What did Kerry do recently that pushed the anti-Kerry threads?

[Mass]

For a while, these threads intimating Kerry not to run had receded.

For some weird reason that I do not get, all of a sudden, the media and a few posters here have restarted these attacks on Kerry on how he cannot win and how he should not run.

I personally enjoy these articles and threads. If anything, they prove that Kerry is not as dead as it seems. Why would all these people spend time telling us that and wasting our time and bandwith if Kerry was as dead as they think?

Can somebody give me an indication of the sudden urgency?

[Quantess]

1. yes, it's all a big conspiracy.

Anyone saying Kerry shouldn't run in 08 is a secret freeper. :eyes:

I myself was wondering why so many people were posting that Kerry should run in 08.
(edit for spelling)

[Mass]

2. Who said you were a freeper? I did not.

I was asking why people who think he has no chance of winning spend so much time saying he should not run?

I do not think the people who want Kerry not to run are secret freepers. I think some are certainly supporting other candidates. I was just asking the question why he should not run, by opposition to why you would not support him.

[Quantess]

11. Sorry, I got defensive there.

Honestly, I am scared to death at the thought of Kerry going against the Republican opponent, whoever that will be. I just don't want Dems to lose again.

Kerry is great in his own right, very accomplished, great Senator, great leader. I am not anti-Kerry. I just want a Democratic president in 08, whoever can win, and win big.

[MH1]

19. So, if Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson could "win big", that's who you'd support?

"whoever can win, and win big".

Given the unpredictability of the future, and the inability to completely know anyone's closet skeletons, I can't understand using that as a criteria.

I want a nominee who will represent me well, and do a good job for the country. Unfortunately, not everyone who sticks a (D) behind their name meets that criteria. John Kerry happens to meet it best (for me), and I haven't seen anyone else convince me that they will be magically impervious to the RW assault (and if they are, I'd have to suspect them as a corporate sellout big-time).

[Mz Pip]

35. That crew

could never "win big" and you know it. You're setting up a false choice.

Kerry was a weak candidate in 2004. The Democrats should have been able to kick Bush's butt back to Texas. Kerry wouldn't take on the swift boaters. He could never give a clear concise answer to a question. He meandered around issues trying to appeal to everyone and ended up coming across as wishy washy.

How hard would it have been for him when confronted by the sleaze of the swift boaters to come right out and say "You are supporting a candidate who never left stateside during the Vietnam War and you're criticizing me for not getting shot enough??"

Kerry played defense entirely too much. Hard to win doing that.

Just MHO.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Uncle Joe]

53. I can't support Kerry because of Skull & Bones

I have read so many threads here at D.U. about the BFEE (Bush Family Evil Empire) and all the dedicated tracking of their misdeeds over the decades. Well other than their names, Skull and Bones is the common denominator they all share, and yet nobody is clamoring for them to open their books.

It's the numbers which I can't wrap my brain around. The last time I checked Skull and Bones numbered somewhere around 800+ total living members. They only choose fifteen people per year to join their highly secretive fraternity. In a nation of aprox. 300 million people, both major party candidates came from this microscopic sized group, the odds of that happening are astronomical, if Kerry were to be elected in 2008 that would mean three out of the last four Presidents came from Skull and Bones! I would just as soon bet my retirement on a power ball lottery ticket as to think this is just coincidental.

Some people will say, hey they're just a fraternity, my answer is how do you know? How does anyone know what they believe? They may believe in world peace, justice for all and feeding the hungry, however if that's the case picking a Skull and Bone as your symbol is piss poor marketing. One thing I know for sure, Skull and Bones: a fraternity at Yale believes in picking future leaders in different fields of occupation and many of them are in high places, but the kicker is they picked three generations of Bush! This in my opinion is a major red flag.

[wisteria]

12. We gave honest and appealing reasons why he should run again.

I don't see many honest and well thought out responses as to why he shouldn't. Many of the negative responses are based on the original lies of the RW and the corporate media.

[mloutre]

24. Wow, thank you for clearing that up.

You certainly answered Mass's query about what might be prompting an up-tick in threads about a particular candidacy with great precision and detail, not to mention an impressively logical and well-reasoned discussion of the facts and possibilities that might address the question posted here.

[mloutre]

27. Ah. Posts that cross and all that.

Your reply about your possible over-defensiveness noted a significant question in many peoples' minds about whether Kerry running as the Dems candidate in '08 could be a recipe for failure. It doesn't necessarily address the question of what he is or isn't doing that makes him a subject of renewed debate at this particular time, but I think you've accurately summarized the sentiment behind that debate. Thank you.

[talk hard]

70. speaking of debate

Or fake debate that is. Sybil? Is that you? This new screen name is 2 months old but you dive right in like you've been here for a long time which you have. Its really sad the Kerry people stoop to bringing in a reincarnation when they need a ringer. You are so busted.

[Trajan]

64. Sheeesh ...

That was an unnecessary leap ....

I am a lifelong Democrat .... I desire ALL Democrats to toss their hat into the ring, so I have the greatest choice, in the end ....

How dare others here try to shovel dirt onto OUR possible candidates in such a careless manner ...

It is one thing to criticize, but the insulting manner in which it is done is sad ....

I am no Kerry supporter, but why SHOULDNT Kerry run, if he has a constituency and the means ? ....

Asking that he NOT run is, in my view, restricting MY future choices ....

Why would you do that ? .. Isnt criticism enough for you ?

[TayTay]

3. Breath n/t

[Rabrrrrrr]

4. Probably he had the audacity to breathe. Or more likely, his face was on TV

and, thus reminded that they hate him which they had forgotten in the absence of his visage, they realized that they ought to start a thread about their hate.

:shrug:

[cali]

5. It's a logical fallacy to link

a spurt of threads imploring Kerry not to run with supposed fear of his strength as a candidate. Having said that, hard core detractors of any said candidate, as well as rabid supporters, all have axex to grind.

[Mass]

7. SO, why do they ask him not to run if he cannot win.

Can somebody tell me? It seems kind of a loss of time, IMHO.

[cali]

31. I'm not sure but I think

it has to do with smoldering resentment over not winning in 2004. Fair or not, stolen or not, that's the way a lot of people seem to feel. As for the press, some of it's just an affinity for snark. Look at the headline they had today about Edwards' announcing in NO. It's not relegated to Kerry.

Personally, I think that anyone who wants to run, should go for it. I don't see Kerry winning the nom, but hey, it's his decision.

[wisteria]

6. My guess, he is a threat to the Republicans and to some Dem's a

threat to their candidate's chances. Just my guess.
Obviously, he creates a lot of interest.

[MrCoffee]

8. that could be a fill-in-the-blank question and be equally valid

What did _____ do recently that pushed the anti-______ threads?

Personally, and for whatever it's worth, I think that the "_____ shouldn't run" vibe is shocking in here. I thought it was bad when it was directed at Holy Joe, and I think it's much much worse when directed at actual Democrats.

[skypilot]

9. My take on it...

...is that a lot of people didn't really care for him the first time around. I know he's done a lot of good things but people were just underwhelmed by him as a presidential candidate. I worked a phone bank during the 2004 election and when we were all getting our orientation the supervisor asked everyone how many of us were voting for Kerry because we wanted to get rid of Bush. Everyone raised his hand. She then asked how many were voting for Kerry because they really wanted him as a president. Not a single hand went up.

[Mass]

13. I cared. Many others cared.

You may not care, but that does not make it a generality.

[skypilot]

14. Just changed the post to say....

"a lot of people" instead of "no one". I simply worded the post poorly. I wasn't trying to make any generalizations. And I didn't say that I or other people "didn't care" I said they didn't care for him as a candidate.

[MH1]

21. Hmm, I never phone banked, I canvassed.

Many people I canvassed with were enthusiastic in their support of Kerry. (Not just anti-Bush).

:shrug:

[janx]

10. Probably nothing.

But it is a mistake to assume that "anti-Kerry" threads appear because of some superior strength Kerry has.

People are just tired of hearing about him.. They're very disappointed at what happened in the last general election.

[ProSense]

15. They're tired of hearing about him, so they start multiple threads about him?

:crazy:

I'd say it's because despite the perception the media is trying to create, and despite the noise from detractors, deep down people realize he set the bar high for debate, votes, fund-raising, loyal supporters, etc. Hell he might have a time besting his own record!


On edit: He also has been very effective driving the debate on Iraq.

[janx]

18. OK, then you have said it.

Some people will agree with your opinion while others won't.

[talk hard]

58. and that's the problem

they can't let it go if people dont' agree with them and they get nasty about it

[KoKo]

29. It opens wounds that are still raw about '04. Plus his apologizing for his

Bush "joke" (wasn't a joke because what he said was true) or covered as a joke. He shouldn't have apologized and the DLC Dems shouldn't have asked him to stay away from supporting our candidates. I know Kerry denies that "some Dems" told him he needed to stop campaigning for them...but I saw many posts here on DU that said he was a "liability."

He shouldn't have apologized. It made him look weak and allowed the RW to get their yucks out and some of the DLC Dems to tell him to "back off."

He has made mistakes like that in the past, like when he had to apologize for making another comment about Bush during the '04 campaign when the mike was supposedly off.

Don't need Dems who apologize for making comments about any of the Bush Crime Family.

Otherwise some folks here are pushing for their own candidates by belittling others. Maybe a combination of both.

:shrug:

[Mass]

17. No superior strength. Just the fact that it is strange that people care

so much about somebody who does not have any chance?

In addition, I did not see that many proKerry threads recently. I could understand anti-Kerry threads in reaction of too many pro-threads. But recently, there has not been so much.

So why bring the subject.

[janx]

20. I don't think they do care, really. n/t

[Mass]

22. So they start threads because they dont care?

[janx]

26. Threads? I only see one thread, and it's not neccessarily

anti-Kerry; it's just an opinion stating that the poster would rather Kerry didn't run again.

[JacksonWest]

16. Ted Kennedy made public comments about supporting other candidates

if Kerry doesn't announce his intentions soon. Thus, people expect Kerry to make an announcement one way or the other. I believe Kennedy made his comments last week. that would explain the urgency in the threads.

If it makes you feel better, I will guarantee that Kerry won't get the nomination this time around, whether he runs or not. He's not a bad Democrat, he's just a lousy candidate. He would not win in 08, and anyone with deep pockets is going to know that. Hopefully there will be a dark horse candidate to offset the already chosen to be chosen crowd.

[karynnj]

34. Obviously he was a better candidate than Dean, Edwards, Clark

and Gephardt. I seriously think that a dark horse would be among the long list by this time. (Clark was later last time but that is very unusual.) Clinton, often referred to as a dark horse had already had a NYT magazine cover a year before now (in relative time).

You can not "guarantee" that Kerry will not get the nomination. There are only around maybe 12 people who have any chance and he is one.

[JacksonWest]

39. I can and do guarantee.

It's up to you to take that at face value or not. I'm just a friendly voice in cyber space, and I will guarantee my credibility and reputation on the fact that Kerry won't get the nomination.

As far as the others being better candidates in 2004-I respectfully disagree. I think Kerry was perceived as the best by the Democratic power/money structure-or was seen as a surefire loss by the hilary in 08 crowd. Not to be paranoid. But his campaign was poorly run, his message muted, and I think Dean, Clark, or Gore would have done better.

[karynnj]

52. If Kerry was preferred by the power/money structure

why did he have difficulty raising money and why did the media mock his chances up until about 2 weeks before the primary? At least be honest and don't re-write history - Kerry acheived an incredible victory in the primaries. He was seen as the best choice ONLY as he won primary after primary.

[JacksonWest]

54. Please choose your words more carefully.

You seem to be saying I'm dishonest and re-writing history by offering an opinion. I have no problem with your point of view. I simply don't agree with it.

Kerry was being pushed by the inner circle before the primary season went into full swing. He had the infrastructure in place. In my opinion. Dean was the fund raising champ, and I believe Kerry was second. Kerry did shatter all fund raising records during this campaign.

I don't recall how much difficulty he had raising money...I just know Dean raised more in a non traditional manner.

Either way, I think Kerry was not the the best choice. I think Clark could have beat Bush, and I think Dean had an excellent chance as well.

[Blaukraut]

23. Mass, it's a paradox, actually

The people calling for Kerry not to run are afraid of losing the '08 election if he becomes the nominee. This is where the paradox comes in. If they are worried enough to want to stop Kerry from running, they must obviously believe he has a chance at the nomination again. If one were to draw a logical conclusion from this, one would have to assume that these people have little faith in any other contender's ability to snag the nomination if Kerry is in the game. But in that case, wouldn't the other contenders' chances at beating the republican opponent be even less than Kerry's?

[zulchzulu]

28. Actually, that is a very good point

You don't see many threads demanding that other candidates NOT run...except for Mrs. Clinton, perhaps. Even that puzzles me. She should run if she wants...it's up to the voters to decide if they want her.

Perhaps people just can't admit that Kerry would be a tough candidate to run against...and hence the over-dramatic calls for him not to run. Certainly, if he was considered a bad candidate, the effort would not be made to try to swiftboat him or use Repig talking points against him.

I could easily rip into any of the other candidates with what I think would be their Achilles Heal issues, but I don't really want to go down that path. Besides, we're still about 6-9 months away from where it really is going to start to count.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[zalinda]

30. Because he's over in the middle east

acting Presidential.

zalinda

[geek tragedy]

32. Probably because of the same reasons that

we're seeing all these threads treating him like he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

He's in the news, and people I guess feel like debating something that can't possibly be resolved here.

[NV1962]

33. It's not about Kerry; it's a premonition of upcoming candidacies and primaries.

There's a slew of "so-and-so shouldn't run" threads. I don't see a specific surge of anti-Kerry threads; everybody who is a potential runner gets caught up in the overall roundhouse kick that go with an itching anticipation of upcoming formally announced candidacies.

[AtomicKitten]

36. probably the spate (5-6) of daily Kerry threads in GD-P

and the lies and BS spewed here, an example of which:

mloutre: Hey! Wait a minute! I thought this was a Hillary thread!

Who the heck went and turned it into a Kerry thread instead, then? WTF!?

Hmm, better go back and read thru all the comments again here to find out how this Hillary thread got turned around into a Kerry thread somehow.

I'll bet it was one of those pesky JK Fangirls that did it, right?

Hmm. Um. Er. No, it says right here that it was AtomicKitten who hijacked a Hillary thread and turned it into YAKT (Yet Another Kerry Thread) instead.

Wow. Better alert the press. *That's* never happened before!

AtomicKitten: oh, so close ... but it was blm post #14 that first mentioned Kerry at 5:06 P.M.

Nice try, though. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to apologize. Takes the edge off blaming to admit you are wrong.

It is truth in advertising to expose the levels to which the Kerry fangirls/boys will stoop to elevate their candidate of choice. They can't do it on merit, they have to bring down all those around him to do so.

That's never happened before more than a half a million times before ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3021449&mesg_id=3021449

[mloutre]

45. nice try, but you're *still* as wrong as ever.

And trying to drag an argument you lost somewhere else into a new venue doesn't make you any more correct.

As I noted in reply to the snarkastic comment you feel constrained to drag over here,

"blm mentioned a specific piece of legislation that Kerry's name happened to be on. She didn't bring Kerry himself into it at all. You're the one that turned it into a Kerry-bashing thread. (More accurately, into a Kerry-supporter-bashing thread.)

"What is up with that, by the way? Do you have some special personal interest in following the folks who you dismissingly call 'fangirls' around and poking them with a stick, no matter what the nominal thread topic is?

"I don't get it. Did one of them step on your puppy or something?"

I still think it's a fair question:

What is your deal, AK, that you seem to feel it's your personal mission in life to attack that crew all over DU? I mean, is the fact that they don't agree with you really such an affront to your dignity or something?

[AtomicKitten]

48. oh, dear ... still in denial

You alleged I mentioned Kerry first; I did not. That's a fact. Changing the criteria for that allegation after the fact doesn't count.

In fact, I was talking about Hillary, the IWR, the DSM, and the completely ornamental Levin-Reid vs. Kerry-Feingold amendments, both of which had ZERO impact although some keep hammering the distinction as if it was anything other than moot.

I would step out on a limb and ask you, what is your problem? I am consistently tag-team assaulted by the go-Kerry crowd here and it is really, really funny that you view yourselves as victims.

Like I said, I'd ask what your problem is, but, I'm not really interested ...

[talk hard]

56. man, give it a rest

The Kerry peole parole this site like police, trash-talking anybody that doesn't blow kisses at Kerry. Nobody is bashing him. People just don't like him and that's okay to have that opinion. Quit stepping in people faces and MYOB.

[wisteria]

66. I personally may disagree with someone's opinion of Kerry, but I

don't trash talk the "genuine' people who have legitimate opinions. Actually, I can think of only one poster I may have trashed talked and that poster is aware of who he/she is and has received an apology from me, even though this person is not genuine and IMO, has another agenda they are out to accomplish.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[sandrakae]

37. He makes them nervous.

Obviously, John Kerry is not irrelevant and should be taking seriously as a candidate or there wouldn't be such a need to bad mouth him so much.

[smoogatz]

38. Simple answers to simple questions:

"Why would all these people spend time telling us that and wasting our time and bandwith if Kerry was as dead as they think?"

Because they're responding to the daily spamming of GD and the Greatest Page with Kerry rah-rah threads, that's why.

[Quantess]

40. Simple is good!

That about sums it up!

[dailykoff]

41. Good and wrong. The pro-Kerry threads are a response to the smear threads,

not the other way around. And the anti-Kerry threads are the ones that crop up at a rate of two or three per forum per day if not hour.

They usually run like this: "Kerry is a great guy, but for God's sake don't let him run!"

And their hidden agenda is usually a lot less hidden than you guys seem to think.

[Quantess]

44. How could advising against Kerry running

possibly be bad for Democrats?

[Mass]

46. This is definitively NOT what dailykoff said.

S ome DUers advising Kerry not to run could have an hidden agenda to support another democrat. My earlier point stands. If Kerry is such a poor candidate, why are you so adamant that he does not run. Just do not support him. Why trying to suppress a voice when we need everybody to share their ideas.

My philosophy for the primary is simple: the more, the merrier. This way, the nominee will not be annointed by the media and the insiders.

This is not only about Kerry. People blasting Kucinich not to run as wrong as well.

[Quantess]

49. Or, maybe a not-so-hidden agenda to support other candidate(s). ANY other candidates.

I, unfortunately, am not paid by anyone's campaign, and I don't have a favorite. I do, however, know with every fiber of my being, that J.Kerry is not the one.

But, maybe your philosophy of "the more the merrier" is good for the time being. After all, it's only late 2006, and it's in good spirit to make all the candidates feel encouraged. Time will tell.

[Mass]

50. Neither am I. I just like Kerry. I also like Gore and Kucinich.

However, even for candidates I do not like, I do not feel it is right to say they should not run. As I said earlier, I may not support them in the primaries, but if they want to run, they should, by all means.

[smoogatz]

47. Ooooh! I love a hidden agenda!

I assume you're talking about the ultra-rightwing, BFEE secret agenda to stop Kerry at all costs, because he's such a badass--as his BCCI investigation proves. Well, that's not my agenda. I think he should run, by all means. What annoys me is all the pro-Kerry (or whoever) astroturfing that goes on here--paid staffers or interns or volunteers or whoever who work for the various candidates who work diligently posting Kerry every press release and then voting them onto the greatest page to create the illusion of netroots support for their candidate.

[dailykoff]

51. As I said, not so hidden.

There are interests being protected that go beyond any single candidate and I see more evidence of astroturfing on their behalf than for any Dem.

[Blaukraut]

42. interesting search results

A search of GDP in all active threads has revealed;

Kerry threads; 36.
Obama threads; 80.
Clinton threads; 80.
Clark threads; 19.
Kucinich threads; 24.
Edwards threads; 40.
Gore threads; 30.

Out of all the candidate threads only the Kerry group has more anti Kerry threads than pro- or neutral ones. So this begs the question; why are the Kerry supporters accused of spamming the fora and the other supporters are not?

[Mass]

43. Thanks. This is what I thought.

Thank you for confirming that.

[talk hard]

57. there is only one negative thread

the rest are the usual ya Kerry threads I've been reading for years from you guys

[Blaukraut]

59. do a search of all active threads in GDP

I did, and these were the results; 36 Kerry total. 9 positive, 13 neutral (issue related, informative), and 15 negative or anti Kerry.
Before you even say anything else; I ran the same search on all other candidates and the results were quite different. If you don't believe me, run your own searches. But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good bashing.

[talk hard]

60. you should look up "bashing" in the dictionary

because you Kerry people sure have no idea what it means - get a clue and then maybe you'll stop whining

[Blaukraut]

61. you just made my point - again

In all fairness, I haven't seen you bash Kerry in this particular thread. What you HAVE been doing is bash Kerry supporters. Did you do that search yet?

[talk hard]

62. I think if you stopped keeping score

and whining, you'd see how stupid all this is. Why do you set yourselves apart from others here? You arent' special either good or bad. You just can't have a conversation with people about politics without taking it personally. You ought to look to youselves to solve any dicomfort you feel.

[Blaukraut]

63. ok, I get it now.

When Kerry supporters defend against negative threads aimed at Kerry(of which there are many more than other candidates') with facts, personal accounts, and relevant links disputing misconceptions and misrepresentations, they're called whiners. When they post positive threads (of which there are fewer than of any other candidate), they spam the fora.
As it were, the total amount of Kerry threads is quite a bit less than Clinton and Obama threads. So explain something to me; are only other candidate supporters allowed to defend their candidate or post positive threads about them?
Other than that, anybody advocating or urging Kerry not to run ought to explain why he or she wants to circumvent the democratic process. And why the urgency that Kerry not run? If he is so irrelevant, why even concern yourselves with him? Use your time and bandwidth more productively, and advocate a candidate you believe has a better chance with positive and informative threads.

[wisteria]

55. Nothing, but speak the truth and support the people. n/t

[against all enemies]

65. It's a reaction to the pro Kerry threads. Kerry is a loser in 2008.

Many Democrats would like to win the Presidency for a change, and running Kerry is a losing proposition.

[wisteria]

67. Oh, well you see, we are out to convince you that you are wrong

and can offer more defense of another Kerry run with a positive outcome than you can offer with any other candidate running right now.

Why don't I see you in other threads posting negatives about other candidates possibly running? If what you say is true, why not let the primaries weed out the unelectable candidates. You may just be surprised to learn that many others don't see your opinion as being the correct one.

[hijinx87]

69. I think it was a number of things . . .

that reminded some people of some prior disappointments and/or
missteps.

for openers, the "bush joke" was a reminder of how badly he can
stumble in the final days on the campaign trail.

and while his denunciation of the RW attacks on his "bush joke"
and refusal to apologize honestly excited the hell out of a lot
of people, his subsequent cave in and apology was a vivid reminder
of his promise, throughout the campaign, to "count every vote", only
to concede as soon as the sun rose after election night.

[Moderator]

71. Locking

Please do not carry flame wars over into new threads.

Thank you.