Kerry Vetting DNC Chair Candidates: Wants Promise of Neutrality for '08

[Freddie Stubbs]

Kerry weighs in on DNC pick, putting down marker for '08

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is vetting the leading candidates to be the next Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman, and asking them to remain neutral in the presidential selection process in 2008. It is the latest indication that Kerry is putting down markers to run again for the party’s presidential nomination in 2008.

His outreach to DNC candidates also marks his return to the fray after Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, that candidate he was backing for chairman, ruled himself out of contention in November. The DNC contest is exposing the presidential ambitions of a number of Democratic politicians. In addition to Kerry, other potential 2008 presidential candidates have also contacted — or been contacted by — the several DNC aspirants, providing an early list of who is sending clear signals within the party that they will run for the Democratic nomination.

Over the past six weeks, Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y,), New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Kerry have been in touch with former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb and former Michigan Gov. James Blanchard, said Webb and Blanchard — the two DNC candidates who agreed to speak on the record on this issue. Those are the same names that several other DNC candidates, or their campaigns, have privately said they contacted.

Former Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards (D-N.C.) has had limited contact with the DNC field, several campaigns said.

But Kerry appears to be the only potential candidate in ’08 to maintain an open line of communication with the DNC candidates and has further set himself apart by requesting that the next DNC chairman remain neutral three years hence, when the Democratic selection process begins anew. Last week, Kerry asked former Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.), whose home-state Democratic senator, Bayh, may run, to remain neutral.

more: http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Campaign/011205.html

[rockymountaindem]

1. Well, Kerry looks like the best from that field.

[LittleClarkie]

6. A call for neutrality isn't such a heinous thing I don't think

People know how I feel about the field, so I won't say.

In some ways, he's fulfilling what's expected of him as defacto Dem leader, as some have called him. The leaders of the party should have open communication with the DNC Chair, whoever that is.

[PassingFair]

44. Yea, neutrality did great for us in the last election!

Give me neutrality or give me....

a grilled cheese sandwich?

[notadmblnd]

2. I'm afraid Kerry had his chance to show his leadership skills and

blew it. I supported him because he was the nominee. I was hoping he would riase up and show some leadership over the election fraud and that tells me that Kerry just went along with the wingnuts to deny the democrats a real leader and did not really want to be president.

I do not think at this point I could support kerry in 2008.

[LittleClarkie]

7. This isn't necessarily about 2008 and Kerry

It's about 2008 and anybody who will need the DNC to remain neutral.

[notadmblnd]

12. It is the latest indication that Kerry is putting down markers to run agai

is the statement I was basing my comment on.

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. Or at the very least keeping his options open

Gore virtually disappeared off of the face of the earth after 2000, only occasionally surfacing to give a speech. He would have had a real fight on his hands if he had decied to run again. If Kerry wants to keep his options open, he is going to have to stay in the spotlight.

[LittleClarkie]

19. Considering I still want a Prez Kerry at some point

I'm not displeased.

We may find that someone who has played the "candidate game" before has learned from what they didn't do right the first time 'round.

I never did understand throwing out that experience and reinventing the wheel each time.

I'm sad for Edwards though. I'm sure he's not in the game because he's looking after Elizabeth.

And I wonder where Gore's name is. Is he in the game yet?

[Clarkie1]

51. If Kerry is thinking of running again he has a bigger ego than I thought

And is thinking purely himself and his lifelong dream to be the next "JFK," not the good of the party or our cause.

I respect Kerry and like him, but sometimes even friends have to say the hard truth to friends when they go astray.

[janx]

60. Why not?

:shrug: I see no problem that he might run again.

[Clarkie1]

65. He can run, but if he's nominated we will lose again

Nothing personal against Kerry, just political reality.

Same goes for any senator.

[oc2002]

3. Kerry had his shot, and lost...WTF would anyone care what he wants in the

DNC?

[Cheswick2.0]

8. well there is that too

[zulchzulu]

11. Whoever lost in the primaries doesn't deserve a shot either...huh...

By your logic, all the candidates who ran for President in 2004 don't get another chance either...

That leaves...um...Hillary.
:crazy:

[NYCGirl]

27. The only time we've ever run a presidential candidate twice in a row

was Adlai Stevenson. Wonderful man, but that didn't work out too well.

[LittleClarkie]

13. Because he is a defacto Dem leader

and probably the Dems in Washington care what he wants in the DNC. He is still an active Senator, unlike some former candidates, he still has a job to do.

If he does what he said he would do re: remaining a more active voice, then you're going to here that voice, whether it makes you a happy camper or not.

[Cheswick2.0]

4. I can't think of anymore useless a news story

Kerry supposedly wants neutrality? Well duh? The truth is he wants the person who will most favor him in 2008. He'd be a fool not to want that. This is POLITICS folks.

Geez......one day my eyes really are going to roll back so far they get stuck staring at my brain for the rest of my life.

[Rose Siding]

15. This explains it.

-some of the other conversations around here lately, I mean.

[Cheswick2.0]

26. Yes, LOL

Kerry is going to remain Neutral while vetting people for DNC chair and then backing the person he feels is neutral enough to give him the edge in 2008. :eyes:

[ibegurpard]

5. Oh for god's sake

Can any of these people check their ego enough to stop and look at the current fundamentally flawed SYSTEM that makes any of their chances very slim?
What are they doing to come together and make the PARTY stronger and address the issues that keep us losing?

[LittleClarkie]

24. I like that he's increased his calls to Dean as well

He seems determined to have a voice with whoever this turns out to be.

[janx]

61. As do the other prospective pres. '08 candidates mentioned.

I have no problem with this.

[Rose Siding]

32. This is a good point

What are they doing to come together and make the PARTY stronger and address the issues that keep us losing?

With spectres of a battle within the party on a host of issues, including abortion, suppose a candidate emerges who sides repeatedly with repubs- who might, say, vote for a Bush plan on SS or taxes. Why would it be advantageous to muzzle the party chair?

A chair should at least be able to express opinions on issues that reflect a basic party line. The alternative is the standard "we're a big tent" chant.

[janx]

9. Here we go again...

Blanchard’s interest in being chairman appears to be on the wane, and a source close to him said his initial interest was sparked by Kerry and Clinton. “When people close to Senator Kerry and Senator Clinton say, ‘You should take a look at this,’ you take a look at it.”

Who IS this "source"?

[greenohio]

10. This is a good sign for the Dean camp.

If Kerry thought a DLCer would get it, he wouldn't be calling for this now.

[LittleClarkie]

16. Kerry has a foot in both camps

part DLC (I suppose), part progressive. I don't always see the DLC connection. Sometimes I think people make it because they don't like the DLC and they at the moment don't like Kerry, so they put the things they don't like in one basket. He's more hawkish than some want, but most of his other policies are progressive.

[greenohio]

21. Thats true.

But if thats true, it says something about the DLC making him their guy this round. They very easily could have chosen another DLCer with more moderate positions. I don't think the whole org is as evil as some paint. I think they may have some bad leadership though.

[Fabio]

31. Who did the DLC choose?

I am confused.

[forintegrity]

14. Would someone please explain to me

why Kerry wants this? (I'm sometimes "politically challenged" in understanding it all.)

Also, what does this mean:
"he (Kerry) has further set himself apart by requesting that the next DNC chairman remain neutral three years hence"

Thanks for your help.
:dunce:

[janx]

52. Who knows?

:shrug: I wouldn't read too much into it. Kerry is talking to the candidates. That's to be expected.

[CWebster]

17. Wonder if he would've demanded it of Vislack

His own preference.

[trillian]

22. Good observation!!

My guess is no!

[Cheswick2.0]

25. What do you want to bet he comes out for Rosenburg

and all day yesterday we were told he is going to remain neutral?

[IndianaGreen]

67. Tom Vilsack would have been Kerry's man as head of DNC

and I agree with Cheswick's observation that Kerry's real game is to get Rosenburg as Chair.

[lojasmo]

20. Big of him after the partisan treatment he got from Terry M.

:eyes:

[trillian]

23. No chit! n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. How did Terry McAuliffe treat Kerry in a partisan manner?

:shrug:

[lojasmo]

39. financial and personal connections to the people behind "people for jobs"

suggesting that those who have not won a primary before the first nine drop out, front loaded primary schedule....just off the top of my head. Do a little googling. you'll find out lots of stuff if you look.

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. How exactly was that partisan?

It was a system to help whomever the front runner was. If Dean had been able to keep the momentum he built during most of 2003 that system would have benefited him rather than Kerry.

[Eloriel]

40. I couldn't agree more -- this is what Privilege does for you

It makes you feel entitled to MORE privilege and special treatment; it makes you believe you and you alone are immune from following "the rules," whether the rules are outright laws or just social customs. OR, it makes you think you can GET a special rule for your case.

This story angers me on so many different levels it's hard to keep track. But it definitely deserves a

:kick:

Because I want MANY more people to see this, their shining "leader" -- er, their 2008 candidate -- in action (that is, protecting his backside, again, some more).

Ptoooey, ptoooey!!

[biglake]

28. Stay out of Howards way John Kerry..you blew it for us and we know it.

[janx]

64. Um...

what?

[Fabio]

29. My understanding is that

Kerry pushed hard for Tom Vilsack early on, but that when Vilsack pulled out, Kerry basically told people, "my guy is out" and has since let things play out. I think a good move for him now would be to support Dean and work toward bringing different factions of the party back together.

[janx]

63. According the the article,

Kerry and Dean have been talking a lot. :shrug:

[Laurab]

33. Like it or not - and I like it,

Kerry still has a large grassroots following. He can be one of the most effective people in office, if we set aside our differences, and assist him. He has already asked us, the people who supported him, to co-sponsor a bill.

I would think asking for neutrality could be considered asking to wait and see who the best candidate will be at the time, rather than asking for support. Of course he wants support, if he's a politician, and wants to run again, but it doesn't mean they're going to support him. Remaining neutral isn't really a bad thing. Anyway, I don't think they have to sign a loyalty oath, so asking doesn't necessarily mean receiving.

They have a LOT of work to do before '08, so this is all kind of premature. If election reform doesn't happen, it's all kind of pointless in my opinion.

In the meantime, Kerry is, and will probably remain, one of the people whose voices are actually heard. I think it would be wise to lend anyone who has a voice our support, IF they are fighting for the things that we need and/or want. No matter who it is, they're going to need a grassroots backing - it's been shown to be effective.

NOTHING will matter without election reform. I'm not anywhere near '08 yet - I want to make sure my vote counts, first.

[Q]

47. Kerry had ABB and NOT grassroots support...

...and his base is a mile long and a inch thin.

[Philly Buster]

48. Exactly, and he obviously loses ABB support in '08

Plus it is nearly impossible for a member of Congress to get elected POTUS.

I think a Governor like Rendell or Vilsack should go for it in '08.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

49. maybe he's working on that right now. eom

[janx]

66. Good point! n/t

[grasswire]

34. Kerry should understand...

....that a commander can't run from a fire fight then come back and expect to be the leader. Okay, that's a poor analogy.

But the truth is this: his aspirations for the presidency have less appeal to millions of Democrats than even Gore's did for 2004.

I'm getting quite offended at these rumblings from what appears to be a Kerry campaign. It seems presumptuous, and arrogant. I supported him fully, but it's time for someone new -- someone who believes in democratic values more than in his own career.

[WI_DEM]

35. I thought that it was a gurantee that the DNC Chair is neutral

so I don't know what Kerry is talking about.

[adigal]

36. How about Gore??? He beat Bush once already? N/T

[WI_DEM]

38. I agree if we run someone who already ran, why not someone who

actually won the popular vote?

[janx]

62. I'd love to see him run again. n/t

[mikehiggins]

37. Same old, same old

go down that road, end up the same place.

We've had decades of "playing the game" while the GOPukes were "playing to win".

Guess who won?

How about just once running a candidate who will go for the jugular and put this whole "statesmanlike" crap in the closet where it belongs.

How about that Congresscritter who called the GOPukes liars on the draft on the floor of Congress. I'd support him in a New YOrk minute.

Oh, and if Kerry runs again, Jeb will be President in 2008.

[JaneQPublic]

41. Why should Kerry have any more say post-2004 than Gore had post-2000?(nt)

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. Because he is staying active in politics instead of

dropping out of public life.

[DemBones DemBones]

46. Kerry staying active in politics instead of dropping out of public life?

Maybe, but I'd like to hear something more from the guy I gave a ton of money to than just a report that he partied with Aahnuld and Maria.

[Freddie Stubbs]

50. He is still serving in the Senate...

He has visited the Middle East, met with the Prime Minister of the UK, and met the Chancellor or Germany. Seems like he is keeping busy.

[robbedvoter]

55. Some days - when thorny issues are not voted on. Otherwise, busy

elsewhere.

[Q]

53. That doesn't explain it...

...the difference between Gore and Kerry is that Kerry is still 'on board' with the New Democratic agenda and Gore isn't. Thus...Kerry retains the support of the 'party machine' while Gore was exiled for stepping outside of the DLC inner circle.

I won't vote for Kerry again. And if I have to explain why then too many Democrats just don't get it.

[janx]

57. You know, I probably won't either, but I admire how Kerry

basically jumped back into work with both feet after the election.

[janx]

56. There's a lot to be said for that.

I admire how Kerry not only got back to work but became involved heavily in foreign policy immediately. He knows what problems we have, and he isn't afraid to go at them head-on.

That is admirable.

[JaneQPublic]

69. Gore hardly dropped out of public life.

Gore -- as a private citizen -- spoke out more against Bush administration policies than did John Kerry as a senator and Democratic Presidential Candidate.

Oh, and I guess you didn't hear about the the campaigning Gore did for other Dems or the work Gore has been doing to start a new news and public affairs channel aimed at young persons.

[Donna Zen]

45. Just imagine

The republicans are a centralized, top-down, organization with the money controlled by the powerful. (While we often muse about the bush's mean machine attack on McCain, Kevin Phillips writes that the real end of McCain's campaign was caused by the bush's drying up McCain's money.)

The Democratic party has a very different structure, and while the Clintons still have much power read:money, there are cliques within the party that struggle dominance. These circles that resemble the old Roman system of clients and sponsors/patrons are confusing and often overlapped. The tug-o-war for loyalty has much to do with winning elections and nothing to do what is good for the American people.

Since I have adopted this view of the framework of the parties, I find the machinations much more understandable, the tendency for election losses more frustrating, and the two party system completely alienating. Furthermore, the excuses posted repeatedly here for behavior that completely "ego" driven, are nothing if not depressing.

[robbedvoter]

54. Or else what? Puts a cherry on top the giveaway 2004 election?

[janx]

58. It's in everyone's best interest that whoever the DNC chair

winds up being is neutral. So I can understand what Kerry and the others are doing.

[lojasmo]

59. WTF? Where does he get off?

What a fucking joke.

[Dr Fate]

68. Kerry does not know how to fight Bush/media.

So I dont really care what he thinks right now.