Why John Kerry deserves some R-E-S-P-E-C-T post 2004

[beachmom]

2005: John Kerry would have defeated Bush. The tide had turned. This shows once people saw who Bush was (they were bamboozled in '04), they would have voted Kerry in.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/04/opinion/polls/main1011154.shtml

If last year’s presidential election were being held today, the results might well be different than the results of a year ago. 41% of registered voters say that if the 2004 election were being held today, they would cast their ballot for Democratic candidate John Kerry, while 36% say they would vote for President George W. Bush. 13% say they would vote for someone else, and 6% wouldn’t vote at all.

2006: Alito filibuster

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=250770

“Mr. President. Today, we face perhaps one of the most important choices we will make as Senators. A choice that will affect the direction of our country for the next several decades. President Bush has nominated Judge Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the United States Supreme Court. He has nominated a man who consistently defers to the government action regardless of how egregious it may be; a man who erects rather than breaks down barriers in the area of civil rights, a man who, to this day, has never retreated from his declaration that the Constitution does not protect a woman’s right to privacy, a man who has demonstrated a persistent insensitivity to the history of racial discrimination in this country and, was even, at the government’s request, willing to ignore overwhelming evidence that African Americans were intentionally stricken from an all-white jury in a black defendant’s capital case.

“And who will this nominee replace? He has been nominated to fill the seat of the Court’s swing vote—a woman who has upheld affirmative action programs, a woman who upheld the right to choose, a woman who upheld state employees’ rights to the protections of the Family Medical Leave Act, a woman who recognizes that a declaration of war is not a ‘blank check’ for the President’s actions. A woman who decides each case narrowly on the facts presented, keenly aware of the greater impact her decisions have.

“We are being asked to confirm a nominee who will shift the ideological balance of the Court dramatically to the right. We are being asked to confirm a nominee whose views will undermine the balance of power that I believe keeps our country strong. For these and other compelling reasons, I oppose this nomination.

And oppose him he did, by calling for a filibuster, much to the chagrin of the spineless Senate Democratic caucus. With every bad decision Alito makes, I am proud that Kerry did everything in his power to stop this appointment.

2006: The Kerry/Feingold amendment to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, a plan largely adopted by both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton during the primaries.

2006: Dissent on the 35th anniversary of Kerry's famous testimony to the SFRC in 1971

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=254631

I believed then, just as I believe now, that it is profoundly wrong to think that fighting for your country overseas and fighting for your country’s ideals at home are contradictory or even separate duties. They are, in fact, two sides of the very same patriotic coin. And that’s certainly what I felt when I came home from Vietnam convinced that our political leaders were waging war simply to avoid responsibility for the mistakes that doomed our mission in the first place. Indeed, one of the architects of the war, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, confessed in a recent book that he knew victory was no longer a possibility far earlier than 1971.

By then, it was clear to me that hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen—disproportionately poor and minority Americans—were being sent into the valley of the shadow of death for an illusion privately abandoned by the very men in Washington who kept sending them there. All the horrors of a jungle war against an invisible enemy indistinguishable from the people we were supposed to be protecting—all the questions associated with quietly sanctioned violence against entire villages and regions—all the confusion and frustration that came from defending a corrupt regime in Saigon that depended on Americans to do too much of the fighting—all that cried out for dissent, demanded truth, and could not be denied by easy slogans like “peace with honor”—or by the politics of fear and smear. It was time for the truth, and time for it all to end, and my only regret in joining the anti-war movement was that it took so long to succeed—for the truth to prevail, and for America to regain confidence in our own deepest values.

And the part that still sends shivers up my spine:

The true defeatists today are not those who call for recognizing the facts on the ground in Iraq. The true defeatists are those who believe America is so weak that it must sacrifice its principles to the pursuit of illusory power.

The true pessimists today are not those who know that America can handle the truth about the Administration’s boastful claim of “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq. The true pessimists are those who cannot accept that America’s power and prestige depend on our credibility at home and around the world. The true pessimists are those who do not understand that fidelity to our principles is as critical to national security as our military power itself.

And the most dangerous defeatists, the most dispiriting pessimists, are those who invoke September 11th to argue that our traditional values are a luxury we can no longer afford.

That's for the history books, folks.

I would like to end by pointing out that not only is John Kerry a great liberal Senator, he is also in a strong position in his own state even though it handily voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. There were hurt feelings, but those feelings have already started to dissipate, and the majority of her supporters in Mass. still want him as their Senator despite an intense disagreement during the presidential primaries.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_senate_elections/massachusetts/election_2008_massachusetts_senate

Election 2008: Massachusetts Senate
Massachusetts Senate: Kerry Still Cruising to Re-Election
Tuesday, July 01, 2008

There are no surprises in the latest numbers from the Senate election in Massachusetts. The newest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state finds incumbent John Kerry well ahead of Republican Jeff Beatty, 58% to 27% in his bid for re-election.

...

The former Presidential candidate is viewed favorably by 60% of Massachusetts voters, up from 54% last month. He is viewed unfavorably by 39%, up from 32% in June. Beatty is less known to voters. His numbers are 25% favorable, 30% unfavorable, and 44% have no opinion. Those numbers have changed little over the past month.

Rasmussen Markets data shows that Kerry is given a 94.0 % chance of winning re-election in November. These figures are updated on a 24/7 basis by market participants.

John Kerry is the reason I got involved volunteering in politics. There is no reason for the vitriol that has plagued this board since rumors erupted yesterday of him possibly being VP. It's one thing to politely say you would rather see someone else; quite another to call him names and launch tirades against him. He's a good man, and does not deserve this, especially not on a Democratic message board.



John Kerry on this 4th of July in Plymouth, Massachusetts.

[PresidentObama]

1. John Kerry is exactly what this country needs in leaders.

[beachmom]

2. Yep. He's the best, and I'll support him in whatever he chooses,

which at this time, is remain a Senator, and a powerful one at that.

[PresidentObama]

3. While I would prefer him as VP or President, he's where we need him.

And he's doing fine work in the U.S. Senate!!

I couldn't be more proud of Kerry post-2004. He's done an incredible job fighting on with the causes he believes in.

[ray of light]

4. absolutely! He ain't no LIEberman which is a double bonus too.

[beachmom]

5. Ha, ha ha. Yeah, and the people pushing Bayh may want to check

out his Iran amendment signed on by all the neoconservatives in the Senate. The way people dismiss a liberal out of hand while pushing centrists amazes me.

[wisteria]

9. They don't bother to do any research or check facts out. n/t

[jillan]

19. Interesting . . .

[AtomicKitten]

6. He does and I am glad to step up and say so, finally.

Eating our own has never been a good idea. Kerry is an honorable man and the party should have done more to embrace him as the candidate in 2004. Truly our loss.

:patriot:

[PresidentObama]

8. As someone I used to battle with over Kerry, I say thank you....

John Kerry continues to prove his heart and efforts are in the right place.

Kudos!!

[wisteria]

10. Thank you. n/t

[mloutre]

15. thank you, AK

While there have been times in the past when we have had to agree to disagree, it's clear that at this point we are both pulling on the same ends of the same ropes here. And I am deeply appreciative of that fact. Thank you.

[mloutre]

105. true dat! thx for saying so, AK!

[mloutre]

107. whoops, he said, conveniently quoting Whitman to cover his tracks

"Do I repeat myself? Very well then, I repeat myself."

Sorry bout dat. Dis blogging thing, it confoozes moi sometimes coz dere is way too much stuff to keep track of from screen to screen to screen...

[WildEyedLiberal]

117. .

:thumbsup:

[wisteria]

7. Thanks for the brilliant reminders of Senator Kerry's devotion and leadership to us and this country

He certainly deserves our respect and that is the least we owe him. He has always had our back. Senator Kerry defines the word patriot.

[mloutre]

11. Yer darn skippy he does!

[PresidentObama]

12. Great picture, I just made it my laptops wallpaper!!

[mloutre]

17. (still doesn't get no better than this one, though...)

[jillan]

13. You don't have to convince me!

Talk about being filled with hope! I never had more than when that pic was taken.

[beachmom]

14. Oh, I love that pic. I still remember watching that event on TV

for a few minutes before they cut away. Sigh. The media did everything in their power to make sure we saw as little Kerry unedited as possible.

[GoldieAZ49]

18. Wow! never saw that one before! Amazing!

Obviously crowd appeal does not an election win.

[beachmom]

21. Well, it was in Wisconsin, and Kerry won it by a hair. Plus Obama

is utilizing large rallies by trying to get people signed up to volunteer.

[babylonsister]

16. What a wonderful man; if Obama even comes close to Kerry's

character and integrity, I'll be a happy woman. That will mean Obama will do the right thing. :D

[Island Blue]

20. K & R.

What Beachmom said. :patriot:

[politicasista]

22. K&R

Nice thread and cool pic. Thanks for putting this together beachmom. :kick:

[jgraz]

23. Why is this in GD:Presidential?

It has no bearing on this election.

[Luftmensch067]

24. If you don't understand that learning to appreciate the best of our Party

instead of rejecting anything that doesn't match a narrow, rigid outlook has EVERYTHING to do with this election, you need to think about it. We will keep losing if we keep savaging and exiling our best public servants.

Thank you for the history lesson, beachmom -- there are many in the blogosphere who need it badly.

[jgraz]

26. I don't see a lot of cheerleading for other non-candidates in GD:P

What is so hard about respecting the posting guidelines for the individual forums?

[mloutre]

27. here's why:

(1) Kerry, as the most recent Democratic candidate for president, is relevant to the current Democratic candidacy for president;

(2) Kerry, rightly or wrongly (imho the latter) has been publicly touted lately as the current Democratic candidate for the presidency's VP selection;

(3) Kerry, privately and publicly, has been mentoring & boosting the current Democratic candidate for the presidency since 2004, when he gave Obama the most visible slot at the Democratic convention that year;

(4) Kerry, at no small cost in terms of his own political capital, endorsed the current Democratic candidate for the presidency very early on, campaigned for him tirelessly, and continues to be one of his most effective surrogates on TV and in print;

(5) Kerry, despite your long-term and very well-documented personal hatred of him, is very much a player in this year's presidential race... and you, jgraz, are very much not.

(Hate to bust your bubble about that last one, but...)

[jgraz]

28. I'm devastated to know I'm not a player in this year's presidential race.

Maybe the some fangirls will start a thread about me next.

[ray of light]

29. When you start passing some damn good pregressive legislation and

being a leader on environmental concerns on a Global scale, then send out your resume. Who knows...even you might find that others think you're worthy of having a fan club.

[jgraz]

39. If it's OK with you, I'll just point of the dangers of blind worship of a presidential candidate

We're seeing it again this time around and it's obvious we haven't learned from past mistakes.

[ProSense]

40. Wasn't the danger the blind worship of Bush? n/t

[jgraz]

41. Remind me: how many "stop bashing our candidate" posts went up in 04?

All while Kerry was cheerfully losing the election to a monster.

[ProSense]

42. Why were they bashing the candidate?

Why were so many certain that Kerry was going to win down to the night of the election? Why were so many disappointed that election fraud wasn't exposed?

[jgraz]

43. Uncritical acceptance of Kerry's "strategy" had a lot to do with it

We just assumed he'd be ready in case of any shenanigans, and he wasn't. I don't plan on getting caught unawares this time, either by election fraud or by stealth centrism in our candidate.

[blm]

44. WE assumed the DNC used its four years to strengthen party infrastructure so the election process

COULDN'T be controlled by the GOP and RNC, after 2000s theft.....but that didn't happen, did it?

And Kerry DID counter attacks, while Dem party sat on its hands, left blogs failed to further the counterattacks, and corporate media complicitly muted Kerry's counterattacks.

DU Research Forum has a very detailed thread on that.

BTW - did you post the clips of Kerry attacking the swifts and Bush around internet forums in 2004 as often as you post the claim he never fought back now?

[jgraz]

45. I'm not talking about the DNC or the swift boats

I'm talking about Kerry's mamby-pamby "I was for it before I was against it" centrism that Obama seems determined to emulate.

Do you ever wonder why so many of our candidates come out of the primaries with double-digit leads over the Repugs, only to see those leads evaporate come election day? Didn't that pattern ever strike you as odd?

They come out of the nominating process with a 12 or 15-point lead... they run to the center... they lose the lead... they lose the election. And yet, our candidates keep pretending that this is somehow a winning strategy.

Until we take a clear-eyed look at how our previous candidates BLEW THE ELECTION, we are going to repeat our mistakes. Over and over.

[blm]

48. ALL senators vote FOR or against a bill before they vote AGAINST or for the other version

of a bill. Kerry DIDN'T tack the center during the general, so I don't know what you're talking about.


What WE need to learn is that back up from ALL Dems is crucial. Bush was a lousy campaigner who got ALL of his momentum from the RW machine repeating attacks against Kerry constantly. The LW had no machine and look how many Dems even here on DU never bothered to further the attacks Kerry made against Bush and the swifts.

Hell, Bill Clinton spent his June/July2004 booktour on TV defending Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war while Kerry was leading the criticism of those strategies. That's SOME Dem party unity, eh? The Dem pundits loyal to Clinton wouldn't stray from Clinton's narrative, either.

BTW - DID you post clips of the truth about that or Kerry's attacks on the swifts as often as you post the spin against Kerry today?


If WE as assumed to be Dem acivists don't reinforce the Dem nominee consistently, then who will?

[karynnj]

60. You know that comment was a distortion

It was an "inartful" (thanks, Obama for the word) shorthand to answer a question that he had answered in detail shortly before. There were 2 different bills, he voted for one and against the other. It was not complicated - but the media acted as if he was explaining a complicated detail in quantum physics that was too complicated.

Kerry did not run to the center on Iraq or national security - look at his NYU and University of Pennsyvania speeches. If anything "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" was clearer and more explicit than "He mislead us into war, failing to exhaust the diplomacy, without letting the inspectors fininish their work ......" In the first debate he accused Bush of initiating the development of permanent bases - and said the idea was 100% bad. (This was the first I had heard of this issue)

He changed nothing on healthcare, where his was considered the best plan by most experts and would have covered about 95% of the population (Edwards in one of the last primary debates called it too expensive - his plan covered kids only). He changed nothing on his alternative energy/environment proposals which every Democrat stole parts of for 2008.

He hit Bush with planning to privatise Social Security - which Bush had mentioned - but the media backed Bush that Kerry was wrong on this - that Bush had no such intention. I saw no shift on his economic plan.

So, it looks to me like if anything Kerry shifted to a stronger anti-war position. He clearly did not shift on healthcare, the environment - where Gore was right that he had the strongest record in the Senate.

(Note that Gore actually moved away from the center in the general election too - he was criticized by Clinton people for moving towards populism.

[jgraz]

65. The point was, his comment was eminently distortable

He had a lot of those. He was always hedging, always nuancing, almost acting apologetic for his views. Democrats never seem to get that this is how you LOSE elections in this country.

[ProSense]

67. "He had a lot of those."

Links?

"eminently distortable" doesn't excuse the media distortion, and says little about your determination to continue the distortion.

[jgraz]

69. And she throws the gun after running out of bullets. Again.

You were there, I was there. If you want to pretend it didn't happen with your silly "Links?" request, be my guest.

[ProSense]

70. You have none. There were none.

Stop the BS!

[jgraz]

76. Sigh. Here y'go.

Here's a video of his best one. Try not to be distracted by how dreamy his hair looks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esUTn6L0UDU

A great analysis of gaffe #2, and a prescient breakdown of why Kerry was going to lose.
http://www.counterpunch.org/donham09042004.html


Now will you please quit pretending that Kerry shared no blame for his defeat? It just reinforces the ridiculousness of the Democrats' standard losing election strategy.

[ProSense]

83. Do you think people are stupid? Where is the "a lot"?That the voted for, against two different bills

Here you are again pushing the RW BS.

[jgraz]

85. Not all people. Just some.

Guess which ones.

[beachmom]

88. So now you're citing a video posted by a right winger and the far left anti-Democratic counterpunch?

Why don't you go to Freeperland next and come up with some more crap. Oh, and maybe you can air what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said, since you seem to only be capable of parroting Right Wing attacks about Kerry.

[jgraz]

93. So the video was false because of who posted it?

It's on freaking youtube! You don't like that copy, I can find you a hundred more. Are you somehow saying that the fact that I neglected to check the politics of the poster means that Kerry didn't say what the video shows him saying? That he didn't say he's still vote for the war knowing what he knows now?

Are you saying he didn't pretend to be a hunter in order to pander to the gun vote? Or that he didn't look stupid in his bug suit?

The guy LOST. We may quibble about exactly why he lost, but to say that THE CANDIDATE wasn't a big part of it is simply delusional.

[ProSense]

95. Where is "a lot"? You have posted nothing new on request.

You are exposed. You are spewing crap and have nothing to back it up.

[beachmom]

73. He had TWO. Two gaffes. One you like to parrot thereby emulating the RNC's ads

and his gaffe in the Grand Canyon. Sorry, but the '08 candidates already have more than that. You're full of it, and are part of the problem, not the solution, to the media idiocracy. You parrot MSM/RNC BS every chance you get. You don't have an original thought.

[jgraz]

77. You perhaps wanted more? Here's a couple of others you may have forgotten

Not all of them have to be goofy quotes.

[beachmom]

81. Ah, so you lost the argument and have now switched topics. Why

don't you get the HELL off my thread.

[jgraz]

84. Nope. There never was an argument.

There was common sense and fangirl drooling. Kind of a one-sided affair if you ask me.


Oh, and next time? Put your thread in the right damn forum and I won't say a thing.

[ProSense]

86. Looks like it comes down to a typical RW shill. n/t

[jgraz]

90. No, it comes down to your typical attacks when anyone criticizes Senator McDreamy.

Right wing shill. Please, find a different song -- we're all sick of that one.

[ProSense]

92. Oh please, the left wingnuts who claimed Gore = Bush are just as stupid as the right wingnuts

You know, the ones who aligned themselves with Santorum.

You're already spewing BS about Obama being a flip flopper.

[beachmom]

91. My thread is in the right place in regards to VP speculation.

YOU put YOUR THREAD in GDP.

[blm]

75. Media distorted it because they NEEDED to distort it. It was distortable to DUMB people who don't

know that senators and congress vote on two different versions of a bill. Did the media not know it, either? No. But their job was to delude the public and support the WH narrative. Dan Rather has admitted the corporate media needed to protect Bush for the favorable rulings they expected from a second term, but, apparently, you side with those aligned against Rather on this.

[beachmom]

78. You're right BLM, and the media is doing the same thing now distorting Obama's remarks on Iraq

They're saying he has changed his position. Is the media too stupid to take a look at his website to check if it is the same plan in exactly the same language? No, they are merely parroting the McCain campaign's talking points. The cycle is different this time, so Obama can hopefully overcome the media distortions, but to act like the media didn't pitch in to help BushCo is acting naive just to knock Kerry.

[jgraz]

79. So in order for us to win... the media must stop distorting and people need to be smarter

Damn, you should be running the Obama campaign. Heck, maybe you are...

[blm]

87. Media WILL distort as they did Obama's Iraq stance. What we NEED are strong back up voices

of other Dem lawmakers - which we have now - and strong Dem internet activists who've learned to distrust the media and call them out more loudly when they do distort our nominee's position.

K?

[jgraz]

94. Hell no. We need a strong front-man. If we don't have that, we've already lost.

[ProSense]

96. So we've lost? You labeled Obama a weak flip flopper. Is that your way of saying strong front-man?

[jgraz]

99. No, we haven't lost yet. Obama's only been flip-flopping for a couple of weeks

Lucky for us, he's going to have to work pretty hard to lose to a pathetic candidate like McSame. But he's a Democrat, I know he can rise to the occasion.

[blm]

108. If media refuses to air that strong front man's speeches and counterattacks, it's good to

have strong back up from other Dem lawmakers and internet activists who WILL further his remarks.

DU's research forum thread on swifts is proof positive that Rather was correct about corporate media's blatant protection of Bush during that time.

You think if Katrina hadn't happened, and Bush's numbers stayed around 50% the last 3 years, and media owners were still waiting for the favorable rulings from FCC that corpmedia would be allowing Obama's speeches to be heard as often as they have been?

There is no comparison between this year's media climate and 2004's.

Strong? Kerry would have run roughshod over Clinton, Obama and Edwards in the Dem debates if he ran this cycle. Hell, Obama gained ground quickly because he accessed Kerry's national political network in early 2007, a national team that never received any attention or notice, but was far more organized than Clinton's.

You seem easily led by media perception. Anyone with any true knowledge of Kerry's work and public service over the last 35 years would never buy into the idea that he isn't a strong and principled leader. This nation would be in its second decade of Full on Fascism if we didn't have Kerry's leadership the last 35 yrs. You can't say that about many lawmakers can you?

[jgraz]

110. I don't think the media is shy about airing Obama speeches. They get great ratings

And no, I'm not led by media perception. That would be pretty hard since I don't own a television and my only MSM exposure is my podcast of Countdown.

In point of fact, I LOVE the work that Kerry's done as a Senator. I just think he was hopeless as a presidential candidate. For God's sake, the guy lost to the worst president in the history of the republic! How can that not be at least partly his fault?

[blm]

111. WE saw Bush as the worst president in history. Russert was asking America to believe Bush was tapped

by God to lead us after 9-11. Casual consumers of news had no idea how bad Bush was. How many A students who did their homework did YOU have in your classes or even in your entire school?


Face it - if media hadn't aired Obama's speeches on race and his defense of himself while they placed in heavy rotation all those clips from Wright, he wouldn't have won the primary. THEN it would be equivalent to what media did to Kerry in 2004. And still it took lies, 24/7 media protection of Bush and the RNC working every day for years to control the election process at every level where the votes are allowed, cast and counted. THAT is what lost 2004. Bush didn't win it. RNC had to steal it for him....again, and with even more media complicity than they had in 2000.

Kerry's biggest mistake was trusting that any DNC stewards back then were working for the Dem party and its candidates.

[jgraz]

113. Yes, the DNC was a bunch of dumbasses. But it was Kerry who quashed the Bush-bashing

at the convention. That was not only bad politics, it was a helluva cheat to those of us who were looking forward to a cathartic recitation of the many sins of Bush's first four years.

Also, it was a HUGE mistake to cede 9/11 to the Repugs. This was the worst terrorist attack in history, and Bush let it happen. Kerry should have pilloried Bush for his Pet Goat moment, yet he said nothing.

At some point, the Democrats need to realize that Americans respect strength and we respect those who fight back. We need to stop being nice and start taking these bastard apart.

[ProSense]

115. You're so misinformed it's not even funny. You latch on to

every rumor.

[jgraz]

119. Riight. Point to one direct criticism of Bush at the 04 convention

Another colossal blunder by St. John the Dreamy.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-02-poll-cover_x.htm

[ProSense]

125. Here, from Kerry's speech

I am proud that after September 11th all our people rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger.

KERRY: There were no Democrats. There were no Republicans. There were only Americans. And how we wish it had stayed that way.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, I know there that are those who criticize me for seeing complexities -- and I do -- because some issues just aren't all that simple. Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so. Saying we can fight a war on the cheap doesn't make it so. And proclaiming "Mission accomplished" certainly doesn't make it so.

link

[jgraz]

127. That's indirect criticism. It sounds weak and mealy-mouthed

The problem with Kerry (and you, it seems) is he can't tell the difference.

[ProSense]

128. Oh BS, now you sound like Chicken Pickens. There is Bush's name.

Are you trying to claim someone else said "Mission Accomplished"?

[jgraz]

129. Wow, you really don't know the difference. I'll explain it to you

Indirect criticism requires the listener to actually be paying attention and to make a mental connection between what the speaker is saying and whom the speaker is criticizing. For example: yes, I know who claimed "Mission Accomplished" (actually no one really said it, it was on a sign). But in order to connect the criticism to Bush, I have to make my own mental leap.

This has the effect of blunting the criticism. It also makes the speaker appear to be hesitant to directly attack his subject. It also is completely lost on the majority of Americans.

Here's an example of that same statement using direct criticism: "George Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He was wrong. George Bush said we could fight a war on the cheap. He was wrong. And when George Bush proclaimed "Mission accomplished", he was certainly wrong, and American troops are dead because of it."

THAT's how you directly criticize someone. Had there been more (any) of that at the 04 convention, you and I would be arguing about how best to re-elect President Kerry.

[ProSense]

132. How nuanced of you.

What BS. No one in America and the rest of world needed hints as to who claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and who launched the war.

[jgraz]

133. Actually, they kind of did. A claim which is borne out by the results of the 04 election.

And THAT's the problem I have with all this Kerry-worship. People are so clouded by their love for the man that they can't see how his tactics cost us the election.

The Democrats have lost 7 out of the last 10 presidential elections. Don't you think it's about time we put emotions aside and took a clear-eyed look at why we've been losing?

[ProSense]

137. "And THAT's the problem I have with all this Kerry-worship. " Is that what's bothering you?

Kerry has supporters. Get used to. If you can't, I hope it continues to annoy you.

[jgraz]

139. Again, your inability to read to the end of a sentence brings the conversation to halt

Seriously, take a deep breath, take your hands off the keyboard and make some small effort to actually understand what's being said.

[ProSense]

140. Annoyed? n/t

[jgraz]

141. Not really. I'm use to it with you.

[blm]

120. McAuliffe said no Bushbashing because Clinton advised it, and Kerry got blamed for it. No one was

censored for their speeches. McAuliffe ran that convention. I wouldn't be surprised if he specifically ordered the balloon drop to be snagged, he's THAT untrustworthy.

You are wrong about 9-11....again, Kerry was the highest profile Dem who DID attack Bush soon after 9-11, by Jan2002 he was the chief critic on Bush's moves in Afghanistan, and had no backup on his criticisms of Bush from fellow Dems. He also brought up BCCI the week after 9-11 on CNN and made the connection, but you never saw him back on CNN until the primary race.


I know what I'm talking about because I paid a LOT of attention to these matters and had been since the mid90s and especially after Kerry's book The New War, the sounded the alarm on the growing global terror movements and how they finance their networks.

I had my eyes and ears wide open then with the added advantage that I already knew the lay of the land via the BCCI report.

[jgraz]

122. Then why did the Kerry campaign say otherwise?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5511190

Campaign spokeswoman Debra DeShong said speakers are getting clear direction from the Kerry team “because we do have a very clear message that John Kerry and John Edwards will make us stronger at home and respected in the world. Our speech process is helping people get comfortable with that message."

Seriously, this stuff isn't that hard to find.

[blm]

149. It was based on Clinton's advisement. He told both McAuliffe and Kerry that it would be

a huge mistake to bash Bush, that voters wanted to hear positive messages . Kerry went along with it, but didn't censor those who thought otherwise.

PS: Speeches were NOT censored - that matters to this exchange....and my post also had a lot more content than just the convention.

Seriously....the heavy attacks Kerry made against Bush from Jan2002 all the way through the campaign are not hard to find, but you managed to avoid them like the plague and draw your own conclusions. You would think you cared enough at the time to notice what the nominee actually said throughout that time before you accepted the DC 'conventional wisdom' that is based on the powerstructure's agenda.

Kerry launched the toughest attacks against Bush and his handling of terrorism and sustained it through to today. You'd know that if you paid closer attention to the things you claim matter to you.

[karynnj]

106. He had fewer of them than either Clinton or Obama did in the recent

primaries - especially if you take only comments in the primaries.

The fact is that with the narrow loss, the focus is on the errors. Had there been more voting machines and less cheating in Ohio, the narrative would have been that he ran an excellent, high road campaign that won in spite of everything being stacked against him. (In fact, when it looked like that was happening the week before the election, you could hear the surprise in the voices of people like Fineman, Matthews and Tucker Carlson.

[karynnj]

59. What do you mean by this?

It sounds like you are simply saying that you will refuse to give your heart away, for fear it will be broken. (either because the election is stolen or the candidate ultimately is a disappointment. (As to centrist - you have to go back to LBJ to get a non-centrist Democrat - and I never though in the 1960s I would think of LBJ that way, but look at his domestic programs.

Carter and Clinton were as Centrist as you can get.

[jgraz]

66. If I give my "heart" away, there'd better be some serious sex involved as well

(And I don't just mean the standard "we're all fucked" that we get from politicians.)

Giving your "heart" to a politician is a sucker's move. That's what got us in trouble with Kerry and it will do the same with Obama. I guarantee you, if Obama loses (pleasegodno) we will see a different set of people posting here, insisting on how he got screwed by the media and how the voters "just didn't know him like we do <sigh>."

We need to take a hard look at why Kerry lost, or we WILL repeat it.

[karynnj]

58. Maybe instead of bashing - the liberal blogs could have

attempted the likely impossible task of helping to correct some of the problems. Two that I saw was that the media would ignore Kerry's statements on Iraq - saying he spoke on Iraq - then going straight to the Republican line that either he had no plan or that it was the same as Bush's. (The same media did recognize in 2006 that the ISG recommendation included many things Kerry proposed in 2004. I can't believe it took them 2 years to read Kerry's Iraq speech at NYU or listen to the 1 minute summary he gave on Letterman) Kerry's speeches and statements were on his web site and were often intelligently discussed.

The other is the view that Kerry did not respond adequately to the SBVT. Even if that is assumed to be true, it was in our interest to help him. All Democrats should have tried to help Kerry get the truth out - especially if they thought he was not doing enough. What he did do was to provide more than enough ammunition to use for people to defend him - and it was in Democrats vested interest to do so. I think that there was a sense -everywhere that this was so unbelievable that nothing needed to be done. The Navy awarded those medals - he didn't steal them or make them up.

The MSM did not do his its job. In reality the media condoned character assassination of Senator Kerry. Then there was a second swiftboating after the narrow election loss by people with vested interests, either because they did not live up to their journalistic standards or they supported someone else in 2008. The problem was that Kerry could not get his response out through the mass media - his message was heavily filtered.

The campaign's immediate reaction to the August attack was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof. They also later proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out. That was done within ONE DAY of the book's emergence in August. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it.

That was far more proof countering the liars than the Clinton machine ever put out on anything. The problem was that it went to the media and they refused to play the role of evaluating who was telling the truth - the Washington Post's editor even saying they wouldn't. The broadcast media was worse. Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverand Wright? We need to be prepared to help Obama, if the media turn back to 2004 mode now that we are in the general election.

It wasn't that we had no ammunition to use. There was an abundance of proof - far more than would be typically available as they hit against a well documented official record. Even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand.

It should also be mentioned that it was not Kerry's accounts they disputed, it was the NAVY's official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O'Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

Saying Kerry did not fight back simply swiftboats him again - compare this list of proof to Carville & Co response on Clinton's Flowers or draft problems - this is far more comprehensive and completely refutes the charges. The Clinton responses in these two instances did not completely refute the charges - in fact, after changing his story a few times in each case - conceding that earlier statements were not completely true - parts of the charges were conceded. The difference was that in 1992 - even in the primary - Clinton was given breaks by a media that wanted him to win. The fact is that we KNEW in those two cases that he was willing to dissemble and scapegoat others when he was called on his actions - two things that later hurt his Presidency.

In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step. It is only when there is no open and shut case (as there is here) that the candidate would try anything different.When this didn't work, Kerry did speak to the issue - and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here - all political junkies didn't here this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn't think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was - I think less than 5 minutes long - so there is no excuse.http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/08/jk_the_fire_fighters.html click on little photo of the Senator.)

In 2004, there were no You tubes - if there were, getting this out could have been done. I hope the media will play fairer - but if they don't, we need to help Obama.

[jgraz]

82. OK... media, dumb voters, liberal blogs. Got it.

Now all we have to do is get those three groups to back our candidate and we've got it made!

[ray of light]

151. that's funny, given the picture in your sig line.

[karynnj]

57. Frankly, I doubt you are interesting enough to have "fan girls"

In addition - that is extremely sexist. Should I label you an Edwards fan boy? I personally thingk that would be unfair to Edwards.

[Inuca]

32. A shorter version of your excellent summary

jgraz, just look at the damn picture! Absolutely wonderful picture by the way.

[Mass]

135. May I suggest to people here to put this guy on ignore. He is too happy to see that we care about

him when there are more important questions than the fact than his opinion on Kerry. Who cares?

(Not particularly aimed at you, but I have put him on ignore yesterday and feel sorry that this thread is ruined by this person).

[Inuca]

31. Actually it does have a lot of bearing

on this election if you just stopped to think a bit instead of snarkily nitpicking.

[blm]

33. Bashing Kerry is bashing Obama's top surrogate and spokesperson.

And bashing the man who quietly turned over his national political network to Obama in early 1996, helping Obama gain a strong foundation for his primary race that is also serving him well for the general.

That's all.

[beachmom]

35. You mean in early 2007, right? nt

[blm]

38. heh....2007. I should always drink coffee before I post in the A.M. ;)

.

[blm]

37. Oops....I meant 2007, of course.

.

[beachmom]

34. Yes, it does. If people can bash Kerry on GDP, then I can defend his good name.

And YOU are one of the perpetrators. If this is your standard then you should have NEVER started a thread yourself.

[ProSense]

36. Thank you.

It's called disruptive hypocrisy.

[karynnj]

46. Why do I suspect that if this thread were bashing Kerry, you would NOT make this objection?

There is a subtle message that makes it ENTIRELY relevant and it is for those who didn't give Kerry a real chance in 2004. IN 2004, the Democratic party chose John Kerry as our standard bearer, but many spent no effort trying to learn anything about his record, what he had stood for for decades or his programs. Instead, though they went through the motions, contributed, worked and voted, they instead were in morning for a lost dream of whichever leader they preferred or complained that he was not Clinton.

Now, it didn't used to always be like this. In 1992, Clinton was nowhere near my favorite - but I got his book, read it and used the good things he had done and mostly spoke of what he intended to do and argued for Clinton over Bush because of that. Now, if you are saying but I had major differences with Kerry, I can tell you I hated Clinton's environmental record in Arkansas, Bush with the Clean air act was actually equal if not better. I also was dismayed that his first response to attack seemed to be to dissemble and scapegoat someone. However, none of these flaws came close to my disgust with what Bush had done on Iran/Contra and BCCI and I still think that Bush precipitated an unnecessary war that led to a dozen years of atrocious sanctions and finally the current war. My action was not unique - it was what most Democrats did. (and it wasn't that Clinton had a nicer personality - Al Gore and John Kerry are both likely far nicer people.)

We need to do what we did in 1992. NO candidate is perfect. We need to step back and stop parsing every little thing and ask ourseves how much of Obama's platform we agree with versus how much of McCain's. Remember as President, you get to propose what you want. Senators have to vote yes or no on bills where they are likely yes, but as often as no, but.

Looking at Beachmom's OP - ask yourself whether the actions that Kerry has taken make you realize better what his values and positions are and whether you should have given him more benefit of the doubt than you did.

[jgraz]

49. So the lesson you learned from 04 is..

that we need every voter to read up on the history and biography of the people we nominate so that we can make an informed decision. Wow, that's gonna work. :eyes:

How 'bout this: we nominate someone who knows how to win an election and sticks to their principles without apology of waffling. Why don't we try that for once?

[blm]

50. Kerry sticking to his strong principles is what you haven't liked. If he was unprincipled, the DC

powerstructure, both GOP and Dems, wouldn't have worked against him for so long. He'd have been their Dem of choice for the WH by the mid90s.

Kerry stuck to his principle that he would only vote FOR a funding bill IF the money was accounted for by the administration. He voted AGAINST a version of that funding bill that had no accountability for that money in the bill.


You called that principled action 'mamby-pamby' in a post above.

Where did YOU and other internet activist Dems fail in 2004 that all could learn from that failure today?

IMO, too few Dems, even the activists, knew little about Kerry as they sat in judgement of him...and judged him IGNORANTLY. Kerry showed more principle in his public service than any Dem nominee we ever had.

From New Yorker 2002:

>>>>>
When John Kerry arrived in the Senate, in 1985, his first challenge was to figure out how to coexist with Kennedy. There were two possible strategies. One was to settle back and take a seat on the Appropriations Committee, a sure ticket to perpetuity in the Senate. The job of appropriators is to decide how to spend federal money; as politicians, they tend to be as blowsy and lugubrious as the bills that stumble out of their committee. Obviously, this was not the sort of career John Kerry had intended for himself, and so he chose the Foreign Relations Committee, which, by the mid-eighties, was not nearly as glamorous as it had been during the Vietnam era. The public was no longer very interested in foreign policy; and for a politician it held little practical allure--no taxing, no spending, no hardware to buy, no regulations to set. "But it was about war and peace," Kerry said. "We were entering an illegal war in Latin America. One of the lessons of Vietnam was about lying, about people who hide the truth from the American people, and there was a real parallel in Latin America."

Kerry started a series of investigations into the Reagan Administration’s involvement with the Nicaraguan Contras, a guerrilla group opposed to the left-wing Sandinista government. His subcommittee on narcotics and terrorism revealed that Oliver North, a junior Marine officer assigned to the White House, was in charge of funnelling arms to the Contras; and suggested that some of the C.I.A. operatives who supplied the Contras were flying narcotics back to the United States (a fact that the C.I.A. finally acknowledged almost a decade later); and then that Panama’s dictator Manuel Noriega had been involved with the arms-running, the drug-running, and the C.I.A. From there, Kerry began to investigate Noriega’s money-laundering operation, which was run through the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, in the Cayman Islands. The B.C.C.I. trail led to its partner, First American Bank, in Washington, D.C., which was represented by Clark Clifford, who had served every Democratic President from Harry Truman to Jimmy Carter. "John wasn’t a very popular guy when he called Clark Clifford to testify," David McKean, the committee’s chief investigator at the time, said. "Most of the other members of the committee were uncomfortable with it. I remember that one senator cornered Kerry in the elevator and said, ‘What are you doing to my old friend Clark Clifford?’ But those hearings were the first real look at how terrorists, drug dealers, and international criminals conducted their business."

Indeed, Kerry was soon about as popular in Washington’s political community as he’d been in Massachusetts. "He was a very driven, very relentless guy, and that could be off-putting to his colleagues," Timothy E. Wirth, who was a senator from Colorado at the time and later became Kerry’s friend, recalls. "He was an outsider. In fact, you never saw him around much, with good reason--he was up in Boston with his girls. My sense is that Julia wasn’t always reliable during those years, and John took a lot of responsibility for raising the kids. He would rush up there for every school play and soccer match. You had the sense that he was a very lonely guy. He was being hacked to death by the Globe, and others, and he never had anyone to share it with."
>>>>>>

[jgraz]

53. No, what I haven't liked is four more years of Bush.

Our poor choice of a standard-bearer in 04 had a lot to do with that.

But, since I'm talking about Democrats learning from mistakes, I'm going to learn from mine and not continue another one of these pointless Kerry arguments. :hi:

[ProSense]

54. Oh BS, you do this all the time. You have no argument.

You keep spinning circles around the truth (either that or you don't know what you're talking about). The voted for or against it you posted above is evidence of that. You bought the media spin and have been advancing ever since.

[jgraz]

61. And your argument is: "gee, isn't he dreamy?" No thanks.

[blm]

56. I disagree - kos recently admitted after reflection that he failed in 2004 to back up Dem nominee

the way he should have. A LOT of internet Dems failed, the media failed, the DNC failed. THEIR poor or nonexistent back up allowed the perception that Kerry didn't counter the swifts, that he flip-flopped, and even that he had no record in the senate.

Too many Dems (imo, Clinton operatives or duped activists) reinforced the RW spin against Kerry and couldn't muster the energy to tell the truth about a heroic lawmaker with the same gusto that the RW would lie every minute of every day for a piece of shit fascist like Bush.

Kerry is not allowing that happen to Obama, and neither am I. That is the lesson ALL honest Dems should learn.

[jgraz]

62. Getting one decent nominee is a helluva lot easier than getting 100M people to back a bad one

It's just math. Get a good nominee and people will vote for him/her. Kerry was a bad nominee. How do I know this? Because not enough people voted for him. Q.E.D.

[blm]

64. And the Dems receiving positive media attention from 2001 thru 2004 would be.....

.......uh......Lieberman.

[jgraz]

68. And once again, if it's all the media's fault then we might as well give up now.

[ProSense]

71. Whose fault is it that the polls are showing that McCain and Obama are equal flip floppers?

You give up.

[jgraz]

80. Obama. Easy answer.

If he'd stayed strong on FISA, he'd have never opened himself up to the claim. Now he's being called weak and a flip-flopper. And you know why? Because he IS.

[ProSense]

89. "And you know why? Because he IS"

More proof.

[jgraz]

97. OK, prove you're not a drooling fangirl. Name 5 things you don't like about Kerry

I can easily name 5 things I like about him:

+ I like his strong backing of Obama, both now and in the primaries
+ I like that he was a strong, credible critic of the Vietnam War
+ I like that he tried to investigate the BCCI scandal, even though it went no where
+ I like that he's a very intelligent, compassionate guy
+ I like his hair -- even better than Edwards'

Your turn. Let's see who the ideologue really is.

[ProSense]

98. I don't have to prove shit to you. n/t

[jgraz]

100. You just did. Thanks.

:hi:

[ProSense]

101. I know,

I proved you're a fraud.

[jgraz]

102. OK then, you just go on thinking that.

Edit: good comeback, btw. You almost managed to save some face on that one. :eyes:

[mloutre]

112. okay, I can't help it, I just have to ask you these very direct questions...

(...which I expect you won't give very direct answers to -- but what the hell, you might surprise me yet, so I'm gonna ask you anyway...)


What exactly did you do, yourself, to help John Kerry get elected to the presidency in 2004?


-- Did you donate money to John Kerry's campaign?

-- Did you volunteer to work on his campaign in your locality?

-- Did you knock on doors for him?

-- Did you phonebank for him?

-- Did you put a "John Kerry For President" yard sign on your lawn, in your window, a bumper sticker on your car?

-- Did you write letters to the editors, blog posts, emails on his behalf?

-- Did you distribute literature explaining how much better a choice John Kerry was than George Bush when it came to living & working in the Big White House on Pennsylvania Ave.?

-- Did you take the time to learn his positions and then explain them to your friends, neighbors, colleagues, and others you came in contact with on a day-to-day basis?

-- Did you vigorously defend him against slurs, smears, and baseless attacks, online and offline both?

-- Did you actually put your money, your feet, your hands, your head, your heart, or anything else besides your mouth to work on John Kerry's behalf in 2004?


Answer me those questions, honestly and truthfully, and then maybe I'll start thinking of you as something other than what I think of you now. (Which thoughts I won't cite here, but they ain't exactly positive. Still, I hope you will prove me wrong, in which case I'll be more than happy to recalibrate my thinking in response.)

But even answering those questions honestly and truthfully won't let you off the hook entirely. Can you answer those same questions about the current Democratic nominee in 2008, honestly and truthfully, too?

What exactly have you/will you do, yourself, to help Barack Obama get elected to the presidency in 2004?


-- Have you/will you donate money to Barack Obama's campaign?

-- Have you/will you volunteered to work on his campaign in your locality?

-- Have you/will you knock on doors for him?

-- Have you/will you phonebank for him?

-- Have you/will you put a "Barack Obama For President" yard sign on your lawn, in your window, a bumper sticker on your car?

-- Have you/will you write letters to the editors, blog posts, emails on his behalf?

-- Have you/will you distribute literature explaining how much better a choice Barack Obama is than John McCain when it comes to living & working in the Big White House on Pennsylvania Ave.?

-- Have you/will you take the time to learn his positions and then explain them to your friends, neighbors, colleagues, and others you came in contact with on a day-to-day basis?

-- Have you/will you vigorously defend him against slurs, smears, and baseless attacks, online and offline both?

-- Have you/will you actually put your money, your feet, your hands, your head, your heart, or anything else besides your mouth to work on Barack Obama's behalf in 2008?


If you can't. or won't, answer any of those questions in the affirmative, then just shut the fuck up and go away and cry you a river someplace else instead of at Democratic Underground.

We've got us a Democratic President to elect here this year, yo. That's the bottom line, the big deal, and the ultimate goal.

And if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. And if you're part of the problem, then we don't want to know you. Period, full stop.

[jgraz]

114. There's a search feature on this site. You can answer all of those questions for yourself.

Show me you're bright enough to operate a search engine, then I may decide to respond.

[mloutre]

118. yeah, that's pretty much what I thought: *bawk*, *bawk*, *bawk*, *bawk*

You are exactly what you appear to be.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[mloutre]

123. Ooh, nice. Very grown-up and mature reply.

Damn, if you keep impressing folks with your witty repartee like that, maybe they'll not notice that you're conspicuously avoiding answering the Kerry questions.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

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

[jgraz]

130. Oh, and may I just point out the poster going *bawk* *bawk* is whining about maturity.

Seriously, DU is rendering irony obsolete. :eyes:

[mloutre]

134. Just putting it in the appropriate context. But you still haven't answered the questions.

Sure, a DU search will turn up some of your current posts about Obama. (Even though the DU search function, while much improved over what it used to be, is hardly exhaustive.) And even a cursory scan of your comments in this thread will show just how enthusiastic a supporter of his you actually are. But that's not really the point, is it?

The reason I mirrored the identical set of questions about both John Kerry and Barack Obama was to draw out a compare-and-contrast response, which you're carefully avoiding.

You have a long-established (and easily referenced) reputation as one of the most ardent and abrasive detractors on DU when it comes to John Kerry -- everything about him sucks, his 2004 campaign sucked, etc. etc. ... if there's a Kerry thread on DU, even now, you can be reliably counted on to show up and spread smears and slams about him every chance you get. It's pretty clear you have a real hatred thing going for John Kerry.

So my real point in asking those questions was this: much as you revile how big a total failure his 2004 campaign was, did you actually do anything, yourself, to help further it? Or did you just sit on the sidelines and snipe at him at every opportunity, the way you do today?

It's a legitimate question. If you worked hard for him and then became incredibly disillusioned by the results, that's one thing. But if you did nothing to help him and just waited to gloat at his lack of success, that's something else again.

So, please elucidate -- just what *did* you to do help the Democratic presidential nominee get elected in 2004? Inquiring minds want to know.

[jgraz]

136. Since you can't figure it out yourself, I'll give you the answer.

I don't think it would be possible for someone to be as pissed at Kerry if they hadn't busted ass for his election. I donated, volunteered, put up signs (both pro-Kerry and anti-Bush) and attended meetings and demonstrations. At some point, I became so disgusted with Kerry's dumbass campaigning that I sent my donations to MoveOn and local Democratic candidates.

When Kerry conceded, I was on the phone booking a flight to Ohio.


Most people who have paid attention to my posts (as you claim) already know this. Only the ones who want to launch baseless attacks pretend to not know this information.

Since I jumped through your hoops, now it's your turn: what did YOU actually do for Kerry in 04? What are you doing now in 08? Was it just mindless fan-worship, or did you actually make constructive contributions?

[mloutre]

142. With the gratuitous insults redacted, that's a reasonably fair answer.

And I will answer your questions in kind, albeit with a lot less condescension than you often display in your own comments...

In the course of the Kerry campaign, in 2004 and before, I not only did all the boots-on-the-ground field-team stuff where I was living at the time -- phonebanking, door-knocking, visibility events, GOTV team coordinating, live-event organzing, licking envelopes, painting signs, writing LTTEs and op-eds, and so on and so forth -- donated what money I could spare at the time and hustled other people to donate money for his campaign too -- I also wrote for & helped to moderate his blog and did other work on his behalf as part of his online rapid response team.

After 2004, I remained an active part of JK's online supporter network even through the darkest times. After Kerry re-launched his blog in 2006, I not only helped to moderate it and trained other moderators for it, but I also wrote a good chunk of its content. At the time, I was working for JK as a consultant as part of a Beltway-based new-media consulting group. When JK's people decided to take his internet efforts in-house back in '07, they convinced me to go full-time staff for him here in Boston instead, where I'd been handling online content for his several websites until recently. And, of course, since the beginning of the year when JK endorsed him, that also involved a lot of interaction with the Obama campaign as well.

The reason for the "I'd been" past tense in that last paragraph is because my father is dying, so several weeks ago I became an ex-employee and am now moving to Pennsylvania so I can be there for his last few months on this planet instead. (Yes, it's true, sometimes we political professionals really *do* leave "to spend more time with our families".) While I am in Pennsylvania, in addition to tending to my dad I am going to be working for the Obama campaign on the local and internet levels. That's pretty important, because Pennsylvania is a big state and one we really need to win. So I will be working my ass off to make sure we do just that between now and November.

I don't know if that makes me a John Kerry "fanboy" in your book -- I'm not sure that's quite the way to characterize along-time JK supporter, former JK consultant, and now former JK staffer who's moved on in order to take care of a dying parent for the duration -- but let's make one thing clear: I don't support & defend John Kerry because I work(ed) for him. It's the other way around. It's not like I needed to take the pay cut just to get the day job.

I would never have moved from the west coast to the east and taken a staff position with JK's internet team if I didn't already like, trust, and admire the Senator for a number of years now, kapische? Your loathing for him may be palpable, but my respect for him is even more so.

Thanks for asking, though. I hope that answered your questions, minus the gratuitous nastiness of course.

[jgraz]

138. Also, I find it troubling that you seem to think only Kerry volunteers are allowed to criticize

I've worked on campaigns since Carter, but I would never be so arrogant as to tell someone that they couldn't criticize a candidate unless they'd met a certain level of donations or volunteer hours.

That's about as undemocratic as it gets, and I'm wondering why you think some citizens are more equal than others.

[mloutre]

143. when did I *ever* indicate that you weren't/aren't allowed to criticize JK or anyone else?

I've only suggested that one does oneself no credit by being a gratuitous provoker when one is doing so without backing it up with actual information or logical reasoning. Angry one-liner insults don't get it where I come from.

You yourself are, of course, free to write whatever you like, and when you write reasonable criticisms on specific issues I'm always ready to read them.

(BTW, my own more-than-voter involvement with this stuff started with Carter also, so apparently we have more in common than we or anyone else might otherwise suspect...)

[jgraz]

144. That's certainly the implication I took away.

I found your questions troubling because I don't like to crow about my contributions or volunteering. I do it because I think it's important and because I fucking HATE Republicans, but I'm uncomfortable talking about it. My work and money do not give me any more right to voice my opinion than anyone else. On the contrary, I view it as a privilege to be able to work for (or against) any candidate I choose.

This is a common occurrence around here: as soon as someone voices a criticism, they are called on the carpet about their Democratic "street cred". More often than not, it's an ugly way to try to bully someone into silence.

[mloutre]

145. It had nothing to do with your contributions or volunteering.

What it *did* have to do with is questioning the credibility and intensity of your years-long attacks on John Kerry, and wondering why that is so.

And please skip the histrionics and overamplications and the "always" and the "nevers" and the other over-the-top rhetorical devices. I understand that you are intelligent and aware and literate. You've been there, and done that, and you know what you're thinking about when you're thinking whatever you're thinking.

What I don't get is why your preferred writing style is so incredibly pissed-off most times that you post on DU, though -- especially when Kerry is concerned. What is the desired result of this abrasive approach to interacting with the DU community on your part?

[mloutre]

146. BTW, there's a difference between "imply" and "infer".

What you inferred is your own lookout. I did not imply anything of the kind.

[jgraz]

147. Yes, I know exactly what I said and what I meant.

The word I used was chosen for a reason. But thanks for the superfluous grammar lesson.

[mloutre]

148. *sigh* This is what I get for trying to overreach the Porcine Prescription.

Classic rule of interactive interactions:

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig."

That's it, we're done. Take your aggressively vitriolic personality and point it somewhere else, sir, I'm putting you back on "ignore" again.

[blm]

72. Nope. Post Katrina, we've gained a bit on the media playing field. That will make a difference.

Starting on the 30 yd line will be a big plus after the years of starting on the 5.

[jgraz]

103. I think you may be right on the Katrina thing. Not so sure if it will be enough.

Though it does help that McSame is so undeniably pathetic.

[karynnj]

55. No - the point is that if you look at the full biography and the platform of any Democrat

who is good enough to get sufficient support to be nominated, you can find reasons to coherently argue why that person will be a reasonable President.

As to waffling or changing positions - your avatar - in a VERY short career did more than his share. Kerry has been more consitent than most politicians when you look at his stated reasons for his votes and positions - the fact that I can point to a 1966 foreign policy speech he gave at Yale as a student, which Madeline Albright included in a book on foreign policy a couple of years age and see that his current formal speeches on foreign policy have echoes of it - and is a mature version is pretty impressive.

To show you what I mean using your avatar - had Edwards won - I would have set aside my view that he is a chameleon - who was a pro-war, centrist Democrat in 2004 and the most progressive, anti-war Democrat(other than Kuchinich ) in 2008. I would use the cases he chose to as a lawyer to say that he cared about people who were injured, I would learn more of the foundation (?) set up to honor his son by helping others. I would then concentrate on his 2008 platform (that was closer to Kerry 2004 than Edwards 2004 - so that would be easy.) (I'm sure there would be more - but I never did more research as he never was the nominee.)

[jgraz]

63. I'm not an Edwards worshipper. I like his stance on poverty, which is why I have the avatar.

Honestly, I had a lot of trouble with his candidacy, given his vote on the war. The guy had serious faults, and so did Kerry. Which is my point.

[karynnj]

109. Only time will tell if he does something on poverty

He didn't have it as an issue in the Senate - he voted for the bankruptcy bill and was not involved in anything that dealt with poverty. Kerry via various Small Business Committee bills, including micro-loans, and his Affordable Housing Fund bill narrowly lost in 2001 and had 23 sponsors, including Dodd and Reed this Congress is incorporated in the current housing bill written by Dodd and Reed, has done more real work on poverty --- and he is not the one who did the most!

[jgraz]

131. Like I said, I supported his campaign. His ideas were the right ones and he said the right things

If he turns out to be a phony, he still will have had a positive impact on this campaign.

[jgraz]

104. And, truth be told, I made the avatar myself and it took a lot of work

Even though the primaries are over, I'm reluctant to ditch it after all the fiddling with Photoshop it required.

[senseandsensibility]

25. k and r

To a great patriot, John Kerry!:toast:

[MBS]

30. thank you, beachmom.

Kerry is A-1 in my book. I have more respect for John Kerry than any other current politician. And, if anything, my respect has continued to GROW since 2004. Since the "loss" (not) in 2004, he has continued, without stop, to work to take our country back, with toughness, with patriotism (the REAL kind),and with grace and class and integrity. Above all, he walks the walk, he follows through, often without the attention of the press.

Plus-- see that photo above, and in stark contrast with W -- babies love John Kerry. And kids are smart. Given the madness of US politics these days, and the generally sorry state of our country, I'd wager that kids are smarter than adults. (To me, the refusal of people on the left and right to see what a treasure Kerry is for the Senate, and for the country, is one indicator of how messed up and confused our country is right now).

I'll be proud to vote for Kerry for Senate this fall, and would continue to support him should he be nominated for any post in an Obama administration. (FWIW, I can't imagine him accepting a VP nod, though. No real power, Cheney's machinations aside; and plenty of potential for political abuse by others).

[EFerrari]

47. K&R

[politicasista]

51. kick

even though another positive Kerry thread has turned into another flamewar. Go figure.

[Sensitivity]

52. Kerry IS the most qualified V.P. in the pack of options -- most ready to lead nation, BUT

of course many will fear that he is not best for winning the campaign. I don't know.

[LWolf]

74. I'd rather see someone else.

Kerry belongs at the top of the ticket, being senior to Obama. Since that's out, I'd rather see someone else in the VP spot.

That's not a sign of disrespect on my part. Just the opposite.

[WildEyedLiberal]

126. Yeah I'd rather see him in the cabinet as a senior statesman

SecState or AG would be fantastic. He's too wonderful a public servant to be marginalized.

[Blue_In_AK]

116. John Kerry will always be one of my favorite senators.

I was heartbroken when he didn't become president.

[undeterred]

150. I still have John Kerry's picture on my desktop:

and I have great respect for him.

[Starry Messenger]

152. kick!

n/t