I don't understand that Kerry gets so much support to run for President

[Guaranteed]

again in 2008 on this board.

Let me begin by saying this: I like Kerry. I think he's a really good person, and he's obviously extremely smart, and even brave. He has a long, long history of doing great things. And, most of all, I know that he learns. He has evolved over the past years. He's admitted mistakes. That is HUGE in my book. MUCH, MUCH respect.

But, Iraq is really still hanging over his head. I know, it was just one mistake. It was in the way he handled it during the campaign, though, too. He didn't deal with it directly enough.

And, what ended up happening is that too many Americans ended up not trusting in his self-confidence, enough to keep him from winning. There is a perception out there of him that he is not going to be able to overcome anytime soon- that he isn't sure enough to make solid decisions.

He would have been SO much better off even just admitting that he made a mistake. *I* feel *horrible* for him, because I can only imagine how hard it would be to do something like that when you're running for PRESIDENT.

It doesn't matter, though. He got put into a ridiculously difficult position by the Iraq issue, and it nailed him. It didn't nail him because he ended up being WRONG, like Chimpy- it nailed him because people wanted to hear something clear from him on the issue, and they just didn't get it.

2008, him running for President- the idea makes me blanch. Even Vice President. No. I'm sorry. It's just not going to happen. It is going to take a long, long time to repair the damage done to his image- and to the Democratic Party, even. If he's on the ticket, we're not going to win.

And I like the guy, a lot. It's just...no. Forget it. We can't go through that again.

[Mass]

1. I disagree -

[Guaranteed]

3. I just don't understand it. I like the guy, I can understand why you

like him.

But, at the very LEAST, he's going to need time.

Four years later- while the war is still going on....that's not going to be enough.

[blm]

64. WHY? Who else has been submitting Iraq withdrawal plans and applying

pressure on almost every single important issue out there?

I wrote this in a reply on another thread - but it works here, too. See - it seems only OTHER Dems are fighters and Kerry isn't and only OTHER DEms are honest, and Kerry isn't. OTHER DEms can get us out of Iraq they say.


My reply:

And let's ignore the ONE guy who submitted an actual Iraq withdrawal plan,

And the ONE guy who actually CRAFTED and SUBMITTED the Clean Money, Clean Elections bill for public financing of campaigns, and the ONE GUY who investigated and exposed more government corruption than any other lawmaker in modern history, the ONE guy whose efforts helped END three wars, and the ONE guy who wrote the book WARNING this nation about the growing strength of global terrorism and its funding by international financiers, and the ONE guy with the best ACTUAL environmental RECORD of any top lawmaker.

What bugs me is that every one wants to nitpick, but, there isn't a lawmaker alive who has effected this nation more positively over the last 35 years than John Kerry has, and you dismiss it as if the facts are just INCONVENIENT to your own analysis.

Kerry is ALL OF THE BEST DEMS ROLLED TOGETHER and you all just can't stand it and won't admit it. And THAT is why I get outraged - the deliberate ignoring of the FACTS in your efforts to push those with FAR LESSER records on issues many of you claim to be most important to you.

LOVE your own guy using ONLY The facts about him, INSTEAD of dumping on a great leader by using FALSE CHARGES against him - because THAT is when I will jump in and CORRECT The record. If you don't want that to happen, then STICK TO THE FACTS.

If you want to say your guy is best on the environment, then PROVE IT using the FACTS of the record.

If you want to say your guy would be best on Iraq, then PROVE IT by posting his Iraq withdrawal plan.

If you want to say your guy is the most honest, then put up the legislation he submitted to take money out of politics.

If you want to say that your guy is the best fighter, then put up the real battles he chose to have during their time in office.

See how EASY it is to HAVE real discussions or to AVOID having forum battles using ONLY the facts?

[Guaranteed]

69. I'm not charging Kerry with anything. I'm not judging him on anything.

I'm just telling you what happened in the public's mind.

[fedupinBushcountry]

75. You do not speak

for the public. Where do you get off speaking for others, it is fine to have your opinion , but please do not put that you are speaking for the public, that is so wrong. Do you really want to be compared to the RW swiftboaters, because that is exactly what they did. Come on.

[Guaranteed]

77. I'm reporting first-hand experience, from canvassing, and the media's

portrayal of him.

Maybe you have your own theory?

[fedupinBushcountry]

81. The media's portrayal

give me a break. As I said you do not speak for the public, did you canvass in all 50 states in every city, do you understand thew meaning of public ?

[Guaranteed]

84. Well, blm is arguing that the media shaped his perception.

We all know what the media's portrayal of him was.

Maybe you should be arguing with her about this, if you don't believe that it made a lot of people vote against him.

[blm]

89. And YET he got 10 MILLION MORE VOTES than Gore got and 13mil. more than

Clinton got.

And BushInc had to ramp up their mediawhores 24/7 and rig machines all across the country to stay in power.

[fedupinBushcountry]

115. He would rather

stick with the media lies, instead of standing up for truth. I guess he will not say who he is supporting, because then he would have to own up to why he doesn't want Kerry to run.

He even tried to say that we didn't agree with each other and used you as an answer to my post, it didn't work.

[Guaranteed]

118. So, you do agree that the media influenced public opinion

of Kerry in the 2004 campaign?

[fedupinBushcountry]

121. Yes

and so? I also pushed the truth and worked for the Kerry campaign both locally and on the internet. And you?

[Guaranteed]

122. That's all.

As for what I did, see post #42.

[fedupinBushcountry]

125. That is good to know

and it is also good to know that the public of Broward County chose Kerry over Bush 64%-35%.

[Guaranteed]

126. Yes, they did. But we lost Florida. nt

[WildEyedLiberal]

128. Do you NOT think the media will influence public opinion of ANY Democrat?

You think Kerry is the only Democrat who the media will target with unfair smears?

Excuse me...

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[fedupinBushcountry]

104. That you would

push the media's portrayal is what I am saying. I agree with BLM, and I'm sorry that you would rather stick with the media's portrayal instead of getting out the truth. Why are you relying on BLM's answer could you not think of one yourself?

[Guaranteed]

109. I'm not pushing it as true. I'm saying it's out there, and it

affected voters.

I'm sorry, I just thought it was funny that you would scoff at the media's influence while another Kerry supporter blames them entirely.

[blm]

116. Media's influence on what YOU choose to repeat instead of countering.

That's the difference, BGL. Whether you acknowledge it or not.

[Guaranteed]

117. You're not addressing the OP. nt

[blm]

127. I addressed the OP and I am addressing your other points made in reply

in this thread.

[iilana X]

140. The media did have influence on the public perceptions of John Kerry.

They ripped him to shreds every chance they got. They are looking for fresh blood just like a lot of DU folks. The only difference is that the media wants fresh blood to spill. John Kerry has been vetted. What do you think the media will do to Gore or Clinton or Feingold? There isn't anybody who can run on the Democrats side who won't be ripped to shreds. And that's just the media. What about the attacks from the GOP? Gore will be called mentally unstable. Clinton will be attacked for numerous scandals and for Hillary Care. Feingold will be attacked for being divorced twice and for being ultra liberal (even though he isn't).

Man it will be a blood fest. And you know what? None of them will hold up to the scrutiny the way John Kerry did. HE is spotless. Can you say the same about any other potential Dem candidate? Kerry has been under a microscope since he first got the nomination and they couldn't find anything. Nothing. And he's been under even more scrutiny since the election.

Why do you think John Kerry is still being attacked on everything he says and does by the right wing? He still a threat to them, that's why.

Think about that. Think about the money he's generating. Think about the fact that his e-mail list is growing. His support is stronger now than before the election. Many people were ABB voters and they never got to know the real John Kerry. They are now. Judging by the crowds he's drawing, they like what they see.

[blm]

76. And what will happen to ANY Dem. You don't HAVE to tell us what's in the

public's mind. We KNOW how it gets there. And we know it CAN be fought.

Now, who has stepped up on many issues and shown they will take on a fight MORE than Kerry?

Plus, Kerry has the callouses and the chops to do it.

[Clark2008]

110. Wes Clark - and well before Kerry did.

eom

[blm]

114. Please elaborate = and if you're going to answer ONE question, answer them

all.

This is not about Clark - I always give Clark props. This is about the bigname Dems who wouldn't show their faces and fight in 2004 or before that and left it to newer faces to do it, and Clark was one of those new faces.

[Clark2008]

120. Don't want to answer them all - don't have to.

And I know you always give Clark his props and I thank you for that.

I was speaking to the Subject line in the post to which I replied - and that alone.

It's a message board, not a debate.

[Clarkie1]

148. You wrong. Kerry isn't the only one who has a better plan

for Iraq, or even the best "plan." Kerry's "deadline" has passed. How does "submitting" that plan help us now?

[blm]

150. The point is WHO HAS BEEN OUT THERE sticking their neck out on ALL issues

And you can't say Kerry didn't have a great plan - you don't KNOW that, because Bush wouldn't enact it. It wasn't just withdraw troops at a date certain, that date was set up as a DESIRED target date to work around when he submitted his second plan and it involved concentrated, intense diplomacy at the same time with all the region''s leaders and warring factions. You want to come down AGAINST that and insist it wouldn't work?

And further - I'd say that since Gary Hart, Johm Murtha, and Bob Kerrey amongst many others saw Kerry's plan as a the best DOABLE one submitted, they're opinion would trump armchair opinions from DU.

And NONE of you can dare say I'm wrong about who has been the one Democratic lawmaker who has stuck their neck out the MOST on the biggest issues and chosen the toughest battles to confront BushInc over the years. But, you all seem to WANT to kick away at Kerry for your own agendas.

[Clarkie1]

155. Kerry isn't sticking his neck out.

He's saying what he believes, like all good Dems. Further, like many Dems, he is supporting other Democrats.

There is nothing unique about John Kerry in the world of senators and ex-presidential candidates who are thinking of running again.

[bluerum]

13. I see your disagree and raise a bullshit.

Everyone in the country has the war hanging over their heads. Even Kucinich and, Kennedy and Conyers.

Amerika was LIED to. Based on what he was told I can understand his vote. I don't agree with it - but I can understand it.

Kerry needs to demonstrate that repug-merika has been living a lie for the last 3 years. Putting up a brave faces and puffing up chests to save *'s face and so that they can live in denial of the fact they were fooled and lied to again - by a dimwitted son of a billionaire who simply bought them.

on edit: sp.

[Guaranteed]

17. Like I said below, if you don't want to hear it,

that's fine.

Calling it "bullshit" would be incorrect, though. And I actually thought I was relating pretty well my affections for Kerry. Is that bullshit too?

[bluerum]

20. Well - I think that the war business is bs. Thats all.

[MADem]

2. He or she who gets the most votes, wins the primaries.

Support the candidate of your choice, and let the Kerry supporters support their candidate.

That's the system. What we "go through" depends on the majority of primary voters.

[Guaranteed]

4. Yes, I understand that. nt

[JanusAscending]

11. No, I don't think you do understand that,

because we Kerry supporters don't like him, WE LOVE HIM!!! We will stick with him through thick and thin. We've got his back, the same way he has America's back, not just Democrats! I would fight to the death for him because I believe he is the only one who can get us out of the mess bushco has gotten this country into. You don't give the man enough credit. We all worked our butts off for him, and you couldn't possibly be more disappointed in his "LOSS?" than we his avid supporters were. To us, he is "A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS"! You can take that to the bank!! He's only just begun. Peace, DC:patriot:

[Guaranteed]

14. Oh, yes, I DO think I understand how primaries work.

That understanding is, well- primary.

I'm just trying to open up your eyes to maybe a slightly broader understanding of what is going on with Kerry in the public's mind. If you're not interested, that's fine.

[JanusAscending]

22. Sorry, I didn't mean to say, you don't understand how Primaries

work. I meant you don't understand how we can keep on supporting him for Pres. In '08, if he chooses to run. You really don't understand "our loyalty to him" DC

[Guaranteed]

23. Your loyalty, absolutely.

I don't understand the support for President, though.

[Joe Chi Minh]

24. He's a single-issue, monorail guy, DC.

[JanusAscending]

31. Could you please enlighten me as to what that "single issue"

might be, so that I can prove otherwise?

[Joe Chi Minh]

32. Iraq war position?

[JanusAscending]

37. How can you say that????

He's admitted he was wrong on that issue. Have you not read any of his speeches since?, or watched him on the floor of the Senate. He's about much more than the war. He's fighting for the troops, New Orleans, childrens health care, ANWAR and on, and on. Like I said he's a man for all seasons, and a better diplomat you'll NEVER find!

[Joe Chi Minh]

46. You appear to have compeltely misread my gist. Our friend is the

single-issue nut, not Kerry.

[Guaranteed]

48. To which I've already responded, below.

Thanks for not listening, though.

Was funny to see you blindly fighting with another Kerry supporter, I have to admit.

[Joe Chi Minh]

56. I always try to please. Especially Loonytoons of the BullGoose

variety.

[JanusAscending]

74. See how easy it is to make a mistake?

Especially in another's "perception", and no......I did not set you up for this. Sorry!

[JanusAscending]

71. Whew!!!

Sorry we misunderstood each other!:blush: DC

[MH1]

47. Um, wrong target DC.

The person you're responding to was referring to the OP, not Kerry.

Read his other posts.

;-)

[Joe Chi Minh]

55. Thank you, MH1.

[saltpoint]

5. Just as a political strategy aside, Kerry's numbers two months

before the Iowa primary in 2004 were in the tank. He was widely written off as a serious contender.

Some people were still laying money down on Labor-backed Dick Gephardt, a previous Iowa winner, and quite a few more were beginning to concede that Howard Dean would be the champ in Iowa. The polls began to reflect this.

Closing in on the Iowa caucus, Dean garnered Gore's endorsement.

Kerry won Iowa with 38% of the vote. Edwards, on a shoestring, placed second at 32%. Dean was third at c. 17%. Gephardt was buried alive with 11% and was never heard from again.

Kerry is the subject of considerable criticism on these boards, but whether or not he is a first-choice for the ticket, he is a formidable presence in America politics. He's also a fighter and is sounding a lot like someobody who's still interested in the job.

I would definitely not count the man out just yet.

[bananas]

6. We're going to go through it again no matter who runs

The RNC will make up lies, the TV, radio, and newspapers will repeat them,
people will believe them, and then the election will be stolen again.
They did it to Gore, they did it to Kerry, they'll do it to whoever runs in 08.

[politicasista]

8. I agree. That's why we have to stay on message

So many think that every Dem candidate except for Gore or Kerry is above the smears. Agree. They will smear whoever the nominee is in 08 period.

[Minnesota Libra]

7. I would respect Kerry much more if he admitted making a mistake....

.....with respect to the "war in Iraq". I'd vote for Kerry is a hot second but it would end up being "it's not a neocon/fundie" vote.

[Guaranteed]

9. He did. He said he regrets it.

I can't remember the exact quote, but the basic gist of it was that he regrets it more than anything.

[Minnesota Libra]

15. OK so maybe I missed it but I would have thought that...............

.....someone who had seen war first hand would at the very least question things much more before signing on. The rest of us saw it why didn't he?? I will be on the lookout for that apology though and if it is a straight forward "I screwed up" apology then I will seriously rethink my view of Kerry.

[sandnsea]

21. After all this time, you still "missed it"

It's been posted almost daily, and yet you "missed it". I'm almost positive it's been posted to you personally, and yet you have the nerve to pretend you'd "rethink your view". If you missed the 1,001 times his apology has been reported in the media and posted here, my guess is you missed the election too. I don't exactly know what you base your opinions on, but it doesn't appear to be facts.

[Minnesota Libra]

28. I don't come to DU everyday, nor do I read every single thread. nt

[Kerry fan]

29. Did you even study Kerry's pre vote speech.

And haven't you heard him say that his biggest mistake was trusting Bush to keep his promises that he made to Congress?

Got to the links and read it all...very, very carefully.

This is a portion of Kerry's speech before he voted on the Iraq resolution.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

http://www.seanrobins.com/kerry/kerry_senate_2002_10_09.htm

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


http://www.seanrobins.com/national/kerry_speeches_statements.htm

[MH1]

44. Excellent points but the site you link to is RW- try this one instead:

http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com/

For the floor statement just before the vote:

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

[Kerry fan]

62. Whoa! Thanks, MH1.

I didn't realize that. Several months ago I googled Kerry's floor speech for another doubter to read. I have had it in a notebook all this time and didn't even notice what kind of site that was.

[MH1]

132. 'sokay - there's actually some useful stuff at that site.

I like to keep track of the good guys AND the bad guys.

And I didn't click around the site long enough to figure out why he had such an extensive archive of Kerry statements....maybe he had vile commentary elsewhere on the site.

It was from the home page that I realized it was right wing. I went to the home page because at first I assumed it must be a Kerry supporter site!

In any case, it's always nice to know about them. So thanks for the tip!

[Minnesota Libra]

49. Having reservations from the beginning is one thing but..........

...expecting the WH Idiot and his handlers to adhere to any limitations at all was irresponsible in itself. I mean come on, the rest of us saw and heard the WH Idiot's smirk and smirky attitude from day one. We all knew that no matter what the WH Idiot said or asked for he was planning much much more.

All that is completely different though than offering an out and out straight forward apology for the way he voted on the issue in the beginning. It's that straight forward apology that might influence me.

Until I see or hear that then yes I would still vote for Kerry but again it would be a "at least it's not a neocon/fundie" vote. Sorry if you disagree but I thought the Democratic Party was this BIG UMBRELLA PARTY????

[Kerry fan]

78. Remember the immediate period after 9/11?

What was Bush's approval rating? Something in the neighborhood of 90%, wasn't it. America was loved around the world. Can't remember who, but some foreign leader declared "We are all Americans, now". The whole world loved America and George Bush.

[Minnesota Libra]

106. Wow, usually at DU the Liberals/Democrats are...............

.....too much like the neocons/fundies for their own good and now apparently we have turned a corner. Oh well, it really doesn't matter at this point because if Kerry does get the nomination I'll still vote for him whether I like it or not.

[karynnj]

39. Where have you been?

Off the top of my head:

- He admitted that he had made a mistake in trusting Bush in his Oct, 2005 speech on Iraq at Georgetown University.
- He repeated the same in November, 2005 on the floor of the Senate responding to the many Republican Veteran Day insults. That speech also included the comments from the Senate record that show that his position was consistent - the Republican ads had taken comments out of context and made it sound like he independently was claiming weapons of Mass Destruction
- In November while explaining that plan on at least 5 talk shows, he repeated it.
- He has repeated it on at least 3 or 4 Imus shows because Imus did enough coke he can't seem to remember or he enjoys tormenting the Senator.
- He stated on an April MTP because Russert seemed to have forgotten the November one as well. On that one he agreed it was the vote he would most want to take back (he's been a Senator for 22 years) and that he "regrets it profusely".

More importantly, Kerry wrote the letter signed by only 9 other Senators demanding that Phase 2 of the WMD study be completed by the Intelligence Committee. This gets at the root of Bush's deception of Congress and it referenced things learned from the DSM. Any Senator who sincerely believes he was lied to, especially any who then voted for the IWR, should have signed this. This done in spring 2005 is real action needed not the apology.

[blm]

10. Guess what? EVERY DEm is going to get run through the "perception" filter.

You just haven't watched them suffer through it yet.

Kerry has built up scar tissue and callouses that the others will end up needing, too, at some point.

And when it comes to fighting - NO ONE has the better record. NO ONE.

[Guaranteed]

12. I think the problem is this particular perception, and how it relates

to the Presidency.

I mean, it's one thing if people think that Al Gore said that he invented the Internet, which, of course, he didn't. That's one thing. He can deal with that, quite directly. And it doesn't really matter much, in the broad scheme of things.

It's something else if people start thinking that you're not sure of your positions on issues, or, worse....that you're scared to tell them. That's really, really not good when you're running for President.

[MH1]

16. Kerry has been perfectly plain on Iraq.

Just go back to what he actually said - on the senate floor before the vote, what he has said since then.

Look at the full text, not the bits the media parsed out.

With Kerry, as with Gore, there was a media filter and distortion applied to what he was actually saying.

Looks like you fell for it, too.

[blm]

36. That's horsepoo - why buy it? He was NEVER unsure of his position and

he has accumulated the proof that his positions were the correct ones. From port security to Social Security to Iraq.

What wasn't there to get about wanting weapons inspectors to get in and do their job and have military action as an option only if necessary? And after weapons inspections proved war was not needed, Kerry said Don't rush to war - the weapons inspections and diplomacy are working. Then after Bush went to war, Kerry said he was wrong, and he would work towards an effective withdrawal for our troops.

What's not to understand?

And you think the GOP wouldn't have unloaded ALL that video they have of Gore pledging to get tougher on Iraq during his 2000 campaign? Gore didn't have to be battered with it day in and day out because the posed no threat to BushInc, but if he was a factor, they certainly would have beaten him with his own words.

And when it comes right down to it - NO one has a better record of fighting BushInc than Kerry has. He goes after them on so many issues and ALWAYS HAS. He entire record in the senate is one of battling them on the most IMPORTANT ISSUES. Too bad most other Dems chose to ignore those battles and wouldn't even lend a hand. What a different country we'd have by now,

[Guaranteed]

42. You know, blm....

I flew to Florida, on my own dime, and canvassed Broward County the week before the election in support of Kerry.

Hell, I even VOTED for him. :P

Part of what I said in the OP is what I gathered in that canvassing. There was just a lack of trust. Whether it was the media, or whatever...

I spent far too much time making excuses and clarifying and this and that. And I tried. It shouldn't have been that hard. Most Democrats were die-hard for him, but there were some- real Democrats- who just didn't believe in him. I used BUSH, himself, as a weapon against those Democrats. I guess it just didn't work.

I don't know what else to say.

On edit: About the trip- check the archives. I posted about it.

[blm]

50. Yes, it was media - and Kerry STILL got 10miilion more votes than in 2000.

So he DID effect people more than you care to admit. Those Dems who didn't know him didn't GET to know him.

The networks gave Clinton 9 hrs of primetime to introduce himself. Kerry was given 3 - and 1 of those was Clinton, the other Edwards. So, Kerry ended up with ONE HOUR about him. Clinton was introduced over 8 hrs.

[bananas]

59. Al Gore is a liar.

Didn't you know? Everyone knows.
It's not "just one thing", how is he supposed to deal with that?
How do you prove that you're not a liar?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22al+gore+is+a+liar%22&btnG=Google+Search

David E’s Fablog » Blog Archive » Al Gore is Worse Than Saddam Hussein
Al Gore is a liar. Al Gore claims to have invented the internet and discovered Love Canal. Al Gore murders puppies at midnight in his backyard, ...
fablog.ehrensteinland.com/2002/11/27/al-gore-is-worse-than-saddam-hussein/ - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

Goldberg File on NRO
Lying matters, the truth matters, and the truth is that Al Gore is a liar, a huge, fat liar. It now turns out that almost no personal note, aside, ...
www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg100600.shtml - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

Pundits want to make Clark a Big Liar, too. This time, will the ...
... telling the world in the Washington Post that there is no Middle East think tank in Canada—that Wesley Clark, like Al Gore, is a liar: ...
www.dailyhowler.com/dh092303.shtml - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

Fallows suggests that Gore "invented" a charge. We think you'll ...
According to Fallows, Al Gore is a liar—a guy who will say "whatever it takes." The charge is a very serious charge, and the Atlantic milks it for all that ...
www.dailyhowler.com/h071400_1.shtml - 22k - Cached - Similar pages
< More results from www.dailyhowler.com >

WebMink
The higher art of trolling is not to postulate that 'Al Gore is a liar'. It is to ask seemingly innocent questions like 'Is Al Gore a liar? ...
www.webmink.net/2004/10/framing.htm - 29k - Cached - Similar pages

Results in
But the impression remains: Al Gore is a liar. Bill Bradley said as much in one of their debates, when he asked Gore: "Why should we believe that you will ...
www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_9_52/ai_61892073 - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

Gore In Context
MSNBC: "Al Gore is a liar? That’s not true" by David Neiwert Cox News Opinion: "Gore-is-a-liar campaign is a lie" By Tom Teepen ...
www.makethemaccountable.com/articles/Gore_In_Context.htm - 70k - Cached - Similar pages

RealClear Politics - Commentary
Fact One: Al Gore is a liar. Most Americans are either absolutely convinced of this fact or harbor a deep suspicion of the Vice President's eerie habit of ...
www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_02_00_TB.html - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

Letters to the Editor: "Epistemology is a major part of the ...
Al Gore is a liar on the front page, but on page 24 you merely ask the question; why, advice of counsel? If he made an inaccurate statement about his role ...
www.seattleweekly.com/arts/0003/letters-readers.php - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

The Public Eye : Website of Political Research Associates
Another shining example of Coulter’s misrepresentations is her repeated accusation that Al Gore is a liar because he claimed to have invented the Internet. ...
www.publiceye.org/research/biblio/reviews/ann_coulter_review.html - 21k - Cached - Similar pages

[Guaranteed]

60. All he needs to do is challenge anyone to come forward

with evidence that he actually said the words "I invented the Internet."

Declare it unequivocally true that he never claimed that. That's dealing with the problem, and it would actually make a whole lot of people look pretty stupid.

The other thing is that it's just of no consequence. Whether he said he "invented" the Internet, or was just instrumental in bringing about its creation, is just a non-issue. It doesn't affect people that much unless they WANT to be affected by it.

[bananas]

80. Then he'd really be making a fool of himself.

We all heard him say it, pretty lame for him to lie about it. But what would you expect from a pathological liar?

Seriously - at the time, people I talked to swore they saw him say it on TV. They couldn't remember when or what channel or what tv show or even if it was on the news or a talk show, but they clearly remembered seeing him say it on TV. The story had been repeated so often, people created a false memory of it.

[Guaranteed]

87. That's why you have to confront these issues very directly.

Cuz, there must be tape of it out there somewhere....

[blm]

94. But it wouldn't work for Kerry? The mediawhores are now on record saying

that swifties lied - but they waited till AFTER The election to say so.

So - what are they gonna do? There is no way the swifts can continue - and no other Dem has worked to EFFECT Iraq withdrawal policy more than Kerry, so where are the bigname Dems who submitted THEIR withdrawal plans for Iraq and where were these mighty fighters when they could have been countering the bigname GOPs in 2004?

[sandnsea]

18. Anybody would have been

Iraq would have tied up any Dem candidate in 2004. The only difference is that an "out now" candidate would have seen a McGovern style landslide defeat and we wouldn't now have the voice on Iraq that Kerry provides.

The real mistake the campaign made on Iraq was not replaying Bush's words on that vote 1,000 times a day. HE is the one who said it wasn't a vote for war and that he had no war plans in 2002. HE should have been made to explain whether HE meant what he said in 2002 or not. The reason that didn't happen was the anti-war left.

And that's why John Kerry has my support over every other candidate, he's the only one who has been consistent on what really happened in 2002 and afterwards.

[Joe Chi Minh]

19. It's the economy, stoopid. The New Deal the country needs.

Single-issue politics is a bad idea.

John Kerry seems to have an ever-growing number of people on this site who have an unbounded - well, almost unbounded - admiration for him, but follow up these expressions of immense admiration for him, by advocating that he should no longer be considered for the presidency under any cirumstances. Quite puzzling.

Politics is not about being "nice". It's about doing "nice". And that's why he's Numero Uno.

[Guaranteed]

27. You should re-read the post.

I'm not making a judgment of my own. The OP relates to how the issue of Iraq created a perception of Kerry in the public's mind. Not mine.

[Joe Chi Minh]

34. Wrong. It was the media's creation. Given a little time, the public's

been able to take a reality check. If they ever needed it. I'm unpersuaded by those polls. The fact is he won the election, big-time. And it was the hope for a future for all, the New Deal promised by Kerry/Edwards, that did it. Nothing else. Not the war in Iraq, certainly.

[karynnj]

51. Since the election - now a year and a half later,

who has had the clearest, positions on both military and diplomatic options in Iraq over that interval of any Democrat. In my mind, only Kerry - Murtha is really the only other possibility - and his plan lacks the significan diplomatic piece Kerry's has.

Gore has not said word 1 on what to do with Iraq. Just as Kerry in 2004, couldn't have simply not proposed anything and simply repeated he would never have gone to war, any candidate will need to say what they will do - if the war is still on-going.

[blm]

53. The REVISIONIST version. You either counter it or play into and repeat it

You HAVE a choice. You choose to repeat the revisionist version.

[Guaranteed]

54. What did I repeat? nt

[blm]

61. You treat the perception as worthy to repeat iinstead of COUNTERING it

full on.

Tepid defense is no defense. Had Kerry a TEAM of fighters who showed up everyday to counter the team of liars Bush put out, there would be no concern about "perception" now would there?

Where were all the big name Dems to fight and counter Giuliani, McCain and Dole every day of the campaign? Did they think 2004 wasn't important enough to show up?

[Guaranteed]

65. The *reality* was that a clear message didn't get to the voters.

The fact that he was and is perceived by many Americans as wishy-washy is real. It's not "revisionist." That's what happened, as a result of the Presidential campaign.

That is what the original post is about. I made no commentary regarding, nor did I even recount, Kerry's position on the Iraq War.

And, like I said, I defended him. And, like I also said, I don't know what else to tell you.

[blm]

67. The perception was to be fought with the FACTS. Who are the fighting Dems

who will fight lies with truth?

It takes a team. Bush never countered ANYTHING by himself.

You said Kerry didn't give the people a clear position - he did - he didn't have a team pounding away with it the way Bush had a team lying about it.

[Guaranteed]

70. I didn't say he didn't give them one. I said the public didn't get one.

I'm telling you nothing but the facts, and that this is reality.

[blm]

79. Here's your own words.

"It doesn't matter, though. He got put into a ridiculously difficult position by the Iraq issue, and it nailed him. It didn't nail him because he ended up being WRONG, like Chimpy- it nailed him because people wanted to hear something clear from him on the issue, and they just didn't get it."

You are clearly saying that Kerry didn't give the public what they wanted, something clear on Iraq. I say Kerry did and did it OFTEN, but had no TEAM of Dems pushing that fact the way Bush had a team of bigname GOPs lying about it.

So - WHERE were all the bigname Dems in 2004 pushing the truth for Kerry with any of the regularity that Bush's bigname GOPs were lying about it?

Did they get scared off by Rudy? By McCain? By Dole? If they were too uninterested in fighting the battles in 2004 why should they be trusted to LEAD the battles in 2008?

[Guaranteed]

82. Yes, those are my words. And, I clearly said that the public

was looking for a clear position, and they didn't get it. I wish you would put them in quotes, actually.

I didn't say that Kerry didn't try his best to give it to them. I'm not commenting on that. It's irrelevant to my point.

I'm just telling you what happened. That's the issue, here- the very real perception.

[blm]

85. And you AVOID the FACT that no bigname team showed up to fight on a daily

basis to counter the GOPs team. There would be no perception if they showed up to take on those battles every day the way Giuliani, McCain and Dole did for Bush. But they didn't - did they?

[Guaranteed]

88. Nothing to do with the OP. nt

[blm]

101. Except that you make the case for Gore in other replies. You AVOID the

fact I raise in mine, because you have no answer that protects Gore.

Plus - I am not crazy that Gore worked with Clinton to keep the books closed on BushInc in the first place, when they took office in 1993.

I guess you'll side with Gore over Kerry when it finally hits home that Clinton and Gore administration had the POWER to put BushInc away for good - but CHOSE not to and instead PROTECTED them from further scrutiny throughout their terms.

[Guaranteed]

103. I didn't make a case for Gore, I just used him as a counter-example

of problems that come up in a presidential campaign, and how dealing directly with issues can resolve them more easily, and to a candidate's advantage.

[blm]

113. They get resolved when the message machine decides to show UP for Dems.

And THAT is what the Dem party does NOT have.

[Guaranteed]

105. Actually, I'm not even sure what that has to do with people sticking up

for Kerry.

What does Gore have to do with that?

[iilana X]

141. Isn't it amazing?

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

There are a lot of strange people around here. They have selective and distorted recall if they have any at all.

John Kerry is qualified and not just on one issue. He has worked for the environment as hard as Al Gore ever did, and not just on global warming. He voted against more of Bush's nominees than Russ Feingold did. He's got better plans for health care than Hillary Clinton. He's a President for All Issues.

[fedupinBushcountry]

25. What are you afraid of ?

That he might beat out whoever you are for. This is a democracy and if he wants to run again thats his right. The voters will choose not someone babbling on the internet.

[Old and In the Way]

26. I'll happily support whoever wins the nomination....

but I'd be real motivated to support Kerry. Personally, I think he won, but the voting machines and Republican malfeasence in gaming the votes did him in. Maybe it's a lost cause for any Democrat if we can't assure fairness in our elections. And every Democratic candidate will have their own custom tailored smear campaign that will be supported by the corporate media. It will take an overwhelming and freep-proof majority to overcome these Republican advantages. Personally, I think Kerry has the qualities to be a great President and I'd love to see him give it another shot. I hope his theme is - "investigate and proscecute the criminals who've been hell bent on turning America into a RW dictatorship". That'd be a theme that I could rally around.

[iilana X]

142. Me too!

I'd love to see Kerry run again. And he was an assistant DA. And didn't he go after Iran-Contra like a pit bull? Here is a quotation from Kerry that nearly knocked me on my ass when I read it:

"We don't know yet whether this will prove to be an indictable offense in a court of law, but for it, and for misleading a nation into war, they will be indicted in the high court of history."

[Demobrat]

30. Kerry didn't make a mistake. He did what he thought was right

for his career. It was unforgivable at the time, and it won't be forgiven nor forgotten. Nor will he ever be president.

[JanusAscending]

33. Says you?

Please, I think you still have only one vote and one voice. Same as the rest of us Democrats!

[Demobrat]

45. Yes, well unfortunately for Kerry

I'm not the only Democrat who can remember back that far.

[JanusAscending]

68. "Speak for yourself John"

or Jane or whatever.

[Demobrat]

72. No problem.

As will every other Democrat I know.

[fedupinBushcountry]

35. You loss me

:wtf:

Its so clear now who were listening to Kerry in '04 and who were listening to the pundits. Geez.

[blm]

41. You don't know Kerry. You can't even NAME anyone who has committed more

time to exposing government corruption and risked his career more than Kerry has.

[ProSense]

52. Did you remember the "unforgivable" when you voted against him in 2004?

Kerry's position was clear when the vote was cast in 2002, when he campaigned and up through this day. The idea that supporters didn't know his position is false. People can twist the facts and try to rewrite history, but the record---every statement Kerry made before, during and after the vote---is there for all to examine.

[Kerry fan]

58. I, for one -

Would give every penny I have to see Kerry become President.

[survivor999]

137. Sad, but I have to agree...

He was protecting his career, IMO :shrug:

[iilana X]

144. That is malarky. Pure malarky.

John Kerry has never ever made a single decision based on his career. Who do you think you are? This man put his life on the line for his country and then his reputation. There is nothing to forgive. He did what he thought best for us. That's right. Not for his career. For us. This is a man who still has nightmares about Vietnam. He doesn't make decisions about peoples lives based on his fucking career.

[Demobrat]

151. He enabled Bush to attack a sovereign nation that was no threat to us

for us? What a guy.

[politicasista]

152. Actually, YOU are enabling Bush by letting him off the hook

instead of holding HIM accountable for HIS lies and violating the IWR.

Repeating RW talking points and singling out the ONE democrat that is trying to get us out of this mess is not productive and plays into the GOP's hands.

Guess bashing ONE democrat that voted for it, while giving others a free pass is your speciality so why bother reasoning? Notice you didn't answer BLM's post above either.


THIS IS BUSH'S WAR PERIOD!

[Demobrat]

154. Actually, I don't give any of them a free pass.

Look, there are lots of people in this country, Democratic people, who consider Kerry a political coward of the worst ilk. He voted for the war, as did others, out of fear of being called unpatriotic by Karl Rove. FEAR. That makes him a COWARD. And then - he refused to question the election results in Ohio because he was AFRAID of being called a sore loser. AFRAID. That makes him a COWARD. And that ain't gonna change.

[Warpy]

38. Here is where the support comes from

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html

This details his role in blowing the BCCI scandal apart and what he did when conservatives in Congress shut that investigation down (it was getting to close to the CIA and black ops).

Because of his record in this matter, I knew the right would never allow him to be elected.

He was also instrumental in the Iran/Contra investigation.

I would vastly prefer to see someone else in the top slot, though. I would greatly enjoy seeing Kerry as Attorney General.

[blm]

43. Not me - someone else won't OPEN THE BOOKS to the extent Kerry will.

At least, none of indicated they will. We know where Kerry stands, because he's advocated for opening the books for so long.

[Kerry fan]

40. You would probably get it -

If you were more knowledgeable of the man himself instead of just relying on the media and others who have little knowledge of which they speak. Study his Senate speech very carefully, word for word, sentence for sentence. Read speeches he has made before and after the election. Carefully study the debates.

Study all of it with the perception that you will be quizzed on it for your final exam and, if you don't pass, you will be flunked out of school.

[blm]

57. MORE on this - let's say McCain wins the GOP nomination - Well, guess what

Pop in one of McCain's BOOKS ON TAPE - the one he wrote about his life in 1999 - in the chapter about normalizing relations with Vietnam, McCain states that he COULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN through it without Kerry there to keep him calmed down.

He said that it never would have even happened if Kerry didn't lead it through. He led them ALL through it. McCain was close to breaking down a few times during the entire ordeal and he relied on Kerry's LEADERSHIP to get him through.


You choose - either counter with the truth or repeat the lies of the revisionists.

[karynnj]

98. I'm with you - if it;'s Kerry/ McCain the best investment I could

make would be to buy several copies of that book and - take that chapter - and loan it to as many undecided people as I could find.

The Kerry in that book is disciplined, organized and able to control a group of primadonnas including Bob Kerrey, John McCain and Bob Smith. He got them to do a methodical, complete job and all reach a consensus. No one would have bet on them coming to a consesus.

Kerry was principled and cared about the issue of soldiers possibly still imprisioned (which he thought unlikely) and families imprisioned by the idea fueled by con men their loved ones were still held. McCain turned down the vice chairmanship because he thought it was a losing issue then decided he wanted it only when it was too late. Kerry took the chairmanship over the advice of his entire staff.

Kerry did far more work than anyone and made 14 trips to Vietnam, which was still a cause of pain to him. He skillfully used his background when negotiating with the Vietnamese and got agreements that let them go almost anywhere without notice - the only way to find anything. (side note: That same moral anti-war background would have let him speak with more credability than any other leader in the ME saying that the Geneva Convention violations of Abu Ghraib etc and pre-emptive war when there is no emminent threat wouldn't happen under his watch. Those that say McCain's POW past places him there make the wrong conclusion - Kerry, who was not tortured, said Americans did things that were wrong, McCain, knows what torture is - but still questioned why Kerry spoke out.)

One interesting thing is that Kerry opted not to ask Nixon to testify, simply having him respond to written interrogatories. After all Nixon did to Kerry, it shows maturity and compassion not to have supoenaed Nixon to answer his questions.

[Blue Shark]

63. He won...

...and walked away.

...He is never going to get another chance (thank God)

...JFK II is the reason we have BushCo crimes in our names for ANOTHER four years.

...He should have fought tooth and nail like he promised.

...Instead his concession was on speed-dial.

[Kerry fan]

95. Sure did Gore a lot of good to fight, didn't it?

[Solo_in_MD]

66. I think is sort of a nostalgia thing

since he is NEVER GOING TO BE PRESIDENT. You get one shot at it and he lost. You can argue that is not the law and you can argue that really did win, but here in the real world, you get one shot and he is not in the White House. Why really does not matter. This is not to say he is a bad guy, or would not make a good president. We need to find the next standard bearer and get on with things. Kerry will continue in the Senate and do good things there. Its just that he is never going to get to sit in the Oval Office.

[Guaranteed]

73. I think he would have made a great President.

I think he probably would make a better President if he won in 2008 than if he had won in 2004, because I think he grew from this.

It will, at the very least, take more time for the public to begin to realize that, though. The 2004 campaign was devastating to him.

[blm]

83. Who made you God? Is that a Commandment you wrote?

In today's world you need CALLOUSES - built up callouses. No other Dem has built them up the way Kerry has because no other Dem has FOUGHT BushInc during their careers as much as Kerry has.

[Solo_in_MD]

92. I'm just an observer of the real world like Galileo and Copernicus

and my observation is that a politician get one shot at the presidency these days. Like gravity that may seriously suck at times, but it makes it no less real. I am far from alone in that observation.

I have nothing against Kerry, though I don't deify him the way you seem to. I think there are others in his league (Ted Kennedy comes to mind). Good guys all, but he and Al Gore are not ever going to be President.

[blm]

108. well, since the GOP owns most broadcast media EVERY Dem is subject to

perception - so in real world, why should any try?


My real world says we need a more hardened veteran of the REAL battles - not someone who hasn't stuck their neck out enough to know what it's like.

[karynnj]

147. I doubt you are a scientist

if you equate a rule you made up with Newton's laws. Especially as your rule has easilly identifiable exceptions that many middle school kids could name.

[bananas]

90. That's not true at all - Nixon is one example: lost to Kennedy in 1960

[Solo_in_MD]

93. 40 years ago

and that was the last time anything like that has happened.

[Kerry fan]

99. Does not mean it can't happen again. n/t

[karynnj]

129. You do realize that you are working with small numbers

If you take just the elections in the last 54 years, there were only 14 elections, 28 nominees - eliminating the duplicates, their were only 19 men who were their parties nominee. Of those men, 8 won on their first try. 1 won on his second try.

So 12% of Presidents in the last 54 years won after losing -I know there's only one.

only 2 of the 11 first time losers were nominees a second time - which is 18%, but to be fair K or G should be eliminated because we looking at the historical likelihood and either still can then it is 20%.

Additionally, excluding Kerry and Gore because we don't know yet, only 2 of the 9 remaining losers even tried to win the nomination. So, of the losers who tried to run again the percent that got the nomination was 100%

And another way of looking at it is that when a candidate ran who previously lost - they win 50% of the time. (Which is exactly the percent of people who are nominated who win each election :))

So, if you are impressed by this splendid analysis made on far too little data to make sense, it looks like a losing nominee who makes an effort to get the nomination has an excellent shot of getting the nomination and a 50/50 shot at winning the Presidency. Throw in that it is likely a Democratic year and Kerry and Gore should be in good shape.

[JanusAscending]

91. Gee guys, we have two "seers" here on DU now!!

You and BlueShark!!! Happy, happy, joy, joy!!:sarcasm: Oh,....whatever. We'll all see when it happens:rofl: (or doesn't?)

[Solo_in_MD]

100. Many many more than that...

Its all about opinions and perception. and at least in my case, its well meant. I don't have anything against Kerry or Gore, but it is very unlikely either could be elected. Last time there was a repeat was Nixon 45 years ago. My estimation of the American voter is that a retread will not make it these days.

[Kerry fan]

107. And didn't Reagan try 3 times before he got nomination?

[Totally Committed]

102. I think Kerry would have made a very good President...

and I'm not even a huge fan. He is tremendously intelligent, charismatic, and I do think, feels for the common American whenever he can. Compared to what we have sitting in the Oval Office today, he would have been light years better. He's not the public speaker Bill Clinton is (but, then again, few are...), and he doesn't have Bill's "I feel your pain" song and dance down quite so pat, but I think he would have been as good a President as Clinton.

That having been said, we needed a real fighter... someone with the judgement not to allow the people pulling his $$$trings to make decisions about his campaign, his image, and his behavior that were catastrophic.

The issue was never that he wouldn't make a very good President, it was who he was willing to allow to call the shots and thereby tie his hands. He wanted the candidacy enough to do everything he had to to get nominated, I just wish he kept that bare-knuckles approach during his campaign. We needed to have a Democrat in that White House these last several years.

TC

[karynnj]

119. Thanks for the kind comments

I agree that he doesn't have Bill Clinton's "I feel your Pain" or Bill Clinton's way of changing his accent and tone of speech for different areas of the country. But I think Kerry is by far the more sincere and genuine of the two men and over time, had Kerry been President, that would have showed. The surprising thing is that some of your fellow MA people have said that he has become much better at showing the real feeling and emotions he has.

As to speechs, Kerry at his best has an eloquence that Clinton never approached. Clinton mesmerized almost more than inspired. You have to think very hard to remember a single line of any Clinton speech. Now, if you said RFK or JFK - you'd have a better argument. If you have time to listen to one Kerry speech (as background to other things you're doing) listen to the American University speech on johnkerry.com. Kerry speaking from his heart is pretty good.

[Totally Committed]

123. JFK and RFK were a brand of candidate not often seen today...

their speeches didn't pull punches. They said what they believed. They didn't have advisors telling them to "tone it down" or "play nice with the other side" -- and if they did, they would have had the balls to tell them to f*ck off. I believe that. I think it would have been unfair to compare Kerry to either of them. Clinton, though, had that "common touch" that supposedly a candidate needs to be elected today. I think Kerry, if he hadn't played by others' rules, could have shown that. And, I do believe he would have been a good President. I'm just not sure he had the necessary killer instinct to go after it with his whole heart.

Nobody better say we wouldn't be 1000 times better off today if he was POTUS. That would be a lie. Even I will grant you that. And, you're welcome.

TC

[blm]

133. The irony in that is Kerry has been in the position where he has actually

killed out of necessity to protect the lives of others, probbaly more so than about any other Dem who has ever run for the office.

He HAS the killer instinct when necessary, but probably didn't think that the media was so complicit with his opponent and his lying support groups at the time that he would have to deploy it. I'd say the Dem party needs a media monitoring component - and they needed it YESTERDAY.

[Totally Committed]

134. I agree totally about his not knowing the media was as complicit

as it was with Bush... I agree totally. The point is, maybe he should have. And, when he found out, he shouldn't have been as polite about it as he was. Just my opinion, of course.

I'm just getting tired of these crazy-ass posts. You don't think Kerry should run again... say that. You don't think he fought hard enough... say that. Thought he was the wrong candidate from the start... say that. But, you don't think he would have been a very good POTUS?.... get your head examined. ALMOST every one of the Democratic candidates who ran in the primaries would have been a better POTUS than Bush. ALMOST every one. Only Lieberman, I think, would have come close to the positions and war-mongering that we have seen with Bush/Cheney. That having been sid, I doubt Lieberman would have been anywhere near as corrupt.

We need to get real about this.

TC

[karynnj]

145. I'm not sure - there was a huge shift in the news media

and I don't think it was that obvious at first. Maybe because it happened gradually. Looked at over time - it amazes me that people who wouldn't have been allowed outside hate radio are now on cable TV and the right is still saying there's a liberal bias.

By the time Kerry saw how extreme the tilt was, was likely when they spent the month of August playing with the SBVT. Kerry suceeded in nearly tying things up with the debate. It may have been that he felt that reacting in any way other than being his usual polite self would backfire - converting a close election to a disaster. I also think that, with his well mannered politeness, he was able to hit Bush on more issues more often than would have been the case if he didn't always sound so reasonable.

[WildEyedLiberal]

149. Exactly

When it comes right down to it, ANY Democrat would make a better president than ANY Repuke. Some would undoubtedly be better presidents than others - Kerry would be a strong leader, whereas Lieberman, as you pointed out, would likely continue a neocon foreign policy. But any of them beats any goosestepping fascist Republican tool.

:hi:

[karynnj]

111. What if he is better qualified than any one else

2008 should be a much easier year than 2004. I seriously don't think any of the other contenders come close to Kerry. I know others disagree. That's why I support Kerry. If there are enough of us who feel that way, he can win the nomination. In another thread, a person - not from the Kerry group here though she/he sounds like us saw Kerry this weekend in Ohio. She also saw him in 2004.

From her comparison, you can see that he has learned a lot since 2004. His service record is seen by all but the RW lunatics to be the heroic honorable record it always was. There is no scandal in his long public career. There was a reason Time designated him the most honest man in politics in 1996. He is working at eliminating perceptions of problems. All these things make him stronger - and he nearly won with nearly every societal force against him in 2004.

Here's a quote:
What a difference! During the '04 campaign, I would scream at TV when I heard Kerry speak, "Speak from your damn heart....stop listening to your dumbass advisors."

Yesterday, he spoke from his heart and people were just awed. He was honest, funny, approachable, kind, smart, caring....everything everyone would want in a President. He even admitted to making mistakes.




http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2637642&mesg_id=2638608


PS You can't have nostolgia for something you never had. :( I can only imagine a President Kerry and First Lady Teresa.

[iilana X]

143. Don't count on it. He's got a damn good chance.

He has a better shot of winning than any of the others. Hillary is the only one who can challenge him for the nomination and she knows she can't win if she gets it. Gore is popular at the moment because of his environmental film but the country has a lot of other problems that need someone capable to handle. He won't get much support from liberals when they bring up all that censorship stuff that he and Tipper did. Who else are we going to nominate? Russ Feingold. That will not happen for a number of reasons. Wes Clark. Nope. Not a chance. Edwards? He didn't even carry his own state last time out. If you think Kerry is a loser, remember he beat Clark, Edwards, and Dean.

All this is speculation. What really tells me that Kerry has a good chance is the republicans. They are still attacking him because he's a threat. A big one.

[LittleClarkie]

86. Then cough up somebody you like better

As for me, he's my guy. Whatchagonna do.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, I'd still like to get through 2006 first.

[AtomicKitten]

96. I agree --- full steam ahead to success in the 2006 election

and if I haven't mentioned it more than 1,000 times, Al Gore would have my support in 2008.

[LittleClarkie]

124. That's cool. If he wins the nom, I'll support him.

May the best person win.

[JanusAscending]

97. AMEN AND ALLELUIA!!

You're so right on!!

[NI4NI]

112. After the man got swiftboated, his character impugned,

was lied about and attacked by every right-wing nut on radio and tv for months with the help of an unchallenging ass 'Lican MSM media, (the same with Gore) Kerry still got more votes than any other presidential candidate in history except for one. Tragically for America, it was "W=WORST" Senator Kerry's opponent, the lyin' moronic cocky war mongering coward who 'til this very day has never successfully accomplished anything worthwhile on his owm accord or intellect except for deceiving and threatening so many average but bamboozled Americans who are paying attention now. IMHO, I believe Kerry can get those same votes again plus plenty more, at least I hope so.

[WildEyedLiberal]

130. Lame lame lame

Your "argument" is weaker than a nerd at a weightlifting contest. The "public perception" of Kerry has been influenced by the "media," ergo, he shouldn't run? The implication, of course, being that the "public perception" of ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT would somehow NOT be influenced by the media.

To which ludicrosity I have only this reply: HAHAHAHAHA! :rofl:

Methinks someone is just getting a wee bit jealous at all the positive attention Kerry is receiving on DU. "Don't support him for president, you guys!!!!" I can almost hear your voice increasing in pitch as you type out what amounts to be a big whine about the fact that people - gasp - STILL think John Kerry would be a magnificent president. Seriously - get over it.

Besides, I seem to recall you being a staunch advocate for Howard Dean, who, according to most of the country, is an unbalanced, shrieking nutcase. It doesn't matter if that's not true - it's the "public perception created by the media," so that's all that matters, according to your logic. :eyes:

[TayTay]

131. This is your opinion

The people who want him to try again hold a different opinion.

That's all it is. The 'flame wars' come when the respect for those differing opinions isn't there. There are Dems who I don't think should be running for Pres. So what? If they have the money, the supporters and the will to run again, then let them run. It will be sorted out in the primaries.

If Kerry gets enough of the above, he will make a good run. If not, he won't. The flame wars start when people feel they are being told what do. (And this is a two-way street.)

This is also an imponderable. It is nice that you hold Sen. Kerry in high regard. The fact that he has such vocal supporters who want him to run again will have to remain one of Democracies little mysteries for you. (Hey, I can't understand some people's choices either, but I respect their right to make them.)

[Blaukraut]

135. On the contrary

No other former candidate pondering a second run is met with as much resistance and venom as is John Kerry. What is curious, is why so many people are so invested in trying to dissuade those who do support another Kerry candidacy. No such effort to sway Gore- Clark- or Edwards supporters is evident. All three of them lost, as well. Two didn't even make it past the primaries and, arguably, mistakes were made by everyone of them. So by your logic you should blanch at the thought of either of them running in '08, too.
In the end, we all will make our choices the democratic way - at the ballot box, so you may want to keep those smelling salts handy, in case all your blanching causes you to faint.

[saltpoint]

136. All the potential Democratic candidates qualify for the top job

according to the provisions in the U.S. Constitution.

That's one starting point. On the Republican side, it leaves out Arnold Schwartzenegger, thank god. All of our people make the cut.

Next they're going to need some cash. That's another kind of on-going component to a successful run. It's not fair, because in most of the years of my life, Republicans had all the money they needed and Democrats had to run bake sales and tag sales to barely compete.

Also it helps if their grasp of issues is good, if not excellent. Excellent would be better than good, and good would be better than poor, etc. Who knows what got into Gerald Ford during the foreign policy debate with Carter, but whatever it was, it wasn't effective. A lot of folks of Polish ancestry likely stared at their tv in stunned offense to learn from Ford that Poland was not under the thumb of the Soviets. But then, Ford was a Republican, so there you have it.

For me, command of language in a candidate matters a whole lot. It is absolutely painful to watch History Channel re-plays of speeches of John Kennedy and then realize that a man with the brains of cole slaw is sitting in the same office Kennedy occupied. There are speeches presidential candidates and presidents make over the course of our nation's history that are not unlike spiritual covenants, and they serve as watermarks for our sense of national identity. Bush is defintely not up to this task, so our people really have to be good at this, if not great at this.

And for each of us as individual voters and staff workers and volunteers for a given candidate, it is always preferable to feel aligned with the candidate on the issues. We each have our limits. One vote goes awry, most of us are still in. Two votes, still in. Even three or four. At two dozen, it's clear we need to swap campaigns, but for the most part my guess is we are a hell of a fiercely loyal bunch. And 06 and 08 are going to be bluer than the Republicans think they are.

Those are just starting points and frames of references for candidacies. I personally don't see anybody among the potential Democratic 08 presidential candidates who doesn't fit these criteria.

Individual favorites aside -- and the caucus and primary totals will sort that out beyond our individual control -- our team's better than their team, and praise is due to all.

[mtnsnake]

138. The reason he gets so much support is cuz it's a smoke screen for Hillary

You see, most people deep inside are pulling for Hillary, but they just don't want to let the secret out of the bag yet, so they're making like they're pulling for Kerry in the meantime. Isn't it obvious? :shrug:

[WildEyedLiberal]

139. You so figured me out

The jig is up! Dammit mtnsnake!

:rofl:

[karynnj]

146. We thought we had you fooled

I mean you wouls think that around 88,000 posts on the Kerry group about him would be sufficient to fool most people. Except Kerry really would be a far better President and I prefer Teresa as first spouse.

[zulchzulu]

153. I have videos of Kerry speaking loudly and strongly about the war in 2004

You can't assume that because you weren't paying attention that it didn't happen. As for his position on the war (if you were paying attention), it has been very consistent.

[election_2004]

156. And I don't understand why Hillary does....

Personally, I think Kerry is damaged goods now, in terms of presidential politics.

And Hillary is the Fundies' wet dream in order to GOTV among their base (and not just in the presidential race, but downticket against ALL Democrats!).

Of course, some people seem content to delude themselves into believing there are "magic bullet candidates" in terms of the presidency.