Kerry's Cowardice May Cost Us the Election

[OrdinaryTa]

Prominent Democrats who voted in favor of the Iraq invasion squandered an opportunity to educate Americans that there's no connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th. The failure of our leadership to show courage may cost us the 2004 election. Bush continues to exploit the public misperception that the invasion is part of the war on terrorism.

Kerry is not the only Democrat who was out of touch with the people in the streets who marched by the hundreds of thousands protesting imminent war. But Kerry is running for President based partly on his military record as a courageous fighter. His vote on the war complicates the task of the Democratic nominee in 2004, whether or not that nominee is Kerry himself.

The yellow ribbon that symbolizes support for the troops has come to represent America's response to September 11th. By now this is so deeply embedded that many Americans believe that opposition to the war and its aftermath is cowardly or traitorous. John Kerry let that happen.

Just imagine if Kerry's political record had been as courageous as his military record purports to be. At the risk of his own safety, he might have denied the "enemy" the strategic overall advantage. But he, and a number of others, didn't do that. We may still win the 2004 election, but Kerry's vote remains an obstacle.

[Sweetpea]

1. I am glad you said "MAY" because it is going to be a long year

and there will be many twists and turns that all the candidates and the public will have to endure and survive.

[Cocoa]

2. it may cost him the nomination

but if he gets it, the war will be perceived as Bush's.

Kerry's voting for the resolution will be seen as him putting partisanship aside, not impeding the president.

Bush took that cooperation and screwed it all up.

[Booberdawg]

3. Oh, for God's sake

:eyes:

[AP]

4. 70% of Americans believe there's a connection. If Kery made a stand...

...68% would believe there was a connection, and half of them would be trained by Republicans to believe Kerry was kidnapped by the viet cong, and brainwashed to run for president so that he could lower Americas defenses and open us up to attack (like they did to McCain, the Manchurian Candidate 2000).

You don't think the same way most Amerians think. Most Americans are ingrained from birth with the belief that Amerian national security comes first. Hell, it took ten years before anyone realized that the domino theory was bunk and that Vietnam was no threat.

[maggrwaggr]

38. so it's "leadership" to go along with the mob?

cause that's what you're saying.

Think about it. What is leadership?

What he did was appeasement, not leadership.

I don't give a RATS ASS about his fucking WAR RECORD. He fucked up, people DIED by the THOUSANDS and there's no bringing them back. HE FUCKED UP. SO DID EVERYONE WHO VOTED FOR THE WAR. THEY SHOULD ALL RESIGN IN SHAME!!!!

[AP]

48. Leadership isn't exactly pontificating from the sidelines.

Has Al Gore been much of a leader since 2000? How about Mike Dukakis and Mondale? How much leadership have they been able to exhibit?

To be in it, you have to win it.

[disgruntella]

5. Pointing fingers at Kerry - that's a new one

Not enough flaming him for his real estate and his wife's investments?

Don't like Kerry - don't vote for him. But Bush is the person to be pointing fingers at in 2004, along with the hawks in his administration, for the Iraq invasion and its aftermath.

[ParanoidPat]

6. WTF? Did I miss the PRIMARY?

How can someone who hasn't even been chosen to run yet.....
Never mind, this is just pathetic!

[Terwilliger]

9. why is it pathetic?

can you argue the points Ta raises?

I've seen media constantly harp on the idea that Kerry could have a clear issue here if he'd voted No. Now he's just some wihsy-washy type who doesnt want to offend anybody.

[ParanoidPat]

32. Kerry is not my first or even second choice for President but....

....blaming him for the LOSS of an election over a year BEFORE IT EVEN HAPPENS, BEFORE HE'S EVEN BEEN CHOSEN TO RUN is, IMHO, pathetic! :)

[Terwilliger]

33. it's a stretch

but I still think he'll be the nominee for the party, and I have to worry about his "electability"

Seriously, if you alienate the base enough, it will bite you in the end. I think Kerry crossed a line with a lot of people who DO believe in the ideals of peace.

[ParanoidPat]

36. Whatever.

You seem to forget that most people DON'T EVEN KNOW THE NAMES of the candidates at this point! To accuse anyone of losing the election at this point is nothing more than self defeating hyperbole, seriously.
Perhaps it's just a little more important to work on the issue of how the votes will be cast and counted in 2004 before we start the blame game about who cost us the election and why! :(

[Octafish]

7. Kerry is a brave man. He's more in tune than you think.

During Vietnam, John Kerry received the Silver Star, the Bronze Star with combat "V" for valor and three Purple Hearts for wounds suffered in combat. What did your horse do?



Of course, after leaving the service, Kerry helped lead the public opposition to the war. For his work to end the war, Kerry received the secret wrath of the Nixon White House, who were afraid of "another Ralph Nader." Among his many friends was Beatle John Lennon.

[Terwilliger]

10. please remove the lennon picture from your post

that has NOTHING to do with what John Kerry is today

When I see that he "imagines no possessions" and can fight for "a brotherhood of man" I'll give him any credit for liking the Beatles and Lennon.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Terwilliger]

18. oh?

Kerry said on Wolf Blitzer that he happened to be in the right place to meet Lennon. He seemed apologetic for having been asked the question.

[imhotep]

12. how many funerals has the brave senator attended

for the young soldiers he sent to die in Iraq?

[disgruntella]

14. the same question could be asked

of any Democratic candidate.

If anyone has FACTS about this (as opposed to rhetorical questions), I'd be interested.

[Octafish]

17. I don't know. Kerry DID answer the call of his country.

He volunteered for Vietnam. He served. That's more than anyone else running.

[imhotep]

19. I am curious

How is volunteering for Vietnam a good thing? Also how would that make someone more qualified to be President?

[Terwilliger]

23. I have no doubt that Kerry is honorable in that regard, but...

because he served and protected his country does not bestow him some automatic acceptance...cops serve...firemen serve...janitors serve...people serve

because he would die for his country? Great. Can we get someone who wants to live for his country?

[OrdinaryTa]

30. Kerry's Military Record - Too Contrived?

If you're going to push Kerry as a war hero, you can't afford to be naive about the politics of awards and decorations. Kerry had six months of soft duty off the coast of Vietnam, not enough to help him in his political career. So he pulled strings to get him some dangerous-sounding combat duty, but nothing really dangerous.

The fact that some of Kerry's awards sound bogus makes me suspect the rest of them. Kerry's purple hearts might be legitimate, but he got them really cheap. They make me suspect his Silver Star and his Bronze Star. The question is: Did this guy really earn these things?

If Kerry gets the nomination, some investigative reporter is going to be all over this. Kerry's military record looks .... what is the word? .... artful.

[disgruntella]

31. I think you were looking for this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=298388

[OrdinaryTa]

62. Alerting the Mods

The thread you're referring to was closed because it wasn't about the candidates, it was about other DU'ers. I've read the rules for posting on DU and I support them.

If you believe that this thread violates either the letter or the spirit of the rules, please don't hesitate to alert the mods.

[OrdinaryTa]

20. Kerry's Awards

During Vietnam, John Kerry received the Silver Star, the Bronze Star with combat "V" for valor and three Purple Hearts for wounds suffered in combat

Kerry, an officer in Vietnam, got the kind of bullshit awards that officers get. Kerry's misrepresentation of himself as a war hero cheats the enlisted men who actually earn awards like the Silver Star or the Bronze Star with "V" device.

Kerry used his cheapo Purple Hearts - three of them - to get an early return to the United States, where some soft job awaited him. It's possible that Kerry exploited his political connections throughout his military career.

[oasis]

40. Again with the "cheapo" purple hearts? Max Cleland endorses Kerry

'nuff said.

[REP]

45. Many Vets Used To Refuse Purple Hearts

My uncle was a 16 year old when he was a navigator in WWII. He was awarded two DCFs with clusters as well as a Purple Heart. He didn't think much of his DCFs - he referred to them as having "numerous oatmeal clusters" - and even less of his PH, which he refused. The rest of his squad refused theirs, too - nothing honorable about getting hurt, they said. Now I happen to think that all volunteers who enlisted for any war merit recognition for bravery, no matter how ill-considered their war may have been, like Vietnam, but I can't help remember those WWII vets when anyone flashes their Purple Hearts.

Kerry's not my guy, but I certainly don't hate him. I didn't agree with his vote for the current war, and still don't, and that's one reason he's not my guy. Whatever his tour of duty was like, he went, unlike FuckingAsshole*. How ever it happened, he was injured more than once while in Vietnam. He came back and protested the war. I see nothing dishonorable in any of the above.

I can't believe I'm reading things trashing a guy who actually went to Vietnam, when there's a cowardly AWOL piece of shit stinking up our country. If Kerry does become the candidate, I would vote for him, and not just to vote against WorthlessPieceofShit*.

[oasis]

46. Sadly, some do not have the same respect as we for those

who have fought and bled for this great country of ours.

[OrdinaryTa]

51. Max Cleland

Max Cleland's political endorsement of John Kerry doesn't change what happened 30 years ago. Kerry's purple hearts weren't fully earned, but he used them to get out of Vietnam. This is not admirable, and Cleland's endorsement won't make it admirable.

The purple heart acknowledges war wounds, not trivial injuries like those Kerry experienced. It's not a merit badge, collect three of them and you can go home. If Kerry had been a true hero, he would not have used his cheapo purple hearts to shorten his combat tour to only 4 months. That's chickenshit, and Cleland knows it, too.

[oasis]

55. Anyone questioning the integrity and courage of Max Cleland

should be subject to the same ridicule as Saxby Chambliss and Ralph Reed for their disgraceful election campaign smearing of the valiant war verteran . Don't you agree?

[OrdinaryTa]

59. Cleland's Purple Heart

Paraplegic Max Cleland was awarded a purple heart for his injuries, while able-bodied John Kerry was awarded three. Every day of Cleland's life since Vietnam is affected by his injuries, while Kerry's trivial wounds weren't disabling at all.

Over the years the purple heart has come to be awarded rather thoughtlessly. Kerry exploited this by collecting three cheap purple hearts and applying for a transfer back to the United States. This was not automatic, and approval was not automatic either. The officer who approved Kerry's transfer says he's not sorry he did it, but it still doesn't look good. Perhaps that's why Kerry, with his bogus purple hearts, needed the support of Max Cleland.

[oasis]

64. Does his endorsement of Kerry reflect badly on Cleland?

I'll withdraw my original unanswered question and substitute this one.

[maggrwaggr]

39. and this proves.....? I see a guy who went where the winds blew

At first he thought it was cool to be in the military.

Later he thought it was cool to hang out with Lennon.

A year ago he thought it was cool to go along with Bush.

Now he thinks it's cool to run for President.

I don't mean to be flaming him. If he gets the nomination I'll vote for him. But he pisses me off. I don't trust him. I think he panders. He follows others. He wants people to like him.

[bluestateguy]

8. Kerry is not a "coward"

He was wrong on an issue, yes, but you should know better than to call a war hero like Kerry a "coward". The cowards are in the White House.

[OrdinaryTa]

13. Kerry's No War Hero

Kerry got some questionable decorations and left Vietnam after only a third of the normal combat tour. Although healthy and able-bodied, Kerry exploited loopholes in a policy intended to benefit wounded soldiers. Kerry's wounds were trivial.

Kerry later threw back his ribbons in a grand gesture against the war. But the medals to which these ribbons correspond are on the wall in Kerry's Senate office today. What an empty gesture! His supporters claim that medals and ribbons aren't the same thing. This is hair-splitting.

Kerry's vote for the Iraq war was a disgrace. When we looked to him to show leadership, he didn't do it. Instead of looking out for the Democratic Party, John Kerry looked out for John Kerry.

[Terwilliger]

25. You're right

Kerry had the chance to lead the party in October. He joined with the opposition to initiate war on people who received, as their first gift from the United States, the installation of the Ba'ath party in 1958 by the CIA (probably George H.W. Bush himself)

Kerry is not credible to me. Yes, yes, yes, I know...I'm just a clownie.

[PurityOfEssence]

11. That's absolutely ridiculous

The only people it will drive off are leftists who can't stomach it for some reason and can't suck it up and vote with the team. It isn't going to shake off any swing voters if it's Junior against a Dem who voted for the war. The only people who will screw the pooch and hand the power back to the uglies of the right are purists, perfectionists and unrelenting anti-war people OF THE LEFT who can't get over themselves for the common good.

Fine, make it a litmus test for nomination, but if it affects your vote in the general election should Lieberman, Gephardt, Kerry or Edwards get the nomination, then YOU are the problem, not him.

If it turns people off so they don't vote, that's also their problem. Politics is about aggregate good; there's not a candidate in the race who isn't dismissable for some very clear and ethical points if you want to be a goody two-shoes about it. Any of them is much better than the current mob, and to opt out or throw a vote away on a third party is silly.

This Kerry bashing is getting puerile; I thought the onset of the Clark-barkers a few weeks ago was irritating, but this is revolting.

Come on, you used to be fair-minded and community spirited. Have you gone to the dark side too?

[imhotep]

21. vote with the team?

Is this a football game or democracy?

[Terwilliger]

27. I'm sorry, why is it "the dark side" to be discussing candidates?

I've heard quite enough about Dennis Kucinich (MUCH LESS Mr. Nader) to last a lifetime.

Your "team" spirit means nothing. I'm sorry, I grew up thinking Republicans were "team oriented" and that's why I don't like them.

If Democrats are friends and neighbors brought together in a spirit of governance and leadership, then I can be "part of the team" :eyes:

When you're trying to out Repukelocrat, Rethuglicoids...you get one less vote

[PurityOfEssence]

41. let me clarify

The original poster says that Kerry's "cowardice" at not standing up to the administration's evil war of conquest will cause us to lose the election. I say that the only way that's possible is if people who should be voting for the Democratic candidate get disillusioned and either vote for an independent spoiler candidate or opt out entirely. Therefore, no matter how horrible his vote was, it'll be the narcissistic egocentric purist children who fuck things up by not "doing the right thing", not John Kerry. Honestly, your post was nigh indecipherable.

Can you restate your post? As far as I can understand, the header seems to say that I'm slagging people for the innocent comparison of candidates. Your first sentence dismisses a third-party spoiler (I'm obviously with you on that) and a rather extreme party candidate, who if nominated, negates the entire premise of the thread, and if not, is not an issue by dint of not being in the general election. Your second sentence makes sense, but I'd say it's wrong: two-party politics in this country means joining up and banding together; this is absolutely necessary in this system by definition. I'm with you on the next sentence. The last sentence is flat-out incoherent.

First off, we don't know all of what went into his decision, but that's beside the point. The point is that if people can't see the obvious reason to choke down their ire and vote these vermin out, even if it means supporting a war-voter, the failure will be that of the purists and uncompromising. It doesn't matter how bad or wrong that vote was; if people are going to compound the damage by going off on some egofest to not lower themselves to vote for a sullied candidate to save the damned world from an obvious pack of hyenas, it will be their fault. It won't be the swing voters' fault, it'll be the "idealists" who can't muster some practicality to band together at a time of crisis.

If Kerry didn't live up to storybook heroism in some peoples' eyes to enough of a degree to get them off their asses to rally and get rid of the plague, then it's THEIR FAILING, not his. If that's what's meant--that an engraved invitation served on a silver tray is necessary to get people to vote--then we deserve slavery and subjugation.

I'm sick of the virtuecrats who proclaim their untainted beauty and that of their sainted candidate(s) as justification to sling derision as some kind of god-given right to the morally superior. The tone of this thread subject is ugly and unjustified.

The only way this premise makes sense is if his vote takes the wind out of the sails of people who decide to not vote for the Democratic candidate in the general eleciton, and that's THEIR FAULT, FAILING, FLAW, SHAME and betrayal to the rest of us.

[Terwilliger]

53. wow

talk about self-righteous prattle

my position didn't advocate nor inspire nor foster nor require that Iraq must suffer "shock and awe" for policies that the Democratic party have allowed to prosper...shit, they'd have done it themselves if they could

You people have no concept of why we shouldnt kill other people. I really do think that your party-loyalist arrogance is costing lives and American prominence.

By the by...if you must attack the idealists, that means you dont believe in the ideal. Must be a muddle-headed centrist :eyes:

[OrdinaryTa]

60. Defining Issue

You people have no concept of why we shouldnt kill other people

The vote allowing Bush to wage war on Iraq can't be thought of as just one vote out of many. That minimizes its significance. The war was so unnecessary that Kerry's vote for it can not be made plausible. With that vote Kerry showed his indifference to the lives of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of Americans.

Kerry's supporters show their indifference to the grief and carnage of the war when they denounce us as "one-issue simpletons". It's not just one issue, it's the defining issue of our times. Solely for the sake of his own career prospects, Kerry got it wrong.

[dfong63]

16. there's more than one kind of courage

Kerry says he didn't believe in the Vietnam war, yet he volunteered to fight in it.

later, he protested the war by throwing medals over the white house fence - someone else's medals.

now Kerry says his vote did "not" authorize Bush to go to war against Iraq, but he did support removing Saddam from power.

in each case, it seems that Kerry wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Kerry's supporters say he demonstrated "courage" in his medal-winning exploits in Vietnam. but, there is more than one kind of courage. the physical bravery that won him medals, is one kind. it would have taken another kind of courage to stand up and oppose the (Vietnam) war, WITHOUT first enlisting and going overseas and bravely killing little yellow people. it would have taken another kind of courage, to take a clear stand in the senate against the Iraq war. that's the kind of courage i want in a president, and i don't think Kerry has it.

[agingdem]

22. Enough!

I've had it with the Kerry bashing! If he's our candidate we SUPPORT him. Bush is the bad guy, remember?

[grytpype]

24. Kerry, like all the Dems who voted for war authority...

... can truthfully say there was "fraud in the inducement," in that Ol' One-Termer had them convinced Saddam was on the verge of attacking us with WMD.

Admit it, if what El Smirko was saying about Iraq was actually true, there sure has hell would have been a case for war. That's why they went to all the trouble to make that shit up.

[angka]

29. not buying that for a minute.

nt

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

26. Like we need Kerry to help us lose? Read the boards

We can lose with or without Kerry. We could lose with Jesus Christ. If Ghandi ran in the Dem field he would be being portrayed by some as a FAR FRINGED LEFTIST ALA MC GOVERN (nevermind the deep fundamental differences) and he would be being portrayed by the other end of the spectrum as a photo hound whore that "only did the hunger strike thingy" when the cameras were watching.

Someone would post that he wasn't really dead and was living with the secret government in a Jupiter Island condo and only fasted because he owned interest in a funeral home.

[PurityOfEssence]

43. Thanks Shocky, but you're being far too rational

We're in some bizarre, ego-frenzied, self-aggrandizing, one-upsmanship group tantrum here. Your sense, awareness and practicality are as fitting as a liquored-up limbo contest at an Ashcroft office party.

Sigh.

Thanks for trying, though...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

49. GAWD do I love you!

:D

[blm]

52. HAHAHAHAH!!!! That was pure poetry.

"Shocky" loves political poetry. You'll steal her heart with that post. And many of us others here, as well.

;)))))))))))))))

[Terwilliger]

57. you're an extremist calling the other side extreme

but then consider me some ego driven idealist?

Fight your battles for "social justice" while bombing the next country on the list.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

61. Your way virtually guarantees it will happen..ALL OR NOTHING

risks NOTHING far greater than consensus.

[Lexingtonian]

28. Bitch, whine, slime

I really hate this type of Monday Morning Quarterbacking and fallacious blamemongering.

There was nothing cowardly about Kerry's decision to vote with the 98 other Senators. He openly deliberated about it for weeks in upper Democratic circles here in Massachusetts and thought long and hard about abstaining- but thought that would have been interpreted as cowardice.

You can convict John Kerry of not being the person you like. And maybe he is a deficient politician for not seeing how quickly the Bush people would bungle just about everything in Iraq, for gambling the wrong way on the outcome. On the other hand, Iraq was a festering problem that Clinton saw no good solution to and passed on as a cuckoo's egg to George Bush (who, moron that he is, hatched it). There still had to be, and has to be, a solution to the political problem posed by Iraq. You can pretend that somehow "educating the American public" was somehow a good no one ought to dare violate, but it's pretension, it's trivial, it's a load of crap.

In the end, this vote is- and was only created- so that there would be a blame game about it during the '04 general campaign; it actually decided nothing. Fools like yourself see in it a thing to latch onto, a thing out of which to create an emotion-based "rationale".

I suggest you go out and figure out why you actually despise John Kerry. I think I have previously pointed out to a number of posters that their real problem with him is ultimately class-based (wealth, Skull&Bones, faux insultedness). The major sincere problem I have found people have with him is that Kerry doesn't get them as excited, speaks to them in effect, as some other candidate.

[OrdinaryTa]

34. Ninety-Eight Other Senators

There still had to be, and has to be, a solution to the political problem posed by Iraq

We may indeed have had a political problem in Iraq, but like North Korea, it's a sovereign nation. We needed a political solution, not a military one. The fact that Kerry was only part of the collapse of Democratic leadership reflects no credit on him.

While it's possible that I may have problems with Kerry other than his political failures, that's the main one. I can't trust a guy who talks one way and acts another. I also think his war record is somewhat contrived.

Educating the American public about political issues is not a "load of crap". It's what political leadership is about! Wayne Morse was one of two Senators who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, and ultimately he was proved right.

There was no justification for Kerry's vote the war on Iraq, and all its attendant grief and carnage. Kerry didn't show any leadership. He's just a face in the crowd.

[Lexingtonian]

42. I disagree

We may indeed have had a political problem in Iraq, but like North Korea, it's a sovereign nation.

That seems obvious but is not the full truth of the situation. Iraq is a confederacy of three major groups that was created by fiat from London and run as a mini-empire (much like the Soviet Union) by Hussein and his predecessors- favoring one of the groups and repressing the other two.

We needed a political solution, not a military one. The fact that Kerry was only part of the collapse of Democratic leadership reflects no credit on him.

Technically, we were/are in a state of war with Iraq- the 1991 war ended in an armistice, not a peace treaty. Then there are the unique problems of dealing with dictatorships- a form of government in which all people are crushed so that they have almost nothing and one person of the society has nearly exclusively about 99% of the information, the say, and the initiative.

I'm sorry you don't remember that even a substantial majority of Democrats were in favor of war at the time, though it would be wrong to pretend that they had coherent reasoning. The lack of credible leaders with which to replace Hussein was the problem during Clinton's terms; it was the hole in Bush's arguments. But no one seemed to care, if you remember. This was not a case of collapse of the upper tiers of the Democratic Party- this was one where the base was split almost 2:1 in favor of invasion. The leaders didn't have much of a choice but on the whole to go along.

While it's possible that I may have problems with Kerry other than his political failures, that's the main one. I can't trust a guy who talks one way and acts another. I also think his war record is somewhat contrived.

Well, have a closer look. I haven't found either allegation warranted yet. Make sure to wash away the mud thrown that way properly, though.

Educating the American public about political issues is not a "load of crap". It's what political leadership is about! Wayne Morse was one of two Senators who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, and ultimately he was proved right.

It's nice and good that Morse was proven right. It is a good thing in retrospect. But it was a symbol, not an action that affected the fate of even a single soldier. As for 'educating the public', I don't recall much of anyone in political leadership doing actually that in my lifetime. They take a stance, the audience always has to pick up the full story from a variety of other sources. Maybe Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu are exceptions to this during my lifetime, perhaps not.

There was no justification for Kerry's vote the war on Iraq, and all its attendant grief and carnage. Kerry didn't show any leadership. He's just a face in the crowd.

Moral justification, perhaps or perhaps not- another five or ten years of Hussein and Iraq would have been one hugh slum. Political justification, perhaps not to you but adequate to the average Massachusetts voter. Hindsight is 20/20, foresight is not- the average voter around these parts votes for the better person in the hope that s/he gets things right more often, not out of beliefs in infallibility.

Leadership we will disagree about. For me, leadership is insightfulness and determination in the worst moments and careful, subtle, shepherding when no danger is in sight. Knowing What Is Important, and Being There When Needed. No more, no less. I don't know whether there is meaningful leadership in deciding which side of a 98-1 vote to go on, only a choice of moral selfimportance and a question of how ignorant and selfimportant swing voters will choose to misunderstand things.

I'm not saying you should lower your standards on what 'leadership' is, indeed you should refine and raise them. But if you need a leader who is immaculate in certain ways, who is Priest and King in one, who has the first and the last word on everything, someone without whom you would be lost and aflounder and ignorant in the world, then classical republicanism is what you want rather than democratic life. Ask not what your country can do for you, etc. is a call to an inward autonomy.

I am finally not sure whether you are convicting Kerry of a crime against Democratic sensibility or whether you are convicting him of not living up to your ideals and the iconography it requires. I don't see how he can honestly be convicted of a betrayal in the first instance. And for the second I am not sure you are giving him as fair a shot as you think.

[OrdinaryTa]

56. Kerry's Views on Iraq

another five or ten years of Hussein and Iraq would have been one huge slum

Considering the fate we've rescued them from, you'd think the Iraqis would be grateful. They sure don't act like they are!

My objection to Kerry is that he voted for the war even though he opposed it. Now you're telling me that the war was actually a good thing. It doesn't sound like John Kerry shares your opinion, and that's to his credit. At least, I hope he doesn't!

Enlighten me. Where does John Kerry stand on Iraq?

[maggrwaggr]

37. "thought that would have been interpreted as cowardice."

kind of says it all, no?

Kerry is not a leader, he's a follower. He sticks up his finger to see which way the wind is blowing before opening his mouth, always.

"He thought that would have been interpreted as cowardice".

THAT IS NOT LEADERSHIP.

If Kerry gets the nomination I'll vote for him, but he's one of the reasons I'm so fucking pissed off at my country right now. I could tell Bush was lying through his teeth 100% and I'm not a goddamn Senator I'm just a schmuck trying to make a living. Kerry could have and should have stood up and opposed this slimeball criminal administration we have now.

IT'S TOO LATE. THOUSANDS ARE DEAD. YOU CAN'T APOLOGIZE AND POINT FINGERS NOW! THERE ARE NO SECOND CHANCES!

[Lexingtonian]

44. Well

You're demonstrating rather perfectly the thing that is really infuriating to thoughtful politicians- sheer unwillingness to find a fair standard of judgment when an unfair one will serve your selfimportant needs better.

About Bush lying- Duhhhhh. But just because a ceramic jar is being sold by a moron of a salesman as a chamber pot doesn't mean you reject the sale- if it's in fact a nice vase, you play along and buy it. The same is true for Iraq- whatever the Bush people said, even if it was all wrong, maybe it really was (by some accident of fate) time to do something there.

And if you are a cynic, you can even claim it worked out rather well for Democrats- Iraq exposed the Bush Administration as a bunch of incompetents and liars and thieves and revisionists in the American eye as nothing else has. It was their one trumpeted great chance to do good for the world and they flagrantly blew it without any excuse. So much so as to expose their supporters as fools to back them any longer.

You can claim Kerry is partly responsible for the American casualties of the war. The others are the Bush appointees' to answer for.

[clar]

47. Wait a second.

I'm really tired and my reading comprehension is therefore impaired , but are you saying that 99 Senators voted for the IWR. Maybe you're thinking of the Patriot Act. It's perfectly true that all the Senators but Feingold voted for that. However, 23 Senators, including both of mine, Leahy and Jeffords, voted against the IWR.

[Toby109]

35. A couple of things

In 1991 if memory serves, Kerry voted in opposition to the first Iraqi War. In fact strongly argued on the Senate floor that sanctions be allowed to continue before any military action was taken.

In early 2002 he came out criticizing the military's inability to capture Bin-Laden at Tora Bora and the reconstruction efforts currently being undertaken in Afghanistan.

Later in 2002, his Senatorial seat safe, he gave the greenlight for the Iraqi fiasco.

I guess I just don't get it.

[CWebster]

50. And it ain't like he is making much noise vow

correcting the misperceptions and misconceptions of the mis-led.

[sangh0]

54. Counter-productive

If you slam candidates even when they are supporting you (Kerry has just announced that he will NOT support Bush* $87Billion request) then they will have no reason to support you.

[nolabels]

58. My 87,000,000,000.00 dollar question is what is he saying about......

his vote for the atrocity lately. *Bush lied, so if he is standing side by side with John Lennon why isn't he leading the outrage and protest. I spent my time in the military, and would go back if I thought it moral and essential for the good of things. Where are these people that claim to have morals?

If you only give a shit about money, got news for you too, part of that ONE TRILLION DOLLARS cash is coming out of your pocket also.

[library_max]

63. "My Candidate Sucks So Bad That I Have To Attack Yours"

All hail CoffeePlease1947! He has come up with the perfect formula for dispelling all these negative campaign threads! All you Dean-bashers, Kerry-bashers, any-Democrat-bashers, please repeat after me: “MY CANDIDATE SUCKS SO BAD THAT I HAVE TO ATTACK YOURS.”

If I were a Bush supporter, I would be ROFLMAO to see all these Democrats ripping each other to pieces. My candidate in the general election is Anybody But Bush. As for the primaries, I haven’t decided yet. Amazing, ain’t it? Considering that the primaries are only six months away.

Come on, ladies and gentlemen! Unity, please! Eyes on the prize! BUCK FUSH!

[LeftCoast]

65. That's pretty much about it.

I support Dean, but I'm not going to bash a good democrat like Kerry.