Kerry Keeps Options Open

[sabra]

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/5794096/detail.html

Kerry Keeps Options Open
Senator Says It's Too Early To Talk About Race


BOSTON -- It's almost as if Sen. John Kerry never stopped running for president.

He still jets across the country, raising millions of dollars and rallying Democrats. He still stalks the TV news show circuit, scolding President Bush at every turn.

...

"He's continuing the fight he began in 2004," said Kerry spokesman David Wade. "He wants to make it very clear he's a fighter who is going to continue to fight for his agenda."

...

"He believes in his heart and soul that he came just a whisker away from being president," said Ronald Kaufman, a veteran GOP operative with Massachusetts roots.

[sybylla]

1. His options closed

the day he stopped seeking the truth in Ohio. It was proof postive he wasn't running for us - the electorate - but for himself.

There are many fish in the sea and many fine Dems who will go for it in 2008 and who will actually fight the race on the people's behalf.

Sen. Kerry is a hasbeen.

[fedupinBushcountry]

8. Where is your proof?

Easy to attack, but when your words do not speak the truth, you lose.

I have mine.

Funny he has lawsuits going in Ohio and Florida. Who whudda thunk?

How about opening your mind and listen to truth instead of playing the blame game. What did you do or have you done to help in getting the votes to count? It takes more than 1 person or one politician to make change. Its WE the people.

http://www.airamericaplace.com/archive.php?mode=display&id=3112

:banghead: You actually have to download to listen to the truth, I know that is just to hard in order to get through a brick wall. :shrug:

[BlueIris]

9. Another one! fedup, I admire your fortitude, as always, but...

why do people keep trying to reason with those who cannot accept reason, logic or reality? It's your choice, of course, but...I've given up. The haters are beyond our reach.

[msongs]

13. so people who disagree with you are "haters"? how democratic of you nt

[joeunderdog]

53. You must hate freedom if you don't support the guy

who decided to do what was best for his career, rather than what was best for the country. He knew they rigged the election, but did nothing because he didn't want the bad press. This was a guy who charged into a hail of bullets during Viet Nam, but had his concession speech on speed dial during one of the most important presidential elections in history. He turtled after his constituents gave him time, sweat and money, stood in line for hours and vowed not to get screwed again at the polls. I guess if you take these kinds of changes in character seriously, then you might not vote for the guy again.

I guess you can call me a freedom hater, too.

[AgadorSparticus]

73. and you are a freeper troll if you don't tow the party line. or what's

the preferred name here? "hater"? yea, you're a "hater" if you don't bow down and kiss the feet of every elected democrat or the democrat of the thread's choice. :crazy:

[karynnj]

75. Even more than a year later there is no solid take to court proof

that the election was stolen. Repeating it constatntly doesn't change that. Kerry HAS spoken out about the fact that elections results can be tampered with and that this needs to be fixed.

With no real proof, would the Ohio courts, the Congress, or the federal courts ahve done anything except summarily reject a case? The media that mistreated him while he was a bonafide candidate would suddenly sympathetically support him?

He has a shot at getting things fixed ONLY IF HE CAN GET PEOPLE behind fixing it going forward. On this,in fact, it would be better if he were not even one of the main voices - because you want to be sure it can't be spun as he's just not over 2004. Conyers and Boxer have been great but some of the more mainstream Democrats have to take up this issue. It's also fantastic that the League of Woman's voters has become involved on some issues.

[joeunderdog]

84. You don't have to cry "Fraud!" to question the process.

Lost votes, long lines, exit-pollers inexplicably refusing to release data, Homeland Security locking down a voting site...it goes on and on.

You don't need proof to launch an inquiry. That's what an investigation is for--to gather proof. There were PLENTY of legitimate problems/questions that should have been asked when the spotlight was on and Kerry had the BIG STAGE. Not later under the radar when MSM can hide it.

How many non-DU-ers even know what Boxer and Conyers are doing? We missed our moment and there'll be alot of damage before we get another bite at the apple.

[ProSense]

87. Those things were all mentioned

The lawsuits filed by Cliff Arnebeck, supported by the Kerry/Edwards campaign, Conyers' panel collecting testimony and the rest, all included these incidents. There were lawsuits being tossed out of court despite the documented problems. The media had plenty wind of what was going on: The C-SPAN programs, Countdown with Olbermann, the BBV melodrama, they still didn't touch it. So if the message didn't get out, it's because the media chose to ignore it and would have, no matter what. If they had given this the same kind of coverage that they give to those sensationalist trials they are so prone to run with, pubic outrage may have helped the cause.

[karynnj]

99. Kerry didn't have a big stage

and he did speak about those "irregularities" several times - and was criticized each time.

No one questioned that there were long lines. The problem is the BI-partisan county election committees had reports telling them the number of machines - none of the Ohio Democrats caught the fact that the numbers were inadequate. They were lower in some places than were used in the primaries. This was in the papers within days and wasn't contested. The problem is that no one can PROVE the numbers of votes lost those some claim they can.

[ddeclue]

101. Exactly.

[ddeclue]

85. He JUST spoke about it on Ed Schultz's radio program..

Kerry also spoke out against the ANWR drilling and the illegal wire taps at the same time.

There's a lot of Deaniac and Clarkie sour grapes out there that Kerry got the nomination in 2004 so after the November election was over it's back to the intramural bickering and complaining about Kerry.

And Kerry does deserve some of the complaints to be fair but much of the complaining is over the top.

I am still irritated however that he held on to so much cash that could really have been used for more air cover (TV ads) here in Florida and probably also in Ohio. Every two minutes it was "I'm George Bush and I paid for this ad, here in Orlando and only a few ads a day from Kerry." They could have also funded a much bigger and more sophisticated operation in Florida in general and in the I-4 corridor in particular but I think that they thought Florida was a lost cause and chose to concentrate on Ohio and Pennsylvania. Given that they had the extra cash though, I think they could have done all 3 states instead of just 2.

Folks, we can KEEP picking a new guy every time who has to learn his mistakes from scratch or we can run one who has an organization, money, name recognition, and has learned his mistakes.

IMHO the best shots we have for 2008 are at this time:

John Kerry, John Edwards and Al Gore. Barack Obama is about the only really interesting new guy to come on the scene with a lot of charisma and ability to speak and debate extemporaneously. He would be my dark horse 4th guy.

Dean could theoretically run but he would have to give up DNC chair and do it soon to do so. If he waits much longer it will be seen as jumping ship in the middle of an election.

Clark could also run. Will he? Who knows. All I know is Clarke wasn't really anywhere near Dean and Dean didn't do so well against Edwards and then Edwards finished second to Kerry.

Of all of them Edwards is the best pure stump speech guy and working the crowds guy - he was better than Kerry, better than Bush, better than Clarke, better than Dean, better than anyone since Bill Clinton himself.

Kerry had the best organization however but it still was far from perfect. If Kerry runs again - Mary Beth Cahill needs to be out and James Carville and Bill Clinton (assuming Hillary doesn't run or loses) need to be in.

Will Kerry run? From all his running around the country it would appear so.

Is it possible he won't run.. Well as I understand it, to run for President in 2008 he will have to bet it all. His Senate seat is alway up for re-election in 2008 and he will pretty much have to choose if he wants to run for President. Most voters will not want to vote for him in 2008 if he is not willing to commit totally to the run for President and give up the chance for Senate re-election.

Other than Kerry, Edwards, Obama, Gore, Dean, and Clarke there are the newcomers to the Presidential mentions including Clinton, Boxer, Biden, Warner, and possibly Feingold.

There are a lot of people claiming that Warner's the guy but I don't think he will be. He's too packaged and too oversold and he's trying too hard too early.

Hillary has a very good chance to be nominated but I fear she cannot win outside of the Northeast, Illinois, and the West Coast. She is a lightning rod for Republicans much as Newt Gingrich used to be to Democrats.

Biden seems very serious about being President but I don't think he appeals to the Democratic base because he is too corporate and too much of an apologist for the Iraq war.

Boxer could be a good candidate but I'm not sure how she would appeal to Southern or Southwestern voters.

Feingold is very good on Democratic issues but I don't really know much about how he would be as a campaigner. Would love to hear more about him..

Ultimately, I was a very early Kerry guy in mid 2003 and worked for the campaign as a volunteer staffer and will do so again if he decides to run. I will be torn between him and Edwards however and would be very happy with any combination of Kerry, Edwards, Gore, or Obama.

Doug D.

[karynnj]

102. They couldn't use the money in the general election

it was from the primary election - they could and did give much of it to other campaigns which was legal.

Your comments otherwise were extremely interesting. The MA people in the Kerry group say that he has no choice but to to chose in 2008 - because MA law doesn't allow running for both - even in the primaries.

I think you might be right about Cahil, but rather than Carvelle, who I think would be a horrible fit - Kerry's brother, Cam or his friend Thorne might be better. With Carvelle - I think he is ultra political with few core believes. Kerry is the other extreme with more integrity, decency and morality than any canidate I ever saw (and I'm not forgetting Carter). (Clinton as a former President shouldn't be a campaign manager and last year he was wrong on his 2 main recommendations - that Kerry should back all the anti-gay amendments (in spite of voting against Doma and having a 100% record on the issue - so he would be inconsistent and would lose intregrity) and to talk economics, not terror.

Kerry needs to be Kerry - his honesty does show (I was blown away seeing him at rallies on CSPAN) and he is awful when he is trying to do otherwise. (There weren't many examples - the 2 I can think of were when he was asked if one of his daughters was more like him - he wouldn't say one was and looked incrediblely uncomfortable. The other time was when adding the phrase about Mary Cheney - the tenor of his voice was so different.

Last time, Cam Kerry and Thorne had no experience, now they do. They're both very good (and gave better advice than Cahil in 2004). They know Kerry as well as they know themselves and are intensely committed to him and believe in him. The trust between Kerry and them would be 100% both ways - Their relationships over a lifetime would alow for honesty.

[ddeclue]

105. OK fine...

but why not use it before the convention then if they had to use it up in the primary season. It would have been better than just letting it sit in the bank IMHO.

Doug D.

[LittleClarkie]

109. True, and I think they were preparing for a Gore style recount

instead of what they got, which was it's own special brand of fubar.

[Clark2008]

129. Well, one of your statements is wrong:

Clark could also run. Will he? Who knows. All I know is Clarke wasn't really anywhere near Dean and Dean didn't do so well against Edwards and then Edwards finished second to Kerry.

Clark beat Edwards in five of the nine primaries in which they both participated (Clark didn't compete in Iowa, but beat Edwards in New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico and North Dakota). Clark beat Dean, and everyone else, in first quarter fundraising in 2004 (remembering that Clark had only just started in the fourth quarter of 2003. He also beat Dean in all the races, save New Hampshire, where the two competed. He also was the only other candidate besides Kerry to win a primary in a state not his home state (Edwards won South Carolina, but Clark won Oklahoma and had dropped out before the primaries went to Arkansas).

Therefore, I'm not sure of the accuracy of any of your other statements.

[shepston]

137. Finally Another Democrats Gets It

Barely anyone in the Democratic Party, let alone the swing voters, voted for Clark or Dean the first time. They are both decent guys but not good candidates and not particularly electable.

You can blame Kerry all you like for the failed 2004 election (and Kerry has been honorable in accepting the blame himself), but the truth is the squabbling within the Democratic Party left the party weaker overall. Say what you want about the republicans, but they understood the value of standing behind their leader for the 2000 and 2004 elections. The Democratic Party and all democrats who didn't support Kerry to their best ability have to take some blame for the final outcome.

Everyone is treating Kerry as if he's the Al Gore of 2000 . . . destined for the political graveyard. But when Kerry ran against Bush in 2004, he fought a good fight against a fairly popular president during a war, while Gore, the sitting Vice President, lost against a stumbling rather inexperienced governor.

So the democrats who read this forum can be mad that real people in real America DON'T LIKE THEIR CANDIDATES, or they can get behind the members of their party that have proved to be leaders. In 2008, Kerry will bear the trifecta like NO ONE else (except maybe Edwards): (1) Experience as the Democratic Nominee, (2) Name recognition, (3) Money.

Get over your animosity kids, or be prepared to salute President Santorum as the 44th President of the United States.

[Vektor]

140. Excellent point, Shepston...Welcome to DU!

Sorry you had to get attacked right out of the starting gate, but we have some pretty diverse opinions here, and some folks are not especially civil in the way they express them. The good news is, you eventually learn to laugh at the hostility, believe it or not.

Glad to have you!

:hi:

[shepston]

161. Laughing now :)

[MH1]

141. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

Excellent post!

[ProSense]

148. Welcome! Thanks for your excellent post.

:hi:

[Island Blue]

152. Welcome to DU Shepston!

You didn't waste any time before you hit it out of the park did you? Great post!

[jenndar]

157. Good points, and welcome to DU! n/t

[karynnj]

159. How true

Welcome to DU. If you look in the DU Groups, under Democrats, there's a JohnKerry.com group, where ALL of us will agree with what you wrote.

[whometense]

162. Welcome, shepston.

be prepared to salute President Santorum as the 44th President of the United States

I'm torn over which is worse, President Santorum or President Dumber-than-a-bag-of-hammers Allen.

Though some dems worked hard for Kerry, the democratic party as a whole did not have his back. To their eternal shame.

[man4allcats]

163. But in fairness

election fraud has to take some (or maybe even a lot) of the blame, too. You correctly note that, "all democrats who didn't support Kerry to their best ability have to take some blame for the final outcome." It is true that Diebold could not have won the 2004 election (and make no mistake, it was Diebold and not Bush that won) if there had been an overwhelming voter turnout that even Diebold couldn't have fixed, but that still doesn't make the fascism of BushCo acceptable; i.e., a "by default" voters' choice. Hopefully, the Democrats "are the members of their party that have proved (or will prove) to be leaders in 2008." Impeach Bush NOW!

[enough already]

135. The proof is plain as the drunken red nose on Chimp's face

Yes, Conyers and Boxer have been great. And Kerry quit even with all the evidence right in front of him.

[Blue Shark]

160. You nailed it to the wall n/t

[sybylla]

64. The 2004 election is over.

Now it's 2006. I know it's hard to keep up, but those of us who wish to focus on the future are getting tired of waiting.

[sybylla]

63. Proof of what? Its an OPINION

I'm sure if you take a moment to look it up in the dictionary, you'll understand more clearly what I said. And when you're done with that, try looking up attack so you can understand the difference and realize why I say that the only attack I see here is yours.

Surely your snide, assinine attitude has won you so many converts to your faith that you no longer have to preach that pap. :sarcasm: intended.

Please. Try opening your mind and realizing that it is perception that matters and not fact as to whether or not John Kerry is a hasbeen. Until John Kerry does something effective to change the Dems perception, he starts the 2008 behind the eightball and essentially behind what will likely be a field of six or more highly qualified and eager candidates.

And your lecture about it taking more than one person or one politician to make change is pure strawman arrogance on a board like this. You could probably count on your fingers and toes (presuming you can count) those DUers who did nothing in 2003 and 2004 to help a Dem win the primary/presidency.

So why don't you take that chip off your shoulder and start talking real world politics. So many of us would welcome real dialog over pitbull attacks on opinions you don't particularly agree with.

I know, why don't you tell us why you think John Kerry would make a wonderful candidate in 2008. Novel idea, huh?

[ProSense]

65. The facts in the article posted in the OP do not point to a has been.

He still jets across the country, raising millions of dollars and rallying Democrats.
***
His campaign Web site boasts of an online army of 3 million supporters.
***
He has also used his fundraising prowess to aid Democrats across the country, collecting chits that could be called if he seeks the party's White House nomination.
***
Traveling extensively since his 2004 loss, Kerry generated nearly $5.3 million for dozens of Democratic candidates, state parties and charitable causes, according to aides.

[karynnj]

76. I am one of the Kerry supporters and I agree that he has to prove

that he can do better than last time and correct things that didn't work AS WELL as show that he is a better candidate than the 6 or so excellent candidates.

What should be kept in mind is that he very nearly beat an incompent President in a time of war, in spite of a very biased media. He actually came out of the worst character assination I've seen in my life - and I lived through the Nixon years - with no real scandal or genuine flaw exposed. People here have said - that fair or not fair - before the primaries, he would have to dispell several lies from 2004. He and Teresa almost need to find a way - with a hostile press - to let people see them for who they are - not the characatures the RW created.

One thing to consider is corruption is likely to be a major issue - there is no one better suited to using that issue. Kerry has been very nearly scandal free over a 24 year public career and he has fought corruption even when it meant putting his career at risk - by being seen as a conspiracy nut when he, ALONE fought drugs being brought into the country by the Contras and when he went after highly placed Democrats when it was clear that they were bought by BCCI, the bank used by terrorists.

(In 2004, these were impossible to use very much as bringing up the Contras after St Ronnie died or mentioning that if the BCCI investigation was continued - they likely would have found that Khan was selling nucleur technology - which in 2004 would give Bush an excuse to blame Clinton.)

But for now, look at what they say he is doing - It boils down to 2 things; being an excellent Senator - which I assume Massachusetts expects of him and working as hard as he can to try to help the Democrats in 2006. Not one of the actions deserve criticism. You can say he's doing a good job, but you don't support him. I will likely say that about whomever your favorite is - because most candidates are doing good things because that's how you win.

Kerry did not write this article or talk to the writer - he just supported 2005 and 2006 candidates, took excellent stands, had one of the first comprehensive Iraq exit plans, and gave a speech - that Reid highlighted as A Democratic view of what should be done on the War on Terror. If he would say - I'll never run for President again - you would likely say he did a nice job this year.

[MH1]

132. fwiw, Kerry was just about written off in 2003.

He was in the basement in the polls, way behind Dean and iirc several others.

Then what happened?

Kerry will run if he thinks it is the right thing to do. He will not let some people's attitudes that he "starts out behind" stop him, if he thinks it is the right thing to do.

Slinging around the word "has-been" is just an insult and has no basis.

You say "Until John Kerry does something effective to change the Dems perception, ...."

How is it that you are knowledgeable about "The Dems" perceptions? Who, in your mind, are "the Dems"? I know plenty of active Democrats who will definitely vote for Kerry again, or are willing to consider him objectively against whatever the slate is, without any prejudice from 2004.


You said above "the day he stopped seeking the truth in Ohio. It was proof postive he wasn't running for us - the electorate - but for himself" to which another poster said "where is your proof" then you claim you need no proof.

Here's what I want proof of:

* that he "stopped seeking the truth in Ohio" - he didn't.
* that he "wasn't running for us - the electorate - but for himself" - where the HELL do you get that from? Even if he beleived there was no more truth to be found in Ohio - but he didn't - refer to FedUp's post above - how does that one decision morph into "he was only running for himself"?

As for why John Kerry would make a wonderful candidate in 2008 - more qualified and experienced than anyone else who will run; experienced at the national campaign game (now); inside knowledge of the nuts and bolts behind international terrorism (see BCCI, Iran/Contra, The New War); one of the only politicians I know who seems to truly grasps important economic concepts such as fair trade, the crucial role of entrepreneurship and small business to empowerment; phenomenal liberal values but a dedication to a progressive (as opposed to radical) implementation of same... I could go on and on but I will save that for a separate post. I think it needs its own thread.

[Demi_Babe]

77. phenomenal post

[henslee]

19. You are right. Kerry = old flavor.

[mogster]

121. How do you know he has stopped seeking the truth?

Isn't the OP a sign that he didn't stop? ;-)

I am looking forward to hear Kerry's version of the 2004 election, once he get his democratic right; the presidency.

[muchacho]

2. close 'em

you blew it once..next!

[ddeclue]

86. Exactly why we keep losing.

Both Gore and Kerry have learned from their mistakes. Mistakes which a Warner or a Boxer have yet to make.

Hillary Clinton may have an advantage as the wife of Bill Clinton in this regard and may be the only newbie who can claim experience if vicarious through Bill Clinton's Presidential campaigns.

Doug D.

[PsN2Wind]

3. I reluctantly supported him for 2004

However after he sat on his hands waiting for the SBvets to go away, then folded like a cheap lawn chair after the vote was in, I would be even more reluctant for 2008.

[MH1]

22. The Kerry campaign responded. That they didn't is a myth.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/swiftadresponse.html

SBVT had a press conference on May 4. It got little traction then. Then they started ads in early August. The info at the link is not very well organized, but it details Kerry campaign response to each event of the SBVT campaign.

1) when the media is playing the other guys' attack and not covering your response, you're screwed.
2) it didn't make much difference anyway. Polls that fall showed that the public believed Kerry's story on Vietnam. The SBVT convinced only those who were already inclined to vote for Bush. The ads didn't work well for swing voters because they were so negative. SBVT was given more credit than they actually earned.

Still, it would be very, very nice to tie SBVT to Abramoff. I'm sure that if there was good rationale for a lawsuit, Kerry (or some other vets who were incidentally smeared by the Swift Liars' attacks) would have done it.

[PsN2Wind]

32. I thought the response slow and tepid

My idea of an appropriate response would have been. "supporters of Dubya have found numerous Vietnam vets claiming they saw what I did or didn't do in Vietnam but can come up with noone that attests to serving with Bush the last two years of his stateside obligation". I repeat, don't campaign as if you're afraid you'll hurt your opponents feelings!!

[MH1]

38. A partial timeline - doesn't look slow to me.

(if I knew how to paste html into a DU post instead of having to use square brackets, this would be formatted better. Just sayin.')

April 14, 2004 - The website for SBVT was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, the information technology manager for Gannon International, a St. Louis company that has diversified interests, including in Vietnam. (1) (note - Gannon International does not appear to have any relationship to Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the fake reporter.)

May 3, 2004 - "Kerry campaign announced a major advertising push to introduce 'John Kerry's lifetime of service and strength to the American people.' Kerry's four month Vietnam experience figures prominently in the ads." (2)

May 4, 2004 - The Swift Liars, beginning their lies by calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", went public at a news conference organized by Merrie Spaeth at the National Press Club. (1)

May 4, 2004 - "The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event...The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.' " (3)


May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).


Jul. 26, 2004 - Jul. 29, 2004 - Democratic National Convention held in Boston. John Kerry's military experience is highlighted.

Aug. 5, 2004 - The Swift Liars' first television ad began airing a one-minute television spot in three states. (7)

Aug. 5, 2004 - "the General Counsels to the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign faxed a letter to station managers at the relevant stations stating that the ad is 'an inflammatory, outrageous lie" and requesting that they "act immediately to prevent broadcast of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. " ' " (4)

Aug. 10, 2004 - Democracy 21, The Campaign Legal Center and The Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that the Swift Liars were illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections. (4)

Aug. 17, 2004 - the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges. (4)

Aug. 19, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced its own ad "Rassmann." (4)

Aug. 20, 2004 - The Swift Liars' second television ad began airing. This ad selectively excerpted Kerry's statements to the SFRC on 4/22/1971. (7)

Aug. 22, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced another ad "Issues" which addressed the Swift Liars' attacks.

Aug. 25, 2004 - The Kerry-Edwards campaign ... dispatched former Sen. Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann, to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to deliver to the President a letter signed by Democratic Senators who are veterans. (The letter was not accepted.) (4)

Aug. 26, 2004 - The Swift Liars' third television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia in 1968. (7)

August 26, 2004 - Mary Beth Cahill sends letter to Ken Mehlman detailing the "Web of Connections" between the Swift Liars and the Bush Administration, and demanding that Bush denounce the smear campaign. (5)

August 26, 2004 - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submits FOIA request "with the White House asking it to detail its contacts with individuals connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT)." (6)

Aug. 27, 2004 - The DNC ran a full page ad in the Aug. 27, 2004 New York Times terming the Swift Boat campaign a smear. (4)

----
References:

* (1) SourceWatch article on SBVT - http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth
* (2) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/swift050404.html
* (3) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Kerry Campaign Response - http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/swift050404c.html
* (4) (Sept. 8, 2004) Eric M. Appleman (apparently) Some Responses to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" Ad - http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/swiftadresponse.html
* (5) August 26, 2004 letter from Mary Beth Cahill to Ken Mehlman - http://www.gwu.edu/%7Eaction/2004/kerry/cahill082604ltr.html
* (6) Press Release (US Newswire): CREW FOIAs White House Contacts with Swift Boat Veterans Group
* (7) Wikipedia entry, Swift Vets and POWs for Truth

[TomClash]

34. His response was slow and awful

Eliot Spitzer said it best - "I would have said to Bush: 'I'll debate your war record against mine anytime - let's meet tomorrow morning at 10 a.m."

That's how you beat these bastards.

[MH1]

40. Actually, he said something like that.

Sorry, no link, but I remember it.

Funny - Bush never showed. Ya think he would show for Spitzer?

[MH1]

41. Refer to my post #38. n/t

[ProSense]

42. Here is Kerry on video challenging Bush to do just that.

Kerry defends war record
Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc0e-904bcc95946c&

[wordpix]

43. he won in '04 but didn't challenge the Ohio voting problems & thus he lost

[TomClash]

72. Yeah, once

It wasn't wnough. His communications people were mediocre.

[Jayhawk Lib]

4. Did the better man win???!!

Some of you are acting like Kerry deserved to lose. You apparently think the better man won. I do not think the better man won but if you think Bush was the better man, I hope you are happy.

[BlueIris]

5. Welcome to DU! For your sake...

please don't try to reason with the haters. It only makes them crazier. They make themselves crazy enough. It isn't good for your sanity, either. There are plenty of sane people around here to have meaningful exchanges with, whether they be about other leaders and other worthwhile subject matter (I swear).

[PsN2Wind]

11. "Crazy"

You must have that rare Frist-like quality to analyze people via the internet.
I don't feel it's crazy or makes me a hater to want a nominee that won't campaign as if he's afraid of hurting his opponents feelings. And also to expect one that will keep swinging until the fights over not sit in the corner and not answer the bell.
If Kerry wins the nomination, I'll certainly vote for him, but not with any great enthusiasm, unless he shows more fire and determination than during his last campaign.

[msongs]

15. people who disagree with you are not sane? Are you Dr Phil in diguise? nt

[Vektor]

142. Sometimes the shoe fits...

Nobody singled you out, she is referring to those that are unreasonable, mean, and constantly in attack mode. There are a lot of them. I'm not sure why you took that personally, but she didn't name names.

[Vektor]

143. What does it say about those who are jumping up to respond

to a general post that didn't single anyone out. Wouldn't you have to feel you resemble that remark to get upset?

Just asking...

[longship]

14. Kerry *was* the better man.

Whether he won or not, is yet to be seen. We'll likely never know.

I am one of those who did not support Kerry in the primary. If he runs again I will again not support him in the primary and for the same reasons as in 2004 plus the fact that he did not take on the Repug attacks as vigorously as he could have. He let the Repugs define his candidacy and that hurt him in the polls.

I like John Kerry a lot, but I remain unsure of whether he has the wherewithal to win a national election. If he does manage to get the nomination I will again be a very strong supporter.

On edit: Welcome to DU!

[MH1]

27. Just want to say Thank You

for a sane and honest post.

(see folks, it is possible to prefer someone other than Kerry (or < insert current bashing target here > ) but present that opinion in a rational and non-inflammatory way.)

[longship]

36. You're welcome.

I have to often figuratively bite my tongue here at DU. Some people have thin skins, especially concerning their pet candidates. If you want flames, say anything bad about Hillary. Some people get their shorts in a bunch about that.

For instance, I like Hillary, too. But as long as she takes her current stand on Iraq I cannot support her, not even in the general election. Some people get angry when they read that. If she doesn't change that position and somehow manages to get the nomination in 2008, I won't be voting for a Dem for president. (And I certainly will *not* vote Repug.)

[paulk]

62. the issue of letting the "Repugs define his candidacy"

is the most important issue we, as Democrats, face. I personally don't feel that Kerry "let" the press define him, as much as the press just went ahead and followed the script the RNC had written for them in "defining" Kerry. While Kerry's speaking style and manner did lend themselves to certain characterizations (or mis-characterizations), the press all to often paid more attention to them than to what Kerry was actually saying (when they bothered to even pay attention). In the meantime, of course, they gave GW a complete free pass...

This is a problem every Democratic candidate is going to face - just look at what they did to Al Gore. Here's a great little article that illustrates this -

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/5920188?rnd=1088755502349&has-player=true&version=6.0.8.1024&

----------------

Whoever gets the nod in 2008 is going to be subjected to the same thing -

it's something we all need to be aware of - and we need to be prepared to defend our nominee against it.

[wisteria]

83. I agree, we need to smack down the media before they push the

misconceptions. However, sometimes I think it is a matter of the "what's in it for me" mentality with the press. I'll do for you, if you do for me.

[sybylla]

59. It's not about deserving to lose, It's not even about the 2004 race

In 2008 I want a candidate who fights 24/7, who fights when it counts, not when it looks good or might buy him enough street cred with the media that he can wedge another campaign out of it.

Kerry had his turn. I fought for him for nearly a year, donated money and busted my ass. And within hours of being notified of dodgy returns in Ohio, he conceded, then put up a enough of a protest to call it a protest. I never win at chess, but even I know he could have leveraged his position as a candidate much harder in Ohio. Yet all he could see was 2008, all he could speak were weasel words...and I busted my ass for him. I don't hate John Kerry, as some people so easily want to accuse. It has nothing to do with hate. I just give as good as I get. John Kerry gets all my apathy.

[ddeclue]

100. There's nothing to win on in court...

nonetheless Kerry still does have lawsuits pending.

If Kerry jumped up and down and screamed they'd (the GOP) would do the ol' Sore Loserman character smear they did on Al Gore and have more fake "riots" like they did down in South Florida in 2000 to prevent the recount, etc.

Kerry knows what he's doing and has his prosecutors hat on with these court cases, and is not gonna play into George Bush's hands.

Doug D.

[Vektor]

144. Welcome to DU!

And Blue Iris is right. There will be some out of left field hostility all over this place that will make very little sense.

Try to ride it out...

After a while it becomes humorous.

[emad]

6. Wonder what those options might be if he finds out Dumbass has

been bugging Theresa's phone calls and tapping her emails....

[Kolesar]

7. At least he gets an audience for his message.

Now that he is nationally known. Recount or not, he just bored the hell out of me when I first saw him in Ohio in February 2004. He led with a nurse's union head talking about a nursing shortage. I suppose his strategy was to counter Dr. Dean. I don't think JK knew what to run on then. By Nov 1, he had improved dramatically but I liked Bruce's speech better.

[fedupinBushcountry]

10. Funny

I saw him for the first time in Feb. '04 in front of an enthusiatic crowd. To bad Dean used a different STRATEGY and never came at all.

[Seedersandleechers]

12. I would vote for Kerry in a New York minute. Actually

any democrat running will get my vote.

[Jayhawk Lib]

17. Me To

I am 100% Kerry but I would gladly vote for any of the other candidates that are being mentioned. We all need to be more civil and quit beating up the Democratic candidates that are not our personal favorites. The worst Democratic candidate would be better than the best candidate the Republicans have to offer.

[babylonsister]

116. Jayhawk Lib, welcome to DU! This conversation

is a common one; who did or didn't do what to who, and why.
I'm with you; I'm 100% for Kerry, but will vote and discuss
anyone on the horizon. Civility would be nice!

[Kolesar]

18. Dean ... never came at all?

Don't you remember...that was the Yeeee-argh!

[BlueIris]

20. I have the most disgusting visual in my mind right now.

Ew.

[Vektor]

145. !

:rofl:

[MH1]

33. Can't get people in the room vs. can't get a camera in the room.

Remember when * gave a speech and they had to take chairs out of the room? But of course it was covered by all the networks. Then Kerry gave a speech that was essentially a rebuttal (I believe it was at Council on Foreign Relations), to a packed room, and there was no significant coverage except on C-Span. I believe it was Tweety who observed the contrast - " * can't get people in the room, Kerry can't get a camera in the room."

But lately the second part of that has changed a little - Kerry's getting a little more exposure now - and I'm glad. At least SOMEONE's getting the Dem message out.

[msongs]

16. I'd vote for kerry again, but if he calls me I have some suggestions ->

advise his fans that people who disagree with him can have valid opinions and a different view of the same facts
without being haters or insane.

when talking, get to the point, at least some of the time, so as to contrast the wordier senatorial style that can be used
to fill in details.

suggest some election reforms and introduce legislation to implement them.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/liberaltshirts.htm

PS - as the saying goes, I may disagree with what you say but I will fight to YOUR death for your right to say them :-)

[MH1]

30. About that electoral legislation....

Perhaps people reading this thread could ask their Senators to cosponsor this legislation, that Kerry has already cosponsored.

S.391 : A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit certain State election administration officials from actively participating in electoral campaigns.
Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. (introduced 2/16/2005)
Cosponsors (5):

Sen Boxer, Barbara - 2/16/2005
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham - 2/16/2005
Sen Corzine, Jon S. - 6/28/2005
Sen Feingold, Russell D. - 4/19/2005
Sen Kerry, John F. - 2/16/2005

Committees: Senate Rules and Administration
Latest Major Action: 2/16/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

S.450 : A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified paper record, to improve provisional balloting, to impose additional requirements under such Act, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham (introduced 2/17/2005)
Cosponsors (6)

Sen Boxer, Barbara - 2/17/2005
Sen Dayton, Mark - 3/7/2005
Sen Kerry, John F. - 2/17/2005
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. - 2/17/2005
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. - 3/1/2005
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. - 2/17/2005

Committees: Senate Rules and Administration
Latest Major Action: 2/17/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

S.1975 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 11/8/2005)
Cosponsors (4)

Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham - 12/12/2005
Sen Feingold, Russell D. - 12/12/2005
Sen Kerry, John F. - 11/10/2005
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. - 12/12/2005

Committees: Senate Rules and Administration
Latest Major Action: 11/8/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. <-- Kerry was first, and at one time ONLY cosponsor of this bill.

[wakeme2008]

21. I will vote GREEN before a DLCer

Kerry got my money and vote in 2004 but never again..

[ddeclue]

91. Kerry's NOT DLC...

He's pretty liberal in fact.

Warner's DLC.

Doug D.

[LittleClarkie]

93. Clinton, Warner, and Bayh are DLC in the ways that count

You've heard of DINOs and RINOs.

Well, Kerry is DLC in name only. Al From doesn't even acknowledge him. Indeed, he's too liberal. So was Edwards, frankly.

Aside from some hawkishness borne of his knowledge of terrorism, which was in turn borne of his investigations into international crime, which is how he sees terrorism, he is much too liberal. I cringe when people compare him to Lieberman or Clinton. They are not even close.

[ddeclue]

97. Biden's pretty DLC isn't he?

[LittleClarkie]

106. Oops. Yeah, I think he's on the list over at the DLC website as well

And yeah, I'd put him just under Lieberman in that regard.

Forgot about him.

[shepston]

138. Did I miss something?

I'm pretty new to DU posting, but not to reading the posts. Did DU change their name to the "Non- DLC Democratic Underground" ?

Come on kids? Why the hate?
I think that Jon Meacham was right. The democrats do like defeat http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10558586/.

BUT I DON'T

[pyro858]

23. Kerry is yesterday's news

Not that it really makes a difference. " If voting changed anything, it would be illegal!" Not sure who said this but it sure is true.

[10 Cent Adventure]

24. I'm Still Proud Of Kerry...

2004 was my first presidential vote. I had just turned 19 that year and had been involved in local politics since September 12, 2001 when I started working for my local Democratic party as a volunteer. After initially being excited by Deans words, I slowly started to notice the cracks showing through. So my attention initially turned to only other "qualified" candidates Sen. Kerry and Gen. Clark. Clark turned me off by having essentially voted for every sitting President while he served in the Army which seemed, at the time though no longer, like he was really simply surrendering his principles. Then Kerry turned me off by not being the Kerry I knew which was the Winter Soldier Kerry. Then of course there was Edwards. He seemed to reflect the passion of Dean the eloquence of Kerry's words with the charisma of Clinton and the moral rectitude of the Bobby Kennedy. It didn't hurt that he announced his candidacy officially on the Daily Show. So needless to say I voted for him in the primary...in Utah. Pointless yes but he was my guy. Of course I became enamoured with Kerry shortly there after to the point where his example has shaped my life in what then would have been an unbelievable way. As the General started to heat up my responsibilities in the Party in Utah grew, I was working for several candidates and I was the my precincts VP. I worked hard and I was proud of Kerry's campaign, sure I knew that he hadn't been nearly aggressive enough. I knew he had let the Right Wing define him and it was going to hurt but surely the American people would see through the whorefaced liars on FOX...and CNN...and MSNBC...and at The New York Times...and The Washington Post...and the LA Times...ok so I was a little blinded by hope but still I thought on election day that we would be the victors. So I was crushed when it turned out we had lost. Kerry for his part hasn't given up the count but he knows that America doesn't like sour losers, look at how people viewed Gore. So he prioritized and put that issue on the back burner. He's been Barn Storming ever since and most likely will run in '08 primaries. I don't think he'll win and I think its because he thinks he deserves to. I can say this if he did win, he would run the campaign that '04 should have been, fast, aggressive, probably negative and most importantly winning. I'd vote for him in a general election and I will forever be proud to have supported him in '04, hell it was his example that prompted me to join the Navy.

[LittleClarkie]

70. I'm 42 years old and this was my first proper election

how sad is that.

Clark was my early person. I was none to enthused when he dropped out and a man I'd heard had the personality of a styrofoam cup (that good? quipped someone) won. It took me forever to check him out. Bush sort of pushed me into his arms in the spring of 2004 when I heard about Gitmo in an early report. I got a Kerry window sign even though I still wasn't "feeling it". Somewhere around the Dem Convention I started to check him out properly by getting books out of the library and read the articles that appeared around that time. I feel in love with the Winter Soldier first, and slowly looked for reasons to like the guy so I could campaign properly for him. I never did think that ABB was enough.

I sorta overshot the mark, actually, and ended up really admiring the guy. I don't know which was worse the day after the election: losing in the first campaign I'd ever properly worked for and invested emotion in, or just having my dreams crushed at saving the country and getting to watch another 4 years of Bush and Co fucking us up.

All I know is I still look at John Kerry and see a president there. I still think he'd make a good one. Losing this last time hasn't changed that opinion. I just wish I felt that there weren't elements in the Dem Party that were working against him, or at the least weren't terribly enthused, as if they'd taken 2004 and were waiting for 2004.

Maybe I was lying to myself too, but I thought his late momentum would carry us through. And there are some who would say it did carry us through and that there is something rotten in Denmark. It may be years before we find that out conclusively, though I hope not.

I don't care if he thinks he deserves the nomination, or if people think that his current activity is all about running again, or even if his current activity really is all about running again. There's more to it than that. He's not that shallow. He's about pushing Dem values, helping to grow the grassroots, helping his fellow Dems get elected, not to mention the various veteran issues and environmental issues, and small business issues etc he's into.

If he wants to be President, it's as much because he thinks he could do some good in there, not as the Republicans would say, that he wants it just because he wants it.

The problem is, the most qualified don't often get to be president. The most charasmatic do. Or the ones who are the best at bullshitting.

Even so, I know some folks who've had that mythical beer with Kerry, which is something that no Bush fan can claim, I reckon. And he was everything your average Kerry fan thought he was, I'm told. That's about good enough for me.

I have a Kerry in 2008 sticker on my car. The only other possible candidate that even gives me pause is Feingold. I will vote for Kerry in the primaries, but be a good Dem and support whoever in the general.

Forgive me if I still dream that Kerry could be that person.

[ddeclue]

88. Nice sentence!

"Then Kerry turned me off by not being the Kerry I knew which was the Winter Soldier Kerry. Then of course there was Edwards. He seemed to reflect the passion of Dean the eloquence of Kerry's words with the charisma of Clinton and the moral rectitude of the Bobby Kennedy."

I was an early Kerry supporter after seeing him on TV on C-SPAN in Nashua N.H. and realizing that he was actually listening to people one on one as he was walking around instead of just giving a speech and running like so many people do. I admired that.

As things got bigger and he had Mary Beth Cahill running things, I think it got too "professsional" and too "managed" and too "safe" and he hid away that passion you see him displaying in his testimony at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 when he asked "how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

I think, like you, that he should have let THAT John Kerry out of the box more (we did see it in the debates I think) and stopped trying to appeal so hard to the "undecided" voter by playing it safe. I think you have to appeal to the undecided voter by being passionate.

I agree with you that John Edwards reminds me very much of Bobby Kennedy, except for the accents of course. There is a wonderful personal charm and the same sense of crusade for the poor and helpless and the least among us in Edwards as there was in RFK.

I will gladly back either man in 2008 but I hope that Kerry will really reach down inside himself and find the Lieutenant Kerry who testified before the Senate and shed himself of Senator Kerry who wanted to play it safe if he does.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[LittleClarkie]

92. My therapist said the same thing

I have a psychologist who is also a Dem, and also a Kerry fan. And one of the main things that she loved about the man was that when she watched him go down a line of people, he looked them in the eye and tried to listen to them. That was at a rally the day before the election.

A lady who was manning the Dem booth this summer at the State Fair said the same thing. She had the job of driving him around when he was in town, and she'd see him falling down tired, and yet trying to listen to each person as he shook their hand at a function.

So that New Hampshire person you saw was still there even to the end, just not being featured as much.

I agree though that Shrum and Cahill worked to suppress the natural fighter, being afraid that he would look to angry and bitter. That was his strength, and it was a bad decision on their part.

I don't think he'd make the same mistakes again. So it's not that I want to do the same thing, and get a different result. I don't think it would be the same the second time.

I like Edwards, but I would punch out whoever taught him to sound like a huckster. They took someone who had sounded sincere just a year or two before and gave him that "aw, shucks" personae that I don't think served him all that well. I could hear him click into and back out of sincerity when he addressed the Senate for the last time, oddly enough sounding the most sincere when he was talking about running with Kerry.

I will vote for him again, but I will support whoever it will be.

[ddeclue]

96. He came to Orlando a few days before the election

and greeted all the staff at the airport on the ropeline at a private terminal in the big "KerryJet" and I got to shake his hand and got pictures of him with a few of my staffer friends but I somehow forgot to get my own picture. He was clearly very tired when he did this but he was also very grateful for all the supporters.

There is definitely a "there" there in Kerry, he has empathy for people and genuinely cares about their problems which is rare in a politician these days. The press spin is that he is a policy wonk and aloof but I think that is not accurate.

I shook Edwards hand at the big rally they had earlier with both Edwards and Kerry at the T.D. Waterhouse center here in Orlando which was really good. I got into that rally because I was working it as staff and had floor tickets up front.

I saw Kerry twice before that, once early on when he first came to Orlando and they rented a 300 seat auditorium but 1,000 people showed up. Even though he was running late, he stopped and shook a lot of people's hands who couldn't get in.

The other time was the day that Kerry and Edwards announced that they were a couple and he had an event over in St. Petersberg. I drove a hundred miles over there to see it and discovered that they had rented a 2000 seat auditorium and 10,000 people literally had shown up. The line wss 5 city blocks long. It was awesome because there were 10,000 Democrats and 100 Republican protesters. They'd try to chant something and we would shout them down and it wasn't even close. They went home broken hearted.

After the St. Petersberg event, Kerry and Edwards were clearly tired but both spent a long time shaking peoples hands even after their handlers were trying to push them into the car for their next stop.

I don't think the "aw shucks" Edwards is an act. I just think you are confusing his Southern Accent for "being a huckster". You have to remember that there's still a lot of people in the South who distrust "Yankees" and I think one of Kerry's biggest mistakes was writing off the entire South as a lost cause except for Florida instead of using Edwards and Clinton more and making more appearances in the South.

I think the South has big opportunities for the Democratic Party in '08 especially in the Katrina states and in Florida given recent events.

I just got to hear John Edwards speak at the FDP convention in Orlando and he was outstanding. I really think he is channeling Bobby Kennedy when he talks about the poor and ending poverty both here and around the world.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[LittleClarkie]

110. I saw a CSPAN event from... herm... 2002 I think

Where his personae was completely professional and lawyer-like, and his accent was subdued. I guess that's where I got the impression that he'd put something on for the campaign, so as to tap into the "have a beer with him" thing.

But then I didn't spend a ton of time paying attention to him, so I certainly could be wrong.

Remember when they sent him to West Virginia right after the convention? It was almost exactly like the trip Bobby had made almost 20 years before to Appalachia. So I see what you mean.

[ddeclue]

112. 20 years??

Bobby Kennedy was killed in June of 1968. That's more like 36 years. I was not quite 2 at the time and my mom tells stories of them watching the funeral procession (at the time my dad was stationed in Washington D.C.)

Doug D.

[LittleClarkie]

114. D'oh!!! Caffine gone... brain shutting down...

That's just pathetic. Okay, I'm going to google now to make sure I've got the right date... excuse me a moment....

(google, google)

Okay February, 1968, before RFK announced. 38 years.

[MH1]

25. I'll be VERY happy if Kerry runs - he'll win.

You can see by idiotic comments like Kaufman's that they are underestimating his ability to learn and change tactics (note Kerry also lost his first political race, and came back strong from that). Also note that Kaufman is the chair of the MASSACHUSSETS Repubs - an effective lot they are, huh.

Or perhaps they are hoping to bait the left into sentiments like shown on this thread ("Kerry blew it", "Kerry can't win", etc). Glass of RTP Kool-aid anyone? Oh, I see you've already drunk up.

[TiredOfLies]

29. Kerrys has been in

DC too long, he has never done anything and dosen't have the guts to speak up until he knows what the back flow will be.. where was he when the people with guts voted against the Iraqis invasion?? he just a fence leaner..

[MH1]

31. Every word of your post is false.

RW playbook -

* "never done anything"? check. (BCCI, POW/MIA, Iran/Contra; S-Chip, MicroLoan, Chairman / Rankng Member of Small Biz Committee, named Environmental Champion by LCV...)

* "voted "for the war""? check. (IWR was NOT a "vote for war". Go read up.)

* "fence leaner" ? check. (Try looking up his record at Project Vote Smart or On The Issues. Compare his VoteMatch profile with, for example, Howard Dean, Wes Clark, or John Edwards.)

[reprobate]

47. Kerry's problem is the same as most elected politicians. The System.

The system requires that the politician spend inordinate time raising money. That money comes not from the average working stiff, but from the corporations. Since the politicians are owned by the corporations, they must vote as the corporations will them to vote. Otherwise they won't get more money for their campaigns.

But there is a solution. See my post here:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2016077#2016167

[karynnj]

82. Paul Wellstone and Kerry were the sponsors of the Clean elections Bill

They brought it up several times but it never had enough support. It was used as the basis for both Maine's and Arizona's laws. I found Kerry's Speech on Thomas (the Senate record) which only gives temporary links. I think the Senate stuff can be quoted in full. Kerry also has refused PAC money for all his Senate elections - which go back to 1984.

Kerry's statement from the 106th congress (May 10, 1999) on this reads like it could have been said this year and for a Senate speech is pretty direct.

THE CLEAN MONEY/CLEAN ELECTIONS ACT



Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak before you today about a critical challenge before this Senate--the challenge of reforming the way in which elections are conducted in the United States; the challenge of ending the ``moneyocracy'' that has turned our elections into auctions where public office is sold to the highest bidder. I want to implore the Congress to take meaningful steps this year to ban soft money, strengthen the Federal Election Commission, provide candidates the opportunity to pay for their campaigns with clean money, end the growing trend of dangerous sham issue ads, and meet the ultimate goal of restoring the rights of average Americans to have a stake in their democracy. Today I am proud to join with my colleague from Minnesota, PAUL WELLSTONE, to introduce the ``Clean Money'' bill which I believe will help all of us entrusted to shape public policy to arrive at a point where we can truly say we are rebuilding Americans' faith in our democracy.

For the last 10 years, I have stood before you to push for comprehensive campaign reform. We have made nips and tucks at the edges of the system, but we have always found excuses to hold us back from making the system work. It's long past time that we act--in a comprehensive way--to curtail the way in which soft money and the big special interest dollars are crowding ordinary citizens out of this political system.

Today the political system is being corrupted because there is too much unregulated, misused money circulating in an environment where candidates will do anything to get elected and where, too often, the special interests set the tone of debate more than the political leaders or the American people. Just consider the facts for a moment. The rising cost of seeking political office is outrageous. In 1996, House and Senate candidates spent more than $765 million, a 76% increase since 1990 and a six fold increase since 1976. Since 1976, the average cost for a winning Senate race went from $600,000 to $3.3 million, and in the arms race for campaign dollars in 1996 many of us were forced to spend significantly more than that. In constant dollars, we have seen an increase of over 100 percent in the money spent for Senatorial races from 1980 to 1994. Today Senators often spend more time on the phone ``dialing for dollars'' than on the Senate floor. The average Senator must raise $12,000 a week for six years to pay for his or her re-election campaign.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The use of soft money has exploded. In 1988, Democrats and Republicans raised a combined $45 million in soft money. In 1992 that number doubled to reach $90 million and in 1995-96 that number tripled to $262 million. This trend continues in this cycle. What's the impact of all that soft money? It means that the special interests are being heard. They're the ones with the influence. But ordinary citizens can't compete. Fewer than one third of one percent of eligible voters donated more than $250 in the electoral cycle of 1996. They're on the sidelines in what is becoming a coin-operated political system.

The American people want us to act today to forge a better system. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 77% of the public believes that campaign finance reform is needed ``because there is too much money being spent on political campaigns, which leads to excessive influence by special interests and wealthy individuals at the expense of average people.'' Last spring a New York Times found that an astonishing 91% of the public favor a fundamental transformation of this system.

Cynics say that the American people don't care about campaign finance. It's not true. Citizens just don't believe we'll have the courage to act--they're fed up with our defense of the status quo. They're disturbed by our fear of moving away from this status quo which is destroying our democracy. Soft money, political experts tell us, is good for incumbents, good for those of us within the system already. Well, nothing can be good for any elected official that hurts our democracy, that drives citizens out of the process, and which keeps politicians glued to the phone raising money when they ought to be doing the people's business. Let's put aside the status quo, and let's act today to restore our democracy, to make it once more all that the founders promised it could be.

Let us pass the Clean Mo ney Bill to restore faith in our government in this age when it has been so badly eroded.

Let us recognize that the faith in government and in our political process which leads Americans to go to town hall meetings, or to attend local caucuses, or even to vote--that faith which makes political expression worthwhile for ordinary working Americans--is being threatened by a political system that appears to reward the special interests that can play the game and the politicians who can game the system.

Each time we have debated campaign finance reform in this Senate, too many of our colleagues have safeguarded the status quo under the guise of protecting the political speech of the Fortune 500. But today we must pass campaign finance reform to protect the political voice of the 250 million ordinary, working Americans without a fortune. It is their dwindling faith in our political system that must be restored.

Twenty five years ago, I sat before the Foreign Relations Committee, a young veteran having returned from Vietnam. Behind me sat hundreds of veterans committed to ending the war the Vietnam War. Even then we questioned whether ordinary Americans, battle scarred veterans, could have a voice in a political system where the costs of campaigns, the price of elected office seemed prohibitive. Young men who had put their life on the front lines for their country were worried that the wall of special interests between the people and their government might have been too thick even then for our voices to be heard in the corridors of power in Washington, D.C.

But we had a reserve of faith left, some belief in the promise and the influence of political expression for all Americans. That sliver of faith saved lives. Ordinary citizens stopped a war that had taken 59,000 American lives.

GPO's PDF Every time in the history of this republic when we have faced a moral challenge, there has been enough faith in our democracy to stir the passions of ordinary Americans to act--to write to their Members of Congress; to come to Washington and speak with us one on one; to walk door to door on behalf of issues and candidates; and to vote on election day for people they believe will fight for them in Washington.

It's the activism of citizens in our democracy that has made the American experiment a success. Ordinary citizens--at the most critical moments in our history--were filled with a sense of efficacy. They believed they had influence in their government.

Today those same citizens are turning away from our political system. They believe the only kind of influence left in American politics is the kind you wield with a checkbook. The senior citizen living on a social security check knows her influence is inconsequential compared to the interest group that can saturate a media market with a million dollars in ads that play fast and loose with the facts. The mother struggling to find decent health care for her children knows her influence is trivial compared to the special interests on K Street that can deliver contributions to incumbent politicians struggling to stay in office.

But I would remind you that whenever our country faces a challenge, it is not the special interests, but rather the average citizen, who holds the responsibility to protect our nation. The next time our nation faces a crisis and the people's voice needs to be heard to turn the tide of history, will the average American believe enough in the process to give words to the feelings beyond the beltway, the currents of public opinion that run beneath the surface of our political dialogue?

In times of real challenge for our country in the years to come, will the young people speak up once again? Not if we continue to hand over control of our political system to the special interests who can infuse the system with soft money and with phony television ads that make a mockery of the issues.

The children of the generation that fought to lower the voting age to 18 are abandoning the voting booth themselves. Polls reveal they believe it is more likely that they'll be abducted by aliens than it is that their vote will make a real difference. For America's young people the MTV Voter Participation Challenge ``Choose or Lose'' has become a cynical joke. In their minds, the choice has already been lost--lost to the special interests. That is a loss this Senate should take very seriously. That is tremendous damage done to our democracy, damage we have a responsibility in this Senate to repair. Mr. President, with this legislation we are introducing today, we can begin that effort--we can repair and revitalize our political process, and we can guarantee ``clean el ections'' fu nded by ``clean mo ney,'' elections wh ere our citizens are the ones who make the difference.

[TiredOfLies]

67. he couldn't get elected

dog catcher on the national level, He just has no guts and can't give a simple yes or no answer to a question. get Edwards and clinton if you want action.

[karynnj]

124. Kerry has often given yes or no answers,

but there are questions where the answer is genuinely more complicated. Kerry gave serious, well thought out answers and was well received when he was heard - in case you didn't notice the media was not our friend.

As to guts, it takes spectacular chutzpah for you to say a man who was a very highly decorated war hero, who stood up to Nixon, risked career suicide to investigate the Contra drug running, and then investigated BCCI, the terrorist bank has no "guts". I see no way to make a case that either Clinton or Edwards come close to Kerry in terms of "guts", both are charismatic and are good Democrats, but neither can point to any instance where they put their careers or reputations at risk to fight the RW. Clinton got a reputation for fighting back - but he mostly had to fight charges rooted in his personal flaws and with a media willing to forgive him.

[CTLawGuy]

126. * "voted "for the war""? check. (IWR was NOT a "vote for war". Go read up.

People should stop deluding themselves on this issue. It was a vote to give Bush the power to go to war. Why would you vote for it unless you wanted the war to happen, or because you were afraid of being called "liberal" and "weak on defense?"

If you didn't want someone to drive your car, you would NOT give him or her the keys.

I know Kerry has since regretted his vote, and I respect him greatly for that, but it was a vote in favor of war, whether the voter wanted the war to happen or not. It was a vote to enable that war to happen.

[skids]

113. Heheh. Yeah, MA repugs are basically just...

...a few hate radio shows catering to jilted deadbeat dads, a few towns of middle-think-they're-upper-middle-class golf playing asshats, and a few backwoods conservative communities too sparsely populated to matter. Oh, and up until earlier this year a drug money laundering lawyer was Kaufman's vice chairman. Until he got caught and sent packing. They're utterly pathetic.

Any real "issues" we have here politically are with tax-adverse conservative independents (by far the majority "party" in the state is independents), neurotically cautious dem pols, and, admittedly, an inappropriate level of backscratching inside the political establishment.

[meisje]

26. delusional

[goforit]

68. Totally!!!...(well said)

[Vektor]

150. How is a one word, cheap shot insult "well said?" n/t

[Skip Intro]

28. A glaring flaw in the "Kerry blew it" argument -

people simultaneously argue that he ran his campaign badly - "not standing up to the swiftliars" in the way some would have liked to have seen, AND that he didn't fight for the vote, for the results, after the voting was done. Doesn't the latter presume he actually did win the votes - more than bush, which would mean the former - his campaign sucked - must be false, because, if he actually won, his campaign must have been effective?

As far as not fighting for the results, as far as conceeding early, it hurt me to see, but without hard proof, what could he have done? How long would the media, and the nation, allow an "I won, I just know it" argument, with no hard proof, to go on? Not frickin' long. How much damage would it do to Kerry and the Dems, and us, and the cause - had that played out to the point Kerry/Dems would be all but booed from the stage? A lot.

He is in lawsuits in OH and FL. I'm glad to see it.

I had to come around to Kerry, and I'm not thrilled with everything he does or says, or how he does or says it. But I'm not going to blame him because bush/cheney/rove are expert criminals.

[tatertop]

56. New blood is definitely in order.

Let's move on. Whether he blew it or not
he is associated with Bush's dirty war
and he reeks of failure from his first attempt.

Let's move on, shall we?

[whalerider55]

104. Hey skip...

if you work your way back through last years archives, you'll discover a ton of comments in the months leading up the election that indicated people from all over the blogsphere were trying to get through to kerry to tell him the election was being stolen right under his nose. no comprende; he missed the signals, which were out there in plain sight to a lot, a lot of people. Nevada, Ohio, New Hampshire; even the stategy of (probably illegally) running up W vote totals in red states, which weren't likely to win bush the election (that happened in ohio) but created the illusion of bush getting more votes nationally than he did. As an observer, all of the "proof" of fraud that has been "uncovered" over the last year was out there, in some cases clear as frickin day, on election day.

i also gotta say if as a result of kerry's unwillingness to drag it out and get booed from the stage when he won the damn election after all, and the result is Roberts and Alito, and NSA, and a bunch of thugs who use the constitution for toilert paper, then what the hell would be worth getting booed for?

jeezy peezy, my friend. what hell does kerry believe in, if not the constitution? Remember, throughout the day in ohio, there were clear reports of polling irregularities- we knew, and he had to know what the hell was happening- and i do fault him for not being better prepared for what all of us here could see coming.

sheesh.

and before someone lights the flame to my wick, let me say I've been living here in MA since before Kerry became a Senator, I hold him in high regard; given the stakes of the last election, for my taste he folded the tent way too soon. and there is actually a lotta talent ready to move on up the congressional ladder to a senate seat here in MA.

if he's keeping his options open, I wonder if one of them is retirement?

whalerider
yeah, kerry actually won, i can concede that. then wtf did he concede so quickly.
he was dragged into lawsuits in OH and FL.

[TomClash]

35. I like him

but he had his shot and he didn't win.

[MidwestTransplant]

37. I agree. No "do overs."

[Island Blue]

45. Does that mean NO do overs?

No Gore, no Edwards, no Dean, no Kucinich, no Sharpton, no Clark, etc., etc., etc.?

That's what I take no do overs to mean. It would seem stupid to say "no do overs" ONLY to the person who actually won the nomination. Sometimes the "logic" of a lot folks on DU (certainly not just you Transplant) gives me a headache.

[MidwestTransplant]

51. I mean with regard to Kerry. He ran and he lost.

Gore is a different story along with all the other primary candidates. If you get the nom and loose, you probably shouldn't get another shot. That's my opinion. Kerry was a flawed candidate. That is why he lost. I don't see how he would improve this time around. Kerry is Kerry. I think he would be a great prez. but is a bad candidate.

[WildEyedLiberal]

78. Why is Gore a different story? He ran, and "lost", too

He too had a campaign and lost. Your argument is extraordinarily weak. And if Kerry'd be a "great president"... isn't that what we're VOTING for? I vote for who would make the best PRESIDENT, not who would make the cutest candidate. We've already got a master campaigner in the Oval Office, and look how that's turned out. We need a REAL LEADER, not a flashy, showy figurehead who looks pretty on teevee. Clearly, that approach has sent America down in flames. Imagine that.

[karynnj]

79. But Gore is not Gore?

Kerry had by far the harder race against an incumbent using fear and raising terror levels any time Kerry's polls went up. What was Kerry's flaw? The dack was totally stacked against him and he would have won a fair election.

He was brilliant in the debates, was Presidential and inspiring at rallies - that the media didn't fairly cover - showing Kerry with the sound down while Candy Crowley misspoke about his rally is not fair.

[ddeclue]

98. Candy Crowley = Evil Witch of CNN...

What exactly is her problem anyways?

She really hated John Kerry and seems to hate Democrats as a rule.

I just can't stand her.

Doug D.

[karynnj]

125. Candy Crowley = evil witch of CNN Great Characterization

I never understood her immediate and very obvious hatred of Kerry. In the early interviews, she was already very sarcastic and nasty, while he was polite and charming. In 2000, on the Bush campaign, she seemed as objective as a groupie would have been in describing a Beatles performance. She was giddy when Gore first conceded.

It may have been that she would have treated anyone poorly who criticized her Georgie. What I can't believe is that there was an award she won for for 2004 election coverage.

[ddeclue]

103. A lot of the whining in this thread is sour grapes from

Deaniacs and Clarkies who thought their candidate should have been the nominee and would have somehow beaten Bush. I don't think it would have happened that way anyways. The best candidate we have went out and got beaten but we should stop whining and if he's willing to try again we should be willing to listen. Same goes for all of the 2004 candidates and Al Gore too.

Doug D.

[LittleClarkie]

71. I don't agree. Kerry, Gore, and anyone who lost the last primary elections

are surely welcome to "do overs" if they can make it that far. Gore and Kerry will have to show us something different, that's for sure, like that they've learned from past mistakes.

This isn't Logan's Run, and they don't have to "renew" if they don't want to. Why throw out prior national campaign experience? I would not underestimate either man if they decide to run again. Kerry for one seems to thrive on low expectations.

[ProSense]

39. Official RW spin off and running

Really? Start with the contradictions and spin


He still jets across the country, raising millions of dollars and rallying Democrats.

His campaign Web site boasts of an online army of 3 million supporters.

He has also used his fundraising prowess to aid Democrats across the country, collecting chits that could be called if he seeks the party's White House nomination.

Traveling extensively since his 2004 loss, Kerry generated nearly $5.3 million for dozens of Democratic candidates, state parties and charitable causes, according to aides.

(Looks like fire to me)



Borrowing a page from Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record)'s 2000 post election playbook, Kerry has kept much of his presidential political organization intact.

(It’s not McCain’s book. The Democrats read from their own book and as a result beat the GOP in 2005)


Kerry's image as a Northeast liberal with fuzzy views on major issues like Iraq would make him vulnerable once more, said Kaufman, who was White House political director for Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush.

(When will they give up this spin, which has been countered by every appearance Kerry has made. Also, I guess he missed the two best speeches by anyone on Iraq and national security: Kerry’s "The Path Forward" and “Real Security in the Post-9/11 World”; and he missed everything Kerry has been fighting for since the election.)


"I go to bed every night praying Kerry is the nominee again," he said.

(The idiot GOP Kaufman tries a little reverse psychology. Truth: afraid Kerry will be the nominee. Maybe Kaufman should explain why the GOP had to resort to all the dirty tricks, including Bush's top lawyer working for the SBVT)

[BlueIris]

48. Yep. And "our" people buy it! Sad. nt

[ProSense]

60. The good thing is, people can support whoever they want to

as they did the last time. Kerry is still the front runner, IMO, and as the article points out he is still capable of building massive support. So we'll see. The thing I object to are the distortions. If people look at the facts and not the misinformation or distortions, they'll see that Kerry is a fighter who put up an excellent challenge and did and is doing the right thing post an election rife with problems.

He's got my support.

[HuffleClaw]

44. he COULD have been president the fool

if only he'd FOUGHT for what was his. idiot. he's DREAMING if he thinks he's gonna get nominated again.

[BlueIris]

54. Nice handle.

I'm sorta sad that I won't get to see it anymore after I stick you on Ignore. Sorta. A true HuffleClaw wizard would be able to see the truth about Kerry through all the propaganda and left-wing freeper brainwashing. I may have to speak to Dumbledore about your enrollment. I don't think you've got what it takes to be in this future.

[...of J.Temperance]

46. Kerry shouldn't run in 2008, he had his chance, his time is past

My favorite candidates for 2008 are Warner, Clark and Edwards...and I've also got Feingold on my list.

In 2004 my top candidates were Clark and Edwards, that would have been a winning ticket.

I admire Senator Kerry, but when it came down to it, he didn't have the fire in his belly and that's the one thing that he needed. He allowed the Swift Boaters to attack him mercilessly and he didn't adequately defend himself, he wait nearly three weeks to hit back and by then the damage had already been done.

Clark is a fighter, Edwards is a fighter, I think Warner is a fighter and I think Feingold is a fighter.

[ProSense]

50. Not true, see posts 38 and 42

He challenged their claims long before the ad, and responded to the ad the same day. There were also a number of other responses, and Kerry went on air a to challenge not only the SBVT, but exposed the Bush campaign ties to the group. Kerry's efforts resulted in a campaign adviser and Bush's top lawyer resigning. In the same video he challenged Bush to debate their service.

[...of J.Temperance]

52. Okay, I'll accept that...sorry :)

But still in 2008 I'd like to give Warner, Clark, Edwards and Feingold a go, instead of Kerry.

[ddeclue]

108. Of all of those non Kerry people, Edwards is by far the best.

[babylonsister]

117. Them's fighiing words, but not tonight.

I disagree. He had his chance? Did it not get stolen from him?

You don't think Kerry is a fighter? Look at his record since the
end of the election; the man has not stopped fighting for us!

Not tonight.

Just compare everyone you mentioned vs. Kerry's activism. :)

[TankLV]

49. I wish he'd keep them open till after the next election, too.

Then again, I'm conflicted.

I know if a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is there to see it, does it make a sound? Same thing with Kerry and our "wonderful" whore media.

Why am I not surprised.

Fooled me once into supporting him on the ABB line. Actually that's not quite true - I'd vote for him without thinking.

Not again. Well, not necessarily.

He would have made a FANTASTIC president, tho - but with all the shit bunkerboy has created, now that the chickens have come home to roost, I'm almost glad he isn't in the WH.

I'm just impatient, I want results NOW. I'm tired - very tired and angry over the last 5 years...

[tatertop]

55. Good. Kerry can put us all to sleep again. Eminem would sing:

He had his chance and he BLEW IT!
The country pert' near slept right thru it
Don't even ask me about his positions
(He's already too busy, writing his submissions!)

Can we pahleaze not do Kerry again?

[BlueIris]

61. Okay, as a die-hard supporter, I give. I'll abandon my Kerry vote,

if you stop trying to mimic Em. Seriously, stop. It's horrible.

[Vektor]

146. Do Kerry again?

:-)

Oh, he'll put you to sleep alright...

Right after one of these:

:smoke:

[ckramer]

57. I would say we should give Kerry a second chance

I truly believe he is good for America and the world combined.

[ddeclue]

90. I think the deal he has to make is to not run for Senate in '08...

He's going to have to bet it all in one hand if he wants the Presidency.

Doug D.

[leftchick]

58. "The Real Deal" has become "The Raw Deal"

don't bother JK. :eyes:

[Vektor]

151. That was a Bush line. He used it on his website.

You just quoted George W. Bush directly in bashing a Democrat.

Nice.

[NVMojo]

66. YAY!!!! Kerry should be our President right now! I'd vote for him again.

[CJCRANE]

69. Kerry won the first time

but what can you do when Rove pushes the ole switcheroo button at the eleventh hour?

[bpilgrim]

74. I Hope he focuses on BBV if he hopes to win

or any other dem for that matter.

who would have thought after the gore fiasco we would be, 6 years out, still struggling to get our leaders to address this (BBV) very critical issue?

it is truly bizzar.

peace

[ddeclue]

107. Not to sound too stupid but what is the BBV?

Don't understand that acronym.

Doug D.

[Laurab]

115. black box voting I think

private software voting machines...owned by repugnant party supporters. Many believe that's why Kerry "lost" the election. Proprietary software doesn't exactly ensure fair elections.

[ddeclue]

119. DOH!

I always call it electronic or touchscreen or Diebold but I certainly get it now.

Doug D.

[Vektor]

153. Hi bp.

I hope he does that too, and the rest of the Dems. It's a big issue that won't go away.
Thanks for your input.

How's it going?

:hi:

[wisteria]

80. I am happy to know that the media thinks he may be running

again when in fact he hasn't even said he was. However, I would vote for him again in a heartbeat if he decides to actually alert the media to a run.

[AtomicKitten]

81. I think the media is bored and is trying to handicap the 2008 election.

The Jack Abramoff investigation will given them plenty of ink. Can hardly wait.

All else is speculation.

[politicasista]

89. Another positive Kerry thread turning into a flamewar

Go Figure. :-(

[Laurab]

118. In the first post even

And repuke talking points abound! I will NEVER understand it. Every single damn thread, no matter if Kerry walked on water, would turn into a flame war.

Tonight something occurred to me - the people who want to bash John Kerry never seem to miss a thread, no matter what it is he's done. It's almost like they sit around waiting for the threads to come out. And I don't get it, mainly because there's a certain (supposed) front-runner candidate, whose name I'm not gonna mention, but who I, personally don't much like, and who I really hope doesn't run. Yet I've never once felt it necessary to enter a thread about her to bash her. And, if she does run, I'll support her.

And the most frustrating thing is, no matter how many times you respond to the Kerry-bashers with facts, they don't seem to see them. I don't bother anymore, although I appreciate the people who have the patience I don't have anymore.

All I know is that I supported Kerry, I like him, I think he was robbed, and he's done nothing to lose my support. I am glad he didn't run around after the election like a buffoon, yelling "I was robbed, I was robbed" when he HAD NO PROOF, and still has his dignity and the ability to work for us.

There may be someone who comes out of the woodwork between now and 2008 who I like better, and I do like a few of the people out there now (Feingold, Clark - at least what I know of them), but the fact is, it's WAY too soon, anyway. I just continue to be astounded at the constant bashing of a good man....

[quinnox]

94. Kerry is welcome to try again

I don't get all those who say he shouldn't, are they afraid he might win the nomination again?

Remember, this is a democracy, there is no rule that says you can't run for president twice.

Don't let fear of another Kerry run make you think whatever candidate you favor would lose to Kerry. I think vigorous competition will make the eventual nominee stronger.

[LittleClarkie]

95. Indeed, may the best person win

It will steel that person to face whoever the Republicans cough up in 2008.

[Vektor]

154. Wow!

A voice of reason. Thanks! :hi:

[zann725]

111. So shave that whisker away, & ASSUME the Presidency which has been HIS

all along.

[Ell09]

120. Lots of good points in this thread

I can't see myself voting for Kerry again, and I am extremely disappointed that Kerry and his camp couldn't find a way to beat the worst president of all time. The media had a huge hand in distorting Kerry's positions and being generally harder on him than Bush (ie Kerry was supposed to have a "plan" for Iraq while Bush wasn't forced to come up with a "plan" of his own). I didn't see enough passion out of Kerry and he had a major problem with pairing down his message and focusing on 2-3 key issues. That said, what's the harm in him running again? Nobody has to vote for him. If there's a stronger candidate out there (which I hope there is) then that candidate will get the nomination. I personally don't want to see out primary become Hillary and some people with no chance (ie Mosely Braun and Kucinich). Kerry showed some decent debating chops against Dubya (admittedly weak competition) and should at the least provide a good practice run for whoever does become our nominee next time.

[TayTay]

122. I am disappointed in the Dems who did not support him.

And, going forward, will remember this. Any Dem who asks me for my support had better not have been a fair weather friend, because if they were I won't work for them, support them, give them money or give them any encouragement of any kind.

Loyalty matters.

[robbedvoter]

123. The "haters" you decry are his voters ditched cuz heh- sore loser?

That some of his little fans praise him for "almost beating a war president" is only a testament to the extent of the damage kerry caused:
Earth to fan club:
1. W is not a war president but a very hated nincompoop
2. Kerry didn't "almost beat him" - he actually won
3. By refusing to lift a finger for his win, he has left you clueless - you and half the country - although slowly the truth seeps in
4. By allowing W to prance around as "winner", he legitimized him, and weakened the people
5. By hiding the truth he left the people disoriented, wondering what they did wrong - instead of focused, motivated to fight the theft


Some day, history will record all this.

[Inuca]

127. What history records now

W is not a war president but a very hated nincompoop

Absolutely! By you, me, and many other millions. BUT NOT by the other MANY millions that DID vote for him, stolen election or not. A difficult to swallow fact, I know, I still have problems accepting it, but fact nevertheless. Ignoring it will only bring on more disappointment and suffering.

Edited to correct mistake in quote

[robbedvoter]

134. Stolen election or not - that's the crux. How do you even know about

"millions"? All I know for a fact was that exit polls had Kerry leading in all cathegories (men, women etc) and his rallies gathered hundreds of thousands while W had handfuls of shills bused from one of his events to another. To me that translates extremely few votes for W - and I resent the fact that most people ignore that fact. (Kerry's fault).

[Vektor]

149. Kerry's fault?

That people ignore the facts?

So he controls minds now?

Wow. :wow:

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

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

[LittleClarkie]

131. Conversely the "little fans" YOU decry

would still like to see him take that office some day.Don't suppose it ever occured to you that those "little fans" are probably intelligent human beings with perfectly good reasons for feeling as they do. We don't read Tiger Beat. He's not our "fav rave". We just have an opinion differing from yours.

How much of a leg do you have to stand on is you must denegrate people who defend Kerry as his "little fans" or his "apologists" and otherwise belittle them.

Would you walk up to someone like me on the street who has a Kerry 08 bumpersticker on her car, and right to my face ask if I'm one of his "little fans"?

Good God, aim some of that at Bush, would ya! We're suppose to be on the same side over here.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[LittleClarkie]

136. Elizabeth Peyton "John Kerry, April 1971"

Rather a bit more than a "pretty picture".

As for the rest, still only your opinion. Others are of course allowed to have their own.

[Vektor]

147. Where's a low flying helicopter when you need one?

:evilgrin:

[Vektor]

156. Your nasty-grams never disappoint!

You are a little late though! I expected the insults to start upthread...
:hi:

[bunny planet]

128. I'd love to see him run again. Despite all they did to libel him, I think

the Republicans are still the most scared of his candidacy, that's why they pulled out all the stops last time, that's why they'll try and do it again. Kerry most definitely will NOT make the same mistakes twice.

He has been fighting ever since the election for causes he (and we) care about, and not just because he wants to remain in the spotlight. He had to struggle against a complicit media as well as one of the dirtiest bunch of tactics from the reich wing during the campaign and he still almost won against an incumbent 'war' president (in fact he did win, just couldn't prove it, it really was much more difficult to prove than what Gore faced).

I hope JK does run again, I'd vote for him in a NY minute. I'd hope he could still have Edwards on the ticket with him but that probably would not happen. I love Clark to be his running mate, or Boxer or Conyers (long shots), Clark probably best choice for obvious reasons, he brings lots of supporters on board with him, and he's more military experience on the ticket. Repubs are all chickenhawks except for McCain and Hagel so those would be their candidates most likely. My favorite ticket (flame away) is still Gore /Kerry if Kerry could be convinced to take the bottom of the ticket.

I'm just a Yellow Dawg Democrat but in the case of Kerry, despite all slander thrown his way by Republicans (and of course some Democrats), I'm getting the real deal, a man who is a true liberal, cares about the environment, and the people of this country and will fight for them if he can gain the WH. Not too shabby. I don't believe he is a different man than the Winter soldier I saw when I marched against the Vietnam War as a young person. Same man, similar circumstances. Don't believe the lies, half-truths, and ommissions the media perpetrated during the campaign to blatantly help His Fraudulency maintain his hold on the Presidency.

Kerry wants to be the President because he cares deeply about our country, always has, always will. We could do a lot worse than to have him run again (and of course now everyone can pile on about how they think we could do much better).

[Luftmensch067]

164. Beautiful post

Heartfelt, thoughtful and true.

Thank you for your clear, honest voice -- helps cut through some of the confused pain of those here who can't seem to think rationally, only to repeat the RW talking points about a politician who is still in there fighting for them.

I truly believe that some of the hatred spewed here against John Kerry *is* pain and despair over what is happening to our country, but instead of feeling helpless and bitter, these same people should be following Kerry's example: looking ahead and refusing to give up the fight to take our government back.

After coming within a heartbeat of the presidency (and I'm not saying he lost, just that he is not in the WH), did John Kerry despair? Did he sit around and wonder whom to blame? Did he give up on the Democratic Party? No. He assessed the situation in terms of every possible ramification through that long, dark, surreal Election Night and realized the only course was to concede and immediately start fighting for reform at every level.

Anyone who has taken the trouble to study this man's career and record knows just how exhaustively he would have thought through that decision. The man is a consummate big-picture strategist and was an excellent leader in battle in Vietnam. In times of war, you have to know when to fall back and regroup. This is NOT the same as turning tail and running, it is, in fact, the path to ultimate victory. You may lose the battle, but the war is not lost. The commander who stands alone on the field and continues to fire without regard for the safety of his troops or the ultimate outcome of the war is seen as a madman and will not live to fight another day.

If we are lucky, John Kerry will lead us in the next battle for the presidency, but no matter what happens, he has not stopped fighting the war to reclaim America from the neocon thugs who currently hold her hostage and you can bet he never will.

[Senator]

139. He has but 2 options: Come Clean or Come Off It

The simple reality is that while he may not need the support of "people like me" to get nominated again, he can't do it in the face of our outright contempt and obstruction. Anyone advising him otherwise is displaying a certain measure of disrespect, willfully or negligently, for rank and file Dems outside the beltway.

If he wants to "come clean," he needs to answer for January 6th, 2001, January 7th, 2001 (Meet the Press), November 3rd, 2004, and January 6th, 2005.

More's the pity that only one of those dates has any meaning to him or his advisers.

But redemption is always a possibility. Perhaps if it also becomes politically expedient...

---
www.january6th.org

[AtomicKitten]

155. Not excited about Kerry, not excited about Hillary.

Gore would get me excited.

Still waiting to be excited.

[wisteria]

158. I 'm happy he is keeping his options open. I'd love a President Kerry! n/t

[StandUpBeCounted]

165. Send a message of support and appreciation to John & Teresa

Hi all!

I’m working on a special project of support, gratitude, memories, and appreciation, which I will send to the Kerrys in January (in honor of the anniversary of their great win in the Iowa caucus). I’m collecting messages, cards, letters, campaign memorabilia, and photographs from friends and supporters of the Kerrys – these items will then be placed into a special scrapbook, which I will send to Teresa & John.
I would tremendously appreciate any messages, photos, etc., you are able to send! I will be accepting items for the project until January 13, 2006!
Please send me your items ASAP!!!!
Thanks so much for your time and gracious assistance!

For further information, please visit:
http://hometown.aol.com/chells4681/teresaandjohn.html


THANKS!!!!