The Trial of John Kerry (rough report of Franken luncheon)

[WilliamPitt]

One of these days, this will be a textbook case for political science professors to use as a teaching tool.

Here is a Democratic candidate for the Oval Office in a year when the liberal base of the party is almost completely unified in its disgust for the sitting Republican President. The candidate, a Senator, has a 20-year liberal voting record to admire: He is peerless on the environment, a staunch defender of a woman’s right to choose, completely reliable across the whole spectrum of gay rights issues, totally solid on education, an advocate for campaign finance reform and health care reform, and will fight to the death to keep Social Security fully funded and reliable. It is the liberal base of the party that turns out to vote in the primaries, so the candidate’s record gives him an immediate advantage.

Add to the scenario a campaign season dominated by foreign policy issues. The candidate is a Vietnam veteran who wears Purple Hearts next to a Bronze and Silver Star, giving him a ‘real deal’ quality compared to the sitting President, who used family influence to avoid that conflict. The candidate served for several years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, affording him the justifiable claim that he is a seasoned professional when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world.

This experience is tempered by wisdom and hard knowledge; the disgust and horror experienced by the candidate during Vietnam had an almost mythic quality, and led him to become a prominent voice against the war upon his return home, so much so that he earned a spot on Nixon’s infamous “Enemies List.” His service in combat, coupled with his principled stand against the Vietnam war and his time on the Foreign Relations Committee, has forged a whole man. This serves him well in the primaries with fence-sitters, and with people who might think Democrats are “soft on national defense.”

This is the point at which the professor will lean against his podium and ask his class to theorize on how well such a candidate would do in a crowded field in the run-up to the primaries. Would he run away with the nomination? Dominate the conversation? Be way ahead in many states and tightly competitive in others? Of course, the class will respond. The professor, with a puckish grin, will instruct the class to turn to page 214 of their textbooks, and read the history of John Kerry’s Presidential run in the fall and winter of 2003.

John Kerry’s liberal record in the Senate is remarkable in its depth and consistency. His public stand against the Vietnam war, augmented by his status as a decorated veteran of that conflict, made history. His attacks on the Reagan administration, his fight to expose the Iran-Contra/BCCI scandal, are among the main reasons the public became schooled on those travesties. His time on the Foreign Relations Committee places him head and shoulders above the other Democratic candidates in terms of real-world foreign policy experience.

Kerry is a proven fighter on the campaign trail. His defense of his Senate seat against William Weld in 1996 was perhaps the most remarkable campaign in a generation; both candidates fought like tigers to win, both ended the race with approval ratings above 60% despite weeks of to-the-knife political combat, and Kerry was in it to the last hour until the victory was finally his.

Yet today, John Kerry teeters on the edge of total irrelevancy in the race for the White House. Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean holds a double-digit lead over Kerry in New Hampshire, and is leading or surging elsewhere. Kerry’s campaign suffered a blowout several weeks ago when he fired his campaign manager, an act that led to the resignations of several other prominent staffers. While this may have ultimately been a healthy bloodletting, it caused the national press to write stories about “The Ailing Kerry Campaign,” obscuring any and all policy discussions that would have served his run.

On Monday night, the Associated Press reported the huge news that Al Gore had decided to publicly endorse Howard Dean. Was Gore’s endorsement a repudiation of the DLC? Is he publicly distancing himself from the powerful Clinton-controlled wing of the party? Or does Gore just think Howard Dean is the best man for the job? Slice those issues whichever way you please, but at the end of the day it was yet another brick in the ever-growing wall standing between Kerry and the nomination.

How did this happen? Kerry has all the components of a flat-out frontrunner. When did the wheels come off?

Ask virtually anyone who accounts themselves a member of that liberal Democratic base, and they’ll answer in a heartbeat. The wheels came off on October 11, 2002, the day John Kerry voted ‘Yes’ on George W. Bush’s Iraq War Resolution. The occupation of Iraq, the mounting American casualties, the skyrocketing cost of the conflict, and the still-missing weapons of mass destruction have become a significant liability to Bush. Amazingly enough, however, the Iraq situation has been far more damaging to Kerry than to Bush.

The same liberal base that flocks to the polls during the primaries took to the streets in vast, unprecedented numbers last fall and winter to oppose the push towards war in Iraq. Any politician who voted for the resolution was of no account to these people, worse than useless, an enabler of Bush’s extremist agenda, and not at all to be trusted. Dean’s passionate yet nuanced positions against the war drew legions of fiery supporters to his campaign, despite the fact that he is far less liberal than Kerry. The fact that Kerry had served in Vietnam, and then become an anti-war activist, was an added twist of the knife for those working against the invasion of Iraq, a betrayal of his own history and his people. For Kerry, keeper of that extraordinary liberal record, this one vote amounted to a couple of torpedoes below the water line of his campaign. He has been sinking, sinking, sinking ever since.

There are but a few weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. Time has grown short. In an effort to galvanize the message Kerry wants to deliver in the time remaining, he convened a powerful roster of journalists and columnists in the New York City apartment of Al Franken last Thursday. The gathering could not properly be called a meeting or a luncheon. It was a trial. The journalists served as prosecuting attorneys, jury and judge. The crowd in Franken’s living room was comprised of:

Me;
Al Franken and his wife Franni;
Rick Hertzberg, senior editor for the New Yorker;
David Remnick, editor for the New Yorker;
Jim Kelly, managing editor for Time Magazine;
Howard Fineman, chief political correspondent for Newsweek;
Jeff Greenfield, senior correspondent and analyst for CNN;
Frank Rich, columnist for the New York Times;
Eric Alterman, author and columnist for MSNBC and the Nation;
Art Spiegelman, Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist/author of ‘Maus’;
Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post;
Fred Kaplan, columnist for Slate;
Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate and author;
Jonathan Alter, senior editor and columnist for Newsweek;
Philip Gourevitch, columnist for the New Yorker;
Calvin Trillin, freelance writer and author;
Edward Jay Epstein, investigative reporter and author;
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., who needs no introduction.

We sat in a circle around Kerry and grilled him for two long hours. In an age of retail politicians who avoid substance the way vampires avoid sunlight, in an age when the sitting President flounders like a gaffed fish whenever he must speak to reporters without a script, Kerry’s decision to open himself to the slings and arrows of this group was bold and impressive. He was fresh from two remarkable speeches – one lambasting the PATRIOT Act, another outlining his foreign policy ideals while eviscerating the Bush record – and had his game face on. He needed it, because Eric Alterman lit into him immediately on the all-important issue of his vote for the Iraq War Resolution. The prosecution had begun.

“Senator,” said Alterman, “I think you may be the most qualified candidate in the race, and perhaps also the one who best represents my own values. But there was one overriding issue facing this nation during the past four years, and Howard Dean was there when it counted, and you weren’t. A lot of people feel that moment entitles him to their vote, even if you have a more progressive record and would be a stronger candidate in November. How are you going to win back those people who you lost with your vote for this awful war?”

There it was. Your record is the best, Mr. Kerry. But you voted for the war, Mr. Kerry. Howard Dean was right, Mr. Kerry, and you were not. Your campaign has been wounded, perhaps mortally, because of this. Explain yourself, and while you’re at it, explain how you are going to win back enough Dean voters to keep you from becoming a footnote in this race.

For over a year now, Kerry has struggled to respond to that question. His answers have seemed vague, overly nuanced and evasive. On Thursday, seated before the sharpest knives in the journalistic drawer and facing the unconcealed outrage of Alterman, the Senator from Massachusetts explained why he did what he did.

“This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career,” Kerry said. “I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That’s what I voted for.”

“The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time,” continued Kerry, “I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn’t yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You’re God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.”

History defends this explanation. The Bush administration brought Resolution 1441 to the United Nations in early November of 2002 regarding Iraq, less than a month after the Senate vote. The words “weapons inspectors” were prominent in the resolution, and were almost certainly the reason the resolution was approved unanimously by the Security Council. Hindsight reveals that Bush’s people likely believed the Hussein regime would reject the resolution because of those inspectors. When Iraq opened itself to the inspectors, accepting the terms of 1441 completely, the administration was caught flat-footed, and immediately began denigrating the inspectors while simultaneously piling combat troops up on the Iraq border. The promises made to Kerry and the Senate that the administration would work with the U.N., would give the inspectors time to complete their work, that war would be an action of last resort, were broken.

Kerry completed his answer by leaning in close to Alterman, eyes blazing, and said, “Eric, if you truly believe that if I had been President, we would be at war in Iraq right now, then you shouldn’t vote for me.”

Alterman, for one, was sold. In his MSNBC blog report on the meeting, he wrote, “It was all on the record and yet, it was remarkably open, honest and unscripted. Let’s be blunt. Kerry was terrific. Once again, he demonstrated a thoughtfulness, knowledge base and value system that gives him everything, in my not-so-humble-opinion, he could need to be not just a good, but a great president.”

The most revealing moment of the entire event came as it was breaking up. Kerry was slowly working towards the door when he was collared by Art Spiegelman. Though Kerry towered over him, Spiegelman appeared to grow with the intensity of his passion. “Senator,” he said, “the best thing you could do is to is to just come out and say that you were wrong to trust Bush. Say that you though he would keep his promises, but that you gave him more credit than he deserved. Say that you’re sorry, and then turn the debate towards what is best for the country in 2004.”

Kerry nodded, bowed his head, and said, “You’re right. I was wrong to trust him. I’m sorry I did.” And then he was gone.

None of this solves the immediate problem for Kerry. The eventual nomination of Howard Dean takes on more and more each day an aura of inevitability. Kerry is still trailing Dean in key primary states, and Al Gore isn’t going to take back his endorsement. In order to regain any momentum and take the nomination, he will have to convince Dean supporters, more than anyone else, to switch to his camp. With all the time that has passed, and with Dean’s campaign picking up such momentum, this seems highly unlikely.

That is the road John Kerry is on right now. His performance in Franken’s living room last Thursday, the tenor of his recent speeches, and his gladiator memories of that 1996 Senate race, all indicate one simple thing. If John Kerry is going down, he is going down swinging.

[La_Serpiente]

1. thanks

:-)

[La_Serpiente]

2. Thanks for the clarification about the Iraq vote

I guess it depends on whether people can trust him or not. He is going to have to earn that respect back.

[blm]

Look at his 30 year record, no, his lifetime record, and decide.

This is the man who EXPOSED more government corruption than ALL the candidates put together and more than any lawmaker alive today. Yet people say he can't be trusted or respected?

This man helped END three wars and saved hundreds of thousands of lives by doing so. He can't be trusted or respected?

These same people trust a man who only just switched this election cycle to populism when he'd been a compromising centrist his entire career. Yet, somehow it's Kerry who has to EARN respect and trust?


This truly is Bizarro world.

[La_Serpiente]

24. Thanks for telling the story

I know of all his accomplishments. I am just wondering if everyone else remembers them. :shrug:

[TLM]

117. Kerry's own campaign garbage...

This his is record from Feb of this year... attacking Dean for wanting the UN in Iraq.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/25/opinion/lynch/main541905.shtml

Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan, snapped at Dean's insistence on getting U.N. backing (a position supported by three-quarters of Democrats and 53 percent of Independents). "Gov. Dean, in effect, seems to be giving the U.N. veto power over national security decisions of the United States. That's an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. president or serious candidate for the presidency," he told the Associated Press' Ron Fournier.


Did Bush trick Kerry's into turning out this garbage attack on the heels of the DLC attacks on Dean?

[blm]

126. HAHAH...you can't comprehend what was said?

Dean BACKED OFF his own remarks. He mistakenly said he wouldn't go to war without the UN and NO president or presidential candidate had EVER set that precedent. Dean later backtracked saying he would go to war if necessary to protect the US and even without UN approval. That's what ANY pres. or pres. hopeful would say.

Only Deanies can blame others for noticing Dean's own mistakes.

[eileen from OH]

31. See, my big prob with that clarification is. . .

that li'l ol' me, sitting here in Ohio, reading a whole bunch of papers and watching a whole bunch of news programs, KNEW from the rhetoric coming out of Bush & co., that we were going in. Remember when Slate had it's clock/wheel/whatever about going in? It was in the red zone for forever beforehand.

And it still doesn't explain, why, after the White House made it clear they weren't coming back to Congress or going to the UN again and were instead invading that Kerry didn't say WHOAAAA. Instead he went along.

Thanks, Will, for a great report. But I sure as shit don't buy it.

eileen from OH

[southerngirlwriter]

44. You have a point there....

......well before the infamous vote, my friends and I, sitting in Starbucks, were saying things like, "It's inevitable," "Where is Owen Meany when you need him?" and the like.

It's hard to believe that a Senator REALLY thought * would keep his word. If he was fooled, he's one of very few who were.

I'm not calling him a liar -- I'm just saying I find it hard to believe. Of course, I could be wrong. Only Kerry knows his own mind and heart.

[KoKo]

99. Well....eileen, you and me both. I got chills down my spine reading what

Kerry said to Will and others explaining his IRW vote. I agree that we here who read our eyeballs out knew that Bush was going in. And, Robert Byrd knew Bush was going in. And, there's evidence that Cheney/PNAC were ready to go in the day after 9/11 where they had a meeting. This has been reported in lots of "legitimate" sources...but sorry, I don't have the links.

I don't know why Kerry keeps saying he believed Bush. Given his background and length of time in the Senate, his involvement with Viet Nam and knowledge now of how we got into that quaqmire, plus his being on the Senate Intelligence Committe says he knew as much as Bob Graham who Did Not vote for the Resolution.

I don't know what Kerry's "deal is," but I took Will's report as confirmation that Kerry was playing "politics" with his vote. He assumed his vote on IRW would seal his run for the Presidency because he could claim he was as strong on Defense as Bush. And, it backfired in his face. It was probably the most incredible blunder of a candidate with "all the right stuff," in American History. And, what's sad is that it came at a time when we needed a "shoe in" so badly.

If it wasn't a political calculation that backfired then he's a "sell out" to the NeoCons. I don't want to believe that, so it must be that he was trying to back off his anti-Viet Nam image to win crossover Repugs.

Thanks for the report Will. Nice to have that "eyewitness" report.

I'm sorry about Kerry. What a disaster. And, I think he knows it and that's why his heart hasn't always been in his campaign. Just my 2 cents.

[lfairban]

130. You might find the links here:

Iraq: In all but name, the war's on ( Aug 17, 2002):
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DH17Ak03.html

"They got their war against Afghanistan (planned before September 11). They're getting their war against Iraq (planned slightly after September 11).":
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EC20Ak07.html

Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President:
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735


I thought this information might become valuable someday, so I created this link collection:
Pre-War section of my Iraq links

[TLM]

118. Just more of the same crap from Kerry...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=854985#858778

[GalleryGod]

146. OHIO??? Ohio Passes!

:puffpiece:

[regnaD kciN]

154. You've got it, eileen...

When that resolution was before the Congress, there were motions to either a) require U.N. approval before any war, or b) require an additional authorization from Congress before military action could begin. Both motions were defeated, at the insistence of the Bush administration -- the same administration that had already announced that their goal was, not "getting the inspectors in," but "regime change." Whose "commander-in-chief," seven months before, had shouted "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out!" in front of a Time magazine reporter. Yet, even so, Kerry believed that the vote was only about "getting the inspectors in," and that Bush hadn't already determined to go to war, using that resolution as his blank check. Was Kerry the only person in the U.S. who believed this? (Answer: Possibly not. It is conceivable that the other Democrats who supported the resolution -- including Edwards, Leiberman, Clinton, Feinstien, Gephardt, Cantwell, et. al., were equally fooled.)

Or was there another explanation? Did Kerry and the others know full well that the IWR would be used as a blank check, but decided that the political fallout from voting "no" had to be avoided at all costs? Did they anticipate a quick and clean victory in Iraq, with ridicule falling upon those who doubted the wisdom of ousting Saddam? Were they concerned that their future political plans mandated a "move to the center," and that opposing Bush's war would forever tag them as "liberal" or "unpatriotic?" Did they decide that the thousands of deaths of Iraqis and Americans were acceptable "collateral damage" in the cause of furthering their political careers?

Kerry, of course, says "no." He insists that he (even if he alone) was honestly misled by Bush. But, in the long run, does it matter? Either Kerry and the others who voted for the IWR were too blind to realize what virtually every one of us knew, that the passage of the IWR guaranteed war, or they knew it and were too craven, cynical, calculating, and self-seeking to take the risk of opposing it. Blind or craven...not a choice of alternatives I want in a possible future President.

And, finally, I will grant that Kerry had a stellar record before his IWR vote. Is it fair to disregard all that because of one decision? To this, I unequivocally answer "yes!" Put it this way: Benedict Arnold initially had a glorious career as a Revolutionary General. Is that what we remember him for, or what we are thinking of when we label someone a "Benedict Arnold?" Elia Kazan was a major stage and film director and a prominent liberal, but what is most remembered about him is his decision to "name names" to the HUAC investigation. Sometimes, a single grevious error is enough to erase a lifetime of good work. This is one of those times.

[bearfartinthewoods]

80. actually, it depends on if people can get over it.

seriously! what's done is done. he's right. we wouldn't be at war now if he had been president. but this party is soooo wrapped up in the past that it refuses to look at the future.

this revenge lust against bush has bled onto Kerry and now we are ready to toss away the best man for the job, a tried and true liberal, because of a set of circumstances that will never happen again.

no matter what the press says, Dean is a centerist with a couple BIG HONKING LIBERAL positions that make him unacceptable to the necessary swing voters we need. Kerry's error in backing bush with the UN is acceptable to those people....necessary even!

this is what is driving me nuts. the liberals are backing a centerist so if we do win we get another go round with accomadations with the right ala clinton. at the same time, the best man for the job is also the most likely to bring us the progress we need to make
to undo the right's agenda and he is unacceptable in the primaries because of the one vote that will sink Dean in the general.

look at the polls....bush may be slowly slipping, as is the opinion of how he is handling iraq but the support for the rightness of the war is still high. people belive it was the right thing to do and will not accept Dean. i can't sell Dean here in PA. I've got no takers. Kerry i could sell..

we're screwing ourselves again because we refuse to look foreward and instead glue our eyes to the past.

[kerryistheanswer]

3. Beautifully written

Mr. Pitt -

A great piece of work. I wonder if things would have been different had Kerry admitted he was wrong to trust the president. You're absolutely right - he's been blasted by left more than Bush or any of the other candidates. It just goes to show how quickly many of us forget who our loyal advocates are. John Kerry has the most progressive record of all that are running. Many are quick to disqualify him because of a complex vote - a vote agreed on by many Democrat leaders (i.e. the Clintons, Tom Daschle).

He will fight till the end and I along with many others will be there with him.

Thanks for sharing.

[frank frankly]

4. excellent read and information

very good and right on.

glad to hear a more thorough telling of Kerry.

[whathappened]

5. i beleive he is

telling the truth about his vote on the war , but how can they undo all of this now , did'nt we all warn them about jr. and no one had a ear for us to tell them , this pisses me off to no end , but blameing him by himself would be foolish , jr. sold this war to almost all of our rep and they did'nt see what was coming because they did'nt want to fall in that old class of not being a good american , so i personly forgive him and think he far out weights dean in having what it takes to be a good man for the job , i just don't see that much in dean right now , he talks the talk but can he walk the walk , we will have to wait and see what the voters say

[MuseRider]

6. Thanks Will,

the fat lady has not sung yet. I hope he keeps swinging, no reason to stop.

[killbotfactory]

7. Why didn't he come out against the war?

There was plenty of time between the war vote and the actual invasion where he could have come out against the invasion. If it wasn't clear back in october, it sure as hell was crystal clear in Feb and March. I just don't get it.

[blm]

18. He did say Bush shouldn't rush...that he should take all the time

necessary to exhaust diplomacy and complete weapons inspections.

Kerry was staunch about the weapons inspections because if war did happen it was the soldiers who would have to face the chemical and bioweapons that just about everyone thought were there. Hell, they KNEW they had been there because Iraqgate uncovered how much Bush Sr. had supplied Saddam illegally, and Scott Ritter testified there were more in front of Kerry in 98 hearings on Iraq.

[killbotfactory]

22. Yes, he said don't rush, give inspectors more time...

Then, when Bush rushed to war, cut short inspections, and basically undermined every condition Kerry gave for supporting the war, went and supported the damn thing.

[blm]

94. He supported the troops and the goal of removing Saddam

but always criticized the WAY Bush was making his decisions. Why do you keep trying to pretend Kerry is a warmonger when Dean has supported more wars than Kerry and even supported Bush to determine use of force in Iraq as per Biden-Lugar?

[TLM]

120. Because, despite your unending attempt to misrepresent B-L...

It was not the same as the IWR and no amount of desperate BS spin to try and claim they were the same will prop up Kerry's dead campaign.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 2, 2002

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today said that a bipartisan Senate compromise on a resolution allowing the President to use force to oust Saddam Hussein is far more faithful to the Constitution than the blank check resolution being lobbied for by the White House.

"Thankfully, this compromise embodies the lessons learned from the Gulf of Tonkin incident," said Timothy Edgar, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Granting the President a blank check to engage in overseas adventures is a recipe for human tragedy. This compromise resolution acknowledges those lessons."

In its letter to the Senate, the ACLU reiterated that it is neutral on whether the United States should go to war. However, it told the Senate that it remains firm in its conviction that the Constitutional obligations on Congress to make decisions about war need to be respected, especially with foreign policy questions of this magnitude.

The new resolution, negotiated by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Former Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN), eliminates most of the similarities between the resolution the President wanted and the disastrous Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which led to a decade-long morass in which tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives.

Specifically, the Biden-Lugar compromise:

Clearly identifies the enemy. The proposed resolution closes the door to regional adventures in the Middle East. Under the proposed compromise, the President would have to seek additional Congressional authorization if he wished to widen the conflict in the region.
Spells out clear military objectives. Congress would hold a tight leash on the current conflict. This would be in marked contrast to its role in the Vietnam War, which was lost in part because of nebulous war aims. The Biden-Lugar compromise realizes the folly of sending troops into harm's way without delineating the specific military objectives to be accomplished.
Reaffirms the American conviction that war-making power should lie with the people. In contrast with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the Biden-Lugar compromise would respect the ongoing prerogatives of Congress during military engagement. The Constitution demands that American military decisions involving the use of force rest only with the people's representatives in Congress.
The ACLU's letter on the Biden-Lugar compromise can be found at:
http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l100202a.html



And Kerry's campaign was busy attacking Dean for wanting the UN behind any action in Iraq. SO this lie that he voted for the IWR to force BUsh to go back tot he UN is bullshit. Kerry's camp was attacking Dean for wanting the UN back in Feb.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/25/opinion/lynch/main541905.shtml

Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan, snapped at Dean's insistence on getting U.N. backing (a position supported by three-quarters of Democrats and 53 percent of Independents). "Gov. Dean, in effect, seems to be giving the U.N. veto power over national security decisions of the United States. That's an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. president or serious candidate for the presidency," he told the Associated Press' Ron Fournier.

[blm]

125. Nope. I said the provision in B-L that allowed Bush the final say

in determining the need for use of force was the SAME provision that Dean criticized others for.

I never said B-L was the SAME as IWR....not ever. You ALWAYS say I say it to further your own deception.

[killbotfactory]

129. Dean: Clearly against the war. Kerry: Clearly not

It's very simple. Kerry is not a warmonger, but made a grave error in judgement in going along with Bush's war.

Dean did not go along with it and has been quite clear about it.

[LeahMira]

134. Y'know, it's not the same...

Dean did not go along with it and has been quite clear about it.

Dean was in no position to influence anything that happened at the time, nor was he privy to the briefings that were given to Congress by many sources, not just the administration.

No fair judging what Dean did or didn't do unless he happened to be in the same situation as the other candidates. If you really want to find someone who was in the same situation and voted against, take a look at Dennis.

[killbotfactory]

142. Everything congress knew the public knew,

I remember Kerry saying this.

There was no secret evidence.

[blm]

143. And Dean allowed Bush to make the determination just as IWR did.

We'd still be in Iraq. Kerry would still be arguing against Bush's rush to war without a plan to win the peace and Dean would be doing the same.

Please don't try to spin Dean's position as significantly different than Kerry's because you know there are plenty of articles that show that Kerry was slamming Bush, too, and Dean has articles covering his ass about getting rid of Saddam. Save the sanctimony for the dummies who believe you.

[killbotfactory]

149. Dean's position was similar to Kerry's

The actions of the two differed dramatically.

Kerry should have stuck to his guns and opposed the war.

[bpilgrim]

8. and none of this addresses his vision for iraq...

is he on board with sending in more troops... getting the un in... nato...

in what order?

or something completely different :shrug:

i agree with the strat of comming out and saying bush misslead him - at the very least - but think the only REAL hope for his campaign at this point is a well articulated EXIT STRAT for iraq.

thanks for the report :toast:

peace

[WilliamPitt]

10. Good point

He did address it, and I should add that. Thanks.

[bpilgrim]

36. thanks

i am sure many will be interested in reading that :hi:

peace

[mrgorth]

9. “You’re right. I was wrong to trust him. I’m sorry I did.”

Say it in the debate John.

[eileen_d]

13. I guess someone should tape him saying it

and mass-mail it to every member of the Democratic party. And some people still wouldn't be convinced that those are his genuine sentiments.

[WilliamPitt]

15. For what its worth

The event was on the record, and he said it, and now I am reporting it.

[mrgorth]

20. Understood

Now understand I love the guy but I am supporting Dean because of the IWR among other things. I've read up on Kerry since and I'm very impressed. I've wanted to read what you wrote for months. I'm sorry but I think, for the anti-war, he needs to be a little more public about it. This is not about humiliation. This is about BEING anti-war. It's about accountability. I want him back on our side.

[adadem]

35. I've said this

over and over at every campaign event I've attended. I've always received a negative response. Why? Honesty is what the people want, IMHO. If they think such a statement will hurt I think the campaign is making a misjudgement. I get the feeling they think it will alienate the swing voters...I disagree. OHHHHH I am so frustrated I could cry. I am crying...Kerry is the best for undoing this mess we are in.

[Eloriel]

39. No, no, that won't do

It would be -- IS -- shifting the blame to Bush. Typical narcissistic stuff to not take personal responsibility. It's not that he can't say his trust was misplaced, it's just that HE has to take personal responsibility. Nothing less will do.

Eloriel

[NewYorkerfromMass]

79. So Bush AND Saddam have no responsibility in the matter?

Is Kerry really so all powerful?

[TLM]

122. Did Bush or Saddam make Kerry attack Dean over the UN?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/25/opinion/lynch/main541905.shtml

Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan, snapped at Dean's insistence on getting U.N. backing (a position supported by three-quarters of Democrats and 53 percent of Independents). "Gov. Dean, in effect, seems to be giving the U.N. veto power over national security decisions of the United States. That's an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. president or serious candidate for the presidency," he told the Associated Press' Ron Fournier.

[poskonig]

124. Why should he?

No one is going to switch their support.

[regnaD kciN]

156. Too little, too late...

Let's put it this way: I'd be a lot more inclined to believe Kerry if he had said this eight or nine months ago, during the run-up to the war. But no, he waited until well afterwards, and once it had become apparent that we are trapped in a quagmire.

If we had really been greeted with crowds throwing flowers, if we had, by now, order and the basics of a functioning democracy in Iraq, and if we were now planning to start bringing the troops home, would Kerry have been "admitting" that he was foolish to trust Bush? Or would he have been touting his "yes" vote as proof that he was tough-minded enough to lead the most powerful nation on Earth?

In traditional Catholic theology, there are two forms of repentance: "contrition," where one is sorry for what one did and the harm it did to others, and "attrition," where one is merely sorry for what has befallen oneself because of what one did. In other words, a kid can be sorry that they shoplifted, even if they got away with it, because it was wrong -- that's contrition. Or, they can be sorry because they got caught and wound up in trouble with their parents -- that's attrition. Kerry's repentance strikes me as more attrition than contrition - the form of repentance that moral theology holds to be insincere and not worthy of forgiveness.

[hlthe2b]

11. Once again, excellent, Will

I really do like your writing style. Very revealing.... And, thanks too for indentifying everyone in attendence. I know most of the names, but can't always link them.

So, what's your prediction for Kerry? You seem to imply he will stay in, but after Gore's coming out for Dean, that might be less likely?

[WilliamPitt]

12. Nah, he's gonna stick it out.

[Droopy]

14. When I started reading this article........

I was thinking one thing: Yeah he may be great on the issues but he voted for that damned war. I believe him when he says he was wrong to trust Bush and was misled regarding the use of force. But I think he should not have voted for a resolution authorizing the use of force at all no matter how careful he thought Bush might be.

I'm sorry, but I just can't support a candidate who voted for that resolution.

[WilliamPitt]

17. Even if it was the threat of force that got the inspectors back in,

said inspectors being (absent the betrayals of the administration) the best way to avoid armed conflict? Just playing devil's advocate here.

[Droopy]

27. The threat of force did get the inspectors back in

agreed. But I think we should have just left Iraq alone. The sanctions had crippled their economy and their ability to build an army that was any threat to anybody, let alone fund wmds (and alledgedly nukes). I think it should have been obvious that Iraq was no threat to anybody. That certainly proved to be the case.

[adadem]

40. Bush

would have attacked Iraq anyway...somehow, someway. This has been their plan for a long, long time. As simple as revenge for poppy? Maybe not but they would have done it anyway.

[HFishbine]

85. Maybe so

But that didn't stop me and hundreds of thousands of others from speaking up against it. Some were silent, some were outspoken, some capitulated and some were "nuanced." There was nothing uncertain or nuanced about the desires and opinions of those who marched against the war and we didn't modulate our actions because of the "inevitablity" of an Iraq attack. We deserve representation by someone who was equally steadfast.

[sandnsea]

58. Let women and children keep dying?

That's what the sanctions did and there wasn't a peace activist in the world who wasn't screaming about the sanctions, even Dennis Kucinich. People cannot have it both ways. You can't bitch about the sanctions killing people and then bitch about someone trying to do something to put in place the right course, which should have been inspections and whatever other course the UN decided on. Clearly that is exactly what Kerry thought.

[KoKo]

100. Senator Byrd said it all eloquently on Senate Floor! "WHY NOW?"

"Why the Rush?" We know the answer, Byrd knew the answer.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

103. O.K. SO when would have been a good time?

Maybe we should have just waited for something really bad to happen. As it was, Saddam was less than cooperative when it came time to inspect.

[flpoljunkie]

83. Bush abused IWR and UN resolutions; he acted in bad faith saying all the

while, "War is my last resort." When you think about this, this absolute lack of honesty and integrity is quite astounding for any President.

And the media gave Bush a complete pass on his oft repeated phrase, "war is my last resort". He even denied the UN inspectors request for a paltry additional 30 days to continue their WMD search. The media were too busy cheerleading for the Iraq War in order to boost their ratings and hence their profits.

Will, how is it that you were invited to this august gathering? It seems like quite an honor to me. Your report of it is riveting.

I, for one, do not intend to give up the fight to nominate John Kerry. It is Kerry himself who has gotten the raw deal by the press and liberal democrats who have rushed to support a candidate who will most likely take the Democratic party down with him. They cannot see beyond their anger over Kerry's Iraq War Vote.

Last night a picture of Karl Rove and Bush doing cartwheels in the oval office kept coming to mind after hearing Gore would endorse Dean. The cautious Gore has thrown caution to the wind--"let it rip"-- and is endorsing the candidate he now wishes he would have been in 2000--Al Gore, the fighting populist. The media is sure to point out this transformation.

[HFishbine]

87. The flaw in your generalization

It may be comforting to think that Kerry's campaign is sufferring or that Dean is excelling because of Kerry's IRW vote. But that's an oversimplification that ignores a couple of salient facts. Gephardt also supported the IWR and is neck and neck with Dean in Iowa. Kucinich voted against the IWR and trails Kerry everywhere.

There's more to the picture than the IWR vote.

[flpoljunkie]

95. Kerry and Dean are vying for the same voters in New Hampshire...

and these liberal Democrats, like I said, cannot get past the Iraq War Vote. It has blinded them to the unelectability of Howard Dean--especially in the South.

Democrats in the South are dreading being on the same ticket with Howard Dean. Gore's endorsement will not help Dean in the South; Dean has blown his chances by chasticizing Southern voters for basing their votes on "race, God, guns and gays." This kind of talk is arrogant and condescending and will not play in the South. If Dean wins the nomination, you will see these comments replayed over and over.

[regnaD kciN]

157. "Unelectability...?"

Give me a break. There's practically no one more "unelectable" in the South than a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts who works side-by-side with Ted Kennedy. That's the kiss of death, folks. The notion that Kerry has a better chance to win Southern states than Dean is pure fantasy.

[TLM]

123. Will the US pulled inspectors out...

and there was already a threat of force under the UN resolution... there just wasn't an OK to take over the freaken country.

Remember we used force on Iraq several time though the Clinton administration.

[AP]

16. Am I the only person who thinks that Bush had a plan

in either scenario. If Kerry et al had voted against the IWR, Bush would have found a way to make that a liability. And I feel that BECAUSE Kerry et al voted for it, Bush is implementing the plan whereby the yes vote works agains them and for the candidates who is easiest to beat.

To me, it was a lose-lose situation. Either you vote no, some crazy shit happens, and you're cast as an anti-national security extreme pacifist/isolationist out of touch with mainstream american values, or you vote yes, and some crazy shit happens, and you're cast as being out of touch with the left wing of your party.

I am just so sure that if the Democrats voted no on the resolution, the media would not be telling the story they're telling about Iraq, and Bush would be looking great.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

23. That much is true. Kerry is being made to pay for what would have happened

anyway.

[AP]

63. And if you had to chose between the two...

...I'd rather have to defend myself to the left wing of the party for not being sufficiently anti-war, than have to defend myself to the vast middle of the spectrum for not caring about their safety.

I love Art Spiegelman, but I just don't understand why so many people think that Bush didn't have a half-dozen contingency plans all of which were designed to make the Democrats suffer in 2004 regardless of their decision.

Kerry is right to get in Alterman's face and ask the question he asked: do you really think Kerry (or Edwards, or Gep) would have gotten us into this invasion if they were president? No.

[Cheswick2.0]

78. I'd rather not send people to kill and be killed for oil

than make a decision about war based on politics.

[MessiahRp]

105. I completely agree here

I went round and round with a Dean supporter who felt that supporting Biden-Lugar would have meant that Bush would have had to check back with the Senate before actually going to war, but that's just not reality.

Reality is, Bush and the PNAC had been planning this forever. Bush himself said Fuck Saddam, we're going to get him in March 2002.

For someone who has defied the will of the World so easily with denouncing Kyoto, pulling out of the War Crimes Tribunals, and completely ignoring UN votes, what makes anyone think Bush would let the Senate step in his way?

And for Kerry trusting Bush, I think we all need to realize that we're not on Capitol Hill. We don't have guys like Powell, and Eagleburger, and Snowcroft in our ears telling us every day of their elaborate "We'll go to the UN, don't worry" stories. When facing that down in person it makes it a lot more believable, and remember at the time Bush had set up votes in the UN, it's just that they never said they would totally fuck the UN over if they voted against us.

So it's practical to believe that the President would have more integrity than to go straight to war even if he was surrounded by hawks because if you recall everyone thought Powell and his people were really doves that didn't want war to actually break out. Listening to them would have swayed a lot of people on the fence, and we didn't all know it was Powell pulling a giant rouse on Americans where he was with Bush on this scheme all along.

Rp

[NewYorkerfromMass]

106. Even Bush's father was against the war

which is why Scowcroft et al were sent to the WH to lobby some sense into W.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

113. Hell on the much touted PBS program, THE PATH TO WAR

PBS made it appear that Powell and Cheney were reluctant warriors.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. It actually disgusts me that liberals are getting behind a conservative

to get vengance for this vote. Dean is no liberal. Kerry is.

[Droopy]

30. You'd think that

Kucinich would be the candidate that people jumped behind because of this vote. That's certainly the case for me.

[sandnsea]

59. Kucinich didn't support continued sanctions

In his speech in Sept. or Oct. he supported strict inspections, tight regulation on weapons and parts going into Iraq, and then lifting sanctions. He thought diplomacy would work. It hadn't for 4 years, but that is still what Kucinich supported. So even Dennis was concerned about the danger from Saddam Hussein.

[sandnsea]

61. oops

[WiseMen]

153. Folk: Compare Dean's Progressive Credentials with Kerry's

John Kerry gets the best scores from independent groups for his environmental record and for issues affecting the working poor. For thirty years Kerry has fought for labor rights, women’s rights and campaign finance reform. Kerry’s record is solid on education and social security. He has opposed capital punishment, the NRA and all the fat-cat special interest lobby groups camped out in Washington.

Howard Dean gets his best scores from the NRA. While Dr. Dean is often characterized as an “angry liberal,” he has admitted that he is no liberal. Dr Dean’s current positions are difficult to pin down, but appear to be at odds with his record and certainly his reputation as governor of Vermont.

His record as governor has been characterized as “Rockefeller Republican”, and is decidedly mixed. Vermont voters say of their former governor “he never saw a welfare program he did not want to cut.” Through his tenure as governor Dean made major cuts in aid to education, retirement funds for teachers and state employees, health care, Medicaid benefits, and welfare programs earmarked for the aged, blind and disabled, all under the cloak of “fiscal responsibility”. At the same time, Dean presided over the highest tax rate ever in the state.

[TheDonkey]

21. Thank You.

It really makes me sad to read that wonderfully written article. Kerry would make a great president, plain and simple but I fear the one vote will bring him (and our country) down.

I am glad now he is not trying to evade the question and is bluntly saying, "I made a mistake to trust the president". Very powerful and very true.

[Ramsey]

25. Kerry is terrific

I was all set to be a big Kerry supporter early on. As the article elaborates well, he has the credentials.

However, way before he made that vote, all of us here at DU knew Bush was under the control of the PNACers and that the resolution was bogus. Come on, they were already amassing troops well before that vote was taken. If we weren't fooled, why was Kerry? Why was he so willing to believe the man we all knew to be the biggest liar on the planet? "Not yet" controlled by Wolfowitz/Perle/Cheney, etc??? Sorry, we all knew better and he should have too.

I would forgive him that vote personally. But I find it hard to forgive hinm trusting Bush on anything.

[WilliamPitt]

28. The last guy to 'not trust the President on anything'

was Newt Gingrich, and he got his ass handed to him on a platter because of it.

[BurtWorm]

32. That's not quite true. Gingrich melted in front of Clinton

repeatedly, which is why he's no longer Speaker of the House.

[WilliamPitt]

38. That's what I said

He truted the President on nothing, and was destroyed because of it.

[BurtWorm]

47. But I'm saying the opposite, that he trusted Clinton too much

for the Republicans' taste. He let Clinton talk him into doing his will. Gingrich admitted as much. I think that's why he was destroyed, because the Republicans thought he was too weak, too easily flattered and manipulated by Clinton. It's true that this weakness was mostly in the area of the politics of governance, and that Gingrich was consumed with playing the politics of personal destruction, where he was utterly untrusting and untrustworthy. But I think it was because he let Clinton win all those other, more visible battles, and let Clinton's popularity rise because of that, that the Republicans were quick to shove him overboard after Election 1998. (Remember they tried to stage an in-house coup a year or two before that?)

[Ramsey]

97. That's a valid point

In fact there are many many Republicans who assumed everything Clinton wanted to do was evil and opposed him at every turn. Many of whom are still in power (Tom DeLay?). Doubtless many of them took the point of view that Clinton could not be trusted, which is exactly how I feel about Bush & Co.

But the problem with Kerry's explanation, and that of others who now regret their vote authorizing the war, is that they keep saying they did it to get Bush to engage the UN, but that's not what the resolution SAID. The actual document handed the rest of the decision making process over to the White House.

You know, I saw a speech by Joe Biden right before the invasion during which he went on and on for 20 minutes elaborating all the reasons we should not go to war in Iraq. At the end he described going to the WH to meet with Bush, how Bush put his hand on his shoulder and said: "trust me, I'll do the right thing". This apparently is Biden's rationale for ignoring the facts and his own better judgement. I don't respect that.

I am not a nitpicker and I don't expect perfection from politicians. But now that the Dems on the Hill realize their base is pissed about their cave-in on Iraq, they seem to engaging in a bit of revisionist history. If you want a UN resolution, authorize that and only that. As I said above, we knew what the PNACers controlling the admnistration were after, and so should have our leadership.

I respect Kerry a lot, but I am not really buying this explanation.

[priller]

33. Ramsey, you've stated what I was thinking

It was obvious to a great many people here that Bush and Cheney et al were lying about Iraq for months before the war, especially with the 9/11 connection. It was obvious that Bush was going to have his war, regardless of what the Iraqis or the UN did. And the war resolution itself was an abdication of Senate responsibility, handing Bush a blank check to wage war. Sorry, but I'm not sold.

[FXDS]

26. I will

be swinging with Kerry all the way down!

Great reading William Pitt!

[Terwilliger]

29. I wonder if Kerry saw "Uncovered"

then he'd be ashamed

[Eloriel]

34. Oh, Will

VERY nicely done, of course (tho I don't think K's response is any better than what he's been putting out there).

But -----

How to find the words so that you might actually hear it (this time)?

Dean's anti-THIS-war got people's attention. It's NOT what got their support, or certainly not the only thing and probably not the main thing.

It's about SO much more. So very much.

Eloriel

[WilliamPitt]

41. Good point

New second-to-last paragraph:

"None of this solves the immediate problem for Kerry. The eventual nomination of Howard Dean takes on more and more each day an aura of inevitability. Kerry is still trailing Dean in key primary states, and Al Gore isn’t going to take back his endorsement. In order to regain any momentum and take the nomination, he will have to convince Dean supporters, more than anyone else, to switch to his camp. Dean’s stand on the war is not the central reason for the support he has gained, but it was what drew the attention of so many would-be Kerry people. That attention, with time, became support. With all the time that has passed, and with Dean’s campaign picking up such momentum, engineering a wholesale switch seems highly unlikely."

[kentuck]

37. His mistake was in believing George Bush over Robert C Byrd...

Robert Byrd kept telling them, most times passionately, that the Constitution put the power to declare war in the hands of Congress. Kerry, like many others, chose to ignore the wisdom in his own Party. It was not a complicated decision. Simply follow the Constitution. That is the roadmap that was put there by our Founding Fathers. Byrd was wise enough to know. Kerry was not.

The conventional wisdom was with the Joe Lieberman-type politicians. If you were going to run for the presidency, you could not be against the war. You had to support the war to have a chance. The conventional wisdom was wrong this time. And so was Kerry.

[Cheswick2.0]

77. you are correct

Kerry should have known. The rest of us did.

[BurtWorm]

42. One problem I have with the "Bush betrayed me" angle.

I remember vividly that the Bushists had been setting the stage for "pre-emptive" war "with or without the UN" since the middle of the summer. That's why I, for one, so urgently starting protesting their Iraq policy even before the IWR vote. I was protesting outside the UN the day Bush went to make nice with the world in early September. No one there was fooled. So why was Kerry? On top of that, what I will never understand, considering that the IWR was specifically about letting Bush have his way: why would a liberal Democrat who witnessed the power grab of December 12, 2000, sign off on this other power grab? Why wasn't Kerry tuned in to his felow liberals? Why did he allow himself to get suckered?

[DemOutWest]

50. Best man for the job!

We need a leader to occupy the White House in January of 2005. Senator Kerry's career proves he is the "Real Deal". The american people have been lied to and so were members of congress.

I understand the anger that Governor Dean and the his supporters have. That is great. The real enemy is Bush and his cronies! We need to look at who is best qualified to lead us back into the 21st Century. John Kerry.

His "100 Days" plan is fantastic. He has proven that he does have a lfor everything. Environment, education, Jobs and Foreign Policy. Read his speech to the CFR if you need to know his plan on Iraq.

Great article William Pitt.

DemOutWest

[KoKo]

101. He needed the vote to cancel out his anti-Viet Nam Activities. To be

the strongest candidate in the field, he wanted to be "Perfect." It did him in. (I posted about this above, but figured I'd do it again in shorter form, because I'm so mad at Kerry for his miscalculation.

He could dig himself out, if he came out against Bush and PNAC with some "revelations" we don't yet know about. But, that's stretching it. Short of asking for his Impeachment and using Henry Waxman's evidence, I think he's cooked.

[Cleita]

43. I have to admit I didn't read your whole thing but skimmed.

Didn't have the time. So you inflated a few things about Kerry and maybe didn't aggrandize others, but your main question was why didn't Kerry beat Dean. Very simply I can tell you that Kerry has not spoken to me from the East Coast to the West Coast, but Dean has. Dean doesn't need the coziness of a luncheon or handshaking among a chosen few. He seems to have reached me, a rather cloistered person, but Kerry hasn't.

[WilliamPitt]

45. You skimmed...so, I guess, thanks for your informed (?) opinion.

Hm. "I didn't read it, but here's my opinion." Very George of you. :)

[Cleita]

52. ???

My opinion is very informed, to me anyway, and unedited brilliant writing is still a bore if it isn't chopped down a bit.:-)

[sistersofmercy]

46. Thanks Will!

I needed to read this, I've been pouting all evening. Thanks again!

[adadem]

48. Excellent

writing as always, Will. I always look forward to your articles.

All I can do is work and pray that Kerry or one of the other candidates gets nod because my husband nor I can cast a vote for Dean. Even if he disavows the NRA endorsements...it would be the first time we didn't vote. I went all the way to DC to protest at the inaugural and protested at 4 other bush/cheney events locally...so we're really stuck in a quagmire here. I think I'm starting to understand why 50% of the electorate don't vote.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

51. I have a very hard time voting for someone who get a 100 from

such a racist organization. It staggers my mind that it is so acceptable to some.

[HFishbine]

88. You keep mentioneing the "NRA endorsement"

Your opinions might garner greater respect if they did not rely on innacuracies.

[Nlighten1]

49. How could you not slap Fred Kaplam?

The man also writes for the Weakly Republic.

[BurtWorm]

53. By the way, I thoroughly enjoyed this report!

And I only wish Kerry would turn this disadvantage into an opportunity to talk honestly, and winningly, about what disturbs people like me about the IWR vote.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

55. You know I have great respect for you

But most people who have this issue CANNOT be satisfied. They place their faith in Howard Dean even though he REALLY DIDN'T HAVE to choose. He could speak publicly and there was no consequence. It's the easiest part of his record to defend...he doesn't have a record of this vote.

Kerry on the other hand was fashioning a bill with other Dems when he was taken down a BIG notch by Lieberman, Gephardt and Bayh.

How on earth could he have felt given this administration (who he already knows would stop at nothing to get their way) has NOT found tha anthrax mailer, floated stories about dirty nuke bombs in the US and sat on their hands while 4 planes took down two towers and plunged into the Pentagon?

I've watched Kerry vote for two decades. I've always known him to do the right thing with very few exceptions.

[BurtWorm]

60. I thank my colleague from California for her kind words

and hope she knows that I also have the deepest respect for her judgment and mind. (I've been watching CSPAN and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.) I also agree with you that Howard Dean had the luxury of not having to cast a vote, and if it weren't for his steady expression of my anger over this and other betrayals by our government (and our party), I would have nothing to base my moderate enthusiasm for his anti-war stance on. I, too, have admired John Kerry for almost two decades. I was even kind of waiting for him to run for president. And despite his IWR vote, which infuriated me and baffled me, I was still waiting and hoping he would do or say something to catch on fire, not like a target but like a rocket. Then he made his idiotic "get over it" remark about Democrats stil "crying in their teacups" about Bush v. Gore. And despite even that, I still waited. And waited. And waited. And meanwhile, Howard Dean plowed on, as he continues to do.

I can't wait for Kerry much longer!

[sandnsea]

64. You're important

I think he thinks his record proves it. Why do you think he's been doing what he's been doing for 30 years? People are important and they need someone to fight for them. I think he thought that was a given.

I think he also thought people really wanted solutions, in depth intelligent solutions. Real change. A real program for energy independence. A thorough health care plan that plugs every hole. Real diplomacy. Real nuclear and WMD elimination plans. Silly guy. His web site was chalk full of long, intelligent, detailed plans. People didn't read them. I think he respected people's intelligence and believed them when they said they didn't want fighting and negativity. I guess he made a mistake there too.

Becaue it appears what people really want is a man that calls Democrats names and gets mad at Bush.

[BurtWorm]

69. Unfortunately, campaigns are not purely cerebral affairs

and people need to be convinced by the whole person. *I* need to be convinced. If I were voting just for a brain, I'd be for Kerry unquestionably. But I'm also in the market for someone who's going to fight Bush with heart and do everything he reasonably can to end this awful regime.

[sandnsea]

70. And Kerry wouldn't?

That doesn't even make sense in my mind. Howard Dean hasn't been able to get Bush to move one inch on Iraq or anything else. Pressure from Kerry and similarly situated politicians put pressure on Bush and then Bush has to react. And he's been reacting badly every time. Kerry has the stature to do that without ranting around the country. Dean taps people's emotions but he doesn't affect the Bushies an iota. Kerry, Gephardt, Clark; they're the ones hurting Bush.

[BurtWorm]

71. I don't see any evidence that Bush is moved to react to anything

but bad polls. How exactly did Kerry and Gephardt force Bush to react? I thought Kerry voted to get Bush to go to the UN and get inspectors in Iraq. But now Kerry says he was fooled by Bush because Bush went ahead and did what he wanted anyway, as the IWR authorized him to? So how did Kerry get Bush to react?

[sandnsea]

72. Polls & Respected Opinion

Polls alone wouldn't mean anything. If he just stuck to his beliefs and rhetoric, the polls would rebound. We've seen that before. Respected opinion is what is moving those polls and Bush is reacting to both.

What if they find the WMD? Just a few months ago people were squawking around like chickens on the WMD and now they're all the geniuses of the world. They KNEW. Bullshit. Nobody knew squat. Kerry voted to get inspectors back into Iraq. It is absolutely wild for anyone to think a President would behave in what is really a treasonous manner. Nobody KNEW Bush would do what he did. It's inconceivable. Hating somebody and expecting the worst from them is not the same thing as KNOWING.

And, you said if you were voting on intelligence, Kerry would be the one. Now you say Kerry had no intelligence. People want to hate him, blame him for everything that's wrong in the United States. He's become a whipping boy. Trouble is, he's the most likely one to actually fix this shit. Your post about his intelligence pretty much proved that point.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

66. Back to the worm gentleman

:D

I guess the MAIN difference is that while Howard HAD the luxury of campaigning early, Kerry was a bit busy in Washington at least TRYING to form an opposition party position to the:

Loss of overtime pay
the medicare bill
the PBA ban
87 billion dollars
Cheney's energy policy
Taxes
Social security
the ENRON debacle
the SEC

and a whole host of other policy issues that I find myself in MUCH more agreement with him than Howard Dean on....so I imagine he was a bit busy and could not get mad early as he did not have the luxury.

As far as the "get over it" comment...on the one hand I didn't appreciate it...on the other hand does the name MOVE ON .ORG ring a bell? While he may have stated it poorly, perhaps he was asking us to consider what we will do in the future versus the past.

Again, one vote and one line cancel out a lifetime of doing the right thing?

[BurtWorm]

67. As I say, my good friend,

I am still waiting for Kerry to do or say something to show me that he will be the nominee. I am sad to say, I don't see it. And I'm waiting. In other words, to be to the point: one vote and one line cancel nothing. If Kerry were where Dean is now, in terms of union endorsements and momentum, I would be a Kerry guy. I'm at heart anyone but Bush. Right now it's looking like it will be Dean or Bush.

[sleipnir]

54. Mr. Pitt, you've done it again! Another very well crafted article.

I'm impressed by the cohesiveness and the great use of rhetoric! Good job, you almost made me want to vote for Kerry! ;)

That said, I still won't be voting for him, because this article and the recent Rolling Stone continue to give me the impression that Kerry isn't against the war in Iraq. He's upset that Bush went to war so soon, but he's not upset that Bush WENT TO WAR! That's my problem with Kerry, he's still to some degree Pro-Iraq War (not Pro-war mind you, just pro-Iraq war.) As he said to Mr. Alterman, "If you truly believe that if I had been President, we would be at war in Iraq right now, then you shouldn’t vote for me.” I understand that point, but that wasn't Kerry's job at the time. He was there to authorize force, and he did.

Why did the 23 Nay Democrats vote that way? Kerry's story just doesn't add up, if nearly half of the Democrats saw through Bush's game, why didn't Kerry? The fact that he didn't (or wouldn't) bothers me more than the fact that he voted for the horrid resolution. He's done too little too late, at best I fear he can hope for a position in the Dean cabinet (assuming we, as Dems, win.)

It's a damn shame, but sometimes it's the little things that come back to bite us in the ass....

[imhotep]

56. The question remains

are you going to "go down swinging" with F-Bomb Kerry?

[ModerateMiddle]

96. I am

because I honestly believe he is the best equipped to BE President in these times.

[DemBones DemBones]

57. Dean's doing very well but it is NOT inevitable that he will be the

nominee. I haven't seen it mentioned yet (though surely others have thought it) but many people who voted for Gore lost confidence in him afterwards, feeling that he didn't manage the recount scenario as well as he could have, or that he should not have been away from the public eye for so long, or that he shouldn't have been so enthusiastic about referring to Bush* as "MY commander-in-chief," or some combination of these reasons. Many Gore voters didn't want him to run again and those people aren't likely to care that he endorses Dean. Nader voters are also unlikely to value Gore's endorsement.

Howard Dean hasn't been tested yet where it really matters, at the polls. Opinion polls elect no one, as we all know. Joe Trippi has done a great job of marketing Dean to some Democrats, and others, by creating a Dean phenomenon about empowerment and connectedness. But many of us already felt empowered enogh and connected enough and just don't see much to Howard Dean as a candidate. Of course he brings up some good points, and he speaks well enough. But we see his negatives, too, and they trouble us more than the "pro-war" votes cast by John Kerry (and Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, and Dick Gephardt.)

I have supported Dennis Kucinich ever since he entered the race. As a Kucinich supporter, I'm backing the one candidate who, in addition to being outspoken against Bush*, had to actually vote on the Iraq question and voted against the administration. How he knew to vote "No" and the others didn't, I can't say. I know the House and Senate were misled by the information they were given. I'm proud of Dennis John Kucinich for standing up and voting "No" on the Iraq war question and for voting "No" on the Patriot Act (he was the only candidate to vote against PATRIOT, too.) Perhaps we should encourage more Dems to join the Progressive Caucus so that they can benefit more from Caucus Chair Kucinich's thinking or intuition about Bush* proposals. I know that he explains his vote against the Patriot Act by his simple rule of thumb: he doesn't vote for anything he hasn't seen. It seems to me that all Dems should use that rule, especially with a Republican in the White House.

But, although I think Dennis Kucinich is the best candidate, I will not let a vote for IWR keep me from voting for John Kerry or Dick Gephardt or even (sigh) Joe Lieberman. All four of them have good records as liberal Democrats. Howard Dean does not, despite all his years as governor of Vermont. (He has governed and led, but he has not been a liberal Democrat.) Wesley Clark also does not, having never held public office, though his military career shows leadership and governing experience. With Clark, we are asked to believe that he will walk what he's talking. With Dean, we are being asked to believe that a leopard can, and will, change its spots.

Kucinich, Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards need to continue getting their messages out. Part of that will be discussion of the war on Iraq and how their thinking evolved. But let's not rule any of them out -- or Sharpton or Braun, either, who have also opposed the war but didn't have to vote on it.
Let's give everyone who had to vote on the war a fair chance to explain his vote. Before you say "But I knew it was bogus," take a minute to acknowledge that none of us know what sorts of "proof" members of Congress were shown.

[sandnsea]

62. What if they find the WMD??

Did you ask him that? Kidding.

But seriously, everybody on this board knows SO MUCH now. I remember back in April when over half this board was terrified they'd find the WMD and then the anti-war people would be wrong. How'd everybody get so smart about Bush all of a sudden? You might want to add that angle to your article and confront that line of shit, if it fits in with the scheme of things at all.

Thanks Will, nice article. And again, I'm mostly thrilled for you, getting to do this.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[SOteric]

68. Nicely done, Thanks Will

:hi:

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[SOteric]

74. You couldn't be more wrong.

Will has been sharing his political writings with DU since the time that few more than a group of students struggling to get through mid-terms knew his name.

He's shared every stage of his invitation to that luncheon with his friends and supporters at DU, and we know which DU'er arranged to get Will's name on the guest list, as well as how grateful he was to be included amoung them.

Will Pitt gets attention around here, but he's no glory-hound. He puts in the hard work and takes the personal risks to have advanced his career to the point that he has.

Welcome to DU. You might want to read a while and learn about the folks before you try your hand at making enemies.

[Hypoxis]

82. Just calling it like I see it

which is what you'll find I do; that and pricking with a pin the self-aggrandizing. I've done em both for years, thanks.

[Shakespeare]

151. or maybe....

You're just a jerk. :eyes:

[DeepModem Mom]

75. No pundit here, but I think Dems want someone new,

who speaks a different political language, and that has worked against not only Kerry, but Gephardt, Lieberman, and even Edwards. And I'm not sure Gore's endorsement of Dean, coming from someone else who's been around a long time, is as valuable as it might seem. Dean got where he is on his own; he was new, first, strong, and combative. I think Gore's endorsement helps him only among the pundits, although that help is no small thing. I support Clark, who is also new to voters, and wish he'd entered the race sooner.

[Trahurn]

76. Bush can NEVER be trusted

If Mr. Kerry happens to go to this site and even more happens to read this post, I would very much like him to know that I "desperately" wanted a reason to support him. People understand that Kerry made his decision to support Bush's war based on his promises to him. Any other president in the history of this country would have been different. They would have had the conviction of their own integrity and supported those that were loyal to them (any sitting president I mean) and this should have included Bush.But there are now dead military and civilians that did NOT need to be dead due to Bush's felonious rational for this war.
Kerry can certainly expect and deserve to be forgiven in the long term for being yet another victim of this cowardly, utterly disgusting man currently polluting the floor space and enviornment of the white house.
I needed, the country needed and the world needed stong people to stand up to Bush. One cannot trust George W. Bush now, in the past nor at anytime in the future. Integrity, morality and loyalty mean absolutely nothing to this man. He put a daggar through the heart of anyone and everyone who ever trusted or supported him as his rich record in this area clearly reveals.
The country needed Kerry to say "NO" to this madman when he wanted to go to war and find some other way to get the inspectors in to Iraq.
Everybody knows you CANNOT trust George W. Bush. He will stab you in the back and keep skipping and laughing on his merry way.
Kerry's no vote was needed and he did not give it. I could vote for Kerry were he to get the nomination, but I just could not support him for that nomination when it came down to actually pulling the lever on his name. My hatred for Bush and my outrage for what Bush has done to so many people will not let me. It's sad though. Kerry, in my opinion would have been a remarkable presient but he made the tragic mistake in putting his support and faith behind that "phlem-hocker" of a so called human being. Bush likes to use the word "evildooer."Need I say more? Very sad indeed. I can never forgive him for abusing the trust of so many good people. So many people mountians in height better then Bush. Bush is nothing but a scurvy little single celled organism that needs to be disinfected when you get even in eyesight of this man. Oh by the way. I do not care for Bush very much.

[Jacobin]

81. All of which is, of course, utter tripe, and desperate wriggling to wash

off the stench of his politically motivated vote.

Scores of congresscritters voted against the IWR. Smirk FORCED the vote PRIOR to the mid-term elections. If Kerry is such a fantastic and forceful leader, why didn't he at least lead the charge to delay the vote so that it wasn't in the politcally charged atmosphere pre-election?

Has Senator Kerry never read the Project for a New American Century? The script which unfolded is there in black and white for anyone to read. It's a playbook, fer cryin out loud. No guessing or "trusting" required.

Is Kerry sorry for his vote? Of course, but its only because its blown his chances to don the mantle of president to which he somehow feels he is entitled.

IraqNam is not some tiny little problem. It is a fuck-up of epic proportions. We have lost that war and it is only a matter of time before we are run out. This will further energize extremists who will jump on this loss as a rallying cry. This blunder will haunt this country for decades.

Sorry. This Pretty Writing for Kerry is like putting lipstick on a pig. ALL the signs of what was coming prior to the IWR were there. Millions in the streets, emails, calls and letters to Senator Kerry prior to the vote, attaching PNAC articles and historical tracts on Iraq and the impossibility of a successful occupation of Iraq (Hell, I sent him five faxes).

This "I trusted Bush*" clap trap is equivalent to a German supporting Hitler's invasion of Poland and later justifying it because he thought it was only one teeny little country and then Hitler would stop.

Thankfully, these discussions, and attempted abulations of Kerry will soon cease as he rightfully circles down the toilet bowl of history.

[msmcghee]

84. I just read every post in this thread down to here.

It's 3:45 in the morning and I can't sleep. I was interested because I hadn't actually picked a candidate but was leaning toward Kerry, especially in the last two weeks - and I was dissapointed when Gore crowned Dean so early. (For the record I will enthusiastically support any entity that runs against Bush*)

But . . . it seems to me that Kerry was stuck with making a choice - that Dean escaped. He had to vote for or against (or abstain) on the IWR. Although he knew Bush* was not to be trusted, he had to look at the possible outcomes - assuming he seriouisly wanted to be in the running for president. I, for one, don't fault a candidate for making political decisions running up to a campaign. In fact, I'd hold it against him if he was dumb enough to let himself be set up.

So, when Kerry faced his decision on the IWR, he must have looked at the possibilities;

a) Bush* would honor his promise to use force as a last resort and go through the UN. We here at DU knew that was unlikely. But according to polls, many, if not most Americans were ready to trust him - yes, because they are idiots. But, despite what many claim here, we weren't so smart either, we just hated him enough to believe the worst. But if it played out this way, then Kerry's no vote would be available for the RW to paint Kerry as an out-of-touch liberal, obviously not fit to run the country in these dangerous times.

b) Bush* would eventually attack Iraq and there would be some WMD's. At the time this was the consensus. Even here at DU many thought there were WMD's but that inspections could find and eliminate them and war was not necessary. If any serious WMD's were found certainly the war would be applauded by most Americans (and throughout the world probably) and Bush* would be a hero. Anyone who had opposed the IWR would be seen as an out-of-touch liberal, obviously not fit to run the country in these dangerous times. Even the UN would have lost prestige and credibility. Very bad for progressives worldwide.

c) There would be no WMD's, but the war was over quickly and the Iraqis welcomed us and everyone but Saddam and his Baathists were happy campers. In this case Americans would generally still applaud the effort and Bush* would be a hero. Today, Iraq would be well on it's way to becoming a mideast democracy and the oil would be flowing westward. Anyone who had opposed the IWR would be seen as an out-of-touch liberal, obviously not fit to run the country in these dangerous times.

d) Or, the least likely at the time, there would be zero WMD's, and the war was not over quickly and the Iraqis hated us and everyone but Saddam and his Baathists were unhappy campers, we get stuck in a deadly quagmire with no exit strategy and several Americans a week are dieing. This was the only outcome that could make Kerry look bad to his base. But even then the base would have to overlook his sterling liberal record in order to hold it against him - and give him no credit for protecting himself from a more likely attack from the right against his ability to protect the country from dangerous dictators with WMD's.

As Kerry said, he had no idea Bush* would fuck it up this badly.

But, whatever. The result is that we now seem ready to nominate a centrist Dem with little or no foreign policy experience who chose to ski rather than participate in the Viet Nam war - neutralizing several of our most important issues. You could almost imagine that Rove MIHOP and that much of the anti-Kerry vitriol that we've been hearing here might not have come from purely liberal sentiments.

The only part of the puzzle that doesn't fall into place is Gore. WTF is going on there? I hope that smarter political minds than mine can explain this somehow.

PS - William Pitt uses a lot of words to express his opinion and I've seen some criticism of that. That used to bother me a little too when I first started reading his stuff. Now, after reading several of his pieces, I realize that he considers his opinions far more carefully than the average journalist. I think he is trying to give us the full monty, to make sure that all the details and nuance are there for those who want them - and I appreciate that effort - even though it sometimes conflicts with my own laziness. But that's my problem not his.

[Jacobin]

90. Or, conversely, Kerry had the Opportunity to make a good decision

"it seems to me that Kerry was stuck with making a choice - that Dean escaped . He had the opportunity to make a hard decision and he blew it. It tells us a lot about what kind of president he would make.

Kerry is complaining and whining about being put in a position to make a hard decision (which he fucked up) but WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT.

Dean didn't 'escape' anything. He didn't have the opportunity to make the vote. However, the pundits wrote him off politically when he opposed the war (when it wasn't cool to do so), and said his campaign was finished.


Those trying to resurrect Kerry amuse me.

[msmcghee]

112. I think you are too easily amused.

I can't find anything amusing about liberals who seem to despise other liberals - who are not their own choice for candidate.

This is one of the few times we get to choose between the better of the good - and you seem to think Kerry is a worse enemy than Bush*.

My angst over Gore's endorsement in no way causes me to think Dean is a bad person or a bad choice (just not the best). In fact I've heard many great things about him and I'm proud he's one of us. I can fully understand why other DU folks really love him - for his virtues.

I just have trouble understanding why any other DU'ers could despise Kerry - or any other Dem candidate - so much. Whatever the reason, it is toxic. For your own sake, please try to remember we're all on the same side here. Kerry's in the basement and Dean's got the bit in his teeth. You are winning.

Besides all that, I'm sure Gore knows more than I do. In fact, I'd say that's a huge understatement.

Peace

[Jacobin]

114. Why?

It's called the draft and my two soon to be draft age sons. It also involves the fact that Kerry himself went to Vietnam, saw it for what it was, and KNOWING this was a bullshit PNAC invasion plan decided to "save" his presidential bid by voting for a PNAC conquest.

Why am I mad?

I don't want my sons killed in a PNAC oil war.

I'm staying mad by the way. These fuckers get no quarter from me (including that 'good liberal' Hillary). A "liberal" does not invade a country on a pretext to steal its oil.

And spare me the "he trusted bush*" malarky. It's beneath even Kerry.

[msmcghee]

116. Do you believe that if the US had joined the allies . .

. . against Germany in 1939, there would have been more or fewer dead Americans (as well as Brits, Jews, Danes, Russians, etc.) as a result?

Hindsight is always 20/20. But our congress was facing the same kind of question a few months ago. Kerry's decision could just as well be seen as an attempt to save your sons (and other American's) lives - as an attempt to make the right decision politically.

Dead Americans, at home or abroad, don't make good campaign ads.

It's a compicated world, especially if you try to understand it.

[Jacobin]

136. Oh I get it. You are comparing Hitler to Saddam

I give up.

Discuss it with someone else. The IWR was a PNAC centerpiece and anyone who wants to know about it does. Those who don't want to know, I dont' both discussing it with.

[blm]

91. "the full monty"...heh...that's perfect.

The odd thing to me is that so many have no idea that the provision that allowed Bush to "determine" whether use of force was needed was in the Biden-Lugar bill which Dean said early on that he would have voted for.

When Dean attacked the others for allowing Bush to make the determination, I knew he was doing it dishonestly because I had paid attention. Most journalists, reporters and pundits have never even bothered to examine Dean on his actual stance and the deceptiveness of his attacks on the others. They are lazy and so most people remain unaware of the facts.

If Biden-Lugar had passed, Dean would have been called a warmonger here at DU. It wouldn't have been true, but, it is not true of those who voted for the IWR, either.

[gasperc]

86. I supported Kerry from the start but...

the inertia of getting past the Democratic base has been enourmous. It's been over a year since the vote, he had lots of oppurtunities to eviserate Bush over the lies and manipulations since the the UN vote. Kerry vascilated and didn't understand the true essence of our rage. I was against the resolution and supported Kerry none the less, understanding him and his reasons. But... here we are.

I now watch Dean and Clark closely. I hope Kerry does fight the nod, and will reconsider him if he surges. Is there a conspiracy in the press to sink his chances? I doubt it. Thanks for the update Will, very much appreciated.

[underpants]

89. Calvin Trillin? Really? I love his writings

Damn he needs to write another book.

His "The Gipper Lives" article is a classic, a total unveiling of the press and the Reagan administration. See much like the Reagan white house Notre Dame (Reagan movie link) really didn't win all those games, Rockne would just wait a few months after the season was over and then tell the reporters that they had indeed gone undefeated and were the national champs and the papers printed it as the truth. Brilliant.

[spooky3]

92. Thanks, Will. We have an embarrassment of riches.

It is a shame that they all can't win.

[NewJeffCT]

93. My opinion on Kerry

I agree somewhat that part of the reason Dean is so popular is that he was against the war, while Kerry voted for it. I think John Kerry is a very impressive candidate for president, however, as stated above by Eric Alterman above... I was very impressed by his speech to the Foreign Relations Council the other week as well. However, another problem he has is pointed out by my wife (who, while very intelligent and a Bush hater, cannot vote yet due to her not even having a green card) - his speech, while very intelligent, was also very bland and very dry. While being driven to the airport the other day, I heard an interview with a political analyst that said while Kerry is extremely smart, if you ask him a question that Bush would answer with a one-liner, Kerry will give you a 15 minute dissertation.

[paulk]

109. the problem is that Bush's one line answer

would be incorrect.

:)

[NewJeffCT]

133. True, but...

His one liner would make the nightly news, and nobody would challenge him outside of DU and a few other sites.

[VelmaD]

98. I've been waiting...

for you to sell me on Kerry and this may have finally done it. Knowing his record I was inclined toward him to begin with and I'm feeling even more so after this.

I know you have to edit things down but god I wanted more. You hit a couple of the high points of the day and I'm sure that'll be enough for most readers. But I wanta know everything. :-)

Did you ask anything or did you just sit quietly in the corner scribbling frantic notes? :-)

[Butterflies]

102. Thankyou!

I don't understand why John Kerry isn't the frontrunner. Although the Iraq was vote was very important (and disappointing), there's so much else about JK to like. :-)

[blm]

104. I think some Democrats have a deathwish for the party.

They enjoy blaming the party so much they forget to look in the mirror or examine records of those who now claim to be lefty Democrats. The hot rhetoric is too seductive and they melt like fundies at a Tim LaHaye sermon.

[adadem]

107. Yup.. right on the nail

and they wonder why voter turnout is so low. Now I understand.

[adadem]

108. Will, what I want to know

is do you think Franken will endorse Kerry?

[RobinA]

110. I Support Kerry

I agree that he shouldn't sink on one vote of his career. I hope he gets the nomination.

But I think this explanation of his Iraq vote is bull, and I find it insulting. Bush only went to the UN because he was forced to. He would have happily run right around it if it weren't for the political noise being made at the time. Knowing this, how could anyone have thought that he wouldn't go unilateral when push came to shove? All the signs were there before the vote. Whether or not Kerry believed at that point that going to war was a done deal, it was painfully obvious that Bush was going to do what he wanted to do, whatever that was. The sounds that were coming out of the administration, both at the time and throughout its tenure were "We will do what we want, we don't care what anybody says." They then asked for a blank check. Congress, with Kerry's help, then gave them the blank check figuring they wouldn't use it on anything unpopular? Give me a break.

And if Kerry et al. really did believe that Bush wouldn't go marching off to war waving the blank check, they are hopelessly naive about this president and his advisors. I hope for all our sakes they will soon learn how these people operate.

[eissa]

111. Thanks, Will

I honestly found this sad. Kerry has a superb record and is an invaluable asset to the party. But I don't think it's the sole reason why he's behind right now. I respect Kerry; he's got a great resume and he's incredibly sharp. Personally, I just haven't been able to really "connect" with him. Yes, I was initially drawn to Dean for his stance against the war. But no other candidate, Kerry included, has managed to sway me yet. In the debates, Kerry focused on Dean more than his record.

Okay, I'll stop rambling. Bottom line: race is not over, it's still really early. I'm happy with my candidate, but I'd be happy with Kerry as well. Best of luck to both.

[copithorne]

119. Still today...

When Kerry speaks about the war I STILL hear him saying essentially: this was the right policy, the wrong execution. We should have worked with the allies, planned for the reconstruction, and so on. The real problem is that Bush fucked up the pursuit of a legitimate objective.

No, no, no, a million times no. This war is not just badly executed. It was the wrong policy from the beginning. If he cannot say that clearly, plainly so that everyone can understand him, he's not the candidate for me. I hear that when Howard Dean speaks. I hear that when Wesley Clark speaks. I hear that when Robert Byrd speaks. I still can't hear it when Kerry speaks -- even from your article, William Pitt.

He says that if he were president we wouldn't be involved in a war in Iraq. Sure. But he still dodged the question, didn't he?

Because John Kerry couldn't speak clearly on the main issue of the day, he gave me the feeling that he was running a campaign he pulled off the shelf from the 80's and 90's. He's got good ideas, but they are the same ideas that Michael Dukakis had, the same ideas that Walter Mondale had. I love both those guys, but Kerry is not the man of our time.

Great senator. Just not presidential timber.

[TLM]

115. But it is not just the Iraqi war vote...

Although I do not believe Kerry. Kerry is not a moran... he wasn't duped by Bush. He knew Bush was full of shit, just like millions and millions of others all around the world did... including Dean.

The fact of the matter is that while Dean was demanding the UN be behind any actions in Iraq... rather than support Dean, Kerry's campaign joined with the repukes to attack the UN and Dean. This was back in Feb...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/25/opinion/lynch/main541905.shtml

Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan, snapped at Dean's insistence on getting U.N. backing (a position supported by three-quarters of Democrats and 53 percent of Independents). "Gov. Dean, in effect, seems to be giving the U.N. veto power over national security decisions of the United States. That's an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. president or serious candidate for the presidency," he told the Associated Press' Ron Fournier.


Kerry's camp made a clear decision to play the war hawk side and to join with the DLC in trying to attack Dean as an anti-war leftist wacko. Now he has the gall to act like he was tricked by Bush... BULLSHIT. Did Bush also trick Kerry into attacking the UN and Dean for wanting UN support?

Face it, Kerry made a bet that backing this war and Bush would be good for his career and his presidential bid... and he was wrong. HE wasn’t fooled by Bush... he just hoped that WE WOULD BE!


After all Kerry is the one who did all those investigations of the BFEE. He knows better than anybody the kind of shit the Bush family pulls. So I don't buy this excuse that we was fooled... because I WASN'T FOOLED! And I don't have access to all the dirt Kerry has access to. I'm just some bloger and even I knew Bush was full of shit.

And the other thing is that it isn't just the IWR vote that is sinking Kerry... it was the patriot act, the no child left behind act, the 350 billion tax cut, and the fact that despite his great record over the last 20 years, he spent the last 3-4 years bending over for W. From telling those angry over 2000 to "get over it" to spinning bullshit attacks on Dean regarding the military and UN.

Kerry blew it.

[bbmykel]

121. I wish I could buy his explanation but I don't.

Bush barks at reporters "F*ck Saddam, we're going to take him out." and still Kerry believes the President will exhaust diplomacy first. Andrew Card talks about the buildup to Iraq in the terms "rolling out a new product line" and Kerry still believes the President will exhaust diplomacy first. I'm sorry, but I don't believe Kerry is stupid or naive. There is one explanation for Kerry's vote that fits: He didn't want to be on the "wrong" side of a politically popular war. He voted with one eye on his run for the White House. Does anyone believe he would have voted the same way if we weren't going to run?

Even so, he could have overcome this if he'd had a strong message and delivered it succintcly. He hasn't. The political landscape is littered with candidates that were the "most qualified" on paper; Kerry most certainly is not the first one to mount a tepid campaign (though it is still far from over). Kerry failed to provide leadership when Democrats were hungry for it and someone else (namely Dean) stepped in. I, for one, will not be crying in my teacup for John Kerry.

Mike

PS I also don't buy the idea that Kerry would have had an easier time against Bush. The communication problem could easily be fatal for Kerry nationally. I think voters distrust someone who cannot communicate simply. Bush's power comes from his adherence to his message and his simple communication style.

[hlthe2b]

132. This is what is continuing to nag at me...

While I want to believe Kerry and think he tries to be a very honorable guy, I think he is deceiving himself if he attributes his actions, only to Bush's deceptions.

And, frankly, if it is true that he really was bamboozled, does this bode well for how he would respond to the other really devious forces out there? I don't want stupidity, arrogance and ignorance in the oval office, as we have NOW. Neither, though, do I want naivete and blind faith.

This makes me very sad, because I like Kerry, BTW.

[mb7588a]

144. if by simple you mean...

unintelligible and incoherent - that is not what people want.

Clinton talked circles around people, and a whole big lot of people liked him.

[dreissig]

127. Rough Justice

It's good to see that a politician has been punished for putting his personal career over the lives of innocent foreigners. Nothing could delight me more than to see Kerry knocked out of contention because he voted for the war. I am especially pleased that he knows that's what's costing him his chance at the nomination.

There is some justice in the world after all.

[Snellius]

128. Kerry still doesn't get why so many resent his IWR vote

It wasn't that he mistrusted Bush, or showed bad judgment, or made a strategic mistake. It's because everyone knew, from his whole history in the antiwar movement and from everything he professed to uphold, that he was voting against what he really believed was right, for what everyone immediately assumed was a tactical political calculation. He was so afraid of being dubbed "unpatriotic" that he sold himself out. The decision wasn't difficult because it was complicated but because it was hypocritical. Kerry knew, everyone knew, that Bush couldn't be trusted and what he was up to. It's not that Kerry was wrong to trust him, he was wrong not to trust in himself and in those who put their trust in him.

[LeahMira]

131. Thank you, Will Pitt...

The most revealing moment of the entire event came as it was breaking up. Kerry was slowly working towards the door when he was collared by Art Spiegelman. Though Kerry towered over him, Spiegelman appeared to grow with the intensity of his passion. “Senator,” he said, “the best thing you could do is to is to just come out and say that you were wrong to trust Bush. Say that you though he would keep his promises, but that you gave him more credit than he deserved. Say that you’re sorry, and then turn the debate towards what is best for the country in 2004.”

Kerry nodded, bowed his head, and said, “You’re right. I was wrong to trust him. I’m sorry I did.” And then he was gone.


And there it is in a nutshell.

I happen to think Art Spiegelman is a rare and wonderful individual, and I totally envy you for being in the same room with him. Thank you, Art, for that demand so well stated, and thank you, Senator Kerry, for responding so humbly, wisely, and well.

And thank you, Will, for recounting the story so eloquently.

[SoCalDem]

135. I like Kerry, BUT

It almost seems like right from the start, he had troubles.. The diagnosis of prostate cancer was a terrible thing to have happen ANYTIME, but especially bad at the beginning of a long and difficult campaign..

In a way, I think THAT hurt him most.. Right at the start, when people should have been focusing on his ideas and plans, the subject of his health was staring them right in the face..

Granted, lots of men have had it and recovered, but he might have been better off to have withdrawn right then and there, and waited until he was past that "magic" cure date.. by 2008 for sure..

Senators always "have to answer for" every vote they make, and the controversy over his "war" votes may have actually cancelled out his own war experiences..at least according to the medai..

Without the media in your corner, you will stay in that corner...alone..

They portrayed him right from the start as "heir apparent" and then as medically challenged and then on to the war vote.. He's had nothing but bad press..

It's sad that it has to be this way, but it just is..

Dean is not home free either.. The press will turn on him too.. The corporations who run this country cannot afford to have a rebellious president who has promised things to the public..

Their best hope is for * to remain right where he is, so they can continue the rape of america..

I feel sorry for Kerry.. I am sure he is a decent guy and under different circumstances he would be "the one", but in the lull, Dean came along and claimed the spotlight..

I am not actively pushing ANYONE.. I will support whomever we run against *.:)

[Snellius]

137. Also, his mother died last year and his father in 2000

of prostate cancer, which probably made the disease even more terrifying for him. Clark entering the race also seemed to dull the lustre of Kerry's military hero credentials. A year ago he seemed unstoppable. But the fates were certainly not with him.

[SoCalDem]

141. I had forgotten about his parents' deaths..

He should have waited.. And with a repub governor, Mass would have most certainly lost a senate seat if he had gone on to win..

With the senate as close as it's been that should be a consideration, too..

[retread]

138. I think Kerry would be one of our greatest presidents. However,

in view of his record over the last 30 years and his obvious intelligence, all I can say about that explanation is BULLSHIT!
Everyone with an IQ above room temperature knew Bush was invading!
I say this as a supporter and one who has sent money to Kerry's campaign. That vote baffles me and I have yet to hear a plausible explanation.
Am I willing to overlook it? Yes, but keep trying to sling crap like that and I may no longer be so willing.

[12 12 2000]

139. No Way Kerr-ay

As a Massachusetts citizen, I have voted for John Kerry four times to be our Senator. On October 11, 2002, the moment I heard he voted in favor of Bush's war resolution, I emailed him and notified him that I would not, could not support him for President. His campaign emailed back a typical mealy mouthed politician's explanation that convinced me further that he did not have the integrity for my support. Any liberal worth an atom of salt knew that Bush was gonna go to war come hell or high water, and anyone aspiring for the highest office in the land has to be principled to the nth degree (as Senator Byrd was during the "debates" leading up to the vote) to counter-balance the absolutist venality that is the Bush presidency. Kerry proved he is not, and no little posthumous sit-together with some notable journalists is gonna change that, at least not in my mind.

[mb7588a]

145. Can you find and post the email? n/t

[GalleryGod]

147. The REAL DEAL Dogs The Doc All the Way to California & Beyond!

That's what "my sources" told me today...interesting when you know the Dean of the Kennedy School...Oh,Well..Saddle Up,Lock & Load, disperse in two-by-twos...We're Goin' HUNTING!!!


The other Nugget of Info: Two Words: SUPER DELEGATES.:smoke:

[catherineD]

140. Would you mind looking into Clark at clark04.com?

I know you're feeling gloomy. So are we, actually, as we worry that Dean will end up the choice. And Kerry supporters should know, like Clark supporters, that Dean isn't likely to win the general election. Nor is he the liberal Democrat he's made out to be, on that long shot that he would be elected. I'd be able to get behind Kerry much easier than Dean. But right now, it looks like Dean is pulling away. Perhaps the lazy conservative media is encouraging it. I don't know. But if you're not interested in Dean, will you consider looking more seriously at Clark? We all know how shallow the media is -- a real consideration of a candidate's policies can only be undertaken by reading their stances on their websites, I think. Clark has some fantastic ideas, like a 100-year plan and now a new state-by-state breakdown of what he expects to accomplish in his first term -- from a $3,000 increase in family incomes, to health care and clean air. I think that, as a military man, he is used to setting goals and implementing them. I don't know precisely how Kerry is doing in the polls -- maybe it's too early -- but if it isn't, could you just research Clark a bit at Clark04.com? Thanks.

[GalleryGod]

148. Nice Report,Will!

Must go apply the Cammo War Paint!
Lock & Load
See All my Drinking Buddies in June,2004.
=whoooooooooooooosh!:shrug:

[Junkdrawer]

150. Before the vote, I posted "This one goes on your tombstone"...

I had the feeling that any Democrat that tried to straddle the vote was finished with the emerging antiwar base.

[mb7588a]

152. Nice work, Will, and thanks.

Something began to make sense after finally hearing the explanation. Mainly, Kerry's demand for regime change:

“What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States," Kerry said on 4/2/03, just a few days after Iraq was invaded, and a few days before Baghdad and as Baghdad and the regime were falling.

When the mandate he gave with his vote was exceeded, he took to this harsh message that all of us here at DU agree with. You may want to mention that. I think this one single statement by Kerry alone backs his defense of the vote.

Also, this campaign is already talked about in political science classes.
I had a professor say, in private, while we were discussing the 2004 election, "John Kerry is the most qualified man for the job at this time, as Washington and Jefferson were in their times. He's probably even the most qualified since James Madison." Now THAT is an impressive statement.

I will never understand the lambasting of Kerry for this vote. Gep doesn't get this kind of treatment, and he helped draft the resolution! Only half of the Senate democrats voted against the IWR.

I'd like to see a poll of Massachusettes support for the IWR, these are the people Kerry votes on behalf of. I haven't been able to find such a poll.

[David Zephyr]

155. Thanks William.

There isn't a single dimension about Kerry's vote regarding Iraq and war that I have not turned over and over in my mind for over one year now.

He was my choice until then.

"Say that you’re sorry, and then turn the debate towards what is best for the country in 2004.”

Too bad he couldn't do that six months ago.

Thanks for taking us there with you, WP.