Why I Like John Kerry - and would vote for him.

[leftyladyfrommo]

PBS did a show about a woman whose father was killed in Viet Nam. The woman was only a few months old when her father died. And she wanted to find out about him. I think it was called "Be Good, Smile Pretty."

During this long search she ended up in John Kerry's office talking to him. Mr. Kerry had known and been with her father on the swiftboats.

That interview with Kerry was a wonderful view into Mr. Kerry's personality, I thought. He was so kind. And took the time out to really listen to her and listen to her story and her pain. And he took the time to tell her about her father - what a wonderful man and soldier he had been.

Maybe it was all for the cameras. I won't ever know for sure. But the John Kerry in that interview was a wonderful person. A very caring person. And I liked him a whole lot.

Later on I began to realize that he is also a very smart person. A very thoughtful person. And a very ethical person. And I really liked that about him, too.

And if he runs again I will vote for him again. I just plain like the guy.

[mtnsnake]

1. "And if he runs again I will vote for him again". Me too, but let's just

hope that if he gets the nod again (and there's little chance he will), that he runs a totally different campaign where his theme isn't a war theme like it was last time, and let's also hope he fights back against the right wing smears instead of turning the other cheek and frustrating the hell out of all of us. May he also get an entire new set of campaign managers, advisors, and image makers, too, if by some miracle he gets the nod. They were awful.

Having said that, yeah, he seems like a nice guy and that interview sounds like it was great.

[leftyladyfrommo]

2. I don't know what they could have done agains the Swiftboat

smears. I don't know what anyone can do against smears like that. Well, especially that combined with the rabid kind of loyalty the Republicans had for Bush. I can't really remember any campaign that was so ugly and just so plain dirty. People were just crazy about the whole thing.

I agree that they should have just stayed way away from the the whole Viet Nam thing. It was too long ago. And feelings about that was are hard to predict or understand. I was in college then - am almost the same age as Kerry - and I wish he would have just left it alone.

For a while there I didn't think he had a chance of running again. Nor did Gore. But that seems to be swinging the other direction again.

But, I have to say that I really like Clark, too. He is smart and well-spoken. And I don't think he has really been smeared the way the others have.

[mtnsnake]

7. umm, like defend himself in a very outspoken & unequivocal way?

Those lying swift boat bastards should've been confronted right away, but instead they let them go on and on and on until the charges stuck. Those lies should've been nipped right in the bud.

[TayTay]

14. You mean like he did right after the Swift Boat attacks

Like here on the C-Span web site, so you can download and see it?

Kerry-Edwards Post-Republican Convention Campaign Rally
Immediately following the end of the Republican National Convention, the Democratic ticket of Sens. Kerry & Edwards hold a late-night campaign rally in Springfield, OH. Both Teresa Heinz Kerry and Elizabeth Edwards attend too.
9/2/2004: SPRINGFIELD, OH: 1 hr.


Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Speech at the American Legion National Convention
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) speaks at the American Legion National Convention in Nashville, Tennessee.
9/1/2004: NASHVILLE, TN: 40 min.


Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Speech at Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) speaks at the annual Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention, meeting this year in Cincinnati.
8/18/2004: CINCINNATI, OH: 1 hr. : StreamSage

Hey, even the Australians noted this. Too bad American Democrats bought the Republican spin.:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/20/1092972754753.html?from=storylhs

Under fire on service, Kerry says it's war
By Matea Gold and Maria L. La Ganga in Boston
August 21, 2004

"I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam" ... John Kerry smiles as he receives applause at a convention of firefighters in Boston on Thursday. Photo: Reuters/Brian Snyder

The Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry, has lashed out for the first time against a group of Vietnam veterans critical of his wartime service, accusing them of doing President George Bush's dirty work and suggesting that he, in turn, will challenge Mr Bush's military record.

Two weeks after the veterans issued a TV commercial questioning Senator Kerry's actions in Vietnam, the back-and-forth over the former navy lieutenant's record has enveloped the campaign, as records undercut the credibility of one of his critics.

During a speech to several thousand firefighters on Thursday, Senator Kerry directly challenged allegations by the group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, that he concocted his wartime injuries for political gain.

"More than 30 years ago, I learned an important lesson - when you're under attack, the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attacker. That's what I intend to do today," he said.

Or maybe you are more comfortable taking the word of the conservatives on this.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040903pm.asp#1

Russert and Couric Assume Kerry Ignored
Swift Vets Ad in August

The morning after President Bush's speech before the Republican National Convention, the three broadcast network morning shows led off with explosions and gunfire at a Russian school seized two days earlier by terrorists and a major hurricane threatening Florida. But when they finally got around to politics, NBC's Katie Couric and Tim Russert seemed more interested in John Kerry's midnight rally in Ohio, where Kerry blasted Bush and Cheney as "unfit" for office.

Russert claimed Kerry had been "silent through the month of August" regarding attacks on his military service record and 1971 congressional testimony in which he alleged war crimes on the part of the U.S. military in Vietnam. "People are scratching their heads, saying, why did it take a month?" Russert told Katie Couric Friday morning on Today.

In fact, Kerry was anything but silent. Two weeks ago he gave a speech blasting President Bush, the Republican Party and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. At the same time, his campaign launched a television ad denouncing the Swift Vets charges as "smears" and "lies" sneakily perpetrated by the Bush campaign. Kerry's August 19 attack served to jumpstart coverage of the issue, which the broadcast networks had previously all but ignored. After Kerry's diatribe, all three broadcast networks ran stories about the Swift Vets on their evening and morning newscasts.

Indeed, as documented by the August 20 CyberAlert, the NBC Nightly News included a preview of Kerry's anti-Swift Vet attack in Brian Williams lead-in from Athens:

You know, we as Dems can't have it both ways. We can't say that there is a conservative media that intentionally ignores Democrats and then claim that the Dems are the ones at fault. That is immature and wrong.

[mtnsnake]

61. I know, Tay Tay, he stuck up for himself in the instances you've posted

but it wasn't nearly enough and he didn't go after them hard enough. Nor did he pick the right avenues, IMO, to take offense on the swifties. I was listening for his defense all during the campaign, and rarely heard a peep. If it's all the media's fault for not covering it, then why did Kerry himself admit that it was a mistake not to counterattack the swift boat liars instead of taking the high road?

The only times I heard anyone defending him was from a few of his fellow servicemen. If the media can cover them, then why would they fail to cover Kerry himself? They failed to cover him because he wasn't vocal enough and didn't go after them in a direct and confrontational way. That's why. Telling a couple thousand fire fighters is different than taking advantage of any of the numerous times he was in the national spotlight. Christ, if it was me they were slandering like that and I was running for president, I would've called for a national press conference and settled the score once and for all right in front of the whole country.

[blm]

64. EXCUSE ME - But what the hell was Giuliani doing day in, day out in 2004?

And every other Republican leader of the last 30 years? They all got in front of a camera everyday and backed up every Bush lie NO MATTER WHAT.
Bush didn't have to lift a finger to defend himself on anything.


Where were all the Dem leaders then to do the same for Kerry? Where were all the Dem saviors that people here say are such great fighters, but did any of them show up to counter Rudy or Newt or Dole?

Kerry won every matchup he had with Bush - he won all 3 debates decisively and came up with the best policy positions on every key issue. Bush won NOTHING on his own. The RNC beat the DNC in organization and spokespeople that could lie more effectively for Bush than a Dem could tell the truth about Kerry.

And the left media got their asses handed to them on a daily basis by the RW machine - they weren't even in the same ballpark. But, don't expect any left journo to share that bit of news with you - they're busy blaming Kerry, the one Dem who WON His national matchup.

[treestar]

9. Are the American people really so horrible that these smears

work, I mean, on anyone who would otherwise have voted for him? Most of it was probably only working on the already converted anyway. There seemed to be no way to "fight back" but take the high road and hope people of good will condemn the smearer, not the smearee.

In fact I thought that would bite them in the butt, because it was so hypocritical. Here they were all about supporting the war no matter what you thought of it based on the idea it hurt the troops not to support it, then they lacked respect for someone who served and tried to undermine his service at the same time. Proved to me how insincere those creeps really were.

[ginnyinWI]

5. I think people were afraid to change presidents during a "war".

I talked to (Republican)people during the campaign who thought it would be a disadvantage to change presidents because of Iraq. Back then they still had confidence in *--that he somehow knew how to bring the occupation to a satisfactory conclusion.
Those of us on the Left blamed * for the invasion, but those on the Right were drinking the Koolaid, and were too lazy to actually take a look and consider Kerry seriously. Instead they believed Rove's characterizations.

Also, Kerry didn't have an easily sound-bited solution to Iraq at that time (but does now). Being an honest leader, he didn't want to start spouting slogans and promises that he couldn't keep. So people were unsure what he'd do differently. But that said, anybody who really listened to him would know how smart and capable he was--as seen during the three debates especially.

And here's the last part of the problem: the media drowned out much of the advantage of those three stellar performances by running with the Mary Cheney thing, or other distractions--anything the RW wanted to use to distract from *'s failure to perform. They repeated the smears and failed to rebut lies. This also goes back to Kerry's handlers and their failure to fight hard enough, too.

[mtnsnake]

8. That was defintely part of it

and we knew that going in that an incumbent war president is always at an advantage. The advantage we had, though, was that Bush had already proven himself to be a miserable 1st-term failure and a moron.

[rox63]

3. I like Kerry a lot also

And he's one of my Senators. Massachusetts is blessed with two excellent Senators in Kerry and Kennedy. If you ever get a chance to hear him speak in person, take it. He's really nothing like the "wooden & aloof" image that the MSM was selling during the 2004 campaign. And yes, he has learned a lot from the mistakes made in 2004. He would run a very different campaign if he does run again in 2008.

edit to correct spelling

[ohtransplant]

4. I too would vote for him again...

with pleasure.

The reasons are many but I can sum them up; He's got it. He's just so Presidential. He is, in fact, the real deal. I guess the gravitas thing is one of the most important. I could go on...

There are a lot of good Dems who might run in '08 and I plan to keep an open mind but if the '08 primaries were held today JK would have my vote.

[ginnyinWI]

6. my vote, and my volunteering time

if he runs again. I was motivated to volunteer last time because I believed in the candidate. I can't say I'll be as motivated by another one to the same degree.

[ohtransplant]

12. I share your '04 experience.

I didn't know much about Senator Kerry early in the primaries and it looked like he was a goner. When the campaign borrowed money from JK I was sure it was a foolish move. Then, slowly, as I learned about the Senator, I became intrigued and curious. As I learned more about the man, I came to believe this is the kind of person we need to run this country. That belief turned to real excitement which was turned into volunteering.

We often talk about how difficult it is to get our best and brightest to run for office. It occurs to me that JK is just such a person and I'd be happy to support him again.

All that said, 2008 is a long way off and anything can happen in that time so I'm keeping an open mind. As the Senator himself says - It's time to focus on 2006.

[saltpoint]

10. It is unfair to impose a narrative onto presidents of either party

but in this case I'm going to splurge and say that had John Kerry been in office, last night's Bush address on "our borders" would have been handled in three specifically and dramatically different ways.

The first is that I feel -- again, I'm hunching here -- that a President Kerry or President Gore would have spent significant time over his prior months in office rebuilding relations with our neighbors and allies. The complex issue of immigration could have been addressed right from the beginning in a climate of mutual respect and cooperation. It would have made an enormous difference.

The second is that Presidents Gore and Kerry would frame the issue as an opportunity for working with leaders of Mexico and other of our southern neighbbors. Bush's take is that they are "bad" and must be stop-gapped with heightened law enforcement and security measures. In the folk tale, the Dutch boy plugs the leak in the dam and saves the town, but in economic migration, there aren't nearly enough thumbs, and the issue is more complex than sending a few thousand guard troops down there. It's another case of Bush playing soldier and alienating and dividing the country on an issue that requires a much more adult resolution. I feel Gore and Kerry would have called a summit and framed it as an opportunity for problem-resolution where Dubya's much more limited response was to send guard troops in an attempt to appease the Far Right.

Third is language. That speech last night was no better than any other of Bush's presidency, and that's not good. It sounded like a grocery list of political hotpoints, a pastiche of empty slogans, and not much more persuasive than the average 10th Grade class treasurer's remarks at a school meeting. This president is no John Kennedy in any respect, and especially regarding language. Gore and Kerry would not have used trite speech to frame an international issue. Language opens the horizon of options. Truncated, political jargon shrinks it. Kerry has never been flashy, but he understands and uses language at its top level, something George W. Bush will never do. We are all the less for it.

[Nimrod2005]

11. I will vote for him again if he runs...

A caring person, what I always liked about him was that he has more money than all of us put together, but he chose public life for a career...Yes a very caring person.

[karynnj]

13. The girl's mom was one of the speakers at Fanueil Hall (April 22,2006)

Her speech which preceded Kerry's is on his johnkerry.com web site. It is really excellent.

The man Kerry spoke of was a very close friend of Kerry's in Vietnam. There was a Boston Globe article near the time of the convention profiling Judy Droz Keyes, the mom, who was a Kerry delegate from California. She mentioned that Kerry was the only one of the swiftboat people (not in his chain of command) who ever wrote or contacted her after her husband's death. She also said that he sent his parents a rubbing of his name from the Vietnam wall after it was built.

I never saw her film or the PBS special :(

[leftyladyfrommo]

24. You should. It is an excellent special - I think she got an Emmy

Anyway she got some really prestigeous award for it.

[sandnsea]

58. That's who the rubbing was for??

I heard all those stories, somehow I got them separated in my mind. I didn't know that was all Droz. He offered Tracy an internship too. And people think it's just PR, crazy.

[Kurovski]

15. It looks like Kerry already won.

He just didn't claim his prize.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2628858

[AtomicKitten]

16. I like the Kerry that testified before Congress a hundred years ago.

That's the Kerry I voted for in 2004.

[TayTay]

17. Wow! I knew he was good but I had no idea

he testified for Women's Suffrage, agains the use of Mustard Gas in WWI and particpated in the New Deal and stuff.

He's way, way better than I thought! WWII and civil rights as well, right? And then he looked damn good when he testified 35 years ago against the Vietnam War. Wow! Damn! I'll have what he's having. (Unless it's one of these Dorian Gray things. In that case, I need to think about it first.)

[NYCGirl]

18. Sure it was 35 years ago. It only SEEMS like 100 years ago.

Or are you really that literal?

[TayTay]

19. Well, let's examine the word literal

literal

http://www.bartleby.com/61/88/L0198800.html
SYLLABICATION: lit·er·al
PRONUNCIATION: ltr-l
ADJECTIVE: 1. Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words. 2. Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation. 3. Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual; prosaic: a literal description; a literal mind. 4. Consisting of, using, or expressed by letters: literal notation. 5. Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words.
NOUN: Computer Science A letter or symbol that stands for itself as opposed to a feature, function, or entity associated with it in a programming language: $ can be a symbol that refers to the end of a line, but as a literal, it is a dollar sign.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin litterlis, of letters, from Latin littera, ltera, letter. See letter.
OTHER FORMS: liter·al·ness —NOUN

No, I'm afraid not. I do not pass the 3. definition.
Sorry. Perhaps we can play again tomorrow.

[NYCGirl]

20. How about "are you really that deliberately obtuse"?

How's that one work for you?

[TayTay]

21. Well, let's check that one too

http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwdictsn?va=obtuse
Main Entry: ob·tuse
Pronunciation: äb-'tüs, &b-, -'tyüs
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): ob·tus·er; -est
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin obtusus blunt, dull, from past participle of obtundere to beat against, blunt, from ob- against + tundere to beat -- more at OB-, CONTUSION
Date: 15th century
1 a : not pointed or acute : BLUNT b (1) of an angle : exceeding 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees (2) : having an obtuse angle <an obtuse triangle> -- see TRIANGLE illustration c of a leaf : rounded at the free end
2 a : lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : INSENSITIVE, STUPID b : difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression
synonym see DULL
- ob·tuse·ly adverb
- ob·tuse·ness noun

Oh no, actually I am quite bright and capable and nice to small children and the elderly. This does not apply at all. I could, of course, supply written confirmation of same, along with references signed by multiple posters to this here board, should you need them. I assure you, they are of the highest quality. We could compare, if you like.

Now that we are playing word gotcha, perhaps you could look up snide, sneering, supercilious, base, cynical, disparaging, insinuating or a few other words. And remember, as your mother used to say, you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. Just a little helpful hint, cuz you could benefit from it.

[NYCGirl]

22. Gee, what amazing verbal dexterity. I'm so in awe!

Now THAT'S cynical.

[TayTay]

23. It becomes you nicely.

That's fairly cynical too!

[LittleClarkie]

25. Oh yeah! OH YEAH?! Well... GORE DROOLZ!

And Kerry rulez.

So there.

:P

(Erica, with today's poor man's stickie

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. How about slavishly dependent on academic pedantry to

cover up your intellectual myopia - no, let's be blunt, TayTay: "foolishness". You really did think she meant "a hundred years ago", literally, or wrote it erroneously, didn't you?

But you are not even competent with your pedantry, indeed, commit error after error. Not only are those dictionary-definition points, alternative definitions, (though not mutually exclusive), but no. 3 is precisely the point that does fit your case:
"3. Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual."

Perhaps you were distracted by other matters, but that is not a good time to engage in supercilious badinage. It should have been as clear to you as to anyone with a glimmer of imagination and fully attentive to the matter in hand that NYC Girl used the term, "100 years ago" metaphorically.

[ProSense]

31. And what's clear from the subsequent pile on responses to post 17? n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

35. Why don't tell us what you have in mind?

Are you one of Tay Tay's multiplicity of vaunted referees here?
I'm happy to leave it at that. I don't want to go for Tay Tay, full bore. A rancorous thoroughgoing rebuttal by me would be as ugly as the bullying that invited it; the more so, for being truthful.

Let's just say that I don't like bullying, physical or verbal, least of all when it is cloaked in an embarrassingly specious patina of intellectual and moral superiority.

[ProSense]

37. Why would you go for Tay Tay, and why is your pile on different from mine?

I don't like condescending BS, intellectually stated or otherwise!

[Joe Chi Minh]

38. Why would I go for Tay Tay? I've just explained it, though I'm

puzzled that you should need it spelt out again.

As regards your question as to why my pile on should be different from yours, I wasn't aware that you'd piled on - apart from your curious invitation for me to find other points to clarify.

[ProSense]

39. Are you aware that you piled on? Pretty petty! n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

57. Best you can do? Of course I know I piled on! And I told you why.

English is evidently your first language - which makes your parallel but inscrutable universe all the more puzzling.

I can't call you petty. Dim, maybe. But I need to know what you're on about before I could call you petty. I'm still waiting to hear what else you expected me to clarify in your first question to me.

[ProSense]

60. Dim? Reread post 31, then look at your response. If you don't get it,

I'll quote you:

Let's just say that I don't like bullying, physical or verbal, least of all when it is cloaked in an embarrassingly specious patina of intellectual and moral superiority.

[karynnj]

43. This is beyond stupid - the 100 years ago was very snarky

and tremendously unfair. What Kerry did in 1971 was heroic, brave and brilliant. If anyone of your favorites had stood up as a 27 year old man and took on a paranoid leader, there would be thousands of posts on it. I'm sorry that Senator Kerry has such an extraordinary past, but that's life.

Seeing that she started the snarkiness, it takes major chutzpah to then claim hurt when Tay Tay returns her sarcasm with (far more amusing) sarcasm. So, why are you being a syncophant in continuing this idiotic attack on Tay Tay.

[AtomicKitten]

44. It was my comment, dear

1,000 years ago would have been snarky; 100 years ago denoted a sentimentality, a longing for that Kerry at that moment in time when he was brave and in-your-face; that was the man I voted for. It was a compliment, one that apparently evaded your detection.

And the criticism of that comment is so over-the-top, it is pathetic. Get a life.

[karynnj]

53. Compared to your life? I can subtract and correctly get 35 years

I did detect the underlying comment - but the exaggeration was uncalled for when it really is a huge part of who Kerry is. It would be like suggesting that you should ignore Gore's global warming issue. (Yes I know that is current, but it's never been a huge voting issue.)

[AtomicKitten]

33. since you didn't correct it

I was the OP of the "a hundred years ago" comment. I chose to ignore the bullying response I got, NYCGirl graciously went to bat on my behalf.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2629043&mesg_id=2629588

The rest of your comment is right-on.

[Joe Chi Minh]

36. Thank you, AtomicKitten, and sorry for the bloomer.

[karynnj]

45. Bullying response?? You made a snarky, belittleing comment

belittling an extremely heroic part of Senator Kerry's life - these were actions that he did for this country and for what he believes in that caused him to be the target of RW harrassment for decades. She responded sarcasticly to your sarcasm. Now you are playing "innocent, little me".

What I question is NYCGirl's need to attack her.

[AtomicKitten]

46. ***

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2629043&mesg_id=2630152

[karynnj]

51. Or you can admit to most people

saying someone did something "100 years ago" is not sentimental". The fact is you likely were implying that it was long ago, irrelevant and no longer has anything to do with John Kerry. As Kerry himself has been tying dissent in 1971 and dissent against Bush, this is not something he considers an irrelivent part of his life.

I've seen your posts they are rarely mean, sarcastic or attacking anyone, but this one where consciously or not is diminishing Kerry's past. I won't post any more on this because it's clear that you see NYCGirl's attacks as appropriate and I don't. I think it would have been better if there were just 2 posts; yours and Tay Tays. Hers are the posts that went over the top.

[AtomicKitten]

54. what I will admit (and here's something of substance you can argue with)

is that I won't vote for Kerry in the primary because he voted yes on the IWR. I won't for anyone in the primary that voted yes on the IWR. However, balance that with knowing I worked my tail off for Kerry in the general election and will do so if he gets the nod again, as I will for whomever wins the primary.

I didn't care much for Kerry's equivocations during the campaign. He was exactly the opposite of what I loved so much in Bill Clinton. When asked a question, Bill would say yes or no and "... and I'll tell you why." And he would explain in easy-to-understand terms. Kerry never connected with the common man.

As I said, the Kerry that brought me to tears was the one that testified in front of Congress, the year I graduated from high school as a matter of fact (which really does seem like 100 years ago and perhaps a commentary on my own age if anything), and which comes full circle since my son graduated from high school in 2004, and that's precisely why the vote on the IWR is a deal-breaker for me.

Now I don't mean to offend Kerry fans; I'm just stating exactly where I'm coming from.

However, my comment that I liked the Kerry that testified in front of Congress was a compliment that was misunderstood, mischaracterized, and summarily trashed by Tay-Tay. In short, I was saying something nice about a candidate I wouldn't vote for in the primary, but never mentioned the latter, did I? NYCGirl graciously pointed out how over-the-top his/her snarky (yes, it was he/she that was snarky), unfair, and incorrect criticism was. And I'm a bit at a loss as to why you are involved, but I guess that's beside the point.

That's really all I have say about this whole dumb mess.

[TankLV]

30. The answer is YES for all of the above.

Some people just like to be difficult.

This poster is a poster child for that.

[blm]

48. That Kerry's good, but IranContra, BCCI, illegal wars in Central America,

CIA drugrunning, and anti-terror, anti-corruption activist Kerry is my favorite.

[sandnsea]

59. I voted for "helping America turn" Kerry

Who knows the best of what the world can be and has worked his ass off for the last 35 years to try to make it that. The Kerry who keeps talking about building community and getting up off OUR butts to take our place in making this world better too. I could honestly give two rats ass what he said 35 years ago, I care about what he's done every day since then and continues to do, literally EVERY DAY. If each of us did a tenth of what that man does, the world really would be a utopia.

[karynnj]

69. Wonderful post

He has always been fighting.

[ProSense]

26. Wonderful post! Thanks!

Hidden Wounds


Thank you Senator Kerry!

[leftyladyfrommo]

27. I still like him best.

And I like Clark.

I think both of them actually give a damn about something. I am just hoping they will come out strong on the environment. That's my thing.

[FrenchieCat]

67. I voted for Clark in the Primaries, and voted for Kerry in the GE.....

In reference to Clark, hear his podcasts...in particular the one with Barbara Boxer on Global Warming here at ClarkCast 007/april 27: http://securingamerica.com/clarkcasts
There are three in the environmental series.

[TankLV]

29. I like him too. Don't LOVE him or DROOL over him like many here, tho.

He is just one of many good men.

Not great.

Not perfect.

But good.

[Tom Joad]

32. Why I like Kerry better than Gore. Kerry did not choose religious

extremist, and bush-embracer like Lieberman.

[AtomicKitten]

34. But Lieberman wasn't like that then, was he?

Not a fair criticism of Gore under the circumstances.

[Tom Joad]

40. Yeah, Lieberman was like that then. Also, would like to hear Gore

put out some critique of Lieberman now.
Joe would not have half the power/prestige he has if Gore did not nominate him. Time to disassociate himself from Lieberman's embrace of the Bush agenda.

[NYCGirl]

41. Hey, remember in the primaries when Gore endorsed Dean and all the media

was screaming, "He didn't even TELL Joe Lieberman he was going to do that!"? I take that to be what Al Gore thinks of Joe Lieberman.

[AtomicKitten]

42. Lieberman was a Bush butt-kisser in 2000?

Come on, ratchet down the rhetoric a bit. I'm not defending Lieberman (he was kind of an innocuous mutton head in 2000 IMO), but make an effort to put forth criticism that makes sense.

The unencumbered Gore of today I believe would make quite a different choice, and I dearly hope he has that opportunity.

Peace.

[karynnj]

49. I don't think that Gore 2008 should be affected one way or

another by Lieberman, but Lieberman was who he was and his views weren't that different.

[Tom Joad]

50. War supporter, not bush-butt kisser.

What Joe does in his private life is not my concern, but his public policy, which Gore could readily see, is my concern. Joe was just very hawkish from the get-go. Give ol' Joe credit for being consistant.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45c/202.html
Peace Action.

Joe publicly attacked Clinton in a big way for private sexual activities (yeah, he condemned Clinton just for the act itself). You know, many religious people would say that was between Clinton and his family and his god.

Not religious freaks like Joe. Actaully, not political opportunists like Joe.

[AtomicKitten]

55. Lieberman is an assclown.

More so now than in 2000. On that we agree.

[JI7]

65. no, Lieberman is the same then as now

the only difference is that he has a bigger profile since he ran as a vp nominee so we hear more of him than before. there was a profile on Lieberman in George Magazine maybe 2 years before he was picked as vp and it described him as he is now with quotes from his right wing friends like Bennett.

[karynnj]

47. That's WHY Gore chose him

The religious conservative anti- Clinton.

[politicasista]

52. kick!

:yourock: :kick: :hi:

[blm]

56. PBS pulled that documentary from rotation in 2004 so it could not be seen

Wanna bet that Rove's buddy at PBS made that decision.

[leftyladyfrommo]

73. I watched it several times on PBS

they ran it over and over.

[blm]

74. In what city/state? They pulled it from all the Carolina stations.

My guess is that it was pulled in any swingstate, too.

[Vektor]

62. It wasn't just for the cameras. Kerry does care about his fellow man.

He is compassionate and kind, and while there may be some who are quick to criticize him on policy or even strict conjecture, it's a flat out lie to say he isn't kind. He is. I've had the honor of meeting him and spending a considerable amount of time talking to him, as have many DUers, and he is a very, very warm-hearted person. I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat, too.

[kdpeters]

63. I would vote for Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Edwards, Clark

I may have a favorite. I may have reservations with each. I might even feel at times uninspired by politically calculated positions or perhaps personally offended by disagreement on one of my pet issues. But let me learn from hindsight and recognize that this is exactly the way I felt about Bill Clinton. Whatever his faults and particular disappointments, overall he was a good president. America was still respected globally and we had a budget surplus.

The damage done by eight years of * and a rubberstamp Republican congress have brought this country to the brink of breaking. From now until they are out, my singular focus is to elect Democrats. For that reason, I vow to keep my eye on the big picture. I will not react irrationally, emotionally, or in any other unconstructive manner to any Democrat who opposes the Bush administration.

[napi21]

66. If he were the Dem candidate I'd vote for him, but I hope he's not.

Even after all the years he's spent in the Senate and in front of cameras, he has never learned to be himself in a spotlight. I don't know why, and maybe he doesn't either, but he really does look and sound sooo stiff and disconnected from his audience...wether they be a TV audience or live in the room.

Even Mr. Stick Gore has finally learned to be more open and relaxed.

A candidate MUST at least look and sound like a real human that people can relate to in order to get elected. THAT was Clinton's big advantage, and like it or not, it was Shrub's advantage too.

[Ce qui la baise]

68. Well said, the movie about him shows some of that

I saw him in 04 in Reno. He has a warm personality & you know he cares. He also knows the job.

[seabeyond]

70. lovely story. you do NOT need to qualify with, "maybe it was for the

cameras"..... why we feel the need to qualify because of all the kerry bashers is silliness. you know in your heart, listening to kerry talking to that woman he was sincere, ergo.... why you pulled from the interview what you did

i have seen the same in the man myself, and would/can easily vote for kerry. i want him to have opportunity to run nation. i think he can do a lot of good things for the country. i can also see huge advantages running him again against repugs that any other candidate wont bring to the table.

yes to kerry

[zann725]

71. I'll vote for I'm vote for him too...without hesitation. With absolute

surety from my gut and soul.

He's a once in a generation Candidate, and mind...WITH true 'character' and Integrity. How rare indeed.

[_dynamicdems]

72. Here are 120 reasons why I'd vote for him again!

He's been speaking out and working for EVERYTHING!

http://www.dynamicdems.com/kerry_quotations.htm

[_dynamicdems]

75. New Kerry e-mail on the success of this previous e-mail!!!

Dear XXXX,

You know what our mission is -- to drive to victory on November 7 by using our online strength to give key Democratic candidates grassroots help they couldn't even imagine getting in the past.

This week, we're focusing on a handful of races across the nation that are absolutely critical to the environment. We're out to take back the Congress and defeat Republican candidates who have sold out the environment whenever it really counts.

Support pro-environment Democratic candidates now.

Yesterday, we helped raise tens of thousands of dollars for three critical House challengers: Ron Klein in Florida, Francine Busby in California, and Darcy Burner in Washington state. Today, we've added a new candidate to the list -- Linda Stender who is running in New Jersey's 7th Congressional district. Linda is not only a strong environmental candidate, she has also fought to protect the right to privacy and she has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's failed policies in Iraq.

Linda has led fights in her county to pass the Open Space, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Trust Fund, create the area's largest tree replacement program, and develop a new program to improve the appearance of county property. Protecting our environment and making America energy independent are two of her key priorities when she gets elected.

I told you earlier that two of the GOP incumbents we're out to defeat, Clay Shaw and Dave Reichert, had identical 28% voting records on the League of Conservation Voters' scorecard. Linda's opponent, Mike Ferguson, is even worse. In the last session of Congress, he voted pro-environment only 17% of the time.

All 3 of these Republican incumbents have voted to open up the Arctic Refuge to drilling, gut funding of environmental protections for clean water and environmental conservation, and sell off our public lands to the big mining companies. We can't continue to let this happen.

Support pro-environment Democratic candidates now.

Help build an unstoppable momentum for our environmental slate of candidates. Donate to one or more of our candidates right now.

Let's give them the strong support they need to win.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

P.S. In addition to providing direct support to our candidates, don't forget to also include a donation to Keeping America's Promise in support of our broader efforts to help shape the outcome of these vitally important elections.


:woohoo: