Why I just can't get behind Kerry -- reflections on Faneuil Hall Speech

[HamdenRice]

I hope I don't come off as a Kerry basher in this post or in general. It was very exciting to vote for him in November 2004, with my local voting place packed, with lines snaking out of the school and down the stairs at 7 am in the morning. I'm ready to forgive his betrayal of the pledge to count every vote in Ohio, even though it turns out that there was indeed all manner of election fraud in that state. I am trying to get over the impression I have of Kerry from the role that he played in the whole debacle. And no matter what criticism I have of him as a national leader, I will always think he's a terrific Senator from Massachusetts.

I just hope he will not try to run for president again. A lot of Kerry fans were impressed by his recent "dissent" speech in Boston; but for me it just reinforces the unfortunate impression I have of him, as a man who simply cannot say what is plain for all to see, or probably even say what he believes. I always get that sinking feeling listening to Kerry that he knows what's going on, but because certain phrases are poll tested as creating a negative impression of the speaker -- truthful but harsh phrases, like "the president is a liar," or "the Iraq war is a catastrophe" -- we will never hear them from John Kerry's mouth.

Here is where I got that sinking feeling in Kerry's Faneuil Hall speech -- it's the fourth paragraph:

"I have come here today to reaffirm that it was right to dissent in 1971 from a war that was wrong. And to affirm that it is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a President who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a war in Iraq that weakens the nation."

It's the last three clauses, which has the potential for great political rhythm and cadence: the president is wrong, the policy is wrong, and the war is .....

Of course, I'm expecting "wrong." Is there anyone who doesn't think the war is "wrong" -- either morally, strategically, legally or constitutionally?

But politicians appear to believe that a "lesson" of the opposition to the Vietnam War is that one should never denounce a war in the middle of it; the speaker is seen as unpatriotic; there will be a backlash. No one has suffered more, for longer, than John Kerry for opposing the Vietnam War. Both his opposition to the war, his suffering a backlash for his opposition, and most importantly his generally unsuccessful efforts to deal with or overcome that backlash are in fact, the defining characteristics of Kerry's carerr -- and the third part is his most maddenly, frustrating characteristic, his fatal flaw, as it were.

So Kerry phrases the clause about the war in terms of national security -- the war "weakens the nation", reducing it to something that is not moral outrage inducing, blood pressure raising catastrophe, but a policy problem, kind of like overweight teens.

Then the speech veers off into several directions. He talks about Vietnam and then segues into our right to dissent. I appreciate Kerry's service and heroism in Vietnam, but .... Well, sorry, this isn't about Vietnam anymore. It's about Iraq, which is shaping up to be what one historian calls the greatest strategic blunder ever committed by a major power -- not to mention a murderous humanitarian catastrophe. What's so hard about saying the "Iraq war is wrong" when it so clearly is?

Most Democrats, many independents and disgruntled real conservatives now believe the war is wrong. There is no price to pay by saying so. The people who will take offense at the phrase, "the Iraq War is wrong," can never be won over by John Kerry. It's a freebie, John! You can tell the un-poll-tested truth on this one!

He warms up a little in the speech when he talks about the Bush Cheney doctrine, but overall, I kept having the feeling that the speech was off point. Is it about dissent? About the war?

It's like this is late 1930s Germany, and I am hearing a speech from someone I hope will inspire me to resist the Nazi national suicide, but he is saying that invading Poland will eventually "make us less safe." Is that the issue?

Right now, I am really in the mood for truthtelling. Things have gotten so bad, that some politicians are actually willing to stop looking over their shoulders at polls and sit us down and tell us the awful truth. Sorry America, you just have to grow up and actually listen to some bad news. No more fairy tales that presidents never lie, they may be misinformed, or at worst, "mislead." No more fairy tales about the robust American economy. No more fairy tales that Americans are incapable of torture because we are, well, Americans. Telling people the truth is going to be very, very difficult, but I honestly don't see how we get out of this one without a big ugly truthtelling. I think a couple of Democratic politicians "get it" on this.

Al Gore is one of those politicians. You could argue that since he is retired, he has nothing to lose by telling the awful truth, but I suspect he is coming back.

Howard Dean is another Democrat who is willing to tell us the awful truth. So is Russ Feingold.

But I am not in the mood for John Kerry, Hillary Clinton or any of the other "moderates" who think that what we need right now is a middle of the road message that might appeal to or at least won't offend the bat shit crazy 33% of Americans who still think George Bush is doing "a heck off a job" as president.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Psst. Howard Dean is a moderate.

[WilliamPitt]

2. Heresy!!!!111

[HamdenRice]

6. I know Dean is moderate! But he is also ...

a truth teller. Right now that's what counts.

[ray of light]

133. I like Dean. But he doesn't always tell the truth.

I sat there and watched him refuse to admit to election fraud in 04. Come on--this is a bashing thread and you guys know it.

Now, I'm not saying another bad word about Dean or anyone because this type of 'bhashing' just helps the republicans.

Dean, even though you sat there smirking and I saw you, I forgive you because you're still the head of the party and because we all need to put aside the past and moveon!

[karynnj]

180. Kerry has a very good record for telling the truth

[saltpoint]

159. We have no leave to ask our party Chair to be a fire-belching socialist

on one hand or a iron-fisted tyrant on the other. He is a negotiator and has to negotiate within some concentric circle of approach and compromise. Nothing gets done without someone who can manage that tense circle. Dean appears to have the skill and I applaud him for it, no matter the label.

I'm not quarreling with which label to use, except I'd go with a list of adjectives, and they'd include effective, energetic, visionary, determined, and necessary. I associate all those things with Dean.

My guess is he was a pretty good doctor, too.

And more to the point, he's a Democrat. I want him on our side, not theirs. I want the intelligent people on these boards on our side, too, no matter which Democrat is their first choice in the primaries.

That's the only handful of points I wanted to make.

Sorry for the sidetrack.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

188. For the record, I am a Dean fan.

I don't always agree with him, and in fact, strongly disagree with his approaches many times, but I do think he's the kick in the ass our party needs.

Still, he's a moderate. I know that's a "four-letter-word" around here, but not for me. We need loud Democrats of all kinds, as long as we're not actively slitting each others' throats.

[saltpoint]

197. I'd like to see Dean help the party in ways I feel he truly is capable of

helping it, including changing it when necessary.

It would be terrific if some of his naysayers in the party apparatus from winter of 2004 would witness him preside over a flip of the House and Senate in 06.

Not to mention, it would be a lot better for the country.

The sooner we're done with Frist, Santorum, et al, the better.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

199. Honestly, I could care less about his naysayers.

Say what you will about them, at least they want to help the party, even if they disagree. Some of his supporters would sooner take their ball and go home than stay and improve the organization.

[saltpoint]

204. The Dean operative I am closest to is one of the most fiercely loyal

Democrats on the earth. She was "empowered by Howard" in winter of 2004 and spent serious time volunteering. When Dean finished third in Iowa, she helped bolster the spirits of first-time-ever volunteers to his campaign and reminded them that they fought the good fight and will live to fight many more, that Dean is one admired figure, that others also oppose the horrendous public service travesty of the Bush White House.

She even helped buoy the spirits of a glum Gephardt worker, whose candidate had been buried alive in that caucus at I think 11%.

She threw in with the Kerry-Edwards campaign and gave it the same as she did for Dean in the primaries.

I think a great number of Democrats want a comprehensive change in government and while we all may have our favorite candidates, most of us will throw in behind the blue ticket in 08 following a flip of the U.S. House in 06. And maybe the Senate.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

207. I said some, not all.

Many of them are fantastic, but there are some who throw temper tantrums any time someone disagrees with Dean. One need only search these boards for numerous examples of people threatening to leave the party if they don't get their way.

That's my only point. I have no interest in "sticking it" to anyone who has their heart in the right place for the future of the party. It's the "take my ball and go home" people that I have little love for.

[fooj]

3. I'm desperately hoping Gore will throw his hat in the ring.

Re-elect Al Gore!

[BlooInBloo]

13. CW says it's pretty much settled that he will.

And I'm happier than a republican (=pig) in shit to support him in the primary.

And I'll be more than happy to support the eventual primary winner in the generals - something I think DU overall would do well to keep in mind.

[against all enemies]

120. He might be the adult the majority of the people can vote for.

If he can just stop with those sighs during the debates.

[NYCGirl]

122. Can you imagine a brilliant man like Gore having to debate a dim bulb

like Bush? Sighing? Must've taken a hell of a lot of self-control to not just wring Bush's neck.

I do remember a wonderful moment when Gore took a step toward Bush, who felt threatened and backed up in fear.

[against all enemies]

129. Don't have to imagine it, seen it.

And those sighs hurt Gore tremendously. He looked and sounded foolish. The debates are won by how you look not how well you debate.

[libhill]

175. Not a problem

they'll just put a receiver under his coat (again). How soon we forget...

[saltpoint]

161. As an off-shoot here, I don't really blame Gore for sighing during the

debates with Dubya.

I felt the same frustration. I'm sure Gore's people negotiated several points about those debates, and surely one of them was that the language would be English.

And who knows what language Dubya was spitting out?

I don't blame Gore for being exasperated at all. In fact, I would have been willing to serve as character witness if he'd walked across the stage and strangled the little puke.

Third-round KO for the Vice President.

[tomreedtoon]

166. If he throws his hat in the ring, will his head be in it?

I have to agree with the original post. While Dean has been willing to spout a little fire, the last two Democratic candidates have not. The circumstances we are in require daring, boldness, conviction and confidence. Gore and Kerry want to schedule an exploratory committee to decide whether daring, boldness, conviction and confidence can be polled to the voters to see if they can be indirectly referred to in campaign speeches.

These are not clear choices against the Republican candidate.

[mdmc]

193. As a Nader voter in 1996 and in 2000, I say show me GORE!

I really am liking Gore in 2008. Kerry is a great liberal, perhaps the second best in the Senate (behing the liberal lion, Teddy!). I'll vote for whatever rat worm wins the Dem nomination (including Joementum and Zell Miller).

[NNadir]

4. You have an excellent ear for language.

This is a good post, insightful and direct.

Thanks.

[sandnsea]

30. It's called cherry-picking

Taking one line and ignoring the entire rest of the speech because what he says the speech doesn't contain is actually there. See #24

[MsTryska]

5. I've got just one reason I wouldn't vote for Kerry again

unless he's my only alternative.


i love the man on paper. i also think he's sexy as all get out.

but when he starts speechifying it makes me so sleepy.

[saltpoint]

154. Well, if you snooze you lose. Grab a cup of coffee and volunteer for

whichever of our candidates is on the ballot.

At all levels.

Let's get out there in 06 and 08 and in 2012 as well, and let's kick some fundie ass and let's kick some Red Reich ass and let's not allow the mainstream media to dictate the limits of our expression or participation.

Voters rejected Adlai Stevenson because they didn't like his intellect. They wound up with Eisenhower, a likeable soul but essentially a waste of oxygen.

Because John Kerry does not have John Kennedy's amazing charm is no reason to disregard the substance of his public life.

[madmunchie]

7. I agree with you 100% about everything that you said AND

I wish that I could have said the same things and phrased them in the way that you did .. Congrats!!!!!

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[WilliamPitt]

12. "Kerryettes"

Kerryettes.

Deniacs.

Kuciticens.

Ah, labels. An excellent way to divide people who are otherwise on the same side.

[HamdenRice]

17. And I've just come up with a word for Gore supporters!!!

How about "AlGorithms"?

Especially since his critics say he "invented" the internet?

[BooScout]

20. Excellent!

:evilgrin:

I'm an AlGorithm too.

[HamdenRice]

21. Only thing is it seems to be a non-personal noun

Like AlGorithm would be used like "Joementum" -- as in the Gore campaign is picking up AlGorithm", especially if we spell it like rythm -- Gore is picking up "AlGorythm"!

[crispini]

34. Then can we be "AlGorithmics"??!

:rofl:

[BooScout]

38. Can you sing and do math at the same time?

:party:

[HamdenRice]

41. I just got it! Like the Eurythmics!?! nt

[dogday]

45. And those who like Feingold can just be fine......

:rofl: or fineiacs......

[sandnsea]

37. So help the critics more

Give them more cute names to smear Gore with. What a brilliant strategy. :eyes:

Oh, and then after they beat him up with the name you gave them, turn around and beat Al Gore up for getting beat up, and then feign innocence when somebody points out to you that you're the one helped them in the first place.

[HamdenRice]

39. These are not names to "smear" Gore

We are suggesting that as Gore supporters we should be called AlGorithmics!

[BooScout]

43. Don't bother......Some people never will get it.

:shrug:

[sandnsea]

47. But that's how it would be used

I can hear the snickers now.

[BooScout]

50. Only if you let them use it like that....

Life and your reaction to it is only what you make of it.

[sandnsea]

57. Blame the candidate

There you go. Create, and help spread, the bullshit smears, and then blame the candidate for "letting them use it like that".

[BooScout]

59. You seriously need to take a chill pill.

:wtf:

[sandnsea]

76. So you can smear Democrats???

And try to silence people by calling them nuts? I don't think so.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

91. AlGorithm, this is about AlGorithm

Can you stay on the topic and answer it. You just DID exactly what I said. If AlGorithm were turned against Al Gore, it would be HIS fault, instead of the friggin' idiots who spread it around in the first place.

[BooScout]

102. Knowing Al Gore......

I think he would get it. Seeeeeeeeee he's smart.:eyes:

[sandnsea]

110. I bet he would get it

Because he's the one who was made a laughing stock by the right and knows how it works. AlGorithm is a gift and very very stupid, not smart.

[BooScout]

115. sigh....

:banghead:

[NYCGirl]

69. Do you know what an "algorithm" is? It's not a bad thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm

[sandnsea]

78. Do you forget the disdaining intelligence tactics?

And that the right would like nothing better than to have another ready-made caricature to throw around? Rove couldn't do better than AlGorithm.

[NYCGirl]

81. What can you make bad about an algorithm? NT

[sandnsea]

94. Denial

Ain't it derloverly. good god. What can a right wing idiot make fun of about AlGorithm. :eyes:

Honestly, if you can't figure out that they make fun of anything related to a brain, then I can't explain it to you.

[NYCGirl]

100. Why? Because it's a smart thing? I guess idiots don't like smart things.

But why should we be pandering to right wing idiots?

I guess we shouldn't say anything. This way they can't make a bad thing out of it.
:eyes:

[sandnsea]

111. Kerry in his sperm suit

He was so stupid to let his picture get taken, he should known the smartness of touring the Space Shuttle would be lost on the mainstream voter. I heard at least as many Democrats bitch about that as right wingers. AlGorithm is the exact same thing.

[NYCGirl]

121. Kerry touring the Shuttle was not the problem. It was the silly looking

clean suit — almost as silly as Bush's flight suit.

[sandnsea]

124. Just like the silly AlGorithm

Because idiots don't like smart things, like silly looking clean suits.

[NYCGirl]

130. No comparison. You can't photoshop a word. NT

[sandnsea]

132. Al Bore? Flip-flopper?

No photoshop necessary.

But thanks for proving my point, those who are supposedly on our side help spread stupid smears as much as the right. You'd never find a Republican making fun of a single picture of Bush. Not our "balls and spine" grassroots though, they quiver more than the DLC.

[NYCGirl]

136. I guess if you say "Al Bore" that VP Gore will just have to change his

name. It's too easy to parody.
:eyes:

How about Al Jones? Better for you? And he'd better stay quiet, too. Forget about that climate change stuff. The GOP will call him names!

:scared:

Edited to add: Oh, and just in case you didn't get the point of the "algorithm" thing — and I believe you didn't get it — we're not calling Al Gore anything. It's an affectionate title for Al Gore fans Hamden Rice came up with. And I'm proud to be an "AlGoreithm" and I'm also a proud Deaniac.

[BooScout]

139. The plural is Algorithmics.

We can do math, dance, and rub our stomachs at the same time. :evilgrin:

[sandnsea]

141. Oh I get it

Just like I get when it ceases becoming affectionate that the same people will say "he shouldn't have let them use it like that".

[mimitabby]

210. not true

We know republicans who are now circulating derogatory humor about the *

[BooScout]

82. Don't you think.....

That if Rove had wanted to use that lil name he would have by now? Holy Hell but you are really stretching here.

[sandnsea]

95. I've never heard it before

Have you? But if they did, they'd be running hog wild with it, and you'd be right there beating up Democrats for letting it happen.

[stepnw1f]

205. I Agree with Your Assesment

I see this shit all the time and say to myself, "could they be Freepers?" or just niave. "I can laugh at my side, therefore I am above it all". It's no wonder people confuse freepers with some in our own party...

[Adelante]

90. Heh

I'm not an AlGorithm, but I like that :)

[Flubadubya]

146. I like it, but what about "AlGorhythms"?

I like the look of that even better. :)

[BooScout]

18. I thought it was cute.....

And it's not meant to describe all Kerry Supporters.....just the ones that get so damned hot under the collar when anyone around here says anything about Kerry that they don't agree with them that I worry about their heads exploding.

Now for Dean I think Deaniacs are a good description. BTW, I was a Deaniac and still am. Love him.

I need a nic for Hillery fans though.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[dogday]

75. Thank you, I could not of said it any better myself... nt

[WilliamPitt]

85. Right, OK

Were you here during the primaries? Did you miss the brigades of Dean supporters who would swarm and then incinerate anyone who criticized him? Or maybe you missed the Clark brigades, who were so intent upon defending their man from any critiques that they actually organized their swarms on a whole different website.

That kind of thing continues today. To say it is only Kerry people who swarm and attack when they see criticism is disingenuous at best, brain-burstingly wrong at least.

The point: it's a crappy thing to do no matter who does it, no matter which candidate is being defended.

And labels serve to divide. That's kinda 2 + 2.

[BooScout]

98. Oh good lord.....

Not everyone remembers every little nuance that went on during the primaries. I used to read a lot here back then but didn't join in debate until later.

Kerryette was used by me tonight because I am sick to death being hounded all over any thread where I dare to put forth a dissenting (again a good word) opinion on Kerry. I have in the last 24 hours either been outright called or insinuated that I was a RWr', a liar, a basher or a freeper and now a divider for reasons as simply put that I didn't want Kerry to be the nominee, thought less of him for reacting too slowly to the Swift Boaters, voting for the War in Iraq and for the Patriot Act. Where's your outrage at that?

I personally didn't spend much time here in the primaries. I read occaisionally and guess I missed most of the flame wars. Glad I did. From what I have seen of them lately they are ugly.

BTW, if you are going to bitch about labels......don't use them yourself. We so called 'dividers' seek to conquer. But what you don't seem to get is we want to conquer the Republican Party not the Democratic one.

[WilliamPitt]

103. Every little nuance?

Egads, friend, there's a whole new forum (GD: Politics) that was created to control the mayhem during the primaries! Whatever bruises have been raised on your backside lately pale in comparison to what happened here back then.

[BooScout]

105. Will, will, will.........

I had my own Politcal Forum back then. I had no time to monitor the 24/7 goings on of DU. Hells bells.......I never went anywhere but LBN for the first year after I found this place.

BTW, the bruises I got from running that forum got so bad I had to close it or die of hemorhage. Be gentle........I am just now being able to stomach politics on a regular basis again. :*

[WilliamPitt]

114. I will

:)

In the meantime, ponder this: "Kerryettes" is sexist.

You use a phrase designed to denigrate a set of people, and made that phrase feminine, i.e. "ettes," i.e. "Rockettes."

So...

[BooScout]

117. Damn.......

Now you want me to be politcally correct too. :evilgrin:

[sandnsea]

109. And in the last 24 hours

I got labeled a stalker because I dared to post a rebuttal to a completely different candidate who is presently being deified at DU. I've maybe posted to him 3 times total and otherwise avoid him because I don't like him. But when good Democrat's records are distorted, I'm going to speak up. I even do it for Democrats I don't like, including Howard Dean, and Will can attest to the fact that I don't like him. Otherwise, I keep my mouth shut and stay out of threads. I really don't know why others can't do the same.

[BooScout]

118. Sorry.....

Read my signature line........I'll never stay silent.

[sandnsea]

127. And neither will I

No matter how many ways you try to stifle my voice with sexist denigration.

[mtnsnake]

119. No I wasn't here then, so I stand by what I said as to the divisiveness

issue you brought up.

I'm not trying to argue whether or not labels like "kerryettes" is divisive. I said that what certain "kerryettes" do is "far more divisive than someone referring to Kerry supporters as kerryettes" (BTW, I'm using the term "kerryettes" in this post and in the previous one for sake of clarity, not to be divisive). I don't disagree that labels can be divisive, some far more divisive than others, though.

It's just as crappy to me that people all too often get labeled as "trolls" for disagreeing that Kerry is Mr Perfect as it is crappy to you that people use labels such as "kerryettes" to call out different groups of people here.

edited to add: Peace!

[SammyWinstonJack]

137. !

:thumbsup:

[Crunchy Frog]

163. Just FYI Will, if it's the notorious "secret Clarkie group"

that you're referring to in your post,

Or maybe you missed the Clark brigades, who were so intent upon defending their man from any critiques that they actually organized their swarms on a whole different website.

it wasn't even up until months after Kerry wrapped up the nomination. If that is the entity you're referring to, you may have some info that is less than accurate. If you're referring to some other site that was organizing "swarms", then please disregard. You may know more about Clarkie online organizing than I do. :)

[dogday]

23. Less than 10 minutes, who won the pool? nt

[sandnsea]

33. But the bashers got here first n/t

[dogday]

40. The basher, oh is that what you

call anyone who disagrees with you? This poster pointed out some insightful words, I know he is allowed to do this... It was his opinion, are you banning people's opinions now?????? I have not made one bad post talking about Kerry in this thread and don't plan too.. But I can post to this thread without the Kerry sharks biting my ass.....

[sandnsea]

49. Nope, it's what I call obsessive distortions

And that's what that post is, and the poster has done it routinely. It's about whether the opinions are based on fact or fantasy and that post is pure fantasy. What he says isn't in the speech, is actually there. I'm entitled to point that out. And I'm also entitled to do that without being labeled an attacker, which YOU and BooScout did and did before any "Kerryette" had said one word.

[HamdenRice]

51. Excuse me .... Are you calling me a liar?

Are you saying that I "routinely" make "obsessive distortions"? Have you ever even read any of my other posts? In what posts do I "distort" obsessively?

[sandnsea]

72. I was quite clear

You took one line out of the speech and used it to completely distort what the man said. And yes, I've read your other posts where you've done the same thing.

In post #19 I pointed out the words he said that added the depth of moral outrage that you claim is missing. And to the point, what the fuck would he call for fighting against this war for if it wasn't clearly WRONG.

[HamdenRice]

80. I'm calling you out -- show me that post where I've done the "same thing"

You can't because you don't know WTF you are talking about. If you can't use the search function and find this non-existent post, I think you should really shouldn't be writing in this thread because you are making shit up.

[sandnsea]

89. "Fuck You John Kerry"

"John Kerry is a deeply flawed man and hopeless as a leader of our party"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5273598

Take your pick from the rest

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=+site%3Awww.democraticunderground.com+hamdenrice+kerry&btnG=Search

[HamdenRice]

93. Utterly non-responsive

I wrote a Kerry critical post a year after the election, and you accused me of being part of the Kerry bashing before the election.

The other posts are about all kinds of other stuff.

Consider your bullshit called out and proven to the world.

[sandnsea]

96. More distortions

I'm answering THIS post about other posts you have made bashing Kerry, which I just posted to prove. I didn't say YOU had bashed Kerry during the election, that is another one of YOUR distortions.

"Are you saying that I "routinely" make "obsessive distortions"? Have you ever even read any of my other posts? In what posts do I "distort" obsessively?"

[HamdenRice]

104. What posts have I written about Kerry?

Again you are changing your position and distorting your earlier claims. I have written one other OP about Kerry which you cite, and there are no distortions in it. In fact, that's when Kerry jumped the shark for me. He told Miller that votes were stolen. The next day after Miller talked to Democracy Now, he said Miller was lying. Lately, I understand he is again saying votes were stolen.

In what other posts, plural, have I written about Kerry, and name one in which I have "distorted". If you can't answer that, you should apologize.

[sandnsea]

107. "Fuck You John Kerry"

That speaks for itself.

[HamdenRice]

152. And where did I write that?

You are proving yourself to be an out and out liar.

[sandnsea]

165. In the link I posted

Shall I put up more??? Mr. I Like John Kerry. :eyes:

"That's how I feel this morning: Fu*k you, John Kerry.

A number of DUers have theorized why Kerry disavowed Miller's statement, ranging from the notion that Kerry's record on BCCI shows that he is a careful investigator who must be still trying to gather evidence before making public accusations, to tin foil hat theories that his daughters have been threatened by the BFEE. Admittedly we can't know right now, but if we are free to post theories, let me post the most likely one: That John Kerry is a deeply flawed man and hopeless as a leader of our party; that he is displaying exactly the kind of poll-tested, excessive caution that cased him to run a lousy, unfocused, content-empty campaign; that Kerry still thinks that the issue is his political future -- ie whether he is perceived to be a sour grapes kind of guy, which might hurt him on some future election day -- rather than our political future as a democratic republic with free elections; that despite however brave he was in Vietnam and however much he was an outspoken truth-teller as a Vietnam Vet activist, he is not that brave and truthful young man any more.

John Kerry -- the real Bullworth of our time."

[karynnj]

200. Even in stating your OP, you distort

Miller said one thing, Kerry's staff denied it. You choose to give 100% credibility to Miller, who had a vested interest in saying what he did.

From my perspective, I'm supicious that even in Miller's recounting, there was no follow up question. Per Miller, Kerry had just said something that a) Miller knew was news worthy and that he hadn't said publicly before and b) it was absolutely in line with Miller's new book. Yet, Miller doesn't make a comment on this? Something tells me that Miller ran with a vague making conversation non-answer, knowing that Kerry would not agree to Miller's interpretation.

[dogday]

52. I attacked nobody

I answered the post.. He asked the question how long it would be and I said it was less than 10 minutes... That is a fact not an attack...

The poster below that I responded to said they wished more politicians would stand up and say the war is wrong.. You read my response about politicians, never was Kerry's name mention, but here you and another come slamming me, all but calling me republican and I never attacked Kerry, but that was not good enough for you..

I never called you a name, nor did I comment about Kerry.. What I am posting about is the right for someone to post their opinions with you and everybody else ganging up on them.. That is what I don't like about any of this...

[BooScout]

54. Thank you for again proving my point.

I like Kerry. I just would rather someone else be the nominee this time around. Sorry that gets your shorts in a wad. You're exactly what I was talking about. The type of person that attacks anyone with an opinion different than you own. It's your opinion the Original Post is fantiasy. It's my opinion that I agree the OP is dead on accurate.

[sandnsea]

73. But you attacked "Kerryettes"

Because apparently, nobody has the right to point out the errors in someone's distortions in a post around here. I was attacked yesterday too, for daring to post a quote that proved a completely different Democrat was being attacked unfairly and was called a stalker for it. While the same people pretend there aren't daily assaults on centrists and DLC and every Democrat except the flavor of the day. It's absolutely revolting, it does happen, and it needs to stop.

[dogday]

84. I never attacked anyone...

Better re-read the thread in numerical order and see who did what to who.. I answered a post that said politicians need to start standing up to this war and say and I posted that alot of politicians talk double talk.. I never said kerry's name..

I answered a post about how soon it would take you to get to this thread and said 10 minutes, I was right on time with that.. That was truth... I never called you a kerryaic or whatever it was...


Get the facts straight before you jump on posters....

[sendero]

101. Just becaue you cannot see the truth..

... about Kerry doesn't mean the rest of us cannot. He's too timid to be president, as simple as that. He measures his words as though if one ounce out of balance the recipe will fail. If you want the highest office in the land, you have to be willing to take the right kind of risks. Kerry is possibly, when it comes to campaigning, the most risk averse politician I've ever seen, even making Hillary sound like a swashbuckler.


Compare and contrast ANY speech Kerry has made in the last year with the one Al Gore made in January. I'll take an impassioned truth teller over a I-hope-I-don't-upset-anyone Kerry any day. Call it divisive or whatever, we are going to have to pick a standard-bearer and everyone is going to have their say whether folks like you like it or not.

[karynnj]

201. Kerry's Fanueil Hall speech easily competes

and in my opinion is far better.

[allalone]

126. yeah I got jumped but good

when I dared question St Kerry.

[mtnsnake]

9. Very well said. nt

[blm]

10. What a reach to spin against his speech - Kerry attached it to Vietnam

because it was the 35th anniversary of testifying against that war.

I and others LOVE and are inspired by his eloquence.

Hell, some people today would complain that Kennedy sounded too elegant for their taste.

Kerry's speech was nowhere near the middle of the road. And he was never an opportunist. He took on TOUGHEST battles of the last twenty years for ANY senator, including Gore. And it took a TON OF TRUTH to do it when most of your Dem colleagues are working against you and supporting the policies you're fighting to expose.

You paint Kerry with unrecognizable colors, imo. A real man of conscience goes after government corruption - a politician goes after dirty song lyrics. Gore is a better man now since leaving politics, but don't even PRETEND that somehow he has served this nation with more honor than Kerry has - the National Security Archives bear witness to everything that has gone down in the last 30 years.

You judge Kerry as if he's untrustworthy and in ways that I think are odd, it's as if dirty song lyric hearings inspired your confidence and trust in ways that IranContra, BCCI, illegal wars in Central America, and CIA drugrunning investigations did not.

Sorry, but you can't name a lawmaker who has effected this nation's actual history these last 35 years more positively than John Kerry has.

Clinton and Gore COULD HAVE, but chose to keep closed the books on Bush crimes that would have PREVENTED a 9-11 and more.


As far as 2008 is concerned, the ONLY person who CAN win is the one who works to expose the machine fraud before the election.

[Mass]

11. delete -

[HamdenRice]

14. Strange logic here ...

If I criticize John Kerry's speech, then it means I'm against dissent and want everyone to agree with Bush 100%?

I agree with many things that Kerry says. I just want him to stay out of presidential politics. That would be too agonizing.

Then you ask why this thread is necessary?

Uhhhh, I guess, because this is a political website, and we tend to talk about politics and politicians?

[Mass]

16. I misread your thread. I still think your argument is a stretch

and I disagree with you about 08. I hope he runs.

[lvx35]

15. Wow, that's subtle but great!!!

Without your comments I wouldn't really think there is a problem there, I appreciate what Kerry was saying, but yes, at the level of subtlety there is something PROFOUND. The war in Iraq is morally wrong, and that's the bottom line. Its not a sin to stand up and say its wrong because we are hurting others. Its not a sin to be something other than infinitly self interested. Will immoral action negativly affect this country? YES! But Kerry and others need to say this, the whole picture: Its wrong because its hurting others and in the long run being immoral hurts us too.

[dogday]

22. It's what we always called double-talk

and most of the politicians use it... Never saying anything directly, but doing we I call going around your asshole to get to your elbow.. There are only a few truth-tellers out there.. I think that is what people are tired of as well..

[blm]

25. Repubs aren't the only ones to make cheap and shameful shots at

some of our best Democrats.

[dogday]

27. I said nobody's name did I

I said most politicians, chill out

[sandnsea]

26. See #24, he was DIRECT

There are some people who engage in deception, for whatever reasons, I don't know.

[dogday]

28. I said nobody's name

I said most politicians, I never mentioned Kerry... This joint bashing has got to stop

[Mass]

31. Yes, the bashing has to stop. Say that to the OP.

[dogday]

35. No your constant bashing of anyone

saying anything bad about Kerry... Guess what everybody has a different opinion than you... I never even mentioned Kerry, so you need to back off....

[Mass]

53. So, saying that you disagree is bashing? I disagree with the OP

and intend to say so. Too bad if that bothers you.

I dont think I said you mentionned Kerry. I know you did not.

Questions to the moderators: is talking against Kerry fine but defending him offensive.

[dogday]

60. Isn't that what you are saying this OP is doing

bashing Kerry... I never mentioned Kerry, I responded to a post about all politicians and bam I got slammed with names and insults and I never mentioned Kerry's name and now you have the nerve to asked me if I am getting bashed cause you don't like it cause Kerry is getting bashed...

That is nuts.....

[Mass]

66. You're right - it is nuts and purely ridiculous.

Can I disagree with you or does that mean I am bashing you? I disagree and I am still being attacked by you when I did not even attack you.

[BooScout]

68. The OP never Bashed Kerry....

If he said Kerry was a flaming idiot (just an example not an opinion) then that would be bashing. Get a web dictionary.:eyes:

[sandnsea]

24. But he DID say that

Some people will just pick apart anything the man does and it can't be denied. Here he actually says the administration outright lied, and all the people who have been calling on him to say it completely ignore it.

"But at a time when the administration cannot let go of the myths and outright lies it broadcast in the rush to war in Iraq, those who know better must speak out."

"As in Vietnam, we engaged militarily in Iraq based on official deception."

And he did talk about the fact that it's hurting others.

"it is time to think about young Americans and innocent civilians who are losing their lives"

And, oddly enough, the OP criticizes the reference to Vietnam. During the election, Kerry was criticized for referring to his service in Vietnam, he should have played up his protesting. Now, he refers to his protesting and that's criticized too.

There are people who obsessively hate him, period. I don't understand it, but it's the truth.

[HamdenRice]

36. logic? rhetorical strategies?

Some people criticized him during the campaign for referring to his Vietnam service, and my OP "oddly" does so -- yeah, like I'm Fox news? You are lumping together disparate criticisms to try to make a point, as though there is some massive, Kerry hating, conspiracy out there.

As I said, I like Kerry as a progressive senator from Massachusetts. I just pray that he doesn't try to run for president again (as seems to be increasingly suggested by Kerryetes on this board), when there are more plain speaking Democrats at this time in history when we really need to deal in the brutal, awful truth about our situation, and not in circumlocutions.

[sandnsea]

44. No, right here on DU

Every single breath the man took during the campaign was picked apart and attacked on DU, day after day after day. Don't even pretend. Your post is just more of the same and not the first time you've done it.

[HamdenRice]

46. So I'm part of the conspiracy, eh?

The vast left wing, anti Kerry conspiracy?

As long as it was "other people" I don't see how that tars me. I have written a critical Kerry post before but that was long, long after the election.

[dogday]

48. So am I and I haven't even said a bad word about Kerry

I just don't like the way they attack everyone who has a counter opinion... Nobody said it was facts... The poster is giving his interpretation of the speech and I know that he is allowed to do that without all these sharks circling the thread......

[Mass]

63. So, we cant say we disagree with you. Where are we?

I dont think I attacked anybody and it still seems that you disagree with me. Sorry, I thought it was still a democracy and that we could say we disagree with you. Apparently, I am wrong.

[dogday]

65. You can disagree, just like I do

But some of the words and phrases are really not very nice.... I got compared to a republican... crap that is a laugh.. I just want the war to end and my Son to come home and want the best person in the office to get it done.....

[sandnsea]

56. It's just a continuation

Same shit, new day. Since you were here in 2004, you know full well. So why try to pretend the crap was just "Fox news" when you saw it for yourself, first hand. Conspiracy? Who knows. But it sure is complete bullshit, no matter where it's coming from.

[HamdenRice]

70. Show me my post criticizing Kerry pre Nov 2004

You are lumping me together with posters I know nothing about. You've called me a liar ("obsessive distorter"), based on alleged posts about Kerry.

Either show me the pre November 2004 post I wrote criticizing Kerry or just shut up. You really are beginning to sound unhinged.

[sandnsea]

83. "like I'm Fox news"

I answered your post, in reference to the constant criticisms of Kerry and Vietnam. How he was criticized for not talking about his protesting in 2004 (although he did), and is now being criticized FOR talking about it. I did NOT say YOU had done the criticizing in 2004, only that it had been done in 2004, right here on DU, and that the obsessive hatred of him continues. It just does. I don't know how anybody could find anything wrong with that speech, yet lo and behold, you did. Just as you find something to criticize almost every time he opens his mouth.

I notice that my specific rebuttals to your claims have gone completely unanswered. Not surprised.

[blm]

29. Kerry said exactly that - trust the transcript not the spin.

.

[MH1]

168. He did say it was wrong, and that it is hurting America.

Not in precisely those words, but it was most certainly there.

Did you listen to the speech?

[lvx35]

211. Good.

No I did not listen to the speech, but I was responding to a bigger trend I've seen all over of people talking about how wrong things like torture won't benifit us. It is subtle but important to really condemn the stuff on moral grounds. I make no judgement about Kerry, I love the guy. What I am posting here on is strategy: I think the optimal strategy is to stand up to the wrong things the republicans are doing because of their wrongness, that's all. :)

[sandnsea]

19. It's about dissenting about the war

And standing up for those who are dissenting about the war. It's about standing up for everybody who fights for democracy, both those who criticize at home and those who fight overseas.

And it's about all the harm that this war has caused our country and that speech is full of everything wrong about these war, from the DSM and lies that started it, to the policies that led to Abu Ghraib, to the fact that it's weakening our country.

What you might not understand is that while all of this is familiar to you, most people are just starting to wake up to it and still need an education. It has nothing to do with appealing to the middle, it has to do with telling them what they don't now know.

[saltpoint]

162. Hi, sandnsea. Just an observation about your phrase, "It's about

standing up for dissent..." -- or the entire idea of that, actually.

You hit the heart of the address Kerry made this past weekend and also a theme of his very long and distinguished career in public life.

You and many others don't need him to specifically enjoin you to express your thoughts. You already do this beautifully anyway. But public figures are essential for just this purpose becaue they remind those of us already predisposed to liberty that it is constantly threatened, and it may inspire those who have never tried that line of thinking before to put it into historical context.

I like what you said and how you said it, and if Kerry is anything, he is consistently the leader on this subject. There are a lot of blue voters in red states who watch C-Span and see Kerry and Kennedy speaking and they say to themselves, "Damn, Massachusetts gets both those guys, and my two senators are horse's asses."

Nice emphasis there on the role of dissent in American life.

[AuntiBush]

32. Sorry. I still like Kerry, Dean and Gore.

[glitch]

58. Me too. And Edwards, Clark, Kucinich,Boxer, Conyers, McDermott, Inslee etc

We had a lot of high quality candidates to choose from. Still do. And I like Algorithms, and Deaniac is good but I like Kerryac (reminds me of Kerouac).

My two cents.

[AuntiBush]

64. Yup. Neglected to mention them, as well!

Thank you, glitch. Make that 4 cents in total, now :)

[Mass]

71. Add Feingold. Waxman, and many others

[Pirate Smile]

149. Me too. I actually like most Democrats (excluding crazy Zell and

frequently Joementum).

Sometimes that feels like a crime around here.

[Neil Lisst]

42. I'm backing the winner, whoever it is. John, if it's him.

I'm sorry, but I can't help but lament that John was such a better speaker 35 years ago. Hell, even 20 years. He tries too much to sound statesmanlike, and it makes him too ponderous.

He's still gotta loosen up more, and tighten up his language. He rambles like grandpa.

[beachmom]

74. Did you watch the speech on C-SPAN?

If you haven't, please do. It's at the top of the screen:

http://c-span.org/Search/basic.asp?BasicQueryText=John+Kerry&SortBy=date

I think that was the best political speech I've ever seen in 20 years or more -- better than Barak Obama or any Clinton speech, because it has so much meat and emotion in it. Listen carefully, when he says we need "credibility in the world now". There is an urgency and emotion in his voice in a phrase he uttered so many times in 2004 that the sincerity just rings out. It gave me shivers up my spine. And listen to the audience -- it sounded like an old church revival! Gotta love those Mass libs!!

[Nordmadr]

194. Have you seen the Gore speech from Martin Luther King Day?

THAT was an incredibly emotional speech. Best I have seen in my adult life.

Olafr

[saltpoint]

148. My grandpa ran a machine shop and when he spoke, he could turn

the air blue.

Kerry is rarely off-color or risque' but I think he stays on topic in his addresses pretty well.

He doesn't cuss as much as my grandfather did, and to my knowledge doesn't play the fiddle as my other grandfather did, but neither of my grandfathers understood the Constitution and the spirit and letter of the law of the land as Senator Kerry does.

If I could adopt the man as a third grandfather, I'd do it.

[wiley]

55. This country doesn't understand anymore

Very few people have the level of understanding of the spoken word as used by orators and politicians just 40 years ago. A JFK speech? A Ted Kennedy speech? They express the truth and the fiber of over 200 years of Democracy and most people don't have the attention span, let alone the comprehension to fully understand what is being said. We have been corporatized to respond to 30 second commercials, and public relations nonsense. I can't stand to listen to Kerry, just because I know that most people just hear an arrogant, educated better than me accent and attitude. That's not the truth, but it's what they hear. There is no honest media that can even report what people are saying. If Kerry runs again the media will destroy him again, highlighting monosyllabic attacks on his character and every action by purported "opposing" viewpoints. It's okay for people who might benefit from having a certain corrupt politician - a Republican overwhelmingly - to level whatever charge they want against their candidate's opposition. They'll get their payoff. Their money. It would be very difficult to convince me that there is a Republican that cares anything about what is good for this country or its'people. And yes, Kerry should have started and never relented over voting fraud or irregularities, because we may have prevented some of the depth and scope of the corruption that exists today.

[HamdenRice]

61. Sadly Kerry's intelligence a nuance are a disadvantage

I think part of Kerry's problem is poll tested caution, but you are right, part is just that he is very smart and thinks in terms of nuance and complexity that can't be summarized in a 10 second sound bite.

But it seems to me that now that it is clear we have an insane, gangsta, compulsive liar president, we can actually bust out some very short, very accurate sound bites about our dire situation.

[wiley]

185. I really hope so.

* is not a stupid, uniformed person. He and his criminal entourage have brilliant plans to fleece this country, and the world of power and resources. They have been enormously successful. Now they want to bring in head consigliere James Baker III. They just know how to corrupt the speaking patterns of honest everyday people. They use language of the masses to deceive, incite and confuse. They use gut LCD issues that speak to basic human insecurities. They create the other as evil, threatening, insincere opportunists. Talk about irony!

[fedupinBushcountry]

79. To my knowledge

he has never stopped or relented over voting fraud or irregularities. But I'm just labeled a Kerry worshipper so whatever I say is characterized as a just defending Kerry. To hell with what is going on behind the scenes. It also takes more than one man to correct what is happening with our voting system.

[beachmom]

62. That is not how I understood his speech

What he was saying was that the Vietnam War and now the War in Iraq are wrong and immoral. Because they are immoral, they make us less safe. When America is a benign force in the world, then people are LESS likely to come over here and blow us up. I really liked this analysis, because it combined how we Democrats feel both with the head and the heart:

In our hearts, we think this war is wrong.
From our head, we fear that the wrongs we have committed in Iraq will come to haunt us once again on our shores.

He so eloquently puts it together here:

The raw justification for abandoning so many American traditions exposes the real danger of the Bush-Cheney Doctrine. We all understand we are in a long struggle against jihadist extremism. It does represent a threat to our vital security interests and our values. Even the Bush-Cheney Administration acknowledges this is preeminently an ideological war, but that’s why the Bush-Cheney Doctrine is so ill-equipped to fight and win it.

Our enemies argue that all our claims about advancing universal principles of human rights and mutual respect disguise a raw demand for American dominance. They gain every time we tolerate or cover up abuses of human rights in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, or among sectarian militias in Iraq, and especially when we defiantly disdain the rules of international law.

Our enemies argue that our invasion and occupation of Iraq reflect an obsession with oil supplies and commercial opportunities. They gain when our president and vice president, both former oil company executives, continue to pursue an oil-based energy strategy, and provide vast concessions in Iraq to their corporate friends.

And so there’s the crowning irony: the Bush-Cheney Doctrine holds that many of our great traditions cannot be maintained; yet the Bush-Cheney policies, by abandoning those traditions, give Osama bin Laden and his associates exactly what they want and need to reinforce their hate-filled ideology of Islamic solidarity against the western world.

Do you read the Iraqi blogs? I mean, they are NOT SAFE, and that trumps all of their other concerns. It's not enough to just say the war in Iraq is immoral; a leader needs to set a course for the USA that defends our national security while restoring our values that we hold dear. I will accept nothing less than that, nor will most voters.

If you don't like Kerry for '08, that is just fine -- that's why we have a primary. But this speech is a blueprint for any candidate in the Democratic Party -- he's saying that withdrawing from Vietnam made us safer in the long run. That is a BIG departure from what the talking heads keep repeating, and the mantra that Democrats are "weak on National Security". Kerry had the history to debunk that once and for all. Same goes with Iraq -- that war is weakening us. It's time for the Democrats to reclaim national security.

[HamdenRice]

77. It's not a terrible speech ...

and I agree with a lot in it. But even the quoted language gives me that "sinking" Kerry feeling. For example, you quoted the portion, in which he said,

"Our enemies argue that our invasion and occupation of Iraq reflect an obsession with oil supplies and commercial opportunities. They gain when our president and vice president, both former oil company executives, continue to pursue an oil-based energy strategy, and provide vast concessions in Iraq to their corporate friends."

On one hand, that is true; our enemies say that and it hurts us.

But it is also true that the war is about oil -- but that's like the third rail of national politics -- saying Bush is a liar who went to war at Cheney's behest to seize oil resources, just as PNAC documents said they would.

Am I an enemy of the US for recognizing that this is a war about oil, among other things?

And I am sure that Kerry knows it's a war about oil. But he won't say it, and that bothers me because it is a form of poll tested dishonesty. He is actually positing that a belief he probably holds is an enemy belief, because that's what middle America wants to hear -- that of course we would never go to war to "kick their ass and take their gas."

At some point, we are going to have to stop being polite and face the awful truth about just how terrible this war and the motivation for starting it really is.

[beachmom]

87. See, I think he IS saying what you're saying about the oil

I think he said it well and used ONLY THE FACTS.

I urge you to chew on this speech for a while. It's like fine wine, and for me continues to get better with every view.

[HamdenRice]

99. OK I can see that -- but that's the problem ...

I can see that interpretation of what he is saying, but it's kind of murky: The enemies say we are there for the oil. But Bush is pursuing oil-based strategies and giving contracts to friends.

Even after several readings, I'm not sure what he is saying. Is it that the Halliburton contracts are a really, really bad coincidence that make it look like we're there for the oil? Or are we there for the oil?

That's my biggest problem with him as a national leader.

[beachmom]

116. But that's all we've got to go on -- the facts

Kerry can't get inside Bush's and Cheney's heads (oh -- scary thought). So he gives the facts, and how they look and are perceived.

To be honest, I really have no idea why * went into Iraq. I know for sure now that it wasn't over WMD. But I really don't why he did it. Was it oil or Halliburton or remaking the Middle East or avenging for his Dad? I don't know. Nor does Kerry. When asked why * went into Iraq, he just said "* was hell bent for regime change". He didn't answer WHY * wanted regime change, because it's still, when it comes down to it, a mystery.

Have any other senators or congressmen/women said that * went into Iraq for oil? Because I felt like Kerry has gone the farthest in making that link. But maybe you have some quotes from some other politicians?

[blm]

97. Except Kerry's speech here sounds exactly like Kerry in 71 - there was no

poll taken then, and no poll taken now. In fact, the Dem pollsters want Dems to avoid anti-war talk. Kerry has been ignoring them.

Your criticism sound like it's coming straight from Joe Klein's new book.

[sandnsea]

106. But see, he's said that too

He has point blank said we can't be the world's oil cops and he's point blank said that our troops are protecting oil pipelines and shipping lanes. What the hell do you think he meant when he said no more troops to fight for oil. Or relying on ourselves for energy and not the Saudi royal family.

In this speech, he point blank said "They gain when our president and vice president, both former oil company executives, continue to pursue an oil-based energy strategy, and provide vast concessions in Iraq to their corporate friends."

If he said every single thing you wanted him to say in every single speech, he'd be there all day. And then you'd criticize him for being long-winded.

[politicasista]

88. Trashing a good democrat just to promote others. How pathetic n/t

[saltpoint]

158. This thread, and many others, cites more high profile Democrats,

including the standard bearer for 2004, John Kerry.

But for the sake of argument, let's say the 2008 ticket is Dale Bumpers (D-Arkansas, former U.S. Senator and brave, articulate defender of Bill Clinton in the Lewinsky impeachment proceeding) and Evan Bayh (current junior senator of Indiana).

Perhaps neither of these folks is many of our personal darlings. Let's try getting over it and deciding that even if the ticket is comprised of people we might not personally choose first, it is nevertheless better than the cat butcherers and cement brains the GOP is likely to nominate from their roster.

Past what shade of blue you like best, don't you still like blue over red?

[blm]

92. Kerry LEADING normalization with Vietnam efforts was a SUCCESS and

he had successfully overcome alot of post Vietnam anger directed at him for many years. I don't understand WHY you would say that he never overcame any of the stigma directed at his efforts, when the normalization with Vietnam indeed happened only BECAUSE of Kerry's work. Were you never aware of it? Did you think Clinton did it? McCain? NOPE. kerry led it and made it happen - a SUCCESS.

It was only the lying plan of GOP machine that worked to control the broadcast media in the 80s and 90s that made Kerry appear to be what he never was - unsuccessful.

The swifts and Bush could never have done it without that complicity - proven by the data in DU's research forum - media mysteriously never showed up on August 19, 2004 at the Firefighters Convention speech where Kerry attacked the swifts and their GOP handlers for an hour. No media covered the speech. Few even reported it happened.

[saltpoint]

150. True. He did NOT please a lot of people then but did it anyway and

spoke from the heart with his good mind to the corrupt power of the Nixon administration.

They were not in his league. You know the line about "He who has ears to hear..." -- I felt that Kerry then, as now, presents that challenge.

You are right to say what you've said, and the point you're making resonates both before the 2004 election, and I believe will resonate long after it, too.

[HamDon]

108. Excellent, I agree 95%

"Moderates" = Corporatist DLC shills. Kerry is in that group. We need an opposition party, not a conciliation party. You don't oppose someone by adopting a "Lite" version of them.

On edit: I don't have enough posts to recommend, but I tried.

[blm]

112. Guess you didn't know Kerry wrote the public financing of campaign bill to

get corporate money OUT of politics - McCain-Feingold was pushed after Kerry's bill to calm the corporatists. Kerry never accepted corporate pac money in any of his senate campaigns.

Kerry helped craft the Kyoto Protocol with other world leaders, and added language protecting both workers and the environment - something corporations were against.

Kerry has also been a longtime advocate to steer one third of all government contracts to small businesses - corporations were not happy with that.

Even after 21 years, Kerry has the best environmental record in congress - you can't manage that stat as a corporate shill.

[ProSense]

113. What a stretch!

Of course, I'm expecting "wrong." Is there anyone who doesn't think the war is "wrong" -- either morally, strategically, legally or constitutionally?

That's like there is no case to be made. Bush, the active duty generals and the other almost half the country that still thinks the war is worth fighting have made up their minds that the war is morally wrong. Where is that statistic? If that were the case we'd be watching the pull out now. Just because you've always had this position, don't assume that the rest of the country is right there with you. There are still people advocating staying in Iraq, but changing strategy.

The speech was about the right to dissent; the right to not agree with Bush's policies. Dissent and other constitutional rights are being trampled on. So why are you making light of a really grave situation?

Didn't they attack the seven Generals who spoke out?

You say this isn't about Vietnam, but it is in more ways than Kerry's connection. There are many other players from that era who promoted and encouraged this war for the same reasons.

Remember censure? Remember spying? Parallels were made all over this board to Watergate.

It's amazing watch the twisting going on around here. Why won't the Democrats speak up? I remember the calls for Kerry to make a public statement in support of censure.

Well, now he's made a public statement calling for withdrawal from a "morally, strategically, legally or constitutionally" wrong war, and you are offended.

These are dire times, and referencing the mistakes being made that parallel mistakes of the past is extremely important and appropriate.

You're in the mood for the truth? Go back and look at Kerry speech against the war before it started. Fast forward to the campaign when he repeated over and over "Wrong war, Wrong time, Wrong place."


And why are you hoping he doesn't run? What's the threat? That he might win the primaries?


Tell the truth!

[GeorgeGist]

186. Does this not tell you that Kerry is still uncertain of his position...

'now he's made a public statement calling for withdrawal from a "morally, strategically, legally OR constitutionally" wrong war . I find his OR indefensible.

[ProSense]

187. Yikes! Those are the OP's words. Did you read/listen to the speech? n/t

[merkins]

123. K & R

There were 12 Kerry stories in the Greatest Threads page a day or so ago .. such a 'coincidence' ..

[0007]

125. bttft

[debbierlus]

128. Kerry WILL run, make no mistake!

But, UNTIL HE ADDRESSES THE FACT THAT WE HAVE HAD TWO STOLEN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, I can't support him.

He betrayed us. ALL of us.

[rox63]

131. The ENTIRE DEM PARTY needs to get behind that effort

One person can't do it on his own.

And for those who are making fun of Kerry supporters, may I point out that the people who most often defend Kerry against criticism mostly try not to trash other Democrats. I wish that could be said of supporters of other potential 2008 candidates. Yes, I am a Kerry supporter. But I have no beef with Gore, Dean, Feingold, Clark, Kucinich, or most other Democrats. I wish them all well. But I just hope my candidate wins. We accomplish nothing positive by tearing each other and each other's candidates apart.

Oh, and we're KerryCrats, not 'Kerryettes'. :P

[BooScout]

140. Much better.....

It's not sexist. I defer to you. :evilgrin: (It's hard to be pithy on the spur of the moment when thinking up labels:evilgrin: )

[Imagevision]

134. Well, if we're lucky we'll have Feingold...n/t

[dogday]

135. Now you are talking

That's who I like.... I just read his education---very impressive....


Education
Harvard University Law School, Juris Doctor with Honors, 1979
Rhodes Scholar, Final Honours School of Jurisprudence, Magdalen College, Oxford University, Bachelor of Arts with Honours, 1977
University of Wisconsin – Madison, Phi Beta Kappa, Bachelor of Arts with Honors, 1975
Janesville Craig High School, Janesville, Wisconsin, 1971

[saltpoint]

151. I believe you and I should challenge any Republican in my family or

yours to defend any fool the Rethugs send up gainst any gleaming star we offer to voters.

I believe we should slap the crap out of any Republican who believes their platform is more representative of the spirit of the Constitution than the Democratic platform.

I'll take the left cheek, you take the right cheek, and then when the Rethugs find they can't present a sound argument against ALL our candidates, let's both haul their sorry asses to the dumpster.

Deal?

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

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

[saltpoint]

145. "Gee, I hope my humble self doesn't come across as a Kerry-basher..."

--and then you proceed to open fire. As usual. The same old crap from people who refuse to acknowledge an accomplished adult in a manner appropriate to that level of accomplishment.

Why not try this:

_ _ _

Kerry's accomplishments as a citizen and as a senator are exemplary. No question. Not to subtract from that accomplishment, I may consider candidacies by ____ or ____ for the primaries in 08.

If Kerry wins the nomination, I will support the Democratic ticket against the Republicans, who are likely to nominate another perfect asshole to THEIR ticket.
_ _ _

I wouldn't think that's too hard a position to take. I wouldn't think that the tone would incite the level of hostility this one and others like it always do on these boards.

[ecstatic]

143. I agree with you & I don't support Kerry nor Gore for 08

Sorry, but I will not forgive them for not counting the votes. It's just as simple as that. That is where I draw my line in the sand. You guys are free to set your line elsewhere. (Though, if I had to choose I'd pick Gore--Kerry's inability to just SAY WHAT THE HELL HE MEANS is just plain irritating).

[zulchzulu]

144. Kerry is a statesman, not a foul-mouthed hothead

I'm sure you've read how Conyers appreciates the efforts that Kerry and Edwards have made in terms of the Ohio vote. Also, Kerry is firmly speaking out against the war...granted his style is not that of some chest-beating heavyweight professional wrestler...but he certainly is making great points and demanding change.

As for you lumping him into the "moderate" category, perhaps you've read how he was voted the "most liberal senator" during the election. Perhaps you could educate us with what he is "moderate" about...

As for Kerry running iin 2008, you can bet that I certainly hope he does and am willing to challenge anyone who backs their candidate of choice to do what they must. There is plenty of support for Kerry to run in 2008. I know who I'm going to work my butt off for...

[saltpoint]

147. I applaud your word there, 'statesman,' and I applaud it long and loud.

That's exactly what he is. A very useful frame of reference for an accomplished public servant.

Thanks for being so surgically exact.

Bravo, and bravo again.

[Ms. Clio]

153. A very careful and thoughtful analysis

You really have identified -- for me, at least -- the source of "the rub" when it comes to Kerry and Clinton:

"Most Democrats, many independents and disgruntled real conservatives now believe the war is wrong. There is no price to pay by saying so. The people who will take offense at the phrase, "the Iraq War is wrong," can never be won over by John Kerry. It's a freebie, John! You can tell the un-poll-tested truth on this one!"


Exactamente.

[saltpoint]

155. I for one hope Howell Heflin doesn't run for president again.

I say so with conviction because after all, the son-of-a-bitch is dead.

I frankly don't feel he qualifies, quite, for the run, and I feel his corpse, trotted around on a wagon from primary to primary, would be a turn-off for many party activists.

But apart from the late Senator Heflin, I will be out there rooting for the Democratic ticket, no matter if it's headed by Kerry, Edwards, Warner, HClinton, Gore, Kucinich, Clark, and on and on and on and on and on. Spare me the corpse of Howell Heflin. But give me any of our other people and I am THERE at party HQ in my district, stuffing envelopes and making phone calls to get the vote out.

I would like to see this as a starting point for posts about candidacies on DU instead of split-'em-up & piss-'em-off threads all the time.

[blm]

156. I've read your post 4 times now and it is a CROCK!

You are scared of Kerry because you know there isn't anyone who is going to beat him in the debates. And because speeches like his from Saturday are almost always HISTORIC, where you can't say the same thing about others with any honesty.

YOU can't take any other Democratic lawmaker's record and compare it issue by issue and battle by battle, because NONE of them have taken on the serious battles that Kerry did.

In fact, it can be argued that Gore set up his dirty song lyric hearings to take attention away from the serious efforts to expose the corruption of Reagan-Bush administrations.

Clinton and Gore certainly did NOT open the books on the Bush corruption when they gave in to Greenspan to keep them closed.

I trust Gore about 90% right now - he would have to pledge to open the books on all of it to earn the 100% that Kerry gets from me. Kerry tried to get the books opened up through legal means and there was always someone Repub or Dem working to stop that from happening.

[saltpoint]

157. It might be more to our purposes if we let the Republicans rip

each other's flesh over whether their party should march lockstep to the fundies' commands.

I see that as a potential disaster for them politically. Too many of their potential candidates are vying for that demographic, and the bloodbath that is waiting to happen is going to be real good for our side.

We're not competing for that vote.

As a consequence, we should not act as if we were. I would hope we could agree that the Republicans are our enemy and that if we draw together and work hard, our odds of defeating them goes way up. Negative energy debases all our candidates, doesn't it? It lowers the bar and lessens our line-up of options. If you limit your choices, you lower your odds.

[LittleClarkie]

160. Nevermind 2008. Nevermind getting behind him.

Can you get behind his plan? That's what's important at the moment.

[Generator]

164. I agree with a lot of what you said

(the place I don't might bug you though) but first, Kerry is a brilliant man. But I've come to the conclusion he's not a leader. Leaders LEAD and get others to follow them. He doesn't seem to inspire that in those he needs the most-in the senate. Either that or they are all a bunch of weasels-weasels I'm begged to vote for or the world will end.Well, at the moment the thought of voting AT ALL makes me queasy. Sick to my stomach. THAT's how bad the post traumatic stress of November 2nd, 2004 is for me. But I digress. The 10 tonne elephant in the room: YOU WERE ELECTED KERRY but the votes weren't counted. It makes everything else pale in comparison. It makes all the horror since that day seem well yes, Like KERRY's FAULT to some degree. But of course, it's not, not really.

But you are dead on: he won't EVER just say the war is wrong, get the hell out now-it's all based on lies-forgive ME for voting for this blunder. I was wrong. Follow me into the streets. (yes I dream) He won't be blunt. Clear. He won't risk not being a politican. AGAIN. Real leaders RISK something. That's why some of them become great and some are failures. But he is obviously on the bandwagon because well there is a bandwagon in town-the gig is up-everyone knows the gig is up-it's SAFE now for him to tell the truth. And that's what pisses people off.

Democracy itself is a sham to me since I don't trust the voting. There's your elephant again. A nice speech is essentianly meaningless. Resigning and leading protests into the streets until the war ends-again a dream-but he's JUST a bloody politician. And will go down in history as such-nothing but a bloody politician. Not a leader. I guess my contempt for politicians is showing. I can barely hold back the spittle at this point.

AND YES DEAD on-the DEMOCRATS need to just fucking tell the truth. Enough with "we have a plan". How about telling us we are being raped and they want it stopped? That's what I want.

Oh and the bad part-this Al Gore retro fantasy to me is absurd. He's not going to run. He wouldn't win. You can't turn back history. It's sweet, really. But it's a fantasy. And for truth telling-let's look forward not back. AND YEAH he was elected too. And also let it go. Is also capable of giving "nice speeches." Big fucking deal.

[FrenchieCat]

167. Kerry is a good man....even a great man,

but I wouldn't want to see him running again....cause we did that already, and it didn't turn out too good for us.

They called John Kerry a "Closer", but that only seem to apply against Democratic candidates in primaries....where, I will give it to him; he was good at playing a bit of dirty ball when required....but when he got into the General Election....then he seem to get a bit too anxious about being offensive and how the media was going to portray him. It made him lose his leader luster.

Just like when "They" accused him of using Botox. If I was Kerry, I would have said.....and Arnold the Governator had a full face lift, AND?

Or when they accused him of "Windsurfing" like an elitist would...Kerry should have said...."At least I'm not scared of horses like a future ex CIC I happen to be running against!"


That would have shut "their" mouths up about it!

John Kerry needed some quick comebacks....and he should have used them over and over again....till everyone heard.

[mtnsnake]

170. Yes he should have

You're absolutely right, and I think it would have made a huge difference. Hopefully the next candidate will be more prepared with comebacks, no matter whom he or she may be.

[karynnj]

209. As written, you assume the Botox story was true

It wasn't and Kerry's people including Teresa denied it. That story showed how sick the Republicans were. They took an old photo from the time right after Kerry had cancer surjury. The treatment had caused him to lose about 20 pounds. He looked awful. The "after" photo was about a half year later when Kerry had recovered and had gained back some of the weight. This was nasty, because they were baiting the Kerry people to say that he was just over cancer treatments.

Joking that Arnold had a face lift, would seem to confirm the story. Kerry's people did mention a list of Kerry's atheletic abilities. (The story that Bush is afraid of horses is common knowlege on DU, but unknown in the real world as far I have ever seen.)

[wisteria]

169. It was a speech, not a statement ! It covered dissent, patriotism

and the war in Iraq. Speeches - good speeches anyway- veer off in several directions engaging us and challenging us, and in the end neatly pull it all together.
I got the distinct impression that Kerry did say the war was wrong. Nothing was spun. The end of the speech challenged us when he said. when our country is wrong make it right.

IMO, it was one of the clearest, honest and bold speeches I have ever heard him give.

[Blaukraut]

171. You're reaching

John Kerry has been saying 'wrong war, wrong place, wrong time' for months now. For you to pick ONE sentence out of a 40 minute speech, where he DOESN'T use the word 'wrong' to describe the war, and for you then to claim he is only denouncing it in terms of bad policy, is disingenous. That is not at all how this speech came across in its total context.

[MH1]

174. "Disingenuous" is an awfully nice way to put it.

But I guess a more accurate characterization would not be allowed.

[saltpoint]

176. As a document, a written piece, it gleamed.

A persuasive and dynamic address on all counts.

In order for there to be great poets, Whitman believed, there first must be great audiences.

True in politics as well.

[Placebo]

172. CLINTON '08

Deal with it.

[saltpoint]

173. The little elves tell me that Senator Clinton will be well back of the

pack in the Iowa caucuses.

A good senator in the overall, no doubt, and well-funded and well-connected. But not the winner of the Iowa caucuses, nor New Hampshire a week later.

[mtnsnake]

177. If so, then Kerry will have a nice blond to keep him company back there

;)

[saltpoint]

178. LOL. But we'd better be quiet... I don't want to wake up Jim Dobson.

You know how SENSITIVE he is!

[mtnsnake]

182. Don't worry. Dobson's too tired out playing with Songebob videos!

[saltpoint]

183. LOL! And unfortunately, I can VISUALIZE it!

And that's not good!

[Clarkie1]

181. She peaked too soon.

My sense of things is the peak was a couple months ago, just a sense of things I have.

More importantly, my guess is the people of Iowa don't like being informed years before the fact whom they are nearly certain to favor. Like most people (particularly Americans), when push comes to shove and the lights are on them I'm sure they will wish to assert themselves in a way that demonstrates they are perfectly capable of making up their own minds, and are not sheeple.

[saltpoint]

184. I'm not counting anybody out, but as I say, the elves have spoken.

I'm trying to picture all those farms and fields in Iowa, with our candidates tromping through them. It's going to be crowded in those coffee shops.

Senator Clinton is a big presence in the party right now, but I think it's lazy for the media to discount the chances of other candidates. And as you say, Iowans probably would like to make their own minds up in these matters.

A very good point.

[karynnj]

179. The line reads beautifully and KERRY SAID WRONG WAR,

wrong place, wrong time - at least 1000 times in October 2004. Your parsing of the sentence makes no sense as their are many words used - did you miss that he used the word immoral (to continue when a policy can't suceed. Kerry is telling the truth.

Neither Al Gore or Howard Dean have spoken of withdrawal in the near future. Kerry's ultimatum is the strongest statement at this point and Feingold agrees with it,

Lumping Kerry with Clinton on this issue is completely off-base.

As one who was fortunate enough to be in Faneuil Hall, I can tell you the audience perceived absolutely no ambiguity.

[katinmn]

189. Great post, HamdenRice!

:thumbsup:

[Dr Ron]

190. WRONG WAR, WRONG PLACE, WRONG TIME

This is quite lame. Kerry attacks the war--as he has done since the beginning, and you object because of such wording. Kerry has called the war wrong many times, as when he called the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." If you want to hear wrong you got it in that quote alone.

[Nordmadr]

191. I watched both Kerry's and Gore's speeches. While I thought Kerry

did a good job, and I liked what he had to say...Gore's speech brought tears to my eyes. It touched me on a patriotic and emotional level that Kerry did not even come close to hitting. With that said, dependent on who the other candidates in the upcoming election are, I could vote for Kerry again. Gore and Feingold would both rank above him at the moment though.

Olafr
32 year old Persian Gulf Naval Veteran
USS Lake Erie (CG-70)
GMG2

[mdmc]

192. The war is a mistake

say it Kerry! Say it!

[ProSense]

195. You may have missed this.

Kerry accuses Bush
of ‘colossal error’ in Iraq

MSNBC
Updated: 11:16 a.m. ET Oct. 1, 2004

CORAL GABLES, Fla. - Sen. John Kerry assailed President Bush’s prosecution of the war in Iraq in the first presidential debate Thursday night, accusing the president of “a colossal error of judgment” as the candidates finally faced each other after a torrent of speeches and hostile television advertisements.

Snip...

“I made a mistake in talking about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6123725

[mdmc]

196. what was the "colossal error of judgment" that Bush made?

Was it invading Iraq based on WMD, or was it not planning for the occupation? What did he mean that "he made a mistake about talking about the war"?

[Dr Ron]

198. Both

Kerry has criticized Bush both for invading and for the inept way he handled the invasion.

The mistake in talking about the war he mentions is the line on voting for the funds before voting against them. The idea made sense (he voted for the funds in one resolution and against in another when the two differed) but obviously this was not a good way to word it.

[mdmc]

203. thanks for your post

peace

[mdmc]

202. Thanks for the link. I read it in its entirety

this one point kinda get me-

Kerry repeated his charge that Bush had made “a colossal error of judgment” in Iraq, wasting $200 billion that could have been better spent on domestic priorities.

Two points:
1) If this money was used on the homeland, 9-11-01 could have been avoided. 9-11-01 was a result of putting profit over security.
2) Kerry should have been saying this from 9-11-01 on. This should have been the focus from the start of the war.

I kind of feel that Kerry, and all pro-war dems (read: All dems except Ted Kennedy, and the black / progressive caucus) waited to see how the war played out before criticizing it. It made them look like they supported the war (Kerry stated that "he would make America safer then Bush had made it." Bush didn't make America safe, he put us in more jeopardy) until the war went bad. Once the war went bad, suddenly Bush was wrong. Bush was always wrong, and the Dems "support of the troops" got in the way of effectively curbing the Bush rush to war. True support of the troops would have been to keep them out of Iraq until diplomacy had failed, AND until diplomacy was set to work universally to disarm Iraq.

True leadership is saying what is right, even if it is unpopular. Calling Bush out on the war should have been done from 9-11-01 on. Kerry waited to oppose the war too long, imo.

[ProSense]

206. Actually

He spoke out about it before it started:

I believe the Bush Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world.

Snip…

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

http://kerry.senate.gov/high/record.cfm?id=189831

[mdmc]

208. it "can" make America stronger

NO!
The process (international diplomacy) is the only way to make America safer.

The problem I am having is it seems that he hedges his bet.

This is also all in the past. I think that Kerry was the best choice for America (I don't think that Dean, or Lieberman, or Edwards would have done any better), but I still prefer Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich over Kerry. Kerry is more electable.

I have pretty much given up on progressive liberalism. Whoever the Dems nominate in 2008 will get my vote. I know that we will never get a radical elected, but that doesn't stop me from trying.

Peace and low stress.