Ellen Goodman is wrong. (and that's putting it nicely)

[MH1]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1038812&mesg_id=1038812

Help me out here. What has she ever written that anyone should give her the time of day? (the name sounds familiar but it's escaping me right now).

Dear John: We won't take you back

By ELLEN GOODMAN
Syndicated Columnist

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 27. 2006 8:00AM

I have long believed that any columnist who writes about a presidential election more than two years before Election Day should have her fingers peeled from her keyboard and be taken off to a rehab clinic for political junkies. The only reason I risk that fate now is to soothe an escalating series of anxiety attacks that range from "Uh-oh" to "Oh, no" to a shrieking "YIPES!"

WE?????

Speak for yourself, -----.

[Mass]

1. Run,John, Run.

Ellen may not be at the Globe anymore, but she certainly is still part of the ladies of the Boston Globe, unfortunately.

[TayTay]

2. True.

And she is drinking the Kool-aid on this. I will send the Good Senator from MA a check in the amount of $20.08. That speaks my will.

And the good ladies of Boston (and environs) do indeed want to take him back.

[saltpoint]

3. I generally like Ellen Goodman, but the cheese has done slipped off

her cracker on this one.

Shame on you, Ellen.

[wisteria]

4. I am so angry about this, she is entitled to her opinion, but get

the facts right. Do you have a link on her? I would love to share my opinion of the good senator with her. I suspect she is supporting another candidate that is a bit peeved because Senator Kerry has been well received on Sunday morning programs and gave a speech for the history books on Saturday.

[politicasista]

5. bigtree nails it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1038812&mesg_id=1039754

[ProSense]

6. Seriously, what's up with that?

This is a democracy. The charge about no vision: give me an fucking break! There was a great article about Bush and his supporters: The blind leading the blind. When someone who is supposed to be informed overlooks two major speeches by Kerry on security in the post 9/11 world to claim such vision is needed, there is obviously some major blindness on the left as well.

[wisteria]

7. I think she has ignore the others, but this one was so damn good

and raised the bar, that she just had to get ugly. I am so tired of those that think the public would have voted for an anti- Iraq candidate in droves in 2004. A majority of the public still supported this mess back then. Also, I have herd from some reasonable Republicans recently who say they would vote for Kerry if he ran again. I think there is something in that comfort level thing.

[jenndar]

8. I think there is something huge in that comfort-level thing.

JK might not even have to move to the right to get a bunch of Republican votes in '08. And I hate to see we need the Republicans, so I won't. But I will say this: how cool would it be to have some consensus in America? How nice would it be for a clear, incontestable majority to say, "Okay, this guy is principled enough and reasonable enough to lead a country"?

I don't see any Dem other than JK eliciting that kind of bipartisan enthusiasm.

[karynnj]

12. Especially if Kerry highlights the Small Business stuff

I knew little about it until after the election - and I read a lot. I think the fact that he is still behind the line item veto and that the Republicans are using his proposal to do it constitutionally will be good.

I hesitate to write this - but I think that at least one candidate will likely run on a very anti business message - more so than in 2004. It scares me that this could work in the primary and be a disaster in the general election.

[paulk]

9. Dear Ellen: Fuck You

Jeez...

I guess she had a deadline approaching and nothing to write about.

And, yes, "bigtree" nails it. It's just more of the same sour grapes.

[WildEyedLiberal]

10. Hahaha

I think you speak for both of us. ;)

[karynnj]

13. To think - she could have written a column on

Patriotism and dissent and thanked her hard working Senator for whom she voted 6 times. She could have followed Herbert's example and included 5 or 6 well written quotes from the speech - meaning she would only need to write half a column.

There are so few liberal voices, it's sad that one is already playing 2008 politics.

[karynnj]

11. What's surprising is both the timing and the tone

I saw Wisteria's post that mention the Faneuil Hall speech. I agree that it was a speech of a lifetime - for anyone but Kerry who seems to get more than one "speech" of a lifetime. She makes a point that she's one of his constituents and has voted for him 6 times (I guess she doesn't vote for him in primaries

In the week of a landmark speech, rather than complimenting her Senator for saying what needs to be said on both dissent and Iraq, she begs him not to run. Senator Kerry has said he will make up his mind later this year. Why not comment on the speech - and realize that Kerry is leading on Iraq and it is a serious important issue, NOW, not in 2008? Why not comment on the climate that has made dissent hard - that she as a journalist can impact?

I didn't see any editorials telling anyone else not to run. I didn't see any in 2004. In fact, I have seen only one other column telling some one not to run. The tone of that one was different - that was the one posted here from somewhere in western Massachusetts soon after the election - and they were suggesting that Kerry stay in the Senate where he could become a power (if he followed Kennedy's example. They felt it would hurt too much to see him lose again and it was kind of sweet. This one is essentially asking Kerry to realize that even if he can convince people to vote for him -he shouldn't run because he's not the right person and has no ideas. (Something tells me this will not be a convincing argument to the Senator.)

I've often liked her pieces so this is kind of sad.

[Mass]

14. She rarely writes pieces of political punditry. When she does, she is

as bad as anybody.

Right now, the fact that Kerry is not willing to disappear and leave the field to others, added to the fact that he makes all the right moves is probably starting to frighten the little Democratic world as he could easily become Hillary's principal opponent.

Warner, Bayh, Feingold, Edwards, Biden, ... were probably hoping that he would stay nicely in the Senate and that they could position themselves against Hillary more easily. While they are not saying anything themselves, it is noticable that most of the people who oppose forcefully a Kerry run (as opposed to those who say it would not be their choice) are people who are strongly supporting candidates who are thought well placed to succeed or to become Hillary's principal opponent.

If anything, these editorials are sign that Kerry is a strong opponent who could easily become a legitimate candidate. They dont particularly worry me as long as we continue to have other articles explaining why Kerry could be a good candidate.

[wisteria]

17. You know, there was more courtesy extended to VP Gore in 2002/2003

when it was still a possibility he would run again in 2004. Remember Lieberman? He at least waited until Gore said he wasn't interested. Edwards gives every indication that he is running, and seems to compete with Kerry whenever he can- I think it shows a large amount of disrespect for what Senator Kerry accomplished in 2004 and for those who still support him. Sometimes I think the party leaders don't think they crucified him completely after the election and are attempting to do so now so that he has no support.

[karynnj]

19. That makes sense though

and has nothing to do with the personalities or qualities of Gore and Kerry.

In 2002 and the first half of 2003, when people were saying that Gore should get the nomination if he wanted it, Bush approval rating was between near 90 percent to around 65-70 percent, the nomination was thought not to be worth much. That's the real reason Hillary didn't run - though Begala and Carville kept putting her name out even as Kerry won primaries.

I don't think there's a fair comparison between Edwards and Lieberman. Lieberman was known and considered only because he had been VP. He put out the comment that he wouldn't run if Gore did, when no one was asking him to run. (His debate with Cheney made Cheney seem ok) Edwards was a 2004 rival. (The only thing I don't like is that he lets these Edwards wouldn't concede stories float in the blogosphere, but never even mentions election issues in the mainstream.)

I think the truth is that Kerry didn't have a lot of party support in 2004, and will have less in 2008 and Kerry had little media support in 2004 and that is likely to be true in 2008. Oddly the the candidate that is called "elite" had less establishment support than Clinton, who may have been from Arkansas but he was a party and mediia favorite.

[wisteria]

15. I agree,I don't understand why no one else feels a need to tell another

candidate not to run-it is always Kerry.And, I think it is extremely mean spirited for someone to post something like that which is sure to turn into an attack Kerry post by all those who support others. I wonder how long it would be if we posted a don't run Clark/Edwards/Feingold/Gore post that we had people coming into our forum accusing us of spreading lies or attacking their candidate? I can think of more valid reasons for not voting for any of these people than what Goodman offered up for Kerry. I don't even recall something this mean being printed about Senator Clinton. If he is so bad, why do they have to continually make a point of mentioning they don't want him to run.The primaries will take care of eliminating the unelectable. It has to be that he is a threat to someone somewhere. It must be that he has it in him to run and win and the public would really be behind him in 2008 if he tried again. Anyway, I don't think he will consider her sour opinion when he gets around to deciding. I will be giving her my POV on Kerry though, she needs to at least be told she has many of her "facts" wrong.

[politicasista]

16. Somebody posted that she may be favoring Feingold

I agree with you. I didn't read the article cause it was poison, but I haven't yet seen anything vicious towards others, it's quite possible that they are scared of him and will do anything they can (i.e. Cynthia Tucker) to make him look bad to the non blogsphere crowd.

[wisteria]

18. That would make sense, he fits her profile almost entirely. You

know, thats fine if she supports Feingold,(personally, I don't think he will even come close) but that doesn't give her the right to just about demand and beg for someone else not to run and use talking points from the Repubs.

[karynnj]

20. Then it actually makes sense for her to think this

though you would think that she could put a filter between thinking it and writing a column on it.

It may be Feingold more than anyone Kerry threatens. The speech Kerry gave personalizes and dramatizes some of the Constitutional issues that Feingold has as his. This speech (altered of course) is a speech that if Feingold gave it would have really pushed him up. Kerry with his NYT op-ed and this speech takes the leadership of the non-rabid anti-war people - the same type of people who appreciated him in 1971. (He won't win the rabid anti-war now and they called him names in 1971)

In comparison as dynamic leaders Kerry has left Feingold in the dust - Feingold will have the far anti-war people but as you move to the center, he may concern people as not being strong enough. (Imagine a primary debate where Feingold touts his anti-Patriot act votes - and Kerry shoots back that the international money laundering piece is essential to rolling up non-state terrorist and he wrote it and lists other important parts, then mentions the bad parts and howthey canand should be fixed. Most people will go with not throwing out the baby with the bath water.) At the same time, the more Kerry is prominent in defending the anti-war people and pushing for policy change in Iraq, the futher to the left the line goes between who he gets and who Feingold gets.

A dynamic Kerry on these issues may have an immediate impact in Feingold getting less money - as people see Feingold's chances as less, even if they simply see Kerry taking enough of his vote to knock him out early.

[ginnyinWI]

21. I can see Feingold looking like Edwards in Dem debates

Smart and right on the issues, but a little lacking in the experience department. Sincere but, "can he run the country?". Good--in fact, very good veep material though.

[wisteria]

22. Ok, I could go for that. I will do a DU-G and state, Kerry/Feingold.

Now that would be an interesting ticket! Seriously though, do you think it will work against Feingold because he has been married twice and is separated now? I don't care personally, but it is going to come up.

[JI7]

31. this article has nothing to do with supporting Feingold

if "supporting Feingold" means attacking Kerry than that's pretty pathetic for Feingold or anyone else.

[jillan]

23. so when Kerry wins the dem nomination, she's not going to

support him?

And then she'll blame him if the rethugs pull another one out of their hat?

FUCK YOU ELLEN! And right now FSTV is going thru their fundraising drive....

There goes my check....to Kerry instead!

[jillan]

24. ellen goodman's email address

[e-mail] <[e-mail]>

My email to her -

I just made a contribution to John Kerry in your honor.

[wisteria]

25. Thanks for the address. Good comments to. ! n/t

[jillan]

27. oh no! read my comment below!

[jillan]

26. I may have just had my most embarassing moment

concerning being a Kerry defender.

Amy? Ellen?
Aw shit. I emailed the wrong one:rofl:

Amy Goodman will read her email from me, and wonder who is this crazy person....

:blush: :blush: :blush: :blush:

[JohnKleeb]

28. Look on the bright side

At least you didn't email John Goodman. I third or is fourth the fuck yous. The guy can run if he wants to and he'll have support. This is a Democracy not a Satsify the Ego of a Political Pundit thingie. If she doesn't want to support him fine but there's no need to be how she's being about it.

[wisteria]

29. Oh no! Maybe they're related. LOL! I hadn't sent the e-mail yet, so

thank you for letting me know it was the wrong Goodman.

[JI7]

30. another phony who doesn't give a shit about the war in Iraq

or anything else but ranting about how much mroe liberal and pure she is than others.

so Kerry is doing all of these things and with what the Republicans are doing, her biggest problem is whether Kerry will run again.

[JohnKleeb]

32. Nailed it

there's also the things the Republican president is not doing that should be focused on.

[JI7]

33. yeah, but we don't want Kerry to be the one who go after Bush on those

things. because our biggest concern these days is to make sure Kerry doesn't get the nomination. we will write about how horrible Bush is and how we need to get out of IRaq . but if it's Kerry who supports those things, we can't back it.

stupid ignorant assholes.

[Dr Ron]

34. Maybe this helps

Sure this excites the Kerry bashers here, but in a way it may be better than nothing. While obviously a positive article would be best, this might also help. Simply keeping discussion of Kerry as a potential candidate in 2008 in the newspapers will remind voters he's still out there. People know that some will support and some (like her) will oppose him, but the important thing is that this shows he is still a major candidate.