In short concise sentences that told the story very very well - speaking to Chris Wallace, who he handled better than Clinton.

Stabbing Kerry in the back did not help her in her bid or the party in general. In fact, a strong statement on Iraq would have been one more voice speaking against Bush - but she obviously felt that Kerry was more deserving of attack.

Kerry was out fighting for the party, he was likely deeply embarrassed and hurt by the RW attack - kicking him in the face at that point is uncivil and shows a complete lack of conscience. I had always thoought she sounded cold as ice in speeches - but had put it down to that just being her voice - now I think it's her personality.

I have found the more I learn of Kerry, he is a very good caring person - I'm finding that's not true of Hillary.

[ChiciB1]

267. I Must Add That I NEVER Thought I Would Have Such Deep Feelings

about her. I'll take Kerry any day and fervently wish his "mountain" wasn't so tall! While many say he brought a lot of it upon himself I personally don't feel that way. It's the time we are living in and those holier than thou personalities who simply made him into something he really isn't!

I was fortunate to have been at a Rally in Tampa and was able to shake his hand and look into his eyes and have never forgotten the moment. I'm sure there is more hurt peering out from behind them now, but I saw some real sincerity myself.

[karynnj]

326. What was strange was that you could see that sincerity

even on the CSPAN coverage. I didn't get the chance to see him during the campaign - NJ was too blue. But I was fortunate enough to see him in NJ when Corzine was running for governor and in Boston to see both the Dissent speech and the Real security speech.

In NJ, my husband and I came early and spoke to a woman we met from our town. It was a long time before the event started and when the county people were speaking, she felt faint and was taken to an EMS ambulance. Once stabalized, she asked one of the EMS people if he could take her camera and get a few photos of the Senator. The other EMS guy kidded him that he should get the Senator instead and then said to my neighbor that that was very unlikely.

A few minutes later, Kerry came to the ambulence. The woman was blown away by how nice he was. She said that he was very easy to talk to. She has sense showed her photos to lots of people. In one picture, the EMS guy looks as blown away by how nice he was as she was.

The Boston speeches were wonderful. Kerry was so eloquent and so thoughtful in each. This is who he is. He is NOT the best comedian - though there is something endearing when he does. There is just something very real about him. You see it as well in how the values his daughters showed are exactly like his own.

I went to a Dem fund raiser here and was in a group of people speaking of 2008. there was no real Hillary enthusiasm other than one woman who wanted a woman President. Most of the people liked Kerry but thought he couldn't win.

[ChiciB1]

345. Just Look Into His Eyes... That All!

One regret I had was that MY camera batteries DIED!! I didn't get a picture!

[NCarolinawoman]

286. I agree with your statement. n/t

[Mass]

259. This thread shows the sorry state of the Democratic party in general and of DU in particular.

At two days of something essential and at a time when we need to be united to win, people rejoice of the fact that they can pile on a democrat.

Do you think it is time to do that.

Whether Kerry is finished or not (and I would be rich if I had a dollar every time somebody told me that in the last three years), it is not time to talk about that. It is time to fight.

[StoryTeller]

272. Oh, I'm not sure it's been all that bad.

I actually was feeling pretty impressed about how civil and thoughtful most of the discussion has been--on both sides of the question. There's some terrific people on this thread.

Yeah, the discussion is probably a bit premature. (Which is better than immature!) :) But I've learned a lot about what matters to different people when they are choosing a candidate to support. I don't think that's ever wasted insight.

:toast:

[YvonneCa]

273. I agree...

...that this has been a great discussion. I also think it's an important one...one the whole country should be having after Tuesday. And, by the way, I'm multi-tasking...Call For Change while posting here ! :7

[ChiciB1]

275. Please Do Not Think I've Given Up Fighting... I Was Only Reflecting

on my perception of a man who I feel has some real "heart!" Because of the zealots who put themselves up on a pedestal and passed judgment on anyone who would dare disagree, Kerry was made into a poster boy for their insecurities! I am one who believed in karma for a very long time, and one who has wondered if there is any reality to it because what transpired made me much more cynical. I have decided that I WILL NOT let the lesser fools make me a lesser person.

Win or lose in the political arena, and an arena we need to win, I will remain steadfast in my belief that how I conduct myself will be for the greater good of humanity. I have already won THAT battle, but my feet are on the ground. I am only one!! I'm sure there are many who feel the same way. You do NOT have my permission to define me, but many will persecute me and say I'm a loser.

I AM NOT nor is Kerry!

[SoCalDem]

270. With the media we have now?? Yes

They "assassinate" everyone they don't like, and they have easy access to every clip of everything the candidate has ever said. they have editors who are whizzes at splicing things together in most unflattering ways...

they probably started out sticking pins in bugs when they were kids, and now that they are all grown up, they can do it with real people.

kerry would start out apologizing for "past deeds" (even though they were manufactured)..

You cannot start a campaign on defense.

[blm]

280. Nope - guess who can call hearings on Corporate Media come January?

Committee Chair and ranking member is a big difference. Media pounded on Kerry because they didn't want him in power.




Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval

Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.
Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

[Faux pas]

276. Kerry was finished when he conceded in 2004. MHO of course.

n/t

[Raine]

278. I hope so

he had his chance in 2004 and blew it, I want someone fresh.

[Name removed]

281. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AntiFascist]

284. They try to make it look like Kerry was screwing up...

but really its just the media ganging up on him, exactly the way it was done to Howard Dean. Look how many (thousands!) of opportunities there have been to do this to Bush, yet it never happens!

[cadmium]

292. Not just Kerry and Dean, but also Al Gore in 2000. Its a pattern n/t

[B Calm]

287. He should not have apologized, PERIOD!!

[many a good man]

288. The number one requirement for a Dem presidential candidate

is the ability to deflect RW smears abetted by the media. Period.

The cards are stacked against us so this ability is more important than any other.

He's running no matter what we think so he'll just have to prove himself again just like anybody else. IMHO he'd be a much better president than he is a campaigner.

[2bfree]

290. Love him but............

It is time for him to move on and let others run for president.

[YvonneCa]

309. Not yet. n/t

[dchill]

291. Put it this way...

He lost his turn. Now he must go to the back of the line.

Seriously - the nomination belongs to whomever has the most votes. Right?

[wisteria]

311. Yes, let the primary voters decide. n/t

[dailykoff]

293. Yes, just like he was DOA before the Iowa caucus in '04.

They don't call him Comeback Kerry for nothing.

[lynne]

295. Kerry's presidential hopes are toast -

- he will not get the nomination even if he chooses to run. Just look at how the topic of Kerry divides the members of DU and we are supposed to be his biggest supporters! He's just not electable, like it or not.

[wisteria]

307. I disagree. I think he has more support and not.

just look around you. And take a look at other sites.

[Mass]

333. DU are Kerry's strongest supporters for a presidential run?

Really? That is news for me.

It seems to me that most of the people who are saying he is toast are the same ones who were last week. Nothing new.

[lynne]

335. My point exactly -

- each and every thread about Kerry here has been highly divided. I'm talking months and months of threads - not just the last few weeks. Shouldn't DU have almost total support for Kerry?? If DU can't find maximum support for Kerry, it makes me think that it can't be found anywhere.

[karynnj]

377. No one has the support of everyone on DU

From posts, it looks like Gore, Clark, Kerry, Edwards ... if you look at posts. Caveat: I didn't count and I don't read all threads. In the primaries even something like 30% is very high support.

Why would DU have total support for Kerry?

[wildflowergardener]

296. not finished

He's not finished with me. BTW When I say you below - I am referring to several posts I have read not one particular person.

Maybe you forget that it's not just the people here at DU who vote in the primaries. Just because many of you think he is finished because he did not fight the results more - how many people out there in the world who vote in the primaries even know about all of that, that there was even a chance of reversing anything (though my understanding is that he was told there weren't enough votes to possibly reverse the results, and that's why he conceded.)

It is ridiculous to say that ALL people who were voting for Kerry were doing so only because he was the only choice besides Bush, and it was just a vote against bush - I know I am paraphrasing here. That wasn't true for me. That wasn't true for anyone in our family. From the beginning I liked Kerry the best, and I still do. I was inspired by his speeches and what I saw in the old speeches in Vietnam when he was standing up for his fellow soldiers - and saw how much that related to the war in Iraq and what a good defender of the soldiers he could be if he would change his stance on the war - which he has now. I desperately want someone like him who is smart, honerable trustworty - so different than Bush. Maybe some people now see how foolhardy it is just to elect someone on personality/likeability without not thinking about what the person will or can do in office. How many people now have buyer's remorse and are thinking I wish I'd voted for Kerry instead?

I think that IF we can win back the house and senate, and do something to correct some of the unfairness in the media, and fix the problems with the voting machines, a democrat will finally have a chance. I think that any democrat would have a real huge problem with the media today. I read things, and know things that I read about that other people I talk to have no idea about - so much is covered up. The media is the problem - it doesn't matter Who is running - no matter how much they defend the smear - and there always will be smear from the right, if the media doesn't cover it, you didn't defend yourself.

Also, the 2008 nominee will not be running against an incumbent president. I think that this will make things easier for the Democrat nominee than it was for John Kerry - to beat an incumbent president in time of war - who had been so popular around 9-11.

A couple of non Kerry comments. You know sometimes I wonder if we Do win back the senate and house, if it will be harder to get a democrat president? Will be people be logical enough to say to themselves, look what happened before when the president, senate, and house were run by one party - they were able to do any corrupted, unethical thing they wanted. Not that I don't want to win, but I've thought about that. I don't know if many would think about that though.

Also, I just don't care for Hillary. I guess I'd vote for her if my only choice, but she is far far far from my favorite choice. And it's something I hate to say, because I'd like a woman to be president (though Hillary would not be my choice anyway) sometimes I wonder are the enough voters who would vote for a woman president regardless of who she is? There are alot of ignorant people out there, unfortunately who maybe don't think a woman can be president.

Oh, and in the end, it really doesn't matter what we decide here if Kerry is finished or not. It's up to the people who vote in the primaries - not just people on here or other bloggers.

Meg (in Missouri)
I've still got my Kerry/Edwards sticker on my car and it's staying there until I can replace it with my new one in 2008!!

[zulchzulu]

297. So they haven't been listening to other pundits...too lazy I guess...

Kerry is certainly going to run for President in 2008 and I'm certainly going to back and work for him any way I can.

In case Bill didn't notice, the story was a load of bullshit.

[wisteria]

310. We couldn't ask for anyone better to represent us. He won't be stopped.

Kerry 08.

[Tellurian]

317. OMG...delusional nm

[wisteria]

298. NOPE! Some people were hoping that was the case, but it ain't going

to happen. This will make him more determined to run again. Besides, it seems to me he as picked up additional support for standing up to this administration.
AND, HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG- HE WAS A VICTIM OF A SMEAR. I still see nothing wrong with not apologizing for what he did not say. The suggestion that he even slammed the troops was appalling because Kerry has an almost 100% voting record on vet and soldier issues.
I don't know about you, but I don't apologize when I am not wrong. To do so, sends the message that I am guilty.

Kerry 08

[B Calm]

301. then why did he apologize?

[YvonneCa]

306. So the media could let it go. n/t

[B Calm]

329. did the media let it go........... HELL NO

[politicasista]

388. Why don't you blame the dems that didn't back him up? n/t

[B Calm]

391. Hell they're probably too afraid to back him up. Bout the time they

back him, he goes out and apologizes for something he didn't do making them out to be fools.

[wisteria]

312. He was forced into doing it by Shumer and the hysterical Dems

because they had unfounded concerns about the subject being about 04 again. Kerry did in fact, only apologize to those who thought he had mispoke. He never apologized for saying what he did not say- which was a twisted claim of belittling the troops. he also turned it around to say that it was Bush who should apologize. I really think he was threatened and forced to take a hit for the party.

[AtomicKitten]

314. Do you have any evidence of that

... or is that yet another inflammatory accusation pulled out of thin air?

[YvonneCa]

319. Here...

...you go!
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15562022/site/newsweek

[AtomicKitten]

320. OK, so is there a problem with it?

Considering it knocked the news cycle off for a couple days, it doesn't seem unreasonable just a few days before an election to try to knock it back on track, and I would venture to add that he probably shouldn't have had to have been asked to do the right thing and do just that. Any other time it wouldn't have been an issue.

The bitterness and lashing out at all 'not Kerry' here makes it tough for some to understand the notion that this election isn't about Kerry at all and absolutely critical to the wellbeing of this country. For the most (with some exceptions), people here were pretty cool about the whole thing, but expecting people to view Kerry as the victim in this is a bit much to expect.

IMO no harm, no foul. And the election goes on.

[Mass]

331. She was answering the question of why he apologized.

The question is not Kerry here. It is what we expect of Dems. Should they apologize each time the GOP ask them to, or should they go on fighting?

There is no other question.

And those are the same Dems who forced Durbin to apologize for a comment that was right and Dean to apologize for his comments about the GOP.

So, please, decide what you want from the Dems.

[AtomicKitten]

332. Right before an election?

Whatever it takes - because he isn't on the ballot this election.

If he was on the ballot, that would be another story altogether.

[Mass]

330. Thanks to Schumer and other weak knew Dems.

[ChiciB1]

347. Like Hillary Maybe???

Back-stabber maybe?? Sorry Hillary, you were losing me big before this, but now unless you make a DRASTIC turn-around and you actually run in '08, and you just "happen" to get the nomination... I'm out of politics in '08!

And that may make many here at DU unhappy, but I MUST keep my integrity intact!! I held my nose to vote for Bill Nelson recently because we need the Senate, but I WON'T do it for Hillary at this point in time.

I'm going to a rally today for Jim Davis and Bob Graham is going to be there, but I don't think Nelson will be! What does THAT say???

[SunDrop23]

299. I wish not, but I think so. (nfm)

[bermudat]

300. Why would we watch him lose again?

When Kerry did not defend his war record, I knew he would not go to the mat for us. When he threw in the towel so soon after the election, despite the shenanigans happening in Ohio, no, no he shouldn't waste his money or our time running for the presidency again.

[wisteria]

305. He wouldn't lose this time. n/t

[Tellurian]

316. Al Gore might get the nomination if he decides to run..

You'll have to revamp your files and start promoting Gore..

I suggested on another thread, if he were to run, Hillary would be his perfect running mate..

[Nedsdag]

374. From your lips to God's ears

Yes, he's experienced, yes, he's intelligent, and yes, he'd make an excellent President.

However, he lacks the "it" factor that one needs to win. He doesn't have it.

[Placebo]

302. Totally 100% done.

Kerry will never be president.

[Marie26]

303. I certainly hope so. nt

[CarbonDate]

321. Not from this.

Kerry has a long, long way to go before his gaffes even begin to approach Bush's. This one will be forgotten inside of a year, I promise.

He wasn't my first choice in '04 and he won't be my first choice in '08. But I think he'd make a fine President, if not necessarily a terrific candidate.

If anything, his Presidential ambitions are killed by his inherent lack of charisma. He's a terrific speaker, but he comes across a certain way that he can't help. I sympathize, because I've been accused of that myself (and I've actually been compared to Kerry in my speaking style), and it can be frustrating. But what he does has worked for him in the Senate, and it's too late for him to change now.

We don't have another Kennedy waiting in the wings. Well, actually we might: his name is Obama. But again, I don't know if he'd be the best choice, either. I tend toward Wesley Clark, but I'm going into the primaries with an open mind, undecided. We'll see.

[_dynamicdems]

322. Nope. The only people who think that are the pundits and folks HERE.

First off: the pundits have been saying Kerry was out of the picture since 2004. Now they say it's BECAUSE of his joke that he hasn't a chance.

The REPUBLICANS obviously think he has a chance because they have been trying to take him out with surprising regularity.

As for DU: sometimes you get as false a perspective here as you do listening to the pundits. Sorry to say, but far too many people here complain about the pundits and about the Republicans while parroting the sentiments of both. Something is terribly wrong with that.

Out on the street, in the real world, people I've talked with lately have a different perspective. Kerry is widely liked and respected and quite a few people say they'd vote for him again without hesitation. NOBODY that I've talked to blamed Kerry in any way for the joke. They thought it was a lame attack on Kerry by a desperate President whose party is plummeting in the polls. And these aren't Democrats or even people I know personally. I've been chatting with people everywhere I go to try to get a handle on what the general public thinks.

The people I've talked to all feel that the joke actually hurt Republicans because their "over the top" and baseless attacks on Senator Kerry were so transparent as to make them appear to be clutching at straws. It showed them at a point of weakness and most people think that it was pretty disgraceful that nobody from Kerry's own party came to Kerry's defense. I told them that some Democrats did but that they are being careful because of the elections.

I've hardly been conducting scientific polls or anything, just talking politics to people. I don't even let on I'm a Democrat. The thing I'm finding most encouraging is that nobody defends Bush anymore and everybody wishes they had voted for Kerry. Most admit they voted for Bush in 2004. I've heard several reasons, but mostly people didn't want to change horses in mid-stream (Iraq). Now they wish they had.

If you really want to know what people actually think, just go out and talk to a few of them. Chat in the line at the grocery store. Start a conversation about gas prices, the economy, the weather, etc. Politics will come up and you don't even have to push it: it's on everyone's mind.

And so is John Kerry thanks to the publicity the Republicans gave him. And from what I've heard, it's all good! :)

[raysr]

323. Check it out

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/politics/15932143.htm

[upi402]

324. his last comment had nothing to do with it

imho

Rethugs wish it did, and that was their intent.

He needed to bash their teeth out every single instance that they slimed him. He acquiesced. They have a prison mentality and it is very obvious that they can't be treated with civility. They are sub-animals, all of them, always.

[dailykoff]

327. Yes, but I didn't think he acquiesced in '04.

The correct information about his military record was out there for all to see, and had been all along, in the form of books, websites, numerous interviews, articles, etc.

I think his mistake was looking at the entire electorate the way he probably looks at the Massachusetts electorate, i.e., capable of smelling shit when somebody throws it.

His response last week suggests that he won't be making that mistake again.

[upi402]

328. I liked his recent response to the swiftbastards

but it WAS recent. That's the essence of what I'm saying I guess. Even the man himself admits it. Second, even I knew how these cons behave and respond -how could he not? Was he out of the shitsprayer that far?

Doesn't add up. He's brilliant and honorable. Far more than I could ever hope to be. I just think it's obvious that these thugs need, and ONLY understand, an elbow to the teeth. Been that way since 1980 at least with Iran hostage deal that sunk Carter. (with media help)

[Mr_Spock]

325. Maybe

Maybe not - we'll see how he recovers from this in 2 years - may be the best thing that's happened to him - make him even more decisive & quick on defending himself. Or maybe he'll lose his confidence for good - who knows.

[AtomicKitten]

334. and the repercussions are reverberating ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2580394

It matters just a few days before an election.

[blm]

337. Yeah - so SOME want people to believe. SIDING with liars is NEVER a good tactic.

it is a sign of WEAKNESS. Most Dems became ENERGIZED over the commentary from Keith and Friedman and Maher and even Tweety who called it for what it was A LIE!

About time some Dems show they are NOT SUSCEPTIBLE to being strung along by an OBVIOUS LIE from BushInc.

[NYCGirl]

338. No one is saying that Kerry hates the troops. No one is saying it wasn't a LIE.

What many Democrats are saying is that the whole incident shows how fumble-footed Kerry is in national politics. It's not even ABOUT the statement any more.

[ProSense]

339. "fumble-footed Kerry is in national politics."

What some Democrats are doing is piling on to the absurd:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2928564&mesg_id=2928608

It has everything to do with the statement because there was nothing wrong with the statement, even in the orginal context, until it the right wing manufactured the distortion!

[Mass]

340. It is exactly what they said of Dean in 2004. I am surprised a Dean supporter

falls for it.

[NYCGirl]

344. And they were right. Dean's political instincts were not the best back then.

But he's sure learned a great deal in a short time.

[ProSense]

346. Actually this is not the same thing as Dean or Gore

Democrats didn't launch an attack them. The media did. Kerry's comment wasn't even in the same league because it was completely distorted, and Democrats opportunistically and timidly piled on.

[NYCGirl]

349. Tell that to the guy above who brought up Dean, not me. NT

[ProSense]

350. You mentioned Dean's political judgment!

The fact is the furor over Kerry's statement had nothing to do with his political judgment!

[NYCGirl]

352. MASS said "It is exactly what they said of Dean in 2004" and I answered

him "and they were right."

And THIS ENTIRE THREAD is about Kerry's political judgement, and not his statement. THAT'S what the segment on Maher's show was about — as I posted here upthread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2571687&mesg_id=2572104

[ProSense]

358. This thread is about

posturing, people who support other candidates. Maher hit the nail on the head:

4. When they say that actual combat veterans like John Kerry are denigrating the troops, you say:

"You are completely full of shit." Remember when Al Gore caught all that flak for sighing and moaning during the debate? Yeah, don't do that -- just say, "You are full of shit. If I was a troop, the support I would want back home would mainly come in the form of people pressuring Washington to get me out of this pointless nightmare. That's how I would feel supported."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2926828&mesg_id=2927572

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=2919&mesg_id=2919

[NYCGirl]

363. In the segment about Kerry, though, Maher defended him but agreed that

his presidential career was probably over. With a sad nod, and saying, "That's the world we live in, you're right," he agreed with Alec Baldwin.

[ProSense]

364. That's the good thing

Maher has no way of knowing that! There are many who believe otherwise! There are those who believe this will shine badly on those who joined in criticizing Kerry.

The fact that Maher specified how the Democrats should have responded is what people will see over and over again!

[tinfoilinfor2005]

371. "shine badly on those...criticizing Kerry"

On Chris Mathews this morning, all of the panelists agreed that McCain hurt himself when he piled on Kerry even more than the incident hurt Kerry. Because no one believes that Kerry was trying to diss the troops, and certainly not McCain who knows better. But he used the opportunity to trash his "friend" for politics. Wonder what McCain thought when he heard that? :rofl:

[blm]

351. Not a matter of political judgement if someone CREATES A LIE about you

It means they CREATED A LIE about you because they FEAR your political judgement.

YOU side with Bush and the liars when you claim Kerry is at fault - what does that say about YOUR political judgement?

[NYCGirl]

353. But how you react to it is a matter of political judgement.

Yes, and I know the media sucks.

BTW, I'm not siding with Bush. I know what Kerry meant to say and I'm not pretending I don't.

[blm]

355. The Clintons trashed the White House - they never answered it because they

knew it was a lie. So the story went on for MONTHS....and MONTHS....and MONTHS. And investigations were called for. And to this day alot of American people believe the Clintons trashed the White House.

The shame is also that MILLIONS of us Democrats DEFENDED Bill Clinton for YEARS for dropping his pants. Hillary scolded Kerry for dropping a PRONOUN.

[NYCGirl]

357. Well, they were wrong too. I don't especially like Hillary, but her husband has

remarkable political instincts, apart from his "Achilles heel", his sex life. And never underestimate Bill Clinton's charm.

[blm]

361. Those remarkable instincts collapsed the Dem party infrastructure.

After they lost in 94 they decided to TARGET states and let go of the red ones where the DNC allowed the party infrastructure to collapse.

Problem is that allowed the GOPs to grow STRONGER in those states where they could control how the votes get counted too.

Both Gore and Kerry should have won easily had their votes not been stolen at the county and precinct level.

[HannibalBarca]

342. Run Wesley Clarke

..simple, forget about Kerry this time. I'm sure he's a good man but as others have alluded to his political thought process isn't sharp enough.

[GCP]

343. I question the sanity of anyone who WANTS to be President in this

day and age.

[Selatius]

354. John Kerry is finished as far as presidential apirations go. Find someone else.

Let him serve out the rest of his career in the Senate, but for God's sake, find somebody who isn't a pro-NAFTA, pro-free trade politician.

[blm]

356. Kerry is for repealing parts of NAFTA. He's also the best bet to open books

on BushInc and get public financing of campaigns.

[Selatius]

360. What's wrong with repealing all of NAFTA?

Repudiating GATTs? Leaving the WTO?

[blm]

362. I don't know. I suppose he'd reassess the entire thing and throw out what's

not working and keep what is.

[wisteria]

366. Wow, we have a lot of Washington like forturne teller saying they

can predict the further. i suppose you are just another one.

[Selatius]

378. It's my opinion, not a prediction.

Open up a dictionary.

[Snivi Yllom]

359. Yes

Not that I thought he had a shot at 2008 before he inserted foot in mouth once again.

Hillary is smiling.

[wisteria]

365. NO, He will be back, it is Clinton that will be exposed for her

pandering and shilling for the right. NEVER EVER THINK KERRY WILL GIVE UP THE FIGHT TO CHANGE THE COURSE OF THIS COUNTRY. THE BEST WAY FOR HIM TO DO THIS IS TO BECOME PRESIDENT. HE STILL HAS HIS SUPPORT AND I JUST DON'T GET THIS CRAP ABOUT HIS DEMISE- EXACTLY WHY WOULD THIS BE HIS DEMISE? IS IT BECAUSE THE OUT OF TOUCH WASHINGTON INSIDERS SAY IT AND WISH TO MAKE IT SO? WHAT EXACTLY DID HE DO THAT MAKES HIM A CRIMINAL? ABSOLUTELY F*CKING NOTHING!

OH, AND BY THE WAY, MAHER DIDN'T AGREE WITH THE OTHER GUESTS- an hot head actor, a Hill- inside washington reporter and a republican- come on- real intelligence on that panel.

[LittleClarkie]

370. I don't give a fuck. I will support him in whatever capacity he chooses to go for.

Be it prez, cabinet member or just awesome Senator.

[Justpat]

373. I love John Kerry

and I voted for him, but I will be hoping that he decides not to run.

His retreat from the swiftboaters makes it difficult for me to
trust his instincts when it comes to the situations where you
have to decide to be aggressive and when to use diplomacy.
The way he allowed the right wing to control the dialog on his
past was timid. He should have quickly kicked their teeth down their
throats.

Although he served with courage and responsibility in the military,
when it came to fighting the psychologial battles in public, he
came off as a wimp. It allowed the actual cowards to gain the public's
attention.

[mmonk]

375. No.

He's still on my list as a possibility to volunteer for. So as far as I'm concerned, no.

[mtnsnake]

376. He was finished two years ago. Only on DU does he still have a chance

Anywhere else and he's toast.

[Clarkie1]

386. Irrelevant. GET OUT THE VOTE!!!!!! nt

[Thickasabrick]

387. I just want to win and make some gains Tuesday - I'm ADD and

talking about something in 2008 doesn't keep my attention for long. Too far away. I'm totally into Tuesday though.

[Superman Returns]

389. Kerry was done

from day one. For Democrats to win, they can't afford to run candidates viewed as elitist. YEs, I know Bush had the same pampered life as Kerry, but its all about perception. Kerry personifies the New England, upper class, elitist. Our future is with the Schweitzers, Testers, Webbs, Edwards, Obamas etc... Hate to say it but Kerry was not the best candidate and certainly won't be the next time. He had his chance, he failed. Atleast history will be good to him considering how the following four years of Bush were abyssmal.