If Kerry wins the nomination, would he be elctable?

[Skip Intro]

Poll question: If Kerry wins the nomination, would he be elctable?

I know, I know, this is 06 and we have more pressing races to consider, but I was in another thread where there were pro-Kerry 08 posts and no-Kerry 08 posts, so I just wanted to check the pulse of DU at this poit on another Kerry/? ticket.

And I know a lot depends on who the pukes put up (we should tie them to bush and his failed policies no matter who he (let's be seriuos, it won't be a she) is. McCain is the clear frontrunner, (too bad it wont be frist), and I assume he would be their nom.

And I also know a lot depends on who Kerry would pick as his running-mate. This person should, of course, counter any percieved strength of the repukes' nom for President, and I assume that is what would happen.

So, assuming those two things, would Kerry be electable?

[saltpoint]

1. Sure. After all, he won in 04. Bush-Cheney cheated in Ohio and

maybe in other states as well.

Kerry-Edwards weren't the only two people they cheated, either.

The entire nation could have had the benefit of Kerry-Edwards instead of four more nearly unendurable years of Bush-Cheney.

The Republicans monkeyed with history and I think it's going to cost them this November.

Ohio is a prime example: Ken Blackwell is running well behind Ted Strickland. Not even Diebolding can save him now. He oversaw the 04 election fraud and I believe this is his last race in the Buckeye State.

[niceypoo]

183. Kerry didn't respond to smears and they ate him alive

He ran a bumbling, fumbling campaign. Too many advisors all tugging him different directions.

[Gman]

2. He was electable in '04, won the election

and would be again electable in '08.

[Skip Intro]

7. Oh, I agree completely.

The bush regime stole its way into power in 2000 and has continued to operate in a criminal and un-American, anti-democratic manner ever since.

Kerry would walk away with the general election, I have no doubt.

[derby378]

3. I can't see Kerry winning in '08

Sorry, but he just doesn't have that "killer instinct" anymore. He won the election in '04, but he just didn't fight hard enough for what was rightfully his. We need a streetfighter as a Presidential candidate, IMHO.

[BrainRants]

4. Not Kerry bashing, but I see a blend of those choices

i.e.

"Probably not" and "There are better candidates"

I'm a little biased though...I live in Wisconsin and think Feingold is the man to beat.

Make that "Gore/Feingold" and I'll fight Republicans tooth and nail to put Al & Russ in the White House.

[orpupilofnature57]

5. Kerry would get my total support ,but it's Al ,Goofy little fucker !

It will take a total outsider not to mention a genius, no one has been in and out at such extremities.

[theanarch]

6. "hell no..." was my first choice, but...

...the GOP has fucked up so badly that Dem's are in "yellow dog" territory--and since there won't be any yellow dogs on the ballot, the public will vote for Democrats as the lessor of evils. Even so, knowing Kerry, he'll learn the lessons of '04 just in time to misapply them to the realities of '08, and lose accordingly (fighting the last war and all that)...hence, "probably not."

[karynnj]

26. and what is your example of "knowing Kerry ......"

That does not sound very much like what anyone - even those who don't particuly like him have said about him.

If the Republicans pick McCain, Kerry might be the only one who COULD beat him. Kerry has the expertise that would stack up against him. As to Presidential temperment and experience - I suggest Kerry simply get permission to get the chater of McCain's book speaking of their joint work out. One of these 2 men came out very very well - and it wasn't the author.

[Clark2008]

139. Not by a mile

Wes Clark would be the only one who could beat "war hero" McCain, toe to toe.

McCain was captured, while Clark, shot and wounded, directed his men out of harm's way during Vietnam and was the last American general to win a war (Bosnia) with no loss of allied life.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Remember that this is not the Kerry that was restrained by the likes

of Donna Brazile. Today's Kerry would certainly win the election, were he to be nominated.

[saltpoint]

9. Thank you for mentioning Donna Brazile, IndianaGreen. You always

make sense in your posts and tonight here is no exception, but with that comment, you clear the clutter and reach nirvanna.

I agree completely. Brazile is a success on paper, and I don't subtract from anybody who has achieved as much as she has. I wish a lot more Democrats would be as motivated to be as involved as she is.

But her influence on the party's last two candidates has not been a plus. I don't trust her judgment at all, and hope that our 08 nominees will trust their own instincts more.

[davidwparker]

12. Wasn't it Brazile who ran Gore's campaign? And, Bob 0-8 Schrum did

Kerry's?

[Radical Activist]

144. No candidate is restrained by an adviser.

Kerry chose to hire and keep Brazile. He chose to take her advice. If he followed bad advice, it shows his weakness as a candidate and leader.

[PresidentWar]

10. Oh good God....have I woken up in 2004 again??

"Electable".....oh the recurring nightmares...

Kerry, please retire. We need someone else.

[Zensea]

11. I'm with you on that one

My first thought when I saw this poll was not knowing which was worse, hearing the name Kerry or the word electable.
I decided hearing the word electable is worse, Kerry's not that bad.
but still ...
I think it's time for the next generation to take hold.
I also think the American public as a whole (not just the Democrats) tends to think that way.

Kerry will be a good elder statesman, the way Kennedy has become.

[skipos]

13. Too bad he isn't a governor from a flippable red state

For obvious reasons, senators have had a harder time getting elected than Governors for the last few decades. And any candidate from a flippable state is going to have an advantage in the general election.

[Ishoutandscream2]

14. Two years is still a long time from now

If the presidential election was being held this November, I would say yes. But that would probably go for just about any Democratic candidate. The country right now has a bad case of Dubya fatigue.

[FARAFIELD]

15. nah,

God he was way better than bush, but not my first choice for us, I liked edwards and Clark (still do actually). But ill say one thing about Kerry, when we went to the WWII Memorial Dediction, he was the only Big wig that stopped to say hi to us (we had seats up front because My dad is in the AM EX POW hieracrchy, he even said my daughters had beautiful hats. They later saw him on TV and when School started and they started talking about the ELECTION they realized just how nice it was to take a few minutes. Meanwhile BUSH bot has his "free speech" zones miles from where he appears, what a diff. SO KERRY nice guy just not the choice we should make.

[karynnj]

27. What a lovely story

If more stories like yours, which seemed to come out of the woodwork after the election, were covered in 2004 by the brain dead media, we would have a President Kerry now.

In addition to smears and distorting issues, the media played a huge game distorting Bush's and Kerry's personalities. Bush, who when mentioned in biographies of his dad was described as pretty unlikable became the genial man who would be fun to have a bear with. (Forget those stories of branding kids at Yale.) Kerry, who seems a genuinely nice guy was described as a social loner. (Ignoring that he had devoted friends from his entire life who were involved in his campaign.)

[peace13]

16. He should have counted the votes in Ohio.

He lost me there. Peace, Kim

[PresidentWar]

17. Amen AMEN.

[fedupinBushcountry]

22. You know

in order for any Democrat to count ALL the votes its "we the people" who must demand it in each and every state. Its not a black or white issue it is very complex and if we continue to let partisans run elections in states all over this country we will have a harder and harder time winning. The Repubs pulled out all their tricks, and you know if there were laws on the books to stop the disenfranchisement of voters in minorities, young people disabled and older voters, and strict laws on voting machines (paper trails) and no partisan ownership of said machines, maybe then we would see a fair election.

I went to a voters forum in DC right after the election and everything was talked about and I was in shock to hear from panelist after panelist about yes that is wrong but legally there is nothing they could do about it unless there were laws put into place. Our election system is in tatters and all you and others can do is blame one person. You continue thinking that way and Lord help us, because if "we the people" don't start demanding fair elections, and taking to the streets, you just keep on blaming, because nothing will change with rhetoric like that.

[Skip Intro]

25. wow. nt

:thumbsup:

[wisteria]

50. Counting the votes would have gotten us nowhere. It didn't work in

2000 and there was less external evidence to do it in 2004. The media and the public would have ridiculed the attempt and Blackwell would have done all he could to block a fair count. He did just that when he hand picked the precincts that were to be recounted as per the Green Party lawsuit.
Demanding a recount based on the poll numbers would have made the Democratic party a laughing stock. Unless, this is what you wanted to see?

[PresidentWar]

85. If actually counting all the votes didnt do it,

then that means we would have LOST THE ELECTION.

What exactly are you driving at?

[peace13]

160. You are way off base with your comments

[YvonneCa]

18. Emphatically...

...YES ! I didn't think so on November 3, 2004...but I do now. If you question it, go to johnkerry.com and watch some of his recent speeches...or watch the speech at the Take Back America Conference from last June. I also think he is EXACTLY the PRESIDENT our country needs now, during these troubled times...one with experience, GREAT knowledge and understanding of the issues, and the ability to unite us again. I SO want our country to be united once again. :patriot:

[leftofthedial]

19. the question is:

"would he quit prematurely again?"

elected or not

[wisteria]

20. Yep, and even more electable this time. Kerry was right about many

issues in 04 and he has been ahead of the pack since then. No one has been fighting harder on so many fronts for us like Senator Kerry has. He is well liked and respected though out the US. And yes, he does have support in the Southern states. He learned from his mistakes in 04 and will have an advantage among others who may run, because he has already done it and knows the pitfalls. He has revamped his speaking style and has given some of his most memorable and rousing speeches these past two years. Hell yes, with his presence and his commanding voice, his knowledge and his honesty and his leadership coupled along with all the other things I mentioned, hell yes he is electable again. And actually, this nation needs a President Kerry.

[rockymountaindem]

21. I think he would be a better candidate a second time

I think he would cut loose from the bad advisors he had last time, as well as apply lessons he hopefully has learned from the campaign trail such as how best to relate to voters in other parts of the country.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

23. Not with MY vote he won't.

I've said it a dozen times, I guess I can say it yet again- it's my belief he was a RINGER. A distraction. Nothing more.

That's all he'll ever be IMO.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[WildEyedLiberal]

29. Why do you insist on personally attacking other DUers?

"Kerrybots" is a personal attack and an ad hominem base insult and it's pretty fucking low of you to say.

And following your "logic," EVERY Dem has a "perception problem." Do you HONESTLY think there's a Dem the media won't chew up and spit out gleefully?

I expect a hell of a lot better from you than ad hominem attacks on other DUers. If you can't state your opinion without denigrating others, don't state it at all. Is that too much to ask?

[alvarezadams]

47. ROFLOL

Pot kettle black

[WildEyedLiberal]

95. Notice

I said "DUers."

[PresidentWar]

113. Ah, the ol' "nuancing" game.....

*chuckle*

[PresidentWar]

112. That's strange, coming from someone who ad hommed me in

two other forums. And you got some posts yanked for it too.

Physician, heal thyself!

[wisteria]

49. Can you please explain your comments. No one I talk to has ever

viewed Senator Kerry as a joke.

Also, being serious, who do you think is more qualified to be President? Who do you think is electable and why?

Without presenting something to back up your comments, they sound like nothing more than a personal dissatisfaction with the Senator-a dissatisfaction only shared by a small fraction of the American public.

[karynnj]

60. I agree - I've met people

who disagree with Kerry, but none who think he's a joke. The RW has attempted to make Dean, Kerryand Gore jokes - but the fact remains they are are very credible public servants.

[TankLV]

127. Try the voting public in general.

It's the perception that's out there.

You all may not like it, but that's the perception, however loudly you all wail against it.

It's just the way it is...

[karynnj]

59. "beating people over the head with how great he is"

How exactly do we, "Kerrybots", as you chose to call us, do this? Linking to credible sources to point out things that Kerry has done or has said or to describe the type of person he is seems well within the acceptable uses of a Democratic board. I welcome similar information provided by the Clark people on what he'd saying an doing - the same goes for other candidates.

You seem to have many posts commending Dean. i like Dean and enjoy reading what he is doing for the party as head of the DNC.

If you don't like the Kerry threads (this one was not started by anyone I ever saw in the JK group), don't read them. Are you afraid that you are learning too much about Kerry and may have to face that he is better person and stateman than you were willing to give him credit for? I realize that could be a danger as his speeches have been kick ass and he has been proven right on many things he said.

[TankLV]

123. you all have proved my point.

Don't DARE to say anything negative about Kerry or your posts will be deleted.

I stand by my original statements...

[alvarezadams]

28. Hell no

Just about every progressive I know gritted their teeth and voted for Kerry last time around in a case of ABB. Most of them (myself included) will not repeat the experience of voting for a GOP-Lite candidate even if it is to oust a rwingnut.

We want CHANGE and not just another center-right politico that wasn't even competent enough to smash Dubya in the debates.

[WildEyedLiberal]

31. I don't think your Marxist club is an appreciable segment of the public

NO liberal I've ever met would ever call John Kerry "GOP lite." It's more Green party Marxist faux progressive bullshit posturing from the handwringing crowd who will never scrape up more than 3% of the vote.

By the way, Kerry won all three debates decisively. Isn't it cute how the uber faux liberals resort to lies because the truth never supports their fucked-up worldview?

[alvarezadams]

36. You know no liberals then

Kerry supports neolib economics and neocon foreign policy - as befits a politico associated with the DLC. Kerry is as progressive as... Nixon? Certainly less progressive than Ike.

Green Party/Marxist? Try FDR progressive, thank you very much.

Kerry won all three debates DECISIVELY? He certainly won them but he had a chance to squash the moron-in-chief like a bug and let him walk away with his feathers barely ruffled.

It's cute how you center-rightists like to paint yourself as progressives as you're taken down the neoliberal stairs to the oubliette.

[karynnj]

62. I guess when you're as extreme as you are you can't see

how far out you are. I am a life long liberal - I first was active when I canvassed for McGovern in 1972. Kerry absolutely does not support neo-con politics and never did. He in fact is one of the few politicians to USE the word neo-conservative as a negative adjective in his statements. Keep throwing your little words around.

The last time, you called Kerry a neolib on economic issues - you got many links to Kerry speeches on economics that you liked enough - to respond that that was just what he says.

As to the debates - he won them conclusively. I seriously doubt that had he come out with rants of the type you think would have won the day - the result would have been endless playing on cable of the angriest parts with the talking heads shaking their heads and questioning his stability. Instead, a very biased press admitted after the first one that he won, both by being more knowlegable and articulate then expected, but that he was very Presidential.

The fact is that Kerry did raise very serious points about the job Bush had done. Kerry's statesman like demeanor and utter calmness actually let him attack more than anyone else could of without appearing too aggressive. (Think about it. Did you ever know anyone who could sound reasonable hitting you with point after point, while you sounded shrill in response? It's a skill and a talent.)

[alvarezadams]

78. Far out?

Sure I'm "far out". I have never pretended to be otherwise, especially when compared to the vanilla vs. French vanilla American political system.

As for "liking" Kerry's economic speeches, you're confusing me with someone else.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the degree of Kerry's victories in the debates. I must havbe missed his overwhelming electoral victory somewhere down the line.

At any rate I don't feel passionate enough about Kerry to go through the trouble yet again. When confronted with a "believer" it is next to impossible to sway them from their preconceived notions.

[karynnj]

110. Convincing a committed non-believer is far harder

[PresidentWar]

114. Oh here comes the "yer a dirty commie" rhetoric

LOL, I knew it was just around the corner.

[fedupinBushcountry]

41. What?

I think you are lost in space. Kerry won every debate, show mw where he didn't.

Your rhetoric doesn't match the facts, and sorry you were ABB, maybe if you took time to really find out what Kerry was about instead of being mad because your candidate didn't win, maybe Kerry would of done even better with people stating TRUTH about him instead of disgruntled individuals just repeating MSM and GOP talking points.

CHANGE- Kerry did win, but no one on our side will until people get up off their asses and do something about our election system. Have you?

[alvarezadams]

44. I'll speak LOUDER

I didn't say that Kerry LOST any debates - he merely was incapable of SMASHING Dubya.

My "rhetoric" matches the facts perfectly. I DID find out what Kerry was all about instead of aping pro-Kerry and pro-DLC talkingpoints.

Have I done anything about our election system? Yes - I failed it by voting against my beliefs. Other than that I have been active in Democrats Abroad, registering expats.

-----------

I will always rub the "mainstream Dems" wrong, btw. I am an historian, my mother was a child of the Depression and the TVA, I live abroad where there is actually a broad political spectrum. I don't see things from the same perspective as "Johnny Dem", especially when Johnny actually believes rhetoric despite the evidence that he's being manipulated, especially when Johnny sees the DLC as something positive.

I've already been called a Green/Marxist on this very thread because I reject the neoliberal economic policies that DLC politicians spew - which is ironic as my beliefs would fit in perfectly well with the DNC of my mother's day. I have sense and knowledge enough to realize that the DNC has moved FAR to the right, and not to the left as the particularly clueless and sheltered "vote-the-shirters" have swallowed so willingly. I have knowledge enough to realize that the DNC's problem in the past was its association with Dixiecrats and that it is in further danger from the "neoDixiecrats" of the DLC that would turn us into a party that is far more rightwing than Rockefeller's GOP ever was... or Taft's for that matter.

The fact that a "mainstream Dem" should accuse me of echoing MSM and GOP talking points, however, is ludicrous.

------------

You say "do something about the election system" (sic). What do you think the principle problem with our body politic is?

-I- believe that it is the same problem that the muguwumps fought against, that Teddy Roosevelt fought against, that Wilson and FDR fought against. It is the same problem that has involved us in a myriad of illegal and unjust wars, that has damaged our environment, that has stolen money from our treasury and from our very wallets. It has the same identity as those who support Dubya, the DLC... and Kerry and Edwards and Hillary. It is the same problem that formed the very basis of fascism too.

The problem is BIG BUSINESS, its overwhelming influence in government, its overwhelming perversion of the electoral system through campaign financing and think tank financing and PR financing and fundamentalist financing.

I wasn't a Deaniac but at least Dean brought - and brings - hope for those who realize that our system has been perverted since Reconstruction. And anyone who supports neoliberal globalization (NAFTA), "retraining" and "the need to compete" in order to retain jobs (compete with the 3rd world forchrissakes) is a major part of the problem.

IPSO DIXIT and sorry 'bout the rant.

[karynnj]

63. Gee, but Dean was DLC

Have you ever looked at the tables of how the DLC Senators vote - Kerry was and is OUT OF LINE with them.

As to campaign financing, Kerry has one of the best positions in government - he had NO PAC contributions (the only 4 term Senator that is true of) and he authored the Clean Elactions act that he and Wellstone tried to push in several Congressional sections. Kerry AGREES WITH YOU on big business and election financing.

From Thomas:
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak before you today about a critical challenge before this Senate--the challenge of reforming the way in which elections are conducted in the United States; the challenge of ending the ``moneyocracy'' that has turned our elections into auctions where public office is sold to the highest bidder. I want to implore the Congress to take meaningful steps this year to ban soft money, strengthen the Federal Election Commission, provide candidates the opportunity to pay for their campaigns with clean money, end the growing trend of dangerous sham issue ads, and meet the ultimate goal of restoring the rights of average Americans to have a stake in their democracy. Today I am proud to join with my colleague from Minnesota, PAUL WELLSTONE, to introduce the ``Clean Money'' bill which I believe will help all of us entrusted to shape public policy to arrive at a point where we can truly say we are rebuilding Americans' faith in our democracy.
For the last 10 years, I have stood before you to push for comprehensive campaign reform. We have made nips and tucks at the edges of the system, but we have always found excuses to hold us back from making the system work. It's long past time that we act--in a comprehensive way--to curtail the way in which soft money and the big special interest dollars are crowding ordinary citizens out of this political system.
Today the political system is being corrupted because there is too much unregulated, misused money circulating in an environment where candidates will do anything to get elected and where, too often, the special interests set the tone of debate more than the political leaders or the American people. Just consider the facts for a moment. The rising cost of seeking political office is outrageous. In 1996, House and Senate candidates spent more than $765 million, a 76% increase since 1990 and a six fold increase since 1976. Since 1976, the average cost for a winning Senate race went from $600,000 to $3.3 million, and in the arms race for campaign dollars in 1996 many of us were forced to spend significantly more than that. In constant dollars, we have seen an increase of over 100 percent in the money spent for Senatorial races from 1980 to 1994. Today Senators often spend more time on the phone ``dialing for dollars'' than on the Senate floor. The average Senator must raise $12,000 a week for six years to pay for his or her re-election campaign.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The use of soft money has exploded. In 1988, Democrats and Republicans raised a combined $45 million in soft money. In 1992 that number doubled to reach $90 million and in 1995-96 that number tripled to $262 million. This trend continues in this cycle. What's the impact of all that soft money? It means that the special interests are being heard. They're the ones with the influence. But ordinary citizens can't compete. Fewer than one third of one percent of eligible voters donated more than $250 in the electoral cycle of 1996. They're on the sidelines in what is becoming a coin-operated political system.
The American people want us to act today to forge a better system. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 77% of the public believes that campaign finance reform is needed ``because there is too much money being spent on political campaigns, which leads to excessive influence by special interests and wealthy individuals at the expense of average people.'' Last spring a New York Times found that an astonishing 91% of the public favor a fundamental transformation of this system.
Cynics say that the American people don't care about campaign finance. It's not true. Citizens just don't believe we'll have the courage to act--they're fed up with our defense of the status quo. They're disturbed by our fear of moving away from this status quo which is destroying our democracy. Soft money, political experts tell us, is good for incumbents, good for those of us within the system already. Well, nothing can be good for any elected official that hurts our democracy, that drives citizens out of the process, and which keeps politicians glued to the phone raising money when they ought to be doing the people's business. Let's put aside the status quo, and let's act today to restore our democracy, to make it once more all that the founders promised it could be.
Let us pass the Clean Mo ney Bill to restore faith in our government in this age when it has been so badly eroded.
Let us recognize that the faith in government and in our political process which leads Americans to go to town hall meetings, or to attend local caucuses, or even to vote--that faith which makes political expression worthwhile for ordinary working Americans--is being threatened by a political system that appears to reward the special interests that can play the game and the politicians who can game the system.
Each time we have debated campaign finance reform in this Senate, too many of our colleagues have safeguarded the status quo under the guise of protecting the political speech of the Fortune 500. But today we must pass campaign finance reform to protect the political voice of the 250 million ordinary, working Americans without a fortune. It is their dwindling faith in our political system that must be restored.
Twenty five years ago, I sat before the Foreign Relations Committee, a young veteran having returned from Vietnam. Behind me sat hundreds of veterans committed to ending the war the Vietnam War. Even then we questioned whether ordinary Americans, battle scarred veterans, could have a voice in a political system where the costs of campaigns, the price of elected office seemed prohibitive. Young men who had put their life on the front lines for their country were worried that the wall of special interests between the people and their government might have been too thick even then for our voices to be heard in the corridors of power in Washington, D.C.
But we had a reserve of faith left, some belief in the promise and the influence of political expression for all Americans. That sliver of faith saved lives. Ordinary citizens stopped a war that had taken 59,000 American lives.
GPO's PDF
Every time in the history of this republic when we have faced a moral challenge, there has been enough faith in our democracy to stir the passions of ordinary Americans to act--to write to their Members of Congress; to come to Washington and speak with us one on one; to walk door to door on behalf of issues and candidates; and to vote on election day for people they believe will fight for them in Washington.
It's the activism of citizens in our democracy that has made the American experiment a success. Ordinary citizens--at the most critical moments in our history--were filled with a sense of efficacy. They believed they had influence in their government.
Today those same citizens are turning away from our political system. They believe the only kind of influence left in American politics is the kind you wield with a checkbook. The senior citizen living on a social security check knows her influence is inconsequential compared to the interest group that can saturate a media market with a million dollars in ads that play fast and loose with the facts. The mother struggling to find decent health care for her children knows her influence is trivial compared to the special interests on K Street that can deliver contributions to incumbent politicians struggling to stay in office.
But I would remind you that whenever our country faces a challenge, it is not the special interests, but rather the average citizen, who holds the responsibility to protect our nation. The next time our nation faces a crisis and the people's voice needs to be heard to turn the tide of history, will the average American believe enough in the process to give words to the feelings beyond the beltway, the currents of public opinion that run beneath the surface of our political dialogue?
In times of real challenge for our country in the years to come, will the young people speak up once again? Not if we continue to hand over control of our political system to the special interests who can infuse the system with soft money and with phony television ads that make a mockery of the issues.
The children of the generation that fought to lower the voting age to 18 are abandoning the voting booth themselves. Polls reveal they believe it is more likely that they'll be abducted by aliens than it is that their vote will make a real difference. For America's young people the MTV Voter Participation Challenge ``Choose or Lose'' has become a cynical joke. In their minds, the choice has already been lost--lost to the special interests. That is a loss this Senate should take very seriously. That is tremendous damage done to our democracy, damage we have a responsibility in this Senate to repair. Mr. President, with this legislation we are introducing today, we can begin that effort--we can repair and revitalize our political process, and we can guarantee ``clean el ections'' fu nded by ``clean mo ney,'' elections wh ere our citizens are the ones who make the difference

[WildEyedLiberal]

96. You're wasting your time

Well, I shouldn't say that. Your post is a valuable source of information for anyone interested in the truth.

Unfortunately, the poster to whom you are replying hates the truth and is here for the express purpose of spreading lies and division.

I think there's even a word for people like that...

[PresidentWar]

118. Kerry's over. Done. Kaput.

Let him retire with dignity. We need new blood, people who have a new vision of the Democratic ideals, and hopefully ones who will DEMAND a vote count when the stakes are high.

[ProSense]

132. Your wish

is a fantasy! You certainly are spending a lot of energy perpetrating it! If he's done, as you say, get over him and move on!

[PresidentWar]

159. No, more like extent reality.

But dreaming is something that's free in our country (for the time being). So, have at it.

[wisteria]

51. It is apparent you have Senator Kerry confused with someone else

thinking about running for President. Senator Kerry is not center-right.

[alvarezadams]

57. He most certainly IS

His policies are largely neoliberal albeit with a sugarcoating of progressive rhetoric combined with a few token populistic causes.

FWIW, from a global standpoint and from the perspective of one who lives in a country with a far wider political spectrum than the US, the American political spectrum ranges from the center (Kucinich) to the center-right (DNC) to the right (DLC) to the far-right (GOP). From afar the differences between the GOP and DNC are minimal - they do not oppose each other in anything but in the degree that they have embraced neoliberalism, globalization, big business, neocolonialism, unilateralism, etc. They paint virtually the same picture using different colours, appealing to different emotional buttons.

This hasn't always been true. In the days of FDR there was a palpable difference - which has become eroded as corporations have gained sway over the American polity.

[karynnj]

66. Have you ever been to the US?

Have you ever considered you really have a limited view of who Kerry is. Many of us who you attack have seen Kerry speak and a few lucky ones (not me) have met him.

The fact of the matter is that Kuchinich, for a major part of his career was to the right of Senator Kerry. Are you aware that Kerry stood alone to help take down BCCI. He was as isolated as he was because some moneymen for each party who finance elections were complicit as they had been bought off. Kerry was well aware of the dangers that the government was being bought, that is why he risked his future by standing alone. Have you read his book, "The New War", there he speaks of globalized international crime networks buying or manipulating governments to the point where the government operates for their good, not that of the people. In this country, there is NO other politician that seems to understand this as completely.

FDR was able to initiate many programs because the country was more afraid of the depression that they were of anything else. Istead of thinking that wellfare programs, Social security, bank guarantees were something needed by others - which was the prevailing view pre-FDR, most people knew it was also possible that they, or a friend or a family member might need it. Looking at the country today, we are closer to that time than we were in 2000 (when people still believed that the already collapsing boom would never end) or in 2004 when the fear generated by terror warnings seemed more real than the fear of losing medical insurance or your job, though the latter was far more likely.

Part of the difference in the US per one Economics teacher I had years ago is that most people in the US identify with the class they aspire to be in and believe that with hard work their is a lot of mobility. There is actually less mobility in the US than in several European countries, but most people don't recognize that. Why do you think such a high percent of people want to get rid of inheritance taxes on estates valued in the millions? Part of it is the American myth.

Look at Kerry's proposals - they are not socialism which would not be acceptable here. It makes sense to propose what can pass - like his health insurance plan. Look at his Small Business proposals - he genuinely is for giving people the help and tools needed. The picture you have of Kerry is at variance with the comments he has made over his 25 years in office(s).

Even on NAFTA, which he said in 2004 had worked badly and needed change, it came down to seeing that the treaty could be used to make things better than not having it - global trade was going to happen anyway. Side agreement promised by Clinton on trade and the environmant were blocked. He worked to put these things into CAFTA directly - but failed 10/10 to get it out of the Republican controlled committee. You diminish the importance of what he says, ignoring that as a MInority Senator he usually can only vote Yes or No.

Here's what he said when he voted on NAFTA in 1993:

In many ways, we are witnessing the most rapid change in the workplace in this country since the postwar era began. For a majority of working Americans, the changes are utterly at odds with the expectations they nurtured growing up.
Millions of Americans grew up feeling they had a kind of implied contract with their country, a contract for the American dream. If you applied yourself, got an education, went to work, and worked hard, then you had a reasonable shot at an income, a home, time for family, and a graceful retirement.
Today, those comfortable assumptions have been shattered by the realization that no job is safe, no future assured. And many Americans simply feel betrayed.
To this day I'm not sure that official Washington fully comprehends what has happened to working America in the last 20 years, a period when the incomes of the majority declined in real terms.
In the decade following 1953, the typical male worker, head of his household, aged 40 to 50, saw his real income grow 36 percent. The 40-something workers from 1963 to 1973 saw their incomes grow 25 percent. The 40-something workers from 1973 to 1983 saw their incomes decline, by 14 percent, and reliable estimates indicate that the period of 1983 to 1993 will show a similar decline.
From 1969 to 1989 average weekly earnings in this country declined from $387 to $335. No wonder then, that millions of women entered the work force, not simply because the opportunity opened for the first time. They had no choice. More and more families needed two incomes to support a family, where one had once been enough.
It began to be insufficient to have two incomes in the family. By 1989 the number of people working at more than one job hit a record high. And then even this was not enough to maintain living standards. Family income growth simply slowed down. Between 1979 and 1989 it grew more slowly than at any period since World War II. In 1989 the median family income was only $1,528 greater than it had been 10 years earlier. In prior decades real family income would increase by that same amount every 22 months. When the recession began in 1989, the average family's inflation-adjusted income fell 4.4 percent, a $1,640 drop, or more than the entire gain from the eighties.
Younger people now make less money at the beginning of their careers, and can expect their incomes to grow more slowly than their parents'. Families headed by persons aged 25 to 34 in 1989 had incomes $1,715 less than their counterparts did 10 years earlier, in 1979. Evidence continues to suggest that persons born after 1945 simply will not achieve the same incomes in middle-age that their parents achieved.
Thus, Mr. President, it is a treadmill world for millions of Americans. They work hard, they spend less time with their families, but their incomes don't go up. The more their incomes stagnate, the more they work. The more they work, the more they leave the kids alone, and the more they need child care. The more they need child care, the more they need to work.
Why are we surprised at the statistics on the hours children spend in front of the television; about illiteracy rates; about teenage crime and pregnancy? All the adults are working and too many kids are raising themselves.
Of course, there is another story to be found in the numbers. Not everyone is suffering from a declining income. Those at the top of the income scale are seeing their incomes increase, and as a result income inequality in this Nation is growing dramatically. Overall, the 30 percent of our people at the top of the income scale have secured more and more, while the bottom 70 percent have been losing. The richest 1 percent saw their incomes grow 62 percent during the 1980's, capturing a full 53 percent of the total income growth among all families in the entire economy. This represents a dramatic reversal of what had been a post-war trend toward equality in this country. It also means that the less well-off in our society--the same Americans who lost out in the Reagan tax revolution--are the ones being hurt by changes in the economy.
You might say that we long ago left the world of Ward and June Clever. We have entered the world of Roseanne and Dan, and the yuppies from `L.A. Law' working downtown.
Many, many commentators have explained how the assumptions from that long-ago world will cripple us if we do not have the courage to look at today's economy with a clear eye.
Back then, we were the only economic superpower. American companies had virtually no competition and, since they produced almost entirely in the United States, their workers felt no particular threat from workers abroad. This was the era when `Made in Japan' meant something was cheap--not good, just cheap.
Throughout the 1950's and 1960's productivity was rising rapidly throughout the American economy, so that people could expect over time to work less, but earn more.
Back then, free trade for America meant more markets for America, not competition. We maintained the Bretton Woods rules, the GATT, and other treaty obligations not only to buttress the free world against communism, and not only out of the goodness of our hearts; we enforced a basic level of stability in the world because a stable world meant open markets for us, and we made the products people most wanted to buy.
Back then, large corporations and large unions set the pace for middle-class prosperity. Remember it was Henry Ford, no fan of unions, who created the mass production line to turn out cars cheaply--cheaply enough so that his own workers could buy them. When he finally capitulated to the United Auto Workers, he gave his workers the largest settlement of the Big Three.
In those days, Fortune 500 companies controlled well over 50 percent of our total economy, and employed three-quarters of our manufacturing work force. If the New Deal built the floor for personal security in America, the corporate economy put up the middle-class safety net, with pension plans and health insurance.
In those days, American families lived on one man's paycheck, from one job that lasted with one company for an entire lifetime.
If you were laid off, you were laid off for the duration, and you were called back when business picked up.
No more.
And two key words summarize the difference: globalization and technology. Each one feeds the other. Each one confronts American employers with a choice: Can I beat the competition by making a stand in America with my own workers, or must I beat the competition by going abroad? Will my workers join the ranks of the 70 percent falling behind, or will they join the ranks of the 30 percent--or fewer--who will get ahead?
The dynamics of this are familiar to anybody who works. Technology, particularly computer technology, makes it possible to move production anywhere in the world. Technology makes it possible for formerly large corporations to make do with drastically fewer people at home. Remember those bar-code readers.
Increasingly freer trade amongst nations means that competition comes from low-wage workers in developing countries, or from high-skilled, highly productive workers in the industrialized countries. The choice is a stark one: either a nation must secure more technology and become more productive or it must underbid all others for labor and other costs. Most countries understand that this is a choice they have to make.
I submit to you, Mr. President, that this is a choice which we are not making, and the consequence is that the choice is being made for us--toward low costs, leading to the unprecedented wave of downsizing underway in our economy.
Two weeks ago an American Management Association survey reported that nearly half of the companies polled had reduced their work forces in the last year. A quarter reported that they will do so again in the coming year, some for the second or third time in 5 years, and experience shows that the number of companies that eventually downsize is twice the number that predict they will.
Workers who are downsized in today's environment are not out for the duration. They are out for good, and their ability to climb back into the economy is utterly dependent on the match between their skills and the needs of the small and midsized companies which now represent the pivot point for American economic success. Central to this division is skills: those that have them win, those that do not have them lose.
Workers with high skills can reap the rewards of the new technology, which is higher productivity. Higher productivity is not only the basis of increased pay, it is the ticket of admission to world markets, hence to growth, hence to new jobs and higher pay.
Recently Princeton economist Alan Krueger showed that workers who used computers on the job earned a 10- to 15-percent higher wage rate than otherwise similar workers. On the basis of this study, Microsoft Corp., the software giant, ran advertisements in Time magazine and elsewhere declaring `we make it easier to get a 15-percent raise.'
On the other hand, there is a growing disadvantage to not being well educated and flexibly skilled. Workers with lower skills find that technology either eliminates their jobs or moves them overseas. It is this disadvantage that lower skilled
workers face in the new global, high-technology economy that explains why they are faring increasingly poorly in terms of wages and incomes. It is these lower-skilled workers who are having the rug pulled out from under them. And it is no wonder they are scared by NAFTA .
Now, I do not come to this issue as some latter-day luddite, ready to smash bar code scanners in the supermarket and wall off our borders from foreign imports.
I believe that the change we are witnessing--whether we like it or not--is inevitable. What is not inevitable is our passivity, and our inability to make change work for, instead of against, American workers.
In the past few months I have visited any number of companies in my home State of Massachusetts that have made technology work for them and their workers. Through aggressive R&D, advanced manufacturing technology, and continuous worker training and involvement, they have maintained and often increased manufacturing jobs in Massachusetts, a State where manufacturing is supposedly dead and buried. These include the Bose Corp., a major player in the Japanese hi-fi and automotive parts market, thanks to its constant innovation; and Modicon Corp., which brought jobs back from Asia when it radically upgraded technology and workplace organization. In my State, you simply cannot create new manufacturing jobs with a low-skill, low-wage strategy. You must go the high-technology, high-skill route, and you must export.
The question is, Are we going to learn from the Boses and the Modicons?
Other nations, notably Japan and Germany, have structured their entire economies around the goal of employing their citizens in well-paying jobs. This is the goal toward which government, industry, and individuals work together.
This happened in part because they were poor in natural resources and had small home markets. And so in order to become industrialized nations they were forced to export. At an early stage, therefore, international competition became their obsession. And economic considerations often dominated foreign and security policy. They were not afraid--in part as a result of cultural differences--of an economic model where big business and big government worked together to promote long-term job creation.
But in this country, Mr. President, we are still lacking a strategy that sends out an unmistakable signal to every American that the highest priority of the American Government and American industry is ensuring that Americans have the ability to get good
jobs--maybe not one job for their entire lives, but one or a series of jobs that will support their families for the entirety of their careers.
This strategy needs to address the insecurity that people feel for their economic future and in order to do so it must recognize the centrality of education and training--two priorities on which President Clinton rightly focused during the campaign.
In 1949, we spent 9 percent of our Federal budget on education. We now spend less than 3 percent. An estimated 83 million Americans have inadequate reading skills and the United States is the only major industrialized nation in the world with no formal system or structure to facilitate the school-to-work transition. Federal support for vocational education has declined approximately 30 percent in real dollars over the last decade. Meanwhile, such competitors as Germany spend dramatically more on training the best educated and now the highest-paid workers in the world. American students attend school for 180 days per year while Japanese children go to school for 243 days and German children for 240 days. This means that our children attend school for 25 percent less time each year than their future competitors.
This is unacceptable. There is no question that our priorities have become skewed. The space station will cost us $2 billion this year, while the Federal Government will spend only $630 million on primary and secondary education. Over 80 percent of prison inmates are dropouts, and they each cost us between $15,000 and $30,000 per year to incarcerate. This situation is totally unacceptable.
We should be prepared to use any mechanism necessary to find more money to invest in our one true asset--our people. We can find this money in pork-barrel projects; in entitlement programs; we can reexamine the issue of the gas tax--surely Americans would be willing to pay a few more pennies a gallon to educate our children for the global competition they will face. There are many other places we can look for the resources--if we are serious and committed to the objective.
We need to begin by quickly funneling more money into our education budget. I strongly support Senator Jefford's suggestion that we add money to education spending in increments of 1 percent of the Federal budget until it accounts for 10 percent in the year 2004. I also agree with Senator Simon and Senator Dodd that we must abandon property tax supported education which leads to inequities among school systems.
Next, we need to quickly put in place the School-to-Work Program on which the President and Senator Kennedy have been
working. And we must not be shy about fully funding these, either. This is no place to be penny wise and pound foolish.
We must quickly enact the Worker Adjustment Program that Secretary Reich has been drafting--and I believe that we should attach it to the NAFTA as part of the implementing legislation to ensure that full help is available for all workers who need it. In addition to streamlining our disparate adjustment programs, this plan would make unemployment insurance flexible so that workers could use it as income support while they retrain--a need that did not exist when the UI system was designed to buttress workers who were temporarily laid off. It will also put the Federal Government in the business of smoothing out the labor market's information flows--so that displaced workers can find out where jobs are, what kinds of skills they require, and how they can obtain them.
And I believe, Mr. President, that we should go beyond the administration's current proposals and create an Incumbent Worker Training Program. During the campaign, President Clinton discussed encouraging companies to train their workers and I feel that we must return to that concept. We cannot wait to do this until our companies lose the global competition and our workers are downsized out of their jobs. We must help them retain the jobs they have by ensuring that they are the most technically adept in the world.
But it is not enough, Mr. President, to say `if we train them, the jobs will come.' Because the jobs may not come. A recent 2-year study of the American system of capital investment by researchers at the Harvard Business School raises the question of whether U.S. companies are sufficiently focused on the long-term to be competitive and to create high-wage jobs.
The report points out that leading American firms in many industries are outinvested by their Japanese counterparts; that the R&D portfolios of American firms include a smaller share of long-term projects than those of European and Japanese firms and that American firms invest at a lower rate than both Japanese and German firms in intangible assets--such as human resource development. The report relays the fact that American CEO's believe that their firms have shorter investment horizons than their international competitors. As a result, they sometimes confuse cutting back and downsizing with a solution--restructuring may give a short-term lift to a company's stock but unless the savings are invested in productive assets, it will not help the company compete better with its German rivals over the long run.

[alvarezadams]

75. Have you ever left it?

You claim - on the basis of my disagreement with your hagiography - that I have a limited view of who Kerry is. Well, I have studied his votes, analyzed his speeches, disected his platforms. My take on him is thus limited to reality, unfettered by any personal attraction.

Yes, I realize that he has crusaded against special interests that weren't supporting him. I'm surprised that you think that his "detection" of political corruption is somehow praiseworthy - as if the muguwumps never existed or that trust-busting used to be mainstream. Teddy Roosevelt and even McKinley were far clearer about the dangers of a corporate cleptocracy - not to mention Ike. Yet in the end he supported NAFTA.

Your interpretation of FDR is, well, what it is. FDR's initial programs were, in fact, the continuation of Hoovers... and it was only in the face of continued visceral reaction from the right (and corps) did FDR take a major turn to the left... bringing the US closer to a 20th century 1st world country.

I agree with your take on the "American Myth" but I'd add that this myth was deliberately fostered by over $1 billion/year for decades - paid for by those that wanted to dismantle the New Deal.

As for Kerry's "plans", I've spent considerable time cutting the rhetoric out and leaving them in their bare bones. This is one of the reasons why I can safely say that Kerry is a neolib: the policies could have been written by Hayek or Von Misses. Like the DLC's, Kerry's plans are based on "private initiative", "small government", "less regulation", and "self-help". Coolidge would have signed on in a heartbeat.

Kerry's stance on NAFTA is mysteriously like his stance on Dubya's war powers. He shirks responsibility for his decision, writing-in caveats that could be interpreted by progressives as liberal. But in the end he voted for both - and that's what counts. His speech is great when he shows the failures of neoliberal economics - and then he proposes something that can be seen in the GOP's platform. Education/training in order to compete. Utter horseshit, with all due respect. His understanding of how the European welfare state was created and prospered could have been written by Hayek defending economic anarchy.

When will people start to read critically and contemplate alternate POV's instead of swallowing rhetoric because it is sugar-coated?

[karynnj]

103. Have I ever left the US? yes

Sure, I've been to:
Spain (about 4 weeks)
Morocco(a week)
France (a week)
England (3 -4 weeks)
Israel (about a week)
Eqypt (2 weeks)
Trinadad (1 week)
St Martin (1 week)

I do realize that FDR's programs were done in desperation - many key ones were done in the First 100 days - so he turned left pretty quickly. I do realize that some were ideas of left leaning third parties and that FDR did not run on turning the country around.

I also do know that there was a time when trust busting was mainstream, but that time was not the 1980s and the 1990s - Do you think that Kerry shouldn't have gone after the Contra drug running or the banking corruption? That these types of actions were mainstream in a time period decades before is irrelevent. Who was with Kerry on trying to stop this. Clinton and Gore in the 1980s had positive things to say about the Contras and thought they should be funded. This was the Reagan era, after all. (Fighting the Contras doesn't seem like something a good neo-con would do.)

I listened to Kerry's comments on all the trade bills when he spoke at the confirmation hearing for Portman. Kerry was outlining that change was needed. Some changes needed were the changes originally promised. Kerry clearly believed as he said with the title of the NAFTA speech, "What's NAFTA Got To DO With it?" his opinon that globalization was here to stay and couldn't be stopped. His speech says to me that he voted for it because with the trade agreement, there was the possibility with regulation that they could make some things a little less bad.

Did it ever occur to you that were trying to put Kerry into a category - so you see all the "proof" and call anything that makes him not fit "sugar coating". What seems obvious to me is that Kerry doesn't fit neatly into any category - and he doesn't want to.

[karynnj]

61. So, which more progressive candidate are you for?

Kerry is not the most liberal member of the Senate, but he is clearly one of the liberal progressive people running. He has never been GOP-lite.

It can't be Al Gore - he was FAR more centrist each year when both Kerry and he served together in the Senate.

It can't be John Edwards - in the very brief time he was in the Senate - he was more conservative. Read his primary debate interviews of 2004.

It can't be Dean, who promised not to run - who was far less progessive over his 12 years in office.

Bayh - the father, maybe - Evan, no, he's more conservative.

Warner - no, too conservative.

Hillary - is liberal on some issues - but on issues like the war is far less anti-war.

So, that leaves only Feingold - and he and Kerry have different issues where each is more progressive -

So tell me who you want.

[alvarezadams]

67. I'm sick and tired of that...

..."most liberal senator" baloney, used alternatively to defend any number of politicos from Kerry to Hillary to Lieberbush.

Defending token progressive issues while voting in favour of corps in the most important ones is an example of bait-and-switch that I, for one, won't fall for. It is the MO of the DLC, it is utterly cynical and worthy of the most visceral rejection.

Who will run? You named some names - I don't think that the list is complete. Feingold seems kinda OK

[sandnsea]

71. Feingold is "kinda OK"??

That speaks volumes. I would suggest that you spend some time reading something besides counterpunch and wsws.

[alvarezadams]

72. Never seen either

I don't claim to be mainstream American - as I've noted, I live abroad and have a different perspective.

I am what could be called a "social libertarian" (http://www.politicalcompass.org/ to take the test if you don't know it). This is a trait that I have found to share with virtually all American progressives... yet ALL American politicians fall on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Social libertarianism has not been adopted by any party (for obvious reasons). Yet progressives around the world identify with it strongly. We are thus utterly unrepresented and can only hope to find the least bad of many evils.

As for your suggestion, I suggest that you read some books. History, economics, sociology, political science. Once you've outgrown your utterly parochial and shallow POV, get back to me.

[sandnsea]

81. And somehow your "different perspective"

is what is going to win the day in a US Presidential election. Yeah, okay, you bet. Social libertarianism hasn't been adopted for the same reason economic libertarianism isn't adopted, it doesn't work. It's always funny to me that liberals point to Potterville as the symbol of evil Republicanism, and yet a no-rules libertarianism is more likely to lead to that kind of greed and debauchery than anything else. You may think complete anarchy is a great way to live, but most people don't.

[alvarezadams]

84. I have never

followed the idea that victory is all. I am under no delusion that my ideals are universal or even common - especially in a political environment perverted by billions spent on indoctrination, piss-poor education and political isolation.

Economic libertarianism, for your information, HAS been adopted. It's called neoliberalism.

As for your interpretation of social libertarianism as being "anarchy" - your ignorance is showing.

Deal with it.

[sandnsea]

87. Your anarchistic attitude is showing

You've done nothing in this thread except insult people. I know hyperbolic politics is popular in some circles, but you really can't govern from there. See ya.

[alvarezadams]

93. If you can't stand the heat

I don't blame you for leaving the kitchen.

Yes, I have been visceral - what else can one do in the face of coginitive dissonance?

I have addresses the points of my "opponents" - without rebuttal or response beyond memes.

I'll be around if you ever feel capable of a dialectic discussion on ideology. Otherwise, feel free to carry on electing the right lizard (thanx, Douglas Adams).

:boring:

[sandnsea]

98. Heat cooks

You want to burn the kitchen to the ground. Anybody with a brain would leave.

[karynnj]

104. Maybe because pre-Bush, the libertarians

lined up with the conservatives, not the liberals. By the way - the vast majority of us his have read books - even on history, economics, sociology and political science. Some of us even have degrees in them.

What I hate is the theft of the word progressive by libertarians. It used to be more connected with liberal - like McGovern. It may be that neither party has adopted social libertarianism because the balk of their members aren't social libertarians.

[alvarezadams]

111. That's not been my experience

Social libertarians believe in personal liberty and the government's responsibility to labor for the common weal. I have yet to find a progressive that didn't test as social libertarian in the political compass test.

[karynnj]

116. Possibly due to the fact that you DEFINE

progressives equal social libertarian. I personally don't think that that is a well designed test - I also seriously doubt that Kerry fits with Milton Friedman and Aynn Rand.

[ProSense]

133. Exactly! n/t

[alvarezadams]

150. Quoting Keller

Another country heard from

[alvarezadams]

149. Eh?

Kinda putting the illogical horse behind the logical card, aren't you?

-I- didn't define progressives as social libertarians. It just so happens that most progressives that take the test (which is well-considered in most circles) happen to fall in the social libertarian quadrant.

Kerry fits in quite well with Friedman - at least in the economic sphere. Just apply some critical thinking to his rhetoric and you'll see.

Or not.

[karynnj]

73. I listed most of the more likely candidates

I did forget

Joe Biden - less Liberal than Kerry
Chris Dodd - I don't know a lot about him, but he is not radically more liberal than Kerry
Vilsack - Iowa governor - I never heard he was liberal
Richardson - Clinton administration guy

I said Kerry was NOT the most liberal - I think Kennedy is. Oh, Kennedy supports Kerry.

I'm sure - given your criterion - you would reject Feingold as well for not being pure enough - he did vote to confirm Ashcroft.

[alvarezadams]

76. Here we go again

the "purity" meme, brought to you by the com folks at the DLC.

At present I'd probably support Feingold. We'll see what happens over the next 2 years.

[karynnj]

68. How many American liberals did you know?

John Kerry was the most consistently (over his entire career) liberal candidate running in 2004 except for Sharpton and Braun - and they were NOT serious candidates.

I also see your icon and see part of the problem. Senator Kerry was against anarchy even as a young protester.

[alvarezadams]

79. Against POLITICAL anarchy perhaps...

...but he's all for economic anarchy (aka neoliberalism).

FWIW, the logo is just one of the limited default choice that DU offers. Don't take it too seriously.

[karynnj]

102. Kerry is most definately not for economic anarchy

Look at his work on Small Businesses, look at him many attempts to hold the SBA under Bush accountable. Maybe if you actually looked at Kerry's worrds and his work in the Finance committee and Small Business committee, rather than applying a label and then assuming that anything you think is neo-liberal economics is where Kerry is.

You also said he was neo-con. Kerry was against neo-con type sentiments at least since 1966 - Madeline Albright in her new book quotes from Kerry's Yale speech. There are also archived tapes of Kerry on Firing Line with William F Buckley where Kerry spoke against intervening in other countries on the assumption that if they were like us they would be better off. (This was the 70s and Kerry's opinion on this not commonplace.) His first teacher on foreign policy was his father, Richard Kerry, whose book written in the early 90s (I think) was 180 degrees away from neo con ideology.

In both of these assignments of labels, do you have a quote where Kerry ever said he was one? Your logic is strange - you dismiss his speeches, esentially saying you think he simply says those things - yet you offer no proof that Kerry is not what he has said his entire life he is. Considering you never even met him, that takes a fair amount of chutzpah.

[alvarezadams]

151. I see it

but I distinguish between token efforts and the wider angle of his policies... not to mention the difference between rhetoric and content.

Kerry's foreign policy is neocon light. He believes in internationalism - as a tool. When confronted with his vote for Iraq he provided lots of caveats (covering his bases) yet he voted for it. Was he so damned NAIVE that he didn't see what half the world had seen for MONTHS? The thinktank behind his policy platforms is headed by a signer of PNAC statements forchrissakes. In the debates he spoke of how badly bungled the occupation had been - not the WRONGNESS of the invasion.

I'm far from alone in my interpretation:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0218-13.htm
http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2557
etc etc etc

At the same time, an understanding of international undercurrents belie Kerry's rhetoric. He supports the primary tools of economic colonialism (the IMF, WB) and the continuation of "aid" to Africa (in the form that has shown itself to be debilitating and counterproductive), opening NATO to E. Europe (as if Russia can be discounted and as if it will be happy with the expansion of what can only be considered an enemy)... A cursory glance at his policies looks wonderfully progressive, a deeper look shows that they are in fact reactionary albeit clothed in progressive rhetoric.

Who knows? Perhaps the man is really just very shallow in the end. He wasn't the best student in Yale, and Yale itself isn't the place to get an unbiased world view. But if he was shallow enough to believe the caveats he published regarding his support for Dubya's Iraq extravaganza, the man is not one I would trust to control our foreign policy.

[sandnsea]

69. Like Webb, Warner, Hackett,

and a host of other really centrist Dems that the blogosphere drools over?? That kind of change??

[WildEyedLiberal]

30. All those saying "Hell NO" are fucking liars

Considering he received 60 million votes in 2004 - and considering a great many 2004 Bush voters have come to regret their decision - it does not follow that Kerry is incapable of winning the 2008 presidential election, which is what the question asked.

Of course, the brain trust kneejerkers here who voted "Hell NO" seem to be reading the question as, "will you support him in the primary"? They are so patently infuriated and terrified by the idea of Kerry having any support that they will twist and bend all rules of logic to slam him. Not that I'd expect any differently...

[rockymountaindem]

32. That's true

But to be honest, I'm surprised at the low level of "hell no" replies. I thought it would easily be 75% around here.

[FrenchieCat]

33. I didn't vote.....BUT,

Aren't you denegrating those DUers who voted in a way that displeased you, by calling them "fucking liars"...?
And isn't that something you yourself might not want to do, since upthread you were calling that a Low lifed thing to do to the poster who called Kerry supporters Kerrybots (or whatever)?

You did say....

WildEyedLiberal (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-05-06 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #24
29. Why do you insist on personally attacking other DUers?
"Kerrybots" is a personal attack and an ad hominem base insult and it's pretty fucking low of you to say.
....I expect a hell of a lot better from you than ad hominem attacks on other DUers. If you can't state your opinion without denigrating others, don't state it at all. Is that too much to ask?

Just askin'? :shrug:

[WildEyedLiberal]

34. Those who voted "hell no" show an alarming lack of logical thinking

If he got 60 million votes in 2004 against the Bush/Rove/MSM machine, it is certain that he is at the least a contender should he receive the nomination in 2008. Again: the poll didn't ask whether you wanted him in the primary; it asked if he is electable in 2008. There is really only one valid answer to that question, given the data that we have. And that answer is that he is every bit as electable as any other Democrat.

I would never denigrate a DUer for choosing to support a different Dem in the primary, nor would I say that any other mainstream Democrat is "unelectable" because quite frankly, for me to say that would be dishonest and reflecting not so much facts as my own bias. I can't say with a straight face that Hillary or Feingold is unelectable, even if they are not my first choice, because they have positives and negatives going for them, just like most other Dem candidates. Those responding "no" to this poll are letting their personal bias intrude on reality, and no, I have no respect for that at all.

[FrenchieCat]

35. I still think that calling name ain't the best approach......

and that was what I was talking about.

[WildEyedLiberal]

97. A lie is a lie is a lie

Sorry if I didn't sugarcoat it. Those replying hell no are willfully misreading the poll, so they're either illiterate or liars.

[alvarezadams]

38. No logical thinking?

Pot meets kettle.

1. Voter turnout was low considering the stakes.
2. Kerry did not garner passionate support except from his unconditionals - and I'd wager that a very large number of Kerry voters voted ABB.
3. Kerry's campaign was disappointing to many, as was his meek surrender in the face of fraud allegations.
4. Electoral apathy can be largely attributed to distrust of party machine politicians and the system they represent. Kerry is a mainstream milquetoast pro-corp example of failed triangulation for many - if the DNC is to succeed (or to have any impact with its electoral success) it needs to eschew the tired and diminished "same ol same ol".
5. If anything is brewing in the DNC it is at the grassroots level. While there are indeed many rubes like you in the DNC that think that Republican Light is just what America needs, the new force in the DNC disagrees.
6. In campaigns where the difference between parties and platforms is blurred through "triangulation", where there is competition for the same segments, personality and charisma will be the deciding facts (plus inherited political leanings, the effects of smear and spin, etc.). Kerry has the charisma of Lurch.

Kerry could indeed come close to his 2000 figures - depending on who he runs against. But he could never win ... unless it is against a Cheney or similar. Against a McCaine he'd have no chance in hell.

As for your attitude and ad hominems, etc. - I'm not thin skinned. Feel free to show your true colours at will.

[karynnj]

65. He turned out millions more voters than any previous candidate

Kerry has NEVER been milquetoast anything. Kerry himself spoke of the need for revived grassroots. The grassroots in 2004 were very weak as were the local parties - this was something that should have been addressed in the years leading up to the election.

Kerry has charisma - why do you thing the media refrained from actually showing his rallies. Have you seen him speak? He is great - and it's not simply repeating expertly one focus group defined stump speech.

Read McCain's own book - the chapter on the POW/MIA committee draws a very detailed protrait of McCain and Kerry and how they work and interact with others - Kerry comes out VERY well. He was Presidental, Kerry had to essentially hold McCain together emotionally.

[ProSense]

82. Exactly! n/t

[TankLV]

125. Charisma?

That's laughable.

He has the charisma of a mortician...

Look at the way SNL and others make fun of him - there's a reason why.

Ira Glass on This American Life on NPR sums it up perfectly in "The Cat Came Back" from the August 18 program:

http://www.thislife.org/

All you're browbeating on forcing him down our throats is gonna make us all go in the other direction.

He's a fine senator.

I intend to keep him there...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

88. From where I stood, a large percentage of Kerry voters were ABB

and others were buying into the "well, he's the most electable" meme.

I heard Kerry speak twice, Edwards once, and Kucinich three times. From my reading of the crowds, both Edwards and Kucinich aroused more genuine emotion in their listeners than Kerry did.

In fact, the first time I heard Kerry speak, I was surprised at how underwhelming he was. I got better vibes from Max Cleland, who opened for him. Kerry just seemed to be going through the motions.

Kerry was the establishment choice. When I went to my caucus in Minneapolis, with an unprecedented turnout, the DFL regulars tried to tell us that a vote for anyone but Kerry or Edwards was wasted. As it was, only about 50% of my precinct went for Kerry, with Edwards and Kucinich sharing the rest. (The Minnesota Dean supporters had decided to give their votes to Edwards.) In some precinct caucuses in the Twin Cities, Kerry got less than half the votes.

Yet ten thousand volunteers came out on Election Day in the Twin Cities area and walked their feet off and dialed their fingers off from morning till night. It wasn't because they loved Kerry. I saw lots of people whom I knew to be Dean or Kucinich supporters but who were out there because they knew that anyone was better than Bush.

The Bushboy is driving this country off a cliff at 60 mph. The way I see Kerry's policies, he would have slowed down to 30 mph, not veered away from the cliff. But we were willing to accept that as a way of buying time.

We're closer to the cliff now, and I have no interest in anyone who wants to stick to the same corporate and militaristic policies only slightly less so.

[politicasista]

90. And ABB helped Bush win n/t

[alvarezadams]

128. How so?

[Mass]

91. Polls show that the number was not higher than for Clinton or Gore.

Actually, probably less than Clinton.

[karynnj]

105. I agree - and I think it was selfish and stupid on the part of people

like Carvelle and Begala to have started the whining ABB meme as Kerry started winning primaries.

Clinton was definately not my first choice in 1992 - it was obvious that he played with the truth. Yet, once he was the candidate - I didn't whine "I'm ABB"

The AB(X) to my knowledge was a primary phase. Where if you had a front runner from one part of the party and several heterogeneous people running behind hime, there was the question of whether one of the followers could break from the pack (sucking up the support of the others) to become the AB (front runner) - who might defeat the front runner. (Think of the likely Anybody but Hillary)

At the general election level it makes no sense. There are some people who NEVER vote Republican - did they vote Kerry or ABB? There were others like me - I knew in 2000 I would vote against Bush in 2004 - if alive. So, am I ABB? Kerry is the candidate who most inspired me since I started voting in 1972. I know I was a Kerry voter.

Maybe you should consider to whose advantage the constant repeition of they're not voting for Kerry, they're voting against Bush. The 2 Democrats with the most TV time said this all the time. I bet that really helped with the swing voters. All in the service of a Clinton.

[TankLV]

126. Exactly.

[karynnj]

137. Of course Kerry got less than 50% of the caucus vote

You name 4 candidates, Kerry won with about 40%. (Edwards was about 34%, Dean high single digits.) 40% is a decent primary victory. What you describe as many people not having their favorite candidate is the norm. In fact, Kerry won the primaries more easily than Clinton in 1992.

Clinton was not my favorite, but I didn't babble on about I'm not for Clinton, I'm against Bush. (I had as much reason to dislike Clinton as the ABB to not like Kerry.)

[WildEyedLiberal]

99. You've shown your true colors all over DU, so I'm not concerned

Turnout was the highest it's ever been. Kerry got more votes than any other candidate besides Bush. Those are facts, much as you would like to lie and pretend that they aren't. It's really sad when the truth doesn't support the lunatic fringe version of events, isn't it?

[alvarezadams]

129. So have you

and I wouldn't be surprised if you've shown yours on GOP sites as well.

"Facts"? Your facts do not "prove" anything - how many of the Kerry votes were ABB? If Dubya hadn't run, how many might have voted 3rd party or abstained entirely?

-I- would have abstained if my choice had been between, say, Kerry and any GOP candidate of the last 30 years. I didn't though - I grit my teeth and voted becaue Kerry was (IMO) the lesser of two evils.

You're happy with the Dem status quo, including conservative infiltration, support for globalization, etc. Good for you - you can vote for EITHER candidate and the issues you seem to support are guaranteed to go through.

I, for one, demand an opposition. You don't like it - or that I express my opinions? Put me on ignore and you can carry on your merry way.

[ProSense]

131. "Kerry was (IMO) the lesser of two evils"

That's simply desperate nonsense coming from a Kucinich supporter!

[alvarezadams]

134. Why is it...

... that so many on DU (and elsewhere) identify themselves so much with personalities? Maybe it's because I've been living under a parliamentary system for so long, but for me the candidates are really quite secondary. Especially in a political environment where shallow rhetoric passes for platforms and where agendas (and supporters) are hidden.

For me there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. I do not afford them "rock star status" and for the most part I despise most politicians as time-servers and manipulators. The DLC is trying to do what I'd like to see done (although I wholeheartedly disagree with their values, platforms, agendas and methods): to articulate an ideology, to unify the party under the aegis of certain values and goals.

You obviously feel strongly about Kerry. Good for you - I do not feel the same way. I have seen his speeches and his writings and I see the rhetoric... I cut through the rhetoric... and I don't like what I see even if I initially liked what I heard.

My stance is clear:

I demand reform:
- I demand the cutting of the links/influence between big business and government
- I demand a return of the Fairness Doctrine.
- I demand that my government abides by international law and that it interacts with other nations on the basis of peaceful coexistence and respect for self-determination.
- I demand that government recognizes its responsibility to support ALL American's, to make the common weal its principle objective.
- I demand that corporations, that already have the rights of citizens, assume the responsibilities of citizens as well.
- I demand that any organization that delves in politics - thinktanks, churches, etc. - pay taxes and comply with rules that make it absolutely clear what they support and WHO supports them.

I reject neoliberalism and laissez faire globalization - I demand FAIR trade and not abuse.
I reject the negative "big government" memes.
I support the nationalization or regulation of basic industries that are not conducive to competition.
I reject the notion that global services (healthcare, etc) should be farmed out to private industries.

I see abortion, guns and other such "hot" issues as being utterly insignificant compared to the above. They are emotional buttons used by powermongers, nothing more.

I guess that I am just too radical, eh? At least for TODAY'S DNC - not for the DNC of my mother's time. But then again, mainstream DNC would be the conservative GOP in my mom's day.

[ProSense]

135. I do!

I too know what I want, but I don't feel the need to misrepresent the Democratic Party and mis-characterize people's positions. If I didn't identify with the Democratic Party, I'd go join another party.

[alvarezadams]

152. So if the DNC

goes liberal, you'll abandon it?

I don't misrepresent the DNC. I merely distinguish between rhetoric and content.

[ProSense]

155. No, only if it goes

Ricky Green!

[alvarezadams]

158. "In times of universal deceipt

telling the truth is a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

It must be nice to have such a set of security responses. Doubt never clouds your mind, does it?

Sheesh.

[ProSense]

165. Sure it does!

I doubt the Republican Party, and I doubt people who ascribe purity to their motives while claiming everyone else to be imperfect! The typical tactic of both being spin!

[beachmom]

142. In America, we don't HAVE a parliamentary system, and we are

DIFFERENT from other countries. Why do you insist on telling Democrats in America that they must be like people from other countries? I used to have a love affair with Europe thinking they were just plain better than America -- then they voted down the EU Constitution (I dreamed of the EU becoming a blue state USA, but that ain't gonna happen), started bashing Muslims with laws that would never be pondered in America (like the ban on head scarves in France and banning teachers in Bavaria from wearing the head scarf), and now we have an underbelly of disaffected Muslim immigrants in Europe who are bent on becoming terrorists. Meanwhile, Muslims in America work through the system to overcome injustice and prejudice.

The Iraq War and Bush in general has us all depressed, but . . . we have something in America called hope. Why do you think so many liberals have come out of the woodwork and onto the blogs? If we truly felt it were all hopeless, then we wouldn't bother fighting back.

So that is why there are a group of Kerry supporters on the internet who believe he is what is needed to bring this country back from the brink. He has showed in the past a willingness to do what is right on the big things like war (protesting Vietnam, and his stance on Iraq today), forgiveness (McCain, now Webb plus the POW/MIA work and normalization of relations with Vietnam), investigating government corruption (BCCI, Iran/Contra), even little things like his child porn internet bill (a Russian girl was adopted by a millionaire in Mass. who repeatedly abused and used her, putting her image up on the internet -- Kerry took up her cause for justice), and that's just a few things.

The truth is that the president is both the head of the executive branch (a la prime minister) AND the head of state (the Queen or King), so, yes, people DO pick a person they think would be best in the Oval Office. So I would appreciate it if you stopped being so condescending to very conscientious people in America who perhaps think differently than you in regards to how they think about politics. You obviously have thought a lot about the issues, especially economics, but the jury is out on what is "best". America's and Europe's systems of economics have both strengths and weaknesses -- I myself have NOT settled on what is the BEST way to go about dealing with globalization and free markets vs. government regulation and tariffs. I think Kerry is quite liberal on the social issues, a realist in foreign policy, and center left on economics (that's AMERICAN 2006 center left). And, maybe you should come back to America, and spend some time in a red state for a while. I mentioned to a friend that I liked Kerry, and she replied that "he scares me because he wants to take away the soveriegnty of the U.S. and put our military under the U.N." Boy, that silenced me -- all I could reply is "oh, you mean U.N. black helicoptors?". Finally I just said she must have been absorbing some propaganda. THAT my dear friend is where many are at in America.

[alvarezadams]

154. Insist?

I don't "insist" that America be like other countries. It would be intelligent, however, to take what is good from others and eschew the bad.

Which is, of course, the opposite of what we've been doing. We wish to IMPOSE our economy, political system and even social values on the world.

Europe is not better than America. It is merely different. In some ways it IS better, in others it is worse... and vice versa. As for voting down the EU constitution, I voted against it - it was a neoliberal ticket to ride, a botched affair. Yet it passed in Spain (and elsewhere), go figure.

The banning of headscarves, FWIW, is part of the secular tradition in much of Europe. Scarves are banned - as is the showing of other (including Xtian) symbols in public schools. Europeans take the division of church and state very seriously, even if they take it to ridiculous extremes sometimes.

The Muslim problem in Europe is attributable to economic and social problems more than any political decisions. They are the latest wave of immigrants and their arrival has coincided with the neolib revolution that Thatcher and Reagan wrought. Previous to said revolution problems were minor.

I am ECSTATIC that liberals are crawling out of the woodwork. My concern is that they are being manipulated by the same people that have been trying to diminish their influence since FDR.

You see Kerry as being what I don't believe he is. You note his stance on Iraq - which (yet again) is "Bush did a poor job" as opposed to "Bush made the wrong decision". Kerry (and the DLC) have been playing the moiety of the electorate like a fiddle.

Regarding economics, you arrive at a conclusion that the question is "either-or", misrepresenting the "or" by painting it with the rhetorical memes that have been produced by the right. THIS is what saddens and angers me - even American liberals have fallen for the rw's framing.

I often visit the US. I visit my family in Mississippi/Florida/Wisconsin and my friends in California/DC (not to mention clients from Texas to NYC). I fully understand that the odds are stacked against anything other than inertia - which is why I am doing my best to foster a true OPPOSITION to "established thought" (I cannot consider that the overlapping GOP and DNC are more than different shades of gray).

Thanx for the thoughtful reply.

[TankLV]

124. Triangulation. Exactly.

I'm sick and tired of "triangulation".

So are many Americans...

[karynnj]

64. I agree -

2008 will likely be an easier year for the Democrats. The cracks are showing in the alliance that supported Bush. I think that any Democrat who wins the nomination will have an excellent chance of winning. The contest in the primaries may well be brutal - but whoever wins, if the Democratic party stays together has a better than 50/50 shot of winning.

To use Kerry's allusion - Katrina pulled away the curtain. That and the fact that people can now see that spreading democracy by force is not feasible and a stupid idea. Before thinking the last point went without saying - think back to the reception of Bush's second innaugral address speaking of it. The NYT and WP were estatic. Biden said it sounded like JFK with a Southern accent) This was January 2005. This is why much of the NYT/ WP reporting in 2004 was so unsupportive of Kerry. Their expected liberal bias was not there.

Even with all this, Kerry nearly won. I am saying that ANY Democrat who wins the nomination has over a 50/50 chance to win. Kerry is IMO one of the strongest candidates - if he can win the primaries he'll win. The premise here is he gets the nomination - hell, no is a pretty extreme answer.

[alvarezadams]

130. Cracks

Indeed, cracks are showing amongst Dubya supporters. And the Olins, Bradleys, corps - have decided to switch horses or cover their bets with both of them.

Yes, (some) PEOPLE are begining to see that one cannot impose democracy. Not the DLC and, apparently, not the DNC - they just disagree on the means to the same ends.

[ProSense]

83. Well said! It's the "my candidate" syndrome, and yet Kerry is still

doing great in this poll considering the other 63% support the other, how many, 13 candidates. That leaves them each with an average 4.9% of the vote. Kerry has 37%. The reality is in all the polls Kerry is registering good numbers, better than most. People believe simply saying "hell no" or some other grand pronouncement changes that, but they don't. Senator Kerry is gaining popularity over what he had in 2004 as more and more people come to realize the horrific dynamics of that election and how extremely well he did against Bush/Rove/MSM machine.

[PresidentWar]

161. You're discounting a large number of those who.....

have soured on John Kerry since the 2004 debacle. If you doubt they exist, you better reread some of the threads on DU.

[alvarezadams]

37. Of course "hell no"

regarded support of Kerry if he runs again.

As for the rest of your drivel, you sound exactly like a vote-the-shirt Republican.

[robcon]

39. I'd vote for him, but independents will not (in enough numbers.)

I think his "image" as a flip-flopper is hard to overcome.

It doesn't matter what he does, those unfortunate words/video will haunt him, IMO.

[PurityOfEssence]

40. Adlai Stevenson has had his chance

Say what you may about the guy--and he's a good guy--he blew it. He should have fought back against the Swifties and other mendacious assaults, but he didn't. Why didn't he contest the Ohio vote? Why didn't he truly attack the ugly monarchic policies of the Republicans? Why did he let them set the agenda as defense ONLY?

He's not an executive; he's a legislator. He's very useful there, and he should accept that.

Nominating Gore would be silly, but nominating Kerry would be stupid. To run for the presidency in a star-conscious, winner-take-all society, one has to take it to one's opponents and make THEM explain themselves. One has to dictate the terms of the debate, not play chess in a bar fight.

He screwed up. He screwed up bigtime, and he'll do it again. Don't be emotional and sentimental about this; yes, he got screwed (Florida and Ohio were stolen; even with the gay marriage fiasco, he probably still won the popular vote) but he let it happen. He was inept at dealing with vigorous opposition. Lest we forget, we NEED a president who can stand his/her ground.

I will fight mightily against his nomination, as I will against Hillary's and to a certain degree against Gore's. The first and the last don't understand the brutality of modern politics and could be taken at three card monte repeatedly before learning the lesson, and the other one doesn't seem to have any core beliefs she won't compromise for momentary gain.

Being emotional about this and trying to right the wrongs of the past is childish. Al Gore's one of the most wronged people in American history; he ranks up there with Samuel Tilden and Aaron Burr, and it's a shame, but that's no reason to risk our futures on some bizarre vengeance or nostalgic quest for setting the record straight. It's about the present and future, not about the past.

[FrenchieCat]

42. Why would Nominating Gore be silly?

Please elaborate.

But don't you think if Kerry wants to run again, he should? Just like if Edwards, who was part of the losing team wanted the top ticket, he should go for it?

[alvarezadams]

46. Bravo!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

48. Ever heard of Richard Nixon?

He won under circumstances nearly identical to the one Gore finds himself in right now.

[wisteria]

53. Different time, different circumstances. Kerry is not Stevenson-period. n/

[zulchzulu]

170. Comparing Stevenson to Kerry is completely, utterly clueless

There is utterly no comparison between the two.

If you're an armchair "politico" that thinks that you only get one shot at running for President, you've got a tad bit of more homework to do. As for fighting "mightily" against Kerry's nomination, good luck...you'll need it. He's got strong numbers and has a lot of support below the radar...granted, it's still early to play this game, but...

As for Gore, he is not going to run, so you can be safe in wrongfully comparing him with Aaron Burr....ferchrissakes...

:crazy:

[bdamomma]

43. As much as I like Kerry, my response would be no

he would be much better in another position, something like Secretary of State at least he knows how to talk.

[TayTay]

45. Of course.

He nearly won the last time. That race was against a sitting president in a time of war. Kerry had ten million more voters than Clinton and 6 million more than Gore.

Of course he could.

[Snivi Yllom]

52. Kerry was an ass, he ran a terrible campaign, Horrible

He still has all of the baggage, and in all likelihood would make the same poor executive decisions that led to his defeat.

And yes he did lose in Ohio.

[wisteria]

54. I see you are still reliving the 03/04 primary season. Kerry terrible? No!

He won the primary, and he won a lot of people over. I personally thought his campaign was good-sure there were mistakes, but he gave it a good go.
Oh, and he would have won Ohio, if not for the "funny stuff" and the voters being exploited. Time will tell who really won Ohio or who should have won Ohio.

[WildEyedLiberal]

101. Boo hoo...

I sense some bitterness left over from the primaries. Here, let me play some sympathy for you:

:nopity:

[El Fuego]

55. Much as I love Kerry, I'm sad to say I don't see him winning in 08.

He had the best possible running mate last time.

[wisteria]

56. You are entitled to your opinion. I can see Kerry winning.

As for VPs,there are many good choices for 08. IMO, Edwards didn't bring much to the ticket. Edwards is a nice guy and I just adore his wife, but he didn't even help us gain one Southern State.

[OnionPatch]

58. Maybe but

I think it would be hard. I think even most Dems want someone new. Personally, I'd really prefer someone different for a few reasons. 1; he can't seem to talk in a plain and simple matter that simple people understand and 2; I think it was wimpy the way he conceded the election and/or did nothing about the fraud that he KNEW was going to happen, before or after the fact.

I'd rather have Gore, Clark, Feinstein, Boxer........Kerry was never my fav tho I did work for him to get elected. That said, of course he'd be 100x better than any Republican.

[JNelson6563]

70. If Kerry's our guy

we deserve to lose. I will never work for his election again. He who couldn't even wait till they were done counting the votes to concede to his bonesman brother, er, opponent.

Julie

[Inuca]

74. Oh, not again!!!

And again, and again, and again.... this meaningless, empty, time wasting, unadulterated CRAP, excuse my language. Not liking Kerry is anybody's prerogative, but this kind of arguments are silly beyond contempt.

[karynnj]

106. Absolutely agree - and such trash would not even be allowed for others.

[JNelson6563]

108. So let me get this straight

It's ok to feel as I do about Kerry's willingness to concede (and darned speedily) but it is not ok to add such thoughts to such a thread as this, right? And why is that again? Cause you don't like it?

Try to run Kerry again and you'll see it plenty. He really burned a lot of people who worked their guts out. Could've at least given the illusion of being willing to fight for the proper outcome. That will cost him more than any other fuck-up from the campaign of 04.

Julie

[ProSense]

109. "Try to run Kerry again and you'll see it plenty. "

That sounds like a threat; although it's not quite clear who it's directed at. This is a democracy and if Senator Kerry wins the primary, he'll be the candidate.

You don't even have the facts straight!

Kerry continued legal efforts:

Today, Kerry-Edwards filed a document in support of that statement. Most significant, Kerry-Edwards also filed today a separate document in support of our motion for hearing with two critical attachments: 1) a declaration from Kerry-Edwards attorney Don McTigue regarding a survey he conducted of Kerry-Edwards county recount coordinators; 2) a summary chart of the results of that survey (which highlight the inconsistent standards applied during the recount).

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/2/24/183243/756

http://www.truthout.org/pdf/cobbbadnariktransfertatement22305.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmctiguedecl22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmotionforhearing22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardssummarychart22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardstransferstatement22405.pdf

I worked as a Green volunteer . . .

on the recount here in Ohio and you're right, Kerry's team was here all the way. In one of the counties I witnessed in, his witnesses worked late into the night with our coordinator and uncovered false numbers that led to the revelation that every ballot in the county had been recounted w/o witnesses between the certified vote and the official recount itself.

Snip...

by ponderer on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 02:14:12 PM EDT

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/4/23/115230/700/26#c26

"In his first high-profile address since conceding the presidential election, Senator John F. Kerry used Boston's annual Martin Luther King Jr. memorial breakfast yesterday to decry what he called the suppression of thousands of would-be voters last November.

"Thousands of people were suppressed in their efforts to vote. Voting machines were distributed in uneven ways," the former Democratic nominee told an enthusiastic audience of 1,200 at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center in South Boston."

"In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, 11 hours to vote, while Republicans through in 10 minutes. Same voting machines, same process, our America," Kerry said.

Snip...

In an e-mail message he sent to his supporters on the day before Congress certified the election results earlier this month, Kerry cited "widespread reports of irregularities, questionable practices by some election officials, and instances of lawful voters being denied the right to vote" in the battleground state of Ohio.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/18/kerry_alleges_voters_were_suppressed?mode=PF

Blogged by JC on 08.22.05 @ 04:19 PM ET

Fighting for Every Voter

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000213.htm

August 31, 2005

Kerry and Edwards to Stay in Recount Case!!! Trial to Start in August 2006

Don McTigue, attorney for John Kerry and John Edwards, appeared in federal court in Toledo, before Judge Carr, on August 30th, and told the Court that Kerry and Edwards intend to remain in the case.

Judge Carr set an August 22, 2006 trial date.

Additionally he consolidated the two recount cases, Rios v. Blackwell and Yost v. Cobb & Badnarik. He gave the plaintiffs until September 15th to file amended pleadings (plaintiff's counsel had requested an opportunity to streamline their claims).

Judge Carr set a discovery cut-off of May 1, 2006, and ruled that any summary judgment motions must be made by May 15, 2006.

http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2005/08/kerry-and-edwards-to-stay-in-recount.html

http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/122105SenatorKerry.mp3

http://www.stephaniemiller.com/bits/2006_0517_kerry.mp3

From Conyers two months after the election (comparably three weeks after Gore finally conceded in 2000 and one day before the 2004 election was certified):

Whether the cumulative effect of these legal violations would have altered the actual outcome is not known at this time. However, we do know that there are many serious and intentional violations which violate Ohio’s own law, that the Secretary of State has done everything in his power to avoid accounting for such violations, and it is incumbent on Congress to protect the integrity of its own laws by recognizing the seriousness of these legal violations.

B. Need for Further Congressional Hearings

It is also clear the U.S. Congress needs to conduct additional and more vigorous hearings into the irregularities in the Ohio presidential election and around the country.

While we have conducted our own Democratic hearings and investigation, we have been handicapped by the fact that key participants in the election, such as Secretary of State Blackwell, have refused to cooperate in our hearings or respond to Mr. Conyers questions. While GAO officials are prepared to move forward with a wide ranging analysis of systemic problems in the 2004 elections, they are not planning to conduct the kind of specific investigation needed to get to the bottom of the range of problems evident in Ohio. As a result, it appears that the only means of obtaining his cooperation in any congressional investigation is under the threat of subpoena, which only the Majority may require.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/issues/issues/election.html

From the RFK Jr. article 18 months after the election:

By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush -- and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/1

As Rolling Stone stated in the issue:

Enough. Only a complete investigation by federal authorities can determine the full extent of any bribery and vote rigging that has taken place. The public must be assured that the power to count the votes -- and to recount them, if necessary -- will not be ceded to for-profit corporations with a vested interest in superseding the will of the people. America's elections are the most fundamental element of our democracy -- not a market to be privatized by companies like Diebold.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10463874/editorial_a_call_for_investigation

At what point wasn't he fighting with the amunition he had, and at what point do believe the evidence pointed to your so-called "proper outcome"?

[JNelson6563]

140. Kerry conceded on national TV

behind the scenes work could be going on to count the votes but it didn't matter. He conceded it was over.

And no, "you'll see it plenty" is no threat it's a statement of fact. Far too many worked far too hard to take that lightening fast concession easily. If you want to be content with the fact that others were pushing for a thorough vote and go so far as to attribute it to Kerry, go right ahead.

Just don't be surprised if many of the *real life activists* (not to be confused with big talking keyboard commandoes on DU and elsewhere) aren't all that enthusiastic. They will recall with great bitterness the disappointment Kerry delivered on election day and, another statement of fact, you'll find they aren't ripping over themselves to do it again. I know, I hear about it everytime possible contenders for 08 are mentioned.

Consider it an FYI from middle America's Dem base.

Julie

[karynnj]

115. A 100,000 plus vote gap was too wide to challange

The problem is NOT that you complained that he should have fought longer than the best lawyers in the Democratic party thought justified - it's that you said things that were beyond any sense of fairness. To suggest that a man who spent nearly every waking hour for the last months of the campaign and incredible amounts of time over the 2 years prior to the time working to win, to be accused of throwing the election for someone who he clearly dislikes because he was in the same fraturnity - not even at the same time is disgusting.

If he did this don't you think that he would at least have negotiated not to be be brutally slimed. I assume he would have protected Teresa, at least. Not to mention having his and Teresa's kids spend most of a year working on the campaign as did many of his life long friends.

Believe what you want - but show some common sense and decency. It would seem you should be able to agree that John Kerry was smeared enough by Republicans and refrain from smearing him yourself - unless you want to be considered as one of the smearers.

[JNelson6563]

141. Like I said

He could've waited at least till the votes were counted to give the illusion that he was fighting on behind the scenes. But no. Couldn't get in front of those cameras fast enough to concede in front of the nation.

Between the hangover and my personal disgust at the lightening fast surrender, I turned off the TV mid-concession and I hurled.


Julie

[karynnj]

164. How many concessions since 1960 occured later than Kerry's ?

Answer - ONE. There were some close elections.

Were all the votes EVER counted - Of course, that always happens - the issue in RFKjr article is that there were more than enough votes that were suppressed to change the election. He used AN ESTIMATE because that number is uncountable. Votes not cast can't be counted.

In every electon (except 2000) the likely lser concedes before all the votes were counted. In 2000, we learned that milatary ballots aren't required to be in until at least a week after the election. Kerry conceded because the Democratic lawyers told him there was no case.

If you think another Democrat wouldn't have conceded, you are very likely wrong.

[JNelson6563]

179. Before vote count was done?

I sure as hell hope not many!

And yep, I'll concede any Dem would've conceded, after all avenues were exhausted (See: "Al Gore").

Julie

[ProSense]

180. "(See: "Al Gore")." Why?

Election Day, 10 p.m.
Networks retract projection that Gore wins Florida; state reverts to too close to call.

Nov. 8, 2:20 a.m.

Gore calls Bush to concede after networks report the governor leads by 50,000 votes in Florida. Networks project Bush to be the winner in Florida.

Nov. 8, 3:30 a.m.
Gore calls Bush back to retract his concession, after receiving reports that the vote difference in Florida is less than 1,000. Networks retract projection that Bush wins Florida; state reverts to too close to call.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/c2k/amazing_race/timeline.html

So Gore, even though he was up by 500,000 popular votes, conceded (12 hours before Kerry) with 50,000 votes shy of winning the electoral college. He retracted the concession when he realized it was only 1,000 votes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/c2k/amazing_race/timeline.html

That's a big difference between being down 3 million in the popular vote with a 137,000 votes to make up for an electoral college win.

[JNelson6563]

185. He went on to fight for a month

that's why. All the way to the Supreme Court, you may recall.

[ProSense]

181. I actually prefer

that he was fighting to instead of giving the "illusion" he was fighting.

[SoyCat]

77. Diebold: I honestly don't believe any Dem. candidate is electable. The

Repubs. have total control over the counting of the votes. I just have no faith in the system; I wish I could.

[Blaukraut]

80. Evidently people are misreading the question

It states 'If nominated, is Kerry electable' not 'If nominated, would you support Kerry'.
John Kerry is absolutely electable. Looking at his, and fellow candidates' credentials objectively, he is head and shoulders above the rest in experience and knowledge. Having met him in person I can also speak for his positive personal attributes. He is charming, has charisma, is a good listener, and genuinely cares. In essence, the complete opposite of what the media would have you believe.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

86. I doorknocked for his campaign, but he lost me when

he conceded before even all the votes were counted and then refused to participate in demands to investigate voting irregularities in Ohio.

A man who can't fight for his own interests is not tough enough to be president when there are so many jackals lurking in the corridors of power.

[PresidentWar]

119. Yup. I never saw a guy so anxious to cry "Uncle".

And for the life of me I cannot figure out why there are still those who want to float hmi as a viable, fighting candidate. 2004 was embarrasing enough.

[Rowdyboy]

178. It was as if he were relieved to have lost.....

I pray he doesn't run again. I'd vote for him as the nominee but with little hope he could win. I'd support most any other Democrat in the primaries.

[Mass]

89. Keyword 2008: a president who is competent and cares about people.

The rest is totally irrelevant, except if we want to have another 8 years of a president that is like Bush, except for a Democratic label.

It could be a number of people, and they all would win, assuming that the other democrats do not go around attacking his campaigning qualities. It is our job to do just that.

So, attack Kerry, Clark, Edwards, Clinton, ... on issues, but stop the electability ballet. This shows that you do not trust your candidates.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

94. Right; all this second-guessing about "electability" is what gets us

into trouble.

It becomes a matter of second-guessing other people's intentions.

In the primaries and caucuses, vote for the candidate that YOU genuinely like, not for the candidate you think other people might like. If we all did this, we might be happier Dems.

[Mass]

100. Competency is key. Or you get Bush!

[PresidentWar]

121. I've come to detest that term "electability" What a crock.

That's a version of "does this suit make my ass look fat?"

How about vision, intelligence, democratic virtues and fight? What happened to a vote being cast on THOSE?

[MH1]

148. Agree - and that's why I support Kerry

He is the best candidate, imo.

But your point is well-taken. I would only add that people should first research the candidates and think very hard about what each one would a) try to do and b) successfully accomplish, if elected. Then pick the one that would do the best job according to your values.

[karynnj]

107. Great points

[Blue_In_AK]

92. I would gladly vote for Kerry again

any time, any place.

[ginnyinWI]

117. If John Kerry's on the ballot, he gets my vote.

He shares my values and is honest and very, very intelligent and capable.
I haven't seen a better candidate yet.

[ginnyinWI]

120. Hmm: 72% yes, 62% no.

Looks like he has a better shot than a lot of people would suppose. ;)

[question everything]

122. These days, when the voters want sound bites and instant gratification,

Kerry now has the stigma of a "loser" - whether he deserves this or not.

Time to look for new faces, and not in the Senate. The last Senator elected was JFK. The role of an executive and that of a legislator are different. A legislative body is a debating body - at least should be. People can express their opinions, ask questions and then may change or modify them.

But in our instant news and punditry - these open debates and give and take come back to haunt an honorable legislator as a "flip flop."

[BlueIris]

136. Of course!

After all, it worked last time, goddamnit.

Ahem.

I agree that the VP nom will be critical, though. And not being able to figure out who Kerry can run with besides You Know Who is driving me up the freaking wall. But not making me sweat too hard. 2009 will be my best year ever!!!

[Clark2008]

138. He's smart, he's a better selection than Shrub, BUT he, as he

proved, even with a Southern running mate, cannot flip a Southern or mid-Western red state and we have to do that to win.

We have to beat the margin so that black box voting is NOT an issue the Republicans can use.

[Imagevision]

143. I believe in skull & bones as does Kerry & Bush...

[beachmom]

145. Back up your outrageous conspiracy theory with evidence

If you don't have the evidence then you may as well tell me U.N. "black helicoptors" are real, too.

[TayTay]

146. I used to believe in the Tooth Fairy as well

I wonder if Bush and Kerry ever did. There must be blowback from that somewhere. I bet there is a secret society in Washington that believes in bringing back the Tooth Fairy, only this time as a para-military private contractor who demands the teeth of little children or they are "with the terrorists and not with the god-fearing patriotic people of America." Pansies.

[NeedleCast]

147. Don't think he can win

Whether you believe the hype about Diebold/stole election or not, Kerry ran against perhaps the weakest incumbant in US history and certainly the weakest one in three decades. I think even Carter was stronger. Even if there was election tinkering, Democrats should have been able to win the white house in 04. They ran one of the least moderate peoople they could find and lost because of it. Whoever ran against Bush should have won by 3% at a minimum. Clinton was a charismatic, likable person. People *wanted* to vote for him. Many people voted for Kerry because he "wasn't Bush." Democrats must find a candidate that both the democrats AND center WANT to vote for...not a candidate that people will vote for becuase he's not (insert Republican Opponent Here).

[TayTay]

153. Oh not true

Clinton got 43% of the vote in 1992 and won because Ross Perot weakened the Repub vote. Clinton then lost the Dem Congress because he was inept in his first years and couldn't communicate with people. He won relection with under 50% of the vote in 1992, and was a minority president.

Kerry lost to a sitting President in a time of war. That President had poll numbers that showed that people voteed on the war and security and his poll numbers were well over 50% on those issues. When are Dems going to deal with that.

I didn't vote for Clinton either time. I voted against the Repubs. That happens in every election, particularly when the challenger is new to most of the electorate.

[NeedleCast]

156. I think that's the problem

Oh for the days of liking the candidates we voted for instead of disliking them less than the opposition.

[karynnj]

168. I think you will like and be inspired with some and simply accept others

I should have been better behaved in answering your last question.

You clearly liked, respected and maybe were inspired by Bill Clinton. I wasn't, but I was very happy when he won.

I was very inspired and impressed by John Kerry. It seemed the more I read, I saw that he was both brilliant and a very good person. To be fair, in the Clinton years, I had tried to tell myself that the personal integrity of a President isn't that important if he was in the right part of the political spectrum.


Had Kerry won, I doubt people would have this disscussion - he would be our Democratic President. A scarier thing is that on learning more and more about Kerry, it was clear that he is a pretty nice man on a personal level - unlike Bush. The media greatly distorted both personalities.

[TayTay]

182. But there were no days like that

You wish for a time that never existed.

The campaign of 1824 was so mean and vicious that it is said to have contributed to the death of Andrew Jackson's wife, Rachael, who died one month after her husband was inaugurated. Mrs. Jackson was smeared on the campaign trail as a bigamist and an adulterous due to a faulty divorce decree from her first husband back in 1791. (She and husband Andrew remarried in 1794 after clearing the paperwork on the divorce.) Andrew Jackson never forgave the people who had so viciously smeared his wife.

We could go into the very nasty elections of 1800, 1876, and so forth if you like. Elections are about taking power, they are not about being nice to people. There has never been a time in history when taking power was easy or done by unanimous consent. So it is in our country.

People often vote on the basis of Party alone, that too is a norm. In any given year, in any given race, it is likely that one candidate will be a known quantity and the other will be a newcomer. Voting for the newcomer will always be a 'leap of faith' vote for some people and there will always be a sizeable amount of the vote that is voting 'against' someone else. That is how elections work. That is how they have always worked. John Kennedy was an unknown to much of America in 1960 and he got elected because he was a change candidate because he had that (D) after his name. Some people did indeed vote FOR Kennedy, but I would be a larger marjority voted for the guy because of the (D) and because he wasn't Nixon.

It has ever been so. We romanticize the past into something out of a fantasy book. It's not real. No one gives up power voluntarily. Power is taken, it is not given and it can be very messy, unpleasant and nasty business. It always has been.

[NeedleCast]

189. Disagree

That's an awful jaded way of looking at it. Perhaps for you, elections are always about the lesser of two evils. They havn't always been that way for me. I liked Clinton. I got to meet Clinton while working at the Pentagon in 1998 and really liked the man. Seemed like the kinda guy you could go get a beer with.

Personally I think the two party system has done a lot to make elections nasty. It's an Us or Them, Take it Leave It attitude. Few people want to vote in that environment and I think it's led to a growing sense of voter apathy.

[karynnj]

166. Everyone has their own view

Frankly, while I think Clinton is charismatic - he is NOT likable. Kerry is a far more likable, decent, principled person.

You are absolutely wrong that Carter was stronger than Bush. There are polls that show consistently that Jimmy Carter and GHWB were far weaker than W in the year (and in the final month) of their re-election bill. Both GHWB and Carter were below 40%; Bush was between the mid 40s to low 50s.

Clinton had a much easier year to run in - and at one point ran behind both Ghwb and Perot. I don't know if he would have won without Perot also attacking Bush then leaving the race for what seemed a loony reason.

[NeedleCast]

190. I guess likability is an opinion

Hehe, I'll surrender on Carter...I was six years old a the time so I was speculating.

I found Clinton very likable aside from the Monica situation. Republicans trumpeted it to be the worst thing that could ever happen, and I have to roll my eyes at that, but certainly it wasn't an honorable thing to do.

I still think it's going to be a matter of getting non-republicans to WANT to vote for a liberal/democratic candidate. Actually, I'd prefer for people to WANT to vote for a left-leaning third party candidate...but the point is that you have to motivate the population to vote, and simply having a candidate run a defensive campaign who's message is read as "I'm not the other guy" is not going to work.

[LittleClarkie]

157. I'm not choosing him solely on electibility

I just want him.

[lynne]

162. WOW - I AM STUNNED!

When 62% vote NO/PROBABLY NOT at DU, then I think it is more than evident that Kerry would be toast in a presidential race.

I sure didn't see those figures coming.

[politicasista]

167. It's too early

The primaries will decide all that.

[wisteria]

176. You are correct and DU doesn't represent a balanced slice of the populace.

Have you ever noticed whom many at DU think are electable? Oh, and how about the litmus tests that are always applied to Kerry,but not to others' choices. Biased, Biased, Biased!

[karynnj]

169. No it may very well mean that 62% prefer someone else

I've heard on good authority that DU ranked Kerry 5th in early 2004 - With Dean, Clark, Kuchinich, and Edwards beating him.

[zulchzulu]

171. Ah, those were the days...

I remember when a lot of DUers were all but ready to go get reservations to the Howard Dean Inaugural Party in early January 2004. Yeah, they knew how to predict the winner... whatever...

It's way too early to predict anything about 2008 right now...

[wisteria]

175. Actually his numbers are better at DU this time then they were in 03/04!

You are joking though, this is predicable for DU. Luckily the voting at DU don't matter as much as the majority of the voting public. Have you ever considered who many at DU think is electable?
Kerry is far from toast.

[TayTay]

187. Oh, it was way worse in the primpary runup

at DU. Thos enumbers are a vast improvement over the last primary.

[zulchzulu]

163. How Kerry WILL win in 2008

Once everyone sees all the candidates on the first debate stage, it will become obvious to voters that Kerry is one of the best to run, imho. And once the primaries happen and Kerry wins again, the Repugs won't have much to run on against him since they already threw the lies they did about him in 2004. All those lies have been debunked. The Swiftboaters won't have jackshit.

Kerry will run against Allen and kick his ass. McCain will not be the nominee.

It's a theory...whatever... two years is infinity in political years.

As for those (willfully or otherwise) uneducated on the post-election efforts, it's good to see John Conyers' admiration of the Kerry/Edwards campaign in trying to find out what happened...

"Fighting for Every Voter"

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me. As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes...

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

- John Conyers

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000213.htm

[derby378]

172. If Kerry is still perceived as a gun-grabber, he can't win in 2008

He has to abandon any hope for reenacting the semi-auto ban of 1994. Then and only then does he have a real chance of winning.

[IndianaGreen]

173. The NRA is hopelessly out of touch with America

This organization, of which I am a lifetime member since I was a teen, was hijacked by Republican rightwingers a long time ago. Any Democrat, even Wes Clark, will be smeared with the "gun grabber" label.

As to my own views on gun control, the least is the best. The Left just needs to get over this phobia about guns for the simple reason that we shouldn't let the rightwing be the only ones that are armed.

[derby378]

174. Well said - in fact...

I've got a little site for you to check out:

Amendment II Democrats

[wisteria]

177. Many of those voting no have ulterior motives,IMO! n/t

[lojasmo]

184. Just as electable as I predicted in 6/03 NOT. AT. ALL.

[wisteria]

192. He came very close and he did win the primary.

Obviously, your candidate didn't even make it that far.

[Sammy Pepys]

186. It would probably be looked at as....

...a majorly backwards move, and I think that makes it risky.

Al Gore would be a risky nominee too, but I like his chances better than Kerry.

[DuaneBidoux]

188. Senators do not get elected Pres., state governors do.

[wisteria]

191. There are exceptions. And firsts. You just never know for sure. n/t