Late night/early morning epiphany regarding Dems who are irritated with Kerry

[ecstatic]

and/or Dems who really do not want Kerry to run in 2008.

After some soul searching, I think I know what the problem is: Kerry is intelligent, articulate and a war veteran who has served this country well. BUT.... Kerry is way too nice! He is way too gracious! When dealing with rethugs, we need someone who can spit fire and shut them the hell up when they play their silly games. Because Kerry is so gracious, the media & repubs are easily able to twist his words and intentions--but what's worse is the way Kerry oftentimes will back down rather than ram his point home.

Again, I think everyone here can agree that Kerry is a great man with awesome accomplishments. It's just that some of us prefer a more aggressive campaigning style. I believe that is the source of my problem with Kerry running again; however, I do acknowledge that this view might be petty and shortsighted.

[Kiouni]

1. off subject...

why did John Edwards retire from the senate?

[karynnj]

42. He wanted to run for President

and he was not a shoo-in for the Senate. NC allowed running for both - but he would need to spend a lot of time in NC to win there. So, realisticly he had to make a choice.

[LittleClarkie]

2. Problem is, the best person to run for president isn't the best person to BE president

I wouldn't want the spitfire hothead in the Oval Office. How about if the spitfire hothead was Kerry's campaign manager instead? ;)

[ecstatic]

9. that's an interesting point

Very interesting. As another person pointed out, maybe the graciousness could work to his advantage as long as he stayed true to himself and had a competent campaign manager who could destroy the rightwing talking points.

[dailykoff]

38. He could use a shitkicker in his campaign,

no doubt about, if not on his ticket.

[blm]

66. He needed a 50 state strategy from DNC - any nominee would. The targetted state strategy

developed after 1995 just made things worse for 2000, 2002, and 2004.

[blm]

65. If the corpmedia had ALLOWED his counterattacks to be seen as widely as they

promoted BushInc's no one would be saying that Kerry was too nice.

Calling out the swiftliars in front of the Firefighters Convention and challenging Bush to debate their roles during Vietnam was tough as it gets, but no media chose to even REPORT on it, let alone air the speech the way they aired Bush's.

I think another thing that many of you forget is that before the convention, there was a few weeks that Ronald Reagan's death took over the airwaves, and AFTER the convention was the outing of Gov. McGreavy who then resigned and took up another couple weeks.

Kerry DID decisively win all three debates, and the media barely noticed.

[liberalpragmatist]

3. That. And he lost.

Whatever you think about the Ohio shenanigans, the point is he is not president, even though many Democrats thought he was going to win.

A lot of the CW that Kerry was just "not Bush" for most voters didn't really bear out - the exit poll showed Kerry matched Bill Clinton's performance on the positivity scales, easily exceeded Dukakis', and somewhat exceeded Gore's.

Nevertheless, at the end of the day, Kerry lost. And the American political culture isn't kind to presidential losers. Many people held perfectly positive views of Kerry before the election but soured after his loss. It's not fair, but it's the reality.

And people don't feel like re-living a disappointing outcome.

I'm not willing to count Kerry out - I like him, I've defended him, I ardently backed him in '04, and I think he'd make a very good president.

But he has his work cut out for him and a lot of competition.

[Vulture]

13. Precisely

There is a ton of sociology and psychology research on the topic of winners and losers to support this. All other things being equal, being a "winner" in some context buys 2-5% of the population automatically, which is one of the primary powers of incumbency with the margins often seen.

You can win after being a loser, but you really have to have excellent conditions which currently do not exist in Federal politics as a practical matter.

[bananas]

17. Horsefeathers!

Nixon lost and came back.
"You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" - that's what he said on TV after he lost.
A few years later, he came back and won.
There have been many cases of people losing and coming back to win.

[karynnj]

43. Also, Nixon had a very negative image as nasty - which is not

true for Kerry. Nixon had to create a new Nixon. Kerry simply has to get out who he really is - a true American hero, with a complete intolerance for dishonesty and corruption - who is genuinely a nice, gracious person with an enormous amount of patience and self control.

[liberalpragmatist]

79. Nixon also was helped by circumstances

Nixon's comeback was not likely. It was an outcome that came about due to the decimation of Republican ranks in 1964 and the flameout of George Romney and Nelson Rockefeller, the liberal Republican frontrunners.

Plus, the Conservative movement didn't have the power (or enough elected officials) to force their own preferred choice of nominee (Reagan) on the party at the time. Nixon had reached out to them enough that he was seen as acceptable.

Now, that's not to say Kerry absolutely can't come back. He MAY come back, but he'll need to do an incredibly good job during the campaign and the other campaigns would have to implode. It may happen, and I wouldn't be upset if it did, because I like Kerry.

[grasswire]

4. that's the same problem Gore had

They baited him into using a strength to be a weakness. They played to his gentlemanly side and then sucker punched him. "Be statesmanlike!" they jeered. "Go along to save your electability for another day!"

Gore and Kerry, both. Snookered by thugs.

[mykpart]

7. You nailed it, grasswire.

Kerry is a rich, mild-mannered, very intelligent man, and his handlers tried to make him into a guy you could have a beer with. He just needed to be himself. And quit trying to be funny.

[karynnj]

45. Mild mannered - who fights the MAFIA, Nixon, Reagan and Bush1

and who was a highly decorated war hero. Sounds more like Clark Kent needs to show the superman side more.

The difference between him and everyone else is that the Superman side is there. By the way, he doesn't need handlers to make him into a guy you can have a beer with - there are people here who can tell you he does this well himself.

He also is funny - but not good with a canned joke.

[XemaSab]

5. What's the difference between acting like a pussy and BEING a pussy?

:shrug:

[Cerridwen]

40. Having one?

So, are you saying that Kerry's not woman enough to "be a pussy" or that he's "acting" too much like a woman rather than actually being woman enough?

[babylonsister]

6. I think the ugliness has gotten worse. It's a sad day when a man

of intellect, honor, integrity, and morals is dissed because he's too nice. (And that's not a slam to the OP).
I think the rethugs are afraid of him and will diss him at every interval when they can because they recognize his value and are afraid of it.
My admiration of Kerry, besides his voting record, liberalism and activism, is that he's a true gentleman who could always talk rings around dimson, despite what people say to the contrary, or people who complain he's too wordy. Damn, I long for someone with command of the english language! And a heart, and a brain, and an inkling about diplomacy.
My wee rant, bon soir!

[ecstatic]

8. I do think Kerry could have been the next JFK but our society

kind of lost that vibe when JFK was assassinated. Now rudeness is the norm, and being too nice is viewed as a sign of weakness.

[EFerrari]

14. The Thuggery is invested in morphing thoughtfulness into indecision.

They discourage critical thinking and they pretty much need to. If their base ever really thought about what they're buying into, there would be lynchings all over the country.

[bluestateguy]

10. Kerry's remarks the week before the election made me so mad that I didn't vote for him this year

Kerry just ruined everything.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. You do know that he wasn't running for anything this year

[wisteria]

31. LOL. n/t

[jgraz]

11. Terrible campaigners make terrible presidents

First off, I believe the 2004 election was flat-out stolen, but I also believe that if Kerry had run an even half-way competent campaign he would have won by an unstealable margin. The sad fact is that if Kerry couldn't convince a large majority of the electorate to vote against this evil, incompetent moron, how could he possibly have used the bully pulpit to lead against what was sure to be a tidal wave of treasonous Rethug attacks?

Add in the huge betrayal of trust when Kerry conceded even though he knew the election had been fixed, and he's relinquished any credible claim he might have on another nomination.

[LittleClarkie]

15. Name a terrible campaigner who managed to become president, and turned out to be terrible

Just to prove your hypothesis. Because it sounds like a paradox to me. How would we know if a terrible campaigner would make a terrible president if they're so terrible at campaigning?

And Kerry knew no such thing the night of the election. He had people working against him even on his own side. He believed what he was told, but has since learned the truth.

At any rate, regardless of what y'all say, if he decides to run, we shall see how he does and how many votes he gets. If it doesn't happen then so be it.

But I know who I'm campaigning for and who I'm voting for if he decides to run.

And I'll still be here supporting him even if he doesn't.

[jgraz]

16. That would be Jimmy Carter

Now, I was a big fan of Carter, but I have to admit that he sucked at leading public opinion. The only reason he won in 76 is that Ford was an even worse campaigner.

[LittleClarkie]

19. And you think he was a lousy president?

I would tend to disagree. Or do you prefer his post-presidential work?

[jgraz]

20. Yeah, there's more to being president than just being a good guy

And Carter couldn't bring it when it came to leadership. That's how the Rethugs were so successful in painting him and all his policies as worthless. Like I said, I was a big fan of Carter's, but if he had been better at his job, we wouldn't have gotten Reagan in 1980.

[Hippo_Tron]

28. Carter was a great leader, he just wasn't willing to do what was popular

Refusing to drop bombs on Iran and telling us that getting out of the energy crisis would require some sacrifice were both great examples of leadership and also things that killed him in the 1980 election. Maybe we would've been spared Reagan but Jimmy Carter would've been just another average President if he had bombed Iran.

[jgraz]

59. Why wasn't it popular? Because Carter couldn't win the debate

Jeezle-pete, the guy was PRESIDENT. Now I was pretty young at the time, but I remember how hopeful we all were when he won in 76, and I remember how poorly he handled the public perception of what he was trying to do. By the time 1980 rolled around, it seemed that my entire communty (white-bread midwest) had gone from being his biggest supporters to being extremely bitter and cynical about Carter and politics in general. And we all know what happened next.

I keep thinking where we would be right now if Carter had been better at his job. He could have been one of our greatest presidents, and instead he's a conservative punchline. Tragic.

[wisteria]

33. He was not and nor is he a terrible campaigner.

The man has been in politics for over twenty years. He has run in some tough races. For gosh sake, sometimes you lose one. It doesn't make him terrible, it just means circumstances were such, that people didn't feel comfortable changing commanders during a time of war. I know of no other campaign where the opposing candidate had so much negativity to contend with. By comparison, Gore's and Clinton's campaigns were a piece of cake.
The color codes scare system, the constant warnings we could be attacked at any time, the media's suppression of important information that could of swayed the election, the good reports from Iraq,the out and out lies of the Swift Boat traitors and the media frenzied that took it to new heights in smear tactics, the Bin Laden tape two days before the election,all of these things were out of Kerry's control. Gore had nothing to contend with but the moral issue left behind by Clinton. And, Clinton ran against a president that reneged on a promise not to raise taxes and was not popular during a peaceful time in our country, the other problems Clinton faced were of his own making.
So, I think you are wrong to claim Kerry isn't a good campaigner. You are just repeating what the DC insiders want you to believe as they push the likes of their candidates of choice.

[jgraz]

47. "repeating what the DC insiders want you to believe"

Um ....no. I have eyes, ears, and am capable of forming my own opinions, thank you very much.

Kerry's "play nice" decision at the Democratic convention was a stunning example of political naivete. Speaker after speaker told stories of their speeches being edited by the Kerry campaign, who was quashing any hint of Bush-bashing. Then he seemed truly stunned by the tone of the GOPee convention. What the hell did he expect from the Repugs?

Kerry let the swtift-boat shit hang out there way too long, and when he did respond he wasn't anywhere near as tough as he should have been. He should have called Bush out, said he was a draft dodeger and challenged him to prove that he didn't desert his post. But that might have offended someone.

Kerry NEVER went after the Repugs on 9/11. Never. The worst terrorist attack in history happens on their watch and he cedes the entire issue to Bush.

"Given everything I know now I still would have voted for the IWR." 'Nuff said.

The guy's been immersed in the conviviality of the Senate for twenty years, and in 2004 he demonstrated clearly that he wasn't able to turn the corner into the real world of presidential politics. He should have won and won big, but instead he got his ass handed to him by someone who is a failure as a president and a failure as a man.

The final straw for me was his concession speech. I can deal with him running a poor campaign and losing an election. But simply giving up without a fight, even though he clearly knew the election was stolen, was a slap in the face to all of us who had worked so hard for him. If he won't fight for himself, how is he gonna fight for the rest of us?

[wisteria]

55. Perhaps, but you parrot a lot of the misleading talking points echoed

by the DC crowd. I can't offer anything to the 04 campaign other than my opinion differs greatly from yours.I don't think his campaign was bad. I liked that he presented himself professional, and he listened and answered questions by ad libbing. I liked that he seemed different and more honest than other politicians in the past and I liked the fact that he seems to really care about the issues. I understand why Kerry conceded, I understand why and how he handled the swift boaters the way he did, and I also understand how much it pained him to have to do it.What I don't understand is the party who was suppose to be supporting him just seemed to stay out of the whole race and let him do it all on his own. So, all I can say, is it is a shame you don't recognize Senator Kerry for the great man he is and you don't allow him any credit for the uphill battle he faced taken on an incumbent war time president. The DC insiders figured he wasn't going to have a chance at all, he proved them wrong, but he still couldn't count on their support.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

62. Nonsense! He won the primaries!

No single measure captures the extent of a presidential victory. The sheer number of voters that Bush inspired to turn out demonstrated impressive strength. But on several key indicators, Bush's victory ranks among the narrowest ever for a reelected president.

Measured as a share of the popular vote, Bush beat Kerry by just 2.9 percentage points: 51% to 48.1%. That's the smallest margin of victory for a reelected president since 1828.

The only previous incumbent who won a second term nearly so narrowly was Democrat Woodrow Wilson: In 1916, he beat Republican Charles E. Hughes by 3.1 percentage points. Apart from Truman in 1948 (whose winning margin was 4.5 percentage points), every other president elected to a second term since 1832 has at least doubled the margin that Bush had over Kerry.

In that 1916 election, Wilson won only 277 out of 531 electoral college votes. That makes Wilson the only reelected president in the past century who won with fewer electoral college votes than Bush's 286.

Measured another way, Bush won 53% of the 538 electoral college votes available this year. Of all the chief executives reelected since the 12th Amendment separated the vote for president and vice president -- a group that stretches back to Thomas Jefferson in 1804 -- only Wilson (at 52%) won a smaller share of the available electoral college votes. In the end, for all his gains, Bush carried just two states that he lost last time.

http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/8618.html

Kerry TV ads outpace Bush's

By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY

Sen. John Kerry's campaign and groups opposed to President Bush have run almost twice as many TV ads in closely contested states as the Bush-Cheney campaign. That is the opposite of what many political experts predicted before March, when Kerry emerged as the likely Democratic candidate for president.

The gap could grow by the July 26 start of the Democratic National Convention. This month, the Kerry campaign plans to spend $18 million on TV ads, outpacing the Bush campaign by about $10 million. Kerry's ads include the first one spotlighting his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. (Graphic: Ad spending)

"It was supposed to be 'poor John Kerry,' or 'poor Democrats, they'll be overwhelmed by a Bush money machine' " that would saturate 16 to 20 competitive states with TV ads, says Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

USA TODAY obtained data collected by TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political ads. The data, covering 17 closely contested states from March 3 through June 26, show:

• The Kerry campaign's ads were shown 72,908 times, 3.1% more than the Bush-Cheney campaign's 70,688 showings.

• Political groups' ads were shown 56,627 times. All but 513 were ads by liberal, anti-Bush groups such as MoveOn PAC and The Media Fund. The others were by conservative groups.

Taken together, about 129,000 Kerry or anti-Bush ads were aired, 82% more than the Bush-Cheney total.

The 17 states used were Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

more...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-11-kerry-ads_x.htm

[jgraz]

63. OMFG -- now we're into a whole new level of denial

You have noticed that John Kerry is NOT currently the President of the United States, haven't you?

How many Katrina victims feel better that Kerry won the primaries? How many dead Iraqis are comforted by the fact that Kerry lost by a teensy-weensy margin? He got beat. And then he gave up. And we are all paying for his failure.

[ProSense]

68. OMFG! How many feel better that Bush is in the WH? n/t

[jgraz]

69. Bored now...

you've stopped making anything even remotely comparable to sense.

[Old and In the Way]

12. I wonder how many regret not voting for Kerry?

Kind of a shame that the race wasn't in this cycle....Kerry with a Democratic majority would have been perfect. I think Kerry ran in 2004 with the expectation that he'd have a hostile Congress to deal with, so he tried to appeal to Republican moderates...he would have needed a significant plurality to make a case for change. A squeaker election with the Republican's in charge and a clearly hostile MSM would have been brutal on any Democratic President. Who knows how the dynamics would have played in this cycle? Anyways, 2008 is a whole new ballgame....I expect investigations and real election reform...we have Ohio back from Republican control and it looks like they'll be in the D column for POTUS. Republicans are defending a lot of Senate seats, so 2008 is shaping up to be the year we finally get our country back.

If Kerry runs, I'll happily support him in the primary. I'll happily support whoever the Democrat is in the general...

[LeahD]

18. To answer your question.....thousands upon thousands.

Can you imagine bearing that weight, knowing you'd voted for the wrong man? To realize that you'd been conned, and snowed, and played like a violin? That you'd voted for an idiot, because you believed the 30-second sound bytes? I'm so glad I saw through the veil. I can sleep at night.

[JI7]

21. if Kerry backed down then he wouldn't be considering running again

watch the Fox interview with that whore Chris Wallace. he didn't back down on anything.

but other Democrats back down when it comes to defending KErry. instead of calling out the media and right wing they criticize KErry for being attacked.

and if people don't like him they can vote for someone else. but it's strange that some seem to think that he shouldn't even have a right to run in a Primary. if most don't like him as people who oppose him claim then he wont win the nomination and it wont be an issue.

[Rageneau]

22. We need to put Randi Rhodes' mind and spirit into Kerry's body.

For that matter, we might as well just go with Randi herself.

[President Jesus]

23. really?

Reality check: When Kerry went on the offensive the day after his gaffe, no one was more proud of him and more supportive of this tactic than Randi Rhodes.

How did that work out for Kerry?

How did doing exactly what Randi Rhodes prescribed do anything except KILL a brilliant political career?

[sendero]

24. As a long time..

... "no Kerry in 2008" person, I agree with you somewhat. Kerry, like many long time Washington pols, seems to be slow to figuring out the new political landscape. Like a frog in a pot of water slowly coming to a boil, he missed the part where playing rough became a basic requirement. He stood by and depended on the intelligence of the American public to see through the swift boat debacle, and he was wrong, many did not see through it.

Based on his performance on last Sunday's talk show, I think he's starting to understand what he is up against, but I'm personally doubtful that he'll ever get in front of the power curve. And the "advisors" he chooses are just as clueless, which compounds the problem.

I like and respect Kerry, but we have to do better in 2008.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. Agreed, Kerry picked clueless advisors in 2004

And that may have been the difference

[wisteria]

36. He also had Carville, Lockhart and McMurray, who were looking out

for their own interests ($$$) and not Kerry's or the party, who sold him out. How could anyone of known these people had no integrity? Washington insiders are bad news.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. Carville didn't work on his campaign...

He offered advice but he wasn't a full time consultant. And what evidence do you have to suggest that Lockhart was looking out for his own interests and not Kerry's.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. Kerry's problem is that most Americans view him in the way that the media portrays him

And the media does not portray him in an extremely negative light. I was a Kerry supporter in the primary and I still think that he would make a damn good President.

This latest "botched joke" is a good example of how people buy into every attack on him. My friends all genuinely think that he said that if you don't do your homework you will get shipped to Iraq, despite the fact that even Tweety was willing to admit that the comment was taken out of context by the GOP.

The mainstream media is not kind to Kerry. They weren't exactly kind to Nixon either, but Nixon learned how to get around this. Kerry hasn't learned how to get around it and that's why a comeback in 2008 would be damn near impossible

[wisteria]

35. Good PR and a little time can change "what some American's" think.

However, no matter who you are, when you are in the public eye, some people will like you and others won't. Take President Bush, many dislike him, yet he manged to get elected in 2000 and 2004.

[tpsbmam]

29. Sorry, I have to disagree

I certainly voted for Kerry, but did not work for him in the primaries and was less than thrilled he ended up being our candidate. It has nothing to do with anything you mentioned (though I could have done with a little more exhibited toughness. I do think Kerry is a dirty campaigner, but I don't think he was tough enough when he ran in 2004). As a one-time Massachusetts resident, I was very familiar with Kerry's record, which is less than stellar.

He started out with great promise. Though I don't know John Kerry, my father did. He had died by the 2004 elections, but Mom said he would have supported Kerry and been very excited by his candidacy. Dad and I would have argued that one like crazy!

In his more than 2 decades in office, name me one major piece of legislation that he authored. He claimed to have been responsible for 56 "bills" that he authored and passed. Not true. Many of those "bills" were resolutions like changing the name of the Committee on Small Business to the "Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship." Some of the bills he authored and passed were good ones (e.g., increasing grants to small businesses owned by women) and some were, IMO, pretty frivolous (e.g., naming a Federal building in MA after a WWII hero).

He DOES have a good investigative record (e.g., Iran Contra, BCCI) and he DOES have a mostly excellent voting record, with some glaring exceptions, and those exceptions are where he totally lost me. Despite Conyers saying, "My son....." to Moore, our legislators have a damn duty to read the bills they vote on. If you have to hire a few smart college interns to site in little cubbyholes to read the bills and pull highlights from them, then do it. He has made some horrifically bad judgments about bills during the Shrub regime.

23 Senators and 133 Representatives voted against the war. John Kerry voted for it. He says he was misled into voting for it. Bull. There were TONS of people (including the inspectors) who tried to tell him that Bush was lying. Kerry didn't listen.

So, where Kerry lost me was voting yes on Iraq, voting yes on NCLB, voting yes on 2002 HAVA, voting yes on the Patriot Act and it's subsequent reauthorization. The hindsight that so many are claiming now is BS IMO. WE knew, so why didn't he? WE got who Bush was early on, so why didn't he?

Kerry has always had his eye on polls and his votes have reflected that way too often. I don't want a weenie senator and I don't want a weenie president. Vote your conscience. His often stellar voting record isn't a stretch in MA, a reasonably liberal state. So, while I appreciate his voting record, I don't consider it particularly courageous.

That said, Kerry does have a glowing voting record on some issues......environment, women's rights, civil rights (until that PATRIOT ACT thing rears its ugly head again....major IMO), energy policies, etc. He did have some good votes on controversial bills of late (e.g., voted no against the bankruptcy bill). But he also did come out against gay marriage in 2004. He did support civil unions, but came out against gay marriage.

Would I be miserable if Kerry were elected. Absolutely not. He might do a fine job. So might some other Dems with better records (though they're few and far between). Some of the Dems with far better records alas either aren't going to run or wouldn't stand a chance in hell of winning.

So, if there's a good opponent in the primaries, I'll again work for Kerry's opponent. And if Kerry wins the primaries, I'll work and vote for him. But he's far from my first choice and THAT is based on his RECORD and his HISTORY, not on the things suggested in the OP.

[ecstatic]

34. great food for thought

A lot to think about there. Unfortunately, Kerry is not alone in that war vote. That is what causes a little bit of hypocrisy and disconnect when it comes to who we prefer to run in 2008. The people who were allegedly "always" against the war cannot necessarily prove it because they weren't even in office at the time. I can definitely see where you're coming from though. I really wish Dean would run but the media destroyed him as well--I guess for the opposite reason--Dean was never the "nice guy." Is there a happy medium somewhere? :shrug:

[LWolf]

75. How about someone who was in office at the time,

and adamantly opposed the IWR, patriot act, etc., when too many of his fellow Democrats did not?

[ProSense]

39. "name me one major piece of legislation that he authored"

That is the crux of your distortion.

He claimed to have been responsible for 56 "bills" that he authored and passed. Not true.

This was a meme perpetrated by the RW.

It was during the investigations into BCCI and its ties to Panamanian ruler Manuel Noriega that Kerry’s interest was solidified. In 1988, he authored the first U.S. law, called the Kerry Amendment, to impose sanctions on countries that do not cooperate with U.S anti-money laundering (AML) efforts.

Kerry wrote Pre-Cursor Bill to S-CHIP, Providing Coverage for up to 5 Million Children. John Kerry's 1996 bill, the Healthy Children, Family Assistance Health Insurance Program, was the precursor to the successful State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) that became law in 1997. S-CHIP provides funding to cover 5 million children.

Kerry authored major elements of the Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000, legislation which at the time provided the most money ever for fighting AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis around the world.

He shaped the first significant rewrite of the public housing program in over 20 years and worked to craft and pass a bill that helped save the government billions of dollars in rental assistance payments, preserved thousands of affordable rental apartments, and helped finance the rehabilitation of those apartments.

Claiming that Senator Kerry's record is non-existent is disingenuous! It was Kerry who got the VA to recognize PTSD. Kerry was instrumental in the Kyoto negotions. He has authored numerous bills that have passed, and has his stamp is on numerous others that don't bear his name, including major environmental legislation.

[LittleClarkie]

64. Not to mention that he probably would have authored more bills

but Kennedy is more the legislative guy, and Kerry the investigative guy. It's a division of labor. Kerry hasn't just been sitting there all this time.

[blm]

56. The inspectors went in AFTER the IWR and BECAUSE of the IWR - your timeline is off.

Kerry said he was against INVADING unless the inspectors gave reason.

I think if you go back you will see that not all who voted to allow war if found to be necessary, continued to support invasion after inspectors said war was NOT NECESSARY and some, like Kerry, urged Bush to NOT RUSH TO WAR until the inspectors determined it was needed.

[wisteria]

30. He came right back at them after they twisted his words this time.

He even turned it around with the comment that Bush should apologize to the American people and the soldiers for sending them into a war without the proper protection. He didn't back down. Now, other Dem's needed to back him up and keep the subject on Iraq and Bush, but they didn't. They abandoned him and ran for cover. They are the chickensh*ts.
On the Fox interview, Kerry got in all the points he wanted to and even mentioned that they omitted some of what he said at the press conference. I remember more of his interview with Wallace than the one Clinton did- why? Because Clinton's behavior was over the top and dictated the whole interview, so he might of been defending his record, but I couldn't tell you what he was saying about it.
Yes, Kerry is a considerate, honest man with integrity. Those points are assets not liabilities. I think you make to much out of the flubbed line. He is not the first politician to do this. Please consider it in its proper context-it was one word omitted from a sentence. In a rational atmosphere, and with support from his own party, this would have registered a zero in importance. The RW, with the media's help and the thank you very much, Hillary comments, made this into a major overkill. Just that in itself should indicate how much they wanted to take Kerry out.

[ecstatic]

37. I'm trying to get to the "WHY"--why are some Dems against him

Moreso than other Dem senators with similar records?

In the case of Hillary, one can easily suggest that she's trying to throw him under the bus so there will be less competition in 2008. Is that really true? If so, that shows a major character flaw with Hillary.

But what about all the Dems who are not running for president who either dislike Kerry's leadership style and/or are just marginally supportive of him?

The "too nice" theory is all I can think of. For instance, some people are still pissed at Kerry's quick concession in 2004. That move showed graciousness, but that type of graciousness was simply unacceptable to many people in the climate we were in at the time.

[karynnj]

48. BCCI

Kerry was investigating drug money laundering and found that BCCI was involved up to its neck in totally corrupt activities laundering drug money and facilitating terrorists and global criminals. This bank bought off both Democratic and Republican politicians and money men. This absolutely endangered our democracy that people like this had any influence over our government.

Kerry was asked by both Jackie Kennedy and Jimmy Carter to stop - and he refused. Yet if you look at his list of issues that needed further investigation after his subcommittee was shut down - the number one issue was BCCI's funding of Pakistan's bomb. Imagine a Congress that was willing to cut off corrupt members of their own party. Could a thorough investigation have prevented A Q Khan from helping other rogue countries? More investigation of fugitive Marc Rich was there too.

Many people in power likely were concerned that Kerry would NOT tolerate a corrupt status quo that they enjoy privileges and support from. Kerry did the right thing, but some politicians see it as he hurt their friends. What I see is that it shows Kerry is incorruptible. He likely could have traded stopping this BCCI investigation for either money (this was pre- Teresa and he was not rich) or power, he didn't. To me this says he is really incorruptible - a very good trait for a possible President - and why I will support him as long as he is running and hopefully through his Presidency. He is unique.

[dailykoff]

49. You put your finger on it: uncorruptible.

Those are exactly my reasons for supporting him too.

[LittleClarkie]

67. I wish Shrum wouldn't have considered all that too complex for the campaign

It's his strong suit.

I swear people were working against him during the campaign instead of for him.

[dailykoff]

73. Yeah they definitely ran center

but I'm not sure that wasn't the right move considering that 9/11, Saddam and Osama were ruling the airwaves and Junior still had a lot of support.

[seabeyond]

32. except the last two years the only one to rival kerry going after

repug and media is dean and maybe clark. so what you suggest is his dificit seems to be something he has gotten over

[karynnj]

41. I think you mistake good manners for giving in

I think that Kerry's usual good manners and graciousness allow him to fight harder than many others. In fact, this joke where Kerry was referring to Bush not being smart and doing his homework on Iraq was termed an insult to Bush's intelligence was seen as atypical. Kerry got some criticism on it for this reason. I doubt it will hurt long term. It is very hard to find any nasty personal comments by Kerry. It's not his style.

What is his style is sharper comments than any mainstream candidate on issues and actions. Kerry was the only mainmstream person to question Tora Bora while it was happening. Think back over the words actually said in 2004. His comment that Bush failed to guard the known ammo dumps, that had been secured by the UN inspectors and that those explosives were thrown at "our kids" in IEDs. That is a very very tough charge - and the emotion in Kerry's voice was very real. (That was the conversation the OBL tape replaced.)

As to backing down, Kerry doesn't. Clinton may bash a Fox talking head, but can you picture Clinton saying no to a former Democratic President (Carter) and the wife of the President he loved (Jackie) and standing against a sitting President and Senators on both sides of the aisle to fight a corrupt bank that bought off both Democrats and Republicans moneymen? This evil foreign bank was facilitating drug running and terrorism and had its tenticals in our government. Kerry understood it, saw how bad it was, and risked his political career to fight it.

He did the same thing with his investigation of Contra drug and gun running - and the fact that the entire thing was in defiance of the law.

There are lists of legislation down thread that Kerry has been instrumental on. The Senate typically credits senior Senators and Kerry is NOT aggressive in getting credit for things. He and Kennedy wrote the precursor bill to S-Chp, the largest increase in government provided health insurance. His name was replaced with Hatch's to make it bipartisan and pass it. Also, although Kerry/Feingold didn't pass, it's call for a Senate was included in legislation recently - using Kerry's language. That amendment drove the conversation on Iraq - the also defeated Levin amendment was created in response to it.

Looking at the list of other people - few have Kerry's record. Hillary, Edwards, and Obama certainly don't. To see how unfair the charge is, what are Gore's major pieces of legislation? Yet he is clearly a major statesman. The point is that Kerry and Gore can more easily be seen as Presidential than the others.

[jpwhite]

44. he is not a good speaker

The bottom line is John Kerry is not a good public speaker. He talks with this boring monotone voice. I am sure that John is a great guy, but every time I see him on TV he looks like he hasn't slept in 3 days. We need a charismatic leader who has passion and zeal. At least George W. Bush has some spunk. (don't like his ideas, but he has some passion) Some people used to question Kerry and wonder if he even had a pulse.

We need someone like Edwards, Obama, Clark, or Richardson. Those four could lead America in a new direction.

James
[e-mail]

[ProSense]

46. "We need a charismatic leader...At least George W. Bush has some spunk."

Wow, low standards!

[karynnj]

50. Go immediately to johnkerry.com

listen to Dissent or any video there. Kerry is a far better speaker than Clark or Richardson. Edwards had a great stump speech that he did verbatim - but his convention speech was disappointing. Obama is great.

Kerry has tons of passion - when he is speaking truth to power.

[Old and In the Way]

54. It's opinions like this that get us the government we have.

Have you seen John Kerry speak in public? I have...many times. He's a gifted and talented public speaker. Probably one of the best I've ever seen working an audience. Why not actually read what Kerry has said? He's got the onboard intelligence and the leadership skills to be a great President.

The basis of your conclusion is exactly what the mainstream media does....puff up the moron with "spunk" (whatever that means) and take down the the candidates that actually have the competence to do the job by focusing the public's attention on the inconsequential. So sad to see the media propaganda working on this board. I guarantee you that any Democrat that wins the primary will get a custom tailored hatchet job by the Republican-owned corporate media. It's what they do best.

[originalpckelly]

51. He isn't articulate and he has the worst body language of any politician...

I've ever seen in my life. It looked so fake, so staged, it look untruthful. Now I know he was the candidate with a hell of a lot better policies, but most people aren't like myself or most of us on DU. They base their decisions off of those stupid kinds of traits.

[babylonsister]

52. He isn't articulate? Not my impression at all. nt

[elocs]

53. I reject the premise of either being pro-Kerry or anti-Kerry.

If I choose peas instead of Brussels sprouts does that mean I am anti Brussels sprouts? I mean, I tried them and prefer something else and there are many other choices. We are not lacking in choices for Democratic presidential candidates and I just prefer somebody else this time. There's this whole notion that if you prefer somebody other than Kerry then you somehow just are not a good person. Rubbish!

[ProSense]

57. Good for you!

But who said "if you prefer somebody other than Kerry then you somehow just are not a good person."?

[elocs]

72. It may not be as much as "who said", but it is the implication.

If you simply do not prefer Kerry based upon experience of the last presidential campaign, as I do, you are lumped in with all of the Kerry bashers and labeled as being "anti-Kerry". I do not care for Senator Clinton either, but I will vote for either of them if they are our nominee for president. If there is any candidate who has already run for president and lost and will do better the next time I would prefer Gore to Kerry and I voted for each of them. I have seen each of them campaign and lose, but Gore did get 500,000 more popular votes than Bush and lost by a very razor thin margin. Kerry had a distinct advantage over Gore running against Bush because he should have learned from Gore's experience and it didn't seem like he did. Kerry will have to earn the nomination and should not be looked upon as the heir apparent because he was the nominee last time.

[LittleClarkie]

70. It's not that so much if you prefer someone else.

It's if you go out of your way to make fun of him. There was a thread a couple days ago that had no other purpose than to make fun of him for being verbose again) Or this one guy who keeps telling me not to waste my time because Kerry's toast. It's the bashing, not the criticism. Other partisan supporters are just about as touchy about the same thing.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

60. HE WAS EXCELLENT but didn't PROTEST the election as LOUDLY

as we would have liked. He could have hit back harder at them, yes, but he did WIN the election. Ohio along with 4 other states just decided not to count all the votes. To win in 08, Kerry is going to have to PROVE to his supporters that he WILL FIGHT for our votes. Will be a difficult task to accomplish but I think he is bright enough to find a way to do it.

[kerstin]

61. Kerry seems to be the (potential) candidate the right goes after the most.

Wonder why?:freak:

[LWolf]

74. Er...no.

I agree with all you say, but that's not why I don't want him to run.

I don't want him in '08 because I didn't want him in '04 and got the "he's ELECTABLE" bullshit shoved down my throat. I haven't gotten over the resentment I felt then; I still resent the idea that Democrats think it's ok to nominate less than the best because "he's more electable!!!!" I think many candidates are not given enough credit, and could win with the right campaign.

I don't need someone to be more aggressive. I do need someone with a stronger, better campaign.

But most of all, I want someone who sees problems and acts on them in a timely manner, rather than voting first and deciding to oppose it later. Specifically, in Kerry's case, the IWR and the Patriot Act. Intelligent, nice, etc. he may be, but he either isn't smart enough to see some things coming, or he isn't trustworthy enough to oppose them when it counts.

[dansolo]

76. It has nothing to do with him being too nice

His problem is that he relies too much on political calculus, and not enough on his own personal beliefs and convictions. That and his projected sense of entitlement, as if he's owed the presidential nomination.

[karynnj]

77. Kerry 's positions come very firmly from his believes

With votes, you can only vote yes or no - if you read the floor speeches which explain more fully his position - it is easy to see they follow his believes.

[sampsonblk]

78. Not even close

Its because John Kerry was the alternative to the truth-telling candidates of 2004. Rather than pick a candidate who was right, and there were several, the Kerry campaign suggested we pick a candidate who could win. He could get moderate votes (which is nonsense) by playing the middle on the war. He would talk about traditional Dem issues that people really care about like healthcare and jobs, which the springtime polls said were more important. No more of that moderate electability nonsense for me.

I want a candidate who is smart enough to be right, honest enough to say so in public, and courageous enough to stick with it.

I find John Kerry lacking - real bad.