Mr. Kerry: You Could Still Be the Leader We Need

[rox63]

Mr. Kerry: You Could Still Be the Leader We Need
by Cynthia Bogard
Published on Monday, June 6, 2005 by CommonDreams.org

Dear John Kerry,
We've had our differences, John, but you are still our last best hope for saving the nation. We need your help to bring the truth about our nation's attack on Iraq to the attention of the American people.

Many of us in the progressive community voted for the screamer (Howard Dean) or the peacenik (Dennis Kucinich) and not you in last year's Democratic primary (could it have only been last year?). We gave our money to those campaigns and worked for them too because those men better represented what kind of leader we thought the nation needed a leader who was unequivocally against the needless attack on Iraq, a leader who would get us out while our reputation as an honorable nation was still salvageable.

But when you became the Democratic Party nominee, we gave you our all because we knew how high the stakes were; everything we treasured about this nation had been punched out and needed to be made right again.

Read the rest at this link:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0606-31.htm

[WildEyedLiberal]

1. This was such bullshit

If "progressives" all voted for Dean, why didn't he win the fucking nomination?

All those DLC traters in Iowa? GAWD DAMN! :crazy:

[paulk]

2. pisses me off

these people defining the "progressive community"

Kerry was the most progressive candidate

no amount of revisionist bullshit is going to change that

he was our best hope for putting a true liberal in the White House

jesus christ himself wouldn't be good enough for these people

[rox63]

3. I didn't see the article that way

I saw it as someone who was previously convinced not about Kerry, but who has come around, and now admires what he's doing. I saw it as a positive article, not a slam against him.

[Mass]

4. I saw it the same way you did...

[paulk]

5. I'm always suspicious of writers who constantly use the word "we"

"we" progressives - then followed by a list of the requirements needed to fit into their definition of "progressive". And it's usually a pretty damn narrow definition.

I resent that this group, who I'll call the anti - war left, has decided that I can't be a progressive any more because I'm at the very least ambivalent about the "we have to pull out now" school of thinking about this war, and from what I gather from this article, Kerry can only be a leader of this faction if he goes along with that thinking.

I don't know what the answer is in Iraq, but I'm not going to make any demands on Kerry, who is a lot better informed about it than either I or the writer of this article is.

I don't think this article was a "slam" on Kerry - it was just more of the "what have you done for me lately"...

[politicasista]

7. I didn't think it was a slam either,

but it came across as a "be a leader or else" editorial.

[BlueIris]

8. Count me in as another, "that's not too bad, actually" response.

Because that's...not too bad. I'm not overjoyed with everything in it, but it's not a huge rip on him either. I treat those who appear to have genuinely come around to JK the same way I do reformed Republicans: I accept them and validate as many of their perspectives as I can. Better late than never.

[JohnKleeb]

6. oh yeah WEL haha

Seriously they got a lot of nerve saying that, Iowa has one of the most liberal Democratic Primaries electorate. Seriously, these "progressives" dont speak for me one fucking bit. God they anger me so much. You guys I may take another break because I am so very upset.