If Kerry runs in 2008 what are your feelings about backing him

[Imagevision]

Personnaly hearing re-run's of the swiftboatee's BS ads again I coildn't handle.

Diebold undoubtedly will still be in place, Kerry knew 2 yearsin advance about the paperless receipt machines yet swears all our votes would be counted and this simply wasn't the case!

What's your input?

[applegrove]

1. Democrats need to fight what is in front of them this week

How else are you going to instinctively know how much of a fighter you need in the next election?

[mike_c]

2. well, for starters, he would have to utterly repudiate his support...

...of the IWR, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and his support for Bush's sham "war on terror." Not just say he could do it better, but face the fact that it's wrong, a deceit, and so on. Then I'll listen to what else he has to say and make my mind up.

[GoCubsGo05]

3. No way in hell. Been there. Done that. Got several t-shirts.

We cannot renominate him. Please, let's learn. There are so many worthy candidates. Hillary. Edwards. I mean come on. I can't handle another campaign season with Kerry. Please no. No. No. No.

[Imagevision]

7. Diebold Machines - week-day voting

The Ukraine had it right when they had the election on the week end so there would be no problems with people not being able to lose time for work.

[Imagevision]

10. Faye I agree with you not really knowing much about at first

I came to really respect and believe and support the man from the first speech I heard him make ...a very close friend of mine {Jon Bon Jovi and the gang} was also deeply saddened but everyone is madder then hell because of Ohio and the Blackwell thing.

Couldn't understand Kerry saying last week that he believes the OBL video coming out a few days before the election is what cost him his win?!

[New Earth]

11. that's the thing with him

if he has something up his sleeve he is NOT going to let on. don't forget, he was a lawyer (a freaking prosecutor!) :hi: :bounce:

[noclonyofthechimp]

92. I agree. I would support Kerry again. I don't believe they are through

with investigating the 04 election.

[New Earth]

4. i fully support him

i have come to love him, grown a very much attached to him, despite his somewhat confusing actions or lack thereof over the election fraud issue.

i fully support him now, as i did in this past election, as i will in the next 4 years, and as i will in 2008 if he runs again.

i do know he is a smart man and always seems to have a plan, even if he has to do what he can to not let other people on to his plans. i am sure he knows this past election was fraudulent and that he won - but he knows (and prob. knew beforehand) that the way the machines are and all the shit about Blackwell, etc. - that there was really nothing to do before Jan. 6th in the way of physical evidence, etc.....everything was set up against him, and they made the vote difference in Ohio just enough to make it look impossible to the public for him win through a recount.

is anyone confused at all by those who totally believe there was fraud but still support Kerry all the way? i'm one of them :hi:

[Im with Rosey]

44. Faye, I'm with you

I truly believe that Kerry is one smart cookie. I think he is already figuring out a way to deal with the illegal activities that kept him from his lawful position. I am sooooo looking forward to the day that we have someone with a brain in the WH. Won't it be wonderful to have a real president that has command of the English language? Won't it be wonderful to have a first lady with a brain?!

[SharonRB]

60. I'm with you and Faye, Rosey

If he gets the nomination, I'll support him all the way. He probably learned from past mistakes -- mistakes in spite of which he won almost 60 million votes. It would be different next time.

And I don't think Edwards or Hillary have a snowball's chance in Hell to win in the general election. Hillary is way too divisive and Edwards lacks the experience, especially now that he is out of the Senate.

[SharonRB]

149. I'm with you, Faye

I won't know for sure about the primary until we see exactly who is running, but there are only one or two other people I might support at that stage (Clark being one, Hillary not being one). If he gets the nomination, I will very strongly support him again. It really bugs me that so many people dismiss him out of hand. I'll be interested to see if all of these people will vote Repuke rather than vote for Kerry -- I don't THINK so! If it comes down to it and he gets the nomination, I think a lot of people who say they won't support him will or we'll be stuck with another four years of disaster.

[piece sine]

5. nadda

that does not compute. Of all the men and women capable of running, why would anyone here give a second thought to so colorless a campaigner. He lost to BUSH, for chrissake, what does that tell you?!

[GoCubsGo05]

8. Very Holden Caufield (I broke my crazy neck for chrissake)

[SharonRB]

150. It tells me what we all know --

The fix was in in Ohio, Florida and other states. Overall, he didn't lose by much...actually, he didn't really lose.

[LostInAnomie]

6. I'd back him, but only because I refuse to let the repukes roll over us.

But he wouldn't be my first choice by a long shot.

[Ladyhawk]

9. I would NOT support Kerry.

In my opinion, he didn't handle the aftermath of the election the way he should have. I don't know for sure if we were cheated by DIEBOLD, Sequoia, ES&S, etc., but he should have opened a very visible investigation into these voting companies and their practices, screw whatever the media would have said.

We need more forceful voices, people with backbone like Dean and Boxer, people who will fight the right-wing noise machine.

[pamela]

12. I'll back him in '08.

He was a great candidate. I've never seen my fellow Democrats so energized and committed. Sure, some were ABB, but that group was largely overrated and hurt us more than they helped us. Anyone who did any research on Kerry, and tuned out the MSM/repuke talking points, realized what a great man he is and what a great President he would be. There are a lot of Kerry supporters out there still. If he continues to build on that support he should be unbeatable in '08.

I like all the good Dems that are fighting for us (Dean, Clark, Boxer, Edwards, etc.) but Kerry is my candidate in '08.

[New Earth]

14. yeah

there is also a strange appeal to me for Clark...i have no idea wtf it is.

Of course, love Boxer for her courage to stand up for the past few issues.

[Peace Patriot]

90. Pamela,

you wrote: "Sure, some were ABB, but that group was largely overrated and hurt us more than they helped us."

The ABB vote won the election for Kerry by 4 to 8 million votes. Here are the stats: 2000 Gore voters (slight Kerry edge going in) + huge new Dem registered voters (Dem 58% vs. Rep 41%) + huge jump of Nader voters to Kerry (around 85%) = 4 to 8 million Kerry margin of victory.

So, it was the new voters who really made the difference--and I believe that many of those were more motivated to oust Bush, and to register their disapproval of the Iraq war, than they were wild about Kerry.

Remember, Kerry was a compromise candidate. Many, many of the groups and volunteers working for him were anti-Iraq war--a war he voted for. But we all decided not to let that stop us. Kerry is a decent, intelligent man--I don't think anyone believed he would have STARTED the Iraq war. Mainly, we wanted Bush and his Oil Cartel and all the associated criminals, looters and mass murderers out. And the media and the DNC gave us no choice. They would not let an anti-war candidate (Dean) be nominated.

Nearly 60% of Americans STILL oppose the Iraq war, now, today. (And 63% oppose torture UNDER ANY CIRSUMSTANCES!). So Bush in no way represents the majority of the country. In fact, Dean does. But Kerry was the candidate and that's who we ELECTED by a huge margin to get rid of the BushCons. (If you'll recall, there were a lot of conversations at DU and other left forums, prior to the election, about how we would deal with Kerry after the election--especially on the issue of an Iraq withdrawal schedule, military spending and other such matters. Many were very unhappy with his vote on the Iraq war.)

My read on 2008: It simply doesn't matter who the candidate is if Wally O'Dell and H. Ahmanson are still counting all the votes in secret.

If we can get THAT straightened out--and that is a huge state by state fight that the Democratic leadership is NOT BEING HELPFUL WITH--then I would have to say, personally, once again, that I will never again vote for any candidate who voted for the Iraq war, and will very likely once again have to eat my words.

If the election system is NOT straigtened out by then, then I will not vote--for the first time in 44 years. Model citizen here. Loyal Democratic voter for more than four decades. I will not vote again--nor will I urge anyone else to vote--unless I know that our votes will be counted.

I will still be politically active (God willing), but I will not participate in an inherently fraudulent election system.

I love our country, and will never give up trying to restore democracy here. But I don't think people should be led to believe that they have power (i.e., voting), when they don't.

Re: Kerry. I like the man. I feel compassion for him. He was in an impossible position. He could have taken A HUNDRED "SMOKING GUNS" INTO CONGRESS--including pictures of Bush and Rove hacking into the central vote tabulators--and the Pod People BushCons in Congress would have backed Bush anyway. His options were to lead a revolution--quite possibly one that would have resulted in blood in the streets--or shut up.

The coup took place before he ran for president--in the '00 selection, 9/11, and the 2002 by-selections (including the probable assassination of Paul Wellstone). It was merely solidified by the 2004 secret source code counting--or rather not counting--all our votes.

How he could be silent about BushCon companies owning the voting system, I don't know. But he was. And we have to take that into consideration in judging him in the future--as with other Dem leaders.

[Blue_In_AK]

13. Short answer -- yes, I would back him. n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

15. Absolutely NOT. Kerry is OLD NEWS. He caved on key issues

including conceding too quickly, after promising to fight to count all the votes. He ran as an aging war hero, but downplayed his objection to the VietNam war and actually voted FOR the Iraq War, then never really backed away from that.

I really don't think he GETS IT AT ALL. I would only support him if he were -- despite all fights to make a better choice -- the last person left standing against the fascists.

I'm not in favor of name calling, but in this case I make an exception: Kerry is OLD NEWS. That's that. I wish him well and wish him way the hell away from competing for the leadership of the Democratic Party, let alone the unthinkable-- competing again as Democratic Presidential candidate. Forget it. No frigging way.

Kerry is OLD NEWS.

[merh]

18. Sorry to hear that Hope. In my opinion Kerry is not old news

Kerry will be a force to reckon with and will be a thorn in the side of the weed. Why else do you think newbies come here to post "we can't back Kerry, no way", they fear him too. The man is a hero and one of the smartest statesmen working for the citizens of this nation. I will back him in '08.

[Nothing Without Hope]

24. Keeping my mind open, but at this point I can't support him

I agree he is smart and that he has shown courage and integrity on multiple occasions. However, I was disappointed with his actions during the campaign and after the "election." I don't hate Kerry, I will not go out and badmouth him, but based on what I know at this moment I don't feel that he is our best hope for the next election. I'm not sure Clark is the best candidate either (though he was my first choice for 2004 candidate), but we shall see. I'm keeping an open mind for Pres candidate for now. Four years is a long time.

It's not impossible for Kerry to regain my trust, but it would take some major doing in the next few years. I feel that he is a representative of the "old" Democratic party, not what we must have to move forward against the criminals who have stolen the leadership of this country. I also thought he was often a lackluster candidate who had difficulty framing the issues clearly and directly, a telling lack. And his very quick concession, when votes were still being counted and reports of major problems were only beginning to be gathered, is a problem for me. This came after much fighting language, that he would fight for every vote to be counted. I find it difficult to trust him now.

I don't hate him, but I am very disappointed in his performance during the campaign and after the election and it is going to take some major mojo on his part to attract my support, let alone my enthusiasm. He's not at the absolute bottom of my wish list of candidates, because there are lots worse possibilities. But he's sure not near the top at this point, either.

[merh]

29. Disappointed in his actions during the campaign? He won for

gosh sake, they stole it from him. After the election? This was not like 2000, Gore won popular vote and "lost" the electoral votes. This election, after their padding of the votes nationwide, their disenfranchisment of minority voters nationwide, their out and out theft of votes nationwide, the weed "won" both the popular vote and the electoral votes. As it stands, the "offical" count gave the weed the "win" by millions of votes. What would you have had him do?

Were their mistakes made in the campaign? Yes, but mistakes aside, he actually won. A candidate does not run his campaign at the same time he is campaigning, it is physically and emotionally impossible. Did the folks that he hired to run the campaign make mistakes, yes, but despite the mistakes they raised as much money in 2004, if not more, than did the weed and the weed was campaigning since 2000.

Kerry did not get the same media coverage that the weed received. His "flaws" were scrutinized by the media but the media did not touch on any of the weeds flaws. When the weed's flaws were brought out, the media explained them away. Hell if Clinton had peformed on an air craft carrier the way the weed did when he proclaimed "Mission Accomplished", the media would have ate his lunch. Did they do that to the weed? No, they explained it away and let him get away with another lie. I have said it before and I will say it again, we could have had Elvis or Jesus or Dale Earnhardt on the ticket and we would have lost. The fix was in.

You and I and other posters on this forum have the luxury of information. We have focused on the election theft and we have done the research or read the research and we know that it was stolen. Hell, grasswire has a post in this forum asking for concise information on the election fraud so that he can show it to someone close to Kerry. That someone is apparently a Kerry insider and he doesn't know about the multitude of "irregularities", that gives me the impression that Kerry doesn't know abut them either.

I am not disappointed in Kerry, not during the campaign and not now. I will support him in '08.

[Nothing Without Hope]

37. Yes, Kerry won, the press coverage of the campaign was biased,

and with the fix in, ANYONE would have "lost" if they polled within, say, 10% margin more than the candidate backed by the vote manipulators. Subtracting more than a 10 or 20% margin would have been so suspicious that they probably would not have gotten away with it. It was thrilling to see his numbers pull even and then ahead of the blivet**'s at the end. He did win the election despite the biased reporting and everything else ranged against him.

He was told about the "discrepancies" in the election results early and often. Despite this, he made the decision to concede early, saying that there was no way that the discrepancies could have been large enough numerically for him to win the election. To me, this is an unsupported statement, made at a time when evidence was pouring in but it was too soon to know the scope of the fraud. He did not significantly support the efforts to push investigation of the election fraud, which continues to trouble me. He has sent emails and made statements about pushing for new clean-election laws - I will be watching with interest to see what he actually does. But I no longer have a great deal of hope invested in John Kerry.

I don't support his actions with respect to the election and I never understood why he did not more clearly oppose the Iraq War. I have read opinions saying that both of these stands were taken in order to placate voters and leave him with better chances in 2008. I don't know if this is true; I really don't understand his motivations on these issues. This in itself troubles me and contributes to my distrust.

If the choice were, say, between Lieberman and Kerry for Dem candidate for 2008, I'd obviously prefer Kerry. He's a decent man and has many strengths. But I believe--barring something major and unexpected -- that other candidates will prove better choices to oppose the Rethugs in 2008.

[merh]

47. How do you know he was told of the "discrepancies"? You

hold this "fact" against him as if you know from personal experience that he was told about them and was given an option as to how to deal with them. He hired legal and computer experts to monitor the elections, maybe he still thinks that they did what he paid them to do. The methods used by the rethugs were so multifaceted that I doubt you could list every way they manipulated the "win" and you have been studying it. I know I can't list all of the methods used by the thieves, if I tried I would miss far too many.

What did conceding early do? If he conceded later, what would that have resulted in? As he is a lawyer, he is all to familiar with the legal difficulties associated with overturning election results. As I said, Gore lost by a smaller number, contested the "win" and still lost. How would Kerry's concession at a later point in time have altered things? His campaign is still involved in the litigation in Ohio, I would venture to guess that Kerry was involved in the Ohio dems decision to investigate the elections and they would not be funding and conducting the investigation if Kerry asked them not to. All of those that say Kerry conceded too early fail to say what difference would have been made if Kerry waited to concede. What difference do you think it would have made?

As to his actions regarding the Iraq War, well I suggest you do several things. First, go back and read his speech when the resolution was being discussed in Congress, before it was passed. Then read the resolution again. You do understand that no war was declared? The USofA never invoked the Wars Act and never declared war. This is not a war, it is an invasion and an occupation clearly outside of the resolution that was passed. It is clearly illegal, but fear of losing offices and not having the needed majority to bring about impeachment hearings has prevented ANY elected official from calling it such. Why should fear of losing an office stop someone from speaking up? Well, if you don't hold office how can you make the necessary difference? If you don't hold office, what can you do to make things better?

If the media was not biased, they would be questioning this "war". The resolution provided that the president could use military force to force SH to give up his WMDs, if all diplomatic means failed. The president did not pursue "all diplomatic means". He sent in the military while the inspections were still going on. SH did not expel the inspectors, they were doing their job when we attacked. Now, as we all know, there were no WMDs.

So what was Kerry facing when he ran for office? He was facing a nation that had sent soldiers to die in an unjust "war". Had he faced that before? Yes, he had fought in one and he had vocally opposed it. While opposing it he realized the harm the opposition had on those that fought in it. He knew personally how those who had fought in VietNam had come home as villains, that they were not seen as heroes and they just as harmed by the portrayal of the war as an unjust war as they were by fighting in it. So there was the dilemma. How could he tell the mothers, fathers, husbands and wives of those that died in the Iraq "war" that their family members died in vain, died in an unjust war? How could he tell the soldiers over there that they were fighting an unjust war? What would that do to them? His place as president would not be to judge his predecessor, but to correct the wrongs of his predecessor. Thus, he said that the "war" was not being properly fought and he would do a better job for the soldiers and for our nation. He knew that we owe an obligation to the people of Iraq and to the world to try to help the Iraqis fix what we had smashed. He knew it wouldn't be easy, but he knew he had to try. HE TRIED to get the job to make the difference.

Have you ever spoken with VietNam vets? He has. He has seen for himself how difficult it is to oppose a war but leave those that are fighting it and have fought in it with their pride and their souls. It is hard enough to order men to kill, it is harder still to ask them to kill for no reason or based on a lie and it is harder still to explain to them that they killed others in an unjust war. He was thinking of those soldiers over there and their families, probably more so than you or I. Pandora's box was opened, he was trying to get to a place where he could close it and salvage the heart, souls and minds of those that fought in it and the families that lost people to it. Should he have tried to explain this to us, yes, but the media would not have given him the time and they would have twisted his words against him. Better to say, I will make things better than to say too much that could be used against you.

If you have ever had a conversation with a Vietnam vet you would know the complexities of the situation, how delicate the balancing act is when saying the war was unjust but still trying to explain to them they are not bad guy for fighting in it. Take time to watch "Going Up River", it may give you a better insight into the man and the complexities of Vietnam, the same complexities that our soldiers face today.

Then recognize the power of "terror". The war on terror, we all felt the pain on 9/11 and after wards we felt some type of healing when we joined together and mourned. We united as a patriotic nation and that patriotism brought us both healing and pride. As patriots we could be brave even though we were terrified of the "unknown", when would the next attack occur? It was empowering to the masses to take control, to prevent terror attacks and we were told that attacking Iraq was one of the ways we would control our nation's destiny, we would not let them get us again. The weed's admin used and is using the "war" in Iraq as the nation's night light. As long as it is on, the boogie men won't get us. Some of us can live without the night light, we know that there are no Bogey men, but others cannot rest without it. It is a cruel trick that the present admin has played on our nation, Kerry tried to get in a position where he could effect our need for that night light, where he could eventually turn it off and all would still feel safe. He did win, but those that own the night light stole it from him.

Running for political office is not easy. Holding political office is not easy. If you think that Kerry has gone home every night since the election and poured over the research and the numbers the way most of us have, then you would be mistaken. He lost, it hit him very hard because he had campaigned for over 600 days. He mortgaged his home, he put his family out there for ridicule and torment, his honor was attacked and he was not doing it for himself as much as he was doing it for the nation he loved.

His lose on the 2nd was probably a kick in the stomach that knocked his wind out. He knew the exit polls had him ahead and then, wham, the switch, the lose. I felt it that night, I watched the results, flying high all day, excited that my guy had won, then "BAM" all of the sudden, he lost. How the hell do you think he felt? Then to be showed the numbers, to see that it wasn't by 2,000 or 5,000, but by 300,000 (in Ohio), what was he to do?

Did he just go away. No, he has continued to do his job, just like you and me. He is a senator and being a senator is more involved than my 9-5 job. I have the luxury of coming home and shutting off things and escaping to the internet, apparently he doesn't. Then to have everyone and their brother saying he ran a lousy campaign, what went wrong, how could we lose to the weed, well, that would make me never want to think about it if I didn't have to. Keep in mind that above all else John Kerry is a human being. Don't give superhuman powers to the man, to any politician. It is not fair to the man and it is not fair to you.

Again, I will be supporting John Kerry in 2008. I recognize his human side and I understand his position. Having seen his powerful, intellectual side and his human, caring side, I want him in office more than ever. I mourn that he is not the man salvaging my nation today, but I will not give up hope on him or my nation.

[The Straight Story]

148. I think the general feeling on the election was - Kerry failed to lead

He wanted to leader of the US, certainly one of the most powerful countries in the world (now if I were bush I would have said the US was the powerful country in the US...bwahahahaha) and the whole election thing screamed for a leader to come out and battle it.

Who cares if it was popular or how it would make him look, you don't lead based on polls you lead by principle. It could have hurt his image, etc, but the question is did he do the right thing for all of us?

So ok, we didn't want him 'gored' as they call it. Fine. Concede, bow out, and the very next day call a press conference and say you think there were some serious irregularities and you are setting up a central office to look into it all. That would be leading IMHO.

[sparky_in_ma]

20. In the primaries, no

I'm not sure who I'd support in the primaries, but not Kerry. If he did get the nomination, of course.

The opposition would be too ready for him in 08, they'd dig out the swifties again, and somebody would finally leak out his military record, even though that would be illegal. He's a good man but being a senator has it's drawbacks. Votes for or against a particular bill are more complicated then a simple recording of yea/nay. That doesn't show up when the opposition starts using them against you.

I'd like to see a governor from a southern or mid-western state.

[Nothing Without Hope]

25. Hello Sparky! Yes, I feel similarly to you on this.

If he were chosen as the candidate, then of course I would support him in 2008. After all, the other side is a bunch of insane, corrupt fascists, so ANYBODY is infinitely preferable to them.

I have a feeling that the best candidate for 2008 wasn't in the spotlight much during the 2004 campaign and isn't someone I would think of quickly now. Four years is a long time to watch devleopments, especially at the pace things are moving now. If a spokesperson arises (maybe even Howard Dean? or someone new?) who can BEAT the Rethug politicos with their clear vision and powerful, well-framed, well-planned positions, then that person could find their moment in 2008.

I feel that all the rules have changed. It's not enough to be a good person with a respectable record and a reasonable stump speech any more. It's war now, and fighting against the Kool-Aid vendors, when they hold all the power (though I do have hopes for the 2006 congressional elections) is going to take some spectacularly charismatic and clearminded candidates.

ed:sp

[sparky_in_ma]

26. I do respect Kerry

I'm definately not a basher. He's been my senator for a long time and I'm proud of him. I just feel a new "look" would stand a better chance with undecided voters.

With Dean as chair, I think a clear vision will come out.:thumbsup:

[Nothing Without Hope]

27. Yes, I'm very heartened by Dean's winnning Dem Chair.

I think this will open the way to more energy, new ideas, and better organization, all of which the Democratic Party sorely needs.

Kerry is my senator too, and I'm proud of much that he has done. But at this point, I cannot summon any enthusiasm for him as a repeat Presidential candidate. As I said in my first post, to me he's "old news." That's as close as namecalling I'm going to come for him; he's a decent man with many admirable qualities, but I don't want to see him as the 2008 candidate.

[sparky_in_ma]

30. Hmmm...

You sound like you look at it almost exactly like I do. That's kinda weird, since we're from MA.

Have you heard anything about Warner in Virginia?

[Nothing Without Hope]

34. Senator Warner is a long-time Republican and supports Bush

I googled him to see what he's been saying recently. The news was not encouraging. He's a great praiser of Bush and his administration's policies and nominees. He's not one of the good guys.

Here's his web site: http://warner.senate.gov
Like all the other Repub senators, he supported Rice and Gonzales. Here's what he said in nominating Gonzales:

Mr. President, I would like the record to reflect that I now have the privilege to speak to my colleagues with regard to the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to serve as U.S. Attorney General. I do so with a great sense of pride. I compliment our distinguished, strong President for having selected this outstanding American to serve in this exceedingly important position.
(snip)
While our next Attorney General will continue to face the unique challenges that many in law enforcement have faced since September 11, 2001, I am confident that Judge Gonzales will meet these challenges head on with a respect for our Constitution, and the laws and traditions of the United States.
(snip)
More at http://warner.senate.gov/pressoffice/statements/20050110.htm

and here's what he said in a Larry King interview on Jan 30 about the Iraq elections:

LARRY KING: Senator Warner, I know you're very delighted. Is this the way you anticipated it unfolding, today's election?

SEN. JOHN WARNER (R), VIRGINIA: I think we were all very cautious.

And I commend the president in the decisive and firm and calm way he addressed the people just now, properly giving credit to our troops in the coalition forces, to the extraordinary revelation of how competent the Iraqi forces have -- that bodes well for those who trained them -- and, most of all, to the people of Iraq.

He himself, the president, has shouldered these heavy responsibilities, and with great modesty today, he gave credit where it was due.

Now we go with an election that -- its credibility, the credibility of the election is transferred to this new government.
(snip)
more at http://warner.senate.gov/pressoffice/statements/20050130.htm

[sparky_in_ma]

35. Note to self: no posting late or after beers

I meant Mark Warner. Guess it's time for bed for me.:)

[Nothing Without Hope]

38. No, I'M the one that should have stopped after my glass of wine

I didn't think of Mark Warner, since I don't often look into Virginia politics. When you said Warner of Virginia, I automatically thought you meant JOHN Warner, who has been around so long even I am aware of him.

Governer Mark Warner is not familiar to me and I didn't even think of him. Here's his web site: http://www.governor.virginia.gov. He's sure a lot more promising than old John!
* Birth Date: December 15, 1954
* Birth Place: Indianapolis, Indiana
* Undergraduate Degree: George Washington University, 1977
* Law School Degree: Harvard, 1980
* Family: Married to Lisa Collis; three daughters - Madison, Gillian, and Eliza
* Religion: Presbyterian
* Party: Democrat

From his web site, he's very big on fiscal responsibility and on quality education. Now that you mention him, I'll curious and will do some more digging.

Again, it wasn't your beers, it was my wine and also my ignorance about Virginia politics. Sorry!

[merh]

50. I am curious about your statement "somebody would finally leak

out his military record". What does this mean. He record was available on the internet at his website. What record are you referring to or are you just repeating the spin?

In 2008 folks won't care about the swifties, just like folks didn't care about the weed's DUI and drug use in 2004 in the same way they cared about it in 2000. You say they will be ready for him, don't you think he will be ready for them?

He won, they stole it. Just imagine how much better prepared he will be in '08.

A governor? What does a governor know about foreign policy? How many governors have established relationships with foreign leaders? We will need someone that has a strong foreign policies by 2008, to think that a governor can handle the debates, let alone the office when it comes to foreign policy is a mistake.

Kerry won in 2004. They stole it. He will be better prepared from them in 2008 and just watch what he does between now and then.

[sparky_in_ma]

57. I'm sorry

I didn't realize he signed his 180 form, I couldn't find the link.

Gore won in 2000, and I also believe Kerry won this time, no argument from me on those points.

The reason I mention a governor is because there isn't a history of votes which can be twisted by the opposition. As a Senator I might vote against an increase in Medicare payments because someone added something nasty to it, like cutting funding for AIDS research. The MSM then paints me as being against Medicare. Governors don't have that problem.

Clinton didn't have foreign policy experience, and he did pretty darn well. We sure weren't up to our ass in trouble like we are now.

I respect Kerry and intend to continue voting for him to represent me in the senate. He's an honorable man and I would have really loved seeing him sitting in the oval office. Should Kerry win the nomination in 08, I'll be standing outside the Verizon center in Manchester NH with my sign.

[merh]

62. WaltStar probably can give you the links to his records, he was

heavily involved in researching his records and the weed's so he probably maintained the info. I believe the only records he did not release were his medical records and I can understand his reasonings in not releasing them. What might have been depicted in the records from that era as a flesh wound might have been much more to Kerry, seeing as he was the one injured, but the swifties would have portrayed it as no wound at all and would have continued to mock his purple hearts and his combat record.

We don't need candidates with clean slates, we need to find a way to communicate the differences between votes for an issue compared to votes for particular legislation. The main problem his campaign had (not necessarily Kerry) was the down playing of his intelligence. They treated the public as if they were too stupid to understand the difference. Instead of accepting the fact that people liked the weed and would rather sit down and have a beer with him, they should have capitalized on the intelligence of Kerry and then help them appreciate that in this day and age you don't want to have a beer with your leader, you want him to be smarter than you and you want him to be able to lead. Kerry's campaign convinced him to down play his strengths and to try to put himself on the weed's level. In doing so a good portion of the population did have trouble seeing any differenced between the weed and Kerry.

Our leaders should not be like us, they should be better than we are. They should strive to be the best they can be and in that, make America the best it can be. This was no done by his campaign. Since it was his campaign, he must assume the ultimate responsibility for their failings. However, anyone that has run for office will tell you that the candidates spend their time campaigning and they hire "experts" to tell them the best ways to reach the most people. His experts failed him.

No, Clinton didn't do too badly, but Clinton was far more intelligent than most of the governors we have today. Additionally, Clinton wasn't alone, he had Hillary and their shared intelligence is what made him successful. However, it is because of Clinton's ego that we are in the mess we are in now, he got a blow job in the oval office "because he could" while all along knowing that the RWers were out to destroy him. Because of his ego and his personal indulgencies while in office, because of his failure to recognize that what he did reflected on the party, the party has been taking a beating by the repukes that are seen as members of the "moral majority". We know that they are not moral, but Clinton gave them that title and they use it to beat the hell out of dems.

[Kziegler]

147. military record

I know we do not care, but Kerry DID NOT sign the 180. Remember the interview on January 31 on MTP. Russert asked him over and over and he finally said he will sign the 180. If he runs, he is going to have to sign the 180 after saying this to Russert.

[banishbush]

16. Not a snowballs chance in hell

Kerry let America down in a big way.

About "every vote being counted", well, it wasn't and will not be. So, tell me how I am supposed to trust Kerry. He didn't even back Senator Boxer when he should have been in the lead. His loyality was not to the people was it? I think he was in on the scam and is part of the problem. At least that is what his actions show. I feel sorry for his fans and compare them to * supporters. They are all fucking sheep! Wake up!
:mad:

[sally343434]

17. Why keep backing a loser?

Kerry, the former standard-dropper for the democratic party, was a stalking horse. He never intended to win, despite his lie that he was "reporting for duty." As I recall, he "reported for vacation" during the RNC, and just played out the clock to legitimize Bush's "win."

Kerry is a loser. We deserve to get truced when we back losers like Kerry. And we especially deserve to get trounced when we back the same loser a second time.

You know the saying: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me ... fool me ... won't get fooled again!

We can do a lot better than Kerry. He was Republican Lite in its truest form, especially with his IWR vote which he openly reaffirmed even after it was proven to be based on lies.

[KerryReallyWon]

41. need I say more?

This is the fraud board? We know there was fraud in here right? They are still trying to prove it right?

[Joe Chi Minh]

121. Self-deleted.

[Joe Chi Minh]

122. You got it, KerryReallyWon,

Your name says it all, but there's none so blind as those that will not see...

Why make up your minds, now, anyway? You've still some time in which to see what he does, how he conducts himself. But, personally, I just wish we had a New Deal premier, like Kerry, in this country, rebuilding the coutry for the people, not the plutocrats and corporations.

[politicasista]

55. Stop hating on Kerry

and calling him a loser. Dean wants us to have unity. Backstabbing our own will not get us anywhere.

[Bill Bored]

19. ANYONE BUT ANOTHER BUSH!

I'd feel better if they'd count all the votes in Ohio first though. Someone did promise that didn't he?

[brindis_desala]

21. I realize this is slightly off topic but thinking about 2008 now

is premature. Much would depend on what happens between now and 2006. It troubles me that people get so attached to personalities when there are so many structural deficiencies in our system of government. The congressional races are extremely important if we're serious about reform. We need to focus on winning back the HOUSE by 2008.

[Melissa G]

32. We need to focus on fair and transparent elections or it does not

matter who runs. Whoever counts the votes will decide again. And we know it won't be our choice... That said Kerry would not be my first choice. He wasn't this time either.

[brindis_desala]

45. of course. The specter of more evoting machines in 2006

is a terrible prospect that we must battle against tooth and nail.
That said, it is harder to rig a host of congressional races than a single statewide or national seat. Duers should be targeting every vulnerable republican, identifying possible Democratic candidates, funding them to the hilt while checking out the local precincts' infrastructure. In NY we have a bill being voted on next Tuesday and while we have these awful lever monstrosities we are making it clear we do not want touchscreen voting. This should be our primary if not total focus this year: PAPER BALLOTS with transparent tabulation procedures.

[helderheid]

75. I agree with you

We are wasting time spinning our wheels on 2008 when we don't have fair elections set up for 2006

[Roxy66]

22. John Edwards all the way....He inspires me

[OneBlueSky]

23. nope . . . he had his chance . . .

if he couldn't beat the worst president in U.S. history, then he certainly isn't on my list for 2008 . . . of course, unless the voting system is changed, it won't much matter who we run . . .

[politicasista]

56. You must be a Deaniac or Clarkie

:mad:

[OneBlueSky]

66. nope . . . neither . . . I'm someone looking for a new face . . .

so far the best I've come up with is Robert Redford . . .

[count_alucard]

28. is he running as a Republican?

he should've anyway in 2004.

I'd vote for OJ SIMPSON before I voted for this phoney wimp again.

[New Earth]

31. you would

say that wouldn't you testy?

[marlakay]

33. Kerry's a nice guy but we need someone stronger

That can answer a question without going on and on. We need someone consise. I like Kerry but I don't think he can win, but it also depends on who is the repub against him.

[wisteria]

36. Kerry 2008!!!!

I would back him 100%. None of the negatives in this past campaign are going to matter so much in 2008. Mistakes will not be repeated and he has name recognition now. Kerry is strong in ways that appeal to many who do not necessarily think in your face politics is very presidential and he certainly is well qualified for the position of President of the United States.

[kster]

39. Kerry has

won the presidency already, so if the e-machines are fixed with voter verified paper ballots,and,or paper ballots hand counted. And I can confirm that they are fixed. He has got a true supporter.If not I can't see any reason to support him or any other democrat,who will in my opinion just be running a fake campaign.

[KerryReallyWon]

40. I will support him..

He will be a great president. They had to commit the crimes before they cna be busted.

Howard Dean did a video where he hacked the vote in 90 seconds. If he will come out and scream about electronic vote fraud, his supporters will make it a live issue as only they know how to do. I believe he is going to do this, he is the perfect personality for it, and he did make the video! John Kerry will be a great president. Let's trim the Bush's first.

[politicasista]

42. I could support him again

He will have to fight the SBL head on. I don't care what anyone says, the more you guys bash Kerry, the more I like him. Sorry if you don't feel that way.

[karynnj]

76. The more they bash Kerry, the more I support him too

I think the reason is that it makes me try to rationally describe what qualities he has that would have made him a great President. The more I look back at what we learned about him, the harder it is to accept that he lost.

Also the fact that he has been doing so much and keeping such a high profile shows an enormous amount of character and strength. I also love the transition to a more activist grassroots stance he has taken. (Note: Dean is not the only activist in the party - Kerry has far more activism in his past than Dean. Dean and Kerry actually seem to be in sync )

[Splinter Cell]

43. Some of you folks....

Are really sad with your attitudes about candidates. All of us were upset that John Kerry didn't get to take office, even though he won, just like Gore in 2000. What pisses me off though, is people who bitch about him not destroying himself and dooming our party for years to come by going down in flames in a bid to fight the elections results. He didn't turn his back on us. He couldn't have overturned this election, and would have hurt any chance at progressive victory for years to come by trying to claim fraud. We all know it happened, and believe me, John Kerry knows it more then anybody. I'm sure it was harder for him to bend over and keep quiet, knowing he was cheated out of taking the presidency.

This idea of turning on candidates that don't get there the first try, and the fact that many people in this party want to "eat their own" after a loss is depressing. There is NOTHING wrong with John Kerry, and anyone that says he was a weak candidate is out of their mind. He got half the country(more in reality) to vote for him when most Americans are choking on their own ignorant fear of "terrorism" put forward by Dumbya and company. I don't think any other candidate could have done as well as Kerry during this time, with the "war president" image to overcome. Anyone that thinks different doesn't really understand the situation.

On top of all that, John Kerry would be a wonderful president. He is respected by many Americans and after four more years of Bush, most will wish Kerry had taken office. He is our BEST CHOICE in 2008. By far. The deal is to make democrats and progressives come to grips with that. Hillary can't cut it.

Yes, we have other strong choices if Kerry chooses not to run. Wes Clark is the first that comes to mind. Al Gore is another. I think though, it would be a massive mistake for Kerry not to run again, and it would be an even great blunder for us to turn our backs on him. I support him in 2008.

[Laurab]

114. Thanks so much for your post

I feel almost exactly the way you feel, and I have posted it over and over, but the fact is it does appear many people would have preferred Kerry "go down in flames" and take the party with him.

I think it is too soon to talk about who I would support in '08. So much can happen, and so much has to happen - most importantly election reform. Without it, I don't even know if I'd bother voting.

That being said, I'm a Kerry backer today, and I've not yet seen a candidate I feel would make a better President. Still, '08 is a long ways away, and there's a lot to be done. I hope Kerry will be at the forefront of getting it done. He got robbed, and I certainly won't turn my back on him.

[YvonneCa]

46. There is a good reason to vote again for Kerry...

...or Al Gore. I posted this in another thread yesterday:


Is it possible that those who missed once (such as Gore and Kerry) would be a better choice? I am, by no means, an expert on politics; but I can think of several reasons why Gore or Kerry could lead a very strong Democratic ticket in 2008:

1. I've read that Vice President Gore did not recount the entire state because the money was not there to do so, and he also believed that for the good of the country he should withdraw and throw his support behind the new administration. I agree with you that he should have recounted the entire state, and that this would have made all the difference. I think this issue goes more to planning, than judgment. I believe he knows this and would handle it correctly in 2008.

2. Gore and Kerry still have a broad base of support, including supporters who believe they won their election.* Who could be better to educate the American public about election reform than a candidate who was most affected by federal election shortcomings? Both could make a compelling case during the 2008 presidential campaign.


3. Because of their experience in 2000/2004 both seem less likely to be mislead by those around them, and MORE likely to "let 'er rip" in a second campaign. I do believe that both have "learned", and would really say what they thought a second time around. I've been reading Al Gore's speeches for the last couple of years, and they are FANTASTIC!



*And now as I'm watching Howard Dean at the DNC on C-Span..The DNC is supporting the Ohio Investigation on Election Fraud.

Any thoughts on this ?????

[Carolab]

48. NO. n/t

[FogerRox]

49. If he came out swinging he might have a chance--

Otherwise a lot of folks who voted --volunteered--worked for him might say --fa--get--ah--bout--it

[SnoopDog]

51. I normally do not partake in these kind of threads, but

I could not support Kerry. I poured my heart, soul, time, and money to get this guy elected. I almost feel he did not want to win (his campaign was soft).

Hillary Clinton - no way. I am afraid she is a RINO - like Bill. (I hate the few/many republicans who are killing our country - I am appalled that Bill is 'hanging' with Poppa Bush - the enemy he is).

Wish Dean was running...

I want a candidate who runs on our core democratic principals. Our party does not need to redefine ourselves. We are the party of TRUE MORALS and PRINCIPALS.

We need a candidate you will implement Universal Health Care, protect Social Security, refocus priorities to education, environmental/anti-pollution issues, and national internal/external security.

And to be accepted and regarded throughout the world.

Is there a candidate who will do this?

[politicasista]

54. Kerry is interested in doing just those

and with Dean as DNC chair, it could work.

[helderheid]

77. Kucinich. Too bad he's so short.

I swear that was the only reason the media ignored him. OH and he's a vegan. That probably was a problem too. OH and he wanted to break up the media monopoly. THAT'S probably the reason te media ignored him.

Kucinich WHO?

[Helga Scow Stern]

52. I think Kerry is a good man.

I would support him again. I think that he was not as good a man when he started this election season, but that it has transformed him.

I think he is one of several players who will do whatever they can to save this country.

However, his actions between now and then will bear or not bear this out. So far, I think he is doing the right things. I agree with Faye and others that strategy is everything in dealing with this coup. Anyone who thinks otherwise, that by raising hell at the beginning Kerry would have had a chance, doesn't realize what we are up against.

I fundamentally believe in the character and integrity of Kerry, as I do of more and more Dems these days. It shows in the selection of Dean for DNC chair. No better choice could have been made. I think they are getting galvanized by the reality of the situation, and that these years ahead are going to be one hell of a ride. I also think that the main question in 2008 may be whether or not anyone's vote is going to be counted. There may be some kind of riot about the vote, instead of "get out the vote". Unfortunately, our efforts may take that long to gain momentum and raise public awareness.

[marions ghost]

86. I agree on every point

you make, ojai person. Right, how do you stop a coup d'etat?
Here's my 2 cents:

We had excellent candidates in Kerry and Edwards. They gave it everything they had. They were excellent in the debates, where they could most clearly be seen as individuals. BUT...

1. We have an inherently closed and unfair election system. This past election offered greater opportunities for election tampering and fraud than ever before. The scale of this potential theft in 2004 may have been underestimated.
2. We do not have a system that allows for overturning a presidential election.
3. We do not have an independent mass media.
4. We do not have a general population that understands the implications of e-voting.
5. We do not have an independent Federal "Election Assistance Commission."
6. We do not have a sympathetic Justice Department.
7. We have partisans running the state election systems.

...and so on. Kerry deserves to have the chance to run again because it is likely that he did win, or at least came close enough to warrant a full recount. (Gore is in a similar position, for that matter).

I hope to see Kerry using the next 4 years to fight W's machine every way he can, and actively supporting the most progressive voting reform measures out there. If he does that, I think he could win the nomination. If we have managed to get this system more functional by then, he might actually succeed in winning.

[mary195149]

53. I put my total trust in John Kerry.

I still believe in him.
he is a great choice. He loves the people and this country, he is super qualified, great communicator, open minded, alot of experience, integrity and very high morals & very religious. He honors our troops and would make sure, they were not fighting unnecessary wars and would also make sure they had the best equipment to protect their safety. He would put this country back to where it once was and we would once again earn the respect from the world. What more could people want? The repubs couldn't find anything on John Kerry, they had to make up dirt about him. They do that so well, don't they? And when the exit polls were still showing John was winning, they went to Plan B and stole the election. I still think this will all come out eventually.

[kster]

68. I'm with you 100%...nt

[Peace Patriot]

91. mary195149, if there is anything we've learned in the last decade or so...

...it is NOT to put our "total trust" in ANYBODY. We have to put our trust in ourselves, as citizens. And every Democratic leader needs to be questioned and reviewed by us on the issue of this fraudulent election system. How could they let BushCon companies get control of the vote counting with SECRET proprietary source code, and why didn't they LOUDLY WARN THE VOTERS about it?

[GettysbergII]

58. No way, no how.......

He came to the knife fight wearing boxing gloves

[karynnj]

78. or maybe the Republicans

came to a boxing match with knifes.

(Especially as a member of Yale's fencing team, Kerry could have beaten him in a duel.)

[politicasista]

59. I wonder if the media set Kerry up so........

that whoever's favorite candidate can run in 08? Sounds like it.

[Der Blaue Engel]

61. Do you actually want input?

Or are you just trying to stir up dissent?

I think this topic is both premature and has been done to death.

[tommcintyre]

63. Was my thoughts exactly when I first saw it posted

However, I am glad to see there is a great deal of civility between the differing viewpoints now. This is definitely a step in the right direction. It makes it so much easier to focus on the important issues (election fraud/reform), when people "agree to disagree" on the relatively less important differences.:pals:

[Vektor]

64. I will back him vehemently.

I adore the man and know he will make an excellent president. I think that he needs to surround himself with more aggressive campaign advisers this time. I don't give two shits or a flying fuck about the bashing that may go on - Kerry has 110% of my support. With Dean at the helm of the DNC, and what is shaping up to be a great batch of hopefuls for the 2008 run - I have a lot of optimism about the future of the party.

As for the swift maggots, they need a tire iron to the nuts. Each and every goddamned one of them.

We also need to get election reform in place BEFORE the next batch of elections. Dems need to be in-your-face, balls-out DEMANDING about getting the voting system entirely overhauled unless we want to lose to fraud every time.

[Peace Patriot]

93. Vektor: Are where do you see the Democratic Party doing this...

...being "in-your-face, balls-out DEMANDING about getting the voting system entirely overhauled"?

Have you been following what's happening in California? One of the few honest Secretaries of State in the nation, Kevin Shelley, who decertified and sued Diebold, and provided Californians with a paper ballot option for the 2004 election, was just railroaded out of office on trumped up charges--led by guess who? By DEMOCRATS--ones committed to paperless voting (Connie McCormack, LA County elections chief) and by CA Senate leaders Don Perata and Gloria Romero (whose motives I don't yet understand).

How can we recover our right to vote with this kind of crap happening?

And in New Mexico, who stood in the way of the Green Party recount? The DEMOCRATIC governor.

And how did a voting system that is run on SECRET, proprietary source code, controlled by major Bush supporters ever get put in place, without the Democratic leadership screaming bloody murder, and at least warning voters (and donors and volunteers)?

We have a PROBLEM with the Democratic Party and this inherently fraudulent election system!

Howard Dean may help (he seems to know what's what), but the problem is systemic, and we don't have a lot of time to solve it.

I totally agree with you about what Dems SHOULD BE DOING, but they are so far from doing that, that I think we have one hell of a mountain to climb just to restore our right to vote.

[Vektor]

108. That's what I meant-

That it's what we need to do. I didn't say the system is perfect by any means. I agree that it needs work. Of course I have been following what's been going on in California, (I live here) as well as the rest of the nation. I'm not sure that by saying what I said, that I invited or deserved your wrath. I never mentioned that I was in support of the Governor of New Mexico, or that there weren't problems with the elections system. I'm not even sure why you came at me like that. The question was would I support Kerry, and the answer is, HELL YES, I'd walk though fire wearing a bikini made of Manzanita dipped in kerosene for him. AND I also said we NEED election reform. I have been a Kerry supporter forever, being a native of MA, growing up there, and residing in the state for the first 12 years of his Senate career. That support isn't going to waver, and has nothing to do with the actions of the New Mexico governor, or anyone else you mentioned.

I am well aware of the struggles within the system, and the reform that is needed, and I am 100% committed to doing my part (as I always have been) to help move toward that - and I support John Kerry with every fiber of my being. That support hasn't wavered for my entire adult life, through thick and thin, or in the face of attacks from anyone who disagrees with me - nor will it.

Because of that, I will do whatever I have to do to help my party AND my candidate of choice through this quagmire. I have true blue Massachusetts Democrat blood flowing through my veins, and it's a HELL of a lot thicker than the dirty water in the river of dissent that is running through this party right now.

[LittleClarkie]

115. Let's see what the blue wristband I'm wearing says

Support

Kerry

'08

Hmm.

Guess that means I support him in 08.

Who'da thunk it.

:D

He is still one of the most qualified, honest, caring people I can think of to be president.

Notice I didn't say I was looking for someone who could win. Hence, asking me why I'd back another loser will elicit the response that I'm backing the best man for the job.

He still has alot going for him. With a proper campaign bringing out all his assets, he could still be a contender. Getting past the spin machine is going to be tough, but he's had worse to deal with, and he's come back before from alot farther back.

It will depend on what happens in the next four years really. If he runs, if we can get election reform, if by some miracle I find somebody I like better, if the media becomes less repressive: all these factors need feed into what happens in 08.

It's way too early though. Even Kerry has said this. I got 06 to deal with first.

[Vektor]

116. What a coincidence!

Mine says the exact same thing!
:-)

[tinfoilinfor2005]

65. Of course, if he is the candidate I will back him

But I don't think that will happen. There were several million people who were anxious to fight shoulder to shoulder with him over the results of the phony election, and I think they were hurt by his seemingly casual withdrawel. I think there was probably a lot of passion involved in the decision, but it wasn't shared with his supporters, and in the end, I think that will kill his chances to run again.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

103. i can't imagine the leadership would give him the go again. nt

[deadparrot]

67. I probably won't vote for him in the primaries,

but if he is the Democratic nominee, or the best chance to oust whatever neocon runs, then I will gladly vote for him.

[garybeck]

69. it's not about whether he's a good man or not

it's about whether or not he's equipped to fight another attempt at a stolen election.

he's already shown us that he is not

the number one issue is election fraud. if we don't have a foolproof system in place by then, we need a candidate that will fight it all the way, not throw in the towel too early.

if anyone deserves our support i'd say Gore. he took it all the way to the supreme court.


gary

[borealowl]

70. kerry

"As it stands, the "offical" count gave the weed the "win" by millions of votes. What would you have had him do?"

Scream bloody murder? If Kerry had contested the election, the skeptics couldn't have been dismissed as "conspiracy theorists" or "web denizens."

You can be sure if the shoe were on the other foot, that's what would happen. Just look at the Washington gubernatorial race. They want a REVOTE!!!!

[karynnj]

71. And what was the vote count difference in WA?

Kerry was looking at results that not only showed him over 100,000 behind in Ohio, but popular vote counts that showed him millions behind.

Some things, such as the long (up to 10 hour lines) lines obviously suppressed the vote - but almost immediately, Ohio officials said both Democrats and Republicans were involved in administering the election in each county. Estimating the number of votes lost due to this is not something that could be done with any mathematical precision - obviously there is some function that could be modelled that would hypothesize that as the wait time goes up, vote loss goes up - but what data would you use to fir the model. Even then, it wouldn't be legal evidence and would be given as little legal ground as the discrepancy of vote vs exit polls.

Kerry spent at least 2 years of his life fighting for the presidency. The amount of campaigning done by his family and friends was impressive. This was all done against a background where the media never gave him a break on anything and never called push on anything. The media also played along with the dirtiest smear campaign I've ever seen in my life - even when a huge number of the charges were proven to be false and the motivations of the smearers were known. He came close to winning and the confusion with Ohio has to make it even more difficult.

If he thinks he really won, but knows he can't prove it, it has to be excruciatingly painful to watch Bush continuing to isolate America, attempting to destroy the safety net that has improved life in America for 60+ years, and jeopardizing the our economic security. To simultaneously have his character further assassinated by the fringe of his own party saying he threw the election or that he willingly allowed them to steal it, reviving Republican smears, and yelling"Skull & Bones" (which denies the work he's done for his entire adult life), is despicable.

If you really think that he doesn't care, watch his concession speech. Kerry, a proud man who took everything throw at him though the campaign without flinching, was obviously using every bit of self discipline he had to almost succeed in blinking back tears. It really was more than just fulfilling an ambition to be President.

As far as insuring that the voting systems were verifiable and that all precincts were adequately provided with voting machines and were well monitored, isn't it fairer to blame the state party and the DNC which should have supported the state parties. While it's fair to criticize the campaign for some of it's decisions, do you really want the Presidential candidate micro-managing the local election details? Is this the best use of his time?

[borealowl]

80. we knew, why didn't Kerry?

It was obvious from the exit polls on election night that major fraud was taking place. Figuring out the details of that fraud was secondary. You knew there were thousands of complaints being called in, that people were trying to vote for Kerry and their votes were coming up Bush; and you had the exit polls. I was dumbfounded by the early concession speech...

[merh]

74. What did Gore's screams accomplish?

Nothing. Well, yeah they did, they resulted in legal precedents that are scary as hell! What did Gore and his folks do to prevent the theft in 2004. Afterall, they were aware of the tactics better than anyone.


What would have been accomplished if Kerry had objected, please tell me? No one can answer that, they are just mad that he conceded too early.

[borealowl]

81. truthtelling

Conceding was conceding the truth. Gore did not cry fraud, he just wanted the leftover, unspoiled ballots counted fairly. Kerry also did not cry fraud. Without them, it has been difficult to appear as anything other than fringefolk if you question the legitimacy of these elections.

[merh]

82. How mistaken can you be.

They are still litigating this in federal court in Ohio (kerry's attorneys and the glibs) and the Ohio dems have also hired experts to investigate the fraud. It can be investigated without screaming about it from the roof tops and in truth, quiet investigations (like grand jury proceedings) have better results.

What difference do you perceive had kerry had not conceded or delayed the concession or declared fraud? What would have been your perceived result?

No one can answer because it would not have made a difference.

[borealowl]

84. no answer possible

There's no way of knowing what would have happened, because you can't rewrite history. I think that if Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Gore, Dean, Clark, even Lieberman, if all the party's leaders and some others, like Jeffords, and oh yes Nader, and the presidential candidates from all the other "fringe" parties had gotten together, along with some governors and senators, and told the truth about this election, it might well have made a difference. A united front would have been the only way to do it. They had four years to get their act together after the 2000 debacle.

It would have had to be planned beforehand to some extent: if they steal the vote, this is what we do (we stand together). As soon as the exit poll/actual vote result occurred, they could have stated the obvious, just as the Ukranians did, just as OUR govt did when the exit polls and actual results disagreed IN THE UKRAINE!!! Our leaders could have said: "we don't accept that the exit polls were wrong. Why would the exit polls suddenly be wrong after being right year after year? and why in this pattern which consistently favors one candidate?" And they could have put this question out there: "WHY did so many people complain that they pushed the button for Kerry and it came up Bush?" I haven't heard this addressed at all! Machines don't program themselves to do things like that!

How they expect to raise money for Democrats when millions of people believe the machines are rigged against Democrats is beyond me. What's the point if our votes don't count? Why pour money down an open drain? The bath will never fill up...

[Peace Patriot]

98. no answer possible: Yes, I agree that that would have been a beautiful...

...scenario. I wish it had been so with all my heart. Because that was the truth--and if there had been a united front to tell the truth, the truth would have won! But I don't think we actually know the full truth--for instance, why the Democratic leadership permitted this inherently fraudulent election system to be put into place, without screaming their heads off about it. (I mean, BushCon companies owning the secret source code that counts all our votes...come on.) And I think we have to give up the idea that any leader or set of leaders is going to save our country. I think history has chosen us, the ordinary citizens of this once great democracy, to finally realize how important it is to us, how much we revere it, for all its flaws, and to take collective responsibility for restoring it. It's up to us, not them.

Get busy in your state, restoring our right to vote. That is the one possible and doable answer.

[garybeck]

89. yes it would have made a difference

more people would be aware of the problems with our elections now. and that is a very important thing.

there is a HUGE difference between what we have now - most people accepting that he lost - and what we could have had - most people thinking Bush stole it. kerry is responsible for the lack of awareness.

[merh]

101. No they would not have - just like the 2000, they know there are

problems, but they don't think it would be enough to have made a difference. You are so delusional, what could have been, what would have been, how silly of you.

If Kerry waited to concede, did not concede or screamed fraud and accused them of stealing it as you would have preferred him to do, nothing would have changed except his credibility in his job as a senator would have been harmed. They still would have certified the votes for the weed, he still would have been declared the winner and we would still be where we are, only problem is we would be minus one powerful and credible senator in Congress.

How many folks are aware that the litigation is pending in Ohio federal court? How many know that the Dems are funding further investigation? Is that Kerry's fault or the media's? Haven't you caught on yet, the media is the one that is NOT reporting this. How many talk shows discussed Conyers 102 page report? Get it.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the administration and the media. Blaming the victim of the crime for the crime is ridiculous.

[garybeck]

88. yes we can answer it and I we have many times

Kerry's inaction thwarted the lawsuits. There were good lawyers in court fighting the stolen election while Kerry was going on TV saying "Bush just got more votes." That did not help at all. Even the lawyers complained about this.

If he did anything at all it would have at least raised awareness. People today know that Florida 2000 was stolen, because of what Gore did. he demanded a recount. because of this the recount was on TV and was in the news every day and under great scrutiny. the entire country got a lesson in election rules and problems.

because Kerry did nothing, everyone thinks the election was legit. We are minimalized to a group of conspiracy nuts trying to convince even the democrats that there is election fraud in this country.

I've seen him say "Bush just got more votes" so many times it makes me want to :puke:

he had his chance. if he runs again he'll get beat again, but even worse next time.

[merh]

104. You haven't a clue about the lawsuits. Kerry's actions did not

thwart them the courts did, the republican controlled courts did, just like the republican controlled SCOTUS declared blunder boy the winner in 2000.

You ought to come back to reality and quite living in your angry, delusional world. Everyone does not think the election is legitimate. Folks like you are more harm to the party than a help. Damning folks that have been fighting in the system and the system for over 30 years just because they are victims of the crime committed against them and our nation. How immature and stupid!

Litigation is still pending, efforts are still being made. WE ARE THE MEDIA, it is up to us, in our communities, in our homes, in our worlds to relay the message, to get the truth out. The corporate whores will not so it is up to us.

Let me know when you run for office - any office - local, state, federal -- I will gladly donate to your campaign. You haven't yet accepted the facts that exist - we are outnumbered in congress, our local governments are being absorbed by the thugs, our local community organizations are their kool aid stands and it is up to us to change it.

Stop waiting for superman to save us and quite blaming Kerry for not being superman and for not saving us. It is up to us on the local level and in our states to bring about change.

[garybeck]

87. wake up, there is TONS more that Kerry could have done

he didn't have to call into question the popular vote of 3mil victory.

he could have called for a recount in ohio for one thing.

he could have spoken publically and directly about the illegal actions that took place during the recount which he only indirectly supported.

he could have stopped saying on tv "Bush got more votes".

he could have supported the lawsuits against blackwell and the results of the count and recount. the lawyers on these cases actually stated publically that Kerry's public statements were thwarting their efforts.

he could have mentioned, maybe ONE time, that 80% of the votes were counted by private companies that support the republican party.

he could have made people aware of the problems with electronic voting machines.

he could have contested the ohio electors

he could have filed a lawsuit against the recount which was done illegally.

in short he could have done everything that David Cobb did. Cobb acted on principle rather than worrying about whether or not he was going to be called a "conspiracy theorist." Kerry acted out of fear. Cobb acted out of courage.

I could go on and on and on.

I do not doubt Kerry's ability to serve as a good president. I'm saying he failed miserably by doing nothing about the problems with the election. I'm not saying he could have necessarily changed the outcome. But if he tried to make the truth known and raised awareness, at least now more people would be aware of the facts. His inaction served to further bury the story and make us patriots into conspiracy nuts.

I see no reason he would act any differently next time. he also allowed Bush to smear him to the point where there are many people out there who have a deep hatred for kerry. that hatred will still be there in 4 years and they will only build on it.

and by the way, he said he was going to lead the fight for election reform. we now have 7 bills on election reform and I don't see his name on any of them.

In short, he would only lose again. Probably by a wider margin.

-Gary

[merh]

105. As it stands - Bush did get more votes.

That's what happens when they are stolen.

The only deep hatred of Kerry is yours. HE WON, not that many hate him. How convulted is your thinking? Just as the's DUI and cocaine use that were so powerful against the weed in 2000 had no impact in 2004, so too the swifties.

By 2008 the hatred for the repukes will be so deep, the raping and the pillaging of our nation will be so obvious that their tactics of 2004 will backfire in their faces.

Focus on election reform, that is the issue that matters. Your hatred for one of our leaders is a poison that will only harden your heart, it will not further our goals.

Oh yeah, LITIGATION IN OHIO FEDERAL COURT IS STILL PENDING AND KERRY IS A PARTY TO IT.

[beammeup]

127. Then there are the things he shouldn't have done, like...

Sitting around doing nothing when the Swift Boat Liars started their ads,
Saying he would still have voted for the war knowing that its justification was bogus,
Saying, as if according to a Repug script, "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it".

And after the debates I was left feeling unsatisfied, even though he had clearly won- why wasn't he more aggressive? Why didn't he bring up things like arsenic in drinking water? He could have destroyed Bush in the debates.

Then there are those lingering rumors about the illuminati... Has anyone else considered that the Democratic primaries could have been fixed in favor of a guy who agreed to take a dive in the general election?

Of course I'd vote for him in the general election, but I think another Democrat could do better.

[Sydnie]

72. I hope he does! I'll be there with bells on!

I supported him this time and have supported him for 20 years in the Senate. I hope he does run again and I will not hesitate to support him then either.

There is no "perfect candidate" unless you are the candidate yourself. I don't agree with everything he has said or done, but I agree with his base principles and would gladly be there to see that he take his place as President.

[gkhouston]

73. way too early to see who the players should be

he wouldn't be my first choice, but I'm not dead set against him. Hell, we wasn't my first choice in the primaries, but I warmed up to him after a while. He makes a good senator and would be a good president, he's just not that appealing as a candidate.

It would be interesting to see who the Dark Side is going to try to run, and that could depend on what happens in the next year or two. If blivet** goes down hard, then Jeb isn't going to be a viable candidate...

[NationalEnquirer]

79. GREAT question...

And I am undecided.
I would probably vote for him over a Repunk, of course, but I dont think I would be jumping for joy.
Frankly, I think all those long term legislators are part of the "system".
I'd like to have someone from outside.
Any liberal governors?

[abbiehoff]

83. Absolutely!!! Kerry is my ideal candidate.

Always has been, always will be.

I get really, really tired of people complaining that he gave in too easily. What exactly do they think would have been accomplished by him crying fraud? Do you think the Diebold or ES&S or Triad would have suddenly decided to open up the machines and let them be inspected? Do you think states would of their own volition decide to count any phyically available votes by hand?

How long did it take Kerry et.al. to take down BCCI? This is not the work of a few weeks or a few months even. The investigation is ongoing and you'd better believe that Kerry is on top of the issue. Even if fraud is never proven for this election (or previous elections) there will be legislation, and it will become more difficult to steal elections as time goes on.

I love John Kerry. He's strong and smart and an actual statesman, not just a politician. Unfortunately it's necessary to be something of a politician to get anywhere at all, but underneath the politics, I believe that he's an excellent human being and would make a great president.

[Pharaoh]

85. fagitabout it!

he had his shot,said Dean was'nt electable
.............sick of all that old shit

[Tiggeroshii]

94. HAha! The man's a dissapointment!

Against a guy named Bush, he should've been able to win with like, a 90% margin, instead he got 49% of the vote. And if there WAS election fraud, he would've likely recieved only 51% or so. Hell, he needs to get back in his corner and noot even think about running in 08. I'll egg him.

[bush_is_wacko]

95. Look, I have MANY family members working within the Federal government.

I know this is going to sound like an excuse to many, but the reality is. The administration answers to no one. They have locked the doors to the White House to all but a VERY select few. Funds are being misappropriated EVERYWHERE. Lots of money is missing. Many Federal employees have attempted to do something, but NO ONE gets ANY accountability. Whistle blower's are being coddled and funds magically appear out of thin air if anyone raises a stink and won't let it go, but if they are willing to let it go the funds remain in la la land!

Our government is in REAL trouble financially and I'm POSITIVE there are Congress men and women on BOTH sides of the aisle that are trying to account for this stuff. Why they just don't come out and say it is beyond me. The battle in Washington D.C. is MUCH bigger than the things I've seen mentioned here. When Senators stood up and proclaimed they have been LOCKED OUT they are not overstating the truth.

I am surprised no one here is discussing this. there must be SOME people here that know Federal employees!

Don't be so quick to judge Kerry, or any one else serving UNDER this administration. Honestly, I don't think it is ONLY Dem's upset at the situation. I just think they feel they have nothing MORE to lose at this point. Republican's are STILL attempting to work with the administration because they don't get the fact that this administration is loyal to this administration and it's contributors that are in on the game, not a party or and ideal. His hands are tied and he is swinging blindly. It is very difficult to find a way out of this mess. The steam they are blowing off on C-Span is only what they are willing to let the public hear!

BTW, I STILL don't think this is even the BIGGEST scandal. I think there is a true GLOBAL conspiracy and it is FAR bigger than the one attempted during the 50's and 60's.

[elizm]

96. Agree completely...

He had his chance and blew it. He knew, and we all knew, there would be voting problems. Either he ignored it or underestimated it. Either way, he proved to me he didn't have the fight that it will take to beat these crooks. If he WAS the nominee, I wouldn't even bother to go to the polls.

[politicasista]

107. Stop bashing Kerry!!

You are just mad cause your man didn't win in the primaries. Sure, mistakes were made, and he did underestimate some things, but the more you and others bash him, the more I began to appreciate him. :evilgrin:

[elizm]

123. How do you know...

who I voted for in the primaries???????

[Lisabtrucking]

97. I like Kerry, but I don't know if I could put my trust in him again, why?

Because he should of at least given it a couple of day's after the 2nd of November. He threw in the towel way to early. By the 3rd we started to find out about how the republicans rigged the election again. He should of came back and un-concede until these matters were looked into more closely. Kerry didn't stand up for us, we fought for our rights and he just stood there and watched until it was so obvious that he had to do something. I just don't think I could chance another election were our guy doesn't put up a fight.

It's time to make elections fair in this country, and putting the fighter's in there to handle these ass wipes is what we need now to repair America's election process.

[Peace Patriot]

99. The fighters R us.

Re-read "Alice in Wonderland." Any card raises his head, "Off with your head!" Upside down, backwards, insane country. Look at California! Kevin Shelley. Sue Diebold? Off with your head! And many Democratic cards in collusion with the Red Queen.

So...it's up to us, collectively--all us sleepy Doormice and clueless Alices and hookah-smoking Caterpillars and late-running Rabbits and Cheshire Cats--to get us all back through the Looking Glass to...well...some semblance of Reality.

[politicasista]

100. He left us hanging out to dry

:cry: :cry:

[Vektor]

109. Buck up, sista!

He did no such thing. What's with the negativity? You are the one always saying to stop hating on him - and you are right when you say that. Look at your posts, numbers 55 and 107! Keep defending him. Dry those tears, lady - we have work to do!
:-)

[politicasista]

118. Vektor, you are so kind

I drink Kool-Aid sometimes, but I am learning to kick the habit. :hi:

[Vektor]

119. Don't let it get you down...

...it's hard to not get influenced by all the negativity around you, but it gets easier, you develop a thicker skin after a while. Soon, what other people say won't phase you much. Stand your ground, they will get tired of trying to chip away at you. It really is true.

And if you cannot resist the kool-aid, at least switch to the sugar-free kind, sweetened with Splenda!!
:-)

[Hell in a Handbasket]

102. i'd rather vote for al gore.

at least he put up a fight.

[politicasista]

106. Where was he the last four years then?

He could have help the other senators raise the issue of election fraud, but instead he disappeared when we needed him the most. I will vote for him again, but I am sick of people saying "Well at least Gore fought, Kerry is a pathetic coward, loser, wussy, etc." Bashing Kerry and others is NOT going to get us anywhere period. :mad: :grr:

[Hell in a Handbasket]

110. Gore was one of the chief voices of the anti-war movement.

just like kerry.

oh, wait...

don't give me the mad/grr face. im not calling kerry a coward, im just saying he did what he felt was politically expediant. Gore did what he knew was right.

[LiberalUprising]

111. HELL NO

I won't back Kerry or any other Dem that refuses to fight the neocons.

Which is pretty much all of them. You really have to wonder why this is. One would think they were all in bed together. Of all the shit bush has done, very little opposition has been heard from the Dems.

Nope, never voting Dem again.

Guess I'll be goin 3rd party this time 'round.

[politicasista]

117. Why do you think he voted against Condi and Alberto?

Some people are NEVER satisfied. :mad:

[LiberalUprising]

141. And some people are easily duped

by window dressing. If Kerry would have done something... Anything either before or after the fraudulent 2004 'election' we wouldn't even be having this discussion. They had FOUR YEARS to bring this out to the public!

Go ahead and tell me the Dems and Kerry in particular didn't know bush stole the 2000 elections and would attempt the same in 2004.

Do you seriously believe that Kerry and our elected Dem officials are that naive?

I am sick of hearing about Kerry's 'grand plan' of staying silent on the matter the last 4 years cause he's got something up his sleeve.

BULLSHIT! We are fucked because Kerry and the rest of the Dems kept quiet, hell even Clinton says bush won fair and square.

Why is it so hard for you to see the Dems are complicit in the thefts?

The US is no more a two party system than Saddam's Iraq was.

[elshiva]

112. Any Real Democrat in 2008!

It's too soon to know who will be the players. I hope that Kucinich and Kerry run again. I hope Feingold does too. Judging them on their records they are all good Dems and one of them could win, but who knows what 2008 will bring? Not even God, says this process theologian.

[Paligal]

113. Einstein: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over...

and expecting a different result." Why on earth would we expect a different outcome? I'm not insane.

Frankly, I think a guy like Barak Obama could actually win. I don't think he has enough experience yet, but this nation of ding dongs don't seem to care about that, electing whoever they feel they can drink with or watch action movies with.

[sagesnow]

120. My feeling is NOT good

Once Dean lost the primary I was an ABBB supporter. I held my nose and worked and voted for Kerry. Throughout the campaign, I was dismayed that he had voted to support Bush's blitzkrieg on Iraq. I couldn't explain to people first Kerry's vote for the war and then his vote against funding for the war. He is lackluster. When he speaks he is unable to get from point a to point b without talking about c through z getting there. I carry resentment because I donated to Kerry's Legal Defense fund which was never tapped for the Ohio Election Fraud investigation.

All I want a Progressive, frugal democrat instead of a Republican-lite candidate. Hillary is another insider- too Republican Lite- (DLC)too pleasing of big Corporations for me. Will be interesting to see who steps up to bat. John Conyers and Barbara Boxer are my dream candidates.

--------------------------------------------------------
This war is costing $1,000 a second,
Who's Gong to Get stuck with the DEBT?

[Silverhair]

124. CLARK FOR .08

Kerry's boat has sunk already.

[politicasista]

125. That's mean

I like the General too, but he would NOT appreciate you hating on Kerry like that. No wonder the GOP laughs at us. :cry:

[Silverhair]

126. Hating? No, just reality, albiet a bit roughly stated.

Kerry lost the general election. His political career has peaked. It isn't hateful to speak reality.

[politicasista]

128. WelI I hate to disagree with you but his political career hasn't peaked

I will support the General, Edwards, and/or even Gore if Kerry doesn't run. If he doesn't accomplish something then I will make judgements, but I don't think he is completely over. :mad:

[Silverhair]

131. As Mark Twain said:

It is good that we do not all think alike, for how could we have horse races?

[Unforgiven]

129. NFW!

[smartvoter]

130. It's so early now to know who will run, come out on top, etc., but I would

back him if he came out on top in the primaries even if I didn't back him at that stage.

However, I will say that I think he has to sue or do something to counter the Swifties. He incorrectly assumed that the investigative journalists would set the record straight. They did in the print media -- the Swifties were shot down at every turn and had no credibility left with people who read the news -- but the broadcast media kept it alive for the sensationalism of it.

I've seen many attorneys out here claim it would be an easy case given their own records and historic statements contradict their "new" claims. He would be foolish not to go after them if he wants to run again, IMHO.

[consciousobjector]

132. On Meet the Press Tim Russert asked Kerry about the Swifties

and asked if Kerry would sign the form to allow his complete Naval record to be made public. He said he would when O'Neil and the other's accusing him would sign one and let their records be made public as well.

I think Kerry has a plan to counter the problems he ran into during the campaign.

Kerry was, and still is my choice. He is the rightful president of this country and I continue to support him.

[pixelthief]

133. Nah

He had his shot. Fresh blood.

[siliconefreak]

134. He's got my support

I think America truly missed out on having 2 wonderful people in the White House - John and Teresa - not to mention their adult children, who are obviously of a much higher caliber than Bush's little brats.

I grew very fond of Kerry during the last few months of the campaign, and maybe even more than wanting to see him win, I was really looking forward to having Teresa as the First Lady (although I don't care for that term - she said she doesn't like it either).

[Applepie]

138. It would have been wonderful

to have them as the first family. I can't think of a better family to lead our nation. I will definitely support them again.

[El Fuego]

135. If the country continues to go to hell under Bush...

which of course it will, will some Bush voters finally wake up and smell the coffee? Will those same Bush voters wish that they had voted for Kerry?

If so, he could win in 08.

[corbett]

140. They Already Do!

After we invade Iran and/or Syria, you'll see even more righties feeling that way, particularly if the shrub proposes a tax increase to pay for the privatization of Social Security.

[Peggy Day]

136. no way

[Applepie]

137. I believe in Kerry

He is going to do great things in the Senate this term. He will be our next president.

[corbett]

139. Some 'Splainin' To Do!

I canvassed for John Kerry in 2004 and believed up until the bitter end that he would contest the fraudulent election and block the coronation. I have no doubt that he's a genuine hero and would be happy to have him in the White House but before I vote for him in the 2008 Democratic primaries, I need to know the real reason he conceded on 11/3/2004 and broke his promise that all votes would count and that all votes would be counted.

If he can do that to my satisfaction, them I'm all over it. Running a second time worked for Nixon on the right and he wasn't robbed the first time around!

[MellowOne]

142. I will support him

He won in 2004 but didn't reap the reward of his victory.

[candice]

143. I'd support him if he proves he has grown and is the best choice

[berniew1]

144. 2008 s a long time off; no need to raise this issue now

[GetTheRightVote]

145. I would vote for him again easily but election reform must happen

:kick:

[DLnyc]

146. What would be the point?

Why would I want to spend hundreds of dollars and thousands of hours getting people to vote for Kerry, when the votes won't be counted and Kerry will crawl under a rock, again, and not even ATTEMPT to fight for our votes?

[jsw_81]

151. He's got my vote

But I have a feeling that the nomination already belongs to Hillary Clinton before a single vote has been cast. :(

[Blue_In_AK]

152. I would support John Kerry.

I believe he is an honorable man who was absolutely robbed this time around.

[area51]

153. Hell, no.

He promised to stay & fight, then cut & ran.

[EST]

154. Nope