If John Kerry threw his hat in the ring ~ would you vote for him?

[jillan]

I am watching him right now on C-span 2 give the most brilliant speech on the Senate floor on Iraq.
More brilliant than anyone else who has given a speech over the last couple of days.
He is eloquent, intelligent, and truthful.

I am again reminded of why I fought so hard for this man.

Just a simple poll.
Feel free to comment if you'd like.

[Jed Dilligan]

1. In the GE: of course. Primary? Hell no.

I spent most of his '04 campaign wincing. "I know what you're trying to say John, but THEY don't!"

[beachmom]

2. Nobody is better suited to the job as president than John Kerry.

It would be nice to actually have a statesman as a president. Alas, that does not seem to be in the cards this time.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

14. al gore.

Bill Richardson.
Jeb Bush









(SORRY - just wanted to see if anyone was reading this)

[snappyturtle]

147. Gore, fine. Bill Richardson.......gag.

Jeb Bush......:puke:

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. I don't think he is tough enough

I love him and if he is the Dem I will vote for him. But he should have contested the vote in 2004. I am still trying to get over that.

[MarjorieG]

52. He couldn't contest

The media, Ohio and the Dem Party would have had to support him. Since Dems were waiting for Bill3, thinking was too easy or too hard-so why bother, and media never wanted his anti-consolidation position to allow a fishing expedition, so no contest. Also, there had to be some indication of outcome altering proof to even begin, and we still don't. Irregularities in NM might have helped, but no recount allowed there.

I'm curious about Woodward's mention in his book of Carville's pillow talk with Mary, and provisionals disappeared overnight, or the contention that the election sat on the RNC website. We know that the election did not hinge on rural red, but 11th hour surge in the urban centers, which doesn't pass the smell test. About the time the election shut down because of a bogus homeland security alert, but never investigated.

If you are concerned about elections, please realize that the Holt Bill is not as has been blasted by PFAW and others. No paper ballots and no court supported audit contest. In fact, no audits at all with the electronic touchscreen paper trail. The Holt Bill privatizes our elections, considers Microsoft more important than the public or the Constitution, and the Senate bill is worse.

No candidate now or in 2004 can wave a magic wand and protest without proof. We have more now, not easy to get, still the powers that be dismiss it, but not outcome altering. Polls are now being given a wider margin and used to manipulate storylines of voters to support the money interests of policy. We've been had.

And we lost a great president in 2004 that few understand just how great. Not choking at all, but you had to be very alert and inventive to seek out media appearances. Still not sure how to deal better with that fear-based mentality, but he won, against great odds.

[proud2BlibKansan]

100. Yes I know all about the Holt bill

I have contacted my Congress reps asking them to oppose it.

[nashville_brook]

81. amen.

[kansasblue]

92. I agree. My canidate will promise to fight.

I'd vote for JK in the general. But I think I'd work for other Dem. canidates.

[jobycom]

4. I'd consider him.

Of the top three running, I only think of one as having enough experience for the job. I'd welcome someone to compare her to, aside from Richardson, whose own family might not know he's running.

[peace13]

5. Nope, next time we need a closer! n/t

[Melynn]

146. A-B-C! Always Be Closing! n/t

Coffee is for closers. No coffee for John Kerry.

[DinahMoeHum]

6. He choked at critical moments. I don't want chokers running for POTUS

or any of the campaigns.

:kick:

[wisteria]

89. Give an example. I don't recalling him choking at critical moments.

He seemed tough and ready to fight if necessary. Now, if you are going to refer to the situration concerning the SBV, then you must know that wasn't choking that was a strategy decision that turned out to be wrong. This group was taken out once-in April- and came back in August with a lot more money. One could even say perhaps, George Wahington might of choked once or twice during the revolutionary war.

I personally would trust him to make the right decisions more often than not and he has the background, experience and knowledge to make a fine President.

So who among the current candidates do you think wouldn't "choke"?

[DinahMoeHum]

121. When he asked us for money to fight for vote counts in 2004. . .

and instead of fighting to the bitter end and contesting the results in Ohio, he caved in the day after Election Day.

I asked for my money back - and never got it back.

So, sorry - he had his shot - and he had crappy campaign managers and consultants.
I don't want chokers running for President - or running the campaigns.

:kick:

[DrDan]

130. I feel the same way regarding the contribution

I sent him money.

and he quit without spending his contributions.

And where was the fight over the swift-boaters? Where was his outrage? He just seemed to roll-over and accept it. "Thank you sir, may I have another?"

[Mass]

7. Definitively. Sadly, it will not happen.

[jillan]

8. You never know...

[wisteria]

90. Never say never. n/t

[Jillian]

9. Yes Yes Yes

[Inuca]

10. What about in a nanosecond? n/t

[Lord Helmet]

11. cast my first vote ever for Kerry in 2004

very disappointing. He may be a good statesman but he's a lousy politician. He definitely should stay in the Senate.

[WildEyedLiberal]

13. We NEED a good statesman more than ever

Keep voting for vapid politicians and we'll keep ending up with hollow presidents like Bush.

[Lord Helmet]

16. an ethereal theory - but if you don't win you can't hold the office

it's a stumbling block that he couldn't overcome which is unfortunate.

[wisteria]

91. Actually, Senator kerry was known as a good politician and I think he still is.

Just because you think he lost doesn't make him a bad politician. That 04 race was an exciting and damn close one. Kerry was up against and incumbent war time president who had the media behind him. Go do some research on presidential campaigns during war time. You will find that Senator Kerry came closer than any candidate in our history to unseating a war time president. That wouldn't happen with a "lousy politician". This feat has never been accomplished- yet Senator kerry came closer that any other candidate in history. That is something and he won more voted than both Gore and Clinton when they ran. Some even believe that Kerry actually did win and it was stolen from him in various deceitful and dishonest ways. I lean that way.

[closeupready]

12. No. He's a good man, and I like him,

but he seems too beltway insider.

[WildEyedLiberal]

15. Sorry but that cracks me up

How the hell is Kerry a "beltway insider"? He got mocked by the true "party insiders" in 2006 first when he led the filibuster of Alito and again when he wrote a bill that summer that would have set a benchmark for withdrawal. If the "party insiders" hadn't been so busy mocking him and stuffing their faces up the Republicans' asses, the majority of US troops would be HOME now. Now that same crew of insiders are patting themselves on the back NOW for voting for what Kerry tried to do a year ago. Real profiles in courage they are.

And I'm not even mentioning the ire he drew from Democrats when he probed into the BCCI/Iran-Contra stuff in the 80s. For a "beltway insider" he sure seems to piss off the other "insiders" quite often.

[closeupready]

18. His image, his failure to communicate like us little guys.

He's very wealthy and connected - then, after the election, he basically just gave up. :eyes: (seems to me) If he was the candidate in the general, yes, not in the primary. Same as with Hillary.

[WildEyedLiberal]

21. I guess you dislike those "wealthy and connected" assholes like FDR, JFK and RFK too

They were far far far far wealthier than John Kerry has ever been and they did more for the poor in this country than anyone. Spare me the shallow classism.

And BTW, he's a lawyer, so he knows that to actually overturn election results you have to have proof in a court of law, something the majority of people who whine about him not "fighting" (whatever that even means) seem not to grasp.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

Bush communicates with the "little guys". How well is that working for you? (nt)

[closeupready]

32. Don't play games. You know what I mean.

Kerry's convoluted language was way too overwrought, and made it difficult to understand what his underlying point was. Even someone upthread who worked on his campaign said that same thing, that he/she "winced" listening to him.

By the way, I worked my little ass off for Kerry, so don't imply that Bush's dumbspeak is my preference. :mad:

[karynnj]

36. There were far more times where he was very very clear

and hit things home. I can remember far more memorable things that Kerry said than of Edwards or Dean - and certainly more than anything Hillary or Bill have said.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

40. I apologize if I implied that.

I did not intend to. I'm merely saying that talking to the little guys isn't exactly a good way to judge presidential material.

I do agree, however, that he belabors points far too much.

[closeupready]

41. Okay, right, we agree on that.

He would have made a great president. And who knows, if he became the nominee again, could still. :hi:

[politicasista]

45. Every person has flaws

It's too bad Dems spend more time searching for the "perfect candidate" than using the ones they have to their advantage.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

46. Hey, I voted "yes" in this poll.

I'd take him over anyone currently in the field. Perhaps not Gore, but he's not yet running.

[politicasista]

48. No, it's all good.

I didn't mean you personally. Just people who continue to complain that candidate X doesn't ______________ the way I, I, I, wanted him too is just getting old around here.

Not saying that Kerry or any other Dem is above criticism or disagreement, but at least respond to the facts that have been countered. The poster above seemed to dodged the responses at him/her and instead and go off on you, when you made a good analogy.


I like Gore too. I hope he (and Kerry) would change their minds, but it is looking very unlikely that will happen. :hi:

[zulchzulu]

17. In a heartbeat...

I guess I've given my opinion away...

[fedupinBushcountry]

29. I second that

I like your opinion. ;-)

[politicasista]

19. Yep

I like intelligent people. :)

[welshTerrier2]

20. sure ... if ...

1. he took a real leadership role calling for publically financed campaigns
2. he denounced the Iraqi "Oil Law" for the imperialism it is
3. he called for the cancelling of the WTO and NAFTA and promoted bi-lateral trade instead
4. he called for single-payer health care
5. he called for massive reductions in CO2 output in the near-term through mandatory conservation
6. he called for all US troops out of Iraq by the end of this year and no permanent bases

Get all or most of these and count me in 110%. Kerry's a whole lot more knowledgeable and competent than most of the current candidates.

[WildEyedLiberal]

24. Well, he did write a public financing bill with Wellstone back in the 90s

It got derailed by the shitty McCain-Feingold, though. I'd love to see him reintroduce that, although I estimate it would get about 15-20 votes.

It's also interesting that if the same people who are now patting themselves on the back for voting for permanent benchmarks had supported his withdrawal bill last summer, it might have actually passed and the vast majority of troops would be on their way home now (I think the deadline in the bill was this summer). Reid publicly mocked Kerry for the bill and is now busy acting like this stalwart anti-war leader. He disgusts me.

[welshTerrier2]

30. i always hope Kerry will champion my causes ...

the list I posted includes some of by "biggies" ... I always have hope that Kerry will incorporate more of the themes of the left into his activities. I think there's a natural, unharvested constituency waiting there for him. I'm probably pretty naive. I keep hoping and hoping but I guess that where I'm at is just never going to be where Kerry is at. I sincerely wish that weren't the case.

we're dying here. I heard Kerry's speech on Energy. Politically pragmatic? I suppose. I'm sure no politician. What the Dems just pushed through was woefully inadequate. It's not that they have a free hand to pass whatever they please but they don't seem to even acknowledge that the "progress" they called for is way, way short of what is needed to address global warming. They need to take this case to the American people. Maybe today, the bill they passed was the best they could get; the problem is, without pushing further, they won't get more next time either.

and this "Oil Law" business is a really big deal. it seems unconscionable to me that the US, and bush and cheney, and Halliburton and Exxon et al are trying to steal Iraqi oil. It's corporatism; it's imperialism; it's a violation of international law. Has Kerry even addressed the issue? If not, why not?

Anyway, the bottom line is that I would certainly support Kerry if I could see myself represented in his views and actions. That currently does not appear to be the case. If I'm wrong, I would greatly appreciate any information you could provide.

[bunny planet]

22. I would, but only if Al doesn't run.

[WildEyedLiberal]

25. I keep praying for Gore/Kerry

The "we were right" ticket.

[politicasista]

26. Good ticket!

I like Gore too. :)

[tiptoe]

37. Should be...

The "we were cheated...one fought, one didn't" ticket.

[WildEyedLiberal]

38. Bullshit

But thanks for playing.

[bunny planet]

44. Me too, a dream ticket

or Gore/Feingold

Sigh.

[YvonneCa]

119. Me, too...

...I even have the bumper sticker ready for my car. :7 (I know, I'm hopeless)...

[assclown_bush]

138. Since you are in the mood for reruns...how about Gore/Liberman'08???

:shrug:

[assclown_bush]

139. Sorry, post was meant for the OP n/t

[Eurobabe]

23. Let him stay in the Senate, he's more effective there. n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

27. Not only yes but fuck yes.

He would be the next FDR - you can sense it. His decision not to run is our loss.

I keep hoping now for a Gore/Kerry ticket.

[Bryan]

28. Sadly, no

I have tremendous admiration for the Senator. He's one of our best representatives, and I think he's more qualified than many of our current candidates (and all of the goddamn Republicans).

Pragmatically speaking, though, at this late date in the obnoxiously accelerated campaign schedule, I don't think he'd be able to line up the funding, the organizational talent, or the media mindspace he'd need for a successful run, and if he can't win, we need him where he is.

[karynnj]

34. Actually if the 3 candidates imploded,

only he or Gore could put together a team, raise money and create the platform needed. Kerry actually has the latter as it would be based on the 5 Faneuil Hall speeches And I think at least one other one that was cancelled.

Remember, it would not take him long to get close to at least Edwards in money - because of the money he has and his list.

In reality, I do not think the premise will happen and I do not think he will run.

[LittleClarkie]

31. Every day and twice on Sunday

Where's THAT option?

[Milo_Bloom]

33. Voting for John Kerry made me feel dirty!

I would never pull the lever for a war enabler ever again.

[fedupinBushcountry]

47. What BS

So how dirty are you going to feel this time? Grow up.

[politicasista]

49. LOL!

:rofl: :applause:

[Milo_Bloom]

131. Not going to vote for a war enabler.

I don't have an once of respect for any candidate who helped enable this war... ESPECIALLY the ones like Kerry who obviously voted the way he did for purely political purposes.

[fedupinBushcountry]

134. Keep on being

clueless. You can tell you NEVER really knew what Kerry was like. I guess all those that said or voted against the IWR BUT voted against the Kerry/Feingold bill last summer is in your dirty pack, and I guess you will have to actually do some research to find out who THEY are. Oh and the political purpose can apply to all those running now and saying one thing but who voted against the K/F legislation. Now lets talk politics.

[Milo_Bloom]

136. Hardly clueless

The IWR is a very simple benchmark. Anyone, ANYONE who voted for it either A) Lacks the judgement capable of being president or B) Needlessly risked/wasted the lives of American and Iraqi citizens for purely political purposes.

Any CYA move by any politician after that is MEANINGLESS in this very simple equation.

Now, if you were for the war, or want to forgive that which I consider unforgiveable, that is your call, but keep the feigned indignation to a minimum, because the only thing I actually consider clueless is making excuses for someone's actual voting record.

[fedupinBushcountry]

141. Listen

War was the LAST RESORT in that resolution and 70% of the American people were for Inspectors in. I was never for the war but I was for Inspectors in and the diplomatic solution, I guess in your mind that was not a part of the IWR and those were not viable to end Bush's idiotic march to war.

In fact the Inspectors in was working and then Bush had to spin some more and another reason for his lunacy and lies continued. This is one man's war and no matter what the vote he would have gone no matter what ANYONE did or said. Believe what you want and stay clueless because you have fallen for the spin of that vote. I never did and it was not even a consideration in the last election because I knew who took us into war and that is the lunatic in the WH.

EOM

[Milo_Bloom]

142. Can we stop telling this lie?

"War was the LAST RESORT in that resolution and 70% of the American people were for Inspectors in. I was never for the war but I was for Inspectors in and the diplomatic solution, I guess in your mind that was not a part of the IWR and those were not viable to end Bush's idiotic march to war."

The Inspectors had NOTHING to do with the IWR. Nothing. Zilcho, Zippo.

Iraq agreed to the UNCONDITIONAL return of the weapons inspectors on September 16, 2002, nearly 1 full month BEFORE the idiotic IWR vote.

The IWR had nothing to do with inspectors or getting them into Iraq.

The only spin I am seeing is the apologist trying to explain how people like Kerry, Clinton, Edwards and the rest of the enablers didn't know or understand what the resolution was or somehow didn't know that Iraq had already agreed to the unconditional return of the inspectors. http://www.un.org/av/photo/sc/sept1602.htm I guess they missed the UN report.

Sell clueless somehwere else... you want to make up apologies for the likes of Kerry, have at it, but don't expect those of us who followed the march to war and actually know the dates things happen to forgive the enablers for their vote.

[fedupinBushcountry]

144. Lie?

Asked why Iraq had accepted the resolution after so adamantly opposing the idea, Mr. al-Douri said it was "the right time to give the answer right now."

"We choose always the peaceful ways and means," he continued. "And this is part of our policy, vis-à-vis to protect our country, to protect our nation, to protect the region also from the threat of war, which is real. And everybody knows about it."

Similar comments were made in Baghdad, where a television announcer, reading from an Iraqi Foreign Ministry message to Mr. Annan, said: "We would like to inform you that we have decided to deal with the resolution 1441 despite the bad intentions included in it.

"We are ready to receive inspectors to carry out their mandate in making sure that Iraq has not produced mass destruction weapons while they were absent from Iraq since 1998."

Following the Iraqis' statements, United Nations officials in Vienna said that the first weapons inspectors would leave for Iraq on Monday.

The Security Council unanimously adopted the resolution last Friday after months of diplomatic lobbying by the Bush administration, which had threatened to attack Iraq if the United Nations failed to act.

http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/11/13/iraqacce.html">November, 2002

I don't lie.

[Milo_Bloom]

150. Lie, Spin, call it what you want.

You can buy into the spin from the enablers all you want.

The fact that Iraq agreed to the UNCONDITIONAL return of the weapons inspectors nearly 1 month before the Iraq vote doesn't change.

Keep on spinning to make yourself feel better... I'll stick to reality.

[fedupinBushcountry]

151. Your reality

Talk about spin.

[Milo_Bloom]

152. No spin, just facts.

Iraq agreed to the unconditional return of inspectors on September 16, 2002.

The IWR vote wasn't until october.

A bunch of cowardly politicians have tried to use the inspector excuse to explain away their vote. You bought into and repeated the spin.

That's reality.

[wisteria]

93. Wow, aren't we pure! n/t

[tiptoe]

35. He speaks well, but did he fight against the election fraud that cheated America of Prez Kerry?

America is literally being assaulted by anti-Constitution, anti-democracy traitors, murdering war criminals and plunderers of the US treasury. The price America and the world are paying for subversives of democracy and destroyers of CIA counter proliferation operations (nuclear weapons) by traitors led by a buffoon-relative of a Nazi facilitator is too too much to excuse Kerry for conceding election 2004 as he did.

I voted for him...and I'd do it again -- obviously...no hesitation -- against any neocon.

But Kerry won by a landslide (if he'd begun digging for the truth; he had the money) and then...conceded "honorably" ... quickly ... against even the counsel of Edwards. Something's not right -- perhaps even suspicious -- about that attitude...especially given the research info that was immediately developing on the Internet, indeed right here at DU (see below).

Despite his heroics in Vietnam, something doesn't sit right with me about his Skull 'n Bones connection.

[karynnj]

39. Kerry spoke out on election suppression and problems with the machines

in 2005. Edwards DID NOT. At that time, Kerry took the ridicule for doing so. He spoke in Boston on MLK day in 2005 and was criticized for speaking of this issue on MLK day. He marched in Boston in the Fall of 2005 with John Lewes when this was an issue spoken of. He also gave a very strong speech in the Senate where he immunerated observed problems. (Boxer spoke after him and gave him a huge amount of praise.) Teresa Heinz Kerry spoke of the problem of having machines that could be manipulated and was trashed by the media.

Edwards raised the issue in late 2005 or early 2006, only on blogs - never in the MSM. Then Elzabeth wrote an ambiguous few pages that on the blogs were taken to mean he wanted to make a full blown effort in 2004, but in the MSM were taken to mean far less. If he had proof the election was stolen, he needed to speak about it. In fact, the likelihood is that the truth is what Kerry has said - votes were denied , but often in ways that were not illegal or couldn't be proven.

[wisteria]

42. Without a doubt or a moments hesitation. n/t

[MrCoffee]

43. Not in the primary

Were he to win the nomination, i'd just have to "hold my nose and vote (D)", i suppose.

[Vinca]

50. No. We fought for him. He folded his tent. nt

[MarjorieG]

53. He didn't fold, but couldn't contest. See my post above. Tx

[barack4prez]

51. I wouldn't vote for him if he threw his whole head into the ring.

[PresidentObama]

54. The obvious answer is yes--but I find this thread troubling.

Troubling because these "Should Kerry Run?" threads always turn into Kerry trashing, flame wars, and they never pan out in an educated debate about one of our better leaders in Congress.

[politicasista]

55. I know what you mean

positive Kerry threads ignite into flamewars in less than an hour. Go figure. :(

[LWolf]

56. No, thank you.

One vote I didn't want to cast was enough. I wouldn't do it again.

[BlueIris]

57. Where is the "HELL, yes" option? Really, pirhana,

I expected better from you.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

58. I still have my Kerry sticker on the car

really, he deserves our support, whether or not he's running.

[Hippo_Tron]

59. He's damaged, Americans don't give people who lose a second chance

Nixon did it but in an era with much different media. Gore only might have a chance at it because people know that the election was stolen from him.

[rosesaylavee]

69. The 2004 election was stolen as well. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

76. It very well may have been, but most people don't believe it was

Plus even if it was, Gore won the popular vote and while it is possible that voter fraud was rampant enough for Kerry to do the same, it is hard to make that case.

[rosesaylavee]

79. Not hard.

Visit the election forum sometime and read up on 'election fraud' rather than 'voter fraud' (the latter being a rw spin phrase.)

Ohio and Florida were stolen in 2004.

[Major Hogwash]

153. I agree, it's not a hard argument to make at all.

Just look at Colorado - every Democrat that ran for office won. Practically.
The state Democrats as well as the Democrats who ran for national office.

Yet, Bush somehow beat Kerry in Colorado?
I don't think so.

That would mean that voters in Colorado went down the ballot and marked Democrat, Democrat, Democrat, Democrat, Democrat, Democrat, Democrat, then Bush.

What bullshit!
That isn't even believable.

Colorado not only voted a Democrat into the US Senate, they voted almost all of the Democrats on the ballot into the state Congress to take control of Congress in their home state.

I have a lot of relatives that live in Colorado.
And most of them thought that Kerry would carry the state.
The local polls had Kerry ahead the weekend before the election.

They can't find very many people who will admit that they voted for Bush now, however.

[wisteria]

94. Oh please, others have lost races and come back to win. n/t

[fujiyama]

60. No

I like him.

He's a great senator.

He would have likely been an amazing president.

But he had his chance.

[IndianaGreen]

61. John Kerry has been exemplary since he got rid of Bob Schrum and his '04 advisors

Kerry was right to filibuster Alito!

Kerry has been at the forefront of the fight to restore our freedoms and end this horrible war.

[MonkeyFunk]

62. No

I don't think he did a very good job last time.

[bobbolink]

63. Besides disappointment in his handling of election night, I will vote my ISSUES this time!

And the ONLY one with a strong stand on poverty is ...

JOHN EDWARDS.

:bounce:

[politicasista]

65. Putting down someone while promoting your candidate

Does not help Edwards. Seems like a very shallow excuse to bash someone while promoting your candidate I think. What has he said about election fraud or counting the votes? Have any links?

[karynnj]

95. If you do a search on the word "poverty" in the Senate record,

for the years they were both there, there are more hits for Kerry than Edwards.

Edwards voted for the bankruptcy bill in 2001, Kerry voted against it. Kerry also promoted the microloan program and other programs in his Small Business Committee. Kerry also was the Senate sponsor for decades for Youthbuild, a program he was involved with since his days as a prosecutor. This program helps minority youth gain skills and finish school.

Edwards was a pretty centrist DLC Democrat in his 6 years in the Senate. Edwards' committment to poverty is of pretty recent vintage in comparison to Kerry's.

[LordJFT]

64. I'd rather vote for massachusetts's other senator

[bigwillq]

66. Not in the primary

I would in the GE if he ever became our nominee again.

[MrSlayer]

67. If he got the nomination again I would.

I didn't vote for him in the primary last time and I probably wouldn't next time but if he got the nod he'd get my vote. I voted maybe in this poll because it wasn't specific as to which election we were talking about.

[rosesaylavee]

68. Yes.

If Gore didn't run and John Kerry decided to throw his hat in the ring, I would vote for him and campaign for him again. He has the intelligence and leadership and vision needed for the job.

[babylonsister]

70. In a heartbeat. nt

[The Gunslinger]

71. Other

As of Today I will vote for NO Democratic candidate unless they are least are a part of attempting to bring the decider to justice after he admitted that his administration committed treason by outing a CIA agent. I will vote for no Democrat that does not stand up and do something. Those that do I will consider.

[politicasista]

73. Good one n/t

[kster]

72. Kucinich, hes the ONLY one that speaks publicly about the counting of ballots.nt

[many a good man]

74. Helluva lot better President than a campaigner

Sorry, but I don't think we'll ever see a President Kerry. Our loss.

[derby378]

75. When push comes to shove, I need to know that my candidate WILL NOT CHOKE

I supported Dean in the 2004 primaries (and caucused for him), but when Kerry clinched the nomination, I worked my butt off for him, and so did my wife. I just don't think that Kerry reciprocated the effort, but instead had that "entitlement" air around him.

[Capn Sunshine]

77. Plus he relied too heavily on his advisors. Hillary has those people now.

These guys told him not to fight the vote count in Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico.
Didn't want to be called "loonies" after all.....
Sound advice, that.

[Cameron27]

78. If Clark or Gore don't jump in, I might...

On just the issues, in a second; as a campaigner this time around, I'm not sure.

[LearnedHand]

80. No, but not because I don't think he's brilliant

I wouldn't vote for him because he CAVED when this country needed him so badly. I could never trust him again.

[PBass]

82. He would have made a good president, but I'd rather look forward than backward.

He also has a stodgey, wonky style that doesn't resonate with voters like a Howard Dean or Barack Obama. Even Hillary Clinton exudes more warmth and personality.

[TankLV]

83. No fucking way - I want a FIGHTER!

Not someone who gives up at the drop of a hat...

[wisteria]

96. You haven't been paying attention! n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

84. With the caveat that he not be gutless and push single payer down our throats

Plus, Teresa Heinz is was one hell of a first woman until Laura stole the position with that trained chimp.

[MrMickeysMom]

85. That came out wrong. I want single payer health care!

:blush:

[karynnj]

98. Though it was never said, I suspect that it would be easier to

transistion from Kerry's 2004 and the 2008 (their was a 2006 Faneuil Hall speech) to single payer than from any other plan.

The reason is a Kerry innovation. Based on his experience on the Small Business Coimmittee, he knew that for a small business, rates exploded if they had an employee with unusual high medical needs. this led to the cost being too great and all the employees losing healthcare.

He proposed that there be a pool to cover these catastophic costs - he put the threshold at $50,000. In essence, that pool was handled as single payer.

Conceptually, the threshold could be lower gradually resulting in the catastopic insurance being the real insurance, with the private companies essentially writing "gap" insurance.

[MrMickeysMom]

117. This sounds interesting, at least it was a plan

Kerry (and others) will remain in the Senate from this point on. I see now a worse version of what Kerry would have possibly offered without a comprehensive review of health care reform.

In fact, I don't see anyone's plan being truly comprehensive and promoting the most cost effective thing- health maintenance- true wellness programs and physician payment based on the welness of their patient (Sicko's interview with that doctor in the UK is an example).

[karynnj]

124. I see what you mean

I also agree that it is good that Kerry is at least stil in the Senate, where he will try pass a bill with catastophic insurance. He is on the Commerce and the Finance committees which compliment nicely the committees (such as Health) that Kennedy head.

[some guy]

86. I voted

for Mr Kucinich in the 2004 primary. I'm still content with his positions on issues.

[smoogatz]

87. I have the same problem with Kerry that I have with Hillary and Edwards--

they all voted wrong on the IWR, which means either they were stupid, they were deluded, or they voted to give a moron like Bush the authority to invade Iraq out of sheer political cowardice. None of them are stupid, none of them are crazy, so the third option takes the kewpie doll for all three, I'm pretty sure. Also, I agree with the poster at the top of the thread who said that he/she winced through the campaign--I found myself feeling that Kerry's timing and emphasis were always off, as though he was reacting to Bush (albeit very slowly) the whole time instead of taking the initiative. He was also maddeningly equivocal on key issues and at key moments. Very frustrating to watch--I'd just as soon not go through that agony again. As for the post election fight--I think Kerry was late to take the probability of systematic and massive vote-theft seriously, didn't really understand what the red-shift numbers meant, and so lost the opportunity to contest the tabulated results in Ohio and elsewhere. I doubt any Dem candidate will make that mistake this time around--but still, the fact that he didn't get it right away doesn't speak all that well for his ability to react in a crisis. Kerry may ultimately be too much of a gentleman to deal effectively with the current crop of Republo-fascists; in that regard I'd prefer a down-and-dirty street-fighter like Hillary, even. My first choice would be Gore, of course.

[wisteria]

97. If you have to be wrong on a vote I thing it is better to err on the side of protecting our country

and it's people. He voted the way he did based on conversations with Powell,reading intelligence reports and talking with military personnel. At the time, based on what he knew and what he was told he made a decision that would protect this country if necessary. I can't imagine anyone calling themselves a leader voting differently. Actually, IMO those voting against this war back then did so based on gut reaction. They could have been very wrong. Look where Bush's gut reactions have gotten us.

[smoogatz]

109. In what way did Kerry's IWR vote "err on the side of protecting our country?"

If you ask me, it erred on the side of invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, no connection to al Qaida and no WMD. It erred on the side of killing over 3500 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, just so nobody could say that Kerry was "soft" on Saddam again, as they did after his "no" vote on the first Gulf War. I can't imagine anyone calling themselves a leader and making a craven, politically calculated vote like that. A real leader would have voted with Russ Feingold and the 22 other Democrats who had the sense and the courage to vote against the quagmire that's currently bankrupting the nation, breaking our military, destroying out constitution and ruining our reputation. But hey, maybe that's just me.

[karynnj]

110. Kerry has said why he voted as he did

He also spoke up when Bush deviated from what he said he would do. If it were a craven vote to be strong on war, speaking against going to war before it started would have not happened. The combination of the vote and what he said throughout the second half of 2002 and the first half of 2003 is consistent with what he has said - that they were trying to involve the world and to avoid war if avoidable.

He has said the vote was wrong and he as said the wor is immoral. (Even in 2004 as he ran for President he daily spoke of how the war was not a war of last resort - that was saying it was not a just war.) It is easier to see Kerry facing a resolution that was going to win, thinking he could better pull Bush to holding to it if he voted as he did, trusting Bush. The fact is no one had influenece on Bush.

[smoogatz]

114. Giving a speech against going to war and then voting to authorize said war

is not an act of courage--it's a transparent attempt to cover your ass and/or have it both ways. The fact that Kerry now says his war vote was wrong is progress, but it frankly does little to obviate the fact of his complicity in the current disaster. Given the choice I'd prefer to vote for someone who had the judgment and the courage to oppose the war in both word and deed from the outset, thank you very much.

[karynnj]

123. I respect your opinion

My opinion differs on his motivation - it was not just a speech against the war. Kerry was leading voice against Bush unilaterally invading throughout the summer ans early fall. He also was involved in speaking to Bush people, Europeans, and the UN.

I do not think it was a lack of courage or a political move to vote as he did - I do think it may have been an act of hubris, that having (with others) pushed Bush to delay the planned attack for which soldiers were already positioned to go to the UN and to make another attempt to get the inspectors in, he hoped that Senators and the international community would have the strength to get Saddam to comply and that they could avert the war. Bush himself said the vote was not a vote for war. The first part happened - then Bush violated his word.

Kerry in his IWR had enough skepticism that he said that if Bush didn't act as he said, he would speak out - which he did. (I think of the IWR voters, only Harken and Kerry did.) There was at least as much risk speaking out alone before a war than voting on the Levin alternative versus the IWR.

The real problem was that at the eve of the vote, the Senators knew the Republicans had the votes needed. Largely because nearly EVERY Republican was for it as well as several announced Democrats - including Leiberman and Edwards. As Kerry has said it was the wrong vote, but it was NEVER a vote for war except under the conditions Bush promised. It may well be that Kerry thought they would have more standing if they trusted him and then demanded he keep his committments. Whether there was war was independent of how many votes the IWR got.

[smoogatz]

125. I'm aware that that's Kerry's story, and he's sticking to it.

And if it's an accurate picture of his thinking and motivations, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell him because he must be the dumbest fucking rube that ever fell off the turnip truck. The problem is, he obviously isn't dumb enough or naive enough to fall for Bush's "trust me" line. Which means that my theory is more likely true--he tried to cover his ass 360 degrees, and he's been telling his supporters "but I meant well--trust me" ever since. The proof is ultimately in the pudding: Iraq is a disaster on every front, and like it or not Kerry is one of the enablers of that disaster. A hell of a lot of people are dead and the wealth of the nation has been squandered. Now Kerry wants a do-over? Are you fucking kidding me?

[karynnj]

127. Kerry never asked for a do over -

Bush also didn't need enabling. The fact was that he was pushed to get the inspectors back in - something that wouldn't have happened if he hadn't been pushed to go to the UN. Bush actually could have had an amazing victory had he been smart enough to take it. He could have completed the inspections and ended sanctions - which the world was already preparing to do and maintained monitoring on Saddam Hussein. The bragging rights would have been great - and he would have done better for Iraq than his dad or Clinton. This incidently would have been the result if Bush used the IWR as he said he would. Instead they couldn't stop him.

[smoogatz]

128. You're kidding, right?

You really think Bush had any intentions for Iraq other than invading and seizing control of its oil? The boys from Exxon, Chevron and Shell were divvying up the oilfields in Cheney's office the day Bushco arrived in the White House. What do you think Cheney's secret energy meetings were about, for God's sake? Holy Moly. I'd prefer to think of Kerry as a craven opportunist (like most other politicians) than as a damned and damnable fool, which is how you're painting him.

[welshTerrier2]

149. i find this post deeply disturbing

let's take Kerry out of the equation.

I wanted to address several statements in your post.

first, "If you have to be wrong on a vote I thing it is better to err on the side of protecting our country and it's people. and second, "Actually, IMO those voting against this war back then did so based on gut reaction. They could have been very wrong." and third, "I can't imagine anyone calling themselves a leader voting differently."

OK. The first statement that it is better if you're going to be wrong you should be wrong on the side of protecting the country does NOT in any way indicate what course of action should be followed between voting for war or voting to avoid war. My view, before the IWR and the invasion of Iraq, was that destabilizing the Middle East and totally destroying the stalemate between Iran and Iraq would fail to "protect the country." I can't see how you could argue that action, aggression and pro war implicitly "protects the country" while choosing not to invade does not. Wouldn't that be dependent on the situation?

The second statement is also disturbing. I strongly opposed the IWR and the invasion of Iraq. Did I have cold, hard facts or was I forced to apply judgment to whatever I knew or believed? At some point, call it a "gut reaction" if you must, we move beyond the facts to the world of judgment. We ask, "OK, I've seen the "facts"; do they make sense? Am I drawing the right conclusion based on these facts?"

Could my judgment, as you pointed out, have been "very wrong?" I'm no different than anyone else. Of course my judgment could have been wrong. It could have been dead wrong. But I remember posting the following question on DU many times: "Even if Saddam did have WMD, does anyone believe he would launch an attack on the US?" Did you believe such claims by bush/cheney were reasonable? Did you "trust" their motives for wanting to invade Iraq? Call it gut reaction or call it judgment, the script never made sense to me. You had oilmen wanting oil. That made sense. But Saddam Hussein, crushed by years of sanctions, was going to attack the US, i.e. the greatest military power in the history of the world? Credible? That's the point here. Even if all the intelligence and all the WMD stories were true, it never made sense that Saddam would attack us. What made sense, lots of sense to those who understand corporatism and imperialism, was that the people who paid for bush to be where he was wanted Iraqi oil ... and they still do. So, yeah, you got me - I thought my judgment was better than all the experts and all the analysts and all the Senators and all the research and "facts" about WMD. And therein lies the rub. Judgment is not something I dismiss quite as lightly as you have in your post. Suggesting that bush's "gut reactions" were poor does not make a case against wisdom and judgment and "seeing beyond the mere facts."

And finally, we had this statement: "I can't imagine anyone calling themselves a leader voting differently." First, let's recall that a majority of Democrats in the Congress voted against the IWR. Ted Kennedy, Kerry's good friend, voted against it. Does he not qualify as a leader? Perhaps, even with all the transcripts of all the speeches, we can never really know the real motivations and reasoning of why some voted one way and some another. It's more than fair to conclude that public statements are sometimes different from private motivations. To suggest that voting against the IWR was an indication that someone should not call themselves a leader, especially with the added reality that their judgment appears to have been correct, seems to conflate a misguided "better to invade now than to be sorry later" with the type of sound judgment that implies leadership qualities. With leaders with judgment like that, who needs enemies.

[tavalon]

88. Only if I had to

Don't get me wrong. I think he is more than making up for his egregious mistakes with his work in the Senate but that is where he should stay. He is of use there.

[area51]

99. Hell, no.

Not voting for mister "I'll make sure your votes are counted, I've got teams of lawyers." Fscking liar.

[Like It Is]

101. Make up your damn mind!

You don't know who the hell you want!

[jillan]

104. Hi Like it is -

I like Kerry. If he was running, I would have a decision to make.
Kerry and Biden are both strong in foreign relations, both are experienced,
both are true statesmen. They are my two favorite Senators.

I really enjoyed his speech today and was just curious how people here felt.

[flaminbats]

113. it was an excellent speech he gave yesterday..

he knows better than most politicians the price soldiers must pay when politicians are interested only in covering their asses. Kerry is more likely to win my primary vote than Clinton or Obama, and IMO he would have a better shot of winning in November than Clinton, Obama, or Dodd would.

[sandnsea]

102. I wouldn't help his attackers either

The way so many did in 2004, then turned around and blamed him for the attacks when they were the ones attacking him. Yes, Democrats attacked Kerry too.

[smoogatz]

126. Stabbed in the back!

Good gracious!

[ripple]

103. Primary or general?

Primary? Absolutely not.

General: Of course!

[calteacherguy]

105. Of course not. nt

[kerrygoddess]

106. I would and here's why

John Kerry: New Iraq Policy Can’t Wait Until September
July 12th, 2007 @ 10:20 pm

In the wake of the newly released Iraq report, Bush is in a “race against time” in thebattle to preserve his long failing Iraq War policy. On Thursday, the House passsed a measure calling for troop withdrawal by the spring and in the Senate, Senator John Kerry spoke on the urgent need for the U.S. to shift the mission in Iraq to allow a redeployment of troops out of the country within a year. Kerry, who is co-sponsoring the Levin-Reed-Kerry withdrawal amendment, originally called for moving US troops out of Iraq more than a year ago.

Kerry’s powerful floor statement as prepared for delivery on the Senate floor is below:

Today the President made a partial report on Iraq. While it is true there has been some tactical military success—no amount of spinning the military component can obscure the bottom line reality in Iraq today: That reality is clear: there has been no meaningful political progress, and in the long run, that is the only progress that counts. Unless and until Iraqis begin to resolve their fundamental political differences, any security gains will be temporary at best. Welcome, but temporary. Moving the goalposts, dressing up the failure to meet strict benchmarks as “progress”—these are rationalizations for failure, not plans for success.

Meanwhile, another report tells us that while we’ve been bogged down and distracted in Iraq, Al Qaeda has found safe haven in Pakistan and rebuilt its organization. Today, top intelligence officials tell us that Al Qaeda is better positioned to strike the West than they’ve been at any time since 9-11. And where’s our focus? On Iraq. Our continued presence in Iraq isn’t just a distraction from the fight against terrorists—it’s also Al Qaeda’s best fundraising and recruiting tool. We don’t have to wait until September to know that we need a new policy.

Two days ago, I heard some colleagues come to the floor and question why we’re having this debate now when the White House is going to report on his escalation in September.

I heard Sen. Sessions say “This is not the time to alter the policy we established about 2 months ago.” I heard Sen. Kyl say “we need to await the report in September before making judgments about what to do next.” I heard Sen. McCain ask, and these are his words, why “do we have to keep taking up the Iraq issue when we know full well that in September there will be a major debate on this issue?”

I have great respect for my colleagues, I particularly know how much my colleague the senior Senator from Arizona cares about American troops serving in Iraq.

But these questions from the other side of the aisle astonish me. Why now? Why this debate now? Why do we have to, as Sen. McCain asked, “keep taking up the Iraq issue?”

The answer is simple—and compelling: Because American soldiers are dying now. Because the escalation is a failure, now – and we know it. Because when a policy isn’t working, you don’t wait for some artificial timeline to fix it. You fix it now.

READ ON HERE: http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=6231

[Hieronymus]

107. NO .. he was an awful candidate. Would that he had the balls

he once did.

[BlueIris]

108. Oh, come on.

That is the cheapest of all cheap shots ever.

Get creative, man.

[seabeyond]

111. i would vote for him, and be excited about it. unlike i am with current field

i would be thrilled if kerry would run.

[churchofreality]

112. I'll vote for him for Senator again, but thats it.

[Totally Committed]

115. Goodgawd... just kill me now............

Not this sh*t again!

Have mercy.

TC

[Name removed]

116. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NaturalHigh]

118. Not a chance.

It makes my hair hurt to even think of such a scenario.

[YvonneCa]

120. In a heartbeat...

...I would vote for John Kerry. I've never seen anyone (except maybe Al Gore) fight so hard as Kerry has since 2004 for what he believes in.:patriot:

[OregonBlue]

122. He's old news. Time to move on to someone new. Kerry is a great Senator but I

don't think he'd have a prayer.

[DrDan]

129. no no no no no

A worthy senator, perhaps.

Not nearly enough of a fighter to be President.

[AtomicKitten]

132. in the primary - no - but of course I would in the general

n/t

[Like It Is]

133. Biden First!

But if Biden fails, Kerry would be my second choice. But he would have to toughen up and kick the Swift Boaters asses. Also name Biden Secretary of State.

[Blue_In_AK]

135. I would be much more inclined

to vote for John Kerry than anyone else running.

[nam78_two]

137. In the primary :YES, in the GE: of course

He is one of my favorite Dems. If Al were in the race, I would probably pick him over Kerry (mostly because the 2004 swift boat job was so recent and so effective x(), but I don't really have a huge preference for one over the other really.

I hope he runs again at some point-I worked with great pleasure for him in 2004.

[assclown_bush]

140. In the primary, NO; in the general, Yes (but with nose tightly held)

John Kerry seems decent enough, but I don't think he has the political c*j*nes to fight the fight.

[BenDavid]

143. Kerry had every chance to win

in 2004. From the touchy feeling convention and the clamp down on no one speaking bad about bush, to waiting a week or more to answer the swift boat folks....to the sillest damn comment that cost him the damn election....
Reporter: Mr. Kerry, if knowing what you know now about what is happening in Iraq what would be the difference?
Kerry: If I knew then what I know now I would still have voted for authorization.....
I bet many in here do not recall that little statement....

I do thank you
Ben David

[karynnj]

145. and your memory is wrong - that was not the question nor the answer

The question is not recorded and has been recounted differently. Kerry did NOT answer with the "if I knew then" sentence - he gave the standard answer he always did - having not heard the if phrase. That answer dealt with the fact that he would have used the authority differently. That his answer did NOT reference the hypothetical and because it was the same answer he always gave - one that indicated he would have NOT gone to war, it seems highly likely that he did not hear it. he said several times including at the NYU speech that he would not have gone to war.

Consider that he said at least a million times that he would only have gone to war as a last resort and that Bush should have let the inspectors have more time and he should have exhausted the diplomacy.

[Phredicles]

148. Been there, done that, no interest in going there again.