Is Kerry in danger of losing the "Anti-Iraq Invasion" folks? MTP Interview

[KoKo]

Standing outside my polling place this past Saturday at the NC Caucuses I had a chance to talk with many people and our Seniors, in particular, seem to be very angry about Iraq. Our turnout was light because the caucuses were forced on us by Repug meddling, but more older folks showed up to vote than younger ones at my polling place.

I was standing with a petition to try to get funding from the State Party for more Grassroots Organizing but was next to Kucinich and Dean activists who were trying to get folks to support both candidates who were on our ballot. Since I had the petition many people started a conversation so I got to get a chance to hear what they were thinking about the party.

My favorite was a woman with a Dean T-Shirt on who said she was 70 years old and a Dean supporter because he spoken out about Bush and the War. She had just moved to NC to be near her daughter. She was asking me what she could do about Bush because she didn't know anyone in her condo neighborhood and she would do anything including driving people to the polls to get Bush out because he had ruined the country with and she was sick over what was going on in Iraq. The War was the issue with these folks who were angry enough to stop by and talk to us. And, that they were older and they made the effort to get to the polls makes me think that all over the US there are dedicated Dem voters who are not going to be happy with Kerry supporting Bush on his policy in Iraq (even though Kerry says he wants UN in, so does Bush).

Later, when we went to our County Precinct Convention the anti-war group managed to vote down a Resolution in support of John Edwards as Kerry's Vice President. This was a "favorite son" resolution that will go to the State Convention next month to pressure Kerry to pick Edwards. There were enough Anti-Iraq Invasion Precinct Officials there that the vote to support Edwards went down by three votes. Here in NC that is a BIG DEAL. What if "The War" is THE ISSUE!

My impression was that these folks were desperate for someone to stand up and say "Ivading Iraq was Wrong!" This is coming from the "Grassroots" and the people who vote and are active. What happens if people start to think there's no difference between Kerry and Bush on our foreign policy?

What could Kerry do to reassure these folks?

[WilliamPitt]

1. Well, he didn't have a lot of them before

and somehow managed to win the nomination handily without them. I think the word 'danger' is misplaced in your post. What can he do to reassure them? Probably nothing.

[KoKo]

5. He won it "handily" in two small states "frontloaded" which gave him the

"Big Mo." NC can't even have a Primary until July 20th. The Primary was F**ked big time. It's caused some anger out there. That was the other thing I kept hearing from many of these older folks. "We didn't even have a chance to vote!"

I think there may be backlash about that, simmering under the surface.

Some folks feel Kerry was rammed through. Just telling what I heard, but some other folks with the petition in other areas were hearing similar discussion. And, this is NC..not your average "liberal state" out there. And, Raleigh is conservative, not like Chapel Hill and Durham. :-(

[WilliamPitt]

6. Gore had it sewn up by Super Tuesday in 2000

Should people have been pissed at him?

[Walt Starr]

16. I was pissed at Gore, but I still voted for him

I can't say I'll be voting for Kerry this year, though. The war is my #1 issue and I see not a whit of difference between Kerry and Bush on this issue.

[KoKo]

20. What you are saying Walt is what I'm worrying about. Where do these

folks go? Where does that 70 year old Dean supporter go if she saw the Russert interview. Does she go Nader, or does she stay home?

[Walt Starr]

32. There will be other choices

Staying home is always an option. I'll definitely be going to the polls because I want to see Barack Obama as the next Senator from Illinois, but I may not even cast a vote in the presidential election.

Kerry had my vote all sewn up because he was supposed the be the "not-Bush". More and more I see him as the "almost-Bush" because of his stances on the issues that matter most to me.

[KoKo]

48. Well, there's always the environment. Kerry does care about that. But,

where will the money come from with "endless war." Our US financial health is teetering on the brink. I hate to think what Bush would do about it which is "downsize." Maybe it has to come to this, Walt. We have to re-elect him for folks to wake up to what they've done.

I dread thinking about it. I've had enough nightmares since Selection 2000. I don't know what some of us would do. Canada and moving are not options for many.

[Walt Starr]

51. It's a sad state of affairs

and this is coming from somebody who has voted straight Democratic tickets his entire life (me).

I feel betrayed by the Democratic Party and will be re-registering as an unaffiliated independent in the very near future.

[nodictators]

58. NOT voting for Kerry = a vote for Bush

No one but Kerry agrees with everything Kerry says and/or stands for.

I was against the WAR invasion of Iraq. I'm strongly opposed to the slaughter there now. So, should I not vote for Kerry?

To not vote for Kerry would give Bush another 4 years to destroy not only other countries, but this country also.

[Walt Starr]

63. Not so

Voting for Kerry is to vote to continue the status quo in Iraq. If that's one of your major issues, then you cannot in good conscience cast a vote for Kerry.

Right now, I cannot say anything more than I will not cast a vote for Bush. The possibility of Kerry getting my vote come November 2nd dimishes each time he opens his mouth on the Iraq Occupation situation.

BTW, I've said it before and I'll say it again, THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO VOTE FOR BUSH. YOU WALK IN, PICK UP YOUR BALLOT, AND ACTUALLY CAST A FUCKING BALLOT FOR BUSH!!! NOTHING ELSE IS A VOTE FOR BUSH, NONSENSICAL BULLSHIT RHETORIC NOTWITHSTANDING!!!

[kiahzero]

98. Fine. It's still supporting Bush.

By not voting for the only challenger with a chance at defeating Bush, you are tacitly approving of the way things are now.

But go ahead and continue with your "There's no difference!" lie. I hope it comforts you if we get stuck with Bush for a second term. God knows, it won't be comforting me.

[KoKo]

17. People weren't blaming Kerry they were questioning why they didn't have

a chance to vote. Some folks thought we should have a Nationwide Super Tuesday, or have Regional Super Tuesdays and get rid of Iowa and NH. They were interested in changing how the Primaries are held rather than being angry or pissed at the Candidates.

edited: spelling

[Carolina]

52. no comparison, Gore was the incumbent VP

who only had to go up briefly in NH against Bill Bradley.

There was no real contest. It was more like passing the baton.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. In December Dean was being rammed through

by the likes of Gore and much of the media.
meanwhile Will is correct. Kerry has hewn a true and steady course.

[comradebillyboy]

2. kerry is keeping an awfully low profile

for a presidential candidate. no matter how badly bush fucks up, he will still win if kerry stays below the radar.

kerry is running a crappy and uninspiring campaign. he has yet to come close to making the case for voting for him. maybe a good doctor could remove the stick from kerry's ass and he could loosen up and act like a human bieng.

i am abb so i will vote for kerry, but dean was 100% right, i already know he will disappoint.

[WilliamPitt]

10. Um...

Bush has a 10-1 spending advantage over Kerry. Kerry has to be in this thing for another 200 days. Right now, Kerry is letting Falluja and the 9/11 Commission do his campaigning for him, which is eminently wise.

"Never get in the way of a perfectly good train wreck."

[clarknyc]

27. Really?

Kerry only has $18.4 million to spend? That doesn't sound right to me...

[WilliamPitt]

39. Bush will have

$250 million for his campaign + $500 million from the RNC (throw in the NRA and the CC for fun).

[KoKo]

42. It's not about the money. It's about the Message! Remember Huffington in

CA? Ross Perot? Yeah, I know Corzine had money and won in Conn., but his message was appealing at the time.

Unless Kerry get's an Inspiring Message, he won't inspire enough "couch potato's" to get off their asses and get out the door.

Just like our NC Caucuses. Folks didn't come out because they knew Kerry was the nominee. They didn't need to make an effort. Only the "die hard" voters who really cared got out. And, that was our seniors who are concerned about the war.

We Activivist DU'ers and other Progressives will crawl bleeding to the polls if we have to just to get Bush out. But, that won't be enough because their RW Fundie Voters will outnumber us while the Sleeping Americans sit on their butts because they say: "What's the difference?"

This is the danger. Not the money.

[clarknyc]

45. Sure.

(Edit: Oops. Meant to respond to #39...)

I think the link below gives a better picture of the Kerry vs. Bush campaign financial situations. It's not quite as dire as you claim. Also, post #42 makes a great point. Money won't matter if Kerry doesn't inspire voters to pay attention and participate.

Bush Spends Nearly $50 Million in March :
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=4&u=/ap/20040420/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_money

[HFishbine]

3. I'm an anti-war North Carolinian

who couldn't participate in the caucus because I'm registered as unafiliated. I certainly don't want to see Edwards as the VP. To answer your questions about what Kerry could do, there are two things:

1) Move beyond criticism of Bush's tactics and explain the differences between his and Bush's strategy/endgame (if there are any).

2) Do not nominate a war-supporting VP. An Edwards or anybody who, to this day, insists that attacking Iraq was the right thing to do would be a slap in the face to those who oppose the war. Nominating an anti-war VP on the other hand, would energize and mobilize a demonstrably active base.

[KoKo]

11. Good point Fishbine. Appointing a VP who is anti Iraq and could speak

out, might do it. And, explaining differences. Although Russert interview didn't leave much room for difference. :-(

[mmonk]

4. I always thought the war was going to be a big issue

while all the other dems were concentrating on economic issues. It's why I supported Clark because I thought the dems would need a military person that would say the war was a mistake, unnecessary, and the admin's approach flawed. He was the best person to do that.

[Carolina]

54. Touche, Clark was my guy

for that reason and for the fact that he did parse and run away from the word liberal. He spoke of his own transformation based on what the Dem party stood for versus what the GOP has become. A powerful message, if he'd been given real airtime instead of constant antagonism. Also one that resonated with other wavering Republicans.

Convoluted Kerry is scaring the hell out of me.

[BostonTeaParty04]

7. He doesn't have to worry about it.. we will sell our souls AGAIN

to get the best of the worst.........

I like Kerry...but god...his foreign policy statements the last month or so give me the friggin creeps!!! Makes my blood run cold, quite honestly.

I will vote for him. I will campaign for him.

But when he gets into office............it will be the TOUGHEST presidency in history because THIS TIME, liberal lefties are not going to rest on our laurels. I strongly intend to put A LOT of pressure on him to 'get moral' about foreign policy.....

Kerry is going to have the entire spectrum working to get him to change all sorts of policies....

[onecitizen]

8. He can do nothing

sadly. Why oh why is he our candidate? I guess he's an OK guy but he has no strong convictions on which he would stand. He does what he thinks everyone else does or what he thinks they want him to do. A follower not a leader. Which is a surprise given his military service. I've watched him time and again wax and wane on a simple question. One that requires a simple yes or no, and he goes on and on about this that and the other never giving a straight answer. It makes me sick. I thought he had learned something from Dean but evidently not.

[comradebillyboy]

12. excellent analysis

of kerry's weakness

[BostonTeaParty04]

14. that;'s taking it a little far.......

No convictions?

Takes no stands?

A follower?

You apparently don't know his record. He is one of the more liberal candidates we had (sans Kucinich). And his domestic record in terms of policies that benefit 'we the people' are lightyears ahead of anything Dean ever did. Oh boy... Dean... two steps to the left of George Bush!

Anyways... I suggest you go to www.johnkerry.com and look at Kerry's 30 year record. Pretty good stuff ....

But then, maybe you don't consider yourself to be a liberal, in which case, Kerry might not be your man.

[Carolina]

57. a website ain't shit

most people don't read! The fight for the presidency is not about 30 years of positions otherwise Al Gore would have won HANDILY and no theft could have occurred.

The fight for the WH is on the airwaves and TV. It's based on perceptions, instincts, feelings and even looks! Yes, we at DU will vote ABB, which means Kerry, but people (sheeple) NEED SOMETHING TO VOTE FOR!

[Carolina]

55. exactly

sometimes it's as painful to listen to Kerry's myriad explanations (in Senate drone tone no less) as it is the doofus pResident.

[bpilgrim]

13. we broke it, we own it

seems to be the status quo... or the CARTOON WORLD VIEW.

also, folks think we can fix it, if we handle it right/differently or are too worried about the results if we don't have a hand in it.

i'm sure reality will muddle all their plans in the end i just have to believe jfk will cut our losses earlier than the neoCONs ever would :shrug:

peace

[HFishbine]

15. You can vote on faith, but

would it really be too much to expect Kerry to be able to artuclate a strategy for Iraq other than simply critisizing the way Bush is going about it? It just leaves hanging the obvious question of whether or not Kerry and Bush share the same strategic objectives.

[bpilgrim]

25. the lesser of two evils

and yes, security in the ME is a VITAL NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY for both parties and where we are at today, especially with peak oil in mind, everyone sees part of the solution to that problem being 'boots on the ground' it really is a matter of how many and whos boots right now.

peace

[OKNancy]

18. Didn't Edwards win North Carolina?

Must mean democracy in action. Most Democrats must have thought Edwards was just fine.

Most of my family is anti-war.....doesn't mean we won't vote for a Democrat. Of course, we are Democrats and that means something to us.

[KoKo]

19. But, the resolution to support him as VP went down in my conservative

Edwards supporting Wake County Precinct Convention. Although he got the most votes the "anti Iraq Invasion folks" had strength that I don't think the Party knew was there. He made many enemies amongst his supporters, but given that he's a Favorite Son he would get support.

What I'm trying to get at is that I think the Dem Party heirarchy doesn't get that there's a big undercurrent that needs to be addressed.

It's a warning signal for change. But, they are boxed in, because they want to move to the right thinking that's there best chance agains Bush.

[HFishbine]

21. 51%

Edwards got 51% of the 0.7% of registered Democrats who caucused in NC. Yep, democracy in action alright.

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031774942629&path=&s=

[IrateCitizen]

22. Is the question what COULD he do, or what WILL he do?

If the real question is the first one, then there is PLENTY he could do -- much of which has been discussed here ad nauseum. But if the real question is what WILL he do, then I fear the answer is, "Nothing."

Why do I say that? Because I somehow have it in for John Kerry? Absolutely not. I say that because John Kerry is a politician seeking the highest office in the land, and he has embarked down the path of selling his soul in order to achieve that office. In this respect, he's not somehow evil -- rather, he's entirely human, doing what just about every other Democratic or Republican nominee has done throughout history.

Right now, I'm reading Secrets by Daniel Ellsberg -- his memoir of the Vietnam War and Pentagon Papers. He talks a good deal about the 1968 election. He says that RFK was really the only politician he ever met whom he genuinely loved -- because he saw him as willing to do what needed to be done and extricate ourselves from Vietnam. Humphrey, OTOH, did not believe that Vietnam was winnable. But he still was unwilling to do what needed to be done to remove ourselves from that situation, and likely would have simply followed LBJ's path.

The point I'm making is that Kerry isn't going to do what's necessary to extricate us from Iraq -- at least I'm not overly confident that he will. Rather, he will advocate "staying the course" without making fundamental changes in the approach, and five or ten years down the line we will wonder why we allowed such an unmitigated disaster to continue unabated, to insist on "victory" in an unwinnable scenario that was largely our own personal creation.

[Sparkly]

31. "what's necessary to extricate us from Iraq"

What do we need to do, in your view?

[IrateCitizen]

35. You know, I've tossed this question around a great deal lately

The problem is, I keep arriving at different conclusions with each new piece of information.

But here, at least, are the constants that have remained throughout my entire thought process.

1. Immediately repeal the order issued by Bremer that essentially put the Iraqi economy "up for sale".

2. Immediately cancel all "reconstruction" contracts to US firms, and instead seek to funnel US funding of reconstruction efforts through the UN to indigenous Iraqis.

3. Follow al-Sistani's call for immediate free elections -- at least on a city/province level, if not a national one. Delegates toward drafting a Constitution should be chosen directly by the people, rather than appointed by the US.

4. Immediately turn over governing authority solely to the UN, helping the transition to an independent Iraqi government.

5. Immediately cease all construction activities on permanent US military bases, and remove all troops outside of military police and necessary support. Bring in UN peacekeepers under a multinational command structure.

6. Engage moderate leaders like al-Sistani, seeking their input throughout the process. This is one area in which we totally screwed the pooch in the initial going, choosing instead to inflame the radical al-Sadr simply because we could more easily deal with him through military force as opposed to al-Sistani who troubled us because he pointed out the blatant hypocrisy of the US while calling for genuine democratic elections.

7. Base reconstruction efforts on interaction with low-level democratic officials, finding out which ones we can genuinely trust and work with.

These seven points are a start, but once again they are dependent on international involvement -- something that I consider to be far from a bygone conclusion. Of course, taking the steps of humility in relinquishing control would be a huge step, but I unfortunately don't see such a drastic shift taking place even under Kerry, as much as I want to.

Without international involvement -- or if an internal civil war really does break out -- all of these points are moot.

[KoKo]

47. Maybe if Kerry could articulate some of your points he would at least

get a discussion going on. I thought up until the MTP Interview that the "Strategy" was to lie low and let Bush hang himself. That the "powers behind the scenes" were working to bring Bush down. I even posted a long post on my thoughts about how this could work for Kerry and that while I didn't agree with it, I could see that it might work because the Media was not in our corner and just salivating for the chance to trash him like they did Gore. So, I thought laying low might work.

That interview has me questioning my thoughts in that post. I don't see us winning with Kerry mimicing Bush on Foreign Policy. It's making him look weak instead of strong. And while I don't hang on the polls the fact that the Chimp's numbers are up after that disastrous Press Conference and the death in Iraq, it seems that it might be time for Kerry to push back. But after that interview expressing his support for Bush's Iraq and ME policy what does he say? "I would do it differently" doesn't translate for the average person who doesn't have time to think about what "he really means." Only we here know he would be better than Bush, what about the other folks who don't know anything about Kerry except that he's like Bush in foreign policy and we are being attacked by "people who hate us."

Safety (self preservation) comes before food on the table, education and access to health care does on most people minds. If Bush scares them enough, they are going to think he's protecting them, so why change Presidents?

[IrateCitizen]

56. Your post got me thinking on several fronts, KoKo01

First, don't hold your breath expecting Kerry to pick up ANY of these points. I'm certain he's well aware that they're out there, but he won't dare talk of any of them. That is because to do so would bring into question our entire involvement in the region -- not just in Iraq, but also in the entire Persian Gulf, and the nature of our "special relationship" with Israel. In effect, it would bring up questions that neither the Republican nor Democratic establishments want to come into the public forum.

See, as Stan Goff points out in his article in the recent Counterpunch (posted below by anarchy1999), the ownership of Iraq is not strictly a Republican affair. The Democrats (especially the DLC) don't mind at all keeping that jewel in the American Imperial Crown. They fully recognize its "strategic significance", what with all that oil sitting around. If the Democratic Party were truly interested in changing this course, they would also be calling for the removal of countless military bases all over the world. But they are not, for reasons that I have previously tried to discuss, often to little avail.

Finally, your last paragraph reminds me of some recent work by George Lakoff for TAP, analyzing the ways that conservatives and liberals can use language to reinforce their overarching worldview. Bush's use of language to scare the hell out of people is no accident -- because if you listen to him, he always follows that fright up with, "I have promised to protect the American people." There's no "we" -- it's an "I". Important contrast with FDR's pronouncement, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."

[KoKo]

61. Alot to think about there, Irate. You've clarified some things rumbling

round in my mind about Kerry and our dilemna. Your comment of FDR's is right on target. Look at the comfort that statement gives: "WE have nothing to fear but fear itself."

Contrast that with how we felt on 9/11 when Bush was flying around on AF-1 and no one seemed to be in charge until Guliani gave a press conference trying to tell us all to be calm. I remember being in a Health Center that morning for some tests and when I walked into my appointment all the staff were crowded around the TV screen in a trance.

I finally asked someone what was going on because I was there for an appointment, and the person turned to me and said: "We are under attack!" I looked at the screen and that was when the second plane went in to the Towers. Everyone was totally silent not believing what they saw.

We never heard a word from Bush or Cheney until late that afternoon and I've been around through enough Presidents to know that this NEVER would have happened with any of them.

The fear factor is more important than I thought until it blurted out in my post and you confirmed it by framing it the way it should be.

No other President in my memory has used "Fear" to rule the American people except Richard Nixon. And, he had a gang of thugs who were almost as bad as this group running Bush.

I also agree with your other analysis about neither side wanting to speak up.

We have dark days, ahead, indeed. Our Democracy (what's left of it) hangs on a thread. :-( We have to work from the ground up to rebuild.

On Edit: Will check out the Goff article. What is "TAP?"

[bloom]

23. It is amazing to me

as bad as the War is going over there, with all this stuff about the lies, the WMD's, etc., etc. that Kerry seems to go along with the whole nonsense. I don't get it.

I don't think he WANTS to reassure us folks. I think he wants to reassure the pro-war folks that he's going to keep it going.


AAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

[IrateCitizen]

24. It's all about the "national honor" and "prestige"

Just like in Vietnam. It is not in the vocabulary of American politicians (or many Americans, for that matter) to admit defeat -- no matter the facts that suggest it to be true.

Kerry will not advocate a lowering of troop committments, let alone a military pull-out, because to do so would be to admit that America has failed in its objective -- and that admission would be unthinkable.

All we have to do is "stay the course", and eventually we'll fix it. :eyes:

[Sparkly]

30. I don't think it's about that

I think it's about the options and their consequences. There aren't any good options. Everybody is saying the same thing when it's all boiled down: bring in the UN and get out asap. The thing is, Bush both can't and won't get full international support (can't because his credibility is shot, won't because he won't relinquish political control in Iraq). Just having regime change in Washington would go a long way, imo.

[JI7]

26. did everyone vote on whether they want Edwards as vp ?

i think edwards winning the caucus says a lot more about his support than whatever that resolution is.

[HFishbine]

28. Oh sure

9,090 votes cast for Edwards out of 2.4 million registered democrats in NC. In other words, 0.4% of NC democrats voted for Edwards in the caucus.

[JI7]

34. that is true, but

my point is that there isn't much opposition to edwards.

[Stephanie]

29. Kerry needs to say more than "I don't like the WAY bush did it."

He needs to say "I don't like the way bush lied about the reasons for going to war. That is unforgiveable. I believe that there were compelling reasons for regime change in Iraq, but only with international consensus and an international effort. I believe that using FALSE evidence to LIE us into a UNILATERAL war was WRONG, and George Bush should be ashamed of himself."

[HFishbine]

33. Good Point. Kerry's missing an opportunity to appeal to US values

There are really two issues. The first is any differences that may exist between Kerry and Bush on handling Iraq from here on. The second is the effect of Bush's action on American democracy. The lying, dissembling, diversion of funds, war-profiteering, etc. are all dangers to our system of government. Kerry should be speaking up about the consequences of Bush's actions beyond the war itself. He should be appealing to a defense of democracy.

[G_j]

36. values

many of the people KoKo mentions I believe have that old fashioned sense of liberal values, such as embracing peace, human rights etc.

They don't like to hear excuses for watering down and sweeping these values under the rug.
I'm not aware for instance that Kerry has shown any passionate concern that the US has violated the Geneva convention in the way it has treated prisoners from both Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps he has said something, but I haven't heard it.
There are people who find it very hard to swallow that the US would violate the Geneva convention, International law and commit human rights violations in our name.
I think Kerry needs to take a stronger moral stand.

Bush is popular among people who think he takes a strong stand for their values. We want to feel someone is taking a strong moral stand for our values.

[KoKo]

38. G_j, you make a good point, I hadn't even thought of. Values. How do we

win against the Repugs unless we present a different set of values to the public. All they are hearing is "Kill, Kill, Terraists,Evil Thugs, Murderers" from the Chimp and the dialog of those on the pundit shows has digressed into shouting matches i.e. Crossfire and Matthews.

These folks remember a time when there was discussion and now they see that the meanspiritedness everywhere and wonder what they can do to stop it. They have a perspective and have lived though enough to have some wisdom, but their voices aren't represented in the Media today.

They are pushed away and categorized as "Seniors who want health care and nursing home regulations and worried about keeping their Social Security."

The feisty Seniors I saw didn't fit that categorization. They were angry and want to DO something. But, they don't know what they can do.

That's what the Repugs have taken away from us. Our ability to do something and not be categorized into Polling statistics to be used by both parties.

"I want my Country Back." That was Dean's call. And, its still true for what so many of us feel.

[G_j]

44. it certainly can't be said that

these senior liberals are naive. It occurred to me that many people love Bush because he appears to stand strong for their values.

I know many of the seniors I work with have this very strong belief in humanitarian values, in compassion and decency as "American values". They are longing for someone to stand up proudly for these 'old fashioned' liberal values. They see for instance the treatment of prisoners or the killing of civilians as a direct reflection on their country and they are ashamed for it goes against ever fiber of what they've come to believe is right and decent.
It's really very straight forward and clear. The right has their version of American values, many Democrats have just as strong a sense of what are "American values" to them. This war goes to the heart of those values.

[sadiesworld]

37. I was adamantly opposed to the Iraq War...

and Kerry is in no danger of "losing" me. :shrug:

[truthspeaker]

40. We'll still vote for him

and then we'll LBJ his imperialist ass if he doesn't wise up quick.

[karabekian]

41. nothing

"What could Kerry do to reassure these folks? "

He supported the war and still does. Oh wait, he opposed the war before he supported it. Or which one is it? Who knows or cares. I don't even listen to him anymore. I guess its Nader in '04. I am not going to violate my principles just to get another version of GWB. I will probably get flamed but who cares. Either Kerry or Bush, we will still be in Iraq. To think otherwise is foolishness or just blindness.

[truthspeaker]

43. Iraq isn't the only issue, and Kerry will handle Iraq more intelligently

Kerry is wrong, very wrong, about Iraq, but the US will still be better off with him than with Bush.

[Jacobin]

46. When's he gonna come out in favor of the draft?

Hagel did this morning. What's Kerry gonna say? I'm scared to death because I think I know the damn answer to it. HOW in the HELL am I going to make my arm go into that fucking voting booth and pull the lever for someone who is going to draft my two soon to be draft age sons? HOW??????? (and please, no claptrap about SCOTUS as important as that is......when your children's lives are on the line, nothing else fucking matters)

What's that gonna do to voters who want an alternative to PNAC?

This thing is fucked up in a major way and he's gonna lose it by going so far to the right.

[anarchy1999]

49. Read Stan Goff's latest: The New Line, The Democrats and Iraq

The New Line
The Democrats and Iraq
By STAN GOFF

"Failure to internationalize the conflict in Iraq has made America less safe and destroyed our credibility in the world."

I think I have that about right. This is a paraphrase of the official Democratic Party line on the war--the same war to which they assented when they were stampeded by their own craven opportunism into giving Dick Cheney and his ugly pet unlimited authority to attack Iraq.

So now both parties find themselves trapped in their own oh-so-special cul-de-sacs. The Republicans are stuck with an untenable military occupation and the Democrats are stuck with an idiotic critique. The Republicans can't speak about oil, and the Democrats can't speak about Zionism. So everyone is stuck with the same shitty end of the stick--reduced to talking in tongues to justify the bloody occupation of Iraq to an every more skeptical American polity.

snip:
.........American Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles bristle around Fallujah and Najaf--the latter established as a no-cross line by Ayatollah al-Sistani--and reconstruction crews are bailing like rats off a sinking ship. The Spaniards are leaving, Japan is on the brink of a political crisis, and there are hostages held from the United States, Denmark, Italy, Israel, France, the Czech Republic, and Japan.

The Sunnis and the Shias are forming tactical alliances, meaning GWB has accomplished something after all--he has re-awakened pan-Arab nationalism, and with that re-awakened the brooding peshmerga to the north and further north the Turkish army.

snip:
Everywhere any Democrat candidate shows up in public, we need to be dogging his or her footsteps and confronting them in front of the cameras with the very questions they least want to hear, as a way to go after sections of the Democratic Party base with a public-education effort.

Questions about Palestine. Questions about the number of dead Iraqis. Questions about American war crimes. Questions about permanent military bases in Iraq. Questions about who exactly will make up any future UN force, when experts say it would take 500,000 troops to "pacify" Iraq. Questions about whether they will authorize more emergency funds to continue the war. Maybe even a question about whether a people have the right to expel invaders by force of arms if necessary.

http://www.counterpunch.org/

[G_j]

50. go Stan!

great article which probably deserves a thread of its own. thanks!

[IrateCitizen]

53. Another good analysis from Stan Goff

And G_j is right, that article deserves its own thread.

I found the following statement to be extremely accurate -- even if it is probably what the majority of folks here do not want to hear:

The patrician fellow-Bonesman who is aiming for George W. Bush's job--who in 1971 offered up a damning indictment of US war crimes in Vietnam--is now silent as a tomb on the context of this ambush against mercenaries. The Siren of Career has rendered him deaf to the cries of Fallujah.

Like a young John Kerry asked in 1971, "How do you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

[anarchy1999]

59. I did start it's own thread, fell like a rock in GD

Also put up in editorials. GD moves way too fast these days, much gets missed. I find myself having to check 3 and 4 pages back in GD to keep up.

[KoKo]

62. On MTP he said "I was young and angry." He could have said :

I had concerns then about the plight of our soldiers and the principles on why they were sent to war. I still have those concerns today and will do everthing I can as President to see that they are properly equipped, and that their lives are not wasted by being sidetracked in a war based on faulty and exaggerated intelligence in a country which we had undercontrol with weapons inspections for a decade, when the real threat to our country is from terrorist operating out of Afghanistan and in cells in other countries. I will do everything in my power to use our military more effectively and purposefully than George Bush has done by sidetracking our fighting forces and national treasure into a war of his own vanity."

Why couldn't he have said the paragraph I just said for him, instead of "I was young and angry and I regret some of that now."

[Classical_Liberal]

60. I am not upset about him bringing the UN in.

i am upset about endorsing the settlements

That is a chickenshit position. It is hostile to the foriegn leaders he claims to care about, the UN, not to mention the fact that it enflames the clash of civilizations.

[Gloria]

87. I AM concerned about his mention of the U.N....and not because

it is a lightning rod for the Far Right...

But because the U.N. is not at all liked by the Iraqis...Which is why Holbrooke said months ago on Charlie Rose that there should be NO BLUE HELMETS... just personnel from various countries under the auspices of the Norwegians. He said the Norwegians have a good relationship with the Iraqi people and would be looked on as being sincerely interested in their welfare...


So Kerry has mentioned the U.N. for no good purpose...it sets him up as a target (why should the US kow tow to the U.N., is the RW line) ..and it might not be even a good strategy anyway...

[blm]

64. Gee, maybe he can tell the Deanies they were wrong about Dean's actual

position on the war and that he would have voted FOR Biden-Lugar which would have allowed Bush the final decision for a pre-emptive war in Iraq and they were hoodwinked into believing that Dean was always against pre-emptive war in Iraq.


Then, when they got their facts straight, they might not view Kerry so harshly.

See what damage can be done when primary candidates aren't straight with their supporters? Four more years of Bush because people put their hearts into someone who distorted his own actual position to try to drag down other candidates whose positions weren't significantly different.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[IrateCitizen]

66. Strawman alert!

Your attempt to portray all those who have opposed the invasion and occupation as "Deanies" is both inaccurate and disingenuous.

Many of us were simply against aggressive invasion (don't dress up this pig with nice labels like "pre-emptive attack") because it was wrong -- REGARDLESS of what this or that candidate said on it. I would bet that some of those people were Kerry supporters from the get-go who were less than pleased with his position on the execution of aggressive war and subsequent occupation.

[blm]

67. Not the point, IC. The point is that Dean gets exalted

by those trying to blame Kerry even though their ACTUAL positions in the Iraq war were NOT significantly different.

The fact that the bogus difference gets played up by so many and used to discredit Kerry is the REAL strawman bullshit.

[IrateCitizen]

68. Please tell me how this thread was started to "discredit" Kerry...

Because, from where I stand (being someone who has consistently opposed the aggressive invasion and occupation, but not a Dean supporter), this thread does not seem to do so.

While KoKo01 mentioned Dean supporters in the initial post, I fail to see how this translates into a smearing of Kerry. Whether or not Dean misrepresented his position does not change the position that Kerry has taken on this issue.

Address these issues, and then we'll talk about "strawmen". Until then, your tactic is little more than a diversion based in your visceral hatred for Howard Dean, rather than having anything to do with Kerry.

[blm]

69. The original post and many like it

all have a bottom line of "if only Dean were the nominee since he was against the war from the beginning and Kerry supported Bush every step of the way."

You may not find it disturbing, but, I do. I laid off the whole anti-Dean posting for a long time, but, I currently see WAY too many anti-Kerry posts that DISTORT Dean's actual positions in their efforts to belittle Kerry as the nominee.

[Walt Starr]

70. I'm calling you on this

all have a bottom line of "if only Dean were the nominee since he was against the war from the beginning and Kerry supported Bush every step of the way."

Name the post, besides yours of course, where this was stated in this thread.

[blm]

80. Read BOTTOM LINE. The BOTTOM LINE of those antiKerry posts

from Dean supporters boil down to the same point.

If you haven't seen the many threads that make that implication, then you haven't been looking.

[KoKo]

91. No one searches as thoroughly as you do for a post that meets your

criteria for "Search and Destroy," does it? Are you paid by the post or by the hour?

[blm]

94. Look again. I pop up only when the posts deserve a truthful reply

fthat does NOT revise history.

Why does that bother you? I don't go after every post. Just the ones that are the most egregious and the most potentially damaging to success in November.

[IrateCitizen]

71. Well, you're certainly entitled to your own observations...

Just don't expect them to be taken seriously by those of us who look at this as a more nuanced argument existing outside the Dean/Kerry dichotomy, which seems to still exist primarily only for those who still WANT it to exist.

[HFishbine]

72. It's convenient

Trying to make this a Dean/Kerry issue is a desperate attempt to divert attention away from the nominee's responsibilities as a candidate.

[Walt Starr]

73. Isn't this form of misdirection on the issues

something one could call "Rovian"?

[G_j]

74. the "sore-loser"

label sounds too much like the "Bush-hater" label.

[sangh0]

76. "a more nuanced argument existing outside the Dean/Kerry dichotomy"???

WTF is that? I far as I can tell, both Kerry and Dean agree on Iraq policy, both now and in the past. I don't see any dichotomy here. And since you say that dichotomy exists "only for those who still WANT it to exist", I suspect you also don't think it exists.

So then why do posters keep posting as if there were a difference between Kerry and Dean on this issue?

[blm]

82. EXACTLY. Dean supporters are still judging Kerry on Iraq through a prism

that is based on their PERCEPTION that Dean was always against the war. The fact is that Dean supported the Biden-Lugar version which was not SIGNIFICANTLY different than IWR and STILL allowed for Bush to have the final decision to go to war even if pre-emptive.

When the posts refrain from attacking Kerry on his Iraq position while praising Dean for his, then there will be no need to point out the hypocrisy.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[blm]

96. KoKo...you cannot be serious.

The operatives are the ones who come here and piss on Kerry for EVERY perceived slight and then stir up those feelings of grievance amongst the real Dean supporters to keep them agitated against Kerry.

My creds go back to working with Kucinich LONG before any of you ever heard his name. Now, I am a freeper? How odd. Especially since I always considered you a compadre even though we disagreed and always respected your earnestness.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

75. I'l tell you

The is a constant questioning of whether or not "anti-war" Democrats (with this term frequently associated with Dean by people who supported Dean, such as the initial poster) will vote for Kerry even though there is plenty of evidence they will (ex. the millions who have already voted for him in the primaries) and the paucity of evidence that they won't (which often comes in the form of "I was waiting in line at the supermarket when a lady in a Dean shirt said...")

Address these issues, and then we'll talk about "strawmen". Until then, your tactic is little more than a diversion based in your visceral hatred for Howard Dean, rather than having anything to do with Kerry.

Actually, the Dean name was brought up numerous times in this thread before blm posted in it. Somehow, that never bothered you.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

78. Here ya go

you sick little puppy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1405888

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[blm]

84. heh....OK, you made me laugh, KoKo.

I always post to you straightforward. No disrespect. I expect you to take my posts as straightforward thoughts, just as I post them.

I don't doubt you know that, so, I will continue to enjoy your joke. ;)

[Gloria]

83. At our caucus here in New Mexic CD2, I was pretty disappointed...

the party regulars are sheeple. They don't know about Buzzflash or the Democratic Underground. The 28 of us on the Clark side seemed a bit more independent. With great despair, I will vote for Kerry.

It's the energy that's in doubt. Putting in the hard work. My small group is disgusted and so unmotivated to put in any work. Vote yes. But
feel disengaged and put off by the fact that the Dems haven't seemed to learn any lessons. It's like the 2002 election cycle all over again. Ugh.

[KoKo]

86. Thanks, Gloria. I understand what you say . All of us who worked for

"Alternative" (in hindsite, alternative) Candidates have had similar experience to yours.

I was really "in the middle between Dean/Kucinich" but thought Kerry would probably get it in the end. Although I gave $$$'s to D & K, I thought they were up against alot from Party Establishment.

And, to be honest with you..I wasn't a Clark supporter, but understand that so many of us here wanted to make a difference and frankly if I had "my wish" I would have wanted Carol Moseley-Braun as MY candidate. I'm not even African-American, but I thought out of all of them I would take a chance with her...

Where do you think you all are going to go, now. How does one keep a "coalition" of interested Dems together when Kerry doesn't seem to want to speak up about issues? Is it his "campaign managers, polls or DLC/DNC which have Kerry on a "leash?"

Please keep up with this. I've been hooked on your Buzzflash Media Reports from the International Newspapers for so long.

Where do we go?

[KoKo]

92. BTW, none of the folks I talked to knew about Buzzflash either. If I had

it to do all over again I would have printed up flyers with News Sources and probably listed, in addition to Buzzflash, the Guardian, Australia Times, and BBC, in case they just wanted to stick with a newspaper online.

A few mentioned Yahoo, but even though they didn't know Buzzflash many knew about the BBVoting. So, who knows? They are getting informed somewhere and it can't be from CNN.

Printing flyers of news sources and putting them in Senior Centers and Libraries might be something I should be doing.

[Larkspur]

85. Kerry, the warmonger come lately, never had my support

If Dean hadn't done what he did, I'd have written in Bugs Bunny in the Primary. That's what I thought of the Dem field after Gore bowed out. Yes, I supported Gore before I supported Dean.

[doubles]

89. Hell Yes! nt

[mitchum]

93. Well, if they don't care about Supreme Court appointments...

I guess so.

Y'know, this is GETTING REALLY FREAKIN' OLD

[David Dunham]

95. Guys: Dean is like Kerry in wanting to keep troops in Iraq.

[Larkspur]

97. What Dean wanted to do was bring in Muslim troops to do the day-by-day

policing and use our troops for any major strike that might be needed.
Kerry has right off the bat said that he would add 40,000 more US troops.

Dean was all for Internationalizing Iraq and sharing the contracts along with the burden of getting Iraq stablized. Kerry wants to internationalize the burden but he hasn't said anything about sharing the contracts.

[sadiesworld]

99. Wrong.

Kerry never said 40,000 more US troops, he said 40,000 additional troops--including Muslim troops. Moreover, he has discussed sharing the contracts.

Do you naysayers ever actually listen to Kerry? Or do you just decide what facts will fit w/i the narrow confines of your argument, and then attribute those facts to Kerry?

:grr: :grr: :grr:

[sangh0]

100. I vote for the latter

Just a hunch

:shrug:

[blm]

101. heheh...you nailed it. They fit their pretend facts to their own view

of Kerry because they lack the maturity to accept that most Democrats didn't agree with their preferred candidate.