John Kerry spent three years campaigning.

[leyton]

He spent 2002 campaigning for his Senate seat and laying the groundwork for a Presidential run. He spent 2003 campaigning for the nomination and, I might add, took out a mortgage on his effing house. He spent 2004 campaigning for the Presidency. Campaigning is hard work; I get exhausted some days, and I sit a friggin desk. This guy has to go from meeting to meeting, make speech after speech, shake hand after hand. For three years.

And now he has to endure DUers taking a dump on him because now that his chances of winning the election by overturning it are 0.000001% he might want to take a rest. Is it not allowed for him to turn over the fight for change over to someone else for one second so he can get a breather?

[TabulaRasa]

1. I'm getting kind of sick of this suggestion

My mom said the same thing when I was so disgusted with him (and depressed) that I couldn't watch his concession. "Oh, he worked so hard. We owe him some respect." Fuck that! He was working for his own power and prestige. If he were actually fighting for the people, he might have said something bold, or visionary. Instead, he spent the entire campaign cowering in a corner, worried that if he said anything even remotely controversial, he might not win. Ironically, that's precisely the reason why he didn't win. You don't win the presidency by nitpicking here and there. I don't owe this guy anything except my contempt for running an incomprehensibly terrible campaign, and cursing us with four more years of hell. My sympathy goes to the victims of the Bush administration. After that, given how many victims of the Bush administration there are, there's none left for Kerry. He'll just have to console himself between ski vacations and wind-surfing trips.

[leyton]

5. And the tradition continues...

the tradition of scorning every candidate the party fields and every elected Democrat, from Lieberman to Kerry to Obama.

Kerry's campaign was not perfect, but in the end a perfect campaign might not have won anyway. He was overwhelmed by the turnout for Bush. If he had said something controversial and then lost, people here would be all over him for blowing his chances. It's really a lose-lose situation.

[TabulaRasa]

8. I was saying

that he was so afraid of saying anything controversial, that he didn't say ANYTHING. It was a campaign without a message, or reason for existence, other than Kerry's desire to be president. I wasn't suggesting that he say something that would be impolitic. It's called running a common-sense campaign. Virtually everything Kerry did, he did terribly ... from his ski vacation, taken right when the Republicans were launching their first wave of attacks, up until that cringe-worthy moment when he mentioned Cheney's daughter. It was a disaster of a campaign. If we don't say it bluntly, we'll keep coddling the Shrums and Cahills of the world. They'll continue to think they're political geniuses, who happen to be running against insurmountable odds ... when the truth is, they suck, and easily could have won.

[sampsonblk]

29. Amen..

Bush was an unpopular candidate, and a campaign with strong conviction could have easily sent him back to Texas where he belongs.

The Kerry campaign did more harm than good, by supporting the worst of Bush's failures (Iraq "war") and may have set us back for several election cycles. I don't have any obligation to feel sorry for Kerry himself. He did us a disservice as did the idiot pragmatists who insisted on nominating him. Now what?

[marcologico]

31. Look you guys can mouth all the Rove talking points you want but Kerry is

still light years ahead of Dean on every issue and guess what? Voters think so too.

[Cheswick2.0]

41. LOL, who mentioned Dean?

Different name, but same old irrational hatred of Howard Dean.

[marcologico]

45. I didn't have to mention him, it's only obvious, and if I'm irrational

Ellsberg, Woodward and Berstein were fabricators.

[sampsonblk]

47. "light years ahead of Dean on every issue"

Keep believing that if you insist. But Dean was 100% right about the war, and Kerry's position (or lack thereof) remains an embarrassment to this day.

[Dr Ron]

66. Dean's position was Kerry's position

Dean and Kerry had essentially the same position on Iraq. Both had the same position on the IWR resolution at the time of the vote. The only difference was that Kerry had to cast a vote while Dean didn't, allowing Dean to position himself as more anti-war at a later date despite agreeing with Kerry at the time of the vote. At the start of the war, it was Kerry who was calling for regime change in Washington, while Dean is on record for making both pro and anti war statements.

Kerry did try to appeal to both anti-war people and those who initially supported the war during the campaign. His position at this point wasn't as pure as Dean's, but Dean would likely have been blown out in a landslslide.

Basically both opposed the war under the circumstances in which it was started. Both also supported a reasonable position of agreeing to war if we were proven to be endangered by WMD.

The bottom line is that if either Dean or Kerry was in the White House, we would not have gone to war under these circumstances.

[The Gigmeister]

71. Outstanding post!!

[loyalsister]

46. huh?

I'd have to disagree with you. When Bush's approval numbers dipped, I suspect that that was going to the administration. He wasn't actually catching the blame personally. As rotten of a president Bush is, he was a stellar candidate.
With wealthy pukes already in his pocket, he applied the strategies you can read about in "What's The Matter With Kansas" brilliantly. One of those would be anti-intellectualism + outmoralizing Democrats. He benefitted so greatly from mispronouncing, and slumping and not being a guy who reads much that I can't believe it was all an accident.
His contrast in this dimension to Kerry was very salient in states like Kansas and Missouri that have been working on this psuedo-populism. The local people push messages like "These liberal elites don't understand what regluar people like us "value." Then the backlash against things like the evolution debate and of course the abortion and gay marriage issues come into play.
It is very effective tool for getting people to vote against their self interests.

[sampsonblk]

49. I agree with you 110%

Very astute analysis.

The problem is that nationally, Bush remains unpopular. But in those specific states, he's worshipped like a hero by so many people.

What you are saying - and I agree - is that Bush used a clever strategy to get people to vote against their self-insterests. Sure he did. And any reasonable Dem candidate could have used that against him. It looks to me like easy pickings.

Only a candidate with one hand tied behind his back could have trouble defeating Bush. And that's how Kerry seems to have approached it.

Bush's strategies are very effective - when not exposed early and often. That's what we should have done. But so many (even here) said we shouldn't "go negative." I don't consider that going negative, I consider that our duty.

Just my opinion, but Kerry's weak opposition on so many points - especially the "war" - may have set us back for a long time.

[loyalsister]

50. There's a difference between the job and the person

Whether we like it or not, job performance and the person are not a match in politics. It isn't quite clear what "Bush's" unpopularity is measuring. I'm not sure who you're talking to, but in my area, working class people love the guy.
He acts like "one of the guys." Someone they believe they would feel comfortable carrying on a conversation with in a bar.
I campaigned in a state where this strategy has the firmest grip and Combatting the anti-intellectualism is nearly impossible. And the response is the same as what people have to their college educated sometimes younger, cocky boss. They don't like it when you contradict them with information, and how dare you do it to the president. Especially in a time of war...
When you tell people that Bush isn't representing their interests and present evidence for why, you obviously just have a superiority complex. Increasing your own awareness is a way of showing off in the eyes of some people.
Kerry sounded like an elitist to those ears everytime he even made an effort to try to counter anything Bush said.
I don't think it would have taken going negative so much as being capable of speaking the language and turning some attention to the economic interests of poorer people, perhaps. This was a demographic that was overlooked. Democrats focuses so intently on the middle class that the rhetoric of the campaign left out the poor. This is the demographic Bush won over with his language, posture, and "values."
I think that using some "values" language in application to OUR Democratic principles combined with appealing to economic interests of people below middle class might make a difference. That was the genius of Obama's speech.

[sampsonblk]

51. We aren't far apart

You said "I think that using some "values" language in application to OUR Democratic principles..." Amen.

We are talking the exact same language, maybe with a minor difference in emphasis.

As far a Bush's popularity: We must have been talking to the same people. I dind't meet many people who were wishy-wishy on him at all. Among some people, Bush is a rock star. But that rock star number dipped steadily (still far too many for me) over the past few years. How much would it take to dip it further?

Even better than that, the people I talked to who were former Bush supporters now hate the guy. I liken them to people who've just left a cult and suddenly realize they have been taken advantage of. If they can see the light, how much does it take to get even more people to see it?

I saw the same frustration that you saw. Some people react negatively to facts. If we had some help from our national leaders, perhaps our efforts in the field would have been even more fruitful. But if John Kerry himself can't say that Bush is a liar, why should anyone belive it from me, even if I show them an avalanche of facts?

[loyalsister]

54. I don't think I said it well

What I was trying to get to is that attacking him isn't going to work with a lot of people. It is possible to reach them with an alternative, however. That is, providing that their common sense intelligence isn't insulted.
I think that you may be agreeing with my position that trying to I agree but disagree, sounds slick and "lawyer like" to some people. On top of that, saying something like "it's more complicated than that" loses the vote instantly.
Kerry did both and people around me found it insulting. It was almost a matter of not willing to try to speak a dialect that seems to come naturally to Bush.
I didn't talk to many people who had turned on him and hate him. Most who were against him here had been from the beginning. The ones who liked him were loyal. The values and anti-intellectualism strategies were incredibly effective at the state level in Missouri, too. You have to remember I am in a state that just bought the whole package statewide (beginning in 2002) for the first time in 80 years. I think we are definitely talking to different people.
This is a propagandistic process and it is be more effective in some regions than others.

[moggie12]

65. Very well said

I think we should avoid "dumping on John Kerry" in a nasty or mean-spirited way, but I just can't agree with people who keep saying "he ran a great campaign" or "the Bush people played dirty" or "Kerry did the best he could under the circumstances". His campaign was terrible, for the examples you listed as well as 100 more. I think he could've won by at least 10 million votes if his campaign had been tough and message-focused. How are we going to learn and run better campaigns if we don't look at this one and realize what we did wrong??

You hit the nail on the head about coddling Shrum. I don't blame Kerry as much as lame political consultants like Shrum. It's worse than just Shrum, though. A DUer posted a Washington Monthly article earlier this week that exposes the rot at the core of Democratic campaigns. My hair stood on end when I read it. In case you didn't see it, here's the link:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.sullivan.html

P.S. Someone posted a rumor earlier today that Shrum is going to retire and teach at NYU! Thank God, if it's true.

[BrendaStarr]

69. Check it he conceded before Ohio was even fetermined

in the least bit.

We deserved better than that and he promised more than that.

At least Chris Heinz was honest about who he is.

Who are you and what are you getting paid for this BS?

Thank you in advance for your answer.

BTW, Please don't think that Democratic party operatives can come in here and control us.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. What fucking gall you have. It's as though you missed all three debates.

And your cheap shots at his hobbies which he has every right to pursue are inflammatory and frankly immature.

May I ask who YOU supported in the primaries or need I ask...btw...tabula rosa is a blank slate...your slate is anything but....lots of preconceived notions in your post that are independent of the facts.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[demo dutch]

37. That's the difference between repugs and dems. The Dems take

the first opportunity to dump on their leaders. Repugs sticks together no matter what as a united front. That's why they beat us everytime!!

[KC21304]

2. Absolutely not ! And it is his fault if there is no

provable fraud that would overturn the election. :silly:


Thanks for your words of wisdom.

[robbedvoter]

13. No provable fraud? Were ya in Bagdad too on January 6?

How much fraud is palatable to you? More thasn Romania? less than Ukraine? (both those countries had new elections as the challenger fought - in both countries the challenger is taling office)

[jrthin]

3. Please stop it.

It's called finishing the job. He's a big boy who asked millions of voters for their time and their monies. We gave both because we took him at him word. Now, we asked that he finished the job or at least lend his face to an issue that is incredible important to our democracy: insuring that EVER vote counts. He failed us.

I'm tired of people, rethugs or dems, defending poor, selfish leadership.

[ChristianButLiberal]

4. Let's look toward the future

All of us felt betrayed, angry and saddened that King George got re-elected in this God awful election. I mean, if there was ever a time when I though democracy sucked was in November.

So let's put this behind us and look towards the '06 Election and especially the '08 one. We need to take back the White House the next election or I seriously see the end of this great Nation. Next thing you know we are as relevant to the world as the nation of Palau.

[robbedvoter]

19. Future? 3 stolen elections later - what would that be?

Insert head firmly in sand. repeat what you did expecting different results.
Fir further instructions see Charlie Brown, football, Lucy.

[The Zanti Regent]

62. Never Again, Mr. Ketchup

Never again will I support you, Mr. Ketchup.

YOU belong to Skull and Bones.
YOUR PAL Bush belongs to Skull and Bones.
YOU voted to send my only child off to war.
YOU turned YOUR BACK on him when his spinal cord was cut by an Iraqi bullet.
YOU kept silent when YOUR PAL BUSH cut money to VA facilities.
YOU LIED when you said every vote would be counted.
YOU LAID DOWN AND DIED FOR YOUR FELLOW BONESMAN AND YOU LET THE SWIFT BOAT VETS TURN YOU INTO WILLIE HORTON!
YOU made a Bonesman deal with your pals Bush and Rove to take out Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Dennis Kucinich, Bob Graham and Al Sharpton.
YOU laid down and died and YOU threw the election to your fellow Bonesman.
YOU didn't care that my son, my only child, lay in agony for months.
YOU LIED to our faces when YOU conceded.
MEANWHILE, my son, my only child, died at the age of 19 at Thanksgiving and now he has permanent residence in a VA Cemetery.
YOU AND YOUR PAL BUSH CUT MY HEART OUT.

I will support Howard Dean for Party Chair. If you deny him the chairmanship, I am FINISHED with the Democratic Party. I will work for secession to take California out of Jesusland.

[surfingscuba]

6. He's a big

boy, he can take it!!

[WI_DEM]

7. This is a discussion board

Kerry is a politician and he has heard worst and experienced worst. I do believe you are right that we tend to eat our own. Mondale and McGovern lost worst than Kerry did and they were exiled. We should respect those who make this type of fight for the presidency and honor them for it. But I also think they are big boys who should expect criticism or question why they did certain things.

[okieinpain]

9. I'm pissed because he didn't cover our asses in Ohio. he and

his staff did a miserable job of using those 10,000 lawyers to protect a person's right to vote. his campaign I give mixed reviews too, he was great in the debates, but that bullshit with the swiftboats was ridiculus. he knew it was coming but was still to stupid to duck, and counterpunch.

[marc_the_dem]

10. the fight's not over

Kerry 2008

[LittleClarkie]

16. the fight's not over

Kerry 2008

[m.standridge]

23. Kerry's problem is that next time

he's up against the Democratic establishment, to even get the nomination. Even if all that can be done right now, is done, and private people get together and get some info. out there about how Kerry won in Ohio, all that really would prove, on the surface, is that he won in the Electoral College, not the Popular vote.
Ever get the feeling there's too much infighting in the Democratic Party? Maybe even backstabbing? Was Kerry defeated by the Republicans--or by other Democrats behind his back in various ways?

[Sterling]

33. Kerry is a clean up man for the BFEE.

He always have looked after his frat buddy and their family. Kerry is also a shill for the MIC. He was never in it to win it, only to pacify gullible leftists who were desperate to stop Bush. He did his job perfectly.

[Sterling]

32. Not gonna happen.

It was funny though, thanks for the laugh.

[Dhalgren]

39. LOL! Gods! Thank you! I really needed a laugh just now.

[lojasmo]

55. Fuck that.

I'll work hard in the primaries against Kerry.

Perhaps I'll start a PAC and run a video with Osama's face morphing into Kerry's face.

:eyes:

No way in hell I'm voting for Kerry in the generals either.

[LittleClarkie]

68. Who did you support in the primaries this time around?

Just curious.

[lojasmo]

74. Anybody who didn't enable the Bush administration.

I caucused for Dean.

I supported everybody who didn't spend the last 3 years enabling legislation pushed by the Bush administration.

Dean, Clark, Braun, Kucinich, and Al sharpton.

[ClarkUSA]

58. Shouldn't you be LittleKerry?

Clark 2008

[LittleClarkie]

67. Clark was my first love

Didn't know a ton about him when I voted for him in the primaries, just that he articulated what I thought of the war.

He badly needed the practice he got in this election season. Political newbie. We'll see what happens now.

[LibertyorDeath]

11. Very true and he should get much appreciation for it ....but......

No retreat...... No surrender

Every vote WILL be Counted. NOT SO MUCH......

Say what you mean & mean what you say or it's all just so much Shit IMO

[robbedvoter]

12. The "hard work" defense? The other perpetual candidate was using

it! All righty then!

[Larkspur]

14. Does anyone know if John Kerry paid off his $6.4 million mortgage

with campaign contributions? He had $15 million left over from the election, so wonder if any contributions form those who don't live in mansions helped buy back his Beacon Hills mansion?

[robbedvoter]

17. All I know is that it was Scaife's bank.

[ClarkUSA]

56. Kerry paid off the loan with campaign contributions in July 2004

[ChiciB1]

15. You Have A Point....

But I don't think he thought it was going to be easy, did he?? I supported him fervently, and actually don't think he did a bad job of it. I still think the election was stolen. But I am dismayed by the silence. But silence from almost EVERY Democrat in Congress!

I just hope someday we find out what it is that they're all AFRAID of!

[NYCGirl]

18. I'm sure it was very hard work. But he had assistants,

and his assistants had assistants and so on. He didn't drive himself around the country in a beat-up Buick. So, IMO, the "hard work" defense doesn't fly.

[DemBones DemBones]

20. Two questions: 1) What happened to the $15 million

of OUR money that Kerry had left on November 3? A lot of that money was given to help him fight any "voting irregularities" but wasn't used since he decided to sit down and shut tp.

2) Why the hell were John and Teresa parting with Arnold and Maria over the Christmas holidays? Don't tell me they had to do that.

[zulchzulu]

27. Two questions for you

I guess you've come to the realization that the initial lie that Kerry had $51 million left over (thanks to uber-Kerry basher Amy Goodman) is now down to $15 million.

That money was used for the legal efforts in Ohio and elsewhere in the country. I'll spare you the links and knowledge about Kerry's post election efforts since you're probably not interested in the truth.

Now for the questions for you...

1) Should Kerry have been broke from the election and not have enough funds for what are always expenses at the end of ANY campaign?

As for Kerry hanging out with Arnold (a moderate Repug) and his wife Maria and a lot of other liberals over the holidays, is that really any of your goddamn business?

2) Are Democrats not allowed to talk to or hang out with Repugs in a social setting?

[ClarkUSA]

57. Actually the total comes out to more than $20 Million, Dem Bones

$15-$16 million from the general campaign funds and $6-7 million from the "recount fund"

Nice nest egg for 2008...it'll be hard for any other 2008 Democratic candidate to
raise that much money from scratch.

[Lexingtonian]

21. Don't let the ingrates get you down, Leyton

For them it's mostly that they crave real and vicarious power so badly that any excuse will do for shitting on Kerry. Kerry was supposed to give them that highball on November 2 and he didn't. He's denied that was the bargain and has even ignored all their pleas and cold turkey withdrawal symptoms- and that is the crime he's being convicted of. Oh, they claim otherwise- they misinterpret 'count all the votes' as a promise of therapy rather than one of political aims- but the cognitive DTs betray them.

They don't realize that it's exactly this craving for power and their addiction to idealist selfrighteousness, no concession to a greater procedural order in society and politics when they're carried away by their neediness, that is the major stench in the noses of swing voters when they examine the Party closely. They don't understand see that the objection to the Old Democrats was a sense of entitlement and deserverance, and that they play into it. They don't understand that in American society an idealists' selfrighteousness is a fair warrant in matters of conscience, but not when intents are all about attaining control over other peoples' material interests.

They don't understand, in short, that to the electorate they reflect the political pathologies of corrupt establishment politics of the Old Democrats (entitlement) and the anti-establishment politics of tiny obsolete protest groups, i.e. the New Left (selfrighteousness). For all their claims to stand for Progress and Reform, voters consider them old in form and obsolete in them. These folks hard at work here on DU don't understand that Kerry, as a politician far superior to any of them, has to refuse to be closely associated with them because they represent failure and the two obsolete faces of the Past of the Democratic Party. That is also why the 2004 primaries went as they did, and also why these people have to endlessly revisit them.

So they're the Past. They refuse to accept it, and they have to be kicked and dragged into giving up their unwitting sabotaging of the Party and focussing on what is actually important. It's a horrible grieving process, giving up on all the selfcongratulatory stuff and the demands to be accepted as the elite and avant garde. The learning curve that follows is also pretty steep, i.e. realizing the responsibilities that all have to be accepted and competences that have to be demonstrated in order for the renewed Party to become the qualified leaders of The People.

And until then, they're going to keep on trying to tear down Kerry and treat everything he says or does with obloquy. It's all about themselves.

[marcologico]

28. I think it's simpler. They're being manipulated by sour-grapes also rans

who will do anything to prevent Kerry from running in '08, just like they kept that IWR vote on life support for the entire campaign.

If these clowns aren't on Rove's payroll they're working for free.

Stand up for SGDT, Sour Grapes Mooniacs for Truth.

[Lexingtonian]

38. Yeah, that's a good way of putting it!

LOL :D

[DemBones DemBones]

43. I stood up for John Kerry until he quit on us.

If he gets nominated in 2008, good for him. He won't get our money or our votes again, though. That's something the DNC needs to consider, whether or not to nominate a man whom a lot of Dems are already disillusioned with.

[robbedvoter]

53. Earth to marcologico: the primaries are over. We all voted Kerry. He won.

Then he folded. Some of us can see past the candidates we supported - and what I see is BFEE burrying democracy and Kerry reading the sermon.
Maybe if you get this notion you'll stop scribling childish insults in other threads.

[sandnsea]

22. Except he's in the Middle East

So he hasn't taken a breather at all. Just doing a little fact-check so he can come back and take on the most important issue, getting our troops home. Or at least having a concrete plan to move the region towards peace.

[Sterling]

35. getting our troops home

Bullshit.

[fatal101]

25. alll

All that time wasted by him backing down the second day.

[ClarkUSA]

60. Only a few hours after the last votes in Ohio were cast, too

Hamilton County, OH after 4 AM, Nov. 3 there were voters...
who'd been on line for over 10 hours.

9 AM, Nov. 3 - news of Kerry's Concession hits the airwaves; it's reported he'd called Bush after 7 AM.

[zulchzulu]

26. I followed Kerry during the primaries and the election cycle

I don't know how ANYONE can do it. It is relentless and every word, phrase, expression and yes, nuance is magnified, overanalyzed, mythified and finally distorted by the corporate media.

One thing that proved John to be a geniune human was when I got the chance to shake his hand or talk briefly.

The myth that he was "stiff", 'aloof" or "distant" is nothing more than a wrong and lazy assessment. He's a good man...smart, dedicated, engaging and progressive. Sometimes I think America doesn't deserve him as president.

He's on our side. Period.

[bunny planet]

34. Apparently some people don't want their candidates to be human.

I know it's a shame isn't it. Thanks for the post.

[Generator]

36. No they want them to be ideal

And unfortunately only their "ideal" as I heard a woman say that very thing on our progessive local radio this morning.

He wasn't ideal.

It's funny because what it boils down to is all someones opinion. Who they like or don't like. The other guy on the radio show said Kerry went wrong when he said "I'm reporting for duty." Well, I had an opposite reaction-that speech is when I started to really like Kerry.

Of course you are sure your guy is the winner-you like him-but really it's all a bunch of pissing in the wind. After reading much on DU-nobody has convinced me that anyone would have done better than Kerry yes differently-but it's pissing in the wind-you can't prove Dean or Clark or Mr. Ideal Democrat that holds every belief of yours to a tee would have done what you wanted and won.

The future is still being written.

And what is most disturbing is the same script is often repeated on DU that is found in the media. I would love a new angle.

I think I've heard all the rich man with a tan who wears funny hunting outfits and didn't fight back soon enough and started the Iraq war while being just BORING and his speeches were too long and is skull and bones afterall-wink wink and betrayed hurt and just made everybody feel bad because he doesn't care about us at all line ENOUGH.(oh wait I heard a new claim today-he goes to parties with bad people!-the injustice never ends does it?)

[Sterling]

40. You are confused. "only their "ideal""

It's that we want our candidate to have ideals.

[Generator]

52. I knew someone would have to respond-you guys are so predictable!

But I gotta say all I know about you is you've been here since 2002 and your gender is undeclared (I always find that funny) and you dislike Kerry-thanks for your contribution to my world.

Proving my point-the same old tired crap I'm sure I can hear for the next four years! Doubt I will be around long enough if this is all we got.

I still say blame Bush. It seems I don't know-more decent than blaming Kerry. Being decent seems the point of being a Dem, instead of pissing on your own-unless you had some proof of Kerry's great crime against humanity-but I've not seen it. Yes, proof-we actually believe in proof not just ridicule and disdain which seems another hallmark of the other side.

[ClarkUSA]

59. "Ideal"= holding candidate(s) to their oft-repeated promises of

"No Surrender"
"We'll fight for every vote"
"We won't concede until every vote is counted"???

I would be surprised if many of us thought Kerry was an "ideal" candidate as you describe above.

Don't make veiled disparaging comments at "Dean or Clark" supporters if Kerry supporters want the same respect.

[NVMojo]

42. I respect John Kerry, He took the Bushes down once ...they made him

pay for it. I'm sure he knew it wasn't going to be easy...don't you guys remember when he was overheard muttering about "crooked bunch of liars"????? He knew he was facing them ...not a one of us put ourselves out there against the neocons the way this man did. To go up against the neocons with Rove spinning the media is sure political death. Remember Ann Richards? Remember John McCain?

Give Kerry a break. Quit turning on each other. The enemy is Bush and neocon pals.

[greenohio]

44. Thats what we do here on DU. We DUmp on Dems.

Unless they lost the primary.

[kerrygoddess]

63. hmmm...

[CWebster]

48. It was his choice to pursue his dream to be pres

He is lucky he has a job where he is well paid and still can afford to go off campaigning and not risk being fired. When do folks who have to work 2 jobs to make ends meet get a break?

Can't honestly say my heart bleeds for him.

[IStriker]

64. I agree with your assessment except...

he's lucky he doesn't NEED a job like the rest of us. Most people his age are tired by now if they have worked hard all of their life. He chose to pursue his ambition of being president and if all that campaigning wore him out, I'm sure the "poor baby" will get all rested up at one of Mama T's mansions and recover quickly.

My heart doesn't bleed for him either.

[kerrygoddess]

61. Changes on Kerry Website...

Looking For A Sign…
12 January 2005



The Kerry faithful have been looking for a sign, a hint, something to let us know that the new John Kerry PAC, that was announced a few weeks a few weeks ago, is coming to fruition.

Marie over at DawnOfNewAmerica Blog was the first to post a notice that “Hope Is On The Way.”

The Kerry logo has been changed back to the original Kerry logo and there is new text message on the home page of the Kerry website. It does appear that something is about to happen at JohnKerry.com.

Here is a quip from the new text there (we hope John Kerry won’t keep us in suspense too long):

johnkerry.com is a community of online activists, first brought together in the heat of the 2004 presidential campaign. In 2005, we continue to work side-by-side to rewrite the book on grassroots politics.

Your involvement counts now more than ever. The Bush administration is advancing a right wing assault on the values and ideals we hold most deeply. Healthy debate and diverse opinion are being eliminated from the State Department and CIA, and the cabinet is being remade to rubber stamp policies that will undermine Social Security, balloon the deficit, avoid real reforms in health care and education, weaken homeland security, and walk away from critical allies around the world.

This is not a time for Democrats to retreat and accommodate extremists on critical principles -- it is a time to stand firm.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=217

[The Gigmeister]

70. DUers are only happy with those who don't live in the real world.

We're happy with Conyers, Boxer, Kennedy (Sometimes), Byrd (Sometimes), Watters, etc, etc...

And what do these people have in common??

None of them live in the real world...Every single one of them can stand back and throw stones all they like because they can't be beaten. They all have guaranteed jobs for life...They can do as they please and never worry about commiting political suicide.

Senator Kerry is an honorable man and personally, I stand with him.

[depakid]

72. The conventional wisdom

has proven WRONG over and over and over.

Yet people still seem to parrot it. It seems to me that since pandering to the right has lost people like Kerry and others election after election, a different strategy (like emphatically standing up for things like "truth" and "the right thing") would be in order.

Someone once said "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?"

Pandering clearly hasn't been getting the job done- so I would ask, who's not living in the real world?

[CWebster]

73. "Throwing stones"

Is that what you call a Democrat who stands up to Republicans?

Like Kerry with his mansions, ski resorts, windsurfing getaways and hunting photo-ops with the servants carrying the game, stays in 4 star hotels with campaign donations, and soldier boy images from past US aggression gone wrong, as evidence of capability in present US aggression gone wrong, lives in the real world.