Kerry is the one who is the leader on issues that matter

[karynnj]

In the media, the blogs and on the boards, the talk about candidates focuses on only two dimensions, (1) personality and charisma and (2) electibility. All of these are more subjective than they appear and are manipulated by the media. What they don't consider is leadership. Looking at the issues of the day, the real Democratic leader since 2004 is Senator Kerry.

Leadership consists both of the ability to motivate people to act and to influence people's opinions on issues and the choice of objectives pursued. What is leadership worth if it goes in the wrong or incoherent directions. Is it leadership to follow the path of least resistance? I have always thought that triangulation was just a positive name for this.

Even after a depressing election, Senator Kerry was able to get people to act. His actions complemented the excellent work done by Dean and others. Using his list to prod all of us still listening to him to get involved at the grassroots level seemed at first an unusual action of a party standard bearer and more that of an activist, but it was perfect as it pushed us to get more involved to win in the future – as we did in 2006 – rather than drop out in disgust. The KAP emails soliciting money for candidates were incredible – each focusing in on a concise case for why we should support the candidate. This showed far more respect for the intelligence of the recipients. What have the Clintons done to build the party in this time frame.

Senator Kerry has been the main person who changed people's opinion several times on Iraq. First, in October 2005, when, among other things, he argued for removing the US troops from policing and search and destroy missions into more remote locations. He did this by vividly describing the situation faced by soldiers, who don’t know the language or culture. He was able to gently move many people into seeing the impossibility of the situation. (Hillary only this week 'boldly" made that part of her plan). He also then spoke of the need to immediately state that we wanted no permanent bases and that there was a limit to how long we would stay. Since April, 2006 he led the discussion which has caused people to change their minds on what constitutes success in Iraq and the need to set deadlines.

In fact, since 2004 there have been two competing leaders in the Democratic party; Bill Clinton and John Kerry. Starting immediately after the election, Clinton and his allies used inside the beltway whispers that resonated upward to call Kerry's attempt to lead illegitimate. Comments "that's he's not a Senate leader.", "no one likes him" "Reid (suddenly God of the Senate) is furious". "He is out of line."

But compare where and how each led:
-On Iraq, who impacted the ISG groups opinions and in (even if they don't credit him) who influenced the country. Whose phrases on the war are repeated - unaccredited - by the pundits and his competitors? Who decided it would be better for the 2006 elections to stay quiet on Iraq and not debate it in the Senate - as soldiers died for a policy that all agreed was wrong.

-On the WoT, who was right? Who has a philosophy that will not create the next monster by arming people we can use to fight an enemy - Kerry will not have his "own" Iran/Contra. That policy is bankrupt and has been for the half a century we followed it.

- On Constitutional issues, Alito with his approval of signing statements and the unitary presidency was the test - and that was the key issue. This was a battle that Hillary did not want to really fight and she spoke mostly of a woman's right to choose - although ANY Bush nominee would be pro-life and not all would change the definition of balance of powers.

- On torture, Kerry along with people like Leahy, Kennedy and Dodd were absolutely and completely against the use of torture under ANY circumstances. This is a moral and ethical issue and there can be no equivocation. "America doe not torture Period" as Kerry said. Hillary voted correctly and made a good speech - but then when asked about a hypothetical question by the NY Daily News responded in favor of torture in that case, choosing to appear "strong" but destroying her moral strength in the process. Moral strength will be key to restore our leadership in the world.

- On Ethics Reform, when the Republicans put the stronger Peolsi rules in an amendment to a weak ethics reform bill, Senator Clinton voted for killing it. Senator Kerry was one of a handful of Democrats who voted to consider it. Corruption and Iraq were the biggest issues in 2006.

- Kerry introduced legislation to get kids health insurance in early 2005. It expanded the S-CHP program that was originally proposed in a Kennedy/Kerry bill that was reworked into a bipartisan bill under Kennedy/Hatch - though Kerry (per Kennedy) had authored much of it. Hillary just today has introduced very similar legislation.

Look at these - the major issues of the day - was your position Clinton's or Kerry's. Although we were out of power, those were the issues Democrats could have led on - Kerry did and the Clintons didn't and often tried to restrain him. When you consider, that the Clintons had more media assets and had control of the Senate leadership, it is amazing how well Kerry was able to lead with very little structural support and against both the Republicans and the timid Clinton Democrats.

Senator Kerry did all this while ignoring the hatred thrown at him from the right and the lack of respect from many in his own party. He has stood through everything with far more dignity than would seem possible. If he opts, not to run, I will be proud that I had the chance to be a supporter to the person who really is the moral leader and statesman of the last half century.

America needs Kerry as President far more than Kerry needs to be President. If nothing else, he has restored my belief that a man can succeed in politics and maintain the integrity, honesty and purpose that caused him to enter public life decades before.

Run, John, Run You are the leader we need.

[blm]

1. Hillary is the fighter we need - she led the fights on many issues for the Dem party.

Tora Bora, firing Rumsfeld, standing up for Dem candidates, her team attacked the swifts out of party loyalty, she led on Downing Street Memo inquiry, Alito filibuster, Iraq withdrawal plan.

Didn't she?

Her team is SO powerful that they could have easily won those battles on all those issues for the Dem party.

Couldn't they?

[wisteria]

3. You had me going there for a minute. LOL!

[karynnj]

8. Of course they could, but they wern't worth Hillary's time

There were video games to fight.

[BlueIris]

29. Yeah, way to give some of us heart attacks. nt

[_dynamicdems]

35. LOL! I love your...

:sarcasm:

[rodeodance]

2. yes, Kerry is a leader and a d......good one.

[Parche]

4. KERRY

He is and has always been my choice
If Gore runs though, he would be the lock



KERRY/CLARK 2008

[Inuca]

32. What about...

....Kerry/Gore or Gore/Kerry, wouldn't that be nice? Not likely, I know, but I can dream, can't I?

[_dynamicdems]

38. I was asked yesterday who I'd vote for it neither Kerry or Gore entered the race.

My answer was Wes Clark.

I thought a moment and realized what it was I liked most about these three very different men. The answer was easy: integrity and leadership. All three know that leadership doesn't require a tight reign and a clenched fist. Leadership is about honor and integrity and being able to forge loyal alliances.

:)

[AndyA]

5. I just keep seeing "Kerry" + "has been" in the headline.

You might want to change it, psychologically it comes across as negative.

Kerry is a proven leader
Kerry has always been a leader

Something like that might read better...just saying...

[karynnj]

11. Thank you so much - you are 100% right

I am awful on titles

[wisteria]

6. You are so right , we need a leader who will do what is necessary to take this country forward.

Senator Kerry just doesn't talk, he plans and takes action. I agree with ecerything you say. Run, Senator Kerry if you are so inclined! I will support you 100%.

[StoryTeller]

7. Thanks for this summary and reminder.

I'm a supporter of Kerry. If he runs, I'll vote for him gladly.

But, that said, regardless of who runs or gets the nomination, I would like it to be because the supporters of that person truly believe in the candidate's ability to be a wise and good leader. If people are most concerned about ability to be elected or being likeable, it should be our responsibility to confront that (gently and kindly) and start asking the right questions about what the role of President should entail. Sure, we don't want to elect a jerk or someone who is cruel for the heck of it (been there, done that, right?). But we don't want to sacrifice substance for style, or let the media or any powerful entity tell us who is the best choice based on superficial, subjective traits such as "electability" or "likeability".

Some will say that this is just how people are, and so we should go along with it and do whatever it takes to win. But if the person we elect is not really a good leader, then have we really "won"? I don't think so. A poor Democratic leader is still a poor leader--party aside. I'm not saying that any of our current candidates are necessarily poor leaders, but their leadership ability and the substance of what they stand for should be our primary criteria in the decision to support them.

[SaveElmer]

9. Yeah John Kerry is a leader alright...

Led us to defeat in 2004 with his Dukakis campaign redux!!!

[Inuca]

33. Really?

How many popular and electoral votes did Dukakis have? How many did Kerry have?

[tblue]

10. Yes, he SHOULD be president. I believe he actually won in '04. But I can't get on board after

that quick concession. Wish I could. That ended it for me. I know a big $$ fundraiser and donor who is pissed at him and says 'never again.' She says she can barely face the people whose arms she twisted to give all that money. It's because of the concession. To be honest, I was never crazy about Kerry, tho I respect his many strengths and I admire his past at Winter Soldiers and his white collar investigations. I just don't see how we can drum up enough enthusiasm for a rerun of this story. Gore I can imagine. But not John Kerry. Sorry, I don't think he'll get very far this time. Wish that wasn't the case, and I really don't mean to rain on your parade.

[karynnj]

14. So, what proof would he have taken

to the Republican dominated courts in Ohio to contest the election. There were plenty of irregularities, there was real voter suppression - which Kerry has spoken about in the Senate and in at many public speeches.)

Even the RFKjr report, that comes to the conclusion that more people likely intended to vote for him, many lost votes are not claimable, including the large estimate (using a pretty reasonable method) of people lost because there were too few machines.

The Ohio bi-partisan county officials got reports on allocation of machines ahead of time - and didn't pick up the problem. Many inner city precinct did not have suffient Spanish speaking officials to help voters.

Wasn't the head of the DNC a guy named Terry McAuliffe? He had more responsibility on party matters than Kerry did.

[tblue]

47. Oh, don't think McAuliffe is off the hook. He should've been demanding reforms all along

[_dynamicdems]

39. Maybe you're right, but I don't agree. Time will tell.

I disagree with blaming Kerry over the concession. He's not the type to cry over spilled milk. The analysis was that delaying the concession would not have done any good. Kerry went with that analysis and made a quick concession so that he could get on with the business of damage control (fighting Bush at every step, which he did and continues to do).

I do agree that the quick concession probably angered a lot of people. It would have played better if Kerry had waited a day or two, but that's not Kerry's style. He doesn't play. It was not logical to Kerry, to drag out what was inevidable just to placate some bruised feelings. He's tough on himself and his only mistake was not realizing that others might not be quite as tough.

It may cost him support if he runs, but so be it. Running isn't always about winning. Take Dennis Kucinich or Al Sharpton. Each adds something to every race they are in. Kerry needs to force the discussion on Iraq that Hillary has been avoiding. She will eat Obama alive in a serious debate, but Kerry can handle her. That is why he's needed, even if he doesn't win. Don't get me wrong: I want Kerry to enter and win, but if his candidacy did nothing more than stop Hillary Clinton's momentum and take fire so another qualified Democrat could emerge, I'd still back him.

[tblue]

46. I respect him, and I do wish him the best. I bet he wishes he could do '04 all over and

better

[_dynamicdems]

48. There are certainly a lot of things I'd like to do over too.

:)

[tblue]

49. Me three. Heaven knows, me three.

[ginnyinWI]

12. he's got my vote if he runs.

He's still, to me, the best qualified Dem out there. That's what we want, right--someone best qualified? Nobody out there surpasses John Kerry in presidential qualities.

[MH1]

42. Mine too - 100% agree. n/t

[bling bling]

13. Did you write this yourself?

If so, nicely done. Thanks for an informative post that was (mostly) positive. John Kerry is a great man and a great representative, there is no doubt about that for me.

[karynnj]

15. Yes I did write it - thank you

[Blue_In_AK]

16. Thank you for saying it so well...

I have no enthusiasm for the candidates who have declared so far. I will be very disappointed if Kerry doesn't run.

[AndyA]

17. America needs someone who has the ability to be proactive instead of

reactive. America needs a leader with fresh ideas of their own, not stale ideas forced on them by some other entity. America needs a leader with intelligence, a sense of right and wrong, morals, ethics, and values that belong to them instead of someone else.

Kerry does fit this description.

George Bush does not.

America needs a leader, for a change. We haven't had one since Bill Clinton moved out of the White House.

[paulk]

18. he has a very small window to throw his hat in now

a week or two at the most...

He still has the best resume, but there's not much oxygen left in the room.

[karynnj]

22. I agree that it probably has to be to give at least

some time before the first debate. If Kerry runs, the debates are a golden chance for him. He is genuinely a very good debator and the Faneuil Hall speeches which sound like 100% John Kerry give him excellent back up on most important issues.

His position of being both a real expert on foreign policy and a very good Senator on the Finance commiittee - which makes tax law and addresses other economic issues - in conjunction with Small Business give Kerry a very solid knowledge base.

If you question why there is an effort to eliminate Kerry is that he can project at more gravitas and is more knowedgeable. (Gore could as well.)

[Blaukraut]

19. thank you for this excellent summary!

There has never been a doubt in my mind that Kerry is the most qualified person out there. You stated his credentials well.
Run John, Run!!

[saltpoint]

20. In a far better world, we would be tuning in tomorrow evening

to hear President Kerry deliver the State of the Union address to the nation, one we could listen to with pride.

Instead we will hear a brainless chimp blathering platitudes.

If John Kerry decides he wants to try again in 08, y'all can catch me toward the front of the line waiting to vote for him.

[ProSense]

21. Excellent! Thanks.

John Kerry is an exemplary leader.

Run John, Run.

[politicasista]

23. K&R

Excellent post. :kick:

[DaveinMD]

24. he can't win

has trouble connecting with voters, and talk in Senate speak for too often. He's a very good Senator. He should run for re-election.

[karynnj]

26. He connected very easily in the primaries - winning them

very convincingly. He was not a media favorite. Have you ever seen a Kerry speech in person or met him. In the two speeches I saw he was absoluetely spellbinding. (They were his speech call Dissent that was on the 35th anniversary of his 1971 testimoney the other was the September 9, 2006 Real Security speech.) Like the 1971 speech, the dissent speech is almost like poety in the beauty of the language. But more than the beauty of the language, each statement seemed to be the one you would come away with - but then the next one was better.

The speech was in historic Faneuil Hall he could more than a dozen standing ovations, there were peopl stomping in approval in the balcony and clapping. (The video excludes most of the room noise but is on johnkerry.com under multimedia.)

[DaveinMD]

34. I've seen him in person

yeah. At the convention and other places. He does not master the sound bite that is key in today's media world. He's incredibly bright, but too much of a policy wonk. I stand by my previous comments. We just disagree. I'll strongly back any Democrat that emerges with my money and my time.

[karynnj]

43. That's fair

Though I suggest that the media ends up using a fair number of his soundbites themself - unacredited. A few years ago, it was a daily occurance to hear them use "outsource" with regards to Tora Bora etc. This is not the obvious word - until it was used.

Luntz found that Kerry's list of 10 things Democrats should do was the best rated sound bite. I've heard Edwards borrow from Kerry comments - especially on moral leadership - though this is too generic to prove.

[MH1]

41. He convinced me in 2004 primaries, very easily.

As you said. Yet some folks still cling to that "doesn't connect" canard. I guess it is helpful if someone supports another candidate.

[TankLV]

25. No thanks - I'm still suffering "indegestion" from the last time.

There are many a lot better than him now - I like the current crop WITHOUT him...

[karynnj]

27. If the others are lots better, why do you care that he is there

How can it it hurt to have a knowlegable, very honest man there with them. He will elevate the debates.

Your concern may be that together on a stage he will be head and shoulders better.

[leftofthedial]

28. doesn't hold a candle to Kucinich

(as long as you've eliminated electability as a criterion)

Kerry--first in voting for the PATRIOT Act (although he did later oppose the reauthorization)

--first in voting for IWR

--first in not fighting election fraud

He's better than any repuke that has even pretended to run for President since Ike, but he's not my favorite Democrat.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

30. Right. Kerry never flip flopped on abortion

as Dennis has.

[leftofthedial]

36. I'm shocked!

A lifelong Catholic progressive "flip-flopping" on abortion, the biggest repuke wedge issue of them all!

BFD.

[GeorgeGist]

31. For a leader...

Kerry doesn't have many followers. His integrity, his honesty and his purpose were challenged in 2004 and he conceded. I wish him every success in restoring them.

[karynnj]

45. He did not concede any of those things

He lost an election. A year is a long time. I wonder as flaws show in the now new shining candidates - which often happens - no one is perfect - many may long for Kerry's solid srength of character and honesty plus the intelligence and command of complicated issues.

[_dynamicdems]

37. Great points you make. Leadership is also about rolling up your sleeves and getting to work.

Kerry is and has been a hard-working Democrat all of his life. He's never wavered from what he believes and he's taken a lot of crap because of that.

Thank you for pointing out what true leadership is all about. The comparison is like day and night.

We need Kerry in this race because he can really challenge Hillary Clinton on the issues and force her to talk about the issues that are really important. She's done a good job avoiding them thus far. To me, it is an outrage that the frontrunner for the Democratic Party nomination has been allowed to get away with this. As a candidate, Kerry can hold Clinton's feet to the fire on Iraq and other issues. We need his voice and his leadership.

I agree: Run, John Run.

[MH1]

40. Great post. Kerry has also led on issues like HIV/AIDs and the environment.

I know the o.p. was about post-2004 leadership, but I think many people don't even realize how much Kerry has done on these key progressive issues.

HIV/AIDs - see http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/CandidatesReport.pdf

* Introduced, along with Senator Bill Frist (R-TN), the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria Act. The bill would amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to increase the U.S. government’s funding of international HIV/AIDS efforts from approximately $1.7 billion in 2003 to $1.9 billion in 2004 (2002). This was seen as starting the conversation in the Senate that led to the unanimous passage in May 2003 of HR 1298, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria Act of 2003. AIDS activists characterized Kerry as one of Congress’s top leaders on HIV/AIDS policy.123
* Spoke on the Senate floor against requiring that one third of prevention funds in the global AIDS bill be reserved for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs (2003).124
* Cosponsored the Early Treatment of HIV Act to expand medicaid coverage for low-income individuals infected with HIV (2002).125
* Supports comprehensive sex education. Kerry circulated a letter among Senate Finance Committee Democrats and to Jim Jeffords (I-VT) and Olympia Snowe (RME) that supports giving states the option to implement their own comprehensive sexuality education programs (2002).126
* Cosponsored a resolution calling on the U.S. to invest heavily in AIDS treatment, prevention, and research and to support the formation of a Global AIDS and Health Fund (2001).127
* Cosponsored a bill to reauthorize the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act (CARE) —which represents the largest discretionary federal investment in treating individuals with HIV and AIDS—in 2000 (128) and 1995 (129) and cosponsored the original bill in 1990.130
* Sponsored the Vaccines for the New Millennium Act to boost contributions to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, a non-profit group working to promote development of an HIV vaccine in 2000.131
* Voted to prevent people with the AIDS virus from permanently immigrating to the United States in 1993.132
* Voted for a motion to table, or kill, an amendment that would ban the use of funds for any activities that would promote or encourage homosexual activity as part of federally funded AIDS information and education programs (1988).133

Environment - For starters - http://www.lcv.org/newsroom/press-releases/lcv-endorses-john-kerry-for-re-election-in-ma-senate-race.html (2002 endorsement for Senate)

* (as of 2002) lifetime score of 96 percent on LCV's National Environmental Scorecard
* Kerry was an original organizer of Massachusetts' first Earth Day after his return from Vietnam
* John Kerry commited to filibuster drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
* John Kerry was the first Senator to oppose Gale Norton's nomination as Secretary of the Interior
* Kerry partnered with John McCain on fuel efficiency,
* Kerry is an original cosponsor of the bipartisan Four Pollutant Bill, which would limit mercury, sulfur, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
* Kerry was a delegate to Earth Summits in Rio, Kyoto, and The Hague.
* In 2002, Kerry was awarded the Ansel Adams Conservation Award by the Wilderness Society

Also, I just learned that in 1993, Kerry helped found Second Nature, a national organization that works to put the teaching of environmental sustainability principles into college curriculums. (http://www.secondnature.org/aboutsn/aboutsn.htm)

I think too many people underestimate just how thoughtfully progressive Kerry really is.

[karynnj]

44. Thanks for this post , MH

I didn't know several of the environmental ones. No wonder Gore said he had the best record in the Senate.

On CSPAN during the election, I saw Kerry explain what he did on AIDS. He was interrupted by a heckler asking about AIDS. He promised that he would speak to right after he finished his speech - promising that he had a lot to say. After finishing his speech he spoke of this.

I can see why Bono gave him a guitar.