How does anyone know that Kerry wasn't offered the SOS position early on?

[mtnsnake]

and that maybe he didn't want it? For all anyone knows, he might have been the first person that was offered the job.

All this speculating by the pundits or anyone else that Kerry was left out or that Obama threw him under the bus is just pure speculation until Obama or Kerry says otherwise.

[gogoplata]

1. Or VP.

[mtnsnake]

2. Yes, or VP, or anything.

No one really knows.

[jean627]

4. No, they don't.

I have a feeling that Kerry is going to be too busy for the cabinet. Presidential administrations need to be shown that America is sick of criminality in her government and, imo, Kerry is just the person to start the ball rolling on that, and keep it going until solutions are found.

[MBS]

23. you got it. n/t

[Jennicut]

27. I don't know, would he really have wanted to be VP?

I never heard anything about him in that time, it was Kaine, Bayh, Richardson, Sebelious, and of course Biden but I never heard Kerry's name mentioned then again I wasn't there. After running for prez you really want to run for VP? I don't know.

[silverlil]

47. who knows!

I voted for him but my heart was not in it. I voted for President Clinton twice, but for the first time in my life I voted for Obama with real feeling. I am white. When I became a US citizen, by first vote was for Robert Kennedy.
I never took a liking to Senator Kerry. I think he will do well in the Senate with his new position.
Having said all of this, I am really scared for Senator Obama's life. I do not want him to walk around in the streets on January 20th.

[firedupdem]

3. agree....none of us knows shit....maybe thats why we vote for

president and don't get to choose their cabinets. Who knows what goes on behind the scenes?.. thats why I don't understand all the craziness about picks. I may have somebody I truly admire and think they would be great in a certain position but until they publicly come out crying that they didn't get the job they wanted we don't truly know.

[atimetocome]

5. Kerry was actively seeking the SOS job early on. That was in

an article posted here. Was the article true?? who knows nowadays about the 'news"

[mtnsnake]

6. Someone in another thread said that was just DC media rumors

Did the article you speak of cite specific sources, or was it one of those articles that uses "anonymous" ones?

[PresidentObama]

8. Empty speculation. We know Kerry better than that.

He didn't seek the job.

I don't think he wanted the job at all.

[beachmom]

11. False. That is what "Some Democrats" said. "Some Democrats" don't like Kerry,

and wished to make him look bad.

[karynnj]

18. Kerry NEVER said he was - and he denied that he was

lobbying for it many times in MA during both the September Primary and the general election. His victory speech and Teresa's introduction of him mentioned things he hoped to be able to do with a Democratic President - and they both included things like transportation - likely meaning the big high speed rail bill he's spent time working on this last year. (here he answered a question on it at one of the 2 town halls he did in MA this week - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDMa8y_2Dac

[Bumblebee]

7. It would have leaked. Plus it would have been a bad pick for either office

since Kerry just does not have the right personality for it; he is not a great PR presence, let's face it. We saw it, alas, all too clearly in 2004, even though he obviously would have been a vastly better president than Bush. But here Obama had much more of a choice among strong Dems than we did in 2004, and, imho, he chose wisely.

[MarjorieG]

12. You have a limited wrong view of Kerry's world standing and effectiveness.

Hillary will do well in what is as much a PR, glamour job. Kerry will bring depth of policy minutae and wisdom, in a leadership position as well.

Whatever lasting impressions on the electorate who never really knew him, Kerry is a rock star around the world and is treated with respect. Many people/views will have the ear and impact on our future, because Obama will truly ask for the participation of others.

[politicasista]

17. Yep. Foreign leaders and diplomats would strongly disagree

with that mindset. I am sure Obama/Biden would too.

[fedupinBushcountry]

15. Have you ever met John Kerry?

You have no idea what he is like , you just put out garbage that has been flung in the MSM. I chose to support John Kerry back in the early spring of '03, I made it a point to meet the man that I wanted to be President and I am so glad that I did. He is the real deal. A former Dean supporter who headed the Kerry Meet-Ups in our area after the primary was decided, met with him and his response of what do you think of John Kerry? "He's not to hot or not to cold, he's just right". He gives great high fives, and hugs and just an all around great guy. I know, I met the real John Kerry and more then once.

So quit putting out the MSM and Kerry basher garbage, it just is not true, and until you meet the man himself you have no idea what you are talking about.

:argh:

[beachmom]

16. Well said, Fed up.

I have never seen a person so mischaracterized in my life.

[karynnj]

Yay fed up - you said it all

That is the Kerry I saw too.

[Radical Activist]

30. I met him in '03.

He's very effective in person and in small groups. But he didn't have anywhere near the television presence or charisma that Obama has. Fair or not, New Engalanders usually come off as arrogant and aloof to most of middle America and Kerry never overcame that perception.

[ProSense]

33. It was media distortion. Period

Crowd hot for Kerry, disillusioned with Bush

Kerry never had a problem attracting crowds, engaging people in them or relating to middle America, Veterans, young people, etc.

[Radical Activist]

36. It was also the personal impression of most people I talked to including Democrats.

Sorry, but that was the hard truth I saw in the Midwest, and it doesn't do the party any good to pretend otherwise. I never saw a campaign with so many volunteers who were unexcited about the candidate. People just wanted to get rid of Bush. It was a problem and there's no use using the media as a scapegoat. With Obama we saw someone people were really excited to be FOR in all parts of the country.

[ProSense]

38. We saw people excited about Kerry in 2004 as well.

You say people you talked to shared your view, but a lot of other people say otherwise. There are people despite Obama's appeal who literally hate him, even among Democrats. The point is that you can claim that this is your personal experience, but none of that is evident in the clips, photos or other unbiased reports by people who witnessed Kerry in person or unfiltered in the media.

Kerry would never have been able to set campaign fundraising records, build an enviable e-mail list of loyal supporters, which he still maintains today, if he didn't appeal to people.

Obama's phenomenon is completely different on a number of levels. This was a different climate, a different campaign (down to how it was funded) and supported by a drastically different Party infrastructure.



edited word.

[Radical Activist]

39. It wasn't about party infrastructure.

Any nominee is going to generate at least some excitement and get crowds.

We don't need to scapegoat "media bias" like the talk radio crowd. I suspect the fact that you're in the Northeast clouds your view of what Americans in the rest of the country thought. There's real data to support my observation that nearly every supporter I talked to saw Kerry as little more than the guy who wasn't George Bush.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61725-2004Sep30?language=printer

Nearly two in three likely voters who support President Bush -- 65 percent -- said they were "very enthusiastic" about their candidate while 42 percent of Sen. John F. Kerry's supporters express similarly high levels of enthusiasm for their choice, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News Poll.

That's a 23-point difference in relative excitement. Although the polling record is incomplete for earlier elections, the available data suggest that the enthusiasm gap in the 2000 presidential campaign was negligible, at best.

...This enthusiasm gap extends to political moderates as well. Nearly half of Bush's moderate supporters are energized about their candidate, compared to a third of Kerry's moderate base.

...The enthusiasm gap extends to black voters, typically one of the most reliable Democratic voting groups. In two Post-ABC News surveys in September, fewer than half of blacks who back Kerry said they were very enthusiastic about him.

[ProSense]

40. What does that mean?

Poll: Young Voters Favor Kerry

Media polls about enthusiasm vary, and do not reflect the reality of Kerry's appeal. How many of these people met Kerry and went to a rally?

You are claiming he lacks charisma and that people didn't warm up to him. I say the media did everything to create the impression that he was aloof.

[Radical Activist]

41. Obama got 2/3 of young voters. Far more than Kerry.

The fact that Kerry couldn't do better than he did against Bush with young voters is very sad.

You wrote: "How many of these people met Kerry and went to a rally?"
It doesn't matter since most people will never get the chance to meet a Presidential candidate or even hear him speak in person. I acknowledged that Kerry was much better in person but he was not a great candidate for the TV age.

The differences in social mores and attitudes about New Englanders in much of America is real. It doesn't benefit the party to have blind loyalty. The press only reinforced what many people thought. This is important to recognize so that we don't make the mistake of nominating another candidate like Kerry who only appeals to certain regions of the country.
You sound no different than conservatives who blame media bias for making Palin look dumb.

[ProSense]

51. Different dynamic, different race.

Comparing Obama and Kerry have nothing to do with whether Kerry is aloof. Your comparisons mean nothing.

[beachmom]

68. On that, I am going to slightly disagree.

I read earlier (and maybe someone can verify) that Bush actually won the youth vote in '00. That completely changed in '04, not '08. I saw a chart and the youth's decision to go Democratic coincided with the Iraq War and the 2004 Presidential election. Now yes, they were anti-Bush. But I also think they saw a credible alternative in John Kerry. I think they essentially agreed with him on most of the issues. And John Kerry displayed the strength of his ideas debating Bush, where most pundits and polls showed he won all three.

So frankly, I think John Kerry did his job well in 2004, in a cycle where the populace as a whole wasn't quite ready to switch gears. Although it sucks for Kerry, if the general consensus was that he had the right ideas but was perhaps not as charismatic as Obama, then that HELPED Democrats going forward. It meant that the message was going to resonate more and more, which it did in '06 and '08. John Kerry laid the groundwork for later victories, and for that he should be respected.

[Radical Activist]

76. That misses the point.

I'm not arguing that Kerry was a bad guy. Yes, he won the youth vote by a smaller margin than Obama did, but as you wrote "they were anti-Bush." That's exactly what I'm arguing and what the poll above showed. Many people were voting against Bush and not for Kerry. This time more were voting FOR Obama.

[beachmom]

78. There was nothing in my post about Kerry not being a bad guy.

I am saying without his campaign, Dems would have had more of an uphill battle for '06 and '08. Kerry ran the ideas which Obama took and ran on in '08. The youth liked those ideas.

His campaign mattered. It had to come before Obama's. Waxing on and on about enthusiasm gaps is what misses the point.

[Radical Activist]

79. I'm sure Kerry

did some good things as a candidate. I didn't argue otherwise. But the numbers show he had less appeal in Middle America than Obama and that people were less enthusiastic about his campaign than Obama's. It was an ABB campaign. That's the point I'm making and I don't see anything in your comment that contradicts me.

And no, as much as I liked Kerry in '04 I never heard him connect with young people the way Obama does. Obama actually talks about youth issues in a way that shows he actually understands what they care about. If Kerry understood or had wanted to focus on young voters he wouldn't have based half his convention on what he did during Vietnam. Obama did not run on the same ideas as Kerry. Young voters hated Bush a lot more than they liked Kerry. A pet dog could have won the youth vote against Bush.

[Radical Activist]

42. "Kerry in fact lags in enthusiasm among young people as he does among all likely voters."

That was in the article you just linked. So you just supported my point.

It goes on:

35 percent of young people who support Kerry are "very enthusiastic" about his candidacy; by contrast, 55 percent of young voters who prefer Bush are very enthusiastic about him.

[ProSense]

52. Kerry had a

nearly 20 point edge. So what if among the 38% of youth wingnuts they were more excited by Bush? The media did a great job of painting Kerry as aloof. A lot of who met him, interacted with him and attended his rallies know/knew better.

No one puts up Kerry's numbers, in fundraising and votes, without generating enthusiasm.

The way the media and some people try to spin the BS make it seem like he appeared in the GE without successfully beating out other candidates for during the primary. If there was no enthusiam for Kerry, he wouldn't have made it pass Dean, Edwards and the rest for the candidacy. He would never have had the kind of fundraising success he had and the election wouldn't have been close.

[PresidentObama]

43. I'm from the Midwest, and you're full of shit.

You're pulling this out of your ass. I actually knew of a handful of people who asked where I got my "Support Kerry 08'" wristband before he made the decision not to run, and I told them about the website I ran at the time called "John Kerry for America"

[Radical Activist]

44. Any nominee will have some enthusiastic supporters.

Your observations are anecdotal. The polls myself and the other poster linked are not.
My role in the last campaign allowed me to meet hundreds of Kerry volunteers. By far, most spoke about why we needed to get rid of Bush and saw Kerry as little more than an acceptable alternative. There are reasons he did so poorly in the South and Midwest compared to Obama, Clinton and even Gore. I like Kerry too but we have to be honest with ourselves.

[PresidentObama]

45. Big deal, I worked with in the Kerry campaign for six months in the Midwest.

And you're wrong.

People were excited about Kerry. Not just about getting rid of Bush.

We had a local meeting post-election in 2004, and a few people spoke up that they never warmed up to Kerry and that it was all about getting rid of Bush. So we did a "raise your hand" poll of who was satisified with Kerry after the fact or whether they were only anti-Bush, and the crowd of about 40 Democrats--25 or so raised there hands in support of Kerry.

Did a chunk of people just want Bush gone? Yes.

That would be true if Dean, Edwards, Clark or another person were nominated.

But you're ballooning purposely for political purposes this notion that Democrats were only anti-Bush and some only merely "accepted" Kerry. You don't build the massive fundraising base and raise more money than any candidate, create a record breaking e-mail list, get a record number of Democrats out to vote, and almost beat a sitting President during war time if you're only passable or just "acceptable"

[Radical Activist]

46. Wow. You just proved my point.

I wouldn't expect hardly anyone to publicly admit in a crowd of other Democrats that they never really liked the nominee. That takes guts. But according to you, nearly half the people in that group did so. I bet if you asked the same question about Obama today that you'd get a VERY different reaction. Your personal devotion to Kerry is blinding you to the obvious.

Yes, Kerry got a lot of support. Any Democrat running against Bush that year would have gotten a lot of support. He lost and the election results in the South and Midwest prove my point. Stop making excuses for him.

[Mass]

49. POST ELECTION. After an election that was devastating and at a time where it was fashionable to bash

Kerry and say everyone else was wonderful, half of the people said they were satisfied. Gosh. I know you dislike Kerry, but you are really full of it.

Comparing this with Obama (who won this election in part because people were so fed up with Bush -- something they were not in 2004) is pure BS. Your point is mere BS.

[Radical Activist]

71. No, I like Kerry a lot.

He deserves much credit for helping Obama win the primary. But I'm not willing to be a blind follower who can't admit Kerry's weaknesses as a candidate. And I'm not willing to make the same mistake twice. We need candidates who have national, not just regional appeal.

Its not just my impression. Three polls are in this thread documenting the lack of enthusiasm for Kerry and his poor results in the South and Midwest speak for themselves. I have the facts and data on my side. It's OK to support someone without thinking they're infallible.

[ProSense]

80. It was a different time and a different dynamic

Northeast
Kerry 56% (Obama 59%; Gore 56%)

Midwest (26%)
Kerry 48% (Obama 54%: Gore 48%)

South (32%)
Kerry 42% (Obama 45%; Gore 43%)

West (20%)
Kerry 50% (Obama 57%: Gore 48%)

This year, people were completely turn off by Bush and McCain was seen as more of the same. The dynamics of the campaign, including increase in Internet usage and the ability to circumvent MSM spin, made it easier to appeal to more of the country.

Still, none of this has anything to do with whether or not Kerry is aloof. You are trying to use opinions that were most likely shaped by media spin to justify a reality that doesn't exist. Kerry is not aloof nor does he lack charisma.

Day after day, according to the tapes and memos, Nixon aides worried that Kerry was a unique, charismatic leader who could undermine support for the war. Other veteran protesters were easier targets, with their long hair, their use of a Viet Cong flag, and in some cases, their calls for overthrowing the US government. Kerry, by contrast, was a neat, well-spoken, highly decorated veteran who seemed to be a clone of former President John F. Kennedy, right down to the military service on a patrol boat.

link

Kerry hasn't been a target of the RW for more than 3 decades because he lacks charisma.

He hasn't won five elections to the Senate because he's an aloof and reserved person who people can't relate to.

[Radical Activist]

81. Don't be a blind follower.

We have to admit our mistakes to learn from them. Obama faced the same challenges as Kerry.

You wrote: "He hasn't won five elections to the Senate because he's an aloof and reserved person who people can't relate to."

Winning in Mass doesn't mean he has appeal nationwide. That's my entire point and based on that sentence it sounds like you're so defensive about anyone criticizing Kerry that you can't even consider my point at all. You're being just as fanatical as the conservatives who think the only problem with Sarah Palin was liberal media bias. Its a weak cop-out.

National attitudes about New Englanders coming off as arrogant and superior are nothing new. The media didn't create that. Kerry managed to reinforce the stereotype instead of breaking it. If you don't understand that now then you probably never will.

[ProSense]

83. "Winning in Mass doesn't mean he has appeal nationwide." You can't be serious?

You can cherry pick portions of the comment to justify your argument, but the fact remains that Kerry would not have been able to mount the campaign he did, winning the primary, setting fundraising records, developing an enviable and national base of loyal supporters, etc., if he didn't have appeal.

In fact, Kerry's efforts during the 2006 election, campaigning for Democrats across the country, helped most of them win their elections. From Claire mccaskill in Missouri to Jim Webb in VA.

You also forget that during the primary, Kerry was Obama's most visible campaigner in Texas, going up against Bill Clinton for Hillary.

[Radical Activist]

84. Mabye you don't know what my argument is?

I didn't write that Kerry had zero appeal.

The fact that Kerry can win in New England, getting votes from other New Englanders, doesn't counter my argument that Kerry didn't have strong appeal in OTHER parts of the country. The fact that Kerry won elections in Mass has NOTHING to do with his ability to win in the South and Midwest. The fact that you would use that as an argument suggests you have no idea what my argument is, or you'll never understand that there are regional differences in America that are important to consider in elections.
You're not doing anything but making a knee-jerk defense because someone attacked your hero. I think I'll have to give up this argument unless you start addressing my actual point again. If Kerry were as wonderful as you think he is he would have won the election. Stop making weak excuses.

[ProSense]

87. "If Kerry were as wonderful as you think he is he would have won the election."

I know what your argument is, and it has nothing to do with Kerry's presence, which was the point that launched this sub-thread.

You began arguing that "New Engalanders usually come off as arrogant and aloof to most of middle America." This doesn't have anything to do with who Kerry actually is or how he is received by those who meet him.

You continue injecting crap about "hero" and "blind follower" as if that is the reason people are saying Kerry isn't aloof. The fact is Kerry is neither aloof or lacking in charisma.

The fact that the media advanced this spin doesn't make it a fact.

[PresidentObama]

89. You really are talking out of your ass.

Not a single person I've encountered said they voted for or against Kerry because he was arrogant or superior-acting. You've lost your mind.

Do you know how hard it is to defeat a sitting President?

Do you know how hard it is to defeat a sitting President whose approval rating is still hovering just around 50 percent?

2004 wasn't going to be a cakewalk. For ANY candidate.

Kerry was able to raise more than anyone in party history, create the largest e-mail list in history, get more votes than any Democratic candidate in history, and help generate incredible numbers of people to the polls.

He 'lost' by one state and 100,000 votes. Though I'd suggest you go and research the many irregularities and such in that one state.

Obama came into 2008 with different dynamics. First off, Bush was below 50 percent and McCain was easily tied to that having voted with him 90 percent of the time. Bush's unpopularity in 2008 helped sink any chance for the Republicans in 2008.

I'm not saying Obama's win was impressive. What I'm saying is you can't claim what some on DU like to claim because they dislike Kerry and they'll stretch the truth to support their hatred for him, and that claim is some how Kerry only got so many people out to vote and raised so much money because he was "passable" and barely "acceptable" as compared to Bush.

Sorry, not true. And total bullshit.

[Radical Activist]

92. Some people will never get it.

I make this point because I don't want Democrats to make the mistake of running another regional candidate in the future.

You wrote: "Not a single person I've encountered said they voted for or against Kerry because he was arrogant or superior-acting."

Then I have to wonder where you were during the election and how often you spoke to non-supporters. Of course most people won't directly say they voted against him because he's arrogant and from New England. Although I did meet some. They'll look at his rich wife and talk about elitism, how he financed his campaign by mortgaging his mansion, or the wind surfing photo, or "not connecting," or a lot of other things that really all went back to the "arrogant New England elitist" meme that has deep roots in American culture. Kennedy had a personality and charisma that overcome that obstacle better than Kerry did, although both had to deal with it. Kerry had many challenges and there are many very good things about him, but it doesn't change that simple reality.

When I say the same thing to friends from the South or Midwest I very rarely find disagreement. Its usually people from the Northeast who don't get it and don't want to get it.

[PresidentObama]

94. Regional candidate? How in the fuck was Kerry a regional candidate?!

And I spoke to many non-supporters, smart one. I told you I worked for the campaign in the Midwest. I live in a very conservative county of Missouri in the Southwest part of the state where Kerry only got 38% and Obama got 41% in their respective races. I know what people thought of him, and if they disagreed with him--it was 80% of the time on policy. And now you're going to attack him for being rich and wind surfing? And that he's an elitist?

Keep grasping for straws, you look foolish.

[Radical Activist]

117. You're very black and white.

I'm sorry you can't think about any criticism of Kerry without seeing it as an all out assault on him.

You wrote: "And now you're going to attack him for being rich and wind surfing? And that he's an elitist?"

No, calm down. I didn't attack him for those things. But he was attacked effectively in that way. There were characteristics about Kerry that made him very vulnerable to the "liberal elitist" and "arrogant New Englander" lines of attack. They use the same attack for every candidate but Kerry made it much easier for them.

They started the same line of attack with Obama. But it never gained any traction against Obama since we picked a Midwesterner from the city of broad shoulders who came from a middle class background, who didn't live an extravagant lifestyle, who's wife wore $100 dresses on national television, who played pick up basketball games instead of wind surfing, who went door to door in working class neighborhoods as a community organizer, who had a better television presence, and who did many other things to buck the "liberal elitist" stereotype. Obama understood the line of attack, he understood regional attitudes, and he had the personal characteristics to keep from being portrayed in the same way Kerry was. It's not the media's fault because the same attacks were made in both '04 and '08. Obama was just better at responding to it and bucking the meme.

We need to remember this the next time someone wants to nominate another rich New Engalnder who will be easy prey for conservatives exploiting regional and class divisions. You can learn from that or you can get defensive. Up to you.

[beachmom]

105. Perhaps Radical Activist can explain why MORE people in Ohio voted for Kerry than Obama

I mean with them being all unenthusiastic and all, they somehow dragged their butts to the polls in greater numbers for the uninspiring one over the charismatic one.

Go figure that one.

[Radical Activist]

116. Not according to the numbers I just looked up.

Wikipedia can be wrong but it claims in Ohio Kerry got 2,739,952 while Obama got 2,887,114.

Even if you were right that's kind of an odd symbolic victory since we know which candidate actually won the state.

[beachmom]

127. Well, it changed. On 11/11/08, Chuck Todd says Kerry got more votes:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/11/1668402.aspx



http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Text.aspx?page=10417&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Obama has ultimately gotten more votes, but not that many more.



And this is my last post to you. This conversation has bordered into silliness now. You hate Kerry, blah, blah, blah.

[Radical Activist]

129. Its really disappointing

that you think recognizing some faults in Kerry means hating him. That's a cult of personality. There are a lot of things I like about Kerry and I would have preferred him to be SOS over Hillary. Recognizing Kerry's weaknesses and mistakes doesn't mean I hate him. Maybe one day you'll be able to do the same.

[karynnj]

103. What the hell are you talking about?

"And I'm not willing to make the same mistake twice. We need candidates who have national, not just regional appeal."

Obama is President -elect. What national office is Kerry running for. As US Senator he runs ONLY in MA - and he will not be up for re-election for 6 years. Why are you at this unlikely point fighting who should run for President?

It is also ridiculous to compare 2004 polls with 2008 polls. As to lack of enthusiasm in the South, he won all the primaries and caucuses in the South other than the Carolinas and Oklahoma (if you stretch the south to there.)

Now, looking back at the 2007 DU threads, you have many many posts arguing that Edwards (and Obama and Gore) would be a candidate with national appeal - but the fact is that he did FAR worse than Kerry in the south in the primaries.

[Radical Activist]

107. Edwards had his own problems.

He was essentially out of the running before most of the Southern primaries happened. That's pretty irrelevant to the discussion.

Its not about Kerry running again. Its about whether we're going to keep making the same mistake of nominating people who don't have wide appeal in all parts of America. Many people have clearly not learned from our mistakes as a party. I want people to remember this in 8 years when Obama finishes his second term.

[karynnj]

110. I was speaking of Edwards in 2004, who you were still high on in 2008.

I chose Edwards, because 2004 offered a comparison on the same playing field. (I don't have any idea who would have won the nomination - the media in early spring pushed hard for Edwards. I know you've posted that he would have won, but I really doubt it. The key issue in 2004 was national security and Iraq. Edwards was far weaker on these - and I suspect that Nader would have gotten more votes from him than he did from Kerry, who Nader said was Presidential and who he respected for what he did in 1971.

I think that Kerry, just as he is, had he NOT run in 2004 (maybe because of his health in 2003) might have been the 2008 nominee and President-elect. Running just in 2008, having written Kerry/Feingold, which he still would almost certainly have done, he would have been the alternative to HRC. I think Obama was a phenomenal candidate, but without the 2004 speech I doubt he would have considered running. In the 2008 environment, I think the Kerry would have gotten the breaks he didn't in 2004.

[Radical Activist]

113. I was also speaking of Edwards in '04.

If Edwards had won Iowa or New Hampshire the results in Southern states would have been different.

If Kerry had run in '08 he would have needed a very different message than in '04. People weren't interested in hearing an argument for a better managed war in '08, and frankly, I don't think that's what most people wanted to hear in '04 either. Kerry still would have had to deal with his vote for the Iraq War and the flip-flopper meme in '08, which I believe is the other central reason why he lost in '04.
I doubt Kerry could have emerged as the leading alternative to Hillary in an '08 primary if there had been a credible alternative who opposed the war from the start. Kerry is luck that Dean and Kucinich came off like such goofballs because that left anti-war progressives with nowhere else to go.

And yes, Obama owes a big debt of gratitude for the '04 convention speech and the many, many other things Kerry did to help Obama get elected. I don't think any major Democrat deserves more credit for helping Obama early on with the possible exception of Dick Durbin.

[karynnj]

118. Kerry was not speaking of a better managed Iraq war

The Republicans and their media echoes said that Kerry's plan was no different than Bush's. In fact, if you read the NYU speech and some of the debate answers, his plan was close to what the ISG recommended 2 years later. He spoke often of an immediate summit that would bring in the neighboring countries to find political solutions, he wanted to involve other countries in teh training - to diminish the US face of the occupation. (The Republicans and media called this impossible - but in January 2005, when he went to Europe and the near east for the SFRC, Germany, France, Jordan and Eqypt. In the first debate he also spoke of no permanent bases in Iraq, well before anyone else did. ) I was less convinced that Dean would get us out of the front lines and eventually out of the country than Kerry, who was far clearer when he spoke.

If you look at all of Kerry's exit plans - from the 2004 plan, where he did say that some troops could be withdrawn as early as 2005 to the Path Forward in 2005, where he called on Bush to state that we wanted the "occupation" (something he never wanted) to be as short as possible and spoke of getting all US troops out of policing and Search & destroy and to quickly bring home some number of troops (25,000?) to the speech that recommended offering Iraq 2 deadlines (4/1/2006) to Kerry/feingold later that year. (In 2006, Dean was for the Korb plan that had a two year horizon and Obama voted against Kerry/Feingold.

The fact of the matter was that Kerry was never for the invasion - he spoke of not being for invading unless it was a last resort in both a December 2002 and a January 23 2003 Georgetown University speech. This was exactly what he had said he would do if Bush did not do what he publicly said he would do. You can compare the Fall 2002, Kerry and Dean talk show comments - Dean was NOT more anti-war than Kerry was - there was not much difference. Kerry in early 2003 was actually described as anti-war. The first group of people to make an issue of Kerry's vote were people who were anti-war and who supported Howard Dean. (I actually wonder if Kerry, who was having surgery for cancer, had attended the DNC event where Dean made his fiery anti-war speech in Feb 2003 giving a speech with same sentiments of his Georgetown speech but more red meat rather than academic to suit the occasion (which he like everyone does), if it would have made a difference.)

Had Kerry not run, the IWR might not have become the litmus test it became. Either Dean would have taken the nomination and it would never have been mentioned or Edwards or Gephardt might have taken it. The difference between them and Kerry was that they were for the invasion even after it happened. Therefore using the vote (which Bush said was not for war) would not have been necessary.

In the scenario I spoke of, Kerry would not have had the prominence he had in 2004 and there would have been at least 2 years of him being seen as one of the people leading the effort to get out. (If you think he wouldn't have still pushed for Kerry/Feingold, you likely did not see his Dissent speech - where he spoke of not staying silent when the plan was wrong.) The vote still would have been there - but he would more recently have pushed Kerry/Feingold - which HRC voted against. looking at who else ran, there really was nobody who voted against it who made a serious run. (Richardson did not have to vote and was not really against it - and he was an atrocious candidate. I watched the MTP and another talk show he did because after Kerry was out, I was looking at the third tier and Obama.)

Another difference was that in 2006, the Faneuil Hall speeches he was going to run on were fantastic. Kerry was also healthier than he was in 2003/2004. I was stunned when I watched a 2004 clip on Youtube from one of the debates when it came up as a "related video" after I watched a recent town hall clip. If they were given to 10 people who didn't know who he was and asked which was 4 years later, the majority would get it wrong.

By the way the flip flop was not on the war, but on the $87 billion. Obviously if he didn't run in 2004, he wouldn't have said it - but even if he did it would be even easier in today's world to explain. He voted for the version that rolled back the tax cuts on the top 1% and voted against the version that added it to the debt - while saying he was NOT voting to cut funding, he was voting against not doing it in a fiscally prudent way. Kerry is actually one of the more consistent politicians.

[Radical Activist]

122. You don't support your opening statement very well.

You wrote: "He spoke often of an immediate summit that would bring in the neighboring countries to find political solutions, he wanted to involve other countries in teh training - to diminish the US face of the occupation."

This sounds like a better managed war. Kerry was excellent at making pointed criticisms about the conduct of the war but he didn't challenge the basic legitimacy of the war itself. He also didn't make clearly worded calls for getting out of Iraq as quickly as reasonably possible. Not in the way that Obama did. That's one reason why many Democrats weren't enthusiastic about him. It also helped contribute to the impression among swing voters of Kerry as someone who didn't have strong principles that he stood by. It makes me want to pull my hair out but I lost track of the number of people who told me they voted for Bush because they knew what he stood for and he held to his convictions, even though many of them didn't like the war in Iraq.

And while I appreciate Kerry's speeches about Iraq, it could never compensate politically for something as clear and easy to understand as voting for it.

I agree that Dean was something of a phony as an anti-war candidate. He argued for keeping defense budget spending levels where they were and talked about staying in Iraq another 2-6 years. His plans were no better than Kerry's or even Gephardt's. That's why I supported Kucinich.

You wrote: "looking at who else ran, there really was nobody who voted against it who made a serious run."

That's exactly why he got the nomination in '04. I think Graham would have had a decent shot at winning if he had stayed in the race longer until the war became more unpopular and people started looking for a more sane anti-war alternative to Dean. '04 was a difficult primary for progressives with no clear candidate to support who was running a serious campaign. Were it not for his IWR vote, it probably would have been Kerry. Kerry certainly had a better progressive record than Dean with the exception of his vote for the war.

[ProSense]

130. What utter crap. Only people trying to spin or being disingenuous

would claim Kerry didn't strongly oppose the war.

[karynnj]

140. He didn't question the legitimacy of the war?

How many thousands of times did he say that it was not a war of last resort? He even emphasized the point on the Daily show pointing out that that meant something. In fact, my Catholic mom was furious that he was saying that because it meant that he was saying a war we were fighting was not a just war. In the primaries, he backed it up by listing the things not done - ie finishing the inspections, exhausting the diplomacy etc. (In case you think that I am reading something into Kerry"s words that he did not mean,in spite of his religious background and years spent at a Jesuit law school - and as a friend and campaign manager in 1970 for Father Drinan, at a time right before Kerry spoke of another unjust war - check out the Pepperdine speech in 2006, where he specifically speaks of St Augustine and uses nearly the same words he used in 2003 and 2004 to say explicitly that it was not a just war. (It also becomes clear that "global test" was a secularized version of the Christian "just war".)

"Augustine felt that wars of choice are generally unjust wars, that war -- the organized killing of human beings, of fathers, brothers, friends -- should always be a last resort, that war must always have a just cause, that those waging war need the right authority to do so, that a military response must be proportionate to the provocation, that a war must have a reasonable chance of achieving its goal and that war must discriminate between civilians and combatants.

In developing the doctrine of Just War, Augustine and his many successors viewed self-restraint in warfare as a religious obligation, not as a pious hope contingent on convincing one's adversaries to behave likewise.

It's in Americas' interests to maintain our unquestionable moral authority -- and we risk losing it when leaders make excuses for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo or when an Administration lobbies for torture.

For me, the just war criteria with respect to Iraq are very clear:
sometimes a President has to use force to fight an enemy bent on using weapons of mass destruction to slaughter innocents. But no President should ever go to war because they want to -- you go to war only because you have to.

The words "last resort" have to mean something .

In Iraq, those words were rendered hollow. It was wrong to prosecute the war without careful diplomacy that assembled a real coalition. Wrong to prosecute war without a plan to win the peace and avoid the chaos of looting in Baghdad and streets full of raw sewage. Wrong to prosecute a war without considering the violence it would unleash and what it would do to the lives of innocent people who would be in danger."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091801046_5.html
Here's a video link - http://www.pepperdine.edu/pr/releases/2006/september/kerry.htm

In 2004, he also said thousands of times that it was the "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" To me that is less strong than saying it was not a war of last resort. He also spoke of how the US does not go to war because it wants to, it goes to war only when it has to. The really sad thing is that many people could not look past one vote, no matter how it was explained and given that he did speak out before the war started, to see a public record of 3 decades - which should have inspired some trust among liberals and progressives.

These comments are as strong as anyone running for President at a time that nearly 50% of the people said the war was necessary (rising above that if it was phrased as removing Hussein - a consistent difference in response that still confuses me). I don't see how he could have been stronger other than if he said point blank, as he did at the 2006 Take Back America, that the war is immoral. A stark statement that he did not qualify at all. In 2004, that would likely have led to a landslide - for Bush. Only a year before 60 or 70% of the country supported the invasion AFTER it happened. Many people who had no problem with wrong, would have been offended by "immoral'.

As to a clear statement like Obama's to get out - 2008 was a different world than 2004. Kerry's 2006 statements on getting out were clearer, more emphatic and more detailed than Obama's in 2008. In 2004, there were FEWER people who agreed with an immediate withdrawal or even something like Kerry/Feingold. (In fact, even when Kerry first proposed a deadline (after Feingold) in 2006 - it was still very musch a minority opinion.) The fact is that the MSM did not honestly report Kerry's speech and though the text was on Kerry's web site - it did not communicate down to all the volunteers - in fact, on the Kerry blog there were people speaking of copying stuff from the blog and elsewhere to communicate his position. In some ways, 2004 was the year when the media became far less reliable. The Obama team, many ex-Kerry people, knew this and worked to get things out better. In addition, technology had improved. (Kerry would REALLY have been helped by Youtube)

[ProSense]

131. "Kerry is luck that Dean and Kucinich came off like such goofballs "

You do nothing but spin nonsense. Everything is never that Kerry was better, but everyone else was worse. Did Edwards fall into the "goofballs" category? You then claim that Graham could have won if he had stayed in. What utter crap.

While KNJ is making a case for Kerry in 2008 had he not run in 2008, you claim Hillary would have done better.

Nonsense.

[Radical Activist]

133. You're coming off like a fanatic.

I didn't claim Hillary would have done better. If my posts were really that "unreasonable" and "nonsense" you would have a better response than insults. Its a political party, not a personality cult. Read post 129. Its about you too.

[ProSense]

134. No, you're coming off as someone determined to spin nonsense. Here's what you said

I doubt Kerry could have emerged as the leading alternative to Hillary in an '08 primary if there had been a credible alternative who opposed the war from the start.

That of course is base on your nonsensical premise that Kerry's opposition to the war isn't credible, that he was for a "better managed war."

Nonsense.

[Radical Activist]

136. Maybe you missed something

KERRY VOTED FOR THE FUCKING WAR! After that it doesn't really matter. You may not like that. It may be completely unfair. But that's the real world and its a big reason why Hillary lost the nomination. To most Democratic Primary voters in '08 someone who voted for the war was not a credible anti-war candidate.

Maybe you have amnesia or remember something different when you dream about Kerry at night, but Kerry's main attack was never to challenge the validity of the war itself. He said Bush fucked up how the war was started and executed it poorly. He didn't make his case on saying it was an unjust war from the start that we never should have started, the way Obama said over and over again. Obama learned from Kerry's mistake, did it differently, and won.

See post 129. It's about you too.

[ProSense]

137. Maybe you don't know what you're talking about

facts

[Radical Activist]

141. Its still a fact that

KERRY VOTED FOR THE FUCKING WAR

Jesus christ how fucking stubborn can one person be

[ProSense]

142. No, it isn't

He did not vote for the war becase the IWR was not a declaration of war.

Just because that sound bite exists, doesn't make it the reality of the war.

Bush lied, violated the IWR and launched the war. That's a big difference that saying he voted for the war.

A lot of people decided to drop opposition to the war after Bush invaded Iraq, Kerry was the only person who strongly and publicly denounced Bush before, during (calling for regime change) and after the invasion.

[karynnj]

145. Bush himself said it was not a vote for war

Many have focused on the lies being on the intelligence.

The more devastating lies were that he would follow a process that he failed to follow. The fact is that if Bush were either honest or smart, he would have taken credit for the invasive inspections and fully checked out Iraq and then lifted the sanctions conditional on future inspections. This would have accomplished something neither his dad or Clinton achieved.

Looks to me like you are pretty stubborn - you ignore that there were 5 months between the vote and the invasion. You ignore that Kerry spoke out - yet you somehow forgave Edwards, who not only voted for the IWR, but was FOR the invasion.

[ProSense]

138. And another thing

But that's the real world and its a big reason why Hillary lost the nomination.

In the real world, Kerry won the nomination in 2004.

[karynnj]

144. No you missed many things

Kerry absolutely did challenge the validity of the war:
1) NOT A WAR OF LAST RESORT

2) WRONG WAR, wrong time, wrong place

Both said THOUSANDS of times

Not to mention you list John Edwards as ok in your 2007 posts! He, not Kerry, was a cheerleader of the war.

How many thousands of times did he say that it was not a war of last resort? He even emphasized the point on the Daily show pointing out that that meant something. In fact, my Catholic mom was furious that he was saying that because it meant that he was saying a war we were fighting was not a just war. In the primaries, he backed it up by listing the things not done - ie finishing the inspections, exhausting the diplomacy etc. (In case you think that I am reading something into Kerry"s words that he did not mean,in spite of his religious background and years spent at a Jesuit law school - and as a friend and campaign manager in 1970 for Father Drinan, at a time right before Kerry spoke of another unjust war - check out the Pepperdine speech in 2006, where he specifically speaks of St Augustine and uses nearly the same words he used in 2003 and 2004 to say explicitly that it was not a just war. (It also becomes clear that "global test" was a secularized version of the Christian "just war".)

"Augustine felt that wars of choice are generally unjust wars, that war -- the organized killing of human beings, of fathers, brothers, friends -- should always be a last resort, that war must always have a just cause, that those waging war need the right authority to do so, that a military response must be proportionate to the provocation, that a war must have a reasonable chance of achieving its goal and that war must discriminate between civilians and combatants.

In developing the doctrine of Just War, Augustine and his many successors viewed self-restraint in warfare as a religious obligation, not as a pious hope contingent on convincing one's adversaries to behave likewise.

It's in Americas' interests to maintain our unquestionable moral authority -- and we risk losing it when leaders make excuses for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo or when an Administration lobbies for torture.

For me, the just war criteria with respect to Iraq are very clear:
sometimes a President has to use force to fight an enemy bent on using weapons of mass destruction to slaughter innocents. But no President should ever go to war because they want to -- you go to war only because you have to.

The words "last resort" have to mean something .

In Iraq, those words were rendered hollow. It was wrong to prosecute the war without careful diplomacy that assembled a real coalition. Wrong to prosecute war without a plan to win the peace and avoid the chaos of looting in Baghdad and streets full of raw sewage. Wrong to prosecute a war without considering the violence it would unleash and what it would do to the lives of innocent people who would be in danger."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091801046_5.html

In 2004, he also said thousands of times that it was the "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" To me that is less strong than saying it was not a war of last resort. He also spoke of how the US does not go to war because it wants to, it goes to war only when it has to. The really sad thing is that many people could not look past one vote, no matter how it was explained and given that he did speak out before the war started, to see a public record of 3 decades - which should have inspired some trust among liberals and progressives.

These comments are as strong as anyone running for President at a time that nearly 50% of the people said the war was necessary (rising above that if it was phrased as removing Hussein - a consistent difference in response that still confuses me). I don't see how he could have been stronger other than if he said point blank, as he did at the 2006 Take Back America, that the war is immoral. A stark statement that he did not qualify at all. In 2004, that would likely have led to a landslide - for Bush. Only a year before 60 or 70% of the country supported the invasion AFTER it happened. Many people who had no problem with wrong, would have been offended by "immoral'.

As to a clear statement like Obama's to get out - 2008 was a different world than 2004. Kerry's 2006 statements on getting out were clearer, more emphatic and more detailed than Obama's in 2008. In 2004, there were FEWER people who agreed with an immediate withdrawal or even something like Kerry/Feingold. (In fact, even when Kerry first proposed a deadline (after Feingold) in 2006 - it was still very musch a minority opinion.) The fact is that the MSM did not honestly report Kerry's speech and though the text was on Kerry's web site - it did not communicate down to all the volunteers - in fact, on the Kerry blog there were people speaking of copying stuff from the blog and elsewhere to communicate his position. In some ways, 2004 was the year when the media became far less reliable. The Obama team, many ex-Kerry people, knew this and worked to get things out better. In addition, technology had improved. (Kerry would REALLY have been helped by Youtube)

[karynnj]

100. Me too - I moved to NJ as an adult

but I was born and bred a Hoosier.

[karynnj]

54. He got very few unfiltered media opportunities

In 2004, not one of the networks did the type of puff piece biography that has been done of every major party nominee. (You know the biography that essentially builds up to show why his life led to entering the Presidency - they even did it for W in 2000.)

In addition, the coverage of the convention fell from 9 hours to 3 hours. In addition, you had everyone in the media speaking of him as aloof - yet, as one like Fedup who met him, it just isn't true. What is true is that there is a very serious, disciplined, public servant side of him that is almost old fashioned in a very good 1940s movies like way. It is balanced though with a very dynamic, witty, enthusiastic and very warm side as well.

You might want to consider that it is the media that the media praised the same high road, calm, dignified, polite behavior that Obama has in common with Kerry - who they knocked for it.

[Radical Activist]

73. Obama had the same challenges as Kerry.

You didn't notice the Rev. Wright and William Ayers controversies? Kerry based most of his campaign on his biography and it backfired. Sorry, but I can't take this any more seriously than conservatives who scapegoat the media for making Sarah Palin look bad. Every candidate has to deal with a hostile media and some are better at it.

Obama and Kerry's demeanor are not the same. If you don't understand how or why many American's think New Englanders come off as arrogant and aloof then I'll never be able to explain it to you. The fact that Kerry was very wealthy (or his wife is) and from Mass didn't make it any easier to fight against the "liberal elitist" meme. We need to be able to admit our mistakes if we're going to learn from them.

[beachmom]

74. You can't possibly be serious. Go re-read Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert

and tell me again that the media environment was the same in '04 as it is in '08. Or go watch the Dixie Chicks movie "Shut Up and Sing". It was a hostile environment for anyone who opposed Bush. After Katrina, the Iraq civil war, and then the economic meltdown, it changed 180 degrees. I just heard Howard Fineman say "Bush had a contempt for governance" on TV. His 2004 self would have been shocked, positively shocked, by such disloyalty to the President.

[Radical Activist]

77. Obama had a much better media team, strategy and TV personality.

The press hasn't changed significantly. A great candidate can change the political environment instead of just reacting to it.

They tried to swift boat Obama too. Repeatedly. You didn't see the last Obama/Hillary debate that was nothing but repeating talk radio slime against Obama? Rev. Wright, ACORN, William Ayers? But Obama was much more effective in responding to it than Kerry. I'll give Kerry credit for learning from his mistakes and giving good advice to Obama about how not to repeat them.

[beachmom]

104. Most Swift Boat donors stayed on the sidelines in '08. They did not like McCain.

The McCain campaign itself had to do most of the smearing themselves which raised McCain's negatives sky high. Obama's campaign actually did not respond very well to it, but events superceded the silly campaign season of the summer and early fall of '08. Not only that, but the media environment is NOT the same. Keith Olbermann did not have the partisan show he now has. Rachel Maddow didn't have a show. The blogs sky rocketed between 2004 and 2008. You Tube had not been invented yet in '04. I mean, you really are just making up excuses to knock Kerry.

Oh, and with the economic meltdown, John Kerry would have won in 2008.

So, please spare me the re-writing of history. You clearly have amnesia.

[Radical Activist]

106. Kerry lost the popular vote. Obama won with the largest margin since LBJ.

Given the facts, it's pretty clear that you're the one making up excuses for Kerry.

[beachmom]

112. Conditions were different in 2004. Are you really so intellectually dishonest

that you are claiming political conditions in 2004 and 2008 were the same? Check out the wrong track numbers. Check out Bush's approval ratings in 2004 vs. 2008. It is clear you don't care now, and are just shitting all over Kerry for no reason but your own amusement.

Had Kerry's first presidential run been in 2008 (and to be clear, there wouldn't have BEEN an Obama '08 campaign without Kerry's run in '04 which selected Obama as the keynote), he would have won.

[Radical Activist]

114. Sure, the situations were different.

The fact that Kerry and Obama faced different challenges doesn't make Kerry a better candidate than he really was. Obama had his own challenges Kerry didn't have like facing racial prejudice, the feeling that the Iraq War was going better and winding down anyway, an opponent who didn't have the high negative ratings that Bush had in '04, his lack of military experience in a year when foreign policy was a top issue, and more. But Obama ran a better campaign and had more national appeal than Kerry.

I'm not shitting all over Kerry. I've written many positive things about him in the past and will again in the future. But I'm not going to close my eyes to his faults and scapegoat everyone else for his loss. We have to be honest with ourselves if we're going to grow as a party.

[karynnj]

146. Given your earlier posts

Kerry faced the prejudice against people born in New England. That was, of course, YOUR first attack.

As to the Iraq War you are crazy if you think that benefited Kerry rather than Obama. The fact also is that McCain's negatives topped 50 % in 2008 and Bush's didn't in 2004. You also might give Kerry a share of the credit in making the gap between Obama and McCain smaller on fp - he was the one, who better than Obama himself, changed the frame on McCain.

[karynnj]

88. Give me a break

The media gave Obama nearly an hour of TV time on many channels for his speech with which he put the Wright issue in the past. They then gave it many hours of replay. That was when Obama was running for the nomination. I think even Fox covered it.

In 2004, the media gave the swiftboat liars endless hours of coverage and then FAILED TO COVER Kerry's 2 minute response. I am one of many that have posted the response before the Firefighters and MANY HERE - self admitted political junkies - NEVER HAD SEEN IT. Kerry had alerted the media that it was his response. Click on the picture of Kerry - http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/08/jk_the_fire_fighters.html

Obama did not face the environment Kerry did. The country in 2008 had over 80% of the people saying the country was going in the wrong direction. Most of the country wanted out of the war - something that Kerry was a leader in moving opinion on. In 2004, less than 50% in some polls thought the country was going in the wrong direction.

I did not say that Obama's and Kerry's demeanors are the same - I did say that on characteristics where they are similar Obama was praised and Kerry bashed. Obama was said to have a "cool" temperament - while Kerry who was similar in not showing anger - was said to be "aloof". the fact is that Kerry did far better than could have been expected in 2004, given the time. As to arrogant or elitist, you might want to consider that Kerry who had strings to pull to get out of the service that others faced, didn't. Kerry worked for everything he got and until he married Teresa he wasn't wealthy.

Every candidate runs on his biography - what do you think Obama ran on. The fact is that Kerry's full biography made him one of the most qualified people to ever run for President - both in accomplishments and demonstrated character. They also ran on a platform of ideas - and the fact is that both Clinton and Obama ran on platforms close to Kerry's 2004 one. (esp Kerry's alternative energy/environmental one - neither of these were long term Obama or Clinton interests.) On Iraq, both after calling Kerry/Feingold "cut and run" moved to close variants of it.

As to the Palin analogy - if you see any similarity you are beyond help.

[Radical Activist]

115. Was that video really the official response to the swift boaters?

I'm looking at it and it doesn't mention anything about Vietnam or the claims made by the swift boat liars. How is that even a response to them?

This is an important point. Obama responded by announcing to the media that he was making a major speech, asking for the time, and addressing it directly himself in a compelling way. Kerry responded slowly and through surrogates. Kerry didn't get a half hour of TV time to respond in a major speech because he didn't ask for it. They reacted in very different ways, and that's not the fault of the media. Those decisions were made by the campaigns and the candidates themselves.

Based on statements after the campaign it sounds like Kerry learned from his mistakes in how he dealt with the swift boat attacks. I suspect he advised Obama in how to respond to the Rev. Wright attacks based on what happened in '04. We should be able to admit and learn from those mistakes just as Kerry did.

And no, not every candidate runs on their biography. Obama focused on issues for more than biography. It was one of the biggest differences between the Kerry and Obama campaigns. Obama did not devote nearly the same amount of time to his past during the convention than Kerry did. He didn't bring out his friends from his community organizing days on stage during prime time like Kerry did with his fellow Veterans. Kerry set himself up for the swift boat attacks by making the campaign about his biography instead of the issues. I think Obama's focus on issues is one of the most important lessons of his campaign.

[karynnj]

120. Kerry's team the day after the book came out

gave the media 36 pages that documented lies and inaccuracies in the book. This incidentally was the same first step Obama took with his Corsi book. Kerry also sent surrogates out to speak about it. 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. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it. (Like Kerry, Obama used surrogates against Corsi rather than respond himself)

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?

Many Democrats, including Edwards who was asked to, did little. It wasn't that tey 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.

The video I pointed you to (the one with the Kerry picture) essentially calls them liars and points out that the Navy gave him those medals.

I really don't think Kerry needed to spend a half an hour going through each lie they said - note that Obama didn't with the lies in the Corsi book either, nor did he do so with Ayres - other than to answer (well) a question in the debate. My point was that there were people on this board saying Kerry never said they were lying - and he does here. The fact, is that the media ignored sailors who were there who INDEPENDENTLY came forward and backed Kerry's story coverage. (The only one who did get coverage was a Chicago Tribune editor who was one of Kerry's peers on one of the boats when he got the Silver Star. This was reprinted in a few newpapers, but was given little play on cable - even though it blew the SBVT out of the water and he was not a Kerry ally - but a conservative Republican.

The difference with the Wright thing is that Obama DID go to that church and the minister was outside the mainstream. He need to provide context and understanding. In Kerry's case - it was not "his" story against the liars, it was the "Navy's official record" against the liars. Sitting and going through each lie (and their lies even contradicted each other) was no more needed than Obama answering every accusation in the Corsi book.

Kerry was not given coverage of his NYU Iraq speech, his University of Pennsyvania speech on non-state terrorism, his health care speech or his alternative energy/environment speech - that people from HRC and McCain have copied. Why do you think he would have been given a half hour to counter the SBVT - and if he did, you would have complained that it was too much Vietnam. As to issues - Kerry's Iraq, terrorism, health care and especially environment issues were, if anything, more defined than Obama's.

[Radical Activist]

139. I'm fully aware of all those things.

But you already pointed out what Kerry didn't do: deliver a major speech himself about the issue. You say Kerry's policy speeches didn't get much attention, but Obama's own serious policy speeches didn't get nearly as much attention as his Rev. Wright speech. The Swift Boat attack was at the center of the campaign and a forceful speech by Kerry would have been covered.

Yes, the things Kerry did should have been enough, but it wasn't. Obama showed the right way to deal with those kind of attacks in an unfair press environment.

[karynnj]

143. But, the Reverend Wright speech

really was a speech on race in America - and it was an incredible speech. What would you have had Kerry speak on about the SBVT?
A speech going through the laundry list of charges and refuting them would have been awful. The fact was that the official record was 100% behind Kerry - and the media did not ask for a scrap of proof from the SBVT. They were not even asked why they lied in 1968/1969 - if what they were saying in 2004 were true.

The only thing I could think of would have been to directly address his 1971 testimony - saying it was the root of why the veterans were lying about the official record. Raising that in 2008 would have been useful, but in 2004, it would have been risky. It was clear that that was what he was prepared to fight - and "Going Upriver" answered it brilliantly putting it into context.

Also, the media was NOT as toxic in 2008 as it was in 2004, when the media was intimidated by Bush.

[bdamomma]

75. thanks fedup, I would have loved to meet him.

[karynnj]

19. BS - his PR presense was good enough to win the nomination

in 2004 in spite of a media that did not support him. You might want to consider that with incredible hype HRC came in third in Iowa, where a person has to convince people face to face, while Kerry won an unexpected victory.

The fact of the matter is that Kerry is needed in the Senate and has a very powerful position. He will be the one who pushs the global warming bill through the Senate. Last year, even with Bush as President, he was essential to getting the agreement reached - per a member of the Bush team. (That, not PR, is REAL diplomacy which Kerry excells at.) He also just introduced a major high speed rail bill that he has bi-partisan support for.) In addition, there will likely be at least some investigations in the SFRC - and who is the BEST Democrat in terms of doing investigations? The BCCI investigator.

HRC is expendable in teh Senate - she will be replaced by a Democrat form NY - and she really has nothing she has specifically led on.

[PresidentObama]

9. Kerry is where we need him: Chairman of SFRC

Though I'll admit I would rather him be entering his second term as President Kerry.

;) But this will do.

[regnaD kciN]

59. Also, although I hate to mention it...

...Massachusetts needs him in the Senate. While we all hope for recovery for Ted Kennedy, the odds are that, even if he survives for many more years, he'll probably have to step down from the Senate soon. If Kerry were also to leave for a Cabinet position, that would mean both seats would come vacant in the near future, thus relegating Massachusetts to near the bottom of the seniority list. Thus, not much in the way of committee assignments or chance to steer projects in the state's direction. (Washington state went through a similar situation a quarter-century ago, when Magnuson was upset by Skeletor Gorton and Scoop Jackson died suddenly three years later. We went from having massive amounts of clout in D.C. to virtually none.) My guess is that Kennedy's illness means that Kerry needs to remain in the Senate for at least another decade.

[Mass]

10. In fact, it is even possible that he let it be known, before the question even came, that he was

not interested. There is no way to know and mostly, those who push rumors otherwise are not making Kerry a favor.

Thanks for this thread. Kerry has a very influential role in the Senate where he will be able to continue weighting on foreign affairs while dealing also on other issues. The "worry" of the pundits is not well-placed.

[DevonRex]

13. Thank God for a voice of reason. I was beginning to wonder if I had

wandered onto the wrong forum today.

[Whisp]

14. thats what I think, he didn't want it and Hillary came second.

or maybe even third

[sniffa]

20. And how does anyone know Obama didn't offer his spot to Kerry?

That's never been proven to not have happened.

[gogoplata]

21. Or Michelle, who's to say he didn't offer her?

Nobody has denied this.

[ProSense]

22. Does this comment make sense? n/t

[gogoplata]

24. yes.

[ProSense]

25. No, it doesn't

unless it's to help build up post count.

[gogoplata]

26. The premise of your OP is that people can't prove that the SOS

wasn't offered to Kerry.

I claim that you would be hard pressed to prove that Obama didn't offer Michelle to Kerry.

Thereby, with humor, showing your premise to be not only very weak, but ridiculous.

[ProSense]

28. It's not my OP, and the statement about Michelle is still nonsensical on a number of levels. n/t

[karynnj]

29. nonsensical and offensive to both the Obamas and the Kerrys

[sniffa]

31. Then stop and think before you post

If you do, you might just catch that post going way over your head.

[ProSense]

32. So it went over my head that this too is my OP?

I caught all the sarcastic references and all, but it's still nonsensical.

[sniffa]

35. No actually

It's the bulk of you in this subthread.

I just posted here because it was the last post by you when I decided to post.

You posted to the other DUer initially but it could/should have been directed at me since we were both being nonsensical.

[gogoplata]

34. I thought it was your OP, I was wrong and I apologize.

[Mass]

50. Does it matter? The real question is why the RW, including our good Boston media,

AND some Democrats, use the fact that Kerry is not SoS to belittle both him (nothing new here, belittling Kerry is somehow a national sport in some places), and Obama. The point is BS, of course, given that Kerry has an influential position in the Senate when it comes to foreign affairs, but this will never prevent people to push it (as can be seen upper in this thread).

Yes, the thread is weak, but other threads and articles saying Kerry will not be influential OR that Obama is not loyal to his friends as as weak and more offensive.

[AJH032]

37. How do we know he wasn't? How do we know he was?

There's no way of knowing, so why speculate and then draw conclusions based on that speculation?

[JNelson6563]

48. They don't but they don't let THAT stop them!

Hurray for shit flinging monkeys who haven't a clue! :puke:

Julie

[TwilightGardener]

53. According to a piece on Boston.com, Kerry was "cranky" that he didn't get SoS.

However, they used anonymous sources, so that's not necessarily the truth--grain of salt required.

[Mass]

55. SO, why do you post it? If the sources are weak, and they are, believe me.

All you have to do is to look how busy he has been these last weeks to know he is happy where he was. We do not need to push RW talking points (from the Boston Herald rag, no less)...

This is the point: the RW is pushing the idea that Kerry is unimportant and Obama disloyal, one stone killing two birds. There is no reason that we help them pushing that. :sigh: I know it is a hard concept for some not to help the RW against us, but it could be worth trying.

[TwilightGardener]

56. I didn't post the article--just referred to it. Had they printed an article

about Kerry having turned down the slot first, or being perfectly happy in the Senate, I would have referred to that instead. But they didn't. I was just answering the OP with a tidbit of info that I had seen. I don't think it's reliable, but it's certainly possible that Kerry did want the SoS job, whether or not he ever breathed a word about it. For the record, I feel bad that he didn't get it. I would have preferred him over the person who did get the job.

[Mass]

58. Sigh. Yes, let's repeat sourceless rumors and innuendos. That clearly helps.

[TwilightGardener]

60. Well, it was on a newspaper's web site, so that gives it slightly more

credibility than if it had been some blogger with his or her own site, IMO--but everyone can judge for themselves:
http://news.bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/view/2008_12_02_John_Kerry_cranky_over_Barack_Obama_s_Hillary_Clinton_pick/srvc=home&position=6

[Mass]

61. Forget it. No time for people like you. I guess you will post the next article who states

that some people think Obama in his heart is Muslim (this is about as relevant and sourced, but if you insist on this POS, you should post the ones concerning Obama Muslim. Given what the BoHe is, you should find one or two like that, worth mentioning, in your opinion).

[TwilightGardener]

64. ??--they're not saying he shot a man in Reno just to watch him die. The report

is that he's disappointed he didn't get the job. It may or may not be true, but it's OK if he's been let down--the man is HUMAN. I don't think any worse of Kerry for feeling sad or disappointed or maybe even a little annoyed--he's more qualified, after all, in terms of foreign policy. Richardson was reported to be disappointed in not getting the SoS job, and I don't think any worse of him for it, either. I'll bet Tim Kaine and Evan Bayh were disappointed that they weren't selected for VP. I'll bet Hillary was beyond disappointed and upset that she didn't win the nomination. It's natural and human to be upset when you get passed over for a job--I don't know why people see it as some sort of flaw or weakness. Kerry's public statements have been pure class--that's what matters.

[ProSense]

66. These reports are coming from people trying to make themselves feel good.

They salivate at the remote opportunity to portray Kerry in a negative light: "disappointed," "cranky" or "left out in the cold. They are pathetic. Also, why are they so focused on Kerry?

As I posted before, they fail miserably in trying to make a case because Kerry is in fact in a more powerful position in the Senate:

Kerry's outspokenness coupled with his position as an effective and powerful Senator is why detractors in the media continue to try to mock him with silly rumors and innuendo. It's not unexpected, they've been trying to do this for years. The ridiculous implication is that a fifth-term Senator, who won a decisive victory in November, is someone "left out in the cold" or "snubbed." Notice that most of the media have included him on the short list for almost every cabinet position? Isn't it ironic that while some are mocking him, all deem him qualified for several cabinet position: AG, Defense, Energy, Interior, SoS, Veterans, etc.? He's one of the few people who is over qualified for most of these positions, having been the Democratic candidate in 2004, a Lt. Gov, prosecutor, small business owner, environmental activist, a Veteran champion for Veterans and someone deeply immersed in policy as a Senator.

Also, lack of Senate seniority is the primary reason cited for Hillary's willingness to give up her seat. Kerry not only has that seniority, but he is also uniquely positioned, in stature and visibility, to push the Democrats' agenda.

The media detractors who try to imply that Kerry was snubbed fail miserably when they have to concede that he is now the powerful chairman of the SFRC. They never explain why a senior Senator would leave the Senate for any of these positions, giving up independence, power and the opportunity to craft, impact and pass legislation at a time when the balance of power is stacked in the Dems' favor.

[TwilightGardener]

69. I think it has to do with his public support of Obama (as Karynnj said)--

I think the media likes to exaggerate the human-interest angle and the drama behind the cabinet selections--it's all about the behind-the-scenes intrigue. Even if Kerry is bummed, he's at the top of the Senate food chain, so it's not like they can really paint him as a loser.

[mtnsnake]

63. Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa are gossip columnists

Google them, and the first article that pops up calls them "Scary Boston Gossip Bitches". lol

http://gawker.com/news/boston-herald/scary-boston-gossip-bitches-will-totally-cut-you-188796.php

[TwilightGardener]

65. That may be. Again, it's hard to gauge the accuracy of "anonymous" crap.

[karynnj]

98. Actually - there are many a blogger

I would take the word of other the Boston Herald. The only thing that ever surprised me was their endorsement of him this year wher they essentially begged him to stay as their Senator. They also around that day had an article covering an event he had in Worcester with Max Cleland and lots of vets, where they spun a Max Cleland comment to mean that Kerry would go to the cabinet which from the video of the event wasn't an obvious conclusion. (The video was posted by a fantastic blogger - with tons more credibility than the BH) The article, though was really unusual for the BH because it mentioned the vets there who were devoted to Kerry and highlighted one Vietnam Vet, who sold his house and spent 2004 in Iowa, NH etc speaking face to face about the Kerry he knew.

What is more typical of the BH is that they repeat every smear in the worst possible light. Last summer, they actually had an column claiming his career was likely over - which was wishful thinking obviously.

[TwilightGardener]

102. I don't mean to say that bloggers are unreliable, because I often look to them

for info--and I understand that newspapers have grudges and political agendas. It's just that newspapers have more at stake credibility-wise when they print a story, because they are held to a higher standard (or should be) in terms of presenting fact. A blogger who gets something wrong will be dismissed as a blogger who gets things wrong sometimes, that's the way the internet is, yada yada. A reputable non-tabloidy newspaper that gets something dead wrong would have to print a retraction.

[karynnj]

111. The BH is not a reputable non-tabloidy newspaper

It is a not reputable tabloidy newspaper

[mtnsnake]

57. "anonymous sources" always seem to be at the root of any rumors

Too many reporters and bloggers use the old "anonymous sources" trick to report their OWN speculation without admitting it's theirs.

Think about it for a second. If Kerry was truly upest over not getting the SOS thing, as your article with the anonymous sources implied, don't you think a cagey veteran of politics like him would be smart enough to hide his disappointment around anyone, except possibly his wife? The last thing any veteran politician is going to do after seeing someone else get something he or she wants is act cranky in front of someone who might talk about it, so I highly doubt that Kerry was cranky for the reason that article gave.

Like I said earlier, unless Kerry or Obama says differently, none of the pundits have a clue whether or not he might have been offered the job first. Some of these people using "anonymous sources" ought to be ashamed. Sure, sometimes there's a reason to keep the soucre anonymous because it could lead to that source losing his or her job if it was divulged who they were, but more often than not, I'd bet that a lot of these anonymous sources are figments of the reporter's imagination.

[karynnj]

62. Absolutely not true

Here is a link to see three Kerry appearances in the last 2 weeks - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7951804&mesg_id=7954076 He is very enthusiastic in all of them. He also has done 2 Huffington Post diaries in the last 2 weeks - both very positive. You might note that he has signaled his independence - he speaks of working with the Obama administration, not working for it - and that is the wording he used all over MA. He also put out a very gracious statement when the foreign policy team was announced. (Beyond that, in the lame duck session, he introduced 2 very significant pieces of legislation - a rail bill - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/25/95822/061- and a small business stimulus bill - http://sbc.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=305070 ) All of this is in the last half a month.

I don't know which article said that - there was a nasty Joan Vennochi piece, but she also spoke of having known no one being for Kerry for President in 2004 (in MA!) Kerry also had a spokesman deny that he was seeking the position almost as soon as the media floated his name - http://www.politickerma.com/jeremyjacobs/1889/kerry-camp-reports-interest-sec-state-job-are-ridiculous

The fact of the matter is that Kerry has NEVER acted "cranky", no matter what happens. He would not let himself do so, even at far worse moments. It is simply not how he acts. You might want to consider that he returned to the Senate a few weeks after losing on the day it resumed. He also sent out a very positive thank you and plea for everyone to keep fighting for what we believed in. Remember that HRC stayed away from a Senate in session for over a month after she lost the nomination - and she continued to speak of the irrelevant "popular vote" and to complain of sexism. That was cranky.

The fact is the media immediately put him as the front runner. This was based on their perception that 1) he is incredibly qualified (something no one on any of the Sunday talk shows disputed) and 2) Obama owes him a huge dept of gratitude. The latter was the media's perception - they knew that the 2004 Obama speech mattered as did the early endorsement. They also, more than many here, saw that Kerry was the one, who helped more than anyone else, in closing the perception that McCain was far better on fp and national security - and he was classy while he did it. Note that I said the media's perception. The fact is that Kerry did everything he did to do what he has always done to move the country in the direction he thought best - he also had said for several years that he would work his heart out for ANY Democratic for President - and there was not one of us over in the JK group who doubted it.

So, why all these stories? My guess is that given his position in the Senate, his stature, and his real ability to push for change - he is almost certainly going to be the leader of what some already called (disparagingly) the Kerry/Kennedy wing of the party. The fact is that that that wing won the nomination in both 2004 and 2008. But, that wing, even with Obama's victory, has far less support from the media and many behind the scenes party powers. Obama seems to be trying to heal that rift -which must be healed if he is to succeed in healing the rift between the parties. That hasn't been done yet though. Many of the people (especially some of the NYT women) using this opportunity to bash Kerry were people who lavished HRC with praise in 2007 and early 2008. My guess is that some of these disappointed supporters will hate Kerry long after the Clintons themselves reconcile with Kennedy, Kerry and Richardson.

[TwilightGardener]

67. I have seen for myself that Kerry was very classy and positive in

congratulating Hillary and demonstrating his willingness to help Obama through the Senate. Wouldn't bother me, though, if reports of him being upset or disappointed in not getting the top foreign policy cabinet slot were true--of course he wouldn't show it in public, but he's just as human as the rest of us. Hell, I got privately pissed when someone got promoted over me at work--but I was all smiles and congratulations. That's the way we all are. If Kerry IS annoyed or disappointed, he'll get over it (probably already has) and will man-up and get back to work, same as always.

[karynnj]

70. Exactly -

I was not saying that he didn't want or that he wasn't upset that he didn't get it - I certainly don't have any knowledge on that - and likely few people really do - and all of them are likely far too loyal to Kerry to say so.

What I was commenting on was that he was called "cranky". The fact is that even as this was going on, it was Kerry and Durbin who spoke for Obama's desire to keep Lieberman's chair. It was not to Kerry's advantage to be one of the people speaking out on that - but it is a sign that he has credibility with his peers that Obama wanted him to.

The fact is that amount of input Kerry will have on foreign policy is likely not that different in either position. If Obama agrees with Kerry, Kerry's observation and advice will be significant; if he really doesn't, then his input would not change anything in either position. In the latter case, his independent voice will be lost. I actually think that Kerry is more liberal and has stronger ideas on changing our foreign policy than Obama does - after all he has articulated them since 1966 at Yale. It will be interesting to see what his agenda in the SFRC becomes.

[TwilightGardener]

72. I think the term "cranky" rather than "disappointed" was

an attention-getting little dig, nothing more. The SFRC was already one of the more reasonable committees in terms of bipartisan cooperation and policy sanity, even under Chimpy--I have no doubt that between Kerry and Lugar, Obama won't have a problem getting his agenda through that committee.

[karynnj]

82. That is one sided - the SFRC can and will have its own agenda

as Kerry said he will be working WITH not FOR the Obama administration. They would not be doing their jobs if they just took and pushed Obama's agenda - Lugar did not do that under Bush!. The worst year of that committee was 2005, where Lugar tried to push Bolton through. Kerry often spoke in the committee about the need to return to bipartisanship. That though does not mean blindly following any President.

One thing that I admired about Lugar, was that when the Reagan/Bush administration stonewalled Kerry's request for documents needed in his investigation of the Contra drug running - Lugar backed Kerry and even requested the same documents under his name. This was when the right was putting out incredible lies about Senator Kerry and when they even falsely accused a top Kerry aide of an ethics violation to get him to stop his investigation.

What is clear is that Kerry will have his own agenda - one thing he spoke of at a MA town hall was that he wanted to investigate the way the Cayman Islands (and other places) are used to avoid taxes due in many countries. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5ZlrbkdBNk (his answer goes into things not in the question.) On July 24, 2008, this was the topic in a Finance Committee hearing on the Cayman Islands. Jack Blum, who was the Kerry investigator on BCCI (and I think the Contra one too, was a witness. Both he and Kerry saw this as an international problem that needed an international solution. http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/hearings.htm (scroll down to July 24 ) Kerry and Blum are about an hour in. Kerry makes the point that in addition to being a big tax fairness problem it is a national security problem.

What is also clear is that Kerry intends to play a major role on climate change - a subject that Biden in a 2007 hearing on a report on the national security fallouts because of global warming said that Kerry had pushed for 20 years and that they should have listened to him. Biden and/or Clinton are likely to play a role on this, but neither have the depths of experience Kerry does. In addition, Kerry was said by a member of the Bush Bali team to have been essential (and a virtual member of their team) in getting an agreement - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7951804&mesg_id=7953994

The Congress is a co-equal branch of government. It would be just as wrong for Kerry and other Democrats to think that they are just there to pass Obama's agenda in rote fashion. Kerry was incredible in following and advancing Obama's agenda as a surrogate - but he is now not a surrogate. The people in his cabinet should be - a sitting Senator isn't. Whether Obama didn't want him as SoS or Kerry didn't want it, it would be wrong if Obama expects him to act as a surrogate at this point. I do assume that they have many issues in common - especially because on foreign policy during the campaign, Obama moved to long time Kerry positions. (remember Obama voted against Kerry/Feingold).

[TwilightGardener]

85. When I speak of the SFRC putting through Obama's agenda, I mean that in

the sense that Obama's agenda and Kerry's (and often Lugar's) will generally be the same--they will put legislation related to that agenda up for consideration and help shepherd it through the committee. Where they may differ (and I can't really foresee that happening very often, unless Obama does a radical departure from his campaign policies), I would expect Kerry to exercise his independent judgment as chair, AND let Obama know why he disagrees, of course. I think Obama is truthful when he says he doesn't want yes-men, and Kerry (and to some extent Lugar) are not yes-men.

[karynnj]

91. I agree with you

(I do give Lugar more credit. He was one of the few Republicans who did follow look step all Bush wanted to do and his williness to back Kerry in the 1980s was impressive. His party was vehemently against Kerry's investigation and they would have preferred marginalizing Kerry, then a freshman Senator that they already hated before he entered the Senate. (Remember that many prominent Democrats were in favor of overtly supporting the Contras - including Gore and the Clintons. This was not even a popular investigation among Democrats and most of the media that had ridiculed his investigation put the confirmation that he was right in places like a small article on page 26.)

[PresidentObama]

90. Didn't you pull this he said, she said bullshit on Kerry before?

Do you really like posting about him in a negative light?

And, why?

[TwilightGardener]

95. I have never made an OP about Kerry. I comment on some threads.

If you're referring to the reports a month ago that Kerry was "lobbying" for the SoS job, where I said that was a tacky thing to do IF TRUE (and there was no way to confirm it was true), I stand by that. But then, I watched how Hillary and Bill and Co. handled Obama's SoS offer, and all the leaks to the press--new heights of tackiness were reached, so anything Kerry may have done to get that job pales by comparison, LOL! I'm an equal opportunity basher when I think a certain behavior is inappropriate. I've never been a big Kerry fan (same as I've never been a big Biden fan, or a big Richardson fan, etc.), but I don't have an agenda against him, either.

[PresidentObama]

96. Well, maybe you should stop believing any speculation you hear when you "bash" Democrats.

n/t

[TwilightGardener]

97. I don't necessarily believe reports if there's no confirmed source, but

I offer info that I find that's relevant to the OP's topic. Everyone can judge for themselves. I bash Democrats freely when they deserve it. I'm not bashing Kerry.

[PresidentObama]

99. If I'm not mistaken, you didn't provide a link to either one.

So you're not offering info, more as empty speculation about empty speculation pieces. That doesn't count as info.

[TwilightGardener]

101. Check post 58.

[Life Long Dem]

86. The only thing I've complained about is MSM. And they scare the fuck out of me.

And we haven't heard the last of the 75% percent approval of the cabinet.

[PresidentObama]

93. This isn't directed at the OPer but those posting, why do people feel the need to lie about Kerry?

I mean seriously, this gets old.

Senator Kerry is one of the most impressive leaders our party has ever produced, and yet revisionist historians about 2004 and those who push baseless accusations and speculation that he was "cranky" that he did get the SoS job want to paint in a very negative light.

Makes no sense to me. He was our parties nominee in 2004, raised tons of money and helped elect many Democrats in 2006, he did more work for Obama in 2008 than most, and now he's going to be our nations SFRC Chairman. Makes no fucking sense to me at all.

[karynnj]

109. In some cases,

I suspect that it is jealously or resentment of people who preferred others in 2004 or, in the case, of the Clinton supporters a continued need to punish him for endorsing Obama or wanting to remove a person who stands for things they don't.

What I see here is an avalanche of negative stories - hitting his personality and even his qualifications (which given that Obama moved to most of Kerry's positions is absurd) and even (on DU only) questioning his and Teresa's financial ethics (when there is absolutely nothing in question). When the media first listed him as likely, there were attacks that he gave his endorsement for a position - which he never would do. When the Clinton stories spread, some here even (bizarrely) accused Kerry of leaking it.

Now, step back from that ugliness - and ask what Kerry actually did.

1) He gave a brave early endorsement that he knew would cost him politically
2) He did everything the Obama campaign wanted
3) He was clearly the main surrogate who went up against Bill Clinton - so Obama didn't have to
4) Many of Obama's positions and Obama's staff came from Kerry's team (including his incredible speech writer, Jon Favreau)
5) Kerry gave a brilliant unvetted speech that he wrote at the convention
6) Kerry created the frame that separated the McCain that many Democrats had praised with the McCain running - with easy to understand changes that happened - this also gave people who had liked McCain, a reason to abandon him. (I know people who were moved by that - not from the convention speech but from hearing a less polished version on Sunday shows)
7) "erratic" "transformational" who used each of those first?

In other words, Kerry worked his heart out in 2008 and helped elect a Democratic President. He has no done one thing that anyone here can point that shows he thought he was owed anything. (In fact, if he was angry at Obama, would he have taken on the role with Durbin to argue for Obama's preference on how Lieberman was treated? This was not in Kerry's self interest.)

What has he been doing? He has been speaking to people in MA about the future, writing posts about the future and speaking to the media about the upcoming trip to Poland. He is pushing Democratic issues and things he believes in - just as he always has. He has done absolutely nothing to deserve these attacks.

[acmavm]

108. Good grief, let it go. Nobody cares. At least nobody living in the land of

the living and reality. This thread has become the stereotypical did too, did not DU crapfest.

[polichick]

119. Don't know - but some pundit said the other day that Biden was given a choice...

...veep or sos, and he picked veep.

[jillan]

121. I heard that too and can hardly believe it.

I always thought Biden would've wanted SoS.

[polichick]

124. I forgot who said it, maybe Howard Fineman, but he seemed sure...

Maybe Biden wanted a broader role as Barack's close adviser.

[jillan]

125. After hearing that, you have to wonder if Obama asked alot of people what position they wanted.

It was the Politico guy, the black hair one, that said it on Hardball.
I was kinda hoping that Matthews would have asked more about that comment...
but if it's not about Hillary or Palin - Tweety is not interested.

[polichick]

126. I think Barack and Hillary cut a deal before the convention...

...at least an implied deal.

I too was hoping there was more said about Biden choosing ~ and also about Kerry. Be interesting to know.

[ProSense]

128. He said it before

Biden: "Under no administration will I accept the job of secretary of state."

He later said he would accept VP.

The notion is that anyone would jump at the opportunity to be SoS, but that isn't the case. I think Kerry would have considered it, but there would have to be something more than the SoS position itself to make someone want to give up the SFRC chairmanship.

[polichick]

132. This part is interesting...

"I ask you a rhetorical question: Are you prepared to vote for anyone -- at this moment in our history -- as president who is not capable of being secretary of state? Who among my opponents would you consider appointing secretary of state? Seriously. Think about it."

[ProSense]

135. It is interesting.

I suspose those of us who voted for Obama in the primary responded to that question among others.

[jillan]

123. I wish people would stop undermining the position of Chair of the SFRC.

John Kerry has a huge role to play in the Obama administration.

He will have a major hand in foreign affairs.

I guess alot of people just don't understand how involved that position is. Kerry will literally be on the phone, or emailing heads of countries all over the world. He will have staff on the ground all over the world that will be reporting to him

I'm very excited he will be our new Chairman.