I think its More Honest to Go with Kerry Now. I am tired of the games.

[Sensitivity]

I didn't want to post on this tonight. It's such a sad day.

But as I watch TV and heard people talking about joining Edwards because of "bad feelings" towards Kerry, it made me think that we are betraying our own goals for the sake of petty anger.

The reality is, I think Kerry has a better attitude than Edwards towards things. And most Dean supporters probably think the same but there is just a sick impulse to keep the animosity going.

Kerry seems to be more disturbed about the war and less easy-going regarding the problems in Iraq and the “war on terror.”

Kerry seems to have genuine feelings for the people around him especially some of the guys he has kept in touch with since Vietnam. I think it was the 60 minutes interview when he seemed near tears about that war and the people who came through it with him. I don’t get the feeling that he would have dropped the bombs in Iraq.

It just seems that there is more in Kerry’s background that is relevant to being President. Edwards has the advantage of a short record with less for Bush to attack him with. But that seems a rather shallow argument for being president.

I have gone over some of the Kerry stuff and there seems to be so many phases in his public career to build a story from. I think it is going to be a long campaign. I think Dean peaked partly because there wasn’t much more to say after a certain point. I think the same thing will happen with Edwards. With Kerry I think we can keep a story going because of all the different angles – the Vet angle, the environmentalist thing, the senate investigations, the various wars.

I think that to really keep our movement going we have to build our leader into something larger than life. Now that Dean is out, it think that will have to be Kerry. If Kerry had voted against the war, I think it would have been him anyway.

I know this probably seems shallow to the brains here at DU. But this is what I, and most of my friends, are thinking. We want to keep going in the fight to get rid of Bush. Joining the Kerry camp now seems like the honest thing to do.

[aquart]

1. Eat something and take a nap.

[EXE619K]

2. Not much of a choice nowadays....

Kerry or Edwards....

I hope that you will cast your vote for Dean in the primaries.

We still need your votes so that we may carry our message on to Boston.

However, Kerry or Edwards would also be a fine choice.

[WatchWhatISay]

3. I'll probably be joining you

but I would like to review their voting records over the last three years to determine who capitulated to Bush more often.

Sad day for me too. I just retired my avatar.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=35530

Here's a hug, Sensitivity! :pals:

[MurikanDemocrat]

4. Doesn't sound shallow at all - just the opposite. It sounds mature and

intelligent, reasonable and very reflective.

I'm sorry for your loss. I'm also glad you will continue to fight for the ultimate goal to get rid of Bush.

Cheers

[hedgetrimmer]

18. Words are trances

and lots of trances are trying to be relevant here.

I am not in a trance.

My ultimate goal is not to get rid of bush, my ultimate goal is to get a better world.

My ultimate goal is not a trance.

What Dean represented was inspiration for change, the lose of that is heartbreak... I feel it, the heartbreak.

Kerry does not inspire me; I'm not inspired for the hope of a better world.

many blessings-

[TheDonkey]

5. Thank you for sharing!

Kerry has a hard fight ahead of him, but we can do it.

[union_maid]

6. I tend to agree, but you have my sympathy

I was a Clark supporter and I'm probably going to vote for Kerry in my primary. I liked them all in one way or another - except Lieberman. He's the only one I haven't missed as they've started dropping out. Dean supporters are a different stripe and I know this is a very sad day for you. It's not all bad. Dean has made a huge impression and I'm sure if he decides he still wants a place on the national stage he'll find one. I applaud you for working to make a constructive and informed choice even though you must be majorly bummed at the moment.

(You know, I just reread my post and I realized that I don't much miss Gephardt either. I don't dislike him. I just forgot he'd been running. I kept doing that when he was still in, too. Do you think that was part of the problem for him?)

[Sensitivity]

7. Isn't it amazing. So many of us feel the same way but can't get together

I also won't miss Gep. How Kerry doesn't chose him as V.P.
Have you seen any hints from the Kerry folk.

[WiseMen]

42. Don't forget to MeetUp

[arwalden]

8. Paragraph #2... BRAVO!

-- Allen

[IndianaGreen]

9. Edwards is more likable than Kerry, and he is from working class roots

Edwards also does not have the waffling factor that Kerry has, and is not a Washington insider.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

12. LOL! I guess ABK is principled but ABB is not

I might remind you that nobody from the Gingrich revolution was a "Washington insider" either.

I'm not terribly fond of outsider reformers whose path to Washington is not as easily transparent as the moeny trail of established politicians. I guess what I don't know MIGHT hurt me...not hurling that at Edwards but at this saintly notion of the words "Washington outsider."

[bushwakker]

28. Everyone runs as an outsider - it has ceased to mean anything

I can't stand hearing thjat BS from a candidate and wish Kerry would cut that crap out. If he wins it will be because people trust that he has the experience for the job.

[WillyBrandt]

13. Edwards is unrepentant about his support of the Iraq War

Kerry didn't support the war, and has never said so; he made a stupid and/or cowardly choice in voting for IWR.

I'll take half-way there over no where close.

[IndianaGreen]

16. Kerry bragged about his war vote when the troops arrived in Baghdad

It wasn't until the occupation started to go sour that Kerry began to sing another tune.

[hedgetrimmer]

20. Everybody dies

alone...

it does not matter what team you are on, it does not matter who's hands you've held... there is nothing you can do to change that, everybody dies alone.

-many blessings.

[flpoljunkie]

36. WillyBrandt, please read John Kerry's floor speech before the Iraq Vote...

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

Excerpted part of speech:

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq. Nor does it mean we have exhausted all of our peaceful options to achieve this goal. There is much more to be done. The administration must continue its efforts to build support at the United Nations for a new, unfettered, unconditional weapons inspection regime. If we can eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction through inspections, whenever, wherever, and however we want them, including in palaces--and I am highly skeptical, given the full record, given their past practices, that we can necessarily achieve that--then we have an obligation to try that as the first course of action before we expend American lives in any further effort.

[KittyWampus]

38. Edwards As An OUTSIDER? Bizarro Statement Getting Repeated

He IS an insider- the man has an office and job IN WASHINGTON.

He is also NOT from a poor background.

He thinks Iraq was justified EVEN KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW NOW.

Frankly, your inconsistency about the Iraq War is appalling.

[efront]

40. Yeah, try to be consistent about Iraq like General Clark

Cryingshame...closet Edwards supporter!!!

[WiseMen]

41. I think this is too much to take. Sharpton is the only real "outsider"

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. I thought you were already a Kerry fan

based on your posts for the last few days and weeks...did you just put the Dean avatar there or did I miss it?

[Adelante]

11. These are such tough times

But congratulations on sorting it out and best of luck.

:toast:

[WiseMen]

14. Dean: "The bottom line is, we must beat George Bush"

[ShaneGR]

15. Lets just go with the one who destroyed us

Who ran the campaign that took down Dean? Who push-polled? Who sent out misleading literature? Who's donors ran an ad comparing Dean to Osama Bin Laden? Who I wonder....

The guy you're now backing.

[Deathadder]

19. He's right about that Dean People

So voice your influence for change, Support Dennis Kucinich

[Sensitivity]

22. But can Dennis beat Bush? Isn't it better to make Kerry better than

spend cycles on DK. He seems to have good grassroots support already,
just not the winning elections.

[Deathadder]

26. Yeah

What can I say, elitism, not issues or honesty, or voting, gets you elected right? And nobodies able to beat Bush, until they've beat Bush. Our party needs to stop underestimating the Bush gang. A candidate is going to need more than just momentum to beat Bush, they'll need issues and a history of working those issues.

[capriccio]

21. Back on track

Gee, this thread got off to such a contemplative and hopeful start, but down here at the end, we seem to be into some disheartening business implicating John Kerry in a nasty ad linking Dean to Osama. What we need right about now, I'd say, is some of that John Edwards positivity...

[Democat]

25. Bush is the one who destroyed U.S.

Isn't beating him more important than punishing the one who voters chose over your candidate?

[emulatorloo]

33. Standard Repug Dirty Tricks. . . .from Repugs

The push poll for example was textbook GOP and designed to slam both Dean and Kerry. . .both have Jewish relatives, both have the same position on Gays and Civil Unions.

See Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Tell Them re push polling -- the questions used were more or less the same.

Kerry's campaign denounced OSAMA ad. Kerry campaign did not do that ad. Rumor and innuendo.

Dean sent out "misleading literature" too. . .

[KittyWampus]

39. And Edwards Teamed Up With Kucinich.

[AnnitaR]

17. It just sucks that it's come down to this!

We have only those two to choose from. However, it's reality. I struggled with trying to figure out who could best take on Bush. I came to the conclusion it's Kerry.

I must say that wasn't easy for me to admit. He was never an option for me while Clark was in the race. Once Clark got out I had to take some time out to grieve. It took me a while to make a decision.

I like Edwards. I think he is a fine man. He's a very likable person. He has charisma out the wazoo. I just don't think it's his time. His lack of foreign policy experience was a big issue with me. I have no doubt that if Edwards were our nominee the Pukes would really play on this countries fears. Kerry can best stand up against that type of thing. They would not be able to use that against Kerry. In the end Kerry is the best choice to stand up to Bush. I doubt it will happen but if Kerry were to choose Clark as his running mate I think we would win by huge numbers.

[Old and In the Way]

23. Fair enough...thoughtful post.

I think you're going to feel a lot better about your decision as we progress through the year. Kerry will make us a great Democratic President.

[ibegurpard]

24. Kind of insulting to assume that would be the ONLY reason

that someone who previously supported Dean would not throw in with Kerry. You know that there are people who supported Dean even though they disagreed with him on a number of specific issues?

[Sly Kal]

27. umm

LOL

<<Joining the Kerry camp now seems like the honestthing to do.>>

[robbedvoter]

29. Honest? I dunno. Practical, in November - yes.

At least, unlike Edwards he wouldn't have started the war in Iraq and knows who Itzac Rabin is.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/10/news-ireland.php
“One evening while he was campaigning for the Senate in North Carolina, Edwards was faced with a choice of several events he might attend. An advance man suggested, ‘Maybe we ought to go to the reception for Leah Rabin.’ ‘Who’s she?’ ‘Yitzhak Rabin’s widow,’ replied the aide. ‘Who was he?’ asked Edwards.”

Small consolation but....Since I no longer can vote FOR someone...

[T_i_B]

30. Yes

I have been undecided about who to give the all important Thankfully_in_Britain endorsement to ever since Bob Graham dropped out, but I am very strongly considering endorsing Kerry at present. I do not like the look of Edwards at all. He just seems like a Tony Blair wannabe who is dead wrong on Iraq and sucks on trade. Kerry is not perfect, but now that Dean & Clark have gone he does look like the best man in it.

[w4rma]

31. Britian isn't a country that American employers and workers have a problem

with. IMHO, trade with Britain will never get worse, only better, particularly if we can do something about trade agreements that force their nations' workers to work as if they were slaves.

It's countries like India, China, Indonesia and Mexico that are the problem. Britain has similar standards to the U.S. and so trade with Britain will only get better.

[T_i_B]

32. Damm those poor countries trying to get rich

Damm them for trying to get economic growth and a better way of life by trading. Damm them!

If poor countries can makew something better then us, the let them do so. Bush's steel tariffs didn't work and neither will any protectionism from the Dems.

[w4rma]

34. The result of free trade has not been that at all.

It has been to move those countries' resources to a few people in power and give them an excuse, to give their citizens, to keep their salaries, benefits and working conditions as pitiful as possible.

[T_i_B]

35. Actually no

It might not seem much to us in the west, but working in a factory is a step up from subistence farming and it gives these countries the best chance to develop and get to the stage we are at.

The best way forward is not shutting our doors to the 3rd world but opening up on such industries as textiles and agriculture.

[WiseMen]

37. Caution: This is a debate on substance. Shocking. But I agree. Unfair for

U.S. to insist, under penalty of IMF and WordBank load loss, that
other countries have free trade, then try to block trade when it
helps other countries.

The solution is reform of the economic practice within the U.S. and reform of labor practice outside. But it is not the "right" of the
U.S. not to be harmed by the free market that, for the most part,
operates in its interest.

[thebigthink]

43. Shallow?

Not hardly, grasshopper. Not by half. That was easily the most sincere and self searching post I've read all night here in this nest of cynics.

You done real good.