So, if the Senator from Massachusetts does run for Prez again

[TayTay]

how do you think he is laying the groundwork. What is his strategy (this far out) and is it different from the other Dems? (What did he learn from '04?) I see big, big differences from last time and someone who is ahead of the curve in a lot of ways, but I talk too much (and read too many tea leaves.)

So, what do you see? What will be the strategy? Is the approach to the grassroots different. Is the desire and ability to take on the other Dems and follow his own agenda different? Will this be an 'insider' campaign or an 'outsider' campaign? (The Alito filibuster points to a big change, but I could be insane, you never know.) What is Kerry doing differently this time and what is he doing that is different form the rest of the pack of candidates?

[jillan]

1. First off - hiring 2 hot interns :)

I think what puts Kerry way ahead of the pack is that he has maintained his email
list, and does correspond with us frequently.

And about those two hot interns, as long as we don't have any intern stories on the front pages - ahem - this to me is the most exciting thing that he could have done. It says that he has found a way to connect with the real people, and he is ready to listen. How many times have we all said that Kerry doesn't need to pay people like Schrum, he just needs us.

Now the next time someone says that Kerry is an elitist and doesn't know how to connect with people, we'll have Vek and Wel on the Tweety show arguing how much fun he is to have a beer with.

And the Alito thing - Kerry won back alot of people by standing up for the filibuster.

How many more days until Nov 2008?

[FreedomAngel82]

20. Oh yes

I love how he's still in contact with supporters too and he keeps his .com site pretty updated as well. Not like some people and it just goes un-updated. Totally unprofessional I think. And I think him campaigning for other canidates is a good sign too that he's still just as popular as any other democrat. And the democratic daily blog had up a little while ago who had Kerry the most liberal and he's still doing interviews and all that with people. So I think him just being out there more.

[ProSense]

2. He's got the best agenda

Kerry’s Agenda:

A Strong Economy
Health Care
Energy Independence
National Security
Homeland Security
War on Terror
Veterans
Troops and Military Families
War in Iraq
Seniors
Education
Children and Families
Protecting the Environment
Fighting Wasteful Spending
Fiscal Responsibility
Electoral Reform
Civil Rights
Rural America
National Service
Science and Technology
Legislation

[karynnj]

3. Here's a shot at it

1) Grassroots - I think that the grassroots developed to help others in 2005 and 2006 will be used in the primaries. I assume that if he opts to make a run - this will be a very key behind the scenes effort. I assume he has ideas of how to connect his campaign staff to the local groups. He seems to be more aware than anyone that you need some local people at the core of the effort.

2) Communications - There is no one else who has been able to write the type of emails that he has - that are clear and direct - while explaining issues. Most also suggest what people can do to help. As was noted here, Kerry was able to lead an internet effort (from Davos) that had everyone eagerly calling their Senators. Feingold attempted to do the same for the Patriot act. Though Rus is a Dkos favorite, it sputtered out. Kerry CAN connect.

At the end of the 2004, there was a 2 minute Kerry campaign summary that people could send to friends and family. I think it was put up a bit too late - but it was beautiful. He also had a few videos on johnkerry.com after the election. I wouldn't be surprised if he did little (maybe 2 minute) videos talking on major issues that people could click on and send to others. Kerry is by far the most charimatic speaker of the hopefuls.

3) I suspect that just as Kerry handled Iraq - and is now seen as more anti-war, I think he will attempt to make people more aware of his credentials on terror - the port thing may be part of the solution here. He's on the commerce committee and he has said variations of the words "95% of the containers coming into our ports are not inspected" more than any other person in the universe.

4) Images - I would bet that Alexandra's book and movie will really humanize Kerry and Teresa. I also suspect a way will be found to highlight all the good Teresa has done in her work. If people see Teresa for what she is, so many RW lies about the Kerrys fall apart.

General - I do think that the Alito filibuster was a change. Kerry chose to lead, because it was important to him and it was the right thing to do. The comment he made about losing the election - where he mentioned his family and the fact that he retained his integrity seems to influence what he's done. He seems driven by his integrity, following his gut feel on what is right or wrong. I think this will make him a very strong candidate - not to mention it frees him to always speak directly from his heart.

[wisteria]

4. I'm not certain he has it all figured out right now. Or, maybe it's me.

Certainly his e-mail list is a big plus for reaching out and for raising money. However,it appears to still have a few glitches that need to be fine tuned.
I hope he has an answer for the question, why should he be allowed to run again, what would be different this time.
I was thinking he would be up against some mighty players this time around,Senator Clinton with all her money and clout in the party, and McCain, who right now comes off as everyones likable choice, but then, Rove was a diabolical foe the last time along with the good old boy Bush and the Republican machine to back him up.

I Think he is lining up media support in some quarters. Talk Radio especially.
Supporting through visits and donations 2006 candidates in also going to (I would hope) gain him some support.
The grass-roots efforts are also a good thing. 2006 give us an opportunity to try this new network out and see how we fare.

I still think we have a long way to go and JK has a bit of convincing to do to the voters and the party insiders. I support him 100%, others may not be so convinced at this point. That is why I like to see him out getting attention nation wide, so that people get an opportunity to see and hear him and realize that he is still here working for them. Lately, he has been subdued. I don't know if it is him or the party that is doing this. IMO, he needs to gain greater recognition to counter some of the negatives still floating around from the last election. Media attention somewhere in the middle of Senator Clinton and McCain.
He isn't in a bad position now, I am more worried about the party insiders like Reid and Schumer and Clinton too. I'm concerned they may attempt to stop him from running in one way or another.

Well, this is my two cents anyway.

[whometense]

5. I'd need to think about this a lot more,

but my instant opinion is that if he runs again he will run against the party insiders - in a quiet but unmistakeable way. I think one thing he learned from 2004 is that he needs to rely on his own people - that is, his family (especially Teresa and Cam), the friends he's had for his entire adult life, and us.

I think he learned that he will never have the strong backing of the party centrists. They did very little for him in 2004, and I don't think they'd do any more for him in 2008. If any "insider" can run as an outsider, it's JK - he's a natural for the part.

That whole "dated Dean married Kerry" thing? That was cute, but it also had more than a little truth to it. Once people "get" him they stay with him. It's an understated army, but it's an army nonetheless.

[FreedomAngel82]

21. Most definitley

After I started researching Kerry and got to know him that's when I became a diehard Kerrycrat. I think if Kerry runs he has a good shot.

Kerry vs Clinton- Lots of democrats don't like her because she is too centrist. Kerry is the real liberal from all of the groups. I think he needs to not be afraid of that label. I think he got some bad advice last time such as where it concerns gay marriage. He had a good start but he needs to instead tell how marriage is only religious in the ceremony. It's the states and government that recognized your marriage that makes it. And with IWR when people ask him about that just be clear what it was about. I really liked when he said "we gave him permission to load the gun and not shoot himself in the foot." I thought that was really good. I think if it's Clinton who's seen as the "front runner" as the media is trying to play it and Karl Rove too than he has a good shot.

Kerry vs Feingold- Feingold has done some good in the Senate such as his fight with the "Patriot Act." Him not leading the filibuster and voting for Roberts wasn't very good. To me he doesn't seem quite as out there as Kerry with doing legislation. Kerry has all types of legislation's from small businesses to health care for adults and children.

Kerry vs Biden- I think enough democrats don't trust Biden.

Kerry vs Warner- I think Warner could possibly be the democrat who really gives him a run for his money. He did a great job in Virgina but I've heard people say way too often just on DU that he's too boring with his speeches. He tells the same speech over and in the same way. Plus he's the DLC best friend where as Kerry hasn't had anything to do with the DLC since 2003 and isn't any longer invited to anything.

I think also Dean not running this time as well will help him have more supporters since Dean was seen as the anti-war canidate last time around. I haven't heard on if Clark is running again so that's why I didn't mention him.

[whometense]

28. Re: Warner

NO foreign policy cred whatsoever. I heard his interview on This Week, and he flat out didn't answer any of the big-picture questions. I don't see people wanting to vote for a foreign policy rookie next time around.

[politicasista]

6. The e-mail list is a start

I agree with wisteria, he must have a answer for why he is best suited to lead this country. There are those who just want him to "crawl under a rock after caving in" therefore, he must be clear on why he wants to run again.

One of the best strategies is hiring consultants that must be tough, firm, and aggressive when the candidate is under attack. The flip-flop, "voted for the war" charges are examples. I know people bring up the Smear Boat Liars as an example, but Kerry needs to go outside of the beltway for campaign help.

Plus, he must reach out to minorities before the primaries, particularly African-Americans who felt slighted during the campaign and general election. He also must counter attacks from those who say that he owes them an apology for not caring about the black vote, and that it was all just lip service (i.e. concession). He should communicate (connect?) with those as to why he would be good for Black America as Bill Clinton was. (Some think General Clark has the upper hand in this area :shrug: ).

The filibuster was good, but I don't think many AA paid attention with the exception of the NAACP. Recognizing the accomplishments of Jackie Robinson and Rosa Parks, and doing commentaries and press from Blackamericaweb.com to Chicago Defender is a start.

I know a lot of what I mentioned was ignored by the media and a weak democratic party. A blogger at kerrygoddess' site mentioned something that JK and Momma T could do to connect with AA: Just tell THEIR story, not through the eyes of pundits or insiders, just in their own words in a non patronizing way (something Kerry was accused of during the campaign). I think as karen as said, this idea, along with Alex's film, could humanize them as just likable, ordinary people. Many heard alot about JK and Momma T, only to buy into what the corporate media spin that they were "boring, stiff, aloof, and elitists."

I know I am rambling. I don't want to be too negative cause I like Kerry and Momma T. :)

[wisteria]

7. He has attempted to reach out to AA,. Rosa Parks and Jackie Robinson

come to mind. We or his PR people need to toot his horn a little bit more and let poeple know about the goods things he has done and continues to do.

[politicasista]

8. I agree.

Went back and included Jackie and Rosa.

Another problem that many thought his way of reaching out was condescending and/or patronizing. I remember Tavis Smiley blasting Kerry for pandering to AA churches and speaking about voter disenfranchisement on MLK day and not being the only senator to stand with the Congressional Black Caucus to challenge the Florida election in 2000. (See Fahrenheit 911).

I know there is a damned if you do, damned if you don't but it's kind of tiring to hear the saying that the democrats take people for granted.

[emulatorloo]

17. I don't follow Smiley -- has the last year under Bush caused him to have

any revelations about the GOP's pandering or any regrets about bashing Kerry?

[jenndar]

18. Probably.

Did you see his interview with JK a couple of months ago? I think Smiley, in general, likes JK, but took issue with that aspect of his campaign.

[TayTay]

19. I want to get the book Tavis showed on Sat.

Excellent conference, btw. I loved it. I want to read the 'Covenant with Black America' http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0883782774/sr=8-1/qid=1141151340/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-9587222-0786313?%5Fencoding=UTF8 It sounded fascinating and like it really covered a lot of issues. (Everything from financial security to civil rights with a lot of stops in between. Great ruminating material.)

[politicasista]

26. It is a good read

Saw the symposium on Saturday and it was nice. :)

[politicasista]

27. I think so too.

I remember him fussing about having to bring in Clinton's people when the Smear Boat liars came out and when the campaign was struggling. I think he also took issue as Mass said below with Kerry not allowed to be Kerry.

[jenndar]

34. It think it's also fair to say

that Smiley's criticism of JK does have some legitimacy. I'm not sure I agree with it, but I certainly prefer it to some stupid crap about how JK is just like Bush, or is going to turn America gay, or looks too French to be President. I think we have to remember not to tune out every voice that's critical of JK, especially when it's somebody like Smiley, who speaks in an honest and respectful way.

[FreedomAngel82]

23. If you go to archive.org look for

a campaign video of Kerry. There's one video that showcases him very well and it shows how he did a program in Boston for the youth there that really helped young people of all races both black, white, latino. And there's some great campaign stuff there.

[karynnj]

13. Do most AAs know that Teresa marched against Appartheid in SA?

That had to take guts.

[politicasista]

25. Unfortunately they didn't know because:

The media ignored the good about Momma T while smearing her, the infamous "Shove it" remark and her being a "loose cannon" causing them to buy into the media garbage.

Even Black Entertainment (BET) news (they report the same news from CBS) didn't cover it.

The problem was and still is that they are misinformed, just like when Congressmen Greg Meeks (NY) came on Tom Joyner and talked about the Prostate Cancer Awareness workshop. When Tom told his gang that Kerry was a prostate cancer survivor, they all said "I didn't know that."

With BET no longer carrying news, there are only three networks for news (CNN, MSNBC, and Faux) all GOP controlled.

[karynnj]

30. I saw one BET JK Interview shortly before the election

The Kerry blog mentioned it - I was blown away by how good the interviewer was (I have no memory of who he was). The questions were tough, but very good and he gave JK the time to answer them.

[politicasista]

31. Ed Gordon of NPR

Although I wished it was longer than 30 minutes, I liked the interview. I was hanging out at the BET board during the election. The reaction was that Kerry did good, but Tavis would have had tougher questions (like the ones he wanted Tom to ask JK before his first interview with them).

Found some archive threads:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=775260
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1004775

[karynnj]

32. Thanks -

I think that Kerry does better when asked tough questions - assuming that he is allowed to answer them and that they are asked fairly. Any good politician can answer the easy questions. The hard questions seperate the really knowledgeble from the weaker candidates. It's also good when you see that he actually has to think.

[politicasista]

33. no problem

:hi:

[ProSense]

22. About the African American vote

Republican Lies About African-Americans Appearing Everywhere
by Chris Bowers, Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 12:31:11 PM EST

In a must read article in the Los Angles Times about Republican strategy to structurally alter the two coalitions in their favor, comes another in the latest series of crap about supposed Republican gains among African-American voters:

The president's faith-based initiative, which encourages government funding for religious social service agencies, and his opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage are popular with socially conservative African Americans, who have for decades leaned Democratic but are increasingly viewed as potential GOP voters. Many black parents, whose children attend struggling public schools, also agree with Republicans' support for school vouchers.

Aarrggghhhh. I can't stand this sort of thing. I have read articles about this stuff forever. I distinctly remember several times in the nineties when Gingrich claimed that African-Americans were trending Republican. I remember reading write-ups suggesting it was an actual phenomenon even in places like The Guardian. I know very smart progressives who even make this claim. What I can't stand about it is how it is utterly devoid of any factual basis. What I can't stand about it even more is how it is just another in a long line of Republican lies used to help spin the broader demographic narrative so that Republicans appear to be the natural ruling party both of today and of the future. (more sarcastically, read here)

First, the facts. In 2000, according to exit polls, 10% of the roughly 105.4M people whose votes were counted self-identified as African-American, meaning that roughly 10.54 million African-Americans had their votes counted. According to these same exit polls, 90% of African-Americans voted for Gore, or around 9.5 million, and 9% voted for Bush, or around 0.95 million. Gore thus defeated Bush by around 8.5 million votes among African-Americans.

In 2004, according to exit polls, of the roughly 122.3 million people whose votes were counted, 11% self-identified as African-American, meaning that roughly 13.5 million African-Americans had their votes counted. Of those 13.5 million, 88% voted for Kerry, or roughly 11.9 million, while 11% voted for Bush, or around 1.5 million. Thus, while Republicans did manage a very slight percentage gain among African-Americans compared to Democrats, the total gain was overwhelmingly in favor of Democrats.

2.4 million more African-Americans voted for Kerry than Gore and 0.55 million more African-Americans voted for Bush in 2004 than in 2000. Thus, Kerry's overall gain was about four and a half times greater than Bush's gain. Kerry's margin among African-Americans over Bush was two million votes greater than Gore's in total votes. In fact, Kerry's winning margin among African-Americans was equal to the total African-American vote in 2000, and we are somehow supposed to believe that Republicans gained among African Americans?

As things stand, Republicans can propose whatever issues they want to try and appeal to African-Americans, but they will never, ever see a significant gain among African-Americans for two important reasons. First, Republicans do not live in African-American neighborhoods. Second, Republicans are afraid to go into African-American neighborhoods, except as poll watchers on Election Day. By contrast, Democrats were able to win another 2.5 million African-American votes beyond an already exceptionally high total because we live in African-American neighborhoods and because of programs like ACT and America Votes. In these efforts, Democratic volunteers and staffers focused a disproportionate amount of their energy registering, canvassing, and GOTVing (is that a word?) in African-American neighborhoods.

No voucher program will ever replace the support earned through neighbors, volunteers and community associations in face-to-face conversations. No amount of railing against gay marriage will ever make up for the numerous times when Republicans openly attempted to suppress the African-American vote, bashed affirmative action, pushed a rampant pro-corporate agenda, and talked about the vileness of cities. And no facts suggest African-American support slipping among Democrats. In fact, voting data suggests significant Democratic improvement among African-Americans.

I may be a little shrill today, but it is because of crap like this that we are losing the long-term demographic narrative, big-time. From 2001-2002, Ruy Teixeira and John Judis helped Democrats win it big-time. As I wrote a few weeks ago, this is important stuff:

First, while supplementing the "mandate" narrative, it paints a national picture of a still growing Republican majority. Second, and more disturbingly, by dominating the national discussion over changing political demographics, these talking points serve as propagandistic frames that allow large numbers of people to think of themselves as naturally Republican, no matter what their current voting tendencies may actually be. We all know that people who live in exurbs tend to vote Republican, so if Republicans can convince as many people as possible that they live in exurbs than they are one step closer to becoming the "natural" governing party both now and in the future. We saw this take place with "security moms," a Luntz frame that first laid its eggs inside the brains of, and then whose offspring eventually crawled out the mouth of, nearly every talking head during the election campaign. By dominating the way people think of themselves in relation to the national political demographic narrative, through terms like "exurbs" and "security moms," Republicans are controlling the contemporary and future political narratives in this country.

Take this seriously. This is a front where we need to keep fighting back.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/2/3/123111/9767

There are embedded links in the article.

[ProSense]

24. Another thing

A current thread illustrating how the Repub shills alienate African Americans while Republicans claim they're reaching out to them:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2479836&mesg_id=2479836

[ProSense]

43. So what happened in Ohio

How is it that Bush bested his 11% national average by five points, getting 16% of the African American vote in Ohio?

Many attribute it to the ballot initiave on gays. Five percentage points?


Thoughts?

[TayTay]

44. It's theoretically possible.

However, the Rethugs employed old fashioned methods of not providing enough machines in heavy AA districts and of using stalling tactics to get Dem voters to go home and not wait in long lines. The Conyers Report was full of this stuff. They could have depressed the vote enough to account for the change.

[politicasista]

48. Religious issues, and preachers getting Faith Based money from Bush

I know some of them. Bishop T.D. Jakes, Bishop Eddie Long (Big Bushie lover), Bishop H. Jackson, and a few others preached how good a Christian man Bush is/was, as well as anti abortion and gay rights.

[TayTay]

49. The African American vote is not

monolithic. There are factions, lefties and righties and so forth, like there are with every other voting group in America. We have an AA candidate for Gov in MA who is in trouble with conservative AA's over his strong support for Gay Marriage in the state. I can see the conservative issue, if it is galvanizing enough have an effect on who shows up to vote and in what numbers. (It might here in MA this fall, sigh!)

From the BGlobe article:

Patrick, a 49-year-old former corporate executive and federal civil rights prosecutor, is seen as the more liberal candidate in the Democratic primary for governor. His opponent, Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, is trying to woo independents and even Republicans with a more centrist message.

Both Patrick and Reilly support gay marriage, but it is Patrick who has faced criticism on the issue from some influential black ministers in the state, including Bishop Gilbert Thompson, president of the Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston.

So Patrick is trying to persuade black voters to look past a possible disagreement over gay rights so they can talk about crime, unemployment, and other issues.

"I know what Scripture says about homosexuality, and who am I as a Christian to question what Scripture says?" Patrick told yesterday's audience.

"But . . . the point is that while we debate gay marriage, there are people struggling to pay the rent and the heat in the same month, and we have got to pay attention to that."

"That," he continued, "is what we have to deal with, for Christ's sake and for our own."

[politicasista]

54. Thanks for article on Deval

Just goes to show how the gay rights issue has divided America and each election so far. It's a Rovian trap that has gone to far. :(

[ProSense]

56. Thanks for the snip, great point. n/t

[whometense]

9. Just read this amazing bit by Digby,

and it seems to fit very well here.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114108237087974935

Unlike Democrats, Republicans do not question whether it is a good thing to have hard working, committed activists. They just say thank you.

Rather than worry about being "pulled in a more extreme direction" they confidently accept support wherever they can get it and openly court their base. They proudly run on the label "conservative" and would not dream of marginalizing their most energetic partisans. Democrats, not so much.

Note to the clueless DC insiders: the blogosphere is only "extreme" to the extent it is extremely impatient with people like you. We believe that your strategy of caution has failed and we are agitating for a more aggressive Democratic politics. After a partisan impeachment, a stolen election in 2000, an illegal war and an unprecedented executive power play we think this is a pretty serious situation. In fact, we see this as political civil war. You apparently think that is "extreme." We think it is common sense.

I believe JK sees this divide, and what's more, he stands on our side of it.

[sandnsea]

10. I don't know

Sometimes I think he gets it, and then something like this ports deal comes up, and where is he?? Between his own criticisms of port security and his own knowledge of the UAE, BCCI, etc.; you'd think he'd be making hay with this sale. But other than questioning the cronyism, he's rather quiet. I don't know why.

He could just blast this country from one end to the other, have full support of almost all Democrats, and alot of Republicans too, all the people who are tired and disiluusioned and angry. I don't know why he doesn't.

Strategy? His visits to the midwest are good, Big Eddie is good, Vek & WEL can't help but be extra good. But I'm still not sure what his big party strategy is because I still see Hillary influencing the Dem message in the media and with other politicians, and winning the party machinery. There's also too frequent Kerry bashing which also translates into liberal label bashing, which make me nervous about both 2006 and 2008.

So I don't know, but I'm really tired of this hanging on by a thread shit when the country hates Republicans and hates Bush and really hates Cheney; and Democrats just can't figure out how to roll into town with the white hats.

[politicasista]

11. It's ok.

Feel the same way sometimes. :hi:

[ProSense]

12. IMO, if the Democrats rolled into

town with white hats and no guns to scream down the Republicans on every issue, that would have the reverse effect of making them look weak, not just in the minority when it comes to control. The Republicans, unfortunately, have enough power to repel most attempts at aggression by the Democrats. I agree, as with the filibuster, that they need to take a stand, but it's not always going to be a highly vocal and public one. Look at the situation today. The entire country is screaming against this, even the Republicans, but the Republicans refuse to do the right thing; not one of them has come forward to challenge to the deal in Congress. For its part, the media is injecting Democratic partisanship into the debate.

On this issue, the Democrats are united and have public support, so they don't need to scream. They just need to do the right thing, and I believe they will. Gov. Corzine is really serious about this, he filed a suit immediately. He ran on homeland security, even outlining a plan calling for the appointment of a NJ cabinet-level director among other things. And as Tay just posted, Kerry plans to block David Sanborn's nomination, a former DP World executive, to become administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department unless he testifies before the Commerce Committee.


I'm by no means defending silence. When the public needs to be convinced, the Democrats better not be silent.

[karynnj]

14. I think he may just want all the facts lined up first

I think he was the first to address the cronyism and the complete neglect in terms of the departments doing their job. This speaks to a systemic inablity to govern. He then asked for all the appropriate information. Others are out screaming and make get points in the short term - but Hillary already has sofened her initial comments. Kerry's job is to get the information, question it and state what he thinks should be done.

[Mass]

15. He MUST improve his communications and his use of the web

in order to have his positions known to the public.

As he cannot expect the media to give us his positions correctly, he has to take advantage of the WWW as best as possible. He has certainly mastered email operations and his emails are great (I love how he involves other people rather than simply telling us what he did).

However, he has to do a better use of his website and other blogs to let us know where he stands on real issues, to have audio and video messages,... There are a lot of techniques that are not that expensive and that would let him do what is necessary.

I certainly hope he will be the "outsider" candidate (or at least not big establishment) and that he will make clear he is competent and has a vision and that is why we should elect him. Do a lot of meetings where it is clear that he succeeds very well. He also must find a way to communicate thru the MSM, even if it is difficult. It seems that many hosts change their opinion of him when they talk to him, so please, go on these shows. I think it was a big error to have been basically off-media while the SBVT were playing. A good interview may have been enough to shut that down.

And please, let Kerry be Kerry.

[TayTay]

16. I do love that Mass

"Let Kerry be Kerry." I agree with that. I think there were too many chefs around the campaign telling JK to be this and be that and be cautious and so forth. I like him better when he is his own self and acts according to his own views and conscience.

This is the JK who is meeting with Military Families Speak Out this week. This is a good and right thing to do on it's own and doesn't require the approval of consultants at all. (Obviously, I think this is JK being JK and I love it.)

[whometense]

29. I agree with everything

you say here.

If he does run again he's going to have to squeeze the maximum possible coverage from free media (interviews, etc) and web media - I totally agree about getting more audio and video out online. There should be much more on his senate website and on JohnKerry.com.

That radio interview someone linked to yesterdayw as the perfect example - he was really funny and easy to relate to, and I loved the goofy questions those guys asked him. That showcased him very well, I thought. I think our role can be to help publicize the online stuff

[zann725]

35. Making sure that between now and '08 that the Dems LEGALLY prove

that '04 EF Fraud really happened. Court cases are still going forward, and Noe (the most hopeful criminal of all) has what OHIO 53 indictments against him...for money-laundering and using tainted Workers Comp money to fund the "winning" '04 campaigns of MANY Ohio candidates, judges... as well as nationwide Repug representatives, Shrub and Ahnaaald included.

THAT "smoking gun" win...not only illegitmizes Shrubco (and entire Repug party, including many wrongly elected Repug by association). To WIN the future, we MUST correct the past. We cannot look past BOTH Gore's victory, and the Kerry Exit Poll "fiction."

JK CAN win in '08...but we must FIRST face and LEGALLY "win" the Truth of the past. As JK has said many times, "Speak Truth to Authority"...that's how the Dem's will win. Not by focusing elsewhere in the future. But use "our power"...the power of Truth NOW.

[TayTay]

36. This is where it starts to get hairy.

The Dems were the victims of fraud in the last election.
The Dems need to fight this.
The Rethugs control Congress and don't want voting machines or fraud investigated because it is not in their interest.
The only bills the Rethugs will let out of committee are ones that have bad trade-offs in them. The Rethugs will press for 'voter ids,' more frequent but not necessarily more accurate scrubbing of voting lists to remove illegal voters, moving voting machines into areas that favor Republican voters and things like that.
The Dems cannot allow the field to be legally tilted in this direction. This is, in so many ways, a legal disenfranchisement of many of the Dem base.
The Dems do not have the power to do anything nationally and no bill that even remotely favors Dems will ever make it out of committee. The bills that are voted out will have 'safeguards' in them that will make registration harder.

Giant Sigh!

I think the machine fraud has to be fought in the states. That's because, at the federal level, there is no chance that anything will happen to aide this effort in the 109th (weasel) Congress. I think this has to be fought in state courts and on the state level. (And this will be very expensive and very, very difficult.)

Okay, I get stuck on the next part here. Where is the fight to prevent voter registration from turning into a 'screw the Democrats' event being held? Federal, state and/or local?

[_dynamicdems]

37. Be it ever so humble...

[zann725]

38. His biggest 'hurdle' will be winning back those who felt 'abandoned'

so quickly by JK after (questionsable) election results. All of us have that "inner child" that when abandoned by someone (friend or whoever)...doesn't easily trust again.

Again and again, when I mention JK's name, people (who voted for and liked him before)...just grunt and say, he "wimped" out on us. Not again.

I believe it's "fightable"...since many once supported him. THIS time though JK needs to TRULY speak of HIS values, the 'people's problems"...and not try and compromise to get ALL demographics. And most importantly, the VOTING MACHINES need fixed or watched ("hands-on").

He can plan a winning plan all he wants, but those machines are FIRST priority, starting TODAY.

[karynnj]

39. Opposite perspective - but I do agree

I am likely still fixated on being for Kerry because he DID NOT abandon us. The norm, which I would have expected, was that he would go back to being a Massachusetts Jr Senator, with the increased stature of having been the nominee. His first letter sent both to his snail mail and email list was remarkable. He knew how hard the lose was on us - he admitted his own disappointment but asked us not to give up hope and said that he would continue fighting and thanked everyone for all they did. I have never ever seen anything like that letter.

I think Kerry has spoken about the electoral process - but I think what is done may not be flashy or even that noticable. Somewhere there was a chart showing states with legislation done, pending or planned for paper trails. That and work to clean up the registration process could prevent the problem in the future. I have no idea what Kerry himself is doing on this, but it really has to be done on the local and state level. It may be that the fact that he still speaks about it. (He was more open with the registration problems and inadeguate machine on the link someone posted earlier this week where he was interviewed by the guys who had supported him in 2004). The truth is that Democratic legislation at the federal level NOW will go nowhere. (and Hillary will likely re-introduce her legislation in 2007 if we take over the Senate)

[TayTay]

41. This chart

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/

This is good and we have to pursue this issue. My point was that it's blocked nationally and for good reason: the Rethugs won't push this because it doesn't benefit them. Also, lobbyists for the elction machine companies are blocking reform. (Lobbyist scandals aren't just in Abramoff's world. The lobbyists for ES&S, Deibold and Sequoia are trying to block any reform of any effort to get a look inside the machines.) I believe that fraud happened and that the machines are too easy to access.

I don't believe that the federal effort to actually do something about this will happen. That doesn't mean you abandon the issue, it means you switch tactics to something that WILL be successful. That happens to be hand-to-hand combat in the states through the courts, through the offices that approve the selection of voting machines and so forth. If one avenue is blocked, choose another one. That's how progress gets made.

[karynnj]

42. yes, thank you!

I couldn't remember who posted it where - but it is really encouraging. I wonder how much connection Dean or Kerry have to the people doing it. The idea that Kerry has to do everything is crazy - he is a very hard working person, but there are limits.

[wisteria]

40. I never felt he abandoned us at all. Honestly, I don't understand

those who expected him to challenge the election based on the outcome and the margin of votes between him and Bush.
Have those that are mad at Kerry for not "fighting" really thought out their opinions? It's a shame, they can not see the wise decision Kerry made in not pursuing more vocally the outcome of the election. He has taken part in lawsuits, participated in voter reform legislation and spoken out about fraud. What exactly do these people want? I think they are being unreasonable. What do you think he should do to try and appease these people? Explain his position better? Detail his reasoning for conceding? Do you think he can even get these people to see his side of it?

[politicasista]

45. Both

If they heard him out that may, but I don't know. :shrug: I remember when Kerry brought up the issue of disenfranchisement in an article at BET.com. In that article, there was a quote from Joe Madison (urban radio talk show host) about what Kerry said. Those that called in and said ok, but they didn't want to hear from Kerry or care what he said. (paraphrasing). In other words, in their minds, it was "too little, too late."

I think the concession is going to have to be explained. One of the most vocal people about it was Rev. Jesse Jackson. A couple days after the election, he was quoted as saying that Kerry's concession "betrayed the trust of voters." He also trashed at last year's Rainbow PUSH coalition.

I know this may be harsh, but he will have to answer talk that he owes the black community an apology for conceding and "not caring about the black vote." There are many who say he just didn't stand or fight Blinky hard enough and that we'll need a fighter and someone who can stir the masses for 08.


:shrug:

[wisteria]

46. You can't challenge an election just based on

disenfranchisement and discrimination alone.These are both a bit abstract and can be hard to prove in court.How do you measure their impact on the outcome? You have to be able to prove the numbers behind any challenges to the election results. Perhaps, Jesse Jackson didn't fully understand the entire circumstances when he spoke against Kerry on this issue.

[politicasista]

47. That's what he and others don't understand

They figure that Kerry just do what Gore did. Fight it all the way to the Supreme Court instead of just "caving" in to the evil enemies. Unfortunately the "threw the election" charge is also going to be something to answer to as well.

[ProSense]

51. Gore's situation was completely different

Also, remember Kerry actually picked a couple of million African American votes more than Gore. See the post above.

[politicasista]

53. True. Thanks n/t

[ProSense]

50. Politica, the RPC event happened so close to the election

a lot was going on and being said. Jackson hasn't said a word about this recently. Kerry has adressed this issue over and over. Think about the whole Mark Crispin Miller incident. To Wisteria's point, which is what a lot of people believe, there was no way to challenge this election without the smoking gun evidence. Most people will remember the image of Kerry and Jackson Jr.

[politicasista]

52. Thank you both for the perspective

Yes, I have noticed Jesse has been quiet on this issue. I agree with you both, there isn't a way to challenge and election without solid proof. I guess I am just tired of all the "Kerry owes me," "too little, too late," "Kerry threw the election" mess.


I do like the image of JK and JJ Jr. :loveya:

:grouphug:

[jenndar]

55. JJ Jr. is my HoR crush.

But in all seriousness, the problem with what you're saying isn't that it isn't true - it is true - but that there's the bigger problem of people not even being able to agree as to whether or not the election was stolen or not. The whole election fraud issue is insanely complicated. It's possible that fraud happened that didn't affect outcomes, and it's possible that fraud happened in some way we haven't even heard about yet, and then what if there was fraud on the part of the Democrats, etc... it's just crazy.

I guess my point it that it might be more realistic to try and help JK change perceptions of the concession, if that's possible. Because, really, if he'd gotten the landslide he deserved, it would have been a non-issue, and it can be a non-issue in the future if we let it be.