Interesting posts reference John Kerry on "The Premise" blog

[_dynamicdems]

It seems that folks are starting to agree with the idea of a deadline as a way to make Iraqis stand up for themselves.

That’s really the essence of the problem that John Murtha and John Kerry have been talking about in advocating a timetable for withdrawal and redeployment of U.S. troops. As long as President Bush promises that we’ll hang around to keep the peace with American blood, the Iraqis don’t really have much incentive to step up.

http://thepremise.com/archives/10/16/2006/406

This comment is on a statement by Senator Kerry as to how he would have handled Iraq:

I think most Americans, if they heard that statement now, would think it was the right statement to make before getting the United States involved in any war. It is the statement of a statesman, a commander in chief, a president. Of someone who believes that reason can direct action and not simply provoke or unleash it.

But the nation was led down a very different path, and it’s tempting to lay some of the blame for that at the feet of the American people. Both for voting for George Bush initially, and for not rejecting his excesses when they were being proposed.

But that’s a dodge of another kind, and misses the most important point. Prior to 2000, the bar of what a president should be was lowered to the point that George Bush was applauded for being a guy people could imagine having a beer with. Six years later the verdict is in on that standard, and it doesn’t pass muster.

On this planet it will ever be the case that you go to war not with the army you have, as Donald Rumsfeld famously said, but with the President you have. And that’s a lesson that each of us should be teaching our children from this day forth. Whatever else you think about what or who a president should be, the person in the White House should be someone we trust to take the country to war if that needs doing.

http://thepremise.com/archives/10/15/2006/395

Now this 2008 speculation is very interesting...

So, which Democratic candidates might be able to pass the commander-in-chief test with non-affiliated voters in 2008? Of the current list of prospective or hoped-for candidates — Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Al Gore, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Tom Vilsack, Evan Bayh and Wesley Clark — I see three candiates who could pass the commander in chief test, and two who might be able to make a compelling case.

Passed: Al Gore, John Kerry, Wesley Clark.

Might pass: Bill Richardson, Joe Biden.

Whether you agree or disagree with those lists, note that the candidates most beloved by activists in the Democratic Party — Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Russ Feingold — are the least qualified on questions of national security. And that’s going to be a problem for the Democratic Party in 2008, just as it was in 2004.

http://thepremise.com/archives/10/15/2006/393

[karynnj]

1. All three of those comments are interesting - especially the last one

They are a bit confused on who the activists like - this seems more who the media likes PLUS Feingold. Now, people are just playing with ideas of who interests them - which is why Obama can surface. (My guess is Obama represents the desire for something clean, genuine, noble, principled and not ugly (in a political sense). The fact is either Kerry or Gore fit this and have the gravitas to boot.

It is interesting as 2 of the 3 passed, are somewhat likely not to run. I don't see the might passes as big threats.

[blm]

2. This is a great GD-P for you to post.

.

[blm]

6. Still not yet posted in GD-P

.

[_dynamicdems]

8. Okay, will do.

I've been out of the house for a few hours. It does happen on occasion. :7

[blm]

9. Not today for me - little blm is home with a little cold.

So, I post...I make a pirate telescope...I post again....read a Dora story with her....I post.....peel some carrots for a snack......I post....fold some laundry......heh.....and so the day goes.

[_dynamicdems]

11. Aw sorry to hear that about little blm. Hope she feels better soon. n/t

[wisteria]

3. This post makes so much sense. Lets hope Democrats recognize this.

The problem as I see it is the DLC wanting H. Clinton to run. I hope this coming election weakens their grip on the party.

[ProSense]

10. The strange thing

is they're trying to portray DLC policies as progressive, and some are trying to give the impression that the Clintons are more liberal than real liberal Democrats. How on earth can anyone make a statement to the effect that Kerry is positioning himself to the left of Clinton?

[ginnyinWI]

4. the commander-in-chief test!

I agree, I agree! You have to be able to picture the person sitting in the Oval, and Kerry passes that test with flying colors!

I can see Al Gore there, but I firmly believe he's not interested in fighting his way there. Wes Clark is good Veep material, IMO. Kerry/Clark 2008. :)

[MBS]

5. yeah,I think that could be a winner combo

Also, this is a little off-topic, but I agree with you about Gore: people keep mentioning Adlai Stevenson as a parallel to Kerry (and a reason why he shouldn't run again). I think this is a bogus comparison.
Gore , to my mind, is a closer parallel to Stevenson: both of them very worthy Democrats, but both with real ambivalence, I think-- about whether they really wanted to run for President, or even wanted the presidency. I can't speak about all the dynamics of the Stevenson-Eisenhower races, but I do suspect that ambivalence may have cost Gore some votes in 2000.
Kerry, on the other hand, is fierce in hid determination to change our country's political conversation. And I've never seen him more focused than over the last year.

[cadmium]

7. we need the footage

The Kerry - Warner colloquy may have been a turning point since now Warner is getting fed up with the administration's botched occupation

[TayTay]

13. It is beyond sad that the American media ignored that.

It was, easily, the best and only real discussion about Iraq in the Senate this year. Most of the other alleged discussion consisted of people hurling talking points past each other. This was a genuine give and take and each side got to explore the questions and answers of the other. How sad that this only occurred once and only late in the day, when attention was focused elsewhere.

Sigh! I liked Sen. Kerry's comments on Friday when he talked about Sen. Warner and how he was calling for and end to the violence in two to three months or we need to start rethinking our troop presence in Iraq. Sounds like a deadline to me too Senator!

[_dynamicdems]

12. I want to see both Gore and Clark in a Kerry administration.

Gore could concentrate full-time on reversing global warming, which is his forte, and General Clark would make a terrific Secretary of Defense.