Why not Kerry in 08'?

[Dawgs]

The Republicans are great at destroying a Democratic canidate by going after their record and beliefs. Why not go with someone that America already knows. He would have to be better prepared than 04'. We already know he's received more votes than any other Democrat in history.

It's our time to define them. Let them put out a Rice or Guliani. We could have a field day.

Is there anyone here that wouldn't be okay with Kerry as our representative?

[Horushawk]

1. he didn't fight when he had the chance

[Norquist Nemesis]

36. And not enough during the campaign

Sorry, Kerry primary supporters...I worked hard for him. Canvassed, poll-watched, donated $$ and tons of time. I didn't vote for him in the primary (which was pretty much decided by the time it got to Illinos), but I did everything I could once he became our guy.

He didn't fight hard enough during the campaign. Just when I would see him give a great speech, I'd be thinking, "Yes! Now he's got it..and we're off to victory!" Then he'd go cold again. The concession speech was way too quick and easy; and a fight on election fraud should have been visible.

I don't really care about his Iraq votes; that was explained through the research. But...that's part of the problem. He let Bush/Cheney/Rove et al define them and all he did was defend. He could have easily deflected the 'flip-flop' from the beginning by saying the votes were for two DIFFERENT resolutions instead of this, 'I voted for before I voted against'.

He could/should have come out at every point along the way when Bush 'flipped' (and then lied about staying the course) to call him on it. He could/should have said things like, "I'm happy to see my leadership and vision is being heard in the White House. They're saying one thing, and following my lead on (fill in the blank)."

No, he was supposed to be fighting not just for us Democrats, but the survival of this nation. And that meant getting down and dirty when it was called for.

[avenueb]

132. re: flip flop

I totally agree - Kerry could have so easily turned that around. He could have had one press conference.

John Kerry:"look, they are saying I flip flop. Here's the fact: Bush has in 4 years flipped more than I have in 20" and then, he could have easily listed them all, all the Bush flops, which we all know.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

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

[The Zanti Regent]

176. Wow, he sure was in Bush's face when they counted the electoral votes...

...no, that was Barbara Boxer. As usual, Kerry laid down and died for his fellow Bonesman.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

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

[pauliedee]

146. The repugs fear another Kerry run

The repugs fear another Kerry run. They barely escaped this past election with a wartime incumbency and convention schedule advantage and headstart. Kerry instills fear in the GOP. WE SHOULD SEND JOHN KERRY AGAIN!!

[The Zanti Regent]

175. So he can lay down and die again?

No thanks. The price for another inept Kerry run is too high.

I already lost my only child, the only good thing is that I have no more children that the Nazi Republican Party can send to die for oil.

[Imagevision]

230. Kerry didn't fight for ohio

With Kerry in 08 it's nothing but instant repeat of the swiftboatee thing -- Limbaugh and Hannity will only have to replay 04 audio clips.

Kerry I got to really love/respect the --I'm still in a bummer when I think about what Bush got away with again!

Most important? -- we never did get our votes all counted as he and Edwards promised.

Kerry actually said a few weeks back in an interview that he believed the last minute bin laden tapes are what swung the vote?

In other words, countless millions of people who firmly believe Ohio/Blackwell/Diebold decided the outcome are totally rejected by John Kerry -- this says to me we got screwed again butthis time I'm not quite sure by who> Bush or Kerry?

[Imagevision]

231. say what you will about Bush - He's still scamming the world

Got to give him that much == he is actually pulling the new world order thing off -- yhope your kids aren't 15-16

[vickie]

2. I'd be proud as punch to have him as our standard bearer again.

[pauliedee]

147. Me too!!! JK is a hero

Me too!!! JK is a great American patriot and a hero.

[rockymountaindem]

3. Well, I agree that would be a good strategy

but all the people who are gonna show up here and rag on Kerry take a different view.

[pauliedee]

156. Kerry stronger than Gore or Clinton

We need his honesty, integrity and his grit to win in 2008

[rfranklin]

4. Except for the fact that Kerry cruised to defeat against...

the worst White House resident in 100 years (and took a vacation for half the campaign), I can't think of a reason why not.

[blm]

8. A WH that controlled about 90% of the broadcast media.

And I'd like to see you back up your claims about vacation. The way I saw it, Kerry took off very few days and even worked through those he did take.

No other WH has had such a stranglehold on the media. The media wasn't telling average American viewer that Bush was the worst president ever. They would keep repeating that Bush couldn't be beat on the terror issue and ramped it up when Bin Laden's "video" popped up right before the election.

The media lies and too many buy what they sell. Even those Democrats who let the media off the hook by putting all blame on Kerry instead.

That said....it's too early to count ANYONE in or out. Let's see what the next 18-24 months bring. Let them ALL perform their best and judge from there.

But, unless the GOP control of the media is dealt with by the Dems, there will NEVER be a Dem in the WH. You can run FourStarGeneralJesusChrist and the media will turn him into a cowardly deviant out of touch with mainstream Americans.

It doesn't matter WHAT they say, it's what the media SAYS they say.

[Horushawk]

11. He needed to work the MSM twice as hard

[blm]

21. No. The GOP control of the media has to be exposed. That is the ONLY

way they will ever be forced to toe the line as real reporters.

There is no working WITH those reading Rove's scripts while they're being paid by Bush's cronies.

[merbex]

40. Worst President EVER

You are maligning all of our former Presidents

Even Nixon

[IowaGuy]

98. took a vacation for half the campaign????? Source, please?

[saracat]

203. It is a matter of opinion that he lost. IMHO he didn't.

[NYCGirl]

5. Better question is: why? We don't want another Adlai Stevenson,

perhaps.

We have lots of great Democrats waiting in the wings. Let's see what 2006 brings, first.

[pauliedee]

148. Reagan lost before being elected

Why not Kerry? He's still strong and has grit and integrity!

[NYCGirl]

178. Reagan didn't run two elections in a row.

If Kerry wants to wait until 2012, until the stink of this election wears off, go for it.

Adlai Stevenson ran in two consecutive elections — and lost by a larger margin the second time.

[fujiyama]

195. You bring up

an important point regarding Stevenson. Another that was nominated twice but lost both times was William Jennings Bryan.

While Nixon did win his second time (and as you noted it wasn't consecutive), he was lucky. His election was close. The Dems were in disarray after a traumatic primary (RFK assassination), a president unpopular with much of his base (and the VP taking a lot of blame for backing those policies), and finally a disasterous and violent convention.

Nixon shouldn't have won that time but it looks just like in many other cases, Dems kinda screwed it up (and I'm not blaming any one faction, just general division and chaos).

This is the fear I have in nominating Gore (who was very clearly robbed) or Kerry (who was possibly robbed and very much smeared). I feel they've been defined by the media.

I have similar, but lesser problems with nominating Edwards, who would have spent quite a bit of time outside of politics. It'd be easier to smear him as being a "light weight".

[AverageJoe]

6. I would be fine with any truly viable candidate, Kerry included

However, Kerry scares me. I have to admit that I'm still smarting from his quick acquiescence to Bush's electoral fraud. Do you think he would be a fighter next time?

I'm not trying to anger any Kerry supporters. This is a serious issue, though, as far as I'm concerned.

[pauliedee]

149. Kerry still fighting hard for us

Kerry is still fighting hard for us. He is involved in the election reform bill that Boxer and Conyers started. Kerry a GREAT leader who'll fight the repugs to the death. He's been in Bush's face since the election and is still the best choice for 2008.

[OneBlueSky]

7. had his chance . . . blew it . . . end of story . . . n/t

.

[ladjf]

9. I wasn't OK the first time but like many others had no choice.

I'd like to think that Democrats would be smart enough to nominate a better candidate next time.

[amber dog democrat]

15. I am with you

we need a real candidate this time who can stand up to these weasels.
No more of the centrist - appeal to everyone - moderate stances.

[ladjf]

25. I'm also praying the we don't nominate Mrs. Clinton

as I feel that she puts her personal ambitions ahead of the Country's best interest. I felt that she and her husband preferred a Democrat loss in 2004 to pave the way for her election in 2008. Who knows?
Us peons don't have inside information. We just have to guess.

[HeatherG.]

30. I'm Worried Clinton Might Get It

I don't think she can win in the general election. Sometimes, I wonder if I might just be projecting my own feelings onto others. I think she comes off kind of phony, so I imagine that other people would find her phony also, and end up rejecting her.

[ladjf]

31. I had the feeling that she was a phony,

even during the time that I was very high on the Clinton administration. In other words, although I was firmly supporting her husband and thought the she was a very competent person (and she still is) , I couldn't overcome my negative reactions whenever I heard her speak.

[pauliedee]

152. She's is phony and has got a fake laugh

[amber dog democrat]

192. She can't win. Never in a million years

There is this edge to her that feels false. I do NOT get it. Why would she even be considered as a candidate ? Let her start acting for the good of the nation and not her own personal interests and then we'll see if she is worthy of support.

[pauliedee]

150. I agree Clinton is a bad choice

[amber dog democrat]

189. She would be a terrible candidate.

I'd NEVER support her. Just her stance on this debacle in Iraq is enough to justify writing her off forever. I'd take Prescott Bush over her any day.

[HeatherG.]

28. Real Candidate

I am not sure a candidate like that exists. At least, not one who has a chance of winning the general election. Are you thinking of anyone in particular?

[amber dog democrat]

190. I am thinking of Dennis Kucinich

At this point I am not looking for someone that can win at all costs.
I want a LIBERAL who has moral and ethical principles. If we are going to go down yet again against the forces of privelledge and corrupt corporate vested interests I want to support some who will stand up against them.

Who in their right mind would want that job?

[Discord]

198. unfortunately....

without the "win at all costs" mentality. You simply can't win.

[Goldeneye]

10. I'd vote for Kerry again.

[pauliedee]

151. Me too!!! JK is a hero

Anytime, any place I still got his back!

[bowens43]

12. Kerry had his shot and he blew it.

[pauliedee]

158. Kerry almost overcame huge disadvantages

He deserves credit....no other dem would have come close...Gore squandered his incumbency while Kerry almost overcame huge disadvantages aganst wartime incumbent

[carnie_sf]

13. Wes Clark in '08 nt

[Poppyseedman]

14. Kerry is the face of the a lost election.

It's time for new blood.

He also will have the same record to beat up on in 2008 as in 2004.

His voting record is all over the place, as in most senators voting records are, easily made to look like anything you want to.

Kerry in retrospect is a great Senator, but a lousy candidate.

The Newsweek article on his 2004 campaign was quite revealing. His wife was not a asset. She may be an independent women, but a lot of Americans still like their first ladies to be a little less brash.

Time to move on.

Throwing Kerry up to run is like bringing Vinnie Testaverte on to be your QB. You may win a few, but you ain't going to the Super Bowl

[LittleClarkie]

49. Ah, yes, fresh meat to smear

It's a 50/50 proposition. Newbies are not magical, just new.

Kerry is also the face of a Senator who is still active and in the public eye at times. It all depends on what he does between then and now.

[smoogatz]

16. Kerry voted wrong three times on Iraq.

First he voted against Gulf War I. Then he voted FOR Bush's Iraq invasion. Then he voted AGAINST body armor for the troops. His explanations for all three votes are so parsed and lawyerly that they sound, to a lot of voters, like what the definition of "is" is. We need a plain-spoken progressive with a voting record that's consistent with his/her stated positions. Like Russ Feingold, for example. He voted right on Iraq, the supplemental, AND the Patriot Act. He also voted against NAFTA, and actually seems to care about whether Americans have decent jobs. He's a guy who never lets politics trump principle--sometimes I'm not sure Kerry sees the difference.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. I'd argue that perhaps he voted correctly on the first gulf war

But definately not on the second one and although there was merit in trying to hold the administration accountable for their actions, voting against the $87 billion when you're running for president is just stupid. It's MUCH easier to deal with halliburton's overbilling and wasting money when YOU are the POTUS as opposed to when you are one of 13 dissenting senators on a bill giving supplemental funds to the war effort.

[smoogatz]

37. You could make that case

if you believed that there was no appropriate use for the military other than national defense. Or if you believed that the Kuwaitis had it coming. But given the breadth of the coalition Bush the Puker put together, it was a hard war to vote against without looking out of step with the rest of the world.

[paulk]

52. it was a hard war to vote against

yet the Gulf War Resolution was approved by a margin of only five votes, 52-47. So I guess 47 US Senators were out of step with the rest of the world....

[smoogatz]

75. In retrospect,

yes. Even though Bush hyped a lot of fake "atrocities" in the run-up to the war--it was ultimately the right thing to do, both from a strategic and an ideological point of view. They were right, too, not to go into Baghdad at the end. They knew what would happen.

[pauliedee]

153. He did

[pauliedee]

264. vote correctly

[zulchzulu]

50. Let me parse this usual litany of lies about Kerry

Yes, Kerry voted against the first Gulf War. He wanted more time to get a greater UN faction to go to Iraq. He knew that if Saddam dared try to invade Saudi Arabia, he would be nuclear dust in seconds.

Secondly, Kerry voted for the UN to continue inspections in Iraq for WMDs and also have a much stronger and more diverse UN coalition to disarm Saddam as a last resort if that was needed. If Kerry was President, we would NOT be in Iraq since his policy of finding WMDs in Iraq before making any move would have shown that the UN would have done its job.

Thirdly, the votes (there were two) on the supplemental $80 million were this: Kerry voted for the supplemental IF the tax break for the top 1% was to be retracted and then he voted for against the supplemental because the Repugs wanted the tax break to stay. It's not that hard to figure out if you do some homework...

As for the Patriot Act, while only Russ Feingold voted against it, Kerry made sure there were sunset laws placed in the Act and he has voted against any other new versions to come. The vote at that time was in a time of panic from 9/11 paranoia.

Kerry's votes are very principled and consistent if you actually analyze his votes and not drink the Karl Rove Koolaid Talking Points.

[smoogatz]

61. A mighty big "if"

in that last sentence of yours. It's asking the American people to look past appearances, which is something most of us aren't trained to do. Kerry's voting record on Iraq appeared to contradict his implied anti-war positioning. I'd have preferred a candidate who, like Feingold, had voted less ambiguously. If you're defending yourself in a campaign, you're losing. Kerry was in a defensive crouch from the get-go.

[zulchzulu]

76. Yes, the "If" does come into question....

If you don't do your homework on the issues and make up your mind for yourself over Karl Rove talking points, then you're misinformed.

As for Russ, I've met the man a number of times personally and would gladly be willing to help him out in 2008.

Who knows...2008 is a long way from here.

[smoogatz]

81. Only a small minority

Actually do that homework. Appearances count. And frankly, Kerry made a pretty weak case for those votes, however principled they might have been. Remember "I voted for it before I voted against it"? Whoever the Democrats run, they'll have to figure out how to get around Rove, or an equally ruthless clone of Rove. Kerry failed in '04; what makes anyone think he'd do better in '08? I mean really--he was running against the weakest incumbent since Hoover. He should've won by a landslide.

[zulchzulu]

129. Nah nah nah nah nah nah...i don't want to learn...nah nah nah nah...

I explained the reasons behind your ever-so-tired misconceptions about Kerry's votes...you don't want listen...just want to sound like an old tired broken record...

Whatever. You have your Karl Rove points well memorized. Good for you, cupcake.

Essentially, your "propositions" about how Kerry should have won possibly don't even bring into mind that he actually DID win.

Further, your typical assumptions in your first remarks proved to me that you were either still bitter about your own candidate you backed in the primaries losing handily and you still feel the need to diss Kerry or you're essentially too politically lazy for my tastes to have a real discussion on the issues. Or both.

Yeah, probably both.

[Laurab]

135. Thanks, Zulch

I noticed the Rove points myself, and was just about to post something about it. So much talk of flip-flopping, and "I voted for it before I voted against it". Rove is a master.

I believe Kerry actually did win, as well, although I also see on here quite frequently what a "loser" he is. With friends like that...

Anyway, I can't get to thinking about '08 yet - and maybe never if major election reform doesn't take place. I can say that Kerry has done nothing to discourage me from voting for him. I think he was an excellent candidate, and would have made a very good, maybe even exceptional, President. Today, I would vote for Kerry in a heartbeat. In '08, who knows? So much can happen, and so much needs to happen, that any talk of '08 is premature.

[saracat]

204. How do you know he didn't?

Have you gotten access to the voting machines?

[MISSDem]

287. Actually, Bush should have won in a landslide, but he did not.

Kerry almost won! Don't you see that?

[ginnyinWI]

62. also, on your second point:

Rewind the tape a little further back: John Kerry (or Gore, for that matter) would not have gone into Iraq because he wouldn't have been looking to find an excuse for invading a country and occupying it in order to control access to its oil, and in order to make huge profits for corporate America. This was and is the true agenda with BushCo. So he wouldn't have been pressing the CIA for intelligence on Iraq in the first place, and there wouldn't even have been a case made about WMDs.

[quiet.american]

17. If it came down to it, likely to vote for Edwards in 08 over Kerry. n/t

[pauliedee]

154. Kerry is strongest democrat

[LeftCoast]

251. If that's true, then we are truly doomed

I think Kerry would have made a fine President, but he was an awful candidate. Yes, he had bad ol' Karl Rove smearing him and that's not fair or right, but any candidate is going to have to deal with that or lose. Kerry lost. (And please don't start on me about how he really won, because if that's the case, then this whole thread is pointless).

I want a candidate who can answer a damned question without prevaricating it to death. Over and over again, I would listen to Kerry and he would spin and dodge and basically not answer the question. That is not good enough. Kerry is a good man, but I do not support him for '08.

[BrainRants]

18. How about Gore / Kerry?

Grasping?

[lojasmo]

72. How about Gore but NOT Kerry? EOM

[pauliedee]

155. Kerry a better choice and a GREAT leader

[leftofthedial]

19. some people never learn

while we're on the subject, maybe Neville Chamberlain could run for British PM.

[HeatherG.]

22. Running Kerry Again

All our problems are not going to go away just because we nominate a different person. A new nominee just means new problems. We already know what Kerry's percieved problems are. The flip-flop charge would probably be less stinging the next time around. There was nothing really wrong with Gore. There was nothing really wrong with Kerry. It doesn't matter how squeaky clean the canditate is. The republicans will invent character flaws if the candidate doesn't reveal any obvious ones on his/her own. Also, with a good portion of the public being scared, they might feel more comfortable voting for someone they are already familiar with.

[leftofthedial]

27. I no longer trust Kerry

This is a class war, not a contest between opposing parties.

Kerry is part of and represents the interests of the other class. He has more in common with the little bushturd than he does with me.

He'd rather lose than challenge the status quo.

[karynnj]

39. Kerry's actions all his life are nearly the opposite of Bush's

They were both born to privileged families, but Kerry's family was not wealthy. His dad was a diplomat. The values Kerry espoused from a young age were what lead him to serve his country. Bush dismisses everything in his life up to age 40, as "when I was young and irresponsible", which actually may be the most positive take on that part of his life possible.

Kerry by age 40 had:
- excelled as a debater, athlete and student at St. Paul's and Yale
- become a highly decorated war hero, who earned medals while keeping his men comparatively safe
- In 1970 abandoned a first run for congress and work on Father Drinan's successful campaign for Congress
- became a principled advocate of ending a failed war and of veterans who were not getting the treatment they deserved. He impressed Senators with his eloquence and thoughtful testimony.
- as an anti-war spokesman he was a RARE moderate voice urging working through the system at a time the anti-war movement was becoming more violent. (All the while being followed by the FBI)
- Made an unsuccessful run for Congress during which he and his family were subjected to an intense dirty tricks campaign and an intense amount of harassment.
- After pulling his life back together, he attended and graduated from law school
-He became a prosecutor and was about a year later put in charge of the office by the DA. He is credited with doing a spectacular job in modernizing the office and creating innovative programs such as MA's first rape counseling dept.
-He worked as a successful lawyer
-With a friend he started a successful business selling cookies and muffins
- He became Lt Gov

Now, tell me what the similarity is - they seem almost opposites to me.

[leftofthedial]

43. they are opposite people

but they both represent the oligarchical status quo

I never said they were the same. I said they represent the same class. Regardless of Kerry's UMC roots, he is now unequivocally a member of the wealthy class.

[karynnj]

57. Just because he is wealthy all his values changed overnight!

Kerry was not super wealthy until he married Teresa - even then it is not his money. Did Kerry lose all of his values the day he and Teresa married? The issues he espoused in the campaign were not for the top 1%. You are either attempting to ignore his record or just being silly. If they divorce would you welcome him back, as he then would be only moderately wealthy (and presumably much sadder)?

Ignoring Kerry, Kennedy who is one of the most consistent Liberals in the country has been wealthy all his life has not stood with the wealthy in this country.

[leftofthedial]

78. I didn't believe it either until November 2004

He's either the worst campaigner in history (in which case it would be a mistake to back him again)

or he was complicit with the post-coup RW cabal (in which case it would be a mistake to back him again)

Kerry needed Edwards to give the appearance of any labor agenda whatsoever.

[saracat]

205. So Edwards was in on this too? Unbelievable!

[ginnyinWI]

64. There are two kinds of wealthy people

One kind just exists to perpetuate its own wealth and power. They don't care who they step on while doing so. The Bush Dynasty is a good example.

The other kind has a value of "noblesse-oblige", meaning that those to whom more is given have the responsibility to give more back. The Kennedys are a good example of this--Joe Kennedy's kids were raised believing they should give back. ("Ask not what your country can do for you....") Modern examples include Ted Turner, Bill Gates, and some of the more successful Hollywood actors. Many of the wealthy who believe in helping the less fortunate or going into public service started out in the middle class, others had it instilled in them by their families.

John Kerry's mom was from a blueblood family but without money. She brought him the value of service. His dad was a veteran and then diplomat, and he gave him the values of hard work and high ideals.
So I strongly disagree with the characterization of him as just another self-serving rich dude. Even if he had started out that way, which he did not, his experiences while in the Navy really taught him about being an everyday, ordinary person.

[leftofthedial]

79. He's not self serving. I never said that

I said he serves his class and the status quo.

He'd rather lose to Bush than challenge the underpinnings of the Murkan oligarchy.

[karynnj]

96. Even Kerry's politeness and respect for the Presidency

can not hide his intense dislike of Bush. He has fought the people in that administration for most of his adult life. Kerry looked devastated on Nov 3. He most certainly did not want to let Bush win.

[Patchuli]

142. Kerry Kookies? Kool!!!

I'd vote for him again. And I bet he'd win, again...

[seito]

20. I would be proud to support Kerry again n/t

[pauliedee]

159. I still got John Kerry's back!!!

[DulceDecorum]

23. Anyone with Quinn Gillespie ties

is not worth voting for.

Heck,
thanks to Diebold,
VOTING isn't worth voting for.

[Padraig18]

24. He didn't fight

Even his running mate wanted to fight like a wounded animal. If he'd just fought a LITTLE bit, I could have supported him again. As it is, no way, unless he wins the nomination again.

[karynnj]

55. If Edwards would have wanted to HE could have fought it

his name was on the ballot so he was an interested party. I would assume that he saw the same information that Kerry and the campaign saw. I did not hear much if any difference in aggressiveness in their respective Nov 3 speeches - when Edwards spoke on Nov 2, there was less information and it was premature. They did not have proof needed and would have destroyed themselves and anyone who publicly backed them if they continued fighting after it seemed apparent to people looking at the vote count that they were far behind.

After 2000, it was public knowledge that people in the inner cities were more likely to be disenfranchised. The local Democrats everywhere should have been working this issue. From what was written then, part of the problem is that in most cities, there is a shortage of money, which leads to making choices between various needs. If you were a councilman or mayor,would you cut money from say an after school program to put money in a fund to fix or increase voting machines? Elections are run at the state (and to some degree local) level. The Democratic party will end up losing votes and potential votes until this is fixed. (And this does even address paper trail less voting - just the normal disenfranchisement.)

The candidate can not be blamed for running the elections. Many things in the campaign should have been or were under Kerry's control, but he can't be doing everything.

[tjdee]

69. Right.

Why would Edwards fight for Kerry if Kerry wouldn't fight for Kerry?

As it was, Edwards' wife was dealing with cancer at the time and he STILL wanted to fight. Kerry....I don't know WTF was going on there.

How much election reform legislation did he sponsor between 2000 and 2004? (Actually I'd be interested in that info)


Kerry would have destroyed himself by....going back to the Senate like he did anyway? What political danger were they in? Edwards already had no senate seat....

[karynnj]

83. To most of the country the results did not look ambiguous

Imagine if Nov 3 came and went with no concession - the official Ohio results showed Bush ahead by about 150,000 (?), the national numbers showed Bush ahead by about 3 million. Nov 4 comes, Nov 5 ...
How long would it be before Bush and the Republicans would simply declare themselves the winners and savage the Democrats' behavior as irrational and unAmerican and "we're a nation at war"?

The numbers were such that the likelihood of finding a Kerry win were extremely low. Some things like suppression by long lines which occurred can't be turned into more votes. Before a recount would even begin, every elected Democratic figure would probably be pushed by the Republicans and the media to take a stand. How many would in the face of derision and hatred have stood with Kerry? Who would be the first Democrat to denounce Kerry? Lieberman? either Clinton?, Biden?, All of them together? The party would likely have either splintered or been forced to repudiate Kerry.

Look at any MSM newspaper, more of them talked of a decisive win then of a close election.

[LittleClarkie]

112. With Bush and Co making sure there was a major battle in the works

for right after the election.

Maybe that figured in too. He couldn't stomach the idea of fighting and tearing the country apart while meanwhile Bush is calling him unAmerican and fixin' to wage more war. What a nightmare scenario.

[DemDogs]

225. Nov 3 speeches VERY different

Edwards never said they had lost. I don't know where to get a copy of the text, but he never used concession language. He had fought Kerry THAT day about conceding. Kerry did not come out on the second; Edwards did and said every vote would be counted.



As for the continued nonsense that Edwards could have done, as the second name on the ticket, what the first name on the ticket wouldn't do, you just aren't thinking this through. Imagine you are the judge in such a case. Isn't your first question, where is Senator Kerry on this? And Kerry had decided NOT to fight it. And as to whether he saw the same information Kerry saw, you don't know and I don't know whether he did. I know he went from the November 3 speech to Mass General with his wife.

You don't blame Kerry, but somehow you blame Edwards? Get a grip on reality.

[karynnj]

234. nowhere did I say I blame Edwards

Just thst I don"t think their stands on nov 3 were as different as you say

[FromTheLeft]

26. Why not worry about 06 for now? n/t

[CindyDale]

29. He is already tainted in the eyes of many

by the Swiftboat liars, and anyway, he lost an election already.

[HeatherG.]

32. Swiftboat Liars

I don't like the Swift Boat Liars controlling who gets to be president. Most of the charges have been shown to be false. The media didn't do it's job. They didn't investigate the claims. People like Bob Sommerby of the dailyhowler had to do their job for them. The print media is more aware of the falsity of the charges than the tv news readers, and tv pundits. The media just invited these guys on and allowed them to say whatever they wanted without rebuttal. They didn't bother to educate themselves. If the media was made aware of how they were duped they would be likely to treat the SBVFT with less respect the next time around. Then again, maybe not, they don't seem to have any pride.

[sendero]

34. Me...

... as I've said 100 times here. Why should Kerry get another chance?

I had to sit here and listen to 1,000 deludinoids telling me he was "working behind the scenes" on the obvious election fraud in Ohio. I "knew" in my heart we wasn't going to do or say much of anything and he proved me right.

He was the one person in a position to do something about it and he was more worried about his chances in 2008 than he was about the obvious problems we had then.

I don't want him for president. He's a fine senator, let's leave him there where he is reasonably effective.

[Jo March]

245. sendero, I humbly disagree - K/E is still fighting "behind the scenes"

Read this article by Will Pitt: http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/2/24/183243/756

Kerry has never given up on working against election fraud. It does take time. If Kerry really didn't care about anything except his chances in 2008, then why file any motions now? Just to make himself look good? I don't think so.

I don't think that Kerry knew the extent of the fraud until later. When he learned about it, he joined the fight. He didn't get the press that he should have but then again, what do you expect from the MSM?

I guess, though, that I am one of the "deludinoids" of which you speak.

[ShoutingSilent]

35. No way! I wanna win for a change!!!!!!

[LittleClarkie]

48. Then why not pick a candidate with some experience nationally?

Why reinvent the wheel each time with a candidate who's never done this kind of campaigning before.

Personally, with a better organization behind him, I think Kerry could be quite good. It's all PR baby.

I don't believe in the eternal "fresh face" concept as the key to winning. It's just a new face to smear. Gore, Kerry and Clinton are pre-smeared (like prewashed, in a way). What more can be done to them? Any more will be old news next time.

That said, they will get the same chance as anyone to run, I'm sure. It depends what each does between then and now, plus whoever want to jump in.

[ginnyinWI]

66. "pre-smeared" LOL!

You make a good point. They'd have to come up with a NEW smear in order to satisfy the cable news pundits. And you can only do it so many times before it gets really transparent what you are doing. You start looking like you are frantically throwing mud to see what sticks.

[ginnyinWI]

38. I'd love to vote for Kerry again, and work for his campaign

But one thing he'll need: he'll need to show evidence of election fraud, and that he should have won in 2004. That will be his main justification to the voters on why he should be elected again.

Because like a lot of people on DU, many voters will say that he had a chance and the people didn't want him. That's bullshit. They did want him, did vote for him.

Now, the Democrats ALWAYS lose many votes through some voter suppression and some election corruption. I think a lot of people understand this. But I think there was significantly MORE this time, and it needs to be exposed, and with it the true agenda of the GOP.

We need to show election fraud + media control + their smear tactics to everyone, all the time. Keep talking about it to everyone you can--it's one of our main hopes to win back the WH for Democrats in 2008.

[pauliedee]

160. I got Kerry's back all the way in 2008

[cestpaspossible]

41. Premature speculation

I'm more focused on 2006 at this point.

[Demi_Babe]

42. Kerry is fine by me...I'd vote for him again in a heart beat

[politicasista]

44. Yes, let's nominate someone who believes what we believe in

just poo poo our past nominees. :cry: :cry:

[RunningFromCongress]

45. I don't see a real problem, but he'd be 64....72 when out of office...

[pauliedee]

161. Kerry still strong

he's in fighting shape. Remember how he stared down boy George in the first debate? Boy George was clearly intimidated and rightfully so. He got headslapped all night!

[CWebster]

46. Because he already lost against the worst president we ever had

How much worse could it possibly be?

[karynnj]

85. The country as a whole has been slow to label GWB as bad

For reasons I can't identify with about half of this country really did rally around Bush after 911 and are incredibly willing to forgive him anything and hold him accountable for nothing. I personally can't understand it and was in the tiny percent that wondered why so many really smart aware people were willing to suspend disbelieve and accept that Bush was a good strong leader.

What's weird is that I went to see Jonathan Larson's "Tick Tock Boom", written during the Bush I time, at an off-Broadway show less than a month after 911. We were less than a mile from the Trade Center site with police cars speeding down west street about 6 at a time with sirens blaring. Still when the main character in describing his discontent with living in a mediocre time came to the line "and George Bush is President" - there was about a second or 2 pause, then thunderous laughter. NYC was being NYC - one month after 911, but the rest of the country was still whining.

I think the only chance we would have had was if the media had given Kerry (or anyone else nominated) enough unfiltered coverage that people could feel they knew him and trusted him.

[LittleClarkie]

47. It will all depend on what he does between now and then

If he keeps up his current pace, I would hope he could get a second chance. I would work for him again, for sure.

I even have a "Support Kerry 08" bracelet on. Blue, so it serves a dual purpose of announcing me as a Dem as well.

If he can maintain his "defacto leader of the Dems" status, oppose Bush like a fiend, and get some of his initiatives through, he might have a chance.

The more he is visible, and the more people realize he was right alot, and the more they get buyer's remorse, the better, regardless. It helps that he is still a Senator.

But John Kerry isn't even talking 08. Can we get through 06 first? They in Mass. have to get Romney out and Kennedy re-elected first. Above all, it's nice to know Kerry knows how to use a calendar.

Also, Kerry will have to decide between Senate seat and President. I don't know if he can have both campaigns. Depends on who threatens to oppose him.

[tokenlib]

51. Honestly??

I'm going to go out on a limb to say this. Come 2008 there is NO WAY we will nominate someone from the Northeast. Yes, that includes Hillary. If we open ourselves up to the "northeast liberal" charge--true or more likely untrue--I'll be surprised. Yes this is silly and unfair--but I think it may be wise.

We will bow to geographical considerations--and I assert we would be foolish not to. We will seek a nominee from the Midwest or South.

But then that is what I thought we'd do in 2004.

Now, back to 2006!!

[cidliz2004]

53. Kerry FOLDED when he could have fought for our voting rights

and he did so at LIGHTENING SPEED. I will NEVER forgive him for GIVING UP ON US AND FOR US S O E A S I L Y !

Have you ever heard of being Betrayed or how about Abandonment?

I want to support somebody who actually means what they say AND isn't beholdin to any Washington Insider Groups/Connections.

[politicasista]

58. Why don't you write him a letter and tell him how you really feel?

Stop hating on Kerry!

[cidliz2004]

73. It isn't hate, it is common sense and logic

When the going gets tough, the tough get going

When the going got (apparently) tough, Kerry backed out to save his political but. Many Many politicians would do just the same (no surprise here). The point is not hate, but many many people that voted for Kerry, this time around, did so, when they either, "held their noses" or did so, just to get rid of Bush and last but not least, did so, because they chose the "less of two evils" THOSE are the MAJORITY of people that voted for Kerry. Kerry will not (easily, if at all) get their support again. Kerry didn't really have their (heart and soul) support to begin with, they GAVE HIM THE GIFT of their support to which he gladly accepted, used, then set aside, as in folding, instead of playing out the hand and RETURNING some of that GIFT to his supporters.

This is not hate, it is practicality AND now knowing what we now know, we realize that Kerry will only go as far for us as is good for his political career. We need a leader, not a self serving Politician and if the DLC doesn't recognize this, 08' will have LESS Democrats, more Independents and another Republican in office. Face Facts.

[karynnj]

87. When the going gets tough, the tough get going

Now wasn't this a Nixon administration saying????

Kerry is being a leader - putting out and promoting military/veterans rights proposals and health care proposals. He clearly cares about these issues and seems to be lobbying for these things in clear, populous terms. This can work on two levels - if he can push any part of these through it will benefit people who deserve help. If he gets people behind his ideas and is still unsuccessful in pushing the Republicans to do something, it can help define the Democratic party in 2006.

Would that and other actions make him a candidate for 2008? He himself will decide if he's a candidate. Whether he gets a large amount of support will depend on how he is viewed, how others are viewed and what the perceived needs of the country are. At this point any positive, creative actions taken by any Democrat who may or not run, should be supported if it seems sensible and productive.

[cidliz2004]

90. I don't care who originated it or used it, if it applies, it applies

Voting Fraud could have been an issue that Kerry could have addressed - if our votes aren't being legitimately counted, what chance does our Democracy really have? He had the limelight, blood sweat and tears of many supporters and the side of right going for him, as a leader I expected him to address the most pressing issue as it arose ELECTION FRAUD. But he chose to walk away, let it prevail and start over again From a different angle. Not my kind of leader. When an issue presents itself at such a critical time in our history - deserving leaders don't turn a blind eye to them and cripple us.

[Jo March]

246. I so disagree, cidliz2004

He conceded based on what he thought at the time. After being presented with evidence of election fraud, he joined the fight. He is still in the fight. Read Will Pitt's article: http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/2/24/183243/756

I don't think that we were betrayed or abandoned. If he was really beholden to "Washington Insider Groups/Connections", then he would have voted for Rice and he wouldn't be kicking up dust now with his work for national health care for children, benefits for vets or against the rape of SS.

He is fighting for our voting rights. Please do not assume that just because you don't hear about it on the news that it is not so. Check out the 2004 Election Results and Discussion forum and you will see who is fighting for election reform.

[FreedomAngel82]

54. Even though it's too early

to think about 2008 if Kerry did run again and made it through the primaries I'd definietly vote. Whoever makes it through I'll support. And like someone else said: who knows what could happen from here on out.

[JerseygirlCT]

56. I'd be fine with it; I was a Kerry supporter all along

however, I'd sure like to see some big, loud, outspoken opposition in the years before that. I want him to be in Bush's face at every opportunity. No playing it safe. I want to see someone willing to really fight for the WH.

He's got the opportunity in these next few years to do that -- I hope it happens.

[pauliedee]

162. Kerry still in Bush's face / fighting hard for us

I got his back in 08

[politicasista]

59. Nobody wants him to run again

He's a loser and coward. :cry: :cry: :cry:

[Totally Committed]

60. Amen.

[NYCGirl]

65. LOL! I don't think the person who posted that wanted agreement. NT

[ginnyinWI]

68. no--lol--it was sarcasm! n/t

[cidliz2004]

74. What is your position?

I am not getting your stance, your posts are confusing me.

[tjdee]

63. Fuck no. Pardon, FUCK NO.

Did any of you people see the last gubernatorial elections in Florida and California?

After both, I thought (and I probably came here and posted) that after Arnie's victory it should be CRYSTAL clear what Americans are going to vote for.

But the Dems went ahead and nominated Boring McBoringster because he had SO much experience and blah blah blah blah. And I believe he won, but he's so friggin' milquetoast that *he* didn't even care and conceded in a day. That worked out really well, didn't it?

And Kerry can tell his sob story about "waah, the media didn't cover me" to someone else, because the job of his communication team was to find a way around that. They get paid enough, what the fuck did they even do?

[karynnj]

89. Milquetoast? Boring?

Did you investigate a terrorist bank and help provide information used to close it down?

Did you take on the paranoid Nixon administration while remaining polite enough to convince many main stream Americans that Vietnam was wrong?

Did you risk ridicule and worse pursuing an investigation into drugs coming into America with the Contras, because you saw what it did to kids while you were a prosecutor and because you didn't like illegal covert wars?

Did you lead an effort to investigate the POW/MIA mess, knowing it was a likely hornets' nest? Convincing the Vietnamese to allow you to look anywhere without prior permission, even in tunnels under Ho Chi Ming's tomb.

Were you a prosecutor who investigated and put behind bars a mob figure?


If Kerry is a boring, timid man, who is it that you support? Arnold, even after all his steroids, is not a real hero - he only plays one in the movies. Kerry doesn't have to act like a hero, he is one. Think about it: In a real life situation demanding immediate action would you want Arnold or Kerry to be there? One would not look for a script.

[NYCGirl]

91. The Kerry of today is a lot different than the Kerry of 30 years ago.

The Senate has certainly changed him. If that Kerry was running, it'd be a whole different ballgame.

[karynnj]

93. Not everything was 30 years ago

BCCI was in the 90s as was POW/MIA

[NYCGirl]

100. He's not even that John Kerry. NT

[karynnj]

101. So he gets no credit at all for the fist 30 some years of his adulthood

but gets to keep all the RW enemies he made fighting the RW. Somehow it doesn't seem fair. Which candidates do you like?

[tjdee]

103. Kerry HIMSELF made no mention of that stuff.

Why do you think that is?

[karynnj]

136. You don't win points, saying America did wrong

He did mention BCCI, though not often by name, but he talked about knowing how to roll up terrorist financing because he did it, mentioned Bin Laden was found to have funds there. His main speech on terrorism was given at the end of Sept before the first debate in Philadelphia, shortly after the NYU speech on Iraq. Neither were covered to the degree they should have been.

To mention Iran/Contra after Reagan died (and was near canonized) would not have worked well. The problem is that this is a period where the RW is controlling the media and is possibly even going to control history. Look at how the Vietnam anti-war movement is perceived. None of the idealism that was very real is seen, just the counter culture, drugs and music and, yeah war is bad.

Kerry does deserve credit from the LW for fighting battles. Although Arnold made it to the Gov mansion, what do we win if we find a LW counterpart to Arnold. I would hate to have a bad candidate in office as it could make thinks even worse.

[tjdee]

102. Arnold won. He lives at the governor's mansion.

I wasn't running for President--comparing Kerry to me is useless...

I think Kerry has done some good things (though, he didn't bring up ANY of that during the campaign. I didn't hear BCCI one time. Another mistake).

But I do think he translates poorly. He comes off, as some intelligent men do, as B-O-R-I-N-G. That was Al Gore's problem, and I was a very strong Gore supporter.

Unfortunately, there is more to electoral politics than who would do the best job. That was why I brought up Arnie and Jeb. Their opponents lost, and they were so obviously better for the job. Voters don't care. I wish Democrats would get that.

[XemaSab]

117. Ahnold actually

lives at his house in LA on the weekends, and at the hotel near the capitol on weekdays. There are 2 governor's mansions in California: a nifty gingerbread Victorian last lived in by Reagan, and a boring tract house in the burbs somewhere. Ahnold wasn't down with the tract house style.

[Kahuna]

209. The voters heard NADA about that stuff. Whenever the repukes..

said that Kerry had no senate record to run on, he said nothing. His surrogates said nothing. Not one ad about those things you cited. Why?

[LoveMiamiB]

110. Boring McBoringster. Too funny! Agree too.

[erpowers]

67. Did Not Fight Enough

My main reason for not supporting John Kerry in 2008 is that I am tired of supporting middle of the road Democrats. I want to support a Democrat like Russ Feingold who stand up for Democratic ideas. The Democratic Party needs to start presenting a real and clear alternative to the Republican Party. I think there are people in the party who can do that much more effectively.

Another reason is that I contend Kerry did not fight back hard enough. Kerry should have answered back to the criticisms of the Bush/Cheney campaign more forcefully.

[elperromagico]

70. I have no problem with it. But the same argument can be made for Gore.

I like them both, and would prefer either over Hillary.

[pauliedee]

163. Kerry stronger than Gore or Clinton

Kerry is stronger than both Gore and Clinton. Compare debate performances and notice Kerry is still in Bush's face.

[elperromagico]

194. I don't disagree at all. Kerry's debate performances far surpassed

Gore's in 2000. He's a focused, disciplined debater. There were few - if any - moments in the debates when he seemed rattled.

As much as I respect Gore, he can indeed come across as condescending. Hillary has that same tendency.

[lojasmo]

71. I'm not okay with it.

"I've got your back" and "we'll make sure every vote gets counted" was a sham.

His IWR triangulation was crap.

Patriot Act
NCLB

Yuck.

[Robeson]

77. No, absolutely not....

...and I would be redundant pointing out all the reasons that many others already have...

[sybil]

80. kerry who?

[Leilani]

82. Kerry will not be able to get the support he had in 2004

People were SO anti-Bush, they would have voted for a ham sandwich.

The grass roots supported him because they had no other choice. After the other candidates lost, their supporters joined with Kerry in a movement you don't often see. But those people for the most part, were opposing Bush.

And Kerry got the resources he needed; people donated their time & money & helped provide him with the BEST opportunity to win, but the campaign didn't do it's part.

Whether you blame the media, the Swift Boats, voter suppression, whatever, they were not prepared to overcome these challenges, which they knew about.

And what ticks me off the most is that several races, for example Mongiardo in Kentucky, could have been won with a few more dollars.
And Kerry was sitting on money he couldn't use because of the finance laws. So he tucked it away & saved it for 2008. I know a lot of people who donated & are bitter because that money was for 2004, not 2008.

So no, I won't support him in 2008. He'll be the same guy he was in 2004....very disappointing.

[cidliz2004]

92. Thanks for giving me yet ANOTHER good reason why I won't support Kerry

08', Didn't realize about the campaign funds and how they ended up hurting the other Democratic candidates that were running. That in itself should take him out of the 08' race.

[LittleClarkie]

107. With any luck

the other side won't nominate someone who makes us collectively puke, and so we won't need the support we got this time.

And if they do, y'all will vote for a ham sandwich if need be.

It's still amazing to me that there are people who love Furious George as much as we hate him. Gak.

[Leilani]

108. I think the Dems have to disregard whoever the the Repugs nominate

& outregister them, outwork them, outorganize them, & raise more money.

I think the Dems will be motivated, but I've never seen anyone polarize the country the way Bush has.

Even Nixon, at the time of his impeachment did not engender the hatred that Bush arouses. Maybe it's because in 1973 the parties were much more bipartisan, & each included people with a range of viewpoints.

[LittleClarkie]

109. Hell, I'd take Nixon over this guy

I think I'd CAMPAIGN for Nixon if that was my only other choice over Bush.

Yesiree bob, just let me dig out my "Nixon Now" button and away we go.

[XemaSab]

118. I'm representin' with the

Nixon/Agnew sticker on my fridge. It's even put out by CREEP.

[karynnj]

137. Totally agree

Also the division of power was less one sided so there were checks and balances. The Supreme Court was about as liberal as it has been and I think the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

[Still_Loves_John]

84. I think Kerry was a great candidate

and a good man. The only thing that would make me worry about him in 08 is just the stigma that comes from having lost the election before. I would definatly support him in the primary though, and would be overjoyed if he went farther.

[marcologico]

116. Yes he was and yes he will, just like last time.

Comeback Kerry won't let us down! :)

[pauliedee]

164. I got Kerry's back all the way in 2008

He fought hard for us...now we need to stay behind him. He's a threat the repugs fear

[LittleClarkie]

214. Amen and right on! I got his back, and every Dem except Zell to boot

Dem Party Back Watch on duty!

[LTRS]

86. Kerry lost the day he said he would.....

have attacked Iraq as well. And he lost again when he said he voted for the 87 billion before he voted against it.

He should have said, fuck no, I wouldn't have attacked Iraq. I would have let the inspections process play out and found out they weren't a threat instead politicizing 9/11 and using it to manipulate the American public with unfounded fears.

AND

He should have said, the REPUBLICANS voted down the 87 billion dollar funding for the war that I voted FOR. Just because I wouldn't vote for a SCHEME to send tax payer money in the form of no-bid contracts to Bush's friends instead of the armor they need doesn't make me against the troops. If anything it makes republicans against the troops.

But he and his consultants were to chicken to say that. So, no, I wouldn't want him to run in 2008. In fact, gawd forbid.

[liberalpragmatist]

111. Kerry's Iraq Speech, Sept. 20, 2004, NYU

Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and from our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists.

Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.

This month, we passed a cruel milestone: more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains overwhelmingly an American burden. Nearly 90 percent of the troops and nearly 90 percent of the casualties are American.

Despite the president's claims, this is not a grand coalition.

Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery and skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us. I visited with some of them in the hospitals and I am stunned by their commitment, by their sense of duty, their patriotism. When I speak to them, when I look into the eyes of their families, I know this: We owe them the truth about what we have asked them to do and what is still to be done.

<snip>

In June, the president declared, The Iraqi people have their country back. And just last week he told us, This country is headed toward democracy; freedom is on the march. But the administration's own official intelligence estimate, given to the president last July, tells a very different story.

According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the president is saying to the American people and so do the facts on the ground.

Security is deteriorating for us and for the Iraqis. Forty-two Americans died in Iraq in June, the month before the handover. But 54 died in July, 66 in August and already 54 halfway through September. And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August; more than in any other month since the invasion.

We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever-widening war zone. In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times; a 400 percent increase.

Fallujah, Ramadi, Samarra and parts of Iraq are now no-go zones, breeding grounds for terrorists, who are free to plot and to launch attacks against our soldiers.

The radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in suburbs of Baghdad than the prime minister.

Violence against Iraqis, from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation, is on the rise.

Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.

Yes, there has been some progress. Thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq, schools, shops and hospitals have been opened in certain places. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails.

But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to be able to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they're sitting on the fence, instead of siding with us against the insurgents.

That is the truth, the truth that the commander in chief owes to our troops and to the American people.

Now, I will say to you, it is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. But it is essential if you want to correct the course and do what's right for those troops, instead of repeating the same old mistakes over and over again.

I know this dilemma firsthand. I saw firsthand what happens when pride or arrogance take over from rational decision-making. And after serving in a war, I returned home to offer my own personal views of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it to those risking their lives to speak truth to power. And we still do.

(APPLAUSE)

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in Hell. But that was not -- that was not, in and of itself, a reason to go to war.

(APPLAUSE)

The satisfaction that we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, the president has said that he miscalculated in Iraq, and that it was a catastrophic success. MORE

(APPLAUSE)

The first and most fundamental mistake was the president's failure to tell the truth to the American people.

(APPLAUSE)

He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war, and he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens.

By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded.

(APPLAUSE)

His two main rationales, weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaida-September 11th connection, have both been proved false by the president's own weapons inspectors and by the 9/11 Commission.

And just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged those facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the Earth is flat.

(APPLAUSE)

The president also failed to level with the American people about what it would take to prevail in Iraq. He didn't tell us that well over 100,000 troops would be needed for years, not months. He didn't tell us that he wouldn't take the time to assemble a genuine, broad, strong coalition of allies. He didn't tell us that the cost would exceed $200 billion. He didn't tell us that even after paying such a heavy price, success was far from assured.

And America will pay an even heavier price for the president's lack of candor.

At home, the American people are less likely to trust this administration if it needs to summon their support to meet real and pressing threats to our security.

In the dark days of the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos as proof. De Gaulle waved him away, saying, The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me.

How many world leaders have that same trust in America's president today? This president's failure to tell the truth to us and to the world before the war has been exceeded by fundamental errors of judgment during and after the war.

The president now admits to miscalculations in Iraq. Miscalculations: This is one of the greatest underestimates in recent American history.

(APPLAUSE)

His miscalculations were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment, and judgment is what we look for a president.

(APPLAUSE)

And this is all the more stunning, because we're not talking about 20/20 hindsight, we're not talking about Monday morning quarterbacking. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bipartisan congressional hearings, major outside studies and even some in his own administration, predicted virtually every problem that we face in Iraq today.

The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible and real consequences.

The administration told us we would be greeted as liberators; they were wrong. They told us not to worry about the looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure; they were wrong. They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots; they were tragically wrong.

They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy; they were wrong. They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country, and a police force and an army to secure it; they were wrong.

In Iraq, this administration has consistently overpromised and underperformed. And this policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, by an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence.

(APPLAUSE)

And the president has held no one accountable, including himself.

In fact, the only officials -- the only officials who've lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth.

Economic adviser Larry Lindsey said it would cost as much as $200 billion. Pretty good calculation. He was fired.

After the successful entry into Baghdad, George Bush was offered help from the U.N., and he rejected it, stiff-armed them, decided to go it alone. He even prohibited nations from participating in reconstruction efforts because they weren't part of the original coalition, pushing reluctant countries even further away. And as we continue to fight this war almost alone, it is hard to estimate how costly that arrogant decision really was.

Can anyone seriously say this president has handled Iraq in a way that makes America stronger in the war on terrorism?

AUDIENCE: No!

KERRY: By any measure, by any measure, the answer is no.

Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all-time low.

Think about it for a minute. Consider where we were and where we are.

After the events of September 11th, we had an opportunity to bring our country and the world together in a legitimate struggle against terrorists. On September 12th, headlines and newspapers abroad declared that, We are all Americans now.

But through his policy in Iraq, the president squandered that moment and, rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world.

(APPLAUSE)

We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and posed no imminent threat to our security.

The president's policy in Iraq took our attention and our resources away from other more serious threats to America, threats like North Korea, which actually has weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal, and is building more right now under this president's watch; the emerging nuclear danger of Iran; the tons and kilotons of unsecured chemical and nuclear weapons in Russia; and the increasing instability in Afghanistan.

Today, warlords again control much of that country, the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all-time high and the Al Qaida leadership still plots and plans, not only there, but in 60 other nations.

Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on warlords, who one week earlier had been fighting on the other side, to go up in the mountains to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered. He slipped away.

We then diverted our focus and our forces from the hunt for those who were responsible for September 11th in order to invade Iraq.

We know now that Iraq played no part. We knew then on September 11th. And it had no operational ties to Al Qaida.

The president's policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem that he said he was trying to prevent.

Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before their war; now it is, and they are operating against our troops.

Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who could someday hit the United States of America.

And we know that while Iraq was a source of friction, it was not previously a source of serious disagreement with our allies in Europe and countries in the Muslim world.

The president's policy in Iraq divided our oldest alliance and sent our standing in the Muslim world into freefall.

Three years after 9/11, even in many moderate Muslim countries, like Jordan, Morocco and Turkey, Osama bin Laden is more popular than the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

Two years ago, Congress was right to give the president the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This president, any president, would have needed that threat of force to act effectively. This president misused that authority.

(APPLAUSE)

The power entrusted to the president purposefully gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple: We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam, disarm or be disarmed.

A month before the war, President Bush told the nation, If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail.

Instead, the president rushed to war, without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went purposefully, by choice, without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted by choice, without making sure that our troops even had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead by choice, without understanding or preparing for the consequences of postwar. None of which I would have done.

Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again the same way.

How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying to America that if we know there was no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaida, the United States should have invaded Iraq?

My answer: resoundingly, no, because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.

(APPLAUSE)

Now the president is looking for a reason, a new reason to hang his hat on -- it's the capability to acquire weapons.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, my fellow Americans, that was not the reason given to the nation, that was not the reason the Congress voted on. That is not a reason today; it is an excuse.

KERRY: Thirty-five to 40 countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade all of them?

I would have personally concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing Osama bin Laden.

(APPLAUSE)

I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein -- who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or to America.

The president's insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new, smarter direction with John Kerry that makes our troops and America safer. That's the choice.

(APPLAUSE)

It is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist on the answers from the commander in chief about his serious misjudgments and what they tell us about his administration and the president himself.

In Iraq, we have a mess on our hands. But we cannot just throw up our hands, we cannot afford to see Iraq become a permanent source of terror that will endanger America's security for years to come.

All across this country, people ask me and others, what we should do now every stop of the way. From the first time I spoke about this in the Senate, I have set out a specific set of recommendations from day one, from the first debate until this moment. I have set out specific steps of how we should not and how we should proceed.

But over and over, when this administration has been presented with a reasonable alternative, they have rejected it and gone their own way. This is stubborn incompetence.

Five months ago in Fulton, Missouri, I said that the president was close to his last chance to get it right. Every day this president makes it more difficult to deal with Iraq, harder than it was five months ago, harder than it was a year ago, a year and a half ago.

It's time to recognize what is and what is not happening in Iraq today and we must act with urgency.

Just this weekend, a leading Republican, Chuck Hagel, said that, We're in deep trouble in Iraq. It doesn't add up to a pretty picture, he said, and we're going to have to look at a recalibration of our policy.

Republican leaders like Dick Lugar and John McCain have offered similar assessments.

We need to turn the page and make a fresh start in Iraq.

First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don't have to go it alone.

Last spring, after too many months of delay, after reluctance to take the advice of so many of us, the president finally went back to the U.N., and it passed Resolution 1546. It was the right thing to do, but it was late.

That resolution calls on U.N. members to help in Iraq by providing troops, trainers for Iraq's security forces and a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission, and more financial assistance and real debt relief.

But guess what? Three months later, not a single country has answered that call, and the president acts as if it doesn't matter.

And of the 13 billion that was previously pledged to Iraq by other countries, only $1.2 billion has been delivered.

The president should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and of Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly, and he should insist that they make good on the U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific but critical roles in training Iraqi security personnel and in securing Iraqi borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, is this more difficult today? You bet it is. It's more difficult today because the president hasn't been doing it from the beginning. And I and others have repeatedly recommended this from the very beginning.

Delay has only made it harder. After insulting allies and shredding alliances, this president may not have the trust and the confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq.

But I'll tell you, we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild and lead strong alliances so that other nations share the burden with us. That is the only way to be successful in the end.

(APPLAUSE) Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces.

Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that -- claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. This is the public statement to America.

Well, guess what, America? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth.

For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained by the administration's own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one -- not one has completed a 24-week field training program.

Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces can't stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order?

The president should urgently expand the security forces' training program inside and outside of Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double the classroom training time, require the follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries.

And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers and start behaving like we really are at war.

(APPLAUSE)

Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people, all of which, may I say, should have been in the plan and immediately launched with such a ferocity that there was no doubt about America's commitment or capacity in the very first moments afterwards. But they didn't plan.

He ignored his own State Department's plan, he discarded it.

Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise the spending priorities in Iraq. It took them 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority, 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical, 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers.

(APPLAUSE)

One year ago, this administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we have to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability, and now we're paying the price for not doing that.

He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers instead of big corporations like Halliburton.

(APPLAUSE)

In fact, he should stop paying companies under fraud investigation or corruption investigation. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon who are responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.

(APPLAUSE)

Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee that the promised election can be held next year. Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly that could write a constitution and yields a viable power-sharing agreement.

Because Iraqis have no experience in holding free and fair elections, the president agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role, yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. secretary general and administration officials say elections are in grave doubt, because the security situation is so bad, and because not a single country has yet offered troops to protect the U.N. elections mission.

The president needs to tell the truth. The president needs to deal with reality, and he should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force.

Now, this is not going to be easy. I understand that.

Again, I repeat, every month that's gone by, every offer of help spurned, every alternative not taken for these past months has made this more difficult and those were this president's choices. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq ought to still be prepared to help the United Nations hold an election.

We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S. forces will end up bearing that burden alone.

If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and to train the Iraqis to provide their own security and to develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold elections next year, if all of that happened, we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring our troops home within the next four years.

That can achieved.

(APPLAUSE)

This is what has to be done. This is what I would do if I were president today. But we can't afford to wait until January and I can't tell you what I will find in Iraq on January 20th.

President Bush owes it to the American people to tell the truth and put Iraq on the right track. Even more, he owes it to our troops and their families whose sacrifice is a testament to the best of America.

The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear. We must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should have always been bearing the burden.

That's the right way to get the job done. It always was the right way to get the job done to minimize the risk to American troops and the cost to American taxpayers. And it is the right way to get our troops home.

On May 1st of last year, President Bush stood in front of a now- infamous banner that read Mission accomplished. He declared to the American people that, In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

In fact, the worst part of the war was just beginning, with the greatest number of American casualties still to come.

The president misled, miscalculated and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking and he has made the achievement of our objective -- a stable Iraq, secure within its borders, with a representative government -- far harder to achieve than it ever should have been.

(APPLAUSE)

In Iraq, this administration's record is filled with bad predictions, inaccurate cost estimates, deceptive statements and errors of judgment, presidential judgment, of historic proportions.

At every critical juncture in Iraq and in the war on terrorism, the president has made the wrong choice.

I have a plan to make America stronger.

The president often says that in a post-9/11 world we can't hesitate to act. I agree. But we should not act just for the sake of acting.

(APPLAUSE)

George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do and I have all along.

George Bush has not told the truth to the American people about why we went to war and how the war is going. I have and I will continue to do so.

I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war on terrorism. I have a plan to fight a smarter, more effective war on terror that actually makes America safer.

Today, because of George Bush's policy in Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place for America and Americans; just ask anyone who travels.

If you share my conviction that we cannot go on as we are, that we can make America stronger and safer than it is, then November 2nd is your chance to speak and to be heard.

It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing the course.

(APPLAUSE)

I am convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start, move more effectively to accomplish our goals.

Our troops have served with extraordinary courage and commitment. For their sake, for America's sake, we have to get this right. We have to do everything in our power to complete the mission and make America stronger at home and respected again in the world.

Thank you, God bless you and God bless the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you.

[XemaSab]

119. What about Poland?????

n/t

[LTRS]

165. Clue - you don't get 30 min on the evening news to spout

this stuff. If he could have diced it down to one sentance, kind of like my example, and repeated it about a thousand times over the course of the campaign he would not have lost.

Thanks for illustrating my point so well as to why he ABSOLUTELY never in a million years should be our nominee again. Politics 101 -- never use a million words to say something that can be said in one sentence.

[LittleClarkie]

261. There are good bits all through that speech

Here's a nice sound bite:

"George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do and I have all along."

Now if we had a media that was even remotely interested in giving him decent coverage maybe his message would have gotten out better.

[Silverhair]

269. He said, "I have a plan." so many times it became a laugh line. NT

[ZootSuitGringo]

88. Kerry in 2008?

Well I did vote for him in 2004.

But for me, once was enough.

This was the most important election in my lifetime. John Kerry had the money, he had the issues, he was running against the worse President ever, and still, Kerry just couldn't do it.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Please, please, please, someone tell Kerry that the next time the cameras from media are trained on him as he starts to speak, to keep the "Oscar" thank you speech for the end. One of the thing that I noticed in my distress of his coverage was that John Kerry would always spend the first 5 minutes of any speech thanking all those associated with whatever event he was doing. By the time he started talking about real substansive issues, the cameras had been turned off, and the reporters were getting into their cars ready to go cover something else.

(((((((Listen closely John Kerry)))))))if you're reading this: In the future, remember that you are not a movie star, and your stage is not the Hollywood Bowl. You are to save the thank you crap for the very end of all and any speech that you give. Capiche?

In four years, Kerry will look that much older. If he was judged uncharismatic now, the aging process will not help him in a few years. I don't want to bash, but please just know that he will not get my vote.

[HeatherG.]

104. "Oscar" Speech

I agree with you about Kerry thanking everybody. I remember wishing he would stop thanking and start selling himself to the American people before the news stations would lose interest. They have short attention spans. To us Bush is the worst president ever. But, you have to remember that much of the population has a weird emotional attachment to Bush. It causes them to not think clearly. They refuse to blame Bush for anything. The media pushes the idea that Bush is a likeable guy with good moral convictions constantly. The media promotes the idea that the democrat is unlikeable and immoral. It is not really fair to say that Kerry was a horrible candidate because he didn't beat Bush. I voted for Howard Dean in the primary, but now I believe if he had been nominated he would have done worse than Kerry. Regan was older than Kerry and he got elected. Have things changed that much since then? Now older men can't be president? I don't think Kerry looks that old. Actually, he looks a little younger than his biological age.

[Spacejet]

94. Kerry wasn't serious about winning

the fact that he went on vacation when we were working against fu**ing fascists speaks volumes. That vacation time could have been spent in Ohio.

[LeftyLizzie]

95. I'll always be a Kerry supporter

I think he's an intelligent person and a good guy with a good heart who truly cares about people - unlike a lot of politicians out there. He performed very well in the race (more votes than any other Dem. in history, etc.), and fell only a little short (if at all). I think Bush and his dirty tactics are to blame for the results, not Kerry. Kerry fought hard for us, and I think he will continue to do so - and I think he deserves a lot of respect for that.

[marcologico]

115. nicely put! (n/t)

[pauliedee]

166. I got Kerry wristbands for 2008!

[Clarkie1]

97. "someone America already knows" - that's the problem

The right wing has sucessfully defined and labeled Kerry as an elitist New England flip-flopping senator who has wanted to be president all his life and will put a finger to the wind to find the best way to achieve his goal.

Fair or not, that's the political reality.

[LittleClarkie]

99. I must say I'm encouraged

Near as I can tell, Kerry has more support now here than he did during the primary season. We've added some names since then. Cool beans.

[New Earth]

105. I would be just fine with it

in fact, I am looking forward to it. :hi: :bounce:

[earth mom]

106. Kerry! Kerry! Kerry! And NOT Clark! eom

[Crunchy Frog]

180. Clark fought harder for Kerry's victory

in this election than Kerry did. Probably because he had a better grasp of the true stakes involved. Heaven forbid that we should have a candidate who places the interests of his country ahead of his own personal ambition.:eyes:

[wisteria]

113. I'm all for Kerry running again in 2008!

This time around,as you stated, the republicans won't be able to sling much dirt around on him. They may actually be forced to discuss real issues and answers. Kerry was, and in my estimations remains, the best candidate for president. He has the experience, knowledge and drive that it takes to be a great president. John Kerry wanted to be president not just because he is ambitious,but because he really wanted to make a difference in people's lives.

[marcologico]

114. exactly! The real question is. . .

who's gonna be no. 2?

p.s. I'm okay with Edwards

[wisteria]

120. I''m not opposed to a repeat ticket.

I liked Edwards too. I do think Dean is correct when he says we need to reach the Mid-West and the South. It is a must that democrats campaign in those area next time around. I think these areas will come around if we actually campaign there. Once you get to know Kerry and Edwards you understand what great,caring people they actually are.

[marcologico]

122. Agree. Edwards has a lot of appeal so he still seems a good choice. n/t

[pauliedee]

167. Kerry strikes fear in the GOP

We should run him again in 2008 ...

[NYCGirl]

179. Yeah, they're afraid he won't run again and we might have a stronger

candidate who won't take their crap.

[marcologico]

238. You mean one who's not afraid to publicly denounce their SS reform?

Like Kerry did on Meet the Press a month ago? :eyes:

[Clarkie1]

262. Are you joking? n/t

[marcologico]

121. The people spoke in '04 and they were right:

Kerry can do it and probably did. He's all over the election scam so I expect he'll go all the way in '08.

[bunny planet]

123. I think he'd be great. And they will have nothing new to throw at him this

time. They took their best shot, it won't work again. I would be thrilled to have him run again. And I think the Republicans would be even more afraid of him the second time out then they were this time. That's why they lied through their teeth so vindictively to take him out this time around (and it didn't work because he really WON) I think Kerry/Boxer, Kerry/Clarke, or even Kerry/Edwards again would be hard to beat.

Now I'll read downthread to see how many other posters have said the scintillatingly original 'he didn't fight for us,' or ' too little, too late.' I'm sure they're will be lots of those as usual.

[pauliedee]

168. Kerry has the grit to run and win if given the chance

The repugs took their best shots at Kerry and it won't work again. I would be thrilled to have him run again. And I think the Republicans would be even more afraid of him the second time out then they were this time. That's why they lied through their teeth so vindictively to take him out this time around ( I think Kerry/Biden, Kerry/Clarke, or even Kerry/Richardson again would be hard to beat.

[XemaSab]

124. Why "Not Kerry" in '08

Kerry ran a terrible campaign. Just dreadful. Crediting the man and his campaign for the high turnout is utterly misguided. We've got the Worst President Ever. WAY worse than Nixon. People know this, and they went to the polls to try to stop Bush. I think the turnout speaks more to the amazing GOTV effort and the awfulness of Bush than it does to Kerry himself.

Kerry totally failed to outline in no uncertain terms why Bush should not be re-elected. He decided not to "go negative" against said Worst President Ever, even after said Worst President Ever went WAY, WAY, WAY negative on him over totally concocted incidents, like SBVT. He also failed to prepare himself against stuff that should have been obvious before he even decided to run, like the "Liberal from Massechussetts" tag. He had absolutely nothing to say in response to such an obvious and childish taunt.

Kerry was extra nasty in the primaries, and it may have been justified if he'd been equally nasty in the general election, but no, he just was willing to do what it took to be the nominee.

Kerry failed to differentiate himself against Bush because, in fact, they don't really disagree on much. If you look at Kerry's voting record, he voted in agreement with Bush about 70% of the time during Bush's first 3 years in office. Way too many of Kerry's debate responses were about how, while he agrees with the spirit of Bush's plan, he thinks we should have provided 3.1 billion in funding instead of Bush's totally inadequate 3 billion, and in a Kerry administration, he would work to make sure that extra .1 billion gets added. Witness NCLB, or the tax plan, or any of a number of other similar "plans."

Kerry is a member of the ruling class, and the fact that his wife bankrolled his primary candidacy highlights this. Did he get his primary money from the grassroots, like all the other candidates? No, when he ran low on funds his wife would just make out another check. The ruling class has no clue how regular people live. Remember how Bush I didn't know the price of a loaf of bread or jug of milk? Kerry has been a member of the elite long enough that I don't trust him to know how bad things are for working people in this country.

Finally, the ultimate reason why Kerry does not deserve to be the nominee in 2008 is the voter fraud.

They stole the election in 2000 outright. They may or may not have stolen it in 2004, but they sure did some shady things. Like those ENORMOUS voter lines in minority districts in Ohio. That was not an accident, and it wasn't done in secret. Why were there only one or two machines in the precincts in the hood, resulting in hours in line for blacks (likely democrats), when everywhere I've ever voted it's taken 10 minutes TOPS in line? Much of the democratic focus seems to have been on BBV, but in Florida in 2000, which was the greater source of lost votes? Faulty punch cards, butterfly ballots, OR THE SYSTEMATIC PURGING OF BLACK VOTERS AND SYSTEMATIC BLACK VOTER HARASSMENT? They did the same thing in Ohio this year, folks. And Kerry was totally silent about it before, during, and after the election.

That's why Kerry isn't getting my vote.

[marcologico]

126. The Kerry campaign fought OH voter supression all the way to the Supreme

Court, twice, BEFORE November 2.

Many people don't realize this. :)

Edit to clarify.

[pauliedee]

170. Good point

[karynnj]

134. True that GWB was worse than Nixon, but

I seem to remember that war hero George McGovern, a thoughtful, soft spoken nice Senator won only DC and Massachusetts in 1972. The Vietnam war was way more unpopular than Iraq and the US itself had not been attacked. The anti-war movement had been very big for more than 6 years, during which college campuses had had teach-ins and rallies against the war in Asia. This was actually a year and a half after Kerry spoke to the Senate and the number of people who still supported the war had fallen. The economy was just starting to go into a recession. Nixon was at least as demonized by the left as Bush is now - and as we found from the tapes we weren't paranoid, he was bad.

Compared to 1972, Kerry did exceedingly well. I would blame the DNC, the state and the local Democratic parties more than the candidate for voter fraud. In Ohio, part of the problem is that the machines were allocated by county on a bipartisan basis. In some cases they knew they had too few machines, but they didn't fix the problem.
If anything Kerry would be justified in being angry at these party functionaries. He work his heart out in the general campaign even though the deck was stacked against him media wise. If there were adequate machines in some areas and Spanish speaking helpers in another precinct where many ballots were invalidated by probably being put into the machine upside down (Note: both things the local Democrats not Kerry should have worked out), he might have won. Even if you prove these problems, you can't get those votes - Was Kerry suppose to have taken over every state's political party.

[XemaSab]

193. Oh, sorry

I wasn't aware that the election was lost due to the malfeasence of the good party workers of Ohio. Next time I'll be sure to blame the rank and file.

[CTLawGuy]

125. I have a problem with someone

-who believes that his "electability" is more important than the lives of 1600 soldiers and thousands upon thousands of Iraqis.

-who votes for an illegal war after 30 years before speaking so passionately and bravely against a similar illegal war.

-who says that knowing what he knew now, about the lack of WMD, about the 1600 dead soldiers, about the utter quagmire nature of the war, he would have voted for it all over again.

[marcologico]

127. Fortunately, Kerry is not that someone.

It's easy to forget that Kerry began calling for Rumsfeld's resignation last May 3 and still is. :)

p.s. You can sign his petition here: http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rumsfeld2.php

edit to add link.

[marcologico]

128. p.s. I'm just trying to say there's a lot of disinformation out there :)

[CTLawGuy]

133. oh yes he is that someone

Im waiting to hear his apology for his yes vote on the IWR.

I once saw a video that showed Kerry testifying before the US Senate about the horror that was the Vietnam War.

I couldn't watch it very long, knowing that man would, 30 years later, vote for a similar horrible war, all because he was running for president.

What would Kerry of 1971 say about the Kerry of 2002?

[marcologico]

140. Why should he apologize?

Your state doesn't apologize every time somebody crashes a car while driving with a state-issued driver's licence, does it?

Kerry didn't vote to go to war. He voted to give Bush the authority to use force, which Bush abused. The responsibility for Iraq lies entirely with the Bush administration, not with Kerry.

[CTLawGuy]

181. Kerry, as a member of Congress,

is responsible for making sure our country only goes to war when it absolutely must.

The Constitution in Art. I, Section 8 gives Congress the sole power to declare war. It gives the president only the power to execute the war when Congress gives the go-ahead.

But the president cannot decide when we go to war, why else would he seek a Congressional "use-of-force resolution"?

With Tom Daschle in control of the senate in Oct. 2002, he and the Democrats could have killed the IWR, and possibly prevented or curtailed the war, but they didn't. They didn't because they were afraid of losing the impending elections (which they did anyway). Bush intentionally foisted this vote on them at that time to take advantage of that fear.


The point is, it was irresponsible for Kerry to vote to allow Bush to go to war. Many, many democrats bravely stood up against Bush and his flimsy case for war. It's a shame our candidate wasn't one of them.

I was actually very open to Kerry until that vote happened. After that moment I knew I had to support someone who was opposed to the war.

[karynnj]

186. In reality the last war declared by Congress was WWII

I do think that the Democrats should have all gotten behind Lugar/Biden which was a better bill which Kerry did support. (With all the D and at least Lugar they could have.) When this didn't happen, it put the Democrats in an impossible position.

[CTLawGuy]

187. I agree

they should have gotten behind B-L. That at least restricts bush's warring to getting rid of WMD.

But barring B-L, they still have a responsibility to oppose a terrible resolution such as IWR.

[karynnj]

174. The IWR was a vote to support Bush going to the UN

and pressuring Saddam to let the inspectors back in. After the first gulf war the inspectors found more stuff than expected. There was a reason to get the inspectors back in and make sure there were no WMD. Kerry did say many times that he would not have gone to war.
He had to know that voting as he did was more likely to cost him the nomination as opposed to helping him.

Anyway, here's my best guess on Kerry(1971) and Kerry(2002-5). I think at heart they are the same moral, thoughtful man who genuinely does care for the troops. I think Kerry(1971) was not as much of a pacifist as people thought he was and Kerry (2002-5) if he would have been President would not have gone to war. The closest parallel is that he is like a Senator tricked by a lying President into voting for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

I think that the Kerry of 1971 was very much for international diplomacy - Yale speech, Tour of Duty etc. He would probably have understood his older counterpart in the summer of 2002 arguing (against a President whom he could not stop) that it was important to not go to war unilaterally and without consultation with congress - there is a NYT Sept 2002 Kerry op-ed. When the President and Powell then went to congress asking their backing to go to the UN and insist on getting inspectors back in, the Senators had a hard time. Kerry preferred a Lugar/Biden bill that required the President to come back to Congress before going to war, but it lost. The choice was to support the President going to the UN to get the inspector's back in or to not support the President going to the UN to deal with a supposed troublemaker. For all the Democrats, it was a terrible vote. For Kerry, he was boxed in. Even if that resolution failed Bush, who already had troops in the Gulf could have and would have gone to war. Even Bush stated then that a vote for the IWR did not necessarily mean war.

Where the Kerry of 1971 might have a problem is with the Kerry of 2005 - but the problem would be similar to the problem he had with the Senators of the Foreign Relations committee who felt they couldn't pull out immediately but needed to negotiate some logistics. He respected them, but begged them to support pulling out immediately. Remember all the Senators sitting there had voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. With Iraq, it might be easier because the situation is not totally parallel in that the ME is a powder keg where a failed state (which we created) will be the source of enormous future terrorism.

Kerry(1971) talks of soldiers dying in a failed war just so a President would not be the first President to lose a war. Both Kerrys would agree the war should not have happened. Given that it did and the ME situation is what it is, Kerry(2004) would need to prove to Kerry(1971)that there is sufficient strategic reason for staying to justify the loss of life and that there is a well thought out plan to minimize the losses. (The Kerry(2004) who complained about soldiers not getting the support and equipment they need and about poor planning that exposed soldiers to needless danger sounds exactly like Kerry(1971))

Kerry(1971) would be happier with the logic in Kerry(2004) plan -1)train the Iraqis out of country 2) bring in other countries 3) rebuild what we broke and 4) elections and then out, than with GWB's plan. Kerry(1971) would agree on having no permanent bases. The biggest area of disagreement is Kerry(2004) would need to explain to Kerry(1971) how training the Iraqis so they can be in charge is different from Vietnamization and why it has a better chance of working.

If Bush had aggressively followed such a plan a year ago (or earlier) we would likely be out. But, as things become worse in Iraq, Kerry's comments on MTP on the day of Iraq's election that Bush needs to work on some of the diplomacy issues as this really is the last chance to fix this. As things worsen my guess is Kerry (2005) will converge with Kerry(1971) and realize that although we've created a mess, we can't fix it and we're making it worse.


Well that's my best attempt to answer your rhetorical question. When I watched the Kerry testimony, I looked over at the faces of the Senators, from a somewhat similar reason, thinking now Kerry is one of them. Their expressions were somber as young Kerry obviously brought into to room a view of the consequences of their actions. I would assume that older Kerry got really tired of the his well known 1971 question.

[CTLawGuy]

182. The IWR

does not mention going to the UN at all...

It in fact does not require Bush to go through the UN.

What it is is a blank check (the blank check that Bush himself preferred out of the bunch) to allow the president to go to war.

You can tell, if Bush wanted it, it wasn't going to hamper him very much.


I'm sure Kerry would not have gone to war if he were president, but voting for the IWR was something he felt he had to do to be "electable".

[karynnj]

184. That was the purpose as stated by Powell and Bush

and is consistent with Kerry's Senate statement. The vote actually game close to derailing Kerry's chances to get the nomination. He has said that this was a tough vote.

That vote was designed to hurt Democrats whichever way they voted.

[CTLawGuy]

185. it did

becuase Dean came along and reminded people they don't have to take this appeasment crap from their representatives.

And the vote wasn't "tough" at all. It's not "tough" to go along with a popular president and an adoring media into a war that has been cheerled based on flimsy, yet scary-sounding evidence.

It's "tough" to vote against it and risk being called "far left", "unpatriotic."

Its too bad the DLC was able to scare the voters into abandoning Dean.

[karynnj]

197. Dean's position in October, 2002

Dean was not in the Senate at this time so he didn't have to vote. Do you have a link that shows his position at this time, not half a year to a year later after the war was on? My daughters and I went to the Jan or Feb 2003 Washington anti-war march, so obviously I was anti-war. I did read an Kerry op-ed arguing that Bush should not rush to war and should give the inspectors more time.

I was undecided between Dean and Kerry in early 2003, but if I were in NH or Iowa I would probably have picked Kerry at the time of their primary. The reason would have been the debates. (I live in NJ which has a late primary) My family vacations in Vt every year and I've been aware of and impressed by Dean at least since he advised HRC on health care in the early 90s. (We even toured the capital building and had the elderly gentleman leading our family through the building tell us what a great guy Dean was, smart, a doctor etc. - how my oldest was his daughter's age - an unsolicited, very positive endorsement.)

How would this equate to being scared by the DLC? How would the DLC reach me to scare me? My choice (which in NJ I really didn't have) was between 2 positives - I was more concerned that they would split the NE liberal vote between them, giving the nomination to a choice I would get behind, but not be as excited by.

This said, if I lived in NH or Iowa, I would have taken the time and effort to see both, which could influenced me one way or the other. I didn't see either in person, so it would be dishonest to say which way I would have been swayed.

[CTLawGuy]

200. The earliest statment from Dean

is the March 15th California Democratic Party Speech where he asks "What I want to know, what I want to know, is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President's unilateral intervention in Iraq?"


(http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/cdp0303/dean031503spt.html)

This was just as the war was about to begin, when its popularity was HIGHEST.


It didn't bother you that despite Kerry making speeches about Bush not "rushing to war", kerry voted to enable him to rush to war?

Do you think Ted Kennedy voted incorrectly?

Do you think Kennedy didn't want Bush to go to the UN?

Ted kennedy wasn't running for president.

[marcologico]

277. He got his answer on January 19, 2004.

A memorable evening for Kerry and Dean. :)

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

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

[CTLawGuy]

183. They are both to blame

and Kerry was a great leader, in 1971.

Kerry (along with everyone else in Congress) had a responsiblity to make sure the country didn't go to war unless it had to. He failed to do so, and now thousands of people are dead.

But thats ok with you, because he's a "great leader".

So was Kennedy not "a great leader" for voting against the war?

[Deja Q]

130. Here's the truth: (something of an open letter to Mr. Kerry too)

Kerry blew it right after 11/2/04 where he quickly conceded. That proved how much a flip-flopper he truly was.

Never mind the debates, where he could have hit more home runs during the three of them than Sammy Sosa could in 5 seasons. But, no, he ho-hummed around every time Bush accused him of flip-flopping. There were so many chances Kerry could have pulverized Bush on the issues but didn't.

And then came 11/3 where he conceded.

That's a fuckin' knife in our collective back.

If you really want to support a loser whose own actions in election '04 have proven him to be AGAINST the party's best interests (and there's a point made when Kerry kept missing so many votes on so many bills) that only a fool would choose Kerry. And only a bigger fool would vote for him.

No Kerry in 2008. Period.

[cidliz2004]

138. Exactly right

If the Democrats want to win in 08', they better not consider Kerry seriously. He betrayed the loyalty and trust we put in him when he didn't even address election fraud when he had the spotlight and means to do so. He quietly took his excess campaign funds, weighed his options, and chose to try again in 08'. FAT CHANCE, so many of the people that supported Kerry did so JUST to get rid of Bush. Now we have some time to get hold of a candidate that we don't "have to hold our noses" to support, support because of the "ABB" mentality, and supported because we wanted to help the common cause - the Democrats.

Next election, the Democrats will lose if they put Kerry on the Ticket, too many people felt betrayed by Kerry on Nov. 3. They will not make the mistake of following a leader to a quick and quiet loss. What really bothers me more now than ever is what I just realized from another poster. Kerry held onto extra campaign funds and sat on them (saving them for 08?) While some Democrats could have used the contributions and possibly won their races. How many Democrats contributed to Kerry knowing that Kerry would stash away their money for 08? I didn't.

[lojasmo]

290. The unfortunate thing is, if Kerry is the nominee in 2008

and loses (which he will) that his two time loss will be seen as a personal failing.

If we're going to have a DLC bush backer as the nominee, I'd prefer a DIFFERENT one, such as Clinton, so that we can learn the lesson we will have failed to learn this time around.

If you make the electorate chose between republican and republican-light, they'll chose the republican every time.

[Hailtothechimp]

131. Not me. He folded up like a deck chair.

I'd stay home in 2008 before I'd vote for him again.

[cidliz2004]

139. Yep, you and many others

OR the INDEPENDENTS might have a huge surge in votes

[KnowerOfLogic]

143. Not voting for anybody who supported the war. nt

[pauliedee]

144. I'm all for it!! Kerry will finish the job at hand!

Let's do it!! Kerry will finish the job at hand which was started in 2004! We have agreat candidate in Kerry. Count me in!

[Crunchy Frog]

157. I'm not going to attack Kerry.

I realize that alot of people here really love him, and I respect that. I'm never going to vote for him again though. If he's the nominee in '08, I'm going Green.

If he's so electable, he won't be needing my vote. It will be made up for by all those people who couldn't bring themselves to vote for him in '04 but who will have changed their minds by '08.

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

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

[paineinthearse]

169. Kerry receives DISTINGUISHED AMERICAN AWARD

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3197008

[Lexingtonian]

173. Wow

Almost all the "reasons" people toss around here are remarkably beside the point. Democrats being beside the point (though Republicans are more so) was what led to this campaign ending as it did, though, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised. Pots calling the kettle black, yay Democrats....

I see the reasonable choices for '08 as Kerry or HRC at this point. The other side will be running Jebbie or Mitt Romney. As for the people who think this far-off horserace particularly interesting or relevant, it's hard not to see the neurotic element or the denial about obsolete candidates at work.

The Democratic chances depend on whether Kerry or HRC and the Democratic electorate really learn their lessons and get relevant, or an indulgence in latent conservatism and subscription to the Republican desire to live in the past keeps the upper hand.

[BobbyinPortland]

177. He's way too "one of them" for my vote again

He conceded quickly, he didn't fight, he was W's frat brother, he's too "politically correct" for my taste!

"No hard feelings, let's shake hands, blah, blah, bullshit", was the message I got from him.

I'd never waste another vote on him

[saracat]

206. Really? Look at his voting record." One of them "voted against Gonzales ,

against Rice? "One of them" asked the people to co-sponsor a bill? "One of them went to Iraq? ""One of them "is fighting for veterans rights? "One of them "is fighting the Bankruptcy Bill?" One of them" voted against class lawsuit caps? Do some research.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

188. Because he ran a wrong-headed campaign and wimped out

at the end after unprecedented numbers of Democrats volunteered for him.

I've never been as involved in a presidential campaign, beginning in the primary season, as I have in this one. We needed a guerilla fighter and a master of popular psychology in this battle, and we got Mr. Conventional Wisdom from the Beltway.

We can do better.

[saracat]

207. Really? If they don't count the vote it won't matter who it is!

And we have no better a candidate.No one is more qualified or possesses more ability than Kerry.

[imenja]

228. so you are saying we cannot possibly win

That our best candidate is a proven loser? I refuse to give up so easily. I believe we are capable of far better.

[David Ippolito]

191. Ham sandwich...

As a registered, lifelong Independent, I've said for 4 years now, "I would vote for a ham sandwich before I voted for George W. Bush... for ANYTHING!"

For me, Kerry was simply the ham sandwich.

To me, he represents half of what's wrong with American politics. I mean, when asked about his vote to give one idiot authorization to go to war, and whether, in hindsight, if he knew then what we know now about WMD in Iraq... would he have voted differently, he said, "I definitely might have."

Hoooo brother!

I... definitely... might have.

An inherent problem with nearly all career politicians. I'll hope for someone with a backbone and the fortitude it takes to take right to the right-wing.

I may be dreaming.

[fujiyama]

196. I have several concerns:

I feel they've been defined by the media. This is is the fear I have in nominating Gore (who was very clearly robbed) or Kerry (who was possibly robbed and very much smeared).

I have similar, but lesser problems with nominating Edwards, who would have spent quite a bit of time outside of politics. It'd be easier to smear him as being a "light weight".

While Nixon did win his second time (and as you noted it wasn't consecutive), he was lucky. His election was close. The Dems were in disarray after a traumatic primary (RFK assassination), a president unpopular with much of his base (and the VP taking a lot of blame for backing those policies), and finally a disasterous and violent convention.

Nixon shouldn't have won that time but it looks just like in many other cases, Dems kinda screwed it up (and I'm not blaming any one faction, just general division and chaos).

Kerry would surely be a better candidate than say Hillary (who I feel would be a disaster), but I'd look at '06 first, see how things shape up, and go from there. We have quite a bit of time.

[Discord]

199. Would support, but rather not.

I don't think he would have a legitimate shot. Many undecideds and centrists would not vote for him BECAUSE he lost the last election. Personally, I would rather not take my chances. I would rather go with anyone than someone who has already lost. I am from Massachusettes and DID NOT vote for Kerry in the Primaries. I voted for him (of course) in the presidential campaign and would do so again if he were nominated. But, I don't feel he is the best choice for '08. I also think that the best choice would come from someone who is not a Senator or Representitive. Thier voting record is much to easy to target as a point of attack. (ie. See Kerry Campaign in '04) Most people don't understand the "politics" that go on in the House and Senate. That sometimes concessions are made for the greater good. That sometimes... you agree to sign a bill your not particularly fond of under the agreement that in exchange for thier support on a bill that you initiated or are supporting that may be more importnant to you than opposing the one you agreed to sign. It's not an entirely uncommon practice. But when read off like a stat sheet. Many of thier votes can be used to portray them into a negative light in a presidential election. IMHO

[Gyre]

201. Because, they stole it in '04 and they'll steal it again in '06 and '08

But they'll let a few dems win in '06 as cover for '08.

Gyre

[robbedvoter]

202. Because win or lose, he'll concede anyway, making us accomplices

to BFEE in the eyes of the world. Check definition of insanity.

[saracat]

208. That is just wrong. And most of the world , other than a few disgruntled

people who didn't support Kerry in the primary liked and admired Kerry. There is a reason he is respected throughout Europe and the Middle East and it isn't as just that he wasn't Bush.

[marcologico]

210. Hey, stop making sense.

Didn't you get the memo? :)

[LittleClarkie]

211. Indeed

You'll confuse the lad.

[robbedvoter]

220. Wrong but true. He won, conceded - why bother again?

His concession legitimized the theft. We are freepers in the eyes of the world because of Kerry. Now you get it?

[saracat]

233. Nope. We are the victims just as the rest of the world is!

The concession legitimized nothing. It wasn't legally binding and was based on faulty evidence. It may not make a difference in the near future,but I am gland Kerry and Edwards are continuing to file motions and search for evidence. The truth will eventually will out.

[robbedvoter]

257. W goes around the word saying "I was elected". Maher, Stewart and

other former supporters of ours in the media are orgasming over Iraq's elections (as if they didn't have then under Saddam). W even has the chutzpa to mention Ukraine (which, like Romania had a re-vote that cancelled the fraud). No one mentions the theft - because it's kinda hard to do it over the dead bodies of your candidates. On january 6 kerry went to Iraq.
THAT"S WHY NO.

[Trish1168]

212. If he keeps the fighting spirit and wants REAL reform

Then I'd be happy with him.

I only want him to do a few things...

1. Repeal all unconsititutional laws (e.g. Patriot act)
2. Pass laws limiting corporate power
a. more disclosure on executive perks
b. regulate CEO compensation (no stock options allowed)
c. no more off shore subsidiary protections
d. close corporate tax loopholes
3. Raise taxes (especially on the rich) to get us out of our financial problems
4. change the trade laws to prevent the uneven trade problems (no more trade deficits)
5. fix the dollar to gold
6. bring back the Bretton woods economic system
7. change the constitution with amendments for the following
a. voting rights for all, guaranteed (including vote regs)
b. don't allow deficit spending
c. gold standard ALWAYS (if you don't see the need for this now..you will within a year to a year and a half)
d. add an anti-trust amendment (so they can't repeal the law)
8. no more military excursions to protect commercial interests
9. manhattan project for renewable energy.
10. bring back the environmental laws that Bush ripped apart
11. improve congressional ethics laws
12. laws that separate government from private industry (to stop the revolving door)
13. ban binding mandatory arbitration
14. pass laws for consumer protection

There are probably more things on my wish list. If he pledges to do most of this, I will be happy.

[JVS]

213. No! Not again! I'm not Ok with his statements that he would vote for war

again!

[BL611]

215. Not against it but...

How's it going? Long time reader,but just bothered to register....

I really have no personal problem with Kerry. As an employee of the DNC througout his campaign, I put alot less blame on him then many did(and more on cultural special interest groups pushing their agends's far more then their issues importance to the country warranted, but I guess thats for another thread). My only fear is that he will be labeled as a loser off the bat (things have changed since Nixon, 24/7 cable media banging talking points into your head and such).. Although someone similar with alot of foriegn policy expirence and who could be trusted to get our budget back in order ( a la Biden) wouldn't be a bad idea. Pushing for an ultra liberal in 2008 would be pointless with our nations budget problems (could you really gain support for new programs witha sky high defecit?). Go with a moderate budget hawk for now, and then start looking at Obama in "16...

[marcologico]

216. welcome BL611!

:toast:

[tinfoilinfor2005]

217. Because Kerry won in 04 but so far he's been a lousy pres...

He keeps allowing that little shitass with the phoney Texas accent to pretend that HE actually won.

[politicasista]

218. Smirky is a jerky

:cry:

[imenja]

224. yeah, what's with his social security piratization scheme anyway

[marcologico]

227. Pres. Kerry got on TV Jan. 30 to say that "Bush is hyping a phony crisis."

So I'd say he's been a pretty good president so far.

link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1546840

[regnaD kciN]

219. Stop thinking about '08!!!

We have a lot of work to do with the Democratic Party. The election of Dean as Chair is a good start, but the party needs to be reorganized, freed from its "inside-the-Beltway captivity," and, most importantly, repositioned on matters of principles and policy (above all, figuring out what "Democratic core values" are, and how to both communicate and stand up for them). We also have to find a way to spread that message throughout the states, and show the Democratic flag in every congressional race in 2006 and beyond.

That's a heady order. It's going to take some time to implement. Possibly longer than four years from now (after all, how long did it take conservative Republicans to rise from the Goldwater debacle to the "Reagan revolution"...sixteen years?).

We're only going to short-circuit the process if we concentrate too much on "who we're going to run in 2008," especially barely six weeks into the Chimp's second term. If we start playing the horse-race game now, we'll enter 2008 the same way we entered 2004...playing from behind, no matter how incompetent the White House. If we approach things the right way, though, and concentrate on who we are (as opposed to simply "not Republicans"), I suspect we won't need to wonder...as the movie tagline goes, "a hero will arise."

[marcologico]

221. Just read my sig line if you need a mission statement :)

Personally I think we have more important things to do than worry about who we are, which is why I'm supporting Kerry -- he already knows. :)

[imenja]

223. we're not Kerry

He doesn't represent me or anyone like me. I've had it with billionaire dominance of DC. We need a party that represents the people, not corporate interests or their own political aspirations to the exclusion of principle. We are building a party far better than that envisioned by John Kerry.

Believe me, hell will freeze over before he wins the Democratic nomination again. If he couldn't beat the worst president in American history, he doesn't deserve a second shot.

[marcologico]

226. I meant the Kennedy quote :)

[saracat]

235. And your candidate is?

[imenja]

240. I refuse to limit myself

It's far too early to pick candidates. A great deal can change in three years. We have party building to do. That is our most important task now.

[LittleClarkie]

243. Indeed, a great deal can change

like, perhaps, your opinion of "DLC" "centrist" Kerry (actually quite progressive really).

Why limit yourself even that much? You might find you like one of the hasbeens, like Gore or Kerry. Or perhaps someone else will come along.

So indeed, why limit yourself despite your claim that you refuse to do just that?

[imenja]

248. oh, no. I don't see Kerry as a "DLC" centrist

In fact, I never use such labels. I was trying to recall a previous conversation with Saracat, but evidently I was mistaken in my recollection.
I never use the terms DLC or centrist to label anyone. I take candidates based on what they have to say, on their positions, and strength of convictions.

[imenja]

241. say, I remember a previous conversation with you

when you were furious that "DLC" centrists like Kerry won the nomination. You were angry at the DNC for front loading the primaries and believed that unfairly favored Kerry. Am I mistaken?

[saracat]

242. You are mistaken. I can't stand the DLC, but I have

always supported Kerry. I never thought Kerry won any primaries unfairly. Quite the reverse.Maybe you are remembering an anti DLC rant of mine? I don't think the DLC was happy with Kerry though. They couldn't even get him to dump domestic partnership or support the marriage amendment.

[imenja]

222. Exactly!

You said it perfectly. We have serious work to do. Who will run in 2008 is the least of our problems now. And trying to decide now rather than building the party will inevitably lead to yet another defeat.

[Imagevision]

229. Kerry? -- sorry, you only get one chance to make that FIRST good impressio

With Kerry in 08 it's nothing but instant repeat of the swiftboatee thing -- Limbaugh and Hannity will only have to replay 04 audio clips.

Kerry I got to really love/respect the --I'm still in a bummer when I think about what Bush got away with again!

Most important? -- we never did get our votes all counted as he and Edwards promised.

Kerry actually said a few weeks back in an interview that he believed the last minute bin laden tapes are what swung the vote?

In other words, countless millions of people who firmly believe Ohio/Blackwell/Diebold decided the outcome are totally rejected by John Kerry -- this says to me we got screwed again butthis time I'm not quite sure by who> Bush or Kerry?

[LittleClarkie]

232. Let em -- old news, yawn

They'll be the only ones.

Unless there is new dirt somewhere, he's been pre-smeared.

Plus, he'll have the "I told you so" on his side. All we have to do is list all the things he said that Bush ended up doing, badly I might add.

I'd vote for him again. Hell, I'd WORK for him again.

[saracat]

236. And why do you suppose Kerry /Edwards recently filed motions regarding

counting of those votes, hmmm? They stated they are doing it because they "promised to get the votes counted" Duh!

[LittleClarkie]

237. Some people won't notice these things

unless they're accompanied by a dog and pony show, effectual or not.

[Jo March]

247. Saracat and LittleClarkie, thank you!

Thanks for your posts. I just don't understand those who say that Kerry is not fighting for election reform and for our rights to have every vote counted! Why would he continue to file motions in Ohio: http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/2/24/183243/756 ?

Why would the K/E team continue to do that unless they wanted to make good on their promise that every vote would count?

Kerry isn't perfect but he has honored that promise. He is still fighting and yes, it is "behind the scenes" but only because that is the way that Kerry prefers to work. (Even if he didn't, it's not like the MSM would cover this stuff anyway.)

For those of us still in the trenches of election reform, Kerry is doing what he promised. His work will make our work worthwhile.

[saracat]

249. Thank You Arnheim for continuing to fight this important battle.

If we can't accomplish so kind of election reform, it won't matter who is the candidate. It only through the efforts of people like you who make the possibility of a real election possible. And thank you for recognizing that Kerry and Edwards are doing their best to fulfill their promise to get every vote counted despite the fact is isn't going to personally benefit them and most people will not even know they have done so.Kudos to you!:toast:

[Discord]

275. no he's not.

It's after the fact now. How can the votes count? The election is over.

[saracat]

298. Sigh. Think big picture..

[Discord]

271. to little.... too late

It could have meant something before. Now its just PR.

[ComerPerro]

239. because its early '05

Maybe we can at least wait until the mid-term elections

[sellitman]

244. Nope......Not unless they fix the machines

NO Democrat has a chance to win if we go into the election with Repugnican voting machines again.

Not Kerry
Not Edwards
Not Dean
Not Kucinich
Not Boxer
Not Hillary

or anyone else for that matter. When will that be clear? How many of these stupid polls must be put up on DU before you guys get it?

[jswordy]

250. Why not? Because he will LOSE.

Folks know Kerry like they know Hillary Clinton, and their reactions to him are as visceral as to her. Kerry had to run narrowly precisely because of his perception problems.

They both are losers for the party as Presidential nominees, though they can work well for us in other capacities.

We need a "stealth candidate," just as Bush has been for the Republicans. Someone who can attract enough of the middle to win, then lean left when they get in. Neither Kerry nor Clinton meet that qualification. Lord knows, Clinton is trying to fuzz up her image. But she's already pretty much a fixed figure in most people's minds. And the red states would reject her. Just as they would another Kerry run.

[Placebo]

252. It's Kerry or Clinton in '08 for me...

Although I'm naturally inclined to support Clinton, and I think she'd win the primaries as well. I'd still support Kerry though, if by some total miracle he beat Hillary for the nomination.

[pauliedee]

265. Kerry a MUCH better choice

Kerry is a GREAT leader who'll fight the repugs to the death and stick to democratic ideals :yourock:

....unlike the phony Hillary who'll try to be a repug :puke:

[Silverhair]

253. Because Clark is a better candidate to actually win!!! NT

[LittleClarkie]

254. Two questions:

Why exactly?

And, has he made any noises about running?

He may be a bit too wet behind the ears politically. We'll have to see what he does in the next couple of years.

[Silverhair]

255. Answers:

1. Yes. He is running. Why do you think he is going around making so many speeches and building a grassroots organization?

2. He can win because he gets a lot of support from the veterans, the south, and the religious. (Clark is a Christian.)

I personally know people who hated Kerry for his VVAW activity that also told me they would have considered Clark. Note: "...would have considered..." is not to interpreted as meaning they would have voted for him, only that they would have been open to the idea.

Politics? What do you think being commander of NATO involves????

However, many Democratic activists have a passionate hatred of the military and will only consider someone with a service background if the service was minor and they have repented and done penance, as Kerry's was and did.

[LittleClarkie]

256. How was his service minor, and how has he done penance?

He's often blasted on the left, in fact, for his hawkishness. And I wouldn't call two tours minor. I would call one 2 year hitch minor (O'Neill, I'm talking to you.)

The kind of politics Clark dealt with in NATO doesn't necessarily compare to national politics. I think we saw his inexperience during the primaries. I just think maybe he should try for a Governorship first or something. He strikes me as someone who might be somewhat naive as to what it takes to be president and to run for president. But he has shown that he can learn from prior mistakes, and that's good.

In either event, if he can get his act together this time better than he did last time, then he has as good a chance as anyone. I need to see how he does at fundraising and getting pubicity for himself these next couple of years. It's wide open folks.

[Silverhair]

258. Answers:

A few years and leaving as a LTjg vs. a full career and leaving as a 4 star General. Compare their records. For that matter, I was a LTjg and in Vietnam too, and since I had enlisted service for 4 years before I was an officer I have more than twice a many years in service than Kerry, but compared to Clark, I was barely in. Kerry's service was minor by comparison.

Furthermore, he does NOT have two tours IN Vietnam. He had one tour on a destroyer offshore of Vietnam. He was not inside Nam and the destroyer never had contact with the enemy. For him, it was the same as sailing in the Atlantic. Both served in Vietnam until sent home for wounds. Kerry's wounds were all minor. I have personally known guys that refused their purple hearts for wounds similar to Kerry's because they didn't feel they had really earned then compared to guys who had been hit badly. Clark was hit four times at once in hand, hip, shoulder and leg. He barely pulled through. Even though very badly wounded he continued to command his company until the objective was accomplished. He was hospitalized for months afterward.

Maybe that doesn't mean much to you, but to a lot of veterans, it speaks volumes.

Now about penance. Afer he returned Kerry started VVAW while Clark stayed with the service and helped rebuild it. Kerry, by starting VVAW, repuidated his service and did penance, thereby making himself acceptable to many Democratic activists. Clark has NEVER apologized for his 34 years in the Army, and so many activists don't trust him.

If we are going to ever win, we need someone that can pull in the center without being Republican Lite. Clark can do that. Kerry can't.

[LittleClarkie]

259. With all due respect to Clark and his service

What's all that got to do with the price of tea in China? What is this, a dick measuring contest? "I bled more than you, so I get to be president?"

To me, Clark is an unknown commodity. He barely had a chance to get going this last time before it was all over. I will be watching him, as I will be watching Hillary, Kerry, Gore, Bahl, Warner, Edwards and anyone one else who wants to poke their little heads up for the next primary.

But from what I saw, Clark needs to work on expressing himself politically. I think he got some much needed practice on the stump during the general election. And he has to work on how he expresses his domestic agenda. He's not ready made and perfect just as he is. His bid for the presidency will depend on how well he learns the game and how well he plays it in the next couple of years.

Be that as it may, Kerry did his duty for two tours in the Navy. Part of the first tour was spent in the Gulf of Tonkin, so I guess Kerry counts that as Vietnam service. That's his right. It's certainly where the damn war started in earnest. Clark stayed in, Kerry got out. Clark worked to make the service better from within. Kerry fought to help his compadres from without. I give them both credit. To me, Kerry is as much a patriot for what he did in 1971 as Joseph Darby was when he blew the whistle on Abu Ghraib.

I am quite disappointed to see you repeating smear boat crud. Both men served honorably. I hope you know that.

As I said before, I don't actually care which man bled more, or which man served longer and at what rank. Not to mention that the left often doesn't cut Kerry slack on this issue, especially since the IWR vote. So I still dispute that the Left excuses Kerry because of 1971. And to make what he did in 1971 sound like it was anti-military shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Kerry was trying to accomplish. Things like his testimony, and the co-founding of Vietnam Veterans of America, show what veterans mean to him.

At any rate, I'm more concerned with who I think will make the better president, not necessarily who I think will have an easier time getting elected. And I do believe that John Kerry would make a great president. My job in the next 2 years or so is to help folks understand the man better so that they will hopefully see what I see. Because the 2004 campaign barely scratched the surface.

[Silverhair]

268. You missed the point.

To win an election - you have to get more votes. That means that you have to attract some of the center. You can't do it with the base alone, although that seems to be a popular meme around here.

For a LOT of veterans Kerry lost their respect, and lost their vote. That is a simple fact, even if you don't like it. Face that fact. And Clark does have their respect. That too is a fact.

I gave you the reasoning of a lot of veterans. You may not like it, but that is the way many veterans feel. You can say that it isn't fair all you want to, but it will not change the reality that many vets feel that way.

[LittleClarkie]

285. I see what you wree getting at now

It's alittle weird for me, because I knew some veterans who were committed to Kerry AS a veteran. The Vets for Kerry were quite the force here in Wisconsin, bless them.

Bit of a moot point really. We don't know what Bush Co. had in store for the General had he been "the one" (we only got a taste of that too before it was all over for Clark in the primaries). Rest assured they would have nailed him to the cross as well. Bush Co. wasn't about to lose this election. And they have a nasty habit of being especially evil to a veteran.

Do you think Clark would have used his service as an integral part of his campaign too? Was that his strongest asset?

[Silverhair]

288. Good question.

Obviously he would have had to, as it would be the primary thing defining him. But I think that he would have emphasized more his activities as NATO commander. Also, it would have meant more to the public. There have been numerous candidates for POTUS who have had heroics as junior officers while in the service and it never really seems to make much difference to the public, nor should it really. Heroics as a junior officer only show physical courage, not judgment or management skills. But noted service as an extremely senior officer shows skills that the public approves of.

Ike was Supreme Commander of ETO in WWII. He won. Kennedy barely won. McGovern lost. Bush v.1 lost the 2nd time. Dole lost. Kerry lost.

Their opponents: Nixon, Nixon(Service but no combat), Clinton and Bush (Both used the Guard to avoid active service.)

Junior officer heroics don't count for much.

Obviously, the Rove attack machine would have targeted Clark also, but I am convinced that he would have been a much more difficult target. Besides, attack machines are part of politics. We have done it too. I have an old 1944 cartoon, (Of the type shown in theaters, about 10 minutes long.) that has a Republican morphing into Hitler, and then realizing that he is exposed he pushes himself back into a windbag politician shape. So attack machines are just part of it and to be expected. If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

[XemaSab]

279. If the 2004 campaign

barely scratched the surface, aren't you basically saying that Kerry ran a bad campaign where he never let the voters see who he was, even though he had 10 months of media coverage?

[LittleClarkie]

281. I guess I put that more on the shoulders of Shrum and Cahill

I think with better campaign people, he could do well.

But he did pick them, so part of the blame goes to him. I hope he's learned from that mistake.

I liked some of his primary people better than his general campaign people. I don't know why he got rid of the ad guy he had in the primaries.

[karynnj]

291. I wish he had 10 months of media coverage

Kerry's coverage was underwhelming. After the convention, the bus/train tour got large crowds and was really upbeat and enthusiastic from the accounts of friends and relatives who lived in swing states. I saw almost nothing on the news - only when I found C-Span did I see much real coverage.

Even at the convention, in past years there was at least about 9 hours of full coverage - 3 hrs on each of 3 nights. This year there was 3 Hours total - Covering the speeches by Clinton,Edwards and Kerry. This change by the three networks really hurt Kerry. The cable news on the other hand din't even try to be fair - for Kerry's convention every cable station had panels that included more Republicans. Then at the Bush convention, it was even more Republican. That plus the many free hours of time given to the swiftboat people even after it was proven that they had lied about many things all added up to a media totally playing for Bush to win.

[XemaSab]

294. Okay

He had 10 months in which to glean positive media coverage. He had 10 months of being mentioned with a good degree of regularity on TV, in print, on the radio, and on the 'net.

Even though the networks did not cover the complete conventions, a viewer interested in watching the conventions could turn to C-Span, or listen to more convention covereage on NPR.

The Kerry campaign did little to counter things like SBVT, and did very little to counter republican spin in general.

Kerry's covereage was indeed underwhelming, but don't we have media consultants? Where were they? Why did they not tell us the story of the candidate, and instead let the republicans define him with the SBVT, liberal from massachussetts and flip flopper crap?

I just don't think that more exposure and media attention will persuade the american people to vote for Kerry, because I don't see him doing anything different in 2008.

[dansolo]

260. Did you think Gore should have run in 2004?

[doodadem]

274. If Gore had shown HALF the passion

in 2000, that he has had since, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Think of it--no Iraq war, no war on common people, no war on the environment.......the list goes on and on, and makes me want to puke.
But like Kerry, he is now damaged goods. They both HAD the presidency, and they blew it. It was theirs to lose.
We need a fresh face in '08, tons of charisma, who will fight the good fight.

[Conservativesux]

263. No way in hell. I like John Kerry but..................................

..........One and done.

It's over. Next !!!

[pauliedee]

266. Kerry still strongest democrat

Kerry a GREAT leader who'll fight the repugs to the death

[Discord]

270. then why did he roll over so easily?

[marcologico]

278. Because he lost by margins that no amount of recounting could have closed

in OH, and he still would have lost the popular vote by 3 million, making him a mandate-less electoral college shaver battling popular hostility and a GOP congress, a recipe for perpetual, well, Discord! :)

[Discord]

280. thats the problem though...

He couldn't see past his personal agenda to the larger scale picture of exposing the election fraud. If we can't PROVE that there was fraud taking place and are not able to attach a blame directly to a name, then we have no foundation in which to make a serious push for election reform. Until it's shown to be broken, theres no reason to fix it. Also, letting 3 months pass just gave the GOP all the time in the world to cover up any loose ends while we're sitting around with a thumb up our asses. Even if it wasn't being done as an official recount, they should have launched a full scale investigation into it immediately. I mean if you gave a murderer 3 months after his crime to cover his tracks and get out of dodge before the police even launch an investigation or examine the corpse to determine if was even murder in the first place. I'd call that an investigation unlikely to succeed.

[marcologico]

286. Yes, election fraud was a problem, probably the cause, but he still lost.

Refusing to concede wouldn't have changed that. It would just have made him and us look like fools.

It's easy to forget that 2004 wasn't 2000 -- Gore won the popular vote, and Florida was close enough to contest. Ohio wasn't.

Still, if Kerry had realized that people would see it as "quitting," he might have held out longer, but frankly I just don't think he did, because the facts were pretty clear. :(

[Discord]

289. if you read more carefully...

I wrote that it wasn't about the recount. It wasn't about the challenging the election. It's about exposing the fraud that is taking place.

[marcologico]

292. December 27, 2004: "Kerry Files Motion to Protect Ohio Vote Evidence "

"Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, Intervenor-Defendant Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc. hereby moves this Court for an order preserving materials from the 2004 presidential election and for leave to take a limited number of depositions on an expedited schedule. The depositions and preservation order sought by Intervenor- Defendant Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc. are the same as those sought in the motion filed on December 23, 2004 by Defendants NVRI, Cobb and Badnarik. Intervenor-Defendant Kerry-Edwads 2004, Inc. hereby adopts the memorandum and proposed order filed by the Defendants in support of its own motion."

read all about it! http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122804V.shtml

:)

[Discord]

293. thanks for the link.

One thing that stood out was that Kerry had only filed after NVRI, Cobb and Badnarik had already sone so. Didn't he have more at stake than them? Seems kind of odd that he would file 3 days after and seperately.

[ZootSuitGringo]

267. Once was enough.

Been there, done that.

Next!

[Roland99]

272. Kerry did a piss-poor job of selling himself in '04

About the entire crowd hearing Seymour Hersh speak last night was in agreement with that sentiment.

[cascadiance]

273. If he's serious about '08, should have taken Senate Minority Leadership

instead of Reid, and the Senate Democrats should have shown confidence in him giving him that position if they seriously want him to be in line for 2008. That would give him a chance to show more leadership before then instead of being labeled as a "non-leader" again in '08. I'm actually a bit pleasantly surprised with Reid now, but the equation for Kerry being viable in '08 just isn't going to happen without something like that changing before then.

I could vote for him again, but to get others' votes, especially against a different Republican candidate, he'd have to prove himself worthy. And I also don't like that he gave up without a fight in the votes for Ohio. That's a whole problem now faced for the Democratic Party that only someone like Boxer's dealt with yet. There will have to be a few more that start taking action like Boxer that we can select from as a viable candidate.

[pauliedee]

297. Reid doing good job, Kerry 08 sounds good

Reid is doing a great job. NOTE: Dems should ALWAYS have safe state leaders from now on!!! Dascle was in a red state which made him extremely vulnerable. VERY VERY dumb!! Repugs would NEVER let a blue state senator be their leader.

A senate minority leader should not aspire to be president in the short term. A Kerry run for 2008 has my FULL SUPPORT!!!

I will vote for him again AND WORK to get others' votes. Kerry instills fear in the repugs, especially against a different Republican candidate, he'd not have the wartime incumbent. NO "don't change horses midstream" excuse. Don't blame him for not LEADING the fight in the votes for Ohio. It's vital the candidate does not get blamed for stopping the country and getting labeled a "sore loser". Someone else like Boxer had to lead and she did and deserves credit.

Kerry's got our back.

[mr_anderson334]

276. Kerry in 08 only..

if he asserts his views more firmly, work on getting the voters who have lost faith in the democrativ party by coming out with solid views, dont be labeled as a flip-flopper again

[MISSDem]

282. I love Kerry and would vote for him again.

Kerry 2008. He is a fine, honest, intelligent hero.

[pauliedee]

296. Kerry is the best choice for president PERIOD!

[MadisonProgressive]

283. Whoever shakes out is the one I'm voting for. PERIOD.

[Zenlitened]

284. I dunno. Can I get back to you with an answer... in 2007?

:)

[LittleClarkie]

295. A good and sensible answer

I wanna see what they do in the next two years. I have a Dem Governor and a Dem Senator to save first anyway. And even Kerry knows they have to get Kennedy re-elected and a Dem Governor in Massachusetts.