Kerry Fortifies War Chest, Keeps Momentum for 2008

[kerrygoddess]

Kerry Fortifies War Chest, Keeps Momentum for 2008
9 March 2005

There has already been a lot of speculation for the 2008 election, which has been discussed here in recent days. There are certainly far more pressing matters to be concerned about these days, like Social Security, the Bankruptcy Bill, and regaining control of the House and Senate in 2006.

However, in my opinion John Kerry sits in a unique position these days, which places him ahead of the game with other mentioned possibilities for 2008.

There is his email list that is 3 million strong and participants on his list remain active when Kerry sends out a call to action. Then there is the fact that Kerry’s financial backers have not shied away from support of Kerry, either. Finally, Kerry has shown since getting back to work in the Senate that he’s not backing down.

He's been actively pursuing legislation that he campaigned on in 2004, such as healthcare for kids, support for Military members and their families and small business legislation that supports that true members of the small business community, not the big business community that Bush supports.

The Boston Herald reports today that Monday night John Kerry hosted an “intimate political gathering” with about 100 of his top fundraisers.

MORE - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=495

[demnan]

1. Well 2008 is a long time away

I'd like to see someone run who hasn't lost before.

[iconoclastNYC]

3. How many times did Reagan lose?

I dont think Kerry will get the nomination, but I want him in there.

[Crunchy Frog]

53. Reagan never got the nomination and then lost.

Trying for and failing to get the nomination is very different from winning the nomination and then failing to win the election.

[cestpaspossible]

58. Yes, Nixon would be the most recent example

of losing the GE and then coming back and winning it on the second try. That was 8 years later, not 4 years later, of course. And Nixon had some real low points in that period ("You won't have Richard Nixon to kick around any more").

[NYCGirl]

59. Adlai Stevenson won the Democratic nomination 2 elections in a row.

He lost by a larger margin the second time.

[jsw_81]

99. Don't forget William Jennings Bryan

He won the Democratic nomination three times and lost the presidency three times.

[Crunchy Frog]

62. Nixon is the only one that I'm aware of

at least from the past century. The advantages that Nixon had were his ruthless machievellianism, and the fact that his second time around, he could take advantage of the fact that the Democratic party was in a major state of disarray.

Maybe the Repubs will be in a similar state of disarray in '08, but I'm not counting on it and I just don't see Kerry as having the same type of machievellian skills that Nixon had.

[fujiyama]

105. Nixon won his second attempt

because he was lucky - the Democratic party was in shambles - having suffered through a popular primary candidate being assassinated, a VP as the nominee that supported the president's war policies, and a disasterous convention that featured riots outside.

All that and Nixon only won by a few points.

Kerry (and Gore as well for that matter) would an uphill battle, were they the nominee. They've both been defined (slandered) by the media. Hell, even Dean has been slandered so much by the media for his scream alone and he wasn't even the nominee - rather a prinary candidate.

[politicasista]

61. Like who. No wonder the GOP laughs at us

:mad:

[iconoclastNYC]

2. I hope GORE runs too.

The more people who run in the mushy middle the more the true liberal democrats will stand out.

I hope we get 15 nominees this time.

The last election destroyed the notion that a contested primary is a bad thing for the democratic party.

[ChiciB1]

67. Gore Opted OUT Yesterday....

Said he wasn't going to run!

[iconoclastNYC]

92. Really?

I thought i read a blurb but it didn't seem to be from Gore, and I did a google news search and i didn't see anything.

[cestpaspossible]

93. According to Chris Matthews...

not exactly a reliable source...

[knight_of_the_star]

4. He won't win it

Too many people will remember how he lost to a guy he should have walked all over.

[bullimiami]

5. hes dead to me.

the day after the election when he folded his tent like a tiger cub scout in a rain storm i was done.

i have your back = bullshit
i will fight for you = hot air

he is worthless.

nominate him and i will either stay home or vote green, im sure my wife, son and daughter will feel the same, thats 4 democratic votes that noodle spined panty waist wont be getting.

dont ask me how i really feel because its not fit for DU.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[blm]

10. Then please give us the name of the lawmaker who has investigated and

exposed more government corruption than John Kerry. Also share with us the name of the one lawmaker who has helped end more wars than John Kerry.

That should help us establish a base point for deserving spines.

[sendero]

22. Maybe you've heard of the saying.

.... "what have you done for me lately"?

I COULD CARE LESS ABOUT KERRY'S ANCIENT ACHIEVEMENTS, what I noticed was that when he had a chance, an opportunity to stand up and fight he dissapeared.

God I hope we don't nominate him, because it will be hard to vote for him again.

[blm]

24. What ANCIENT achievements are you referring to?

And do you really think if he had the evidence on the voting machines that he would have conceded, especially based on his UNMATCHED record of investigating corruption?

The point is that NONE of you, no matter how much you hate Kerry can still name ONE lawmaker who has investigated and exposed more government corruption than John Kerry has THROUGHOUT his over 35 years of service to this nation. That includes the 60s, 70s, 80, and 90s.

Did YOU help end Vietnam, Iran-Iraq, or the illegal wars in Central America?

Did YOU expose IranContra and BCCI?

Did YOU write a book warning this nation about the international funding of global terrorism?

Did YOU testify to allow gays to serve openly in the military?

Now, please preach to us about what Kerry's ANCIENT achievements.

Too bad you are such a consumer of the GOP controlled corporate media that works overtime to portray Kerry and other Dem forces as empty suit losers.

[sendero]

34. Anyone who cannot...

.... negotiate the current environment, meet the pugs on the playground they've made and beat them - is not going to win the presidency.

JK has proven he cannot. Everything you list and a quarter will still buy you a phone call in some areas. Folks like you are still playing pong while the game is now Resident Evil.

Sorry, it is nothing personal against JK, I admire him for his many acheivements. I just happen to think "President Kerry" is not in the cards for him, and I don't want to waste precious electoral strength trying to shoehorn him in when there are candidates who have figured it out and are ready to fight.

[blm]

40. Nope. You can't name ONE Dem prospect with more media control than the GOP

and NO Democrat will win until that GOP control of the media is dealt with.

Name ONE Democrat who controls the narrative in the media at this time.

Even Bill Clinton couldn't. Most Americans think it's his fault that 9-11 happened because the media won't come clean on Bush's negligence.

Kerry won all 3 debates decisively because it was the ONLY time that he could be unfiltered to the American people. So, since it was so obvious that Kerry was superior, the media downplayed the importance of the debates.

[sendero]

43. You are missing my point....

... it isn't about controlling the media. It is about making statements that the media is compelled to air.

And we agree on one point, Kerry did indeed win all three debates.

[ginnyinWI]

66. that's for sure...

I think he was most brilliant in the third debate. I'm comparing him to himself in all three, forget about Bush for a second. I think that last one gave him his highest percentage in the instant polls taken immediately after. Everyone knew.

Then Lynn Cheney gets up and squawks about her daughter and "this is not a good man" , and that is ALL the media can talk about for the rest of the week!! Nobody can tell me that the media has a liberal bias---it was disgusting.

[Dinger]

15. Don't Forget . . . "Hope Is On The Way" and "No Surrender"

[lojasmo]

25. And "every vote will be counted....I concede" EOM

[Larkspur]

20. I'm with you. Kerry has already proven himself unelectible, he should

move on and fade into the history books.

If any Dem who voted for IWR is our nominee in 2008, I'm voting Green.

[jsw_81]

101. Unelectable? Hardly

A shift of two points in one state (Ohio) would have given Kerry the White House. Not bad for someone up against an incumbent wartime president.

If you want to see someone who's truly unelectable, type "Howard Dean" into google.

[LittleClarkie]

30. Oh how I wish that were true

If he were actually dead to you, you'd stop posting in response.

Can't wait for the day when those who say "Kerry who?" or "He is dead to me" actually follow through with their apathy.

Meanwhile, what you say is untrue. He continues to be involved in Ohio. And it is my opinion that he got set up in Ohio by people he thought were on his side. Even so he hasn't stopped fighting for what's right, now in the Senate. He's like the Energizer Bunny. I don't know how he is keeping up the pace.

[lojasmo]

109. Me too. And every swing voter I convinced to vote for Kerry this time.

That's about fifty people or so, if not more.

Also every voter I convinced to get the hell out of the house and vote on GOTV days.

That's perhaps another fifty.

Good luck, Mr. "I've got your back" "every vote will be counted" "I concede" Kerry.

Same goes for Clinton, Edwards and every other bootlicking bush supporting senator out there.

[XemaSab]

6. How can he keep a "mo"

He never had in the first place?

[Mass]

8. Thank you to let us know.

I am sure he is going to stay on top of things. I am proud to have him as my Senator.

Funny however that the Boston Herald is the one reporting on Kerry while the Globe is silent.

[UdoKier]

9. HAHA. If you think I'm putting one ouce of energy behind THAT old nag...

again, you've got another think coming.


I didn't want him to get the nomination, and he still has the same baggage and indifference toward winning as the last time around.

Please, this time, let's get someone whose heart is still freaking beating!

And nobody is more prominent in my mind than Wes Clark.

I do NOT want to get burned yet again by a dull, schoolmarmish senator who really can't even be bothered to fight back or defend himself vigorously from smears. ENOUGH.

[Mass]

12. Hope you are not trying to get support for Clark like that.

Your post is a turn off for your candidate.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Mass]

21. Sorry

The fact that you find necessary to thrash Kerry rather than simply saying you dont support him is not a winning point for your candidate.

I can assure that I would judge Clark on his merits (his primary campaign included).

I am not trying to promote excitement on Kerry and would say the same thing if you had said that concerning Dean or Clark.

Sorry if you dont like what I say.

[rockymountaindem]

31. Welcome to DU

The problem is that a lot of people think DU is a performance of Hamlet, so they put things in the most inflammatory way possible in order to generate attention.

Sure, they could say "I'd prefer someone else", but that just doesn't have the flash of "he's dead to me" or "I swear I'll never vote for that sad excuse for a human being ever so long as I live". See, those last two are just more cool, evidently.

[Mass]

37. Thanks for the welcome

[UdoKier]

55. And some of us are GENUINELY angry with him.

We put our hearts and souls into his campaign, despite our reservations, and he didn't come through for us at all. You want to hitch your wagon to another loser, it's your prerogative, but I'll do anything I can to prevent another debacle like the Kerry/Shrum/Cahill debacle.


NO MORE CARTERMONDALEDUKAKISGOREKERRY candidates!

[UdoKier]

54. I trashed Kerry for his lousy campaign and indifference toward winning.

I think those are fair things to go after him on. And to be completely frank, they are just the tip of the iceberg. From his "Winter Soldier" testimony to his work on Iran-Contra, Kerry had an impressive record, but in recent years has become a sellout to the point that he actually signed the Iraq War Resolution.

Would you have me PRAISE him for actions that in my opinion range from questionable to unconscionable?

[Mass]

64. Bush signed it.

I know Kerry would not have had he been president.

Now, if I look at Kerry lifelong ADA's record compared to Kennedy, they are equivalent. This is barely what you are describing,

I disagree with his IWR vote, but this is not the only vote, and except for Kucinich and Graham, there was no candidate who actually voted against the IWR.

[UdoKier]

73. Dean was vehemently opposed to the IWR as well.

Although he couldn't vote on it.

[Mass]

75. I invite you to read his early statements

NOt to come back to that, but it is not that clear. In fact Dean and Kerry's statements were very similar. One had to vote, the other did not.

[UdoKier]

108. Dean's position was similar on the war, but not on IWR.

He was always against it. Kerry should've voted against it, too.

[TayTay]

44. I agree with Mass

I am less likely to consider Clark in a positive light because of your comments. You need to work on your presentation skills. Politics is the art of getting people to act or vote the way you want them to and being insulting is not one of the ways that work.

[UdoKier]

52. Then both of you have no business going into a voting booth.

There are all kinds of people who support all kinds of candidates. There are very pleasant, gracious people who absolutely LOVE George Bush, but that doesn't make Bush any less of a murdering looter.


The day I stop telling the truth as *I* see it is the day that I die. DON'T blame me if you are too lazy to learn anything about the candidates and just want to judge them on your shallow perceptions of *ONE* supporter.

[Mass]

63. Because you are qualified

to know how I would vote and on what criteria.

I did not say that I would not vote for him, just that your post is a negative for him. Some outstanding positive support for Clark would be a positive for him.

All that would add with what the candidates stand for and there I have no doubt: Kerry has a 30 year liberal record that I respect enormously. I dont really know Clark's record though I certainly respect his military career.

[LittleClarkie]

65. You are your candidate's PR department

As we are as well. I occasionally cringe at the antics of the occasional Kerrycrat, because that can reflect on our chosen candidate.

Sort of a modified Christian thing I was told once, "You may be the only Bible some people ever read."

Remember that, if nothing else, some people may decide to either check out what Clark has to say, or avoid the man, based on something you or another Clarkie had to say.

Goes for all the prospective candidates, of course.

[politicasista]

60. Amen Tay Tay

:bounce:

[janx]

11. The thing I don't understand about these 2008 threads is:

Why?

Is this to solicit support for John Kerry? It's too early.

[kerrygoddess]

17. I clearly stated that...

There are other more pressing issues right now and that there has been a lot of speculation about who will run in the news, in the post. However this is news. The piece I wrote on LUTD, also states what Kerry has been doing since back in the Senate.

Not trying to solicite support, just sharing news.

[cestpaspossible]

23. Well, Kerry has some fans around here.

He has some detractors as well, but, there are plenty of folks at DU who want to hear what JK is up to... which is not a focus on 2008, but on issues like health care for kids, and as far as elections, 2006.

Although I agree with you about the 2008 speculation, it's just inevitable in any discussion of any of the contenders...

[welshTerrier2]

13. Kerry has an opportunity but it doesn't look good

Kerry needs to rethink his position on the $81.9 BILLION bush is seeking to continue his escapades in the Middle East ... he has said he will vote to give bush the funds he's asked for ...

If he does this, you can scratch at least one person off the email list you mentioned ... and you can cross one of Kerry's financial backers off the list too ...

Like it or not, anyone, Kerry or anyone else, who signs bush's $81.9 BILLION check is DONE ... no comeback, no "what about all the other issues", no "are you really going to make this a litmus test" ... that's it ... toast ... a big burnt piece of toast ...

If you're a Kerry supporter, and I was one, contact Senator Kerry and tell him NO MORE MORE MORE MORE MONEY FOR WAR !!!!!

[Mass]

14. Not sure you are right.

I certainly understand your position. The problem is that, whether the US pulls out or not, this money is needed because the troops are there and that you can rapatriate that many troops without expenses.

The question is to know whether the Dems are going to attack strings to this money or are going to vote it no string attached.

[welshTerrier2]

29. separate troop support from the policy of occupation and exploitation

welcome to DU, Mass !!! I live in Mass too ...

The defense budget is about to exceed $400 BILLION and that excludes all kinds of "defense monies" like the cost of the entire Iraq war ...

If Senator Kerry wants to propose a budget allocation for the troops beyond the existing Pentagon budget, let him make a case for it ... the $81.9 BILLION supplemental will only help bush continue his occupation in the Middle East regardless of how Senator Kerry wants to see the money used ...

Democrats need to stand up and say "NO!!" to bush's corporate agenda in the Middle East ... voting for the $81.9 BILLION does just the opposite ... NO MORE MONEY FOR WAR !!!!!

[cestpaspossible]

35. Let's not forget that we know how to count votes.

We know that the supplemental will pass, we also know that no Democratic sponsored legislation will make it to the floor of the Senate. So attaching the troop provisions to the supplemental is the only way Kerry can force the issue. Republicans will have to either vote for or against the troops.

For the record, I'm disappointed in Kerry's stance on the supplemental and I hope he will change his mind and vote no.

[welshTerrier2]

42. "Kerry can force the issue ???

well, we just watched how Democrats, even those who really tried, can "force the issue" as each and every Democratic amendment to the bankruptcy bill was voted down ... Kerry can't "force the issue" by attaching troop provisions to a PNAC bill ...

in fact, the truth is exactly the opposite of the point you're making ... the reality is, that if Kerry pushes to amend bush's PNAC funding legislation, not only won't he get anywhere with troop provisions but he'll ending up voting more money for bush's war and occupation ...

attaching troops provisions to the PNAC bill is the wrong way to go ... if Kerry wants to push the issue, he needs to take his case to the American people and push, perhaps with co-sponsorship from McCain, a separate piece of legislation ... a vote for PNAC, anyway you paint it, is still a vote for PNAC ...

[cestpaspossible]

57. You know,

the constant repitition of the acronym PNAC in your comment doesn't have the intended affect of making it more persuasive, it really is only intended to inflame passion, not to add information to the conversation. Or in other words, 'adding heat but not light'. And when someone is trying to inflame me, I have a hard time overlooking that and actually listening to what they have to say.


It appears you have either totally misunderstood my comment, or, you have mischaracterized it.

[Mass]

38. Thanks for the welcome

[zulchzulu]

18. Kerry is going to add "pro-Troop" additions to the bill

Until there is enough of a majority in the House and Senate to shut down BushCo, every time another supplemental bill is added to the mix, the votes that Kerry (and those willing to do so) need to add safeguards against the money going down a rathole and being used for troops coming home, troop family support and other issues that take away the idea that it's all just padding the corporatists' pockets that also have military weapon systems in their portfolio.

And Kerry needs to say why he would vote against the bill before he voted for it like the $80B supplemental in 2003. But he needs to say it better.

Like the bill in 2003, Kerry wants the tax cuts for the top 1% to be retracted. He needs to add that and the troop/family fund parts to the bill and fight against any passage of the bill UNLESS those stipulations are made. Perhaps adding to the bill should be the funding toward an independant counsel to look at what happened to the missing $9B in Iraq.

Kerry could defend his vote that he wants these parts added to the bill and then hopefully vote against what will obviously be the Repug vote to keep throwing money down the rathole.

[LittleClarkie]

45. Even his 87 billion vote was more about Halliburton than the troops

He didn't object to supplying the troops. He objected to the money not going where it was supposed to go. And he was right. It isn't, considering the audits that have shown missing money.

It strikes me as absurd for people to think that the way to stop a war is to first yank funding. YOU go look at the soldier, who can't leave Iraq yet because the war isn't over, and tell him we're not going to fund the things he needs to stay alive. "Oh, I'm sorry. Did you need bullets? Gee, maybe you can hit the insurgents over the head with your rifle instead. Good luck. Oh, and by the way, we support you."

End the war, or don't end the war. Playing games with the funding is not the way. And I support Sen. Kerry's efforts to make sure the funding damn well goes where it's needed, esp. to miliary families and to wounded soldiers once they get home.

[welshTerrier2]

51. "strikes me as absurd"

It strikes me as absurd for people to think that the way to stop a war is to first yank funding.

well, first of all, Democrats should have voted against the IWR ... that would have been a good first step ... secondly, Democrats should have been educating the American people about bush's PNAC agenda ... that process should have been going on for at least 4 years now ... then there was the $87 billion that so many Democrats voted for so that the troops you're so eager to protect could get better equipment ... yeah, that happened ... and now we're being asked to hand bush yet more money ... yeah, i know ... it's so the troops will be safe ... are you serious ???

the Pentagon budget is about to break the $400 BILLION mark ... $400 Billion ... we still haven't properly outfitted all troops with safety vests ... i just read an article (sorry no link) that "coalition" soldiers received vests within 12 days of requesting them ... 12 days ... we have a $400 BILLION defense budget, we've been occupying Iraq for almost 2 years, we've spent more than $200 BILLION in Iraq already, and you want to tell me we should vote for even more money now to make the troops safer? how absurd is that argument?

you're right that pulling the funding should not have been the first action to stop the war ... the problem is, Kerry and too many elected Democrats agree with the mission of the war and believe we should stay the course until the mission is completed ... that's the problem ... voting more money for PNAC is insane ... you don't stop a war by voting for money to continue it ...

[LittleClarkie]

56. He doesn't agree with the mission of the war

He wouldn't have started this war. But now we're in a "Pottery Barn" situation, and he feels we might try to make some sort of success out of the debacle, because the alternative is unacceptable.

I repeat, he does not agree with the mission of this war. He would never have gone to Iraq. He would have finished the job in Afghanistan. He at most would have pressured Hussein to allow inspections. He does not agree with the PNAC. But they've put us in a situation he doesn't feel we can just back out of again. None of the candidates were advocating immediate pullout, not even Kuscinich.

[Devildog34]

19. Random thought of the last election cycle

Kerry needs to take a stand and stick with it, right or wrong. The biggest problem for JFK was his whole I was for then against it stuff. Also as a Veteran of a Foreign war his claim of three Purple Hearts with not one day spent in the sick bay AR at best taken with skepticism. Gunshot/shrapnel wounds are highly prone to infection especially when your in a are where hygiene is challenging. I am a member of USWA and the afl/cio etc cheer leading him didn't help him. I live in a pretty rural area and his stands on guns killed him. Also he said he was going to raise taxes and put it into social programs that does not wash well anywhere but in the built up urban areas, most people around here see it as rewarding others for their hard work especially when we are now on what some fourth generation recipients?

I am middle America there is major disconnect between the coasts and interior of the country, without trying to beat up the tired family values garbage that is what is killing the party. Joe schmo probably never gave much thought to gay marriage until it was made into an issue then accordingly he is against it for that is how he was raised, so he has a dilemma vote for the other guy or not at all because he cannot support that sort of thing. Sound too simplistic, its not.

Take for instance, in my field of employment we make a good salary. We are unionized and expected to vote Democrat. However most democrats are actively stating their disdain for our profession and doing things that kill our industry while saying they feel for us... I am a Hard Rock Miner.

If you cant grow it you have to mine it. This is not to say that you let the mining companies do as they please but when the party that is supposed to represent us hates us and says so it looses votes.

Thier is a disconnect and we need to find a way to fix it or it will be 40 years before the Dems have any kind of power at all again.

[cestpaspossible]

26. Let's see the evidence

of Democrats .. actively stating their disdain for (mining) and doing things that kill our industry while saying they feel for us

is it true?

Or TOTAL BULLSHIT?

[mrgorth]

32. So what you're saying is that

we're wrong on everything. Right?

[LittleClarkie]

47. Let's see now

1. His service: Thank you for drinking the smear koolaid.

2. Sorry you don't like the AFL/CIO. Next time we will tell them we don't need their help. Would that be better?

3. He supported keeping the ban that had been in place for at least 10 years (wasn't it?) or was it 20. Was the Brady bill such a hardship on gun owners? He wasn't against guns. He's a hunter for pete's sake. Once again, thank you for drinking the GOP koolaid.

4. He said he was going to cut taxes for the poor, leave the middle class alone, and raise taxes in that he wanted to repeal the tax cuts for those making 300,000 or more. Which of the rural hard-working folks that you're talking about make more than 300,000 a year? If they were poor, then they were probably going to benefit under Kerry. I don't see where they're going to benefit under Bush, do you?

5. Sorry, Kerry couldn't come out in favor of DOMA. He just couldn't. As a Catholic he prefered the civil union solution, esp as you just can't force a church to perform a wedding if they don't want to. But I cheer him for his principled vote.

6. If your neighbors prefer to support the torture party and against their best interests, I hope they enjoy the next 4 years. And if they choose to continue to vote that way, I'd like to hear how exactly they'll blame their abject poverty on the Democrats.

All you're telling me is that your friends, and to some extent you, bought into the GOP talking points. I'm sorry to hear that. But it seems that they and you weren't really paying attention to what Kerry wanted to do, only to what you heard from the biased media. That's a shame, as he will be proven right again and again, I believe.

I support Kerry in 2008.

[x_y_no]

27. I have tremendous respect for Kerry's senate record ...

But none whatsoever for the pathetic general election campaign he ran last year. God help us if we're crazy enough to nominate him again.

Why doesn't he just stick to doing the good work he does in the Senate, and spend that "war chest" helping candidates in 2006?

[LittleClarkie]

28. But the intimate political gathering was for the PAC

which, though it can be considered part of preparation for 2008, also has other purposes unrelated, incluing fighting for relevant issues now, right?

Would it be fair to say the Herald over-stated that angle a bit? And why does it seem the Herald is covering Kerry better than the Globe lately?

I'm just saying the PAC has other uses besides 2008 that shouldn't be overlooked as part of the reason for its existance.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I think most of the regulars know by now how I feel. This man would STILL make a most excellent prez.

[cestpaspossible]

33. Yep.

The primary focus of the pac, as I understand it, will be helping candidates in 2006.

As far as the Boston newspapers, I get the impression that the Globe is as anti-Kerry as the Herald is anti-Dem. The Herald is probably reporting it the way they are in order to stir up those Democrats who don't want Kerry to run again... just another way of dividing Dems...

[Vinca]

36. The "war chest" will be missing my contribution.

I don't think Kerry can win in 2008 because the same Swift Boat/flipflop crap will follow him again. The mistakes he made in the campaign by not addressing the lies and innuendo immediately are, IMHO, almost certainly fatal to a future run. Plus I'm still annoyed at the early concession, although I hate bringing up that dead horse again. I have no idea who can win in 2008, but I don't - at this point - think Kerry has a prayer.

[cestpaspossible]

41. Well, there are plenty of other good places to give your money.

It's all good. We're on the same team. 2006 is the focus now, anyway.

[OneTwentyoNine]

46. Go ahead and bring up that early concession....

I'm still pissed about it. Remember how Kerry begged and pleaded through Email for ONE MORE contribution because they knew how close the vote would be and they'd have to spend money insuring the vote was fair?

Like the sucker I am I shelled out another $50.00 in that 11th hour plea from Kerry. Then what seemed about 30 nano seconds after the votes were counted he threw in the towel--even as phony "terra" was being used in Ohio to lock out the press from all recounts. What bullshit....

[Vinca]

50. I forked over money, too . . . .like a fool . . . I should have

saved it to try to pay for another quarter's health insurance instead. Why do I believe any of these people??

[DistressedAmerican]

39. BY Now We Could Form A Cabinet Composed Entirely Of

failed Democratic preidential candidates. Hey! How 'bout Mondale/Dukakis 2008.

If we nominate proven losers we can expect nothing but more loss.

[welshTerrier2]

48. i disagree with this ...

If we nominate proven losers we can expect nothing but more loss.

i don't think this argument stands up as a blanket statement ... fwiw, my future support for Kerry will be based on his actions involving bush's PNAC agenda ... if Kerry hasn't learned since his IWR vote that bush can NEVER be trusted, i'll never support him again for any office ... if he votes for more PNAC funds, he'll permanently alienate the left ...

but absent that issue, Kerry, or anyone else who can demonstrate some real leadership over the next few years is very worthy of consideration ... being the leader of the opposition for several years would only make our eventual nominee that much stronger ... of course, that leadership role would have to be earned, not bestowed ...

so, with all the talk of election fraud, with many Americans not wanting to change presidents with a war on and with an understanding of how close the last election actually was, it's unreasonable to rule Kerry out from future consideration merely because he lost the last election ... a "one strike and you're out" policy seems a bit questionable to me ... this is not in any way an endorsement for Kerry but i think we should keep our options open until we see what the next few years bring ...

[LittleClarkie]

49. We're all proven losers

Should we never work another campaign? Apparently we don't know how to conduct one properly. So we should all get out of the way and let a new crop of campaign workers take over. That follows doesn't it?

[DistressedAmerican]

68. No, It Does Not Follow. Your Analogy Does Not Hold.

The campaign workers are not the sources of a presidential Candidate's loss. The candidate and his principle strategy advisors are. I worked my ass off for Clark then for Kerry. He turned right around and nullified the efforts of those who worked for him by running a lame ass campaign then refusing to join the fight over vote fraud. He lost this one twice. Those of us who are active and working MUST pick a stronger candidate.

If we stopped letting Iowa and New Hampshire pick the front runner every time around maybe this part would have a freaking chance. They nominate losers again and again.

We have seen what a miserable failure of a campaign Kerry and his advisors ran. That was not the fault of those of us at the grass roots. It was the fault of those running the campaign. If he had been listening to us, he would not have sat around for a month getting his pants pulled down by the Swifties. I wanted strong reaction to the lies in those ads. The best they could muster for a whole month was day after day going out and saying, "Bush should denounce those ads." Was that OUR fault, those of us at the grass roots level?

Can you explain to my why you think a candidate that has lost a national election makes a good candidate the next time around?

Face it, Kerry was a miserable failure and a mistake. I still believe that if we had nominated Clark, we'd be in the oval office today. Cling to a proven loser if you want. I will not.

[LittleClarkie]

79. I grant you I was being faticeous, but we were a component of the loss

Everyone who had a hand in this year's election had a hand in the loss, from Moveon.org, ACT, George Soros to you and I. I refuse to point to Kerry alone and say he was the one who lost the whole enchilada. And the campaign had no control over the myriad of wild cards that made up this year's election. Showing a commercial comparing Bush to Hitler may have truth to it, but probably freaked the shit out of Joe Voter. In some ways I feel we Dole'd our candidate. It was not enough to be ABB. It was not enough to hate Bush and think of Kerry as a ham sandwich. People will stay with their POS jalopy if you can't tell them why they should buy your new, but untested, car.

He was hardly a "miserable failure". God bless them, McGovern and Dukakis and Mondale were miserable failures. The margin this time, it is said, was the smallest for an incumbent president. Mandate my ass.

Kerry came dang close. Why he didn't quite make is up for debate. Some of it was him, indeed. But we all shared in the loss.

To answer your question, the reason I think that a candidate that has lost a national election would make a good candidate the next time around is because losing doesn't turn a good and qualified man who would make an excellent president into a mistake. In the same way, losing the election doesn't mean the Smear Vets were right about Kerry. Winning doesn't turn a lie into the truth.

I'm less concerned with his "electability" than with supporting a man that I believe will make an excellent president some day. We've heard this time around that Democrats have to figure out what we stand for in order to present ourselves properly. Well, I refuse to chase after the next guy I think can get elected JUST because I think he can get elected. I've made my choice. Losing didn't make him less of a good man. In fact, watching him bounce back and keep fighting has made him more of a man in my eyes.

And if he keeps up the pace he's set now until after 2006, he will hopefully have earned that second chance.

The conservatives kept fielding Reagan until he got the nomination. He was their guy. Kerry is my guy. As long as he is running, I will support him, unless of course, I honestly see someone I like better. If Russ Feingold goes for the Presidency, I may have a problem, for instance. We shall see.

I'd at least like to see Kerry get some place in the next Democratic administration -- Sec. of State maybe, or Attorney General -- some place where he can use his experience in service of the country.

Call it what you want, clinging to a proven loser or whatever. This is where I stand. If Clark wants to go against Kerry in 2008, great. The more the merrier. Sadly for both our candidates, they may not be "new blood" enough for the next election. Depends on what happens between then and now.

[DistressedAmerican]

83. Fair Enough. I do have two questions just out of curiosity

Not to be argumentative, just wondering:

First, I have always seen your user name and the large (sort of sad looking) Kerry image and Kerry Supporter messages at the bottom of your excellent posts. Were you a Clarkie at the time you signed up and changed guys later or or it totally unrelated. If so, what changed your mind?

Second, what are your thoughts on the Ohio recount situation? Did you think we were robbed and did you think his refusal to enter the fray was the right thing to do.

As I noted, I was a STRONG Clark supporter for the same reasons you still like Kerry, I really think he is the right guy for the job. Not just electablilty, although I think he also had that in spades.

I didn't despair over the Kerry nomination right away. I was extremely disappointed with how he and his handlers managed the whole campaign (with the obvious exception of the spanking he gave the chimp in the debates). I was sure that several of the original dems that were in the primary could whoop the retarded ape occupying the oval office.

I worked to raise money for the campaign. They chose how to spend it. I just can't see my personal responsibility in the loss. I worked like a dog and felt like the campaign wasted my efforts. The final straw with me was Ohio. I really think that he did not step up and fully support the recount because he didn't want to labeled as a "sore loser" so that he COULD run again. I just did not think that was in the country's best interest. If he had taken a firm stance, you and I would be talking well of the same guy.

Just so you know, if my boy runs against yours again, I look forward to working together to get whichever candidate gets the collective nod (I can only assume it will be Clark, LOL). We all end up on the same side at some point.

DOWN WITH THE CHIMP JUNTA!

[LittleClarkie]

103. Long story

When Bush invaded Iraq, I wasn't "awake" yet. I wasn't terribly informed. I didn't read the newspaper or watch much news. I watched Powell tell the UN that there was reason to go into Iraq, and so I was "waiting and seeing" in regard to that war. I thought to myself, though, "You do not have a blank check dated 9/11, Mr. President. There damn well better be WMDs over there." When I realized the war objective had been changed from "looking for WMDs" to "liberation" because it spun better, I woke up a bit right then.

I was still drinking the koolade somewhat though, since I bought into the "toppling of the statue" and all that. I can't tell you how pissed I was when I realized that was staged for our benefit.

Election time was starting to rear its head, and I just happened to hear Clark say exactly what I'd thought at the beginning of the war, "no blank check." Quite superficially, I latched onto him as a candidate. I was still not terribly informed, but I got bumperstickers and such and sorta campaigned for him. I was quite peeved when he didn't make it. And quite apathetic toward this guy I'd been told had the personality of styrofoam, if that good.

Sometime after that, about April of 2004, while surfing around the internet, I discovered stories about Guantanamo and almost immediately feared for people that even in semi-sheeple state I feared for those prisoners. How could you detain people for TWO years with no recourse?! The Army asserted that all the detainees who were there deserved to be. Of course they are. After all, the military never makes a mistake. And since they're in Cuba they don't get due process, as if that was just a priviledge we granted ourselves because we're cute little Americans. But to me, that's not what due process is. It's a value that defines us as Americans. We should not deny someone what is right on a technicality. I was appalled.

That was the moment when I really woke up. I turned toward "Mr. Styrofoam" and somewhat unenthusiastically started showing my "support". I was ABB.

Ever so slowly, I started looking up articles, a few of which are on the supporter site, and generally reading what I could about the guy. And ever so slowly I went from being ABB to being an actual supporter. "Going Upriver" clinched the deal. I all but collapsed at his feet, so to speak.

This was the first campaign I ever worked properly. This was the first candidate I ever supported properly. And as last week, I am a full fleged member of the Democratic Party, instead of just a vague Dem voter who mostly did so because her family had always been Dem.

On the "Republicans for Kerry" yahoo group, I used to give reports of my exploits as I campaigned over the summer. At the end of one of them I referred to myself as just a little Clarkie for Kerry. They like the name "Little Clarkie" and started calling me that. So, when I registered here, that became my name. It confuses some folks, because I'm obviously a Kerrycrat, but it pays homage to my "roots" and to the man who was part of my awakening.

Indeed, which ever of our candidates comes out on top, I'm sure we will be on the same side yet again. Cheers.

Erica/aka Little Clarkie

[LittleClarkie]

104. Ooops, your second question...

I can see the point of saying Kerry should have waited until the votes where counted. But then, I can also picture the media circus cluster fuck that might have accompanied that decision. I believe him when he told Jesse Jackson that he believed what he was told. From reading what Larisa has to say in Raw Story and from talking with her, I believe that he was set up by some of his own people in Ohio. Some of them were not working in his best interest. I don't know in whose interest they were working, however.

I've seen just enough activity in Ohio to be somewhat satisfied that when he said he'd make sure every vote got counted, he meant it. He has no reason to still be involved in Ohio otherwise. And he switched lawyers from, by all accounts, a Repub probate lawyer to someone who is more versed in the kind of lawsuit they're involved in now. McTigue I think his name is.

As far as conceding, I don't blame Kerry. I can't for the life of me picture him trying to litigate the thing like Gore did. He wasn't even in as good a position as Gore. And once again the media circus that has already shown themselves to me Kerry-unfriendly, would have made getting anything done near impossible. I suspect they're better off in stealth mode down there until they can prove something concretely. I would expect a former prosecutor to act just as Kerry is acting in that regard.

Meanwhile, if he plans to fight the Bush agenda as he is already showing in his actions thus far, I would prefer and am glad he didn't "Gore" himself.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

69. No Kerry

IMO, you should only get one shot at the big dance, and that's true whether you're Gore, Kerry or whoever.

He'd better turn over most of the remaining money to the DNC and local candidates, though. I and many others will raise hell about it if he uses the money we gave him in 2004 to run again in 2008.

DTH

[politicasista]

70. He don't better do shit

Typical Kerry basher.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

71. I've Held This Position for Years

And have said it here about Gore before Kerry even entered the race. I was also a very vocal supporter of Kerry's here immediately after Clark dropped out.

Oh, and you certainly don't have to complain if he does the dishonorable thing and pads his campaign chest with our money. I will be doing enough complaining for both of us.

DTH

[msongs]

72. "It;s the electronic voting machines, stupid!" in case anybody forgot...

does not matter who the dems run unless the elections are made extremely honest.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/liberaltshirts.htm

edited for typos

[Pastiche423]

74. It took me a week

to place my arrow to my "choice" of president, after the rest of my ballot had been filled out. I never supported Kerry, but did vote for him out of fear.

When he quit and lied about "hope is on the way" and "I've got your back", it made me ill.

If he does decide to run again in 2008, he will get not one ounce of my support, not one cent of my money, nor will he get my vote.

For cripe's sake! He ran against whistle ass!

[politicasista]

76. Then why reply in this thread then?

Who did you support, anyway? Like they were going to do better. :mad:

[cestpaspossible]

78. Hey at least he kicked it.

A little more visibility for Senator Kerry. They can flame him, but, in politics, the worst thing possible is to have no one even talk about you. And it seems like Kerry doesn't have to worry about that one...

[Pastiche423]

80. What?

I'm not allowed an opinion here?



The man I supported, is now doing more for the Democratic party than any other Dem. He was elected, btw, unanimously.

Ms. Pastiche

[politicasista]

77. self-delete

[NightOwwl]

81. I opted off his email list the day I received his instructions to...

stand up and fight for election reform, but by the way I won't be in the country so I won't actually be able fight for you but gee whiz you get out there work your butt off for me.

And if his war chest includes the money I sent him for the 2004 campaign, I want it back.

[marcologico]

82. On that theory, Dean should return that 30 million he blew in Iowa

and all the millions he's raked in with his DFA pitch letters.

Where IS that DFA money going, anyway?

[cestpaspossible]

84. I don't see any point in attacking DFA

any organization that can help to keep our side energized and committed is a good thing. I say, Go Dean, Go Kerry, Go Reid, Go Pelosi, Go Boxer, Go Dems!

[marcologico]

85. Exactly my point -- why attack Kerry's warchest and not Dean's?

And a question is not an attack, but I know what you meant. :)

[cestpaspossible]

87. There is no good reason to attack either.

No good reason for a Democrat to do so, that is.

[marcologico]

88. A question is not an attack, as I said. And I agreed with you already!

:)

[cestpaspossible]

89. Oh yeah? how about: Why do you hate America?

It is simply disingenuous to claim that 'a question is not an attack'.


A question can indeed be an attack. It's called rhetoric.

[marcologico]

90. Um, I think it's time for recess. Let's finish this another time :)

[cestpaspossible]

91. Have fun playing. I consider it finished now.

[janx]

94. A good deal of it went to Kerry, along with email lists, etc. n/t

[cestpaspossible]

95. It's definitely not true that Dean or DFA shared their email lists.

Nor should they have. I don't think there were any transfer of funds to the Kerry campaign either .... didn't all the extra go to the 'Dean Dozen'?

Would you care to document your assertions?

[janx]

100. I will document my assertions by saying that I was involved

in Dean and DFA, and then I began receiving emails from the Kerry campaign asking for contributions and support. So you're hearing it from the source.

I did not mind it, and I subsequently volunteered for the Kerry campaign. DFA continued in its outreach, separately, to the organization's credit, and it continues to do so.

But to criticize DFA in regard to the Kerry campaign is disengenous and does not help the Dem party at this point.

[cestpaspossible]

102. I could not find a primary source but check this BFA post

so, an abc news brief just mentioned gov. dean's endorsement of kerry, but that the gov was still not going to share his list of donors w/the kerry campaign.
Blog For America

And that is the way I remember it, the Governor endorsed and gave fantastic support to Kerry, but did not give Kerry his email list, in which I think he was absolutely right.

But to criticize DFA in regard to the Kerry campaign is disengenous and does not help the Dem party at this point.
If you'll look at my posts in this thread you'll see that is exactly what I have said.

[NightOwwl]

97. Dean doesn't have my money...Kerry does.

So I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

106. Huh?

The obvious differences are:

1) Unlike Dean, Kerry had tons of leftover money. That fact alone pissed off tons of Dems I know who wanted every single penny used against Bush.

2) Dean was up front about his DFA pitches. Kerry is potentially going to take money from people who donated to him and supported his run in 2004 against Bush, to use for a second try in 2008. I think such behavior would be like taking money under false pretenses, and would ultimately be dishonorable. And based on the early polls on who Democrats support for President, the great majority of Democrats will not want to see that happen. It would provide Kerry with a massive and unfair advantage, and I personally do not believe Democrats will stand for it. I know I won't.

If he wants to run again, hey, he should go for it. He just shouldn't do it with 2004 money. If he does, I would like to see him questioned about it at every single campaign stop he makes in the 2008 primaries.

Hell, I would love to organize something like that myself, if it came down to it.

DTH

[LittleClarkie]

107. So did Gore

Gore only coughed up his leftover money in 2004.

A second point: the article in the OP was about Kerry's PAC. That's fresh money.

A third point: Kerry said at MTP that he gave all that was requested of him to the party, I believe it's also been said. The exact amount escapes me at the moment. He also gave more than any other presidential candidate to the DNC. In addition, has been stated that much of his leftover primary money will be going to 2005 and 2006 candidates.

I suspect that this money, the existance of which is old news, is a non-issue. Why did Donna Brazille make such a big stink about it only a few days after the election. And ever since then, when posters refer to the money, almost comically the number grows. Talk about DU interest rates, wow. It is ironic that it was Donna who brought up this issue, since she and Gore had a pretty good chunk left over at the end of their campaign too.

I suspect politicking, actually. And I don't really trust Donna Brazille. Anything for a bit of Dem infighting, it seems.

[marcologico]

114. In Kerry's case it's legal, ethical, and a good idea. In Dean's case

it may be legal but raising money through the DFA is an unethical way of building a warchest for a campaign he's promised not to run.

[wisteria]

86. Good,Good,Good News!

It will be a tough road ahead, but we will prevail.

[IndianaGreen]

96. Why is Kerry running at all?

To hear the MSM tell us, Hillary is the 2008 nominee in everything but in name. Isn't that why "they" want us to drink the Hillary Kool-Aid right now?

:eyes:

[cestpaspossible]

98. He isn't. Not at this point.

Neither is Hillary. It's just that the corporate media and the Republicans want to distract us from the important issues and from focusing on 2006 with constant 2008 speculation -- which can only be divisive because there can only be one Presidential candidate.

We need to save the primary fights for the primaries, or we wont make the gains we should in 06, or be united enough for tough (and frankly, disheartening and depressing) Congressional battles we have to wage.

[NVMojo]

110. It's going to take a warrior in full warrior mode to take this nation back

and out of the hands of the criminals.

GO KERRY!!!!!

Like that Mighty, Mighty Bosstones song,

"I get knocked down, but I get up again, ain't nobody gonna keep me down!"

And if Americans don't feel like they are getting knocked down, they'd better get off the dope and smell the coffee cuz we are still getting beatend down!! GET UP!!! Quite whining and fight!

[cyberpj]

111. Sorry, I could never vote for Kerry again after bailed on us in 2004.

No way.
No how.

[LeftCoast]

112. Kerry's got Joementum!

I can *hardly* wait till he runs again. *yawn*

[marcologico]

113. Take a look at their votes. No comparison. Link:

http://patrickhenrythinktank.org/sen-scores.html

[DemocracyInaction]

115. Suggestion to him or it's dumb to waste time on the past

Does he want to really be a force?? All that he speaks about in the Senate is as lost upon the American people as yesterday's garbage. They don't listen nor care. He will have to shoot his mouth off publicly for the next 4 years---you know, Dean style. He will have to become known as the mouthpiece of the Dem party. He has, in a way, the platform from which to do being our last nominee. Right now, he's letting the Clinton's claim that position. In a word: his fight with Bush was a cakewalk compared to trying to wrestle the reins of this party away from the Clinton's. He better find a way to really connect with Dean and start the type of grassroots support that Dean did. But most of all, he has to open his mouth and say those things outloud that the 'nice' Dems never say because it might hurt a Republican's feelings. Become THE MOUTH, John or move on.......