Kerry is NOT interested in being VP

[rox63]

http://www.politickerma.com/jeremyjacobs/281/kerry-camp-senator-no-way-interested-vp

~snip~

Responding to the speculation, Roger Lau, Kerry's Senate campaign manager, said Tuesday that the senator is in no way interested in the position.

"I can't be more clear about this. No. Not interested," Lau told PolitickerMA.com. "The only job John Kerry is running for, contemplating, or considering, is the one he already has as senator from Massachusetts."

~snip~

But Kerry's increasingly large role in the Senate is exactly why he doesn't want a new job.

"This is John Kerry's moment in the Senate," Lau said. "He was just ranked the 12th most powerful senator out of 100. He chairs the Small Business Committee that delivers millions in loans for women and minorities in Massachusetts. He's ranked No. 3 on the Foreign Relations Committee and No. 3 on the Commerce Committee. Barbara Boxer just called him the Senate's ‘go-to guy' on global climate change," he said, referring to the U.S. senator from California.

~snip~

[Super Soaker Sniper]

1. Thank God for that!

Obama does not need that albatros around his neck.

[rox63]

3. Why do you persist in bashing one of the most effective liberal Senators we have?

I figured this news might calm down some of Senator Kerry's rather vocal detractors.

[jgraz]

6. Stating the Kerry would be a terrible VP choice is not "bashing"

It's politics. Many good people are not the right choice for Obama's running mate.

[rox63]

9. Calling someone an "albatross" sounds like bashing to me n/t

[jgraz]

14. The "albatross" would be having a losing presidential candidate on the ticket

It's just a bad move, totally muddying Obama's forward-looking message.

[ProSense]

20. I remember that word when Kerry endorsed Obama.

All the bitter people were proclaiming that his opponents were glad Kerry endorsed Obama. Looks like Kerry proved them wrong, huh?

[jgraz]

27. Kerry's been a great attack dog for Obama since that endorsement.

He even went after Hillary, which I never thought I would see.

I just wish THAT guy had shown up in 04.

[fedupinBushcountry]

59. He did show up in '04

to bad you were in tune with the MSM and didn't find alternate routes to see the real John Kerry. I did and it was the first time since RFK that any politician inspired me and he still does to this day.

[elocs]

10. There are some people who are very, very thin skinned here. n/t

[PresidentObama]

12. Oh I'm sorry, I guess we should let right wing attacks on Democrats fly here.

Criticism is ok.

The trashing and smearing of John Kerry isn't.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted sub-thread

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

[elocs]

36. Here is a for instance:

Thank God for that!

Obama does not need that albatros around his neck.

To which the OP immediately took offense. You may not like the person's opinion, but it is not bashing or trashing or smearing and it is certainly not a right wing attack. There are probably many Democrats who voted for Kerry who might concur with that opinion.

[TayTay]

37. What if you reversed it and said

Thank God for that!

Kerry does not need that albatros around his neck.

Referring to being an Obama VP. I think, under the rules, that might get you banned at DU. If it is nasty to Obama, then why would it be allowed for Kerry, a past nominee of the Democratic Party and current chief surrogate for Sen. Obama?

[politicasista]

38. "Current chief surrogate?" Sounds good!

Go Kerry. Go Obama. :bounce:

[elocs]

40. The key word here is "past".

A lot of pasts get criticized. Ever hear of Bill Clinton?

[ProSense]

44. The key word is current

Senator and surrogate.

[elocs]

53. The continued responses only prove and reinforce my original point:

that there are some people here who are too thin skinned and will not hear any criticism or negative comments about somebody they support without getting all offended by it. And I have not even said anything about Kerry here at all.

[ProSense]

56. The response was to your chosen emphasis.

Did you think that your comment or anyone else's would automatically not generate any responses?

[jgraz]

15. Thin skinned???? I'm not thin-skinned!!! Fuck you for saying I'm thin-skinned!!!!11111

:P

[Super Soaker Sniper]

11. We saw how truly effective he was in 2004.

90% of his votes were "Hate Bush! Hate Bush!" votes and not votes for Kerry. When Clinton appeared on his behalf the first time, it would not have been more embarassing if Bill had just pulled Kerry's trousers down to his ankles in front of every one. He became invisible once Clinton took that stage and he would not have shaken a single hand if he had not approached people first. People who were in line to shake Clinton's hand. If not for the "Hate Bush! Hate Bush!" atmosphere in 2004, Kerry would have gotten a Mondale like spanking. Without "Hate Bush! Hate Bush!" he would have been nothing but voter repellant. How he does in Boston has no bearing in the rest of the US. He is an effective Senator and that is his high watermark. Performance in the Senate does not translate to becoming President. Just like playing great college football does not mean you will cut it in the NFL. Kerry thought he was Emmitt Smith, turned out he was Brian Bosworth.

[beachmom]

13. Care to back that up with actual poll data, Smarty Pants?

[Super Soaker Sniper]

21. Back up my OPINION with data?

Sorry. Just my opinion. It is what it is and those are my views. Of couse my take on the Clinton appearance is just that. I am sure it is archived somewhere, watch it. You would agree.

I knew Kerry was a losing candate when it became obvious he was going to be the nominee. I voted for him but what would my one vote do?

[beachmom]

43. You say 90% of Kerry's vote was ABB. That is either true or not true.

It is not opinion.

[karynnj]

77. Your opinion has numbers?

Actually I saw the CSPAN coverage and Kerry's own speech was excellent. The fact of the matter is that if you watched only Clinton's speech, what did you expect? Clinton was on the side lines when Kerry spoke - and similarly out of the spotlight.

The fact is Bill Clinton beat a President at 33% approval rating. That was the easiest race for a Democrat since 1964 - and at times in the summer, the winner was in doubt in spite of Busj than being below 40 - because of Clinton's flaws. Kerry was against a war time President, with a very hostile press (instead of the press that was overall nicer to Clinton than Bush)and W was at 50%.

Clinton would definately have lost if via a time warp his first run was 2004 - imagine the "some loath the military letter."

[Super Soaker Sniper]

79. Of Course it does!

But only numbers I pull out of my ass.

[karynnj]

82. Maybe you should put that as a disclaimer - letting people know

exactly the quality of your post.

[ProSense]

17. "90% of his votes were "Hate Bush! Hate Bush!" Stop spewing BS.

"He became invisible once Clinton took that stage" Where is Clinton now? Aren't you impressed by how he helped Hillary win?

[Super Soaker Sniper]

23. The dynamics between Kerry and Obama are much different.

People actually like Obama. Kerry had a big likability problem and it carried over into the election.

[ProSense]

28. No he didn't. That's your opinion.

Seems a whole bunch of people did the same thing to Obama in the primary (calling him snotty, elitist, etc.), and even going further are threatening to vote for McCain. These are Democrats?

Kerry still has the biggest email list of them all, despite the drama kings and queens who keep unsubscribing from his list.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

48. That's why he is President now, right? n/t

[ProSense]

52. Did I say he is president now? n/t

[Mass]

60. Well, you stated again and again in other threads you did not like Obama and that you were only

voting for him because McCain was not better.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

66. I never said I did not like Obama

I just do not think he is the best candidate at this time. He has good oratory but he is a green rookie and has made some rookie mistakes. Trying to please everyone for one thing. That is what is behind his shifts in positions. Preaching to the choir is one thing. Preaching different things because they are different choirs is another. No matter what position you take, some people are not going to like it. He is making a mistake by not realizing this.

He seems a little thin skinned at times, most rookies are. Later on, with a little seasoning, he would make a hell of a candidate. At this time, he is just the guy who is gonna have to do.

I never invest myself emotionally in any candidate. Ever. If anything I expect the worst out of any and all of them. So I do see their gaffs and stumbles and I am not blinded by my support for them. I vote and I hope that the guy I voted for does not fuck everything up because they are much more likely to do that than help anything.

[Mass]

67. Can you direct me towards a post where you were supporting really a democrat or a democratic idea.

At this point, each time I met you, you had something negative to say. Just wondering.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

71. I have always stated I

believe Global Warming, but I do not go for the panic. I have posted that I did not think that the First Gulf War was necessary even though I fought there.

I am not a Rah! Rah! type. I do not cheer when there is little to cheer about and what has our Democratic Majority done to cheer about lately?

I base my views on reality which is why I do not put any stock in any hopes of Impeachment. Never have said that Bush does not deserve to be tossed out on his ass. He does. You can look over all 300 of my posts and you will not find anything saying that he does not deserve impeachment. But I see in whos, hands Impeachment rests and I know it is not going to happen.

I have said it before, when it comes to politics, I expect the worst out of everybody and I have not yet been disappointed. My standards in regards to politicians have always been set pretty low and never have they risen to meet them.

Like my dad used to say before he departed this crappy world, "There is a difference between politicians and whores. Whores fuck you and leave. Politicians fuck you over and over and over again."

[rox63]

18. What a steaming load of bullshit!

There were millions of enthusiastic Kerry supporters in the 2004 election. He got more voters than Bill Clinton ever did.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

24. Yeah, okay.

People would stay as long as Bruce Sprinsteen was playing and be walking out as Kerry was speaking. Kerry got Democratic support because the other choice was so much worse. Kerry's only appeal was that he was going to save us from Bush. When you are drowning, you are going to appreciate the one who throws you a life preserver, even if you do not think they are that great otherwise.

[ProSense]

33. Was Bush the other choice in the Democratic primary?

Kerry won it remember? Had higher favorability ratings through it among Democrats than any candidate this year.

[politicasista]

42. **crickets** n/t

[Super Soaker Sniper]

49. *Crickets?* No, I have a life

and was gone for a bit.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

50. Do you even remember the 2004 Primaries?

Kerry won the front loaded primaries and everyone else dropped out. He won a couple of big ones right off the bat and his lead was thought insurmountable by the others and they dropped out. He was chosen as the nominee by a couple of early states.

[ProSense]

51. What does that have to do with his favorabililty ratings? n/t

[karynnj]

80. The primaries were nowhere near as front loaded as 2008

In addition - have you ever looked at the order? Kerry won Iowa getting 38% of the vote - 20% more than the 18% that Dean got. (Edwards was at 32%) Before this Kerry got very little media coverage, other than those specyulating when he would drop out. Nor was it that he had more money - Dean raised $40 million - that he spent entirely in Iowa and NH - far more than Kerry had. Then Kerry beat Dean 38% to 26% in Vt. But that you will say is a neighboring state - which it was for Dean as well.

But, the next step was a series of states that were not promising for a New Englander - in fact, Dean announced that his effords would be directed to later races. The states were SC, OK, NM, AZ, ND, DE and MO. In 1992, these were the types of states that let Bill Clinton become the frontrunner. The media pushed EDwards - there were articles emphasizing his sunny smile in every news magazine. If he was going to win - these were the type of states he needed to win.

In fact, Kerry won the last 5 of them decisively. In OKlahoma, Clark was highest - but it was very close he and Edwrads each had 30 and Kerry 27 - pretty close given the state. Even in OK, Kerry got 12 delegates to Edwards' 13 and Clark's 15 - so this was not a bad showing. Edwrds won SC (45 to Kerry's 30 - Clark far behind.) In reality this showed that people wanted Kerry.

Here's a link to the numbers - because unlike your 90% I didn't make them up!
http://www.rhodescook.com/primary.analysis.html

[karynnj]

78. That is not true - there are plenty of videos

and people did not leave - in fact in Madison WI they did leave with Springstein at the end - when he led them to vote!

[karynnj]

92. Here's a cool video - of Iowa 2004

Kerry is last and has by far the most enthusiastic crowds and is clearly getting the most response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1KTHmM2mzk&NR=1

[jgraz]

19. Remember at the start of Aliens when they killed the first baby alien under the reactor?

That is so you right now.

[ProSense]

22. Look at the OP:

Why do you invest so much energy in negative BS? This has nothing to do with issues, positions, but you feel the need to jump into every thread with Kerry's name in the OP to make crazy analogies.



edited typos

[jgraz]

25. Hey, the guy just poked your sacred cow. He's about to get blasted by all y'all

Just thought I should warn him.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

26. Well, won't have to do it now.

At least Obama will not have this millstone tied around his neck when the tide rolls in. Since you are all for Kerry, tell me, what is it that Kerry would deliver as a running mate that Obama does not already have? The South? Moderate Republicans? What would he bring with him other than the Swiftboaters wanting another shot at him?

[ProSense]

30. Ah, so you

believe the Swift Liars are going to sit this one out? Maybe when the left unites to defend instead of tear down (as they're doing with Obama now) winning will be that much easier.

As for your question about the Swift Liars: I would Obama isn't going to consult them when he makes his decisions.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

64. The actual Swiftboat vets

were all about Kerry. Some other 527 my come up and smear Obama, but not the original group.

Here is my point for being so passionate about this. We have an election to win. That is it. AN...ELECTION...TO...WIN! That is all I care about. Putting an end to the Republican hold on the Whitehouse. I view it within those narrow parameters. Will Kerry win it for Obama? Not in my opinion. Kerry had his shot against a guy primed to lose and blew it. Like I said before, he is Brian Bosworth when it came to the big time. No reason to place him on the ticket out of respect or reverence or "how cool it would be" or anything else. Obama is already starting to catch hell for "redefining" his stances and the last thing he needs is John "This is what I said, but this is what I meant" Kerry.

Kerry won't win it, he should not even be considered.

[ProSense]

70. The actual Swift Liars are

working for McCain and pumping the RNC full of money.

[karynnj]

81. Who the hell is Brian Bosworth?

Kerry has been a very consistent, articulate Senator - thanks for the right wing themes.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

83. Kerry is a good Senator. Not as good a Presidential Candidate.

The Presidency is not for everyone. How many Senators have served since we became a country? How many men have been President?

Brian Bosworth was a linebacker with the University of Oklahoma and one of the greatest college defensive players of all time. He was drafted by the Seattle Seahawks in 1987 and was promptly one of the biggest busts ever. Not worth anywhere close to the $11 Million contract he signed. It was at the time, the largest rookie contract ever in the NFL.

Brian Bosworth's most famous moment was also his most embarassing. Getting mowed down by Bo Jackson on a touchdown scamper during a Monday Night Game.

[karynnj]

84. Kerry would have been an outstanding President

I really doubt anyone could have won 2004 - here is a link to some Iowa footage - conviently at a link that someone else posted on DU. Kerry is at the end - but it has the others who ran in Iowa - it shows why he won - he was far more compelling than the others,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1KTHmM2mzk&NR=1

[politicasista]

87. He was a football player turned actor n/t

[karynnj]

91. Thanks - I knew he wasn't in the Senate!

[blm]

34. Swifts don't want another shot at him. In fact, they're running from the evidence and some recanted

their charges claiming they were lied to by the swifts who recruited them.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

61. You don't think these guys would start all over again? n/t

[blm]

65. Nope - their bogus court case got thrown out. The records that came out matched Kerry's

crewmembers' narrative of that time. The crewmembers have also gathered every filmclip, report and document they all had between them, to counter every lie the swifts told. Pickens reneged on the challenge. And remember, some of those swifts RECANTED and charged that the they were lied to by those leading the efforts.

[blm]

31. Thanks to Bill Clinton, Kerry's most important work in the senate uncovering BCCI was deep-sixed.

Bill sided with the secrecy and privilege of Poppy Bush and his powerful cronies, instead of with Kerry's work for accountability and open government.

Imagine if Americans KNEW MORE about what happened in BCCI - no Bush2 would have been possible, no 9-11 event, and no Iraq war.

But, Bill was always siding with BushInc throughout the 90s and even again during his summer 2004 book tour.

[Canuckistanian]

55. So, Kerry wouldn't have gotten any votes if not for "Bush hate"?

And what's wrong with "Bush hate"? MANY Dems hated the man for what he did to the country.

Bush and his cronies PISSED on the notion of bipartisan cooperation, installed atrocious cronies and started a war based on lies. Not to mention lowering the opinion of the world with a horrendous "with us or against us" foreign policy.

And about Kerry - he never ran a "HATE BUSH" campaign, NOR did he encourage hatred against Bush. So how could he attract the "HATE BUSH" contingent?

And last time I looked, Dem candidates are voted in by a majority of delegates - are you saying that the electorate was dead wrong?

Who was YOUR choice, Super Soaker Sniper?

[Super Soaker Sniper]

68. Nothing wrong with "Hate Bush"

John Kerry almost rode it into the Whitehouse. "Hate Bush!" had a life of it's own and it would have gotten any Democratic candidate a shitload of votes. Kerry may not have encouraged the "Hate Bush!" Agenda, but he underestimated it's influence. He felt that he was unbeatable with "Hate Bush!" and what he had to offer. Exposed his hand and lost. Kerry's loss came down to three things that were all his fault. His "voted for it before I voted against it" statement, his still unrevealed "secret plan" to end the war and his "global test" statement during the debates.

My first choice in 2004 was Bob Graham. But he dropped after a late start and money troubles.

[Canuckistanian]

69. Fair enough

Thanks for the explanation.

:hi:

[karynnj]

76. In addition to your rudeness

You are completely wrong a the CSPAN video of that appearance showed. It was the first time Clinton was out in public in 6 weeks that was noteworthy, but Kerry's own speech was just as enthusiastically received.

Kerry had in fact been breaking attendence records by huge amounts at all appearances around that time - thousands higher than Clinton ever got - without Clinon. The fact is that plenty of people were there to see and hear Kerry and they wanted to shake his hand.

As to trousers, it was Bill's that were the problem.

Look at 2008, to see which man was better as a surrogate - the clue is that one was in control, rational, honest, persuasive and in the control - the other was often a red faced angry and wagging his finger making up stuff that even his supporters knew was false - not to mention implying that HRC gets tired because she is old is NOT a good sales tactic.

[blm]

29. The lawmaker who uncovered more govt. corruption than anyone in DC is an 'albatross'

to you?

He also received more votes than any Democrat in history at a time when BushInc was at its strongest and the last Dem president spent his summer booktour defending Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war that Kerry was attacking at the time.

When did THAT ever happen before in our party's history?

[shadowknows69]

57. Seems to me an albatross was a sailor's good luck until some idiot killed it

[JoFerret]

73. Kerry is no albatross

He lifts Obama.
Keep the hostility for the GOP.

[LVjinx]

94. I agree, No retreads,

[goldcanyonaz]

2. *gasp*

[TheWraith]

4. What's with you? nt

[beachmom]

5. Thanks. Wow, the jerks are out in full force, aren't they? nt

[scarletwoman]

7. Well, DUH. Anyone with any actual sense already knew the idea of Kerry as VP was total bunk. (nt)

[PresidentObama]

8. Good, now "Democrats" here on DU can stop smearing and trashing Kerry.

[jillan]

32. I was thinking that this didn't sound right.

That said - whatever Kerry wanted to do, he would be excellent at it.

This DUer :loveya: Kerry!

[saltpoint]

35. Now and again I run into progressives from Nebraska or Oklahoma

or Texas or Utah or any number of other states, and these people tell me flat-out that they would kill to have either of Massachusetts' U.S. Senators.

There's a glimpse into the nature of things when people who are represented by Coburn and Cornyn and other yahoos express their longing to be represented instead by Kerry, or Kennedy, or other liberals "back east."

California has Boxer. Wisconsin has Feingold. Vermont has Bernie.

But many, many states have yahoos, and they get the same vote in the Senate as Kerry, Boxer, Feingold, and Kennedy get, but the progressives' states are represented by them and not by Coburn and that bunch.

I would far rather live in John Kerry's America than in Tom Coburn's, and of those two, I'd only consider one man for the presidency, and he ain't from Oklahoma.

[Greyskye]

39. I LOVE Kerry, but I don't want him on an Obama ticket

If he's 'the one', then so be it. There are just better choices out there that fit in with Obama's stated vision of the future. Kerry is doing a kick-ass job in the Senate right now. I want to see someone in the VP slot who can bolster Obama's foreign policy credentials.

General Clark certainly comes to mind in that role, and the MSM can take a flying 'leap' at a rolling donut for their disgusting attempts at setting the playing field to exclude him. :grr:

[KoKo]

41. Kerry was never a Possibility or Consideration for VP it was troll who posted the original

and some others who don't like Obama who then promoted it further. It was ridiculous in it's assumption but designed to get "NetRoots" in a Tizzy.

Ho Hum... Anyone who posts that someone with years of "SENORITY" over Obama is being "considered by Obama to be VP" is probably hearing it from the RW REPUG "Spin Machine" or Dems working AGAINST OBAMA.

Think about it! With those Politcal EGOes in DC and Senate/Congress...do you really think someone "Senior to Obama" is going to run with him? It would make Obama look weak and the VP candidate look even weaker that they have to "latch on to Obama coat tails after decades of their own work.

:puke: on these idiot posts that "cause a swarm" and get hyped by "peeps." :puke:

[beachmom]

46. It came from MSNBC, not a troll.

[KoKo]

47. You do realize who owns MSNBC...don't you? GE...whose CEO called 2000 Election for Bush

before all the votes were counted. GE's Jack Welch (now retired but with huge block of stock who sits "like a spider" manipulating the company from his home on Nantucket.

When MSNBC is your "Source" your really need to do some "Googling" of the "Powers that Be" whose interests is in keeping Repugs in the WH...and who are working AGAINST YOU AND ME OUT HERE.

[beachmom]

62. Oh, please. Enough with conspiracy theory. It isn't hard to figure out.

Some yahoo in DC who claimed to be in the know but who in fact is NOT in the know told somebody about the rumor. It should never have been reported, but this will happen on multiple media outlets until Obama himself announces who he has picked.

[KoKo]

75. Obama said not to listen to anything about his VP Pick, unless it came from him...that MSNBC is

spreading this isn't from some "yahoo" in DC but either Repug Op or DLC that gave it to MSNBC to spread and MSNBC was happy to do it. There's no "conspiracy theory" there. It's reality of MSM.

[MarjorieG]

63. I think as a distraction, and to meddle in his Senate race. Preventing campaigning for others.

[KingFlorez]

45. That's good news

[dsomuah]

54. Man who cares? Edwards is back in the picture

And it's hard for me to imagine a better veep other than Al Gore.

[karynnj]

85. Edwards was a mediocre VP at best in 2004 -

If Obama picks him, I hope he gets agreement from Edwards that he will use the campaign's slogan and be a team player. Edwards adds very little experience.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

86. This exactly what I mean

by lining up to get kicked in the balls. Democrats thrilled to have the loser of the last Presidential election chained to our current nominee or his running mate who could not deliver the one state he was supposed to. Is this it? We can do no better than the two guys who lost last time?

How about choosing someone who did not lose in the primaries last time (Clark) or the General (Kerry/Edwards). All three of these guys have losing their last election campaign in common. How about picking someone who won something their last time out?

[karynnj]

90. That criterion rules out many people who were successful

Al Gore lost in 1988 in the primaries (getting about 3% of the vote - was he a bad pick for Clinton? LBJ lost was he a bad pick for Kennedy?

The only Democrat in the Presidential race in 2004 who won anything is Kerry - he won the nomination. No one other than Obama has won anything this year.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

93. I'll admit, the pickings ar pretty slim. n/t

[Mass]

58. Some people have time to lose, I can see. May be promoting the nominee would be more useful than

bashing the previous one. Or may be the posters are not interested in getting Obama elected.

Sometimes looking at previous posts is useful!

[Colobo]

72. Good. We need Kerry in the Senate!

[wisteria]

74. To bad. Although, those who want to keep him to themselves and others who

think he has baggage should be pleased. Personally, I think Senator Kerry could do a lot more for this country outside the senate.

[Catherina]

88. This is turning into quite a circus.

How are all these names getting floated and why are most of the answers such dramatic NOs?

The VP will probably be part of the trusted DLC machinery, someone like Rahm Emmanuel would be my guess.

[JI7]

89. Kerry is responding because he is being attacked

and people are using it against him for the Senate race.

it's sad it had to come down to this. some people are just assholes.