Kerry should at least show up to this hearing, even if he says nothing.

[oc2002]

The reason why Ukranians stood up against fraudulent election was because the HAD A LEADER!

KERRY, BE A LEADER NOW!

[Pam-Moby]

1. I agree!!

Where is he?

[HEAVYHEART]

2. I don't know

I'm still not sure whether it's a good idea for Kerry to be involved right now. Let the floodgates open and then he can step in. And the floodgates are opening!!! Woohoo!

[Pacifist Patriot]

4. I'm torn too. As a supporter I want to see him out there

leading the charge. As a realist I think holding back would work better in the long run. If the election does turn out in his favor he can legitimately claim no coersive participation.

[Cocoa]

3. I don't care that he's not there

in fact, his presence would only support the "sore loser" idea, which is what Blackwell's spokesman gave as a reason for discounting Conyers's letter.

[oc2002]

5. ..did name calling stop the Ukranians from coming out to protest?

No. The ones calling Kerry names, are the ones perpetrating fraud. What do we care what they call Kerry, they are criminals.

[Cocoa]

8. this is not a popular uprising

and it's not going to be, and no one on that panel has suggested it's part of a popular uprising, or that it's the beginning of one.

It's a congressional hearing about an extremely important subject, and it's crucial that it's being done right, and Conyers clearly is intent on making sure that it is done right.

[mattclearing]

12. Actually,

Jackson said: "We cannot vent and then have Congress not act. If these reports are not investigated, we have all wasted our time. This cannot simply be an academic venting session. Take this struggle to the streets and legitimize it there, as they did in Selma."

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Civil Rights struggle, but I would say "popular uprising" is a fair way to characterize it.

[Gothmog]

6. I also think that Kerry should be more active

Kerry can be more involved than he has todate. I understand that Kerry is monitoring the process but more may be required.

[Southsideirish]

11. I think he will just put on his old "invisibility cloak" until

he gets some input from his consultants and holds a few focus groups.

[Catherine Vincent]

7. This isn't really a hearing.

It's pretty much a forum for the concerned to showcase the inaccuracies of the last election. That's why you don't see any republicans there. They aren't concerned about it, their guy got in by fraud so who the hell cares, right?

[mattclearing]

9. Would it be that bad

Just to stand in the back and look concerned?

[Megahurtz]

10. I wish Kerry would stand up

and step out and speak up against the obvious voter fraud!
Maybe he's just waiting for more evidence to be gathered and then he will show up.

He may be doing Stelth tactics.......

[BooshIsEvil]

15. This will become a "popular unrising"

when enough people like Curtis expose the truth. I think right now that our job is to have as many people as possible exposed to what is happening. The main stream media is ignoring this, but we already know what power the net has. Spread the word!

[newyawker99]

17. Hi BooshIsEvil!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[oc2002]

13. ..Hearing is over, Kerry missed his chance to make a statement by his mere

..presences without saying a word..

A democracy is something worth fighting for, cowards do not deserve one.

[noclonyofthechimp]

14. I have a question? Can Kerry be the 1 Senator we need to join the

house in contesting the election when the electoral meets or is he disqualified because he was the presidential candidate? How about Edwards? I am sure this has been asked before and I am sorry if I didn't catch the answer.:shrug:

[rumpel]

16. I don't think he can because of the spin that will follow

from the other side, which can be really damaging.

[mattclearing]

18. Agreed.

Feingold might be crazy enough to do it. Kennedy would be a disaster because of the drudge/freeptard reaction. Hillary wouldn't, not with 2008 on her mind. Edwards won't for the same reason.