International DUers, what do you make of John Kerry?

[T_i_B]

Just curious on this one as I am strongly considering giving John Kerry the ahem, all important Thankfully_in_Britain endorsement for what it's worth, after months of being undecided about who is the best candidate in your elections. I'd just like to see all my fellow non-US DUers think of Kerry and his candidacy.

By the way, I have heard more people over here in the UK commenting on Kerry than on any other candidate. Not all good impressions either! The odd thing is that the thing I dislike most about Kerry, namely his National Service policy is the thing that makes a lot of the people who are apprehensive about Kerry think twice in my experience!

Here's the website BTW.

http://www.johnkerry.com/

[liberalnurse]

1. Do you live in a state that

will have a Primary in March?

[T_i_B]

5. Here's what happened at the UK primary in London

US Citizens only I belive, which counts me out. :-( Still, the presidential elections affect us all and there are plenty of non-US DUer's on here to prove it.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3475971.stm

Watching a Democrat caucus in action, it is hard to believe that the US is seriously considering touch-screen voting machines.
The way the party selects its champion to try to boot President Bush out of the White House looks more like a schoolyard scrum than a 21st-Century political process.

The venue for the caucus had been switched at the last minute to a downtown London hotel conference hall when it became clear that the meeting could get more than the 200 people originally planned for.

It was lucky they made the change - because at 1900 when the event was supposed to start, the queue of people registering to participate snaked out of the room, down the corridor, through hotel reception, out into the car park and well down the street.

[sadiesworld]

2. With Clark out, Kerry has the best shot at beating Bush...

and that is all that really matters.

[liberalnurse]

3. Don't forget........

If kerry looks in his rear view mirror......"Object may look closer than they appear".......


kerry does not even come close to measuring up to Clark when compared by military credentials.

[sadiesworld]

6. Edwards is doing well because the media want him to be the nominee...

In the GE Edwards will be portrayed as an inexperienced, pretty newbie who is in no way ready to lead this country. Try to imagine how the RWers will depict his background as a tort attorney.

[liberalnurse]

8. He should and will not be alone.

Bill Clinton will campaign for the nominee as will many others.....The DNC can't abandon him if he is the nominee as the abandoned Dean.


More players will push for his success.....including Dean.

[Cleita]

4. Beg to differ.

A lot matters. Replacing Bush with Bush lite is not an option IMHO. I'm not dissing Kerry about this because I know he's about more than beating Bush, but we have to keep our perspectives straight here. Not only do we need to beat Bush, but we need change from the Washington business as usual and the hell with the rest of you mentality.

[sadiesworld]

7. You are looking at the situation as enlightened, fair people.

You need to look at it through a Karl Rove lens--it will be about the image he can sell to the American people.

[T_i_B]

9. Thanks for the tip

But I'm afraid that would not be very good for my sanity. We already have Tony Blair over here in the UK looking though a Karl Rove lens and it is not good!

[Tim_in_HK]

11. obviously you never been

to slough . . .

But don't ask me. I'm just a chilled out entertainer. ;-)

[T_i_B]

12. In the words of John Betjeman

Come, friendly bombs, and fall on Slough
It isn't fit for humans now,
There isn't grass to graze a cow
Swarm over, Death!

http://www.pmms.cam.ac.uk/~gjm11/poems/slough

And then came The Office!

[Tim_in_HK]

10. He's not Bush

But he's also not Clark.

That's my two cents.

[LandOLincoln]

23. No, he isn't Clark. However, it's my firm belief that

Clark will play a major role in a Kerry administration.

Call me naive, but it seems to me both men sent some pretty strong signals a week ago, especially Kerry's "General Clark won't be standing behind me, he'll be standing beside me."

Of course Clark would be a magnificent Secretary of State, but I'm wondering if VP wouldn't be a better choice. Cabinet positions have to be approved by Congress, IIRC, and I shudder to think the kind of partisan viciousness and DeLays a Clark appointment would engender.

Besides, Clark said he wasn't going to be Howard Dean's Dick Cheney. He didn't say anything about John Kerry. :evilgrin:

[T_i_B]

13. Kick

There must be some fellow international DUers about somewhere on here. :kick:

[Capt_Nemo]

14. Kerry's talk is nice but when it comes to action he always

caves in to the right, out of political oportunism, unaware that such
electoral expedient usualy backfires.
Throughout the shrub regime years he has been a consistent disapointment.

That said... if it comes to choose between Kerry and Edwards, then
it is clear for me that Kerry is the lesser of two evils.

Kerry knows the difference between right and wrong in questions
of war and peace. He is aware that he has been caught enabling
the evil doing the wrong, and tries to weasel his way out of that
embarrassment.

Edwards OTOH is completely oblivious to this and that
is why he is dangerous: he cannot distinguish right from wrong in
issues of war and peace, which makes him completely vulnerable to
the lobbying of neo-cons. When it comes to war and peace Kerry
feels guilty to be on the wrong side, but Edwards has no "moral compass"
whatsoever.

While Kerry will try to return to Clinton policy and reactivate
Brzezinski's "great game", Edwards will cave in to the pressure
of staying the course with PNAC, for he can't see what is wrong
with it.

When choosing between two imperialists I'll take the pragmatic one instead
of the guy that doesn't have a clue and could make a bad situation worse.

Last, when I see that some core supporters of Edwards in this forum
are Lieberman fans and Blair apologists, my doubts vanish! :evilgrin:

On edit: the only way I could reverse my very negative opinion of
Edwards would be for him to choose as VP for his ticket (should it
come to that) Dean or Kucinich. But I'm not holding my breath...

[T_i_B]

18. Indeed

Kerry has been my 3rd choice for that ahem, all important Thankfully_in_Britain endorsement for ages now, but with Clark and Dean out of the running he does look to be about the best in it.

I really do not like the look of Edwards, not only because he is dead wrong on Iraq but also because I do not like his stance on trade in the slightest. Kerry does have the better voting record than Edwards as well. There seems to be a lot of embittered Dean supporters sticking up for Edwards round here but I personally would much rather see Kerry in the whitehouse.

Perhaps there should be another thread on International DUer's opinion of Edwards but sod it. I can't see any good reason to support him over Kerry. The more I look at Edwards the more I want to endorse Kerry.

[Capt_Nemo]

19. Besides, the Edwards platform seems a collection of vacuous platitudes

I undestand the resentment of many Dean supporters at Kerry, but
right now it seems to be clouding their reasoning.

I mean, if the most important issues for them are the Iraq War,
PNAC and the PATRIOT act, how the hell can they be thinking
of throwing their support to someone is EVEN MORE complicit
than Kerry with the neo-cons on these very issues?

[T_i_B]

32. This whole forum seems to be that kind of bitch fight

R*lph N*d*r has reared his ugly head, with a multitude of flame wars to match, the ABD morans are still slagging Dean off and trying to lump him and his supporters in with Nader, the Dean supporters have gained an inordinate dislike of the Kerry supporters, and all the time the things that we are supposed to be fighting for seem to be forgotten by some of us.

I don't know about you, but I do wish people in this GD2004 forum would calm down and try to see the big picture outside of which presidential candidates/supporters did what to whom. If that happened then maybe the Dean supporters would see the positive bits of Kerry and the Dean bashers would realize how daft they are to bash somebody who they might just be in agreement with.

[KurtNilsen]

15. Norwegian DUer

Hi there.

I am a Norwegian who have followed American politics since 1980 elections when my father who used to be a social democrat (Arbeiderpartiet) politician had me stay up with him to root for Carter.

Personally, I think Kerry reminds me of our current PM, Bondevik. Bondevik is really desperate for politcal power and position and seems to be willing to do just about anything to get it. Political opportunism, hypocrasy, and most of all a total lack of courage to stand up for what you belive in. On the Iraq war Bondevik tried to be all things to all people. Best friend with the UN, best friend with the peace demonstrators and best friends with Bush. It cannot be done.

So, in other words my impression of Kerry is not very high. I just don't trust him. He seems like the typical career politician. He probably would be a bit better than Bush, but I don't think much would actually change. Well, the world would not laugh so much of him. He wouldn't have to bomb any country. Instead, he would simply bore them to death.

Well, for what it's worth, that's my view on kerry.

[DemExpat]

16. I cannot yet feel inspired by Kerry,

but of the candidates left in the running, he is probably the best bet - also from an international pov....

I watched his speech after Wisconsin and cringed at how uninspiring his words, body language, and expressions were. Platitudes, empty and flat, with no real spirit in his eyes....:thumbsdown:

But a million times better than Bush....
:kick:

DemEx

[Capt_Nemo]

17. kick

[Capt_Nemo]

20. Another Kick fot the "all important TiB thread"

:thumbsup:

[Minstrel Boy]

21. I'm saddened for Americans at how narrow their choices are,

and at how the system cuts down those who most effectively challenge it.

I tried to like Kerry, but I can't bring myself to do it. If I were a progressive American I would despair at my options.

But it's worse: while Kerry may be the "safest" choice, I believe he'll be a profoundly weak candidate in the General Election.

[KurtNilsen]

22. Norwegian media (who seem to like Kerry) are reporting

right now that Kerry might be involved in some kind of corruption scandal. It's probably just the LA Times story though.

[T_i_B]

27. You mean this story?

From the UK Guardian yesterday. This is a version of the LAT story

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1152066,00.html

[KurtNilsen]

28. Yes, thats's it.

seems like it really is nothing much.

[tinnypriv]

24. I pesonally hoped Dean would win the nom

Given Kerry's IWR.

As for Kerry himself, his policies won't be hugely different from Bush. Doesn't mean getting rid of Bush isn't a good goal though.

His candidacy is also engendering quite unhealthy traits at the top of the democractic party IMO. i.e. the reliance on his military background against Bush, the obvious lying about NAFTA (now that it is recognised to be a disaster) etc.

I also have extremely serious reservations regarding Kerry on Israeli policy, though there is no need to go into that here, beyond noting that he is likely to be as much as an impediment to peace as Clinton was.

In any case, I personally don't think anybody outside the U.S. should endorse a candidate FWIW. That's for Americans to decide.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. I guess the questions I haveto ask Europeans is WHICH POLICIES?

Europe seems to want nothing more than to revive Kyoto. Kerry is dedicated to reviving Kyoto. Europe seems to want at least bi-lateral agreements where security is concerned and an honoring of UN regs. Kerry seems to favor that. Europe seemed to be sick of Bush's go it alone brinkmanship and preemptive wars. Kerry seems to agree with that stand BUT FOR IMMINENT threats.

So ..which policies are you citing?

[tinnypriv]

26. Response

Well, you can ask for my opinions, or you can ask for those of some unspecified "Europeans". If the latter, I can't respond.

If the former, to take the issues one at a time (barely scratching the surface):

1. The only evidence for the statement that Kerry is "devoted" to "reviving Kyoto" are his words. Looking at his actions, we find he voted against Kyoto.¹ For the standard reasons: supposed "harm" to the U.S. economy (which of course is the only thing that matters in this world) and the fact that the agreement doesn't extend to developing countries (the U.S. would never have developed if faced with the contraints he wants to impose on other nations). He also ties a global warming agreement to "opportunites" for "American technology" etc. The familiar story.

2. "Europe" is only concerned with the honouring of UN resolutions when the violation of them hurts the interests of the powerful EU states (UK, France, Germany primarily). No surprise there. Kerry seems to favor the same position vis a vis the United States. The problem with that is that the interests of the United States are in the eye of the beholder, and extend way beyond anything the European states claim. One example: they could include supporting murderous regimes like Indonesia. i.e. to take Kerry's statement at the time that the population of East Timor was being slaughtered:

"The Indonesian government holds the primary responsibility for restoring peace and stability to East Timor." ²

In case you miss the significance, this is as though Nazi Germany had the "primary responsiblity" for restoring "peace and stability" to Dunkirk. Though of course, to make the analogy accurate, you'd have to imagine the Nazi's were being armed, trained and supported by the United States at the time (the case in East Timor).

Note that since we are talking about UN resolutions, and the fact Kerry supposedly wants to "honor" them, remember that Indonesia was in East Timor in violation of UN/SC resolutions ordering it to leave.³

This is only one example in any case, and the principles can be extended to Morocco, Israel, Turkey, etc, not to mention U.S. vetoes at the Security Council. There is no evidence whatever to draw the conclusion that once in office Kerry will be much different with regards to the UN than Clinton was (one minor example: he declared UN resolutions "outdated" with regards to Israel/Palestine, because they didn't conform to US/Israeli policy).

Now, despite the above, I would argue that Kerry probably will be less hostile to the UN than Bush, and more "multi-lateral" in appearance. Though obviously that is hardly a ringing endorsement.

3. "Imminent" as defined by the United States, no one else. If anyone disagrees, they can essentially go to hell. As neatly encapsulated by Kerry with this statement:

"I will not cede our security to any nation or institution – and adversaries will have no doubt of my resolve to use force if necessary" ⁴

I ommitted the standard "co-operation" boilerplate, essentially irrelevant, as should be completely obvious given the operative definition of "our security".

-----

1. Senate Resolution 98, 105th congress, 1st session, July 1997.
2. Kerry, quoted from Senate speech, 10 Sept 1999.
3. S/RES/384, 1975. Vote: 12-2-1 (U.S. abstaining).
4. Address to Council on Foreign Relations, 3 Dec 2003.

[T_i_B]

29. Well...

One of the interesting things about this board is that people do stick up for political parties on other countries, be it Canada, Australia, Germany, or the UK.

And besides, if I can get invited to a Dean meetup in London then I suppose it is logical that I can endorse a candidate. There are always one or two US DUer's who want to lobby the international crowd for their candidate!

[Spentastic]

30. I don't agree

Arguably it's people outside the U.S who will benefit / suffer most from the American electoral process. I don't see anything wrong with people pointing out that there is a whole world that is not the U.S.A. Certain candidates offer more hope than others.

As for Kerry, he's more of a politician than most. As such he's unlikley to inspire but he may win.

[Jen72]

31. If I was an American I would be working me tail off...

to get Kerry elected. I hoped for Clark but Kerry was second.
I am sure he isn't perfect but he is a good man with a good record.
With his support for Kyoto and the UN involvement in Iraq, he could
help to heal the rift between the USA and Europe.