Eleanor Clift: "Kerry turned out to be a wind-surfing dilettante"

[Bucky]

the full ugly quote:

"There is a parallel for Gore in another president who lost narrowly, retreated to private life and then returned to win the presidency. His name was Richard Nixon. He lost to John F. Kennedy in 1960 in what was then the closest race in American history. Written off by the political establishment, Nixon went to New York and practiced law. Then in 1964, the Republicans took a drubbing with Barry Goldwater, a conservative whose loose talk about going to war scared the country, and suddenly the uptight and sober Nixon looked pretty good to a party desperate to regain the White House. John Kerry came much closer to winning than Goldwater, but Kerry turned out to be a wind-surfing dilettante who in retrospect reminded Democrats they had a better candidate in Gore. “It’s like the “Mrs. Robinson”: ‘Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you’,” says a Democratic strategist recalling the Simon & Garfunkel song from the movie, "The Graduate.""

It takes an overpaid, me-too, knuckle head like Eleanor Clift to get me to defend Kerry. He was never my cup of tea and I didn't ever think he could beat Bush (altho I still suspect he did). But the last thing you can say about Kerry was that he was "wind-surfing dilettante." Kerry was a detail man, a wonk, a serious legislator and a hard hard campaigner. He worked his tail off to win and never came off as a political dabbler.

Once again we have corporate media shills who are supposed to represent the "left" view of the world and instead just regurgitate whatever the latest prefabbed Republican slam is against leading Democrats. I may have disagreed with Kerry on campaign style, platform choices, talking points, and campaign strategy, but only a fool would attempt to indict Kerry's work ethic out on the hustings. I was proud to call him my party's nominee and would've been proud (and relieved) to call him president. The closer I look at this Clift article, the more I realize she's just joining in on the "Let's foist Hillary on the Democrats" meme.

Bah! Colbert was talking to people like you, Eleanor!

[Doctor_J]

1. Heh. A Smirk lover calling Kerry,

a thrice-decorated war hero with 20 years of public service, a dilettante. These people have ruined irony for me.

[TheDebbieDee]

3. Eleanor Clift isn't a smirk-lover........

She's usually defending the liberal point of view on the McLaughlin Group, I think. I keep getting my PBS shows mixed up.

[Renew Deal]

4. Isn't Eleanor Clift a Dem?

[Doctor_J]

14. A TV Dem, I guess

Can you imagine any TV republican calling * a stupid, drunken, lying dilettante? Even though he is? I'd rather have no Dems on TV at all than self-hating ones.

[emulatorloo]

91. dishwater dem, with lots of lukewarm water to throw EOM

[Cha]

101. She usually writes good

articles and gives the left a voice in Newsweak but she got it wrong..another case of a reporter not doing their homework and relying on stale buzz.

[IndianaGreen]

111. Allan Colmes is supposed to be a liberal

but we all know that he is merely a prop for Sean Hannity. Clift could be the same way, a faux liberal to give the impression the network is balanced.

[enough already]

124. Clift is a Dem who is openly carrying Hillary's water

I think it's clear that Hillary sees Kerry as a threat to her coronation, er, nomination. god help us all.

[Mass]

33. Not a Smirk lover. Just pack journalism,

So few reporters and columnists are able to think by themselves. This is why the GOP is doing so well.

Clift is liberal, but she is also a media person who must not look different from the others media people, so despising Kerry is fashionnable, even if it does not bring anything to her point which is to support Gore.

[blm]

2. Did you read Clift's article on Kerry attacking the swiftliars in a speech

to the Firefighters Convention in August 2004?

Neither did I.

It was only carried on Cspan, so it NEVER happened.

Did you ever read Clift's articles on IranContra, BCCI, CIA drugrunning, growing terrorism threats described in Kerry's 1997 book The New War, or the illegal wars in Central America?

Neither did I.

[cindyw]

174. brilliant points as usual. People are not what we make of them, they are

what they are.

[glitch]

184. In a word. So many whores, and such variety! Clift is whore-lite.

Diet-whore, only a few calories.

[Kolesar]

198. Dry humor, BLM?

It's early in this time zone. Did Clift actually write those columns or are you being sarcastic?

[blm]

212. Clift DIDN'T write those articles. If she did she would have a different

perspective of Kerry and would have greater knowledge of what constitutes a dilettante and what constitutes an anti-corruption hero.

[Kolesar]

214. That's what I thought you meant

I used to like Clift on PBS' McLaughlin Group. There was one show when they started with a stupid premise involving the DNC leader and a military issue. The issue was the gop "talking point of the day".

Mclaughlin was the inspiration for CNN Crossfire, IOW, not worth my time.

thank you very much

[Supersedeas]

219. another selective soundbyte from the chattering class

[Renew Deal]

5. Gore was and is a much better candidate than Kerry.

Kerry was and is an equivocating wimp. He's working his ass off to please the left now, but I still don't buy it.

Anyway, I think you're missing her point. She is praising Gore. She is saying that we need him. I agree to a degree, though I would like some fresh blood.

[blm]

11. Care to match Gore's time in govt. with Kerry's?

Tell me all the brave, important issues that Gore took on compared to the Kerry who was and is an equivocating wimp in your eyes.

[Renew Deal]

21. No

Because that's not my point. Kerry doesn't mean what he says. That was the #1 problem with him prior to the primaries, during the primaries and after the primaries. That will happen when you have no conviction. That's how you end up with "I voted for it before I voted against it."

I knew Kerry was going to be branded as a flip flopper. I also knew he was going to get swift boated. But Democrats got scared and thought they needed someone in uniform. Oops

[Mass]

26. Sorry, but I disagree with you totally. He has been a great senator

who means and does what he says.

For Gore, I love what I see now. Unfortunately, was less enthused in 2000 and the only reason I did not support a third party candidate in 2000 is that it would have been a lost vote. The Gore who selected Lieberman as his VP is not the Gore of nowadays.

[Renew Deal]

38. I agree

I think he is a great Senator. And I had a similar feeling about Gore at the time. I think Gore has truly changed.

[blm]

48. Gore HAD to change - his record was as a centrist Dem.

Kerry is being who he always has been - an anti-corruption, open government Dem.

[BlueManDude]

162. which has nothing to do with winning elections

kerry will always be a "10 point plan for this and that" guy. like most dems he doesn't get it. that stuff is all well and good (I happen to like 10 point plans myself) but it does not motivate pres election voters.

emotion and gut instinct are the way people cast their ballot for president.

[Mass]

165. Which is why he got more votes than any Democrats ever!

Anyway, I was answering to somebody attacking Kerry not for his campaigning qualities, but for his sincerity.

If you think Kerry has neither emotion nor gut instinct, you probably never heard the man on the campaign trail. You are missing something.

[saltpoint]

27. He's won several statewide elections in Massachusetts. That's a pretty

liberal state, especially compared with Red America.

I think his constituents, among the most educated and politically perceptive in the nation, know what they're doing.

If they felt Kerry didn't mean what he says, they'd have chosen another senator by now.

[blm]

28. Baloney - Kerry has proven his convictions consistently for DECADES

It was Nixon WH that first planted stories about Kerry being a "phony" and Reagan and Bush administrations that ramped up that lie again to distort Kerry's motives for investigating IranContra and BCCI.

And why are you spreading that RW lie about the vote for and against?

Don't tell me you really don't know that was PURE SPIN????

Wouldn't you vote for military spending if it is accounted for and directed towards armor and other safety measures for troops, and offset by cancelling some tax breaks for the wealthiest?

That's the version of the bill Kerry voted FOR.

He voted AGAINST the version that Bush wanted - No accountability for the money.

So, where is the flip-flop?

[Renew Deal]

41. Did he not say it?

I understand what he meant, but it sounded terrible. Just the fact that he said it was bad, because it meant that he was trying to have it both ways with his audience.

[blm]

50. No - he was saying he was FOR a bill with responsible language

and accountability and voted AGAINST a bill that had neither.

ALL senators and congressmen vote either FOR one version of a bill and AGAINST the other, or vice-versa. Media had no interest in enlightening the public to that simple fact.

[karynnj]

58. Not true

It was at a campaign apperance, the first time he was asked he went into detail pretty much as BLM did. He was then asked the same question by a second questioner, and he unfortunately answered as was famously broadcast, prefaced by I already answered that. Was it an error?, sure - but I doubt that anyone taped speaking up to 12 hours a day wouldn't say something that couldn't be taken out of context. He then explained a number of times, while the MSM pretended to be confused. (It didn't help that his surrogate, Biden instead decided to explain that he voted yes both times.)

[enough already]

125. There's the problem. He voted FOR the something that supports this mess

If he had just come out 100% against this abortion from the start, he'd be in the White House right now.

[blm]

179. He was for military action IF NECESSARY after weapons inspections and

diplomacy. That's not an irresponsible position.

Bush VIOLATED the IWR when he decided on war after weapons inspections and diplomacy were working to prove war was not necessary.

Blame the IWR instead of Bush for violating it, and you let Bush off the hook.

[SOS]

205. Bush did not violate the IWR

"PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall... make available... his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq"

His determination.

The conditions in the IWR were absolutely meaningless since Bush, and only Bush, was given the sole authority to determine whether those conditions were being met.
As General Clark said "Don't give them a blank check, because they've made up their mind to go to war".
The Senate and House Dems who voted for this abomination rolled the dice and lost, their quest for higher office forever undone.

[blm]

206. His letter to Congress said he made the determination that force was

necessary - We know that weapons inspections and diplomacy were working. He LIED.

Keep letting him off the hook for LYING in an official letter to congress.

[SOS]

208. True

Bush's letter was a verbatim quote from the IWR:

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker:

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

His determination has since been proven false. Yet it would be hard to level a charge of lying, since the Congress essentially said "It's up to you".
His determination was easily predicted and the Congress should never have given this doofus so much leeway in deciding to take the US into war.

[blm]

209. Let's say Biden-Lugar passed as it was originally written, and not what it

was getting watered down to like the IWR - had it passed as intended, BushInc would have made certain that before they invaded WMDs were found as they would have made it an early priority and had their war with 90% of the country thinking it was justified.

They had no incentive to get the WMDs planted early on as they thought they could maintain total control of the pace of the war. By the time no WMDs became a greater issue with the public, there were already too many honest CIA and military personnel keeping their eyes pealed for planting of WMDs by them.

[blm]

207. PS - Clark has said alot of things that I agree with completely....and

he is also well aware that his own position gets taken out of context when people choose to do so. WHY? Because he has bothered in the past to see all sides and give detailed answers while weighing the issues out loud. His answers to questions about Iraq over the last 4 yrs get twisted into what any detractor wants because Iraq was always a more complex issue than what Bush or the media chose to present.

I remember when Clark was first asked as candidate Clark about where he stands on Iraq and he was getting a ton of crap for saying he was more aligned with Kerry on it - as if wanting war as a last resort and only IF NECESSARY after weapons inspections and diplomacy fails makes a person a war-monger.

The crap he was hit with was WAY out of proportion and generated by juvenile minds who only saw Iraq in black and white terms and his campaign person recoiled from the assault on him and said he misspoke.

[sendero]

30. I second your view..

... and would add, Elenor Clift is a LIBERAL leaning reporter and everytime I've heard/seen her 90% of DUers would agree with her POV.

Kerry is a great senator but he is not presidential material. It's really too damn bad that so many refuse to believe their own ears and continue to fall back on shit Kerry did decades ago.

[blm]

35. That shit, as you call it, MATTERS to this country's future whether you

grasp it or not.

Too bad people like you were running the government and the media and ignore BCCI as old news and further ignored Kerry's 1997 book The New War - that worked out really well for BushInc and Bin Laden, didn't it?

[sendero]

37. That shit..

... will NEVER get anyone elected. My problem is not that I think Kerry would not make a good president, my problem is HE CAN'T GET ELECTED.

He hasn't the oratorical chops, the politican instincts or the connectedness that a successful candidate needs.

He should have STOMPED Bush in 2004. It should have been a cakewalk but it wasn't.

[blm]

46. Really? clinton said he doubted he could win post 9-11. I guess you never

noticed that most of the media and nearly all the broadcast media has been protecting the Bushboy every which way they can.

How many times does it need to be proved to you? 9-11 commission report coverage didn't show you their bias? Downing Street Memo coverage didn't clue you in? Colbert coverage?



Kerry connected fine - he won - BushInc had to get 24/7 media protection and rigged machines to stay in office.

[sendero]

53. I don't accept that excuse..

.. since Kerry himself did NOTHING about the "rigged machines". You can't have it both ways, either he lost or it was stolen and he rolled over.

There is no question the media is biased. So what? Kerry is exactly the wrong kind of person to work against that problem because his style of rhetoric is BORING to most people. Wanna break through the media wall? Say something controversial. Go out on a limb. Kerry is just incapable of doing that. Everything is too calculated, too measured, too passionless. That's not going to help with the media problem. (I will admit he seems to be getting better lately).

We've had this conversation before. You can have the last word, I've said what I wanted to say.

[blm]

59. No one did. No one in the Dem party did anything about the machines

before the election and after is too late when machines are rigged for onetime use.

Yes, we've had this exchange before - seems media only effects every other Dem and issue, but Kerry is to blame all by himself. How convenient.

And I am a VERY PASSIONATE PERSON - and Kerry GETS through to me straight to the spine. And I'll match my sizzle to anyone .....ANY ONE.

[sendero]

65. It was HIS JOB.

... end of story.

[blm]

67. It was the Dem PARTY'S JOB - there were ALOT of Dems running for office.

The Dem party is supposed to assure secure elections for all the candidates on the tickets.

[sendero]

68. It was HIS ELECTION..

... that was stolen. If someone steals your car, don't expect your neighbor to go looking for it.

[blm]

77. Duties are delegated - the party's job is to secure the vote for ALL

candidates on the ticket. Kerry's job was to beat Bush by crafting better policy positions and to win the debates decisively. He also had to rally voters in campaign stops all over the country and make effective ads.

All the people at the Dem party could have taken their job of securing the votes better while Kerry was hustling from one end of the country to the other for months.

If you parked your car in a building where you are assured that car is secure, you have a right to blame them. I do. Kerry doesn't. He won't. But, he's the only one right now who even BELIEVES in machine fraud. So, I expect he will be the only one to do something about it before 2008.

[sendero]

84. Your analogy is bogus..

... this isnt' a "commons" issue nor is it a "law enforcement" issue.

Since you are forcing me, we'll go over this again. "Everyone" knew that OH was being rigged, by various methods, including strong suspicions about central tabulators, since long before the election.

A "leader" certainly delegates tasks, but it is up to that leader to bear the responsibility if the task is not completed successfully.

You tell me - before and immediately after the election, the predominant opinion on DU was that there was funny stuff going on. What did Kerry do about it? What?

From my point of view, there are only two scenarios - either he believed the election was lost fair and square in OH, in which case his judgement is suspect, or he knew he'd been ripped off but dedided, for any number of possible reasons, to let it go.

Either scenario disqualifies him as a leader to me.

[blm]

93. Kerry didn't know much about the machines, and Terry Mac didn't BELIEVE

in machine problems at all. Kerry has only learned about machine rigging SINCE.

DU is not the Dem party. Kerry couldn't do it all. He could only deal with the aspects for which there was a legal base and he's still fighting those cases in Ohio.

I will trust someone for 2008 who KNOWS about the machines now than someone who is still unaware - which means most of the Dem party.

[karynnj]

60. Have you bothered to listen to the April 22 speech

[Renew Deal]

47. I think Kerry would have been an outstanding president.

I always felt like he would get comfortable in the office and lead. Getting him there was the problem. And BTW, I did my part in 2004. I travelled to Ohio for canvassing and Florida for election protection. I wrote, donated, begged for cash and all.

[karynnj]

54. oratorical chops???

What candidate in the last 25 years is sperior to him. Clinton was President for 8 years - there is no line of any speech he wrote that is as well known as 2 of Kerry's are 30 years later. The speech I heard on Aprill 22 was an incredible speech.

Bush was elected. How are his oratorical chops? By the way, Kerry connected fine when he campaigned.

[sendero]

72. Face facts..

... it is EXACTLY Bush**'s oratorical chops that almost won him the 2000 election.

When I say oratorical chops, I'm using a poor term to describe the ability to put things in simple terms that everyone can understand. Kerry is excellent at using 100 words to say something that could be better said in 10.

[Clark2008]

118. Actually, he didn't - not in the "fly-over" states.

I'm sorry, but he didn't connect to more rural voters.

I know Shrub's accent is fake. I know his demeanor is phony. I know all this, but I'm interested in knowing all this. Many out here in rural land either don't have the time, the interest or the means to know otherwise, so Shrub "connected" with them and Kerry didn't.

This is the crux of all the arguments on DU about why the Dems should or should not nominate someone from the South or the mid-West - it comes down to connecting with the fly-over states. Republicans have a built-in advantage - for whatever reason (media, Southern strategies, etc.), so they can nominate a tool from wherever. Dems don't, so they have to be a little more selective on from WHERE their candidate hails.

Simple, but true fact and has less to do with Kerry, specifically, than what the average schmoe believes about Democrats and Republicans, in general.

[enough already]

126. I refuse to accept that idea

We can't let these red-neck jerks in the South dictate where our nominees will come from. Screw the South and the Midwest.

[Clark2008]

161. OK - then lose again.

I'm in the South and I'm not a redneck, you bigot (and, yes, you are if you think everyone in the South or mid-West is a redneck).

I'm am so damn sick and tired of the condescension of the fucking elites on this board regarding the fly-over states, I could puke. No wonder the national Dems can't win a general election - they REFUSE to see themselves the way they are portrayed - rightly or wrongly - in the fly-over states and work to correct that "snobby, rich, uncaring" stereotype.

[mtnsnake]

132. I agree he's unelectable

and that the election should have been a sure win for us.

Whoever got the nomination in 2004 was almost automatically the winner before it even started, considering George W Bush had already proven to be the worst president in history in his first 4 years. Yet Kerry found way after way to confuse the American people and lose to an imbecile. That campaign was as embarrassing as it was frustrating. For as effective a senator as he's been and for as intelligent as he is, he has no idea how to connect with people.

[saltpoint]

36. Senator Kerry's speech 2 weekends ago, to cite just one example,

is as timely this spring as its themes were in the early days of our republic.

Thomas Paine would have rose to his feet to applaud Senator Kerry for that address, in form and in content. Franklin would have found his themes on liberty very resonant in Kerry's words.

We are beholden to people who have gleaming records of public service as examples. If disagreements arise on ideology or versions of bills, or slants on issues, that is normal and that is expected and that is a healthy part of a participatory, three-branch system of government.

But to those owed respect, our respect is owed. Kerry's is a lifelong career of service; his supporters nationwide are not enamored only of his Vietnam-era dissent but are inspired as much or more by his example two weeks ago.

[sendero]

39. Without even hearing it..

.. I cannot in my WILDEST IMAGINATION believe it could hold a candle to Gore's January speech.

But hey, even if I did, I'm biased and I wouldn't admit it. Yeah, that's it.

[saltpoint]

43. You can still hear it if you like and make your own mind up.

It was excellent. Gore himself would not begrudge a thoughtful, substantive, and well-delivered address by a fellow Democrat.

[karynnj]

80. I've heard both -and like both

Kerry's is by far the better. Kerry's use of history, American values and dissent tieing together the two wars with earlier events in a very appropriate historical building in Boston was incredible. That it incorporated a call to action and a return to values left people, not angry , but motivated and hopeful that we could get back to what we stand for.

If you haven't watch it, you should. You can still hate the idea of Kerry 2008. But you might see why some of us find him the most inspiring speaker of the decade.

[_dynamicdems]

104. It was a very emotional event. The setting and the topic and the history

was compelling. And the speech! This was the "fire and brimstone" liberty speech of our time. It will go down as one of the great ones. I lost count after TEN standing ovations. The camaraderie and patriotism in the room was palpable. I've never felt such unity or strength of purpose.

It was an honor to be there. A powerful moment in history.

It's too bad there are blockheads who are going to miss this un-effing-believable speech because of their own narrow-minded stubbornness. Well their grandchildren won't miss it because this was one for the history books. While I agree that Al Gore gave the speech of his lifetime, I have to say that John Kerry gave the speech of our lifetimes.

And HOLY SHIT...I was there!

[Renew Deal]

45. I didn't get to see it.

But I have to wonder if he meant it or if he is just greasing the left for another presidential run. He has been all left all the time since the election. He has been correct on every left leaning blogosphere issue since then. I'm sure he doesn't want to deal with Nader and that bullshit in 2008, but is it that he's changed?

[saltpoint]

49. Can't speak for what Ralph Nader is up to. I'm doing a straight Dem

ticket no matter what in 06 and 08.

Kerry's address was sturdy, and had the ring of a landmark address against the backdrop of the Bush administration's encroaching totalitarian take on civil liberties.

Any potential presidential candidate should consider that his or her words have lasting import. I don't think the Left is as "greasable" as the Right. I'm going to let the cement-head GOP candidates fight like badgers over the all-red, Christo-fascist demographic and concentrate on our better, much bluer options.

Of those, Kerry is one potential candidate. My vote goes to the Democratic ticket in 08, whether it's Kerry or Gore or HClinton or Biden or Feingold or Boxer or Warner et al. I have favorites among our potential field. But my goal is a blue House, a blue Senate, a bluer press, and definitely a blue Chief Executive.

[karynnj]

51. Is April 22, 2006 too long ago?

Are the Iraq solutions that Kerry has pushed too long ago? Is Kerry's amendment to get information on clandestaine prisons too old? What about Kerry's work to help the Democratic party since his loss?

Clift is liberal, but she really wants Hillary. Also, she and most of Newsweek don't like Kerry - maybe because they were the magazine that had the fake photo on their cover that Kerry's MIA?POW committee found was a fake and because they called Kerry a "randy conspiracy nut" when he carefully investigated the Contra drug and arms running.

[sendero]

55. You guys are JUST NOT GETTING IT.

.... nuanced detailed positions borne of years of careful thought and delivered like an accountant's project report DO NOT WIN THE HEARTS OF AMERICAN VOTERS, DO NOT GET MEDIA COVERAGE, and ARE USELESS TOWARDS WINNING AN ELECTION.

for k-rists sake I'm not speaking about his plans, or his ideas or any of that. THAT SHIT DOES NOT WIN ELECTIONS IN AMERICA. THE CANDIDATE WINS, HIS PERSONALITY WINS, NOT HIS PLANS BECAUSE NOBODY BELIEVES ANY POLITICIAN WILL FOLLOW THROUGH ANYWAY.

AAAARRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[saltpoint]

57. Chill out. A qualified man, thoughtful voters. This is a plurality.

You alone don't set the terms for others' considerations.

Nixon was elected first narrowly then later in 72 in a landslide. He was NEVER considered a hearts-and-mind candidate.

[sendero]

63. Once again..

... "thoughtful voters"? Where do you plan to find them? This is not the seventies.

[saltpoint]

73. The Kerry-Edwards ticket received more votes than any other Dem

ticket in U.S. history.

The previous record holder was Gore-Lieberman.

For two consecutive elections, two tickets with thoughtful candidates garnered record sums among Democratic voters.

That ain't bad.

And I am aware of which decade it is. And I reassert my claim. A plurality decides the nomination after voters in primary states have had their say. In 2004, they decided from a talented field to nominate John Kerry.

[sendero]

74. Against a president..

... who was a failure by every measure and would be polling negatively just one month later.

It should have been a cakewalk.

[saltpoint]

78. Sorry, no election is decided by polls a month later, but on the day

of the election itself. Those are the rules and you and I can't mess with them.

The totals are real, demonstrable, and inarguable. Kerry-Edwards is the record-holding Democratic ticket in U.S. history in vote totals.

[sendero]

81. It is a meaningless number..

... unless weighted by voting population, which increases every election.

My point about the polls was simple. Bush was teetering on the brink of losing his mojo. A better candidate would have knock him over 2 months earlier.

[saltpoint]

83. No poll supports your claim. No other candidate ran. You are not

in a position to annul the votes of Americans who supported Kerry-Edwards in that election, nor those who nominated him with their votes in the primaries.

It's not your decision. It's your vote plus all of theirs.

[blm]

217. Not with the press protecting him 24/7. You could have the most charming

Dem around ( like Clinton) and if the press chose to NOT REPORT the issues he's taking on, or cover his most important speeches and his defense against scurrilous charges made against him, then WHAT?

Media helped Clinton get IMPEACHED for bogus charges, fer chrissakes. You want to name a Dem who had the media in his pocket that would have made the difference? Kee - rist.... the left had to start up a radio show in 2004 just to move ONE FOCKING INCH towards the miles of broadcast control the GOP has counted on for years.

And STILL, Kerry won. No one can yet explain how Bush ended up getting 11 million more votes than in 2000.

[karynnj]

88. The month later was

after the press allowed itslf to be negative and as we hit Fallujah. Don't forget that the polls in January were adults, the polls in October were likely voters - that accounts for a huge amount of the difference.

[blm]

64. It worked for DECADES before media dumbed the country down so they

demand soundbites and jingoism. You may want that, but I do not.

I think many Americans are now TIRED of the dumb SCHTICK politicians have been using and are ready for intelligence and competence once again.

[sendero]

66. I think..

... you are engaging in wishful thinking. I think that WE WILL REACH THAT POINT, and we may even have turned the corner, but we have a long way to go. A very long way.

Americans have been subservient to media manipulation for a while now. And unwilling to spend the time to look under the covers. The Iraq war could have never happened otherwise, and the fact that damn near every democracy in the world protested against it is proof, in my mind, that Americans rate near the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to understanding the realities of our world.

I'm not saying I like it, I'm saying that's the way it is.

[blm]

71. preKatrina, you were right - not now. Competence is the bottom line.

.

[sendero]

76. You have more faith..

.. in Americans turning on a dime than I do. But I will agree, the TREND is now in that direction, and I think we can agree that is a positive.

[blm]

34. You think YOU can pull off a FIVE YEAR investigation into BCCI with

the entire DC powerstructure working AGAINST you, including most of your own party, by being a person who doesn't mean what he says?

Kerry said in 2003, he'd filibuster any Supreme Court nominee who was against Roe v Wade. He meant what he said.

You make charges, but his actual record proves your charges are false.

[Renew Deal]

52. That's a logical fallacy.

A few incidents do not represent his entire record. Him leading an investigation doesn't mean he's got conviction. And him claiming that he'd fillibuster judges in 2003 when he's chasing votes doesn't mean either.

I remember when the last debate before Super Tuesday. He was asked if he would call himself a liberal. He evaded that question. That's a perfect example of what John Kerry is all about.

[blm]

56. Kerry doesn't see himself as a categorized lawmaker - he never has.

He knows how left his record is, and he knows where he looks like a fiscal conservative - he doesn't like labels and never used them in the past - so why is that wrong to you?

And how does it PROVE your point about Kerry never meaning what he says?

No one could carry off an investigation into something as serious and dangerous as BCCI if they are a person of no convictions. Especialy for 5 years and against an entire DC powerstructure. Could YOU?

[karynnj]

86. "incident" It was a 5 year effort against the wishes of the party

He said he didn't like labels. There's nothing wrong with this and he is not a lockstep liberal or anything else. Some of his positions are rooted in a deep respect for law, both domestic and international. His work on small businesses is problem solving to find ways to help people succeed. He didn't evade the question, he answered it in the way he thought was most honest.

[LittleClarkie]

16. Gore had his weak moments in the campaign too

I see them as being much more on an equal footing. Gore pandered a bit too much, and Donna Brazille sucked rocks. Kerry is only really pithy when pissed, and Shrum and Cahill sucked rocks.

I'd take either over Bush.

And I live in a battleground state. Make no mistake, the man worked his ass off.

[Renew Deal]

23. I agree

Gore had rough spots too. But I see Gore now and I believe that he means what he says. I never sensed that with Kerry.

[karynnj]

44. Funny, I watched many Kerry rally's on CSPAN

one thing I liked was I felt he was saying exactly what he believed all the time. I read his biography and looked at his record. I read speeches he gave 10 15 years ago, that with minor changes he could give tomorrow. Kerry is if anything one of the most consistent legislators, but you need to read the positions - not just look at the votes.

I would say that a man who puts his entire future in the balance to speak the truth as a 27 year old means what he says. I like Gore and believe that he is sincere about global warming, but if you looked over him whole career - you don't see the same consistent world view that you see with Kerry.

I saw Kerry speak at Faneuil Hall and I believe he meant every single word he said.

[LittleClarkie]

70. I was like you early in 2004

I started off a Clarkie. When he didn't make it, I was none too enthused. I was right in the middle of de-sheepling myself, though, and so my support for Clark had been pretty shallow. I was just waking up to what a farce the war was, and Clark was saying things I'd been thinking. A few more antics by Bush (I discovered Gitmo on the net before it made the mainstream news) and I was sort of thrust into the arms of Kerry. I set about finding out more about him, as I figured I'd suck as a campaigner if I didn't.

The more I found out, the more I liked. It takes a bit of paying attention to him. Alot of the Kerry folks are the same way. For instance, the Kerry group knew something was wrong two days before the announcement that Kerry's first wife had died of cancer. He wasn't making vote he'd never miss.

What Kerry's feeling doesn't always show up in his voice unless he's pissed. But he is a fine man who means what he says more than it often shows in his demeanor. He has to get to know people sometimes before he can drop his guard and be a regular guy.

As his nephew observed, it takes a while to get to know Kerry, but once a person does get to know him, they often become intensely loyal. That's been my experience.

[sendero]

40. I agree..

... the debates were disastrous for Gore, who was trying to be what his handlers told him to be instead of himself, and it showed.

[karynnj]

17. She's likely praising Gore because Kerry is a bigger threat to Hillary

Gore doesn't want to run and if he did people here would likely be surprised as he would likely take positive positions consistent with his pretty moderate career - you can't run just by blasting the other side.

Kerry never was a wimp. He doesn't see thinks in black and white, because they aren't. He has never been an ideologue, he has always looked at the issue and decided what he thought was best.

Kerry had a much tougher race, he won the debates decisively, the government (in the form of terror warnings) was used against him, and the media was far more right wing in 2004 than in 2000.

Even on the issue Clift brings up, the environment, Kerry was at least as good as Gore. Gore is the preeminent politician on global warming - but Kerry was far more involved in clean air, clean water and acid rain. The LCV gave Kerry their endorsement in the PRIMARIES because he had a 92 % lifetime voting record (Gore was 64%). Kerry was a conservationist from childhood.

[zulchzulu]

110. I'm a Bradley man...

I like Gore...hate Tipper.

No wonder I worked for Bill Bradley for his short-lived campaign. He showed how dirty Gore can play when they debated. That will never escape my view of Gore. And why the fuck Gore chose Lieberman always escapes me as to what possible logic was devised for that decision.

[Pacifist Patriot]

156. Quite honestly I'd be perfectly happy with either of them.

My respect for Gore has risen immeasurably with all the reading I've been doing lately about events that occurred from about 1979-present. I also respect Kerry's record even though I remain disappointed he did not raise holy hell in Ohio.

Either one residing at 1600 Pennsylvania would be fantastic by me--but most importantly I think either one of them did win and could win again.

[glitch]

185. I like them both, and would thrilled with either as President.

High calibre people, which both Gore and Kerry are, don't need to tear others down to look good. That goes for Edwards, Kucinich, Dean, Clark, and quite a few others who may toss their hat in the ring.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Mass]

8. How courageous to post that anonymously on a blog!

:sarcasm:

[blm]

10. READ - Do the words "IF NECESSARY" mean anything to you or are you

one of those who thinks the IWR is to blame and Bush should be let off the hook?

[saltpoint]

15. Your post is a gratuitous slam on a war veteran and long-standing

public servant.

It's unwarranted and unpersuasive.

If you are on a hunt for idiots, may I suggest John Bolton's bellicosity in the halls of the United Nations? A much better place to start.

[karynnj]

22. Kerry is not "a idiot "(sic), though the poster may well be

incapable of reading an entire speech and comprehending all of it. Kerry in that floor speech laid out the concern - the inspectors were out of Iraq since 1998 when Clinton bombed Iraq. People like Ritter actually distorted the intelligence in 1998 to say that Clinton was weak on Iraq and then exaggerated the threat. In 2002, he told the truth, but how would you know which to believe. Kerry was somewhat skeptical, but opted to err on the side of caution and get inspectors in. (Also, the status quo - sanctions - needed to change. Getting inspectors in was the right thing to do.

He voted to give the President the authority - which Bush asked for saying that war was not inevitable. Bush and Powell said it was necessary to have leverage in the UN to get the inspectors in. Kerry has said he profoundly regrets the vote.

Three things are true though:
- Kerry did not want war, he wanted to avoid it (as such he spoke out as much as anyone before the invasion.)
- Bush did not need the IWR to attack and would have anyway (DSM)
- Kerry is NOT in any way a coward.

[Sparkly]

25. Talk about "cherry-picking."

:eyes:

[karynnj]

7. Thanks for defending him from these unwarranted attacks

You are absolutely correct that this was Kerry's 20 plus year reputation:

"Kerry was a detail man, a wonk, a serious legislator and a hard hard campaigner. He worked his tail off to win and never came off as a political dabbler." The quotes on Kerry in the 90s and in 2000 were all that he was a very serious guy.

The consensus of many of us in the Kerry group is that this and other nasty Kerry cracks reflect the fear of Elenor Clift, Ellen Goodman and others is that Kerry could be the toughest anti- Hillary. This fear could be based on the fact that he has shown that he can still raise money and that he really has a very solid reputation on both foreign policy - because of his Iraq solutions and his Ulster speech on a more general philosophy - and his outstanding first debate and he has an excellent command of domestic policy because of his work on the Small Business and Finance committees.

What I hate is that Clift knows better or, at least if she wants to be a serious journalist, she should know that the wind-surfing dilettante comment is neither true nor fair and simply repeats a RW libel. In fact, someone on the Kerry group found a wind surfer blog that had an article about Kerry and windsurfing - basically that he was quite good for someone who spends little time on it - but the expert he windsurfs with said that due to demands on him, Kerry windsurfed 2 days in 2003 and 2 in 2004 - who many days did Bush clear brush or fall off bicycles.

It really bothers me that Clift is to some degree joining the swiftboaters. Kerry was never viewed as a dilettante in the Senate.

[Mass]

9. Well said. Eleanor Clift is part of the problem, not of the solution.

[saltpoint]

12. Clift sets up her parallel about once-defeated then later-resurgent

campaigns and then abandons it to exceptions she admits herself.

Gore didn't lose, to start with. He won. More people voted for him than for Dubya. Dubya's sleazy crew stole Florida, and that's all there is to it.

Kerry-Edwards was shown in exit polling to be the winners in a close race in Ohio. There were numerous problems with the voting in Ohio, in Butler and Warren Counties in the SW, ordinarily strong GOP turf, but counties in which Kerry-Edwards were polling higher-than-the-Democratic-average in the weeks before the election.

Cuyahoga County -- long lines, numerous problems.

Blackwell's murky hand pulling secret levers all over the place.

Nixon's loss to Kennedy was not a "stolen election," so Clift's exception trumps her thesis.

A lot of people windsurf. A lot of people don't. What business is it of Clift's what John Kerry does on Saturday afternoons with his family?

[LittleClarkie]

13. She shouldn't need to put down Kerry to talk up Gore

Both men would have been awesome presidents. And both men's campaigns had weaknesses. But that is not to say that Kerry made people long for Gore. Bush made us long for either one.

And for fuck's sake, people here in Wisconsin windsurf. How elitist could it be?

Thanks for having an open enough mind to back up someone you don't necessarily care for.

[Neil Lisst]

18. dilettante, no. But that stupid windsurfing break he took!!

When I saw those tv shots of him windsurfing slowly, almost aimlessly and without any vigor, I thought "oh, shit!"

It's like getting caught riding a motor scooter. Hard to look large and in charge putt-putt putting along at 12 mph.

[saltpoint]

20. Neil, isn't it so that the press glorifies Dubya for his husky, manly

brush-clearin' down in Crawford and castigated Kerry for the windsurfing?

That's a corporate, very right-wing take by the media. They slathered it onto Gore and they hit Kerry with it too. Dubya gets a free ride for his flight-suit on the carrier, his crotch stuffed with sweatsocks, while Democratic candidates get pummeled for their "fake" masculinity.

I have a feeling both Gore and Kerry have huge wieners and that Dubya's is teensy, and the same goes for the brains and heart, too.

[blm]

31. Kerry windsurfed for years - and Windsurfer mag featured him in 1997

Kerry did what he's always done, but media wasn't interested in telling a whole story.

[IndianaGreen]

89. But Bush has a ranch in Texas

A ranch without cattle, a land without crops. All we ever see Bush doing is clearing brush. His ranch has nothing and it produces nothing, just like his Presidency.

[MH1]

42. Why is it that someone who has windsurfed for years, even been

on a magazine cover for it, and by all reports does it extremely competently for the little bit of time he actually gets to do it...why is it that can be turned into an image problem when the fratboyishness and stupid "brush-cutting" pics of * were okay?

Kerry taking a much needed break for a few hours wasn't the problem.

[NCarolinawoman]

82. Exactly. n/t

[mtnsnake]

191. Yeah, it was almost as effective as seeing him dressed up in camouflage

on that stupid goose hunting trip of his during the heart of the campaign.

LOL, I don't know what was goofier looking, the windsurfing shots or the goose hunting scene. It just looked forced.

[blm]

218. The media SAID it was a stunt so people looked at it like a stunt. Media

SAYS Bush is a pilot, athlete, rancher, cowboy, so people THINK he's all those things and accept the image.

They don't know that media is LYING to them and that Bush was too afraid to land the planes in training, that he's afraid of horses, that his ranch was faked for the 2000 campaign, and he clears brush only for photo ops, same with hunting.

Kerry has been a pilot since college, and is an accomplished STUNT pilot, even - he plays hockey and soccer for over 50 years. He has HUNTED for over 50yrs and is an EXPERT marksman - he rides any type of horse, including qurterhorses - He rides motorcycles for over 40yrs. - he competes in bike races for the last decade - he skis - he windsurfs - and he's a regular fan of the Red Sox and Patriots.

Now - what would be the reality of their images if MEDIA had bothered to tell the public the TRUTH?

[LittleClarkie]

220. He does hunt though. He just went out with Jim Wasser this last fall

Thing is, there's something about Kerry that makes things look false when they are true. He's not comfortable around strangers often. That's part of it. That's why I was turned off by him at the beginning, but ended up a supporter when I realized that he was sincere. It takes a minute of staring for a person to "get it"

The first time I saw him with vets, and saw how warm and comfortable he was with them, I started to get it.

[Der Blaue Engel]

19. Oh, gawd, THIS again

Eleanor Clift can bite my big white butt.

[saltpoint]

24. No one here wishes that on you, Der Blaue Engel! You'd be an instant

rabies victim, and we'd have to rush you to the hospital!

_ _ _

(Appreciate what you posted. Thanks.)

[Der Blaue Engel]

29. Lol...true that

Okay, she can bite Gee Dubya's big white butt. (And I'm not going any further than that, because I've just eaten.) :evilgrin:

[saltpoint]

32. LOL!!

:hi: :thumbsup:

[babylonsister]

62. You blessed me with my first guffaw of the day, DBE!

:rofl: :spray:

[Der Blaue Engel]

114. Glad to be of assistance!

:D

[NCarolinawoman]

61. This is extremely unfair.

If Kerry were a dilettante, all he would be doing is going to parties and hanging out with the other dilettantes. (Think Paris Hilton). He chose public service when he didn't have to, in the same way the Kennedy people did.

Actually, I am REALLY getting tired of this "wind-surfing" thing. Some of my favorite people wind-surf and they are not even rich. You have to be very athletic to do this, and it is a wonderful time to get your thoughts together, feel at one with nature, and get away from it all. Much better than cutting brush with a loud chain-saw.

[saltpoint]

75. Very nicely put, NCarolinawoman. /nt

[LittleClarkie]

120. Good point about the windsurfing

He did that just before the first debate to get his head together. And it worked too.

[tridim]

158. Thank you.. Windsurfing is not Polo or Golf at an exclusive club

Windsurfing is like surfing or snowboarding.. It's an extreme sport.

[NYCGirl]

69. Do you actually have the LINK to this? NT

[IndianaGreen]

79. It was a cheap shot from a woman that makes lots of money

for just enabling the crimes of the Bush regime.

[saltpoint]

85. Hello, IndianaGreen. Do you think it might be a result of

inside politicking from the Clinton machine? Late last week we had Ellen Goodman doing this, now Eleanor Clift.

I'm suspicious.

[IndianaGreen]

87. Hmmm... now you have perked my interest!

Who is the only 2008 potential Democratic candidate with pockets deep enough to compete against Hillary?

This is something to watch closely to see if there is a pattern.

[saltpoint]

90. Right. I'm not hurling an accusation. But the timing is interesting.

These two journalists might have devoted time to Kerry's address on dissent, since that was the topic at hand as far as he was concerned. The speech harkened back to Paine and Franklin, and was delivered from a venue they might have appreciated very much against conditions they would have understood well.

I'm circling overhead before I dive down, but my hawkeyes are keened to the ground.

Nice to see you this evening on DU.

[IndianaGreen]

94. I got home from voting in the primary

We had to show picture ID even though I have lived in the same district for years!

[saltpoint]

96. I heard that Congresswoman Carson was initially not allowed to vote

because her Congressional ID for the current Congress did not have a printed expiration date.

She explained to the nitwits that a Congressional term was 2 years in the U.S. House and that that WAS the expiration date, and suggested they brush up on their American History.

Finally a precinct supervisor was summoned and they let the woman vote.

Jesus.

[IndianaGreen]

97. I haven't watched the local news, but this morning...

the TV was saying that many polling places were not open at 6 AM like they were supposed to.

You know I check DU before I turn the TV on, don't you?

:)

[saltpoint]

99. I get more info from the web generally and DU specifically than

news networks on tv, yes.

And I don't even bother anymore with local news. I heard the Carson story on NPR, which I have on as much as I can.

[LittleClarkie]

100. I found this on wikipedia

I'm not familiar with her work, but it's interesting that she is described this way:

"Her views are generally regarded as being politically liberal. During the Clinton Administration, she was kiddingly referred to as Eleanor "Rodham" Clift, because of her fierce defense of Hillary Rodham Clinton."

[AtomicKitten]

102. good sleuthing

That really explains a lot, doesn't it?

They need a new herd of assclowns on tee-vee. Tired of the same old crap from the same old people.

[LittleClarkie]

103. If she was close to the Clintons, I wonder how she feels about Al

Probably favorably I would reckon. But it does make one wonder.

As for a new herd of assclowns, that's what the internets are for, I'm thinkin'.

[blm]

176. Use Al to paint Kerry out of the picture then attack Al next.

Just like the GOPs tried to do with the 2004 primary - they tried to take out all the top Dems one by one, starting with Kerry, then Edwards and Clark, and then turned on Dean.

[saltpoint]

107. Good huntin' eyes, LittleClarkie. It suggests a pretty strong link there.

[LittleClarkie]

92. Not to mention that when the documentary re: the Kerry campaign came out

there was snarkiness and glee, according to Lloyd Grove, coming from the Hillary staff. I'm not sure how much I trust Grove, though. He was also quite gleeful about what the documentary might show. But it turned out not to be such a wondrous expose after all, and showed Kerry in a halfway decent light instead of the bad light they were hoping for.

This is one reason I am none too thrilled about Hillary. Perhaps Bill was the same way, but at least he could make it look seamless. There's no art in Hillary's politics. You can see every move she makes and why.

[blm]

175. You're right - no one else matches the deep pocket - it could only benefit

Hillary if the left vote and money gets weakened or stopped.

Hmm.... I just don't think it will work. Kerry knows he can outdebate Hillary, so he won't give in, as debates are crucial to Democratic voters.

[IndianaGreen]

188. How can Kerry (or even Feingold, Edwards or Clark) debate Hillary?

How can Kerry (or even Feingold, Edwards or Clark) debate Hillary? You can't pin down a bowl of Jell-O, which is what Hillary is. I read an article on MSNBC where Carville was ruminating on Hillary's campaign positions, so he came up with "progressive patriotism," which sounds like a Hillary-version of Bush's "compassionate conservatism." Just as there was nothing compassionate about Bush's Messianic brand of conservatism, there is nothing progressive in Hillary's sugar-coated version of militarism.

Like CommonDreams said today, enough of the Bushes and Clintons. We don't need an American Thatcher!

Published on Wednesday, May 3, 2006 by CommonDreams.org

I'm Tired of Bushes and Clintons

by Jeff Cohen

Every presidential election since 1980 has had a Bush or a Clinton on a major party ticket. And the pundits say we're likely to see a Clinton atop the next Democratic ticket.

Unlike the last seven presidential elections, I dream of a 2008 contest that is Bush- and Clinton-free. Our country needs new leadership and fresh ideas beyond the realm of just two families.

Of course, influential political families are as old as the Republic. Our nation's first vice president and second president was an Adams; his son was our sixth president. A Republican Roosevelt dominated U.S. politics at the turn of the 20th century; a Democratic Roosevelt, his distant cousin, was even more dominant decades later (joined by our country's greatest first lady, a Roosevelt by birth as well as marriage, who toiled for human rights for years thereafter.) Then came the '60s and the brothers Kennedy...but both John and Robert were killed before the age of 47.

Those earlier eras were marked by hope or social progress. By contrast, the Bush-Clinton era is marked in many respects by political regress and decline. And as major national problems fester, neither Team Bush nor Team Clinton are willing to seriously address them.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not in any way equating the Clintonites with the extremists in today's White House. No one comes close to Bush recklessness and fecklessness. But I believe that until we sweep away the Bush-Clinton era and transcend narrow Bush-Clinton debates (and non-debates), we won't be able to put our country back on the road to social progress.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0503-31.htm

[blm]

190. heh...I'd say he has some experience with that - he was a prosecutor

after all. And he performed consistently with the huge field of 10 candidates then.

[karynnj]

106. I may be misinterpreting - so I include the full link

Howard Wolfson, a past communications adviser to Sens. Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer, both New York Democrats, said the media no longer has "gatekeepers" like former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite to set standards for what passes for news.

As a result, the media can get pulled into covering stories of questionable worth, like the claims by the Swift Boat Veterans group that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry wasn't really a war hero. "We got shafted," said Wolfson, who predicted Democrats would employ similar tactics in future presidential contests.


http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060426/NEWS02/604260307/1007/NEWS02&theme=

The question I have is why various people identified as intense long term Hillary supporters are repeating every RW libel (except the slimy SBVT) stuff right after Kerry started to lead on Iraq and gave an absolutely tremendous speech - which Hillary couldn't match if her life depended on it. It does seem they might be trying to prevent anyone from being a credible competitor to Hillary.

[IndianaGreen]

109. I fear that Hillary has borrowed a page from Karl Rove's playbook

and decided to do a McCain to any potential rival of hers, beginning with the one with the most bucks, John Kerry.

As to swiftboating, I wouldn't put it past Hillary to do something like that. Not directly, but by having someone else resurrect the old charges against Kerry.

[karynnj]

112. The one thing that could be hard about that

is that no Democrat can use his war service, as those charges are totally discredited. Kerry himself has recently reaffirmed that he was right to speak out in 1971 - which he did in a very polite, responsible manner that won praise from the Senators of the day. I don't think it hurts in a Democratic primary in 2008.

So they're left with:
- he's a dillatante - when he provably never was
- flip flop - his positions really are pretty consistent - especially compared to Hillary
- can't communicate - seen back to back (at the Rosa Parks memorial, RFK remorial, and the LIHEAP conference - the best advice to Kerry is to always follow Hillary. He was warmer, more eloquent, and his voice sounded great after Hillary's slightly nasal strident tone.
- and that he didn'ty win

Kerry has no real scandals in all his long political life.

[0007]

95. Eleanor is dilettantish

[LittleClarkie]

98. I had to go look that up

She has GOT to be kidding.

"An amateur or dabbler; especially, one who follows an art or a branch of knowledge sporadically, superficially, or for amusement only."

If that's what she thinks, then I agree, she herself is merely a dabbler.

[karynnj]

105. I never thought to look up the definition itself

The funny thing is that it is almost the opposite of Kerry even in his hobbies. When he takes up an interest he very very seriously works at it. As to his day time job, the debates showed the knowledgable man that he is and always was. (I watched his 1971 speech in a college dorm, the shock was that he was only 27 years old. In 2004, reading the whole q&a session, he was amazing. )

Since the election, Ive seen Kerry in committee hearings and seen how often others take up his line of questioning or reference points made.

[zulchzulu]

108. Eleanor, thanks for NOT paying attention...you wench

If Eleanor wants to shove Hillary in my face, she may as well continue to be the weakest link in the McLaughlin Group and continue to embarrass the Progressives' voice.

Maybe she and Colmes can do a show and REALLY do us a disservice.

[wisteria]

113. I agree with the majority of your post except I still like Kerry a lot an

think he would make a fine President. Elenore Clift is no Democrat. Actually, I don't know exactly what she is except wrong.!

[American Tragedy]

115. Eleanor Clift turned out to be a shrill harpy with an agenda.

Kerry and his managers ran an astoundingly poor campaign, it's true - any fool could see that from the very beginning. But John Kerry is hardly a dilettante. Based on what does she hinge this statement, the fact that he apparently has a wide variety of unique interests and talents outside of work? Oh, can't have that, now can we? That is an absolutely indefensible and irrelevant criticism, which has nothing to do with his viability as a political candidate.

[LittleClarkie]

116. Some of us in the thread suspect that it's her closeness to Hillary

that has her saying such things. He is after all arguably her main competition in 2008. The timing does seem odd.

[American Tragedy]

117. I'm inclined to agree, LittleClarkie.

She does make a fairly good point about Al Gore potentially finding a historical parallel, ironically enough, in Richard Nixon and his comeback, strictly in terms of their circumstances. In fact, the similarities are almost eerie; relatively young Vice-President, somewhat overshadowed by their chief executive, ultimately edged out of a highly controversial incumbent race by a razor-thin margin with possible fraud, subsequently disappeared from the political landscape for eight years, etc. Now, needless to say, the men themselves could hardly be more different. :-)

[Clarkie1]

119. Poor analysis, but correct conclusion: Gore beats Kerry any day. n/t

[karynnj]

121. You don't perhaps think it suspicious that to make the case

that Gore is better than Kerry, she resorts to RW smears.

This is likely because there are many ways that Kerry and Gore are similar - both are serious, dedicated public servants, policy wonks. In 2000, the WP mentioned this in their discussion of Kerry as a potential vp, adding that a difference is that Kerry has more charisma. (strange in the context of their 2004 comments.)

But,
Kerry was by far the better debator
Kerry was far more Presidential in demeanor, and temperment.
Kerry gives better speeches - he is very eloquent
Kerry was more innovative in the plans he put forth
Kerry, unlike Gore, clearly wants to run

Consider Clift's motives - she doesn't really want Gore. She wants Gore to lose to Hillary. Her concern is that Kerry, who can raise sufficient money could be a stronger anti-Hillary. The last point is the give away - Clift is using Gore, who doesn't want to run, to hit Kerry who likely does.

[Clarkie1]

192. I guess. Still, I think Gore is far better presidential material. n/t

[Bridget Burke]

122. Personally, I prefer Gore to Kerry.

But "wind surfing dilettante" is a wretched description of Senator Kerry. He's still miles better than the idiot currently in the White House.

Bush doesn't have the coordination to windsurf & isn't interested enough in ANYTHING to be a dilettante.

[sendero]

123. I don't take the term literally..

... if I did, I'd agree with you. I can think of some less than flattering terms to describe Kerry, "dilettante" is not one of them.

[karynnj]

127. Even if you take it figuratively - as lightweight - it's a lie

and it is being used to dismiss Kerry from consideration.

Think about that. In making her point about Gore, she didn't have to mention Kerry, as she didn't mention Hillary, Edwards, Clark, Feingold or anyone else. Not mentioning Hillary is the most telling. If you didn't know the field, this article might make it seem like her problem was there were no strong candidates in the field - and she was proposing pushing a good candidate from a previous time to run.

If she were serious, shouldn't she be making the case for why he beats Clinton? Clinton, not Kerry is the presumed front runner. As she has been a Clinton fan of long standing - do you think this could be a STOP the anti-Hillary? Diverting attention from all the possible anti- Hillarys (especially Kerry, who might be one of the few with enough money and name recognition) to a person who has said he doesn't want to run. Consider it was written after a very good, inspiring Kerry speech that she absolutely ignores. One key flaw in the Nixon analogy was that Nixon was totally focused on winning at any cost at that point.

[sendero]

130. On this point I disagree..

... as a candidate, Kerry was in fact a lightweight or he would be President Kerry right now.

[karynnj]

134. wouldn't you then say that that makes Gore even more

a lightweight as he lose to Bush before Bush was an incumbent. Also, that would make all the primary candidates that Kerry easily defeated lightweights.

[sendero]

135. No...

... Bush was an unknown quantity when Gore ran against him. By 2004, he was a known douchebag quantity, as his polling numbers would reflect a mere few weeks after the election.

Kerry should have been able to knock Bush down HARD, but he wasn't. That's because his campaign sucked, his speaking skills were non-existent (they are improving lately, I will grant that, but starting from zero improving is not that big a deal) and his inability to differentiate himself on the Iraq war because of previous positions taken cost him the majority he would need to win decisively and steal-proof.

Coming into 2008 the presidency is ours to lose. I don't want to give JK that free WH pass, he used his up, I want to see someone else (anybody except Hillary or Warner) get a shot this time. That is merely my wish and my opinion.

[mtnsnake]

147. Gore ran at a time when half of the country wanted a change from Clinton

Kerry ran at a time when much of the country wanted a drastic change from Bush.

Gore had a much stiffer challenge than Kerry did. Beating a George W Bush who hadn't been president yet was much harder than beating a George W Bush who had already proven to be the worst president in history.

IMO, neither candidate, Gore or Kerry, was the greatest campaigner, but I think Gore's task was harder than what Kerry's should've been.

[NastyDiaper]

128. Full context please.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12535070/site/newsweek/from/RL.1

How are we supposed to get past the primaries if we smash every negative thing said about a dem, or fall off the loyalty wagon at any time. OMG Sierra club and lvc endorced a repug, skin them and call them names! This was a good article about Gore, which yes, makes me bias, but we discussing a PAST campaign of Kerry's, and and we are discussing perception not reality. Does Clift really think Kerry is all about surfing? Doubt it. Can I picture the photo of our 04 man in my head? Absolutely.

You DU people are a prickly bunch. I expect to fit in nicely. :)

[karynnj]

131. Ok, then to be fair we need to discuss perception Of GORE's campaign too

I am prickly when a liberal repeatedly bashs John Kerry every time his name comes up - as she does. I especially resent her repeating a RW smear that you admit she probably knows is unfair. You remember Kerry windsurfing, which he did on a grand total of 4 days in the entire 2 year period of 2003 and 2004. I remember things Gore did that hurt him.

I won't list them, as they are hurtful and not representative of who Gore is. The point is that the RW took what typically would be positives, Kerry's heroism and his athletic abilities, and turned them to negatives. Believe me, if the RW made clearing endless brush a manly task fit for a President who otherwise would be stuck in an office reading boring intelligence briefings, they would have made a feature length film of Bush's sports if he could credibly windsurf, play ice hockey, demonstrate old soccer skills, and bicycle over 100 miles for charity (without falling down).

[mtnsnake]

129. LOL, next we'll be hearing it was Hillary's fault that Kerry lost to Bush!

The closer I look at this Clift article, the more I realize she's just joining in on the "Let's foist Hillary on the Democrats" meme.

Why does there have to be a "Hillary" motive behind what she said about Kerry? Did you ever stop to think that Clift might have said those things because that's the way she feels about Kerry, period?

If Clift's motive is to build Hillary up by knocking another candidate down, then she sure wouldn't be worried about spending her time criticizing Kerry for that reason. John Kerry doesn't stand a chance at winning any future Democratic primary, so why should she bother knocking him to boost Hillary? If that's her motive, she'd be bashing away at the candidates who have a chance, like Clark or Edwards, not Kerry.

[karynnj]

133. Her perception of the risks may differ from yours

At this point, Kerry has as good a chance as Edwards or Clark.

As to your choices, I think the feeling might be that Edwards as the anti-Hillary would be good for Hillary. Clinton has a more substantial resume than Edwards, which would likely show in the primary debates. As to Clark, if he emerged in the general population as a whole to be a threat to Clinton, I assume you would see attacks on him.

The main reason some of us see a connection is that the Kerry comment was both unnecessary in an article on Gore and pretty nasty and unfair. Given her past devotion to Hillary, that could be the point. Or maybe she really likes Gore.

[mtnsnake]

137. Actually, Edwards doesn't top my list of personal choices

although I do think he's an inspirational orator. However, I think in any future presidential campaign, he'd stand a much better chance of winning than Kerry because Edwards knows how to connect with people and Kerry doesn't.

As to her motive, I think she was pointing out that in retrospect, after such a weak campaign, that she thought there were better candidates, namely Al Gore who wasn't in the running, though.

[TayTay]

140. Kerry was an inspirational orator.

As anyone who was at one of his rallies. Your repeating of the RW talking points shows that you never actually saw Kerry appear at anything and are repeating the RW memes. These are untrue.

I found Edwards less inspiring as a candidate. He had one speech and gave that one speech well, but it grew thin over time. I found his speech at the DNC to be under-whelming and his appearance at the debate with Cheney to be, at best, a draw.

Clift's problem is that she doesn't think for herself. She repeats whatever the current Conventional Wisdom in DC is. That's fine, if you think that the DC pundits are the beginning and end of wisdom for the Dems. I don't and I don't think Clift is a serious commentator.

[mtnsnake]

143. Any "RW talking points" that you claim I'm repeating are MY talking points

because that's what I happen to think about that certain talking point, not because I listen to any garbage that the right wing spews about Kerry.

[TayTay]

146. Ah, so the errors are accounted for

They are still errors, btw.

[mtnsnake]

144. I think you have him mixed up with Edwards or Obama, maybe

Kerry had the credentials. Edwards had the ability to inspire with words. Now I'm sure you were at rallies where Kerry inspired you to no end. I'm not trying to take that away from you. However, Kerry failed to inspire or get his message across when it counted the most.

[TayTay]

145. Kerry got 59 million votes

and increased the vote over 2000 by at least 6 million people.

Someone sure got inspired. People turned into the race and turned out to vote.

[mtnsnake]

148. A horrible president and imbecile got more votes and won

How about adding to your argument of all those record votes that it was such a divisive campaign that more people simply voted than ever before. It doesn't matter how many votes Kerry got. He didn't get as many as the moron did.

[TayTay]

149. It does matter. It matters for the next time.

And it goes to the heart of the argument as to how to defeat these people.

It matters that the Democratic Party understand what it got right in the last election so that those voters can be persuaded to come back and again vote for Democrats. It also matters that we sanely look into why so many voters chose Bush and his policies.

Unless winning doesn't really mean anything to people. Perhaps the bashing is all that matters for some. Pity that. There is a lot to be learned from the last election that can help in the next one. A lot of people learned what works and what does not. It would be a shame to throw that away simply because some people just don't want that to be true.

[mtnsnake]

150. Of course the number of votes is significant. ANYONE running against Bush

should've got that many votes, consdering what a pathetic president Bush had already proven to be.

I'm not trying to take anything away from the amount of votes Kerry got. Trouble is, he should've got more votes than the treasonous imbecile did, and he didn't.

I think it's clear that when I said it doesn't matter how many votes he got, it should be obvious that I'm talking about the bottom line that he didn't get enough votes to WIN.

edited to add: If by some miracle Kerry gets the nod again, I hope to heck he has learned from his previous mistakes as a campaigner because he and his campaign handlers sure made plenty of them last time. Live and learn. There's always hope for the future.

[TayTay]

153. This is a simplistic look at what happened in 2004

We need to see what exactly the GOP did to pump up their vote so much from 2000 and figure out why so many new voters went for Bush despite all his problems. Neglecting and blaming the loss just on Kerry is short-sighted and will not serve the Democratic Party going forward.

Gov Dean knows this. That's why we need his 50 State Strategy. We need to counter all the voters who were told by their various Churches to vote for Bush because he was a more Christian man. We need to counter the people who think that any protest of war is tantamount to blaming the troops. We need to investigate fraud in the election process and see where the GOP is going forward with this. (The GOP is trying to make some discrimination law through programs that make registration itself harder to do. They want to institutionalize their discriminatory voting methods.)

There are a great many lessons for the Dems to learn from '04. Blaming it all on Kerry pretends that the Dems don't have to do any real work for the long term to build a better Party, they merely have to switch the head of the ticket and all will be well. This is not true. It will take a generation or more to fix this problem regardless of who the Dems nominate in '08.

[karynnj]

152. Edwards is a very smooth speaker

His speech at the convention though didn't live up to expectations. He had one focus group tested stump speech that was very good, but nowhere near the best of Kerry's speeches. However, in 2004, even with that stump speech, Kerry inspired far more primary voters to vote for him. Edwards had a chance on the first multi state day to become the front runner - the states SC,OK,MO,ND,AZ,NM and DE - favored him and not Kerry. The newsmagazines had there favorable Edwards articles at that time. He did not win. It's the media which has constantly said that Edwards has a silver tongue. Edwards was not impressive in the debate with Cheney, while Kerry was fanatastic at his best in the debates.

Kerry inspires with words very often. Kerry's 1971 speech is included in books on exceptional speeches. Kerry's speech of April 22 was a landmark speech. In 2004, you should have noticed that Kerry's speeches at his rallies, which were inspiring - WERE NOT COVERED UNFILTERED at all. You had a talking head say where Kerry spoke. They also hid the record crowds.

[mtnsnake]

154. Yup. OTOH, I also think he was a bit of a let-down in the actual campaign

We didn't really hear the same Edwards during Campaign 2004 that we heard all during the primaries, and I agree he was not impressive in his debate with Cheney. For someone who was supposed to be the charm and charisma part of the ticket, I thought Edwards came up short. He was alright, but not the asset I thought he'd be after hearing him speak in the primaries.

Gotta run for now and get some work done :)

[karynnj]

155. Then why did Kerry - even in the early states -

beat Edwards in all the primary states except SC (where he was born), OK (where in a very red state he got 3% more than Kerry), and in North Carolina (the state he lived in).

It seems Kerry connected. I saw Kerry only after the election. He connected very well in Northern NJ in fall 2005. He was funny, interesting, well spoken and he inspired people to volunteer. I was surprised both by how quik witted he was in response to some comments thrown to him by the crowd. Even more I was impressed with the respect he showed to a pretty loud guy who at the end when people were talking to Kerry kept saying he went to Cape Cod - rather than ignore him - Kerry very quietly asked him about it - the man then in more normal voice told the Senator that he had gone there as one of the more than 40 places where he worked on Habitats for Humanity houses.

[TayTay]

136. Kerry does have a chance

And Clift was one of those who in 2000 knocked Gore repeatedly as some sort of stiff crazy person because of his demeanor and views. (She admitted as much. She also admitted doing this because she thought it was fun to knock the Dem nominee.)

There is every reason based on her past performance to believe that Clift would knock Democrats for fun and for spite or because someone is not sufficiently 'Inside DC' enough to suit her tastes. She has done so before.

Kerry is a threat to win primaries. He is one of the 4-5 potentials who has money, supporters, organization and the will to compete. Those are classic ingredients for a run.

[mtnsnake]

139. Maybe he has a slim chance to win the primaries, but he isn't a threat

I don't know who's a threat to Hillary right now, other than Al Gore if he officially throws his hat into the ring, John Edwards, to a lesser extent, or maybe General Clark. If Clark could find a way to get through the primaries, I think the American people would jump on his wagon. Getting through the primaries is another story, though.

[TayTay]

141. He is a threat

Money
Organization
Supporters
Will to run
=
Threat.

To ignore this is silly. You do so simply because it doesn't fit your view of the world.

[karynnj]

151. totally your opinion

I would suspect that part of Gore's current support is that he is not running and not acting like a candidate who is running. If he started to run, he - as you do to Kerry , will have to deal with memories of the 2000 race. His angry speeches, that endear him to DU, will hurt him in places like the midwest where I grew up and still have a huge family I visit. Gore actually might need to decide pretty soon to get both money and high level experienced campaign people.

Clark is more experienced than in 2004, but he has still not run for anything. Not having a public record is a negative as well as a positive. People have to accept him on the basis of things he said. The main reason I don't seem him as the anti-Hillary is because I see the anti- Clinton slot to Hillary's left. Clark's strongest suit is, of course, the war and foreign policy - where he seems to be pretty close to Hillary. (This is the same reason I don't see Bayh and Warner - both of whom in terms money are bigger threats). Feingold IS a threat here, but the Clinton people would likely thing he is too far out of the mainstream - thus an easy opponent for Hillary to beat. I suspect that they think Hillary in a 1 to 1 match up with Edwards would beat him as easily as Kerry did.

I think that as it stands now, the CW is there will be Hillary and an anti-Hillary. All the non-Hillary candidates are seen as the possible anti-Hillary. Some are not feared as thay likely won't run (Gore) or won't win due to lack of funding (Clark) or appeal (Kuchinich, Vilsack) or not appealing to those who reject Hillary (Bayh, Biden). There are others they don't fear because when they are seen 1 to 1, Hillary is more solid (Warner ( maybe), Edwards) or that Hillary can paint as too extreme (Feingold).

Unlike even Gore, who won the nomination because "it was his turn", Kerry DID very convincingly win the nomination and he did it without being the party or media favorite. It may well be that Kerry can pull off an upset only once, but it does counter the believe that he has no charisma, charm or appeal. His positions do fit the correct opening, he has support, and he can raise money.

[blm]

178. You think Democratic voters are going to stick with Hillary if she gets

outdebated? I find Democrats prefer to vote for the candidate who wins the debates.

[wisteria]

138. If Senator Kerry wasn't viewed as a threat-especially after his latest

speech, she wouldn't have mentioned him at all. The subject she was writing about was Gore-not Kerry. She made a direct effort to write something negative about Kerry in her piece, just to knock him. there was no reason what so ever his name was necessary for her article. You are correct, she has something against Kerry, she has done this before, but it goes beyond that, it is obvious she is shilling for someone and it isn't Gore. She frequently has pieces on Senator Clinton. Something like 3 to 1.

Oh, and as far as Senator Kerry and your prediction, I'll wait and let the American public decide if he still has the right stuff to be President. I think he does. I think Clift thinks he does too.

[mtnsnake]

142. I don't disagree with you that he has the right stuff to be president

I just don't see him being able to convince the American people in general of that. The biggest hindrance to someone like Kerry becoming President is the presidential campaign itself. Unfortunately, there are a lot of stupid people who vote, and Kerry is hard for people to understand, especially all the stupid people out there.

[dave123williams]

157. Please. Kerry IS a dillitante.

[wisteria]

163. It is obvious you know absolutely nothing at all about Sen. Kerry.

Clift's characterizations were meant to be misleading and nasty. Sen. Kerry is not a dilettante. His interviews, speeches, plans and proposals along with his hard work and dedication to the democratic party prove otherwise. I don't know maybe it is me, but she comes off as a jilted woman.Her comments on Kerry weren't needed in that article on Gore,they added nothing at all. She definitely had a motive for adding them in.

Please check out the link below to find out more about Senator Kerry and all the wonderful things he has been up to since the election. I would highly recommend the latest speech given on April 22nd.


http://www.johnkerry.com/

[dave123williams]

164. Windsurfing billionare = dillitante.

[Mass]

167. Name calling is not an argument.

and spellchecking is sometimes useful (I am a terrible speller myself).

[dave123williams]

169. Did I miss something?

Is he not a billionaire? Does he not windsurf?

Note that it's easy to pigeon-hole the guy in one sentence.

[Mass]

171. That is still name calling - and he is not a billionaire if you want to be

correct. His wife is.

He windsurfs, so what. Who cares, except the DC press corps and a few elitists who think real people will mind.

[blm]

181. Sure - if you have no sense of history and let Limbaugh do your thinking

for you.

Many of us describe him as the one lawmaker who has effected this nation's governance more positively over the last 35 years than anyone else in government today.

[Fabio]

221. What evidence do u have that he is a billionaire?

[wisteria]

172. please look up the meaning of dilettante. You obviously don't understand

what it means.
Besides,do you have something against windsurfing?It is a tough sport that takes a lot of strength. And there is nothing wrong with being rich, 99% of our Presidents have come from money, and if you use your wealth to help those less fortunate then themselves and believe in contributing to society what is the problem?

[dave123williams]

177. You are the one who's not getting it, I think.

The Dems ran Kerry, as I recall, because he 'seemed like he could win'. Not because of what he stands for, and not because of what he'd done in combat or in the Senate...mostly because he wasn't as left as Howard Dean. I think this was mostly spinelessness, a fear of being painted un-patriotic that resulted in nominating a moneyed vet. Of course that's the path the Dems took - it's so much easier than a stand-up fight, a genuine debate about the direction of the country. The majority of Dems HATE the fucking war, and yet the party apparatus thinks it's a good idea to support it, and clearly does so out of pure and un-fettered cowardice.

So, the GOP was able to again elect a capital "E" Evil Fucking Monkey. An EFM who's carefully cultivated public image is that of 'regular guy', even though he's definately not. 50.1 of voting America BOUGHT IT.

Bush clears brush on a ranch. Simple. Relateable.

Who cares if it's the truth?

Kerry's windsurfing off Cape Cod and a truck driver in Kansas is supposed to relate to that how exactly?

Who cares if windsurfing is a challange? This is about appearances.

So, who's our regular guy? Hillary?

[blm]

182. You think Dean outdebated Kerry on the issues?

You think Dean was to Kerry's left?

I'd say your perception meter needs tweaking. Dean governed for 11 years as a centrist Democrat. Kerry's 19yr record had him rated closest to Wellstone out of all the candidates, including Kucinich.

[wisteria]

183. I get it ,but the public is more than just Joe the truck driver or

Bo the Nascar driver. Maybe just maybe in 2008 we will vote experience and competence after realizing that the "just like me" guy is not up to the job. It never mattered before what our Presidents' did in their leisure time, it shouldn't of mattered in this election either except some people made an issue out of it. Never mind that Kerry also hunts and fishes, rides a bike, motor cycle and a normal bike(just like George) plays hockey, enjoys football and baseball and has even been known to watch a Nascar race. The reasons for Kerry's loss had nothing to do with Windsurfing. You give into Repub talking points by assuming this.

[MH1]

187. "The Dems ran Kerry" BECAUSE HE WON THE PRIMARIES.

Sheesh. :eyes:

Oh and he wasn't as "left" as Howard Dean? Heh heh.

[karynnj]

189. You live in Santa Monica and make fun of Cape Cod?

There is nothing wrong with Cape Cod. Hey it even has Plymouth Rock!. I am not a wealthy elitist and I've vacationed before on Cape Cod. It's beautiful.

It all had to do with the media - how many mountain bike photos did we see of Bush. We've seen golfing photos of almost all Presidents. I assume that golfing is likely as expensive as windsurfing - and yes, W golfed remember - "Watch this swing" His dad was pictured often on the boat he kept in Maine.

So the real comparison is Bush playing golf on a course that wouldn't allow the Kansas truck driver to enter versus Kerry windsurfing. Could the guy in Kansas windsurf - if he vacations on a Wisconsin lake - sure and it might cost no more tahn playing golf. It would require him being a pretty good athlete though.

Kerry also played ice hockey - maybe the Kansas truck driver would relate to that. Or if he were a vet, he would relate to Kerry actually serving.

[karynnj]

170. Not by any definition in the dictionary

Dillatante's do not:
- Have the stellar war servce he did or reach out to help a 1969 subordinate, then living on the streets, in the 1990s through a severe bout of depression and PTSD.
- Does not do all the hard work to co-ordinate a successful anti-war event including getting all the necessary permits or know the issues well enough to give a speech that is remembered 35 years later or to give testimony answering Senators guestions earning their praise for both his manners and intellect.
-Is not put over all other prosecutors in a DAs office a year out of law school. While there, a dillatante wouldn't set up one of the first rape counseling units and victims' units in the country
-a dillatante wouldn't use the nearly powerless office of Lt Governor to champion a solution to the problem of acid rain to the various NE Governor's.
- would not take on the task of investigating Contra drug running
-would not take on a 5 yr investigation into BCCI against the entire Democratic party
-would not take on the near imossible MIA/POW effort

This is only part of what John Kerry has done with his life. Both he and his wife, Teresa, are incredibly dedicated to making the world better. Virtually no one who has risen to the Senate should be called a dillatante - and of them, John Kerry deserves it less than most. I assume that you have led a more productive life than he has or you would refrain from comments like this. Consider that Vanessa Kerry on the day her dad conceeded said that she was very proud her last name was Kerry. Something inspired both of those extremely accomplished girls to have the intense respect and love for their dad.

[WildEyedLiberal]

197. Wow, our posts ended up being nearly idenitical

I didn't even read yours, but my post was very similar. I guess we had the same reaction to this pathetic craven idiot.

[karynnj]

201. Just saw yours - and like it better than mine

I would say our reaction is the same - this comment, more from Clift than this jerk, really is totally uncalled for. Although Clift is likely more accomplished than this internet clown, she needs to match her own life against Kerry's. She may attend more parties and make more snarky comments, but Kerry seems to consistently just goon doing what is right.

What's sad is that she clearly knows better - the dabates alone showed that Kerry was one of the best prepared stateman to be President.

[blm]

180. Then you can name a long list of dilettantes who went to Vietnam,

risked their blue blood to save blue-collar soldiers, prosecuted MAFIA bosses, investigated and exposed government corruption, wrote books warning of growing terrorism threat years before 9-11, etc...

[WildEyedLiberal]

196. You are truly pathetic.

Have you:

- served your country in the armed forces, winning numerous decorations for combat valor?

- become the face of a prominent anti-war movement, spoken out against the war you valiantly served in, and received death threats from the establishment because of it?

- gone after mafiosos and rapists as a prosecutor, despite the intimidation and bullying directed at you, and got them convicted?

- stood up to the entrenched Powers That Be and your OWN political party and investigated corruption and malfeasance in the government, uncovering the biggest terrorist-money-laundering scandal and arms-trading scandal in American history? Have you stood ALONE against the assorted forces who want to shut you up, lest the truth you speak end their careers?

- done anything recently to stand up to the Bush administration besides masturbate on an online forum?

John Kerry is a hero and you are a skulking coward not fit to shine his shoes.

[robbedvoter]

159. Clift isn't a Dem - she plays one on teevee

I agree with OP - it takes one like her to make me defend Kerry (although, I agree Gore was better)

[wisteria]

166. I am not so sure Gore's campaign or persona were better!

Gore can across as a know it all, stiff contender. He was not exciting in any of the debates- Bush came off a lot better. His coldness was mentioned so much, that he and Tipper staged an over long awkward kiss on stage to prove he could be affectionate.
No offense to Gore, but IMO, Senator Kerry did a better job and had a tougher hill to climb to unseat an incumbent war time President.

[iconoclastNYC]

160. Loved you on American Idol bucky!

That was you, wasn't it?

With so many factors to a presidential campaign how arrogant do you have to be to boil the story down to a single insult direct at the loosing candidate. Then there is the press' wholesale refusual to look at the way we run elections.

[Patchuli]

168. As opposed to what? A bike-riding moron

who wouldn't recognize "hard work" if it bit him?! What a stupid, simple-minded thing to say about Kerry. As if what a guy does in free time decides whether he works during work time? doh! Who is Eleanor Clift?

[Kolesar]

215. John Kerry: rides a hot road bike, George Bush: falls off of a Segway

[ourbluenation]

173. and who says a wind surfer equals bad president? rubbish! eom

wtf does one have to do with the other? It's like saying * sucks because he rides a mountain bike!!!! I actually think it's great for someone in a high pressure position to get and and breathe the air and move their bods.

[glitch]

186. Well Eleanor, Mission Accomplished. Or, not. nt

[LittleClarkie]

193. My email to ol' Eleanor

"Of all the criticisms you could level at Sen. John Kerry, calling him a "dilettante" was the most ludicrous. Flawed his campaign might have been, but there was no doubt that he cared about what he was doing. Even those who are not terribly enamored with the man can see that he takes his job quite seriously, and is hardly a dabbler in politics.

Gore also ran a flawed campaign, and no, looking at Kerry does not make me pine for the man. I would take either man over what we now have in the White House.

I live in a battleground state. Trust me, he worked his butt off during the campaign. And if windsurfing is how he got his thoughts together for the first debate with Pres. Bush, then more power to him.

Your timing for such comments is suspect, given your obvious loyalty to Sen. Clinton. It is hard not to see your words as a partisan attack on Sen. Clinton's main competition for the nomination.

All well and good, but surely you could have found something more substantive and less ridiculous to say regarding the man. Some of us grew quite fond of him during the campaign, and don't take kindly to patently false statements being leveled at him."

What do you think?

[Bucky]

194. Send it. Nail her.

Yes, the Clifts of the universe are tiresome. Boats get barnacles and Beltways get liberal journalists who don't stand up for the little guy or main street values. Ms Clift may be dependably Democratic in her positions, but she's just not very thoughtful or independent minded, which I value in a journalist far more than political consistancy.

[wisteria]

202. I like it! I sent one last week after I read this smear piece Send it! n/

[blm]

210. Remind her that a dilettante wouldn't spend 5yrs uncovering BCCI with

the entire DC powerstructure working against his efforts, including Democrats and media shills who ostracized him in DC for years.

[depakid]

195. This woman has never had an original thought in her life

It's too painful to even watch her drivel on PBS....

[Chomp]

199. Clift

gives a perfectly reasonable opinion and suddenly she's a right wing hack.

Do people ever actually READ her stuff? Ever see her on McLaughlin?

Ho-hum. Probably not. But who cares, eh?

I don't mind people thinking about it and disagreeing. But loads of people are on full-on Groupthink mode and are just dismissing her.

That is very fucking depressing.

[karynnj]

200. I don't dismiss her as right wing - she's clearly not

She's sometimes very superficial and clearly she has people she likes more than others. That this seems based on personalities or things like wanting a woman as President, because there's hasn't been one is annoying when she is not fair to those who don't win her approval. That she was one of the oh so sophisticated people who mocked Gore in 2000 and whined when Kerry won, does cause those of us who though both of these men were serious, dedicated public servants who would have made great Presidents. (I think she loved Clinton in 1992)

[LittleClarkie]

213. She wrote a book called "Madaam President

I think she's a Hillary person. And it's showing.

[wisteria]

203. I read her and watch her also, she seems to be forming a pattern

of attacking Kerry. And she isn't even correct in her assertions. She deserves the criticism.

[Strawman]

204. Kerry had an image problem, sure

But how much of that was his own doing? And how much was due to stenographers parrotting ridiculous RW talking points?

Al Gore had an image problem in 2000. Richard Nixon had a serious image deficit in 1960. Tell me something I didn't already know. It's all a bunch of tiresome bullshit.

Kerry and Gore both had the same problem. The GOP and MSM asswipes defined them and then they lent credibility to the attempt by doing these ridiculous image making stunts that blew up in their faces (like making out with Tipper or that whole reporting for duty schtick) to say in effect: "No, I'm not wooden! No, I'm not "French" or a "coastal elitist."

But I'm not sure what they could have done differently. Can they just not respond to this nonsense the media parrots? Don't think that would work either.

[Fabio]

222. agreed

[Montauk6]

211. Gee, I remember when wind-surfing was a manly thing

Maybe I'm dating myself but wasn't windsurfing and yachting part of that whole "grab all the gusto you can get" deal back in the 70s?

Also, just take me, for instance; ain't no way you're getting me out there on the water doin' all that high-speed rigamarole! Now, if I were forced to choose between that or shooting caged quails, skittish me would have to go with the latter.

Final point about Kerry; I, for one, appreciated him addressing corporate welfare in his convention speech. That is all.

[saltpoint]

216. Good point. Does someone's penis fall off if he windsurfs?

And should I ask my doctor?

This sounds like a good topic for the next NANCY GRACE show.